Saturday, July 23, 2005

President withdraws Roberts, Nominates Son of Man

In a stunning surprise reversal, President Bush late Tuesday withdrew just hours previously nominated to the high court, appellate District Judge John Roberts and in his stead put forth the name of one Jesus of Nazareth.
Democrats came up short at this unprecedented move. Senator Charles Schumer, (D-NY) however, quickly regained his footing: "While we were prepared with background information, dossiers and resumes of any possible Presidential nominee, I must admit this is a stunner. However, our strategy to ask serious specific questions of any possible nominee does not change. We’ve been planning this strategy for months, and if this President believes he can obstruct us, and more importantly obstruct the plans and desires of the American people to focus on what is truth with this One nominee, well, we will just see about that! He doesn't know the meaning of obstruction." Pressed to elaborate, Senator Schumer continued-"This nominee will certainly be asked to explain his position on capital punishment; we understand he once advocated death by stoning. There are rumors of mob violence. The American people will demand that we push on that. Also it comes to our attention this nominee apparently has been seen with known prostitutes, has no visible means of support except, and I find this hard to believe, ' sales of lilies'. His legal training consists entirely of arguments with his betters on the steps of churches. He was the suspect in an alleged disorderly conduct charge in a currency exchange. And He’s come to Washington, D.C. entirely on his own; has no family, no children, doesn’t drive, and may have a reputation for drink. His record of decisions before the bar is abyssmal. He's argued, and lost, but a single case, Pilate v. Nazarene. Hardly a stellar record. In his favor, we do know he so loves boating. But the personal niceties of any nominee are irrelevant. "The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy." After all, that’s what passed for Roman justice, and we Democrats will certainly emulate them. Senator Kennedy's told me some great stories about parties with his friend Little Boots. OH, Wait! Strike that!!"

Senator Patrick Leahy, (D-Vermont) weighed in with a string of specific questions he indicated the Democrats would likely press the nominee on. "Well, for one thing, what is this nominee’s position on marriage? We believe he filed an amicus brief in a civil suit, Wedding at Cana v. Gallo Brosthers, illegal dstribution of sprits. Senator Kennedy was present at the wedding, and remembers a few things about the case, especially the wine conflap. You can rest assured, as can the American people, that after we press his memory on this, we will have questions for the nominee. I can think of one right now as a matter of fact: Was he properly licensed and certified as a Wine Transformation Technologist? These are serious inquiries. Furthermore,"... the way I look at it is this: District courts and the courts of appeals, they're bound by the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, can interpret the law any way it wants. It's an entirely different standard." Just who does this nominee think He is?

Reporter, "Who do you say He is, Senator Leahy?"

Senator Leahy: "I wasn’t going to bring this up at this time, but since you asked, we know this nominee is a divider, not a uniter. Did this nominee not insist, insist mind you that his twelve law clerks leave home, abandon their fathers and mothers and follow Him? Wnader about begging in the desert? Dressed in bathrobes and flip-flops? The cult-like fascination He holds over His admirers will certainly influence my decision. I won't be swayed by anything He has said. We will have an independent judiciary in this country And by God, we'll track those people down, that Gang of Twelve! We especially want to locate this Iscariot fellow. And we know He’s made inflammatory remarks about bringing a sword, or something. Asked his clerks to pawn their clothing. And the people of his own city, in Pilate v. Nazarene, when given the choice, rebuked this man’s arguments and chose someone named Barrabas, and a second round draft pick to be named later. Is this High Court material? I think not. Senator Byrd has something to add. "

Senator Byrd: "Yes, I just have a couple of querical obsessions to observe about this man. What is His last name? Apparently He has none. 'Of Nazareth'? What sort of trick name is this? And what is He? Not a legal scholar. Fishmonger? Bread dealer? Faith healer? He doesn't even know his Bible. Never even heard of the Book of Luke. Or Acts. Has some passing knowledge of Revelation, just what you'd expect from a nominee of this President. Now before you get off your high horse, I know Article six of the Constitution says no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. And God knows I wouldn't question anyone's deeply held personal beliefs, that ground is plowed by others. I would question his education however. Bickering with priests is not legal training! Only one case before a court... Pilate v. Nazarene. And he lost that one. His client was handed over to a vicious administration where He suffered cruel and unusual punishment; the body was stuck in a hole in the ground behind a large rock, and later it disappeared. Or so says this Magdalene woman, goodness knows her reputation is tainted. These stories are preposterous! But for a miracle they cannot but have affected his Judgement. Like as He'd be scarred for life, deeply pierced...psychologically speaking of course. Just look at Him; He seems pale...kind of radioactive. Probably glows in the dark. Might just float away. About the only trustworty testimony we have so far comes from attendees at all the dinner parties He threw, fish fries by the Sea He attended, and Lord knows how many bread and wine tastings He's hosted. These sound like real friendly shindigs, and God knows I like a good party as much as Senator Kennedy, but do we want a drunk on our court? Then, after losing Pilate v. Nazarene, and after the worst storms and earthquakes I've seen in all my long years, days later his client miraculously reappears...reappears to those whom my esteamy colleague Senator Leahy calls, and quite aptly I might add, calls the Gang of Twelve. Then, days later, He disappears agin', disappears into a cloud,with some woman named Bethany Hill.

Senator Barbara Boxer, (D-CA) was surprisingly curt and short tongued. "I will not comment at this time on the nomination of someone whom I've never heard of."

Dick Durbin, (D-IL) was typically cryptic. "How can I be expected to make comparisons in this case? Nothing I know about this man has prepared me to see him face to face. Why should I believe in Him? After all, He's written nothing. Everything we know about Him is hearsay, inadmissible in a courtroom. And that long hair. And that strange middle eastern robe. And the odd tatoos on his forhead, they look like piercings without the beads. What kind of a hat leaves marks like that? I'd guess Him to be a crazed PTSD veteran if I didn't know He was a...who did you say He was?"

The Nominee spoke only briefly. "He that hath ears, let him hear."

Reporter: "Huh?"

No comments: