Is Judicidorkery a word?

The Supremes are teaching Americans a lesson and it’s that America’s got Talent! 
They have proven by an rambling legalistical formulation drawn from a massively confusing rug of mis-woven regulations, thick with tortured paragraphs and water-boarded dangling participles, that they are truly the third playing-party of .GOV and not exactly an independent or impartial arbiter – since Congress only has to lay-down and pass such a thick and tawdry (2,000 un-read pages) excretion, pebbled with undigested bits of non-aligned thinking and regurgitated kernels of misdirecting caveats, folded-over and funneled into a contorted conclusion, to trip and slip-on as they stumble over it before they finally arrive on stage, ready to tell the long-long joke.
What DO you call an act like that? – I call it ‘The Judicicrats’.

About NotClauswitz

The semi-sprawling adventures of a culturally hegemonic former flat-lander and anti-idiotarian individualist, fleeing the toxic cultural smug emitted by self-satisfied lotus-eating low-land Tesla-driving floppy-hat wearing lizadroid-Leftbat Califorganic eco-tofuistas ~

3 thoughts on “Is Judicidorkery a word?

  1. Anonymous – Welcome to the new era of jurisprudence (sans the prudence), where the Constitution is just an old piece of paper, and what matters more is going along with the flow….
    My hair-pulling confusion is this: How could they NOT sink it, solely because of the mandate? And if this flies, what else can the Feds mandate?
    Where does it end?


  2. Geez – you were about as verbally obscure as the ACA! I can say it in a lot less: the “supremes” have just lost any semblance of credibility. Judges are supposed to be able to suspend their personal beliefs/biases and rule strictly on the merits of the law – NOT their 'interpretation' of the 'facts'. They are an abysmal failure.


Comments are closed.