Trade Deadline Watch: Fun Fun

Seems a lot of people, including at least two of the players (one crying on the field), thought a big trade was made last night. Nope. Followed by blowing a six run lead (4/3 run homers) -- team doesn't have that many -- involving a couple rain delays. The first with two strikes (none on) left to end the game. 44min, blow save, few hours, loss clinched.

Update: Basically for a promising pitching prospect, the Mets got a top rental. Some good moves. Playoffs or bust. Sprinkles are for winners as Flo would say.

25 Years of the ADA

The ADA was signed by a Republican President, even though it clearly was an expansion of governmental power and an invite to loads of regulations. Another time and worth it. This is so even if (like requiring carts for professional golf games) I might disagree with certain applications. See here (including linked article) on the complexities of disability law.

Brady

I'm surprised they upheld the four game suspension and it probably is too long. But, the agreed upon settling of disputes here was not unfair in a way warranting federal litigation and find it depressing/outrageous it might go that route with a serious chance at winning. And, bet they at worse will only win one less win this way. Obviously matters but still.

Mets Non-Waiver Trading Update

Giving up a promising prospect for a rental looks even better now that Meija, who I wanted gone the first time, got caught again. The two other rentals are nice pick-ups, and hey, I'll stick with Conforto now. Will believe Wright is actually back and at least kinda himself when I see it. Favor Segura and a 4th OF type. Go for it! Don't dispose of Lagares; have him until 2019. Get him surgery. Tulo/Reyes trade surprising. Two days left.

Go Set A Watchman

For thus hath the Lord said unto me, Go, set a watchman, let him declare what he seeth.

- Isaiah 21:6

There are two basic concerns upfront some have with this book.

Some are not sure the elderly Harper Lee truly consented to its publishing and it is deemed a cynical money making move by her agent.  Her concern for privacy and until know desire to rest on the laurels of her one work underlines this concern.  Who knows -- the evidence to my understanding is at best mixed and not sure how we can prove things one way or another.  From what I can tell, Harper Lee is still competent enough that if she didn't want this to be published she would have stopped it. Who knows. Let's just say, I don't. The evidence is at best mixed and don't think there is a moral reason not to read it on that grounds alone. I probably can be convinced that it would have been best to wait until she died, but again, not enough for me not to read it.

The other concern is that this is in effect a first draft that was never intended to be released as a novel. The overall approach is a third person account through the voice mostly of Jean Louise (Scout) as an adult in her twenties who is home for a visit. This provides various chances to have flashbacks, not only to the time portrayed in the book we all know but later on as well, including during her teenage years.  We recognize various characters though they are older here and Atticus in particular comes off in a somewhat different fashion.  The trial -- altered a bit eventually including its conclusion -- was apparently a major chunk of these flashbacks and this is what her editor suggested she focus the whole book on.  And, the book because a first person narrative though (as seen in the narration in the film) we still have an adult Jean Louise looking back.  The remainder here is somewhat raw and less narratively interesting.

Oh well. The book is not a classic like the first, but there is clearly an interest in seeing what happens to these characters (even if we don't treat this book as "canon," that is what "actually happened" officially such as when spin-offs of major television programs or movies provide "official" material). We get additional vignettes concerning various of the characters and they mostly "feel" right, separating the most controversial aspect of the book particularly.  It is a bit strange to start off the book with a clearly all grown-up Jean Louise (her later talking about having "the curse" particularly) and reference to her flying from NYC underlines how twenty years has passed (normal customer plane travel began in 1930s, but only in a limited way). But, it is worthwhile reading to me. Also, yes, the book probably in various ways comes off as a rough draft. Okay.  Incomplete and/or rough material has been published in various cases all the same to add to the canon. A major example here in Jane Austen in particular portions of two books she never completed. Wasn't some sort of travesty.

A final concern of some is that people aren't quite sure if this wasn't is some fashion edited. It is my understanding is that it was not but some are doubtful. Eh. Without more proof, I'm going to assume that this was really a draft of her novel. The title is a metaphor for one's conscience  though the biblical verse in context seems to have a different meaning. It began well with Jean Louise coming home to visit and discussing her train ride. About a quarter in, however, it was somewhat dull as she just goes about her visit, interacting with various people (including Atticus' young partner [Henry] and assumed successor once we are told the bummer that Jem died young like his mother, also in effect JL's boyfriend) and flashing back to some generally interesting vignettes of her younger years.  The trial narrative was more interesting there. And, even after she finds out her father has some offensive racial views (in a parallel, she listens from the baloncy of the courtroom), the book rambles on in like form before she confronts her dad.

Some are upset at Atticus here, but I respect the complexity -- him defending a safe "good black" in the days of segregation from wrongful allegations by "trash" is one thing.  Dealing with the threats of change, integration and black empowerment in the days after the school segregation decision is quite another matter.  His brother's garbled defense (tellingly told only in the white's p.o.v. as noted by JL) might not impress, but Atticus' sentiments are believable at least to some point. The young Scout would have a more hero worshiping viewpoint at any rate. My immediate concern is that the stuff before Jean Louise and Atticus have it out could do with some editing. I think there is probably enough for a book there, if less interesting than the first one. It would be a way to learn more about the characters and then the controversial twist would be added.  When you can find an argument that Tom really was guilty online, why not provide some more material that puts various characters (down to one of the black characters) in a somewhat different light. Lincoln had some nice things to say about basic equality but still drew the line at a certain point.

A final concern goes back to editing. The last fifty pages involves JL confronting her boyfriend and father regarding their involvement in a White Citizen's Council meeting. Henry takes the "have to fit in" approach.  Atticus defends himself on the merits -- NAACP are causing trouble and don't have the best interests of local blacks at heart, local whites know best, blacks as a whole are at a limited stage of social development and aren't ready for equality etc. Polite racism. JL lashes out with a lot of speechifying and yet more personal anguish (had about hundred pages of that once she overheard mixed with flashbacks).

And, then after you trudge through this prime material for editing material (and she starts off admitted Browd v. Bd. appalled her, but she realized they deserved to win), it ends up being treated as some sort of moment of maturity. Her uncle explains the whole thing was her truly being her own person, having her own "watchman" and not simply relying on her father.  He suggests she come back home from NYC since the town needs more forward thinking sorts. This reflects what the author did herself -- she came back from her time in NYC and spent her life back where she grew up. The first book was about childhood; this is truly about the end of innocence.

JL drives Atticus home, him forgiving her for all the nasty things she said since he knew she was wrong about it anyhow. Not overly satisfying though if I didn't have to trudge through dull speeches and such it would have helped things. Overall, mixed bag, but probably worth the candle. Spoilers discussed.

"The Speechwriter" aka A Survivor's Tale

Word mistress Kory Stamper promoted this book on Twitter and really liked the first quarter or so. It was a fun account by a survivor of Gov. Mark "Appalachian Trial" Sanford's administration mixed with a bit of appreciation (comes off fairly well actually & the book ends with a warning not to "trust" politicians) though he found the guy to be something of an inarticulate jerk. But, didn't really hold up the whole way. Worth it for the first part.

'The Great Decision' by Cliff Sloan and David McKean

This version of the story is more concerned about background and color than covering the legal details (covered okay) as shown by leaving five key criticisms of Marbury v. Madison to a long footnote. On that level, pleasant book, especially if you are new to the stuff.

Update: The video makes a catch not in the book -- the key provision can be applied to avoid unconstitutionality. The "the principles and usages of law" part can mean mandamus would not apply here. Constitutional avoidance was a thing then too. As now, when desired.

Mets Call Up Michael Conforto

Overpriced vet Cuddyer is hurt, but has been for some time. So, why was it dragged out? And, so Kershaw pitched yesterday. BFD. You beat them last time he started; this time they basically conceded the whole game. Worry about rushing up the kid and the excitement as they screw up the offense in other ways is a bit annoying. Like "squirrel!" Oh well.

Rick Santorum/Rachel Maddow

I appreciate that RM had RS on and that he had the guts to be on. And, that Rick Perry of all people called out Trump. RS is right about Congress having the power to pass laws contrary to the SSM ruling. As Lincoln noted, takes time for law to be "fully" accepted though immediately binding on the parties. It would be a pointless exercise and/or wrong on the merits, but be careful Rachel. I speak only on this limited point. Did not watch.

SCOTUS Order Day

Nothing much on the first SCOTUS scheduled summer order day; heck, SCOTUSBlog and others didn't flag it yet. Page limit exception denied. Stay involving abortion doctor murderer denied. Rehearing motions denied. Attorney disciplined. Bit over two pages.

Update: I flagged the no mention to SCOTUSBlog and was told that since nothing notable occurred, they figured it wasn't necessary. Come on guys. You are SCOTUSBlog. You at least mention it. Past order days during the term were mentioned even with nothing really happening. The doctor's murderer is even a bit newsworthy.

Adultery Testing

May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

As with other sexual related matters, it should not surprise that many think you can be a good Christian without supporting a ban on abortion.  This was seen by the Baptist response to Roe v. Wade.  Apropos of the book I'm reading (see below), Sarah Weddington went to work for President Carter.

Note: I'm reading Jimmy Carter's latest (an autobiography of sorts) and he notes he opposes abortion except in cases of health (strictly applied) and rape, but unlike the usual stereotype (matching reality in various ways) supported various means to reduce the prevalence of abortion and means (including government provided) to care for children once born.  Anyway, I'm about half-way through and it's a pretty good read in a down to earth tone.

Some will appeal to the Bible to find a means to argue that abortion is against God's will.  This requires some doing, since the document does not have much to say directly about such things. A few poetic verses about God knowing us in our womb won't really do the trick unless you are assuming things ahead of time. An early Christian work (Didache) actually does oppose abortion, but the brief reference doesn't answer all the questions either, plus also bans various other things that aren't illegal. Ultimately, ways can be provided to justify both sides, especially if the choice is left to the person and the test is if it is moral or not. Like lying.

One gotcha on the pro-choice side is Numbers 5, which provides a test for (female) adultery that in some cases would result in a "miscarriage." Why would God punish the "baby" in such a case if abortion is wrong?  Another excerpt provides a smaller fine for a blow that causes a miscarriage as compared to unlawful killing a born person.  Relying on "Old" Testament verses is of limited value for Christians at any rate though some of them do selectively cite those books for various rules themselves. Fair is fair.

One translation of the test uses an euphemism -- "thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell," but what is happening seems apparent.  At least when the pregnancy is a result of adultery (see also, justification in the gospels for divorce), abortion seems to be allowable even beyond rape and the health/life of the woman.  Present day abortion opponents who aren't strict about every verse of the Bible being correct need not be stuck by it, but it is something of a unpleasant provision for strict anti-lifers.

The ordeal however is fairly interesting on its own terms. It is a means to peacefully, in an orderly fashion, address the problem of men who suspect their wives committed adultery but have no way of proving it.  Likewise, it provides a means to show the innocence of the women.  In practice, there probably also is the chance for the dispute to be handled "out of court" so to speak.  The culture clearly favored men here but even there they weren't given carte blanche.  False witness was not allowed. And, adultery by men -- even if not lethal -- could still be a wrong against the husband or family of the woman involved. No free pass. Finally, the painful (I'd think) process plus being barren is a horrible punishment, but it isn't death. 

Not saying it was an ideal solution, especially since do not actually believe the special potion was foolproof, nor that adultery warrants such a physical penalty. I do understand the mindset of the times, including the threat adultery has to the orderly progress of a small tribal community in particular.  This includes concern for the legitimacy of children. It does take two to tango here and the man is likely to if anything have the upper hand. Making him sterile or something seems fair too. 

The Shadow of the Cat

Fun outing if a bit long. Some of these Svengoolie outings don't do it for me though Svengoolie and his lame jokes is usually fun.

Kneejerk Reactions

Late in the evening, which might have influenced the reaction, Buzzfeed reporter Chris Geidner on Twitter called this story "trash" as if it merely mentioned she was stopped for traffic tickets and said nothing about her suspicious death. Read the whole thing. Not only does it (and the video) provide her supporters' side, but wasn't just tickets. DUI, e.g. Doesn't mean all is well, but she is not just some random black woman stopped for "DWB" either.

McFarland, USA

Kevin Costner and sports is generally a safe bet (he even was good when merely playing an ex-jock) and this based on true story about a long-shot track team made up of Mexican-Americans was fairly enjoyable. It is a fairly basic Disney film but the locals are respectfully handled; the small part of the principal is a nice touch.

How "God" Works

This book has some good stuff on critical thinking and the problems with a belief in "God," but it drags out the prayer section, says unnecessarily broad things like "the Bible" is a "myth" (not everything) and at times focuses too much on what amounts to an evangelical Christian view of "God." So mixed bag. Colorful pages though.

Rizzoli & Isles

Blah! Saw this on demand with the game on. The fun lab tech is the victim this week in what turns out to be in effect Part 2 of last week's apparently sealed up episode (should have known with the unfamiliar "suicide" ending). The episode is okay but nothing special except for some heartaches given a friend died (Maura recused but shouldn't the others be too?).

DeGrom Did Well ...

Another not so great All Star Game for the NL, including fill-in Clayton Kershaw (a relative of the now topical discoverer of Pluto) showing why Familia or someone else deserved in instead. Chapman also shined for the NL. Getting old alert: watched Fielder's dad in the 1990s. Mets hit a tough slate of games as the second half begins. Hope they do something to shore up their offense. Playoffs quite possible with a bit of help.

"Will Justices Breyer and Kennedy Allow An Execution They Know (or Should Know) is Unconstitutional?"

The title is from an article written yesterday because Breyer (joined by Ginsburg) a couple weeks ago said that it was "highly likely" that the death penalty is unconstitutional and would have asked briefing on the question. The other two dissenters merely rested on the problems with the lethal injection itself though Glossip himself had a case on the merits too. See that link for some more comments from myself on the death penalty.

There were a variety of orders today regarding David Zink trying to not be the first person since the Glossip case to be executed. Zink confessed, showing the authorities when he buried the young woman victim.*  His past crimes and this one underline Zink is a worse case scenario:

In 2001, Zink who had been recently released from prison after serving 20 years on rape, abduction and escape charges, rear-ended Morton’s car on an exit ramp after she had just left her boyfriend’s home in Springfield. He then decided to abduct and kill her as he was worried of going back to prison if she called the police, according to court documents. Police found Morton’s car abandoned with the keys in the ignition and the engine running. Her purse, credit card and medication were left in the car.  

Amnesty International and a state group against the death penalty had a few things other than the basic illegitimacy of the death penalty even here.  There were a few problems with the trial, including involving introducing of evidence of early brain damage. Plus, though this doesn't look like someone you wanted on the outside, it was argued he was a model prisoner.  Others will say he was a model candidate for the death penalty. Either way, he was executed not too long ago.

Anyway, as in the past, the liberals were silent ... this time not even voting to dissent from a denial of a stay, habeas relief or a cert. petition denial regarding a request (per Breyer/Ginsburg) to examine if the death penalty itself is unconstitutional.  Now, I am not surprised as such that the liberals as a whole or I guess maybe these two did not vote publicly to grant cert. The fifth vote was not there as seen by Kennedy not even waiting at first to allow an execution in the state whose procedures they decided to examine in Glossip.  Cert petitions are not taken merely for academic purposes and the liberals do not want to force Kennedy to join the other conservatives to firmly hold the death penalty itself in constitutional.  As he would have.

But, after saying they thought it "highly likely" the death penalty is unconstitutional and saying they would hold full briefing on the question, why didn't they say anything today?  I think they had a moral duty to explain themselves. Of course, they don't have an actual duty to explain themselves though at times justices have bragged how federal judges are special since they have to explain their reasoning. At times.  Like RBG saying the reason they didn't take a same sex marriage case at first was because there was no circuit split, there is some b.s. going on. There, it was because matters of special importance (like a significant change of the law of marriage) also provide a reason to grant cert. even without a circuit split (this doesn't mean not taking a case was wrong necessarily but her comment misled). 

Here it is for not explaining to the public why they let someone die after two of them said it was "highly likely" the death penalty itself -- no matter how it is applied -- is unconstitutional. Wrong. Sorry, Notorious RBG. Disappointed in you and Breyer.

---

* The title appears to be wrong in regard to the rape in this case.

Love's Promises: How Formal and Informal Contracts Shape All Kinds of Families

The book starts promisingly with an account of her own "Plan B" child and is appropriately flexible about such things. Various parts probably will bore non-legal students though as a whole a worthwhile effort. I found about the book here.

Confederate Flags

We had mass murders in the past that resulted in no long term response, so sadly it is something that the murders in SC resulted in taking down the Confederate battle flag. And, it isn't all that happened -- the talk of "grace" alone was meaningful. Sort of a big "fu" to the murderer given his purposes. Meanwhile, as John Oliver noted more than once, how about Mississippi? Finally, Six Flags is probably different, but huh.

"What Does Marriage Equality Have to Do with Dred Scott?"

This stands out among the reactions to the SSM ruling (should I just say "marriage"?), taking up CJ Roberts' comparison to the Dred Scott case. In part, we see how the dissents used language and marriage. And, do think we need to at least give some states and people a few weeks to get used to the idea. Resistance is wrong, but it still will take a bit of time.

Little Red Riding Hood Uncloaked

This book is a fairly interesting examination of this fairy tale from various angles including the quite good early Reese Witherspoon film Freeway. One theme is how it changed over time down to its ending. Some chapters seemed a bit thin (e.g., yes, rape as a legal matter was traditionally applied thru a male lens, but didn't you say the tales often was less so, including "old wives" tales?) but it was overall a brisk nutritious read.

Richard Glossip

Richard Glossip is likely to be executed even though for almost a decade, Oklahoma was prepared to promise Glossip that he would not be executed if he confessed to the crime. Glossip is being executed because he exercised his constitutional right to a jury trial.

Moving past the one post with open comments and its never ending marriage ruling discussion where certain people repeat the same things over and over without doing a good job of responding to criticisms, this one covers a point I have not seen in the coverage so far of the death penalty opinion.  It is far from surprising really that there turns out to be some doubt of his guilt (see, e.g., Breyer's dissent) and that other factors that got no traction in past appeals could be cited. 

There is overlap -- a discussion on the DOI included a reference to the jury rights and how they are almost barred in effect by the pressure to plea bargain.  The person makes something of a point though exaggerates with the term "eliminates." This does underline the breadth of the practice. There is nothing unique to this case that plea bargaining opens up a major negotiating tool for the state and prosecutorial discretion will always be present even if we force each case to go to trial by jury. "Death is different" but this would hold as well for long prison sentences. 

The post, I hope, doesn't suggest some sort of naivety that it is not common practice that defendants and other parties are not lied to by the police and others in the process of questioning.  Some pure honesty rule here is hard to imagine though some might wish to do so. Again, it amounts to a line drawing exercise. The death penalty is so serious that such common practice is unseemly, especially when there might be some reasonable doubt as to guilt.  Such is the bottom line:

In sum, Richard Glossip is likely to be executed because capital punishment enhances prosecutorial power to secure unreliable and arbitrary death sentences.

Yes.  But, so would various other things. An episode of The Closer last night involved Brenda using a mother's love of her daughter as a means to pressure a woman to testify against her husband and accept a plea bargain instead of threat of the death penalty (put aside nearly no one is executed in California; the plea significantly decreased her prison time).  This doesn't change the ultimate validity of the author's argument really. The death penalty adds special force to it.  Still, it shows it goes beyond that too.

Happy DOI Day!

I repeat myself, but this entry from 2012 works for me.

And now the details ...

Meanwhile ... Cuba and U.S. to open official diplomatic relations.

We express no view on how controversies involving the intersection of these rights should be resolved but instead leave that to the robust operation of our system of laws and the good faith of those who are impacted by them.

The SSM ruling did not end the "so incest is covered now?" (comment) and won't solve everything even among same sex couples wanting to get married and so on either.  The move to have the pending cases settled and put the states on notice that it is time to recognize same sex marriage is beginning. For instance, the 5th Circuit never got around to releasing an opinion (seemed to lean toward 2-1 on recognition) but just ordered the three states covered to get going now that the USSC ruled.

The opening quote shows that the same sex marriage ruling will lead to various related questions such as those arising from children in those relationships. The ruling here also was sure to quote the portion of Obergefell v. Hodges (a name I will continue to fail to remember) regarding protecting the religious freedom of dissenters.  The full paragraph:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

What this entails is somewhat unclear, especially when we are not just dealing with "religious organizations" but "persons," for instance those who run let's say a bakery. Hobby Lobby spoke of "a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race" being a compelling interest that overrides a religious accommodation right. The dissenters and Kennedy clearly think sexual orientation also warrants such concern. How this applies to serving people, including if some alleged 1A interest (photography) is cited is open to further Supreme Court determination.

[Added] The religious rights here was a major concern of the dissents in the SSM cases. Their substantive due process arguments are weak* and would challenge a range of precedents. But, another primary point was a concern for dissenters.  In effect, some "right to be a bigot" that as I noted would likely not arise if racists were at issue or to be more temperate, dissenting viewpoints in the area of race.  There is a selective concern here as there is for "undemocratic" actions by the courts; was this sentiment equally shown in the handgun or campaign finance cases?  Justice Alito doesn't think government officials have a general right to freedom of speech at the job, but concern is given here for those who hand out licenses.  Where was this concern in the past given strong opinions against various types of religiously based opposition to marriage in other areas?  Is there something special about same sex marriages? 

The time sensitive nature of these actions was alluded to by reference to the "declining health of plaintiff Robert Welles." And, actions continue in various other states and orders from the 1st Circuit (Puerto Rico) and so forth should be forthcoming. What dead-enders will pop up? What complications will arise?  And, how soon will some lower court have to decide polygamy, a "purported to marry" case still pending to my knowledge.

---

* [Added] I have covered the dissents to some degree, but to belabor the point, they are both depressing and weak. Marty Lederman, e.g., noted that other than tradition, the dissents mostly ignored actually trying to justify banning same sex marriage. He wants to avoid reliance on "bigotry" comparable to racism but somewhat unsure how difference the two really are.  There too "moral disapproval, biblical teachings, anxiety" was part of societal reactions.  But, it is complicated, and overall useful to tone it down in an court ruling, underlining my support of not relying on animus. Still, as I said, that factors in especially as a rejoinder of "just leave it to democratic process." Yeah ... they blocked that special here.

Alito did cite some sort of procreation and the fear of unknown [as the majority opinion noted, while we wait some unclear amount of time, loads of people are denied rights] argument, admittedly joined by three justices (not CJ).  Still, this is all pretty weak sauce. And, still can get myself riled up by people -- now -- who make marriage small, just about having kids or something. Not all marriage is about. This isn't news to people unless they are talking about SSM. But, this is the nature of invidious discrimination -- double standards and widely held assumptions that just don't stand up to scrutiny. 

I'm sick of people criticizing the majority for weak arguments. The two lawyers on this week's Gay USA actually got it there.  As with Windsor, I will continue to defend Kennedy here, even if you can criticize things along the edges. Re-reading it only underlines the point. How about this passive aggressive dig at the dissents: "In accordance with the judicial duty to base their decisions on principled reasons and neutral discussions, without scornful or disparaging commentary, courts have written a substantial body of law considering all sides of these issues."

As noted, contra some comments in the dissent, the majority also doesn't only rely on individual dignity here but at least two of the four principles of marriage provided cover others (children/family, society).  The two-person principle handles polygamy and since that was not at issue here, there was no obligation to explain it in detail. Also, the protect the family principle cited handles incest in large part since incestuous relationships would interfere with that. Again, not at issue here, so no need to discuss it in detail or the limits (e.g., cousins).  Finally, unlike monogamy or the incest bar, the states didn't refute that same sex couples had every ability to do the various things (including raise children) marriage is there for. Discrimination also factors in and even polygamy has not be blocked as strenuously on that level. 

And, reading it again, only a few parts really should have been toned down. SCOTUS threw in one more thing. Maybe this too will be the true end of the term for me until summer orders.

Misty Copeland is first black principal dancer at American Ballet Theatre

Congrats regarding the author of a book on the side panel.