Dear Lawgirl

Dear Lawgirl,

Last night was a very good night for me. The fact that you got up in my mug, metaphorically of not, was stimulating to me. You made you're argument lucidly, tactfully (more than I can say for myself re: "Fucking dunces"), and with great candor and passion. I would never be presumptuous enough to assume I am even close to your intellectual level, as you have rightfully earned your intelligence through years of post-secondary education, and I would even garner - judging from your writing style and flair - perhaps even a masters or a doctorate in law. I found out the things I know in life from digging my fingers in the dirt, and feeling my way slowly up the food chain until I had enough brain cells to think on my own. So I could never compete with you, nor would I try. I will however, learn from you, and for that I am extremely grateful.

It may come as a surprise to you and others that although I'm obviously pro-military and retired from that profession in word only, I myself am not a gun owner. I respect the Constitution and the right to bear arms, but I have never owned any kind of a weapon in my life.

I've seen first hand the destructive power of weapons of all types; smelled the stench of things on fire that shouldn't be on fire, to include human flesh; and I do not wish willingly or accidentally to participate in any further loss of human life through the use of firearms. However, I still stand firm in my life-long devotion to this country, EVERY person in it regardless of their social standing or political-social beliefs, and the policies and laws pertaining to our continued existence, peaceful or otherwise.

Which brings me to the SC ruling about the death penalty for child rape. You said last night you had read the decision, and since that's your job, I have no doubt you did. This morning, I awoke and read for several hours the same decision, and I am going to outline the thing that disturbs me the most:

The 5 judges that voted against the death penalty used phrases like "shifting social attitudes", "ever evolving standards of decency", and "international attitudes and feelings towards the death penalty", or words to that effect.

Did the Supreme Court hold a gallop poll before making their decision? Where in the words of our founding fathers does it say anything about "social attitudes" when interpreting the words of the constitution? I'm no lawyer or judge, but I know a thing or two about the SC and their role in our society. It is their job to interpret the constitution, not ask Billy Smith of San Francisco how he thinks they should rule. Mr. Smith has no say in the matter. That's why we HAVE a Supreme Court, for crying out loud. Billy Smith is not smart enough to make these weighty decisions, so we put Anton Scalia in there to do it for him. So it's not the fact that they struck down the death penalty that bothers me. It's the ridiculous reasoning behind it. We are a democracy, not a Marxist or Socialist society. If the SC or anyone else wants to change who we are, then there is a procedure to do so, but I assure you, it will take a toll far greater than we are currently willing to pay. The greatest thing about the United States is our freedom to agree to disagree. If anyone out there doesn't know that, just talk to someone who has recently entered our country from Bosnia, Croatia, the Middle East, or any of dozens of country's throughout the world where the penalty for speaking out is loss of their life.

In closing, thank you for teaching me, Lawgirl. Thank you for being so thoughtful and intelligent. Thanks for bringing my blog to life, if only for a few hours. Thank you for standing side-by-side with me in support of the SSG Maupin's of this country, and thank you for being so passionate about the rule of law in our nation.

Sincerely,

JL4