Oct. 21, 2010
This represents my first attempt at blogging. I have no idea where this will lead, but maybe we can have some fun. I use to write (years ago) for newspapers while attending the University of Connecticut and had a blast doing it. I wrote a couple of lead stories for the Hartford Courant Sunday Magazine and for the newspaper itself. I wrote for my college paper the Connecticut Daily Campus, the Willimantic Chronicle and the Journal Inquirer.
Of course we’re talking some forty years ago, but my mind still remembers. As there is no editor reading my work I know I will certainly embarrass myself from time to time if not more often than that.
My organizational skills are weak but my insights into people and events tend to be keen (at least in my mind). My political views lean conservative although I recently found out that I’m still registered as a democrat in my town. Maybe someday I’ll do something about that. Then again, maybe I won’t. I do know there is not one democrat I’ll vote for this election cycle which is not my usual way of voting. I just don’t take to the idea of our political representatives lying to us and I can’t subscribe to the notion “that they all do it”. That just seems to me to be too cynical as well as setting the bar too low.
I enjoy the law. When in college I thought about becoming a lawyer but never did. But, my very best male friends did. I always wondered if I had something to do with that as I always seemed to engage them in debate over lunch, over dinner, over beer…and so forth. I think you get the idea.
Now, what do I do about this blogging thing? Let me think on this and I’ll get back to you. Maybe I’ll start out writing about the Bush v Gore US Supreme Court Case. I’d be willing to bet most of you do not really know why that case was so interesting…I can tell you most of our journalists failed to appreciate the interesting parts.
I’ll leave you with this for today: Did you know that the man who represented Bush before the Supreme Court became our Solicitor General and lost his wife on 9/11? Mrs. Theodore Olson was on the jet that slammed into the Pentagon.
Until next time…
p. thibodeau-baker
Sorry. Should have posted sooner. Yes, please do explain the mechanics and relevance of the decision.
ReplyDeleteThen, think for a moment on the concept: that one SC Justice can possess the ability, by their vote for or against, to so significantly affect the functioning of our government.
Apply that "one man's vote" concept to the SCOTUS deciding whether or not we possess the unalienable rights we possess irrespective of whether or not government approves of them. For the Bill of rights is not a list of permissions, it is a list of the rights the government may not deny us.
And yet, from time to time, they do indeed deny us those rights. Until another Court, another single Justice, decides we may indeed possess them, as in Heller vs D.C. and in McDonald vs Chicago. Should we permit these infringements?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry Bro,
ReplyDeleteI missed your post. Just my thoughts:
This is where the argument against judicial activism comes into play I believe. The constitution's interpretation either broadly or narrowly defined is where citizens often disagree. Politicians who want "active" jurists are usually those who have trouble getting what they want from the governed through the legislative process. But that's my take on it. Remember, when Ben Franklin was asked by a citizen after our new government was just formed: Sir, what kind of government did you give us and his reply: A republic sir, as long as you can keep it. (Not exact words). Remember,its only our wisdom or lack of it that is to a good degree responsible for whom we send to Congress. We need to recommit to encouraging and supporting people with integrity and honor to represent us. Herein lies what I hope to be the reawakening of America. Character truly does count and probably counts the most as well as a high regard for truth.