If I was a Supreme Court Justice . . . .

"The Petitioners assert that the suit may be maintained due the particulars of the question presented. Namely, they rely on our previous indications that suits which seek to enforce contractual obligations against a state must be examined on different grounds than similarly situated tort claims. Respondents, on the other hand, rely on the extensive precedent requiring a clear statement from Congress of their intent to create such a remedy. The clear statement rule, which has been employed by this court in many areas of federal question, has been the source of much confusion. In many cases construing federal statutes, including the case at bar, the courts face the difficult question of attempting to glean from often unwieldy statutes and evidence whether Congress has met the amorphous clear statement threshold.

Because we beleive our previous clear statement tests have proved unworkable due to their vagueness, we now adopt what can best be termed the 'Super Badass In-Your-Face Clear Statement Rule': if Congress wishes to create a judicially enforceable remedy, they must clearly state their intent to do so by:

1. Including obvious language in the statute
2. Dressing the House majority leader up as a Turtle, writing on the back of his shell 'Clear Statement Turtle', and then parading him around the Lincoln Memorial on a leash while he holds the statute in his mouth
3. Notarizing the asses of every member of the Senate who actively participated in the development of said statute

We feel that this new test, while rigorous, will ensure that the intent of Congress is fairly determined and can then be adjudicated."