…it’s not like I don’t have the usual excessive number of things to try to get to…but I need to get this scheduled rather than pull it together at some ungodly hour…on account of in my family easter is a magical time of year where a carefully husbanded selection of chores that lean into the manual labor are broken out specially…so…I think I may have moved about a half…no…it only felt like a half…probably more like a quarter, really…it’s not that big a driveway…so…a quarter-ton, let’s call it…of gravel…with…because my family are all about doing it the easy way…a rake

…& that was after digging over the place where we had to get the turf laid…& that was just day one of three

…so…that’s why I never got around to the brain drain or the DOT yesterday…& why this is liable to be uncharacteristically brief?

…anyway…this one isn’t new…although a friend reminded me about it the other day…& apparently it might be related to a piece someone had in the FT this weekend…plus it uses that ur- prefix…so you know it must be good?

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

…no idea what brought ur-fascism to mind

Russian veto brings an end to the U.N. panel that monitors North Korea nuclear sanctions [NBC]

…just

Bills targeting book bans raise concerns about the penalties libraries could face [NBC]

…one of them mystery things

Social Security Administration to remove food assistance as barrier to accessing certain benefits [NBC]

…it’s just…wait…what?

Deputy’s 10-year-old son accused of selling a gun to his 10-year-old classmate at a Florida elementary school [NBC]

…they know it ain’t april fool’s…right?

This week, for example, the former Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer, in a new book, “Reading the Constitution,” chides the current court’s approach to the law, which he says fixates on the text of the Constitution and attaches too much significance to the meanings of its provisions at the time they were ratified. If only, Justice Breyer urges, justices would soften this “originalist” approach and take into account how “our values as a society evolve over time” — including by respecting the “longstanding practice” of the court and other organs of government.

Justice Breyer’s criticism follows on the heels of that of another judge, Kevin Newsom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. In a talk last month at Harvard Law School, Judge Newsom made the opposite argument: He criticized the Supreme Court, when considering matters such as handgun regulation and abortion rights, for being insufficiently faithful to originalism and overly attuned to social practices that occurred or continued after constitutional ratification. Such traditions, he warned, “have no demonstrable connection to the original, written text.”

The current Supreme Court is the object of considerable controversy and confusion. To understand its decisions properly, especially over the past three or four years, the key is to realize that each critic is half right. Justice Breyer is right that the Constitution should be interpreted, in part, in light of practices that persisted after its ratification, but wrong to think that the current court is not doing this. Judge Newsom is right that the current court is doing this, but wrong to think that it should not be.
[…]
To get a better sense of what traditionalism is, it is useful to compare it with the two dominant approaches to constitutional interpretation in adjudication: originalism and what is often called “living constitutionalism.”
[…]
Traditionalism offers a third option. Here, one would look at specific political and cultural practices — the activities of the organs of government and of individuals and groups across the country over long periods of time — to help determine constitutional meaning and law. For example, one might observe that the practice of legislative prayer (prayer that opens legislative assemblies) was pervasive long before and at the time of the First Amendment’s ratification, and that it continued for centuries afterward. For that reason, one would conclude that legislative prayer is unlikely to violate the prohibition against an “establishment of religion.”
[…]
For some critics, the invocation of “tradition” sets off alarm bells. After all, our country looks very different today, demographically and otherwise, than it did hundreds of years ago, when political power was held by relatively few and denied to others for illegitimate reasons. These critics ask how well traditionalism deals with the contemporary realities of American democracy.

The answer to this legitimate question is: Compared to what? Consider again originalism and living constitutionalism. These approaches, different as they are from each other, are both suited to elite actors working at the nerve centers of legal and political power. Both depend on the preferences and findings of the legal professional class. Originalism privileges the centuries-old writings of illustrious figures of the founding or Reconstruction era as determined by today’s most brilliant legal historians and theorists. Living constitutionalism privileges the high ideals of today’s most prominent academics and judges.

Something Other Than Originalism Explains This Supreme Court [NYT]

…hmmm…if you say so?

U.S. updates how it classifies people by race, ethnicity for first time in decades [WaPo]

…well…maybe it was about time…it’s not like we suddenly need to update the meanings of terms that describe people…oh…wait…yes, it is

When is a human embryo not simply a clump of cells but a person with distinct legal rights? The answer, which holds much consequence in a post-Roe world, depends on the state where that embryo resides.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/03/29/fetal-personhood-laws-states-abortion

…uh huh…just like how needing assistance in the sense of “or don’t eat” totally makes sense as a thing to cite when barring folks from any other kind of assistance…after all…it was traditional…so…that’s better than original or some kind of constitutional…right?

…it was in the times so it must be true…or at least…it must mean something…you know…like…shit men say?

Anderson says many of the women she knows “spend what seems to be an inordinate amount of time interpreting the pretty opaque cues of men they’re dating.”

Anderson felt she was observinga form of “emotional labor,” a term first defined by sociologist Arlie Hochschild to describe how certain workers — typically women — have to suppress emotions, such as flight attendants who deal with unruly passengers.

But what to call the mental work women were doing in deciphering cryptic conversations and texts? In a paper published last year, Anderson penned a new term: “hermeneutic labor.”

Hermeneutics refers to the interpretation of language. Hermeneutic labor, Anderson says, encompasses three phases of emotional work:

• Interpreting the feelings of others.
• Determining when and whether to bring difficult, emotional conversations up.
• Interpreting your own feelings.

Anderson argues that hermeneutic labor is largely performed by women who are forced to interpret the emotions and motives of male partners who lack the emotional vocabulary to explain themselves.

…you know…she might be on to something

The men, Anderson says, “are often really taken aback and are like, ‘Oh, why are you causing a problem?’”

Trying to decipher a man’s mind? Now there’s a name for that. [WaPo]

…yeah…not exactly hard to think of a few examples of that shit…hell…arguably trying to shoulder some of that burden is what got your boy the messiah all nailed to stuff

…so…errr

…we should eat chocolate…preferably in the shape of a bird’s egg…possibly deposited by a bunny rabbit of some sort

…a guy wrote this story…didn’t he…it has all the hallmarks

…ah…probably shouldn’t say “to hell with the whole thing”…I mean…the guy died

…& he came back

…I can’t even imagine that kind of hangover…so maybe consigning a possible contender for “lord & savior” to everlasting hell…might be a little steep…& I ain’t god…who totally dumped his best angel down there over some petty bullshit

…& if you don’t think it was petty bullshit…I remind you one party is omnipotent…& omniscient…so…frankly getting bent out of shape about anything is pretty much petty at that point

…guessing ol’ luce morningstar was probably the first one to say “fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke”…& omnipotence doesn’t extend to the power of having a sense of humor

…how else do you see that going?

…oh…& if I don’t get to the part with the tunes…ummm…pray for me?

[…maybe you ought to anyway but…at least I got this far]