A Note On Carey

As a placeholder, let me reference this article about women whose health was threatened partially because of Dobbs.

Dobbs supposedly did not cover contraceptives. Don't believe it. Carey v. Populations Services protected the right to access birth control. I have talked about this opinion here over the years. At one point, it notes:

We observe that the Court has not definitively answered the difficult question whether and to what extent the Constitution prohibits state statutes regulating such behavior among adults. See generally Note, On Privacy: Constitutional Protection for Personal Liberty, 48 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 670, 719-738 (1973). 

The Internet provides the chance to obtain many of these law review articles. The author later was a long-time president of the ACLU. You can also listen to her on C-SPAN, which has a few videos with her. 

The note is over one hundred pages and covers a lot of ground. Thus, we can forgive its shortcomings, especially since it is after all a student note. Nonetheless, its summary of Griswold's main opinion is annoying.

Again, though this is not noted, the Supreme Court referenced privacy rights before that opinion. Mapp v. Ohio, for instance, speaks of a right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. Griswold cites various opinions regarding just that. Likewise, the single footnote argues the Fourth Amendment specifically is widely concerned about privacy.

(The footnote references an earlier opinion speaking of the "sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.")

The article -- which has an extended discussion of each Griswold opinion joining the majority -- does not cover any of this. 

The note is not expected to know (in 1973) about Douglas' original draft which relied much more on the right of association (marriage). I found a book with unpublished Warren Court opinions that provided it. Douglas included a paragraph about how marriage involves teaching values. This helps to explain the famous paeon to marriage at the end of the opinion.  

Harlan's Poe v. Ullman dissent, which in time basically became adopted as authoritarian as much as Brandeis' Olmstead dissent, expanded on this general sentiment. The Third and Fourth Amendments reflected the specific threats present to the privacy of the home. Family and marriage life are an aspect of this privacy.  This is not much of a reach.  

The note should have discussed more about the references to earlier cases about the privacy of the home as well as cases such as Skinner v. Oklahoma (sterilization).  More striking, Justice White's concurrence is fleshed out some more, including citations of precedents that protected unenumerated rights, including those involving marriage and child-raising.

We are told early on:

The truly remarkable feature of Griswold, however, is that seven Justices, with neither precedent nor textual support from the Constitution to guide them, agreed that the Connecticut statute was unconstitutional. 

The justices very well had precedent to guide them. Precedent protected the privacy of the home and questions involving marriage and child-rearing. Likewise, there was some textual support for privacy rights and protection of unenumerated rights. It took some imagination to specifically apply it in the way each did. But, there is nothing new there. 

Nor is there novelty to a somewhat slipshod analysis of Griswold et. al. The article overall has a lot of interesting material. 

===

ETA: The article has a section on marijuana possession. This was early on, before Alaska protected its usage in the 1970s, for instance, but there were a few attempts.

Justice Clark, who wrote an influential article on abortion rights as an offshoot of Griswold, later wrote a shorter article on marijuana possession that in passing argued the same. His abortion article noted the overall principle of Griswold applied to day-to-day living habits. Enlightenment thinkers such as Joseph Priestley also rejected state power over choices of food and medicine. 

The famous Olmstead dissent references beliefs, thoughts, emotions and sensations. Stanley v. Georgia (obscenity in the home) stated: "Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds." Marijuana use is mind-altering. Privacy rights include the freedom to make decisions on your own there. 

(The opinion has a footnote that says "narcotics" might be different but as the article notes labeling marijuana that way is questionable.)  

The article references how marijuana can be tied to certain groups. A Nixon flunky said years later their opposition to marijuana was a backdoor way to target hippies. Marijuana was a basic symbol of many groups, including jazz musicians. This one connection doesn't do it. But, it is part of the conversation, including the limited harms (cf. heroin).  

Attempts to raise a religious liberty interest were present back then too. The acceptance of peyote and ayahuasca claims now makes these arguments more valid today. Religious practices regularly involve means to alter consciousness, including dance, trances, and the emotional heights of prayer and song. 

A later case granted "a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs under the Due Process Clause."  This works both ways. People have the right to use drugs for health reasons in a variety of ways. The case provided limits (forcing usage in a prison context was more likely to be allowable) but that's a weighing process.  

Douglas' Doe v. Bolton concurrence referenced taking care of health.  The acceptance of medicinal marijuana today has reached a level of constitutional significance.  

Rights grow over time, including societal acceptance with implications of specific applications as seen in the context of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  Constitutional rights are also not just protected by the courts. The private right to use marijuana is growing in acceptance, including opposition to the criminalization of mere possession.  

Happy Easter

 

Trumpism Threatens the Courts

Reuters had a powerful article entitled "Judges in Trump-related cases face unprecedented wave of threats."

Since Trump launched his first presidential campaign in June 2015, the average number of threats and hostile communications directed at judges, federal prosecutors, judicial staff, and court buildings has more than tripled, according to the Reuters review of data from the Marshals Service, which is responsible for protecting federal court personnel.

Judges have been subject to threats and violence. The shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords included the murder of a judge. Members of families of judges have been murdered. 

Someone showed up at Kavanaugh's house with a gun, a knife, and tactical gear. He was captured before doing anything, but that is no reason to handwave the threat. Congress in 2022 passed a law to help protect federal judges, including keeping certain personal information private. 

Like that old PSA, there is an "I learned it from you" feel here:

Many of the threats against judges examined by Reuters echo Trump’s statements in social media posts and speeches, where he has attacked judges as “totally biased,” “crooked,” “partisan” and “hostile,” dismissed courts as “rigged” and called prosecutors “corrupt.” Threatening messages on pro-Trump online forums often repeat those terms or cast the former president as a heroic figure besieged by corrupt judges in secret “Democrat” plots.

The problems apply to both federal and state courts:

Arizona’s Maricopa County, an epicenter of unfounded election conspiracy theories, logged more than 400 cases of threats and harassment targeting judges, their staff and the courts between 2020 and 2023, according to previously unpublished county data reviewed by Reuters. Maricopa officials didn’t track threats until noticing a spike in 2020, a county official said.

This so-called (to cite Trump's side) "political speech" has encouraged multiple types of threats. "Doxxing" is the release of private information. "Swatting" is when someone makes a false call to the police regarding the need for emergency services.  There are also threatening phone calls. The threats are to judges and members of their families.  

Over the last four years, the Marshals investigated more than 1,200 threats against federal judges that they considered serious, according to the data provided to Reuters. Among the 57 federal prosecutions Reuters identified during that period, 47 involved threats against federal judges, six involved threats against state judges, and four involved threats against both. There is no national data on state-level prosecutions for threats against judges.

Nonetheless, in a vast number of cases, no charges are brought. Warnings are also given by judges in the Trump civil and criminal cases. He once had sanctions applied. It hasn't changed his basic behavior. 

When Harrison Floyd, one of the Georgia defendants, tagged people he was directly told not to contact, he just received a warning. His bond was not revoked. The rules were "clarified" so he (like Trump has) can know just how he can skirt the line. 

Judge Reggie Walton, whose daughter was also targeted, is named in the article. He went on CNN -- it is a novel thing for a sitting judge to do this -- to speak out:

We do these jobs because we’re committed to the rule of law & we believe in the rule of law & the rule of law can only function effectively when we have judges who are prepared to carry out their duties without the threat of potential physical harm.

A partial gag order has been applied to the New York criminal case. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg argued the judge “should make abundantly clear that the [gag order] protects family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and all other individuals mentioned in the Order.”

Trump has already gone after the judge's daughter, including with his usual disrespect of the actual facts:

Trump on Wednesday also went after Loren Merchan, pointing to an account on X, which was formerly known as Twitter, that he said belonged to her, which showed an image of Trump behind bars. However, the court later released a statement saying that the account did not belong to Merchan, but rather someone else.

As the Talking Points Memo summary linked above notes:

This is, of course, only the latest in a months’ long series of Trump attacks on judges, court workers, prosecutors, witnesses, and others, with full awareness of the risk of inciting further threats and potential violence.

I have seen multiple concerned liberal types lecture people upset at how so little is done to address Trump's (and in some cases, other people's) comments of this nature. They are hysterical on social media. They disrespect freedom of speech. They do not respect the rights of defendants. They do not understand how the criminal justice system works. 

As a former federal judge noted last night on MSNBC (Melissa Murray and Andrew Weismann had a special regarding the Trump trials), this basic sentiment is bogus. Trump is again and again getting special treatment. People in regular trials who have said and done things he has done would have their bond revoked. At the very least, concerned liberal types should grant that Trump and company are playing a dangerous game.  

Judge Luttig, who strongly argued that the Supreme Court "dangerously betrayed" democracy in the 14th Amendment case, reacted to Judge Walton's [a Bush41 appointee] appearance on Twitter:

It is a regrettable commentary on our times that a lone federal judge, The Honorable Judge Reggie B. Walton -- because no one whose responsibility it is to do so has had the courage and the will -- would finally be left no choice but, himself, to express on national television.

That is a bit harsh. Others have spoken out. Nonetheless, the sentiment has bite. I think my recent comments about the Magni nomination are part of this. The bullshit* and lies aid and abet Trumpian hatreds and threats. Do you not think that the campaign against the Muslim-nominated judge succeeding will not benefit the same overall poison involved here?

This is the Republican nominee for president. Republicans control the House. We still have to worry about a "trifecta" of these people, who simply do not care about how their candidate is threatening the integrity of the courts. If they truly cared, would they support Donald Trump? 

The "Trump Trials" link provides details about celebrities who read from the Trump indictments. Shades of celebrities who read from the Mueller Report. The report included a list of possible criminal allegations against Trump. I will end with the upcoming trial since this is what -- as Judge Walton noted -- we need to focus on (equal justice):

"On the hush money payments, the defendant, Donald J. Trump, repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election," Close reads from the indictment.

Keep your eye on the ball.

==

* As Laura Penny wrote in her useful book on the subject:

"Bullshit distracts with exaggeration, omission, obfuscation, stock phrases, pretentious jargon, faux-folksiness, feigned ignorance, and sloganeering homilies."

Bullshit involves people who do not care about the truth. They might not directly lie. Nonetheless, the result is largely the same. 

LGM!

Blue is excited about the Mets season. Blue also appears to have a "wait-and-see" attitude. That's good. 

Blue is a dog of a vocal member of Mets Twitter. Mets Twitter is a mix though many people complain a lot. 

The first game had some of that, including dubious no calls at first (blocking/pick-off) and second (take-out slide? Mets have memories there). They also lost 3-1, the run on a solo homer, which was also their only hit. 

Not the way to win. The Q. had a rough first. Nonetheless, wariness about sending the runner helped him to avoid giving up anything. The Mets hit that homer. Nonetheless, they helped the pitcher with that pick-off (after a walk).  

The Brewers (with their ace on the mound) then tied it with another homer. Mr. Q. again had a lot of baserunners in the fifth. A medium-range fly ball gave the Brewers a sacrifice (the wind blew it away from center, their strongest outfielder). Mr. Q went 4.2.  Drew Smith closed up the six innings (the goal for a starter these days) cleanly enough.

The Brewers beat the Mets 6/7 last season. This game probably favored the Brewers given the starting pitching match-ups. But, winning with a single hit is hard. The team, especially with this mid-range pitching, needs to hit. 

If they hit, the first six innings involving two runs and another by the pen (going to happen) should provide them a reasonable chance for a win. Sometimes, you have no margin of error. The Tigers won 1-0 with both starters doing well, but one a bit better. Still, that wasn't a one-hitter. 

The Yankees came back from an early four-run deficit on Opening Day (Mets waited a day because of rain). That received some praise on television. But, like this game, it is only a single game. The Mets didn't hit that much in Spring Training as well. Let's see if they get in the groove.

As of now, the starter struggled some (he is after all a #3 starter type), the pen was overall good (one run in 4.1), fielding was reasonable, and the hitting was bad. 0-1. 

ETA: Severino gave up twelve hits and six runs. One was via a balk, symbolic of multiple defensive miscues or near misses vs. the Brewers holding things down.

The bullpen was good again. A reliever was tossed for allegedly throwing at someone who had a hard slide at second in Game 1 plus a lot of time on base today. Plus making "crybaby" faces in the dugout. Darling wanted them to do a brushback early in the game. Severino had enough problems.  

More hits too. Three homers. Still lost 7-6, not able to make up for earlier defensive slips and inability to exchange opportunities for runs. Messy game. Get into the groove, guys.

0/3: Shortly before the third game, we found out that the manager was suspended for one game (can't challenge) and the pitcher was suspended for three (challenged & pitched three innings today) for the alleged thrown-at incident.

I don't know how the manager can be blamed (this isn't a case of a manager getting in the mix during a fight) for this. Multiple articles are no more helpful. The pitcher was ejected right after the pitch. The manager was not. 

Is there an implication he was behind it? It annoys me that multiple articles do not discuss the matter. It's an obvious question. What does the manager being suspended "as a result" of the pitcher's actions even mean? 

The game was not much more appealing. Megill was out after four (shoulder soreness). If he is hurt, the next in line is about as good. He caught someone stealing in the first but catcher's inference helped lead to a run. The Mets only scored a run. They lost 4-1. 

The pitching was okay. Megill gave up two runs (one earned) and without soreness should have been able to go at least five. A long guy giving up two is acceptable if not ideal. Two runs and some homers in one game is not enough offense. 

Meanwhile, the Yanks swept the Astros, who are now 0-4. Oh well. BTW, the loss is on the manager's ledger, even though he wasn't there. Seems a tad unfair. Tigers (3-0) next. 

Democrats Should Not Support Republican Bigotry In Adeel Mangi Nomination

Today, as millions continue to observe the holy month of Ramadan, Jill and I extend our best wishes to Muslims everywhere and continue to keep them in our prayers. And, we reaffirm our commitment to do all we can to put an end to the vicious hate of Islamophobia—here at home and around the world.

• Statement from President Joe Biden on the International Day to Combat Islamophobia

The current Democratic delegate count for president is 2600. Some guy got three delegates from American Samoa. One percent (26) are uncommitted. The uncommitted vote is largely an effort to protest Biden's Israeli policy. Trump (note headline and actual content) is clearly much worse. 

But, a primary is a time to make your voice heard from the right or left. I supported Elizabeth Warren during the primaries in 2020. I voiced opposition to Biden on various grounds. I was overblown in some of my comments. Nonetheless, I do not repent from my desire to vote to his left (and for a woman) in Spring 2020. 

I supported him after he won the nomination. I believe that I voted for Nader in 2000 before I had much of an online presence, but to be fair New York was a safe state. And, it was not because "not a dime's worth of difference." That's dumb.  The stakes are higher now and once you badmouth both sides, hoping only the states that won't matter will vote against that person is a very risky game. 

I have argued that Biden deserves some more credit for his Israeli-Gaza positions. He deserves criticism too. Nonetheless, the criticism is not on him alone. Still, he is the leader of the party as president. So, yes, on some level the buck is going to stop with him. That is how it goes. 

President Biden has nominated a diverse range of federal judges. One symbolic moment was the joint hearing to confirm Nicole Berner (Jewish) and Adeel Mangi (Muslim) as court of appeals judges. As the Leadership Conference of Civil and Human Rights proclaimed:

Their long records of commitment to equal justice are commendable. Nicole Berner is a brilliant lawyer who has devoted her career to the protection of our fundamental rights, including the rights of working people, reproductive rights, and the rights of LGBTQ people. Adeel Mangi has extensive pro bono experience in civil rights, including protecting religious freedom and fighting discrimination against Muslim communities. This is the kind of critical but underrepresented civil rights expertise that will greatly benefit the federal judiciary and strengthen our democracy.

Multiple Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee tried to tie Magni with terrorists. It was disgusting. Nicole Berner is now a federal judge. I thought it was clear sailing, more or less, for Mangi as well. If confirmed, Mangi would restore a 7-7 split on the 3rd Circuit among active judges appointed by Democratic or Republican presidents.

Oh well. Joe Manchin, who recently announced he would not support nominees that don't have at least one Republican vote, came out against him. This suggests that no Republican would support him, which puts the blame largely on them. There is no good reason to vote him down. Doing so promotes lies and anti-Muslim bigotry. No, it's not just because he is Muslim. It is the Republicans trying again and again time him with terrorism. Saying he was against it repeatedly was not enough.

Senator Catherine Cortez Masto announced she would not vote to confirm Mangi, citing his links to “an organization that I have found has connections to individuals who killed police officers.” 

There is basically nothing to this claim. His work led him to be involved with a group that deals with incarcerated people, which includes those who killed police officers. Not that he personally was involved with anyone specifically like that. He was involved in a case involving a mentally ill man killed by a corrections officer. Should people who kill police officers (including their families) not have any representation at all?  

Now, her fellow Nevada senator, who actually has something of an excuse since she is up in what is likely to be a tight race this year,* has announced her opposition. I blame Cortez-Mastro there more since she gave her colleague cover. A couple more senators from red/purple states also are wary about announcing their support. You are promoting bigotry! 

The Balls & Strikes headline is "Democrats’ Abandonment of Adeel Mangi Is Cynical and Embarrassing." The Biden Administration released a statement against the anti-police officers' criticism, noting it was bogus. I do not know how much Democratic Senate leadership (Durbin on the Committee and Schumer overall) is pushing to defend him. The Senate is now in Easter recess. If he fails, this is on the "Democrats."

The Democrats should not be supporting Republican bigotry against the person who would be the first Muslim federal court of appeals judge. It looks even worse in an election year where concerns of lack of support for Muslims is a significant issue. Do you not think people will cite this in swing states like Michigan? It is an unnecessary self-own. 

Political concerns in an election year cannot be ignored. And, that is how the system is supposed to work. Political pressures provide an incentive for public officials. Nonetheless, it goes beyond that. It goes to basic fairness and doing the right thing. It is about not helping the trolls. 

I am still annoyed that Professor Victoria Nourse was blocked by a filibuster. We do not have filibusters of nominations anymore. This was a good development. We now can rise and fall on a majority vote. It is just plain wrong if it is not met here. The fault still will largely be with the Republicans. A 45-55 vote where all the votes for are Democrats is mostly on the Republicans. Or whatever it might be. 

But, we expect Republicans to be bad. We are right to expect more from Democrats. And, cannot one or more halfway-sane Republicans (like Murkowski) make a stand against anti-Muslim bigotry? I would gather the current bet is "no," but dare to dream. There is still time for sanity here.

ETA: Khizr Khan has a strong op-ed denouncing the "smear campaign." 

Remember him? His son died fighting in Iraq (he was American military). Khan later spoke out against Donald Trump, specifically his anti-Muslim policies. Trump has no shame. Do the Democrats against Mangi? 

--

* We still have Talking Points Memo-type places blithely noting without comment (which to me is akin to replacing "Republicans" with "cats" there as if we are not supposed to say WTF!!!!): 

There’s a very decent chance Republicans could have a trifecta next year, though I’m increasingly dubious about their chances in the House.

I really don't want to believe that there is a "very decent chance" that this will happen since it is horrible to contemplate. If you put a gun to my head, that would surprise me. The "very" at the very least seems a bit much.

The odds at the moment indeed favor the Republicans in the Senate. It would be horrible if Biden won and his nominees were tied to getting Republican support. This entry underlines the danger of any candidate with some shred of possible controversy. Republicans will block even those without that shred.  

So, I understand someone like Senator Jacky Rosen being gun shy. That underlines the importance of others not to help. [Added FN]

Joseph Lieberman Dies

Joseph Lieberman had died at age 82.

Erik Loomis, who soon will have 1600 grave posts (visits graves of historical figures and writes about them), is not someone who believes you have to "not speak ill of the dead." His obituary was as expected. 

Lieberman appeared in front of the Supreme Court back in 1984 to defend a Sabbath exemption law. It was struck down 8-1 as too much of an absolute benefit to religion. His appearance was a mostly dull affair though in line with his reputation as religiously orthodox. Prof. Loomis notes he divorced his first wife because she was not orthodox enough.

A liberal Republican senator led William Buckley Jr. (the conservative who was concerned about lax Christianity) to support Lieberman's campaign for senator. Early on, at least in my memory, what stood out about him was his Droopy Dog character and sounding like a scold. 

This was a major reason why Gore chose him as vice president, to show Gore was different than that dog (of a different sort) Bill Clinton. People still are saying that if the Florida senator had been chosen instead, the Democrats would have won Florida. Who knows. All I will say there is that Bush v. Gore was not a 7-2 opinion.  

Liberals really got upset at Lieberman during the Bush presidency, including his hardline in the War on Terror and support of the Iraq War. 

For instance, we can flashback to the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. Alberto Gonzales was a major target during the Bush years, including as a general Bush crony. To quote a NYT opinion cited on this blog at the time: 

Republican senators argued that it was unfair to say Mr. Gonzales was personally responsible for the specific acts of torture and degradation at Abu Ghraib. That would be a fair defense if anyone were doing that. The Democrats simply said, rightly, that Mr. Gonzales was one of the central architects of the administration's policy of evading legal restrictions on the treatment of prisoners. He should not have been rewarded with one of the most important jobs in the cabinet.

Lieberman was one of the few Democrats who voted for him. Opposition to the Bush Administration helped Democrats march back to congressional control, eventually having a short-lived sixty vote majority in the Senate. 

The 2006 election brought a liberal challenger to Lieberman, Ned Lamont (currently governor of Connecticut). As I noted at the time, this was seen as some big travesty. How dare people badmouth a sitting Democrat like this? Defending your own is not too surprising on some level. Sen. Gillibrand, for instance, opposed AOC when she ran against a long-sitting representative. 

I supported the Ned Lamont challenge largely since I thought it important in primaries to push from the left. Lamont ultimately won the primary. Lieberman decided to run as an independent. This disgusted me at the time. The Democratic voters spoke, and he said, "FU to the Party." 

Lieberman won as the de facto Republican candidate. There was an actual Republican candidate. He got a small amount of the vote. To add insult to injury, the Democrats (partially since it was a 51/49 Senate) did not penalize him for challenging the Democratic nominee. 

I do not suggest here Joe Lieberman was just a Republican. Even Erik Loomis grants:

To his credit, I guess, Lieberman was decent on some social issues. He generally supported same-sex marriage, cosponsored the 1990 Clean Air Act, and voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But for a Connecticut Democrat, those votes should have been standard fare, not the exception to an otherwise awful career.

Lieberman was one of the few Democrats who blocked a public option (basically letting people an option to have a Medicaid-like health insurance) in the Affordable Care Act fight. He's one of those Democrats who stop things and people blame "Democrats" for it.  Still, even there, he did vote for the final bill unlike every single Republican senator. 

The biggest act of turncoat-ery was his support of John McCain for president in 2008. At the time, William Buckley Jr.'s son came out against McCain to support the side of sanity. 

As Erik Loomis notes, he continued to be a tool when he finally left the Senate after he won his Lieberman for Lieberman Party race:

In 2013, he joined the American Enterprise Institute to run something called the American Internationalism Project with Jon Kyl. He occasionally showed up to Yeshiva University to teach a class. He continued to shake the militarism bells against Iran, attempting to undermine President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal and even led a rally outside of Kirsten Gillibrand’s office to get her to oppose the deal, which failed. 

He endorsed Hillary Clinton (why not? she was something of a hardliner on foreign policy issues). Nonetheless, once Trump won, he still continued to support conservatives. He introduced Betsy DeVos in her confirmation as Education Secretary. At least Neal Katyal had a reason to support Neil Gorsuch because he would show up in front of him regularly.  

Oh well. I guess No Labels will have to find another candidate. If this is not enough about Lieberman, insert "Lieberman" in the search box, and you can read about my thoughts about him over the years.  

Trump Bible

Trump is now hawking a bible. It is not specifically a "Trump Bible" as such because it has been around for a while:

The Bible is only available online and sells for $59.99 (considerably more expensive than the traditional Bibles sold at major retailers, or those available for free at many churches and hotels). It includes Greenwood's handwritten chorus of its titular song as well as copies of historical documents including the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Pledge of Allegiance.

My mom is a fan of the Greenwood song "God Bless the USA" though is not enthused (she is a loyal Fox News viewer) about Donald Trump himself. I have not paid much attention to the whole thing. If you find the song distasteful, you be you. The song itself is not my immediate concern. 

The God Bless America Bible has been controversial for a few years now. People argued that it was a wrong-minded example of Christian Nationalism, a linking of church and state. Amanda Tyler, who was invited to the State of the Union, is one strong opponent of Christian Nationalism. She comes at it from a Baptist perspective. For instance, she is uncomfortable with the presence of American flags in churches:

"This is an example of Christian nationalism because it is a visual representation of the merging of our national and religious identities, especially when it's put up there with a Christian flag," Tyler said. "It suggests to the people viewing, everyone here is Christian and everyone here is  an American and those two identities are synonymous."

The hyping by Trump of a Bible is seen by many as just another case of him being a grifter. It brings to mind his slipping up when attempting to talk about his religious faith, including biblical bits about "Two Corthinians."  Overall, it brings to mind his use of evangelical support.

A Trump-endorsed Bible is a sacrilegious act. The problems with combining church and state in various respects again is an old story. As the article linked above notes:

In 2009, Thomas Nelson published the American Patriot’s Bible, which uses the New King James Version and is marketed as “the one Bible that shows how ‘a light from above’ shaped our nation.” The Bible does not include U.S. founding documents but includes several articles arguing America’s founding was divinely inspired, commentary like “Seven Principles of the Judeo-Christian Ethic” and quotes about scripture from founding presidents.

People who believe the Bible is a sacred book might be uncomfortable about including such materials. I do not know if there is a clear line between it and some of the commentary found in various Bibles that covers a lot of ground. Religious publishers release Bibles geared for a range of people, including children, teen girls, men, and so on. 

The Bibles have commentary for their intended audience. I would not be surprised if some liberal-leaning group has a similar type of Bible. A peace church, for instance, might provide Bibles with pacifist commentary.  Others might be uncomfortable with this non-biblical content being present mixed in with the "Holy Word." At best, they would allow basic appendixes about the history of the times, maps, and related details. 

There is a special concern about the mixture of church and state. Some people are wary of how much religion is mixed with civic society. Religion, for instance, is often part of sports events. Multiple court cases dealt with the mixture of religion and public school sports, including the infamous coach prayer case. "Religion" here usually means "certain religions."

Sports are often a chance to be patriotic, including in particularly militaristic ways. The Mets regularly honor a member of the military during the game. This small-scale type of event is a lot less showy than military aircraft flying over stadiums and so on. 

Once sports are not just about playing games, it is particularly appropriate to use them to protest. The respectful use of kneeling to protest police violence resulted in much controversy. Years ago, Carlos Delgado (once a Mets player) protested the Iraq War by staying in the dugout during the playing of God Bless America.

Getting back to Trump, the national anthem is used to defend the January 6th insurrectionists.  The misuse of religion and patriotism in support of fascism is a tried and true tactic. There is also the infamous photo op of Trump holding a Bible as a prop during the George Floyd protests. Before doing so, protesters were forcibly removed. 

When these events occur, it is helpful to think of the big picture. Use them as "teaching moments" to discuss wider issues. We will usually find that the specific controversy is not totally novel. This blog, at least, is geared toward discussing the background with a lot of links.  

Trump New York Trial Updates

So the Trump justice system turns. First on the civil side:

Trump wins partial stay of fraud judgment, allowed to post $175 million

Although the appeals court gave no reasoning for its decision, Adam Pollock, an attorney who formerly served as assistant attorney general in New York, said the decision could indicate that it might consider permanently reducing the judgment against Trump on appeal.

In addition to reducing the amount Trump must put up for his appeal bond, the panel also said it would stay other parts of Engoron’s decision. Among other things, the panel said it would block Engoron’s decree that Trump be prohibited from getting loans from any New York financial institution for three years, and his order that Trump’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, be barred from serving in a top position at a New York corporation for two years. The panel said it declined to block some of Engoron’s other moves, including his directive installing an independent director of compliance.

We had continual updates that I can fairly say "hyped" or whatever Trump running out of time to pay the full bond. The bond was not uniquely large. Since the order is unexplained, it is unclear why it was warranted. 

He has ten days to pay that bond and as of now seems to plan to do so. Meanwhile, an April 15th day is set for the criminal trial. The linked article references the "hush money" case. This is a Trump-favoring spin that limits its breadth:

“The core is not money for sex,” Bragg told a local NPR affiliate late last year. “We would say it’s about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election and then lying in New York business records to cover it up.” 

The two cases are more connected than most civil and criminal cases since the New York case involves financial crimes. This tidbit also caught my eye as relevant: 

“If Donald Trump just paid his own debts, he could’ve pretty easily avoided criminal behavior,” said Jordan Libowitz, a spokesperson for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog.

The link provides more detail on the convoluted nature of Trump's crimes. The trial judge is not favorable:

Both federal and state judges have found Bragg’s core theory of the case plausible: that Trump’s circuitous scheme for hiding the payments broke New York’s falsification of business records law, as well as federal and state election laws. Justice Merchan’s recent rulings make clear that he views the heart of the case as about much more than simply inaccurate paperwork, and he has given prosecutors wide latitude to tell jurors about the many scandals Trump’s campaign sought to smother when he allegedly designed the payoff system– including the “Access Hollywood” tape to the “catch-and-kill” scheme to quash former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s allegations. 

The civil judgment led someone to again set forth the "courts won't save us" and we have to win at the ballot box. Again, the ballot box always remained essential. Few thought the courts would "save us." They did hope that the courts would help us. Maybe, they still are in a limited way. 

We also have reason to expect that the courts are an overall part of our system. One of three branches of government. Courts played an important role after the 2020 elections in rejecting Trump's specious lawsuits. Helping him now might have lower stakes. But, it remains dubious. 

Trump all his professional life was about having the rules bind him and using other people's money. Both of these trials are important to address that. Meanwhile, you can continue to early vote, voting against Trump even if you are a Republican. Give Nikki Haley et. al. some love! 

SCOTUS Watch: Order List

We had a basically bland six-page Order List. 

Nonetheless, there rarely is not some mildly interesting tidbit. For instance, Kavanaugh recused without saying why, leaving Kagan and Jackson as the ones who have said why since the ethics guidelines dropped. 

Also, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would have taken a case involving this question (again, it would be useful if the Order List had live links to the docket page):

The question presented is whether the Antiquities Act authorizes the President to declare federal lands part of a national monument where a separate federal statute reserves those specific federal lands for a specific purpose that is incompatible with national-monument status.

The president has broad powers to protect federal lands, which with the current Secretary of Interior has benefited Native Americans in particular. It does not appear that this specific case involves that issue specifically. 

Gorsuch cares a lot about Native Americans. He also supports the restriction of the federal administrative state. A brief in opposition by the Soda Mountain Wilderness Council alleges the challenge is an attempt to use a small issue to challenge the Antiques Act. Gorsuch supporting that bigger game is far from surprising. 

The case has been pending since November. This is also a red flag that someone was interested. Inside baseball. 

We also have the usual things that some people might wonder about. For instance:

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.

Thus, a docket fee is required. It does not say WHY it was denied. The request has a breakdown of the person's finances, including a reference to living in a homeless shelter. It's a small thing. But, I would appreciate it if they provided more clarity.  Is a separate notice sent to the person saying more?  

I will end with my usual request for a basic FAQ (linked to the Order List) providing a basic explanation of the usual aspects of a typical Order List. This would include a proviso since people are still confused that not taking a case does not mean they "decided" the issue adjudged below. 

There will be oral arguments this week. A conference will be held on Thursday (Friday is Good Friday) with another Order List next Monday. We might have miscellaneous orders before then. 

ETA: SCOTUS has been speeding along draft bound copies of opinions. The bound copy notes on the bottom of the file if there were any revisions. This replaced the old system where revisions were noted on a separate column of the opinion chart. There is now a link to a revision (one word) in a case. 

Hijab Butch Blues: A Memoir

Hijab Butch Blues: A Memoir by Lamya H. concerns a Muslim immigrant to America. She writes anonymously to tell her story about growing up Muslim and gay. She provides a lot of details while hiding others.

Lamya's parents are dark-skinned and speak Urdu (India?). They move to an Arab country where her mother cannot drive (Saudi Arabia?). She is in her early thirties by the end of the book. She earns a graduate degree though is vague about what she does for a living. She lives in New York City. 

The book's chapters are built around her Islamic faith. The chapter titles are the names of prophets and other figures in the Quran. The stories are familiar if with somewhat different names. She first gained inspiration from Maryam (Mary), who was "touched by no man" and at one part wanted to die. 

Mary in the Muslim version gives birth alone under a palm tree. The baby Jesus then miraculously speaks when she brings him back. Maryam has her own "surah" (chapter) in the Quran, but this is misleading. Only a small portion of the chapter is about her. The first part is about John the Baptist. Her part alone only is a fraction of the chapter. 

Lamya does not try to defend her faith to those who do not believe. It is a basic part of her life, including wearing a hijab, even when her family opposed it. She is a vegetarian, which is not required to be a Muslim. She carefully studies her holy book, including chapter by chapter with a close friend. A careful study of holy books can be a useful thing.

She dealt with racism all her life, including being the "wrong color" in her Arabic country. We have our own shades of racism in this country. Light-skinned black people have traditionally had higher status. Italians had lower status. 

(She does not "hate white people." She speaks of various white friends who are her allies. The woman she falls in love with is a white non-Muslim.) 

The book is well-written. It provides insights from a perspective that shows the complexity of intersectionality. Each aspect of herself is a fundamental part of her life story. 

Check it out. I generally like to know the whole story. So, it bothers me somewhat that a few details are left out. But, we learn most of her story. She has a reason to be anonymous. She ends the book without coming out to her family. She did take her partner to see her uncle's family as a "friend." 

You can listen to the author in conversation here. 

D.C. Constitutional Thoughts

When writing about Rich Hasen's latest book, I noted:

The dissent in an opinion summarily upheld by the Supreme Court made an interesting argument that D.C. should have a right to representation in the House. Sen. Orin Hatch (R) supported that as part of a failed bill that would have given his state another representative. I was iffy about the constitutionality of that. I am more open to it these days.  

The argument for the constitutionality of a voting representative is a combination of overall democracy, equality, and congressional power over the district. After all, the rules for the Privileges and Immunities Clause (which applies to "states") are now applied to D.C. and federal territories. Why cannot congressional "exclusive" power to regulate D.C. include providing a voting representative? 

The argument against this is Art. 1, sec. 2, which says that the House of Representatives "shall be composed of the Members chosen every second year by the people of the several states." And, general principles of federalism, which include an assumption that only states make up voting representatives of Congress. 

A joker noted by the dissent was that during the 1790s the people of the area provided by Maryland and Virginia to be D.C. retained their right to vote for a member of the House. Thus, votes were taken away, which is generally pragmatic. Consider in comparison if the new capital was set up in a territory that was never part of a state and/or never did not have the right to vote.  This would be a difference between D.C. and a place like the Virgin Islands.

I still think that Art. I, sec. 2, (and so forth) logically was understood all of this time (since D.C. was formally the acting capital) to deny D.C. a voting member of Congress. They very well deserve one. I also think they deserve home rule. I would probably provide a supermajority congressional veto to cover the cases where there was truly a national concern. Nonetheless, I am somewhat more accepting of the idea as an academic enterprise.  

Two senators are more complicated though they do have the same amount of people as a few thinly populated states. Likewise, my ultimate conclusion is that it would also benefit as a virtual representation of other urban voters who are unfairly not evenly represented given the two-senator rule. I am wary of a "two wrongs make a right" rule in which all the rights of a state (including state immunity) are given to a small area like this. 

Nonetheless, on balance, I have grown to accept the idea. On that front, I think it is more logical that statehood is required. The Senate is especially associated with the states. The House of Representatives, for instance, has non-voting (on the floor) delegates for territories and D.C. These people are not "members" as understood in Art. 1, sec. 2. 

This all came to me because I was reading an old discussion of mine where I firmly said that the 23rd Amendment made even statehood problematic:

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State

My argument was that this assumed that D.C. would always receive electors. If D.C. was made a state, the "seat of government" would be government buildings. Would this small area still get representatives? 

I eventually grudgingly granted the person might have been right. I think I was confused. First of all, granting the "may direct" is mandatory ("may"?), a nifty solution is just to allot the electors based on the national popular vote. It isn't necessarily, for instance, to provide a few hundred people or whatever who might still reside in the area the sole right to choose the electors. States now have joined a national compact to allot their electors based on the national popular vote.  

Second, the seat of government was previously in places like New York City and Philadelphia. The whole city was not governed by the national government. The Seat of Government Clause did provide the federal government a means to have a small area they could solely control. Nonetheless, it was not mandatory. They could have stayed in Philadelphia.

I was somewhat in all these cases basing things on general understanding. The Twenty-Third Amendment was ratified with the understanding that it would provide minimal democratic reform without changing congressional control over D.C. Some members of Congress wanted a broader amendment that would have at least given D.C. a vote in the House. 

I had concerns when people wanted to use the 25th Amendment to disqualify Trump after January 6th. The amendment to me is there to deal with presidents physically unable to do their jobs. 

I grant -- though this was the general purpose originally (as compared to Wilson's stroke and so on) -- scenarios like a presidential kidnapping would fall under "unable to discharge." 

But, would something like Trump's actions? We can argue he was unhinged. But, that seems rather open-ended. Would someone who committed treason constructively become unable to discharge their duties? I probably am being too narrow-minded here. The text is not stretched out of reasonableness to apply it that way.  

We all have things that seem "obvious" that really are not. I still find it a bit off to consider a sort of city-state like D.C. as the 51st state. But, why not? The word state is right there! Likewise, internationally, national capitals regularly are not treated in the second-class category of ours. Finally, as I was led to say, if it was "crazy" for D.C. to be a state, the same applies to North Dakota. It being large does not really change this fact.  

D.C. statehood would be a sensible approach to giving them their deserved political equality. My ideal would be a seat in the House and home rule. Nonetheless, why not statehood? It checks off the boxes and two senators (as noted) have another value. 

Finally, the argument that this is an unconstitutional idea is particularly a stretch. Congress has power over the seat of government. This doesn't mean that they have exclusive power, for all time, over a specific seat of government. The national capital was in three places. The federal government already gave back part of the original capital. 

There is no need for a constitutional amendment to expand the Supreme Court. The fact that the expansion in some fashion is motivated by partisan ends (what isn't?) does not change that. People think it is a really bad idea. That is different. OTOH, a term limit is much less likely to be constitutional. A constitutional amendment for that (quite sensible) idea is much more appropriate. 

Some constitutional ideas are open to enough debate that an amendment can be sensible The 16th Amendment is of this character, at least, at the time. An income tax is not a "direct tax." It is a tax on income. That is by definition an indirect tax. Concerns about it being a wrongful class discrimination also was wrongminded. But, we still had that 5-4 case. 

The 24th Amendment is another case. The amendment specifically applies to the federal government. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court soon held that state elections cannot use poll taxes either. The 6-3 ruling was a reasonable application of equal protection. Still, a constitutional amendment is more firm. It can not be overturned by a later Supreme Court. 

This goes to the book that was originally referenced. As I argued, I think there is a case there is a constitutional right to vote right now.  Richard Hasen does not necessarily reject that in theory. He does note that in fact a "real right to vote" does not exist. This includes how the current Supreme Court (in his view wrongly in various cases) decides. 

An argument that the Senate is unconstitutional because of equal protection principles would be rather difficult. The 17th Amendment comes after the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. But, what if that amendment did not exist? It still would be a rather uphill battle. How about just the Electoral College? Is that unconstitutional on one person, one vote grounds?

At some point, using open-ended language to override clear constitutional provisions is a dubious enterprise. It is ultimately a matter of degree. 

The same can be true if done by the courts. Are all mind-altering drugs a protected "liberty" or protected by the Ninth Amendment? How about just marijuana? I think that is a reasonable argument. I would not use the blunt instrument of the courts to do so. There are ways to get closer, including the rules for scheduling marijuana.   

Okay, I am going beyond the original question. I'll end there. 

Garland Again

You know who doesn't get enough attention? Merrick Garland. 

At least, that is the concern of some people at LGM. Second is not having enough sarcastically (upping the usage of the meme) saying "but Biden is old." NYT is HORRIBLE. But, hey, it's okay (someone blatantly said this in the comments) to link them for this reason! 

(I read LGM regularly, and it is my place to go for political news that provides a chance to comment, so I highlight it here as a well-read political website. But, the sentiment here is far from unique. It is a fair general stand-in.) 

Garland is a stupid institutionalist. In comments, the author of that blog piece says that the implication is that Biden was not aware of this aspect of Garland when he nominated him. This is moronic. Biden himself is an institutionalist (when he ran, many on the website didn't like that aspect of him). Garland is around seventy. His general leanings are known. 

Mueller She Wrote is one of the people who has gone in the weeds of these investigations. She provides a somewhat different slant of things from those who think Garland "is a Republican" or simply slow-walked this. 

She noted this in recent Twitter threads. For instance:

• DoJ opened an IG investigation into Trump’s DoJ’s involvement in the coup on January 25, 2021. 19 days after the insurrection. 
• In 9/2021, shortly after DoJ got data from Rudy’s seized phones, subpoenas were issued for coup fundraising groups including Sidney Powell’s. At this time, Biden’s DC US Atty pick was being blocked by Ron Johnson - who participated in the fraudulent elector scheme himself. 2/
• In 11/2021, Matthew Graves was finally sworn in a U.S. Attorney in DC. Senators Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Tommy Tuberville & Rick Scott told Garland in July they would continue to block his nomination until Garland treated the BLM protestors the same as 1/6 guys. 3/
• That same month, November 2021, Thomas Windom - who is now a key member of Jack Smith’s team - was detailed to the USAO DC to continue the already ongoing probe into the top of the coup. 4/
• Within months, more subpoenas were issued for info on 1) members of Congress 2) members of the executive branch 3) ellipse rally organizers, speakers, and VIPs (which would include Ginny Thomas) and anyone who tried to obstruct, influence, impede or delay the certification. 5/
• A few months later, the 1/6 hearings would begin. These are just facts. Whatever your opinion is, it continues to be incorrect to say DoJ waited 18 months or even 2 years to begin investigating the coup. That’s all I’m saying. Thanks 🙏 END/

Note that last part. After a bunch of things happened, the 1/6 hearings would BEGIN. Got that? Read that list. All before the 1/6 hearings -- which the Trump Indictments book I wrote about implied was a major push for the Justice Department -- a bunch of things occurred. 

If there is a problem here, it is not just Merrick Garland. But, over and over and over again the same scapegoat brigade suggests otherwise. The author of this piece in comments even takes Biden partially off the hook (who would know a -- spit -- institutionalist would act this way? My fantasy option -- like a moderate red state senator -- would!).  

I very well think our institutions did not act strenuously enough. This is true even if people are correct that in the long run, a quicker prosecution will not help in the November elections. I am not sure if this is true. Still, it is something to keep in mind. The elections are of fundamental importance.

My complaint is a selective focus, one that does not even treat the specific person covered fairly.  

So, people root on the 1/6 Committee or cite favored Democrats like Adam Schiff (who helped the Republican candidate in the Senate race to have a loser opponent) as if they did more than they did. They talk a good game though.

Likewise, they selectively cite the details regarding Garland. One big thing is the timing of the appointment of the special prosecutor. It would have made sense if he was appointed upfront. Elizabeth Warren when running for president proposed a separate process to investigate Trump. 

President Biden could have done something similar. Biden was particularly concerned about an independent Justice Department. He still has agency regarding who he chooses or general policies. 

Likewise, Democrats have agency regarding the level of pressure they put on the Justice Department, the timing of a 1/6 Committee, and things like not passing legislation to enforce the insurrection clause.  

The media also has agency. It is charming when the same people who hate on the NYT  seize catnip articles like this to reaffirm that pre-existing disgust of Garland. They will nod when told that expecting one person will "save us" is naive, given the complications of the real world.

But, this time, Garland should have saved us. Sure. Yet again, this is not some total defense of Merrick Garland. It is a request to look at the whole story. It is a request to stop with all of these posts harping on the same thing as if there is not a lot more to talk about. Or we can have more choir talk.

Democrats In Disarray! 

NY Presidential Primary

The primary season this season was quickly a forgone conclusion except for the details. Trump v. Biden. One side is republican, and the other side supports a violent overthrow of republican values. The second is the Republican candidate:

A federal judge who has overseen numerous criminal cases against Donald Trump supporters who viciously assaulted police officers during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol expressed concern during a sentencing hearing Thursday that the former president could trigger another violent attack in the lead-up to or aftermath of the 2024 presidential election.

The question would be how much the others would receive, including token opponents for Biden and "none of the above" protest votes. Plus, the American Samoa joker. 

The usual thing for New York is to have the federal and local primary elections on the same day. This was a sensible reform that happened a few years ago. It was a wasteful and unconstructive enterprise to have separate low-turnout primary elections. 

The exception would be the presidential primary which now happens in early April. So, if you are a registered Republican, yes, you still can vote for Chris Christie (not DeSantis).  

Over the years, except in 2008, the winner of the primaries was settled by the time New York voted. So, I did things like provide a symbolic vote for Howard Dean. 

I think that it is sensible to have the voters have a chance to vote their preference. This year, it is especially important to provide a means (of late about 20%) to not vote for Trump. 

It does appear to be wasteful to have extended early voting in New York for a symbolic single presidential vote. But, the state is not so lacking in money that it is not worth it to provide a chance for people to come out, get a taste of how to vote before November and do their civic duties. 

So, vote for Nikki Haley or Marianne what's her name, if you care to do so. Better yet, vote for Biden, if you are a Democrat. New York does not have open primaries. 

One group that can not vote is noncitizens. There is a federal law blocking non-citizens from voting in federal elections. Technically, a person can be a citizen of a state while not being an American citizen. Nonetheless, that would basically be an honorary thing. The Constitution makes American citizens who reside in a state a citizen of that state. 

People who were not American citizens, especially those on the road to citizenship, often voted historically into the early 20th Century. Now, only a few areas allow them to do so in local elections. New York City a few years ago was one of those areas. Nonetheless, a lawsuit blocked the law. 

“Our lives are here: we work, we pay taxes, and we take our children to school. We contribute a lot to the city and its culture, yet we don’t have a say in local matters,” said Santos Veloz. “We are taking this action to ensure that our communities' voices are heard.”

It will surprise few that Republicans are the ones largely behind the lawsuit. An intermediate court of appeals, with one dissent, held that a state constitutional provision giving citizens the right to vote is exclusionary. I doubt this is true. 

A non-citizens group wishes to appeal the ruling to the highest state court. I hope the local law is eventually upheld.

(ETA: City Council asks the court of appeals to overturn the ruling. Mayor Adams holds back.) 

I Vote

I went out to my local early voting polling spot to vote and got a pen with a rubber stylus, and a sticker. The pen did not work too well but it did its job. 

The Democratic ballot had three candidates with five Biden delegates (pick five; there are five options). I checked the Board of Elections website, which provides sample ballots. For some reason, the Republican ballot does not have the delegate part. 

The delegates do explain (at least for Democrats) why they had to print out the ballot for me. I thought since there is a single race, all the ballots would be the same. 

Normally, you go to a specific polling location, which handles certain election districts. When you go to the polling place, you go to the correct table for your district. If you go to the wrong polling place at best you have to fill out an affidavit ballot, which is a pain.  There is a long envelope to fill out. 

Early voting is handled by fewer locations. So, the polling place (instead of having preprinted ballots) prints out a ballot suitable for your location. People in different districts will have different delegates to the Democratic Convention. Thus, for that reason alone, you need a personal ballot. 

I think that might cause a bit of confusion. I guess they wanted to ensure that there were at least some void ballots. People also can provide a blank ballot as a type of "none of the above" option. We will eventually get a count of those.

Anyway, I went out in the rain (it wasn't raining that hard, but I needed an umbrella) and did my civic duty. 

Meanwhile ... 

Today's also Louisiana Primary Day.  

Like New Hampshire, it is easier to get your name on the ballot. Thus, there are various mysterious names, including "Bob Ely" for the Democrats and Rachel Swift (who is a bit of a nut) for the Republicans. 

We will see how things go. 

ETA: It is also Missouri Primary Day for the Democrats. 

There was already a Missouri Caucus for the Republicans. Trump received all the votes. David Stuckenberg was an option along with Nikki Haley. 

LA Results: Trump received 90% of the vote. Biden received 86% with half the remainder being odds and ends.  

Missouri Results: Biden received 85% and uncommitted received 12% (with three delegates). There were less than 20,000 votes in total. [Tuesday] Next up: North Dakota (D).

Mets Update: We Have A Real DH

Many people have low expectations about this year's Mets season. The core reason would be the starting pitching, especially with the one ace hurt. 

Some people, including myself, think the doom-sayers are somewhat too negative. The team as a whole is comparable to other wild card teams. The starting pitching is questionable. But, the ultimate problem is somewhat limited.

The problem is at the top of the rotation. Slots three to five are decent. Mr. Q. would be a fine #3. The newbies are decent back-end types. Severino has pitched well so far, to cite a reclamation project. Megill and company are good swing guys. Senga is a fine top guy. But, he's hurt.

As you can see, there is currently a hole at the top. Mr. Q. will be pushed to be the ace. He pitched like one part of last season. Still, who is your #2? The guy with a lot of vowels? Severino? They each have potential. It's risky.

I think the pitching staff, at least in the short term, should be credible. The goal here is to get enough runs and hold leads. The pen with Diaz at the back is fine. Again, I am not talking SCARY here. It's not laughable or anything. 

Ditto the line-up. Still (a lot of "stills"), you are relying on some rookies and so forth. The biggest questionable mark was DH. Well, they have that covered now, with the signing of J.D. Martinez on a year deal cheaper than money he turned down from the Giants. 

The Giants took Snell, the pitcher who has been waiting a long time for a team. And, for only two years. That leaves Montgomery as the only big-name pitcher left. We will see, with their ace out for a while, if the Yankees will wow him enough to attract him to a team he rather not play for. 

The Mets had a good offseason given their plan not to break the bank as various parts are developing. They tried the spend big thing with Scherzer and Verlander, with limited results. Scherzer helped them become relevant fast and then they fell down the next year. 

The one big Japanese pitcher (not a good first experience in the opener in South Korea) went to the Dodgers. Fine enough.  They picked up some helpful parts. It is unclear who else was realistically available to help in the starting department. Snell and Montgomery were asking for too much. They had no other takers at their rates.

J.D.  Martinez should help the Mets make a realistic push at the wild card, let some young guys shine, and other parts show their stuff. I said it before and will say it again, it should be a team fun enough to watch without expecting so much that it would lead to disappointment. 

In hindsight, the Verlander signing was a dubious undertaking. The owner talked about winning the World Series in five years. 2022 looked like it would be shades of 2015 until the top guys (with help) decided to not pitch in the clutch in the final two series. It was not to be.

Back to building for the future without totally stripping down akin to a team like the Nationals or something. This includes spending some money for a DH. Let's play ball! LGM! 

The Trump Indictments

Prof. Melissa Murray is a co-host on the Strict Scrutiny Podcast, has written often about reproduction-related issues, and a few times guest hosted on MSNBC. Andrew Weissman was a Mueller prosecutor (and sometimes critic) and is a legal commentator, including on Jen Psaki's show. They worked together to put out:

The book provides helpful details and commentary. 

The introduction, for instance, lists (with details) multiple foreign leaders who were prosecuted in above-board ways. We have a detailed cast of characters. Introductions to each indictment. And, multiple annotations (interior commentary) to clarify them. 

The book suggests that the New York prosecution is the only one that might (in a Strict Scrutiny interview, Murray said the two split over this; I get the idea Weissman is the doubter) be argued to be a selective prosecution. There is what I think is a dig regarding the low bar to meet for an indictment which is only inserted for that indictment.  

I disagree. Michael Cohen was already prosecuted and imprisoned for related crimes. The Trump company and its CFO were prosecuted for fraud-related charges as well as being liable civilly. The perversion of a presidential election, involving a corrupt cover-up significantly important to the results, provides additional reason this is not a run-of-the-mill business crime.  

(I forgot a notable allegation. The completion of the crime occurred while he was in office. Shades of Spiro Agnew.)

One other complaint I would have -- as a whole it's a worthwhile book -- is the suggestion that the 1/6 federal investigation did not look like the Justice Department wanted to address the big guys until the 1/6 Committee operated. 

As noted by Emptywheel and others, the Justice Department collected a lot of relevant information (such as regarding Rudy Giuliani) before then. I think there is room for debate here. Nonetheless, that should be noted. 

OTOH, the commentary does note that the streamlined 1/6 indictment, only against Trump, made sense. This includes not using a novel insurrection charge. The alternative (see Georgia) would cause a lot of delay. Of course, we had that already. We would have a lot more.  

I think that constitutionally, the count regarding interfering with a government proceeding -- the electoral count -- meets the test for "insurrection." Some did want Trump to be indicted under the specific federal indictment statute. Again, this would have resulted in legal challenges.  

The federal indictments are "speaking" indictments, which provide a narrative. The New York indictment is more dry, but a statement of facts provides a narrative. The Georgia indictment has a ton of detail.  A striking bit is the attempt in the documents case to destroy evidence. 

I find it hard to keep all the details here straight. A book that provides everything all in one place (there is another volume available with less commentary) is very helpful. It is also very helpful to have a cast of characters. Historical books should provide this along with key dates to help readers.

We can easily overdose on all the procedural goings on in these cases. It is still helpful to provide a basic informational volume such as this one. People who provide guidance, including those at Just Security and Lawfare, are much appreciated.  

Willie James Pye

The case involves a kidnapping, rape, and murder. The issue is not if Willie James Pye should have been punished. 

(Pye does deny he did it but rather unconvincingly. At best, some of the details might be wrong. Here's an extended profile by an excellent reporter who does this sort of thing.) 

There is an allegation that Georgia has too high of a test in place to show intellectual disability. The media challenges the secrecy of the execution protocols. 

Three of the original jurors now oppose his execution, including because of fear he did not get adequate representation. The 11th Circuit (not a liberal circuit) originally granted that. But, a full panel overturned them. 

The timing of the reversal also resulted in some bad luck. The state put a COVID-related moratorium in place. The profile I linked at the top explains how he lost out because the reversal took too long.

Other procedural concerns are also raised. This continued until today.  Again, there should be a national policy to end appeals (unless something unexpected arises) within twenty-four or forty-eight hours before the execution. 

There is also the ongoing question (at least for me) of what legitimate public purpose remains to execute people after a long period (here after thirty years).  

The intellectual disability and COVID matter factored in two Hail Mary SCOTUS appeals that dropped late afternoon or early evening on the execution day. I continue to find this bad policy and morbid. There should be a 24-48 hour window for the government to execute free from appeals. An exception can be left open for special cases. 

Anyway, SCOTUS (again) waved off the appeals with no statements or dissents on record. Formally, we can't say "no one dissented" since all that is necessary is a majority to decide. Nonetheless, if no one dissents on the record, it is like a noise in the woods with no one around.  

Georgia executed him.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

I got around to watching Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (being one of the remaining few who watch things on DVDs). Pretty good. After all, I watched two and a half hours straight through. I often have problems with watching things these days of some extended length.  

I thought the last film was okay (nice to see Marion again) but the enemy was somewhat lame, his son was a bit annoying, and he seemed a bit old for some of the action. 

How about something set around a decade later? The film starts at the end of WWII (old favorite: Nazis!) with some movie magic to make Harrison Ford look younger. I saw some thought that looked phony. It looked fine to me. I'm unsure how much it added to the plot but it had potential for something as a technique. The extended action scene was okay enough.

Back in the present. Old man Indy, including yelling at the neighbors for playing music too loud. Scene of him in the classroom. His young goddaughter (less annoying than the actor who played his son, who died in Vietnam) has a new adventure for him. It involves a time-traveling dial. BOGG!!!!! (There is a kid too.) And, yes, we have Nazis. Go with the favorites. 

The period is largely flagged early on by some old favorites being old (Old Indy generally is believable here; in a few cases it took some suspension of belief), the moon landing, and so forth, and a shifty agent being a black woman with an Afro. OTOH, much of the film easily could have taken place earlier. 

I think the first and third films were the best. The second had the usual problems with sequels. The fourth was okay but this was a better "old favorite" sort of sequel that did its job. It was not a GREAT film. 

The special effects and action scenes overall were pretty good though could be better. The evil guy had it a bit too easy to just basically follow the good guys. The travel back in time was handled overall okay though the ancient times scene was not too impressive. 

And, how exactly was the crashed plane dealt with? Well, let's not worry about that, or how Indy (with an untreated serious bullet wound for hours) got back to Manhattan (did the other plane have a map on board to get the coordinates?).  I know. We shouldn't think too hard about such things. 

The film was enjoyable overall. I don't remember where I saw the first film (seems like I saw it in the movies). There is a throwback to that film at this film's conclusion. I saw the second in the movies. Indiana and company are old friends. This is a good conclusion to their story.