With all apologies to the tyrant Lincoln, I prefer to celebrate the ushering in of sci-fi’s wet dream: the Space Marine. (being offensive can be fun!) Today is the 50th Anniversary of Col. John Glenn / USMC becoming the first American to orbit the Earth.
Category: Personal Blog (Page 22 of 27)
I’ve been a pretty vocal opponent of the telephone game that we call the common law, but I’ve yet to mention the psychosis and suspension of reality necessary to make the common law work. One of the questions we often end up being asked in law school is, “How did the court justify their holdings in Case A and Case B?” Just as often as not the real answer is that you cannot reconcile the holdings of the Court because they are opposed to each other. But that answer is unacceptable, so a hundred of us cast our eyes to our books to avoid the professor’s gaze and we squirm in our seats until someone can actually come up with an answer. That answer is generally a strange and obscure matter that differentiates the two cases. And that answer is the actual LAW by which we live our lives.
The Supreme Court aids in this absurd fiction by their insistence on using the term “we” to reference opinions of Courts past, present, and future. Here are a few examples from the recent U.S. v. Jones 565 U. S. ____ (2012):
“Thus, in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438 (1928), we held that wiretaps attached to telephone wires on the public streets did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search because ‘[t]here was no entry of the houses or offices of the defendants,'”
“Our later cases, of course, have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach. In Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351 (1967), we said that ‘the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,” and found a violation in attachment of an eavesdropping device to a public telephone booth.'”
So, like one of Xerxes’ Immortals, the Court has always been one unit, with one mind. By referring to themselves as “we”, it lends credence to the idea that there was ideological consistency to the decisions as if it were the same people making the decisions from Marshall to Roberts
How is this like James Bond? Well, despite deviations in character and behavior, we’re expected to believe that these are all the same guy:
Now I don’t know about you, but I struggle to imagine Sean Connery’s Bond wielding an AK and mowing down Soviets. There’s a reason that if you get a group of men together drinking eventually an argument will erupt as to who the REAL James Bond is. (answer: Sean Connery) There’d be no reason to argue over who the REAL Bond was if Bond acted the same with each new actor.
My final draft of the Constitution is up. Mind you, there will likely never be a true final draft, but this is what I’m turning in to the law school. I suppose when you ask for 20 pages double spaced and I give you more than 30 1.5 spaced, you’d best not complain!
You aren’t going to read it, so I shouldn’t reward you, but here’s possibly the greatest Marine Corps recruiting ad ever:
Note to self: When going to see Ron Paul speak on campus, 45 minutes is not early enough to arrive to even get standing room.
The school paper covers the diversity training:
Diversity Training Divides College
Seriously?! Only 5 people out of 360 refused to go? You know what just happened to me?
I’ve got to say that I’m more than a little disappointed. Bullies exist because we comply. People threw fits. People got the legislature involved. The local news was on the scene. Yet it appears only 4 other people refused to comply.
For the record, it sounds like Dean Morant did a pretty good job. Unfortunately the lack of professionalism exhibited by the law school in both threatening the students, and the lack of cordial discussion among students in discussing this controversy shows that we have a very long way to go for a civil and professional dialogue. The manner in which this was implemented was more divisive to this school than having done nothing.
I’d also like to mention that during one of the meetings Dean Burnett specifically stated that the visit by the ABA had nothing to do with bringing Dean Morant in. From the article:
“The training was held in response to the American Bar Association’s suggestions to improve focus on professionalism toward diversity in particular, Don Burnett said.
Burnett, dean of the UI College of Law, said he and the law faculty took the suggestion seriously and created an obligatory program titled ‘Dialogues on Professionalism and Diversity.'”
With this program completed I’m curious exactly how the Dean would do things differently. He has apologized repeatedly for poor communication, then repeated to communicate the same thing. Now the Dean plays Will Ferrell. Each apology was like hearing Ricky Bobby say something by first stating, “With all due respect…”
Part the First:
Me: Hey Katniss, do you want to see Ron Paul with me tomorrow?
Katniss: No Daddy, I don’t like that guy!
Me: Why?
Katniss: Because I don’t like him. He is not smart.
Me: What?! He’s a doctor!
Katniss: I don’t like doctors! They hurt me!
Me: Close my computer and come get dinner.
Katniss: Daddy, your compuker isn’t very good.
Me: What?! You’re 3. You’re already a tech snob. Why don’t you like my computer?
Katniss: Sometimes when I close your compuker it doesn’t turn off.
Me: /sigh/ You’re right.
Okay, you haven’t earned a video, but you get one anyways. Remy!:
I just hit 1000 page views! My mom must have been up hitting refresh all night long.
Some of the things I’ve learned about myself:
I wish I were more religious. I’d make an incredible preacher.
I’m an absurd softy. I end up choking back tears when I see a person I can connect with in trouble.
I’m more of a builder than a punisher.
I’m not sure telling someone to research the effects of marijuana is a good idea if you’re trying to convince them to NOT smoke marijuana.
Pointless post requires video:
Hillsdale College is offering a free telecourse on the Constitution. I’m going to start it next week but try to keep a critical mind, what with course titles such as:
Introduction: The American Mind
Larry P. Arnn
Monday, February 20
The Declaration of Independence
Thomas G. West
Monday, February 27
The Problem of Majority Tyranny
David Bobb
Monday, March 5
Separation of Powers: Preventing Tyranny
Kevin Portteus
Monday, March 12
Separation of Powers: Ensuring Good Government
Will Morrisey
Monday, March 19
Religion, Morality, and Property
David Bobb
Monday, March 26
Crisis of Constitutional Government
Will Morrisey
Monday, April 2
Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution
Kevin Portteus
Monday, April 9
The Progressive Rejection of the Founding
Ronald J. Pestritto
Monday, April 16
The Recovery of the Constitution
Larry P. Arnn
Monday, April 23
If you’re interested, you must preregister for free:
Pay Your Bill Online
