Tamara

 

I saw this on cable a long time ago. I said it was sort of "lame." 

Overall, I liked it this time, including a great scene where an innocent wife has to fight two murderous teenagers. The very end tosses in a lame horror trope. They should have left it be with a good way to close the story out. Good lead and pretty good support.

I mostly liked American Mary. Directors known for twisted stuff. The lead was excellent. Amusingly, a supporting character was in the WWII television drama Bomb Girls. Kind of a different role. 

SCOTUS Watch

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court released its calendar for the October argument session, which lasts from Monday, Oct. 5, to Wednesday, Oct. 14. 

The beat goes on. A notable environmental case is one of the first big cases. 

The link goes to a conservative who signed a letter in 2016 explaining why it was essential for conservatives to be against the election of Trump. 

He has been praised as a fair conservative mind. 

I have found him generally so (he had his bad moments), though I am annoyed at how little he responds to Trump shenanigans. 

This is a theme on that website, which has a few Trump loyalists (Josh Blackman), but many who don't care for him much. Other than one person (and one person who sometimes pops up), they rarely say anything.

This is not an appropriate response to the times. 

==

BJC has a podcast discussing religion and the Supreme Court. It was on hiatus until the new term. They had a special SCOTUS preview and announced a co-host is leaving.

==

Precedent and Personnel: When the Justices Change so Does the Constitution

Prof. Eric Segall is a liberal law professor. 

I disagree with him from time to time, including on some of his hobbyhorses. This one, which he has been on for decades, is rather tedious.

He LOVES the Legal Tender Cases example. It's not a normal one. The Chief Justice ill-advisedly decided a significant case on a short bench. 

He was on notice and did so anyway. When two new justices joined, the cases went the other way.  

Compare this to what John Marshall and Warren Burger did. Marshall held cases over in the 1830s when the justices divided, and a new membership might change the result. 

The Burger Court had a special committee when they had seven justices to decide what to hold over if the two might change the result. 

What does ES want? Abraham Lincoln in his first presidential inaugural address argued:

At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

The justices on a short bench by a closely divided vote held one way. The majority arguably was quite off base on an important constitutional issue. 

A single case should not be the immediate end of the line. Stare decisis is important. But the issue wasn't firmly established. New justices, selected by people we elect (if indirectly, especially pre-17th Amendment), will factor into this equation.

This case is a rather incomplete example to examine the wider question. It might have been wrong. It might have been right. It still is a special case.

New justices over time do change the law. It is a significant way the law changes over time. Likewise, legislatures and executives change over time. Their view of what the Constitution means also changes. 

Justices, even the current bunch, also don't simply ignore precedent. It would be tedious to list the number of things, including some things of importance, that are basically the same now.

We can also list a bunch of things the current majority has done that significantly disrespect precedent. I find many of these cases dead wrong. 

Nonetheless, the fact they are making new law alone isn't the problem. The way they are doing it, both procedurally and substantively, is the problem. The problem here is the merits. 

What happens, imagine with me, if the Supreme Court eventually is ideologically reasonable? Liberals and moderates have a supermajority. This happens because of new membership. Look at the early 1960s.

A nuanced approach can result in liberals cautioning courts to be conservative. At some point, a conservative approach is ill-advised. But that would at least make more sense than this simplistic take. 

The law is not obtained by looking at the sky, entrails, or original understanding. I repeat myself. It is a value judgment that significantly depends on the judges.

We should be open about this. We should carefully handle the situation. Judges should still act like judges. And, yes, ES, life tenure and so forth give the justices much more power to act arbitrarily.

This warrants special attention. I still don't accept simplistic cant. With respect, #JustSaying. 

===

On my Substack ... comments on a pending Massachusetts abortion bill. 

Mets Trading Deadline

 

The Mets traded all the good pieces (and Peralta) they expected to trade. They were unable to get rid of any of the (to be mean) trash, including Robert Jr. Taylor, the sole position player (minus a minor leaguer) who went. Eh. I want Stearns GONE. 

ETA: Mets won four straight. Competition isn't great, but still impressive. Still don't want to see the overpriced new guys. 

I Spit On Your Grave

Checking Tubi, I see the original and the sequel are available. I hold to my earlier remarks. The author of a (defunct) blog named after the film continues to post on social media (including Bluesky) and elsewhere. The sequel looks ridiculous (and ridiculously overlong). 

ETA: I saw Angel (or parts of it). Some 1980s exploitation film charm with breast shots. The lead (in her 20s but playing a teen prostitute) doesn't really do much other than look like a good girl with sorta slutty makeup. Also, Mama Weed (French film) was decent. 

Missionary, Birthright Citizenship, Gay USA

I cover various topics on Substack, including how the Trump Administration is honoring a Catholic martyr while violating all he stood for. Also, co-host of Gay USA retires after thirty years. 

I recently watched Once and Again on YouTube. I vaguely recall watching at least some of it. It was first on before this blog began (mid-2003). I found one passing reference on the blog. 

Florida's Double Execution

Carrying out multiple executions within a day is rare in the modern era, with only two states doing so in the past 26 years: Arkansas in 2017 and Texas in 2000. Florida hasn’t executed more than one person in a single day since 1964, according to the state’s correctional records.

The Supreme Court rejected final appeals in two death penalty cases from Florida. A core concern: Florida was executing two people on the same day. 

Questions have arisen about the state's lethal injection execution protocols after execution logs were released last year that seem to show cases where insufficient or even different chemicals were used, and autopsy records for 33 executed inmates that showed each one suffered flash pulmonary edema, which causes a feeling like drowning.

That makes it more likely for problems to occur. Problems repeatedly alleged to have been ongoing. Not that anyone, except for Sotomayor (once), said a word about such claims.

Occhicone, convicted of the 1986 murder of his ex-fiancée's parents, is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection six hours after the planned execution of another man, former Lake County police officer James Duckett, convicted of the 1987 rape and murder of 11-year-old Teresa Mae McAbee. If both executions go as planned, it would be the first multiple execution in Florida since 1964.

 

Florida continues to execute people first sentenced years back. They keep on having a new "oldest inmate to be executed," this time someone eighty. That adds another layer to the reasons for complaint: older people having various ailments affecting the execution. 

These lengthy delays create two special constitutional difficulties. First, a lengthy delay in and of itself is especially cruel because it “subjects death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehumanizing conditions of confinement.” Second, a lengthy delay undermines the death penalty’s penological rationale.

There remains the general concern regarding executing people after such a long time, which no current justice has deemed problematic. The second crime specifically is particularly heinous. But it happened 40 years ago.

Volokh Conspiracy had several Supreme Court posts, including talking about leaks. One comment (not from a troll) noted that the justices explained their "decisions." 

That is bullshit unless you are using it narrowly to apply to a small subset of decision-making. Steve Vladeck's book covers that ground. Today's "no comment" orders underline the point. A "decision" was made. No explanation.

Many will say that the final appeals were weak tea. They don't deserve any comment. 

I disagree, including when the challenge regards something occurring only for the third time in sixty years. The last time didn't go smoothly. 

Either way, a decision was made. No comment. It's the shadow docket. Sorry, Justice Kagan. 

Florida executed both. 

One thing that stands out in that discussion is that a jury split 7-5 on giving one of the two the death penalty. This sort of thing repeatedly occurred. But it doesn't really become less troubling. 

The other (more heinous) defendant partially alleged innocence. DNA evidence that might provide proof, however, was at best inconclusive. 

I have not found a comprehensive take on how recent executions in Florida match the allegations of problems. Each article I see simply states the person was executed. 

The Martian

I read The Martian after watching part of it on television. The book has too much science porn. 

I'm not a scientist. If this were about a subject I knew more about, the level of "into the weeds" in it would still get too much at some point.

Plus, it got repetitive. People obviously enjoyed the book. But just saying as one of them.

Something comes up, he figures a way to deal with it, in intricate scientific detail, rinse/repeat. Please, can we get back to the other people? They even sometimes have to deal with intricate scientific details. They do not go into that much detail. Other stuff also happens.

It's appreciated that we get repeated reminders of the possibility of human error, unplanned occurrences that will screw things up, etc. But this got tiresome.

I liked the book as a whole once I got into a groove of quickly reading all of these details.  I have noted that it is harder for me to get into books in recent years. 

I completed this book in less than a day. So, you know, not all bad.

The human element is done well overall. Sometimes, I wanted to learn more about the other characters. The rest of the crew, e.g., seem interesting.

I suppose online there is fan fiction covering their adventures. We receive a few snapshots of their personal stories, including a single home-to-ship live communication. Three are married, and the other two have a thing going on with each other.

We know the maroon crew member's parents are alive; he's from Chicago and doesn't seem to have a significant other. Other than that, there is no backstory. One of the discussion questions addresses that. The book is largely about one guy, alone, and you do not get to really understand him too much. 

It was flagged in an earlier morning thread that a key science point was problematic. The author edited the book over time as he received feedback on scientific details (my copy has an interview with the author). 

He did not fix everything. Dramatic license and other factors do come into play.

He later noted he was aware of the issue. And, anyway, I saw one account that said it "may" be a problem. We don't know for sure.

The book tosses in a somewhat out-of-left-field comment about alternative food supply options. I wondered how long that would last.

Checking online, one commentary noted they left that part out. It is a cannibalism hypo. I can see why. 

They also left a few things out of Hail Mary, a recent well-received film also based on the author's novel. My copy provided the first chapter as a preview.

From what I saw, the Matt Damon film was well made. Good cast and so on. 

I cannot judge the science of it all.

I also appreciate the sentiment about how it is human instinct to help people, with some exceptions. A key plot point involves the Chinese Space Agency helping, with some sacrifice to their own efforts. 

Checking Wikipedia, the film tells you what Matt Damon's character will do when he gets back. 

The book ends with his rescue. So, you know, maybe there is a disaster later on, and the whole crew dies!