The notion that there are significant numbers of eligible voters out there who are prevented from voting if ID laws are in place is as dumb as the idea that there are significant numbers of illegal voters out there who voter ID laws will stop.
Adjectives are hard to quantify, but lawsuits and research have provided evidence that voting ID laws have blocked some people from voting.
A trivial amount? Let's see how Democrats with their base will do handwaving when a few elderly black ladies can't vote because they lack the proper identification.
It is also a type of tax, especially depending on the identification necessary. When this was brought up before, this was somewhat handwaved by stating something like "well, it might cost $25, but."
Well, that's a poll tax. Lots of people already don't vote. Some additional barriers will be one more reason not to do so. Okay. Just make everything free!
That would be nice, though it is not the case in all jurisdictions. The time and effort, including for those who don't bring the right i.d. to the polls, will still be there.
It's acknowledged that the laws aren't necessary to stop illegal voting. Encouraging identification, including helping people obtain identification for other uses, has some value. NYC established a convenient local photo identification that also brings benefits such as discounts at museums and so forth.
Voting identification -- which often does not require photographic identification (still another layer of regulation & the lack of a photograph lessens the alleged value of the regulation) -- might also help you gain votes for voting rights laws. And some political credibility as a "moderate."
So, there is some value for Democrats, though a libertarian might find it bad policy.
[The quote is from a self-proclaimed libertarian's comment, finding it stupid that Democrats don't support voter ID.
The "libertarian" supports Israel, is critical of trans supporters, has not shown support of abortion rights, but otherwise has shown some libertarian consistency, including supporting Harris over Trump.]
OTOH, its [p.r.] value is limited. Not that many people care about the issue. If they are educated about the problem, they know voter identification isn't necessary.
So, you are likely to have a large segment of people who are conspiracy theorists or inclined not to trust vote integrity overall. They will find something to complain about.
Also, Democrats and those who support them have a reason to mistrust the good faith of supporters of voting identification laws.
Ignoring that, ignoring that there is no significant need for them (and the chance that once you give in, it will just encourage the "need" for more unnecessary voting regulations), noting that there will be some people for whom the identification will involve at least a minor amount of bother (and a few that will have more) ... well, yes, I can see why Democrats are wary about supporting them.
It might be useful if something was obtained in return & if there is a grace period, but I understand the concern.
I discuss grand juries and not indicting those who throw ham sandwiches. I toss in a look at how the process can be the punishment, as shown by what happened in a famous SCOTUS case.
A blog post responding to an anti-Islam troll led me to this dude. He was also cited by the Freedom From Religion Foundation radio program.
We are talking about Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (TX). Not the sports guy. He was mad when someone did not stand during a Christian invocation. It is not totally clear whether the legislator was doing so purposely or was just talking to a staff member for some reason.
"For those of you who didn't stand, next time you come to the gallery, you stand for the invocation," Patrick said on Aug. 15. "It's respecting the Senate. If you don't stand for the invocation, I'll have you removed. We asked you to stand. I've never seen a gallery ever have any members in my 17 years of people who refused to stand for the invocation. It will not be tolerated."
The head of the religious liberty commission is not aware (or he doesn't believe) that there is a right not to stand for religious speakers. He was not as respectful when someone was saying a Muslim player. He walked out of the chamber.
Patrick has continued to win state and national support for his religio-political efforts. He was tapped to steer the Trump administration's Religious Liberty Commission and finally shepherded Republicans to pass his long-desired Ten Commandments law.
(A federal judge in San Antonio blocked Senate Bill 10 from taking effect Sept. 1. Texas will challenge the judge's ruling in the appeals court.)
Patrick states on his website that “I placed ‘In God We Trust’ in the State Senate. I placed ‘Under God’ in our State Pledge.” Christian God, I suppose.
Windom was convicted of killing Johnnie Lee [CW's best friend], Valerie Davis [girlfriend/mother of CW's child] and Mary Lubin [mother of Davis] on Feb. 7, 1992. Court documents said Windom claimed that Lee owed him $2,000. After finding out that Lee had won $114 at a greyhound track, Windom bought a .38-caliber revolver and ammunition and shot Lee.
Curtis Windom murdered someone for trivial reasons (it would seem better to keep him alive if all you got was $114!). He also murdered two more people. All had a close relationship with him.
One article summarizes further:
On the 28th of August 2025, in just a few days, Florida is scheduled to execute Curtis Windom, a Black man who has spent 33 years on death row. He grew up in poverty, lives with intellectual disabilities, and has long shown signs of brain damage. His legal defence was riddled with failures. The Florida Supreme Court itself acknowledged that his lawyer chose not to present evidence of his mental illness or brain damage, for fear it might complicate the case. As a result, jurors never heard crucial mitigating evidence. And the jury that sentenced him to death did so by an 8 - 4 majority, a verdict that would not stand in most other states, or in the eyes of the US Supreme Court, which has said capital sentences should be unanimous.
My sentiments regarding executing people decades after the crime remain the same as Justice Breyer's. Ultimately, he deserved a long time in prison, and he had it. Thirty-plus years in prison.
I don't think an 8-4 vote for execution is enough to provide a clear judgment that he warrants death. The other problems are a mixed bag. They do help my judgment that execution is not warranted here.
[ETA: I cannot find another reference to that split jury verdict. One early opinion spoke of a unanimous jury.]
The second article also notes that his daughter opposes the execution. A different article references, without clarification, that his lawyers obtained letters opposing the execution from the families of each victim.
But there are many family members. Close family members of mine, for instance, don't have the same position on the death penalty. Do we do a poll? And there appears to be a split here as well.
Ultimately, "what about the victims" only goes so far, in both directions. The execution is in the name of the people overall. It is not a punishment merely for the victim's family.
The article discusses various recent legal challenges related to this execution. The process of choosing who to execute among those on death row is shrouded in secrecy. The governor has discretion.
Florida is becoming the execution capital of the nation. This includes legislation making it easier to execute people. Also symbolic messaging:
The bill included language asserting that Kennedy v. Louisiana was “wrongly decided” and constituted “an egregious infringement of the states’ power to punish the most heinous of crimes.”
I oppose executing those who committed crimes before they were eighteen. It is valid to voice opposition to Supreme Court opinions.
There was an allegation by Justice Scalia and others that once the Supreme Court did something like ban the execution of those who raped children, that it would be fixed in stone. Not so.
Such opinions are partially based on the independent judgment of the Supreme Court. That can change. Also, state legislatures can pass resolutions that flag changing sentiments that can be relevant too.
Windom’s face was obscured by a sheet when the curtain was raised to the execution chamber shortly before a three-drug injection was administered. In his final moments, Windom said something about being on death row but it was not intelligible. Then, as the drugs began flowing, Windom started to take deep breaths. His legs twitched several times, and then he was still.
Anyway, the Supreme Court -- without comment from any justice -- rejected a final appeal. Florida executed him the next day.
More executions are due next month.
Donald Trump said Tuesday that he is pushing Texas Republicans to redraw the state’s congressional maps to create more House seats favorable to his party, part of a broader effort to help the GOP retain control of the chamber in next year’s midterm elections.
Trump wants to rig the system because he thinks the people will not otherwise support him. There is much opposition to the things he has done so far. He is trying this time to do a bunch of things without congressional approval (illegally, though the Supreme Court repeatedly has helped him out).
Partisan gerrymandering is a basic way for a political party to obtain and retain power without popular support. It is ultimately a violation of the republican form of government. "We the People" no longer govern by a fair expression of the vote.
The Guarantee Clause has long been deemed (probably somewhat wrongly) non-justiciable. Nonetheless, other means can be used by the courts, including the Equal Protection Clause (see "one person, one vote"). States and Congress can also address the problem.
The Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) conclusively (after Kennedy never bit the bullet) said partisan gerrymandering is not for the federal courts to handle. I question blaming John Roberts, full stop, here.
Kavanaugh is probably the person directly to blame. He was the fifth vote. Likewise, Barrett is to blame for Dobbs (abortion). But Roberts is the Chief Justice. It is part of his decades-long conservative anti-voting rights campaign.*
Texas is the second most populous state. It is standardly cited as a red state. Nonetheless, over forty percent of the voting population voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. There is a significant Democratic presence. A fair map will provide many Democrats. Good luck with that.
The campaign to make the map even more Republican-focused apparently cannot wait until the end of the decade. The Constitution sets forth once per decade apportionment tied to the census. Mid-decade apportionment, other than to fix disputed maps, should be traditionally disfavored.
California, the most populous state (and state of mind), has stepped in to check Texas. They are using the amendment process and proposing a gerrymandered map. The people have to accept the amendment first. New York has a more extended process. We could not act as quickly.
The amendment has language supporting federal reform, both legislatively and by constitutional amendment. Partisan gerrymandering ultimately requires a national solution.
Strategically, unilateral disarmament is ill-advised. There will also be a "race to the bottom" problem. Now, Republicans control many more legislative halls and governors' mansions.
They see misrule as having short-term gains.
==
* Roberts decided on Thursday, for once, to vote for the liberals during Trump 2.0 in a confusing 4-1-4 ruling. More shadow docket shenanigans.
Jackson strongly speaks out, including accusing the Court of Calvinball. The case involving NIH funding, and in one bit, Jackson notes the result will include euthanizing animals used in research.
Great. Now, SCOTUS is killing animals.
The book is overall pretty good. He wrote it with someone a few years before his death.
I can do without chapters on golf and racing, but they are two of his passions. An "outtakes" section provides various stories from family, friends, and others. He talks about his childhood without talking much about his wife and daughters (very little, though they pop up in the outtakes section).
Garner (originally Bumgarner) references that his cousin once told him that his mother died from complications of an abortion. She was twenty-six and had three young boys in Depression Era Oklahoma.
(It was just referenced in a discussion about his childhood. He later says he supports abortion rights and is a strong Democrat.)
Julia Sweeney, in an otherwise light-hearted book on parenthood, talked about how her mother-in-law got an illegal abortion in the 1960s. Sweeney did some good long-form monologues, including her first, "God Said, Ha!" A later one was basically "God? Ha!"
You can hear Garner's telltale voice while reading the book. His characters often had much of him in them. He did not train to be an actor. He got work early on because he had a movie star look. Garner got married in around two weeks. It worked for him -- they stayed together for nearly sixty years.
I was not a big fan of his private eye television show, though I know people who liked it. I wanted to check out Maverick, his 1950s show, and saw it was on. It turns out to have been a late episode with Roger Moore, who replaced him!
I like James Garner overall as an actor, including in Murphy's Romance. I did not see that many of his movies. I checked out the first of his Western spoofs. Didn't much care for it. His one-season television show, Nichols, was playing on one of the retro stations. Think he would appreciate that.
(I agree with him that The Notebook is very good.)
I had difficulty finding a good book lately. The latest by Erik Loomis (Organizing America) with twenty thumbnail biographies was pretty interesting.
This one was a good, easy read, though again was not really interested in forty pages about golf and racing. And would have liked to read a bit more about his daughters. Overall, he had a good no-nonsense philosophy mixed with empathy. Good values.
He gives some opinions, good and bad, about some actors and other people he knew. Nothing too terrible, but he does criticize a few celebrities.
Garner also said that he was a long-term user of marijuana, finding it helpful for medicinal purposes. If anything, alcohol was more dangerous in his experience. He tried cocaine via Jim Belushi but didn't care for it. Not too many big reveals overall.
He overpowered her and forcibly took her from the office building to the woods where he savagely beat, strangled and attempted to rape her, leaving approximately 30 contusions, abrasions and lacerations on various parts of her face and body. Bates was found at the scene of the crime and he had the victim's blood on his clothing. He had the victim's ring in his pocket.
This is another horrible crime that warranted a long prison sentence. In many countries, imprisoning someone for this crime for over forty years (as here) would be deemed cruel and unusual punishment.
It is overall rather serious. Justice Breyer remains correct in arguing that there is a constitutional problem with executing someone after all this time. The state interest has significantly decreased.
You are executing a different person. After they were in prison for decades. I think it is a form of euthanasia to end the life of a certain subset of senior citizens.
There is also a claim that Florida has applied the death penalty in an illegitimate racial way. They have done so in the dark, so to speak, adding another layer of difficulty. The Supreme Court was not accepting of a comparable claim back when he was in prison for only a few years. They are not much more open to it.
The claim was given somewhat more attention with two amicus briefs provided. I think that is worthy of a bit of discussion from some justice before the state executes the tenth person (a third of the national rate) this year. They have another one scheduled later this month.
No comment. The usual no comment final orders. That is wrong. Wrong Sotomayor. Wrong Jackson. Wrong Kagan. Wrong all the rest.
One new claim, rejected by the state as long past its sell date, is that he has "organic brain damage" that makes it unreasonable to execute him. Such claims are hard to prove. My stance is that when the death penalty is involved, a big thumb should be on the scales on the side of the challenger.
He was first sentenced by an all white jury. He was resentenced in the 1990s by a 9-3 vote. Only Florida and Alabama allow non-unanimous juries to authorize the death penalty. The Supreme Court has determined that the original guilt phase must be unanimous.
The Supreme Court has not directly addressed whether this is acceptable, but repeatedly (with Sotomayor flagging it) refused a request to do so. I find it dubious. An execution effectively involves a special crime, the worst of the worst, murder.
(The Supreme Court, in dicta, allowed drug kingpin-type laws where murder is not directly involved. Also, treason and war crimes are treated differently. Military crimes, including rape, have also been left open.)
I think it warrants a unanimous jury, at least, if that is the rule otherwise in place. If only two states, states where racism is still a concern, emphasizing the value of a unanimous jury, allow them, it makes it harder to justify. "Due process" is partially a matter of looking at normal procedures nationwide.
Anyway, executing someone over forty years after they committed a horrible crime, whatever name he uses, is misguided at best. Even without there appearing to be some other red flags.
A conservative who is not just a Trump suck-up but has shown not much concern decided yet again to be an anti-anti-Trump critic, a quite annoying breed.
It did not receive much attention, and I eventually decided to respond. This might have led to more attention. Well, twenty more comments as I begin these comments.
One reply to a comment noted:
Congress has passed laws. Trump is flagrantly defying them. Congress should either be using the tools at its disposal (hearings, impeachment, lawsuits) to check Trump, or — if it actually agrees with Trump that those laws are bad — it should be repealing them.
Similarly, Trump is doing things Congress never authorized him to do. Congress should either be using the tools at its disposal (hearings, impeachment, lawsuits) to check Trump, or — if it actually agrees with Trump that he should have that authority — it should be giving him that authority.
A second a related point is that laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. "[I]f the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."
I think it is worth noting for the record that a war criminal, guilty of the waging of aggressive war, identified at Nuremberg as the “supreme war crime”, whose aggressive war is *still going on”, just landed on American soil, shook hands with the president, and flew off unmolested. Fuck.
Yup.
It is that time of the summer -- time to start thinking about the next Supreme Court term.
After a longer delay than usual, apparently, the opening two oral argument schedules have been posted. It involves some important issues. There is also a new look.
The website is slowly being improved. One goal of mine is for orders not to just be screenshots. They should have links to the docket pages.
Also, again, for some reason, they did not post permanent screenshots of pages linked in opinions. They did in the past. The page is empty now.
Meanwhile, AOL is ending dial-up.
On the Shadow Docket
The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down a request from a tech industry group to temporarily bar Mississippi from enforcing a state law that restricts access by young people to social media. In a brief, unsigned order, the justices allowed the state to continue to enforce the law against major social media sites, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, X, Reddit, and YouTube, while litigation continues in the lower courts.
Kavanaugh decided to drop a concurrence noting the law is likely unconstitutional, but (citing a few pages from a brief), holding up the law was not suitable.
Steve Vladeck on Bluesky called out SCOTUS for explaining themselves, making it seem they are applying the rules arbitrarily. Kavanaugh sometimes explaining himself does not help much.
A liberal professor sees nothing wrong with the law. The major concern with the order is the inconsistency of the shadow docket. Or whatever you want to call it.
There are various possible problems with such laws. Sometimes, the age software is a problem for adults.
The state sometimes includes speech that is fit for minors among the blocked material, including LGBTQ and safe sex material. Some comparable laws have been used against drag.
The devil is in the details. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court should be less shadowy.
Summer Orders
The second summer order list will be released on Monday. It is likely to be nothing much.
If it isn't, I will add more. [Nothing of note.]
Trump attacked D.C. as a criminal hellscape even though crime rates are at a historical low. He took advantage (see link) of the complicated law in place to "take over" the police functions there. I use those quotes advisedly.
He cannot permanently take control. Nonetheless, there are various ways he can interfere with local control. Also, he can bullshit about the hellscape part. Both are bad.
The catalyst of this specific activity appears to be (though maybe they were planning it anyway) an attempted carjacking involving a former DOGE worker with a stupid nickname. The incident happened, even if he exaggerated it.
Some data points don't change the overall fact that D.C. is not a hellscape. Or, that interfering with local government is wrong. We saw a preview of this a couple of years ago when some Democrats (a supermajority in the Senate, only a small fraction in the House) blocked a local crime bill.
One message that recent events show is that we need to have D.C. statehood. I have supported something less (home rule + a voting member of the House), but realistically, that would require a constitutional amendment. Statehood is the easiest way to defend voting rights and home rule.
The population warrants a voting House member, hopefully someone else than the current one, who is nearing ninety and is way past her prime.
Statehood brings a few other things, but I don't think they are problematic with a few other states with similar populations in place. The fact that D.C. has less unpopulated land doesn't do much for me.
(We can amend the Constitution to overturn the 23rd Amendment, but Congress can also just allot the electors by national population. So, that is not much of a problem.)
Someone elsewhere argued the current Supreme Court would not accept making D.C. a state. I think there are no good reasons constitutionally to deny statehood. But, stupidity is not a barrier for this Supreme Court. If so, that will provide an incentive to do something about the Court.
Short term, Trump can only do so much regarding D.C., and what he announced is, to some significant degree, a lot of blather. Longer term, it suggests that among the changes made should include D.C. statehood. The two senators will partially help to balance out the misapportioned Senate.
It is also a learning opportunity regarding talking about crime and what to do about it. We can continue to blather on about how "defund the police" is a stupid slogan. Either way, reducing the footprint of the police will promote public safety and police efficiency.
And, tangentially, we should get a clear statement from Puerto Rico on what it wants to do regarding statehood. Puerto Rico repeatedly comes up in these discussions. Size-wise, at least, there is no complication regarding its "state-worthiness."
Finally, in regard to "no taxation without representation" and all that, can territorial citizens overall finally be able to vote for president? Thinly populated territories might be too small to become states. They should have basic voting rights.
(SCOTUS overturning the Insular Cases can help in the battle to treat overseas territories as equal partners)
And, yes, Trump is a convicted felon, and should be convicted of a lot more. He commuted and pardoned over 1000 people involved in the biggest crime in D.C. history. There is a big degree of “yeah right” to him fighting crime in D.C.
I discussed in more detail a possible botched execution last week.
After there were women officials in other sports (including football), we finally had the first woman umpire in a MLB game.
This film was on TCM.
Good group of character actors. Seriously. The film is almost like a Murder She Wrote episode regarding the number of classic film actors in supporting roles.
Garner (in his autobiography) once ranked his films. This received 2/5, but he didn't want to talk about it. That is likely to lead people to wonder why.
I would probably rank it 3/5 on that scale for the cast, setting, and the plot for much of the film. It was an enjoyable, deliberate mystery taking part in a small town. It was a very good role for James Garner.
[The film does go in an annoying direction, so I might give it 2.5. OTOH, lots of 3/5 films have flaws. That sort of film is decent, taking everything into consideration. So, the bad stuff is averaged in.]
The film, in a limited fashion, involves bisexuality/lesbianism, which is put in a bad light given the plot. Some people will be a bit shocked at who the killer turns out to be. At least given who plays the role. Garner's character, at one point, out of nowhere (really), references not being a "faggot" for some reason. I was a bit taken aback.
Anyway, the film was enjoyably moseying along [I was watching it late at night], and then it hit into stupid plot point territory. Garner's character not only made a misguided assumption (or three) but also did something dangerously stupid.
It ruined things for me, and I shut it off. I checked Wikipedia to see what happened. The solution to the mystery was unpleasant and somewhat lame. Plus, there is the "small town has a dark side" flavor there. Finally, how many seems fine but has a creepy side roles has Hal Holbrook done?
We also have another case of the gratuitous shooting of a guilty party. Television and film don't need the death penalty with all the people being shot dead.
So, I enjoyed the movie until I didn't. James Garner was overall very good. Not sure why he didn't want to talk about it. Probably something personal, including conflict with a cast member or the like.
There is a "title drop" (involving a dog) early in the film. As noted in Wikipedia, there were multiple (failed) attempts to use the general concept as the basis of a series (using different actors). I can see it.
President Nixon resigned OTD 51 years ago. The Supreme Court had shortly before handed down a unanimous opinion (one justice recused), written by the Chief Justice he nominated, requiring him to release the Watergate Tapes.
The district court ordered the tapes to be turned over on May 31. Both sides appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on July 8. The opinion was handed down on July 24. And, again, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974.
(His vice president was Gerald Ford. Ford wasn't great in some ways. He earlier tried to get Justice William Douglas impeached. Ford pardoned Nixon. But, let's say Ford is no James David Vance.)
There is little reason to think this would happen this time. The Roberts Courts over and over again slow-walked Trump cases to his benefit. They repeatedly ran out the clock. Trump, in that situation, very well could have finished his term. Two months on an accelerated basis for Trump v. U.S. could have meant an early February 2024 opinion.
Two Trump judges slow-walked for months an appeal of criminal contempt proceedings arising out of interference with a federal district court. The case involved illegally sending people to a foreign hellhole.
A human rights violation, among other things. When will there be justice for that? Is never good for you?
If you check out the beginning of the opinion, one name might seem familiar. Emil Bove. The f-ing asshole, to use his language, who 50 Republicans (one not voting) decided to confirm to the court of appeals for a good behavior tenured position even though there were repeated red flags.
The decision is held up for months, but is released shortly after he is confirmed. Huh. It must merely be a coincidence. BTW, in a more just world, Judge Pillard (who wrote the dissent) would have been Ginsburg's replacement on the Supreme Court.
Executive overreach is a real concern--perhaps now more than ever--it does not justify the judiciary responding in kind.
A conservative (sometimes labeled "libertarian") who now and then notes he is not a fan of Trump recently, somewhat sarcastically, replied to complaints that the Supreme Court is appeasing Trump. Sure.
Executive overreach is a concern, "perhaps" it is particularly so now, but that doesn't mean the judiciary should respond too strongly. Both sides do it! He, without comment, posted the news of the court of appeals judgment.
I think a "conservative" supports the rule of law, including not ignoring court rulings in fact and spirit. We have no Barry Goldwaters in Congress these days. We have some actual conservatives in the judiciary. Not those two.
The specific thing addressed here is, on some level, ridiculously limited. No one ultimately got a criminal contempt. It was ultimately a statement of judicial principle. If they did, Trump could have pardoned them. The bare minimum, however, was blocked on bullshit grounds.
Less than five years after urging rioters to “kill” police at the Capitol, a former Jan. 6 defendant is working as a senior adviser for the Department of Justice, which has been dramatically remade under the second Trump administration.
A Hallmark Hall of Fame film from 2012 with Julia Stiles and Camryn Manheim (supporting role). Stiles plays uptight well. Good cast. Overall, enjoyable, with a bit of a twist near the end.