If I Have to Read About One More Person Throwing Shade at Trump I'm Going to Die

Our co-president is, of course, a very easy target—it takes little to no effort to drive him crazy. But that doesn’t mean you’re the one who has to fire off antagonistic tweets. The rest of the clowns on the internet and I have got that covered! Besides, the unfortunate fact of the matter is you still lost and no gloating tweet, no matter how sick of a burn, will make up for that. Thank you for your service to this nation, please stop with the tweets.

Regardless of my opinions on this decision of hers, a tweet that is quite clearly directed at Trump lampooning his losses in federal court is not shade.

The Ruling: Not shade

Shade Court Docket #2017JZ000018

The Case: The White House is leaking like a colander and it seems like every other day we’re getting some new anecdote about how Trump’s team is in chaos, he maybe has dementia, and generally leads a very sad life these days.

The New York Times recently published one such article:

Flanking his desk are portraits of Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. He will linger on the opulence of the newly hung golden drapes, which he told a recent visitor were once used by Franklin D. Roosevelt but in fact were patterned for Bill Clinton. For a man who sometimes has trouble concentrating on policy memos, Mr. Trump was delighted to page through a book that offered him 17 window covering options.

The Defendant: Tina Dupuy

The Evidence:

The Deliberation: You know what? No. I am putting my foot down. We can’t take every clever, condescending anecdote about how stupid this man is as shade. I SHAN’T DO IT. I shan’t do it to Dorian Corey. I shan’t do it to Mariah. Better call Destiny’s Child because I am saying “No, No, No Pt. 2,” you hear me?

If times were better, if I wasn’t drowning in requests for rulings of Trump-related slights, I might be more generous. But I am fed up and I am tired and today I will not allow this.

As my good friend pointed out, the recipient of your shade has to know they’re being shaded for it to be shade. Knowing, no matter how deep down, that you’re ugly is a the only way for shade to truly land.

Donald Trump is an egomaniac who thinks executive orders are royal decrees and that he can alter the concept of facts. The man is dim. I have to believe that most of the time he’s not interpreting these digs the way they were intended—as shade. Ergo, the shade does not exist.

The Ruling: Not shade

Shade Court Docket #2017JZ000019

The Case: The Cool Pope, who I deeply wish was actually the Young Pope, posted a video where some say he alluded to Donald Trump—who will never be a real boy no matter how much he pesters Breitbart Gepetto.

“We live in cities that throw up skyscrapers and shopping centers and strike big real estate deals but they abandon a part of themselves to marginal settlements on the periphery,” [the Pope] said in the video published on February 2. “The result of this situation is that great sections of the population are excluded and marginalized: without a job, without options, without a way out. Don’t abandon them.”

The Defendant: Huffington Post

The Evidence:

The Deliberation: The leader of the largest religion in the world and a man who is also a statesman doing what we can to prevent a humanitarian crisis should really not be shading other world leaders, but here we are.

You know what? Fine. That detail about “real estate deals” is shady and you can have this.

However, I will not accept any arguments that this headline is remotely acceptable. Threw shade in the classiest way possible? I don’t even understand how this is supposed to be classy. Is it low-key? Yes. Chill? Sure, this is very chill shade. But stylish and sophisticated this shade is not.

And then there’s the “holy shade” debacle. Do you understand how silly and confused this sounds? This is you:

The Ruling: Shade

Shade Court Docket #2017JZ000020

The Case: Merriam-Webster announced they’ll be including “shade,” as we know it here in Shade Court, to the dictionary.

The Defendant: Merriam-Webster

The Evidence:

The Deliberation: I don’t even want to get into their long explanation of the addition becuase whew, it’s been a long, trying session in court today. Let’s just discuss the definition itself.

This is not bad but it is also not good. Shade is not primarily a facial expression. Is a facial expression sometimes shade? Yes of course, but really, that’s all you’re gonna do, Merriam-Webster?

I an already foresee the problems this will create. Any wayward eyeball or grimace is going to be dubbed shade and my job will just get harder. Further, there’s so much more to shade than making a stank face at someone. They sort of touch on this in in the “US slang” portion but I am not satisfied.

Tonight, please pour one out for Judge Brown for all the inevitable times in the future when people are going to send me the dictionary definition of shade to defend themselves.

The Ruling: Shade, but grossly lacking