Sex of Comments

People commenting online often either have masculine or neutral-sounding handles. I generally assume, especially if they are assholes, that these people are men. But there are enough shitty people who are not men that I probably assume too much.

Sigh

I enjoy commenting online. I have done so for decades now. But some people repeatedly cannot handle discussing things reasonably. They often, sarcastically, "translate" what you have to say in ignorant ways using a biased translator. They make snide remarks based on ignorance. They don't want to or have the ability to honestly engage, no matter how much you work at it. It is so tiresome. 

Think Big

A local paper published my letter to the editor:

Bronx: We need major changes, including term limits for Supreme Court justices and limits on presidential power. This might require changing the Constitution. But we should think big. We had no amendments for more than 30 years. It’s time. 

Really 50 years. The 27A is a joke. 

NY Medical Aid-in-Dying

Gov. Hochul is deciding what to do about various things on her desk as the year is coming to an end. She has had a heavy veto pen in the past. 

I think the executive veto is used too much. One person gets to make a policy decision that overrides the legislature.

Anyway, she decided to sign the aid-in-dying legislation. She negotiated a few more safeguards. It only applies to someone found to only have six months to live. She explains why here. One notable thing is that she is Catholic, but nothing new there. See, e.g., Mario Cuomo and abortion.

I think the decision here is part of the right to privacy. Many things of that nature have line drawing issues, and it is appropriate for the legislature to have some discretion. Drugs in general have that flavor.

If anything, I think six months might be too tight a schedule, though there are other things you can do. You still have the right to refuse treatment. You can take drugs to deal with pain, and a lethal overdose is far from impossible. There is self-help.

But I think this is an appropriate move. If I ever have to face up to this issue, I would like the option. 

Abortion Thoughts 

Of course, the thing many will think about here is abortion. The other side of life. The subject came up in a discussion involving executive removal power (this provides a better take on that subject). 

I talked about it in comments. Someone with quite different beliefs challenged my good faith. I was "pretending" and "just had to" use a certain term. I responded in detail, including noting the term was used in Roe v. Wade. "Life," for instance, is a complicated term, dropping a link. 

The person didn't substantially respond. They just doubled down, tossing other usual concerns of that side. I find that tedious. It's not too uncommon online. People think certain things are obvious. If you don't agree, you are not arguing in good faith or are stupid.

Sometimes, people are not arguing in good faith. Or, at least, they are not arguing with a reasoned and informed take. People are not just Vulcans or rhetoricians who carefully make arguments. It makes engaging with some people again a tad bit tedious.

(On that website, I block the names of some people, including someone I tiresomely engaged with for around fifteen years. At some point, it's pointless, and it just annoys me. I'm no Stoic. I can't just ignore it.)

I'm not going to change people's minds, generally speaking. I do hope that sometimes people will respect that I'm trying to argue in good faith. Sometimes, they will acknowledge some lesser point, and not just see everything as a black/white issue with no shades. 

Sometimes, I just like to give my .02, and maybe someone else will find something I say of some usefulness at times. Some subjects, and abortion is one, have interested me for a long time.

I'm not pretending by saying that. 

Eric Adams Is Bad Quickie

The NYT had a good guest essay on the corruption of Mayor Adams. The article also explains how the Supreme Court (at times unanimously) made fighting corruption harder in recent years. Yours truly, replied to this article, where the mayor made a switch to join NIMBY-ism. This matter has been a long-time concern. More bad.

The Court v. The Voters

I noted my opinion that the Constitution protects a right to vote. A book assumes it does too in various ways while listing various cases where the Supreme Court threatened voting rights. 

Justice Douglas in Baker v. Carr argues that "the right to vote is inherent in the republican form of government." A follow-up case, Reynolds v. Sims, held that “since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.” 

The right to vote is a "fundamental right," which is particularly notable when equal protection is involved. Voting also involves the freedom of association, including protection of candidates whom they might vote for. One case declared that an "election campaign is an effective platform for the expression of views on the issues of the day, and a candidate serves as a rallying point for like-minded citizens."

Voting rights, after the 1960s, began to be given less protection, including in Richardson v. Ramirez (felons). One problematic case allowed Hawaii not to allow write-in voting. Bush v. Gore (with the dubious argument that it was partially 7-2, though all four dissented in full) and later cases are cited.

In the final chapter, some possible solutions are offered. Three general strategies:

1. Voters compromise/avoid SCOTUS
2.  Reasonable Court Reform
3.  Mobilize/form a pro-democracy movement

A compromise approach can aim for bipartisan, voting-friendly legislation:

1. Every eligible person can vote with minimal burden
2. Acknowledge concerns for potential fraud [e.g., use of paper ballots]
3. Voters should be as educated as possible
4. Elections should be based on ideas, not rules; losers should accept defeat 

Perhaps, per Rick Hasen, the ultimate goal can be a constitutional amendment broadly protecting a right to vote. We can also seek out national legislation, though the author supports a state-by-state method.

The book is overall a pretty good read, though it has some annoying mistakes, such as having Burger as an Eisenhower nominee (not as a lower court judge). It is not comprehensive (chapters are around 15 pages long), so some details in the cases are left out.

Still, it is a good way to learn about the cases and general principles. And there are some good developments, including pro-voting legislation in Kentucky, judicial elections helping in Wisconsin, and even places like Texas (pushed by litigation) easing its voting ID laws (a waiver can be signed to avoid photo IDs). Still a long way to go.

ETA: One person on a blog comment -- from someone often less troll-y than others, but has a hobbyhorse about the horrible nature of the law partially struck down in Citizens United, took a slanted approach to my summary's bullet points.

Don't do this unless you are sure the person you are engaging with is arguing in bad faith or is ignorant. And, even then, replying with a chip on your shoulder ("do you know" ... yes, I said that read a whole book on voting rights by a progressive; I'm aware of literacy tests and so forth, putting aside my other knowledge on such subject matters) is not often likely to do much. It will breed resentment and flame wars. 

For instance, I said, "should be as educated as possible." It's perfectly fine to ask me to clarify. But, assuming there is no way ("can't think of something") to do that in a positive way (voter education) is silly. 

I provided multiple examples of truly bipartisan campaigns. Again, since the person doesn't like a single law (better yet, part of it), they latch onto the one single example, badmouthing the sponsors. In this fashion, the author is not really bipartisan. 

Since it's a "law," it passed Congress. Two people you dismissive as dilettantes or whatever, aren't the only ones who supported it. 

The Supreme Court upheld most of the challenged portions the first time around, with Republican appointed justices going along in various respects. A Reagan appointee who was a Republican leader in the Arizona state legislature counts. 

And, yes, the person provided a slanted understanding of the provision struck down, including alleging it targeted minority speech. This is untrue overall, but particularly absurd when applied to anti-Hillary Clinton videos. Ah yes. Only a small segment strongly criticised her, someone who didn't even win the nomination when the film was created.  

I didn't provide that snarky part, but it is sometimes difficult to avoid doing so when a reply is so off base and (wrongly) infers you are not speaking in good faith. I followed up my two comments with long-ish replies. I put in the work. In response, I get bullshit.

Yes, it's hard for me to respect someone who does that, even if they are generally less troll-y than some of the people on the blog. I very well might respond -- insert "someone is wrong on the Internet" comic strip -- and try to be fair about it. 

And, if I insert just a bit of snark, many will latch on to it, not being able to take what they dish out.   

Conclave and Doubt

I enjoyed the movie Conclave. And as a new pope is being selected, it was a good time to watch. 

The film was well-acted with a bunch of star actors, including the conservative cardinal, a leading Italian actor whom I saw in the film Mostly Martha. 

One thing raised was the importance of some doubt. Being too sure you are correct was cited as a barrier to compromise and unity. Plus, humility. And to be fair to the context, faith. Also, only God knows all. It would be somewhat blasphemous to think you do. 

This theme also arose in a young adult novel entitled Converting Kate about a teenager leaving a conservative religious sect and dealing with other issues. She likes a verse from one of Trump's favorite biblical books though he had a trouble with the name.  Remember that? So much silliness. 

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

The chapter also honors love (sometimes translated as "charity"):

Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Paul is not a big one for doubt. He was often quite sure of himself and critical about opposing points of view. Not much modesty or williness to compromise, even when "the pillars" of the Church were involved.  

The book takes a somewhat revisionist take on the passage. Paul was not honoring doubt. He was noting that Christianity moves past confusion and "childish things." We can still go our own way. 

Christianity thrived partially because it suppressed opposition. Pagans were more open to various types of belief. Within certain limits. Christians saw one path to nirvana. It selectively honored free exercise of religion until it gained control. Then, it was less gung ho about that.  

Maybe it is telling that my middle name is "Paul." I have a firm opinion about many things.  

Still, I do try to leave some doubt. Also, other points of view are regularly treated as totally stupid. That is not often the case. There is usually some level of sanity there, even if the views are wrong. For instance, I have a generally libertarian view of free speech. In recent years, I have been more sympathetic to those who disagree.  

And, sometimes, "childish things" are not too bad either. Those little devils have some good qualities. 

We shall see who the next pope is. I don't think he will have the sort of secret involved in the film. The film is based on a book. I will eventually check it out.  

==

The first Thursday of May is the National Day of Prayer. I have spoken up against this in the past.  

The day does not merely honor prayer, which itself would be sketchy. It directly requires the president to announce a day to encourage prayer to God. 

That's a bit ridiculous. 

An Addendum with a General Lesson

I now often use my posts here as a first draft for my Substack (which gets single-digit more hits per entry!) as shown in the note at the top of yesterday's post. 

I added this to my book review. It deserves a freestanding mention.

Personal Comment

The book provides a lesson. It focuses on Ukrainians, including giving voice to victims, alive and dead. She provides personal accounts of her own experiences.

Amelina also believes it is fundamental to include history, including voices from those who spoke out in the 1960s. I am reminded of Heather Cox Richardson’s daily entries, which include pieces of history to remind us of context.

I try to include some context in my accounts. I acknowledge a significant focus on Trump and his enablers' acts. This is partially a result of the coverage. We should do more to turn things around and focus on the “good guys and gals.”

Remember when “empathy” was a bad word for judicial nominees? Empathy, when done correctly, is when judges step into the shoes of others to more completely understand their point of view. It is an important part of all kinds of judging.

It applies here too. I do not begrudge — up to a point — those who want to use certain platforms as a way to vent. Nonetheless, just spitting at people is not the whole answer. We need to think more broadly as the voice of resistance.

I ended last time with a summary. Trump’s way is stupid, harmful, and should be stopped. I added a fourth. There is another way. 

Let us try to express that too.

Continuing Resolution and Holidays

I provide an answer to a liberal's defense of Chuck Schumer's vote for the continuing resolution here. Again, I respect it is not a simple issue.

Spring has begun. The weather already has been warm. There is not much "lion" this March so far. I heard the birds chirping outside my window now. 

March 17-19 also involves my personal holidays from St. Patrick's Day (mom) and St. Joseph's Day (dad). You can find a discussion of Joseph, father of Jesus, from a historian's perspective on this website. 

The middle day is one of my own creation, St. JP Day (Joseph Paul), a holiday for Irish/Italian mutts. 

And, it's about time to play real baseball!

Ignoring Court Orders & Constitutional Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Chris Geidner summarizes:

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

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

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

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

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

===

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

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

A presidential pardon does not waive the disqualification. 

Two More Executions

Joseph Corcoran

Indiana last executed someone fifteen years ago. They will still, arguably not have involuntarily executed anyone since 2009. Corcoran decided to end appeals. He was a "volunteer." He was (now) given the right to have a spiritual counselor present 

Corcoran murdered four people, including his brother in 1999 because he thought they were talking badly about him. Twenty-five years lag time raises Glossip (Breyer) problems. There was evidence of mental incompetence. His lawyers, opposing his execution, argue that it warrants not fulfilling his wish.  

His mental status raises questions about the voluntariness of his decision. I am less enthused about a complete denial of anybody having the right to turn down appeals. The essay's "natural rights" argument is too extreme. What about euthanasia? 

Gary Gilmore shows the importance of some minimal appeals process to protect the integrity of the system. Justice White, who granted the constitutionality of the death penalty, dissented on that ground. But, this is not always a problem. Some appeals have run the course.

A person on death row is not a free agent. Still, people who make decisions often are choosing between bad options. It is rational not to want to live one's life, often in isolation, in a tiny cage for decades on end. The death penalty overall is wrong. If we are stuck with the wrong things, there is a right to choose them.  

Another concern is keeping the press away. The press provides an important function to inform the public and check the government. This provides justification for a right of access, which is standard practice. 

The lack of independent witnesses is problematic. Chris Geidner has more, including notice that a reporter did witness the execution because the murderer put him on his witness list. 

The prosecutor now has second thoughts about applying the death penalty in his case. A family member also opposes his execution. It is likely that the family of the victims, like mine, would have different views. We cannot simply appeal to the victims. 

A final Supreme Court appeal was rejected without comment. The lower court (see Geidner) split 2-1. Liberal justices (Sotomayor or Jackson) have chosen to pick limited spots to dissent or provide statements in capital cases. This was a good time to do so.  

Corcoran was executed shortly after midnight. The sole media witness provided an account.  As Chris Geidner notes, the execution procedure started shortly after midnight, but it is unclear when the drugs began to flow. The reporter only had a view inside of the death chamber shortly after 12:30 AM. 

It is ridiculous to allow a media witness and not even provide a full view of the execution. 

Kevin Ray Underwood

Underwood brutally murdered a ten-year-old girl. The facts suggest the sort of "monster" that people might want off the face of this earth. The murder took place over 18 years ago. The trial was closer to fifteen. 

A mental health claim failed. The execution was delayed a year when the attorney general asked for executions to be spaced out more. No clemency. 

The Supreme Court the morning of the scheduled execution finalized things by rejecting a petition based on the clemency procedure. The usual five-person board now was a three-person board.  No comment. 

The case is likely much weaker than the first case but still would like at least a brief discussion before someone's life is taken. I think a life warrants that. 

The final execution of the year brings us back to those cases that are more about a pure concern about the death penalty. An amoral (the crime was a result of some twisted fantasy) person does something that violates basic human decency. What do we do?

An execution remains a dubious approach. The system as a whole is a problem. If you allow it here, more troublesome (like the first case) will be allowed too. 

Confinement is not an ideal solution but appears to be the best available. The execution of a few of the "worse of the worst," granting that is okay for "the worst act of your life," is an arbitrary lottery.  

And, that (number 25) is the last execution of 2024. On the guy's birthday yet. Oh well. 

Final Countdown

Final day of early voting in New York. 

I have some final remarks here.

ETA: Election Day is now a holiday in New York. 

Checking, one AI service said the law was passed in 2020. If so, the recent times I recall the local school being opened must have been for primary elections. 

I Voted and You Should Too!

Voting 

The stakes are high this election. People can do various things to help. 

The most basic thing you can do is to vote. It is a civic responsibility. I am inclined to agree that it should be a civic duty.  Try it. It won't bite.  

New York has had early voting for the last five years. It was a bit of a trudge at first to walk to the early voting location. Now, it is only a few blocks away. It is near Rite Aid where I received my free shots.

Voters can also vote by mail. We do not have "drop boxes." The usual suspects challenged the ability of all voters to vote by mail. Republicans used to favor absentee voting.  It was upheld in court.  

Voting ID

New York does not require identification. You sign a little laptop "e-poll book." New York voters do receive a card that eases processing since it has a helpful bar code.  You get a pen with a rubber tip to sign in. 

Voting identification addresses a fake problem (Rick Hasen and others did the math) of voting fraud. A minimum burden, and it would be for some people, is a poor cost/benefit in that respect. 

A voting identification system can provide minimum problems. If the government does a good job, it can also provide helpful free identification. New York City, for instance, has a free ID with many perks. 

A sensible regime would provide a grace period (maybe 1-2 election cycles) and safeguards. For instance, Texas provides free election certificates upon request if you do not have various types of photo identification. Voters can have provisional ballots as an additional safeguard.  

I can contemplate an agreeable compromise though understand why people (1) don't think it worthwhile and (2) distrust the people who want ID laws.  The distrust is well-earned.  But, a middle path is possible and can have its own benefits.  

Ballot Measures 

I have already talked about the New York ballot measures. There is a statewide measure that expands equality. To repeat:

This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy. It also protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy.

Multiple states specifically have ballot measures addressing abortion rights.  This measure is more open-ended. I am fine with that -- our rights are open-ended. Abortion rights fit into a wider whole.  Maybe, it would be best not to have the other equality provisions all at once. But, overall, it's okay.  

There are also city ballot measures. One involves sanitation issues and others address some technical matters. The city measures have baggage as restraints on the city council in a battle over control with the mayor. 

The first measure is a valid way for the public to express their will. The rest are of varying levels confusing and unnecessary. I agree direct democracy has its place. Sometimes, it is taken too far.  

Voting 

After a voter signs in, they obtain a ballot, along with their pen and sticker (or two, if you got a "future voter" sticker). At the early voting site, there was a guide for the ballot measures, but you had to give it back. They go to a small "privacy booth" (little table) and fill out the ballot. 

Then, they walk it up to the scanner and feed it in. There are no receipts. If they make a mistake on the ballot, they have two more shots. 

Early voting (nine days), voting by mail, and many ballot locations help lead to a quick process. You might have to wait a few minutes. But, that is basically all. It might be longer at some locations but generally long lines and such is not our problem. 

[ETA: Early voting has been busy in various locations, which has led to some wait time. 

But, it also still is not comparable to the specter of hours-long lines that arise in certain cases over the years elsewhere.]

We also have a ballot market machine with multiple means for disabled people to vote.  It is rarely used at my location though in one year the operator encouraged more people to use it. You do not have to be disabled and it helps to prevent mistakes. 

(The voter still has to check in at the e-poll book but can use an assistant if necessary.) 

Main Attraction 

The president, vice president, and members of Congress are the main attractions. Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand is running for re-election in New York. 

We don't have any additional presidential slots though you can vote Working Family (Harris) or Conservative (Trump). There are official write-ins, including Jill Stein and Cornell West. These are candidates for president on the ballot who will be counted. Other races do not have this rule. A curious quirk.  

New York City has instant run-off voting in the primaries. District attorneys are state offices so they are not part of that. Instant run-off voting is also not used for general or federal elections. 

It would make sense to do so, including for federal elections, because sometimes third parties lead to the other two having less than 50% of the vote.  This sometimes leads to unnecessary run-off elections.  

New York this year also votes for state senators and assembly members. There are third-party options for certain races, including a LaRouche slot. 

Election Day 

Is it Election Day yet? The waiting is stressful.  

No. It's only early voting.

The Media

The ultimate fear is that Trump will win. The media is helping him. Check out your local paper online. 

I was pissed off checking the New York Times. Where are all the articles underlining how horrible Trump is? You would not know anything special is going on.  

Various articles about Trump help. But, the level of horrible warrants a whole lot more.  

There is also the failure of major newspapers to endorse someone. I have seen people handwave that as not mattering much. It still is somewhat troubling. 

The minimum should be for newspapers to provide information about the candidates and ballot measures. There are some helpful online resources to provide local and state news for New York, including this helpful discussion of judicial elections.  

I find judicial elections troublesome with our (NY) particular variety basically a big joke. The candidates are pre-chosen and in most cases, the number of people you choose for slots is the same as the number available. I fill in a name for at least one of them.  

Endorsements

My views are apparent. Trump is a grave threat to our country. He is overall unfit for the office. He is constitutionally disqualified by taking part in an insurrection. Trump v. Anderson be damned.

Republicans aided and abetted him. Swing districts in 2022 helped them obtain a thin majority in the House of Representatives. New York districts played a major role. Hopefully, they help to swing things the other way.  Gillibrand is a fine Democrat.

I cited my opinions on the ballot measures. I do not have much to say about the state races. My state senator has good progressive positions. 

The assemblyman is newer to the office and seems more bland. For whatever reason, he is not on the Working Family line. Don't know if that means much.  I grant I do not pay much attention to him. 

(The two people are Sen. Gustavo Rivera and Assemblyman John Zaccaro Jr.  I probably should pay somewhat more attention to them. But, I think the thumbnail comments are overall satisfactory.) 

The judicial races are a joke. We should not have them under the current system. Seven more ovals to fill in for no real reason is just tedious. 

Happy voting!

Mets and Book

The Mets have fought themselves out of a big hole to be in the wild card race at the end of the first half. 

They have one of the easier schedules in the second half. The person who was supposed to be their best pitcher should be back soon. It's no gimme, especially with the Diamondbacks now breathing down their necks. But, why not? 

I thought that they had a reasonable shot at the beginning of the season with a good line-up and just enough pitching. The line-up started poorly. It shifted into gear with the help of a few key additions (OMG!). 

The rotation did badly. They are suddenly doing well, with multiple seven-inning games. The pen is still a problem (Houser has suddenly had a couple bad performances) but a new pick-up and few arms are reliable. They need more. Another reliever and an OF bat would be helpful. 

2024 was in my eyes supposed to be a development year with some chance of a wild card spot. How they have been playing, it would be disappointing if they don't get it. Once they do, it's house money time.

BTW, I'm just waiting for the Astros to pass the fairly middling Seattle Mariners in the NL West. Not quite there yet.  

I might eventually post an extended discussion that is inspired by this book. The book covers the usual suspects along with Yoruba religions (Santeria is an offshoot) with the "three ways" of China and atheism included.  

The book suggests various definitions of religion. One basic rule would be that each religion sees a problem, a solution, a path, and people who are guides on the path. Atheism is quickly examined; the other chapters are around 35 pages each. So, not comprehensive, but you get a good general sense of Hinduism, Confucianism, and other religions.  

The title also references the author's argument that there is not just one God that is expressed differently. People have strongly different ideas of what God entails. These differences matter in the real world. It's best to understand this, even if the other path seems idealistic and charming.

A couple of additional bits. The author argues not everyone who is a member of a religion is a "believer."  Religion can often be about a community or practices. Jews can be atheists.  Also, "sin" is largely a Christian concept. Muslims do not believe in original sin. Jews have some concept of sin but original sin is not a general Jewish belief.  

I continue to think religion and belief in God is a form of poetic metaphor for our concerns as humans. The overall conceit of Jesus dying for our sins to me is rather ridiculous and primitive. Eastern religion has some interesting philosophies. OTOH, some of the mystical stuff, including reincarnation, is not for me. I am also with the "friendly" atheists. 

Some liberals look at how conservatives use religion and treat it with disdain. I think we should have more empathy for the billions who have religious beliefs. Plus, again, I do not think they all are treating their beliefs quite as literally as some people think. And, there are a lot of non-assholes among them. 

Religion continues to be a fascinating and fundamental part of humanity.

NY Presidential Primary

The primary season this season was quickly a forgone conclusion except for the details. Trump v. Biden. One side is republican, and the other side supports a violent overthrow of republican values. The second is the Republican candidate:

A federal judge who has overseen numerous criminal cases against Donald Trump supporters who viciously assaulted police officers during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol expressed concern during a sentencing hearing Thursday that the former president could trigger another violent attack in the lead-up to or aftermath of the 2024 presidential election.

The question would be how much the others would receive, including token opponents for Biden and "none of the above" protest votes. Plus, the American Samoa joker. 

The usual thing for New York is to have the federal and local primary elections on the same day. This was a sensible reform that happened a few years ago. It was a wasteful and unconstructive enterprise to have separate low-turnout primary elections. 

The exception would be the presidential primary which now happens in early April. So, if you are a registered Republican, yes, you still can vote for Chris Christie (not DeSantis).  

Over the years, except in 2008, the winner of the primaries was settled by the time New York voted. So, I did things like provide a symbolic vote for Howard Dean. 

I think that it is sensible to have the voters have a chance to vote their preference. This year, it is especially important to provide a means (of late about 20%) to not vote for Trump. 

It does appear to be wasteful to have extended early voting in New York for a symbolic single presidential vote. But, the state is not so lacking in money that it is not worth it to provide a chance for people to come out, get a taste of how to vote before November and do their civic duties. 

So, vote for Nikki Haley or Marianne what's her name, if you care to do so. Better yet, vote for Biden, if you are a Democrat. New York does not have open primaries. 

One group that can not vote is noncitizens. There is a federal law blocking non-citizens from voting in federal elections. Technically, a person can be a citizen of a state while not being an American citizen. Nonetheless, that would basically be an honorary thing. The Constitution makes American citizens who reside in a state a citizen of that state. 

People who were not American citizens, especially those on the road to citizenship, often voted historically into the early 20th Century. Now, only a few areas allow them to do so in local elections. New York City a few years ago was one of those areas. Nonetheless, a lawsuit blocked the law. 

“Our lives are here: we work, we pay taxes, and we take our children to school. We contribute a lot to the city and its culture, yet we don’t have a say in local matters,” said Santos Veloz. “We are taking this action to ensure that our communities' voices are heard.”

It will surprise few that Republicans are the ones largely behind the lawsuit. An intermediate court of appeals, with one dissent, held that a state constitutional provision giving citizens the right to vote is exclusionary. I doubt this is true. 

A non-citizens group wishes to appeal the ruling to the highest state court. I hope the local law is eventually upheld.

(ETA: City Council asks the court of appeals to overturn the ruling. Mayor Adams holds back.) 

I Vote

I went out to my local early voting polling spot to vote and got a pen with a rubber stylus, and a sticker. The pen did not work too well but it did its job. 

The Democratic ballot had three candidates with five Biden delegates (pick five; there are five options). I checked the Board of Elections website, which provides sample ballots. For some reason, the Republican ballot does not have the delegate part. 

The delegates do explain (at least for Democrats) why they had to print out the ballot for me. I thought since there is a single race, all the ballots would be the same. 

Normally, you go to a specific polling location, which handles certain election districts. When you go to the polling place, you go to the correct table for your district. If you go to the wrong polling place at best you have to fill out an affidavit ballot, which is a pain.  There is a long envelope to fill out. 

Early voting is handled by fewer locations. So, the polling place (instead of having preprinted ballots) prints out a ballot suitable for your location. People in different districts will have different delegates to the Democratic Convention. Thus, for that reason alone, you need a personal ballot. 

I think that might cause a bit of confusion. I guess they wanted to ensure that there were at least some void ballots. People also can provide a blank ballot as a type of "none of the above" option. We will eventually get a count of those.

Anyway, I went out in the rain (it wasn't raining that hard, but I needed an umbrella) and did my civic duty. 

Meanwhile ... 

Today's also Louisiana Primary Day.  

Like New Hampshire, it is easier to get your name on the ballot. Thus, there are various mysterious names, including "Bob Ely" for the Democrats and Rachel Swift (who is a bit of a nut) for the Republicans. 

We will see how things go. 

ETA: It is also Missouri Primary Day for the Democrats. 

There was already a Missouri Caucus for the Republicans. Trump received all the votes. David Stuckenberg was an option along with Nikki Haley. 

LA Results: Trump received 90% of the vote. Biden received 86% with half the remainder being odds and ends.  

Missouri Results: Biden received 85% and uncommitted received 12% (with three delegates). There were less than 20,000 votes in total. [Tuesday] Next up: North Dakota (D).

Odds and Ends

Holidays 

It's that time of the year again. 

I'm Irish (mom) and Italian (dad). St. Patrick's Day (the traditional meal for us was corned beef and cabbage with potatoes) was yesterday. St. Joseph's Day (Italians) is tomorrow. A special bonus is my dad was a carpenter (and city worker).  In between? My own creation (JP Day) in honor of Irish-Italian mutts!  

Freedom Libraries 

Freedom Libraries: The Untold Story of Libraries for African-Americans in the South by Mark Shelby (a librarian) is a good little book about a largely forgotten part of the Civil Rights Movement. 

Brown v. Board underlined the importance of education. Brown v. Louisiana involved a protest at a library. (The book quotes the author of the plurality, Justice Fortas, but does not specifically address this case.)  This book specifically talks about "freedom libraries" opened up in the South and elsewhere (Philadelphia is cited) during the 1960s.

Order Day

The Supreme Court Order List was mostly a nothingburger. As usual, there are a few interesting tidbits. There are likely to be one or more orders during the week, including perhaps regarding a pending execution. 

(ETA: And, yes, two orders dropped extending again a stay in the Texas border case. There is also another opinion day tomorrow as SCOTUS starts to slowly get to speed, still behind schedule.

Chief Justice Roberts also denied a request from Peter Navarro to hold up his prison stint for contempt of Congress. It's ruling on a narrow claim. Footnote: it was an opinion in chambers, which is a tab on the SCOTUS website. The last time it was used was a decade ago by Roberts.

Navarro refused to testify to the 1/6 Committee. Over and over again people stonewalled Congress without consequences. Stephen Bannon's appeal has been going on for years now.) 

Alito continues not to explain why he recuses. Kagan does. Jackson has joined her. I am not sure if Sotomayor had a chance to do so, not recalling her last recusal.

An Easter Egg: among the list of cases not taken involves the one person so far disqualified for actions arising 1/6. As the state notes, the case is a mess, including procedural problems that deny SCOTUS jurisdiction: 

In all events, the Petition fails to satisfy the traditional criteria for certiorari. This case is an abysmal vehicle to decide anything. And Petitioner is wrong on the merits.  

The case is a reminder that the insurrection disqualification retains some bite, especially respecting state offices.  

Meanwhile, Breyer has a new book out, and he has begun to promote it. It sounds like a dissent. 

A few more thoughts on the previous subject ...

Liberal originalists

I referenced in my last entry the idea a decent amount of people think the courts will save us and similar alleged wish casting. I noted that I think that is largely a strawman. 

One liberal law professor who harps on his belief that insurrection litigation is bad overall and a bad strategy for Democrats specifically cites this old post. The reference to "enthusiastic liberals" aside, the strongest backers here have often been conservatives. The hopeful Gerard Magliocca cited in the piece, for instance, is a conservative.  

Sensible liberals do not think like "Fox Mulder" that belief in history will set us free. History, however, is part of the story. Likewise, we are stuck with it to the degree that the current Supreme Court relies so much on "history and tradition."

The path to take here is not to simply cite the history behind a constitutional provision as if this will magically supply the answer. The history is mixed, in flux, and precedent et. al. also matters when deciding the law. 

But, it's part of the story. The opinions yesterday barely cite it in fragmentary ways. The briefing and more provide a lot of fodder to provide a more complete account. And, that is just about the infamous "Griffin's Case."  

Enforcement 

Prof. Dorf is (as usual) a good place to go to get a sane response to the ruling. As he notes, confirming my take, the Fourteenth Amendment as a whole does not just limit the states. And, unlike the Strict Scrutiny Podcast (Melissa Murray, e.g., in a tweet basically blandly said the liberals didn't want to go there), he criticized the liberals. 

The liberals didn't want to "nullify" the amendment, but their reasoning blocking a major way it can be enforced is weak. The rather brief opinion is also vague about how they would leave open enforcement. Consider this statement:

It forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score.

When would this arise? In context, it would apply to a federal prosecutor, since the per curiam leaves open exclusion of state officials. Is this a reference to Griffin's Case itself, which involved a judge alleged to be disqualified?  

It does underline that this case is not just about Trump. The ban on "offices" can apply to many people. 

A final thing is that there is a lot of confusion about how the fifth section of the Fourteenth Amendment enforces the amendment. An enforcement clause is in multiple amendments, including the ban on slavery. The case is about "section three."  What about section one? Does birthright citizenship only count with federal enforcement? 

The average person doesn't closely read the Constitution. This case and the overall debate over can be a learning opportunity. Ditto the idea the alternative will be a mess of patchwork laws. That is the case now! Do they want to change that? Great! 

Strong "Dissent"

The liberals appear to me (as Strict Scrutiny Podcast agrees) to dissent while framing it as a concurrence. Sotomayor particularly might be happy to have a way to be mad while going along with the (bad) bottom-line result. It taints the majority. 

As noted, Mark Joseph Stern appears to have found it once was a partial dissent. We won't know why the word "dissent" was removed. It's like agreeing a girl cannot go to the movies, not because the movie is non-Christian, but because she's sick. You concur with the result. 

I think concurrence in judgment is an accurate take of the result as written. It agrees with the result while disagreeing with the reasoning. Did the per curiam originally say something more? If not, how would this be a dissent at all?

No Syllabus 

Another thing that some might miss, but people who are concerned about details would find notable, is the lack of a syllabus. Opinions, including per curiams, have summaries at the top that are supplied by the reporter. This was the case with Bush v. Gore and per curiams last term. 

Was the Supreme Court so much in a rush -- as shown by the Sunday announcement -- that there was not enough time for the final opinion to have a syllabus? Will one be added? 

It isn't binding law any more than opinion announcements, which were not present here either. But, it's helpful. 

[ETA: Steve Vladeck notes on Twitter that it is normal for the syllabus to be added later for per curiams. He is not clear why.]

Final Thoughts (Maybe, For Now) 

I think it appropriate to ban people who were involved in an insurrection or rebellion from public office. This is especially true if there is a way to remove the disability as time passes or if they show some degree of rehabilitation or regret. 

The lawsuit and discussion provide continuing sunlight into these things. Likewise, they help us understand big questions like the role of history, the courts, and the political branches. We see how the Supreme Court can be hypocritical and so on. We are allowed to call them on it, even if the results are predictable. Thomas being involved is wrong.

I don't think as one person claimed this whole thing was a "fiasco." The whole thing is a sideshow. It is more important, for instance, that the Supreme Court is slow-walking the immunity case. It is still possible that behind the scenes, the two cases were somehow connected.  

For now, we can move on, including to Super Tuesday, budget items, and the State of the Union. And, we have a Trump criminal trial at the end of the month. As of now.

Israel/Gaza (And Some Additional Thoughts)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Series & Other Stuff

Texas Rangers, ending a drought, won the World Series in five games. Arizona came out tough, getting to their ace in Game 1. 

Unfortunately, former Mets journeyman and now apparent ace playoffs closer Paul Sewald turned into a pumpkin. He blew the save. Arizona bats came out in force late in Game 2 to make that a laugher. They lost a close one and then their bullpen game did not go well this time.  

Down 3-1, Arizona tried to make at least a series of it. Nonetheless, it is hard to get out an ace twice. This time he bent but did not break. Arizona's starter finally gave up a single run. Arizona's shot at a late comeback was basically ended when Sewald threw in another egg, four runs being given up in the end. 

So, overall, Arizona did somewhat better than their record suggests. If you want to try to look on the bright side. I did not really see much of the series. If I did, it would have been a mixture of nailbiting and turning off that game where they were losing 10-0 (wound up 11-7 with two late garbage time innings) early. I wanted them to win but am not that upset, except that I would have liked a more competitive overall result.

==

I wrote some thumbnail reviews of books on my Substack page. 

==

This refusal to grant relief to someone who is not only likely innocent but who the victim's own family accepts should be released is a travesty. 

The problem is not merely "Republicans." You can find Republican governors who would act differently. Yes, even in Texas once in a blue moon. The Texas courts recently held up an execution and not on innocence grounds. They have their moments. 

It also was just bad taste that a few people made it personal. It is quite easy not to like Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Nonetheless, making fun of her weight or appearance is tasteless. You are left with that unpleasant feeling where you want to defend someone you rather not defend. 

The system in place, including where even very strong cases for relief are blocked, is very problematic. Yes, there are many frivolous appeals in the mix as there are frivolous lawsuits of all kinds. Life and death warrant allowing an opening. Commutations and pardons are supposed to be one outlet here. They are an imperfect one up to and including the presidential process in place.  Yes, Democrat or Republican, that needs to be reformed.

I also continue to think that people should not be in prison for thirty years except in a tiny number of cases. Not this one, even if the guy did murder someone.  Charles Manson? Yes, I can see keeping him locked up. Ditto a small number of very dangerous defendants. Someone who committed a heinous crime? Not for that reason alone. Decades in a little cage is enough. 

These snapshots of injustices also bother me in a different way. They provide a chance for people to say "How horrible!" and "The system sucks!" or "Police are bad!" The system (whatever it is) has problems. However, it rarely totally sucks. Police engage with people thousands upon thousands of times a year. They have a legitimate job. 

These takes nearly never address those things. When they do flag a "good arrest" or whatever, they still don't note (even in small print or in a footnote) that "at times the police have a role."  It's a bit like when people hate lawyers, except when they need one.  

[I grant some hate them there too.]

===

Daylight Saving Time is a bit stupid. I think we should probably just end the thing. It isn't way up there. We are used to it. 

But, not having to worry about changing the time twice a year would be nice. Am I one of the few still still has a digital clock where you have to go all around to "fall back"? One also skips a few minutes at a time so it rarely is the right time. Both are of limited use but still use the radio at times. I actually have one on my phone too but that needs a headphone. 

Anyways, remember, "fall back, spring forward."  

I Vent While Making Some Hopefully Broader Points

I have discussed issues online for a long time. I still get upset when I think people make bad arguments, especially those who we have some reason to expect more from. I know the drill. I have that "Someone Is Wrong On The Internet" comic on my wall near my desk. I inked in "not a role model" or thereabouts. 

I don't think I'm going to change. Some lawyer who has spent a lot of time breaking down the law regarding Trump annoyed me. 

I went back to see if my comment had a reply. The whole reply was a link to some FAQ on criminal law and a "maybe this will help" comment. My comment was long and had various aspects, including disagreement with the person's citation of a commentator.* 

The link was non-responsive and implied I'm some idiot who is not aware of the criminal law. The reply pissed me off. I should have just ignored it. 

Not my style. For instance, my comment was in part in reply to someone arguing we should just let the system run its course until Trump is incarcerated. My comment in part suggested that is not guaranteed. It's something we need to factor in. I did not mean that suddenly we should just assume guilt. I would have clarified if the person didn't patronize me. 

Another person was upset that multiple defendants noting Trump incited them was not enough for a gag order. A respectful response to pushing back would ask if the person would accept the understanding more evidence that their claims were sound was necessary.

Okay. Instead, the person replied suggesting his approach would result in justice worse than Stalin's Russia. By chance, I just wrote something about the history of Ukraine during Stalin's control. 

Suffice it to say, the comment is f-ing asinine even granting the approach would result in injustices. This was again not some rando. The person was an expert who we have some warrant to expect more from.

Relatedly, we have Mark Meadows, who recent news brought to light received immunity from Jack Smith for testimony. He's the sort who won't testify (or will play somewhat coy) while writing bullshit books about the situation. 

The Slate summary shows how full of shit this guy is. He thinks he is above it all, not like trolls like Rudy or Sidney Powell. He's just one of the "serious people" who had to deal with Trump. These are the sorts who are particularly troublesome and horrible.

They are cynical bastards. And, they do get away with it all enough for their cynical assurances to be rather sensible. 

Meanwhile, people talk about Trump as if this whole thing is some sort of First Amendment f-ing thought experiment. 

---

* The person speaks here on recent anti-semitism. I respect the person. But, citing him as some calm and collective source that is a special snowflake of rationality is a bit much. 

He repeatedly has spoken in very strong terms against the Supreme Court, whose rulings he repeatedly disagreed with, including when arguing the case. How a link to a criminal law FAQ is responsive to my take here is unclear.

A reply to his comment includes this comment:

An oft-repeated mantra among some is that Israel is a settler colonialist country and should be forced to give the land back to the Palestinians. I have no idea how it would be determined who is rightly entitled to what land, but I do know that calling for the total elimination of Israel is antisemitic.

I reckon maybe a law professor could have "some" idea here, including how territory that under international law is supposed to be temporarily occupied should not have permanent settlers who make a two-state solution basically impossible. A fair reply is to note, perhaps, especially since in this fashion it very well is a "settler colonialist" country. 

I don't think a "total elimination of Israel" is very likely though I would like to know what that entails. Some argue we could not actually have a "one-state" solution where Palestinians simply are given an equal role country as a whole. They could outnumber the Jews. "Israel" would be eliminated.

How many protesters with any real power are truly asking for the "total elimination" of Israel? That is, in this country. I'm almost inclined to say other places too though I assume some in the Middle East would not mind. The land they want to be returned is the occupied territories. At least, that is likely the median position of even some of these vitriolic comments.

I am not trying to handwave things. See also here. I'm just trying to come at this in a more even-handed way.