Politics is but the whetstone against which a man’s value is honed and polished to an edge, the gleam of which catches the eye of the acolyte, pulling them to him, curious but unquestioning, as a magpie to a shard of broken glass.     (Anon.)

 Partway through a novel set in 1860’s New Zealand and chronicling life in a coastal gold rush town, the author introduces a distinction between ‘frontier justice’ and the more ‘civilized’ version we like to celebrate as common law. The population of the time is a heterogeneous mix of Brits, Asians, indigenous, and all points in between. The value systems reflect an uncomfortable balance between that of the expeditious, opportunistic and the ‘refined’ — happy to take advantage but reserving the right to access ‘due process’. In short, not so very different from life and times 150 years on. 

As the wheels of the contemporary judiciary grind on, invited forth by candidates from all the usual suspects, I was struck this week at the ready willingness of both stripes (Red and Blue, as it were) to at once be smitten by the law’s censure and yet take shelter in its billowing robes. 

Little boy Blue that I am, it continues to be cause for a fist pump, when an $83 million ‘wrist slap’ is issued, and a period is placed at the end of a sentence of years of frustration for E. Jean Caroll, the decision bringing with it some semblance of closure. And then. . . as if it had left an ‘i’ undotted, said judiciary tacked on a $350 million sequel, penalty for a bit (well, quite a bit) of book-doctoring. 

Elation fades as court rulings shift from a candidate barred for his part in presumed acts of insurrection . . . to these self-same arguments read as an affront to democracy, disenfranchising the electorate to their right to root for whomever they please — however, weird that choice might be. It’s hard to keep up! And so January 6, 2021 fades to 2022, 2023, now 2024. The nuances of what the founding fathers ‘meant’ when they framed the Constitution or the wisdom of an 1868 amendment when it added its margin notes (‘no person. . .’), continue to be debated. And the skirts continue to enfold — as the court motions pile up and the delays (due process?) spool out. 

Equally, doing what I do for a living (i.e., pronouncing on cognitive function), it was hard not to be troubled by Special Counsel Robert Hur’s summary description of Joe Biden as ‘an elderly man with a poor memory’ (no personalization here!). This mouthpiece for that same judiciary was now dissing the white hat in the piece. Bit too much gratuitous editorializing on Mr. Hur’s part. Nevertheless, and while I absolutely take issue with his credentialing to essentially ‘diagnose’ Sleepy Joe, his comments did put the political shoe firmly on the other foot — time for the Dems to cry foul.

And so the tennis match continues. Ad-in, ad-out — and back to deuce. Each waiting for the other to stumble — sadly all too common an occurrence with this pair. Then clapping hands, briefly celebrating, before calling Pelosi Haley or crossing up Mexico and Egypt. Just two old dudes polishing that edge (or what’s left of it) and, in the process making the case for mandatory retirement — or at least a nice, full battery of tests as the price of admission to this event