In a legal first, I filed a 'Quality Of Life' lawsuit against the state I was living in, which may make its way (hopefully) to the Supreme Court. 

        I figured "Why not?" after overhearing my Nth 'Right To Life' argument, probably while washing dishes with the TV on, where I couldn't change the channel soon enough 'cuz my hands were covered in suds. Listening to the back and forth, I could see that a legal loophole existed for if nobody could agree whether or not certain ones had a right to life, the quality of that life couldn't be far behind. Those affected by deficient amounts of Quality Of Life were certain to sue, and I wanted to be first in line.

Conferring with my hastily assembled legal team, it was agreed that while my complaint had not been brought forth to any court before, it had sufficient legal grounds to be presented, i.e., it had merit. 

  Certainly it couldn't be dismissed as frivolous, for if one had a Right To Life it surely followed that one had an equal right to Quality Of Life. How 'quality' was presently determined was that some authoritative entity followed the usual guidelines used to determine the value of things. They scanned the overall reach of society, looked to see where ones were situated, and through doing that a certain mean was found, a middle ground, one that was used to ascertain a 'benchmark' level of quality. One that was deemed 'acceptable'.

But my legal team's argument was that not only was Quality Of Life a financial and moral issue it was also a highly personal one for wasn't it up to the individual to determine what 'Quality Of Life' meant? This could not come through governmental decree for it would deny the individual’s 'Right Of Expression', a concept highly tied to Quality Of Life. For example, if I personally determined that perpetual bass fishing was essential to achieve Quality Of Life, could I be expected to be content were I relegated to perform the drugery of Formula One racing? 

Furthermore, as an at-heart perpetual bass fisherman, now turned Formula One race car driver, I would be grieviously prevented from even going near a calm, still lake full of bass and would suffer immeasureable psychological anguish to the degree that I could bankrupt any of a number of municipalities, perhaps even counties, and maybe even a whole state (the pain and suffering awards that innocently injured subjects previously received setting legal and financial precedent in such cases). While being placed in a race car driver's position could be argued as less than accidental, I could still be deemed a 'victim' as the level of suffering amassed would be deemed equal to that which any innocent injured person ever endured, in my legal council's estimation. 

  As it was, I was not in my complaint denied Quality Of Life in soooo extreme a manner but on the basis of denial I filed my claim anyway, which went through a series of lesser courts and experienced favorable rulings. My argument was presented thus:

"The playing of basketball alone is not sufficient grounds for the gaping disparity of income that exists between worker bee me and Player A of the Phoenix Suns. It indisputably follows, then, that my Quality Of Life (key words there) is nowhere near that of Player A. In a sane and progressive world, such exposure to imbalance would be looked upon as monstrous, abhorrent, and abominable. Since I know what those words mean, it decries a degree of intelligence and discernment that brings to me full knowledge of said disparity and with it, intense and implacable feelings of suffering to which I plead relief from to this court. My lawyers have in their possession documents and statements attesting to the veracity of recurring distressing states of mind that such exposure has caused me, which they can bring up to the bench, and of the numerous times I have been placed in such extreme states of agitation that it has required consolation, psychoanalysis, meditation, medication, and intervention even, to be employed, due to this ongoing injustice"

The higher courts pondered my claim with calm deliberation before agreeing that indeed I was one so aggrieved but these victories of mine were only temporary, for they were immediately and repeatedly appealed by state's counsel. In order to secure relief I had to take my case all the way to the Supreme Court, the highest in the land, whose decision was final and would stand 'forevermore'. 

It took many years, nearly three and a half, to have my case upon their docket and when that momentous day came, my lawyers (and theirs) were prepared for battle. Fierce legalese was passed back and forth in the courtroom that day, and over the many ones that followed, as the justices heard passionate arguments for and against my case. They then heard final, closing arguments, after which they retreated to consider the verdict, one that was probably going to hinge on a single vote for or against. 

After many days of deliberation, a decision was reached and all parties involved in the suit were summoned privately into the hallowed arena to hear what the justices had determined. I was nervous in the extreme, yet confident that my cause, even if it should fail, had at least during the trial opened the eyes of the observing public and those of some in the nation. Stronger cases were certain to follow mine. When the verdict was read, however, all my trepidation vanishied. I found I was immensely pleased and high-fived my stellar legal team repeatedly. The justice's decison was this:

"Quality Of Life is a given. Those granted life must be allowed to express it to the fullest extent allowable by law, as well as within the moral bounds of mutual human respect and decency. Perhaps the most commonly followed bounds that apply here are the words brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses, the words in our Constitution, and the words in our Bill Of Rights. Though some of those are moral guidelines- not laws- they create an outline for everyone to experience at least a baseline Quality Of Life.

'Quality Of Life' is believed to mainly come about through individual will and determination but we find that to be an incompletely scrutinized mere assumption. Through investigative examination it is revealed that the Game Of Life is one that is tremendously skewed, highly favoring the already advantaged. While it is true that some graduate from meager initial means to lofty heights the majority do not and thus cannot be said to even remotely experience or know what they are missing due to their being placed, and long conditioned, to accept realities far different from those above. This unfortunate fact of life has always been the case and to those many the court considers itself fortunate and stands relieved, for it cannot begin to address their complaints. The court's luck in this matter rests on the fact that any of them presenting or even conceiving of bringing an actual lawsuit to the bench is highly unlikely, almost ludicrous.

"However, in the matter of the one who stands before us, we award a basketball players' annual salary in compensation. Case adjourned!"

“What the @*$#!” cried the state's lawyers, in unison, as the justices rose and began to file towards their chambers. "This is ridiculous! It sets a precedent sure to be followed by tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions!"

The final Supreme Court judge stopped just before exiting. He turned to the state's lawyers and said "This decision will never be made public. It is to be an 'out of court settlement’ and you will pony up. The media will be told that the case was thrown out and sent back to the lower courts for reconsideration, which, as you know, is something that will likely tie it up for years".

"So why didn't you do just that? Send it back to the lower courts? Why did you make a ruling at all?!"

"We had to. The defendant's cause was just. It just doesn't have to be publicly known! Justice has to be served by us and sometimes that dish comes out frosty cold"

"But justice was not served! This will cost our state millions of dollars! How is that 'justice'?"

The final judge paused, scratched his chin some, looked upwards, then sighed resignedly before speaking. 

"Consider it a warning shot across the bow. The time for further favorable rulings in such matters has come. Times are a'changing. What used to be acceptable won't be for much longer. It can't be denied or explained away that the income gap doesn't cause damage any more than denying life itself causes damage, but what that damage is is left up to the courts to decide. We are placed in an unpleasant position, you see? We can't deny the reality of these issues away, like you do, for we're at the end of the line. Yes or no, we have to decide. Though you and your kind may dream up thousands of theories and explanations and then use them to befuddle minds, galvanize certain factions, and sway voters, we are tasked with bringing contentious matters down to detached and dispassionate reasonings. We then reduce those to the best plausible interpretation of the facts we have at hand. "What fits, in the current time, in our current understanding?" That is what we ask ourselves. We're not the end all, for civilization is always evolving, and though it's unlikely that our ruling will be overturned soon, at some point it will come back to us, only then it will be presented in a different way- and we will have to rule on that.

  Good day to you!"