In The Heat Of The Night

Like the intro of my copy noted, the character has too much of a "magic Negro" (Sidney Poiter was perfect) feel especially compared to a bunch of local rednecks (most welcoming is someone from the North and an Italian). A scene with a local racist in the movie, which was more melodramatic and changes some details, is not in the book. Good overall.

Democratic Convention

Michele Obama's speech was the highlight of the first night, but there were many speeches and appearances like this too that impressed. Dems are imperfect (but email leak thing is so overblown and a lot of private material leaked are very concerning) but I am quite willing to stand up as one. And, sometimes, they make you proud. Other side is embarrassing.

Update: Bill Clinton had the second and Biden/Obama (Kaine was charming) the third. Clinton started slow, but had a pretty good speech. Speechifying probably not her main thing as compared to the others. Parents of killed soldier were the clear stand-out.

Invisible Agent

The actual agent is boring but his German contact and the enemy agents (including Peter Lorre, who plays a Japanese agent who is actually given a honorable end) are fun. Overall, this 1942 movie is decent -- some effort made.

Trump and American Moral Leadership

TRUMP: I think right now when it comes to civil liberties, our country has a lot of problems, and I think it’s very hard for us to get involved in other countries when we don’t know what we are doing and we can’t see straight in our own country. We have tremendous problems when you have policemen being shot in the streets, when you have riots, when you have Ferguson. When you have Baltimore. When you have all of the things that are happening in this country — we have other problems, and I think we have to focus on those problems. When the world looks at how bad the United States is, and then we go and talk about civil liberties, I don’t think we’re a very good messenger.

Someone cites this and is willing to "embrace the idea that American democracy has nothing to offer the world." 

When dealing with tools, it's hard to accept that they do at times say something right or represent overall sentiments that have some sort of bite. And, that applies especially for the likes of Trump.  But, some do think we shouldn't be the "policeman of the world," we should address our own problems and when we try otherwise, we screw up. There is some truth to this; it's a matter of scale.  And, there are various ways to do things, other than directly preaching to foreign leaders.  Plus, in the long run, supporting human rights and democracy benefits us too.

The U.S. still provides some guidance to the world (e.g., our belief in constitutional limits and judicial review, if not our presidential/electoral system in all respects) and has a role to play. And, the Corruption Perceptions Index suggests all things considered (our size and scope of power isn't quite akin to New Zealand or Denmark), the U.S. is doing pretty good.  Still, limits and humility is a lesson to be learned, even if promoted by Donald Trump.  Anyway, especially given the religious sentiments of some of them, think many of his supporters will not want to come down from the "city on the hill" too much.

Anyway, interesting historical footnote regarding Tim Kaine, in particular, his wife:

Holton's governorship arguably is best remembered for his response to a court-ordered school busing controversy during his first year in office. The Holtons voluntarily enrolled their school-age children in predominantly black Richmond public schools. A photo of the governor escorting his daughter Tayloe into John F. Kennedy High School on Aug. 31, 1970, made the front page of The New York Times.

"Tayloe" being his wife's (Anne Holton) sister. Accounts have Anne Holton retain her maiden name, including reporting on her current job as the Education Secretary of Virginia. Will her name be an issue like Hillary "Rodham" once was? Her past efforts to promote children's welfare might be one more thing that appealed to Hillary Clinton, given her own work in that area. Anne Holton has an impressive resume, including as a local judge.

The more I read about Tim Kaine, the more he seems like a fine vice president pick. His appeal in swing states, including his own (Virginia) and Florida (speaks Spanish, good campaigner, wide support) along with a comfort level with HRC are but two. His stance on the issues, even if not perfect lefty (shocker that), have repeatedly been honored by progressive publications and personnel. One thing cited in the coverage is his support of a new AUMF.  Sounds like an important matter of checks and balances to me. 

Clinton/Kaine

Waited to the end of the day to announce the expected. Some rather someone else but Warren/Booker (both Republican governors) should stay in the Senate, Perez has only support staff executive experience, etc. Kaine has a lot of executive experience, VA has a Democratic governor, he's personable, speaks Spanish and overall sounds like someone progressives should like. Clinton is "safe," but he's pretty darn good regardless.

Reap What You Sow

aka "both sides aren't the same." The plagiarism is embarrassing, but the partisan benediction at the Republican Convention started things on the wrong foot generally. Wallowing in hate and victimization sickening too. Mike Pence sounds like a real tool as well. Cruz didn't endorse Trump; encouraged people to "vote their conscience." Half a clap.

Supreme Court Watch

First set of summer orders are rehearing denied (left at looking at slightly funny names or wondering the story behind them -- easier if they were linked to opinions below like maybe on a better website they would be) and attorney discipline. Not on SCOTUSBlog calendar.

Update: Notable news of day in this area is Obama op-ed to WSJ [Diane Guerrero concurs on Twitter] and special request for rehearing in immigration case. More: Few months back, SCOTUS put a deadline on a voting rights case; lower court just made it.

Cult of the Cobra

Fun Svengoolie entry last night with a younger Sven and no segment where he discusses the cast, who here have various familiar faces including "The Chief" in a bit. Also, no Raiders of the Lost Ark reference! Film was a bit too long and darn if the "who cares" four (of 6) died.

Racial Unity?

Yeah. Good message. Comment more on a criticism of Hillary Clinton here but find the criticism tiresome. Yes, I'm a white guy answering a black woman. She's still tiresome. Note in connection to RBG, don't bluntly say that there, since it's best not to be 100% openly honest all the time without "illusions and myths" being the result. BTW, Pence is an enabling asshole.

Book/Film

Read The Reader and from what I recall, the movie (both were good) basically followed it faithfully. Kate Winslet is great at dramatic nudity. Another free shelf find.

SCOTUS Watch

Scheduling for the first set of next term's arguments has been made. Also, later than usual, summer order lists have been scheduled. I contacted the Public Information Office a few days ago to ask about the situation and just received a reply noting the press release is up. Don't think like it was because of me, but yeah, it wasn't there before -- look at past releases.

Update: Breyer alone dissented from a death penalty cert. denial, on length of confinement (over 30 years) grounds. Doesn't seem "worst of the worst" either. [He was executed.]

Kennedy: Selfie v. Self

"Many in the modern age confuse a selfie and your self.”

Kennedy elaborated, saying the self is “an idea, a projection, a promise that you have formed over your past and you identify yourself as having a certain role.”

More here. And, stuff on writing.

Enough RBG

Update:  Irin Carmon on Chris Hayes etc. has noted RBG is usually very restrained and doesn't directly target people like this (see, e.g., Scalia), so her doing this shows how bad she thinks Trump is.  

All the same, RBG has now said her remarks were "ill-advised" and that judges "should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future, I will be more circumspect."  Appreciated.

There have been various accounts, various people critical, about RBG's public remarks about Trump.  See, e.g., here.

The support of RBG as if she's just being honest is depressing. [As noted here, what she said is not particularly profound at all. Compare, e.g., certain other comments like saying abortion rights is a class issue.] The latest (no comments) post also imho misses the point. Sure justices have opinions. And, the business about Brandeis suggesting how to formulate legislation? Justices, often in dissent, talk about that sort of thing repeatedly -- maybe the law is this, but just to let you know, this might work. In the Pentagon Papers case, one or more justices explained how the press might be targeted.  They might also do this behind the scenes.

But, the difference here is RBG is on the record expressing the opinions in a way that in effect is politicking. That's not what judges are supposed to do. They have views. They want certain people to win at the ballot box. But, we don't want them to politick. It's not what judges are supposed to do and it suggests a problem with judges running for office. And, yes, doing that is a bit different than merely having views or sharing them behind the scenes with friends and such. It isn't all the same. Plus, maybe this is naive, I think it affects in some fashion how they do their jobs.  If "appearance of impropriety" isn't a thing, anyways, why have it?

The appearance of impropriety here isn't just fakery. She did cross a line. Some excuse her because hey it's Trump. But, the general "rules" there can apply open-ended.  Some think people like Obama or Clinton are so horrible that "it's different." It's variable. And, her comments don't help much there. If anything, it brings her down a bit. They make people just question her (and her "side") and neutrality overall is questioned. Now, when someone like Trump (or someone not as blatant) crosses the line, we will get a "you too" and "well she's biased, kinda has a point." I realize it isn't the end of the word. She isn't just a "partisan hack" now. Some for or against her will say that. But, it means something. It is depressing.

She is also making somewhat questionable remarks about other subjects as well, including her apparent desire to overturn Heller at the first opportunity.  At least, and as discussed there, there is some curious editing in articles going on, that seems to be the suggestion.  And, it isn't even clear that is useful -- the ruling leaves open enough regulation that should cover most of what is likely to pass anyhow.  I think RBG (Breyer seems to have been more temperate in his remarks as he promotes his books and such) has been too overexposed and needs to tone it down.

But, why should she give a f, really? Her husband dead, she is the "Notorious RBG" in her 80s and it looks like there is a decent shot at five moderate votes are the Supreme Court.  I am not upset she decided not to retire for strategic reasons and now think it was a safe bet.  (Knock on wood; I didn't think Bush would win, but this would be more of a shock.)  Her comments on Trump cross a line, one some liberals out there would find quite distasteful if Clarence Thomas did it.  Enough RBG.

Dope

Tired of the nothing new book on the first Congress, so shifted to this mystery by Sara Gran that took place in 1950 NYC I found on the free shelf at the library. An ex-addict petty thief is hired to find a girl and we are told it would go badly. Sure did. Killer ending. Good read.

Getting Bored

Have a ton of channels and more stuff on demand but usually don't want to watch what is on. Episodes of Anger Management, a bit of junk food t.v., are available on demand -- batches of around ten are put out over time. Have less patience with books too, including those that basically provide the same stuff with a few more details like on on the First Congress. Sigh.

Mets Update

They got some nice pieces (the 2B/SS combo is appreciated though Neil Walker's offense isn't enough of late; Reyes has baggage, but good replacement pick-ups too) but different year, same angina, including even some of the same suspects hurt. Offensive woes. Struggles vs. lowly Braves not appreciated. Nor losing six of seven vs. Nats with sweep of Cubs in between. Mets have a decent shot at WC but it's a crowded race. And, darn Murphy.

Third Amendment Case

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

By chance, searched for "Third Amendment," and this post popped up. Contra the suggestion of another blog's discussion, I argued the text should be applied liberally. And, at any rate, it could be incorporated.  At the very least, appealing to U.S. v. Miller, state guard troops could be a form of "solider" under its terms.  This still probably would not arise that much though there were cases in our history where the federal government violated its terms.  

The Third Amendment is now and then raised but know of but one case where it was taken seriously when deciding the merits. This aside from citing it in passing for principles of privacy (Griswold) or limitation of the military power (Youngstown).  Since then, however, there seemed to be case where it might matter.  The case is cited in one of the links in my discussed and there has been a district court ruling rejecting the claim.  

“I hold that a municipal police officer is not a soldier for purposes of the Third Amendment,” Gordon wrote. “This squares with the purpose of the Third Amendment because this was not a military intrusion into a private home, and thus the intrusion is more effectively protected by the Fourth Amendment.”

Engblom v. Carey involved National Guardsmen, not  municipal police officers, though think it's possible to stretch the terms that far.  But, this opinion doesn't have to -- there are other constitutional protections, such as the Fourth Amendment ("seizure" of the "houses") that can be used. Also, taking over one's home for part of a day isn't really "quartering" though again maybe you can stretch it that far.

The Third Amendment is basically a preventive device to show what cannot be done while alluding to principles of privacy and civilian control that can inform other issues. Scenarios, especially in wartime or times not "of peace," where it can come up is also conceivable. One can think of, e.g., an extended period of unrest where the government wants to take over a house for some reason. Or, do so during a war of some sort without proper authority.

But, it looks like we will continue to have the Third Amendment page in this collection being rather (a tad too) brief. 

Love Wins: The Lovers and Lawyers Who Fought the Landmark Case for Marriage Equality

More here. The co-author had a connection to the couple by marriage years earlier. Basic, well-written account highlighting the lead plaintiff and his lawyer. No index.

"Comey’s unusual public recommendation in the Clinton email investigation"

Clinton "scandals" always seem to rest on trivial legal grounds if at times with some reason for concern. Mr. W., who has legal training, talks about why the case was weak to two anti-HRC trolls here. The announcement, which made sure to note Clinton was as one person said "naughty," had issues itself. Those concerns were not fully address by this defense from legal Never Trump guy. Careful handling of data is important but her opposition is Trump. Okay?

Update: Those who try to parse things so it looks like she might be prosecutable can have a field day with Trump especially if credible claims are the test. The latest is a doozy.

Truvada and Prevention under PPACA

Someone online wondered why Truvada isn't protected as a preventive drug under PPACA (as contraceptives and various other things are). Found an interesting article from a year ago on the issue. The article suggests it "being new" factors in, no specific legal barrier as such appears to be present. HIV prevention is discussed in this article. Loads of questions like this will be up in the air during the next four years and POTUS will have a lot of discretion and power to affect the results. Somewhat related on that general topic.