Final Dobbs Draft Also Overturns New Deal

 

A leaked version of what appears to be the final draft of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health goes further than the original draft leaked on May 2. In addition to striking down the Roe precedent, the court also abrogated the New Deal signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. 

The court’s final ruling vis-à-vis Roe remains identical to the first draft ruling, with the exception of a single corrected misspelling. 

The majority ruling surprised many court watchers by even addressing the New Deal, let alone striking it down in its entirety. “This court has been living a lie for nearly a century” the Alito-authored final draft begins. The opinion goes on to say that the Supreme Court will “no longer uphold blatantly unconstitutional laws simply because of cheap threats of court-packing from the Executive.” The ruling also added that any president or Congress that attempts to follow through on such threats can “suck it.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren was unavailable for comment as her eyes were rolling toward the back of her head.

Concurring in a separate opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas added “The federal income tax? Gone. The National Labor Relations Act? On the ash heap of history. The Security and Exchange Commission? Buh bye.” Economists estimate that making Fanny Mae alone disappear will allow the government to pay off the national debt decades sooner than previously thought.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the minority in order to uphold the legitimacy of the court.

Published in Humor
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 28 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Blondie Thatcher
    Blondie
    @Blondie

    Love that picture of Justice Thomas. I can hear him laughing. 

    • #1
  2. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    They should have overturned a few of the most recent centuries, too.

    • #2
  3. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    You don’t know how much I wish this post wasn’t humor . . .

    • #3
  4. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    • #4
  5. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Nice! I liked the gradual crescendo of impossibility mixed with our conservative longing—‘oh, would that it were true!’ til the dramatic climax: ‘they can suck it.’

    And the subtle irony of the brief epilogue.

    • #5
  6. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    I briefly had hope, then “suck it” appeared and I knew I had been had.it was funny, though,

    • #6
  7. David Deeble Member
    David Deeble
    @DavidDeeble

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Nice! I liked the gradual crescendo of impossibility mixed with our conservative longing—‘oh, would that it were true!’ til the dramatic climax: ‘they can suck it.’

    And the subtle irony of the brief epilogue.

    I’ve found my audience! Thanks, Mark, and glad you enjoyed it.

    • #7
  8. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    David Deeble (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Nice! I liked the gradual crescendo of impossibility mixed with our conservative longing—‘oh, would that it were true!’ til the dramatic climax: ‘they can suck it.’

    And the subtle irony of the brief epilogue.

    I’ve found my audience! Thanks, Mark, and glad you enjoyed it.

    Does that mean we will see more?

    • #8
  9. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    A chant of “Filburn!  Filburn!  Filburn!” could be heard from the conference room.

    • #9
  10. David Deeble Member
    David Deeble
    @DavidDeeble

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    David Deeble (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Nice! I liked the gradual crescendo of impossibility mixed with our conservative longing—‘oh, would that it were true!’ til the dramatic climax: ‘they can suck it.’

    And the subtle irony of the brief epilogue.

    I’ve found my audience! Thanks, Mark, and glad you enjoyed it.

    Does that mean we will see more?

    The antennae are always up but there’s not always a signal. ;)

    • #10
  11. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    I briefly had hope, then “suck it” appeared and I knew I had been had.it was funny, though,

    I think “suck it” should appear in more opinions.

    • #11
  12. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    A chant of “Filburn! Filburn! Filburn!” could be heard from the conference room.

    How about this: in order for the Commerce Clause to be in any way applicable, someone has to be buying something and someone has to be selling.

    There. Fixed that right up.

    • #12
  13. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):

    If you want to pack the Court, then this is the way to go.  

    • #13
  14. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    Percival (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    I briefly had hope, then “suck it” appeared and I knew I had been had.it was funny, though,

    I think “suck it” should appear in more opinions.

    Yes.  Also, I wish the Supreme Court used variations of: “This is a stupid law that Congress clearly had its collective head up its a** when passing it.  The President also was similarly hampered when he signed it.  Any properly functioning legislature would immediately repeal it.  However, the Constitution being silent on this question, the Law is therefore constitutional.  Now get out of this Court.”

    And, yes.  That would be the full opinion.

    **Edited to remove extraneous “also”.

    • #14
  15. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Blondie (View Comment):

    Love that picture of Justice Thomas. I can hear him laughing.

    I’m going to record that laugh as an emergency cure for depression.

    • #15
  16. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Percival (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    A chant of “Filburn! Filburn! Filburn!” could be heard from the conference room.

    How about this: in order for the Commerce Clause to be in any way applicable, someone has to be buying something and someone has to be selling.

    There. Fixed that right up.

    Yeah, if the Court would just reverse the badly flawed Wickard v. Filburn decision, much of this could actually happen!

    • #16
  17. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    What, no mention of the Emancipation Retraction?  (a Simpsons reference) 

    I am VERY disappointed.

    • #17
  18. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Percival (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    A chant of “Filburn! Filburn! Filburn!” could be heard from the conference room.

    How about this: in order for the Commerce Clause to be in any way applicable, someone has to be buying something and someone has to be selling.

    There. Fixed that right up.

    You left out the part where it also has to cross state lines.

    • #18
  19. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    A chant of “Filburn! Filburn! Filburn!” could be heard from the conference room.

    How about this: in order for the Commerce Clause to be in any way applicable, someone has to be buying something and someone has to be selling.

    There. Fixed that right up.

    You left out the part where it also had to cross state lines.

    It only has to maybe cross state lines. Filburn wasn’t raising wheat to sell; he wanted to use it himself. The Federal Government was, in effect, regulating interstate non-commerce.

    • #19
  20. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    All things considered, I would have preferred that they overturn The Great Society…

    • #20
  21. David Deeble Member
    David Deeble
    @DavidDeeble

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    All things considered, I would have preferred that they overturn The Great Society…

    In comedy it’s go big or go home.

    • #21
  22. Misthiocracy got bored of the joke and Member
    Misthiocracy got bored of the joke and
    @Misthiocracy

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    I briefly had hope, then “suck it” appeared and I knew I had been had.it was funny, though,

    I think “suck it” should appear in more opinions.

    Yes. Also, I wish the Supreme Court used variations of: “This is a stupid law that Congress clearly had its collective head up its a** when passing it. The President also was similarly hampered when he signed it. Any properly functioning legislature would immediately repeal it. However, the Constitution being silent on this question, the Law is therefore constitutional. Now get out of this Court.”

    And, yes. That would be the full opinion.

    **Edited to remove extraneous “also”.

    • #22
  23. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Yes. Also, I wish the Supreme Court used variations of: “This is a stupid law that Congress clearly had its collective head up its a** when passing it. The President also was similarly hampered when he signed it. Any properly functioning legislature would immediately repeal it. However, the Constitution being silent on this question, the Law is therefore constitutional. Now get out of this Court.”

    And, yes. That would be the full opinion.

    **Edited to remove extraneous “also”.

    I seem to remember the court doing something like that on a case having something to do with DC’s subway system.

    • #23
  24. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    David Deeble (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    All things considered, I would have preferred that they overturn The Great Society…

    In comedy it’s go big or go home.

    Well played, Deeble. Well played.

    • #24
  25. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Nice! I liked the gradual crescendo of impossibility mixed with our conservative longing—‘oh, would that it were true!’ til the dramatic climax: ‘they can suck it.’

    And the subtle irony of the brief epilogue.

    And the perfect touch of the picture of Justice Thomas laughing uproariously!

    • #25
  26. John Hanson Thatcher
    John Hanson
    @JohnHanson

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    A chant of “Filburn! Filburn! Filburn!” could be heard from the conference room.

    How about this: in order for the Commerce Clause to be in any way applicable, someone has to be buying something and someone has to be selling.

    There. Fixed that right up.

    Yeah, if the Court would just reverse this, I think it still misses the clause “selling … while physically located in separate states.”

    • #26
  27. Brian Clendinen Member
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    Amy Cohan Bryant would never agree to that. She likes all the power Corporations and the government has to screw Americans over of their basic Natural Right.  Abortion is about the only issue she is a classic Liberal on.

    • #27
  28. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    Brian Clendinen (View Comment):

    Amy Cohan Bryant would never agree to that. She likes all the power Corporations and the government has to screw Americans over of their basic Natural Right. Abortion is about the only issue she is a classic Liberal on.

    Assuming you mean Justice Amy Coney Barrett?

    • #28
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.