It is well written. I did find it basically falling into a holding pattern. Suddenly, in the last quarter or so of the book, a "really? didn't expect that" key turning point (her sister abused her).
The girl, around 10, caused a lot of trouble. But she was still only a girl. And in a lot of pain. The events took place some time ago (you can tell because the author is old and here she has a young child), so we know things (appeared to) worked out okay for her.
Lyle Denniston, the 95-year-old former SCOTUSBlog reporter, conveniently lists possible Supreme Court reforms. They are not comprehensive.
(He frames it as "changing" the Court.)
For instance, they can reform qualified immunity or address national injunctions. If you wish to count them as court reforms. But he does generally cover the gambit.
The No King's Act or an amendment doing that also can be tossed in. Ditto something about abortion or some other major "mistake" of the current Supreme Court. These are basically Court reforms.
We can expand the Court and/or (the first shouldn't foreclose the second) have term limits. Term limits, realistically, require a constitutional amendment. They probably do constitutionally. Also, realistically, it will be hard to pass legislatively since many moderates will think so.
I have talked about expansion. I respect the demand, though I'm wary about it. I doubt it will happen. If it does happen, we should also have the ability to do many other things.
Term limits should have broad support. Enough?
Well, push other reforms; maybe there will be more support for it to be a compromise. It's time for some amendments.
Take away some of the Court’s power to decide specific categories of cases. The Constitution says that Congress has some power to impose such limits, but how much may depend upon whether the Court would strike down any such measure as an unconstitutional interference with its independence, which the Court vigorously defends.
Dolly Parton has had serious health problems recently, so the news is not totally surprising. We just don't like to hear it. She was eighty years old.
My mom listened to a country music radio station while we grew up. So I had exposure to country music while growing up in New York City. I like various country music singers.
I like Dolly Parton. Erik Loomis provides a largely positive obituary here, including honoring her talent and business savvy. He references a 1960s song about a pregnant woman committing suicide after being abandoned.
She was a feminist. One thing he notes is that she did not speak out against her state's anti-trans legislation.
Parton is regularly cited as an LGBTQ ally. She was careful not to bluntly oppose certain laws. But people knew where she stood. In the 1980s, she said this:
“I got a huge gay following and some really macho-looking women,” Parton told Andy Warhol in a conversation for a 1984 Interview cover story. “To me, people are people. … Many of my friends are gay, male and female. I don’t judge people. I don’t care what people do in their bedrooms and people shouldn’t care what I do in mine.”
The anti-LGBTQ movement is based on hate, lack of empathy, and scare tactics. People, however, overall found same sex marriage not a big deal. Parton was accepting, loving, and knew it was not a big scary thing.
When asked, early on, she made jokes about gays now having the same problems as straights. [I heard a form of this on today's Gay USA episode.]
Of course, she didn't really think marriage was bad. She was married for almost sixty years.
[ETA: A Wikipedia page is available.]
Dolly was pro-labor, including all those people required to produce her music. Not just for one film.
She was loving, funny, and honored by people she worked with. As the actress Daryl Hannah noted on Bluesky:
I could tell you stories & you would love ‘em, but they wouldn’t make you love her more than you already do. We will always love her.
I sometimes watch DVDs with someone who has not watched many of the films that many have seen. I recently re-watched Enchanted with her. Last night was B&B. The animated version.
(Years later, we had the live-action version. Kevin Kline played the grandfather.)
Multiple familiar actors do the voices, including the person who later played the gruff police officer Lenny on Law & Order, though some might remember him from Dirty Dancing.
[Jerry Orbach had done some stage work.*]
The film has some good songs. It also has scary parts, including when wolves threaten Belle.
The "heavy" is also a rather cruel character. His flunky reminds somewhat of the flunky in Enchanted.
His being a sexist boor is one thing. Then, he goes next level. Again, I can see some parents being like the mother of "Chip," and thinking their children were too young for some of this.
True enough, the original fairy tales were rather dark. But we generally have a sanitized version. Up to a point. Not quite as dark as this.
I guess the original edit was deemed inappropriate.
The film is about true love conquering all -- both familial (Belle sacrifices herself for her father) and romantic (a beauty falls for a beast). Also, about the dangers of appearances. Dreaming of more.
And, of course, the power of reading.
The true symbol that all is well is when they kiss. For the value of a true love kiss, see either Enchanted or a Hallmark Channel film. A kiss is a standard finale.
==
* Jerry Orbach, to be clear, did a significant amount of stage work. Many people only know him as "Lenny."
His first appearance on the show -- the actor -- was a one-episode guest role portraying someone else. If footnotes are not the place for trivia, what is?
Other Films
To toss it in there, since the film is so popular, they decided to do some spin-offs. Oh, you mean after the events of the film? No silly.
People like the enchanted castle stuff. So, looking at the plot summaries, the stories generally involve stuff that would have taken place during the film.
It might not be completely clear (it wasn't for me), but the "time skip" entry here suggests the film takes place over an extended period. So, there is plenty of time for additional "enchanted" content.
As to the live-action film, there was also one back in the day. Tubi shows me there are multiple live-action versions without all the enchanted details.
I once started watching the live-action version of the animated film that this entry discusses. It didn't really, including the lead, catch my interest.
It also tosses in various extra details, which aren't really necessary and might be counterproductive. Still, I think I will try to watch it again.
ETA: I did try to watch it again. Not interested.
He murdered his wife about twenty years ago and seriously hurt his mother-in-law.
The jury later decided it warranted a death sentence, 11-1. His lawyers tried to challenge the unanimous jury finding, but a court held that he waived the challenge.
It does sound like he had mental health issues:
In 1999, Silvia's mother was killed by a drunken driver, and two years later, his brother John died from a drug overdose. According to defense psychologist Deborah Day, Silvia has a history of mental illness in the family, with his sister suffering from bipolar disorder and having been committed multiple times. Silvia himself attended sessions with a psychiatrist during his first marriage and was put on medications for six months.
The final appeal flagged that Silvia, in the end, had to rely on a lawyer also defending another person recently executed. This allegedly resulted in inadequate representation.
The Supreme Court, as usual, rejected this final appeal (this morning) without comment. These last-minute appeals are often somewhat desperate. This one isn't much different.
I still would have liked at least some justice to discuss the matter since we are talking about a final appeal, the end result being the deprivation of life. Oh well.
This is another case where people won't cry much for the person executed. It also does not appear to be a "worst of the worst" case.
He viciously murdered his spouse. There is a lot of domestic violence, often by people with a lot of issues. This was murderous. Warrants a long prison sentence. Instead, he lost the execution lottery.
Florida has been the busiest again, executing 13 of the 23 people executed this year. Texas had four and still has multiple scheduled for later this year. Oklahoma had three. Three states had one each. This is partially a game of catch-up. But still.
The second (of three) scheduled Supreme Court summer order list was released today.
The usual housekeeping dominated the short list of orders. Alito didn't take part in one case. The usual "rehearings denied" (they are nearly never granted) were included.
The list started this way:
REHEARINGS DENIED
25-432 PUCKETT, CARL E., ET UX. V. AIN JEEM, INC., ET AL.
25-567 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC, ET AL.
25-573 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. CARROLL, E. JEAN
As noted by my local paper:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday again rebuffed President Donald Trump’s push to throw out a jury’s $5 million finding that he sexually abused the writer E. Jean Carroll at a New York City department store in the mid-1990s and later defamed her.
Many people alleged* that Trump, in various respects, sexually assaulted women. Trump has been accused of trying to see teen beauty contestants in a state of undress. He bragged about being able to do these things with impunity.
The "grab the pussy" talk received some attention. We know how things have gone. See also, Thomas and Kavanaugh.
E.J. Carroll, taking advantage of a New York law that extended the window, was able to obtain a jury verdict that Trump sexually assaulted her.
He denied it. Toss in defamation. He kept it up after the civil judgment. Another jury found defamation again. This time with a much higher financial judgment. The appeal for that is still pending.
People, if they are halfway honest, don't have the vapors about either charge. Defamation?
To slightly paraphrase a Supreme Court opinion, "Lying was and still is his habit."
The denial of rehearing is not truly news. There was no real chance that it would be granted.
(Trump already gave her the money, but it was held in trust until the finalization of the appeal.)
What it does help remind us is the nature of the person in the Oval Office. The election of Trump will be a blot on our country for time immemorial.
Sexual wrongdoing has been a major concern in multiple political races this election cycle. The Democratic candidate for governor in California and for Senate in Maine are different than expected for that reason. OTOH, we have Max Miller.
Trump remains a symbol of what not to do.
===
* One woman, someone who would otherwise be a Trump supporter, particularly comes to mind.
She alleged wrongdoing. Trump defamed her. She sued. The litigation went on and on and on.
She finally gave up. It wasn't worth the hassle, including not being able to openly talk about it. The Trump side alleged total vindication.
Three executions in three states. None in Florida or Texas.
Anthony Darrell Dugard Hines (TN)
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, a lengthy delay undermines the death penalty’s penological rationale.
But Collins and Murkowski (50-49) are not much better. They support Republicans. Their usually gratutious "nay" votes (though they couldn't even support an abortion rights bill) just give them the credibility necessary to win in Maine and Alaska.
Anyway, this is a new low. Blanche ... when Pam Bondi is too independent. Republicans need to go the way of the Whigs.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court released its calendar for the October argument session, which lasts from Monday, Oct. 5, to Wednesday, Oct. 14.
The beat goes on. A notable environmental case is one of the first big cases.
The link goes to a conservative who signed a letter in 2016 explaining why it was essential for conservatives to be against the election of Trump.
He has been praised as a fair conservative mind.
I have found him generally so (he had his bad moments), though I am annoyed at how little he responds to Trump shenanigans.
This is a theme on that website, which has a few Trump loyalists (Josh Blackman), but many who don't care for him much. Other than one person (and one person who sometimes pops up), they rarely say anything.
This is not an appropriate response to the times.
==
BJC has a podcast discussing religion and the Supreme Court. It was on hiatus until the new term. They had a special SCOTUS preview and announced a co-host is leaving.
==
Precedent and Personnel: When the Justices Change so Does the Constitution
Prof. Eric Segall is a liberal law professor.
I disagree with him from time to time, including on some of his hobbyhorses. This one, which he has been on for decades, is rather tedious.
He LOVES the Legal Tender Cases example. It's not a normal one. The Chief Justice ill-advisedly decided a significant case on a short bench.
He was on notice and did so anyway. When two new justices joined, the cases went the other way.
Compare this to what John Marshall and Warren Burger did. Marshall held cases over in the 1830s when the justices divided, and a new membership might change the result.
The Burger Court had a special committee when they had seven justices to decide what to hold over if the two might change the result.
What does ES want? Abraham Lincoln in his first presidential inaugural address argued:
At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
The justices on a short bench by a closely divided vote held one way. The majority arguably was quite off base on an important constitutional issue.
A single case should not be the immediate end of the line. Stare decisis is important. But the issue wasn't firmly established. New justices, selected by people we elect (if indirectly, especially pre-17th Amendment), will factor into this equation.
This case is a rather incomplete example to examine the wider question. It might have been wrong. It might have been right. It still is a special case.
New justices over time do change the law. It is a significant way the law changes over time. Likewise, legislatures and executives change over time. Their view of what the Constitution means also changes.
Justices, even the current bunch, also don't simply ignore precedent. It would be tedious to list the number of things, including some things of importance, that are basically the same now.
We can also list a bunch of things the current majority has done that significantly disrespect precedent. I find many of these cases dead wrong.
Nonetheless, the fact they are making new law alone isn't the problem. The way they are doing it, both procedurally and substantively, is the problem. The problem here is the merits.
What happens, imagine with me, if the Supreme Court eventually is ideologically reasonable? Liberals and moderates have a supermajority. This happens because of new membership. Look at the early 1960s.
A nuanced approach can result in liberals cautioning courts to be conservative. At some point, a conservative approach is ill-advised. But that would at least make more sense than this simplistic take.
The law is not obtained by looking at the sky, entrails, or original understanding. I repeat myself. It is a value judgment that significantly depends on the judges.
We should be open about this. We should carefully handle the situation. Judges should still act like judges. And, yes, ES, life tenure and so forth give the justices much more power to act arbitrarily.
This warrants special attention. I still don't accept simplistic cant. With respect, #JustSaying.
===
On my Substack ... comments on a pending Massachusetts abortion bill.
Checking Tubi, I see the original and the sequel are available. I hold to my earlier remarks. The author of a (defunct) blog named after the film continues to post on social media (including Bluesky) and elsewhere. The sequel looks ridiculous (and ridiculously overlong).
ETA: I saw Angel (or parts of it). Some 1980s exploitation film charm with breast shots. The lead (in her 20s but playing a teen prostitute) doesn't really do much other than look like a good girl with sorta slutty makeup. Also, Mama Weed (French film) was decent.