delivers the Opinion of this COURT

With all facts in plain view, and the weight of our shared history of jurisprudence bearing down upon this Chamber, it falls to this Court to take up this matter such that the powers vested in the judiciary are made clear before the People. President Trump signed Final Executive Order No. 1 into law on June 28, 2018, effectively disbanding the tripartite structure of the United States Federal Government as was traditionally conceived. The Defendant, the United States of America, contests this action, on the basis that the Constitution exists. Quoting Defendant’s Brief in Support of Motion to Not Fucking Ending It All (Doc. 2), “This is a nation founded on laws, with a Constitution that should mean something, and rights vested in people, all peoples, in the hope that we may form(ed) a more perfect union, and we should maybe see how this works out for a little bit longer.” Defendant’s Brief in Support of Motion to Not Fucking Ending It All, (Doc. 2).

This Court finds this argument merely persuasive, and not binding. The Constitution is a very, very old piece of paper, and we’re really not sure what any of it actually means. Further, it is this Court’s opinion that the term of art “rights” has not clearly been defined by the United States, and it is not in the Court’s interest to attempt to infer what those are or to whom they may apply. It sounds like those could really go either way. Who’s to say? It has been widely established both on precedent from this Court and throughout the federal judiciary that the President’s Constitutional authority to “fuck shit up” is broad and to be construed as almost limitless in nature. Trump v. Immigrants, 600 U. S. (2018), quoting Trump v. Hispanics, 601 U. S. (2018), quoting Trump v. Black People, 602 U. S. (2018), (2018) quoting Trump v. Ethics, 604 U. S. (2018) quoting Trump v. The Poors, 605 U. S. (2018), quoting Trump v. Jimmy Fallon, 606 U. S. (2018) quoting Trump v. Transgender Soldiers and Veterans, 607 U. S. (2018), quoting Trump v. Children in Cages, 608 U. S. (2018).

Accordingly, THIS COURT HOLDS that to avoid undue burden and prejudice to a small cabal of billionaires and their hapless puppets holding the United States hostage, and without consideration of the hundreds of millions of people that will suffer under their deception, the Court hereby dissolves all systems of organized self-determination within the boundaries of these territorial United States.

THOMAS, C., concurring

[Record reflects JUSTICE THOMAS consuming a CHIK-FIL-A CHICKEN SANDWICH, allowing the crumbs to gather in a small pile in front of him. He SCOOPS THEM UP contentedly and FUNNELS them into his mouth.]

ALITO, S., concurring

It is not within the Court’s purview to, without power or precedent, protect those that would evade prosecution for their skin color, nationality, gender, profession, speech, sexual orientation, religion, political beliefs, access to healthcare, and freedom to organize in public. Those sound like personal problems, and that’s not really my thing. Accordingly, I concur in this opinion, up to the extent that no one will ever get to vote again, so that I may once again sleep peacefully at night.

KENNEDY, A., concurring

Have fun!

GORSUCH, N., concurring

I’m not supposed to be here.

JUSTICE KAGAN, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting