Baby Veronica – Taught me Something



Taught me Something

Many of you perhaps have no clue as to who Baby Veronica is. I know I didn’t, until I read the Wednesday April 17th 2013 newspaper, too which this cute photo of a little girl named Veronica caught my attention. Sure, she looks adorable and innocent, but it was the fact that the U.S Supreme court was somehow juxtapose to this baby that heightened my curiosity. I read the article meticulously four times so that there would be no misunderstanding in what was written. I’ll admit, I am a junkie towards all U.S.S.C rulings. I find these justices ‘final’ opinions on cases both dumbfounding and gauchely at times; thou compelling nonetheless, because they all are still human beings in my eyes of Reality, Not fictitious gods like Zeus or Thor. But real flesh and blood. Men and women who all are as unique in ideology, as they are indifferent on social interpretations, to which each individual justice rule as a matter of their hearts and not written law, almost exclusively. Justices (judges) get it wrong too. They make mistakes, just ask Anita Hill if justice Clarence Thomas is ‘perfect’, or mistake-free (lol)

The case surrounding baby Veronica is a ‘adoption case’ surrounded by a 1978 Indian child welfare act; The child’s father is Native Indian. The mother, assumably is not and it’s the mother that gave up this adorable child for adoption. wont pass any judgement on why she did what she felt she had to do. I’m not perfect and have too many faults on my own than to criticise another. What I do know is that the adoptive couple cared for the baby for two years. No doubt they grew to love this child as their own during this bonding duration, Then the biological father of nine found out what his baby momma did, went to argue in Federal court, won a Federal decision and was awarded his parental rights and his child. The the adoptive parents filed a petition and it was back and forth., Until it landed on America’s highest court’s desk., So here we are.

What I found intriguing is that the very conservative Justice Scalia, along with all the female justices favored and seem to side with the biological dad. But Chief Justice Roberts….um…well… he saw things…differently, and he should; after all he is also a ‘adopted’ father of two. So his ‘biasness’ is intellectually genetic. To rule in favor of Baby Veronica’s dad and the thirty five year law would mean his personal beliefs would be called into question with the Mrs, once he returned home. He can’t afford that, can he?

I don’t know who will get final custody of this child and I’d be a liar if I told you I cared, because I’m honest enough with myself to admit that I don’t care about any adoption case. Not one iota, as long as the child is cared for and loved, I see no problem. I do see a problem in how judges or justices rule based on their own personal emotions and views. How can you ever get it right when your Right is considered to be the next person’s wrong? In the Michael Morton case, then prosecuting district attorney Ken Anderson, felt Morton was guilty because,”he liked port, wanted more sex from his wife and often called her demoralizing names, i.e. bitch, slut, fatty, when he couldn’t get his way”

The smoking gun was the fact that Michael Morton admitted his failure as a sensitive husband and partner to his wife. He did not admit to killing his wife. Thou Ken Anderson just like justice Roberts, saw things differently. Twenty five incarcerated years later, the state of Texas paid Morton a million-plus in restitution (though no amount of money could ever compensate for his two decades and a ½ of losses he endued) and Judge Ken Anderson is now facing criminal charges for the manipulative wrongs he did to secure a in justified conviction in the Morton case. Anderson sadly said “There’s a strong possibility that I could go to prison”


Tell Bubba, Turk, or Back door Joe (his future cell mates) Your sad ass story, cause I don’t care and I am sure Michael Morton don’t care either.

In Travis County, Texas; 63 year old district attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg was placed in restraints in a courtroom where she faced DUI charges. Upset that she was treated like the same criminals she sent to prison., she began to act out by spitting, kicking and cursing at the judge and the bailiffs that hauled her ass off. She has that ‘criminal behavior down pat, huh?

Former county judge,. Eric Williams, is charged with Capital murder, along with his wife, in the killings of two district attorneys who had previously tried him for theft. Talk about the law taking matters into their own hands, all pun intended.’

So class what have we learned? America sits ‘criminals’ on the bench to sentence defendants. Judges, justices, Presidents, doctors, CEO.s, preachers and every flesh breathing human; all are not perfect. Humans rule by emotions more times than they rule according to the printed law. So how hypocritical is it for someone to sentence another to death as a matter of jurisprudence?

A vote will be made on Baby Veronica’s caretaking fate, and we know one adoptive father, Chief Justice, who will side with the adoptive parents. Cant say I blame him. He’s only being ‘human’.

Baby Veronica taught me how weak and reckless human emotions makes professionals that we as a society depend upon for leadership. The law that has been established has merit until humans feel that such righteousness of law is best used as they see fit, making the law merit-less.

In retrospect, the Death Penalty has never been about innocence nor guilt. It.’s about the creditability of the Justice and its accuracy. How human judges purposely put the I…N… before the word justice (INJUSTICE), and since it has been clichéd that Justice is ‘Blind’ (just look at the statue of justice that suppose to symbolize truth, fairness and integrity within American courts of law) which a statuesque blindfolded symbol is a depiction of blindness if ever. Perhaps Justice Stephen Breyer said it humanly best “These considerations are why domestic relations pose the hardest problems for judges. Our domestic relations judges, all by themselves every day have these difficult problems. If we could appoint King Solomon, who was the first domestic relations judge, as a special master, we could do it, BUT WE CAN’T DO IT!”

Personally speaking, the biblical King Solomon was a bad choice, because his flaws were biblically recorded. A flawed Justice seeks out a flawed King to make a decisive decision that stand the probability of being ‘flawed’. If our judges and high court justices find domestic cases to be difficult to decide then think just how much difficult it is for criminal cases-many of which has no evidence to help decide? Who’s right? Who’s Wrong?

By Charles Mamou April/may 2013

%d bloggers like this: