In a stunning 3-6 victory, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has upheld an injunction against history continuing to be recorded for the rest of time.
Despite being outvoted by a majority of Justices, Scalia declared that the minority vote by him, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito prevails because the majority’s views are “horse feathers malarkey”, “skittledy piddlety” and “doo-doo head, poo-poo face”.
This was a highly unusual case since it was brought by Scalia himself, hence the case’s name, “Scalia v. History”.
In his ruling, Scalia explained, “History now poses a threat to the white male conservative Christian’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That being the case, this court has no other choice but to order history to cease and desist. No more historical changes or events may take place and this decision is effective retroactively to March 19th, 2003, the day before the launching of the Iraq War.”
Under Scalia’s ruling, President Bush’s Iraq War never happened, nor did the economic crash of 2008 Bush presided over. Also not occurring in history would be the election of Barack Obama, Obamacare and the right of gays to marry.
“History has taken on a liberal bias which is not what the Founders intended,” Scalia frothed. “Jefferson believed in the sanctity of marriage as being between one man, one woman…and a slave or two. But never between two men or two women or a man and two women or a woman and two plumbers…or one man, one woman and a goat named Sancho. You just won’t find that in the Constitution and believe me, I’ve looked!”
Wiping the drool from his chin, Scalia continued, “The 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law for all citizens, that includes white heterosexual religious extremist men who are superior to everyone else. To allow them to be singled out and victimized as a class of Americans would violate the 14th Amendment instead of providing them with equal treatment to continue their treatment of others as unequal.”
Scalia’s order effectively ends the reporting of news by newspapers, the Internet and 24 hour network news channels so that no changes to American history can occur. The major cable news outlets surprisingly responded that they don’t see that as having any noticeable impact on their programming. Fox News CEO, Roger Ailes explained, “It will actually make the running of our network much easier, we see news and history as ‘the competition’.”
Jeff Zucker, CEO of CNN applauded the decision. “Do you know how much it takes out of our 3D CGI budget to pay reporters to cover the news? We had to scrap our digital recreations of rumored celebrity sex tapes to pay for a trip to Afghanistan…which would you rather watch?! Justice Scalia has done a service to the news industry, now we can focus on what we should be focusing on…nip slips.”
MSNBC President Phil Griffin was similarly pleased, “What’s been troublesome for us is that everyone loves when we stoke outrage by treating the intentionally outrageous statement of a Right Wing Republican as news but it also leaves some viewers with a twinge of guilt. Now, with this ruling, the outrage we manufacture can be 100% guilt free!”
Scalia mentions in his ruling that Congress should set up a retraining program to help the thousands of newly unemployed historians train for new occupations, perhaps in the goat farming field, he suggested.
AdLib, due to the fact that the Fave had the gall to have a 14th birthday over the weekend, I didn’t get a chance to read this until today. Talk about worth waiting for.
Of course, my cat is staring at me assuming I’m possessed because I’m here with no other human in the room and I’m laughing out loud. First over “horse feathers malarkey”, “skittledy piddlety” and “doo-doo head, poo-poo face.” And then about his little history lesson: “Jefferson believed in the sanctity of marriage as being between one man, one woman…and a slave or two. But never between two men or two women or a man and two women or a woman and two plumbers…or one man, one woman and a goat named Sancho.”
Too funny!
If only the real Scalia and the real MSM were half as amusing.
My son attended the Bernie Sanders speech in Madison, WI last week and had the great (mis)fortune to be interviewed by a reporter from CNN. One of the questions he was asked was: “How is Bernie going to get his message out, given the huge amount of money Hillary Clinton has?” My son answered that social media is an inexpensive and efficient way to reach people — especially given the fact that almost everyone views the CORPORATE MEDIA as untrustworthy now.
I WONDER WHY CNN DIDN’T AIR THAT INTERVIEW….?
:shocked:
😆 One of your best, Adlib! But I’m worried poor old Scaly is going to give himself a heart attack after this week. Well, a little worried….
GreenChica, thanks so much!
It would be ironic if Scalia’s outrage in opposition to fair minded decisions gave him a heart attack and he was replaced by a liberal judge that guaranteed many more fair minded decisions.
I’m with you. How could we LIVE with ourselves if Scalia had a thrombosis???
Oh. Wait. God did that in his view, so…never mind.
Ad, is this story real or did you exagerate a little bit?
I see where Ted Cruz wants the SC justices to be up for election every eight years. When I think about that , it might be a good idea to be able to get rid of idiots like this guy!
Hey Nirek, I may have slightly exaggerated but there seems no doubt that Scalia wants America to have stayed permanently as it was in the 1950’s…when he was only 71.
I do believe in having more limited terms for SCOTUS judges but maybe 10-15 years and unlike Cruz, I do not believe the public should be able to vote out SCOTUS judges. It’s political enough but forcing a SCOTUS judge to make decisions while looking over his shoulder at how it would affect his chances at “re-election” would make things far worse. Especially on liberal matters because making conservative or moderate decisions would seem to have less consequences than making liberal decisions.
Imagine if the Kochs could bankrolled a campaign to recall every SCOTUS judge who isn’t a plutocrat? That would definitely be the end of our democracy.
But that will never happen.
Hi-
Sorry to disagree – but if SCOTUS is ever subject to vote, we will have only BAD interpretations, politicized interpretations, of the law.
I can live with Roberts who sometimes sees the majesty of the law and Constitution, even when I hate things such as “toxic slime is GOOD for corporations therefore never mind YOUR well being.” He’s been good enough on issues that we care a lot about for me not to want to ‘primary the dude’.
The power of SCOTUS lies in its immunity. What we need is not votes but absolutes – you, member of the Supreme Court of the United States – will NEVER hobnob with the rich and famous. You will NOT take trips, favors, even dinners from those with a political stake in the game.
If we did that and preserved their immunity from voters, we’d have a far better judiciary.
Of course, we could elect good president and Senates, and then we’d not be having this conversation.
Term limits, reviews of the justices – not on in my book. That politicizes what should not BE political at all.
Oh Ad, you’ve done it again. His actual reaction was as laughable. I can’t wait till all the angry white (hetero-xtian) men are dead!!!
Thanks slm! As I’ve mentioned, it gets increasingly harder to satirize RW extremists like Scalia because from day to day, they say such ridiculous things that seem like self-parody…It’s hard to “outcrazy” them.
But I do try!
I get this, AdLib – it’s indeed harder to parody them when what they really say and do is so over the top to begin with.