Only shiny when still fresh and new, with not all turds having that distinct look, regardless of how a light source is moved around, trying to achieve a glint of reflection.
Using a product such as
can maintain an illusion of shine...yet one can still see the object for what it is.
I say the turd was not produced shiny, au naturel, nor simply coated with a clear plastic or urethane spray coating upon it's exiting the orifice.
Instead, among not a little stink and much noise, it came to us decoupaged.
Though it arrived to the Court with many layers of such covering having been thickly applied already, having outer visible elements cut as they were from various sources, all combined and pasted onto the essence of the thing, making the outer layer a large confusing collage...
What Justice Roberts did in his dicta was to add his own somewhat clumsy additional decoupage, which doesn't quite obliterate the overall camouflage enough for one and all to be forced to re-identify the thing i for what it truly is, thus be forced to reject it, even as an involuntary "movement".
If those who first excreted this monstrous stinking pile continue to have their way, we will all be forced to eat it, (except for those who created/excreted it in the first place, and/or those whom "make love" with the same original orifices, both coming and going) while the Democrat hard-left and the 1st Wookie smirk at us, telling us that the ghastly creation is not what we all saw and smelt throughout the entire process, but it is instead, "peas".
I think we here can agree, regardless of what else is said about the thing, that at it's center, it is indeed still a turd.
Any disagreement we may have as to the thing's outward appearance, if you will allow, I'll just chalk up as being one of nomenclature.
Or as Bill Shakespeare might out it:
` A turd is a turd is a turd, by any other name it would smell as foul.’
`What is this I see before me? A turd? Out—out damned turd!’
http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx