Oklahoma Ban On Same-Sex Marriages Is Unconstitutional

The ruling was stayed since it's in the 10CA, but it provides more interesting reading. This time DOMA, sec. 2 was basically deemed hortatory, but the state DOMA was a violation of the 14A as an irrational discrimination by sexual orientation. The "common sense" skipping over of gender equality is by now standard if not compelled. Any port in the storm.

10 Reasons Privacy Matters

Good summary.

The Fosters Return

After re-watching episodes waiting, the new set begun tonight with a pretty good episode with a nice turn again by Annie Potts as Stef's mom. The final few minutes were very good too, including a "this can be you" shot of some young prostitutes. Better return than DA!

Recess Orals (Quick Take)

Starting from Adam Serwer's quick reaction tweet, talk is that the recess case is looking bad for Obama. Two things. (1) As to the Senate controlling things, they do -- THEY had announced "no business" when this occurred. (2) Obama rarely used the power anyway, lack of a NLRB quorum vs. a Republican attempt to nullify the law pushing him to do so here. The change of the filibuster rule is what concerns him the most. On some level, he won the war.

Downton Abbey

The series took time to get into gear last season, so the first extended episode being a bit dull was not really a red flag. But, I think the second episode was mostly dull too though a few plot lines chugged along. The only thing that really happened was horrible and like the end of last season, the knife was twisted to make it more so. Ugh. Starting to root for Mr. Molesley.

"The Medicaid Cure"

BTC News (who used it) is not supportive of Krugman's "Medicaid cure," arguing Medicaid does not provide satisfactory enough coverage. He is aware that expansion is better than the alternative of nothing. Also, he had a bit of a conflict with the LGM crowd. I think ACA is a foot in the door. We don't have the votes for Medicare for All. So, it's a matter of keeping perspective (lacking here on A-Rod) but pushing from the left flank is important too.

Championship Preview -- Go (yawn) Seattle

Ugh. Brady v. Manning for the nth time. Jets fans don't want to stomach Brady playing in their building, so eh, go commercial boy. SF's win today was annoying & they had their fun. A subdued push for Seattle now and later. SF over Pats, of course. Over Denver? Eh. Guess.

Seattle Better Play Better Next Week vs. SF

Panthers go ahead but are stopped from getting more. Panthers called for a head butt. No call on SF. SF stops Panthers. Panthers stop SF, overturned call. Panthers do nothing in Second Half. Bye Carolina. BTW, a 1/2 yard penalty or so for encroachment near goal line is ridiculous. Offensive false start there would be five yards. The rule is inequitable.

Update: Chargers fail to stop Denver, early & then late.

Rev. Joe -- Gospel of Thomas

I say, if the owners of a house know that a thief is coming, they will be on guard before the thief arrives and will not let the thief break into their house (their domain) and steal their possessions. As for you, then, be on guard against the world. Prepare yourselves with great strength, so the robbers can't find a way to get to you, for the trouble you expect will come.

I think Thomas had a reason to doubt in John. "His" gospel is interesting reading.

Sports Update

A-Rod's suspension was reduced to a season. Meanwhile, the '14 Jets head coach's brother's defense kept New Orleans in the game. Kept it 16-8 late. A late pass on 3rd Down / score made it 23-8. But, NO (3-3 now on onside kicks) managed to make it 23-15 and recover. But, an illegal forward pass ended the game, that final reasonable length Hail Mary denied.

Update: Colts couldn't come back from a hole this time, though it was close until the 4Q.

The Village Barbershop

Cliff is a barber now? A bit thin but mostly enjoyed this film.

Noel Canning Orals Preview

There is no surprise that these questions — with major political as well as constitutional impact — were stirred up by disputes over presidential nominations to the National Labor Relations Board. That seventy-eight-year-old agency, which oversees labor-management dealings, has become an increasing target of business hostility and, as a result, Republican opposition to its decisions and its membership.

I talked about the Recess Clause a few times, as noted here when talking about this particular application of the controversy. There is "no surprise" either that the stances of each side were somewhat different when determining what "happen" etc. means when a Bush judicial appointee (not required to provide a quorum as compared to NLRB members in this dispute, putting side any difference of such a life time appointment) was at stake.

The hair splitting game continues. To continue to quote the SCOTUSBlog preview: 

Predictably, perhaps, the jousting over recess appointments has now become a constitutional controversy for the Supreme Court to sort out, since no one else in government can declare just what the Recess Appointments Clause actually means.  Indeed, the case now before the Court involves questions about the meaning of these key words in the clause: “vacancies,” “may happen,” “during,” and “the recess.”

I think this is largely a political question, but then, even determining what is a "political question" and the scope discretion given to the political branches (to the degree one thinks the courts are not political, which I realize might sound a bit naive, if not wrong on other grounds)  is ultimately up to the courts. Cf. the definition of "try" in the case of impeachment. A game of word parsing here is at some point tiresome. There are various possible reasonable grounds to define these terms and the path taken by the executive (and not rejected by the current majority of the Senate, so the two sides are not in dispute, even if the minority of the Senate has a voice in the litigation -- which I continue to see dubious) is not an unreasonable application of the text. This should do it.

Judicial review is important in our system, but there still remains a presumption of constitutionality of political action, including the actions of the President and the majority of the Senate. The well respected Carolene Products rule is concerned with clear textual commands and threats to minorities that might need additional judicial concern. Big business interests that have the whole Republican Senate caucus on their side does not seem to be to apply very well here. National rules that might be threatened by individual states or even federal agencies might be an issue too. But, the ebb and flows of inter-branch disputes seems to be a prime area that political question rules should apply.

The Founders adopted the exception because, in a day when travel was extremely difficult, there would be times when the Senate would not be able to assemble to consider an appointment to a position that had become vacant.  It was written to assure that government agencies could continue to operate in the interim.

The first part might be the immediate concern but as usual the charm of the text (if also its vice) is that it goes further than that.  There is text and new concerns might arise that can be addressed by its usage. Also, the new concerns often -- as here -- still arise from the same overall purposes. The Senate could back then by inaction not fill vacancies and in the process inhibit the execution of the laws.  Travel problems is not the only reason to use the recess power. If modern political tactics or inertia results in vacancies, the clause can still be quite useful. And, phony "sessions" where advise/consent is not realistically available provides a functional recess that also provides an appropriate usage.

Finally, other than clear textual commands, a primary purpose to distrust the political practices is that some person or group lacks adequate security in the political processes.  Here -- though again the majority of the Senate is not complaining -- the threat is the executive misusing recess appointment power and infringing on the advice/consent power of the Senate. The Senate (and even a minority of it) has various ways to check any "abuses" here as to appropriate custom. The courts, especially by usage of at best debatable fine tuning of the text, need not step in.

If they do, the President should win on the merits. Will he? Eh.

A New New Testament

I have begun to read this book though probably won't read it straight thru. This is probably advisable given the length and time one should spend to carefully read scripture.

Anyway, I read the introductory and background material, including how the "new" material was chosen and some thoughts on its value. The latter was done in somewhat repetitive and rambling fashion, but some introductory remarks by John Dominic Crossan (a leading scholar sympathetic to the approach here, which some might deem "revisionist") made a good point.  The new material provides a contrast to the material in there already -- the more paternalistic Pastoral Epistles, e.g., can be balanced by the more feminist Acts of Paul and Thecla. Two different apocalypses is another example. The New Testament was always mroe diverse than some think (as a look at the gospels suggest), but this expands that. The additional works also provide more of a feminine voice. Plus, there is an emphasis on additional prayers or perhaps a sort of Psalms for the New Testament. 

Finally, the material is seen as an opening for a fresh approach that the editor (and various contributors to formulating the collection or helping to translate parts of it) particularly thinks is helpful to address spiritual conflict. There is a concern expressed that many today are spiritually troubled, not thinking old ways of religion appropriately deals with their needs.  I think the term "spiritual" is interesting myself, since it has such an open-ended meaning. The book uses it without giving a particular sense of what it means. I think that Wikipedia entry does a good job providing an understanding of what we are talking about here.

Don't know how many will be like those mentioned that teared up and gasped when they heard the Gospel of Thomas (doesn't seem that striking to me) and wonder if this is somewhat a matter of too much emphasis given to some "authority." ("It is great! Now, I have something in the name of Mary [Magdalene] that expresses my beliefs of the truth!")  There is some special connection we have with the past, including when we read and honor scripture.  So, use of writings from some past age as compared to something written later or even today that expresses the same thing is particularly special (sacred, spiritual) to people.

The collection limits itself to roughly to period of the original New Testament (175 C.E., which to me is rather late).  That's a plan, but not necessary.  The original New Testament was selected because it was felt that the material came from the age of the apostles. Some of the works are dubious on this front at best -- some of the epistles, e.g., were found doubtful even in the fourth century.  Still, we are talking stuff that mostly came within a hundred years or less of Jesus. Other than maybe the Gospel of Thomas -- a somewhat esoteric collection of sayings that it is not surprising really that wasn't included -- the usual material people think could have been included came later.  But, this doesn't mean they couldn't be added. The Old Testament spans a long time.

Some of the material not added also helps provide insight on that which was. Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is one example that provides early insight on Christian practices. It appears to have be written sometime in the late first or early second centuries. As I noted in the past, it was not agreed upon in this volume (if by a close vote) because of a prohibition of "abortion," which is ill-advised, especially because it isn't particularly clear just what that means.  Note, e.g., the reference against "pederasty" in that work. This provides insight on what Paul was concerned about -- not "homosexuality" overall, which was not really understood the same way as today.  The Greek terms he used in his list of forbidden sexual acts are still debated, but this reference to me is informative.  

One account I read (I can find it, but it's just one, so it isn't determinative anyway) noted that the Didache was not included because it did not seem to be of literal merit. Another suggested that it was seen as not really authoritative (not really "the twelve apostles"). But, it is a quick and interesting read, including in respect to its prayer for the Eucharistic meal -- thanks for Jesus Christ, but not an emphasis on his death and resurrection.  Not to put myself on the same plane as the scholars and religious personnel here, but like the person who led the effort, I would have included this work. Pagels and others also like it.

One theme of the descriptive remarks is the approach set forth by Karen King and others to de-emphasize the term "gnostic," which is deemed by this group misleading. It is deemed to cover too much ground as if a diverse group of material could be put under one umbrella and sometimes have an implication of "other" or "not quite orthodox."  The latter is not quite in the spirit of this enterprise. The material is worthy of study, and as I have noted in the past, in the air even as Jesus taught. Some of these writings (try this as a taste -- The Apocalypse of Adam) is hard going because of talk of "aeons" and other things, but reflected philosophical themes written by Philo (d. c. 50 C.E.) and others. And, the basic idea is not too hard to understand. Check out the Gospel of Judas, for instance.

A notable thing here is that the movement is not merely Christian -- Philo was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher.  It brings to mind a parable of Jesus involving sowing the fields -- the time was ripe for the message. There are some universal themes here. The accounts, experiences and thoughts of a select group is found in most scriptures, including the Qu'ran. We should keep that in mind when trying to use them as universal guidelines. It is hard enough using the U.S. Constitution to govern us today and that was written by people in our own country not that long ago. 

I think this effort to try to find a more complete New Testament is fine.  But, the dreams of a Native American minister to formulate a sort of Native American Bible that brings together material from that tradition also shows its limitations. Part of the path to fully addressing the needs of 21st Century spiritual needs is to realize that they do not rest only on 1st Century (even if that means late 2nd) documents. We need not create new myths ala the Church of Latter Day Saints here. Various religions have grew over the years with their own new writings. The Hebrew Scriptures spans over a thousand years even beyond its mythical opening. The Christian Scriptures can extend for over a century. 

There are various collections out there (down to Atheist Bibles), but I think that would be a good effort. A "testament" that provides writings that reflect the story of Christianity thru the ages, including such things as medieval writings of Thomas Aquinas and tales of martyrs in England and France. An excerpt from the Crusades and modern appeals to strict to fundamentals plus a reply to such a move. This covers a lot of ground, but I can imagine it being done in a reasonable sized volume or two.  

Anyway, one more thing. A New New Testament might lack useful explanatory footnotes,* but I again note that it has an attractive font. It is very readable and inviting on that front.  

---

* As noted before, most bibles have footnotes noting translation issues, parallel or related biblical verses and at times specific discussions of the matters addressed. 

Some of the people involved in this work did help put forth a "Jesus Seminar" effort that tries to determine the relative historical nature of the four gospels, tossing in the "Q" sayings, a few Jesus related quotes in other NT books & the Gospel of Peter.  (Looking at it some more, a few other references, including from the Gospel of Thomas is tossed in too.) I obtained a cheap copy of this guessing job and it does provide some such material for the material covered -- it is overall a commentary of the material.  

Utah SSM Update

The marriages performed from the time of the ruling to the USSC were put on "hold," which to me is a certain nuance that is different from saying they are void. The drivers' license bit might sound silly, but that is an important piece of official i.d. (for me too). How will other states treat such marriages? As noted in the letter, will ultimately be up to the courts.

Update: U.S. will recognize Utah same sex marriages.

Debby Ryan "The Story of ARDY"

Found this cute. YMMV.  More here.

Baseball Hall of Fame

This is one of the people who find it outrageous that steroids has kept a few people out. Not one of them. Piazza likely to come in next year. It isn't prison or something. It is a ceremonial honor. The concern is real though as applied to him is admittedly weak. But, a year of no picks sent a message and a minority still aren't sure enough time passed. Fine. Meanwhile, A-Rod in trouble for interference with an investigation too. He's no martyr.

Execution of One of the Abolitionist "Hard Cases"

There were a handful of USSC orders rejecting stays for someone eventually executed particularly for killing a prison guard (in 1980) while on death row (for a 1974 abduction/murder of a couple). Breyer attached a dissent to one (citing a 1999 case involving this person) pursuant to his concern for those on death row for a long period of time.

USSC Stays Utah SSM Ruling

No reason given. Expected and on balance reasonable. Good luck in the 10CA.

Downton Abbey

As in the past, first episode of new season a bit dull. Two hours seemed a bit excessive.

Mind If I Order the Cheeseburger? And Other Questions People Ask Vegans

The author of this book is familiar from me from her regular legal essays at Verdict and involvement with her husband and others (primarily one other person, all three vegans) at Dorf at Law. The book is one of many that discusses various aspects of veganism.* It addresses such things such as "what about plants," why vegetarianism isn't enough nor is lack of purity a reason not to be vegan, abortion, native groups, religion and other issues. Overall, she provides some interesting analysis using the legal analytical approach familiar at Verdict in a strong but polite fashion.

As to the title, either order a vegan cheeseburger, or understand that it is polite to take into consideration the desires of your eating partner. If you are really serious about the question, the person probably would say "yes" if totally honest though personally I don't mind too much -- perhaps, I should more. Then again, I'm not a full vegan yet. Really, there are enough alternatives that you can have with your vegan eating companion, if you really are worried about it. Finally, a cheeseburger is a pretty blatant thing to have. 

I personally did not find it earth shattering or anything though like various standard things (such as discussion of abortion generally or some other issue) how she approached it was notable and different in various cases. For instance, the chapter on abortion is fairly notable while her one on religion matched up with the Jewish faith she was raised on (strikingly, she is a child of Holocaust survivors -- she was born in 1966).  As one Youtube review noted, however, if you are familiar with this stuff, it isn't that sine qua non or anything. The forward on that point is a tad overblown.

The introduction provided "the simple case for veganism" -- health, environment and animals.  The first reason is why Bill Clinton apparently is now a vegetarian (who knows if he is pure on the point -- we are talking Bill Clinton here) though it really isn't enough -- you can be pretty healthy and still eat animal products. Still, animal products are a major cause of the dietary and health issues in this country, particularly the fatty nature. Factory farming also is a major threat to the environment. But, concern for the moral well being of animals is really the determinating factor here.

I personally am what is known as an "ethical" vegetarian -- someone who chose this path because of a particularly ethical and moral approach. My basic sentiment in the mid-1990s was that on an equality level, animals warranted enough respect that avoiding unnecessary harm to them was appropriate. The fact I liked to eat some of them was not really an appropriate enough reason to be part of their harm. Neither is optional wearing of their hides or the like. The book does not really cover animal testing or zoos, by the way, which suggests it is not meant to be comprehensive. Still, a lot of the former is clearly unnecessary, while the latter very well might be acceptable if done the right way. Not free from problems.

Anyway, the chapter that turned me off is the one where Prof. Colb argues that certain animal welfare laws, particularly those to make their lives on farms and in slaughterhouses a little better, are counterproductive. Why? Well, they take a long time to kick in, are underenforced, are defeatist (the best we can do?) and encourage people to think the animals now have decent lives. Something similar can be said about a range of partial solutions to problems that are not going away any time soon. It comes off as some sloppy "perfect is the enemy of the good" fallacy. No sale.

So, I also welcome those who do partial steps toward protecting animal welfare, even if they don't fully respect animal rights or think animals have rights. Those who don't eat veal, e.g., might only being doing a little thing, but  it is something and hopefully they will take the next step. Her chapter on the Bible is telling -- even if Jewish scripture can be read to allow animal usage only as an imperfect expression of the limitations of human wants, it is a realistic thing for it to at the same time set some basic floor.  Paul noted as to marriage that it very well might not be ideal, but if you have to do it to avoid immorality, it can be better than the alternative. He didn't just say that supporting marriage at all is wrong, since it is an imperfect approach. He was realistic about human nature.

Also, she is a bit too quick to say that being vegan is so easy. It might be for someone with her means, including those who have the wherewithal to make vegan recipes etc., but it is not totally easy for everyone. I myself am not a cook and even "simple" recipes are not so easy for me, plus don't have a home stacked with the many ingredients so many of them have. The basic example of her ordering at a restaurant is telling -- loads of places don't have too many vegan options. And, yes, some don't want to wait until later to have a vegan desert. It is great that many places now have a range of vegan options, including big supermarkets or Whole Foods style stores. Plus, especially with mail order, there are ways to get vegan options, including footwear. But, like those who eat badly in other ways because of what is readily available, being vegan takes some work.

[I personally never really liked eggs much and am not a big seafood person. As to foods I do like more, milk products directly seem to be too much. I do let myself go with foods where milk and eggs might be in there -- the real concern here would be muffins, since I'm not really a big cake eater. I avoid products that have other animal products, including various process foods like "vegetable" soups or the like. So, I though I'm closer to being a vegan than some, vegetarian is an honest label. Still, since I don't blithely eat cheese or eat regular ice cream, that is somewhat misleading.]

One thing that comes to mind here is a matter of line drawing.  A late chapter addresses bees -- she notes that they might have subjective experiences and feel pain, plus consistency makes it useful to not have honey. Better safe than sorry, plus there is little reason to have it given the alternatives. Things like mussels and oysters are similar and her husband once summed up the concerns -- possibility of some feeling of pain, concern for health and possibility of other animals (such as dolphins) to be caught in the process. There also can be environmental concerns in the raising of seafood.  It is an ill advised indulgence.

Regardless, this is a footnote to a much great usage of animals where pain is a no brainer. Thus, her "why not just be a vegetarian" chapter focuses on eggs and milk products, not touching seafood or honey.  As with other things, some basic perspective should be kept here.  A priest might be a more holy person than a parishioner, but a pretty good church goer will be a lot better than many. Anyway, the book is worth a look for those who have a chance.  As with others, as it goes along thinking thru things, you will benefit, even if you don't totally agree. [When a ref explained why a call on the field stood yesterday, I thought "huh, this is a good way to teach people logic and reasoning."]

One more thing. What about abortion? First, the chapter repeatedly used "fetus" -- this bothers me, since most abortions occur earlier in the development, when there is an "embryo." This is half the point -- abortions generally occur before there is a sentient being, which is different from killing a live dog. Second, there is a major difference in justification. The chapter addresses this, the fact that women are required to in effect be Good Samaritans if they stay pregnant. The true late term abortion, a rare thing, involves a fetus that can be viable, but nearly always there is some compelling reason it is done. The typical abortion occurs when the embryo is much less developed and it still is done for a pretty compelling reason for the person involved. A lot more compelling than optional dietary choices. The chapter made it a tad too hard.

---

* The book notes "Vegans avoid participating in violence toward animals. This is a broad thing really and does not just involve eating, which is basically (if not completely) the focus of the book. Veganism can be seen in a broader light -- Compassion the Ultimate Ethic: An Exploration of Veganism by Victoria Moran is recommended on that front -- veganism as in effect non-violent living.  I personally think that is a good ideal and my own stance on eating, wearing etc. animals is part of a bigger picture.