INTRODUCING : THE INSTITUTE FOR MORE RUBBISH, ROT, BALDERDASH, DRIVEL, BOSH & NONSENSE UNDER LAW

By : Hon. George A. Nuttwangler, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Appointed by President George W. Bush, 2004)

Today it gives me great pleasure to open the doors to an institution that will secure the rule of law in the United States. In our great country, all men are equal under law; provided in all events they are Republican; and in no case shall any terrorist be equal. To secure the blessings of liberty and equality to all our citizens, we are dedicated to providing fair and just legal process; but in no event shall any legal process be fair if any party thereto be a bank or financial institution with superior creditor rights. The Institute for More Rubbish, Rot, Balderdash, Drivel, Bosh & Nonsense Under Law represents a great step forward in our Nation’s commitment to justice, except when justice would be inconsistent with national security concerns. I am honored to write an introduction for such a necessary institution.

I have been a Federal judge for over 15 years. During my tenure on the bench, I have learned that written rubbish and balderdash protect the law better than any abstract commitment to justice. I have also learned that rot and drivel can be very convincing when presented by well-educated Republican advocates. The institute will play its part by reinforcing public respect for rubbish, balderdash, rot and drivel. My best judicial opinions have drawn on all four elements, combining logical rubbish with rhetorical drivel. My capacity for partisan nonsense is unmatched because I understand that law depends on judges like me. As a veteran of the judicial process, I commend the Institute for its commitment to rubbish and drivel. Without drivel and rot, judges could not protect the law. I stand with the Institute in praising the law for its unique ability to use counterintuitive gibberish for an orderly society.

Our society needs more rubbish and balderdash, not less. Our society does not need slavish dedication to principle, unless there are exceptions to principle that can generate balderdash. Good judicial work means finding the result that leads to the greatest possible rubbish. There is right and wrong, and then there is law. Judges do not serve “right” or “wrong;” they serve the law. If the law dictates drivel, we rule for drivel, no matter what “right” or “wrong” have to say about it. As judges, we do not ruminate. We repeat what the law says, provided always that the law is consistent with our political ideologies. If the law is inconsistent with our political ideologies, we find it unconstitutional.

We praise good judicial work. The Institute stands for good judicial work. To that end, we praise recent court decisions that base their conclusions in rot and nonsense rather than justice. The Institute stands for rubbish under law. That is why we applaud recent court decisions that use law to reach results that maximize tomfoolery. For example, we applaud the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for dismissing a Canadian national’s suit for damages arising from America’s knowing decision to send him to Syria for torture. There, the court wisely held that Federal courts have no liberty to fashion freestanding remedies for actions that take place in a foreign country, even if American officials send people to the foreign country in question. Additionally, the court wisely held that Federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear such preposterous claims, even if they are true. Here, the court prudently avoided deciding the case on “justice” grounds. In the spirit of good judicial work, it decided the case with reasoned drivel, rot and nonsense under law.

I commend the Institute for its active role in promoting balderdash. Our legal system depends on nonsense, hypertechnical argument, rigid time deadlines and inane formalism. I salute the Institute for its dedication to promoting these values over dangerous ideas such as equality, justice and conscience. We are a Nation of laws, not of men. Equality, justice and conscience depend on men, not law. Thus, we cannot rightly apply them in legal questions. In legal questions, we must remain faithful to drivel and formalism. If judges began applying justice to legal questions, our entire social order would collapse. Only through disingenuous, unfair and absurdly logical rhetoric can we defend the citizens who really matter in our society. After all, judges do not serve everyone; they serve only those who present the best-sounding rot in the proper paper format consistent with all local filing rules.

I join the Institute for its dedication to the Nonsensical School of Constitutional Jurisprudence. The Institute understands—as I do—that the United States Constitution contains potentially dangerous, general language that could undermine the law’s insistence on drivel, balderdash and inane formalism. Indeed, grandiose phrases such as: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility…and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,” might lead reasonable readers to think that this country stands for liberty and justice. But under the Nonsensical School, we teach that words do not always mean what they say. Here, for example, we teach that the words “liberty” refers to the “liberty to make contracts under law,” while “justice” refers to the “technical establishment of a court system consistent with established common law doctrine.” By applying nonsense, we avoid thematic and practical difficulties associated with general words such as “liberty” and “justice.” We salute both Federal appeals court judges and Supreme Court justices such as John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia for their dogged reliance on the Nonsensical School in formulating their judicial opinions. And we especially salute Justice Clarence Thomas not only for his adherence to constitutional nonsense, but also his innate talent for balderdash in every word he writes.

Law achieves fairness because judges fairly write rot in every case consistent with written procedures. They do not achieve fairness by speculating on the meaning of “justice,” “equality,” “liberty,” or “right.” To that extent, the Institute commends judges who put their faith in technicality rather than conscience. Judges are not princes. They are technical workers versed in drivel and bosh. They do not speculate or venture; they recite whatever rigamarole they read in the statute book or case reporter, unless the statute book or case reporter provides a just answer. Law is fair because everyone knows that the result will accord with balderdash. As long as litigants follow the deadline rules and stamp their papers properly, they can be sure that they will receive justice to the maximum extent permitted by drivel, rot, rubbish and nonsense.

We encourage all Americans to visit the Institute for More Rubbish, Rot, Balderdash, Drivel & Bosh Under Law. Americans deserve to know how the law really works. In today’s society, too many people feel that the law serves intuitive notions of “right,” “wrong” and “justice.” It would be better if Americans learned the truth about the law and realized that law exists to maintain existing social order through tortured logic and procedural handicaps that favor the powerful. If they knew that, they would be less disappointed when the law merely does its work every day. All too often, Americans become outraged when they feel that the courts “do injustice.” But they would not react that way if they understood that the courts are simply doing what they are designed to do: To render the most nonsensical results, every time. Americans would be better off if they left “justice,” “fairness,” “right” and “equality” to professors and philosophers, not to judges. The Institute aims to educate Americans about their judicial system. As a judge who scrupulously practices rubbish every day, I commend the Institute for its enterprise. After all, the law cares not for right and wrong; it merely aims to officiate who owns what and who owes whom how much—according to mystifying written rules and exceptions.