Sports Sunday: New York Mostly Loses

The Mets started Saturday's DH still alive in the playoff race (and the other teams broke down as necessary!), but they had to win all three left. They lost all three, leaving them in last place (Nats win the tiebreaker). Brewers got in under .500.

Meanwhile, the Yanks lost 5-0 on Sunday to the fellow playoff Marlins while the Jets and Giants (previously of the "at least they were respectable" class) embarrassed themselves, the latter versus back-ups. Buffalo (with a help of a questionable penalty) avoided losing, after blowing a 25 point lead. Giants do benefit from a division where the other teams have all of 2.5 wins. Baseball playoffs begin today.

Amy Coney Barrett: Spits On SCOTUS (like NG and BK)

Amy Coney clerked for Scalia when I clerked for RBG. I like her, she's brilliant, and I respect her religious beliefs. She's "the Conenator." But doing this now is bullshit. I hope Amy will be a hero and turn down the nomination unless Trump wins. End this awfulness now, please.

— Jay Wexler (@SCOTUSHUMOR) September 26, 2020

Compare this, where (however it bothers you), she is praised but the basic fuckery of taking the nomination under the current situation is bullshit. And, Jay Wexler saying that about a friend, or at all probably, is notable from what I can tell -- he is one of those nice sounding types who don't talk like that blithely. Compare it that is to the winner of the Neal Katyal/Gorsuch 'hey he's a liberal!" Award winner ... Noah Feldman.

This is the woman who said that Obama in 2016 shouldn't have nominated someone (an older white moderate guy Republicans up to and including Chief Justice Roberts likes) someone who would shift the Court.  

[The discussion here -- which takes a modified Josh Marshall/don't get involved approach by from what I can tell saying they can show up to the hearing but not ask questions -- notes the hypocrisy claim is off. Looking at the full video -- noting it is just there -- he has a point. He does eventually suggest she is defending, not just describing, what is happening.  But, she doesn't say it is the only right approach. Again, in that interview. So, I probably kneejerked there some. See my whole remarks.]


Reading her remarks at SCOTUSBlog accepting the nomination from Trump -- the guy who can't say he will accept the result of the election and yet again was the subject of a woman saying she was sexually attacked by him [this really pissed off the Strict Scrutiny Podcast women] -- made me fucking pissed at her.  Immoral hypocritical asshole.

Let me again quote her FRIEND who says as well (as did I! at least, if the choice was her, Kavanaugh or some cookie cutter Federalist Society person) he supported her nomination for the last seat. This after she accepted the nomination (on Twitter too):

It’s so disappointing that Amy Coney is letting herself be so blatantly used for political purposes by a man who assaults women and brags about it, puts children in cages, mocks the disabled, and lies to no end. A seat on the Court isn’t worth cooperating with such depravity.

"Disappointing" is one way to phrase it.  Note that RBG was not buried yet. Obama, probably taking too long but still, waited a month. A week is seen as generous now.  Again, per the SCOTUS website:

A private interment service will be held next week at Arlington National Cemetery.

A few people, including a criminal justice warrior, was upset at people quoting RBG's dying wish that someone else nominated the person to replace her.  (Ted Cruz had "asshole had a point" cred when he opposed a Senate resolution in her honor that tossed in that bit via the Democrats; it shouldn't be there in a non-partisan, non-controversial resolution.)  That is a bit much, especially right after she died. But, this sort of thing is a bit disrespectful, eh?  And, thought Rewire News Group (new name for Rewire) Boom! Lawyer podcast referenced that, who else did?

Josh Marshall says:

Don’t participate. It’s madness.

I don't believe all the Dems won't meet with her etc., but the "Garland treatment" does seem appropriate.  I really didn't think that there was a chance (though people dream about it -- it's akin to talk of impeaching Trump judicial noms left and right) of even a strong attempt to pack the Supreme Court.  Or, however, you want to phrase it. But, this sham travesty, for RBG (the sixth seat to me always was different, including on an emotional level, which is a thing for humans) makes it possible.

I was hopeful -- admit it -- that Scalia's death would result in a 5-4 Court, a change that was due after decades, including six of seven (!) plurality/majority wins.  [One can count the last one.]  Merrick Garland would have been an objectively good choice.  He would not likely to be on there for thirty years into his mid-nineties.  He was someone Republicans said they liked. He was (really) a moderate liberal, on a Court that would turn on them (Breyer, Kagan, Garland, Roberts and Kennedy ... at times ... would be the core of the center).  Went another way.

Enough.  And, sorry if it makes Rick Hasen cry, but this whole thing makes the whole Court illegitimate.  It has to be expanded. As I have noted for years, the federal courts are not merely above the fray independent guardians with judicial review powers. They are filled via a political process, which affects the final product. The process, however, has to be legitimate, including in a constitutional norm way.  "I'm not touching you" while your sister sticks a finger an inch away is not that.

Talking about process, how many kids she has (she's younger than me and has -- by a mixture of ways -- seven damn kids), her religion (Dems are so anti-Catholic their House Speaker and nominee are both Catholic!) etc. is dust in the eyes here. I guess it's time to write some justices again.

ETA: This clip pisses me off.  No "character issue"? She took the nomination, including when last time she said Obama should not do the exact same thing (and as Kate Shaw underlines, the shift is more blatant here than with Garland), enabling Trump here. The election dispute is "not her fault"? She chose the job and would choose to take part if she doesn't recuse.  Can't we bluntly say what the fuck is happening? Call her out Melissa Murray or Leah Litman!  You can do it behind the scenes.

Baseball

I noted my lack of passion for baseball this year and mixed feelings about various new rules. They had COVID issues, but not as many as one might fear. Overall, I watched. The Mets, who are still not officially eliminated from the expanded playoffs (elimination number of 1), had their usual disappointing "should have been better" season. Usual injury woes. New star: David Peterson. Usual high points and "we can do this!" Usual failure.

Compare the Marlins, who besides looking crisp each time the Mets played them, crafted in a sort of garage sale way a playoff team. Teams do manage to work with what they have and not spend 10 million or whatever for fifth starters. Consider Tampa, leaders of the AL East. The new Mets billionaire owner picked Sandy Alderson to run things. Let's see how that goes.

Update: Mixing regular with novel, playoff hopes ended in a seven inning makeup in a game where each ace for the Mets and Nats (lousy season) struggled, the tying run for the Nats came via an inside the park home run when Dom "not really an OF" Smith ran into a wall and messiness/wildness contributed to runs too. 4-3 loss, Degrom gets a No Decision.

SCOTUS Watch: #RIPRBG Edition

The first Monday of October is around ten days away and around now the justices are getting prepared to have a "long conference" to deal with lingering issues. This time a special thing overshadows all, as with her bestie Scalia, particularly because of partisan battles. The last death on the bench that went smoothly was Rehnquist, with Roberts easily slipping in. 

Of course, the thing that dominates the week that overlaps this entry is RBG's death. I have commented about it and won't dwell too much on the issues here.  The events includes lying in state, which one female rabbi noted on Twitter is okay -- Jewish law is flexible enough for her to get the same honors of other great public figures. We can also assume that even if she did respect Jewish traditions, she was liberal enough there to work that in.  (Sighs deeply.)

Obama, for whatever reason, waited like a month to nominate Garland, in part because he wanted to do things right and figured McConnell would likely block the guy anyway.  Trump and the Republicans have a quicker timetable to address, plus control the process as a whole.  So, basically, the idea is to wait until the funeral is over or some such.  As expected, leaked on Friday, Judge Amy "Obama shouldn't pick someone who shifts the Court" (2016) Coney-Barrett was nominated.  She leaves a lot to be desired, if we had to have someone, I rather her than Kavanaugh? Now? It's just bullshit, especially with Trump finding it a problem even to say he would accept the results of the election. 

One liberal Dem did not wait to offer a statutory term limit bill, the rules not applying to current justices, but otherwise (a big caveat) seems workable for argument. The idea the powers that be would actually allow it is much less unclear.  My reading of Art. III also suggests forced retirement (the number is kept at nine withe a nomination in the first and third year, so the most senior has to retire ... a clock is set so the Senate cannot simply filibuster) is of dubious constitutionality.  Some have tried to argue it is not, but unclear again if it is clear enough that it will pass muster. 

The bill does help advance the conversation of a measure that very well might get some sort of bipartisan or cross-ideological support, even if a seemingly longshot amendment is required.  Once an amendment actually is passed Congress, one wonders if there will be some push for more. A major one would be the ERA, which three more states allegedly ratified.  Biden supports some sort of campaign amendment, as I recall. etc.  Will the next few years bring forth major constitutional change?

One thing cited is that the current Supreme Court leans Roman Catholic with six of eight justices (or whatever) either Catholic or conservative Catholic-like Christians.  In that mix are conservatives and Sotomayor, who is a sort of secular lapsed liberal Catholic.  Note how they aren't even diverse in the sense of Catholics.  Meanwhile, Bill Barr received an award from the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, whose founders included the likes of Rick Santorum and Leonard "Federalist Society" Leo.  This award for his "Christ-like" behavior came in between two executions.

I have not "deep dived" the executions this year as I did one year, but the now seventh federal executions generally each had issues.  Raising my hackles again, we had two no comment orders rejecting final appeals, an execution not deemed worth comment by one justice.  The first relied on the defendant's lead lawyer not being able to show up because of COVID, a theme (including family members of victims or religious assistants) of various case. No justice -- even when they flagged other issues -- commented on that issue.  The personal reason was the ironic fact the family of the murderer also lost a son to a murderer, that one getting prison.

The second relied on dispute over what the federal statutory death penalty rule required, here arising since Texas (!) requires more time between the death order and the execution.  A possible reason would be that the person was only nineteen, some evidence being present that those under 21 at least should not be exercised. Conservatives not liking the 18 line, I can see this being a lost cause. OTOH, the conservatives (RBG and Sotomayor flagged their concern) don't want to deal with this issue either.

I find this rather outrageous -- other than Timothy McVeigh, two people were executed by the feds in the modern era (post-1976) and there has been clear dispute in the lower courts on the rules here. There should be clarity BEFORE you execute (so far; no one else is scheduled, but who knows) seven people. Yes, this one was heinous -- though the justice of executing the guy after twenty years is unclear to me -- but the ones that will get a death sentence often are.  Basic fairness is clarifying a basic procedural matter, even if I'm sure the result will not be pleasing with this Court.

Wonder how Charles L. Black would feel about trusting the courts with his human rights effort today. Over twenty years ago, toward the end of his life, he wrote A New Birth of Freedom, which rests a system of national human rights on the Declaration of Independence, the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause.  He is not a fan of substantive due process, including because it encourages people to be wary about an open-ended rights process [unclear if the people who are would care who one does it].  He includes a chapter on the importance of affirmative rights like fighting poverty, noting something like that is more a legislative function.

I re-read the book this week -- perhaps well timed -- and find it fairly well argued (if a bit rambling at times) though the guy was writing in the 1990s. The courts were already somewhat conservative, including the Supreme Court, which you'd think he at least flag as a possible problem.  I think the overall argument is sound on a basic level. Substantive due process assumes an overall "liberty," which the three sources provide a useful source.  He also provides basic ways to reason out things via a common law mention, notes the limits of majoritarianism and defends judicial review. Of special note there is the people and Congress (since the Judiciary Act of 1789) support it. 

I still think it a bit blithe to focus so much on the "pursuit of happiness" as he winds up doing near the end.  I think there is a variety of ways to get there and Douglas' approach in Griswold, substantive due process etc. all provide some value.  And, he notes that rights are not absolute. That should go to the idea of federal judicial review. How to break that down is uncler, but maybe we will hear about it in the years ahead.

Some books

With #AbolishPolice getting more attention given recent protests, The End of Policing by Alex Vitale from a few years back might be getting another look. It does not spell out -- as some do -- the alternatives to our current system of police and punishment.  So, e.g., what do we do not only for relatively easy cases (sure, decriminalize drugs or sex work) but things that everyone generally accepts as criminal (e.g., rape or murder). 

The book provides a general refutation of the idea that police are there to protect us, arguing the modern police department was basically formed to hold down outsiders. It then provides a look at various areas (e.g., drugs, schools, mental health and border security) where police basically worsen the situation.  And, like atheists who find liberal Christians and the like basically part of the problem, "reforms" (e.g., drug courts or diversity in police departments) are seen as of limited value at best.  The "alternatives" tend to focus on taking police out of the picture.

I think the book (a little over two hundred pages) makes some good points, but found it too one-sided.  Such will be the nature of such works, sure, but at some point it bothered me.  I am by nature a hybrid: tend to find things are not easily split by black/white, even if there are some firm lines to draw. So, yes, I think the traditional idea of God is misguided, but also think simply saying the whole thing (or "religion") is bogus is as well.

Anyways, to toss them in, read a few other books to finish off the summer season (RBG dying basically led us into the fall -- what will it wrought?!).  The Indomitable Florence Finch, by a former Democratic politician turned history writer, talks about a Filipino-American who resisted the Japanese during WWII.  It is particularly good since it has a range of focus, including her former boss as he survives a long internment.  The Unexpected Spy by Tracy Walder is about her experience in the CIA (mildly redacted) and FBI (where she suffered sexism), she ultimately ending up being that history teacher she early on dreamed of being. 

Also, not as new, is a book on the French Jewish socialist and prime minister, Leon Blum by Pierre Birnbaum. It's from a collection of short Jewish histories that includes one about Louis Brandeis that I read.  Blum's life spanned from the 1870s until 1950, so he survived among other things imprisonment during WWII, if in better quarters than most Jews.  Book is a bit academic, but was a pretty good summary of someone new to me.

Finally, began the new season with a re-read of a 1969 book that is really a report by The Community of Psychiatry and the Law entitled The Right of Abortion: A Psychiatric View.  I found it in a used book store. It argues that abortion should be the choice of a woman, treated as a medical procedure.  The discussion overall holds up, down to a reference to a then minority viewpoint that IUDs don't actually stop implantation but fertilization itself.  Ditto talk of post-abortion trauma being basically a myth and that the whole issue is ultimately a personal religious choice.

A timely read with RBG's death and the chance that the person to be nominated will have a very different view on the subject. 

More on RBG

As with the death of JPS, Justice Souter's brief comments says it as good or better than the rest: "Ruth Ginsburg was one of the members of the Court who achieved greatness before she became a great justice. I loved her to pieces." I miss that guy. Note the absence as before of Justice O'Connor, who has been in decline for a few years now. Her death will come at some point.

There has been various good obits, including by Irin Carmon (who co-wrote a book about her) and Linda Greenhouse (the long time Court reporter and now biweekly commentator). Linda Greenhouse at one point noted that RBG was considered a judicial restraint liberal on the court of appeals. She was there for over a decade, so that perhaps should get more attention.

On SCOTUS, she was more traditionally liberal, if (except for some key dissents) not likely to write in major cases except for sex equality related ones. This is partially a result of the control of the Court. OTOH, it is also partially her skill-set in procedural matters, which was a particular expertise of hers. One person cited an opinion of hers protecting a woman who couldn't pay the fees required in a parental termination case. This equal protection principle was particularly important because of the interest (parental rights) at issue. Kennedy noted the line of cases mixed due process and equal protection interests, a theme he later used in Lawrence and Obergefell, in the latter in part citing this case.

(One interesting foonote is the citation of Lindsey v. Normet, which is repeated part of a string of cases cited to show that economic and social legislation generally, especially against some claim for benefits like housing or the like, should be weighed using rational basis review. But, here, it is used because the opinion did strike down a portion of the process challenged. So, it was actually not a total loss.)

Biden has drew the line -- the winner of the 2020 elections should be the one who picks her replacement. Reports are that she on her deathbed dictated a statement that she strongly wished the next president to do the deed. I doubt anyone is really surprised except perhaps by her making it known. Biden also made the important comment that the normal process to confirm justices takes longer than the time between now and Election Day, which CNN, e.g., showed in a recent article. RBG was confirmed in fifty days, which might be a talking point. But, that was before the 21st Century and was pretty quick anyway. Plus, not so close to an election etc.

I also saw at least one law professor noting that if a confirmation occurs before Election Day or during the lame duck (assume Trump + a Republican Senate in 2021 might change the equation), that moderates will be pushed into supporting court packing. She might be basically talking about herself since the person strongly opposed it in the past. Lyle Denninson, the SCOTUS reporter vet (he's around 90 now) still opposes it. But, then again, he in reply to one comment noted we were "fine" at the moment, which was just funny even if limited to the state of the Senate.

I thought in 2016 that Scalia died early enough that it was fair, especially given the pick, to confirm a new justice. It is harder to talk about that in late September with current practices (including Gorsuch) taking two months or so to confirm especially. You can talk about "technically" the person elected is still in power, but dying in mid-February (and picking the person -- to me a bit too long -- in March) is rather different than the situation now. But, the precedent was set in 2016. It will just be damn wrong, putting aside who we are dealing with, to shift again.

McConnell, right after her death was announced, did so shift. Somehow the control of the Senate and presidency together matters, not just the right of the people to decide in an election year. It's Calvinball. Lindsey Graham too seems to have shifted. Such an asshole. The gentle ladies of Maine and Alaska might hold. That "might" very well might be too optimistic. But, you need four if the Dems hold. We saw that with Kavanaugh. I thought Amy Coney-Barrett was better than Kavanaugh, and in some role she might be okay on SCOTUS, but don't want her for RBG.

Will the Dems, if they can, expand the Court if she is confirmed in October or December? I just don't know. But, with the ERA, statehood for D.C. (and Puerto Rico?), the end of the filibuster for legislation, etc. up in the air, the 2020s will be rather interesting. If some travesty happens in November, still so. Just in a more dark way. Not that 2020 has not been so very dark. RBG's death, if well timed for her Jewish nature on Rosh Hashanah (those who die on that day are deemed particularly honorable), adds to it all.

SCOTUS Watch: Almost October Edition

Update: Stolen Seat Gorsuch, as noted below, took part in some public event remotely in honor of Constitution Day and honored RBG, who received some honor, but did not personally show up. So, it sounded like things were the same, as she fought cancer (again).

It has now been announced she died. Moscow Mitch via his Calvinball rules says Trump's replacement for her will get a vote. We shall see. Dems need to stand up. It takes a bit of time, maybe over a month really, for the normal process of confirmation to occur. Either way, Dems have to draw a line -- no confirmation before the new presidential term or expansion of the Supreme Court. RBG bet on HRC or outliving Trump. Thought she'd do it.

I guess, noting her great contributions, it reminds us she still with but one person. Some will do a "told ya so" regarding their belief she was selfish for not resigning during the Obama Administration. If that makes you feel better. Anyway, her legacy, contra one comment, cannot simply be voided now. Too much has happened in the last forty plus years. Let's hope the current society she helped form will help address this.

==

I noted recently that this month had a few more non-presidential primaries. One more notable election: it looks like we will have the first trans state senator.

September 17th was Constitution Day, in honor of the day the Constitution was agreed upon at the Constitution Convention. Breyer and Stolen Seat Gorsuch (one person noted on Twitter he now has a beard; another Ted Cruz?) had appearances per SCOTUSBlog.

Breyer left the law students with a piece of advice: Participate in civic life. While waving his pocket Constitution on the screen, he smiled and said, “The people who wrote this thought, if you do not participate, this won’t work.”

Yes. The current participation moment, of which I'm taking part as a census enumerator, is filling out and helping ("proxies" give information for neighbors) with the completion of the census. We also are working toward the November elections. A range of things are involved there. Plus, there are other aspects of civic life. The effects of a single person there can be hard to quantify (see the duty to vote book) but it adds up as a whole. I'm concerned like Breyer with educating and furthering civic enagement.

Not sure when it occurred, but at some point in the last few weeks the Supreme Court updated its website to provide links to webpages that are cited in opinions. They post downloads of the pages to avoid dead links. They also announced, at least for the October sitting, that they will continue telephonic arguments. These arguments were appreciated by many people as promoting openness. On that front, I think more use of the page to post speeches and appearances (such as the Breyer one) would be ideal. Opinion announcements. And, perhaps recognition by Roberts during the argument that something different is going on.

Such things, including personal involvement by state supreme court judges, are seen in courts below. So, doubting this idea that protests (they don't need to release the video live; can edit) and security issues cited by Breyer. Not that this level of thing is necessary, but four women state judges (maybe inspired by Strict Scrutiny Podcast!) actually started a podcast to talk about state courts. Posting a video on the Supreme Court website introduced by a justice wouldn't be a bad idea though; not sure why they can't post a basic "intro" type video there. Like the one they play for tourists.

We are getting closer to the October 2020 term. They will soon have a long conference or whatever to catch up with all the petitions and stuff. The term is actually about two weeks away. Not sure how much time that is in Big V time.

History/Mary Ziegler Books

First off, I like the "legacy" blogger and repeatedly had issues coding in the new style.

I recently added a teaching website [a relative is a high school teacher and labels me "Joe" and "a historian" -- ha ha; well, I do have a BA in History and decades of self-learning ... I think it's fair] to the blogroll since I'm helping with the content -- the word finds and summaries. It is interesting, shall we say, condensing some terms into one line and topics into two pages. Also, some of the world history stuff is fairly new to me. I somehow (almost; hard not to toss in a comment about alleged racism) wrote something fairly neutral on the Trump.

Mary Ziegler wrote three books on abortion with the first probably the best about the decade or so after Roe, where there seemed to be room for some middle ground ("pro-family" as a legitimate label). Her latest seems more repetitive and not even covering some of that ground though a history (the "law" subtitle really covers that ground too) since Roe. The middle book explains how abortion overlap with other issues. I might have looked at it but don't remember it. She ends on a pessimistic note regarding the divide in place.

SCOTUS/Voting News

While various new Trump news dropped (including him telling Bob Woodward in February that Covid is serious and then lying to people about it), he released another list of possible SCOTUS justices. Some think it won't move the needle any more, people already locked in unlike the last time when it was a more potential thing.  Who knows.  As others note, the Dems should pay more attention to the courts.  Why exactly it is avoided so much, even low key things like tweaking ethical rules, is unclear.

There was an order list on 9/11, the last summer order, delayed because of the events.  Same nothing much, this time with a list of attorney disbarments.  This is from some time back, so don't know why it took this long to have her disbarred on the Supreme Court level (was it just a token bar membership for the prestige?), but here is a bit of one's problems:

James Moses, a St. Tammany Parish resident, died in 1977.   Shortly thereafter, the decedent's brother, Joseph Moses, who lived in Ohio, retained respondent to handle the decedent's succession and represent his four minor children.   Joseph Moses was appointed administrator of the decedent's estate and tutor of the four minor children.   Through the following years, respondent handled numerous legal matters connected with this succession and tutorship.   However, between April 6 and June 12, 1984, respondent, without authorization, removed from the succession and/or tutorship accounts a total of $97,000 by writing eight separate checks and depositing them into her personal account.

The lower courts also had two key voting rights opinions. First, a 2-1 ruling (SCOTUS refused to get involved earlier though Sotomayor put forth a wish that the matter would be addressed before the election) held that letting those over 65 vote by mail with reason during COVID is not a violation of the 26th Amendment. To remind:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

The two judges decided that the rule here was a special additional benefit, not a denial of a right.  The special situation alone suggests the confused matter here.  It is like if a gate somehow is put up blocking people's ability to vote, but only those of a certain age is given the key.  The net result here is "on account of age" one's right to vote is abridged.  It is a form of hairsplitting to avoid this.  Guess it's nice to have a bit of 26A law though.

Ditto the due process and other problems with the perversion of a ballot measure to enfranchise released felons.  I still remember 2000 in Florida.  More of the fucking same.  We even have Judge William Pryor, who I recall the battle over, writing with Jill Pryor among the dissenters.  It is even more symbolic -- besides Pryor, the whole majority is made up of Trump appointees.  Deprivation of voting rights help elect Republicans (problems with the felony disenfranchisement law was a key factor in 2000 -- over time, history gets repetitive to observers) who put judges on the bench to uphold such efforts even when the people vote to temper the rules.  It is a sort of feedback loop.

There is also problems in Wisconsin, the state supreme court there again by an ideological vote fucking things up.  Is it 2021 yet? Someone, quite validly, on the anniversary of 9/11 noted that COVID is the most compelling moment of history in her lifetime.  In both cases, who runs the show is very important.

Let's never forget that.

Murdering Fascists in the U.S.? Don't Do it

Prof. Erik Loomis provides some good material, including his grave and labor segments, often mixing in some nuance. Also, push comes to shove, he realizes the need to support imperfect people in the real world. But, he also likes to talk like a tough guy, including tossing around "fascist" and the like. Fine.

Still, this talk of some "moral" right for this guy to murder people is immoral in my view. The critics might be easy targets but he sorta helped. His death sounds dubious though his own sister seemed to suggest at one point it might be suicide by cop. Oh. John Brown was an unhinged fanatic. I'm wary of the idea that some ICE agent should be labeled in dehumanizing terms. But, this crosses a line. This is not the same thing as questionable use of violence at some labor protest. Loomis is primping too much to see that.

Election/Supremes News

And Also: Sarah Posner's book  Unholy: Why White Evangelicals Worship at the Altar of Donald Trump notes evangelical support of Trump is partially a matter of him supporting them (in return for loyalty), but it's more than that.  Of special note, he is seen a strong man type who unapologetically attacks their enemies. 

His success also proves his bona fides as God's tool.  Also, she explains how for decades a racist, nationalist, anti-democratic (small "d") as well as strongly conservative wing of the right existed.  This also included support of foreign leaders such as Putin while being against basic liberal American values.  Trump is not new here, but is a George Wallace figure sought by some for years.  He also has shades of being a televangelist himself.  It is a good though dreary book but at some point it got a bit repetitive.

====

The final state primaries (non-presidential) are this month, starting this week with Massachusetts.  (New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Delaware are later in the month. I'm not aware of any big races in those states that received national attention,)  But, to flashback there, that state was a rarity in that more than 10% of the Republican voters chose someone other than Trump.  In the end, that one Weld delegate was not heard from.

The notable thing for the state primary is that Ed Markey won the Senate Democratic Primary over Joseph Kennedy "other than being young and a Kennedy, no real reason to vote for me" III.  Markey was the progressive choice, including his support with AOC of the Green Deal. On the Republican side, Shiva Ayyadurai got forty percent of the vote as the conspiracy Trump candidate.  Also, one race underlines the value of instant run-off voting, the winner obtaining under 25% of the vote.

In Supremes news, RBG presided over a wedding. Also, after the Supreme Court struck down his latest trial, prosecutors decided six was enough. Curt Flowers is a free man.  Only took over twenty years. But, mostly, their summer break continued.

Donald Trump's Racism is America's Racism

Prof. Sandy Levinson comes off as a friendly sort though on his blog has had a more jeremiad tone that strongly lashes out against what he sees as glaring issues.  I think he lays it on a bit thick, but blogs at times are there to vent.  For instance, Reality Check (Rewire) used to have comments and some of them to me was a bit much. I understood the need to have a safe space, so to speak, to strongly state one's views all the same. 

Anyway, is one thread a Trumpy (BB) that shows a bit more nuance (bit of a trap, really, given how locked in he is all the same) than another (BP) basically refused to recognize our systematic racism. Even historically. Hey some older black athlete praised Trump. Must mean his racism is open to reasonable debate.  Compare this that provides some examples and argues Trump's racism is America's racism.  After all, he needed help.

One thing this piece does is share the blame. Trump is a particularly virulent form of something that taints this country.  As with other bad things, there are degrees. So, if something is bad (let's say a virus, which racism is in a fashion), it can be weak (like a vaccine) or strong. So, how bad Trump matters even if his alternative (and his party is corrupted here -- both sides aren't the same here, sorry) would be bad too.

The piece also suggests that it goes beyond how far the Republican Party itself has gone. On some level, it is broader than that. Even those who are not Republicans don't oppose him enough since on some level he is not completely foreign to our society. So, let's say, certain Democrats went to his wedding(s). Or, he is not seen as so totally improper (my example would be like if a cat ran for POTUS -- we wouldn't have horse race coverage here, so to speak, would we? it would simply be "hey, a cat can't be POTUS ... come on now!"). In so doing, society normalizes him.

And, part of this is that we are still a racist country, who even if we don't like it, accept racism is part of life in some fashion. And, then something really horrible happens, we are upset, but then let it keep on going w/o completely changing things to stop it from happening in the future.