Federal Judge Vaughn Walker

California federal courtroom for the first time.

Less than four weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that it was time to begin a pilot project exploring the benefits of broadcasting federal civil trials.   It is somewhat remarkable that the long-protected privacy of California federal courtrooms would become negotiable just weeks before the start of the Proposition 8 discrimination trial.   The Ninth Circuit’s “pilot project” immediately opened the door for Federal Judge Vaughn Walker to take extraordinary legal steps, on New Year’s Eve no less,  to extend the project to include the discrimination suit against Protect Marriage.  With every day, the prosecution of Protect Marriage seems to be led, not just by formidable constitutional attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson, but by Judge Walker as well.  An outraged National Review Online columnist, Ed Whelan, notes that by waiting until New Year’s Eve to make procedural moves to broadcast the Proposition 8 discrimination trial, Judge Walker essentially precluded the public from having any opportunity to oppose it.  In a letter written directly to the Judge, Whelan publicly challenges the motives behind the move:

“The longstanding policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States opposes all broadcasting of civil and criminal cases in federal district courts.  The concerns that animate that policy—including the threat of intimidation of witnesses and litigants—are especially present in the Perry case, as the December 28, 2009, letter from counsel for Defendant-Intervenors makes clear.

I will not address here the curious announcement on December 17, 2009, of the Ninth Circuit’s pilot program.  Suffice it to say that the selection of cases for a pilot program ought to involve, at a minimum, addressing the following questions:

1.  Does any party object to televised proceedings?

2.  Is there any reason to believe that televised proceedings might increase the risk that trial participants would face intimidation, harassment, or abuse?

3.  Is there any reason to believe that that televised proceedings might create a risk that trial participants, including the judge, would engage in grandstanding behavior?

Only in cases in which the answer to all three questions is NO would it make sense to consider further the possibility of participation in the pilot program.  By contrast, in Perry, the answer to all three questions is YES.

I am aware that a coalition of media companies has asked you to have Perry televised because “televising this modern-day Scopes trial would present viewers with a national civics lesson on a hotly contested issue that crosses social, political, educational, and religious boundaries.”  But the role of the courts is not to “present viewers with a national civics lesson.”  It’s to decide cases fairly.  In some cases, that goal might be jeopardized by televising the proceedings.  But in other cases it will be.  The very fact that these media companies are intent on portraying the case as a “modern-day Scopes trial” reinforces the ample evidence that this trial should not be televised.  If you persist in failing to recognize that elementary fact, the national civics lesson that you will be providing is yet another reminder that too many of our federal judges willfully abuse their authority in order to advance their own political agendas.

If you proceed to rubber-stamp the proposed revision to Rule 77-3 in order to enable televised coverage of Perry, I respectfully submit that your reckless and prejudicial course of conduct on this matter will have clearly demonstrated that your “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” within the meaning of the judicial-disqualification law, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), and that you will then be obligated to disqualify yourself from further participation in Perry.  Indeed, I invite you to examine dispassionately whether you are already required to disqualify yourself.”

Ed Whelan writes, what everyone is thinking.

Read more here as the National Review Online examines the strategy behind the federal court challenge of Prop 8.

Anyone with a television set in 1994 remembers the televised circus that was the O.J. Simpson trial.  Judge Ito’s courtroom became a circus and the trial a judicial farce.   Indeed, the public is fascinated with law and order. It is also true that some events in our society really do not bear the intrusion of video cameras.  Truth was distorted in the O.J. Simpson case, and certainly the majority of Americans feel the outcome was dreadfully impacted.

Even if the famous Bush vs. Gore Supreme Court case in 2000, where the outcome of a presidential election and the interests of every American was at stake, only audio broadcasts were allowed of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court, with Justice Steven Breyer dissenting, has for the present, protected the proceedings from becoming an even bigger media frenzy.

Before Google Maps or navigation systems, there were shepherds and there were stars.

In the Old World, shepherds knew the sky and the terrain like a well-worn map.   They were quite different from farmers of the time, who had the means to at least own land or to buy livestock.  Shepherds survived on meager wages earned by watching the flocks of others.  Even so, they were well-travelled and moved from pasture to pasture, hillside to hillside.  If there ever was a change in the sky, or a happening on the horizon, shepherds often would have been the first to see it, and likely the first to tell of it.

There has always been great poetry in the way Heavenly Father sent word of the Savior’s birth, dispatching a beautiful chorus of angels to proclaim it to lowly shepherds.  There was also a message in this method.  By breaking the news on the hillsides above Bethlehem where only shepherds dwelt, those shepherds would be the ones to have the privilege of announcing to many that the greatest shepherd of all had been born into the world.

Turning the pages of  the well-read passages in Luke,  it is also meaningful to note that the story of Christ’s birth is as much about what happened to shepherds that night, as what happened in the manger:

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.  And lo the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them and they were sore afraid.  And the angel said unto them “Fear not: for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.  And this shall be a sign unto you;  Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.  And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.  And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.  And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.  But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.  And the shepherds returned glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

How marvelous to contemplate what it might have been like to see or hear of this greatest event in history.  Almost nothing we know of or have read since compares.  The scriptures give hints as to what the Second Coming of Christ might be like, and it is remarkable to try to imagine that.  Yet nothing in the history of the world compares with the simplicity and humility of the events surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ.

Today, two thousand years later, students gather to study the histories of the world in Jerusalem.  As part of their studies, students are sometimes taken to what is now known as “Shepherd’s Hill,” believed to be the site where angels appeared at the birth of Christ.  On one occasion, students there were ushered to the hillside overlooking Bethlehem.  They were surprised to find that it wasn’t at all what they expected.   Instead of a lovely, grassy, welcoming hillside like one might expect in a painting or impression of that night, it was a dry, desert-like hill, rough and terraced, covered with rocks and even thorny bushes.

Still, all of the students sat down, pulled out their journals and were encouraged to write as they looked over the historic horizon and pondered the events that happened there.   In addition to the quiet of this sacred site, they had been assured that they would be able to see shepherds on Shepherds Hill.  Indeed, after just a few minutes poor little shepherd boys appeared and came towards them,  their palms turned upward in hopes of receiving something from the tourists.  Even in modern times, the shepherd boys were dressed in rags.

One student wrote:

“A shepherd boy came towards me.   He was carrying a little lamb draped around his neck.  He, like the other boys, hoped we would give them money or treats.  He asked if I would like to hold the little sheep.  As I took the warm baby lamb in my arms, I began to feel the spirit of the shepherds in a way I had never done before.   Unlike Wise Men who came to see the Christ child bearing gifts, these humble, solitary shepherds had nothing to give except their devotion and their faith in the wondrous words they had heard.

“Just as shepherds stand watch while waiting for the darkness to pass,  the Savior was born to stand watch through long, dark, nights with us, despite the terrors and sometimes the hardships that this life can bring.

“He knows us, his sheep.  He is our shepherd.”

Those who truly reverence the life of Jesus Christ also understand that we are all shepherds.  In our homes, our churches, our communities we are all part of  sacred flocks who need direction, protection, and love.

It is the beauty of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that we are here to serve one another.

And so, we watch over those in need, those who anguish.  We provide a shoulder or a hand, or a round of applause when someone in the flock has a great victory.  We share the Sacrament with one another in our services.  We struggle to rise to new callings because even while we are learning, our service is important to someone.  Sometimes all we can do to show our love for the Savior and each other is to add our voices to a hymn and sing praises to God.

Still, every time we set down a casserole at someone’s doorstep, or put a child in our lap, aid a wayward teenager, teach a class, present a merit badge, or bestow an award on a young woman who might not have received it without us …

Surely, angels are singing somewhere.

There is only one headline, one directive that we have received in the last two thousand years that surpasses all others, and which if followed, would help us to rule the world:  “Glory to God in the highest, Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men.”

If, as mortals, we could follow those messages and keep our sites set singly upon the glory of God, work for peace on earth, and extend goodwill to all men, all would be well.  At this Christmastime, may we find ways to re-dedicate ourselves to these simplest and most important of missions.

We are so blessed to know of, and to have a shepherd that we can trust.

Let us follow him.

“While shepherds careful vigil kept o’er lambs in fields of green.

The sky took on a brilliant glow and lit the grassy scene.

In dread they looked upon the star that rose anew that night.

Then angels came to calm their fears and tell of the heavenly light.

In word and song they shared the news of the babe who was their king.

They sang of peace and love and joy, and the good will he would bring.

The keepers of the flocks arose and followed the heavenly beam,

But not to gleaming palace walls as it would surely seem.

It led them to an earthen stall where cattle and goats were kept.

And in the manger soft and warm, the little Jesus slept.

Tears filled up their tired eyes and ran down wind burned cheeks.

They had found the promised one, for whom the world still seeks.

Though they were watchers of the flocks, tenders of lamb and ewe,

He was the keeper of God’s flock, HE was the shepherd true.”

— Sally Meyer

———————————-

Merry Christmas.

For example, amid all the discussion about how to reduce our dependency on carbon-based fuels, stories like this one come out and remind me that we really could solve the problem if we made it more of a priority to do so. Consider the story’s lede:

Talk about a Eureka moment. Scientists at Sandia National Labs, seeking a means to create cheap and abundant hydrogen to power a hydrogen economy, realized they could use the same technology to “reverse-combust” CO₂ back into fuel. Researchers still have to improve the efficiency of the system, but they recently demonstrated a working prototype of their “Sunshine to Petrol” machine that converts waste CO₂ to carbon monoxide, and then syngas, consuming nothing but solar energy.

Well, how about that?  Is it really so far-fetched to think that such efforts could produce serious game-changing breakthroughs if we devote enough resources to them?  Considering what we got out of the U.S. Space Program in the 60s and 70s, I don’t think so.

Meanwhile, nations everywhere seem to be recognizing nuclear power’s potential as a safe, clean source of energy.   The Washington Post reports:

Nuclear power — long considered environmentally hazardous — is emerging as perhaps the world’s most unlikely weapon against climate change, with the backing of even some green activists who once campaigned against it.

Maybe we need to have more faith in our ability to solve the energy problem – whether one considers that problem one of excessive  dependence on unstable or unfriendly suppliers, or excessive emissions from carbon-based fuels.

Chemotherpay at Duke Cancer Clinic

This article in today’s Salt Lake City Deseret News is so vital and informational to those who have or who are or who will confront Cancer in their families, that True North takes the opportunity to excerpt it here and thanks writer Lois M. Collins for her great piece and for spreading the news of the work of Massachusetts firm,  Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, for their innovatoins in Cancer research.

FIRM TAKES ENGINEERING APPROACH TO TREATING CANCER

A Massachusetts company with strong Utah ties is approaching the finding and fixing of cancerous tumors as an engineering challenge. It believes most solid tumors are triggered by one or more of six distinct systemic signaling-mechanism breakdowns and it’s developing treatments to repair them.

Merrimack Pharmaceuticals of Cambridge, Mass., on Thursday announced a $530 million exclusive worldwide licensing agreement with French pharmaceutical giant sanofi-aventis for the development and co-commercialization of a drug targeting the first of those

signaling breakdowns.

Chemotherapy Drugs

Developing drugs to treat diseases including cancer often involves throwing every compound you can think of at it to see what elicits the response you want, says Utahn Gary Crocker, chairman of Merrimack Pharmaceuticals and president of Utah’s Crocker Ventures LLC. But with new technologies that make it easier to look inside cells and see how they “cross talk,” Merrimack decided to view cancer as an engineering problem with an engineered solution. Merrimack uses network biology, which is a combination of computer modeling and efficient analysis of cell signaling networks.

Once you identify the breakdown in the signaling mechanism, it’s possible to engineer a diagnostic test and a fix, he told the Deseret News.

The company has confirmed five critical signaling networks where a breakdown can trigger cancer in different organ tissues. A sixth has been found but not yet confirmed, he said. Merrimack estimates the identified mechanical breakdowns are linked to at least 90 percent of solid tumors. That means the same problem may have occurred in a case of breast cancer and of prostate cancer although distinctly different organs are involved. And the treatment may be the same in both cases, too — a dramatic departure from a traditional chemotherapeutic approach.

“The goal is not to just kill cancer cells, but to actually fix the engineering breakdown that created the cancer,” Crocker said.

Merrimack is in early clinical trials with compounds that target some of the identified mechanism breakdowns. It’s a process being watched closely in Utah, as Beehive State investors hold about 10 percent of the company’s shares, including Crocker, a successful Utah businessman.

Additionally, Merrimack plans to move some of its research to the University of Utah College of Science, which has one of the nation’s top math biology programs. And the phase 2 clinical trials are likely to include Huntsman Cancer Institute, Crocker said.

Under the agreement, sanofi-aventis will pay $60 million cash and will cover all the development costs. The rest of the funding will be paid in chunks as various regulatory and sales milestones are met, said Kathleen Petrozzelli, Merrimack associate director of corporate communications. The company retains the right to co-promote the drug in the United States. The agreement covers only the drug MM-121, a first of its kind, fully human monoclonal antibody that blocks signaling at one of the identified breakdown sites. Once phase 2 “proof of concept” is established, sanofi-aventis will take over development.

The agreement still has to clear antitrust and regulatory reviews.

My friend Hugh Hewitt writes today about Obama’s desperate attempt to rally the nation by rallying his loyalists in the media.  (Note in particular Hugh’s photo montage of the interviews – not something you’ll ever see in the New York or Los Angeles Times.)  An excerpt:

The reason behind President Obama’s frantic retail television yesterday has to be that every debate over Obamacare everywhere in the country has to be going just as mine did.  Proponents of Obamacare from the president down to Obamacare advocate in a two person discussion on a park bench are not just losing the argument.  They have lost it.  Decisively.  And no series of interviews, no matter how gentle the questions or advantageous the setting, are going to persuade anything close to a majority of Americans that it makes sense to trade in their health care for whatever it is that the president, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have behind Door Number 3.

Syndicated Radio Commentator Hugh Hewitt

Never before has a President of the United States so obviously tried to “work the media” as President Obama has on health care.  He began with an “Evening at the White House,” when Charlie Gibson was allowed to actually broadcast the ABC Evening News live from within the White House in exchange for an exclusive ABC “town hall” on health care that same evening.   This weekend, each major Sunday news program gladly welcomed the President — simultaneously!   His message was the same to each:  He was stumping to raise the deficit another trillion dollars to fund his vision of health care in America.

Hugh also sees through this broadcast blitz, and focuses on the growing urgency of Afghanistan in today’s post.  Take a look.

“This is not about politics? Then why is it, to take but the most egregious example, that in this grand health-care debate we hear not a word about one of the worst sources of waste in American medicine: the insane cost and arbitrary rewards of our malpractice system?

“When a neurosurgeon pays $200,000 a year for malpractice insurance before he even turns on the light in his office or hires his first nurse, who do you think pays? Patients, in higher doctor fees to cover the insurance.

“And with jackpot justice that awards one claimant zillions while others get nothing — and one-third of everything goes to the lawyers — where do you think that money comes from? The insurance companies, which then pass it on to you in higher premiums.

“But the greatest waste is the hidden cost of defensive medicine: tests and procedures that doctors order for no good reason other than to protect themselves from lawsuits. Every doctor knows, as I did when I practiced years ago, how much unnecessary medical cost is incurred with an eye not on medicine but on the law.

“Tort reform would yield tens of billions in savings. Yet you cannot find it in the Democratic bills. And Obama breathed not a word about it in the full hour of his health-care news conference. Why? No mystery. The Democrats are parasitically dependent on huge donations from trial lawyers.”

Unlike too many conservatives, I recognize that the health care system’s financial problems are multi-faceted, and that tort reform will not be a cure-all by any means. But it is inexcusable that the subject of tort reform is not even on the table.  Heck, it’s not even in the same building as the table.