A large blame about the miserable condition of fundamental rights in this country can go to our sometimes practically brainless, corrupt or spineless judiciary. If one wants to get an idea of difference, then US Supreme court ruling in clearly vulgar language to highlight the importance and sanctity of the Freedom of Speech and Expression in City of Charleston v. The Kanawha Players is worth reading. Can we ever excpect such a bold and honest judgment from our Supreme Court or any High Court?
Justice Ginsburg wrote that those who dispute her interpretation of the Constitution can "shove a fat one so far up their ass they choke."
WASHINGTON—In a decisive and vulgar 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court once again upheld the constitution's First Amendment this week, calling the freedom of expression among the most "inalienable and important rights that a motherf**ker can have."
"It is the opinion of this court that the right to speak without censorship or fear of intimidation is fundamental to a healthy democracy," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. "Furthermore, the court finds that the right to say whatever the hell you want, whenever the hell you want, is not only a founding tenet, but remains essential to the continued success of this nation."
Added Ginsburg, "In short, freedom of speech means the freedom of f**king speech, you ignorant cocksuckers."
The decision came Monday in response to the case of a Charleston, WV theater troupe that had been sued by city officials for staging a s*xually explicit play with public funds. Reversing the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the theater, an outcome free-speech advocates are calling a victory and Justice Ginsburg called "a b*tch-slap in the face of all those uptight limp-d**ks."
The ruling in City of Charleston v. The Kanawha Players marks the first time in 220 years that the nation's highest court has taken such a fiercely profane stance.
During oral arguments, Charleston's chief counsel Dan Roy said his clients could restrict any public speech they deemed offensive, an argument quickly dismissed by Justice John Paul Stevens, 90, who turned to his colleagues and made a repeated up-and-down hand motion intended to simulate masturbation.
"I'm beginning to wonder if you really understand what 'abridging the freedom of speech' means at all," said Stevens, a 34-year veteran of the court known for his often-nuanced interpretations of the First Amendment. "I'm also wondering whether you and your fat-faced plaintiffs over there need to have some respect for constitutionally protected expression f**ked into your empty hick skulls."
Justice Clarence Thomas, who voted with the majority, wrote a concurring opinion in which he made little mention of established court precedents but emphasized that he himself had viewed materials "way, way nastier than this stupid play."
"I don't know what kind of bullsh*t passes for jurisprudence down in the 4th Circuit these days," Thomas wrote. "But those pricks can take their arguments about speech that 'appeals only to prurient interests' and go suck a dog's asshole."
Added Thomas, "Just suck it. Get in there and seriously suck it."
Writing in dissent, however, Justice Antonin Scalia contemplated the limits of the constitutional guarantee of free speech.
"The court has an interest in protecting meaningful human communication, which is jeopardized when every other word out of someone's mouth is 'F this' or 'F that,'" Scalia wrote. "In practice, such an expansion of free expression becomes far too unwieldy and large to accommodate."
To which Justice Ginsberg immediately replied, "Yeah, that's what his mom said."
Conservative constitutional scholars have criticized the Supreme Court's decision, calling it not only a license to provoke, but also an act of provocation in itself, one that saw several justices repeatedly refer to the plaintiffs as "f**kwits," "asshats," and "cumsacks" before informing them that with their appeals exhausted, their only remaining legal recourse would be to "piss up a rope or take two fists in the mommy slot."
More than 18 months after the suit was first brought against the theater group, defense lawyers said the road to the Supreme Court was "hard as sh*t," but well worth it.
"This is a historic victory for free speech, and I wouldn't be surprised if, a hundred years from now, the hallowed walls of this court bear an inscripttion taken from the eloquent decision handed down today," lead defense attorney Carl Huddleston said. "Particularly the phrase 'That which erodes human rights serves to erode humanity, f**kface.'"