Crushing kittens? Say what!?

Look, I know there are some very strange people out there, but apparently someone, no, multiple people’s fetish is to watch women crush tiny animals? And the Supreme Court had to deal with it? My, my, what has the world come to:

The hypotheticals were both amusing and disturbing at the Supreme Court’s Tuesday hearing on the constitutionality of a ban on videos that depict animal cruelty. The law, created in response to “crush” videos—a fetish genre featuring barefoot or stiletto-clad women crushing small animals—forbids any recording “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed.” In a surprise twist, conservative Justices Scalia and Alito seemed to take opposing positions: Scalia pointed to the interests of free speech, asking “What if I am an aficionado of bullfights and I think, contrary to the animal-cruelty people, that they ennoble both beast and man?” Alito, on the other hand, explored the limits of government leniency in the face of extreme barbarism: Imagining if human sacrifice were legal somewhere abroad, Alito commented, “People here would probably love to see it. Live, pay per view, you know, on the Human Sacrifice Channel”—not to mention the potential for the “Ethnic Cleansing Channel.” (The Wall Street Journal)

This is how you get the job as a Supreme Court Justice. The first question on the application is, “Can you make light of horrible situations.” You can? Welcome aboard, Mr. Chief Justice.