Kavanaugh and the Duties of the Nomination Process

Update: On Thursday, we had the special hearing with Kavanaugh's accuser (with a woman prosecutor standing in for the Republicans though from my understanding at times they stepped in and she popped up later too) providing a very emotional and convincing account and then Kavanaugh came, providing a very emotional, unhinged (strong partisan attacks on Democrats for 'Borking') and unconvincing denials.   

As argued below, contra to the view of various supporters, this isn't a criminal trial with a burden of proof favoring the "defendant." The hearing also was a sham in that no other witnesses were called. (cf. the Thomas-Anita Hill hearing).  Nor, were the other allegations probed or witnesses or even witness statements officially submitted or handled.  Kavanaugh failed on any number of grounds. He did already.  His testimony made things worse for him, including as a neutral arbitrator. Except maybe for the votes that counted. Well, Trump liked it.  

On Friday, the next day, the vote to advance it out of committee was held. Obviously, it is absurd to do so immediately. The result was an unsurprising party-line vote with drama:  the vote was delayed for ten minutes as a Flake proposed "deal" was discussed.  Basically, it is an up in the air thing: he said that he'd vote to advance but did not want to vote on the floor for about a week so the FBI can investigate. Requiring other parties, the implication being a few Republicans (notably the likes of Collins) are on his side, including Trump, this thing is up in the air for now.  It also was suggested a very emotional encounter with two victims in the elevator influenced Flake.

The twisted soap opera continues. 

====

As the details of a possible Senate hearing this Thursday to deal with an allegation of attempted rape when the putative replacement of the swing vote of the Supreme Court continue, more allegations are developing. The #MeToo movement has reached the Supreme Court (again) and we have a new hashtag on #IDidntReport.  Already, and hopefully after he is forced to resign his nomination (which is far from a lock even now), this has pay some dividends. Some sort of justice and inability to silence and tar accusers is in place and will be later on. Not enough.  Justice comes slowly.

(This is why even replacing Kavanaugh with some similar conservative matters. He is particularly bad and forcing him out shows a limit. It also shows why the handling this well goes beyond him. It is a matter of handling things that will come up again and doing so half-way well.)

The mistreatment of the Kavanaugh Nomination, including rushing things along (not in a vacuum -- looking at raw days, this isn't taking long in comparison, but level of documentation that had to be processed alone required more time), is a warning sign. It also provides, as each confirmation and moment of major note, a sort of learning experience. Constitutional developments don't just occur in the courts. The proper handling of nominations and confirmations in general as I tried to argue in this thread  often is a matter of the political process in action.

This doesn't mean they aren't "constitutional" as Justice Kennedy ironically repeatedly said, including in his last appeal from the bench in a separate opinion in the travel ban case. Lame as it might have been in that case, there is something to his argument. In some other case, the courts might have less call or ability to be involved and to provide strong restraint. The Constitution is not in abeyance then. As Kennedy argued:

Indeed, the very  fact  that  an  official  may  have  broad  discretion,  discretion  free  from  judicial  scrutiny,  makes  it  all  the  more  imperative  for  him  or  her  to  adhere  to  the  Constitution and to its meaning and its promise.

Again, this might sound like pablum, but realistically and as a matter of good practice, we cannot merely rely on judges. State and federal officials, down to postal employees and notaries, swear or affirm to uphold the U.S. Constitution.  Their judgment alone often is what matters and needs to be developed in various ways, including moral restraint.  These things should be kept in mind when we look on during the Kavanaugh approval process. On the standard to use there, Prof. Kate Shaw (who happens to be Chris Hayes' wife) had a good op-ed recently that can very well in some other case limit a Democratic President. And, it surely did somehow.

So what standard should the Senate use in evaluating the claims made by Dr. Blasey and in deciding how they bear on Judge Kavanaugh’s fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court? The Senate’s approach to its constitutional “advice and consent” obligation has always depended on context. A number of factors matter: the timing of the vacancy; the justice being replaced; the nominee’s likely impact on the ideological makeup of the court; even the popularity of the president (very popular presidents have always had more leeway when it comes to picking justices). Then, of course, there’s the nominee.

She appealed in part to history:

But in each case, a constellation of considerations, both political and constitutional, operated to defeat nominations of individuals who were certainly qualified, by conventional metrics, to sit on the Supreme Court.

She concluded:

This context-dependent approach arguably leads to the conclusion that the existence of credible allegations against Judge Kavanaugh should be disqualifying, especially if further corroborating evidence emerges. That’s true even if the evidence wouldn’t support a criminal conviction or even civil liability.

As it continues to emerge. A basic part of this is that this isn't a court of law or even a simple job interview. It is a seat, a key seat at that, to the U.S. Supreme Court. These things all have to be taken into consideration:

Putting Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court in light of credible allegations against him could raise troublesome questions about the court’s legitimacy. And that’s a genuine problem, both for the court’s ability to function and more broadly for the rule of law.

Such things should be taken into consideration at the nominating stage too. And, it should be now at the advise and consent stage. But, you live by the constitutional political appointment process, you die by it. Thus, politics affects the hard-line approach of the Republicans, even if an alternative will offer similar (if somewhat different in some fashion -- each member of the conservative wing has certain differences than the others) judicial results. Demanding some limit to the usual court nomination bullshit dance is appropriate here, blatantly opening himself to perjury charges. "Defenses" of "just blatantly unethical" help only so much.

This is a political question. By raw power, a senator can flip a coin and the very mix of concerns can be tainted as here.

===

The issue of a "proposed standard" was raised here  and someone felt it was wrong use phrase things in a legal fashion when it is a political decision. It is fine though to use "burden of proof" in various ways, including cases that are not legal proceedings. It also has a philosophical meaning after all and people use legal terms colloquially.  I also found a good quote in an early Supreme Court case regarding decision-making by justices, which also ultimately is a matter of justices deciding things based on judgment:

[Various opinions on the dispute at issue] incline us strongly to suspect that a great diversity of opinion prevails in that state upon the question we have been examining. However this may be, we hold ourselves answerable to God, our consciences, and our country to decide this question according to the dictates of our best judgment, be the consequences of the decision what they may.

That is, the justices swore an oath and have a duty to determine the law as they deem fit. The power is ultimately theirs. But, it is reasonable to say that "best judgment" is something that can be opined upon, after all "We the People" ultimately are in charge. That is what the author of that post did. He put forth reasonable grounds for others to help determine if senators were using best judgment. And, yes, judges have a responsibility to apply law, but justices ultimately are the final arbitrators.

If they decide based on flimsy grounds, it is not like the law is not binding. There are ways for others to respond, especially if the judges don't act in a convincing fashion. In both cases, they are "answerable to ... our country." Anyways, more continues to come out including in comparison to the last nominee, who even went to the same high school without being such a sexist asshole.

[Last part added on 9/25 and might add more.  Bullies won in 2016. Will more win this week? First Monday in October is the 1st.]

Unsane aka Lighter Fare For The Times

In between local PBS stations on my FIOS dial (channels 13 and 21) there are a few channels, including Spanish ones and Hampton TV, a low rent looking local station. Late Saturday nights (2AM), an appropriate time (Svengoolie is now on the too early 8PM slot) is Macabre Theater, with a sexy Elvira sort of host. The best approach for both, especially given this one has even more commercials, is to DVR, so you an fast forward. Latest was Unsane (no not that one). It's an old Italian "giallo" flick that is a mix of slasher type killing and boring exposition [somewhat obviously dubbed though the channel seems always to use cheap copies of films in general] mixed with the host's campy bits. Fun late nite fare.

Film and Mushroom News

An excerpt of the upcoming Stormy Daniels tell-all (bound to be disappointing given the lead-up) referenced a video game mushroom character. Enough said. I actually would be interested in that book if she provides a fairly honest and detailed account of her work in the sex industry. Looking for a book doing that. Meanwhile, caught Til Sex Do Us Part late night and saw two characters (including the lead; these movies suggest a sort of roving ensemble company) from Erotic Obsession, which has a great ending. Some not bad set pieces though the wife doesn't get to have much fun. Husband character again comes off like a jerk.

Football: Some weird stuff, including a Bills blowout over the Vikings. Giants hung on vs. Houston. Pats lost to Detroit by two touchdowns. Key baseball news left is to see if the Rockies can find a way to gain 1.5 games. Time running out, but they have two paths.

Sports Update

The Mets (not quite officially eliminated!) lost the series vs. the Red Sox, but overall gave a good effort though of course the one win was not for DeGrom (who gave up three but his main Cy Young competition had issues of late too). The Yanks didn't gain ground but Tampa stopped the As from either. The Jets in effect gave away the game to Miami without special team/offensive heroics to save the day (20-12). The NYG offense (20-13) was lackluster on Sunday Night Football with ten late garbage time points (the last three after a lackadaisical TD drive; they returned the onside kick but not the next one). Browns played Saints tough but found way to lose late. Another tie (29 all) after one team scored 22 in the 4Q.

ETA: Cards won, so Mets eliminated. Mets then lost, thus was their chance at .500.

Jets: After losing to the Dolphins in a sloppy game, they finished their three games in eleven days run 1-2 by giving the Browns their first win in a long time. Not shocking -- Browns put up a good fight against better opponents thus far and the insertion of their own young phenom late in the First Half injected life to come back (for the second time) from a 14 point defecit. This time, they didn't only get a tie. Still, Jets should be at least 2-1 now. Disappointing.

SCOTUS News

A new SCOTUS term is rapidly approaching though things continue to happen, including a "because I say so" Saturday order by CJ Roberts and Kavanaugh's accuser outing herself, particularly as the media was about to do so anyway. On that front, it is a mess, but for perhaps somewhat different reasons, Sen. McConnell warned Trump to nominate someone else. I rather this not be the reason to oppose him but along with his prevaricating about Kozinski, there needs to be better responses in this #MeToo era. Overall, people have bad things in their past, though it's better if they are honest about their record. OTOH, this is a SCOTUS nomination, not a criminal trial. Committee vote scheduled later this week.

Update: The full Court has denied a stay (without saying why) thus Roberts' (ditto) stay was vacated. As Election Law blog guy basically expected. Roberts is concerned about the Court's image and people were suspicious of his motives regarding the original stay. More reason to explain oneself. There are so view single orders. Can't they flesh out a bit why they acted?

Black Klansman

I have not seen the movie but this was a brisk read with an afterword that touches upon recent events (the original came out in 2014). Since David Duke at least is still around, him calling the KKK individuals involved morons should have gone over well for some. There is a certain low heat quality though he did provide important intel, apparently stopped one or more cross burning and a couple KKK members at NORAD was found out. As a police officer he isn't the best to cover it, but interesting question of the limits here on First Amendment grounds. Think his commander was right to worry about public reaction to some extent.

NY State Primary Day

And Also: It was announced that David Wright will be activated for the final homestand and will play in at least one game. He also said that he does not think he is physically able to fully comeback, but will not officially retire (he has more time left on his contract). I think this was a clear for a long time, but it was an emotional moment to admit it.

 

There are multiple election days in my district this year given a special election to fill a local seat and separate federal/state primary dates after a federal lawsuit during the Obama years to give military personnel more time to participate.  I am not really sure why any lawsuit would not cover at least state-wide elections, if federal elections are covered. Anyway, to give state officials time to run around the legislative schedule or something, we had a federal election in June and today was the state govenrment primary. The special state assembly race was in April.

There has already been reports of people not listed as on the rolls when they went to vote, even though they might be listed so when they checked online.  Chris Hayes has noted the convoluted nature of NY election rules (the two primaries don't help the reputation) though honestly I myself have never really been stressed out about it.  I don't assume this means things are fine, including more restrictive absentee rules, no early voting etc.  We also only changed from 19th Century lever machines a few years back and do not have receipts to check our votes.

A final bit of weirdness is that today is Thursday. Well, Tuesday conflicts both with the Jewish New Year and 9/11, so for this year only, a special rule was put in place.  It might have been better just to have it next Tuesday, since Tuesday is the normal day to vote, or perhaps have extended voting so that one day doesn't matter so much.  Also, for some reason, they re-arranged things at my polling place, which confused me when I got there.  A couple people, I think they said they were from some media group, asked me outside if I supported Jeff Klein.  Have an idea it is part of the Jeff Klein juggernaut, seen in part by the number of signs around.

I am tired of seeing so many Cuomo ads playing during baseball and then football games, each one phrased as if he was running against Trump. The latest batch talk about "experienced" officials, a dig at the more amateur nature of the challengers (including against former IDC member Jeff Klein and for District Attorney).  The challengers (including Zephyr Teachout, who I think has decent chance of winning) I support also have not had television advertising.  I am not sure that was a good idea.  I fear, like for a local city council race, name recognition can win the day in a close race. At least, wish there were more Alessandra Biaggi signs around. All these Klein signs, a few big ones, are a bit creepy. 

Teachout had a protest campaign against Cuomo that resulted in a respectable, at least for such a non-entity, performance (around 30%) and failed in her bid for a congressional race by nine points.  I think her race for attorney general, especially given her efforts as a reformer (campaign finance particularly), has a good shot given the times. It probably will be a close race and along with Biaggi (after the upset in the local House race, Senator Gillibrand has also gone on her bandwagon) she did get a NYT endorsement.  It is basically a three person race (my feeling is Maloney is a respectable third; am not aware of this Eve person).

The times are depressing though there is some hope for change in November with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez receiving the most excitement locally.  I am ready to support strong progressive voices against dubious establishment figures or even against people (Tish James for DA seems fine really) somewhat less ideal in that fashion.  Andrew Cuomo on that front is again someone I will vote against in the primary though honestly he is someone who has done some good things.  But, these days, you need to aim higher. I honestly don't see Cynthia Nixon winning, but she has already pushed Cuomo and IDC Democrats too in fact to move left.

I will update this tonight. Again, I voted for governor and lieutenant governor (separate slots), state district attorney and state senate. There were no judges (silly affair, people no one heard of) or local state party officers or whatever on the ballot.  I personally had no issues voting.  Got my sticker.

ETA:  Cuomo's [who won; as we knew he would] choice for Attorney General won a plurality but Teachout was a strong second. A third candidate, however, split the anti-James vote and sealed the deal. The state needs instant run-off voting. But, that's just one of many potential voting reforms it can use.

There was a bright spot, other than the fact that Cuomo did various things to protect his left flank (Cynthia Nixon only received about a 1/3 of the vote, but she clearly concerned him), because Jeff Klein lost.  So, locally, I will have three women (including a more establishment friend assemblywoman) representing my interests. Toss in Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and perhaps full control of the state legislature, that is not too bad.

(A footnote.  Joseph Crowley actually won the Working Family Party line for the House seat but promised not to run though he refused to consent to work with them to get his name off the ballot totally.  Cynthia Nixon also won there and in theory could get a sliver of the vote.  I question if it would be enough to seriously threaten a chance of the Republican winning.  But, given the bad blood there, it's not a lock she steps aside.)

[9/17 article on the last issue.]

NFL Season Begins

While the Mets continue to play pretty good ball (sadly it isn't too satisfying to me), football season began. The Browns didn't lose! (They tied but they did come back vs. the Steelers though they could not finish.) Giants (if vs. a good defensive team) didn't have enough offense. After their new QB had a turnover on the very first play (on Monday Night vs. Detroit), the Jets somehow managed to win 48-17 (it was 17 all early in the Third Quarter). None of the new coaches won. Aaron Rodgers had another "miracle" game after a knee injury.

Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court Is not a Court and Its Justices are Not Judges

I engage with the author of this book on Twitter and at Dorf on Law and his concerns over the power and lack of openness of the Supreme Court is well taken. But, his reasoning is flawed, particularly since (except for a somewhat exaggerated matter of discretion) other courts have the same criteria he cites (e.g., using policy reasons, not merely text and precedent). And, it's just focused on constitutional matters anyway, and not even a range of criminal justice issues (since courts have more cause to claim special knowledge). Finally, he doesn't even really provide the other side. For instance, Footnote 4 is not even referenced. Ultimately, it is a "court," but we need to understand what that means in practice.

Also: Brown v. Bd. is cited as an exception but it wasn't really at the time. And, I think a good case can be made (especially given practice) abortion rights, e.g., are clearly protected by text too. If one is required for equal protection, so is the other.

Judge Kavanaugh

McCain funeral over, back to same old/same old. After how Garland was treated, putting aside the problems of Trump, I decided that there were still eight justices. I noted in the past that this nomination might not be as illegitimate but rushing thru without proper documentation (even if some belittle the concern) and the statement under oath that Trump conspired in a crime pushed me over the edge. We will soon have seven legitimate justices and this nomination (even beyond his positions) is really pissing me off. If you don't like court packing, what do YOU suggest? Every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter regarding delaying the hearings. They should stage a walkout later this week.

ETA: They didn't though they put up somewhat of a fight and had some good moments. I still think a simple walkout moment to underline the illegitimacy would have worked. You now have multiple senators accusing him of perjury. Basic disqualification even if you take it down to "lying." But, we are supposed to just accept it as legitimate?

Zora Neale Hurston & Court Watch

First off, after seeing a reference to the "newly released manuscript of Zora Neale Hurston’s Barracoon: The Story Of The Last Black Cargo with a fantastic supplemental material from Alice Walker and Deborah G. Plant," reserved and now read it. Some time back, I read her most famous novel and later on read her take on the Moses biblical story. Both good though thought the Moses book could have been shorter. 

This first person account with various additional material (still a small volume) was fairly good though you are left somewhat wanting -- his capture, stay is captivity ("barracoon") and five years of slavery was all handled in a sliver of a volume that is less than one hundred pages without appendixes. Much of the account covers his life before and after, admittedly amounting to most of it.  But, those looking for an in depth "slave narrative" might be disappointed. The use of first person also means you have to deal with his dialect, which is a bit unwieldy too.

===

The whole thing being illegitimate aside, the opening of the Kavanaugh hearings to replace Justice Kennedy (expletives deleted) is scheduled to start next week. Time flies while an asshole is in power. Some things to keep in mind. It is the popular to sneer at hearings as merely being kabuki, but they actually do provide a means for the general public to get a look at the nominees and a mechanism to work around for those (press, advocacy groups, etc.)  in the know to focus upon.  And, the popular theater aspects are part of our system too, like it or not.

Meanwhile, a couple things are happening in the eight justice Court.  Claims that evenly applying non-discrimination laws is "vindictive" aside, the Supremes didn't intervene (three conservatives dissenting without opinion) in a foster care case involving religious groups who don't want to take part if they have to put children with gays. This is the sort of civil rights clash that a fifth vote might seriously effect, even if (as I think) it is hard to conclude Roberts thinks you can put same sex marriage back in the bottle after over three years.  More here.

Meanwhile, with Breyer perhaps serving as the liberal compromise vote this time around, the Supreme Court for now held up the release of food stamp data with the three women justices dissenting without opinion this time.  This followed-up a previous order earlier in the month.  The matter is not as controversial, but Breyer served as a sort of "courtesy fifth" to hold up things the last time around in the "GG" trans bathroom case.  That time, the clock in effect was run out, the Trump Administration changing the policy and the student involved graduating from high school.

As a sort of lead-up to the Kavanaugh hearings, a "deal" (though it is unclear what the Democrats received) was made to fast track some judicial nominees. Blame was put on Schumer personally though he is basically more the spokesperson of the caucus. At the very least, multiple people who pay attention to this thing wondered what exactly the Democrats got out of this. As to the first link, I don't know -- it is somewhat unclear to me what more Schumer could have done overall the last couple years. Plus, again, if you are mad at him, be mad at the Senate Democrats. It is true that a leader can move things somewhat differently -- these people aren't simply fungible -- but like "Harry Reid" being cited for ending the filibuster rule for nominees, responsibility should be spread generally speaking.

(I saw it noted that no one seemed to dissented from the deal, even the more liberal senators, but who is to know what happened behind the scenes?  If there was a general sentiment that this was the correct way to go, the dissenters could have went along for sake of comity. This suggests why it pissed me off when a few Democrats in effect blocked something in the Senate even when a simple majority of the Senate supported it. You don't block something by filibuster in that situation.) 

The need to explain oneself to people already inclined to be strict, even though the Democrats simply have a bad hand, especially when the "big deal" seems doomed at this point, seems to me the biggest issue here.  The "red state senators had to campaign" argument doesn't wash for me. As noted at the first link, they don't all need to be there to delay things, and even if Republicans as a bloc (50, McCain having died) "ram them down our throat," that alone -- in an election year -- can be used.  As to the presence of some decent judges in the pool, fine, but would that not occur basically in the end if this is slow walked?

I think, especially right before the Kavanaugh hearings, partially because no "deal" yet gives Democrats a tiny bit of leverage (with even conservative Democrats talking about delaying), holding firm made sense. If they lose here and later for illegitimate justice #2 (aka "Judge" Kavanaugh), it looks bad.  Finally, some figure Democratic voters don't really care. But, some do care (steal a seat once ...), and when a justice ("justice") is about to be confirmed, normal situations do not quite apply.  There is a strong anti-Trump spirit in the upcoming elections and the red state senators do not even have to go all in from my reading of the situation.  I personally think hardball tactics warranted.

Anyway, even if there is a certain logic to the deal, I'm wary about how they handled it.

Alicia Witt at City Winery

After seeing her earlier this year, we brought a third to see Alicia Witt at City Winery in honor of the release of her new album (15000 Days, in honor of the days of her life). The food and wine prices the usual excessive amount but a beer was fairly average ($7) and good Arugula salad. Pen to sign bill exploded on my hand, but nice bathroom. Base price was around $20 (another venue was even cheaper; good deal). Good concert, lot of songs but could have done without the drummer. She's good and comes off as nice/goofball. For some reason the M42 didn't come on way back, but hanging out with drunks was fun. NYC experiences.

Truth & Mona Lisa

I added The Death of Truth: Notes on Falsehood in the Age of Trump to the side panel. Saw a couple reviews that criticize it as saying nothing "new" or being too brief, but many are not as familiar with all the material and it's helpful to find it in one compact volume. The movie (a somewhat old one: Krysten Ritter is but an extra!) Mona Lisa Smile is more concept (teacher brings new ideas to early 1950s women's college) vs. complete film, but it has its moments, looks nice and has a good cast (even the guys have some familiar faces).

SCOTUS Update

Last time had more news from the Court itself with today's order reflecting things are more low key this time. Paul Manafort's convictions and Michael "Trump personal lawyer" under oath implicating Trump in a crime does strengthen the basic argument against Kavanaugh: "No president suspected of criminal conduct should be allowed to seat a Supreme Court justice." The other stuff can be added, such as how the Republicans are rushing things or abortion or executive power or, but the underlining taint is basic. If court packing is so horrible, as some say, how do you deal with 2/9 of the Court being illegitimate? Well, some deny that, so it's talking past each other time. For now, win in November.

Guns and Song

At first, was not aware when I saw this on Showtime what it actually is: it's a fun Mamma Mia! type musical using 1980s songs in a story about a woman finding out her sister is marrying the "guy that got away." On the book front, Stand Your Ground: A History of America’s Love Affair With Lethal Self-Defense is only about two hundred pages, so is not a complete story (e.g., the history of armed blacks starts basically in the post-WWII era), but it is overall worthwhile including the argument SYG is selectively applied in practice.

NY Election Update

Now, we have Ryan/McConnell and Trump. That picture is from this discussion of the demonization of Nancy Pelosi.  My basic take is that I generally agree with the analysis of how good of a job she is doing. Likewise, there is no compelling need to replace her, especially without a very good option (the wannabe challenge in the past is not that).  But, I'm for an evenhanded promotion of a younger generation as a whole.

The future leader of the party (the talk is a tad overheated) won my district, Joe Crowley listed as a possible replacement (don't quite see it) of Pelosi by some.  The upset has definitely made Cuomo and Jeff Klein (state senate) extra careful to promote themselves (keep on seeing Cuomo ads during Mets games and Jeff Klein yard signs -- we don't have many yard signs in general around here generally)  vs. to be honest long shot competition. In some other state, either of those guys will do (Cuomo more so), but we are New York. In the Trump years.  So, no f-ing way.

(Both have been office for a sizable amount of time -- Cuomo for eight years, Klein for fourteen. Klein especially seems to have been there too long at this point, his IDC power anctics telling in that respect. Cuomo still probably is aiming for 2020, though he would make a horrible choice in my book there, a safe pol type that people will find reasons to dislike.)  

Jeff Klein came off smarmy during a debate with Alessandra Biaggi (whose grandfather years back was convicted of corruption), good to say her name, since there are so few yard signs around of hers. I think that matters, if a bit less than the local city council race where the final result was a few hundred votes and I do really think the establishment candidate dominating the signs in business windows (I recall like one of the second place winner in the midst of a stream of his) very well likely mattered a lot.  Anyway, I don't think Biaggi came off THAT well, came off as a bit rough.

I personally am seriously ready to support the most left leaning, new, anti-business as usual/establishment type candidate all things being equal, so it's Biaggi and Cynthia Nixon for me. Andrew Cuomo actually did do some good things, but has that unsavory insider vibe that helps the business as usual deal that helps stop NY from going the route of #Resistance ala California.  The Independent Democratic Caucus thing hurts Klein too, especially since -- this wasn't made clear in the debate -- there was at least a small window where they did directly had power to Republicans. Klein in the debate early on tossed out three Dems who were later arrested to explain starting the IDC, but what about the Republican leader he supported in that respect? Or, the rest of the Democrats that was worthy of support?  My public school teacher source also is no fan of his record on teachers.

Anyway, I rather we move on from both of them, but admit it is a longshot (more so Cuomo; Biaggi might have a bit more of a shot if the voters are ready to kick the establishment guy with issues out).  I'm not sure where to go in the Attorney General race, but might just go with Zephyr Teachout, who has the support of the Justice Democrats (the left leaning upstart coalition this year, basically) and whose ideas I like.  Her past efforts to win office, even local office, didn't go over that well.  And, at least one of her competitors probably would be a great option too.  So, that's good.

[Update: NYT endorsed Teachout and on Twitter Emily Bazelon compared her to the former public defender "outsider" Philly DA.  So, sounds like a good choice!]

There was a brief mention of the so-called "road diet" (shortening the street and adding a bike lane) plan for Morris Park Avenue, which is near me. I admit to not knowing about this until I saw a tweet about it that was a potshot at Biaggi for not properly finding out what the neighborhood wanted.  Me personally, I never thought of Morris Park as that crowded traffic-wise. I guess the construction might be a pain, but support bike lanes. Bike rentals in some areas are a great idea but the Bronx specifically is only somewhat bike friendly.  So, you know, I'm with Biaggi there too as being at least warily supportive of the idea.

[Upon thinking of it, I would need to know how it will be done. If it results in one side not being open for parking, it would cause issues. But, one lane on one side, as long as cars could still pass, would probably work.]

Meanwhile, I'm glad Nicki Minaj thinks I'm "genuine." She was great.

Some More Films

I don't watch most of the "in" shows and movies, but the free platform Kanopy and a free month of Amazon Prime has helped me to see a few things. Past Life seems to be ready for a bigger reveal than it provides, but looking past stereotypical plot devices, it was a good film overall based partially on real events (e.g., there is such a diary). A Luv Tale looks like the first episode or half of a never completed t.v. project [ends with a cliffhanger], but it was a good find (on Amazon Prime) with black lesbian/career/etc. themes. Yes, that's the woman from The Closer. Pink Grapefruit is a nice short film about a fix-up. Interracial aspect taken in stride. Swing Away was cute. Nice to see Shannon Elizabeth get some decent work.

Sensitivity Training

A good find among the free Kanopy films, this involves a woman scientist with personality issues who gets a perky (lesbian) personal trainer to deal with things. [Both things add flavor to the film.] The lead plays someone uncomfortable dealing with humanity very well and it overall is a well done indie. It's amusing and satisfying overall. Glad to find it since also dealt with an annoying short story collection with too many annoying characters/situations.

Meanwhile: Pre-season football has begun as the Mets are doing okay (two series vs. Reds/Marlins won!) with the NYG losing to the Browns and the Jets looking good. Figure at this point around six wins for either team would not surprise much.

SCOTUS Watch

The eight person Supreme Court was a bit busy of late. First, a couple of whom I at times engage with on Twitter, there was new "hard pass" press list. Then, on 8/9, there were three orders. One announced a new special master for a water dispute, another stayed a long fought case (for the time being) involving a FOIA request for food stamp fund information and did not hold up Billy Ray Irick's execution. The rape/murder of a child occurred over thirty years ago, so Breyer could have used it to address one of his concerns (people on death row for decades), but Sotomayor handled it -- lethal injection issues being her thing.

The Naked Kiss

That would be a kiss that tells you the guy is trouble as a former prostitute trying to escape her past finds out in this good 1960s "B" movie. Meanwhile, about half-way thru the pretty good Like a Mother: A Feminist Journey Through the Science and Culture of Pregnancy book that is basically a regular mom's guide to pregnancy (mixture amazing and crazy).