In a stunning decision that sent lawyers on both sides running to their checkbooks to see how much more they could charge for their advice, the U.S. Supreme Court today refused to issue an injunction against any further injunctions.

The ruling against any further rulings, at least until the baseball playoffs are over, came in a partisan 5-4 decision by the court, some of whose members were devoted Washington Nationals fans. The ruling left in place a series of lower-court rulings that the justices acknowledged were already confusing enough and they didn’t see the need to further confuse anybody since that was already being done so well.

While the decision was considered a rebuke to the Obama administration, which now leads the league in official rebukes, the court’s decision to not make a decision was considered a boon to other decision-makers, who now lead in the race to see how many times the word decision could be used in a sentence.

It also put the burden back on those states where decisions had been banned, limited, deemed very expensive or happened in the wrong neighborhoods. In some of those states, young people had taken to the streets and protested when they were not in the process of taking selfies and posting them on Instagram.

News of the refusal to issue an injunction against injunctions hit the stock market hard, with prices sharply falling before rallying late in the day and tying things up in the bottom of the ninth.

The ruling was unexpected, particularly since no one had expected it and everybody was too busy getting hysterical over Ebola and George Clooney’s wedding. It set off a flurry of experts explaining what the ruling meant, particularly to George Clooney and his new bride. CNN, meanwhile, reported that the Malaysian jetliner was still missing.

The ruling also broke with precedent, contravening the famous case of Larry v. Curly, from 1938, in which the court had found that you’re not allowed to poke anybody in the eye with your left index finger, particularly if they are not looking, unless you’re a corporation.

In his opinion for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia called for an increase in traditional conclusions, pronouncements and findings to replace rulings. Scalia, a leader of the originalist wing of the court, originally said that the founding fathers had never relied on injunctions and instead preferred conjunctions. He blamed the Obama administration for the founding fathers’ bad handwriting.

Scalia noted that injunctions weren’t invented until after the Civil War and had since then become simply another example of big government intrusion into personal grammar.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas nodded yes.

But in a stinging rebuttal, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the minority, said the majority couldn’t find a pig in a poke, and then poked Scalia in the eye with her left index finger.

Advertisements