Saturday Night Dead?

I just watched what is probably the worst skit in comedy that I have ever seen. It is hard to believe that a show such as SNL has fallen from grace. What is hard to understand that current show host Hugh Laurie is not being used to his potential while making skits that are just horrible. What is needed to make the show better? Obviously most of the female actors are not that funny, replace them ALL. Replace most of the males while leaving Seth Meyers and Thompson. The next is obviously better writers. Why do they recycle the same George Bush joke every week? There is so much out there to make fun of besides one man. Get rid of that damn Hardball skit. Anyways, if you have ideas on how to make the show better, feel free to leave them in the comments section.

Blog rerun

Like in TV and sometimes radio, this post is a rerun of sorts because I really don't have anything new to say other than I meet with the surgeon tomorrow and have that Halloween party to go to.
Here is a opinion piece I wrote in the BG News concerning the Robert's confirmation process

Nomination fits with Constitution
By: Jordan Grant
Issue date: 9/11/05 Section: Opinion
Last Friday's column "Roberts unfit to represent nation" by Erin Bzymek highlights a popular misconception that most Americans have with the Supreme Court.

Miss Bzymek's main point in her column was that, "Our new Supreme Court justice should reflect the ideology of the majority of the country."

This sort of thinking promoted by Miss Bzymek would undoubtedly create a very dangerous precedent in this country, due to our country's ever changing opinion at any given moment in time.

To have our Supreme Court rule on the basis that if the majority is for something it is okay with the Supreme Court will create a disaster in both human rights and liberties, something that Miss Bzymek is passionate about.

Let's apply Miss Bzymek's proposed logic for how the new Supreme Court justice should reflect the majority opinion of the country to a famous Supreme Court case.

Back in 1954 segregation was a popular practice through out the United States, not just the South. In the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (located in a state that fought on the Union side during the Civil War) Chief Justice Warren wrote that segregation was a violation of our very rights as human beings.

However, to use the argument that Miss Bzymek has that the Supreme Court should represent the nation's opinion.

The case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was wrongly decided since the majority of people at the time when the case was heard supported the policies of segregation in our school systems and other public institutions.

Can you see now just how dangerous a precedent this logic would lead to in our nation's highest court and the nation?

The headline alone of Miss Bzymek's editorial suggests that she needs to reread the United States Constitution.

The Supreme Court should never represent the nation's opinion on controversial issues, because we would get into problems such as those I mentioned earlier.

It is up to the United States Congress, and to some degree the President to represent the views and wishes of the country.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court, through Article III, represents the Constitution to determine if any acts by Congress or the President cohere to the limitations set up by the Constitution itself (i.e. judicial review).

To have the court rule on the basis that the Justices sitting on the bench agree with majority opinion (and thus Congress), would cripple the power of the independent Court rendering any decision the Court hands down as a rubber stamp seal of approval for the Congress or President.

I have no problem with many special interest groups taking interest in who should sit on the Supreme Court. After all, like Miss Bzymek says, this appointment will give Judge Roberts a place on the Court for the rest of his life.

However, for some groups to say that Judge Roberts should not be appointed to the Supreme Court on the basis that he might overturn Roe v. Wade is to say the least, unfounded and weak.

It is up to the Senate to decide if Roberts is capable of handling his position of power, or whether he can interpret the Constitution with professionalism and wisdom as past justices on the Court have. The Senate should never vote yes or no on whether a potential Justice's politics go along with the majority's opinion.

If we, as a nation, want a Justice who will rule along with the majority of this country's opinion then we lose the last resort to protect the rights and liberties of citizens in this nation. May God help us all if this ever happens.



Send comments to Jordan at jgrant@bgsu.edu
It appeared on September 11th, 2005 and received wide praise from CRU, ACLU, College Republicans and Democrats. The Asst. Opinion Editor called it "one of the best in years." Although I thought it wasn't my best work.

here is the link to BG News mainframe


The next day someone responded to my article claiming
My response to his "comments" are in italics.

In response to Jordan Grant's guest column concerning the legality of Mr. Roberts being named Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I have a few comments.

It may be constitutionally allowable for this man to be nominated, however I am not sure it is appropriate for Bush to do so, for several reasons.

First, why would he not want an already established ustice (sic) to be promoted into this commendable position, instead of someone with no voting record on our nation's most serious issues?
One reason why Bush appointed someone new was for efficiency my friend. There were two spots on the Court, to appoint a current associate justice would require three senate hearings. One for the Chief Justice promotion, and two for the new associates. Clearly President Bush made the smart choice but limiting the amount of being forced to hear Senator Kennedy's alcohol soaked devilish tongue talking about issue that rarely come before the court.
Second, Roberts is on record as being very right-wing and conservative politically, so the fear about the overturn of Roe vs. Wade is quite possible and a legitimate fear for all American's civil rights.
On record for being very right-wing and conservative politically? Really? I thought Bush would appoint the head of the ACLU to be the next chief justice. The result of the Robert's appointment sent the media in a research frenzy looking for things to bring up. The Democrats did this as well, and very little was found that Roberts as being "very right-wing and conservative politically."
Secondly, how does Roberts go from no record to one which is "right-wing and conservative politically" (personally you should have used the phrase politically conservative, but that is just me.) which were the two points in your argument. The only record Robert's has is the one where he was Counsel for the President and as Deputy solicitor General back in the early 90s. As a lawyer you must represent your client's interest above your own even if they conflict. Robert's role at those two positions held him professionally to take his client's side no matter what.
Third point for this phrase. Overturning Roe v. Wade wont eliminate abortion in the US, but would give the people of the states the option of having in their jurisdiction or not. Current polls show that 60% of Americans favor abortion so the fears of not having abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned seems to be premature, just like your sex life
Does this mean that the proposed amendment banning gay marriage will surface as well?
If there is an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage the Supreme Court, regardless of who is on the court, would be powerless of overturning it. Imagine SCOTUS over turning the 5th Amendment. Doesn't make sense huh? That's because the Constitution can not be changed by the SCOTUS.
And does this mean that by Bush nominating Roberts as Chief Justice that his Republican agenda will be the driving force in the main decision making process of the nation's highest court for the next several decades?
Your assumption only works on the ground that a justice appointed by a Republican or Democrat will ALWAYS vote on the conservative or liberal side of the argument. Cleary history is full of Justices that go against the party grain of the President who appointed them. Case in point, David Souter. So its too early to think that Roberts will always vote "conservative".
To me, this seems even more gutsy and arrogant than his many other decisions during the last several years. We must question leaders' decisions in order to protect our civil liberties. Is that not why this country was formed?
Did you even read my fucking article? My article was against the point of appointing a justice who sides with a majority of Americans on a civil rights issue. The original article that I responded to was to vote against Roberts because he might not agree with a majority of Americans on abortion. Appointing a justice on the view of that they have to agree with the majority of Americans totally destroys any chance of civil rights in this country.

I agree with Erin Bzymek's sentiment in her column last Friday when she said that we need to be alert citizens, ever watchful for the elite's obvious tactics to keep their agendas in power.
I actually agree with you on this point
We need a Supreme Court Chief Justice who represents multicultural America's best interests, not just the wealthy conservative agenda.
Represent the "multicultural America's best interests"? Did you even attend English 111? Reading the fucking Constitution which states that America's interests lie in the power of the President and Congress. The Supreme Court is there to prevent them from acting outside the scope of the Constitution.

Election Endorsements

The following are the candidates that I am endorsing for the upcoming election.
1. Governor- Bill Peirce
Lets face it, both major party candidates are idiots. That is why I am endorsing Bill Peirce for governor. Check out his website on his plan for Ohio in the next four years. He ideals on how to jump start the Ohio economy are pretty tight. After all, he has his Ph.D in economics from Princeton, he should at least know something about the economy.
2. Senate- Mike Dewine
Really don't care for either candidate, but I am really scared of Sherrod Brown. I would love to see him and Bill Peirce have a conversation about the economy. Brown will be left pissing his pants because he honestly does not have a plan on helping Ohio.
On a side note, The Plain Dealer, Brown's hometown paper endorsed Dewine over him
3. Attorney General- Betty Montgomery
No offense to Mark Dann, but he doesn't have the experience needed for the job like Betty has. Not to mention, you have to support the Toledo Law graduates!
4. Secretary of State- Greg Hartmann
Really have no interest in this position since it does very little except for register corporations in the state and monitor elections. Hartmann has a proven record of cutting down government waste when he was a Clerk of Court
5. Ohio Treasurer- don't care
Seriously, not that important of a job.
6. Auditor of State- Mary Taylor
She is a certified accountant. But if I have to hear something about auditing I would rather watch her.
7. State Senate- Steve Buehrer
Proven record, known for going against the Republican grain if it goes against his principle. Good enough for me.
8. State Rep- Bruce Goodwin
30 years of education service. Well respected by both parties. His opponent is an 19 year old. Enough said.
9. Congressman for District- Paul Gillmor
Not a big fan of him, but he seems to have some influence in DC for our district
10. Commissioner- Jason Vasko
Fulton County politics is stagnant in terms of new ideas and vision. Clearly the only candidate who has this is the youngest candidate in the field.
Issues
Issue 1- No
Issue 2- No, we shouldn't keep adding to our Constitution
Issue 3- Yes, At least it is something to help pay for higher education
Issue 4- No, Leave it up to the bar and resturant owners to decide if smoking is allowed
Issue 5 No, same as issue 4
Wauseon School Bond- Yes, getting $25 million from the state to rebuild the school district is a once in a life time chance. Don't let it go down!

Political Prediction- Winners
1. Governor- Strickland
2. Senate- Brown :(
3. AG- Montgomery
4. State Senate- Buehrer
5. State Rep- Goodwin
6. Fed Rep- Gillmor

Democrats take control of the House but not the Senate
As a result of this, Bush will not be able to get more conservative support because more polarization will occur. Bush will get his approval ratings back in the mid to upper 40s, possibly 50%
2008 Presidential Race
Who will it really be?
McCain v. Clinton- winner is McCain
Who I want it to be
Romney v. Anyone- winner Romney

Conflict of Performance; Prostitutes and the Unilateral Contract

In order for this post to be somewhat credible lets pretend Ohio just legalized prostitution, but has not passed any statutes regulating the industry.
Prostitutes before the Restatement of Contracts 2nd Edition would have a problem finding adequate relief for the Johns not paying them before the completion of performance.
Now the average opening line between the two parties is "If you suck my cock, I'll give you $50." or "I will give you $100 for sex." This is the basic unilateral contract. Performance of the act is the consideration in itself. The classic example as given by Contract Professors or any contract book for law school follows a similar pattern. "If you walk across the bridge I will give you $100." Only when the actor walks across the bridge will he get his money (obviously if someone is offered $100 to walk across a bridge, either the bridge is: 1. Not there. 2. Badly damaged and could fall in any moment. 3. The offeree is poor. 4. The offeror is so rich he doesn't know what to do with his money.).
Now prior to the Restatement of Contracts, notably section 45 of the 2nd edition. These unilateral contracts, or adhesion contracts (take it or leave it) would render the prostitutes helpless if near the end of the performing act the John would revoke his offer. Now you can argue that the offer said "Suck thy cock" or "Have sex with me"taken in its literal sense that would say that once it began that was the performance itself, but obviously the defendant would show industry custom in the prostitute industry where offers like that would be completed after the man orgasms or ejaculates. Needless to say this would leave the smart men very happy on their power of revocation while leaving the prostitute literally naked and helpless.
Now Section 45 of the Restatement of Contracts 2nd Edition came to the rescue of the hopeless hooker. Section 45 states:
Option Contract Created by Part Performance or Tender
1. Where an offer invites an offeree to accept by rendering a performance and does not invite a promissory acceptance, an option contract is created when the offeree tenders or begins the invited performance or tender a beginning of it
2. The offeror's duty of performance under any option contract so created is conditional on completion or tender of the invited performance is accordance with the terms of the offer.
Part 1 of section 45 states that if the offeree begins performance an option contract is created. Option contracts are in a sense contracts for which the offeror can not revoke their offer for a specific time period.
For more information of this please visit comment D.
So applying Section 45 the prostitute would now have an avenue of recovery now.
Before section 45 the offeror could revoke at anytime before performance was completed. Now prostitutes could say "No you don't sweety! I gots Section 45 Part 1 of the Restatement(s) of Contracts Second Edition on my side now fucker!" This would render the the offeror unable to revoke his offer.
Clearly applying this rule to the area of prostitution was not want the founders of the Restatement of Contracts had in mind. Considering Professor Williston's popularity in the law forum of contracts this probably meant he had to travel a lot to different law schools to speak on behalf of his position on the elements of contract formation. Needless to say this travel meant being away from his family and his wife. People on the road that long probably get a bit lonely, and seek companionship. What kind of companionship. I do not know, but I figured a smart man like Williston would find loopholes to get more bang for his buck (no pun intended). Now other areas of contract law do apply to the area of prostitution but because its 2 am, I'm tired and going to bed.

Indecision 2006

Well I am back by popular demand. Well one person asked me to write more often so I will try.
I am sitting here in the basement of my 90 year old house at almost 4 in the morning, and I have to finish writing a Court opinion on summary judgment tomorrow. I spent the night brewing about how I lost in trip Queens at Poker. I just finished doing two case briefings for Contracts and reading for Civ Pro. It is raining outside and it is just too fucking cold.
Of course this all seems dismal to you, but looking at who we have to pick for this upcoming election. Maybe Dante's nine circles of Hell seems a much better place to be than Ohio in a few years. For governor we have an incompetent Congressman who's record is so bad only idiots would vote for him. Not surprising the recent Census shows that his distict is the most uneducated one in Ohio. His opponent is a guy who seems more sneaky than Bill Clinton avoiding Hillary. None of these candidates are appealing and needless to say Ohio will suffer for it. Ironically during one of the debates which focused on the economy. The moderator must have forgotten to ask the Libertarian candidate Bill Pierce to attend. Considering he has a Ph.D in Economics from Princeton and taught the damn subject for 30 years at Case Western.
Of course this election doesn't compare to the amount of stupidity that is our senate race. Both candidates are grabbing as many Iraqi war widows as they can to throw at each other. Imagine dodgeball but with grief. Dewine is an idiot, but of course his Democratic counterpart should have stayed in the Hobbit NBA. The man understands little about econcomics, or even how to make an argument without sounding like a total douche bag.
In November, we will have to use the a test of negligence in the Tort system on who to vote for. Would would the Reasonable Prudent Person vote for in this situation. If you don't vote that way, you're guilty of negligence and of course stupidity.