Although the article below is a fictional satire (at least for now), the U.S. Supreme Court’s far right majority consistently makes political rulings based on their personal preferences rather than quaint concepts like law, precedent, or constitutional language, never mind how a decision might affect actual human beings. The U.S. Constitution, even when read reasonably, is a badly out of date, flawed document but even the conservative justices of the past had some limits, some of the time. The current majority extremists seem to have no limits. The structures that many United Statesians believe will maintain the U.S. brand of formal bourgeois democracy, including federal courts, are failing.

In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Constitution is unconstitutional. Fully abandoning his concept that incremental taking away of rights is the better strategy, Chief Justice John Roberts joined his five conservative colleagues in completely dismissing constitutional protections and safeguards, writing that the Trump administration’s need for urgency should override legal considerations. The majority decision drew upon earlier decisions granting the White House unprecedented power since Donald Trump assumed the presidency.

“The role of a judge is like an umpire in baseball who calls balls and strikes,” Roberts wrote for the court majority. “Nonetheless, the court has to take an expansive view of our institutional duties, such as when an umpire has to throw a player or manager out of the game for their conduct. With that power of umpires as precedent (and you thought we didn’t like precedents), the court believes that opponents of the president, Donald Trump, should be sidelined for their conduct. Although the United States does not have kings, it does have a leader who should be allowed to rule without interference. The role of the courts is to defer to the executive, when the executive is someone who meets our approval, and the legislative branch should also defer.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said he would have gone further. “Presidential immunity must fall,” Alito wrote in his concurrence, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Rules governing presidents, including those restricting his ability to institute mass firings of congressionally mandated government departments, are “egregiously wrong” and “we hold the Constitution does not confer a right to question our dear leader.”

Drawing upon Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, Alito wrote that “It is therefore extremely necessary that the crown should be empowered to regulate the duration of the Congress.” Alito also drew upon King Henry VIII, who declared his right to rule by royal proclamation in 1539, which arrogated to himself the right to change or delete any act of parliament. To draw out this argument, Alito first cited his misleadingly quoted and cherry-picked citation from a 12th century legal treatise that referenced a religious penalty for abortion (“Even before Bracton’s time, English law imposed punishment for the killing of a fetus”) in his Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, then wrote, “If the 12th century is good enough for abortion jurisprudence, then the 16th century is more than good enough for government jurisprudence.” Based on these precedents, Trump is free to ignore Congress as he wishes, Alito wrote.

In his concurring opinion, Alito said he would not have ruled that criticism of Trump should automatically be penalized by the federal government but that he would leave the question of punishment to the states.

An hour after the Supreme Court decision ruling the Constitution unconstitutional, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced that, effectively immediately, criticism of Trump would be illegal in Florida and would be punishable by immediate incarceration in the state concentration camp known as “Alligator Alley.” The governor said the Everglades facility would be expanded.

“You want to mock our president? If you do, we have a hot cement room waiting for you and plenty of alligators to keep you there,” DeSantis said in a hastily called press conference. “Florida already was where woke comes to die, and deviation from our glorious leader will also die here.”

Texas Governor Jim Abbott said he will call a new emergency session of the state Legislature to enact new laws reflecting the Supreme Court decision. “The legislature will approve laws safeguarding the sanctity of our glorious leader,” Abbott said. “Belonging to any party other than the Republican Party will be illegal. Until our new laws are passed, Democrats are legal and expected to be present in the legislature to vote. If they are not present, we will have them arrested and confined to the legislature until the vote is passed.”

In his majority opinion, Roberts wrote that it was too time-consuming to rule that the Constitution does not apply to Trump after each district court or appellate court ruling. Rather, he wrote, the court majority believed it was better to just go ahead and do what they wanted to do anyway. “All parts of government are asked to be more efficient and waste fewer resources,” Roberts wrote. “Our courts should not be an exception. We therefore decline to rule on individual cases and instead rule for all current and future cases that may be brought against the president as long as he reigns.” Because the court had already ruled Trump to be above the law while he was out of office, it would be “inconsistent to not place Mr. Trump above the law while he executes the duties of the presidency.”

The majority opinion said that it is not the duty of courts to interfere with the president’s execution of his duties and that if the public does not like the policies that the president and the executive is carrying out, then they can vote in a new president “should Mr. Trump so desire that another election be held.”

The opinion of the minority, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, was not immediately available. The majority opinion written by Roberts and the concurring opinion by Alito were posted on the Supreme Court website, but the minority position was not posted. A query made to court officials asking when the minority opinion would be published was not returned. Asked about this discrepancy, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, at today’s daily press briefing, said, “The Supreme Court decision was clear. The president has determined that opposing opinions are contrary to the national interest. We will not allow it to be published. And all of you had better watch your step.”

On Capitol Hill, reaction to the Supreme Court decision split along party lines. House Speaker Johnson could not immediately be reached for comment, as he was seen barking like a dog on the House floor. A Republican congressional member, speaking under a grant of anonymity, said Trump had ordered Johnson to bark, and as Johnson was unsure if he should ask Trump how long he should bark or if he should just go ahead and start barking without delay, thought it better to bark immediately. “When Trump gives an order, we carry it out,” the congress member said.

The Democratic leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, expressed disapproval of the Supreme Court decision. “I am in conversation with our party leadership, in both houses of Congress, and we will have a firm letter of disapproval ready before the end of the week. We may also make some speeches on the Senate floor. That will show the Republicans that we mean business.”

Another Democratic senator, who asked to remain anonymous so he could speak freely, said the letter of disapproval being discussed will be carefully calibrated. “We know Fox News and Newsmax will attack our patriotism if we go too far, so we will express our ‘profound disappointment’ with the ruling and call on Americans to give generously to our corporate candidates” the senator said. Asked what the party leadership will do when progressive officeholders and candidates condemn the ruling, and Trump, in strong terms, the senator said that will be handled quietly. “Our Wall Street funders will give us our talking points and we’ll let those nasty progressives know that all support will be cut off if they go beyond those talking points.” he said. “This is the Democratic Party. We don’t tolerate people who give people what they want or who speak to the concerns of voters without prior approval of our funders. What kind of party would we be if we started listening to our base?”

With the Constitution now declared to be unconstitutional, Trump is expected to issue a series of decrees eliminating most federal government departments, prohibiting any institution from adopting policies contrary to his expectations and banning any criticism. A coalition of grassroots organizations [rest of article redacted].Email