WASHINGTON, D.C.--In a seven to two decision today, the Supreme Court declared the long-time tradition of adult swim, during which a swimming pool is emptied of anyone under the age of 18 so the adults can swim without interference for ten to fifteen minutes each hour, to be unconstitutional. The majority who supported the decision cited a little known provision of the 14th Amendment, known more commonly as the "Equal Protection in the Swimming Hole" clause, which reads, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or his or her swimming hole, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection in the swimming hole."
In an amicus brief filed by the Children's Defense Fun, child prodigy and lawyer Kellie McNolty argued, "This law clearly violates the Equal Protection in the Swimming Hole clause of the 14th Amendment. And though the 14th Amendment, as originally written, covered only swimming holes at the time, it's no stretch to say that it applies equally, in 2014, to cement swimming pools both private and public. Besides," Kellie whimpered, "why should adults have all the fun?"
Harold Osborne, the Attorney General for Indiana who argued for the legitimacy of adult swim laws in the Hoosier State, pointed out, "'Citizens' does not include everyone under the age of 18." Osborne elaborated: "Should we now allow teenagers to frequent bars because, one might suppose, they are being discriminated against because of their age? Or should we remove all age limits from sex shops? My God!! What is this country coming to under Obama?"
Antonin Scalia, known by his colleagues as Jabba the Hut for his convivial love of conversation and food, was one of the two dissenters in this case. Arguing from a strict constructionist point of view, Scalia explained, "A swimming hole, in the late 1860s when the 14th Amendment was passed, meant, usually, a farm pond or river where most Americans, at the time, swam. Had the 14th Amendment been designed to cover cement swimming pools back then, it would have specified 'cement swimming pools,' and not merely 'swimming holes.' We must respect the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment."
The other dissenter in the case, Clarence Thomas, when asked why he dissented, only replied, "What he said."
