Burn Pits and More

One of the things available on C-SPAN was a press conference with Jon Stewart, my two senators (NY) and others promoting funding for health care of victims of burn pits. Jon Stewart has campaigned in support of 9/11 workers and this was a logical campaign for him and others who support that. One article notes:

More than 200,000 people who deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan believe they suffer permanent damage from exposure to burn pits, as the military’s notorious garbage-disposal fires are known.

The tricky problem is drawing lines here and that is not really my lane. We need good leadership and people in government that will make reasonable judgment calls here.  Proper funds and services for veterans, especially injured veterans, is clearly a prominent duty for government and society. President Biden, whose son was a veteran, is honestly concerned with protecting the troops.

By chance, the Supreme Court that same morning was debating a state immunity case involving a federal law providing an option for vets to sue state governments.  The person involved himself was a burn pit victim.  While Stolen Seat Guy, Alito, et. al. debated federalism with stupid hypos involving potholes, I think it useful to note what is involved.  

Also, that the text of the 11th Amendment is about interstate suits.  It might even be more limited (about diversity jurisdiction), but at the very least, it is not about suing your own state.  That is, if anything, some "10th Amendment" penumbra. Again, I think the text very well has "penumbras" to provide further limits.  I just want it to be applied consistently and correctly. 

===

President Biden also signed the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act.  I have already talked about this.  But, the general message is that -- after over 100 years -- we have a federal anti-lynching law.  And, on Twitter, I saw some people saying things like:

"The act amends the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and prior hate crime laws to define lynching as any conspired bias-motivated offense which results in death or serious bodily injury."

I'm not a law professor or something, but I read the law.  My general impression was that it did two basic things.  It provided a symbolic statement that the federal government has a law against lynching.  

The very name of the act, some of the support/reaction to it, and President Biden's statement after signing it shows this is important.  Laws often are at least somewhat symbolic.  Many laws have a sort of redundant caliber beyond that.  And, I don't begrudge this AT ALL though maybe a resolution of some sort could have functioned the same way.

The other thing it did was extend the penalty to "lynching" (note the definition; the usual understanding of the term would be narrower) to thirty years.  I am not really a big fan of that.  I think we already have laws on the books with long enough sentences.  From what I can tell, the top penalty for the existing federal hate crime law is ten years.  Since a person is likely to be guilty of multiple crimes, that seems enough for me.  

Still, the symbolism of thing matters. I think you will find various people strongly supporting the law (including black people), who will be wary about extending criminal penalties.  But, again, if the person is guilty of multiple crimes as is, net, I'm unsure what this additional penalty will provide at the end of the day.  How much will actual prison time extend?

ANYWAY, noting the phrasing of what the law does, my question (which I posed more than once on Twitter) is this: what exactly does the law actually do?  Are you saying the existing federal hate crime laws did not cover that?  Law professors and defense attorneys can debate, but I still think the point of this thing is symbolic. It is to say there is now a "federal anti-lynching law," after one hundred years. 

And, that is fine!  I am concerned about various things.  It still is important to remember certain basic things are still true.  Details do matter.  This doesn't erase that symbols and basic messaging does as well.  Senator Rand Paul held this up because he carped about details.  As if there was any real chance that without this law the things he worried about couldn't have happened or some more reforms would have.  Go at that! Do more!

Meanwhile, let us learn a bit of history, and remember that the federal government has a role to play.  "Federalism" goes both ways there. 

===

Academy Awards Slap: For the second time in a row, a woman director won the Oscars.  A movie about deaf people (CODA) won for Best Picture.   Dune won a bunch of technicals and a movie about Tammy Faye won for Makeup.  And, cool actress Jessica Chastain won for her role there.  Part of her message was pro-LGBT and "everyone is loved." Nice dream.  

The big news, however, is when Chris Rock (when did he get to be 57?!) was smacked by Will Smith, after Rock made a stupid joke about Smith's wife (who has a hair condition, explaining her so-called "GI Jane" haircut).  Will Smith then, a bit on brand, won Best Actor for his role as a  bombastic dad.  

He got an ovation (when he won) and did apologize. Rock (shocker) said he won't sue/call him to be prosecuted.  Some did strongly criticize Will Smith for using violence like that.  I basically agree with the sentiment though accept the limits of human frailty here given the situation.  

And, it is somewhat trivial, but what is Chris Rock doing introducing Best Documentary?  Seems a curious call.  Turns out -- the movie won -- he was in Summer of Soul, about the Harlem Cultural Festival.  Oh okay. Makes sense.