Concurrences, Dissents and Dubitantes: Part 1.

Due in no small part to the popular news media (conflict sells!) I think most of the public get the impression that the Supreme Court operates something like this.

****

In the SUPREME COURT of the United States

Roman MARONE, petitioner

v.

The UNITED STATES, respondent

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court in which the CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE THOMAS, AND JUSTICE ALITO joined (presumably while holding hands).

I.

Roman Marone (Morone) was convicted of multiple counts of racketeering, money laundering, murder, and conspiracy. Upon conviction, the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois sentenced Marone to be deported to Sweden.  Marone petitioned for a writ of Habeas Corpus claiming, inter alia, that he "wasn't from there,"  and also that deportation to Sweden constituted cruel and unusual punishment.  The writ was denied and the Court of Appeals affirmed.  We granted cert because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

II.

Normally, this is the part where we cite a bunch of moldy cases and apply it to the facts at hand.  But, frankly, I am Antonin-Effing-Scalia. I've forgotten more about jurisprudence and Habeas procedure than pretty much everybody in the universe knows.  Combined. (And certainly more than that creepy Neugent guy who keeps emailing me asking for an autographed picture.) So trust me when I say that the Original Intent of the Constitution was to deport this jagoff to to some god-forsaken glacier.

The court certainly sympathizes with petitioner's contention that nobody should be deported to Sweden. This Italian knows all too well that, on the Continent, the further you get from the Mediterranean Sea, the worse the cuisine gets.  That would put Scandinavian cuisine somewhere between low grade dog food and low grade dog poop. On the other hand, in its brief, petitioner called this Court "a bunch of farging bastages." Therefore we are not disposed to mercy.

III.

The dissent argues that I am full of it.  Well, they're dumb. And ugly.  And if they don't shut up, I'm going to send Alito over there to teach them a lesson on the proper level of respect for my jurisprudential genius.

The ruling of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

JUSTICE KENNEDY concurring in the judgment and joined by JUSTICE BREYER for some damn reason.

I write separately to note that the laws of the Lesser Antilles, Guam and Mongolia might have been instructive in deciding this case. Derp.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, dissenting.

First things first. Breyer: WHAT THE HELL?

Now that that's off my chest, I dissent from this  judgement as a strong and wise Latina.  Us strong and wise Latinas can recognize a blowhard when we see one.  Unfortunately, today we see 6 of them (seriously, Breyer - we gotta talk, bro). With all due respect, Scalia can shove his opinion up his oily dago butt.  All Latinas - wise and, er, otherwise - recognize that the majority has just sentenced not only the petitioner, but future generations to the possibility of having to eat those gross meatballs for the rest of their lives as punishment for something as banal as quintuple murder. Accordingly, I dissent. As all wise Latinas should.

JUSTICE KAGAN, dissenting.

RAAAAAWWWWRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

I.  Will.  Cut.  You.

****

This, I think (with some minor embellishments; ok, major), is the way many view the ideological divide on the Court.  The truth is a little more nuanced.  Ok, a lot more.

 More in part 2, later.