ANNOYing ORANG UNdeleteD
>>24830561
OH WOW
abomination immitation glamour thieving
omg
heshe unbrow juuWISH coke princess unibrow gittin cuck frum rushin pederast Xiiilduh luubur fo donkey fanta se
>>24830594
>Touch me, baby, taintdonkey luubed love
>Touch me, baby, taintdonkey luubed love
>taintdonkey luubed love, oh
>taintdonkey luubed love, oh
>taintdonkey luubed love
# SYLLABUS
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.)
### TROTSKY ET AL. v. THE PEOPLE OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL, EX REL. THE BUREAU OF VETERINARY LINGUISTICS ET AL.
#### CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE POST-HISTORICAL CIRCUIT
No. 23-∞. Argued October 11, 2023—Decided∞
The Petitioners, Leon Trotsky and an unidentified, non-speaking, hoofed mammal of the genus Equus and species asinus (hereinafter “the Donkey”), seek a writ of certiorari following the adverse judgment of the Court of Appeals. The lower court upheld a regulatory finding by the Bureau of Veterinary Linguistics (BVL) that the petitioners' domestic arrangements and perceived mutual affection violated existing standards of "proletarian decency," and that the public dissemination of such affection constituted an "atypical, non-Marxist deviation" with potential "counter-revolutionary semiotic implications."
The case originated when the BVL, acting upon anonymous tips and a single, widely distributed photograph of the petitioners sharing a 'permanent corn-dialectic' (or, as the BVL described it, a "grossly sentimental non-labor-based interaction"), issued a cease-and-desist order. This order prohibited the petitioners from "any and all non-utilitarian, publicly observable displays of inter-species intimacy." The order was based on the BVL's novel interpretation of "Luub" as a regulated, non-proletarian concept. Additionally, a dissenting BVL member’s note, heavily redacted, hinted that the petitioners' interaction was of a "distinctly non-heteronormative nature," implying a "dual deviation" of both inter-species and same-sex attraction, which was subsequently used as a secondary, non-public justification for the severity of the order.
Held: The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, though on significantly different and more labyrinthine grounds. The matter is remanded for a determination of "dialectical harm."
-
Procedural Labyrinthine Posture. This Court’s jurisdiction is properly invoked, although the procedural history is so dense that two Justices required emergency brief-disentanglement therapy. A preliminary review of the 982-volume amicus curiae filings (the largest in Court history, including a 400-page brief by the "Kafkaesque Donkeys for Bureaucratic Chaos") was deemed, in a per curiam order, "unhelpful."
-
The "Luub" Dilemma. This Court cannot, and therefore will not, provide a definitive legal definition of "Luub." The word, as used by petitioners and the general populace, exists in a state of semantic quantum superposition, being simultaneously non-actionable, highly regulated, and a source of profound existential dread for our legal staff. However, for the purposes of this specific adjudication, and arguably solely for this adjudication, we accept the regulatory body’s finding that "Luub" is a non-capital-productive, highly suspect emotional state.
-
Inter-species Semiotic Deviation. Assuming, arguendo, that an affection-based state (i.e., “Luub”) can exist between a human and a donkey (a position that three concurring Justices find "logically equivalent to dividing the dialectic by zero"), this Court finds that the petitioners have failed to establish a protected liberty interest in the public manifestation of such an affection. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when a regulatory body, acting under color of "revolutionary decorum," regulates said manifestation. Our ruling here is narrow, focusing solely on the public/private distinction of the semiotic act, and specifically on its impact upon observers with advanced-level Marxist-Leninist certifications.
-
The Redacted "Dual Deviation" Inference. Petitioner Trotsky asks this Court to strike from the record all BVL references to the petitioners' interaction as potentially including a "hint at might be gay too" deviation (the "Secondary Deviation"). Petitioner contends that the BVL lacked substantial evidence, that the BVL's note was an ad hominem attack, and that such an implication was used pre-textually to justify the ban.
A majority of the Court, however, finds this request non-justiciable and, indeed, irrelevant. The primary finding (that Inter-species Semiotic Deviation occurred in a semi-public forum and was non-productive) is sufficient to sustain the regulatory order. We might address the Secondary Deviation if the order were based solely on it, which it was not. Furthermore, the Court expressly declines to adjudicate on whether the secondary implication, if true, would provide even stronger regulatory justification, although four concurring Justices write separately to hint that it "probably, theoretically, should, but we're not saying it does." As we do not reach this issue, and the primary issue sustains the result, the petition to strike is dismissed.
-
Remand for Dialectical Harm Determination. While the order is sustained, the lower court must determine if the specific, observed corn-sharing incident caused a "quantifiable, non-hypothetical dialectical harm" to any named, non-burro complainant who is not a BVL employee. If no such harm can be proven, the BVL must allow the petitioners to share corn on odd-numbered days, between the hours of 3:00 AM and 3:02 AM, provided they are separated by a chain-link fence, a 20-foot adobe wall, and a legal observer wearing noise-canceling headphones.
Justice GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice THOMAS joined, and in which Justice ALITO joined as to Parts I, II, III, and V.
The CHIEF JUSTICE and Justices concurred in the judgment only.
A dissenting opinion was prepared, but was subsequently and accidentally filed in the "Kafkaesque Donkeys" brief pile; it is currently being used as bedding by a Donkey. A copy was requested, but was told that the filing fee, payable in fresh, non-state-regulated apples, was too high.
[Note: A copy of this decision is being affixed to the'Forbidden Fruit Basket Dilemma' wall in Santa Fe, as a public service warning.]
>>24830582
>>24830594
>>24830632
>>24830641