They Are Not Both The Same

[And Also: My Future Boyfriend is a charming romantic comedy from ABC Family concerning a man from the future who comes back to our day to learn about love. A nod to Fred Willard, who yet again shows his low key comic charms here in a supporting role.]

The reality may be that the Republican Party’s movement to the Right has been faster and more consistent than even the Supreme Court’s.  So, for example, the Republican reaction to Heller may not have been “Hurray,” so much as “What took so long?” and “Exactly how many gun regulations does this strike down?”  As savvy veteran political scientists Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have recently put the point, albeit in stronger and more colorful terms than I would:  “The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its . . . opposition.”  If Mann and Ornstein’s characterization is remotely descriptive of the attitude held by even a significant minority of Republicans (and the percentage of Republicans in some states who say they believe the President is not a citizen, or not a Christian, suggests Mann and Ornstein do have a point), then no conservative victories at the Court are going to seem to be enough:  Striking down Obamacare on reasoning that leaves Romneycare, or the Fed, for that matter,  intact would result in a half-empty glass at best.

This was cited in a discussion of some poll data that suggests the Supreme Court has had a significant drop-off in public support, which is notable, since the courts tend to be (and still are -- a majority still have positive opinions; Congress would love to get close to that). These two, who also wrote Broken Branch (good book), are not just "savvy veteran political scientists," but lean center/right.  More than I, for sure.

Thus, I find them a good source for my basic theory that "both sides" aren't the same there. No "[equal] pox on both their houses." Rick Hasen [I comment some at the link, in part noting filibuster reform is a key] over at Slate reviews their book, but can't accept that, though other than noting maybe its their voters' fault and that Democrats you know aren't perfect, doesn't really say why. Daily Howler, after noting the two suddenly aren't on the Sunday talk show circuit, noted "Both of these channels now traffic in bogus facts and crackpot logic." That is, both MSNBC and FOX, you know, since they are basically the same thing.

This is poisonous stuff really. We can ignore it, since there are some many problems and it is going to be hard to convince many people who have strong partisan views one way or the other.  There is something to that and I do find it tedious when some specific issue is at stake (let's say banning a certain abortion procedure or a certain aspect of the death penalty) and the debate goes mega -- so, I try to explain that judges do have the power to override jury rulings on the death penalty and are not reprobates for doing so (as is a theme for certain people on a certain blog) and a person insists on asking if I'm against the death penalty, since if I am, well, you can't trust me.  Any nuance is just b.s.  Yeah okay.

And, I find it unproductive to just basically question the good faith of one side.  I realize -- see Chris Mooney's new book -- that how one views the world does matter.  There is a reason why logic and facts won't convince sometimes, even if (as some claim is the problem, as if comments on blogs are term papers) you provide detailed source material (and then it's too much and they move on) for your claims. Still, and it might be a fool's errand sometimes and you have to pick your battles ("don't feed the trolls"), I still find it important to try to find some common ground, find some way to show that the logic is wrong.  See my last post, where I think one of the people at that blog who repeatedly has ideological blinders but still (as I might have there, if it wasn't Facebook land) try to explain.

This is in part because often it is a matter of degree and people do change their minds, especially over time.  Nonetheless, they are not both the same.  If we are going to change, we have to accept on some level the facts of the matter.  The two parties, surely on the national level, are not the same.  MSNBC (though admittedly I don't watch it during the day) is not the same as FOX News. And, in fact, the two sides on the Supreme Court are not the same.  There is no equivalent to a far left Thomas, even if the "liberals" on certain issues can be fairly liberal. 

Some, like the authors of the book cited above, realize this without being members of the left wing of the Democratic Party.  I'm all for focusing on other things when appropriate, but will also continue to keep this in mind.

"The Incoherence of President Obama’s Stance on Gay Marriage"

 [Update: I cleaned up the entry some. There has been a lot of commentary on his remarks, including trying to parse them and determine that if you look real close, his views aren't crystal clear and there (the shock) is some haziness going on.  See, e.g., here.  I'll add here for some positive, though I don't agree with all the details; h/t Chris Hayes Twitter. 

At some point, as I have said, I find this basically a stupid bit of navel gazing. This is how things work: change often works upward, national figures setting forth their views and national policy influencing the process some, eventually a tipping point resulting in a change in the national rule.  Nor is it all crystal clear and neatly tied up in a bow.  That is how we got to Lawrence v. Texas and that is how it will work in this area too.]

Article IV, Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

There is a general confusion over the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Many think it is an easy call: states need to recognize (give "full faith and credit") to out of state same sex marriages. But, this is wrong.  The clause has always been interpreted to include a "public policy exception" in this field.  We can establish a new rule, not likely to happen, and it would be a major change given it would logically not only apply in the area of marriages.  We can appeal to equal protection (including as a component of the Due Process Clause) or some other later constitutional command, but that's a different argument. An interesting, if somewhat obscure, argument is that the provision requires "general" laws and a federal law like DOMA that singles out gays/lesbians is not one. 

Meanwhile, if local public policy is against let's say cousin marriage, the state need not (though it can by grace and often do, the mini-DOMAs in fact particularly singular in this respect in various cases) under the FFCC recognize out of state same sex marriage. It cannot treat outsiders differently though.  This shouldn't be too hard to understand unless it is accepted that South Carolina back in the day had to accept some sort of interracial marriage carried out in New York. In fact, Loving v. Virginia would have been an easy case -- the Lovings got married out of state where it was legal; the problem is that Virginia did not recognize such marriages. 

I can understand some confusion, especially from non-lawyers, on this point.  I don't claim to know all the nuances (e.g., legal judgments are treated more strictly than marriages -- a similar public policy exemption is not in place, though might in some minor ways)  either.  But, when law professors make claims like the title of this post, it does get a bit annoying.  With a link, his problem: "According to Attorney General Eric Holder, he and the President concluded that the constitutionality of legal distinctions based upon sexual preference cannot be defended."

This is false. The position is that sexual orientation should get heightened scrutiny, in effect, treating it like gender.  This doesn't mean an absolute rule is in place.  There are exemptions in place for gender, e.g., including (right or wrong) in cases of statutory rape and some immigration cases. Affirmative action in fact underlines you can make "distinctions" even on the basis of race. The link refers to litigation not to the part of DOMA that reaffirms (if in a way perhaps troubling, if only mattering in a few cases) the power of states not to recognize out of state SSM but the prohibition of the federal government to recognize marriages.  I am not aware of any case where this was applied to a couple who wanted to get a federal marriage license (let's say in Guam; D.C. recognizes SSM) where local rule doesn't allow it. 

Prof. Adler here in comments adds that the FFCC gives Congress the power to make exceptions. Putting aside the "general" application rule, due process and other protections limit and clarify powers in the Constitution proper. The Administration argues that if a locality (or as to immigrants, a foreign state) recognizes same sex marriage, it is not reasonable to on that basis to deny federal benefits.  It would be like if Congress made an exception for interracial marriages.  Though the legal opinions might not emphasize the fact, marriages generally being a matter of local concern adds weight to the argument.

In some other context, maybe rejecting local rules would make more sense, such as an immigration measure. Marriage is different and at least one federal judge in DOMA cases has noted the point. Obama's comment here in effect furthers this 10th Amendment-type principle.  It is not merely a "political" or strategic move on his part though that's part of it.  Yes, the full logic of the position could make same sex marriage the law in every state though given the GLBT community was wary even with Prop 8 litigation, pressing the point is likely theoretical.  But, following what he did, there is no "incoherence" here.  IF a state accepts same sex marriage, including a foreign state, his administration supports supplying federal benefits. DOMA is a problem because it supplies a special rule that targets gays and lesbians without a good reason, when there wasn't even an interracial DOMA at the height of segregation. It isn't that any distinction is unconstitutional. 

This might be somewhat technical at some point, but we are talking a law professor here.  It shouldn't be too hard.  Except, as many in that blog, they have a tendency to assume the worse for ideological reasons. 

More on Obama's Announcement

GLBT rights is one of the key movements of my generation and like abortion rights, I find it very important for various reasons. The basics are that we are dealing with people being wrongly discriminated against for bad reasons, based on various things that are interesting to look at overall (religious beliefs, gender relations etc.). There also is a romantic angle and who doesn't like lesbians? And, the striking business of being in the midst of a shift.  Pretty busy few decades. 

All of this pops up in respect to Obama's announcement last night, along with the whole politics angle. We have the "tears, hugs" angle. The "good job there" angle from those who at times oppose him. The rather tepid response from some in his coalition. And, various negative responses (see, various on threads like these*).  I'm in the positive camp, realizing the limitations of any announcement, but (like Rachel Maddow) also knowing that given his very good record on this issue (some belittle it, which takes a bit of denying reality), it is something of gravy.  Likewise, I realize the guy is a politician with some political machinations.  Why this should be surprising or even something to sneer at is a bit unclear.

Digby, e.g., ends with praise, but starts with "eh":

So president Obama finally admitted what we all pretty much assumed which is that he is in favor of same-sex marriage. It's a mainstream Democratic position and his reluctance always seemed fairly inauthentic. This is a very good thing, especially in light of the vote last night in North Carolina. Leadership is important and it was long past time he spoke out. It's a historical moment and one worth savoring.

If same sex marriage is the "mainstream Democratic position," what exactly is the left position on the subject?  As Michelle Goldberg noted, not going too far ahead of the public (who even now polls suggest that nation-wide barely over 50% in support SSM  ... we don't vote nation-wide and voters can be different from the population at large) is sensible politics.  Obama isn't just some Joe Smoe out there. He is the freaking POTUS.  FDR might have shared the causes of his wife, but he wasn't out there taking those more liberal positions.  A senator doesn't support the exact same thing as a local representative. And, the fact some local legislator said something before SSM was legal anywhere and then changed his public position once he became a national figure is only shocking to the uninformed.  But, somehow this is all supposed to be cynical and distasteful.  Why exactly? 

And, okay, what is this "spoke out" business?  He "spoke out" against DOMA years ago. The video underlines his support for gays and lesbians as is his support for civil unions with equal rights -- if that was actually the law of the land, it would improve the lives of gays and lesbians (and their family, friends, neighbors etc.) nation-wide.  Let's try, even for laughs, to take his comments in the interview at face value.  He thought civil unions would be satisfactory, particularly given that many (even some who accept civil unions) give special weight to the word "marriage," even (I'll add) if this is more emotional than a principled position.  This is nature to his pragmatist nature.  But, in time, he saw that the weight of the situation made marriage necessary, including the emotional value involved.  He might have "deep in his heart" supported SSM, but as Rachel Maddow noted last night, on some level, who cares?

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

Some of this might be for affect, as a sort of expression of public will (the President is the representative of the people at large), but it can very well be his honest belief on the matter.  So, even with the politics and so forth, some line had to be drawn.  Back when the Massachusetts Supreme Court recognized a state right to same sex unions, I suggested that civil unions might be an appropriate measure given how far that went at the time. The court in fact rejected that as not enough.  This was almost a decade ago, but I'm not the POTUS, and I thought a compromise position was possible.  Things has changed since then.

So, I'll stick with the latter part of Digby's quote. The nation has "evolved" a lot on this issue and Obama is a milestone there.  Too much can be focused upon regarding the politics of the whole situation.  Did Biden's comments push him somewhat?  Maybe.  Perhaps, it just goes to show that the personal here did force his hand some here.  How will it affect the election?  Probably not a lot and Romney really shouldn't think gleefully that the matter can help like was done in 2004. Things have changed and he isn't a sitting President, someone who couldn't even keep a gay foreign policy adviser from swinging in the wind.  He might get bitten if he focused too much on this issue and to the degree it might excite some, it might do so on both sides to some extent.

Some hook on his comment that he would still leave this to the states.  Obama's opposition to Prop 8 (no matter if its defenders pretended he was on their side -- he didn't want a state amendment or the prejudice promoted there)  and Amendment One in North Carolina underlines a big qualifier there.  Realistically, change will come state by state with a bit of federal action helping.  He also is for nationally getting rid of DOMA (at least, the part that refuses to recognize SSM where they exist)  and a stronger protection for gays and lesbians generally, which will help things along there. The federal courts are starting to go along. He made a personal sentiment known here -- that matters (see, e.g., Reagan being criticized for not mentioned "AIDS" for years) -- but also is making policy.

And, the bit that "this is Cheney's position" is petty. Fine, Cheney was like a stopped watch on this issue.  Obama is actually making federal policy. Unlike torture and the like, don't recall "President" Cheney pushing Bush here.  This is a real moment that is obviously not completely pure.  Such is life.  It does at times get better. 


---

* Two later posts more seriously supported his statement, one from someone whom in particular opposes him on various matters.  I admit to having a knee-jerk response akin to a few comments on that thread to be annoyed at his flippancy, though he strongly denies any lack of respect for the actual issue.

I say this in part since I repeatedly have seen his snarky comments that suggest that though he is more reasonable than some conservatives, he leaves something to be desired. And, yes, it does seem to be a trivialization of a key moment.  His inability to understand where one critic is coming from in particular is annoying, even if he honestly disagrees with the person.

vs. snark

To criticize Obama for following that progress rather than leading it is to misunderstand the nature of political change. No president forces major social advancements by himself. ... Presidents have to balance strategic political concerns with moral ones.

Michelle Goldberg (two good books) is on point. Over and over again, reality on this subject seems to be news. It is rather annoying.

Interesting Federalism/Death Penalty Case

The comments underline the nuance to this federal/state battle over who gets to try a murderer, but the appeal to originalism is particularly telling. So, we need to find the moderate Anti-Federalist position, determine how much it matters and ... It gets to be parody.

Obama Supports SSM

This is big. He's a politician so is limited about going all the way. His previous civil union approach would still advance equality in every state of the union. I realize full equality should be demanded. But, some people seem a bit unfair here. Romney opposes civil unions.

Conservative Framing Alert

NC Amendment One, State’s Same Sex Marriage Ban, Passes By Wide Margin

First, you too TPM with the Facebook comment transition? Second, what hope do we have when liberal media sources provide right leaning spin? SSM wasn't legal in NC on Monday. And, the amendment doesn't just ban SSM. At least, it isn't "gay marriage," which I like only a bit more than "Obamacare." Okay, I hate that a lot more.

RIP: Maurice Sendak

The American right: "These Republican schnooks would be comical if they weren't not funny."

He didn't want to lie to children. Many can't bear telling the truth to adults, including themselves. Stephen Colbert had a great interview with him, including bonus footage last night ... as he said "no shit."

No equal rights for you two!

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote;  they depend on the outcome of no elections."

For these two, NC voters disagree with Justice Jackson.

The Anti-Equality Amendment

... passed in North Carolina.  NC has "purple state" qualities, so it's a shame.  More sanity on race issues.

But, the blacks won in South Africa ...

The courts have proved unwilling not only to impose such accountability, but even to let suits seeking accountability go forward at all. We have exhausted that avenue of redress. But we have not yet said we are sorry. A commission is more urgent than ever.

David Cole ends a criticism of the Yoo ruling, thusly.

Lip Service

Back to re-reading this book. Interesting discussion, with use of case studies, about the complexities of modern sexual relations. Helpful to get beyond the too often one-sided approach, more stereotypical. Women (and men) lose out. Reality is more messy; more real.

On TV

NY Yankee fans would probably enjoy to know how the former Boston closer blew it, versus a rookie getting his first hit (a three run homer). The Mets even got an interference call go their way, but yet another player got hurt. Maurice Sendak was great on Colbert; RIP. Fall Down Dead: pretty good late nite thriller. Guilty pleasure.

Book Update

I noted a little ways back that a comic strip led me to check out Death in Venice. Checked it out, but only read a short story and skimmed an account about a man and a dog. I did some time back see Love & Death on Long Island, which is sort of a take-off. Well done.

Tax On Merely Existing And Doing Things ...

The comments to these type of posts are a guilty pleasure, but the one that tries to explain that a tax on having insurance somehow is a "direct" tax in a "let me correct you there ma'am" tone was prime.

President Is Not Pure ... Media Confused

The White House was asked again today to explain President Obama's position on marriage equality. A clear answer remains elusive.

SSM is already not recognized in NC; the constitutional amendment does a whole lot more. Obama has done and continues to do a lot for gay/lesbian equality but for political/social reasons has not gone all the way. This is only hard to understand for the slow on the uptake.

vs. the Fake Deal

The guy, in the opinion of many here, is the real deal.

A comment to a post written July 27, 2004.

Good Luck Charlie

I like this Disney show, which actually provides something for adults to do, but didn't care for the "another baby" storyline. Charlie as youngest is sorta the point. Saw four episodes on demand and was underwhelmed. Spencer coming back is particularly tired.

Army Wives etc.

Good episode. The very good story arc seems about done, but one or two loose strings left. Knicks weren't eliminated quite yet. Orioles DH won the game, an OF lost it. And, Tejeda hopefully isn't that hurt.

MHP -- Ballet

Interesting segment on domestic violence and in the "something different" category (with so much cable news overlap), promotion of arts education, including ballet, particularly for students who might not usually choose that.  The host herself has a young daughter.

Obama and Medicinal Marijuana

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama raised hopes among those who support medical marijuana by pledging to respect state laws on the issue. But his administration has reversed course and massively escalated the federal government’s attacks on medical marijuana businesses, most of which are legal under their states’ laws.

Another cite from Volokh Conspiracy (see also, Sentencing Law and Policy, which opposes current federal policy)  of how horrible the Obama Administration is on this issue without much context or addressing key questions.  A comment there (I don't comment any more, since I don't do facebook comments) highlights my main question -- why exactly was there a shift mid-term to a more hard core policy?  The op-ed cited references it, but fails to explain why. I can guess -- pushback as state medicinal marijuana sales increased upward or change in political winds after the 2010 elections, but these citations never seem to say or even question.

Simply put, Obama has become more hostile to medical marijuana patients than any president in U.S. history.

Medicinal marijuana was also not allowed by California et. al. until fairly recently, other states following their lead.  A right to "apply" for federal waivers is really ridiculous.  A marijuana activist more than anyone knows how useful that generally was.  Now, states allow thousands of people (more like tens of thousands) to use medicinal marijuana per specific state laws. And, no way did marijuana research go "unhindered" until now.  Cannot we rightly oppose use of federal resources against peaceful medicinal marijuana patients and dispensaries without going overboard?

As with other issues, this is a case where Obama's pre-election rhetoric was open enough that people could read into it what they wish to read into it.  His recent statement against "legalization" and that he "never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana" is not some change of policy. And, it is laughable to put "Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Ronald Reagan and even George W. Bush" in the same category, the first two libertarians on this issue, the third dealing with a whole different legal environment and even the last not dealing with the same thing such as perhaps conservative law officials wary of the "left leaning" President.

I am all for pressuring the Obama Administration to have a sane policy in this area, hopeful that he is more open than others are. As to the Gov. Perry quote, other than some book, where are all the Tea Party types pushing back on federal policy, perhaps Congress can pass an exception to federal law to allow use pursuant to state law?  Or, is this all Daddy Obama's problem, perhaps under our "Obama Drug Laws."  There does, though damn if the reasons are woefully unreported, seem to be some shift in the Administration's policy (with limited capital used elsewhere; as I noted in the past, some have noted there isn't "one" Administration but a bunch of groups under a head, and it seems -- a fruitful area for research -- this was allowed to shift right for various reasons). 

A shift that should be addressed and opposed, just in a more accurate fashion. 

Fahrenheit 451

Interesting film version by a famous French director who did it in English that from my understanding (did not read it) made a few key changes though the writer (part of the DVD extras here) liked it as a whole. As did I. The lead actress admirably handles a dual role. 

Rev. Joe (NC Amendment 1)

[The below ballot measure voted on later this week goes along with Romney's foreign policy adviser resigning after he was left to dry in the midst of conservative attacks arising from his sexuality. The guy left something to be desired, including sexist comments made about Rachel Maddow, but  this is a "seriously?" moment.] 

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

-- Proposed NC Constitutional Amendment

A decade ago, Nebraska passed such a "beyond marriage" amendment, which goes beyond simple legislation to ban official recognition of a lot more than same sex marriage. Sort of bigotry on steroids.  I noted this when discussing a federal court upholding the Nebraska amendment, including "a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship."  Thus, as noted by Chris Hayes yesterday (and MHP), even some anti-SSM types think this goes too far.

Full equality should be the rule here, even second class citizenship is violated here.  A major concern of the amendment is to prevent the need to give full faith and credit to out of state same sex marriages or perhaps other such relationships. But, the amendment is overbroad in that respect, since allowing same sex couples to have "marriage-lite" type unions such as domestic partnerships with various rights does not require that, lesser protections that many now say they are okay with, even if they oppose SSM.  In fact, some want that sort of marriage alternative for different sex couples.  Finally, this goes beyond "private contracts" because state based privileges and immunities are involved here. 

Chris Hayes yesterday had Rev. Jasmine Brach-Ferrara, executive director of the Campaign for Southern Equality to discuss the matter (see link above), underlining the religious connection here. Some appeal to religious beliefs to limit rights here, but as with other areas, it actually can work the other way, including an equal right to make the private religious, spiritual and moral choices at stake here.  They still can privately do such things in this context, but note the resulting burden if they have the "wrong" beliefs, love the wrong people and so forth.  This is simply wrong.

I hope the people of NC draw some sort of line here.  Some sanity. 

Seriously?

From those who think the PPACA is a major threat to liberty.

Food Book

The previously mentioned book is well sourced though the website with source material is a bit hard to navigate. Interesting footnotes. Her actually working in the jobs (farming, Walmart, Applebees) adds a touch of realism. The author photo doesn't look like her.

More on Yoo

I appreciate the back/forth in the comments [of the last post on Yoo] and will leave it there. Here is more in support of the losing side.

The American Way of Eating

Just started the other, but this book came in too.  Good so far.  Food policy is quite important and probably deserves more emphasis.

National Day of Prayer

The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.

-- 36 USC § 119 - National Day of Prayer

As noted here,  it is that time of the year again, some using it to promote a day of reason.  I covered this ground before, but suffice to say, this isn't the best way to render to Caesar what is Caesar's (as noted by a member of the clergy on Colbert the other day, see, even Jesus says to pay your taxes) and to God what is God's. If the President wants to encourage free exercise of religion, so be it, it's right there in the First Amendment.  Quite another to instruct him ("shall issue") to favor a certain type.

And, that is what this does.  It favors a certain type of religious practice and in fact singles out "churches," which is far from a neutral word objectively speaking.  Why not at least say "place of worship" is unclear to me. This stuff is sensitive, just ask Catholic groups that are upset when they think they are being wrongly targeted when many do not think so at the time.  In his proclamation, the President (Rev. Obama?) said "let us pray [and] ask God for the sustenance to meet the challenges we face as a Nation" though again ending on an admirable open stance:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 3, 2012, as a National Day of Prayer. I invite all citizens of our Nation, as their own faith directs them, to join me in giving thanks for the many blessings we enjoy, and I call upon individuals of all faiths to pray for guidance, grace, and protection for our great Nation as we address the challenges of our time.

He has be noticeably sensitive to that sort of thing, trying to be truly comprehensive.  That is appreciated.  Meanwhile, the Secular Coalition of America chose an interesting spokesperson, though it should not be a total shock ... Karl Rove alone is not exactly known for his religious beliefs.  Many in that Republican coalition -- cynically or not -- are not true believers in the evangelical sort of way.  The fact they are as united as they are shows some remarkable degree of skill really. Still, besides being natural after all, I can see the skepticism of many in the movement. 

As to the main subject of this post, I again realize that absolutism is not possible but find this sort of thing troubling.  But, given that, Obama handles it about as good as one reasonably can. 

No Liability for Yoo

As noted here (and the link there), not even a trial so jurors or a judge can hear the case. Such b.s., but you know, got stop "harassing" the poor guy. Even an investigation by his law school was deemed outrageous (Balkinization really circled the wagons).

The Descendants

Of the director's works, I liked this and Sideways. Serious subject, nice moderate pace, good supporting staff around Clooney.

Lee and Grant

Interesting stuff over the weekend on C-SPAN.

Lip Service

Read her book back in the day; re-reading it now.

Constitutional Cliffhangers: A Legal Guide for Presidents and Their Enemies

Amazon: "Brian Kalt envisions six such controversies, such as the criminal prosecution of a sitting president, a two-term president's attempt to stay in power, the ousting of an allegedly disabled president, and more." Fairly interesting and smooth reading but admittedly I got a bit bored with it.

May Days

May Day was originally a Spring festival and later had labor implications, the origins connected to a protest arising from the response to a mysterious bombing. Fittingly, perhaps, it also is Law Day. Cinco de Mayo, meanwhile, is a celebration against the forces of imperialism. [No, against the French.]

Debby Ryan Watch

Was very good on Suite Life while she has less to work with on Jessie, but from what I saw, Mary Sue (as one review of the book accused) or not, she handled Radio Rebel well. Interesting role in the Christian fiction What If..., but not much to do.

Drone Use: Now it is "official"

The Obama administration formally acknowledged for the first time Monday its use of drone strikes against terrorism suspects, lifting but not removing the shroud of secrecy that surrounds the nation’s expanding use of targeted killing operations overseas.

A bit of hair-splitting here after the State Department legal adviser already spoke of "lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles" and President Obama "informally" in a webchat:

“I want to make sure that people understand that drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties,” Obama replied. “For the most part, they have been very precise, precision strikes against al-Qaeda and their affiliates.”

The perception that “we’re just sending in a whole bunch of strikes willy-nilly,” Obama said, is incorrect. “This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists, who are trying to go in and harm Americans, hit American facilities, American bases and so on.”

“I think that we have to be judicious in how we use drones,” Obama added.

Some analysis here.  I have went back and forth with some people online about this general system and continue to have three thoughts: policy-wise, I'm not a big fan; legally, not the same as "assassination,"  overall it is acceptable but the details might be a problem (e.g., openness of means used to choose targets; court review beforehand when U.S. citizens are involved); and, opposition regarding "unlimited" power and such here is overblown hyperbole (redundancy for emphasis), though it has a germ of truth factually (limits on presidential policy in respect to military force tends to be prudential and pragmatic, generally speaking).

The use of computerized long distance warfare in the 21st Century is not surprising or illegitimate by definition, Congress and the courts authorized use of military force against Al Qaida and its supporters (and not just in Afghanistan), U.S. citizens can be targets in such military conflicts and so forth.  Such use of force is by nature and habit will tend to be largely secret, even if it is an open secret. Overall, the more openness and basic detail provided, including (no reason why this cannot be aboveboard) the Administration's legal and policy views on this subject, the better.

Chris Hayes had a segment on this subject on Saturday and the human rights attorney on to discuss the matter ultimately focused on the need for special care and careful review of the use of drones.  The practice, present in the Bush Administration though he focused more on other (much more lethal writ large) means to kill people, will continue to be controversial and at best an imperfect alternative.  Congress and the public at large should demand detail, oversight and special care, probably more than provided. So, this is appreciated.

Army Wives

The story arc basically continues back at home.  Frank is having nightmares about local children left behind, but Trevor is correct: save a few orphans, where does it stop?  Many subplots, with serious themes, all overall pretty successful. CJ's nemesis is now sympathetic.

Rev. Joe (Death Penalty)

MHP misleadingly didn't include Japan here, but Mr. Jacoby oversold on the other side too: the evidence on deterrence is much closer to equipoise. The religious voice on the panel underlines the true point: it likely turns on one's position on the morality of the practice.

Paul Clement

Various people rave, but it's pretty hard to listen to him.  After awhile, it comes off as "drone drone ... this is why wrong is right (or spin spin) ... drone."  He was right in Heller, admittedly.

Michael B. Selsor

Letter to the Editor: No mercy

Once again, the people of Oklahoma, through the parole board, have shown heart by denying clemency for someone whose crime was committed 37 years ago. This is in spite of testimony from correctional personnel that Michael B. Selsor was a "model prisoner who often looked out for young men and helped them adjust to prison life." There is not much chance for redemption in prison but whatever chance there is, I think Selsor took advantage of it and showed that there is good in him. He is 57 and is being put to death for something that happened when he was 20.

I don't say let him out of prison or at some time in the future deem him eligible for parole, but I think he has demonstrated a chance to live. What happened to the revered Christian concept of redemption? I guess we may just ignore it.

Editor's note: Michael B. Selsor is scheduled to die May 1 for the shooting death of a Tulsa convenience store manager during a 1975 robbery spree that left at least three other people injured.

A few times, you notice an order like this at the USSC website and it usually is a summary dismissal of a death inmate appeal.  This case has shades of both sides of a debate found here (it is a bit weird that a specialty blog attracts knee-jerks like at least two people on that thread): the person doesn't seem overly sympathetic on some level,* but on another, the machinery of death seems perverse. 37 years?  Calling Justice Breyer!   The perversity of a sentence being commuted to life in prison and then on retrial decades later given the death sentence again under a revised statute is also noted though there is some logic to it.

I read somewhere that though the Torah and so forth allows Jews to execute, it provides so many roadblocks (especially with all the commentary since) that it is rather hard to have the case come to fruition.  Such underlines the pragmatics of strict rules in practice. I find the death penalty wrong but not utterly unreasonable.  In practice, however, it all turns messy.  I continue to find it hard to see it worthwhile to execute people like him.  Let him stay in prison.  What is the point of executing an arbitrary few for crimes done in the days of That '70s Show? 

I reckon there is a philosophical reason for it.  Not for me.

---

* "Along with the murder conviction, and shooting with intent to kill, Selsor is also serving 10 years for robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and robbery with a firearm. He is also serving 18 months for a 1985 conviction of attempted escape from a penal institution. According to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections website, Selsor has been housed at OSP since April 24, 1985."

Poetry Month

Lost track of the months. Two favorite poems: "Annabel Lee" and "The Road Less Taken." I also liked "Verses on a Cat."

Guilt

As were those in “Crime,” the stories in “Guilt” are hypnotic and unadorned accounts of actual cases of one of Germany’s most celebrated attorneys. Ferdinand von Schirach delves into contemporary hearts of darkness and once again mesmerizes with the matter-of-factness of their tales.

Both are quick rewarding reads.

Not the Mets Night

Drive

This is a basic B flick that is enjoyable enough on that level with another good Ryan Gosling performance. Gets to be a bit much.

USSC Ends With Papers Please

It makes some sense in a term with various big cases that the USSC would end its oral argument calender with the infamous (in some quarters) "papers please" law, though apparently the justices think that specific part of the law is rather unproblematic. Scotusblog (analysis/media round-up) etc. suggests the federal government did not do well.

Listening to the argument, this might be right to some degree, though the implication it is the fault of the SG is a tad off. Some analysis (e.g., here and other posts at that blog) provides a somewhat more nuanced picture. Likewise, we have more "Grandpa" Scalia moments where he sounds like he belongs on Fox and Friends or something.  As suggested here, you again get an unfortunate feeling at times that the justices, or at least some of them (Kagan, btw, was recused, so four justices will be a win for the feds on the issues they won on below; they are not attacking all parts of the law)  simply aren't completely aware of just what is at stake.

From at least the late 19th Century, scholars suggest before (though the feds, like in other matters of commerce, also simply didn't get much involved beforehand), it was recognized that immigration was a national concern, one in which the feds can "take over the field."  (See, e.g., the Head Money Cases) Basically, besides matters of naturalization and border control, it is basically a matter of international commerce.  Scalia at one point flagged a provision in Art. I, sec. 10 that when "absolutely necessary" (he skipped over that) for inspection laws, states could on its own lay duties on goods.  The need to single that out underlines the broad power of the federal government as a whole here.

The Obama Administration cites federal law that gives the feds the discretion in this area and argues the specific provisions in question unconstitutionally clash with supreme federal law.  The first part of the argument from Paul Clement focused on the Fourth Amendment issues though this is supposed to be a pre-emption case.  There is some overlap, since it underlines the affect of the state law, but it was a bit curious.  Clement's overall point is that the state can help the federal government in enforcing its law and in no way is this law clashing with said law.

His old friend from the PPACA orals had to spend much of his time trying to explain how the "papers please" aspect of the law is not trivial.  Roberts' very first question basically took what bothers so many people off the table -- this isn't about racial and ethnic profiling, right?!  Verilli said yes, but this is all so artificial; even he raised concerns of "harassment," which Scalia thought was a sneaky way the get the profiling issue back in.  The overall concern here (see New Republic link) is you have all of these people and it makes little sense to take a one trick pony approach given the matter of resources, liberty concerns and geopolitical matters.  Scalia: "we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico?!”  Ah, the model Republican justice. 

So, yeah, contra a few justices sarcastic (Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy) or confused (Sotomayor/Breyer) comments, the feds do not want some zero tolerance policy here and the state's overall approach must be examined.  The state's policy therefore is problematic and just looking at one section in a vacuum (section 2) in some artificial "let's pretend" way is wrong.  One ACS Blog entry cited above -- other than noting that there is more to come here -- summarized things nicely:

First, while much of the argument revolved around Section 2(B), the “show me your papers” provision of S.B. 1070, the discussion seemed to imagine a law quite different from the one the state legislature actually passed. S.B. 1070 itself directs state and local police to detain individuals for investigation and determination of their immigration status, but during the argument, several exchanges construed the section as merely serving to notify the federal government of an individual who was otherwise properly detained. Prognostication around the argument fails to factor in this significant retreat from the plain language of the statute.

Second, this has always been a case about discrimination, harassment and racial profiling. It is true that there is no separate legal claim based on the Equal Protection Clause in the federal government’s case (although there is one in the civil rights coalition’s case). But it is equally true that from its inception, S.B. 1070 has been synonymous with racial profiling, and for good reason – as law enforcement officials from around the country have repeatedly confirmed, and as our clients’ experiences demonstrate.

And, a previous case underlined federal control of this area in part is a matter of avoiding such harassment, a more cosmopolitan national government with special concerns and motivations deemed different here than a locality.  But, USSC minimalism allows us to set up some sort of Potemkin Village provision here. I realize this is a "facial challenge," but the rule there is not that if there is maybe some conceivable application that the law suddenly becomes acceptable, though the rules are cloudy enough that can be true in some cases.  A separate case can be raised on the racial profiling point, but the USSC has been fairly unsympathetic in dealing with what amounts to pre-textual stops. 

Alito wondered why making it a policy is a problem if police could ask on their own.  Well, a mandatory policy does change things, but the problem becomes clearer (shades of PPACA, perhaps, on the tax issue), if we look at the law as a whole. The average person is aware of this, but we are dealing with "artificial reason" (Coke) here.  There are other issues here, but I advisedly focus on this stuff -- Verilli in effect only managed to address the other three (and not much to my ear) by being given more time.  Clement dealt with them too but again there was an also-ran feel.  There is some discussion here with more of the "may rarely exist in the real world" feel of the attempt to salvage a statute somehow by watering down what it exactly does.  I'm for the "reality based community."

We shall see how it all works out, probably sometime in June.  Meanwhile, the USSC press corps had their own "papers please" incident.

Daniel Webster of the Forces Of Wrong

No one is saying it out loud, but Clement’s federalism principles, whatever they may be, have shown themselves to be inconsistent when they bump up against his political ideology.

Well, I have.  FWIW.  Slogans tend to fall upon review here.

Comics Encourage Classical Education

The way to be introduced to classic literature -- comic strips. I downloaded this work (it translates to just over 50 pdf pages) and will put it on the reading list along with Demian, a work by Herman Hesse (which I'm sure Rat will dismiss just as well), the library copy reserved having an introduction by the author of the former work!

I would also have little reason to note the latter work -- German literature is generally not my thing though I'm about to read Guilt, a sequel to Crime, both a collection of short stories by a present day German defense attorney.  The book popped up in Eloise's Lover (summary of book), a good movie that I came across my chance.   The film had a good moment when said lover noted that she "hated" Eloise because falling in love with her was quite hard and rather scary -- shades of Moonstruck, where the mother was sorry her daughter truly fell in love with Nicholas Cage (pre-conspiracy thriller) since that makes things so much harder.

No telling if I will like either, but if nothing else, both are short. 

The Hunger Games

I will probably wait to see the film, but the book was pretty good, though the games could have been a bit better. I'm interested to learn more about this society.  I like the title character's name.

Interesting Article

"Medical Marijuana in Colorado and the Future of Marijuana Regulation in the United States." Helpfully covers main points.

Sometimes, Best To Let It Go (Prosecution Edition)

I voted for Edwards (for symbolic reasons in the primary) and was at a personal appearance his wife gave for her second book.  Guy is an ass.  But, he lost his wife and political good name.  The prosecution is a lousy idea, even without its questionable legal basis.

More Mets

I was tad pissed when a misplayed ball by Bay's replacement scored a run, ending Santana's great night.  The Mets have yet to score a run for the guy and one just missed being scored on a wild pitch.  But, the Mets scored on a walk later on (thanks to four different pitchers) and won it on an infield single later still.

UUA / SB1070

I am deeply disturbed by the recent flurry of attacks on women’s rights. I am especially troubled by how religious fundamentalism is used to justify taking away rights from women.

The fact is that our major religious traditions have within them both liberating visions and histories that give legitimacy to unspeakable oppression. Think for a moment about the last few centuries. Religion has been used to justify slavery, to keep the vote from women, to condemn gays and lesbians, and to justify horrible violence.


I am so glad that Unitarian Universalism has long taken seriously the idea that every human being has inherent worth and dignity and that a spirit of justice, equity and compassion should guide human relationships.

A tweet sent me to the above from the UUA, more evidence  that there are religions, faiths, values and the like that need not make people treat such terms like dirty words or as somehow inherently Republican or something. The UUA is also on record as against SB1070 and protesting it as violation of its and our country's basic values.

I'm all for flexibility when appropriate, but immigration policy is clearly a federal matter, a matter of commerce between nations and so forth, so find this approach questionable.  As suggested yesterday, this is not merely a matter of state v. federal power. When the nation as a whole, not a specific border state, sets policies, various compromises are made, various things are taken into account that might not occur in a more limited venue.  This is why commerce among states, domestic and foreign, was entrusted in the federal government.  Locals still have discretion, as the Whiting opinion and others show.  There are limits, especially when the state is clearly trying to push federal policy and officers.

[Update: The reports are not positive, but the justices were most doubtful that merely asking for immigration status and providing the feds with the information by itself (as the SG noted, it isn't by itself; it is part of a whole) is pre-empted.  There might be the four votes needed for the others to at least uphold 4-4.  The justices themselves started with the weakest point, Roberts upfront trying to not make this about racial/ethnic profiling. 

It is a bit unfair to blame Verilli for doing badly here. I think he did provide reasons even for the first provision being a problem (see transcript at USSC website) and likely effects, including racial/ethnic profiling, factors in on the ground.  But, a narrow rejection of a facial challenge of this one provision seems fairly likely, if not a big loss by itself.]

Some like to talk about the 10th Amendment, but there are two sides of that coin.  If the states have their area, the feds have theirs, the states not having the authority to invade that either.  We shall see (Scotusblog will later talk about the orals and the audio will be available Friday afternoon) how things go.

---

 * Since it came up, let me add a local tidbit that I talked about in the past. A member of the NY Assembly has recently tried to amend state law to clarify the right of ULC Church (not related to UU) ministers to officiate weddings. Upon contact with her office, I was informed that the AG's office told her that "[t]heir reading of the law and case law since is that universal life ministers and any minister who is ordained on-line cannot officiate."

Suffice to say, the matter is debatable, the highest state court never ruling on the question and the last of three rulings occurring over twenty years ago. New York City hands out marriage officiant certificates to such ministers. As I noted in the past, I find this stupid and misguided. It's a real issue as shown by the number of NYT wedding announcements that include reference to such ministers, particularly favored by same sex couples.  If this is what a couple wants to give meaning to their wedding, it is unclear to me the point of not letting them.

If the state allows online courses to be used for education credits for teachers, why should on-line ordination matter?  Technically, an actual person processes the requests and sends you paperwork. What if a church in Africa or some other distant place sometimes ordained people in such a fashion?  Would Skype work? 

By Chance DVDs

I saw a daughter from Mayor Cupcake, a slight but nice film with a familiar face in the lead, first on Suite Life On Deck. Saw The River Why in the library, familiar leads and interesting interviews. Film bored me -- too talky, let the visuals work guys! Turned it off.

Mets Continue Their First Bump in the Road

The new CF got hurt the first game. The back-up IF got hurt, but that opened up a slot for a doubleheader. But, now the LF is hurt and Pelfrey suddenly is on the DL for the first time ever. Serves him right for pitching well. Reyes is visiting with his new haircut.

Arizona Law To Be Heard Wed.

USSC will review Arizona's controversial "papers please" law. For various reasons, it will be of limited importance. The possibility of a 4-4 ruling alone makes me a bit curious. The issue is federal power, though it does affect how racial issues are treated. See, 14A.

Double trouble for the Mets (.500)

Old poet/jack of all trades (currently good at none) Batista got behind early but the call-up did do well (the Mets tweet noted the bullpen did well).  Lot of Mets on base for the score. Gee went longer, but same basic result.  Call-up was sent back.  Why not just start the guy? 

That's Media Mail, Please, No Insurance or Stamps

I sometimes sell stuff, mainly books, on Ebay.  Sold an old one and got a net profit to buy a jar of fruit.  Plan to put them on some waffles, maybe two servings worth.  Sort of zen/barter thing there about the meaning of trade or something.  Life be easier if I can just trade this for that on a regular basis.

Charles Savage's Latest

I respect Charles Savage's reporting/analysis over the years regarding executive power, including in the Obama Administration, but some aspects of his "Shift on Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals" piece leaves something to be desired.  It is getting some attention, Election Law Blog saying it is a "must read" and (shocker) a Volokh Conspiracy conservative uses it to show "him too" on executive power. Marty Lederman, previously having the job of defending him in-house, provides some useful balance here.

For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals. 

But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress.

The overall thought here is that once people enter a position, there previous doubts regarding it tend to become at least somewhat altered. Jefferson, e.g., was able to live with himself once President doing things like negotiating a treaty to obtain Louisiana without amending the Constitution.  Robert Jackson and others changed positions once they left the executive department to go on the Supreme Court.  Also, Obama never was as civil liberties friendly as some on the left seem to believe. It was a matter of degree.  For instance, he never said he was against ALL signing statements.  Finally, with Republican control of the House and a few pick-ups in the Senate, and particular forceful obstructionism, obviously his approach would change in various respects.

So, my concern is that the piece speaks of a "shift" that has occurred to some degree but on some level [and this part is fine and informative], there was never some "pure" position anyways.  This seems misleading on some level.  We also read a critic note "Still, he said, because of Mr. Obama’s past as a critic of executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable."  But, Obama was never a total critic and his "executive unilateralism" can be exaggerated. Presidents are by design "unilateral" to some extent anyways.

“Obama’s not saying he has the right to defy a Congressional statute,” said Richard H. Pildes, a New York University law professor. “But if the legislative path is blocked and he otherwise has the legal authority to issue an executive order on an issue, they are clearly much more willing to do that now than two years ago.” 

As ML notes, telling point.  The article, e.g., notes that Obama decided "to stop defending" DOMA. But, he still is enforcing it. You might not know this key fact from the piece.  Nor, that this was done in the past.  Cf. Bush's executive power veto of torture laws etc.  As to waivers, often laws allow that. Is this a "shift" of some sort?  Did he never give waivers early on? This is not just a mild if important change in tone -- like the author of Miral suggested yesterday on Chris Hayes was the difference between Obama and Romney on foreign policy (more finesse; Romney will piss people off more while Obama will do things like promote freedom in Egypt and get Nobel Peace Prizes apparently just for showing up while using drones etc.).  There is some difference in kind. 

First, he proposed a jobs package and gave speeches urging lawmakers to “pass this bill” — knowing they would not. A few weeks later, at the policy and campaign strategy meeting in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, the president told aides that highlighting Congressional gridlock was not enough.

This seems pretty standard stuff as is the ability of the executive -- by executive orders etc. -- to work within the existing laws. No examples are provided on what exactly Obama did in this respect here, but it's informative to show how things work when a President is blocked by Congress.  The recess appointment issue also was cited.  It was not noted that without a new consumer financial protection bureau head, the law would not be able to be carried out.  The special nature of the obstructionism (I don't recall a similar Democratic move of late; e.g., when the Democrats with a bit of Republican support blocked Bolton, the administration still could put an assistant there and the Democrats didn't want a new treaty or a change in UN policy before voting for any UN representative) is essential to know the full story. The article does touch upon how the level of obstructionism altered the balance of power, leading Reid to accept the move.

Executive orders are again cited, but Presidents always have the power to use them, and Obama long before now used them in various cases (e.g., regarding abortion funding) in a policy way.  There is some "ho hum" nature of what is going on here, but yet again Bush and Obama weren't just peas in a pod:

“This is what presidents do,” Mr. Goldsmith said. “It’s taken Obama two years to get there, but this has happened throughout history. You can’t be in that office with all its enormous responsibilities — when things don’t happen, you get blamed for it — and not exercise all the powers that have accrued to it over time.”

The reason why such a diverse coalition was upset under Bush was that he did things more bluntly, went further, even when working with Congress would get much of what he wanted.  The power of the executive in the 21st Century, especially in national security areas where it is hard to find a forceful enough counterweight (Obama in fact notably wanted less free reign than the House Republicans wanted to give the executive), is troubling.  No matter who's in power. Also, it is useful to understand how checks and balances work, including executive push-back, and not be surprised when it occurs.

I guess it is a good piece overall, but with some grains of salt. 

Army Wives

I have watched this show from the beginning, but it has been something of a mixed bag, including early this season, after a two part action packed beginning.  As noted the last few weeks, it has really moved into first gear with a multi-episode story arc that appears to have been completed last night. A mission was sent to some African country to evacuate some non-combats as violence rose after the death of a possible coalition candidate.  Meanwhile, some drama occurred back on the base.

A lot of stuff happened, some inter-connected, overall all well done.  Turns out guest star Kelli Martin (ER etc.)  would have a lot to do. She began her role as a captain in intelligence give a situation briefing with special knowledge of the ongoing problem in Africa. There was some thought by some viewers that there was a thing between her and the general (whose wife, CJ's nemesis -- who now appears to have a little anti-depressant or something drug thing going on -- left him after an affair he had with an underling). Anyway, it was an early on hint at how important fairly low ranking people are in strategy moves.

Her skills, plus even her sex (a group matrilineal, so respecting women), helped deal with a possibly lethal incident in the field.  It also showed the risk and stress involved, including by young newbies who are facing people with guns.  She was injured in the leg on the way back as they mowed past a barrier.  Earlier, someone else was seriously injured when a possibly long standing land mine blew.  His Asian wife committed suicide because of the various stresses of their marriage and her life here.  This subplot was handled nicely with various characters, including a new minor one (a German wife that Roxy had to deal with when her macaroni salad made her husband sick) talking about the stress of such wives.

It turns out the the captain is the girlfriend of Roland/Joan's adopted son's after school center.  I wasn't sure, but it turns out that this is supposed to be happening after DADT was over (early on, the show seemed to be a bit behind actual events). There was a nice ending where she meets the injured captain at homecoming; they kissed, but no flash bulbs or anything.  It was a private moment and we saw how special it was for the captain to be able to have a loved one there.  Also, another issue arose earlier, since the captain's mom is her emergency contact, who did not inform the girlfriend of the injury.  They were keeping it private or perhaps there would be a way to have more than one person to notify.

[On the subject, I by chance -- Fios doesn't provide t.v. guides and there are a ton of channels -- caught Eloise's Lover on Sundance.  First, I wasn't going crazy -- the Spanish dialect is a bit different than many films. Second, well acted and nice to look at, but some stereotypical aspects and not the best of ending.  (It also is a bit confusing, but the comments there and at IMDB suggests a logical explanation.)  Overall, I enjoyed it -- hard not to like the leads and the beauty of the language.]

This is only a brief look at the three episode story arc that is very impressive.  Afterwards, I watched Veep on HBO.  Nice to see My Girl (Anna Chlumsky), but wasn't really impressed.  Seems like something various political blog viewers (the sorts who love to say "villagers" or such) would love, a lot of potty mouth immature goings on.  Might be an okay time waster.  There was a preview for yet another cable series (it's amazing really) with Jeff Daniels and various other familiar faces (including Alison Pill, a talented young stage/screen actress) that takes place in a newsroom.  I even found a web series looking into something.

No wonder I read fewer hard copy things these days.

Two Books where VPs Mattered (pre-Cheney)

I read/skimmed two books in which the vice presidency became quite relevant.

The first is Gail Collins' entry in the mini-bio series of American presidents, which is perhaps appropriately briefer than appears to be normal, just like its subject's term of office: William Henry Harrison.  The only ones left being Reagan (a bit curiously), Clinton (a bit less so) and Obama (obviously).  Bush43 has a volume already, according to the list in the book, so not sure about the first two.  Anyway,  it is an enjoyable brisk read of someone who didn't promise to be much of a President even if he survived.The most notable aspect is really his campaign, which was the first full-fledged party affair with rallies, songs and silly slogans. 

The Whig Party had a standard model in its brief existence: bland military leaders of the ticket who can paper over the splits among its constituency. The party promoted the idea of a limited executive (in answer to "King" Andrew Jackson) while supporting a somewhat modern looking national program of road building, education and a national bank.  One possibility in fact is that if Harrison survived, the bank issue would have came to a head, perhaps even in the Supreme Court, with Taney going the other way than John Marshall.  The problem for them (and a similar problem for its successor a few years later) is that the person they put to balance the ticket (John Tyler and then Andrew Johnson) didn't really share many of the party's core beliefs, which unexpectedly became an issue.

The second book is He Almost Changed the World: The Life And Times Of Thomas Riley Marshall, the title a bit more promising than the book itself.  It seems okay, but doesn't have much bite and spends much of the time providing background material (such as pages on the people that pop up along the way) and what comes off as filler.  In the introduction, we are told he isn't a big man in a historical sense in many ways, and we basically find out why. It is an open question that he would have "changed the world" either, that left to conjecture on finding a way to get through the League of Nations, even though his major skill seemed to be that he was a pleasant enough guy and a decent governor.  The Wikipeida article linked is rather detailed and seems to includes a few more details than the book.


The book provides something of a window of the times, including local state politics, while using a easy to read tone throughout.  The reason why we care about him is because of President Wilson's stroke.  His condition was kept secret, so Marshall rejected some calls (including from inside the Cabinet) to take over his duties. The Constitution gave him that power when the President was incapacitated but the issue was never pressed in the past. The 25th Amendment actually only clarified the matter somewhat.  The situation where the President is not dead or personally makes clear they are unable to carry out his/her duties notes:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

This is followed by a long and somewhat convoluted paragraph that is probably one of the more obscure parts of the Constitution.  Even if he had the ability, Marshall very well might not have wished to provide such a written declaration, wary of tragic results of what might be seen as a coup d'etat.  He was wary even of accepting that he had presidential powers when Wilson left the country to negotiate peace terms after WWI.  Raising controversy with a probably split Cabinet, challenging the First Lady (who thought he was basically some uncouth boob), presidential physician and a lead adviser too. 

Like dealing with various national disaster scenarios hopefully best left to fiction, the best path is a debated matter to this day. 

Rev. Joe

A group of leading scientists and evangelicals have chosen to put aside their differences on how the world came to be and join forces to protect its future. They've formed a coalition and are lobbying Capitol Hill on environmental issues.

I alluded earlier to the possibilities of diverse groups, including religious, joining together on environmental matters. The above subject is topical given Earth Day. This important, especially as some stereotype religious beliefs, on various signs of the spectrum. Many liberals, e.g., don't think much of Catholics, but actual self-expressed Catholics have diverse viewpoints. The links provided earlier underline the point though I continue to be a strong opponent of much official Catholic doctrine, which seem pretty misguided in various respects, on various grounds.

One link earlier raised the point that Catholicism motivates anti-death penalty activity, though some of this is not a total opposition, but various safeguards or limitations. One person who commented, who is (let's be nice) strongly dissents from various limits on capital punishment, noted that various people on death row are "scum" and it is shameful that people (he tends to say "Democrats") help them out.  In another thread, a person called me out for criticizing the johnny one note style, saying I should be honest and admit I don't like the death penalty at all.  Well, I don't, but it is tedious to make everything about ideal societies, though this is a common trope.  We can deal with details.

[Let me as an aside deal with the "what about abortion" issue.  The state is not allowed under  the basic principles protecting freedom of choice to force women to have an abortion.  It is a personal choice.  The state is the one who executes people. Just one difference.  In one book, a Catholic raised the point; his interviewee noted that he believed an embryo was not a "person" yet.  Other differences can be stated, but there are a few who consistently oppose and wish the state to ban both.] 

Still, I will firmly say that I oppose the death penalty.  Regardless of that, I oppose calling anyone "scum," even murderers.  I don't like at some point the term or some similar one being used against neocons or justices we do strongly oppose.  These are people, not lower life forms.  There is a basic principle here.  And, it does have a religious and moral sentiment to it. I can quote the New Testament* or humanity respected by the Eighth Amendment, but it shouldn't come to that.  We can respect both sides here (Dead Man Walking shows this) and in fact even arguably do so without banning the death penalty (those who directly carry it out are often forced by reality to deal with "humans" not "scum").

This came up during the torture debates.  A basic philosophy arose here, an idea of an "other," in which on some basic level you cannot see the other person as quite like yourself, it's bad to torture, but it's not quite the same with these people.  Chris Hayes said something similar today talking about life under occupation, noting we don't need to worry about similar military night raids. One guest referenced the Taliban, but even horrible criminals don't have to deal with that and to the degree comparisons can be made, it is troubling, even there not quite being the same (no knock raids can be lethal, but still not foreign soldier). 

I can discuss views and so forth, but basic values hold too.

---

* Matthew 25:36: "I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you took care of me. I was in prison, and you visited me."

Hebrews 13:3: "Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering."

Rev. Joe (Catholics in News)

"Catholic nuns group 'stunned' by Vatican scolding for 'radical feminist' ideas" and "Noting the notable role of Catholicism in recent state death penalty abolition efforts" were both interesting.  And also.

Mets News (In and Out of NY)

Bobby Valentine is having a bit of trouble in Sox Nation, but today was something else. Up 9-1 after six, the Yanks scored seven runs twice to win 15-9.  Meanwhile, another ex-Met had a perfect game. None for the Mets yet.  They ended a three game losing streak with help.

Law In America

Lawrence Friedman wrote a few books on the history of American law, including crime and punishment, writing in a down to earth and informative style. This "short history" is a great introduction with wise comments down to the end of the bibliography.

BP Spill Turns Two

First, the fairly trivial. One of my pet peeves is litter, particularly in my residential neighborhood, often in eye sight of a garbage pail.*  This is both ugly and shows a lack of respect for your environment.  It also is a small thing that can be done.  It seems to me that doing something beneficial and not taking much effort in the process is doubly useful.

Second, the not so trivial.  The two year anniversary of the BP oil spill has arrived and various MSNBC shows (Rachel, Chris, Melissa)  covered various angles of the issue.  Chris Hayes had Antonia Juhasz on, who has long covered oil issues in various progressive publications.  She wrote a book on the spill and a quick search found various audio and video of her talking about it and other related issues.

Like Katrina (which in effect put Rachel Maddow on the map, her excellent reporting for about a week filling in for Al Franken on Air America showing her abilities), this was a short term way for the coutnry to be upset, but long term solutions less so.  We have not had an EPA moment. Apparently, hoping for environmental friendly presidents like Richard Nixon, too much to hope for.  I can and will note that I think one side is much worse at the moment (like with birth control, the other party used to be more credible), but blame can and should be spread around.  Not enough pressure is put by various people, including let's say Dems who help big business with tax breaks and other things.  Quid pro quo? 

Chris Hayes has noted that global warming and related issues is perhaps his biggest concern, something he sees -- like Al Gore -- has ultimately a moral matter.  The inability of some sort of real bipartisan effort in this respect in the last decade or so is telling.  I personally think this is a "Nixon goes to China" thing.  Health care is a telling example there: even using a Republican model as a linchpin was not enough for ANY Republicans to vote for the f-ing thing (though for some amendments, which watered it down).  This is one of those moments where I simply do not respect the other party.  Your party has various things to answer for in recent years. When will more members show some willingness to govern? This includes compromise and showing some respect for something that took a more conservative path even when each political branch was controlled by one party (if one with many conservative members).  Republicans do not want to do this. Until they are, they (I'm sure they are pissing in their boots now) will not be respected by me.

Anyway, the chance for major change here, other than some sort of major disaster (or a bigger one, apparently), might come when a Huntsman type is in power, or even a Romney type if the Democrats have the votes in Congress to force his hand. Too much water under the bridge really to offer much respect for Romney himself, and I continue to wonder really why anyone other than a true believer would vote for him in November.  I'm sure reasons can be made here or there, but writ large, why exactly?  Seems like a sad safe choice, yet again Kerry comes to mind, while at least there the current occupant could hardly been seen as a moderate type.  Realize that politics has changed some, but still find it hard objectively to compare Obama and Bush on the "not moderate" spectrum. 

I tire myself by bringing that up again, but it is no less true now.  Actual hope for winning comes from a fresh new voice, even if one might not personally like the person for some reason.  Even when the opening is there, such as in '80 and '92, such a voice was key.  Romney is a dull safe choice that sends an overall depressing message.  I might not like who we get (see Reagan), but my hope is for more of a game changer (yeah, the Palin movie does come to mind, but there, the winner was Obama).  Environmentalism is a pretty safe issue there, ways possible to (like with the PPACA) to help out big business along the way. It has a religious angle as some evangelicals make clear. The ultimate hope might be a union of diverse people with a common goal, like small government types who pressure conservatives not to invade their privacy in various ways not involving the wrong type of sex or such (not the only way to do it).  Even there, changes in places like Iowa are hopeful.

It is a way to do good while finding something that unites different groups. It also is essential.  Keep fighting Antonia et. al. 

 ---

* The word "litter" interests my word nerd side too. Where does it come from? This is a useful way to think things through and do a bit of research, tools more people should have.

Another pet peeve (I have no pets; I have a lot of pet peeves) is those who don't seem to have even a rudimentary form of this skill though lack of role models means the ultimate blame is elsewhere. I don't recall critical thinking being pushed much in my schooling as a separate matter. It is really important to teach this early on. 

The first definition in the online dictionary seems to me the least used term these days, though perhaps so found because it is the earliest use -- "a covered and curtained couch provided with shafts and used for carrying a single passenger." Then, comes the stuff for cats, than the kittens ("runt of the litter"), finally trash. The etymology in effect comes from the fact the stuff lies around, like you "lie" on a "litter." A litter of kittens seems to come from the fact the cat is "lying in" or something, which is sometimes used in human contexts too.

420

Today is not just for Hitler lovers. It's Pot Day!

Rules of Engagement

Okay enough episode with two standard trends -- no reference to the baby (apparently of little interest to a couple who is so passionate that they do it via surrogate) and Jen having little to do. The final joke was that always funny child molestation double entendre.