Film: Since I figured my sister would want to take her out for brunch or something tomorrow, I did my usual dinner/movie deal for mom last weekend. We saw Waitress and had some Italian food (we both had pie; I had some good draft beer). My other sister liked the film better than the #1 focus here, but it is -- in a fashion -- a good film for Mother's Day. After all, the main character is pregnant during the movie, if not that happily. (The ending also fits the holiday.)
And, the movie had a good verve, fantasy mixed with realism (consider its views on adultery), that fits too. [The sad murder of the director/writer/co-star suggests in real life there was a bit too much realism.] It is one reason why the film is so good. The Slate review, which you can check over there, wonders at one point why abortion was not seriously considered. It was brought up, but of course, the movie doesn't quite work if she has one, right? Also, I think -- and the Southern milieu only adds to this -- stories often have a sense of fatalism. You can note how bad things are, but you need to live thru them.
I didn't see Lohan on Conan, but to be catty, that outfit she wore on Dave was a bad choice. OTOH, the NY Daily News (she's the only good thing) and NYT (mixed bag, she is good) had praise for her performance in the film being promoted. The NYT noted: "The joke in 'Georgia Rule' is that she is playing a version of her tabloid persona: a needy, reckless young woman whose self-confidence verges on self-destructive. The surprise is that she does it with such poise and intelligence."
Books: I had a bit of bad luck with books of late, but still find a few that are worthwhile, including the standard safe subjects. For instance, I borrowed a book on CD version of Moby Dick. Started off pretty good, though a couple of the characters had annoying names, but the book is just too damn long. We might not need a version like a famous fast talker did that summed things up in about a minute (at the end, the only ones left were "the fish and Ish"), but that thing must be a big of a slog. Honestly, I listened to the beginning and the end. Maybe, some other time, I will try again.
OTOH, The Majesty of the Law: Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice by Sandra Day O'Connor was a pretty good CD choice. I'm about 2/3 through the set, and am pleasantly surprised. When I looked at the book, I thought it was pretty shallow stuff. And, maybe, it is in a fashion. But, for what it is, basically a kitchen sink approach that is fittingly explained by the subtitle (a set of essays on various topics, such as justices she served with, women in the law, some constitutional history, concerns she has about the current state of constitutional government, etc.), it is not a bad read for the general reader.
Around New Years, I saw a nice movie about Beatrix Potter (Miss Potter) the much loved children book author and conservationist (and amateur scientist). This attracted me to a new biography written by Linda Lear, who also wrote one on Rachel Carson. The book is a bit too big, honestly, but the cover and photographs are just wonderful. Beautiful -- I was tempted to buy the damn book ... I reserved it instead, and it looks promising. The movie, with Renée Zellweger quite good, again is much recommended. It too was beautiful to look at, nice mood.
O'Connor mentioned that the British Privy Council, which renewed colonial legislation, was a predecessor of judicial review. Charles Beard in 1912 wrote a small book (again, really, it is under 100 pages ... a useful 1962 edition intro pads the copy I purchased) defending the idea that judicial review was not just something originated in by CJ Marshall in 1803. Justice Byron White shared this sentiment -- he didn't like citations in opinions to that ruling, as if the idea was invented then and there. And, I share his sentiment.
Beard was a bit full of himself, noting in a brief introduction to the 1938 edition that the issue was basically over, patting himself on the back in the process.* The introduction notes that this wasn't true; in fact, it bet that in 1990 that the matter would still be debated. A not too risky prophecy, and quite accurate. The introduction, taking a nice "here are both sides of the argument" approach, ends with a sentiment that the non-slam dunk nature one way or the other is a healthy thing. It supplies a sense of caution and that the power will not be taken for granted.
A good sentiment, one that leads me to be a bit annoyed by some people who are a bit too sure of themselves, thinking certain things are slam dunks. Noting that I'm not free from sin here, one really should be wary about that sort of thing, even when arguing for something you truly believe in. Life is too complicated, some things just too nuanced and not black/white, for that to work too well.
---
* He also notes that, honestly, that law -- passed by many who were at the framing/ratification -- probably wasn't really unconstitutional, and a means was available to interpret it as such. An article is cited for the specifics, but I saw the matter brought up before.
On another point, and the introduction suggests this, the case is not quite as broad as such suggest -- it deals with a judicial matter in particular, in fact, it limits the Court's power. Compare this to Dred Scott, which could have been limited thusly as well. After all, taking Taney's argument as accurate, DS would not be a "citizen" and thus have no right to go to a federal court at all. Thus, the Supremes would not have jurisdiction. The conflict of laws point, in particularly his status as a free or slave person, likewise has a judicial flavor.
But, as Beard noted per Marshall, Taney et. al. felt it necessary to address a broader point, here the more "legislative" issue of slavery in the territories generally. It is this sort of case, especially when dealing with a co-equal branch, in which judicial review is particularly controversial ... though state "rights" is still enough of an issue that overturning state laws still has bite.