Written by Gee Pee
Rating:
Share/Bookmark
Print this

Tuesday, 7 March 2017

image for SCOTUS: Jurors must justify their deliberations
Court split yet again

WHITEWASHINGTON, DC -- In a God-like pronouncement, the US Supreme Court ruled, by a 5-3 vote, that jurors are no longer allowed to deliberate in secret.

Now, to prevent "prejudice" and "bias" in trials involving illegal aliens or other "protected minorities," jurors must undergo involuntary hypnotism by court-appointed shrinks in order to determine whether their votes concerning a "minority" defendant were influenced or determined by racism.

Most likely, in cases involving "undocumented immigrants," Chief Justice John Roberts ordained, the answer to such questions is likely to be "an unqualified yes." (Roberts is the same justice whose deciding vote forced the gigantic phallus of Obummercare, also known as the Unaffordable Careless Act, down American citizens' throats.)

In addition, in order to subject "racist" jurors to public scorn and possible death threats, they may also be identified in public records as bigots.

Although the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that jurors have an absolute right to privacy and that involuntary hypnotism is an invasion of this right, not to mention an act of "mental rape" akin to the body cavity and strip searches conducted on American airline passengers who are suspected of being sexually ambiguous, Chief Justice Roberts said, "People have no rights at all of any kind unless we say they do."

He said, further, that we live in times "similar to those of the days of slavery," when Democrats donned their KKK robes and spent their leisure hours lynching African Americans. (Although he dissented from the Court's majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said he felt his treatment by Congress during the confirmation of his nomination was an "electronic lynching.")

The Court didn't bother to set a standard for determining what constitutes a "racist state of mind," allowing shrinks to decide this matter for themselves. "Every racist is different," Roberts whined, and psychologists must decide who's a bigot on an individual, if somewhat subjective, basis."

Writing the dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said, "No one will serve on a jury now that five of you have called every potential juror a racist and a bigot. I'm afraid you will call the three of us who dissent from your decision racists, too. For the record, we are not bigots."

The Court's ruling, he added, is likely to "open the floodgates to illegal aliens, who can no longer be punished in America."

"That's the whole idea," Roberts observed.

Make Gee Pee's day - give this story five thumbs-up (there's no need to register, the thumbs are just down there!)

The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious.

Do you dream of being a comedy news writer? Click here to be a writer!


More by this writer

View Story
View Story
View Story
View Story
View Story
View Story

Share/Bookmark

Mailing List

Get Spoof News in your email inbox!

Email:

What's 3 multiplied by 2?

5 6 17 16
79 readers are online right now!

Go to top

We use cookies to give you the best experience, this includes cookies from third party websites and advertisers.

Continue ? Find out more