A mighty shout out to the organization formerly known as "Tech Tow"

Dear Valley Towing,

Sirs:

I simply must take this opportunity to commend the rapid and efficient work of your staff. When my foray to the Food Lion on North Main St. at 11:30 pm Saturday night took a turn for the unexpected, little did I realize that my starter’s inefficacy would catalyze a rapid reaction team of which the Ministry of Homeland Security would be justly proud. In despite of your fine organization, I thought to forestall any complaint by placing flyers under each windshield wiper indicating that my car would not start. I further opined in writing that I would return at first light to rectify the problem, isasmuch as the 20 degree windchill and more or less complete lack of light presented what seemed to me to be insurmountable obstacles, given the placement of my Oldsmobile’s starter.

It was only after I returned at 6:23 am, hectored an innocent and bewildered cashier [to be told that a manager would appear at 7:00 am], and re-initiated my brisk and bracing morning walk that my confusion began to be replaced by something very like awe. “Surely,” I thought, as I broke in to my temporary place of abode in order to turn the alarm off, “this kind of efficiency could only be martialed in response to a very real, very potent threat.” Impressed, sirs, beyond my ability to cogently express, I immediately set off back up the hill towards the spot that my car had so recently (7.5 hours?) occupied. After making my way once more through the dead empty parking lot (certainly unsullied by a certain aged and ailing Oldsmobile), a quick fact-finding consultation with the aforementioned (but now present) manager--cool helpful guy! Seriously. Hello Mr. “D”!--gave me a better grip on the overall situation.

I had not reckoned, in my ill-advised failure to put my two-ton car in a backpack and traipse off the hallowed ground guarded with tenacious zeal by the fine, fine members of your organization, with your employees’ ability to recognize a threat, if not recognize block printing. I blame myself. As a fan of MacGyver (What’s he doing with that thing?) and as a proud owner of quite possibly the largest Swiss Army Knife extant, I too should have realized that my briefcase in the backseat (under my laundry ... *all* of my laundry) could be combined with my recently re-graded student papers and, say, my house and bike lock keys in the front seat in order to form a small tactical nuclear weapon. Full of bird flu, possibly, although it was clean laundry; a relative term I realize. And “Turr-er-ism.” Maybe isolationism, too, I’m not sure. But that’s why YOU’RE the professionals!

The full beauty and majesty of your Top Gun-like scramble to mobilize only became clear to me once I had the honor and pleasure of conversing with some of your vaunted members. The tower, who I spoke to Sunday morning, dispensed with any debate about the fairness or wisdom of your crack team’s actions by responding to my assertion that I had left not one, but TWO notes on the car with the simple and incisive expedient of saying “Nuh-uh!” As I metaphorically fell prostrate before his searing logic, I reflected on the deep commitment to rhetorical skill and relevance which permeates public and private discourse here in the United States of America. Literally, a tear came to my eye. And not just to demonstrate longing for the allergy medicine which was, perhaps by now predictably, in my car, that would not start, several miles away. With the keys to my bike lock. And my housekeys. Which brings me to the alleged point of this particular paragraph: since I could not drive my car off the lot (for the low, low price of $95.00), I would be priveleged to see your team in action!

Let me say now, sirs, that it was worth every single penny of the $180.00 (which I paid with $20 bills) to watch your resolute operative maneuver my vehicle into a spot ... Such grace! Such power! So much easier than, say, pushing it into a spot in which it would be “safe.” Which is what I did, several nights ago. I can only take comfort in the realization that some aspects of my rugby training sessions, should I soon have enough money to actually fix my car and go, will be redundant. Had I had to push the car uphill from its original spot to its new one almost 20 meters away, I could have taken even more comfort of that kind. But that is beside the point. I literally cannot express my thanks in words. So let me join Dante Alighieri in wishing you and your entire organization my very deepest, and very, very warmest regards.

I can only hope that you look forward as expectantly as I to our ensuing--and I choose that word *very* carefully, as I am wont to do--more personal, more pecuniary, and above all more litigious correspondence.

Sincerely,
M. T. Rea, Esq. (J.D.)
Marshall-Wythe School of Law, Class of 1993
Department of Philosophy, Virginia Tech

Judicial Activism & Stare Decisis

So, enough about so-called "Reality." Let's talk about the administration!

My ruminations on the topic of reality are constitutively unhelpful (for anyone besides myself, I suspect) in trying to get a handle on what the hell is going on, in Bush's America. So I thought I'd see if I can't prepare for a topic ahead of time, by babbling about a couple of terms that are about to be heaved around our glorious capital. So let's think about "Judicial Activism" and "Stare Decisis."

Next week, the clueless goofball you see here on the left, fresh from appointing 17 people to important positions when THE SENATE WHERE HE HOLDS A MAJORITY WAS OUT OF TOWN--what a mandate!--is going to attempt to appoint the comely primate on the right to the supreme court, which self-proclaimed professor wonks like to call "SCOTUS", possibly to get the tingly frisson of using jargon, and possibly the satisfaction of having someone ask what, precisely, that could be. Not the subtle doctor!

My feelings about the battological malversationists in (sorry; "that constitute") the administration are such that, based on past experience, I can safely assume that this guy is not *my* guy. But I don't know a lot about him. I invite you--John Childrey, e.g., et. al.--to say nice things about him. Or mean things. Hell, say what you want. No-one wants to "discuss" Peirce. But how about the phantasmagorical spectre of "Judicial Activism"? Sounds scary! To hear the $hrub tell it, anyone who disagrees with him is a "judicial activist." Certainly on the side of those pesky Radical Militant Librarians who are making the FBI's job a living hell. As I shouldn't have to point out, that door swings both ways.

What's at stake here? The administration, in their capacity as people who think that re-naming things changes their essence, ladles that label on their foes. Yet they never seem to see judicial activism in cases with which they agree. (Many hippies are just as bad, or worse, vis-a-vis consistency.) Given my own (pragmatic, and largely Holmesian) view of what the law is, I am fascinated by the way in which it changes. Everyone can think of changes they'd like to make, but what's at stake here is basically the nature of that change.

I'm just introducing the topic here. Me, I'm drawn to the overly philosophical topic of Natural Law. That fine figure of statuary up top there is a cat named Hugo de Groot, a.k.a. Grotius. Nice guy. I'll work him up later on this puppy, if reminded. Grotius thought we could recognize what God would want us to do in situations not covered explicitly by the Bible. There are primary Laws of Nature that are God's express will, but we can use our noodles to work out some of the other stuff, secondary laws of nature. Reason mandates, e.g., that Great Britain (in concert with naval allies) not be allowed to blockade the Dutch. Groot? Dutch.

Natural Law Theory is often opposed to Legal Pragmatism ... but I can save all that up for some kind of spectacular blowout after young Chaka up there on the right is confirmed. I want to *talk* about judicial activism. So, persons--what do you think?

A closely related topic, and with almost as much jargonal value as 'battalogical malversationism', is that of stare decisis. This short link defines the persistently and perniciously mis-pronounced term as: "Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts." Because the Supreme Court is the highest court (I mean hierarchically--not that I don't think Scalia, Thomas & Roberts don't need a bong hit), this principal is *always* "before" the court. What have they said before? Were they right? Has the situation changed? Should changing circumstances even matter? What are the implications of what they say now? Hmmm. But really, what this term will be bandied about *for*, can be summed up in 2 words:

Dred Scott. Actually, of course, I really need 2.25 words or so ... Roe v. Wade. In fact, with regard to social conservatives, 'Holy Grail' would work just as well. His mighty tyrannical $hrubbery can talk all the smack he wants about not applying a litmus test ... he wants Roe dead. He wants it's family dead. He wants it's house, burned to the ground. And since social conservatives, who put this monkey in the White House (apparently fearing the horrible creeping degeneracy of Elton John's recent nuptials), have been putting up with rather a lot of sociopathic shenanigans because here, finally is a man of [editorial note: uniformly bad or no] character who will solve the number one problem facing America ... they feel they are owed. Don't believe me? Check out what they had to say about Miers.

Okay, I've veered off into the partisan--except, of course, I've been sitting here the whole time. Sinisterly, perhaps. So let me say this: I have absolutely no quibble with people who believe abortion is wrong, or even murder. I do not consider it murder, tho' it might very well be wrong; I think women should have the right to choose, especially considering what Alito has said about women's rights--figuratively: "Woman!? Make me a sandwich!" I don't think that only my view is reasonable, or valid ... it depends on what I value, and my convictions regarding the importance of what my buddy John Childrey points out is a "made up" right ... of privacy.

I do have a problem with people who harrass women (or anyone) doing legal things, and certainly those who threaten violence. Because they are terrorists. Sorry Bill O'Reilly, the fact that I don't believe that George Bush could beat a reasonably well-educated chimpanzee at checkers does *NOT* mean that I like terrorists. I can be in favor of a right without being in favor of the thing itself. I think Nazis should be allowed to talk their trash, but I don't agree with them a'tall. I think their philistine pig-ignorance reflects poorly on everyone with a brain. But they can spew that crap. Coulter does.

Judicial activism is, in part, about the extent to which judges can effect changes on the law. It *should* be the topic of neutral discussion. My boy O.W. Holmes, Jr.? Big on restraint. It's a complicated question, and really has to be viewed within the framework of Stare Decisis. The reasons for this should be evident, but the question is not simple. Values that inform this discussion passionate, on both sides, and will play out with regard to a couple of famous or infamous cases, but that isn't relevant to what I want to investigate, *unless* one believes that one's own desire to see Roe overturned (or upheld) dictates one's approach to the question of judicial restraint vs. judicial activism.

Discuss. I'll work up an investigation of the question of the relation between judicial restraint, or activism, and legal pragmatism. Gimme a few days and a chapter to my boss, who is beginning to regard me as if a dead farm animal he can barely stand to drag out of the way of his Suburban.

Now;

What do we think the proper role of the court is? What then should we look for in a justice? With that firmly in hand ... does Alito fare well for you, or no?