It's 4:20 AM, do you know where your WashU child is? The answers for most parents are obvious: sleeping or studying. But for some proud parents, their children were hoping to participate in the time-honored, mind-expanding tradition of......you guessed it, smoking marijuana at 4:20 AM on 4/20. Isn't it wonderful? A bunch of morons (and yes, that is what they are) staying up all night just to travel to the heart of WashU's campus and inhale illegal substances out of paper rolls. How heroic and courageous.
Fortunately for society, word got to the campus police about this little shindig, and they were present to promptly boot the tokers off of our beautiful campus. What a sight that must have been; a stampede of tie-dye and long hair desperately trying to suck the last bit of stupor out of their doobies before returning to their frat houses or apartments (no doubt with walls adorned by heroic poses of Bob Marley and Che Guevara).
Great job, police.
As for the WashU pothead contingent; I suggest you find a better habit. I hear banging your head against concrete produces the same effect, and can help you expedite the manifestation of your mooncalf status.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Prudent Jurisprudence: Part II - Avoiding the O'Connor/Souter Landmines
Part II discusses what conservatives, assuming they win the Presidency, should do to ensure a legacy of restricted judicial activism and strict constructionism prevail on the Supreme Court.
The simple answer: Appoint more outstanding civil servants like John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Antonin Scalia. In addition to their legal genius, these men epitomize consistency and are guaranteed to vote in accordance with the principles of conservatism (and the Constitution). There is practically no chance that these Justices will surprise and disappoint, compromising their legal philosophies to appease pubic opinion.
So what happens when this simple rule isn't followed?
Sandra Day O'Connor and David Hackett Souter happen.
Appointed by Reagan and Bush (the first), respectively, both of these appointments looked like promising Justices. O'Connor also happened to be the first woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court, and by a republican President no less.
With Souter, the problem is what was promised and how that contradicts how he has ruled on cases. Expanding abortion rights, limiting the execution of capital punishment, upholding affirmative action/diversity clauses, and entertaining the gay and lesbian agenda (as in the case of the Boy Scouts) all go against what conservatives deem essential and important.
With O'Connor, the problem is not necessarily how she ruled (although some of the same arguments about Souter can be made), but the manner in which she ruled. In his book The Nine, Jeffrey Toobin discusses how O'Connor believed that the Supreme Court should rule, at least in part, in accordance with public opinion. He also details the 'middle of the road' approach she frequently took on important cases, and argues that she enjoyed being pandered to by the other Justices. O'Connor was also an advocate of considering international law (how other countries treat the issue at hand) when forming and writing her opinions.
To me, this illustrates a judicial philosophy that is founded not on principles of law, but on public appeasement. The Supreme Court should not be influenced in any way by the opinion of the people; we have politicians who speak for the people. The irrelevancy of public scrutiny is precisely what the lifelong appointment is in place to uphold. The same approach should be used when deciding cases, which consists of applying facts to the law as it stands, and making a ruling. At no time should Justices consider public opinion during their deliberation.
The take-away message is that the Supreme Court will be an extremely important issue for the next President, and its significance is often overlooked until a Justice dies or retires. It is paramount that republicans be very strategic in who they nominate because the effect will be felt long after the President leaves office.
The simple answer: Appoint more outstanding civil servants like John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Antonin Scalia. In addition to their legal genius, these men epitomize consistency and are guaranteed to vote in accordance with the principles of conservatism (and the Constitution). There is practically no chance that these Justices will surprise and disappoint, compromising their legal philosophies to appease pubic opinion.
So what happens when this simple rule isn't followed?
Sandra Day O'Connor and David Hackett Souter happen.
Appointed by Reagan and Bush (the first), respectively, both of these appointments looked like promising Justices. O'Connor also happened to be the first woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court, and by a republican President no less.
With Souter, the problem is what was promised and how that contradicts how he has ruled on cases. Expanding abortion rights, limiting the execution of capital punishment, upholding affirmative action/diversity clauses, and entertaining the gay and lesbian agenda (as in the case of the Boy Scouts) all go against what conservatives deem essential and important.
With O'Connor, the problem is not necessarily how she ruled (although some of the same arguments about Souter can be made), but the manner in which she ruled. In his book The Nine, Jeffrey Toobin discusses how O'Connor believed that the Supreme Court should rule, at least in part, in accordance with public opinion. He also details the 'middle of the road' approach she frequently took on important cases, and argues that she enjoyed being pandered to by the other Justices. O'Connor was also an advocate of considering international law (how other countries treat the issue at hand) when forming and writing her opinions.
To me, this illustrates a judicial philosophy that is founded not on principles of law, but on public appeasement. The Supreme Court should not be influenced in any way by the opinion of the people; we have politicians who speak for the people. The irrelevancy of public scrutiny is precisely what the lifelong appointment is in place to uphold. The same approach should be used when deciding cases, which consists of applying facts to the law as it stands, and making a ruling. At no time should Justices consider public opinion during their deliberation.
The take-away message is that the Supreme Court will be an extremely important issue for the next President, and its significance is often overlooked until a Justice dies or retires. It is paramount that republicans be very strategic in who they nominate because the effect will be felt long after the President leaves office.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Prudent Jurisprudence: Part I - Importance in 2008
The upcoming Presidential election is of extreme importance for various and sundry reasons. The Iraq War (and the greater war on terrorism), the slumping economy, the pending social security meltdown, and the end of life on earth due to global warming are all serious issues that merit attention. OK, the last one was a joke unless your name is Ted Turner or John Edwards. One issue, however, that has not been getting due attention from our favorite pundits is the drastic effect the next President will have on our nation's highest court.
It is entirely possible that the next President will have the opportunity to nominate and appoint three (that's right, three) Justices to the Supreme Court. For those of you not mathematically inclined, that is 1/3 of the Supreme Court selected by one person; extraordinary power. The fact that these appointments are lifelong will ensure that the next president's legacy will largely be shaped by who they select to wear the robe.
What Justices are on their way out?
John Paul Stevens: At 87 years of age, there is no doubt that he will either kick the bucket behind the bench, or join the anchors on 60 Minutes within the near future.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: At 75 years old and by far the Court's most liberal member, it is entirely possible that she could retire in the next 4-8 years.
Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer: At 72, 71, and 69 respectively, these three no longer carry the torch of youth. Although conservative physicians and scientists should continue researching ways to eternally preserve Justice Scalia.
As for the other four (Souter, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts), it is unlikely that they will retire from the bench within the near future.
So why does any of this matter?
Like it or not, the courts of the United States have become increasingly active in legislating from the bench instead of merely applying facts to the laws as intended. Thanks largely in part to former Chief Justice Earl Warren, this "judicial activism" has propagated, creating controversy in its wake. The obvious problem with judicial activism is that it gives authority to the judiciary that was never intended. It is not the job of the courts to create or amend law to fit the ideology of a particular judge; that's what we have legislatures for.
Liberals tend to like to the idea of judicial activism as it spawns discussions on re-defining traditional marriage, affirmative action, separation of church and state, and other issues. They like the idea of a living, breathing, Constitution that can simply be altered to accommodate their so-called progressive agenda.
Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to despise the notion of continually altering the Constitution. In fact, recent studies have shown that mentioning the words "judicial activism" around the halls of National Review headquarters increased blood pressure to deadly levels. Again, another joke (although it's not out of the question). The point is that conservatives believe in ideals such as strict-constuctionism and original intent. Simply put: the great men who wrote our Constitution ACTUALLY MEANT what they wrote! And that their words should be respectfully used as a baseline when approaching a legal matter.
So what is the solution for conservatives?
First - win the election in 2008.
Second - stay tuned for Part II which details where conservatives have gone wrong, and how to avoid the "O'Connor/Souter Landmines".
It is entirely possible that the next President will have the opportunity to nominate and appoint three (that's right, three) Justices to the Supreme Court. For those of you not mathematically inclined, that is 1/3 of the Supreme Court selected by one person; extraordinary power. The fact that these appointments are lifelong will ensure that the next president's legacy will largely be shaped by who they select to wear the robe.
What Justices are on their way out?
John Paul Stevens: At 87 years of age, there is no doubt that he will either kick the bucket behind the bench, or join the anchors on 60 Minutes within the near future.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: At 75 years old and by far the Court's most liberal member, it is entirely possible that she could retire in the next 4-8 years.
Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer: At 72, 71, and 69 respectively, these three no longer carry the torch of youth. Although conservative physicians and scientists should continue researching ways to eternally preserve Justice Scalia.
As for the other four (Souter, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts), it is unlikely that they will retire from the bench within the near future.
So why does any of this matter?
Like it or not, the courts of the United States have become increasingly active in legislating from the bench instead of merely applying facts to the laws as intended. Thanks largely in part to former Chief Justice Earl Warren, this "judicial activism" has propagated, creating controversy in its wake. The obvious problem with judicial activism is that it gives authority to the judiciary that was never intended. It is not the job of the courts to create or amend law to fit the ideology of a particular judge; that's what we have legislatures for.
Liberals tend to like to the idea of judicial activism as it spawns discussions on re-defining traditional marriage, affirmative action, separation of church and state, and other issues. They like the idea of a living, breathing, Constitution that can simply be altered to accommodate their so-called progressive agenda.
Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to despise the notion of continually altering the Constitution. In fact, recent studies have shown that mentioning the words "judicial activism" around the halls of National Review headquarters increased blood pressure to deadly levels. Again, another joke (although it's not out of the question). The point is that conservatives believe in ideals such as strict-constuctionism and original intent. Simply put: the great men who wrote our Constitution ACTUALLY MEANT what they wrote! And that their words should be respectfully used as a baseline when approaching a legal matter.
So what is the solution for conservatives?
First - win the election in 2008.
Second - stay tuned for Part II which details where conservatives have gone wrong, and how to avoid the "O'Connor/Souter Landmines".
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Put Me In Coach
Since I began college in 2005, I have lost touch with the many of the people in my hometown, including some of my closest friends from high school. It amazes me how quickly the transformation occurred; one day I knew every kid in the entire school and a couple of years later, I hardly recognize a face. While the faces certainly change, nearly everything else remains identical. One conspicuous example is the perpetual, paralyzing, and preposterous preoccupation with high school sports.
I love sports. In my life I have participated in wrestling, football, baseball, basketball, golf, and track at the team level. Sports are a great tool to develop interpersonal skills, teamwork, and promote a healthy lifestyle in high school youth. With the right teammates, sports can be extremely enjoyable and teach valuable life-lessons about competition and how to be gracious winners or losers. With that said, sports do not exist to define who the students are. Unfortunately, this is how they are presented to today's youth; you are what you play.
This 'sports culture' is destructive for numerous reasons. First of all, it takes the focus away from what is really important in school which is learning and preparing yourself for a career (whether that includes college or not). Why put that extra hour in on that algebra assignment when you could be lifting weights for the fourth time this week? I know for a fact that most of the kids I played with spent voluminously less time on their academics than they did on sports practices and games. Is this really what schools should be promoting? This is insanity.
Secondly, by buying into the sports mentality and the narrow-minded rhetoric of high school coaches, kids are discouraged from participating in anything else but sports. There are so many other activities to get involved in including: choir, band, drama, speech, student council, national honor society, volunteering, and a slough of summer leadership enrichment programs such as Boy's/Girl's State and Presidential Classroom. Kids are taught, however, that these activities are inferior to sports and, out of fear of being benched or looked down upon by their coaches, kids do not participate in them. Should student-athletes be punished for missing two baseball games (out of nearly thirty) to attend the once in a lifetime experience of Boy's State? Should students be discouraged from participating in show choir because the morning rehearsals conflict with an off-season football weight room regimen? Obviously not.
Lastly. After four years of Stalin-esque indoctrination, kids are poisoned into believing that sports are their ticket to success later in life. They have no clue what they are interested in studying, but by God they know what sport they want to play at some generic division III college. They have no clue how they might make a buck, create wealth, or become successful, but they sure know they want to play quarterback for South-Central-Northeast-State-Western College. Never mind that these institutions charge about $30K per year and, by federal law, cannot give athletic scholarships.
Bottom Line: Sports should be just one course of a balanced meal. The goal is to raise well-rounded individuals, not basketball has-beens (or never-weres?). This mentality must start from the top down with parents, school administrators, and most importantly with the near-sighted coaches (a crucial component of the has-been demographic).
It's time to put things in perspective. Get the big picture. Plan ahead more than five minutes. Employers (along with the rest of the world) are not going to care how many passes you caught your senior year, but they will care about your GPA and what special skills you have to bring to the table. Be prepared to hand them a resplendent resume, not a highlight reel.
I love sports. In my life I have participated in wrestling, football, baseball, basketball, golf, and track at the team level. Sports are a great tool to develop interpersonal skills, teamwork, and promote a healthy lifestyle in high school youth. With the right teammates, sports can be extremely enjoyable and teach valuable life-lessons about competition and how to be gracious winners or losers. With that said, sports do not exist to define who the students are. Unfortunately, this is how they are presented to today's youth; you are what you play.
This 'sports culture' is destructive for numerous reasons. First of all, it takes the focus away from what is really important in school which is learning and preparing yourself for a career (whether that includes college or not). Why put that extra hour in on that algebra assignment when you could be lifting weights for the fourth time this week? I know for a fact that most of the kids I played with spent voluminously less time on their academics than they did on sports practices and games. Is this really what schools should be promoting? This is insanity.
Secondly, by buying into the sports mentality and the narrow-minded rhetoric of high school coaches, kids are discouraged from participating in anything else but sports. There are so many other activities to get involved in including: choir, band, drama, speech, student council, national honor society, volunteering, and a slough of summer leadership enrichment programs such as Boy's/Girl's State and Presidential Classroom. Kids are taught, however, that these activities are inferior to sports and, out of fear of being benched or looked down upon by their coaches, kids do not participate in them. Should student-athletes be punished for missing two baseball games (out of nearly thirty) to attend the once in a lifetime experience of Boy's State? Should students be discouraged from participating in show choir because the morning rehearsals conflict with an off-season football weight room regimen? Obviously not.
Lastly. After four years of Stalin-esque indoctrination, kids are poisoned into believing that sports are their ticket to success later in life. They have no clue what they are interested in studying, but by God they know what sport they want to play at some generic division III college. They have no clue how they might make a buck, create wealth, or become successful, but they sure know they want to play quarterback for South-Central-Northeast-State-Western College. Never mind that these institutions charge about $30K per year and, by federal law, cannot give athletic scholarships.
Bottom Line: Sports should be just one course of a balanced meal. The goal is to raise well-rounded individuals, not basketball has-beens (or never-weres?). This mentality must start from the top down with parents, school administrators, and most importantly with the near-sighted coaches (a crucial component of the has-been demographic).
It's time to put things in perspective. Get the big picture. Plan ahead more than five minutes. Employers (along with the rest of the world) are not going to care how many passes you caught your senior year, but they will care about your GPA and what special skills you have to bring to the table. Be prepared to hand them a resplendent resume, not a highlight reel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
