Trans Day of Visibility

 

Each year on March 31, the world observes Transgender Day of Visibility (TDOV) to raise awareness about transgender people. It is a day to celebrate the lives and contributions of trans people, while also drawing attention to the disproportionate levels of poverty, discrimination, and violence the community faces compared to cisgender (non-transgender) people.

This is an annual celebration. One year it overlapped with Easter, leading to the usual suspects making things a conspiracy. President Biden respected the rights of trans people. For him, they existed:

As kids, they deserve what every child deserves:  the chance to learn in safe and supportive schools, to develop meaningful friendships, and to live openly and honestly.  As adults, they deserve the same rights enjoyed by every American, including equal access to health care, housing, and jobs and the chance to age with grace as senior citizens.  But today, too many transgender Americans are still denied those rights and freedoms.

Trump goes another way, including alleging that trans people are not "physically or mentally prepared to serve" in the military. He wants to be Orwellian about "biological truths," including allegedly to protect women's sports (how about men's sports?). 

I will let Karen tell you about the "protection racket" here and the true goals involved.  The attack on trans are vicious and often just plain gratuitous. 

Not surprisingly, trans issues are repeatedly referenced on a blog involving religious themed legal issues. Nonetheless, religion is often used as an excuse to channel hateful and ignorant non-religious views. Remember too that "Christian" is not the same as "conservative fundamental Christian." 

Trump and other Republicans want to erase trans people. Trans people are the core legitimate target for many these days. Parents are threatened if they want to provide their children medically accepted care. 

Trans people are blocked from bathrooms reflecting their gender identity, blocking people who otherwise "look the part" from basic human needs. Nicole Maines can tell you how absurd that can be. 

A few trans athletes (sometimes not even trans) are wrongly labeled grave threats to sports. Harmful conversion therapy is accepted licensed medical care. Not unlicensed therapy at a church. Care provided by personnel licensed by the government.  

Erin Reed is a good place to go to keep up with current trans legal issues. She provides some optimism about the future. There is some reason to be optimistic. The attacks of trans people often is a result from fear. Trans people are visible. They exist.

That scares some people. Holidays often celebrate things that exist each day. Parents should be honored daily. That's hard. So, we have a special day for mothers, fathers, and grandparents. We honor certain "history months." We honor saint days.

Today is a day to celebrate trans people. Farmer v. Brennan (1994) recognized the needs of trans prisoners. Trans history goes back to ancient times. 

Some trolls continue to ridicule when Justice Jackson had trouble defining "woman" during her confirmation hearing. Biologists have problems drawing lines. Sex and gender is complex. There are not just XX/XY chromosomes. There are more than two genders. 

It is not surprising that an administration who is so scared about DEI (which is again a fine concept) is not a big fan of diversity. Our nation should celebrate it. 

Trans people exist. Even if you are not a big fan -- and you have issues -- there is no reason to be so gratuitously cruel as so many people are. 

Today's a day to celebrate and honor trans people. We should respect their particular needs as we should respect the needs of each one of us. And we should oppose all the patent bullshit done to oppress them. 

Happy Trans Day of Visibility. 

Royal-ish

The current Hallmark Channel films premiering on Saturday are a collection of films involving different members of a foster family watched over by Mindy Cohn, who some best know from The Facts of Life. 

They don't interest me so far. Before them, there were multiple royal-themed films. I enjoyed The Royal We and Royal-ish. Nicole Sakura, who comes from a Japanese/American/Irish background, has an interesting voice. She is a somewhat atypical choice for a Hallmark film. The guy is more standard. 

The young daughter is cute and has a good performance with the typical posh-sounding European-y accent found in these royal films. The royals nearly always come from some imaginary West European location. Why not have some coming from other parts of the world? There are lots of Pacific islands, for instance, they can be from. 

Anyway, Royal-ish went pleasantly along and there was even the kiss (the "rule" usually is that it is at the very end, but not always). I was waiting for the "complication." And, there it came with about twenty minutes left. It was forced but obligatory. 

The Royal We handled things better. Still, I enjoyed Royal-ish, especially because of the lead actress. 

==

I also re-watched Robin Hood: Men In Tights. I saw the film but have not seen the whole thing for quite some time. The sheriff character is the best. There are many familiar faces, and it is easy to take like Spaceballs. Good for television viewings. 

Mel Brooks had a short-lived Robin Hood television show parody in the 1970s that is on Catchy Comedy Channel. Looks good, but I can see why it didn't last.  

("Looks good" means the sets and so on are good for a television series, but the scripts from the bits of a few episodes were lame comedy-wise.) 

==

Saving Hope was a Canadian medical drama. NBC ran the first season. I checked out the first season DVD from the library. Four episodes in, I enjoyed it, though I might get bored with it after a while. 

It starts with a male chief of surgery going into a coma (he came out of it later) and being able to see dead people while walking around in the hospital. His fiancée is the chief surgical resident and is the focus of the show at the beginning.  

One member of the supporting cast was in many Hallmark Channel movies (many Canadian actors pop up there). I like Julia Chan as a young doctor, too. 

Generally well acted with good stories. 

ETA: Breast milk ice cream? Seems animal friendly.

Republican Values and Ultimate Solutions

I will have a Substack about Trump's attack on immigrants and their pressure to self-deport. I end with a discussion of what long-term strategy we as a nation need to have to address the current situation.

Heather Cox Richardson cites "the Left" trope:

Their definition of “the Left” includes all Americans, Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats, who believe the government has a role to play in regulating business, providing a basic social safety net, promoting infrastructure, and protecting civil rights, and who support the institutional structures Americans have built since World War II.

The supposed enemy, using various labels [including "Democrat Biglaw"], is some catch-all to explain people who support basic principles that have support crossing ideological lines. In these dark times, I support allies wherever they might come. They support principles and values built long before WWII.

The above is a comment to a blog post regarding Paul Clement (with support of Ed Whelan), both strong conservatives whom I generally find wrong in opposing Trump's tactics against law firms.

Yes, this mob boss thuggery violates multiple constitutional provisions and principles. Clement's brief provides the details. So many wrongs. 

Quickie Thoughts

I discuss the various aspects of the FUBAR nature of SignalGate.

==

SCOTUS handed down two rulings. Ghost gun regulations were so obviously valid that Justice Gorsuch wrote a 7-2 opinion upholding them. 

No kewpie doll for predicting the two dissenters. Gorsuch had a brief dissent to Jackson's opinion in a bankruptcy case. Meanwhile, as flagged by Paul Clement supporting the government, it looks like the big oral argument won't bring any big changes. 

==

I planned to reserve the Psycho DVD, but instead accidentally received the novel. Don't recall the film too much, but the two seem to mostly mesh. 

(Norman Bates in the book is more pudgy and somewhat older than Anthony Perkins at that time.)

The book is a straightforward account, basically of novella length, that helpfully shows things through multiple points of view. The ending matches the film. 

I was sort of bored since it was not a surprise. Nonetheless, it was a good, steady read.

==

Also went to the old Mid-Manhattan Library, which has a good selection of DVDs, both films and television series. I found After Words, a film starring Marcia Gay Harden, one of those actors who you say "she's pretty good, I wish she had bigger roles."  

To be fair, she had a sizable number of roles, including as "Susan" in the Spenser for Hire films. She plays a quiet, lonely librarian who comes out of her shell.

The role is stereotypical and lacks a certain amount of depth, but the Costa Rica locations are nice to look at, and its shortish running time helps. The actor who plays the guide is also a bit rough but interesting.

Overall, it was okay, and I watched the whole thing. That's saying something for me these days. After all, I also recently borrowed more than one series DVD, and have not yet watched a full episode yet.

Democrats Aren't Quite Learning Yet

After a major mess involving the security of a sensitive military discussion came out, twelve Democrats voted for an inexperienced Trump donor for Navy Secretary. What are you doing? 

The idea is that the person has the business acumen to reform the mess of the Navy Department, which sounds like a dig on the Biden Administration. It's on some level reasonable to argue management experience is enough here. There is precedent on both sides. Nonetheless, it's politically easy to defend grounds to vote "no," especially given the number of inexperienced incompetents in this administration.  

This was a lay-up ground for Democrats to refuse to vote to confirm anyone, at least top military people until something is done. Hegseth is responding with ranting and Trump is doing a Mr. Magoo routine. 

Schumer and others are going after the Trump Administration for the screw-up. It would be blatant incompetence not to do so. What is appropriate is a demand for people to be fired, backed up with a usage of the power Democrats have to block appointments at least temporarily. Or, at least, not to vote to confirm! 

One libertarian/conservative Trump opponent argued on Bluesky that if Trump was so gung ho about a shutdown, he wouldn't have pushed for the Republicans to pass a continuing resolution. 

I have not seen this bit discussed. I did see Trump taunt Schumer by praising his support. That sounded like a dare to vote against the CR. Either way, this adds to the ammunition against Schumer's vote and strategy. The party needs new leadership. 

There is also a chicken/egg problem here. The vote suggests a split among Democrats on how far to go in the response to Trump. Schumer would be an understandable choice for the caucus. We can blame Schumer, but as I did before the CR vote, we should also blame those who helped him.  

BTW, when I tried to discuss this online, the Disqus system on a website blocked me from posting a list of the Democrats who voted along with a link to a discussion. Someone responded and said the problem might be that Senator Coons (D-DE) has a name that looks like a racial slur. Really?

Comment: "How Israel plans to escalate its war on Hamas in Gaza"

A kneejerk type found a forty or so second clip on Twitter to further his message. And, even then, had to expand it from a comment against Israeli attacks on Palestinians under their control to ANY use of force. 

(When foreign nations attacked Israel, the international law argument made was not applicable.)

My recent comments about Schumer included a reference to an interview that covers his new book on anti-semitism. I was happy to see, though it was not addressed in the interview, he criticized settlements in his recent big speech. They are a major barrier to any conceivable lasting peace.

It is quite true that they are not the only problem. Nonetheless, we cannot ignore how troublesome they are for multiple reasons. A Swiss Cheese West Bank makes a two-state solution especially unlikely. We are talking about a speck of land even without them. 

Also, settlements are a major cause of psychological unpleasantness. Palestinians feel like prisoners who have to undergo multiple checkpoints to move around. The spittle coming from the comments on the blog makes me wonder how they would feel if they had the empathy to see themselves in Palestinians' shoes.

A tragic part of all of this is that the resistance has some valid arguments but uses horrible tactics. Violence against civilians is going to lead to a lot of hatred. And, the math is horrible. One article:

But if the maximalist tactics are implemented, they would represent an escalation of a 17-month operation that the Gaza Health Ministry says has killed nearly 50,000 Palestinians, more than half of them women and children. The war also has killed more than 400 Israeli soldiers.

NPR:

On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas led an attack from Gaza into Israel that killed almost 1,200 people and took 251 captive, according to Israeli government figures. Israel responded with a military campaign to destroy Hamas and free the hostages. Negotiations to end the war broke down last week.

At some point, there have to be some proportional response rules. One Lancet study summarized:

We estimated 64 260 deaths (95% CI 55 298–78 525) due to traumatic injury during the study period, suggesting the Palestinian MoH under-reported mortality by 41%. 

[More data at Wikipedia.]

Israel had broad support in the U.S. after being attacked. Justifably so and it underlines why Hamas has so much to answer for. They had to know what would happen. It was an ugly calculus. 

The WP article suggests the idea:

Israel has destroyed nearly all of Hamas’s 24 fighting battalions, it says, leaving a few thousand fighters in Gaza. But to fully eradicate the remnants, it would have to hold the territory — which some officers and analysts say carries high risks for Israel.

“If you look at the French in Algeria, [the U.S.] Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Americans in Afghanistan, the history of counterinsurgency attempts teach us that even the Israelis will fail,” said Sascha-Dominik Dov Bachmann, an expert on warfare at the University of Canberra. “It would undermine the moral and ethical basis of Israel.”

So, although Israel can succeed in a large fashion short time there is still a danger that long term they lose. The question is how badly. For instance, France's colonial effort in Algiers is not the same as Israel's situation. France had a country to fall back upon. Algiers was not as basic to its sense of itself.  

The article also reminds people that there is a dime's worth of difference between Biden and Trump.

Last year, the Biden administration refused to send a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel unless it allowed more humanitarian aid into Gaza and did more to prevent civilian casualties.

But Trump, who took office in January, has approved the sale of the heavy bombs. And officials have said that Israel consulted with the Trump administration before cutting off all aid to Gaza in March.

I try to largely keep out of debates over Israel and Palestine. I rather not "Talk about Israel." It will lead to people on each side having over-the-top positions, including tossing a lot of data in along the way.  

Overall, the whole thing is so tragic. And, whatever your position, one side -- especially women and children -- are suffering much more. 

Anatomy of Fascism

I checked out the classic study of fascism, Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton. The book is hard to read since it comes off as required reading for an upper-level political science course. It has a helpful summary at the end.

Samantha Powers provided a good book review. She provides his definition:

A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

Fascism arises in various ways, including as a result of a broken political system. Republicans are no longer the conservative party, resulting in one party trying to do too much. Trumpism fits the “fascism” label in various respects.

Paxton argues that authoritarianism and dictatorships are not the same as fascism, which is more of a populist movement with a concern Borg-like of bringing in all other institutions. I see some of that here too. Not completely but some signs.

I will let others “deep dive” into the question, but Trumpism is fascist adjacent. 

==

I also checked out The Interbellum Constitution: Union, Commerce, and Slavery in the Age of Federalisms by Alison LaCroix. 

The book argues that 1815-61 was its own constitutional era in the area of federalism. The book has a lot of material but is a mix of too much and too little. The book was too long and still left me wanting. It was something to skim. 

For instance, there are multiple personal stories and intriguing details. I enjoyed this bit from John Quincy Adams, talking about fellow Cabinet member William Wirt, then the Attorney General:

He said that doctrine was too bold for him: he was too much of a Virginian for that. I told him that Virginian Constitutional scruples were accommodating things, whenever the exercise of a power did not happen to suit them, they would allow of nothing but powers expressly written; but when it did, they had no aversion to implied powers.

How apt for many people today. Also, a lot of interesting tidbits are dropped in. For instance, the Steerage Act of 1819 is an early regulation of immigration. OTOH, the discussion of what federal power was involved (commerce? implied by Art. I, sec. 9?) is handed in passing. 

The law is part of a wider discussion but the lack of details shows up in more significant ways. An important case as Cooley v. Board of Wardens is merely noted in passing. We do not get a full summary of even the cases given a wider discussion.  

The book also sometimes has a curious tone, which perhaps is a matter of taste. I can clearly understand why many people felt this book was a worthwhile work of scholarship. There is still a lot to say about constitutional developments pre-20th Century. 

I did not care for the book's style. I know the author will be upset. More seriously, it is unfortunate, since the subject matter is definitely interesting. 

Paul Weiss Caves

We talk about ongoing events here and there continue to be updates. The latest on the recent Paul Weiss post is that they caved. Way to go leading a big law firm with supposed liberal leanings! Pathetic. 

The Hill notes in its story on this that:

The Wall Street Journal reported that days later, the law firm was fired by a prominent client over concerns regarding Trump’s order.

I have visions of Dan Ackroyd in Driving Miss Daisy telling his mom about how supporting civil rights can lead to business problems.

I see from the media coverage that Paul Weiss seems to be -- understandably -- lying low and not commenting. Politico notes the Administration includes a sort of hostage statement:

“We are gratified that the President has agreed to withdraw the Executive Order concerning Paul, Weiss,” Karp said. “We look forward to an engaged and constructive relationship with the President and his Administration.”

Anna Bower on Bluesky posted an internal Paul Weiss email sent to employees. It requests people "refrain from any social media postings" about the whole matter. It includes a promise to spend 40M on pro bono work involving "mutually agreed projects" with the Trump Administration. 

As NYT notes, "The agreement is a significant development in the retribution campaign." Yes.

Of course, there are reports that the agreement involves a promise to address DEI policies. It's useful to remember that DEI is fine. It stands for "diversity, equity, and inclusion" ("A" would be for "access"). 

The statement from Paul Weiss does not specifically toss the former employee under the bus that seemed to start this whole process. Trump, however, (mostly rightly) took the firm's cave as a full win. 

Another firm targeted by Trump was not as chickenshit and took him to court. Paul Weiss should continue to lose clients (would you trust them?) for this sort of cave. Others will make a business decision that a Trump-friendly firm is a good move.  

Rachel Cohen was willing to put her long career at Skadden Arps at risk to firmly meet the times like a true heroine. She was not satisfied with her firm (again, from Anna Bower on Bluesky; her legal reporting is now on my rotation):

When I went to law school and to Skadden, I did so in pursuit of agency. I was driven by a desire to be in rooms where decision-makers were, to get to play a role in things that mattered, because things felt so needlessly terrible. 

It never occurred to me that the people in those rooms might feel that they were powerless. 

I am forced to hope that our lack of response to the Trump administration's attacks on our peers, both those at other large firms and the many people in this country with far fewer resources, is rooted in feelings of fear and powerlessness, as opposed to tacit agreement or desire to maximize profit. 

I still hope that is true. But it has not yet been borne out.

Also in the news, to quote one article, "Columbia University has agreed to a list of demands by the Trump administration." I support that wording. Trump is a mob thug. He sets forth "demands."

I think we should try to mix the good with the bad. We cannot just talk about all the horrible things out there. So, this entry includes a reference to two different firms who reacted differently. We also need to talk about values. The DEI is fine link goes to my discussion defending it. 

Erin in the Morning has a recent entry on how "Eight Michigan Democrats Defect To Pass Anti-Trans Resolution," including from heavy blue districts. 

The good news that "one of the largest schisms" involves eight people. Democrats have repeatedly -- including in Congress -- refused to help the Republican effort to dehumanize trans people.

Those who give in will justify it as unfortunate necessities that are only modest compromises. Now is not the time to compromise with injustice and thuggery. I understand some people without power doing that. Paul Weiss doing it is pathetic.  

===

Note: I stopped posting on Twitter though checked in now and then for such things as videos of a sports journalist who is not on Bluesky. 

Bluesky has not reached Twitter level and does not have the usefulness, including engagement, that I had pre-Elon Musk over there. There also are a few trolls and spammy accounts. 

Still, it's much better, including the lack of ads. 

SCOTUS Watch

The justices are back and were a bit busy. 

Attacks on the Courts 

We already talked about the Supreme Court handling two executions and Chief Justice Roberts responding to Trump's call to impeach a lower court judge. It also handed down a couple rulings today. 

I was wary of Roberts doing that since impeachment is largely a political question. Nonetheless, given Trump (and others) broadly going after the courts, it is understandable that Roberts responded. His response had wider implications. Breyer agreed with Roberts.

There are additional Roberts connections:

The chief justice himself appointed Boasberg to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as presiding judge; in that position, he regularly reviewed, and ruled upon, extraordinarily sensitive requests by intelligence agencies to surveil communications between suspected spies and foreign powers. 

He also appointed Boasberg as chief judge of the U.S. Alien Terrorist Removal Court, where he would hear similarly sensitive information to determine if terrorists should be deported. 

It’s notable, too, that George W. Bush appointed both Roberts and Boasberg to the bench. 

(Barack Obama later elevated Boasberg to his current position.)

This is the guy that Trump wants to go after? He was even Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale! 

Orders

We already dealt with the death penalty-related orders. SCOTUS appointed someone to argue a case that the federal government did not defend. 

On Friday, the Court dropped a housekeeping order regarding assigning time for argument.

Opinions

I was not aware of opinions coming down today. Checking, the court calendar available on the home page, noted on Monday -- a day with nothing scheduled -- of possible opinions. Tricky.

Roberts handed down a unanimous opinion with Alito and Jackson with brief concurrence arguing its limited reach. He can still lose on remand. It involved the reach of a federal law criminalizing false statements. The opinion was one of several that limited the reach of federal anti-corruption laws in recent years with supermajority support.

Thomas upheld a criminal conviction via a 7-2 opinion that has law school hypo vibes. Gorsuch, starting off in a conversational tone (he has improved his writing style), dissents with Jackson. He is a possible "get" when attacking federal power.  

Back to Work

The opinion announcements show the justices are back to work. They had a conference, will drop an Order List on Monday, and will have oral arguments next week. They never did clear up that "what happened to the cert grant" in the capital case. 

ETA: The Monday Order List was ho-hum except for Alito (who also recused in another case without explanation as conservative justices do) and Gorsuch dropping statements (taking somewhat different approaches) proposing taking a case in the future to tweak how to apply the Confrontation Clause. 

Two More Executions

During a home invasion in Blaine County, [Wendell] Grissom entered Dreu Kopf’s home, injuring her and killing her friend, Amber Matthews, who was there helping take care of Kopf’s two young children. Grissom fatally shot Matthews and fired and hit Kopf multiple times.

That was November 3, 2005. You can learn more about the victims here. 

Grissom’s accomplice, a hitchhiker named Jessie Johns, is serving life in prison without parole. The jury foreman later said that would probably be appropriate for Grissom. 

Grissom’s lawyers argued he should not be eligible for the death penalty because of significant developmental issues. During his clemency hearing, attorneys showed the five-member board detailed reports on abnormalities in Grissom’s brain, as revealed by CT and MRI scans. 

Oklahoma said Grissom rejected clemency. The board rejected it 4-1. He was executed without final appeals. Regarding how smoothly it went, you can see the comment from a witness yesterday. 

Fla. Man Who Raped and Killed 8-Year-Old Girl and Then Murdered Her Grandmother Asks SCOTUS to Halt His Execution

A blunt headline provides the basic information behind the second lethal injection today. Edward Thomas James was convicted over thirty years ago. So, yes, check out Glossip v. Gross (Breyer's dissent). 

The final appeals focus on other issues. The use of a nonanimous jury [11-1] to sentence him to death is again tried though it has not gained much traction (Sotomayor has cited it in the past).  

Other procedural issues are raised. The other main allegation is that cognitive decline makes it cruel and unusual to execute him. Others might deem it a sort of forced euthanasia after over thirty years. 

The justices rejected the final stay and cert requests Thursday morning without comment. I continue to think that is wrong; someone should at least briefly explain. Florida then executed him.  

Four more executions are scheduled next month, which gives me a break from examining these depressing and very unpleasant crimes and criminals. I continue to oppose the death penalty, both on policy and constitutional with varying degrees of concern. 

NYC Non-Citizens Voting Law Struck Down

New York City passed a law in December 2021 allowing non-citizens to vote. I talked more about the general issue after D.C. passed a similar law. 

(My then outgoing council representative, a Democrat, scare tacticked allowing noncitizens to vote. Mayor Adams was wary but let it be. So much time has passed that we are on a third local rep, this time a Republican, which just still seems wrong.) 

Voting and citizenship go together like a horse and carriage, to quote the theme song of Married ... with Children. I do not say that ironically in this context. 

Many states over our history -- until at least the 1920s -- allowed at least some noncitizens to vote. Current federal law bans voting in federal elections. Only a few localities allow them to vote in local elections. 

Some Republicans, generally the sorts who don't like voting rights, challenged the law on state constitutional grounds. New York City Council members include lawyers and they did their due diligence, I suppose, before passing the law.  

Looking at the law, it seemed to me to be valid. The New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court, disagreed 6-1. They are in charge. I still think the dissent has the best argument. Shrugs. 

Local Law 11 would vastly expand the franchise in New York City, a locality that is home to approximately 3.1 million immigrants, of whom 27 percent (over 800,000) are lawful permanent residents or hold another form of lawful status.[FN15] It provides a means for this significant part of the City's population to have a voice in their government.

The state constitution says that citizens have the right to vote. This does not necessarily mean that is the ceiling. It very well might be the floor. The discretion given to localities over a choice of self-government also warrants the text to be interpreted liberally. 

The fear of noncitizens voting is exaggerated, both as to some significant number doing so illegally or doing so anyway. The law does not apply to so-called "illegals," who are here without legal authorization. 

A large segment of our city is disenfranchised regarding those who govern them. It is appropriate to allow them to vote. I think the state constitution probably can be reasonably interpreted to allow it.

A specter is given in some localities allowing 13-year-olds to vote. The raising of slippery slope arguments generally has problems no matter who does it. Yes, only up to a point. Nonetheless, I hold to that.

Why would a locality do that? I can very well see a locality giving sixteen and seventeen-year-olds the right to vote in certain elections. I think the line at 18 makes sense. But, a lower line is not absurd.  

Any line under that age is unlikely. I will give you a possibility. Maybe, a locality will let students vote in a school election, perhaps for a student representative on a school board. Or, some limited proposal, silly (local bird) or more serious (school uniforms?) might warrant giving under-18s the right to vote. 

A locality might perhaps give those under 18 the right to vote in a limited fashion to prepare them for voting completely as an adult. You can formulate various scenarios as to why it is rational for minors to vote. 

I find this result unfortunate. 

Continuing Resolution and Holidays

I provide an answer to a liberal's defense of Chuck Schumer's vote for the continuing resolution here. Again, I respect it is not a simple issue.

Spring has begun. The weather already has been warm. There is not much "lion" this March so far. I heard the birds chirping outside my window now. 

March 17-19 also involves my personal holidays from St. Patrick's Day (mom) and St. Joseph's Day (dad). You can find a discussion of Joseph, father of Jesus, from a historian's perspective on this website. 

The middle day is one of my own creation, St. JP Day (Joseph Paul), a holiday for Irish/Italian mutts. 

And, it's about time to play real baseball!

Aaron Gunches Execution

I have consistently provided a link to Justice Breyer's dissent against the death penalty which includes a section on constitutional problems with long delays. 

A long stay on death row is cruel and unusual. It also is problematic to execute someone so long after the fact. They are not the same person. It is not the same situation. Things have changed.  

Sometimes, people want to die. They are "volunteers" though it is not always clear how voluntary and competent the decision-making is. Nonetheless, yes, I think it can be rational to want to die. 

The 53-year-old Arizona death row inmate has always his admitted to murdering his girlfriend's ex-boyfriend in the desert in 2002, and has long sought a swift execution, saying in one handwritten court filing that he wanted it to move forward "so that justice may be lawfully served and give closure to the victim's family."

Aaron Gunches was arrested after shooting an Arizona Public Safety Officer at a traffic stop (the officer survived). Gunches defended himself with an advisory counsel. The state, even if he doesn't like it, still has to follow minimal standards. This delayed his execution. 

Repeated problems with lethal injections led Arizona to have a moratorium since 2022. The former federal magistrate judge assigned to study the matter still thinks they aren't ready. The Democratic governor disagrees. Meanwhile, the legislature -- stop me if you heard this before -- is thinking about the firing squad.

Gunches got his wish and was executed this morning. A witness warned that appearances can be deceiving:

“The witnesses did not see is what happened under the jumpsuit and sheet. We know from scientific studies that rapid administration of a high dose of pentobarbital is excruciatingly painful. Pulmonary edema develops in seconds as the lungs fill with water and one is not able to breathe," Baich told reporters afterward.

Twenty years on death row isn't easy either. 

Jessie Hoffman Execution

Jessie Hoffman at age 18 nearly thirty years ago committed a horrible crime. He kidnapped, robbed, raped, and murdered a woman. Louisiana sentenced him to death. Then, he waited and waited. 

An attempt later to cite his age as an argument to block his execution (under 21) failed. His lawyers also argued that Hoffman suffered from chronic childhood abuse and neglect, leading to post-traumatic stress symptoms and brain damage. 

We can understand why such a crime was considered "worse of the worst" though a reasonable judge or jury might decide not to give him the death penalty. 

Various appeals, including claims of racism in the jury, were rejected. My continual argument that too long on death row should nullify a death sentence obviously never got traction (Breyer, dissent). 

He tried to challenge the method of execution, including lethal injection, which now is functionally not in place in Louisiana. That failed, but a district court judge held that nitrogen gas as established in Louisiana did have too high of a risk of suffering. 

Supreme Court precedent requires a challenge to a method of execution to provide an alternative. Louisiana provides three options: lethal injection (no drugs now available*), electrocution (for some reason not available), and nitrogen gas. 

Nonetheless, you could offer an alternative that might possibly be made available. Hoffman suggested the firing squad (growing in popularity) or the drugs used in medical-aid-in-dying. The lower court judge held only the firing squad is functionally available.

An Obama nominee in the Fifth Circuit holding up an execution is not a safe bet. The Court of Appeals soon overturned the decision. He took it to the Supreme Court, including another argument he lost below.

Hoffman argues that as a Buddhist his religious liberty rights are violated since he wants to pray as he dies. Nitrogen gas interferes. Again, he offers a backup method so argues they still can execute him.

The lower court wasn't convinced. The factual findings held that nitrogen gas does not interfere. The back-up argument is a statutory claim. 

The three liberals would have granted a stay of execution without saying why. Sigh. Gorsuch, who is no fan of the method of execution claims, dissents regarding the religious liberty argument. He thinks the district court judge was wrong to second guess and wants the court of appeals to examine the question. 

Meanwhile, a sister-in-law of the victim supports commuting his sentence. Another relative wants to hear from him. Since the victim has multiple family members, obviously, this is of limited concern. 

Many families will be split over the question of how to properly punish murderers. We probably can see this in each of the three mass murderers Biden did not commute along with the rest.  

Jessie Hoffman did something horrible, truly horrible, at age 18. He was in prison for nearly thirty years. Executing him -- even if nitrogen gas works okay after one or more of its usages does seems not okay -- after all this time is not a great use of public policy.  

Meanwhile, the value of nitrogen gas as an alternative continues to be unclear. The firing squad might be the best (and most honest) method available.

Or we can just not execute people.  

ETA: There are preliminary remarks by witnesses that the execution went smoothly. A somewhat detailed account (down to the sounds of birds chirping) arguably is more opaque, including how much his desired religious expression was affected. 

==

* There have also been efforts to block the access of nitrogen gas and how the state obtained it for today's execution is somewhat unclear. 

The details of the Supreme Court decision making are also (this is somewhat academic) curious. The liberals would have granted a stay. Gorsuch would have granted a stay and cert. (on the religious liberty issue).

But you need five votes to hold up the execution. So, a "courtesy fifth" is necessary.

Roberts has offered to do it in the past. Since Gorsuch chose to rely on a religious liberty issue, Barrett (who has supported that in an execution in the past) was a possible fifth. But she did not do so.

The execution made the request for cert (to take up the case) moot even though four justices supported stopping the execution. Sort of embarrassing.  

Chief Justice Responds to Trump

Trump said on social media that U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg should be impeached for blocking the administration’s efforts to deport Venezuelan migrants without due process.

Trump criticized Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as a “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge” and wrote: “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

Chief Justice Roberts, like he did when Trump the first time around talked about "Obama judges," decided to publicly respond. Concerns that the Administration was violating a court order might have factored in though it was not directly addressed:

For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.

Compare this understanding of history to Roberts creating presidential immunity in Trump v. U.S. 

His statement is not likely to be meant to be addressed to Donald Trump personally. Roberts is speaking to others. Formally, it was a statement released to the media. There are press release and media statement pages he could have used.

Walter Nixon v. United States left impeachment largely to Congress. It is a political question to determine what is impeachable. Trump's statement is unhinged but it is still political opinion.  

Members of the House are starting to talk about impeaching judges for allegedly making bad decisions. That is wrong. Nonetheless, decisions on whom to impeach are political questions.  

Also, Roberts should avoid responding to trolls. Trump has and will continue to make various unhinged statements about federal judges. Selectively responding is a fool's game. 

On the other side, there will be the usual whataboutism. Reasonable impeachment efforts, including AOC's support of the impeachment of Alito (weaker) and Thomas (quite valid), are not comparable to Trump's approach. And, Trump is not some mere member of Congress. 

An update flagged Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who apologized for her Trump remarks. If the guy wants to join with the liberals to support binding ethical guidelines for all justices, good for him, but don't think so. Thomas and to a lesser degree Alito are problems to a special level. 

Yes, impeachment efforts will be lean partisan. It's done via a political process. Some Republicans in the end supported impeaching Nixon but many more Democrats did. For lower court judges, the serious impeachment efforts have been more bipartisan. 

Most impeachments, there were around twenty, involved federal judges. The first involved a district judge who was unfit to serve. The Chase impeachment was partisan but raised concerns about some of his rulings that might have had due process red flags. 

Ethical rules provide one means to address judicial wrongdoing. Term limits are also a good idea. Mere opposition to rulings, especially unfounded opposition, is not a good reason. 

Term limits can provide a form of political checks, including perhaps a possible retention election -- Congress can decide after 10-15 years, for instance, whether a judge should remain.

Politicians can also strongly criticize judges. Kagan recently confirmed that is obviously valid, even if they do a poor job of criticizing. Roberts' end-of-the-year report seemed to mix illicit interference with criticism.

News coverage reminded people that Roberts has also criticized Democrats:

In 2020, Roberts criticized comments Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., made at a rally outside the Supreme Court when the justices were considering a high-profile abortion case.

Schumer said justices had “released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

Roberts called the comments “inappropriate” and “dangerous.”

Schumer's rhetoric was problematic. The attacks on judges in recent years have made caution advisable. It is somewhat unlikely Schumer would phrase it quite that way today. We can explain away it as rhetorical excess by someone who has not earned special concern to the degree of Trump. Still, no, Chuck.

Anyway, if Roberts wants to respond, do so in his official capacity. Trump v. U.S. is how not to do it. For now, yes, this leads people to recall this meme:

Roberts (along with Barrett), is going to now and then voice concern. The rest of the time, well, they will enable Trump. You ultimately helped do this, dude.

Some conservatives and libertarians reasonably support what Roberts said. Fewer were consistent about the threat Trump brought. 

Still, we can appreciate that there still is some sense of perspective.

Foreign Students Are a Major American Resource

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that Mahmoud Khalil, an activist who is being detained by federal immigration authorities, is "going to leave — and so are others."

Mahmoud Khalil is in the U.S. on an F-1 student visa as a graduate student at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs. Foreign students are a major resource. Paul Krugman:

Many foreigners come to America to study, attracted by the quality of our colleges and universities. In 2023, the most recent year for which data are available, they spent more than $50 billion. But if you were a foreigner considering study in the U.S. next year, wouldn’t you be worried that you might find yourself arrested and deported for expressing what the current administration considers anti-American views? I would. So, we can expect a hit to higher education, which, although we rarely think of it this way, is a major U.S. export.

A conservative legal blogger argued that their foreign visas can be revoked for exercising constitutional rights. He framed it this way:

Foreign students are here as visitors to study, not to be members of the American polity. 

I don't know the reach of the "American polity" label. They are not voting. They still can take part in debates and protests. Noncitizens are allowed to do that, including those here as students. 

Also, noncitizens advance the overall conversation in a way that helps American citizens. Immigrants add special value to the educational experience, including different perspectives and knowledge. 

That doesn't mean that we should prohibit them from expressing their opinions, 

Okay, so they can "express opinions." 

I would hope so. He pushed back against me in a comment but if we welcome them as members of college and universities, that is part of the program. People who go to college take part in debates and protests. It is part of the experience. 

Maybe, the visa requires them to be full time students. They still can take part in protests. If the United States wants to only allow them to take part in a correspondence course, so be it, but they did not do that. They welcomed them as full students. 

but, e.g., holding protests in favor of an enemy country during wartime, or, more controversially perhaps, prohibiting foreign students from using their status as such to try to influence American public opinion on behalf of organizations that Congress has sanctioned as enemy terrorist organizations, strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

I don't think it is perfectly reasonable to deport students for trying to influence American public opinion. Free discourse should be honored in educational institutions. Academic freedom is good. 

A visa holder can be deported if they cross the line regarding actual material support, not just influencing debate, of registered enemy terrorist organizations. This should be done carefully, which is something the Trump Administration has trouble doing.

===

Dr. Rasha Alawieh was approved for an H-1B visa last year to work in the Division of Nephrology at Brown University’s medical school – after studying at three US universities since 2018. She left the country to go to the funeral of Hassan Nasrallah. 

The funeral "was held in a sports stadium and attracted tens of thousands of people." That might be a fraction of the true number.

She returned to the United States but was blocked at the airport. Alawieh said she supported Nasrallah religiously, not politically. She was deported.

(There was controversy over the Administration not following a court order to not deport her before a hearing was held. Ultimately, the judge decided that the government did not receive the order in time.) 

The minimum concern here is that she was deported (some carp on that word but I have seen it being used by lots of news sources, including Fox News) without proper due process. There should be a way to have a hearing before she is forced to leave the country. 

Again, merely having views supporting a person who took part in terrorism should not be enough to deport someone here on a visa for an extended time, doing productive scientific work. Pictures of the guy on her phone and showing up at a funeral that tens of thousands also took part in is a dubious line. 

Still, maybe the facts will come out that justify deporting her. Again, my test would be concrete evidence of material support, not simply having "views" about the guy. I have my doubts. It still should be done in a more procedurally benign fashion. 

It is not quite akin to sending someone to Louisiana away from their pregnant wife, incommunicado for an extended period. Still, she was here for a long time with connections to this country. Not allowing her to return is still a seriously troubling matter. 

Foreign students and scholars are a major American resource. We should treat them carefully.  

And, there is also a wider war on academic study.

Trump Uses (Misuses) 1798 Law

The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) are understood now to be a low moment in our history. The one generally reasonable component was the Alien Enemy Act, which is the one part still active:

[W]henever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, . . . all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.

The provision might be used too broadly, but it has a limited reach related to warfare. It was passed to address the Quasi-War with France. It is not there to deal with gangs, even if they are really bad gangs. 

Consider the headline to this Washington Post article:

Trump sends more than 200 alleged gang members to prison in El Salvador

The administration won’t identify those moved — or say whether the Alien Enemies Act, which briefly sped up some deportations, played any role.

Two hundred "alleged" gang members? Trust them!

The Justice Department has said that most, if not all, were serious criminals, but they did not release their names to publicly so that claim could be independently verified. Some of the gang members deported were members of the MS-13 gang tied to El Salvador, and the proclamation Friday does not appear to include them.

The Administration continues to cut corners:

The high-profile actions make it clear that the administration will deploy force and fright to remove immigrants from the United States, even if they have to devise extraordinary new ways to do it, such as sending them to a country that is not their home country and putting them in jail. 

The White House’s online mocking of the judicial order by the chief federal judge in Washington added to the concern among advocates that Trump’s determination to carry out the largest mass deportation campaign in U.S. history would sidestep legal and humanitarian norms.

As to that last part:

Human Rights Watch has documented torture, forced disappearances and a lack of legal recourse in Salvadoran prisons, as well as poor access to food and water. The organization has reported instances in which inmates are systematically beaten and forced to confess that they are members of gangs, according to Juan Pappier, Americas deputy director for the group.

The Declaration of Independence announced the establishment of an independent country with all of the powers we "may of right do." Human rights are national obligations. Meanwhile, the Voice of America is the latest institution on the chopping block. 

And, yes, the Senate Democrats need new leadership. 

Trump Goes After Paul Weiss

Trump's campaign to target law firms that somehow worked against him, even if it was one person among hundreds or thousands, continues. The latest target is Paul Weiss, which particularly caught my attention.*

The reach of this impeachment-worthy, as one comment notes, the order is quite broad. It covers contracts that somehow "include" Paul Weiss. 

It deals with federal agencies. There is talk about the "federal government," which the uninitiated might think includes three branches of government. Putting that aside, this order -- which is at least the third law firm targeted -- covers a lot of ground.  

Roberta Kaplan, one former PW lawyer who worked on LGBTQ issues, is not the direct target of the executive order. Her representing E.J. Carroll (if he is aware of the connection) is but gravy.

Donald Trump on Friday walked into the Department of Justice and labeled his courtroom opponents “scum,” judges “corrupt” and the prosecutors who investigated him “deranged."

Let us remember his recent Festivus-like airing of grievances at "his" Justice Department. His targets included the press. Since law firms are targets here for their associations and litigation, more First Amendment values are involved.  

Meanwhile, his anti-DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion being so "woke," you know) includes censoring the Arlington Cemetary website. As one person noted:

Our commemorative spaces represent the values that we as a community and even as a nation claim to uphold. All Americans hope to see themselves in these spaces that at their best strengthen bonds of citizenship, community, and identity.

The failure to do so makes it much easier for one group to distance itself from another and even to deny the other the full rights and privileges of citizenship. Erasing and distorting the history of the struggle for civil rights and citizenship for so many marginalized groups makes it easier to dismiss those very same demands today.

The Trump administration (our government) does not want you to know that African Americans, who have fought for and in many cases died for this nation, going back to the American Civil War, were also fighting for “racial justice.”

This also has a somewhat personal flavor for me given my historical background. Of course, there should be a general universal concern here. Nonetheless, sometimes, things hit somewhat closer to home. 

Update: After reports of a major client firing them, the latest is that Paul Weiss caved. 

==

* I know people who worked there. 

Continuing Resolution

I discuss the continuing budget resolution and my thoughts about the Democrats who went along here. There is no good solution. 

I am probably at least somewhat more sympathetic about the "cave" side than some. Nonetheless, yes, Schumer and Durbin are not good leaders, and the young Turk from Hawaii doesn't look great now, either.  His "yes" vote was not necessary. 

Meanwhile, a good discussion of "soft power," something now deemed stupid by certain people. 

SCOTUS Watch

LGBTQ+ Rights

I reexamine the same sex marriage cases and a book defending them twenty years earlier. We don't live in a gay and lesbian utopia quite yet, but the situation is better than for trans people, who Republicans (with a few Democrats wanting to help) want to erase.  

Attacks on Courts

Justice Amy "not quite conservative enough for some" Barrett's sister was the target of a bomb threat. Barrett did get some love, including from Trump, who defended her bona fides. I'm sure she was reassured.

More seriously, there has been an uptick in threats to judges in recent times. We covered that last year to add context to Trump crossing the line (with impunity most of the time) when criticizing judges presiding over his cases. Now, it's Elon Musk's turn. 

The criticisms and threats (not the same thing) do not only come from one side. The threats to Kavanaugh and now Barrett's family show this. Nonetheless, there have been some notable conservative-leaning cases in recent memory. The matter is a concern for us all. 

Death Penalty 

March might not be quite as active of a month for the death penalty with two executions stayed. 

Alito dropped an order noting a request for a stay is moot now that the case was held up in Texas courts. The stay request involved DNA evidence. State courts flagged multiple problems. He was convicted three decades ago in connection to multiple murders.  

The second blockage is by an Obama appointee in the Fifth Circuit. So, that one might occur. 

Idaho has made the firing squad its primary execution method. Is the firing squad and nitrogen gas going to replace lethal injection in that respect?  

Coming Up

The Supreme Court will return to work next Friday with a non-public sitting (swearing in lawyers) and a conference. There are three executions scheduled. 

Meanwhile, since Congress wants to do nothing except to help enable him, the battle against Trump's illegality continues in the lower courts.  

Companions in Conflict

I re-read this rewarding book from five years ago that viewed the Palestinian experience through different animals who live in the region (donkeys, cows, camels, and so on). The author is an American who has lived in Palestine since the 1980s, staying after what was supposed to be a year-long sojourn. She married and started an extended academic career.

The author resides in the West Bank. Gaza had long been mainly off limits. The latest news:

Israel has clamped Gaza back under near-total siege, barring desperately needed humanitarian aid and other goods from entering the hungry and bomb-decimated enclave. Food, medicine, tents, fuel — for the past week and a half, supplies have not been permitted into Gaza, where some two million Palestinians are trying to survive in the wreckage.

Gaza has long been akin to a prison for the two million people in that godforsaken piece of land. 

Daniel Sokatch's Can We Talk About Israel, written from the perspective of a liberal Jew, is one helpful introduction to the region. This includes how the West Bank is confusingly split into three parts (A, B, C).

Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh. 

Justice Jackson's warning about originalism can be applied to all predictions. I was named for my grandfather. I don't have the power to interpret dreams, which are not predictions of the future. I often can't even predict Family Feud answers. 

We are not in a prison in the United States akin to Gaza, but we are prisoners of our fates in some sense. I'm sorry. Is that a bad bridge? Oh well. I do think there are general lessons to be had here.

The immediate political issue is what to do with the continuing resolution. Should Senate Democrats not vote for "cloture" to allow it to come to a vote? Senate Republicans have a majority. If a vote is allowed, it will pass. Senate Democrats can have messaging votes, but that is all they will be.  

The biggest federal employee union, which would particularly be harmed by a shutdown [which is always threatened and never truly obtained], says "no." The House bill simply is that bad. 

The budget is a moral act. It tells us what we are as a country. What is paid for? What is cut? What do we care about? Will we just let Trump continue to burn through the federal government akin to Sherman marching through Georgia? 

Josh Marshall's analysis is convincing. No path is good here. We can't go on and on about how horrible Trump's actions are and think that responding to them by simply allowing them to continue is painless. 

If we are at a constitutional crisis moment, we have to do something scary to respond. I get it's scary. We are deep down conservative. Read the Declaration of Independence. We are inclined to suffer instead of boldly going into new paths. It's human nature.

Marshall discussed ongoing events without knowing for sure what would happen. He predicted what will happen next election in response to the Democrats "caving" here. A few people in the comments are convinced we won't even have an election. 

Again, I'm not a prophet. Twenty months is far away.  I do think we have to at least factor in the possibility of elections. We are continuously in election cycles. Next year's elections are already in the works in various respects. We have to think about how to win them, even while dealing with the here and now.

Some people are very angry at Chuck Schumer. Schumer has overseen a U.S. Senate that accomplished a lot with 50 or 51 votes in the last few years. Democrats are in a different position now that they are in the minority. They can do only so much.

I don't know exactly what people expect Schumer to do. There are Democrats who are very wary about going into the unknown of a shutdown. What magical power does he have to convince them otherwise? I think people have some magical thinking.

Who can lead them who will do something that would result in something else happening? Only a few Democrats have openly opposed voting for the continuing resolution. They don't seem to have convinced others in closed-door meetings. 

I asked what power he has. I was accused of "running cover" for the guy. No. I'm serious. Trying to be realistic. There is no savior here. It's a group effort. 

One person talked about committee assignments (he's not in the majority), leadership positions (voted by the caucus, not just him), and corporation board recommendations (seriously?). 

I'm open to him being a horrible leader in these times. Who should replace him? What power will they have and use? The strategy in the Senate won't be the same as in the House. And, surely, a part of this is that people want Schumer to be more vocal, more leading from the barricades, so to speak. But is that his role? 

Maybe I need to find a book about our companion animals in conflict. More than donkeys and elephants.

ETA: Schumer and Gillibrand decided to give in and support the continuing resolution. Uh-huh.