In its latest ruling, the highest court of the United States decided to prolong its longstanding tradition of upholding state-sanctioned racism by affirming the right of public universities to exclude people based solely on the color of their skin. The recent ruling was a clear vote in support of affirmative action programs, with the possible exception of a contradictory ruling issued the same day. The decision highlights the Court’s unwavering commitment to upholding their oath to abide by and protect the Constitution of the United States, except in cases where the National Interest , Common Good, or the State’s Interest in Protecting the Whims of the Electorate, trumps the guiding document of our government.

As Justice Ginsburg explained, the ruling is exemplary of the Court’s resolute commitment to carrying out justice: "I’d rather let 100 rapists go free on a technicality than commit an injustice." the outspoken feminist declared. "As my record shows, I have always ruled in support of freedom, democracy, and social progress, at least other than on Earth Day, May Day, during you know, my time of the month and generally whenever I didn’t felt like it. Where was I? Oh, yeah, I’m a firm supporter of social and economic progress." She then hurried off to finish the paperwork for her ruling in support of price controls and the upcoming ruling on what consenting adults can do in their own home.

While some critics have criticized the ruling as a vague compromise that fails to provide any real guidance as to what the law really means, Justice Stevens vehemently denied these allegations: "When the conservative wing doesn’t ruin our decisions, we always vote according to principle and set a firm precedent for the future. Other than the rulings on race, abortion, the death penalty, the rights of accused, freedom of religion, property rights, the draft, and other minor issues, we have always spoken as one voice and provided clear direction to the lower courts. I can’t speak for my Republican peers, but the liberal wing of the court has always been a consistent supporter of individual rights, at least other than when we ruled that snail rights trump human rights and that some men don’t qualify as human beings."

*Your freedoms void where prohibited, all rights (not) reserved. This is just a parody, so please don’t sue me for libel.

What do they say? If you can’t take the heat, (or the competition) get out of the kitchen. This "criminal at the computer" read your book and is tired of your "someone should do something!" commieconservatism.

Edit: A further comment. O’Reilly says

the Supreme Court actually helped [the child molestation people] by ruling that virtual child porn, computerized images of kids being raped, are legal, an extension of free speech.

What he is almost certainly talking about, is hentai, or the popular Japanese version of anime, or animated nudes. Japan has strict censorship laws that prohibit the portrayal of genitals (even animated ones), but are very flexible and open on everything else, including breasts. The weird result is that mainstream anime features plenty of bare-breasted women and porn has genitals that are digitized just enough to get past the censors. Anyway, women in Japanese anime only come in two forms: young, nubile, and top heavy, and old hag. Although their huge cleavage, enormous eyes, and purple/green hair hardly qualifies as "human," a number of conservatives (like Mr. O’Reilly) have labeled hentai as "child porn" and sought to ban it outright. It doesn’t take much brains to figure out that this is only a stepping stone to banning pornography, masturbation and all kinds of other things their preacher thinks are bad. So what is child porn and what should be illegal?

I was arguing with a prominent "libertarian" a few months ago who was said that while child molesters are guilty of a crime, those who distribute child pornography are are not, because they didn’t actually harm anyone. I compared this to saying that while a thief commits a crime, those who knowingly buy his stolen loot do not, since they didn’t steal anything themselves. (The libertarian agreed with this as well, at which point I gave up.) The fact is in both cases, both parties are guilty: one of the actual crime, the other of aiding and abetting. When dealing with virtual child porn however, there are no victims and no crime. The behavior may be immoral, but it’s in the same status as watching the numerous rape and gang-bang scenes in adult movies. (Not that I watch that kind of stuff, but did you know that the rape scenes frequently feature tiny white women and mean-looking black men, yet are happily purchased by all races?) Not surprisingly, I have heard many arguments made by feminists for banning "rape" scenes and by conservatives for banning adult stars who dress to look underage. Their logic is based on the implicit assumption that humans are like apes who mindlessly imitate whatever they see, be on it television, computer, or newsprint. If that were the case, then my many hours of playing Doom are a much bigger threat to society than my small but growing hentai collection. In any case, child porn it is not, and to prove it, I’ve posted a random sample here. Judge for yourself, but not for too long, since it may soon be against the law.

kids fight back..