Florida Executes/Euthanizes Harold Gene Lucas

Fifty years ago. Lucas, then 24, murdered his former girlfriend, then 16, and wounded two of her friends.

Florida has gotten around to executing him for the crime, much too late (see, Breyer, dissenting). He had no final appeal, old and tired. 

The whole thing was extended because of multiple appeals, flagging procedural concerns. It was a crime of passion. Not a "worst of the worst" case. It warranted a long prison sentence. 

Sheena

 

Sheena has been on film and television in various forms. 

There was a 1950s series and a 1980s film (both silly, and the film is a tad bit sexist). MeTV+ airs one series early Sunday. Nice on the eyes (Baywatch babe). Not bad as somewhat silly entertainment. 

Tubi has all three. These days, such white Tarzan figures are a bit outdated. The 2000 version could get pretty violent. 

Lost Child

 

After rereading The Sunflower Forest, I checked out this much more recent true account. The author has many books about the very troubled children she counseled over the years. 

It is well written. I did find it basically falling into a holding pattern. Suddenly, in the last quarter or so of the book, a "really? didn't expect that" key turning point (her sister abused her). 

The girl, around 10, caused a lot of trouble. But she was still only a girl. And in a lot of pain. The events took place some time ago (you can tell because the author is old and here she has a young child), so we know things (appeared to) worked out okay for her. 

SCOTUS Reform

Lyle Denniston, the 95-year-old former SCOTUSBlog reporter, conveniently lists possible Supreme Court reforms. They are not comprehensive. 

(He frames it as "changing" the Court.) 

For instance, they can reform qualified immunity or address national injunctions. If you wish to count them as court reforms. But he does generally cover the gambit.

The No King's Act or an amendment doing that also can be tossed in. Ditto something about abortion or some other major "mistake" of the current Supreme Court. These are basically Court reforms. 

We can expand the Court and/or (the first shouldn't foreclose the second) have term limits. Term limits, realistically, require a constitutional amendment. They probably do constitutionally. Also, realistically, it will be hard to pass legislatively since many moderates will think so. 

I have talked about expansion. I respect the demand, though I'm wary about it. I doubt it will happen. If it does happen, we should also have the ability to do many other things. 

Term limits should have broad support. Enough? 

Well, push other reforms; maybe there will be more support for it to be a compromise. It's time for some amendments.

Take away some of the Court’s power to decide specific categories of cases.  The Constitution says that Congress has some power to impose such limits, but how much may depend upon whether the Court would strike down any such measure as an unconstitutional interference with its independence, which the Court vigorously defends.

They can also require the Supreme Court to take more cases. That might not be ideal, though some people do want them to do that. Another approach is to channel certain cases to a particular circuit (D.C. leans liberal) or reduce the power of single judges somehow. 

He also notes Congress can require a supermajority before a law can be declared unconstitutional. I'm not honestly sure about the constitutionality of that approach. Ohio used to have that (see the opinion below in Mapp v. Ohio). 

The Court can be required to explain itself in the shadow docket. That can include providing the votes on certain orders or other actions. I think that might be gamed somehow, such as having one go around and the final on the record vote will largely be unanimous.  

The last three are the most likely. They can "fast track" responses to Court rulings. They can (and very well should) have binding ethics legislation. And they can (the current chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee supports this) require video. 

If the Democrats do win control of one or both houses, they should significantly focus on the Supreme Court, including investigations and fact-finding. That includes hearings about specific cases and issues.

Prof. Melissa Murray, a co-host of the Strict Scrutiny Podcast, took part in a pre-Dobbs hearing about abortion access. This is the sort of thing we need. 

Some people are PASSIONATE that we need court expansion. Well, I doubt it will happen. But okay.

But there is other stuff to do. 

Esther's Army

 

I write about a book concerning conservative women here. 

RIP Dolly Parton

Dolly Parton has had serious health problems recently, so the news is not totally surprising. We just don't like to hear it. She was eighty years old.  

My mom listened to a country music radio station while we grew up. So I had exposure to country music while growing up in New York City. I like various country music singers. 

I like Dolly Parton. Erik Loomis provides a largely positive obituary here, including honoring her talent and business savvy. He references a 1960s song about a pregnant woman committing suicide after being abandoned. 

She was a feminist. One thing he notes is that she did not speak out against her state's anti-trans legislation.

Parton is regularly cited as an LGBTQ ally. She was careful not to bluntly oppose certain laws. But people knew where she stood. In the 1980s, she said this:

“I got a huge gay following and some really macho-looking women,” Parton told Andy Warhol in a conversation for a 1984 Interview cover story. “To me, people are people. … Many of my friends are gay, male and female. I don’t judge people. I don’t care what people do in their bedrooms and people shouldn’t care what I do in mine.”

The anti-LGBTQ movement is based on hate, lack of empathy, and scare tactics. People, however, overall found same sex marriage not a big deal. Parton was accepting, loving, and knew it was not a big scary thing. 

When asked, early on, she made jokes about gays now having the same problems as straights. [I heard a form of this on today's Gay USA episode.] 

Of course, she didn't really think marriage was bad. She was married for almost sixty years. 

[ETA: A Wikipedia page is available.]

Dolly was pro-labor, including all those people required to produce her music. Not just for one film.

She was loving, funny, and honored by people she worked with. As the actress Daryl Hannah noted on Bluesky:

I could tell you stories & you would love ‘em, but they wouldn’t make you love her more than you already do. We will always love her.

Her reading charity is well-cited. Her family recommended people donate to it instead of flowers. 

She also was pro-vaccine:

When the COVID-19 pandemic upended lives around the world, country music legend Dolly Parton found her own way to lead in a crisis.

Her $1 million donation to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to help expedite development of the Moderna vaccine gained international recognition. A Guardian correspondent even suggested naming the shot, "The Dolly."

Parton didn't stop there. Photographers captured her on March 2, 2021, donning a face mask and getting the vaccine in a public show of trust. During a scary and confusing crisis, she was a voice of calm, singing improvised lyrics of "Vaccine" to the tune of her megahit "Jolene."

Trump offerred her a Medal of Freedom. She begged off, concerned about traveling during COVID and other reasons. Later, Dolly was wary about Biden giving her one. It might be seen as "political" if she accepted. She had red and blue fans. 

He announced flags will be flown at half-mast in her honor. 

The actor Tim Curry also died. Many honor his many roles, especially his gender bending role in the Rocky Horror Picture Show. He was gloriously "weird." 

Dolly Parton was pretty outrageous too. Let us allow their spirit to live on, even as we wish "another 80-year-old died." Anyway, I don't think Dolly would have liked people saying that. 

SCOTUS Mail-in Voting Ruling

 

Various preliminary takes on yesterday's order (though it is on the opinion page) have already been provided by my usual sources. 

The general conclusion: it might have limited effect, it might be a red flag, and overall, the dissents are correct. 

Trump is clearly wrong and the Supreme Court should not do anything to give him aid or comfort, however limited. And this isn't the first time. To be continued.