State Senator Ernie Chambers is a Democrat and a bit of a court jester for Nebraska. It wasn’t easy to find his party. It seems to be compartmented top secret information in the newspaper and magazine articles I found, and on Wikipedia (though Mother Jones gives away the game by mentioning that he is “left of San Francisco”). Well, “left of San Francisco” Ernie Chambers filed suit against God last year and is now finally retiring. Let’s review the lawsuit first.
In the lawsuit, Chambers said he’s tried to contact God numerous times.
“Plaintiff, despite reasonable efforts to effectuate personal service upon defendant ‘Come out, come out, wherever you are,’ has been unable to do so,'” Chambers said.
The suit also requests that the court, given the peculiar circumstances of this case, waive personal service. It said that being omniscient, the plaintiff assumes God will have actual knowledge of the action.
The lawsuit accuses God “of making and continuing to make terroristic threats of grave harm to innumerable persons, including constituents of Plaintiff who Plaintiff has the duty to represent.” It says God has caused “fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like.”
The suit also says God has caused “calamitous catastrophes resulting in the wide-spread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants including innocent babes, infants, children, the aged and infirm without mercy or distinction.”
This sounds crazy enough. What was his motive? It turns out that the motive in the lawsuit is to argue against tort reform. Chambers believes that any cuckoo lawsuit needs to be able to be filed, even a lawsuit against God.
If you ask me, this lawsuit is a pretty good argument for tort reform, not against it. If Chambers wanted to contact God, he could have tried praying. I’m sure there is a Cathedral in Omaha with a bishop and a few priests who could instruct him in religion and several ways to commune with God, should he have any lasting interest. But then he is a Democrat, agnostic, a self-described loner, a supporter of unrestricted access to late-term abortions, and “left of San Francisco,” so I doubt that his desire to commune with God was genuine.
So he is finally retiring and the New York Times showed him the love today.
And what is it with hiding his party affiliation in all the articles about him? The New York Times mentions the party of everyone else in their story, but not of Chambers. They mention his skin color, beard, age, religious beliefs, basically everything. But his party is verboten. Forbidden knowledge. Are Democrats and the media, but I repeat myself, embarrassed by his antics?
Updated to edit out brain-farts.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Faultline USA, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.