The Supreme Court's recent ruling, McDonald v. Chicago, interpreted the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" broadly and applicable to the states. Thus, no state may henceforth prohibit all possession of handguns, especially for self-defence and use in the home. Notwithstanding any personal feelings on the gun debate (disclaimer: I am for gun control), I believe that the ruling was in error on both matters of law and fact. It will have enormous and altogether malicious consequences for the country in the decades to come.
First, I do not find the majority's appeal history and tradition convincing. The original Second Amendment, added in 1791, was primarily included for organizing a militia (hence, the attached militia clause). Even after the Civil War, Congress included the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to embed the powers of communities and limits of states. The evidence that the Framers intended to protect an individual right to bear arms is scanty. Sure, self-defence is a right worthwhile to defend but how one defends oneself and one's property is not without bounds. It would surprise me much that the Framers or any historical authority contemplated the Amendment to apply to individual ownership of firearms.
Second, besides the citation to history, which I always find suspect in deciding law, the sense that a right to firearms is fundamental strikes me as out of place. Fundamental rights include a number that deserve the highest level of constitutional protection: speech, voting, travel and others. They arise because they are so rooted in the history and traditions of the people, or because they are necessary to sustain a limited government of "ordered liberty". I do not find gun ownership so fundamental from history, especially since long-time precedent has not recognized a right to own guns. And can anyone logically say that owning a gun is so essential to a free and orderly society that it is fundamental? Unlike other fundamental rights such as religion or fair trial, owning guns imposes a duty and harm on society, especially when ownership is misused. Guns and firearms are not necessary for eking out a living, or exercising one's civic duties. It is not fundamental to a healthy and prosperous life, nor to a vibrant democracy.
Third, I find the Court's disregard for traditional separation of powers among states and the federal government surprising. States, as individual sovereign entities, retain broad police powers to regulate matters of public safety and welfare. Gun legislation, including acts prohibiting its use in private places, fall under that umbrella. The federal government does not have those police powers. Meanwhile, the Court has traditionally deferred to states in their economic and social legislation, i.e. rational basis test. I do not understand why the Court does not show similar deference to Chicago. Chicago's legislators knew their city and neighborhoods best; they were properly elected by the people; they, through a democratic, political process, enacted the strict gun control laws. If the people do not like them, they can repeal the laws through their legislators. The courts, especially the Supreme Court, should not meddle in those matters.
Finally, I find the decision lacking in guidance for lower courts to apply the new law. Granted the Supreme Court is the most important appellate court whose role is to consider broad, abstract questions of law, not fact. Nonetheless, it should have delineated at least a standard for applying the Second Amendment. Should the right to bear arms be elevated like other fundamental rights, so that strict scrutiny applies? Or should it be given a classification similar to gender, which invokes intermediate scrutiny? By not laying down any tests or rules, the Court only guarantees a mix of rulings from various federal courts. More litigation will be forthcoming, especially from gun rights supporters, all of which will keep the federal courts busy for a long while. Without doubt, many of those will end up in the Supreme Court.
There is a fundamental flaw with the so-called originalist view of constitutional interpretation. By looking at history and what rights meant when they were written, be it the 1780s or 1870s, that view disregards the dynamic nature of the Constitution. It is living document, whose Amendments allow it to change with times and needs of the people. Making law and establishing precedent based on what was applicable centuries ago is shortsighted, maybe fatal. What matters most is the shape of human events in 2010, not 1787. Guns and violence continue to be a blight, especially in inner-city neighborhoods and backwater communities. States and citizens need to be given the leeway to tackle these problems through social legislation. The Supreme Court is wrong in giving deference to history and tradition over the problems of the present. In fact, I find the Court's refusal to apply the law to the facts of the case disheartening. The statistics of how many Chicagoans the strict gun laws have saved should matter more than what James Madison intended with the Second Amendment. Too bad many on the Court do not see it the same way.
Wednesday 30 June 2010
Sunday 27 June 2010
Today's Boston Globe articles
1. Art History: http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw/articles/2010/06/27/a_glimpse_from_dawn_of_photography/
This artifact may be valuable, esp. if the photography was taken by Louis Daguerre himself. I have to see it if I stop by Peabody Museum.
2. Online Comments: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/27/freedom_of_screech/
I agree: having a venue for anonymous speech is essential in a democracy. Media should look for other ways to cut out the inappropriate comments without chilling speech.
3. Online Speech: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/27/commenters_publishers_in_legal_wild_west/
I do not know the New Hampshire test, but it looks sound. I wonder whether this type of controversy is a constitutional or purely defamation question, but the courts are likely to balance the several rights and interests by treating the topic as a constitutional issue.
4. New Orleans: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/27/in_new_orleans_defiantly_facing_bad_luck/
Like Haiti, New Orleans has suffered at the hands of its unfortunate geography. Much bravo to the residents there for sticking through calamity after calamity.
5. Social Hierarchy: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/27/out_of_line/
I agree: some sort of hierarchy or status is necessary for society to function and to maintain some sort of order. It is too much hierarchy or blind following of status that is dangerous.
6. Taxes: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/27/voluntary_taxes/
Wouldn't it be cool to only have voluntary taxes? We would only pay for services or expenditures we deem important (e.g. no to Afghanistan).
7. Elitism: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/06/27/elena_kagan_and_the_harvard_stigma/
I am almost fed up with the anti-elitism in the mainstream culture and media. Why denigrate Harvard and its alumni just because they attend Harvard? If they are particularly bright or accomplished, they deserve their just deserts.
8. English Language: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/27/language_police/
I do not like the Academy idea: what made English so dominant is that it had no central authority, and could expand or jettison words with the times.
This artifact may be valuable, esp. if the photography was taken by Louis Daguerre himself. I have to see it if I stop by Peabody Museum.
2. Online Comments: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/27/freedom_of_screech/
I agree: having a venue for anonymous speech is essential in a democracy. Media should look for other ways to cut out the inappropriate comments without chilling speech.
3. Online Speech: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/27/commenters_publishers_in_legal_wild_west/
I do not know the New Hampshire test, but it looks sound. I wonder whether this type of controversy is a constitutional or purely defamation question, but the courts are likely to balance the several rights and interests by treating the topic as a constitutional issue.
4. New Orleans: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/27/in_new_orleans_defiantly_facing_bad_luck/
Like Haiti, New Orleans has suffered at the hands of its unfortunate geography. Much bravo to the residents there for sticking through calamity after calamity.
5. Social Hierarchy: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/27/out_of_line/
I agree: some sort of hierarchy or status is necessary for society to function and to maintain some sort of order. It is too much hierarchy or blind following of status that is dangerous.
6. Taxes: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/27/voluntary_taxes/
Wouldn't it be cool to only have voluntary taxes? We would only pay for services or expenditures we deem important (e.g. no to Afghanistan).
7. Elitism: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/06/27/elena_kagan_and_the_harvard_stigma/
I am almost fed up with the anti-elitism in the mainstream culture and media. Why denigrate Harvard and its alumni just because they attend Harvard? If they are particularly bright or accomplished, they deserve their just deserts.
8. English Language: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/27/language_police/
I do not like the Academy idea: what made English so dominant is that it had no central authority, and could expand or jettison words with the times.
Sunday 20 June 2010
Today's Boston Globe articles
1. Legal Profession: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/20/dad_was_right_justice_is_worth_waiting_for/
This is an excellent story, and example for new lawyers, especially those within lawyer families.
2. Immigration Debate: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/20/case_deepens_immigration_debate/
I believe immigration reform, along the lines of the Dream Act or another bill, is needed. Children of illegal immigrants are not at fault, and should be given opportunities to become full Americans.
3. Gun Control: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/20/the_instrument_of_crime_remains_only_an_instrument/
I disagree: guns themselves represent crime per se, or at least killing another, whether criminal or not. Knives or cars, on the other hand, have other primary, socially beneficial uses. Gun control laws are needed but should be configured to target criminals.
4. Presidential Image: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/20/obama_lose_your_cool/
The President needs to show his passion, but unlike ordinary citizens, he needs to run a government and be the face of the nation. Such a gargantuan task requires a level of stoicism under fire.
5. Leisure Time: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/20/the_best_vacation_ever/
Some findings are quite obvious: it's the intensity, not the length, of the experience that counts; disruptions and variations in pace are welcome; and frequent yet short periods of rest are more beneficial than a long leisure vacation.
6. Internet Access: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/20/one_nation_online/
The issue of a right to broadband is similar to a right to health care: it is a positive right that imposes a corresponding duty (and costs) on someone else, doctors/health insurers and telecommunication companies respectively. The social utility of internet access and rapid advances in infrastructure may make broadband access a reality for many.
7. Internet Users: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/06/20/inside_the_mind_of_the_anonymous_online_poster/
The anonymous online poster takes many forms (I do it, often but not as frequent as those in this article). Most are general enthusiasts who feel they have something substantial or good to say that adds to a debate, rather than wanting to slander someone else.
This is an excellent story, and example for new lawyers, especially those within lawyer families.
2. Immigration Debate: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/20/case_deepens_immigration_debate/
I believe immigration reform, along the lines of the Dream Act or another bill, is needed. Children of illegal immigrants are not at fault, and should be given opportunities to become full Americans.
3. Gun Control: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/20/the_instrument_of_crime_remains_only_an_instrument/
I disagree: guns themselves represent crime per se, or at least killing another, whether criminal or not. Knives or cars, on the other hand, have other primary, socially beneficial uses. Gun control laws are needed but should be configured to target criminals.
4. Presidential Image: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/20/obama_lose_your_cool/
The President needs to show his passion, but unlike ordinary citizens, he needs to run a government and be the face of the nation. Such a gargantuan task requires a level of stoicism under fire.
5. Leisure Time: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/20/the_best_vacation_ever/
Some findings are quite obvious: it's the intensity, not the length, of the experience that counts; disruptions and variations in pace are welcome; and frequent yet short periods of rest are more beneficial than a long leisure vacation.
6. Internet Access: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/20/one_nation_online/
The issue of a right to broadband is similar to a right to health care: it is a positive right that imposes a corresponding duty (and costs) on someone else, doctors/health insurers and telecommunication companies respectively. The social utility of internet access and rapid advances in infrastructure may make broadband access a reality for many.
7. Internet Users: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/06/20/inside_the_mind_of_the_anonymous_online_poster/
The anonymous online poster takes many forms (I do it, often but not as frequent as those in this article). Most are general enthusiasts who feel they have something substantial or good to say that adds to a debate, rather than wanting to slander someone else.
Wednesday 16 June 2010
Finally, progress on the BP Oil Spill
Today, in almost a stunning turn of events, the Gulf oil spill saga has generated some good news. Foremost, BP has agreed to set up a $20 billion escrow account to pay off potential claims arising from the spill. That agreement brought immediate and much-needed relief for Gulf Coast residents and businesses. Although $20 billion is not that much for BP - its annual dividends are just half of that - Obama has obtained good terms for the escrow account: administration by an independent third party, collateral of BP's American assets and the remaining understanding that no minimum exists for BP's liability. Furthermore, BP has suspended dividends to its shareholders for the year, and has also set aside a $100 million fund for displaced and waylaid oil workers impacted by the President's oil drilling moratorium. That latter claim was likely difficult to bargain and win, as BP had little influence in that effect.
I think that today's turn of events constitutes a big success for Obama. After last night's Oval Office speech, which I thought was only mediocre and not forceful enough, today's negotiations delivered substantial results. The American people are disappointed with Obama and the federal government's handling of the BP crisis not because regulators overlooked the problems or could not stop the spill, but because the government appeared incapable of doing anything about it or extracting some tangible promises from BP. Ordinary people in general do not, and cannot, concern themselves with far away dealings of an overseas oil company or the technical details of an oil spill. Instead, they look at their bottom line and how their lives are impacted. Obama appeared aloof and incapable of helping them with their lost livelihoods. Today may be the beginning of a new perception.
I think that today's turn of events constitutes a big success for Obama. After last night's Oval Office speech, which I thought was only mediocre and not forceful enough, today's negotiations delivered substantial results. The American people are disappointed with Obama and the federal government's handling of the BP crisis not because regulators overlooked the problems or could not stop the spill, but because the government appeared incapable of doing anything about it or extracting some tangible promises from BP. Ordinary people in general do not, and cannot, concern themselves with far away dealings of an overseas oil company or the technical details of an oil spill. Instead, they look at their bottom line and how their lives are impacted. Obama appeared aloof and incapable of helping them with their lost livelihoods. Today may be the beginning of a new perception.
Sunday 13 June 2010
Today's Boston Globe articles
1. BP and Legal Remedy: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/06/13/hold_polluters_accountable/
I agree wholeheartedly - standards and liability should be strict for polluters and businesses engaging in such high risk enterprises.
2. Character Sketch: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/13/tony_hayward/
This is what a character sketch of a person lacking in character looks like. Not much of a sketch, or just a sketchy description.
3. Human Psychology/Nature: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/13/the_bright_side_of_wrong/
It's an insightful article that has good points. I agree that we should kill ourselves for mistakes and classify people based on how mistaken-prone they are. Nonetheless, having a self-critical, even up to unforgiving, attitude toward mistakes, esp. those avoidable or repeated, may be the fruit for individual success.
4. Flags and Politics: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/13/flag_daze/
Flags are important and represent movements. The fact that the Tea Party cannot agree on a flag, or set of flags, without having reservations signifies how divided they are.
5. Urban Literacy: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/06/13/americas_athens_shrugged/
The idea is worthwhile but has a major problem - getting people with different tastes and backgrounds to read one book. It's philosophically quixotic and practically infeasible (ok, maybe I'm exaggerating). Perhaps for Boston, there are too many books or the city's too literate?
I agree wholeheartedly - standards and liability should be strict for polluters and businesses engaging in such high risk enterprises.
2. Character Sketch: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/13/tony_hayward/
This is what a character sketch of a person lacking in character looks like. Not much of a sketch, or just a sketchy description.
3. Human Psychology/Nature: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/13/the_bright_side_of_wrong/
It's an insightful article that has good points. I agree that we should kill ourselves for mistakes and classify people based on how mistaken-prone they are. Nonetheless, having a self-critical, even up to unforgiving, attitude toward mistakes, esp. those avoidable or repeated, may be the fruit for individual success.
4. Flags and Politics: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/13/flag_daze/
Flags are important and represent movements. The fact that the Tea Party cannot agree on a flag, or set of flags, without having reservations signifies how divided they are.
5. Urban Literacy: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/06/13/americas_athens_shrugged/
The idea is worthwhile but has a major problem - getting people with different tastes and backgrounds to read one book. It's philosophically quixotic and practically infeasible (ok, maybe I'm exaggerating). Perhaps for Boston, there are too many books or the city's too literate?
Wednesday 9 June 2010
World Cup 2010 - the quick and useful preview
On Friday, the first World Cup on the African continent will kick off with 32 teams vying for ultimate glory, even though only a handful have a realistic chance. It will nonetheless be a historic tournament (aren't we saying this every four years?) that will shine the world's cameras and lights on the Republic of South Africa. Let's hope the tournament excites fans with skills and performances on the field, and few distractions off. With that blessing in mind, the most charitable that you may find me to be, let's run down the groups and likely winners. My predictions in no way represent my views or those of my superiors, and confer no liability for possible yet imaginative harms at law, i.e. intentional infliction of emotional distress, abridgment of privileges and immunities of certain countries and their fans...
Group A: Will South Africa's early exit bring some relief from those vuvuzelas? Who will be the French tabloid king, Domenech, Henry, or Ribery?
Group B: Want a sneak peak of Maradona running naked down the streets of Buenos Aires? No thank you. Can Greece's play be the new siesta medicine?
Group C: What's the next round of the taxation without representation Anglo-American feud?
Group D: Can Germany's sterling national social insurance system find a cure for its ailing team?
Group E: Will it be another year of Dutch illusionists looking at the starry night of a lost World Cup?
Group F: Pensioner rights and Medicare lobbyists are looking at their cohorts in Italy. To insure or not?
Group G: Who will emerge from the Group of Death - the best team in the world, the sulky boy and gang, Sven, or the inscrutable yet almost literally bringers of death?
Group H: They are no longer cursed but may still be fragile (e.g. to anyone parking an airplane). Will Spain deceive again, as is likely?
Among the favorites, I cannot pick Argentina because of an unstable coach, nor England because of a dysfunctional team, nor the Netherlands because of their still lack of balance, nor Spain because they will once again fall short. It has to be Brazil: not pretty at all, but solid enough to bag their sixth.
Group A: Will South Africa's early exit bring some relief from those vuvuzelas? Who will be the French tabloid king, Domenech, Henry, or Ribery?
Group B: Want a sneak peak of Maradona running naked down the streets of Buenos Aires? No thank you. Can Greece's play be the new siesta medicine?
Group C: What's the next round of the taxation without representation Anglo-American feud?
Group D: Can Germany's sterling national social insurance system find a cure for its ailing team?
Group E: Will it be another year of Dutch illusionists looking at the starry night of a lost World Cup?
Group F: Pensioner rights and Medicare lobbyists are looking at their cohorts in Italy. To insure or not?
Group G: Who will emerge from the Group of Death - the best team in the world, the sulky boy and gang, Sven, or the inscrutable yet almost literally bringers of death?
Group H: They are no longer cursed but may still be fragile (e.g. to anyone parking an airplane). Will Spain deceive again, as is likely?
Among the favorites, I cannot pick Argentina because of an unstable coach, nor England because of a dysfunctional team, nor the Netherlands because of their still lack of balance, nor Spain because they will once again fall short. It has to be Brazil: not pretty at all, but solid enough to bag their sixth.
Sunday 6 June 2010
Today's Boston Globe articles
1. Smoking Legislation: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/06/smoking_warnings_could_depend_on_nyc_lawsuit/
This is an interesting constitutional issue that pits the state's police powers against an individual business's right to free speech. It may go to the Supreme Court.
2. Community Theatre: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2010/06/06/independent_theaters_in_lexington_newton_arlington_brookline_waltham_maynard_thrive/
Welcoming news for all. I attended some films at the Coolidge Corner Theatre, which is an awesome experience for all filmgoers.
3. Oil Spill: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/06/06/oil_spill_is_a_sign_to_congress_kick_the_fossil_fuel_habit/
I agree: it is about time, even bit late, for Americans to end our reliance on fossil fuels.
4. September 11 Attacks: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/06/a_mosque_at_ground_zero/
I believe that a mosque is inappropriate: it will enrage a large group of people. As the article described, a social assistance center or some other non-religious building is more appropriate.
5. Urban Architecture: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/06/defending_boston_from_the_sea/
Unfortunately, Boston and other low-altitude places need to protect against impending rising seas. Too bad not enough of us are committed to the root problem, global warming.
6. American Character: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/06/sweet_land_of_conformity/
I read the author's book, which is worth a read for anybody interested in America. His argument is strong: that a voluntarism based on group conformity permeates our character, for better or worse.
7. World Cup: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/06/the_ideas_guide_to_the_world_cup/
W00t! Let's get kicking.
8. College Commencement: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/06/06/if_id_only_known/
A funny, yet very useful article. I feel so street dumb indeed.
9. Internet and Intelligence: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/06/06/the_internet_ate_my_brain/
There is some merit to the claim that the Internet has corrupted our intelligence, but I agree that we can stem the loss and not end up half-witted.
This is an interesting constitutional issue that pits the state's police powers against an individual business's right to free speech. It may go to the Supreme Court.
2. Community Theatre: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2010/06/06/independent_theaters_in_lexington_newton_arlington_brookline_waltham_maynard_thrive/
Welcoming news for all. I attended some films at the Coolidge Corner Theatre, which is an awesome experience for all filmgoers.
3. Oil Spill: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/06/06/oil_spill_is_a_sign_to_congress_kick_the_fossil_fuel_habit/
I agree: it is about time, even bit late, for Americans to end our reliance on fossil fuels.
4. September 11 Attacks: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/06/a_mosque_at_ground_zero/
I believe that a mosque is inappropriate: it will enrage a large group of people. As the article described, a social assistance center or some other non-religious building is more appropriate.
5. Urban Architecture: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/06/defending_boston_from_the_sea/
Unfortunately, Boston and other low-altitude places need to protect against impending rising seas. Too bad not enough of us are committed to the root problem, global warming.
6. American Character: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/06/sweet_land_of_conformity/
I read the author's book, which is worth a read for anybody interested in America. His argument is strong: that a voluntarism based on group conformity permeates our character, for better or worse.
7. World Cup: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/06/the_ideas_guide_to_the_world_cup/
W00t! Let's get kicking.
8. College Commencement: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/06/06/if_id_only_known/
A funny, yet very useful article. I feel so street dumb indeed.
9. Internet and Intelligence: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/06/06/the_internet_ate_my_brain/
There is some merit to the claim that the Internet has corrupted our intelligence, but I agree that we can stem the loss and not end up half-witted.
Thursday 3 June 2010
The Blown Perfect Game Call - what to do about it?
In case you missed it, last night, umpire Jim Joyce mistakenly called a Cleveland Indian runner safe at first base. The trouble was, that call occurred with two outs in the top of the ninth, when Detroit Tiger pitcher Armando Galarraga was about to throw the 21st perfect game in baseball history. The outrage in the sports world has been intense with many calling for MLB to reverse the call and reinstate the perfect game. I disagree. The controlling fact was that Joyce, at the time of the act, honestly believed that the runner was safe. He later realized that he was wrong, but only after checking TV replays, which clearly showed the runner was out. Joyce committed an error, a very human error. He acted with no malice toward Galarraga, nor was there evidence that the umpire acted negligently in his job. Therefore, with no wrong committed, punishment should not issue. Suspending the umpire would breach MLB's good faith relationship with the umpires union, and reversing the call will be an indirect way of doing the same.
I'm glad to see Galarraga and Joyce commiserating over the error before today's game. Joyce has accepted his error and Galarraga is prepared to move on. Baseball should as well. It is imperative that baseball explore expanded use of instant replay. More than any other sport, baseball relies heavily on the human eye and imperfect umpires to make calls that determine outs, games and even championships. Yesterday's error was egregious just because it occurred at an inopportune moment. Baseball should be more amenable to adjusting the game to the 21st century. I do not propose getting rid of umpires and just play by computer refereeing, but some renovations such as NFL's three challenges rule may be useful. As for Joyce, this infamous moment will remain with him for ever but he is veteran and professional enough to not let it haunt him. Galarraga, meanwhile, will realize that leading the Tigers to a first World Series championship in more than two decades will more than enough alleviate the sting.
I'm glad to see Galarraga and Joyce commiserating over the error before today's game. Joyce has accepted his error and Galarraga is prepared to move on. Baseball should as well. It is imperative that baseball explore expanded use of instant replay. More than any other sport, baseball relies heavily on the human eye and imperfect umpires to make calls that determine outs, games and even championships. Yesterday's error was egregious just because it occurred at an inopportune moment. Baseball should be more amenable to adjusting the game to the 21st century. I do not propose getting rid of umpires and just play by computer refereeing, but some renovations such as NFL's three challenges rule may be useful. As for Joyce, this infamous moment will remain with him for ever but he is veteran and professional enough to not let it haunt him. Galarraga, meanwhile, will realize that leading the Tigers to a first World Series championship in more than two decades will more than enough alleviate the sting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)