The Bois v. Cuffing Szn
74 U.Va 11 (2021)
Tonseth, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.
Background
Let me set the scene. It’s Friday night and you’re out with the bois (or girlz) at Bar Review. You’re feeling your outfit, your hair is perfectly coiffed, and you smell good. Your chakras are aligned. You introduce yourself to the cutie at Bilt, strike up a conversation, and enjoy the night. Fast forward to the next day. Fresh off of a hangover, you grab lunch with your crew, chat about your evening, and plan out your debauchery for the ensuing day. This is a rinse and repeat for the next few weeks, beginning in August until this week. Then, enter cuffing szn.[1]
Issue
The complaint today comes from a crew of gents, eager to enjoy their ultimate year of debauchery with their friends before entering the real world, minus one boi. This said boi, eager to repeat the success of his early Bar Review encounters, has become detached from his wolf pack. Knowing that cuffing szn was right around the corner,[2] the detached boi wanted to ensure he could continue his successful escapades into the cold months when midriffs and short shorts[3] would become a mere distant memory. Therefore, he returned to his old haunt and became what his crew called a “simp”. While simp-ing[4] is a generally acceptable lifestyle, Petitioners here assert that they have been irreparably harmed by cuffing szn forcing their now detached friend to only spend time with his newfound love interest, to the detriment of their debauchery.
Analysis
As cuffing szn is an ethereal concept, this Court has recognized the respondent in this case as the detached boi, serving as the intermediary and cuffing szn’s representative. However, the detached boi was unable to arrive timely to oral arguments, as his newfound love interest “really needed that Bodos to get through PR.” Strike one. If you’ve ever listened to a friend gush over their new love interest, you know it gets real mushy and normally lacks any coherency on why they actually like the person. Common phrases such as “they’re so funny,” “we always make eye contact across the room,” and “she even saved the last bag of gummies from the Snack Office for me” were all woven into the detached boi’s defense of his recent absence. This added nothing to his case, typical for a law student trying to explain away a bad answer on an exam. Strike two came about when the detached boi asked to admit a late amicus brief to the docket, written by none other than his boo-thang. The copious amount of time they spend together are efforts to “soften his rough edges,” “reduce his dependence on Bud Light and his Juul,” and “help him focus on studying instead of golfing.” This Court rightfully rejected any attempt to have this amicus admitted, but its damage had been done. Alternatively, the detached boi requested a motion to strike the amicus from the record, knowing how poisonous its contents had been. However, as the Court and I don’t really understand the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine yet, and one can’t unhear things, strike two.
At this point in the opinion, you may be wondering when any actual legal analysis is going to be presented. But here, just as in any opinion written by Justice Breyer, the expectation that there will be any logical analysis in my opinion is “so absurd that it to my knowledge has never been contemplated.”[5] Well, the final strike in this case comes down solely to the detached boi’s being. Ever since Fall Break, the detached boi has resembled Casper.[6] Nary a call, a text, nor a simple wave in the hall. What used to be a blossoming bromance amongst the bois is now a sad time, as detached boi is only seen when wandering the halls, waiting until his love interest is out of class. Three strikes and you’re out cuffing szn.[7]
Conclusion
The Court urges the detached boi to reconsider his choices. Everyone loves love, but don’t forget your “ride or dies” in the process. We miss ya bud, we’ll be waiting on the first tee for when you decide to come back to the pack.
Stephens, J., dissenting.
The Court of Petty Appeals serves a grand, even essential, purpose in the University of Virginia School of Law, declaring judgments, acting as final arbiter for the people, and ensuring that justice is served. As such, it has one of the most restrictive dockets in the world, deciding around two dozen cases a year. Due to this limited docket space, it is imperative that issues relevant to the larger student body be considered, and not act as a mere intervenor in private disputes. Due to this, I dissent from the majority opinion in this case.
Frankly, I do not understand how the Chief Justice garnered sufficient votes to grant certiorari, much less a majority opinion. Having read the briefs and the opinion, I still do not understand what this case is about. The language of the majority makes less sense than James Joyce’s Odyssey, and reminds me of nothing more than an Alzheimer’s test image. As such, I maintain that it should be dismissed with prejudice and all parties should be found in contempt of court. Additionally, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 (c )(3) I would order both parties and their attorneys to show cause that they did not violate Rule 11(b), specifically (b)(2), that their arguments are “warranted by existing law by a nonfrivolous argument.”
Kulkarni, S., concurring.
In a rare event, the Chief Justice and I are in agreement. Cuffing szn is a pox on the houses of all groups of bois and girlz that must be derided when it appears. Disappearing from group events because “I am going over to their house” or “we have a dinner date” or “he’s making me vegan pancakes” should be no excuse to abandon the people who should mean most: your crew. But I write specifically to remind our colleague Associate Justice Stephens that here on the Court of Petty Appeals, we are governed by the most important rule: “We do what we want.”[8] If the Court as a whole wished to discuss this important issue then we will. We are not, as Justice Stephens, asserts, some grand forum. We are, by our very nature, petty.
[1] For the uneducated amongst us, I point you to UrbanDictionary: “During the Fall and Winter months people who would normally rather be single or promiscuous find themselves along with the rest of the world desiring to be "Cuffed" or tied down by a serious relationship. The cold weather and prolonged indoor activity causes singles to become lonely and desperate to be cuffed.” https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cuffing%20Season
[2] Not “The Corner.” The only cuffing there is by University Police, if Tim Longo could ever actually provide any identifying information in his crime alerts.
[3] Including his—equal opportunity here.
[4] If you don’t know what this really means, enter UrbanDictionary again: “A man who puts the hoes before the bros.”
[5] Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998), Scalia J., concurring.
[6] Yes, this is a direct reference to ghosting. For the last time, UrbanDictionary has my back: “The act of suddenly ceasing all communication with someone the subject is dating, but no longer wishes to date (here, be friends with). This is done in hopes that the ghostee will just ‘get the hint’ and leave the subject alone, as opposed to the subject simply telling them he/she is no longer interested. Ghosting is not specific to a certain gender and is closely related to the subject's maturity and communication skills.”
[7] Obligatory baseball reference, go Braves!
[8] Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers, 369 U.Va 96 (2019).