Sweet On You

At times, the Up TV movie that "premieres" (it might not always be new everywhere) on Sundays at 7 P.M. are enjoyable. They are not really deep. Still, if the writing, pacing, and acting work, it can be a nice watch.

Sweet On You is such a film. The reveal that the guy is in town for such and such reason was a bit forced. The male lead seems a bit forced at times. Still, the whole thing is pleasant enough, and even after the reveal (after over an hour in), things continue pleasantly enough. A few familiar faces and the writer/director is another familiar name to television.

Up TV is a sort of somewhat more "faith-based" Hallmark Channel. It also airs Gilmore Girls and Blue Bloods a lot. GG is not quite what I think about this channel but then it is about a teenager who has her baby! A film like this gently teaches a message without slamming it over our heads. It is a good approach for this film or one with a more bluntly Christian message.

Can We Have Some Empathy Too?

A Christian conservative woman/media personality openly talks about how her pregnancy had some complications. Her doctor tells her that there is some complication. The fetus will not make it.

He recommends (from what I can tell without doing a deep dive and since we only have her account anyway) an abortion procedure to complete things since it would be unhealthy for her not to do so. She is upset but does it, talking about it as part of her overall video logs (vlogs, podcasts, or whatever) about the status of her pregnancy.

Various people are all "A DUGGAR HAD AN ABORTION!!!!!" The general idea is she is a big fat hypocrite. Or, perhaps, it is that only people like her will get "therapeutic" abortions under current laws. I saw people annoyed she did "really" talk about the situation. One person said she called it a "miscarriage" instead of an abortion.

[I recently read about ANOTHER Duggar -- admittedly there are lots -- who has a new book talking about how she chose a somewhat less conservative view of Christianity.] 

The whole thing is depressing. First, it is okay to have some empathy about someone losing a fetus (or whatever she would call it), even if you are upset that their principles are harmful, including helping to further a system that people like her will not be burdened with as much as others. Someone compared her to a Russian soldier as if she is personally invading reproductive clinics.

We know about this because she talked about it. It is asinine to harp on her language. People used similar language in the past, especially depending on the reasons involved. The words here are not merely factual. Will we complain people in abusive religions talk about the abuse but aren't blunt enough?  

It is a form of "miscarriage" from what I can tell. The fetus would not survive. Having an abortion, e.g., because of rape or economic reasons would be a different type of situation. ETA: A few people (not just the "pro-life" brigade) seem to be like me "eh ... you know ... it is not always an abortion, so let's not just assume ..."  Sometimes, we do not know for sure.  Be less cocksure, maybe.

Second, even relatively well-off people are burdened by these policies. Third, it isn't all/nothing. The South Carolina Supreme Court struck down a six-week ban (at least for now). These laws will be applied in a haphazard way. 

And, "the cruelty is [not] the entire point." Again, this is an asinine way of looking at how bad things happen. As if it is a matter of pure evil. Are some of that mixed in? Yes.

Finally, yes, I'm glad she decided to talk about it. It shows what she experiences and can help others. And, it helps show how people need reproductive care. We can have discussions about how proper health care involves personal choice. And so on. 

She personally will not frame her story this way. Not listening to her whole story, she is likely (who is?) fully aware of the situation. While she deals with losing a fetus she hoped to become a baby and raise her other kids. But, the truth comes out in stages.

(I bluntly said this is a reply to a sort of "I don't give a shit about her" comment.  Sometimes, it might work to at least try to turn things around and use a person's tone against them. Then again, if the person is fixed in a frame, it won't magically get a light bulb over their head either. As of the latest update, I also got four downvotes -- downvotes are rare, so notable.)  

I think we can have empathy when dealing with people. Finally, of course, some will provide stereotypical accounts about "Christians" (like President Biden?) and where that leads. The Duggars are not exactly run-of-the-mill there either.

I recently wrote a blog on "civic duties v. responsibilities." It is one of my most personal concerns.  One responsibility is caring for others. Another is being informed.  And, part of being informed is to think things through. It is hard to do that.  I don't want to be too patronizing, condescending, or simply full of myself.  It applies to me too at times.    

But, I'm seeing some of that here.  I know online comments are often not quite thought thru at times and all that.  Still, some subjects just are so depressing.  It is a bit soul-crushing to be yelled at for empathy.  

ETA: I have moments like this on various subjects. I think as a general matter that some take is wrong, even granting certain things. We see ever more things with stuff tossed at us online. 

How often do people not know the details?  For instance, the Department of Energy investigated a possible COVID leak in China and people did not know what it specifically did so. It took a few minutes to search for the answer. But, people don't do that.  

Anyway, this is one take that notes that the fetus was dead, and the procedure used for removal, in that case, is not properly called an "abortion."  It is not really hypocritical for even the most extremist anti-abortion person to believe that the removal of a dead fetus is not an abortion!  It is when she denies people in the same situation the right.

"Everyone" -- to cite that second link -- who has an abortion is not in the same position. A person who aborts a fetus with some anomaly or as a result of rape or because of their economic situation should have a legal right to do so.  But, it is not the same situation.  As cited at the link, is it really that hard to understand?  

I understand that she pushed back, including one thing I saw with anti-abortion sentiments about other situations.  She is being called some hypocrite.  Do people think she will have a Paul at Damascus moment? She is not saying everyone but her in these situations is wrong. I do hope she is more sympathetic in various cases where abortion is very necessary.  

I understand the ideological leanings of publications have colored their positions on this subject.  But, it is unfortunate the nuances are not handled better.  We are talking past each other.  If "abortion" is literally referenced as the removal of the fetus, it can be applied.  OTOH, that is often not how people use it. A miscarriage is a "natural abortion" (it naturally expels things out), but again, people do not often see it that way.

This article is a jumble -- doctors "don't use" a word but there is no "debate" over its usage.  She "might not think of it as" (honestly) but she is tarred as at best clueless or at worst a hypocrite.  Others in her position are denied care but with such hazy talk, just what does "similar" mean?  

For instance, it is obvious if an abortion is necessary to prevent an immediate threat to health, it should be allowed. But, that is STILL not the same situation as hers, if the embryo or fetus is still alive (if that word is allowed).  Some very well might be denied care in her condition, including even those with a dead fetus inside.  (She might push back if the doctor cannot say there is some immediate threat to the woman's health.)  

She "claims" since she is using the term as it often is used. It is not a matter of "intent."  The whole this is depressing and again it is common. People talk past each other and cannot even clarify just what the debate at hand is. I think, however, that is fundamental.  We will greatly debate things but we should be able to limit the ground of debate to some degree.  This includes realizing each side has some strong disagreements without simply being hypocrites.  This is so even if they are uninformed.

Are we not all uninformed about many things?  Let's again have some empathy.  Let's have some humility.  

Another Update: I re-reading the joint dissent in the Dobbs case and just this issue arose among the discussion of the many questions the majority leaves open.  

The dissent notes that miscarriage and abortion are often not clearly independent categories. It quotes an article (link from the SCOTUS permanent link page; I had trouble with the one in the opinion) [issue brief] from a health policy group.  It highlights that Duggar is not a hypocrite. 

The article states that "miscarriages and stillbirths refer to the spontaneous death of an embryo or fetus, but not to the elective termination of pregnancy."  A miscarriage includes an embryo or fetus that is not expelled from the womb.  

The term "pregnancy loss" is used here.  The use of drugs or surgery to remove a dead embryo or fetus is not labeled an "abortion."  The brief notes how "surgical methods" used for abortion are also used for "pregnancy loss."  It gets confusing:

However, pregnancy loss is often poorly understood and conflated with induced abortions; for example, terms like “induced miscarriage” have been used to imply intent to end pregnancy, while “spontaneous abortion” is a medical term for a miscarriage. This brief clarifies how pregnancy loss is distinct from abortion, while highlighting the similarities in their management. It also focuses on how abortion policies may impact miscarriage care.

It seems to me, again, that there is talking past each other.  The term "abortion" very well might be used to talk about the removal of an embryo.  Nonetheless, there is a clear difference between the choice of ending the life of an embryo and fetus [which again often is compelled by the circumstances above and beyond the right to abortion generally], and removing (even if literally the fetus is being expelled, aborted) a dead one.

This is a case where terms cannot simply be used as if we are applying objective words like "gold" to apply to an element in nature or "walking" as a verb implying using your feet to move.  It is more akin to something like "killing" to mean the destruction of "life" or "war" to mean a certain type of conflict. Clearly, "abortion" has a mixed meaning here.

So, again, maybe have some empathy, and practice special care when talking about this whole matter. 

#LGM

Mets baseball is back. There is an amusing, well-done commercial on SNY with various members of the team serving as customer hotline reps, answering questions, and taking seat orders. Diaz has a good bit about "closing."

Scherzer started (and pitched two innings) in the Sunday game. The sideline reporter had an opening bit and noted how he "hasn't slowed down." Gary also had some positive opening remarks. Both are sorta full of shit.

Scherzer started strong but then got hurt. He was out of the rotation for a long period and then did not seem to same when he came back. His failure to seal the deal in the final days -- both at the end of the season and in the first round of the playoffs -- was an important part of the Mets running into a brick wall. Why can't you say this? Are we stupid?

One NY Daily News analysis [the paper is one of many that got rid of Dilbert after the "anti-woke" cartoonist really crossed the line] noted that the Yanks and Mets still have issues. Sure enough. 

But, the idea that the new Japanese pitcher has to be better than Bassett (a #3) is dubious. The team won 101 games. The PHILS -- the third-place team -- got to the World Series. Only the first seed gets a bye. So, really, getting a wild card (two options) is basically not a big problem. The Mets don't have that much of a home-field advantage.  They will find a way to stress us out.

There are questions to be answered about the two old pitchers and the new Japanese pitcher, who has so far fit in well with the team and fans as far as I can see. The big issue really is if there will be a bit more offense, especially from DH and some rookies. 

There are various mostly tiresome new rules. This doesn't involve a change of the ghost runner or no DH, which would be actually an improvement. The bigger bases might mildly help safety. Doubt it helps much. It also might help base stealing in some cases.  The whole shift deal is stupid to me. They are mildly banning it. If you want to get around a new strategy, use a new strategy.  

Last year, the Mets were a bit better [until the end] than expected. This season should be a bit more balanced expectations-wise. The team would be a major disappointment (with two wild cards) if they didn't make the postseason. OTOH, with two strong rivals (it will be determined to see if the Nats are AS BAD), unless we have another collapse, the second place won't be as upsetting.

Meanwhile, hopefully, the Orioles can keep up their decent record last year, and don't revert some. It is tough though to see them do much more with the competition. Still, with a second wild card, there is some chance for an upset team.

There is also news of an 83-year-old pitching coach for the Mets bringing an age discrimination suit.  If some behind-the-scenes stuff is nasty, fine, but replacing him (after he helped the pitchers reduce their ERA some) with Jeremy Hefner is not exactly harsh in my opinion.  That was a few years ago.  How long is an eighty-something going to have a full-time position?

Some Quickie Reviews

I saw a nice picture of the singer Orianthi [Orianthi Penny Panagaris] on Twitter.  She tweets from time to time.  I checked out a couple CDs and it turns out that I heard her already.  She sounds like she was on the soundtrack of some film or television program.  I like her voice.

I saw the film The Children's Hour (Audrey Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine, James Garner) based on a play.  It is about the power of a lie (a hint of lesbianism).  The acting is good though the film starts to go in a somewhat melodramatic direction.  

The 1930s version sometimes gets better reviews and one of the stars plays the selfish aunt here.  I checked out These Three, and it was well-acted, especially by the two friends (lesbianism is not covered here) with the guy a bit more frivolous.  It amuses me that the girl telling the lie later played Nancy Drew.  I shut it off before it got to the depressing stuff.  

Bonita Granville (Nancy Drew in a few films) also starred in Hitler's Children, which the library had. First, I also got out Grand Hotel, but it started off dull, so I didn't try watching two hours of it.  I have less patience these days. I have watched a few 1930s films. I recall liking Dinner at Eight years ago.  

The Hitler film was in 1943 and started with a striking bit of true believers.  I lost interest, perhaps given the boring nice guy American professor has the role of the innocent abroad.  Granville plays a German-born American citizen caught up in Nazism.  She is taken away and we are stuck with boring guy realizing 1938/9 German is that bad.  If I stayed with it, it would shift to the Germans.  It does not end well for our heroine.    

I also came upon The Princess of Montpensier, a modern-day French film starring Mélanie Thierry.  I actually found it enjoyable but after about an hour and a half, the story was boring me.  There was a basic simplicity of the plot that didn't warrant so much time though it was all put together and acted rather well. I checked online to see what happened.  A lot of depressing stuff.  

[The film is French so it does have some sex, including a portrayal of her wedding night that -- if slightly away from the action -- a rather crowded cast involved.  Things are not that explicit in the scenes I saw though we see the actress' impressive breasts more than once.]

I will check out the actress in two more films.  I also saw the fifth episode of The Way Home.  It was pretty good -- the mom did not tell her daughter yet that she also went back in time. And, though hinted at, the attempt to try to save the young boy (her sister) that was lost was not covered yet.  One more possible time-related matter also was avoided. 

===

Anyway, while checking out the books of Elaine Pagels (who I saw give a lecture years ago and wrote notes about), I saw that she wrote an introduction to Secrets of Mary Magdalene.  The editors are not historians or anything. And, there are some mumbo jumbo b.s. mixed in.  But, there is a lot of stuff from reliable scholars (including Pagels).

Pagels introduction is a few pages and for some reason basically skips the John scene.  Not sure why.  A few reference the Gnostic Gospels while somewhat skimming over how LATE they are.  

One entry makes up for it by overdoing it -- the Gospel of Mary being written "over two hundred years after her death" is dating it rather late (and her death a tad early).  And, one person for some reason writes with an assurance that Jesus for years -- again curiously dating it early [around 26] -- lived in Capernaum.  

The book is over three hundred pages and I still do not get a full sense of her all the same.  One thing that is not really covered is Mary as a woman of her era and region.  We have some colored pictures of art that portray her over the years. There is but one regional representation that (if in a somewhat primitive form) shows her something like she would have looked. The art is as expected modeled after European women.

I realize that the little we know of Mary leads to a lot of reactions to an understanding of her that puts on her stuff not her own.  But, such happens regularly in the Bible.  The Book of Daniel speaks of events written hundreds of years before it was likely written.  The "books of Moses" portrays events of a different age in ways that mix in anachronisms that only experts are likely to pick up. But, they are surely there.  

The theology of John (written sixty or so years after Jesus died at the very least) is in various ways as loyal to his actual teachings as gnostic material.  Which expressed some stuff that we can get a taste of already in the New Testament.  There is talk of "powers" and such in there.  And, the Gospel of Thomas might have been finished sometime in the second century but has material probably earlier.  And, anyway, it isn't the only NT book that was completed in the second century.  

So, it is not really too different in some ways that gnostic materials and even later Mary material change "actual history."  Still, a book of this sort should have a bit more on the actual Mary.  If we are going to be upset that the desire for a complete story (plus usual "sex sells" etc.) resulted in a composite Mary that made her into a former prostitute [and even the person she is combined with is deemed a "sinner" -- we don't know if she is actually a whore], we should try to get a sense of the real Mary.

There is a way to do that in some sense.  An essay on how a somewhat successful (though what Luke meant by saying she and other women helped pay Jesus' way is far from clear) woman of that day lived would have been nice.  I was annoyed that Bart Ehrman's book that covers Peter, Paul, and Mary [Magdalene] did not go more into the exorcism, which is a real practice, with or without the presence of actual demons. 

Anyway, the book has enough material to make it not upsetting to me that I bought it for around $5 on eBay.  

SCOTUS Opinions

[I originally posted a form of this the day the opinions were released but will provide this updated version as a new version.  Since then, SCOTUS has announced another opinion day.  They are slowly catching up after a slow start.]

Florida had a habit of executing a few people a year after it became the first state to involuntarily execute someone (Gary Gilmore "volunteered") after the country started to do again after the mid-1970s.  The last two were executed in 2019, both serial killers.  That would be #98 and 99.

Donald Dillbeck is not a serial killer but seems on some level the sort of person the death penalty is there to handle.  He murdered a police officer (when he was 15) and was given life in prison.  Today, Dillbeck would have to be at some point at least offered a chance of parole unless deemed particularly horrible.  

Moot point.  He escaped one day and murdered a woman.  On some level, there is a "what? oh come on!" flavor to his crime:

Dillbeck, now 59, was initially sentenced to life in prison in the 1979 shooting death of Lee County sheriff’s Deputy Dwight Lynn Hall when Dillbeck was 15. But in 1990, he walked away from a catering function in Quincy where he and other inmates were working.

Dillbeck went to Tallahassee, got a knife and tried to carjack a vehicle, according to court documents. Faye Vann, who was sitting in the car, resisted and was fatally stabbed, with Dillbeck then arrested after crashing the car. He was convicted in 1991 of first-degree murder, armed robbery and armed burglary, Department of Corrections records show.

And, he was cited as an example of criminal negligence of a sort akin to the whole Willie Horton affair.  It's somewhat unclear how you can be lax enough to let a person in prison for life because he killed a police officer to escape.  I am all for allowing people in prison some discretion to do things.  But, you have to keep an eye on such people.  These days, I would hope, there would be some way to put a monitoring device on them or something. 

(A news bit over the weekend informed us that Jimmy Carter -- 98 -- is going into hospice care. So, we might not have much more time with him in this world. Well, he had over forty years of good work since he was POTUS.  He had a great run.  And, darn, Mary Price ... that's some story.)

I do not know what executing Donald Dillbeck thirty years later will do as a matter of public welfare.  I again cite Breyer's dissent in Glossip v. Gross to remind us that executing after a long term on death row is constitutionally problematic.  His lawyers also cited mental incapacity and the fact that his death sentence is the result of a non-animous jury finding.  

He murdered someone during a botched escape after around ten years in prison.  He should not have had the chance to escape in the first place. A crime when he was 15 should not have meant life imprisonment so even in that sense the death penalty should not have been the only option. And, the vote for execution was 8-4, even with those facts. 

And,  if his mental status (a bad childhood is also cited) is a problem, that too might be added.  An execution of Dillbeck is not the level of travesty of some executions.  I would still note his execution -- especially after thirty years -- seems much more pointless than the execution of the two serial killers before him.  

Public safety and justice as a whole does not benefit too much from executing him. Like the recent execution of someone who murdered a police officer after a reckless chase, there are other things I would address than doing that.  One conservative legal mind (who granted the result was right in the Arizona case) argued a life would be saved if he was executed for his first murder quickly.  So, we are going to execute all murderers, including those fifteen years old when they murder?  

At any rate, the Supreme Court rejected his final appeal without comment.  As a rule, I rather they make the final call 24-48 hours before the scheduled execution.  The same-day death watch is a morbid and bad policy.  More than once, in fact, the final decision made it impossible to carry out the execution!  Maybe, that seems okay for someone against the death penalty, but I think it's not a good way to run a railroad.  

He was executed.  Coverage included the "consciousness tests" they use to make sure the person is really finished.  I'll repeat my previous comment that I'm impressed with some of the local coverage of executions in particular.  

He did use his last words to badmouth Gov. DeSantis. Okay.  A few liked that, but you know, the guy is a murderer of two people.  I think there is something to going out swinging, but I'll take my digs (with or without profanities) from other people.

The 8-4 jury thing is convenient too since DeSantis wants to make it easier to sentence people to death.  The opportunity to promote one of his "tough on crime" proposals seems mighty convenient here, though just how much its serendipity and the execution purposely being chosen for that reason is unclear.  Given Ring v. Arizona, that might be tricky though if the jury isn't deciding "facts" but merely sentencing, it might work.  

The Supreme Court has held unanimous (states are still allowed to have juries of less than twelve but at least six) juries are constitutionally necessary.  That was the practice generally, one state and Puerto Rico didn't have it when SCOTUS ruled upon it too long ago, anyhow.  

I would say even granting maybe you can allow someone dissenting, 8-4 is rather divided, especially for the death penalty.  

==

Three opinions were announced (wrongly not live-streamed) and released on Wednesday.  

Leah Litman in the past flagged the criminal case out of Arizona as an injustice (in a capital case) that had to be fixed.  It was by a bare 5-4 majority, Sotomayor vs. Barrett.  The dissent drew a line in the sand, citing cases back to 1792 to deem this as an egregious ("assertion is jarring") interference with state courts.  

She later expanded it for a Slate article.  The opening bit on how liberals should be relieved about the opinions handed down annoyed me.  We had two bland opinions, which is not novel especially as part of the first set released, and then a 5-4 opinion in a case that is apparently blatantly clear.  

Some are shocked Roberts and Kavanaugh went along, as if either is akin to Alito and loathe ever to rule for a criminal defendant.  It is a simplistic view of the current situation. And, I didn't think even this ruling was "unexpected."  SCOTUS still now and then finds some extreme criminal injustice and this is one such case.

A dispute over an application of a rule about overtime pay also had some spleen, this time from Kagan for 6-3 Court. Gorsuch would have "DIGGED" but Kavanaugh (with Alito) dissented on the merits.  Or, in Kagan's words "recognizing that the argument may be forfeited, but opining on it anyway." She also did her "baby hit me one more time" bit: "And if all that leaves the tiniest doubt—well, still we are not done."  

I do not claim to know the right path here, but it's hard not to smile when Kagan (or anyone really) has her claws out for Kavanaugh.  Yes, the little angel on my shoulder disfavors heated rhetoric and snark in court opinions. I'm not sure if the long footnote with that dig (and others, like "That is a non-sequitur to end all non-sequiturs") was necessary.  But, yeah, the liberals need something to vent their frustrations.  

She showed a bit of snark against the general claim and Gorsuch -- though she was more playful with him -- but yeah, the level of snark here comes off a tad bit pointed.

The third case was a unanimous one settling a bankruptcy rule. Barrett has her second opinion of a small sample size this term with Sotomayor (with Jackson) adding a short (and low temp) concurring statement noting its limited reach.  The decision includes some of the facts, involving some perils of house repair that remind me a bit of a Cary Grant movie. 

Trubek Article Citation

"This made my whole day! Thank you! I wrote this piece on a cross-country flight. It remains one of the best writing experiences I've ever had! The words and argument literally flowed out of my fingertips. Not the usually experience of panicked fits and starts." 

Well, you made my day too, Prof. Murray. I referenced the article (which is about Griswold) myself sometime a while back, and she must have done some sort of name/subject search since she found it. And, thanked me. This time I replied to someone who cited it on Twitter. Turns out the article is special to her. Well, I do try to do something nice for people from to time.

Trubek v. Ullman impressed me as a road not taken. Justice White cited it in his Griswold concurrence as an example of the law burdening a marrying couple's "considerations of family planning." The Trubeks were a young couple who felt it inappropriate at that time to have a child but that normal sexual relations were an important part of marriage. Birth control would allow both, husband and wife, to choose a professional path fitting their own moral principles.

[The article cites an op-ed the wife wrote fifty years later, which I linked in the thread too.]

Griswold is a sort of artificial case with named plaintiffs involved in a birth control clinic. Their arrest burdened married couples. But, like the article notes, we do not get a sense of any married couples involved. 

The set of cases involved under the overall Poe v. Ullman rubric did have married couples. Justice Douglas references this in his dissent. Trubek provides the open-ended reach here, helping to show the full potential of a "right to marry" and make choices involving children.

And, yes, "privacy and equality could co-exist." That was a lesson for Justice Kennedy, flawed as he might have been. He repeatedly linked due process (liberty) and equal protection concerns. The subject is complex. It is why I have for so long -- if more like thirty-five years -- been so interested in the complexity of abortion and related subjects.

I did know about the chapter/book also recommended to me. I actually went to an event where the three editors talked about it. I read more than one book in that constitutional stories series. The book is just a bit pricy. I can get it through someone I know so guess it's time -- eventually -- to read it. 

Odds and Ends

The author JK Rowling has had her reputation downgraded after some anti-trans remarks.  But, this does not erase her skills as a writer.  This still included me being able to read more than one of her Cormoran Strike mysteries, especially since we are talking a lot of pages. Too many, but again, interesting enough for me to keep reading.  Not a bad recommendation.

[I checked and I don't recall reading the fourth book.  Did I? I might have. The third book ends on another nice note -- the books have a lot of depressing stuff but some nice moments showing the bond between the two leads -- at Robin's wedding.]

I stopped at three, partially because of her comments, partially since I didn't like what she did with the Robin character, and partially since the books got even LONGER.  A mystery book nearly 1000 pages long is ridiculous.  I did happen to see the television version of the fifth novel while flipping thru the channels.  I have watched the episodes available.  Fairly enjoyable. 

Last weekend, I also finished up on the first four episodes of The Way Home, a new Hallmark Channel series with a time travel (back to 1999) subplot.  I liked the episodes, including a chance for three generations of women (Andie McDowell plays the grandmother and the mother also has been in a few things) as well as a guy friend of the mother (the father is seen less) to have some good moments. 

I'm wary about what will happen now with both the mother and daughter traveling back thru time.  There is a mystery about a disappearing little boy.  How will time travel play there?  We already have a hint about "rules" such as the time-traveling portal sending her back to different times, spaced out, for whatever reason.  More rules to come? 

John Oliver is back (10th season) and talked about the potential of psychedelic drugs in therapy.  I also saw Orchid Muse in the library.  I did not find it interesting enough to read thru, but there were some interesting tidbits (Raymond Burr was gay, huh?) and some nice pictures.  How about this of an Orchid Cabinet?

I was going to wait to give blood but kept on getting requests, there being another blood shortage.  I "universal donor" (O-) blood too.  They got me on a tease: some "special" gift if I went today.  We were not told what it was.  It turned out to be a t-shirt, which is fine since I wanted another t-shirt with more than one of mine starting to get worn out.  There were also hats and some third item.  Plus, free juice, snacks, and helping others. 

SCOTUS Order List

The justices are back in session.  

As expected, the order list was low drama.  Among the cases not taken is the one covered in the now famous Onion brief cited here, which also discusses the two Internet-related cases covered in the oral arguments this week.  Gorsuch felt under the weather, so took part from home on Monday.  

Justice Jackson (with Sotomayor) had a dissent from cert. Justice Jackson is beginning to have a style with these brief, crisp criminal justice-themed dissents:

Petitioner Quartavious Davis alleged, and the Eleventh Circuit did not dispute, that he satisfied the first prong of the Strickland ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard because his attorney failed to initiate plea negotiations with the Government.

I wish one of them had more to say before silently going along in nearly all of the recent executions that reached the Supreme Court since last fall.  

Jackson also implied on the first day of the Internet-related oral arguments (it went nearly three hours, which is too long for something scheduled for something like a third of that)  that she was more open than some others to allow for more room to litigate.  Some find that troubling. 

I am fairly libertarian-minded regarding the Internet. Nonetheless, there might be some middle ground open here.  

SCOTUS and Other Legal Stuff

Book: I saw the author of From Back Alley to the Border: Criminal Abortion in California on C-SPAN give a lecture (she is a teacher of history) on abortion. It was a basic survey and did not really tell me much new that I did not know.  I know more about abortion history than many people do. 

This book (in its 200 pages of core material) has some of that.  It includes A LOT of history (from the road to criminalization and snapshots of various eras covered before going into some specific stories).  It might try to do a bit too much there though it's a helpful summary.  The best part of the book is the stories of the specific subject of the title, including an abortion syndicate attempted in the 1930s. The author is firmly pro-choice.

New York Chief Judge:  State Republican senators decided to open a legal case to try to claim that it violated the state constitution not to have a floor vote.  So, the Democrats had one, and LaSalle (who for some reason was there to see himself lose) lost big.  One of his few Democratic supporters didn't even show up.  Okay.  Can we move on now?  

The claim was stupid but the vote saved time. In some other environment, maybe, LaSalle could have won with bipartisan support.  But, that isn't where we are now.  This is especially the case after the 2022 elections went badly in various respects (at least on the federal level) for Democrats.  

I do not know why Gov. Hochul could not accept -- even if the nomination itself can be defended on some level -- the political reality here.  

One Less Biden Lawsuit (For Now): The Supreme Court canceled the March 1 oral argument in Arizona v. Mayorkas, involving the Title 42 immigration policy.  The Biden Administration recently told the justices that the case may become moot on May 11 because the policy will expire when the COVID emergency formally ends.

A lot of inside baseball here.  First, Gorsuch dissented from taking this case, and Jackson joined his dissent.  (I noted at the time that I wasn't sure how strong his argument was, but it's notable even he didn't want to decide this.)  Second, when the public information office posted a media advisory (expecting higher than normal coverage) [ETA: which is later removed], there was this tidbit: 

PIO will send an email confirming day passes for March 1 by close of business on Thursday, February 16.

(Checks calendar. Wait.  Darn, 2023 is almost over!)  So, the timing of the cancellation is somewhat logical.  We are not actually told why it was done.  It was not even done via an order on the Order Page.  If you follow the case link, you can follow links to the docket page, where the notice is posted. This bit of timing (which at least one Supreme Court reporter suggested might not mean the case is over) is therefore a bit low-key.  

The action was a bit unexpected all the same.  We can see there the other stuff posted around it, including a brief posted after the announcement. 

Other Stuff: The Supreme Court is back from their little break, having a Friday conference. There is some stuff on the plate for next week, including more scheduled execution (this time out of Florida).  One bit of stuff in the news is supposed to be plans to honor Thomas in Georgia.  Charming.  

Next Week: Let's not forget that Monday is a holiday. (The White Plains Library [NY] was closed for Lincoln's Birthday, but the NYPL was open.).  President Taft was the only person who was both on the Supreme Court and also a president. Various presidents argued in front of the Supreme Court, both before and after [never during!] their terms.  

As I expected might happen sooner than later, there is also a notice on the website that they may (read that as "probably will") announce one or more opinions on Wednesday.  There is also an oral argument scheduled so that will be later than usual while the opinion is read from the bench.  

This time, one would think, they all will be there (unlike the first announcement this term, which was not only Barrett's first but the first since they ended up doing so for COVID).  

The sensible approach would be to have audio for both the announcement and the oral argument.  They do not want to do that so will only provide audio for the second.  

Pence Is An Immoral Scumbag

I'm so fucking tired of this.

An entry on civic duties vs. responsibility on another blog is forthcoming. The blog focuses on historical topics though has some opinions. 

But, oh, I can take that to a certain level. One of the travesties of our times is the lack of civic responsibility by many in government. This leads to despair, cynicism, and other bad stuff.

This is the sort of thing involved with Pence raising legislative privilege (sic), the lastest Trump enabling asshole using such things to obstruct justice. The claim is just a tad credible.  For instance, a lower court opinion left it open. But, come on.  The text says "senator."  Can the Chief Justice now claim privilege during an impeachment trial?  

But, on some level, it doesn't fucking matter. He doesn't HAVE to claim it. In fact, his aides already testified to the 1/6 Committee. When there is Speech and Debate privilege, legislative aides are covered too. So, that is just one more level of it.  This is a time-delaying dodge, probably somehow motivated by him running for POTUS and public speaking fees and such.

A spouse can waive privilege. They aren't forced if let's say their spouse raped someone, to not testify. They actually have a moral duty to do so.  Here, Pence -- who wrote a book about and flaunts his moral rectitude, including as a public servant (he swore to uphold the Constitution, swearing means to God, right?)  -- is violating his civic responsibilities.

We saw it repeatedly during both impeachment trials. People refused to agree to be called as a witness (or would have if pressed).  It's down the memory hole, as is basically both impeachments themselves.  Some liberals sneered at the impeachments as wastes of time.  They are enabling the cheapening of the importance of such things, including refusing to help.  Get behind me, Satan! 

I'm reading one of Elaine Pagels' books on Satan (not the Adam and Eve one; not sure if I actually read this one) and reading the chapter on the Romans' view of religion and philosophy. This includes some arguing we should have an evenhanded acceptance of our fate. And, on some level, this is a useful approach.  But, sometimes, I just have to scream a bit.

We -- long after it became clear he was safe -- just got an official note that no federal charges were going to be placed on Rep. Matt Gaetz for his use of funds for underage sex or whatever.  The greater thing there is that guy continues to be in Congress and will be over more credible ones. 

Anyway, I digress a bit.  There has to be a certain level of expectation of civic responsibility in this country. Like those who toss around "Christian" and "religion" to me a certain thing, we should not belittle such terms or merely cynically treat them as bad or worthless. They have important value. And, it disgusts me that they are treated in this way.

===

I will just note as a bit of a palate cleanser, that Senator John Fetterman (or his office) has announced that he is getting treatment for clinical depression.  This includes some time in a hospital for treatment.

Fetterman is dealing with the effects of a stroke and the stresses of becoming a U.S. senator.  Ideally, it very well might have been a good idea for someone else to have stepped into that role when the news came out.  

But, we did not have the freedom really to risk it with the Senate on the line and the alternative a con artist.  Also, I suppose, there is a good chance that Fetterman was and is able to be a senator.  And, it is a good reminder that many others with a disability are able to thrive.  

A relative has long dealt with depression, so this is one of those things that has a special personal reach for me. But, that tends to be a lot of things. 

From Friendship To Lust

This blog is generally filled with politics, legal news, and "straight" reviews of television and film. But, yes, there are a few posts about "adult films." Not too surprisingly, a lot of the limited hits are to these entries.

I think late nite films on cable -- I do not count fully explicit channels like Playboy and such here -- are slack these days.  There is a ton of shows, on a ton of platforms.  But, the Life on Top type show? Not so much from what I can see on HBO, Showtime, and so on.  Am I missing something? 

Soft porn films also seem of lesser quality.  No more Brandin Rackley-type spoofs like the quality of The Devil Wears Nada.  The Showtime "adult" collection includes a series (including Erotic Couture) of films with familiar faces -- an older actor who fills in speaker roles repeatedly pops up -- of cheap-looking products.  

In comparison, Erotic Eats -- which I talked about some months back -- is almost high quality. I find the beginning amusing -- the caterer has a "dramatic moment" when she is anguished to still be having sex dreams (including the opening scene) of her ex.  

Ditto Hot Honeymoon Surprise, a porn title obviously.  That involves a big-boobed woman with lots of makeup being stood up (after the guy makes sure to have one more "go at it") and meeting up with a newlywed couple (the woman is a bit less fake looking) at a resort.  The guy is a familiar face.  The hotel clerk -- a bit older these days -- might be familiar to some.  

Okay, so the title film, with the woman star pictured.  I can do with the hair not being so long.  She is cute enough, including teasing her friend early on by standing around nude in the bathroom.  The film cut also has her have basically the shortest shower you'd ever seen (she pops in and out of the shower).  The heavily tattooed neighbor [not a fan of heavy tattoos, but seems to be a major thing these days in porn] also looks familiar.  

Nothing too interesting overall though you see a quick bit of pubic hair in that bathroom scene (that honeymoon film also has a bit of the guy's butt, which also seems not to be a big thing in these things).  The film overall is fairly dull -- boring looking guy and a woman friend are new in town, go to a party, and we see the tattooed woman have sex with a guy (tattoo/creepy looking) and the woman.  The guy has sex with a fellow acting student (okay).  And, in the end, the friends ... well there is lust and stuff.  

I think the honeymoon film is sort of more interesting.  The level of the artificiality of the woman (including in her lace underwear) is amusing and there are actually tiny bits of plot that carry things along okay.  Check out that woman.  We are not talking full Jazy Berlin, but lol.

(The picture doesn't quite do her justice. Recognize the guy?)

But, we need better soft porn.  Let me not even get into Pornhub, which is rather boring.  As an NYT article argues, "sex is good," and so can porn. 

(There is also an open letter to NYT criticizing their trans coverage. This has led to the usual "stop reading them"! comments. Where do people get the level of the content found there?  I doubt all of the places do not have their own issues on some level.)  

Films and Stuff

Not having a lot of luck with some books that I reserved but found The Once and Future Sex which discusses women during the Middle Ages pretty good. The last (small) chapter basically tosses in some facts to suggest things aren't great now either. Fine, but hey, you are a medieval expert, and a few selected studies on recent times are somewhat lacking.  

I probably will have a longer review in the separate book review website I contribute to (Good Arguments review has been added).  She also co-hosts a popular podcast (over 100 episodes), one of the myriads of podcasts out there. I listened to their podcast on The Knight's Tale, which they very much enjoyed (realizing it is a bit of a goof).  I like when people can enjoy, especially when they have some skills to "deep dive," such films.  

I also enjoyed some films and stuff on television. Unexpected is one of a slew of films out there that often are likely only to be found on demand, which is how I found this one.  Anna Camp, who is in Pitch Perfect among other things, is very good.  But, others are as well.  It's a quirky film about a couple with a lot of issues.  

Inez & Doug & Kira was the independent option (joined with a classic and a short film) on PBS on Saturday.  A couple has to deal with the suicide of someone both have a complicated relationship with (sister, sponsor, former lover). I did not see the whole thing but it is well-acted, written, and directed (good use of flashbacks and quiet scenes).  

A film that deserves caps -- KILLER KLOWNS FROM OUTER SPACE -- was the Svengoolie option. Svengoolie has been stretched to two and a half hours, which seems a bit too long, but then many of these horror host shows have a lot of commercials and filler.  This is a silly movie that is amusingly cheesy. I fast-forwarded some since I was not in the mood to see it in all its glory.  Either way, it was a fun entry.    

The Way Home is a new-ish Hallmark series about three generations (Andie MacDowell again pops up on Hallmark as the grandmother and looks quite fine in scenes that take place twenty years earlier) that involves time travel. A family member wanted to see it and they reaired the first four episodes last night.  I caught the first and parts of the second and fourth episodes.  

Overall, it is well-acted and written, with something for teens and adults.  Not sure if I would want to see the whole thing and not sure how the mother finding out about the time traveling will work.  But, I liked what I saw as a whole (was starting to find the teen family drama a bit boring in the fourth).  Always nice to hear Andie MacDowell's accent. 

===

And, of course, the big event on television was the Super Bowl. I did not watch it though I caught the very end.  I was traveling during the middle of the game and one prediction ticker had the Eagles' win chances around halftime being close to 70%.  

I think it is a bit silly to do that when they were only ahead by a TD though the ten points at halftime were a bit more notable. Still, KC scores after halftime and it's a three-point game. Come on.  Anyway, after the Jags blew a chance (including against a backup QB), the stud boy on a bad ankle did his thing again helped by the oatmeal guy.  

Another close win, finished off by an over five-minute job to basically run out the clock.  For the second game in a row, a late penalty helped ice the game, this time a hold denying the Eagles a chance with plenty of time to respond.  We will see both teams again in the postseason and probably (surely Kansas City) in the Super Bowl again.  One of these games playing for that deciding FG will blow up on them with a miss.  Time for baseball.

Some Odds and Ends

It is still early, even after a handful of episodes, to determine the reboot of Night Court is a misfire. I noted it and will again that the original took years to really get into a groove, the "standard cast" not there the first couple of years.  Still, have not found the show that good so far though overall it is relatively non-painful.  On some level, that's what you ask for at times.  

Talking about old shows that had a reboot, this time a few years back now on another platform, I noticed one of the retro stations airs Mad About You.  This would be around midnight when you can see Friends on three channels (local Channel 11 & for some reason I have East/West feeds of Nickelodeon).  This is a show that I think has three categories of episodes: charming, okay, and a bit cringe.  The naming of their child "MABEL" (look it up!) has a bit of each.  

[T]he only nation in the world built on an idea. The only one. Other nations are defined by geography [and] ethnicity, but we're the only nation based on an idea. That all of us, every one of us, is created equal in the image of God. 

While listening to the SOTU -- which at first I wasn't going to do, but then (though I missed the beginning) I did anyway and it had some charm -- the "nation based on an idea" trope threw me.  

I doubted that was true. Hey, what about Vatican City!  Michael Dorf, the person at that blog that I usually generally agree with [Sherry Colb was sorta me too but not quite so] does a good job attacking the wider claim.  We have our myths and sometimes it is good to examine them.

===

The Supreme Court ethics story clearly has legs with more reporting about it, now a deep dive of sorts over at the Washington Post.  The headline is that they have (not always only behind the scenes though there are clear signs the article has some sources inside) discussed a code of conduct for years now, but cannot agree upon a solution.  Ah to be a fly on the wall.

One fascinating bit of history cited -- I don't recall this before but I would think this isn't the first time we saw it -- is a recusal statement signed in 1993 by seven justices.  Justice Blackmun, whose daughter was a lawyer at the time, clearly came within its terms. Nonetheless, he along with Souter (don't know about close family members on that front) did not. 

The article does not say why.  Souter? I can see.  Blackmun was a bit of a dissenter too (he wasn't a big fan in 1980 to stop saying "Mr. Justice"), but still. Hmm.  I love this sort of thing -- you have a book or article that covers ground that some are familiar with, but there is that extra bit of detail, like the extra material in a "best of" CD/tape, that gives you more.  

===

It is partially me, maybe it's a lot me, but there seems to be a somewhat dull feel about things these days.  Time goes by and what new things happen? I'm ready for something really big to happen. We did have Republicans gain control of the House, but there seems to likely be a lot of stupid without much significant happening. Of course, that is also a loss of opportunity.

And, we are moving toward mid-February and baseball season. Elsewhere, I asked "is it 2024" yet, but before you know it, well it won't be too much of a joke. We already are having people announce they are running in 2024, and multiple Republicans announced in some form as presidential candidates.  

We are chugging along holiday-wise too, moving toward Valentine's Day, past Groundhog Day and now it's almost time for Lincoln's Birthday.  Charles Darwin also gets a day too, since he was by chance born the exact same day.  His birthday is in part a celebration of reason.  

John Balentine Execution (and More on SOTU)

This execution was on hold by a lower court earlier but a divided state appeals court allowed it to move forward. The Supreme Court rejected a final appeal, as usual, without comment. It, as usual, warranted some.

In the court below, Mr. Balentine raised claims that a prospective juror, who later became the jury foreman, hid evidence of his racial bias and lied about his background during jury selection in order to become a member of the jury.

The case -- around twenty-five years ago [again, too long, rising independent constitutional issues though the Supreme Court never accepted that claim; I refer again to Justice Breyer's dissent in Glossip et. al.].  There are no doubts of innocence here.  There is some argument that mitigating evidence was not appropriately introduced and factored in.  

The core claim is that racism, including involving the foreman who played a significant role in the jury choosing death -- corrupted the process.  This was aggravated by the nature of the crime.  John Balentine killed a teen (and two others that seem basically to have been in the wrong place) with a violent streak that was strongly against his interracial relationship with the teen's sister.  John is black.  The sister is white.   

[One article speaks of a "feud" and that at the time of the killings that he was the woman's "former boyfriend."  It says he spoke of "threats" but again doesn't seem like there was a claim it was justifiable.] 

The coverage I see does not seem to suggest John Balentine was at enough risk to his life to excuse the three murders.  But, there seems to be a good case to be made that racism infected the process. His lawyers also argue a pending SCOTUS case is enough like this one to hold things in place until it is decided.  Since the Supreme Court said NOTHING (not just those darn conservatives either), it is hard for me to judge how strong that claim is.

The execution yesterday seems to reasonably be the result of someone cruelly murdering a mother and three children. This one is a bit hazier and is not merely a matter of gratuitous cruelty.  The person was convicted and the murder of three teenagers warrants a long prison sentence. He has been in prison for over twenty years. He can be there longer. 

There is still the concern for possibly outdated execution drugs that might have caused problems in at least one recent execution.  My issue is the racism and due process problems.  

Texas executed him.

==

I referenced yesterday that Prof. Kate Shaw [Chris Hayes' wife] wrote an op-ed hoping that President Biden would speak about the courts in his state of the union.  He started with a joke request to the Chief Justice and referenced Roe v. Wade being overruled, but she did not get her wish.  

The SOTU as a whole was very good, even if it was not really a "state of the union" in the sense Art. II quite suggests. It was domestically focused and seemed a lot like a celebratory trot, mixed with perhaps his re-election slogan involving completing the job. He also overall schooled Republicans, who came off badly, especially on Social Security.  

As someone said on Twitter, it was not really politically useful to bring up the courts, especially since the chance of something being done is small. But, it's still troubling on some level, as was his rather limited reference to abortion and trans (the hate of the moment) rights. Gay USA this week overall liked the speech.  

He also should have said more about immigration and the border, which has been a lingering problem for years.  Republicans actually have some incentive to do something about it, maybe even possibly agreeing to a sane policy.  Maybe.  A courts ethics law and maybe more too is possible too. 

And, the House Speaker had to deal with unruly members booing and all, but Republicans had themselves to blame for choosing Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders for the response.  The general response?  Horrible both in content and delivery.  There are better spokespersons, though I guess this troll "anti-woke" sentiment is what they are these days. Failed party.

Leonard Taylor Execution

There is a range of problems with the death penalty and problematic executions. A basic concern, which is really a minor subset with respect to actual numbers, is wrongful convictions. The basic idea is that someone who is executed is innocent. 

There are some who are strongly saying Leonard Taylor is one such case. Or, to use a more restrained tone, that there is evidence of innocence that is being ignored. National publications (Newsweek) and local ones provide varying degrees of detail.  The Intercept has one of the best ones, which provides a mixed view of the evidence in my view.  

For instance, Newsweek notes that Taylor has "a criminal record for drug and fraud-related offenses," which is a tad bit vague and almost benign.  Fraud related?  Four people were murdered!  ("Police officers found the bodies of Angela Rowe, her 10-year-old daughter Alexus Conley, 6-year-old daughter AcQreya Conley, and 5-year-old son Tyrese Conley.")

This (more so as well as photos in some cases that make him look rather benign) adds a bit of a different view:

Taylor had a criminal record and a history of violence. He’d done time in California for rape and was accused in 2000 of raping his 16-year-old stepdaughter. He was also a seasoned drug dealer who trafficked cocaine across the country, amassing a string of aliases and fraudulent IDs. Still, the state never offered a cogent motive to explain the vicious and cold-blooded crime.

The last bit starts to introduce a bit of doubt. The two major matters of dispute are the alleged coerced testimony of his brother (admittedly biased) and the debate over the timing of the murders.  An added wrinkle, as flagged by Justice Jackson last fall, is that Missouri has a recent law that allows one to have a hearing to claim wrongful conviction.  The state supreme court here in a one-line order summarily rejected his claim.  

The state in its briefing adds some reasons (including blood evidence not referenced in the articles I saw) for its stance.  But, what stands out for me is the testimony of the brother's former girlfriend that he did tell her his brother murdered the woman.  It is not just an alleged (and maybe they did use illicit coercion) coerced testimony to the police.  

I think Leonard Taylor deserves a full hearing, which is the core of his petition to the Supreme Court.  The state replies he is not innocent and that the state court here was correct to reject his claim.  But, as I understand it, there was no hearing -- which state law requires -- for him to fully air out his claims.  He also argues that he would have more evidence if he had more time and funds for his team to examine the whole matter.  

The bottom line, however, is his innocence claims.  That to me -- and I surely do not have all of the material to fully weigh the evidence of the matter -- is a lot more doubtful. The dispute over the timing of the murders does seem troubling.  Nonetheless, there is more to the convictions [back in 2004, so yes, just leave him in prison] than that.  

And, his background does not lead me to be shocked -- even without specific reasons -- he did it.  The next question then would be who did it?  I do not see reference to theories there -- always good to toss one out there -- specifically, but I gather there is a vague suggestion that given the violent business, he is in (including threats to his life) makes attacks on his family possible.  On the other hand, he does not seem important enough to warrant the killing of a mother and three young children.  

Innocence claims, especially actual innocence on the level of "didn't do it" (the last Missouri case cited involved racial discrimination in the jury deliberations). warrant a high test.  Before executing someone, you should be damn sure (more so than for other crimes), and special procedures are warranted for that.  This includes the recent law by the state to have a chance to challenge alleged wrongful convictions.  

So, I can understand being opposed to this execution, at least at this time. I am less sure about the passion of some that the guy is innocent.  I know the usual tone on each side when executions come down. It goes with the territory.  But, we can be honest about these things.  His case is a lot less blatant than some of these cases, especially taking everything into consideration.  This includes "worse of the worst" tests.

I still oppose his execution, especially before he has a chance to fully air out his claims. I think my opposition to the death penalty is strengthened by being totally aboveboard about the different levels of problems in these cases.  For instance, I am not really convinced there is a constitutional bar to executions on the federal level just because the crime was committed in a state that itself does not have a death penalty.

The Supreme Court denied his request for a stay and/or a cert grant without comment.  I think this is probably appropriate, but they should have said why.  I sent a letter to Sotomayor about them not explaining themselves in these last-minute appeals.  I was a bit wary of doing so before seeing what happened today but did not really think it would be any different this time around.  Anyway, now some of them can go to the SOTU, I guess. 

The latest thing regards him wanting a certain spiritual advisor when he's executed. Local coverage provides the state position: we asked you, you waived it, and now it's too late.  I suppose that makes some degree of sense -- especially if he suddenly picked someone a few days ago. I doubt something cannot be worked out.  They will let him visit with someone before being executed from what I can tell.   

[The local coverage has his name as  Leonard “Raheem” Taylor.]

I see some stuff on Twitter from the usual suspects that make me feel a bit moderate or something for saying that his claims aren't as strong as all that.  But, I hold to my comments that his claims are somewhat exaggerated.  That doesn't mean his execution is correct. The refusal of a reformed-minded prosecutor to accept his claims reaffirms my sentiments, granting he might not be perfect.  

Missouri executed him. 

==

We have continued reporting on the practices of the Supreme Court, including the slipshod practices regarding safeguarding private materials.  

Kate Shaw also has a good op-ed pushing President Biden to talk about the courts in his State of the Union. [Didn't happen.] 

The Supreme Court, especially after Dobbs, is getting some more attention.  Likewise, lower courts, including "judge shopping" on steroids.  And, a lot of talk about ethics.

I am left one more time to think about the basically forgotten Presidential Supreme Court Commission. The commission, including Shaw's podcast, was sneered at as basically a joke and a way to push the question out of the way.  Partially so.  But, maybe if Strict Scrutiny Podcast (who likes and had on members and/or witnesses) spent a bit more time to engage with it, and others too (like Congress, which could have had contemporaneous hearings, or the media), it could have mattered more, including as an education tool?  This includes more attention to the report.  

And, who showed up to the SOTU? Roberts, Kagan, and Breyer were standards here, and Sotomayor stopped going in 2016 (wonder why! after 2020, you had COVID) with Kavanaugh and Barrett going last year too.  The High Federalist trio, including "damn it has politics!" Alito after that Obama kerfuffle has stayed away.  

Remember that?  Good times.  This time: Sotomayor is still away (COVID is still with us) but the same five (Breyer is back as is Kennedy) are there along with Jackson.  Fairly expected with Kennedy a bit of a surprise. Did Breyer say "hey Tony ..."  

Rev. Joe: Gnostics Again and Other Stuff

I re-read Elaine Pagels' Gnostic Gospels, Pagels, and the overall subject matter someone I have read and talked about in the past. The length of time I have read this subject might be suggested by the fact I saw her give a lecture at Drew University while a student. Let's say this was some time back.

I think this provides a good basic summary of Gnosticism, which has various complexities and still confuses me somewhat.  A basic thought I had re-reading this little book (first published in 1979, this was a later printing though without a new introduction or something) was to wonder what exactly is the "knowledge" (gnosis) people sought out here.  

The basic idea is clear enough, as far as it goes, regarding those "in the know" about the true nature of existence.  But, what is the value of it all? So, you figure out that the world is corrupt in some form and there is some true understanding to be had about the spiritual world.  So what?  

My summary at the link argues that the basic idea is that gnostics are aiming for a form of self-knowledge and self-actualization. Pagels, though she tacks on at the very end an assurance she is not taking sides here, clearly finds some aspects positive. This includes recognizing male and female qualities in the creative force and an open-ended approach to finding knowledge.  

She does suggest certain aspects that can be problematic.  There is a certain elitism to the idea that membership in the club (or a special group in a wider club) requires special often esoteric knowledge. Want to know why gnostic works are not in the New Testament. Part of it is that they are clearly (other than perhaps the Gospel of Thomas) late; the other part is the esoteric nature of the main texts.  

There is also an inner focus for many in the movement. Orthodox Christians had various issues, but (this might be a bit surprising to some) were more comfortable with the world overall.  At least this is how she frames it in this book.  This is seen in the sacraments that mark various moments in our lives (birth, marriage, death, etc.).  It is not all anti-sex and so on.  

As Pagels notes, there is a place for different aspects of Christian thought, and it is seen in the gospels as well.  Jesus speaks of secret knowledge as well as teaching the crowds basic truths. Jesus speaks of marriage as well as rejecting family in his name.  The gospels are like the Bible in miniature bringing together a bunch of stuff, some that are contradictory.  

===

Just before Christmas, I offered a message to the country — a message that is at the heart of the Christian faith, but yet is universal — a universal message of hope, of joy, of love.

Whether you’re Christian, whether you’re Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or any other faith, or no faith at all, it speaks to all of us as human beings who are here on this Earth primarily to care for our — one another; look — look out for one another; and to love one another.  And it’s not always easy.  It’s hard.  But that’s — that’s our — our mission.

President Biden is a religious guy and is comfortable with the use of faith and religious language.  The last two Democratic presidents in their own ways (Obama chose black Christian faith as part of his social justice work; Clinton was comfortable in the Southern Baptist tradition) were as well. Hillary Clinton was able to relate with black Christian groups as well and spoke in her own at times new age-y religious ways.  

Trump used religious groups (and vice versa) for his own purposes. Biden has a more honest relation to religion.  The more important thing for me is that Biden uses religion in a more positive way.  Some think "religion" itself is bad. I disagree. Religion is an open-ended part of human existence.  It has positive and negative aspects.  

Pagels noted that some use Christian themes, including the resurrection of Jesus, in symbolic ways. That is part of my sentiment.  Religion to me is often a type of poetry.  This is the case with prayer, surely, which often is clearly a form of poetry. 

The immediate reason for such thoughts is the annual National Prayer Breakfast, which has led to various concerns because of the secretive and right-leaning nature of the group behind it. The historical Kevin Kruse recently reminded people about his writings on the origins of the breakfast, which provided a more blatant mixture of church and state.  

Freedom From Religion Foundation (again I'm not as much FFRF as freethinking and freedom of illegitimate mixing of church and state) continues to be wary about the whole thing. The female co-host of their radio/television programs was somewhat glad about efforts to separate the core of "The Family" from the politicians taking part.  But, she still was dubious and we hear about "subterfuge," including some connections.  

The link is to a podcast by a Baptist religious liberty (leaning toward traditional liberal separation views from what I can tell) group about the breakfast.  The podcast does not discuss the concerns (spelled out in more than one book) about the backers but is wary about the implication of an "official" mixture of church and state.  This is suggested by one Democratic chair noting how benign and "nonsectarian" a group is and then blithely noting it is Christian.  Sure.  All religions are invited!

The prayer breakfast has had various benign people involved. My senator (Gillibrand) was a co-chair. Liberal speakers, including one strongly against the death penalty and for criminal justice, spoke.  The founding group does have some troubling aspects.  The public pushback -- not just neutral reasons like convenience as some members cited -- surely was involved in trying to separate them from the rest.  

And, even if we might be upset that Congress is not a true cross-section of a growing non-official (about 30%) religion-supporting country (no open atheists, a handful of non-Christians cited in a poll of membership), it is appropriate for government officials like everyone else to show their religious side.  A "national prayer breakfast" has a certain implication, but it is not truly official.  It is not a "national day of prayer" authorized by congressional legislation and official presidential pronouncement.  

I continue to find that firmly inappropriate.  

===

And, there is that Republican troll, Rep. Matt Gaetz, trolling.

Gaetz led an effort to say the Pledge of Allegiance before each House Judiciary Committee hearing.  The House already each day leads off with the Pledge, even when there is a few minute pro forma session.  

Schoolchildren do not say the Pledge before each class.  This is just a bit of theater.  One Democrat on the committee suggested an amendment, not passed, that anyone who committed insurrection should not lead the saying of the Pledge.  Overall, this is an empty, and on some level insulting and hypocritical, a bit of political theater.  

Kevin Kruse also reminds us that the Pledge of Allegiance also played a part in the mixture of church and state and our "Christian Nation."  The same president (Ike) that was the first one to take part in a prayer breakfast was part of the effort to add "under God" to the Pledge.  This was part of the effort not only to compare our "religious" nature to godless communism but clearly to offer a certain conservative Christian flavor. 

A few years earlier, in the famous flag salute case, Jehovah's Witness schoolchildren were recognized to have a right to not salute a flag.  The main opinion argued that it was a matter of freedom of expression.  Concurring opinions also noted that freedom of conscience was involved, including the banning of so-called "test oaths" that in English history included a religious statement agreeing to the official church.

I can unite all there here.  The gnostics got in trouble with the orthodox ("correct opinion) Christians for being so-called "heretics" (interestingly, literally, "choosing" or "able to choose") that challenged the official leadership.  The official leadership had certain ceremonies (including meals) and declarations of belief [which clashed with Roman ones] that gnostics refused to go along with, adding a bit of irony.

The Pledge of Allegiance (the "under God" part aside) is overall a benign statement of our national values.  It might not be something for everyone to pledge to a flag, but the flag is a symbol of values.  This Republican Congress might want to do some introspection about upholding them instead of repeating the words of statements of faith more often.  

House Republicans Troll

I was upset in 2004 when Bush was re-elected, but then we got Trump. Now, we have Kevin McCarthy and his bunch controlling the "people's House." The immediate thing to do here (after it took him 15x to be elected) is to troll some.  

This sort of thing is what we get:

Allowing biological boys to compete in women’s sports is wokeness at its worst. It erases women. It can deprive them of the opportunity to be champions, excel at sports, and earn college scholarships.

Also, Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell are blocked from serving on the House Intelligence Committee. The so-called reasoning, especially regarding Swalwell (which if you are serious, is troublesome, since he actually helped the FBI investigation) is bogus. The real reason is revenge / ideologically motivated thing, especially with an impeachment manager.

The next step was to eject Rep. Ilhan Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee for various comments she made about Israel and its supporters.  As AOC (target of violent remarks and imagery, the reason Rep. Gosar was ejected, not merely because of ideological disputes) noted, this is bullshit.  Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene also was removed in large part because of her support of violent comments against Pelosi. 

It is racist, targets free speech, and is about the (evangelically influenced) special concern for Israel.  We will also get a special pro-Israel resolution, which Omar will support (like she could not) soon apparently.  And, even the House Minority Leader while defending her has to remind people how Democrats singled her out for criticism, unlike lots of other people with "vile" (to use one adjective tossed out there by Republicans) views.  

The usual suspects will say "Republicans are just awful," but there is a purity here. Other than someone voting "present" (ah a vote of conscience), there are no dissenters here. The "reasonable" ones, including those criticizing or making fun of McCarthy privately, go along. Why? Will they be punished if they show even a smidgen of dissent?  We got a bit of "maybe this would be too far," but they all went along in the end. 

McCarthy also was out there (this is so typical, it is almost not worth saying) tarring Democrats as "socialists" or socialist fellow travelers or something as well.  The horror of it all. What is "socialism" again, anyway?  Is something like regulating public utilities so hundreds of thousands of people (like currently in Texas) are not without power for days "socialism"?  

Public education?  Social Security?  

Anyway, I understand why the House has not yet done its reading of the Constitution. They want to get in as many things against its words and spirit as they can.  

Rep. Matt Gaetz did troll some by pushing for the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance before each meeting of some committee.  The House (not the Senate) makes a big show of doing that even when they have their few minutes pro forma sessions (ditto the prayer; the Senate gets things done in less than a minute).

"Troll" is a bit generous here if it means making a nuisance of yourself without much more intent.  These are ideological messages with real power and effect.  Rep. Omar adds something to the Foreign Relations Committee that others do not.  

The fact every.single.Republican (minus one who voted "present" and one who didn't vote) joined in here is telling. The barrier for the two (though all three have joined together) is purely on McCarthy though there are means to target him.  The Omar vote was put to the whole House.  They all joined in. This is on the whole Republican caucus, including those like Rep. Nancy Mace who from time to time make a little noise.

[I'm repeating myself here a bit, but it is worthy of repetition. Another thing that comes to mind here is that this is a rank violation of the rights of those who elected her.  

We are told that George Santos cannot be ejected or something -- for now, he voluntarily is agreeing to suspend committee assignments, which is not the same thing as formally ejecting him -- since he was elected.  But, she was elected too. She is not being ejected for stuff since then.  She is being ejected for past comments.  This adds insult.]

The Omar vote pissed me off.  The "people's house" doing this pisses me off.  It also pisses me off to see some accounts that suggest "both sides" because of the Gosar and Greene votes.  That's bullshit.  

The Speaker of the House, the person third in line to the president, promotes hatred of trans students.  Each Republican supports this guy. Shame on our country.  

===

I guess I can add this bit of news since it is part of the overall horrible nature of Republican control of some branch of Congress.

The Supreme Court will have a special ceremony to honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  I am not fully sure if Amy Coney Barrett, whose confirmation was her dying fear, will be there.   

The Strict Scrutiny Podcast opens with a sexist joke from the Roe v. Wade argument and a Ginsburg line about taking a foot off women's necks. It still pains me to listen to it.