Tag Archives: supreme court

Humor, Politics, Satire

Strict construction makes Supreme Court unnecessary, Bachmann says

Even as President Obama weighs potential nominees to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a growing number of conservative lawmakers say the high court itself is unnecessary and ought to be abolished.

Among them is Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who today called the Supreme Court nothing more than an expensive bureaucracy.
“Strict construction means the Constitution doesn’t change from its original meaning, so we don’t need to maintain a court to interpret it,” asserted Bachmann, “especially expensive lawyer types and the bureaucracy that goes with them.”

“And make no mistake — they are bureaucrats. In fact the entire federal court system is unelected and inaccessible to everyone but other lawyers,” said Bachmann, a tax attorney.

The Minnesota lawmaker said her vision of a future without a federal judiciary would mean a chance to explore alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as found in the Second Amendment: “Americans don’t want the courts coming between them and their vengeance.”

Bachmann also doesn’t expect eliminating the Supreme Court will have much of an impact on the other two branches of government. “Congress and the White House function just fine, even though the Supreme Court for many years has had fewer than nine justices,” she elaborated.

“Under the original language of the Constitution as written by the framers, Clarence Thomas is only three-fifths of a justice, Ginsburg and Sotomayor are husbands’ property, and so was Sandra Day O’Connor,” Bachmann explained.

Elections, Humor, Politics, Satire

Activists hail court ruling, march for corporate marriage rights

President Obama’s new initiative to limit the size of corporations met with stiff resistance from civil rights activists today, following the Supreme Court’s ruling that corporations are entitled to the same right of expression as natural persons.

The ruling buoyed a group of corporate marriage activists marching in front of the White House. Many held placards reading, “Freedom To Merge,” “Adam & Eve and Comcast & NBC,” and “Keep Your Laws Off My Org Chart.”

Corporations who had gathered outside the high court cheered when the 5-4 decision was announced. “We’re close to winning equal rights as people, said Cerberus Capital. “Soon I’ll be able to call my insatiable desire to consume small companies something other than monopoly.”

Cerberus said he and his partners hope to someday start a family and adopt several Congressional oversight committees.

Pastor Jim Phelps, chaplain at the International Monetary Fund Wedding Chapel, has long campaigned for the right for two or more corporations to marry. Phelps hailed the court’s decision as a good first step to full rights for corporate persons. “There can no longer be a compelling interest in government denying corporations in a loving relationship the legal recognition of their monopoly, even if polygamous,” he said.

However, the activists’ cause received a cool reception at the White House.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs said the president will continue to oppose any pro-corporate marriage laws in Congress. “President Obama intends to devote as much effort into stopping corporate marriage as he has into leading on health care reform,” Gibbs said.

Humor, Law, Politics, Rights, Satire

Supreme Court won’t review Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – “Works fine for us,” justices say

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a setback today to a constitutional challenge to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy banning gay people from openly serving in the U.S. military.

In upholding the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals 1st Circuit, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found precedent in the policies governing the high court itself. “The policy of ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ will not be reviewed because it works. This court is covered by such a policy, and it works fine for us,” wrote Scalia.

“The Supreme Court’s unit cohesion would suffer greatly if we were to introduce the factor of sexual preference. When we’re in the heat of judicial deliberations, the last thing I want to have to worry about is what another justice is doing under his robe,” Scalia stated.

“In fact, the reason we wear shapeless robes to begin with is to detract from the rampant sensuality that would otherwise distract this court from its constitutional duties,” he noted.

“It’s also the reason we don’t wear those irresistible, come-hither powdered wigs, like the British,” added Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with Scalia and Alito, writing: “I always shower at home because I don’t want other justices ogling me in the Supreme Court Shower.”

However, Thomas said “don’t ask, don’t tell” should only apply to male homosexuals serving on the Supreme Court.

“When I say homosexuals endanger unit cohesion in the shower, I don’t mean the ladies,” Thomas wrote.

Observing that retiring Justice David H. Souter is a confirmed bachelor who lives in a rustic cabin in New Hampshire, Thomas’ law clerk said Thomas hopes the Senate votes to confirm Souter’s replacement, Sonia Sotomayor, as soon as possible.

“Justice Thomas welcomes the prospect of observing much late-night jurisprudence between Judge Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg,” the clerk said.

Humor, Law, Politics, Satire

Conservatives question Sotomayor nomination – Name won’t fit on back of robe

Conservative court watchers say President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace retiring David Souter on the Supreme Court faces an uphill battle.

Federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nine letter surname would be the longest of all the justices on the court, says former House speaker Newt Gingrich, making it difficult to fit on the back of the court’s mandatory judicial black robe.

The New York jurist, who would be the first Hispanic American on the high court, is expected to face a contentious Senate confirmation, said Gingrich.

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens have seven letter surnames, while the last name of David Souter, whom Sotomayor is replacing, has six letters. ‘Sotomayor’ is just too radical a change,” he said.

“It’s dangerous to disregard the precedent of having justices whose names are easily readable on the back of the pleated, flowing robes ” Gingrich said.

Judge Albee Uvthat of the conservative judicial group Federalist Society agreed with Gingrich. “History is littered with Supreme Court nominations of presidents trying to go against precedent,” Uvthat said.  Uvthat gave William Hornblower (ten letters, 1894) and Clement Haynsworth (nine letters, 1969) as two examples of the Senate rejecting long-named nominees.

However, liberals familiar with the history of the Supreme Court say the right is merely looking for payback — still smarting over the Senate’s rejection of short-named Robert Bork, nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1987.

Also today:  Incredible Kim Jong-Hulk conducts successful gamma radiation test