BATTLE OF THE SEXES

We should have known it would come to this. A male candidate and a female candidate running against each other for the Presidency of the  United States.

The boys against the girls. It was ever thus. Any divorce lawyer will tell you that when the flame dies and animosity sets in, the battle becomes vicious.

Men and women fight differently, and when they do, their man-ness and woman-ness seeps through. Charlie Brown gets angry, flustered and red faced. Lucy gets steely eyed and mean spirited.

Nobody wins domestic arguments. They just end somehow. Murder, divorce, make up sex. Somehow. Unhappily, the rhetoric in the 2016 campaign has made it sound like a colossal bedroom shouting match. And the things they accuse each other of are curious.

Hillary says that Trump is a misogynist. That means he hates women. To prove it, she points to testimony that Trump gropes, touches, kisses and ogles women.

Curiously, that would suggest not only that he doesn’t hate women, but that he is attracted to them beyond the customary restraints of courtesy and decency.

For his part, Trump attempts to paint Hillary as a rumor mongering, devious, and dishonest shrew. The saddest aspect of this phenomenon is the impact it has on the people of the United States.

We have always been divided between Republicans and Democrats. Even within families. Somehow we manage to compartmentalize our politics so that every day life can continue in reasonable tranquility.

But the emotional dimension associated with a cross gender feud, has a way of intruding on our lives differently than the ordinary political debate.

Hillary, of course, plays the sex card. Constantly and loudly. Why not? She would be the first female President of the United States. Not only would that be a feather in her cap, it would be an historic event in which every American, male or female, would take great pride and satisfaction.

Particularly women. Particularly our wives, daughters, sisters and mothers.

We like to think that Presidential elections are decided upon issues relating to the operation of our government; the kinds of things listed in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: Unity, Justice, Domestic Tranquility, Defense, Welfare and Liberty; and the character, competence, instincts and experience of the candidates.

Chauvinism is defined as excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for one's own cause, group, or gender. Surely there are both male and female chauvinists among us. What they do in the secrecy of the voting booth, and why they do it is their own business.

But the fact is that the average voter makes a rather visceral decision on election day. Social scientists tell us that the outcome of an election can be reliably predicted by showing pictures of the candidates to people who do not know who they are, what they are running for or what they believe or stand for.

If that is so, how much gender biased inertia will affect the outcome on November 8, and how much the election result will disturb American family tranquility no one knows or can predict. My guess is that an attractive woman would beat a homely man and vice versa.

I well remember the heated argument my parents had when my Dad learned that my Mother had voted in favor of allowing oleomargarine to be artificially colored to look like butter.

We can only deplore the fact that ‘Peanuts’ cartoonist Charles M. Schulz is no longer with us and able to cast Donald Trump as Charlie Brown and Hillary Clinton as Lucy.

America needs a good laugh.

DONALD AND GOD

It’s Sunday morning. Polly and I fulfilled our Sunday obligation by attending Mass yesterday evening.

It’s a ritual that we Catholics perform every week – come Hell or high water- as my Dad used to say.

Growing up, I learned that missing Mass on Sunday was a serious matter. I suppose that statistically there are many people these days who consider themselves Catholics, but who do not go to Mass every week.

We used to call them Palm Sunday Catholics. The Church obligates all of its faithful to receive the sacraments at least once a year on penalty of excommunication. It’s called Easter Duty. It’s why the church parking lots are jammed every Spring.

It’s not for me to sit in judgment of anyone’s faith. Still, I have to believe that attending Mass on Sunday is a good habit. And good habits make good people.

For one thing, the ritual of Mass begins with public confession of sin. Here is what we recite we very Sunday:

I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Confession is good for the soul. We are all sinners. Every human being who ever lived, save Jesus Christ and his Mother, is or was a sinner.

Our American Declaration of Independence affirms that our Creator has endowed us with unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That assertion confirms what we all know instinctively: that we can do whatever we want to do; that we are captains of our own ships, commanders of our own bodies.

We are all free agents. We each have our own moral compass. It’s called conscience. It tells us what we should do and what we should not do.

The dust up about Donald Trump’s taped conversation with Billy Bush has put before the American people the question of the candidate’s moral compass.

Does he understand the difference between right and wrong? Does he concede that he is capable of doing something that he knows, or should know, he ought not to do?

Trump has been described as neither liberal nor conservative. It is said that his only guiding star is pragmatism. If it works, it’s good. If it doesn’t work, it’s bad.

Given that yardstick, he would be well advised to begin tonight’s debate with an unequivocal, honest and sincere public confession.

He should confess to Almighty God and to his brothers and sisters – the American voters – that he has sinned, and he should ask the American people to pray for him.

Not vote for him. Pray for him. Even the Democrats can do that.

Let’s face it, nobody wants a President who doesn’t want people to ask God to bless him and to bless the United States of America.

And besides, it is pragmatic to be humble.

PROUD FATHER IN LAW

The Old Judge has occasionally used this blog to brag about his six children, nineteen grandchildren or six great-grandchildren. Today, I want to tip my hat to one of the eight in-laws who also help to populate the Brennan clan; Marybeth’s husband, Jim Hicks. Jim is the Assistant Dean at the Savannah Law School.

Here is what a former student of his, Afghanistan veteran Dan Perez, posted about Jim Hicks on Facebook:

“Let me tell you about this amazing man and what he has done for my life. Back in 2003, he was a "funny guy" law professor of mine. We met during some odd circumstances (I wasn't the most successful in his course during my first semester of law school). However, there was something about this professor at the time that connected us. At the time, I was not sure why. Then in 2004, I deployed to Iraq. For some reason that I could not put my finger on at the time, I would write to him, emails and letters, usually about my difficulties in the war zone or my difficulties with certain "difficult" leaders. He would tell me to push through and continue to do the right thing, and I felt that I was successful. I returned from Iraq and returned to law school, and I thanked him for being an ear to my gripes. Then my struggles with reintegration occurred and after many, many beers, way too many beers and feeling sorry for myself, I flunked out of law school, in what would have been my final year of law school in 2007. During my desperation time, he tried to step in and right my ship for me with words of encouragement, and in the end at the time, pleading with me to slow down and give recovery and integration a chance. Despite my failures, he continued to support me, and over the next 5 years, pushed me, and pushed many, many others to support my readmission into law school, even speaking on the phone, long distance, to my parents. Even when I gave up, he wouldn't give up, and he wrote many letters and made many phone calls and personally addressed many administrators and officials at many meetings, all imploring them to readmit me. Even I gave up on myself ever returning to law school. I completed a deployment to Afghanistan, then earned my MBA, all because I had already given up on law school and working in the legal profession. I charted a different life. But he would not let me go. Upon my return from Afghanistan, 5 years after my academic dismissal from law school, he finally got me back into law school, through way more of his own efforts than any effort on my part. I thought about this today during my train ride into work, into Downtown Chicago, where I work at a large law firm, and earn the equivalent of a 6-figure salary (on an hourly basis). Because of him, more than anyone else, I am here working in Downtown Chicago. Even if I had not initially failed in 2007, and had successfully become a lawyer then, my only dream was to become an attorney in a minority neighborhood on the Southside of Chicago, make a steady salary at a small office, and live happily ever after. I grew up in what, by any standard, would be considered a "ghetto" in Harvey, Illinois. I don't really know anyone that dreamed farther than that lifestyle, and by all accounts, even those small dreams would have been a major success for someone growing up in my situation, and I would have been very happy. But through his pushing, and pushing, and pushing, I eventually started pushing. Now, I sit at this desk, in this high-rise building in downtown Chicago, with a window overlooking an amazingly beautiful and large art sculpture surrounded by Federal Court Buildings, making way more money than I would have ever thought I could, or should, make, with the freedom of coming and going where I please, where the senior lawyers in my office look at my work product and analyses as subject-matter expert work, doing Spanish and Portuguese-language contract analysis on behalf of major worldwide corporate and government clients, I would not be here today if not for one man. Yes, there are many others who supported me throughout life and do so today, and they have helped me overall become a decent man. However, one man's efforts put me here in Downtown Chicago: Law Professor, now Law School Dean Jim Hicks. Thank you for pushing me into success. Thank you for not giving up on me, even when I did.”

And that, My Friends, is what I call a dedicated law professor. Who says the American Dream isn’t alive and well?

MATTHEWS v TRUMP

One of the most significant debates of the 2016 Presidential election took place on March 30, 2016 on the Green Bay campus of the University of Wisconsin. The occasion was the MSNBC broadcast of ‘HARDBALL, with Chris Matthews’ at which Republican candidate Donald Trump was the guest. The issue was abortion, triggered by a question posed by a student.

Here is a link to the video:

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/trump-s-hazy-stance-on-abortion-punishment-655457859717

Neither Mr. Matthews nor Mr. Trump are educated in the law. Both of them, rather obviously, simply assumed that laws prohibiting abortion somehow punished pregnant women.

They don’t and they never did. Abortion statutes in the United States were essentially extensions of the Hippocratic Oath, written by Hippocrates of Kos, known as the father of modern medicine, who died in the year 370 BC.

The Texas statute, ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade, provided in Article 1191, for a punishment of two to five years' imprisonment for "any person" who would "procure an abortion" for a pregnant woman by:

1  "designedly administer[ing] ... any drug or medicine"

2  "knowingly procuring] to be administered ... any drug or medicine"

3  using "towards her any violence or means whatever externally or internally applied"

The penalty would double "if it be done without her consent".

Article 1192 set forth accomplice liability for any person who "furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended" and Section 1193 provided a fine of $100-$1,000 for a person who engages in means "calculated to produce" an abortion but that fail to do so.

]

Article 1194 set forth that, "if the death of the mother is occasioned" by an abortion or attempted abortion, "it is murder" and Article 1196 carved out an exception for an abortion "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother."

The Texas statute was typical of State laws. Here is the text of

Michigan Compiled Laws Section 750.14:

Administering drugs, etc., with intent to procure miscarriage—Any person who shall wilfully administer to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, substance or thing whatever, or shall employ any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of any such woman, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such woman, shall be guilty of a felony, and in case the death of such pregnant woman be thereby produced, the offense shall be deemed manslaughter.

If a woman gives birth to an infant and then kills her infant, she commits murder. But there never were criminal laws prohibiting a woman from killing a fetus in her womb, for the simple reason that she could not do so without endangering her own life.

Nature has decreed that a pregnant woman should protect the life of her unborn child by the simple fact that the fetus is a living part of her own body.

Pregnancy is not an illness and a fetus is not a tumor. State laws governing the medical profession require that surgery must be performed for some legitimate therapeutic purpose.

A young man seeking to avoid military conscription could cut off his toes. I don't know that he would be committing a crime. They're his toes, after all. Maybe he just wants to look different at the beach. Like green hair, or a full body tatoo. It would not be a crime.

But a surgeon would endanger his medical license if he cut off a patient’s healthy toes to make him ineligible for the draft or for any silly personal reason, unrelated to therapeutic necessity.

In short, Roe v Wade had nothing to do with a woman’s right to control her own body. It had to do with a doctor’s right to make money by killing babies.

Which is why Mr. Matthews’ church wants to see it overturned.