Reflections of a Boston Lawyer

To what standard do we hold our elected officials?  Is it to hold the party line?  To push back on the opposition party at every turn?  To travel in packs and never show the slightest sign of breaking ranks?  To follow party leaders without any independent thought?  To let the public opinion polls decide how they vote on every issue? Our government has important work to do.  It is responsible for trying to solve our biggest problems, like climate change, unemployment, and abuses of the financial system that have led, and could lead again, to economic catastrophe.  Whether the solutions favor a hands-off approach or a strong governmental hand through regulation, we send our elected representatives to Washington with the expectation that they will find and implement the solutions that best protect us, the people whom they serve. In this extreme partisan era, the gap between the vision and the reality should disturb us.  It should bother us when Harry Reid puts immigration ahead of a

Today I read yet another account of a politician telling me what the American people want or, in this case, don't want.  The "don't want" du jour is a Supreme Court justice who believes that the Constitution is subject to judicial interpretation.  A couple of weeks ago, the American people did not want health care reform.  Last year, they didn't want a public option.  I'm sure if I had time to research the issue, I could come up with a long list of public programs and policies that the American people don't want, and maybe even some that they do want.  And this I know, for politicians tell me so. In fairness, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama worded his diatribe about constitutional interpretation, quoted in the Huffington Post , more carefully than I have presented it here.  In fact, the exact quote is: "If we have a nominee that evidences a philosophy of judges know best, that they can amend the Constitution by saying it has evolved, and effectua