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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OK, so the U.S. Supreme Court has good news and bad news. Which would you like first?
We’re sorry. You should speak up louder when addressing your computer, especially if you’re at work. We’ll just assume you said, “Good news first.”
The good news is that if you’re a a juvenile delinquent, then you can no longer receive a life sentence for your crimes unless you kill someone … intentionally. So, this is kind of bad news if you’re a parent and lack the stones to “take out” the bad seed you “brought in to this world.” The system won’t do it for you anymore. (That’s not our “bad news,” though.)
The bad news is that you can still be held indefinitely for sex crimes, which are not murder. So, if you’re gonna have sex with your high school girlfriend (assuming you’re in high school or a famous film director), make sure you have her parents’ consent first.
So, keep your hands gloved and your hard drive clean; otherwise, you’re grounded for life.
Whatever the outcome, the decision of the justices could have a much wider impact on how freedom of speech is treated in the United States. SCHWARZENEGGER, GOV. OF CA V. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS, ET AL. was one of two new cases the court granted Monday for a decision next term, which kicks off on October 4. While cases like this have been repeatedly won by the video game industry in different states, the U.S. Supreme Court decision will have national implications. A decision to not hear the case would have affirmed California’s previous judicial defeats and serve as another in a long line of gaming industry victories against state authorities trying to legislate against violent games.
Back to the part about minors: do they define minors by United States age-of-majority tradition (at 18) or by the ESRB’s age for M-rated purchases (at 17)? No one’s saying, and when you think about it, that might be one of the biggest issues at hand.
Kathryn Nurre, the aggrieved senior, sued the school for violation of her First Amendment right to A) turn the graduation ceremony into a Catholic mass and B) lengthen the already long ceremony of reading names while everyone’s buzz wears off.
While the court declined the case without comment, that didn’t stop Justice Samuel “Not True” Alito from saying he would have heard it.
While it is hunky-doory for public schools to cover the students’ selection of clothes to express themselves, Alito worries that banning poorly performed hymnals could lead to a slippery slope of further censorship at school events, like of speeches.
Gov. Granholm–along with the governors of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (commonly referred to as “the carp states”)–has asked the White House and the U.S. Supreme Court to shut Chicago-area locks. This strategy encloses the carp into a proverbial barrel for killing before they can reach the Great Lakes, which are only getting carpier and carpier by the minute.
Critics of the lock closing plan, including Assistant Secretary of the Army of Civil Works (the Fightin’ Civil Workers!) Jo-Ellen Darcy said the plan is total crap because the carp can still get pumped out of a Chicago station.
One thing’s for sure: unless we scoop these carp out of our water systems, we’ll be up to our armpits in it.