Rev. Joe: ULC Church and The Satanic Temple

I used to more regularly do a "Rev. Joe" entry to discuss religion related (one theme on this blog is that "religion" is a tricky set to draw lines around) matters.  (A person can skip to near the end of the portion above the line to get to newer material.)

The title is somewhat tongue in cheek, but also a result of me getting self-ordained in the Universal Life Church, which began around sixty years ago and eventually split into various parts (exactly how many is somewhat silly to focus upon, especially given the nature of the organization). Later on, I registered (as was eventually possible -- there was actually a lawsuit years back saying it was not required) as a wedding officiant with the government of New York City. I never actually presided over some wedding; as with using my notary public powers (more clearly authorized) to swear/affirm an official in, that would be cool.

I have noted, one place this pops up is in NYT wedding announcements, people wanting to preside over weddings, at times same sex ones (back when this was less a thing). As I have noted, this is still legally a tricky thing. The ULC Church have been involved in lots of lawsuits over the years, including specifically on the marriage issue, with various results.  See here, for a recent one.  As I have noted, this litigation over the years also popped up in New York courts, but without one clear final decision.

Realizing New York has a lot to worry about -- after all it still has not legalized marijuana -- it seems to me sensible to clarify its laws here.  Thousands probably at least unofficially married this way over the years and it is silly not to accept it.  The law in place -- again as I have said in the past -- is problematic is various ways, including how it selectively favors religions with certain organization aspects as well as singling out certain ethical culture organizations by name.  

Let me (this post is not just about them) repeat that I think the organization has a serious side.  The basic principle is that people have the ability to decide using their own conscience on what is good, thus the "universal" part. This is standard Protestant philosophy on some level. The organizations also favor certain "church" type trappings, with supplies (yes, there is a profit side, but they aren't alone on that here either) if one desires.  Thus, the idea certain people are "reverends" (or title of your choice).  And, the organization does promote "good" (as a person decides) as dictated by the law.  How this applies to conscientious objection, I presume, is left to the individual.   

The basic part of of religious liberty is for the individual to determine on one's own the correct religious path.  The U.S. particularly honors a special role of individual choice here, many wary of reliance on institutions. But, we also don't like all/nothing really too, so some trappings of organization might be useful.  The Universal Life Church fed into this overall sentiment and there is something there as noted.  

You can find it as an organization with "reverends" and such a bit silly to the degree that term should have some special authority, but even there certain religions (Quakers, let's say) believe each person might have some authority to speak as the spirit might move them.  And, the basic idea of interpreting the Bible as one deems fit is again a basic well accepted principle. 

(One person who had involvement in the ULC Church -- or some specific offshoot -- is Rev. Amy Long.  Her videos could be found on YouTube for years along with other materials.  Then, she at some point seem to disappear.  Last night, I found something from 2017, a video explaining she was dealing with personal issues -- for one thing, her husband committed suicide earlier.  She said she was taking time off from ULC related matters but would return at some point.  Not clear if she did, but hope she is doing well regardless.)

The overall concept of "universalism" has had long been accepted by many people.  There is actually apparently sometimes confusion between the ULC Church and Unitarians -- saw one thing from a few years back where the Unitarian-Universalist Church had to make clear that Jared Kushner was not a minister of their organization.  The apparent contusion being that he might have registered to be a ULC minister (Jared is Jewish).  As a related thing, Margaret Fuller was referenced in an interesting historical discussion last night, and she was involved in the transcendentalist movement.  The current Wikipedia entry summarizes:

A core belief is in the inherent goodness of people and nature, and while society and its institutions have corrupted the purity of the individual, people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent.

The ability and duty of the individual to decide for themselves what "good" means is apparent here without recalling someone like Thoreau.  Margaret Fuller, by the way, died off Fire Island. 

====

Okay.  The last part is new, even if the stuff before is rehashing some old stuff.  Nothing special there -- "there is nothing new under the sun" and all that.  At some point, there is a certain boredom is rehashing the same stuff, but you know, the stuff just keep on happening.  It's a bit like where you come back to school as a child, and you need to refresh your memory on certain things.  School knowledge without that can be more compressed.

Religion Clause Blog has a link to a video of an oral argument involving invocations that was brought by The Satanic Temple, which is starting to get to be the Jehovah Witness of lower court litigation, at least going by how many times I'm seeing such litigation referenced. The Jehovah Witnesses has a slew of First Amendment lawsuits that reached the Supreme Court, including the famous flag salute case.  Many saw and see them as a troublesome group that at times are rather unsavory (such as using anti-Catholic rhetoric).  

This group from what I can tell is seen as more of a joke and putting its headquarters in Salem probably encourages that sort of thing.  But, I see it does have tax exempt status.  The name is used in an ironic fashion; it is actually more of a Unitarian sort of organization mixed with a humanism message that is particularly concerned about bodily freedom. This last part results in them being involved in multiple abortion related litigation, particularly targeting "informed consent" type laws.  

As with the linked invocation lawsuit (the orals seemed focused on technical points), they might be a somewhat dubious conduit (let's say), but address some serious matters.  The problem is there is that lower courts will use procedural means to avoid needing to decide some of the complex issues involved, so the "message" lawsuits (they really seem that way though you probably can find some real harms mixed in) by an organization that sounds like satire (if more serious than the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or something) will be swiped aside if possible.  

"Satan" is used as a rebellious character, who even as regularly portrayed might be something of an antihero that people could root for on some level.  Satan originally appears to have been seen as an "adversary" of God, a sort of "devil's advocate" in a literal sense, and not necessary the fallen angel evil figure later developing.  Thus, like modern day usage of "paganism," there is some logic here.  But, the term and figure still has a negative aspect, even more than a nature religion might have.

I'm open to their arguments though and the more colorful/satiric aspects of the organization and its members are not somehow in a different category from many who consider themselves Christian or some other religion deemed more mainstream.  Surely, we have some "out there" people there, including those with some rather strange ideas, and often not as overall benign as this organization.  As with the Universal Life Church, therefore, the religion and/or organization in question should be taken seriously.  

One more thing. Okay, Lieutenant. The video link shows how courts can do video and do so remotely.  There were three judges (all women), but I saw Pete Buttigieg talk remotely to over ten people.  The Supreme Court can handle it with nine.  The video also helped the first advocate with visual cues -- more than once he saw a judge was ready to ask a question. 

Mets Update

The long term prospects of the Mets seem promising with a new rich owner, a bunch of sound pick-ups and one superstar (Lindor/needs to be signed long term) and a few thousand fans will watch them in person Opening Day.

Mets are not the Mets without a bit of drama. Likely #2 starter Carrasco is hurt and will be out for an extended period of time. Stroman will need to get back to form and be the #2. The #3 is now Taijuan Walker, who is pretty good, but hasn't played much in recent years. David Peterson will get a chance to repeat his very good back-end starter role and there are various options for #5. But, with tough competition, the staff is a bit more iffy.

The new owner seemed promising and willing to engage with fans, but has not surprising real rich guy flaws. He supported Trump in the past and just appointed Chris Christie (typo in a tweet that announced it: "Chris Christine") on the board. His son already has a role in the organization. Oh well. Still, not quite in the mood, but #LGM.

SCOTUS Watch

Not much explicitly going on at SCOTUS this week other than a Friday conference (again, they might drop some surprise later in the day).  SCOTUSBlog did start a March Madness type bracket thing for justices, but the match-ups leave something to be desired.  No link for you! We will have more stuff happening in the next two weeks and April will have more orals as well. SCOTUS also announced next Thursday will be an opinion day, which means one or more opinions are likely.  Kagan has yet to have a signed opinion for the Court; everyone else has one. 

The acting S.G. (hey, why not just keep her in?) continues to state changing positions of the Biden Administration, now in a case that might need an amicus to keep the case alive. That seems off according to the John Roberts' solo dissent that is concerned about advisory opinions. If the government concedes their case, why should the matter be kept alive? But, they sometimes do that, just going to show that "case" and "controversy" is applied with some degree of flexibility. However you explain it, the Administration is being particularly busy early on.

SCOTUS dropped a mini-order list on Friday as they sometimes do on conference day.  Among the orders is  the appointment of an amicus for that case (Terry) and a note that it will be rescheduled for argument for this term.  The acting A.G., as is practically always done, was granted time to argue in a few cases.  A final order officially grants a request to appoint someone counsel for a case that is to be argued next week.  Not sure why it was done at the last minute, but the case involves the power of tribal police so should be at least somewhat interesting.  

(Kimberly Robinson from Bloomberg noted that the amicus selected, by Thomas apparently, is a three-peat when she knows of no one else who was even a repeat. It is dubious, especially for diversity reasons, to fill these limited slots with the same person over and over again. She also noted: "All three female #SCOTUS advocates arguing during the March sitting are from the Solicitor General's Office. 13 male advocates will take the lectern." KR is cool and earlier in the year posted a link for those who wanted to buy Girl Scouts cookies from her daughter.)

There has been some sort of bipartisan move to televise the Supreme Court (Grassley supports it) for years now and the standard attempt was put out again. It didn't go anywhere in the past, except perhaps to encourage some lower courts to use video. Again, state supreme courts and supreme courts in other countries manage to do it. Breyer manages to do it when presiding over fake courts.  It is time. Oh. Sen. Sheldon "stan of many political watchers, especially but probably not limited to women" Whitehouse asked for an investigation on the alleged "fake" background check of Kavanaugh.

It is probably to be expected that a trillion plus piece of legislation that passed with no Republican votes (since they are tools) will be subject to court challenge, be it by asinine arguments. You take the bitter with the sweet there -- see the challenges to the Trump moves, some of which came out well for the challengers, a few of which were something of a stretch (though, e.g., the emoluments argument were legitimate).  What this will all wrought, along with other Biden stuff, in front of the Supreme Court will remain to be seen. Tainted 6-3 Court, it is.

We are also stuck with stupid precedent though even there the Affordable Care Act Medicaid "rule" (more like a guideline) is harder to apply here in a one-off relief bill where the money involved is smaller. To remind, the Medicaid portion of that ruling led to voluntary Medicaid expansion, though "only" twelve states (the Old Confederacy minus a few, basically) have not accepted it at this point. The relief law includes a Medicaid provision, so we still have this sort of thing. 

The conference today was in person though "some" (saw at least one other person say something like "at least one" as if it was just Breyer or something) still worked remotely.  Note the standard thing where the public relations office tells the press something but it is not posted on the website specifically.  Instead, we simply learn that April arguments will be done remotely, the unsaid being that even if the justices (plus three) are all vaccinated, various lawyers will not be. 

Orders and arguments on Monday.  The one argument is a sort of libertarian Takings Clause case that suggests a requirement to allow labor organizers on property is a taking.  The Biden Administration switched from Trump's support of such regulation as taking extremism. As noted, another involves Native American policing and a third is a potentially important Fourth Amendment case.  So, nothing earth shattering, but a trio of fairly interesting and notable constitutional cases. 

Where is my JP Day Card?!

It's that time of year again. After the "Ides of March" (3/15), that best day to kill Caesar (or have a salad or pizza with that name), we have a day off. Then, it is a day for the Irish. So, potato time. (Small potato, four minutes in the microwave ... tasty). On 3/19, we have the Italians, St. Joseph's Day, the patron saint of people who should be important but are barely mentioned in the Bible (even in Matthew, he doesn't actually talk!). In between? The lesser known JP Day for Irish/Italian mutts. So, maybe pizza flavored potato chips?

Trump/Republican Conspiracy Against U.S.

.@ODNIgov confirms that the Trump White House, GOP and their propaganda organs colluded with, or at least worked on parallel lines with, a Russian campaign to defeat Biden.

This is the 2nd campaign in a row where Trump got Russian help. GOP doesn’t care. https://t.co/iuDPdq5PHd

— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) March 17, 2021

Election integrity legislation that passed last session included a provision that required a public report referenced in the tweet.

From the op-ed from a hard liner type that now found religion:

A newly declassified report from the director of national intelligence confirms that the Trump White House, the Republican Party and their propaganda organs colluded with, or at least worked on parallel lines with, a Russian campaign to defeat now-President Biden.

The details (those that can be publicly provided) are useful and up to date, but this is not news. The Mueller Report, e.g., explained how the Trump campaign manager (Manafort) gave polling data to a Russian agent, data that would be helpful to Russian troll farms to influence swing areas. Members of Trump's family actively tried to get dirt from Russian agents. Roger Stone, working with the Trump campaign ... okay, how much do you need?  People still made it controversial somehow to say that completely trusting the integrity of the elections was difficult.  

The Biden Administration will add to the sanctions to Russia, China and Iran, as I understand it, to retaliate for their involvement.  But, there will be just so much sense of just desserts here.  People are pushing for criminal charges, for instance.  Yeah.  Good luck with that sort of thing though Rudy G. might get in trouble somehow and Georgia is investigating Trump etc. 

The bottom line is the basic core rot, including a majority of the Republicans in the House, even after the Capitol (THEIR CAPITOL) was invaded, aiding the effort by voting to challenge the electoral count, aiding and abetting the big lie.  Each time when I see one of the under ten Republican senators who join in, including those people don't associate with it much (Cruz, Hawley and to a degree Tuberville are usually given the attention when there are five others), I'm disgusted again. 

And, it annoys me more wasn't done before. People badmouthed the Mueller Report, when it had damning stuff, and he wasn't some independent actor, but someone restrained by his bosses.  House Democrats should have done more with it, especially when an impeachment involving the SECOND instance of electoral conspiracy arose, the count specifically referencing a pattern. The impeachment report barely referenced Mueller for whatever reason, suggesting a bit of a mulligan.

The whole thing is so damn aggravating, but you take what comes, and fight to do the best you can now that actual American first (no racist implications) government is in power in the White House and Congress. Reports like the one cited provide some means to obtain some oversight and action as the insurrection on 1/6 and all else is being investigated and acted upon.  Removal would have been appropriate there, but you take what you can get.  

One more thing. Okay Lt. Colombo.  There is a general assumption that the 2022 congressional elections will be close, and that the Republicans very well might win at least the House back, at least if the economy is not going well. That is so fucking screwed up. The House Republicans have screwed us over for years now and supposed they can get in power again in two years, including as they continue to oppose COVID relief and so forth. It is a basic mark against our society that this is somehow not a clear reason to make re-electing them firmly deemed ridiculous if not offensive.

We are at the spot where 47% or more of the voting public supported the pro-Trump, anti-U.S. party. It is a dark moment. Anyway, less than a week from the signing of the legislation, I received my stimulus money.  Other people did last weekend.

1/6 -- Covering ALL the bases with discretion

The insurrection on 1/6 has led to some hard-line approaches to those involved from people who generally would be wary about mistreatment of people in the criminal justice system. I suggested in a comment (referencing Sen. Tuberville's extended involvement in the protest of the electoral results and Trump specifically calling him while the attack on the Capitol was beginning) very low level offenders should still be handled, but maybe not with prison time. 

This received pushback as too soft. This is not surprising with one person elsewhere suggesting we send people to GITMO pending sentencing. GITMO is tossed around a lot like there was actually some regular danger for American citizens (or even people on U.S. soil) to be sent there or something.  The use of the term "insurrection" itself does provide special concern, concern that warrants strong responses that otherwise might not so warrant.  

But, at some point, and this comes up from time to time [though criminal justice reform types at times also push back a bit too hard -- it's understandable, but they still are wrong at times] in other cases too, it is just too much.  I think a general principle is at stake here about trying to be consistent, even when it might be uncomfortable. I don't want to be sanctimonious about it, but still, at some times people like myself who spend more time on these sort of things are more liable to care enough to push back.  And, sometimes, it just is more akin to the trope of "the asshole has a point."  Sometimes, it is simply basic fairness kicking in, once emotion is put aside and you think "yeah, okay." 

Extended involvement inside the criminal justice system not involving prison time has been continuously cited as a threat to civil rights, but now it is a "slap on the wrist" that won't discourage people who thought they were going to get a parade and are whining when they did not.

For instance, involvement might result in loss of employment or employment activities. It might result in deprivation of licenses. It can require let's say a year of supervision by the federal justice system. Fines. Extended community service. Merely being on a publicly searchable list, very well possibly with photos, will discourage many people here. My original comment also flagged the Fourteenth Amendment, which would cover let's say someone who swore an oath as a member of the military and is part of the crowd here or perhaps was in some minor way an accessory.*  One member of Congress submitted a proposal though text is still not up.  Hopefully, the matter will carefully be considered, since this matter very well is likely to arise in future elections. 

(A basic thing here also can be that even a petty crime committed can violate the terms of the release. Lots of people commit petty crimes. That over your head is a basic way to deter.)

These are after all not people who did things like committed violence or theft. They would not be "extremely minor." Someone who just was part of the crowd inside, let's say, would very well be discouraged by a range of non-prison time penalties.  So, again, prison time might not be required in all cases, especially if it can be a means to process a bunch of minor offenses with the people involved helpful to the prosecution. There will be some tricky stuff here. Let's not by rule wipe away a sane approach.

====

* There was an interesting example of the levels of being an accessory in a Barnaby Jones episode, the show being on late nite on a classics station. I used to watch repeats back in the day -- the series was over before I was ten so unlike MASH, did not catch it live -- and it still has charms, including its kitsch-y opening. Watching a few episodes, it also seems like grandpa here repeatedly puts himself in lethal situations, at times rather gratuitously. [Mad About You once flagged concern for him.]

The mystery involved the killing of a woman that a country music singer had a scuffle with, resulting in the woman being temporarily knocked unconscious.  The singer is told by her manager that the woman was killed, the manager apparently afraid the singer was thinking of going back with her ex-husband, so this would not only allow him to have something over her, but also get her to agree to go away. (We basically was left to assume.)

The singer scared, she agrees to let him handle it. He does so by driving the woman away, at least pretending (it is unclear) to encourage her to go away and then (unnecessarily probably so it seemed staged, especially the out of the way location) kills her by hitting her with a car. He then tosses her in the lake, which he tells the singer about, without noting when she died. To continue this plot discussion, as appears typical, one murder tends not to be enough. Another guy saw the manager drive away with the woman and the manager eventually kills him.

The singer overall -- even the dead woman's father doesn't blame her -- comes off sympathetically.  Barnaby suggests the state would be satisfied that the manager confessed.  This might be true, especially since a white country music star like herself will get nice representation and can also offer helpful testimony though the confession makes that a bit less necessary.  But, she was an accessory after the fact.  If she simply went to the police, in fact, it is fairly likely the other guy would not have been killed. He too would have said what he saw -- unlike some of these episodes, he had no reason to hide such information. 

The manager would thus have two people involved who spoke of his involvement, and the singer would have found out the woman wasn't even dead.  The manager only found out that the boyfriend saw him when the guy went to see him, looking for the woman. If it was right away reported, the guy would have little reason to do that. Again, and this is an interesting tidbit, the country singer knew where the body was. If the manager didn't tell her that, it could be more complicated.  As Jones noted, she couldn't have disposed of her that way, so that helps prove his guilt. 

One probably can formulate some scenario, changing the details, where the boyfriend might still try to blackmail the manager or something. But, going by the details of the episode, the country music singer probably shares the guilt of his death. The ending focused on the woman who was killed. The other guy came off as a loser who wore his shirt open to show his chest, but he didn't seem that bad. His mom might not be as sympathetic to the coutnry music star here. 

Jones very well might be right that the state would be satisfied.  But, this extended analysis suggests the moral and legal implications here are actually possibly a tad complicated.  I'm not trying to blame the show here; even much more serious fare doesn't address all the complexities. It was just a "hmm" moment that arises from time to time. And, to tie this all together, complexities might arise in the cases here.  

A knee-jerk reaction is understandable -- ditto being upset about bail when some other types of people, often people of color [but criminal justice is not somehow hunky dory for everyone else] do not get that level of fair treatment.  Two wrongs don't make a right and as we push for bail reform, including no cash bail -- even on that very blog at times -- perhaps the rules do apply here as well. I'm also not sure how much the rules are similarly unfairly applied against federal offenders anyways. 

Cuomo: Tick Tock

Andrew Cuomo got the "Rebecca Traiser treatment" as part of a continuing bit of dominoes that includes Schumer and Gillibrand (who you don't see together much) joining state and federal New York legislators saying it's time for him to go. The Traiser piece includes leading Cuomo opponent (and my senator) Alessandra Biaggi and Josef Velaquez, a leading reporter at The City, which covers New York. Impeachment proceedings (ONE governor was impeached in the state's history) have begun.

Cuomo's dark side has been cited for years now, Biaggi notably quite upset about a Democratic governor seeming to be fine with divided government (with "independents" led by the guy she beat as the swing group) since Cuomo could triage. And, do so in a bastard sort of way, not the more Martin Sheen type (from what I can tell; recall his POTUS had a dark side too) of his father. But, he seemed to get things done, and his first two primary opponents were Zephyr "can't win any political race, maybe I should stick to being an academic" Teachout and Cynthia "is this seriously my choice? I like Miranda, but ..." Nixon, and token Republican opponents. Then, he seemed the serious one vs. Trump during the whole Big V thing.

Things are a tad different now. The Democrats not only control the legislature, but in the last election gained some more wiggle room. Not only do we have Biden now and COVID seems to be on the way out, but Cuomo's handling of the whole thing has been shown to have problems. Cuomo would be up to re-election next year, which is just long enough to seem a bit too far away (maybe). Cuomo might want to eke it out, but over twenty months is a pretty long time, and even his long time enemy De Blasio doesn't have to suck up to him any since the mayor is term limited. On some basic level, it just might be the guy has been in power for too long (over ten years) and his act is starting to be real stale.

The nursing home controversy itself has many parts. First, there is the issue of him allegedly not reporting a full account of how many people was involved, including how many deaths there were. Second, there is the controversy over him protecting nursing homes from liability. And, finally, there is the overall idea that his policy itself was dubious, and led to unnecessary deaths. I was willing to give him some benefit of the doubt there early in the crisis, but after a while, with everything, this all comes off bad. And, it hangs over everything in a way that is much harder to handwave as some overall unpleasant but livable personality issue.

The bully stuff is more easy to spin as bad, but not something you resign over, but it does you know add to his problems, and takes away some friends. There is a famous saying that it is better to have people fear than love you, but there is a lesser known caveat: you should avoid people despising you. Cuomo's asshole routine violated that rule from The Prince.  It is a bit late, but he deserves some strong comeuppance for a government style that violates a basic rule of mine -- don't be a f-ing dick. 

And, being an autocratic bully often leads to one being a sexist one, and repeated allegations of wrongdoing is coming out there. That is a sort of thing that you can push to have a full investigation over, dropping "Al Franken" as if that covers everything (Cuomo is not Al Franken for a number of reasons, down to no creepy Republican running for office), especially with "Kirsten Gillibrand" to toss in too.

I have said that a full investigation very well is a good thing, akin to how settling out of court while sealing the judgment agreement is not truly in the interest of justice. You can abuse the term "due process," but there is a value there, not to have to rely on press reports and the like. An organized process there is good on principle and for the interests of justice as well. Just leaving things somewhat unsettled, with some thinking a person was wronged, is not quite an ideal way to address #MeToo wrongs. It isn't, as some cynically think, just a CYA method. It can actually be a forceful approach, though how to go about it can be rather complicated.

The statement by Rep. Nadler (shared by AOC) cites the difference between the due process required for criminal investigations and a political decision that someone has to go.  People toss around "due process" (Cuomo is a recent press conference tossed in the kitchen sink, including how he was elected by the people, not politicians -- yes, the governor's son is an outsider! -- and comments about cancel culture -- him sounding like a Republican isn't helpful) as a vague "fairness" guarantee.

There are differences here, even if fairness is a standard that applies across the board.  People like the radio host Stephanie Miller keep on bringing up Al Franken -- it's tiresome.  Note that there multiple senators thought it was time for him to go and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer eventually joined them.  And, it was a sensitive time with #MeToo particularly raw and Roy Moore out there, so being seen as not consistent with a nice guy liberal would get you in trouble. You can see the complications, even if you think on the merits that the evidence of wrongdoing was somewhat limited. 

There is much more evidence here and Cuomo has more power than a single senator.  There was some concern -- unwarranted -- that Franken's seat would be lost.  Here, we have a female Democratic lieutenant governor, who might be in some fashion more conservative than Cuomo (she represented a conservative area like Gillibrand), but you know, how was Cuomo really such a prize?  You have conspiracy theorists arguing this is all about getting Trump a pardon.  Seriously?  Lay out the steps there.  

And, Cuomo has multiple things OTHER than the sexual harassment stuff.  Getting him out before the 2022 governor race -- though things will have to change significantly for Democrats to have a true scare there -- could be politically helpful.  In general, Cuomo's time has passed.  The investigation should and can continue regarding the nursing home stuff and anything else.  But, as Nadler notes, overall, Cuomo has lost the faith of the public and political community to a significant degree. FRANKEN bugaboos won't change that.  

What will happen remains to be seen.

Books: Waste and Kamala Harris

Waste: One Woman’s Fight Against America’s Dirty Secret is a quick book (around two hundred pages) by someone who specializes on concern about failure of local communities in the U.S. to properly dispose of waste, particularly a poor community in Alabama. She deals with some really famous people (starting with black leaders as a child), but continues to come off as a down to earth woman you might meet in town or church somewhere.

The first half is more autobiographical about her overall road to advocacy, including her family and time as a teacher. Her husband disappears suddenly and we learn she has a daughter (at least) but she too is barely mentioned (suddenly the author is a grandmother!). Not sure why she did that since her personal biography is important and I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering. Personable account of an important subject and it is interesting how as a black woman who naturally would be a liberal gets some support from conservatives, including Jeff Sessions!

---

Kamala Harris: I also checked out Kamala Harris' (campaign) biography, also listening to a bit of it on tape before she was elected. It is fine enough -- I skimmed it a bit, including meeting her husband. I noted that the main biography out there of her lacks some personal details. That one has more about her early career (including an older somewhat controversial boyfriend/mentor, who she understandably skips over) though her campaign biography has a bit more about her early life and parents. We still get little on her dad after the divorce.

Neither really gives you a totally complete picture of her. Also, is she unique about that laugh/joy of life thing? Did she get that from her mom? Is her sister like that too? The sister seems a bit more all business, but I say that without having too much to go on. It just seems from what I can tell that her sister -- who is her biggest fan and ally and one wonders what she's doing now -- might be an enforcer type. The sister was a teen mom, which happens, but that's another bit of detail that could be interesting.

Duchess of Sussex Spills Some Tea

And Also: Talking about biracial "royalty," Kamala's Way is not a complete bio, but it is a good workmanlike volume by someone long an observer of California politics. It doesn't cover her personal life, especially growing up, that much. As noted in a C-SPAN interview with the author, one problem was that KH didn't personally take part. A basic thing we note is her dad (still alive) is basically absent in her life, while her mom (died of cancer about a decade ago) is a basic part of it along with her sister.

I thought the Lifetime film -- that even had the word in there (finding someone using that word without only using the first letter these days often gets the person who uses it in trouble) -- was rather well done. But, we are concerned about the greatly promoted Ophrah Winfrey interview of Meghan and Harry that aired last night. As the kids say, a lot of tea spilled. As to Harry, someone of Twitter used the term "ride or die" ("a colloquial expression of extreme loyalty to someone or something," originally often applied to black women) and that fit rather well. Ophrah "still has it" as interviewer though a couple times it was amusing when she was like "speaking for the public" or acting like "the press" was "them."

Meghan Markle is someone that previously was known to many from the USA show Suits and perhaps for her time as a young girl where she spoke against a gender stereotype in a commercial. But, as a biracial person, she had to deal with some race issues all her life in a specific way. She also was in two somewhat bland (one was better than the other) Hallmark movies which seemed to think she was white:

“I know that that’s not an intentional strategy,” he said. “Quite frankly, I don’t even think that Meghan’s background was a consideration when we were writing this story." Sure. The channel generally has white leads with people of color generally left to best friends and token supporting characters. So, I can see it not being directly intentional to her personally.

The two Hallmark films are pretty forgettable, which perhaps explains why this doesn't seem to get much attention. Anyway, the interview last night was about her time as a royal. Meghan seems to be out of central casting as a royal -- you can see her in a Hallmark Channel movie as an actress who falls for a royal, who is a somewhat ne'er-do-well younger brother who misses his mom (a photo of Princess Diana someone posted along side him did look very like him, though he has that red hair that came from somewhere ... apparently his grandfather).

People were either "I'm so going to watch" or "like why should I care about the royal family?" regarding the interview. The latter is somewhat understandable, but if taken too far was asinine, since the interview was not just celebrity gossip (still a fun thing) but had deeper issues. This sort of thing is why so many people respect her, including noting that her speaking out about needing help very well might save lives. Plus, again, just the basic story is so touching -- the love story itself is so touching. Yes, yes. She's a celebrity and all that. But, it's a hard heart not to be touched by it all, including Harry sticking by her through it all.

She had to deal with racism, not being respected by "the Firm" or "the Institution" and getting abusive press treatment. This was taken to extreme measures to such a degree it led to serious mental health issues for which the family refused to let her get support for. A darkly comic moment was her talking about going to "HR" to get assistance (unsuccessfully) since as an actress she had a union to protect her interests. A lot of hard feelings there by both and you know airing the dirty laundry probably won't go down well either. Meghan, not covered here, already had problems family-wise before, her (white) father causing various difficulties.

(There are a few books about their relationship including one I read that was sort of a dual biography of Meghan and Harry that was pretty good. Both had a bit of drama in their lives, let's say.)

It was a good interview, though it seemed like every ten minutes or so there was a commercial. I can see them selling a DVD with bonus footage, including Oprah on the morning show the next day (okay ... we don't know who ... but Harry said neither grandparent was involved in the "will the baby be too dark" conversation; the grandfather is someone you'd think might say something racist like that). The DVD can be put out after the summer, so we can get a look at the new baby (a girl -- perhaps named Veronica, to go with the "Archie"). Not sure about the few shots of the couple at their home, including with a rescue chicken. That seemed a bit silly.

ETA: Oprah at the start laid it out that there were no restrictions asked for regarding topics during the interview and -- contrary to various assumed -- it was not paid.  But, other than serving as a truth function, airing things out could have financial implications regarding their future endeavors.  

Some also don't have much sympathy for the duo as seen by the piece referenced here. As suggested, there is some truth there, but rather one-sided too. The two are celebrities and so forth, but the problems are not all feigned or something. Note too that first link, which compares it to a sort of "truth commission," but not quite so since it is not really an official unbiased platform.  It is a friendly rich person interviewing two other ones. 

Such is fair -- I have generally seen that things are rarely black/white, but the shades of gray often do have a leaning. 

SCOTUS Watch: Order/Opinion Day

Orders: SCOTUSBLOG has a "relist" watch and the Supreme Court took a case today covering an issue flagged there. The case's facts are sensitive: a mistaken child abuse report (turned out to be diaper rash) led to a heavy-handed police invasion of a home. A prime case of what "abolish the police" is about: police should not be involved in many cases and here it looked like a lot of the problems could have been avoided by handling the situation without sending multiple police to the home as compared to a social service workers. But, the issue here is more technical.

(SCOTUS clarified on Thursday they will not decide the 4A question raised in the petition.) 

Other than that, the order list did not bring much news though as usual having some interesting details.  Lin Wood was disposed of again, there apparently some lingering Trump election cases left.  Are we done now?!  The "Jane Doe" near the top of the order list involves a request for relief in a case arguing a vaccination requirement for children does not have a broad enough exception.  Rejected without comment as usual in these cases.  You have the standard rejections, including one by Jonathan Lovato, that looks like a penciled in print appeal ala Charles Gideon or something. 

---

Opinion: When Chief Justice Roberts (who barely dissented at all last term) dissents alone for the first time in his career, you figure the opinion is of some note. How much? It's unclear. For instance, though focusing on how originalism is basically Calvinball (though being a bit more polite), Michael Dorf (a usual sane voice) said this about the idea paying nominal damages (let's say a dollar) could dispose of a lawsuit:

I agree with CJ Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh that the majority opinion is open to the reading they offer, but it is at least a little odd that Justice Thomas doesn't even mention the possibility. Moreover, in stating that nominal damages cases were a kind of early version of the more modern declaratory judgment action, Justice Thomas arguably implies that perhaps a voluntary entry of judgment against the defendant does not redress a plaintiff's wrong as well as actual proof followed by nominal damages--and could thus be rejected. Accordingly, the practical significance of Uzuegbunam remains to be seen.

Another law professor thought that avoidance approach was "absurd." Prof. Leah Litman, a liberal law professor that is one person I follow to get that view appears to think that not interfering with the rule in place is sensible. Justice Thomas defended the approach by noting that "the common law avoided the oddity of privileging small-dollar economic rights over important, but not easily quantifiable, nonpecuniary rights." That makes sense and to cite the dissent's concerns, that is both a "case" and a "controversy" per Art. III.

But, here, the wrong was addressed.  It wasn't really like the Taylor Swift example cited by Justice Kagan.  There Swift wanted to make a point about a wrong she felt was inflicted on her, but did not want compensation. So, she sued for a dollar to provide the bare minimum necessary to bring a lawsuit.  If the person paid the dollar, the person would be admitting guilt.  Here, the college changed the policies. Why should that not do it? It is a "remedy" to the wrongs (to cite the majority). The litigants wanted the court to legally determine it was wrong to help prevent wrongs in the future. This was seen by the dissent as opening up a wrongful advisory opinion approach, judicial avoidance not always a thing.

Roberts didn't deny that it was possible in this very case for the plaintiffs to just allege similar token damages tied to an actual thing like carfare.  The rule in place has been around for some years. Congress can put in a jurisdictional minimum too, if it cares to, but the issue is that sometimes you will have a wrong that might not translate into money damages.  Thus, though religiously conservative people are involved here, you had atheists and the like supportive of the ruling.  

I'm not sure how far that takes you since again the college changed its policies.  It is like nothing came of the whole process.  Finally, one thing I saw that came up was that the real issue really in these suits are attorney fees, but the majority put that issue to the side. Anyways -- noting I edited this portion of this post upon further thought -- it is unclear just what this case really amounts to as a bottom line measure. Just how often will this pure issue come up and even then will the payment of the dollar (or perhaps some other workaround) be able to avoid things even then?

The Court deciding the matter 8-1 suggests some wide agreement, but the bottom line point of Roberts' dissent (concerned about judges as advice columnists) appears to be a message to the new conservative (tainted) supermajority not to go too far. Roberts has already (a major example being the 2A case out of New York) played avoidance. A major 15 week abortion ban has been pending for months now without a decision on what to do with it. And, Roberts is no longer the fifth vote, right?

Anyway, here is a summary of the ruling, written by Thomas (commonly authoring technical opinions when not writing separately) with Kavanaugh briefly concurring to add he agrees with the Roberts nominal damages payment disposal method. 

===

There are no more official actions at SCOTUS -- no conference either -- scheduled this week, but we might have something pop up.  If it is minor, might insert it below.  

ETA: SCOTUS has canceled oral argument in the case on the legality of Medicaid work requirements approved under the Trump administration. Since Fridays wouldn't be Fridays with none of this sort of thing, Amy Howe on Saturday flagged a Biden Administration request to dispose of a "gag rule" case (abortion), which was pretty much expected.

March arguments will continue by telephone.

Article again raising the problems of the shadow docket. 

Sen. Whitehouse starts special hearings to cover his pet concern, dark money and its effects on the courts.

Films

The series lasted seven years and used to be available locally in syndication, including at like 3:30 A.M. (once it was on when I went to the emergency room [for some minor stupid reason]!). Then, it suddenly wasn't, and I was not able to get it from the library. Turns out it is now available (including, for now, the whole series free on demand) on the Starz Channel, that is, one of them. Those channels have so much space to fill that the "encore" stuff includes old t.v. shows. The show remains very amusing though again I'm upset the women (other than Brenda to a degree) had much less to do later (the actress playing Jen apparently partially absent for personal reasons).

Found this among the pay movie channels, one of the films available on demand too. Heather Graham, who still looks rather good here at around 40 [she's over 50 now!], is famous for her own role in Boogie Nights. This is a lesser known film with a porn plot, Almost Cherry in fact having various familiar faces. The young lead (she was around 24, but looks younger and the camera does love her) is very good too. It is as much of a character film as anything else, including a family drama in various respects. I only saw parts of it, but it's well shot and performed.

Also popping on is Last House on the Left, the remake of the somewhat infamous Wes Craven original though unlike I Spit On Your Ground, Roger Ebert thought the original was a bit of a classic. The remake, with the parents played by actors often in serious fare, is exploitation fare to be sure. But, it is quality made and for those who like that sort of thing, it provides the goods rather well. The remake in a fashion is also less severe, one of the gang actually having a chance to redeem himself (and survive) and the daughter not dying either.

And, the Sven film, The Thing That Couldn't Die is also good for what it is -- a basic low budget 1950s horror film. It's silly but fun. Sven now and then makes somewhat risque jokes but he did not bring up something someone else might have -- the young woman who knows how to use a dowsing rod is not leered at from the evil father from To Kill A Mockingbird (Sven mentions the actor was in that film, but one might miss that he has a significant part) just because he is just plain a creep. Her outfit does emphasize her breasts and later we see her looking at outfits in her room. Even Sven makes a joke later that the camera seemed to focus on the cleavage in a shot involving an important necklace.

The ending is rather lame though -- after various complexities leads to the hundreds of years old living head is reconnected to his body, he vocally bitch slaps a few people and then is immediately disposed of because a holy necklace defeats him.  Which takes less than a minute -- the kinda hero whips it out like a crucifix to protect himself but it's unclear how it winds up around the evil guy's neck unless the scene was cut somehow for this viewing.  And, that's it. Oh well.  Any other 16th Century non-dead around? 

===

I also saw a bit of it, but did not really get into it so won't toss in a video here. But, Made in Italy is notable at least since it is a recent role by Liam Neeson in which he does not play some  action granddad role. As to that, he does look pretty good -- and generally believable in action flicks -- for a dude in his sixties.  It is a comedy/drama about him bonding with his son.

Senate Dems Approves Biden’s $1.9 Trillion Pandemic Relief Plan

People were pissed off at this and I can understand why people are sensitive given the minimum wage hike is a basic Democratic principle and Sen. Sinema seemed to be like a mean girl or someone from Clueless here. And, partially since politics is symbolic and this is the age of .gifs and all [years back, instant video got some people in trouble, even before Twitter]. She likes to flaunt her style, but you know, I think she overstepped here, especially for those in her state that still honor John McCain.

As one might recall, he did a thumbs down gesture to reject what would amount to a major screw of the Affordable Care Act. He wanted at least a fuller debate on the question, finding fault with the approach used. But, Sen. Sinema's vote didn't matter here. The Senate parliamentarian already said it was not germane to include a minimum wage hike to pass Big V relief by reconciliation. Plus, eight Democrats, EIGHT, opposed the move here to include a minimum wage hike in the bill. So, bottom line, though her anctics were stupid [including a staff member calling criticism sexist], it was also stupid to focus so much ire at her. Talk about primarying her. You know, in 2024.

Motion to Waive NOT AGREED TO , 49-50 - Tuberville #1386 (prohibit funds made available under title II to States, local educational agencies and institutions of higer ed that permit any student whose biological sex is male to participate in sports designated for women or girls).

— Senate Periodicals (@SenatePPG) March 6, 2021

After Sen. Ron Johnson forced the whole bill to be read aloud and then didn't object when a Democrat move to cut down debate for more time than it took so it both looked stupid and pointless, we had a "vote-a-rama," which is basically an all nighter of message amendments that mostly were defeated. This includes this offensive one, that Lisa M. voted against, balancing off Manchin's decision for some reason to vote for it, while many were eating breakfast. OTOH, things might have been over much sooner if a vote didn't have to be left open for nine hours to deal with Manchin (thanks Maine et. al. for this guy being the 50th vote) wanting to reduce unemployment benefits.

See below: the "slimmest" majority for the Am. Rescue Plan is not really all that slim, is it? The Senate is deeply malapportioned, which explains why the idea that this was *not* widely bipartisan is wrong. https://t.co/rAt7oqk9FH

— Victoria Nourse (@vicnourse) March 6, 2021

Prof. Nourse should know about this sort of thing, being blocked from the court of appeals thanks to the filibuster and Ron Johnson. This is already a steady message without a direct attack on the Senate by the Biden Administration. Biden himself, speaking after the Senate passed their version of the bill, referenced the bipartisan support of the message. This, as an analyst noted, includes various local Republican leaders including the governor of West Virginia. So, a 50-49 (one Republican missing because of a family funeral) -- all Democrats (not DINOs ... including Manchin and Sinema ... all those "I won't support her people, of course, apologized) -- should be put in perspective here.

As Biden is pushing back in further -- to mid-May -- the goal for vaccines for all (my mom got her first shot as did my sister from what I can tell), it is still something that it was all such a close thing. Biden won by a sizable margin -- in the popular vote -- but under 50K votes in the right states could have screwed us. Many more people are represented by the Democratic 50 [though the imbalance hurts Texas too in a way that might give you a 5-4 Republican split with one person, one vote], but we are currently stuck with the system in place. That left this to two close elections in Georgia, one a special election arising from an illness, and both benefiting from Trump laying an egg.

This takes us to the filibuster again, which already was watered down in a way that allows the Democrats (and Biden) some grace. The Republicans didn't use the reconciliation process last year, so the procedural quirk is that the Democrats get two bites of that apple this year. And, the Democrats will again benefit from the end of the filibuster for executive nominations. The Dems need to water it down further somehow, including to manage to pass the voting rights bill. Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) insists it is impossible to pass H.R. 1 (which has things like D.C. statehood) though doesn't tell us what might be. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who comes off as a moderate (if liberal in various ways), has said she supports ending the filibuster for this measure at least.

The House now needs to have to agree to the Senate changes and the particular pain might be the minimum wage though various reductions might be bothersome. One move was to reduce what people will get -- note bigger checks -- if they make over let's say 70K. I got to say there that if the messaging of "survival checks" is used, maybe that is understandable. The changes very well might be stupid, but that's life, basically. As to the minimum wage, Sinema tweeted that she supports ... well let me quote it ...

pic.twitter.com/a2VkwKcY8r

— Kyrsten Sinema (@SenatorSinema) March 5, 2021

I'm not sure what that exactly means, but I'll take it as support for a minimum wage as a separate bill if there is bipartisan support. There has been some support of that for some lower amount. I think it's possible. I also understand -- though yes a minimum wage hike is stimulus too -- why it makes some sense not to use the stimulus to support this. But, I'll end with this. Sinema and Manchin has not yet been required to really match their anti-filibuster rhetoric in the teeth of actual legislation. 

The voting rights bill very well is that "red line." If they block it with 48 Dems supporting it, I will find being PISSED OFF at them justified. They still will be Democrats, but that would be much more of a FU than her Alicia Silverstone imitation. 

Meanwhile, NOT ONE Republican in either house voted for this. NOT ONE.  And, one of the impeachment managers in the first impeachment collected social media of House Republicans that promoted Trump election lies. 

SCOTUS Watch

Orders: There was a short order list on Monday, but the Supreme Court granted a case of some importance about applying equal benefits to Puerto Rico residents. The lower court agreed with the challenge so the grant makes sense. Since Puerto Rico does not have the same tax liabilities and so forth, the details would be interesting to see. There is this interesting bit from the summary:

Last month, Democratic lawmakers and religious leaders urged President Joe Biden to withdraw the lawsuit and give Puerto Rico residents access to SSI benefits, but Biden’s acting solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, did not take any action in the case after replacing Wall. The justices granted the government’s petition on Monday; absent any further developments, the case will likely be scheduled for oral argument in the fall.

The other case taken concerns the rules for military pay, which sounds more of a run of the mill sort of thing. The interesting thing to me there is that when I checked the docket page, the filings were done by paper pursuant to some rule that allowed that sort of thing. (I checked the docket page, using the docket number, to quickly get a sense of the details of the case. Here, the electronic filings were not there.) From what I can tell, this is often done to keep certain personal material private, which would apply in such a personnel related matter. One of those inside tidbits. 

Various other odds and ends.  

=====

Garland: On Monday, the Garland nomination advanced out of committee 15-7 with basically the usual suspects voting against him, Sen. Ben "Trump is guilty" Sasse's vote is a bit of a surprise. He engaged with Garland on executive/legislative power issues without any real sense of finding him a problem. Those opposing the nomination were Sens. Michael Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). Notably not there is the ranking member, Chuck Grassley, who tossed in some bullshit remarks before voting the other way. 

 =====

Voting Rights: I noted the important oral argument -- as much as for the rule applied as much as the specific challenge -- on voting rights earlier. Again, H.R. 1 is being debated by the House.  So, I'm not sure really -- just as Biden has changed more than one Trump executive policy -- what the long term effects will be. Also, for a major oral argument, accessible live via telephonic arguments, it annoys me that C-SPAN did not provide live coverage on television. Brian Lamb et. al. has long made it a cause to allow Supreme Court to be televised, but now that at least audio is available, it gets second level status even for major oral arguments (online). 

Today, an amendment was defeated that tried to go all the way regarding voting rights of felons, at least in federal elections. That is, allowing convicted felons in prison to vote. I support that but only a narrow number of Democrats did. Not surprising since only two thinly populated states and two maybe states (D.C. and Puerto Rico) allow it.  So, maybe that tried to bite too much at once. How about non-violent crimes? How about anyone not in prison (even if they are on parole or probation or under the control of the criminal justice system somehow)?

===

Opinions: Two opinions released on Thursday, Breyer writing dissents in both with Sotomayor joining, Kagan joining the second.  The first is something of note, even if a technical question involving how far to cover disclosure requirements, since it was Barrett's first opinion. She shouldn't be there.  Again, Kagan joined this opinion, Breyer using his often multi-factor judgment process to dissent. It was a fine tuned thing.

[Interesting analysis noting Breyer argued the "drafts" in this case usually actually was the "final" one in. Called the dissent "minor." The dissent was also later edited to add "with respect" before the "I dissent."  That sort of adverb usage is of some notice to those who keep track of these things though I'm not sure -- wouldn't surprise me -- if a deep dive study was done.]

I'll repeat a couple standard things -- I wish SCOTUS itself released audio and transcripts of opinion announcements, COVID not even allowing them to be released eventually by Oyez.com. Second, I actually favored Barrett over Kavanaugh, but that isn't how it went down.  It was a big tainted process, even if in a vacuum she might have been acceptable for a conservative POTUS (or whatever Trump is).  Hard to take these people.

The first tainted Trump seat wrote the second opinion, involving statutory rules as applied to deportations for at times relatively minor crimes even if the person was in the country for maybe decades.  The Court has had a mixture of these cases, sometimes deciding for the immigrant. Not this time and Breyer had a pretty strong dissent.  One notable thing here is that Breyer argued the text (a common trope for conservatives) compelled the result, while the majority arguably was more pragmatic. 

===

Biden Changes: "[Biden Administration] asked the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss three pending appeals on [Trump’s] effort to withhold millions of dollars in law enforcement funds from states and cities that refused to cooperate with federal immigration authorities."  The Bush43 to Obama transition by one account I read had very little of this sort of thing (if any at all), but Trump is Trump, and the Administration itself was very energetic about not only changing policy but reaching out to try to do so.  

The Supreme Court clerk per rule accepted the request. 

===

Big V: Retired Supreme Court reporter veteran Lyle Denniston tweeted that "The word from the Supreme Ct today that the Justices have now been vaccinated," following up with a hope that they immediately go back to live sessions. He is a big critic of the telephonic arguments. But, as a reply noted, it isn't just about them. It is about the advocates and everyone else. Biden said we should all have shots by the end of May. The Supreme Court has one more session of arguments. You can eke it out. 

I'm wary about them as noted in the past but think there are some good points. Each person asking questions is good though the time restraints clearly bother some of them.  The ideal situation would be live video, which other courts here and abroad have found quite possible. Video would provide a means to fairly easily use the traditional approach even remotely.  The problem is multiple justices simply don't want to do that -- since other courts handle it, I don't believe there is any other real reason for it being impossible. Also, decent bet they suddenly stop live audio too.

===

Other: We will have orders and opinion(s) next week. As seen, though some of this is tangential, even without many opinions, the Supreme Court keeps observers busy.  There was no orders after the set day on Monday as of after six p.m. (the vaccine note was not posted on the website btw), but I'm aware of there habits now. I won't close this off until the morning.  

No late night stuff.

Sarah's Long Walk

After reading a book on MLK and how he affected the 1960 election, I checked out an earlier book by the father/son team about Sarah's Long Walk.

It hovers around an important 1850s Massachussetts court case that actually upheld segregated education though the state soon after changed the policy. The book uses the case as one of many stories the occur in the battle for racial equality there, including efforts against racial discrimination in public accomodations and a fight for marriage equality. It focuses on leading black activists of the day. Some very interesting material.

ERA Again

"ARTICLE — "Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. "Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

March is Women's History Month and one thing the House might cover this month besides the voting rights bill is the ERA. 

As we last left this, three states (those necessary for ratification if none of the "backsies" are allowed) voted for the ERA, the House voted to extend the deadline and competing lawsuits either wanted the ERA to be blocked or allowed. The latter as I recall rejected on standing grounds or something on the district court level. So, there is more litigation going on though it might be mooted at some point. 

I don't want to say too much until more developments occur, but as with D.C. statehood, I'm more supportive of ratification. One thing is that a closer look at the text suggests it is not the same thing as the Equal Protection Clause. This curiously seems not to get the attention it deserves, which might explain my past position to some degree. The ERA says "abridging" equal protection. That matters, especially in conservative courts, since it is stronger than mere "deprivation." A strong reading of the Fourteenth (and Fifth) Amendments can bridge the gap, but stronger language matters.  The Fourteenth Amendment itself was ratified in part because it was believed by some the Thirteenth was too narrow to do what the Congress at the time sought to accomplish. 

My somewhat idiosyncratic (not totally so) concern also was that too much time has passed to count the three recent state ratifications. Mind you, I think legally Congress has power to allow for it. Coleman v. Miller and history shows this. And, I don't think revocations should count. But, as a matter of good constitutional policy, which does matter, it concerned me. Still, Congress does provide a national expression of the public will here and the facts on the ground has changed the law anyway. Plus, thirty-five states already ratified originally. It is more a matter of constitutional nicety not to respect that.

The 27A in fact -- though its reach was so much more narrow -- is much more concerning there since most of the ratifications came late. An amendment mostly in hibernation since the early 19th Century really should have been sent back to the states. It would likely have been ratified anyways -- the number of states ultimately (if after formal ratification) would have been enough. And, unlike the baggage of the ERA, who would be against that amendment really? Partially since it really is symbolic, Congress by current law following it anyway. 

The symbolism alone of the ERA is much more debatable, especially again given the nature of the courts and government. Clear text with additional legislative history [a curious question for an amendment ratified over decades but I suppose the history in Congress when the ratification deadline has significant weight]  would have special value here. This would include a wider meaning of "sex" discrimination in recent years, including as to GLBT and gender identity issues. The special effect of clear text here is seen by the signing on of Gorsuch in the Bostock opinion and now with the added value of a more up to date ratification not based passed in the 1960s. Its limited possible effect factored into my thinking.*

As seen here, there is a plan (with at least a few Republicans on board) to reintroduce a measure to extend the deadline.  I will try to keep watch -- there is so much happening -- and update as required. I already added an addendum. More will come.

===

* [ETA] One basic thing that still bothers me is singling out one class of people for equal protection of the laws.  It is part of a wider principle -- for instance, we do not single out the types of religion or speech or punishments in the relevant amendments.  

Why should we do it for "sex," even if in the scheme of things this will cover more than a narrow view of the term?  If you press me, this remains a powerful argument, especially when the Constitution right now has the potential to bring in what the ERA offers. Yes, "abridge" matters, especially in more conservative times.  But, if you favor sex specifically, does not it suggest other categories are in some fashion less protected too?

The one basic exemption here is voting rights. The Constitution protects voting rights piecemeal though the Supreme Court ultimately said voting was a fundamental right so deprivation should be given heightened scrutiny across the board.  In recent years, the value of this was somewhat weaker than in the past, but it an appropriate path. And, that only underlines the power of an argument that a general voting rights amendment is necessary, not the logic in the 21st Century of piecemeal approaches there.

Voting Rights

The Supreme Court is hearing Voting Rights Act matters this week and that is generally a concern with this tainted conservative leaning court. The anti-democratic nature (small 'd') of the Republican Party in general is apparent though this has been true for quite some time at this point. The one "both sides" moment when reading that article is that I too think by this point Republicans are not just political opponents at this point.

There are things that can be done. The House -- now that it passed COVID -- is shifting to its voting rights bill. Also, we have this item: "Ex-President Sarkozy Found Guilty of Corruption in France." Trump continued his lies in front of the CPAC conservative gathering over the weekend. But, there are civil and legal means to address him and his fellow conspirators. This includes the 14A, even if there is room for debate on the exact nature of the appropriate legislation.

I read an interesting article on the application of a "right to life" by Asian courts (death penalty, abortion and euthansia). It is sometimes misleadingly noted that only the U.S. and a few miscreants have the death penalty. The interesting situation in South Korea aside (moratorium and narrow rejection by the constitutional court for striking it totally), Japan did have an active death penalty in recent years. At one point, some judges said the death penalty might at some point outlive its legitimacy, noting: "a nation’s culture develops to a high degree and as a peaceful society is realized on the basis of justice and order."

The U.S. isn't quite there yet, but the Garland Justice Department [likely to be a thing some time in early March] probably will apply a death penalty moratorium. For years, in some ways from our founding, the death penalty has been said to be a violation of basic republican values as well.

Cuomo? Resign

I supported Cynthia Nixon last time, but realized she was not really a credible actual threat to Andrew Cuomo. The point being, as in many primaries, to put some pressure on the frontrunner. On that front, how much pressure from the left Cuomo received is unclear. One can feel pessimistic. OTOH, Biden has already did various things that shows real respect of the left flank. He has already provided a good amount of good faith to help balance off some cases where I will be disappointed.*

I also was wary of various early criticisms of Gov. Cuomo's response to the Big V. The pressures, especially given the early unknowns and difficulties, as will as his anti-Trump nature in some ways (regular respectable press briefings etc.), were things I factored in. Comparing New York (or New York City for that matter) to smaller states that to me were rather different in various respects came off as bad comparisons.

WATCH THIS: @MehdirHasan cites the @DailyPoster's original reporting on Cuomo and notes that it has now taken center stage in the scandal engulfing Cuomo. Hasan says Cuomo's nursing home immunity law "looks corrupt." Watch NY Democratic @SenatorBiaggi's response. pic.twitter.com/6Mqj9mgZ1d

— The Daily Poster (@dailyposter) February 26, 2021

Things are starting to be much more wary on that front, especially since President Biden no longer allows Cuomo to have a "compare to that guy" vibe. So, even if -- though a few were wary even then -- trusting him with emergency powers was acceptable in June 2020, it's time to take them back now. Even insiders are defending incomplete supply of nursing home death data in "okay, it's wrong, but you got to know what sort of pressure we were under" ways. This sort of "we can't trust them so we need to hide things" rhetoric doesn't come off well, even when you are sympathetic to the people involved.

A second former aide to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is accusing him of sexual harassment, saying that he asked her questions about her sex life, whether she was monogamous in her relationships and if she had ever had sex with older men.

The best defense to this appears to be that the "sex pest" (to cite one label in the thread to the article that I'm not a big fan of) is not legally guilty of sexual harassment. I'm wary -- if we are going to get all legal -- about relying on incomplete summaries of what is being alleged. Even there, such "grooming" (to cite what some are calling it, over "mentoring"), is a red flag on a political level. As seen in the impeachment battle, what is "legal" and "politically bad" isn't the same thing.

My state senator is particularly concerned about sexual abuse so one can guess she is particularly on this. As Sen. Biaggi noted in reply to comments that her push for him to resign without further investigation: "I welcome a credible & independent investigation, but as a former Cuomo staffer, legislator, Chair, and generally observant person, I have seen quite enough to know that his resignation is what is best for New York and the earnest staffers who work in public service."

Cuomo's people themselves are already accused of being arseholes in various ways including using sexist language. [This good op-ed on "penis politics" also tosses in my mayor, who has issues too.] Cuomo himself is repeatedly compared to Trump, including him being a bully and going after people. And, again, you have the whole nursing home controversy. He should resign. At some point, this sort of thing has to have consequences:

Stephanie Benton, Director of the Governor’s Offices, told me in an email on December 14, 2016 that the Governor suggested I look up images of Lisa Shields — his rumored former girlfriend — because “we could be sisters” and I was “the better looking sister.” The Governor began calling me “Lisa” in front of colleagues. It was degrading. I had complained to friends that the Governor would go out of his way to touch me on my lower back, arms and legs. His senior staff began keeping tabs on my whereabouts. “He is a sexist pig and you should avoid being alone with him!” my mother texted me on November 4, 2016.

He's up for reelection next year so he might try to eke out the term. But, it isn't even one general problem. It is starting to cascade. The realistic result to seek here is a fully independent investigation(s). That is after all what Biaggi types are there for. To push the median. And, as with the whole Franken thing [still talked about as if it was some tragedy when factoring in everything it was rather understandable, especially at the time], a full investigation very well might actually be the appropriate response. Repeatedly, you have people resign (or settle), and you do not get the full story. So, that can be useful here.

But, it is getting to a "he got to resign" point.

---

* I don't think Biden let off the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia. He did not simply get a "pass" for setting up the murder of a legal resident of the United States, a journalist who was far from a radical opponent. It very well might be true more should have been done. But, what has been done so far is far from trivial. And, like moving around a tanker, this does require some care.

SCOTUS Watch

[Order Day Entry expanded.]

The Supreme Court dropped an order (and later had an oral argument about a water dispute) list as the Merrick Garland (AG) hearing started. Garland, with questioning from two of the new Dems including Sen. Ossoff from Georgia, aced his questioning. He's a great choice. Republicans trolled, but many of them probably will vote for Garland too.

The Order List closed the book on many Trump election disputes (I see Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; saw Arizona mentioned) though three conservatives would have taken the Pennsylvania case (a bit less stupid), which they might take eventually [beware] in a non-Trump case. Thomas' dissent is troubling. Various odds and ends, including Sotomayor being recused for some reason in a relist denial. We should get recusal clarity. They (for now, unless something new is used) disposed of the latest delay of Trump financials in New York.

SCOTUS also took a few cases though two involve federal polices (public charge and stronger limits on funding of reproductive health services) that the Biden White House might change. It also sent back a qualified immunity case, which might be a promising flag of at least limited concern about its overuse. Finally, among the denials was one by Stormy Daniels trying to get her libel suit back active, raising a technical dispute. 

===

The one opinion released during the week (another Opinion Day scheduled next week) was summarized by SCOTUSBlog thusly: "A unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday issued a limited ruling on the Federal Tort Claims Act’s judgment bar."  Sotomayor added a concurrence of a few pages as she sometimes does to argue the opinion wasn't that broad. It ultimately comes off as a limited loss in regards to attempts to gain justice for governmental abuses.  Thus far, three justices have two opinions each, three members (including two of the Trumps) have no opinion.  And, we have multiple unsigned opinions.

One of the oral arguments held this week had some problems audio-wise, the Supreme Court refusing to join many other courts here and abroad that manage video. We will have more telephonic arguments next month. I'm starting to find them a bit tedious, the back/forth of the old system helping freshen it up some.  Meanwhile, after an earlier hearing on the "shadow docket," the House had one on expanding the lower courts. All were open to the idea though Republicans want to wait until 2025 (nah).  

ETA: Another late Friday (around 9PM) order dropped by the Supreme Court, splitting 6-3, applying recent (unexplained) similarly split order regarding California Big V regulation involving churches (and other stuff).  It is "clearly dictated" that relief not provided by the lower court be provided.  Not really, since the last ruling didn't actually provide a clear five justice (member) opinion, but whatvs.  Amy Howe summary here.  

Basic point here is that the government said it would change its policy NEXT WEEK, but the Supreme Court feels compelled to overrule the lower court late Friday ("throw out the trash day" clearly now applies to them too) and not actually say why.  I don't buy Prof. Eric Segall's (nice guy who engages with me on Twitter and on Dorf on Law) "not a court" line about the Supreme Court, especially since he doesn't actually fully show his work on how it is not one as compared to others. 

But, a "court" should have certain basic aspects and showing its work openly, especially when it is overturning past precedent, is part of it.  Courts, like legislatures (see confirmation of multiple "justices") and executives (Trump highlights this), can fail at their basic responsibilities. They can not really act "like a court" should.  All will to some degree and some argue (including in this context) the Supreme Court has done in broad strokes in various ways.  Sometimes, it's pretty blatant.

Diane

A lesser Lana Turner film, Keep Your Powder Dry, was on a few weeks ago and I thought it enjoyable enough. Looking, the library had Diane, a historical drama with a young Roger Moore and a bit part with "Klinger" from MASH. It was good too, as shown by my ability (harder these days) to watch it straight through. The young actress who plays her rival was also very good. The history is a bit shaky but not too bad as far as I can understand.

I had less luck with Dark Was the Night, which I sought out because Bianca Kajlich from Rules of Engagement had a supporting role. It has something going for it but it was oh so heavy-handed; had to turn if off.

Born Yesterday

Two of the three leads in this film had long careers, including multiple movies for which they are particularly known. The heavy even has a charming cameo in A Little Romance (1979) Judy Holliday (cancer) died in her 40s and had few notable movie roles. But, she shines here in a role she also aced on the stage.

The main card game scene, including focusing on her flair while playing while her powerful big lug boyfriend basically watches in awe, is great. Ditto the scene where the writer hired to "teach her couth" (as the t.v. summary framed it) was schooled by her when he had to explain his pretentious article ("why didn't you just say that?" indeed). The film itself has an almost Capra belief in civics (rare crooked members of Congress, huh?) but its heart is in the right place and still has something to teach us. I recall seeing the remake and thinking it okay.