Mets Have Pretty Good Trading Deadline

Before the season began, I thought the Mets had a decent shot to get a wild card spot. I thought the pitching was okay and the line-up pretty good.

The pitching had problems as the season began, including injuries and the remaining starters struggling. The Mets then went into a nosedive. People figured they had little chance of making the playoffs.

The Mets then had a renaissance and now would qualify for a wild card spot. Multiple teams are competing for three spots. The Mets should have as good a chance as one or more of them to make it.  

What were their needs? They needed a bat with DJ Stewart not doing it and Starling Marte out with an injury. They got a bat (Winker), someone who has given them trouble in the past. They need bullpen arms. They got some, including a Marlins reliever who has pitched them tough.  Multiple arms will be available next season too. And, they did not have to give up much.

The one complaint would be that they did not get the good starting pitcher that would help seal the deal, especially after Senga got hurt again (out for the season) in the very first game back. Severino might have innings issues. The back two arms now are a bit sketchy though Peterson has pitched well lately, minus his last outing. The other two often go around five.

Paul Blackburn is not that exciting starting piece. One analyst compared him to Houser, who was recently DFA'ed after his run of good relief outings petered out. Blackburn is a serviceable back-end starter. He provides the team with depth and allows them to keep Butto in the pen. 

I don't expect the Mets to go all out like the Dodgers to get an elite starter. I'm somewhat annoyed the Cardinals (competing for a wild card spot) got a good one. Nonetheless, one good starter won't guarantee the Mets going far. It makes sense not to risk prospects for immediate gratification.  

I am somewhat disappointed that they did not get a better starter. Overall, it's a respectable haul. When one of their elite relievers comes off the IL, Butto might still get starts if the other bullpen arms are trustworthy. 

This team has a good shot at the playoffs. It will be disappointing if they don't make it. They have a good core that should be good for several years. 

Senga still will be here for years and there are multiple potential young arms. 2024 was supposed to be a building year with still a decent team on the field. It surely is that at the very least. 

The moves helped the team without being stupid. Positive grade.  

ETA: Andy Martino in a Mets podcast argued that there was a reasonable case for the team to be sellers, especially given how much starters got teams in return. So, the GM not doing so is notable in itself. 

Valid argument. Senga's injury did make it harder to think about letting go of one of the few steady starters available. Instead, they signed a starter, if not the top-of-the-rotation type people hoped for. 

Biden Puts Forth SCOTUS Reform

President Biden referenced his support for SCOTUS reform in his speech concerning his stepping down from the presidential race. [A historical choice many now generally accept as "well sure."]  He argued it is "critical for our democracy." Protecting our democracy (including after 1/6) is a major theme. 

We now have "President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No President Is Above the Law," which also was a Washington Post op-ed. The Republicans found the whole thing offensive:

“It is telling that Democrats want to change the system that has guided our nation since its founding simply because they disagree with some of the Court’s recent decisions," [Mike Johnson] said in a statement.

We should not overlook the broad messaging to pessimistically complain about the possibilities of specific reforms. Biden's institutionalist values underline the shift in his tone. 

Biden declared the Supreme Court "gutted" civil rights protections (especially abortion rights), had ethical problems that led people to "question [their] fairness and independence," and questioned the principle that "no one is above the law." 

He put forth three proposals. First, a "No One is Above the Law" amendment to address the Trump immunity ruling. Some Democrats have signed on to a specific proposed amendment. Nonetheless, Biden correctly only spoke with broad brushes.  

He also "supports a system in which the President would appoint a Justice every two years to spend eighteen years in active service on the Supreme Court." Biden does not specify if this requires an amendment. This bill has some broad bipartisan support and reflects worldwide practice. (Some places do not have term limits but have a retirement age of about 70.)  

I think (at the very least) on the SCOTUS level it will. I'm open to discussion on the point. It also will likely not retroactively apply to current justices. Biden referenced the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court, which discussed this issue. 

Art. III states federal judges should hold their offices during good behavior. Two things are notable. 

First, it is far from clear that impeachment is the sole way to remove judges for violating good behavior. If Congress defines "bad behavior" as criminal conviction for certain serious felonies, perhaps automatic removal is possible.  

Second, at least technically, the text does not speak of "life tenure."  That has been the general assumption. But, a ten-year term of "office" -- removal only by bad behavior -- is literally possible. 

Third, Biden supports a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court.  Senate Democrats already have rallied around this standard. It also should be possible to do so -- devil in the details somewhat -- without a constitutional amendment. Passage long-term is conceivable.  

Vice President Harris has agreed with these proposals. The response that these proposals are "useless" is overly pessimistic. There is value in making SCOTUS reform a significant part of the Democratic platform. 

There is also an overall criticism and lack of trust in the Supreme Court. That is part of the message. Trump benefited from many voters believing control of the courts (conservative style) was a basic issue in the 2016 elections. SCOTUS is on the ballot now. 

Victoria Nourse (who worked with Senator Biden) has pushed for statutory reform, including regarding injunctions and other matters legal observers have flagged as troubling. She worked with Biden to create policy so her focus is unsurprising. I don't think it is an either/or as much as some of the remarks suggest. 

(I think court expansion is warranted because of an extended unbalancing of the Supreme Court. At the very least, the push for expansion should be part of the conversation, in part to help move the "Overton Window" of what a "compromise" would entail.)  

Democrats have announced a desire to protect abortion rights. Other bills can address administrative agencies (overturning of Chevron deference) and other issues. I agree that Democrats should think big. 

President Biden, who is not going to be in office after January, is not putting forth the absolute ceiling of possibility here. Once you have a camel's nose under the tent, there will be more chance of change. 

Federal Prison Oversight Act

The Senate passed legislation Wednesday to overhaul oversight and bring greater transparency to the crisis-plagued federal Bureau of Prisons following reporting from The Associated Press that exposed systemic corruption in the federal prison system and increased congressional scrutiny.

I check the White House website to see new statements, presidential actions, and legislation. We do not have much legislation these days. 

Sen. Ossoff led the effort here. State civil rights leaders praised the passage of the law which expands oversight of federal prisons, including the establishment of an ombudsman to routinely investigate. The bill had wide legislative support.

Anything with such broad support (unanimous support in the Senate) is likely to be of limited value. One discussion did not go into too many details.  But, hopefully, sunlight will be a good disinfectant.  

The legislation shows the possibility of statutory reforms of the Supreme Court. For instance, qualified immunity -- denial of even letting judges and juries decide if certain wrongdoing warrants civil penalty -- can be addressed by statutory reforms.  

No one is above the law, right? 

ETA: Steve Vladeck unpaywalled his response to President Biden's proposals (his paywalled material annoyingly repeatedly covers important topics) to emphasize how disappointed he is. I respect him enough to comment about someone wrong on the Internet. I find his response overblown.

First, he says the reforms have no chance of being adopted. The ethics reforms do have a chance. The others are more longshots but worth proposing. Term limits are a sensible policy. You have to start the ball rolling there somehow. 

He argues an enforceable proposal is constitutionally untenable. I don't think so. Kagan seems not to think so. Likewise, he repeats his inspector general proposal. Why isn't that a way to do ethics?

Next, Vladeck says there is no chance for the immunity amendment to pass. He asks why not some other amendments like to overturn the partisan gerrymandering decision. Because the rule of law is so basic and unlike that decision, Congress cannot pass a voting rights law to address it? Sigh. 

He also is upset President Biden didn't push reforms back with the presidential commission handed down its report in 2021. I wanted more too. I repeatedly pushed others to take advantage of it. They did not. 

It is not just "President Biden." He finally does something, and what happens? It is attacked.

Finally, a lot was happening in 2021-2. There was not the same tipping point to address SCOTUS reform on top of that. Anyway, if "it's too late" is a problem, even the best set of proposals would be inadequate. 

He is also upset that there is no general theme to the reforms other than "SCOTUS is bad." In his speech, Biden emphasized SCOTUS reform is necessary for democracy. The rule of law (immunity) is necessary for democracy. An ethical SCOTUS is necessary for democracy. More consistent turnover with nominations and confirmation by elected officials is necessary for democracy.  

Finally, he says the reforms are good targets for Republicans. Seriously? Each one of them is popular. He complains that Republicans can target them as partisan. They do that already every time! 

True reform will require Democrats in power. It is appropriately an issue for elections. Once you do that, the other side will cry "partisan!" There is no "instead" here. Look at his damn list! When Democrats wanted more oversight, Republicans cried foul. The inspector general proposal is an ethics measure!

Finally, it makes sense to lead with three popular proposals. Congressional oversight can be done without legislation. Will "budget accountability" (I don't even know exactly what that means) not result in cries of interference of judicial independence? 

Docket reforms are technical. Why would that be something Biden would lead with? Also, in specific cases, they can be criticized too. 

Finally, once court reform is on the table, Congress can deal with that too. I still am not sure why the three proposals make something like that less as compared to more likely to pass. Unless, you have defeatist analyses like this, perhaps. 

My response here is not that his criticisms (too late! not enough!) lack some force in certain cases. Nonetheless, they are also overblown, partially misplaced, and overly defeatist. 

His head on the table .gif is how I feel about his response. 

FBI [Now] Says Trump Was Hit By A Bullet

“As I said, I think with respect to former President Trump, there’s some question about whether or not it’s bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear,” Wray testified before Congress earlier this week.

When asked Wednesday about how close the “assassin’s bullet” came to killing Trump, Wray said, “My understanding is that either it or some shrapnel is what, you know, grazed his ear.” He then agreed that it came very close to killing the former president.

Some people interpreted this testimony as the FBI Director saying in bureaucratic speech that Trump was not hit by a bullet. Trump firmly said he was and this was not taken too well. His use of a big oversized bandage also has led to some ridicule. 

“What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject’s rifle,” the agency said in a statement.

Last night, I read an AP article ("FBI says Trump was indeed struck by bullet during assassination attempt") that suddenly made things more clear. 

As NYT notes:

Mr. Crooks fired eight bullets from an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle. Gun experts say the ammunition that Mr. Crooks used can easily fragment after hitting a solid object, sending deadly debris through the air. In certain circumstances, shrapnel and bullet fragments can be lethal.

On Friday, The New York Times published an analysis that strongly suggested Mr. Trump was grazed by the first of the eight bullets fired by the gunman.

Okay. I thought that the "not a bullet" theory made some degree of sense. An actual bullet would logically do more damage. Still, that is just some gut reaction. What do I know about bullets? 

It is good to tread carefully. The head of the Secret Service had a bad appearance in front of the House and there were bipartisan calls for her to resign. 

And, she did so. Realistically, that was a given. Still,  unanswered questions remain. There have been long-held complaints about the Secret Service  

I also think that sometimes you just will make mistakes. Someone died and two other people were shot. So, we cannot just handwave it. But, human error, especially given the number of opportunities that arise, will occur.   

Up until now, federal law enforcement agents involved in the investigation, including the FBI and Secret Service, had refused to provide information about what caused Trump’s injuries. Trump’s campaign has also declined to release medical records from the hospital where he was first treated or to make the doctors there available for questions.

I understand that the FBI and Secret Service are wary about releasing details while the investigation is ongoing. The attack occurred two weeks ago. It takes time to investigate things. I was wary about having the Secret Service director testify so shortly afterward.

The lack of transparency from the Trump campaign (which would be seen as just plain wrong if Biden did it) is telling. We have "Trump’s former White House doctor, Ronny Jackson, a staunch ally who now represents Texas in Congress" eventually releasing medical details. How about the actual doctors?

There is no reason to take anything Trump says at face value without evidence to back it up. The guy is a known liar and bullshit artist. People not accepting when he says he was shot is not surprising.  

The request for information is cited as some sort of conspiracy theory. The CNN article notes that Trump repeatedly said he was hit by an intact bullet. The latest FBI statement suggests it can be a fragment. An intact bullet hitting his ear would have to be a glancing blow for it to result in as little damage.

No handwaving here -- the FBI director said it was a near miss. It was quite possible he could have been killed. But, we should have the details. And, a bullet fragment would make sense. If that is what happened.

(Symbolically, "taking a bullet" sounds more impressive, but it really doesn't matter. People are killed by shrapnel. It is not exactly trivial stuff.)  

CNN (time stamped last night) also noted:

The agency is seeking to interview Trump in its investigation of the assassination attempt to obtain a victim statement — a standard part of the investigation because he is a crime victim, according to a US official.

Why hasn't this happened yet? The statement should have happened right after the event. It was not like he was unable to do so. Reports are he golfed shortly afterward. His known displeasure with the FBI should not change things here.

The House of Representatives unanimously agreed to form a committee to investigate. That's fine. The House investigates things. Ultimately, the responsibility is in the hands of the FBI and Secret Service. A credible candidate would help too.

It's Trump so you know that will be a mixed bag.

Justice Kagan Supports SCOTUS Reform

 Biden Supports Court Reform

And I’m going to call for Supreme Court reform because this is critical to our democracy — Supreme Court reform.

President Biden listed Supreme Court reform as one of the things he would address in his remaining months in office during his remarks about resigning from the presidential race. His presidential commission on SCOTUS provides key background material.   

Jack Goldsmith (of Lawfare and the Bush43 Administration) on Twitter called him a hypocrite (a separate tweet spoke of Biden "lecturing" countries to uphold judicial independence):

Biden tonight:  "Supreme Court reform . . . is critical to our democracy,”

Biden 2023: “The genius of American democracy and Israeli democracy is that they are both built on strong institutions, on checks and balances, on an independent judiciary."

The Wall St. Journal (Alito's semi-official paper) discussed Biden's "Court-Smacking Plan." 

Biden has supported such things as ethics reform, term limits, and addressing the Trump immunity ruling. It is an exaggeration to suggest such reforms threaten the independence of the courts. 

Overall, I believe that when you "reform" something, and do it right, you improve things. The Protestant Reformation did not destroy Christianity. It in the end made it stronger. The Catholic Church reformed too.

Kagan Supports Reform 

“The thing that can be criticized is: Rules usually have enforcement mechanisms attached to them, and this set of rules does not,” Kagan told a meeting of federal judges and lawyers.

Justice Kagan welcomed explicit ethical guidelines and now supports enforcement. Speaking only for herself, while being interviewed in front of a crowd of judges and lawyers [she is the circuit justice for the Ninth Circuit], she calls this a "fair" criticism. 

As Fix the Court notes, a system of ethics with "teeth" needs an enforcement mechanism. Kagan noted that the justices themselves would not be a great party to do this. She suggests perhaps “some sort of committee of highly respected judges with a great deal of experience and a reputation for fairness." 

Lower court judges are involved in the regulation of lower court ethics. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has referenced the Judicial Conference, which Chief Justice Roberts heads. Kagan named checked Roberts in her remarks, noting he could set up the rules here. 

I provide various links to articles covering this. Blogs also addressed her remarks. It would be useful if there was a transcript on the website, especially since these remarks in front of the circuit are semi-official.

Kagan, implicitly at least dissenting from Alito's stance, granted in the past that Congress had some power to regulate Supreme Court justices. 

She left open the possibility that ethics reform would in some fashion be regulated by Congress. Justice Breyer meanwhile in the past supported term limits.  

Term limits and retirement ages are the rules worldwide without it being seen as a threat to judicial independence. The presidential commission report provides helpful details, for those who care to read it.

Roberts has not shown much willingness to uphold judicial ethics. The voluntary ethical guidelines were provided under sufferance, with a snide statement that it was largely a result of the public not realizing the justices already followed ethical guidelines. 

Roberts along with the other conservatives, unlike the liberals, does not even reference the guidelines to explain why they do not take part in cases. This week's summer order list (mundane) reaffirmed this tendency. 

Congress must play a role. Basic checks and balances are part of our constitutional system. Congress has the power to regulate the courts as much as the courts have the power of judicial review to check Congress.  It is not a threat to valid independence.  

Harris Supports Court Reform

Kamala Harris has in the past been a strong critic of the Supreme Court. She was open to putting court expansion on the table while running for president last time around. She argued Kavanaugh might deserve impeachment for lying during his confirmation.  

As the presumptive nominee, perhaps, Harris will be somewhat more hesitant this time. Nonetheless, there is no reason to expect she will pull back too much. Court reform is a key issue on the table for the 2024 elections. Justice Kagan is at least partially on board.

Concurring Opinions

Kagan also was concerned about the justices writing too many concurring opinions (she took part in some) that confused the holding of the Court. 

These opinions provide personal statements, sometimes providing different reasons (concurring in judgment) for going along with the result. The concurring justices help confuse the lower courts.  

Concurring opinions have their place. They provide a chance for justices to provide their own take on things. Sometimes, they provide particularly helpful, such as the Ninth Amendment and substantive due process (Harlan particularly) concurrences in Griswold v. Connecticut. 

Nonetheless, they can be abused. Sometimes, they are mostly gratuitous, one justice basically hearing themselves talk. The concurrences might be interesting. OTOH, they can be gratuitous.  

One bit of confusion is when the justices are divided in many ways and some portion of the opinion of the Court does not have a majority. Lower courts can be confused about just what the Court held.  

My preference has been for the Supreme Court, in an official section [not the unofficial headnotes], to provide a summary of (1) what a majority of the Court supports and (2) what each justice holds. Now, the main thing to do is to check out the headnotes and try to see what section each justice supports.  

Miscellaneous Order 

Michael H. McGinley, Esquire, of Washington, D. C., is invited to brief and argue these cases, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below. 

The Supreme Court two a pair of cases to handle a circuit split involving a sentencing law. 

The United States agreed with the petitioners regarding their legal argument. Nonetheless, they opposed the Supreme Court taking the case. 

Since neither party supports the judgment below, and the Supreme Court still wants to hear the case, the justices picked someone to defend the lower court. For whatever reason, this sometimes happens.  

The Glossip death penalty case, for instance, involves a curious case of the state and person on death row both opposing the execution. 

Nonetheless, the state still requires a court to dismiss the execution, and it has refused to do so. An amicus was appointed to defend the ruling below.  

Glossip is among the first set of cases the Supreme Court will hear next term (October). 

Airplane!

I enjoyed Zero Hour! both on its own as a 1950s airplane disaster film and because it is so much like Airplane!. I decided to watch the "real thing" so to speak and see the two parody films.

The Airplane! DVD menu is set up creatively with airplane jargon. It also has a commentary track, an extended version track, and a track with trivia. I checked out the other tracks (not the extended version -- should have just watched it -- most DVDs have a collection of extra scenes). The commentary was reasonable but didn't watch the whole thing.

Airplane II: The Sequel's DVD just had the movie. The film is predictably not as funny as the first but as sequels go is fine. William Shatner (this was just when he began again in the Star Trek films) was especially fun. It also has the early 1980s "we will give you one" bit of gratuitous topless nudity in a PG film.  

I haven't watched either film for a long time. I was still amused and impressed at how much work went into both of them. The films have three basic classes of actors. You have older actors like Robert Stack who were known for their serious roles. Toss in a gimmick role of a basketball player (Zero Hour! had a non-professional play a pilot).  

You had the two leads who at that time hadn't done too much (one did have a sitcom role in Angie). So, it was a good find (one trivia bit said David Letterman read for the Striker role!) to get such perfect choices. 

And, then you had a bunch of supporting roles, including many very amusing bits. A few faces are familiar (Jonathan Banks, who later was familiar playing heavies, had a small role). It takes a lot of talent to have such a large cast do so much good.

Books 

Herod the Great: Jewish King in a Roman World by Martin Goodman is a straightforward history of the Jewish king best known as a heavy in the New Testament. The book is part of a series of short Jewish biographies. We mainly know about him because Josephus wrote about him in his histories.  

The "killing of the innocents" story is fictional. OTOH, he did have a history of having multiple family members (including a wife, multiple sons, and an elderly grandfather-in-law) killed for fear that they threatened his authority. Early on, it was impressive he rose so far without being in a royal family. 

Not that engrossing but was an okay way to learn about the biblical character. 

==

Piglet is a recent fictional novel. The title comes from an unfortunate childhood nickname that stuck. Her bestie doesn't use it but we never hear her use the actual name either. So, she's always referenced as "Piglet." We get the real name near the end.

We never (quite annoying) are told what horrible secret her fiancé told her two weeks before the wedding. Whatever it is, her attempt to continue with the wedding plans led her to have a sort of mental breakdown. Meanwhile, she had more and more embarrassing things happen to her. Rather depressing.

The book starts fine enough and it was easy reading as I hoped (1) to find out the secret and (2) get her to move on from being such a pathetic loser but it basically didn't go anywhere. She finally realizes that the marriage is a big mistake late in the book. 

Oh, joy.  The book promises to be a story about a woman who realizes her life is unsatisfying. But, it really doesn't seem to be that bad, except for her loser of a husband-to-be. Not marrying a jerk is significant but the book jacket suggests a bit more. 

She has an embarrassing family (her parents after all still call her "Piglet") but that is fairly typical. It is suggested at one point her sister has her own body issues but that is dropped. 

She's also a food editor and the book has a lot of food stuff. So, we have pages of her prepping and cooking meals and such. It reads natural enough, to the degree I can tell (not much of a cook), but again, it doesn't really go anywhere. It feels like filler. 

I don't read much fiction. This was not a good example of the few I do read. 

ETA: After writing this, I found a famous modern version of Gilgamesh -- the ancient myth -- with various appendixes. I read it a long time ago in school. It has a lot of stuff, including an early flood narrative.

Biden's Speech

I was not fully paying attention when President Biden gave his speech after dropping out of the presidential race. (Yes, that isn't ideal, but it's often how people watch things -- they multitask.) The first time around the speech did not impress. 

He came off as old and tired if I want to be fully honest. Re-watching it, and paying attention, it was more impressive. I'm somewhat curious about it though. The audio and video do seem more crisp.

One worthwhile analysis early on references how President Biden was "characteristically decent and self-abnegating." That, at the end of the day, is a major reason why I deeply respect the man. I am and will be proud that Obama and Biden were my presidents. 

The fact they did some great things helped. But, their abilities as people hit home the most. Now, this can be problematic -- fine people can be bad leaders. Carter had some of that. Still, Biden has both. 

Trump has both the other way. I started this blog in the days of Bush43 and his presidency angered me in various respects. But, darn -- Trump makes Bush almost seem good. 

I draw strength and I find joy in working for the American people, but this sacred task of perfecting our union is not about me. It’s about you, your families, your futures. It’s about we the people, and we can never forget that. And I never have.

I’ve made it clear that I believe America is at an inflection point, one of those rare moments in history when the decisions we make now will determine our fate of our nation and the world for decades to come.

He later lists his accomplishments. But, this is the core of his message. His faith in our system of democracy, its potential for anyone to succeed, even some guy from Scranton with a stutter. Plus, his concern with the threats to the system we love. 

He explained why he stepped aside:

You know, in recent weeks it’s become clear to me that I needed to unite my party in this critical endeavor. I believe my record as president, my leadership in the world, my vision for America’s future all merited a second term, but nothing, nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy, and that includes personal ambition.

So I’ve decided the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation. That’s the best way to unite our nation. I know there is a time and a place for long years of experience in public life, but there’s also a time and a place for new voices, fresh voices, yes, younger voices, and that time and place is now.

I strongly opposed how people responded to his debate performance. Washington Post (linked in the analysis above) had a generally fair analysis in early July. There were signs he was slipping. 

The debate performance turned out to be symbolic. Sometimes, an event crystallizes things that have been bubbling right below the service. I remain of the opinion that it was handled badly.  Anyway, what happened, happened. Biden handled it gracefully.

One thing he cited is particularly important:

I’m going to call for Supreme Court reform because this is critical to our democracy — Supreme Court reform."

Yes, it is. Ultimately, we have a big role to play:

The power is in your hands. The idea of America lies in your hands. We just have to keep faith, keep the faith and remember who we are. We’re the United States of America and there’s simply nothing, nothing beyond our capacity when we do it together.

So let’s act together, preserve our democracy. God bless you all and may God protect our troops. Thank you.

Yes. We can begrudge this -- note that at the end of the day, the power is unfairly in the hands of a few swing states or too much in the hands of certain elites and/or the Supreme Court. But, he is right in a basic sense. 

His elegy remarks were not the last ones of a fifty-plus year public career. But, they had a taste of that. Let us end with a remembrance of how things began.

Thank you, Mr. President. 

Kamala Harris Has A Good Start

My strongest opposition to President Biden* dropping out was the artificial nature of the reasoning. 

Suddenly, after a single bad debate performance (which many did not see; it also was much less apparent in the transcript), he was suddenly a somewhat pathetic character who could not beat Trump. His inability to govern was exaggerated with even liberal voices promoting Republican talking points and bullshit. The whole thing was a tad disgusting. 

My concerns about the risk of dropping out was a somewhat weaker second but was part of the equation. I did have some concerns about Vice President Kamala Harris, including the possibility that she would not get the firm support of the "Biden has to go" caucus. 

Let's just say I wasn't totally wrong there, though she has received firm support from Democrats. She has already received pledges from enough delegates to obtain the nomination. Lots of money streamed in. Things are going well, including Republicans looking a bit scared. 

One commentary cited the strengths of Vice President Harris:

Smart, polished, capable, incorruptible, charismatic, experienced.

I was worried given the problems with the 2020 presidential campaign. I'm sure she will have some hiccups. But, it's no longer 2020 and she has the support of the party as a whole now. Plus, listening and watching her, Vice President Harris is impressive. I might just get my female president yet. 

Yes. Republicans (including -- chuckles -- James David Vance**) might take potshots at her as a "DEI" hire. She has been a prosecutor, attorney general, senator, and now vice president. The Republicans are also bringing the racism and sexism. 

She's ready and excited to challenge that. A strong talented African American woman might be Trump's biggest nightmare. 

Her first political event went well, including some touching love back and forth between Biden and Harris. With a look of glee, she at one point noted:

I was a courtroom prosecutor. In those roles, I took on perpetrators of all kinds. Predators who abused women. Fraudsters who ripped off consumers. Cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So hear me when I say I know Donald Trump's type.

Meanwhile, per the Salon link above:

In 2021, Trump's running mate, Sen. [James David] Vance of Ohio, denounced women for leaving abusive husbands. The same year, he also decried allowing rape victims to abort their pregnancies, claiming all pregnancies should be forced to term, "even though the circumstances of that child’s birth are somehow inconvenient."

Stephen Colbert referenced the joy brought by the Kamala Harris campaign. She brings energy, cheerfulness, and youth. Donald Trump is now, full stop, the old man. I understand the desire to move on from Biden. My concern, again, was how they went about it. But, it's done. I'm all in.

President Biden also -- he's good at this -- made sure to do it right. He let Donald Trump pick his "running up the score" vice president pick. 

The Republican convention is done now. It looks like there was an assurance that Biden's support of Harris (which certain media outlets are annoyed about; they wanted the drama of an open convention) was the standard. Democrats, including likely alternatives, unified around the ticket. 

It is also interesting the announcement was made on a Sunday. A weekend announcement helps the soft landing. Wolf Blitzer, joked Colbert, was talking about having lunch on his day off and suddenly the news came out. The whole thing seems rather smooth. 

Do not assume that was easy. That took a lot of work. I'm sure there are still some loose edges that need to be held together and addressed. 

They played out well. He is feeling better after his current bout of COVID. He will speak to the nation tomorrow night. If notable, will add some comments.

(ETA: It was a nice speech though he sounded somewhat tired at times when I was listening to it. Said it was time for a new, younger voice, and emphasized the value of democracy and his optimistic view of the possibilities of this country.) 

The next big step is choosing a veep. 

==

* President Biden is holding the office of the presidency. Once a person leaves office, it is common not to call them by that title. 

There is one "president." When Barack Obama or Bill Clinton are referenced in their private capacity, are they usually called "President Obama" or "President Clinton"? The question is rhetorical.

I never thought he earned the minimal self-respect to warrant the title even while in office. Now that he is not, "President Trump" is definitely not appropriate unless you want to advance his ego.  

** I find his use of "JD" pretentious and stupid sounding.

"JD" works for me if you are a baseball player, including a current and former member of the N.Y. Mets. Likewise, if you are a supporting character in the sitcom Designing Women. Not this jerk. 

Larry Hogan and "Both Sides"

Larry Hogan, the former governor of Maryland, is running for senator. 

He was recruited by Mitch McConnell since he has a moderate record and is seen as the best shot at winning the blue state. Hogan is running as an independent who can rise above both sides in a deeply partisan country. 

Hogan's mission statement is bullshit on a basic level. He is not running as an independent like a few senators who caucus with Democrats. He will caucus with Republicans with the hope that his party -- led by conservative forces -- win control. He might want to separate himself from Trump like the plague, but Trump did endorse him. Trump knows the deal.

Angela Alsobrooks is the Democratic nominee and the path to sanity is her winning in November. The Democrats have a hard map and losing Maryland is lethal. Hogan tries to pretend he is above it all. 

However, his latest op-ed against the poisoning Project 2025, the de facto platform of his party, should not fool anyone. 

Let's say upfront that it's appreciated on some level when Republicans have the voice of sanity. His criticism of the platform is sound on its merits. OTOH, he is running for a seat to represent the party backing it. If you don't like it, support Harris and Democrats overall. 

His bullshit arises when he cites the "toxic politics" on both sides:

On the left, the refusal by some to clearly stand up to radicals such as antisemitic and pro-Hamas protesters, advocates of defunding the police, and the open-borders movement has done substantial damage. However, on the right, there is no clearer example of the threat to American values than Project 2025.

Whatever "the left" thinks, the Democrats as a whole do not support such policies. The Biden border plan is not about "open borders" and there is a strong rejection of "defunding the police" (even if the general concept is far from insane). Likewise, Democrats as a whole "stand up" to antisemitism. 

OTOH, Republicans as a whole are problematic. A Christian nationalist runs the House. A racist fascist is running for president. An enabler leads the Republicans in the Senate. The bad policy is mainstream on that side.

An op-ed that correctly attacks Project 2025 leads with this. The quoted paragraph is the second paragraph of the piece. The first paragraph:

I am a firm believer in what might be called traditional American values: rule of law, separation of church and state, and respect for civil service professionals. Never before have I seen those core principles more under threat.

How are the core principles under threat? By "both sides"? No. Republicans are threatening them, led by Trump, and in key ways the Supreme Court in place largely thanks to him. 

Hogan's talk of a "bipartisan" path and escape from "crazy" is charming but if he wants to support doing "things differently," honesty would help. Nonetheless, he's a Republican. Honesty would cause difficulties.

Summer Order List

We had our first scheduled Summer Order List (1/3) and it was the usual summer housekeeping. Last week shows that unscheduled miscellaneous summer orders will arise that are of some importance.

We were told that the "motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix is granted." There was a list of rehearings denied. Rehearings are basically never granted. And, we had attorney discipline. 

The basic notable thing was that the liberals continued to explain why they did not take part in certain cases while the conservatives did not. This continues to show that "both sides don't do it."

==

Multiple major outlets continue to discuss SCOTUS. For instance, Lawfare discussed the Trump immunity case, and how a trial would have influenced voters. And, because of six members of the Supreme Court, the public will not have the chance to see a trial before the election.  

Slate also discussed President Biden getting on board with Supreme Court reform. A theme was "better late than never."  My sentiment there remains that blame can be shared. An institutionalist like Biden being wary is to be expected. And, I support Supreme Court expansion, realizing the support is more limited.

The Supreme Court and the courts overall should be a theme during the 2024 election season. Courts are part of our political system and the people we vote for (including the federal courts) are intimately involved in that institution. There are a lot of things to talk about there. Let's do so.

Kamala Harris '24

My immediate concern is for Trump not to be POTUS and Republicans not to control Congress. We can put aside for a moment if this is an ideal focus. I think my sentiments are shared by a lot of people. 

Nonetheless, I can voice things positively. I think President Biden did a lot of good. He also is a fine person. He's imperfect. Who isn't? But, more so than I originally thought in 2020, he is the right man for the job now. 

He did not do it alone. He had family, both personal and political. His political family first and foremost is his Cabinet and staff. Vice President Kamala Harris is part of that Cabinet. She is part of a good team. Heather Cox Richardson, as usual, had a good response to the news:

Harris smoothly took the baton. “On behalf of the American people, I thank Joe Biden for his extraordinary leadership as President of the United States and for his decades of service to our country,” she wrote. “His remarkable legacy of accomplishment is unmatched in modern American history, surpassing the legacy of many Presidents who have served two terms in office."

Harris has been on the campaign trail energetically and passionately promoting the importance of her re-election. (I will now speak in singular.) For instance, she led an event with Amanda Stratton and Olivia Troye. Who are these people? 

The panel itself was a 25-minute panel discussion with Olivia Troye, a national security adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence, and Amanda Stratton, a west Michigan mother who said her own experiences with reproductive health care have shaped her support for Biden.  

She has led the way in support of abortion rights. She has also been involved in a range of things as vice president. A major role of the Vice President is to do back-up duty, including with foreign leaders. 

From time to time, we can hear her voice on the White House website, including honoring Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee. But, yes, a lot of stuff is largely out of view.

Vice President Harris is a symbol. She is the first woman vice president. Her interracial heritage is also symbolic. She also brings youth (relatively speaking! She will be 60 in October -- can we cheat a tad and adopt her as a member of Generation X?). 

Her laugh suggests a joy in doing good in public life. It is mixed with the seriousness of the stakes. A former prosecutor knows the level of what we are fighting against here. And, yes, the stakes are high.

Kamala Harris did not have a great campaign in 2019. It was not her moment. It is her moment now. She has to make herself known to the American public. 

A chunk of them was uncomfortable with President Biden. I think some of them will never be happy. Kamala Harris and her team need to make enough willing to give her their vote to win in November. I think she can do it. I'm ready for a woman president.

The dynamics will be novel with this never happening before. LBJ decided not to run for re-election after he saw the opposition in early 1968. We now have to replace a ticket mid-stream. Oh well. We handled COVID and a lot more. We still are handling COVID (Biden caught it again). We can do this. 

Things have begun well after a horribly messy process of convincing President Biden to step aside. He will talk to the public later this week. We shall see if anything changes. For now, people are starting to shift their support to Kamala Harris. Democrats almost seem … dare we say it — “in array.”  

We shall see who she chooses as vice president. Meanwhile, Republicans (including alleged moderates like Larry Hogan running for Senate) are stuck with an old and fading horrible candidate and his young authoritarian puppy. 

When will the pressure for Trump to drop out begin? After all, he is not even constitutionally qualified. 

ETA: Her remarks today were very good. 

We Have To Beat Trump and the Republicans in November

Biden announced he is ending his presidential run. Let's focus on the bottom line here. 

Trump aided and abetted an attempted insurrection. 

This alone disqualifies him from public office. The Supreme Court -- as they did in their travesty of an immunity decision this time with more votes at least part of the way -- was wrong when they (in an unsigned opinion they didn't show up to hand down) said otherwise. Also, they left open congressional enforcement of the insurrection disqualification.  

He has been found liable for sexual assault. He has repeatedly been found liable for financial wrongdoing. He was found guilty of business fraud, upped to a felony because it was used to advance election interference. He is a racist, sexist, incompetent, and his mental acuity is dubious.

Trump's overall platform, now aided and abetted in his authoritarianism by a barely qualified vice presidential pick (his first one not supporting Trump, after he egged on his followers to threaten Pence's life), is horrible. We already saw what he did with COVID, the Supreme Court, and international affairs, not including the support of fascists. 

Congressional Republicans were his enablers, including not removing him by impeachment or raising the insurrection disqualification option. A supermajority of House Republicans joined in his insurrection effort by voting to block electoral votes even after the invasion of the Capitol. 

The HOR is now led by a Christian Nationalist.  The Senate will block the Democratic president's nominees and policy choices. A united congressional front is necessary along with a Democratic president for any major Supreme Court reform to be a likely reality.  The "moderates" are the likes of Susan Collins who supported Kavanaugh and now will write in Nikki Haley, a Trump supporter. Way to go, Susie! So brave.

So, the path to sanity, the rule of law, and basic decency is to get as much Democratic control as possible. This includes state races, which involve abortion and other important issues. The fact this is an uphill battle in various respects is granted. Our country is sick in multiple ways.

Is this what we have been concerned about since mid-June? No. A self-fulfilling prophecy of getting Biden to resign from the race has been the focus of many outlets. I hold to what I just said about AOC's comments. A TPM summary leads this way:

As you, TPM reader, no doubt know, the calculus for many Democrats shifted dramatically on June 27, when President Biden's debate performance revealed him to be older, frailer, and more halting than many of his supporters had realized.

He had a bad debate. After the debate, he was not "older, trailer, and more halting" than before. A one-shot appearance should not lead to the first time a presidential candidate steps down this late in the race. The debate was an excuse that was used to reaffirm existing concerns.

The whole thing was handled horribly. If the debate was so very important, it was an epic failure to allow him (and for him) to go on unprepared. 

They shouldn't have had a debate at all. Was the debate meant to be a "hail Mary" for an already struggling campaign? Bad risk. 

If the campaign was in trouble, the primary should have been used in another fashion. Now, people like me feel robbed since our choice was pressured -- clearly somewhat kicking and screaming -- to leave. All the evidence he was not simply older, trailer, and more halting was ignored. NYT and others had a one-sided drumbeat, only now and then addressing Trump. People cocksure about a risky move. 

But, the die has been cast. Alan Lichtman -- who has predicted presidential winners well -- argued Biden should not drop out. IF he did, AL argued he should resign, giving Kamala Harris the benefit of incumbency. Will Republicans reject her vice presidential pick [a majority of both houses must confirm]? Let them be obstructionist. Not like Harris will leave the presidency vacant, leading to a Mike Johnson presidency.   

That sounds reasonable. But, if not, the bottom line is that we need to defeat Republicans in November. That is the bottom line. 

Republican Convention Ends On A Whimper

AOC, who I still wish remained my representative after the last re-districting do-over, gave an after midnight Instagram statement explaining the problems with replacing Biden on the ticket. She included a denunciation of Democrats who are cowardly saying so off the record. 

I generally agree with her. The remarks are summarized at the link (update). I agree with the person that the remarks were not compact and rambled some. I assume Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn't suddenly give an Instagram statement. She did those things before. For instance, I saw one where she discussed her experiences in the days before 1/6.  It was also a long down to earth sort of thing. 

As I noted in my reply on the thread, I remain off the "remove Biden" bandwagon. It looks like even those off it (including one who posts sparingly) are starting to go to the acceptance position. No. Let's not go there, any more being on the "Biden will lose" (in July) bandwagon. 

One basic issue here, as AOC notes, is that the whole thing started too late. Suddenly, as if they just noticed it, people wanted to push him off the ticket after a bad debate. It's just too damn late. The underlying problems didn't just pop up. They were there before. That's when you had to address it. 

Meanwhile, while so many Democrats and liberal media outlets [or whatever Slate and NYT are these days] are one note trying to pressure him to leave (it surely isn't "neutral" coverage as I have noted in multiple unpublished letters to the NYT -- they did publish my letter in the 1990s!), Trump continues to show he is and should be beatable.

Note, for instance, Heather Cox Richardson's latest Substack. First, there is a reference to Russia's prosecution of  Evan Gershkovich (a journalist) for espionage. Trump earlier said if he was elected that Putin would free him shortly thereafter. And, we would need to give nothing in return! Sure. His election alone will provide Putin a lot of things. 

The convention (which Kevin Kruse separately has called "boring") had Hulk Hogan (the wrestler) on. As Richardson says, this was fitting since Trump is about as true to life as wrestling. He also was involved in wrestling programs. With both, we are supposed to suspend belief and go along with the show.

She also notes -- as have others -- that the media has continued to let Trump get away with not providing medical records arising from the assassination attempt. The one multiple Republicans (including in Congress) alleged Democrats had something to do about by calling out how dangerous he is. 

He has said that he was "shot" when the evidence suggests he was hit by shrapnel. His acceptance speech seems to have elided the fact by suggesting he thought he was shot. No. Doesn't work. It is appropriate that when a presidential candidate is targeted that we know the damn details.

The acceptance speech became -- after an opening attempt at "unity" -- a rambling bunch of lies and whines. The guy is a tiresome loser:

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes watched the unhinged speech and concluded: "This is not a colossus, this is not the big bad wolf, this is not a vigorous and incredibly deft political communicator. This is an old man in decline who's been doing the same schtick for a very long time and it's really wearing thin."

(Hayes has been on the "Biden must go" bandwagon. I have not been a big fan of multiple things he said lately. But, when he's right, he's right.) 

Can we stop with the Biden circular firing squad and focus on beating this guy and his underqualified loser of a running mate?

==

Sigh. This seems to be the month of dying.

Checking the news, I see that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) has died. I was not aware she was that sick but she was in her 70s and had cancer. 

She was first elected in 1994 to her Houston-based congressional seat, which was once held by the charismatic African American congresswoman Barbara Jordan. Rep. Jackson Lee quickly established herself as an outspoken advocate for racial and gender equality, voting rights and the revision of the criminal justice system.

The obit also notes she was (not surprisingly for a politician) known to be a "showhorse" and so forth. She was one of many outspoken liberals in Congress that we sometimes take for granted but should not. 

Zero Hour!

The news is depressing. 

So, it was great to catch Zero Hour! which was the "straight" film that was a major inspiration of Airplane! I enjoyed it quite much.  

The film works on two levels. First, it is a pretty good little 1950s disaster film. Second, if you watched Airplane!, you would recognize a chunk of stuff. 

Ted Stryker has bad flashbacks from his wartime experiences, which makes it ironic when he has to fly the plane after a burst of food poisoning. There a little boy named "Joey." A doctor who says, "that isn't important now." A flight official who picked a bad week to stop smoking. And lots more.  

The wife here is named "Ellen" while in the other film it's "Elaine." The kid isn't theirs. But the overlap is rather amazing. Plus, you can see how the writers saw the comic potential in all of this. For instance, more than one character are a tad over the top.  

When the original and parody are both good, you are doing okay. I do wonder why they had the Germany mission so late in the war. April 10, 1945? 

We seem to have picked a month when well-known people died. Lou Dobbs died. 

More importantly, Bob Newhart died. I'm of the generation who saw him on Newhart, as the inn keeper. Julia Duffy (Stephanie) posted on Twitter that she was the only one left of the main cast.  

I saw him in various other things, including in Elf. A long time ago, I listened to one of his comedy albums on an old record player. You now can check out his amusing routines on YouTube. He was a gem.

There are other well-known actors in their 90s so we will have other chances to remember soon. 

SCOTUS Watch: Orders and Execution

The Supreme Court will have its first summer order list next week. This week was fairly busy with multiple orders, including a rare granting of a stay in a death penalty case. No Alito flag news. 

The ongoing political news -- in some quarters focused on trying to get Biden to step down -- has significant relevance. Who wins in November will have a major influence on how SCOTUS and SCOTUS-related activities will play out.  

New York Trump Trial

The Supreme Court dropped a miscellaneous order on Friday regarding a silly interstate dispute:

Upon consideration of Missouri’s motion for expedited consideration, it is hereby ordered that New York is allowed until July 24, 2024, to file a response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and the motion for a preliminary injunction or stay. 

New York opposed the request for expedited consideration, partly explaining that Trump won't be sentenced to September. The dispute involves the remaining gag order in effect arising from the trial now covering individual prosecutors, court staff, and their families (from the state's brief):

Missouri seeks modest relief: a stay of New York’s gag order and impending sentence against Donald J. Trump during the 2024 Presidential election season so Missourians can participate in the election free from New York’s exercise of coercive power limiting the ability of Trump to campaign.

The validity of using the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction for such a dubious request to interfere with New York judicial proceedings is dubious. 

OTOH, the Trump immunity ruling (which now is alleged to cover the New York case given some of the evidence covered his term) shows how far the Supreme Court has reached out to help Trump.  

Confederate Monuments 

Behind bare orders, including a no comment refusal to stay a pending case, there are cases important to the litigants.

Three people protested a Confederate monument. They were prosecuted for obstructing a major passageway. They were sentenced to a week in jail. The time to serve is now.

The stay request notes that a challenge would take longer than their jail sentence. They claim the First Amendment was violated. The justices were not convinced a stay was warranted based on the law in place. No reason was provided to say why. 

[The litigants could theoretically obtain damages for false imprisonment if they win their appeal.]

Yes, Master 

A long-lasting interstate dispute now has a new "special master" to oversee things.  

Ruben Gutierrez 

Gutierrez was sentenced to death by Texas for his part in a brutal robbery/murder of an elderly lady. 

He has repeatedly tried to get DNA testing, claiming he did not take part in the actual murder. He claims he was outside and not aware the others would kill her. It is far from clear that even granting the request would help him in the end. 

The Supreme Court previously granted evidence hearing (one hour before his execution in 2020) regarding his claim Texas should allow a chaplain in the execution chamber. A separate case protected even the laying of the hands. 

His final SCOTUS appeal relates to the DNA claim. Nonetheless, both executions this week arise from events over 25 years ago. Breyer's concern for executions after an extended period on death row holds true. 

The Supreme Court held up deciding the case (dropping the order referenced above earlier) into the evening. It is bad policy to make each execution day a "waiting for SCOTUS" affair. SCOTUS should decide this before then. 

They granted a stay. The issue very well might be procedural -- the right to bring the claim -- and not the merits. SCOTUS in an earlier case protected the right to a similar challenge. If they take the case, it can be limited to the procedural issue, and he still might ultimately lose the case on the merits.  

So, more waiting. 

Keith Edmund Gavin 

Gavin shot and killed a man, getting an attempted murder add-on for shooting at a law enforcement office. He had already served a 17-year stint for murder. 

His lawyers (technically "he," but Gavin isn't making these arguments) argued that he had inefficient counsel and the jury did not hear enough mitigation testimony. Gavin also seems to have been a model prisoner. Not so model outside.

[The Supreme Court in 2023 denied his appeal.] 

Alabama, which has botched multiple executions in the last few years, agreed to his request for them not to perform an autopsy. Gavin's religious beliefs oppose it though with the state's record, there might be a penal purpose in having one. 

The previous murder conviction and shooting at the law enforcement officer make this a harder case for someone against the death penalty. 

Still, the original vote to sentence him to die was 10-2 (non-unanimous juries for that function allowed at that time). He was in prison for around 25 years. 

The coverage does not suggest he was a dangerous prisoner. Execution was not fundamentally necessary.  Alabama, especially, has at this point run out of strikes regarding screwing up executions. 

Gavin himself (pro se) submitted a handwritten request for a stay of execution. The state argues he has money in an account to pay a filing fee. 

He claims indigency.  The lack of fee blocks a late claim alleging the state does not have jurisdiction to sentence him to death. The state replies that even if the fee matter is waived, that argument fails on the merits. It does look like a last minute Hail Mary.

I don't know why this last minute appeal was filed pro se. The coverage references him still having lawyers. And, though it might be somewhat petty, it does look like he had enough money to pay the fee. If the state waived it here, it would be a precedent for other frivolous appeals. And, yes, this amounts to one.  

SCOTUS disposed of it without comment and then he was executed. The next execution is due next month. 

(The request was worthy of rejection but even here there should be an explanation since someone's life is at stake. That remains my basic sentiment.) 

Court Reform 

President Biden let it be known that he will support court reform. He has already said he supports a national law to protect abortion rights. Other things can also respond to wrong-minded SCOTUS rulings.

I will await the details but this is a sound move. People criticized him for not promoting this issue beforehand. He's an institutionalist at heart. He wasn't going to do so until he was pressed. Where was everyone else?  

Also On The Website 

On the trivia front, I'm not sure if they are done posting stuff, but the online material in opinions so far has been limited this term.  

A Few More Words

Rachel Held Evans in the book discussed last time examines what the Bible says about womanhood. 

This effect includes looking at the actual words and researching what various sources have analyzed them to mean. This is the work of a lifetime for many.

I was quite interested in college reading biblical commentaries, a study room having a multi-volume set covering the books of the Bible. I have The New American Bible (Catholic) and it has in-depth footnotes that provide loads of context.

People are generally left with reading the Bible in translation. One website helpfully provides many versions to pick from when you search for a biblical verse. For instance, the version I have does not translate Proverbs 31 as talking about a "woman of valor" but as a "worthy woman." 

[See, e.g., this comparison of translations of the same verse from Ruth, a "woman of valor."]

The value of a good translator is seen when you read a foreign novel in English translation. If you think translation is trivial, compare some first-year Latin student's translation of Julius Caesar with an expert. 

A good Bible will have footnotes that cross-referenced verses. The Bible is filled with material that becomes richer if you understand the allusions to other books as well as when the same themes are covered elsewhere. 

The Bible is made richer if you understand the context. For instance, it has two sets of books that discuss the kings of Israel. Each was written at different times, from different points of view.  

Translations also can rob the text of basic meanings. Muslims take this to an extreme by arguing the only true version of the Quran is in the original Arabic, which quite a few believers do not truly understand. 

For instance, the Bible can translate something as "God," when this specific name of God matters. The New Testament sometimes speaks of "powers," which are not just a reference to the Romans. In some cases, they are references to literal evil forces in the world. 

Evans shows the value of a deep reading of the Bible. For instance, some translate a portion of Genesis to mean Eve was a "help-meet" of Adam, interpreting it in a submissive way. Evans notes the term was also applied in other cases to God himself. 

See also, Acts 15, which discusses the Council of Jerusalem which sets forth four basic rules for Gentile Christians to follow. The language in different versions is notably different. Do people have to avoid "sexual immorality" "fornication" or "any kind of sexual sin?" And, what do these terms even mean? 

[I recall one interpretation was concerned with Jewish marriage rules. A looser translation would allow premarital sex if it was not "immoral" or "sinful" in nature. People find a lot of wiggle room there.]  

And, different translations are more poetic. I love the "for now we see through a glass, darkly" line but that is only in some versions. Years back I read a good young adult book that had that line it it. 

I enjoy Bart Ehrman's writings but sometimes he does assume too much. For instance, we simply do not know how much of the gospels are accurate. 

They discuss stuff that happened forty or more years before, using varying details. Any assumptions, e.g., about Judas Iscariot (whose "last name" alone is not totally clear) are guess estimates. 

The Hebrew scriptures are even more worthy of a grain of salt. They were written a range of dates over a span of hundreds of years. Sometimes, such as Daniel, they clearly are a form of historical fiction only said to be written in the period covered. And, they are largely based on oral and written materials we do not have. 

Those who interpret and apply all these materials have to do the best they can. The effort can be fascinating. It would be great, for instance, if I could find a book on Ruth (a book of four chapters) that provides an in-depth look at the many things taking place. Note too that some see Naomi and Ruth as a model for lesbians. Okay. Well, just remember, Ruth is her daughter-in-law.  

No wonder Rachel Held Evans loved the Bible so much. I'm no evangelical, and find it quite interesting.