The Devotion of Suspect X

The review for The Cult of the Constitution was posted on the Books in a Flash website. I assume that website gets at least marginally more hits than this one. I say this since someone else is involved and wishes it and others gets some attention.

I found The Devotion of Suspect X on the free rack at the library. Turns out it is an English translation to a book by a very popular Japanese mystery writer, whose work often is translated into television and film. This very novel has multiple adaptations.

I picked it up since it had a down to earth style (surely partially a sign of a good translator) that drew me into the story. The book also draws you into a creative somewhat Columbo-like mystery (we see what happens near the beginning) by providing different points of view. I got a bit impatient at some point, but the different points of view helped keep my interest.

SCOTUS Watch

SCOTUS accepted more cases to show the proper lines for blood and breath tests for drunk driving. The link also points to other cases granted. There might be opinion or opinions handed down next week before the justices mostly go on vacation until January. 

Also, a big oral argument week. Overall, the reapportionment cases were a bit confusing (the second half of the reply side racing through his argument at points didn't help much -- give the guy another five minutes!) though the "one person, one voter" argument seems too cute by half.  Suddenly the basic idea that representatives represent "people" is controversial or something by selectively quoting the cases.  Some outlier cases can be imagined (some district dominated by prisoners -- how about just giving them the right to vote? -- was cited) but to require the rule asked for across the board? No.

The attempt to deny Native Americans of a civil litigation option over non-tribal members who voluntarily signed contracts to have businesses on their land seemed to rest on either racism or arguments with artificial lines. There was, e.g., a concern that tribal jurors couldn't manage to be fair as compared to let's say Mississippi trying a New York based business. Or, due process concerns, but some power to civilly litigate was left open.  So, the argument seemed to me to prove too much.  I found the argument one of the worst I have heard to be blunt about things here.  But, this doesn't mean they don't have five votes for it.

Update: Monday brought a new wrinkle to the wider subject and a brief cited this interesting brief article by Justice O'Connor from the 1990s on tribal courts.  The oral argument here cited an O'Connor article too though not sure if this was the one.  

And, we have Fisher back again, and Kennedy might want to continue the fun into the future by sending it back for more argument.  Helped by taking a case where only eight justices heard it, the result might be a bit of a mess. The case is discussed here and I added various comments about the logic of affirmative action in the comments.  More time was added to the argument so the justices could repeat themselves about their usual concerns, including Scalia suggesting blacks go to inferior schools. Should Bush and Kennedy family members too? 

They didn't take a 2A case, but the new year promises to be interesting (among other things) as well.

---

Word of the Week: "heartland" -- used in two arguments. 

Paul Finkelman on 2A

As noted in this thread that has led back again to the 2A, a historian known particularly for his slavery writings has also written on the origins of the amendment. Useful reading, but just goes to show the limits of originalism. The text is there and it has taken a life of its own. The failure of Heller to discuss the federal power over territories etc. still is a bit disconcerting. I'd rest the individual right largely elsewhere myself. FWIW.

SSM & The Fosters

Same-sex marriage is banned by constitutional amendment or state law in: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Add Utah to this list since it is in flux and will go the the USSC (if only for a "short stay" -- I see what you did there). Ohio's law, according to a footnote to a more limited ruling (involving recognition) is at risk. A few other states are explicitly in the courts now.  Nevada's law blocking certain benefits to same sex couples was struck down in federal court.  Virginia's law will go to trial mid-2014. The NYT had an article about battles in Indiana.  Will there be or when will there be a case that upholds a ban?

Meanwhile, in the world of fiction, The Fosters will return mid-January.  The network provided a nice three DVD set of the first ten episodes for free on Facebook. Since I watched the episodes more than once (re-watched a few in the last week), sold my two copies (Ebay is bollocks these days for selling books & stuff, except for some new things), but at least one of them was given as gifts -- sort of pay it forward, right?  There are so many shows out there and I seem to watch less than when I mainly had only free channels to watch, but this to me is one of the best.

 The linked episode, e.g., has multiple subplots, providing chances for various characters to shine. The writing, production values and acting all is first rate. Watching episodes of Rules of Engagement against on syndication (mainly on WGN at the end of the day) shows that was a pretty darn good show.  The same applies here with special attention best made to faces. These are very expressive people -- they could probably have done well in that silent movie that Callie had to watch for art class! A close look will often add to the experience -- see, e.g., how Stef reacts as she is chasing a perp with her partner, making sure to get a full lay of the land. Characters repeatedly do this, even minor ones.

The series cliffhung (my word!) on Callie leaving after a forbidden kiss at a same sex marriage (Rev. Camden -- well just the actor from that Seventh Heaven show, here an Internet minister -- did the honors*) with Lexi's undocumented status still up in the air. What new subplots will arise? Will Jesus' (Hispanic pronunciation) ADHD be addressed again (after it was mostly forgotten)? Will Callie and Jude's real dad pop up? Will Brandon say after being challenged for messing up that it was "my time" given everyone except saintly Jude (Callie's little brother, who did have an angry moment with her & look where it got him!) screwed up royally somehow long before now. What further implications will arise from the shooting?**

Time will tell. Hope it retains this level of quality. Maia Mitchell, who plays Callie (with an American accent & quite well), tweeted, e.g., that five episodes forthcoming involved some stuff that really hit her hard.

---

* The show has various "I know that person!" moments, beyond more than one of the leads, including Stef Foster, who just to cite one thing played the ultimate First Lady at the end of West Wing. Her ex was pointed out to be the guy pal of the doomed lead in Titanic. And, hey, Brandon's piano teacher is the son from that '80s show Crazy Like A Fox.

** The show's handling of the morning after pill impressed me, but so did its involvement of Stef Foster's (who is a police officer) gun. At a dinner with her partner's ex, it came out that Lena really doesn't like guns. Also, that off hours, Stef has a gun safe. Which is shown later. This is something many people have, few of them police officers. But, even on those shows, a little touch like a gun safe (or how they carefully store a gun) is not likely to be shown. 

"Self-Defense" Laws

I think the Zimmerman verdict is probably correct and even your garden variety leftie have felt bad hinting otherwise. Still, not only should we not go the other direction (e.g., assume Martin is guilty), but it does raise serious questions, including on line drawing for use of lethal force. Then, there is someone who feels a car is worth more than a thief's life.

‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws Expanding Protection for the Aggressor

Worthwhile read.

LA Ruling on Felons with Guns

It deals with an explicitly strict state constitutional provision, but I'm game. Heller's "felon," full stop, rule is problematic. First, what about violent misdemeanors such as domestic violence? Second, lots of non-violent felons would lose gun rights for a span of time long after they finished their sentence. Not sane for voting, not sane (if maybe a bit more) here.