Washington, D.C. – As the nation continues to wrestle with the limitations of constitutional governance, the Supreme Court began hearing a case challenging the long-standing question: “Can complete strangers make horrible people become parents?”
During contentious opening questions, Justice Alito asked attorneys representing the complete strangers a hypothetical: Would there be any value in berating a clearly disinterested McDonalds teenager for the wrong order and forcing them to remake your burger? “Even if you can compel them, the hamburger is going to be awful, possibly even worst than the first attempt that was made out of lazy indifference. The second would be crafted with purposeful spite…so is there any gain in making them redo the sandwich? Most likely they’re gonna spit in it. And I’m not talking about a little spittle, we’re talking throat-clearing, gurgle-inducing phlegm.” the jurist proposed, speaking as someone with deep experience in the matter.
Latinx Justice Sotomayor, often sympathetic to the arguments made by horrible people, pondered how to handle questions with no clear evidentiary-based answers: “Science doesn’t know when a horrible life begins. This is indisputable by both sides. Hence when there is even a trace of uncertainty, as a society we must lean heavily towards ending the potential existence of another horrible person. This is the right of horrible people everywhere. Olé.”
Chief Justice Roberts suggested potential compromises, like returning the larger question to individual states to decide. In theory, there would be places horrible people could congregate and continue to be horrible, while other locations feature complete strangers who force other strangers to bear offspring. While complete strangers appear supportive of the compromise, horrible people declare the nation’s founders imbued them with the right to be horrible all across the fruited plains and demand complete strangers fund their horribleness.