Justice Scalia and Brown v. Board of Education

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently appeared at a public forum in the Phoenix area. The forum was covered by Howard Fischer, writing in the East Valley Tribune. In his first published report of the forum, Fischer quoted Scalia as saying he would have dissented from Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 case that ordered the desegration of public schools across the country "with all deliberate speed." Reading Scalia's statement, the bloggers across the internet, many of whom despise Scalia anyway for his conservative and out-spoken advocacy of originalism, took off and blasted Scalia for his wrongheadedness. There was one problem, though. Scalia didn't say what he was quoted as saying. Fortunately, for him, the forum was recorded on video, and soon the video was released and Scalia could be heard and seen to say he would have joined Mr. Justice Harlan in dissenting from Plessy v. Ferguson, the case overturned by Brown.

Damn. The liberals had a great stroy blow up in their faces. They wanted to believe Scalia had said it. Now, they had to write retractions. The original story disappeared. In its' place was an updated story that corrected the earlier version. But an error this grievous demands an apology, doesn't it? This writer thinks so. This law professor sees this as similar to the recent flap over fictitious Rush Limbaugh quotes. I think an apology is in order.

Autumn in Kansas

It has been one of the most beautiful autumns I can ever remember experiencing here in Northeast Kansas. Maybe it is due to the rain we've had this year or the cool summer, or maybe I just forget how pretty the trees in front of my house are this time every year.

Joe Paterno

There's a funny line, not intended to be as funny as it is, in this week's issue of Sports Illustrated. In a feature story about Penn State's 82 year old football coach, Joe Paterno, he shows he's not as out-of-touch with modern technology ("What's that thing called, Facemask?") as most people think he is. The story is told that during the off-season, he called his coaches together and the first thing he told them was, "Gentlemen, we need to start Twittering."

What's funny, at least to me, about that line is that one of JoPa's coaches is Larry Johnson, Sr., the father of Kansas City Chiefs running back, Larry Johnson. After yesterday's 37- 7 loss to their rival, the San Diego Chargers, KC stands 1-6 and is one of the worst teams in the NFL. Larry Johnson, who has never been a team player, took the opportunity to blast his head coach, Todd Haley, using, of all things, his Twitter account. He pointed out that Haley and some of the other coaches had never played in the NFL (Which NFL team did Bill Belichek play for?) and their lack of experience is the cause of the Chiefs' troubles.

JoPa also is quoted in the article saying, "Times have not changed that much. I think kids today, they are confused. They long for some kind of discipline." Too bad LJ, who played for JoPa, learned how to twitter, but failed to learn JoPa's lesson about discipline.

*********************

Update: On Monday, the Chiefs severed their relationship with Larry Johnson. Good riddance.

Legal to kill an attacker but don't threaten him

The Kansas Supreme Court is coming under some criticism for an odd decision they issued last Friday in the case of State v. Hendrix. Hendrix argued with his sister and was charged with the crimes of criminal threat and aggravated assault. His request for a self-defense jury instruction was denied because Hendrix did not demonstrate a reasonable belief that his actions were necessary to defend himself against his sister's use of imminent force. He was convicted and upon appeal, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction even though they noted the absurdity in denying self-defense to a defendant who can diffuse a situation with the mere threat of force but granting the defense to one who actually applies force. Instapundit (Univ. of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds) links to a critique of the decision from UCLA law professor, Eugene Volokh, who notes it may be legal to kill an attacker, but not to threaten him.

Chief Justice Robert E. Davis, joined by Justice Marla J. Lukert, dissented from the decision, saying that “force” should reasonably be read to include “constructive force” such as threats.

Death of a Company

In a few weeks, Topeka will lose a long-time employer...a great corporate citizen...and a stalwart of the Topeka scene for nearly 100 years. Martin Tractor Co. has been sold to Foley Tractor Co. of Wichita. On the surface, this seems like a simple deal with one company acquiring another. This happens throughout America every day.

But, the impact of this deal on Topeka will be significant. Sure, there are a few jobs lost. But more important to the community is the loss of a good corporate citizen. Martin Tractor Co. supports the United Way, Junior Achievement, the American Cancer Society, the Heart Association, Habitat for Humanity, the Boy Scouts, Sheltered Living and many, many more charities. Any project undertaken in Topeka, from the construction of a new building at the Zoo to the Children's Discovery Center has Martin Tractor Co. and its people to thank. Their Board of Directors, Officers and employees are involved in these projects that make Topeka such a great place to live and work. Foley's attention will be on Wichita, not Topeka, and that is a huge loss for our town.

I once had a local CEO tell me he had lived around the world in a half dozen towns, and Topeka, in his opinion, was "the pan-handlest town" in which he had ever lived. He said there was someone in his office every week asking for money for this project or that cause. I took his comment as a compliment. Topekans don't do it alone. The entire community is involved, and in the future it will remain involved, but without Martin Tractor Company. Too bad for us.