Another Depressing Loss

R.A. Dickey is playing hurt but went 7.2, hanging on to 1-0 lead. Then:

Tabata was hit by a pitch, Cedeno to second.
Harrison singled to right, Cedeno scored, Tabata to third.
Advance on throw, Harrison to second.
A.McCutchen walked on a full count.

Got to take him out. Oh, I realize, you don't want to. It is the Pirates after all. But, you got to take him out. Didn't. Gave up two runs. Okay. Down 3-1. Who do you bring in for the ninth? Bobby Parnell. Shocker he gave up two more runs. Up four runs last night, toss out your closer. Need to keep it close, you toss out this guy. Just back. Makes lots of sense. Seriously, I think the manager is doing a good job. But, sometimes, you know ...

Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow just trumped the fact that Herman Cain got 15% of the vote in some presidential poll. Who f-ing cares? It's May '10. The field is lackluster. He's someone different. He's personable and has that conservative personality vibe. He's an outsider, which is always good for the anti-government types. Shocker around one of six Republicans who vote in these things support the guy. Not really. Stop wasting our f-ing time and use the time to actually report on something serious. Some environmental thing. Something women related not connected to abortion. Something about workers not involving some anti-union bill by some troll Republican governor type. You know, various things you don't really handle.

Sometimes, Maddow is just annoying. It's not a matter of being a bit too cute about certain things or a bit too much on certain things. It's stupid stuff like this. Along with the same old shit really, it's all getting tiresome. It's like when she has this "oh look at those sad Republicans" type story. They have been sad for years. Still pretty successful in the polls, huh? She tosses a cutsie story to lead off Friday night (involving horses) but she's getting a bit too predictable.

BTW, what happened to the Twins this year?

Look forward, not back!

Ashcroft v. Kidd doesn't hold [misleading reports aside] him free and clear. In fact, three to four justices (Kagan recused) flags serious questions, questions avoided by the majority in yet another avoidance mechanism. "It could have been worse." Not that it was that good.

Standing in ACA Litigation

The law will continue to affect her, the brief contended, because she is obliged to maintain health insurance on into the future.

This is a stretch, repeatedly rejected by the other side in most cases. It has a b.s. quality. See also, state laws to create standing.

Lincoln on War

The interesting and charming Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer adds to his many books a collection of Lincoln's statements on war. An intro and brief editorial comments are added. A worthwhile read or skim.

Rabid

I cited this one "straight" role of Marilyn Chambers in my own personal obit. Via Netflix, which has a good director commentary, she actually was quite good. Her charm is not merely X-rated. The film itself was not bad either, its thrills better for the lead-ups. Good final scene.

New House Chaplain

Throughout the years, the United States Senate has honored the historic separation of Church and State, but not the separation of God and State. The first Senate, meeting in New York City on April 25, 1789, elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provost, the Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first Chaplain. During the past two hundred and seven years, all sessions of the Senate have been opened with prayer, strongly affirming the Senate's faith in God as Sovereign Lord of our Nation. The role of the Chaplain as spiritual advisor and counselor has expanded over the years from a part-time position to a full-time job as one of the Officers of the Senate. The Office of the Chaplain is nonpartisan, nonpolitical, and nonsectarian.

U.S. Senate Chaplain's Office

Hmm. "Nonsectarian" you say? The official website continues:

Chaplain Black’s days are filled with meeting Senators about spiritual and moral issues, assisting Senators’ staffs with research on theological and biblical questions, teaching Senate Bible study groups, encouraging such groups as the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, and facilitating discussion and reflection small groups among Senators and staff.

Ah yes. The "nonsectarian" Bible study. Reading ten verses from the Bible didn't work as "nonsectarian" accepted practice when public school children were involved. All the same, the Supreme Court accepted legislative chaplains, three justices dissenting in that case involving state legislatures. Madison was concerned, though as a legislator he joined in.

The appointment of legislative chaplains, as with any other officer, was not always without controversy. The latest one somewhat included, though Father Patrick Conroy himself does not seem to be the problem. A group with whom is associated with got entwined in the Roman Catholic abuse troubles. Nancy Pelosi eventually noted that she was satisfied with his appointment.

Overall, such small enmeshments of church and state are basically acceptable (at least, basically de minimis), but not free from controversy. Do we really want members of the clergy in offices like this, one where they have to swear loyalty to the Constitution like any other office of Congress? That is, if a person is to be tasked to concern him or herself (no women yet appointed) with the spiritual well being of members of Congress, I think it best if s/he is independent. Having one "official" person here is also questionable, since there are various faiths. This putting aside the issue of starting governmental affairs with religious prayers, prayers that are inherently sectarian.

If members of Congress wish to have prayer breakfasts or to choose to have someone to be a spiritual counselor, be my guest. And, they can invite people in to give an opening prayer or any such remarks, some humanist doing it now and again, perhaps. It's an important matter to many. But, do not have them pick one person, sworn in, and paid by my tax dollars. They are not isolated prisoners or members of the military. There are quite enough local clergy to do the job, if they wish.

I'm not losing any sleep over it, but so I think.

Memorial Day

Some of you young men think that war is all glamour and glory but let me tell you boys, it is all hell!

—Major General William Tecumseh Sherman

The promotion of peace and avoidance of unnecessary war is perhaps the best way to truly remember "these honored dead."

Requiem

A good German film (seen via Netflix) based on a real life case dealing with a troubled young epileptic woman struggling to start college on her own like everyone else. The Exorcism of Emily Rose (American/didn't see) used the material rather differently.

Another Bad Anti-Abortion Argument

While I'm on the subject of bad argument, with the usual proviso that I realize that I'm not a saint on these things, something written by Judge Noonan annoyed me today too. It popped up when I was searched his name in another context.

Overall, Noonan appears to me (I use qualifiers since I tend to only see small samples here) to have an impressive judicial and writing career. I found Narrowing the Nation's Power: The Supreme Court Sides with the States good, though it was a bit thin at times, even though I generally agree with the arguments put forth. Noonan has written a lot about moral issues, including contraceptives, usury and abortion. He is against abortion, both personally and as a constitutional right, but that's okay. I can find his arguments wrong and still respect him. The start of an article* (from when the ruling was first decided) on Harris v. McRae was wrong-headed all the same:

Before 1973 it would have seemed only a far-fetched hypothetical contention that the federal constitution contained an enforceable right to obtain money for an abortion.

Really? The actual issue in this case was if a Medicaid law could single out one particular procedure, even if necessary to protect the health of the woman, was constitutional. To cite this limited question in such an open-ended nature is like saying there is some constitutional right to a lawyer, full stop, not one limited to criminal cases with some minimum possible jail time when the person is unable to pay, which cannot be disallowed in some narrow arguably arbitrary category that otherwise would cover the ground involved. An unconstitutional condition, that is. It is not simply about a desire to (as suggested later) "translate the new constitutional liberty of abortion into a constitutional right to fund abortions from the public treasury." The liberty is not simply "of abortion," either, any more than one simply has a liberty "to read abortion publications."

The paragraph continues:

a virtually unqualified right of every woman, married or single, adult or minor, to have an abortion through the nine months of pregnancy

B.S. Minors could be required to get a judicial bypass to avoid parental involvement. I'm not sure how "unqualified" a right is given the acceptable regulations before you can obtain one. A lot more these days, but a decent number back in 1980 too. The allowable last trimester ban (not just the last "two months" of pregnancy) does have a health exception, as noted, but it has some limit. It's all mainly theoretical since good luck finding a doctor willing to perform one for some trivial reason and not violate some medical guideline to do so. So, no "absolute" liberty in place, in theory or practice.

The lower court judge dealt with religious freedom arguments, both establishment and free exercise related. I don't see why the Supreme Court majority noting that fact stealing is disallowed even though most religions frown upon it is a compelling rejoinder even if it might be "succinct" as compared the lengthy discussion of arguments made by the district judge. Abortion, along with various other issues, is not as simple as stealing. It is a major moral and religious dispute that (partially for constitutional reasons) should be left to individual choice. And, singling out abortion for denial in a Medicaid law is problematic in part since it wrongfully singles out a certain religious sentiment for protection. It is not merely "if a person has a religious belief leading to an action for which money is not available, the federal government as a constitutional obligation to supply the money."

Noonan also argues that if an "unborn child, as biologists and pediatricians and mothers claim, is alive, he or she is not merely potential." This misses the point of what "potential life" means in Roe v. Wade. The word "life" there does not refer to some simple biological entity of life or a skin cell would be "alive." It refers to the "life" protected by the Due Process Clause. An embryo or fetus can be "life" in various ways, including under the lights of Judge Noonan's religious or moral sentiments.

Finally, there is a dig at a usual target:

For almost eighty years "substantive due process"-another misnomer, since process is not substantive-was derided by Justices Holmes, Brandeis, and Frankfurter, and their critique became constitutional orthodoxy.

All the same, all applied the Due Process Clause in various cases to protect substantive liberties, including Brandeis in cases like Meyer v. Nebraska that served as the building blocks of the right to privacy involved in Roe. Anyway, as many have noted, "due process" has various connotations, including having a certain substantive content of limiting what all branches of government can properly do. Or, is Bolling v. Sharpe also illegitimate?

I again cite this just as an example, including an example of misguided abortion related analysis that people I otherwise respect (see also, John Hart Ely Jr.) unfortunately sometimes have involved themselves in.

---

* "The Supreme Court and Abortion: 1. Upholding Constitutional Principles."

Not Listening In Action

A comment made to the thread I cited earlier but posted afterward highlights the b.s. of concern that Goodwin Liu's alleged lack of qualifications. He seems to have an impressive c.v. to me. But, the people don't actually talk about it (even after I cited it to someone), focusing on the fact he only had a couple years at a law firm. Yeah, if Liu had ten years, well, up and down vote for sure! Give me a break.

But, this b.s. is repeatedly found in discussions of political issues. By now, it just pisses me off. The below is a back/forth with the italics the comments that I'm responding to. I already said that I think "experience" is a broad term but again this is ignored. The argument that time at a law firm isn't the only issue here is not disputed. It's not even discussed, so that the person, with snark, can carry out their self-interested talking points. So, real discussion is not the concern. I find real discussion more interesting, but I'm not always on the same page on that front.

So does that mean you know of no other similarly inexperienced candidates?

Again, I don't think he is "inexperienced" given his c.v. so I don't agree with the apparent premise of the question. But, I cited two federal judges appointed when they were in their thirties. For instance, Alex Kozinski was appointed to chief judge of the federal court of claims at age 32 and the Ninth Circuit at 35, one of several young conservative turks Reagan appointed.

2 years at a law firm does not make him qualified to be a federal judge.

There are lots of people with ten years experience at a law firm that would not be too well qualified (of course, there is no technical requirement here, so this isn't literally true) to be a judge either.   OTOH, someone who also was a law clerk, scholar, teacher of the law, worked [as Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary] in the Dept. of Education and so forth while having support from some leading conservative voices, might be a good fit for a judgeship under a Democratic President.

My sister is married to a lawyer who is doing similar work for a local law firm for a similar amount of time - should Obama make him a federal judge because he got good grades in school too?

I assume he also clerked for federal judges (including a Supreme Court justice), worked for the Department of Education, was a law professor for some years, co-wrote a book on constitutional theory, wrote various major articles on diverse legal subjects, has support from leading voices on the other side of the ideological spectrum for said appointment and so forth?

If so, he might be a good fit for the federal bench. Let's be serious here. He was opposed for ideological reasons. Democrats opposed certain judges otherwise qualified for ideological reasons. They can be good or bad reasons, but pretending his alleged lack of "qualifications" or that he didn't spend enough time at a law firm was the problem is silly.

Obama seems to have a penchant for picking academias for their idealism rather than people with practical experience.

I don't know who "academias" refer to here. Maybe, it would help if you cite some examples and I can judge it that way. Someone other than Liu, since you allude to a trend here. But, there are certain positions where scholars are good fits along with those with more practical experience. OTOH, Liu has had "practical" experience in various respects, including in some fashion in or in front of each branch of government, private practice and academia. 

[This person (who later added some more talking past me comments that kinda half-way responded to me) is cited just as an example of a broader trend, one that sometimes is present on both sides.  It is a major pet peeve of mine, the talking past each other.  We all have our presupposed notions and all but the better ones can get pass that and truly interact on various subjects.]

Shrimp Time!

Sen. Coburn seems likeable enough, he just believes in fantasies. See here for a shrimp study that sounds a bit silly but is pretty important stuff. People who just laugh at it like five-year-olds, however, control the House. Misguided attempt to take Rs at their word on Liu.

Kneejerk Brigade

Glenn Greenwald is getting to be a caricature. OBL and Ratko Mladic are different in various ways, including the nature of the conflict involved. But, hey, it's just hypocrisy. Will you get some f-ing perspective? A good snarky intelligent critic has a bit more.

Film/TV Quickies

Monsters was a bit slow but a quite good low budget aliens movie, a cinéma vérité type film of two people trying to make it back to the U.S. Meanwhile, FNL was pretty good; nice to see Jason, but he lingered around not having much to do. Matt and Tyra coming?

A Little Bit Goes A Long Way

On balance, I have found customer service on the phone to be helpful and polite, though at times they do try to sell me something. A recent a-hole was thankfully an exception. This sort of thing is appreciated.

Another Free Netflix Month

Mixed beginning. The Lancaster/Garland film A Child is Waiting was pretty good, but only saw half. A Marine Story (DADT!) was good until the melodramatic last reel. Countdown to Zero (nuclear weapons) didn't play well and I got bored. Shorter attention spans these days.

I'll Never Get Out of This World Alive

The heroin addicted doctor (mainly abortions) who is haunted by Hank Williams is the star of this first novel of redemption among local characters in some God forsaken Texas locale late 1963. Story runs out of steam some, but good eye for characters and dialogue.

Supreme Court Watch

The SC handled a few rulings today, avoiding a tricky subject and dividing on an Arizona licensing law concerning alleged illegal workers. Tricky case with discriminatory enforcement potential and I'm inclined to let the federal executive serve as a type of tiebreaker. Their pre-emption argument failed but figure it's a close case.

Telling It Like It Is

This rant against Beyoncé's "Run The World" is great. The song would work better if it was a call to action. If it is, it's pretty weak gruel. And, thank you Richard Beeman for clearing up the confusion many seem to have about the 14A eventually limiting the states.

Goodwin Liu Withdraws

'Tis as much a shame as it was unsurprising. As I try to say here (it's fun talking to someone who just doesn't hear you), this doesn't make it right. Thank you Obama for resubmitting him; hopefully, it did some good. Oh well -- he's young and will be heard from again.

Quickies

Nice to see Marty Lederman back (legality of OBL killing). Comment on Risen subpoena here. Spar with David Bernstein on Lochner here.