Black-Robed Lawyers vs. Everyone Else
Lawyers vs. Everyone Else
by Patricia Neill
SmuckWap Newsservice, Washington: The Supreme Court ruled
today that judges can do whatever the hell they want. In a landmark case, Black-Robed
Lawyers vs. Everyone Else, the justices handed down their inestimable judgment that since
lawyers in general and judges in particular are such fine examples of humanity, not to
mention smart enough to get through law school, judges can do whatever they please.
"The Rule of Law has ended," proclaimed Supreme
Court Justice Arrogant B. Astard, "and the Rule of Judges begins!"
Turning their shiny black backs on the rest of America,
the justices decided to toss out two hundred years of Constitutional law and indeed, to
rid themselves completely of having to heed the Constitution. "The law is what we say
it is," said Justice Whiney I. Diot, "It has been this way for some time now,
but with Black-Robed Lawyers vs. Everyone Else, we are coming out of our judicial closet.
No more arguments will be allowed from anyone, and we don't want to hear any more of your
complaining about your rights. In fact, any mention of so-called rights will guarantee you
100 years, hard labor." Justice K. Rupt Assin concurred in his opinion that
"judicial oligarchy has now fully come into its place in American history and will be
fully enforced by an iron rule of law, and remember, law is whatever we say it is."
The Center for People Who Want to Leave This Country
Because It Is Beginning to Look Too Much Like Nazi Germany analyzed the justices'
decision. "Judges now legally can put anyone in prison for any reason they want, for
as long as they want," states the analysis. Judges can also put jurors in prison for
"obstructing justice" and for anything else, including not handing the judge
whatever money they may have on them at the time. Jurors who don't behave exactly as the
judge desired have been persecuted in the past, but "now they can receive prison
terms much longer than their own lifespan added to the lifespan(s) of the defendant(s) in
The report also mentioned the justices' decision that
anyone who says disagreeable in their courtroom can be immediately arrested and jailed,
their property confiscated, and their spouses and children taken as "wards" of
the court under the justices own personal pleasure ... er... supervision.
The concept of separation of powers was addressed in the
Center's report on the decision. "There is no separation of powers," it reads,
"when not only all the justices are lawyers, so are all Congressmen and the
President, his wife, his cabinet, the entire Department of Justice, most lobbyists and
almost everyone else in Washington, D.C."
When questioned about what effect the decision would have
on all Americans, the spokesman for the Center said "I can't be certain. I suspect
that emigration rather than immigration will become a major concern. Those Americans who
are lawyers will be fine, for the most part. No one will ever again show up for jury duty.
But if we thought we had an overcrowded prison problem before, we're in for a major
© Patricia Neill, 1997
10 January, 1997
Patricia Neill's full archives can be read by clicking here.