July 2, 2005
Williams et. al. v. Walmart
In surprising news yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that shocked Republicans and Democrats alike, and threatened the sanctity of the 13th Amendment.
In October 2003, Walmart opened a new store in Barstow, California. During the hiring process, there was a small clause in the employment contract, that, upon the employees signature, made the employee direct property of Walmart. Little happened until February 2004, when the local government, using the power of eminent domain, seized the neighboring hotel to serve as slave’s quarters for the employees of Walmart. At that time, Walmart forced their employees into the new quarters, and they have been working 80 hour weeks, provided only room, board, and medical care, ever since. Upon the first legal challenge to Walmart, the city of Barstow changed their laws to allow “slavery and indentured servitude, as long as the participant enters willingly into such agreement.”
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Walmart’s right to ownership of their slaves. Writing the majority opinion, Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated:
“It has long been the practice of this court to recognize the rights of government and corporations over those alleged ‘individual rights’. Citing precedent of Kelo, Raich, and the Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers decision, it is obvious that the will of the majority of Barstow elected officials should hold case here. It is plain to see that the existence of a Walmart in the city of Barstow will benefit many more people in the added tax revenue generated than are hurt by this ’slavery’. As these employees are treated better than most of the citizens of socialist countries across the world, are they really even being harmed? My view of ‘liberty’ is a roof over your head, food in your belly, and a steady job, so I don’t see what they’re complaining about. Further, I plan to employ the ‘originalist’ position, and hold that slavery, in the time the thirteenth amendment was written, only applied to people of African origin. Since the plaintiffs in this case are entirely whites and Mexicans, this cannot truly be considered “slavery”. Last, I’m going to throw in some language about states’ rights and federalism, right of contract, and how local government should trump federal, to get the libertarians off my back.”
A decision largely hailed as a giveaway to corporate America, it nonetheless may spur economic development. Thomas Jones, head of the “Overseers, Whippings, and Loss Prevention” department of the store, has this to say: “Well, like, I wouldn’t have this job overseein’ them slaves if this wasn’t legal. Alls’ I’m good at is yellin’ and whippin’, so what would happen to poor Tommy Jones if this job wasn’t available?”
Amnesty International protested outside the store, but oddly, few of them had any idea why they were there. Amid cries of “Halliburton!” and “Bush lied, people died!”, one frantic organizer tried to remind everyone that they were there to protest against slavery, not George W. Bush. The message was lost as the rabid, drugged-out protestors thought this meant that George W. Bush was a slave-owner, and worked themselves into a frenzy screaming out “Lynch Bush!” until they collapsed in a heap.
A Walmart executive, speaking anonymously, was less than cordial:
“Yeah, yeah, yeah. We’ve got you punks over a barrel and we know it. As long as your local goverments are salivating over the vote-buying they can do with the tax dollars we bring in, they’ll let us do whatever we want. I can’t even tell you how many hookers I’ve gotten from local politicians trying to get us to build a store. Hell, I could get away with murder if I wanted, one of our execs already has! It’s not Walmart’s job to protect your rights, people, you should be talking to your governments for that. But as long as they’re willing to hold the door open for us, we’ll walk through it. Now get out of my face, before I declare eminent domain on your ass, bitch!”
Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas all dissented. Writing what is certainly the shortest dissenting opinion in the history of the Court, Scalia wrote only “I can’t believe they let these idiots in the room with me.” Sandra Day O’Connor, who normally would be expected to side with the dissent in this case, was reported to mumble about the country going to hell, and her plans to move to Australia. She declined to comment publicly.
The Unrepentant Individual linked with Carnival of Liberty #1!
7 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Another example of the blogs beating the LameStream Media to the story.
Very funny.
Curious. Why cite the wine import case? That case increased economic freedom.
Brad, You have a wild imagination. Poor WalMart is always being made the example.
Good question, KJ. Two reasons.
1) I haven’t followed the Supreme Court that closely, so I added it in because I know a little bit about it.
2) Because it was a favor to big business, as well as a further expansion of federal rules superceding those of the states. Whether it was the judicially correct decision didn’t enter into my use of it as precedent.
Exercising eminent domain for anyone sucks,
but how is a job equated with slavery?
Is the hotel a jail cell that they’re marched
to every night? Do they wear ball and chain?
If I want to sign an agreement, I’ll sign
an agreement if the agreement meets my taste.
If it’s violated I’ll walk. Hell, I walked
years ago from the non-existent ’social contract’ that a few Amerikums keep mumbling
about.
Now that last paragraph in that post was
mighty interesting.
BTW, comment preview doesn’t look like what
I have in the box where I wrote it. It adds
unwritten line spaces.
But it posted as written.
[...]
Carnival of Liberty #1! Click it or Ticket Egg on face Williams et. al. v. Walmart Google Ear [...]