Finding Phoebe (of Romans fame)

The Bible has many intriguing characters. We often wish to know more about them. 

This is true even with some rather important people. Isaac is one of the three patriarchs. We know very little about him, and one story (involving his wife) is just a repeat of a story about Abraham.

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae,  so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well. (Romans 16:1-2 NRSV)

Phoebe (not the friend of Monica and Rachel, though both are Jewish) is one such person. We can learn a bit about her by parsing the few words ("deacon" and "benefactor" or patron, for instance) supplied. And, considering what the typical woman in her position might have been like.

People have helpfully tried to do this. The book is written by both a historian and a church elder. It is useful both for the general reader and faithful believer (it has study guide sections intended for church discussion groups).  

I learned a few things, including how women in that era sometimes served in local administrative offices. The book reminds us that women often served an active role, even if they clearly were not treated equally to men. 

It is unclear why no chapter discusses the typical job of a "deacon" of a church. The role of a deacon is discussed, but such a chapter would have been helpful. A deacon basically was (and is) a general assistant. This webpage is helpful.  

Bart Ehrman, in his books, argues that some of his "surprising" discussions are well known by clergy from their college classes. He argues that they should encourage their congregations to learn about them.

The historical context overall is a helpful way to get the full benefit of scriptural works. The same includes close reading with help on what to look for. 

The result is not that the works (especially works from c. 100 CE) are free from criticism. They are more complicated than the "for" and "against" sides often think. This includes the more troublesome pseudo-Pauline letters with some of the most sexist language.

This book does so with the New Testament (and other works, such as Judith) to help readers learn what they can learn about its views on women. That is a good way to get the most from the material.  

An educated believer can be the best customer of faith traditions. To twist a famous advertising slogan. 

SCOTUS Order List

That's fairly long for the average order list. And, yes, there was a per curiam.

SCOTUS (with only Jackson publicly dissenting without comment) flagged that it thinks a lower court misapplied a limit on federal habeas. The opinion (this is relatively rare) includes photographs.

The case is, in effect, a matter of error correction to flag that the lower court did not appropriately apply a federal limit on habeas. The justices re-parsed the evidence to determine this. Hmm. 

The Court also granted cert in a case where the petition uses a scene from the film Hoosiers to make a point. The case involves the Video Privacy Protection Act. The next scheduled event is February 20th. 

SCOTUSBlog on Bluesky: "The court has agreed to weigh in on the interpretation of a federal law, enacted in the wake of Judge Robert Bork’s unsuccessful Supreme Court confirmation hearings, intended to protect videotape rental histories from public disclosure." The case involves Facebook. 

I continue to wish the Order List provided links to the docket pages of the cases covered. Instead, the interested person needs to look up each one individually. It's not really too much to ask in 2026.

Seattle/Pats It Is

The weather was frightful, which is great when you have a lightly used back-up. Denver lost 10-7, giving the Pats seven, and leaving three on the table. Seattle stayed ahead and stopped the Rams near the goal line. Scoreless 4Q.

Brief Encounter with Nice People

I was watching Brief Encounter (the original, not the horrible 1970s t.v. remake) again. 

[BTW, I also watched the first season of Night Court. The DVD provided a commentary track for the first episode from the show's creator, who also separately talked about the show along with Harry Anderson. It also has its charms on the nice people front.] 

The film is wonderful on multiple levels, including its cinematography and use of sound.

One thing that is so enjoyable is that the characters are such pleasant people. Their normalness is a large part of the point.

They are just two normal married people who strikingly fall in love with other people. They know that it is crazy and that there is no future in it. That doesn't change the reality.

That is the basic tragedy.

The film is mostly shown through the eyes of the woman. She is the sort of woman who is upset at herself when being annoyed at someone who is an annoying pest. Yes, they are being annoying, but it's sort of mean to have mean thoughts about that.

It's nice to remember that people deep down often are like the leads in the film. That includes the woman's husband, a nice guy who she loves, and who would be the one person she would talk about her experiences, except that it would hurt him so much.

(Meanwhile, in Minnesota. My comments.)

Anyway, it's snowing. 

Yes, it's winter, but NYC usually doesn't get this much snow. Also, it is colder than usual -- we don't usually have pre-20-degree weather. Of course, it is all variable, with forty-degree weather recently.

Sunday is a good day for it, since during the week it would cause a lot more people problems.

Easy Living

Easy Living is an amusing and overall well-paced screwball comedy starring Jean Arthur with a young Ray Milland (love doesn't mean saying you are "sorry") as her love interest. 

I enjoy her in various films, though If You Can Only Cook was too mannered. Her career spanned from the silent era to limited roles on television. 

She had to step aside after a few performances when she co-starred in the Supreme Court-themed play First Monday in October. I still don't know how she was not too old for the role. She was in her 70s. The role was for a much younger person (a young Jane Alexander stepped in to play the role).  

[The Wikipedia entry says she stepped out because of a viral infection. I read in the past that stage fright was also a major concern; she suffered it over the years and overall was a very private person.]  

Easy Living is also a dramatic film regarding an aging football star learning that he has a heart condition. Victor Mature (his real name) stars. Lucille Ball has a supporting role. She was quite good in a variety of dramatic roles. 

A familiar face portrays a doctor who confirms the condition. "Jeff Donnell" (a woman; "Jeff" is a childhood nickname), who plays the pregnant wife of a friend on the team, looks familiar, but I don't see anything in her resume that looks familiar. 

Overall, I liked this film too. 

ETA: T11 Incomplete (title concerning the injury of her client) is not quite as good as that review says.

Still, I liked it. Karen Sillas, as the older home health aide who is struggling with personal demons and other problems, is excellent. The other actors are a mixed bag, but overall give good performances as a bunch of flawed people.  It weighs a bunch of themes well.

The DVD box suggests a lesbian angle, which does exist, but there are multiple interlocking stories here. For instance, her son becomes more important as the film goes along. And, as with all good films, the supporting cast provides good touches. I wouldn't mind learning more about the daughter-in-law.

There is not much "easy living" here.

SCOTUS Watch: Justice Jackson Is Busy

Justice Jackson stands out in today's Order List.

The order list starts with a procedural move that includes Jackson going along, but for a limited reason (see here; correction). 

Jackson and Kavanaugh don't take part in a case. Only Jackson explains why. (Kagan also follows that practice). 

Jackson dissented from the court’s decision to reject a request from Danny Howell, an Indiana inmate serving a 70-year sentence, to file a petition for review “in forma pauperis” – that is, without paying the $300 filing fee and the more substantial costs of printing a Supreme Court brief. The court’s order provided that because Howell “has repeatedly abused this Court’s process,” he would not be able to file new petitions “in noncriminal matters” (such as habeas relief, which is civil) without paying the filing fees.

(Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog)

The rule, put in place with the liberals of the day dissenting, has been around since the 1990s. Ginsburg et. al. went along. I appreciate that Jackson (she draws the line at incarcerated people), with her criminal defense background, did not. I wish she had done so before now, but better late than never. 

She also only concurred in judgment, a solo job, in a technical procedural case. The other two opinions were five and six pages each, each unanimous, though there were some separate writings. Sotomayor added a page in one, and Thomas (with Gorsuch) found another originalist hobbyhorse in another. 

Jackson also (along with Sotomayor) was an enthusiastic questioner in today's Second Amendment case out of Hawaii. She, in part, flagged how "history and tradition" advocates selectively find some history distasteful, skipping over it.  

The specific dispute was a strawman. The state's advocate tried to point out that, yes, one of the precedents cited was among those laws passed in the infamous "Black Codes" era after the Civil War. 

Nonetheless, the Reconstruction Congress accepted it, unlike others. Multiple conservatives latched on to the first part but ignored the second. Typical selective originalism. 

And, if the conservatives think "history and tradition" should be applied with an eye toward tainted pools, I have a thing or two to tell them about abortion bans. 

A completely nuanced take on history is both important and hard. See, e.g., the executive removal cases, which will continue tomorrow. 

NFL Divisional Round

The Ravens missing a FG led to a fired head coach, who eventually was hired by the NY Giants. There is hope! OTOH, overall, bummer weekend. The usual suspects won, the usual suspects (including the Bills) screwed up. Plus, the Denver QB got hurt, tainting next week, which will also include (yawn) Rams/Seattle: Part III. 

SCOTUS Watch

I discussed this week's SCOTUS news here.

Two cases involving transgender athletes resulted in three hours of oral arguments. This led the usual suspects to complain that some were not being "originalist."

But as someone who respects the Constitution, I find it extremely difficult to pretend that the founding fathers envisioned a country, even with the gloss of the 14A, that required a later 20th-century view of the roles of women. They simply didn't, and trying to make that fit is a fool's errand.

The entry led to the usual comments. This person is a lawyer. They are openly a Trump supporter. OTOH, they are annoyed at Attorney General Bondi's antics and ICE thuggery. Must take the bitter with the sweet. That's pure Trumpism.

Anyway, the comment is typical. It is also equal parts tiresome and wrong. It led me to respond as I have for years. I will include my reply, slightly edited, below. 

I respect the Constitution. I read it and see an equal protection clause. It doesn't say "as persons were understood in 1868."

I read my history too. Many framers specifically rejected the conceit that the text should be limited to 1868 understandings of social realities and so on. 

The open-ended language made that particularly difficult. Due process of law? That has been developing since the Magna Carta.

And my McCulloch v. Maryland, an opinion that the Reconstruction Amendment's founding fathers cited regularly. An opinion written by John Marshall, a ratifier.

(See, e.g., the books of Gerard Magliocca.) 

We have a constitution that is not only for the limited understanding of the immediate society that ratified its text. It is for all time. For a future that ratifiers were only dimly aware of. I'm summarizing John Marshall here.

But people don't really consistently care about the framers. The First Amendment (such as free speech rules) and Taking Clause, for instance, are not applied as they were understood back then. 

The First Amendment, for instance, was understood to allow much more restrictive legislation than is allowed today. We do not slavishly follow the original understanding. That's fine. 

Did Benjamin Franklin, to take an example, expect the Constitution to be applied via 18th-century understandings of social groups when it was used in the 20th Century? His scientific mind would realize we would not be set in stone in that regard.

The 14th Amendment, not being kept up with the times, is especially absurd. Congress is given specific power to enforce it.

What Congress? The Congress in power at the time. So, Congress today would enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. What would they do? Try to figure out societal understandings in 1868? Who thinks that? 

They would look at current needs and understandings to determine what equal protection means. Do people consistently find this troubling? They do not. I include conservatives who talk about original understanding. 

The Constitution itself is set up not to be fixed to the past, which is simply impractical. It is not being applied as some kind of role-playing game. It is applied by 21st Century society. Using current understandings. 

The 19th Amendment alone changed the equation for women. Women now vote. They were in legislatures. Voters are on juries. They have a more equal role in society overall.

Over time, facts and situations change in other ways, including understandings of LGBTQ individuals overall. Not just that. For instance, a conservative justice back in 1926 spoke about changing facts resulting in different results in property cases. 

This overall principle was factored in over our history when interpreting the Constitution, including by conservative justices. It doesn't take much imagination to see it. 

But, selectively, we get such comments.