U. S. v. Anheuser-Busch

     It’s now official; Brett Kavanaugh has been sworn in as the latest Associate Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court. For those wondering how he’ll perform, here’s a look at some likely future decisions by Justice Kavanaugh:

U. S. v. Anheuser-Busch

     This is an anti-trust action against Anheuser-Busch, brewer of many fine beers including Budweiser and Bud Light. As a subsidiary of AB InBev, Anheuser-Busch is alleged to have abused its dominant market position. However, as a longtime fan of beer in general and Bud Light in particular, I cannot countenance any divesting or breakup of this fine company. When I was young, I liked beer. I still like beer and, in my opinion, the best way to ensure a ready supply of that golden nectar throughout this great land of ours is to let Anheuser-Busch do what it does best: make beer.

Clinton v. Clinton

     As noted by counsel on both sides, it is highly unusual to have a divorce action elevated to the Supreme Court. But, when it comes to the Clintons, nothing is unusual. Some have suggested that I recuse myself from this case because of my comment that the Democrats’ attack on my nomination was “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.” All I can say to that is “nonsense.” My many years on the bench have taught me to be completely fair and totally impartial which is why I vote to dismiss both claims and award costs against both parties.

Underwood v. Trump

     The New York State Attorney General initiated criminal proceedings against President Donald Trump based on allegations of tax avoidance and fraud. Apart from the fact that I can’t believe that our president would engage in such actions, I feel compelled to note that, in my opinion, it is clear that this Court cannot entertain criminal charges against a sitting president at least not while he is still in office. And even after that, I think I would find it hard to allow such proceedings given my personal knowledge of the defendant and his sterling reputation.

U . S. v. Judge, Tobin, Squi et al.

     This is an appeal of a sexual assault case involving several young men and an anonymous female victim based on alleged incidents from the 1980s. Notwithstanding that there is no statutory limitation on bringing such charges in the state of Maryland, I think there really ought to be. In any event, the prosecution’s case rested primarily on testimony referring to such actions as “boofing” and “Devil’s Triangle.” Given that the former only refers to flatulence and the latter is a harmless drinking game, I find that the basis of this action is without merit. Plus, these guys are my friends and I have their backs.

Jane Doe v. Faith Johnson

     It is ironic that this abortion case mirrors Roe v. Wade in almost all respects including the fact that the respondent is once again the Dallas County District Attorney. The appellant has relied on that 45-year-old Supreme Court precedent and also on my statement during my confirmation hearing that Roe v. Wade is settled law. Remember, however, that confirmation hearing testimony is not binding. What is truly binding is a promise like the promise I made to President Trump about how I would rule on abortion. All I can say at this point is “Promise made; promise kept.”