Sports Sunday: NY Fans Grin and Bear It

Noah Syndergaard was the only World Series starter to win (Game 3) for the Mets in 2015. He easily could have won the wild card game with a bit of offense in 2016. Now, he will start Game 3 with the teams tied. But, he's a Philly now. That's Monday night. 

Zack Wheeler did lose Game 2.  But, Sunday was about football. First, the Jets (since they have from 2015) lost against the Patriots.  This is how you make Jets fans, whose team is doing well, feel bad.  Watch another starter whose name begins with "Z" do badly, including multiple turnovers.  Aggravating.

Geno Smith is have a surprisingly decent (if not great) start as the not really expected new starter for Seattle. They have a better record than Denver, where their star QB went.  Geno Smith did it again today, getting the last fourteen points in the Fourth Quarter.  The Giants did tie it 13 all then, but THIS TIME did not finish the job.  No final quarter magic. Sort of a trap game.  

Remember who Geno played for?  Anyway, Seattle looked like a team that had no defense. Today they had some. With parity, offense and some defense very well might get you a playoff slot.

Okay, that left the Bills, who had the Sunday Night Game versus the Packers.  The Packers, like Tampa, were in the midst of a losing streak even with their old vet leadership. Tom Brady lost again this week.  The Packers last embarrassed themselves by losing to the Commanders.  Who are not the Bills. 

So, it was a less embarrassing loss.  NY ends the day okay.

Twelve Symbols of Christmas

The latest post by me at the Symbolism Explained blog deals with 12 symbols of Christmas.  

I was inspired to put the symbols in a carol, ala the 12 Days of Christmas, as well.  My editor decided to change it to a significant degree.  I personally like the original, but she's the person who runs the blog.

I submit the original below. The girl giving poinsettias bit is based on a story that is referenced in the symbols discussion.  

[It was changed to be able to be sung to the original. You can see the edit at the link.]

Twelve Symbols of Christmas 

On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me:

An angel for the top of my Christmas tree.

On the second day of Christmas, my true love gave to me:

Two bells (for Tom and Jerry, my cats)

And an angel for the top of my Christmas tree.

On the third day of Christmas, my true love gave to me:

Three candy canes (so sweet)

Two bells (for Tom and Jerry, my cats)

And an angel for the top of my Christmas tree.

On the fourth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me:

Four Christmas trees (Chocolate!)

Three candy canes (so sweet)

Two bells (for Tom and Jerry, my cats)

And an angel for the top of my Christmas tree.

On the fifth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me:

Five creches (it's Mary, Joseph, and Baby Jesus, you know)

Four Christmas trees (Chocolate!)

Three candy canes (so sweet)

Two bells (for Tom and Jerry, my cats)

And an angel for the top of my Christmas tree.

On the sixth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me:

Six Uber rides to see my FAMILY

Five creches (it's Mary, Joseph, and Baby Jesus, you know)

Four Christmas trees (Chocolate!)

Three candy canes (so sweet)

Two bells (for Tom and Jerry, my cats)

And an angel for the top of my Christmas tree.

On the seventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me:

Seven Sets of Lights (Never can have too many!)

Six Uber rides to see my FAMILY

Five creches (it's Mary, Joseph, and Baby Jesus, you know)

Four Christmas trees (Chocolate!)

Three candy canes (so sweet)

Two bells (for Tom and Jerry, my cats)

And an angel for the top of my Christmas tree.

On the eighth day of Christmas, a cute little girl gave to me:

Eight Poinsettia plants (the rest are from my true love!)

Seven Sets of Lights (Never can have too many!)

Six Uber rides to see my FAMILY

Five creches (it's Mary, Joseph, and Baby Jesus, you know)

Four Christmas trees (Chocolate!)

Three candy canes (so sweet)

Two bells (for Tom and Jerry, my cats)

And an angel for the top of my Christmas tree.

On the ninth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me:

Nine Presents (not sure what all the other stuff was for!)

Eight Poinsettia plants (from that girl; the rest are from my true love!)

Seven Sets of Lights (Never can have too many!)

Six Uber rides to see my FAMILY

Five creches (it's Mary, Joseph, and Baby Jesus, you know)

Four Christmas trees (Chocolate!)

Three candy canes (so sweet)

Two bells (for Tom and Jerry, my cats)

And an angel for the top of my Christmas tree.

On the tenth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me:

Ten Santa Claus DVDs

Nine Presents (not sure what all the other stuff was for!)

Eight Poinsettia plants (from that girl; the rest are from my true love!)

Seven Sets of Lights (Never can have too many!)

Six Uber rides to see my FAMILY

Five creches (it's Mary, Joseph, and Baby Jesus, you know)

Four Christmas trees (Chocolate!)

Three candy canes (so sweet)

Two bells (for Tom and Jerry, my cats)

And an angel for the top of my Christmas tree.

On the eleventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me:

Eleven SNOW globes

Ten Santa Claus DVDs

Nine Presents (not sure what all the other stuff was for!)

Eight Poinsettia plants (from that girl; the rest are from my true love!)

Seven Sets of Lights (Never can have too many!)

Six Uber rides to see my FAMILY

Five creches (it's Mary, Joseph, and Baby Jesus, you know)

Four Christmas trees (Chocolate!)

Three candy canes (so sweet)

Two bells (for Tom and Jerry, my cats)

And an angel for the top of my Christmas tree.

On the twelfth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me:

Twelve stars (I've been very good!)

Eleven SNOW globes

Ten Santa Claus DVDs

Nine Presents (not sure what all the other stuff was for!)

Eight Poinsettia plants (from that girl; the rest are from my true love!)

Seven Sets of Lights (Never can have too many!)

Six Uber rides to see my FAMILY

Five creches (it's Mary, Joseph, and Baby Jesus, you know)

Four Christmas trees (Chocolate!)

Three candy canes (so sweet)

Two bells (for Tom and Jerry, my cats)

And an angel for the top of my Christmas tree.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Early Voting

The "first Tuesday after the first Monday" (something to do with the Sabbath, but sort of obsolete now) deal means Election Day is later this year. More time to dwell on what is at stake and how easy it is to believe the result will make things worse. How much? To be determined. People want "change" someone told me. Empty without content.

Early voting began in New York City so I went to get my sticker and free stylus pen. A range of state and federal races, plus the "what is the point, we don't know these people" judges. Wrote in a couple as a protest. And, a few ballot questions.

The state bond measure is large enough to make the vote sensible, I guess. The city ones are worthwhile to get public input. But, many of these things really should be left to our representatives. Heck, I think voting for comptroller is iffy. Attorney general is tricky given the breadth of power and the value of having the people indepedently vote for them.

SCOTUS Watch: Alito/Kagan/Thomas

Two somewhat related "administrative stays" (by Thomas and Kagan), which keeps things in place while the Supreme Court examines the case, were dropped this week. The general assumption by court watchers is that this is a standard thing that does not tell us much at all about the merits. 

Lindsey Graham

The first involves the efforts to require Sen. Lindsey Graham to testify to a special grand jury investigating Trump's attempt to criminally interfere with the vote count in Georgia.  The 11th Circuit, a conservative leaning court, agreed with a middle of the road path that required Graham to testify about certain matters.  Graham was given a somewhat generous amount of room to plead his congressional privilege that has never firmly been shown to even apply to a single senator doing his own investigation.

The general sentiments I have here is twofold. 

(1) Sen. Graham has a duty to testify and it's outrageous he isn't doing so.  The constitutional issues there are somewhat complicated but the 11th Cir. provided a fair middle ground. Anyway, it shouldn't matter.  He should voluntarily do it.  

(2) Thomas should recuse himself from all Trump election disputes given the appearance of impropriety.  As noted by more than one liberal minded law type, him not doing so makes his otherwise bland order here look much worse than it is.  

Steven Vladeck, who I usually agree with, on Twitter was more dubious about it being clear that current ethics requirements hold that he MUST do it since this is not a direct Trump case.  I find that overly fine tune parsing.  Vladeck still as I understand it thinks Thomas should as a matter of good policy not take part.  

Kelli Ward

Kagan's order involves the 1/6 Committee attempting to get phone records.  She put a bit more teeth in it by asking for a reply by Friday afternoon.  Thomas just stayed the lower court without a time limit though briefing by both sides has commenced already.  

Again, the docket page (it would be more useful if the order provided a direct link for people who read it on the website instead of needing to input the docket number on the docket page) has the various materials in these cases for people interested. 

One news article summarizes the issue at hand:

She gave the House committee until Friday to submit a response to an emergency application from Arizona Republican Party chair Kelli Ward, who was among so-called “alternate electors” subpoenaed by the committee.

The “alternate elector” plot from the former president and his allies relied on a bogus legal theory involving a slate of fraudulent certificates from key states that falsely asserted Mr Trump’s electoral college votes.

I'm not sure why this specific thing, among all the requests, resulted in this sort of order at this time.  I'm somewhat of the sentiment that it was timed to come down with Thomas' order to show a sense of rough even handedness.  I might be off there, but sorta looks that way.  

Anyway, as requested, the committee did submit a brief challenging the request for a stay.  

===

Alito Interview 

We have heard from time to time reporting about justices giving speeches or being interviewed.  Alito has repeatedly been part of this coverage. 

The latest is more grudge Alito stuff, including the idea that leaking the Dobbs draft (which still very well might be conservatives; they surely leaked news of behind the scenes developments ... the coverage, including Thomas' own statements, also were rather anti-Roberts) increased a chance of "assassination."  

An unhinged person did show up outside Kavanaugh's house, but he turned himself in before doing anything, perhaps because he saw that the house was guarded.  Federal judges have been threatened in the past, including a family member being killed.  A judge was murdered when Gabby Giffords was attacked.  

Pending congressional legislation aims to help further protect judges.  It is not likely the leak added to this much, and strong opposition is well warranted, including because of the ruling's threat to women's life and health.  

Alito can't really be taken seriously, but it's appreciated that he is talking openly like this.  We even have video on C-SPAN's website and so on.  It would be nice if justices manage to use the Court's speech page, but hey, it is a form of open government.  And, though his concerns about people badmouthing the Court as the actual thing that is illegitimate is bullshit,  he basically is helping the cause here. A sort of Barbara Streisand Effect.

==

Upcoming Affirmative Action Case

There was a conference today and orders will be dropped on Monday. Monday is also the beginning of the November arguments, including the two big college affirmative action cases.  

The cases were originally combined, but Justice Jackson's involving with Harvard led them to be split. So, there will be some overlap, and perhaps some will be satisfied with listening the first case's oral argument with Jackson's involvement. The Harvard case has the additional edge of an argument the policy harms Asian-Americans.

Both cases are still similar.  Both are products of an extended anti-affirmative action advocacy movement. The North Carolina case is skipping a level, in the Roberts Courts tendency in recent years to allow this in ideological cases.  Both are asking the Supreme Court to overrule cases allowing affirmative action (at the very least under current strict but not fatal scrutiny) and making claims it violates federal civil rights law. 

The North Carolina case also makes an argument that affirmative action violates equal protection.  So, one can imagine some frame that a "moderate" path is available that does not totally close off affirmative action (which involves a range of things) but make it real hard to use it in education and maybe other contexts. 

The net thing here is that this is yet another issue where the 6-3 Court will be able to push things toward the conservative side, even further than Justice Kennedy (who allowed affirmative action here in the end) wanted to go.  As a matter of principle, it's how law develops over time. The problem here is twofold: the merits and how this current Court was created.

On racial questions, this is a time old story.

What the Ermine Saw

I'm not much into art, but recognize value. I don't recall knowing about this painting by Mona Lisa guy. But, it has an interesting backstory, including its journeys through the centuries. The author is not a historian or art expert, so be somewhat beware of the details (there are no end notes). Still, I liked the book overall, and it has a lot of good pictures.

The painting itself is interesting. The ermine looks a bit weird (some thought it was a "weird dog") and her one hand looks weird too. Also, apparently the style was to tamp down all the hair. The subject of the picture was probably a teenager when it was painted; maybe 15/16.

Sports Sunday

The Giants and the Jets keep on winning, this time playing possible "trap" games including the flawed but still talented Jags and the defensive rich Broncos (with a back-up QB) with the Jets needing to deal with various injuries. The Giants hung on (a goof out of bounds that gave the Jags another 40 seconds at the end) and the Jets won a low scoring affair.

The old pros at Tampa (Tom Brady) and Packers (Aaron Rodgers) continue to struggle, both this week to bad teams. As I type, the Bears are doing well versus the flawed Pats, showing it now. And, the Yankees offense finally showed up against the Astros, but their pitching was suspect. Yanks knocked off again by the Astros, this time in a sweep. Phils got in. Sure.

Pigs and Stuff

There was a complicated Supreme Court oral argument this month about pigs. California passed a measure that limits sale of pigs (including those raised outside the state) to those raised in somewhat more humane conditions. For those who want to learn about our history with pigs, Lesser Beasts: A Snout-to-Tail History of the Humble Pig was pretty good. It says little about Africa and Asia (if some about China), but covers a lot of history.

The author of that book has a background in history. The background of the author of Once We Ate Animals: The Future of Food is in research not really focused on the history she covers. It shows. Plus, with this title, I assumed it would be a whole lot more about the actual "future" of food. It really just covers a lot of basic ground you would read in a pro-vegan book. Again, at times not that well. I basically agree with this take.

The book includes a couple snapshots of a possible future. One is basically a young character on a tour of a former slaughterhouse. Another is a rather depressing sounding snapshot of life in the not too distant future at home. It again does not really tell us too much about the so-called "future of food." The whole thing comes off as false advertising. It's okay as a whole, but the basic stuff is better told elsewhere.

Benjamin Cole Executed

Cole was found guilty of the brutal murder of his daughter, Brianna Victoria Cole, on December 20, 2002, per the attorney general’s office, when her cries interrupted him while playing a video game.

People who oppose the death penalty might cite easy sounding arguments about concern for innocence or bad lawyering.  

But, I and others do not refute that these are some horrible crimes. The issue remains if executing the people involved is the right approach. Repeatedly, there are reasons that tell us "no," and rarely is it a truly pure case (though they exist) simply about first principles. 

Benjamin Cole was offered life without parole, but rejected the offer. This alone is not proof the whole thing is bad -- some people risk a trial for at least half-way reasonable consideration.  As noted in the article, however, the decision here shows signs his competency was in doubt.  This was more so over time.  It might very well be a matter of some dispute.  I did not do some deep dive here. Executions, however, should at the very least only be applied in the most clearest of all cases.   

Benjamin Cole was executed.  First, there was last minute attempts for a stay of execution and a federal habeas application to the Supreme Court.  The orders in response were dropped yesterday and today.  The usual reference to a "brief" order is cited.  Let us forestall possible confusion. The order did not actually "briefly" explain why the final request based on the competency (and specific process used to determine it) was rejected.  The orders simply said it was denied, noting Gorsuch was recused.

(Oklahoma, who set up multiple execution dates as a sort of "catch up" after delays caused by its own failures, is in the circuit Gorsuch oversees. He probably was involved in Cole's case at some point over the twenty years since Cole was convicted and the death sentence handed down.)  

The Supreme Court is not here merely for error correction. And, it very well might be the case that Benjamin Cole did not meet to requirements in place for the competency claim raised.  This is open to dispute.  It is less so, in my eyes, that it is wrong for the Supreme Court to reject his final requests to stop his execution without a single justice (or whatever some of them should be called) explaining why they went along.

Benjamin Cole, very much likely in some fashion influenced by mental defect, committed a horrible crime.  Executing him twenty years later, or sooner to be clear (though a long delay is itself problematic for penal justification -- see, Justice Breyer's dissents), is bad public policy. I think as a whole, it very well probably is a violation of sound constitutional principles.  As is the Supreme Court not explaining itself.   

November is scheduled to be a busy -- as far as these things go -- execution month involving multiple states. Let see if the Supreme Court, or even a single justice, ONCE manages to substantively explain itself before going along with state authorized deprivation of life.  Liberals disappointing me here too.

The coverage includes the usual references to the horrible nature of the crime and the dangers of Cole himself.  One article notes the death was not some sort of one-off, but Cole was a danger to the child (and mother) for an extended period of time.  Child abuse is a grave wrong. Executing a few parents arbitrarily is not way to go. As is often the case, the tough on crime and justice rhetoric is a misplaced argument here.  

Order List

The Supreme Court dropped a basically no drama Order List today and now will take a bit of break until the last Friday of the month (conference) and then start arguments again on Halloween. 

The Supreme Court asked the solicitor general an opinion on a case involving (to quote Amy Howe) "eligibility for a patent for a method that would allow the Transportation Security Administration to screen airline luggage while at the same time allowing passengers to lock their checked bags."  The case does seem to be of some interest to the federal government though the Supreme Court itself would likely be more concerned about it being used to provide clarity in patents law in general.

Issue: Whether persons born in United States territories are entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, including whether the Insular Cases should be overruled. 

The Supreme Court did not take a case that in part asked them to reexamine the infamous Insular Cases, which treated overseas territories differently than the courts handled territories in the past.  The basic problem here was the racist idea that overseas territories should be treated differently because the people were unready to be citizens.  There was also some debate over how to properly regulate territories, especially territories that unlike traditional ones were not destined to be states at some point.  

In a recent case, Justice Gorsuch voiced his opposition to the Insular Cases, noting he was open to a case that would overrule them. The case involved a benefits scheme that treated Puerto Rico differently.  Sotomayor alone dissented, arguing it violated the due process by unreasonably treating residents differently.  She did not deal with the Insular Cases.  

A tricky issue in this case is that both the federal and American Samoa government does not want the Supreme Court to take the case. The latter in particular suggests certain outrage might be misguided on some level.  As the latter government noted in one brief:

As the federal government and the federal courts have recognized, that unique status distinguishes American Samoa from the fifty States and the other territories, and contributes to its ability to maintain its traditional cultural practices.

I am not quite sure how this follows except to the degree that current conservative opposition to race-based policies (though as with Native American cases, as least so far, you can frame them as not race based, but tribal or nation based) would result in problems. 

But, even there, I'm unsure. They still are "persons" under constitutional control. They cannot, for instance, ban freedom of speech or something.  What specifically about them being American "nationals" as compared to "citizens" do here?  Do residents of Guam do not have "traditional cultural practices" too?  I guess the issue is a sort of Pandora's box argument. If you change their status, something might happen.  

They are okay with the situation as is.  If so, is it really the national government's place to say "no"?  What this basically leads to is a question of what exactly is left of the Insular Cases.  The social security benefits case to my understanding was helped by but not fully reliant upon it being Puerto Rico.  And, Sotomayor's dissent shows an ability to protect benefits there without totally overruling the Insular Cases.  

Cases back to the 1970s at least also reaffirm that the old time idea that the precedents must be read to protect fundamental rights. So, unlike in the past, you cannot argue residents are unfit to be a member of a jury or something.  There is also the concern that "no difference" might result in complications when regulating federal zones like GITMO.  So, maybe, this case was not really an ideal case to re-examine the cases.  

The petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

This statement is at the end of the orders list and it is one that you sometimes see.  In the original case, Stevens and Blackmun as a matter of equal access to justice would not have blocked future petitions without a filing fee.  I have not see a justice in recent years dispute one of these things, including Sotomayor.  Note the "noncriminal matters" part.

I looked up the petition -- you can do that via the docket page of the website by typing in the number, and many of these are frivolous -- and a brief perusal suggested the petition was at least somewhat legal sounding though it was hard exactly to see what the complaint was (I did not try that hard to delve into it).  

I am inclined to follow Stevens and Blackmun.  What is the test here anyway?  If you are going to block, at least explain why.  One more for the open government file.  BTW, there is a separate rule about "frivolous or malicious" petitions (39.8) where they can deny the benefits of filing as a "pauper." Sometimes cited.

===

Order lists are often just the Supreme Court going about its business, if business important to specific litigants, but they have at least minimum interesting things mixed in.  For instance, as usual, one or more justices did not take part in certain cases.  Why?  Well, we are never told.  Some think we should be, especially if it is a financial conflict.  

I don't think that too important though trying to figure out why might be a fun parlor game. I think it might be helpful. Again, open government is a good policy.

===

See you soon.

Sports Sunday

I referenced watching Brian's Song recently. The movie is in part based on Gale Sayers' first autobiography. Decades later, in 2007, he co-wrote another. The book is down to earth, plain spoken, and in various cases inspirational.  There is a chapter on Brian Piccolo. We also learn he divorced his first wife (seen in the film). 

It is not "deep" or anything, but something an average fan (including a teenager) would be able to read.  He at one note flags the football skills of O.J. Simpson, but says his guilty is between him and God.  I would think it would be a good inspirational book to give to young people, especially with its support of family, hard work, and the promises of success if that is done.  The book also has a section on the importance of taking care of older players, from the era when they made very little money. 

The book shows how after a few years in football, he thrived in the business world (while spending some time in academics. The book uses a good technique of quoting choice comments throughout the book on the margins.  The last section is formation of an All Stars Bears team, which includes detailed discussion of the biographies of the people involved. 

ETA: One thing he discusses a bit is how his business took advantage of benefits for minority firms.  This detail shows how the book has a lot of stuff packed in there.  

There was some hope that the Giants and the Jets would have decent seasons, if at least in one case being something of a rebuilding effort.  The Jets QB started off hurt though back-up boy led them into a rather remarkable late game comeback that involved an onside kick.  

The teams are starting to look for real, especially the 5-1 Giants, who now defeated the Packers and Ravens in back to back games.  The Ravens aren't quite clicking, but that is still impressive. The Packers would seem to be impressive but then the Jets beat them 27-10 today, though it was 3-3 at the Half.  The Jets managed to beat Miami without their QB (or really their back-up), but this was a signature win for them.  

Both teams use their defense to keep games close and find a way to have a chance at the end.  The Giants seem more banged up, but their new head coach and defensive coordinator (and ex-Ravens guy) are showing the league something.  In both cases, it is careful not to be too cocky.  The Jets won once dominantly and the Giants repeatedly play close games.  

But, it starting to get fun.  The Jets would be tied with first if the Bills lost to Kansas City today.   The Bills won though.  I don't think the Jets will win the division or something so really am not chasing that.  I still fear somehow the Pats (on their back-up now but still winning) will jump ahead, so I'll root for each New York team, including the one that actually plays in the state. 

The one baseball game left from the division round was a possible Yankee elimination game, after them blew a lead of more than one run in a playoff game after 167 chances (this is rather remarkable, since it isn't too hard to score two, and it is not like even Mariano was perfect).  Looking at the box score, the Guardians had a lot of hits. But, it took until the ninth to secure a victory. 

I am not watching these games. My thought was still "be nice if they can finish off the upsets and beat the Astros."  The Yanks actually have not been as dominant of a playoff team as some others though they have a reputation as an "evil empire" for some.  I basically want to give others a chance, so do appreciate the Padres (who seem to have reached their potential with all those pick-ups) and Phils (well more since the Braves were knocked off) -- the second and third wild card teams -- advanced.    

Astros would seem to be favored, but it took something to beat Seattle. Seattle had a multiple run lead in the first game until the 9th and held them scoreless until the 18th in the third.  So, it was not that easy of a sweep.  We will see how it goes though the NL championship race is easier since I have no strong feeling against either team really.  

The Padres beat the Mets, but that was the Mets doing for not getting that extra win to avoid them. The Padres played the Mets tough during the regular season too, even without two of the three Mets top starters doing so badly two weekends in a row. Oh well.  See ya next season. I think the Padres have the better shot in the World Series too.  The Phils do have enough pitching and hitting that they won't embarrass themselves.  

As to the Yankees, it's a sweep for New York teams,  The series will go to a final fifth game. 

Race Matters: NYC and Book

I noted recently that people can be rehabilitated or otherwise redeemed even if they spend their life in prison or are executed. 

One thing that came to mind is the book A Lesson Before Dying, a book by Ernest J. Gaines, who also wrote The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman, which I read (and watched at least part of a film of) some years back.  The book concerns an unjustly convicted young black man in Louisiana shortly after World War II (Jackie Robinson has broken the color barrier in MLB). In an attempt to get him off, his public defender called him a "hog," not worth executing.  He didn't have the knowledge to be guilty. 

His godmother wants him to die like a man and along with her friend pressures said friend's nephew, a schoolteacher, to help him do so. Grant is the narrator of the book.  He feels obligated to help the children of the area, but feels the hopelessness of racism and hates himself for being too weak-willed to leave.  Grant feels like he is a cog in a racist machine and is not as optimistic as his girlfriend (a separated schoolteacher) that life will change.  Grant's family and the local minister also is upset at his overall lack of faith though he still believes in God.  

In the end, Grant is able to help Jefferson feel self-worth, and he does die with dignity.  The reasonable minded young white deputy, who is willing to treat Grant as basically an equal, tells Grant Jefferson was the strongest person in the execution chamber.  Near the end of the book, we get about ten pages of Jefferson's journal, written in uneducated style, so a bit hard to understand.  Jefferson is a bit of a Jesus figure (the execution is scheduled between noon and three on a Friday, like Jesus himself) in that his actions (like Jackie Robinson) give meaning to many local blacks.  

[On the current baseball front, we have had multiple upsets, now with every National League divisional leader -- and the #1 wild card (Mets) -- being eliminated.  The Astros did advance.  The Yankees are down 2-1, but that is a battle between divisional leaders.  The American League has not been as crazy in the playoffs though we did have two long extra inning games.]

I liked the book as a whole and Grant is a sort of reasonable narrator that you can relate with better than let's say one of the racists or the white deputy (the approach of some stories).  It would be interesting to see more in the mind of the minister and other characters, who we see secondhand through Grant's eyes.  The book does show that there is some ability to obtain a bit of redemption even among so much injustice.  

==

A commission was formed to address racial justice matters in New York City.  I was not aware of this before reading about three city ballot measures that will be on the ballot this election, which arose from the commission's suggestions.  There is a fourth measure which is a state ballot question involving okaying a large bond issuance to further environmental matters.  

I continue to be wary about these ballot measures.  I really have not major insight above and beyond the state legislature and other state bodies about if this bond measure (if one larger than usual) is a good idea or not.  When the question is a much small spending matter or as I recall in one case the validity of using some state parkland for some purpose, it is even less useful to set forth this matter to a public vote.

Maybe, a bond measure this size should get public approval more so than other ballot questions.  I will vote "yes" on it myself probably.  The city measures are somewhat different.  One supports a preamble to the city charter to provide a statement of purpose.  It is a good idea for the public to be aware of this and take part in a vote to support it.   I'm not sure how useful it is, but it is fine to include idealistic aims in public charters. 

One article summarized the purpose of the three ballot measures:

The impetus for the amendments came on the heels of the COVID-19 pandemic that disproportionately harmed people of color as well as the protests against police brutality that rocked the city during the summer of 2020.

These ideas began on March 23, 2021, when then-Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the creation of a Racial Justice Commission and tasked it with two major objectives: Examine structural and institutional racism across the city and recommend amendments that would rectify those issues.

Again, this is a public concern, and the public getting involved in voting on measures that the commission supported makes some degree of sense.  This is so more so because the measures are not merely technical policy issues like the value of a bond measure.  There is more of a reason to have the public at large involved here though you might argue it is true for the bond measure too.  I do see a difference. 

The next proposal regards the formation of a program where a racial equity plan needs to be developed every two years and a specific Office of Racial Equity formed to do so.  I guess this is okay, but it did not really appeal to me.  It seems like another level of bureaucracy.  Is New York City not NOW addressing racial equity on a consistent basis?  I can read through the report, but what exactly does this plan/office deal do to help matters much more?  

The final measure concerns requiring the city to use a "true cost of living" test.  The report argues that the current economic indicators do not adequately provide a true cost taking into consideration all the relevant factors for residents of the city.  I am willing to let this be tried though I'm wary of not providing the city flexibility if it turns out not to work well.  Is a ballot measure as compared to a city council bill the appropriate way?

At the end of the day, I remain wary about ballot proposals, even if the overall goals of racial justice here are obviously important. 

SCOTUS Watch: Trump Denied Again etc.

The Supreme Court denied a request from former President Donald Trump to intervene in Trump v. United States, the dispute over documents with classified markings seized from Trump’s home. There were no recorded dissents from the court’s order.

This is how one account summarized the news when the order dropped. Amy Howe's analysis is as always is a useful place to go. Steve Vladeck (shadow docket guy) previously noted the ask was minor, looking like a way for Trump's lawyer to show him that they were doing something, without making such ridiculous claims to amount to an ethical breach.  

A flag that the justices did not find it compelling was that Thomas (who is assigned that circuit) giving the government a week to answer the request.  The biggest thing here -- other than a sort of symbolic loss  on the say the 1/6 Committee finished up subpoenaing Trump -- really is Thomas' involvement.  One analysis flagged Thomas as anti-Biden. 

His wife's dealings [not covered in the hearing from what I can tell] trying to overturn the election also is a concern.  This is not directly about the election as much as past cases, but it ties together regarding appearance of impropriety.  Thomas does not seem to be having any concerns; he had fun this week during one of the oral arguments.  Maybe, this whole thing will help the push for more ethics reforms for the Supreme Court.

===

The Trump related order got some attention, but there was no real likelihood that the Court wanted to get involved. Again, it seems like it was a mild request regarding an ongoing matter.  On the same day, another minor procedural matter was disposed of, a request referred to the whole Court rejected.  I again think the Supreme Court should simply clarify what they are doing here to help public awareness.  A brief description would do it for me.  It's less important than a death penalty case, but still.

==

After they got their feet wet with oral arguments (notable cases and otherwise), the Supreme Court will release more orders next week. And, then, there will be a bit of a break, before the affirmative action cases.  There will be a possible execution mixed in between.  The new term has now kicked in, the main theme being that Justice Jackson is an enthusiastic/skillful questioner. 

SCOTUS Watch: Order List

Petitioner Andre Thomas was sentenced to death for the murder of his estranged wife, their son, and her daughter from a previous relationship. Thomas is Black, his wife was white, and their son was biracial. Thomas was convicted and sentenced to death by an all-white jury, three of whom expressed firm opposition to interracial marriage and procreation in their written juror questionnaires.

Justice Sotomayor found another case with troubling facts to flag in an Order List, this time bringing with her Kagan and Jackson. The basic facts is likely to lead people to say "what is wrong with the conservatives," though the case turns on the high standard necessary to summarily reverse a lower court. Here for ineffective counsel. Does seem a blatant case.

The role of the Supreme Court as a whole is not meant to be error correction. The lower courts have lots of cases, some of them decided wrongly.  The Supreme Court generally should take cases involving major national questions (such as if a congressional law is declared unconstitutional) or when there is a disagreement on a question among the lower courts.  They do sometimes flag blatant errors like this allegedly is. 

Let's not even go into the "not the immediate issue" point here involving the guy removing his own eyeballs.  This sounds like he would be blind though that is not really crystal clear.  After all, maybe there was a way to put them back in.  There is also a bit involving the state seeming to warn the jurors about how the scary black guy might get one of their family members. The case has racist aspects, in a death penalty case.

The guy seems unhinged, even if (as the state claims) he made himself unhinged by drinking too much cough medicine (seriously). He shouldn't get the death penalty on that ground alone. But, the other matter would have been problematic even in a non-capital case.  It being capital, makes SCOTUS not acting here more so.

===

The other stuff is apparently not too notable, looking at summary reporting from court watchers.  One case earlier flagged by a liberal Supreme Court reporter as a trivial case (on the facts) with problematic implications, if the wider conservative arguments were met, was disposed of as moot.  

The procedural approach disposed of the lower court opinion, which protected voters from their ballots being disposed of because of certain trivial errors.  Sotomayor and Jackson would have avoided doing that.  This is not clear from the bare bones order sometimes hides some stuff out of view.  

===

There were two oral arguments, the first another case where the new questioning (open questioning and then each justice gets a chance specifically) really encouraged a long argument. The first half took over an hour though the second was not that long.  

(I don't agree with the link that California is blocked via Lawrence v. Texas from resting their law on morality, here animal welfare. That case said bare morality could not deny someone a protected liberty.  Scalia's argument aside, it is far from clear ALL morals legislation went by the wayside.) 

The second oral argument involved the right to get DNA testing in a capital case, but it involved a rather technical question. 

Indigenous Peoples’ Day

In the early 20th Century, Italian-Americans were discriminated against, including limits on their immigration to the United States. A new Minnesota Columbus statue was a symbol that Italians were not only true Americans but “white Americans.”

A book on public monuments touched upon how Columbus became a way for Italian-Americans, when they weren't quite "white," to show they were part of the tribe. The tribe being Americans. Pun intended. The matter is alluded to by Biden's proclamation for the Columbus Day holiday.

The appropriate thing in the minds of many -- though my Italian rich area had a Columbus Day parade over the weekend -- is to call the holiday observed today Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Biden covers that too.  Let's not forget Leif Erikson Day, officially yesterday.  The Norse knew how to do things: settle for a while, but die out, while natives continued on.  

Columbus is an understandable tool for Italians in context. "Columbia" and so on was long an American symbol.  Consider our own nation's capital, the District of Columbia.  The original symbol was a woman -- you can't have some Catholic Spaniard (or whatever) symbolize the United States.  Still, he is not exactly a great choice.  There should be better Italians though Columbus gets to be tied to an origin story.  See also, how Romans decided to find a way to adapt Homer's stories as an origin story too.

Anyway, Columbus was a problematic character, as shown by how the Spanish eventually arrested the guy and all.  Not that you can find too many great colonial Spanish characters vis-a-vis the dealings with Native Americans.  And, then, that leads people to consider how this country dealt with Native Americans.  When Mexico was deemed not worthy of governing the American Southwest, let's say they had little chance.

The bottom line for me is that this weekend allows us to consider the full complexity, warts and all, of European settlement in the "New World."  I think we can get a bit sanctimonious here as if there was something "white" about what happened.  I welcome a bit of reading about the Mongol conquests.  Or, how anti-Aztec Natives helped the Spanish in Mexico because the Aztecs weren't great, including use of human sacrifice.

This is not about hand-waving and saying all is well. It is a recognition that over the course of history waves of people migrated throughout the world and thru conquest, disease, and other things with applications to what happened in the Americans, replaced native peoples.  On some level, this goes back to the Cro Magnon replacing Neanderthals.  

We have a duty to remember and understand, especially since many of the descendants of the Native Americans of the past are still with us.  And, in the process, we can have the best up to date celebration of holidays, which can be complex things.  Thanksgiving shows this, including "days of thanksgiving," which historically were also moments of repentance.

Oh. Happy Canadian Thanksgiving. 

Sports Update: New York's Long Day

Starting the new format, three of four of the wild card weekend games were decided 2-0. There were upsets. Seattle came back from a large deficit, after winning the first on starting pitching. The Phils relied on starting pitching and the Cards blowing it in the ninth. It took until the 15th to get the (one) winning run, but the Guardians was the one as expected winner.

Scherzer and hitters didn't show up in Game One, but deGrom and hitters did in Game Two, for the one 1-1 result.  It would be nice if the Mets weren't here, but they are making it exciting (or something; I'm on the exciting and something side).

The Mets did their usual to win that game. Good starting pitching, making the starter work, and having a big inning.  The closer was put in the seventh, but was left in after they got a bigger lead.  The net result was that the Mets still had to sweat, the Padres loading the bases in the 9th. It ended out okay.  

It wasn't even clear that Daniel Jones would even start, after both Giants QBs got hurt last game.  But, he did, though he didn't look too mobile or anything at the beginning. Jones started to become more mobile as the game went along, in a game that was a statement of his toughness as it went along.  A quick reply (FG) by the Packers made in 20-10 at the Half, which looked respectable, but still the Giants were down by 10.

Well, IN LONDON (Tampa and Seattle gets Germany), the Giants held the Packers basically scoreless the rest of the way.  Up 27-20, I figured the Packers would score, and it would turn to the Giants winning maybe 30-27.  But, it took longer and longer for the Packers to score.  It was 3 and 2. 

And, the Giants STOPPED them with a little bit over a minute to play at the Giants 6.  Tossing in a safety [27-22] to take a few more seconds off the clock (I wondered why not a few runs too; they knelt), there was 10 seconds left. A free kick was better than a punt, since it pushed the Packers back further, and they had a five yard penalty too.  Back to his own 35, a few seconds taken on a return, no miracle. The Giants are 4-1!  

 

The London games have been pretty exciting so far.  

Meanwhile, the Jets had Miami, who started the season well, but then their QB got hurt.  Miami has a decent back-up, but he was out early. The Jets didn't take advantage for a while, the score 19-17 (Jets once up 12-0) after the first post-half series.  But, that is as close Miami got, the Jets scoring 21 unanswered in the fourth quarter. So, with the Bills blowing out the Steelers (new QB this year), it was a good day for New York teams.  

The Jets now face ... the Packers.  Not IN LONDON though.

Long day for New York fans.  After two games before 4:30, you had time for an early dinner to prepare for the deciding Mets game. Walker not on the roster originally, came on after Joely got hurt.  He's was your only true lefty reliever though Peterson did pitch one scoreless against the Padres.  Rodriguez has been good at times over the season. On the IL, he would not be able to face the Dodgers, but fist the Mets had to get there. 

They didn't really show up. One hit.   See ya next year.