Cuomo? Resign

I supported Cynthia Nixon last time, but realized she was not really a credible actual threat to Andrew Cuomo. The point being, as in many primaries, to put some pressure on the frontrunner. On that front, how much pressure from the left Cuomo received is unclear. One can feel pessimistic. OTOH, Biden has already did various things that shows real respect of the left flank. He has already provided a good amount of good faith to help balance off some cases where I will be disappointed.*

I also was wary of various early criticisms of Gov. Cuomo's response to the Big V. The pressures, especially given the early unknowns and difficulties, as will as his anti-Trump nature in some ways (regular respectable press briefings etc.), were things I factored in. Comparing New York (or New York City for that matter) to smaller states that to me were rather different in various respects came off as bad comparisons.

WATCH THIS: @MehdirHasan cites the @DailyPoster's original reporting on Cuomo and notes that it has now taken center stage in the scandal engulfing Cuomo. Hasan says Cuomo's nursing home immunity law "looks corrupt." Watch NY Democratic @SenatorBiaggi's response. pic.twitter.com/6Mqj9mgZ1d

— The Daily Poster (@dailyposter) February 26, 2021

Things are starting to be much more wary on that front, especially since President Biden no longer allows Cuomo to have a "compare to that guy" vibe. So, even if -- though a few were wary even then -- trusting him with emergency powers was acceptable in June 2020, it's time to take them back now. Even insiders are defending incomplete supply of nursing home death data in "okay, it's wrong, but you got to know what sort of pressure we were under" ways. This sort of "we can't trust them so we need to hide things" rhetoric doesn't come off well, even when you are sympathetic to the people involved.

A second former aide to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is accusing him of sexual harassment, saying that he asked her questions about her sex life, whether she was monogamous in her relationships and if she had ever had sex with older men.

The best defense to this appears to be that the "sex pest" (to cite one label in the thread to the article that I'm not a big fan of) is not legally guilty of sexual harassment. I'm wary -- if we are going to get all legal -- about relying on incomplete summaries of what is being alleged. Even there, such "grooming" (to cite what some are calling it, over "mentoring"), is a red flag on a political level. As seen in the impeachment battle, what is "legal" and "politically bad" isn't the same thing.

My state senator is particularly concerned about sexual abuse so one can guess she is particularly on this. As Sen. Biaggi noted in reply to comments that her push for him to resign without further investigation: "I welcome a credible & independent investigation, but as a former Cuomo staffer, legislator, Chair, and generally observant person, I have seen quite enough to know that his resignation is what is best for New York and the earnest staffers who work in public service."

Cuomo's people themselves are already accused of being arseholes in various ways including using sexist language. [This good op-ed on "penis politics" also tosses in my mayor, who has issues too.] Cuomo himself is repeatedly compared to Trump, including him being a bully and going after people. And, again, you have the whole nursing home controversy. He should resign. At some point, this sort of thing has to have consequences:

Stephanie Benton, Director of the Governor’s Offices, told me in an email on December 14, 2016 that the Governor suggested I look up images of Lisa Shields — his rumored former girlfriend — because “we could be sisters” and I was “the better looking sister.” The Governor began calling me “Lisa” in front of colleagues. It was degrading. I had complained to friends that the Governor would go out of his way to touch me on my lower back, arms and legs. His senior staff began keeping tabs on my whereabouts. “He is a sexist pig and you should avoid being alone with him!” my mother texted me on November 4, 2016.

He's up for reelection next year so he might try to eke out the term. But, it isn't even one general problem. It is starting to cascade. The realistic result to seek here is a fully independent investigation(s). That is after all what Biaggi types are there for. To push the median. And, as with the whole Franken thing [still talked about as if it was some tragedy when factoring in everything it was rather understandable, especially at the time], a full investigation very well might actually be the appropriate response. Repeatedly, you have people resign (or settle), and you do not get the full story. So, that can be useful here.

But, it is getting to a "he got to resign" point.

---

* I don't think Biden let off the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia. He did not simply get a "pass" for setting up the murder of a legal resident of the United States, a journalist who was far from a radical opponent. It very well might be true more should have been done. But, what has been done so far is far from trivial. And, like moving around a tanker, this does require some care.

SCOTUS Watch

[Order Day Entry expanded.]

The Supreme Court dropped an order (and later had an oral argument about a water dispute) list as the Merrick Garland (AG) hearing started. Garland, with questioning from two of the new Dems including Sen. Ossoff from Georgia, aced his questioning. He's a great choice. Republicans trolled, but many of them probably will vote for Garland too.

The Order List closed the book on many Trump election disputes (I see Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; saw Arizona mentioned) though three conservatives would have taken the Pennsylvania case (a bit less stupid), which they might take eventually [beware] in a non-Trump case. Thomas' dissent is troubling. Various odds and ends, including Sotomayor being recused for some reason in a relist denial. We should get recusal clarity. They (for now, unless something new is used) disposed of the latest delay of Trump financials in New York.

SCOTUS also took a few cases though two involve federal polices (public charge and stronger limits on funding of reproductive health services) that the Biden White House might change. It also sent back a qualified immunity case, which might be a promising flag of at least limited concern about its overuse. Finally, among the denials was one by Stormy Daniels trying to get her libel suit back active, raising a technical dispute. 

===

The one opinion released during the week (another Opinion Day scheduled next week) was summarized by SCOTUSBlog thusly: "A unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday issued a limited ruling on the Federal Tort Claims Act’s judgment bar."  Sotomayor added a concurrence of a few pages as she sometimes does to argue the opinion wasn't that broad. It ultimately comes off as a limited loss in regards to attempts to gain justice for governmental abuses.  Thus far, three justices have two opinions each, three members (including two of the Trumps) have no opinion.  And, we have multiple unsigned opinions.

One of the oral arguments held this week had some problems audio-wise, the Supreme Court refusing to join many other courts here and abroad that manage video. We will have more telephonic arguments next month. I'm starting to find them a bit tedious, the back/forth of the old system helping freshen it up some.  Meanwhile, after an earlier hearing on the "shadow docket," the House had one on expanding the lower courts. All were open to the idea though Republicans want to wait until 2025 (nah).  

ETA: Another late Friday (around 9PM) order dropped by the Supreme Court, splitting 6-3, applying recent (unexplained) similarly split order regarding California Big V regulation involving churches (and other stuff).  It is "clearly dictated" that relief not provided by the lower court be provided.  Not really, since the last ruling didn't actually provide a clear five justice (member) opinion, but whatvs.  Amy Howe summary here.  

Basic point here is that the government said it would change its policy NEXT WEEK, but the Supreme Court feels compelled to overrule the lower court late Friday ("throw out the trash day" clearly now applies to them too) and not actually say why.  I don't buy Prof. Eric Segall's (nice guy who engages with me on Twitter and on Dorf on Law) "not a court" line about the Supreme Court, especially since he doesn't actually fully show his work on how it is not one as compared to others. 

But, a "court" should have certain basic aspects and showing its work openly, especially when it is overturning past precedent, is part of it.  Courts, like legislatures (see confirmation of multiple "justices") and executives (Trump highlights this), can fail at their basic responsibilities. They can not really act "like a court" should.  All will to some degree and some argue (including in this context) the Supreme Court has done in broad strokes in various ways.  Sometimes, it's pretty blatant.

Diane

A lesser Lana Turner film, Keep Your Powder Dry, was on a few weeks ago and I thought it enjoyable enough. Looking, the library had Diane, a historical drama with a young Roger Moore and a bit part with "Klinger" from MASH. It was good too, as shown by my ability (harder these days) to watch it straight through. The young actress who plays her rival was also very good. The history is a bit shaky but not too bad as far as I can understand.

I had less luck with Dark Was the Night, which I sought out because Bianca Kajlich from Rules of Engagement had a supporting role. It has something going for it but it was oh so heavy-handed; had to turn if off.

Born Yesterday

Two of the three leads in this film had long careers, including multiple movies for which they are particularly known. The heavy even has a charming cameo in A Little Romance (1979) Judy Holliday (cancer) died in her 40s and had few notable movie roles. But, she shines here in a role she also aced on the stage.

The main card game scene, including focusing on her flair while playing while her powerful big lug boyfriend basically watches in awe, is great. Ditto the scene where the writer hired to "teach her couth" (as the t.v. summary framed it) was schooled by her when he had to explain his pretentious article ("why didn't you just say that?" indeed). The film itself has an almost Capra belief in civics (rare crooked members of Congress, huh?) but its heart is in the right place and still has something to teach us. I recall seeing the remake and thinking it okay.

Odds and Ends

Let's cover a few unrelated things raised during the last week.

Svengoolie: The Sven movie this week was the Invisible Man Returns, a follow-up to a film I saw in the past. The first was pretty good though at some point it got a bit silly, the thriller nature of the film mixed with almost a keystone kops sort of vibe by the goofy police after them. It also had a young Claude Rains, which leads to an (as I recall, unnoticed by Sven) connect with Jimmy Stewart, since two actors in the film (a supporting role later played a familiar angel) were in well known Stewart movies.

This one had a young Vincent Price and weakly was connected by having the brother of the last guy have a supporting role. The last invisible man (who died at the end), had a cameo on a police record, this time the chief police investigator early on being on the ball about the whole invisible thing. (Other than the invisible drug having a slightly different name, reference was made to lots of murders by the last guy, but that didn't happen).

This helped make the story a bit more serious, but the writing was somewhat weak later on.  Price hammed it up a bit (and was less reckless than the first guy).  A few weak story points (including one involving him with a gun that disappeared at a key moment). Overall, watchable, but disappointing.  There is one more in the series as well as more invisible people films (including an amusing one involving an invisible woman covered in a past episode).  

====

Abortion Ban News: South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed into law the Fetal Heartbeat Protection from Abortion Act, prohibiting an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected.  The ban was then immediately put on hold by a federal court.  It is very unclear to me if five members of the Supreme Court [yes, I will continue my moratorium of calling Trump's appointees "justices"]  wish to uphold such a law.  

A complete ban like this is quite different from a range of other laws (TRAP laws generally) that burden abortion rights, unduly burden by a reasonable application of Casey, that very well might get you five if the Supreme Court faced the issue directly.  Now, many do not think so -- they think "Roe will be overruled."  I question this.  It seems to me that what will happen will be further watering down of Casey.  That isn't a trivial distinction though it will cause a lot of problems. The breadth of these laws (another would allow a father -- to use a term without controversy in this context - veto without exception) underline the fact.  

===

Ted Cruz: New York City has had multiple snow storms (two or three of some note) so far this season, the first coming even before winter began. This is notable since in recent memory we had very little snow. When I was growing up, I repeatedly had to shovel snow on what seemed like an annual basis.  We had two in the last week or ten days though the second one was fairly mild.  The weather (this is more consistent) continued to be weird -- one fifty degree day followed by a twenty degree day.  

OTOH, snow and ice in the South is a lot more notable.  Texas in particular had (and the effects are still lingering) a hard hit. Texas it turns out isolates itself from the rest of the country when setting up its energy system.  This seems like something (especially giving the size and national/international effects of Texas' system) that can be controlled somehow by national means. Congress has commerce powers over that and should use it.  And, there might be addition problems regarding how Texas is handling things as covered here.  The net effect has been power and water cut-offs. 

The pain this has caused is evident and it is something that like the shocking nature of the weather for which NYC has not generally suffered.  (To be clear, heat and other things have been an issue in limited ways, especially for less well off people in some places.)  What seems to have happened is that Texas is generally a place with mild weather, so the government cut corners that now has bite them in the ass.  Again, actually, but the last time was too long ago to keep them honest.  

This shows the need not only for insurance (for when you need it) but again a united, national, system.  Change is hard with Ted Cruz being too often representative of party in the government.  Cruz provides a special face on the issue here since he and his wife (as seen in a text message leaked) decided it would be a good time to go to Mexico for a trip.  Cruz, this not being the years before social media gotchas, was caught with photos. He first said he was only being a good dad, his young daughters wanting a break.  This asshole move looked even worse when his wife's texts proposing to neighbors that they go on a trip came out.  

[ETA: The Texas energy situation is complex so I am not surprised if my statement here is incomplete. Here's one discussion.]

There was a "defense" that he couldn't do much anyway.  This is dubious given the efforts being made by his last Democratic opponent as well as AOC (who Cruz from time to time tweets at, as if he has a crush on her) to help people there, including raising money.  Cruz also has been called out as a hypocrite because he campaigned last time about how he was there for Texans during a former emergency.  And, yes, part of being a representative is a symbolic and personal connection to your constituents.  

Going on a trip, especially after it was flagged that unnecessary international trips to Mexico should not be made anyway, just is stupid all around.  This without his CYA move.  OTOH, he won't run for re-election for years. He has high popularity numbers among Republican voters.  So, why should he really care?  Recall again he just aided and abetted the insurrection on the U.S. Capitol.  And, then went out of his way to help the Trump side during the impeachment trial.  It's like rubbing our faces into it.  

Bottom line, even more than other Republicans, he should be shunned. There is only so much one can immediately do here, as noted, and it on some level seems so hopeless. See also Trump -- like Rachel Maddow covering the Georgia criminal investigation of Trump annoys me, since like her long ago continual pushing the idea that maybe THIS TIME torture by the Bush Administration would actually lead to a criminal case -- I recall her dragging out hope in a couple particular case for years (spoiler: no prosecution) -- is at least this point almost fatuous.  

But, sigh, yes, it is important you put it out there. Maybe, even assume there is real hope.  And, you need to push against not just Republicans generally, but certain miscreants like Trump.  It will help, if in ways that are not totally clear, in closer cases and anyway simply is right. 

SCOTUS Watch: They Are Back

Books:  No late nite action on Friday, but it would be suitable to toss in a couple books with some SCOTUS content.

You are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers is a good overview for the general reader by a law professor expert in the field.  I carped at the summary around the edges, but a lot is covered and covered well, plus in an approachable way. Can't ask for more for such a volume.

Let the Lord Sort Them: The Rise and Fall of the Death Penalty was also good, especially if you don't really take the title at face value. It is more a look at the death penalty in the modern era (1970s+) in Texas, providing some familiar material while adding additional information and vignettes.

On that front, at some point, it started to seem a bit padded. The "fall" part was covered some, but seemed a bit incomplete. Also, if you are going to highlight a prosecutor/judge and her two death penalty cases, don't drop one of them [one got off death row because he was a minor; the other from what I can tell is still there].  Overall, very readable, and worthwhile.

SCOTUS was back from their Winter Break with a conference on Friday, after a quiet week. They also have announced not only orders but one or more opinions next week.  But, we also have various odds and ends that touch upon them to talk about beforehand. No orders this week.

First off, we have coverage on how SCOTUS is slow-walking (still) the Trump tax financials, the author of a biography of more than one justice flagging it as notable how long it is going on now. One would be a book on Justice Sotomayor, who was according to an interview by a judge targeted by a violent unhinged litigant [her son was killed; the person killed himself], was a potential target of violence.  Be well Sonia!

On the continual attempt to get some relief on Trump abuses, we now have a civil suit signed on by at least the House Homeland Security chair. Interesting approach that uses the old KKK Act of 1871, which is particularly concerned with them trying to interfere with legitimate government. I had thought that the best litigant would be someone physically harmed (like a police officer), but that's good. I am pessimistic about the level of justice we will receive though at least in regards to financial crimes, the wrongdoers might be younger members of the family too.  Plus, it isn't just Trump as a whole.

I have been particularly concerned about what is more and more seen as excessive use of the shadow docket, particularly in substantive cases that divide the Court. The House had a hearing on the question, including one of the legal Twitter people that I keep track of these days. His remarks includes some possible ways to encourage less use of the docket. I am somewhat pessimistic there since I think it is largely by choice.  

The Biden Administration continues to examine past Trump submissions though on an upcoming voting rights matter is only somewhat in disagreement.  Garland on Monday!

Rush Limbaugh

The fact that Rush (who has died at 70) received a presidental medal of freedom from Trump was fitting since Trumpism is the end result of Rushism. He was not only a horrible human being, but skillful in promoting his partisan poison.

An apt discussion was provided by Al Franken, who years back wrote a "kidding on the square" satiric book about him. The same would be suitably said when Newt Gingrich dies though the fact Bill Clinton actually managed to legislate with the Republican Party in the 1990s even with that sort of no hands barred partisanship shows we have moved some.

I guess once 1/6 happened, his work promoting partisan poison and lies was done and it was almost a scripted time to die. No "rest in peace" for you.

More on Witnesses and Timing

The below is extended discussion on two impeachment related issues that continued to be discussed after the trial was over.  I originally had it as an extended footnote, but to provide a more crisp after-action summary, I decided to provide them their own entry.  Yes, I felt compelled to add more.

Witnesses

I still think they should have took more time -- it need not take never-ending time since the Senate Democrats had the power to vote up/down a plan for a limited set (see Clinton impeachment where three witnesses were called; not some open-ended process) -- to call witnesses.

A lawyer responding to TPM said "The managers said they wanted one witness — a one hour deposition of Herrera Beutler." I listened to Raskin. He didn't actually say that. He first asked for her AND access to her notes. That is rather notable. Also, he said that she referenced others and welcomed them if they were willing to come forward. Finally, he said if given the witness and notes, the managers would work off not. I took this to mean that he left open others, if warranted.

It's done, but I'm not sure what the point of all the drama was to insert a single statement into the record. It was a helpful statement but (and the "it doesn't matter" brigade willing to throw anything at the wall cite this) what really changed? Any votes? Any big clarification of what Trump was guilty of? Not really. It's one person making a statement. You don't even have the notes! People who insist it was so very helpful are being a bit silly.

Plus, the morning vote raised hopes. The other side appeared worried. The fact they agreed to release of the statement underlined that they didn't lose much at all. And, again, didn't we say we wanted witnesses for "real trial" last time? The disputed facts and new stuff that came out in the media underlined the value of it. The Dems looked bad and (unlike sometimes) the criticism this time was not really wrong on some level.

You do have people, including some members of the impeachment team [at least publicly], rather upset at people like me being upset. The reasons don't come off as very credible. Anyway, it would have been helpful if instead of simply reading the statement into the record, which came off as tacked on, Raskin made a statement on the agreement. For instance, he could explain why it net was the best approach. Maybe, not saying anything was part of some deal, but you know, it would have been more convincing.

And, why couldn't we have people who were willing witnesses, including one would think the police officer who received special congressional acclamation? Again, such witnesses in a trial or hearing would have special symbolic effect to spread the whole story to the nation. My only counter, perhaps, is that if you did that, the Trump side would feel a need to troll answer somehow. That, however, is not quite the "it wouldn't matter" etc. type typical replies you heard that pissed off people like me. 

Timing

A lot also can be said about timing and I heard one person suggest that it might have mattered if the Senate at least started the trial before 1/20. Maybe. But, the figleaf probably would be as helpful as long as the final vote to convict took place once he was no longer in office. Taking their position seriously, I actually would find that actually credible. So, if it mattered, it wouldn't have mattered much.

I think it was wrong for the Senate -- once the insurrection happened -- to go into pro forma session (not doing business) after the electoral count was over. The situation was live and warranted them to be there. The Senate also should have accepted the impeachment before 1/20, which would have given Mitch's post-vote speech a tad bit more credibility.

But, the whole process took time -- contra to the Trump side this goes to the presence of "due process" -- and it is hard to see how it would have been over before Trump's term. The House could have started immediately, but even there, the process was going to take time. The great prosecution case itself took time to prepare and present.  Getting the whole House to impeach (tossing in the ritual of asking Pence to do the 25A) also took time on the front end.  Like moving a tanker around, these things take time.

The complete 9/11 Commission deal might take like a year or something. This was for a more limited reason and the timing was appropriate. For instance, Rep. Raskin noted that change of power moments are very sensitive and a special statement underlining the insurrection (which very well might not have been over, including talk of some "real" inauguration date still coming -- rumors of additional protests were afoot) was time sensitive.  Republicans were already starting to handwave on 1/6. 

Hope for ten more votes while emotions were still high seems naive. After all, the House vote couldn't be much sooner -- impeachment on 1/8 or something wasn't likely -- and you got ten votes on the Republican side.  Noting that, the extra time that the prosecution side had to give a great presentation [the witness issue aside, which very well involved something unsaid] was appreciated.  

Again, the things flagged in the last post don't hold up.  But, we still can and should do other things. Let's see how it goes.

Impeachment Aftermath: Anti-Impeachment Points

[To make this more crisp, I separated an extended additional argument as to witnesses and timing into another entry. I also slightly edited the existing content.]

With the trial set to begin on Monday, I thought I'd would offer some opinions on the proceedings.

Let's see how this worked out. Then, maybe I too will move on.

1. I do not think that this trial is unconstitutional. I am instead against the trial on prudential grounds.

I supported it and think it worked out fairly well.

2. My chief prudential reason is that the trial will end in an acquittal. Thus, all we are doing is creating a precedent that what President Trump was not a high crime and misdemeanor. This will not serve us well in the future.

The NYT did have a big TRUMP ACQUITTED headline on its website. But, if he wasn't brought to trial, he would have been deemed to get away with it too. Plus, if people look past two word headlines, this "acquittal" makes OJ Simpson's look good. There, you had concerns the cops were racist liars.

Here? You not only had a 57-43 vote, but a strong statement [however phony it is on some level] from the Senate Minority Leader that Trump was damn guilty, still is open to punishment but the Senate doesn't have a role any more. The "future" to me also would be more likely to see the value of impeachment in this end of term situation, especially after yet another precedent of a trial taking place. I too think that useful.

3. A full-blown trial will take a long time and be a circus. The Senate has other important priorities during the pandemic. Moreover, the country does not at this time need another extended discussion about the former President dominating the news.

The trial to me probably provided the FIRST full fledged comprehensive discussion of the story here to the degree it was addressed to the nation as a whole. This was a useful enterprise. It did not crowd out other action, especially since national legislation has to be crafted over time, including  by the House. And, a respectful effort -- and I think this was that -- would be evidence that the matter was addressed. That would help moving on to other things without it being an open wound.

The trial was not a "circus" though the Trump side was somewhat clownish. Yes, they threatened a circus if they had witnesses, necessary to me for a "full-blown trial," but I don't even think that was necessarily required. Anyway, the trial was pretty full.

4. A short trial with no witnesses is equally pointless. At least with a proper trial you could argue that we might learn new facts. A short trial doesn't even do that.

We learned new facts. This includes a wider audience who unlike some "we" may not pay as much attention. This includes media reports about Kevin McCarthy etc. of the sort that come out when things like this are put out there and people dig deeper and have stories to fill. Not on back pages either as might be if it was some congressional hearing. It was not "pointless."

5. Having Patrick Leahy as the presiding officer will create a number of problems.

It was a non-story. The expected subjects made an issue about it but it did not actually affect to trial much at all and the textual parsing was silly. Leahy stumbled a bit a few times, but it didn't really change anything. So, you had the Sen. Mike Lee business, which was asinine on his part, and it led to a bit of confusion. Roberts being there would have changed little.

6. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment offers a better path forward, as I've explained before and will do again next week.

It wouldn't be better but we should still use it, especially since the 14A is not just about Trump, but a range of people not even covered by impeachment itself such as state officers.

New York News Update

And Also: February is short but it has its share of holidays from Groundhog's Day (six more weeks of winter), Presidents' Day (Schumer yesterday referenced the annual reading of a Washington address), Mardi Gras (2/16 this year) and Valentine's Day [not in that order].  I'm sentimental enough to generally be touched by references of love and like me a good Hallmark or Up TV romance. 

As we stress out, love might not be all we need, but love and all that stuff does help a lot.

I have community and political (including a conservative organization) offices near me, but as a whole, have never over the years spent much time at all over local politics. It is partially because it is rarely reported, though being represented by AOC and Biaggi (state senator) changes that on some level.

Even there, how much is my local area (though political insiders apparently label the guy as lousy, my city councilman is nearly never mentioned) mentioned? I'm glad that the second place winner, who worked in the term limited previous incumbent, is running again this year. Maybe, do a better job of selling yourself -- the race last time had multiple candidates, but the winner's campaign posters dominated the neighborhood. I only saw a few of the second place winner, who lost by only a few hundred votes.

I admit to not watching Bronx news (there is a station) or reading City & State, except when news alerts come up on certain writers' Twitter feeds. To be somewhat fair to myself, I doubt many around here do either. It is more a matter of the local papers (NY Daily News etc.). But, that only takes me off the hook somewhat -- it is not like, as compared to national news, I can spend hours a day really keeping track of these things.

Nor, is the effects to me personally -- though national things do have more national effects -- significantly different in various cases. Part of the reason is that my focus for much of the last two decades have been people I don't like, New York more low temperature there, even when Republicans had more power. This is partially a matter of my favored position (relatively speaking). And, it is not like there aren't grounds to be on notice. This was seen by news regarding Gov. Cuomo not being aboveboard regarding those dying in nursing homes during the Big V, though the exact range of wrongdoing is unclear. 

The mayor has also not been free from blemish. On that front, I simply don't know really if it was that he was bad or simply disappointing. From my limited attention, I lean toward the latter. I also found it stupid that he ran for president in 2020, one of the many also rans.  A New York mayor might in theory add something, but it seemed more of a vanity campaign that took his time away from doing his job.  Yes, the job I didn't pay much attention of him doing.  He's barred by term limits from running in 2021, which really doesn't seem problematic -- in principle, term limits are problematic, but really, eight years is enough for local positions like these. 

Andrew Cuomo did a good enough job to prevent any serious competition last time.  If he plans to run for a fourth term in 2022, I think that might change.  People might be ready to get rid of him, at least enough that Cynthia Nixon types won't be primary opposition (in both terms of the word).  Anyway, the immediate concern in a few months will be picking among the Democratic mayoral field, now the job of the voter to rank on their ballot.  Biaggi and company is rooting for Scott Springer. But, I'm leaning toward Maya Wiley (black woman activist with some connection to DeBlasio), especially since I want a person of color as mayor.  

Scott Springer probably would do a good job. The other options seem to be also rans, one or more I am sure are good people, if not anyone that one really expects will be mayor of New York next year.  To toss it out there, my assemblywoman wants to be Bronx borough president. So, I guess if that happens, I will have to worry about that slot. Maybe, the guy who quit that slot to for a more profitable  city council position will lose and run for it again!  

One more thing. In the last few months, I saw Morris Park Business Improvement tweets about a chance to get a box of fresh vegetables for filling out a questionnaire about my views on local businesses. Nice deal.  Local groups in that sense have done a few things that pop up -- for instance, there are colorful plantings along the main avenue. There is also -- don't know when it was drawn -- a bicycle lane there as well.  

The times make public events less likely, but I do wish more attention was given to promoting the local community. This could include periodic events where local government representatives will come and performances of locals etc.  I think I'm set in my ways for too long to suddenly spend much more time focusing on local matters, but this sort of thing is helped by others making it more inviting. I don't think there is enough around here.

Impeachment II: Questions, Witnessess & Closing

Finale: 57-43.  Republicans to convict: Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, Toomey.  Cassidy voted for jurisdiction but not witnesses, so I was thinking he might be a "not guilty."  Burr had a good statement; he voted against jurisdiction but unlike some others actually accepted the vote that upheld it.

Sen. Burr (and Toomey) has announced he won't run again, but that is true for one or more of the cowards.  The two women senators are a usual pair that in rare cases are rightly seen as moderates.  Romney is in a special category. Sasse is mostly all talk, but acts a few times too. Democrats held firm. Let's not forget the 14A.

I added this and some other details after my first publish after the rejection of witnesses. But, just one more thing: there will be various accounts about how they didn't vote to convict. Fine.  They didn't convict OJ.  When even your Minority Leader has a speech saying Trump is still liable and passes the buck on bare procedural grounds, maybe toss that in too. 

There was a move to suspend the impeachment trial during the Jewish Sabbath, but the Trump lawyer in question later said it wasn't necessary. The reason is fairly clear -- they wanted to get things over quickly. The defense case on the merits, to the degree one can call it that, only took a few hours of the sixteen hours granted. A new lawyer with plenty of Trump bombast dominated and probably can be honored for basically doing his job, if one not the same as much respect overall.*

The impeachment managers could have basically supplied a classic rebuttal, but things basically went to questions. Last time, by one account from a reporter of the events, we have over 100. This time we had around a quarter. Questions tended to be targeted to one side to basically "lead the witness" though a few times it was as a gotcha. A few was for both sides; really, each question should be answered at least in part by both sides. The questions included attempts to clarify Trump's knowledge of the danger to Pence (basically handwave response) or to try to provide a legalistic definition of incitement. On that, Raskin did a good job, but it was a sort of trap -- this is an impeachment, not a criminal trial.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is expected to vote to acquit Trump according to an email he sent to colleagues that was obtained by Politico. McConnell suggested in the email that his decision was “a close call,” but leaned on the argument made by Trump’s counsel that impeachments “are a tool primarily of removal and we therefore lack jurisdiction.”

We also had an attempt to re-litigate the jurisdiction issue. The fact that (after the last serious Republican candidate for POTUS voted to convict and a leading member of the House Republicans voted to impeach) the Minority Leader here rests on procedural bullshit is telling. So, he cannot rest on Trump's basic innocence?  And, he did so -- he had a speech after the vote that basically agreed with the managers but oh so sorry, did not have the power.  Bullshit.  Jurisdiction was decided and the argument is b.s. either way.  Nice speech, like on 1/6, but net, he did his part to enable. And, McConnell was the one who said the impeachment could not be delivered when the House wanted to days before the Inauguration.  But, that is a bit off as a full answer, since the managers would need time to make their case.

The last question (from Cruz's colleague from Texas, a leading Republican partisan) was actually fairly helpful. It asked why impeachment was necessary, especially now, given the criminal alternative. A basic answer -- and this is the answer to Democrats and others who cite alternatives, including congressional hearings that are a dime a dozen -- is that impeachment is different.

It is a national inquest that in this context addresses the nation in a special way, a way other means do not, with special penalties. This includes the national attention it is receiving, including reporting that brings out new or lesser known details to the nation in way some hearing would not. Raskin quite correctly added that it was important to be timely in this case since the time was sensitive, threats particularly important to respond to when new leaders come in. I'd add the danger is not over in that respect, some even suggesting the "true moment" is the old March inauguration date.

It is a bit amusing that the general inference one takes here is the other side is basically daring the government, including Georgia (which is investigating the matter, though I'll believe they will actually prosecute when I see it), to prosecute. (Some seem rather serious about it.) Perhaps, [partially at least] to use it for partisan effect. We should use all the tools, including the Fourteenth Amendment and civil lawsuits. I'm not really into a censure though ... in this context, the 14A is a logical approach, a sort of statement with a censure-like aspect while also addressing a wider question that might arise later on when various people's eligibility is challenged.

But, as last time, some do not accept this. They want to move on. This was seen when in the evening more and more news accounts came regarding Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy reportedly talking to Trump (who taunted him the the insurrectionists supported Trump more) as the insurrection was taking place, multiple Republican members of Congress talking about it or related matters, Sen. Tuberville -- who also worked with Trump back in December -- talking about that call shortly before Pence was escorted out, regarding Trump knowing Pence was in danger etc. The evident move was to call witnesses.

Remember last time when Democrats were (correctly) pissed off that Senate Republicans refused to have them? Rep. Raskin opened things in the morning asking for the chance to briefly depose one Republican in particular that made a statement, get her notes and if other witnesses wanted to testify, to do the same with them. The reply was more bullshit, including threats to call a who bunch of witnesses. Of course, that wasn't Trump's side call -- the Senate would have to agree to witnesses. In a 55-45 vote, Graham changing to "yea," (he earlier threatened if they asked for witnesses, the Republicans would retailiate with a whole bunch, including Nancy Pelosi ... again, they cannot do so on their say-so), debate was agreed upon.

This basically took off off camera for a few hours.

The result was Raskin got to read that Republican congresswoman's statement into the record (see here for a play by play of the day's events) and me screaming at the television for them to do their fucking job. You have the impeachment. Witnesses are part of it. You were upset about it last time. You open yourself up to the usual suspects complaining how you are just weak, while others will say the witness talk was just partisan rhetoric last time. The whole affair is depressing, including talk by one about how long the Clinton trial was. We can't have such an extended trial in these times so easily. But, we need not. And, the process is not necessary to call them while we listen or something. We didnt have that when they called three during the Clinton impeachment.

This isn't some, as someone snidely said, intended to be a "Matlock" moment. But, it is a moment, not the same as extended little covered congressional hearings or criminal trials for specific people -- not Trump [if he actually is prosecuted, it is likely going to be for a limited role, such as the Georgia call, and a plea bargain is quite possible]. And, we should use it to the degree we can. People testifying matters. It adds a different aspect to the proceedings. It also can be used to clarify things, especially Tuberville's phone call. There is no good reason to deny them. It will not drag the trial on. In fact, once the trial is over, the Senate is likely to take a break for the holiday.

I had to turn off the closing argument of the managers after this. It all had a feel of also ran. It's depressing. I would like to get some background -- probably will come out -- about the back/forth behind the scenes. Anyway, if you want to "move on," my patience for compromise has decreased. 

(Raskin in his press conference noted that the Republicans are basically relying on jurisdiction or something though I think some -- or their supporters -- will rely on fact too.  But, I didn't really expect sixty seven senators. Citing that at some point is stupid.  The issue here is making the case.  A single statement read is not the same thing as the alternative. 

Plaskett raises concern about subpoena being resisted but it far from clear what would happen there.  If that happened, you could show it to people.  You try. Sometimes, you fail.  But, you try.  If this was all so obvious, not sure why it took like two hours to settle things.  So, sorry, love ya, but you are spinning some people. The article here speaks of how the matter "bedeviled" the managers. If it comes or came out one or more managers were upset at what happened, it wold not surprise. They won't say so publicly. What's the point? You publicly go with you are left with. )  

Let me end with this. Getting information via news reports -- see Trump taxes etc. -- is fucking annoying when there is a way for it to come in an official way, including official congressional proceedings. "We will have hearings" only goes so far there even then. So, we will get a Page 10 story in five months or something about information that excites Rachel Maddow or something, huh?

We have a fucking impeachment trial now. 

----

* Like last time, and like his m.o. generally, Trump's side complained ("whined" seems appropriate ... maybe "ranted") about lack of due process. It is cited by some that the Constitution gives each house in relevant part "sole" power here, but  that isn't necessary. 

Or, appropriate. There are ways an impeachment process can be patently unfair. "No review, tough luck," is not how things work there.  It is also part of relying too much on court review to decide certain questions.  To cite a standard concern of mine. 

The bottom line -- though this time for reasons of time and the evidence being clear the House sped impeachment along -- is that there was plenty of due process, other than the basic supermajority that in the end is the reason Trump was not convicted.  Trump's side had access to the evidence, counsel to make a case, a chance to be heard and so forth.  As RBG once noted: "This case is most readily resolved under a core requirement of due process, the right to be heard."

Moving past the bombast, the claims are much more narrower, including parsing what the law requires. Again, that doesn't just include constitutionally requires -- the Supreme Court leaves that very open -- but what a reasoned judgment would.  Many might not think the allegations -- sensibly made given their role -- is worth this much comment. But, it is useful to address them.  They even might be valid in some other case.

Strength to Love (MLK)

It might be crowded out with everything happened -- we even now have the Year of the Ox (and compared to Rat) with the Chinese New Year -- but this Black History Month. I gather it is not yet "People of Color" History Month or something quite yet. I am reading some books that is appropriate to that time, including skimming a collection of Martin Luther King Jr. sermons (with his widow providing an introduction to the 1981 copy).

There is some good content here, most of them edited sermons tied to a particular biblical verse. The first to me is one of the best -- "A Tough Mind and A Tender Heart," a sermon on "Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16). As MLK notes, that is a tough thing to do, but provides a complete person. The first part in his view is a reliance on judgment, including science. The second a matter of compassion and love. And, then he argues that the nonviolence approach furthers both. This is of course what he is particularly known for and later sermons cover this ground some.

Sermons also cover the dangers of misguided conformity, being a good neighbor (pre-Fred Rogers), a "knock at midnight" (both the fear of the late knock, the tendency to resist requests of that nature but also how the darkest moments are but those before dawn provides salvation -- note he at times grants realistically that might not come, that we must sometimes rely on at most inexact success) and what being a "fool" meant to Jesus. MLK notes that calling a rich man a "fool" is not solely a result of him being rich. It is a misuse of his riches.

All of this is provided eloquently with current allusions (such as those that are misguided by advertising or the press) as well as learned philosophical references and probably more familiar to many of his audience references to biblical texts. And, let it not be lost he is a minister to a certain congregation. The first sermon respect of science should not misled that he is a Unitarian type Christian. Later sermons not only target communists but humanists. Science is criticized too, at least those who would only rest on that. For MLK, God and faith in an ultimate salvation is key.

I respect the person speaking here so do not suggest that this is just stupid. But, at some point, it did concern me. The "humanist" who does not believe in his God (putting aside just how broadly one should define that) is not just someone who relies on science. A communist might rely on the state or a specific ideology, though communists come in various forms and some probably in his time respected some form of religion, but the humanist underlines the limits of science. They honor the human, which includes love, compassion and in some fashion what is generally spoken of as the "spirit." If their aspirations are "confined to man and earth," that covers a lot of ground, including moralistic values akin to his.

I think he goes too far against them, but again, realize both his audience and his position. He is after all a Baptist minister. I personally think his overall message is not lost by facing up to a reality that lacks a supernatural deity. This surely includes his nonviolence message, which he argues works both on a a personal level and as a force of change. Two thousand years passing suggests the limits of reliance of Jesus' assumed resurrection being key to the change of humanity. It worked a lot more closer to the event. And, we do not know what the future will bring. A faith in ultimate justice very well might be ideal, if only because living one's life in that way results in the best results.

Noting that a collection of sermons, less than 175 pages, won't provide a full accounting, I think it helpful to read him overall to get a sense of his vantage point. This includes to the degree I disagree with it. I readily admit to probably not reading enough of his writings. This is a good means of dipping one's toes.

SCOTUS Update: Various Actions As Winter Break Continues

The Supreme Court continues their winter break but some action did occur involving them in various respects. The big news is an death penalty case but there was numerous notable other events.

[One more thing. On the judicial front, it is important that various judges are taking senior status, opening slots for Biden while leaving some good judges on the bench to serve in various instances. Another leader appeals court judge announced just that, with a commenting about being happy about Biden having a certain breed of dogs. The judge has a German Shepherd guard dog named "Vixen."]

The first order early in the week was just a follow-up from the Friday night fun time COVID affair, applied without dissent to another case.

Now that the Dems have clear control of Senate committees and everything, we will have a Merrick Garland confirmation hearing! Well, for Attorney General. But, I reckon that will have some amusing (ha ha) allusion to his Supreme Court seat somehow. The road to a 1/3 tainted Court. Around five years from when he was appointed, he will be confirmed ... for another position. 

And, fwiw and not surprisingly, the Biden Justice Department changed the position on the ACA case. To the obviously sane position. That is, a zero tax penalty doesn't make anything unconstitutional and if so they can just sever that portion. The Supreme Court will likely do something like that anyway so this won't moot the case, probably, or change things. We shall see. They also changed their position in another case involving an alleged "taking" merely for having the right to access workers.

Willie B. Smith III was scheduled to receive a lethal injection at a south Alabama prison for the 1991 murder of Sharma Ruth Johnson in Birmingham. Prosecutors said Smith abducted Johnson, 22, at gunpoint from an ATM, stole $80 from her and then took her to a cemetery where he shot her in the back of the head.

For me, the basic problem here is that it is unclear to me the value of executing someone (it is of marginal interest at this point, but also for which seems like an ordinary murder from those bare facts) after thirty years. Justice Breyer has repeatedly cited the problem with waiting so long, including in respect to the penal purpose.  Thirty years is not enough time for even such a horrible crime?  This is what a lottery amounts to.

But, the actual remaining claims are more narrow though the often conservative 11th Circuit did hold up the execution -- (1) should he have the right to have a minister at his execution (2) if he can provide evidence that intellectual disability interfered with his ability to challenge his right to challenge the execution method (he wants nitrogen gas). The latter does not appear to be a full fledged intellectual disability claim though one of these days we will likely have nitrogen gas used.  

The former has split the justices (including conservatives) for a while now.  As I write this before SCOTUS action, it seems to have more of a chance. OTOH, it should not in the end actually delay the execution too much.  Anyway, the continuing dispute (SCOTUS just sent a case back to examine a related issue) underlines to me maybe they should have taken a case to set basic terms.  

So Alabama had until midnight local time (1AM EST) to execute and the decision came around midnight SCOTUS time. They without an opinion (result at least is not surprising, only dissenters concerned with method of execution these days) rejected the second. It's disappointing that there was no written dissent, but maybe one will somehow come later on.  Yet again, the majority should at least explain themselves in an execution case.

As expected, the first was the most promising though there is a 4-3-? split.  Kagan for the liberals and Barrett says he has a right under religious statutory rights in prisons. Thomas dissents without opinion. Kavanaugh (with Roberts) follows past sentiment that a neutral rule (including nothing) is acceptable. He also added that given that wasn't the result, the state should figure a way to get the advisor in to stop long delays and allow "closure" for victims' families. Note that only some of them get closure by executions, especially those who oppose executions.  

So conservatives split on a religious liberty question, but we don't quite know how since Alito and Gorsuch didn't explain their votes. We don't know. On a matter that repeatedly has come up now, the Supreme Court still doesn't have a clear opinion.  This is stupid, especially since this provided a prime case to do it. Why it took to midnight is unclear too. Neither exactly wrote long opinions.  Did Breyer or Kagan try to get Alito or Gorsuch and fail? It's Breyer's first majority (in a way).  And, then there is an earlier opinion by Alito (with Gorsuch and Thomas!) that rejected a related claim on procedural grounds, but said maybe it could be a serious claim in the right case.  Alito wrote a key prison religion case here too.

The net result is more shadow docket opaqueness and for at least a limited time no execution. The state really should have had a back-up plan to allow the spiritual advisor in if that is all it took. At some point, delays have something to do with state action.  Anyway, since there should be no big reason not to have the advisor in there, if Alabama really wants to execute him, they still should figure out a way to do so soon. 

Okay let's summarize. (1) This is a reasonable religious claim, especially since it is done via a targeted statutory protection.  (2) Some conservatives at times at least will be consistent but the shadow docket is still stupid. (3) Here is a summary of what happened, again from the great Amy Howe. (4) The whole thing underlines court reform has various parts. And, to quote one link, (5) Smith will [likely] still be killed, albeit with the presence of a pastor who, in Smith’s words, will “relieve his struggle as he passes” and help him “properly express to God his repentance.” Even if they accepted his other claim, that would be so, just with a different method. 

[The House will have a hearing on the shadow docket.]

====

As expected, the February arguments (starting on Washington's Birthday, Presidents' Day next Monday, near Lincoln's actual) will be by telephone. I have voiced some support, and do still think it helpful to give each member a chance to ask questions.

But, the back/forth -- if imperfect and in practice selective (still, that can be addressed too) -- of the old system also had charms. Other courts manage to keep that by using video, which easily can you know include some sort of method [let's say a flashing light] to flag who should talk next while the others mute.  Many use video conferences, including sometimes with nine or more members, and they can too.

So, it's 11:45PM. I think we are safe.

ETA: Basically so.  Justices in their circuit role act upon things and there was a report that Breyer did so and turned down a request in an extradition case on Saturday. I don't really keep track of that sort of thing here, but since it received notice in a news article, decided to toss it in.

"White House aide suspended for threatening reporter"

It is reassuring to listen to press conferences led by Jen Psaki ["p" is silent], who is both good at her job and not an asshole. She, for instance, already had extended service providing a similiar service in the Obama State Department. One recent question regarded what AP summaries this way:

White House deputy press secretary T.J. Ducklo has been suspended for a week without pay after he reportedly issued a sexist and profane threat to a journalist seeking to cover his relationship with another reporter.

This is after President Biden earlier said this:

“I’m not joking when I say this: If you ever work with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I will fire you on the spot,” he said that day. “No ifs, ands or buts.”

I take this as not merely a flourish, but something with some bite. We can parse it some, talk of "colleague" and so forth. A total zero toleration rule whenever someone might "talk down to someone," which literally covers a range of human language, would be a bit absurd. But, the facts here are troubling. Per an article cited:

During the off-the-record call, Ducklo made derogatory and misogynistic comments, accusing Palmeri of only reporting on his relationship—which, due to the ethics questions that factor into the relationship between a journalist and White House official, falls under the purview of her reporting beat—because she was “jealous” that an unidentified man in the past had “wanted to fuck” McCammond “and not you.” Ducklo also accused Palmeri of being “jealous” of his relationship with McCammond. (Palmeri had no prior relationship or communication with McCammond before calling her to report on the Playbook item, which was a story that she was assigned and had not independently pursued.)

This crosses a line. The coverage of the press office official has included reference to his serious health problems involving cancer. I saw some suggestion that it, including perhaps medication, would affect his judgment. Eh. We can't handwave this sort of thing. It is also suggested that he needs the health insurance. I find this a bit amusing on some level (sorry), but even that is unclear -- after all, ACA ("Obamacare," right?) particularly would help him here. Would losing his job mean losing his insurance? Why not just move him not just from dealing with this one publication (which is reportedly the next step, though unclear how that will work if his job overlaps) but in a role that just doesn't deal with the press directly.

I do think, though it was not touched upon in JP's reply, that his health issues might have had an influence on the response. Either way, what happened is serious. We need to draw lines here, especially since in the past (maybe still) Biden himself has been looked upon by some as of questionable on proper treatment of women. I noted that I thought the temptation to get a certain baseball player too often ignored his problems. Sometimes, there will be pushback "it doesn't matter" or "hey, we did something."

The #MeToo Era among other things underlines that sometimes that sentiment is not enough. Yes, we should act reasonably, factoring in humanity. But, lines should be drawn. I'm unsure if things went far enough here. The whole thing is more complicated with the health issues than normally the case.

Update: He resigned. I think that is appropriate. We had a few weeks of basically no drama, so we were due for something. The health issue probably made things a bit more complicated. But, Biden put in a high standard. And, the person crossed the line. His involvement with a reporter alone probably was likely to cause problems given life these days. People with some insight in line drawing of that nature have flagged the issue.

Impeachment 2 Continues: Prosecution Merits

The impeachment managers the last couple days provided their merits presentation. The jurisdiction (no impeachment after he leaves office!) question was allegedly settled.

Some Republicans rather it not be, particularly since it allows them to avoid the merits. They realistically have the power to decide on those grounds. And, ignore the very good presentation that showed Trump's incitement was long coming, it was particularly in place on 1/6 and once they started, Trump didn't do anything but if anything keep it up. Early on, the Georgia call was cited and I hope they bring it up again.

This is so that even the Belknap "precedent" helps them even less than some might think. The debate there was not really that he resigned and thus the trial occurred afterwards. No. According to that historical account, the debate is that he resigned before the House could even impeach. Trump was impeached while in office. The precedent there was broad -- you can impeach for official conduct, even if the person no longer was in office. Two senators broadly provided their views:

Norwood argued from history and precedent that the impeachment process was remedial. The purpose of the constitutional clauses providing for impeachment were not simply to remove a person from office but to purify government, prevent future crimes and give warning to those who would attempt crimes. Stevenson claimed that under the interpretation of those who denied the Senate’s jurisdiction, government could become a carousel of corruption and criminality. The corrupt could dismount from office as necessary and remount when the time was opportune.

(Talking broadly that era's history, Women’s War: Fighting and Surviving the American Civil War, was interesting. It was basically three case studies -- war crimes for women, dealing with slave women by attaching their freedom to male slaves' wartime service and post-war struggles of white women via a case study.)

Talk is that the Trump side wants to use a fraction of their time and manage to finish their merits argument before one of their chief lawyers (the one that didn't ramble on the first day) has to step aside for Jewish Sabbath. They will apparently focus mostly on b.s. procedural issues. Then, you will have Q&A and wrap-up, unless the managers want witnesses. Chuck Schumer earlier suggested the Democrats in the Senate rather them not, but not says it is up to the managers. Again, witnesses can be good, but who? Let's see how it goes on Friday etc. first.

Again, the various impeachment managers -- each in their own fashion -- did a good job. Only near the end did it seem a bit low energy. I was worried that they would go too narrow -- focus too much just on 1/6 -- but they opened things up some. I think they should have did that more last time. If Republicans were going to vote to acquit, bring up how the Ukraine phone call wasn't out of nowhere, it was a result of a pattern back to the Mueller Report stuff. Oh well. Schiff ended earlier February 2020 with a warning.

Deja vu.

Impeachment 2 -- Day One: Jurisdiction [Plus a Movie]

Here is Rep. Jamie Raskin's full 13-minute video montage of the Capitol insurrection.https://t.co/1pQtNtMHmd

— The Recount (@therecount) February 9, 2021

Today we had the arguments that we shouldn't even go to the trial itself, amply dealt with (waiving a half hour of rebuttal time) by Raskin and two other lesser known guys.  It started with a video of the invasion of the U.S. Capitol, "R" content and all.  Raskin ended his argument with a personal statement about his family being at risk. Other two were good. 

Trump, after one guy rambled and the other ranted b.s. arguments, had his side end with some poem. Sure. The big issue on that side was why the lawyer covered his head when he drank water (Jewish thing, religious head coverings apparently not allowed on the floor).  The shoddy nature of the argument not stopping the Republicans from voting against it 44-6, only one senator (Sen. Cassidy of Louisiana, not exactly the lead guess) changing their vote from an earlier procedural motion to table the question. Republicans are horrible.

We shall see how the Dems fill their time -- Schumer flagged the senators don't want witnesses (I'd have at least a few since they are powerful) -- but a comment suggested the nature of the crime -- extended instigation by fraudulently calling the election a fraud, incitement and then not doing anything (except for patting them on the back) as the crime occurred.  

Note in theory that once the jurisdiction question is decided, Republicans can in theory deem that settled and rest on other things. I realize why they rather not, since "neutral" process arguments come off best.  Also, realize that is rather optimistic, though it would not shock if a senator did vote "guilty" (and even one of the"fair process" six change on the merits). Still.  

===

Keep Your Powder Dry is one of the Lana Turner movies on yesterday and was a fairly enjoyable WWII patriotic piece.  Apparently, "Mrs. Howell" did more than one movie with her, since I saw her pop up in another movie in the series on that channel.  I also saw that actress in another film (a woman gets to experience a year over again) from that time period.  

The film concerns three different types of women who train to be WACS, it being released in 1945. Wikipedia tells me it was discontinued late in the 1970s, the units becoming co-educational, as they say.  The film is nothing surprising but is a respectful look at the dramas of each women, including their concerns for self-respect.  I thought Susan Peters, sort of the "Jan" character, was very good.  Her character's ability to hold firm when she just found out her husband died was powerful.  Checking, her life soon became tragic itself, though at first it looked like she might be able to handle it. 

I recall watching at least part of Lana Turner's famous movie, the one about how many times the postman rings the bell. Would like to see Susan Peters in other roles too.  Probably saw Lorraine Day in something too. Can do without fake drunks though -- tiresome character trait.  Ah. I saw her in Mr. Lucky with Cary Grant. 

Repeats and Other Odds and Ends

I'm going to cover some ground already covered to highlight a couple things. And, cover some other stuff. Oh. Almost forgot -- the NY Daily News has a a union again. Congratulations, though the paper has undergone some depressing reductions in recent years.

First off, the Svengoolie movie last night was Black Scorpion, a monster flick that is sort of a bargain version of the classic Them!. The movie started with great atmosphere though the creepy almost post-apocalyptic setting (though, yes, there are volcanoes in Mexico) was a bit weird. Our heroes, a local scientist and a macho American, were a tad stereotypical, especially the latter (soon more concerned with a local woman rancher), but fun. Then, not quite half-way thru, it was slog about the authorities fighting the monsters. Good 1950s special effects, but rather boring. 

 ===

I was annoyed that a horrible call and more led Kansas to escape their one real threat, resulting in two teams in the Supreme Bowl that many not me will watch.  I would be annoyed if the Bills lost fair and square, but even harder now.  Anyway, my support is with Tampa as a team, even if Pretty Boy leading the way taints the process. Wish for a Super Bowl I can enjoy, preferably without him being involved (even the two Giants wins had him).

Once we get that out of the way, we will be marching toward baseball season, with pitchers and catchers due this month. The Big V still makes things far from clear, even if vaccines and (up to a point) success during the not quite the same (closer contact, fewer games) NFL season (which itself had blips).  No DH this season in the NL though there is a lot of people rooting for it.  It depresses me.  There is enough offense as is, including the resulting increase of the usage of the bullpen. Why is there such a driving need for even more offense, taking away strategical moves to boot?

On the front, there has been a lot of Mets news, including not signing any of the key free agents (they did sign some, including a big trade; but, that was a surprise, not the usual suspects). The current NY Daily News Mets reporter (replacing another woman a couple years or so ago, who is now covering the Yankees) argues not signing Trevor B. was not really some big disappointment while analyzing their moves and possible further moves.  

Deesa Thosar also had a bit bite in her covering of the sexual harassment controversies, including bluntly in a past article referencing TB "harassing" more than one person.  She also argued that women should not have the job of cleaning up the mess of sexual harassment (and worse) in baseball. Sure enough.  I do think they can have a role, including maybe Sandy Alderson and others in baseball seeking out their counsel (and options for jobs).  

The two women reporters, anyway, covered the team well.  Among the various good sports reporters out there, there are many good women that stand out.  I wish SNY had a woman sideline reporter for Mets games like the NFL does for games. How about even for eye candy reasons? 

(Update: Reports are that the Mets have went with a middle range center-fielder option, Albert Almora, akin the the catcher they signed.  The Mets got their big name with a surprise at shortstop and the big thing to look for is for them to get him long term. This is more of a limited move.  

There was a big name (or two) talked about but Lindor served that role.  So, shrugs.  I think they will also get another back-end starter.  We should see more avoidance of Dom Smith playing a corner spot, but figure he can play enough to keep him active, both there and in the infield. This is not a reason in my view to root for the DH either.  There is a trade-off there.) 

====

The Trump Impeachment Trial starts on Tuesday and it is almost blocked out by all the other stuff going on.  I linked some comments against having one for which I added a couple extended comments. Here is a taste:

A full-blown trial will take a long time and be a circus. The Senate has other important priorities during the pandemic. Moreover, the country does not at this time need another extended discussion about the former President dominating the news.

Again, I don't want to belabor the point here, I will though, but this upsets me. What this sounds like to me is that he wants to "move on" since an accounting of the insurrection [he separately says he thinks it is sensible to label it as such when talking about the relevant 14th Amendment provision] is not really important now.  We dealt with it enough. Facing up to it in a full trial, as compared to piecemeal stuff, will be a "circus."

The last part is almost absurd. He's going to be a major issue regardless. The trial provides a chance for the matter to be addressed so that it doesn't linger on.  Not that, again, he will simply go away. The participants are being handled by the criminal justice system at the moment and in each case Trump in some fashion is at least a silent partner.  The true accounting, as we saw in the area of torture in the Bush years or the 2016 election, will take years.  This will include in the upcoming weeks and months.

But, there is a certain immediacy here that we need to move on from.  And, a trial is part of that.  It will be far from a "circus" as well, even though like any public even trial will have that aspect.  The comment to me seems like a desire to push what happened -- a MONTH ago -- away since we have better things to worry about. This is madness on a basic level. We have to face up to what happened, the invasion not just a crazy fringe, but an extreme version of a much bigger part of this nation.  

The author wants to use the more legalistic 14th Amendment disenfranchisement mechanism.  I don't think this will totally allow us to push things away since it will (should) involve some sort of congressional involvement.  Just having scattered means of enforcement piecemeal is the road to problems.  It also trivializes things to a major extent. The provision can apply to some small fry (as it did after the Civil War) who wants to run for office in some locality.  This seems to be a charm for him, putting aside the involvement of the judiciary (though just what is required is simply far from clear -- you can cite 1869 state court rulings all you want, still true).

The provision sets up an almost bureaucratic remedy here, upheld by some local election review action if challenged.  Putting aside my concerns that it might be seen as antiquated or at least novel (it last was really used over 100 years ago), this isn't what the impeachment is about.  The impeachment very well is about bringing Trump to trial in front of the country. Having the country face up to what happened and what Trump's role in it was. Not on Rachel Maddow or a trial of the guy who wants to eat organic food in prison.  No.  Trump himself.  Who realistically won't be arrested for it.  This will be his trial.

Yes, it is likely he won't be convicted by the Senate. But, this is part of the process. Republicans in the Senate already swore an oath that they will basically violate as they did last time.*  The country has to face up to that.  That is part of what electing Democrats to control the House was about and having control of the Senate.  The author is also concerned about Trump being found not guilty.  But, it will be the not guilty of OJ Simpson.  As last time, Republicans repeatedly are not saying he didn't do it. Procedural concerns -- told with the level of passion suggestive of them being aware they are full of shit -- are repeatedly provided.

After this, the 14th Amendment remedy can be provided. Let's see how many Republicans actually sign on a resolution officially saying he committed insurrection. Let's see if that too will be a "circus," labeled merely a partisan thing.  Anyway, it is not the same thing. Impeachment is a special national political inquest.  It is proper and necessary that we face this.  A trial now is a good thing, including if you are concerned about other problems.  Let us get it over with then. The reasoning falls even on its own premises. 

Concerns about procedural niceties (like another person parsing text on who presides) is bullshit.  Trump is not being treated unfairly.  If anything, a majority vote via the 14A remedy [without Trump getting a chance for an extended defense] with a few judges upholding it since there is a rational basis for it (a criminal conviction for insurrection wasn't necessary in the past) to me comes off as more unfair to some degree.  Law professors can parse things like the presiding officer but the author himself noted the same presiding officer was present in past impeachments. 

So what the hell is really at stake here?  A Chief Justice presides when the person impeached is a sitting president and in the same clause "persons" overall are referenced.  A Chief Justice probably can (should) preside now too but it is a more complicated and disputed point. Plus, you are not going to force the guy, realistically.  The real concern, and then more symbolically to be realistic since a presiding officer has limited power and a vice president still can be self-interested in other cases too, is when a vice president would preside for someone whose position they might step into. Impeachments for people who left office also was a common practice when the clause was ratified. But, who really cares about history when it results in conclusions not your own? 

===

Anyway, the trial begins on Tuesday. The Democrats, after two weeks, also control committees, the organizing resolution finally settled upon. Harris also got a chance to do something Biden never did -- break a tie. And, it looks like something about five years in the making will come -- a hearing for Merrick Garland. 

---

* In an alternative universe, the trial would be a way for many Republicans (not just a few -- like the five that didn't vote to end debate on a vote that the trial itself is unconstitutional, which is moronic stuff) to show themselves as serious about the problem at hand. Not just mildly concerned and saying enough to show "I care."  To show Trump crossed a red line.

Many in the House are just assholes, including those who can't manage even to just be checked for guns before going on to the floor.  See, non-assholes might find that sort of thing asinine, but realize a few weeks after an armed attack might warrant being a grown-up.  There is a range there, but senators have their own things, including needing to call out the trial.  How about just letting it be, even if you (badly) vote not to convict?

GM will see such things and sigh, this is the sort of "circus" that bothers him. But, it is also a result of one side failing to step up to the occasion. An occasion that should be addressed.  Skipping it is not the solution. 

On Treason (and Trump)

I added a book On Treason to the book side panel. It's an interesting look at the Treason Clause, breaking down its specific parts and discussing various treason trials (John Brown was executed under a state law; ironically, his citizenship being key allowed at least two blacks to escape the same fate).  Each aspect of the clause warrants review, including the need for an "overt act" (an actual event, not just a conspiracy or plan). 

The author recently suggested that the invasion of the Capitol very well might be treason, a crime that under modern constitutional law covers limited ground.  As early as the 1850s, and probably much earlier, it was already clear merely interfering with the execution of federal law was not treason. Timothy McVeigh was not a "traitor" in a legal sense though he might have once been treated as such.  But, this was about the transfer of power, much closer to the core concern of the treason provision.  

(The word "treason" is tossed around a lot, but the constitutional provision is much more narrow.  Other crimes are usually prosecuted and other than the symbolic meaning of "treason" (including to get a sense of what other impeachment counts are warranted) -- the crime historically meant more such as very harsh punishment - an argument can be made it is at least somewhat antiquated.  Note though that on some level, it is okay to loosely use terms, everyone not required to talk like lawyers.) 

The author repeatedly wrote that things that very well could be wrong and even criminal is not "treason."  He cites, for instance, negative pushback when noting that a conspiracy with Russia to interfere with a presidential election would not be treason based on what we know.  This, however, came pretty close.  Imagine if slave supporters tried to stop the electoral count of Abraham Lincoln in 1861, deeming his election a grave threat to the South, hoping the result was Stephen Douglas would be chosen.

Terms like "insurrection" are even easier to apply here, the Fourteenth Amendment using it separate from "rebellion."  Consider one dictionary definition: "a violent uprising against an authority or government."  And, this is specifically what the second impeachment (Trump has been impeached ... the issue at hand next week is conviction) is about. 

Query how far to take this -- Trump basically had at least three instances in which he tried to interfere with the normal transfer of power. This one is most directly aiding and abetting an insurrection.  But, the basic mulligan involved in the Mueller Report and the attempt to interfere with the election involved in the first impeachment as a whole is rather comparable.

An impeachment is also a specific constitutional institution that is separate from the disqualification at issue in that amendment, even if the impeachment count does reference it. Without repeating myself, see here, e.g., for why I think the impeachment is appropriate.  One thing there is the concern about Leahy presiding, which I find a bit asinine. It's at best a sort of interesting dispute that at the end of the day is really not that important.

We shall see how the trial goes. Anyway, the book is very interesting, ending with modern day questions such as involving be charged with treason for things like sending videos as part of terrorist groups. It touches upon drones, which is a whole other matter in my opinion that led me to have disputes with people I usually agree with on most matters. Either way, treason still has some applications and not only as a symbolic label.

SCOTUS News: Winter Recess Edition

Various bits of SCOTUS news, including order and opinion related, even though they are in Winter Recess. Contra one good Twitter allusion, the fact they are "ON A BREAK!" does not mean they are inactive. Sorry, Ross.

The Court put out their schedule for the March argument, which is promoted as a low key set, but it does have a few important matters. For instance, there is a college athletics case of some note. Meanwhile, the change in administrations has already led to changes, with the acting solicitor general asking them to remove cases related to the border wall and asylum policy. Action regarding the PPACA case has not been reported yet though the Trump opinion there is surely not the same as the Biden one. 

(SCOTUS then agreed in their Wednesday orders: "The motions to hold further briefing in abeyance and to remove the cases from the February 2021 argument calendar are  granted."  They also granted cert in another case, specifically noting that it will be assigned for argument in April, a specific scheduling move that they do not usually make.) 

Bloomberg News (Twitter) summarized an order that dropped as February opened this way: "The Supreme Court lifted an order that would’ve required prosecutors to retry a murder case by May 4 or release the defendant, after the state cited Covid prompted trial delays." The order itself didn't explain itself, just a reference (usually telling in itself) that Sotomayor dissented from it. If SCOTUS is going to single out one case like this, during Winter Recess at that, maybe they can say why. But, this lack of clarification is old news by now.

"My passions and beliefs are likely shared with the bulk of you, but certainly not all. And sometimes the smallest matters can divide loved ones for too long. Let’s pledge to not let politics divide THIS family, and learn to speak more gently and knowingly across the divide.”

Ginni Thomas privately apologized to her husband's clerk family for causing a "rift" arising from her strong pro-Trump advocacy, particularly involving the January 6th protest. Let's not a "small" matter like this cause trouble! She's pro-unity. It is not like she is saying she was wrong on the merits. But, the fact her advocacy -- which has been going on for years, including meeting Trump -- apparently crossed some line here suggests that 1/6 is rather sensitive. Good reporting of the details.

SCOTUS flagged on its website (not sure if this was a thing last term) of a possible opinion day on Wednesday. Last time, that was just a "dig" -- dismiss as improvidentially granted (for some reason they usually don't explain).  This time there were two (a third was just a "see the other one") opinions, including a chance for the Robert/Kavanaugh wing of the conservatives to show themselves.  This was a technical case to determine if a benefits dispute was granted judicial review pursuant to the relevant statute.  Justice Sotomayor for the five said "yes," while Thomas and the others (included the newest member, here taking part) dissented.  

The other cases involved rules regarding keeping a property dispute arising out of the Holocaust out of U.S. courts.  The oral arguments suggested the cases raised various issues that concerned the justices, but CJ Roberts for a unanimous bench avoided some of them, finding a way to keep this one out.  Prime sentence:  "We would not place so much weight on a gerund." The ruling appears reasonable, even if you might find fault to some degree.

(Some wondered why SCOTUS took a break from Winter Recess for a pair of not very compelling cases, but I basically seriously see it as a way for them to get rid of some business while showing the world they are just ordinary folks. Don't bother us, we are just reasonable hard working judges!  There are old lingering cases due to be decided and this cleans the slate, the remaining ones perhaps a bit more tricky to handle. And, now they can just drop the cases in. No one even has to show up.)  

I dropped this shortly before 6PM. Let's see if it was too premature. If something else comes up, will add.  

-----

Uh huh.  I double-checked hours later and nothing new came. But, by now it is clear that would not necessarily settle things.  Around 11 P.M., the Supreme Court handed down an order that overruled California's ban on indoor religious services, upholding (for now) the occupancy limits and ban on singing and chanting.  Note the time stamp on the SCOTUSBlog summary.  The summary from the more strident voice at Slate adds additional information, including why religious services in particular might concern California in particular.  Why different rules for "California’s powerful entertainment industry "  [to quote a concurrence that in general has five votes] is treated differently and so forth.  

The Supreme Court (yet again) used their "shadow docket" to overrule a lower court without applying traditional rules that only does that is extreme cases.  They did so in the middle of the night (again) without taking time to even in an accelerated way (compare Pentagon Papers etc.) to provide some form of full review. And, it did not explain itself, though nose counting will get you five votes this time.  This is important: Barrett (with Kavanaugh) provided her first on the record comments in such a way that some accounts suggested were somewhat middle of the road.  But, she basically AGREED with the Gorsuch trio except for a limited point regarding anti-religious bias on the current record.  

[Her reasoning on how to flag wrongful targeting of religious institutions is not promising since she doesn't address the argument that even if a movie set is treated differently here, it is not the same thing because they aren't the same -- e.g., it is not realistic to require everyone who goes to a religious service to test three times a week or something.  As Leah Litman, showing that blog still has life after Trump, notes here,  basically notes, "identifying distinctions between religious institutions and non-religious institutions that don’t really go to the reasons why a law applies to them in the first place" is bullshit.]

What a lower court is required to do here still is unclear since the three put forth a "statement" as compared to a more normal "concurring in part" or something.  Roberts added a separate concurrence restating his appeal to state discretion, but noting here it "appears" not to be warranted other than regarding certain limits.  Alito separately would "would stay for 30 days an injunction against the percentage attendance caps and the prohibition against indoor singing and chanting."  

But, the Slate article seems correct that a shift of the law on religious liberty is apparent.  Anyway, Kagan is pissed, including by the lack of clarity ("No one can know, from the Court’s 19-line order, exactly why.") Shadows are hard to grasp, even if they seem better in some cases than more concrete results that have broader effects.  People like Scalia railed against policy making courts ruling without clarity.  These cases not only often have bad results, they do not provide clarity.  The Supreme Court has a limited docket, usually picking cases from states to clarify disputes. Overruling lower courts and inhibiting state policy like this is bad.

Kagan might "respectfully" dissent, but she is clearly pissed off, basically going what some might say "full Sonia":

I fervently hope that the Court’s intervention will not worsen the Nation’s COVID crisis. But if this decision causes suffering, we will not pay. Our marble halls are now closed to the public, and our life tenure forever insulates us from responsibility for our errors. That would seem good reason to avoid disrupting a State’s pandemic response. But the Court forges ahead regardless, insisting that science-based policy yield to judicial edict.

Sorta be better if the majority didn't turn on three tainted seats.  

ETA: It seems somewhat relevant here, especially when many responses are going to focus on the religion of the majority members here, that Justice Breyer's daughter (Chloe Breyer) is an Episcopal priest.  I have referenced her book talking about her religious education in the past. She supports interfaith efforts and might also be called "Dr. Breyer."