His parents should be shot.

Speaking of nimrods, in the case of State v. Upton, 9 Conn. App. 825 (1987), the defendant wasn't named Nimrod, but his lawyer must have been. Look at this argument raised on appeal:

The defendant was convicted of speeding in violation of General Statutes § 14-218a. On appeal, he claims that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the presence of attorneys in the General Assembly violates the dual office ban of the constitution of Connecticut, article third,§ 11, n1 thereby rendering null and void all statutes enacted since 1958, including that under which he was charged and those statutes reorganizing the court system. The defendant argues that, because of their status as commissioners of the Superior Court, attorneys are precluded by law from serving in the General Assembly and therefore any General Assembly whose membership includes attorneys can pass no valid law. We disagree.

My guess is that Nimrod is not a nimrod at all. He is probably having trouble providing for himself without returning to a life of crime and remember the 3 hots and a cot that he had while in prison.

Clearly you've never seen Norbert Leo Butz on Broadway.

For whatever it's worth:

One tangible lasting result is that "Nimrod" has become a fairly common male name in present-day Israel. In the 1940s, bestowing it upon a newborn child was something of political statement. In the present generation, however, it is taken simply as a name like any other (as English-speaking parents giving their child the name "George" do not necessarily spend much thought on the legendary dragon-slaying saint who bore that name).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_(king)#A_secular_hero_in_Israel