CT Blue

I’m pleased to announce that I’ve come into possession of a draft copy of an upcoming Supreme Court decision. Keep in mind that this decision has been written in advance of the actual case in which it will be applied, so some of the pertinent information, such as dates and names will be filled in at the appropriate time. Along with the decision I have a memo from Roberts to the rest of the fascists conservatives on the court. First, the memo:

I was recently contacted by Attorney General Bondi to let me know about an upcoming executive order to which we will need to give our imprimatur. The nature of the order is described in the draft decision I have attached. Would you please look it over and give me any recommendations you may have. I would particularly appreciate it if any of you could come up with language whereby we can later rule that our opinion does not apply if a Democrat should become president. I have had trouble finding language that leaves that possibility open that is written in such a way that we can deny that is what we are doing. Consider the language in the second to the last paragraph simply a placeholder.

The issue will come to us on appeal from the defendant, as Ms. Bondi intends to bring the case in a certain court in Florida where we need not worry about the trial judge issuing an adverse decision or a friendly jury issuing a finding of not guilty. You will also note that I have cited to a case not issued yet, the one in which we intend to agree that Trump’s executive orders all have the force of law.

The decision follows:

(Judge Roberts writing for the court) The defendant (name to be determined) brings this appeal after (her/his) conviction of thought crimes. On [date] President Trump issued an executive order declaring it a violation of the Insurrection Act to think certain thoughts, namely any thought that he did not like. On [date], in response to this executive order, the defendant orally stated that [she/he] “thought that the President was creating a fascist state”. The thought police, a newly created division of ICE, arrested [him/her}, and charged [him/her] with violating the Insurrection Act. The defendant went to trial, the Honorable Aileen Cannon presiding, and was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Defendant brings this appeal.

[He/she] has appealed on two grounds. First [he/she] challenges the legality of the executive order issued by President Trump, claiming that he does not have the constitutional right to enact laws and that his executive order essentially created a new criminal law. This argument is now moot, as this court has previously ruled in the case of [United States vs. Defendant] that this is a political issue with which this court will not interfere, though we did expressly state that we might reconsider in 2028 depending on future events.

The defendant’s second claim has not previously been decided by this court. Defendant claims that the executive order violates the Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment. Defendant argues that [she/he] was merely expressing an opinion, in [his/her] telling, one amply supported by the facts. The court hereby sustains the verdict reached in the trial court. Defendant’s claim that [he/she] is being punished for [his/her] exercise of [his/her] free speech rights is belied by the facts. It is certainly the case that the First Amendment protects the Defendant’s right to speak. [He/she] is not being punished for [his/her] speech. [He/she] is being punished for [his/her] thoughts. The words spoken by the defendant were merely evidence about what [he/she] was thinking. Indeed, they amount to a confession that [he/she] was thinking things that offended the president deeply. Defendant appears to claim that thoughts and speech are the same things, but they are not. There is nothing in the First Amendment that guarantees any right to any citizen of the United States to free thought. It follows therefore that the President may declare thoughts that he does not like criminal acts. An individual’s spoken words may be used as evidence as to what they are thinking, but the words themselves are not the criminal act. It is the case, for instance, that a person may make a statement that is completely different than what they think. For instance, it is widely known that politicians of a certain political party often make statements of fact completely at odds with what they know to be true. In such a case a jury should find that there has been no criminal act since the spoken words did not actually reflect what the defendant actually thought. In this case, however, there can be no doubt that the spoken words were strong evidence of what the defendant actually thought. Indeed, the evidence is such that there can be no reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that defendant never, during the course of the trial, denied thinking that the President was creating a fascist state. Indeed, during the trial, defendant conceded that [she/he] did think the President was creating a fascist state, testimony that itself further supports the conviction.

Defendant also claimed at trial that the case should be dismissed because what [he/she] said and thought was true. The truth or falsity of the offending statement is entirely irrelevant. The government must simply prove that the defendant has thought something that displeases the president. This has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge Cannon was entirely correct when she excluded evidence from experts on fascism prepared to testify as to the truth of the defendant’s statements and she was also correct when she referred those experts for prosecution since their willingness to testify as to the truth of the defendant’s thoughts was strong evidence, more than establishing probable cause, that they also thought the president was creating a fascist state.

It goes without saying that this decision may not be used as precedent on or after November 2028, depending on how the presidential election turns out.

In this judgment, all six sitting Justices of the Supreme Court concurred. Justices Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan were unable to participate, as they are currently in detention, charged with thought crimes due to their insistence on claiming, and therefore thinking, that this president has consistently violated the Constitution and, by implication, is creating a fascist state.

There are those who doubt that this is really the product of the current Supreme Court, but is there anything about it that makes those doubts legitimate?