Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to almostsanejoe@aol.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
A hurricane postponed two Mets/Braves games to Monday. The Mets lost the first game, and they lost the first two over the weekend against the Brewers. The Diamondbacks lost two.
The net result: the playoffs hinged on them winning one of the two games of the Monday DH. A sweep would earn them the #2 seed (Padres), while a split would earn them the #3 seed (Brewers).
The Giants played Dallas on Thursday. If you remember, they lost to the Commanders (whose rookie QB is now putting on a show) because their kicker got hurt and they didn't have a backup. Their new kicker showed up. Unfortunately, they needed more TDs to beat Dallas.
While the Mets finally won a game over the weekend, Jets fans (who overlap with Mets fans) watched them lose 10-9. Denver and the Jets exchanged 50-yard field goal misses in the last two minutes. The Bills lost the evening game.
The 1962 Mets, their first year, only won 42 games. The Chicago White Sox won 41 this season though they won five of their last six. They ended up 80 games under .500 (41-121).
The Guardians were rained out. The game didn't matter since the Yanks had the tiebreaker and a win would have at most resulted in a tie.
The Yanks, who struggled in the second half, ended up as the #1 seed. The Orioles, who once were at the top of the division, did end the season on a promising note. Meanwhile, the Twins choked, and the Tigers were the surprise wild card. They are my AL team now. The Orioles are my backup.
ETA: Via a crazy back-and-forth last two innings (0-3, 6-3, 7-6, 8-7), the Mets won Game One & a playoff spot. GM2: Joey Lucchesi came & gave them six innings of one-run ball, but the bats were in "let's get this over with" mode. Braves in too. Be nice if they were eliminated for past aggravation, but so be it.
I re-watched The Lovers, after reading something about Justice Stewart's famous "I know it when I see it" line about obscenity.
Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) involved a crime arising from possessing and exhibiting the film:
Jacobellis, manager of a motion picture theater in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, was convicted on two counts of possessing and exhibiting an obscene film in violation of Ohio Revised Code (1963 Supp.), § 2905.34.1 He was fined $500 on the first count and $2,000 on the second, and was sentenced to the workhouse if the fines were not paid.
I talked about this film and case around ten years ago (tempus fugit and all that). Justice Stewart's famous line came after he mentioned in a separate opinion that he thought only "hardcore pornography" could be criminalized under First Amendment principles. He drops a "cf" footnote, citing a New York opinion. Stewart clarifies:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
I noted last time that Stewart, perhaps being concerned about the response to his statement even back then, later added clarity on the sort of material he meant. I question how much he added by doing so.*
Doctrinal tests are going to be unclear. What does "beyond a reasonable doubt" mean? Sometimes, the situation is very clear. A person is so clearly guilty (or innocent) that few would disagree.
And, The Lovers, a French film, fits the bill. It's a serious art film by Louis Malle (he later made some English language films, including Vanya on 42nd Street). It is beautifully shot in black and white.
The whole "obscene" portion is a late montage, which in total is around three minutes, and has the level of "nudity" that now could be shown on broadcast television. People might be bored with the whole thing, wondering when the "dirty" parts will come.
The bored, unhappy wife had an adulterous affair beforehand (no sex) but the Supreme Court had in the 1950s said that is okay. Almost out of the blue, she and a third man fall in love. Before then, the film is basically talk, and after a while is somewhat boring.
This leads to the final reel. The bored, unhappy wife is suddenly smitten and enamored. The guy rather quickly fell in love with her as well. I will toss in that the wife is the narrator of the film though you have to listen closely since it is spoken in the third person.
Their love is so strong that after a night together, she leaves her husband and young daughter. The day ends the love daze a tad but the film quickly ends so there is not much time to linger. It is a tad silly.
Three justices would have upheld the conviction. Chief Justice Warren (with Clark) emphasized that the "use" of a film can help decide the question. For instance, the marketing of this film spoke about how "daring" and "frank" it was. Other than that, they said the state court reasonably applied the current test.
Harlan, who overall gave states more discretion when the Bill of Rights was involved, argued:
As to the States, I would make the federal test one of rationality. I would not prohibit them from banning any material which, taken as a whole, has been reasonably found in state judicial proceedings to treat with sex in a fundamentally offensive manner under rationally established criteria for judging such material.
On this basis, having viewed the motion picture in question, I think the State acted within permissible limits in condemning the film, and would affirm the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court.
Justice White concurred without opinion. Black and Douglas concurred with their usual absolutist views on obscenity. Justice Goldberg concurs to emphasize how silly it is to call this obscene:
I have viewed the film, and I wish merely to add to my Brother BRENNAN's description that the love scene deemed objectionable is so fragmentary and fleeting that only a censor's alert would make an audience conscious that something "questionable" is being portrayed.
The earlier cases spoke of "material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest," which did not have "redeeming social importance." The material had to be judged "as a whole."
Pandering eventually was clearly something that could cause problems though simply penalizing someone for normal puffery of this sort is a tad absurd. At most, pandering would cause problems in close cases. This film is not close. The three dissenters do not spell out what is so "offensive" about the film itself as compared to many other works.
My "Criterion Collection" DVD copy (NYPL) had a little booklet with a film essay. The essay notes the striking thing at the time for "conservative" France was the "frank" themes, especially adultery without apology. It also explains the opening credits with a sexy "map" that represents the way to love.
One other thing that stands out is that Jeanne Moreau does not totally shave her armpits. I am left with the understanding that this was simply the style for French beauty in the late 1950s.
Again, it is simply silly to call a serious art film that has one risque montage (with some sex and nudity implied and a couple quick flashes that amount to "side boob" which is less prurient than some cleavage shots in other films) "obscene."
The term roughly means a dirty movie. This is not even much of an "erotic" film. The favorite Stewart quip should not let us avoid the basics -- sometimes the answer is obvious. I put aside my opinion that obscenity is a very dubious exception.
As for the film, it gets a bit tedious after a while. Most of the characters are boring and purposely gauche. Jeanne Moreau is beautiful. Her love interest has a basic normalcy and is more a symbol than a real character. Moreau is the reason to see this film.
The film is quick enough that you shouldn't be too bored. It's beautiful to look at. And, it has the added value of that special Supreme Court connection.
ETA: I caught the opening of the season premiere of SNL. It was a not very good political bit that dragged on and on with a tiresome dig at senior moment Biden (played by Dana Carvey).
===
* The later opinion by Stewart (his also quotable dissent in Ginzburg v. U.S.) is never referenced (perhaps except in extended law reviews), probably because it would ruin the moment.
The ultimate irony is that he argues there is a class of "hardcore" pornography in which the criteria of obscenity are so clear that it is acceptable to prosecute consenting adults under the First Amendment:
There does exist a distinct and easily identifiable class of material in which all of these elements coalesce.
Not that I know of any case, including one where Brennan was willing to uphold a prosecution, where he found that. Luckily for him, as he suggests, they would be subject to plea deals and not appealed.
The Supreme Court starts a new term on the first Monday in October. Around now, they have a "long conference" to address the summer backlog.
An administrative stay put on hold — for now — a lower court ruling (challenging the enforcement mechanism) that had said a federal law regulating the safety of horse racing was unconstitutional.
Robert Kennedy and his team are trying to game the ballot systems of different states to add or remove his name in a way best able to help Trump.
The Supreme Court rejected an attempt to have his name added to the New York ballot. As usual, there is no explanation for the rejection. More here.
Kennedy was not put on the ballot because the state found that he put the wrong address on his nomination petition. It is too late to change the ballots now.
Trump argued people who criticized the Supreme Court should be prosecuted. "Lock them up!"
Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing about the Trump immunity ruling. The Constitution has explicit protection (Speech and Debate Clause) to stop charges being brought for doing that.
Such hearings have a limited reach. They do provide a means to air out and investigate disputes. The special importance of the immunity ruling provided a particular need for such a hearing.
We also had the minority chair offensively claim strong opposition is intimately related to criminal attacks on the judiciary. Senator Graham has been more and more unhinged since John McCain died.
Other Developments
Senator Whitehouse, who would be a good Judiciary Committee Chair, separately announced his support of legislation to help quickly address Supreme Court rulings affecting legislative power. This shows -- which some critics worry about -- some members of Congress are thinking big.
Senator Whitehouse has repeatedly pushed the U.S. Judicial Conference to clarify ethics rules. They did so recently in a way that helped Justice Clarence Thomas. The article summarizes:
U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges on lower courts do not have to publicly disclose when they dine or stay at someone's personal residence, even one owned by a business entity, under a revised ethics rule.
It is time for Congress to pass a binding ethics code with stronger requirements.
Five executions were scheduled this month, each in different states. Those states are South Carolina (last week), Texas, Missouri (Tuesday), Alabama, and Oklahoma (Thursday). There will be one next week.
A busy two weeks. This will be a heavy entry with four death penalty-eligible crimes. Tough going.
Travis James Mullis (Texas)
In Galveston County TX, the subject stomped on his 3 month old son's head crushing his skull and then choked the victim resulting in his death.
What drove a twenty-one-year-old father in 2008 to murder his son in this fashion? If that isn't enough, he also reported sexually abusing the child. Perhaps, this is why the child allegedly would not stop crying, leading Travis to kill him.
The defense, unsurprisingly, cites mental health issues though not enough to mitigate in the minds of the fact-finders and courts. Also not a surprise, that evidence was put in that he was sexually abused as a child. This is tragically a common story -- the abuse is played forward.
Notably, the last person executed in the specific county -- only a small number of counties have most of the death sentences -- was in 2005.
He has been on death row for thirteen years, which relatively speaking is not that long (Breyer). Six years ago, he wanted things to be sped along. So is this some sort of euthanasia?
This is a broken individual that deserved to be in prison for a long time. My label is not meant to make you feel sorry for the guy. I'm sure many think him a monster. But, the only monsters out there are metaphorical ones. He was human.
Monsters are "supposed" to be slain. So Texas did so.
Marcellus “Khaliifah” Williams (Missouri)
Williams was convicted of first-degree murder for the slaying of 42-year-old Lisha Gayle, a former reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. A social worker at the time, the woman was found slain in the suburban St. Louis home she shared with husband.
She was stabbed 43 times with a kitchen knife taken from inside the couple's home, court papers show.
A 1998 trial provides more concern for a long stay on death row in this case (over 25 years).
There are also concerns that he did not do it. The prosecutor later agreed that faulty DNA evidence warranted removing the death sentence:
Bell's office and Williams' attorneys reached an agreement that Williams would enter a new, no-contest plea to first-degree murder in exchange for life in prison sentence without parole. The victim's husband, Dr. Daniel Picus, signed off on the plea.
The state Attorney General, however, blocked it, arguing the defense was creating a false narrative. The Missouri Supreme Court then blocked the agreement.
The AG is a Republican, the prosecutor a Democrat, and the AG has previously questioned innocence claims. Including someone eventually freed from prison.
Political labels alone have not settled the issue. This is true even though some critics of the response to the execution spoke of "progressives" as if they were the only ones concerned.
For instance, one of the people writing about the problems with his sentence is David French. Some might think him a RINO for supporting Kamala Harris. He isn't quite a "progressive."
Republican Gov. Eric Greitens, granted a stay [in 2017] after testing showed DNA on the weapon matched an unknown person.
A state law also allows prosecutors to challenge a death sentence if enough evidence is available to question the person's guilt. Wesley Bell, who won in a primary against Rep. Cori "Squad Member" Bush, did so. The state supreme court rejected the claims.
A death sentence should meet a high test of assurance, even more than time in prison. Is that met here? I don't know if he is "almost certainly innocent," but there does seem to be some reasonable doubt. State courts have been wrong before. It's a bit of a moot point now.
As to "what about the victim," the family signed off on the plea. The state appealed to them anyway.
None of the victim's family members were at the execution. Family members have mixed sentiments about the death penalty. Some strongly think it is warranted, some are indifferent, and others oppose it. People need to stop generalizing about "victims."
The Supreme Court rejected final appeals, the liberals (without comment) dissenting regarding some claims. (Both regarding the possible innocence and racism that might have tainted the jury.) This case was more troubling than some others and warranted more than some others a written dissent.
Emmanuel Antonio Littlejohn (Oklahoma)
Emmanuel Littlejohn was sentenced to death for a deadly shooting at a convenience store in 1992.
On August 7, 2024, Oklahoma’s Pardon and Parole Board voted 3-2 to recommend clemency. The governor makes the final decision. He did not go along with the recommendation.
He does not admit his guilt. There is reason to believe him regarding as to whom was directly responsible:
Despite prosecutors first arguing in 1993 that Mr. Bethany was the shooter responsible, resulting in a sentence of life without parole, they then argued the opposite in the 1994 trial of Mr. Littlejohn, implicating him as the shooter rather than an accomplice in the robbery.
The sentencing jury also had problems. Again, there was independent evidence of difficulty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has acknowledged the confusion and has revised instructions
Littlejohn did not have problems in prison and has had multiple health issues. If we grant he was guilty, was over thirty years in prison not a satisfactory punishment? Another dubious death sentence.
Alan Eugene Miller (Alabama)
Miller in 1999 murdered two of his co-workers and his former superior. There seem to be mental health issues involved. The jury split 10-2 on recommending the death penalty. I discussed his case here when the state (again) botched an execution.
He wanted the state to use nitrogen gas. This time, he will get his wish. OTOH, when nitrogen gas was used for the first time, it didn't go well.
Some people might be surprised (appalled) that a state can kill people in installments. The Supreme Court (1947) held that an accidental inability to execute someone does not mean they cannot try again.
The precedent was never overturned. I think Alabama's record is negligent enough to warrant blocking them. But, what do I know?
He was executed, completing a busy week of executions in four states. How did it go?
The state made sure to keep many of the details private. Clarity has been a concern in recent years with botched executions.
The media report speaks of him "shaking and trembling" for about two minutes and "then gasped on and off" for another six. The curtains then were closed for a few minutes before the official time of death.
It sounds like it went better than the first time the method was used. FWIW. Not convinced it is better than lethal injection though that method has medical ethics concerns not quite present here.
Ray was born and raised in central Illinois, and was drawing as soon as they could hold a pencil. They knew from a young age that they wanted to tell stories, and after years of growing up on manga and webcomics, they pursued further art education in college. They have been making comics since 2013, telling stories of identity, interpersonal relationships, and mental illness. Their quiet narratives emphasize the minutia of life, giving meaning to the mundane and balance out themes of trauma, grief, and toxic relationships with radical empathy, queer joy, and healing.
The story is interesting and has at least some autobiographical aspects. For instance, the author has experience in gymnastics. The "they" pronoun shows a queer-consciousness.
The book also takes place in the 1990s, which is not really necessary to the plot. It also is arguably a bit anachronistic to the degree that things like having two dads are taken totally in stride. OTOH, if the author is partially writing from experience, it clarifies some.
The plot is summarized in one place as "teen gymnasts in a small city in Illinois navigate friendship, love, and loss." One is deaf and has two dads, one who died in a car accident. The other has an "androgynous, punky style" [I did not quite realize it was a girl at first] and comes from a biracial family. She also has some problems with her self-confidence.
There is some suggestions of attraction between the two girls. Nonetheless, the book is more a case of friendship. There are no amazing developments. It also focuses some on the gymnastics routines.
It is a quick reading book with interesting art, which should build your hopes for human nature.
Sunday was the first day of fall. The New York teams redeemed themselves over the weekend (Th-Sunday).
The Mets had a four game series. They had another mini-laugher (Phils scored some runs late), had a stinker, but then won the next two. This includes a Sunday Night Game with Megill v. Wheeler.
The Jets took care of business against the Patriots, now with a credible QB. Then, the Giants won against the Browns, who have their own problems, particularly an albatross of a QB.
The Giants quickly were down 7-0. Then, they scored 21 unanswered. The offense decided to take a rest for the rest of the game. The defense -- except for one score -- did the rest. The Giants aren't quite dead.
The Yanks did okay, especially since the Orioles slipped while the Yanks did not, making the division race a bit of a joke. The Tigers and Mariners (less likely) also sneaked into the Wild Card race.
If the Mets win the series at Atlanta (at least 2-1), they are in. They are two ahead of the Braves (the series is currently tied) and tied with the tiebreaker now with the Diamondbacks. So, with six left, they are the #2 wild card seed. Oh, so close.
The Mets beating the Phils three out of four also allowed the Mets to avoid the Phils celebrating winning the division at Citi Field. It would be nice for the Mets to seal the deal at Atlanta.
Wind provides some basic information about the complexity of gender, including definitions and activism. The core of the book is chapters on different non-binary genders throughout history. For instance, eunuchs and the Māhū people of Hawaii and Tahiti.
He also has a chapter on the multiple genders cited in the Jewish Talmud. Transforming: The Bible & the Lives of Transgender Christians by Austen Hartke is another book that provides a complex look at religious texts.
Other books provide additional bits of trans history. Lee Wind himself has a book arguing various people, including Gandhi, were gay or bisexual. That too is a gender issue. I referenced one person who is sometimes argued to be an important figure in trans history in "Queen Nzinga: The African Queen Who Fought The Portuguese."
The book cites the Darlington Statement as an important proclamation of basic principles. The United States continues to be divided on these questions. Many states passed anti-trans laws.
There is much still to be learned and empathy and respect should be our guide. For instance, some people find it so hard to simply respect the wishes of people to use certain pronouns. Simple politeness can do a lot. Other times, a little effort can handle the situation.
We have gender stereotypes, including people thinking men crying or being emotional (in the "wrong" way) is problematic. Then, we have gender characteristics that are far from fixed. For instance, men holding hands is quite acceptable in some cultures.
Looking broader, as this book shows, many cultures have recognized there is a fluidity in gender. They knew that secondary sex characteristics such as genitalia alone do not determine or establish the gender of a person. Putting aside that there are shades of gray when it comes to that sort of thing.
The world is a complicated place. Sometimes, that is overwhelming, and we try to put things in simpler boxes. We need to recognize that isn't always okay.
September will be a (relatively) busy day for executions. The first is the return of the death penalty to South Carolina after over a decade.
We earlier discussed how the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld its death penalty. Two justices argued the firing squad violated the state constitution and one justice added that so did the electric chair, which is the default if someone does not pick.
Freddie Eugene Owens chose lethal injection but his lawyers argue that the state did not provide enough information about the drugs to be used. South Carolina, it is argued, did not provide proper information regarding how the drugs, which are sensitive to temperature, light, and moisture, would be stored. There have been repeated problems in recent years with lethal injection.
Owens was 19 when he and an 18-year-old accomplice shot and killed a clerk (a single mother of three) during a robbery in November 1997. The accomplice was sentenced to prison in return for a plea deal. Owens denies his guilt.
Owens then -- less than twelve hours after his conviction -- killed a fellow inmate in prison for a traffic offense. Why the two even came into contact is my question. The inmate allegedly, rather unwisely, taunted Owens about the sentence.
The second murder is not the basis of the death sentence though it is basically in reserve if necessary. His lawyers tried to appeal to the jury regarding his bad childhood. His age was also a possible mitigating factor. Some experts argue twenty-one should be the dividing line when handing down sentences.
There allegedly were certain due process problems with his death sentence, including that his co-defendant who testified against him lied about having no plea deal in exchange for his testimony.
A last minute change of testimony also didn't help. The co-defendant, now, claims Owens is not the person involved. He is afraid to say who was. Did not convince the courts including with other evidence.
It did lead to another last minute Supreme Court appeal, which was rejected without comment, except noting Sotomayor (without explanation) would have granted the stay of execution. Why can't they say why?! Someone's life is at stake.
These disputes delayed the execution along with an over a decade moratorium helped by a shortage of lethal injection drugs. This shortage led the state to provide back-ups: the firing squad and electric chair.
The delay brings in the "Glossip problem," (or one of them), the constitutional problem with long delays before execution (Breyer dissent). What is the public interest in executing someone after thirty years?
Owens asked the governor to commute the sentence -- which would only be announced minutes before the execution (a stupid bit of drama) -- even though no governor did that since executions began again in the 1970s. Not surprisingly, precedent was not set.
A nineteen-year-old murdering someone in a robbery does not appear to me to be the "worse of the worst" sort of crime that warrants the special penalty of death. It's horrible a young mother (though I doubt he knew that) was murdered. Warrants a long prison term. The victim is not being ignored there.
The second murder while in prison is more suitable though that is not what is being used. Again, I put that on the state to some degree for not properly isolating him from someone in for a minor offense.
I still believe that our death penalty is akin to that old story (The Lottery) about a ritual selection by a community to kill someone by lot. It is a tradition meant to protect us.
Who is executed is not as important as ensuring enough people are to keep the evil at bay. Some people executed are more heinous than others.
The arbitrariness remains. Four executions are scheduled next week. Watch this space.
Jay Sekulow was part of getting the Supreme Court involved in stopping the denial of the Green Party candidate for president being on the ballot in Nevada. He used to be at the Supreme Court defending Christian speech.
Now, he is often involved in Trump-related litigation. in a vacuum, the lawsuit seems sympathetic:
Under Nevada law, if minor political parties, like the Green Party, want to appear on the general election ballot, they are required to gather signatures from registered voters, using the minor party access form. Importantly, the form has a sworn statement at the top explicitly states that signatures be from registered voters only. In July 2023, however, the Nevada Secretary of State’s office incorrectly provided the Green Party with the “ballot initiative” form, which lacks the sworn registration statement.
A conservative supporting dismissing the importance of such a "voting security" law is a tad rich. Still, the technical violation (which the state at first didn't deem worthy to block Jill "Russia Agent" Stein from the ballot) does seem trivial.
Nonetheless, consistently applying the rules -- including the Supreme Court not intervening late -- appears to warrant the result here. Meanwhile, the conservative-leaning North Carolina Supreme Court selectively helped Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his plan to stay on the ballot only in states that don't matter.
I would not have opposed the state court going the other way either if they did so consistently. This is true even though Stein not being on the ballot in a swing state probably will help the Democrats win a very close election.
Panos Anastasiou, 76, was arrested on Wednesday after a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging him with 9 counts of making threats against a federal judge and 13 counts of making threats in interstate commerce.
He was charged as a result of such things as "at least 465 messages" on the court's website, which is among other things a sign of mental difficulties.
The threats were made to "six justices," which suggests he targeted conservative justices. It would be curious if this was the first problem arising from someone in his 70s. I have not found much yet about his background though Newsweeknoted:
Anastasiou has no public party voter registration, according to records obtained by Newsweek. However, according to the Federal Election Commission, he has donated $786 to ActBlue, a fundraising platform for Democratic candidates. The most recent donation was on July 25. On March 8, he donated his highest amount of $50.
Some of the usual suspects selectively used this to argue that opponents of the Supreme Court, particularly liberals, were to blame. As I have noted earlier, threats to judges have been a problem for years. Justice Sotomayor was threatened.
Trump is a leading spewer of violent rhetoric. Democrats, from Biden on down, strongly oppose violence, including violent rhetoric. They support peaceful protest and change.
The danger to the judiciary was flagged by this news:
Kentucky judge shot and killed in his chambers by sheriff, officials say.
The latest threat might have some minor Democratic connections (small donations) but his homosexual and racist rants are not very liberal. The two attempts on Trump's life also come off as unhinged solo efforts with even less liberal backgrounds.
The second person was more concerned about Trump not being a fit person to win as compared to other Republicans. This should not be a partisan issue. It's about threats to our peaceful institutions.
The title tells the tale. I watched and enjoyed the series. Like the Gilmore Girls, it was also a fantasy of sorts during the Bush Administration.
(The authors repeatedly speak of fans as Wingnuts without addressing the negative term "wingnuts.")
The co-authors are very gung-ho about how special the series and the people involved were. Don't expect much "dirt" here. Their positivity gets a bit much after a while though a lot of it is earned.
There are many quotes from the cast and crew, including how they gave back. "Service" is an important theme, especially since both co-authors are deeply involved, focusing on veteran issues. We learn the causes of lots of people.
Melissa Fitzgerald is involved in "treatment courts." McCormack is also the sister of a former state judge, eventually the Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. The gang got back together to promote her candidacy. Multiple West Wing cast members have been involved in political campaigns up until today.
Rob Lowe seems to be a bit of a blip here, perhaps given his desire to leave the show (the nerve!), though he did come back at the very end. He contributed if not as much as some other cast members.
One person is basically forgotten -- she gets a single reference (plus a call list photo with her name on it) -- Moira Kelly. She was originally a main cast member (Donna, who might just be my favorite, originally was not) but her role petered out by mid-first season.
An ensemble show with so many people is bound to result in some slippage. Still, it would have been nice if she got at least a bit more mention.
The book -- over 550 pages long if quick reading with large margins -- is not meant to cover it all. People like John Laroquette are not mentioned. Still. Original main cast member. I think she deserved more than a passing mention.
The authors love Martin Sheen. He is said to be a great guy, both personally and in his willingness to walk the talk (so to speak) regarding his liberal Catholic views. Lots of service in his life.
What's Next provides an optimistic and evangelical view of the power of the individual and government. Some people make fun of the West Wing as a fantasy. The makers of the show grant it is "too good to be true" but it is a window into what is possible.
And, many people in the government were and are inspired by the show. People cited include members of the Biden Administration and the Supreme Court (Justice Kagan was then a law professor).
Drama is often not meant to be merely true to life. Dramatic license and all that. West Wing does have a lesson or two to teach us.
Finally, I do think a show about the Supreme Court is possible. Two series, one a very short-lived Sally Fields version, and a second one with other familiar faces (even less realistic), didn't work out. Still, with so many platforms out there, why not?
"What's Next" by the way is from the show. The show is famous for everyone always being on the move. Busy busy. Once one thing is dealt with, there is always something else. As the president constantly says, "What's next?"
I just re-read Gerard Magliocca'sAndrew Jackson and the Constitution: The Rise and Fall of Generation Regimes (short book), which covers both presidential politics and the Supreme Court.
He recently took a blogging break though without comments his often brief idiosyncratic takes (on Balkanization, he was the only one both sides regularly pushed back on) are somewhat less fun. GM is a strong supporter of using the 14A, sec. 3 method to disqualify Trump (good), but not impeachment or the criminal process (bad).
The book is a case study of how the Constitution has been applied over time via an ebb-and-flow process of generational conflicts. The winners of each generation arise among conservative pushback and new arising viewpoints. There is no magical "fixed" constitutional meaning. And, there is a lot of stretching going on.*
He talks about the "common-law process at work, where intuitions drive the results and the deeper justifications come later." The opinions have legal-sounding language. They are structured using legal principles. Such things matter. However, neutral legal principles are not the only factor involved.
This includes Supreme Court opinions such as "preemptive opinions" that try to block change. Two examples would be Worcester v. Georgia (Native Americans) and Dred Scott v. Sanford (slavery). Both opinions as neutral constitutional law leave something to be desired, even if the former is now often cheered.
The book provides an interesting snapshot of American history, including how Andrew Jackson and his opponents battled over the meaning of the Constitution. Jacksonians often simply worked around SCOTUS opinions, especially McCulloch v. Maryland, which provided an open-ended defense of federal power.
One interesting character is Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen, who opposed Cherokee removal. It is not noted in the book but he later was Henry Clay's (Jackson's leading opponent) running mate. GM argues the battles over Native Americans were a significant influence in anti-slavery conversations.
Interesting book. I read the sequel some time back and other books by the author. Overall, they are worthwhile reads, though one on the Bill of Rights was not that good in comparison. The biographies of John Bingham (14A) and Justice Bushrod Washington were very interesting. His books also overall tend to be short, this one 129 pages, the rest notes and credits being the shortest of the bunch.
==
* Will Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen wrote a follow-up to the Trump v. Anderson ruling. They overall share GM's distasteful reaction.
OTOH, not sure GM would agree with this bit of fiction:
Putting aside the obvious point that it is the original meaning of the text of the Constitution—not twentieth century Supreme Court decisions—that supplies the fundamental law of this country
Such a Platonic forms view of the "fundamental law" is simply not how things have gone. Even if it was true, it is far from an "obvious point."
The Mets came into the first of two (7 games) series versus the Phillies, part of a tough final two weeks, up by one. They started with a laugher, the Phils getting three in the 9th after being down 11-0.
For some reason, Maton, one of the top relievers, pitched the 8th. This came to mind in Game 2 when a "B" reliever came into a 4-3 game (the Mets scored early and stopped), and eventually (with Garrett's help) blew the lead. 6-4 loss.
Braves beat Dodgers again so now the two teams were tied for the third wild card. Then, Peterson shut the Phils down for seven. Let's try eight! Nope. Tied game (1-1). Early, Lindor (who didn't play on Saturday) left the game, clearly hurting.
I checked the score and checked in late but grant I did not watch the game. I am not a masochist. I am not just an "enjoy the team regardless" sort of person. I'm most comfortable when the games don't really matter. Others can give them a participation trophy if they -- yet again -- blow it late.
Diaz blew the hold on a 0-2 pitch. Home run. Two very winnable games were lost. Not a great start to the two-week series of games versus the Phils, Nats, Braves, and Brewers. Get in or GTFA.
Meanwhile, the Giants lost their game because their kicker (who they knew was hurting) left the game right away and there was no backup.
The punter tried an XP and missed. The Commanders won on seven field goals, the last one after the Giants didn't go for the field goal. They also repeatedly could not convert two-point conversions. Lost 21-18.
The Giants' kicker situation arguably cost them six points (missed XP, not attempting two tries, not going for a makable FG late). Simply unforgivable.
The Jets, meanwhile, did what they had to do. The Titans kept on making mistakes but made it close. They were stopped after making it to 1st and Goal in their final drive. Jets won 24-17.
Today's game was one of those times the Giants had a real chance of winning. Likewise, the Jets really had to beat the Titans, not a good team, even if it has talent. One team stepped up while the other aimed for another lost year.
The Springfield City School District closed Roosevelt Middle School and evacuated Perrin Woods and Snowhill Elementary schools Friday morning after the city received two bomb threats via email, according to a city release. Cliff Park High School, a charter school outside the Springfield district, was also evacuated.
The specter of people eating pets provided a sense of the absurd to the presidential debate.
We should not just see it as a joke. The slander of Haitians is part of a long-time anti-immigrant campaign that is a dark part of our history.
We are a nation of immigrants. They provide a revigorating component that adds to our well-being. It requires a lot of effort to bring them in and help them assimilate. But, that holds true.
Verbal attacks are not empty vessels that will have no effect. It might seem that way to some, who see it as a sort of game. The bomb threats show that attacks on immigrants have real consequences.
We can use the attacks to provide a more productive analysis of what is going on. For instance, we can examine Haitian immigration, including the ongoing problems in Haiti that drove people to leave.
And, it can be part of the discussion about a useful path forward in immigration reform. Versus slander and racist lies.
Heather Cox Richardson provides her usual helpful context, including the origins of the whole thing and how it is being used to try to gain political control of the Senate. Ohio is a key battle.
I remain appalled at the distinct possibility the Democrats will lose the Senate. The result would be handcuffing of President (knock on wood) Harris in many ways. Likewise, it would block change.
Be careful about saying "nothing" could be done. No, we won't have "zero" judicial confirmations. Also, executives have a lot of power.
Finally, the stuff that was passed during the Biden Administration stays in place. If the Democrats (as favored) win the House, we probably even will have a small movement forward when the budget and such are worked out.
Still, the Senate is obviously extremely important. I think more attention should be given to key races. Let us hear more about Tim Sheehy, who is allegedly the presumptive future senator of Montana.
Finally, we should have more attention -- including in places like Talking Points Memo and places like Lawyers Drug and Money -- on races where there is a chance to have an upset. The Democrats cannot put all their eggs in a 50-50 Senate basket.
Republicans are weird and trolls. The incumbents up for election and those running for office have a lot of fodder. And, I'm not forgetting the anti-Trump guy who wants to help Trump supporters control the Senate by winning a seat in Maryland.
This election is not just about Trump. If we "don't want to go back" and instead go forward, Democrats need to control Congress. I grant that they still will accomplish something without Congress.
But, it would be a perennial lower expectations affair, battling for simple things like Cabinet seats. The assholes supporting bashing immigrants and basic American values should not have the power to do that. The cowards who enable Trump and such lies should not have the power to do that.
Vice President Harris believes that no one is above the law. She’ll fight to ensure that no former president has immunity for crimes committed while in the White House. She will also support common-sense Supreme Court reforms—like requiring Justices to comply with ethics rules that other federal judges are bound by and imposing term limits—to address the crisis of confidence facing the Supreme Court.
(New issues page on her campaign website.)
Judges for Court Reform
Justice Kagan reaffirmed her support of a binding ethics code enforced by lower court judges. Likewise, she noted that the "emergency docket" (aka shadow docket) has been overused. Prof. Melissa Murray of Strict Scrutiny Podcast interviewed her.
(Kagan also warns Dobbs can be an open-ended threat to other rights.)
Former Chief Judge Diane Wood supports statutory term limits of federal judges. She even positively cited the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court. That commission deserves a bit more love.
Broad 19th Amendment
I have previously argued that the 19th Amendment suggests an open-ended view of sexual equality.
Sexual equality is required to truly protect voting rights. Also, equal voting rights are part of a united whole of equal citizenship. More here with a connection to Dobbs (abortion).
Trump v. Anderson
A duo who argued the 14th Amendment warrants Trump's disqualification, using originalist arguments, has a follow-up to the ruling itself.
I don't agree with everything they say, especially that "obviously" original understanding, not SCOTUS precedent, provides meaning to the Constitution. However, it is overall a strong and correct reply.
They argue the per curiam -- at least the final version -- does not actually (contra the main concurrence) say only federal legislation will enforce 14A, sec. 3. States can't (even there, maybe they would have a role).
OTOH, the opinion leaves in language that leads people to think that. So, what it "really" says might be beside the point. If it is assumed they said it, it might be enough. Anyway, the whole thing is likely academic. As to Trump, one surely hopes so.
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Jackson's autobiography,Lovely One, provides an intimate life of her life.
The four hundred-page book, which she wrote with someone thanked in the acknowledgments, should appeal to the general reader. It might be a bit too long at 400 pages, but it is easy reading overall.
We learn about her parents, her academic drive (including debate in high school), her relationship with the white future doctor who became her husband, and the struggles of her older daughter (neurodivergent). The last subject is one of the more personal discussions, including the couple's struggles to balance career and family & find out what was the best academic path for their daughter.
[Like two ships passing in the night, Jackson and Barrett also worked at the same law firm, but apparently not at exactly the same time.]
She also informs us how she came upon her current hairstyle. Hair is very important to women of color. Melissa Harris-Perry on her MNBC weekend show (Perry and Chris Hayes had more ability to have free-range discussions on those shows) once had a very interesting segment on the subject.
Some readers might wish she talked more about law and her legal experiences. Jackson did cover that too though the section on her law school experience is brief except for a discussion on the law review.
The book ends with her Supreme Court confirmation so don't expect her to talk about her time there. She also followed the usual rules about talking about her Supreme Court clerkship though provided some basic details while not talking about inside material.
Overall, it was an interesting and personable book that should get a wide readership.
Upcoming
The new term will start on the first Monday of October. We will likely have more miscellaneous orders before then.
There will also be multiple executions, starting next week. There might be one or more final orders dismissing Hail Mary attempts to stop them.
I still am wary about commenting about the Israel-Palestine conflict, especially among people who will answer with "the facts." I put it in quotes since they will often provide a slanted version. The whole situation is tragic. And, I do not support those who offer a one-sided view.
Juan Cole helpfully provides a more Palestinian-supportive view. This does not mean he supplies a 100% correct one. However, it is still helpful, especially since too often we have one that leans in the other direction.
Cole offers a commentary on the presidential debate. He is generally supportive of Harris. He does offer a critique, including a reminder that the struggle does not just go back to October 7. Why did we reach that point? Also, leaning to my view, Cole reminds us that a two-state solution in the current situation is a pipe dream:
There is no two-state solution to be had, and politicians should start being honest about it. Gaza is rubble and there are hundreds of thousands of Israeli squatters in the Palestinian West Bank. Where would you put a state?
Meanwhile, more particularly notable non-combatants have been killed. The Biden Administration put forth a statement that the death of American citizen Aysenur Eygi is "totally unacceptable." She was an activist for Palestinian rights. She was shot in the head.
Six workers for a U.N. group supporting Palestinian refugees were also killed. A statement from the agency head:
UNRWA head Philippe Lazzarini condemned the “senseless killing, day after day” in Gaza in a social media statement, adding that 220 of the agency’s staff had been killed since Oct. 7. “The longer impunity prevails, the more international humanitarian law & the Geneva conventions will become irrelevant,” he wrote.
We are approaching the year anniversary of the October 7 attack and the Israeli response. The Hamas has much responsibility for the unbalanced and repeatedly unjust death toll. However, it does not take Israel and those who support it off the hook. War regularly taints both sides.
Cole ultimately noted regarding Harris:
She is much better than Biden in at least expressing some empathy for the tens of thousands of innocent civilians Israel has killed in Gaza. But empathy, while better than nothing, won’t stop the killing, which is daily and directly enabled by US supply of weapons and ammunition (the Israelis ran out months ago).
The choice is clear, even if neither side will satisfy:
Trump has no policies, just insults, such as that Harris hates Israel and even hates Arabs because her hatred of Israel will get Arabs killed. I couldn’t follow the argument because of that arrant nonsense thing.
He is also in lockstep with the corrupt Israeli leadership. We need a new path. I say that with humility, but that is my position. President Harris might have some ability to move the needle somewhat though it is not likely to be far enough.
Still, it's much better than the alternative. Anyway, Harris did what she had to do -- she had a very strong debate. Taylor Swift endorsed her too.
I re-watched Nowhere In Africa and now rewatched this. I talked about the film back in 2010.
I didn't remember that the film was in large part about the Jewish half of the couple as well as about their lives apart. I enjoyed it overall again. After all, I watched it straight through, still a test for me.
If you check the Wikipedia page and the pages for the real-life leads, more information can be discovered. For instance, I noted that one book that told the story did not tell much about Lilly Wurst. Wikipedia provides more information.
As is often the case, real life provides a lot of more interesting details. For instance, Lilly protects some women after Felice is captured.
Also, as noted in my original discussion, they had a sort of marriage ceremony, with vows. Likewise, they were together for around eighteen months. The film made it seem like it was less.
==
Meanwhile, after reading a historical fiction take on Maria von Trapp, I'm reading an autobiography by the oldest daughter. She discusses her life before and after Maria came on the scene. It was written late in her life. The writing is straightforward and easy reading.
I also got out the father's memoir about his U-boat experiences during WWI, but the writing style did not catch my interest. At the time she released the autobiography, her father's book was not in print. Her niece translated the recent English version.
A Little Romance was on TCM last night. This was a suitable way to complete watching a trio of European romances with Diane Lane. The others were Paris Can Wait and Under the Tuscan Sun.
Her teen love interest soon left acting & became a demist. Laurence Oliver played a crafty old picket pocket. Broderick Crawford played himself. The actor was in the original version of Born Yesterday, which promoted civics education.
Sally Kellerman ("Hot Lips") played Diane's somewhat flighty mother. Her understanding stepfather, in good performance, was played by character actor Arthur Hill. He is the most reliable adult in the film. Oliver, after all, is a con artist.
Roger Ebert didn't like the film -- he thought it unrealistic and somewhat pretentious. It does try a bit hard. I still think it is a charming film about first love with some nice touches.
Now for something completely different ...
The creator of the infamous film -- with Roger Ebert hate -- had problems making a profit off it. He eventually found a distributor, who changed the name from Day of the Woman.
The original writer/director purported at least to have a feminist vision, inspired by a real-life sexual attack (if not with a similar aftermath). It became more of a "video nasty" (a British term) later on, including the somewhat erroneous (there were four rapists) famous release poster.
The model for that poster? I just found out it was a young (she would have been around 18 while the actress in the film was in her 20s) Demi Moore. Such is life: finding new trivia.
I once watched the film with a DVD commentary with Joe Bob Briggs. Briggs often had a tongue in cheek style, but his commentary was pretty good here as I recall. It allows you to see the film in a different light. The DVD also had a commentary from the writer/director, adding a different p.o.v.
The movie is obviously exploitative. I still would argue it is not just garbage. It has some 1970s touches that give it an artistic touch. The remake was more over the top with more characters and unnecessary touches. It also is appreciated that a woman is able to have agency. No man saviors like in Death Wish.
BJ Colangelo, who writes about film (including horror), early on had a horror blog named after the original title. She was not a fan of the remake.
Dick Cheney and Liz Cheneyare voting for the same person as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. That should be that. It’s not, and that’s a problem, but it should be.
George W. Bush and Mike Pence, you’re up.
I began this blog in 2003 in the heat of the Bush43 presidency. I was rather angry with the Bush Administration and thought they did not want to support basic reasonable policies.
The whole waterboarding not being torture comes to mind. It was a basic line in the sand. Don't think I am not aware of the horrible role of Dick Cheney.
Liz Cheney per her Wikipedia page tried to be Ms. Trumpie in the House of Representatives. She was the Wyoming representative and that is conservative territory. She did not vote to impeach Trump the first time. Not good.
January 6th was the true line in the sand for her. Maybe, she opposed him before then, but that was the last straw. She did vote -- ten Republicans did -- to impeach Trump the second time. She later was on the 1/6 Committee to investigate the events.
One person on another blog argued that the Cheneys were horrible but honestly thought they were acting in America's interests. Some neoconservative types did. Some people are just grifters. Others are honestly totally off base. They have standards. It can matter.
I'm not going to say "but" at this time when I see both Cheneys are endorsing Vice President Harris, a liberal from California. It's an act of principle.
I'm angry that Republicans don't do the bare minimum too often. This is more than that. Thank you.
Liz Cheney calling out Trump and Vance as "misogynistic pigs” is gravy. She isn't suddenly free from all sin. Let Catholics deal with that sort of thing.
What matters is that the Cheneys are stepping up when everything is on the line. They are not just going to write in some name. Bush, by the way, says he isn't going to endorse anyone. Not that I'm pining for him to endorse Harris. The Cheneys are more serious.
People repeatedly provide vitriol about how Republicans refuse to do the bare minimum. I know the feeling. Well, they are endorsing a liberal from California. You can Jill Stein all you want about how she is not your unicorn. But, that is -- to quote Biden -- a BFD.
I also think not enough is being said about retaining the Senate. Senator Schumer talked about plans to break the filibuster for abortion and voting rights. Well, you need control for that. It's a tough map.
Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) is the most at risk in November. Manchin did not run again and his seat in West Virginia is about as much a lost cause as an also ran in the baseball wild card race.
There is currently a one-vote margin in the Senate. So, other than multiple tough races, what is fundamental is retaining Montana or some upset in a place like Florida. And, it seems not to be talked about.
I realize the Harris/Trump race crowds things out. Also, Harris is far from a definite lock though my sanity requires assuming she will win. However, she needs a Senate, or she will be handcuffed for four years. Toss out any major liberal legislation.
It also is AGGRAVATING. Republicans as a whole aided and abetted Trump. Nearly no Republicans now in Congress are willing to even not endorse him. An "anti-Trump" Republican running for the Senate seat in Maryland is trying to give these fuckers the Senate.
If you insist -- as you should -- "we aren't going back" -- and support Harris/Walz, you must support a trifecta. I don't only want not to go back. I want to go forward. Make the Republicans wear Trump around their neck. Trump should be a leaden anchor.
The convention is over and the weather is starting to be cool. The final stretch is approaching or might have begun. The Senate must be factored in.
It's so tiring to have to fight so much when things seem so damn clear. Maybe, people aren't talking about the Senate since they figure it's a lost cause. Who wants to be depressed. But, some people said that about the presidency. Look what happened!
A local library has a "free book" day on the first Friday of the month and I have kept on forgetting about it. I finally managed to show up and picked up a couple books. Libraries are free always.
This time you can keep the books. The first one was a quick reading but wonderfully drawn graphic novel:
The Legend of Auntie Po is my second full-length graphic novel and my first middle grade (and historical fiction!) book. Thirteen-year-old Mei reimagines the myths of Paul Bunyan as starring a Chinese heroine while she works in a Sierra Nevada logging camp in 1885.
Aware of the racial tumult in the years after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, Mei tries to remain blissfully focused on her job, her close friendship with the camp foreman’s daughter, and telling stories about Paul Bunyan–reinvented as Po Pan Yin (Auntie Po), an elderly Chinese matriarch.
The Legend of Auntie Po is about who gets to own a myth, and about immigrant families and communities holding on to rituals and traditions while staking out their own place in America.
The author notes that she did not intend to be totally true to life though the book was based on history, including a book by Iris Chang.
For instance, the Scandinavian-American manager of the logging camp eventually resists anti-Chinese sentiments. The logging camp unites together and the book ends with the Chinese cook (Mei's father) cooking a Chinese New Year meal for everyone.
I reckon there were some positive moves here in the history involved. There are dreams of her going to college. I don't know how many Chinese women at the turn of the 20th Century went to college. It would be interesting to read about.
On her website, the author notes that "I create comics at the intersection of race, gender, immigrant stories, and queerness." She uses a "they" pronoun.
Mei has some queer qualities, including a crush on her friend, the daughter of the manager of the logging camp. This part of the story is not dwelled on too much and the feelings are not returned in a romantic sense. Still, it is representation.
The book provides an interracial cast. The author notes that she did not include named Native Americans though they were present in the history of logging camps. She granted her limitations in expressing their story. It is hard to be truly complete.
For instance, I wrote for the last few years for a history website. There are numerous non-white entries, especially since it took some topics from another history website with an African focus.
Surely, however, it is not a comprehensive look at the history. Many people, like Erik Loomis (when not being a jerk), can address some other details, including labor history. This book adds to the mix.
The final summer order list is even shorter than the first two. It's one page long with two "motions of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendices are granted," ten rehearings denied, and one "motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing is denied." It's so short, it has no unexplained recusals!
Justice News
Ginni Thomas is unsurprisingly not a fan of court reform. More on Justice Jackson's memoir. Justice Alito has some financial disclosures. No more flags.
Trump Trials
Florida
Thomas-adjacent: Judge Cannon should beremovedfrom the classified documents case!
New York
Trump's election interference trial (NY) reached a verdict. The sentencing was originally scheduled for July, right before the Republican Convention. Then, it was postponed to September.
Now, it has been postponed until after the election. Judge Merchan also pushed back until Nov. 12 his decision on whether Trump’s conviction in New York should be impacted by a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.
I surely hope that the ruling is that the case is based on unofficial conduct and not defeated by that asinine ruling. But who knows at this point? On that front, maybe it is a good thing that is coming after the election!
The whole thing is aggravating but we should recall -- and reading comments online, not sure if people keep this in mind -- any sentence will be surely be held up and appealed. He won't be put in prison, if it comes to that, right away. It is more of an election messaging thing. We already know he is guilty of 34 felonies.
The prosecutor was agnostic about the sentencing date. Is the judge really off base to bend over backward to play it safe regarding appearances of impropriety and everything else? Probably not.
(This doesn't make it much less annoying, except to a degree some predict he will give jail time.)
D.C.
There was also a hearing for the federal election subversion case againt Trump.
