by HAL MOUNTSAUERKRAUTEN, Alternate Reality News Service Court Writer
The Supreme Court has split 1-1 along ideological lines in the case of Tidwell v State of Panic. This is the 17th straight case in which the court could not render a verdict, a form of judicial impotence that no advice columnist will be able to cure that dates back to the death of Justice Sonia Sotomayor three years ago when her limousine was blindsided by a shrimp trawler on the way to a celebrity roast for Gilbert Gottfried.
Republican Mitch McConnell is to blame.
"Oh, ah, well, that is very kind of you to say," McConnell blushed. Yes, he blushed. If you freeze the frame from his press conference between the "k" and the "i" and magnify the image 532 times, you will see definite red in a couple of pixels. "But, honestly, I could not have done it without the bipartisan support of everybody on both sides of the aisle...and France."
It started when McConnell, then Majority Leader, refused to allow any Supreme Court nominee proposed by President Barack Obama to be vetted by any Senate committee. Then, he refused to allow any of President Hillary Clinton's nominees to be vetted in her first term; in her second term, McConnell, now reduced to Minority Leader, threatened a filibuster whenever she seemed to be thinking about the possibility of considering naming anybody to the Supreme Court. This behaviour continued throughout the Presidency of Sean Penn. Then, just yesterday, McConnell, who seems to be hanging on in the Senate out of spite, croaked, "The nomination will have to wait until after the next election," even though President Lena Dunham was sworn in only three days ago.
Apparently, it's now precedent.
"So tired!" moaned Chief Justice John Roberts from behind a stack of legal briefs piled to the ceiling on his desk. After 18 years without the nomination of a replacement, Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan are the only members of the Supreme Court left alive. "I haven't had a vacation in eighteen months! Would you...would you be willing to render an opinion on Bonzai v The World Crime League for me? It's okay if you don't have any legal experience - it's not like we have enough people on the bench to make the decision binding on anybody!"
I declined Roberts' gracious offer. The last time I rendered a judgment in a major case, oil prices plummeted, causing economic havoc throughout the world; I slept on the couch for a week and half after that.
"John needs to get out more," Justice Kagan laughed. "I jog for two hours every day before coming into work. Personally, I find the pace invigorating!"
When asked if she found anything about the situation frustrating, Kagan admitted that tossing a coin to determine who would write the majority opinion in a case was a less than optimal solution to their problem. "John has won the last seven tosses!" Kagan complained. "Lucky bastard!"
I consulted world famous mathematician Ricky Jay on the odds of somebody winning seven consecutive coin tosses. Unfortunately, the math was so abstruse (literally: making peace with your stomach muscles) that even Jay didn't understand it, so I decided to leave the whole thing out of the article.
Does who writes the majority opinion matter when all issues brought before The Supreme Court die because of a hung court? "It's a matter of legacy, isn't it?" Kagan sniffed.
In the absence of a functional Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals has become the de facto (no, not a Ford muscle car from the 1950s, but it's a common enough mistake, so I can't blame you for going there) court of last appeal of the American legal system. "I don't know if I can handle the pressure," stated Justice Annette "Dizzy" Dextrose, who sits on the Sixth Circuit Breaker Court of Appeals. "I mean, I was nominated by Reagan!"
Umm...okay. In the meantime, it has been suggested that the unwillingness of Republicans to even consider holding hearings on Supreme Court nominees will some day lead to a Constitutional crisis. In a tentative, one might almost call it passive, voice. And, by unnamed sources. But, suggested nonetheless.
"Bullsense!" roared Constitutional scholar Donald Trump. "Sure, the Constitution says that the President shall nominate somebody for the Supreme Court when a vacancy becomes available. But, it also says that the opposition has the moral, financial and culinary duty to not give power to a bunch of losers who don't know their two prima facies from a hole in the ground!"
"Wow," said token smart person Amy Sheshutshotshitbam (whom I was interviewing for a completely different article when she got hold of an early draft of this one on my computer screen), "And, I thought things were messed up in my universe!"