28 Jun

Majority declares that law is “really long and boring”; justices “super-confused”

WASHINGTON—In a decision that surprised many, the Supreme Court today failed to overturn Obama’s signature health-care reform, explaining in a carefully written decision that the law was “extremely long and hard to read,” and that the Court had been up late the night before and “just couldn’t get through the whole thing.”

Justice Elena Kagan explained that “we were going to try to read the law, but it’s, like, two thousand pages long.” Justice Stephen Breyer, in a concurring opinion, noted that “it was a really good TV night, too.”

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, observed that “this is a really complex topic, and to be honest, we aren’t really sure what to make of it all.” Discussing the hotly-contested individual mandate, Roberts wrote that “we didn’t quite get what that was all about.”

Legal scholars were quick to parse the verdict. “The justices seem to be saying something here, but to be honest, I tuned out about six months ago,” explained Professor Stephen Natritt of the University of Minnesota. “I think this means we’re going to have more health care than before, or something.”

Republican critics of the law were quick to respond. “This is terrible news for America, I think,” said conservative pundit George Habberblash of the Heritage Foundation. Other Republicans were quick to note that perhaps Obamacare, as the bill had been dubbed by opponents, was an insufficiently inflammatory nickname, and they vowed to campaign against Obama’s other signature achievements in his first term, the Let the Terrorists Win Statute and the Kicking Puppies Act.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was also fierce in his criticism. “Obamacare is wrong for America,” he said, stating his position unambiguously. “The only way to salvage this twisted train wreck would be to make some cosmetic changes and then implement it at a state level.” Romney then went on to both support and oppose immigration reform.

The Court’s admission that it had not read the entire law before making its decision angered a number of key players in Washington, although on closer examination, it turned out that none of them had read the law, either. Journalists quickly flipping through the text of the legislation were surprised to find that more than two hundred pages in the middle of the Act were in fact just a photocopied excerpt from Stephanie Rice’s Twilight.

“Since none of us actually understood the issue, we figured that a 5-4 decision with an angry dissent was our best option,” explained Justice Antonin Scalia.

Added Justice Clarence Thomas, “Since none of us actually understood the issue, we figured that a 5-4 decision with an angry dissent was our best option.”

Many observers had expected the announcement to come as early as Monday, but the decision was delayed after a tense deliberation session in which the Court’s Magic 8-Ball twice came up “Reply hazy, try again.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: