EPIPHANY OF THE DAY

 THE LAW

There is a legal defense of sorts that used to be taught in the law schools of my state. It may still be. I don’t know. I’m not an attorney, not a law school student.

Anyway, the defense was named after a prominent attorney and state legislator from Arkansas in a case some years ago. Accused of some malfeasance or other rising to the level of potential illegality, he formed a remarkable line of reasoning. The logic employed was so remarkable that its use was taught to future attorneys at one time. It was something along the lines of:

“I’m accused of doing something that, on analysis, is very stupid. Am I stupid? No. I graduated from college and law school, and passed the bar exam. I’m savvy enough to be elected to our state legislature, perhaps no great, but certainly no mean feat. I have a successful law practice. So, I’m not stupid. When one considers that what I’m accused of would be a stupid act, and one sees that I am obviously not stupid then, ipso facto, (a legal term meaning: darn tootin’) the chances of my guilt are zero.”

I seem to remember that it worked but I’m not sure.

So now we have what I propose to label the “Donald Trump Defense.” It would run, in contra-conception to one mentioned above, along the lines of:

“I’m accused of doing wrong. I’m new at this. But I was once President and there is no way a president can be held to the standard of what is right or wrong. My Supreme Court said so. Therefore, libet dicere (rough translation: bite me) my innocence is assured beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

A few words of caution bear consideration. As I mentioned earlier, wise men will avoid this defense with spouses. Also, members of progressive political parties should eschew its use as they labor under the legal assumptions of intelligentes estis and  competentsus est assurdant. (legal terms meaning: don’t try this crap with us).

There exist many examples where the efficacy of the “Donald Trump” defense would not prove appropriate, getting caught parked in Mike Tyson’s spot for example. And, in the event of accidently initiating a nuclear war, don’t bother. We’ll be operating under another legal principle, id est moot, (a legal term meaning alle ist kaput).

EPIPHANY OF THE DAY

 TREASON

When I was a teenager, someone told me that if you did anything portraying the United States flag upside down it was an act of treason, the FBI would come after you, and you would be sent to prison. I believed it to the point of once trying to steam off a stamp that had a picture of the flag on it that I had mistakenly pasted the wrong way. Didn’t work, and that was when the cost of a stamp was important to me.

Now I know it’s okay. A Justice of the United State Supreme Court has indicated so. I still don’t do it though. It’s that oath I took, and all.

Some are saying that justice should recuse himself from certain cases since he believes in displaying treasonous beliefs in public. He won’t. The Chief Justice, John Roberts won’t make him, saying, “The practice we have followed for 235 years [is that] individual justices decide recusal issues.” This “we’ve-always-done-it-that-way” seems more fitting for poor workmanship or an excuse justifying school segregation than behavior in the highest court in the country.

That’s the court, by the way, that didn’t buy said argument in the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954.

Things change I suppose. Next time I accidently paste a stamp on upside down I won’t end up throwing the envelope away and I’ll thank Justice Samuel Alito for saving me 66 cents. Now I’ll run to the PO and buy some more stamps. I’ll ignore local laws and if a police officer stops me for speeding through the city streets my defense will be, “I’ve always done it that way.”

TODAY'S EPIPHANY

 LAWYERS

 I’ve always gotten on well with attorneys. I admire them for their logic and willingness to see that all, not just the favored, receive a fair trial. Do some push the limits? Sure. But some physicians prescribe antibiotics for viruses. Some engineers designed the crematoria at Auschwitz. Heck, some urban planners even promote bike paths when kids are starving in the Mississippi River Delta.

Oh, and part of my feelings for attorneys are mercenary. They always made sure I got paid for expert testimony. Mostly my feelings stem from admiration for their knowledge. I might have followed the law, but I thought all attorneys had to do what Perry Mason did. That image shied me away. The thought of standing and speaking in public was more terrifying to me than thoughts of snakes, vampires, sci-fi monsters, or meeting a Catholic nun in the dark.

One of my best friends is an attorney. We jogged many a morning together and shared thoughts. He is a Harvard Law School grad, so unlike the venom-spewing Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton that they might be from different planets. I learned logic, dedication to the law, and concepts of the advocacy system of jurisprudence from him.

Imagine then, my dismay at the condition of the current United States Supreme Court. I always imagined it as a pinnacle of dedication, Knowledge, fairness, and legal righteousness. Along came the current majority.  Now I feel as I might have, as a youth, to find that Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Red Ryder, Tex Ritter, Lash Larue, and Hopalong Cassidy, were really Nazi spies.