[And Also: Mark Kleiman reminds us, as he himself was reminded, that the disaster is an interstate one -- some suggestion is made that actually things are worse one state over in Mississippi.]
A trivial but sure to be symbolic reminder of the disaster is that the New Orleans Saints, much like many others, are now homeless. And, as is sometimes the case, they are coming my way (a bit too crude? maybe) ... they are playing their first "home" game in Giants Stadium, the gate going to disaster relief. The money is nice, but the benefit to the Giants (who, believe, me, can use it) is unfair -- I think they should play at some neutral site. The relief can come when they play in the first away game in a major market or whenever best feasible.
A few more words on the story of the moment ... the disaster, not the death of the Chief Justice. My bottom line is that I understand that the world is not a perfect place and is filled with a lot of imperfections and problems. It is also, at least at my vantage point, is not a horrible place. There is some basic understanding of this, which is why so many people settle.
But, this only underlines the importance of a few basic things. An appearance and to some true respect a reality in practice of fairness, leadership, and humility. So, surely the criminal justice system is not perfect, but we aim for the best we can do, including stopping clear appearance of partiality. And, in these times, we want leadership and a reason to feel calm. This sort of thing simply cannot be quantified. It still is of fundamental importance. And, that is why so many people are upset.
Some are saying that the blame should be spread around. But, when we have national tragedies -- and this is one of them, surely by now -- we look at national leadership. Leadership that is now placing blame ... bloody hypocrites while their minions say we should not do the same (at least, if they are the targets). This aside from the fact that the settled plan does call for leadership from FEMA. Did locals misstep? One sort of thinks maybe so, since they do not have a reputation of being well oiled machines. New Orleans is not famous for its practical integrity. So, let the locals vote them out of office. The rest of us look at those who we voted for or voted against.
---
Anyway, the NYT had some good articles today. One was a human interest story on a Baghdad radio station with a secular /feminist bent. It is what we root for, apparently since it's not our country. Another was a piece by Linda Greenhouse entitled "New Justice on Court Is More Than Just One Vote" -- and this is in regard to John Roberts! A change of even one justice affects the dynamics of the Court.
Finally, there is an interesting piece (with a good range of viewpoints) on local judges recusing themselves for personal reasons in abortion cases. Though not mentioned, this is akin to some cases in which a few federal judges (who had the ability to pick and choose) refused to take any more drug cases because of the mandatory minimums and so on. As the article says, we do not want judges to pick and choose, but what if we force them to do so? Will the teens going them for judicial bypass suffer? Maybe not ... as a look at one apparently pro-life judge who did not recuse himself suggests. Or, maybe, such ideological views one way or the other is how things should work in our system in which politics does affect nominations.
A word on Rehnquist ... some liberal sort was on Air America (let's be honest here) spitting on his warm grave,* explaining how he and his Bush-like ilk are ruining civil rights as we know it. This sort of attack annoys me to some degree, since it has a sort of spray of bullets with the hope of hitting something feel. For instance, the person railed against how the Rehnquist Court (get this) interfered with (shudder!) districting by overturning assumed racial motivated plans.
I assume the guy is against Baker v. Carr (one person/one vote ... districting) as well as the move against political gerrymandering (of districts). Ditto the usual gun near schools case ... this case was sooooo trivial. At least forty states have laws against this sort of thing. And, Congress just passed a new law against guns that traveled (as most do) in interstate commerce.
I know how this soundbite advocacy works, but believe me there's some really problematic cases to use (other than Bush v. Gore, but sure, repeat the Dred Scott of recent times as much as possible) here. You convince no one but the converted with this overheated rhetoric against strawmen.
---
* One need not be hypocritical here and say one liked the guy's career overall, but seriously, the summary of his life was basically: he tried to stop people voting in Arizona, was appointed by Nixon (who couldn't get his name right), Bush v. Gore etc., and then he died.
One can recognize how he used his office to focus the Court, helped but not compelled all the way by how the country was going, in a certain way that is bad in various ways. But, he deserved a bit more respect than that. Laura Flanders, the strongly progressive host, tried to get in a "but you have something good to say ..." bit, but he basically pushed it aside as basically trivial. Oh well, I guess he does speak for many, but I (who find his reasoning wrong many a time) am taken aback a bit by such spleen. I guess it was earned.