OUR SHAMELESS, DISGUSTING SUPREME COURT

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Today I am reading the Supreme Court's decision about corporate funding in Federal election campaigns: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. __(2010)(No. 08-205 slip op.). I have already heard horror stories about this case. But I am always careful to judge Supreme Court cases without actually reading them. The press usually distorts what Supreme Court cases actually say. Sometimes they exaggerate. Other times they leave out disturbing (or encouraging) nuances. If my legal education taught me anything, it was always to read a text carefully before saying anything about it. And you really have to do that in order to understand a Supreme Court case.

That is not to say that magic lies within Supreme Court cases. Far from it. In most cases, Supreme Court decisions represent nothing more than gross political prejudice masquerading as erudite legal science. Justices make up their minds about the political issues at stake in a constitutional question. Then they instruct their law clerks to dress up their prejudices in neat legal rhetoric for the presses. Principle rarely plays a role in this process. It's just power and political judgment operating as law.

In law school, I read old Supreme Court cases and marveled at them. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Court actually seemed to want to find justice in American law. I even dreamed about becoming a justice myself: It seemed that they could actually do some good in the world. Men like William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall and William O. Douglas became my intellectual heroes because they spoke out against entrenched American injustice. And they bent positive law in order to achieve justice: They knew that positive law could legally create injustice just as easily as a mob could inflict injustice without law.

But those days are long, long gone. Supreme Court justices today do not fight the good fight. They are tired, uninspiring, lukewarm political actionaries who do less to enlarge individual rights than to stamp out what few liberties Americans still have. Worse, the current five-member conservative alliance is far more concerned with corporate freedom than individual rights. Under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., the Constitution stands for corporations, not people.

That is not inspiring. It is just disgusting.

It is doubly disgusting because justices today actually reference Supreme Court precedent enlarging individual freedom to defend massive corporations. I have only made it through the first 12 pages in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and already Justice Kennedy cited two cases in which Chief Justice Roberts referenced cases from the liberal 1960s to argue that "corporations need freedom, too." This is like the KKK using Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) to argue that "murderous white bigots are people, too." This sheer dishonesty--and ignorant contempt for American history--makes my jaw drop.

First, Chief Justice Roberts cited New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). In that case, arch-liberal justice William J. Brennan, Jr., concluded that newspapers could not be sued for libel when publishing stories about "public figures" and "matters of public concern." The case stands as a testament to individual free speech rights. It established a principle that the people can speak freely about the powerful without substantial legal worry under the First Amendment. It reinforced the idea that the First Amendment is the people's check on the powerful: They have a right to speak no matter how exulted their target.

But now comes Chief Justice Roberts. He rips Sullivan's hopeful constitutional language from its context to support a conclusion that the First Amendment "must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech." Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 469 (2007)(opinion of Roberts, C.J.).

Justice Brennan wrote those words to promote public speech by individuals against powerful interests. They made sense in that context. But now Chief Justice Roberts shamelessly co-opts them to promote corporate speech designed to influence elections and ram corporate messages down people's throats. This is the ultimate misuse of Sullivan. Justice Brennan would have been horrified to see his language warped for this purpose.

Chief Justice Roberts does not end here. He uses another classic liberal First Amendment standard from the 1960s to support neoconservative corporate license in the 2010s: NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963). In that case, the Court struck down segregationist Virginia laws that banned black political agitators from promoting civil rights. Justice Brennan--the liberal champion--again wrote the opinion, remarking: "First Amendment freedoms need breathing room to survive." Id. at 433.

Chief Justice Roberts used the same sentence to defend the corporate freedom to ram political advertisements down people's throats. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 468-469 (2007).

This is so outrageous it is almost satirical. To even imagine that a Republican Chief Justice would steal language from a symbolically liberal free speech case to aggrandize corporate power is so shocking that it prompts disbelieving laughter. But Chief Justice Roberts did exactly that: He used a 1960s civil rights case about the First Amendment's importance in the individual's arsenal against injustice to bolster a corporation's power to maintain its strength over individuals.

That is almost as inappropriate as prying random words from a Hitler speech to commend Jewish freedom.

Sadly, this is how the Supreme Court operates these days. It has no respect for principle, no respect for American history and no respect for consensus. It ignores the fact that the Constitution should provide guiding unity on major principles, not an excuse for discord. On hot-button issues, its members dig in their heels and act like children--or Congressmen. They cannot agree on anything except their own base prejudices, which they enshroud in law as soon as they get a fifth vote--just like Congressmen.

Maybe this is just how any human being would behave in the circumstances. But these are Supreme Court justices; we should hold them to a higher standard. They say they are not politicians. They say they rule "on the law and nothing else."

But I see through the charade. It's all nonsense. It's all just crude power play. And it's disgusting because it's so dishonest. If a Chief Justice can corrupt hopeful language from 1960s civil rights cases to enlarge corporate power today, it is obvious that the Supreme Court has no shame at all. Just like any political group, it will use whatever means at its disposal to achieve particular results.

Yet the Constitution is more concerned with means than ends. The People adopted the Constitution because they demanded respect for individual rights against the government and larger powers. While corporations may not have been as powerful in 1787 as they are today, it is indisputable that they now wield enormous influence over American lives. Corporations can dominate debate about public issues in a way the Framers could scarcely have imagined. That is dangerous for individual First Amendment rights.

Apparently, this Supreme Court does not understand that. Now I'm afraid to continue reading the case. Who knows what terrors lurk in its later pages.

On the other hand, I might get a few guffaws along the way--and more ideas for satire.

I can't write the shit Supreme Court justices come up with.

CONTRACTS ARE CONTRACTS, SUPREME COURT RULES

NEWS FLASH

WASHINGTON, D.C.--Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer has just learned that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that "a contract is a contract" in the much-followed case Gaffaello Mutual Equity Partners LLP v. Marquez, No. 08-9851. Scholars and lawyers alike have reacted with surprise to the Court's decision. "We expected a narrower ruling," said Mr. Thomas J. Knickerbocker, Esq., partner at New York's Knickerbocker, Chance & Willoughby LLC, a prominent Wall Street law firm. "We thought the Court would be more straightforward. But it simply said 'a contract is a contract.' This is a complicated idea. It is hard for both lawyers and the public to understand."

Today's ruling has broad implications for the business community. It also represents a milestone in legal reasoning and rhetoric. The case arises from a dispute between a janitor, Mr. Rodolfo G. Marquez, of Grand Concourse, The Bronx, and Gaffaello Mutual Equity Partners, a large Wall Street investment house handling more than $45,000,000,000 in assets.

According to filings and the Court's decision, Mr. Marquez orally agreed to "use best efforts" to "satisfactorily" clean every toilet located at Gaffello's office building in downtown Manhattan. In return, an unnamed agent acting for the investment house promised to pay Mr. Marquez $40 per day "until told otherwise" and "subject to all reasonable alterations by promisor." The agent allegedly also told Mr. Marquez that he had "to supply his own materials" and he had to "wipe all shit and piss from all affected toilet facilities to the satisfaction of any Gaffaello director to the extent permitted by applicable law." Mr. Marquez allegedly acquiesced to Gaffaello's terms. He further acquiesced to Gaffaello's demand that he "waive all remedies, at law or equity, or at common justice, for any alleged breach of aforesaid agreement, be it oral or in writing."

Mr. Marquez immediately went to work. Both employees and officers found Mr. Marquez' work excellent. According to one Vice President in the Appropriations Department: "I've never seen a cleaner shitter. That muchacho sure knows what the fuck he's doing." Around the same time, an authorized Gaffaello budget deputy presented a written contract to Mr. Marquez. The written contract included all the terms to which he orally agreed, as well as a clause that imposed a duty on Mr. Marquez to "act in good faith in the performance hereof; but such duty shall not extend to promisor, Gaffaello Mutual Equity Partners LLP; and it is further agreed, covenanted and promised that promisee , Mr. Rodolfo G. Marquez, shall have no right of action, cause of action or any other legal, equitable, natural or other remedy, either now or hereafter, today or tomorrow--or forever--for promisor's wanton or negligent failure, refusal, or decision not to use good faith in the execution, performance, observation or fulfillment of the mutual covenants set forth in this, the Master Contract for the Performance of Toilet Cleaning Services, notwithstanding all oral assertions to the contrary hereof, so help him God."

Mr. Marquez signed the contract, even though he did not read English. According to a Gaffaello witness, he said: "I understand it."

For two months, Mr. Marquez dutifully upheld his end of the bargain. He cleaned 4000 toilets, scrubbed 50,000 square feet of tile bathroom flooring every night and purified 4000 toilet stalls. In the process, he overcame horrific sights and odors. He worked at least 12 hours each day. He received $31.02 for his first day's work less taxes, fees and Social Security contributions. Although he was not eligible for Gaffaello's health coverage plan, he nevertheless paid toward it because he could not understand his paycheck statement. Over the next week, Gaffaello began paying Mr. Marquez a dollar less each day. Beginning the second week, it began subtracting two dollars per day from his daily check. After reducing his daily wage to $3.29, Gaffaello stopped paying Mr. Marquez at all. Instead, it sent a junior supply clerk to inform him that "he would be paid later."

Trusting that Gaffaello would honor the contract they signed, Mr. Marquez continued working. Eventually, however, Mr. Marquez gave up. He allegedly told a Gaffaello employee that he "could not continue working without pay" and that he "had a family to feed." In response, the employee said: "You can't leave. You promised to use best efforts and to act in good faith under this contract until told otherwise." Mr. Marquez said "they could sue him." With that, he walked off the job.

Gaffaello did sue him. Within two days, it served papers on Mr. Marquez and haled him into the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for breach of contract. Although the trial judge wondered why the dispute fell under Federal jurisdiction, Gaffaello's legal team presented evidence to show that Gaffaello was a Delaware limited liability partnership, while Mr. Marquez was a New York resident. It also showed that the contract between Gaffaello and Mr. Marquez "represented a lucrative business relationship implicating more than $75,000 in janitorial services." These facts, according to established Federal law, warranted Federal court jurisdiction. Mr. Marquez, who could barely speak English, let alone understand an argument involving Federal diversity jurisdiction, said nothing in response.

Gaffaello demanded a fast track trial. The trial judge--A. Harry Peters--had no sympathy for a recent immigrant like Mr. Marquez because President George H.W. Bush appointed him to the bench. He quickly surveyed the evidence and found that Mr. Marquez breached the contract. In a detailed opinion, the trial judge wrote: "Mr. Marquez knowingly and voluntarily assumed the obligations set forth in the contract he signed with Gaffaello. It is not for courts to pass upon the providence or fairness of written agreements between mature business actors. Rather, we must merely apply relevant law to resolve any allegation that one party breached the terms upon which they mutually agreed. Under law, we assume all terms to be valid and voluntary. In this case, Mr. Marquez has no answer to contradict the assertion that he walked off a job he contractually agreed to perform. He says he left because Gaffaello did not pay him, but that is not technically true. Gaffaello said it would 'pay him later.' This does not mean it 'did not pay' him. Gaffaello never breached the contract. Only Mr. Marquez did. Furthermore, Mr. Marquez promised to use best efforts and to comply with the contract in good faith. By walking off the job without notice or cause, he violated both obligations. In sum, Mr. Marquez breached the contract. I order him to return to work immediately, or to pay Gaffaello the reasonable value of his lost services, in an amount not less than $75,000.01."

Mr. Marquez appealed the trial court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. His case attracted notice from the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, and their lawyers hastened to his cause. They argued that the contract was invalid because it was "unconscionable" and because no contract may bind a man to work in the United States. The three-judge panel--including two Clinton appointees--agreed. They said: "We find the contract by and between Gaffaello Mutual Equity Partners LLP and Mr. Rodolfo G. Marquez unconscionable as a matter of law. We find every argument to the contrary unconvincing. No matter what anyone says about our country or its free enterprise spirit, we refuse to entertain appellees' contention that the United States Constitution guarantees the 'unlimited freedom to bargain for employment terms.' This agreement verifiably 'shocks the conscience.' We cannot permit the contract to stand, no matter how 'voluntary' it may have been at signing. Appellees' conduct in this case borders on the sadistic. Judgment reversed."

Judge Ferguson H. Klosterbach, George W. Bush's lone appointee on the appellate panel, dissented. He wrote: "I think the trial judge was right. A contract is a contract. Mr. Marquez breached it. He is also an immigrant."

Dissatisfied with the Second Circuit's reasoning, Gaffaello applied to the United States Supreme Court for certiorari. In its brief, Gaffaello phrased the case as follows: "This is a case about the freedom to contract. It is not about fairness. It is about a willful contract breacher who did not do what he promised to do." In response, Mr. Marquez' lawyers said: "This is not a case about the freedom to contract. This is a case about unfairness and injustice. This is a case about a powerful company forcing one-sided terms upon a powerless immigrant. If this Court has a shred of decency and compassion, it will affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the Court's opinion to a packed house. In a calm, steady voice, he began: "Our free market economy values fairness. But it values contracts more. In our view, contracts are contracts. Promises are promises. When commercial actors make promises, we do not excuse them lightly for failing to adhere to their commitments. This case involves promises and contracts. No matter how 'unfair' or 'unjust' those promises may seem in hindsight, we refuse to second-guess reasonable commercial actors who voluntarily make commitments. Contrary to Respondents' contention, this Court has no power to rule on 'elementary justice.' This Court applies the law. And the law in this case has a simple answer: Contracts are contracts.

"Our common law values contracts. Commerce prospers when commercial men feel assured that others will fulfill their commitments. That is why courts in our system rarely allow litigants to escape voluntary contractual obligations. True, contractual obligations only arise to the extent that parties make them freely. But there is no evidence in this case that Mr. Marquez faced 'coercion' to bargain with Gaffaello. He agreed to act in good faith, to waive his remedies and to use 'best efforts' while cleaning every toilet at Gaffaello's downtown facility 'until told otherwise.' At the same time, Gaffaello freely and voluntarily agreed to pay Mr. Marquez $40 per day 'subject to all reasonable alterations.' Mr. Marquez says that Gaffaello did not pay him. But the record clearly shows that it did. The fact that Gaffaello slowly decreased Mr. Marquez' daily wage did not change the contract. In fact, Gaffaello had every right to make 'reasonable alterations' to Mr. Marquez' pay. Mr. Marquez acquiesced to this term when he signed the contract. And--unlike Mr. Marquez--Gaffaello had no obligation to perform the contract in good faith. If Gaffaello somehow acted in bad faith, that was a risk Mr. Marquez knowingly and voluntarily assumed when he signed the contract. It is not for us to question these private contractual relations.

"We hold as a matter of constitutional law that contracts are contracts. Neither the Judiciary nor the Legislature has power to retroactively invalidate private contractual terms concerning legal subject matter. We are neither philosophers nor moralists. We are legal technicians. We do not interfere with private bargains, nor do we save private individuals from their improvident business decisions. No matter how 'shocking' the terms may have been in Mr. Marquez' case, we are not fairness referees. We simply look to the contract and the circumstances to determine whether both parties freely and voluntarily assumed their duties. If we determine that they did, our inquiry ends. If we scrutinized every private bargain for terms we considered 'unfair' or 'oppressive,' we would undermine the spirit of private enterprise that drives our free market system. We are not paternalistic. We trust the market. We do not second-guess it.

"This is not new law. Our courts have held that 'contracts are contracts' for centuries. Even our English forebears so held. In the case Coxwell v. Bainbridge (King's Bench 1612), Lord Chief Justice Coke stated the basic principle that we continue to follow today: "Hath the yeoman signed the Pact of Free Wille as aforesaid? Say he the Parchmente be void for offending that Certaine Spiritte or Ghoste of Justice that doth dwell at the Hearte of all the dealings of Menne? What of it? This Courte judgeth not for Justice nor Rightte, but for Lawe. Promise a Manne he shall builde a Bridge o'er the Thames for a threepence in Two Days' Tyme, so he must, so long he have said so of Free Minde. I be of mind that pacta sunt servanda. It be of no Moment what the bound Manne saith. The Lawe doth presume a Manne do a Thinge with Free Minde. Comes now no Evidence or Witnesse thereagainst, it being a Cleare Thinge, et.c., what be left for a Court to say? Let Menne bargainne as they please. What they say be no Matter for the Lawe, but that the Lawe allow it.'

"We could not agree more. We find that Mr. Marquez knowingly and voluntarily assumed the obligations set forth in his contract with Gaffaello. We express no judgment on the 'fairness' or 'equity' of that contract. We refuse to entertain the Respondents' invitation to sit as a permanent referee for contractual fairness. Such a role would contravene our duty to apply the law and to defend private autonomy in a free market system. Judgment REVERSED. This case is REMANDED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with an order to issue judgment against Respondent consistent with this opinion.

"It is so ordered."

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito joined the Chief Justice's opinion. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissent. In it, he blamed the majority for "enshrining unfairness" and "exulting the powerful over the powerless." He concluded as follows: "The Constitution imposes limits upon the freedom to contract when contract terms offend our most basic sense of justice."

In a separate concurrence, Justice Scalia responded to Justice Stevens' dissent: "Justice Stevens once again proves his unrivaled ability to put his head up his dumb wrinkled ass. L0s3r, pwned!!!!"

Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer is pleased to see that both collegiality and prudence are alive and well at the Supreme Court as it begins its new session.

JUSTICE SCALIA TO PRESIDENT OBAMA : KISS MY WHITE ASS

By : Mr. Antonin G. Scalia, Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court, Seat 10 (1986-present)(Appointed by President Ronald Reagan); Law Professor, University of Chicago School of Law (1977-1982); Constitutional Originalist; Republican.

In the usual case, Supreme Court justices do not volunteer their opinions on political matters. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979). We are, after all, detached and independent legal scholars under our constitutional system. See, e.g., U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1; Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton). We could not perform our neutral interpretive role in if we constantly embroiled ourselves in Washington politics. Our allegiance lies with constitutional principle, not petty political loyalties. We do not squabble for votes or ridicule our political opponents. We render reasonable opinions consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. Personally, I do my utmost to remain faithful to the Constitution as our Framers understood it. If the People want to change the Constitution, they are welcome to do so. See, e.g, U.S. Const. Art. V. It is not my role to “invent rights,” “expand liberty” or “make things up” from the text. I just read and recite. I do not create. In virtually every case, I exercise judicial restraint; provided I agree with the law at issue.

But we live in extraordinary times. Never in my life have I witnessed such a stupid President. Contrary to my usual practice, I must speak out about President Obama. This man is going to run America into the ground unless someone stops him. Yes, I know the American People voted to elect him in large numbers. They are entitled to do so under Article II, § 1 and the Twelfth Amendment. Still, when the American People act in an irrational manner by electing a buffoon, I must assert my constitutional authority to protect them from themselves. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (Cranch) (1803).

I join my learned colleague John G. Roberts in denouncing President Obama as an idiot. Chief Justice Roberts wrote several months ago that he was “determined to make life difficult” for President Obama by issuing “occasional, irrational conservative judicial opinions” during his Presidency. See text at: http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2008/12/word-from-chief-justice-john-g-roberts.html. Chief Justice Roberts referenced our institutional power as Supreme Court justices to resist inane Executive and Legislative measures by striking down laws inconsistent with our views. In a later article, Chief Justice Roberts soundly castigated Obama and the cult that reveres him. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/01/message-from-chief-justice.html. In that article, the Chief Justice rightly took offense over the liberal news media’s attempt to paint him a fool for misstating the President’s oath of office during the Inauguration Ceremony on January 20. Chief Justice Roberts spoke well when he said: “Screw you liberal assholes. I’m Chief Justice. You’re just a bunch of European-loving reds.” Id. True to his leadership role, Chief Justice Roberts swore that he would make “constitutional law personal” by opposing any law bearing Obama’s name. He also promised to abandon customarily polite Supreme Court rhetoric when writing opinions by including sentences such as: “Obama has his head up his ass if he thinks he can pass this bill, so help him God.” Id.

I fully agree with the Chief Justice’s sentiments. I fully support both his efforts to issue occasional, irrational conservative judicial opinions during Obama’s tenure, as well as his desire to “make constitutional law” personal by scrapping our usual reserve when writing opinions. Nonetheless, I believe that we must go further as an institution because our country has never elected such a dangerous man. I will not just occasionally issue irrational, conservative judicial opinions; I will always issue irrational, conservative judicial opinions. And unlike Chief Justice Roberts, I have no qualms about making constitutional law personal. I have been tongue-lashing my colleagues since I came on the bench in 1986. I never had a problem calling Justice O’Connor a country gal dingbat with fake hair, nor did I hesitate calling Justice Marshall a wheezy African Che Guevara. Believe me, I know how to call my current colleagues idiots, nincompoops, blundering old sots (Justice Stevens), screechy feminist hags (Justice Ginsburg) and anally overperfumed putzes (Justice Breyer). In fact, last year I opened an Institute celebrating my approach to collegiality: The Justice Antonin Scalia Society for Insulting, Degrading, Denigrating and Humiliating Your Professional Colleagues. See original opening remarks at: http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2008/09/supreme-court-minute.html. Basically, when it comes to constitutional law, there is no room to be nice. It’s a war in here. You’re either right or you’re wrong, and I’ll tell you straight out when you’re wrong. I don’t waste my time with this “politeness” bullshit. If you get an argument wrong, I’ll at least publicly call you a butthead—and probably more. I might even call your ancestors stupid, since dumb usually gives birth to dumb. The press loves me. If it weren’t for me, they would only hear gibberish in the Supreme Court building like “estoppel,” “collateral bargaining agreement,” “justiciability,” “prudential grounds” and “oyez.” But when I’m on the bench, they get some entertainment with phrases like: “Moron, please be quiet; you’re giving me a headache;” “You whiny ACLU hell-bitch, would you please shut up?” “Wait a second, so you’re saying there’s a constitutionally-protected liberty to perform semi-public cunnilingus?!?” “I should hold you in contempt for just being an imbecile;” “What part of ‘Stop talking’ did you not understand?” and “My God, are you really that stupid?”

But this is not about entertainment. This is war. President Obama threatens to destroy the constitutional system as we know it. He undermines our free market system by providing government funds to private banks. He brutalizes private contract rights by rescuing homeowners from default and bankruptcy. He promises “change we can believe in” by freeing terrorists and allowing “second chances” to drug dealers, child molesters, rapists, gang thugs and hired killers. He tarnishes America’s influence on the world stage by groveling in Europe and withdrawing our troops from Iraq. He even has appointed left-wing ideologues to run the Justice Department, guaranteeing bothersome, costly investigations into important private business dealings. He even said he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), compelling States to recognize same-sex marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. See U.S. Const. Art. IV § 1.

This is not progress. This is tyranny. And I have only one thing to say to the “President:” Kiss my white ass.

Did you notice that the President is black? What the hell were the American people thinking? We jail and execute black people; we do not elect them President. Believe me, I know we jail and execute them. I handle the appeals. They are almost all black. Our Framers wrote the Constitution to make sure that black people stayed where they were. Yes, yes, I know we have an “Equal Protection Clause” and a whole bevy of communist laws from the 1960s that try to assure “equal rights” to blacks (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, blah, blah, blah). But come on, that’s all just guilty rhetoric. We never meant to allow a black man to become President. And I can assure you that neither Madison, nor Hamilton, nor Washington, nor Adams, nor even Lincoln ever dreamed that a black man would occupy the Oval Office. For the record, I am not a racist; I am just telling you about our traditions and original intent.

On the other hand, I can understand electing a black Vice President or appointing a black Supreme Court justice. After all, Justice Thomas poses no threat whatsoever to the American people. He just does what I tell him. But my God, the President controls the military. Would you trust Justice Thomas to control our nuclear arsenal? I know I wouldn’t (no offense to Justice Thomas; you’re a great guy and you play ball, but you’re not ready to wage war). And let me tell you, President Obama is not an easy-going black man who keeps his mouth shut like Justice Thomas. He is a firebrand radical who goes to Baptist churches that perform frightening quasi-voodoo rituals. And unlike Justice Thomas, he actually claims to understand constitutional law. Obama is not a pushover; he is a black liberal Muslim revolutionary. But I’m not going to let him destroy our country. He can kiss my white ass.

In times like these, even Supreme Court justices must take sides. In calmer days, it was easier for me to simply apply constitutional principles without political overtones. But today, I have a duty to protect America from Obama. I believe I am uniquely situated to repel Obama’s attacks on American life. Along with Chief Justice Roberts—who shares my commitment to resisting Obama—Justices Thomas, Alito and Kennedy have already expressed a desire to block Democratic initiatives. We no longer have the luxury to abstain from political disputes in Washington. We are the Third Branch. Obama controls the other two. That makes us America’s final defense against socialism and equality. Thankfully, our Framers foresaw times like these. They knew that radicals may one day control both the White House and Congress. And they knew that, in such times, only the Supreme Court could protect lasting principle against frenzied partisan radicalism. We are the antidote against revolutionaries like Obama and Nancy Pelosi. We refuse to allow Obama to reinvent American society. We refuse to allow universal health care, government bailouts, mandatory disability insurance or “free rides” for terrorists, illegal immigrants and killers. We are the last bulwark against humanity and progress. Without us, America will transform into Europe. If we do not fight back now, America will commit itself to decency, compassion and mercy.

I like America the way it is, Mr. Obama. You can kiss my white ass before you transform our country into France, Belgium or Holland. We do not want utopia. We want protected contract rights.

America needs leadership, not reckless reform. Neither the President nor Congress can effectively lead this country. For that reason, the Supreme Court must step in to correct the imbalance. Although I traditionally refrain from political disputes, desperate times demand desperate measures. Unless the Court acts now, there is no telling what damage Obama, Pelosi and deranged Democratic agency heads will do to this country. For that reason, the Court must use every constitutional weapon at its disposal to stop this madness. We must first abolish the Case and Controversy Requirement. See U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. We do not have time to wait for an actual “ripe controversy” to develop in the lower courts. We must issue theoretical opinions today, not overly pragmatic, technical opinions ten years from now. Contrary to accepted rhetoric, we do have the power to decide political disputes. We have invalidated elections before. See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). To stop Obama, we should follow that precedent. We must declare the election results from 2008 invalid, then name a new President. To support our decision, we must merely note the colossal threat Obama poses to the American order. President Obama has already breached his oath to support the Constitution (see Art. II, § 1, cl. 8) by violating the Contracts Clause (Art. I, §10, cl. 1) and the Due Process Clause (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments). His bailout plans unfairly distinguish between citizens without justification. We can only expect that President Obama’s plans will continue to ignore the Constitution. We will not tolerate them. He can kiss all of our white asses (including Justice Thomas’, whose ass is—for all concerns and purposes—white).

Time will justify our outrage against President Obama. He has no respect for the Constitution because he is committed to liberty, equality, justice, compassion, mercy, humanity and honor. Our Constitution does guarantee such things; it guarantees only orderly government and healthy interstate commerce. We are Supreme Court justices. We know what the Constitution means. President Obama may have been an uppity Ivy League law professor with “opinions” about the Constitution. Opinions about the Constitution are like assholes; everybody has one. But only we know what the Constitution really means. It means what we say it means, because we know what the Framers meant. And I know for a fact that the Framers did not want a black man in the White House, nor did they want a government that saves people from their own bad decisions. Put simply, President Obama is a traitor to our traditions. He has not supported the Constitution, nor has he defended the values for which it stands. In our system, we imprison terrorists; we do not free them because Europe scolds us. President Obama may think he is “fighting for equality and justice” in America. But we say he is acting illegally.

I cannot sit by in good conscience while President Obama destroys our constitutional order. As a Supreme Court justice, I intend to use every means available to oppose him. He might control Congress and the White House. But he does not yet control this Court. I will lampoon, criticize, castigate, denigrate, insult, demean and denounce him until my dying breath. And I will invalidate any law he signs. I will revile any document bearing his signature. I owe him nothing. I have my job for life, and there is nothing he can do about it. See U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1. Chief Justice Roberts rightly declared that he will boldly oppose Obama at every available opportunity. I will go a step further. No longer will I refrain from political entanglements. It is time to get personal because Obama got personal with America. I hope President Obama is ready to rumble, because if he isn’t, he can kiss my white ass. He can expect no quarter from me—or Justice Thomas.

The era of judicial restraint is over.

A MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE

By : Mr. John G. Roberts, Chief Justice, United States Supreme Court; Harvard Law School Graduate, magna cum laude; Former Law Clerk to Hon. William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice, United States Supreme Court (1986-2005, deceased); Highly successful lawyer in private corporate practice with annual income exceeding $1,000,000; white male Republican with no love for radical Baptist socialist upstarts.

Several weeks ago, I wrote that I promised to deliver occasional, irrational conservative judicial opinions in the Obama era. But I was writing before I administered the constitutional oath of office to President Barack Hussein Obama on January 20, 2009. I have never been so embarrassed in my life. And I am not at all happy with this smug, svelte demagogue. By every judicial means at my disposal, I intend to wage constitutional war on this insolent black man, commander-in-chief or not. He didn’t appoint me. And he’s not in my branch.

Who does this guy think he is? The New York Times is calling him the next FDR. People are buying Obama dolls, hanging up Obama posters and reciting absurd slogans like: “Mr. Obama, please give us hope.” What is going on here? In my previous article, I noted that I would write constitutional opinions in whatever way I chose, because I hold my office “during good behavior.” See U.S. Const. Article III, § 1. I reminded giddy Democrats that it is not so easy to sack Supreme Court justices, and George W. Bush put both me and Sam Alito on the bench before flying back to Texas last week. We are both in our mid-fifties; no matter what Obama says, we are here to stay. But now I intend to do more than merely write occasionally irrational conservative judicial opinions to contradict Obama’s policies. This is no longer about the law. Obama made this personal. He said I flubbed the constitutional oath, and every news network in the country is calling me a doofus or worse. “Oaf of office,” says the New York Times.

Screw you liberal assholes. I’m Chief Justice; you’re just a bunch of European-loving reds.

What do these pansy reporters know about the Constitution? Or tell me, what does this African rabble-rouser in the Oval Office know about the Constitution? I went to Harvard Law School. I graduated magna cum laude. I clerked for Judge Friendly on the Second Circuit, then Chief Justice Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. These are top legal jobs; you can’t do any better than what I’ve done. I have lived, breathed and eaten the Constitution my whole life. I have argued dozens of constitutional cases before the Supreme Court. I know my grammar, too. I am a superb writer, and I am extremely intelligent. Yet these losers say I “flubbed” the oath of office.

So what if I did? I said: “I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will execute the Office to President of the United States faithfully.” True, the constitutional text appears as follows: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.” Article II, § 1, cl. 8. I used the preposition “to” instead of “of,” and I put the adverb “faithfully” at the end, not before the verb “execute.” They’re calling it the “oaf of office” because I missed a word here and there? Well, I meant what I said. I actually wanted to mis-administer the oath so that we could sue to remove him from office later. Unfortunately, Obama called me in the next day to correctly repeat the oath. But they are not leaving me alone with this “oaf” nonsense. I am not feeling good about this at all, especially because these people have no business challenging my constitutional expertise.

Nobody calls me an idiot and gets away with it. I am Chief Justice. I am the ultimate authority on the United States Constitution. This is about right and wrong; and it is not open for interpretation. President Obama thinks he can just smile broadly and give a high-flown speech to avoid danger. Well, not if I have anything to say about it. I may not be a thrilling orator. I may not even be that good looking. But I command the Constitution, and I intend to muster every constitutional weapon at my disposal to have my revenge on Obama.

Obama has no idea what he has gotten himself into. I am going to make his life a living hell. I will use judicial review on him every chance I get. Every time he issues an executive order, I will waive the standing rules, grant certiorari and declare it unconstitutional. Every time his commie Congress passes a wasteful civil rights bill, I will invalidate it on Contract Clause grounds. I will also make direct rhetorical attacks on the President without the usual Supreme Court elegance. For example, I will no longer say: “In our separated system of government, the President must heed constitutional bounds.” Instead, I will say: “Obama has his head up his ass if he thinks he can pass this bill, so help him God.”

I have no more time for half-measures and polite discourse. True, I’ll have to make Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg “disappear” for a while, but that will not be difficult. A few free opera tickets will entice Ginsie to stay away from Court, while some sleeping pills for old John Paul will render him comatose in his seat during oral arguments. With those two liberal relics out of the way, I will have a 5-2 majority to block every damn thing Obama tries to pull. And there is nothing Obama can do about it. You can’t remove us, baby. See Article III, § 1.

You can’t call me stupid. I am smarter than you will ever be. And nobody opens me up to public ridicule without serious consequences. I will not just frustrate Obama’s legislative initiatives. I intend to personally embarrass him, too—in public. I command the Supreme Court police. I can order them to trip the President during press conferences, or throw popcorn at him on the White House lawn. These are my guys. They do what I tell them to do. They do not take orders from the President, and we’ll see who’s “the oaf” after my officers toss a crème pie in Obama’s face during a tete-a-tete with Russian President Medvedev. That may not be constitutional, but it sure will make me feel good. Let’s not forget who is Chief Justice. You cross me, and I’ll cross you. The era of judicial restraint is over, Mr. President. This is war.

President Obama may think he’s a righteous crusader. He may think America looks up to him as the savior. But no matter how many crowds cheer him, and no matter how many news articles praise him, I am still the Chief Justice. George W. Bush appointed me, not Obama. I am true to my benefactor; Obama actually voted against me in the Senate. Bad move, my friend.

It’s time to settle the score, Hussein. I will take you down from your pedestal faster than you can say: “Faithfully Execute.” Are you ready to get judicial, Mr. President? I am. Let’s get it on. The Courtiznit is now in sessioniznit, bee-ochiznit.