Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Less Filling v. Tastes Great

The conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has once again moved the country to the right. In a surprising 5-4 split decision, the Court struck down a Washington, D. C. law banning handguns. Less noticed were a spate of other conservative split decisions which will likewise dramatically transform American society.

First up on the docket was Coke v. Pepsi, an ongoing dispute that has threatened for years to irreparably divide the nation. In a 5-4 split decision, the Court narrowly ruled in favor of the traditional pause that refreshes. Writing for the conservative majority, Chief Justice Roberts cited Coca-Cola’s longer history and distinctive bottle shape in ruling for the Atlanta-based beverage.

"It may not be as American as apple pie," wrote the Chief Justice. "But it’s clearly the next best thing. Plus, as far as I’m concerned, things really do go better with Coke."

In another leading beverage case (Less Filling v. Tastes Great), the Court again split along ideological lines in favor of the appellant. Voting 5-4, the Court wasted little time in reversing the lower court’s ruling in favor of Tastes Great.

"It’s light beer," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the conservative majority. "I’m not saying it tastes bad but it would be a travesty of justice to hold that it tastes great."

Boldly tackling the leading pop music issue of the day, the Court also handed down its decision in ‘N Sync v. Backstreet Boys. Given the proliferation of boy bands, it was essential that the nation’s top jurists give direction to this current musical trend.

In yet another 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of ‘N Sync. Citing earlier precedents in Lettermen v. Crewcuts, Four Tops v. Temptations and Beatles v. Dave Clark Five, Mr. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, cited ‘N Sync’s superior harmonies and boyish good looks as determinative.

In the world of fast food, the Supreme Court took on the thorny case of Domino’s v. Pizza Hut. Again splitting along ideological lines (the conservative "eat-ins" vs. the more liberal "take-outs"), the Court ruled 5-4 for the respondent.

"We know Pizza Hut. We like Pizza Hut. Pizza Hut rules," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas for the majority. "And therefore we rule for Pizza Hut."

Given its heavy workload, the Supreme Court was unable to hear a number of other pressing matters of popular interest this term. However, it is likely that space will be cleared on the upcoming fall docket for such important cases as Leno v. Letterman, Fahrenheit v. Celsius and Smart Bush v. Dumb Bush.

No comments: