Blog

Heat in July. Hurricane/Tropical Storm Dennis. The tragedy of London. The launching of Discovery and hopes reborn. Major League Baseball All-Star Game Break time.

Consider: this Law.com article (link via the Yahoo’s posting of it) – “Who do Conservatives Want for the High Court?”. They don’t want Alberto Gonzalez because: (a) abortion is the end-all, be-all issue for them and they can’t trust him to be with them on that issue; (b) they can’t trust him to be the strict constructionist of their waking dreams; and (c) they seem to want Christian hegemony to reign (or, at least, they want an end their perceived anti-Christian bias in America – and I do wonder what they mean by “anti-Christian”? Anti-Protestantism, anti-Catholicism, anti-religiosity (which oughtn’t preclude all other religions and maybe the world is too secular – who am I to say?)). And, as noted by the above-noted article’s reporters Bethany Broida and Lily Henning of “Legal Times”:

Social conservatives “need to be careful what they wish for,” says Auburn University political science professor Steven Brown, who studies social conservatives. “They’re going to have to run the gamut from taxes to property rights issues, and someone who is reliable on abortion might be less so on the nitty-gritty of religion in the public square.”

So, imagine: you have a justice who may try to knock out Roe v. Wade; might knock out the death penalty (to be consistent with the life-is-precious concept, assuming he/she doesn’t buy the eye-for-an-eye theory); might even be so humane as to want to kick cruel and unusual punishment in Guantanamo Bay (because life-is-precious and to forgive-is-divine). Thus, so-called social conservatives might still view this justice as too extreme or not extreme enough for them (it’ll just take a couple of years to see that, much as it happened with Souter or Kennedy). To satisfy the so-called social conservatives, it’ll feel like sticking a finger in the wind – but it’s just really, really complicated. Why are we catering to them? I thought judges exist to be independent (the judiary is its own branch of government until the legislature comes up with something to check and balance it, according to the system this country has); the judiciary is not to swear allegiance to a “faction” (to borrow a term from the old Federalist papers).

Ok, so maybe I’m being a little facetious here and maybe my political biases are becoming a little obvious – I just can’t agree with the Right Wingers/Deep Red State folks (even as I try as I may to be open minded about their arguments). But, heck, I found myself agreeing with George F. Will today (having read the NY Post’s printing of the column – I’m linking to the Washington Post’s website for the column, in case anyone registered for that newspaper). As part of his argument for selecting Federal Appellate Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson, Will observes:

Constitutional law is rife with clashing certitudes generated by too-clever theories purporting to illuminate the one valid approach to construing the Constitution. These theories obscure uncertainties inherent in all legal reasoning. This is especially true in construing a written Constitution in light of precedents produced by applying it in political contexts and to controversies unforeseen by its framers. [emphasis added]

Many conservatives are rightly dismayed by exercises of judicial discretion so broad they resemble legislative willfulness not tethered to analyses of the discernible intentions of the Constitution’s framers, or of its text, structure and yield of precedents. Undismayed liberals eagerly blur the distinction between legislative and judicial functions: Having lost much of their power to persuade electoral majorities, liberals seek success through litigation rather than legislation.

Liberals and conservatives, Wilkinson has written, differ about “the place of compassion in the democratic process.” The human condition is prey to myriad misfortunes. “Victims of social circumstances, however, are altogether distinct from victims of another’s violation of a specific legal duty. It is the job of the democratic process to ameliorate the effects of the former. It is the judiciary’s charge to rectify the latter.”

Dismay about abuses of judicial discretion drives some conservatives into a misguided quest for a jurisprudential holy grail — a theory of constitutional reasoning that will virtually expunge discretion from judging. This goal is chimeric.

Construing the Constitution should begin with what the document’s pertinent language meant to those who wrote and ratified it. But construing can rarely end there. Historians continue to deepen our understanding of how varied and occasionally contradictory were the intentions of the framers and ratifiers. History always informs constitutional deliberations; it rarely is dispositive. [….]

Some judges profess a single explanatory theory for construing the Constitution, a doctrine that makes one value — majority rule, or limiting government, or minimizing judges’ discretion — trump all others. Most such judges will flinch from following that doctrine to conclusions inconsistent with either a long line of precedents or the nation’s current sense of justice. But flinching will not save such judges from being portrayed as willing to let severe logic lead the law to conclusions that the nation has decided are unacceptable.

Wilkinson’s conservative sensibility makes him averse to what G.K. Chesterton called “the clean and well-lit prison of one idea.” And Wilkinson’s conservative temperament makes him comfortable with the subtle task of balancing judicial modesty with the judicial responsibility for refereeing, by constitutional principles, the government’s behavior.

And the public’s behavior, too. Majority rule, to which the political branches are subservient, does not trump constitutional law. This provides a central drama of America’s polity — judicial review. It is in tension with democracy, yet is indispensable if the Constitution is to limit government.

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton said that courts have a duty “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” So one of the Constitution’s most distinguished framers thought judges’ discretion must extend to measuring governmental acts against their sense of the document’s “manifest tenor.” The inexpugnable role of judicial discretion demands of judges the virtue Wilkinson calls “modesty.” That is a modest man’s synonym for judiciousness.

[H]e clerked for a family friend, Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., the embodiment of mainstream conservative jurisprudence. Wilkinson was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Concerning the most important and vexing subject of constitutional law — racial equality — Wilkinson wrote a justly praised book, “From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and School Integration, 1954-1978.” In 1987, in a case concerning a “minority set-aside” program for Richmond contractors, he wrote the 4th Circuit’s opinion demonstrating how carefully circumscribed “race-conscience remedies” must be in order to be compatible with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws. In 1989 the Supreme Court endorsed the 4th Circuit’s ruling. The opinion affirming Wilkinson’s reasoning was written by Sandra Day O’Connor.

The nomination of Wilkinson to fill her seat would be a splendidly clarifying act. Any senator’s claim that Wilkinson is an “extremist” would be risible, and itself evidence of extremism.

Will makes a well-crafted argument. I don’t mind if we could get a Powell/O’Connor-like Supreme Court justice. Problem is, I doubt the Right Wingers will accept that (and I can’t be certain about the Left Wing view either, frankly). As I said before, this will make our world that much more complicated.

It’s been raining every day this week except today, and often times torrentially. Last Friday, there was a warning to boil water because of unusual amounts of sediment washed into the water system from those downpours.

As a practical matter, I noticed that in the past week, the tub has been noticeably scummier. I like to use Dr. Bronner Castile soaps because I find that they are economical, gentle to the skin, and are the most effective in dissolving dirt, but being real soap, as compared to the inorganic detergent surfactants in your typical bath bar, Dr. Bronner’s will react to the minerals in “hard” water. I take the “scumminess” to indicate that the water is probably harder than normal.

“Fantastic Four” – the critics panned the movie. But, if you asked me, having seen it yesterday, the best advice is – just go watch it without your brain turned on and you’ll enjoy it just fine. I’d give it a two star out of four star rating, rather than the single star reviews I’ve seen. Mainly, the dialogue isn’t nearly as interesting as it could be, and the plot’s kind of plotless. It’s mainly an origin story – how the Fantastic Four became the Fantastic Four. It’s not too dark and angsty; mostly campy (not Adam West Batman campy, with the “pow” and “bash” in bold letters, but campy nonetheless).

Julian McMahon, playing Victor von Doom/Dr. Doom, is a hot actor – good looking and all that – deserving better material (which I hear he does get on FX on “Nip/Tuck”; but, actually, even in “Charmed” on WB, he was the intruiging one).

Ioan Gruffudd – as Richard Reed/Mr. Fantastic – a little bland, but that’s how the leader of the group usually does end up being. But, I’ll credit Gruffudd for sounding most American this time (he’s Welsh, and I’ve seen him in his previous American work, and he still sounded like a Brit trying to be American, whereas McMahon, an Australian, has gotten his American accent nailed correctly years ago, since he’s been in America longer).

Jessica Alba – as the Sue Storm/Invisible Woman – she was okay. Nothing too taxing on her. (I think these action roles just hasn’t been the same for her since season 1 of “Dark Angel” on FOX, where she kicked butt and had tons of angst).

Chris Evans – as Johnny Storm/Human Torch (“‘Torch’ to the ladies!”) – hot cutie (pun sort of intended – he’s quite good looking). He had the funny lines. “Torch” generally behaved like an irresponsible brat who has potential to do better with himself (as in, if he wasn’t such a twerp, maybe he wouldn’t be a NASA dropout). He and Michael Chiklis – as Ben Grimm/The Thing – stole the movie with their chemistry (no offense to Alba and Gruffudd – but they didn’t quite have chemistry, even as they pretty much portrayed the trials and tribulations of the romantic lives of their characters in a serviceable manner).

If you have to have the angst in your superhero movie, be rest assured that The Thing carried the most angst. Plus, Chiklis played a character with a heart, loyal to his friends – someone more like his old ABC’s “Commish” character (he was the “Commish” of a local upstate NY police dept) from the 1990’s, as opposed to, say, his corrupt/morally problematic character on FX’s “The Shield”).

Sort of funny to see the NYC buses with ads for FX series, and thus see McMahon and Chiklis more or less next to each other on the posters (promoting their respective FX shows).

At any rate, the movie critics apparently wanted more angst and plot and all that (considering how they got that from “Spiderman” and “Batman Begins”). But, “Fantastic Four” is just campy, which isn’t a bad thing by itself. Heck, if you’ve got kids, bring them with you; you’ll all be entertained enough. (is it worth 10 bucks? No. Go matinee.).

Facing yet another work week…

I saw this month’s Wired magazine on remixing in the bookstore, and thought about the events of this week. History is remixing. Live 8 recalls and validates the original Live Aid by bringing an Ethopian survivor. The bombings in London recall earlier terrorist attacks. The search for missing persons by loved ones mirror the flyers after 9/11.

The difference this time around is that there is a consciousness of making the connections to the past, which were not there even 10 years ago. I think this gives us the chance to be more effective in our current decision making by having a more complete idea of what is going on.

In the New York Times article, “Longtime Haven for Arabs Now Must Ask: Why Us?” states:

“Someone has to show them the boundary,” said Sabah al-Hamdani, who had been listening intently. “We need to stand in their way.”

We may not be the G8 leaders or any one of note, but civic duty today means making sure that we do that, in every little way that we can.

Last night, a bunch of us went to Kelley and Ping in Soho – good food – pad thai and appetizers – yummy. Good teas. I had the chrysanthemum tea – I’m ignorant, such that I didn’t think that you could order chrysanthemum tea outside of the restaurants of Chinatown or my own kitchen. And, the menu had “Iron Goddess of Mercy” tea. I know this is a translation, but it’s a funny name for a tea (I’m such a silly ABC; it didn’t occur to me to try that tea since the name was funny).

Dessert was at Vesuvio Bakery. Apparently, it’s a NYC fixture – nice brick facade inside, homey coziness. Tiramisu was excellent – not too heavy and pleasantly comfortable.

Coca-Cola revises its old “I’d like to teach the world to sing…” jingle to teach the world to “chill.” I liked the old jingle (click the link and then click to play the ad “Hilltop” to watch the original commercial), and the new one called “Chill” just reminds you that it’s a pretty good song. I’m not certain I’ll try the new Coke Zero (no calories, same taste; but to teach me to “chill” doesn’t exactly motivate me to drink your stuff), but the ads are solid stuff (not tasteless, even if not overly creative).

And, in other media-related news — can’t believe MSNBC had this, but apparently Slim Goodbody is still out there, educating kids on physiology. (He’s the guy who for years was on PBS dressed in a bodysuit to demonstrate the human anatomy; I had no idea that he was once on Capt. Kangeroo’s show – which is before my time).

Slate’s shortlists for the US Supreme Court’s possible nominee – their best guess versus their guess that the choice could be less conservative (sort of). Hmm. The parlor games we’re playing are interesting things, but this’ll get weary. It’s like it was when we were playing the same game in pondering who’d be the next Pope – stick our fingers in the wind and prognosticate.

And then there’s Slate’s William Saletan, commenting on the terrorists’ intention of undermining democracy:

Now comes the message to “the British people” that “the British government” has brought more death on them. It’s Blair’s fault. It’s Bush’s fault. Turn against them, and the pain will stop. But it won’t. As yesterday’s message made clear, the bombers want us out of Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

Bin Laden’s whole game plan is to turn the people of the democratic world against their governments. He thinks democracies are weak because their people, who are more easily frightened than their governments, can bring those governments down. He doesn’t understand that this flexibility—and this trust—are why democracies will live, while he will die. Many of us didn’t vote for Bush’s government or Blair’s. But we’re loyal to them, in part because we were given a voice in choosing them. And if we don’t like our governments, we can vote them out. We can’t vote out terrorists. We can only kill them.

Saletan’s blunt. Quite a read.

Enjoy the rest of Saturday, despite the strange weather.

The unfortunate situation in London – reminding us that this isn’t the world we’d like to have and of the scary thought of “geez, that could happen to our mass transit.” Hopes and prayers to our fellow major metropolitan.

In NYC, where we’ve been on security level Orange for four years now, we sort of became Orange Plus (more cops in downtown, where I work, not that that’s any surprise; a heightened awareness).

The news media is making me feel weary, because the reality is that there isn’t that much news to provide, since the authorities are still investigating. It gets really annoying watching tv anchorpeople talking to the “experts” early in the day and getting all mawkish – I got a glimpse of Diane Sawyer on ABC’s “Primetime” – she’s talking to a Londoner and his eyes are tearing up and she’s trying to show empathy… but, I felt the need for a more stolid sort of comfort (sorry, Diane). I liked “Nightline” – Ted Koppel giving a good perspective and nicely handling his panel of experts – a former Irish terrorist; a former CIA guy; and Richard Clarke (the USA’s ex-terrorism czar). I may not have necessarily agreed with Clarke, but Koppel kept things smooth, giving everyone a chance to put their views.

Take it a day at a time – irony of seeing the Londoners all happy about the 2012 Olympics on 7/6/05, and then facing the grim reality of 7/7/05. Will the G-8 summit get back to talking about global warming and global poverty, even in the ugly face of current terrorism? So the world turns.

Gadget: A $250 box called a Slingbox lets you do to location what a VCR does with time. This hooks up to your cable box and an Ethernet connection. Then, using their software on a remote computer, you can control the cable box via IR remote and watch whatever is on. I think it sounds cool; there are mixed reactions on Boardwatch.

The jury trial that I’m serving on starts tomorrow. Should be fun…

First off, congrats are in order for AJ’s new baby boy, which arrived yesterday morning!

Monday, we went to Coney Island for a friend’s BBQ. The area is much better now that the Stillwell station is renovated. We passed by the famed Nathan’s site, missing the actual eating contest (49 dogs by the perennial winner Takeru “The Prince” Kobayashi, and 37 by Sonia Thomas, both Asian). We saw it on ESPN, where they displayed a bag containing the world record 53.5 hot dogs. How do they make room for so many?

We’re still cleaning up space in the apartment for stuff. I got 4 garbage bags of stuff reorganized into 3 neat boxes. At once there was a lot more room for the sofa. More space will open up when we are done with the laundry.

About 3 more hours before they will announce who will get the 2012 Olympics. Maybe it’s just boosterism, but I do think that New York has a shot, if Paris doesn’t win it outright in the first round. The move to a Mets Stadium greatly improved the NY plan and eliminated the bad aspects of the proposed Jets Stadium. P thinks it will just be craziness if they do end up picking here, but I’ve haven’t seen the event yet that was too big for New York.