Zohran Mamdani's Rent Stabilized Apartment

A person (who lived in the city for over fifty years but hasn't for around thirty) is strongly against Zohran Mamdani. They are a Republican. So, no shock.

The person hates Cuomo, partially because they think he killed elderly people during COVID. Says Eric Adams is a crook. Probably has no interest in Curtis Sliwa or thinks he is not a serious candidate. But Mamdani is a socialist, so basically the person endorses Cuomo. 

The latest thing is that Mamdani has a rent-stabilized apartment. This disgusts the person. They are mad that more isn't made of this. Adams and Cuomo, specifically Cuomo, have made it an issue. Cuomo suggested Zohran's Law to mean test rent-stabilized apartments.  

Mamdani's neighbors have had a collective yarn. Cuomo's proposal has been criticized by housing advocates. The numbers overall are not impressive:

Mr. Mamdani has said he was making just $47,000 a year working as a foreclosure counselor when he moved into his current apartment in Astoria years ago. (The median household income for rent-stabilized tenants is around $60,000.) He said he did not know it was rent-stabilized at the time.

Mr. Cuomo said that Mr. Mamdani’s Assembly salary, plus the wealth of his parents, should disqualify the lawmaker from continuing to occupy the unit. Mr. Mamdani has previously told The New York Times that his parents had not supported him financially for years.

The logic, I guess, is that Mamdani should have left the rent-stabilized apartment after he started to make more money and/or became a politician. His critic, speaking totally neutrally (of course), focused on that last part. 

Maybe that would have been the best thing to do symbolically. It's a bit shallow of a concern, but what else is new there? Politics is often about symbolism. The hypocrisy claims are still shallow:

Criticism against socialist candidate for New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, over his acquisition of a rent-stabilized apartment as someone who makes close to $150,000 a year, is ramping up after a watchdog issued a complaint to New York's government ethics commission. 

Unless Mamdani supported means testing, which I am not aware of, there is no hypocrisy here. For instance, freezing rents and making sure (to cite one third party) "rent is not too damn high" is your concern, what changes if you have a rent-stabilized apartment? What makes you not a socialist?

One criticism is that someone else would have obtained the rent-stabilized apartment (a big get but still not a unicorn) if Mamdani didn't. Someone else making what he makes? I guess he could have found a suitable candidate to pass it along to. Sorry, the alternative, with many good things going for him, against criminals and so forth, isn't a saint. 

Oh look. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries reportedly argues the criticism is "legitimate." Helping Cuomo to win, huh? Jeffries might not be the best guy to talk about this issue. Can you just endorse the Democrats' choice, please? What a tool.

Overall, if this is the best you can do, it isn't much. 

About Time

Rachel McAdams was in two films where she was a "time traveler's wife." This one is British and quirky. The time travel is largely used to fix social slip-ups. It was pleasant enough, and the two hours passed quickly. Still, it was a tad too cutesy. And, the time travel at times seemed a tad bit "cheat-y." And, the rules a bit sketchy. 

New York Protects COVID Vaccine Access

New COVID vaccines have only been approved for those over 65 and people with certain health conditions. The linked NPR article has this bit about the Secretary of HHS:

The moves are the latest in a series of steps Kennedy, a long-time and vocal critic of vaccines, has taken to curtail development and availability of vaccines. He's downplayed the risks of infectious diseases, falsely claimed vaccines are risky, canceled hundreds of millions of dollars of research to develop new mRNA vaccines to protect against future pandemics, replaced a key federal advisory committee with like-minded skeptics, and has threatened to overhaul protections for vaccine makers.

I am reminded of the Stolen Valor Act Case that noted "Lying was his habit." Lying and being a self-righteous asshole is Kennedy's asshole. 

Like Susan Collins, it is somewhat unfair to focus on his voice, which he can't help [the tan is a bit different], but an annoying voice is harder to take when the person is annoying overall.  

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continued to lie, quite combatively (repeatedly interrupting female senators; to be fair, he was a general asshole from what I can tell), in a recent Senate hearing. The chair, upon request from the ranking Democrat (who cited previous lying), rejected swearing him in. Still, perjury or no, it's illegal to lie to Congress. 

[His lies are so blatant that repeatedly, including in news interviews, there is clear evidence of him saying the opposite of what he now claims to be true.]

Criticism is welcomed -- at some point, Trump very well might decide he is not worth the bother -- but it is a bit hard to take when every single Republican except McConnell (hard to take for other reasons) voted for him. There is a closing the barn door a bit late feel to all of this.  

(Multiple Republican senators who voted for this public health menace are doctors.)

Multiple blue states are starting to provide alternatives to protect public health. Florida has gone the other way with references to vaccines for schoolchildren as akin to slavery. A reminder that a segment of children, for health reasons, cannot take vaccines, relying on herd immunity.  

Gov. Hochul (New York) handed down an executive order allowing pharmacists to prescribe vaccines confirmed by the state Commission of Health and provide them upon a doctor's prescription. The executive order is only for a month, to give the state legislature power to act. 

People can take the new COVID shot with their autumn flu shot. October is a good time to get a flu shot. I have begun to get them over the last few years. So, the executive order alone might not be enough unless it is extended. 

I rely on my doctor and experts to determine what vaccines to take. My doctor, in a recent appointment, told me I was due for a pneumonia vaccine. So, I had it. My arm was somewhat sore for a few days, but overall it was painless. 

There is no general reason to trust RFK Jr. with our health or the people now in control. That is dangerous. Public health should not be something that depends on politics. Surely not at this level. 

Experts overall counsel people to take the COVID vaccine. Again, I am not going to second-guess these people. I am not going to play doctor. 

I am not a doctor. Doctors in the Senate berated RFK Jr. Plus, there are a variety of reasons not to trust him. He is also not a doctor or any sort of actual expert on public health.

Tragically, we have to rely on the states to serve as a backup. Florida is so bad that Trump is wary. Why wouldn't he? Trump has no personal reason to distrust vaccines. 

He chose Kennedy for political reasons. He opposes things like mask mandates for political reasons. He is not some vaccine skeptic. It is not like racism or sexism for him. Still, half a clap at best:

“Look, you have vaccines that work. They just pure and simple work. They’re not controversial at all, and I think those vaccines should be used, otherwise some people are going to catch it, and they endanger other people,” Trump added. “And when you don’t have controversy at all, I think people should take it.”

This is typical vaccine skeptic talk. Some vaccines are "controversial" and only the non-controversial ones "should be used." That also leaves open opposition to vaccine requirements. We should eat healthily too. There are no mandates for healthy eating. 

There are multiple options to determine the worst choice among Trump's Cabinet. Secretary of Defense (yeah, still is) is high up there. HHS, however, very well might be the most dangerous. The threat to our health is deadly.  

For now, there are multiple ways to provide some oversight and answer lies. The courts continue to be filled with lawsuits against the Administration's illegal actions. Public hearings also provide benefits.

People are cynical about the value of these hearings. They are not panaceas. They do provide some value, including demands for answers and access. 

SCOTUS News

Barrett's Book

Amy Coney Barrett's book, after a long time in the making, is due to be released next week. 

I don't begrudge justices writing books. They have been doing so at least from the time of Chief Justice Marshall, who wrote an official biography of George Washington. They were a mixture of legal and non-legal subjects. Here is a list up to 2012. 

The list includes personal accounts, including John Campbell (who resigned to serve the Confederacy). Not released when he was a justice. Earl Warren's autobiography was released after he died. 

Douglas released some personal accounts while he was still a justice. As did Sandra Day O'Connor. John Paul Stevens waited until after he retired. 

Thomas did not. Kavanaugh and Alito are writing books. Kennedy's book will be released soon. On the current Court, only Roberts and Kagan have or will not in the short term have no books. Breyer, however, focused on legal topics in his books.  

There can be ethical concerns, including properly recusing when the publishing firm has a case in front of the justices. Some people oppose this type of profit-making as a grift. 

Eh. There is a public demand. Justices can provide something of interest. Justice Jackson's book was pretty good, and people are interested in her story. People like Sotomayor's children's books. She is scheduled for Stephen Colbert to promote her latest.

I would be surprised if (1) this book had nothing of interest, (2) it was chocked filled with fascinating details. She has an interesting biography to some degree (all those kids!). 

An inside account, however watered down, is of some value. For instance, she will make some comments that express her views, if in some general, often bland sort of way. Having a conversation about these issues has value. Justices will add to it in various respects.  

It is questionable when conservatives promote these books on the conservative circuit. It has a dubious ethical feel of promoting a certain ideological cause. Sotomayor and Jackson apparently sought out more mainstream places like bookstores and libraries. Barrett has talked to a CBS correspondent, too, so far. 

Previews cite her comments defending Dobbs, including citing Ginsburg's criticism of Roe v. Wade. She thought it went too fast. She wanted them to use an equal protection rationale. It was too soon for that.

The Court's sex equality jurisprudence was in its infancy. Also, even Blackmun -- the author of Roe -- rejected an argument that pregnancy discrimination was sex discrimination. Nine men were not ready.  

She had a case of a servicewoman who wanted to have her baby (the government, back then, encouraged abortions). Her brief included an argument for reproductive liberty. Ginsburg strongly defended -- this is what Dobbs was about -- upholding Roe v. Wade.  

Barrett also argues that the people overall are more divided about abortion than other things protected as fundamental rights. Only as a matter of degree. A Roe-like ballot measure almost met the 60% threshold in conservative Florida in 2024. A somewhat less liberal measure might have passed.

I don't want to read the book. I find her confirmation appalling after the Garland blockage. She repeatedly made horrible decisions. Barrett might be the best of the three Trump justices, and better than Alito and Thomas, but only grading on a curve. 

I respect my health too much to read that book. It would cause me angina. It's why I can't read journalistic accounts of the Kavanaugh nomination. 

Barrett says she wrote the book to help people trust the Court. She argued in the past that the justices aren't just partisan hacks. YMMV on her success. 

Lower Courts Criticize 

An excellent article discusses lower court judges' aggravation with the Supreme Court. 

They are being attacked, sometimes with violent threats, for doing their jobs. It has some judges (Republican and Democratic nominees) giving opinions off the record, including some CYA "I'm concerned about the judicial TDS" tool to provide balance to please the editors. 

The Supreme Court does little but reverse them (oh joy! They could do so more often!) and then criticize them for not reading the tea leaves of opaque shadow docket opinions "correctly." 

Kavanaugh, who joined a Gorsuch criticism of lower court judges, grants that sometimes the opinions are unclear. The justices sometimes struggle for agreement, resulting in some confusion. 

How about just letting lower court judges do their job? If you can only agree upon opaque confusion, don't step in. Justice Jackson correctly challenges Kavanaugh's claim that they have to do so. 

[Footnote 8.]

And, yes, it is hard listening to that guy (even quoted on the written page). He is such a tool.  

Summer Order List 

September is here. Children are going back to school. And, we have the last of the three scheduled summer order lists. The new term is rapidly approaching. 

The order list is (as usual) bland. Justice Thomas didn't take part in one decision and (like each conservative) did not explain why. 

These order lists, however, usually have some interesting tidbits. Chris Geidner flags on BlueSky that the Administration was granted argument time in two cases for which it is not a party. 

The case involves limits on the right to counsel (it supports the state) and the Colorado ban on conversion therapy for minors (it would hold the state to the hard-to-meet strict scrutiny standard).  

Execution Postponed 

A Utah execution was postponed because the state supreme court is concerned about dementia issues. Thus, an execution for a crime that took place in the 1980s is delayed yet longer. Just forget about it. 

There are more executions scheduled later this month.

One Little Indian

 

James Garner, in his autobiography, didn't rank this very highly, though he said he enjoyed working with a young Jodie Foster. One movie book gave it 2.5/4 stars and called it quirky. I think that's fair. I overall enjoyed it. Decent pace and some good performances.

Why Don't Democrats Support Voter ID Laws?

The notion that there are significant numbers of eligible voters out there who are prevented from voting if ID laws are in place is as dumb as the idea that there are significant numbers of illegal voters out there who voter ID laws will stop.

Adjectives are hard to quantify, but lawsuits and research have provided evidence that voting ID laws have blocked some people from voting. 

A trivial amount? Let's see how Democrats with their base will do handwaving when a few elderly black ladies can't vote because they lack the proper identification.

It is also a type of tax, especially depending on the identification necessary. When this was brought up before, this was somewhat handwaved by stating something like "well, it might cost $25, but."

Well, that's a poll tax. Lots of people already don't vote. Some additional barriers will be one more reason not to do so. Okay. Just make everything free! 

That would be nice, though it is not the case in all jurisdictions. The time and effort, including for those who don't bring the right i.d. to the polls, will still be there.

It's acknowledged that the laws aren't necessary to stop illegal voting. Encouraging identification, including helping people obtain identification for other uses, has some value. NYC established a convenient local photo identification that also brings benefits such as discounts at museums and so forth.

Voting identification -- which often does not require photographic identification (still another layer of regulation & the lack of a photograph lessens the alleged value of the regulation) -- might also help you gain votes for voting rights laws. And some political credibility as a "moderate." 

So, there is some value for Democrats, though a libertarian might find it bad policy. 

[The quote is from a self-proclaimed libertarian's comment, finding it stupid that Democrats don't support voter ID. 

The "libertarian" supports Israel, is critical of trans supporters, has not shown support of abortion rights, but otherwise has shown some libertarian consistency, including supporting Harris over Trump.]

OTOH, its [p.r.] value is limited. Not that many people care about the issue. If they are educated about the problem, they know voter identification isn't necessary.

So, you are likely to have a large segment of people who are conspiracy theorists or inclined not to trust vote integrity overall. They will find something to complain about.

Also, Democrats and those who support them have a reason to mistrust the good faith of supporters of voting identification laws.

Ignoring that, ignoring that there is no significant need for them (and the chance that once you give in, it will just encourage the "need" for more unnecessary voting regulations), noting that there will be some people for whom the identification will involve at least a minor amount of bother (and a few that will have more) ... well, yes, I can see why Democrats are wary about supporting them.

It might be useful if something was obtained in return & if there is a grace period, but I understand the concern.

A Grand Jury Doesn't Indict a Sandwich (Thrower)

I discuss grand juries and not indicting those who throw ham sandwiches. I toss in a look at how the process can be the punishment, as shown by what happened in a famous SCOTUS case.  

WoodSongs Old-Time Radio Hour

 

This is a kid's episode of a folk music program that airs on an arts channel. Those educational channels have some good stuff. 

Let's Take a Look at the Head of the Trump Religious Liberty Commission

A blog post responding to an anti-Islam troll led me to this dude. He was also cited by the Freedom From Religion Foundation radio program. 

We are talking about Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (TX). Not the sports guy. He was mad when someone did not stand during a Christian invocation. It is not totally clear whether the legislator was doing so purposely or was just talking to a staff member for some reason. 

"For those of you who didn't stand, next time you come to the gallery, you stand for the invocation," Patrick said on Aug. 15. "It's respecting the Senate. If you don't stand for the invocation, I'll have you removed. We asked you to stand. I've never seen a gallery ever have any members in my 17 years of people who refused to stand for the invocation. It will not be tolerated."

The head of the religious liberty commission is not aware (or he doesn't believe) that there is a right not to stand for religious speakers. He was not as respectful when someone was saying a Muslim player. He walked out of the chamber. 

Patrick has continued to win state and national support for his religio-political efforts. He was tapped to steer the Trump administration's Religious Liberty Commission and finally shepherded Republicans to pass his long-desired Ten Commandments law. 

(A federal judge in San Antonio blocked Senate Bill 10 from taking effect Sept. 1. Texas will challenge the judge's ruling in the appeals court.)

Patrick states on his website that “I placed ‘In God We Trust’ in the State Senate. I placed ‘Under God’ in our State Pledge.” Christian God, I suppose. 

The legislator who did not stand leans toward Buddhism these days and has a religiously diverse family. One sister identifies as Episcopalian; another follows the mystical Islamic form of Sufism; other siblings are atheists; and one nephew is Muslim.

If you are going to push back on Christian nationalism in Texas, you will often use Christian beliefs to do so. Jesus spoke of keeping religion private. The Bible provides people with free will. People willingly make religious choices.

"Religion is being used. It's being prostituted," Eckhardt said. "It is sickening to watch faith being perverted or exploited to push policies that are incredibly cruel, incredibly selfish, and are really about power and have nothing to do with religion."

Some people, largely the left side of the political spectrum, just go after religion. I don't think that is necessary. I listen to and read FFRF materials. I am, however, more of a freethinker than someone who wants to be free of religion.

The problem is the misuse of religion. Religion is a basic aspect of human existence. Let's just focus on the usual definition. I put aside past concerns. 

It is still going to exist in a major way. It is the perversion of religion that is a core problem. 

Conservative religions are not necessarily the problem here if there is an appropriate separation of church and state. Yes, there will be problems there too, if only in the private sphere. We cannot just handwave.

The government still has a special amount of power. The misuse of governmental power to promote religion is a major problem. 

19A Turns 105 & EJ Carroll Book

I cover the title in this Substack entry. 

Curtis Windom Execution

Windom was convicted of killing Johnnie Lee [CW's best friend], Valerie Davis [girlfriend/mother of CW's child] and Mary Lubin [mother of Davis] on Feb. 7, 1992. Court documents said Windom claimed that Lee owed him $2,000. After finding out that Lee had won $114 at a greyhound track, Windom bought a .38-caliber revolver and ammunition and shot Lee.

Curtis Windom murdered someone for trivial reasons (it would seem better to keep him alive if all you got was $114!). He also murdered two more people. All had a close relationship with him. 

One article summarizes further:

On the 28th of August 2025, in just a few days, Florida is scheduled to execute Curtis Windom, a Black man who has spent 33 years on death row. He grew up in poverty, lives with intellectual disabilities, and has long shown signs of brain damage. His legal defence was riddled with failures. The Florida Supreme Court itself acknowledged that his lawyer chose not to present evidence of his mental illness or brain damage, for fear it might complicate the case. As a result, jurors never heard crucial mitigating evidence. And the jury that sentenced him to death did so by an 8 - 4 majority, a verdict that would not stand in most other states, or in the eyes of the US Supreme Court, which has said capital sentences should be unanimous.

My sentiments regarding executing people decades after the crime remain the same as Justice Breyer's. Ultimately, he deserved a long time in prison, and he had it. Thirty-plus years in prison.  

I don't think an 8-4 vote for execution is enough to provide a clear judgment that he warrants death. The other problems are a mixed bag. They do help my judgment that execution is not warranted here. 

[ETA: I cannot find another reference to that split jury verdict. One early opinion spoke of a unanimous jury.]

The second article also notes that his daughter opposes the execution. A different article references, without clarification, that his lawyers obtained letters opposing the execution from the families of each victim. 

But there are many family members. Close family members of mine, for instance, don't have the same position on the death penalty. Do we do a poll? And there appears to be a split here as well. 

Ultimately, "what about the victims" only goes so far, in both directions. The execution is in the name of the people overall. It is not a punishment merely for the victim's family.   

The article discusses various recent legal challenges related to this execution. The process of choosing who to execute among those on death row is shrouded in secrecy. The governor has discretion.  

Florida is becoming the execution capital of the nation. This includes legislation making it easier to execute people. Also symbolic messaging:

The bill included language asserting that Kennedy v. Louisiana was ​“wrongly decided” and constituted “an egregious infringement of the states’ power to punish the most heinous of crimes.”  

I oppose executing those who committed crimes before they were eighteen. It is valid to voice opposition to Supreme Court opinions. 

There was an allegation by Justice Scalia and others that once the Supreme Court did something like ban the execution of those who raped children, that it would be fixed in stone. Not so. 

Such opinions are partially based on the independent judgment of the Supreme Court. That can change. Also, state legislatures can pass resolutions that flag changing sentiments that can be relevant too.

Windom’s face was obscured by a sheet when the curtain was raised to the execution chamber shortly before a three-drug injection was administered. In his final moments, Windom said something about being on death row but it was not intelligible. Then, as the drugs began flowing, Windom started to take deep breaths. His legs twitched several times, and then he was still.

Anyway, the Supreme Court -- without comment from any justice -- rejected a final appeal. Florida executed him the next day.

More executions are due next month.  

Kilmar Abrego Garcia Update [He's No Out Anymore]

Here is a bit of reaction to the latest news. He's back, after about five months (imagine that), with his family. For now.

Partisan Gerrymandering in the Texas and California

Donald Trump said Tuesday that he is pushing Texas Republicans to redraw the state’s congressional maps to create more House seats favorable to his party, part of a broader effort to help the GOP retain control of the chamber in next year’s midterm elections.

Trump wants to rig the system because he thinks the people will not otherwise support him. There is much opposition to the things he has done so far. He is trying this time to do a bunch of things without congressional approval (illegally, though the Supreme Court repeatedly has helped him out).

Partisan gerrymandering is a basic way for a political party to obtain and retain power without popular support. It is ultimately a violation of the republican form of government. "We the People" no longer govern by a fair expression of the vote. 

The Guarantee Clause has long been deemed (probably somewhat wrongly) non-justiciable. Nonetheless, other means can be used by the courts, including the Equal Protection Clause (see "one person, one vote").  States and Congress can also address the problem.

The Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) conclusively (after Kennedy never bit the bullet) said partisan gerrymandering is not for the federal courts to handle. I question blaming John Roberts, full stop, here. 

Kavanaugh is probably the person directly to blame. He was the fifth vote. Likewise, Barrett is to blame for Dobbs (abortion). But Roberts is the Chief Justice. It is part of his decades-long conservative anti-voting rights campaign.* 

Texas is the second most populous state. It is standardly cited as a red state. Nonetheless, over forty percent of the voting population voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. There is a significant Democratic presence. A fair map will provide many Democrats. Good luck with that. 

The campaign to make the map even more Republican-focused apparently cannot wait until the end of the decade. The Constitution sets forth once per decade apportionment tied to the census. Mid-decade apportionment, other than to fix disputed maps, should be traditionally disfavored. 

California, the most populous state (and state of mind), has stepped in to check Texas. They are using the amendment process and proposing a gerrymandered map. The people have to accept the amendment first. New York has a more extended process. We could not act as quickly.  

The amendment has language supporting federal reform, both legislatively and by constitutional amendment. Partisan gerrymandering ultimately requires a national solution. 

Strategically, unilateral disarmament is ill-advised. There will also be a "race to the bottom" problem. Now, Republicans control many more legislative halls and governors' mansions.

They see misrule as having short-term gains. 

==

* Roberts decided on Thursday, for once, to vote for the liberals during Trump 2.0 in a confusing 4-1-4 ruling. More shadow docket shenanigans. 

Jackson strongly speaks out, including accusing the Court of Calvinball. The case involving NIH funding, and in one bit, Jackson notes the result will include euthanizing animals used in research. 

Great. Now, SCOTUS is killing animals.

The Garner Files

I saw a reference to James Garner's autobiography when reading about They Only Kill Their Masters. He ranked his films and gave it two stars. He didn't want to talk about the film otherwise. So mysterious!

The book is overall pretty good. He wrote it with someone a few years before his death.

I can do without chapters on golf and racing, but they are two of his passions. An "outtakes" section provides various stories from family, friends, and others. He talks about his childhood without talking much about his wife and daughters (very little, though they pop up in the outtakes section).  

Garner (originally Bumgarner) references that his cousin once told him that his mother died from complications of an abortion. She was twenty-six and had three young boys in Depression Era Oklahoma. 

(It was just referenced in a discussion about his childhood. He later says he supports abortion rights and is a strong Democrat.) 

Julia Sweeney, in an otherwise light-hearted book on parenthood, talked about how her mother-in-law got an illegal abortion in the 1960s. Sweeney did some good long-form monologues, including her first, "God Said, Ha!" A later one was basically "God? Ha!"

You can hear Garner's telltale voice while reading the book. His characters often had much of him in them. He did not train to be an actor. He got work early on because he had a movie star look. Garner got married in around two weeks. It worked for him -- they stayed together for nearly sixty years.  

I was not a big fan of his private eye television show, though I know people who liked it. I wanted to check out Maverick, his 1950s show, and saw it was on. It turns out to have been a late episode with Roger Moore, who replaced him! 

I like James Garner overall as an actor, including in Murphy's Romance. I did not see that many of his movies. I checked out the first of his Western spoofs. Didn't much care for it. His one-season television show, Nichols, was playing on one of the retro stations. Think he would appreciate that. 

(I agree with him that The Notebook is very good.) 

I had difficulty finding a good book lately. The latest by Erik Loomis (Organizing America) with twenty thumbnail biographies was pretty interesting. 

This one was a good, easy read, though again was not really interested in forty pages about golf and racing. And would have liked to read a bit more about his daughters. Overall, he had a good no-nonsense philosophy mixed with empathy. Good values. 

He gives some opinions, good and bad, about some actors and other people he knew. Nothing too terrible, but he does criticize a few celebrities. 

Garner also said that he was a long-term user of marijuana, finding it helpful for medicinal purposes. If anything, alcohol was more dangerous in his experience.  He tried cocaine via Jim Belushi but didn't care for it.  Not too many big reveals overall.

Kayle Barrington Bates [Maud Dib Al Sharif] Executed

He overpowered her and forcibly took her from the office building to the woods where he savagely beat, strangled and attempted to rape her, leaving approximately 30 contusions, abrasions and lacerations on various parts of her face and body. Bates was found at the scene of the crime and he had the victim's blood on his clothing. He had the victim's ring in his pocket.

This is another horrible crime that warranted a long prison sentence. In many countries, imprisoning someone for this crime for over forty years (as here) would be deemed cruel and unusual punishment. 

It is overall rather serious. Justice Breyer remains correct in arguing that there is a constitutional problem with executing someone after all this time. The state interest has significantly decreased. 

You are executing a different person. After they were in prison for decades. I think it is a form of euthanasia to end the life of a certain subset of senior citizens. 

There is also a claim that Florida has applied the death penalty in an illegitimate racial way. They have done so in the dark, so to speak, adding another layer of difficulty. The Supreme Court was not accepting of a comparable claim back when he was in prison for only a few years. They are not much more open to it. 

The claim was given somewhat more attention with two amicus briefs provided. I think that is worthy of a bit of discussion from some justice before the state executes the tenth person (a third of the national rate) this year. They have another one scheduled later this month. 

No comment. The usual no comment final orders. That is wrong. Wrong Sotomayor. Wrong Jackson. Wrong Kagan. Wrong all the rest.  

One new claim, rejected by the state as long past its sell date, is that he has "organic brain damage" that makes it unreasonable to execute him. Such claims are hard to prove. My stance is that when the death penalty is involved, a big thumb should be on the scales on the side of the challenger. 

He was first sentenced by an all white jury. He was resentenced in the 1990s by a 9-3 vote. Only Florida and Alabama allow non-unanimous juries to authorize the death penalty. The Supreme Court has determined that the original guilt phase must be unanimous.  

The Supreme Court has not directly addressed whether this is acceptable, but repeatedly (with Sotomayor flagging it) refused a request to do so. I find it dubious. An execution effectively involves a special crime, the worst of the worst, murder. 

(The Supreme Court, in dicta, allowed drug kingpin-type laws where murder is not directly involved. Also, treason and war crimes are treated differently. Military crimes, including rape, have also been left open.)  

I think it warrants a unanimous jury, at least, if that is the rule otherwise in place. If only two states, states where racism is still a concern, emphasizing the value of a unanimous jury, allow them, it makes it harder to justify. "Due process" is partially a matter of looking at normal procedures nationwide.  

Anyway, executing someone over forty years after they committed a horrible crime, whatever name he uses, is misguided at best. Even without there appearing to be some other red flags. 

Short and Long Term Reactions

A conservative who is not just a Trump suck-up but has shown not much concern decided yet again to be an anti-anti-Trump critic, a quite annoying breed. 

It did not receive much attention, and I eventually decided to respond. This might have led to more attention. Well, twenty more comments as I begin these comments. 

One reply to a comment noted:

Congress has passed laws. Trump is flagrantly defying them. Congress should either be using the tools at its disposal (hearings, impeachment, lawsuits) to check Trump, or — if it actually agrees with Trump that those laws are bad — it should be repealing them.

Similarly, Trump is doing things Congress never authorized him to do. Congress should either be using the tools at its disposal (hearings, impeachment, lawsuits) to check Trump, or — if it actually agrees with Trump that he should have that authority — it should be giving him that authority.

I pushed back at someone else who said Congress did not have a "duty" necessarily to do these things. Checks and balancing is the role of each branch, with special focus on the courts sometimes overblown. 

The legislative role in upholding constitutional rights (or potentially so) is shown in an interesting article on women's suffrage. It is ever more important when the stakes are congressional power. 

These are things to think about when planning for the future. The time to start planning a long-term response to current problems is yesterday.  Here is a good top 10 list. I'm unsure how much debate many will have with it, except for the expansion of the Supreme Court. It's a question of how. 

Dan Froomkin (generally a good read) also cites another person, providing three categories:

The first is the post-Watergate model, which primarily involves codifying unwritten norms in legislation and executive branch rules. The second is the politically treacherous path of judicial reform. The third, amending the Constitution, is only a dim possibility but still useful to consider, because some of the problems highlighted by Trump lie in the Constitution itself.

The "norms" thing is important. Trump is significant in that he is willing to say "fuck you" to norms. Mitch McConnell did too with Merrick Garland. Democrats are more wary, being more about productive governing, but that can be taken too far. It also gets them a lot of scorn.

Froomkin notes that, in the short term, noncompliance is one method of resistance. Consider how slaves used that tool. If slaves can, people with more power can do it as well. More about the current situation in D.C. is found here. 

The immediate concern here is Trump (including Putin owning him in Alaska, when in a sane world, Putin would be arrested for human rights violations, including illegal aggressive war). There are wider lessons. For instance, what do you do in Florida or Texas if you support trans rights?

My three rules continue to hold: point out a problem, find a way to address it (short and long term), and explain how you would handle things if given the chance.  All matter, but doing only one isn't enough.

===

Note: The last two links are two LGM entries by the latest reasonable addition, who, by chance or not, is again a woman. They often talked about foreign policy issues. And, they are my favorite additions to the blog. One was replaced by the blog's weak leak, whose purpose often seems to be to troll. 

More Animus Against Trans People

A second a related point is that laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. "[I]f the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." 

There is a constitutional line of cases, which Justice Kennedy repeatedly applied in cases involving gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, that deems laws motivated by animus as not providing a legitimate state purpose. 

Laws have to meet a low rational basis bar unless fundamental rights are involved. I have argued "low" doesn't mean "none," but it doesn't take much at all to meet the test without more. However, other red flags might arise. Animus is one such red flag.

The animus cases included disputes involving hippies, intellectually disabled people, and LGB individuals.  These days, the principle is also sometimes used to flag religious animus, at times dubiously.  

One red flag for animus is that a law is not a good fit (underinclusive or overbroad) to the alleged neutral interests. The blanket anti-LGB (now likely with a "T") law in Romer v. Evans was quite excessive for the narrow interests (such as privacy) asserted. 

Animus can also be shown by something being gratuitously offensive. Consider this recent news:

The US Air Force is denying early retirement to all transgender service members with 15-18 years of military service, opting instead to force them out with no retirement benefits.

Why is this necessary? See also this:

The Air Force says in a new memo that transgender airmen ousted under a recent Trump administration directive will no longer have the chance to argue before a board of their peers for the right to continue serving their country.

“I’ve seen people with three DUIs retained, I’ve seen people that beat their wives retained, I’ve seen all kinds of people retained because the board is empowered to retain anyone for any reason if they feel it’s in the best interest of the service,” she said.

Animus against trans people is common these days. Courts have deemed it appropriate, ignoring red flags. The Supreme Court, by the usual split, in May lifted an injunction blocking the anti-trans military policy. We shall see how much room lower courts have to maneuver here.  

The Trump Administration overturned a Biden Administration policy respecting trans service personnel.  The Trump Administration alleges trans people are not "physically or mentally prepared to serve." They are allegedly immoral liars.

Animus against trans people is immoral. Millions of people are trans. They have friends and loved ones who make the number of people directly harmed that much larger. This is not some sort of DEI thing, though again, DEI(A) is a good thing, anyway. 

It is our responsibility, including those with power, to respect and protect the rights of trans people. They deserve the level of dignity and respect that everyone does. A sane and sensible government recognizes this.

The Putin-Trump Presser (Comment)

I think it is worth noting for the record that a war criminal, guilty of the waging of aggressive war, identified at Nuremberg as the “supreme war crime”, whose aggressive war is *still going on”, just landed on American soil, shook hands with the president, and flew off unmolested. Fuck.

Yup. 

SCOTUS Watch

2025 Schedule

It is that time of the summer -- time to start thinking about the next Supreme Court term. 

After a longer delay than usual, apparently, the opening two oral argument schedules have been posted. It involves some important issues. There is also a new look.

The website is slowly being improved. One goal of mine is for orders not to just be screenshots. They should have links to the docket pages. 

Also, again, for some reason, they did not post permanent screenshots of pages linked in opinions. They did in the past. The page is empty now.

Meanwhile, AOL is ending dial-up. 

On the Shadow Docket

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down a request from a tech industry group to temporarily bar Mississippi from enforcing a state law that restricts access by young people to social media. In a brief, unsigned order, the justices allowed the state to continue to enforce the law against major social media sites, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, X, Reddit, and YouTube, while litigation continues in the lower courts.

Kavanaugh decided to drop a concurrence noting the law is likely unconstitutional, but (citing a few pages from a brief), holding up the law was not suitable. 

Steve Vladeck on Bluesky called out SCOTUS for explaining themselves, making it seem they are applying the rules arbitrarily. Kavanaugh sometimes explaining himself does not help much.

A liberal professor sees nothing wrong with the law. The major concern with the order is the inconsistency of the shadow docket. Or whatever you want to call it.

There are various possible problems with such laws. Sometimes, the age software is a problem for adults. 

The state sometimes includes speech that is fit for minors among the blocked material, including LGBTQ and safe sex material. Some comparable laws have been used against drag. 

The devil is in the details. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court should be less shadowy. 

Summer Orders

The second summer order list will be released on Monday. It is likely to be nothing much. 

If it isn't, I will add more. [Nothing of note.]

Let's Make D.C. A State

Trump attacked D.C. as a criminal hellscape even though crime rates are at a historical low. He took advantage (see link) of the complicated law in place to "take over" the police functions there. I use those quotes advisedly.

He cannot permanently take control. Nonetheless, there are various ways he can interfere with local control. Also, he can bullshit about the hellscape part. Both are bad.

The catalyst of this specific activity appears to be (though maybe they were planning it anyway) an attempted carjacking involving a former DOGE worker with a stupid nickname. The incident happened, even if he exaggerated it. 

Some data points don't change the overall fact that D.C. is not a hellscape. Or, that interfering with local government is wrong. We saw a preview of this a couple of years ago when some Democrats (a supermajority in the Senate, only a small fraction in the House) blocked a local crime bill. 

One message that recent events show is that we need to have D.C. statehood. I have supported something less (home rule + a voting member of the House), but realistically, that would require a constitutional amendment. Statehood is the easiest way to defend voting rights and home rule. 

The population warrants a voting House member, hopefully someone else than the current one, who is nearing ninety and is way past her prime. 

Statehood brings a few other things, but I don't think they are problematic with a few other states with similar populations in place. The fact that D.C. has less unpopulated land doesn't do much for me. 

(We can amend the Constitution to overturn the 23rd Amendment, but Congress can also just allot the electors by national population. So, that is not much of a problem.)

Someone elsewhere argued the current Supreme Court would not accept making D.C. a state. I think there are no good reasons constitutionally to deny statehood. But, stupidity is not a barrier for this Supreme Court. If so, that will provide an incentive to do something about the Court.

Short term, Trump can only do so much regarding D.C., and what he announced is, to some significant degree, a lot of blather. Longer term, it suggests that among the changes made should include D.C. statehood. The two senators will partially help to balance out the misapportioned Senate.  

It is also a learning opportunity regarding talking about crime and what to do about it. We can continue to blather on about how "defund the police" is a stupid slogan. Either way, reducing the footprint of the police will promote public safety and police efficiency.  

And, tangentially, we should get a clear statement from Puerto Rico on what it wants to do regarding statehood. Puerto Rico repeatedly comes up in these discussions. Size-wise, at least, there is no complication regarding its "state-worthiness." 

Finally, in regard to "no taxation without representation" and all that, can territorial citizens overall finally be able to vote for president? Thinly populated territories might be too small to become states. They should have basic voting rights.  

(SCOTUS overturning the Insular Cases can help in the battle to treat overseas territories as equal partners)

And, yes, Trump is a convicted felon, and should be convicted of a lot more. He commuted and pardoned over 1000 people involved in the biggest crime in D.C. history. There is a big degree of “yeah right” to him fighting crime in D.C. 

Two Things, One Good, One Bad

I discussed in more detail a possible botched execution last week. 

After there were women officials in other sports (including football), we finally had the first woman umpire in a MLB game. 

They Only Kill Their Masters

This film was on TCM. 

Good group of character actors. Seriously. The film is almost like a Murder She Wrote episode regarding the number of classic film actors in supporting roles.

Garner (in his autobiography) once ranked his films. This received 2/5, but he didn't want to talk about it. That is likely to lead people to wonder why. 

I would probably rank it 3/5 on that scale for the cast, setting, and the plot for much of the film. It was an enjoyable, deliberate mystery taking part in a small town. It was a very good role for James Garner.

[The film does go in an annoying direction, so I might give it 2.5. OTOH, lots of 3/5 films have flaws. That sort of film is decent, taking everything into consideration. So, the bad stuff is averaged in.] 

The film, in a limited fashion, involves bisexuality/lesbianism, which is put in a bad light given the plot. Some people will be a bit shocked at who the killer turns out to be. At least given who plays the role. Garner's character, at one point, out of nowhere (really), references not being a "faggot" for some reason. I was a bit taken aback.

Anyway, the film was enjoyably moseying along [I was watching it late at night], and then it hit into stupid plot point territory. Garner's character not only made a misguided assumption (or three) but also did something dangerously stupid. 

It ruined things for me, and I shut it off. I checked Wikipedia to see what happened. The solution to the mystery was unpleasant and somewhat lame. Plus, there is the "small town has a dark side" flavor there. Finally, how many seems fine but has a creepy side roles has Hal Holbrook done?  

We also have another case of the gratuitous shooting of a guilty party. Television and film don't need the death penalty with all the people being shot dead. 

So, I enjoyed the movie until I didn't. James Garner was overall very good. Not sure why he didn't want to talk about it. Probably something personal, including conflict with a cast member or the like.  

There is a "title drop" (involving a dog) early in the film. As noted in Wikipedia, there were multiple (failed) attempts to use the general concept as the basis of a series (using different actors). I can see it. 

Nixon Resigned, What A Piker

President Nixon resigned OTD 51 years ago. The Supreme Court had shortly before handed down a unanimous opinion (one justice recused), written by the Chief Justice he nominated, requiring him to release the Watergate Tapes. 

The district court ordered the tapes to be turned over on May 31. Both sides appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on July 8. The opinion was handed down on July 24. And, again, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. 

(His vice president was Gerald Ford. Ford wasn't great in some ways. He earlier tried to get Justice William Douglas impeached. Ford pardoned Nixon. But, let's say Ford is no James David Vance.) 

There is little reason to think this would happen this time. The Roberts Courts over and over again slow-walked Trump cases to his benefit. They repeatedly ran out the clock. Trump, in that situation, very well could have finished his term. Two months on an accelerated basis for Trump v. U.S. could have meant an early February 2024 opinion.

Two Trump judges slow-walked for months an appeal of criminal contempt proceedings arising out of interference with a federal district court. The case involved illegally sending people to a foreign hellhole. 

A human rights violation, among other things. When will there be justice for that? Is never good for you? 

If you check out the beginning of the opinion, one name might seem familiar. Emil Bove. The f-ing asshole, to use his language, who 50 Republicans (one not voting) decided to confirm to the court of appeals for a good behavior tenured position even though there were repeated red flags. 

The decision is held up for months, but is released shortly after he is confirmed. Huh. It must merely be a coincidence. BTW, in a more just world, Judge Pillard (who wrote the dissent) would have been Ginsburg's replacement on the Supreme Court. 

Executive overreach is a real concern--perhaps now more than ever--it does not justify the judiciary responding in kind.

A conservative (sometimes labeled "libertarian") who now and then notes he is not a fan of Trump recently, somewhat sarcastically, replied to complaints that the Supreme Court is appeasing Trump. Sure. 

Executive overreach is a concern, "perhaps" it is particularly so now, but that doesn't mean the judiciary should respond too strongly. Both sides do it! He, without comment, posted the news of the court of appeals judgment.  

I think a "conservative" supports the rule of law, including not ignoring court rulings in fact and spirit. We have no Barry Goldwaters in Congress these days. We have some actual conservatives in the judiciary. Not those two.   

The specific thing addressed here is, on some level, ridiculously limited. No one ultimately got a criminal contempt. It was ultimately a statement of judicial principle. If they did, Trump could have pardoned them. The bare minimum, however, was blocked on bullshit grounds.  

Less than five years after urging rioters to “kill” police at the Capitol, a former Jan. 6 defendant is working as a senior adviser for the Department of Justice, which has been dramatically remade under the second Trump administration.

NPR has a striking, well-researched article on this guy. He isn't some simple schmuck. He had long-term federal service before he engaged in an insurrection, which under the terms of the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment should mean he was constitutionally unqualified for his latest position. The Supreme Court, however, blocked that. 

The specific decision discussed here is likely to be appealed to the full D.C. Circuit, which has a clear liberal majority. It was statistically rather strange that Trump had a 2-1 panel. And then, perhaps in another year, the Supreme Court will find it moot or something. 

Anyway, as a guy said in The Whole Nine Years, this is some shit. The battle continues, including the battle to try to get us to a world halfway like the one where Nixon got his comeuppance, helped by a Supreme Court doing its job. 

I refuse to think that will happen "never." 

The Makeover

 

A Hallmark Hall of Fame film from 2012 with Julia Stiles and Camryn Manheim (supporting role). Stiles plays uptight well. Good cast. Overall, enjoyable, with a bit of a twist near the end. 

Sedition and Shadow Institutions

Sedition: How America's Constitutional Order Emerged from Violent Crisis discusses multiple instances of "a factious commotion of people, or a tumultuous assembly of men rising in opposition to law or the administration of justice, and in disturbance of the public peace"* involving state and local governments. The instances include the Dorr's Rebellion in Rhode Island and three instances in the South during and after Reconstruction. 

The book argues that we should pay more attention to threats to state and local governments. They are a type of canary in the coal mine. They are also more fragile, partially because we respect and sometimes even worship the nation's authority more. 

We are at a perilous moment now and some are starting to talk about the moral necessity about resisting the government. I offer a suggestion about using "shadow institutions" in this effort. The details are sketchy, but I do think it has some potential.  

(I also reference my answer to someone who was upset about a passage reference to "natural" rights, which tends to trigger some people. I felt the reply largely beside the point but did allow me to blather.)

Anyway, the general idea is that if the government we have is not acting legitimately, we need to provide shadow institutions that provide another way. The institutions also need to have some legitimacy and reasonable claim of popular representation. 

So, for instance, the Democratic Party and state/local governments can play a role. Nonetheless, sometimes private groups earn their legitimacy by popular support. The possibility of "popular constitutionalism" by alternative methods was suggested by Mark Tushnet in a book written pre-Barrett. 

We need to think creatively. 

==

* The book also provides a dictionary definition of treason, insurrection, and rebellion. 

Treason is an attempt to overthrow a government by someone who owes allegiance to said government.  

Insurrection is "open and active opposition of a number of persons [how many?] to the execution of law in a city or state." Rebellion is "open resistance to lawful authority." 

Both, as we saw with discussions related to 1/6, realistically need some degree of scale. 

August Sixth

Three important things happened today over the years. Other things happened. These things stand out.

Hiroshima

A nuclear bomb was dropped on Japan in 1945. We have since then debated if it was just to do so.

One analysis today suggests the Soviet Union's entering the war factored in. Experts still debating suggest that just maybe people in the midst of things acted reasonably. 

Not necessarily correctly. But 20/20 hindsight is easier than a decision in the middle of a world war. 

Voting Rights Act 

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a fundamental defense of basic republican values. Voting rights are still threatened today. Rick Hasen's right-to-vote amendment idea (and his book discussing it) is worthwhile. 

I think the current Constitution protects a right to vote, but it has not been adequately applied in recent years. An amendment could also address such things as people in territories not being able to vote for president. 

A new Voting Rights Act is a fundamental goal when sanity returns to the national government.  

Bin Laden 

Today was also the date of the infamous "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US" presidential daily brief. 

The Bush Administration assured us no one would have expected something like that. See also, the chance Iraq II would go badly. No one expected that!

I am not going to say that President Gore would have stopped the attacks. There was reason to think Clinton/Gore were paying more attention to the overall threat of Bin Laden. But it assumes too much to think Gore would have stopped 9/11. 

It is more likely that the Gore Administration would have focused on Afghanistan and not invaded Iraq. How Gore would have handled Afghanistan -- it lingered on until the Biden Administration -- is also unclear. Some are a bit too cocksure about things. 

Here is a discussion on 9/11/21. 

Byron Black Execution (and Old Trans Rights Case)

On Tuesday morning, Tennessee plans to execute Byron Black for the March 1988 murders of Angela Clay and her two children. The killings were motivated by Black’s anger and jealousy over the prospect that Clay, whom he had dated, was going to reconcile with her husband.

A Justia/Verdict essay helps me out by discussing the latest execution. Toss in my time-old opposition to executing people decades (20+ years is a sound dividing line) as Justice Breyer (with Ginsburg; Stevens did so earlier) explained. 

Many horrible crimes are motivated by personal grievances. They also provide fewer reasons to execute the offenders. Deterrence is harder, and personal grievance is an emotional impulse that is less aggravating than some other things. 

Black is allegedly intellectually disabled (that is, enough to make execution unwarranted), is suffering from many serious ailments, including dementia (another de facto euthanasia execution), and there is evidence that this specific execution would cause a special degree of pain and suffering.  

All of those health problems are aggravated by executing someone almost forty years later.  I'm not saying we should execute people, but do so sooner. OTOH, we do have something of the worst of both worlds now. This is more euthanasia than execution.  

I guess some will say "okay?" Arbitrary euthanasia is a problem, however, even if you support euthanasia. 

Black had some final Hail Mary claims, and SCOTUS disposed of them [8/4] all without comment. I continue, especially in cases like this, with notable facts, I am bothered by the Supreme Court saying nothing when they open up the path to taking a life.  

ETA: There is clear evidence that the execution was botched. It was quite likely preventable. And, no justice said a bloody word. F that. 

Farmer was the first transgender plaintiff known to have a case heard by the Supreme Court, and her lawsuit was the first time that the court addressed the issue of sexual assault in prison. And it laid the groundwork for the landmark Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003.

A recent article provides an interesting discussion of this 1990s case. For instance, she was a pro se litigant who won the SCOTUS cert lottery. Years after she sort of won her case, she lost on the merits, though key records were "lost," tainting the results. 

It is also appreciated that the Supreme Court as a whole respectfully treated a trans person. The majority did not use pronouns, though two concurring opinions (including Blackmun's, who provided the most liberal support of protecting prisoner rights) did use masculine pronouns.  

Another issue, which in a better world would have been another Eighth Amendment violation, is her sentence for non-violent offenses:

In 1985, she was arrested and charged in state and federal courts with separate crimes related to the scheme: theft, burglary, and passing bad checks in state court; credit card fraud in federal court. She pleaded guilty, thinking the judge would order her various sentences to run at the same time. He did not. At 21, Farmer was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison, to be followed by 30 years in Maryland state prison.

That's obscene.