I love Harry Potter.  A lot.

At first, I refused to read the books, because of all the main-stream hype.  That is until one Christmas break when I was home in Idaho.  I picked up the first book, and didn’t stop reading for the entire trip – until I had finished the first 3 books.

Since then, I’ve been a complete Harry Potter maniac.  It might border on creepy.  I’m not totally sure at this point.

I haven’t dressed as Harry in a couple of years, but I did.  Every year.  In law school.  When I worked at the Oregon Court of Appeals.  I was a good Harry.

This week, with the opening of the 6th movie “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” I considered whether to dig my costume out of storage and wear it to the midnight opening, or to dress as a muggle and wait until Friday afternoon and pay the matinee price.

My recent ex-girlfriend, Leigh,  and I decided to go Friday afternoon, sans costume, though I may have frightened a child dressed as Hermione when I ran up to her to ask whether she liked the movie.  Usually, kids are much more fun to talk with about Harry Potter.  Usually…

Saturday night, though, at a summer BBQ, I was reminded of one of the great things about my ex.  During a story I was telling about answering the door for Jehovah’s Witnesses while reading a freshly-released Harry Potter book, Leigh interrupted me.

“It was the 5th book.”

I had just stated that I was reading the 7th book at the time.

“Are you sure?”

“Yes,”  she said simply.  “We’ve been together for two books.”

Excellent.  Not, we’ve been together for 4 years.  No, “we’ve been together for two books”.

Leigh has asked me before why I love her.  It can be hard to put into words why I love a person.  The why isn’t that important to me.  In that moment, however, I knew this is why.  There are certain people in  my life that share a language – a shorthand – for how the world works.  Measuring our relationship in terms of Harry Potter books was a powerful reminder for me of how important funny little things can be, and how wonderful it is to share that kind of shorthand with someone who isn’t afraid to sit next to you when you have a stuffed bird on your shoulder.

Those are the friends you’ll have forever.

Today’s vocab word is pazzo/a. It means crazy. (I heard this one a lot growing up. It might just be the first Italian word I learned.)

La donna che parla a se stessa in bagno è pazza.

Happy translating!

Okay.  If you play Frisbee golf, don’t practice in a busy park where people are trying to relax.  Find another location.  If for some reason you are still tempted to practice in the busy park, here’s a preview of what you could be in for.

If you have a queasy stomach, I’d go look at today’s vocab and just skip this one.

Last night Leigh and I took Libby to the park for a walk and talk and a little meditation.  About 2 minutes after I’d set my alarm for the 20 mins of quiet time, a group of guys walked down the path next to our park bench and started playing Frisbee.  About a minute after that, we heard “HEADS,” as something hit the tree above us and rocketed down into Leigh’s head.

Not awesome.

Initially, I thought it was just a normal Frisbee, so I was concerned, but not freaked out.  No, it was a frickin’ Frisbee golf flying death device.  These things are like hard, heavy plastic discus bludgeons.  Not conducive to meditation.

Long story short, we ended up on hold with 911, with a visit from the EMTs, and a trip to the ER.

The dudes with the discus of death ended up with a load in their shorts and an earful from Leigh.  They have promised not to practice in busy parks ever again.  Good call guys.

Fortunately, I had the camera!  Here are the highlights:

Leigh’s head after it stopped bleeding.  That’s my hand-print…

Leigh being bandaged.  The EMTs were a little quick to say there was no other way to bandage her head.  Very funny, guys.

Also, did you know that if you walk into the ER looking like this, you don’t have to wait – at all?  True story.  The guy in front of us who was complaining of back pain and face-swelling had to go sit in the waiting room.  Tough brake, Man.

Libby the bloodhound.  She was seriously begging to lick his hands.  Not a good sign.

I think Leigh had an uncanny resemblance to the Batman character, Two-Face.  Pretty funny given she’s basically a prosecutor.

The ER doc said we’re “cool patients.”  That’s right.  Remember that.

Well, at least something good came of this.  If the whole law thing doesn’t work out for Leigh, at least she makes a cute nun…or member of the Spamalot cast – whichever really.

So, what have we learned:

1.  Don’t play with Frisbee golf death devices around other people.

2.  If you go to the ER with a swelling face issue, make sure you wrap it in bloody bandages first.

3.  We’re cool patients.

WARNING:  Political Content.  If you don’t want to know my political views, stop reading here.

When President Obama announced his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, he outlined the qualities that he admires in judges:

“First and foremost is a rigorous intellect, a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.

“Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge’s job is to interpret, not make law, to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

“These two qualities are essential, I believe, for anyone who would sit on our nation’s highest court. And yet these qualities alone are insufficient. We need something more. [Emphasis mine.]

“For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, the life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience; experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion, an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.

“And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court.”

President Obama’s “empathy standard” has caused an uproar in some political and legal corners.  That standard was articulated in 2005 when then Senator Obama voted against the confirmation of John Roberts.  Here’s – in part – what he said:

“[W]hile adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.

“In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled — in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”

Here’s what I find interesting.  In listening to the Sotomayor hearings, especially the opening remarks of the Senators, I hear two distinct groups.  One group talks about the importance of a person’s background and the perspective that informs the decisions of a judge.  One group talks about the dispassionate application of law that is critical to our system.  Both have a point.  But here are my two cents.

I’m a lawyer.  I love the law.  I loved studying the law. I loved applying the law.  I drafted legal opinions for a living. It was a fun game.  I was not, however a great lawyer.  The great lawyers and judges that I worked with weren’t the ones that could plug facts into a formula and come up with the answer.  If that were all that is necessary to be a great judge, any first year associate could do it.  The great judges and attorneys that I knew were the ones who understood how the law would impact people’s lives.

That doesn’t mean that they didn’t apply the law.  It doesn’t mean that they bent the law to their whims.  It meant that they had the empathy to understand, in situations where the law did not dictate a specific answer, (this happens far more than you might think) how the law would impact all people.

For me that’s the interesting thing going on in the Sotomayor hearings.  Some see empathy as a weakness – akin to bias.  They have plapable and articulated fear that someone who has empathy will have it for a particular party or policy position.  That is not empathy.

Those who see empathy as a benefit understand that a justice who has empathy has it for ALL parties and for NO policy positions.  A justice who has empathy makes decisions in the murky grey middle based on an understanding of how all people will be impacted.  They use the law, and they use rules of construction to get as close to a dictated result as possible.  And if they are then left without a clear result, they look at the possible results and how they fit into a broader picture.

For me, this is a critical piece.  I was able to apply the law directly, suscinctly, and absurdly.  I did it repeatedly.  It made me a good gamesman.  It did not make me a good jurist.

The word of the day is sanguinare. It means “to bleed.”

Here it is in a sentence:

Il mio cuore sanguina per te. La mia testa sanguina a causa del frisbee.

Happy translating!