Public Officials

It has been a while since I last updated my blog, but I hope to write more often and hopefully increase the number of people that read it. Thanks for reading.

Over the past two weeks I have read two stories that to me, appear connected. About a month ago a California wildlife official found himself in the middle of a controversy. Daniel Richards is the president of the California Fish and Game Commission. His job it is to regulate and protect California's living natural resources like fish, game, plants, and habitats. To make a long story short, Richards went on a hunting trip in Idaho to hunt a mountain lion. Hunting mountain lions is legal in Idaho, but illegal in California. Here is a news article if you want more details. Some are claiming that Richards should be removed because he "thumbed his nose" at California law by traveling to another state to do something that is illegal in  the state he helps regulate. My two cents is that he did something very stupid, but not terrible enough to remove him from office.

Californians frequently travel to Las Vegas to do many things they cannot do in their home state. But this comparison is not entirely fair. Richards is a public official, and that means he is subject to more scrutiny than a private citizen. To make a drastic comparison, if a the attorney general of California went to Amsterdam specifically so he could smoke marijuana, many would call for his resignation. I understand this. While I do not agree with the lynch mob asking for Richards' head, I do understand why they are upset.

So, this brings me to another, possibly unrelated matter. Last month while in Egypt, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” I am not sure if this is just me, but I was thoroughly disappointed by her statement. Here we have a justice of the highest court in the land, a court whose job it is to interpret the constitution, giving it the thumbs down. I can understand that she may not entirely agree with the document, or feel that the constitution may not suit the specific needs of Egypt, but she could have said that the Egyptians should incorporate language from other constitutions. If Richards is derelict in his duty by hunting a mountain lion, then so is Ginsburg for her statement on the constitution. Am I crazy? I would really love to hear other's opinions on this.