Levity Regarding Judge Roberts

By way of VoCon, check out this hilarious riff on Judge Roberts' views of the Third Amendment (the largely forgotten, relatively anachronistic (or is it?) anti-quartering provision).

A judicial nominee with no record (or even a demo tape) on an issue without Supreme Court precedent is considered by numerous liberal thought leaders to be a conservative smart bomb that could have devastating fallout on decades of liberal court rulings.

Indeed, Judge Roberts has never spoken publicly on the Third Amendment. Moreover, thousands of pages of documents surrendered to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and there subjected to ideological litmus tests, handwriting analysis and even infrared proctospectrology, yield no clues beyond the vexing secret Federalist Society code that Roberts is alleged to deploy when numbering his points in complex opinions.

Like most of the Bill of Rights, the Third Amendment is deceptively simple, consisting of only 32 words, four commas and a period: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

“How can any American sleep at night not knowing in advance how the Chief Justice will rule on such a consequential issue?” asked Nan Aron, President of the Alliance for Justice (occasionally confused with DC Comics’ Justice League of America). Aron is generally regarded as the most rotund legal mind in more than 100 liberal special interest groups that provide substantial political and financial support to liberal politicians. It has never been alleged that sexual favors are sought in return for those contributions.

Later, the article posits an autocratic property occupying conspiracy built upon the toxic combination of the unregarded Third Amendment and the Court's recent Takings Clause decision in Kelo v. New London.

Amusingly, today I happen to have worn for my ride in to work my T-shirt featuring Justice Thomas' increasingly infamous quote in dissent to that case, which reads: "Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution." Yes, I realize that I will never ever ever have sex with anyone who sees me in that shirt. And actually I have no excuse whatsoever for wearing it, in light of that fact. Maybe I'll ride home in my oxford.