Washington DC - Shocking news out of the capitol today as America gets set to celebrate 50 years of integrated schools brought on by the landmark Brown v. Board of Education. In what can only be described as unprecedented, the Supreme Court has reversed the case in nearly unanimous fashion.
In a one hundred and fifty page affirmation, Chief Justice William Rehnquist vociferously explained the Court's ruling: "We were pretty much all tired of what this case had come to stand for. In no other part of the society does racial intermingling occur. From churches to work places, people pretty much like to stay with their own kind," the document began. Judge Rehnquist went on to say that people should be "honest with themselves. This thing is costing us millions each year with all of the bussing here and there and the constant legal challenges; nipping this thing where we did is really best for all parties."
Evidently this ruling had been approved for months now and was intentionally released to coincide with the historic 50th anniversary. "We knew that this would turn a few heads in our direction. As one of the three separate but equal bodies that make up the U.S. Government, we felt like our branch was getting short-changed in the media ever since Bush took office. And the irony of the whole thing; We gave him that presidency. What a prick."
This will surely grab national headlines and change the landscape of public education perhaps more than the original ruling in 1954.
The one dissenting opinion came from Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justice John Paul Stevens spoke to the press on behalf of the unavailable Thomas, "I dissent from the Court's decision to overrule Brown v. Board of Education (1954). I believe that the Court's adoption of a new interpretation of the case's core issues is not backed by sufficiently persuasive reasoning to overrule long-established precedent. Its decision casts a mantle of uncertainty over future...' blah blah blah - we get the picture C.T.; don't be afraid to take a breath now and then. Am I right?"
"We all kind of knew Chuck was going to go against us on this one," Justice Anthony Scalia said. "He didn't really give a shit about the case. It was more because he was still sore at all of us for locking him up in the utility closet last week. He's afraid of the dark what a pussy."
Ruth Bader Ginsburg distanced herself publicly from the "yes" vote but did elaborate on what factors played a role in her decision. "Well I don't specifically remember that vote. Most likely it was on a Wednesday; that's the day I let my hair down, get blasted, and go au natural under my robe."
The public outcry has yet to reach a fevered pitch across the country. Many experts agree that since school has let out for the summer across most of the country, people won't be aware of the implications of this new ruling for at least three months.
USA Today chief legal expert Tom Gordon speculated on the relatively small backlash this decision has brought about. "There really haven't been that many protest. We thought Al Sharpton was going to show, but it seems the good Reverend has gone Hollywood. Evidently he's in meetings right now with a few studio execs about a new cable TV show and doesn't want to get his hands dirty." Gordon added that since most of the general public stopped reading three to four years ago, "these kinds of Washington fat-cat policy thingies tend to go largely unnoticed."
The hard and fast realities of the Brown v. Board of Education overturning may not be fully felt for years to come and even then it remains to be seen how those affected by the changes will make their voices heard. It appears, for the Supreme Court's money, the disenfranchised won't do a damn thing.
In the summation of the opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist did take pause and reflect on the possibilities of the court's actions. It was determined that "in the past, when the separation of classes widens to an unbearable level, the political air becomes heavy with revolution - the French bourgeoisie struck over bread. I predict that America's uniqueness to be unfazed by important domestic events and pacified by political lip service and reality television makes this otherwise irresponsible move by the Court not such a big deal after all."