A Colony in a Nation

The basics of this quick reading book whose core can be explained in a long form article is duly noted. IOW, choir/speaking. Some segments are of particular interest, including arguing the American Revolution was a result of the sort of "police state" in the "colony" now. And, the predatory fine system also dealt with by John Oliver. My own neighborhood is cited; bit out of the loop and Hayes' is a bit younger, but don't recall usage of the "n" word. Some references to a white "colony" of sorts suggests a possible sequel. The suggestion that some degree of hassling and the like is necessary for freedom is problematic. Would women accept that? A police state is not the alternative, but still. Book ends on such a conflicted note.

ETA: Notable thing is that Hayes makes the book personal, puts himself into the debate, including in that conclusion. Also, his talk of order v. safety. Overall, even matters progressives might generally deem familiar are expressed in impressive ways.

A United Kingdom

Based on a real life story of a prince from Botswana studying in 1940s UK falls in love with a white woman, causing various political and personal issues. Since it was directed by the person behind Belle, which stretched history in various respects, would like to learn more of the real life backstory. As to the film, good sense of place and good performances (stereotypical heavies lame), but like noted here, something is missing. Romance a bit too quick but key is that it doesn't have enough complexity to make it great. Still, appealing film.

ETA: To give an example, early on, the wife is challenged as an interloper but soon she is accepted. The hissable British representative is again a tad over the top. We can idealize the situation here but it was pretty complicated stuff the requires dramatic nuance.

Ginsberg v. NY and Substantive Due Process

Update: On Monday, some orders (interesting footnote involving an appointed advocate being removed) were handed down; nothing much of interest.  On Tuesday, the Supreme Court 5-3 held Texas did not properly apply current standards to determine intellectual disability for death penalty purposes. The dissent even went along with them a bit there. Meanwhile, Gorsuch filibuster catching fire.

If we were in the field of substantive due process and seeking to measure the propriety of state law by the standards of the [14A], I suppose there would be no difficulty under our decisions in sustaining this act. For there is a view held by many that the so-called "obscene" book or tract or magazine has a deleterious effect upon the young, although I seriously doubt the wisdom of trying by law to put the fresh, evanescent, natural blossoming of sex in the category of "sin."

I originally posted a discussion of substantive due process after listening to the oral argument [the petitioner's lawyer dragged things out soooo much and then when he finally got to the point, wasn't much better] of Ginsberg v. New York and seeing the passage quoted (Justice Douglas, dissenting). But, after getting into the weeds, decided it was getting too tedious. I'll try again in a somewhat different way.

As I originally noted, Justice Douglas also said the the right to privacy was not a matter of "substantive due process" either (Doe v. Bolton, concurring opinion). The usage in the first case basically amounts to weighing legislation (the fear being this basically amount to judges applying personal values in an arbitrary way) to determine if it is unreasonable in violating "liberty" pursuant to the Due Process Clause.  Douglas (there with Black) argued speech is specifically protected in an absolute way.  But, in practice, that is overblown -- there are exceptions, if narrower and more carefully handled than other things.  Then, we need to find out how do that, and some choices are made as to "compelling interests."

But, "substantive due process" is used in various ways, including by Justice Douglas himself.  See, e.g., his dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman. First, he noted that the Bill of Rights itself has both "procedural" (e.g., to face your accusers) and "substantive" (free speech) protections that due process as found in the 14A protects. This is "substantive due process" though you can phrase it in another way (there are substantive protections and it's a procedural question to determine if they are properly denied, including wrongly denying a liberty whatever the procedure is used to do so).

Second, he believed and court precedent held that "liberty" protects things beyond what is enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  Later on, Douglas tried to limit this by arguing that enumerated rights were in effect a bundle of rights involving things not expressly stated. So, e.g., there is a right to association and privacy related to it, even though the First Amendment doesn't say "association" or "privacy."  The right to privacy wasn't really an example of "substantive due process" since again it wasn't really going beyond the enumerated rights of the Constitution.

I still prefer the more open-ended approach of his earlier dissent. Douglas referenced the "emanations" of enumerated rights there and that makes sense. But, he also spoke more broadly of rights necessary for a free society.  He specifically said he wasn't limiting himself to the enumerated rights or some indirect security to them in particular. Privacy is something that is needed for a free society, to have a zone to make decisions and free rein in general. Various enumerated rights also specifically show this, including religious freedom. The rights do represent specific concerns of wider general principles so there is some overlap here. The 9A however more generally secures rights to protect them, reliance on the enumerated rights at times at best a stretch.*

Anyway, the passage quoted to me is a suggestive window on what "substantive due process" brought to mind for New Dealers like Justice Douglas and why he and others tried to avoid it.  This is so even when at times it is clear that they too accepted the principle, but only disagreed with how to apply it.  Thus, e.g., Justice White in Griswold v. Connecticut cited the principle that economic legislation would generally get more leeway while certain matters of a more personal nature would not.  Justice Douglas' writings among others can help explain why we draw those lines, noting in practice that sometimes the personal overlap with the economic such as buying contraceptives and some decisions involving careers.

Such issues are of particular interest given the pending confirmation of someone to fill in for the seat wrongly seized from Merrick Garland. Gorsuch during his hearings tried to argue he was a special snowflake judge, who relied on the law, not personal beliefs and political experiences, when deciding the contours of such questions. Human judges are influenced by a range of things, especially along the margins. Gorsuch also kept on alluding to an old line about judges even being influenced by what they had for breakfast. Not me!  There is even a recent study that argues even that, or rather timing of meal breaks, influences judging somewhat. 

Senators also swear/affirm to uphold the Constitution. They need to decide legal questions in various respects and that oath/affirmation limits their discretion too.  And, they too aren't just robots that follow party.  They are specific individuals and voters should seek out how they personally would decide questions in various respects.  Nonetheless, that too can be taken to extremes.  If senators try to say they merely are deciding as they personally think best, a voter can laugh at them and tell them politics matters.

A final word on the original opinion. The case involves a magazine vendor being caught in a sting involving a teenager buying a girlie magazine that was deemed to be obscene for minors.  The opinion determined that it was acceptable to have different rules there for minors and adults, a principle that overall sounds fairly reasonable. Douglas/Black disagreed, thus pushing the principle that you can sell porn to ten year olds.  I guess one can imagine that not being the end of the world. A separate dissent by Justice Fortas accepted the majority generally but argued that in the case at hand a specific finding even of that lower standard was not made. If you deny speech to minors, it still should be done carefully.

 ---

*  Substantive due process is used to protect such rights, the "liberty" protected by due process involving things not expressly enumerated.  General principles like "privacy" help determine what to protect as well as specific rights (like travel) that can be seen as fitting in a wider whole or maybe simply because the rights are seen as generally fundamental.  There is usually overlap, but the strongest case is not any one port in the storm.

Long Way North

Enjoyable and nice to look at animated film (French; the English dub I listened to was fine) about a Russian teen in the late 19th Century defending her family's honor by seeking out her grandfather's ship in the Arctic. A few twists on expectations and a bit shorter than you'd expect (eighty minutes, basically the trip back removed except for screenshots in the credits). Behind the scenes extra on DVD in French with subtitles.

Dear Miss Breed

Reading into the Japanese internment after watching Allegiance, learned about the heroine San Diego child librarian Clara Breed, who was great in general. But, of special note is her correspondence with in the camps, assistance of (lots of things sent) and writing of articles about (she wrote supportive articles in the midst of the war about the Japanese) the Japanese children who went to her library. Plus house parties. Good young adult book.

Gorsuch Hearings

Again, Twitter (I'm JoePaulson2) such as Kimberly Robinson great at live tweeting and updates. Coincidence or not (hard to believe they had no idea), SCOTUS today handed down a 8-0 slamdown of an emotional-laden Gorsuch opinion. Basic b.s. for me is his refusal to admit how judging overlaps some with politics as if it is coincidental who nominates the justice. More "I'm a judge, a special snowflake," so don't look at my experience in Bush Administration or something. Just be honest, okay? And, an old bit about judges being influenced by what they had for breakfast was cited enough times to start a drinking game.

ETA: Support filibuster. Show of force to respond to norm violation, good for base, keep pressure on and who knows what will happen next time? Marginally better nom? Finally, if concerned about public reaction, how that work with Garland? Too many didn't care much. Those who did leaned Trump. Plus, very well might fail without a "nuclear option" [kinda best policy anyway, especially with recent abuses of it] with some sort of return. A few Republicans likely to want to retain filibuster for their own power/tradition concerns.

World Baseball Classic

In rainy haze, US (eventually) ekes out a couple runs to beat Japan, faces some country called Puerto Rico for championship. Meanwhile, Jets get a stopgap (agree seems like a good move) and Giants pick up Geno Smith for some reason to compete for back-up (never used).

ETA: U.S. won, 8-0.

Gorsuch Hearings

I myself can't stomach watching [thanks Twitter] Judge Gorsuch, who sounds full of shit and is here thanks to to the Republicans' unprecedented (and wrong) blocking of Garland. You are tainted too, Gorsuch! No, the "Biden Rule" application is b.s. But, do agree hearings in general have an educational function plus serve an overall legitimizing role by putting him out in the open interacting with senators. Finally, do think a bit of the person and views do come out, helped by reporting/commentary. Very well the questioning is stupid and it is right to expect more substantive answers. But, that doesn't change the rest. Fix that!

And Also: Sen. Schumer uses Russia investigation of Trump Administration as reason for delay. Sure. I see this as all connected though some things are more so in certain ways.

World Baseball Classic

Don't know about "classic," but it's nice to have a true "world series," even though it is a bit strange Puerto Rico plays against U.S. (perhaps again). Caught some of it here and there with Israel a notable surprise early. Netherlands (key players from their island possessions) was just eliminated, unable to take advantage of multiple scoring opportunities. Sorta hoped they advanced. The first/second automatic runners in the 11th rule (nice touch) burned them twice! But, enough with the late broadcasts, last night's game ending around 2AM.

ETA: Issue as to time is that multiple games played in West Coast parks, but with teams from the West Indies, Europe etc. (last night game ended c. 7AM Netherlands local time) playing. So, unlike West Coast games, not even the local team is on "normal time." Just select players and the fans watching in the stadium. 11PM even there is a bit late.

Gorsuch Hearings

Mixture of disgust and depression. Gorsuch is a conservative wet dream. He even looks like Mike Pence in a way, their views on social issues comparable. What happened to Garland was horrible, including on a basic civics level. Filibuster!!! Meanwhile, more oral arguments this week; nothing really of note in today's orders except this "cakeshop" case not acted upon.

ETA: Some somewhat interesting orals on various subjects this week, following the "nothing major" theme of this term, plus a few rulings handed down 3/21. One involving acting officials might be be of mild importance. Spring is here.

Holiday Weekend

3/17 - St. Patrick's Day (Irish), 3/18 -- St. JP Day (mutts), 3/19 -- St. Joseph's Day (Italian).

Buying a Bride: An Engaging History of Mail-Order Brides

An interesting history that focuses on various snapshots mostly involving the U.S. (Jamestown, New France, Louisiana etc.) and then a general supportive chapter of its current use. The historical examples don't provide us much understanding of the long term fate of some of the women involved, but overall it's a good account if not comprehensive.

Rabid

This is a 1970s sci fi horror film is probably best known as Marilyn Chambers' only "straight film." She gets into a motorcycle accident and the novel treatment results in her being desperate for human blood. Well crafted, especially as society at large gets infected but why are so many people blase about her suddenly leaving the clinic in the midst of a epidemic? Her final "experiment" is a bit silly but great final image. Chambers innocent girl look and cutesy voice makes her apt for the role. Acting chops? Mixed. Had niche potential.

ETA: Found her later soft porn flick Bikini Bistro cute and it pretty silly (and wrong except perhaps as to exclusivity issues) that a fireman got in trouble for being in it, no comment on the other issues. Nude pics in uniform is different though firing seems harsh.

The Prophet

This animated film is based on a collection of poems from back in the 1920 by Lebanese-American author Kahlil Gibran with Salma Hayek (voice of the mom here) having a lot to do with getting it made. Different poems are made into lovely segments of animation (different leading animators involved) and prose. Overall film charming and apt for times.

Hidden Figures

Those who watch the movie and then read the book will note the amount of dramatic license involved down to whom had a problem with a "colored" bathroom. One time cited, not all that back and forth running! And, she didn't vent to her boss in a crowded room -- she vented to a sympathetic colleague who then gave her a slot that made her career. Anyway, think the book could have done with some editing, including toning down some of the background materials / scientific tone and fleshing up the personal stories some. End result was a tad too clunky.

Rolando Ruiz Executed

A hit man isn't exactly a sympathetic, but Justice Breyer dissented, continuing his concern for length of time on death row with solitary confinement tossed in (separate procedural claim was also made). A daughter of the victim noted: "It’s not going to bring her back, so it really doesn’t mean very much." Various people involved got life, one executed as a result of a killing of a police officer during an escape. One at least have received parole, so no "LWOP." Going to need to confine people long periods and few sentenced to die are executed. The escape therefore only takes us so far, beyond the inherent problems with the penalty.

SCOTUS Watch

Various notable orders, justice statements (e.g., Thomas on civil forfeitures) and decisions before SCOTUS returns just in time for the Gorsuch (boo!) hearings. The trans student bathroom case was remanded per the change in the executive's position. Breyer's "courtesy fifth" yet again seems misguided -- this was a case that should never have been taken at all. Decisions include a split (on reasoning) sentencing guideline/vagueness case and 5-3 jury case involving racial bias of jurors. Unclear if this will be cabined to race.

And Also: The new executive order on immigration very well is likely both bad policy and unconstitutional, but it is telling that they tempered it so much. Opposition had bite.

Margarettown and Loving Annabelle

I briefly noted watching Loving Annabelle and not liking the ending some years back. Saw the DVD with all the extras (making of, behind the scenes, commentary, related short film etc.).  Enjoyed it, including supporting roles involving such people like an old priest, student (Laura Breckenridge, who was also in the show Related and is married to the Boy Meets World actor) and the mom from Mr. Belverde. But, the ending still was a tad off.

The director noted in the "making of" segment that she saw Mädchen in Uniform (too early for her to see it on YouTube) and wanted the teacher and the student to actually hook up.  She found the actress who played the student around four years before filming and they did the commentary together.  The actress was a fairly normal for these things mid-20s while filming, but shades of Veronica Mars, seemed a bit too mature to play a minor student.  Her maturity, at least sexually, vis-a-vis the teacher fits the plot, but still it was an issue for me.  Overall, watching it again, the couple worked and key aspect of the film was how well the setting etc. was handled so expertly.  This is so even though over and over during the commentary the director was unsatisfied how this or that shot was handled.

The film is under ninety minutes -- after they finally (the teacher has sex with her boyfriend much earlier in the film; and yes, I gather various viewers of these films say "get on with it!") hook up, the film is nearly over.  RIGHT after they have sex, they are caught in bed, the teacher in effect has to go to the office and (here's the part I didn't really like) is led away by the police. The film seems to take place around the present (though it need not -- no cell phones or the like) and that seemed a tad extreme on some level, plus rather sudden. The film ends as she is driven away, after Annabelle gives her a key set of beads. 

OTOH, guess it works, especially since the student is a daughter of a politician.  You sort of root for them; still, it is a minor student and her teacher. The sudden nature of it, including not being able to get a lawyer or go herself etc. (it's dramatic to have her led away; still seems bad for the students), still seems off.  The director includes an unused quick ending where we see that the teacher was not actually indicted, but felt this was a better one.  And, that love sometimes has dark consequences. Well, sure, but she was arrested!  She already had to deal with the first love of her life (in photographs, "played" by the director, an amusing thing many viewers would miss if they aren't aware of who it was) committing suicide. Rather tragic mixture of same sex love in her life, you know?  Some in the IMDB comments didn't like it ... can't check though, since they ended them!

====

Margarettown is the first book of the author of Elsewhere and The Storied Life of A. J. Fikry, among other books I did not read.  It was a quick reading book and relatively painless to read, but the lead couple is rather unpleasant.  The title is a pun of sort -- Margaret Towne is a young woman a somewhat older teacher assistant falls in love with.  The guy is explaining things to her young daughter because he's dying from some ridiculously obtained disease [the truth of various facts in his account turn out to be questionable at some points].  This is used in a fashion (the quick leads to the chapters) in by A.J. Fikry.

The book also views things from her point of view in one section and ends up in the point of the view of the daughter.  Turns out "Jane" and a couple other characters are for me more pleasant.  As to the title, when the couple goes back to her home, it turns out that there are various versions (of different ages) of Margaret there though when he proposes, they seem to disappear.  Again, it's hard to know how serious to take this because near the end, we get input from her high school boyfriend (all grown up) saying the "teen" version wasn't like that. But, maybe he too sees people differently? The narrator's sister challenges some of his details and dramatic license is cited. 

Anyway, the conceit is only present in one section though a short section seems to view the daughter's p.o.v. from inside her mom's uterus.  The book overall was a mixed bag for me; I like her writing but the story didn't quite appeal to me.  At least, the "N" (we aren't told the husband's name) and Margaret's stories.  The other characters help save the book for me.  Like films, we can go back to the film discussed here, good books have good supporting casts.  And, viewing things from different points of view is something I like -- when I tried to write, that was something I used too.  Empathy is a big thing for me and lacking it is troubling.