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.
Jones was sentenced to death for murdering his employers, 66-year-old Matilda Nestor and 67-year-old Jacob Nestor, later admitting he did it because they owed him money. Jacob shot Jones before he died. The police found Jones wounded at the scene.
This took place thirty-five years ago. Justice Breyer (joined by Ginsburg, also citing earlier dissents by Stevens), whom I repeatedly cite, argued:
These lengthy delays create two special constitutional difficulties. First, a lengthy delay in and of itself is especially cruel because it subjects death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehumanizing conditions of confinement. Second, lengthy delay undermines the death penalty’s penological rationale. [cleaned up]
His lawyers unsuccessfully raised various claims, including alleged intellectual disability. Mitigation evidence was cited in the final appeal (see below).
They also attempted to use the abuse Jones suffered as a child at a notorious state reform school. At least 34 people who went to the school later were sentenced to death. Jones received a fiscal settlement earlier this year. The recent settlement arguably was new evidence (often these claims are procedurally barred as coming too late), but only one judge accepted that.
My bottom line is that a long prison sentence was more appropriate. And, even if not, they waited too long. Yes, I am an "abolitionist," but even before that, only a tiny subset of "worst of the worst" situations should warrant an execution. The numbers from that study, however, are also rather glaring.
The Supreme Court, mid-afternoon (a bit late), rejected a final appeal without comment. One claim was a technical procedural matter. The other somewhat emotionally asked:
Has the Florida Supreme Court repeatedly failed to take into account the diverse frailties of human kind in capital sentencing by consistently denigrating the force of proffered mitigating evidence.
There are eight executions, in seven states, scheduled in October. Five in four days. The last person has a suitable name for this whole process: "Grim."
He recieved kudos from Mr. "Mamdani Has to Prove Himself" Jeffries (fu). People now want Curtis Sliwa (R) to drop out so Republicans can vote for Andrew Cuomo. Ha ha ha. (Ha ha.)
The final MLB weekend has drama, including the Mets (months of bad play, leading to much scorn) doing their thing. Bad game, fantastic game, final game (their playoff spot will turn on Game 162). I blame mediocre competition. The Mets should be done by now.
The references made sure to note that the terms were used by others. They were "traditional" terms or some such thing. They could be expressed in other ways, including as "fundamental rights."
Each time, someone felt it necessary to firmly deny such a thing exists. They did not use the dismissive reference to a fake man in the sky or some such. The tone was there. It was also tiresome.
Many people do believe that we are owed rights from birth because nature or nature's god gave it to us. Nonetheless, the terms hold up if we acknowledge (as I provided as an assumption) rights are things we create. The question is how do we create them?
Certain rights are tied to our needs as humans. There are disagreements over exactly what these entail. Certain basic things (rape is bad) generally are agreed upon though even there a few disagree.
Yes, everything is not truly "self-evident." The Declaration of Independence, however, speak of how "we" hold these truths to be self-evident. "We" are specific society with specific experiences.
We as a society have determined that certain things should be protected because we are humans. Sometimes, such as birthright citizenship, it is because we are born on U.S. soil. The U.N. crafted human rights that should be honored by everyone.
"Natural" rights can be those rights we create based on our natural needs and desires. Their existence need not only be a matter of inherent reality in nature itself. They are rights we deem necessary above and beyond established law. Established law can uphold slavery.
These rights in that sense are from nature and/or nature's god. God need not be the biblical god that some atheists find it necessary to scorn. God can be a metaphor. We speak in metaphors. Words are symbols.
Philosophers spoke of "natural rights" in a variety of ways. The "state of nature" is a philosophical construct. We never were truly in a state of nature. Our prehistorical ancestors lived in a group.
Hobbes noted life in a state of nature was not a pleasant experience. The Declaration of Independence argued we form governments to protect our rights. We surrender some of our metaphorical natural rights in return for the security. Liberty is not license.
Next up, judicial review wasn't just created by Marbury v. Madison, and it's fine. The rub is how to do it, including how much of a judicial veto is okay.
(Not really. But that is another thing that pops up now and again, with feeling, especially after the Roberts Court does something stupid.)
The Supreme Court had another enable Trump shadow docket order on Steve Vladeck's (who wrote the book) birthday. Involving billion dollars of funds. Kagan with another pointed dissent. The Supreme Court has to be reformed, which includes directly dealing with personnel (expansion). No weak-willed shit, please.
The quasi-Republican NYC mayoral candidates have used various tactics to try to label Zohran Mamdani as a dangerous radical. One tactic is to cite Mamdani's co-sponsoring of prostitution reform.
Mamdani is currently in a good position and is trying to avoid any controversies. He says it won't be a priority in his administration (who thought it would?) and that he did not support legalization. That is, not decriminalization, which does not set up a legal administration to regulate the thing.
Marijuana legalization is a good comparison. We now have authorized dealers of marijuana (there is one in my neighborhood, a few blocks from a junior high school). Marijuana is regulated in various respects. New York didn't simply stop making marijuana illegal.
Mamdani co-sponsored "Cecilia's Law" (which did not pass), which partially decriminalizes prostitution. It is named after a sex worker advocate.
Cuomo signed into law something overturning an anti-solicitation law. Someone challenged him on the point after Cuomo went after Mamdani. He tried to downplay its importance, partially claiming ignorance.
An article cited at the first link clarifies:
On paper, the legislation repealed an anti-prostitution law which previously prohibited “loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution.” But in recent years, LGBTQ+ activists charged that police more often used the statute to harass or arrest visibly trans women, particularly trans women of color, under the guise of combating prostitution.
Gay USA continues to report that such "neutral" laws have resulted in discriminatory enforcement. So-called vices or moral laws tend to have that effect.
After Lawrence v. Texas, laws against fornication have been struck down on right to privacy grounds. Prostitution is different because it is not just private sexual conduct.
It is an economic transaction. The line drawing, however, is sometimes difficult. Common dating procedures, to be blunt, can be quite transactional.
Privacy rights, such as obtaining sexual materials or contraceptives, also have an economic component. Escort services can also entail non-sexual aspects. Criminalizing prostitution is dubious.
The average voter probably is not too concerned about this issue. They would at most want to address the stereotypical "streetwalker" as well as abusive tactics, including the use of minors. They would be fine with focusing on social services, including helping prostitutes who need medical treatment.
Mamdani's more left-leaning causes overall tend to be positive developments. The voting population might be more conservative than he is on certain issues. But they also will often find his ideas, including reducing the reliance on police for providing mental health services, to be good ideas.
Any changes to the law here will be up to the legislature. The most Mayor Mamdani would do is change executive priorities. He would even have somewhat limited influence over the police, depending on who he chooses (or leaves in place) to run that department. That is not nothing, but it again shows the over-the-top concerns are just that.
And, to the extent Mamdani did support prostitution reform, it is a positive development. I did not parse the legislation he supported, in part because it did not pass. I do support its overall goals. On this issue, I'm generally libertarian.* Prostitutes often are victimized. Bans, however, are not the way to help them.
===
* We need not apply that word absolutely.
Things tend to have degrees. I'm not a "libertarian" even if I am libertarian on certain issues.
Why? Because we need regulations, we aren't islands, and that factors in when applying a label for myself.
This 2015 film is based on true events involving an indigenous tribe (and a star-crossed romance) on a Pacific island. The actors are amateurs but quite good. It often has a documentary-like feel.
Alabama is set to execute Geoffrey West, 50, by the relatively new method of nitrogen gas. He was convicted of the 1997 murder of Margaret Parrish Berry, a mother of two, during the robbery of the gas station where she worked.
The victim's son, a child when the crime took place almost 30 years ago, opposes the execution. Justice Breyer, again, was correct to point out the time lag as a constitutional problem. He was joined by Ginsburg and earlier Stevens.
"That won’t bring my mother back," [now adult son of victim] wrote.
"I believe that in seeking to execute Mr. West, the state of Alabama is playing God. I don’t want anyone to exact revenge in my name, nor in my mother’s."
A family member of the victim, who often disagrees with other family members, doesn't decide.
It's a public offense. The governor's letter to him is correct on that point, even if I don't support the argument of its value. Preventing him from meeting with the killer to talk is more dubious.
Still, it's notable given the "what about the victims" cries from certain supporters of the death penalty. His girlfriend pleaded guilty and received a thirty-five-year sentence. Less than he served. The jury voted 10-2 for the death penalty.
West chose to be executed by nitrogen gas, which has mixed reports so far. I checked a few articles, and they didn't flag other special circumstances.
At about the same time, Texas is set to execute Blaine Milam, 35, by lethal injection for the 2008 death of his girlfriend's 13-month-old baby in what Milam and her mother described as an "exorcism."
This execution (factoring in COVID time lags) had less delay, though over fifteen years is still significant. There are also some limited arguments made that those under 21 should not be executed.
The article linked at the top provides additional graphic details. I'm not going to handwave the horrible nature of many of these crimes. Okay.
The mother (Milam is not the biological father) was convicted of murder and sentenced to LWOP. Milam claims innocence. Both eventually (after saying they left the child alone) gave the exorcism rationale.
Two teenagers were involved in a horrible crime that, from the summary, appears to be perhaps influenced by twisted religious beliefs. The mother's sentence is more justified. Executing him is arbitrary.
(I understand the LWOP approach, but it's an unjust penalty. There should be the possibility of parole at some point. That doesn't mean -- see Charlie Manson -- actual parole. OTOH, keeping people in prison into their 80s usually is dubious.)
SCOTUS, without comment (as usual), disposed of a final appeal today (sometimes they get it over the day before these days). The final claims involved an innocence claim and a dispute over the value of certain evidence. He's likely guilty. The question here is "guilty enough for an execution?" I think not.
Again, even if these last minute claims don't have merit (and they sometimes do), someone should provide at least a brief comment. The government is takingsomeone's life. In the shadows.
===
A murder in the course of a robbery warrants the long prison sentence he received. The second murder is horrible, but it is the sort of tragic domestic crime that is not suitable for an execution. As the government realized, for one of the two people involved.
Charlie Kirk's wife says she forgives his killer. Again, that is of small relevance when applying the death penalty, except when people yell at opponents that they are not respecting the feelings of the victims.
(A vehement supporter of the death penalty once told me that it matters less if we ignore their wishes.
For reasons. Plus, he just couldn't understand their mentality. It's apparently easier to see being "Christian" as not using vaccines or hating on gays.)
The death penalty continues not to benefit the public welfare overall. If someone murders a person in prison, providing evidence that they cannot be safely detained, you might have a case.
Somehow, all those places without capital punishment manage such special occasions. Which is a good thing, since even in those cases, something bad is likely going to happen when the state executes the person.
ETA: Via Chris Geidner on Bluesky, summarizing an order by Thomas on Friday.
Justice Thomas issues an administrative stay, blocking a July order from the 11th Circuit from going into effect on Tuesday, while SCOTUS considers Alabama's request for a stay pending appeal of the ruling, which would vacate a death sentence b/c of discrimination in jury selection.
Chris Geidner discussed the latest, involving a perverted take on executive power. Strong Kagan dissent. The 6-3 majority rushed to take the Trump case while rejecting [9/22] two fired officials' requests. They also had a more humdrum housekeeping Order List.
The NYT had a good guest essay on the corruption of Mayor Adams. The article also explains how the Supreme Court (at times unanimously) made fighting corruption harder in recent years. Yours truly, replied to this article, where the mayor made a switch to join NIMBY-ism. This matter has been a long-time concern. More bad.
I was going to discuss a new autobiography that stressed me out because it was so over the top (finishing with a chapter where she made lots of gratuitous potshots at white people, after earlier noting in passing that her spouse is half-Italian), but I had enough stress over it. Damn you, library display table.
The criticism of Kirk, however, has been met by an equally aggressive counteroffensive on the right: journalists and other citizens have lost jobs for refusing to endorse the sanitized narrative of his life, and even Jimmy Kimmel was fired after daring to mention Kirk and Republicans in anything other than a positive light.
Erin Reed reports on a House resolution about "a courageous American patriot" who is a "fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility." He did so with "honor, courage, and respect" and was a "model" for Americans. This is bullshit.
Erin Reed notes:
“Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility,” the resolution reads—conveniently eliding his relentless campaign against the liberties of LGBTQ+ people. It praises him for engaging in “respectful, civil discourse,” even though he once said Black pilots made him wonder if they were “qualified” and called transgender people an “abomination unto God.” And it claims he “worked tirelessly to promote unity,” despite his calls to execute President Biden for treason.
Ninety-five Democrats voted for this claptrap, while thirty-eight voted present, and twenty-two didn't vote. Only 58 simply voted "no."
215 Republicans voted "yea" with four not voting. It was clearly an important vote for them.
Many noted, in the aftermath of McBride’s vote, that Kirk had personally attacked her—calling her a “man” and claiming she wanted “to force all of society to change its laws to indulge [her] sexual fetish,” hardly the “respectful and civil discourse” the resolution insisted he embodied.
Rep. Sarah McBride, the only openly trans member of Congress, who Kirk once called a man, voted yes. I understand her carefully threading the needle, including as the sole representative of the state of Delaware. But really?
The resolution has various mundane things against violence and so forth, but it also glorifies Charlie Kirk with comments such as:
Honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty.
I don't think it is appropriate for Democrats to sign on to this resolution. It perpetuates the glorification of Charlie Kirk, which is a lie.
One really disappointing "yea" vote here is Rep. Raskin, usually a sane, sensible person who doesn't hold back, his opposition to injustice. What the hell are you doing? What is his excuse?
My representative, who is a strong Trump opponent but has his moments of being a tool, didn't vote. Brave man! The House Minority Leader, who doesn't want to endorse Zohran Mamdani for mayor of New York City, voted yes. Fuck you. I'm so tired of that guy.
The Republicans are making this guy a martyr. This resolution was passed after Jimmy Kimmel was silenced for criticizing the response to his death, particularly Trump. Yes, the FCC shit got even Ted Cruz using words like "mafioso." Not that he would actually do anything serious about it.
Cruz et. al. cheered on silencing people for criticism. This is in the spirit of the "model" the people's House supported. A simple resolution is mourning of his death, and opposing politically related violence would be understandable. Selective, for sure, but understandable. This resolution glorified him.
What message is the Democrats sending by not having the guts (except for a quarter of them) to simply vote against this thing? 45% voted for it. Do better.
ETA: NYT has an interview with Charlie Kirk's widow entitled "For Erika Kirk, a Husband’s Life Cut Short by Violence He Seemed to Foresee."
More promotion of the idea that Kirk is a martyr, almost a Jesus-like figure. The subtitle notes "she sees divine work in his death." Beyond parody.
It is unsuprising that people are trying to provide some divine meaning to his death. People do that. The usage of such headlines, however, adds to the glorification. OTOH, guess NYT won't get cancelled.
I don't recall the murder of the Minnesota legislator and her husband (and their dog, plus the shooting of two others) getting this much coverage.
This film was released in late 1943 and early 1944, based on a late 1942 play. The sacrifices of the women nurses have added bite mid-WWII. Some reviews suggest it is too stagy. Overall, I was impressed. As we feel sorry for ourselves, a bit of historical memory, please.
We already discussed the order paving the way to another execution. It was handed down without comment. The other order did have an explanation, after Justice Sotomayor provided a (temporary) administrative stay:
The Court has already
granted certiorari in this case on the sovereign immunity issue
decided below, and the pending damages trial before the Supreme
Court of the State of New York would be barred if New Jersey
Transit Corporation were entitled to sovereign immunity from
suit. Respondents, on the other hand, identify no tangible
irreparable harm they would face if the trial were delayed until
after this Court decides the pending case.
Steve Vladeck noted earlier that there was a good argument to reject the request. So, arguably, this say-so analysis is somewhat lacking.
OTOH, for them, it is a descriptive discussion for the shadow docket. Baby steps. On Bluesky today, he added this Calvinball-esque comment:
It continues to be ... revealing ... how much the Court's orders on emergency applications in *non*-Trump-related cases are playing up the balance of the equities (and the presence/absence of irreparable harm) versus the Court's orders in Trump cases, which ... aren't.
Odds and Ends
I have repeatedly noted that the "Online Sources Cited in Opinions" (saves pages to avoid dead links) for 2024 was empty. It continued to be empty into the summer. It is now filled.
There are two media advisories dated September 8th regarding seating in cases of particular interest. These are specially provided when there is a concern about seating. One case is a major Voting Rights Case, and the other involves a ban on licensed conversion therapy for minors.
There is also an updated November argument schedule, which will include the Trump tariff cases. The advocates expecting to argue a death penalty case in November are now in a wait-and-see mode. (They were displaced to fit in the tariff case.)
Judicial Security Becomes Politicized
Lower court judges have had to deal with a lot more than strong dissent from Trump on down. They have received harassing phone calls, swatting attacks, and, in some cases, had serious threats of violence. A judge’s child was murdered.
So, more security funds are a good thing. But so far, only justices have been given some in the new budget bill. If you read between the lines, the House is getting its marching orders from the Trump Administration, whose attacks on lower court judges who have repeatedly voted against its lawlessness are well known.
Hopefully, this will be addressed by the time the final bill is voted upon.
I wrote about the Jimmy Kimmel (WTAF) suspension at my Substack. A very woke/triggering affair.
Justin Driver's first book was a long-form work about Supreme Court cases involving schools. This book is part of a series intended to be quick reading.
It supports affirmative action, but generally takes the Supreme Court (to be specific) overruling race-based affirmative action as we know it as a given. It argues (1) that it is counterproductive even granting the majority's premises, (2) there are (quite imperfect) means left to fulfill the ultimate goals (e.g., targeting certain residential areas).
Prof. Scalia (as he then was) wrote an anti-affirmative article, short and not so sweet, back in 1979 entitled The Disease as Cure: 'In Order to Get beyond Racism, We Must First Take Account of Race.' Let's say he was not a fan of Justice Blackmun's Bakke argument, later reaffirmed by Sotomayor and Jackson. The familiar arguments are there.
My father came to this country when he was a teenager. Not only had he never profited from the sweat of any black man's brow, I don't think he had ever seen a black man.
This could have been said (if he considered such things; I never recall him talking politics or such ideological sentiments) by my Italian father around that time. His father was an Italian immigrant. It would be a lie.
The article doesn't even consistently demand the premise. Scalia later acknowledges that such white ethnics might have "been the beneficiaries of discrimination against blacks." It would just be comparing a "mountain with a molehill" to put it on par with slavery.
Sotomayor and Jackson use their dissents in the 2023 opinion to summarize just how much racism is still a thing almost 45 years after he wrote that. Shades of Shelby v. Holder, but before Reagan was elected president, he sold a bill of goods that racism was really just a shadow of a problem.
Scalia argued he was fine with programs not based on race, even if most or all beneficiaries were black. He supported the needs of black people "because they have (many of them) special needs, and they are (all of them) my countrymen and (as I believe) my brothers."
A nice sentiment, but dubious if we ignore specific needs and problems that are not general. They are racial, and the solutions will be racial too. Also, aside from the regular support of these people of racists (most recently, Trump), there is regularly no serious attempt to do the hard work to stop racism and its effects.
It is hard to take claims of good faith. They are not akin to Justice Douglas, who opposed race-based affirmative action but was willing to require much heavy lifting to address racism in other ways. Some minority of affirmative action opponents (many of whom still vote for Trump) might be more willing than others. But in the end, they are wanting.
Education is fundamental to republican government. The right to education is protected in state constitutions. It is an appropriate concern of the federal government. It should be deemed a fundamental right. Good education requires a lot of work by everyone involved.
The book also argues that liberals sometimes are too wary about acknowledging that affirmative action is imperfect. The claim has some bite but is exaggerated.
For instance, repeatedly in the dissents, it is emphasized that race is only a factor in affirmative action programs. They are carefully structured. Rightly so.
Conservatives, including Justice Thomas, argue that affirmative action leads people to assume that all blacks are unqualified. The author flags the concern while noting it is at least overblown. I firmly agree.
The assumption exists that there is no affirmative action. Perhaps, the ultimate problem here is racism. A black lawyer passes the bar after an impressive academic record at Harvard. Why should a person doubt their qualifications?
I think that a range of techniques should be used to promote both diversity and racial equality. These techniques require much work. The goals, however, are valid. DEI is a good thing. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are good things.
Republicans agree when it suits. The "praying coach" case reaffirmed the importance of a "free and diverse Republic." Religion can specifically benefit in promoting those ends.
A specific enumerated concern about the establishment of religion does not change that. Ideally, the Supreme Court would more seriously respect how free exercise and the establishment concerns should be balanced. That's another fight.
The Equal Protection Clause, some comments by Justice Scalia notwithstanding, does not reference "race." Sotomayor is correct to highlight the text. Equal protection sometimes requires considering individual characteristics.
Race included. We must be careful. Race specifically is a concern of the Fourteenth Amendment. Still, the Equal Protection Clause is more open-ended, including over 150 years of using race to promote racial equality.
The "end" of affirmative action -- even the majority opinion leaves open military academies, among other things -- has somewhat been exaggerated. The Supreme Court has overall just provided a misguided approach, often more lip service than real, in fighting the use of race.
Anyway, Justin Driver's book is well recommended. I have not fully covered many of the subjects covered. Check it out.
Pittman and his wife, Marie, were going through a divorce in May 1990, when Pittman went to the Polk County home of her parents, Clarence and Barbara Knowles, officials said. Pittman fatally stabbed the couple, as well as their younger [adult] daughter, Bonnie. He then set fire to the house and stole Bonnie Knowles’ car, which he also set on fire, investigators said.
Another Florida execution, another horrible set of facts. I can understand the death sentence. It was not just bare barbarism.
On Constitution Day [My Substack discussion], the day the Constitution was signed, we can still point to various constitutional problems.
Thirty-five years is too long to wait between arrest and execution. Justices no longer appear to care, but I do. Justice Breyer explains why:
First, a lengthy delay in and of itself is especially cruel because it “subjects death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehumanizing conditions of confinement.” Second, lengthy delay undermines the death penalty’s penological rationale. [Citations removed.]
There is also clear evidence that Pittman is intellectually disabled. The Florida Supreme Court didn't honor precedent, so relief was procedurally blocked. That is another Eighth Amendment problem.
Contrary to Prof. Reasonable Conservative's assurances, the Supreme Court is still acting in the shadows, including on the death penalty docket. The final decision allowing his execution was unexplained. The liberals also did not explain themselves.
Florida, relatively speaking, is busy executing people on their death row for a long period of time. The net value to the public welfare is open to debate.
His dying words included a proclamation of innocence. That is absurd. He still shouldn't have been executed. The death penalty should end.
There will now be a push to execute the murderer of Charlie Kirk. That too is not how we will address the political violence that poisons our times.
Kate Cohen wrote the book after she came out as an atheist largely because she did not want to lie to her children. I found the book in the library after seeing her FFRF interview.
The book was somewhat annoying. First, she had this overheated philosophy about telling the truth. It includes basically telling the whole truth (except various times when, for various reasons, she did not).* She's the sort who won't tell her children there is a Santa Claus. When she is three.
People generally don't do that. They can be private about their beliefs. They don't have to provide a full-fledged version of them without being a liar.
And, as I said, she doesn't completely do it herself. She doesn't take the Sam Harris approach of thinking "you are fat" is healthy truth-telling.
I respect her philosophy of not lying to her children. So, when a pet died, she told them it was dead. There is a way to do this in child-sensitive ways. She bluntly told them that when we die, we die. And that there is no god. Still, at times, she laid it on a bit too thick.
One thing that annoyed me was when she didn't want her oldest son to have a bar mitzvah because the only reason he wanted to do it was to please his grandfather. The son said, "fine," but she had to tell the grandfather. He was annoyed, but it went okay.
What is wrong with him having the ceremony to please his grandfather? She argued it was a lie for him to do what many did -- say the usual religious stuff without really believing it. It can't just be for symbolic reasons. You say the words, but don't mean it; it's a lie.
She argued he was not an adult yet, so she had the responsibility to make his decisions. I think that took agency away from him. He was mature enough to decide for himself. And, if he didn't want to do it, he could have told his grandfather. She basically allowed him to not take responsibility for his choices.
"Religion" is not specifically defined, but is generally assumed to mean belief in God and the afterlife. On that level, Buddhism might be considered a religion even if a Buddhist doesn't believe in a god. After all, a Buddhist generally believes in reincarnation.
What about a Unitarian who does not believe in a god? Do they belong to a religion? She also argues that the Bible is not worthwhile since it is not true. Why can't it be useful like many types of fiction? Perhaps this specific work of historical fiction is bad?
She also spends time discussing alternatives to religion. These chapters get to be a bit tedious. A church or similar holy place is not a unique piece of architecture or meeting place. She even cites an NYC ethical society site, but notes it is rare.
It is not very hard to establish an atheist meeting place. It doesn't require the deep pockets of the Catholic Church to build a really nice location. Many nice secular places exist. Atheists don't just have to meet at the local coffeehouse or something.
Many non-religious holidays have special significance. You don't have to make up some pizza holiday or something to do so. Holidays like Christmas can also have special meaning for those who practice it without believing in Christ. There was a nice documentary about how Hanukkah became a special Jewish cultural holiday in the United States.
She makes it out like this is hard to do. She went to the lengths of creating a pizza-related holiday. She wanted to mark the maturity of her son by having him in charge of a dinner party. He wasn't interested, but it was a decent idea.
OTOH, so is a Jewish ritual with religious trappings that many (including the author at that age) don't think much about. She could not allow it since she is an atheist. The ceremony requires at least some token profession of faith. Which would be a lie.
I agree with her that those who can announce being an atheist with only a minimal burden should do so. Others will give up a lot, sometimes be in danger of physical harm, if they do so. The people with an easier time of it are the voice of all the rest.
I also agree that "agnostic" is sometimes a cop-out. On a technical level, there is a difference between not knowing something and not believing.
Often, however, "agnostic" is used as a hedge. Well, I just don't know. Maybe? It gives you an out. "Atheist" also appears to be strident and stereotypically so.
I don't like the word because of all that baggage. However, yes, there is no good evidence out there for a God, especially the sort of God most people want to believe in. They don't believe in Jefferson's deistic god. They don't believe in Zeus, which at least would be more realistic given the bad things out there.
I also don't like "freedom from religion" as if religion itself is the problem. Religion comes in many shades.
Religion can be a problem when subjective beliefs are established by law. Or faith over reason rules the day "because God said so." But that is not the only type of religion possible. It can even be seen as immoral.
Some people who belong to a religion are atheists. I think that is possible. The dictionary and technical definition of "religion" includes those people.
The book has some good parts. It is around two hundred pages, which is a good length for a book. It is overall quite readable. Still, it could have been shorter, and as I said, I found various parts overheated.
I think "God" might best be seen as a symbol. For instance, people sometimes lose faith in God when a loved one dies. This seems selfish or at least curious on some level. Many people suffer and die.
Why should your father's or child's death be any different? Obviously, it is special for you. But your belief in God has to take into consideration the problem of evil and the issue of suffering overall.
People often don't think things through that deeply. A child dies. A basic goodness is lost. That goodness was a basic aspect of god for you. So, you no longer believe in god. Or your belief suffers a major blow.
"God" as a singular person, as found in the Bible, doesn't make much sense to me. God as a concept, a metaphor, as poetry for what is good makes more sense. You can have ceremonies, prayers, and other religion-like things to honor that sort of "God."
Many people do honor such a thing, which they often treat as a separate force. That is an understandable human thing to do. Atheists sometimes ridicule "watering" down God in that fashion.
Still, it is how humans handle things. I think it is fine as long as we are honest about things. She is all about honesty. We are a nation geared to a biblical type of god, and that is often the sort refuted by atheists.
Check out the video. FFRF has some good programs. The television show is on hiatus, but they still have weekly radio shows, often with good guests.
The co-presidents met on Oprah back in the 1980s. The wife was always an atheist, starting FFRF with her mother. The husband is an ex-evangelist.
===
* The "do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" court declaration is a bit of a lie. People are instructed to not tell the whole truth. They are supposed to say the minimum necessary to answer the question. Not the "whole" truth. You can say certain things that imply something else. It is up to the lawyer to carefully draw you out.
Duffy has had a long career, both on television and the stage, but is known for her role on Newhart. I love Stephanie. This is a charming and useful (for insiders) book about how to have a good audition. She teaches acting and has the experience. Good find.
We should be careful when interpreting current events. No, those markings on the bullet castings were not some sort of trans thing. Wall St. Journal reporting, notwithstanding.
If I don't see multiple ~media reporters~ columns about the extraordinarily irresponsible Wall Street Journal report from yesterday morning — and their extensive promotion of that inflammatory report — you all should just pack up and go home.
How Law Enforcement Got the Man Suspected of Killing Charlie Kirk
F.B.I. leaders touted the immense federal deployment assigned to find the assassin. But their big break came with a single tip — from the suspect’s own family.
People have ridiculed how the FBI, whose hiring/firing tactics of late are so bad that they are subject to a lawsuit, handled things after the shooting. The purge, including "DEI hires," has struck there, too. Since DEI is a good thing, that is a problem.
I would not have judged them too harshly if it took more than a day or two to catch the shooter. These things can take time. Still, they open themselves up to criticism in multiple ways.
The right, from Trump on down, was in high dudgeon that the left incited murder. Every allegation is a confession. Charlie Kirk regularly said incendiary things. If you complain, they will taunt you for being triggered. Or claim innocence.
It turns out the shooter is not the stereotypical left-winger. To quote Heather Cox Richardson:
Robinson had recently had a conversation with a family member about why they didn’t like Kirk’s viewpoints. Robinson appears to have admired the “Groypers,” led by Nick Fuentes, who complain that more mainstream organizations like Kirk’s Turning Point USA are not “pro-white” enough and have publicly harassed Kirk in the past.
Now, Rep. Mace is talking about forgiveness. Trump, of course, was never really too concerned. I suppose the death of Ivanka or Barron might warrant some. Why would Charlie Kirk? He moved on to trucks when asked about how he was feeling:
I think very good. And by the way, right there, you see all the trucks, they just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they've been trying to get, as you know, for about 150 years, and it's going to be a beauty. It’ll be an absolutely magnificent structure. And I just see all the trucks. We just started so it'll get done very nicely and it'll be one of the best anywhere in the world, actually. Thank you very much.
Imagine if Biden rambled on about trucks after being asked about the ... well, we know. Like the weeks of concern about his bad death and crickets after Harris crushed Trump, who had a horrible debate that was ridiculed while it took place.
One person said we should just forget Charlie Kirk, providing a vignette from Ancient Rome. Kirk is someone we should only remember if we want a really bad example. He wasn't someone I thought about too much before. Many have never heard of him.
Martyrdom talk or references by liberals honoring him as a great debater or something are bad. Just forgetting him is probably asking a lot. He has been too successful for the right to just forget him.
Many of these things anger me. The sloppy media reporting, hypocrisy, Trump horribleness, and so on.
For now, we wait and see what happens in this case specifically. And we try our best to do right.
I discuss the murder of right-wing troll (with some left-wing supporters), Charlie Kirk, here. The killer has been captured after a family friend notified the police and convinced him to surrender. Good thing as the FBI was having issues.
First off, the Supreme Court "refused to step in, for now, in a dispute over one transgender student's bathroom access in South Carolina."
It stated that it was not ruling on the merits but was only acting, given the rules for emergency action.
How they applied such rules was not cited. Notably, it gave that reminder here. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, without saying why, would have granted a stay.
It is depressing that this is still an issue in 2025, but that is where we are at.
===
I also wanted to say more about this week's ruling regarding ICE searches and seizures of possible undocumented persons. Kavanaugh's concurrence assumes they have Fourth Amendment protections.
Also, a major concern here is the wrongful treatment of documented persons and citizens. Still, what about undocumented immigrants, particularly? What rights do they have in this context?
The Fourth Amendment speaks of "the people." Are undocumented persons members of this class? The question does not appear to have been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court. There is usually a way to avoid it, again, because the rights of clearly protected people are involved.
Undocumented persons are constitutional "persons" who are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court has long held that those here "illegally" are protected. Shaughnessy v. U.S. (1953):
It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 189 U. S. 100-101 (1903).
Plyer v. Doe reaffirmed that both due process and equal protection apply, including when the federal government is involved (the Fifth Amendment has an equal protection component). The right to expel someone does not bring unlimited power.
Since unreasonable searches and seizures invade "liberty" (how else was it incorporated?), why doesn't due process cover this ground at any rate? The reference to "the right of the people" probably primarily limited the rights of slaves.
U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez held that "the people" included "a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
Undocumented immigrants, at least some of them, should meet that test. They can be here for a long time, have jobs, citizen families, and so forth. That is, if you read that test reasonably. The law is not always reasonable. So what does it say?
A previous Supreme Court opinion (INS v. Lopez-Mendoza) assumed they had Fourth Amendment protection. This one made sure to say that the question was left open since it was dicta.
Undocumented persons are persons. They have rights. These rights are based on the Constitution, statute, and international law. Can an undocumented minor be subjected to a strip search in a way that shocks the conscience?
All persons, no matter their documentation, will ultimately be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. At least to some degree.
ETA: Sotomayor stayed a trial pursuant to a request that argued it was warranted by an upcoming case.
The most important thing on the ballot in NYC is the mayoral election. There are also other local offices, including city council positions. For instance, my Republican city councilperson is up for re-election.
We will also have ballot measures. I am not a big fan of ballot measures. They often are technical issues that are best determined by the legislature. Sometimes, the state constitution requires a public vote. So it goes.
The measures, which have the backing of pro-development advocates and interests, aim to simplify and expedite land use review procedures to streamline new housing development in the community districts with the city’s lowest share of affordable development and for small-scale projects. In both cases, the City Planning Commission — and not the Council — would have final say.
The third disputed ballot item would create an affordable housing appeals board made up of the mayor, the local borough president, and the Council speaker for projects the Council rejects.
These measures were opposed by the City Council, which seemed to be concerned about its turf. Yes, there is a claim that the text (see link) is not clear enough. I think the general assumption is that the claim is rather pretextual. And, reading the proposed text, it seems clear enough to me.
Housing advocates, meanwhile, celebrated the board’s decision. The pro-housing group Open New York and the political spending committee it formed to raise $3 million to support the changes claimed credit for prompting the Board of Elections to allow the amendments on the ballot by mobilizing members to inundate the board with phone calls and emails.
Here is more arguing that the City Council, particularly single members, are NIMBY-ing things here. I don't claim to know much about this. I generally trust that person's judgment and that of housing advocates overall.
Still, I prefer that such issues be decided by the legislature. The problem here is that there might be a biased bottleneck that blocks good policy. That is a major purpose of ballot measures. It allows the public to step in and act directly.
Housing is a major issue in this election already. So, perhaps, this is a good time to have this on the ballot. Either way, it's there. Time to decide.
In early June, the Government launched “Operation At Large” in Los Angeles, deploying roving patrols of armed and masked immigration agents to local car washes, Home Depots, tow yards, bus stops, farms, recycling centers, churches, and parks. Over the course of the next month, the Government made nearly 2,800 immigration-related arrests and detained many more.
Justice Sotomayor, for the liberals, then explains how racial profiling was used. She also summarizes the lawsuit. The district court, as usual in these cases, writing an extensive opinion, held for the challengers.
The judge is a well-experienced child of Ghanaian immigrants. The Ninth Circuit upheld the opinion. The Supreme Court stayed the opinion without saying why. Kavanaugh, in a dubious mansplaining way, alone has an opinion. The dissent is double the length.
Law Dork has more. A reasonable (at some point, that is a sarcastic term), conservative-leaning professor defends the decision. I am not that keen on his take and tone, but hey, what am I to do to challenge a Fourth Amendment expert?
It has a comment from "anon" that in part compares abusive practices by normal police and ICE agents:
There are disincentives to cops doing this. They can get sued, or evidence can get suppressed, and the case thrown out. Employers of cops also have incentives to train cops to make sure they don't run roughshod over the Fourth Amendment, since they can also be subject to liability (either directly or through indemnification), and since they would also rather not have evidence suppressed in criminal cases. Some of those employers also buy insurance for these sorts of situations, and those insurers are doubtless also keen to make sure that officers know the law.
Those disincentives don't apply to the ICE agents who participate in these roundups. Civil remedies against federal agents for violating Fourth Amendment rights are very weak. And these raids are not about detecting and punishing crime.
Another professor provides another take on a key standing point. Lots of legal minds found the decision quite appalling. There is also a hypocritical tint.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Roberts handed down an administrative stay that seems to, in effect, overturn a 1930s Supreme Court opinion that protects many agency personnel from at-will presidential removal.
This might just be a temporary thing, since an administrative stay is temporary. Many are not that optimistic. We shall see.
This all makes me feel fine. That is, f-ed insecure neurotic and emotional.
Don't worry. Barrett, doing her book tour now, thinks there is no constitutional crisis.
As Sotomayor noted, dropping the "respectfully," I dissent. "I dissent" should be the normal thing.
==
Okay. That was yesterday. I was going to leave it there, but there was more action today.
John Roberts issues another "administrative stay," this time blocking Judge Ali's preliminary injunction in the foreign aid funding case while the Supreme Court considers DOJ's request (which was denied by the DC Circuit). [h/t Chris Geinder]
They will also decide the "Trump tariffs" issue. They are speeding along. No slow walking like in the Trump immunity case. Why? It surely is not because there it helped Trump that things went slowly.
The new term starts on the First Monday in October.
A person (who lived in the city for over fifty years but hasn't for around thirty) is strongly against Zohran Mamdani. They are a Republican. So, no shock.
The person hates Cuomo, partially because they think he killed elderly people during COVID. Says Eric Adams is a crook. Probably has no interest in Curtis Sliwa or thinks he is not a serious candidate. But Mamdani is a socialist, so basically the person endorses Cuomo.
The latest thing is that Mamdani has a rent-stabilized apartment. This disgusts the person. They are mad that more isn't made of this. Adams and Cuomo, specifically Cuomo, have made it an issue. Cuomo suggested Zohran's Law to mean test rent-stabilized apartments.
Mamdani's neighbors have had a collective yarn. Cuomo's proposal has been criticized by housing advocates. The numbers overall are not impressive:
Mr. Mamdani has said he was making just $47,000 a year working as a foreclosure counselor when he moved into his current apartment in Astoria years ago. (The median household income for rent-stabilized tenants is around $60,000.) He said he did not know it was rent-stabilized at the time.
Mr. Cuomo said that Mr. Mamdani’s Assembly salary, plus the wealth of his parents, should disqualify the lawmaker from continuing to occupy the unit. Mr. Mamdani has previously told The New York Times that his parents had not supported him financially for years.
The logic, I guess, is that Mamdani should have left the rent-stabilized apartment after he started to make more money and/or became a politician. His critic, speaking totally neutrally (of course), focused on that last part.
Maybe that would have been the best thing to do symbolically. It's a bit shallow of a concern, but what else is new there? Politics is often about symbolism. The hypocrisy claims are still shallow:
Criticism against socialist candidate for New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, over his acquisition of a rent-stabilized apartment as someone who makes close to $150,000 a year, is ramping up after a watchdog issued a complaint to New York's government ethics commission.
Unless Mamdani supported means testing, which I am not aware of, there is no hypocrisy here. For instance, freezing rents and making sure (to cite one third party) "rent is not too damn high" is your concern, what changes if you have a rent-stabilized apartment? What makes you not a socialist?
One criticism is that someone else would have obtained the rent-stabilized apartment (a big get but still not a unicorn) if Mamdani didn't. Someone else making what he makes? I guess he could have found a suitable candidate to pass it along to. Sorry, the alternative, with many good things going for him, against criminals and so forth, isn't a saint.
Oh look. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries reportedly argues the criticism is "legitimate." Helping Cuomo to win, huh? Jeffries might not be the best guy to talk about this issue. Can you just endorse the Democrats' choice, please? What a tool.
Overall, if this is the best you can do, it isn't much.
Rachel McAdams was in two films where she was a "time traveler's wife." This one is British and quirky. The time travel is largely used to fix social slip-ups. It was pleasant enough, and the two hours passed quickly. Still, it was a tad too cutesy. And, the time travel at times seemed a tad bit "cheat-y." And, the rules a bit sketchy.
New COVID vaccines have only been approved for those over 65 and people with certain health conditions. The linked NPR article has this bit about the Secretary of HHS:
The moves are the latest in a series of steps Kennedy, a long-time and vocal critic of vaccines, has taken to curtail development and availability of vaccines. He's downplayed the risks of infectious diseases, falsely claimed vaccines are risky, canceled hundreds of millions of dollars of research to develop new mRNA vaccines to protect against future pandemics, replaced a key federal advisory committee with like-minded skeptics, and has threatened to overhaul protections for vaccine makers.
I am reminded of the Stolen Valor Act Case that noted "Lying was his habit." Lying and being a self-righteous asshole is Kennedy's asshole.
Like Susan Collins, it is somewhat unfair to focus on his voice, which he can't help [the tan is a bit different], but an annoying voice is harder to take when the person is annoying overall.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continued to lie, quite combatively (repeatedly interrupting female senators; to be fair, he was a general asshole from what I can tell), in a recent Senate hearing. The chair, upon request from the ranking Democrat (who cited previous lying), rejected swearing him in. Still, perjury or no, it's illegal to lie to Congress.
[His lies are so blatant that repeatedly, including in news interviews, there is clear evidence of him saying the opposite of what he now claims to be true.]
Criticism is welcomed -- at some point, Trump very well might decide he is not worth the bother -- but it is a bit hard to take when every single Republican except McConnell (hard to take for other reasons) voted for him. There is a closing the barn door a bit late feel to all of this.
(Multiple Republican senators who voted for this public health menace are doctors.)
Multiple blue states are starting to provide alternatives to protect public health. Florida has gone the other way with references to vaccines for schoolchildren as akin to slavery. A reminder that a segment of children, for health reasons, cannot take vaccines, relying on herd immunity.
Gov. Hochul (New York) handed down an executive order allowing pharmacists to prescribe vaccines confirmed by the state Commission of Health and provide them upon a doctor's prescription. The executive order is only for a month, to give the state legislature power to act.
People can take the new COVID shot with their autumn flu shot. October is a good time to get a flu shot. I have begun to get them over the last few years. So, the executive order alone might not be enough unless it is extended.
I rely on my doctor and experts to determine what vaccines to take. My doctor, in a recent appointment, told me I was due for a pneumonia vaccine. So, I had it. My arm was somewhat sore for a few days, but overall it was painless.
There is no general reason to trust RFK Jr. with our health or the people now in control. That is dangerous. Public health should not be something that depends on politics. Surely not at this level.
Experts overall counsel people to take the COVID vaccine. Again, I am not going to second-guess these people. I am not going to play doctor.
I am not a doctor. Doctors in the Senate berated RFK Jr. Plus, there are a variety of reasons not to trust him. He is also not a doctor or any sort of actual expert on public health.
Tragically, we have to rely on the states to serve as a backup. Florida is so bad that Trump is wary. Why wouldn't he? Trump has no personal reason to distrust vaccines.
He chose Kennedy for political reasons. He opposes things like mask mandates for political reasons. He is not some vaccine skeptic. It is not like racism or sexism for him. Still, half a clap at best:
“Look, you have vaccines that work. They just pure and simple work. They’re not controversial at all, and I think those vaccines should be used, otherwise some people are going to catch it, and they endanger other people,” Trump added. “And when you don’t have controversy at all, I think people should take it.”
This is typical vaccine skeptic talk. Some vaccines are "controversial" and only the non-controversial ones "should be used." That also leaves open opposition to vaccine requirements. We should eat healthily too. There are no mandates for healthy eating.
There are multiple options to determine the worst choice among Trump's Cabinet. Secretary of Defense (yeah, still is) is high up there. HHS, however, very well might be the most dangerous. The threat to our health is deadly.
For now, there are multiple ways to provide some oversight and answer lies. The courts continue to be filled with lawsuits against the Administration's illegal actions. Public hearings also provide benefits.
People are cynical about the value of these hearings. They are not panaceas. They do provide some value, including demands for answers and access.
Amy Coney Barrett's book, after a long time in the making, is due to be released next week.
I don't begrudge justices writing books. They have been doing so at least from the time of Chief Justice Marshall, who wrote an official biography of George Washington. They were a mixture of legal and non-legal subjects. Here is a list up to 2012.
The list includes personal accounts, including John Campbell (who resigned to serve the Confederacy). Not released when he was a justice. Earl Warren's autobiography was released after he died.
Douglas released some personal accounts while he was still a justice. As did Sandra Day O'Connor. John Paul Stevens waited until after he retired.
Thomas did not. Kavanaugh and Alito are writing books. Kennedy's book will be released soon. On the current Court, only Roberts and Kagan have or will not in the short term have no books. Breyer, however, focused on legal topics in his books.
There can be ethical concerns, including properly recusing when the publishing firm has a case in front of the justices. Some people oppose this type of profit-making as a grift.
Eh. There is a public demand. Justices can provide something of interest. Justice Jackson's book was pretty good, and people are interested in her story. People like Sotomayor's children's books. She is scheduled for Stephen Colbert to promote her latest.
I would be surprised if (1) this book had nothing of interest, (2) it was chocked filled with fascinating details. She has an interesting biography to some degree (all those kids!).
An inside account, however watered down, is of some value. For instance, she will make some comments that express her views, if in some general, often bland sort of way. Having a conversation about these issues has value. Justices will add to it in various respects.
It is questionable when conservatives promote these books on the conservative circuit. It has a dubious ethical feel of promoting a certain ideological cause. Sotomayor and Jackson apparently sought out more mainstream places like bookstores and libraries. Barrett has talked to a CBS correspondent, too, so far.
Previews cite her comments defending Dobbs, including citing Ginsburg's criticism of Roe v. Wade. She thought it went too fast. She wanted them to use an equal protection rationale. It was too soon for that.
The Court's sex equality jurisprudence was in its infancy. Also, even Blackmun -- the author of Roe -- rejected an argument that pregnancy discrimination was sex discrimination. Nine men were not ready.
She had a case of a servicewoman who wanted to have her baby (the government, back then, encouraged abortions). Her brief included an argument for reproductive liberty. Ginsburg strongly defended -- this is what Dobbs was about -- upholding Roe v. Wade.
Barrett also argues that the people overall are more divided about abortion than other things protected as fundamental rights. Only as a matter of degree. A Roe-like ballot measure almost met the 60% threshold in conservative Florida in 2024. A somewhat less liberal measure might have passed.
I don't want to read the book. I find her confirmation appalling after the Garland blockage. She repeatedly made horrible decisions. Barrett might be the best of the three Trump justices, and better than Alito and Thomas, but only grading on a curve.
I respect my health too much to read that book. It would cause me angina. It's why I can't read journalistic accounts of the Kavanaugh nomination.
Barrett says she wrote the book to help people trust the Court. She argued in the past that the justices aren't just partisan hacks. YMMV on her success.
Lower Courts Criticize
An excellent article discusses lower court judges' aggravation with the Supreme Court.
They are being attacked, sometimes with violent threats, for doing their jobs. It has some judges (Republican and Democratic nominees) giving opinions off the record, including some CYA "I'm concerned about the judicial TDS" tool to provide balance to please the editors.
The Supreme Court does little but reverse them (oh joy! They could do so more often!) and then criticize them for not reading the tea leaves of opaque shadow docket opinions "correctly."
Kavanaugh, who joined a Gorsuch criticism of lower court judges, grants that sometimes the opinions are unclear. The justices sometimes struggle for agreement, resulting in some confusion.
How about just letting lower court judges do their job? If you can only agree upon opaque confusion, don't step in. Justice Jackson correctly challenges Kavanaugh's claim that they have to do so.
And, yes, it is hard listening to that guy (even quoted on the written page). He is such a tool.
Summer Order List
September is here. Children are going back to school. And, we have the last of the three scheduled summer order lists. The new term is rapidly approaching.
The order list is (as usual) bland. Justice Thomas didn't take part in one decision and (like each conservative) did not explain why.
These order lists, however, usually have some interesting tidbits. Chris Geidner flags on BlueSky that the Administration was granted argument time in two cases for which it is not a party.
The case involves limits on the right to counsel (it supports the state) and the Colorado ban on conversion therapy for minors (it would hold the state to the hard-to-meet strict scrutiny standard).
Execution Postponed
A Utah execution was postponed because the state supreme court is concerned about dementia issues. Thus, an execution for a crime that took place in the 1980s is delayed yet longer. Just forget about it.
There are more executions scheduled later this month.
