CHUCKY'S PARADIGM

Senator Charles "Chucky" Schumer is trying to change a Senate pardigm that has operated for years when it comes to the confirmation of judges - specifically Supreme Court Justices.

Under the current confirmation paradigm - asking a nominee's "opinion" on an issue is frowned upon because, Conservatives argue, judges should make rulings based on the written law - they should not allow their personal "opinions" to override the law when ruling on the issues that are brought before them.

The Liberals have a different view that Chucky is currently out in front championing. I call it "Chucky's Paradigm".

Chucky's paradigm holds that we shouldn't be afraid of a judge's opinion intruding into his rulings. In fact - we should embrace it. The Founding Fathers never really expected the CONSTITUTION to override contemporary LIBERAL opinion according to Chucky. The Constitution should be used more as a "guide" rather than looked upon as a set of hard and fast RULES. Chucky argues that there's no danger in allowing a justice to interject his personal opinion in his rulings as long as we make sure, before we appoint him - THAT HE HAS THE CORRECT OPINIONS.

In accordance with this - why shouldn't we expect a Supreme Court Nominee like John C. Roberts to answer a question concerning his personal opinion on a topic like ABORTION? Why shouldn't we expect him to answer questions on his opinion of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION? IMMIGRATION LAW? Why shouldn't we expect him to answer questions concerning his opinion on the existence of GOD? We DO want to know what those opinions are right? We want to make sure that he has the RIGHT opinions - because we're going to expect him to use those opinions when making determinations on FACTS OF LAW.

I think Chucky is on to something here. I think he might be right. For hundreds of years, we've been caught in some kind of weird "group think" where occupations like judges were supposed to follow the printed rules and make determinations based on those rules rather than interjecting their own personal opinions. But I think we've had it wrong all this time, and I'm thankful that Chucky caught this at this most opportune moment so that we can make a change here for the better. Starting with the confirmation of John C. Roberts.

In fact, a Supreme Court Justice is not the only occupation where we should probably make this "paradigm change".

There are many other occupations that exist in society that are very much like that of a judge.

Let's take Major League Baseball Umpires for example. We've been caught up for years in the paradigm that umpires don't write the rules - they merely make calls based on them. We always held the flawed notion that umpires shouldn't interject their personal opinion when making these calls - they should just make the appropriate call in accordance with the printed rules and let the chips fall where they may.

But this is flawed thinking isn't it folks? Shouldn't an umpire be allowed to use his personal thoughts and opinions when making these calls?

I'll give you a "for instance" ...

For instance, take two baseball teams -- let's say, the YANKEES and the CUBS. We all know that the YANKEES always have a great team - because they spend so much darned money to get the best players! We also know that, based on the fact that they are so rich and have such a good team - they're pretty arrogant too - aren't they?

But then you have a team like the CUB's. They rarely win. Don't have that much money to buy great players and when they do manage to get a good one - he's usually bought up within a season or two by the evil YANKEES! Booooooooo!

So lets say that the Yankees are playing the Cubs - it's the bottom of the NINTH, Yankees at bat - and the score is Yankees - 10; Cubs - 10. ONE OUT - and the Yankees have a man on third - could be the winning run...

The Yankee batter steps to the plate ... here's the pitch - SMACK!!!

It's a hard grounder to the Cub shortstop! THE WINNING RUN IS HEADED HOME!

Half way to the shortstop the ball takes a completely unexplainable bounce - straight up into the air - this thing looks like it's going to go right over the shortstop's head folks!

But no wait!! - the shortstop makes a HEROIC jump into the air that would make Michael Jordan envious! He tips the ball with the edge of his glove and now it's a "bobble contest" between the ball and the shortstop to see if he can gain control of it.

HE DOES!

But the Yankee runner is fast approaching the plate - the shortstop can't wait until his feet hit the ground - he has to throw NOW!

And ... in MID-AIR - the Cub shorty fires a bullet to home plate! The catcher catches the ball and tags the Yankee runner at the PRECISE MOMENT THE YANKEE RUNNER'S FOOT HITS HOME PLATE!

What a HUGE BUMMER! Under the current rules - the ump has no latitude. The rulebook says that the tie MUST GO TO THE RUNNER!

THOSE DARNED EVIL YANKEES WIN AGAIN!!!!!

Hey, that's not fair! They always win!

Under the current "paradigm" - we have to accept the rules and admit that our Cubs are defeated. We're forced to admit they're defeated - and we Cub fans aren't happy about it all.

However, if we use "Chucky's Paradigm" - the umpire can interject some "personal opinion" here and maybe we can have a different outcome?

For instance - I'd like to see that umpire empowered to say ...

"Well, the rulebook says that the tie goes to the runner. However, you Yankees are such a great team only because your owner has money. The Cubs are the underdogs here - and that shortstop made a superhuman effort to throw the runner out. His effort and play was so good in fact, how could I possibly rule that it was unsuccessful? Also, you Yankees always win - you can afford to take it on the chin here.

So there, Mr. Yankee runner -- YYYYEEEEERRRRRRRRR OUTTTTTTAAAAAA THERE!

Folks - isn't that a MUCH HAPPIER ENDING?

Why should we force umps to follow the rules - when we can trust them to use their opinions when making decisions? Now, before appointing an umpire - we'll need to make sure that he doesn't like the Yankees for this to work - but that's easy! Right?

And we'll also need to find a method to determine WHO will decide what kind of opinions are correct - and which ones aren't. Which ones will be allowed ... and which ones won't.

You could think of these guys as a kind of "thought police".

CHUCKY'S PARADIGM - THINK ABOUT IT.