"You Will Survive (The Gloria Gaynor chestnut presented in the 2nd person)"

"You Will Survive (The Gloria Gaynor chestnut presented in the 2nd person)"
by Freddie Perren and Dino Fekaris.pronouns by Mark Allender

First you're afraid
You're petrified
Kept thinking you could never live
without him by your side
But you spent so many nights
thinking how he did you wrong
You grew strong
You learned how to carry on

And so he's back
from outer space
You just walk in to find him there
with that sad look upon his face
You should have changed your stupid lock
You should have made him leave his key
If you'd've known for just one second
he'd be back to bother thee

Tell him to go walk out the door
he should turn around now
'cause he's not welcome anymore
wasn't he the one who tried to hurt you with goodbye
he thought you'd crumble
he thought you'd lay down and die
Oh no, not you
You will survive
as long as you know how to love
You know you'll stay alive
You've got all your life to live
You've got all your love to give
and you'll survive
You will survive

It took all the strength you had
not to fall apart
kept trying hard to mend
the pieces of your broken heart
and you spent oh so many nights
just feeling sorry for yerself
You used to cry
Now you hold your head up high
and he sees you
just on a whim
You're not that chained up little person
still in love with him
and so he felt like dropping in
just he always used to
now you're saving all your loving
for someone who's loving you

New Supreme Court Justice

I am an unabashed Supreme Court fan. To me, they're like rock stars. If they sold T-Shirts, I would buy one. If they sold posters, I would hang one on my wall. I'm not into sports so much, so a Supreme Court confirmation hearing is my version of the NBA playoffs.

So now David Souter has decided to retire. Honestly, I'm a little sad. Justice Souter adds a lot of color and character to the court. His biography is fascinating. His opinions are well-thought out (if not a bit over my head). And his jurisprudence is decidedly as apolitical as it can be.

Now, I know my conservative friends are going to try to staple me to the wall over that last line. As soon as the news market starts talking about The Supremes, a lof of cliches start getting thrown around. The big kahuna, the granddaddy of all catch phrases is "Judicial Activist," followed up by its fellow henchman, "Legislating From the Bench." In the words of the poet, "let us not talk falsely now." These phrases are flagrant euphemisms for "Supports Roe v. Wade." Other phrases also get thrown around in these times. Phrases like "originalist" or "strict constructionist." And clearly, these words are also secret codes, this time meaning "Wants to overturn Roe v. Wade."

Let's be clear on this point right up front; devoid of the social etymology of the phrase, there is no more activist jurist, no justice more interested in legislating from the bench than Justice Thomas, the right winger among right-wingers. He has openly stated on more than one occasion that he has no regard for stare decisis. He would overturn precedent in heartbeat, based solely on his own moral grounds. Justice Scalia too, though he pays the appropriate lip service to precedent, is often bruising for a fight to burn the big effigies of the conservative movement. So - to rephrase: the ones who are worried about "Judicial Activists" or decry the process of "Legislating From the Bench" are precisely the ones who are looking for a new activist on the Court. They are precisely the ones trying to actually manipulate the judiciary to further their political advantage.

On the phrases "Strict Constructionist" and "Originalist," I defer to Justice Breyer, who in turn defers to the great historians of our time, who point out that the Constitution was written in vague terms on purpose. Trying to decipher what the Founding Fathers actually intended is an impossible task - primarily because the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed with one another! To pick an easy target, Benjamin Franklin, the most senior member of the convention, didn't even think we ought to have a bicameral legislature.

Now, take the First Ammendment. It's written very weirdly - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion etc." But 200 years of legal opinion and jurisprudence have shaped our interpretation of the First Amendment. The nuts and bolts of A1 are that we have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. We have even parsed the limits of what kind of speech is protected and what isn't; speech that incites violence (for example) is not protected). But check out Mr. Originalist here: Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, argues that the First Amendment only refers to Congress establishing a national religion and that the individual STATES should be free to establish religions of their own. That is hard core! WHO'S the "judicial activist" here?

So, what's my point? As we prepare for an upcoming nomination and confirmation, I would like for the 24-hour news providers and the right-wing hacks to think before they speak. Lately, President Obama has called for a justice with "empathy," which the right wing has stated is a euphemism for "judicial activism," which as we all know is a euphemism for "the kind of person who doesn't want to overturn Roe." A plea to the journalists covering the nomination and confirmation: Be level-headed - and don't let your discourse be ruled by the pundits, or even the politicians. I want to enjoy this!