New York Has Legalized Marijuana

The criminalization of drugs is bad public policy and burdens constitutional rights and interests in a variety of ways. The criminalization of marijuana is absurd. In Joe's Constitution, years ago, I called it insane. Still a reasonable take. This is not about consuming the stuff (I don't.) It is about making it criminal and the resulting problems. It is taking away the right to use. And, in a wider sense, it is about inhibiting hemp use because of fears of cannabis. See also, limits on medicinal marijuana.

This law is a big step in the right direction. The details are important and here is one summary. I think 21 is too high of a cut-off, but realize how thing go there. Things like expunging convictions is important and attempts to promote minority business sounds good. Use and possession (small amounts) immediately is legal but it will take a while to set up the rules for businesses. That is likely to have some issues.

A basic concern here -- and there is a push to end this -- is federal prohibitions still are in place. It might not be policy to target simple use or medicinal use. Keeping track of that is complicated with changing rules. Biden has had issues. But, unless it is legal and marijuana businesses can use federal regulated money streams etc., problems will arise. That is a basic value of full legalization -- the benefits of aboveboard regulation.

Massachusetts City Council Recognizes Polyamorous Domestic Partnerships

"Domestic partnership" means the entity formed by two or more persons who meet the following criteria and jointly file a registration statement proclaiming that: 1. They are in a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment and intend to remain in such a relationship; ... 5. They consider themselves to be a family.

Two towns in Massachusetts now recognize polyamorous domestic partnerships, flagged on a religious law blog because to some this is a sign of "so it begins" since same sex marriage is now a thing (well, it was a thing for a while now). Other than getting the label, I'm not sure exactly what that brings. The summary here speaks of visitation (schools, corrections, hospitals) from what I can tell.

“Once the law and culture says the male-female aspect of marriage violates justice and equality, we haven’t ‘expanded’ marriage, we’ve fundamentally redefined what it is. And those redefinitions have no principled stopping point,” he said.

Usual scare-mongering. The idea of a wider view of marriage and domestic arrangements were already around in the 19th Century in various utopian communities.  More recently, free love was a thing in the 1960s.  The changing nature of sexual and social relationships here is not merely a matter of the society and the government recognizing same sex marriage is part of marriage overall.  To the degree things have been "redefined," the same sex aspect is relatively trivial.  Things do change, of course.

In a wider sense, "domestic partnerships" were long a reality in form if not legal reality.  A "family," for instance, calls to mind the show Full House (three guys with kids).  It also involves many families over the years, of varying kinds.  Consider the reference in the 1970s Supreme Court case of Moore v. East Cleveland: "of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children." And, these were at times honorary terms, not just blood relations.   

We already have means of recognizing "domestic partnerships" that go beyond the standard traditional dual married couple scenario.  The legal term here already covers broad reach in various jurisdictions and can involve as I understand it in some places siblings or the like.  At the very least, that is a potential approach.  It was a means to start the road to same sex marriage as well.  But, again, if a couple along with a third person (let's say the sibling of one) set up a household and raised a few children, we already can imagine it logical to recognize it as a family unit.   

The implication here is we are dealing with sexual relationships. The specific move was supported by a LGBTQ+ commission too.  But, as shown above, it is not somehow uniquely a concern there. That group might be particularly sympathetic to an open-minded view (some gays and lesbians less supportive of marriage, perhaps) of relationships, but it overlaps with many others.  In a weaker form, let's say, consider a couple raising a child who is the biological child of a third.  This need not be a Ross/two lesbians Friends scenario.  It is a common reality with mixed families. The couple might have basic custody but the third person still might have a significant role in the child's life.  

We then have multiple adults who live with each other and form a family.  This too is not atypical and not just something that involves sexual relationships.  It very well might in some fashion.  But, it need not.  These people can have certain legal connections such as property-wise in housing. The domestic partnership is a more wider recognition of such relationships and can already be done by private agreement.  

Marriage is important since it is a basic easily understandable union that can simplify things on a legal basis.  A multiple unit organization here is more complicated.  But, it does reflect many people's lives, and not just you know Mormon polygamy or something.  It might seem like a dangerous slippery slope but especially a limited form domestic partnership of this sort to me is a logical thing to establish.  It would arise in various instances, including let's say care of elderly people or those with special needs and so forth that many who are rather conservative would find quite sensible. 

And, that was long a part of marriage itself -- marriages came in different shapes and sizes.  Having one type of marriage didn't make other types not secure.  Legally, a young person could marry an old one, if that was helpful.  People could marry for legal reasons even if they didn't love or even emotionally care for an individual.  Domestic partnerships are a wide example of this, one also with a varied possibilities.  

There are emotional, relationship, legal and so on aspects here. As seen above, the Supreme Court recognized broad family relationships for quite some time as having constitutional value.  There is also an acceptance of the right to form intimate relationships involving multiple people that involves a sexual nature. This isn't something invented as Justice Alito might suggest "after the invention of cell phones.  The novelty of the polyamorous domestic partnership concept (the title of the blog entry cited but the rules go beyond "polygamy" itself) is in reality much less so when one thinks about this in a broader sense.  

The wider existence of "family" here exists now.  The recognition as a legal unit is sensible even if it seen as some sudden 21st Century slippery slope as a result of same sex marriage or something.  

ETA: This column discusses this issue as well. 

Monday Thoughts -- Mets, SCOTUS Orders

Mets: The final slots on the Mets Opening Day line-up are coming in and there weren't really too many surprises. We have some new faces as role players and the usual suspects. Gsellman was slotted in -- after helping them in 2016 as a starter, he has been mediocre, but that's useful, especially with multiple guys like Lugo hurt (plus he is both cheap -- they let go one guy who wasn't -- and has "options" -- so can be sent down).

The NL East is likely to be tough with even the Marlins better than many other teams out there. The Mets has a pretty good team, especially with a new slew of role players. The outfield is not elite -- you have a hitter (Dom "no DH" Smith) and decent defensive guys starting. We will see how JD Davis does at third. Catching is a hopefully reliable guy and Nido, who in the past was a third stringer at times. 

And, with Carrasco out for maybe months now, you have DeGrom and some good arms, but some question marks given how they are fairly new, didn't play much (see Stroman) or more of a swing starter type. Still, they all are promising and "openers" can shorten the game. Let's see how the team does in June.

SCOTUS Today's Order List had a grant (involving the right to step in to defend an abortion law, the opposition saying it is reaching to decide a non-cert worthy issue) and some death penalty related stuff. By coincidence, the request for a short brief (five pages) regarding a death penalty case -- involving the need to offer an alternative method of execution -- involves a case that the guest in the latest Strict Scrutiny Podcast was involved in. 

A per curiam, involving an error correction in a real old case, also arose out of a death penalty case. The Supreme Court from time to time flags a lower court case it deems simply wrong, it not clear how they pick and choose here, and it is open to some criticism partially as pro-prosecution or whatever.  One can just hear the disdain in this summary:

But almost 35 years later, the Sixth Circuit held that Hines was entitled to a trial and sentence because his attorney should have tried harder to blame another man.

Sotomayor (not surprisingly) dissented but without opinion (more surprising).  As is usual in such "shadow docket" type decision-making, we can guess some what is going on.  Maybe, e.g., the majority is correct that the lower court was stretching things, but Sotomayor didn't think it was so wrong that the Supreme Court should have struck out its neck like this. Or, maybe she thinks the opinion lays it too thick.  Anyway, for the nth time, I wish an explanation was actually provided. 

The order list had the usual minutiae like decisions involving appendixes that I seem to be the only one that want to know more about.  It also continued to hold on to an abortion and gun rights case. Later on, something is dismissed (see Rule 39.8). What? See here.  The Court has orals and an Opinion Day (Thursday) scheduled this week.

Other:  I'm reading Te-Ping Chen's short story collection Land of Big Numbers and it's pretty good (some stories better than others).  Was watching some of That Girl (hey! It's Rachel's mom) and thought about her distinctive voice.  I checked the TV Tropes page and apparently at some point the actress (per the style of the day) stopped wearing a bra on the show.  The website says Rachel also appears rarely to wear one.  Finally, caught a bit of the Jesus themed t.v. show The Chosen on Up TV. You can find episodes on You Tube.  It looks like a serious effort.

Militia (Police) and Guns

New mass shootings (two key ones highlighted but there were more), one with an Asian twist, is among the things in the news. I tossed that in the mix in my last post, but want to focus on the usual "Second Amendment" debate separately here.

You know the drill. The Second Amendment is referenced on one side to focus on the right to keep and bear arms, while the other will focus on the "militia" or "well-regulated" part. Text and history is used by one or the other side as if the results are pretty obvious, the other side both stupid and even purposely misleading (at best). This is seen in court opinions too as shown by an "originalist" 9th Cir. opinion a few days ago that argued that public carry can be strictly regulated. The dissent strongly disagreed. The Supreme Court is bound to deal with that issue eventually and a heard a Fourth Amendment case with Second Amendment implications. 

"The Second Amendment" is often seen as a kneejerk  anti-gun regulation approach, reflecting common rhetoric.  But, though the new conservative supermajority might push the envelope, that can be taken too far. After all, other than handgun bans, what exactly does D.C. v. Heller block in way of likely to pass gun regulation?  It did strike down a safety lock provision, but that was in the home.  And, they barely addressed the matter at that.  And, much of the concern is actually the Fourteenth Amendment, which historically has a stronger case for an individual right vs. militia approach too.  On some level, "Second Amendment" requires more lifting there.

The smart approach here is to support gun regulation and accept some basic constitutional right to own firearms.  This was long a well accepted thing though a few states did have particularly restrictive gun laws, especially in certain urban areas (so the two major cases involved Chicago and D.C.).  Again, the main concern here would be a handgun ban though certain state courts (and constitutional provisions) have a stronger view that might go further. The 5-4 Supreme Court approach here is in that sense disappointing.  The ultimate problem is policy -- a background check law should be constitutional.  Printz v. U.S. did block requiring state officials to take part in such a law, but in 2021, it is unclear how problematic that would be.  This is especially with Virginia now under Democratic control.

The Fourteenth Amendment angle underlines that the Constitution should be looked at as a whole here.  For instance, Congress is given power to call up the Militia for specific reasons: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."  Congress also has the power to "prescribe" means of "discipline" though states have the power to train.  This opens up potential for abuse and is the background to the Second Amendment.  Note though the reasons -- it isn't just as some say as a means to protect slavery.  The militia as a whole was understood as a basic republican institution, akin in some ways to the jury.  

[One lawyer asserted that the militia was only for external usage, which is a sad ignorance of text and history. Another person who has some professor role from what I can tell thought it ridiculous to say the modern day police even had something to do with slave patrols. What exactly does the person think such things did?  It was also argued capturing slaves wasn't really a "police" function.  Modern day police go after "fugitives" regularly.  I think this is a lack of insight, certain terms seen in misguided narrow ways.]

The militia was called up locally to deal with public disorders that are now generally addressed by the police. So, for instance, if a public protest got out of hand, the militia might have been called up in the early 19th Century.  The police is now largely given the job to address this sort of thing. The same with the slave patrol, which often would involve private parties (the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 also allowed usage of private individuals).   Finally, the police and various other non-military official forces are in place to carry out the laws of the nation. 

When we think of a modern militia in this country, we think of the national guard.  But, I would argue that the police is also a form of the modern militia -- namely a select organized militia.  Note that Art. 1, sec. 10 bans states from having "troops."  Troops suggests a military force, an army.  But, the states can have armed police. Before the modern day police department, few state officers served that function.  If necessary, however, the militia was there.  The militia was more civilian in nature and the men even had the power to elect the officers, the leadership the governor of the state.  Guns for self-defense also protected homes and farms.

The modern day police department, therefore, arguably should be more "well regulated" by the people -- not above the fray.  Years back, I read an article suggesting the modern police department is in fact unconstitutional. Its abuse of power in this respect is not hard to see in some sense at least. One basic problem here is the way qualified immunity has been used to protect them even when they misuse their powers.  Police also at times seem like a modern day domestic "solider" that threatens the home even if not quite in Third Amendment terms.  Multiple police abuses that received much notoriety did involve "home invasions."

The text of the Bill of Rights has been used to draw out a "right to privacy" even if the explicit terms do not go that far.  This is a necessary and proper approach really.  I think a good argument can be made that a right to owner a firearm and to be able to use some degree of force to protect the home can be covered in this respect.  The Ninth Amendment also factors in here. People have explained how guns were in fact regulated in a two track way: personal self-defense and militia use. 

The Second Amendment in this fashion has been overused, but there is another angle there too.  "The militia" is meant to cover "the people" at large, more so now.  This can be used when discriminatory laws and practices arise, including when GLBT groups are harmed.  Likewise, as noted above, Congress specifically has the ability to regulate the militia in place for federal use.  Congress = representatives of "We the People." And, when the Second Amendment is applied to the states, the regulation part also is included. This includes regulation and oversight of the police.  

And, what if the police as a separate entity is parred back and more civilian involvement -- more of "the people" -- was replaced? The Supreme Court case involved a "care-taking" role of the police that often is better served by other groups such as social workers.  The Second Amendment can be understood to advance this as does the Third Amendment, both having wider concerns that touch upon these issues.  Think broadly here.

Originalism is a tiresome and often troublesome tool that conservatives and others use, overlapping some with the text. Both tends to be used selectively and in a confused fashion.  History and text need not be our enemies here, especially if we don't expect too much from them (the attempt to make originalism "liberal" only works up to a point).  Like use of religion for liberal ends, this might be seen as ridiculous by some, the tools seen as only useful in one direction.  But, one can be surprised. 

Anyway, to repeat, Biden during the press conference said that he supports gun regulation and usage of executive action, but it was an issue of timing.  It's a big problem, constitutional, social/cultural, political and probably more.  And, part of it I think requires some degree of shame. Cigarettes, for instance, now is seen as somewhat distasteful.  The usage of "gun theater" by some members of the government comes to mind. It is a bigger problem, including glorification of guns and use of violence in entertainment. 

Consider how few people are actually executed in this country as compared to the number of people "disposed of" by guns and other usage of force in entertainment. Yes, the government kills people with guns, but many police never shoot theirs during their time of service.  Heavy-handed use of force need to be basically embarrassing.  The increase of protest (Black Lives Matter etc.) hopefully will help here.

Biden Update (including Voting)

On his new transition website, Biden outlines his plans to address four main issues: COVID-19, economic recovery, racial equity, and climate change.

This was back in November, when a few unfortunate Senate races made winning control look like an uphill battle.

Well, the first is going on strong, and the first big bill to address the second was passed. There are plans for a second, focusing not only on infrastructure but climate change. Biden already re-joined the Paris Agreement and selected John Kerry to lead the effort there. Race equity has been dealt with by change in tone, executive orders and appointments, and to some degree also the American Rescue Plan.

Not a bad start. Toss in holding an impeachment trial. Of course, the problems are a lot and there is a lot to be done. But, you know, it is only March. We had a couple major mass shootings, one at least with racial overtones (Asian massage parlors). Racism against Asians has always been a thing, but the Big V heightened it in new ways. One member of Congress talked about how it affected his young son. Note that this shows the value of Twitter, which is often criticized. And, with Twitter queen Christine Teigen stepping off Twitter after too much attacks, yeah there is that side. Monica Lewinsky and Morgan Fairchild are still there though.

Another concern that has been going on for a long time is the border. Or, as people at the Biden press conferences (he himself showed up to give one and did well; the questions on the other hand left something to be desired at times, including no COVID question and asking if he'd run in 2024), keep on wanting his Administration to say the "crisis at the border."  This includes dealing with an influx of unaccompanied minors that AOC has flagged as something that has to be done better.

Crisis or not, the problems have been going on for a while. It is not somehow a novel result of anything he did, even if his policies in some fashion tweaked the situation to some degree (so I would not say "nothing" changed). It is a large lasting problem, like military use overseas, something we need to seriously address. The buck does to some degree stop with him, but it also is something that Congress has to address. GITMO is still open.  Why?  Well, in large part because Congress refused to help President Obama to work toward closing it.  

The full Cabinet is confirmed. Cabinet adjacent positions are not totally filled; after a controversial pick dropped out, only the assistant OMB slot was filled -- but especially with a push before to make her the OMB head, not sure how much that really matters.  There was a controversy with the two Asian senators upset that none was picked for the Cabinet (again, one was picked for the next level and another was blocked), but he agreed to work harder to bring in more Asians. A few were annoyed about the pushback by two very good woman senators, but it is part of the messy approach to dealing with these sort of questions.  Good for them.

There are a lot more positions to be filled and a 50-50 Senate already has caused some delays.  Ambassadors are one major concern.  Another, of course, are judges.  There has been some noises that Biden is about to drop some judicial nominations, especially with a few court of appeals vacancies, including Merrick Garland's prime piece of real estate.  The mother lode here is still in the hope phase -- what will Breyer do? I lean toward thinking he will retire and is waiting for later in the term. 

===

Finally, there is various other things -- the shootings have again brought to the fore gun regulations. During the press conference, it seems he suggested that timing warrants going with an infrastructure bill first. There is also the voting rights package.  Sen. Manchin made a statement last week saying it was a bad idea to push major change without bipartisan support. Sure.  But, at some point, major change is needed, even if one side is so horrible and refuses to change.  This will be a long and aggravating process.  I think something will come out of it.  What?  I'm not sure yet. It might be somewhat disappointing, but 50-50 will get you that.  Even if the Dem 50 represents so many more people.

The Georgia "oh? so you want to vote for good people, do you?" voting restriction law hopefully will push things along here.  One blatant addendum is to single out giving food and water to people on line, which even a far from flaming liberal law professor tried to explain to a National Review type was dubious in the extreme.  A rule against gifts to voters can be taken too far, but is okay on some level. The law, however, singles out giving water and food to people often on line for a long time.  

The law has already been challenged, signed on by a major voting rights legal warrior.  Biden joined the strong criticism, reference to a New Jim Crow.  The law does not only burden blacks though as the brief notes in various ways does particularly burden them.  Still, I would highlight that laws that burden the right to vote has a wider target.  Some will see this as merely a "black" concern.  But, voting rights is for us all.  

Someone I respect but who at times tosses out dubious things (he does not think there is a constitutional right to choose an abortion though agrees that Republicans should not selectively target such things) phrases that badly on Twitter:

The right to vote isn’t in the Constitution. It can’t be denied on the basis of race/gender but if states do it ahead of time the legislature may appoint governors, mayors, etc., even the POTUS candidate from that state. I’m not kidding.

First, it cannot be denied in other ways too, including poll taxes and in a way that violations equal protection. The "right to vote" is a "liberty" that cannot be deprived without equal protection of the laws. The "do it ahead of time" itself is a Twitter way to avoid a "right to vote" found in the Constitution. People have the right to choose members of Congress based on the standards of the most populous state legislative branch. The "etc." cannot include members of Congress unless they deny people the right to vote for state legislators. Never happened (though it was restrictive).

He then follows up to someone flagging the Guarantee Clause to say it isn't justiciable. Well, that's by precedent. It isn't by the clear text of the Constitution. Plus, that doesn't mean the "right to vote" is not present. At the very least, it is rather misleading to say "well, yes, there is a right to vote, Congress can enforce it, but I mean that it will be left unenforced including by the courts." That is akin to saying there was no equality in the days of Jim Crow (the first cycle of it).

Congress has a lot of power to enforce a right to vote, including the never used penalty in the Fourteenth Amendment requiring the reduction of the House delegation of a state that denied or abridged voting rights (except for limited categories). The "right to vote" is actually repeatedly mentioned over and over in amendments. It is very well there, even if you want to call in an unenumerated right or something. The ultimate concern is what regulations of it are legitimate, with the amendments firmly taking some off the table. Congress has power to regulate here.

Since states are not going to stop allowing people to vote for members of the state legislature (or governors for that matter though recall elections might be a problem and now and then some local official might be targeted, though if done for racist or something reasons, that too is unconstitutional), the big issue here in theory is presidential elections.  The new Georgia law possibly could be used to throw into question a presidential election somehow.  But, actually picking the nominee as compared to tooling around a close election (which 2020 was)?  That would be a striking threat to long-held assumptions.  Still, yes, the Electoral College is the one area a "right to vote" is more discretionary.   

Even there, Congress has some power, if only to basically avoid the sort of electoral challenge that arose this January.  Just what the 12A and so forth requires is probably open to debate, but there is a reasonable understanding that Congress could simply accept the electoral votes, not in effect in theory have the power to second guess them like a majority of Republicans in the House and a few in the Senate wanted to do for two states.  And, again, if somehow the people's right to vote is taken away by states, the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment can kick in.  

The Electoral College has screwed us in the 21st Century (including 2000), but even there, the "right to vote" is not lacking in various respects. Anyway, voting rights is a major concern in front of us. It turns out to be more than four things.

SCOTUS Watch: Opinion Day

One rule is that if Kagan and Roberts is on the same side, it is likely the right side. Like all rules, that might have slipped up in the non-unanimous jury case (though I think a narrower ruling might have been warranted there), but it seems generally true. They also are the best writers on the current Court. Each was on the same side Thursday, each wrote an opinion.

Kagan's case was unanimous with the only dispute being if the old and steady rules of personal jurisdiction should be tweaked in the 21st Century. The High Federalist trio (Alito less so) was at least somewhat open to the idea, Alito making clear at least here, we shouldn't change things. Kagan, not for the last time to be sure, went after Gorsuch/Thomas (etc.) attempts to re-invent the wheel, apparently compelled by text or history or something. Barrett did not take part.

One thing that doesn't seem to have been highlighted much -- someone might have brought it up, I guess -- is that this is the FIRST signed Kagan opinion. Yes, there are multiple per curiams, but still 14 or so signed opinions. Why is this her first opinion? Did she spend time with per curiams? The usual case here is "losing" an opinion, but what would that be? The one improvidentially granted?  Something else?  A bit weird.

Given how pro-Scalia Barrett is, maybe she would have went with Roberts in the second, since it was a logical extension of an old case of his. This time, the other three dissented, bringing up in part the claim that the majority wasn't being neutral. Conservatives are never biased; they just follow the law, and darn if it follows where they often want to go. This is one of those cases where Roberts/Kavanaugh take a "moderate" path though that might be just how far to the right things are being pressed. 

The case involves the Fourth Amendment, and like a case heard this week, such cases result in a lot of fact based analysis and line drawing. The issue here was if being shot at was a "seizure" if the shot didn't actually stop you. Or, as here, your car.  The details make for a good potboiler with the added benefit of one or more (see the one footnote) cases with their own special facts. The cases also tend to be of limited scope and this seems to be the case here.  Then, again, that seems to be the case for Roberts Court decisions as a rule, even if at times, the "minimalism" is misleading.  With some simply big cases tossed in.

The opinion shows off some of Roberts verbal flair, including summarizing the facts. It also shows that the Court will at times have liberal friendly results. Roberts actually was the deciding vote while Kennedy was still around with pressing the privacy of cell phones. Again, this will often be a matter of how far the Court will be pressed. But, yes, the liberals won't always lose. Other times Gorsuch or Barrett (as seen in the minister at the execution case) will fill out a majority.

May was set as expected as the new date for a sentencing case, the change of the Biden Administration's position requiring getting an amicus. It is not clear yet if the justices at least will choose this time (now fully vaccinated) to hear things in person for the first time since last March. Anyway, I'm not sure why the proper result here is just to find a new case to decide the issue. The Administration granted the guy is right. Doesn't this just hold up his merits position for months in a wrongful fashion?

Tomorrow they will have a conference and might drop something else. If so, I will put it below. Recently, a few more urls were added to the online sources cited in opinions page. 

ETA: I edited a paragraph about the Roberts opinion. 

Also, the Supreme Court has announced an Opinion Day on April 1st, again on Thursday.  You can see this on the calendar on the website that now has color shade showing just that.  It is also on the summary for Friday, May 26th.  I'm not sure when they started this, but it was available last term too (at least on their public phone line).  Unlike some courts, they still don't say what they will hand down.  But, baby steps.

Some Books

I added Nature's Civil War, an interesting case study on Civil War health in 1862 Virginia (military), to the side panel. The author talked about a different subject (also a pending book) in a Civil War segment on C-SPAN. It involved post-war Southern spin making by a Confederate general, part of a "generals we hate" series.

---

Also as a result of a video on that channel, I started The Girls Next Door by Kara Dixon Vuic, about 20th Century usage of women by the military to take care of the needs of service personnel. It seems interesting and written well.  For those interested, the author has a few C-SPAN videos.

Update: Reading most of it, I mostly hold to my last comment though the book gets a bit repetitive, leaving a few details -- like what happened to some of these women -- out.  She does this a bit, especially for later chapters, but like did WWI women work any in WWII?  Did any of their daughters? A quick summary of early women in war stories might have been useful too. The changing nature of the use of women and the understanding of their role is an interesting aspect of the book.  

(One other thing that I would think should pop up at least once (since concerns of male homosexuality does) is some instances of lesbianism. Also, though we do get some sense of what these women did, sort of wanted to hear a bit of their day to day tasks.)

====

The Inevitable is another book that I recently finished, talking about euthanasia. It focuses on a few cases (one whose current status is unclear) and doctors involved. Overall, I liked it, including its writing style. Nothing profound, but good use of narrative mixed with informative detail on the general subject. I might have shortened it a tad.  New York is not one of the few states with an euthanasia law; one is being debated. 

===

Finally, I bought the other two books by the author of Peyton Place (and its sequel), both of which were good (the second more rough; felt unedited). As to these two, The Tight White Collar (cited by more than one person as the author's favorite book) was basically a good, somewhat condensed look at a similar milieu (mostly) without the teen segment. The author again used fact, particularly the gay teacher, who basically is the one character with a tragic ending. (One is left unhappy, but he deserves it.) 

Did not read the second yet.  [This entry has been edited.]

SCOTUS Order Day

The Supreme Court granted two cases for full review: a civil procedural case and the Boston Marathon Bomber death penalty case. It remains to be seen if the Biden Administration will let that be when it determines its policy on capital punishment. It has time since it should be argued next term. Alito did not take part in the civil case (not that it is likely to matter, but he owns stock of one side; we should just have them say that aloud).

The Order List was over thirty pages long, which flags a possible per curiam (released with orders, not at 10 A.M. with opinions) or other writings. It is the latter: it's time for that occassional time where justices provide statements about not taking cases (often flagging the importance of an issue) or simply dissent from not taking a case. Sotomayor found another criminal case to provide a solo dissent, a familiar thing a few cases a term. She also joined a statement by Kagan (for the liberals) in a habeas case and this time with Gorsuch joining wrote a statement that in part flagged nearly all of the Sentencing Commission is vacant.

The non-Sotomayor was a few pages from Roberts regarding the creation of a national monument and the Antiquities Act. After opining on how open-ended the whole thing is getting, he agreed the case at issue didn't provide a grounds to take the case. After his solo dissent about "advice columnists," he went the op-ed route. Second link has more details.

The Shadow of the Cat

I referenced this charming film in the past and it was on Svengoolie again this weekend. The shot of the cat (Tabitha) playing with yarn after the last of the original three conspirators died was a nice touch. Funny Sven bits. Amusing bit at the end.

Rev. Joe: ULC Church and The Satanic Temple

I used to more regularly do a "Rev. Joe" entry to discuss religion related (one theme on this blog is that "religion" is a tricky set to draw lines around) matters.  (A person can skip to near the end of the portion above the line to get to newer material.)

The title is somewhat tongue in cheek, but also a result of me getting self-ordained in the Universal Life Church, which began around sixty years ago and eventually split into various parts (exactly how many is somewhat silly to focus upon, especially given the nature of the organization). Later on, I registered (as was eventually possible -- there was actually a lawsuit years back saying it was not required) as a wedding officiant with the government of New York City. I never actually presided over some wedding; as with using my notary public powers (more clearly authorized) to swear/affirm an official in, that would be cool.

I have noted, one place this pops up is in NYT wedding announcements, people wanting to preside over weddings, at times same sex ones (back when this was less a thing). As I have noted, this is still legally a tricky thing. The ULC Church have been involved in lots of lawsuits over the years, including specifically on the marriage issue, with various results.  See here, for a recent one.  As I have noted, this litigation over the years also popped up in New York courts, but without one clear final decision.

Realizing New York has a lot to worry about -- after all it still has not legalized marijuana -- it seems to me sensible to clarify its laws here.  Thousands probably at least unofficially married this way over the years and it is silly not to accept it.  The law in place -- again as I have said in the past -- is problematic is various ways, including how it selectively favors religions with certain organization aspects as well as singling out certain ethical culture organizations by name.  

Let me (this post is not just about them) repeat that I think the organization has a serious side.  The basic principle is that people have the ability to decide using their own conscience on what is good, thus the "universal" part. This is standard Protestant philosophy on some level. The organizations also favor certain "church" type trappings, with supplies (yes, there is a profit side, but they aren't alone on that here either) if one desires.  Thus, the idea certain people are "reverends" (or title of your choice).  And, the organization does promote "good" (as a person decides) as dictated by the law.  How this applies to conscientious objection, I presume, is left to the individual.   

The basic part of of religious liberty is for the individual to determine on one's own the correct religious path.  The U.S. particularly honors a special role of individual choice here, many wary of reliance on institutions. But, we also don't like all/nothing really too, so some trappings of organization might be useful.  The Universal Life Church fed into this overall sentiment and there is something there as noted.  

You can find it as an organization with "reverends" and such a bit silly to the degree that term should have some special authority, but even there certain religions (Quakers, let's say) believe each person might have some authority to speak as the spirit might move them.  And, the basic idea of interpreting the Bible as one deems fit is again a basic well accepted principle. 

(One person who had involvement in the ULC Church -- or some specific offshoot -- is Rev. Amy Long.  Her videos could be found on YouTube for years along with other materials.  Then, she at some point seem to disappear.  Last night, I found something from 2017, a video explaining she was dealing with personal issues -- for one thing, her husband committed suicide earlier.  She said she was taking time off from ULC related matters but would return at some point.  Not clear if she did, but hope she is doing well regardless.)

The overall concept of "universalism" has had long been accepted by many people.  There is actually apparently sometimes confusion between the ULC Church and Unitarians -- saw one thing from a few years back where the Unitarian-Universalist Church had to make clear that Jared Kushner was not a minister of their organization.  The apparent contusion being that he might have registered to be a ULC minister (Jared is Jewish).  As a related thing, Margaret Fuller was referenced in an interesting historical discussion last night, and she was involved in the transcendentalist movement.  The current Wikipedia entry summarizes:

A core belief is in the inherent goodness of people and nature, and while society and its institutions have corrupted the purity of the individual, people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent.

The ability and duty of the individual to decide for themselves what "good" means is apparent here without recalling someone like Thoreau.  Margaret Fuller, by the way, died off Fire Island. 

====

Okay.  The last part is new, even if the stuff before is rehashing some old stuff.  Nothing special there -- "there is nothing new under the sun" and all that.  At some point, there is a certain boredom is rehashing the same stuff, but you know, the stuff just keep on happening.  It's a bit like where you come back to school as a child, and you need to refresh your memory on certain things.  School knowledge without that can be more compressed.

Religion Clause Blog has a link to a video of an oral argument involving invocations that was brought by The Satanic Temple, which is starting to get to be the Jehovah Witness of lower court litigation, at least going by how many times I'm seeing such litigation referenced. The Jehovah Witnesses has a slew of First Amendment lawsuits that reached the Supreme Court, including the famous flag salute case.  Many saw and see them as a troublesome group that at times are rather unsavory (such as using anti-Catholic rhetoric).  

This group from what I can tell is seen as more of a joke and putting its headquarters in Salem probably encourages that sort of thing.  But, I see it does have tax exempt status.  The name is used in an ironic fashion; it is actually more of a Unitarian sort of organization mixed with a humanism message that is particularly concerned about bodily freedom. This last part results in them being involved in multiple abortion related litigation, particularly targeting "informed consent" type laws.  

As with the linked invocation lawsuit (the orals seemed focused on technical points), they might be a somewhat dubious conduit (let's say), but address some serious matters.  The problem is there is that lower courts will use procedural means to avoid needing to decide some of the complex issues involved, so the "message" lawsuits (they really seem that way though you probably can find some real harms mixed in) by an organization that sounds like satire (if more serious than the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or something) will be swiped aside if possible.  

"Satan" is used as a rebellious character, who even as regularly portrayed might be something of an antihero that people could root for on some level.  Satan originally appears to have been seen as an "adversary" of God, a sort of "devil's advocate" in a literal sense, and not necessary the fallen angel evil figure later developing.  Thus, like modern day usage of "paganism," there is some logic here.  But, the term and figure still has a negative aspect, even more than a nature religion might have.

I'm open to their arguments though and the more colorful/satiric aspects of the organization and its members are not somehow in a different category from many who consider themselves Christian or some other religion deemed more mainstream.  Surely, we have some "out there" people there, including those with some rather strange ideas, and often not as overall benign as this organization.  As with the Universal Life Church, therefore, the religion and/or organization in question should be taken seriously.  

One more thing. Okay, Lieutenant. The video link shows how courts can do video and do so remotely.  There were three judges (all women), but I saw Pete Buttigieg talk remotely to over ten people.  The Supreme Court can handle it with nine.  The video also helped the first advocate with visual cues -- more than once he saw a judge was ready to ask a question. 

Mets Update

The long term prospects of the Mets seem promising with a new rich owner, a bunch of sound pick-ups and one superstar (Lindor/needs to be signed long term) and a few thousand fans will watch them in person Opening Day.

Mets are not the Mets without a bit of drama. Likely #2 starter Carrasco is hurt and will be out for an extended period of time. Stroman will need to get back to form and be the #2. The #3 is now Taijuan Walker, who is pretty good, but hasn't played much in recent years. David Peterson will get a chance to repeat his very good back-end starter role and there are various options for #5. But, with tough competition, the staff is a bit more iffy.

The new owner seemed promising and willing to engage with fans, but has not surprising real rich guy flaws. He supported Trump in the past and just appointed Chris Christie (typo in a tweet that announced it: "Chris Christine") on the board. His son already has a role in the organization. Oh well. Still, not quite in the mood, but #LGM.

SCOTUS Watch

Not much explicitly going on at SCOTUS this week other than a Friday conference (again, they might drop some surprise later in the day).  SCOTUSBlog did start a March Madness type bracket thing for justices, but the match-ups leave something to be desired.  No link for you! We will have more stuff happening in the next two weeks and April will have more orals as well. SCOTUS also announced next Thursday will be an opinion day, which means one or more opinions are likely.  Kagan has yet to have a signed opinion for the Court; everyone else has one. 

The acting S.G. (hey, why not just keep her in?) continues to state changing positions of the Biden Administration, now in a case that might need an amicus to keep the case alive. That seems off according to the John Roberts' solo dissent that is concerned about advisory opinions. If the government concedes their case, why should the matter be kept alive? But, they sometimes do that, just going to show that "case" and "controversy" is applied with some degree of flexibility. However you explain it, the Administration is being particularly busy early on.

SCOTUS dropped a mini-order list on Friday as they sometimes do on conference day.  Among the orders is  the appointment of an amicus for that case (Terry) and a note that it will be rescheduled for argument for this term.  The acting A.G., as is practically always done, was granted time to argue in a few cases.  A final order officially grants a request to appoint someone counsel for a case that is to be argued next week.  Not sure why it was done at the last minute, but the case involves the power of tribal police so should be at least somewhat interesting.  

(Kimberly Robinson from Bloomberg noted that the amicus selected, by Thomas apparently, is a three-peat when she knows of no one else who was even a repeat. It is dubious, especially for diversity reasons, to fill these limited slots with the same person over and over again. She also noted: "All three female #SCOTUS advocates arguing during the March sitting are from the Solicitor General's Office. 13 male advocates will take the lectern." KR is cool and earlier in the year posted a link for those who wanted to buy Girl Scouts cookies from her daughter.)

There has been some sort of bipartisan move to televise the Supreme Court (Grassley supports it) for years now and the standard attempt was put out again. It didn't go anywhere in the past, except perhaps to encourage some lower courts to use video. Again, state supreme courts and supreme courts in other countries manage to do it. Breyer manages to do it when presiding over fake courts.  It is time. Oh. Sen. Sheldon "stan of many political watchers, especially but probably not limited to women" Whitehouse asked for an investigation on the alleged "fake" background check of Kavanaugh.

It is probably to be expected that a trillion plus piece of legislation that passed with no Republican votes (since they are tools) will be subject to court challenge, be it by asinine arguments. You take the bitter with the sweet there -- see the challenges to the Trump moves, some of which came out well for the challengers, a few of which were something of a stretch (though, e.g., the emoluments argument were legitimate).  What this will all wrought, along with other Biden stuff, in front of the Supreme Court will remain to be seen. Tainted 6-3 Court, it is.

We are also stuck with stupid precedent though even there the Affordable Care Act Medicaid "rule" (more like a guideline) is harder to apply here in a one-off relief bill where the money involved is smaller. To remind, the Medicaid portion of that ruling led to voluntary Medicaid expansion, though "only" twelve states (the Old Confederacy minus a few, basically) have not accepted it at this point. The relief law includes a Medicaid provision, so we still have this sort of thing. 

The conference today was in person though "some" (saw at least one other person say something like "at least one" as if it was just Breyer or something) still worked remotely.  Note the standard thing where the public relations office tells the press something but it is not posted on the website specifically.  Instead, we simply learn that April arguments will be done remotely, the unsaid being that even if the justices (plus three) are all vaccinated, various lawyers will not be. 

Orders and arguments on Monday.  The one argument is a sort of libertarian Takings Clause case that suggests a requirement to allow labor organizers on property is a taking.  The Biden Administration switched from Trump's support of such regulation as taking extremism. As noted, another involves Native American policing and a third is a potentially important Fourth Amendment case.  So, nothing earth shattering, but a trio of fairly interesting and notable constitutional cases. 

Where is my JP Day Card?!

It's that time of year again. After the "Ides of March" (3/15), that best day to kill Caesar (or have a salad or pizza with that name), we have a day off. Then, it is a day for the Irish. So, potato time. (Small potato, four minutes in the microwave ... tasty). On 3/19, we have the Italians, St. Joseph's Day, the patron saint of people who should be important but are barely mentioned in the Bible (even in Matthew, he doesn't actually talk!). In between? The lesser known JP Day for Irish/Italian mutts. So, maybe pizza flavored potato chips?

Trump/Republican Conspiracy Against U.S.

.@ODNIgov confirms that the Trump White House, GOP and their propaganda organs colluded with, or at least worked on parallel lines with, a Russian campaign to defeat Biden.

This is the 2nd campaign in a row where Trump got Russian help. GOP doesn’t care. https://t.co/iuDPdq5PHd

— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) March 17, 2021

Election integrity legislation that passed last session included a provision that required a public report referenced in the tweet.

From the op-ed from a hard liner type that now found religion:

A newly declassified report from the director of national intelligence confirms that the Trump White House, the Republican Party and their propaganda organs colluded with, or at least worked on parallel lines with, a Russian campaign to defeat now-President Biden.

The details (those that can be publicly provided) are useful and up to date, but this is not news. The Mueller Report, e.g., explained how the Trump campaign manager (Manafort) gave polling data to a Russian agent, data that would be helpful to Russian troll farms to influence swing areas. Members of Trump's family actively tried to get dirt from Russian agents. Roger Stone, working with the Trump campaign ... okay, how much do you need?  People still made it controversial somehow to say that completely trusting the integrity of the elections was difficult.  

The Biden Administration will add to the sanctions to Russia, China and Iran, as I understand it, to retaliate for their involvement.  But, there will be just so much sense of just desserts here.  People are pushing for criminal charges, for instance.  Yeah.  Good luck with that sort of thing though Rudy G. might get in trouble somehow and Georgia is investigating Trump etc. 

The bottom line is the basic core rot, including a majority of the Republicans in the House, even after the Capitol (THEIR CAPITOL) was invaded, aiding the effort by voting to challenge the electoral count, aiding and abetting the big lie.  Each time when I see one of the under ten Republican senators who join in, including those people don't associate with it much (Cruz, Hawley and to a degree Tuberville are usually given the attention when there are five others), I'm disgusted again. 

And, it annoys me more wasn't done before. People badmouthed the Mueller Report, when it had damning stuff, and he wasn't some independent actor, but someone restrained by his bosses.  House Democrats should have done more with it, especially when an impeachment involving the SECOND instance of electoral conspiracy arose, the count specifically referencing a pattern. The impeachment report barely referenced Mueller for whatever reason, suggesting a bit of a mulligan.

The whole thing is so damn aggravating, but you take what comes, and fight to do the best you can now that actual American first (no racist implications) government is in power in the White House and Congress. Reports like the one cited provide some means to obtain some oversight and action as the insurrection on 1/6 and all else is being investigated and acted upon.  Removal would have been appropriate there, but you take what you can get.  

One more thing. Okay Lt. Colombo.  There is a general assumption that the 2022 congressional elections will be close, and that the Republicans very well might win at least the House back, at least if the economy is not going well. That is so fucking screwed up. The House Republicans have screwed us over for years now and supposed they can get in power again in two years, including as they continue to oppose COVID relief and so forth. It is a basic mark against our society that this is somehow not a clear reason to make re-electing them firmly deemed ridiculous if not offensive.

We are at the spot where 47% or more of the voting public supported the pro-Trump, anti-U.S. party. It is a dark moment. Anyway, less than a week from the signing of the legislation, I received my stimulus money.  Other people did last weekend.

1/6 -- Covering ALL the bases with discretion

The insurrection on 1/6 has led to some hard-line approaches to those involved from people who generally would be wary about mistreatment of people in the criminal justice system. I suggested in a comment (referencing Sen. Tuberville's extended involvement in the protest of the electoral results and Trump specifically calling him while the attack on the Capitol was beginning) very low level offenders should still be handled, but maybe not with prison time. 

This received pushback as too soft. This is not surprising with one person elsewhere suggesting we send people to GITMO pending sentencing. GITMO is tossed around a lot like there was actually some regular danger for American citizens (or even people on U.S. soil) to be sent there or something.  The use of the term "insurrection" itself does provide special concern, concern that warrants strong responses that otherwise might not so warrant.  

But, at some point, and this comes up from time to time [though criminal justice reform types at times also push back a bit too hard -- it's understandable, but they still are wrong at times] in other cases too, it is just too much.  I think a general principle is at stake here about trying to be consistent, even when it might be uncomfortable. I don't want to be sanctimonious about it, but still, at some times people like myself who spend more time on these sort of things are more liable to care enough to push back.  And, sometimes, it just is more akin to the trope of "the asshole has a point."  Sometimes, it is simply basic fairness kicking in, once emotion is put aside and you think "yeah, okay." 

Extended involvement inside the criminal justice system not involving prison time has been continuously cited as a threat to civil rights, but now it is a "slap on the wrist" that won't discourage people who thought they were going to get a parade and are whining when they did not.

For instance, involvement might result in loss of employment or employment activities. It might result in deprivation of licenses. It can require let's say a year of supervision by the federal justice system. Fines. Extended community service. Merely being on a publicly searchable list, very well possibly with photos, will discourage many people here. My original comment also flagged the Fourteenth Amendment, which would cover let's say someone who swore an oath as a member of the military and is part of the crowd here or perhaps was in some minor way an accessory.*  One member of Congress submitted a proposal though text is still not up.  Hopefully, the matter will carefully be considered, since this matter very well is likely to arise in future elections. 

(A basic thing here also can be that even a petty crime committed can violate the terms of the release. Lots of people commit petty crimes. That over your head is a basic way to deter.)

These are after all not people who did things like committed violence or theft. They would not be "extremely minor." Someone who just was part of the crowd inside, let's say, would very well be discouraged by a range of non-prison time penalties.  So, again, prison time might not be required in all cases, especially if it can be a means to process a bunch of minor offenses with the people involved helpful to the prosecution. There will be some tricky stuff here. Let's not by rule wipe away a sane approach.

====

* There was an interesting example of the levels of being an accessory in a Barnaby Jones episode, the show being on late nite on a classics station. I used to watch repeats back in the day -- the series was over before I was ten so unlike MASH, did not catch it live -- and it still has charms, including its kitsch-y opening. Watching a few episodes, it also seems like grandpa here repeatedly puts himself in lethal situations, at times rather gratuitously. [Mad About You once flagged concern for him.]

The mystery involved the killing of a woman that a country music singer had a scuffle with, resulting in the woman being temporarily knocked unconscious.  The singer is told by her manager that the woman was killed, the manager apparently afraid the singer was thinking of going back with her ex-husband, so this would not only allow him to have something over her, but also get her to agree to go away. (We basically was left to assume.)

The singer scared, she agrees to let him handle it. He does so by driving the woman away, at least pretending (it is unclear) to encourage her to go away and then (unnecessarily probably so it seemed staged, especially the out of the way location) kills her by hitting her with a car. He then tosses her in the lake, which he tells the singer about, without noting when she died. To continue this plot discussion, as appears typical, one murder tends not to be enough. Another guy saw the manager drive away with the woman and the manager eventually kills him.

The singer overall -- even the dead woman's father doesn't blame her -- comes off sympathetically.  Barnaby suggests the state would be satisfied that the manager confessed.  This might be true, especially since a white country music star like herself will get nice representation and can also offer helpful testimony though the confession makes that a bit less necessary.  But, she was an accessory after the fact.  If she simply went to the police, in fact, it is fairly likely the other guy would not have been killed. He too would have said what he saw -- unlike some of these episodes, he had no reason to hide such information. 

The manager would thus have two people involved who spoke of his involvement, and the singer would have found out the woman wasn't even dead.  The manager only found out that the boyfriend saw him when the guy went to see him, looking for the woman. If it was right away reported, the guy would have little reason to do that. Again, and this is an interesting tidbit, the country singer knew where the body was. If the manager didn't tell her that, it could be more complicated.  As Jones noted, she couldn't have disposed of her that way, so that helps prove his guilt. 

One probably can formulate some scenario, changing the details, where the boyfriend might still try to blackmail the manager or something. But, going by the details of the episode, the country music singer probably shares the guilt of his death. The ending focused on the woman who was killed. The other guy came off as a loser who wore his shirt open to show his chest, but he didn't seem that bad. His mom might not be as sympathetic to the coutnry music star here. 

Jones very well might be right that the state would be satisfied.  But, this extended analysis suggests the moral and legal implications here are actually possibly a tad complicated.  I'm not trying to blame the show here; even much more serious fare doesn't address all the complexities. It was just a "hmm" moment that arises from time to time. And, to tie this all together, complexities might arise in the cases here.  

A knee-jerk reaction is understandable -- ditto being upset about bail when some other types of people, often people of color [but criminal justice is not somehow hunky dory for everyone else] do not get that level of fair treatment.  Two wrongs don't make a right and as we push for bail reform, including no cash bail -- even on that very blog at times -- perhaps the rules do apply here as well. I'm also not sure how much the rules are similarly unfairly applied against federal offenders anyways. 

Cuomo: Tick Tock

Andrew Cuomo got the "Rebecca Traiser treatment" as part of a continuing bit of dominoes that includes Schumer and Gillibrand (who you don't see together much) joining state and federal New York legislators saying it's time for him to go. The Traiser piece includes leading Cuomo opponent (and my senator) Alessandra Biaggi and Josef Velaquez, a leading reporter at The City, which covers New York. Impeachment proceedings (ONE governor was impeached in the state's history) have begun.

Cuomo's dark side has been cited for years now, Biaggi notably quite upset about a Democratic governor seeming to be fine with divided government (with "independents" led by the guy she beat as the swing group) since Cuomo could triage. And, do so in a bastard sort of way, not the more Martin Sheen type (from what I can tell; recall his POTUS had a dark side too) of his father. But, he seemed to get things done, and his first two primary opponents were Zephyr "can't win any political race, maybe I should stick to being an academic" Teachout and Cynthia "is this seriously my choice? I like Miranda, but ..." Nixon, and token Republican opponents. Then, he seemed the serious one vs. Trump during the whole Big V thing.

Things are a tad different now. The Democrats not only control the legislature, but in the last election gained some more wiggle room. Not only do we have Biden now and COVID seems to be on the way out, but Cuomo's handling of the whole thing has been shown to have problems. Cuomo would be up to re-election next year, which is just long enough to seem a bit too far away (maybe). Cuomo might want to eke it out, but over twenty months is a pretty long time, and even his long time enemy De Blasio doesn't have to suck up to him any since the mayor is term limited. On some basic level, it just might be the guy has been in power for too long (over ten years) and his act is starting to be real stale.

The nursing home controversy itself has many parts. First, there is the issue of him allegedly not reporting a full account of how many people was involved, including how many deaths there were. Second, there is the controversy over him protecting nursing homes from liability. And, finally, there is the overall idea that his policy itself was dubious, and led to unnecessary deaths. I was willing to give him some benefit of the doubt there early in the crisis, but after a while, with everything, this all comes off bad. And, it hangs over everything in a way that is much harder to handwave as some overall unpleasant but livable personality issue.

The bully stuff is more easy to spin as bad, but not something you resign over, but it does you know add to his problems, and takes away some friends. There is a famous saying that it is better to have people fear than love you, but there is a lesser known caveat: you should avoid people despising you. Cuomo's asshole routine violated that rule from The Prince.  It is a bit late, but he deserves some strong comeuppance for a government style that violates a basic rule of mine -- don't be a f-ing dick. 

And, being an autocratic bully often leads to one being a sexist one, and repeated allegations of wrongdoing is coming out there. That is a sort of thing that you can push to have a full investigation over, dropping "Al Franken" as if that covers everything (Cuomo is not Al Franken for a number of reasons, down to no creepy Republican running for office), especially with "Kirsten Gillibrand" to toss in too.

I have said that a full investigation very well is a good thing, akin to how settling out of court while sealing the judgment agreement is not truly in the interest of justice. You can abuse the term "due process," but there is a value there, not to have to rely on press reports and the like. An organized process there is good on principle and for the interests of justice as well. Just leaving things somewhat unsettled, with some thinking a person was wronged, is not quite an ideal way to address #MeToo wrongs. It isn't, as some cynically think, just a CYA method. It can actually be a forceful approach, though how to go about it can be rather complicated.

The statement by Rep. Nadler (shared by AOC) cites the difference between the due process required for criminal investigations and a political decision that someone has to go.  People toss around "due process" (Cuomo is a recent press conference tossed in the kitchen sink, including how he was elected by the people, not politicians -- yes, the governor's son is an outsider! -- and comments about cancel culture -- him sounding like a Republican isn't helpful) as a vague "fairness" guarantee.

There are differences here, even if fairness is a standard that applies across the board.  People like the radio host Stephanie Miller keep on bringing up Al Franken -- it's tiresome.  Note that there multiple senators thought it was time for him to go and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer eventually joined them.  And, it was a sensitive time with #MeToo particularly raw and Roy Moore out there, so being seen as not consistent with a nice guy liberal would get you in trouble. You can see the complications, even if you think on the merits that the evidence of wrongdoing was somewhat limited. 

There is much more evidence here and Cuomo has more power than a single senator.  There was some concern -- unwarranted -- that Franken's seat would be lost.  Here, we have a female Democratic lieutenant governor, who might be in some fashion more conservative than Cuomo (she represented a conservative area like Gillibrand), but you know, how was Cuomo really such a prize?  You have conspiracy theorists arguing this is all about getting Trump a pardon.  Seriously?  Lay out the steps there.  

And, Cuomo has multiple things OTHER than the sexual harassment stuff.  Getting him out before the 2022 governor race -- though things will have to change significantly for Democrats to have a true scare there -- could be politically helpful.  In general, Cuomo's time has passed.  The investigation should and can continue regarding the nursing home stuff and anything else.  But, as Nadler notes, overall, Cuomo has lost the faith of the public and political community to a significant degree. FRANKEN bugaboos won't change that.  

What will happen remains to be seen.

Books: Waste and Kamala Harris

Waste: One Woman’s Fight Against America’s Dirty Secret is a quick book (around two hundred pages) by someone who specializes on concern about failure of local communities in the U.S. to properly dispose of waste, particularly a poor community in Alabama. She deals with some really famous people (starting with black leaders as a child), but continues to come off as a down to earth woman you might meet in town or church somewhere.

The first half is more autobiographical about her overall road to advocacy, including her family and time as a teacher. Her husband disappears suddenly and we learn she has a daughter (at least) but she too is barely mentioned (suddenly the author is a grandmother!). Not sure why she did that since her personal biography is important and I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering. Personable account of an important subject and it is interesting how as a black woman who naturally would be a liberal gets some support from conservatives, including Jeff Sessions!

---

Kamala Harris: I also checked out Kamala Harris' (campaign) biography, also listening to a bit of it on tape before she was elected. It is fine enough -- I skimmed it a bit, including meeting her husband. I noted that the main biography out there of her lacks some personal details. That one has more about her early career (including an older somewhat controversial boyfriend/mentor, who she understandably skips over) though her campaign biography has a bit more about her early life and parents. We still get little on her dad after the divorce.

Neither really gives you a totally complete picture of her. Also, is she unique about that laugh/joy of life thing? Did she get that from her mom? Is her sister like that too? The sister seems a bit more all business, but I say that without having too much to go on. It just seems from what I can tell that her sister -- who is her biggest fan and ally and one wonders what she's doing now -- might be an enforcer type. The sister was a teen mom, which happens, but that's another bit of detail that could be interesting.

Duchess of Sussex Spills Some Tea

And Also: Talking about biracial "royalty," Kamala's Way is not a complete bio, but it is a good workmanlike volume by someone long an observer of California politics. It doesn't cover her personal life, especially growing up, that much. As noted in a C-SPAN interview with the author, one problem was that KH didn't personally take part. A basic thing we note is her dad (still alive) is basically absent in her life, while her mom (died of cancer about a decade ago) is a basic part of it along with her sister.

I thought the Lifetime film -- that even had the word in there (finding someone using that word without only using the first letter these days often gets the person who uses it in trouble) -- was rather well done. But, we are concerned about the greatly promoted Ophrah Winfrey interview of Meghan and Harry that aired last night. As the kids say, a lot of tea spilled. As to Harry, someone of Twitter used the term "ride or die" ("a colloquial expression of extreme loyalty to someone or something," originally often applied to black women) and that fit rather well. Ophrah "still has it" as interviewer though a couple times it was amusing when she was like "speaking for the public" or acting like "the press" was "them."

Meghan Markle is someone that previously was known to many from the USA show Suits and perhaps for her time as a young girl where she spoke against a gender stereotype in a commercial. But, as a biracial person, she had to deal with some race issues all her life in a specific way. She also was in two somewhat bland (one was better than the other) Hallmark movies which seemed to think she was white:

“I know that that’s not an intentional strategy,” he said. “Quite frankly, I don’t even think that Meghan’s background was a consideration when we were writing this story." Sure. The channel generally has white leads with people of color generally left to best friends and token supporting characters. So, I can see it not being directly intentional to her personally.

The two Hallmark films are pretty forgettable, which perhaps explains why this doesn't seem to get much attention. Anyway, the interview last night was about her time as a royal. Meghan seems to be out of central casting as a royal -- you can see her in a Hallmark Channel movie as an actress who falls for a royal, who is a somewhat ne'er-do-well younger brother who misses his mom (a photo of Princess Diana someone posted along side him did look very like him, though he has that red hair that came from somewhere ... apparently his grandfather).

People were either "I'm so going to watch" or "like why should I care about the royal family?" regarding the interview. The latter is somewhat understandable, but if taken too far was asinine, since the interview was not just celebrity gossip (still a fun thing) but had deeper issues. This sort of thing is why so many people respect her, including noting that her speaking out about needing help very well might save lives. Plus, again, just the basic story is so touching -- the love story itself is so touching. Yes, yes. She's a celebrity and all that. But, it's a hard heart not to be touched by it all, including Harry sticking by her through it all.

She had to deal with racism, not being respected by "the Firm" or "the Institution" and getting abusive press treatment. This was taken to extreme measures to such a degree it led to serious mental health issues for which the family refused to let her get support for. A darkly comic moment was her talking about going to "HR" to get assistance (unsuccessfully) since as an actress she had a union to protect her interests. A lot of hard feelings there by both and you know airing the dirty laundry probably won't go down well either. Meghan, not covered here, already had problems family-wise before, her (white) father causing various difficulties.

(There are a few books about their relationship including one I read that was sort of a dual biography of Meghan and Harry that was pretty good. Both had a bit of drama in their lives, let's say.)

It was a good interview, though it seemed like every ten minutes or so there was a commercial. I can see them selling a DVD with bonus footage, including Oprah on the morning show the next day (okay ... we don't know who ... but Harry said neither grandparent was involved in the "will the baby be too dark" conversation; the grandfather is someone you'd think might say something racist like that). The DVD can be put out after the summer, so we can get a look at the new baby (a girl -- perhaps named Veronica, to go with the "Archie"). Not sure about the few shots of the couple at their home, including with a rescue chicken. That seemed a bit silly.

ETA: Oprah at the start laid it out that there were no restrictions asked for regarding topics during the interview and -- contrary to various assumed -- it was not paid.  But, other than serving as a truth function, airing things out could have financial implications regarding their future endeavors.  

Some also don't have much sympathy for the duo as seen by the piece referenced here. As suggested, there is some truth there, but rather one-sided too. The two are celebrities and so forth, but the problems are not all feigned or something. Note too that first link, which compares it to a sort of "truth commission," but not quite so since it is not really an official unbiased platform.  It is a friendly rich person interviewing two other ones. 

Such is fair -- I have generally seen that things are rarely black/white, but the shades of gray often do have a leaning. 

SCOTUS Watch: Order/Opinion Day

Orders: SCOTUSBLOG has a "relist" watch and the Supreme Court took a case today covering an issue flagged there. The case's facts are sensitive: a mistaken child abuse report (turned out to be diaper rash) led to a heavy-handed police invasion of a home. A prime case of what "abolish the police" is about: police should not be involved in many cases and here it looked like a lot of the problems could have been avoided by handling the situation without sending multiple police to the home as compared to a social service workers. But, the issue here is more technical.

(SCOTUS clarified on Thursday they will not decide the 4A question raised in the petition.) 

Other than that, the order list did not bring much news though as usual having some interesting details.  Lin Wood was disposed of again, there apparently some lingering Trump election cases left.  Are we done now?!  The "Jane Doe" near the top of the order list involves a request for relief in a case arguing a vaccination requirement for children does not have a broad enough exception.  Rejected without comment as usual in these cases.  You have the standard rejections, including one by Jonathan Lovato, that looks like a penciled in print appeal ala Charles Gideon or something. 

---

Opinion: When Chief Justice Roberts (who barely dissented at all last term) dissents alone for the first time in his career, you figure the opinion is of some note. How much? It's unclear. For instance, though focusing on how originalism is basically Calvinball (though being a bit more polite), Michael Dorf (a usual sane voice) said this about the idea paying nominal damages (let's say a dollar) could dispose of a lawsuit:

I agree with CJ Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh that the majority opinion is open to the reading they offer, but it is at least a little odd that Justice Thomas doesn't even mention the possibility. Moreover, in stating that nominal damages cases were a kind of early version of the more modern declaratory judgment action, Justice Thomas arguably implies that perhaps a voluntary entry of judgment against the defendant does not redress a plaintiff's wrong as well as actual proof followed by nominal damages--and could thus be rejected. Accordingly, the practical significance of Uzuegbunam remains to be seen.

Another law professor thought that avoidance approach was "absurd." Prof. Leah Litman, a liberal law professor that is one person I follow to get that view appears to think that not interfering with the rule in place is sensible. Justice Thomas defended the approach by noting that "the common law avoided the oddity of privileging small-dollar economic rights over important, but not easily quantifiable, nonpecuniary rights." That makes sense and to cite the dissent's concerns, that is both a "case" and a "controversy" per Art. III.

But, here, the wrong was addressed.  It wasn't really like the Taylor Swift example cited by Justice Kagan.  There Swift wanted to make a point about a wrong she felt was inflicted on her, but did not want compensation. So, she sued for a dollar to provide the bare minimum necessary to bring a lawsuit.  If the person paid the dollar, the person would be admitting guilt.  Here, the college changed the policies. Why should that not do it? It is a "remedy" to the wrongs (to cite the majority). The litigants wanted the court to legally determine it was wrong to help prevent wrongs in the future. This was seen by the dissent as opening up a wrongful advisory opinion approach, judicial avoidance not always a thing.

Roberts didn't deny that it was possible in this very case for the plaintiffs to just allege similar token damages tied to an actual thing like carfare.  The rule in place has been around for some years. Congress can put in a jurisdictional minimum too, if it cares to, but the issue is that sometimes you will have a wrong that might not translate into money damages.  Thus, though religiously conservative people are involved here, you had atheists and the like supportive of the ruling.  

I'm not sure how far that takes you since again the college changed its policies.  It is like nothing came of the whole process.  Finally, one thing I saw that came up was that the real issue really in these suits are attorney fees, but the majority put that issue to the side. Anyways -- noting I edited this portion of this post upon further thought -- it is unclear just what this case really amounts to as a bottom line measure. Just how often will this pure issue come up and even then will the payment of the dollar (or perhaps some other workaround) be able to avoid things even then?

The Court deciding the matter 8-1 suggests some wide agreement, but the bottom line point of Roberts' dissent (concerned about judges as advice columnists) appears to be a message to the new conservative (tainted) supermajority not to go too far. Roberts has already (a major example being the 2A case out of New York) played avoidance. A major 15 week abortion ban has been pending for months now without a decision on what to do with it. And, Roberts is no longer the fifth vote, right?

Anyway, here is a summary of the ruling, written by Thomas (commonly authoring technical opinions when not writing separately) with Kavanaugh briefly concurring to add he agrees with the Roberts nominal damages payment disposal method. 

===

There are no more official actions at SCOTUS -- no conference either -- scheduled this week, but we might have something pop up.  If it is minor, might insert it below.  

ETA: SCOTUS has canceled oral argument in the case on the legality of Medicaid work requirements approved under the Trump administration. Since Fridays wouldn't be Fridays with none of this sort of thing, Amy Howe on Saturday flagged a Biden Administration request to dispose of a "gag rule" case (abortion), which was pretty much expected.

March arguments will continue by telephone.

Article again raising the problems of the shadow docket. 

Sen. Whitehouse starts special hearings to cover his pet concern, dark money and its effects on the courts.

Films

The series lasted seven years and used to be available locally in syndication, including at like 3:30 A.M. (once it was on when I went to the emergency room [for some minor stupid reason]!). Then, it suddenly wasn't, and I was not able to get it from the library. Turns out it is now available (including, for now, the whole series free on demand) on the Starz Channel, that is, one of them. Those channels have so much space to fill that the "encore" stuff includes old t.v. shows. The show remains very amusing though again I'm upset the women (other than Brenda to a degree) had much less to do later (the actress playing Jen apparently partially absent for personal reasons).

Found this among the pay movie channels, one of the films available on demand too. Heather Graham, who still looks rather good here at around 40 [she's over 50 now!], is famous for her own role in Boogie Nights. This is a lesser known film with a porn plot, Almost Cherry in fact having various familiar faces. The young lead (she was around 24, but looks younger and the camera does love her) is very good too. It is as much of a character film as anything else, including a family drama in various respects. I only saw parts of it, but it's well shot and performed.

Also popping on is Last House on the Left, the remake of the somewhat infamous Wes Craven original though unlike I Spit On Your Ground, Roger Ebert thought the original was a bit of a classic. The remake, with the parents played by actors often in serious fare, is exploitation fare to be sure. But, it is quality made and for those who like that sort of thing, it provides the goods rather well. The remake in a fashion is also less severe, one of the gang actually having a chance to redeem himself (and survive) and the daughter not dying either.

And, the Sven film, The Thing That Couldn't Die is also good for what it is -- a basic low budget 1950s horror film. It's silly but fun. Sven now and then makes somewhat risque jokes but he did not bring up something someone else might have -- the young woman who knows how to use a dowsing rod is not leered at from the evil father from To Kill A Mockingbird (Sven mentions the actor was in that film, but one might miss that he has a significant part) just because he is just plain a creep. Her outfit does emphasize her breasts and later we see her looking at outfits in her room. Even Sven makes a joke later that the camera seemed to focus on the cleavage in a shot involving an important necklace.

The ending is rather lame though -- after various complexities leads to the hundreds of years old living head is reconnected to his body, he vocally bitch slaps a few people and then is immediately disposed of because a holy necklace defeats him.  Which takes less than a minute -- the kinda hero whips it out like a crucifix to protect himself but it's unclear how it winds up around the evil guy's neck unless the scene was cut somehow for this viewing.  And, that's it. Oh well.  Any other 16th Century non-dead around? 

===

I also saw a bit of it, but did not really get into it so won't toss in a video here. But, Made in Italy is notable at least since it is a recent role by Liam Neeson in which he does not play some  action granddad role. As to that, he does look pretty good -- and generally believable in action flicks -- for a dude in his sixties.  It is a comedy/drama about him bonding with his son.