“She’s a liberal, she’s an activist judge, she’s temperamental, she’s a racist . . . “ the “conservative” case against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has so far been a “throw everything against the wall and see what sticks” attack. Kevin Siers’ latest editorial cartoon is a visual depiction of said wall: traced, inked, and rendered in comic strip form.

The first panel shows Judge Sotomayor saying a quote that has been repeatedly taken out of context: “I would think that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

In the second panel she’s holding the Constitution and adds “ . . . Madison, Hamilton . . . Jay . . . to name a few white males . . .”

Unfortunately, the customary third panel of the “comic strip” is missing. That panel would provide the real punch line: “ . . . who concluded that women were to stupid to vote, slavery was a good idea, and African Americans were three fifths of a human being.”

Back the original (and IMHO incomplete) cartoon, it summarizes two oft repeated attacks: First, the out-of context quote lends weight to the “she thinks Latinas are smarter than white men therefore she’s a racist “ meme. Since any points trumpeted by Rush Limbaugh are by definition too stupid to merit a response I will move to the second, more insidious argument: The oft cited “original intent” argument.

The problem with this argument is that it elevates the Constitution from what the framers intended: a practical governing document, into a foundational text (bordering on the sacred) and the last word on all legal matters.

The Constitution is not our foundational text, the Declaration of Independence is; particularly the famous portion which states as “self- evident” truth that “all men are created equal” and have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” along with other unstated but commonly understood rights.

To those who argue otherwise, I would ask them “Why do we celebrate our country’s founding on July 4th?” The answer is, pardon the quote, “self–evident.”

The Constitution is not the last word on legal matters either. Both it and the Declaration of Independence were written in the context of common law, which evolves with society. For example the phrase “all men are created equal” literally meant “all white men” according to eighteenth century common law. But in the twenty first century it obviously means “all people.”

The framers understood all this and (IMHO again) it was their “intent” to craft a governing document that would be flexible enough to last. That’s why the Constitution includes an amendment process and that’s also why the Bill of Rights (Amendments I-X) includes the following:

IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And

X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The fear was that an explicit Bill of Rights might exclude commonly understood rights and powers (part of common law) not specifically included within.

If only the backers of original intent really respected the founders intent. If only they admitted that Constitutional interpretation is the job of a judge. And if only, in all the talk of States Rights, someone might point out that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments also protect the rights and powers of the people. In other words: human rights.

But that might require empathy.

Yesterday, my wife, daughter, mother-in-law, and I all went to Hendricks Park to enjoy a warm sunny afternoon. My wife brought her camera along to take pictures of the rhododendrons, which bloom throughout the month of May. My daughter brought her unlimited energy.

We walked out onto a large grassy area. The trees surrounded us, shading the grass below and framing the clear blue sky above. A woman was sitting in the middle of the lawn on a blanket. Her arms were wrapped in a shawl and her eyes were closed. She was clearly meditating. We hushed our voices so not to disturb her.

Anna (my daughter) is only three: too young to notice when someone might not want to be disturbed. No, she has to run up to every one she sees and say:

“Hi, my name is Anna. What’s your name?”

I caught up with her and whispered to her “Anna, I think this lady is meditating. We need to be quiet.”

The woman looked up and began talking to Anna. I apologized to her. “That’s ok,” she replied. “ I’ve got a little one too. She's eleven now, but she’s still my little one.” She then turned to Anna. “How old are you?” Anna loves to answer that question. She held up her thumb and her first two fingers and replied “Three!”

I thought about the Buddhist concept of Mindfulness and how this woman seemed to exemplify it. She was fully in the moment whether that moment was the slight breeze blowing on her closed eyelids or the exuberant greeting of a happy little girl.

I also thought of Jesus’ words to his disciples “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.” (Matthew 19:14 NRSV)

I wondered how I would have responded in a similar situation, especially before I became a father. Say I was praying the rosary or reading the psalms when a little child interrupted me.

“Hi, my name is Anna. What’s your name?”

Would I have been open to the moment, to the Spirit who might just be speaking through this little child? Or would I, in my attempt to have a quiet prayer time, miss a glimpse of the Kingdom of Heaven?

Here I guess. This isn't my first blog. I started my first one in 2003, just as the blogging craze was taking off. For the first year, I posted pretty much every day. Then my pace slowed as the novelty wore off. My daughter was born in 2006 and after that I didn't have the time to blog, so I shut it down. That blog is long gone, so there's no point in trying to pick up where it left off. Instead I'm starting fresh.

A lot has changed over the last six years: then I was a composer finishing up my doctorate and looking for a teaching job. That didn't work out. Then, I became a stay-at home-dad by default. I briefly looked at ministry in the Church, but the thought of extra schooling didn't appeal to me.

Three unexpected changes in my life set me on my present path. First, my daughter was diagnosed in-utero with a cleft lip. Then last year, well after her surgery and recovery, she was diagnosed with a seemingly unreleated speech delay. Finally, our financial situation took a major hit earlier this year forcing us to move to a less expensive apartment and live on a much tighter budget.

Out of all this came an idea for a book and a new career path: writing. My main focus is the book, but I'm also looking into freelance writing. So this blog will serve as an outlet and a sketch pad.