Part One: We went to Politics and Prose, our neighborhood book store, tonight to hear retired U.S. Court of Appeals Judge David Tatel speak about his new book, Vision. It was, not surprisingly, an overflow crowd (a few hundred, I would guess), many of whom were friends of the author, or attorneys who had appeared before him or otherwise interacted with him.

The reviews for Vision have been very positive, and David Tatel, who I have heard speak before, talked not only about the contents of the book, but about how and why he wrote it after retiring from 30 years on the bench.

For those of you who do not know, Tatel is blind. Like our friend economist Sandy Greenberg (who wrote his memoir Darkness My Old Friend), he was not born blind, but lost his sight as an adult and achieved more than the typical sighted person could ever hope to do. Tatel made several important points about blindness today. It is easier to be blind, he says, because of the technological changes, which among other things allow the written word to be converted to audio, thus allowing him to read and write pretty much on his own. On the lower tech side, he spoke warmly about his seeing eye dog Vixen. He had no seeing eye dog until he was in his 60s, if I understood him correctly, and says that it changed his life. Before he got a dog, he used a cane. A dog is much safer crossing streets, he said, and if he drops something, the dog can retrieve it, something that he could not do himself. And, for the first time in 30 years, he can go for a walk with his dog on a country trail without another human being. He finally can get more thinking time and alone time.

As to the law, he said some very pointed things about today’s Supreme Court, being careful (“judicious”, as he called it) not to speak about any individual justices. He also said he only wrote about cases in which he was involved in Vision, and not about others. His problem with the Supreme Court he said is that it is an activist court, arrogating more and more power to itself, making itself the most equal among the supposed three equal branches of government. And it does this by ignoring the principle that the court should only involve itself when it has to, by ignoring precedents, by incorrect readings of the law and so forth. He went on to emphasize that the only way to reform the Court is through voting, and he thinks that our failure to vote sufficiently is a shortcoming that we should be able to end.

He was asked about, and did speak about, gifts to judges. No one ever gave him a trip to Bali, he said. And the only extra income he ever earned amounted to $500 and was reported on his disclosure forms. As to recusal, he said that he recused himself whenever his presence on a case might raise questions (such as a matter, which he discussed, involving blind people). But he added that it was more of a problem for Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves. When an appellate judge recuses himself, another judge is appointed to take his place on the case. When a Supreme Court justice recuses himself or herself, the number of justices hearing the case is simply diminished.

All in all, Tatel comes across as a very nice and very ethical individual. So different from so many who we are now used to in public life.

Part Two: Which reminds me. Did you see the article today about 25 year old Valentina Gomez, who wants to be the Republican candidate for Missouri Secretary of State? About four weeks ago, she had an ad which showed her burning “queer books” with a flamethrower. Another showed her jogging on a country road, saying to the camera “Don’t be weak and gay”. Yesterday, she said that Brittney Griner should be sent back to Russia. “Brittney Griner should be rotting in a Russian prison, not going to the Olympics”. [This from LGBTQnation.com]

For MAGA Republicans, remarks like this seem to be more and more the rule, and not the exception.

Part Three: On a totally different subject, I went into a pho restaurant today for lunch. I was in Prince George’s County on University Boulevard, it was lunch time, and I pulled into a small strip shopping center. I first went into the Salvadorean restaurant, but there was something about it I didn’t like (such as no customers), so I went a few doors down to Pho 75. I have been to Vietnamese restaurants before, of course, but never to one that served pho exclusively. Maybe you all have, and you know that pho is virtually always made with beef. This restaurant served 17 different kinds of pho. 16 of them were made with various cuts of beef. Only one with chicken. That’s the one I chose.

I am not a soup eater, so don’t usually order this type of a dish, but it was very tasty, very filling, and very inexpensive. For $10, I got a “small/regular” bowl (much bigger than what I would consider a regular bowl) with a fairly tasty broth, thin slices of white meat chicken, sliced onions, basil, and of course rice noodles. I was given a second plate of bean sprouts, hot green peppers, cilantro leaves and slices of lime, which (as I watched other people) was to be poured into the bowl of pho. I also added some hot sauce (which some people tell me is a no-no, but there it was on the table, looking like something I should add). Very, very tasty, I thought. Of course, I couldn’t finish it.

The only negative is that, after I was done, and walking back to the car, I had a feeling that there was too much salt in the broth. I am sure my feeling was accurate. Doesn’t restaurant broth usually have too much salt? Or maybe it wasn’t salt,but MSG.

Okay: that’s it for this morning.