Filibusters

There was a good summary of the history behind the filibuster and the point we are at the moment that reminds that the NYT does have value among various instances of it not. The matter is of particular importance at the moment, when there is a push (and apparent openness) to think big on what the federal government should do, without letting Republicans in the Senate block it. How far will this go?

The look at the text and history of the constitutional history here is informative. I think the text should (anyway does) have some important role here while history (including original history) should (but does anyway) have a more mixed role. History, surely someone with a BA in it and who now helps by writing little historical summaries for a site geared to high school students, is valuable. Decisions are made with it in mind. It just is a changing thing with various moving parts that we can use in various ways.

The text, to be clear, tends to leave a lot of space in most hard questions when resting on that alone. This is especially the case here. It is quite true that only a few things require a supermajority by constitutional rule (the op-ed cites some of the history here) but it also provides the Senate broad power to set rules of proceedings. The fact that only something like treaties requires a supermajority doesn't mean no respect should be allowed to the minority, blunt majority rule always winning. That isn't a good way to do things generally. But, that leaves open a lot of ground.

I will honestly note that during the Bush Administration, I argued that filibustering judicial nominations (at least) could be legitimate. It to me was a way to deal with certain wrongs involving the election of Bush, the two senator rule resulting in a majority of people represented by a minority of senators and the to me overreaching of the Bush side. OTOH, in hindsight, it is unclear how helpful the whole thing was. Most of the judges got through anyway and the precedent hurt President Obama. It is even unclear how much it helped to block controversial legislation. Also, should it?

We saw eventually that the back/forth led Democrats in the Senate to end filibusters for executive nominations (a rule that they never had a chance to apply to the Supreme Court, but Republicans did for Gorsuch). In effect, after years of both sides actually doing it, the whole thing was being used too much for the Democrats. This included Republicans refusing to confirm any judges for D.C. vacancies or to fill an agency that they didn't like. Other basic filibusters like blue slips (which Republicans didn't respect when control changed) also factored into the situation.

The result helped the Republicans fill in a lot of court slots, though there are ways to compensate (there are a lot of senior status slots, already starting to be taken, alone open, but the big solution is both quick confirmations and expanding lower courts). A few abuses of note here -- especially at the Supreme Court level -- very well can be cited. But, long term, this is good policy. Why should those who don't win elections have the power to fill the courts? Leaving slots open for years is abusive.

Then, we have policy. As some have noted, as a whole, even during the Great Society (involving controversial policy), filibusters have not historically been used much to block legislation. Surely, not to the extent used in recent years. The big story there was civil rights, but even there, there was often as much of a majority settlement against them. I think -- without analyzing the data in detail -- one can exaggerate. For instance, national education policy was blocked in part by filibuster as I recall in the post-Civil War period. But, it seems to be the sort of thing that might be used in a limited fashion, but not like more recent assumptions that it takes sixty to pass things.

So, we come to the present. Mitch McConnell at first blocked the rules for a new Senate because he wanted Democrats to agree to the filibuster for the next two years. The Democrats said "no way," but there is constant references to Manchin and Sinema in particular not wanting to let go of the filibuster. Some even fear -- though he consistently has voted for Democratic policies when it matters -- Manchin would switch as if he was some sort of DINO. Sinema, a newer member from the new Democratic state of Arizona, is a more interesting character there. How far will she go?

It's unclear. The first test was the rules. Next, comes financial matters which can appear to be something you can settle via the reconciliation workaround. That seems to be a key approach here -- avoid as much as possible any way to push the point. Change comes over a span of time, people appropriately pushing, but not all at once.

There already is talk that Biden saying he is for "unity" doesn't mean he will just agree to anything to get bipartisan votes. Basic core things will be demanded, details can be negotiated. How far this will go is unclear. We now have a probably not first ten Republican caucus proposal (thus 60 votes with the Democrats) on COVID.  The big test might be voting rights.

There is also an argument, one I noted above, about how each half of the Senate are not really equal. The Democrats represent many more people. I think that's valid though obviously that pushes against a constitutional rule. But, hey, the filibuster itself is not found in the Constitution. It supposedly is there to advance the overall principle of debate (ha ha) and the cooling saucer of the greatest debating society and all that. Such open-ended principles can factor in a lot of things, especially when the Senate equal vote rule is so locked in. 

When things are so locked in, you usually have workarounds too. A final thing there is that we are realistically stuck with a party in both houses (if somewhat less blatant in the Senate as seen on 1/6) that refuses to do the bare minimum. As an impeachment trial (people keep on saying "impeach" as if it means removal) already starting, the House Minority Leader goes to meet Trump. Can't wait a little bit, huh?  Republicans cannot simply even agree (though voting against tabling the question is not technically the same as supporting the merits) the impeachment trial is acceptable.  Bare minimum republican values, far from policy disputes, cannot be granted by even some significant limited number of them. 

Some would deem 2021 as the true beginning of the twenties. Should be interesting.

Earth [or some town] v. Spiders

 

Fun Svengoolie entry. Silly but enjoyable entry. One amusing scene about the spider (thought dead) striking again involves the school band playing and teens dancing that reminded me some of some Peanuts scene. A few of the teens look rather old, including one named "Joe." The lead couple is "Mike" and "Carol." Not them though.

"Today Shapes Tomorrow"

To brighten your day with positive thoughts about a hopeful future out there. #Hope #PositiveVibes #TheFutureIsYou pic.twitter.com/EkHUMhGMY1

— Dr. Kari Nixon (@HalfSickShadows) January 30, 2021

I follow this professor on Twitter, charmed by her pleasure about receiving a box of her books (she writes about diseases though also has a podcast about Victorian literature). One can be mean and note even bad people have cute kids, but it's hard to begrudge such things.

Daniel Murphy Retires

While the owner got in trouble because of his connection to something in the news, a past Met, Daniel Murphy, announced his retirement.

People at times complained about his baseball instincts and/or defense, but always enjoyed watching Murphy, both because of his hitting but also his passion. It amused me some fans were upset about his religious based comments against gays (ah fans; so liberal), but even there, he later was humble about it, including listening to other points of view. Plus, he not only took paternity leave, but took part in an Obama White House family event on fathers.

I understood the move to let him go after it was time for him to be a free agent, but turned out he got a rather cheap deal with the rival Nationals and hurt the Mets repeatedly. Plus, he would have been a useful back-up to the often hurt Wright, and the team never really got someone else duirng those years for the infield slots he could have filled as well or better. Meanwhile, using their long term "one expensive flawed contract" model, overpaid Cespedes, who even to the degree he was important for the World Series run ... Murphy was as well.

Good luck, Murph.

Secular Elected Officials Form New Organization

By now, there are various subjects that are familiar, and one is the meaning of "religion" and the need to have an inclusive view of the term. At some point, "religion" can be defined in ways that seem empty to some degree, but that is basically true with many big terms. As Justice Kagan noted in a dissent regarding invocations at town meetings:

They “speak of the depths of [one’s] life, of the source of [one’s] being, of [one’s] ultimate concern, of what [one] take[s] seriously without any reservation.”

People often have a more limited definition involving God or the supernatural, even if certain religions or at least spiritual traditions (the overlap clear to me) do not require this. I read the basic foundation beliefs of the Unitarian-Universalist Church and they appear quite similar to that of the "ten commitments" of humanism that I got on my wall. "Religion" to me suggests a certain area of human concern separate than mere political or otherwise that can be very important. I'm reminded of the meaning of "sacred" in an interesting book I have on religious beliefs on abortion.

My ultimate concern here is not "secularism" as much as freethinking, though yes, the two overlap. So, yes, the government itself should basically be secular. The exceptions to me are troubling as I have noted in the past, even if they might not be as troubling as other things in various cases. This includes use of things like "In God We Trust," which promotes the idea of a certain type of God, even if you can define the term in such a broad way to mean "good" in basically a secular way. But, that isn't the common meaning and that is unrealistic. The same applies to "under God" in the Pledge. And, to be consistent, as I feel a bit annoyingly that I have to be, "religion" also has a common meaning.

This is an extended prologue to the title of this post, which I saw at Religion Clause blog. As noted there, the organization has the purpose to: "provide support, information and a sounding board for non-religious elected officials at a time when a growing number of people choose not to affiliate with a religion." Its website itself (About Page) more broadly discusses things:

These elected officials do not hold theistic or other supernatural beliefs and seek to govern and advance public policy based on evidence, reason, and compassion. They use many identifiers, including: atheist, humanist, agnostic, skeptic, nonreligious, freethinker, nonbeliever, religiously unaffiliated, and/or spiritual but not religious. We use the word “secular” as shorthand for the wide variety of nonreligious identifiers our members choose.

Again, these terms to me cover a lot of ground. I'm not really trying to be coy here. I personally would fit here somehow though I would probably feel comfortable in a U-U congregation, at least some of them. It seems silly to me to not call oneself "religious" but belong to an organization, perhaps go to weekly meetings with others and do various things that typical religious people do, just because you do not believe or accept supernatural forces. Lots of people generally advance public policy "based on evidence, reason, and compassion" while believing in them in some nature too. Some do not have much of an opinion on the matter -- they might be open to the existence of God, but they simply don't concern themselves with it -- and might be better seen as "non-religious" than some on that list. Plus, the term "nonbeliever" is just question begging.

Again, I get the general idea, especially since the vast number of public officials here belong to some "religious" organization. Some even might be atheistic deep down, but are open to government support of their organization's beliefs or other religion organization's beliefs. This gets to why the whole thing has me in knots. The next logical statement would be some sort of freethinking, separation of church and state comment. But, the group here isn't saying they are for that. They are saying they themselves "hold" certain beliefs. Their goals very well are likely generally copacetic to me, but so would the goals of some liberal leaning religious groups.

Bottom line, there is some hazy group out there, and support is a good thing.  To be evenhanded, again, I'll be welcoming.

The Kommandant's Girl

Today's International Holocaust Rembrance Day (Auschwitz was liberated in 1945 OTD) and this book has some relevance since it is about a young Jew who hides out during WWII, ultimately working for/having an affair with a Nazi commander. The author herself worked in a Holocaust related role and later became a law professor.

The book was decent as a whole, basically somewhat light reading though obviously with dark subject matter. The character at times comes off as unrealistic, including a final trip on her own at night to visit her conveniently available father at the ghetto she escaped from earlier. The book also has a confusing sense of time, I not really getting a good sense of exactly when things were occurring. But, overall, again, it is easy reading and kept my interest. It ends with a bit of a cliffhanger -- she escapes but surely isn't totally out of danger. A key character also died though her husband/resistance member apparently didn't.

Overall, I'm not inclined to read more of the author, but the book was okay.

"Rules are Stupid" Brigade Upset At Zero HOF Ballot

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

A combination of slim pickens and that darn "character" and "integrity" qualification led to no one being chosen for the Baseball Hall of Fame, Schilling the only one getting close. Some continue to belittle the FULL criteria as if a sport where domestic violence will keep you from playing is merely about baseball talent. And, yes, there will be marginal cases. When isn't there? Judgment calls can be made here too.

Or, carp on line drawing regarding cheating, even in respect to someone whose cheating helped to beat Hank Aaron's record. Steriods are not innocent, harming those who don't use them with a disadvantage and pressuring marginal players (including minor leaguers with less power) to use them. This isn't akin to targeting minorities for selling small qualities of marijuana or something. And, yes, if the fan base cares about them, that is part of the game. The fact you might find their cares stupid is duly noted.

Thus, Trevor Bauer's past behavior, especially after the Mets already got in trouble with the general manager's past conduct, is a big red flag. I don't think -- after they already signed a big name pitcher and shortstop along with other pieces -- that the big contract (if short term) he apparently will get is sensible, especially since they still need an outfielder. But, it is an example of why we care about more than pure baseball talent.

One writer whined that the HOF should decide the character criteria. If you can't handle it, support changing the rules so someone else picks. Person also belittled the importance of entry. Screw you. Some people actually care, actually thinks it is a honor, one that has criteria. Anyway, events meant there wasn't a ceremony last year. So, it is not like this will be a totally empty 2021. And, if the choices are a bunch of non-elite players and character problems, yes, "zero" is okay.

ETA: Steve Matz, a gamer (who had a bad 2020 and injury issues) and praised for his charity work, was traded to Toronto for three prospects. Sounds good with one at least of the prospects having some starts under his belt. Makes sense with pick-ups and Matz likely the odd person out. Good luck.

SCOTUS Orders

Another low drama orders day though it is aggravating that the emoluments clauses cases were declared moot. Gorsuch and Thomas would have taken a case involving the former Speaker of the NY Assembly. They also sent back a dispute regarding the right to have a minister at one's execution for review. An issue they repeatedly dealt with summarily, perhaps, it is time for full review. The one decision was a declaration in effect that they shouldn't have taken an arbitration dispute.

Looking up the docket numbers, the two parties agreed that their relief were tied to Trump being in office, but it still is aggravating the clock was allowed to run out. There should be some way for some party to have standing today regarding damages for him violating the emoluments provisions. They are in place for just such reasons. Ultimately, it is now up to Congress to pass legislation that does a better job enforcing such requirements, including disclosure laws. Note: Congress still has not received Trump's tax returns.

Other actions might be handed down, but they are now in winter recess.

Super Bowl LV Determined: Vomit

Cancel Culture

This week alone, people were fired from the New York Times, the Niskanen Center, and Fox News for making conservatives mad https://t.co/hSNggiGT9N

— Adam Serwer 🍝 (@AdamSerwer) January 23, 2021

These are not the same thing and some are not seeing the differences.

The NYT fired an editor for saying she had chills while watching Biden being inaugurated. This is fine even if some conservatives thought it showed bias. It is very wrong for her to be fired and the anger/support is well founded. This without other tweets about how special the person herself is.  If the person was a bit of an asshole, it would be wrong.

Fox News is an ideological organization and someone was found by some noisy types as not following the conservative line enough. A sign of what these types are, perhaps, but nothing shocking. We know what Fox News is. Conservatives being mad at their "safe space" like that is nothing to be too upset about on the liberal side. It isn't the same thing at all. [This seems to be the reason; I saw something related to the call of Arizona for Biden, but not totally sure since it seems more than one person was moved.]

The organization fired someone for making a joke regarding lynching Pence if Biden wanted to show evidence of unity. Since the other side was no fan of him either. Obviously a joke, if a bit nasty. Such is okay if a bit off usually but Pence was actually at risk of being killed a few weeks ago this month. The matter is emphasized by the liberal types (including people I usually agree with) all very upset about some good guy being fired. I am not familiar with the person or organization, but the supporters suggest both are good eggs generally. 

But, not one referenced the Pence reality.  I speak of five at least people I am familiar with and/or support generally who in various degrees singled out this firing as particularly egregious. They act like it was just some run of the mill off color comment that conservative trolls get so upset about.

It's not. It is simply asinine to ignore the context, something that the "reality based community" is supposed to be attune about. Of course, we all have our biases and slip-ups there, but really, it isn't too hard to at least get an idea why this organization is so sensitive here. This is the case even if conservative trolls are being hypocritical. Such is normal. It doesn't erase that Pence was actually from reporting at risk of being killed. There was even a rope stringed outside among the crowd, one that very well might not have being totally symbolic.

People need to have perspective and it factors in regarding reactions. Please, have some human empathy and keep track of the situation. Yes, he apologized and wasn't being literal. But, an organization has to be careful, especially as the situation is still hot. Maybe, even then, they overreacted. Still, is it not even worth mentioning? When people are pressuring others to "cancel" -- an overblown term -- they should realize there needs to be some nuance involved. They surely point to such things when others overreact.

Look in the mirror.

Impeachment Update

Update: It was decided that Leahy will preside over the impeachment trial. I'm disappointed though think the matter is constitutionally acceptable given the language. The language to me is best applied to have the Chief Justice preside, but it can be read to mean only sitting presidents require that.  The matter at least in dispute, the Senate gets to choose pursuant to its power to "try" impeachments, includes rules of proceedings. 

NPR reports: "This time, however, the chief justice let it be known he did not want to preside now that Trump is no longer president. On Monday, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said Roberts would have no comment." Yeah. That doesn't do it. It should be aboveboard in a letter or whatever.

The impeachment article will be carried over to the Senate on Monday and then the actual trial will come in two weeks time to give the Senate more time to business.

I think that works fine, including as more evidence comes out. Realistically and on principle, you need to give the Trump side a bit of time to prepare. Not that they haven't already but a bit of care there is helpful (the professor I cited on the 14th Amendment insurrection provision continues to suggest impeachment doesn't really have "due process" as compared to alternatives and that is stupid; but you have to do something to deal with stupidity).

Plus, people are concerned about the Senate doing some business first, especially since when controlled by Republicans [Mitch playing hardball means committees technically still are since a new organizing resolution hasn't been decided upon] they -- unlike past years -- didn't get around to even having hearings for Cabinet heads. So, really, it is only a week or so more than it might have been if we sped things along more. As is, the later in February McConnell offer was rejected. And, the Dems are not giving into the "keep the filibuster for two more years" demand. 

[I think the Senate has the power to change its rules in the middle of things anyways. I also think the filibuster in principle on some level does further a sensible path. Raw majority rule is not some universal; some sort of consensus is useful on things a minority feel specially sensitive about. But, there is a limit.]

My dream was to just convict Trump before he left office, but that was not to be. The talk now is that there will be at best a handful of Republicans convicted, after we had noises that even Graveyard Mitch (back to his ways) was open to the idea. Uh huh. The usual "moderate" Republicans are also negative on the big COVID relief bill. If they are going to make it so easy, okay, the filibuster is a 'no.' Ezra Klein is right that if the Democrats let Republicans block an ability to fully take advantage of their majority that the people will burn them.

Some rather use the insurrection provision. To remind:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I continue to think the impeachment approach makes sense, particularly because it is more familiar to the general public and history. There is clearly overlap given the action impeachment count, but it isn't the same thing. If one is concerned about "due process," the impeachment trial will provide some of that too. It will do more to put forth the evidence to the world and requires a supermajority as compared to the apparent mere majority required for the 14A remedy. There is a fear the supermajority won't be reached, but that is important too. It is not that Republican senators will say Trump is innocent. The trial in fact will force some to underline they don't think so. And, to the degree they refuse to formally convict in the highest constitutional way our represenatives have to do that, it will be a black mark.

The remedy there is akin to the "penalty phase" of impeachment. That too has notable differences, though both are by majority vote. Not only is there no "backsie" mechanism, but it has the benefit of removing the "enjoyments" (at times the exact wording of provisions we usually don't pay attention to comes into focus) of the office as a possible penalty. Putting aside the issue of Secret Service protections, which is of special character, these sorts of things are particularly useful to take away for such a cupidinous [no, it's a word] person.*

Such a 14th Amendment disqualification provides accountability, in both form and substance. It would formally condemn Trump for aiding enemies of the Constitution, as he did in trying to overthrow a lawful election and then inciting the insurrection. The finding would disqualify him from public office.

Yes, you are correct, but it still is not the same thing. Also, it is not like there is some sort of "double jeopardy" problem of doing it later. The Congress should broadly address this problem. ALL people involved who have been found to "have engaged" should be disqualified. Down the road, perhaps a ten year or some period can be cited, they can petition perhaps to be relieved. The details here can be crafted (perhaps for some it would require a conviction while others a lesser finding, such as past members of the military or sitting legislators who can be found to be by legislative judgments). A mere majority (perhaps joined by a few Republicans if not 17) of the Senate can include Trump in the mix here, in that case via the judgment of the House etc. Impeachment is a special different sort of thing.

Anyway, the die is cast there. As more evidence comes out, the guilt of Trump is apparent, including the clear justice (not just in anger, as a matter of justice and sound political judgment) of barring him from office and removing any means he still has to "enjoy" (a major motivator for public figures and something that very well should factor in the mix) such an office, a governmental office not stopping really when one leaves.

----

* The idea that a trial should not occur after one leaves office -- a nice way to get around the disqualification -- has been suitably rejected, at times in proper scornful fashion.  

Another issue that has arisen is that Trump cannot be stripped of various benefits, since the law in question only provides an exception for those who are removed by impeachment. He wasn't!

The problem here is that the exception is really merely one statutory approach.  The Constitution itself provides a remedy, which is not automatic (removal is) upon conviction, which includes not only "holding" (you're fired!)  but also "enjoying" an office.  Now, this is word parsing that very well might require further study, but facially, that seems to fit just this situation.  Part of the benefits of office are a form of retirement benefits.  

There is also the issue of whom would preside at the trial. I think the trial is of the acts of a certain office, so the Chief Justice rule still applies.  Yes, the biggest concern about the potential next in line presiding is not present [though the limited power of the role makes that somewhat overblown in a way].  But, the importance of the position and potential for partisan bias remains. It would be somewhat dubious there (if maybe appreciated by Republicans to taint it) to have the VP or even the Senate pro tempore (less troubling) presiding. 

So, reasonable application with good policy arguments.

SCOTUS Watch

The Supreme Court recently filled up some argument slots with some interesting if not too controversial cases (the off school speech case is of some 1A importance) and had a low drama week. The big moment was the swearing-in with Roberts and Sotomayor doing the honors. Six showed up, the three oldest (including Breyer, who usually consistently comes to ceremonial events) kept away for reasons of Big V. On that front, a note was dropped on the website that February orals will as expected be by telephone. And, earlier, it was referenced officially that at least some (including Roberts) justices were being vaccinated.

The Monday orders were not notable (usual comment on inside stuff that should be explained) and the other order popped up (again!) late on Friday involved a solo dissent by Sotomayor in a sympathetic immigration appeal. The death penalty issue had a temporarily break since the Texas courts stayed an execution scheduled 1/21. There are scheduled state executions for now in February and we await Biden action on the federal front.

On that general subject of immigration, among the already epic executive actions by the new Biden Administration is the push to replace "alien" with "noncitizen" in immigration laws. Yes. (Also, I see Dawn Johnsen, whose blockage in the Obama years was horrible, is being signed on in some role in the OLC.) It is not as blatant as "illegal alien," but the term is offensive. It is especially so when applied to a long time resident.

Odds and Ends

Today is the 48th anniversary of Roe v Wade and there is a lot of abortion related content on this blog. I don't agree with all he says, but one author in particular continues to write very helpfully about the insurrection provision of the 14A on at least three blogs.

I added to the side panel, including The Jane Austen Society, which is a good fictionalized account of a group setting up a memorial shortly after World War II. Their stories conveniently overlaps with various characters. One complaint is that the book only deals with her six "official" novels, not her other writings. I tried to start reading the gigantic new Sylvia Plath biography. I do want to read more about her, but knew a 1000 or so page tome was unrealistic. Plus, did not start well in my opinion, including what seems to be somewhat dubious assumptions. Will try to read more of her poetry.

The film is A Brief Encounter, my DVD having an interesting (if a bit dry) commentary. It was amusing when he referenced something the writer of the play said that included "fuck" something. Wonderful film. Need to see a bit more of the actress.

Biden/Harris In the House

Biden: We Need to Remember

“To heal, we must remember it’s hard sometimes to remember, but that’s how heal,” Biden said. “It’s important to do that as a nation. That’s why we’re here today.”

As we wait for the next step -- Biden/Harris in and Democrats in control of the Senate -- tomorrow, Biden continues to show what he brings with a special memorial for COVID victims. Something that on a national level Trump couldn't handle. And, yes, we can't just "move forward and forget" as Republicans want us to do.

Not totally separate, the latest #MeToo moment is comeuppance for the person who was hired to be the Mets general manager, Jared Porter. Now fired. As ESPN noted: "New York Mets general manager Jared Porter sent explicit, unsolicited texts and images to a female reporter in 2016, culminating with a picture of an erect, naked penis." Account spells out the details. As a young woman Mets reporter notes, this shouldn't be very surprising.

Martin Luther King Jr.: 2021

In this year alone, voters from the State of Georgia made history by electing two new senators, Jon Ossoff and Rev. Raphael Warnock, to replace the state’s incumbent office holders. Rev. Warnock, like Dr. King, is a graduate of Morehouse College, a small liberal arts school known for infusing moral leadership in every aspect of its curriculum. He has also followed Dr. King’s path in pastoring the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.

Such symbolism seems almost made up. See also, this discussion of a previous black member of the Senate and the rejection of Dred Scott.

Division Round: No Upsets But Some Drama

The match-ups this week were basically two mismatches and two more even games, one with a ready theme (the two old pros). The Packers early on looked to have things in control, but the Rams managed to keep things close. Until Packers sealed the deal in the 4th and the Rams could not even get one of the TDs back. But, pretty good game for over three quarters.

Then, we have another shot for the Bills to blow it, this time versus the Ravens. This was more stressful for me since the Bills were one of the teams I wanted to win (though neutrally, an upset would have the usual underdog charms). The conditions made kicking field goals problematic (various attempts, one made). It was a 3-3 game at the Half, after a quick score at the end by the Ravens. This reflected the last Ravens play-off game that ended with a 10-10 score, partially off a Ravens turnover. The Ravens defense again important along with Lamar Jackson.

Then, the third quarter was two long scoring drives. First, the Bills. Then, the Ravens ... until intercepted in the end zone and it was 17-3, Bills. The ill fates have hurt the Ravens too, and did so here with Lamar Jackson then getting hurt. Near the end, his back-up got near the goal line, but four attempts didn't make the eight yards. But, the Ravens kept at it, the game ending with a roughing the kicker during a punt letting Bills run out the clock.

I admit that I wasn't watching the second part, though I did watch a lot of the first. Basically, people are already predicting a Packers and Kansas City Super Bowl though the Rams were in it until mid-Fourth Quarter and one of the old pros beating them is possible. The Browns didn't seem much of a barrier to KC, even with their great first quarter last time (recall Kansas City had a big defecit last year and soon it was a laugher the other way and you could see them going for it on 4th and 1 last week unlike the Steelers and win in the 4th). Note to that the quarterbacks for the Browns, KC and Packers are all in insurance commercials, Baker Mayfield having more of a role in a series of Progressive ads. Rodgers has been in one or more past commercials too.

Kansas City went ahead by two scores and then 16-3, but the Browns had a shot late to make it 16-10 and getting the ball in the 3rd. Browns fans basically predicted the fumble into the end zone, which by rule is a touchback (KC ball). A dumb rule. The ref, however, missed a rather clear (everyone but the ref seemed to see it) if unreviewable [the fumble itself was reviewed], helmet to helmet that was a major reason for the fumble. Again, at least at the goal line, that too seems like a dumb rule.

KC ended up tacking on three. The ref probably was focusing on the ball crossing the plane, but it is unclear me how you miss that. It's one of those human but oh so aggravating change making calls that make certain games so painful. The Browns were big underdogs, but that seemed like their chance to at least make a game out of it. For me, such moments ruin the game in question for me. I realize the human part of the game. It is equal-wise human to think something like that ruins it.

The game was tainted, even though the Browns came back close, helped by Mahomes leaving the game with a concussion (he already seemed to have a bad foot). The game ended with the back-up nearly icing it in the closing minute and a half on third and long on a run. Then, Kansas City being THE MAN, they couldn't just punt (Browns needing a TD) or even a sneak (it was inches), but at midfield, went with a pass. To ice the game. Game still tainted and I'm so f-ing tired of these people. But, it's the Browns. Them actually winning is against the rules or something. The game developments didn't change that the Browns was robbed of a TD or at least a FG shot. In a game they lost by five.

Pretty Boy not being on the Pats any more as well as Tampa actually having ups and downs this year made me less bitter about the possibility of success. Giving Tampa a shot was fine. I have no big dig against the Saints really. And, either is a decent match to the Packers if they have good games. So, not a big concern for me really who won the night game. Some enjoyed the match-up, which is fine, but didn't really care much.

So much I will end it here. Go Bills. If KC wins again? Won't watch Super Bowl. [Tampa won though it was 20-20 fairly late. Saints turnovers killed them.]

===

As an aside, it was reported that Porntube scrubbed its site of many videos after some sex trafficking allegations made them wary about best practices. A few popular links on this very blog talks about soft porn content so it might be noted here that a quick look of my own suggests the effects. Various videos I found particular interesting, shall I say, now are down, with various comments (a reference to guidelines, simply that the content isn't there, removal by request of people involved etc.). I don't know how useful this all was but as with many things there is a need to regulate. And, this includes sexual content.

Final Countdown

We are in the final countdown. I watched a special showing of Loving, about the interracial marriage case, the day the current Occupant -- the pure form in a sense of what the Founding Generation feared in that role -- was sworn in. A lot has happened since there in a way though not so much in another. Time goes somewhat the same for me personally and many others, if now wearing masks and so forth. Such is life.

I wanted a woman POTUS and as the saying goes, there is what you want and what you need. So, Biden (who in hindsight seems a clear fit for the times) and a woman VP and President of the Senate. Not quite there yet though now seventy-two hours away. Action occurs elsewhere with impeachment and a major dissent from executions at the Supreme Court. Fear of protests today have been cited, noting "Q" is the 17th letter (so absurd, but fitting for that absurd if dangerous group).

We still await for one more shoe to drop since since the 1/6 insurrection -- more and more details arising -- Trump has in effect gone in hiding. With one more lash out, helped by Twitter cutting him off. Still, a rather quiet ten days. We shall see what turns up, perhaps MLK Day again making the last thirty-six notable. (Reports of pardons on Tuesday.)

The Old Maid

After she gives up her girl, the film turns in my view, but The Old Maid has a strong start.

The TCM intro discussed how the stars didn't like each other, in part because Miriam thought Bette had an affair with her husband (looks like they were on the road to divorce). One thing that stands out for me is neither is really what I would say is traditionally beautiful, known particularly for their force of will. Bette Davis also has those large eyes. What big eyes you have, Bette.

Bette Davis (this seems to be the case in the other movie the two were in together, also on TCM, but didn't watch) plays the more attractive character (personality-wise) though once she has to give up her daughter, she becomes an "Old Maid" and one who has lost her vitality. This helps make the later part of the film unpleasant, since the two evenly matched characters clashing makes things more interesting. The cousin finally reveals Bette is the girl's mother near the end and she doesn't really seem to react that much. Over twenty years and the grumpy one is my mom? Okay.

One charming bit is the flags-- one would be pretty clueless to miss it -- that Bette has had an illegitimate child. First, we have her coming back late alone with the guy (who conveniently later dies in the war). [Note: did her daughter also have premarital sex? After all, it was the 1880s, a freer time by then! ha ha] Then, there is a conveniently aged girl she is particularly close to, and she went West "for her health." Her doctor (who unlike other characters curiously doesn't age) turns out knows the real reason, but the family conveniently has health issues too so it was not too suspicious.

Anyway, Bette before her own wedding tells her cousin about the daughter, and the cousin bitch-like insists the husband-to-be needs to know when she finds out the father is her true love. But, the cousin decides just to say Bette is not healthy enough to marry, though Bette thinks she told all (the guy vaguely "letting her free"). She later finds out when going to see the cousin, when the cousin's own husband has a deadly fall. For some reason, maybe it is more clear in the book, though pissed at the whole thing, she consents to live with the cousin who is raising the daughter as her own. Melodrama!

Again, Bette Davis' character being old and bitter (if age-wise, in her 40s, one guesses) is not really great film in my view. Of course, she is all saintly and on the daughter's wedding eve (where the mother is to tell her the facts of life), she doesn't tell her the truth. But, we have a sort of happy ending. 

Anyway, so many films out there to see, including classic films on more than one channel.  Like, there were multiple Thin Man films -- which back in the day I saw via videotapes from a specific library  -- but now are more easily seen along with a bunch of others.  A bit overwhelming on some level.

Supreme Court Watch: More Executions etc.

The Trump Administration, Barr or no Barr, wanted to get in three more executions.  Back in December 2019, the Supreme Court wanted "appropriate dispatch."  Only two (RIP RBG) later wanted to take a case involving proper statutory rules that have split the lower courts. And, then the "hurry up, hurry up" (to quote Breyer's latest) began last summer.

There were multiple issues (procedural, competency, COVID) involved in the latest trio, as seen by set of four orders handed down throughout the day and late in the evening to smooth the way for the execution of Lisa Montgomery.  As usual, there were other concerns that in a fairer system would be dealt with before we reach the Supreme Court as well. For instance, even if a case does not have a legal reason to block an execution, sound policy very well might warrant it. Multiple times, serious concerns that might not reach the extreme level of constitutional error in each case, have arisen to at least warrant no execution. The justices here at first denied a request unanimously, but later a 6-3 split (usual suspects) arose.

Since no justice actually explained their reasoning or what actually was involved in all of this, see this and this SCOTUSBlog summary. The second is for Corey Johnson, two final appeals [Sotomayor/Kagan for one including competency; all three liberals for the other, concerns about executing someone with COVID], again no comment. In that case, we also have the long on death row thing popping up. And, the same split for Dustin John Higgs,* the last person executed (one hopes) by the Trump Administration. This time Breyer and most completely Sotomayor writes a dissent, one that is basically for them all. The majority, even though they reached out to overturn a stay, which by rule is extraordinary (if not quite by now by practice by SCOTUS), did not explain itself. 13 executions in six months, after 3 in around sixty years.  

[The last Supreme Court order dropped around 11PM and he was executed a shortly after 1AM.]

Before the first execution was finalized, we did get some writing regarding a lingering case involving a FDA requirement to get an abortion pill in person, which a district court overturned. Before Barrett, the Supreme Court (with Alito and Thomas dissented) punted. Now, a bit gratutiously since Biden very well might just change the rule, it overturned the stay as litigation continued. Roberts alone said he was just doing it in following his previous rule of letting the government have a lot of discretion during Big V.  So, again, a majority acted in "because we say so" manner. This is wrong, especially in a hot button case. Breyer simply dissented. Sotomayor (with Kagan) went all Sonia from the Bronx.

What the rest "truly" thought is unclear, though a chill wind blows. As Linda Greenhouse noted in her recent column (dropping that Sen. Hawley, a leader of the sedition caucus, was a Roberts clerk): "the justices voted 6 to 3 to grant a bold administration request to skip the intermediate appeals court and lift a district court order that enabled women who want the medication that causes an early abortion to get the pill without an in-person visit to a medical office." They did this repeatedly, a part of faux minimalism that is as common as short opinions these days.

The Supreme Court also had a single full opinion, a unanimous bankruptcy ruling by Alito with Sotomayor concurring to be concerned about the effects of denying a person of their car. We await a Barrett opinion, she not taking part in this one at all. 

---

* SCOTUSBlog noted in its summary that the final dispute here was technical.  It is to be noted that Higgs had other arguments, but they were dealt with in before cases.  

Due process can be technical and here there is an important principle in my view -- a federal law was passed providing the rules on how an execution should go.  It follows the law of the state involved, another one designated if the state does not have a death penalty. This respects federalism and local option, which is not trivial.  The problem here was that in the middle of things the state involved no longer had the death penalty. 

The district judge, making sure to note (though coverage of the case makes this unclear) that he is clearly guilty of a heinous crime, said the result was that he as a judge had no power to change the procedure given the law in place.  Clarity on the meaning of the law in question was one thing SCOTUS refused to grant cert to address (for whatever reason, Breyer and Kagan did not join the other liberals to force the point near the end of last term).  Sotomayor flags this as something worth a "few weeks," but at this point, well, you know what that would mean.

But, such things were a bit less clear last summer.  What should have happened was the Trump Administration should have started a year earlier, giving the Supreme Court time to review things. We would have had executions with some more due process. For whatever reason, the Sessions Justice Department did not do that. 

Trump Impeached Again

This time, there were no witness interviews, no hearings, no committee debates and no real additional fact finding beyond the public record and the plain facts of the brutal attack and Mr. Trump’s words.

I won't provide an in depth discussion here but think the House Judiciary Committee Report (some love to Nadler, who was wrongly belittled last time over Schiff) provides a good summary. The ultimate votes were comparable number-wise, basically the seats the Democrats lost balanced off this time with ten Republicans joining (including Liz Cheney, who has a high position in the caucus). Four did not vote. All Democrats (three in some fashion did not join in either or last time) voted to impeach.

I saw one law professor very concerned about the trend of the debate including not enough focus on the Georgia call. We can't focus on minutiae in that fashion. The actions on 1/6, a good basic summary provided in the report, is obviously what is most blatant. Plus, the impeachment count itself covers that. A single phone call, which the report underlines isn't even the only thing he did regarding Georgia, is not the money shot here.

Also, immediate action is appropriate. If anything, I rather they have started last week, but government is often about delay. So, we delayed for the weekend, starting the process on Monday. Tuesday provided a chance to formally ask Pence and the Cabinet to use the 25A (Pence said "no" before the vote, mixing somewhat credible with partisan shots) with only one Republican going along with that. It is fine to put that on the record. This set up the impeachment vote the next day.

McConnell won't bring the Senate back early to basically give Democrats a shot to ask for a quickie conviction. So, basically, we will have to worry about what Trump will do for another week or so. I question, though sure go ahead and look into it, if any actions can retroactively be blocked via the 14th Amendment insurrection provision. But, with the Democrats soon to be in control of the Senate, and the different situation as a whole (not sure how much that would have affected things, but it might have even with Republican control), an actual full trial is possible.

I think more could have been included last time in both an "impeachment investigation" and the counts specifically. It still bothers me. But, this time the count to me is okay. Could you have a second count tied to the Georgia call, basically a catchall perhaps for all the election related stuff since the election? Sure. Still, I think this way factors that in too while focusing thing on what everyone really cares the most about. It is not ignored. The trial can and should address it. But, this is fine for me.

There is a long way ahead, including trying to investigate just what happened. The early returns are very troubling. This includes this quick look at multiple actors, inside and out of Congress, who helped incite the rioters. It include at least acts of negligence by members that should factor in when censure, fines (including for refusing to follow new rules involving metal detectors) and yes even expulsion votes. I doubt there is a supermajority to do that, but it should be on the record. People and businesses already are starting to strongly distant themselves from those involved, including with serious financial penalties. Just moving on, even if Biden rather it be so, cannot be the watchword.

Also, ultimately, we must focus on promoting policy and alternatives means of government. The majorities might be thin, but the cause is just and wind on our backs.

SCOTUS Watch: Orders

Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBlog (again) wants SCOTUS to provide a substantive rejection of the abusive electoral litigation that gets to the point that serious claims have been made the lawyers involved should at least be sanctioned. It also is part of a wider whole that rejects the sanctity of the presidential election, leading ultimately to an invasion of the U.S. Capitol. Reports are that more protests and possible further threats are possible, up to the date of the inauguration.

SCOTUS has not done this. They did provide (as I noted earlier) a quick rejection of a request to hold in abeyance somehow Pence's acceptance of the electoral count. This was done on the next day (1/7) via the usual "denied" type order. Other electoral litigation requests was rejected as part of the Monday orders in similar fashion. A quick response in a Big V religious liberty (alleged) dispute was also slipped in there. Thomas also agreed with a rejection of a clinic buffer zone case for procedural reasons, but aimed to address the situation as soon as possible. And, given recent case law and personnel, he might get his wish. A big abortion case continues to be pending.

As we have a few oral arguments this week, filling in later slots was handled on Friday. The Court waited to around early evening to do so, but granted fourteen cases. Nothing that hot button, but do have a pair of notable First Amendment cases, one involving the reach of the school over off campus speech and one on disclosure rules. We also seem to have our first Big V case getting full court treatment as compared to shadow docket treatment.

We will see how the federal executions scheduled this week will go. Also, how the pending second impeachment will go. I'm sure Chief Justice Roberts might be interested.

84 Charing Cross Road

 

A bit of break from the political craziness and football, we have this old gem. The TCM intro noted that Mel Brooks bought the rights as a birthday present for his wife, the lead Anne Bancroft. I read the little book version too. Among the charming supporting cast is Mercedes Ruehl, who later on was also in the charming Loving Leah.

Wild Card Weekend

COVID costs helped push the Mets owners to sell to Steve Cohen, who is already getting popular directly engaging on Twitter and with some picks. Probably in part, if not only for that reason, for what he brings, Marcus Stroman took the qualifying office. The price tag for a year wasn't chump change either. After getting a serviceable catcher (James McCann) and a new lefty reliever probably to replace the one they have (Trevor May), a big deal: superstar Francis Lindor (bye bye other shortstops) and a #2 starter (Carlos Carrasco). They probably need at least a middle range OF and maybe an infielder but already had quite an off-season.

Okay. Time for football. There is an extra wild card team, so six games, three each for Saturday and Sunday. Next week the bye teams will play, so there will be four games. The traditional role for the Bills was to blow it. They almost did, including losing over twenty yards while driving to add to a three point lead. But, the Colts committed enough mistakes [probably including not kicking a FG late in the first half; didn't help to miss a mid-range FG, especially when you lose by three] for the Bills to survive.

While we hope the Bills got their nail-biter out of their system, let's check out the other two games on Saturday. Seattle might be a #3 seed, but repeatedly -- losing to the Giants doesn't help here -- looked off. They did here, the Rams early on needing to go to their "emergency" (regular) QB, pins in hand and all. He didn't do that well, but good enough, a turnover later in the 4th basically sealing the deal.

The night game had Pretty Boy v. some guy with around one start (which he didn't finish; one of the many no more Washington QBs relieved him ... both then on another team). He actually did rather well, that being the fourth or whateve QB with a lot of vowels in his name. He even was able to keep it within one score for one final drive though his team's vaunted defense didn't have much left by the last quarter. So, the end result was as expected, especially if one figured maybe "regular" QB (Alex Smith) of late started instead. XP issues by Tampa made that last drive possible.

So, Bills, Rams and Tampa. Let's deal with Sunday, starting with the best matched duo, Ravens (had a tricky run especially with COVID but finished in dominate fashion) vs. the Titans (sealed the division with a late FG). Titans with a quick 10 helped by a Lamar pick, but then (helped by Lamar running from midfield for TD), it was tied. The Titans defense gave up another ten points, but pretty low scoring game. Titans, however, did little scoring -- getting only three more points. Advantage, Lamar Jackson.

The Bears/Saints game was on both CBS and Nick, the latter with their own booth including a teen girl Nick actress along with some Nick gimmicks (including Young Sheldon popping up at times to explain penalties). It was a pretty nifty thing and something I say they should use again -- nice way to bring in the younger crowd. On the other hand, the game itself wasn't great. The Bears defense kept it close, but the Bears offense was putrid. They couldn't even cover with a garbage time TD, occuring the last play of the game. Thus, no two point conversion attempt to cover the spread.

The series of mismatches continued basically, if in a surprising way. After last week's barely win vs. back-ups, you would think the Steelers would be favored, particulary in their home stadium. Plus, unlike the Steelers, last week's game was a necessary one for the Browns. Still, the Steelers are flawed enough and Browns good enough to have expected a good game. And, then the Browns were up 28-0 by the end of the first quarter. 

Perhaps, to satisfy Browns fans who have long had disappointments, it wasn't just a laughter. The Browns did keep on responding -- such as when the Steelers finally scored near the end of the half -- so it never got TOO scary. Still, they won 48-37 and the 35-23 score at the end of the 3rd Quarter might not have pleased some fans. But, after after trading punts (4th and 1, PUNT -- after a delay of game -- probably didn't please Steelers fans), the Browns scored. Still, Steelers was around mid-field there and could have made it sweaty. Kansas City probably would have won.

So, pretty good outcomes, the Washington game basically "such is life." Rooting for Bills, Browns and guess the Rams (eh; they are facing the Packers and though I'm generally for the underdogs, have no big beef for the Packers).  I'm honest enough to say Tampa/Saints is a good match-up sentimentally and probably as a game, but not too excited for either. I actually guess I'm happy for the Bucs, though still no big fan of Pretty Boy. Except his talent.  Won't let him taint the team here.  Anyway, Bills the best shot to advance though the Ravens are a tough team. Upset possible.

Beast With Five Fingers

Good Svengoolie movie, well acted (including Peter Lorre and Alan Alda's dad) and a nice sense of place (if on some level clearly "once upon a time ... in a movie"). Turns out to have a psychological angle with a touch of Scooby Doo at the end to explain one mystery.

Ranma 1/2

 

After reading the author's first big manga hit, I checked out a couple more from the library. This one is amusing, though by the end the multiple switching characters gets to be a bit much. The collection I have (Parts 1 and 2) ends as a new storyline begins, but the over 300 pages is a satisfying one without more.

NYT: "Electoral Count Is Completed Despite Mayhem Incited by Trump"

I fell asleep around two o'clock in the morning and the finalization of the 12A based count of the Electoral College count had some time to go. Why? Oh well, even after an invasion -- first time since the Brits during the War of 1812 -- of the U.S. Capitol by "insurrectionists" (as called by people like Mitch McConnell, while also raising possible 14A implications), House Republicans kept up with a challenge of Pennsylvania electors. A senator went along to get us there, but the U.S. Senate (unlike for Arizona) waived the two hour debate period. Also, less senators (including loser of the Georgia Senate race, BOTH going to the Democrats while we nail-bit into the morning of 1/6) went along afterward, limiting things.

In request dated yesterday, Rep. Gohmert and putative Arizona electors requested Alito or SCOTUS itself to grant an "administrative stay against the Vice President’s invoking the Electoral Count Act’s dispute-resolution process." Rejecting, at least for now, another argument for a more substantive rejection, the Supreme Court today (after the fact) rejected relief without comment. For completeness, SCOTUS also dropped a press release about the next set of telephone arguments and the retirement of another official.

This continual litigation is a mixture of farce and danger. Rick Hasen, the Election Law Blog guy, calmed people down about any of those things actually leading to success. The whole thing was ridiculous, including the basic fact that even if you accepted the Art. II "legislature only" argument, there wouldn't actually be enough votes in question to change the result. [The argument very well might have five votes at SCOTUS, but it would change the current law, while also causing various problems since it would hurt addressing various needs.] But, the long term distrust of the system -- Hasen didn't like Stacey Abrams (what will she do next?!) refusing to fully concede in her governor race too -- was something he is quite serious about.

The distrust of the system and allegations of fraud and irregularities was behind the challenges to the electoral count. The breadth -- a majority of the House Republicans and multiple senators (Cruz, Hawley, Kennedy, Lummis, Rick Scott, Hyde-Smith, Tuberville, Roger Marshall of Kansas) -- and support of Trump underlines the difference with some token effort like in 2004 or support of only a small subset of House Dems in 2000 and 2016. It also was behind along with whatever guides such miscreants the attack of the Capitol, with Trump praising the protestors and Hawley shaking his fist in support.

If there aren't lawsuits, the Democrats should have control of the Senate (50-50 though they are quite open for someone else to join the cool table) by the end of the month or maybe early February. It is amazing that the Democrats won both raises in Georgia, including a black minister and young (33) replacement for the full term seat. This allowed Biden to move to appoint our old friend Merrick Garland as AG, having reasonable hope that the key D.C. Court of Appeals slot won't be open indefinitely. As with Supreme Court, I like him in that slot. He has long experience and is a no drama hire while other great choices were chosen for supporting positions. Plus, I have no idea that he will be "soft" in going after the Trump Administration or in other ways.

Pence and McConnell was firm that the election has been decided and the attack of the Capitol was outrageous. Neither, of course, actually put the blame at Trump's hands though some other Dems did. There are also a lot of questions about just went down, including how the Capitol was invaded. What if they had guns and bombs and used them? We need to find out before, somewhere down the line, worse happens. And, people will be all like "who would have known?" The Trump people jumping ship, even Sen. Toomey (PA) against the challenges kept on saying he wanted him re-elected, should have.

For now, the Congress -- after completing its duty at around 4AM -- will not be in session (except for brief pro forma Senate sessions) until the Inauguration. That is wrong. The House of Representatives should impeach Trump or at the very least be in session if something comes up. The usual suspects drew up impeachment charges related to the Georgia phone call and incitement of the insurrectionists, new member Cori Bush also supporting expulsion of those who supported the challenges. There is also a lot of 25A talk, even National Review finding President Pence appealing.

A wounded animal is dangerous and a lifetime ban from office would be a good symbol, especially for acts after a failed re-election. Either way, a line was crossed yesterday, including by the Republican enablers. 

ETA: Twitter did ban him and when he tried to whine about being blocked via his official account, deleted it there.  Pelosi is open to impeachment, Pence not taking her calls on the 25A.  But, McConnell is all "oh well ... we settled on only pro forma sessions [during the challenge ... I cringed at the time ... why did not Democrat object?] ... so we need unanimous support to have any trial before the Trump leaves." Such bullshit.  

Still worth it, but when he does a bunch of shit before the end, it's all on the Republicans.  In part, to put them on record.

Brother John

 

Sidney Poitier plays a mysteries visitor in a small Southern town in the middle of a major labor battle among other things here. It is a well acted and put together film, if one where nothing much happens. At least, you wait for a while for something major to occur and instead larely get more powerful small vignettes like the harassment of a black father by the police in front of his sons. Good film; downloaded on demand on FIOS.

The Grab GA Voters By The Pussy Tape

Listen this is not about whether he technically committed a crime. In fact, he may be too insane to have the requisite scienter. The point is what he did is wrong on every level, an abuse of office and trust, and should end his public career.

Prof. Eric Segall wrote that regarding the last Trump fuckery, which other legal minds (including Rick Hasen) believe pretty clearly is a crime that should be prosecuted, both under state and federal law. Hasen summarizes:

President Donald Trump likely broke both federal and state law in a Saturday phone call during which he encouraged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overturn the state’s election results.

I don't have it in me to listen to that guy at all, but others who have underline the insanity of the hour long call. Just considering the effort required to craft that level of bullshit suggests the sort of horrible skill (some don't like to use words like "skill" in respect to horrible things, such a "bravery" for terrorists, but it is not an inherently positive thing) he has. There is a reason he got this far. Reasons, of course, including his enablers. Many plan to challenge the electoral count on Wednesday though this makes it a bit more painful to do so. Not that this call is somehow unique. Let's not fall into a THIS DOES IT trap. That's very old news at this point.

The article cites the law, but the direct federal provision cited in an earlier discussion is 52 U.S. Code § 20511. In relevant part:

A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office— (2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by— (B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held, shall be fined in accordance with title 18 (which fines shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury, miscellaneous receipts (pursuant to section 3302 of title 31), notwithstanding any other law), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Shall/would, oh well. The Slate article flags the "state of mind" issue, which makes it harder to prosecute these cases. At some point, some sort of rational observer test should be in place, at least for official acts. Plus, it's hard to believe that at this point the totality of the circumstances -- even if he believes he won -- includes some criminal acts. If only akin to police who lie to prove what they believe is true.

Despite the long odds, I would hope at least Georgia prosecutors will consider going after Trump, or that the House of Representatives might impeach him again with the goal of disqualifying from running in 2024. Lack of prosecution or investigation demonstrates that there’s little to deter the next would-be authoritarian—perhaps a more competent one—from trying to steal an election. Trump came a lot closer than he should have this time, and next time we may not be so lucky.

I'm not too optimistic about the desires of Georgian prosecutors here, even if the state is purple enough to vote for Biden. But, I'm glad at that at some point people like Rich "we shouldn't filibuster Gorsuch, there is nothing positive to come of it" Hasen thinks things are so bad that we need to draw a line in the sand here. This is EXACTLY what the impeachment manager warned about. (I thought the impeachment should have went further. If the other side wasn't going to act, let's put it all out there.) How many times is too much here? If you want to wait until after the Georgia Senate elections tomorrow, go right ahead. But, we can't just handwave it. Elections alone aren't enough.

2021 has begun, but 2020 still lingers on, especially with Trump still in office. I will end with something I saw, a finding by a UN panel that Trump's Blackwater pardons violated international law. There is some bare minimum a government should do to address war crimes and that advanced impunity.

Giants Watch Eagles Lose

There is an extra playoff slot and upsets, meaning there were various meaningful games in Week 17. No real surprises, down to the Jets (already losing the #1 pick, but hey, Clemson was outclassed by Ohio State anyhow) losing to the Pats and Washington winning the night game. Miami had various ways to get in but none that easy; they were the 10 win team on the outside looking in. The two Jets upsets (Rams and Browns) turned out not to be major spoilers; both got in. Cards up/down season helped the Bears eke in 8-8.

Giants (surviving a possible fumble late) did beat Dallas, but needed more than that win. The Eagles showed some life (down only 17-14 at the Half and then getting the ball back on a turnover). But, they turned it over on downs, the second half had a total three points and in a close game the Eagles went with their third stringer. Who didn't do much. So, Washington is in 7-9, Giants eliminated at 6-10. Go Bills!