Smart Women

Judy Blume's famous novel about a middle school girl is now a film. Smart Women is one of her few adult novels (her most famous is Wifey). I enjoyed it.

The book is from the early 1980s and concerns a mom of two teens who falls in love with the ex-husband of a casual friend. This causes some problems, especially because the other woman has her own issues in part arising out of a family tragedy. We see things through the perceptives of each woman and each of their daughters.

It covers a lot of ground and even includes an abortion. Blume also is sexually open, including a few "OMG!" moments. May not want your preteen to read this!

SCOTUS Order Day

There was a brief Order List today. For whatever reason, it was delayed a few minutes from the usual 9:30 A.M. time. Usual stuff without a helpful FAQ provided. One thing that stands out: after Kagan labeled why she recused, Alito did not. Ethics reform, please.

You Can Live Forever

This film has various storylines the interconnect and a very good cast that shows the complexities of the people involved. And, one of the writers/directors comes from the community (in more ways than one) it is portraying. So, there is a sense of honesty, truth, and understanding that is well-earned. I enjoyed it.

The film involves a teenage girl who comes to live with an aunt who belongs to a Jehovah's Witness community in Quebec. She falls in love with a believer while befriending a guy outside it who probably would like to be her girlfriend, but knows it is not to be. So, they are friends. As the review says, the characters are not caricatures.

The title concerns the belief that we are living in the end times and that true happiness (and eternal life) is soon to come. The girl who believes this assumes the two will be forever happy in that time.  They might not be able to be together in the short term.  But, when the new age comes, they will e together. This is a matter of fitting things into beliefs that is pretty creative. 

The review notes that that film isn't clear on its time period until there is a dropped hint (that I didn't catch when I watched it on demand) that it was the 1990s.  I think it is apparent that it is not the 21st Century since there is no reference to personal computers, AOL, or anything like that. She played a video game with her guy friend, but he had no computer or smartphone.

Anyway, I don't think the exact timing matters since even today I assume being a lesbian would be a problem in that community.  I don't know how they "talked like they are in the 2020s" at any rate.  How did we talk differently in the 1990s exactly?  It took place in Canada so I don't know exactly how one speaks the 1990s there but here the 21st Century has various current concerns that probably would pop up somehow.  

Don't think there was some "amateur" feel to any of the acting. The whole thing had a sense of quiet realness in my view.  Maybe a few rough edges.  Nothing too notable. Anyway, good film. 

Some More On ERA

I found a little book (2015) entitled Equal Means Equal: Why The Time For An Equal Amendment Is Now. Gloria Steinem's foreword manages to leave out two words from the first section of the amendment and miscount the number of words. I know.  I couldn't believe it and counted them multiple times.  

The section has very limited endnotes including a comparison to antebellum women's legal status to slaves.  The reference to "millions" of witches allegedly killed is both absurd and not a one-off claim.  I also couldn't find a reference to two Native American guests of Ben Franklin at the Constitution Convention asking "Where are the women," though did find other instances of that being said.  Might be a mix-up there.  

The Supreme Court in the 1970s followed the suggestions of people like Pauli Murray and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to add teeth to sex equality.  An argument by Murray lead me to learn about an interesting character, Dr. Louis Lasagna, and his updated Hippocratic Oath.  The original oath's apparent anti-abortion quality is overrated.

We are reminded that Justice Scalia once argued that the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment holds that it does not apply to gender discrimination.  Such a complete gloss on a general text was not even fully accepted in the early 20th Century (the dissent here is a broad case, but women had some rights even beyond that).  

I originally said more but I will condense.  I am interested in the wording of the ERA that is different than the Equal Protection Clause.  But, the discussions I have found do not seem to be as concerned by the wording.  The general sentiment is about what the amendment would do, which is an expansive view of sex equality that goes beyond what the Supreme Court deemed the current Constitution does even before the Dobbs travesty.  

I think the text does matter -- discussions of constitutional provisions include some analysis of the text, including how specific text was chosen.  We can go too far there.  The general understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment involved general principles, not even such things as worrying about specifically what Bill of Rights provisions would be applied to the states.  

ERA supporters (and this is covered in the book) also are not usually concerned about textual nuances.  The amendment basically is understood to say "women should be treated equally."  And, this is understood in the 1970s and later understanding, one that supports open-ended protection that allows for broad federal legislation to support it.

So, yes, U.S. v. Morrison turns on state action.  But, ERA supporters think it would be more likely to result in the dissent winning out.  The book repeatedly appeals to what the amendment means and such things as legislative history.  OTOH, one source from the 1970s also assures us the ERA doesn't protect abortion or same-sex marriage.  And, that is at least half honest for the era -- state ERAs existed long before any state protected SSM.

The text might help here -- though again the supporters really don't dwell on this -- but it is not the main focus.  This very well might cause problems if the ERA actually was passed.  Many of the same people (and judges) who narrowly apply the Constitution might strictly apply it.  It would be rather interesting to see how much "original understanding" factors in.

Originalism is a dubious Calvinball-esque exercise, so I am wary there.  Anyway, for the time being, that is academic.  

Memorial Day Weekend

We are starting a three-day weekend (my schedule of late makes such things neither here nor there) in honor of the Memorial Day Weekend. The general concern warrants respect.  

To note why, for instance, the local library is closed today -- the day is not meant to merely be the unofficial beginning of the summer season. It is to honor the dead in wars.  A recent proclamation from President Biden, whose respect for the military in part was furthered by his son's membership in it, noted:

In honor and recognition of all of our fallen service members, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved May 11, 1950, as amended (36 U.S.C. 116), has requested that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace and designating a period on that day when the people of the United States might unite in prayer and reflection.  The Congress, by Public Law 106-579, has also designated 3:00 p.m. local time on that day as a time for all Americans to observe, in their own way, the National Moment of Remembrance.

The promotion of peace is fitting and proper.  There are various things to do to help advance various causes.  Peace is a proper way to honor the dead. The method of doing so might in some cases dishonor them, especially if their actions are simply diminished in crude terms.  But, this is not necessary, nor is it a very appropriate exercise of human empathy.

There are some who see wars as a useful aspect of national existence. Wars supposedly not only provide the nation with certain monetary benefits, but they are a way to "build character."  I think there are a variety of ways to do that without wars.  Regardless, it will be some time before there is no need at all for the military or some use of force.

The name of the holiday is notable.  It speaks of memory.  We should remember.  And, part of this is to remember truthfully.  There is an old line about the lies of old soldiers, who exaggerate and misremember.  We can say this without disrespecting the many accurate memories that can be found, including those of old veterans of wars from the early decades of the 20th Century.  We need not do this writ large in our histories.

The holiday -- as with all holidays -- has a quality to it that goes beyond a certain special core.  Memorial Day is even more than some holidays of this character.  We might be told to "Keep the Christ in Christmas," but Jesus is likely to be remembered somehow.  Many will even go to church, including some who only go there a few times a year at most. 

It is more likely that people will focus more on the start of beach time now (and of course sales) than those who died.  This is so even though that is the special nature of this holiday above and beyond Veteran's Day.  So be it. Many holidays are largely markers that divide the year up in various respects.  It does make the name of the holiday a bit curious to some, perhaps.  Do some wonder ... what am I remembering?  

There are things that we should think about regularly, but that is unlikely.  So, we set aside certain days to do so.  There has been an explosion of days (I even found one for large foreheads, when researching something!). Still, there are a few things at least that warrant a bit more respect, including our parents and selves (we do deserve a day).  This is one of them.

And, we do have three days to think about it.  Anyway, I am not a gigantic fan of various aspects of summer, including beaches. Baseball is nice enough.  Teachers do need some time off.  But, I actually prefer cool and moderate weather.  Well, that's just me. 

Mr. Ethics and SCOTUS Watch

First, Roberts showed up in front of the American Law Institute:

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan introduced Roberts at the event, during which he received an award, praising his ability to write compellingly on complex legal issues. But she added, in a references to divisions on the court, there are plenty of other issues “I tear my hair out about.”

He does write well.  He wrote the opinion in "here's a case where the government is so wrong that we all agree" in a workmanlike fashion that received a lot of praise.  Kagan then said this about a case that Roberts joined by Alito, which was tarred as total bullshit by as many:

The majority could use every letter of the alphabet, and graduate to quadratic equations, and still not solve its essential problem.

I understand she's stuck with them and all, but this compartmentalization after a while bothers me.  This includes Ginsburg's "he's such a nice boy"-ing Kavanaugh and Sotomayor assuring us Gorsuch is such a good friend and colleague.  These people continue to drive a lot more than those with life tenure (with good behavior, theoretically) to distraction.

Roberts said his hardest decision was to put up a fence around the Court after the abortion protests started.  He name-checked Kyle Duncan, the anti-GLBTQ judge as a target because some students (without life tenure) made him sweat a tad.  Depriving us of voting rights? Easy call. He also assured us the Court will uphold ethics.

Sure thing, John.  Why not start by posting your remarks on the page last used by Ginsburg in 2019 so everyone else can see them?  

Anyway, there were three opinions, and in a fashion they all were unanimous.  We had another Gorsuch/Jackson concurring opinion, this time in that Roberts case to point out that taking property worth much more than the taxes owed is also a sort of "fine" with Eighth Amendment implications. Fine (ha).  I saw what Gorsuch's "libertarianism" amounts to in that Title 42 case from last week.  

No, thank you.  He will say some good things at times, but even then, he will often say them too blithely, and in a bad fashion. Mr. Eighth Amendment! Check him out if it's the death penalty or a range of other punishments.  Is he concerned about excessive punishments or just property matters?  

The overall case also rubs me a bit the wrong way.  Too many people emphasize it's a little old lady (as if that is the reason the government lost) or that it is "stealing" (a matter of law that the lower court and historical practice in more than one state does not appear to accept).  I don't begrudge the loss.  Sometimes, "reasonable" turns out to be not so. 

Barrett started things off with a unanimous case no one cares about. The middle case is one of the first major decisions of the time with a real biting division (the pork case is a bit of a sport).  Some were coy and noted it was "unanimous." Bullshit. The real division was the reasoning. That was 5-4, this time with Kavanaugh joining the liberals.  President Biden:

The Supreme Court’s disappointing decision in Sackett v. EPA will take our country backwards. 

Today’s decision upends the legal framework that has protected America’s waters for decades. It also defies the science.

The liberals joined Kavanaugh's dissent on the reach while also joining Kagan's stronger "this is bad" concurrence. A taste:

The majority could use every letter of the alphabet, and graduate to quadratic equations, and still not solve its essential problem.

After seventeen years, Roberts and Alito were able to get that fifth vote to make it harder for the EPA to regulate wetlands. Both partial dissents explain how they did it in a way that twisted what Congress said.  

Next week will be more of the same: orders (after the holiday) and then opinions on Thursday. That would be the very beginning of the final June rush, and like this time, good chance a hot button will be decided.  

===

Along the way, President Biden again used his veto pen (starting to get some use) to reject another fast-track piece of legislation that got a bit of Democratic support in the Senate.  This time, a criminal reform bill from D.C. was allowed to stand.  Respect local home rule people.  

Deathstalker II

After watching Josie and the Pussycats (some good episodes; some not so good), I checked out my Deathstalker (I and II) DVD. The DVD from the library had both movies with commentary tracks.  

[One Josie episode had them going after an evil countess with one evil flunky.  Shouldn't have been too much trouble dealing with them! A few were rather fun.]

I listened to some of the first while only listening to a bit of the second (mostly watched the film). Not bad. The second one had both the current Deathstalker character (three actors played him quite differently in four films) and the woman heavy.  Various other people involved in the films were involved but neither of the princesses. 

The films are all silly in some fashion (especially when you have a cut used on a spoof bad movie show; that would be the third that I already talked about).  I'm sure there is a lot of cheesy stuff there (Roger Corman was involved) but the set design to me was not bad. A few good crowd scenes. The acting also overall was decent enough. The bad guys hammed it up some but that comes with the program even in better films.

The first film was generally serious and the title character was loyal to his name.  A lot of killing. The film (and I only saw about half) also had rather much T&A -- multiple women showed their breasts for sure and you got some "A" too as I recall.  The second film was much less serious (though it has some killing) down to the characters talking as if they were on an episode of MacGyver or something.  Very American.  

The second one was fun.  A person comparing the lead to Han Solo is not really a bad thought though this guy was even more jocular about everything. The dual princess (one a fake copy) roles were played by Monique Gabrielle, a Penthouse model. We are not talking about a great actor, but she was fine for the role. She did a better job than the bad actress turned businesswoman/Trump ambassador in the third film.  

Again, she was totally anachronistic in the good version, coming off as an enthusiastic but somewhat troublesome sidekick for MacGyver. She looked totally normal (and to me rather cute) in this version while the evil princess was more sexy (had a bigger nude scene though the other was attacked once and had her clothes ripped off once) in character.  There was a nice twist where the duplicate actually was a cannibal, which was handled in a pretty nifty fashion (with a bit of humor).  

The evil sorcerer also was a total ham who could have easily been some gay beautician or something in another film. More lethal here and yes seemed to be straight. Then again maybe not.  The promotion photo of the heroes is also ridiculously unlike the actual characters. The guy is not a he-man here.  He is more like the guy from Princess Bride. 

It wasn't a long movie though it was getting a bit boring near the end with a bit of a padded final battle scene (basically like the third one) and a not-that-great final battle.  The end was like "Okay, I killed him, time to go." The hero and heroine wound up together in the end, which seems off, but guess you figure that he's not one to stay tied down.  

And, the princess -- for most of the film not much useful in battle -- did show some chops in the end.  She did after all kill her double.  I see that she did a bunch of small roles (and the lead in soft porn) but I liked her here. She also played the heroine in Silk II (tough crime fighter!), which you know, I just want to see even by the little clip on IMBD.

==

I am about halfway thru the Leila Aboulela book Bird Summons (a mythical bird plays a symbolic role).  I am not familiar with the author but by chance found the book referenced online.  I overall like it so far and that is from someone who usually has trouble finding a fiction book I like.

The book concerns three Muslim women in Scotland (the author herself lives there) who go on a trip to see the grave of the first British woman to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca.  One is an African with a disabled son, the second is a young woman from Syria already with three husbands, and the third is a middle-aged mom from Egypt having a sort of middle-life crisis about her life.  

Not sure how it will wound up.  

(It was pretty good but had an extended symbolic fantasy portion late that went on too long and was a tad forced.)

The Shadow Knows

Today's Order Day, so let's deal with that before addressing the main topic. A few notable things.  Order lists often have some little gems that aren't too exciting on some level but are notable. Same here.  I again wish there was a FAQ on the SCOTUS webpage on orders, providing clarity.

First, any order list over around 10 or 15 pages is likely to have some separate writing. Same here.  A brief per curiam is included; turns out the solicitor general supported the result.  

Second, previewed in that infamous letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a justice (Kagan) suddenly flagged why she was recused from a case.  The letter noted such a thing "could" be done but suddenly NOW it is done.  Fine.  Good.  Don't let such long overdue baby steps stop ethics reform.  I fear for the future there but we shall see. 

We see various shadow docket stuff here including GVRs, procedural orders like redactions under seal, and many cert denials (including one involving a request for the record).  One thing denied is a stay request by a group called "Women of Color for Equal Justice," which turns out to be some conservative-leaning group that here was asking for a blockage of a vaccine mandate applied by NYC to city employees.  

We have the usual attorney disbarments too. I would love to have someone do an article that summarizes what these people did.  

===

Joan Biskupic's new Supreme Court book is lacking in various respects. The book was well written and would be helpful to those who only had a passing knowledge of events. I realize many who know more praised it but it is hard to believe that even they do not deep down find reasons to be upset. 

I noted this already, adding that it did have some information that was news to me. More or less (nothing really new; new details). But, the book did not provide clarity on various things that would have been helpful in long-form work. Why buy a book that doesn't really add much to what was in her news coverage? And, it lacked important information, including about the death penalty.

Steve Vladeck's Shadow Docket book also covers familiar ground. I am not vain here. I know more about this stuff than the average person. I know about that Cambodian bombing story. I read multiple books on the death penalty, so know the deal there in the 1980 and beyond. And, I caught a few things. No, Mapp v. Ohio is not when the Fourth Amendment was applied to the states (the exclusionary rule was). And, I found a mistake in the index (Thurgood Marshall was cited when it was John Marshall, but I supposed that was separately generated).

Finally, when the attorney general statute speaks of a "meet person" (a what?), can we please have clarity -- multiple articles just cites the obsolete usage without comment. It seems to mean some form of "appropriate." ["When Congress created the position of attorney general in 1789, it called for "a meet person learned in the law" to argue cases before the Supreme Court and render legal opinions to the executive branch."]

But, the book is not about a few years alone. It covers a lot more ground and does so well. As usually is done in good books of this sort, it adds a few details that flesh things out a bit more. I am more satisfied with it though oh it's hard for me to read accounts of the Supreme Court covering the last few years. 

The death penalty chapter -- again how can Biskupic not cover that in detail? if she did it AT ALL, it was brief, since I did a careful skim of the book -- alone made me quite angry. The book at times tries to convince its campaign should be appreciated by both sides. But, the anger is rightly focused a lot more on one.

Any limited book is likely to lack a bit. For instance, the "shadow docket" in a broad sense means any unexplained order and decision of the Supreme Court. It always was in place, as was noted in passing, but we do not get any real discussion of the early years of the Court in that respect. 

For instance -- I recall reading a reference to this -- it notes in passing that for a time in the early 1800s, a justice assigned to a certain circuit made procedural decisions that applied to the whole Court for certain months of the year. The decisions apparently didn't amount to much -- I guess -- but that is a big "hmmm" to the eagle-eyed.

Overall, again, I recommend the book. I also recommend following Stephen Vladeck (and his wife for that matter) on Twitter. You will get a lot of good stuff, plus some cute bits about their two daughters. Also, the guy is not only a Mets fan [if now in Texas ... wonder how he feels about deGrom], he is one big dude. You will notice that at times in pictures. Finally, he has a distinctive voice and seems to have marbles in his mouth. Shades of Burt Neuborne.

Vladeck has testified to Congress and the Presidential Supreme Court Commission (cited in the book; will readers be surprised it existed since it is now basically forgotten?) about the shadow docket. He is now promoting this book all over, including on a book tour (he was down Manhattan recently) and doing a range of podcasts and other appearances.  

He already had an online and activist presence, particularly focused on national security matters and military commissions. He ends the book discussing possible reforms. He has written in one of his blogs that he is loathed to expand the Court. But, his book underlines the situation got worse under CERTAIN JUSTICES.

Jack Goldsmith wrote a piece on how Congress did not pass reforms to deal with executive excesses under Trump. This overlaps with my own anguish there. Emoluments? Ignored. 14A, sec. 3 clarification, including a process to make it easier to bring a claim and enforce it? 

No. Something to deal with continual abuse of resistance of subpoenas? And, more. Some of these things should have been possible. We are not talking about a major voting rights bill or abortion reform. Since the "Trump Effect" (see Joan Biskupic) applied to the shadow docket, this is all connected. 

It's a long haul.  We got through the Trump Administration, but the control of the Supreme Court is not promising to be a few years.  

==

Talking long haul, we have many more opinions left (relatively speaking), starting on Thursday.  And, maybe some more orders. See you soon.

Where is that Josie Meets Deathstalker Mash-up?

I first saw Josie and the Pussycats back in the 1980s, unless it played in the background when I was a baby or something. I could have seen it before then, but I don't recall. I saw both the original and the "in space" versions.  

I did not realize there were so few episodes (16 of each).  I got the DVD of the complete first season (no extras).  Am starting to watch the episodes and find them amusing in various respects. Melody is a goofball (have a thing for lovable goofballs) and there is some charm to using the closed captioning when it tells me such things as "angry plant talk."

(The theme song is pretty good and detailed though the animation doesn't do a great job making it look like they are singing and playing instruments.)

I saw the movie version some time back.  It was okay though Alexandra didn't have much to do.  I also bought a "best of" comics collection a few years ago and it's a good summary of the various plotlines.  I did not read the comics myself in the past and rarely read comics generally.  

I see various films in my review books that sound good, but many are not available on DVD at the library or on television. Luckily, the first three Deathstalker films (not high art) actually are at the library, the third (Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell) a Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode version.  

The film was ridiculous but amusingly bad with some good quips from that show, which I again have not really seen.  One amusing thing about the film is that the princess is played by Carla Sands (she has a bath scene which seems like it might be a chance for T&A but not in this version), who later went into business and was a Trump appointee!  

The DVD had an extra (interview with the villain). I will soon see at least the second one (apparently the best one, perhaps with more T&A, since it purposely tries to spoof its genre somewhat).  

Bonus: Sincerely, Yours, Truly was rerun on Up TV this morning.  Two office space mates competing for a grant (and who are falling for each other in person) are also communicating with each other anonymously.  

You are just waiting for the uncomfortable reveal, but the movie manages to avoid doing this for much of the running time as the story goes along (various things are happening) in a pleasant way.  And, yes, the female lead is just so darn cute.  

Some of the music is a tad annoying.  

SCOTUS Watch: Opinion Day

News coverage sometimes suggests SCOTUS just leaving a pending case or not taking a case for review is more than it is. 

SCOTUS (until Kavanaugh and Barrett) was so willing to avoid 2A cases after Heller that a few justices claimed they were treating it as a second-class right.  And, even now, I don't think them letting a pending assault-style weapons case be is that notable.  Anyways:

The application for a writ of injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Barrett and by her referred to the Court is denied.

No public dissents. Meanwhile, Steve Vladeck's The Shadow Docket book was officially released. He is having a lot of press and podcasts about it. I reserved it and will comment on it soon.  The order here is in fact a lesser example of the practice.  It is one of the minor moves where quiet is mostly acceptable.  As compared to resulting final death penalty appeals etc.

===

We then move on to Thursday and another Opinion Day.  They also have another Thursday conference / Monday orders set.  And, we will have another opinion day next Thursday.  They are coming in bunches now.

The pork case last time was split in various ways.  There was a lot of agreement today though for whatever reason it took five or more minutes after 10 A.M. for the opinions to start coming.  Yes, the "big" Twitter and Google cases were handed down.  But (as many hoped while a few feared them "breaking the Internet"), they were basically narrow.  

(Roberts has his first opinion, which I missed at first, maybe since it is so forgettable -- a unanimous tax case most notable because of the Jackson/Gorsuch concurrence the same day we have a GorsuchJackson concurrence. The delay of the "big boys" having opinions so far has not brought out anything too notable.)  

The first opinion was a unanimous one by Stolen Seat Guy. I still am not over how he and his two Trumpies got here.  Not merely going to accept that the car is stolen and politely deal with thieves. Even if Gorsuch and Jackson already (again today) are uniting up in certain cases.  But, I will note the opinion seems well written.  It's a medical patent case.  

Thomas had the Twitter case (the Google case was disposed of as a per curiam) and a technical case (he has more than his fair share), which Alito and Gorsuch dissented from.  The day was full of basic agreements, including Jackson briefly mentioning in the Twitter case that she went along given it was narrowly decided.  One of the liberals from Slate praised the opinion for its restraint.  

Oh, and then there was the 7-2 (Gorsuch/Jackson concurring, but joining the majority too) with three opinions spanning almost ninety pages total though that includes a lot of photographs (it is a copyright dispute involving a photo of Prince; we also have multiple Marilyn Monroes and classical nudes).  

The two would be Kagan (full Kagan, believe me) and Roberts.  One appellate lawyer noted the "Kagan and Roberts" rule that when they both agree, the opinion is likely right.  I don't claim to know the answer here, but Kagan's opinion [praised by one appellate lawyer for its overall skill] is a wonder to read. She is full of snark, and colloquial comments to the reader.  There is a reason why (along with Roberts) she is put forth as the best writer of the bunch.  I think she probably lays it on a tad thick, but it's fun. 

The Supreme Court has been subject to a lot of appropriate attacks of late but their opinions so far have been overall good ones. We had a few divisions. It is something that one of the strongest is Kagan v. Sotomayor and it would be even more striking if she dissented alone!  The dissent makes me sad that things did not go as they should have personnel-wise.

Kagan should be the de facto co-Chief Justice in a liberal-leaning Court. More analysis can be found at SCOTUSBlog.  Meanwhile, to toss it in, these cases brought in a few more URLs for those keeping track. 

==

The "Title 42" border policy was recently ended.  SCOTUS declared a challenge to it moot with Jackson saying she would have just dismissed it as improvidentially granted. 

Gorsuch added a statement concerned about emergency powers and so on.  He dissented when five justices granted the case originally, but I noted he had some language that led me to be wary of praising him too much.  

Same here, with his paeon to civil liberties, citing Aristotle and tossing in things like "Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country." 

(checking) Slavery and Jim Crow were during peacetime, correct?  This is also the guy that was part of the five who took abortion rights away. I'll get my libertarian appeals elsewhere, thank you.  

[One scornful response cited the Japanese internment cases but Gorsuch did toss in "peaceful" at one point.  A basic pet peeve of mine is when people do not read close and do not think things through, resulting in easy-to-refute claims often strenuously expressed.  And, yes, it's a human failing, that I'm sure I myself have done from time to time.]   

ETA: This entry is a bit long already, the late-term rush mixing with other news, but I just saw a view from the courtroom article. Since the Court wrongly doesn't provide us audio or video of opinion announcements, we are left to such secondhand reports.  Breyer was in the house among other things.  We also might have seen why there was about a five-minute delay before the opinions were posted: Roberts had a bit of Breyer-related stuff.  

===

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is back, helping the confirmation of lower court judges, but so far there has been a certain "drip drip" feel to it as a handful were confirmed. And, then, they are out for most of the rest of the month, only having pro forma sessions.  And, Feinstein is appearing even more decrepit (so not a healthy and fit 89) than before.  

I think the courts as a whole are a concern, just as no one aspect of the Supreme Court (ethics or whatever) is a problem by itself.  The chair of the Judiciary Committee still thinks blue slips (where Republicans can hold up nominees after they refused to do so when they had power) should be allowed. There is a whole "what the fuck is wrong with you" quality.

Senate Dems can show they have generally confirmed judges, though the numbers (showing better success than Trump) are a bit misleading since they are behind (catching up) on the appellate courts. Blue slips also help block filling nominations from red states.  Moderate efforts are not enough these days, especially when the Senate is where the Dems have power.

The Supreme Court is even affecting state court nominations. The situation clearly affected how a power-shifting opportunity in the N.Y.  Court of Appeals was handled.  Now a Connecticut judicial nominee got in trouble for her signing a letter supporting the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett.  I'm all for a hardline there.  No business for Democrats in that situation, even more so than the Gorsuch matter, to support her.  

The service as conservative justices' law clerks should not be assumed to be itself disqualification.  Liberals have done that.  She then served as an appellate attorney at the Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice under Bush43, which I saw someone flag.  Not really sure if that sort of thing matters. 

But, her comment that she didn't realize Barrett would overturn Roe v. Wade. is hard to take seriously. 

Malcolm's List and Miss Lattimore's Letter

I have not returned to the movie theater since COVID (went rarely beforehand) but continue to read reviews. Years ago, I watched Siskel and Ebert. Now, I got to the movie review site in his honor. There seem to be a lot of films out there, many these days available on demand right away.

Some of them eventually show up on DVD and on cable. Malcolm's List is now available on cable or whatever Verizon-FIOS might be.  I saw a bit of it on television first, but read the book before watching more of the film.  The author (years after writing the book) wrote the screenplay.  

The book is a somewhat bemused take on Regency romances and Jane Austen (Miss Lattimore's Letter, a later book, directly references Austen, the books taking place around 1817) Wikipedia notes that the book was self-published (in 2009) and the script was later discovered when it received a good rating on a review survey.  The film itself was released last year.  So, there was a long lag time in development here.

I actually read the second book as well (the two available in the NYPL system) and enjoyed it as well.  The conceit of the first book is that a rich bachelor has a list that he uses to determine the suitableness of possible wives.  It gets him in some trouble when he insults (unwittingly) a lady, who uses a schoolmate of hers to try to gain revenge.  

She plans to use her friend to tempt the man by having her meet his approval. Then, she will spring a list of the lady, and show he doesn't meet her approval.  Unfortunately,  the two are a perfect match, and much of the plot of the book is more of a basic romance. It all turns out well and is pleasant though I think it was a tad bit padded in the middle.  

(The other book seems a bit padded, but the tone and characters were playful and fun enough that overall it was quite forgivable. I think it would be an enjoyable film as well.)  

I only saw half of the film so far but overall think it is an even better form of the story than the book. A charm is to watch the story which is put together in a picture-perfect way.  And, the actors (the film has a twist where some of the key players are people of color while one of their cousins is white)  are all very good.  Finally, the story so far is largely the same with a few little edits that are for the best.  An enjoyable film.

ETA: The preview summarizes the film rather well.

SCOTUS: Orders Day

54 years ago today—May 14, 1969—was the last day on which a majority of #SCOTUS Justices had been appointed by Democratic presidents.

The next 11 appointments, 13 of the next 15, and 16 of the 21 to happen since the day Justice Fortas resigned have been by Republican presidents. pic.twitter.com/bhSpvsUOxZ

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) May 14, 2023

It's okay when conservatives do it.  Prof. Vladeck had a blog where he still didn't want to support court expansion since it might result in tit-for-tat that harms the sanctity of the courts. Even HE, who is well aware of the problems with the current Supreme Court (and how we go here) is unwilling to even in theory address the problem directly. Quite aggravating.

Anyway, the one opinion today was a dissent by Thomas (joined by Alito) to SCOTUS not granting a case arising in Alabama (which keeps on screwing up executions) involving a choice of execution case.  The dissent (Gorsuch or someone else might have silently wanted to take the case) doesn't think (using the current stupid rules) the inmate should have won.

(The Order List was fifteen pages; figured someone wrote an opinion. Kavanaugh also dissented in the denial for one case without an opinion.) 

The justices granted cert in three cases [two on the same issue] and accepted an appeal in a race gerrymandering case for which it is obligated to take in some fashion.  And did the usual odds and ends. They will have one or more opinions on Thursday.

Love in the Library

I read the children's book (based on the author's family history), Love in the Library, about a couple finding love in a Japanese internment camp.  It's a nice story told through the voice of her grandmother, a young woman who found a haven in the midst of injustice.  Well illustrated.  

The author had a chance for wide release via Scholastic publishing but (as was infamously noted in NYT and other outlets) only if she took out a discussion of the racism of the situation in the author's note.  As she bluntly noted on her blog:

And excuse my language, but absolutely the fuck not.

For a moment I wondered if there was a way to edit it so we could agree on it? But then I looked at the proposed edit, the one my offer was contingent upon again. The removal of the word RACISM made it all too clear. There was no compromise to be had here. There was no way to work with this. It was a Faustian Bargain, and I couldn’t take it. And, forgive my weakness, but I cried.

She has an update, where it seems like the company admitted error, but still was trying to CYA and not address what she wanted to promote "restorative" justice.  This included addressing allegations that they were not LGBTQ-friendly (the NYT article suggested they were LGBTQ-friendly) and not doing wrong in the future.  They also didn't want to admit the request was not just basically one person having a bad day.  

They were sketchy about the whole thing. As she noted in a recent comment: 

There is a metaphor I use when I present Love in the Library in schools, and it’s this: Imagine a bully. And one day, they punch you. Later they apologize to you. They say they shouldn’t have done that, that it wasn’t fair. But then the next day you see them punch someone else. And then the next day they kick someone. Each of these incidents are separate, sure, in that whatever the perceived slight on the Bully’s part was may vary. But they are also the same in that the Bully has been cruel to each of you. Would you accept that apology? Would you believe that the Bully meant it if they persist in their behavior? 

So, she says the answer is still "no."  I respect her sense of justice.  I am confused about the line drawing by the company.  I read the book.  She noted before that the company "wanted to take this book and repackage it so that it was just a simple love story."  I'm really unsure how you do that.

The edit of the author's note did not want a total erasure.  You can check and see.  For instance, we are still told that the Japanese were "robbed of their rights and dignity" and "wrongly imprisoned."  The book also is not merely a love story.  The whole book (it's a small picture book) concerns her finding love while trying to maintain her humanity, basically.

How do you do this as merely a love story?  You can vaguely talk about Japanese internment, I guess, so the reader can just think she is handling being imprisoned.  Let's say like that old young adult book about a teen girl meeting a German POW in an American prison camp.  I find this somewhat hard.  The book is not a neutral account.  The author's note is not out of left field here.  The erasure of "racism" seems even more arbitrary.  

An edit of a film for the sake of a rating can be a matter of a cut that seems to some trivial.  A few more seconds of a scene can make it seem more racy or controversial.  But, this is not really what is happening here.  The wrong of Japanese internment remains.  It is a fine line to talk about all of this without making it about racism.  We did not similarly put Germans and Italians in camps, including on the East Coast where Germans possibly could invade (saboteurs even were landed there).  

"Japanese American then was treated like a crime."  Can't just be since they were enemies.  Not "German" American.  The bad conditions, even for "elderly people, children, babies." were cited.  How "unjust" it all was.  How the camp was "built to make people feel like they weren't human."  Yes, the power of books, and love to be a "miracle" is also cited.  

People who read the rest of the note are likely aware of the racism or would be inclined to find out more about the situation.  Censorship again can be arbitrary.  "Racism" is a hot-button issue these days.  On that level, I am not surprised at the line drawing.  It just seems absurd in the context of this book.  If you are concerned about racism being talked about, you should not pick this book.  It is definitely not just a love story.  

The part of the note that the company wanted to be removed put the "racism" of the internment as part of wider racism in the past and modern times, including police murdering Black (her capital letter) people and Muslim bans.  Racism is "an American tradition."  Yes, it's harsh, but again, look at the story itself.  It was harsh too, down to the pictures of barbed wire and soldiers with guns.  Just a love story?  Good luck!  

Perhaps, you rephrase the original paragraph to tone down that talk of the "murder" of black people by police or something.  The note is somewhat more mature ("food deserts" is not something a child will be too familiar with) than the book itself.  The NYT article said that the book "is aimed at 6- to 9-year-olds."  The note seems meant more for parents.  

The book has a point of view. The attempt to remove a discussion of "racism," including the issues of the day, is not in the spirit of the book.  Who are we trying to kid here, anyway? 

Maybe, she can write a new book about a modern-day Japanese author who finds out people want to arbitrarily edit the past. It might be rather interesting.  

ETA: I checked the status of East New York and see they canceled it. Oh well.  I didn't always like it, but even liking a series sometimes is big.  They ended things on a nice note.  

NIMBY: "Just Home? Fine Enough. Just Near Our Homes!"

I took a walk this morning, past the sewer grate that was never fixed (I flagged it to a local official over a year ago; a staff member thanked me and said that they would notify the appropriate city official).  I also saw another sign for a garage sale (using some poster-making website) scheduled in October.  And, on the way back, more strong words against a planning issue. 

Just Home is NOT proposing a jail or a shelter. Its proposal is to develop the unused “Building 2” on Jacobi Hospital’s campus for permanent supportive housing consisting of about 70 studios, each with a bathroom and kitchen. The eligible clients will be homeless and formerly incarcerated or pre-trial detainees from Rikers Island with complex medical needs, like stage-4 cancer, end-stage renal disease and congestive heart failure. A few studios will be set aside for affordable housing with first preference to CB11 residents.

(That is Community Board 11.)  This is a summary from a supporter.  And, there is the official NYC Housing press release:

The project, Just Home, will provide permanent, supportive housing with social services for residents with complex medical needs, as well as affordable housing.

Then, there is the flyer NIMBY sentiment that warns (bold text):

Don't Turn Jacobi Into Rikers Island 

I saw such flyers last year too.  I saw them in the local library (not that close on foot).  I saw them on the wall at the supermarket. When doing poll duty, a voter wanted to hand me a flyer.  Such effort is not really too familiar in this area, perhaps suggesting there is some novelty to the proposal.  

Warning about how isolated it is from transportation (it's near major buses) and not near supermarkets and so forth (not really true).  It would be right near a hospital and a short car ride from a police station.  I thought I wrote about it but cannot find the post. This NIMBY is my general area turns not to be too novel:

Several of the project’s opponents were also against Destination Tomorrow, a supportive housing program at 2134 Barnes Ave. on Pelham Parkway to support victims of sexual violence and sex trafficking in the LGBTQ community. At the time, these same opponents stated the children in the school across the street would be targeted and there would be open prostitution. In fact, this supportive housing keeps their clients safe from sex trafficking and has provided space for community meetings. Fortune Society has provided programs and space for its surrounding community in Harlem and would do so as well for the community around Jacobi Hospital.

The last public hearing was so unhinged that an ethics complaint seems appropriate. I emailed multiple people (including the borough president) for information at the time but received no reply.  The assemblywoman at the time wanted it to be placed in a complex in an industrial area (across the street from a train yard), now with a psychiatric center.  My current city council person wants a baby or senior (nice safe cutesy things) center instead.  The uncomfortable people should go elsewhere.  

This sort of thing is understandable on some level.  But, it also suggests a certain lack of human empathy.  The location to me (even if it borders on the lower end of the local neighborhood)  is a sound one. The case against it is overheated.  The shouting even as local officials counsel them to listen (while assuring them they were against it) is telling.  

There is a certain "tenor of the times" feel here as shown by the governor supporting weakening bail reform in part because the crime was a major scare tactic (I mean issue) in the last election.  Ironically, someone was on Jen Paski today alleging the American people are concerned about the homeless. Maybe.  They want them away from them, apparently. 

I flagged the story of the day involving a mentally ill person killed on a subway.  There is public support for him, at least to the extent that people think killing him was wrong.  He fell between the cracks (again, no system will be perfect there anyways).  This program tries to address the needs of those in need, not just shunting them "over there."

Gov. Sununu is "embarrassing."

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) criticized the Republican voters from his home state who appeared at CNN’s town hall with former President Trump for their reaction to his mocking of author E. Jean Carroll. “It was embarrassing,” Sununu told MSNBC’s Jen Psaki in an interview set to air Sunday.

The article has a link to a tweet flagging the interview.  I watched and listened to part of it.  I found it "embarrassing," even if Sunnunu selectively said the right things that make him seem "moderate."  

Psaki (who as an interviewer so far seems standard and not big on the follow-up question) opened by noting that in the past he said if Trump was the nominee, Sununu said he would support Trump. I find this basically disqualifying.  The "basically" is a bit generous but I'll pick my spots if they show some other usefulness.  

What about now?  He wouldn't say.  Trump is such a loser, he very well might not be the nominee. Uh-huh.  (Asa Hutchinson, sort of the Kasich figure in this race by the way actually criticized Trump after the verdict, which Psaki didn't note in her commentary on the wishy-washy nature of Republican replies.)  How about if he IS the nominee? Answer the damn question.  

Other than such wish casting (naive given the current competition), he had more usual talking points.  Abortion?  Divisive issues the people should be allowed to decide on at the state level.  Guns?  Well, "Second Amendment says ..."  He also badmouthed Republicans who play chicken on the debt level, but "both sides" it by claiming nearly everyone in Congress is ignorant about the economy.  Typical state official taunt.

[Planned Parenthood has announced they are all-in on court reform, including expanding the Supreme Court.]

Republicans wanted him to run for senator in what seems a winnable state but basically, he didn't want to join the clowns.  Yeah.  But, he wants the clowns to have complete control of the federal government.  Sununu rather not one of them be Trump, but if he actually is the nominee, betcha he won't be for Biden.  

Talk about clowns. 

==

A little personal tidbit.  My phone charger was driving me crazy recently because the cable is worn out.  At times, I would plug it in, and the power would quickly go down. 

I ordered a cable on eBay for under $4 and it's working. Example of how a little thing can avoid a lot of annoyance.  

SCOTUS Watch

After some blockbusters last term (abortion, religion, guns, etc.), SCOTUS has so far been much more low-key this term. This is partially because not much has gone on. There are still (with five opinions on Thursday and one not decided) under twenty opinions this term so far. There will be another opinion day next week.

Amy Howe analyzes basically the one big (in a fashion) case decided this week, a fractured judgment that upheld a California law regulating the sale of pork:

Approved by California voters in 2018, Proposition 12 bars the sale in California of pork products when the seller knows or should know that the meat came from the offspring of a breeding pig (also known as a sow) that was confined “in a cruel manner.” This means, among other things, that sows must have at least 24 square feet of living space – about the size of two bath towels.

Many thought the justices would somehow strike down the law though the oral argument hinted they were unsure how to draw lines. The case involves (though Kavanaugh especially separately suggested it concerned more) the so-called domestic commerce clause doctrine. That is, even if Congress doesn't say so, certain things can violate the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Or, otherwise violate the rules of a common national market set forth by the Constitution.

The principle is not new though conservatives such as Scalia, Thomas, and now Gorsuch don't like it.  Gorsuch has a point.  It is difficult, without blatant policy-making, to weigh things here.  The courts do weigh policy questions to some extent.  The question then is when they should. And, economic matters do seem like something Congress should regulate here.  

A majority as a whole split the difference and upheld the law in the end.  This is something that does not split between normal ideological lines as seen by the divisions.  It even led Jackson to join a partial dissent, if not totally, which is the first time she did in a fully argued case.  She has still not been fully in dissent.  Which is something.  

There is also the policy choice here.  I think it does help to some degree to have limited efforts that help animals.  There is an argument (Michael Dorf and Sherry Colb have made it to some degree) that such laws are counterproductive, in part by making us think animals are now raised humanely enough.  I have my doubts. Change comes in installments.  

Anyway, this is the sort of opinion Breyer loves -- somewhat of a surprise without blunt ideological divisions. Why? It has various legal policy implications without rising blatantly ideological concerns.  It's an example of where conservative positions can have liberal results.  And, there are three basic blocs with Jackson being the outlier in one but even there she might be doing so since there is a precedent involved.  

Some also might appreciate that the Court restrained itself, but it is unclear how much the justices wanted to do that. There very well might be four votes to send it back with an implication that the 9th Cir. was very possibly wrong.  Also, it is simplistic to call the Court simply activist, full stop. They pick their spots.  You need to know your "enemy" here.  

ETA: I see that the opinion has a few URLs.  The first opinion of the court this term to have them.  

===

The other opinions are not too notable and were mostly unanimous with a justice concurring a bit here (in one Alito opinion, Jackson didn't join a little portion for some reason), Thomas dissenting there.  The cases do not seem too important though there are some things here and there to comment on of varying interest.  

Kagan in a 8-1 opinion started this way:

The question presented is whether the statute categorically abrogates (legalspeak for eliminates) any sovereign immunity the board enjoys from legal claims. We hold it does not. Under long-settled law, Congress must use unmistakable language to abrogate sovereign immunity. Nothing in the statute creating the board meets that high bar.

Very Kagan.  

Jackson dealt with an administrative case involving a "noncitizen" (the statute speaks of "aliens" but she specifically used that term), citing a Kavanaugh opinion that did so.  Alito with Thomas concurred briefly, saying they would decide less than the majority, and quoted something that used "alien."  She also has been praised as a clear writer. 

Jackson tossed in something that is simple but profound too in these trans-hating times. To cite the beginning of the headnotes summarizing her opinion:

Petitioner Leon Santos-Zacaria (who goes by the name Estrella) is a noncitizen in removal proceedings. She sought protection from removal, which an Immigration Judge denied.

The Court also unanimously in a pair of cases continued their policy of making it hard to convict people for political-related fraud, both cases arising from the Cuomo Administration.  As compared to campaign finance cases, again, you find more unanimity in this area, and it is concerning.  Without trying to parse things here, combined with the Citizens United stream of cases, it makes it harder to rein in political wrongdoing.  

===

For those keeping track, the Supreme Court has "rescheduled" (which means the justices meeting in "conference" did not examine it yet) looking at the Glossip appeal.  

There will be orders on Monday.  

Meanwhile, 89-year-old Sen. Dianne Feinstein, working on a limited schedule per doctor's instructions, finally came back to help push a few judicial nominations out of committee. The pictures make her look very frail. Overall, it is outrageous that she is not resigning.

Senate Democrats still refuse as a whole to admit the level of effort, an "all-in," necessary to face the moment, even though there is both a need and probably an opportunity given the growing disgust at the Court. It's aggravating.  

More on the Last Subject

Details of the news of the day can be very helpful. I mean in this sense that often we get the general sense of a story. This is understandable. There are a lot of stories out there. We should appreciate those who provide more information.

I talked about E.J. Carroll, an author and journalist who I'm not familiar with, winning her civil suit (be sure not to say "guilty"!) against Donald Trump.  Annie Laurie Gaylor of FFRF used it to flag old-fashioned ideals of rape found in the Bible, including the need to shout out:

Carroll was finally able to use her knee to push Trump away, fleeing the dressing room and the store in a state of shock. She described blaming herself afterward. She confided in two friends, one that night, another colleague the next day. The colleague, Carol Martin, warned her never to talk about the rape or report it because Trump would “bury” her with his legal team. She testified that “I was frightened of Donald Trump. I thought he would retaliate and I was ashamed. I thought it was my fault.”

(I forgot to note originally that it is useful to note that there is nothing inherently "religious" about many of these rules that are found in the Bible.  The Bible has a lot of stuff in it that reflects the culture of the times, including the late so-called "Pauline" letters -- written in his name -- with sexist "household codes" that reflect the Greco-Roman culture of the times. 

It's religious to deem such things binding as God's law but religion itself is not inherently the issue. Paul himself repeatedly honored the active role of women in promoting the faith.  And, even those letters assume religious officials would be married.)  

This was the 1990s and we have seen the abuse Monia Lewinsky received even when she did not allege wrongdoing. The times are somewhat different today, especially if the alleged abuser is Donald Trump. At the time, it was different.  At the time, she could be shocked at what he did. 

CNN provided a good general summary of the trial.  For instance:

Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, who allege Trump physically forced himself on them, also testified about their alleged altercations.

At closing Carroll’s attorney argued that allegations from Carroll, Leeds and Stoynoff reveal a pattern of Trump’s aggressive behavior.

In each woman’s testimony, they described how Trump first engaged them in a semipublic place, then allegedly grabbed them suddenly, then later denied the allegations and said “she is too ugly for anyone to assault,” Kaplan said.

(Roberta Kaplan, who was also Edie Windsor's lawyer in the DOMA case that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.) 

Annie Laurie also wrote a blog about Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret, including referencing a Florida bill that bans discussion of human sexuality in public schools before the sixth grade. "Sexuality" sounds mature but it is a catchall. What if a student has two mommies? What about references to gay and lesbian public officials?  What about menstruation, which might happen before the sixth grade?  

Right after the verdict, CNN went through with a town hall with Trump and a former Daily Caller reporter (and Trump White House correspondent) as a sort of sacrificial lamb of sorts. The audience was full of Trump supporters, which rubs it in how badly thought out this whole thing was.  This is all part of CNN's "We need to be more fair to conservatives" project or something.  

The result was a mess.  CNN, including Anderson Cooper (one of the good guys, right?), could not admit their mistake.  They gaslighted us that this was some "news event" and that even if it is uncomfortable to watch Trump, he's a candidate for president and all.  Can't be an ostrich!  

Trump (among other things, including to the joy of various members of the audience) defamed EJ Carroll again, including denying again he knew her and calling her crazy.  CNN (which did not get as big of an audience as they might have liked) has received more than usual criticism.  

The pushback against Trump still is not strong enough -- it should be like if Charles Manson ran for president all the time here -- but I did see an analysis of the town hall in the NYT speak about his "lies."  Being able to bluntly use that word is a significant line in the sand.  I found something from 2017 that used "lies."  It is not that the press never says it.  It is just a sort of "one foot forward, one foot back" affair on some level.  

We should not be somehow impressed that Kaitlan Collins did not just roll over dead.  CNN knew what they were up against but if anything did everything to help Trump, including reportedly telling the audience not to "boo."  Hard as it is to be believed, even that audience did not all eat up everything he said (his schtick is getting old), so that helped.  

It's hard, but a few people did push back against Trump's lies (or people like him).  Collins showed no real ability to do so, even if she could ask a few strong questions at Trump press conferences.  

==

A bit more about another major news story/crime story with an update.  The killing of a man in the subway has gone to the next chapter.  The "white guy going to get away with murdering a black guy" stereotyping is a tad harmed by the fact the Marine was charged with manslaughter. 

Yes, manslaughter.  This charge is based on the idea of recklessly causing the death of another person.  The use of "murder," like Trump being found "guilty" (I saw a professor with a doctorate say it, someone who likely is aware civil defendants are found "liable") is loose colloquial talk.  The details are not all out, but it is unlikely what happened is legally murder.  The level of intent and planning there is another crime.

The article also provides a full look at the person killed. I am uncomfortable with simply showing him look totally innocent and pure as a Michael Jackson impersonator, which clouds reality:

Neely was a beloved Michael Jackson impersonator who friends and family described as a “sweet kid” with “God-gifted ability and talent.” But they said he had also struggled with mental illness after the murder of his mother when he was 14. He had reportedly been arrested dozens of times and was homeless when he died.

This person was acting in a scary fashion while a subway train was between stations.  It was likely not the act of a "vigilante" (who did not act alone and whose motivation was explained in a sympathetic way by the non-white who filmed some footage of the events) just blatantly murdering someone.  It very well might be someone who went (in a criminal sense) too far.  

Trump Found Liable of Sexual Assault and Defamation

There are lots of people who voted for Donald Trump for well-considered reasons, and maligning these Republican voters does Christianity no favors.

The author of The Nones used the last chapter largely to consider a path for Christians to appeal to the category of unaffiliated persons discussed in the book. He noted part of the problem was the strong political stances of certain churches. The increase of politicization in evangelical churches drove away many Christians. Black Protestants are a whole separate group for statistical purposes largely since social and political realities led them to be.

Ryan Burge (the author) discusses how there is a chicken-and-egg quality to religion and politics. People often are attracted to certain religions because they already match their politics.  This can lead to difficulties, especially if more efforts are not done to appeal to a wide range of people. 

There is nothing new about this as we see with the Black Protestants.  At the beginning of our nation, certain religious groups leaned Federalist, others (especially Baptists), Democratic-Republican.  Are you going to be likely to vote Democrat these days (unless you have a strong reason to do so) if your church is strongly against abortion or gay rights?  

Religion is supposedly about fellowship, not politics.  But, at some point, the opening quote is dubious.  

“I’d rather have a president that isn’t found liable for battery,” Senator Kevin Cramer, a Republican, told reporters, but “it’s not a disqualifier.” 

The book was written in 2021.  After the insurrection though 2016 had lots of fodder already.  The #MeToo movement was greatly inspired by (so to speak) Donald Trump (Harvey Weinstein was also a major driver).  It led E. Jean Carroll to write about being sexually assaulted (she called it rape) by Donald Trump years earlier.  He denied even knowing her or her being his type, even though he mistook a picture of her to be his second wife.  

I apologize Rev. Cramer (he is a minister of the American Baptist Church, a more middle-of-the-road branch of Baptists), but what should I think about the senator of North Dakota here?  The quote is after Trump was found liable for sexual assault (the federal jury -- she's in NY, he in Florida, so it's a diversity case -- had to be unanimous; they held rape was not proven*) and defamation?  

I think Christians as much as anyone else can "malign" the decision at this point to vote for Trump.  How about Rep. George "that's my name now" Santos?  In one of the least surprising moves ever:

Santos stands accused of deceiving prospective donors to his campaign and defrauding the state of New York, as well as making false statements to the House Committee on Ethics. He faces seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of lying to the House of Representatives on financial forms.

(I grant that when news came out that he was indicted, I didn't realize it would come so soon.)  

Prof. Eric Segall recently appealed for more interaction between conservative and liberal groups.  "We have to learn how to talk to each other better." It's hard, professor, when one side supports a racist, insurrectionist predator in order to get more judges. Segall is very emotional about the Federalist Society leading name Leonard Leo.  He's not nice about talking about him.  

But, it's as if he stands alone. Segall last year or so refused to even join other law professors who drew a line at what they saw as more ideological Federalist events while debating members in some quarters.  He's not willing even to do that, in part because he claims his voice (a major one for decades, including as an author) is but a drop in the ocean.

I'm sorry. That in a fashion helps normalize them.  Would you debate ideas at a blatantly racist organization?  I think not.  Some lines need to be drawn here. A bunch of Republican senators refused to admit this was disqualifying.  Sen. Graham badmouthed the New York legal system.  Sen. Tuberville said the verdict made him want to support Trump more.

Yes, I'm going to "malign" that sort of thing. It's disgusting and shameful.  This does not mean we should not respect the needs of those who share harmful views.  A close relative has horrible views about various things from watching Fox News and more.  She's a good person in many ways.  But, I choose not to talk to her about politics since I care too much about the issues to merely academically talk about them as she parrots talking points. 

Relatives are sometimes hard to avoid though (see that Judy Blume book) sadly (and sometimes healthfully) it can lead to shunning and staying away.  Other groups are not in the same category.  

At some point, there is a bare minimum required to associate with people and to politely engage with them when you do not have to do so.  Lines have to be drawn. At the very least, yes, you are not just going to soft-soap bad actions. That is surely not the path found in the Bible.  Did the prophets do that?  Pointlessly being cruel and vindictive (though it's okay to have some places online to vent ... to some degree) is different here.

Anyway, the verdict is a small but special moment of some bit of justice against someone who spent his whole life avoiding it.  The particular lawsuit was possible because New York extended the statute of limitations for some sexual abuse litigation.  As the op-ed noted, we have moved forward as a nation to the degree that Gov. Hochul signed it into law since Cuomo's wrongdoings of sexual nature were such to pressure him to resign.

I was somewhat wary about long-ago events being subject to civil liability, especially when memories and so on are inexact.  Nonetheless, it is a matter of degree. The level of evidence against Trump is high with around twenty women accusing him of abuse.  And, he basically put on no case here, making it easier for the jury to find him liable, even when one or more of them lean conservative, and they split 6-3, male/female.

(I was not aware that unanimous votes are necessary here since that is not always the case in a civil trial.  There were nine jurors instead of the twelve needed for a federal criminal jury.)  

As with the Supreme Court's ethical problems (and more), it is aggravating (and dispairing) so little comeuppance is coming, but perhaps 2023 will be a new beginning here for Donald Trump. 

---

* For some, it seems outrageous and/or ridiculous for him to be found liable for sexual battery but not rape. 

I have not deep-dived it.  But, I saw one liberal-leaning sort referencing her allegation of Trump "fingering"  (sorry) her.  It is quite possible that one or more jurors (again, unanimous jury required) thought the evidence presented did not amount to the legal definition of "rape."  

This is often the case in sexual assault cases, which like a range of other serious felonies (or civil wrongs) come in degrees.  

And, yes, it might be a "compromise" verdict that "splits the difference" in a way that is not legally sound in all respects.  This would be common ground in multimember units like this, including judicial panels.  This is how the law operates.  

Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret

Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret is a beloved Judy Blume book about an eleven/twelve-year-old girl who moved to New Jersey and is growing up. The book ends with her menstruating.  The book is now over fifty years old with a bunch of covers (including blonde-haired ones).  We have a film, which I did not see yet, but Rachel McAdams as the mom is a good vibe.

The film has received great reviews, including from the Freedom From Religion radio show, the woman co-host is sure to note her praying is just a device!*  [Bonus "God" content below!]

I found the book on the free book apparently some time back since when I was looking at my shelf, I found it. I re-read it (the small paperback version I have is around 150 pages). 

I am not the intended audience but a good book can appeal to many people. I liked it. It was down to earth and felt honest.  The book is through the eyes of the main character but we get a sense of some others through her eyes, including a know-it-all who is a lot of bluster and a fellow student who is not so pleased that she developed early.  Here is the cover of my version with something of a "babysitter club" vibe: 

[I'm leaving that hard break line in; I don't know why they sometimes pop up while I'm using this blog creator.  The old version did not keep on doing that.]

Like all good books, it is not about one thing. For instance, her parents are a mixed-religion couple, which leads to a late story drama.  They said she could choose her own religion (though the father is upset when she goes to the temple with her grandmother), but she notes later that there is a problem with that. It's hard to choose all on her own.

The mother's parents shunned her for marrying a Jew (this would be in the 1950s) and this aspect shows at an early stage in her career that Judy Blume was willing to deal with touchy topics. She continues to be subject to censorship.  A recent case in that department was a Japanese author who was given a chance to have a wide release of her book, but Scholastic wanted her to remove an author's note about racism.  She said "no." 

Judy Blume has also written young adult and adult novels. Her Wifey nove (with a few racy parts) is famous for some adult readers (and maybe teens who checked mom's copy!).  More recently, she wrote In the Unlikely Event, based on a true story she experienced about multiple plane crashes in the 1950s.  I started to read it and it has some good storylines. But, I found it too long to enjoy.  A shorter version would have been nice.

Judy Blume reportedly was concerned about agreeing to have her famous book filmed. But, she seems to have found the result fine.  A lot of audience members agree.  

They still come up and thank her.  

ETA: To toss it in, I saw some of The Sky is Pink, a movie I found while looking for something else. It's an Indian film based on a true story involving a girl born with a genetic condition that led to her death (after at first it looked like she was healthy; her sister died as a baby) at an early age.  

I only saw around the first half, but it was a good film, well-acted, and so forth.  I avoided waiting around to watch her relapse and her parents' marriage severely being threatened in the process. We learn early on ("Yeah, I'm dead, get over it") what happened to her.  So, I avoided that part. 

The other issue was the too-small subtitles.  I know my vision isn't the best, but come on with that stuff.  

---

* The most recent show interviewed Bart Ehrman, a person they interviewed over the years.  I read that book. 

Ryan Burghe (professor and minister) was also interviewed by the hosts. He has two books analyzing religious beliefs through his statistical-based political scientist lens.  I read The Nones about the rise of people (now around 30%) who basically chose "none of the above" as their religion.

Annie Gaylor (woman co-host, always an atheist; her husband Dan Barker was once a Christian minister) likes mentioning "the nones," partially it seems for the nuns/nones wordplay.  Nonetheless, as Burghe notes, around twenty percent of them are not atheists and agnostics as such.  

The little book (under 150 pages) is interesting, including summarizing how data is collected in religious belief surveys.  The book is mostly social science related, but a few times the author expresses his minister side. He rather there not be so many "none"!  The book's last chapter is written with his minister hat on.  Guess he does mix them a bit.

The book notes when talking about this group that some do go to church, much more likely the "nothing in particulars" as compared to atheists and agnostics.  The book doesn't talk about it, but Unitarian-Universalists are one religious organization that welcomes atheists. Jews also can be atheists or agnostics.  Ethical societies have also looked at the structures of religious institutions (weekly meetings etc.) and patterned themselves after them.  

The book ends with how his shrinking membership church (mainline Christians, moderates as compared to evangelicals, are bleeding numbers fast in recent years) started to donate food to local foods as an act of fellowship.  Which is fine.  But, his belief in God is not the only way nothing in particulars might wish to express their religious and spiritual beliefs.  

Again, atheistic Unitarians serve as an example.