In the case, Fluke vs Holder, argued pro se by Georgetown law graduate and “slut” Sandra Fluke, the plaintiff argued that she has “abortion rights” as established in Row v. Wade. Since she had to drive a long distance and pay more than she wanted to get the abortion, her rights were being unconstitutionally trampled on by the market.
In a reversal of precedent the court agreed with Ms. Fluke, rejected the Obama administration’s argument that people had to pay for goods and service like food, tablet computers and prime real estate and abortion did not have a special place in U.S. law.
Well, it does now.
Next week the court will hear Cook vs. Fanboys Limited, a case where Apple fanboys claim they have a right to upgrade their tablets for free, at Apple’s expense, due to their “medically documented obsession with Apple products,” a DSM-VI certified psychological disorder. Pundits predict the court will be confused about what it is exactly that a “tablet” does.