Reunion

I went to my high school reunion last night. Its been forty-five years since we graduated, and with one exception, the only time I've seen these people since graduation, was at a reunion three years ago.
It was really pretty weird. I mean I knew these people before I met my wife, before I met my current friends, and before the arrival of many of my relatives. To say our class has a "history" is an understatement. We share a time and a place of birth, similar economic backgrounds and a faith born in the Catholic Church of the 1940's and 50's. I knew the guys when they were jocks and jerks, and the girls when they were prom queens and, shall we say, less than prom queens.
We've all gotten older, most of us are grayer, many of us are heavier, and there's a lot less hair to be seen.
Sadly, our ranks are a little thinner - a trend that is likely to accelerate.
Again, with one exception, I don't expect to see any of my classmates until our next reunion. Although we share a "past", we don't share a "present". We're all just fellow travelers. We got on the road at the same time, and passed some of the same mile markers, and we'll each get off when our time comes.

Fun and Games

It was that awkward period of my life between wild and crazy youth and married with children. A friend and I would sit at a table in a quiet bar and get pleasantly lubricated while playing a game we called "pick a subject and a side." Neither the "subject" nor the "side" mattered very much; the point was to generate a debate and get a little intellectual stimulation. We each vigorously asserted arguments, not because we believed them, but simply because the other guy staked out an opposing view.

That game is not much different from what lawyers do on a regular basis (preferably without the lubrication.)

I'm reminded of this game by watching the hearings on Judge John Roberts' confirmation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Senators are reading memos and briefs written by Attorney John Roberts when he worked for the Government and while he was in private practice and using the positions he advocated as evidence of "what he really thinks." Most of the Senators doing this are lawyers themselves and, I suspect, know that this is unfair and misleading.

I suspect that the Senators also know that until there is a real "case", with specific facts and extensive legal research and fully developed arguments on all relevant issues, a judge can't predict how he'll rule. And, if a judge sits on a panel of judges, like on the Supreme Court, there's a good chance he won't take a position until participating in the additional debate and reflection within the panel.

What the Senators are doing is playing another sort of game; its called politics.