I had thought that we would not see this for at least five to ten more years, but here it is: 21st Century Medicine has met up with 18th Century Law.

            There is a thought-provoking exchange in the wonderful movie, The Madness Of King George. In the early part of the movie, the Royal Physician says that he does not want to be bothered with mere physical readings, that he has natural law to ponder. And therein is the argument.

            This is evidenced every day, not just the judicial joke that we saw last week. EVERY DAY, judges make their decisions in the pristine cold of pure opinion. No logic, no science, no law can come between them and their jurisprudence. If they feel they need to justify their whim by quoting foreign law, so be it. If they want to justify their errant decision by using a wrong precedent, so be it. If they wish to justify some totally illogical idea by citing an equally illogical decision by a higher court, so be it.

            For our own sanity, it might be good for us to remember that fact - and logic based on fact - have nothing to do with our current justice system.

            Often we rail against the judiciary by saying "it's not about justice, it's about winning." I've said it myself. I have quoted that to lawyers and they either lower their gaze and say, "it's so true, but what can you do," or something on the order of "what's the diff?" What the "diff" is, is that one deals with mathematics while one deals with truth. The only time mathematics saved anybody's life, liberty, or property, was when it was second banana to it's truthful application. And truthful application of justice is as foreign as the idea of applying facts to medicine in 1774.

            A system which claims to promote justice, must, at some point, actually deliver justice. If you don't believe that, then ask anybody who fought for civil rights in the 1950's. If we'd used the same judicial logic about medical decisions that were used, not only last week, but many other times before, on civil rights, we, in America, would still be under Plessy v Ferguson rather than Brown v The Topeka Board of Education. You can't have it both ways. Regardless of what a guardian may assert, regardless of what states' rights are asserted, either civil rights transcend states' rights or they do not. If they do not, then I want to buy Patty Ann Brown.

            The sad fact is, that, in the law in America, there is no sauce for the goose or gander. There is only sauce for the judge. When you ask an appellate judge to overrule, you don't get a better understanding of the facts of the case, you get a ruling on a ruling. And the judges will tell you that's what they're doing.

            Even sadder, as awful and rotten as our judiciary system is, it's still the best system in the world. You really don't know whether to laugh or cry.