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.
Paperback Hero is a charming Australian romantic comedy with Hugh Jackman having a chance to keep his accent. He's a truck driver who wrote a romance novel, which leads to complications. Nothing surprising, just overall enjoyable.
The Pastor and the Pro is weirder. A young pastor-in-training decides to hire a prostitute, whom he likes, to be his escort to a church function. The use of Jacob/Leah/Rachel for a romantic triangle is one sign of whimsy. This short film (under eighty minutes) has some serious ideas and strong performances.
September 17 was Constitution Day and David Souter's Birthday. Meanwhile, Trump continues to be anti-constitutional, including regarding the Media. Happy Suffrage Day (comments).
The press (as discussed here) tried to obtain more information about the execution. Open access is important for due process and public education.
A state court blocked the execution. He might be eligible pursuant to a state law protecting victims of abuse. Net result: the execution warrant ran out.
Jeffery Lee
Alabama planned to execute Jeffery Lee using nitrogen gas. A lower court, not blocked by the Supreme Court this time, held it was unconstitutionally risky. They used lethal injection.
The final appeal challenged Alabama's ability to switch methods. Lee's lawyers argue the state said "nitrogen gas," and they don't have the right to switch now. Lee offered the firing squad as a backup option (one is required) when challenging the nitrogen gas.
Denied without comment. The liberals pick their spots. The back-and-forth nature of this execution provides some grounds to drop a statement or dissenting opinion. A statement would flag concerns, but not enough to warrant granting a stay of execution and/or a cert. grant.
Lee was convicted of a double homicide. The jury (7-5) voted to apply a life sentence without parole. The judge overruled it and applied the death penalty.
If we set twenty years as "too long," the murders took place in 2003. OTOH, the Supreme Court has never accepted the "taking too long" approach.
Norman and a second person (who is scheduled to die later this month) murdered three people in an attempted robbery twenty years ago.
They were 19 and 20. The constitutional line has been set at 18. Age is still a mitigating factor.
See also a citation of "chaotic, impoverished, and violent childhoods." Norman also showed remorse and testified against his co-defendant.*
The final appeal argued that the prosecutor corruptly baited and switched. They used Norman to convict his co-defendant and then badmouthed him, sometimes with lies, during his own trial.
SCOTUS denied it without comment, which is normal enough, though it did take until late afternoon on the day of the execution. He was then executed.
I'm sure the lawyers raised various other claims over the years. Overall, the best reason not to execute is that there are enough mitigating factors.
Two people under 21 committed a horrible crime and have been in prison longer than they were alive. Execution does not improve the public welfare.
==
* I will update this entry regarding that execution.
ETA: His final appeal alleged incompetent counsel (from a dentist who did lawyering on the side) and racial discrimination in jury selection.
Denied on execution day without comment. My general rule is that I support some statement in these final appeals, even if the argument is weak.
The evidence appears clear. I would oppose his execution because of the mitigation of youth, maybe his childhood, and on basic principles.
Not very verbose, but the Supreme Court (with feeling) held up Trump's attempt to screw over mail-in voting. Kavanaugh concurred while noting the rule change might be okay long-term. Alito (with Thomas) dissented. Vladeck with more.
The Administration can still cause problems, including pressuring state officials by threatening them with prosecution.
This is/was a beloved show by many different types of people. I didn't really like the first season when I saw it some time back. I watched some mid-series episodes last weekend.
Enjoyed it more. I think the show might have the most charm when the characters settle in and become more part of the town. Maybe a re-watch would improve things.
OTOH, multiple shows kick in later in the series. Newhart, for instance, was not that good until the third season. Night Court too.
I watched the film Executive Decision in the 1990s.
The film, with a small part for the then Mrs. Trump (Marla Maples), concerned terrorists taking control of an airplane.
The terrorist leader plans to detonate a bomb loaded with the DZ-5 in U.S. airspace. A special ops team, including a civilian terrorist consultant played by Kurt Russell, manages to secretly board the plane. It's an entertaining film, though I don't think it quite sticks the landing in the last reel.
Five years later, I listened to the radio as an on-the-scene reporter tearfully reported that one of the twin towers collapsed. I could see the smoke from midtown Manhattan. A few days later, I passed the church where they were having funerals.
I think one good memorial is the names placed on tiles on the wall in a passageway of the Union Square train station of those who died. Has it been 25 years?
Daniel Owen Conahan kidnapped, raped, and murdered someone thirty years ago. He might have murdered someone else. I understand sentencing him to death.
Justice Breyer explained why it is wrong to execute him now. It was a dissenting opinion, though I wish someone on the current Court took up the cause. Conahan's final appeal argued that he deserves additional DNA testing. It was probably correctly denied.
It might be good policy to supply the testing. What is the harm? Ultimately, the death penalty is wrong, especially if it is held in abeyance for three decades. More executions to come.
James Wilson is an interesting guy. I liked the author's book on abolishing the Electoral College. I did not like this one. Charles Pinckney is also interesting. An older book on that guy is almost a monograph or something (it's small). Decent account.
The Supreme Court didn't block a New York law denying religious exemptions to child vaccine requirements. Alito and Gorsuch, without comment, dissented. Good.
Kavanaugh, by himself, rejected a Republican redistricting lawsuit request. [The Court later also did so.] Limited bit of sanity.
I wrote about Monday's order allowing Trump to continue to break the law. I apologize; that is much too vague. It is about the ballroom.
Roberts and the liberals dissented. Yes. He has done a lot wrong. A few moments don't take him off the hook. But credit where credit is due, and all that.
Court Expansion
House Republicans, who plan to mostly hide out until November, had a message vote against court expansion. More specifically, on an amendment setting the number of justices at nine.
Two people voted differently than their party, and one is an asterisk. The Republican recently labeled himself an "independent" while still voting with Republicans.
This sounds like another token way to pretend he is not a Trump bootlicker or something. I don't know why the Democrat voted that way. I won't check. I assume he represents a reddish district.
It's stupid either way. If you don't like court expansion, which is far from being a thing (one key Democrat said in an interview he is now open to it; okay), don't vote for it.
The number of justices has changed over time, between 5 and 10 justices. Federalists added a court of appeals, which would have ended circuit riding. The next vacancy would not be filled, resulting in five justices. The law was changed before that happened.
It is a bad idea to set minutiae in stone in the Constitution. We should allow flexibility.
I am wary of the 25th Amendment. The concern there is that it was so sensitive; the process for removing a president should be clearly in place. Again, I question if even that was a good idea. It is just too specific.
Court expansion talk is itself partially a message. If court expansion is even open to the realm of possibility, a lot of other things should be possible.
The link flags that a key Democrat has now made supportive noises. That's notable. But this seems more a reaction to DSA support of the idea.
Republicans want to tar Democrats as akin to the most doctrinaire DSA type while the House Speaker pretends not to know most of what Trump is doing.
Order List
The last scheduled summer order list had the usual housekeeping measures, involving pending cases, rehearings denied, and attorney discipline. Barrett didn't take part (without saying why) in one case.
The most notable thing, apparently, is what they did not decide. There is a pending case involving New York health workers who were not satisfied with the vaccine exemption process.
Justices Gorsuch (who wrote one or more opinions on it), Alito, and Thomas have been concerned about this issue. The other conservatives avoided it.
Election Case
The Supreme Court, with only Jackson briefly dissenting (with no heat), granted a stay in an election case. Rick Hasen briefly summarizes.
Steve Vladeck on Bluesky notes Jackson has the better argument, but that the case isn't too important. That would help explain why Sotomayor and Kagan didn't join. Since Republicans are involved, some knee-jerk replies figured the fix was in.
It is good that the justices deigned to explain themselves. They are doing that more lately.
ETA: Steve Vladeck's Monday Substack informs me that the Supreme Court also released the schedule for December oral arguments. Two cases: assault weapons and another trans case.
Five years ago, Dobbs was foreshadowed when the Supreme Court (short unsigned opinion) left in place a six-week abortion ban. Roberts and the liberals, in varying degrees, dissented.
Fifty years ago. Lucas, then 24, murdered his former girlfriend, then 16, and wounded two of her friends.
Florida has gotten around to executing him for the crime, much too late (see, Breyer, dissenting). He had no final appeal, old and tired.
The whole thing was extended because of multiple appeals, flagging procedural concerns. It was a crime of passion. Not a "worst of the worst" case. It warranted a long prison sentence.
Sheena has been on film and television in various forms.
There was a 1950s series and a 1980s film (both silly, and the film is a tad bit sexist). MeTV+ airs one series early Sunday. Nice on the eyes (Baywatch babe). Not bad as somewhat silly entertainment.
Tubi has all three. These days, such white Tarzan figures are a bit outdated. The 2000 version could get pretty violent.
After rereadingThe Sunflower Forest, I checked out this much more recent true account. The author has many books about the very troubled children she counseled over the years.
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.
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.
They can also require the Supreme Court to take more cases. That might not be ideal, though some people do want them to do that. Another approach is to channel certain cases to a particular circuit (D.C. leans liberal) or reduce the power of single judges somehow.
He also notes Congress can require a supermajority before a law can be declared unconstitutional. I'm not honestly sure about the constitutionality of that approach. Ohio used to have that (see the opinion below in Mapp v. Ohio).
The Court can be required to explain itself in the shadow docket. That can include providing the votes on certain orders or other actions. I think that might be gamed somehow, such as having one go around and the final on the record vote will largely be unanimous.
The last three are the most likely. They can "fast track" responses to Court rulings. They can (and very well should) have binding ethics legislation. And they can (the current chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee supports this) require video.
If the Democrats do win control of one or both houses, they should significantly focus on the Supreme Court, including investigations and fact-finding. That includes hearings about specific cases and issues.
Prof. Melissa Murray, a co-host of the Strict Scrutiny Podcast, took part in a pre-Dobbs hearing about abortion access. This is the sort of thing we need.
Some people are PASSIONATE that we need court expansion. Well, I doubt it will happen. But okay.
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.
When the COVID-19 pandemic upended lives around the world, country music legend Dolly Parton found her own way to lead in a crisis.
Her $1 million donation to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to help expedite development of the Moderna vaccine gained international recognition. A Guardian correspondent even suggested naming the shot, "The Dolly."
Parton didn't stop there. Photographers captured her on March 2, 2021, donning a face mask and getting the vaccine in a public show of trust. During a scary and confusing crisis, she was a voice of calm, singing improvised lyrics of "Vaccine" to the tune of her megahit "Jolene."
Trump offerred her a Medal of Freedom. She begged off, concerned about traveling during COVID and other reasons. Later, Dolly was wary about Biden giving her one. It might be seen as "political" if she accepted. She had red and blue fans.
He announced flags will be flown at half-mast in her honor.
The actor Tim Curry also died. Many honor his many roles, especially his gender bending role in the Rocky Horror Picture Show. He was gloriously "weird."
Dolly Parton was pretty outrageous too. Let us allow their spirit to live on, even as we wish "another 80-year-old died." Anyway, I don't think Dolly would have liked people saying that.
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.
One thing that is somewhat lost is that this is supposed to be taking place in France. A few of the servants are French, but Belle and many of the others do not sound very French.
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.
She has some interesting content, especially related to LGBTQ and disability issues. She is a lesbian mother and with various disabilities. She has a quirky voice though you can tell here (when she is tired) it is somewhat an affect.
We can be overwhelmed with all of this content. But it also is amazing, huh? Should I check up more on stuff that would turn me off? Probably. You know, watch a bit of Fox News or a dubious podcaster. OTOH, there is so much other stuff. Oh well.
I re-read The Sunflower Forest. I wrote a review. Overall, I enjoyed it. Not sure about the triple murder.
Roberts handed down an administrative stay in the Trump Ballroom Case. Such stays often are only temporary. The litigation has been going on for a while as illegal construction occurs. Congress has the best ability to address this. But Trump Republicans control.
The Mets are playing well. Oh well. Credible shot at .500 or close.
