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.

Something to say?