Longtime and careful readers of the blog have been able to discern that from time to time we receive “tidbits” of information from interested parties, lawyers, even members of the fourth estate.
To borrow a literary reference, we like to think of them as The Rumpole Irregulars.
Word reaches us today from an Irregular, of this picture at the entrance to our fair building:
along with the concomitant policy of confiscating cameras.
What in the name of the Federal College of Cardinals are these people thinking?
Can’t you just see the scene as the highly trained security screeners scrutinize our clients:
First Security Screener: Code Red. Code Red. A Camera!
Second Security Screener: Que?
Third Security Screener: Where?
First Security Screener: Right there! The little girl, next to the man with the machete.
Third Security Screener: Swarm Swarm Swarm.
First Security Screener [to man with the machete] “Sir. Don’t panic. Just slowly walk away from the girl with the camera. We’re the professionals. Let us handle it..”
The point is, we let these petty bureaucrats draw up their own security rules, and what we are doing is allowing our fears to trample the Constitution.
It doesn’t seem like a big deal. And in the scheme of things, it probably isn’t.
But the whole point of our freedoms is built around the idea that we have the right, and the ability, to question authority, and to make those in power answer to us, not the other way around.
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
The comments section to yesterday’s post on child care contained several good comments for and against the idea.
We like our response, which we re-post here because…well, because we can.
You know, there are a hundred reasons not to do anything: lawsuits, injury, possible problems. But it is the enlightened soul that sees the solution, not the problem.
Or in the words of Ted Kennedy during the eulogy for his brother Bobby:"Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say, why not."
So we say, stop telling us why we can't have child care, and start talking about how we're going to do it.
Thanks to Judge Young for his support of the idea.
Next time you're in court, instead of wondering who we are, look at all the parents with kids sprawled out on the floors of the hallways, and ask yourself whether there isn't a better way to do things.
See You In Court.
UPDATE: We checked the blog this morning and right on time was this response from Judge Blake, along with a response from Judge Schwartz:
Judge Blake (on his 2 week time schedule of checking the blog)* said:
As Larry Schwartz wrote, for the past several months we have had meetings with me, Sandy Lonergan, Sam Slom, Berdy Soto, Carroll Kelly, reps from the WCMA and attorney Jerry Kornreich here working on the creation of a child care place in the REGMJB. It is getting closer to being a reality--finishing up security and building issues (as well as funding).
The YWCA has one in the Family Court and there is a Court Care cocktail party on March 8th from 5:30-7:30 at Mellon Uniited Bank with a $50 donation from attorneys will be accepted at the door ($35 for law students and public interest lawyers). YOu may want to help publicize this. Thanks for your interest in this worthwhile project. It will be a reality. Stan Blake
Rumpole responds: Everyone should attend the fundraiser.Cocktails for a worthy cause: That's what we call legal research- and our civil friends can even find some client to bill for it!
*Some might be upset at our treatment of Judge Blake. But, as longtime and careful readers of the blog know, we can't-we just can't- pass up any opportunity to give our robed readers a gentle jab.
See You In Court, and maybe at the fundraiser.