The Supreme Court shed its staid image Tuesday, giving stripper-turned-Playboy-model Anna Nicole Smith a new chance at a piece of the fortune of her 90-year-old late husband. The court said it would hear arguments early next year as part of Smith's effort to collect as much as $474 million from the estate of J. Howard Marshall II. The oil tycoon married her in 1994 when he was 89 and she was 26. — Associated Press, Sept 28, 2005

Welcome back to C-SPAN's continuing coverage of the John Roberts confirmation hearings. Before we paused for station ID and a word from Fanta, Sen. Arlen Specter was wrapping up the official questioning of Judge Roberts by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Specter: Well, Judge, I think we've just about reached the end of our time here together. You've been thoughtful and fair in your responses to this committee, and I thank you. Before we let you go, I just have one more thing I need to ask. How do you feel about hooters?

Roberts: Excuse me?

S: Mounds. Melons. Mams. What's your stand on knockers, boy?

R: I'm not sure I understand the question.

S: It's simple. If you're going to lead the court, you're going to have to weigh in on the pressing issues of the day. So what do you think about gazongas? Should they be big and bouncy, ready to slap a fella in the face at the hint of a good stiff wind? Or does a smaller, more sensibly contoured set of ta-tas more adequately fulfill the intentions of our founding fathers?

R: Whew. (Expels air.) Senator, that's obviously a question that's a top priority to legal scholars across this great country of ours. And as you know, there are two distinct schools of thought on the subject. One is that the framers of our Constitution saw this as a land of opportunity, where bronskis could grow as enormous and free as the Lord might allow. Another is that our system relies on checks and balances, and so a somewhat humbler set of yabbos provides a vital example of equilibrium and restraint. Essentially, the latter camp believes that anything more than a mouthful is a waste.

S: I'm aware of the existing ideologies, Judge Roberts. But what do you think?

R: I'd rather not say, Mr. Chairman. Should I be confirmed to the august body that is the Supreme Court, I may have to hear a case that relates – whether directly or indirectly – to rib balloons. And I'd hate to think that anything in my record of statements on the subject of boobage might mark me as prejudicial. (Smiling) Besides, my wife would kill me.

(Knowing chuckles from all the committee members save Sen. Feinstein.)

S: Understood, Judge, understood. Sen. Leahy, you have a question?

Leahy: Judge Roberts, medical-liability cases are an increasingly important element of the American legal landscape. And many of those cases involve breast-augmentation procedures that plaintiffs signed on for wholeheartedly but later came to regret. In light of that ongoing controversy, I'd like you to tell this committee: Who do you think has the sweeter rack, Pamela Anderson or Kelly Monaco?

R: Once again, Senator, that's a topic that's the source of some debate. If you take the "living Constitution" approach, Pam's pom-poms embody everything that's good about the ability of our society to benefit from new and exciting technologies. On the other hand, a strict constructionist would say that the founding fathers never foresaw a time when any licensed surgeon could inflate a pair of goombas to the size of medicine balls. Judicial conservatives think our standards of beauty should remain with women like Kelly, who just happen to have inherited cleavage you could lose your car keys in.

L: Judge, that answer was remarkably obtuse, even for you.

R: Thank you, Senator.

Sen. Orrin Hatch: Judge Roberts, I want to commend you for your performance in front of this committee. You've had to endure a lot of frankly stupid questions from some of my colleagues who really should know better. I'm not about to add a further note of absurdity to that circus atmosphere. So I'll just ask you simply and straightforwardly: Who gets the money when an old fossil kicks the bucket, his snot-nosed kid or the skank who boinked her way into his wallet?

R: First, thank you for you kind approbation, Senator. But yet another time, I'm afraid I'm going to have to demur from taking a specific position. The United States of America is filled with wizened old buzzards whose sunset years are only tolerable because they can afford to buy themselves a flesh tuxedo when they feel like it. And for every one of those horny, half-dead spendthrifts, there's a pneumatic table dancer somewhere who's ready to leapfrog over a tax bracket or three by showing him she has no gag reflex. So I'll politely recuse myself from answering, because my duties may one day compel me to address the issues of the death tax and male fertility drugs.

H: Smooth, Judge. Very smooth.

Specter: Well, I think that about does it. You've been a fine guest of these proceedings, Judge Roberts. In all my time in the senate, I can't recall a nominee speaking more eloquently about bazooms. We can continue this discussion informally across the street at Tipsy Wipsy's Irish Pub. Which reminds me: Hey, Sen. Kennedy! Why do you think they call them "floaters"?

(Much laughter from the assembled Republicans.)

That ends C-SPAN's coverage of the John Roberts confirmation hearings. Stay tuned for Top 100 Filibusters of the Metal Era, coming up after this word from Skechers.


Speaking of Dog Playing Poker

Latest in Dog Playing Poker


Never miss a beat

Sign Up Now

Subscribe now to get the latest news delivered right to your inbox.


© 2016 Orlando Weekly

Website powered by Foundation