Thomas: Don’t question the government

Addressing an audience at the University of Florida law school, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told a group of future lawyers that asking too many questions can “run the risk in our society of undermining institutions that we need to preserve our liberties.”

That’s right. The man whose job is to question and probe the founding document of our nation told a group of people who will need to question and probe that document and others that define the law of land, that to criticize the government and U.S. Supreme Court “[borders] on being irresponsible.”

Yes, Clarence “I Just Helped Overturn Eight Previous Supreme Court Rulings” Thomas said that. To lawyers.

Are we sure we want Supreme Court Justices to be lifetime appointees? Or did we just destroy America by asking that?

Presenting the new Apple iPresident

Just when we thought the looming threat of NASCAR had been contained to the redneckier parts of America, it appears that the sport managed to slip into Washington, D.C.–more specifically, into the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 decision divided on the usual party lines, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can “spend as much as they [want] to sway voters in federal elections.”

Now, a lot of people are upset about this … although they’re mostly people who don’t own corporations, so what do they know, right? They certainly aren’t looking on the bright side.

For instance: voters already complain that they can’t tell the difference between presidential candidates anymore, saying that they’re forced to select “the lesser of two evils.” Well, what if Pepsi endorsed one of them? BOOM! 50 percent of the population just voted for, “I’ll have a water, then.”

Best of all, candidates could actually coordinate their campaign slogans with their contributors. Jonathan Edwards could “clean up” his image with an endorsement from Tide. Or, he could show he’s learned his lesson about fathering inconvenient children with a giant Trojan backdrop behind his podium.

What’s the world coming to?

B-b-but there's a cross on his bathrobe. War on Christmas!You know, we can only guess where we’re headed in this handbasket when an old Southern man is accused of racism simply because he:

1) Refuses to marry interracial couples.

2) Does so because he worries about mixed-race children.

3) According to the phone call, seems mostly concerned about black-and-white interracial marriages.

4) Believes that, if “you really and truly feel down in your heart,” this isn’t wrong.

Is that all? That’s all the evidence you have?

What? This Justice of the Peace actively violated the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that “the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State?”

That’s it?

Gosh, folks. What’s next? Will other people be accused of racism simply because they think a quarterback is overrated because he’s black, implying that there has never been a good black quarterback in the history of the NFL?

An important precedent in middle school dating

So, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, if you want to strip search a teenage girl, you better make sure she’s likely to carry contraband.

That’s why SeriouslyGuys endorses Bad Girls.

Yes, Bad Girls, the girls guaranteed to have something incriminating on them.

They’re the Vice Principal’s best friend, but only because they spend so much time in your office!

Bad Girls are available in different flavors, including:

  • Menthol
  • Vanilla Vodka
  • Crystal Methamphetamine

Bad Girls: two out of three Clarence Thomases can’t be wrong!

Victory in the courts at long last!

The Guys would like to thank all of you who turned out with us to picket the U.S. Supreme Court over the past month. We are pleased to announce that the court has ruled in our favor, which means the U.S. Navy can use its radar during training missions, regardless of how many whales, dolphins and porpoises are killed (and we hope that it is many).

The species traitors at the Natural Resources Defense Council argued that the solar posed a threat to marine mammals, who would hear the radar and become disoriented and probably die or something. As we have chronicled, the case has been bouncing around the legal system for more than a year. Finally, justice has been service in a 5-4 vote.

From the court decision:
“Of course, military interests do not always trump other considerations, and we have not held that they do. In this case, however, the proper determination of where the public interest lies does not strike us as a close question.”

We’re not really sure what “peace” the judges are talking about. This nation is at war with the beasts. However, we’ll take a decision in our favor any day.