STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS

Periodically, I review the blogs I write as a self-imposed mental health checkup. The goal is to determine:"Have I totally lost it - or not"? It truly is not an exact process.

Like a "Catch-22" demonstration, I'm not sure a well-informed decision will ever be reached by this writer.

My reading of my buddy Harry's blogs helps me with my analysis. There are probably times we both are in danger of being perceived as worthy to be hauled off to the looney-bins - and that's okay.

We're protected by the First Amendment.

But, I find, like the whole "shouting fire in a crowded theatre thing" it is a good idea for me to keep a check on what my blogs are saying or suggesting. I'm sure Harry does the same as his research is much more thorough than my own.

I admit to getting a kick when a more reliable media source repeats and agrees with some of the stuff I've said previously.

A good example is extracted here from an editorial that appeared in this mornings "USA Today."

The opening line was, "The fact that campaign money distorts money and policy is pretty obvious; it's one reason why big financial firms have been able to fight off many restrictions they so richly deserved after taking the economy off a cliff, and why taxpayers often get stuck paying for weapons systems the Pentagon says it doesn't need.

Getting campaign cash under control has never been easy, particularly since a string of Supreme Court rulings deeming the spending of money on behalf of political objectives to be constitutionally protected free speech." (Arizona public finance ruling leaves a silver lining; Tuesday June 28, 2011)

They then went on to suggest that the recent 5-4 majority that found that public financing laws in Arizona violate the First Amendment - need not be viewed as a bad thing as there were viable alternatives in place.

They also pointed out that Chief Justice Roberts clearly stated that their conclusion was not intended to evaluate the wisdom of public financing; and saw that as the light at the end of the tunnel.

The crux of the decision appeared to be the manner and timing in which Arizona was distributing the public financing funds.

The opposing view written by a guy that appeared to be from a lobbying firm used the argument against Arizona that the state was wrong in it's use of public financing as so many of the Arizona politicians on the dole were crooked.

This response ignored the fact that the current system isn't working and that it's harder to find a poor politician than for Diogenes to find an honest man.

The importance of so many of the high courts decisions is to look at both sides of the affirmative and dissenting justices opinions.

I found that particularly revealing as I reviewed both sides of the many Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions that impacted upon how my employer and our local management group were conducting business.

We need a body of law in order to keep us from residing in a land of absolute chaos. Sometimes we will not agree with the interpretation by the High Courts. As a result we will look for only political prejudice as a direct cause in the matter decided.

In some instances those suspicions may be well grounded - but the Supreme court is what it is - even if the humorous Walter Matthau did not really sit on the bench as the movie suggested.

A concern of many is that the Court does not appear to be influenced by a groundswell of people who question the wisdom of their decisions. Whether that is a good thing or not - only time will tell.

However, if their stated responsibility is simply to interpret the current legislation based on long standing historical fact-finding and tenets that have stood the test of time, then perhaps we'd be in worse straits if they failed to do so. See Wal-mart v Dukes.

We can clearly see how the Law is changing without spending a lot of time reviewing some Supreme Court decisions in prior centuries that should provoke any fair and reasonable person to wince when reminded of them.

I believe it is not the Court's responsibility to react to public opinion but am not above stirring it up when I fail to understand the fairness of what they decide.

Until we replace Supreme Court Justices with robots we will always receive decisions that contain some portion that had as it's origin - simple human bias - with a splash of politics.

I'm more concerned over the failure of our elected officials to listen to the electorate - and puzzled as to why that is so.

Like this writer's blogs - the whole process involving both the Justices and the politicians appears to be a work in progress.

In the meantime there is absolutely no wisdom in failing to voice our opinions - in polite conversations - at the ballot box - and in these opinion sites called blogs.

Both Harry and I employ them to voice our humble views on what's going on, and how we might make things better as a nation.

I'm so glad that my friend encouraged me to become part of that First Amendment activity.

I encourage you to continue to view his blogs as he has a lot of worthy information to impart.