I Do, I Do, I Do

I re-watched this film via Hallmark On Demand and it was an enjoyable, comfortable experience. I like Autumn Reeser as an actress (she is in many Hallmark films while having some roles when she was younger). She has a light touch and comes off as an average sort even though she has the bone structure and everything of a model. I think the black hair helps.

Autumn was in a range of roles and generally like her films. Her sister (a sort of dirty blonde) is a familiar face too, often in support, but has her own films too. The actress has eventually come out as lesbian and got a chance to play one (if in a small part of the film) in a Hallmark film recently too.

Here, Reeser plays someone whose wedding day happens over and over, until she figures out that the problem is marrying the guy instead of his brother. As is often the case in the films, there is a bit of tragedy mixed in. The reason she plays it safe is because her parents died in a car accident. The film basically makes the mother-in-law to be the heavy, the finance a bit of a dud, but deep down not really a bad guy. 

There are a ton of these films and leading indicators of an enjoying one are  good leads (Reeser dominates, especially given the story, but the others are pretty good -- her father-in-law btw is another familiar face in bit roles), enough story to keep you interested [check], and overall decent writing/pacing/maybe a little twist (such as fantasy here).  

Joe's Constitution argues that animals, or at least certain sentient animals, should be treated as a form of "person" for legal reasons.  

The idea that they should be treated as constitutional actors (well, if corporations can) might be a tad much for many (except for a few people who want to give habeas rights to elephants or the like), but the average person does think certain non-human animals should be treated as more than mere property.  Cruelty to animals laws go back to the beginning of our settlement in America in some fashion.

Treatment of animals as more than property as various legal implications as shown by this interesting article in a local paper (or digital platform):

New York is one of only 13 states that categorize pets that way. The other states consider them as at least sentient beings. That gives pets higher legal status than mere possessions and allows owners an ability to seek compensatory damages if they are mistreated.

It is troubling that harm to companion animals, who humans treasure more than the mere financial worth one might have, are not given more respect. As always, financial line drawing (the article focuses particularly on vets) can be tricky.  But, like state practices that do not treat pets as mere property for divorce settlement purposes (will we have a Solomon sort of solution?), there should be a way to balance things out.

I have a lot of U.S. Supreme Court content on this site, but there are also a lot of state court opinions.  State courts are important for a range of reasons, especially since they can decide on independent state grounds even when the Supreme Court rejects a claim.  They also cover state law issues generally.

Multiple states, red and blue, have done so in regard to partisan gerrymandering.  Since certain people are upset about today's news, I wish to underline that a bit. As NYT noted:

This year alone, state courts in Ohio, North Carolina, Kansas and Maryland have scrapped plans put in place by lawmakers because they ran afoul of state constitutional language outlawing partisan mapmaking, like that adopted by New York voters in 2014. The courts are widely expected to scrutinize new lines in Florida that overwhelmingly favor Republicans[.]

I do not know how much this all breaks down -- the idea Republicans alone benefit at the very least is overblown -- but its complicated. Surely, the best appropriate is to have a national law in place to even the playing field. The problem is that Republicans refuse to support voting reforms and two Democratic senators refuse to make an exception to the filibuster to pass something.  It's a travesty given what is happening nation-wide.

New York, in part to try to help the Democrats to win in November, drew clearly partisan maps.  The question is if it went too far.  Today, New York struck down the new state and federal maps (one state map not covered since the Republicans didn't sue for whatever reason) as an inappropriate partisan gerrymander, given state limits on the practice.  

But, the result was 4-3 (Gov. Hochul's appointee was in the dissent; the two final Cuomo ones joined the majority), so it is likely open to debate. I won't pretend to know what side is right, not being some sort of expert here.  As a raw matter, my sentiment tends to be that most questions that split that closely have arguments for both sides.  So, I'm wary.

So, what does this mean? Some basically have a reaction that it will just help Republicans win in November.  These Eeyores are likely to figure that was going to happen anyway.  The maps basically appear make a difference in a few races.  At any rate, the general vibe that I saw before the ruling was that the maps were obviously partisan gerrymandering.  We have some sort of limit to that though maybe not as strong (see the result here) as other places.  So, the result is not exactly surprising.  

Anyway, now new maps will have to be drawn, with oversight of some sort of special master.  We are likely to have two sets of elections, the recent united primary (end of June) seen as too soon to settle the new maps. This will lead to some confusion and decreased voting turnout. And, more work for poll workers.  

We will see how it all turns out, including what my current state senator will do and what exactly are the lines of the House district she is running for.