NYC Non-Citizens Voting Law Struck Down

New York City passed a law in December 2021 allowing non-citizens to vote. I talked more about the general issue after D.C. passed a similar law. 

(My then outgoing council representative, a Democrat, scare tacticked allowing noncitizens to vote. Mayor Adams was wary but let it be. So much time has passed that we are on a third local rep, this time a Republican, which just still seems wrong.) 

Voting and citizenship go together like a horse and carriage, to quote the theme song of Married ... with Children. I do not say that ironically in this context. 

Many states over our history -- until at least the 1920s -- allowed at least some noncitizens to vote. Current federal law bans voting in federal elections. Only a few localities allow them to vote in local elections. 

Some Republicans, generally the sorts who don't like voting rights, challenged the law on state constitutional grounds. New York City Council members include lawyers and they did their due diligence, I suppose, before passing the law.  

Looking at the law, it seemed to me to be valid. The New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court, disagreed 6-1. They are in charge. I still think the dissent has the best argument. Shrugs. 

Local Law 11 would vastly expand the franchise in New York City, a locality that is home to approximately 3.1 million immigrants, of whom 27 percent (over 800,000) are lawful permanent residents or hold another form of lawful status.[FN15] It provides a means for this significant part of the City's population to have a voice in their government.

The state constitution says that citizens have the right to vote. This does not necessarily mean that is the ceiling. It very well might be the floor. The discretion given to localities over a choice of self-government also warrants the text to be interpreted liberally. 

The fear of noncitizens voting is exaggerated, both as to some significant number doing so illegally or doing so anyway. The law does not apply to so-called "illegals," who are here without legal authorization. 

A large segment of our city is disenfranchised regarding those who govern them. It is appropriate to allow them to vote. I think the state constitution probably can be reasonably interpreted to allow it.

A specter is given in some localities allowing 13-year-olds to vote. The raising of slippery slope arguments generally has problems no matter who does it. Yes, only up to a point. Nonetheless, I hold to that.

Why would a locality do that? I can very well see a locality giving sixteen and seventeen-year-olds the right to vote in certain elections. I think the line at 18 makes sense. But, a lower line is not absurd.  

Any line under that age is unlikely. I will give you a possibility. Maybe, a locality will let students vote in a school election, perhaps for a student representative on a school board. Or, some limited proposal, silly (local bird) or more serious (school uniforms?) might warrant giving under-18s the right to vote. 

A locality might perhaps give those under 18 the right to vote in a limited fashion to prepare them for voting completely as an adult. You can formulate various scenarios as to why it is rational for minors to vote. 

I find this result unfortunate. 

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!

Aaron Gunches Execution

I have consistently provided a link to Justice Breyer's dissent against the death penalty which includes a section on constitutional problems with long delays. 

A long stay on death row is cruel and unusual. It also is problematic to execute someone so long after the fact. They are not the same person. It is not the same situation. Things have changed.  

Sometimes, people want to die. They are "volunteers" though it is not always clear how voluntary and competent the decision-making is. Nonetheless, yes, I think it can be rational to want to die. 

The 53-year-old Arizona death row inmate has always his admitted to murdering his girlfriend's ex-boyfriend in the desert in 2002, and has long sought a swift execution, saying in one handwritten court filing that he wanted it to move forward "so that justice may be lawfully served and give closure to the victim's family."

Aaron Gunches was arrested after shooting an Arizona Public Safety Officer at a traffic stop (the officer survived). Gunches defended himself with an advisory counsel. The state, even if he doesn't like it, still has to follow minimal standards. This delayed his execution. 

Repeated problems with lethal injections led Arizona to have a moratorium since 2022. The former federal magistrate judge assigned to study the matter still thinks they aren't ready. The Democratic governor disagrees. Meanwhile, the legislature -- stop me if you heard this before -- is thinking about the firing squad.

Gunches got his wish and was executed this morning. A witness warned that appearances can be deceiving:

“The witnesses did not see is what happened under the jumpsuit and sheet. We know from scientific studies that rapid administration of a high dose of pentobarbital is excruciatingly painful. Pulmonary edema develops in seconds as the lungs fill with water and one is not able to breathe," Baich told reporters afterward.

Twenty years on death row isn't easy either. 

Jessie Hoffman Execution

Jessie Hoffman at age 18 nearly thirty years ago committed a horrible crime. He kidnapped, robbed, raped, and murdered a woman. Louisiana sentenced him to death. Then, he waited and waited. 

An attempt later to cite his age as an argument to block his execution (under 21) failed. His lawyers also argued that Hoffman suffered from chronic childhood abuse and neglect, leading to post-traumatic stress symptoms and brain damage. 

We can understand why such a crime was considered "worse of the worst" though a reasonable judge or jury might decide not to give him the death penalty. 

Various appeals, including claims of racism in the jury, were rejected. My continual argument that too long on death row should nullify a death sentence obviously never got traction (Breyer, dissent). 

He tried to challenge the method of execution, including lethal injection, which now is functionally not in place in Louisiana. That failed, but a district court judge held that nitrogen gas as established in Louisiana did have too high of a risk of suffering. 

Supreme Court precedent requires a challenge to a method of execution to provide an alternative. Louisiana provides three options: lethal injection (no drugs now available*), electrocution (for some reason not available), and nitrogen gas. 

Nonetheless, you could offer an alternative that might possibly be made available. Hoffman suggested the firing squad (growing in popularity) or the drugs used in medical-aid-in-dying. The lower court judge held only the firing squad is functionally available.

An Obama nominee in the Fifth Circuit holding up an execution is not a safe bet. The Court of Appeals soon overturned the decision. He took it to the Supreme Court, including another argument he lost below.

Hoffman argues that as a Buddhist his religious liberty rights are violated since he wants to pray as he dies. Nitrogen gas interferes. Again, he offers a backup method so argues they still can execute him.

The lower court wasn't convinced. The factual findings held that nitrogen gas does not interfere. The back-up argument is a statutory claim. 

The three liberals would have granted a stay of execution without saying why. Sigh. Gorsuch, who is no fan of the method of execution claims, dissents regarding the religious liberty argument. He thinks the district court judge was wrong to second guess and wants the court of appeals to examine the question. 

Meanwhile, a sister-in-law of the victim supports commuting his sentence. Another relative wants to hear from him. Since the victim has multiple family members, obviously, this is of limited concern. 

Many families will be split over the question of how to properly punish murderers. We probably can see this in each of the three mass murderers Biden did not commute along with the rest.  

Jessie Hoffman did something horrible, truly horrible, at age 18. He was in prison for nearly thirty years. Executing him -- even if nitrogen gas works okay after one or more of its usages does seems not okay -- after all this time is not a great use of public policy.  

Meanwhile, the value of nitrogen gas as an alternative continues to be unclear. The firing squad might be the best (and most honest) method available.

Or we can just not execute people.  

ETA: There are preliminary remarks by witnesses that the execution went smoothly. A somewhat detailed account (down to the sounds of birds chirping) arguably is more opaque, including how much his desired religious expression was affected. 

==

* There have also been efforts to block the access of nitrogen gas and how the state obtained it for today's execution is somewhat unclear. 

The details of the Supreme Court decision making are also (this is somewhat academic) curious. The liberals would have granted a stay. Gorsuch would have granted a stay and cert. (on the religious liberty issue).

But you need five votes to hold up the execution. So, a "courtesy fifth" is necessary.

Roberts has offered to do it in the past. Since Gorsuch chose to rely on a religious liberty issue, Barrett (who has supported that in an execution in the past) was a possible fifth. But she did not do so.

The execution made the request for cert (to take up the case) moot even though four justices supported stopping the execution. Sort of embarrassing.  

Chief Justice Responds to Trump

Trump said on social media that U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg should be impeached for blocking the administration’s efforts to deport Venezuelan migrants without due process.

Trump criticized Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as a “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge” and wrote: “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

Chief Justice Roberts, like he did when Trump the first time around talked about "Obama judges," decided to publicly respond. Concerns that the Administration was violating a court order might have factored in though it was not directly addressed:

For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.

Compare this understanding of history to Roberts creating presidential immunity in Trump v. U.S. 

His statement is not likely to be meant to be addressed to Donald Trump personally. Roberts is speaking to others. Formally, it was a statement released to the media. There are press release and media statement pages he could have used.

Walter Nixon v. United States left impeachment largely to Congress. It is a political question to determine what is impeachable. Trump's statement is unhinged but it is still political opinion.  

Members of the House are starting to talk about impeaching judges for allegedly making bad decisions. That is wrong. Nonetheless, decisions on whom to impeach are political questions.  

Also, Roberts should avoid responding to trolls. Trump has and will continue to make various unhinged statements about federal judges. Selectively responding is a fool's game. 

On the other side, there will be the usual whataboutism. Reasonable impeachment efforts, including AOC's support of the impeachment of Alito (weaker) and Thomas (quite valid), are not comparable to Trump's approach. And, Trump is not some mere member of Congress. 

An update flagged Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who apologized for her Trump remarks. If the guy wants to join with the liberals to support binding ethical guidelines for all justices, good for him, but don't think so. Thomas and to a lesser degree Alito are problems to a special level. 

Yes, impeachment efforts will be lean partisan. It's done via a political process. Some Republicans in the end supported impeaching Nixon but many more Democrats did. For lower court judges, the serious impeachment efforts have been more bipartisan. 

Most impeachments, there were around twenty, involved federal judges. The first involved a district judge who was unfit to serve. The Chase impeachment was partisan but raised concerns about some of his rulings that might have had due process red flags. 

Ethical rules provide one means to address judicial wrongdoing. Term limits are also a good idea. Mere opposition to rulings, especially unfounded opposition, is not a good reason. 

Term limits can provide a form of political checks, including perhaps a possible retention election -- Congress can decide after 10-15 years, for instance, whether a judge should remain.

Politicians can also strongly criticize judges. Kagan recently confirmed that is obviously valid, even if they do a poor job of criticizing. Roberts' end-of-the-year report seemed to mix illicit interference with criticism.

News coverage reminded people that Roberts has also criticized Democrats:

In 2020, Roberts criticized comments Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., made at a rally outside the Supreme Court when the justices were considering a high-profile abortion case.

Schumer said justices had “released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

Roberts called the comments “inappropriate” and “dangerous.”

Schumer's rhetoric was problematic. The attacks on judges in recent years have made caution advisable. It is somewhat unlikely Schumer would phrase it quite that way today. We can explain away it as rhetorical excess by someone who has not earned special concern to the degree of Trump. Still, no, Chuck.

Anyway, if Roberts wants to respond, do so in his official capacity. Trump v. U.S. is how not to do it. For now, yes, this leads people to recall this meme:

Roberts (along with Barrett), is going to now and then voice concern. The rest of the time, well, they will enable Trump. You ultimately helped do this, dude.

Some conservatives and libertarians reasonably support what Roberts said. Fewer were consistent about the threat Trump brought. 

Still, we can appreciate that there still is some sense of perspective.

Foreign Students Are a Major American Resource

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that Mahmoud Khalil, an activist who is being detained by federal immigration authorities, is "going to leave — and so are others."

Mahmoud Khalil is in the U.S. on an F-1 student visa as a graduate student at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs. Foreign students are a major resource. Paul Krugman:

Many foreigners come to America to study, attracted by the quality of our colleges and universities. In 2023, the most recent year for which data are available, they spent more than $50 billion. But if you were a foreigner considering study in the U.S. next year, wouldn’t you be worried that you might find yourself arrested and deported for expressing what the current administration considers anti-American views? I would. So, we can expect a hit to higher education, which, although we rarely think of it this way, is a major U.S. export.

A conservative legal blogger argued that their foreign visas can be revoked for exercising constitutional rights. He framed it this way:

Foreign students are here as visitors to study, not to be members of the American polity. 

I don't know the reach of the "American polity" label. They are not voting. They still can take part in debates and protests. Noncitizens are allowed to do that, including those here as students. 

Also, noncitizens advance the overall conversation in a way that helps American citizens. Immigrants add special value to the educational experience, including different perspectives and knowledge. 

That doesn't mean that we should prohibit them from expressing their opinions, 

Okay, so they can "express opinions." 

I would hope so. He pushed back against me in a comment but if we welcome them as members of college and universities, that is part of the program. People who go to college take part in debates and protests. It is part of the experience. 

Maybe, the visa requires them to be full time students. They still can take part in protests. If the United States wants to only allow them to take part in a correspondence course, so be it, but they did not do that. They welcomed them as full students. 

but, e.g., holding protests in favor of an enemy country during wartime, or, more controversially perhaps, prohibiting foreign students from using their status as such to try to influence American public opinion on behalf of organizations that Congress has sanctioned as enemy terrorist organizations, strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

I don't think it is perfectly reasonable to deport students for trying to influence American public opinion. Free discourse should be honored in educational institutions. Academic freedom is good. 

A visa holder can be deported if they cross the line regarding actual material support, not just influencing debate, of registered enemy terrorist organizations. This should be done carefully, which is something the Trump Administration has trouble doing.

===

Dr. Rasha Alawieh was approved for an H-1B visa last year to work in the Division of Nephrology at Brown University’s medical school – after studying at three US universities since 2018. She left the country to go to the funeral of Hassan Nasrallah. 

The funeral "was held in a sports stadium and attracted tens of thousands of people." That might be a fraction of the true number.

She returned to the United States but was blocked at the airport. Alawieh said she supported Nasrallah religiously, not politically. She was deported.

(There was controversy over the Administration not following a court order to not deport her before a hearing was held. Ultimately, the judge decided that the government did not receive the order in time.) 

The minimum concern here is that she was deported (some carp on that word but I have seen it being used by lots of news sources, including Fox News) without proper due process. There should be a way to have a hearing before she is forced to leave the country. 

Again, merely having views supporting a person who took part in terrorism should not be enough to deport someone here on a visa for an extended time, doing productive scientific work. Pictures of the guy on her phone and showing up at a funeral that tens of thousands also took part in is a dubious line. 

Still, maybe the facts will come out that justify deporting her. Again, my test would be concrete evidence of material support, not simply having "views" about the guy. I have my doubts. It still should be done in a more procedurally benign fashion. 

It is not quite akin to sending someone to Louisiana away from their pregnant wife, incommunicado for an extended period. Still, she was here for a long time with connections to this country. Not allowing her to return is still a seriously troubling matter. 

Foreign students and scholars are a major American resource. We should treat them carefully.  

And, there is also a wider war on academic study.

Trump Uses (Misuses) 1798 Law

The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) are understood now to be a low moment in our history. The one generally reasonable component was the Alien Enemy Act, which is the one part still active:

[W]henever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, . . . all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.

The provision might be used too broadly, but it has a limited reach related to warfare. It was passed to address the Quasi-War with France. It is not there to deal with gangs, even if they are really bad gangs. 

Consider the headline to this Washington Post article:

Trump sends more than 200 alleged gang members to prison in El Salvador

The administration won’t identify those moved — or say whether the Alien Enemies Act, which briefly sped up some deportations, played any role.

Two hundred "alleged" gang members? Trust them!

The Justice Department has said that most, if not all, were serious criminals, but they did not release their names to publicly so that claim could be independently verified. Some of the gang members deported were members of the MS-13 gang tied to El Salvador, and the proclamation Friday does not appear to include them.

The Administration continues to cut corners:

The high-profile actions make it clear that the administration will deploy force and fright to remove immigrants from the United States, even if they have to devise extraordinary new ways to do it, such as sending them to a country that is not their home country and putting them in jail. 

The White House’s online mocking of the judicial order by the chief federal judge in Washington added to the concern among advocates that Trump’s determination to carry out the largest mass deportation campaign in U.S. history would sidestep legal and humanitarian norms.

As to that last part:

Human Rights Watch has documented torture, forced disappearances and a lack of legal recourse in Salvadoran prisons, as well as poor access to food and water. The organization has reported instances in which inmates are systematically beaten and forced to confess that they are members of gangs, according to Juan Pappier, Americas deputy director for the group.

The Declaration of Independence announced the establishment of an independent country with all of the powers we "may of right do." Human rights are national obligations. Meanwhile, the Voice of America is the latest institution on the chopping block. 

And, yes, the Senate Democrats need new leadership. 

Trump Goes After Paul Weiss

Trump's campaign to target law firms that somehow worked against him, even if it was one person among hundreds or thousands, continues. The latest target is Paul Weiss, which particularly caught my attention.*

The reach of this impeachment-worthy, as one comment notes, the order is quite broad. It covers contracts that somehow "include" Paul Weiss. 

It deals with federal agencies. There is talk about the "federal government," which the uninitiated might think includes three branches of government. Putting that aside, this order -- which is at least the third law firm targeted -- covers a lot of ground.  

Roberta Kaplan, one former PW lawyer who worked on LGBTQ issues, is not the direct target of the executive order. Her representing E.J. Carroll (if he is aware of the connection) is but gravy.

Donald Trump on Friday walked into the Department of Justice and labeled his courtroom opponents “scum,” judges “corrupt” and the prosecutors who investigated him “deranged."

Let us remember his recent Festivus-like airing of grievances at "his" Justice Department. His targets included the press. Since law firms are targets here for their associations and litigation, more First Amendment values are involved.  

Meanwhile, his anti-DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion being so "woke," you know) includes censoring the Arlington Cemetary website. As one person noted:

Our commemorative spaces represent the values that we as a community and even as a nation claim to uphold. All Americans hope to see themselves in these spaces that at their best strengthen bonds of citizenship, community, and identity.

The failure to do so makes it much easier for one group to distance itself from another and even to deny the other the full rights and privileges of citizenship. Erasing and distorting the history of the struggle for civil rights and citizenship for so many marginalized groups makes it easier to dismiss those very same demands today.

The Trump administration (our government) does not want you to know that African Americans, who have fought for and in many cases died for this nation, going back to the American Civil War, were also fighting for “racial justice.”

This also has a somewhat personal flavor for me given my historical background. Of course, there should be a general universal concern here. Nonetheless, sometimes, things hit somewhat closer to home. 

Update: After reports of a major client firing them, the latest is that Paul Weiss caved. 

==

* I know people who worked there. 

Continuing Resolution

I discuss the continuing budget resolution and my thoughts about the Democrats who went along here. There is no good solution. 

I am probably at least somewhat more sympathetic about the "cave" side than some. Nonetheless, yes, Schumer and Durbin are not good leaders, and the young Turk from Hawaii doesn't look great now, either.  His "yes" vote was not necessary. 

Meanwhile, a good discussion of "soft power," something now deemed stupid by certain people. 

SCOTUS Watch

LGBTQ+ Rights

I reexamine the same sex marriage cases and a book defending them twenty years earlier. We don't live in a gay and lesbian utopia quite yet, but the situation is better than for trans people, who Republicans (with a few Democrats wanting to help) want to erase.  

Attacks on Courts

Justice Amy "not quite conservative enough for some" Barrett's sister was the target of a bomb threat. Barrett did get some love, including from Trump, who defended her bona fides. I'm sure she was reassured.

More seriously, there has been an uptick in threats to judges in recent times. We covered that last year to add context to Trump crossing the line (with impunity most of the time) when criticizing judges presiding over his cases. Now, it's Elon Musk's turn. 

The criticisms and threats (not the same thing) do not only come from one side. The threats to Kavanaugh and now Barrett's family show this. Nonetheless, there have been some notable conservative-leaning cases in recent memory. The matter is a concern for us all. 

Death Penalty 

March might not be quite as active of a month for the death penalty with two executions stayed. 

Alito dropped an order noting a request for a stay is moot now that the case was held up in Texas courts. The stay request involved DNA evidence. State courts flagged multiple problems. He was convicted three decades ago in connection to multiple murders.  

The second blockage is by an Obama appointee in the Fifth Circuit. So, that one might occur. 

Idaho has made the firing squad its primary execution method. Is the firing squad and nitrogen gas going to replace lethal injection in that respect?  

Coming Up

The Supreme Court will return to work next Friday with a non-public sitting (swearing in lawyers) and a conference. There are three executions scheduled. 

Meanwhile, since Congress wants to do nothing except to help enable him, the battle against Trump's illegality continues in the lower courts.  

Companions in Conflict

I re-read this rewarding book from five years ago that viewed the Palestinian experience through different animals who live in the region (donkeys, cows, camels, and so on). The author is an American who has lived in Palestine since the 1980s, staying after what was supposed to be a year-long sojourn. She married and started an extended academic career.

The author resides in the West Bank. Gaza had long been mainly off limits. The latest news:

Israel has clamped Gaza back under near-total siege, barring desperately needed humanitarian aid and other goods from entering the hungry and bomb-decimated enclave. Food, medicine, tents, fuel — for the past week and a half, supplies have not been permitted into Gaza, where some two million Palestinians are trying to survive in the wreckage.

Gaza has long been akin to a prison for the two million people in that godforsaken piece of land. 

Daniel Sokatch's Can We Talk About Israel, written from the perspective of a liberal Jew, is one helpful introduction to the region. This includes how the West Bank is confusingly split into three parts (A, B, C).

Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh. 

Justice Jackson's warning about originalism can be applied to all predictions. I was named for my grandfather. I don't have the power to interpret dreams, which are not predictions of the future. I often can't even predict Family Feud answers. 

We are not in a prison in the United States akin to Gaza, but we are prisoners of our fates in some sense. I'm sorry. Is that a bad bridge? Oh well. I do think there are general lessons to be had here.

The immediate political issue is what to do with the continuing resolution. Should Senate Democrats not vote for "cloture" to allow it to come to a vote? Senate Republicans have a majority. If a vote is allowed, it will pass. Senate Democrats can have messaging votes, but that is all they will be.  

The biggest federal employee union, which would particularly be harmed by a shutdown [which is always threatened and never truly obtained], says "no." The House bill simply is that bad. 

The budget is a moral act. It tells us what we are as a country. What is paid for? What is cut? What do we care about? Will we just let Trump continue to burn through the federal government akin to Sherman marching through Georgia? 

Josh Marshall's analysis is convincing. No path is good here. We can't go on and on about how horrible Trump's actions are and think that responding to them by simply allowing them to continue is painless. 

If we are at a constitutional crisis moment, we have to do something scary to respond. I get it's scary. We are deep down conservative. Read the Declaration of Independence. We are inclined to suffer instead of boldly going into new paths. It's human nature.

Marshall discussed ongoing events without knowing for sure what would happen. He predicted what will happen next election in response to the Democrats "caving" here. A few people in the comments are convinced we won't even have an election. 

Again, I'm not a prophet. Twenty months is far away.  I do think we have to at least factor in the possibility of elections. We are continuously in election cycles. Next year's elections are already in the works in various respects. We have to think about how to win them, even while dealing with the here and now.

Some people are very angry at Chuck Schumer. Schumer has overseen a U.S. Senate that accomplished a lot with 50 or 51 votes in the last few years. Democrats are in a different position now that they are in the minority. They can do only so much.

I don't know exactly what people expect Schumer to do. There are Democrats who are very wary about going into the unknown of a shutdown. What magical power does he have to convince them otherwise? I think people have some magical thinking.

Who can lead them who will do something that would result in something else happening? Only a few Democrats have openly opposed voting for the continuing resolution. They don't seem to have convinced others in closed-door meetings. 

I asked what power he has. I was accused of "running cover" for the guy. No. I'm serious. Trying to be realistic. There is no savior here. It's a group effort. 

One person talked about committee assignments (he's not in the majority), leadership positions (voted by the caucus, not just him), and corporation board recommendations (seriously?). 

I'm open to him being a horrible leader in these times. Who should replace him? What power will they have and use? The strategy in the Senate won't be the same as in the House. And, surely, a part of this is that people want Schumer to be more vocal, more leading from the barricades, so to speak. But is that his role? 

Maybe I need to find a book about our companion animals in conflict. More than donkeys and elephants.

ETA: Schumer and Gillibrand decided to give in and support the continuing resolution. Uh-huh. 

SCOTUS Watch: Order List

The fact that the Supreme Court's Order List (last scheduled action until later in the month) was eighteen pages flagged further writings. 

Thomas dissented with Alito regarding an interstate dispute the Court avoided even to accept for decision. As the dissent frames it:

The plaintiff States allege that the defendant States are attempting to “dictate interstate energy policy” through the aggressive use of state-law tort suits.

Those two justices have shown some consistency in opposing that approach, which they argue ignores the Court's duty to settle a question over which they have some special responsibility. 

They might have a point, though the Court has had this policy for over fifty years. The Court has noted in the past that often the disputes did not require them to use their original jurisdiction power since there were other ways to handle things. Sometimes, it is not warranted for procedural reasons. 

It also is an avoidance tactic. The Court could simply allow the filing of what is called a "bill of complaint" and then, without comment, reject it on the merits. Many of these disputes are meritless policy-laden complaints, including during the 2020 election controversy. A back of the hand response is understandable, if somewhat unsatisfying. 

It would have been helpful if the Court provided an explanation. It is sensible not to require them to do that for the thousands of appeals they do not take. OTOH, for the much smaller subset involved here, with two justices specifically dissenting on principle, it might be different. 

Thomas (with Gorsuch) also dissented in a cert denial involving disparate impact discrimination suits. 

The true news was two cert. grants, particularly one concerning banning conversion therapy for minors as applied to licensed therapists. Or, you can say:

Issue: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

A loaded summary. The laws do not apply to all "counselors" (e.g., unlicensed religious personnel). Also, regulating medicine will regularly limit what people can say, including based on medical knowledge. For instance, informed consent laws. 

There is also the framing about how a "Christian" consensually wants to obtain certain therapy, suggesting it is some sort of free exercise issue. The case involves minors, limiting the consensual nature, and there should not be religious exemptions to neutral health regulations. I worry about this case.

(More on how Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh got a fourth justice. The case will be heard next term.) 

Gorsuch and Barrett didn't take part in the decision in two cases without saying why. Only liberal justices deign to tell us that. And I don't like it.

Amy Howe, as usual, has more. 

Women History's Month and Bianca

14-yr. old striker, Fola La Follette, and Rose Livingston Photo by Library of Congress on Unsplash

Women’s History Month had roots in socialist and communist celebrations. It then came back to the forefront during the women’s movement in the 1960s.

I discussed six significant women here. A summary: Abigail Adams reminded her husband “to remember the ladies.” Women have always demanded a voice. Sojourner Truth was inspired by God to preach against slavery and for women’s rights. Susan B. Anthony demanded the right to vote. Amelia Earhart showed women could soar the heavens. Eleanor Roosevelt and Shirley Chisholm represented the United States here and abroad. Betty Friedan reminded people of the fictional “feminine mystique” and demanded a truly equal place for women in society.

(There are also separate entries for each woman.)

I talked separately about “Constance Baker Motley: Pioneering the Path as America’s First African American Woman Federal Judge.” Also, women’s suffrage, with a somewhat depressing final comment about Vice President Kamala Harris.

The Constitution speaks of “We the People,” and like “persons” including everyone, including black people, women in principle should be included. 

Gerard Magliocca has a fascinating article about an early recognition of women's suffrage rights (by two white men) in the 1870s. Conservative originalism is not the only approach.

Dobbs v. Jackson was a gigantic step back regarding women’s rights. Women’s equality includes rights and access to health care, including abortion services. 

The blockage has many components, including conservative religious establishments and infringements on the free exercise of religion and conscience.

Women’s history includes trans history. Women include trans people. Attacks on trans people are repeatedly the promotion of conservative sexual politics.

The study of history concerns the whole human race. The study of prehistory involves learning about Fred and Wilma Flintstone (metaphorically speaking).

Sometimes, that involves some underexamined materials. For instance, the U.S. Constitution was influenced by various societal developments. How many accounts discuss how women specifically influenced things?

In the realms of women’s history, perhaps I might fairly include Miss Bianca, the eloquent, elegant, and brave mouse that repeatedly takes part in rescues.

I recently read the amusing Miss Bianca in the Antarctic by Margery Sharp. Sharp also wrote many popular adult novels before her Rescuers series of children's books. In that book, Bianca and Bernard spend most of the time trying to save themselves.

Who knew Emperor Penguins were so boorish? Or maybe it was just that one!

Brad Keith Sigmon Execution

There are six executions this month, four within two days and five over eight days. This is an atypical heavy month when recently, less than thirty executions occurred in a year. Each execution this month is in a separate state, including atypical ones. 

South Carolina has started to execute people again after a hiatus. Sigmon chose the firing squad over lethal injection or the electric chair. The firing squad sounds barbaric (and is relatively speaking), but very well might be the best choice given the options. 

People find execution by firing squad too gruesome and in your face. The firing squad was generally used in areas with a large Mormon presence (for religious reasons) and by the military. You won't have shortages of bullets (contra lethal injection drugs). 

And, experts (even those not big fans of the death penalty) argue that it is less likely to be a lingering death. Sotomayor flagged that some favor the firing squad. A more conservative judge argued it was more honest.  Will the guillotine be next? 

His final Hail Mary appeals regarded allegations that the state was unconstitutionally denying him information regarding lethal injection drugs, including evidence from past executions. This blocked his ability to choose among the three options freely. 

The justices, as normal, rejected them without comment. They also granted a motion to file a supplemental appendix under seal. The news articles about the order skipped over this part. Sigmon's lawyers requested it to address private autopsy material involving past lethal injection executions. 

Here is a good background article on his case, including some details of how the firing squad works. The article also discusses the challenge to the use of lethal injection, including allegations of problems in the recent usages. Again, when doing research for these execution discussions, I appreciate some of the good journalism that provides many details.  

Sigmon was convicted of the double murder of his ex-girlfriend's parents in 2001. A nearly twenty-five-year-old sentence raises Glossip-like delay problems (see Breyer's dissent). Unfortunately, that's just a dissent.

He kidnapped the ex-girlfriend, but she escaped. Sigmon himself granted the death sentence probably wasn't unfair. I think emotionally laden crimes arising from personal grievances are less heinous, generally speaking, than other types of cruelty. OTOH, at some point, murder by baseball bat is rather bad. 

His lawyers did claim mitigation:

Mr. Sigmon’s lawyers have said that he suffered from an inherited mental illness and childhood brain damage. Those factors, they have argued, contributed to him murdering the Larkes with a baseball bat. After he killed them, Mr. Sigmon tried to kidnap his ex-girlfriend.

I am usually open to the argument that murderers are not merely 100% a product of free will. How much that advances his case here is open to debate.

The bottom line is that executing him after 25 years seems gratuitous to me. There are people out there who are dangerous and/or deserve long prison sentences. He is one of them. 

I don't think executing him is necessary. 

South Carolina disagreed, performing (details) the first execution by firing squad since 2010 (Utah). As with Alabama's usage of nitrogen gas, it remains to be seen if this is a precedent. 

SCOTUS Watch

The Supreme Court had a busy week with orders on Monday, oral arguments Monday to Wednesday, opinions on Tuesday and Wednesday, and a conference on Friday. After another Order List next Monday, they have another break until February 21. 

Order List

The Order List this week was less busy than last time. They did take a case [Barrett v. United States] involving double jeopardy. 

Alito and Kagan did not take part in one case each. As usual, only the liberals explain why they recused themselves. 

Alito and Thomas would have taken a case involving “bias response teams" at schools where people are encouraged to report expressions of bias. This is voiced as a concern for free speech, though it seems rather overblown. Thomas wrote a dissent from denial largely focused on standing to sue. 

Opinions 

Tuesday and Wednesday were opinion days. 

As usual, I think if they want to have opinion announcements (and they are fine), we should have audio and transcripts. It's nice that they drop their opinions online right away. Immediate comments can also be found online.

The first is an environmental case summarized by Barrett in partial dissent for the women justices:

The Environmental Protection Agency issued San Francisco a permit allowing it to discharge pollutants from its combined sewer system into the Pacific Ocean. The permit, of course, does not give the city free rein, and among its conditions are prohibitions on discharges that contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards. San Francisco challenges these conditions on the ground that EPA lacks statutory authority to impose them. The city is wrong. 

Alito wrote the opinion for the Court. The justices (Gorsuch did not join that section but didn't say why) agreed the city was wrong on one point. They split on the other. An interview with the city side is here. 

Wednesday's opinion was a 7-2 Veterans Affairs disability claims. Thomas wrote the majority opinion denying the challenge. Not sure why they needed two opinion days to hand down two opinions.

Jackson (again) had a strong dissent, this time joined by Gorsuch (who will repeatedly go along with challenges on the federal government). Jackson has repeatedly argued that the Court wrongly applied the congressional intent and text. 

Joint Speech

“Thank you again. Thank you again. Won’t forget it." 

Chief Justice Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett along with retired Justice Kennedy was at Trump's Joint Congressional Address. Breyer usually went to these ceremonial things. Is he done with them now that he is retired? I suppose he might be glad.

Kennedy said something to Trump when he engaged with the audience. Trump thanked Roberts and pat him on the back, which didn't seem to go over too well. (Others got a "thank you," but the extra bit and pat was just for Roberts). Right after the handshakes, Roberts got the heck out of there.  

Roberts earned the thanks. Trump v. U.S. He also earned the disdain he has received:

But this time Trump did it to the sitting Supreme Court chief justice in public on the floor of the House. Whatever high regard John Roberts still held himself in has been directly challenged in the most excruciating and a dignity-robbing way. Trump has a way of doing that to everyone who comes in contact with him. Roberts had it coming. 

Joan Biskupic separately has an interesting analysis of Roberts clerkship in an article analyzing Rehnquist's papers. The release of justices' papers had led to some interesting details, including O'Connor's papers. 

Foreign Aid Order

The Supreme Court followed the next morning, in an interestingly timed 5-4 order, denying the Trump request to block enforcing an order involving foreign aid. Steve Vladeck (Amy Howe has the prize for speed, dropping her summary by 9:45 AM) has a summary of the ongoing complex litigation. 

Bottom line: It involves foreign aid authorized by Congress for work already completed. Trump wants to illegally and unconstitutionally “impound” the funds. It’s one of many such efforts.

Roberts and Barrett joined the liberals. Vladeck noted on Bluesky that the 5-4 line-up showed up four times so far, each time in emergency order situations. They involved Texas' challenge involving razor wire on the border, ghost guns, and allowing the sentencing of Trump in the NY case.  

Not quite Team Resistance.* The goal will be to get two conservatives to sometimes limit the damage. Or, at least, slow down its execution. As Chris Geidner notes, even if this was a "win for democracy, accountability, and separation of powers," the money still hasn't been paid. It is all a holding action now. 

Meanwhile, as Geidner and Vladeck note, Alito is "shocked" in his usual hypocritical Casablanca sort of way. With a healthy quality of bullshit. This includes both a sudden concern for legislative power (cf. Biden years) and lower court judge overreach (ditto). 

The case is procedurally complicated, and the win for sanity limited. Ultimately, we are still in "to be continued" territory. BTW, let's remember the name of the case: Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. Just to remember the stakes. 

(Limited) Trump Win

Hampton Dellinger sued when Trump illegally fired him. The district court blocked the firing. 

The Supreme Court denied an attempt to intervene. The D.C. Court of Appeals (the panel was 2-1, Republican appointee) unanimously allowed Dellinger to be removed pending the appeal. 

Dellinger gave up his challenge with a statement saying changes of success were unlikely. This was unfortunate, but maybe there is a pragmatic reason, too, since it would avoid a bad precedent.  

SCOTUS then declared a Trump challenge of the district order was moot. The breadth of executive power to remove officials is still an open question. 

ETA: The D.C. Circuit dropped an opinion later anyway. Rightly or wrongly, he had an uphill battle.

==

* It is too much for some Trump loyalists, who have called her "evil" or a "DEI-hire" (the new "woke") for occasionally not going along with the conservatives. 

One Trump loyalist said she did not provide the proper "look of admiration" at the joint speech. 

He should have been like Anthony Kennedy and pleasantly chatted with Trump. Jay Willis on Bluesky thought AK said "You're teaching young people to love America." Yes, Trump is big for civics! Maybe, Sotomayor, who is big on that, should check him out!

I think Breyer (not just Souter, who avoids these things like a plague) made the right move here.

Different Levels of Democratic Sins

A comment about keeping perspective. I already discussed the Democratic response to the Trump speech to Congress. The news barrage this morning should not lead us to skip over another matter. 

We have here an attack on "Democrats" for the actions of ten of them. They voted to censure Rep. Al Green for acting out at Trump's speech. More than one of them is from a conservative leaning district. The Minority Leader, before the speech, cautioned against just such attention-getting tactics. Democrats criticized Republicans for comparable antics. 

I don't begrudge Al Green for his protest. There is a place for such things, and if not now, when? As to how useful it is at a wider level, who the hell knows? You can say that about lots of protests. The people who voted for him also probably expect such political theater. It's part of politics.

My bottom line is that I am not APPALLED that the Democrats voted for a censure measure. Their level of Trump complicity is rather low. It is, at best, a venial sin. The argument for decorum is not completely phony. And, many of THEIR voters expect it.

So, no, I don't think they all deserve to be primaried. Maybe a few warrant more attention if they truly are in safe blue districts. I'm annoyed, but not by much.

OTOH, Governor Newsom of California platforming anti-LGBTQ, conservative influencer Charles Kirk alone is a major problem. On top of that, he repeatedly endorsed his anti-trans views and framing. 

And, no, even if trans issues were not being used as a hypocritical conservative bludgeon, I do not think there is much of a reasonable debate on these issues akin to age guidelines in sports. Not the same thing. 

Congressional Democrats can aid and abet Trump, including by agreeing with him on various things. I was quite upset when Democrats (including my representative) censured a fellow Democrat for her alleged over-the-line pro-Palestinian views. 

OTOH, the censure measure here was a mild concern overall. Newsom is the true problem. As someone noted in the comments, this is akin to the scare in the mid-2000s (and 1990s) over gay rights. 

Supporting DOMA was oh so politically reasonable. It was not. And, neither is this crap.  

News Round-Up

Checking the news, I noticed multiple interesting stories, including ongoing dramas.

Many headlines, as Greg Olear notes, would read as well or better if we replace "Trump" with "Kremlin." 

"Fraud" 

The ongoing Elon/DOGE drama includes Trump first saying in the joint speech that Musk was the head of DOGE and then telling the Cabinet they have the final decision when the deputy president "recommends" things. Wink wink. Nod nod.

A common approach is to accuse agencies and programs of "fraud." Musk knows fraud. He settled an SEC allegation of fraud in 2018 and stepped down as Tesla's board chairman. His claims of fraud? Iffy.

The linked article shows how "fraud" is often based on either confused information or claims of "waste," which is again repeatedly confused with opposition to the merits of the agencies/programs. 

Also, the true fraud is not their main concern:

There is indeed fraudulent spending across the government — perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars per year, according to analysis by the Government Accountability Office. Inspectors general and the Justice Department have investigated fraud rings seeking to bilk health programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, and contractors who bribed officials to win government business.

Finally, bottom line, fraud is not a big part (one expert cites less than 10%) of the problem. There will be some fraud and abuse. It's the cost of doing business on a basic level. Going after it too often harms good people and programs. See, e.g., "voting fraud."  

Results of Disorder

The helter-skelter nature of Trump's actions, including apparent day or so long tariffs, has resulted in something of a mess. For instance, one article shows how federal workers fired are in a gray zone. Are they "truly" fired? Were they fired for cause? Could they get new jobs?  We are talking thousands of people.  

Trump Goes After the Lawyers

Steve Vladeck has a good Substack about Trump's attack on law firms. Trump has so far gone after two firms in executive orders and is aiming for more. 

The concerns are not only that some members (including those no longer there) worked with Trump's political opponents. It is the new stand: attack on DEI. What is involved here? 

The executive order demands that the federal government suspend the security clearances of at least some people working at Perkins Coie, according to a fact sheet distributed by the Trump administration. The firm represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential race.

The order also banned federal agencies from hiring Perkins Coie employees unless they receive special permission to do so, and declared that the government would not pay for contractors represented by the law firm.

They are also going after educational institutions that have diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, which include a range of benign things. Orwellian. 

The whole thing has multiple First Amendment problems, including going after free speech, education, certain organizations (freedom of association), and lawyers who help people oppose the government. It also hurts those who use firms to obtain other civil and constitutional rights. 

Finally, to toss it in, going after DEIA (“a” for accessibility) generally harms valid efforts (however creaky they might be in certain instances) to promote equality and access to many different groups. 

Eric Adams Goes To Washington

Huh. Looks like when Eric Adams went to a House hearing about sanctuary cities, the Republicans mostly went easy on him. I wonder why. Trump puppet?

Meanwhile, with Eric Adams's re-election looking dim, new candidates in an already (too) crowded (we saw this game in 2021) race are arising. Mind you, there were already some promising options, if no one (here's the rub) that was a true front runner. 

First, we have the specter of Andrew Cuomo. Then, the city council speaker, a black woman confusingly also named Adams, has entered the race. She might arise as the favored anti-Cuomo option.  

The primary is in June. 

Trump Joint Speech & Democratic Reply

Trump's Joint Speech to Congress (not officially a State of the Union) was as expected full with lies and other DT standards. Some Democrats didn't show up, some left, and one was tossed. I would have preferred that they all either didn't show up or got up and left. 

I am tired of the usual carping about just what was necessary. One person who I follow on Bluesky thought only being thrown out was meaningful. Thus, even the strong Trump critics, including those who have been very vocal, really didn't do anything. Come on.

I also think Senator Slotkin's response, don't focus on a repeatedly taken out of context Reagan reference, was very good. I provide some key excerpts here. I did so on a blog thread, and multiple people were like, "THIS is what was deemed so lame?"  Yup.  

There was also a Supreme Court moment, which will be addressed later in the SCOTUS wrap-up.

The Royal We and Margot

I enjoyed the new Hallmark Channel film about a pair of royals who were pressed together to negotiate a marriage of convenience to bring peace to their kingdoms. She went to America to live a normal life, but her sister married a commoner, and our "spare" had to step in. They turn out to be a good match. 

Hallmark is having a few royal-based films this month. One charm here was that few Hallmark films involving royals focus on female royals. The actress years ago was in a musical medieval t.v. series. 

The actress is Australian, so she has a certain international flavor mixed in with a believable foreign accent. She also has nice hair.

I read a good book on Anne Frank's diary, and it included a reference to her sister's lost diary. I also found a reference to this fictional account of Margot Frank's survival. Good try, but it didn't work for me. 

One problem is that the book has a half-baked explanation of what happened. Margot Frank supposedly jumped off a train to the concentration camp where she died in real life. The plan was for both sisters to jump. Anne, however, did not manage. 

Okay. So, why did people think she died? Did Anne pretend someone else was her sister? Furthermore, why did Margot think her father was dead until the diary came out? She looked at reports to find the others who had died. 

It's okay to suspend belief, but if you go halfway with an explanation, which is not truly necessary given the whole exercise here, go all the way. 

However, there was no report of Otto dying. And, she even stayed for a long time with a friend of her mother's. He had no connections with Otto or his surviving family whom Otto corresponded with? 

(We simply get no sense of what happened when Margot finally told Otto years later.)

If we move past that, the story itself is not too rewarding. First, she finds someone with Peter's name (it turns out "really" she and Peter were an item; apparently, Anne made up her relationship with Peter) in Philadelphia, where she is now living. The book draws out for too long her finding out it isn't Peter.

Plus, a relationship with Peter is not necessary for the plot. Besides that, there's some drama at the law firm she works for (she hides that she is a Jew or a survivor), including a Holocaust survivor who claims discrimination. This provides some dramatic weight but not enough for over three hundred pages.

Again, it's an interesting idea, but it didn't work for me. I do wish to know more about Margot. Each Annex member has a story, including the dentist whose non-Jewish girlfriend and his son from his first marriage both survived the war. 

The book didn't do enough to help us learn about her, and a major thing was unnecessarily made up. 

Western Europe Is Carrying Its Weight in Multiple Ways

One thing that Trump argues is that Europe does not pull its weight, including funding NATO. Do we really want to downgrade our superiority in this area? There is value in being a superpower and having "soft power" by controlling resources and ideas. 

Our military is a major part of our sense of self. Do we want Europe to truly have more power there? Maybe, in some ways, that would be a good idea. Do conservatives really want it? I doubt it.

U.S. and Germany pay the same percentage of the NATO operations budget (under 16% each), with the UK & France combined paying over 20% combined. United States military make up around 38 percent of the 3.4 million combined troops from NATO allied countries. Western Europe is not quite doing nothing.

Europe also gave more aid to Ukraine. Note that U.S. aid will often help the U.S. by involving spending that profits the U.S. If Ukraine relies on the U.S. more for weapons, who obtains the profits for them? 

Europe also hosts a lot of refugees. By the end of 2022, Europe hosted 1 in 3 refugees in the world (36 percent). This often causes difficulties since the U.S. is more of a melting pot. Western Europe is made of individual nations with more ethnic uniformity.

Europe also honors human rights and international law. Finally, Hungary has not done well in avoiding authoritarian leadership lately, but the U.S. twice voted for an incompetent Putin puppet. 

We should have some modesty. Europe will have to step in more now that Trump is in power. Again, there is some value in regional powers having a larger role in regulating their zone of interest. We can say that while respecting what they are doing already. 

The United States has a national interest in playing an important role in international relations, including the use of foreign aid. Let's just say that even if we want Europe to have more of a footprint, Trump doesn't provide the finesse required to balance things out. 

===

Reports are out that Trump will hand down an executive order making English the official language. We shall see what that means. 

Multiple states have made English an official language. Nonetheless, from the very beginning, Congress has not. And, as I have written, that is fine.

Andrew Cuomo: GTFA

We have local elections this year in New York City. 

The first time to regain a Bronx Democratic city council seat (my district). A long time ago, my area had a Republican in the state legislature. As Bronx areas go, we are more conservative. A conservative district office is nearby. Still. This feels wrong. 

More importantly,* a chance to replace Mayor Eric Adams with a better option that is not corrupt and/or a Trump puppet. We are due for a good mayor. There are various good options but no leading option. Mayor Adams is in trouble.

So, in sweeps Andrew fucking Cuomo. My House rep, thanks to a second round of redistricting, is Ritchie Torres. Among other annoyances, he endorsed Cuomo. Torres is a possible challenger to Governor Kathy Hochul, Cuomo's former lieutenant governor. 

Cuomo resigning in disgrace is why we have a somewhat lackluster governor. Torres is not an appealing replacement. He is strongly anti-Trump but has a lot of baggage. Supporting Cuomo doesn't help.

Cuomo resigned in 2021 in the face of multiple scandals. He was accused of mishandling COVID-19 after talking a good game against Trump. His book deal had issues. And, of course:

[He] was accused of sexual harassment and inappropriate sexual contact by multiple women, including state employees. A report by state Attorney General Letitia James found credible claims of harassment from 11 women, and a subsequent report by the Biden Department of Justice found he subjected 13 women who worked for the state to sexual harassment.

Cuomo largely denied any wrongdoing except some bullshit about handling some things badly. A major thing was that he hung around too long and tried to stay on past his sell date. Now, a few years have passed. Will the people accept him again?

He is also talking like a Republican with scare tactics:

"You feel it when you walk down the street and try not to make eye contact with a mentally ill homeless person, or when the anxiety rises up in your chest as you're walking down into the subway,” he said. “You see it in the empty storefronts, the graffiti, the grime, the migrant influx to random violence, the city just feels threatening, out of control and in crisis.

I do not. He also sent a message that he will play nice with Trump:

The former governor also said he was willing to work with President Trump, pointing out he had done so during Trump’s first term, when he was governor, but also said he was willing to push back, both at the president and governor, as well.

The polling is mixed and instant runoff voting helps the concern that opposition will split the anti-Cuomo vote. I fear for the future, though. And, I'm so fucking tired, so fucking tired, of assholes.

I wish they would just go the fuck away. 

===

* I would rather a Democrat hold the seat. 

I also didn't like multiple positions of the incumbent, including a scare tactic regarding a proposed center for former prisoners. And as a Republican, she has positions now that I oppose. 

Republicans have so few seats in the city council, however, that her being there is not too horrible.