Bad Logic

So apparently this past week, every Nebraskan's favorite legislator (the vainglorious windbag that is Ernie Chambers) filed a lawsuit against God. Now the first thing that would typically bother me is that it would be considered news-worthy, but since I hadn't heard anything about it until almost two weeks after it showed up in the Lincoln Urinal Star, it apparently didn't make too many ripples (classic Ernie), and that's no big deal. People file crap like this all the time, such as one Jonathan Lee Riches©, the only difference being that Riches© is an inmate and Chambers is a legislator, so it's pretty hard to make a distinction.

Here's what really bothers me about Chambers' lawsuit: he argues that it's appropriate or legitimate because of another lawsuit which he finds to be inappropriate. Note these paragraphs:

Chambers said Bowen’s lawsuit is inappropriate because the Nebraska Supreme Court has already considered the case and federal courts follow the decisions of state supreme courts on state matters.

“This lawsuit having been filed and being of such questionable merit creates a circumstance where my lawsuit is appropriately filed,” Chambers said. “People might call it frivolous but if they read it they’ll see there are very serious issues I have raised.”

Regardless of the actual merit and the specific details of Bowen's lawsuit, I'm having a hard time understanding why the illegitimacy of one lawsuit would imply the legitimacy of another. Heck, take any example, not just lawsuits. For instance, it would not make sense for Ernie to say, "This extra-marital affair being of such questionable merit creates a circumstance where my extra-marital affair is appropriate," would it? It would seem to me that if the lawsuits were of the same sort (and by that I don't mean "crazy" or "stupid," but dealing with similar legal realms) I could understand the argument that "this lawsuit is relevantly similar to that lawsuit; that lawsuit is legitimate; therefore this lawsuit is legitimate." But that doesn't seem to be Chambers' point at all. Bowen's lawsuit is one of "questionable merit", but Chamber's raises "very serious issues"--why should the comparison even be made?

Whatever the case, I think it is a travesty, a shame and a mockery (a travshamockery, if you will) not only that this lawsuit was filed, nor that it made the paper, but that this man with an apparent non-grip on reason is repeatedly re-elected to the Nebraska Unicameral.