Washington Redskins ‘thrilled’ to win right to slur by proxy

The Washington Redskins: the Aunt Jemima of football — legally protected, but oof.

The Washington Redskins have long been a team of contradictions and frustrations — always trying to have it both ways.

They talk every year about how this is the draft where they take building a defense seriously, and then throw away millions and risk the franchise tag on the latest and (once) greatest wide receivers. They’ve thrown their weight behind 20 different quarterbacks and eight head coaches in 20 years, and it’s only a matter of time before they turn on their latest ones.

And now that the Asian-American punk band, The Slants, won their U.S. Supreme Court case to trademark a racial slur, owner Dan Snyder is “thrilled” that his team’s name — which was previously not a slur, but “an honor” — is now likely a legally protected slur.

While The Guys fully agree that the government should stay out of deciding which speech is offensive and isn’t (well, until the next debate over National Endowment for the Arts funding), it’s probably not great if your name is only kosher because of free speech. Welcome to the same legal defense as the Klan, the Westboro Baptists and every dude with a strong opinion about feminism online.

But, hey, we’re proof positive that you can’t legislate common decency.

SeriouslyGuys: now with larger penises

Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling that online businesses can distribute false data, The Guys can now legally type with both hands again. Doubled (fallacious) productivity!
Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling that online businesses can distribute false data, The Guys can now legally type with both hands again. Doubled (fallacious) productivity!

Since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t decide a lot these days, and will probably continue to send most cases back to lower courts until President Trump appoints Judge Judy to take his place. But, the court managed to side 6-2 along political lines with business one last time to screw over consumers, sort of like pouring one out for their lost homey.

The highest court in the land ruled on Monday that businesses are not legally responsible for distributing false information online unless plaintiffs can prove “actual injury in fact,” and not just potential injuries they might not know about. In this particular case, the plaintiff was listed in a “people search platform” run by Spokeo with completely false data. That data could be used by credit companies, potential employers, private investigators and future dates, but unless he knew for sure that they did, in fact, withhold services and/or kisses based on that data, Spokeo is completely off-the-hook.

So, since online companies are not obligated to share the truth with customers, we here at SeriouslyGuys would like to state for the record that everything said in our blog is 100 percent factual, including that it was totally our wives’ idea to open up our marriages. Also, that Chief Justice John Roberts shares a bungalow in Belize with Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, where they snort cocaine off of dead interns using the rolled up dissents of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. (Prove the actual damage, your honors.)

Arizonans’ feet to remain calloused, not fishy

It's for the best, as it was only a matter of time before someone opened a piranha-themed salon.
It’s for the best, as it was only a matter of time before someone opened a piranha-themed salon.

The U.S. Supreme Court is a lot like jazz. No, not because of Justice Alito’s long-winding free-form dissent solos. But because, like notes in jazz, you can tell as much about it by the cases that it doesn’t hear as the cases that it does. And this Supreme Court has decided that it does not want to hear about pedicures performed by fish.

The court rejected the appeal of Cindy Vong, a woman who used fish to eat the dead skin off of patrons’ feet at her salon until the Arizona Board of Cosmetology wrapped the practice up in newspaper. Unlike files, chains, blowtorches and whatever else is normally used during pedicures (The Guys don’t go to a lot of bridal showers), fish cannot survive being treated in Barabasol and, therefore, violate health rules. Their ruling means that Vong cannot resume the practice and will have to exploit recent human immigrants like everyone else in the beauty industry.

So, thank you, Chief Justice Roberts and Co., for keeping fish from taking our menial foot maintenance/small talk jobs away. You’re the real heroes in the War on Animals.

Take it from Snee: My business’ god can beat up your business’ god

We will crush the unbelievers once and for all now that businesses are religions.
We will crush the unbelievers once and for all now that businesses are religions.

In a 5-4 decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “closely-held” for-profit businesses, like Hobby Lobby, don’t have to comply with a part of the Affordable Care Act that requires employers to provide complete medical coverage. Instead, they can select plans that don’t cover certain forms of birth control that their owners believe equal abortion and force the government or insurance companies to pay for it the way that church-run nonprofits can.

And I, for one, am glad that we finally have five supreme justices who understand that, really, there is no difference between, say, the Green family, who owns of Hobby Lobby, and, oh, the Archdiocese of New York.

Because, while some Panicky Penelopes may worry about the decision opening the door to businesses discriminating against those of different faiths or backgrounds, what this really means is that American has finally taken the ultimate step to outright worshiping our only true god: money.  Continue reading Take it from Snee: My business’ god can beat up your business’ god

Your Mom: Supreme Court overturns DOMA, dismisses Prop. 8 case

Occasionally, SeriouslyGuys receives guest submissions from readers. If they are coherent, do not explicitly sell anything and avoid more than three references to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, then we consider them for publication. Today’s guest post comes from your mom.


The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the section of the Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal recognition and benefits to same-sex couples legally married in their states. It also dismissed the case concerning California’s Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage, because the governor and attorney general refused to defend it.

He looks lonely. Is he single? You might have a lot in common.
He looks lonely. Is he single? You might have a lot in common.

The rulings raise big questions. For instance: because the Supreme Court dismissed the Prop. 8 case, letting the appeals court ruling stand without declaring the law unconstitutional, will California be able to pass a law that officially overturns it? Also, when are you getting married?

When the issue last went to a vote, the majority of Californians voted against same-sex marriage, so we can only wonder if opinion has swayed enough from 2008 for a different outcome. And you’re almost 30 years old. You’re telling me you haven’t met a nice boy or girl by now?

These rulings also follow the recent change to Pentagon policy that ended their Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. And, while I’m glad you didn’t run out and join the military even though you can serve openly now, I can’t for the life of me figure out why you don’t want to have a big wedding and maybe adopt or invitro me some grandbabies. I’m not getting any younger, either, you know.

Just think about it, OK? Love you!


your-mother-bylineYour mother loves you very much and wishes you would call her more. You can read more of her writing on Facebook or in the email she just sent you. Did you get it? She might have a virus, so let her know if you didn’t. Or, you can find her with The Guys, fortune cookie-style. (In bed.)

Hungry for justice

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court tried to go in together on a pizza, but are deadlocked and waiting for Justice Kennedy to choose between Meatlover's and Plain Cheese.
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court tried to go in together on a pizza, but are deadlocked and waiting for Justice Kennedy to side with either Meat Lover’s or Plain Cheese.

During the case United States v. Windsor, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reasoned that, since gay marriages that are legal at the state-level aren’t recognized by the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), there are “two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim-milk marriage.”

Fans of the U.S. Supreme Court — or as they call themselves on Twitter and Facebook, Supreme Courtesans — may remember the “broccoli” argument from the case National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, where businesses challenged the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s consitutionality. Also, about whether people have to eat broccoli.

And until we get the snack machines fixed in the Highest Court in the Land, we will continue to hear about skim milk, broccoli and maybe even grilled chicken during all of our most pressing legal discussions.

Murder most immoral

Rest assured, America: when it comes to murder, Justice Antonin Scalia is opposed to it on moral grounds.

Speaking at a Princeton seminar on Monday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued that every state should have the right to make laws against behavior that its electorate deems immoral — like homosexuality. And to make his point, he made a very close, relevant comparison: murder.

Now, some of you out there might find that comparison appalling, but when you really think about it, how different is homosexuality from homicide? Same first three letters, for one. Also, one is a non-consensual act of physical intimacy between a man and the person he’s murdering, while the other one is icky in a buttsex sort of way.

So, aren’t we glad that Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act are on the high court’s 2013 docket?

Every dog has his day … in the U.S. Supreme Court

When you face a foe as great in numbers as animals, humans want to believe that we aren’t alone in this fight. We’ve long put dogs on a pedestal, claiming them as man’s best friend. But, let’s not forget that only 10,000 years ago, they were wolves.

We’ve depended on dogs in police work, especially for enforcing our nation’s drug laws, which have now incarcerated a larger portion of our population than that of any other country, even the freedom-hating ones like North Korea and China. Could this have been dogs’ plan from the beginning, to arrest as many fighting Americans as possible so we would be powerless to stop their inevitable attack?

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to decide whether police dogs are planting evidence. Or, at least whether using their sense of smell alone is strong enough evidence for a search. Either way, it looks like some species is about to get their face rubbed in the Constitution of the United States.

Take it from Snee: Explaining U.S. branches of government to foreigners, children (Part 3)

Greetings, non-citizens and/or future voters! As you may recall, I recently explained to (at, whatever) foreigners and children how the United States’ political parties work. Since that was a rousing success – mostly because neither of you have command of my language to voice your objections – I’ve been tapped to now explain the three branches of our government.

The three branches are the executive, legislative and judicial branches. These were delineated all the way back in 1789, when a group of self-selected landowners (mostly lawyers) met to secretly and kind of/sort of illegally overhaul our existing government as outlined in the Articles of Confederation. This was the now legal framing of our famed Constitution. Maybe you’ve seen it in your tour through Ron Paul’s breast pocket?

To reflect this spirit of open contempt towards our law of the land, they intentionally set up a lawyer-driven three-way deathmatch between three equal branches. This cage fight is called “checks and balances,” which was based on the use of elbows and fleet footwork in Senate-floor cane brawls.

Because of the amount of information involved, and because every element of our government is ripe for jokes, I’ve divided this into a three part series. Previous installments covered the executive and legislative branches. This week, we wrap the whole shebang up with the judicial branch. Continue reading Take it from Snee: Explaining U.S. branches of government to foreigners, children (Part 3)

Government groping for the perv on a budget

Have you been wishing for a more intimate relationship with a government official, but can’t afford to fly all the time? The U.S. Supreme Court has your kink covered: get arrested for anything.

A 5-4 ruling on Monday has determined that “officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.” So, whether you’re in for an unpaid parking ticket, which the case was about (and it was later determined that, yes, it had been paid) or for violating a leash law, you, too, can get your junk ogled by a man — or woman — in uniform.

And it’s about time, too, because we’ve been wondering who we have to kill for this kind of service.