The Road and I

Have you noticed lately that when you get into your car you need to first have a private little chat with yourself before putting that engine in gear?  More and more lately it seems that one needs to both steel and calm oneself in anticipation of the species on the road I refer to as “The Stupids.”

I often wonder why we bothered to enact laws against driving while holding a phone up to your ear.  Forests died putting through the paperwork for those laws.  (Where were the greenies when that was happening?)  I don’t blame the police for this; I blame legislators who enact laws without the manpower to enforce them.  Worse than the phone, is the text.  You know when a driver is texting.  His head is pointed downward too long as he taps his message on his keyboard; or he holds his phone up to the steering wheel, maneuvering his two-ton weight piece of machinery while placing more importance to the “LOL” he’s texting than to controlling his vehicle.

There seem to be an awful lot of open-bed trucks on the road, or trucks missing their rear gates.  Please, Mr. Truck Driver, watch what you put back there and realize that your tools, toys and trifles can fly up and out if you hit a bump.  Several years ago, driving down Winchester Boulevard in San Jose, a tire iron bounced off the back of the truck in front of me and not only imbedded itself in my tire, but destroyed the bumper as well.  I considered myself fortunate that it hadn’t flown into my windshield.

The number of drivers concerned about wearing out their turn signal fuses is awesome.  Aren’t they the ultimate environmentalists?  Why else would you not signal a lane change, especially when that change is made with less than a car length to spare.  Could it be the cost of the fuse?  Maybe we need to start a “Fuse Foundation” so these poor souls will not worry about being poised on the brink of financial ruin should a fuse replacement be necessary.

Some suffer from select hazard discernment; if they don’t see a hazard, to them it doesn’t exist.  For those reason-deprived individuals, I have two words:  black ice.  You don’t see the black ice, but it’s there, and unless you want to shorten your life span dramatically, and take someone else with you, be aware that you might be driving on it.

Let us review one of those forgotten words in the new vocabulary of the year 2012, “hydroplaning,” which is what happens when driving too fast on a wet day.  A fun way to fly; not a fun way to land.

Okay, just because you drive a truck, it does not automatically mean that your tires and brakes are magically endowed with the power to grip a snowy or icy road.  In the DC area (and this happens just about every other place where snow kisses the road), I saw more trucks swerve 90 degrees, slide into the side walk, the median strip, down gullies.  I know you’re riding high up in that truck and it makes you feel that you truly are above us all, but your truck is not Santa’s sleigh.

Where is the person’s brain who drives 70mph in pea soup thick fog?  Is his brain fogged up too?  Oh, I know.  That brain is being sat upon.  If you kill yourself, that’s one thing, that’s Darwin’s Law doing its job.  Just don’t kill anyone else.

Okay, let’s have a kumbayah hands-holding moment and speak the unspeakable.  If you are a cyclist, please please please please realize that the rules of the road apply to you too.  I will respect you if you respect me.  Actually, I’ll respect you anyway because I refuse to be responsible for a two-ton object under my control knocking down a forty pound bike and its rider.  At least go through the motions of respecting me.

I currently live in Sunnyvale, California, and the main road in this microcosm of the universe is El Camino Real.  The posted speed limit is 35mph; a reasonable rate you would think.  However, there seems to be a shared delusion here that 15mph is the fastest that should be driven whether in the right, middle, or left lane, and it doesn’t matter if its rush hour or the middle of the day.  If you are a new driver and are unsure of yourself, if you have a fragile load in your car, if you don’t know where you are going, drive in the far right lane.  The next time you drive that 15mph take a look in your rear view mirror (cars still come with that accessory, don’t they?) because while there might be no traffic in front of you, it sure as heck is piled up behind you.

Another regularly exciting occurrence along the El Camino Real (although friends and family in other parts of the world have assured me that they too have shared in this experience) relates to the above-mentioned 15mph driver.  Only this particular 15mph driver is quite politely driving in the far right lane, so definitely no complaints from my end.  Then, like The Most Holy touched their heads in inspiration, they ram the gas pedal and fly across two lanes of traffic.  If you are not watching with that extra pair of eyes you got for Christmas last year, you could be doomed.

            Driving down a highway in Florida a few months ago, a driver stopped dead right smack dab in the middle of the road, leaving the cars behind him screeching their brakes, including yours truly.  He sat there for a second, looked around, pointed off to some mysterious location off to the left, and nodded his head as if to say “Oh, yes, that’s where I want to go.”  A profoundly speechless moment.

Don’t you just love it when no one will let you merge onto the expressway?  Yes, we all know that the merging lane is to cede right of way, but when traffic is bumper to bumper and no one is really getting anywhere any faster than anyone else, would it kill you to be courteous?  Ooops.  I just remembered that courtesy is obsolete in 2012.  My bad.

We must not forget those who tailgate.  Does your vehicle truly need to engage in some sort of exotic dance of coitus with my bumper?  Is that extra five miles per hour that vital to your well being?  If your objective is to force me to move into another lane so that you can go on your merry way, unless the next lane is clear, why on earth should I put myself at risk while driving 60mph on the expressway.  When the lane is clear enough, I’ll move.  Until then, cool your jets.

Last week I was merrily driving along.  Hardly any traffic at all.  I saw a car ahead of me on the right waiting to turn into my lane.  In my rear view mirror, I could see there was no one behind me.  As any normal thinking person would, I figured she was waiting for me to drive by so that she could proceed onto the road behind me.  Nope.  She waited until I was almost right there, almost right in front of her, and she pulled out in front of me.  What is the name of this maneuver?  Does it fall within the “I want you to hit me so I can make a bundle from a huge insurance settlement?” category?

Now for my ultimate traffic pet peeve.  To me, it doesn’t get much worse than this:  the driver who will not pull to the side of the road to let an emergency vehicle pass.  God forbid that you or someone you care about should either need that vehicle or be in that vehicle.  Frequently a matter of seconds determines whether a person will live or die, whether they will be healthy or an invalid.  Wherever you are going, wherever you need to be . . . it isn’t as important as that emergency vehicle getting to where it needs to be ASAP.

Every now and then I want to lower my window and shout out that line from Network “'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore.”  . . . but, of course, I do continue to take it, because to do otherwise would be insane and I choose to steer my own personal insanity along other pathways.  Besides, road rage is the end result of letting "The Stupids" win.

Until next time, LLAP!

Campaign Slime

            The 2012 presidential campaign is in full bloom.  Hooray for us!  Actually, the fun began from both sides more than a few months ago when it became apparent that Mitt Romney would be the Republican candidate choice:  the name calling, the contrived scandals, the personality attacks, the placing of personal blame for world poverty and global warming.  We no longer wait until after the conventions for the ink to splatter against the wall.  Now we know months beforehand whose seats will be the dunking cage targets.  I think it is safe to say that the name-calling began right after the last election, and now a catch-up game is being played on Romney’s behalf.  The same amount of invective name calling spews from both parties.  Both are just as guilty.  Even at its best, a presidential campaign is covered with a thick film of sludge.

It might be worthwhile to remind ourselves that negative campaigning is not a new phenomenon.  Political mud has been slung for hundreds of years.  To perhaps gain a better perspective, let’s take a look at past mud fights, starting with our more recent history, working our way back in time:

During the 2004 George W. Bush vs. John Kerry campaign, the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" produced a commercial, "Any Questions?" (http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2004/any-questions/) which cast doubt on Kerry’s Viet Nam War experience claims.  “He is lying about his record.”  “John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star.”  “When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry.”

Also in that 2004 campaign, the subject of gay marriage was brought up at one of the debates.  Kerry raised the issue of the sexual orientation of one of Vice President Dick Cheney's daughters.  He thought he was making a point to criticize the Bush administration, but it backfired and the reaction was furious.  The outrage that Kerry would bring up a family member was so harsh that it led to him sinking in the polls.

George H. W. Bush’s campaign in 1988 used what is referred to as “The Revolving Door” commercial against Michael Dukakis (http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1988).  While Governor of Massachusetts, Dukakis had supported a prison furlough program under which a murderer was released who committed a rape and an assault after being furloughed.  In the commercial, which follows prison guards, the announcer states, "His revolving door prison policy gave weekend furloughs to first-degree murderers not eligible for parole."  Then a revolving door formed by bars rotates as men in prison clothing walk in and back out the door in a long line.  "While out, many committed other crimes like kidnapping and rape."  "And many are still at large."  "Now Michael Dukakis says he wants to do for America what he's done for Massachusetts."

In September 1964, Lyndon Johnson’s campaign ran a television commercial (http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/peace-little-girl-daisy), what is referred to as:  "Peace, Little Girl/Daisy," to make a point about his opponent, Barry Goldwater.  From watching it, it seems that the point was that a vote for Barry Goldwater was a vote for nuclear annihilation.  A cute little girl plucks petals from a daisy while counting from one to nine, messing up her numbers a bit as she does so; a male announcer counts down from ten.  At zero, a nuclear blast fills the screen, and Johnson speaks:  "These are the stakes–to make a world in which all of God’s children can live, or to go into the dark.  We must either love each other, or we must die."  This ad was so incendiary (no pun intended) and controversial, it was only aired once.

1912 must have been a fun year with its four-way contest between Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Eugene V. Debs.  Taft called the previous president, the third-party candidate Theodore Roosevelt, a “dangerous egotist” and a “demagogue.”  Roosevelt called his formerly hand-picked successor (Taft) a “fathead” with the brain of a “guinea pig” and a “flubdub with a streak of the second rate and the common in him.”  Wilson labeled Roosevelt “the most dangerous man of the age.”  Roosevelt countered that Wilson was “a damned presbyterian hypocrite and a Byzantine logothete,” “an infernal skunk in the White House.”

During the 1884 race between Grover Cleveland and James Blaine, Cleveland was accused of fathering a child out of wedlock, which led Blaine supporters to chant what became a national slogan: “Ma, Ma, Where’s My Pa?”  After Cleveland won the election, his supporters answered: “Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha!”  A Presbyterian minister, spoke at a gathering of pro-Blaine clergy in New York City just days before the election: “We are Republicans, and don’t propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been Rum, Romanism, and Rebellions.”  Accusations of Blaine’s corruption, as well as charges of his own sexual scandals, also dominated the debate.  At campaign rallies, Democrats chanted, “Blaine! Blaine! James G. Blaine! The continental liar from the state of Maine!”

In the 1872 election between Ulysses S. Grant and Horace Greeley, a pamphlet was circulated by Greeley’s supporters calling the Grant Administration the “crowning point of governmental wickedness” and accused Grant of bringing forth a “burning lava of seething corruption, a foul despotism….”

In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln was mocked as being "ape-like" for his tall stature and Kentucky twang.

Stephen Douglas called Abraham Lincoln, “You hatchet-faced nutmeg dealer.”  (Nutmeg dealers were frequently accused of selling fake nutmeg and got the reputation of being frauds.)

In the 1828 race between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, Adams supporters published a series of "Coffin Handbills" in which Jackson was called an adulterer, his mother a prostitute, his wife an adulturess, and stated that Jackson had executed deserters during the War of 1812 and The Creek War.

The campaign of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson was a particularly nasty one:

 Jefferson was accused of being a misogynist and of having an affair with a black lady (which would have been quite a scandal at the time and which, it turns out, was true).

Fliers pictured Adams as “a blind, bald, crippled, toothless man who wants to start a war with France while he’s not busy importing mistresses from Europe he’s trying to marry one of his sons to a daughter of King George.  Haven’t we had enough monarchy in America?”

From Thomas Jefferson:  “John Adams is a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

“Murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood and the nation black with crimes.”  (Adams re Jefferson)

“Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames? Female chastity violated?  Children writhing on the pike?” (Adams re Jefferson)

“Jefferson is the son of a half-breed Indian squaw raised on hoe-cakes.”  “Hamilton is a Creole bastard brat of a Scotch peddler.” (Again from Adams)

            As we can see, compared to the past, modern-day mudslinging is more like throwing buckets of water slightly tinged with the color of dreck.

            I guess we should be pleased with ourselves that our politicians and their supporters have come so far in elevating the quality of their invectives.  I guess.

            Until the next time, LLAP!

References

http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/docs/research/iyengar/1996/goingneg.html

http://www.insidepolitics.org/ps111/candidateads.html

http://www.prlog.org/10135675-even-the-founding-fathers-ran-negative-political-advertising.html

http://book.consumerhelpweb.com/

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2010/10/29/some-historical-perspective-on-negative-campaigning/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1988

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2004

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2004/any-questions/

http://werehistory.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html

 

The Turban

            After the Sikh massacre by a white supremacist in Wisconsin which resulted in the death of six and injuring of four, I was more than a bit disturbed with comments made by callers to talk radio.  The recurring thoughts expressed by these callers reflected an ambivalence because “the Sikhs are so different” from us (whomever that assumed “us” might be).  The Amish conduct an atypical way of life and dress unlike most of us, but yet we all were horrified by the 2006 massacre in Pennsylvania.  So why this apparent ambivalence towards the Sikhs?  Shauna Singh Baldwin, in her August 11th column for CNN News quoted a young man:

"They're saying we're an obscure religion. How can 23 million people be obscure?"

          The word “Sikh” comes from the Sanskrit shishya for “learner” or “disciple” or “seeker of truth,” and Sikhs consider themselves life-long students.  Due to the religious requirement that they refrain from cutting their hair, turbans are worn to cover their long hair.

            Sikhism is a religion which originated in the Punjab region of India.  It goes back to the 15th Century, when Guru Nanak expressed the vision that humanity is one, rejecting social inequalities, caste hierarchies, gender discrimination, and religious persecution.  Nanak called for devotion to the One Divine, justice and equality, and a commitment to divinely-inspired service. He taught that each person has the potential to develop his or her own relationship with the Divine.  When a Sikh leader was beheaded for defending the right of all communities to freely practice religion, his head was brought to his son who asked if there were any Sikhs in the crowd to stand up to the injustice.  He declared that from thence on, the Sikhs would never hide.

That son grew up to be the next Sikh leader, and he formalized the standard identity. He gave Sikhs their articles of faith, and declared that the lasting teacher would be the sacred scriptures, their religious text called “Guru Granth Sahib.”  All were required to drop their surnames to avoid any reference to social status and embrace a shared surname: women adopted the last name "Kaur" and men took the last name "Singh."  Sikhism integrates Hindu ideas about karma with Muslim monotheism, and their scriptures include writings from the gurus, along with testimony from Muslim and Hindu prophets.

        Sikhs have 5 symbols known as the Five Ks: 

Kanga:  a special comb that represents cleanliness.

Kesh:  uncut hair which symbolizes spiritual power.  All practicing Sikhs wear the turban out of love and as a mark of commitment to the faith.

Kirpan:  a religious sword that encapsulates an initiated Sikh’s solemn obligation of courage and self-defense. It denotes dignity and self-reliance, the capacity and readiness to always defend the weak and the oppressed.  It is symbolic of their spirituality and the constant struggle of good and morality over the forces of evil and injustice, both on an individual as well as social level.  Some people a necklace which has a miniature kirpan on it.

Kachera:  an undergarment which is a reminder of the need for self-restrain over passions and desires.

Kara:  a bracelet which is a reminder that he or she is a servant of the Guru and should not do anything that may bring shame or disgrace. It is round and seamless, the sign of eternity.  God is one and has no end.

The Sikh legacy infuses the turban with deep meaning.  It embodies a commitment to devotion, honor, and service to all. Sikhs are the only community for whom the turban is religious, and nearly every person who wears the turban in the United States. is Sikh.

            The Khanda is the symbol of the Sikhs and reflects some of the fundamental concepts of Sikhism. (see http://www.sikh-studies.co.uk/khanda.htm)  The symbol derives its name from the double-edged sword which appears at the center of the logo and is a metaphor of Divine Knowledge, its sharp edges cleaving Truth from Falsehood.  The circle is the Chakar, a circle without a beginning or an end symbolizing the perfection of God who is eternal.  The Chakar is surrounded by two curved swords called Kirpans, which symbolize the twin concepts of Temporal and Spiritual authority.  They stress the equal emphasis that a Sikh must place on spiritual aspirations as well as obligations to society.

Through the 18th century, Sikhs were captured, tortured and executed before giving up their turbans or their faith.  The Sikh ideal became the warrior-saint: to live a life devoted to God and fiercely committed to fighting injustice in all forms.  Through the centuries, thousands of Sikhs died fighting alongside people of many faiths against political oppression.  When India was conquered by the British, Sikhs joined fellow Hindus and Muslims to fight for independence.  In recent history, Sikhs have continued to struggle for rights in India, and many Sikhs fled religious persecution in the 1980s to settle in the United States.

One of the fundamental ideas of Sikhism is the idea that all people are equal, regardless to race, class, creed, or cultural origin. Sikhs also believe that they have a duty to protect people who are poor or in need, whether or not they are fellow Sikhs.  The saint-soldier precept of Sikhism states that Sikhs should devote their lives to prayer, contemplation, and modest living, but that they should also be prepared to fight or even lay down their lives for those in need.  As a result, many Sikhs have military training, and they are in fact heavily represented in the Indian military.  They are also directed to integrate charity and service into their lives and they practice tolerance and love for all mankind, praying for all mankind as part of their daily prayers.

Sikhs belong to the fifth-largest organized religion in the world and are more than half a million strong in the United States.  However, Sikhs continue to encounter racism and religious bigotry.  In the aftermath of 9/11, Sikhs have been bullied in schools, profiled at airports, barred from workplaces like the military, and targeted in hate violence.

Sikhs do not proselytize, but their temples are open to all, and they are happy to talk to curious people about their religious faith.  In communities with a large Sikh population, it is also common to see Sikhs active in various charity efforts, and many Sikh temples host regular vegetarian dinners which are open to the entire community.

Bigotry should be an anathema to us all, and massacre that arises out bigotry should leave us not only outraged with the loss of life and the aftermath, but also enraged with the injustice of executed judgment based on perverse perceptions.  No bigoted massacre should be considered “lesser” because of a lack of understanding of the victims.

         Until the next time, LLAP!

  

References

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valarie-kaur/sikhs-turbans_b_1770366.html

http://www.wisegeek.com/who-are-the-sikhs.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/10/opinion/baldwin-sikh-community/index.html

http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/

http://aboutsikhs.com/

http://www.sikhs.org/art12.htm

http://www.sikh-studies.co.uk/khanda.htm

In the Words of the Supremes

After the Supreme Court recent ruling with regard to Obamacare, I started to wonder about the Justices of the Supreme Court.  Who are these people . . . not, their educational or professional backgrounds.  That information is readily available on the Supreme Court website.  But who are they, really?

To clarify the basic job description: the Supreme Court is empowered by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution (exact wording at:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii/).  The Court consists of the Chief Justice and a number of Associate Justices determined by Congress.  That number is currently eight.  The President nominates the Justices, and appointments are confirmed by the Senate.

Briefly, the Court functions as the interpreter of the Constitution with the authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in its judgment, conflict with the Constitution.  The Supreme Court also has jurisdiction in cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.  The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.  Judicial Review assures individual rights and maintains a "living Constitution" whose provisions are continually applied to new situations.  When the Court rules on a Constitutional issue, its decision can be altered only by a Constitutional amendment or by a new Court ruling. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

            Again, though, who are these nine individuals that have such final authority and must be all things to all of “The People”?  I thought that we might learn more about who they are from their own words, so here are a few direct quotes.

---

John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice – Took his seat in 2005; nominated by President George W. Bush.

         What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?
         (Note: this was regarding gun possession.)

         The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop
         discriminating on the basis of race.

         I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to
         determine when recusal is warranted.  They are jurists of
         exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness
         have been examined through a rigorous appointment and
         confirmation process.
             
         If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy's
         going to win in court before me, ... But if the Constitution says that
         the big guy should win, well, then the big guy's going to win.

If particular precedents have proven to be unworkable, they don't lead to predictable results, they're difficult to apply, that's one factor supporting reconsideration.

---

Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice – Took his seat in 1986; nominated by President Ronald Reagan.

         Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death
         sentence properly reached.

         There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes
         insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us
         all.

         A law can be both economic folly and constitutional.

What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?

Our task is to clarify the law -- not to muddy the waters, and not to exact overcompliance by intimidation. The States and the Federal Government are entitled to know before they act the standard to which they will be held, rather than be compelled to guess about the outcome of Supreme Court peek-a-boo.

---

Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice – Took his seat in 1988; nominated by President Ronald Reagan.

The case for freedom, the case for our constitutional principles the case for our heritage has to be made anew in each generation.  The work of freedom is never done.

When Congress alters the federal balance, it must carefully consider the consequences of doing so.

In seeking rational explanations for irrational acts, an explanation
becomes the excuse.

The federal sentencing guidelines should be revised downward.  By contrast to the guidelines, I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences.  In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.

We can't just throw away our Constitution, can we?

---

Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice – Took his seat in 1991; nominated by President George H. W. Bush.

The job of a judge is to figure out what the law says, not what he wants it to say. There is a difference between the role of a judge and that of a policy maker.... Judging requires a certain impartiality.

Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot.

Today, now, it is time to move forward, a time to look for what is good in others, what is good in our country.  It is time to see what we have in common, what we have to share as human beings and citizens.

There is some misunderstanding.  We do not look any place.  We do not recruit.  We are passive.  We look at what comes to us.

Today, now, it is time to move forward, a time to look for what is good in others, what is good in our country.  It is time to see what we have in common, what we have to share as human beings and citizens.

---

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice – Took her seat in 1993; nominated by President William Clinton.

All respect for the office of the presidency aside, I assumed that the obvious and unadulterated decline of freedom and constitutional sovereignty, not to mention the efforts to curb the power of judicial review, spoke for itself.

When police or prosecutors conceal significant exculpatory or impeaching material, we hold, it is ordinarily incumbent on the state to set the record straight.

But the greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually over time their views become the dominant view.

Everyone on this court assumed that assisted suicide was a matter for
the states.

We live in an age in which the fundamental principles to which we subscribe -- liberty, equality and justice for all -- are encountering extraordinary challenges.  But it is also an age in which we can join hands with others who hold to those principles and face similar challenges.

---

Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice – Took his seat in 1994; nominated by President William Clinton.

The court has found no single mechanical formula that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every case.

But the wonderful thing about human memory is, it forgets, ... And so you always have another chance.  People don't remember after a time. The computer remembers forever.  There it is: picture recorded.

Speed in reaching a final decision may help create legal certainty.

Consequences are highly relevant, ... Not just any consequences but consequences in light of a constitutional value. . . . You can be wooden and mechanical, and the price you'll pay is a law that won't fulfill the basic principles of the Constitution, which is to help people live together in a democratic society.

This [Texas] display has stood apparently uncontested for nearly two generations.  That experience helps us understand that as a practical matter of degree this display is unlikely to prove divisive.

---

Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Associate Justice – Took his seat in 2006; nominated by President George W. Bush.

There's been general agreement ... to support the authority of the president to take military action on his own in the case of an emergency, when there is not time for Congress to react.

Private religious speech can't be discriminated against.  It has to be treated equally with secular speech.

If 'settled' means that it can't be re-examined, that's one thing.  If 'settled' means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect then it is a precedent that is protected.

One of the most solemn responsibilities of the president--and it's set out expressly in the Constitution--is that the president is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, and that means the Constitution. It means statutes.  It means treaties.  It means all of the laws of the United States.

I think that the legitimacy of the court would be undermined in any case if the court made a decision based on its perception of public opinion.

---

Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice – Took her seat in 2009; nominated by President Barack Obama.

I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights.

I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. Judges can't rely on what's in their heart.  They don't determine the law.  Congress makes the law.  The job of a judge is to apply the law.

It's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it's the law.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

We apply law to facts.  We don't apply feelings to facts.

---

Elena Kagan, Associate Justice – Took her seat in 2010; nominated by President Barack Obama.

I have no regrets.  I don't believe in looking back.  What I am proudest of?  Working really hard... and achieving as much as I could.

I've led a school whose faculty and students examine and discuss and debate every aspect of our law and legal system.  And what I've learned most is that no one has a monopoly on truth or wisdom.  I've learned that we make progress by listening to each other, across every apparent political or ideological divide.

The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals.  But the Court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.

What my political views or my constitutional views are just doesn't matter.

I think that if there are positions that you can't argue... then the responsibility is probably to resign.  If one's own conscience is opposed to the requirements and responsibilities of the job, then it's time to leave the job.

---

        Even though, ideally, the Justices are supposed to be apolitical, the reality is that we have been able to pretty much determine a Justice’s political leanings and sympathies at the very least by the party of the President making the appointment.  I am not so sure that is any longer a given.

Take what Elena Kagan said, nominated by President Obama, and therefore assumed, by past popular standards at least, to have Democrat leanings:

I do not espouse the unitarian position.  President Clinton's assertion of directive authority over administration, more than President Reagan's assertion of a general supervisory authority, raises serious constitutional questions.

On the other side, we all know that Chief Justice Roberts, nominated by President Bush and therefore again of assumed Republican leanings, joined the liberal wing in upholding Obamacare.

            Most decisions made by the Supreme Court have ramifications that affect the lives of millions for generations.  How does one, how can one, consistently maintain the levels of moral responsibility and integrity required for such a job?

If presented with the opportunity, I would ask each member of the Supreme Court “Since they are completely two different concepts and practices, how do you reconcile the moral responsibility of justice with the written precepts of the law?”

Until the next time, LLAP!

References:

http://www.supremecourt.gov

http://topics.time.com/john-roberts/

http://abovethelaw.com/tag/john-g-roberts-jr/

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/

http://www.brainyquote.com

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii/

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-28/politics/politics_supreme-court-health-ruling_1_individual-mandate-health-insurance-health-care?_s=PM:POLITICS

LIMITS

Recently, a San Francisco radio host interviewed Brooklyn Federal District Court Judge Frederic Block who was plugging his memoir.  During the course of the interview, the current mandatory prison sentences for viewing child pornography were discussed.  In the judge’s opinion, the act of viewing child pornography did not warrant the mandated minimum of five years in prison, and he added that other judges were of the same thought.

You cannot imagine how incensed I became.  The hideous fact is that those who view child pornography are willing participants in the continued assault of the victim.  How have we de-evolved to the point where the judiciary considers such willing participation to be a lesser crime?  They claim that viewing child pornography, while reprehensible, does not guarantee actual physical contact or even attempted physical contact with a child in the future.  I guess the constant re-victimization of these assaulted children is meaningless to them.

I began to think about other crimes, once universally deemed heinous, that have apparently regressed into less than serious offenses, with less than seemingly equitable sentences.  For example, to cite only a very few:

John Hinkley first came to mind.  In 1981 Hinkley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan.  During that attempt, President Reagan was hit, James Brady was very seriously injured by a bullet to his head, and a Secret Service Officer and a policeman were shot.  Found not guilty by reason of insanity, Hinkley was confined at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Washington DC.  Over the course of his hospitalization, he has enjoyed frequent visits home, now as long as ten days.  In November 2011 his attorney maintained that Hinkley is “flawed” but “fundamentally decent.”  Hinkley attempted to assassinate the President of the United States, and he is now considered “fundamentally decent”?  When did it become a lesser crime to attempt to assassinate the President of the United States, lesser to such an extent that the perpetrator gets frequent extended visits home?

Richard Speck systematically tortured, raped, and murdered eight student nurses in July 1966.  Found guilty, he initially was given the death penalty, but in 1972 the Supreme Court declared his sentence unconstitutional, and he was resentenced to life imprisonment.  In the late 1980s Chicago newsman Bill Kurtis anonymously received video tapes of Speck in prison showing explicit scenes of sex, drug use, and money being passed around by prisoners.  In the video Speck, when asked why he killed the nurses, joked, "It just wasn't their night."  He even says:  "If they only knew how much fun I was having in here, they would turn me loose."  I saw this video when it was first televised and, it is so disgusting, I will not provide a URL for it.  If you decide to look for it, be sure to have a vomit bucket handy.  This was Richard Speck’s life in prison.

Bernie Madoff today is certainly not living the luxurious life-style he had grown accustomed to.  Considering the misery he created, though, does anyone believe that his current multiple sentences, as they stand now, are equitable?  My recommended sentencing for Bernie Madoff:  that he spend every day for the rest of his life cleaning the toilets and floors of homeless shelters, that every night he should sleep on the floor of a homeless shelter, that he should only wear dirty ragged cast-off clothing.

Now we have James Holmes, the Aurora CO mass murderer, charged with twenty-four counts of first degree murder (two counts for each victim murdered), 116 counts of attempted murder, possession of an explosive device, and sentence enhancement for the violence of the crimes.  When he is convicted, if he is convicted, what will his life in prison be like?  (Let us not even discuss the option of execution because, even if he is so sentenced, it is more likely than not that it will be commuted to life.)

Make no mistake; I am not a “hang-‘em-high-Dirty-Harry” sort of individual.  I am not an advocate of knee-jerk justice.  I am an advocate of justice.

From what I have learned, a typical day in prison consists of:  meals, personal hygiene time, exercises, leisure time, limited telephone calls, school, participation in work or study programs, and treatment programs as needed.  At the end of the day, time is spent cleaning the cell, reading, writing letters, working out, socializing with other inmates, sometimes playing cards or watching TV.  Some prisoners can have monitored access to the internet.  For most people, for most crimes, this is punishment enough.  (I said I wasn’t a “hang ‘em high” person.)

However, for the more heinous crimes, for the James Holmes of the world, for the Richard Specks of the world, for the John Hinkleys of the world, for the child abusers of the world, there has to be an alternative to the current quality of life that a prison life sentence offers.  I would suggest the following prison life for those who commit heinous crimes:

Solitary confinement; one window in the cell to mark the passage of time; three meals; no TV; no radio; no visitors; no phone calls; no time outside; guard contact only.  Let’s add to that perhaps two books: a spiritual book of their choice and one other, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare (without footnotes).  To insure that due processes were followed, one, and only one, appeal.

            Please note that I have not suggested the death penalty, and I will be clear about that:  while I do not believe the John Wayne Gacys, the Ted Bundys, the Richard Specks, the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world merit the privilege of breathing the air, I do think that my system of incarceration would be far worse than the death penalty.

Something is terribly wrong when our judiciary has come to the conclusion that the continued participation in the assault upon children is considered less than a heinous crime.  Something is terribly wrong when a political assassin gets released for visits home.  Something is terribly wrong when a convicted mass murderer can pursue any and all interests and activities while serving out his life sentence. 

Something is terribly wrong when we are hesitant and afraid to insure that there are equitable consequences to the commission of heinous crimes.

Until next time, LLAP!

References

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-30/justice/justice_hinckley-hearing_1_john-hinckley-presidential-assailant-barry-levine?_s=PM:JUSTICE

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/biography/reagan-hinckley/

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1937349_1937350_1937409,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/16/us/killer-s-prison-video-sparks-illinois-lawmakers-outrage.html

http://www.ahmedandsukaram.com/CM/Articles/Federal-Judges-Encourage-Reduced-Sentencing-for-Child-Pornography.asp

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-shooting-suspect-charged-no-word-death-penalty-184841498.html

http://www.vangla.ee/43919

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4731098_prison-inmate-spend-day.html