WASHINGTON, DC. – Trumping their recent rulings on student debt relief, gay rights, and affirmative action, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of “abject suffering for all”. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one Justice offered insight into the process of crafting the expansive verdict. 

“It’s been in the works for a long time, but we’re proud to present a new era for the Court. We’ve established a ‘[Clarence] Thomas Doctrine’ – essentially, the more popular a policy is, the less Constitutional. To specify, the Thomas Doctrine tries to maximize the squalor and suffering faced by the average American, without compromising our dedication,” paused the interviewee, visibly stifling a laugh, “to the ethics of the Supreme Court, and the United States Constitution.” 

Reactions to the Thomas Doctrine have been mixed. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas was asked to comment on this mix of backlash and celebration. 

“Did you know that when people call me ‘Justice,’ that’s not a Supreme Court thing? It’s a nickname from third grade when Kylie, Kayleigh, Kyrie and I went to Justice to get matching earrings!” said Thomas, twiddling his thumbs. 

When asked to comment specifically on the ruling, Justice Thomas continued confidently. 

“Right, well you need to understand that abject suffering is an American tradition,” asserted Justice Thomas, furrowing his brow. “How would it be fair to the individuals in the past who were discriminated against on the basis of race, sexual orientation, and class if we were to negate their heritage of generational agony? Of course, this doctrine is not set in stone. There are still scenarios in which we might pull our support for abject suffering – for example, if the majority of Americans favor suffering. Or, I could be stuck with the bill at the next dinner Chuck Koch takes me to.” 

Some applaud Missouri, one of the first states to challenge the lawfulness of debt forgiveness in accordance with its long-standing tradition of antagonizing its residents. In the court’s majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts reveals the impetus for the ruling.

“First allow me to clarify that Missouri is not the ‘state of Misery,’” wrote Chief Justice Roberts in the opening paragraph of the Court’s opinion. “Secondly, I have to thank Missouri for attempting to remain relevant, but really only some of the credit goes to them. No one person should have the authority to make enormous fiscal decisions concerning the economy of the United States. Things of that nature are reserved for my five homies and I.” Roberts emphasized his point with an embedded JPEG of the Court’s conservative majority at karaoke.

However, critics of the Thomas Doctrine’s pervasive endorsement of abject suffering fail to unite around a single fault. Speaking on behalf of the NRA, chairman Wayne LaPierre polemicized against the Court’s perceived restraint.

“This fails to go far enough,” LaPierre growled through a clenched jaw. “Why is SCOTUS limiting themselves at such superficial levels of suffering? If I were John Roberts, my first order of business would be striking down that inane ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ restriction.” Following a brief pause, a chin-scratch, and an empty stare, LaPierre continued, “My second order of business? Probably opening a Souplantation somewhere on Capitol Hill.” 

At press time, SCOTUS was found weighing in on a controversial case in which a gay undergraduate was forgiven student loans by a Christian loan servicer that refused to handle his money. 


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.