We need to know more

Ok, I know you’re tired of hearing about last week’s presidential debate but you have to admit the event was a tad unsatisfying. There are so many unanswered questions.

What exactly is a concept as opposed to a plan?

Are immigrants or coyotes a greater threat to our pets? Are coyotes bringing in immigrants and then dining on dogs?

Why didn’t the vice president step in to stop the president from killing people in Afghanistan?

Who does Donald Trump know at the Wharton School of Business? Is it the janitor?

Are Democrats sabotaging Trump rallies by leaving them?

We’ll probably never know the answers to these questions, but I do have one question that the country ought to consider: Why? Why have debates?

If you “win” a debate, does that make you a better president?

If you’re in the Oval Office and there’s, say, an armed invasion of Florida by elites from New York, does someone come in with a timer and give you two minutes to decide what to do? Do you not get briefed? Do you not have advisers with expertise? Do you not have time to reflect?

You’re running the country, not sound-biting the country. You have a Cabinet and all sorts of helpers. You can’t instantly know the answer to everything.

At the very least, we need a completely different debate format. The contest needs to be open-book and it should be a team sport. Each candidate should bring as many advisers and/or Cabinet members and/or Project 2025 authors that Trump has never spoken to as they want. Video clips of the opposition saying dumb things should be easily accessible.

Moderators must correct all falsehoods in real time.

If possible, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un should be brought in to interact with each candidate. See who falls in love.

Democracy deserves this.

Craziness. Those of you who enjoy fill-in-the-blank puzzles might want to take a quick look at an Indiana Supreme Court opinion that features some interesting blanks including:

“F*** U HARRY POTTER”

“You sir are a f****** pervert and a very stupid man.”

“Ketch you on the flip, peace out C*********!”

OK, filling in those blanks isn’t that hard but you probably haven’t guessed who those written statements were aimed at. The answer is a judge named John Potter, who may or may not be related to Harry. For some reason, he didn’t react well to the defendant’s letters and held the author in contempt.

You might think the letter writer was insane to do this. You might be correct, but the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that insanity is not a defense because “(i)ndirect contempt of court is neither criminal nor civil, but sui generis. ”

The lesson here: You’d be insane to insult a judge in Indiana — and that’s no excuse.

Court reporter update. I think Michelle Obama may have solved the L.A. Superior Court’s court reporter crisis. The court has decided to stop complaining and do something.

We told you about the court’s weird dilemma last month. It doesn’t have and can’t attract enough court reporters, and it can’t use electronic recording equipment instead at hearings because of a state law. So a lot of litigants who can’t afford to hire their own reporters can’t file appeals.

The presiding judge of the court, Samantha Jessner, has now stepped in and done something — she’s declared the anti-recording state law unconstitutional and ordered electronic recording for important hearings if a human reporter isn’t available.

Fair enough. Constitutional rights to appeals should probably be protected.

Appeals courts will be thrilled to get more business.

Stay tuned for litigation from the court reporters’ union.