Partly Cloudy, 64°
Sources at the Supreme Court report that the American legal system’s procedures continue to become endlessly convoluted, now less reminiscent of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and more of a Rube Goldberg machine.
“Pursuant to the Doctrine of Procedural Adjudication, the defendant henceforth raises a motion to compel a motion to dismiss the motion previously compelled,” asserted Bob Danson, Esq., as he concluded his 17-hour-long opening statements, straying further from Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s principles with each passing hour, and the opposition readied their witness. “Your honor, in accordance with Subsection 12(b)(iii)©** as presented in Jackson v. Brady v. Ahmed, ipso facto ad nauseam, I raise a motion to completely discard this case in account of their entire argument being circumstantial.”
“I honestly couldn’t even tell you what they’re arguing about at this point. They’re currently petitioning for a writ of certiorari compelling the denial of the writ of mandamus sought to compel the grant of certiorari,” complained court stenographer Stephanie Roberts as she nursed her raw, bleeding fingers. “I could be wrong, but I feel like this case is about a fender bender. I don’t dare imagine what RBG would think of this.”
At press time, Danson resorted to just repeating the word ‘filibuster.’
