SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018)

In Re Bill Cosby

Justice Bart Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court.

I.

While the world was distracted by the circus and character assassination they called my confirmation hearing, Bill Cosby, an American icon and hero, was convicted of sexual assault. This decision, my first as a Supreme Court Justice, will address this travesty.

This decision will review accusations made not only in the criminal case, but also those in pending civil actions and the court of public opinion. The allegations arise from various accusers, to whom I will collectively refer as Jane Doe Alumnus.

My unilateral decision to fast-track Mr. Cosby’s case before this Court, without any formal granting of certiaori or other needless, time-consuming procedures, is justified by the simple fact that as I type these words, the beloved man we know as Dr. Huxtable rots away in a cell.

II.

Bill Cosby is a good man. I liked Bill. Still like Bill.  Some people question if I ever liked Bill too much. What do the charts say? Only that his TV show, The Cosby Show, was one of the most successful sitcoms of all time.

The Cosby Show first aired in 1984, or 34 years ago. I have a vivid recollection of this, which should not be surprising considering it falls within the statute of limitations for reliable memories, which I hereby hold to be 35 years. (Consequently, any memory from 1982 or earlier shall, from this day forward, be considered 100% unreliable.)

On September 20, 1984, while performing bicep curls in front of the TV, I witnessed for the first time, Dr. Huxtable, in one of his trademark, ralph-inducing sweaters, saunter across my screen while delivering a succession of hilarious lines. It triggered in me an uproarious laughter, for which I am well-recognized. The impression made upon me was so significant that the only natural response was to tenderly set down my dumbbell and jot down that impression on my calendar, which I keep near me at all times like a security blanket.

The excited utterance joyfully scribbled that day reads as follows: “Mr. Cosby does not strike me as a serial rapist.” While such a spontaneous pronouncement alone may not be dispositive of this case, it is an important factor to weigh among the totality of circumstances, especially considering my father, who was next to me on that fateful day, wrote the exact same utterance on his calendar as well.

III.

When examining the credibility of Mr. Cosby, especially pertinent is the fact he was the captain of his youth basketball team.  In contrast, noticeably lacking in the record is what capacity, if any, Jane Doe Alumnus served on her basketball team.[1]  After all, if an accuser cannot deliver a bounce pass between the legs of a tenacious defender, then that accuser, a fiorti, cannot deliver credible allegations of what arose between the legs of a tenacious defendant.

Further, Mr. Cosby has been married for over 50 years and has fathered five children. No reasonable person would dispute that on at least one prior occasion, a voluntary decision to have sexual relations with Mr. Cosby was made. This Court recognizes the doctrine of stare decisis as fundamental to our judicial system. Thus, we commend Mr. Cosby’s astute jurisprudence when he “let the decision stand” by applying past consensual precedent to all subsequent encounters – notwithstanding the identity, or consciousness, of the encounterees.

IV.

Certain statements by Mr. Cosby have been wrongfully construed as confessions. Any alleged confession, however, especially when uttered in the presence of other males, must be viewed in the context of traditional notions of testosterone-inspired banter and substantial exaggeration, i.e., locker-room talk.  (See id. of executive branch; see also ego and super ego of same.) It would be a fallacy to accept as true all phallus-inspired innuendos.

Thus, any lack of decorum motivated by said phallus is hereby deemed  dicktum, and  has no binding impact on this Court’s perception of a man’s credibility, nor virility.

V.

Whether the number of accusers is 60, or let’s says, hypothetically, three, is not material. What is material is whether the allegations could be corroborated by an investigation that is expansive and unlimited in scope, kind of like an ocean, or the sky. Unfortunately, here, the tight restrictions made the investigation more reminiscent of a narrow stairway.

If the investigation had been broadened, the evidence would have demonstrated Mr. Cosby is a family man incapable of the accused crimes. Numerous witnesses would have vouched for Mr. Cosby. But of those interviewed, I saw no mention of likely supporters such as Mr. Cosby’s family members, or crucial character witnesses, including but not limited to: Theo, Vanessa, Rudy, or even Dwayne Wayne.

VI.

It is not my style of jurisprudence to place a metaphorical palm over the mouth of any dissenting voice, especially that of a woman. To demonstrate this, in good faith, I actually read the shrill, dissenting opinion of Justice Sotamayor.

Alluding to jurisdictional issues, Justice Sotamayor questions whether I reviewed Article III of the Constitution. My response to her is as follows: “Have you?” “HAVE YOU?!!!”

Like myself, Alumnus Sotamayor graduated from Yale Law School. But a crucial distinction separates us. I graduated top of my class. I busted my butt every night, while I doubt Sotamayor even paid attention in class. This would explain her memory lapse of the commerce clause. In fact, I would not be surprised if she blacked out entirely during civil procedure — although I cannot be certain of this, as, for the record, I have zero personal knowledge of what “blacking out” feels or looks like.

The constitutional basis for review of the present case is clear. The allegations against Mr. Cosby have had a detrimental impact on interstate commerce — specifically, sales of Fat Albert t-shirts on Amazon’s website have plummeted since allegations against Mr. Cosby first appeared.  Moreover, leveled against Mr. Cosby are allegations that he made minimum contacts in all 50 states with females of various ethnicities, thereby invoking diversity jurisdiction.

Lastly, considering nearly half this country grew up watching Dr. Huxtable, whether Defendant is relegated to sucking Jell-O Pudding Pops in prison for the remainder of his life is indeed a national concern, and thus, constitutes a FFFFederal Question. (Emphasis added.)

VII.

The only conclusion supported by the evidence before us is the existence of a conspiracy to take down powerful men, who are quickly becoming endangered like the once proud lions that roamed the African savanna.  In an act of judicial conservation, I hereby hold that Men Undeservedly Facing Accusations of Sexual Assault (MUFASAs) to be a new protected class under federal law.

States attempting to provide sanctuary to predatory poachresses of MUFASAs are on notice. There will be no more tolerance of such laws, which have only proven to be prejudicial to the probative conduct that men have a right to enjoy in the privacy of their own bedrooms. In other words, this Court, with the full support of the executive branch, will flex its federal muscle and trump any sissified state statutes that have forgotten the meaning of “supremacy.”

VIII.

In sum, Mr. Cosby has been wrongfully accused in multiple forums. Affirming the allegations against him would result in a miscarriage of justice. This Court will not allow such a miscarriage to occur.[2]

For the reasons stated above, the allegations against Mr. Cosby are hereby REVERSED, REMANDED, and REBOOFED.

————————————————————————————————————————–

[1] This is relevant because playing basketball correlates with peaceful, law-abiding conduct. See, e.g., Chris Dudley.

[2] This holding applies to miscarriages not only of justice, but also of human fetuses and embryos, including self-induced miscarriages, i.e. abortions, thereby, meaning, this footnote you are reading just overturned Roe v. Wade , sucker.

 

*While it should be painfully obvious the above is intended as satire and for humorous purposes only, due to the author’s anxiety about the impartiality and temperament of certain judges, he feels this disclaimer is depressingly necessary: none of the above should be interpreted as fact. …Sigh.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s