SCOTUS Watch (Link) and Other Things

I will just provide a link to my Substack SCOTUS summary (which provides a form of my Order Watch).

===

Vegans are less upset about the price of eggs. The NY Daily News had a good article on one egg substitute with the fancy name "aquafaba" (literally "bean water"). The substitute is suitable for recipes and cocktails:

A 15-ounce can of garbanzo beans will yield about 5 ounces — give or take — of liquid equivalent to about four eggs. 

For those who like scrambled eggs, there are various products, including Just Egg. Or you can use a type of tofu mixture. People who like sunny side up might have to do some more work, but options are around there too. 

==

I listened (probably re-listened, though I don't recall it) to Bart Ehman's episode on Joseph. He didn't provide a comprehensive discussion, though it was not meant to be. Nonetheless, it is problematic that he didn't reference two things. First, Matthew's birth stories were told from Joseph's point of view.

Second, Mark doesn't reference Joseph. He notes Mark for the fact Mary (and his siblings) reportedly found Jesus's ministry to be off the wall. That would be strange if we follow the assumptions of the two birth narratives. Bart didn't note that Mark calls Jesus the "son of Mary." 

We can't conclude that much via one reference, and this analysis provides multiple possible reasons. It might not have had some ulterior motive (e.g., some implication he had no human father or that he was illegitimate). Still, it is an interesting reference. 

Bart also explains the word, usually translated as "carpenter," had a general meaning as a low-level craftsperson. I recall one scholar arguing it is not necessarily low-level, but that seems to be the general assumption. 

Looking at the word in the Old Testament, there is some cause to limit it to carpenter since mason (stone worker) is labeled using another word. OTOH, Jesus uses references that suggest he is familiar with stonemasonry. By the second century, however, the carpenter side was a common assumption. So, it seems safe to lean that way. 

==

I re-read Lawrence v. Texas and the same sex marriage opinion. They continue to impress, especially the second. The same sex marriage opinion has been subject to various criticisms by supporters of SSM, including Melissa Murray arguing it is too marriage-focused. 

Why wouldn't an opinion establishing a right to same sex marriage not be marriage-focused? Likewise, it is curious to call out the author of an opinion protecting same sex intimacy without marriage as too marriage-focused. And it isn't that bad even in that sense. 

The opinion has a lot of good aspects, including a discussion of coverture to show how marriage changed. Also, for those who wanted the opinion to be based on equal protection, there is a section covering that. It summarizes the aspects of marriage and has a generally respectful tone (contra the dissents). 

I wish there was more notice that same sex couples were in marriage-like relationships for quite some time. Nonetheless, when examining the many amicus briefs provided at the time, I could not find a single one that covered that angle. 

People have covered that ground. 

==

Finally, Trump and Vance's attack on Zelenskyy (he seems to prefer the double "y") was rather unsurprising. It is obviously horrible and disgusting. 

I am simply appalled we are stuck with this f-ing asshole and his back-up asshole while Republicans enable him like f-ing eunuchs. Are we really going to be stuck with them for four years? 

The purity of the shame we should feel is a stark reminder of where we are as a country. We might want to grin and bear it since we have to live day by day. Sometimes, however, we should firmly admit just how fucked up we are now. 

ETA: I saw one of her Hallmark films and saw that she's a director now. Both films were well-reviewed. 

Talk about surprise directors, check this guy. 

"Gabbard Says More Than 100 Intelligence Officers Fired for Chat Messages"

The coverage of this issue, including the quoted NYT article, is suspect. 

The chat program was administered by the National Security Agency and intended for discussions of sensitive security matters. But a group of employees used it for discussions that contained sexual themes, intelligence officials said this week. The chats also included explicit discussion of gender transition surgery, officials said.

The whole thing comes off as an official take without any input from the other side. Why did over 100 intelligence officers feel comfortable doing this? 

That isn't one or two. These aren't from what I can tell just a few low-level types. Why would they risk their jobs? Why doesn't the article tell their side? 

Transcripts of the chat were first disclosed Monday by Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist who writes for City Journal.

Christopher Rufo is an anti-LGBTQ conservative troll. He latched on to this since trans people talking about themselves is "icky" to some people. 

Furthermore, if you read past the clickbait language, his own coverage says that they didn't break the rules. He used this to attack DEI policies.  

Erin Reed, who talks about these issues intelligently, noted such chats "are commonplace in workplaces across the United States, including within federal agencies." What is the big deal? The implication is that it is akin to watching porn or something. 

From another angle, a Fox News article explains the chats were related to DEI policies. So, what exactly did these people do wrong? I wouldn't take Tulsi Gabbard's comments at face value.

Furthermore, my wider concerns are twofold. 

(1) What amount of knowledge and know-how is being lost here? It's asinine to fire these people. They could pass new rules regarding the usage of chats and it still would be stupid to fire skilled people unless they continuously broke the rules. 

(2) Is there going to be a general firing of people who use it for "sexual themes"? What about racist conversations? Other non-work related conversations? This comes off as an anti-trans measure.

I did a quick article search to learn about this story and the articles regularly did not tell me all the details. They did not tell both sides of the story though ironically some conservative-leaning ones did ultimately suggest there was not an actual vioation.

Which underlines the point: firing them is stupid. 

===

Michelle Trachtenberg died at 39. I see a lot of news alerts and only some make me go "Oh!" 

She was on Buffy and Gossip Girl. I saw her in Ice Princess, which also co-starred Kim Cattrall in a somewhat atypical role. I enjoyed it. 

MT had health problems so her death was not totally surprising for those in the know. For instance, coverage noted recent online photos concerned people. People under 40 dying is still more sad.

Reprise: Reading and Viewing Once More

I watched a couple movies (well, parts) and re-read (the whole thing) a book for a second time the last few days. They were enjoyable comfort food.

[Yes, the book was on a serious topic, but it still was comfort food as supportive with a good ending.]

Major League, the classic sports comedy with an excellent cast including the announcer Bob Uecker (he did Brewers games but moonlit here as the accouncer for the Indians) on IFC. IFC was on the television I was watching among basic cable channels. So, it was a bit of a surprise to hear cursing. 

TV Tropes notes there was some dramatic license with one goof flagged about them skipping a line-up spot in the final scene. The person who did their homework on that said the film was pretty realistic overall.  

Meanwhile, in the real world of baseball, not only did Montas (sort of a Mr. Q fill-in with Severino replaced by Senga scheduled to be here for the whole year and Clay filling the fifth slot originally assigned to Houser and company) get injured, but now Sean M. (with all the vowels) is due to be out for a month. 

[I saw late April and early May in different articles so let's say the thing is somewhat in flux.]

It makes sense for them to re-sign Mr. Q., who I'm surprised no team signed already. He's a prime back-of-the-rotation guy who will give you many good starts. Who are you going to replace him with? Blackburn or Megill? Come on. Yeah, the Dodgers exposed him, but HE didn't lose Game 6. 

I already noted that I read the new autobiography (Part I?) of Nicole Maines, the trans actress. I read this book back when it came out. Its "won't go back" optimism about trans rights is a bit off around nine years later.

The book remains a good read about the experience of a family with a trans daughter. She is a twin and her father dreamed of two boys. Not to worry -- Wayne Maines outgrew his doubts and is now a major trans rights advocate. The twins biologically are the children of a cousin of Kelly Maines, the mother, though I think Nicole looks like her adopted father.  

I originally noted a desire to get a bit more of the school's perspective, that is, the middle school they sued and won a major bathroom rights victory. The counselor is early on a major advocate and later it is noted she still occasionally kept in touch. 

Nonetheless, after problems occur with a boy, suddenly the counselor locks out the family and she basically disappears from the story.  We later even get a final update about the boy but no input from the school's point of view. I felt that was a lack.

Nicole's autobiography touches upon various things covered. The book ends with her surgery which Nicole says was botched. She got a redo by another surgeon and says she is quite satisfied now.   

Both twins went into acting. The parents moved west.

I enjoyed this Up TV film when I saw it a few years ago. Marla Sokoloff wrote and directed the film. She also can briefly be seen as the mom in the opening scene. Sokoloff has directed a few films. I know her from a few more snarky performances when she was younger, including Sugar & Spice. 

The film is my ideal for a UP TV film -- a bit less polished than Hallmark, including the acting, but nicely paced and overall comfort food television. When the co-star here is a cook, well that fits. 

Here's a story on the film with an interview. 

Bonus: I later saw Love, Classified (a not very descriptive title) again. Good comfort food. The mom years earlier played the main character in a short-lived television version of Dirty Dancing. On YouTube.

Supreme Court Watch: Order List

The Supreme Court is back. It handed down an Order List that has multiple dissents from denial of cert along with a couple of statements about them. They also added another opinion day for Wednesday. 

They hear oral arguments today through Wednesday and have another conference to discuss cases on Friday. The statements/dissents today were from cases "relisted" multiple times. 

The cases (not counting the last) are discussed here. The order list was otherwise as normal mostly "ho hum." Alito didn't take part in one case without saying while Kagan noted previous government service.

Sotomayor and Jackson without comment publicly announced they would have granted cert in a case to examine whether a precedent clearly established that officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they search the wrong house without checking the address or conspicuous features of the house to be searched.

Thomas continued his campaign against a precedent that limited tort claims brought by service members alleging medical malpractice. Thomas and Alito wanted to reexamine a precedent allowing regulations limiting abortion protests. 

Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented from denials involving various criminal justice issues. Sotomayor (joined by Gorsuch in one case) did not dissent but provided concerned statements regarding two other criminal cases. The order list was 58 pages long. 

One case involved arresting someone for a misdemeanor without a warrant.  She noted various procedural problems with taking the case and the value of allowing the lower courts to continue to examine the issue.  An informative discussion. 

Other News 

While speaking Saturday at an event for Princeton University alumni, Kagan said the public’s entitled to express views about whether the court “is doing its job properly, no matter how hard we’re working and seriously we’re taking things.”

Meanwhile, Kagan reaffirmed the right of the public to criticize Supreme Court actions. This might seem obvious but the tenor of Roberts' end-of-the-year report might lead some to doubt it. 

Amy Howe's blog is back up. SCOTUSblog also has returned to Twitter since mid-2023 (except for a December 2024 notice that they were on Bluesky).  They don't say WHY they returned.

One thing reported: SCOTUS has posted its April argument schedule. The final orals for the term.

Is Trumpism A Gilded Age Throwback? Does It Matter?

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who is a historian of fascism. He said on the first day of his history of fascism class, he got a question from a student asking if Trump was fascist. He responded that it was an irrelevant and pointless question–it doesn’t actually matter. What he’s doing is terrible and that’s what matters. Moreover, while it’s entirely possible that for Vance and Thiel and Musk, the goal is more about something that looks global fascism, for Donald Trump the goal is his vision of the Gilded Age, both on issues of race and corporate domination.

So, it doesn't matter, but (insert potshot later) it's something else. I'm wary about both sides of that coin. The most important thing is that he's doing something very bad. Nonetheless, it's helpful to understand the nature of what he is doing, partially since it helps in fighting it. Also, it's just good to understand things.

The American author Mark Twain wrote a novel in 1873 entitled The Gilded Age.  The book concerned the greed and corruption of post-Civil War life, which were disguised with a thin coating (gilding) of good times.  The era had a great expansion of industry and growth overall, but also a lot of problems not far underneath.  

Trump clearly promotes that. He is mesmerized (or pretends to be) by tariffs. He wants to honor President McKinley (even though he was stupid enough to be killed) by renaming Mount Denali in Alaska. 

If that was ALL he was doing, it would be bad. It also would be typical Republican economics if somewhat on steroids with extra corruption.

Nonetheless, as people note in comments, that is not all he is doing. The reply is that what he is doing can fit into the period. The problem for me is that the Gilded Age is a certain period known for economic developments. The other stuff overlaps but is not what dominates. Jim Crow, for instance, occurred before and after the Gilded Age. It was not its driver.

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that gives total control to the government, usually under a strong leader. Ruth Ben-Ghiat's book discusses the "strongman" (and they usually are men) concept. 

This is a significant part of Trump's brand and current activities, including the person he chose for Secretary of Defense. Heather Cox Richardson, as usual, provides some good details.  

How is the Gilded Age brand explanatory here? Nazism, on the other hand, provides some more understanding of the cultural and leadership model of the current Administration. 

MAGA is a white Christian nationalist ideology that overlapped with the Gilded Age but Nazism is a much more apt metaphor. Other things fit in including sexism. Again, such things existed in the Gilded Age but they did not dominate. It was an economic age. 

Trump does not only care about Gilded Age economic ends. The strongman model is his brand. He is a bully and needs total control. He uses cultural issues and symbolism to promote his ends. 

Some he more instrumental (he doesn't really care about abortion) than others (like father, like son on the racist front). And, as someone notes, Nazism is often useful as a metaphor since people know more about it. It is more visceral.

Knee-jerk boy says in comments it doesn't matter AT ALL if you use "Nazi" in messaging. I truly doubt it. People are concerned about certain things and "Nazi" is such a common term since it has a certain cachet. It might not matter as much as we want. It does matter. 

Musk also does not appear to merely "look" like a fascist. He has cultural (trans) and other concerns that are more than a Gilded Age throwback. 

Vance also has cultural baggage. I am less aware of Thiel and maybe he is more Gilded Age. It doesn't matter. If we look at Trumpism as a whole, it is not just about the Gilded Age.

A few comments noted that the whole thing is partially about the Gilded Age. That's fine. A standard rule of mine is that it usually is not "merely" about "one" thing. We should understand the complexity of the situation.

The whole story is more than the Gilded Age. It very well looks fascist with some Nazi aspects (Elon Musk even gave a Nazi salute!). Also, though I do not want to put everything in one box, industrial forces worked with Nazis too. Nazi might have "socialist" in its name but big business (including using forced labor) played a big role.

So, "why not both.gif" along with "only one is far incomplete." 

The Many Lives of Anne Frank

I read the diary, Miep Gies' (a protector) book, saw multiple films, and read other materials. For instance, I read a young adult book that includes a visit by two of its characters to the Anne Frank hiding place. 

This book is quite interesting in providing much background of her life and the use of her life (play, film, fiction, and so on). There are also short stand-alone chapters about people affected by her life and diary, including an African refugee. 

The book provides a lot of commentary about the process involved in writing and editing the diary, crafting the play, and the film. Anne in 1944 started to edit her diary. The final version combines her edited version (never completed) and the original with some edits (such as toning down some criticism). Readers can see all three versions in a "critical edition."* 

There have been many books written about Anne Frank, including people she knew. She imagines one friend was in captivity and hauntingly the friend (though they could not see each other) found her while they were in a concentration camp. The friend survived, in better quarters since her father had a foreign passport. Another friend was half-Jewish and managed to avoid capture. Multiple classmates also were in hiding and survived.

Anne Frank in passing notes Margot Frank had a diary though it was never found. What happened to it? One comment online suggested she took it with her after the capture. (Anne Frank's diary was scattered on the floor.) There is a mention of a "backpack" the girls had but you'd think if she had a diary, it would come up. One author imagined a diary, another her surviving the war (people also imagined Anne Frank surviving). 

One fascinating tidbit was that Anne and Margot had pen pals in the U.S. via a student project. We have a letter a piece from the sisters. The American sisters answered back and wondered why there was no reply. One later received a letter from Otto Frank informing her what happened.

We learn some stray facts about the facts family members but as usual, Anne and Otto dominate. Otto later was accused of focusing too much on Anne, forgetting about his other daughter. The amount of recognition Anne receives as well as the close Otto/Anne relationship makes this understandable. It underlines the need to make sure people also remember the less-known sister.

Here is one summary from Otto Frank's Wikipedia page that also provides us with some information about another member of the Secret Annex:

Otto's brother-in-law Erich Elias (the husband of his younger sister Leni and father of Buddy Elias) worked in Basel for Opekta, a company that sold spices and pectin for use in the manufacture of jam. The company was looking to expand its operations in Europe, and Erich arranged for Otto to work as Opekta's agent in Amsterdam, allowing Otto to have an income to support his family once they had moved there. Otto and his family lived in Merwedeplein in the modern suburb of Amsterdam-Zuid; they came to know many other German emigrant families. In 1938, Otto Frank started a second company, Pectacon, which was a wholesaler of herbs, pickling salts, and mixed spices, used in the production of sausages. Hermann van Pels was employed by Pectacon as an advisor about spices.

Many family members (both families) survived by emigrating. Otto's mother lived in Switzerland. In passing, we hear about a brother of van Pels who was in the United States. The non-Jewish fiance of the dentist also survived the war. Along with the surviving classmates, including those who went into hiding, you have the potential to fill in some blanks.

I didn't like one chapter involving discussing fictional works that supposed Anne Frank was alive. The uses were all rather unpleasant. An "interlude" chapter with additional usage in fiction was better. 

I also think talking about fiction using Margot or Peter, instead of just referencing them in passing, could have been done. Just cut the extended Philp Roth section in half. The final chapter on her use in political causes was a mixed bag.

I also would have liked some more photos other than the cover (not even discussed) and inside cover photos. Overall, I really enjoyed the book. It covered a lot of ground in an approachable way. It also is not as long as her previous biography of Shirley Jackson.  

==

* We also learn how Anne Frank was influenced by one of her favorite young adult authors. Otto Frank later showed the author her diary and she agreed with him that it should be published. 

SCOTUS Watch

Miscellaneous Order

Amy Howe (whose personal website disappeared without her commenting on it) explains the appointment of an advocate to argue a case in which the government is no longer defending the relevant issue. They have done this more often this term. 

Summary

The justices came back from their mid-winter hiatus. They dropped opinions and held a conference. They will return for oral arguments next week. There will be orders on Monday and opinion day on Tuesday.

Joan Biskupic wrote an article entitled "The Supreme Court gave Trump immunity. He’s using it as a blank check." Trump is bragging about being a king. 

Opinions

There were three opinions by Kavanaugh (with Roberts + liberals), Kagan (unanimous with concurrences), and Sotomayor (unanimous).  

The first opinion was a limited win for unemployed workers. Chris Geidner on Bluesky* summarized: 

In a 5-4 win for unemployed workers, the Supreme Court allows their lawsuit to proceed alleging that Alabama is illegally delaying their benefits.

The longer SCOTUSblog live blog summary:

The court holds that when a state court's application of a state exhaustion requirement effectively gives state officials immunity from federal civil rights claims challenging delays in the administrative process, state courts cannot deny those claims on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust them. 

The regulation of state courts raises federalism concerns that suggest why it split the justices. Thomas went further than the other three in support of overruling precedents to advance his cause. 

Kagan obtained a unanimous court in the next case by narrowing the issues. A few justices raised concerns about wider issues. It's a technical issue with some wider importance to the average American:

This is a case about a program that establishes subsidies for the internet and telecom services for schools and libraries across the country. The funds are payable upon receipt of a reimbursement request. The question is whether such a request counts as a "claim" under the False Claims Act. The court holds that the reimbursement requests do satisfy that requirement because the government provided at least a "portion" of the money applied for.

(Again, SCOTUSblog live blog summary.) 

The third lawsuit involved Holocaust survivors and their heirs bringing a lawsuit in U.S. courts against Hungary for illegally seized property during WWII. There is a federal law that blocks such lawsuits with exceptions. The court says there is no window here regarding the specific argument made. 

As usual, it's nice that the opinions are readily available, along with online discussion, but audio/video would be better. We are also told ahead of time that there is an opinion day but not what would be handed down. I'm generally okay with that.  

Trump Suit

The first Trump matter reached the court involving his attempt to remove Hampton Dellinger from his position as Special Counsel for the Office of Special Counsel. Steve Vladeck argues this dispute has a limited reach. They basically decided to wait and see.

A lower court restraining order was "held in abeyance" for a few days. Sotomayor and Jackson wouldn't even grant that. Gorsuch and Alito thought that was too much that other way and would have reached out and lifted the restraining order.  

Vladeck calls this a "punt." To be continued.

==

* Some people act surprised when one or more conservatives hand down a reasonable order. 

Justices aren't perfect little devils who always rule badly. To be sure, they did earn some lack of the benefit of the doubt. 

More Trump BS

CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED.” Trump posted to his Truth Social. “LONG LIVE THE KING!

Trump probably thinks he is trolling people, including showing Time magazine with him wearing a crown. It does seem a bit much. And, he is acting like a king, down to becoming the chair of the Kennedy Center.

Congestion pricing is a long-negotiated policy to address traffic and promote public transportation. Gov. Hochul, who took a while before finally supporting a reduced toll, strongly opposed the Trump move. She's having some moments.

[She, however, said "no" on removing Adams.]

BTW, the Transportation Secretary (yes, I miss you, Pete Buttigieg) received over twenty "no" votes, but both N.Y. senators voted for him.

Hegseth’s biggest concession to Russia, though, was his warning that “stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.” Also on Wednesday, President Donald Trump spoke to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, for nearly an hour and a half and came out echoing Putin’s rationale for his attack on Ukraine. Trump’s social media account posted that the call had been “highly productive,” and said the two leaders would visit each other’s countries, offering a White House visit to Putin, who has been isolated from other nations since his attacks on Ukraine.

Heather Cox Richardson touches upon Trump's moves against Western Europe, Ukraine (calling the leader a "dictator"), and helping Putin. MAGA requires supporting other nation's autocrats. 

Citing ‘Biological Truth,’ Kennedy Issues Guidance Recognizing Only Two Sexes

Finally, the new Secretary of Health and Human Services (sic), Robert F-ing Kennedy Jr., went along with Trump to attack LGBTQ+ people. When he ran, he said trans issues were not something he thought people were worrying about. But, now he's part of the Borg, so has to go along.

Next up: oh so much, including the "we have to go after our MAGA enemies" guy to head the FBI. 

Sunrise at Campobello

This film about FDR and Eleanor, based on a play also starring Ralph Bellamy, was on TCM. For whatever reason, only three presidential films (the others involved Lincoln and Jackson*) air on and overnight in honor of Washington's Birthday. Perhaps, TCM was thrown by it being so early this year.

Greer Garson, quite good (including the voice), played Eleanor Roosevelt. The former First Lady was still alive when the play and film took place. It must have been somewhat strange for her to watch. 

Also, one has to think she was like "good voice, but she's too pretty to be me." Hume Cronyn played Louis Powe, FDR's friend and political advisor. Very good too. Jean Hagen also was good in a smaller role as Missy LeHand, FDR's private secretary.  

(The couple had six children, five who survived infancy. The daughter died in the 1970s. The sons lived into the 1980s and 1990s. LeHand died young in the 1940s. Powe died in the 1930s, seeing FDR win.)

The film starts with the family on vacation and FDR is active and energetic. Then, he says he is tired, and we know what is coming. He is stricken with polio and Eleanor takes the brunt of it. The film suggests the children mostly are kept away as he is sick.  

FDR eventually leaves his vacation home, Eleanor and Howe plotting to avoid the press seeing how ill he is. We then see a few years of him getting back into public life, including Eleanor getting used to giving speeches on her own. This part of the film seems a bit thin at times with a few good emotional scenes.

The film ends with his nominating speech (he is about to give it, having walked on crutches to the dias) for Al Smith in the 1924 election. We are not told that Smith never did get the nomination. He did in 1928.

The film, near the end of Eleanor's life, provided a more open revelation of his disability than was regularly shown. Eleanor was open about it in her writings. It wasn't some secret by that time. Still, it must have been striking to some of the public in the late 1950s/1960, many of whom lived through it. 

I enjoyed the film overall and saw the whole thing (over two hours). I did see it in two parts. One good low-key moment helped budding presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy -- FDR opposing prejudice against Catholicism (Al Smith was Catholic). 

(People might recognize the representative of an unnamed organization who came to warn FDR about how people were concerned. He played the boss on Bewitched. He had work into the 1980s.) 

The film is a good combo of idealism and star turn.

==

* The Andrew Jackson film is a silly sounding affair, filled with historical fiction, with Lionel Barrymore as Andrew Jackson. Not who I would associate with him. 

Abe in Illinois is a classic with Raymond Massey having a certain bittersweet tragic air in the lead. 

Religion and Liberty

God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution by Thomas S. Kidd argues that evangelicals and deists* agreed upon basic principles of religious freedom key to the success of the Revolution and the nation:

• disestablishment of state churches
• creator God as guarantor of fundamental human rights [common creation of humanity = equal rights]
• threat to polity posed by human sinfulness had to be addressed
• republic needed to be sustained by virtue 
• belief in God and/or Providence moved in and through nations 

The diversity of faiths made it unlikely that the establishment could work properly. Nonetheless, each person had the liberty to worship God as they deemed fit. Nearly everyone did believe there was a God though some as having a more naturalistic quality. 

God created us all and did not play favorites. We have equal liberty. "How about slavery?" Some people did understand the problem. Others wanted to sweep it under the rug since it seemed too hard to end the problem. Jefferson had a lot of that while being honest enough to have some quotable comments. 

The concept of "nature and nature's God" shows some redundancy. We can consider humans each a project of a joint creation of nature itself. The idea of an overriding providence, some force that guides us and/or our nation is reassuring. It is like we are "fated" to do something. 

The third criterion is reflected in the idea that men are not angels so we need laws and checks and balances. The fourth underlines the importance of ethics and values, not simply the theme of "we have the power, so we can use it." One favored by those now in power.

Alexis Coe discusses Washington's concerns about corrupt factions who could threaten our republic. He warned that "it is not difficult for those who at any time hold the reins of Power, and command the ordinary public favor, to overturn the established Constitution, in favor of their own aggrandisement. 

Washington was hopeful that such factions could not overwhelm the large nation as a whole. The nation is made up of people and institutions. The resignations arising from the Eric Adams affair underline how personal and institutional ethics have some real traction. They work off each other. People have personal values but also fit into wider societies that provide pragmatic reasons for their actions. Virtue remains important.

I think religion and spirituality have a broad meaning. The same can be said about "God." The five criteria have merit even if with do not grant the existence of a separate god who is watching over us. 

The principles of such things still matter. We should have some "ultimate truth" in our lives with some overall meaning. Nations are guided by the idea that they are not just moving along like an uncontrollable car. If we are, we need to try to act as if we are not. 

We should accept our common humanity, our limitations, and the importance of personal virtue. We should respect our right to express our religious and moral beliefs in our different personal ways. The limit there is when it unduly threatens the well-being of others. This is where you can draw lines that allow Native Americans to use peyote without allowing nurses not to vaccinate. At least, in theory. 

I respect religion and religious liberty. It is too precious to violate it via Christian Nationalism or selective expression that establishes certain faiths and burdens the free exercises of others. Some understandably are cynical about religion because it is a tool of scoundrels. Fire can be used by arsonists. 

It is still a useful tool. 

==

* From the book: 

In the eighteenth century, deism referred to a philosophical movement advocating natural religion, or a nonsectarian faith based primarily on ethics rather than theology. Deists often believed that God had created the natural world but did not now interfere in the affairs of men. They were often skeptical about traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Christ or his resurrection.

Deism never truly died died out. We now have a growing "none of the above" (Nones) group, only a segment being agnostics or atheists. These people often speak of being "spiritual but not religious."

Overall, they believe in some sort of "spiritual" forces that guide our lives. They might not like to speak of "God" but there does seem to be some overlap here. 

3/5 Compromise

Washington's Birthday (Observed) came early this year. It's not "President's Day" officially. The day overlaps with a day of history post about when Jefferson was chosen president. 

The thread led to a discussion of the 3/5 Compromise which helped Jefferson win in 1800. A comment argued that people are wrongly taught that the compromise dehumanized slaves. The argument is that slave states wanted slaves counted like free people for purposes of representation while free states wanted them to be counted not at all. So, it was a net plus.

The overall idea came from a pre-constitutional proposal involving allotting taxes. The South cried foul since they saw slaves as property & thought it unfair that only their property was being taxed. 

Also, slaves were considered to be less economically productive. Economic production was one factor in allotting taxes. 

A compromise was achieved to count slaves by 3/5, which was later used in the Constitution. The two sides had different concerns this time. 

The South wanted slaves to be fully counted while the North wouldn't mind if they were not counted at all. So, both sides got something and gave up something.

The idea that the 3/5 Compromise diminishes the personhood of slaves is not totally off base. The compromise partially arises from slaves being considered both persons and property.

See, e.g., Federalist 54: "The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property."

A full understanding recognizes that slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for specific purposes (representation and direct taxes). They were in all ways labeled "persons." If slaves were not counted at all, arguably it would be easy to consider them non-persons. Given the context, realistically it is hard to see how slavery could have been better covered. 

Slaveholders kept on talking about their constitutional interest in slave property. The Constitution, as Lincoln reminded them at Cooper Union, always calls slaves "persons." By then, that had some real teeth. 

The humanity of slaves is explicitly stated. Their status as property was (intentionally) hidden by circumlocations. The Confederate Constitution was blunter, repeatedly using the terms "slave" and "slavery." They knew the original was "flawed." 

==

Bonus: A good summary of the history of LGBTQ+ discrimination in the military. Check out the "memo" link at the bottom, especially the last paragraph.

A few Trump-related Things

On the censorship front:

Oscar-winning actress Julianne Moore said Sunday it was “a great shock” that her 2007 children’s book “Freckleface Strawberry” wound up among those banned by the Trump administration while under “compliance review” at schools run by the U.S. Department of Defense.

In a post on Instagram, the stymied star wrote her book “is a semi-autobiographical story about a 7-year-old girl who dislikes her freckles but eventually learns to live with them when she realizes that she is different, ‘just like everybody else.’”

The nonprofit literature and writing advocacy group Pen America flagged the “Freckleface Strawberry” inclusion, along with “Becoming Nicole” — and “No Truth Without Ruth” about late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Becoming Nicole was cited recently regarding Nicole Maines' autobiography. If a book is a "fellow traveller" to trans-friendly book, no wonder it was red flagged. Moore:

“It is a great shock for me to learn that my first book, ‘Freckleface Strawberry,’ has been banned by the Trump Administration from schools run by the Department of Defense,” she wrote, adding: “It is a book I wrote for my children and for other kids to remind them that we all struggle, but are united by our humanity and our community.”

===

Multiple federal judges have flagged that Trump's birthright citizenship (that doesn't even only apply to children of undocumented immigrants) is unconstitutional. A recent one is a good approachable summary. 

The opinion cites multiple former opinions that is but a taste of those that underline what is wrong with the executive opinion. To cite one from the 1980s involving two undocumented immigrants:

Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972. Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

Note the last sentence. Another good discussion:

There were different rules for each state, because the 1787 Constitution doesn’t say who was a citizen by birth. Then, we get the 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the majority of the Supreme Court held that regardless of what the northern states said, no person of African descent could be a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the federal Constitution. That was part of a nationalization of slavery, and one of the important causes of the Civil War. 

I have seen various summaries noting how Dred Scott v. Sandford seemingly uniquely decided that birthright citizenship isn't the rule. The specific concern was racial. And, it was a median position that free blacks did not automatically by birth become citizens. 

The core problem of the opinion was to nationalize one particularly racist view of non-citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment cleared the field, assuring everyone would become citizens at birth when born on U.S. soil except for a few outliers (diplomats, invaders, and tribal Native Americans, the last disputed some). 

===

What happens next if Mayor Eric Adams' prosecution drops? This provides a helpful discussion of the various possibilities, including Gov. Hochul removing him. I won't hold my breath, but that would be nice. 

Now, I'm sure there is a lot more. But, these are just three things I have found of interesting the last 24 hours or so.  

"Gulf of America"

The AP explains how "Gulf of Mexico" is a term that has been used for hundreds of years and they will continue to use it. This has led the Trump Administration to ban reporters from key places in the White House press room and Air Force One for allegedly promoting false facts. 

Professor Eugene Volokh has an extended discussion on how the usage is not false. He later added a discussion of the First Amendment as interpreted by the courts. He hedges somewhat while linking a FIRE statement that clearly states the Administration's actions are unconstitutional. They are correct. 

This whole thing is power trip trolling but it is not a one-off. The purging of various words like "trans" is only part of the whole. Telling the truth can get you fired. Blocking the media is just part of the course.

The First Amendment is also not just something applied by parsing court opinions. It is a statement of principle that informs everyone. The original understanding here holds true: the courts often would not be the most important means of enforcement. 

The Administration is blocking the media from press conferences and Air Force One on illegitimate grounds. It should not just as EV notes be a "policy" concern. The policy is the First Amendment. We need not only to rely on litigation. The principle is clear. 

Google has chosen to go along with the "Gulf of America" bullshit. Try doing a search for "Gulf of Mexico." Then, try it on Dog Pile. Some say we should use that search engine though I still find Google more useful as a whole. Still. Going along voluntarily is a bad look. Thanks, Associated Press. 

===

Another Volokh Conspiracy piece cites a report funded by the American Enterprise Institute as proof that diversity in corporate boards of directors doesn't help firm value. A comment points to this alternative view.

(I checked the report and saw the disclosure. I question if either of us could fully parse the report, which ultimately hedges its bets anyhow.)  

Sssssss

This week's Svengoolie film sounds like a snake. The "B" side film, which I didn't realize was available, sounds like a Grade Z 1950s film about alien teenagers. The Svengoolie Squad handled that one. 

Missed it but did see this snake horror film. Strother Martin chews the scenery quite well as the mad scientist. "Face" from the A-Team is the naive college student he uses for his man-snake experiment (the last time didn't work well). 

His daughter is played by an actress who later married the actor Robert Urich (Spenser For Hire). A suspicious professor was in a Billy Joel video. He was in Slither too but that wasn't a snake film. Overall, a good cast though the college student is somewhat bland. I saw the whole film too.

The film occasionally had TV movie vibes. It also felt (well it was) like a 1970s film, including the role of the daughter. It had a somewhat deliberate pace with not that many scares. The finale was somewhat of a cheat. It was actually a cliffhanger!

There is also a hint of a possible sequel with talk of the daughter possibly getting pregnant. Do these people not use birth control? Plus, the film came out right after abortion was legalized nationwide. She knows the truth. If she got pregnant, she should clearly get an abortion. Anyway, none was made.

Overall, the film kept my interest, and the snakes and somewhat over-the-top snake scientist were fun. The daughter was cute. I suppose the uncut scene of her swimming in the nude might have shown more. Dirk Benedict was boring. The ending was unsatisfying.

Net positive. I saw most of it late at night, which is also a good time to watch these films. The current time slot is 8-10:30. It used to be two hours later (they expanded it to a half hour last year). If you want, just DVR and you can skip the commercials. 

Katz v. U.S.

I talked about Katz v. U.S. in the past, including a curious aspect -- Justice Stewart basically rejected the right-to-privacy approach of Griswold without anyone responding. Justice Douglas, the author of Griswold, noted his support of the opinion. He concurred to address a limited point cited by another concurrence.

The opinion made clear an old ruling that held that warrantless eavesdropping was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment was overruled. It held a warrantless recording of a phone booth (remember them?) was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

I suppose Douglas and others figured some of the discussion (including about the lack of a lack of a general constitutional right to privacy) was dicta. Still. The opinion cites the dissent of Griswold.

The opinion winds up largely in the same place. Amendments have zones of privacy, including the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is applied when someone is arrested in a public place. It channels privacy in a certain way. It's still there:

The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Roe v. Wade recognized there is a right to privacy. Stewart concurred to say he felt the case involved substantive due process. Privacy remains a principle that is used. You can talk about "liberty" (see Lawrence v. Texas). The point holds. 

The point continues to hold after Dobbs. Multiple amendments fit within a wider whole of privacy. Liberty over questions of family life fits in here. There is something fundamental about privacy overall.

Constitutional rights are regularly not absolute. They address certain things. Free speech doesn't mean libel and advertising for toasters is not treated the same as political speech. A "right to privacy" is not some talisman that answers all questions. 

Nonetheless, it is a useful general constitutional principle. One of the two dissenters in Griswold might not have liked the idea (see his concurrence in Whalen v. Roe in 1977) but how much it mattered at the end of the day is unclear. Justice Black was the lone dissent in Katz. He lost hold of the thread a bit.  

SCOTUS Watch

SCOTUS & Trump 

A good article on how Justice Jackson's dissent in the Trump immunity case is coming true has this bit:

Borrowing from Justice Felix Frankfurter, Jackson predicted how presidential immunity would cascade downward, replacing a system of laws over men with rule by lawless men: “If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny.” We seem to be in the chaos phase now—no one knows exactly what is happening, agencies are in turmoil, civil servants don’t know if they will lose their jobs, and every hour new revelations come to light. She continued, “If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” To the extent that this lawbreaking extends into violation of criminal laws, Trump’s pardon power can ensure that following the law is not only unnecessary but impractical for his supporters.

Justice Sotomayor also talked about the importance of judicial orders and the rule of law. Just broadly speaking, of course! 2/12 is Kavanaugh's birthday. 

SCOTUS Calendar 

The Supreme Court March Calendar dropped. 

The oral arguments include religious liberty and Planned Parenthood cases. The "March Session" flows into the beginning of April.

Death Penalty

February 13th was the day for two executions with the next three scheduled for March. Florida executed James Ford and Texas executed Richard Tabler. 

James Ford was sentenced to die for murdering a couple, raping the wife, and abandoning a 22-month child in a truck (left there for 18 hours).  The crimes were back in 1997, raising (yet again) the lag time issues raised by Justice Breyer's Glossip dissent. 

His lawyers say he has the mental age of a 14-year-old. That's not really how the "can't execute someone under 18" rule works. If the claim is even timely. I'm open to the idea though seems hard to apply. 

Richard Lee Tabler was a spree killer, responsible for at least four murders in 2004. The Wikipedia article cites threatening letters from prison. It's somewhat impressive that Texas waited so long to execute him. 

The Marshall Project talks about his case here including his back and forth regarding "volunteering" (giving up appeals). Various issues including his competency and lawyer problems are cited. 

Meanwhile, is the firing squad the best method?

Orders 

A housekeeping order to give the solicitor general (the permanent Trump one has not been confirmed) argument time -- a normal thing --upon request.  

A final request for a stay/petition for argument by James Ford was (as is usual in these last-minute execution appeals) rejected without comment. As usual, I think at least a brief comment, including by the liberals, is warranted since life is at stake. 

(The lawyers raised the mentally under 18 claim.) 

Coming Up

The next scheduled event is a conference and non-argument session (usually to swear in new lawyers) on February 21. Also, opinion(s) will be handed down.

As usual, odds and ends will arise. 

Amy Howe

Amy Howe, of SCOTUSBlog, has a blog. For some reason, suddenly (it was active recently) it is no longer up. Her husband currently is being prosecuted. 

"Amy Howe" is also the name of the head of the sports gambling company FanDuel. Which, given the nature of his problems, is ironic. Is it temporary? 

I am a big fan of her coverage, including a discussion of the background of bare orders that often amount to "the petition is denied." She posted yesterday on SCOTUSblog. There is a notice that "This article was originally published at Howe on the Court."

Not there. There is no update on her bio page. Huh. 

Latest In Eric Adams/Trump Bribery Case

Yeah, we could see this one coming a mile away.

Yes, National Review person, "we" could. And, that is why so many of "we," including to be fair probably a few over your way, didn't want him back in power. The pushback is a bit surprising.

Manhattan’s U.S. attorney on Thursday resigned rather than obey an order from a top Justice Department official to drop the corruption case against New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams.

Then, when Justice Department officials transferred the case to the public integrity section in Washington, which oversees corruption prosecutions, the two men who led that unit also resigned, according to five people with knowledge of the matter.

Several hours later, three other lawyers in the unit also resigned, according to people familiar with the developments.

[A list of the resignations is found here.]

Mayor Adams worked to fulfill his "quid" for the promised "quo" by planning to help ICE. Meanwhile, Gov. Hochul is more open about removing him. 

It's time for other N.Y. powerbrokers to send a message that it would be fine with them if she did. I'm with TPM in thinking the situation has changed. He has to go. I didn't think so before. Things change. 

To remind people of the law:

The mayor may be removed from office by the governor upon charges and after service upon him of a copy of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. Pending the preparation and disposition of charges, the governor may suspend the mayor for a period not exceeding thirty days.

For now, it is appreciated that even loyal Republican types have started to think things have gone too far. 

This includes a bit about the Acting Deputy Attorney General -- following Trump's lead during the Mueller investigation -- being mad that the lawyers were taking notes. During a f-conspiracy? Come now!

Rachel Maddow's book on the investigation of Vice President Spiro Agnew was partially a celebration of the integrity of some members of the Nixon Justice Department. We are going to have to rely on some feeling of lines that must not be crossed by people we otherwise would not trust. 

Many argue Merrick Garland was the wrong choice for the Attorney General. He was chosen largely as a symbol of a return of integrity in the Justice Department, which the critics might now think is a tad more important than they did then. The independence President Biden promised is no more. 

For now, after the "Thursday Night" massacre, this little drama among all the others continues to be incomplete. A judge has to sign off on dropping the prosecution. Good luck with that now. Will this end up with a pardon? An endorsement of Eric Adams if he runs as a Republican? Something else?

Stay tuned!

Nicole Maines: Trans Actress

I largely enjoyed Becoming Nicole, a family's experience of a trans daughter's childhood. 

I briefly noted: "The personal is mixed with background on the science nicely though I would have liked a bit more on the school's p.o.v. at times."

Nicole Maines won a state lawsuit involving the usage of a girl's bathroom. 2016 was early in the bathroom wars, including the Supreme Court playing keeping away from taking a case involving the issue. 

Nicole Maines, who became an actress, updates things with an autobiography that came out last year. You can also find her father giving various talks. The mom was an early supporter. Seems not as much of a lecturer.

The book was written before Trump's re-election but is ever more relevant now that the Administration is targeting trans people. And, the states have gone much more to the dark side since the first book was written.

Her autobiography does not have photos except those on the book jacket. She notes the book had help from a ghostwriter. Her voice comes out well.  

Nicole Maines is in her mid-20s now. 

ETA: U.S. Park Service deletes trans references on Stonewall monument page.

Trump Chosen Chair of Kennedy Center

Authorized by the 1958 National Cultural Center Act of Congress, which requires that its programming be sustained through private funds, the center represents a public–private partnership. Its activities include educational and outreach initiatives, almost entirely funded through ticket sales and gifts from individuals, corporations, and private foundations.

A national cultural center was established in the 1950s and the name was changed to the Kennedy Center after JFK died. National culture is an important aspect of society. Kennedy (Camelot) had a special cachet.

Trump left the Kennedy Center alone during his first term. As part of his Trump 2.0 taking things to 11 program, not so much this time. Why?

“So we took over the Kennedy Center. We didn’t like what they were showing and various other things,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday evening. “But we have, I guess, a whole new group of people going in. … I’m going to be chairman of it, and we’re going to make sure that it’s good and it’s not going to be woke.”

Trump has cited the Kennedy Center hosting drag shows as one reason he wanted to reshape the institution. These were a tiny portion of the more than 2,000 shows the center hosts each year.

As a Time article noted:

These days, Trump is giving himself a role as an arbiter of American taste. The Kennedy Center is just another stage for Trump, but one he may unilaterally curate based on his whims without regard to what messages it sends about the national identity.

It's one more source of power. He replaced the board (including Jon Batiste, formerly of the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre) with his own people. 

Among those on the board are Pamela Bondi, Elaine Chao, Lee Greenwood (of the Bible fame), Usha Vance (Second Lady), and of course Donald Trump. Note: Shonda Rhimes resigned. 

It is useful to look up the other names. Just to take one of the names less well-known, Sergio Gor:

Sergio Gor (shortened from Gorokhovsky, born November 30, 1986) is a Maltese American businessman and political operative. He led Right for America, a super PAC supporting  Donald Trump, during the 2024 United States presidential election.

Elaine Chao is Senator Mitch McConnell's wife, who was on Trump's Cabinet. She resigned after January 6. Nonetheless, doesn't sound like she totally separated herself from Trump.

The same can be said about McConnell, no longer the Senate leader, even if he opposes a few Cabinet nominations:

“I expect to support most of what this administration is trying to accomplish,” McConnell told “60 Minutes” earlier this month. “So, what happened in the past is irrelevant to me.”

Any opposition to Trump from the Republicans, however, is a problem for the Borg:

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized McConnell from the lectern on Wednesday — though not by name. “I think we’re greatly disappointed in any Republican who chooses willfully to vote against the president’s exceptionally qualified Cabinet nominees and picks to lead his America First administration."

The term "America First" set off alarm bells. The term was favored by isolationists and nativists. It was not always a horrible thing but often was favored by fascist types. The Trump Administration, including the new Defense Secretary's anti-European rhetoric, fits in with the not-so-ideal precedents. 

Trump has the power to remove members of the Kennedy Center board. The board appoints the chair of the board. And, the new board unanimously chose Donald Trump. This is where we are at as a country.

This has a symbolic feel to it that taints our culture. The Time article suggests it will have some influence on Hollywood. For me, it is more of an identity thing. As President Biden noted:

Performing arts is more than just sound. They reflect who we are as Americans. And as human beings. That's especially true for more than 200 Kennedy Center Honorees over the past 46 years for helps shape, how we see ourselves, how we see each other, and how we see our world honors not just based on the length of the career, the scope of the work of heightened fame, but because of their unique place in the conscience, and the very soul of our dynamic and diverse nation."

Very soul. And, Trump leads it now. Oh very. 

It makes some sense for the president to serve as an honorary leader of a national cultural center. So, for instance, you see the king in a Hallmark Channel movie involved in culture. First ladies, current and former, are honorary members of the Kennedy Center. 

Still, we do generally leave it to others. Will it now be a thing for presidents (or whatever Trump is)? On some level, I don't think that is inherently a bad thing. It is just that some people aren't fit for the job.

Trump definitely included. Ugh. 

Also, there is an overall concern. A political governmental actor directly heading the Kennedy Center makes it more likely to be politicized. First Amendment problems can arise. 

Trump is especially problematic here but there is some value to have some separation of arts and states. It won't totally be so. The government will fund the arts somehow, even if it is just in public schools. 

Nonetheless, the president (and whatever Trump is*) heading the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts can be problematic. Again, the problem here is particularly Trump, who not only took the unprecedented move of replacing the whole board but stepping in as chair. 

The presidential appointments will obviously have some influence. We have here yet another reason why it is so important to choose wisely at election time.

[Chris Geidner said he will write a substack about the Kennedy stuff. His will be better. This is my .02.]

===

* I continue to refuse to call Trump the "p" word because I believe it requires a bare minimum of respect for the office that he lacks. 

People continue to say that "the left" or whatever has opposed all Republicans. This is not true. I was quite upset when President Bush was in power earlier in this century. I did not mind calling him "President" Bush.

People who have some responsibility to call him his official title can do so. I think his supporters get some form of sexual pleasure from doing so. I won't.

Some will say it is a fait accompli and that it should be used to underline the state we are in. That has some validity. I still will not use the title any more than a local community who knows a priest is a molester need not call the person "Father" Brown. 

Lincoln's Birthday

 

Some essays about Lincoln and Darwin too.

Ignoring Court Orders & Constitutional Crisis

The issue of following court orders arose along with Trump assuring us he will follow them. One Trump bootlicker assured us any talk of a "constitutional crisis" is ridiculous. See also, Noah Feldman. 

Let me take these things in turn. First off, there is no real reason to take Trump at his word. 

Second, let us not try to parse dog whistles (or worse) like that of James David Vance. I think Steve Vladeck is great, but he is too cute here. 

Chris Geidner covers the various games that can be played to avoid following court orders or doing so in a half-hearted way. We know the drill. All those Warren Court opinions regarding civil rights, prayer in school, and police overreach were not simply followed.

Yes, it matters that we draw a hard line here -- it's akin to drawing the line at waterboarding in the torture debates -- since it is a core principle. We have not seen a blatant decision to ignore the courts akin to after Brown v. Board of Education. So far judges have slowed things down.

It's a long, long haul, and we should not be naive. This touches upon the "constitutional crisis" which is cumulative. Civil and criminal checks failed or only did so much. The one criminal conviction (which matters/is not trivial) was defanged per an "election waives liability" rule. Only others, and not just Michael Cohen, apparently should be liable.  

Once Trump was in office, he and his administration set forth a slew of unconstitutional and otherwise illegal orders. The possibility that the courts eventually will address some of the consequences (like trying to clean up a bag of pasta that scatters all over the place), while so many people and institutions suffer in the meanwhile, is of limited value.

It doesn't help when people and institutions help. Our constitutional system ultimately relies on "We the People" and our institutions. Congress (particularly Republicans) and the Supreme Court repeatedly failed us (impeachment, insurrection disqualification,* and immunity). The media soft-soaped things. The voters didn't care or show up.

As Chris Geidner summarizes:

It is important to realize that many of the administration’s so-called “wins” in the first three weeks have come when entities preemptively accede to Trump’s wishes without even challenging them. Whether you refer to it as “obeying in advance,” to use Timothy Snyder’s turn of phrase or one of the less appropriate phrases that I have used at times, it’s that. The White House put out press statements promoting the NCAA giving in to the threats in Trump’s anti-trans sports order and a small handful of hospitals reviewing or stopping the provision of gender-affirming medical care for minors after that anti-trans order. And, of course, Google Maps forced me to see “Gulf of America” on my phone on Monday night.

Also, multiple Trump's frivolous media lawsuits are being settled because the people and institutions fear him. This is understandable but dangerous as well as disappointing. And, again, a civic failure.

Geidner correctly tells us not to lose faith in democracy. Democracy is not merely majority rule and voting. It is a set of institutions, principles, and values. A Vladeck comment also provided good advice:

1) stay informed - read Timothy Snyder for ways to oppose autocracy, read how tyrants fall by Dirsus, read about what others have done historically - Havel and charter 77, read Applebaum and HCR; 2) stay connected with pro-democracy community, as you are; 3) attend lawful protests when your schedule permits - they are happening all over the nation but not reported by frequently by mainstream media; 4) write and call elected leaders - the impact of this is minimal but not trivial; there have been some surprising comments resulting from constituent push back; 5) don’t reflexively oppose all positions - only those that are important to you and threaten democracy. 6) don’t despair - remain hopeful and strong.

Meanwhile, keep healthy in your own lives, be good people, and root for the Mets. Well, maybe you can root for other teams too (I guess), and keep your mental health by enjoying the usual good things in life. One day at a time. 

===

* Congress could have passed enforcement legislation even if Trump v. Anderson wrongly tied the hands of state institutions. States still have the power to enforce the insurrection limitations for state offices.

This issue is going to come up again since 1/6 participants are going to run for public office and hold public offices. If they had previously sworn to uphold the Constitution before 1/6, they are still disqualified.

A presidential pardon does not waive the disqualification.