WZIG in Alameda is reporting that the Chicago Cubs and the New York Yankees are close to finalizing a trade for their respective managers. Sauces confirm that Joe Girardi, pictured below as a Cub…
… and Lou Piniella, pictured bellow during his playing days as a Yankee…
… hope to be in new uniforms by the start of next week.
Will it really happen? Well, the one hitch in the precedings is that, in my not all that humble opinion, it makes too much friggin’ sense… so probobly not. Besides, there are few around with the chutzpa of the late Frank Lane.
The Boy [Phillip Tyko], my son, our [Diane Satin] son is 19, and this is the first Father’s Day of his “adulthood.”
We hung out in his room today, he and I. His brow furrows when I ocasionally teer up with joy [carrying on the annoying tradition of his late ancestors], so I worked hard at burying my emotions, witout actually burying my emotions. Method acting at it’s finest. :-)
We talked as adults.
< He agreed to re-check out Zigisms, a page on this blog… this time not for the humour [precious little, anyway], but for what he may some day consider to be “sound advice.”
< I agreed to continue to work on my “empty nest syndrome,” an ongoing challange, and to be “less of a pain in the ass about ‘sound advice’.”
< We agreed that it was a terrific day.
His truly remarkable feets in the 1954 Fall Classic weren’t what defined the life of Mr. Rhodes. After his passing, earlier this week, former teammates and Hall Of Famers Monte Irvin and Willie Mays both agreed that Dusty was a “brother to we Afro-Americans.” Given the times they played together, where Dusty was born and raised, and that these were the players keeping him on the bench a great deal of the time, I’m concluding that Jim Rhodes was a great guy.
My friend and fellow New York Giants fan Gary Brown knew him well, first as a fan, and later as a loving friend. Gary describes Rhodes as a “funny, gregarious, story teller who left him in stiches.” He’s devestated by the loss, as is his loving partner Gloria. My condolences to them, and the entire New York Giants family.
… riddle me this:
Do you ever check in with Gwynn, Mary Jo Kopechne’s mom? Just wondering. It’s been years, and now that you, too, are in pain…
Hey, I hope that didn’t sound mean spirited, given your recent brain troubles [all that Kennedy inbreeding at work?], but I’ll bet you a bottle of your evil father’s smuggled Scotch [I’ll put up a Bill Buckner baseball card] that MJ is mentioned in the first paragraph of your obituary. Nice legacy, meat.
Aside, I understand that some good is coming of all of this. You seem to be loosing some of that wall of flesh that precedes and follows you into a room. Just in time for spring boating, and all the easier to carry on a hot summers day.
Over and out, Camelot.
This is the full version of a column that will appear in The Gazette shortly. The version to be published was cut down, I am told, for reasons of space:
JUDGING THE JUDGES
Arthur Joel Katz
President Obama’s first nominee for the United States Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, was accused by some dim-witted Republicans of being a racist. In a speech in 2001, she said: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” The statement is absolutely correct and shows no racism whatever.
If Judge Sotomayor had said that a wise Latina would often reach a better conclusion than a white male, perhaps this ridiculous charge might have stuck. But that is NOT what she said. She made the distinction life experience. She had been brought up in a public housing project in the Bronx. She was comparing that experience to that of a white male “who hasn’t lived that life.” Her point was that life experience does make a difference. That view was expounded by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, both highly conservative, during their confirmation hearings. Each testified extensively as to their backgrounds and argued that their backgrounds would influence their judging.
The notion that the best judges are those who more or less mechanically interpret the law, as if law was a series of mathematical equations that could be worked out by anyone who could read the symbols, is a myth.
The point is illustrated in a book of mock decisions of the British High Court called The Common Law, written by the British humorist A. P. Herbert. Herbert “reported” as a case in which the plaintiff claimed he had been libeled by the Defendant who had taught his parrot to say terrible untrue things about the Plaintiff. The Defendant claimed that it didn’t matter what the parrot said because it was all oral. In Britain (and in most U.S. States) something said is slander, not libel, and slander requires the showing of damages to bring a suit. The Plaintiff argued, however, that the whole idea of requiring writing in a libel case was that it had a certain permanence, and the parrot was still alive thereby providing the requisite permanence.
The case was heard by a three judge panel. The first judge began his opinion, which in the British custom, was read from the bench, “The law is clear . . .” and held for the Plaintiff. The second judge also began with “The law is clear . . .” and held for the Defendant. The third judge also said “The law is clear. . .” but dropped dead before he could state which way he decided.
As the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said, “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” The mechanical view is today argued people who do not understand—-and for the most part don’t care—-what the Constitution means by what it says. They want every Supreme Court decision to come out their way no matter what the constitution says or the cost of their interpretation.
Take the abortion issue, for example. In the famous case of Roe v. Wade, the Court did not legalize abortion; it simply held that under the Fourteenth Amendment that right of a woman to control whether she has a child or not is a civil right that a state or the federal government cannot deny. It should surprise no one that the Court found a right like abortion to be protected by the Constitution. It, like the Right of Privacy which, presumably, protects us from the government snooping in our bedrooms, among other things, was found by the court to also be protected.
Neither abortion nor the Right of Privacy is specifically mentioned in the constitution. However, the Fourteenth Amendment does specifically provide,” No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens . . ., nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Court found the right to an abortion and the Right of Privacy to fall under the definitions of this Amendment. It also found that the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the people their rights even though not enumerated in the Constitution, also applies.
Did the background of the judges lead to those decisions? Almost certainly. How could those rights not listed in the Constitution be found to have been retained by the people unless the judges who found them had actually lived among “the people” and understood public attitudes?
The civil rights movement is clearly a beneficiary of the notion that judges are influenced by their life experiences. In 1896, the Supreme Court decided Plessey v. Ferguson, which held that “separate but equal” facilities could be used to segregate blacks from whites. Although that case applied to railroad accommodations, it became the protector of inferior education offered blacks in segregated schools. The decision, by a 7-1 majority, came at a time when the Court had not had a single black man (or for that matter, a woman) sat as a judge in its whole history. Obviously, a court made up of all white male judges, in 1896, could be expected to have little sensitivity with the plight of black people who were then still generally considered to be part of an inferior race, even in the North.
Then, in 1954, the Court unanimously decided in Brown v. Board of Education that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” and, accordingly, segregation in schools, and essentially elsewhere, ran afoul of the equal protection of the laws protection provided by the Fourteenth Amendment. The nine judges who decided that case had lived through an era in which equality of all races was increasingly seen as an important value. What had changed from 1896 to 1954 was not the wording of the Constitution, but the life experiences of the judges.
Finally, the answer to “strict constructionists” is provided by the most famous of our Chief Justices, John Marshall, whose decision in the case of Marbury v. Madison held that the Supreme Court had the right to find unconstitutional the actions of the congress or the President. There is no provision in the Constitution that gives the Court any such right, a fact which evens a “strict constructionist” acknowledged. As he put it—-either Justice Alito or Justice Scalia, but I forget which—the Supreme Court simply “stole” the right.
Bravo to President Obama for appointing Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is a brilliant woman with 17 years of experience in the Federal Judiciary. She is full suited to take a seat on the Court as any Justice now sitting. The fact that she is Hispanic may provide the Court with the kind of diversity it needs. And if the Republicans know what they are doing, they’ll stop their nonsense and get her confirmation done without delay.
Phillip Satin Tyko, pictured bellow…
… is a High School Graduate. I’m proud he’s my son.
Here he is with the Baby Momma, Diane Satin.
Check out my good friend’s work.
He is so fucking, unbelievably talented!! I’m in awe.