Supreme Court Issues “Weasels United” Ruling
In a landmark 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court recently announced that squeaking is considered free speech. Not only can weasels now form their own Political Action Committees, they will also be afforded the same constitutional rights as corporations.
“This decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is, naturally, a landmark,” noted Supreme Court junkie Dr. Mel Hormone, “a landmark that crushes all landmarks before it. What we’ve reached here is a milestone in the area of landmarks. Weasels can build upon this ruling for generations of litters to come. As such, this milestone is really more of a cornerstone. And I believe this cornerstone and this landmark, together with the milestone, can build something together – perhaps a foundation or something – upon which they can all get a good rest, then maybe set some benchmarks.”
The petitioner in the case, Nathaniel P. Ravitz, Esq., was visibly pleased with the ruling. Addressing a crowd gathered on the courthouse steps, he announced, “Today we are all weasels! Not me personally, mind you, but I think you get my drift. Viva la Revolución!” Mr. Ravitz was then pelted with garbage, but the police took no action because it was thrown by his supporters.
Ravitz delivered his entire 24-minute court argument in “weaselese”, a language he says he picked up “here and there.” Most justices struggled to make sense of the high-pitched chirps and squeaks, although Justice Scalia was seen nodding sagely throughout. In her dissenting opinion, Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted, “I couldn’t understand a word of it. After a while I just shut my hearing aid off.”
“Mr. Ravitz’s argument was sublime,” countered Justice Breyer in his majority opinion, “and it properly served to highlight the plight of Whisker Americans everywhere. In particular, his decision to spend five minutes of his time grooming for ticks — though unconventional — was inspired.”
One of Ravitz’s colleagues, a one Matthew Berry, provided a friend of the court briefing against the weasel position, but it got thrown out. “We had to,” explained a court insider, “38 of the 40 pages were about Mike Trout and a long-term keeper league. Who cares? Plus he addressed it ‘To Whom It May Concern’. It’s like he didn’t even know their names.”
Justice Kennedy, widely regarded as the swing vote, implied that his hands had been tied. “The mere fact that we let him speak kind of said we regarded it free speech already. What are you gonna do?”
Nate Ravitz cautioned his supporters that there was still a long road ahead. Even the name of the ruling (Weasels United v. The People) could make public acceptance tougher. “For too long there has been a ‘glass ceiling’ for weasels in the sports reporting industry,” he declared, “or so I’m led to believe. They are often forced into menial jobs such as paper-pushing, podcasting, or finding hookers for on-air talent. It makes me sick. What is it with these guys and hookers, anyway? You try finding a 6-foot tall Filipino dominatrix at three in the morning. In Bristol, Connecticut!”
“Anyway, “ Ravitz continued, “I have always felt in my very DNA that weasels were largely indistinguishable from people. Maybe they’re even a little better. Maybe a lot better. Maybe one day Mark Wahlberg will wake up to see a weasel sitting in the Lincoln Memorial. Something to think about. Now please, go home and tell your litters you love them.”