MCCORMACK V. CITY OF BOMANT, ILLINOIS (1984)
“…What the plaintiff fails to address, in all his ever-so-earnest hocus-pocus about David’s supposed “leaping and dancing before the Lord”, is that this case was never about whether certain Biblical figures engaged in physical contortions and rhythmic movements that could be construed as ‘dancing.’ Such rhetorical applesauce is simply a distraction, a carnival freakshow intended to turn us away from the central question of this case. So I’ll ask it again: Who are we, as a panel of unelected judges, to say that the people of Bomant are not allowed to ban dancing if they so choose?
What’s so special about dancing, anyway? The Constitution states that we are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – the framers make no mention of dancing. Even a child could tell you that happiness and dancing do not go hand in hand – personally, some of my happiest moments have occurred while sitting completely still. Yet my colleagues on the bench have been bamboozled into upending the democratic process to overturn a popular and effective law, unfairly silencing the good and just people of Bomant who sought to ban dancing for the safety of the town’s young people – many of whom are engaged in a wild and reckless dance montage even as we speak.”
BUDDY THE DOG V. WASHINGTON INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION (1997)
“…I’ve seen a great deal of applesauce in my many years on this bench, but never before have I beheld as much applesauce in a single case as I have here today. I am a dog lover, to be sure, but unlike my colleagues I am actually capable of putting my affection for canines aside long enough to make a clear-eyed assessment of the facts. And the facts are these: Simply because the WIAA’s bylaws do not explicitly prohibit dogs from playing basketball, they do not also allow just any stray dog, no matter how cute, to join in a state-sanctioned regular season basketball game.
Just because Buddy can play basketball doesn’t mean he should be allowed to play basketball. Doing so makes a mockery of the sport! When the rules of the game were written it was clear they were intended to be applied to two teams of human players; redefining them now after over a hundred years sets an ominous precedent. If a dog can play basketball, then what’s to stop a dog from playing football, or soccer, or baseball?”
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY V. GHOSTBUSTERS (1984)
“…I should like to take this opportunity to commend Mr. Peck’s work. He is an exemplary public servant, one who put the lives of millions of New Yorkers ahead of his own when he courageously shut down the dangerous, unregistered, and unlawful containment unit being operated by Drs. Spengler, Stantz, and Venkman. It’s beyond my comprehension how anyone could look at the facts of this case and blame Mr. Peck for the subsequent incident with the Stay-Puft Marshmellow Man.
By siding with the defendants, this court overrules hundreds of years of legal history and silences tens of millions of good, honest, hardworking Americans who have well-founded personal and cultural objections to the practice of ghostbusting. In times of paranormal razzmatazz, people should be free to take whatever course of action they so choose – but this ruling, which reeks of applesauce, all but forces them to call Ghostbusters.”
BUELLER V. ROONEY (1986)
“…If any of Mr. Rooney’s actions at the plaintiff’s house that day overstepped his bounds as dean of students, he was only doing so in the interests of ensuring Mr. Bueller got an education. Indeed, I should think most high schoolers would be lucky to have a man like Ed Rooney in their lives – if they did, maybe this country wouldn’t be resting on the precipice of destruction. By ruling to award the plaintiff his diploma in spite of his repeated and flagrant violations of the school’s attendance policy, this court is effectively encouraging teens everywhere to engage in the same careless, dangerous ballyhoo as Mr. Bueller – skipping school, stealing cars, unlawfully trespassing on parade floats…
Already, testimony shows that many of Mr. Bueller’s classmates consider him a ‘righteous dude.’ This decision only further tightens his viselike grip on today’s impressionable youth. Mr. Bueller is a ‘bad seed’ – to borrow a phrase from Mr. Rooney – and with today’s action the court ensures that his bad seed will grow into a bad apple, which, in due course, will become bad applesauce.”
BAMBI V. HUNTER (1942)
“…am I the only one on this court who’s stopped to wonder what, exactly, Bambi’s mother was doing wandering around in the open during hunting season?”