#notreallyfriends

I always make these kinds of things where I don’t connect it to my real world persona. I usually delete them and they don’t last long, so I guess we shall see how long this lasts. I make them so I can express my feelings on things but half the time, even anonymously, I don’t seem to have the guts to do it. 

This will probably be no different.

I am not a writer, this isn’t to hone any artsy writing skills or to be creative and “hipstery”. I truly need an outlet to express my emotions. So here I am. 

The truth is I know myself. I know that I feel a certain way, and I really need to express those emotions, however I also know those emotions don’t last. I get over them so easily, and I’ll be crying about one thing for a whole day and two days later I don’t feel even remotely the same. This has been problematic for me with friendships. Most of my group of friends like to share details within the circle. Sometimes I get screenshots of conversation I never wanted to see. They make me mad, or make me react and then I think less of that person, or maybe I feel more pity and wish I could help but now I cant do anything or they would know that someone told me. The list could be long. I will not make it so. 

I’ve known for a long time that the chances of someone sharing something I’ve said has been high. It’s probably happened multiple times. I feel very guarded when I talk to my friends these days, because I don’t know what they’re going to share. So mostly I feel that I can’t open up. There are even things I know I’ve said about my personal life that I wish to high heaven never makes it out of that one conversation. I would be devastated. Now I  wonder time and time again who perhaps knows. 

I have recently though had this happen, and it has perhaps been the last straw for me. I shared an emotion I was feeling towards other people in the group. I know that I would get over this hurdle on my own, and all that needed to happen was for me to get over my feelings. One way I do this is by sharing my feelings. So I did, I shared them with a friend. I thought since the conversation was verbal and since my emotions were so raw and tender, that this person would respect me and not detail this out to anyone. I was wrong. They tried to justify that they were okay with what they did if it meant people that knew could respond kindly. However, now they knew. Now I couldn’t escape it. They would tell someone else, someone close to them, and now I am stuck with this title. I am angry, and hurt, and I need places to come to to express my frustrations. 

On top of this I feel that the ONE friend I have, I have been neglecting. Trying to make it work in a completely new group, with new friends. These new friends have proven to be, while nice and pleasant usually, to not quite be a right fit. I’ve put so much effort into them, that I feel my relationship with my kindred spirit has declined. I should call them.

I guess Im extremely tired of people. People who claim they do things “for your own good” despite not even pretending to care about your feelings on the matter. People who cant shut up about themselves. People who put others down 24/7 in the guise of “its just humor”. 

Sometimes things don’t need to be said, shared, or laughed at.

FRENEMIES OF THE COURT: THE MANY FACES OF AMICUS CURIAE Helen A. Anderson

"Amicus curiae occupy a unique place in the courts: non-parties who are nevertheless advocates, who are not bound by rules of standing and justifiability, and who can present the court with new information and arguments. Amicus participation has increased dramatically in recent years, and threatens to alter the adversarial process. Yet scholars and courts treat amicus curiae as a single category, not fully recognizing that this friendly term actually covers several very different types, ranging from court appointed advocates of a particular position, to friends of a party (sometimes paid by the party), to persons or groups who just missed qualifying as interveners."

"If you ask any lawyer what an  “amicus curiae” is, and you will be told that the term means “friend of the court.” The term has positive, even warm, connotations." Amicus briefs provide additional information or perspectives to assist courts in deciding issues of public importance. But how, can a person being paid off by a company or called in by counsel ever be acting as a true friend. The types of organizations and individuals who will participate as amicus also vary, ranging from activist or public advocacy groups, nonprofits corporations, business alliances, and political organizations, to individuals  concerned about the issue or the outcome of the case. This may take the form of legal opinion, testimony or learned treatise (hence not a true accusation) and is a way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal effects of a court decision will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court.

Anderson argues that the term 'friend of the court' is distorting and discrediting to the original presence of the amicus. Evidently she feels the term friend is too broad to suffice as a person to be called in to provide some sort of information or testimony that can somehow validate or help in the decision making. She explains how the new found increase in friend of a party amicus has taken us far from the origins of amicus as one with special expertise or knowledge relevant to the litigation, to a general person or 'friend' being able to contribute to the case. Anderson's major argument dictates that the Supreme Court’s open-door amicus policy should not be so carelessly left open. She feels that with the 'friend of a party' ability, ambitious law reform and business advocates may exert great influence, particularly on elected courts (that may not actually be beneficial). Her greatest concern seems to be that with the term 'friend' being a part of the court system, the appellate decision making, can be distorted due to the negligence of appropriate experts being called. She feels that the original amicus must be persevered and remain concretely with experts and 'appropriate' people for the case. She states "courts should exercise their gate keeping authority." In other words, keep your friends out of the court, and stick to the people who know what their talking about and will not or cannot jeopardize an entire case.

In terms of high profile cases, which Supreme Court Cases almost always are, I agree with her stance. However, the term 'friend of a court' does not have to branch as far as an acquaintance who runs a non-profit that can possibly advocate for you. In terms of keeping things business related, I believe Professor Anderson has a point. To make sure that the friend of a part does not become anything relevant to lobbying, the courts system must be more strictly defined with whom is allowed to participate in the amicus curiae.