One More Execution

The twenty-fourth execution in 2023 was Phillip Dean Hancock. For now, he is the final person executed this year. Texas had eight, Florida had six, Missouri and Oklahoma had four, and Alabama had two. Many more murderers out there.

Hancock's execution is not a travesty. It is still a dubious use of governmental power. The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board voted 3-2 to make the recommendation for life without parole. He claimed self-defense. The jury didn't believe him. Why the board voted the way they did was not clarified. The facts appear to warrant the decision.

Phillip Dean Hancock was sentenced to be executed by lethal injection for the fatal shooting of two men in Oklahoma City in 2001. Hancock had been involved in a fatal shooting before, in 1982. He claimed self-defense at a murder trial and was convicted of first-degree manslaughter.

A clinical psychologist who evaluated Hancock testified that he reacted as he did in 2001 because he was beaten as a boy, sexually assaulted at age 14, and gang raped in prison at age 19. His lawyers also argued evidence that could have helped to provide his defense was not provided. 

The prosecution grants he was threatened in some fashion. Nonetheless, they argue the danger was at best fleeting. There does seem to be some doubt on that question. As a CNN article reports:

Hancock’s attorneys and his advocates – including two GOP state legislators – have argued he killed Robert Jett and James Lynch in a clear-cut case of self-defense, alleging the two victims were known outlaws who attacked an unarmed Hancock and tried to force him into a cage at Jett’s home in Oklahoma City. In a physical altercation, Hancock managed to get control of Jett’s gun and then fatally shot the two men, according to Hancock’s clemency petition.

We are talking about someone who was convicted of killing three people. The general facts suggest a dangerous person who should be in prison. Nonetheless, this is not someone who murdered two simple innocents. This fact, along with his background (the usual horror show of people on death row) very well might have led to the 3-2 vote. The board is not known to be lenient. 

Around twenty years ago, he was prosecuted and put in prison. The jury found that was warranted. Okay. Twenty years in prison is a long time. If you want him to be in there longer (until he's 65?), that might be warranted. An execution is gratuitous. It is another arbitrary execution.  

He did not have any last-minute appeals to SCOTUS though I found one from years back. Earlier in the week, they rejected without comment a request involving a voting rights case. There are more arguments scheduled for next week. 

Henry Kissinger Is Dead (and Jimmy Carter Lives)

No RIP For you! 

More From Hallmark

Ali Liebert is best known as a Canadian actress, including playing a lesbian working in a Canadian munitions plant during World War II. Meg Tilly played a supervisor. AL also popped up on Hallmark.

Liebert also has directed. She is the director of Christmas in Notting Hill (Great Britain), a 2023 film that was repeated on Saturday. The leads have been in various things, but are not among the leading repeat players in Hallmark Channel films. I thought they did a good job here. 

The film involves questions about sibling duties and life choices. The surrounding plot takes up a lot of time, partially because a major part of this film is the British Christmas setting. So, this provides a different vibe than many of these films. The main love story as a result is somewhat limited. Nonetheless, all the other stuff retains interest. 

(The leads turn out to be the brother and sister of each sibling's own romantic partner. Each lead is an older sibling who had a parent die at a young age though in one case they are half-siblings. So, the whole thing has a certain incestuous feel, future inlaws forming a romantic bond.) 

A special nod to the creation of a British setting, including a pub, public areas, and Christmas celebrations.  

The leads in A Biltmore Christmas are more familiar faces. 

The plot winks a bit at viewers because it involves the remake of a Christmas classic from the 1940s. Our heroine, a bit of a modern cynical sort, wants to change the ending. By some magical events, she is transferred back in time to the filming of the original.  

An older Hallmark Channel film, Journey Back to Christmas, was also recently on. This involves a WWII-era nurse (a Full House actress all grown up). I thought the whole thing was overall disappointing, the modern-day storyline coming off as rather weak. 

Not the best time travel fare. A Timeless Christmas was better. An industrialist (familiar Hallmark actor) travels from the beginning of the 20th Century. He later plays himself in a historical reenactment at his historical home. And falls in love. I rewatched this and enjoyed it again.

There have been a few enjoyable time travel films, including one that reunites (though they did not share a scene) two actors of Back to the Future, on Hallmark Channel. People went back and forward in time. One or more went back and had a chance to relive part of their own lives. 

How was this new film? Jonathan Frakes has a charming supporting role in the modern-day story. Fans of Star Trek might almost not recognize him as a museum official (more or less). Hallmark films are great chances for older actors to get some work. 

The film has a charming recreation of 1947. If it feels a bit like a movie, not real life, that is likely intentional  A big fan of the old film that is not too put off when she hears about time travel is an amusing touch. The leads do their job well. I did get bored with the story after a while. 

This might have been my own personal taste. Nonetheless, this time, the film did not keep my engagement the whole way. It was still fun overall. Ends well. (Oh you knew it would end that way.)

Blondie and the García Girls

Blondie Knows Best (another mostly generic title not very tied to the plot) is overall an enjoyable addition to the film series. The plot summary that is currently at that link is thin and misleading. The problem is Dagwood accidentally damaged his new neighbor's house, not some business-related issue.  

This week's entry benefits greatly from Shemp Howard (one of the Stooges), who plays a myopic process server. His role is part of an interrelated bunch of complications, which this series does a good job of putting together into one united plot bundle. 

The film has the by now (over halfway through) standard plot developments, including a need for money, a chance for Blondie to get jealous, and some scenes where she reassures she is happy with her current marriage and family situation. And, of course, for the ever-aggravated J.C. Dithers to have a reason to fire Bumstead without actually finalizing it. 

(This turns out to be the actor's last appearance as the boss. An actor who plays a different role here will step in as the new boss next time.)  

How the García Girls Lost Their Accents by Julia Alvarez is something of a classic. The disclaimer is how these things should be written. Some disclaimers in historical fiction state that nothing is factual. Nonetheless, the work is clearly based on true events. They are just used in a fictional way. This is the case here. 

The author's life patterns the book to some degree. Her father, like the girls of the title, had to flee the Dominican Republic after a failed attempt to overturn the dictator who governed there. The book is the first book of her long career (about thirty years). It is a series of vignettes about the lives of four sisters, for some reason told in reverse order.

The book starts with a now adult daughter visiting the Dominican Republic. There are three parts, covering events back to when they were still living on the island. The stories are told from various points of view, sometimes in the first person, sometimes not. They are of varying levels of interest. The whole thing ends with a rather weird (probably metaphorical) story about one of the young girls taking a tiny kitten away from her mother.  

I think the final stories were the least interesting. The overall style also comes off as somewhat garbled. I appreciated the use of different perspectives. When I tried to write a few short stories, I used that technique. Nonetheless, overall, the book comes off as an incomplete accounting of these characters. 

I did not like the book as a whole. It was more of a "whole not as good as the sum of its parts" deal. It was well-written and relatively painless to read in that regard. I know books should not be seen as medicine or some sort of required reading. Nonetheless, I do like to be able to finish reading books. 

Anyway, my copy also has a "for the reader" section with a narrative from the author, a book summary, reader questions, and further reading.  

New York Jets Continue to Be a National Embarrassment

I did not want the New York Jets to sign Aaron Rodgers. The Jets already signed an aging Green Bay Packers QB. Brett Favre had a good run and then ran into a wall. He was soon gone and finished elsewhere. Then, he had other problems. But, that is another story.

The Jets have a playoff (maybe more) caliber defense. The defense that will win games for you. The team needed a decent QB of a reasonable age. There are multiple QBs of that caliber available. The team could have been a very good team for years. 

The team went another way. Aaron "vax opponent" Rodgers rubbed our noses in it by getting injured after a few plays. Nonetheless, I think it would have been a bad move regardless. And, at his age, turf or no turf (talk about scapegoating), an injury was a reasonable likelihood. Also, at his age, how long would he last? In a couple years, the Jets could be back to square one. Furthermore, if he did well, draft-wise it would be harder to get a QB.

Rodgers also brought another albatross: Nathaniel Hacket. He has a prime excuse now with a bunch of injuries. But, teams have injuries. Yes, the Jets have A LOT. He still stinks. We knew this coming in. The only reason to get him was because Rodgers likes him. What happens if he is not playing? Was there no other way to get Rodgers? It all reeks of desperation.

The NY Jets set themselves to fail. They refused to face up to the situation. They showed how little trust Zack Wilson had by benching him last season. Fine. You had to have a reliable backup. Team after team in the NFL had quarterbacks going down. A reliable backup with the Jets' defense could carry the team. It would at the very least result in credible play.  

The Jets, helped by Buffalo's own issues, managed to win the first game. The Jets battled with two teams (Denver and the Giants) to see who could lose the games. Somehow they managed to score enough points to beat the Eagles. Still, the team is lucky to have four wins. 

Easy could have two or three. And, schedule makers expected Rodgers. So, the Jets can embarrass themselves in prime time or nationwide (the first Black Friday game) situations. This time, they somehow managed to have a "pick six" on an end-of-the-half Hail Mary. 

The defense gave the team two turnovers (one a pick-six; the other mid-field with two seconds to play as Miami rushed to score three) and the team came out of it -1 (they missed an XP, so the touchdowns didn't offset). Since Hail Marys have been recorded as a state (2006 by one account), no one remembers this happening. Impressive. 

There will be a limited number of opportunities. Hail Marys often occur at the end of games where a runback would make limited sense. Some have little chance of being caught. The usual situation is a fight for the ball with the defense batting the ball away or knocking the person down in the end zone. A defender going 100 yards with the ball is not very likely.  

The problem here is not just Aaron Rodgers. The team has been a mess for too long to put it in the hands of any one person. The fans have a reason to be pissed off. Other teams struggling have fired people, including coordinators or head coaches. This is sometimes just something you do. There is a cause to suggest someone is being made a scapegoat.

Not quite true here. Nathaniel Hackett being fired would gain some justifiable positivity from the fans. Tim Boyle, no savior (he isn't meant to be; he's a third-string QB), was cheered by the fans happy to see an unqualified QB (even if he teases with good play here or there) gone. What? Aaron Rodgers will refuse to play the second year of his contract if Hackett is fired? Maybe tell him that NH is vaxxed or something.

The NY Giants received a scheduling gift by having the Commanders (the Jets have them too) come in. Tommy "not Danny's son" DeVito actually had a chance. Now people are talking of him being a possible QB of the future. Calm down, guys. Miami was going to be a loss. Still, they had a shot at a reasonable score. At least, a 10-6 half.

They went another way. Time for a change. And, they should not have signed Rodgers. I said so before the season. 

Some More Thanksgiving Thoughts

Harvest festivals were ancient celebrations, including in biblical times. We also see many examples of periods of fasting and thanksgiving.

There were also multiple "first" Thanksgivings if we want to capitalize that word as a holiday celebrating a special event. I assume that the true first Thanksgiving involved Native Americans. There was one in Spanish Florida. The first Canadian Thanksgiving is sometimes cited to be in the 16th Century. And, there is that Pilgrim one. 

How many think the Pilgrims are the first people who came to British America, at least to the United States part? No. Jamestown, Virginia was established over a decade before. Then, there were the first slaves, which led years later to the "1619 Project." And, then the Pilgrims. 

When did this occur? I was looking at various websites and many simply said "1621" or at best the autumn of 1621. We do not have an exact accounting though multiple people wrote something about the event. One was in a letter written in early December. For what that is worth.

When I was thinking about our date, it did seem somewhat late. Canada has its Thanksgiving in early October, which very well might be closer to the actual original Pilgrims date. Our current date arose during the Civil War, which was a mixture of 19th-century sentiment and wartime events. Days of fasting and thanksgiving were normal events during wars, including the Revolutionary War. Note the mixture of sorry with celebration.

By then, our "settler colonialism" was starting to enter its final stages. A current film tells a little-known tale of what happened when Native Americans benefited from the natural resources on their native soil. White America has a lot to answer for. My one caveat is that there is not something uniquely "white" about such colonialism. 

"Native American" should also not be simply mixed with "good guys" either. The Aztecs come to mind. Originally, even Native Americans who helped the Pilgrims did so partially since they saw them as possible allies against other Natives. If things were switched, I do not think the mere fact their skins were darker would have meant a different result.  

Thanksgiving was moved up a week for a few years during the Roosevelt administration. To be fair, by a quirk, the holiday fell late that year. This was purely an economic decision and did not last. Lincoln timed the holiday as a type of end-of-the-year celebration. Note that Jesus was likely not born on Christmas Day. 

Presidents have given thanksgiving proclamations from the beginning. There was also some controversy. Some thought President Adams was too heavy-handed. Jefferson, keeping pure, opposed the concept, arguing it was a violation of the separation of church and state. And, the Tenth Amendment, to the degree that such questions were not the job of the federal government.

I do think presidents should not officially honor God and petition him or whatever pronoun fits in our names. They can do that privately. It also is fine for them to honor the day in various ways, including honoring our liberal traditions (good op-ed). 

Okay. Some have jumped the gun. But, now it's okay to start thinking about Christmas and other winter holidays.  

Biden Pardons Two Birds

Following a tradition normalized in the 1980s, Biden also pardoned the turkeys Liberty and Bell yesterday, marking the unofficial start of the holiday season. The birds will move to the University of Minnesota’s College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences where they will become educational ambassadors for a state where turkey production provides more than $1 billion in economic activity and more than 26,000 jobs.

I wish someone would end this asinine process. What exactly is the point of "pardoning" a turkey? The usual process is to have these cutesy names, make some jokes, politick some, and so on. 

West Wing tells us presidents do not have the power to pardon fowl. Well, maybe if they commit some federal crime. The president also might be given the power by statute to do so. He can also pardon a bird (in a non-criminal sense) while carrying out his presidential powers. He is basically given the power to do this by whatever process is in place here.

Local politicians are giving out turkeys around my way. One referenced also giving way produce. Last year, Twitter provided better access to the people I followed. This included a local account that let me know when they were handing out free produce (fruit, vegetables, beans, etc.). My feed is much less helpful. I might have missed one of these hand-outs.

Not everyone eats turkey. I am a vegetarian who tries to be as much of a vegan as I can. I have been so since the mid-1990s. You don't have to be one to find this pardon business silly. It's hard to end these traditions. So, we are going to continue to have them. And, have people complain.

One lay-up is that criminal justice advocates sneer at the limited use of the pardon power for actual humans. One blog, some strongly conservative sort (rabidly so at times) agreed. Our criminal justice system is very troubling. There have been some mild efforts to address the problems. Some bipartisan action has been done there nationwide. Rachel Barkow and Emily Bazelon are two people who have written books on this topic.

I clearly agree. Congress could help by establishing some guidelines, including a special pardon administrator who selects people from a range of places to help them. The president (or members of the Justice Department) can independently do so. There has not been a recent drive to do so. It's a shame. Again, inertia helps here as does fear of crime. Still, there are enough bipartisan forces available for there to be some movement here. 

Thanksgiving can also be designated as a special time to announce many pardons. Actual pardons, not just of turkeys. People can return to their families. People already out can have their records made clean. It would be an appropriate way to celebrate the holiday.  

A final concern would be all those involved in the Thanksgiving season. We can have special concerns for agricultural workers and animals raised. The retailers who sell the food and supplies. The workers there. The mothers and family members as a whole who make the dinners. Some (like me) will join some members of their family to eat outside the home.

I am already seeing Christmas trees (at the store) and displays. Let's focus on that after Thanksgiving. And, let's honor the season the best we can. Or in the words of President Biden:

I encourage the people of the United States of America to join together and give thanks for the friends, neighbors, family members, and strangers who have supported each other over the past year in a reflection of goodwill and unity.

Happy Holidays. 

Beyond Doubt: The Secularization of Society

I have read or checked out various books discussed on the Freedom From Religion radio and television programs. 

This book is academic while still being readable. I skimmed it as well as listened to the discussion on the program. The general thesis is that there has been a widespread worldwide secularization of society in recent years. This, as the book finishes off, is "beyond doubt."

Secularization would be the process of religion losing significance. Okay. What is "religion"? The book generally ties religion with the supernatural. Religion is a collection of ideas, rituals, practices, symbols, identities, and institutions constructed based on the belief in the supernatural.

I respect this definition. On the other hand, I am wary of limiting religion to such a range. Unitarian-Universalism, for instance, is usually considered a religion. A person does not need to believe in the supernatural. An old dictionary definition:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 

Experts, including sociologists who study religion, have struggled to find the right words to use. The Supreme Court has mostly dodged trying to define religion. There is a "you know it when you see it" flavor. Lower courts had tried various tests, which again do not only include belief in the supernatural.  

Religious practice involves the three "Bs" -- belief, behavior, and belonging (to religious institutions). A person can belong to religious institutions for secular reasons. For instance, Ireland has had a strong religious presence because the Church served a nationalistic purpose. South Korea does so (so argues the book) because Protestantism was seen as part of a modern successful country, along with its efforts toward capitalism.  

People might continue to see the church as a cultural thing, an overall "sacred" space, without believing in the supernatural. Again, on that end, I think there is some sort of "religious" flavor there. A country such as Finland is very secular but the church still has a cultural value.  

(This can be a reason why there are certain exceptions to the trend of secularization. Also, if religion was suppressed artificially -- such as in the Soviet Union -- religion can still be strong, especially if it is also used for other purposes such as Putin's use of religion for his own purposes.)

The book analyzes how certain factors have led to increased secularization. Modernization, separation of church and state, and religious pluralism have all been involved. The supernatural (including as a relief to threats) becomes less important. The more religions there are, the less impressive any specific one (including your own) seems. 

At a certain stage, secularization leads to religious indifference. Religion still has enough of a role in United States society, for instance, for the Freedom From Religion Foundation to be quite passionate about their cause. There is a clear danger that religion will cause harm, especially if "harm" for you includes personal use of religion.  

Many Europeans, however, are quite indifferent about religion. Many people in this country are the same. The supernatural is not a big concern of mine, surely, and I realize life can have meaning without it. "Religion" sometimes includes a bundle of beliefs, behavior, and belonging involving "ultimate truths." A humanist group can act like a traditional religion. Many people do not belong to such groups either.

Interestingly, one difference for many people who are indifferent about religion is reflected in their parenting styles. Obedience suddenly becomes much less important. This shows the complexity around "religion" and the supernatural. There are some cultures, I am thinking of some Asian ones perhaps inspired by Confucian beliefs, where the supernatural might play a minor role but a more strict system of obedience is honored.  

The book provides the numbers that the secularization process has affected this country. The fact there is still a powerful evangelical movement does not refute this. The movement is still a minority in the country. A dangerous one in various respects. But, that has been a standard concern over the years. Along with the acceptance of bad characters. 

Many people who ally with them do not share their belief in the supernatural. Non-evangelicals have become more secular, leading to the growth of a "nothing in particular" (nones) category.  These people might have some vague belief in "spirituality" without having much of a concern about the supernatural.  

The authors have written about secularism and living without religion in their various writings. The intent of this book is not to pass a value judgment on whether secularism is good or bad, although some parts suggest it is not necessarily a negative thing. The book offers an intriguing perspective, including case studies, on the process of secularization.

===

(A summary of how religion remains attractive.)

The co-author is also on the 8/10/23 radio episode. The hosts noted they also had the other authors on in the past.

One thing referenced is that belief in the supernatural is not natural. We often hear that religion is a natural belief. The screenshot above suggests that religion does provide various benefits that could otherwise lead a person in various cases to believe in the supernatural. 

Nonetheless, like fear of the other (which is quite natural in certain ways), a child from birth can be taught otherwise. The number of non-religious people today suggests the idea religious belief is inherently natural is a bit curious. Some use religious structures without belief in the supernatural. 

Others go about their lives, often with meaning and happiness, without even that broader version of religion.  

December Bride

Hallmark has holiday movies (there are a handful of Jewish films out there) on a continuous basis on two channels. Maybe not totally, but that is mostly so. They are played all night long when usually they cut off earlier.  

I do not have the third. When I check, the third channel did not have as many. UP Channel has a lot of films, but not on a constant basis. I do not have the new Great American Family Channel, which is a sort of watered-down Hallmark Channel, with some of the same actors, and a few comments from management sounding more conservative.

Fans will recognize certain actors do many of these films. A person once told me that all Chinese takeout tastes the same. This is untrue. Likewise, different actors have different styles. Jessica Lowndes is not one of my favorites. She also does not quite seem like a normal person as compared to a carefully glossed-up model. Still, I enjoyed December Bride.

(This is an older film. One count cited 172 new Christmas films in a range of channels. Hallmark Channels have a range of new films, perhaps at least once a week, with Saturday night at 8 P.M. not the only time.)  

I have noted before that a good Hallmark Channel film has various components, including good pacing. You also need to like the actors. It helps if there is a good supporting cast. Finally, some little wrinkle (I realize this is not great art) helps. Here, you had a woman upset because her cousin "stole" her boyfriend and they got married. 

I have also joked/criticized that these films are not diverse enough. Up Channel appeared to me somewhat ahead of the curve in having non-white leads. I am starting to notice more references to people (including parents) getting divorced. This season Hallmark Channel had multiple films with people with disabilities, including a recent film about a son with autism. 

I enjoyed The Holiday Swap on Up Channel, another not new film. The films on that channel often are somewhat less flashy and appear somewhat more low budget. Fewer famous faces. The films also have a more steady pace. The low-key style (if that works) is enjoyable in the right film. 

Hallmark Channel still largely has a white woman as the primary character. At times, the man and woman have a more even role, and the man might actually be the protagonist. One recent movie had a house switch plot with a gay guy being one of the people involved. Still, for a channel that likes royalty plots, Africa, Asia, and Oceania (all those islands) provide prime material. There can be just so many little European kingdoms.  

I repeatedly go to a library and do not find anything of interest. The myriad of holiday films makes it somewhat more likely that I find a few I enjoy. 

SCOTUS Watch: Orders

Drag Shows

Chris Geidner is a good place to go to keep track of the many pieces of anti-trans legislation and litigation brought addressing it. 

For instance, recently he addressed the fraught decision to appeal a losing case to the Supreme Court. The Biden Administration decided to (at least partially) join the effort. We will see how that goes with this Supreme Court.

Florida recently enacted a law that makes it a misdemeanor for a restaurant or bar to knowingly admit a child to an “adult live performance,” defined as a sexually explicit show that would be obscene in light of the child’s age. 

The Supreme Court on Thursday addressed one of Florida's many discriminatory laws. The specific issue was a request to hold up (grant a stay) a district court decision that broadly blocked (injunction) Florida's law from being applied. The stay request was specifically limited to the breadth of the injunction. Florida might have had a case on that front. 

The fact something was wrongly decided alone is not usually a reason for the Supreme Court to intervene. The Court refused to do so with three justices (without comment) noting they would have granted it. 

Roberts and the liberals were silent. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent. Kavanaugh and Barrett (except for a footnote) said the issue was important. Nonetheless, the procedural posture of this specific case made it a bad one for review. Again, they probably have a point. 

As an aside, if a justice does not publicly dissent in these cases, it is hard for me to accept that we should do anything but say they consented. Silence usually means assent. 

I was told by a major Supreme Court reporter that she generally agrees. Technically this is not accurate. It is bad form not to add "no public dissents" or something.  Have the votes public or consider the orders a joint "for the court" statement that you implicitly consent. This approach is phony.  

(The case involves a chain named "Hamburger Mary's" and a Florida official named Melanie Griffin. Oh so close to the actress.)  

January Arguments

We are approaching the New Year. Where has 2023 gone? The year has been something of a way station before the presidential year. The start of major Trump litigation and trials also has played out as a sort of prologue to 2024.

The Supreme Court sometimes drops the first opinion in an uncontroversial case in December. They also might dispose of a case that turned out to be a rejection. 

For now, we have the oral argument scheduled for January.  There are some possibly interesting odds and ends. The possible landmarks are two cases (Jackson is recused in one) that ask the Supreme Court to make a big change in agency law. Multiple scholars have shown agencies have had broad discretion back to the 1790s.  

The interference in allowing regulatory agencies to have the flexibility to do business is a major conservative project. Some argue the New Deal was when the Constitution died or something because agencies were given too much power. 

Friday 

The Supreme Court calendar on its website notes:

The Court will convene for a public non-argument session in the Courtroom at 10 a.m. 

Seating for the non-argument session will be provided to the public, members of the Supreme Court Bar, and the press. The Supreme Court Building will otherwise be closed.

I find this opaque reference annoying. A useful nonargument session would be one where Chief Justice Roberts made a brief statement about the new code of conduct, which they appear to want to drop with as little fanfare as possible.  Prof. Michael Dorf argues that they still did that wrongly. He suggested a simple statement of a new set of court rules. But, maybe, these are more like guidelines.

(Catch the movie reference?)  

The purpose of the session is likely to swear in people to the Supreme Court bar. Perhaps, that is implied by the seating arrangement. A clearer statement (sometimes specific groups of people are involved), perhaps a quick press release, would be better. I continue to find the Court has an openness problem.

The justices also had a conference. The website summarizes: "The Justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review."  John Elwood has a column at SCOTUSBlog discussing cases that were "relisted" (put on the agenda for multiple conferences).  

Order List

Typical no drama Order List. 

The justices granted two issues (two cases were consolidated) for a full argument. Nothing too fascinating. 

(ETA: Someone was "invited" to argue the criminal case.)

Thomas wrote a dissent involving a procedural matter (see link) while Kavanaugh without comment also would have taken the case. (ETA: More info on that dissent.)

Alito didn't take part in two cases without explaining why. Only Kagan has recently begun to provide brief categorial reasons why she was recused. Each justice should follow her lead. 

No more conferences or scheduled order days in November. It would not surprise me if some stray order pops up. There will be arguments during the last week though technically that starts the "December Calendar."  Happy Holidays.

ETA: Sometime yesterday, a notice was dropped that an administrator is retiring early next year. 

Israel/Gaza (And Some Additional Thoughts)

Heather Cox Richardson's (she's a historian) Letters from an American Substack is an excellent way to keep track of current events. 

(She usefully has a list of links at the end. In my email, you can have substacks emailed to you, I at first saw some internal links in the most reason entry. For whatever reason, I do not see them now. I don't know what happened there.)

Richardson's latest includes coverage of the Israeli-Gaza conflict. She quotes Hamas sources that declared the point of their attack was to make a major statement likely to change the current state of affairs. 

This is far from surprising. Israel's response, including under the current leadership, was very predictable. They used a strategy that sacrificed lives for their long-term goals. It is far from impossible they will not obtain some benefit if only a change of Israeli leadership. How much that is worth is another matter.   

The same can be said about the U.S.-Israeli "special relationship." I think we can say it is a mixture of ideological (including religious), the value of a regional power that is "safe," familiarity (including family connections), and some inertia. An argument for a "relationship" (not the negative view some hold) with a more balanced approach seems sensible. My member of Congress has a dubious "I'm 100% with Israel" sentiment.

Settlements continue to be a fundamental problem. The current leadership supported expanding this poisonous enterprise. It is especially impossible to imagine a two-state solution, which is in the official position of the Biden Administration, without seriously addressing the issue. It would require sacrifice on the Israeli side. It is offensive to parrot that as a mantra without underlining that it requires major changes.

A one-note approach does not help either side in the long run. We are going to (with a few noises about restraint) just supply Israel with arms? Any strong opposition is deemed worthy of censure and almost treasonous (to the United States). 

Let me be clear here that I hold this position generally. When some liberals got all upset when some progressives released a statement talking about some sort of negotiations (it was all hazy) in Ukraine, I thought it a tad ridiculous. So there was a bit of dissent from reasonable people. So what? 

My thoughts here are just that. I am not as familiar with the details here as I am with some issues. I do not want to closely debate the overall question. I do want a calm, reasonable debate, and addressing the issues. 

On that front, I recommend the Respecting Religion Podcast for its ability to calmly discuss things. They come off as so darn reasonable.

This does not mean they are just squishes. There are various issues they are quite passionate about, including Amanda Tyler's repeated efforts to promote the dangers of Christian nationalism. Nonetheless, there is a very strong need for places where the basic facts and issues are calmly established. A ton of information (sometimes in long narrative forms) can overwhelm. The use of basic soundbites can result in mostly hot air.

My goal over the years has not been merely to express my opinion on matters. On places like Twitter or Blue Sky, I might fall into that camp that just vents about the issues, tossing in some article or sports information. Some places focus too much on the negative when clarity and sometimes some good news (or just how things are going) would be helpful.  

I have done it all imperfectly. So it goes. I will continue to try.  

Some Films

First an update. One of the few Republicans in the New York City council (my incoming councilwoman will enter this small group soon) was arrested after she was caught with a semi-concealed weapon at a protest. Turns out the weapon was inoperable so the charges were dropped. The law apparently requires the gun to be operable though part of the concern should be the fear a gun would bring. An inoperable gun could as well.

===

On my Substack, I reviewed a book on the Mexican War (from the Mexicans' point of view) and a book on abortion ethics. Both were good reads. Let us now look at a few films.

This was a pretty fun film. It can't be taken too seriously. Also, the lead-up takes a bit too long. And, Megan Fox needs to look really glossy and overact some (some overheated cable potboiler vibes) until the action comes. But, once her husband is dead and she is handcuffed to him, things happen in a well put together clip. Good DVD/on-demand fare.

Trade Winds is a mystery/romance with an impressive pedigree. Dorothy Parker co-wrote the screenplay. Joan Bennett (who went brunette here and stayed that way) plays the female fatale. Ralph Bellamy plays a somewhat dim police detective (he played a bit of a patsy in His Girl Friday too). Frederich March plays the P.I. who falls in love with his quarry. Ann Southern plays his cynical girl Friday. And more.  

The bunch basically goes halfway around the world (from San Francisco to Hawaii to the Far East and back again)  -- Leonard Maltin in his film review book says the actors stayed in the studio. The whole thing is well paced and the comic relief is generally amusing. Frederick March as a love interest didn't quite work. Still, I did believe he loved her.  

==

I only saw about half of That Hagen Girl with Ronald Reagan, Shirley Temple (in one of her final roles), and the actress who later played "Moneypenny" in the James Bond films. Temple later was in diplomatic service (looks like she wasn't just eye candy) but it does not look like President Reagan (as compared to Nixon and Bush) appointed her. 

Shirley Temple plays a hurt bird rather well. The film is about small-town gossip. But, the whole thing is a bit silly since it would have easily been flagged that she was adopted. We basically figured as much in the opening scene when her adopted mother comes off a train with a baby. The supposed birth mother has some sort of problem that isolates her. The supposed birth father simply doesn't act like one. There really is no "maybe" there. 

(Talk of an illegitimate daughter is risque for a 1940s film.)

I thought some shaming of an innocent teenager was enough. So, I shut things off halfway through. It was well acted for the lecture it amounts to be. I checked the Wikipedia link and it went in a way I did not expect. Not a gigantic fan of it either. A tad weird. 

Anyway, I saw it referenced in my movie review book and wanted to check it out.

==

So, not a bad haul. A fourth DVD would not play. I also got out a series but did not see that one yet. Will let you know.  

ETA: Nah. 

Two Executions

The scheduled execution will come two days before the 22nd anniversary of the day, Nov. 18, 2001, when he kidnapped 5-year-old Alexandra Flores from an El Paso Walmart, strangled her to death and then burned her body. It also comes six days before his 54th birthday.

A court case notes that he "was a 32-year-old registered sex offender on probation for committing an indecency offense against an eight-year-old girl when he was arrested for the murder of the five-year-old girl in this case." A child also testified during his trial that he molested her. He did not even deny the kidnapping and [helping] to dispose of the body. 

He claimed some gang forced him to kidnap the child (threatening his family). The gang killed her. There doesn't seem to be much credibility to these claims from the coverage I saw. Criminals regularly deny they are guilty. Did I do a deep dive here? No. But, if there is a credible claim of innocence, it is usually more evident in the news coverage.   

Texas chose to go with one of those "yeah" cases for its eighth and as of now final execution for 2023. David Santiago Renteria ran out of time. His lawyers used a bunch of procedural arguments, which overturned one sentence sentence. The whole process took over twenty years.

It is unclear what filter this person had that caused him to act this way. Executing such a person to many is a depressing necessity as noted by the district attorney:

"Anyway, you look at this, it is still an execution," Hicks said. "It is still a tragedy that a person is going to lose their life. However, not just one, but two different juries came back and said that David Renteria would be a future danger to society, and both juries came back and said that there was nothing about him or what he did or his history or who he is that would mitigate what he did and mitigate the sentence of death.

The family, including the parents, will not obtain "closure" after this enterprise. We should hope they find some value but the child still is dead. As to "future danger to society," he has been in prison for twenty years. That is where he belonged. The system that executes him will also execute the seventh person Texas executed, who is more sympathetic. 

Nonetheless, every execution is opposed by someone. I myself oppose the death penalty as an institution. People who do horrible things sometimes should be kept away from the general public. 

Renteria's "future dangerousness" to small children in prison is unclear.  His time in prison appears to have been uneventful, except that it provided him a safer space in certain respects to live the best life possible.  

The system that executes the "good ones" will execute many who are much more dubious options. Sometimes, you do things that are risky because on balance it is necessary. The death penalty rarely looks this way, especially since so few nations (or states of this one) actively practice it today. What do all these places do with the "easy" cases? Renteria isn't Timothy McVeigh.  He isn't a serial killer. He deserves to be in prison, not dead.

SCOTUS tossed aside a late Hail Mary procedural claim. This one is not as strong as the last. But, in my view, a few words before "denied" is warranted when the result is an execution. A second argument that the Texas supply of lethal injection drugs is not viable enough was also ignored, just like it was when another person made it earlier in the year.   

McWhorter, 48, was convicted in 1994 of capital murder in the 1993 robbery and slaying of Edward Lee Williams in Marshall County. McWhorter had turned 18 three months before his crime. He and two juvenile co-defendants, a 16-year-old and the 15-year-old son of the victim, had planned to rob and murder Williams in his home.

Alabama's execution is one more people are likely to question.

Thirty years ago (see Glossip v. Gloss, Breyer dissenting), some teens plotted a robbery/murder. What is the legitimate public purpose in now executing the one that happened to be a bit older?  

The original jury split 10-2 (unanimous juries not required then). Alabama considered nineteen the age of majority. A final lawsuit cited this to argue that constitutionally he was a minor. But, Roper v. Simmons did not draw the line at "the age of majority under law."  The cut-off was 18.

I am sympathetic to the argument. It is just not strong enough to convince the Supreme Court, even one somewhat less conservative. A final Hail Mary arguing that the death warrant was dropped too late (looks rather technical even to me) also failed. Alabama has thirty hours now to execute after past litigation led to last-minute problems.

SCOTUS handled things (as usual without comment) by the afternoon. They both were executed, the Texas person still speaking of his "murder" in his final statement.  

===

There is one more execution scheduled for this year at the very end of the month. As of now, there are no executions in December. That would be twenty-four, one-third being from Texas. 

An Order List will drop on Monday. Unless something truly significant warrants it (as with the code of conduct, this is possible), I'll wait until then to talk about another order of a bit of note that dropped today.  

SCOTUS Releases Code of Conduct

The Senate Judiciary Committee invited Chief Justice Roberts to attend a meeting to discuss ethical matters. He assured the committee that the justices were voluntarily following ethical rules. However, he argued that showing up, even voluntarily, would violate the separation of powers. 

This claim was false, as justices had attended Congressional meetings in the past, even in tag teams of liberal and conservative justices, to discuss the budget. During this meeting, there was talk of creating a code of ethics, which even individual justices like Kagan and Barrett supported. 

Now, without any prior notice, we have received this press release:

The Court has today issued the attached Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

In many ways, the “canons” announced on Monday largely track the existing Code of Conduct for Federal Judges. A few of these are questionable, including such things as:

FUNDRAISING: A judge may participate in and serve as a member, officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit organization devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and may assist such an organization in the management and investment of funds.

Prof. Leah Litman flagged this as appearing to allow the justices to be involved in the Federalist Society and other conservative organizations. But, it is not a special rule. It applies to federal judges too.

Much more dubious are the changes:

Canon 2B adds the word “knowingly” — twice — to the provisions warning against “lend[ing] the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the Justice or others” or “convey[ing] or permit[ting] others to convey that they are in a special position to influence the Justice.”

What is the justification for this? Since they didn't show up, no need to say! The law-related activities they can ethically be involved with also have an extended "limitations and considerations" section added. Why? The general assumption one makes is that they are fit for the justices' own activities. 

There is an exception for recusal when the justice is involved with amicus briefing. This at least could be explained by the argument justices have a "duty to sit" in cases and there is no ability to replace them. Lower court judges are part of bigger panels and judges outside of the panels can also replace them as necessary. 

Recusals are rarely truly an issue for justices. For instance, Justice Jackson was recused from one college affirmative action case but was able to take part in another.  The justices usually can find a "clean" case. And, even if a justice does not take part, the quorum is six. There is only an issue if so many can't take part or if there is a tie. 

Five rather thin summary pages of commentary explain the code to some extent, including the "duty to sit" business. The "knowingly" business does not appear to be addressed. Hopefully, someone will do a deep dive and analyze things in depth.)

I think Congress can create rules to replace justices who do not participate. The safest option would be to appoint a retired justice. However, I don't believe it's unconstitutional for a lower court justice to take part. Although parsing over the term 'one' Supreme Court might be needed, I still think it's achievable with some finesse. 

It's certainly less questionable than attempting to establish a statutory term limit regime."The central difference between the justices' code of conduct is the lack of an enforcement mechanism. It is appreciated that Senator Chuck Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, and others flagged this problem.  The Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to "fill in the gaps" regarding all constitutional powers. They should do so here.

[Steve Vladeck flagged the possibility of an inspector general.]

Why did the Supreme Court release a code of conduct at all, putting aside confusion on why they changed specific matters? Note the code is filled with "shoulds" and "mays." A statement is provided to explain why, especially since "most" of the provisions are not new, and the justices allegedly have been "guided" by them so far. 

The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct. 

I think that the statement overall was required to have every justice, especially Thomas and Alito, to sign. Whatever the reason, the whole thing is a mixture of bullshit, and "you know this whole thing is CYA, right?"

The problem is not that there is some "misunderstanding" about justices being unrestricted. The public, especially certain parts of it, has learned about blatant violations by Justice Clarence Thomas. They also learned about things Justice Alito is doing, including working with the Wall St. Journal to make it his personal paper of record.  They saw other justices doing less blatant, but still dubious things, including (to toss it in) Ginsburg making comments about Donald Trump.  

There is no "misunderstanding" really. The justices are acting as if they are unrestricted. At the very least, they are acting in multiple ways that suggest they believe themselves much too unrestrained by ethical rules Fix the Court provides a lot more details there. The justices are clueless (there is some of that) if they deny this. I doubt they're that clueless. 

They are arrogant too, including because -- unlike other federal judges -- they do not have binding ethical rules. The fact they were compelled to do this -- which is the bare minimum (they merely used the existing rules and then watered them down in certain ways!) -- suggests they realize the public reaction is troubling. It is shown by the decrease of respect for the Court.  It's hard for me to be much impressed by this all the same.

Still, you use what you have. People can cite the specific code of conduct now and point out how the justices failed. The failure is limited by multiple quantifiers, including what "reasonable" people would deem inappropriate. This underlines the need for an enforcement mechanism, including a formal means to challenge their actions and a process to investigate. 

This should not be a partisan thing. The inspector general proposal was cosponsored by Chuck Grassley, the former Republican chair of the Judiciary. The slipshod investigation of the Dobbs leak is something both parties should care about.  But, the Supreme Court is 6-3. It's there guys. So, it will be hard to get anything done. Push and do what you can.

Start with a subpoena of Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo.  

===

[After some commentary came in]  

The commentary is starting to come in. And, there is enough "this is Calvinball" for me to be even more annoyed. 

A few liberal critics have noted, "Well, this shows that public pressure works, since they didn't even want to do this." Uh-huh. I understand it is a long haul. They are making it hard for me to consider this much of a "clear win," to use a term such critic used. "Not nothing" is a low bar.

There is a good case to be made that it is "worse than nothing" since it blesses what is going on, now with the gloss of a "code of conduct."  Chris Geidner and others are somewhat miffed when people say this is a "nothingburger," but maybe that is too generous:  

My colleague Adam Serwer, who covers political and legal issues for The Atlantic, told me that “much of the conduct that has exposed the justices as partisan actors” would not seem to be prohibited by these guidelines. The code is not a move toward stricter ethics rules; rather, Adam argued, it might have the opposite effect: “It is an attempt to remove any motivation for Congress to impose restrictions on the Court that have actual teeth.” 

Sen. Dick Durbin answered it was a milquetoast statement on the Senate floor in which he spent over half his time talking about something else. Sen. Whitehouse leads with the need for a binding ethics law.

ETA: The last blockquote was added after I reposted this entry to have a clean copy without multiple updates. The number of negative responses is a telling thing. Is this more "misunderstanding," Mr. and Mrs. Justices?  

SCOTUS Watch: Order List

The Supreme Court has no oral arguments this week. On Friday, they have a scheduled non-argument sitting. This might be a time to swear in people to the bar. There is a reference to seating being available. 

Seems like a good time to allow cameras, especially since a dodge often is that advocates will play to the cameras or some small sample will be broadcast. Other courts manage to televise so this is bullshit. But, we do not even have that sort of concern here.

Anyway, we start with an Order List. As usual, I wish there was a FAQ to help clarify usual terms and happenings. Also, the website did not just have a "print to file" order list. Why cannot the website provide an order list with links to the docket pages for the cases covered? I do not know why.

The Supreme Court took one case with interesting facts:

Because Diaz could only be convicted of drug trafficking if the government could prove that Diaz knew she was transporting drugs, prosecutors called a Homeland Security agent as an expert witness at her trial. The agent testified that drug couriers generally know when they are carrying drugs across the border. Indeed, he noted, drug traffickers rarely use blind mules to carry large quantities of drugs because they don’t want to risk losing the drugs. Diaz was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison.

Does testimony regarding these so-called "blind mules" like this violate federal rules of evidence? We shall see. We also have a right to wonder why this question was not answered by now. Anyway, expect some law school Q&A when that oral argument arises.

Justice Jackson (with the liberals) dissented from a denial involving conditions of confinement. Michael Johnson is in solitary confinement. She argues that a correct application of the "deliberation indifference" standard. The facts make this not that hard to imagine:

Most notably, Johnson’s mental state deteriorated rapidly. He suffered from hallucinations, excoriated his own flesh, urinated and defecated on himself, and smeared feces all over his body and cell. Johnson became suicidal and sometimes engaged in misconduct with the hope that prison guards would beat him to death.

"Given this indisputable legal error, I would grant certiorari and summarily reverse." An appropriate application of the test very well might warrant that result. Who knows what the application of the six conservatives, including selective libertarian (especially when it's not the federal government) Neil Gorsuch, would look like. But, her role is to dissent for the future.  

The Eighth Amendment has not had much success at the Supreme Court in recent decades.  One exception is a few special cases, primarily involving the death penalty.  And, that often required O'Connor and/or Kennedy.  Things addressed are even narrower now.  Two executions are scheduled later this week.  

Some Stuff To Watch

Today's Blondie film is Life with Blondie. Overall, I enjoyed it. 

Daisy is having some spring friskiness, causing problems in the neighborhood. Some complications (in part involving a new annoying neighborhood boy for the episode) led Daisy to be a pin-up dog. This is WWII with pin-up girls. 

This causes complications, both because she now is making more money than Dagwood, and because it changes the normal habits of the family. An amusing bit involved Blondie running into the mailman. There is a scene involving some confusion making Blondie jealous but it was not a whole big affair like last week. It ends with a bit of slapstick. 

Fun overall, including a few more WWII references. A bit where Cookie goes on the ledge at Dagwood's work was unnecessary. Too dangerous for a frivolous scene. Good addition to the series.

There are a ton of Christmas movies on Up Channel and Hallmark these days. I am not someone who will just watch any one of them. Some are good. Dashing Through The Snow (generic title not really fitting) has a bit of a different feel. It's based on a popular author's book.

The guy is a familiar face while the woman is not. Still, a new face can help. And, she does a good job here. We actually see the guy falling in love with her more than vice versa. The twist is that he's a government agent, there to follow her because of some mistaken identity.  

Time for Me to Come Home For Christmas was on last night. This is an enjoyable film that is right for multiple viewings. A bit heavy-handed on the family stuff but there is room for that in this sort of thing. 

She's a small business owner going back home to see her dad (her mom died recently). He's a country music star (who she is not familiar with; she likes show tunes) going back home to see his mom (dad died when he was away on tour and he feels guilty) and family. So a bit of a connection. 

Plane trouble so it's road trip time. They are a good couple and it's well performed. He has a sweet country star vibe while she is somewhat more restrained and concerned about company problems. The road trip theme allows for vignettes, which helps the pacing. Overall, enjoyed it.

I reread the book when the film came out. Judy Blume was a new author, having only two children's books, when she wrote this classic. It nicely covers a bunch of plot matters (religion, growing up, moving, etc.) in a small package. 

The film is well-acted and looks great. I was not interested in watching a young girl's story for ninety or so minutes. At least not this time. I shut it off about a third through. It has some extras but no director commentary.

==

A 400 Year History of Religion In America (One Day University) is one of the many educational materials you can find in the library. The big library downtown has many audio lectures. There are also DVDs like this. 

(The weekend is also a good time to get some education on C-SPAN. You can also just do a search on the website to view the material at any time.)

The DVD started well. I lost interest mid-way through. It did not keep my interest around 1800. A good concept, however, was the argument that the key to success in America was religion was promoted (sold) in a free market. They had no government support. Had to find an audience. 

The lecturer was down to earth. I can see him being a good teacher. How they stay in front of a class day after day -- they are like a lone pitcher out there -- and perform is amazing. 

Brent Brewer Execution

Monday Order Lists regularly have a list of cases not granted for argument. The Supreme Court is required to take very few cases. They sometimes find a way even to avoid interstate disputes that would seem to be obligatory. The usual grant is to settle some dispute or when a federal law is struck down and the solicitor general asks for relief.

The October 30th Order List included a denial, as usual without comment, of a case involving Brent Brewer's execution. One liberal-leaning website strongly responded (it was also referenced on Twitter/X):

Brent’s case is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to do something about one of the most barbaric features of one of the legal system’s most barbaric institutions. The question is whether the justices feel like exercising their power before Texas’s race to kill Brent before Thanksgiving renders this opportunity moot.

The reference to "Thanksgiving" is a bit curious for an execution scheduled before Veteran's Day. Anyway, the problem with this plea is that the actual petition and this is noted in the piece, was "technical."  It dealt with something called a "certificate of appealability, which is addressed at the link. It seems there is a good case for it here but it also seems like error correction to rest it on that alone. I'm no habeas lawyer but it still seems technical to me. The Order List on Monday dealt with that too:

The application for a certificate of appealability addressed to Justice Barrett and referred to the Court is denied. 

This is often the case. The Supreme Court is not going to simply take a case to address some age-old problem, including one that they ignored in the past. When they do, it's notable. The Roberts Court, post-Barrett, also is wary about doing much in criminal and capital cases, putting aside some narrow areas of law. They will address some narrow wrongs, especially if something like racism can be flagged, but nothing broad.

The concern here is somewhat broad as well as narrow. Brent Brewer (through his lawyers) is arguing that his death sentence was a product of a flawed finding of future dangerousness. Brewer flagged that the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals a year after the expert testified (2009/2010) found the technique used unreliable. He also was aided by his already extensive time on death row where there was no evidence of such danger.  

The whole concept of determining future dangerousness has its critics. It has a feel of that Tom Cruise film about stopping future crimes. However, I am not clear that the whole concept is inherently problematic. 

The dangerousness of a defendant reasonably is factored into the conditions of their confinement. If the death penalty is ever reasonable, the danger of keeping someone alive is a reasonable factor. The problem here is that IF we use it, it has to be very carefully used. And, the process here appears to be flawed. At least, that would for me settle the question. 

So, the broad issue is the use of expert testimony while the narrow issue is if the specific testimony here was reasonable. I don't see the conservatives, or even two of them, being that excited to take a capital case to address that. And, again, the technical grounds of the petition did not even address that. It is not shocking no liberal justice at that point made a statement. 

The Supreme Court, when Brewer was already on death row over ten years, in 2006 overturned his death sentence. They held (5-4) that the jury did not have the ability to adequately consider mitigating evidence. He and his girlfriend committed the murder shortly after he was released from involuntary commitment after his grandmother found a suicide note. 

And, there was other potential mitigation such as the usual appeal to horrible childhoods. I am not trying to ridicule this necessarily, but it is a common citation. There is also an argument that nineteen is young enough to be a strong mitigation if not grounds not to execute at all. The "push the minimum to 21" movement, however, has not obtained much traction.  

The aggravation is suggested by this summary of the crime:

On April 26, 1990, then 19-year-old Brent Brewer and his girlfriend, Kristie Nystrom, approached Robert Laminack outside his flooring store in Amarillo, Texas and asked for a ride to the Salvation Army. Laminack invited the young couple to get in his truck; Nystrom took the front seat, and Brewer sat in the back. While en route, Brewer grabbed Laminack and began to stab him in the neck with a butterfly knife. Laminack begged for his life while obeying Brewer’s demand to hand over his keys and wallet. He was wounded in the carotid artery and jugular vein. After losing consciousness, he bled to death.

Brent Brewer's lawyers flagged another issue:

In Texas, jurors are told they must unanimously agree that a defendant will pose a future danger. They’re also told that they can only determine someone won’t be a future danger if 10 of the jurors agree. This led Michele Douglas to believe there was no point in being a single holdout against future dangerousness. But what jurors weren’t told: If even one juror disagrees with the death sentence, the court must impose a life sentence instead. 

So, there are some reasonable due process concerns here. I am sure people can dispute them. But, they are not frivolous. 

The wider concern -- and this factors in when a governor and/or whatever entity weighs the evidence and judges if it is a suitable case for mercy/commutation/whatever -- is the overall public need in executing this person. A nineteen-year-old, who had mental health issues, murders someone. They warrant punishment generally speaking (few cases are so severe that guilt is totally erased). 

He had it. He has been in prison for over thirty years. I question if this is a "worst of the worst" crime that warrants the now twenty or so executions a year. The murder was heinous but so are many murders. What is uniquely heinous, especially given his overall situation, to justify this? The deciding factor appears to be dangerousness. Which is rather dubious.  

We saw above that there was room even for the original juries to deem him not warranting the death penalty. Now, after thirty-plus years on death row, what is the legitimate public purpose? I cite yet again Justice Breyer's dissent in Glossip v. Gross on both the problem with decades-long spans on death row and the chance for error. The error already helped to extend his time though that only left room for more errors to be flagged. 

I oppose the death penalty basically in all cases. I might find a few, such as Timothy McVeigh, where the constitutional and/or moral arguments are halfway reasonable. This case is not simply a travesty, such as an innocence claim or where the trial is horribly wrong. However, it is quite bad in its own fashion. Multiple problems and a dubious decision to execute.

Anyway, the lawyers went through the motions to try again after the Supreme Court refused without comment. On the day of the execution, we had the same result. The liberals have decided it somehow is better basically never even dissent without comment. An actual statement is even rarer. I'm not there. But, not clear what it gets them.

Texas, over thirty years later, executed Brent Brewer. 

==

For the sake of completeness, a more mundane (well, at least, less lethal) order was dropped without comment. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee also seemed ready to vote on subpoenas for two Thomas people, the Alito person deciding to cooperate willingly. Then, for some "scheduling issue," perhaps aided by Republican delaying tactics, the vote was put off. 

Dick Durbin, chair of the committee, can drone on, but what has he actually done? Another financial issue was addressed by another committee. He sticks with blue slips, helping to delay district court judges, especially in red states.

Like the liberals silently going along (with reporters sure to note they didn't "publicly dissent"), I reckon he thinks he is acting appropriately. I dissent.

House Censures Rashida Tlaib

A negative court decision (thanks to Cuomo's picks the Democrats in the N.Y. Senate supported) led to re-re-districting in New York. Result? I lost the chance of being represented by AOC. My residence is down the block from the new line. It's Rep. Ritchie Torres for me.

Rep. Torres is an openly gay Latino-African American. He generally supports the usual liberal policies. My first bad vibes about the guy occurred after I found out he would be my congressman.

The bestie of my former state senator ran for Congress in a crowded field. She did not concede right away. Torres tweeted out that he supported the presumptive winner (Dan Goldman, who overall is fine) and everyone else should concede. He framed it this way:

The time has come for the Democratic Party to coalesce around the nominee.   

Unlike Republicans who insist on perpetuating the big lie, we as Democrats respect the results of elections.

I thought this was an asshole move. The implication is that Yuh-Lin Niou (a great person, who wore her heart on her sleeve supporting her constituents in the New York Assembly) was promoting "the big lie" for not immediately (she conceded shortly after) conceding when the results were not all out.  The race was hard fought. The winner garnered like 27% of the vote (ah for instant run-off voting). Some on the left even alleged Goldman was a DINO. What are you doing man?

Torres is also a gung ho Israel supporter. He has led with "I'm 100% for Israel" during the ongoing Israeli-Gaza conflict, then getting around to saying he supports the Gaza people too. Sort of an also-ran comment that suggests it is just something he has to say.  

He is now among twenty-two (including Goldman and various other Dems with Jewish names particularly) Democrats who voted to support a measure censuring Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American member of the House for statements regarding the Israel-Hamas war.

One of the twenty-two, Brad Schneider (D-Ill.):

We are at an exceedingly perilous moment when emotions and intentions are on a razor’s edge. I believe that Members of Congress should be free to express their opinions, no matter how distasteful they may be. I also believe they must express the values and priorities of their district.

What a load of crap. You can "express the values" of your district in a variety of ways. This is a hypocritical selective attack by a party filled with people who say horrible things with no sanction. This is freedom of expression? A censure is symbolic. It is of limited effect. But, it is not meaningless. It has some effect of tarring the people targeted. 

A censure is not the only way to "answer" people. A handful of Republicans did not go along, including Ken Buck (who said he wouldn't support an election denier for speaker until he did), who stuck to principle regarding selective censure of opinions. 

There is a strong division of feeling -- including even in the State Department according to recent reporting -- about the appropriate path in the current conflict. Many strongly reject certain policies of the Israeli government and are upset that the U.S. seems to selectively choose sides. The censure of the first Palestinian-American in Congress, the PALESTINIAN AMERICAN member of Congress, is putrid. It's disgusting. 

As with some comments by Rep. Omar, without trying to parse them, maybe some things she said were questionable. What else is new? Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) is correct:

"It’s not our job to censure somebody because we don’t agree with them,” he said. “Let the Ethics Committee look at it. Let others look at it, but I will not be voting for a motion to censure unless it’s very serious conduct.”

She is not unhinged like Rep. Taylor-Greene, who on basic principle should not be censured either. Democrats did not strip her of her committee assignments because of some unhinged comments she made on policy. They cited comments that were violent in nature, including support for threats against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. For her views alone, I too would oppose a censure of Taylor-Greene. 

Rep. Torres represents a diverse district. I have seen more immigrants in my area in recent years, including those from Muslim-majority countries. One voter yesterday even wanted to write a pro-Palestine message on her ballot (I told her not to do so, but I should have let it be since it was an absentee -- it would not go in the machine at the polling location that probably would reject it). And, their alleged representative censured comments allegedly too pro-Palestianian.  

I miss being represented by AOC.  

ETA: NYT had a profile comparing Torres and AOC. It is interesting that one of the "moderates" was part of the 10% who voted to censure Tlaib. How "'moderate" is this? Now, AOC is being put out as a "reasonable" bridge between the sides on this issue. Okay.  

The profile suggests that his strong position on Israel is a means he uses to separate himself from left-leaning Democrats. His district has "only a few thousand Jewish voters." I would not be surprised if there were more Muslims in the area. It would be a good idea for an article to address that.

Schumer, the older senator, is in his early 70s. That probably means another term or two. But, of the two, I rather have AOC as my senator.  

... here is a breakdown of how much b.s. is in the censure.