Kayle Barrington Bates [Maud Dib Al Sharif] Executed

He overpowered her and forcibly took her from the office building to the woods where he savagely beat, strangled and attempted to rape her, leaving approximately 30 contusions, abrasions and lacerations on various parts of her face and body. Bates was found at the scene of the crime and he had the victim's blood on his clothing. He had the victim's ring in his pocket.

This is another horrible crime that warranted a long prison sentence. In many countries, imprisoning someone for this crime for over forty years (as here) would be deemed cruel and unusual punishment. 

It is overall rather serious. Justice Breyer remains correct in arguing that there is a constitutional problem with executing someone after all this time. The state interest has significantly decreased. 

You are executing a different person. After they were in prison for decades. I think it is a form of euthanasia to end the life of a certain subset of senior citizens. 

There is also a claim that Florida has applied the death penalty in an illegitimate racial way. They have done so in the dark, so to speak, adding another layer of difficulty. The Supreme Court was not accepting of a comparable claim back when he was in prison for only a few years. They are not much more open to it. 

The claim was given somewhat more attention with two amicus briefs provided. I think that is worthy of a bit of discussion from some justice before the state executes the tenth person (a third of the national rate) this year. They have another one scheduled later this month. 

No comment. The usual no comment final orders. That is wrong. Wrong Sotomayor. Wrong Jackson. Wrong Kagan. Wrong all the rest.  

One new claim, rejected by the state as long past its sell date, is that he has "organic brain damage" that makes it unreasonable to execute him. Such claims are hard to prove. My stance is that when the death penalty is involved, a big thumb should be on the scales on the side of the challenger. 

He was first sentenced by an all white jury. He was resentenced in the 1990s by a 9-3 vote. Only Florida and Alabama allow non-unanimous juries to authorize the death penalty. The Supreme Court has determined that the original guilt phase must be unanimous.  

The Supreme Court has not directly addressed whether this is acceptable, but repeatedly (with Sotomayor flagging it) refused a request to do so. I find it dubious. An execution effectively involves a special crime, the worst of the worst, murder. 

(The Supreme Court, in dicta, allowed drug kingpin-type laws where murder is not directly involved. Also, treason and war crimes are treated differently. Military crimes, including rape, have also been left open.)  

I think it warrants a unanimous jury, at least, if that is the rule otherwise in place. If only two states, states where racism is still a concern, emphasizing the value of a unanimous jury, allow them, it makes it harder to justify. "Due process" is partially a matter of looking at normal procedures nationwide.  

Anyway, executing someone over forty years after they committed a horrible crime, whatever name he uses, is misguided at best. Even without there appearing to be some other red flags. 

Short and Long Term Reactions

A conservative who is not just a Trump suck-up but has shown not much concern decided yet again to be an anti-anti-Trump critic, a quite annoying breed. 

It did not receive much attention, and I eventually decided to respond. This might have led to more attention. Well, twenty more comments as I begin these comments. 

One reply to a comment noted:

Congress has passed laws. Trump is flagrantly defying them. Congress should either be using the tools at its disposal (hearings, impeachment, lawsuits) to check Trump, or — if it actually agrees with Trump that those laws are bad — it should be repealing them.

Similarly, Trump is doing things Congress never authorized him to do. Congress should either be using the tools at its disposal (hearings, impeachment, lawsuits) to check Trump, or — if it actually agrees with Trump that he should have that authority — it should be giving him that authority.

I pushed back at someone else who said Congress did not have a "duty" necessarily to do these things. Checks and balancing is the role of each branch, with special focus on the courts sometimes overblown. 

The legislative role in upholding constitutional rights (or potentially so) is shown in an interesting article on women's suffrage. It is ever more important when the stakes are congressional power. 

These are things to think about when planning for the future. The time to start planning a long-term response to current problems is yesterday.  Here is a good top 10 list. I'm unsure how much debate many will have with it, except for the expansion of the Supreme Court. It's a question of how. 

Dan Froomkin (generally a good read) also cites another person, providing three categories:

The first is the post-Watergate model, which primarily involves codifying unwritten norms in legislation and executive branch rules. The second is the politically treacherous path of judicial reform. The third, amending the Constitution, is only a dim possibility but still useful to consider, because some of the problems highlighted by Trump lie in the Constitution itself.

The "norms" thing is important. Trump is significant in that he is willing to say "fuck you" to norms. Mitch McConnell did too with Merrick Garland. Democrats are more wary, being more about productive governing, but that can be taken too far. It also gets them a lot of scorn.

Froomkin notes that, in the short term, noncompliance is one method of resistance. Consider how slaves used that tool. If slaves can, people with more power can do it as well. More about the current situation in D.C. is found here. 

The immediate concern here is Trump (including Putin owning him in Alaska, when in a sane world, Putin would be arrested for human rights violations, including illegal aggressive war). There are wider lessons. For instance, what do you do in Florida or Texas if you support trans rights?

My three rules continue to hold: point out a problem, find a way to address it (short and long term), and explain how you would handle things if given the chance.  All matter, but doing only one isn't enough.

===

Note: The last two links are two LGM entries by the latest reasonable addition, who, by chance or not, is again a woman. They often talked about foreign policy issues. And, they are my favorite additions to the blog. One was replaced by the blog's weak leak, whose purpose often seems to be to troll. 

More Animus Against Trans People

A second a related point is that laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. "[I]f the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." 

There is a constitutional line of cases, which Justice Kennedy repeatedly applied in cases involving gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, that deems laws motivated by animus as not providing a legitimate state purpose. 

Laws have to meet a low rational basis bar unless fundamental rights are involved. I have argued "low" doesn't mean "none," but it doesn't take much at all to meet the test without more. However, other red flags might arise. Animus is one such red flag.

The animus cases included disputes involving hippies, intellectually disabled people, and LGB individuals.  These days, the principle is also sometimes used to flag religious animus, at times dubiously.  

One red flag for animus is that a law is not a good fit (underinclusive or overbroad) to the alleged neutral interests. The blanket anti-LGB (now likely with a "T") law in Romer v. Evans was quite excessive for the narrow interests (such as privacy) asserted. 

Animus can also be shown by something being gratuitously offensive. Consider this recent news:

The US Air Force is denying early retirement to all transgender service members with 15-18 years of military service, opting instead to force them out with no retirement benefits.

Why is this necessary? See also this:

The Air Force says in a new memo that transgender airmen ousted under a recent Trump administration directive will no longer have the chance to argue before a board of their peers for the right to continue serving their country.

“I’ve seen people with three DUIs retained, I’ve seen people that beat their wives retained, I’ve seen all kinds of people retained because the board is empowered to retain anyone for any reason if they feel it’s in the best interest of the service,” she said.

Animus against trans people is common these days. Courts have deemed it appropriate, ignoring red flags. The Supreme Court, by the usual split, in May lifted an injunction blocking the anti-trans military policy. We shall see how much room lower courts have to maneuver here.  

The Trump Administration overturned a Biden Administration policy respecting trans service personnel.  The Trump Administration alleges trans people are not "physically or mentally prepared to serve." They are allegedly immoral liars.

Animus against trans people is immoral. Millions of people are trans. They have friends and loved ones who make the number of people directly harmed that much larger. This is not some sort of DEI thing, though again, DEI(A) is a good thing, anyway. 

It is our responsibility, including those with power, to respect and protect the rights of trans people. They deserve the level of dignity and respect that everyone does. A sane and sensible government recognizes this.

The Putin-Trump Presser (Comment)

I think it is worth noting for the record that a war criminal, guilty of the waging of aggressive war, identified at Nuremberg as the “supreme war crime”, whose aggressive war is *still going on”, just landed on American soil, shook hands with the president, and flew off unmolested. Fuck.

Yup. 

SCOTUS Watch

2025 Schedule

It is that time of the summer -- time to start thinking about the next Supreme Court term. 

After a longer delay than usual, apparently, the opening two oral argument schedules have been posted. It involves some important issues. There is also a new look.

The website is slowly being improved. One goal of mine is for orders not to just be screenshots. They should have links to the docket pages. 

Also, again, for some reason, they did not post permanent screenshots of pages linked in opinions. They did in the past. The page is empty now.

Meanwhile, AOL is ending dial-up. 

On the Shadow Docket

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down a request from a tech industry group to temporarily bar Mississippi from enforcing a state law that restricts access by young people to social media. In a brief, unsigned order, the justices allowed the state to continue to enforce the law against major social media sites, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, X, Reddit, and YouTube, while litigation continues in the lower courts.

Kavanaugh decided to drop a concurrence noting the law is likely unconstitutional, but (citing a few pages from a brief), holding up the law was not suitable. 

Steve Vladeck on Bluesky called out SCOTUS for explaining themselves, making it seem they are applying the rules arbitrarily. Kavanaugh sometimes explaining himself does not help much.

A liberal professor sees nothing wrong with the law. The major concern with the order is the inconsistency of the shadow docket. Or whatever you want to call it.

There are various possible problems with such laws. Sometimes, the age software is a problem for adults. 

The state sometimes includes speech that is fit for minors among the blocked material, including LGBTQ and safe sex material. Some comparable laws have been used against drag. 

The devil is in the details. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court should be less shadowy. 

Summer Orders

The second summer order list will be released on Monday. It is likely to be nothing much. 

If it isn't, I will add more. [Nothing of note.]

Let's Make D.C. A State

Trump attacked D.C. as a criminal hellscape even though crime rates are at a historical low. He took advantage (see link) of the complicated law in place to "take over" the police functions there. I use those quotes advisedly.

He cannot permanently take control. Nonetheless, there are various ways he can interfere with local control. Also, he can bullshit about the hellscape part. Both are bad.

The catalyst of this specific activity appears to be (though maybe they were planning it anyway) an attempted carjacking involving a former DOGE worker with a stupid nickname. The incident happened, even if he exaggerated it. 

Some data points don't change the overall fact that D.C. is not a hellscape. Or, that interfering with local government is wrong. We saw a preview of this a couple of years ago when some Democrats (a supermajority in the Senate, only a small fraction in the House) blocked a local crime bill. 

One message that recent events show is that we need to have D.C. statehood. I have supported something less (home rule + a voting member of the House), but realistically, that would require a constitutional amendment. Statehood is the easiest way to defend voting rights and home rule. 

The population warrants a voting House member, hopefully someone else than the current one, who is nearing ninety and is way past her prime. 

Statehood brings a few other things, but I don't think they are problematic with a few other states with similar populations in place. The fact that D.C. has less unpopulated land doesn't do much for me. 

(We can amend the Constitution to overturn the 23rd Amendment, but Congress can also just allot the electors by national population. So, that is not much of a problem.)

Someone elsewhere argued the current Supreme Court would not accept making D.C. a state. I think there are no good reasons constitutionally to deny statehood. But, stupidity is not a barrier for this Supreme Court. If so, that will provide an incentive to do something about the Court.

Short term, Trump can only do so much regarding D.C., and what he announced is, to some significant degree, a lot of blather. Longer term, it suggests that among the changes made should include D.C. statehood. The two senators will partially help to balance out the misapportioned Senate.  

It is also a learning opportunity regarding talking about crime and what to do about it. We can continue to blather on about how "defund the police" is a stupid slogan. Either way, reducing the footprint of the police will promote public safety and police efficiency.  

And, tangentially, we should get a clear statement from Puerto Rico on what it wants to do regarding statehood. Puerto Rico repeatedly comes up in these discussions. Size-wise, at least, there is no complication regarding its "state-worthiness." 

Finally, in regard to "no taxation without representation" and all that, can territorial citizens overall finally be able to vote for president? Thinly populated territories might be too small to become states. They should have basic voting rights.  

(SCOTUS overturning the Insular Cases can help in the battle to treat overseas territories as equal partners)

And, yes, Trump is a convicted felon, and should be convicted of a lot more. He commuted and pardoned over 1000 people involved in the biggest crime in D.C. history. There is a big degree of “yeah right” to him fighting crime in D.C. 

Two Things, One Good, One Bad

I discussed in more detail a possible botched execution last week. 

After there were women officials in other sports (including football), we finally had the first woman umpire in a MLB game. 

They Only Kill Their Masters

This film was on TCM. 

Good group of character actors. Seriously. The film is almost like a Murder She Wrote episode regarding the number of classic film actors in supporting roles.

Garner (in his autobiography) once ranked his films. This received 2/5, but he didn't want to talk about it. That is likely to lead people to wonder why. 

I would probably rank it 3/5 on that scale for the cast, setting, and the plot for much of the film. It was an enjoyable, deliberate mystery taking part in a small town. It was a very good role for James Garner.

[The film does go in an annoying direction, so I might give it 2.5. OTOH, lots of 3/5 films have flaws. That sort of film is decent, taking everything into consideration. So, the bad stuff is averaged in.] 

The film, in a limited fashion, involves bisexuality/lesbianism, which is put in a bad light given the plot. Some people will be a bit shocked at who the killer turns out to be. At least given who plays the role. Garner's character, at one point, out of nowhere (really), references not being a "faggot" for some reason. I was a bit taken aback.

Anyway, the film was enjoyably moseying along [I was watching it late at night], and then it hit into stupid plot point territory. Garner's character not only made a misguided assumption (or three) but also did something dangerously stupid. 

It ruined things for me, and I shut it off. I checked Wikipedia to see what happened. The solution to the mystery was unpleasant and somewhat lame. Plus, there is the "small town has a dark side" flavor there. Finally, how many seems fine but has a creepy side roles has Hal Holbrook done?  

We also have another case of the gratuitous shooting of a guilty party. Television and film don't need the death penalty with all the people being shot dead. 

So, I enjoyed the movie until I didn't. James Garner was overall very good. Not sure why he didn't want to talk about it. Probably something personal, including conflict with a cast member or the like.  

There is a "title drop" (involving a dog) early in the film. As noted in Wikipedia, there were multiple (failed) attempts to use the general concept as the basis of a series (using different actors). I can see it. 

Nixon Resigned, What A Piker

President Nixon resigned OTD 51 years ago. The Supreme Court had shortly before handed down a unanimous opinion (one justice recused), written by the Chief Justice he nominated, requiring him to release the Watergate Tapes. 

The district court ordered the tapes to be turned over on May 31. Both sides appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on July 8. The opinion was handed down on July 24. And, again, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. 

(His vice president was Gerald Ford. Ford wasn't great in some ways. He earlier tried to get Justice William Douglas impeached. Ford pardoned Nixon. But, let's say Ford is no James David Vance.) 

There is little reason to think this would happen this time. The Roberts Courts over and over again slow-walked Trump cases to his benefit. They repeatedly ran out the clock. Trump, in that situation, very well could have finished his term. Two months on an accelerated basis for Trump v. U.S. could have meant an early February 2024 opinion.

Two Trump judges slow-walked for months an appeal of criminal contempt proceedings arising out of interference with a federal district court. The case involved illegally sending people to a foreign hellhole. 

A human rights violation, among other things. When will there be justice for that? Is never good for you? 

If you check out the beginning of the opinion, one name might seem familiar. Emil Bove. The f-ing asshole, to use his language, who 50 Republicans (one not voting) decided to confirm to the court of appeals for a good behavior tenured position even though there were repeated red flags. 

The decision is held up for months, but is released shortly after he is confirmed. Huh. It must merely be a coincidence. BTW, in a more just world, Judge Pillard (who wrote the dissent) would have been Ginsburg's replacement on the Supreme Court. 

Executive overreach is a real concern--perhaps now more than ever--it does not justify the judiciary responding in kind.

A conservative (sometimes labeled "libertarian") who now and then notes he is not a fan of Trump recently, somewhat sarcastically, replied to complaints that the Supreme Court is appeasing Trump. Sure. 

Executive overreach is a concern, "perhaps" it is particularly so now, but that doesn't mean the judiciary should respond too strongly. Both sides do it! He, without comment, posted the news of the court of appeals judgment.  

I think a "conservative" supports the rule of law, including not ignoring court rulings in fact and spirit. We have no Barry Goldwaters in Congress these days. We have some actual conservatives in the judiciary. Not those two.   

The specific thing addressed here is, on some level, ridiculously limited. No one ultimately got a criminal contempt. It was ultimately a statement of judicial principle. If they did, Trump could have pardoned them. The bare minimum, however, was blocked on bullshit grounds.  

Less than five years after urging rioters to “kill” police at the Capitol, a former Jan. 6 defendant is working as a senior adviser for the Department of Justice, which has been dramatically remade under the second Trump administration.

NPR has a striking, well-researched article on this guy. He isn't some simple schmuck. He had long-term federal service before he engaged in an insurrection, which under the terms of the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment should mean he was constitutionally unqualified for his latest position. The Supreme Court, however, blocked that. 

The specific decision discussed here is likely to be appealed to the full D.C. Circuit, which has a clear liberal majority. It was statistically rather strange that Trump had a 2-1 panel. And then, perhaps in another year, the Supreme Court will find it moot or something. 

Anyway, as a guy said in The Whole Nine Years, this is some shit. The battle continues, including the battle to try to get us to a world halfway like the one where Nixon got his comeuppance, helped by a Supreme Court doing its job. 

I refuse to think that will happen "never." 

The Makeover

 

A Hallmark Hall of Fame film from 2012 with Julia Stiles and Camryn Manheim (supporting role). Stiles plays uptight well. Good cast. Overall, enjoyable, with a bit of a twist near the end. 

Sedition and Shadow Institutions

Sedition: How America's Constitutional Order Emerged from Violent Crisis discusses multiple instances of "a factious commotion of people, or a tumultuous assembly of men rising in opposition to law or the administration of justice, and in disturbance of the public peace"* involving state and local governments. The instances include the Dorr's Rebellion in Rhode Island and three instances in the South during and after Reconstruction. 

The book argues that we should pay more attention to threats to state and local governments. They are a type of canary in the coal mine. They are also more fragile, partially because we respect and sometimes even worship the nation's authority more. 

We are at a perilous moment now and some are starting to talk about the moral necessity about resisting the government. I offer a suggestion about using "shadow institutions" in this effort. The details are sketchy, but I do think it has some potential.  

(I also reference my answer to someone who was upset about a passage reference to "natural" rights, which tends to trigger some people. I felt the reply largely beside the point but did allow me to blather.)

Anyway, the general idea is that if the government we have is not acting legitimately, we need to provide shadow institutions that provide another way. The institutions also need to have some legitimacy and reasonable claim of popular representation. 

So, for instance, the Democratic Party and state/local governments can play a role. Nonetheless, sometimes private groups earn their legitimacy by popular support. The possibility of "popular constitutionalism" by alternative methods was suggested by Mark Tushnet in a book written pre-Barrett. 

We need to think creatively. 

==

* The book also provides a dictionary definition of treason, insurrection, and rebellion. 

Treason is an attempt to overthrow a government by someone who owes allegiance to said government.  

Insurrection is "open and active opposition of a number of persons [how many?] to the execution of law in a city or state." Rebellion is "open resistance to lawful authority." 

Both, as we saw with discussions related to 1/6, realistically need some degree of scale. 

August Sixth

Three important things happened today over the years. Other things happened. These things stand out.

Hiroshima

A nuclear bomb was dropped on Japan in 1945. We have since then debated if it was just to do so.

One analysis today suggests the Soviet Union's entering the war factored in. Experts still debating suggest that just maybe people in the midst of things acted reasonably. 

Not necessarily correctly. But 20/20 hindsight is easier than a decision in the middle of a world war. 

Voting Rights Act 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a fundamental defense of basic republican values. Voting rights are still threatened today. Rick Hasen's right-to-vote amendment idea (and his book discussing it) is worthwhile. 

I think the current Constitution protects a right to vote, but it has not been adequately applied in recent years. An amendment could also address such things as people in territories not being able to vote for president. 

A new Voting Rights Act is a fundamental goal when sanity returns to the national government.  

Bin Laden 

Today was also the date of the infamous "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US" presidential daily brief. 

The Bush Administration assured us no one would have expected something like that. See also, the chance Iraq II would go badly. No one expected that!

I am not going to say that President Gore would have stopped the attacks. There was reason to think Clinton/Gore were paying more attention to the overall threat of Bin Laden. But it assumes too much to think Gore would have stopped 9/11. 

It is more likely that the Gore Administration would have focused on Afghanistan and not invaded Iraq. How Gore would have handled Afghanistan -- it lingered on until the Biden Administration -- is also unclear. Some are a bit too cocksure about things. 

Here is a discussion on 9/11/21. 

Byron Black Execution (and Old Trans Rights Case)

On Tuesday morning, Tennessee plans to execute Byron Black for the March 1988 murders of Angela Clay and her two children. The killings were motivated by Black’s anger and jealousy over the prospect that Clay, whom he had dated, was going to reconcile with her husband.

A Justia/Verdict essay helps me out by discussing the latest execution. Toss in my time-old opposition to executing people decades (20+ years is a sound dividing line) as Justice Breyer (with Ginsburg; Stevens did so earlier) explained. 

Many horrible crimes are motivated by personal grievances. They also provide fewer reasons to execute the offenders. Deterrence is harder, and personal grievance is an emotional impulse that is less aggravating than some other things. 

Black is allegedly intellectually disabled (that is, enough to make execution unwarranted), is suffering from many serious ailments, including dementia (another de facto euthanasia execution), and there is evidence that this specific execution would cause a special degree of pain and suffering.  

All of those health problems are aggravated by executing someone almost forty years later.  I'm not saying we should execute people, but do so sooner. OTOH, we do have something of the worst of both worlds now. This is more euthanasia than execution.  

I guess some will say "okay?" Arbitrary euthanasia is a problem, however, even if you support euthanasia. 

Black had some final Hail Mary claims, and SCOTUS disposed of them [8/4] all without comment. I continue, especially in cases like this, with notable facts, I am bothered by the Supreme Court saying nothing when they open up the path to taking a life.  

ETA: There is clear evidence that the execution was botched. It was quite likely preventable. And, no justice said a bloody word. F that. 

Farmer was the first transgender plaintiff known to have a case heard by the Supreme Court, and her lawsuit was the first time that the court addressed the issue of sexual assault in prison. And it laid the groundwork for the landmark Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003.

A recent article provides an interesting discussion of this 1990s case. For instance, she was a pro se litigant who won the SCOTUS cert lottery. Years after she sort of won her case, she lost on the merits, though key records were "lost," tainting the results. 

It is also appreciated that the Supreme Court as a whole respectfully treated a trans person. The majority did not use pronouns, though two concurring opinions (including Blackmun's, who provided the most liberal support of protecting prisoner rights) did use masculine pronouns.  

Another issue, which in a better world would have been another Eighth Amendment violation, is her sentence for non-violent offenses:

In 1985, she was arrested and charged in state and federal courts with separate crimes related to the scheme: theft, burglary, and passing bad checks in state court; credit card fraud in federal court. She pleaded guilty, thinking the judge would order her various sentences to run at the same time. He did not. At 21, Farmer was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison, to be followed by 30 years in Maryland state prison.

That's obscene. 

"Even the Liberal ABA"

Republican senators, minus two, cowardly and corruptly confirmed Emil Bove, who is blatantly unfit for the federal court of appeals. We shall see if federal judges thinking about retirement will follow that mindset. I have limited hope in that respect. 

One defense of Emil Bove is that "even the liberal American Bar Association" deemed him "well qualified." It is a tad ironic that the ABA is used this way when the Trump Administration limited its role in vetting nominees. 

The ranking of nominees notes that a majority of the ABA Standing Committee ranked him as "well qualified." A minority said he was "qualified," noting "insufficient information." 

Fitness for judicial office is not merely a matter of paper legal qualifications and experience. It is how he has been acting that is concerning. Anyway, mere "qualifications" will not lead Trump to nominate liberal judicial candidates. That underlines the point. 

The  ABA supports various liberal policies on issues like abortion and has criticized Trump as threatening the rule of law. Conservatives label them as "liberal." It is officially nonpartisan. Which is de facto left and woke in the minds of some conservatives. 

Anyway, citing Bove a "well qualified" underlines the limitations of that ranking. There has to be an understanding of what that means, including for the specific position. He is not qualified. The ABA ranking is at best misleading.

I think the ABA having a role in ranking judicial nominees is fine. I would not deem their rankings an irrefutable presumption in either direction. In this case, it is being used as an often not in good faith (the people would otherwise have little respect for such rankings if it were a Democratic nominee) fashion. 

Anyway, unqualified. Plus, the confirmation process had been sloppy and rushed. More and more evidence is coming out about that. Whatever the ABA says.

Friends XXX Parody

I like the show Friends and have seen episodes over and over again. I generally skip the first and tenth seasons, though there are a few episodes from those seasons that are fine. It is comfortable food television, even with all its issues. 

For instance, Rachel gets pregnant and suddenly becomes conservative. Well, romantically and sexually. This is someone who has sex on first dates. Now, when she gets horny mid-way (before she is showing), she can't REALLY have sex with anyone? She is appalled at the idea when Phoebe brings a virgin guy to have sex with her. 

Rachel goes on a date early in the pregnancy and feels compelled to tell the guy. This, obviously, ruins the whole thing. Why is she obliged to do this on a first date? I can go on, but this sort of thing bothers me.  

I saw two shortened porn clips involving a Friends parody on Pornhub. One involves the women, the other Monica/Rachel, and Joey. The characters don't really look the part, but they do a decent job of it. Chandler/Joey gave the big apartment back for just a minute of Monica/Rachel kissing. Imagine if they could see all three having sex?

(There was that episode when they had free porn. Note the film discussed below also has a scene with the three women, though that one has a guy too.)

There are many full-length parodies of many different films and television shows. There obviously would be one of Friends. The video provides basically the film without the porn. So, it is under twenty minutes long. 

You can read a Vulture review, get a summary of the sex scenes, and a Wikipedia summary (you can translate it). There is also a way to get a free preview (about a minute) of the film. Also, yes, I can see the porn actor (in a bunch of things) who they picked to play Ugly Naked Guy. He works.

The summary makes a comment that the film does a decent job, but does not provide much of a fantasy experience keyed to the show itself. The characters (with their clothes on) are reasonably comparable to the original, but the sex scenes often are just that. They are not that character-specific. 

For instance, the Chandler and Monica characters ("Monica" dressed looks decently like the original) have sex. Basically, like any two people would have sex. The Monica character has a lot of tattoo art, apparently, which is a thing these days. Not a fan. Anyway, that sort of ruins the fantasy. 

The film was made long after "doing a Monica" would be a topical reference. Monica here does do that, though her porn name is more about her moaning. She did some moaning on the show when Phoebe gave her a massage. On the show, there is a Mona, who is pretty cute. 

The show was not political, though it made a few references to Bill Clinton. They couldn't make one reference to her being named Monica? In the 1990s? 

The film clip (again, it's PG) shows the two apartments and the coffeehouse (given a stupid LA name here). They do a pretty good job with the apartments. For some reason, however, they put a big window in the main area of the guy's apartment. No idea why from watching the film clip.

Okay, just to toss it in, Ross gets to have a threesome with Carol/Susan (or whatever they call her), and this time [unlike on the series] he has fun. Joey has sex with Ross/Monica's mom (more of a MILF here). And, the foursome with the women and Ugly Naked Guy (not too ugly here) goes a long time.

Those are decent choices, though I think many fans have different possibilities in mind. For instance, when they all find out Monica/Chandler was dating, there was an amusing bit where Chandler and Phoebe played a game of chicken regarding faking liking each other.  What if they actually had sex?  

IRL, Matthew Perry said in his autobiography that he had a crush (not returned) on Jennifer Aniston. Those two characters having sex would be ... strange. But, they did kiss (college flashback), and Rachel (before she got married) thought about having sex with him!

One thing I didn't like about the series was that after Chandler/Janice broke up (after a charming subplot where Chandler truly fell for her), they just kept on having the same plot of Chandler being disgusted by her. There are two serious exceptions, but that is generally the nature of her once-a-season experiences from then on. Why can't he move on and remember the good times? Maybe in the final appearance?  

Is there a fan fiction where Chandler and Janice hook up again, perhaps when Chandler and Monica have some marriage problems? After all, Janice even tells him to call her in that episode after he's engaged and all three have dinner with each other.  

Janice would be a good character in a porn -- her "OMG" would fit well in the bedroom. After all, Joey in one episode says she is loud. Oh. On the show, she hooks up with Ross. A Joey/Chandler/Janice threesome (to show Joey is okay with her!) would be a possible scene. More can be imagined. 

Ross got in trouble saying Rachel's name at his second wedding. Maybe he can turn things around and say Emily's name in the bedroom with Rachel? On the show, there actually is a video of Ross/Rachel having sex, which they watch. Maybe we can see that?

The show has various other risque opportunities for sex scenes. Monica, in an early episode, has sex with a teenager (IRL, he was in his 20s). Phoebe's half-brother marries his much older teacher (on the show, they keep on making out). Phoebe's twin sister in one episode even starts making amateur porn using her name! Why not have Phoebe fill in one time?!

Oh well, if we are talking about fantasy, I would change various things, including ending the series about a season earlier. But this has gone on long enough. The one where Joey tells Rachel he fell in love with her is airing now. If only they didn't go ahead and have Rachel fall for him later. Blah. 

Heavily pregnant Rachel having sex ... some people like pregnancy porn. And, come on, Rachel not having sex her full pregnancy is just silly.  

Federal Employee Religious Speech Memo

Yesterday, the federal Office of Personnel Management issued a memo (full text) to heads of federal departments and agencies on Protecting Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace.

I saw this matter flagged earlier this week. It did not seem at first blush to be too problematic. The ability to express religious beliefs at the workplace is a given. This would include something like a sign on your desk or a religious portrait on your office wall. 

The memo also said one or more employees should be allowed to engage in individual or communal religious expressions and that employees can engage in conversations on religious topics “including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature.”

The thing that gave me pause was the specific emphasis on the ability to proselytize at the workplace. I figured that employees would have a right to talk about religious matters. 

There is that "harassing" limit. Still, emphasizing it seemed to me to be akin to the government encouraging it. And, enforcing the harassment rule can be difficult, especially if a person is hesitant to complain.  

The new policy notes:

“During a break, an employee may engage another in polite discussion of why his faith is correct and why the non-adherent should re-think his religious beliefs. However, if the nonadherent requests such attempts to stop, the employee should honor the request,” the memo added. “An employee may invite another to worship at her church despite being belonging to a different faith.”

I do not know how you necessarily prevent that sort of thing. Do you tell employees, who can talk about their beliefs about various matters (religious and non-religious), not to talk about religion? 

I still am wary about so much emphasis that proselytizing would seem to be normal at work. The workplace is not a great place for that sort of thing. 

Stephen Colbert covered this in his monologue (clearly finding the whole thing a problem) and flagged that promoting religion over history has caused difficulties. I appreciate him covering something that many people are not aware of. 

He also argued that the memo had a Christian bias, though it cited something that referenced a Jewish object (mezuzahs). As noted by The Hill, "The memo, first reported on by Fox News Digital, follows Trump’s executive order on anti-Christian bias, which aims to protect Christians from religious discrimination."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation strongly opposes the new policy. For instance, they flagged that there will be inherent pressure when a superior communicates with an underling, including (to cite an example provided by the government) inviting them to religious services. 

An explanatory appendix specifically cited as an example that a supervisor may post a handwritten note inviting each of his employees to attend an Easter service at his church. Purely voluntary!  

There is also this sort of thing:

Examples of how religious expression may be directed at members of the public include: “A park ranger leading a tour through a national park may join her tour group in prayer. A doctor at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital may pray over his patient for her recovery. A receptionist in a doctor’s office at a VA Medical Center may pray with a co-worker in the patients’ waiting area.”

The ranger example sounds like the "praying coach" case, where a public employee engaging in prayer with students was framed as a matter of private speech. The phrasing is opaque. It would be more blatant if the park ranger led the group in prayer. 

People do have the right to pray at work, including Muslims who have personal obligations to do so multiple times a day. The waiting area example, however, potentially interferes with unwilling listeners. Listeners who are unlikely to complain. 

A doctor praying over a patient seems acceptable, though some patients might not want to be prayed over. This emphasizes my concern that this policy encourages as much as it neutrally states what is allowed. Anyway, is there really much of a problem now if a doctor decides to pray for a patient, unless (maybe) they do so in an excessively showy way?  

FFRF worried that atheists would not be protected because a policy to protect "religion" and not all beliefs and communication might not cover atheism. We should be wary about certain beliefs being disrespected. 

Still, I think the law recognizes that atheism is protected as a matter of religious freedom. The freedom of religion includes arguments that religion itself is wrong. People who do not believe in any sort of god also belong to various religions, including Unitarian-Universalists. Some Jews practice Jewish rituals and follow kosher rules while being atheists. 

Atheism has in the past been generally protected under the "religion" rubric. Nontheistic ethical societies have been treated as religions for tax breaks and other purposes. If people could not talk about atheism, try to convert, welcome people to meetings, and distribute atheistic materials, it would be discriminatory. Be sure that some will make sure that it is known.

My immediate reaction was that this memo had a gratuitous character. It was a way for the Trump Administration to show they were religious (likely interpreted by many supporters as "Christian") friendly. I still think that in some ways.

The coverage, however, makes me concerned about certain aspects of the memorandum. It has an evangelical Christian bias, especially as it is likely to be applied by this Administration. 

Religion is a touchy subject. It should be carefully handled. Those currently in power are not the sort of people I trust with doing so wisely.  

Justice Souter Remembered

Strict Scrutiny Podcast during the summer has an opening news segment and follows up with an interview. The latest involved two Souter clerks talking about the recently deceased justice. 

Souter is probably my favorite modern-day justice. I was wary about him when he was confirmed. Why would I not? I was younger, and any nomination by a Republican president, especially to replace William Brennan, would be a problem. 

Souter had some dubious early votes, including Rust v. Sullivan. Still, he was part of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey (abortion) plurality and soon was fairly consistently voting with the liberals. He was no Brennan. But he was overall very good, including on the separation of church and state. 

I also like Souter's personality. He is more personable than I am. I am less of a Luddite. But his quiet, studious, and friendly character is something I firmly support.  Souter is the justice that I can most relate to in various respects.

He did join the majority in Payne v. Tennessee (1991), helping to overturn a couple of recent opinions involving victim impact statements. This was Justice Marshall's swan song, and his dissent was a somewhat hypocritical paean on stare decisis. As if honestly worried about that as a neutral principle

Marshall was worried about the new membership overturning various 5-4 majority opinions that he liked. And, though perhaps not quite the ones he specifically listed, that would happen in time. Roe v. Wade, one opinion he felt was doomed, was saved in the short term after he retired. 

Souter was later concerned about the lengths taken to produce victim impact statements. Payne himself was not executed. He was due to be executed in 2020, and then it was delayed due to COVID. Ultimately, his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. 

Payne, even after all this time, is not even sixty years old. His ultimate fate is also a reminder that a Supreme Court opinion is not the end of the line. 

Different favorite Souter opinions were cited, including one involving voting rights (voter ID) and another concerning DNA testing. The dissent was something of a swan song involving Souter's support of substantive due process and common law judging. 

Souter supported the challenge on a narrower ground than the other liberals. He was open to a constitutional claim developing, but was careful about declaring it was already established. I have seen someone arguing that this 2009 dissent was a subtweet about same sex marriage. The law needs to get used to certain things.

This liberal judicial humility was sort of Brennan-lite and reflected in his famous Harvard speech. Again, I firmly agree. I have some broad views, but recognize there are some limitations about applying them.  

Souter was also known for his humor, somewhat dry and self-effacing. A famous case was when someone confused him with Justice Breyer. 

I have talked about Souter before, but we need to keep on remembering role models in these times. 

ETA: Justice Souter was originally given the dissent in the Citizens United case, but the majority expanded the stakes. Justice Stevens later said he used a chunk of Souter's original dissent in writing his own.

There appears to be some behind-the-scenes shenanigans in a voting rights case that the Supreme Court set for reargument. They got around to (late Friday in August) to flag what they have in mind. 

Richard Hasen and others are worried.  

Mets Trading Deadline

 

They picked up a decent CF, who was, eh, this season as a rental. They also received (giving up some prospects and a reliever) three rental relievers, one of whom at least is a stud. Fine. But they need a starter, and the bat is not really exciting. My grade is B-.