yet another open letter to the President

Dear Mr. President,

Rumor has it that you're about to nominate a replacement for Justice Stevens on the US Supreme Court. Before you nominated Justice Sotomayor, as you recall, I applied for the position, even offering to take the job at a discounted salary. I didn't get the job, but I'm pretty sure I was a strong candidate for it. As the numerous rejection letters I've received from colleges and universities across the US and Canada always say, many highly qualified candidates have to be turned away.

In any event, I'm writing to apply once again to be a US Supreme Court Justice. From my previous application, you know I'm very well qualified and extremely willing. Allow me to provide more details about my qualifications that should demonstrate that no one could be a better US Supreme Court Justice.

The main thing a Justice does is make judgments. I'm a whiz at this. I can name several people who regard me as judgmental - although I have to admit that those people are intellectual cripples who wouldn't recognize judicial talent if it bitch-slapped them in the face.

I am also tremendously prejudiced against Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Flyers, whom I am glad to say are very likely to lose their playoff series to the Boston Bruins. I am also prejudiced against Atlanta (and the Atlanta Thrashers - stupid name for a hockey team, btw), Florida (and both the Florida Panthers and Tampa Bay Lightning - and don't even get me started on what a stupid name that is for a hockey team), some parts of Texas (Dallas Stars), Orange County (Anaheim hockey-team-name-too-stupid-and-of-such-vile-and-repugnant-pedigree-that-it-shall-be-nameless), Phoenix (Coyotes), and other cities where there should not be an NHL team.

My point is this. Prejudice is all about prejudgment. Pre-judgment. That's like judging prior to the time of judgment. So, prejudgment is obviously much more time-efficient, and - get this - the more prejudging you do, the earlier you finish judging, the sooner the Court can close up shop for the summer, and all us Justices head for Rehobeth. That saves the country money. See?

(I'm mainly prejudiced about places in the US South and their hockey teams, but I am all about professional development, and I'm sure with some mentoring I can develop many more prejudices. In fact, I feel one coming on now. Srsly, what's the deal with poor people? Who told them they have rights? Hey, poor people, sit down and shut up! Or we'll take away your welfare and gummint cheese!)

Plus, you know what? When someone asks me what I want with my vodka, I say, "just ice." That can't be a coincidence.

Attached is my updated CV and notarized statement of fealty to corporations (I've added the suggested language on "ass-kissing"). I look forward to an interview shortly!

Sincerely,

Doc Nagel

why I'm a better choice than Sotomayor

Dear President Obama,

Now that Sonia Sotomayor's unfortunate statement, in a 2001 speech, that having grown up as she did might make her decisions better than a white man's, has become the big news of her nomination to the Supreme Court, it's clearly time for you to reconsider her as your pick. By Newt Gingrich's logic, her claim is racist, and therefore equally racist to any other racist speech or action - which is to say, the word "better," in this context, is like Sotomayor was lynching all white men. How could anyone deny Gingrich's logic? I mean, he's Newt Gingrich! He has an impeccable record on ethics!

In any case, this nomination-debilitating scandal will no doubt require a new nominee, despite the fact that there's little groundswell of objection other than from people of Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh's ilk. In politics, the loudest voice wins, right?

So, if you're looking for a nominee with absolutely no skeletons in his or her closet, and especially no embarrassing public speaking past, I'm your man. No one records anything I say publicly, and if they did, they'd find a consistent record of saying nothing that would indicate any particular bias against anyone or anything, except marriage, child-bearing, the CSU administration, the Gubernator, members of the California and federal legislatures, Wal-Mart, equal marriage rights opponents, Dodge vehicles, the McDonald's corporation, drivers in Tulare and Madera counties, air travel, and Brussels sprouts.

Furthermore, I myself keep no record of any kind - electronic, analog recording, written, or in memory - of anything I say, in public or private. I am a clean slate. Again, I'm your man.

Enclosed, please find additional materials in support of my candidacy for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The recipe for mahi-mahi in tomato and cream sauce is excellent, if I do say so myself.

Yours sincerely,
Chris Nagel

a second open letter to President Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President,

I have yet to receive a reply to my letter of 1 May, applying for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I am writing today to re-affirm my interest in the position, amid ongoing public and media speculation about potential candidates. Let me be quite candid: I am the best qualified candidate available.

And when I say available, I mean that I may be imminently available, for this or any other position, I mean, like maybe in a week or so. (Many of my colleagues will definitely be looking for work as well, but, you know, screw them. This is a nation built on the principle of competition.)

As a reminder, my qualifications include:
* I am not an attorney.
* Thus, I am not inclined toward legalistic obscurantism.
* Which means, I don't buy their mumbo-jumbo.
* Thus, I am not going to be tricked by some fancy-pants who argues in Court.
* My legal opinions, such as they are, shall therefore remain unaffected by sleazy legal come-ons, gifts, favors, offers of free hookers and booze, etc., unlike some Supreme Court Justices I could mention.
* In fact, because I am immovable, I will be able to spend hours in Court doing valuable service for the nation, like polishing the furnishings of the Court and/or Justices Breyer's and Scalia's foreheads.
* In addition, because I am not an attorney, whatever my own foibles, they simply can't compare, right? You've never seen me in one of Rehnquist's private clubs!

Rest assured, I have mastered the essential legal concepts guiding this country, and would be ready, willing, and able to begin applying them to every case that comes before the Court, continuing our nation's history of justice. I am totally familiar with "don't ask, don't tell," "three-fifths compromise," "administrative immunity," "sanctity of marriage," and "separate but equal."

Most of all, I am willing, as I said before, to take the position at a discount. I am now willing to accept $85,000 as a starting salary. You can't beat that with a stick.

The media report that you'll be likely to want to appoint a woman, preferably Latina. I understand that. I can work with that. My partner thinks I look good in a skirt, and I have got long hair, if that helps. I can speak a little Spanish, too.

Yours sincerely,
Chris Nagel