A few additional thoughts on recent topics.
The Astros lost again. The back-end starter basically did his job of surviving to the fifth, the middle relief did better, and the score was tied 4-4 in the eighth. This is basically all you hope for in games of this nature. On the other hand, you only win by being the one who scores late. The Cards did while the Astros could not.
---
I updated the Mary Cheney piece already, but upon reflection, I have a bit more to say. First, it was a bit stupid on strategic grounds for Kerry to bring her up, since it clearly was somewhat of a risky move. Second, cries that he somehow insulted the family by mentioning her is just a bit much. Finally, I'd toss in that ignorance furthers hypocrisy (and harm), be it willful or not.
A good example is the Supreme Court ruing of Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), a 5-4 affair that held that same sex sodomy was not protected by the Constitution in part because it had nothing to do with family life. Those knowledgeable about the backstory might be aware that Justice Powell not only later felt his deciding vote was a mistake, but originally was going to vote the other way.
His concurrence, which underrates that harm of anti-sodomy laws (not just a matter of criminal penalties), sort of suggests his hesistance. It is also useful to know that his decision making was influenced by his ignorance. For instance, he told fellow justices that he never met a homosexual. Justice Blackmun (who authored the dissent) found this unlikely; it was -- one of Justice Powell's own clerks was (and is, I presume) gay.
---
The piece on executing minors also merits a few more words. It has been noted that the Missouri Supreme Court in effect jumped the gun a bit by declaring the practice unconstitutional, finding that the reasoning in the case outlawing the execution of the mentally retarded changed the law. [Four justices clearly agree, as an dissent from denial of cert. showed.] The situation is a bit akin to a lower court using new arrivals as well as a minority opinion of three justices to suggest that the opinion upholding a flag salute law was no longer binding. His view won in the end, but that took a bit of nerve.
I find it a bit troubling that in such cases the judges do not just declare it a violation of the state constitution. It is not always possible to do so, but quite often there are quite similar provisions to work with. This is useful in cases like this because only a few states allow the execution of minors and have some on death row. The federal courts would have a smaller role and their decisions would have a narrower reach. And, in some cases, the states would support a more ideal result.
I do not know if the path was possible here, though I bet it was. If not, it still should be done more often, though I have been told that the federal courts sometimes go out of their way to restrain the practice.
[For more on banning execution of minors, see also here and here. The latter article is somewhat misleading when it says that "The Supreme Court of Washington State outlawed the practice in 1993." The court struck down a particular law because it might be applied to those under sixteen, the cutoff at the time, though a concurring judge would have held any law allowing executions of minors unconstitutional under the state constitution.]