"Living Constitution" Pronounced Dead

Washington, D.C.--After hearings were concluded on the President Obama's nomination of a new Supreme Court Justice, Juris Doctors pronounced the "Living Constitution" dead after the nation's supreme legal document failed to respond to pleas by Senators, left-wing judges, and academics for over 223 years.

"We held out hope that the parchment would give us a sign, any sign, that judges should impose their own personal views on what the Constitution should mean, based on their own contemporaneous policy preference," said one Harvard Law professor. "But the words in the Constitution just haven't budged."

Some Senators tried in vain during the hearings to articulate a plausible rationale regarding how anything resembling the "rule of law" could be upheld if the meaning of the Constitution turned on the shifting personal views of five out of nine Justices. But after hours of exhaustive blathering, they finally gave up.

Following the hearings, a candlelight vigil was held outside the National Archives, led by the Supreme Court's most prominent judicial activists.

"I feel empty inside," said one Justice, "not being able to look at that document and see myself reflected in it anymore."

Democratic Senators Impressed with Kagan's Modesty at Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

Washington, D.C.--Elena Kagan impressed Democratic Senators with her "extreme modesty" in both dress and speaking style as she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.

Wearing a straight jacket and mouth guard and strapped to an adjustable gurney, Kagan appeared to distance herself from a law review article she wrote previously in which she said Supreme Court Justice confirmation hearings had "taken on an air of vacuity and farce" because Senators refused to pin down nominees on their legal views and pursue a more "substantive inquiry" into the nominee's positions on particular legal issues.

Through muffled sounds, Kagan appeared to say her earlier article had been "skewed ... a little too much" in favor of candid answers, before she went silent and was wheeled away.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) praised Kagan's "remarkable modesty" and said he looked forward to her release into a lifetime position at the Supreme Court.

Associated articles: Associated Press; George Will; Washington Post

Self-Interested Power Hungry Schemers Testify in Favor of Supreme Court Nominee's Fitness for Lifetime Position Rewriting Constitution

Washington, D.C.--Several self-interested power-hungry schemers testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court after the New York Times reported that Kagan "never reveal[ed] too much of herself" and "never [went] too far out on a political limb" in order to follow a "calculated path" to the High Court, which was her "goal from the very beginning."

"I think Ms. Kagan is perfect for a lifetime position in which she could rewrite the Constitution for everyone," said Rachel Horntower, a noted suck-up and coldly calculating high school senior and law-student-to-be who never answers controversial questions in class to preserve her political viability. "I've already sacrificed my childhood and growing years engaged in relentlessly ambitious scheming, and some day I, too, hope to enjoy power in proportion to that sacrifice."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) praised the testimony, saying he could not think of a better person to be in a position to "crush the Constitution like a fragile bird's nest" than someone like Ms. Kagan who had "plotted and strategized their entire life to achieve vast, unchecked power."

Associated articles: New York Times 1; New York Times 2

Congressman Proposes that Liberal Supreme Court Justice's Cell Phone Numbers Be Added to Constitution

Washington, D.C.--With liberal, judicial activist Supreme Court Justices increasingly ignoring the text of the Constitution and interpreting it in contorted ways that further their own policy preferences, Rep. John Fuller has introduced a constitutional amendment that would list the personal cell phone numbers of those Justices in the document's Article III.

"No one can be sure what the Constitution says any more without consulting the personal opinions of five of the nine unelected Supreme Court Justices," said Fuller. "So it only makes sense to make the Constitution more accessible to everyone by making the Justices more accessible."

Some legal scholars said being able to reach the Justices by phone could strengthen the rule of law by making it possible to determine "what side of the bed the Justices got out on on any given day." But other court observers said that if the amendment were adopted, the liberal judicial activist Justices would likely negate it through their own twisted reading.

Associated articles: USA Today

Senators Poised to Confirm Dictator for Life with Little Dictator Experience

Washington, D.C.--Now that the Supreme Court is becoming increasingly packed with Justices who think it's their job to rewrite the Constitution by interpreting it in ways that fit their own policy preferences, the U.S. Senate is poised to confirm another dictator for life. But some are concerned this dictator for life has too little dictator experience.

President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan "has never been a judge," said one Senator, "and she's only written three law review articles in her long academic career. With that scant record, how are we supposed to know what policies she's going to impose on the rest of us during her unchecked lifetime tenure on the Court?"

Kagan is on record extolling socialism in her college thesis, opposing the presence of military recruiters on school campuses, and opposing the Defense of Marriage Act. "But beyond that," said another Senator, "we just don't know what she thinks. And I'm a little reluctant to vote for another oligarchical master without knowing exactly which freedoms I'm going to lose."

Associated articles: Washington Times; National Review; Daily Caller

Diversity Advocates Object to Obama's Nomination of "Yet Another Harvard Dweeb" to the Supreme Court

Washington, D.C.--With all the current Supreme Court Justices having gone to Ivy League law schools -- predominantly Harvard and Yale -- President Obama's nomination of "yet another total dweeb" to the nation's highest court deeply disappointed those advocating for more diversity on the federal bench.

"If Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan is approved by the Senate," said one frustrated advocate, "every single Supreme Court Justice will have gone to law school at either Harvard or Yale. Do we really want all the judicial arbiters of our constitutional freedoms to be pompous cocktail party a-holes?"

Responding to critics who questioned whether Obama had followed through on his promise to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would sympathize with ordinary Americans, White House officials assured reporters that "With Elena Kagan's seating on the Court, each and every Justice will know what it means to be down-and-out. After all, every year there's a losing team at the Harvard-Yale Regatta."

Associated articles: MSNBC; Washington Post

One-Fifth of Living Constitution to Retire at End of Supreme Court Term

Washington, D.C.--Today, one-fifth of the "Living Constitution" announced its retirement at the end of the Supreme Court's current term, as Justice John Paul Stevens said he would step down. Stevens, along with several other Justices, is a proponent of the of the notion that the meaning of the Constitution can change with the moods of each generation of Supreme Court Justices, as if the Constitution were a "living, breathing document."

"Although I take with me my portion of the Court's collective preferences," said one-fifth of the Living Constitution, "I fully expect that, in my place, President Obama will appoint another fitting vessel for the Supreme Borg who will help filter its understanding of what the Constitution should say. Resistance is futile."

Associated article: Associated Press

Justices Reminisce About Their Decision to Support the Government's Power to Take Your Property for No Good Reason, Destroy It, Laugh, Then Run Away

New London, Connecticut--Four years ago, a bare majority of five Supreme Court Justices decided the notorious case of Kelo v. New London and allowed the government to take private property away from people so it could give it to other private developers. But today, the revival project that led to the seizure of Susette Kelo's and her neighbors' houses has fallen through, leaving the entire community a bulldozed wasteland.

The Justices siding with the government in 2004 had called its plan "comprehensive" and "carefully formulated" to "provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." But since then, the plan fell apart after the company given the property decided to move its headquarters.

Those same Justices gathered recently on the gutted foundation of the former Kelo home to reminisce about the "bang up party" they had in Kelo's neighborhood.

Justice Kennedy enjoyed a beer with his colleagues and recalled, "Remember when Justice Stevens said the Constitution allowed the government to seize property for a private use, even when the Constitution's text says government can only take property for a public use, like a school or a road? That was a hoot!"

Justice Ginsburg ribbed her colleagues by saying they all may have taken it "a little too far that day," prodding Justice Stevens to say "Wow, we really trashed this place!"

But for the most part the old, lifetime-tenured jurists who rewrote the Constitution chalked up the Kelo case to, as Justice Breyer put it, "yet another great learning experience."

Associated article: Wall Street Journal

Movie Review -- “Return of the Living Constitution” (Spoiler alert!)

The next zombie-themed blockbuster horror flick is set for release the first Monday in October, but this reviewer received an advance screening of what’s shaping up to be one apocalyptic zombie tale set in the not-too-distant future.

“Return of the Living Constitution” begins at a prestigious law school, where Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia delivers a lecture on the role of a judge, properly understood, which he says is to apply technical interpretive tools to discern what voters or their elected representatives intended by their use of terms ratified as part of the Constitution or enacted into law.

“If the terms of the law are not largely fixed by their meaning as understood when the law was enacted,” says Scalia, “there can be no rule of law, because people will not be subject to rules commonly understood in advance, but rather to the whims of life-tenured judges that are impossible to predict in advance.”

As Scalia speaks, his academic audience, increasingly uneasy with his dry judicial vision, finds itself animated by a raw desire to go beyond the mere application of the law and impose their will on democratic majorities. This hunger quickly mutates into an insatiable lust to impose their political views through constitutional interpretation.

As the questions directed at Scalia grow increasingly unintelligible, and the audience begins to jerkily amble toward him, arms outstretched, Scalia escapes through a window. He gathers his originalist colleagues on the Supreme Court before vast hordes of law students, professors, and advocacy attorneys fill the streets, overturning mail boxes, lamp posts, and popularly enacted statutes that do not clearly violate the Constitution.

The zombies find leaders in the more activist Supreme Court Justices, who command them to overrun Congress and then head for the National Archives, where they intend to devour the U.S. Constitution, which they consider a “living, breathing” document.

Scalia and his originalist colleagues barricade the Archives doors with stacks of Founding-era documents, but the zombies tear through them. It soon becomes apparent that, unlike traditional zombies, these undead can only be killed by a blow to their “gut,” and not their head, as they’re motivated by empathy and “gut feeling” rather than thought.

Just as the swelling zombie hordes are about to reach our nation's founding document, Scalia distracts them with books compiling foreign legal precedents. Waving such volumes as “The Collected Decisions of Zimbabwe,” he temporarily diverts the advancing throngs with a tantalizing new source of interpretive power.

With the zombies otherwise occupied, Scalia grabs the sword from the hands of a nearby statute of “Lady Justice” and begins hacking undead guts in the same biting manner he pens his dissents.

The movie is campy fun for the most part. But by the end I couldn’t help feeling a real sense of dread.

Association article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753085258335815.html; associated video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6601447644448962468&ei=-WihSZXDGpHEqQL1xI3YDw&q=scalia&hl=en; see also http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117897142973835232&ei=iGmhSdOOOILorgLrjY3YDw&q=scalia&hl=en&emb=1