That posed a problem for me because I didn’t have a clue who they were until I looked them up. I guess that there are problems with getting old.  I’m at the age where I consider Marg Helgenberger to be a sexy, young woman, so I guess that I should admit that I have gotten old somehow.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marg_Helgenberger

Anyway, my colleague Russ Austin passed away recently. For the last several weeks,  I’ve been watching two fine candidates scramble to get the Republican nomination to be on the ballot in November. This is necessary because if you die or otherwise leave office more than seventy five days before the next election, the respective parties, acting through their executive committees, get to place someone on the ballot, even though the office was not slated to up for election until 2010.

The law may be wonderful in theory, but it leaves a lot to be desired in practice. Hypothetically, what would happen if seventy seven days before the next general election, an officeholder passes away on a Friday evening? How likely is it that a political party could send the notices of a meeting and hold a meeting two days later?  Who would they get to run on such short notice? How could prospective candidates be screened in time so that the executive committees would have an idea on who was being placed in nomination?

And would you like to be a candidate given a tad more than seventy five days to put together a campaign? I wouldn’t!

My suggestion is that the time line needs to be pushed back, so that if an office becomes open less than six months before the next general election, the person picked to by the commissioners would not have to stand for election that November , unless the office was going to on the ballot in November anyway. In that case, if the nominee of the party died, the usual rules would apply for filing a vacancy on the ballot.  Wouldn’t that make a lot more sense?

He was one of my favorite talking heads on TV, when he worked for Fox. When he went for work as President Bush’s third press secretary, he brought his considerable wit and charm to the job.

We was one of the best. May he rest in peace.

A few days later I received an e-mail from a lady that I know through Rotary congratulating me on the wedding. In the e-mail, she mentioned  that she had learned about the wedding from the STRC bulletin.

I had no idea what that acronym meant, so I went on line and Googled “STRC.” The first entry that I found that seemed to be relevant was the web site for the Society of Traditional Roman Catholics.  http://www.strc.org/  Since Our Lady of Walsingham is an Anglican use, Catholic parish, I assumed that was the organization that she was referring to in her e-mail

Today, I had a few minutes, so I e-mailed her asking her about the group.  Since I couldn’t remember the group’s name and hadn’t saved its web address, I described the group that she had referenced as “the traditional Catholic group that she belonged to.”

Her response was very gentle. She pointed out in finest Southern Belle fashion that while she had many dear friends who were Catholic, she herself was an Anglican.

I -emailed back and asked her how she had heard about Christine’s wedding.

She replied by sending me this link  http://www.strotary.org/issues5-6/08-06-02.html for the issue of the Sharpstown Rotary Club newsletter that came out right after my daughter’s wedding.

I guess that if you push it, you could turn Sharpstown Rotary Club into the acronym, STRC.

Oops! 

Things like this keep me humble.

As fate would have it, today I was offered a chance to teach one course at the University of Houston’s law school.  Of course, I accepted the offer.  Does this mean that I’ve gone over the the Dark Side?  I wonder about that myself.

At the moment, I feel as if I were in a hansom, speeding to Charing Cross with Holmes and Watson about to begin a new adventure.

I wonder if at some time in the future, after I have been moved to the Old Judge’s Home, one of my students will mention me in a blog?  What will he or she will say? 

I wonder if the blogger will say that  I communicated clearly?

Will the blogger say that I taught them what they really needed to know to be good lawyers?

Will the blogger say that  I stressed the important things enough?

And, most important to me, will the blogger think that  I stressed the ethical issues strongly enough?

At this point in time, Heaven only knows.

My initial reaction to seeing future Sen. Helms on the tube was that while born in the pre-television era, he was one of the few conservatives  who had mastered television and was able to use it successfully to promote ideas contrary to the prevailing liberal orthodoxy of the day. He was a few years ahead of his time in that regard.

My only encounter with him was by telephone in 1976. For those too young to remember the events, by the time that the North Carolina primary rolled around in March of 1976, Governor Ronald Reagan’s presidential hopes were almost gone.  The Governor had lost the first few primaries to President Ford.  Senator Jesse Helms and  his main operative, Tom Ellis, fashioned a come from behind win for the Gipper in North Carolina that day in 1976. After winning the North Carolina primary, Reagan went on to win the primaries in Texas and California.  These victories were enough to establish Reagan’s credentials as a serious contender. Although Reagan barely lost the nomination at the Kansas City convention, his good showing established him as the front runner for the 1980 Republican nomination. As they say, the rest is history.

I had done my bit working the telephones many evenings during the campaign along with my wife, Trish. For several weeks before the campaign, we were both on the edge of exhaustion. On election night, I was asked to call in the updated vote totals to Reagan Headquarters in Raleigh as the numbers came in from our operatives at the polling places around the county.

While I was on hold during one telephone call, ABC announced that they were declaring Gov. Reagan the winner of the North Carolina primary. Needless to say, our small storefront headquarters was filled with unrestrained cheers and shouts of joy.  At this exact moment, Tom Ellis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_F._Ellis  came on the phone to ask me for the latest Durham County  totals.

Mr. Ellis immediately heard the background noise and asked me what all the hollering was about. When I told him that ABC News had just declared Governor Reagan the winner of the North Carolina Republican Primary, I was asked to hold the phone. Seconds later, Senator Helms himself came on the line. As best as I can remember it, our short conversation went like this.

Senator Helms:  “What’s all the shoutin’ about?”

Me:  “Sir, ABC News just declared Governor Reagan the winner here in North Carolina.”

Senator Helms:   ”Son, hold the line for a minute.”  (There was a background conversation between Senator Helms and Mr. Ellis in which Senator Helms told Ellis to call over to WRAL-TV and see why they hadn’t declared Governor Reagan the winner yet.)

Seconds later, there was pandemonium both in our headquarters and in Raleigh at the Reagan headquarters because CBS News had just followed in ABC in declaring Reagan the winner.

Senator Helms:  “Son, what’s your name?”

Me:  “Rory Olsen.”

Senator Helms:  “Well, Mr. Olsen, I want you when we get off the phone to tell everyone there in Durham that I am overwhelmed by the fine job that all of our volunteers did there in Durham and around the state to bring us victory tonight. Y’all done good, real good!”

Me:  “Thank you, sir.”

Senator Helms:  “No, you and all of our fine volunteers around the state are the ones who deserve all the thanks.”

That was it.  Whatever else one might say about Senator Helms, that night he showed a grace under pressure and a politeness that was both rare and memorable.

May God rest your soul, Senator!

Our instructor said that six months later the student called her and said that the advice that the instructor had given the student  had been invaluable and that the new mediator  was booked solid for the next three months. When the instructor asked what the problem was, the former student wanted to know how she could manage to get some time off without losing business. The instructor advised her to raise her rates.

The student managed to raise her rates twice in a year before she finally had to steel herself to only do mediations four days a week. The demand was incredible, because everyone involved was really bitter and nasty. She understood why there was a small supply of available mediators relative to the demand.

Our instructor said that eventually the mediator started to develop a commercial practice and hired someone to handle her post divorce cases. Our instructor said that after a few years, the junior mediators all started to burn out and either left or started to look for non post divorce cases.

A friend sent me this link today. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080618/wl_canada_afp/canadachildcourtoffbeat_080618180800   It seemed like another Internet hoax to me, until I was able to verify it on several other web sites that relied on different wire services.

Why was a court getting involved in a parental decision to ground a twelve year old?  It wasn’t until I discovered that the girl’s parents were divorced and her mother had primary custody that the pieces of the puzzle all fell rapidly into place. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369044,00.html    http://www.progressivebloggers.ca/blog/related.php?type=affiliate&id=177874  http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n19454701-court-girl/

Reading between the lines, I discovered that this was really just a post divorce case in which the mother was using her daughter’s grounding to attack her ex-husband.  Divorce creates problems for everyone involved–as well as  for society–for a very long time.

CHIEF:  Do you really expect anyone not on drugs or having a psychotic breakdown to believe this hogwash?

CR:  Chief:  Its all true. I’ve got it on tape. I’ve promised not to attribute it to anyone, but its verifiable.

CHIEF:  Who is really going to believe that Justices Kennedy, Souter and Stevens dislike Senator Obama so much that they joined with Breyer and Ginsburg to come up with a really nasty decision  [Boumediene vs. Bush, 553 U.S. ____ (2008) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html ]  that is every bit as outrageous as the most intrusive decisions of the Warren and Burger Courts to help Sen. McCain’s chances of defeating Sen. Obama in November?

CR:  It is a rather extreme decision, unsupported by the law or the text of the constitution, isn’t it?

CHIEF:  Yeah!  (Said grudgingly.)

CR:  Senator McCain has already jumped on the decision as a campaign issue, hasn’t he? http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68bdeeb4-3987-11dd-90d7-0000779fd2ac.html

CHIEF:  Yeah!

CR: Can you come up with another rational explanation for this decision?

CHIEF:  No!

After the Chief had assigned the copy to be edited by an eagle eyed, obsessive compulsive senior editor before releasing the story for publication, the Chief looked out the window and wondered if it was time to finally pack it in and retire to the cabin that he had in Montana near a good trout stream.

The Chief recalled that when he had been a young reporter just a few decades ago, no one at the Supreme Court would say anything about anything more controversial than the weather and certainly never leak data about a case.  The Chief, although he would never dare admit these thoughts to anyone, had always respected that about the Supreme Court. They had a sense of loyalty to the institution over there, which set the Supreme Court apart from other Washington institutions. The Chief realized that sense of dignity and history was no longer to be found at the Supreme Court.

The Chief made the arm motions involved in fly casting as he thought to himself that back then, the Supreme Court also had read Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution and understood that the POTUS was the commander in chief of the US armed forces, leaving the Supremes no room to meddle in military matters.

The Chief put his feet up on his desk for a second and then straightened up and grabbed his telephone receiver, while punching in the number for the personnel department. The Chief realized then that Montana was calling him.  He knew that was where he was meant to spend the rest of his days.

 Who was this paragon of virtue? Today he is known as Father Michael L Pfleger.

In case you don’t keep track of the political news as obsessively as do I, here is the link to his biography on Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pfleger  Father Pfleger has recently been in the news because of some allegedly intemperate remarks made as a guest preacher at Trinity United Church of Christ.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWigzBClEk8   Father Pfleger isn’t exactly a stranger to controversy. http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2008/03/father-michael-pfleger-obama-mentor.html

Strangely enough, Michael and I used to walk to school many mornings, since we lived about a block away from each other.  As I recall, we used to play in each other’s houses when we were in grade school. Michael really as a fine, dedicated altar boy.

 I haven’t see him since we graduated from grade school in 1963, so when his name surfaced recently, I did some research. Even though his blonde hair has darkened with age, yes indeed, the radical Chicago priest, Father Michael Pfleger, is my old playmate.  Michael’s old friend–me–is a judge in Texas. 

How the straight arrow became the radical and the rebellious, goof off became the straight arrow is one of life’s amazing and inexplicable ironies. 

My daughter Christine married Brett Sowell on Saturday.

Here is the toast that I offered, which I freely admitted was borrowed from some traditional Irish toasts:

Christine and Brett,

Here’s to health, peace and prosperity in your life together.

May the flower of love never be nipped by the frost of disappointment, nor may the shadow of grief reach your doorway.

May you be poor in misfortune, rich in blessings, slow to make enemies and quick to make friends.

May you know nothing but happiness from this day forward.

And, may all present see you one day with your grandchildren on your knees.