Rev. Joe Gets Vapors At Blog Post Headings

Ask someone who has actually struggled to get healthcare and now can, and wasn’t really put off by a couple hour wait to finally get coverage:

This. I'm taking a week blog comments post hiatus.

Walter White (S1)

The group cast/crew commentary on the first episode was pretty good but did not like the next two episodes -- too drawn out both realistically and dramatically. Would have worked better if the material was combined into one episode.

"Due Process and Targeted Killings: A Law Professor’s Suggestions for Enhancing Procedures"

I have clashed with some who I think exaggerate the problems with the Obama Administration's approach, but repeatedly note that there is a reason for some concern. The "issue brief" (a great resource generally) here provides helpful discussion.

Walter White

Seeing hints (including an article marked "spoiler") about some big/controversial thing happening on Downton Abbey, now running in the UK. Killing Matthew isn't enough? Meanwhile, giving into the crowd, saw the first episode of Breaking Bad. Guy does drama as well as he does goofball comedy. Like the one shot of breasts -- hey we are basic cable!

"Government Takes A U-Turn On Warrantless Wiretaps"

Verrilli told the Court, would have standing to challenge the wiretapping. However, Verrilli later learned that, in two recent terrorism cases, prosecutors had not made those disclosures.

SCOTUSBlog links to the NPR story and has a five part series interviewing him as well.

"The Weight of Capital Punishment on Jurors, Justices, Governors, & Executioners"

Good guest column examining the effects on the "other" parties involved.

I Spit On Your Grave

I have seen this, including the inferior remake (did not see either sequel) a few times over the years, and still think it a serious effort (the original title: Day of the Woman). In one "director's cut" DVD, Joe Bob Briggs provides a mostly serious commentary and respects the effort though has some appropriately snarky moments. The director also reflects/provides a commentary. An interesting diner scene is not included in this cut.

Seminoles Agree To College Football Usage

The tribe helped university boosters create the costume for the Chief Osceola mascot, approving the face paint, flaming spear and Appaloosa horse that have no connection to Seminole history.

So it was in 2005, and so it is today, looking at today's paper. The practice to me and some of the tribal group is offensive, but the local tribe consents. That's their prerogative and it makes it different from the Redskins, including the offensive nature of the name itself.

Looks Like It Will Win 2-1 but ...

C-SPAN was airing audio from DC Circuit orals on the argument that for profit corporations can deny -- because of the religious beliefs of individuals behind them -- employees the right to use their own money for contraceptive coverage which in effect forces those individuals to give up a bit of their own rights. I find this argument so aggravatingly wrong.

Not taking them off the hook but ...

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) contended Thursday that Republicans deserve some of the blame for the Affordable Care Act's bumpy rollout.

Has a point. Like Prof. Adler over Volokh Conspiracy being a bit of an asshole sniping at problems caused by PPACA not going to conference without telling us why (59 senators = filibuster), only one side being grown-ups causes problems. Sorry, it's not wrong to note this.

A New New Testament

I saw this in the library and am intrigued by it -- it is in effect a modern translation (by some accounts a bit too sex neutral -- "person of humanity" over "son of man" type stuff) and an addition of ten books, looks like basically gnostic works. Anyone see it?

Website Horrors!

First, let us remember PPACA has been on the books since 2010 and various things have in effect already has been "rolled out." As to the problem with the website for a key part, it's troubling, but I'm not horrified by it. People have a while to sign up and glitches are not shocking. Realize it is a f-up and looks bad. Perspective please.

"Citizenship of Haitians in Dominican Republic for decades threatened by court ruling"

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

One result of another path, perhaps wished by the "anchor baby" crowd exception to the 14A, is discussed by here today. The column doesn't pick up the comparison. Meanwhile, his paper shouldn't have included photos of an alleged 17 year old criminal in a sensitive case.

‘Muhammad Ali’s Greatest Fight’

Caught this dramatic account of the inner workings of the Clay v. U.S. proceedings mixed with actual footage of interviews with Muhammad Ali and the like. Some recognizable faces, including Maria's hubby as Justice Harlan, a sort of hero of the piece. Mixed bag that at times seems like a chance to throw out some good lines. Justice Douglas comes off particularly lame here. Good try and wouldn't mind other attempts like it.

Online Blues

In a discussion of "designer babies," I made what seemed to me a bland statement as to due care, but it suggests the perils of that online. First, the inference was that I was saying more than I was. Second, I had a tedious back/forth over just what being "careful" means and what "concerns" I have. I provide a long reply and that STILL isn't enough. Give me a break.

"Can Corporations Pray? The Next Big Fight over Obamacare"

I don't know if the USSC has to go as far as the principle (e.g., there is no substantial burden and there is a compelling state interest) stated in this well argued "issue brief," but it underlines why the challenges to for profit business corporations are so weak. A related if somewhat more expansive argument can be found here. Concerned about this case.

World Series -- Yawn

When a local morning sports guy polled the office, so to speak, about the WS, the general sentiment was little or no interest. He also agreed the Giants played poorly though his partner did note the defense played well. Vikings sucking there did help.

NJ Begins Same Sex Marriages

[As I type this, in a pretty badly played game -- though the Giants showed some more life in the Second Half -- the Giants finally won, finding a team more inept than themselves.  The 10-7 score at the half was a bit scary.]

Governor Christie’s office said that the opinion released last Friday by the state supreme court “left no ambiguity about the unanimous court’s view on the ultimate decision in this matter.” While the governor “strongly disagrees with the Court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people,” he said that the court had now ”spoken clearly” on New Jersey law and he would carry out the ruling through state agencies.

The "elected branches" voted for same sex marriage already, let us recall, and he vetoed it, saying it was public referendum or nothing.  So, any cry of judicial activism is a bit weak.  Gov. Cuomo (Sr.) blocked a legislative move to re-establish the death penalty, but didn't claim he was just doing it so the "people can decide" or something.  I would note there that when the legislature's action was upheld under Gov. Pataki, the law was struck down by the state court of appeals, the legislature never getting around to correct the provision that caused the problem.

Someone I know was upset at the turn of events here, though accepting (like many, a change from not that long ago) the idea of civil unions. I think the person's understandings is important here, in part because that is how it is supposed to work -- that is, in our republican democracy, the understandings of the average person is important. The understandings are going to be imperfect (someone at Volokh Conspiracy wrote a book on political ignorance and made various somewhat confused/drawn out points on the matter in recent days, but the basic idea of political ignorance, including it being in various cases rational as a matter of limited time and resources is not that profound), but we should try to do our best to make it as sound as possible. It's an uphill battle.

The basic logic of the ruling is that the NJ Supreme Court eight or so years back held that NJ needed to provide equal benefits to same sex couples as different sex couples, but marriage is not necessary. Shades of Vermont back at the start of it all. This was somewhat reasonable given the state of affairs at the time, if not really enough as to equal protection, less so as over ten states now have same sex marriage.  It is somewhat dubious, especially given it was a split vote then, that the NJ Supreme Court would rule the same way now -- it very well would do what the Connecticut Supreme Court did and require same sex marriages.

Anyway, after Windsor, state marriages now will have federal benefits, even in various cases when the persons reside in states that do not recognize them (as long as the marriages were performed where they are).  So, civil unions are not enough.  Now, there is an argument to be made that the federal government should treat NJ-like full civil union regimes like marriages for federal benefits (William Baude at VC has talked about this issue), either as a matter of policy (as the laws are written now) or as a constitutional matter.  I'm iffy there -- civil unions are imperfect creations and are not marriages. They might not be recognized by various states.  If the feds provide benefits to civil unions, I think they should change the laws first. And, since civil unions are not marriages, there is a reason to not provide the benefits under current law. And, unlike DOMA, sec. 3, it is not that the feds are denying benefits out of their own animus.

But, this is a state court case and under state constitutional law the courts do not have some ability to force the feds' hands. They are left with the situation at hand -- same sex marriages get federal benefits, same sex civil unions do not. This is not equality under the law pursuant to the state constitution per the earlier ruling.  If you accept, like the person I mentioned, same sex couples should get equal government benefits, what is the right move there?  I guess pressure Congress to pass a new law supplying benefits to civil unions.  This still won't truly supply equality, including as a matter of social understanding, which is partially important in various situations involving rights (at the hospital, e.g.).

The person, however, if forced to consider the point, probably would accept some problems given that "marriage" just doesn't mean same sex couples.  Why?  Well, the person was explicit -- God does not want that. That cannot be a grounds for the law under the First Amendment. There has to be a secular reason. But, many people ultimately oppose things on what amounts to be religious grounds, including here and in the abortion context.  The person did not want to accept that various religious groups, including Christian in nature, accepted same sex marriage.

As Mayor Booker, awaiting his swear in date for the Senate, marries same sex couples, my overall concern here is for people to understand the basics of this litigation. First, the NJ legislature, not the courts, were ready to recognize same sex marriage.  Second, without federal action, state civil unions are not equal to same sex marriage. Even if you don't like it, if you support basic equality of benefits, there is no easy solution there. At the very least, you should, on principle, push Congress to support a civil union benefit law, which Obama did when running for POTUS. 

I think that is not true equality, but it's better than nothing. Which same sex couples had as to federal benefits, underlining the court was right.

Jets Win in OT

I actually only saw the Jets kneel and play for OT, but that was fun too, including the missed FG/first application of new penalty/making more reasonable FG. Also missed a good SNF game where Manning's replacement won. KC had a shot to lose too, but a bad team let them off hook. Redskins/Bears was a score-fest/Bears QB hurt. Giants tonight.

World Series Sucks

The Cards are like some sort of playoff machine, a somewhat cheaper form of the Yanks, and then we have the Red Sox ... the beards alone (sadly, no Beard World Series, the Dodgers out) are annoying. Beltran (former Met) going as a Cardinal is also annoying.