Two Books

This book has potential, and its success as a first effort is not surprising. Overall, though the writing was readable and had some nice touches, I was not satisfied. The final conflict was annoying.  

There is a lot of interlocking stuff here. The author "writes what she knows" because she is a Peruvian-American who moved from the South to New York City. And, that is what her main character does. 

The two love interests also write a book together, which is clearly a sort of roman-a-clef of their relationship. In fact, it is darn obvious, and you would think the other characters would say more about that. She's a doe-eyed romantic while he doesn't like romance and favors darker literary fiction.  

They fall in love.  

Katie Holt nicely includes bits and pieces of their work in progress, which helpfully provides insights into what the male side of the love match is thinking. The excerpts are well done and make you want to read the book being written.  

The book is fully otherwise from the woman's point of view, someone who relies too much on true-life romance to succeed in writing. The sex scenes are a bit much at times but expertly done. The romance overall was not satisfying and well-rounded though perhaps some will like it as a fantasy. 

Ultimately, a major problem is that the main character seems immature, and the male character is more fantasy than a complete well-rounded character. The writing of the book sputters (she just stops working with him, not even reading the finale before they submit it) after a stupid complication arises that makes her love interest and advisor/mentor both look bad.

I read the whole thing and it kept my interest. Nonetheless, the main characters eventually got to be somewhat annoying, and the ending complication annoyed me. And, the idea was that they would not just write a "happily ever after," and it sounds like they did. A cheat! 

Why didn't the instructor, who set the guidelines, find this a problem? The whole thing comes off somewhat incomplete. Again, an imperfect first effort.  

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir was a book, film, and television series. Each version was somewhat different from the last one taking place in America in the modern day and tossed in an "&." It is a sitcom.

Josephine Leslie wrote the book in her forties and it appears to be her first. The Wikipedia entry on her is a short "stub" though online you can find a picture. An essay on the different houses used provides a bit more information. "R.A. Dick" is a pseudonym. 

The book edition I have is a special version connected to the film with a short introduction largely focused on the movie version. The book title pages references three other books by "R.A. Dick," including one that Amazon tells me is about the devil.

I read the book before and saw the film and television series (a bit silly). The book and the film are alike in various ways though the ending changes as I recall (I won't confirm -- I plan to watch the film again) and the annoying son is dropped out. Various other bits are changed. Overall, the film works quite well. 

The book is pretty good too. It has some interesting ideas of the afterlife and the captain also has some interesting things to say. Mrs. Muir is a bit too weak-willed at times, with the captain firmly in control (he is older and dead, which provides him the ability to know things she cannot). Still, she comes off as a pleasant character with independent views.

The setting of the book (written in the 1940s) is a bit vague though there are references to trains, phones, and radio (suggested perhaps not present early on). It can be many times in the past, Lucy Muir (a word meaning "sea") finding happiness in an isolated home near the sea. The taste of the modern era is there.  

There should be at least one world war mixed in there, which the captain at least would seem to find notable. None is referenced though perhaps it's possible to fit the main portion of the book before WWI.  A war would challenge the book's mood. 

The book has a somewhat old-fashioned feel with a pleasant overall pace from when she is first a widow and before you know it her children are adults, and then she is an old lady. All in less than two hundred pages. Those who like the film should enjoy it.

The passing of time is a suitable theme as we finish another year. I personally did not find this year too pleasing, symbolized by my sleeping through its beginning. We shall see how 2025 goes. The year does have a mathematical simplicity to it.  

RIP Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter survived to vote for Kamala Harris. It looked like he would die some time ago, especially after he went into hospice care. 

He died at 100, after his beloved wife, and an unfortunate election. It was his time to go. I know that is a somewhat silly statement but it is sometimes true. No reason for him to linger on any longer. 

I provided my modest take on Jimmy Carter. (Photos and final edits are the responsibility of the website owner.) A more educated historian provides his obituary here. I think overall Erik Loomis did well there.

Overall, his take is that Jimmy Carter was a good man and led a good life, but was a bad president. Still, even there, Carter did some good. 

Read through the obituary. His foreign policy overall had multiple highlights. He commuted the Vietnam resisters. There were multiple good domestic policy moves even without referencing his Biden-esque court diversity project. 

(Both Breyer and Ginsburg first were nominated under his tenure.)

Yes. We can list his problems, including the independent-minded stubbornness which ironically helped him win in the first place. There is a chicken-and-egg quality there -- if you wanted someone else who could have done more with the liberal majority, who would be elected? 

I will leave that to people more familiar with the field.  His libertarian sentiments were also a sign of the times as we saw in the 1980s and internationally.

Carter served as a nuclear technician in the Navy so was not just some peanut farmer. He was able to win state and federal office so had some political chops. He had his limitations. 

Shades of John Quincy Adams, who like his father was a one-term president, but unlike him had a long career afterward. And, though his anti-slavery stance is quite admirable, Carter did a lot more concrete good in human rights and health care. 

Jimmy Carter lived his Baptist faith by following Micah's basic rule of humbly doing justice and loving goodness. He withdrew from the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000 because of its stance on women being subservient and not being pastors or deacons. 

They followed pseudo-Paul on that. The actual Pauline letters have repeated praise for women in ministerial roles.

Sarah Weddington, of Roe v. Wade fame, served in his administration. Carter has had mixed positions on abortion. I read in one of his books that Carter opposed criminalization, citing how it was counterproductive in Latin America. 

I am not sure if he was always consistent in his public statements on that matter but that is the right take for those personally against abortion. He supported the Hyde Amendment, an unjust and unconstitutional denial of Medicaid funding.  

Still, his judicial picks were generally liberal, Breyer eventually co-writing the dissent in Dobbs. 

Rest in peace, Jimmy. 

===

I regularly see some trivial bit of news when I check online, including such and such relatively minor person dying. Now, this is not a complete dis on such things. History and life are filled with such people. But, the amount of "who the heck is this person?" I see is a bit silly.  

Other times, the person is someone people are likely to know for certain roles. A sort of fifteen minutes of fame, even if they did other things.

Olivia Hussey generally fits the bill. She had various roles but what she really is known for is her role as Juliet in one of the leading film versions of Romeo and Juliet. I saw some of the film in Catholic school, leading me to wonder if the principal realized there was an actual sex scene with nudity.  

It was brief but still -- we were a Catholic school after all. The Wikipedia page notes that nudity became controversial, particularly because they were actually about the age of the teenage characters.  

Jean Harlow

I read David Stenn's biography of Jean Harlow entitled Bombshell: The Life and Death of Jean Harlow.  It is about 250 pages, well-sourced, and has an easy-to-read font. Maybe it's just me, but some books seem to be too tiny these days. 

He also wrote a book on Clara Bow, whose career ended at about the same age but not (as in Harlow's case) because of an early death. The Harlow book is a serviceable smooth reading account. It is at times a bit over the top, perhaps, but mostly is straightforward. 

The book provides an account of the tragic life of a passive girl woman who deep down was a nice person who had no strong self of self. She was totally uninhibited about her body while being happier away from the spotlight. A teenage illness doomed her, ruining her kidneys without people knowing about it.

She is regularly said to be beautiful with a body akin to an elegant sculpture. I don't think the pictures particularly do her justice. I'm sure her presence was a significant part of her charm. Still "bombshell" is not how she seems to me. I do overall like her acting. 

I enjoyed Dinner at Eight and decided to check out more films with Jean Harlow. China Seas is a mid-1930s film packed with stars, including Clark Gable and a young Rosalind Russell (I know her most from His Girl Friday with Cary Grant). 

The film is somewhat ridiculous but the stars make it enjoyable. Still, it is more than a tad bit forced, including Jean Harlow's dramatics. She is less of a caricature in Dinner at Eight. Other characters are a bit much too. Overall, good pacing for a 1930s film.

I checked out Wife vs. Secretary with Clark Gable and Myrna Loy. The DVD was acting up so I shut it off. Still, the film was less enjoyable. 

It does provide a chance for Jean Harlow to be much more low-key than usual. James Stewart, in an early role, is her love interest. 

I also enjoyed Red Dust, which starred Clark Gable as a man's man on a rubber plantation dealing with two women -- Jean Harlow's prostitute and Mary Astor's cultured married woman who catches his eye. 

Gable eventually decides to leave her with the husband, a nice sort that was asking to be cuckolded. Harlow is more suitable for rough environs. Plus, Gable is deep down a good person, seeing how much the husband loves his wife.  

The film is somewhat more creaky at spots but overall flows well. There is also a racist portrayal of a servant that gets to be tiresome. Harlow shines.  

Clark Gable (as an African hunter this time) made a remake twenty years later. Mary Astor had film roles into the 1960s. Gene Raymond (her husband in the film) lived the longest -- 1998.  

==

Libeled Lady, had high praise, and Spencer Tracy, Myrna Loy, and William Powell (she fake marries him; IRL, she dreamed of really marrying him), but didn't like it. One notable true life bit: she legally changed her name to "Jean Harlow" (her stage name was her mother's real name) during filming. 

She plays her usual tough on the outside/soft on the inside, fast-talking character, and looks great (more natural).  A lot of fast talking but found it dull. If the film doesn't catch my interest, I turn it off.

==

Jean Harlow also wrote a book that was published in the 1960s. It sounds silly though I'd like to check it out. Not at the prices I see it being sold. 

ETA: Jean Harlow's first notable role was Three Wise Girls, which is referenced here with the video. 

The author, whose hot takes can be as valid as hot takes tend to be, says he is not a fan of Harlow. He suggests her draw was her beauty. Comments note her comic skills factor in as does her snark/naughtiness. Both pop up here.

The author likes another of the "girls" better in the film. She's fine but so is Harlow -- she has a clear presence. I also liked the referenced film Waterloo Bridge, which is a melodrama of sorts.  

I only skimmed the film but it's worth a look. The girls are the draw. The guys are rather tiresome sorts. 

Supreme Court Watch

No new orders have dropped. The Chief Justice's End of Year Report is thing next on the schedule. There were a few court-related developments. 

Opinion Announcements

Supreme Court audio from 1955 is available at the National Archives, allowing Oyez.org to provide oral argument audio to the general public. I first heard it when Peter Irons pioneered its release in the 1990s. He only used excerpts. 

The website provides complete audio. It also includes opinion announcements though that is less complete. 

For whatever reason, for instance, there is no opinion announcement audio for Roe v. Wade. Nonetheless, there is a generally complete collection -- including dissents from the bench--from the 1990s. 

The Supreme Court with COVID provided live audio of oral arguments and continued once they went back to the bench. They released select audio before and it came out as arbitrary -- a special events thing. The Court still does not provide opinion announcements though they think it important enough to provide opinion summaries and an occasional dissent.

The 2023 opinion announcement audio, including Sotomayor's Trump v. U.S. dissent, is now available. Every single opinion might not be available but a quick look suggests more are. Maybe, someday, the Court will get around to releasing them too. 

Jackson to the Virgin Islands

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson handles circuit justice duties for the First Circuit, which somewhat arbitrarily includes Puerto Rico. Justice Alito has the Third and Fifth, the former includes the Virgin Islands. 

Circuit court justices do not have much work. They do not "circuit ride" like the old days. The circuits also are not evenly split by population. The idea we should have thirteen justices because we have thirteen circuits (D.C. and federal circuit plus eleven others) is a bit silly. Let's be honest here.

Anyhow, Justice Jackson will have some public appearances in the Virgin Islands. Will Justice Alito introduce her since it is his domain? 

More On Biden's Death Penalty Commutations

The NY Daily News editorial staff agreed with President Biden's providing exceptions to his commutation of sentences of those on federal death row to life imprisonment. 

The three exceptions were terrorist "acts of war" and there were no problems of racial bias, innocence, and the breadth of the crime warranted the punishment. They would also support it for a massacre of schoolchildren which was not a political statement.

They cite the problems with the death penalty:

The problems with the death penalty are well known, from exhibiting racial bias against defendants of color to the very high cost of appeals and the great time involved. Capital punishment also hasn’t proven to be much of a deterrent. And it runs the risk, however small, of taking an innocent life.

Some of these problems remain. Also, there is the basic idea that taking a human life, even these, is wrong. I am not going to be too upset that Biden was not perfect here. But, yes, the line is not perfect. 

If you allow the death penalty, you will have problems, including a tendency to expand the pool of who dies. The op-ed shows this by granting they would be willing to include more people. 

Nonetheless, compromise and line drawing are part of life. It is inexact. I respect how far President Biden went above and beyond any other president.  

A Dance in the Snow

The core story is average, but the mother/daughter relationship is well drawn, including the daughter's autism. The actress is autistic and played another autistic character in a well-received film a few years ago that aired on Apple TV+.

[The term used a lot here is "neurodiverse."]

Check out the Hallmark Channel page and a review by someone who can provide helpful context. I like some Hallmark Channel films. The channel has tried to be more diverse in recent years, and I appreciate the effort. The daughter (in real life the actress is in her 20s) is clearly the best part of this film. The love interests, including of the mother, are more "blah."

I might have missed it -- I saw most of the film but did fast forward a bit to make dinner time -- but not sure what happened to the dad. 

Another recent Hallmark Channel that was somewhat different was Christmas on Call. Not only is the film focused on Philadelphia (an urban setting is rare) but it involves first responders. Plus, there is an interracial romance. Overall, I enjoyed it too.  

Happy Hanukkah!

 

Merry Christmas!

Legal Developments

Judicial Confirmations

President Biden is rightfully proud of his record of judicial appointments:

Judges matter. They shape the everyday lives of Americans, preserving our freedoms and defending our liberties. They hear cases and issue rulings on whether Americans can cast their ballots, whether workers can unionize and make a living wage for their families, and whether children can breathe clean air and drink clean water.

Biden had one more judicial confirmation than Trump. Judicial nominations for around thirty district court slots were not even provided, probably because of blue slips. Which should go.  

ETA: President Biden, as foreshadowed by a previous statement, vetoed a bill expanding the number of district judges. I provided an extended comment at the link (Joe from Bronx) but suffice to say it probably turned on the House waiting until after the election. The other reasons come off as bullshit. 

Senate SCOTUS Ethics Report 

A half-empty viewpoint here is that the numbers are misleading. Trump had three Supreme Court confirmations. He also had more appellate confirmations. I wanted the Senate to do more. 

One area in which they did not do enough was ethics. They dropped a final report but could have more hearings and subpoenas. I got tired of Senator Durbin constantly begging Roberts to do something.  

The report is fine to put things on paper. I think the section on constitutional matters (it simply cites emoluments) should be longer. Explain "good behavior" rules and how Congress has clear power to enforce them with binding ethics rules. 

Instead, a lower court judge gets an ethical slap on the wrist for a mild Alito criticism. 

Biden Commutes Death Row Inmates

Today, I am commuting the sentences of 37 of the 40 individuals on federal death row to life sentences without the possibility of parole. These commutations are consistent with the moratorium my Administration has imposed on federal executions, in cases other than terrorism and hate-motivated mass murder.

Chris Geidner is a good reporter on this beat. After Trump went on a mini-execution spree, with the help of six members of the Supreme Court, this was especially an appropriate move. I think going all the way would be correct but understand the compromise. Getting it all? In this economy?

Geidner notes that some of the people you would think might oppose this move (some families of victims, an officer's partner, etc.) agreed with Biden. Others will oppose it. People who appeal to victims should know they have different views. Victims do not have a veto either way.

There does not appear to be word on a final report arising from the Justice Department's study of the death penalty as part of a current moratorium. I suspect one will come. 

Overall, the death penalty is very problematic. The Trump executions had multiple problems, even with an attempt at winnowing to clear cases. The Garland Justice Department (see Geidner) supported commuting most of the sentences. 

We can debate the validity of one person having such broad power to pardon and commute sentences. Nonetheless, with the power in place, this was the correct move. Do we want to rely on Trump's attorney general (even if they aren't this guy)? 

Pragmatism 

The current Supreme Court majority favors a form of originalism that is somewhat arbitrary in practice. I think Justice Breyer's writings provide a helpful approach. This essay on using a pragmatic approach, weighing various types of interpretative guidelines in the process, is a reasonable discussion.  

Holiday Films

Multiple holiday films have a legal context. 

Remember the Night stars Barbara Stanwyck and Fred MacMurray. Stanwyck was arrested for theft. MacMurray was the prosecutor and found a way to postpone the trial to avoid having the jury sympathetically get her off out of holiday spirit.

They fall in love after MacMurray gets into a bit of legal trouble himself. He tries to throw the case but she will not let him. She also turns down his offer to marry her right away. Let's see after I get out.

Will she have second thoughts and have her lawyer challenge the voluntariness of her guilty plea?!

Miracle on 34th Street eventually leads to a sanity hearing with the federal post office playing a somewhat ironic role. The Manhattan prosecutor here is played by Dagwood's boss in the later film in the Blondie films. The actor here shines among many great supporting roles along with the leads.  

==

We might see some miscellaneous orders pop up as the year winds down. The next scheduled thing is the Chief Justice's end-of-the-year report.  

SCOTUS Watch

The Supreme Court continues to do some notable things as they go into a mini-recess. Of sorts. 

Order List 

The final conference of the year led to two grants and a non-descript order list on the following Monday. The Supreme Court separately amended a grant to specify that they were not concerned with the second question submitted for review.

In the Order List, Thomas publicly said (without comment) that he would take an issue involving the EPA. Alito did not take part in a case without saying why. Only the liberals explain their non-involvement.

Other Orders 

The justices without comment denied an "application to recall and stay the mandate" involving a habeas claim. The lower court (citing the petition) "held that a new expert report based on a previously available claim can restart the clock for filing a habeas petition that is otherwise untimely by years."  

The Supreme Court provided accelerated oral argument (January 10) in the TikTok case. Steve Vladeck supported the move with the law going into effect on January 19th. 

I bow to his knowledge but note that the Court can speed things along if it wants to do so. Cf. Trump cases. Also, will this be the current S.G.'s swan song?

(A media advisory is a red flag that there promises to be some extra call for seats for the TikTok orals.) 

The Supreme Court also granted a case involving Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. A quite different solicitor general will handle that one. 

Broadway Debut

Some coverage of Justice Jackson's Broadway debut including some behind-the-scenes video. She is not the first person who popped up on screen like this. 

Justice Sotomayor was on an episode of Sesame Street. Justice Blackmun waited until he was retired for a cameo in Amistad, playing someone a couple decades younger than him. Breyer replaced Blackmun on the Court and Jackson replaced Breyer.  

Lower Courts  

President nominated Adeel A. Mangi as a court of appeals judge and he would have been the first Muslim in that role. He was blocked for bullshit reasons with three Democrats going along with all the Republicans. Mangi used a letter to President Biden to make some parting shots, providing receipts. 

This was a sad day for America, including for religious liberty. I cited the letter on a blog, and someone responded with a bunch of invective. 

The letter provides multiple refutations. Chris Geidner has more. 

A lower court judge was flagged (since they have binding ethics) for criticizing Alito. Another (James Ho, who surely seems like he is pining for a seat on SCOTUS even if a supporter denies it) can spout partisan cant willy-nilly though. 

The new budget increases money provided to defend justices' safety. Perhaps, a quid pro quo requiring more ethics in return would be justified.  

Two More Executions

Joseph Corcoran

Indiana last executed someone fifteen years ago. They will still, arguably not have involuntarily executed anyone since 2009. Corcoran decided to end appeals. He was a "volunteer." He was (now) given the right to have a spiritual counselor present 

Corcoran murdered four people, including his brother in 1999 because he thought they were talking badly about him. Twenty-five years lag time raises Glossip (Breyer) problems. There was evidence of mental incompetence. His lawyers, opposing his execution, argue that it warrants not fulfilling his wish.  

His mental status raises questions about the voluntariness of his decision. I am less enthused about a complete denial of anybody having the right to turn down appeals. The essay's "natural rights" argument is too extreme. What about euthanasia? 

Gary Gilmore shows the importance of some minimal appeals process to protect the integrity of the system. Justice White, who granted the constitutionality of the death penalty, dissented on that ground. But, this is not always a problem. Some appeals have run the course.

A person on death row is not a free agent. Still, people who make decisions often are choosing between bad options. It is rational not to want to live one's life, often in isolation, in a tiny cage for decades on end. The death penalty overall is wrong. If we are stuck with the wrong things, there is a right to choose them.  

Another concern is keeping the press away. The press provides an important function to inform the public and check the government. This provides justification for a right of access, which is standard practice. 

The lack of independent witnesses is problematic. Chris Geidner has more, including notice that a reporter did witness the execution because the murderer put him on his witness list. 

The prosecutor now has second thoughts about applying the death penalty in his case. A family member also opposes his execution. It is likely that the family of the victims, like mine, would have different views. We cannot simply appeal to the victims. 

A final Supreme Court appeal was rejected without comment. The lower court (see Geidner) split 2-1. Liberal justices (Sotomayor or Jackson) have chosen to pick limited spots to dissent or provide statements in capital cases. This was a good time to do so.  

Corcoran was executed shortly after midnight. The sole media witness provided an account.  As Chris Geidner notes, the execution procedure started shortly after midnight, but it is unclear when the drugs began to flow. The reporter only had a view inside of the death chamber shortly after 12:30 AM. 

It is ridiculous to allow a media witness and not even provide a full view of the execution. 

Kevin Ray Underwood

Underwood brutally murdered a ten-year-old girl. The facts suggest the sort of "monster" that people might want off the face of this earth. The murder took place over 18 years ago. The trial was closer to fifteen. 

A mental health claim failed. The execution was delayed a year when the attorney general asked for executions to be spaced out more. No clemency. 

The Supreme Court the morning of the scheduled execution finalized things by rejecting a petition based on the clemency procedure. The usual five-person board now was a three-person board.  No comment. 

The case is likely much weaker than the first case but still would like at least a brief discussion before someone's life is taken. I think a life warrants that. 

The final execution of the year brings us back to those cases that are more about a pure concern about the death penalty. An amoral (the crime was a result of some twisted fantasy) person does something that violates basic human decency. What do we do?

An execution remains a dubious approach. The system as a whole is a problem. If you allow it here, more troublesome (like the first case) will be allowed too. 

Confinement is not an ideal solution but appears to be the best available. The execution of a few of the "worse of the worst," granting that is okay for "the worst act of your life," is an arbitrary lottery.  

And, that (number 25) is the last execution of 2024. On the guy's birthday yet. Oh well. 

Election College Meets

The Electoral College meets today for their one day of "classes" without any formal athletics or anything. It's time to end class. Let's go with the popular vote. 

The "value" of the Electoral College is quite exaggerated, including a "national candidate" when the races tend to split the usual ways with the usual swing states deciding things. Some people appeal to "federalism" as if there aren't numerous other ways that is protected. Or are upset too many people live in certain states. Again, only certain states benefit. 

You can follow one electoral calendar here, including a day that this year falls on Christmas. More on this year's electors. Among the familiar names of New York electors are the governor, attorney general, the former head of the teacher's union, and so on.  

Two times this century the final count included people who did not win the popular vote. This time the winner is someone who barely did not receive a majority. If that makes you feel better. 

The third-party vote reportedly clearly goes Trump's way regarding second choices, including (no shock really) Jill Stein. So, you know, I'm not too relieved.  

Thirteen Republicans who participated in the 2020 fake electors plot, including some who are facing criminal charges, will cast real Electoral College votes Tuesday for President-elect Donald Trump, as electors in the states finalize his victory.

I saw this depressing (and disgusting; often paired emotions these days) news story. Realistically, perhaps, we should have expected even more than that. We should not forget who is coming into power, including that he should be disqualified for taking part in an insurrection (14A, sec. 3).  

[Trump v. Anderson blocked a state from keeping Trump off the ballot. It did not block electors from voting for someone else. Or, Congress determining he is not qualified. That's all academic but just saying.]  

The overall system in place is that states allot electors based on who wins the state (Congress/D.C.) with two states not using "winner takes all." Many states "pledge" electors while some (last I checked) do not. 

Those states can technically have "faithless electors" though electors tend to be party loyalists. And, there does not seem to be any faithless electors, which is how it should be. We live in a democracy. The people still more or less choose the president, ultimately, even with this silly anachronism in place.  

As the knight says in an Indiana Jones film, they chose unwisely. The new Congress, then fully Republican (again, unwisely), will make the final announcement in January with Vice President Harris presiding. Shades of 2000 without Bush v. Gore.

How depressing. Humphrey, Johnson's vice president, and loser to Nixon in 1968, skipped the job. Jefferson was vice president and oversaw the count of his own election. That wound up to be a tie, settled later.  

Film and TV

The Svengoolie film was an amusingly silly and generally well-paced film from 1960 (Dinosaurus!) about two dinosaurs and a caveman coming back to life. Toss in a cute kid, a stereotypically bad baddie, and some stock characters (the semi-love interest has the most flavor), and you have a fun drive-in type film. The caveman comes off as the most interesting character! (The actor also has the most credits.) 

An engineering team is doing some work on a Caribbean island and finds two dinosaurs in the ocean. A caveman pops up too and all are brought back to life with some lightening. Forget about the dinosaur. The whole thing works out fairly well special effects-wise.

The final battle seems a bit tacked on. Why does the T-Rex go to the outpost where they are planning to stage a last stand?  Do they lure it there in cut footage? The caveman dies saving others and the gentle dino is attacked by the T-Rex and sinks in some quicksand. 

Torrey DeVito is the lead in Write Before Christmas (ah a pun), a Hallmark Channel film that successfully (overall) tries something a bit different. She breaks up with her boyfriend and sends the five cards she planned to send to her to people she cares about. And, we see various subplots involving them too. 

Various familiar faces. The actress has been in a few t.v. shows including Chicago Med, which I checked out (the library didn't have the first two series, so I checked out the third). Didn't interest me.  

The Native American-related book recently referenced cited something a character on the television show Longmire said.  Longmire is a Western crime drama. 

I thought the first episode was well done. The acting and setting kept my interest. Nonetheless, yes I have a low threshold these days, a few things bothered me. It has various stereotypes that annoy me.  

For instance, you have a big city detective working for the sheriff's office and she is surprised by basic tactics about interviewing people without showing all your cards. He has a sense of honor that involves basic things that make him supposedly special. 

His daughter secretly dates (or has sex with) his deputy. Come on. He personally goes alone to dangerous places, setting himself to be shot in the very first episode. Tiresome. I know the drill. I liked The Closer though it has various limitations. 

It still annoys me. You cannot just have a simple murder mystery. Two shows in. Everything has to be fraught. I'm not in the mood for it.  Also, so much killing after a while gets a bit much. I will try to find a series to delve into elsewhere.  

I guess I'll just take it as a one-off though the female deputy and maybe his daughter have some potential. 

How to End Christian Nationalism

Amanda Tyler (not to be confused with another lawyer with that name) is the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty (BJC) and co-hosts a podcast entitled "Respecting Religion." The first thing you feel about her is how reasonable and nice she sounds. 

So, it is not surprising that she was taken aback when a reporter referenced her "radical" concern about Christian Nationalism. Nonetheless, as she notes in her new book (How to End Christian Nationalism), it still is an uphill battle. It is somewhat "radical" to make a strong effort to fight it. 

Christian nationalism is the belief that being a Christian is necessary to be a good American. As a Baptist and American, she thinks this violates her core religious and American values. 

She also helped to write a report, a joint effort with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, showing how Christian Nationalism was involved in the January 6th insurrection. Although both organizations have somewhat different beginnings, they strongly believe in the separation of church and state.  

A sign of her strong stance is that she flags the usage of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto, which is repeatedly handwaved even by Justice William Brennan, a strong separatist. 

I agree with her that these are troubling governmental endorsements of religious belief. She also notes the school calendar favors Christians. Structural discrimination gets to be so taken for granted that we do not recognize how we benefit. 

The book is a how-to geared to Christians. Each chapter ends with a biblical reading. (She uses the Common English Bible, which is not one I usually see cited.)  Tyler notes that Christians have a special responsibility to address Christian Nationalism since they have benefited from its practice for so long. Christian Nationalism is also correlated with racism.

She provides eight steps, including understanding Christian Nationalism, grounding oneself in God's love, denouncing violence, committing to the separation of church and state, taking on Christian Nationalism at home (including from the pulpit), organizing for change protecting religious freedom in schools, and taking your place in the public square. 

Tyler argues that the fight against Christian Nationalism will be a long battle that will not be won soon. Nonetheless, some victories are possible, including defeating (for now) attempts to use school chaplains in Texas public schools. The result of that 2024 elections will bring many more battles.  

Change often has to come from within. Amanda Tyler's efforts as a believing Baptist/Christian are particularly important. This book is a helpful introduction. 

A real bad apple in Biden's clemency barrel (Cash for Kids)

Today, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. is granting clemency consisting of 39 pardons and 1,499 commutations.

President Biden has made some notable pardon/commutation moves, including involving marijuana penalties. The latest move sounds impressive numerically. There are more to come.

The numbers are somewhat misleading. If you read down the pardon list, you can see just from the first names that we are dealing with people who already served their time. The pardons would therefore be a means to sweep their record clean. Helpful and symbolic but limited. 

One person commenting noted:

The pardons granted by Biden this month are very interesting. The grants were given to individuals who [often] had not served any time - just probation and none had been sentenced to more than 3 years. Many only had probation.

Many of the commutations were "categorical" (see first link) following certain criteria. The latest tranche is largely of this caliber. As the Administration summarizes:

The nearly 1,500 individuals who received commutations today have been serving their sentences at home for at least one year under the COVID-era CARES Act. These Americans have been reunited with their families and shown their commitment to rehabilitation by securing employment and advancing their education. 

The people were convicted of non-violent crimes, not likely to crime again, and so on. Michael Conahan, the "cash for kids" judge, was one of the people covered. This resulted in some disgust, including in the general remarks at LGM. Skimming the comments, I saw one person who generally pushed back, noting the move helped lots of people. 

Trying to weed through all the names to find one really bad apple could have delayed things. [I'm inclined to doubt some searching software or whatever couldn't have picked out his name.] He was not in prison (home confinement) and served much of his time (sentenced in 2011, due out mid-2026). The guy did not simply get a slap on the wrist.

To remind:

In what came to be known as the kids-for-cash scandal, Conahan and Judge Mark Ciavarella shut down a county-run juvenile detention center and accepted $2.8 million in illegal payments from a friend of Conahan’s who built and co-owned two for-profit lockups.

It is quite understandable that the victims and their families would be upset about the commutation. The mitigation is both that he already received a long prison sentence (Conahan is over seventy and was released during COVID since he had multiple health problems that put in more at risk) and that he was not singled out. He was part of a class of people. 

The pardon power is used too sparingly, especially with our nation's overly harsh and inequitable criminal justice system. It is misguided to spend too much time on this singular case. This is not a Marc Rich situation (Clinton) where someone specifically received special treatment. 

I would accept if Conahan was singled out as an exception to the categorical commutation. I also would not be surprised if not every single one of the rest were mundane cases. 

The categorical approach overall is a fair policy. It will likely help a few dubious cases, tempered by the fact that repeatedly the assistance will be overall less than meets the eye. That applies here too. 

Also, if you keep on trying to find "special cases," this guy won't be the only one affected. More marginal cases would be too. As noted by Biden, this policy helps motivate others to follow suit. The overall net value of the process holds true. 

He committed a horrible crime with civil and criminal penalties arising as a result. Will the people who suffered benefit much more if the person who received thirteen or so years of confinement would receive a year and a half more?  

It amounts to a symbolic burden, which matters. People care about such things. Nonetheless, let's be realistic about the net result. We should include the general good these bloc actions bring.  I think the anger and demand he gets another year and a half is a gratuitous feeling of vengeance. 

The bottom line is that we should look at the big picture. We should not latch on to single actions that result in the usual strum and drang. Careful treatment can avoid some unpleasantness. Still, life is a bit messy.  I am okay with this move in context. 

BTW, the Hunter Biden pardon remains valid. Enough with this "hurt Democrats for years" bullshit. 

SCOTUS Watch: Orders and Opinions

Order List

After granting cases on Friday, the Supreme Court released the usual ho-hum Order List on Monday. 

Alito didn't take part in a couple of cases, as usual, not saying why. I will continue to flag that until the conservatives join the liberals in saying why they recuse, which the new ethical guidelines encourage. 

As usual, there were various odds and ends. The most notable thing is some statements/dissents from some conservatives in hot-button cases. 

Alito/Thomas would have taken a case involving affirmative action while Gorsuch said the matter is moot with a change of policy. 

Thomas/Alito and Gorsuch (less bluntly) flagged a case where the Hawaii Supreme Court received some attempt by thumbing their nose at the current SCOTUS gun policy. They granted it was not a ripe case but were concerned about the issues. 

Kavanaugh without comment and Alito/Thomas (on standing) would have taken a case involving parents asserting a right to know if their children came out as trans at school. Alito was sympathetic about an unenumerated right of parents raising their kids, a week after the trans case involving parents concerned about the health care of their children.  

Alito argued that standing has been used to wrongly avoid certain cases. Justices are selectively worried about such prudential standing decisions.  Chris Geidner shows how hypocritical/FOX News-y Alito/Thomas is here to reach out to take this case. 

Opinions

The first two opinions were a per curiam and a one-line statement that said a case was improvidently granted. IOW, "We shouldn't have taken it."

On Human Rights Day, we had the first signed opinion of the 2024 Term. The day was the 76th anniversary of the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our courts, including the Supreme Court, provide a fundamental means to uphold our rights. Rights ultimately rely on us all.

Anyways, back to the Supreme Court, and its first signed opinion of the term.  Justice Jackson, who will get a chance to fulfill a dream on the stage, wrote a unanimous opinion in an immigration dispute. 

The facts might be sympathetic, but the Court determined that a challenge to an alleged "sham marriage" determination should fail. Jackson argued the law gives the agency involved discretion without the courts having the authority to second guess. 

There was a dispute over the law here so the answer to the question was not totally clear. I will not pretend to argue that I know the right answer. Suffice it to say, that a unanimous court is not necessarily a right court. Ultimately, the value here is to have an agreed-upon answer that can be applied consistently.  

As usual, the opinion announcement was not live-streamed, so you will have to wait for Oyez.com to release it sometime after the term (or find where it is stored and access it). Now, the whole thing is announced on social media, including court reporters telling us how many boxes of opinions there are as a sign of how many opinions there might be. 

The Court decided having an opinion day was so much fun that they would have one on Wednesday too. As with the first "opinion day," it turned out to be another case of them deposing the case as improvidentially granted ("DIG"), which was not surprising from the coverage of the oral argument. 

The case involved the use of NVIDIA chips by crypto miners. Okay. So we had four opinions this term, one a per curiam (unsigned opinion of the court) released separately. Two opinion days involved DIGS and only one with a signed opinion. 

More Orders 

The Supreme Court rejected a stay of a coal regulation. The "brief" order business is the standard talk for a standard rejection without comment. Stays are not usually granted though sometimes justices at least show some concern about the EPA these days.  

The Court also dropped an order after their Friday conference that added two more arguments. Thus, two of the matters they "relisted" for further discussion have been addressed. More orders are due Monday. 

Court Seating 

The Supreme Court livestreams audio but does not provide video of oral arguments. Also, people like to be present in the room. But, there is limited seating, resulting in some problems. The Supreme Court is starting a trial lottery process for public seating.  

The inability to provide video or photographs leads to the usage of sketch artists. William Hennessey, a long-time SCOTUS sketch artist, has died. 

Thus ends a busy if not too profound week. 

Mets Get Another Yankee Castoff

Well. The Mets did sign Juan Soto.

First off, it's ridiculous money. I suppose people will quantify it to show otherwise. I stick to that. 

$51 million a year for fifteen years with an opt-out after five years that is overridden with more money is ridiculous money for one player. Someone who is not a five-tool player or anything as compared to Franciso Lindor. He's a future DH.  

A big thing here is symbolism. The Mets have arrived! They beat out the Yankees. Okay. Well, the Yankees aren't the Yankees of the old. 

Soto's move to the Mets underlines the point. It shows that the owner is willing to do what he can to make the team great, which is nice.

The signing raises the stakes. Last season, the Yankees felt like "World Series or Busts." They were a bust when they got there. The Mets, with a patchwork pitching staff, came quite close to getting there. 

Now, Mets fans have a rightful expectation that the team should make the playoffs each year and, in fact, get far along. One sports reporter argued that the Mets are still not as good as the Dodgers. 

This is fair since they have a generation talent along with a lot more. So, $765M will get you second place in the playoffs or something? 

Many people that the billionaire owner would eventually seal the deal. At the end of the day, it's about money. The Mets play in New York City. They are a credible organization these days. The Yankees are nice but again the Mets almost got to the World Series. So, he can win here too. Why not? 

I am somewhat surprised. Yes, I am also not as EXCITED as some people. It's done and it's silly not to think it will help the team win. It is a sign that the ownership will do stuff to make that happen. And, what else will the guy spend his money on?

The local football teams are a mess. It's nice that the Mets, including with David Stearns (President of Baseball Operations) someone you can trust to run the operations side, have a promising future.  

Let's go Mets. They need some more parts to settle the Pete Alonso situation. But it has been a rather exciting off-season so far.  

Odds and Ends

2024 Elections and Beyond

I provided some more election thoughts, including what the Democrats should do in the future. A major concern is not the Democrats. 

It is how non-Democrats (we can toss in media institutions) accept Trump as credible. Once you do that, it's like he wins half the battle. 

Democrats should not rest on nail-biters. Any long-term solution includes obtaining some additional support in red states and a more than trivial non-Democratic contingent. The added bit about an Obama speech, which partially talks about coalitions with those we disagree with, factors in.

Mets

The current big story is a battle to see who will sign Juan Soto, who is asking some ridiculous amount of money. I realize that is how it goes. Studs get the big bucks. Figure the Yankees need him to stay more. 

My thought has always been that I am fine with him staying with the Yankees. The team needs too many parts to focus too much on a gigantic long-term contract. Plus, philosophically, such contracts bother me. I grant for the billionaire owner it is "only money," but I hold to that. 

Meanwhile, they are filling in details ala 2023/4 with two reclamation project type starters, one who is a reliever that they plan to convert to a starter. The latest Yankee cast-off with Severino going to the As.  

Last season's results suggest we should trust the process. I'm betting they sign a reliable starter, find a good reliever or two, and the betting man (woman) would say Alonso stays. They signed a reliable outfielder who is a cheaper version of another they have. If Soto isn't signed, figure they find a more reasonable big bat, which would be my preference. 

Jets/Giants 

The NY/NJ teams have a combined 5-21 record. 

They both had a shot to at least go into overtime today in the final seconds. The Giants' comeback was stopped when a mid-range field goal was blocked. 

The Jets for the second time at the end of a half screwed up and set up a chance for Miami to get a long FG. The Dolphins won the toss and scored the touchdown.  The Jets' defense failed when it mattered.

The first time, Rodgers failed on a third down throw, leaving time on the clock for the FG. The big blemish the second time was a special team's failure. 

I'm at the point where I basically want both teams to lose. I am actively negative about the Jets and Rodgers. It would be nice, I guess if the Giants and their backup QB (Tommy Cutlets is not playing now) have a mercy win. They had a shot today. 

The postgame report for the Giants game was sympathetic. They don't have much talent on the field with their injuries. The defense played well. The backup (Drew Lock) started slow but kicked into gear late. He might be "the best shot to win," but he is not showing too much really for Tommy Cutlets fans. 

The Jets also had various good things happen but they keep on finding ways to lose. Okay. So, Rodgers played well overall (with key questionable plays) today. Finally. Who cares? 

He showed he is not the long-term answer. Put in the backup and show a message to the team that they are not just doing the same old, same old. They might even win a game or two still. The Jaguars, for instance, are not good. But, that's not the point. 

The team has the talent, I guess, that they might have won a handful of more games if they played better. The Giants are more of a mess. Someone flew a plane over the stadium with a message saying just that.  

Both lost a lot this season.  

Petticoat Junction

Two episodes of Petticoat Junction on MeTV are part of my Saturday television regime. I have a series of shows and films (e.g., Hallmark Channel at 8 P.M.) to check on. Petticoat Junction is on 5 A.M.

If you re-watch and re-read, you pick up things. I see this on Friends, which is syndicated on multiple channels, at times in bunches. Scripts have continuity errors. Certain things don't make much sense.*

Let's put aside that two of the sisters changed actresses. The brunette was played by two actresses and the blonde by three. And, other than being the daughter of a creator of the show, the third being a red-head seems off. How does that work genetically?  

The more notable thing is that the actress who plays the mom, a central role in the show, died mid-series. They then took her out of the theme song and except for once (a brief reference) never talked about her again. She was "away" while being sick. She came back, died off-screen, and then Orwellian-like, it was like she was never there.  

I understand this given the desire not to make a light television show too dark though seems like it would have been okay to reference her death. Did fans like them doing it that way? 

The mom was central to running the hotel, especially her cooking skills. Uncle Joe clearly was not too useful. The oldest daughter eventually was away regularly doing her music career. 

We occasionally see evidence the daughters are cleaning up or the like. One thing rarely shown from what I can tell is their eating together. 

I saw a late-season Thanksgiving episode. Who made the dinner? The youngest originally was a lousy cook. She eventually got better after she got married. The others showed some ability to cook. Did they share cooking duties for guests? 

I'm not overly concerned. It is just something that came to mind and made me go "Hmm."

===

* Friends is comfortable watching that can be enjoyed over and over again. I still have various issues with the series. I also think the series kicked into gear mid-second season and dropped off mid-ninth.  

I can go on and on here but I'll just cite one thing. There was one episode where a pregnant Rachel was really horny. Okay. So have sex. It was a thing earlier that she repeatedly had sex on the first date. 

Is there some rule about pregnant people not being able to have sex? She was about four months along and not huge or anything. She's Rachel. People a lot less hot have sex late in the pregnancy.  

She was horrified when Phoebe brought some virgin nebbish over to satisfy her. The show has multiple conservative moments like that including ...

Rachel goes on a date early in her pregnancy and for some reason finds it necessary to tell the guy she's pregnant. It was a first date with a soap opera star. Why the need to be so honest and ruin things? 

She later notes that while pregnant she can't date. This flows into a charming subplot involving Joey. All the same, why not? She's Rachel. People will still date her while she is pregnant!  

Thinking about such things is one of the fun things about re-watching and re-reading. It also remains annoying. People can do the same thing with some Jane Austen novel or something too.  

The Indian Card: Who Gets to Be Native in America

Recent census data shows that many more people are putting down they have Native American heritage as compared to the number of people in officially accepted tribes. The Indian Card: Who Gets to Be Native in America by Carrie Lowry Schuettpelz examines the situation.

Carrie is an enrolled member of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. Congress recognizes them as "Indians" but not as an official tribe. The arbitrary way the federal government has handled Native sovereignty has a long history. This book covers that, the author's personal story, and some extended look at some other Native Americans' experiences.

The author worked in the Obama Administration. It is somewhat strange that she does not reference the current (Native American) Secretary of the Interior. I talked about President Bidens' apology for Indian boarding schools here.  

The author does not provide a deep dive analysis in the book about the numbers. It is more a personal account and a summary of the history of Native American relations with the United States. The author is 1/4 Native American (her last name is German). How "blood quantum" should be involved in deciding who is a member of a tribe is addressed.

The book is well-written for the average educated reader. Some books these days are translated into young adult editions. I think this might be one that would be suitable. There are no pictures, except for an author's photo. That is somewhat disappointing.  

SCOTUS Watch

Ethics

Jodi Kantor co-authored another inside look at the Supreme Court. The subject is ethics, which will continue to be an issue while Republicans refuse to address it since their people control the Supreme Court.  

The article provided an interesting examination for the general public. Court watchers realize that the justices are divided ideologically on this question. The article includes some new details, including how Gorsuch made his voice known about the problems of ethics rules. 

The letter from Supreme Court Clerk Scott Harris did not explain why Gorsuch was recusing himself, saying only that "consistent with the code of conduct" he had decided not to participate.

Gorsuch has also decided not to take part in an upcoming environmental case. A request was placed for him to recuse given links to a billionaire involved in the case. It would have been helpful if there was more clarity on why he recused. Conservatives, as I have noted before, do not follow the practice of the liberal justices of openly citing specific ethical guidelines when officially not taking part in a case.  

Some people, especially conservative-minded types, worry about the leaks involved in these news articles. If the institution could handle The Brethren, I think the limited details provided here won't mean the end of the institution. Leaks provide a safeguard when powerful institutions are involved. Gorsuch worries about federal power. 

Maybe, he should be consistent when his own federal institution is involved. To the degree he is open to recusals when appropriate, I appreciate it. 

Ethical guidelines cannot simply be about self-regulation. It is not for other courts. Mark Joseph Stern rightly is not too impressed by Gorsuch's actions. Nonetheless, self-regulation is not without value. His recusal suggests that pressure still can encourage the justices to act. 

Oral Arguments 

The Supreme Court has two weeks of oral arguments in December. The cases largely do not involve "hot button" cases. The one exception involves trans rights and medical care for children. 

A historical moment was the argument by the first openly trans advocate in front of the Supreme Court. The argument (as expected) did not bode too well for the challengers of the Tennessee law. 

The liberals were strongly against it. Gorsuch, who was likely to be an important swing justice (Bostock), didn't ask a single question. Roberts, the other conservative vote in Bostock (a statutory case) sounded doubtful about the challenge. 

As will regularly be the case, liberals are left to be hopeful about Barrett's vote. Barrett was surprised at the idea that there was a long history of anti-trans legislation. Seriously? I would think it was in the briefing somewhere at the very least.  

I was wary about this whole thing with this Supreme Court. Chris Geidner argued the federal government was correct to appeal it, including because the law is particularly bad. Maybe. Who am I to say, I guess.

The other thing is that as seen by people waiting overnight in the cold for limited seating, watching the oral arguments is useful. Live audio is nice; video would be better. Other courts manage both binding ethics rules and televised oral arguments. 

We are left with a few observers, including those with press credentials to give us a visual accounting. 

Other SCOTUS News 

I'll let Amy Howe summarize one order:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday appointed a former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts to defend a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in an immigration case after the Biden administration declined to do so.

Friday's conference will lead to an Order List on Monday. As is normally the case, the justices dropped an order in the afternoon stating the cases (three, involving two issues) they granted for review. One is somewhat notable -- it involves the power of U.S. courts to try a damage case involving terrorism (PLO).

There will be one or more opinions announced on Tuesday. Last time that meant a one-sentence "our bad" opinion noting it was a mistake to take the case. 

I think there will be a real opinion this time though it won't be a barnburner. SCOTUSBlog flagged the news but the regular reader of the SCOTUS website would be left searching out the calendar.

A simple press release on the relevant page would be a more logical approach. 

New York Legal News

I grant I might pay too much attention to national news. New York has legal news as important as dealing with each miscellaneous SCOTUS order.

New York City, for instance, recently decriminalized jaywalking. Now, that does not seem to be that profound, especially since people tend to jaywalk without worrying about arrest. 

Nonetheless, jaywalking laws have been used as a reason to stop and frisk people. Evidence suggests they are arbitrarily applied. And, they have little safety value in practice. The law goes into effect in February.

Deborah Rhode wrote an interesting small book about adultery explaining its history and problems with prohibition. NY was one of the remaining states that had a criminal law (rarely enforced) on the books. 

New York, perhaps surprisingly, can be conservative about change. It took a long time to become a no-fault divorce state.  New York has now decriminalized adultery.  Note that bigamy is still not allowed.