SCOTUS Order List / Other Legal Stuff

Books: I reviewed The Cult of the Constitution here and might say more on another book review site later on. My views basically held after re-reading it. 

===

I'm reading Taking Down Backpage, which covers one aspect of her views about the need to limit excesses on the Internet.  It is good so far -- she is a good writer -- though there are dissenters on attacking Backpage. 

John Oliver's segment on sex work last night argued it helped fight trafficking (she notes it did only so much, basically a sort of minimum "cost of doing business" sort of thing) and that it just transferred trafficking to less reachable overseas places (which it was doing already before the prosecutions began). 

She upfront says going after sex trafficking is not the same thing as sex work generally.  As to the idea it was merely "was simply a conduit for third-party" advertisers, she provides evidence this is bullshit.  Her general work against those who profit from abusive sex work does not appear to be some sort of simplistic prosecution approach. 

Plus, there are real victims (often minors) here, even if (like I) you think sex work should be legal for consenting adults.  The book (now that I finished it) also ends with a good chapter discussing the needs of victims in sex work, including supporting structural improvements and so forth.  She notes that California opposes prosecuting minors for sex work.  

The John Oliver piece was good, but the one prosecutor voice we get is someone who says prosecutions are the only way for victims of sex work to get help.  The book is not of that mentality; it does argue there are abuses that are appropriate targets.  She notes things like sexual trafficking should be the concern there, not simple streetwalking type of things.  

She also is concerned with labels, including not victimizing people. Backpage was eventually taken down because of financial wrongdoing. She gives one side, but it also sounds like the people behind it also could have been convicted of other things, not just being a "platform." 

Like Franks' book, we see here that there is a dark side here, even for those with libertarian views. I think there is a right to intimate association, even if obtained financially.  There are reasonable regulations.  And, the concern for people pressured into the business because of lack of alternatives should note the same is true for other choices (consider the military).  We should address structural concerns there.  And, deal with abuses and victims.  

The book is recommended as both a well written book on the work of a prosecutor as well as one that sees the wider picture. 

===

Order List:  Various of the usual procedural orders, which a quick look at Legal Twitter did not flag as notable.  Notable grants addressing various issues related to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. Recall that the Secretary of the Interior is a Native American.  More eating the marshmallows now?

Four conservatives flagged what they saw as a very concerning ministerial exemption case, but agreed as a procedural matter it is not a good case to grant.  They notably had the votes to do so.  Their summary, which I don't grant as telling the whole story, suggests an academic dispute with religious connotations. 

Sotomayor (by herself) would have summarily granted a criminal matter, which various lawyers on Twitter thought was a patently clear injustice. As one noted, her doing it alone suggests perhaps some procedural issue, including perhaps a concern about merely doing "error correction."

===

Orals: Big EPA case argued today.   From what I can tell, the exact result is unclear, but likely some poison pills will result (including maybe clearly establishing the "major questions doctrine") with implications down the road.  

A strong dissent (at least in part) from the liberals also likely -- they were especially dominant when the challengers were up.  The conservatives seemed mostly to want some help writing their anti-regulatory opinion. 

Ukraine Invaded By Russia ("Special Military Operation")

I really don't have anything profound to say about Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It is horrible and I am glad that even trollish leaders like the Hungarian fascist have found a reason to oppose Putin here. The future is unclear but dark.

The whole thing in a fashion was like the Supreme Court nomination since it was a slow walk to the inevitable as people kept on asking what President Biden will/could do to address Russian troops collecting outside of Ukraine. You know, for totally legitimate reasons, like stopping Nazis in a country led by a Jew with family members who were victims of the Holocaust. Some articles here.

I recall watching the attempt to overthrow Gorbachev around thirty years ago. Now, we get to see and discuss things minute to minute on Twitter. One can debate how far we truly have gone. I will just put it out there, something that should be brought up over and over again -- the leader of Ukraine is the same guy Trump was impeached trying to blackmail. Republicans just enabled him while saying (at times) how naughty he was.

SCOTUS Update: Judge/Justice Jackson Edition

I am not the only one interested in minutia and cute little things.

Breyer was front and center in some stuff this week, all in some fashion not too remarkable.  First, eagle eared (mixing metaphor sorta works here) listeners of oral argument caught what sounded like a spoiler.  A comment on what "just" was decided actually sounded like a case that was not.  

As I said, if he actually sent a message that "another blow to abortion rights advocates by siding with a Kentucky GOP official trying to defend the state’s abortion restrictions," it is far from a surprise.  That was the expected result.  

The question would be why a case argued in early October has yet to be decided.  Then, again, only eleven opinions (not counting notable "shadow docket" material) were handed down, with multiple per curiams meaning multiple judges have yet to author an opinion.  Yes, I still don't want to call the Trump trio "justices" since I think their confirmations were corrupt.  

[The shortage of opinions will be handled to some degree with two opinion days now announced for next week, Thursday and Friday.  Does this mean one opinion a day?  We shall see.]

Breyer's comment implied it was recently decided in some fashion, but the actual opinion (Amy Howe in the SCOTUSBlog live tweet joked [?] maybe it was a troll) handed down on Thursday was a copyright opinion.  Bird watchers might appreciate Breyer's short opinion for six, but the SCOTUSBlog summary underlines how minimalist the whole thing is.

[The summary: "In Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP, the court ruled 6-3 that lack of either factual or legal knowledge can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration under the safe-harbor provision in 17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(1)(A)."  Many cases are technical with limited scope.  This one appears particularly unimportant.]

The High Federalists -- Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, the last not joining part of the short dissent -- didn't go along for procedural reasons. They argued the argument offered was a johnny come lately one and would have disposed of the case.  The majority argued it was close enough.  Suffice to say Alito particularly has not been consistently concerned about form. 

Breyer is also notably involved in the third bit of news -- Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson (Biden did promise to decide by the end of the month; weekend announcements dubious, it was either today or Monday) was announced as the president's choice for his replacement.  

Eagle eyed observers noted her D.C. Circuit handed two opinions down yesterday, which is not the normal date.  A similar thing was done before Kavanaugh was nominated.  This is just form -- her being nominated was expected.  There was also a back-up, if necessary.  The drawn out affair is somewhat tiresome (and we just have started).  I'm aware of how these things go -- the system has a lot of theater and covering bases.

President Biden's big supporter being on Judge Michelle Childs side as well as various details about her record (plus and minus) put her out there. She's still up for D.C. Court of Appeals.  [Jackson being confirmed will give Biden another vacancy in a key COA to fill. Democrats need to continue to confirm -- there are multiple people in the queue.]

Likewise, Sen. Lindsey "Drama Queen" Graham latched on to her as the "compromise" choice.  And, after the news came out, he trolled some about how Jackson (who he voted for already, knowing she was on the short list) is the "left" ... blah blah.  He's a troll and unlike the likes of Tuberville, you can't even convincingly say he can't help it.  Years more of this asshole.

Judge Jackson is a great choice for a variety of practical and substantive reasons.  Her criminal justice (public defender etc.) record is a plus alone.  She had the usual top law school background, but you can't have everything, I guess.  Jackson was born in D.C., but grew up in Miami. So, that is at least not yet another tristate/D.C. area connection.  The link above also shows (a lawyer I know on Twitter also flagged this) she has procedural chops.  Breyer should appreciate that sort of thing.

The Eeyore view here is that we still have a 6-3 Supreme Court and (like with Breyer himself) the next nominee might be long coming.  Handwaving the first black woman to the Supreme Court, one who has multiple great things going for her, is a bit too much.  Change happens in a variety of ways.  This matters and damn let's be happy with it.

I don't deny AT ALL the problem. One reason I thought Breyer should retire was that a judicial nominee of this scope would bring an opening to talk about wider issues.  A black woman being nominated does just that in a basic way.  The specific issue I had in mind, of course, was the nature of the Supreme Court, and the courts more widely.  We should not let the (appropriate) celebration of the first black woman nominee to erase this.

The Biden Presidential Supreme Court Commission -- which basically has entered the memory hole (aided and abetted by many strong critics of the courts, who badmouthed it as useless or even counterproductive) -- again comes to mind here.  A leading black woman civil rights figure, who some felt would have been a very good choice here, was on the commission.  As was the recently deceased (and much beloved) Walter Dellinger.  

The "6-3" also comes to mind. Yes.  I am not simply resigned to granting that as the state of affairs as I was when Justice (sic) Clarence Thomas was confirmed or something.  I am still fucking angry at it.  Each Trump nominee has a problem. Each confirmation is corrupt in its own way.  

This corrupt process is already bringing first bitter fruit (for some), fruit that aided and abetted the people behind the nominations and confirmations.  Don't go and on about Trump and 1/6, and so on, without speaking about the sorts of things that helped him gain and retain power.  

And, this includes rejecting even limited refusal to normalize (no matter how much you strongly disagree ... you are normalizing them Eric Segall) enablers.  People praised his support of dissent there.  Like it's easy to talk the talk there.  It's like supporting cute babies.  But, it was not merely not being open to dissent for someone cited to draw a line at national Federalist Society events.  Can't say he isn't engaging at all.

"It won't matter" is also bullshit.  His fellow bloggers don't consume animal products.  That won't stop animal abuse.  It is a line drawn.  And, just joining with the other side, being their designated cute grumpy dissenter, helps them.  It legitimizes them.  He even has noted he was his law school's Federalist Society advisor at some point since no one else was available (I'm not sure of the exact details.)  It's for the students! They need to be part of the future Thomas feeder program or something.  

A Justice Jackson is likely to be on the Supreme Court for at least twenty years, going by recent trends.  So, we have to look down the road here.  Her vote and voice will matter and will matter more in the future.  And, the long haul also means promoting causes which will not win out at the moment.  To add to the conversation and move the needle somehow.  I'm talking court expansion here, but not alone.  

I still question the idea she should have been nominated over Garland in 2016.  I agree with others that she is a very good option now.  She has been vetted, repeatedly confirmed, and on the merits is a great choice.  

There are a ton of bits about her including being related by marriage to Paul Ryan and replacing Garland on the D.C. Circuit.  She even did improv in college and at one point worked with Matt Damon ... who later portrayed Kavanaugh on SNL.  This sort of trivia is what I have always live for.  I was the kid who knew it was not just 2.5, but 2.54 centimeters per inch.

Anyways, the formal announcement was made, and good luck. 

ETA: Americans United for Separation of Church and State has issued a statement supporting her nomination.  I take that her talking about faith during her remarks at yesterday's announcement (people noticed it though it wasn't that heavy) was not a turn off for them.   

But, in part given her role mostly as a district judge and a career more focused on criminal matters, her views on such questions are somewhat unclear.  There are limits of clarity here even in this much more ideologically secure age of judicial nominations.  (Even compared to the 1990s.) 

OTOH, Kagan had a limited writing trail, and she has brought few surprises.  Kagan did have certain specific leanings, including a stronger respect for precedent (see her joining a three person dissent in the unanimous jury case).  Even Hallmark movies have a few surprises. 

We can suppose she would generally put forth a liberal view, but even the liberal/moderate wing of the Supreme Court has had shades there.  Is she more Sotomayor or Kagan/Breyer on this question?  

To jump ahead, the betting line is at least a 52-48 confirmation, KBJ receiving three Republicans for court of appeals. Many more Republicans voted for her much less important sentencing and district judge positions. 

Them not voting now (less so Graham) isn't much of a "gotcha."  Maybe, more will vote for her?  The betting line also is that Republicans will make a bit of noise (they already are), but will not do too much to delay things.  Who she is overall is not a surprise; she has been confirmed three times already, including the last time when her SCOTUS nomination was pretty likely.  Yes, we have Kavanaugh-like surprises out there.

One more thing ... as I said yesterday, Jackson's nomination is something to celebrate. Even Elie Mystal, whose grumpiness and pessimism is sorta his thing, was happy yesterday.  Skimming Twitter -- a special occasion, I broke my new rule to keep off Twitter totally on weekends -- you can see the simple joy, especially among black legal women. 

Mystal also wrote a good commentary about not taking fair shots at black people who played by the rules (here going to elite institutions).  I thought the same regarding some of the criticism of Judge Childs' legal work.  Ditto someone like Kirsten Gillibrand having some corporate work of a dubious nature earlier in her career.  The issue that had some bite to me about Childs is when someone looked at how she decided certain criminal matters while a judge.  There she had more discretion.  

One more bit of trivia -- though Marshall and Thomas were once married to black women, tossing in KBJ, each black justice would also have been in interracial marriages.  Thurgood Marshall's second wife was Asian. And, KBJ's husband (this is hinted by her connection via him to Paul Ryan) is white.  Obama's mother was white and Kamala Harris has a white hubby. 

[KBJ's husband is a physician, not a career political operative like Ginny Thomas.  She has two children, both around college age.]

The Baháʼí Faith encourages such diversity in marriages. I am not sure if there is some point to it all, but it seems rather statistically notable that so many "firsts" on a national level are in biracial relationships. 

===

An order dropped today too.  "The joint motion of the parties and the Solicitor General for leave to file a revised redacted joint appendix for the public record is granted."

This involves a case argued next week.  So, it sort of explains why it was dropped now, instead of being part of the Monday Order List.  Why certain things like this are flagged on the Orders Page while various other happenings are not is not totally clear to me. 

An argument recap in the Native American dual sovereignty double jeopardy case also was helpful to me.  I was confused listening to the oral argument, in part because the case  might turn on limited grounds.  It has already been decided in the 1970s that tribes are separate sovereigns for double jeopardy purposes.  

The Supreme Court upheld the dual sovereignty concept in general there not that long ago. But, the specific types of tribal courts here arguably are too connected to the federal government.  It's not an all/nothing thing there.  Gorsuch is also a joker, since he is a tribal rights guy and was a dissenter in the dual sovereignty case.

Captain Ron

I watched the first half of this last night and then there was some glitch in the DVD. The second half has some sort of adventure plot, including a chance for the mild mannered father (somewhat curiously played by Martin Short with Kurt Russell playing the captain as a sort of stoner version of his Escape From New York character) to shine.

I like this "Does Captain Ron Deserve Cult Status" analysis. Various reviews pan the film. And, it has various signs of a tired enterprise. But, it also has some interesting touches. Kurt Russell actually is a good fit. The others (Mary Kay Place continues until today to find work; the kids include the future son on The Nanny and the lesser known sister of a familiar actor) do a pretty good job too. Looks the part too, including the old boat and Caribbean locale.

As the analysis shows, the movie has signs of a more explicit and deeper film. There are various amusing bits, including the mom being upset someone rudely put food on the kitchen table. The solid stuffy dad's fantasy has a bit of bite too. The movie can be panned as average fare that doesn't live up to its potential. Still, any "BOMB" sort of rating is unfair.

SCOTUS Watch: Order Day

TwosDay: The most important thing about today might be that it is an "ubiquitous palindrome date." 2/2/22. It is also President's Day, but that was observed yesterday.

Order Day: Various orders with two grants and Sotomayor finding another criminal justice matter to be concerned about. Her solo statement this time concerns the problem of sex offenders in New York needing to stay imprisoned longer when they are unable to find housing the right distance away from a school.

The most notable grant concerns a web designer not wanting to follow public accommodation rules. I'm sorry; "whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” 

Sounds like a rhetorical question presented. This thread suggests the possible reach, suggesting at one point that the assumption SCOTUS will say "no" is not guaranteed.  I find that somewhat dubious.  Justice Breyer early in a recent interview might not want to admit that his Court has as much of a "mission" by now as the Warren Court, but the trend is apparent.

There are also a few oral arguments this week.  Tomorrow's case is about states defending policies when the feds (aka the Biden Administration) stops.  Like the case taken today (looking at the docket page), as flagged by Strict Scrutiny Podcast, it looks like the Court is reaching to decide.

Today was a pair of Native American cases, one a double jeopardy matter.  The other involved gambling and the High School SCOTUS write-up flags its potential economic effects.  That website does an impressive job, including with some more technical cases which the average reader might not be much interested in.  

[ETA: The "bingo" case went on rather long and had some amusing aspects. I wonder if they just liked to have an non-ideological oral argument. As the "view from the Court" analysis notes, by the way, Sotomayor is back. She's double masked, but now no one else is. Maskgate? What's that?]

Meanwhile ... the Colombia Constitutional Court (5-4) broadly protects abortion rights.  

Mala's Cat

An analysis on why the Holocaust graphic novel Maus (Mouse) has been such a target argues that many want a "friendly" account. Seems logical on some level. [I don't remember it much, but did read Maus eventually.]

As I noted in a comment, the diary of Anne Frank is largely a Young Adult novel plot. Imagine a graphic novel that involves her final months, including each one of the family (except for Otto Frank) dying in the camps. I saw one account fairly recently that said that Peter (or whatever his real name is) died (at least officially) about when the camp he was in was liberated.  Or, brings up Otto Frank trying to get permission to emigrate to America, but stopped by its immigration policy.

There are now various accounts that tell a more complete story, including how Otto Frank edited the diary to remove some more negative or explicit material (nothing too bad).  There was also the overall knowledge of what happened.  Plus, the usual diary volume had an introduction that provided various details.  Still, many just read the diary (or parts of it) or watched the movie (or maybe saw a play version).  Again, nothing too dark.

Maus has some vulgarities that people can point to ("inappropriate for eighth graders" or something), but the basic "issue" might be book provides a messy version of things.  At least, it's a reasonable hypothesis (if maybe not the whole story), and you can read the blog post to see how the person makes the case.

Mala's Cat (originally published in the 1990s as Alone in the Forest) is an autobiography, but deals with the dark side.  The antisemitism starts before the Germans come, including the Mala being smacked so hard by a teacher once that she was knocked unconscious.  She later has to beg for food and sees her brother murdered by her side.  Surviving at times means lying, including to an old lady who thinks she is a relative. 

The title (and cover) might suggest it is a cute book about a teen and her cat.  The teen protagonist sees the cat as a sort of guardian angel (who interestingly happened to disappear when she was engaged to be married after the war ... making one wonder if the cat was symbolic, though she says otherwise ... how the cat was able to stick with her while she traveled all over is curious).

The book starts before the war and quickly enough (in the first 100 pages) her immediate family is rounded up when she is away.  And, she is on her own, though she does come back to her home village (by then a ghetto) for short time.  We get  a mix of stuff within those pages, from her happy childhood, economic struggles in the mid-1930s, and then antisemitism and the problems war brought.  

Given my current issues with books, I really had not big desire to read the last two hundred pages.  The book is well written (a lot of detail and so forth) though it feels a bit stiff at times.  We aren't talking a professional author after all.  I wonder how many others didn't feel a need to read three hundred pages of it. 

Already (at around 15) used to begging and surviving on her own (including taking the place of her older sister when called up for work), she learns how to live by her wits.  Readers will often be impressed by her ability to survive.  She eventually pretends to be a Christian and obtain work as a maid until the war ends.  

There are various people who survived the war "on the run" basically like Mala did.  She is not exactly a typical person, but neither was Anne Frank with her years in an "attic" in hiding.  I think many should like this book and it includes some of the horrors of war.  We know ultimately that Otto Frank was the lone survivor.  But, he is not the narrator of the story.

 ===

ETA: I skimmed the rest of the book.  After avoiding being arrested as a Jew more than once, Mala finds another Jewish girl [how exactly she "looked" Jewish isn't clear].  

The girl said she was going to be pretend to be from a destroyed Polish town -- a punishment for resisting the Germans -- thus her records were destroyed.  Mala already found a Christian girl whose name she took as her own.  Given identification documents, Mala then was sent with other Polish girls to Germany, and obtained work. She staid there until the Allies took over.

On the way there, some mean girl from her home area recognized her, and threatened to expose Mala as a Jew if she did not give up her coat. She talked so loudly, a guard noticed.  But, Mala called her a crazy person, sticking by her story [and pretending not to understand German] even when taken into custody.  It is suggested that instead the other girl was arrested or worse [Mala heard "torturing" with dogs and so forth while being questioned].

Mala had various moments in Germany too, in part since she continued to be reckless (taking the "P" off to more free wander around etc.).  She once even wrote to some family, implying she was their imprisoned mother/wife, to show her fellow workers that she had family herself back in Poland.  

Again, it is hard to believe her cat managed somehow to stick around for years as she traveled to Germany and so on.  But, the amount of trickery and so on Mala herself managed is rather amazing too. 

Attack of the Puppet People

The title is a misnomer in this Svengoolie entry since not only are the "people" here supposed to be dolls, they do not really "attack" except to a degree to free themselves. (Well, at least the two are supposed to care about.) I switched it off after the silliness of the office assistant going to the police (basically on her say-so) that um her boss changed people into dolls. The police officer just goes over and well the guy denies it. 

(Turns out he has a bunch of dolls that look like the boyfriend and destroys one of them to show they are just dolls.  Knowing his secret, and wanting to leave, it's time for the woman to join the rest of the dolls. The officer does investigate further later on.)

I reserved it in the library and will see if the DVD is the one with a commentary track. [It does not.] The film has some charms before that bit of silliness that (unsurprisingly) leads to another victim. The evil doll maker (already looking old, though in his 50s, he later was on the sitcom Gimme a Break!) was very good. John Agar does his usual stolid hero role.

June Kenney, who had a much shorter career, makes a good heroine. The two ironically see another sci fi specialty effects film involving a man shot up to a gigantic size. Overall, the first half provides some creepiness and character while I suppose (from reading about it) the second half has some fun even if some plot issues.  If I see more, I'll add to this a bit. [I did]

From my uneducated eye, the 1950s reduction special effects look pretty good.  How a puppeteer/puppet maker figures the science of reduction is unclear, but hey, it's all so simple.  

The main character is good though the others are a rather boring bunch if okay. His somewhat troublesome old friend comes off the best.  The salesman hero is pretty boring; the woman has potential but mostly has little to work with.  There are some creepy touches and a bit when a girl sees the shrunken cat is handled well.  

The movie is about eighty minutes long and I think it could have been about ten minutes shorter.  One person who works at the theater later was on Green Acres.  Also, what happened to the old postman? Was he too boring or troublesome to be a live friend?  

There is a good bit where the puppeteer forces the woman to be part of a sort of puppet show.  A believable bit of trickery for the two to disappear is imagined, but then basically the movie disappoints.  The movie thus far was pretty good story-wise, minus the police bit.  It sorta gives up now. 

How do they manage to even get outside of the theater?  Then, our two heroes need to go a mile outside back to the factor. It's early in the morning but no one sees them?  They would be about ten inches tall.  That part is weak and other than seeing a few animals (cat, dog, mouse), nothing much is shown.  

And, sudden our heroes are full sized.  We don't know how they got that way (it skips from them being outside the office to them full sized and walking out).  The movie then ends with the dollmaker crying about being left alone. 

We last heard about the others at the theater, when the dollmaker heard them cry out for help.  There is no sign he found them, him winding up alone at the office.  One guesses they will be found.

The whole thing is a sorta partial credit thing.  

The Sure Thing might not get as much kudos at John Cusack's Say Anything,  but both are clearly his best teenage comedies (here with a special focus on the love story).  I recall, though I would have only been around 14 at the time (I'm still a bit of a review junkie), Roger Ebert reviewing it on his show, the credit card bit in the rain the clip that comes to mind.  He enjoyed standard fare when feeling it was done honestly and with skill. 

I saw it again with the director Rob Reiner's interesting (and telling, such as his assumptions about boys being less mature about girls; suggests why his films have certain stereotypes) commentary.  It is also notable to recall the film was released in the mid-1980s, in the midst of less classy teen films of this nature.  The college freshman here had sex multiple times in high school, but you know, was deep down looking for something more.  

The core of the film is John Cusack and Daphne Zuniga (amusing when she comments once she dreamed as a little girl of being a princess and later she played one in the Mel Brooks Star Wars spoof) going cross country ala It Happened One Night.  But, like a third of the movie happens before then, and we see the two (if John Cusack clearly the bigger focus) at college.  

A chunk of the film is thus something of a character profile as compared to a comedy.*  And, it also has various actors who people probably recognize from later roles from Tim Robbins (show tune loving carpool driver), the guy who played "Mr. Heckles" on Friends, and Anthony Edwards as Cusack's pal.  Nicolle Sheridan plays the "Sure Thing," who turns out to look the part, but seem like a nice girl not quite sure about what is going on. 

[Nicolle Sheridan later had her most success on television. She had one of the more atypical Hallmark Channel lead performances in Honeymoon for One, in her late 40s.  These days some older actor [including guys] like that would be more likely to pop up in a supporting role.]

It's a charming movie though I felt the first part of the movie went too long (not that it was badly done).  Also, John Cusack plays decent guys in his 1980s movies, but there was also a tiresome goofball quality to him too.  Here, it was complicated by someone who appeared to basically realize that it was time to grow up (and he was only 17/18, so had time). 

Still, it was a bit tiresome.  One wished for more of these films to be through the point of view of the Alison character.  Daphne Zuniga herself is still acting, only having a few big roles in films, but making a go at least for now forty years all the same.   

[Looking, she is actually over 3 1/2 years older the Cusack and she does look somewhat more mature than the baby faced Cusack.  He looks notably older in Say Anything.  Cusack was only around eighteen when this film was released.  

I added this comment along with the third review.  The DVD also has a "trivia" track, providing Pop Up Video style trivia throughout.  Neat  idea.]

---

* The "oh my dad said to only use it in case of emergency" moment was a very funny moment.  As was Cusack pretending to be a nut when a driver went to sexually attack Alison [hitchhiking is okay, you know, but best to do it together!].  

The scene with Cusack going to a bar to fuel his sorrows about Alison talking to her boyfriend and meeting up with some lovable loser types was one of the more tiresome moments where it was time to shift to the commentary track. 

==

Uncorked was also on again.  

I talked about it before, and the same basic thoughts basically hold.  The widower at one point makes a comment about God and faith.  Shows how a film can be Up TV friendly without being heavy-handed.  

Interesting to read the IMDB reviews. Some appreciated it as somewhat different Hallmark fare; others didn't like it much.  I had a profile there and like 100 reviews, but it was attached to a defunct email.  Checking, someone told me the old account therefore could not be reestablished.

I skipped starting from 0 again. 

When We Make It

When I went to the Lit Bar bookstore in the Bronx last weekend, I saw this book. I have seen a few such books that use poems to tell a story. If Homer could do it ...

As one summary notes: "Sarai is a first-generation Puerto Rican eighth grader who can see with clarity the truth, pain, and beauty of the world both inside and outside her Bushwick apartment." Some might be using Google Translate a lot.

I don't know about reading the whole thing (LOTS of poems; each are short), but very good. Prime to be read aloud; perhaps a version can have lots of Puerto Rican girls do it.

SCOTUS Watch

RIP Walter Dellinger:  Walter Dellinger was a leading liberal legal voice and top member of the Clinton Justice Department (OLC / Acting SG).  One of his last big public moves was to be a member of the Biden Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court.  Given he had to argue various federalist cases, Dellinger repeatedly ran into some trouble.

A slew of kind words when news of his death came out, SCOTUSBlog set up some remembrances (moving on from Breyer), and Dahlia Lithwick talked about him as well.  They all were very respectful of his legal knowledge and skills as well as his kindness and humor as a person.

I only know of him from afar, but the kudos all seem appropriate. I liked one bit of his in the oral argument for Printz v. U.S. where he argued that the fact state officials had to made some sort of decisions didn't disqualify the federal program. After all, "every private who sorts potatoes thinks that... between large and small ones thinks that when you get a medium sized potato you're making a policy choice."

We always need good public servants and he was a great one. As was Harriet S. Shapiro, a lesser known SG, who her obit notes "joined the solicitor general’s office in 1972 and spent 29 years there."  She died at 93 earlier this month, and her story hopefully will not be totally lost here. 

===

Gilbert Ray Postelle: Sixteen years ago, a fucked up family (dad declared incompetent to face trial because of brain injuries; brother given LWOP) was involved in a four person murder based on what turned out to be a mistaken revenge deal. Gilbert was eighteen and high on meth.

The Oklahoma pardon and parole board might have closely split already in recent executions, but this was one a 4-1 reject vote.   Not that many will cry over this guy.  The execution is still dubious and even here arbitrary.  His brother received LWOP.  If the details suggest Gilbert somehow was "more guilty," it was overall a marginal thing on some basic level.  

The guy was part of a fucked up family and killed as a teen while high on meth.  Execution is not going to deter here.  As to retribution, this is less troubling than various executions.  I still do not think he was so much more guilty, in a calculated and cruel fashion, to warrant it.  And, I still think prison time in death row conditions is rather serious. Ask his brother.  

Oklahoma still has a questionable recent history on execution procedures. The justices are done with worrying about that.  Doesn't change that. If an execution goes down there without a hitch, it's a matter of some good luck.  A good usage of the Eighth Amendment does not rely on that.  

As to other due process issues, it is probable he doesn't have that great of a case.  So, perhaps that is why there was no end of the line Hail Mary type final request for the Supreme Court to reject. He was executed Thursday morning.  After four executions, we will now have a trial on the lethal injection procedure.  

===

STOCK Act: Fix the Court has long been concerned with financial disclosure.  They recently flagged this issue, including arguing justices shouldn't even own stocks.  

So, they were quite happy a form of a disclosure law has now passed both houses of Congress.  Differences between the two are now subject to conference, but the bipartisan nature of the bill provides hope agreement will be obtained.  

===

Promoting The Cause: An article was dropped after I published this entry regarding a recent Barrett speech.  At the time, I was pissed at her fake talk of judicial restraint (she is all "law" as compared to more open-ended "equity" etc.), but you know, we have been down this path already in her public remarks.  But, the Vox piece is worth citing.  

The fact these people (including Gorsuch) at various points are wary about having the public/press get coverage of this sort of thing is dubious at best.  I do welcome them publicly expressing their views, even if only to show how full of shit they might be.  They do at times are at risk of crossing some line (both liberals and conservatives), but that isn't reason for them not to do that at all.

Justice Breyer, who is not shy about publicly doing this, had yet another moment to share his views in a conversation that was aired on C-SPAN.

It also is not totally new. John Harlan (I) actually was a law professor for  a long time.  He might have only expressed his views mostly in asides, but he clearly in the process did do just that.  Joseph Story wrote a whole constitutional commentary.  John Marshall's biography of Washington is another case of constitutional views coming out in asides. And, so on. 

===

Conference Day: After a break, of sorts, the Supreme Court is back. Friday is a conference and there will be an order day on Tuesday.  Monday being a holiday.  Next week also has oral arguments.  Also, we might get a justice nomination announcement. I still think Jackson.

An order was dropped to deal with certain matters, including breaking down the argument in two cases. A major case of Biden v. Texas (and Missouri) is also added to the docket for argument in April.  The case involves power and discretion involving migrants from Mexico.  

A second order, for the time being, denied relief because of changing circumstances.  The matter involved a challenge of a vaccine requirement and the challenger actually didn't think the change was enough.  Among the documents cited is a letter "dated January 44, 2022."  Might be a typo.

(Actually, it is January 14th.  The letter has an attachment with another dissent regarding how the student "Doe has developed natural immunity to COVID-19 from a prior infection, her religious beliefs forbid her from receiving any of the COVID-19 vaccines."  

It is unclear such "natural immunity" will be complete; anyways, eventually, we might find out that some variant requires another vaccine.  Note, how the dissent cites a "statement of Gorsuch" repeatedly as if he wrote the opinion of the Court.)

The Supreme Court also has announced there will likely (they never said definitely) be opinion or opinions next Thursday.  The Court will not take the bench. So, yet again, there will not be opinion announcements. Again, this is wrong.  It is not necessary for them to be there to have that. 

Books

The movie Lilies in the Fields was on television recently so I went out and read the novella it was based on. I don't recall all of the movie, but the two basically overlap in general particulars.

The movie is somewhat more extended since the book is basically something of a long short story. Little things like the ending (how Homer left) and there not being a church in town were changed in the film. Both work well.  The author wrote many other books too.

Both are touching, humane, and good examples of their craft. It also shows how a religious themed work can have wide audience. One person noted the way to do a good Christian film is to tell a good story, the Christianity not the key aspect for success. 

==

Joshua Prager told aspects of The Family Roe in the past, including an article on Roe co-counsel (still alive) Linda Coffee. Another person addressed with special focus (she's the first photo in the inserts) is the pioneer black woman physician, and anti-abortion advocate, Mildred Jefferson. The book is very good. It's just too darn long for my tastes these days.

At times, at least, probably would push back in other ways.  The book starts with the idea that when Roe was handed down that there was not much division.  Abortion was an issue in the 1972 elections, decided before the opinion was even handed down.  I also know chunks of this story, and if the author (per that article) only learnt in 2010 that Norma gave birth to "Baby Roe," well, I surely knew long before then.  

I surely do not know many details, including about each of her daughters, but there is only so much I need to know there.  The main book is around five hundred damn pages long.  This subject surely deserves an in depth analysis, but even there, various of these figures have been covered before.  The core "new" material makes up how much of even this volume?  

Again, various aspects, including more about Linda Coffee and an abortion provider named Curtis Boyd also cited notably is a teenager geared history of abortion (well recommended btw) is appreciated.  And, to the degree there is a bit of pushback (e.g., should Linda and Sarah have done more to at least try to get Norma an abortion? I still question if that was at all possible since she was likely at least four months pregnant even when they first met*), it's good to get that too from a basically friendly source.

But, it for me -- at least at this time -- is a matter of the book being so long. I know it is partially my Internet use.  Still, there are many options out there, and spending the time to read 500 page long books, including someone who is not that quick of a reader, warrants special dispensation.  

"Painfully" detailed?  Yeah. 

Unlike the other review cited, this one suggests the book is perfectly framed for the moment.  The review also shows there are a lot of great details in the book.  One bit is when Norma (multiple lesbians in this story) basically expresses she had a crush on the young and fresh looking Sarah Weddington (something about "darn she had a lot of hair").  

[You can see how pretty SW must have been from some of the photos available with the cute soft Texas accent coming thru on the oral argument video.  She soon had more professional hair and by the 1980s lost that young look.  It is a pretty stark change.]

Well covered topics have so many details that new books are likely to have some more.  The details here are not always pretty.  Mildred Jefferson and Linda Coffee, for instance, had various unpleasant things happen to them.  Jefferson, the anti-abortion physician, doesn't really come off as a psychologically healthy individual, including having issues with hording.

The review also notes that the author quotes law professor Mary Ziegler, an expert on Roe’s history, as saying: “The abortion conflict is a tale of hopeless polarization, personal hatreds and political dysfunction.”  He also cites her as saying that no matter how the latest challenges fall in the Supreme Court, the battle would continue.  

This suggests to me personally that those who think Roe being decided was so fundamental itself miss something.  It was part of a wider story.  And, the fact the "Family Roe" itself consists of so many characters is a plus on its side.  But, skimming it fully, I really think it could have been condensed. 

---

* The book's account of the matter seems garbled to me. 

First, it is noted that Norma was probably too far along, probably at least twenty weeks.  Then, it was more unclear; maybe, the lawyers did not do enough to at least try to see how far along, or maybe even try to get her an abortion (in Mexico or something, like Sarah Weddington did).

Later, it is noted that Sarah Weddington even began to lie and say Norma on purpose didn't have an abortion, to prevent the case from being moot. It is not noted if the author or someone else flagged the issue with her; the author himself after all talked to SW as part of his research.  

Also, why would SW worry about mootness?  After all, it was a class action. The fact she would no longer be pregnant given the length of the case was a given.  

I also remember once someone flagging the fact as a matter of policy abortions were allowed in cases of rape.  That was vaguely cited during oral argument, but the implication was (if at all) that would be done very early.  Not as far along as she was.  

(Anyway, she wasn't raped, and at best vaguely referenced it in a "if it helps" sort of way.  The law itself did not have a rape exception, unlike the more liberal Georgia law. 

BTW, it was noted in other accounts that the "Bolton" in that case was pro-choice.  We learn in this book that "Wade" was as well.  This is a bit of a surprise given how pro-life the argument got to be by the end, suggesting in fact that even allowing abortion was problematic.)

Matt Harvey Testifies

Matt "The Dark Knight" Harvey had a conflicted time of it while a Mets star pitcher. He began as a star ace, becoming a celebrity and party boy type. Then, he got hurt, and things got to be a struggle. At first, he had a celebratory routine, ending with a dubious stretching him for one more inning in the World Series. And, then, he got hurt again.

This became the start of a still continuing attempt to salvage his baseball career. The Angels (then led by the GM of the Mets now) signed him on for some stupid one year deal (11M?), but they have Disney money. He didn't do that well. While there, he was mixed up with Tyler Skaggs, whose death from overdose has led to a criminal trial for a former communications director there. Who sounds like he has his own drug issues. 

(I like how the article notes he is "technically" a free agent.) 

Harvey, given immunity, testified. Came out as a drug user, both cocaine and otherwise. Not really a shocker. Apparently, he is doing better these days. The Mets, upset about his party ways and refusal to be a good boy (once he struggled, this was less charming to the fans too), say they tried to help. Some (including Kevin Plawecki, former Mets catcher) think he is being given a bad wrap in the media these days.

I have not kept up with the weeds.  I doubt Harvey was particularly special here.  He is basically a warning sign about the perils of young stardom and how injury can end promising careers.  I think the Orioles, getting him for some much more reasonable amount, got something out of him. The overall record looks bad, but if you look at individual outings, Harvey had some.  After all, it's the Orioles.  Getting anything was something there. 

I noted recently that I support keeping steroids out of baseball and steroid users from the Hall of Fame.  The criminal trial of Barry Bonds and others tend to be a much more tricky deal, whatever the details. Deal with drugs in sports, including addiction and use/abuse for performance reasons can be an important matter without criminal prosecuted being warranted. 

I do not know if the guy here is such a special source of the drugs (which seem to be a more dangerous form of opioids than expected, underlining the importance of following carefully regulated drug rules) that he warrants such special criminal attention.  I will leave that important detail to others.  

I wish Harvey well.  Hopefully, Thor, who the Angels signed for another costly short term contract, also off an injury, has a lot less trouble in the next few years. 

ETA: "A federal jury found former Los Angeles Angels communications director Eric Kay guilty on two felony counts Thursday, agreeing with the government that he distributed the deadly drug fentanyl and caused the death of Angels pitcher Tyler Skaggs.

Kay, who won't be sentenced until June 28, faces a minimum of 20 years in prison.

The jury took less than two hours to deliberate after the eight-day trial, which saw eight major league players take the witness stand, five of whom admitted to their own drug use." 

I have not kept up with this case, so do not know how "slam dunk" the whole thing was (one person I respect on Twitter who is in media and paid some attention suggested the prosecution was questionable).  

I am surprised the jury came back so fast, especially given the seriousness of the offense. A person died, but twenty years for not even intentionally killing the person is extreme.  

In a reasonable 8A world, a form of "cruel and unusual" punishment, either as determined by judges or the legislature.  At the very least, a mandatory twenty year minimum.  Many intentional murders get a fraction of that.  

The defense's argument that the person dead factored into the situation is credible though it also is reasonable for the government to be concerned about the open-ended possibility of drugs causing the death of any number of ball players. Plus, the "national past time" very well is a special concern of the federal government.  

Anyway, the extreme nature of drug related prosecutions is well known by now, and not just "stars" dying bring people into its web.  Putting this guy in prison for twenty years is a rather suspect way of addressing the wider issue. A civil suit is also in the works and in a way that might be more likely to have some effect though the Angels again are made of money. 

Super Bowl

I mostly watched the second half. But, the bad commercials apparently were a thing all game. It was 13-10 (missed XP), Rams, so Bengals probably were happy. They got here down 21-10, after all. Didn't watch halftime show.

Bengals scored 10 quickly (seven plus three off a turnover), but then it was a bunch of punts. It was 20-16 late, the Bengals drive ending with a missed catch. Rams decided to have a good drive. Stop at 3rd and Goal. Shit penalty on Bengals. Rams then score. Bullshit. It's the fucking Super Bowl. Give me a fucking break.

Bengals can't make 4th and short at midfield. Rams win 23-20. "Win." Rams could have made that 4th and Goal and/or won anyways. Bengals could have scored more and stepped up to at least force OT. But, a horrible call with less than two minutes playing such a big part just tainted the whole thing for me. What a horrible end of the football season.

Books

I re-read Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights, which I talked about in the past. Like the co-author's Q&A book on veganism, I was not totally satisfied with it. A cow has various experiences that show it is worthy of life. But, what exactly does a twenty-week fetus have even if it somehow feels pain? Nonetheless, overall, I think it usefully discusses various things. Might be on the other book review website in March.

She Kills Me: The True Stories of History's Deadliest Women is a collection of short accounts about female murderers. Not an in depth book, but an interesting bunch of snapshots, many of whom I read about first here. A somewhat rare case of footnote sourcing.

Bookstores in general are on the decline. But, there was never in recent memory bookstores in the Bronx much at all. For a long time, there was a small store in Riverdale. Then, there was a Barnes and Nobles in Co-Op City. But, for an area so large, should there not be more? So, it was great The Lit Bar, a small independent book store opened in 2019. I took a book lover there yesterday and it is conveniently accessible by bus and train.

Universal DH: BOO!

It’s time for the universal DH because..Pitchers seldom get more than 2 plate appearances per game..very few bunt or can bunt anymore..injury risk running bases…bigger pitching staffs=shorter benches,less flexibility for managers..nobody pays to see a double switch. It’s time.

— Howie Rose (@HowieRose) February 11, 2022

While waiting to see if the players and ownership agree on a labor deal in time, some news did come out.  Howie "Mr. Mets Radio" Rose is not the only one pushing for this.  We have Deesha Thosar (see link), the NY Daily News prime Mets reporter talking about how "Mets fans can breathe a sigh of relief if the universal DH does come to pass ahead of next season."

Seriously? I have been a Mets fan since the 1990s.  I have not until recently seen much concern about pitchers getting hurt hitting and running the bases.  The article blames deGrom's injury complaints to being a batter. Oh please.  Again, when was this an issue before recently?  AL pitchers have and had aches and pains too.  It's bullshit to focus on that.  

What other reasons?  People want more offense.  That was as I understand it a general reason for the DH along with giving older hitters (and at least in time, hitters in general) who can't do much else a role. Some are upset you have to deal with someone with lousy defensive skills in the field.  Specialization got to the point where you had a LOOGY (Left-handed One Out Guy) coming in for one batter.  Bullpen games are now much more common.

There is a cost to that.  The expansion of careers also make it harder for younger players to have a shot.  More offense skewers the game too.  Less strategy. The fact pitchers (and others) can't bunt was something that developed for a reason.  As to "no one wants to see that," well I and others DO want to see more strategy.  I like pitchers hitting.  It is also something that is taught.  If people harp about how stupid it all is, sure, people will learn to think it stupid.  It isn't inherently so. 

Longer games.  As one person noted to me on Twitter, MLB supposedly is worried about games being too long.  Pitchers hitting shorten games.  Later in games, it also to some degree (though these days AL teams do the same thing for match-ups) leads to more switches.  

A rule requiring (unless the inning ends first) a pitcher face three batters to some degree was put in place to address that.  And, before starters were pulled earlier and earlier, pinch hitters for pitchers (a matter of strategy, which I'm there fore) didn't happen much anyway.  It added but a nuanced piece to the wider game. 

As Daniel Gold, a journalist and Mets fan noted on the Rose thread:

For shame, Howie. Pure rationalization to justify something that doesn’t need doing. It’s not “time” - it’s just a damaging change. (And lengthens the game even as MLB wants to shorten it.) I get it, it’s happening: but we don’t have to applaud it.

Change happens and it's a mixed bag.  I don't mind replays though at times they take too long and try to do too much for what amounts to eyelash differences.  But, like having some oversight of elections, it goes too far in my mind not to have them at all.  If only we had a replay when that poor journeyman was denied a no-hitter because of a bad call on the 27th out.

I liked the Yankees during their Joe Torre run (I thought by the end, he overstaid a bit, probably) and some of the games were exciting because the started was there in the eighth or even ninth inning. The bullpen games of modern day playoffs where five innings often is a lot to me is a tad ridiculous. And, yes, this is subjective, part of it is that I find them boring.  

But, one more hitter out of nine?  Come on.  The Big V development of changing extra inning rules also was not something I liked. I like the idea of extra innings in general.  Extra baseball is fun. I thought the "ghost runner" idea in a way interesting.  But, the 10th is too soon.  I am also less upset about the seven inning double header.  Still 14 innings of baseball.

Various other rule changes also didn't raise much comment for me. The three batter rule for each relief pitcher is probably not a bad idea and again adds a bit of strategy.  It does hurt specialty pitchers and you are stuck with a pitcher with nothing for two more batters. That can bite you in the ass.  OTOH, why shouldn't a pitcher have to at least face three batters?

The idea we should change the shift is proposed by some since it I guess somehow interferes with offense.  Oh please.  The shift was a strategic development to deal with offense and the right response to me is to work around it.  A shift, like playing back, can result in an easy hit, if you hit to what they offer.  And, yes, it works on averages, so sometimes it doesn't work.  It's silly when some announcer notes they would have been out with normal positioning without noting that.  Sure.  And, often non-out.

One Mets announcer (not Rose) finds bunts moronic.  Maybe, I'm wrong, but seems bunts developed in baseball (not just by pitchers) for a reason.  Sometimes, given the situation, it is a sensible play.  Late in the game, or even early against a few pitchers, advancing runners is on an odds level the right move.  You can get a run on an out/error.  Or, maybe two runs on a cheap hit.  It works too based on the available hitting talent.

The article notes there is also some agreement regarding draft picks or whatever.  I don't know what that exactly is about, but one thing I hear talked about is concern about teams tanking.  I also heard talk of more playoff games.  I think that is bad.  It waters down the game. 

I'm fine with the current wild cards.  No, I don't think it somehow unfair that if you don't win your division that there is a one-off.  Why is incentives to win your division and not be lackluster (since a few extra wins do not matter much) a bad deal?  No system is perfect.  Sometimes, you have a very weak divisional winner.  A tweak might be warranted somehow without changing division play and fun one-off wild card systems. 

There was one rule change in a recent year involving use of position players to pitch. Basically, I don't think it did much, since you nearly never do that unless in a blowout situation.  I think when that happens, it is sorta fun. The game is a lost cause and it gives the bad luck team's fan something to smile about.  A few think that cheapens the game.  I find that silly.

If anything, I think such little quirks might be invited somehow.  The Pro Bowl had a few twists (I cited one in my summary; the link added more).  We can think of some here.  The "ghost runner," for instance, is a cute idea.  I think it should come later, but it's a cute idea.  A position player pitching or something else quirky can also come in somehow.

So, I'm okay with wild cards and instant replay (if not taken too far), but find DHs and bullpen games not so copacetic. And, yes, as seen in a recent piece, I'm supportive of not allowing steroids and being concerned about such things as discrimination and sexual abuse infecting the game.  

In the past, if such things were "off the field" particularly, we looked away.  Now, not so much.  The last barrier is sex discrimination on the field with NFL starting to have women officials.  Maybe, MLB will have a woman umpire one of these days.  Or, woman coach.  Gay players.  Change can be good.

ETA: I saw a local baseball broadcaster spell out a new agreed upon playoff format involving seven teams per league with a first round bye.  

As one person noted, delay is not necessarily a good thing here -- players need steady play to be fully into the groove.  Even now, teams that make it or advance quickly sometimes seem not quite up to speed at first.  The competing interest, of course, is needing to win less games.

I am not a fan of four wild card teams. Two does it for me -- not everyone does, but the one game playoff is in my opinion fun and exciting. Two wild card teams extends teams in it without watering down the competition too much. There is likely going to be one weak team in the mix, but that's okay.  

Now, there will be two more, with marginal teams just needing a run (or maybe a bad couple weeks) and they can get in.  I think we have enough playoff baseball as is and don't need even more. I am not sure if the one-off system will now end though people have whined how it is "unfair." If you want to avoid it, win your division! The wild card provides an extra way in.

I think the DH matters more to the game itself though watering down the playoffs is likely to do so as well.  But, I do not think this is a useful addition.  Let's see how they handle extra innings.

SCOTUS Watch: Lectures and Interviews

Justice Sotomayor gave a lecture at NYU, which received some attention. Of course, it isn't on the Supreme Court website, even with a "speech" page. She recently talked with Conan O'Brien too. Don't see video for this one yet.

Sotomayor flagged the usual stuff you hear about how the courts are seen in a too partisan light, trust in them are decreasing in troubling ways, and the nomination process is problematic. The idea this is the "first" time each political party was associated with a certain judicial sentiment in a strong way is silly (see c. 1800). As to the rest, sure, but your colleagues are part of the problem. Look at your own house.

Meanwhile, High School SCOTUS continues their excellent interview series with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. Turns out he had one appearance in front of the Supreme Court as an advocate. He is asked about the Presidential Supreme Court Commission. Supports change, but worried about getting too far ahead of the curve. I think the commission fits into his general push for public education in a steady fashion.

2022 New York Elections Update

The Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering is a political question in Rucho v Common Cause. This leaves open state challenges and other gerrymander claims (particularly racial). Some state courts have pushed back. This approach is harder to take when Shelby v. Holder is factored in, which inserted the Supreme Court constitutionally into the electoral process in an anti-voting rights sort of way.

New York recently passed a redistricting map, which appears to be a partisan gerrymander, if helping Democrats. Realistically, until electoral reform truly arrives, this is acceptable. An ACLU guy (briefly citing Prof. Dorf) pushed back, but such unilateral disarmament is big picture not the only "principled" way to go. 

Looking, the proposed redistricting map will notably affect the Bronx, including attaching part of it to Long Island (which bothers some residents).  It looks like my own district will still be the same for me personally while the district lines will change.  It looks like the key line is the other side of Pelham Parkway (less than a mile away) with three districts intersecting not that far away.  

One notable development is that the new district lines has led my state senator (Alessandra Biaggi) to decide to run for Congress.  She is in her second term and it would be unfortunate for me personally for her to go.  The race is crowded so it is far from clear she will even win the primary.  

Meanwhile, "The district is currently represented by moderate Democrat Tom Suozzi, who is stepping down to run for governor."  Good luck with that Mr. Suozzi.  Also running, now the liberal candidate with James staying as AG, is Jumaane Williams.  

He's also the Working Family Party candidate and the current NYC public advocate.  I should be for him, I guess, but not really too gung ho.  I appreciate that we moved on from Cuomo and have not really had much reason to complain about his replacement.  A primary is also a time to push from the left (or right), so there's that.  Seems logical to vote for him there.

===

I emailed Sen. Biaggi about something referenced here over the years, if not exactly seen as a compelling matter for many people.  Namely, her support for a bill that "Designates lay individuals as one-day marriage officiants in order to solemnize marriages."  This reflects how many people self-ordain ("lay" is a bit question begging) to be able to preside.

I am not really a big fan of this special one-off though maybe it would be helpful given the reality that a bigger change is not likely.  Note, for instance, the existing law singles out certain ethical societies to be treated like traditional religious figures allowed to preside over weddings.  I find that rank discrimination.  It also singles out "Quakers" for special notice.

If you just read the bill, with an excerpt of the marriage law being amended, the religious officiant class seems open-ended.  A Universal Life Church minister might be seen as a joke, but it is still a "clergyman," and multiple courts over the years (including one lower court in New York at least) so recognized.  

Nonetheless, there has been divided judgment in lower New York courts, without a firm conclusion by the highest court, on what the term means in reference to a separate provision that spells out exactly what it means for New York law.  And, the ethical society favorites underlines the problem rather clearly.  

A special one time one-off if anything seems to not only reaffirm this but imply the ULC Church minister is not really a minister.  The common belief, though I would argue otherwise (the effect of "ordination" here depends on the individual), is that such a minister is really a "lay" individual.  State law separately provides some limits for the clear purpose of drawing some lines here.  

Again, it doesn't look like they is a big desire to change things significantly.  So, a one-off (without clearly doing anything else so arguably the ULC Church minister is in the same position) might be the best shot.  It would remove any fear that such a marriage would years later not be deemed unofficial.  And, a person does not only have the ability to do this once.  They just have to re-up each time.  

There is a fee, which doesn't seem to be the case in other cases. Again, that seems discriminatory, but so it goes.  

I myself years ago registered (life time) as a Universal Life Church minister for purposes of getting a wedding officiant certificate in New York City.  The city provided this for religious figures and the church was one option.  I would think that I am not a "lay" officiant.  I am not totally sure of that.  Again, it would be best just to clear it up.  

And, if the state is wary if someone not part of religious institution has the ability to continuously marry people without more, they can provide a duty to study the current marriage law and maybe answer a few questions.  They can do this via an online tutorial or something.  I think that would be useful.  After all, various government officials have the right to officiate without probably knowing the rules that well.  

Anyway, at this rate, someone else will be pushing for this thing. 

In the News ...

Baseball: The Mets hopefully finally have a truly serious manager, a new stud pitcher (though I'm worried about his age), and a few nice new position players. But, there is the lockout, of which I basically have not paid much attention. I don't know if one side is worse than the other though this account is by a reporter/analyst usually on the ball.

Bipartisan Sanity? There appears to be some important agreement that will allow the Violence Against Women Act (without a controversial measure) to finally be renewed. Sen. Biden strongly pushed VAWA. Trump supports violence, against women and otherwise. His victory was a win for bullying and violence.

After the RNC's reading out of two House members who actually support investigating 1/6 strongly, there has been some pushback from certain Republicans. Graveyard Mitch has gone back to calling it an "insurrection." I'm for using that as far as we can, but I'm somewhat less positive than that link. Mitch still opposed conviction and said in the past he would support Trump if he was the candidate. Loopholes can be found.

Sunday on Wednesday

Football: Pro Bowl (in Las Vegas). I saw a little bit, including the end. Not that exciting; rather lax blocking. Looked to be a mismatch, but got closer near the end with the new Pats QB going for 4th and Short at the two minute warning to ice the win. They tried a thing where you don't kickoff, but go for 4th/15 at your own 25. No one completed it. Might work.

Film: Lilies of the Field was on TCM. Nice little movie with Sidney Poitier based on a novella (it's in the library; will check it out). I saw it in the past. It's an example of do a religious themed movie right. The theme is there (along with other stuff, since it's also about a black man fulfiling a dream in the early 1960s) but not done in a lame way.

Television: I checked out Celebrity Wheel of Fortune again. The two episodes I saw was pretty fun. Vanna White looks pretty good after all these years too. She is in her 60s. I also liked the beginning of a new Hallmark mystery movie. These are often a bit cheesy, but Julie Gonzalo (who I like in more than one non-mystery) and company at least started well.

More Shadow Docket Fun

SCOTUS Talk: After Gorsuch had his secret Federalist Society moment over the weekend, other accounts talked about other members of the current 6-3 majority. There is Barrett, who might be the proper name of this Court. And, more on Justice Thomas, including his relationship with a possible 2024 Republican nominee.

Voting Rights: But, the Barrett Court didn't want to let a mid-winter break interfere with their "I want it now, daddy!" (chocolate factory reference) energy. With Chief Justice Roberts again dissenting, willing to play the long game, we had a 5-4 stay of court of appeals ruling blocking an Alabama redistricting case. Not good voting news-wise.

Three judges just stayed the ruling. Kavanaugh (with Alito) said it was proper given it is an election year. Which is b.s. Roberts dissented, saying he'd wait to change the law. Kagan for the liberals dissented, liking the law, and schooling Kavanaugh a bit too.

Food Police vs. Meat Eating Vegans

For years, I struggled with my weight and diabetes. But it wasn't my DNA, it was my dinner.

Healthy choices can save your life and @NYCHealthSystem's Lifestyle Medicine Clinics will help New Yorkers make those choices in every zip code. pic.twitter.com/msUv0bXcsj

— Mayor Eric Adams (@NYCMayor) February 7, 2022

The overall sentiment put forth here by Mayor Adams is good. 

The complication was when it came out that Mayor Vegan (he has self-represented as one, which is his own choice) with a "plant based" diet was discovered to have a loose understanding of such terms.  He called out "food police" who was overly concerned about specifics.  

 Guy emphasized been vegan and so on himself.  He easily could have used more loose terminology.  I personally think ethically it is appropriate to not eat animals products, at least (see a book by Michael Dorf and Sherry Colb) those that result in harm/killing of animals with a certain degree of consciousness.  So, eating worms, for instance, might not be morally problematic, depending on environmental concerns and so on.

And, people sometimes have lapses.  A person is human and whatever their beliefs, they are not going to absolute about it in practice.  It is a stupid parlor game to pretend otherwise and/or pay gotcha games.  There are lines. So, for instance, if you are against abortion, having one because it will conflict with college plans is a tad bit hypocritical.

The term "vegan" suggests a certain degree of wholeheartedness. Maybe, if you have honey or something, you can quibble.  It is not the same thing as "vegetarian," which is more flexible -- people who are vegetarians sometimes eat dairy products (which he, showing his tendency to run off his mouth, compared to drugs).  Vegan?  That isn't what I would think of when people eat fish.  At least, it is not a "food police" moment. 

And, how timely with "vegan Fridays"* beginning in city public schools, there is a suggestion he might even go beyond the occasional fish.  He might occasionally have meat and chicken.  Again, fine, if we grant that no one is totally consistent.  Adams, however, suddenly is coy, while once being against (according to one article cited) "balanced moderation."  

(One wag suggested his shot at "food police" is a bit curious since Adams is usually pro-police, inclined to give them more power.)

Bottom line, it's fine to take a moderate path here. At least, on some level.  Don't go overboard, especially if it is a lapse or a limited thing that doesn't negate a general practice. It is another matter to take potshots like this when caught.  I fear, however, we will see him doing this regularly. 

One final thing. Someone I sometimes read for legal commentary noted he opposes adults to become vegetarians since they are likely to lapse.  Eat less meat instead. That's rather lame, even without noting many don't even think of chicken as meat. 

I myself became a vegetarian in my 20s.  I never completely became a vegan, though I rarely eat products with eggs and dairy these days [generally some dessert with them, not something like ice cream or cheese].  Cutting down is better than nothing, but my suggestion would be to try to go at it in installments. 

ETA:  Prof. Colb, a vegan, adds another supportive commentary in response to "fish-gate."  I understand the concern that people will miss the forest for the trees here, including that overall Mayor Adams has done a good thing to promote veganism.  

I would note even there that it is unclear to me how much criticism he is actually getting, "food police" comments and so forth.  It sounds to me that his own theatrics is half the story.  He made his veganism a story, people saw he went off the wagon, and called him on it.  So what?  That happens.   From my vantage point, it wasn't done to some silly degree.

Anyway, I still am annoyed to some degree (I want to underline that last part) at the response here.  First, she is "excited" about him being mayor because he is openly a vegan.  The fact he is suspect in certain ways (see, e.g., support of solitary confinement) over other options is not even mentioned.  I was not "excited" in that sense, in part since to be "vegan" is an overall life ethic ala Victoria Moran's book. 

And, it is not like "oh no one is perfect."  First, it isn't just fish, apparently, from some accounts.  Second, he is a public figure.  As a public advocate, he has additional responsibilities.  The response here is not surprising; it is plain unsurprising.  He messed up there.  I think people like Colb is giving him too much of a pass.

I don't want to belabor the issue too much, but a final thing is that Prof. Colb is a strong advocate.  Temple Grandin states she believes animals deserve respect and works toward making how they are killed less traumatic.  Colb in the past sneered at the value of this, arguing that it makes meat eaters just feel better.  But, as long as we have to deal with the reality of meat eating, such harm reduction MATTERS.

Now, a major advocate of veganism slips up in a public way and we don't even get a reminder of the importance of being careful as a public figure.  And, we do not even get a full accounting of what he actually did (granted the meat/chicken eating has received less play), as if he had fish once or twice.  It's a bit too generous.  

Oh well.

---

* Having one day a week without animal products seems to be a perfectly sane approach, especially since they have to include some dairy pursuant to federal rules or something.  

It's one day a week, and there are surely some non-animal product foods that most children like.  An easy approach would be usage of animal substitutes, such as a taco with meat substitute crumbles. 

How Should Democrats Respond to the GOP’s Censure of Cheney & Kinzinger?

I am generally in agreement that Democrats, being the only grown-ups (maybe with a limited number of Republicans somewhat grow-up curious), need to find a way to protect wider republican values here. That includes a system which in some way will have a more healthy opposition problem. Can serious types at least admit only one side is credible? (No.)

The resolution that reads Cheney and Kinzinger out of the national party by the Republican National Committee is somewhat to behold. Usual potshots at "Democrat" party and scare references to the Green New Deal. But, the clear allusion (no matter how they want to deny it) to 1/6 insurrection (the focus of the committee they are on) as "legitimate political discourse" sort of seals the deal, rather officially here.

Barney Frank (remember him?) suggests Democrats bow out and let Cheney run as an independent in her race this year. Make for a clear referendum of sorts. I guess one can dream of a possible three way race, with the Democrat getting 25% last time. Even there, a few Dems would probably vote for Cheney. 

What of other Republicans? This was a Republican National Committee resolution. They OWN IT.  A letter to the NYT from a lifer declares this is the line too far, "The G.O.P. has declared itself the party of mob rule."  We have seen a few people like that, but we saw how many in 2016. 

Another letter is of the "we can't let these assholes get away with it" variety:

The Republican Party should not be able to get away with its usual “bait and switch” tactic — dog whistling to its extreme elements while pretending some benign purpose. The insurrection is a package. The evidence publicly available exposes it as a coordinated campaign of legal maneuvers, abuse of power, appeals to loyalists and, finally, the raw mob violence that took at least seven lives, desecrated the Capitol and defiled democracy.

There can be no mistake. A cabal intended to override the vote of the people, seize power and impose its rule. The Republican Party must wear its defense of that effort like a scarlet letter until saner minds can prevail.

I agree.  As this went on, Mike Pence (again) said Trump was "wrong" to think he had the power to on his own block the certification.  This was not new, though you might think it from the coverage of his remarks at the Federalist Society event.  He said it at the time while also separately rejecting a request to invoke the 25A after the 1/6 events.

But, it's good to say though ultimately only so much. Ultimately, if (even after all the water under the bridge, this just still seems crazy) Trump wins the nomination in 2024 (which is now closing in at being merely two years away, the same distance from his renomination last time), the good bet is not that Pence is going to vote independent.  

He has already gone the "respectful dissenter" route since 1/6/21. The governor of Florida, another leading option for Republican nominee, handwaved the importance of the day.  Now, a resolution of the party as a whole reads out two members who deign to work with Democrats (while refusing to do anything else to help voting rights or anything) for working to investigate and firmly denounce what happened.   

You know the drill.  Various "reasonable" Republicans (like Mitt Romney, the uncle of the leader of the RNC) will from time to time be trotted out. Now and then it will be noted the economy is doing pretty darn good.  If something comes out of it, bipartisan support of the Electoral Count Act will be cited.  A sort of bipartisan happiness, even if it repeatedly is in large part thanks to Democrats. 

But, then "Dems in disarray" will be trotted out again, including their inability to pass certain things.  Republicans winning in November will be taken as expected and some neutral event.  Let's not forget the various Supreme Court rulings, including on abortion, thanks to a packed tainted  Court thanks to Trump and Republicans. And, before you know it, the 2024 election cycle will begin with "Is Biden in Trouble" stories. 

I tweet a lot (though I have taken off Fri-Sun, now trying to completely keep off Twitter those days) and it is partially a means for me to vent.  I fear sometimes I am too one note though try to add "eclectic" content.  But, come the fuck on.  Legitimate political discourse?  

The party is shoving it in our face.  We can't accept them as legitimate.  I know. We can. And, so many continue to, though them talking until they firmly reject this should be heard like adults in Peanuts t.v. specials.  Garbled gibberish.  We SHOULDN'T. 

Meanwhile, with whatever stray Republicans they can get, or whatever Republicans from time to time grant certain limits on authoritarianism (while not being unduly impressed), yes, Democrats have to do what they can to defend republican values.  

The Republican Party just officially as a national statement said what they stand for.