Couple Things

Finding My Way (Malala Y) is well written. It has a lot of personal details. I would be embarrassed. I do not keep track of NYC political events. I should. I don't. The City Council is wrong here, ethically. I voted "no" since I wasn't quite sure. But, sort of deserve to lose.

Trump Odds and Ends

The Trump Justice Department regularly lied to and didn't follow the orders of courts. 

(This should matter, right?) 

Prince (for now) Andrew is having his royal title (basically symbolic) stripped because of his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. 

OTOH, Mike Johnson is keeping the House of Representatives in session and not swearing in a new Democratic representative, partially to prevent a measure from releasing the Epstein papers. 

Even in the friendliest polls, Cuomo has the smallest enthusiastic base of any candidate. Curtis Sliwa has more people excited to vote for him. Cuomo’s only shot is patching together enough voters who fear or despise his opponent enough to accept him by default. He has nothing to offer for the future, just a cynical warning that we cannot trust it to someone else.

But that same need to control has brought him here: stuck in a race he’s unlikely to win, for a job he never really wanted. And that’s because Cuomo can see everyone’s faults but his own. He doesn’t show humility. He rarely apologizes. And if you never admit mistakes, you never learn from them. You never evolve.

Okay. Let's move on from this ugliness.

The Supreme Court has found another possible "this goes too far" bit regarding Trump sending troops into our cities. At least, eventually. 

Don't worry. As a whole, the Supreme Court (6-3 much of the time) has supported Trump while expanding its power, including against the lower courts. 

Time for court reform.

ETA: Some SCOTUS addendum stuff.

A media advisory dropped regarding seating for a Trump firing case, underscoring the expectation it will be a well-watched oral argument. Press seating will be by assignment only. All cases aren't equal.

It could take years to have a bound copy of a term's opinions. Now, they start providing bound pages during the term. The final opinions for the 2024 Term are now available with the page numbers. 

Oral arguments begin again on Monday. 

Florida Executes Norman Mearle Grim

Norman Mearle Grim Jr., 65, died by lethal injection at Florida State Prison near Starke at 6:14 p.m., according to the state's Department of Corrections. He was convicted of sexual battery and first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1998 killing of his neighbor, Cynthia Campbell.

The crime is horrible, and his guilt is clear. It is not surprising that the jury sentenced him to death. He's white, so there does not appear to be a racism issue. 

Florida is leading the way in executions this year (15 so far, over five in Texas and Alabama), slowly chipping away at that long (and, as Breyer and Stevens said,  probably unconstitutional) backlog. 

Multiple articles do not provide much else to challenge this execution. Organizations against the death penalty flagged that he did not functionally have legal representation for years.  He ultimately waived final appeals. So no final SCOTUS order. 

An earlier brief noted:

The Appellant, Norman Grim, wants to die. That makes this an unusual capital case.  He was convicted of committing a first degree murder and sexual battery, but he refused to let his attorney present any mitigating evidence or argument at the penalty phase hearing.  

(Provides some possible mitigating evidence.) 

The execution of someone in their 60s, who has been in prison for the crime for approaching thirty years, in this case, comes off as semi-voluntary euthanasia. If that sort of thing, in a system that is a sort of arbitrary lottery, even if individual cases seem acceptable, is fine, perhaps the execution was fine.  

Four executions, as of now, are on tap for November. Florida has two of them. 

No Habeas For Chimps

An intermediate Michigan court unsurprisingly rejected a habeas appeal for chimpanzees. 

The claim was raised to obtain liberty for some chimpanzees allegedly being mistreated in a zoo. There are rules in place for the mistreatment of animals. Habeas protections provide a special level of protection against unjust detention. 

As part of the same framework, the common law treated animals as objects of property. Blackstone defined property as “that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.” 

It is offensive that all animals, even chimpanzees, are treated as merely "property." Again, there are cruelty to animals laws that suggest they are at least a special species (ha) of property. This traditional despotic power is tempered somewhat in the modern day. 

I talked about this issue a few years ago when the highest court in New York rejected a similar claim as applied to an elephant. The Michigan Court of Appeals likewise worried about line-drawing for "intelligent" animals. 

Unlike the human species, which has the capacity to accept social responsibilities and legal duties, nonhuman animals cannot—neither individually nor collectively—be held legally accountable or required to fulfill obligations imposed by law.

And, noted non-humans are different in kind from women and slaves of all sexes (both are "persons" according to the Constitution). Such language can be pushed back upon. Babies are "persons" too, after all. But, generally speaking, yes, not the same, exactly.

Non-human animals, we can debate the line-drawing,* should not be treated as mere property. They have the intelligence, the ability to feel pain, and other aspects that warrant protection. Humans also have personal interests that warrant the protection of other animals. 

I don't know if a traditional habeas judicial proceeding is the best avenue to protect their interests. Yes, I would couch them in terms of "rights." But they should be protected. As with minors and others unable to adequately and independently defend their interests, special advocates can be appointed for this purpose. 

The legislature or the people, by constitutional change (some foreign nations protect animals in their organic law), would be the appropriate place to secure this protection. I hold to my earlier stance.

The current law warrants holding against the challengers. OTOH, two judges in NY did dissent. 

===

* Chimps are a somewhat easy case since higher primates are so closely related, including intellectually, to humans. Nonetheless, the earlier case involved elephants. I noted there that even birds, at least parrots, have shown special intelligence. 

Vegans and vegetarians draw their line in various places. Opponents will have a field day. One recent comment referenced jellyfish. Yeah. While you eat your veal, make a big deal about worms and such.

The line is going to be, at some point, somewhat arbitrary. Nonethless, like all "slippery slopes," some lines are reasonable. The general public does not think that cruelty to animals laws are stupid.

This remains so even if they step on bugs. 

Two Meryl Wilsner Books

I briefly touched upon these two books, but since I have had some problems lately finding books, it makes sense to say a bit more. 

They were such easy reading. I read chunks of them at a time when I have repeatedly been unable to get into or complete both fiction and nonfiction. 

A pleasure sometimes when you just don't want to think too much and get into a good book. They also had some "nutritional" value, too.

Julia Roberts was on Stephen Colbert recently. I wanted to reserve this Julia Roberts film (the title, that is) and saw this book during the NYPL library search. It's a lesbian romance.

A Chinese-American showrunner and former actress (41) has a great Jewish-American assistant (27). Among other things, she "clicks" with her, and the assistant knows how to make her happy. So, she takes her to an awards show as a "buffer." 

They have a personal moment that is taken by the tabloids as a sign that they are actually an item. It takes them the rest of the book to realize that deep down they are. 

We get alternating points of view from each woman via an all-knowing narrator. I like those sorts of things -- like multiple perspectives. 

The showrunner is a successful celebrity/professional with an "ice queen" persona with a softer side. The assistant is more likely to wear her heart on her sleeve and is more at the beginning of her (promising) career path. Good match.

The book takes its time (it spans most of a year), and the attraction develops slowly. The sex scene is at the very end. Overall, I thought it was well-paced. 

It also throws in things such as sexual harassment (it was published in 2020), feminism, bestie/sister relationships, and more. And not "too much" either. 

There is a bit of an "easter egg" in that the television show involved in this book is referenced in passing in the second book. Nice drop-in for fans. 

The author's second book continues the age difference romance angle. Cassie (one review calls her a "chapstick" type) is a college senior. She's apparently bi, though she seems to lean more same sex. Erin is her bestie's mom, who is 38, bisexual, and a doctor. 

So, there is an age difference, but smaller than you might think. The bestie is a frosh. At times, from Erin's comments, you'd think she was in her 40s at least. You are 38, Erin. That is still pretty young.  

(The couple in the third book is closer in age.) 

It is like someone said, "loved your first book but hoped for more sex." This book has sex from the first chapter, which is when both thought they were just having a one-time hook-up. They have a lot of sex after that. Cassie also spends a lot of time thinking about how MILF-y Erin is.  

The book, overall, was well-paced. I liked the characters. Cassie had more engagement with other people. Erin often was by herself when the two were not together. That was somewhat unfortunate. A bit unbalanced. We get more of a sense of Cassie's life. 

Cassie had a bad childhood (father absent, trailer park/mom has issues), but found a way to create a family. That part of the book, including her dealing with some self-assurance issues, was nice. 

The college crew drinking a lot got a bit old. And, hey, it's nice, but Cassie and Erin having sex got a bit old, too. Their relationship developed into more than hook-ups. The book covered that. 

But the sex at some point got a tad repetitive. Again, it's not like I skipped over it. I think, however, the first book had more character development material. OTOH, two women enjoying sex has its place.

I'll add a bit of a spoiler since no one reads these things. At some point, the daughter obviously finds out about the romance. We then wait for the other shoe to drop. It takes a LONG time to do so. 

And, it turns out that in effect the daughter works things out "off screen!"  I think it might have been a good idea, at least for this portion, to have a section from the daughter's point of view. I know it might have required taking out a couple of sex scenes (both books are about the same length). Be worth it.  

One theme is that Erin needs to give herself the chance to be happy doing things for herself, as compared to what others expect from her. The willingness to enjoy a relationship with her daughter's friend (they are both consenting adults!) is a sign of this. Nice moment when she tells her therapist, and the therapist just says, "Okay." 

Erin expected judgment. Being a therapist is such a niche skillset. You have to handle people with serious issues and treat them correctly. You cannot judge them TOO much, but you also need to pick your spots. Of course, some mess things up. 

A final question would be if there is anything wrong with their relationship. There really isn't. 

It would be somewhat weird if your bestie turns out to be going out with your parent. But people do have relationships that overlap in comparable ways. 

A 17-year age difference might be a problem, but there are couples with that sort of age difference. Often, the problem is that the older man/younger woman relationship has a power differential. It is often less evident in same sex relationships. 

My biggest concern is that the cover photo doesn't do the characters justice. Cassie lusts after Erin regularly. I wanted a picture of her, even fully clothed! Cassie, too, but Erin sounds sexier! 

One more thing added in her second book was a firm happy ending. There is an epilogue, taking place four years later, that has a marriage proposal. 

The first book ends with them admitting to each other they like each other, having sex, and then again going to an awards show, now firmly as a date. A blurb talks about "happily ever after," but that is not assured.  

ETA: June Lockhart, well-known classic t.v. mom and doctor in Petticoat Junction, who replaced the mom when the actress died, has died at age 100.  

We need a list of really old people (Dick Van Dyke, for instance) to keep track of people who are still alive. Then, we don't need to do the "still alive?" bit.

One article, in a curious place, referenced her "cougar" past when she was 47 and dated someone 21. The relationship lasted for over five years. 

The NYT obit references her liberal beliefs, including a comment she made about the Hollywood Blacklist. 

Her Wikipedia entry (which doesn't mention the cougar bit, but I found many hits via a search) notes she was a Roman Catholic and met the pope. OTOH, she was divorced twice. Seems a tad bit off. 

But her off-screen life—bold, unapologetic, and full of joy—adds depth to a legacy that continues to inspire.

That is from the "cougar" article. Erin would agree. 

Early Voting Begins

It is that time of the year again. Early voting has begun. Around five years ago, New York began to provide ten days of early voting. 

We also have "no excuse" vote by mail. I even convinced a voting-hesitant person to use it after years of not voting. She used an option where it is automatically sent to the voter, which is an incentive to vote as compared to those who would have to personally choose to vote each time. 

New York also provides a voting guide, though it does not cover judicial races. I find that dubious. 

I understand the value of convenience. I had to walk a significant way (not too long) the first time. Now, an early voting location is five minutes away. I will man the polls on Election Day.

(There is a race for governor going on in New Jersey. One person I follow on Bluesky is scaring me by warning us that the Democrat is not putting up enough of a fight. This is where we are at. Even NJ is not totally safe regarding not voting for the Trump Party.) 

Civic Duty 

I think in-person voting is an important symbolic act.

So, a little part of me doesn't like mail-in voting. But I understand there is a value there, especially for certain voters. It is best to have various options. 

Some argue Election Day should be a holiday to help some of these voters. It makes some sense, especially given the importance of voting overall to democracy.

But early voting helps to fill in that gap. After all, many people are already off today, Saturday, the first day of early voting. I don't think a whole day off is necessary. Early voting and many voting locations will also cut down wait times and other problems. 

Overall, we have a moral duty to vote. It is our civic duty. Some people are annoyed with that claim. 

How dare you tell me I have a duty to vote! I'm not (though it might work) talking about a penalty for refusing to vote. The state doesn't penalize being mean to mom. Is a minimal thing like voting too much for citizens to manage? Perhaps this helps explain things.

A fraction of the public voting has various problems. One problem is that it encourages very partisan representatives. Low turnout in primary elections is especially problematic when they are likely the "real" election in safe districts. AOC first won her primary with a tiny fraction of the vote. 

New York City Elections 

The two big things in NYC this year are the mayoral race and some ballot measures. 

Mayoral Race 

Zohran Mamdani is favored to win the mayoral race. He is a fitting answer to the times. Put aside the exaggerated, often bullshit criticisms. The main concern is that he is too young and inexperienced. He's more experienced than the Republican choice. 

And, as Mamdani said, Cuomo's "experience" is a big part of the problem. Plus, just what experience does he have to govern New York City well? Mamdani's campaign, including being open to respectfully listening, has shown a basic quality Cuomo lacks. 

It is a good thing that Mamdani and Cuomo (who should have simply dropped out) are not the only options. Mamdani's opposition hates that the anti-Mamdani vote is split. But do we really want Republicans and independents to only have to vote for Cuomo? It's as if Bill Clinton were the alternative to a very liberal presidential option in 1996.  

I'm obviously biased, but I am honest in saying that. My Republican city councilwoman (I have not seen a single campaign sign in the neighborhood of her competition; the Democrat deserves to lose), along with the rest of the small Republican caucus, endorsed Curtis Sliwa. If nothing else, Sliwa is not an asshole, Democratic, and likes cats. 

Sliwa is still not a serious option if you truly thought Republicans had a chance. He ran unopposed in the primary, probably because they felt Cuomo would win. He didn't. Too bad, Republicans. 

Additional candidates have filed to run on other ballot lines in the general election but have not raised significant funds or polled among leading candidates. They include Irene Estrada (Conservative Party) and Joseph Hernandez (Quality of Life Party). Walden and Adams will both still appear on the ballot, despite suspending their campaigns.

Some long-shot candidate (Walden) floated himself as an alternative for a little while. He waited too long to concede he had no shot and remained on the ballot. 

Eric Adams, who wound up endorsing Cuomo, is still on the ballot. Filling out the ballot is the first time I heard of the "quality of life" party. 

The biggest question is probably whether Mamdani receives over 50% of the vote. Cuomo concedes it is a longshot for him to win with Sliwa in the race. 

I am also interested in whether Adams or anyone else will receive a significant amount of the vote. I reckon Adams' loyalists might give him a percentage or two at least. I don't expect miracles with Mamdani.

But I think he gives us a chance to obtain some good things, including a suitably strong counter to Donald Trump. Plus, Adams is so darn crooked. 

Ballot Measures 

Mamdani has played it safe lately, including not stating his opinion on the ballot measures. 

I don't think the reason was the state measure concerning the use of wilderness land for development (more land will be put aside to compensate) or one about new maps. That is, the two I supported. A sixth measure about ending off-year elections (it is not the final step, even if it passed) is challenged here. 

The three housing measures, a "gift" of sorts from Zombie Candidate (he is still on the ballot), Mayor Eric Adams, are particularly touchy since the City Council hates them. It's logical since a major point is to reduce their role, to help speed up the process. 

Affordable housing advocates support the measures, though the League of Women Voters was agnostic about one of them. A "yes" vote seems reasonable, even a good idea. Still, I was hesitant. I decided to vote "no" out of caution. 

I am wary of direct democracy, especially regarding specialty issues and/or things that warrant the balancing of interests. This issue is a reasonable exception since it specifically challenges the City Council's role, and they are self-interested. 

Other Races 

One more thing. New York has a form of instant run-off voting for city races (district attorney is a state race). It is only available during the primary. 

There are other local races. Sometimes, you could vote third party (e.g., Working Families Party) instead of voting Democratic or Republican. For whatever reason, not every candidate runs on two lines.

It helps send a message that you support that cause. Third parties in even years also need significant vote totals to remain on the ballot. That doesn't seem like an issue in 2025. A few voters are confused and want to fill in the ovals for a candidate in both places! 

Sometimes, there is a third option, such as the "Unity" Party, which is meant to be a third "unity" type alternative. Only a few people vote for these candidates. Still, as with the chance to fill in your own candidate, it is helpful to provide other options. 

The comptroller and public advocate (who is the next in line if the mayorality is vacant) are decent Democratic sorts who will win. 

The city council races are generally not in doubt. Maybe there is some upset or two possible somewhere city-wide. I would hope that maybe my city council district (after an upset last time) would go back to being Democratic. But that candidate has basically not shown up. It is annoying.  

Judges 

Two local judicial candidates are also running unopposed in my district. This is common. 

It also underlines the stupidity of judicial races being on the ballot. Some states have more active judicial elections, and there are some ethically dubious things going on. Here, it is largely just something you fill in. 

The average voter knows little or nothing about them. Not that it often matters since (you can write in a name; I usually do), there often is no actual race. 

Final Thoughts 

I continue to find it reassuring that voters have a chance to decide on Election Day. Often, yes, things seem pro forma. The winners and losers are obvious.

Enough times to matter, however, there are actual races. That happened this year, too, especially the mayoral primary race. Either way, the act of voting, our civic duty, is a wondrous thing.

Some people argue that democracy is dead now that Trump is in power. Or, at the very least, it is in suspended animation, somewhat akin to Han Solo in that Star Wars movie. Fuck that. 

I got my sticker. And, voting still matters. It is still going on. Some might want to interfere, but we don't have to let them. Happy voting. 

Tidbits

I discuss the moral argument against Trump. Something to Talk About isn't just a good film. (Her second romance is good as well and has a lot more sex. Maybe too much!)  Yippee. Good luck, Blue Jays.

Alabama Executes Anthony Todd Boyd

According to court documents, in July 1993, Boyd and with three other men kidnapped Huguley because Huguley owed them $200 for cocaine he bought from them and never paid for.

Yes, there was burning. We are talking about an extra level of cruelty. One person testified and was released in 2009. Another received life without parole. Two were sentenced to death. 

Thirty-plus years is too long (Breyer, dissenting). 

His lawyers raise various claims, including arguing that the sentence is disproportionate (there is not enough evidence to justify the death penalty) and even an innocence claim. The jury decided 10-2 for death. 

[A few more links that show there is some concern that the prosecution was not fair.]

Boyd was executed via nitrogen gas. Another person was executed for involvement in a horrible crime via a very flawed process. Particularly, a lag time of decades that taints the whole process. 

(After not saying anything regularly, we have another dissent this month, joined by all the liberals. 

Sotomayor argues that nitrogen gas is cruel and unusual. Boyd should have been executed by firing squad. Some people, including Prof. Lain, argue the firing squad is the best method, relatively speaking.) 

If he were fully guilty, thirty years in prison was quite a serious penalty. The death penalty is gratuitous. 

ETA: The Supreme Court, without comment, rejected another final appeal. Another form of this piece, focusing on the firing squad issue, can be found here. Boyd's execution fits Sotomayor's description. 

A separate order announced times for oral argument in the upcoming Trump tariffs case. 

Order List + Another Order

The Supreme Court disposes of lots of cases without comment. A few people want them to explain everything. That would be a tad silly. 

They dispose of thousands of things, including not granting patently meritless claims from (to use a legal term) kooks. My rule is that they should do it for executions and when they overturn the court below.

Some of the orders do have interesting details. Others are more trivia answers. That can be interesting too.

Friday's Order

They disposed of, without comment, an "order in pending case" on Friday. It was "application for a writ of injunction presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied." 

The case concerned a desire to have a vaccine exemption for a student because the vaccine was somehow a product of an abortion. The Supreme Court didn't say why, as noted, but these requests are rarely provided. The merits are not the issue here.

Still, of course, the subject matter catches one's eye. It turns out that decades ago that fetal tissue was used to start a cell line that was involved in the production of the vaccine. It is not clear why the abortion occurred.

It's not like someone performed an abortion for scientific experiments. Once the abortion occurs, it is unclear why a fetal tissue sample can not be used. And, as noted here from a Catholic perspective:

As a practicing Catholic, I think the moral balance of indirectly benefitting from an abortion that occurred 50 years ago in order to take a vaccine that will prevent further death in the community is a no-brainer – especially considering that so many of the over 620,000 American deaths have occurred in the most vulnerable and marginalized in our society. We need to focus on saving lives right now. We need to care for our neighbors. 

The level of indirect involvement that is cited to demand an exemption, repeatedly to harm third parties (e.g., deny insurance benefits or make it harder to obtain them), is not only infuriating, it is immoral. And, bad as a matter of free exercise law. 

Order List 

The Monday Order List is the last scheduled thing on the schedule until November 3. (Happy Birthday, Bobby, who won't read this.)  Two executions are scheduled before then, so we shall see about that.

The Order List included various housekeeping measures. Notably, Alito (cert denial) and Gorsuch (habeas, the claimant cited for abusing the privilege of free cases) didn't participate in two of the denials. 

The Supreme Court has added three new cases -- involving arbitration, gun rights, and bankruptcy. All three are relists. 

The Second Amendment case involves prosecution of drug users (controlled substances). A sympathetic claim though (1) what drugs (2) how strong is the constitutional claim? The claim is notable too because Hunter Biden's crimes involved this matter. 

Another notable thing: the justices decided to wait to determine if Little v. Hecox is moot. The trans student in the case asked the Court to do so. They will wait until after oral argument (this is fairly normal). 

Funding

The Supreme Court announced that its funding has run out, given the current Republican government shutdown. Yet again, the public information office released a statement but did not post it on the website. 

They have a press release page for that, you idiots. There is a notice on the website:

Due to a lapse of appropriations, the Supreme Court Building will be closed to the public until further notice. The Building will remain open for official business.

So, sorry SCOTUS haters, this won't stop them from skullduggery. The public is just denied entry. 

On that subject, here's the December calendar. 

NYC Ballot Proposals

New York City has six ballot measures this year. 

One is a state measure required by the state constitution that protects wilderness land. Other than Curtis Sliwa ("no" on all), there doesn't seem to be much opposition to it. Some private land is being swapped for wilderness land.

One local measure creates a centralized digital City Map maintained by the Department of City Planning. Again, there doesn't appear to be much opposition to this measure. Sliwa, notwithstanding. 

The most controversial ones, which the City Council hates, involve streamlining the process for affordable housing. Mamdani needs the support of the City Council and other groups who are not fans. 

So, he is taking a while to decide. I realize it is probably a political move as much as or more than him truly being unsure. Still, helps me be wary. 

Affordable housing advocates, from what I can tell, generally support the measures. The League of Women Voters is agnostic about one of the three measures. It is a battle of the City Council (popular control) and concerns of NIMBY-ism. 

I generally favor legislative decision-making over direct democracy. There are times when direct democracy is a valid counterbalance to legislative difficulties. I am guardedly supportive of them. 

Abortion rights in red states come to mind. OTOH, some issues are complicated policy matters that should be left to legislators, who know about such things, and can negotiate the various policy issues.

The final measure involves ending local elections in off-years. A "yes" vote is not final since the state legislature has to be involved. This makes the measure somewhat lower in temperature. 

OTOH, this "no" argument is fairly convincing. 

==

There is a 10-day period of early voting, so the time to vote is rapidly approaching. And, the vote-by-mail ballots (I know someone who has one) have already been sent out. Still, I have a bit of time to decide. 

Mark Bray and Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook

Mark Bray is an academic, historian, and activist. He was an organizer of Occupy Wall Street. 

He wrote the title book in 2017. I checked out a paperback revised version published in 2022 with a new turgid introduction by Joshua Clover (another professor and historian). The book isn't as bad, but yes, I skipped to the short "five historical lessons for anti-fascists."

1. Fascist revolutions have never succeeded. Fascists gained power legally.
2. Many anti-fascist leaders and theorists assumed fascism was simply a variant of traditional counterrevolutionary politics and didn't take it seriously until it was too late.
3. Socialist and communist leadership [might we add Democratic leadership?] was often slower to assess the threat than the rank-and-file membership. 
4. Fascism steals from left ideology, strategy, imagery, and culture (National SOCIALIST Party, etc.).
5. It doesn't take many fascists to make fascists. [Often, they are helped by more mainstream types who feel threatened.]

Mark Bray recently took his family to Spain after death threats led him to feel unsafe. Trump is big on fighting "antifa," which some argue means he is for fascism. 

Fair. 

It's a kind of politics or activity of radical opposition to the far-right that doesn't have any qualms about physically disrupting far-right demonstrations.

OTOH, the book argues that antifa (as compared to simple "antifascism") is more than the opposition of antifascism. It involves various organizational principles that many against fascism will not support. For instance, they have a limited version of free speech, supporting silencing fascists.

[Fascism is] a form of political behavior marked by obsessive pre-occupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

(Quoting Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism.) 

Mary Anne Franks, in her books, argues that we have a "cult" of free speech in this country. For instance, we support the so-called "marketplace of ideas," which is sort of a mythical ideal in practice. 

At least, we don't have a laissez-faire marketplace. Liberal free speech supporters recognize the need to heavily regulate the marketplace. Thus, the metaphor is either somewhat ironic or far from libertarian.  

Bray also notes that many people, including prisoners, do not have true free speech rights. Also, the First Amendment limits the government. Private parties play a significant role in controlling knowledge. 

Prisoners have limited free speech rights. For instance, they receive mail, usually have access to a library and other literature, and if you want, I will support their right to vote. But yes, prisoners have fewer rights. 

And, granted, there are other limits of speech (e.g., copyright), but blatant ideological limits are problematic. I also acknowledge that limits have some "political" content. Blatantly ideological limits are notably in a special category.  

The usual arguments that both Turning Point USA and Antifa groups should enjoy free speech are well-known. Bray can dismiss line-drawing arguments, but then he speaks of fascism involving the "patriarchy," and I wonder about where the Catholic Church is placed. After all, ACT UP interrupted their masses.

Fascism is significantly an emotional ideology. You are not going to convince many fascists to change their minds with rational debate. Charlie Kirk was as much of a troll and someone who silenced others as someone who truly used debate to convince people. 

I understand the justification of trying to silence blatant fascists. Free speech is a great value. But it isn't the only value we have. Still, it is a dangerous move. It ultimately turns on raw power. What stops fascists from using the same tactic? Power. 

(Antifa will defend their tactics based on necessity. So will fascists. Maybe one side is right, but it's tough.) 

The new introduction bitterly laughs at the anti-communism justification by fascists. It notes that these days (differently, I would add, than in the early decades of the 20th Century) there are nearly no communists in this country. I might say there are quite a few "antifa" in the way Trump suggests. 

The labels are variable. So, some people are appalled that Zohran Mamdani -- a self-labeled democratic socialist -- has a good chance of being the mayor of New York City. Democratic leadership endorsed Andrew Cuomo (His official name is Andrew f-ing Cuomo) because of the specter of the Zohran. Or, they still do not want to endorse Mamdani. 

There is a stronger presence of "socialists" in this country. I don't think we should treat them as a specter. They support many good things. They have the energy and passion we need in these times. They might be wrong in various cases. So be it. 

(Plus, the word is so variable. Lots of things we generally accept as great, including Social Security, were once denounced as a form of socialism.) 

The anti-fascist movement today is akin to those who support black lives matter and other such groups. There is general support for causes that are valid and that should be uncontroversial. Some activists and true believers will be purists. That is the usual thing.

There is a tiny subset that supports the use of violence and law-breaking in certain cases. We saw this in Black Lives Matter protests. And, probably, a few of these people (at least) were outside instigators. 

I generally am quite wary -- at least -- at such tactics. If you raised that sentiment in some places, well, you might be treated as if you were a racist. Violence might, over the span of history, sometimes appear necessary. Who are we to talk (1776), after all?

Still, it often is counterproductive. It can also hurt innocents. For instance, during protests, some vandalism harmed black owned businesses. 

I am open to what Mark Bray has to say, but I am not his kind of anti-fascist. I despise fascism, though. 

George Santos Commutation

The 23-count indictment filed Tuesday replaces one filed in May against the New York Republican charging him with embezzling money from his campaign and lying to Congress about his wealth, among other offenses.

George Santos was convicted, expelled from Congress, and sentenced to seven years in prison. He went there in late July. Now, less than three months later, Trump commuted his sentence. 

Trump has a "birds of a feather" policy.

You see a pattern?

Trump's statement explaining his commutation has an extended potshot at Sen. Richard Blumenthal, including a childish nickname, regarding allegations he padded his Vietnam record. 

This is the usual "look a squirrel!" troll behavior. We are being governed by an Internet troll. Republicans don't want to do anything about it. This is another reminder they are chickenshit shitheads. 

Talking about animals:

The statement also says Santos is "something of a rogue," but was a loyal Republican. Again, it being Trump, he doesn't just say that. He notes Santos "has Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence" to always vote Republican (all caps). 

He tosses in that Santos was in solitary confinement for long stretches of time (he wasn't in prison for three months) and that seven years was too long a sentence. That might be debatable (I don't know the going rate), but the appropriate time was more than three months. 

(He was sentenced to 87 months and served 84 days, which is just wrong. Just have him serve three more days. These people can't do anything right.) 

He was not just a "rogue" and a repeat joke on Late Night shows. Santos was guilty of multiple crimes, including those that involved stealing money from people. He abused his office, besmirching the people's House. He hurt people. To cite one thing:

U.S. Rep. George Santos stole the identities of donors to his campaign and then used their credit cards to ring up tens of thousands of dollars in unauthorized charges, according to a new indictment.

Just a lovable scamp! Notably, he is not only being released from prison. The clemency grant involves "immediate commutation of his entire sentence to time served with no further fines, restitution, probation, supervised release, or other conditions." 

Just adding insult to injury.

Various news articles reported the commutation and Trump statement without providing suitable clarifying details. For instance, a quick check shows the "solitary confinement" occurred after a death threat. It was done for his safety. 

(It is generally best just not to trust anything Trump says, but an accuracy check should be a basic news procedure.)

This is petty corruption. The little things sometimes grate the most. They can just be that blatant. This is not on the level of the pardons/commutations of those involved in 1/6. But it is a blatant abuse of the pardon power for partisan ends. 

Again, our anger should be broadly expressed. The Republicans in Congress refuse to do much at all, other than some of them sometimes acting concerned, to do anything about him. They are all enablers.

Today is No Kings Protest Day. Let's also have no trolls. Trump should be blocked. 

ETA: Not too surprisingly, his former N.Y. Republican colleagues were not a big fan of his good luck. This is what your guy stands for, so tough luck. 

===

Related: "A federal prosecutor who resisted President Trump’s demands to bring charges against Letitia James, the New York state attorney general, was fired along with her deputy on Friday evening, according to three people familiar with the matter."

A con artist, however, his right up their alley.

The Death of Originalism?

Professor Eric Segall continues to battle originalism. It's part of his concern about abuse of judicial power. He argues the Supreme Court is "not a court." 

I find that silly. It's a certain type of court. But fine. 

Originalism is a false hope. It does not truly advance judicial restraint, which is at times deemed its biggest value. His new article (first link) notably shows how conservatives were no longer restrained once they truly took control of the Supreme Court.

Segall also enthusiastically shows how conservative justices do not show much concern about applying original understanding. He finds some definition of what that means. Originalism has various shades.

He loves to quote a strict test of judicial restraint applied by Alexander Hamilton. Fine. I just skimmed the grand Learned Hand biography, and by the end, he was even more restrained. 

But we don't live in the 1790s. Things changed. Courts have more power. The people overall agree they should. If you want more legislative supremacy, you are going to have to change THEM some. And, I don't think Segall has the chops to try to try. 

Originalism critics repeatedly appear to want us to do it the right way. His article focuses on how originalism died. That is, one more restrictive form of it (never truly implemented when it mattered) died. 

The "New Originalism" argues that judges have considerable flexibility. They should apply basically the general values of the Framers. 

Which they debate about, often in long articles about such and such provision. While leaving stuff out or getting stuff wrong. Thus, equal protection can include sexual equality. Or free speech covers much more. 

This is a more reasonable way. I also think (FWIW) it is the way the Framers figured it would work. 

They didn't think that fifty or more years in the future would understand specific constitutional concepts in the exact same way as they would. Experience and knowledge develop. The Framers sometimes realized they were wrong about things within a few years. 

Yes, this results in more flexibility. If you want judicial restraint, "what the Founders said" is of limited value. So, stop quoting Alexander Hamilton on the point so much. It encourages people to think originalism is okay. If you do it right.

The judges who apply the Constitution in this way are doing "law," though some originalists sanctimoniously think their way is the only way to do that. State court judges who are not originalists are still judges. 

The usual suspects, for instance, sneer when justices support the constitutional protection of same sex marriage. The Framers would never have supported it. Blah blah blah. They didn't have the knowledge, experience, and law that we have on the subject.

James Madison opposed the constitutionally of the Bank of the United States when he was in Congress. He acknowledged its constitutionality, given precedent, when he was president. 

Judges need to at least cosplay originalism, given the current control of the Supreme Court. But it is bullshit. It doesn't restrain more than the alternatives. 

As applied, it regularly is living constitutionalism by another name. It is not compelled by the document. The Founders didn't demand it. It's undemocratic and ignores all that we learned and experienced over the years. Not completely, of course, since judges are products of their time. But it somewhat tries to. 

Originalism will not restrain. A strict application of the past will provide judges with much power to strike down democratic actions. A stricter test will help somewhat, but judges will regularly assure themselves that the evidence is crystal clear. 

Judicial restraint has its place. Trying to ensure the current day governmental acts would satisfy our ancestors is a cockamamie way to go about it.  

Restraint will at times be a tough mistress. We are cheering on (with reason) some lower court judges restraining Trump. What would Segall's test do to many of those rulings? How about many of the great rulings of the past, some of which were 5-4?

It's a serious conversation to have, especially as we think long-term about dealing with our current Supreme Court. It has to be done without reliance on b.s. B.S., unfortunately, is quite alive. 

[A somewhat expanded version of this entry is here.]

Two More Executions

Crawford, now 59, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1994 for the 1993 kidnapping, rape and murder of Kristy Ray from her Tippah County home in the Chalybeate community. Ray was a 20-year-old student at Northeast Mississippi Community College.

Both executions covered here involved thirty-year-old murders. We yet again have the "too long" problem, which was covered already earlier in the week.

His lawyers unsuccessfully tried the insanity defense. The problem is that their client did not want them to concede guilt. They did anyway as part of a defensive strategy. Sotomayor, for the liberals, in a rare dissent to a last-minute appeal, flagged the problem. She argued the appeal was not procedurally blocked. 

Madiba Dennie‬ (Balls and Strikes blog) noted on Bluesky that she thinks dissents are important:

I understand the kinda nihilist dunks on them as meaningless, but I've seen too many dissents become majority opinions to think they don't have value--as doctrinal roadmaps, as mobilizing tools, as records of the truth when the majority lies, etc.

The liberals should say more in last-minute appeals, if only to include statements quickly addressing the issues. Some reasonably serious claims are involved. It involves life and death issues. It warrants an explanation.  If the claim is dubious, say that too.

Djerf, 55, had pleaded guilty to four counts of murder in the killings of Albert Luna Sr., his wife Patricia and their 18-year-old daughter Rochelle and 5-year-old son Damien on Sept. 14, 1993. A judge later sentenced Djerf to death.

Richard Djerf recently admitted guilt. More details:

Prosecutors say Djerf blamed another Luna family member, Albert Luna Jr., for an earlier theft of home electronic items at his apartment, became obsessed with revenge and months later entered the home under a ruse in which he claimed to be delivering flowers.

Authorities say Djerf sexually assaulted Rochelle and slashed her throat; beat Albert Luna Sr. with an aluminum baseball bat before stabbing and shooting him; and tied Patricia Luna and Damien to kitchen chairs before fatally shooting them.

I don't think a jury is bloodthirtsy to decide this crime warrants the death penalty. The problem is that a jury did not do so. Ring v. Arizona suggests it is constitutionally obligatory (maybe not in every instance). And, this was an Arizona case also. 

The problem is that the rule was determined (5-4) not to be retroactive. It does help to explain why the case lingered for thirty years. Not completely. That issue was addressed over fifteen years ago.

One anti-death penalty group cites evidence of brain damage. My bottom line is that the system is broken, which means even cases like this should not result in the death penalty. Especially if it takes 30 years. 

We have two horrible crimes, but both executions are tainted. The whole system is broken. No capital punishment is the best policy. Instead, we will have more executions in October. 

Order List + Execution Week Begins

SCOTUS

The Supreme Court added a case involving plea bargains to the docket on Friday. 

Saturday brought an article about lower court judges being upset about the shadow docket. 

Today was Order Day (given yesterday was a holiday). Kavanaugh, Alito, and Gorsuch recused themselves without stating why.  Sotomayor, for the liberals, flagged a troubling jury/capital case. 

Gorsuch said he is open to incorporating the Seventh Amendment. If so, go all the way, since the grand jury is also quite important, and the Third Amendment also has its importance. 

Alito (for Thomas and Gorsuch) also added a short statement noting his concern that schools do not notify parents about children transitioning. Such things, unlike abortion or birth control (Thomas), are a fundamental right. 

ETA: Both Sotomayor and Alito used the word "tragic."  We were able to hear the full opening material (e.g., bar admissions) on the first day of the term. Not so this time, apparently, since the C-SPAN audio starts with the first oral argument, with a tiny bit of Roberts swearing in lawyers. 

I also skimmed (it's too long for me to read; it might have been back in the day) the famous Learned Hand biography. There's a lot of interesting content, although some chapters are tedious. A nice anti-originalist quote:

[I]f our Constitution embalms inflexibly the habits of 1789 there may be something in the point. But it does not; its grants of power to Congress comprise, not only what was then known, but what the ingenuity of men should devise thereafter. Of course, the new subject-matter must have some relation to the grant;  but we interpret it by the general practices of civilized peoples in similar fields, for it is not a strait-jacket, but a charter for a living people.

Reiss v. National Quotation Bureau, 276 F. 717, 719 (S.D.N.Y. 1921).

His Bill of Rights lectures, however, simply go too far. Judicial review is part of our constitutional system. Yes, you can be quite wary about applying it. But it is a thing. His career as a whole wasn't such "judicial restraint on steroids" as all that.  

Two Executions 

It also marked the beginning of a busy week of executions. 

Texas, which has its moments, stopped (for now) an execution. It involved discredited shaken baby evidence. But we still will have a busy week.

Lance C. Shockley was sentenced to death for the murder of a Missouri police officer. That was twenty years ago, which (yet again) gives me a chance to cite Stephen Breyer's concerns that delays at some point are unconstitutional. 

Murder of police officers is one of those crimes even those wary of the death penalty might make an exception for. However, as usual, some red flags arose. For instance, the jury split on whether to give him the death penalty, with the judge deciding. 

(He also had a failed religious liberty claim regarding what he wanted at his execution.  The Supreme Court rejected it without comment, though it waited until sometime late afternoon execution day or so to do so.)

If there was going to be a busy week of executions in 2025, obviously, Florida would have to get involved. Samuel Lee Smithers murdered two women around thirty years ago (1996). He was the subject of "Deacon of Death," a true crime novel.

(He was a church deacon. He was also connected to church arsons. The murder victims here were prostitutes. Is there some twisted religion angle?)

Smithers was executed when he was in his early 70s. The question remains if it is legitimate to execute him after all this time. Mental issues were flagged, and a victim's father said she would not want him to be executed. What of the other victim?

An execution at this point does have shades of involuntary euthanasia. In fact, the final appeal (as usual disposed of by SCOTUS without comment) argues it is unconstitutional to execute the elderly. The long time that has passed is mixed in. 

Swear in Congresswoman-Elect Adelita Grijalva!

Democrats have had multiple members of the House of Representatives die this term. There is some concern about people hanging on too long. Senator Dianne Feinstein was flagged a few years ago. 

A sad case is the D.C. delegate, who was the subject of multiple articles recently spelling out that she is no longer fit to serve. She doesn't want to go and has not conclusively said she won't run for re-election. 

D.C. needs strong representation, and she is unable to supply it. She is approaching 90 and is physically unfit. Just to remind, D.C. should be treated equally. Current mistreatment underlines the importance of statehood. It would have three representatives in Congress now as a state and other protections.  

Adelita Grijalva (D-Arizona) won a special election last month after her father died. Now, the Speaker of the House is refusing to allow her to be sworn in. 

Democrats tried to have it done during a pro forma session, as it was done earlier this year with two new Republican members. Speaker Mike Johnson alleged that they would swear her in as soon as she wanted, but that was a lie. 

Johnson wants to wait until the House is back in regular session. Other new members were sworn in immediately. This has led to claims of monkey business, even from Marjorie Taylor Greene. 

(Greene has started to appear saner more often than usual. People are assuming she is thinking of running for president in 2028. I wouldn't be surprised.) 

Note that she used the typical trollish "Democrat member" phrasing. Is it simply by instinct now? The term is "Democratic." It's an adjective. 

She signed the discharge petition to force the release of the Epstein files. If the votes hold, Grijalva would be the necessary vote. Of course, Johnson denies that it is the reason. Surely not!

Johnson did give three White male lawmakers who won special elections this year their oaths of office on the House floor less than 24 hours after polls closed in their elections. One of those lawmakers was Walkinshaw, who joined the House in early September. The other two, Florida Republicans Reps. Randy Fine and Jimmy Patronis, got sworn in during a 12-minute session in which no other real business was conducted.

Grijalva, who cannot serve her constituents until she is a formal member of Congress, earlier noted that she didn't want to assume it was some sort of conspiracy. But then weeks passed. If not the Epstein files, what is it? Because she is a Latina? 

This is the sort of gratuitous bullshit that leads people to assume things. I think even if she were sworn in during a pro forma session, the discharge petition would only be put in place when normal business returns. I'm not completely sure, but it seems logical.

Either way, that would be a limited delaying action and more trouble than it is worth at this point. The whole thing just seems to be a gratuitous partisan move. Any other inferences are well deserved. 

Trump appointees, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, are using their congressional appearances to rant and rave. Republicans are acting like shitheads.

Partisan politics -- let's be fair -- can result in some of that. But Republicans are going the extra mile. 

The people elected Adelita Grijalva. They deserve to have their choice sworn in. Stop being a dick. 

Odds and Ends: Peace, Judges, and Sex

I discuss the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

There are three types of judges that are elected by New York City voters, rather than appointed by the mayor or governor. 

Supreme Court justices oversee state trial courts for felony criminal cases and some types of civil cases, including ones that involve large amounts of money. 

Civil Court judges in the city preside over consumer debt, landlord-tenant disputes and several other kinds of civil cases. 

Surrogates’ Court judges handle cases related to deceased people’s wills and estates.

I think judicial elections are dumb, partially since the average voter knows nearly nothing about the people on the ballot here. Here's a helpful explainer with links for information.

I still think they are dumb.

This is a book (over 500 pages) from early 2017, so it can do for an update. Then again, it ends with a reminder that the law and social norms repeatedly changed and could change again, especially with new SCOTUS personnel. 

It starts from ancient times. A quick read overall. It argues that morals legislation tends to overlap with religion, so it is a separation of church and state issue. As Justice Brennan realized with obscenity:

Like the proscription of abortions, the effort to suppress obscenity is predicated on unprovable, although strongly held, assumptions about human behavior, morality, sex, and religion.

The final sections cover sexual speech, reproductive liberty, and gay rights. It is not totally comprehensive (it should at least reference Mormonism and polygamy), but it covers a lot of ground. Good book overall. My copy had no cover. 

Roy Lee Ward Execution

And Also: I discuss Justice Kennedy (who has a new book) and related subjects here.

Ward brutally murdered Payne in her Dale, Indiana, home after knocking on her door and pretending he was looking for a lost dog. His attorneys spent the next two decades angling for new trials and appeals until his execution was finally set for Oct. 10.

This sums things up. 

But those drugs came at a high cost, more than $1 million for four doses. In June, Braun said the state wouldn't immediately buy more, raising questions about if Indiana would consider a new execution method. The first-term Republican cited the high cost and short shelf life.

The final appeal concerns the drugs used for the execution. The state, at significant cost, resumed executions last year after a 15-year hiatus. Obtaining drugs and ensuring they are of adequate quality is a continuing problem, as discussed by Professor Lain in her book. Lethal injection continues to be a dubious method of execution for various reasons. 

States also do not provide transparency, including “whether they are expired, how they are transported and stored, or their potency and sterility.” Furthermore, there was evidence that a recent execution was botched. 

Such claims, sometimes for procedural reasons, have not received much success. The Supreme Court overall has not been sympathetic. He also raised other claims over the years, including arguments that his autism and learning disability mitigated his crimes. 

I think that over twenty years raises the unconstitutional delay concerns cited by Breyer and others. The delays are significantly a result of criminal appeals. But appeals ensure justice. And, at least some of his claims did have some merit.  

Overall, he committed a horrible crime. A long prison sentence serves both penal and public safety purposes. I understand many won't be concerned that he was executed. However, it was neither necessary nor proper.

The article notes that his lawyers dropped final appeals after negotiating an agreement regarding the execution procedures. The media were not present during the execution. This is troubling.

Meanwhile, others campaigned for the end of capital punishment. Busy week ahead. 

SCOTUS Back

Welcome Back (not really) SCOTUS. 

The Order List to dispose of a bunch of petitions rejected by the Long Conference at the end of the summer came first, with eight of nine (not Jackson) recusing from something & only Kagan saying why (why Sonia?).

Fix the Court tells me on BlueSky that this is Sotomayor's practice. The only time she did explain, she did so along with one or two other liberals. 

I don't recall a solo case since Kagan/Jackson started citing the Code of Conduct, where Sotomayor didn't say why, though clearly might have missed it. 

Since I have made it an issue to single out conservatives here for criticism, fair is fair. Bad justice! To really go into the weeds, she didn't even completely stay away. She granted a request for a delay. (Checked the docket page.) 

Fix the Court summarizes:

OT25 just started & we've already had some recusals

— All justices but Jackson have recused

— Kagan is the only one to explain hers

— Alito leads with 4 (of 11 total), all due to his/Martha Ann's stocks

— 5 due to prior judge/SG work

— 2 due to a justice being sued

After a lower court judge recused in a big Trump case (it didn't help the Administration, so far that a Trump appointee took over), Fix the Court compared how Thomas did things.

The Supreme Court then formally announced the opening of the new term. You can now hear live audio of the oral arguments. Anything else, including opinion announcements, had not been included. 

For the first time, they did not skip over the motions portion, so we were able to hear bar admissions. I appreciate this. I don't know how much they will continue to do it. I would be more surprised if they included opinion announcements. We shall see. 

The opening material is still not permanently on the website. You can only access the oral argument audio files. I did not see the audio button on the website until after the argument had been going on for some time. So, you had to be listening on C-SPAN. 

Of course, we still do not have video, as is present in many lower and foreign courts. Justices can be seen on news programs and late-night shows promoting their books. So, that's okay, right? 

The first oral argument was a law school hypothetical type of case that had cross-ideological implications. Don't worry. The Roberts Court will better show itself tomorrow. They need to be reformed now.

ETA: An "order in a pending case" involving Google was separately dropped. Here's the whole thing:

(ORDER LIST: 607 U.S.)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2025

ORDER IN PENDING CASE

25A354 GOOGLE LLC, ET AL. V. EPIC GAMES, INC.

The application for partial stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied.

==

Sometimes, instead of the usual "in a short order" language, you can simply quote it. The order does not provide a link to the docket page. That would be nice.

Also: On Wednesday, another order dropped on a pending case involving Alabama requesting a stay in a capital case. The stay request was denied, but there was a bit more discussion than usual.