Once upon a time females were comprehensible to males. Everyone understood the language spoken between females and that segment of the race comprised of boys under the age of twelve. It was clear to both speaker and hearer when a mother or other adult woman would say, “James Marion Redwine, stop that!” There was no need for translation or even exposition.
However, as puberty arises in boys the gods set a curse upon said boys and the entire female population over the age of menses. Use of a boy’s middle name, a completely clear indication that something some female said or was about to say ought to be heeded, was replaced by a bewildering habit of talking in sentences void of direct objects.
When boys talked with boys there was no confusion when one boy asked another boy to play baseball or fistfight or fish. If the other boy wished to do so, they would just go forward with understood purpose. Should the other boy not wish to be so engaged a simple “Nope” was sufficient.
This facile system of clear declaration carries on among males from rocking horses to rockers. No man needs to wonder what another man means whether the other man answers aloud or simply grunts. Feelings are not offended nor is there any need to ruin a perfectly good hour of silence discussing them.
On the other hand, with a boy’s first attempt to communicate with a non-family female, the lessons of misdirection, misperception and just plain misery begin. Such a conversation might go as follows:
“Hi, Peg, would you like to go to the Seventh Grade dance?”
“Why Jimmy Redwine, that would be ever so much fun. Just let me see if I have anything to wear or if I want to hold out for anybody else. But I may get back to you. Can you wait until I know what kind of car you will have in four years?”
If any females actually read this column, they may know what that meant. As for me, after fifty years I still don’t.
Then there is the excruciating non-communication between husbands and wives. No area leads to more angst for men than the attempt to decipher what spouses mean concerning daily activities. Would it be too much to ask for simple declaratory sentences constructed with a subject, verb and object? Is oblique sarcasm required by Athena or whoever the goddess of female communication may be? For example, if a man wants a beer he might say, without even having to move from the couch, “Beer”. One simple word; isn’t that clear to everybody? But the man’s wife will feel the uncontrollable urge to respond with obfuscation such as, “I suppose I could shut off the vacuum, walk ALL the way to the fridge, and get you a beer if you wouldn’t mind drinking it through a straw in case you miss it after I throw it to you.”
Now, what does that mean and is it called for? How about a simple, “Sure, Honey, I can always finish the cleaning later”.
And what does it mean when women just refer to things without giving any context or direction. Take jobs around the house for example. Men know without having to be told that there may be branches blown down or a garden to be tilled. Why do women approach such topics as if touching upon them directly will have cataclysmic consequences? Let me suggest an example.
“Jim, it’s only May and onions should have been planted weeks ago.”
When I respond, “Yeah, I know it’s May”, Peg puffs up like a blowfish and has a headache for days. See what I mean, Gentle Reader? You would think my agreement with her would have made her happy.
HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL AND COURT OF APPEALS ORAL ARGUMENT
April 29, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in the Posey Circuit Courtroom: PUBLIC IS INVITED
The Posey County Bar Association led by its President, Attorney William Bender, will join with Posey County’s two high schools, the Indiana Court of Appeals and the public in celebrating Law Day 2016.
The Mock Trial will involve the high school students led by their teachers. Posey Superior Court Judge Brent Almon will preside and a Jury comprised of Posey County attorneys will decide if two computer companies should be forced to break into the iPhones of private citizens. The Mock Trial fact pattern was published in this column last week.
After the Mock Trial a three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals will hold oral argument on the appeal of Lockhart vs. State. Jerome Lockhart was convicted of rape and sexual misconduct with a minor. He is appealing his conviction on several grounds. He claims his constitutional right to a trial by a jury of his peers was violated when the only African American potential juror was stricken from the jury by the prosecutor.
This “Batson Challenge” is based on the United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Batson vs. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). In the Batson trial there were only four African Americans on the venire, the list of potential jurors. The prosecuting attorney struck all four using peremptory challenges. Mr. Batson appealed citing the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that to strike potential jurors merely because of their race was unconstitutional. If one side of a case wishes to strike such a juror, the attorney who exercises the strike must establish there was a “race neutral” reason for the challenge. A race neutral reason might be a criminal record or drug use or prejudice for or against one side.
On April 29, 2016 in the courtroom of the Posey Circuit Court Mr. Lockhart’s attorney, Ronald Smith, and Deputy Attorney General, Monika Prekopa Talbot, will try to convince the judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals (John Baker, Melissa May, and Mark Bailey) their legal position is correct.
This important issue should be both interesting and informative. The public is invited to observe and listen.
Mt. Vernon High School Vs. North Posey High School AKA The F.B.I. And C.I.A. Vs. Black Briar Computer Company
Venue: The Posey Circuit Court
Date: April 29, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.
Issue: Should Black Briar Computer Company and Appleby Computer Company be forced to help the F.B.I. and C.I.A. access the iPhones of two private citizens?
As part of the Posey County Indiana Bar Association’s celebration of Law Day the teachers and students of Mt. Vernon High School and North Posey High School will present a Mock Trial before a jury comprised of Posey County Attorneys. Posey Superior Court Judge Brent Almon will preside and Bar President William Bender will be the Foreperson. The case is anticipated to last about two hours.
Following the Mock Trial the Indiana Court of Appeals will conduct an actual oral argument on a pending case. The public is also welcome to observe the oral argument. Indiana Appellate Judges John Baker, Melissa May and Mark Bailey will preside.
As Plaintiff, Mt. Vernon High School will be led by teacher Tim Alcorn. Attorneys for Mt. Vernon are Adam Grabert and Luke Steinhart. Portraying the witnesses will be students: Kaleb Grabert, Ellen Denning, Jared Mader, Jordan Crabtree, Sidney Irick and Alex Goebel.
North Posey High School is the Defendant. Its teachers are Mike Kuhn, Michelle Parrish and Ashton Fuelling. The Attorneys are Maddy Pfister and Brandon Williams. Witnesses will be played by: Morgan Alvey, Brooklyn Hamman, Jared Koester, Derek Motz and Hannah Straw.
This will be the thirtieth straight year Posey County’s high schools have joined the Posey County Bar Association in the celebration of the Rule of Law over rule by military might.
Both the Mock Trial and the Appellate Oral Argument are open to the public. Please come and join the schools and the Bar in honoring Law Day.
Democracy may occasionally resemble a food fight but it is more palatable than rule by oligarchy. Or, as John Milton (1608-1674) put it in Paradise Lost, “It is better to reign in Hell than serve in heaven”.
America’s system of selecting all federal and many state judges resembles a game of inside baseball in which public money greases a machine which has little public input. The currently pending replacement of Justice Scalia is a salient example of politics in need of air and light, in other words, democracy.
My suggestion is to start by incrementally modifying our federal judicial selection process, which would most likely lead to modification of our states’ systems. I would begin by developing a pool of potential judicial candidates. This would require the United States Senate to rely on its Constitutional duty to advise and consent to the President’s nominations.
The Senate would be within its authority to formulate regulations setting forth certain criteria judicial candidates must meet before the Senate would consider them. A corollary would be if the President did nominate a qualified candidate from this pool, the Senate would have to fairly and expeditiously consider such candidate. These criteria would have to be non-discriminatory in the protected categories of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. However, they would be universal in requiring qualifications such as character and fitness, education, training and experience. America’s law schools and state Bar associations would surely conform their standards to the Senate’s criteria, if they were reasonable and non-discriminatory since they would want their students and members to have the opportunity to compete for federal judgeships. Thus, the federal system would, per force, lead to modification of our country’s entire manner of determining who would fill the Judicial Branch. This would help ensure independence and fairness while helping to lessen outside influences, such as from political parties or special interest groups.
While my preference would be for non-partisan elections of all judges for a term of years, if inclusion in the pool of potential judges was available to anyone who met proper requirements, other, perhaps better systems, could also be considered as long as the public maintained control.
The ultimate goal is an independent Judicial Branch made up of qualified individuals who have been selected by a democratic process. These judges should serve for set terms subject to non-partisan but democratic review. Most importantly, we should select our judges by a system that encourages them to decide cases only on the law and the facts.
America’s two greatest strengths
America’s two greatest strengths are its diversity and its democratic form of government. Our diversity provides input from the talents of many. Our three separate but theoretically equal branches of government keep power from consolidating in one group by dispersing it among the populace. The public maintains the right to hold power by having the right to vote for the Executive and Legislative Branches, both state and federal.
As for the Judicial Branch, not one federal judge is chosen by election and in many states judges are selected by a small number of people. The trend in America is that more and more judges at all levels are chosen by fewer and fewer people. The public usually has no input in such selections. These unelected judges may ostensibly stand for review every six or ten years or so, but in reality, they serve as long as they wish.
In each of these articles on America’s judiciary I have unequivocably stated I do not believe elected judges are any better or any worse than appointed ones. It is not the product that is the issue. The issues are: (1) who gets to select the judges; (2) from what pool of candidates can judges be taken; and, (3) how do we get rid of judges we do not want? In other words, does our current system by which we select some of our judges place the diversity of the Judicial Branch and our democracy at risk?
Because the country is presently concerned with the replacement of Justice Scalia, I will concentrate on the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). But the growing trend to eliminate the general public from control over those who judge them is an issue at all levels.
As for SCOTUS, the following facts may help illustrate my concerns. Starting with the President having the constitutional duty to nominate justices and the Senate having the constitutional duty to “advise and consent”, the general public is excluded from direct input on those whose decisions affect their lives.
The President must choose the nominees from somewhere, yet neither the Constitution nor any federal legislation gives any guidance as to what qualifications, if any, the President is to consider.
While the Constitution does not require it, all justices have been lawyers. America has over two hundred law schools. Harvard and Yale are only two of these two hundred yet all eight of the sitting justices come from either Harvard or Yale.
President Ronald Reagan attended Eureka College in Illinois. Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy, a Catholic, white, male who graduated from Harvard.
President George Herbert Walker Bush, a Yale graduate, nominated Clarence Thomas, a Catholic, African American male who also went to Yale.
President William Clinton, a Yale graduate, nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Jewish female and a Harvard graduate. Clinton also nominated Stephen Breyer, a Jewish male who graduated from Harvard.
President George W. Bush who went to Yale, nominated John Roberts, a Catholic, white male, and a Harvard alumnus. “W” also nominated white, male, Catholic Samuel Alito who went to Yale.
President Barack Obama, a Harvard graduate, nominated one female Catholic Yale graduate, Sonia Sotomayor, and one Jewish female Harvard graduate, Elena Kagan. Obama has also nominated a replacement for Scalia. That nominee, Merrick Garland, is a Jewish male, graduate of Harvard.
It is neither nefarious nor surprising that presidents would nominate candidates from the two law schools with which they are most familiar. It is also no sin that only Jewish and Catholic judges are represented on the Court. It is probably simply the natural consequence of drawing all of the Supreme Court judges from an extremely small pool. That the culture, ethnicity, religion and numerous other sociological factors might be similar is to be expected when dealing with a small sample of Americans.
The problems that need to be addressed are the unintended weakening of diversity in the pool and a lack of democracy in the selection process. In a country of 330 million people containing 50 states, hundreds of law schools, numerous religions and ethnic backgrounds, an entire branch of government should not be populated by only two religions and two law schools, regardless of which religions and which law schools they may be. This is especially true where one person nominates the judges and the terms of those judges may extend far beyond the term of the president who nominated them.
There have been bunches of people running for the Democrat and Republican nominations for President. It is possible some of them have constructive ideas on addressing issues such as war, healthcare, jobs and pollution. Perhaps some of them are neither venal nor stupid. Most of them are familiar with and even good friends with one another, or were. Many of them have served in public positions of trust. So I ask you, what don’t we know about their positions and why don’t we know?
President Barack Hussein Obama was reelected November 6, 2012. November 7, 2012 the pundits of the national media began handicapping the 2016 race. Did these purveyors of political propaganda seek to inform us about the policies of the potential contenders? With a clean slate and three years to investigate and analyze the bona fides of that extremely small sample of Americans who might soon lead the Western World, did the media strive to have us informed so we could make rational choices? Did the organizations which proudly call themselves “News” outlets eschew ratings for information?
We have had numerous events called debates involving both major party candidates. You may wish to fact check my memory, but to my recollection no one has had more than twenty minutes at a time, usually two minutes or less, to outline and explain the candidates’ plans governing America. It takes Peg longer than that to assign my weekend chores.
I recall Robert Kennedy responding to criticism of his motives for running in 1968. He said, “Isn’t it possible I just want to serve?” Is it vital to our country’s interest to turn debates that should be about issues into mud wrestling? Does the media think so little of the average American’s intellect that questioners must push for ad hominem attacks on other candidates instead of logical responses to positions?
Even when a candidate is interviewed one-on-one the opening question is never about the interviewee’s own plans. It is always some red-meat gambit such as, “Your opponent says you are a tea sipping progressive. Is your opponent competent to launch a nuclear strike against Iceland?” Should a candidate be adroit enough to reply, “You may want to address that question to the other candidate”, the media ratings hog will demand a negative response or announce a lack of backbone during the inevitable one-way post-interview.
I suggest if we abhor dog and cock fights, we should afford our future president at least that much civility.