WASHINGTON, DC - With a 8-1 vote, a Supreme Court ruling today set an extremely strict precedent on the way parents can raise their children. Seeing as how the judicial branch is meant to make laws, the court set forth new guidelines on how much television children can watch, as well as certain eating habits. The first part, pertaining to television, received very little objection. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who kinda almost sorta tends to be a liberal judge, said that, "Parents just can't be trusted today. I voted yes on this ruling because parents who let their kids watch television instead of making them do homework are a menace to society. Because I think this, I have the power to change the whole country."

That clause of the ruling said that the amount of television children can watch can be solved using this simple algebraic equation, letting n= # of hours able to watch and A= age: n=4A^2-8A-42. Critics point out that this number can be very easily negative or even have numbers larger than one thousand, for instance. The supreme court dismissed that notion and said that anyone upset with the ruling or with questions on the formula should contact the Bureau of Parental Affairs, whose only location is in Western Samoa, a U.S. territory. This Bureau has no email or phone capabilities, so complaints must be directly communicated at the building. Critics of the ruling also included those who wondered if it intruded enough into the home. Allie Hamilton of the Parents For a Good Society by My Standards (PFGSMS) reasoned, "This new ruling only applies to children. We think it should also be applied to adults under the age of 120." John Dumbass of the Government Solves Everything Organization (GSEO) agreed. "We should also be able to enforce this law by monitoring every household with security cameras paid by with tax dollars. Also, we should hire thousands of people to go over to people's houses and evaluate their progress." A bunch of people thought it violated an old ancient theory of liberty. Stephen Breyer, one of the justices who ruled in favor, rejected that idea, saying "We are obviously doing this for the benefit of the kids. We have good intentions! How could you be against this? Do YOU hate children?!" The second part of the ruling was much more controversial. Parents who feed more than a pint of ice cream, four cookies, one package of coffee cake, 7.8 crackers (10 if they are unsalted), and/or a package of Smarties are to be held as felons. The court argued that it was to protect children against parents who practice bad eating habits. "This is fucking ridiculous. Whatever happened to non-statist governments?" Pat Henry asked. (Mr. Henry, after the first publish of this article was deported to Libya, which he has never been to. However, the government claimed he was lying and was a threat to national security. Pat is five years old.) Another section of that part of the ruling outlined certain dining parctices parents must follow. One night a week must be devoted to sushi. Another night, pasta. Another night: sandwiches. Another night: radishes. Another: Meats. Another night: gourmet cheeses. David Hackett Souter quieted these critics saying, "Come on, people! You get one night to choose whatever you want! Now, that's freedom!" John Locksmith, a single parents with four kids, thought the ruling was pathedic. "I live paycheck to paycheck, and I'm supposed to pay for sushi for five once a week? Where the fuck do you even get good radishes?" Will Compernolle, local citizen, agreed. "I'm allergic to cheese. What should I do now?" Justice Anthony Kennedy responded shortly and simply, "Well. We see this as a problem with it. But we agreed that people who eat something forcibly by law that they're allergic to can just go right to the hospital and soak up tax dollars paying for their medical bills. It's a win-win situation!" Justice Thomas Jefferson, when asked why he voted against the measure, said, "I've heard of this thing called the constitution. I dunno, check it out." Immediately after the dissenting vote, Jefferson was considered for impeachment and several activist groups rallied outside his house demanding resignation. "I just don't see how anyone other than insenstive nazi racists could be against this. How can anyone be against any government program that is designed to help people?" Chris Marton Coldplay asked. what's to come from this ruling is unexpected, although complete government control of residential buildings is expected within the next ten years.