Mourning

Like so many people, I was saddened today to hear about the murder (assassination? execution?) of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita. Though I did not know him personally, I am connected to people who did and who will miss him deeply. My very good friend describes him as a hero and her word is good enough for me.

Throughout the day, I have been reading blog posts and articles and comments and message boards. And, of course, so much of the discussion has gone back to the very heart of the same old pro-life vs. pro-choice arguments relating to "elective" abortion. I've tried to think about writing a blog post of my own, but nothing seemed quite right. All day long, I have been struggling with the fact that this man's murder has been lumped in to the plain old abortion argument. It shouldn't be. It can't be.

Because Dr. Tiller (don't anyone dare refer to him as "Mr. Tiller" on my blog!) did not practice in the realm of first trimester abortion. Dr. Tiller's practice doesn't involve the standard issues of birth control and abstinence and personal responsibility and adoption and sex education. Dr. Tiller's practice dealt with the fetus that developed without a brain and conjoined twins that could not survive and women diagnosed with cancer post-pregnancy and women suffering ramifications to their own health that they never dreamt of on that happy day months prior when the stick turned pink. These weren't unwanted pregnancies; they were very much wanted pregnancies that went hideously wrong. Or, worst of the worst, were the ridiculously young victims of sexual abuse whose pregnancies were so unexpected that they went undetected until they necessitated late-term abortions. Dr. Tiller demonstrated such dedication and compassion to these women as he provided them a safe environment for dealing with these worst-case scenarios in private.

So let's not use Dr. Tiller's murder as yet another chance to trot out the tired "I am pro-choice: choosing abstinence or birth control!" line. Or "we need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through sex education." Because what Dr. Tiller did really didn't have anything to do with those things. Instead, we should focus on the real heart of what Dr. Tiller worked so tirelessly to protect: the rights of women to deal with these gut-wrenching situations in private and to make their heart-breaking, impossible decisions for themselves. The women facing these horrific situations have even fewer kind faces to turn to after Sunday's tragic event. Those of us who value women, who respect their personal autonomy, and who believe that women should be left alone to make the decisions that are best for them and their families should be alarmed. Who will be left to help these women? And we must not let the discussion surrounding Dr. Tiller's murder be co-opted by those who believe all abortions involve a woman who just callously woke up one day and decided she didn't feel like being pregnant anymore.

There ought to be a code

Apparently, my garage is a high crime area. There was the attempted firewood theft. Then there was Luther's trespassing. Last week, my garage was officially burglarized. The door was broken and the lawn mower was stolen. Then today, some guy walked through my carport right to my garage door, evidently intending to walk right in and help himself to whatever he wanted. A brazen act considering there were two vehicles on the driveway, making it pretty likely that someone was home, and he had to walk right past the kitchen window.

The garage door was locked, so he started to walk away. We saw him and went to confront him. He did not answer us, but ducked his head and put his hand in front of his face. A clear indication of nefarious intent as far as I'm concerned. He said nothing. He just walked quickly to his car, parked in the middle of the alley a house down. SO got the license plate number and called the cops. My gut tells me this was the same guy who took the lawn mower last week, come back to take whatever the hell else he wanted. Maybe the t.v. or the tools. As a bonus, he could have had another lawn mower: the one I acquired as a replacement for the stolen mower.

I wonder how these guys would feel if they found out they were committing these piddly little crimes against a public defender? Isn't it part of the code that petty thieves don't mess with the lawyers who help them out? At the very least, they ought to avoid committing crimes against public defenders for their own self-interest. My lawn mower thief has really cut into the pool of attorneys who will be eligible to represent him if busted. I think I'm going to post a sign on my garage "Property of a Public Defender." Maybe that'll help. Or maybe I'll just build a fence.

Sotomayor Suggested Reading

I have things I want to say about the kerfuffle around Sotomayor's nomination, but I keep finding professional writers who say it better than I can.

David Brooks on that empathy thing. I love his reminder that a lack of empathy is a diagnostic marker of sociopaths.

Sherrilyn Ifill on the racism thing

One thing I do have to note about the hideous, racist quote (beyond the obvious: read the whole speech and then we'll talk) is this: she said she hoped a wise Latina woman would reach a better conclusion than a white male. Does anyone else see the adjective missing before the words white male? I know in the rest of that section, she was talking about wise men versus wise women. (I know because I've read the whole speech.) And in her very next sentence, she uses the adjective wise to describe two male justices. Still, as an appellate lawyer who is stuck with nothing more than the cold words on the page, the absence of that word "wise" in the disputed sentence sticks out to me. I, too, would hope the wise woman would make a better decision than the unwise (non-wise?) man.

If the plain words of the sentence are to be interpreted, there is nothing remotely racist about hoping the wise person would make a better decision than the person who cannot be described as wise. Maybe people want to argue that's not really what she meant and the wise was implied. But in my appellate world view, I'm stuck with the words as they appear on the page.

W-I-N-N-E-R

Proof that Johnson County, KS girls are the smartest anywhere:

Kavya Shivashankar of Olathe won the National Spelling Bee. Congratulations to my local girl.

And since I'm one of those super smart Johnson County girls, I can spell her name!

(I just blew my case for JoCo girls, didn't I?)

Dear woman in line in front of me at the store,

I know you think that when you shop at the touchy-feely community food coop, no one cares about rules. You think everyone should be totally happy-go-lucky hippies living a leisurely life. We should all have no sense of time because we're too busy smelling the roses and enjoying the little things in life. We shouldn't ever get annoyed because we're so in tune with our bodies what with all the organic foods: the whole grains, the free-range chicken, the tofu, the soymilk. No one could possibly be annoyed in that bastion of mother earthiness.

Well, you thought wrong. Even in the happy coop, the express lane should still be reserved for people with 8 items or less! The person behind you, trying to buy just one measly carton of rice milk, will most definitely be highly, highly annoyed at your hogging the express lane with your 5 bags worth of groceries. I did not refrain from punching you because I have such fantastically regular bowel movements from all those fiber-rich foods I buy at the coop. I did not refrain from punching you because you are 70 years old. I did not refrain from punching you because of the happy hormones they pump through the air at the coop. I refrained from punching you only because it is illegal. But I wanted to punch you.

Then again, maybe if I did all my shopping at the coop, I wouldn't be so hostile.

Nah, I'd still think it incredibly rude and presumptuous for someone buying out the store to use the express lane. But maybe I wouldn't be annoyed enough to blog about it.

In which I praise a prosecutor. Really.

Jerry Lee Evans was allowed to walk out of a courtroom a free man today, 23 years after being wrongly convicted. Mr. Evans' comments conveyed more hope and optimism than I think I could muster. I fear I would be a bitter, angry woman if I spent 2 decades in prison for a crime I didn't commit. Larry King featured the story tonight on his show. On his website, he included these comments from two other exonerees, who also somehow seem to be able to focus on the positives of their new lives. (I wish all exonerees could have such positive experiences, but as we know from Tim Masters, not all exonerees are able to succeed after their release.)

Dallas County DA Craig Watkins also appeared on Larry King. He has been a huge help to those who have been wrongly convicted in Dallas County. When he took over the office, he began a special unit to look into convictions that could be re-examined, mostly due to DNA evidence. 20 people have now been exonerated from Dallas County alone. On Larry King Live, Watkins spoke about the need for prosecutors to return to a focus on the true job: seeking truth and justice, not just seeking convictions. He also said anyone who claims we have never executed an innocent person in this country is incredibly naive.

The nation desperately needs more prosecutors like Craig Watkins so that we can root out as many of the innocents, like Jerry Lee Evans and the 19 other exonerees from Dallas County, as possible.

Math is hard

Oh my goodness. I am stunned, actually, at how much traction the whole "she's been reversed 60% of the time" notion has gotten. Oh my goodness! The sky is falling! She's the worst judge ever! The US Supreme Court has reversed her 60% of the time!!! Has any Supreme Court nominee in history been this incompetent?! This wrong?! This god-awful terrible at being a judge?!?! It's all over the t.v.s and the internets. It's the funniest thing I've ever heard, seen, and read. The word of the day is absurd. This reversal rate crap is absurd.

Please tell me that you have all heard or read why this is such nonsense (or can figure it out for yourselves). The 60% is 3 out of 5. The US Supreme Court has reversed her written opinions in 3 out of 5 cases. Well, that sure does sound bad. Boy, she's written 5 opinions in 11 years and she's gotten 3 of 'em wrong! And what sort of a slacker judge only issues 5 written opinions in 11 years?! Oh, wait. She's issued about 380 written opinions in 11 years. Hmm. And the Supremes have reversed her only 3 times? See how different that sounds? That makes her sound downright brilliant. She gets it right 99% of the time!

Basically, the US Supreme Court takes so very few cases (about 80 a year out of the thousands and thousands of cases handled by the federal circuit courts), the results of those 80 cases are not statistically significant. Even if they were, the court reverses 75% of the cases it does take, so Sotomayor is a little above average. As a federal appellate judge, Justice Alito was reversed 100% of the time. He was 2 for 2. (Oy, how did that idiot ever get confirmed to the high court?!)

Maybe the anti-Sotomayorians should have done just a wee bit of research (and basic math) before making this the talking point of the day. It just makes it so easy for us leftists to mock.