What comes after day one . . .

It has been quite some time since I last wrote a blog and, I like most of the country, have been in a drought.  The drought affecting me was not caused by the weather but was due to setting up a new office.  The office that I had been in for several years was in an old building that was sold.  We had to vacate the building within two months, so I began looking and was fortunate to locate space in a building directly across the street.  Getting ready to move, moving, and setting up a new office has taken more time than anticipated and has diverted me from doing much else. hence, I have been dilatory with my writing.  Now I am back in the groove and share with you my thoughts about the current political chaos created by former president Trump. 

We have become familiar with Trump’s declaration that he would be a “Dictator” only on “Day One”.  The question posed is what happens after “Day One”?  Does “Day One: get extended time-and-time again?  Does Trump renege on his claim to only perform as a “Dictator” on that one day?  Does “Day One” become “Day Two”, “Day Three” and so forth?  Each and everyone of us, whether it is admitted or not, understands Donald Trump has a serious problem with the truth.  We are all ever so cognizant of the multitude of lies, misrepresentations, falsehoods, fabrications, etc. that were so pervasive during his presidency.  He lied when he did not have to do so.  He lied to embellish his own interpretation of the “alternative facts”.  He seemed to bask in the response of his minions when he spewed forth lie after lie after lie.  The Washington Post reported that during the four years of his presidency he had 30,573 false or misleading claims.  The Toronto Star reported 5,275 false claims from January 2017 to June 2019.  Consider the fact that as the years went by his false or misleading claims increased.  In year one of his presidency, he averaged 6.1 such claims, year two, the number increased to 16, in the third year there were 22, and in his final year the number increased to an average of 39 per day.  I have included this detailed information to, hopefully, make the point that what Trump says may or may not be true, and further that you cannot accept what he says he will do to be followed.

He continues to pass on his false or misleading claims.  To make the point, let me mention a recent Fox News Town Hall exchange between Sean Hannity and Trump.  This took place in Iowa on December 5th.  In that clip included in the Washington Post, Trump made 24 of these claims in a five-minute period.  One of his claims which he repeats over and over is that he is responsible for the largest tax cut amongst any of the previous presidents.  This is not true.  His is the eighth largest tax cut and was smaller than two of the tax cuts during the Obama administration.  When he boasted this claim, the audience erupted in applause, but they fail to realize nor accept that his tax cut benefitted the wealthy and corporations more than it did for those clapping in adoration.    

At this point in time, it is known that Trump has 91 criminal charges that have been brought against him and it certainly appears that there is a substantial amount of proof to support most of them.  In Georgia alone, the world listened to his phone call to the Secretary of State demanding that he find additional votes in an amount that would exceed the legal number garnered by Biden.  There is no mystery in this phone call.  It was Trump calling the Secretary and it was the Secretary telling Trump that the vote was accurate and would not be changed.  How blatant could anything be?  As these cases in New York, Washington, and Georgia make their way through the legal system, the 2024 presidential campaign is underway and it is blatantly unfathomable that as Trump’s legal problems unfold, his political support rises.  People seem to be blind to the reality of their actions.  They need to keep in mind that dictatorship in day one will not begin and end at the end of day one with Trump in the equation. People who are so enamored with him need to step back and realize that if he should get elected in 2024 there will be a different America, and not one that is better.

Why can reasonable people not see the fallacy in Trump’s rhetoric and promises?  Why is it so difficult to look at his history that is fraught with illegal, criminal, unethical, immoral and inhumane behavior on his part?  Why can these people not realize that he gave every indication that he believed he was above the law and could do whatever he chose to do, regardless of its legality?  Why can people not come to understand that the very fabric of this democracy that has been so critical to our success as a nation, will be in serious jeopardy if he should have a second term?  He has stated that he would go after the Department of Justice and, basically, make it subservient to him in a second term suggesting that the Department would become his personal attorney.  He has given overt indications that he is and has been an admirer of dictators and authoritarian leaders such as Putin.  He has invoked the language of fascist leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini by referring o his opposition as “vermin”.  This is phrase that has been attributed by historians to these individuals.  He seeks retribution and revenge toward anyone who has challenged him or does not agree with him.  He has and continues to demean anyone who is disabled or challenged, mentally or physically.  He has blatantly made generalized statements stating that migrants are criminals and are known rapist, murders and gang members.  He has categorically labeled the Muslim community as an enemy even though many within this community have fought and supported this country.  The list goes on and on, yet people refuse to make any attempt to look at what the reality is of a second term for Trump.  They need to keep in mind that if he is elected there is no turning back and realizing the error of their ways or undoing their decision.  If he becomes president in 2024 we will have a country ruled by an authoritarian person who flaunts democracy and refuses to follow the constitution that undergirds our democratic approach to governing. 

It is interesting that many of those who were aligned with him during his presidency are now stating that he should never be president again.  A recent article in the Washington Post captured the concerns of these individuals and the article goes on to state: “No president has ever attracted more public detractors who were formerly in his inner circle.  They are closely watching his rise … with alarm.  Among them are his former vice president, top military advisers, lawyers, some members of his Cabinet, economic advisors, press officials and campaign aides…”   The reasons for their opposition include the 91 criminal charges against him, the attempt to overturn the 2020 election, the false claims of election fraud, his incendiary rhetoric when he was in office, the desire to weaponize the Justice Department , his chaotic management style, personnel choices in a second term, and his affinity for dictators.  Every president has his detractors who were at one time close to him.  What makes Trump different is the large number of those who were aligned with him that have come out against a second presidency.

Having laid out my concerns, I would only hope that enough sane, reasonable, and well-meaning citizens would consider their decision thoughtfully and completely considering who Trump really is and what he would do.  Are there enough of these folks?   Let’s hope so!

Again, again, and again . . .

Indicted on 91 felony accounts, yet the Republican base is unfazed by the reality of potential consequences and ramifications of this truism.  The former president is an accused criminal, not convicted yet, but accused.  I recall his statement during the 2016 campaign when he stated he could murder someone on Fifth Avenue in New York City, and nothing would happen.  Are we witnessing this truth coming to fruition?  As the indictments pile up his approval ratings amongst the Republican faithful go up.  Is there no moral compass that resides among this group of ideological zealots?  Is there no recognition of what is right and what is wrong?  Is there no acceptance of the results of one grand jury after another finding enough evidence to proceed with litigation? 

The divisiveness that is so pervasive in the country is exceedingly troubling.  This week a woman shop owner in California is murdered for flying a Pride flag at her place of business.  People are walking around with weapons strapped to their bodies, a scene reminiscent of the “Old, Old West”. Recently,  I was waiting for my wife’ s car to be serviced at a local auto shop and one of their courtesy drivers walked by and I noticed a pistol stuck in his belt in the small of his back.  What has life come to when there is no shame in brazingly displaying a vigilante mentality?  Every day the news begins with a report of another murder in town after town across the country.  When guns are so readily available and no controls placed upon those who have them, it is no wonder that death is the result of some disagreement.  Considering the pervasiveness of gun ownership, there is no haven of safety.  People have been killed in their homes, their cars, the theater, the grocery store, the school, the university, the mall, concerts, the nightclub, and on-and-on.  These deaths have occurred in small towns, Uvalde, Texas and large cities, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

It seems as if the current societal atmosphere is absent of the moral fabric that made this country what it had become.  There was a time when disagreements were settled through discussion, persuasion, and compromise, not by killing the one with whom you disagree.  There was a time when kids could walk to school without fearing being attacked.  The bullying of children and adolescents has risen to epidemic proportions.  The rate of suicide amongst young people has continued to increase.  The mental health of young people has evolved to a very fragile state.  Why is all of this happening?  It is my belief that the former president has created an atmosphere of acceptance of ridicule, dishonesty, exaggeration, and intimidation that has been seen by young people.  He has given license and approval to such behavior and continues to spew forth untruth after untruth.  He has publicly ridiculed a reporter with cerebral palsy, made light of the death of a son of Muslim parents who gave his life fighting for this country, uses name-calling to undermine any who disagree.  His adolescent mentality has, indeed, given license to a boorish mentality.  A recent headline of an article in the Washington Post, stated that the former president has threatened anyone who challenges him and “you should take him at his word”.  With a person who held the highest office in the land behaving as if he is the law and he is the order, is it any wonder that we continue to see what goes on in this country. 

Often the current complexities of the country are compared to the upheaval of the 1960’s, but even then, it was different.  Whether one agreed or disagreed, there were some viable reasons for the unrest.  The conflict in Viet Nam was a frequent divider of people.  There was never a consistent level of support for our involvement.  The atrocious occurrences that were directed toward Black Americans was the outcome of years of battles for those who had been enslaved, thus it provided a level of understanding that led to the tragedies of the 60’s.  Yes, people were killed and injured, but with some degree of viable cause.  Several cities went up in flames fostered by years of discontent and frustration.  I am not justifying what took place, but simply trying to provide a perspective that is different from what is happening today.  People are being killed in mass shootings and massacres at an alarming rate.  The homicide rate on the south side of Chicago is and has been out of control.  Today it seems that people hate anyone that is not of like mind.  There is no civil interaction.  Witness the facial expressions of those who stormed the capital back on January 6th.  They were snarling and spewing forth venomous language toward those in some degree of authority, including the Vice President of the country.

It is my belief that the Internet has been a primary factor in contributing to the unrest that we are living with today.  Anything, right or wrong, can be passed along through social media and people begin to believe what they see and hear.  There is no stepping back and questioning whether there is any truth to what is being put forth.  The absence of control over the dissemination of information is a real threat to the maintenance of a democratic society.  Coupled with the influence of the Internet is the influence of other avenues of media dissemination such as television, radio, and movies.  Often these outlets pass along unsubstantiated information that can influence individuals who are waiting for some justification to create havoc.   Additionally, the sharing of information can easily lead to providing those on the fringe with ideas of what can be done and how to do it.  The Internet and media outlets can be a blessing or a curse.  How they are used goes back to the moral compass of society.  Is there such and how is it used.  Who are the base that are so readily willing to accept whatever the former president says, whether it is accurate, true, or supported with facts.

It is my belief that the following profile depicts who fits into the unwavering base that blindly supports the former president.  The majority are white, working-class individuals whose education stopped at high school.  They are adamant in their Christian religious beliefs.  They are willing to “fight” for what they believe they believe and were overwhelming represented in the mob that stormed the capital on January 6th.  They are entrenched in their acceptance of the “Big Lie” that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.  They turn a blind eye to the fact that over 60 cases that were filed on behalf of the former president’s claims were either dismissed or found to have no merit.  They refuse to accept the reality that common ordinary citizens in New York, Washington, and Georgia have been members of grand juries that have unequivocally found valid reasons to indict the former president.  Even though they expose religious convictions, they continue to support an individual who is void of any spiritual belief structure.  Perhaps more could be added, but what has been presented, hopefully, provides some insight into who are the 74 percent of Repbulicans willing to support the former president.  The magnitude of the level of support should be troubling to all who believe in a democratic society that is fair, equitable, and transparent.

A damp, misty Sunday morning in April . . .

Our Precious Daughter

  She was my buddy, my companion, our little girl

On a damp, misty Sunday morning in April 1969 I carried our very sick precious daughter, my wife and her mother by my side, into the side door of the Sloan Kettering Memorial Cancer Center In New York City.  We came out that same door hand-in-hand with tears rolling down our cheeks without our previous daughter.

Would she make her 6-year-old birthday on June 26 and enjoy being a first grader, waiting on the corner and riding the big yellow bus to school.  Learning new things and making new friends at school? The answer would be NO because of the damp, misty Sunday morning in April.

Would she make her 13th birthday as a budding adolescent dealing with all the challenges that are present going from being a girl to becoming a woman?  Would she have the experience of having “puppy love” relationships only to be so hurt and lonely when they came to an end.  The answer would be NO because of the damp, misty Sunday morning in April.

Would she enjoy turning 16 and being a high school student.  Would she be the Tom Boy sport enthusiast like her sister or the fashion-conscious belle like her baby sister?  Would she find her soul mate like her mother did in high school and go “steady” throughout those four years? Would she eagerly and with great anticipation look forward to going to the prom and various high school balls?  Would she be studious or just a fun-loving teenager?  The answer would be NO because of the damp, misty Sunday morning in April.

Would she anticipate her 21st birthday and accept being an adult?  Would she be finishing college, getting married and starting a career?  Would she walk down the aisle with her dad as the organist plays, “Here Comes the Bride”?  Would she have the joy of living as a young woman with great promise?  Would she set her goals and aspirations which would lead to a meaningful and fulfilled life?  The answer would be NO because of the damp, misty Sunday morning in April.

Would she settle in for her 30th birthday and enjoy it with her family?  Would she have children and, if so, how many and would they be boys or girls?  Would she be living in the same area in the northeast or in some other section of the country?  Would she be a successful businesswoman or be a stay-at-home mom?  The answer would be NO because of the damp, misty Sunday morning in April.

Would the ever so important 40th birthday leave its mark on her life?  Would she have the experience of being with family, including grandchildren, to celebrate this milestone?  Would she begin winding down her career if she had chosen that direction?  The answer would be NO because of the damp, misty Sunday morning in April.

It is now 2023 and would she be looking forward to her 60th birthday?  Would this be the time to begin planning for retiring and taking life at a more leisurely pace?  Would there be a gathering of family and friends to celebrate this vastly important phase of life?  The answer is NO because of the damp, misty Sunday morning in April.

The damp, misty Sunday morning in April 1969 left a hole in our hearts that are filled with the memories of Our Precious Daughter.  She fought a valiant fight against leukemia and the attendant medications.  She handled the pain and suffering with a patience that few would have, and her only complaints were when the pain became so difficult to bear.  She truly was a joy and won the hearts of those with whom she came in contact. 

  She was my buddy, my companion, our little girl

 I have shared our experience considering the significance of this particular year in what would have been Annette’s life.  What I have stated should in no way be construed to minimize the love that we have for our other daughters, Vicki and Julie.  They are and have been a real and true joy in our lives and we are ever so grateful to be their parents and they are children.  The difference lies in the reality of them being with us.  We can call, text and visit them and they can do the same with us.  Much of what was included in the tribute to Annette and did not happen, we experienced with the other girls and these experiences have certainly been a source of everlasting love.

Three dysfunctional strikes . . .

Indeed, these are days filled with extreme contradictions, confrontations, and conflict.  It is a time when there appears to be a floating series of definitions of what is ethical, what is moral, and what is legal.  Lies and innuendos have become commonplace in the rhetoric of those who seek and are given an audience to influence.  There appears to be no boundaries or guardrails designed to maintain some modicum of order over chaos. 

 Recently, it became known that another Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Alito, Jr., had been the recipient of a plush fishing trip to Alaska, paid for by a Republican billionaire.  The known benefactor was alleged to have been involved with several cases before the supreme court that came before the court during Alito’s tenure on the court.  At issue is not only the question about whether he should have recused himself from those cases, but he also failed to report the trip on his annual financial disclosure form.  Interestingly, Alito took unprecedented action by writing an Op Ed for the Wall Street Journal before the Information was made public by ProPublica. It is not only uncommon for justices to respond so publicly, but it is even more out of character to take this step before the information is published.  One could surmise that, perhaps, Alito took this tact to deflect what many would conclude was an action that was, in the least, unethical.  In his defense, he made the statement that the seat he occupied on the plane would have gone empty if he had not gone on the trip.  Not exactly a resounding defense!  Do keep in mind that this is the justice who wrote the majority opinion of the case that undid the 50 plus years of the Roe decision on abortion rights.  He along with his fellow, ‘judicial heartthrob of the far right”, Clarence Thomas, have been singularly focused on undermining the Roe decision.  These two represent the staunchest conservative justices and their decisions reflect this over and over.

The current court continues to undo precedents in cases that they believe have been too overreaching and violate the specific intent of the authors of the constitution.  I continue to be perplexed and amazed that those who define themselves as originalists have the wherewithal and insight to unwaveringly know what the founders meant.  Is the constitution meant to be a stagnant document that would not be subject to interpretation that fostered change consistent with society’s perspectives?  Was it meant to be a fluid document that ebbs and flows with changing norms, mores, and practices? Recently, the conservative composition of the court by a 6-3 majority, ruled that affirmative action in higher education was unconstitutional, thus another precedent is swallowed up by the self-appointed guardians of what is right in our society.  Parenthetically, it is interesting that the staunchest conservative on the current court, Clarence Thomas, benefitted from affirmative action.  His admission to Holy Cross University and Yale University Law School was certainly aided by his race.  It seems that now that he’s “in the club” he’s going to keep others who look like him out.  

To be fair and balanced, it should be noted that not every decision by the current court has been of some concern.  Recently, in a case involving the State of North Carolina, the court struck down the state’s attempt to exercise control over federal elections.  It has been common knowledge that state legislatures in several states have passed legislation that makes voting more difficult for certain people and less available to many of these same individuals, The North Carolina action was one more attempt to control the election process and attendant procedures.

It is not only the action of the Supreme Court that highlights the divisions in the country, but also the current legal activity surrounding the former president.  His conviction in New York for sexual harassment and his indictment on 37 counts in the documents case are historic when laid down beside others who have served as President.  Not even James Buchanan, who had the distinctive honor of being recognized as the “worst president in history”, until Trump came along, could boast of being criminally and civilly charged.  Trump’s response to his current woes is to lie and justify what he has done and repeatedly boasts, “I did nothing wrong”.  Further, he is using these legal actions as political fodder with his minions.  At his campaign rallies, he distorts any facts, makes up alternative information, and resorts to adolescent “name-calling” of those who he claims are against him.  The fealty that his followers give him is unprecedented and quite perplexing.  His recent claims are that these legal actions are really directed toward his followers, and they are using him to get to them.  He has stated that he “has the courage” to represent those who blindly provide him with his ego maniacal need for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion.

Th third area to look at which reflects the divisiveness in the country is the Congress, especially the House of Representatives.  It seems as if each day there is just one more bizarre incident that belies any sense of reason or rationale.  There is such divisiveness that very little has been accomplished and it looks like very little will be accomplished with this dysfunctional congress.  The Freedom Caucus is hell bent on getting its way and the numbers allow for this to happen.  The Republicans have only a 4-vote majority so any desertion from the total number undermines a specific action.  There seems to be very little concern for or attention to what the country needs and what individuals want.  Many are beholden to lobbyists or special interest groups who have their own agenda and that is often at the peril of the country’s needs.  There may be change in the composition of the congress in 2024 but it may not be in the direction of what’s best for the body politic.

Yes, there are problems, but they are not insurmountable.  Yet the only answers lie in those in power coming to the realization that there is a need to work together.  History has underscored the reality that this was the hallmark of past generations.  There were party differences, but often, there was the move to work together and embrace the “art of compromise”.  Hopefully, we can return to this saner approach.

Life's contrasts . . .

For the [last several weeks there has been one accusation after another about the questionable behavior and activity associated with Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas.  Obviously, he has been the beneficiary of multiple “perks” provided by multi billionaire, Harlan Crow of Dallas. Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge there is no familial relationship between Harlan Crow and me.  Traveling on yachts and planes, being wined and dined at private quarters, both in Dallas and in the Adirondack Mountains of New York, provides a picture of opulence and privilege that few have or ever will understand or enjoy.  It is also known that Crow purchased the boyhood home of Thomas with the intent to make it into a museum honoring the life and accomplishments of the Justice.  Additionally, it has come to light that Crow, along with another benefactor, paid the lucrative tuition for , “Thomas’s grandnephew to attend prestigious boarding schools in Georgia and Virginia. As Richard Durbin (D-Ill) commented “that the tangled web around Clarence Thomas just gets worse by the day”. 

Justice Thomas is somewhat of an outlier even in the current Court’s composition.  As described in Jeffery Toobin’s book, Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, Thomas rarely asks any question of litigants and has, typically. not been given major decisions to write on behalf of the majority.  It is not uncommon for him to include his lone opinion on a case rather than be party to the language of the majority.  Thomas describes himself as an Originalist in interpreting the words and meanings of those words imbedded in the country’s constitution.  An Originalist is one who maintains that the interpretation must be as the framers of the constitution meant them to be.  How one knows, explicitly, what was meant has always been a bit of a mystery to me.   

As the actions and behavior of Justice Thomas is considered, there is an apparent disregard for ethical decision-making by him.  He seems to believe that he is above the law and is not required to report the gifts and other amenities bestowed on him.  The Supreme Court is the only federal body that “polices” itself on matters of “appropriateness”.  All federal employees must report any gifts or amenities that exceed a certain amount and do so on an annual basis.  Interestingly, Thomas was reporting some of what he was given, but then stopped doing so.  He claims that he did not understand that he had to make such a report.  This begs the question of his integrity and adherence to ethical behavior.

By contrast to what has been noted about Justice Thomas, let me highlight a Federal District Judge who was the epitome of integrity, honesty, and ethical behavior.  Frank M. Johnson, the Federal District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, is the person that I became acquainted with shortly after joining the faculty at the University of Alabama.  A colleague of mine, Charlie Prigmore, and I were talking one day about the impact that Judge Johnson had on social policy, not just in Alabama, but nationally.  We decided to work on a book to highlight all that he had done.  We spent the next two-three years interviewing individuals who knew the Judge and read countless news articles that were kept in the Judge’s office in Montgomery.  I spent more than one evening in the homes of those who grew up with the Judge in Winston County Alabama.  Winston County was known as the “Free State of Winston” and when Alabama ceded from the union Winston County sought to cede from Alabama.  During the Civil War there were more union soldiers from Winston County than those who fought for the confederacy.  Additionally, Winston County was an integral part of the underground railroad for those seeking to escape slavery.  Judge Johnson’s father was the Probate Judge of the county and was also the lone Republican representative in the state legislature. 

 I recall discussions with the Judge about his decisions and he often stated that he was simply interpreting the constitution.  He would say that he did not want to run the prisons, or the mental health facilities or the state troopers, but he had to make decisions about all these areas.  One of the most seminal cases during his time on the bench was the Wyatt v. Stickney case that dealt with the mental health facilities in the state.  Without going into detail, the most significant aspect of the case was the decision of the Judge, that those who are involuntarily committed to the Department of Mental Health, had a “right to treatment”.  He arrived at this decision based on the wording of the 14th Amendment which provides for Equal Protection Under the Laws.  There was much more to that decision, but that was a landmark contribution to mental health practice throughout the county.  Similarly, he found that prisoners in Alabama were subject to “Cruel and Unusual Punishments” which violated the provisions of the 8th Amendment.  The number of cases that he ruled on or was a member of a three Judge panel are too numerous to go into at this time.  I mention this about “The Judge” because it points out a sharp contrast between the two judges being discussed.  There was never any question about his integrity nor his adherence to ethical behavior.  Incidentally, Judge Johnson paid the price over and over for his decisions.  His home was bombed as was the home of his mother.  A cross was burned in the front yard of his mother’s home and if he came into church and sat in a pew where others were sitting, they would get up and move.  We did have a third person join our project, Wayne Greenhaw, and had a contract with Prentice-Hall publishers.  The title of the book was The New G-Man.  President Carter had appointed him to be the Director of the FBI, but a heart condition derailed the appointment as well as the book.

It is not a mystery that Judges do have a great deal of influence in our society.  This is especially true regarding the Supreme Court.  Back in the 1970s Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong compiled a comprehensive expose of the workings of the Supreme Court back at that point in time.  The book that they wrote, The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court, described in detail how decisions were made and how various Justices were influenced by their own beliefs and legal philosophy.  Decisions were written on napkins in restaurants, deals were made to gain support for a decision with the promise of payback of a pet decision of the other person.  The belief that the Supreme Court was the last bastion of objectivity and fairness was shattered. 

 A person sitting as a judge at any level is supposed to be  impartial and open to discussion of various points in a specific act of litigation.  Yet, judges are the product of their own background and how that background has shaped their beliefs, values, biases, etc.  To argue otherwise is laughable and absurd.  In an article in The New York Times, it was noted that  Chief Justice Roberts has argued publicly that the Supreme Court is not a part of the country’s polarized political environment.  In the same article Justice Amy Coney Barrett was quoted as stating that neither she nor her colleagues were a bunch of political hacks.  Further, the article also included a statement by Justice Thomas that the justices do not decide cases based on personal preference.  All these words of denial may sound appropriate, but they are simply not true.  Let me make a point from my experience.  My first professional employment following graduate school was as a Juvenile Probation Officer in Indianapolis.  The court I worked in had one elected judge and seven referees who acted as judges.  As a Probation Officer I would shop around for a hearing officer who would support my position and I knew the predilections of each individual.  Popeye is quoted as saying, “I yam what I yam and that’s what I yam”. We are all who we are by virtue of a myriad of life experiences.

Currently, the Supreme Court is taking a very active role in society, but it has done so in the past as well.  Back in the Warren court, the liberal side had the votes and now the conservatives do.  It is my belief that as Justice Sandra Day O’Conner stated, the constitution is a living document and must be viewed in the context of where society is at a point in time. Indeed, this position is supported by Frank C. Huntington in his  book, Making it Up as They Go Along: Stories the Supreme Court Tells About the Constitution. We’ll see where all this leads us.