Zora Neale Hurston & Court Watch

First off, after seeing a reference to the "newly released manuscript of Zora Neale Hurston’s Barracoon: The Story Of The Last Black Cargo with a fantastic supplemental material from Alice Walker and Deborah G. Plant," reserved and now read it. Some time back, I read her most famous novel and later on read her take on the Moses biblical story. Both good though thought the Moses book could have been shorter. 

This first person account with various additional material (still a small volume) was fairly good though you are left somewhat wanting -- his capture, stay is captivity ("barracoon") and five years of slavery was all handled in a sliver of a volume that is less than one hundred pages without appendixes. Much of the account covers his life before and after, admittedly amounting to most of it.  But, those looking for an in depth "slave narrative" might be disappointed. The use of first person also means you have to deal with his dialect, which is a bit unwieldy too.

===

The whole thing being illegitimate aside, the opening of the Kavanaugh hearings to replace Justice Kennedy (expletives deleted) is scheduled to start next week. Time flies while an asshole is in power. Some things to keep in mind. It is the popular to sneer at hearings as merely being kabuki, but they actually do provide a means for the general public to get a look at the nominees and a mechanism to work around for those (press, advocacy groups, etc.)  in the know to focus upon.  And, the popular theater aspects are part of our system too, like it or not.

Meanwhile, a couple things are happening in the eight justice Court.  Claims that evenly applying non-discrimination laws is "vindictive" aside, the Supremes didn't intervene (three conservatives dissenting without opinion) in a foster care case involving religious groups who don't want to take part if they have to put children with gays. This is the sort of civil rights clash that a fifth vote might seriously effect, even if (as I think) it is hard to conclude Roberts thinks you can put same sex marriage back in the bottle after over three years.  More here.

Meanwhile, with Breyer perhaps serving as the liberal compromise vote this time around, the Supreme Court for now held up the release of food stamp data with the three women justices dissenting without opinion this time.  This followed-up a previous order earlier in the month.  The matter is not as controversial, but Breyer served as a sort of "courtesy fifth" to hold up things the last time around in the "GG" trans bathroom case.  That time, the clock in effect was run out, the Trump Administration changing the policy and the student involved graduating from high school.

As a sort of lead-up to the Kavanaugh hearings, a "deal" (though it is unclear what the Democrats received) was made to fast track some judicial nominees. Blame was put on Schumer personally though he is basically more the spokesperson of the caucus. At the very least, multiple people who pay attention to this thing wondered what exactly the Democrats got out of this. As to the first link, I don't know -- it is somewhat unclear to me what more Schumer could have done overall the last couple years. Plus, again, if you are mad at him, be mad at the Senate Democrats. It is true that a leader can move things somewhat differently -- these people aren't simply fungible -- but like "Harry Reid" being cited for ending the filibuster rule for nominees, responsibility should be spread generally speaking.

(I saw it noted that no one seemed to dissented from the deal, even the more liberal senators, but who is to know what happened behind the scenes?  If there was a general sentiment that this was the correct way to go, the dissenters could have went along for sake of comity. This suggests why it pissed me off when a few Democrats in effect blocked something in the Senate even when a simple majority of the Senate supported it. You don't block something by filibuster in that situation.) 

The need to explain oneself to people already inclined to be strict, even though the Democrats simply have a bad hand, especially when the "big deal" seems doomed at this point, seems to me the biggest issue here.  The "red state senators had to campaign" argument doesn't wash for me. As noted at the first link, they don't all need to be there to delay things, and even if Republicans as a bloc (50, McCain having died) "ram them down our throat," that alone -- in an election year -- can be used.  As to the presence of some decent judges in the pool, fine, but would that not occur basically in the end if this is slow walked?

I think, especially right before the Kavanaugh hearings, partially because no "deal" yet gives Democrats a tiny bit of leverage (with even conservative Democrats talking about delaying), holding firm made sense. If they lose here and later for illegitimate justice #2 (aka "Judge" Kavanaugh), it looks bad.  Finally, some figure Democratic voters don't really care. But, some do care (steal a seat once ...), and when a justice ("justice") is about to be confirmed, normal situations do not quite apply.  There is a strong anti-Trump spirit in the upcoming elections and the red state senators do not even have to go all in from my reading of the situation.  I personally think hardball tactics warranted.

Anyway, even if there is a certain logic to the deal, I'm wary about how they handled it.