You know, the human powers of instant recollection are nothing
short of amazing.
I was sitting at home trying to decide whether to have salad or
cookies for lunch when I remembered, all of a sudden, where I left
my retainer in sixth grade.
I also remembered that I had a column due in about an hour, so I
grabbed some cookies and began to think hard for an excuse to get
out of writing my column. (Let’s see … I’m eating
cookies … that’s it! I’ll say I caught diabetes!)
Fortunately, it never had to come to that, because I became
aware of the following statistical correlation while staring at my
computer screen:
Number of recent U.S. Supreme Court vacancies: two.
Number of stupid shows Tyra Banks hosts on UPN: two.
This has, according to my statistics class, a positive
correlation of (-1), so all of you Scientologists out there reading
this are coming to the same conclusion I did: L. Ron Hubbard has
destined me to write about the Supreme Court. My Magic 8-Ball also
said the same thing.
Therefore, today’s topic shall indeed be the Supreme
Court, and from what I can tell, there’s been quite a lot of
buzz hovering around everywhere. Specifically around my car ever
since I started parking underneath this killer wasps’ nest. I
think they’ve figured out how to navigate my air ducts, and
are planning to sting me to death next time I’m stuck on the
405 (actually doing me a favor).
But there’s also been a lot of buzz about the Supreme
Court, primarily because as of late there have been an
unprecedented two openings on the Court. This is so rare that it
only happens once every 600 years, except in John Grisham’s
“The Pelican Brief.”
So to get things started, President Bush nominated John G.
Roberts Jr. to fill Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s spot.
However, he was criticized for this (duh) and accusations were made
that Roberts wasn’t being totally forthright during his
confirmation hearings, such as when Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked
Roberts his name and he said, “I can’t comment on that
right now, because that’s one of the pending cases on our
docket, and also I think it would violate the
Constitution.”
Stung by these accusations, Bush realized that Chief Justice
William Rehnquist had actually died two years ago, and, being the
veteran political mastermind that he is, sent Rehnquist’s
family a bouquet of flowers. He then renominated Roberts for chief
justice, over the protests of about three Democrats and Barbara
Streisand.
But everyone else seemed to like Roberts, and he moved through
the confirmation hearings in a record 11 minutes. Bush then
nominated Harriet Miers to fill O’Connor’s spot, which
pretty much pissed off everybody on earth.
The Republicans are mad because not only has she contributed
financially to certain Democrats in the past, she allegedly has
also been a member of the Black Panthers, destroyed SUVs with the
Earth Liberation Front, and helped Fidel Castro rise to power. They
also claim to have pictures of her smoking marijuana with Ralph
Nader.
The Democrats are mad because, well, Bush nominated her, and
they have to gripe “a little more than we did for John
Roberts.”
The Hispanics are mad because Bush promised he would consider
nominating a qualified Latino justice “as long as we
don’t tell Pat Buchanan.” In addition, Miers
mispronounced the word “quesadilla.”
The anti-abortion groups are mad because “she’s
never torched Planned Parenthood.”
And O’Connor is mad because “she took my damn
parking space.”
Everyone is expecting there to be a bruising political dogfight
over this nomination, because nobody really knows how Miers, as the
“swing” justice, will vote on crucial issues.
“Hell, even I don’t know how I’m going to
vote,” she announced at a press conference. “I’m
new to all this, so I guess I’m going with whoever pays me
more.”
But all that is going to have to wait, for there is something
before the Supreme Court more important, more pressing for the
American people and the U.S. Constitution, that has the power to
affect all Americans for the rest of their lives:
No, not Paris Hilton. It’s Anna Nicole Smith.
Yes, Anna Nicole Smith, America’s favorite
hot-turned-ugly-but-is-now-hot-again-but-someone-had-better-check
ex-Playboy Playmate and reality TV star, has a case in front of the
Supreme Court that will decide whether or not she is entitled to
approximately $200 trillion. All the minor, trivial stuff on which
the Supreme Court is supposed to rule ““ such as abortion,
affirmative action, gun control and the death penalty ““ will
just have to take a backseat.
Smith’s case, in a nutshell, is that she is a nutshell.
No, I mean, her case is that she deserves part of her late
billionaire husband’s estate because he really loved her and
it’s just a coincidence that he was 86 when they married. To
quote from the Agence France-Presse article “U.S. Supreme
Court or bust for Anna Nicole Smith,” the case is a
“legal conundrum of how much jurisdiction federal courts hold
over state probate matters.”
That may be, but I have a feeling there are other complicating
factors determining the Court’s reasoning to hear her case,
as evidenced by these recently released transcripts of Smith
presenting her case:
Roberts (jaw drops to floor): “Dude, the Supreme Court
rocks!”
Ruth Bader Ginsberg: “Her legal premises are totally
enhanced and unnatural.”
Clarence Thomas (puts on glasses): “Hel-lo!”
Antonin Scalia: “Wait, what? I can’t see
anything.”
Miers: “Hold it, I don’t have my robe on
yet!”
Anthony Kennedy: “Who the hell are you?”
It remains to be seen how Miers will vote, and whether or not
Smith will win her millions of dollars. I, for one, will find
something more meaningful to occupy my time. I will be watching
“The Tyra Banks Show.”
If you can remember the names of the justices that Kaney
forgot, or think he is too disrespectful of our judicial process,
write to akaney@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.