Editor’s note: This article is meant as both a satirical piece, and a serious essay. We are witnessing the nullification and overthrowing of legitimate presidential authority on a scale which could only be brought about through a formal insurrection. To the extent that this “mock ruling” is a satire, it is neither more nor less a satire than the rulings of Boasburg et al. have been satires on the Constitution. Many weak, ineffectual, and loser-minded conservatives and Republicans are screeching about the NEED to OBEY the Supreme Court and the Rule of Law. It is important to note that these people’s argument runs as follows: “Trump’s agenda is important; he was elected by an electoral and popular majority; however, we must now ask approval from the courts to implement Trump’s agenda. If the courts say no, we must acquiesce; the people must understand that their approval of a Congressional or Presidential agenda is a largely formal and unimportant approval. If the courts say no, the will of the people is illegal.”

Ruling in the matter of case no. 0001, The Left vs The Voters of the United Sates

[Order regarding Defendant Donald Trump’s attempt to implement the “will of the People”, entered on Apr 24, 2025]

Plaintiffs applied for relief on Jan 20, 12:01 pm, arguing that the defendant’s past actions and all future actions would cause irreparable damage to the plaintiffs’ interests, agenda, and policy motives. In particular, the plaintiffs have cited executive enforcement of laws/upholding the rule of law as the primary means of harm to the plaintiffs’ interests, while the defendant has argued that, since all authority is invested in the People of the United States, and he, the defendant, was elected by a clear and popular majority, he has the authority to use all executive power in pursuance of policies which protect, promote, and prioritize the rights of the American people and the national character. Further, the defendant claims that, should relief be granted to the plaintiffs, it would lastingly damage the integrity of representative government and effectively overrule the will of the People.

We find the defendant’s case unpersuasive on several counts. Firstly, the “will of the people” is a vague and unhelpful abstraction; In Marbury vs Madison, the Court clarified that judicial approval (established through judicial review)—not “popular will—was the foundation of law and provided the proper limits to a president’s authority. As such, the judiciary has recently taken the view that the President may act in limited circumstances only, and certainly not without explicit permission from the courts (see: Washington v Trump, Nat’l Council of Non-profits vs Office of Mgmt. and Budget, et al)

Regarding the defendant’s claim that there is no “precedent” for a president being treated solely as a figurehead, we recommend a careful review of the past 4 years under Joseph R. Biden. It is obvious that the president may and should be treated as a figurehead, especially when long-standing institutional interests are being threatened (see Joseph R Biden v Joseph R Biden’s Memory).

Since at least 1947, democracy has been a term of art. Even earlier, through the New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt established a federal bureaucracy, effectively nullifying the powers of Congress to claim sole legislative authority and the President to claim sole enforcement of the laws. The Federal Bureaucracy creates, enforces, and adjudicates far more regulations and laws than either Congress or the President. EverythingPolicy.org notes that “Every year, federal bureaucrats implement roughly 100 major policy changes through a process known as rulemaking.” albert.io says the following: “The federal bureaucracy has wide-ranging powers over American citizens and businesses. . . .The bureaucracy controls how most tax dollars are spent, too.” According to Forbes, “But where laws number in the dozens or low hundreds each year, federal agencies’ rules and regulations have numbered well over 3,000 per year (except for 2019 under Trump, when 2,964 rules were issued). . . . Agencies in 2020 issued 19 rules and regulations for every law Congress passed (3,353 rules compared to the 178 laws passed by Congress).” There are well over 65,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Registry. To modify what the Founders articulated: we are a nation of regulations, not of men.

This Court, therefore, finds good evidence that the will of the people is largely incidental to what laws are made, adjudicated and enforced and has been for decades and decades. The principle of stare decisis requires that this Court respect the long-standing precedent of disregarding the will of the people.

**
The will of the People is hereby overruled regarding the election of Donald Trump to implement and execute an America First Agenda. IT IS SO ORDERED.
**

To explain the extent of this court’s reasoning on this matter would take too many pages, but a brief summary will suffice. Firstly, the Judiciary shares two important characteristics with the Bureaucracy: a) members of both are unelected, and b) generally serve over their lifetimes rather than for four, six, or eight years. The federal bureaucracy is certainly structured to waylay democracy and check its worst excesses, in particular, as Woodrow Wilson says, regard for popular opinion. Conversely, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “the basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right.” Now, it is self-evident that Woodrow Wilson’s way of thinking is much more convenient for this Court’s decision-making; being self-evident, Mr. Wilson’s notion is also evident, or having the quality of evidence; ERGO, Mr. Wilson’s notion has the quality of evidence in support of this Court’s findings.

The fact that the Bureaucracy and the Judiciary share important structural similarities is likely an indication that they share similar powers—in other words, formal similarities suggest essential similarities. Judicial powers, on this reading, include the ability to legislate from the bench. As stated above, it is found that the Court’s primary purpose is in fact to disturb, disrupt, and undermine democracy, which has excessive regard for the opinions of The People. The People are simply not in a position to decide well considering their political fate; on average, they have fewer facts regarding any given topic than a blank page. They have the attention spans of gold-fish (4.3 seconds), they are mostly not college educated, and they hardly make over 40,000 dollars per year. These are the characteristics of subjects, not rulers.

Besides, it has been well-proven that both policy making and adjudication require expertise, a condition wholly unknown to the common man. Servitude requires only the expertise of a dumb animal, which, this Court is sorry to say, is an apt description of most members of homo sapiens.

The defendant argues that to prioritize institutional interest, or the status quo, over the will of the People is arbitrary and unlawful. The Court rejects such an argument. In Roe v. Wade, among other landmark decisions such as Obergerfell v Hodges, the Court established a clear precedent: judicial rulings can be both arbitrary and entirely at odds with current law as well as the history and traditions of both America and the larger British/Western tradition. Indeed, in Roe V Wade, Justice Blackmun was at pains to show how abortion was accepted by the most barbarous societies, and that, as Christianity spread, abortion became more and more taboo. Abortion was a crime under common law—either felonious or misdemeanor—for hundreds of years. Yet, Justice Blackmun and the Court established a constitutional right to abortion based upon emanations from penumbras.

Penumbras, as scholars have pointed out, are part-shadows formed by eclipses; thus, Justice Blackmun, in the interpretation of this court, was establishing a legal principle of finding new rights (abortion, sex change, gay marriage) in the eclipsing of the old rights (such as life, liberty, property). THE NEW RIGHTS ARE THE PENUMBRAS CAST AS A RESULT OF SUCH AN ECLIPSE. An alternative reading is offered by Mr. Dum Asfu Kerr, who finds that the specific use of the term penumbras and its meaning (half-shadow ) is meant to instruct judges to use as obscure a line of reasoning as possible when coming to conclusions.

**
Either way, the result is clear: this Court establishes the new right of institutions to maintain the status quo. IT IS SO ORDERED.
**

It is clear then, that the sort of relief the Plaintiffs are seeking-and entitled to-is comprehensive and lasting. This can only be ensured by an equally comprehensive legal action. Until further order, this Court issues a National Injunction against democracy and each and every attempt to realize the “will of the People” and, as such, forbids the President from performing any but ceremonial functions. Until such time as this court adjudicates whether the President has any legitimate authority to threaten the status quo whatsoever, the President shall be considered a figurehead.

**
IT IS SO ORDERED.
**

The Hon. Fucus D’Voughters