Image

If This Goes On...

[Hi, everybody. I was just made aware, yesterday, of this site, and I thought it would be a great location for a satirical US Supreme Court opinion that I wrote a couple of years ago, taking off on the Roper v. Missouri decision outlawing the execution of persons under 18 at the time of their crime. If this forum (People's Tools) is the wrong location for such a parody, I apologize and the managers may, of course, move it elsewhere. I would note that, for those unaware, William Douglas was notorious in the legal world for concocting new grounds for invalidating statutes, out of thin air. Hope everyone enjoys this.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Reporter's note: The Chief Justice has just been nominated for the 20th Annual William O. Douglas Award For Excellence in Legal Scholarship, Analysis and Writing.]

(If this goes on...)

U.S. v. Hutu-Imam-Martinez (Smith)

624 U.S. 1

June 30, 2030

C.J. Chelsea Clinton delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is before us on one issue: Does the First Amendment allow criticism of a statute, where that statute prohibits criticism of it, if the statute was enacted with the laudable goal of wiping out any uncomfortable thought, anywhere in the world? More particularly, have "evolving world-wide standards of decency" rendered totally obsolete our, concededly, quaint notion of free speech? For reasons set forth below in the same painstakingly detailed, thoroughly documented, reasoned and logical manner first used by this court in Gitlow v. New York 268 U.S. 652 (1925), we hold that the First Amendment does not allow such criticism and that such standards now require that the First Amendment be declared unconstitutional to the extent that it would allow such criticism.

The facts of this case are fairly simple. In 2022, the U.S. Congress adopted P.L. 117-101, in compliance with the 2019 Paris Accords on Human Diversity and Multiculturalism, to which the US was a signatory party, officially designated, at 42 U.S.C. section 1983, as the Cultural Diversity and Renaming Act of 2022, hereafter "the Act."

Insofar as it affects Hutu-Imam-Martinez, hereafter “HIM,” (Mr. Smith), the Act provides that:

(1) All Anglo-heritage Caucasian males over 12 years of age must adopt a new name that properly reflects the diversity of the human population within 6 months from the date of the Act or within 6 months of reaching that age.

(2) If an individual does not change his name by that date, the local renaming council, established by section 30 of the Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. section 1984, is to appoint a new name for the individual.

(3) Thereafter, the individual must use the new name for all purposes. 42 U.S.C. section 1985.

(4) Failure to voluntarily adopt a new name is punishable by 20 years at hard labor in the Fidel Castro Sugar Cane and Political Reeducation Camp, just outside Havana, which was designated as the primary prison for all U.S. political prisoners as part of the 2018 Cuban-American Pact on Human Diversity. See section 29 of the Act.

(5) As total, unquestioning compliance with the Act was deemed of the utmost importance, section 31 of the Act (42 U.S.C. section 2005) makes it a felony, punishable by life imprisonment in the Castro Camp, to criticize, in private or public, by mouth, pen or deed, the wisdom of the Act or to suggest that it be repealed.

HIM, who lived with his family in a remote area of Montana, escaped compliance, for reasons that remain unclear even today, with the law until he reached 18 when he was picked up by the Local Political Police for his federally mandated six month political correctness education course (one of the requirements for Caucasian males enacted as part of the Diversity In The Community Act of 2017) at the local community-college/work-force development center. In due course he was given the new last name of Hutu-Imam-Martinez and held for intensive training in the fast food-hospitality industry. Upon completing the afore-mentioned six month-course, he was released on December 24, 2024. Why he was not then prosecuted for failure to change his name does not appear in the record before this Court, although this Court assumes it was out of a misplaced sense of pity for a ruthless thought criminal such as HIM.

HIM, being of a somewhat recalcitrant mindset, occasionally reverted, during week-end drinking binges (see Juvenile Report Form J-X-1984, dated January 31, 2025) to, allegedly "inadvertent use" of his banned name of "Smith." See Probation Followup Report No. 10,989,545,351, dated July 31, 2025.

Finally, on New Years Day, 2026, HIM appeared on the O'Reilly Fear Factor Show (the outlawed version of the original Fox Network O'Reilly Factor Show), which is surreptitiously broadcast from an off-shore rogue T.V. station (Mr. O'Reilly has, to date, eluded capture [and renaming]). During the course of the show, HIM suggested the Act was a violation of his constitutional rights and should be repealed. This was the "final straw" for our esteemed Diverse President, the beloved Jesse Jackson III, (the love-child of the former Very Reverend Jesse Jackson), who, to quote an FBI agent present at the time, exclaimed "Get that B…..d [politically incorrect slang for an illegitimate child]!! Dead or Alive, It Doesn't Matter!!"

After a six-month dragnet, using all available federal law enforcement agents, the dangerous HIM was "run to ground" in Coonwhistle, West Virginia, and beaten so severely that he no longer speaks, walks, eats or is in control of his body's excretory functions. While such enthusiasm for one's work is certainly understandable, this Court must caution that such conduct cannot be condoned, at least on a regular basis, although we specifically find, in light of the suspect's recalcitrant attitude, that it does not rise to a level so as to "shock the conscience of the court," as enunciated in Rochin v. California 342 U.S. 165 (1952), in case HIM has any thoughts of bringing a suit for damages for any alleged violation of his constitutional rights, since, as a thought criminal, he has no rights which civilized society need respect.

HIM was charged in the U.S. District Court for Montana with violation of section 31 of the Act and was duly convicted. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in HIM v. U.S. 645 F.3d 1, in a highly unusual opinion (for it), ruled section 31 unconstitutional on First Amendment Free Speech grounds and ordered him freed. The United States appealed and we granted certiorari at 750 U.S. 1000 (2029).

[Reporter's note: The Senate has just completed the impeachment trials of the Circuit Court judges and has convicted them of thought crimes, based on section 32 of the Act. The Chief Justice has issued a per curiam opinion preempting any possible appeal on the grounds that the Senate's impeachment power extends only to removal of an officer from office; we have been informed by the warden of Castro Camp that they will have cells adjoining HIM's]


HIM's hapless counsel's brief argues that the First Amendment's Free Speech clause is actually in force in this country. One need only recall the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Lincoln's jailing of political opponents during the Civil War, the Espionage Act of 1917, and the public outcry over criticism of the 2003-2021 Iraq War II to realize how patently ridiculous such a notion is, in light of today's "evolving worldwide standards of decency in diversity." There is no right to dissent if it distresses one's opponent.

It is true, as HIM's hapless counsel's brief further notes, that this court has, on occasion (Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), Fiske v. Kansas 274 U.S. 380 (1927), Whitney v. California 274 U.S. 357 (1927) and Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697 (1931), intimated that the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause, through the 14th Amendment's due process clause is a limitation on states. However, in light of the "evolving world-wide standards of decency in diversity," we today retreat from those decisions, insofar as they might, in any sense, be considered authority for any argument that the First Amendment Free Speech Clause, operates as any limitation on any legislation, whether state or federal, prohibiting criticism of social thought control legislation. In addition, any semi-literate 1L at the lowliest ABA certified law school knows full well that such a notion has always been no more than eye-candy for the unwashed masses. See, for example, our holding in Schenck v. U.S. 249 U.S. 47 (1919), upholding the conviction of the defendant (under the 1917 Espionage Act) for publishing a pamphlet suggesting that the conscription law violated the 13th Amendment. That no similar cases emerged from the Vietnam War is not grounds for arguing that the First Amendment Free Speech clause acts as a limitation upon the federal government in preventing criticism of its legislation.

Evolving worldwide standards of decency in diversity demand that we accept the idea that social thought control legislation is always good and may never be criticized or repealed. Any argument that "evolving world-wide standards of decency" are not a proper ground for decisions of this Court became moot on March 1, 2005, with our holding in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), invalidating state statutes imposing the death penalty for persons under 18 at the time of their crime, on the rationale of evolving worldwide standards of decency. We hold that the First Amendment Free Speech Clause is, itself, unconstitutional, insofar as it might be urged as authority for the proposition that criticism of social thought control legislation is ever permissible.

The 9th Circuit's decision is reversed and HIM is remanded to the custody of the warden of Castro Camp to begin his sentence. On a personal note, it is this court's fervent wish that the summer be hot and miserable. While he cannot work, due to the arresting agents' enthusiasm, he can swelter in the heat with his fellow inmates. Recalcitrants such as HIM must be repressed at all costs.


User avatar
Okay, here's a comment:

(1) All Anglo-heritage Caucasian males over 12 years of age must adopt a new name that properly reflects the diversity of the human population within 6 months from the date of the Act or within 6 months of reaching that age.

What kind of name would I be re-assigned? Being a power-hungry maniac in league with the Evil French Aliens bent on world domination (for the Greater Good™ of course) is something that you need a steady name for. I already changed it from Master Paine to Betty, but after The Chosen One and his infernal tonguey defeated me and the aliens, I might need a new name to start my second revolution with.

No idea. This was satire and I didn't concern myself with the mechanics. The point is that Political Correctness has run so rampant in our society today that something like this might very well be adopted in 20 years time. It's insane out there and it's getting more insane by the day.


Premier Betty wrote:Okay, here's a comment:

(1) All Anglo-heritage Caucasian males over 12 years of age must adopt a new name that properly reflects the diversity of the human population within 6 months from the date of the Act or within 6 months of reaching that age.

What kind of name would I be re-assigned? Being a power-hungry maniac in league with the Evil French Aliens bent on world domination (for the Greater Good™ of course) is something that you need a steady name for. I already changed it from Master Paine to Betty, but after The Chosen One and his infernal tonguey defeated me and the aliens, I might need a new name to start my second revolution with.

User avatar
Kind of like the racist right-handers always forcing the minority left-handers to conform to their world. Everything must be equal for right and left handed people!

User avatar
Yes! As mentioned in an article I placed for public viewing at The Ministry of Truth, Zimbabwe is a shining example of the gloriousness of taking away fro the evil hated capitalist white christian male and giving to others.

O'Brien

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

User avatar
Comrades, I figured that one out years ago. I have over 3,000 copies of Playboy. I am white, blue-eyed, and Jack Armstrong. I only pretend to be all these other things. So what if I have to do a few objectionable actions with--shudder--other men? Think of the perks.


 
POST REPLY