I oppose Obama's NEXT high court nominee

June 05, 2009

o If you like reading Tim Rowland, you'll love watching him. See what else Tim has to say

My hesitancy to take action has always cost me. Most recently, I was late to voice my opposition to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for a seat on the Supreme Court. In my defense, some people were opposing her nomination before she was actually nominated, but this still does not excuse my tardiness in our information age, where first-mover status is everything.

As George Bush the elder said, this shall not stand.

So it is with great fanfare that today, June 4, 2009, I am formally announcing my strong opposition to President Obama's NEXT Supreme Court nominee.

Beat that, Bill O'Reilly.

In the strictness sense, it is true that, technically, I do not know who Obama's next nominee will be. But one of those buzzards on the court is bound to step aside sooner or later, in which case the nominee will have to be, well, someone. And I vehemently object to that someone.


I object on the grounds that he is a racist and a hoodlum and an activist and an activist hoodlum and an opium smoker (probably) and a mental lightweight and an atheist and has a hidden agenda to make Swahili the official language of the United States and has a violent temper and doesn't play well with others and has "issues" and has killed meaningful numbers of puppies. And he smells.

And I think there are a few more reasons, on which I will hold claim on the grounds of "patent pending."

Don't say my opposition is without logic. It is the second nominee you have to watch. It's the one they try to sneak in after everyone is emotionally exhausted following the fight over the first. The second anything is always the problem: The second sibling, the second six-pack, the second Matrix movie.

You mark my words, Obama's next nominee is an affront to the judicial system and an affront to America.

So I hope my position is clear and that I will get the national recognition I deserve for being the first to discover the truth.

I have a harder time explaining why I should care.

Thinking back over the past 40 years, I'm having a real tough time coming up with anything the Supreme Court has done to me. And, looking forward, I don't see any potential for change.

I don't have strong feelings about guns one way or the other, I don't care whether people pray in school, I'm not on death row, I don't want to marry a dude and, as I am approaching the age of 49, the odds of my becoming pregnant grow longer by the day.

This being the case, it's hard to figure out how my life would be materially different were the high court of the land comprised of nine drunken baboons.

So come on Supreme Court, do your worst to me. Nyah, Nyah. Oh yeah, big men and women in their fancy robes. Well I've got your gavel right here. What are you going to do, strike down ice cream? Declare hammocks unconstitutional? You don't scare me.

See? It's no big deal.

If you earn your living writing press releases for a special interest group, or if your main joy in life is to be royally ticked off about something or other, I suppose a Supreme Court nominee is as good an excuse as any.

But come now. We survived Billings Brown, we are surviving Clarence Thomas and we will survive Obama's next court nominee -- despite the fact that I hate that person's guts.

Tim Rowland is a Herald-Mail columnist. He can be reached at 301-733-5131, ext. 2324, or by e-mail at Tune in to the Rowland Rant video at, on or on Antietam Cable's WCL-TV Channel 30 evenings at 6:30. New episodes are released every Wednesday.

The Herald-Mail Articles