Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’

Despise and Consent, Part II

Posted in General on June 1st, 2009 by Eugene Finerman – 5 Comments

And here is the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D.):  Welcome Judge Sotomayor.  Please reassure Senator Coburn that you will answer our questions in English.

Judge Sotomayor:  Certainly.  And I might as well take this opportunity to apologize for George Chakiris killing Russ Tamblyn in “West Side Story”.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R.):  In the event of another war between America and Spain, which side would you be on?

Judge Sotomayor:  You should take in consideration the four centuries of Spanish tyranny compared to one century of American neglect.  I naturally would prefer the country that treats me like a second class citizen instead of a fourth class one.

Senator Arlen Specter (who knows?):  Speaking for Senators Kohl, Feingold, Schumer, Wyden, Cardin, myself and half of Senator Kaufman, why can’t Benjamin Cardozo be considered Hispanic?

Judge Sotomayor:  Maybe if his bris had been done with a switchblade.  All right, here is my first ruling as a Supreme Court Justice:  Benjamin Cardozo can be considered Hispanic but not Latino.

Senator Jon Kyl (R.):  I understand that you were a member of Phi Beta Kappa.  Tell us about this secret organization and its links with international terrorism.

Judge Sotomayor:  It is an honor society, and its members tend to limit their terrorism to withering critiques of plays and restaurants.

Senator Chuck Schumer(D.):  Would Benjamin Cardozo be considered Latino if his family had come from Argentina?

Judge Sotomayor:  Let’s compromise.  If you drop these farcockteh Cardozo questions, I will admit that Freddie Prinze was half-Jewish.

Senator Rush Limbaugh(R./God):  How many times have you had an abortion?

Senator Leahy:  You are not a Senator and you don’t belong here.

Limbaugh:  Grassley gave me his seat.  I have twenty million listeners.  That makes me the fourth largest state, and if that doesn’t entitle me to at least one senate seat, it is Un-American.

Sotomayor:  This would make an interesting case for the Supreme Court.

Limbaugh:  And I’ll give you 5 to 4 odds I’d win.

And here is a reminder of the Alito hearings:

The Supine Court

Posted in General on April 28th, 2008 by Eugene Finerman – 1 Comment

Apr 28th, 2008 | WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

Discounting Indiana’s requirement of 12 photos–including three nudes and one of the prospective voter eating watermelon, Chief Justice John Roberts dismissed the objections that the standards were discriminatory and onerous. “Twelve photographs are easily accumulated. A picture at a Rotary golf outing, your Harvard yearbook, the wedding announcement in the New York Times. And anyone who hasn’t been photographed nude at a frat party just hasn’t lived.” The Chief Justice did acknowledge the possibility that the poor and minority groups might not have such prestigious photos, if any at all. “In that case, just bring a letter of introduction from your former owner.”

In a concurring but separate opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas felt that prospective voters–should at the request of election judges or state troopers–sing ‘Camptown Racetrack.’ “I do it without them even asking. And if you don’t know the words, you don’t deserve to vote.”

Justice Antonin Scalia recommended that, in lieu of a photo ID, the prospective voter have a finger cut off. “If nothing else, this will prevent anyone from voting more than ten times in an election.” When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg asked if that would prevent a citizen from voting in more than ten elections, Scalia replied, “So?” and then hit her.

Blind Justice–and how to do it!

Posted in General on April 17th, 2008 by Eugene Finerman – Be the first to comment

In its customary five-to-four decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution only prohibits “unusual” punishments. “‘Cruel and usual‘ are hunky-dory” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. “Punishment is supposed to be cruel, and believe me the Founding Fathers were inured to suffering. Look at everyone’s teeth on the John Adams series. And that was probably their cleanest orifice.”

The Court did offer some guidelines as to the definition of an unusual punishment. “It would have to be too obscure for Jeopardy” explained Roberts.

Justice Antonin Scalia elaborated, “Public disembowelment is permissible because everyone has heard of ‘hanging, drawing and quartering’. Impalement is another time-honored practice. Beheading, burning at the stake, hot coals in the eyes, all those nostalgic favorites are sanctioned by this court. So what is an unusual punishment? Imagine stuffing uranium in someone’s mouth and then sewing the lips shut with piano wire. This would be an unusual punishment because I just thought of it–and I am applying for the patent.”

In his concurring opinion Justice Anthony Kennedy explained, “Forgive me but Scalia knows where my grandchildren live.”