Contents:
Doug Jones defeated Roy Moore in the Alabama senate race last week by a razor thin margin. The good news that he won was counterbalanced in that nearly an equal number of Alabamians voted for Mooresomeone who has declared homosexuality illegal and that no Muslim should serve in Congress. Perhaps he feels the same way about people of color.
The bad joke is why so many voters still chose Moore despite these failings and of course allegations of child molestation and other predatory acts which he strongly denied. His supporters are so furious with or hostile towards government and the so-called Washington "swamp" that no matter how the president performs has little negative impact on this base.
The litany of the current president's missteps, mistakes and blunders are common to the first year of any administration. Bill Clinton foundered over rookie errors and investigations. Bush 's administration was in chaos until September 11th rallied the nation behind him. Barack Obama was also off to a bad start. One major difference today is the president's tweets. These may energize his base. But they magnify and exacerbate his errors, unforced or otherwise, especially with personalized attacks whether against Gold Star parents or members of his cabinet and Congress. Another difference is the president's inability or refusal to articulate a cogent rationale for his actions and what passes for "strategy" except in simplistic terms.
Recognizing Jerusalem for example "merely recognized reality. Hence, each was discarded. The question of what if anything replaces them and the underlying rationale are left unsaid. Who is at fault? As this column has repeatedly asked, where are the lions in Congress?
A few Republicans renounced Roy Moore. But why did every member not do so? One of the devices to help law students or new lawyers who have aspirations for the bench in considering the future is to have them assume that everyone they work with will evaluate them in the future when the governor considers their suitability for the bench. In addition, assume that each juror that you ever argued a case in front of will be found later and will write a detailed evaluation of your conduct in trial.
Many lawyers have responded that they have no goal other than the success of their case and their client. These ingredients of excellence are a legacy which you can all start now.
The goal of law school is not to learn to argue and write in legalese that is only understandable to a select group of elitist lawyers who believe obscurity translates into brilliance. Law school should teach a law student to communicate and convince jurors not by using dazzling words but through convincing arguments the jury can understand.
The language is clear, the examples are plain, and there appears to be a concerted effort to come up with simple language that any juror can understand. Even judges appreciate the effort made to break things down into their simplest terms. As a judge, I have noticed that the lawyer who speaks to the jurors in legal jargon quickly loses the attention of the juror.
Rarely do I ever see those jurors later make the effort to understand the lawyer, having been turned off by the word barrier. The lawyer unwittingly sabotaged their chances for their clients. Some lawyers mistakenly believe that the ability to speak legalese is necessary, shows intelligence, or impresses. In closing argument, I frequently watch to see if the jurors wrote down notes of anything the lawyers say.
Frequently, the lawyer who speaks down to jurors gets the least amount of notes from the jurors. Finally, the move for plain English is most important, but frequently ignored, in the special verdict form. This is the single most important document in a trial and often the last looked at, approved, and given document in the case. The special verdict form should be in plain English, crystal clear, and have logical steps to follow. In fact, the opposite occurs. I have presided over a number of lengthy civil trials and there is a defining moment in a trial that should cause a sea change in the behavior of the lawyers.
Can you please get them to stop? We got it the first time.
The Golden Rule is something generally kept out of trials because it usually signifies the impermissible practice of asking the juror to place themselves in the position of their clients to evaluate the case, thereby losing their objectivity. The Golden Rule I am talking about is simply how to treat the people you work with in court and throughout litigation.
Litigation is a high pressure situation which is artificial in the sense it is adversarial, it has many rules that appear inflexible, and it requests cooperation from sides that are meant by the rules to oppose each other. Rather than taking it in stride, often lawyers will speak ill of the other side in declarations and emails that often find themselves attached to an angry ex parte motion. On the record, lawyers frequently call each other sleazy, liars, and lawyers that should be reported to the State Bar. Rarely do I see these types of cases settle. What better way for a lawyer to be remembered — as someone known for their civility and professionalism?
A lawyer can do the same and give back to others through his or her legal knowledge. Whether doing pro bono work or getting involved as a mentor to middle and high school students, the law provides each of us the opportunity to make the world a better place. Will reminds us that there is more to life than material possessions.
His words on what constitutes success have found their way onto my blotter on the bench: Know what you are doing. Love what you are doing. And believe in what you are doing. In trials it is as important as it is in literature. Every trial is a human drama with real people. Those individuals must be revealed by them showing themselves impermissibly, revealing their actions rather than simply agreeing to the conclusions suggested by the lawyers.
The witnesses should be revealed in direct examination first. That is the best opportunity to truly have the witness introduce themselves, establish their credibility, and explain their actions without being restrained through leading questions. Instead, we are stuck with the thick-skinned, the bent, and the buffoons seeking to fill the House, the Senate, and even the Presidency. Anyway, I was riding on a carousel, when a boy pushed me off and into the gravel below. I was pretty badly hurt and my mother, always a quivering tower of Jell-O in these circumstances, fainted at the sight of my torn and bleeding knee.
Luckily, my uncle got me to the nearby nurse's station. I was alone there, scared and crying, when a nice lady from the next bed came over and sat with me. She comforted me and held my hand as the nurse picked out the gravel embedded in my right knee and dressed the wound.
My purpose in making this a low-priced Kindle book is to promote, as aggressively as I can, the importance of Will Rogers' legacy for today. His legacy . E. T. (Cy) Eberhart is the author of Will Rogers ( avg rating, 2 ratings, 0 reviews, published ), Let's Our Road to Civility: Humorist Will Rogers' America.
To this day I still have a scar. She talked and sang to me, and made a fuss over me, even though she wasn't feeling well and wanted to rest in the nurse's trailer before the evening show. When my uncle finally came for me, she gave him special guest box seat tickets for the show, right in front. I was so excited when she and Roy Rogers rode Buttermilk and Trigger over to where I was sitting, and I got to stroke their manes.
Even in the middle of the show, she told my now-recovered mother and the rest of the family how brave I was. I may have been limping but inside I was floating on air for the rest of the weekend. Years later, I found out that we had vastly different viewpoints on politics and other issues. All I remembered was the nice lady who held my hand and sang to me. It was perhaps one of the most valuable lessons I've ever learned. Separate the person from the politics and always appreciate the good in the person.
Essentially, "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
What I want is a political system where civil discourse and a mutual desire to improve and enhance the lives of all Americans are the ultimate goal. Not some throwback to the 's or the antebellum South that excluded so many of us from achieving the American Dream. The South lost the Civil War, right?
We must stop equating the cult of personality with political acumen. Reality-TV does not qualify someone to be president. We must realize that even if someone is a celebrity, it's not an automatic ticket to a political office, especially the highest in the land.
I think what bothers me most is the name calling - by everyone - and the singular lack of workable, reasonable ideas to discuss over a wide range of important issues.