UnNews:Nominee may be ugly, Jewish, and lesbian
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|UnNews Audio (file info)|
|Listen to this story!|
Problems playing this file? You might be a dope.
Nominee may be ugly, Jewish, and lesbian
Straight talk, from straight faces
Thursday, March 23, 2017, 12:38:UTC)(
21 May 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Belying his stated goal to increase diversity and represent the common person on the Supreme Court, President Barack Obama has nominated yet another unattractive ethnic woman from New York City.
Elena Kagan, currently Solicitor General, would replace retiring John Paul Stevens, a demented white man who perfectly represents most Americans. However, rumors have surfaced--first in the foreign press, then picked up by U.S. networks that support Obama--that Kagan is a closet lesbian.
Kagan's strategy--whether to confirm it, deny it, or proudly refuse to discuss it--is the biggest issue in American politics. It has overshadowed other aspects of the nomination, such as her recent, unsuccessful argument before the Court that the U.S. has the power to ban books and pamphlets that portray candidates unattractively.
The nomination requires confirmation by the Senate--where the minority party, whose name was not immediately available, might be influential, or at least audible. The party does not have the 51 votes needed to win, but recently acquired the 41 votes with which to derail debate with a filibuster.
Whether it is right to block a Constitutional duty with a cheap trick is a question on which every Senator's opinion flips according to whether he is on top. The Democrats threatened filibusters last time, dropping the threat only when it was agreed that President Bush would only nominate uninteresting judges. Democrats will now call the same tactic shameless and illegal. It is a national role-play of Rodney King, on his back pleading, "Can't we all just get along?" versus the pistol-whipping LAPD, with the participants exchanging positions every two years.
The minority party, however, is divided into two camps:
- Those who believe that, since it's one moon-bat replacing another, it's not worth going out on a limb over; and
- Those who realize there's an election in six months and are desperate to distinguish themselves from the Democrats despite no discernible policy differences--so Kagan will have to "take one for the team"--the other team.
Most of these voted to confirm Kagan as Solicitor General, back when Obama was popular, self-righteously saying a President has the right to his own nominees. This makes it awkward to turn against her now, especially since her niche religion, unfortunate appearance, and femaleness, would normally make her unassailable. Unless there are "new developments," such as a shocking revelation of homosexuality--especially if the details come out after Kagan clams up, you should pardon the expression. Surely Anita Hill, decades after the Clarence Thomas pubic hairs, could come forward with sordid details on a Close Encounter with another Justice. This Congress has borrowed a trillion of bread, but it's not clear we've had enough circuses.
|This article features first-hand journalism by an UnNews correspondent.|