Oh No! Obama Picks Liberal, Jewish Woman Who May Or May Not Be A Real Live Lezzie As Next Supreme Bench Warmer

So the world came to a screeching halt last night when the lamestream media made it official (even if the White House didn't) that President Barack Obama had chosen the next Supreme robe to fill the large, liberal shoes of John Paul Stevens, who after decades of dedicated bench warming, was apparently ready to return to his hard rock roots, and reunite with his old band Led Zeppelin. Or something like that.

In any event, the important news is that Elena Kagan, former Harvard Law School Dean, U.S. Solicitor General (whatever that is), and Larry Summers look-a-like has been called upon by President Obama to help steer the Bushwhacked Court out of the Dark Ages and back on normal, 21st century course.

In Kagan, Barry's got all the fixin's: liberal, but not kumbaya kooky liberal, Jewish (so no more kvetching about Israel or Barry loving Muslims!), an actual ovary-possessing, albeit manly female (grrrrrrl power?), with the added mystery of sexual ambiguity (closeted lezzie, or run-of-the-mill homely woman?) to boot.

When it comes to the hottttt topic of Miss Kagan's fuzzy sexual orientation, it appears the jury's still out (no pun intended).

Logically, Elena Kagan is pretty much a sure-fire bet for confirmation, (sketchy closet-case or not).

Truth is, there are only so many things Kagan can possibly be, aside from a smart lady lawyer or judge of some kind.

There's always the possibility that she's a full-on lesbian, whose special lady friend is an "open secret," but who nonetheless backs equal rights for the entire GLBT community, except apparently career legal minds with, umm, shall we say, Supreme aspirations?

Which I guess would make her the first, sort-of out-of-the-closet gay Supreme Court Justice. Hooray?

Of course, the weird, awkward silence around Kagan's sexual orientation could also mean our newest Justice is bisexual, although something tells me the woman's not exactly "tearing it up" with either gender, so the assumption that she's playing for both teams seems slightly far fetched, but hey for all we know, the gal could be the Mickey Mantle of the other, all-time greatest switch-hitting list.

Stranger things have happened, no? Glenn Beck as a voice of reason on the right, Sarah Palin having an "actual" job, John McCain being a maverick, Michael Steele as a competent leader, the list goes on and on.

Then again, considering the White House's hysterical, furious response, treating the lesbian rumors swirling around their beloved nominee as if they were alleging pedophilia, necrophilia bestiality, or God-knows-whatever is worse than being a terrible queer, perhaps Elena Kagan is simply an unattractive straight woman with the misfortune of looking exactly like a post-op version of Larry Summers, after his M-to-F surgery.

But thanks to the sage wisdom of the Grand Old Party, the biggest opposition to Kagan, isn't even her questionable gayness, but rather her crazy, liberal belief that the original U.S. Constitution was "defective" because of the whole 3/5ths, blacks-as-slaves thing, as evidenced by her support of Thurgood Marshall's statement on the subject.

Ha ha, as if the first black Supreme Court Justice is qualified to speak on such matters.

Clearly, the only person allowed to speak on matters of race and racial inequality in America is off-the-hook, hip-hop RNC Chairman of Youth and Lesbian bondage clubs, Michael Steele. For reals, yo!

"Given Kagan's opposition to allowing military recruiters access to her law school’s campus, her endorsement of the liberal agenda and her support for statements suggesting that the Constitution ‘as originally drafted and conceived, was defective,’ you can expect Senate Republicans to respectfully raise serious and tough questions…"

Tough, hard-hitting questions like when is it okay for Republicans to oppose a Supreme Court nominee for umm, how shall we say this, not being overly concerned with hiring minorities and women over equally qualified white men, the very same affirmative-action ballyhoo conservatives detest and hold in typical white male contempt?

Why, when the nominee is an evil Democrat, of course!

But it takes a really big tent to simultaneously stand up for the awesome Confederacy and its proud tradition of enslaving black people, and bitch and moan about a potential Supreme Court nominee not hiring enough black people during her tenure as Dean of Harvard Law School.

Kagan, whose leadership at Harvard Law marked an unprecedented expansion of the program’s faculty, hired 32 tenured and tenure-track faculty. With one exception, all were white; only seven were women ….

To be sure, conservatives, who as a matter of principle oppose racial quotas for the purposes of hiring or admitting, will be wary of legitimizing such an attack. But with a limited body of published work to her credit–which is to say, nothing at all–the metrics by which the Senate may judge Kagan’s judicial temperament are limited.

Eh, like that's ever stopped them before. Besides, they much prefer to just make sh*t up anyway. Sooooo much easier that way!

Either way, the White House is pumped about its pantsuit-wearing, Pat-like pick, not named Hillary Clinton.

"Widely regarded as one of the nation’s leading legal minds, Solicitor General Elena Kagan has forged a path-breaking career in the law and in government service, distinguishing herself throughout by her penetrating intellect, unwavering integrity, sound judgment and prodigious work ethic."

OMG!!! "Penetrating intellect, unwavering integrity, sound judgment, and prodigious work ethic??"

Well, well no wonder Republicans can't stand the gal.

She's everything they hate, rolled into one big, butch, flannel and/or pantsuit wearing package. Minus the frilly bow, of course.

Oh, and sorry, Michael, she doesn't do leather or bondage...yet!

Justice Is Blind...If Only Someone Invented A Language Of Dots To Overcome This Affliction

Ah yes, the mighty Supreme Court, the ultimate judicial body on all issues, including final interpretive authority on laws relating to technology across this great land. Hooray!

So while these nine justices--the brightest legal minds in the country--may be well versed when it comes to matters of Stare Decisis, ask 'em about Sega Genesis, and all you get are nine stumped robes with decisive stares.

During oral arguments in the case City of Ontario v. Quon, which considers whether police officers had an expectation of privacy in personal (and sexually explicit) text messages sent on pagers issued to them by the city, the savvy minds of the Supreme Court appeared to have difficulty wrapping their thick robes around all this crazy new technology, like electronic mail, cell phones, the series of tubes called the Internets, and those typewriter thingy's that come with a screen, DC's or PC's or something like that.

"The first sign was about midway through the argument, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.--who is known to write out his opinions in long hand with pen and paper instead of a computer (and bitch about meany black presidents not named Bush)--asked what the difference was 'between email and a pager?'"

Ummm, let's see, how shall we explain this in a way someone of his age, who still uses a legal pad instead of an iPad, will understand?

You use email for contacting the wifey (like what time she should have your dinner ready), while a pager is for contacting the mistress (like which by-the-hour motel to meet you at), and never the twain shall meet! Capisce?

Wow. Perhaps you should loosen your robe, Juris Doctor Roberts, I think it may be cutting off your oxygen supply, unless it's your W-era software that is the problem.

He must still be runnin' Windows Operating System Bush 2.0. That one was full of bugs, coding errors, and compatibility problems outside the U.S, 'cept for Poland, Marshall Islands, El Salvadore, Azerbaijan, and other 'tech-savvy' Coalition of the Willing members with no standing armies or digital infrastructures to tweet of.

Go on?

Certainly one of other spry, young whippersnappers on the high court (besides the 55-year-young Chief) are familiar with all this off-the-hook youth technology apart from electricity and indoor plumbing.

Like 73-year old Supreme Court "tween," Justice Anthony Kennedy who asked what would happen if a text message was sent to an officer at the same time he was sending one to someone else.

"Does it say: 'Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you?'" Kennedy asked.

I emailed him to ask if he was really that technologically ignorant, but just kept getting this weird beeping sound. Maybe I'll have more luck sending smoke signals or carrier pigeons!?

Perhaps sprightly 74-year-old Justice Antonin Scalia could help enlighten the rest of us luddites with all this cutting edge mumbo jumbo like service providers.

"You mean the text doesn’t go right to me?" Scalia asked.

Oh sh*t! Now everyone will see the sweet nothings me and Clary send each other while chillaxin' in our robes discussing a certain illegal Kenyan's birth certificate late night in the chambers when no one's around to disturb us.

Then he asked whether they can be printed out in hard copy, using one of them devil machines.

"Could Quon print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies?" Scalia asked, fantasizing about the spicy little supper wife Maureen better be whippin' up, lest she wants the spicy little belt whippin' again.

But fear not, America! It wasn't just the justices who had technical difficulties.

When Justice Samuel Alito asked Quon’s attorney Dieter Dammeier if officers could delete text messages from their pagers in a way that would prevent the city from retrieving them from the wireless carrier later, Dammeier said that they could.

Apparently, Alito still wasn't satisfied, but unlike during President Obama's State of the Union address, did manage to contain himself from convulsing violently and mouthing "No, No!"

A few minutes later, Alito gave Dammeier another shot at that question, asking him, "Are you sure about your answer on deletion?"

Dammeier admitted that he didn't know. "I couldn't be certain," he said.

What is certain however, is that these living fossils do come in color. Kind of. If you count Clarence Thomas as "black," Scalia's fat red face, or Roberts and Alito's purplish rage whenever Comrade Barry calls them out for reversing a century of legal precedent, so Uncle Ben (the rice maker) can donate as much campaign money as Ben's Uncle (with the pace maker), just like our Founding Fathers™ intended.

Either way, looks like this justice system needs to reboot, reset, and restart. Otherwise, it's Game Over for the rest of us non-Apple II GS users. But be patient. This new dial-up takes a few minutes to load.

But, that's okay, we have all the time in the world. A whole lifetime to be exact.

Hail To The Chief? The Supreme Power Of Those In Power

Supreme Court Chief Justice Jagoff, John Roberts and his famously understated, chic, side-sweep hairdo are very upset!

And not just cause ol' blue eyes misses his favoritest mentor and surrogate pop George W. Bush, who handpicked him of all the lawyers in the land to become the new, non-ancient, unqualified, straight-shootin' son of a right-wing gun the administration needed to fill the big, spit-shined shoes left by William Rehnquist upon his passage to the sweet kingdom in the clouds. Not even!

But because of that terrible meany Barack Obama, who unlike Georgy pants, never wants to have fun or play in the sandbox with Scalia out back, or do anything cool like they used to when Bush was still roaming the Oval Office, looking for someone to arm wrestle besides Laura and Miss Beazley. He's already beat Laura like a million times, and paws don't really count as arms!

It all started when President Obama, in a break from tradition, called out the stoic black robes in the front row for their recent Citizens United ruling that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates during his annual State of the Union Address.

"With all due deference to the separation of powers the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said.

"Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that corrects some of these problems."

How dare the leader of the free world suggest Congress use our constitutional system of checks and balances to attempt to put together a legislative fix to rectify the Supreme Court's reckless decision to give Pringles, Coca Cola, Exxon Mobil, Doritos, and Mr. Clean more political sway than any poor schlub with a voting card but no corporate one??

Naturally, Chief Justice John WAHberts is crying foul over President NObama's horrifying decision to single out the recent Supreme Court decision to reverse a century of legal precedent, allowing companies and other special interests to spend as much as their greedy little corporate-branded hearts desire in our elections.

Apparently, Mr. Goody Two-Shoes Obama doesn't think it is such a good idea to let Uncle Ben (of rice fame) be able to spend the same amount as Ben's Uncle (of repairman fame) in deciding who gets to be the next U.S. president. Party-pooper!

Of course, Captain of the High Court, Dread Justice Roberts believes anyone is welcome to criticize the court, and some even have an obligation to do so because of their positions. Just not the President, and not during highly publicized events like State of the Union Addresses when people might actually see the President belittle the good justices of the court, holding all nine accountable for their decisions affecting every citizen in the country.

"So I have no problems with that," Roberts said in response to a University of Alabama law student's question.

"On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court - according the requirements of protocol - has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Except for that one robot-in-Justice-clothes, Samuel Alito, who protocol be damned, just couldn't control his petty human urges to protest being chastised by the president on prime-time teevee, and resorted to a Joe Wilson-like temper tantrum, complete with furious head-shaking and silent shouts of the words "not true, not true" in the hopes that someone would see the humanity obscured by layers of tight terrycloth and a deep disdain for the rest of the dopey public not bright enough to snag a coveted spot on the bench.

Indeed, John Roberts is shocked (shocked!) over how much the State of the Union address has "degenerated to a political pep rally." Which everyone knows is only permissible when it is Republicans doing the pepping.

In fact, Roberts doesn't even understand why the Supreme Court Justices have to attend these long, boring State of the Union speeches at all.

"I'm not sure why we're there," he said.

Of course, he could always go the Justice Antonin Scalia route and refuse to attend such things because the justices "sit there like bumps on a log" while all the attention is hogged by Mr. Hot Shot President.

And also because Scalia a total dick, second only to that other former vice presidential Dick. And as such, can't stand being around actual humans, 'cept that one beautiful reflection he sees in mirrors and windows.

Well, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs isn't about to sit back and let some mannequins dressed in legal drag say what is troubling and what is not.

"What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections - drowning out the voices of average Americans," Gibbs said. "The President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."

Whatever.

I mean why should they be held responsible for their disastrous ruling that rapes years of legal precedent, and the very democratic process this country was founded upon?

Just because they make the law, doesn't mean they have to follow it. Silly NObama, don't you know anything?

Like how their motto, "Equal Justice Under Law" really means "Every Justice Above Law."

After all, Justice For Life=Life Without Justice.

'Tis the golden rule. Unless they feel like changing it. Or doing away with it altogether.

That's what makes them Supreme.

All Hail Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini

DC Bids Farewell To One Of Its Most Eligible Bachelors, Justice David Souter!

Sound the alarms, America! Justice David Souter is retiring. Yes, one of the many Supreme Court Justices you've never heard of has decided to call it quits at the spry, young age of 69, which is really like tween in justice years.

So, if Souter isn't leaving cause he's too old or too sick or just can't stand the idea of looking at Scalia's ugly mug for one more second, why on God's green earth is our dear Justice departing?

Turns out, the man hates our fair capital city and even though he's thankful for the twenty years he's spent having "the world's best job in the world's worst city," it is time to for Mr. Souter to reunite with his first love, the state of New Hampshire.

It's where all hip, liberal former Supreme Court justices go to live out the rest of their wild "most eligible bachelor" days in robeless peace and obscurity. You never know, he may even switch from fountain pen to ball point. After all, you only live once!