Huffpost Comedy
The Blog

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

Jilly Gagnon Headshot

Justices, SERVED

Posted: Updated:

"A few times a year, Supreme Court justices go out of their way to emphasize their unhappiness by reading a dissent from the bench out loud, supplementing the dry reason on the page with vivid tones of sarcasm, regret, anger and disdain. The practice is on the rise...'Dissenting from the bench,' a new study to be published in Justice System Journal contends, is a sort of nuclear option that 'may indicate that bargaining and accommodation have broken down irreparably.'" -The New York Times

In re: Fellowes v. Oregon
JUSTICE GINSBERG, dissenting:

In their ill-conceived, anachronistic, and most likely hungover decision regarding Ms. Fellowes appeal for back pay equal to that offered to her male coworkers, the Court has established a precedent that, in essence, overturns more than 50 years of jurisprudence on the subject of gender equality.

If JUSTICE STEVENS was in charge of distributing the court's water carafes during deliberations, I can almost personally guarantee the "hungover" part.

Basing the decision on previous rulings regarding a constitutional right to privacy as well as recent rulings establishing corporations as individuals in the eyes of the law is just downright retarded, which is how I know that the CHIEF JUSTICE was probably the one who came up with that pile of shit.

Harvard Law isn't what it used to be, eh Johnny boy?

The only possible explanation for such a gross misinterpretation of the Equal Protection Clause is that, collectively, the penises of JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE KENNEDY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE THOMAS, and JUSTICE ALITO add up to a whopping 11¾ inches.

Attempting to guarantee a continued feeling of dominance over the women you will never, ever, ever, pleasure by forcing their bank accounts into submission is basically like rape. Seriously, if it were up to me, I would bring you all back into the courtroom on rape charges.

That is if I thought any of you degenerates would manage to stay sober long enough to show up.

In re: JUSTICE GINSBERG's dissent
THE CHIEF JUSTICE double dissenting

The vitriol on display in this dissent is tragically not nearly acid enough to burn out the traces of the inferior mind spouting it. Or maybe it's the ovaries doing the spouting - perhaps you'd like me to relay that "official judicial opinion" to Ms. Fellowes?

Though I speak only for myself, any drunkenness during Court proceedings and/or deliberations is solely in order to blunt my senses to that shrill whinny you call a voice.

Go burn another bra. Based on visual evidence, as well as testimony from other members of this court, I have to assume you have been for years now.

Re: your "rape" accusations: you wish.

In re: JUSTICE GINSBERG's dissent
JUSTICE THOMAS double dissenting

Ruth, you know for a fact that, if you're including me in your roundup, your 11 ¾ number is way off. For a fact.

All I'm gonna say is Supreme Court Barbados spring break, 1995, in-room hot tub.

In re: THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S double-dissent
JUSTICE BREYER triple-dissenting.

John, we all know that you're the "guy in charge" here, but that was seriously uncalled for. JUSTICE GINSBERG is a lady deserving of your respect, and any unnecessary bitterness in her original dissenting opinion was no doubt attributable to the palpable lack of that element that she, and I must say all of us, have felt since your appointment some years back.

Your conduct is unbefitting an officer of this court, sir, not to say a gentleman.

In re: JUSTICE BREYER'S triple-dissent
JUSTICE GINSBERG, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins, quadruple-dissenting.

Oh for Christ's sake, Steve, cut the "knight in shining armor" bullshit. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I'm just not that into you.

We had some fun in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas, that's all it was, that's all it will ever be. Frankly, at this point I'm starting to think it was a mistake. Just because we both reject textualism in our statutory interpretations does not mean we're together.

Seriously.

In re: ALL THIS BLATHER
JUSTICE STEVENS takin' a stand, dammit.

[A transcript of loud snores, interspersed with the occasional "whipper-snappers!," follows]

Around the Web

Supreme Court to review immigration law that favors children of US mothers ...

Supreme Court will review $14 million judgment for exonerated inmate vs. New ...

Supreme Court declines case: US can move detainees without notice