Skip to main content

[Sometimes reality seems to proceed directly from snark, and I thought this bit of it from last year needed to be reposted given the recent VRA decision.  Basically, SCOTUS has ruled 5-4 that the Constitutionally mandated authority of the Legislative branch to pass appropriate remedies to racial discrimination at the polls is null and void - in other words, that that part of the Constitution is Unconstitutional.  What once was funny is now just a straightforward description of how five crooked, hyperpartisan bastards continue to rape our republic with impunity.  But try to enjoy the snark below, and forget that this is really happening.]

In a sweeping rebuke to judicial activism, the Supreme Court has issued a divided opinion striking down the nation's controversial Constitution law.  The recent law, passed in a flurry of liberal legislation following the separation from Great Britain vehemently opposed by conservatives, was touted by its champions as critical to the functioning of government and the enumeration of The People's rights.  Speaking for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia opined, "There are two distinct issues before the Court: One, does the law conform to legal standards?  And Two, do we like what it says?  As to the first issue, I have no idea - I had better things to do in law school than spend a lot of time reading.  But as to the second, it is the opinion of this Court that we do not like it one bit."

Scalia's majority opinion continued:

For over two centuries, the courts have erred in relying on the Constitution as the standard of their decisions.  As an undisputed fact of history, the drafters of the law were improperly empaneled, and the so-called Constitutional Congress lacked the authority to issue the laws it did.  Furthermore, a wide variety of preexisting laws were violated in the process - particularly the edicts of Roman Emperors Septimius Severus, Diocletian, and Theodosius, as well as a number of Popes and ancient barbarian chieftains to whom previous courts have given insufficient consideration.  As such, we find the United States Constitution unconstitutional, and it is hereby struck down.
In addenda to the decision, the Court additionally found the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence upon which they were founded unconstitutional, eliminating the most immediate default laws in the absence of the Constitution.  This would have immediately reverted sovereignty of the United States to Great Britain, but the Court also found the constitution of the United Kingdom unconstitutional as an improper breach of preexisting feudal law - a decision with unclear implications as to sovereignty over the territory of the former United States.  Anticipating debate on the subject, the majority opinion addressed some of the likely contenders:
We are aware that the above decisions make issues of sovereignty somewhat unclear.  It is therefore the opinion of this court, after due consideration, to rule that Native American tribes have no claim, and also that they deserve no explanation as to why we have decided this.  However, the question remains open as to where sovereignty lies, and on that we determine the following: The most recent applicable law is the Code of Justinian enacted in the Years of Our Lord 529 to 534, and US territory is thus determined to rest under the absolute personal sovereignty of the most direct male descendent of Emperor Justinian I.
Romanian bus driver Dumitru Solescu - whom DNA tests recently confirmed to be that descendent - was delighted by the news.  "Wow, I'm Emperor of America!  That's so awesome!  My ex-wife better be able to run faster than a Predator drone.  Who's laughing now, Constanta?  Who's 'hung like a piglet' now?"  

However, excitement in Romania over the development was short-lived: Soon after the ruling, a brief was filed with the Court declaring notable conservative activist and Republican campaign financier Charles Koch to be heir to Justinian.  In response, the court granted an unprecedented same-day hearing on the matter, and in a 5-4 ruling declared Koch the lawful heir.  Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for the majority:

In the matter of Koch vs. Solescu, the court hereby finds the following:
  • Although Dumitru Solescu has provided DNA tests allegedly confirming direct descent from Emperor Justinian, Praise Be His Holy Name, this court does not recognize the scientific validity of such tests or the existence of DNA, so that line of argument is rejected.
  • There is only a modest physical resemblance between Solescu and mosaic images of the Great Emperor, and we thus find sufficient reason to doubt the legitimacy of the birth records he has provided.  Since valid long-form birth certificates from the Byzantine Empire have not survived into the present day, we find Solescu's documentary evidence unconvincing.
  • We note that very few of the historians and genealogists named in Solescu's briefs were Americans, and those who were are not registered Republicans.  As such, we cannot account for their credibility.
  • With respect to Charles Koch, we find his Dutch ancestry insufficient basis to doubt his claims, and as previously stated do not accept the validity of DNA testing that has found no relation to Justinian.
  • We are not persuaded to doubt the validity of records presented on Koch's behalf, as laser-printer paper was known to have been used in the Byzantine Empire for imperial court documents.
  • The expert briefs presented on behalf of Koch's claim are compelling.  The court is persuaded by the testimony of evangelical soothsayers, oil industry climate scientists, and generous donations to the Court's retirement fund by Koch philanthropies.
  • We hereby declare Charles G. Koch, Praise Be His Name, heir to the throne of Justinian and thereby Emperor of America.
Many court watchers were flummoxed by the dynastic rulings, as it had been widely assumed the ruling striking down the Constitution would have abolished the authority of the Court itself.  To address the confusion, Justice Scalia issued an addendum to his initial opinion clarifying that, "This ruling does not strike down the authority of this Court, but rather removes illegal limitations on that authority that have been imposed via several unlawful revolutions and blasphemous legal innovations since the demise of the Imperial Court of Constantinople."

In dissent, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg, and Breyer issued the following terse joint opinion:

While the Court is tasked with interpreting and reconciling the Constitution, it cannot be asked to - nor take upon itself - the authority of ruling on the foundational document upon which that authority rests.  Any such ruling is inherently without basis, precedent, or validity.
Conservative commentators and political leaders were swift to condemn the dissent, with radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh denouncing it as "the ravings of a crazed Marxist cabal," and former House Republican leader (soon to be named Lord Chancellor of the Imperial Exchequer) John Boehner castigating what he characterized as a "hyperpartisan judicial activist minority engaging in violent diatribes against American patriotism."  Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has since been named Viceroy of the newly reconquered territories of Canada, spoke about the dissenting opinion: "Have you read this nonsense?  It just rambles on and on with all this legalistic gibberish - 'authority,' 'basis,' 'precedent,' blah blah blah.  Does anyone know what these people are talking about?"  

Reaction to the majority opinion, however, has been ebullient in conservative circles.  Richard Puller, spokesman for the plaintiff Citizens Against Citizenship (CAC), praised the decision:

It has been a long road toward this victory for all truly decent Americans - a long road with many disappointments: The Magna Carta, the Age of Enlightenment, the American Revolution, losing the Civil War, women's suffrage, losing World War 2, and then having all sorts of social programs and civil rights laws foisted upon us by a government with no basis in God's Law.  Today, the Supreme Court has liberated Americans from the tyranny of republic, and restored the natural order.  We welcome His Imperial Majesty Charles I of the Bizarroamerican Empire with open arms, love, devotion, and an unqualified pledge to fill the streets with the blood of his enemies.

Reaction among liberals was slightly less enthusiastic.  One prominent critic of the decision condemned the five-member majority of the Court as a "clown car of lawless, degenerate C.H.U.D.s" just before expiring from multiple gunshot wounds in his Guantanamo Bay prison cell - wounds that authorities have determined to be self-inflicted.  President-in-exile Barack Obama, broadcasting from allied bases in New Zealand, sent a garbled message in the midst of a missile bombardment offering detailed legal critiques of the court's decision, but was followed by Vice President-in-exile Joe Biden suggesting that Justice Antonin Scalia's sexual preference runs toward other species and implying matrilineal descent from hyenas.  Washington D.C., in contrast, has been relatively tranquil since curfews were imposed and public examples made of violators.

Subsequent to the ruling, however, Justice Clarence Thomas was dismayed to be led from the Court chamber in chains and brought to a slave auction site due to the Court's nullification of the 14th Amendment.  He was soon relieved when his friend, colleague, and confidante Scalia arrived and placed the winning bid.  "Things haven't changed that much since I became someone's property," Thomas said of his new working relationship with Scalia.  "I do what I'm told, speak when spoken to, and am careful not to read anything or show too much intelligence.  I've been doing that for two decades."

[Sign the petition on to reject the VRA ruling and demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.]

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (5+ / 0-)

    Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

    by Troubadour on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:05:08 AM PDT

  •  "Bizarroamerican Empire"! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Gonna hafta find a way to work that into daily conversations!

    -7.38, -5.38 (that's a surprise)

    Why must we struggle to protect the accomplishments of Democrats of the past from Democrats of the present? -- cal2010

    by 84thProblem on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:28:29 AM PDT

  •  Scalia is a hypocrite! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    “We have no power to decide this case,” Scalia wrote. “And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.”
       -From Think Progress
    Shame he didn't feel that way about the Voting Rights Act...

    You can't keep a mighty tree alive (much less expect it to thrive) by only spritzing the fine leaves at its tippy-top. The fate of the whole tree depends on nurturing the grassroots. - Jim Hightower

    by PSzymeczek on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 12:58:02 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site