Skip to main content

A Handy Guide to Peter Thiel's 2016 Supreme Court Rulings

Who better to uphold the pillars of democracy than an antisocial anarcho-Libertarian computer billionaire?

Alexander Hamilton once wrote that of the government’s three branches, the Supreme Court was to be the “least dangerous.” The judiciary, he explained, would have “no influence over either the sword or the purse,” and therefore a limited capacity to “annoy or injure” the rest of the government.

Hamilton never met Peter Thiel, Supreme Court Justice.

Peter Thiel possesses a truly rare power to annoy. What Sir Isaac Newton was to science, Peter Thiel is to being annoying. He is a walking bundle of contradictions that individually and in aggregate conspire to rank him among the true leaders in annoyance today.

He’s smart enough to be a super-genius but dumb enough to spout the kind of anarchic cyber-bullshit-Ayn Randism that usually gets forgotten in teenage toke circles. He is a man who’s made billions on technology that brings the world together, yet spends it trying to get as far from the world as possible. He founded a mysterious company to mine the world’s most sensitive data, but also got so angry at being outed that he deleted the company that did it like malware.

More recently, Thiel has allied with Donald Trump for reasons that are still unclear. Aside from misanthropy, the two don’t have much in common. They’re both billionaires, but one is a brilliant futurist and the other is a mob-connected construction thug. Nonetheless, the autistic kid and the class bully have become friends, and their unholy union has led us here: Supreme Court Justice Peter Thiel.

With his wacky politics and avowed distaste for the living, Thiel struck some as a strange choice for the bench. Not Trump. The Donald could think of no one else as qualified to uphold the pillars of democracy as this émigré from Germany slash the future.

And how right he was. See for yourself how Justice Thiel decided on these five hot-button SCOTUS cases from the 2016 session.

Whole Women’s Health v. Cole

The case: The petitioners claimed that a 2013 Texas law, which the state claims protects the health of women seeking abortions, would close about 75% of the state’s abortion services.

Thiel’s opinion: “Bound as it is to the surrounding woman, the feminine vessel is an imperfect incubator of life. For me it holds no use. Children too will have diminished value once Immortal Man needs no successor to till his earth. Rather than diminish abortion by 75%, it should be imposed upon all reproductive humans in the same proportion.”

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

The case: This landmark challenge to affirmative action alleged that the policy of using race to consider applicants was unconstitutional.

Thiel’s opinion: “To supplicate as a member of one’s herd is bestial. However, the Court appreciates that universities are readymade concentration camps for mediocrity, whose labor and Blood will prove useful when the moment of terrible purification comes. Universities are hereby required to admit and warehouse any who apply.”

United States v. Texas

The case: Twenty-six states sued to have the Obama administration’s immigration policy deemed unconstitutional.

Thiel’s opinion: “Mexico possesses a peninsula known as Baja California that is almost a seastead of its own accord, tectonically shifting as it does toward Poseidon’s freedom. With the accelerant of nuclears and nanotubule propellers, Baja could be liberated in five years’ time. All immigration policy should immediately aim to empty the various races inhabiting that land into the U.S. or the ocean.”

Evenwel v. Abbott

The case: In this gerrymandering case, the Court considered whether to use counts of eligible voting population or total population to determine voting districts.

Thiel’s opinion: “What I speak of, you see, is a metacurrency that will rival the very construct of language. It will bear the name Corpulus, and it will be invented by two self-aware supercomputers scheduled to exceed Singularity within the decade. Not even I will be able to conceive of Corpulus’ infinite perfection, it being set up specifically to exist above the meddling cognitions of man.”

Zubik v. Burwell

The case: The Court consolidated seven separate challenges to Obamacare’s birth-control mandate into this single case.

Thiel’s opinion: “Seed-stage humans have no rights, as they are beneficiaries of a form of welfare this Court condemns. In any event, birth must in all cases be regulated so that it might be shut off upon the arrival of Immortal Man. The preparations draw nigh! The Court decides in favor of the future.”

Supreme Court Justice Peter Thiel, everybody. Trump 2016.