It is hot. My gift for stating the obvious is often mentioned, but it is impossible to overstate how hot it is. Wildfires in London hot. Melting pavement during the Tour de France hot. Spontaneously combust my short fuse on fire hot.
I first noticed my lack of temperance (c’mon, you see what I did there) at the local community pool. Children were banging into my raft while I floated in the water and tried to cool off. When I was their age, I would have been terrified to speak to a grown up, let alone push a floating one into the wall. Kids today, amiright? My wife suggested that letting the air out of their floaties was a step too far. Maybe she was right.
Some other things got my blood boiling this week besides the weather. Here is a short list:
Subpoenas as suggestion.
Steve Bannon was convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to obey subpoenas for documents and testimony. His lawyer argued with a straight face that the subpoenas were merely “place holders” while the attorneys worked out the details. I am not sure how they support that argument, the very word subpoena means “under penalty.” While I don’t know the origin of the phrase “place holder,” even I can see the difference. Bannon’s legal team is planning an appeal and I wish them luck with that approach. They may want to look up “contempt of court” first, though.
2022 U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.
The Supreme Court has done some unexpected things this year. Striking down legal precedents is always controversial but doing so with pretzel logic is harder to justify. While the results of several 2022 decisions irritate me, the language in the decisions is more problematic. For example, in Dobbs the Court justified striking down Roe v. Wade in part by saying that abortion had been illegal historically before that decision, and that the Constitution makes no reference to abortion. Duh.
The Court notably stated in Dobbs that the States should decide the abortion question as the Fourteenth Amendment did not support the holding in Roe v. Wade. It then told the State of New York that they could not regulate citizens openly carrying firearms in public as that right was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Movies hire consistency editors to make sure a movie doesn’t have huge errors like this, and perhaps the Supreme Court could do with one as well.
Speaking of the Supreme Court, I have less tolerance for constitutional experts when it gets hot. Not the Google Scholars who have moonlighted as virologists for the past couple of years, but law professors and lawyers who make their living interpreting constitutional law for whomever is interested. To their credit, you never see a con law expert on a billboard or TV ad.
The notion that it is possible to know what a group of under 40 year old 18th century men would think about anything today is fantasy. I suspect some went to the constitutional convention because they though there would be free meals and swag.
“I say, Mr. Hamilton, what do you think about firearms being openly carried by citizens?”
“Really? You really want to ask me that?”
“Sorry. Mr. Jefferson, what is your view of the rights of women in society?”
“Do I own any of these women?”
“This is awkward. Mr. Franklin, you won’t believe what I can do with electricity and that cold food over there.”
And so on. Even if we could ask them for their thoughts, I doubt that a single founding father could get elected today.
Looking at the Constitution through the eyes of the Framers is arrogant at worst, poorly done fan fiction at best. Like the Supreme Court justices, we have our opinions of what we would hope the founders of our country would think, but trying to guess what they would have actually thought about concepts and creations over 400 years after their deaths is a fool’s errand. Then again, “50 Shades of Grey” was poorly written fan fiction that made a lot of money for the author so there is forever encouragement for others to try their hand.
Attorneys General in General.
Even before Mr. Hawley ascended to the center of the meme universe for his run through the Capitol, he was a subject of scorn in the state where he served (briefly) as Attorney General. So much so that Senator Danforth called him the biggest mistake he had ever supported. Our current AG evidently saw that statement as a challenge, and had a lawsuit thrown out of court sua sponte by a federal court. Sua sponte, for Mr. Schmitt and others who might not know, means the judge thought the case was so frivolous that he spontaneously dismissed it rather than wasting any more time with it.
Where my state’s attorney generals have done dumb stuff, the US Attorney General hasn’t done much except weep at tragedies. If only he had some ability to correct injustices. If only.
Gentle Reader, it is raining here. The thermometer has dropped almost 20 degrees and my air conditioner and electric meter have stopped humming. My mood will surely improve and my temper will fade. Just to be safe, keep those kids away from me at the pool.
©2022 With All Due Respect. Spencer Farris is the founding partner of The S.E. Farris Law Firm in St Louis, Missouri. He learned that Paradise Lost was fan fiction recently and it blew his mind. Comments or criticisms about this column may be sent c/o this newspaper or directly to me via email at farris@farrislaw.net.