Duty to Vote

The Republican National Convention with the usual incitement, bs (the use of the past tense to talk about Covid-19, Nikki Haley assuring us we aren't a racist country and of course the usual Trump lies), the "who cares?" Hatch Act violations etc. went about as expected. Toss in lax mask wearing and social distancing and even Tiffany getting into the act.  And, we still have cause not to be sure this guy won't win. This would include the Senate. It's fucking ... well can use a lot of adjectives there.

So, it's a timely moment for The Duty to Vote by Julia Maskivker (summary at link), a philosophical defense though it does not go as far as arguing it should be a mandatory legal duty.  The book makes a good argument though the philosophical (multiple references to John Stuart Mill) discussion as a whole was a bit much for me to read the whole thing.  But, the basics are clear-cut, you can read the intro and conclusion for a bit of a summary and skim to get some more details.

The author sees voting as a moral Good Samaritan responsibility because it is a limited burden with important overall effects.  Also, even if an individual vote is not a deciding factor, that doesn't mean one lacks a duty. Duties are personal as a whole and something like paying taxes is not voluntary because one person's taxes are not the deciding factor.  From what I can tell, also, she sees it basically as our duty as part of a society to promote justice.  And, not doing so causes harms, including let's say poor people not voting leading to clear policy effects.

Voting is particularly important for the good of society so that it is a special responsibility (including to limit harms, even if neither choice is great; ranked choice voting here can be helpful) even if one has a virtuous life (charity etc.) in general.  Also, she cites research that as a whole the average voter has enough judgment to make good choices. We do trust people (and she cites voting as a sort of public trust) that are not experts to do things, including on juries.  The very act of doing these things are also helpful learning moments and provide other positive benefits such as a means to express oneself.  This net helps voting be a positive.

One does have a duty more than merely to vote. One should vote fairly (not merely selfishly; toward a certain rational common interest, though she notes there are a range of possible philosophies there) and with some degree of informed thought.  Again, the average person has the ability net to judge, even if they are not experts.  There are burdens on voting, providing a sizable (partial!) list: poverty, political measures discouraging voting, confusing electoral rules, weak civic education, public official non-responsiveness to citizens and partisan propaganda campaigns to manipulate voters.  But, she believes such things can be addressed.  Is optimistic in the face of cynics of voting.

It's clearly an argument for these times, including its reaffirmation of the duty and possibility of each person to play their part without ignoring structural concerns.  

Summer Break SCOTUS

It took until August, but SCOTUS is seems to be on a summer schedule now.  The second scheduled summer order [ignored as such by SCOTUSBlog -- they even reported on something in it without noting the nature of the order list overall]  was dropped.  As noted at the link, the order involved oral argument time for the stupid PPACA case scheduled right after the election.  There were also rehearings denied, including one which for some reason Gorsuch didn't take part in.

The other particularly posted order [there are various actions that are found on the case docket pages not so posted] involved the execution of the only Native American on federal death row.  There were certain procedural concerns, but the main issue was that the Navajo Nation opposed the execution.  The feds found a way around the usual requirement about asking permission.  The latest is that the victim's parent now isn't against it though earlier there were reports she was.  He was executed.

There was an issue that came up again regarding a federal statute requiring the feds to execute using procedure of the state in question.  Sotomayor posted one of her statements, where she joins with everyone else but flags something, arguing the issue is a concern but this was a bad case to decide the question.  She and RBG earlier this year dissented from refusal to take the issue when it came up before any executions. It seems a tad outrageous a serious dispute is not give SCOTUS review before federal executions return after fifteen years, thus far more than that occurred since the 1960s (three executions vs. five).

A federal judge that earlier flagged concerns but was overturned had the same occurred regarding that fifth execution.  The link touches upon other concerns, including evidence of brain damage.  As to the safety of the drugs, an autopsy of one of the federal inmates executed suggests evidence of serious pain during the process.  This was one of the executions that with the help of five (three justices) was rushed, blocking normal appellate review that would have simply taken a few weeks.

Anyway, for whatever reason, it doesn't look like the second inmate's lawyers appealed things to SCOTUS -- he was executed without any order being posted. Meanwhile, I read The Enigma of Clarence Thomas, which argues he is a black nationalist among other things. The author wrote other stuff on conservationism and notes he personally opposes Thomas' ideology.  It is overall an interesting book, showing wrong or not, he has a complex ideology that is not just mainstream conservative cant.

Trio of Trump (and now the RNC!)

Another coffee boy/chief strategist (Steven Bannon) was arrested for fraud related to some wall related b.s., which is logical since they are along with being simply horrible, a bunch of grifters. And, the Senate Intel Committee released a final section (around 1000 pages here) to add more on how fucked up the 2016 election is while Republicans publicly try to handwave it while endorsing Trump for re-election. Hell with that party.

Yes, the whole thing pisses me off. The impeachment should have been broader but to me it also was basically a representation of wider things. The thing happened this year! Meanwhile, the mail continues to be at risk. Seriously. A thing that stands out here, that gets lost (there is so much), is that the Trump majority postal board here have seven year terms. Even, if somehow, the postal chief is pushed out (how?), you have the others.

Convention Recap

I wanted a woman nominee. I did get a veep.

But, going by what we need right now vs. what we (I) want, Biden is the right choice. He is a experienced reassuring presence while still being a median Democrat who will not interfere with basic policy there. The virtual convention was a tad too much on Mr. Empathy (the thirteen year old with a stutter introducing him is hard to resist) and should have said more about reproductive liberty (which can be framed as a matter of conscience) and the courts (why can't the Dems do this?). Still, overall, great job.

Meanwhile, I thought rain was the reason, but it turned out the Mets did not play because of a positive COVID-19 test or two. This delayed the Subway Series. Testing looks good now, but -- and this should be noted by reporters who cite it -- there is a few days incubation time. Maybe, up to a week. So, is it really a good idea if they play Tuesday?

Primaries Continue & Dem Have A Convention

A witness requirement was waived for COVID-19 reasons as the government in Rhode Island agreed to a consent decree on the matter. This settled it for (one assumes) Roberts at least with the High Federalists still wanting the Republicans to have a stay. The difference, the Court actually explaining themselves a bit, is that the state wasn't challenging.  Meanwhile, not clear if the Biden Administration would take the same approach in a case that required an amicus.

Puerto Rico had trouble in its local primary, requiring another try.  And, Alaska, Florida (House alone) and Wyoming had congressional primaries.  Plus local ones; Alaska has a little wrinkle where Democrats and Independents welcome all comers while Republicans only welcome their own and undeclared/non-partisan.  As before, the final results might take time to arrive.  We shall see how that works in November. Also, some of these races have a lot of candidates. This is where a form of instant run-off voting would be a logical move. 

First, the Democratic National Convention (virtual) started on Monday night.  There is some grumbling that a convention doesn't even make make sense any more, at least this year.  I think it useful to have a chance for various campaign types to have a chance to meet together, even if it is virtually.  The first night was a bit hokey but had some touching moments.  I think it was fine to toss in Kasich -- yeah, you need to bring in independents and Republicans (Susan Molinari? wow -- flash from the past; pol from Staten Island). It was just a moment after all. Michelle Obama had a great speech with a "vote" necklace on. 

Here's some coverage of the New York delegates.  One political website estimates the split in New York is 220/54, between Biden and Sanders, other delegate count sites delaying a final count. There are also those two delegates in NJ.  Finally, it looks like Biden received all the delegates from Connecticut.  And, here's a bit of a surprise -- in Connecticut, with 90% or so of the precincts reporting, Trump actually has less than half of the votes! Over 35% of the vote is uncommitted, another 15% or so for the perennial Roque guy. Around 147K votes so far.  Good for those voters.

And, the latest is Cindy McCain will endorse Biden. 

ETA: Tuesday had a fun role call and basically it seemed that only Biden and Sanders had delegates, plus they did not match the estimated or whatever breakdowns. This is partially since superdelegates (who were included on the first ballot) were mixed in, but perhaps other things. Sanders, to take an example, had a delegate from D.C. now. Also, no Bloomberg from Puerto Rico.  

Books

Read a couple of books again -- library is open to some degree but only some of the books coming. The Zimmerman Telegram is a Barbara Tuchman (also read The First Salute back in the day, referencing the first time the new nation was greeted as such) was a good crisp account of Germany's attempt to use Mexico (and to a lesser part Japan) to keep the United States busy. Fabric of Freedom: 1763-1800 is a decent summary of American history with some British flavor. Doesn't just follow normal narrative. At times, it is a bit too academic and the "color commentary" parts probably could have been condensed some.

Reading the new Bart Ehrman on heaven and hell; it seems a bit too episodic. Wanted a crisper narrative of the concept. Still has some good stuff.

Lesbians Come To Hallmark

Wedding Every Weekend is on some level a fairly ordinary Hallmark romance with the male lead particularly familiar.  The female lead for me is best known from her role in the Nine Lives of Christmas, which by the way was better than the book.  (The male lead there is nice on the eyes, if a bit stiff. Paul Campbell here has a nice ordinary guy charm, favoring snark, which at times is appreciably toned down.)  At least a couple of the supporting characters look familiar, a friend is a person of color (rarely is a lead; Meghan Markle had white parents in one of her two films!). 

Overall a pleasant if somewhat slow (which has charms) film of two people who fall in love (after meeting cute though he was somewhat rude, emphasizing his "not interested in a relationship vibe")  while going to a bunch of weddings.  The complication comes in the last twenty minutes or so, is a tad forced, but you know, it has to done since these things have a style.  This includes (a Faith Ford film where she is a long time widow is an exception) only having the kiss at the end.  The conservative nature of these plots (though the characters often some off as fairly liberal types and religion is rarely referenced) suggests why there was a bit of a thing when the channel showed a lesbian wedding in an ad.

Well, after getting in trouble for pulling them after one particular protest campaign made a fuss (unclear how strong the group was in numbers), they are apparently going in the other direction.  Lifetime will have a gay romance, following the usual plot lines apparently.  And, Hallmark will have gay and lesbian (trans? will see)  content too. Well, it already did. One of the weddings here -- just inserted without fanfare -- is of two women.  Other than noting how touching it was, the couple here loathe to admit deep feelings especially the guy, it went off as normal. It might have been a bit shorter than the others, but the couple had other scenes too.

No "shoving down your throat" stuff here. (Joke omitted.)  Just a natural part of the plot, a quite reasonable possibility when the two are going to a bunch of weddings one summer.  (I take in this was 2019. Will we have a Covid-19 film eventually?)   Hallmark has so many of these movies, often with more than one plot (these films often have a "B" plot, at times more), we really should have more diversity of all types just for variety sake.

Anyway, I appreciate the effort. 

The Last One: Connecticut Votes

I started this entry earlier, but the big news today is -- late afternoon -- the announcement that Kamala Harris will be Biden's running mate.  Good choice, and a pretty safe, expected choice.  There was some suggestion Susan Rice would get the nod.  Her diversity is seen by having an Indian mother (deceased), Jamaican father and Jewish husband.  The VP choice is of particular note since there is more likelihood that at most the main candidate will serve one term.  We also have the first black woman candidate on a major ticket, plus the first time someone west of Texas is on the Democratic ticket (at least once, a Californian was on the Republican ticket).  Let's win this thing. 

Though luckily, Kayne West skullduggery drama aside (maybe), they probably won't matter (knock on wood), there are third parties involved in the election. The last update missed an update in that area: the vice presidential candidate of the  Peace & Freedom Party (California) had to be replaced due to illness.  Now, I'm unsure what exactly are the tasks of a vice presidential candidate in a small third party that requires replacement of a "name" like Leonard Peltier (Native American activist).  Perhaps, it is as much as a public statement of his health and needs in prison.

Warren is not on the ballot, so the last primary is between Biden, Sanders, Gabbard and uncommitted on the Democratic side.  Perennial candidate Rocky De La Fuente and uncommitted are the alternatives to Trump.  Item among the Republican candidates in a House race: "Thomas Gilmer was arrested Monday night in connection with a “possible domestic assault,” the police said. He ended his campaign but could still win a spot on the November ballot."  Also, we won't have final results: "Mail-in absentee ballots postmarked by August 11 will be accepted by Connecticut towns until Thursday. Vote tabulation and reporting will continue beyond election night."  The Democratic Convention starts next Monday.

[I was told that Warren actually reached out and got her name taken off the Connecticut ballot, perhaps particularly concerned about a New England state. I am not aware of this done anywhere else though people might not do paperwork for states in many cases.  Connecticut was originally scheduled in late April so it is not surprising that the others are not on it.]

We have two thirds of the results this post-election morning but a sliver more than fifteen percent (split three ways, Sanders with 12%) voted non-Biden.  If this holds, Sanders will only get delegates if he won in a particular district (which is possible -- in one state, Sanders had a single delegate).  Trump at this point has less than 80% (Fuente has 7%, uncommitted the rest), which would be a record, beating out Delaware.  Let's see how that holds up -- respect Republicans who actually voice their dissent. I will check the delegate count on the first day of the virtual convention.


The most important thing for our purposes, this focused on presidential primaries, is Connecticut's postponed presidential primary.  But, along with Hawaii (Saturday), Minnesota, Vermont and Wisconsin, it also has congressional primaries.  And, Georgia would have a run-off as necessary (a few are).  Hawaii is notable as voting entirely by mail.* Also, Tulsi Gabbard did not run for re-election, thus Gabbard haters will be happy to know that a new person (probably Democratic, surely native Hawaiian, since both parties have one running) will fill the seat in January.  Meanwhile, Puerto Rico also had a primary (non-presidential) and had issues.  How about giving them the right to vote for President?

(As usual, there are a variety of local elections that get much less national attention, but remain important for the locals.  The one case that stands out: The Squad will likely remain together with Rep. Omar, like AOC and Tlaib, winner her primary last night.  She is controversial enough to have an opponent with nearly 40% of the vote. The final member from MA is the least controversial of the bunch, so even though her primary is not here yet, I think it is safe enough to say that. Also, on the other end of the ideological divide, this woman won in Georgia. They must be so proud.)

As an aside, it looks like we will have a re-match in my city council district, the original guy coming in from the assembly [which pays less!] to deprive a local POC woman the slot.  I was annoyed that he resigned his assembly slot for what to me looked like monetary reasons though can't prove it.  Later on, saw that he overall is a conservative blah sort in the mind of various people too.

It annoyed me too that it seemed basically to blanket the neighborhoods around here with campaign signs while she had very few, losing by a few hundred votes in what seems liked a winnable election.  Yes, that is partially on the opponents, but still seems a lousy way to select someone.  His slot in the assembly did go to a POC woman that seems to be doing fairly well, if not quite as activist as Biaggi.  Next year will be an important election, including a new mayor given the current one is a term limited. Doesn't seem like there is a presumptive favorite yet.

There is also a bit of relevant SCOTUS news: "For the fifth time this year, the Supreme Court set aside a lower-court order that would have altered state election rules in response to the coronavirus pandemic." RBG and Sotomayor dissented without opinion.  At this point, this sort of thing is expected, but the "shadow docket" does not clearly explain why it should be done.  Some "message" will be sent, to some degree, but whole affair is dubious on procedural and substantive grounds. 

---

* The other states with that vote entirely by mail being Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Utah.  They are all not quite typical, which should factor in for those a tad too gung ho for everyone to follow.  Let it be noted that the general policy here is to allow people to drop votes off as well, including in special drop boxes, so it isn't really totally by mail.  But, they don't have the usual same day polling places deal. 

Perry Mason

A revisionist take on this character with the lead played by the Russian agent in The Americans (who did also play Mr. Darcy in a mystery sequel) is rather appropriate. Having watched most of it -- skipped a bit -- I think it was pretty good. If overlong. Think it could have been at least two episodes less. It makes sense Perry Mason is first an investigator since investigation is key to the usual stories. Characters work; would see additional episodes.

Two Books (and Supreme Court Update)

The Supreme Court was actually mainly quiet this week, except for another of a trend (Roberts didn't go along in a couple cases involving religious liberty claims) of the Supreme Court rejecting, often by reaching out to stop lower court actions, moves to adapt to the special needs of the Big V. This time, again without comment, it involved means to protect prisoners. Breyer and Kagan dissented. Sotomayor did so with opinion with RBG.

===

How to Pronounce Knife is a collection of short stories by Souvankham Thammavongsa, who was born in a Laos refugee camp.  It is not surprising that the stories are dominated by Laos-American characters in diverse situations though focused on working class individuals. One story is about an independent CPA. The title story is about a girl whose father misinforms her on the pronunciation of "knife" and has a sweet ending.  The articles as a whole are bittersweet.  Overall, they are well written and recommended.

Godless Citizens In a Godly Republic: Atheists in America Life is a type of follow-up to the author's earlier Godless Constitution. It starts by discussing the invention of religious liberty, if with various exceptions.  Then, at first more as a symbol than actuality (Jefferson, e.g., was called an "atheist" but was a deist), how atheists were seen as anti-American. This was especially tied to anarchists and socialists.  We also see the political and social effects of disbelief in God, especially of a few key people.

A middle chapter to me is very important -- it discusses how certain people, especially Felix Adler (Ethical Society), attempted to find a way to join non-belief (or not active belief) in God and what is regularly seen as religions with the successful aspects (community, purpose, institutions) of the latter.  I personally -- as compared to some of the militant atheists -- find the Adler approach (including his resistance of attacking religious believers) valuable.  The book does not discuss Unitarian-Universalism, which today includes those who don't grant the existence of God, but that is an example to me of a "religion" that can be in place without God. 

(I think this overall useful approach is important and not just targeting some official use of "God" or in some disdainful way attacking religious belief.  This includes pick out, somewhat ironically, bad verses to target religions that in many cases are applied in humane ways.)  

The book wrongly says that the courts never struck down blasphemy bans, but does provide an extended discussion of "under God."  I find the idea that it is just "patriotic" or something stupid, especially when the purpose was clearly to say we are different since we believe in God.  It also notes that multiple states even today on the books do not only have state constitutional honoring of God (see also, the Articles of Confederation) but also specifically religious tests allowing one to bar atheists. Something now expressly unconstitutional.  

U.S. v. Seeger and other cases -- touched upon -- shows  a full respect of freedom of conscience includes those who do not believe in God.  But, how far should we take that?  This shows the problems of a strenuous application of RFRA since there are so many conscience based reasons to have exemptions.  The book flags the rule that religious based claims allow for exemptions in the unemployment compensation context.  That context has a range of exemptions so including religion makes some degree of sense. Less so in a range of other things.  

The book is only about two hundred pages so is not really a comprehensive work.  But, it is worthwhile.  One thing it emphasizes is that direct legal restrictions is not the only problem. There is a general harm when people who add to society are wrongly treated as outsiders or a threat. Their value and basic sameness in a variety of ways to others are ignored.  

August Election News

As we wait for the last presidential primary (Connecticut) and Biden to pick a veep, state elections continue.

We can update past primaries: in Puerto Rico, Biden received 36, Bloomberg 10 and Sanders 5 delegates; for some reason two delegates (121 Biden/3 Sanders so far) are not allocated yet for New Jersey and fifty-seven in New York. This is after six weeks and has been flagged as a major concern. Legislation and litigation pending. Again, both mail-in and in-person is important. And, Let the People Pick the President overall does a good job for the average person to promote the national vote compact [what about territories?] and the problems with the current electoral college approach.

Local elections continue with five states having various notables including the safer Republican (for them) choice winning in Kansas, a squad member winning in Michigan and Medicaid expansion in Missouri. The imperfect Affordable Act Cases Medicaid screw-up fix continues. Locals less important nationally are also selected in these primaries.

Election News: Céspedes elects not to play rest of 2020

"Yoenis Cespedes has not reported to the ballpark today. He did not reach out to management for an explanation and any attempts to reach Cespedes have been unsuccessful" pic.twitter.com/RHL4tXnUkE

— SNY (@SNYtv) August 2, 2020

Yeah.  No surprise.  Multiple people on Twitter apparently are new since they did not realize this sort of behavior is not atypical.  Recall his cut-rate salary this season (even less with a shortened season; given his ridiculously overpaid previous four years, this balanced things out somewhat) was a result of him breaking the rules somehow.  We don't know exactly, but he wouldn't have taken the big pay-cut out of the goodness of his heart. The guy was a flashy player for years, but that brought with it some arrogance and recklessness. Not showing up was not surprising in the least.

(His home run was the sole run in one of the Mets three wins so far, but overall, he has not been doing well early.  This as a DH.  He still, even coming back in the summer, was not 100%, including running the first base.  His injury history was one reason the Mets were basically competing against themselves back in 2016 though the rest probably factored in.) 

Being the Mets, the whole thing was reported in a confused matter.  In the middle of yet another loss (the rookie fill-in starter did well a second time, Diaz had a good inning after a bad first batter, but the Mets kept on leaving people on base), first we get he isn't anywhere to be found. Then, we get that there is no reason to think he was in danger.  This threw some on Twitter, seen as unjust to him.  He might be in trouble!  Like we know all that is going on.  Like he might have been kidnapped. That's the first assumption.  Come on.

Eventually, we get this: "Yoenis Céspedes has decided not to play out the rest of the 2020 season due to COVID-19 concerns, Mets general manager Brodie Van Wagenen announced on Sunday afternoon."  This apparently came as a surprise to the team overall.  Who knows. I personally generally get the idea upper management bs-es on a regular basis.  Anyway, have seen this guy as an albatross for years now.  While he was hurt, I wished they would let him go for some bag of balls. As is, it looks like they managed to get a sizable amount of money back this season. 

Without Céspedes in the mix, the Mets will give more DH reps to Dominic Smith, J.D. Davis, Robinson Canó and perhaps Pete Alonso, with Smith potentially playing first base on those days. No Mets hitter stands to benefit more than Smith, who has started just four of the Mets’ first 10 games despite swinging one of their hottest bats in Summer Camp.

Dominic Smith surely deserves it.  If Cespedes, as a DH, actually had something, he could have been useful.  And, cheap (about 4M!).  But, I'm glad to see him go. It's baseball, so you take all that jazz as part of the game. They are playing a kid sport.  A major problem I had though was that I think the team ridiculously overpaid him for limited moments of success.  Yes, he was great in the 2015 run.  But, people like Daniel Murphy also were very important.  They let him go, even though a hurt David Wright meant a hole that Murphy for not too much could have filled. Murphy rubbed some the wrong way, but he was there for years.

And, letting him go could be justified.  Cespedes less so -- it was one of many misguided "BIG" contracts that turned out badly.  He wasn't even there at key moments such as when they went for a playoff spot in 2016.  They could have used that money to get a pretty good bad PLUS someone else.  Or, heck, maybe just pocket the money. The net result was disappointment, even if he gave you a few moments to cheer. Like that home run that gave DeGrom a win this season.  His 2020 moment.

So how's baseball?  Okay.  Seems a bit strange with fake fans and all the rest.  The concern is the new situation still did not prevent a major outbreak, the Phils and Marlins only playing a few games.  Guess the logic here is that we can take a few chances, deal with some sickness [statistically, someone very well might die or at least have a serious lingering case or infect third parties]  in return for baseball.  Part of a wider whole in this society really, resulting in over 140K deaths. And, as was referenced in a part article, the rules are not consistently applied to them. That too is not atypical.

The Mets had a rough start that could be addressed, especially with a lot of scrubs coming (Orioles alone; they also play the Marlins and one figueres the Phils will struggle some too), but there are around fifty games left.  I think 2020 should be treated as a quasi-sesaon.  Do we really want to give a Cy Young to someone in the conditions?  It would be like giving one on June 1st or something.  Don't like the DH.  The rushed extra inning rule was okay.  Still rather it not go into place right away in the normal season.  I actually think the seven inning double header is okay.

The best constant, other than Mets drama, is Gary/Keith/Ron. Those guys continue to care, even in an exposition game.  Bad baseball plays bother them.  Plus, they have a light touch, especially Keith.  Gary is in one booth, Keith and Ron in another.  They also don't go on away games.  There should play with that somehow -- they are basically watching just like us.  Why not just do a game at home once?  We can see Gary's dogs and Keith's cat.  And, again, boring white sideline reporters bore me. Why can't they have a woman sideline reporter?  He seems a nice enough guy -- Gary Apple blocked me after I made one snarky comment and he comes off as a bit of a jerk -- and knows his job.  But, so boring!

Signs of Life

Someone actually sent me a question, thus suggesting people are actually reading this blog. The stats do show a few people do come here -- maybe a few click my profile at my JoePaulson2 Twitter or on a blog -- and not just for a post about a porn movie (though most seem to go there from search engines). I appreciate it. I will avoid covering the Q/A here except to say it was a constitutional question of the "depends" variety.

Summer SCOTUS Watch

It's summer, but we still are getting more Supreme Court news.

RBG had a minor procedure done and is resting comfortably. Joan Biskupic provided some behind the scenes stuff that for the Supreme Court is big news though the details to me are not too surprising.  We did get some new details, such as that early on the New York Trump financials vote was only 5-4 in support of the state.  Gorsuch as principled, Kavanaugh trying for a moderate "tone" makes me think they themselves could have been sources. OTOH, a High Federalist might not find that as appealing.

In the new platform language, Democrats say that Republicans “have undermined the legitimacy of our courts through an anti-democratic, win-at-all costs campaign that includes blocking a Democratic president from appointing a justice to the Supreme Court and obstructing dozens of diverse lower-court nominees. The Democratic Party recognizes the need for structural court reforms to increase transparency and accountability.”

We also have reports on the proposed Democratic platform as it applies to the courts.  The language is seen by some (Prof. Leah Litman, "wow") as striking though it is unclear what the details might be.  The first part makes some think about term limits or adding judges (a negative term would be "packing"), but the last part makes one think more of ethical rules or televised hearings / same day audio.  The article also flags the tone, contrasting it to the lack of a reference in the 2016 platform regarding Garland.  Also, diversity: 

Another section of the platform, to be released in the coming days, promises that Democrats “will nominate and confirm federal judges who have diverse backgrounds and experiences, including as public defenders, legal aid attorneys and civil rights lawyers” — another objective of progressives who believe that too many past nominees have corporate law and prosecutorial backgrounds.

Note that the district judge in the federal death penalty case (or one of them) that held up things temporarily was a former public defender.  On that front, another execution was scheduled for this month, a Native American who both his tribe and family of the victim opposes. So, at least three of as of now five (three executed) had significant issues, if not all of them in some fashion.  Biden has promised a black woman for the first vacancy, which one presumes will be RBG. Even Gorsuch has been flagged as promoting diversity, such as in Native American law.

And, there were two orders. The first underlines the importance of transparency and in theory might be something that can be addressed on a structural level.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly stepping in before regular order, so to speak, in various cases. The Trump Administration tried to do so in a notable increased number of cases; the Supreme Court accepted it at times, enough to bring forth some dissents.  There also was a rush in the death penalty cases.  Congressional regulation of appellate review perhaps can address this issue, including cutting off certain types of appeals before normal litigation processes takes its course. 

Sotomayor flagged the problem in a ballot initiative case this week.  Roberts for the conservatives minus Thomas (silent) defended the move. Note this amounts to a concurrence for four, not the Court.  We actually only know the result there -- five justices needed to agree to put the district ruling on hold.  But, only six justices (four vs. two; RBG joined Sotomayor on the record) explained themselves on the record.  It has been explained by justices and court reporters that we cannot presume that only two dissenters on the record in this case means a 7-2 ruling.  It's an understandable assumption.  Maybe, voice yourself on the damn record. Maybe, so require them to do so. 

The other involved the long battle over the border wall, which allegedly was not authorized by appropriations by Congress.  This would be a basic constitutional violation, but the Supreme Court opens up construction allegedly not authorized by the body with the job of doing so.  For some reason, the Supreme Court dropped the latest late Friday afternoon, perhaps because you know it took a lot of time for Breyer (for the liberals; the other five just rejected a request to stop construction until the matter is handled in the courts) to write a two paragraph dissent.  A lot of "transparency" there.

Breyer references his splitting the baby approach last July, the rest splitting in the usual way 5-3 in supporting a stay of the lower courts blocking contracts (Breyer was okay with that) and construction (not for him) while the litigation was pending.  The conservative five in a brief statement then spoke of "sufficient showing" though also vaguely referenced "among the reasons," without actually spelling them all out.  Such clarity in the "shadow docket."  Such need for transparency, really. 

The first set of summer orders will drop next week. 

ETA: As usual, nothing much seems to be there, though note the recusal of Breyer. A pending House bill would require an explanation. "Transparency." 

Big V and Elections -- Trump Related but Also Beyond

Most troubling of all, perhaps, was a sentiment the expert said a member of Kushner’s team expressed: that because the virus had hit blue states hardest, a national plan was unnecessary and would not make sense politically. “The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy,” said the expert.

We were a few years into the Bush Administration when I started this blog. A lot of content about the wrongs of his Administration (and Republicans) could be found in the archives. I also commented a lot over at Slate fray in particular, but that is no longer existing. Clearly, we have much anti-Trump content. But, perhaps not the same level of constant detail and analysis. No longer new. Trump is so blatantly wrong. More places to comment elsewhere.  Still, it is good to remember.

The excerpt above is referenced again in a post along with the death of a professor, who contracted the Big V earlier this year.  Note the time lag: months later, people still suffer, some will die.  A major problem here is that her university did not close shop until April.  New York received some criticism for waiting a week to ten days in March.  The problem is wide. But, yes, there is some special attention warranted for the head of the executive department.  Relatedly, national policy requires passage in the Republican controlled Senate.  They have their own issues, but also must factor in what the titular head of their party is willing to do.

(Stalin says at some point a list of dead is merely a statistic. The "merely" is his gloss and/or implication.  Still, 140K dead becomes more real with individual cases. One recent was Herman Cain.  It seems quite possible he contracted it at a Trump rally.  Or, if the timing is off, he very well might have spread it by being there.  The timing of his announcement that he had it actually might make the latter more likely the case. He's dead now. The state of others he might have infected is unclear, helped by imperfect track and trace policies.)

The President, not being known for thinking through anything, suggests this morning that the presidential election be delayed. Let's run with this hypothetical, shall we?

As noted, Congress has the power to set election dates, so if no one was picked by Inauguration Day, existing law would mean the House Speaker and then Senate Pro Tem  (as might be in place after Congress comes back in session in early January) since we have fixed terms.  In fact, really going with it, we might have a rump Senate with Democratic control.  As noted in comments, over twenty Republicans (including McConnell) are up for re-election in November.  This all is useful for academic interest.

The whole thing seems so stupid that one commentator argued the appropriate path is ridicule.  And, we had some.  Secretary of State Mike Pompeo might have passed the buck to the Justice Department, but even Republicans granted we will have elections on time. We did so during the Civil War with treasonous rebels in control of a chunk of territory.  It's true that the Copperheads were not in control of the presidency and Senate, but still.  One Trumpie in comments argued Trump didn't say he personally would delay the election, so this is just him "blue skying" in such a way that is triggering people who don't like him.

He added something about maybe Trump doing it to assure ballots would be counted by November 3.  Found this inane myself, but Mark Field (near end) actually gamed that scenario, arguing the net result could be to depress the vote and taint absentee ballots not actually counted on Election Day, something that is a policy in multiple places.  Note how the results were delayed in the primaries just for this reason.  Still, find that stupid. The thread itself tediously had a "stupid" tangent, including the idea that Britney Spears is pretty smart.  I am not making this up.

The tweet was not some sort of one-off.  Trump has for a long time been arguing that the election will be tainted, particularly because of the increase of absentee voting.  This was the particular nature of the tweet -- maybe we should delay the election, if that is necessary for accuracy. Just saying. That sort of thing.  The idea that only Congress gets to change the election as obvious should not lead us to think Trump knows that and won't try somehow to interfere with the date. It's Trump.

Vague open-ended comments of this nature deserve strong responses.  Plus, there is a general idea that for the "good of the country" or something, executives can do a range of things they don't seem to have power to do.  In fact, courts -- up to the Supreme Court -- has blocked attempts to loose the rules some to deal with the Big V.  OTOH, there repeatedly were major debates on the right path.  The obvious case there is Wisconsin.

Mark Field's comments -- including the important reference to the now Trump led post office -- point to the concerns we still should have about Trump here.  Directly changing the election date is not the only thing he can do.  As I myself said, the basic thing (and the Trumpie in his own fashion showed this in his own words) is that Trump is serving as a chaos agent to de-legitimizing elections.  He has direct powers to do this, or at least to try to do so (his latest is to not count undocumented people for purposes of apportionment), but also indirect means.  Lack of trust in the election system, especially if this election turns on a fairly close count in a few states, is dangerous.  Republicanism includes an overall ethos accepted by the public at large.  And, again, distrust can influence his own actions.

John Lewis (RIP) noted democracy is a state of mind.  It is not just voting, but an ethical state of mind, that has to be developed and reinforced. This also follows from individual liberty. So, liberty is not just majority will, but things that are protected to create republican citizenship.  Justice Douglas spoke of the importance of privacy here (see, e.g., Poe v. Ullman).  An op-ed by one of the people that makes NYT not just a bunch of idiots compared Lewis with Trump, citing an important philosopher:

In “The Ethics of Democracy,” an 1888 essay written while he was teaching at the University of Michigan, Dewey described his expansive vision of democracy. Against contemporary skeptics who saw democracy as little more than simple majority rule by ignorant, isolated individuals, he argued that we should understand democracy as “a form of moral and spiritual association” that takes “personality” — meaning individual potential — as its “first and final reality.” Democracy recognizes the “infinite and universal possibility” within each person and seeks to foster its expression, not for “mere self-assertion” or “unregulated” desire but for “an individualism of freedom, of responsibility, of initiative to and for the ethical ideal.”

Trump is a type of active virus against this sort of thing. He is being a "chaos agent" to chip away at the trust in our nation's institutions.  Trump could and probably should have been impeached for a range of things. But, the House chose to select something specific, an attempt (far from a one-off, and this was specifically noted) to interfere with our election. Relatedly, his interference with congressional efforts to investigate this.   So, though he has a lot to answer for, given his current role, there is something especially nefarious about all of this.