Today in Supreme Court History: August 13, 1788

8/13/1788: Federalist No. 85 is published by Alexander Hamilton.

Alexander Hamilton

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Oden v. Brittain, 396 U.S. 1210 (decided August 13, 1969): Black denies motion to stay election of newly constituted local government in Anniston, Alabama; election is only three weeks away, and the change from five members elected at large to three did not have to be pre-cleared by the U.S. Attorney General under (the now illusory) §5 of the Voting Rights Act (Anniston is only a few miles from where Black grew up)

White v. Florida, 458 U.S. 1301 (decided August 13, 1982): Powell denies motion for stay of execution because no execution date set, nor is it imminent, and motion doesn’t specify reasons why certiorari will be requested

Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California, 443 U.S. 1301 (decided August 13, 1979): Rehnquist refuses to continue stay of PUC order requiring phone company to refund customers and lower rates; phone company was actually arguing a tax issue for which the Court had previously denied cert

[Dan Schiavetta]

today’s movie review: Randy, the Electric Lady, 1980

I saw this after it was mentioned in Playboy; in those days, when porn films had a plot, it included them in its one-paragraph reviews of “serious” films. Desiree Costeau (“the girl with the stand-up tits”) can’t reach orgasm and goes to the Sex Institute, is strapped to a machine, and due to a computer room malfunction she has a super-orgasm (watch her eyes cross!) during which she produces a substance they decide to call Orgasmine. Which, when fed to others, results in immobilizing euphoria. The evil scientist (Juliet Anderson, who has a great time doing the “mwa-ha-ha-ha!!” bit) sees the prospect of world domination and keeps poor Desiree strapped in, “milking” her to maximize production. The movie, like the other porn movies I review here on Sundays (just before I go to Mass, folks!), is more entertaining than arousing.

A lot of jokes, mostly having to do with scientists trying to monitor people having sex without becoming turned on themselves. The computer malfunction is caused when two lab workers get it on and crash into a reel-to-reel (remember those?) mainframe. Their boss catches them and shouts, “There will be no f**king at the Sex Institute!”

The era of porn films as real films ended sometime in the 1990’s (though I was not particularly following the trend by then). Now it seems to be just sex scenes. This is a shame, because graphic sex and comedy (or graphic sex and drama, such as in Young Lady Chatterley, 1977) is a good combination. In Hollywood though such things are now verboten. Perhaps the disappearance of the genre is due to the change from seeing movies in theaters to, um, enjoying them at home on video, alone. Linda Williams or someone like that has probably done a dissertation on this development.

P.S. I thought about this film a few years later, when I was having sex with a new girlfriend. I was on top and at one point I noticed that every time I went in, her eyes would cross (like Desiree’s), then uncross as I withdrew. Imagine this happening thirty times a minute. It was the funniest thing I ever saw. She was in her thirties — hadn’t anyone told her? Was was she aware of it? But she was having a good time (though I don’t think she secreted “Orgasmine”) and there was no way I could mention this to her. Perhaps it was an uncontrollable reflex. Anyway after I suppressed my giggle I resolved not to look at her face. When we had sex after that I tried to go with doggy-style, but she found that to be uncomfortable. We broke up soon after that (we both basically said goodbye to each other, amicably) though that wasn’t the reason, at least not on my side.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you doing a Penthouse Letters thread?

[Magister]

Again unable to process the disturbing feelings brought on by porn movie reviews? Nobody's making you read these, Bumble.

[SRG]

All these porn reviews are making Mr Bumble go cross-eyed...

[Mr. Bumble]

The wankers have spoken.

[Michael P]

Again unable to read until the end of a comment before prematurely shooting off a reply? Nobody's making you post these, Muckister.

(The Penthouse Letters bit of the original comment starts with "P.S.")

[Magister]

It didn't seem entirely out of place in a movie review about a porn movie, especially given that captcrisis has consistently reviewed movies from the context of his own experience. While actually having had sex with a woman might appear to incels unbelievable and something to boast about, it would not make for much of a letter to Penthouse.

(Wait, am I now canonized as one of the progressive commenters who are called names because idiots can't refute their posts with actual evidence?)

[Frank Drackman]

I never thought it would happen to me, but I was collecting for my LA Times Paper Route, Dead Beat Air Force Orthodontist (the enlisted could pay (or else) but he always had an excuse (Every Day LA Times subscription was $6/month in 1977, I kept 90cents, you do the math, I made like 3 cents a day (real money in 1977)
Well one day his Wife answered the door......
I let him slide that month,

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, I'll do a review: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

The first time I saw it was in a small theater in rural New Hampshire, where they can get some nasty summer thunderstorms.

Well there is the storm scene when he first finds the ark-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK6632RpV8I and there just happened to be a VERY violent thunderstorm outside at the same time and it was a bit surreal...

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot the anecdote about having sex in a thunderstorm, or something...

[Dr. Ed 2]

The two things that people don't realize is that (a) lightning goes up rather than down because the rising thermals in the thunderhead have stripped the electrons off the lower clouds as the air rose upwards of five miles (seriously) in the cloud. Hence you could have cloud to cloud lightning but it's the ground that has the (relative) excess of electrons and hence it is always ground to cloud and not the other way around.

Remember that the ground is neutral, it has the number it is supposed to have, but since the clouds are lacking electrons, they will attract them from the ground.

And (b) a lightning bolt is like a dam bursting, it's not just electrons from that one point but from the whole area that has a (relative) negative charge, including people. It's electrons being stripped off everything and in addition to the sunburn from the UV light (seriously), you can really feel a nearby bolt.

Animals sense the static charge of an approaching storm so people probably do as well. Of course, I have always preferred sex AFTER the thunderstorm because I want to be ready to respond to an emergency if I need to, i.e. something getting hit and a fire I need to deal with, etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you applying to be the VC's Mr. Wizard?

[David Nieporent]

I hope Mr. Wizard was more competent at science than Dr. Ed is.

Does lightning strike from the sky down, or the ground up?

The answer is both. Cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning comes from the sky down, but the part you see comes from the ground up.

https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/lightning/faq/#:~:text=Cloud-to-ground%20(CG)%20lightning%20comes%20from%20the%20sky%20down

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is bullshyte.

Yes, there are ion trails and the rest, and there are things like ball lightning that we do not understand.

Notwithstanding that, electricity is the flow of electrons, and electrons all have a negative charge. They inherently flow from negative to positive, they can't go the other way.

And as to the color of light, it's the electron discharge colors of Nitrogen, Blue (and UV) is the first orbit, and Pink (and more UV) is the second. I don't know about green in snow but the light is inherently similar to a florescent or neon light -- the electricity bumps the electron orbits up and when they come back down they release a specific energy that corresponds to specific wavelengths of light.

[Magister]

I once saw Cats at the Muny in St. Louis, an outdoor amphitheater. There was a threat of rain, which happily held off until moments after reaching my car across Forest Park. But there were lightning flashes in the distance visible over the stage precisely during Mr. Mistoffelees' song, which was quite impressive.

Since this is apparently mandatory now to avoid criticism from Bumble:

I never expected to write anything like this, and Bumble won't believe it, but then an attractive professional singer leaving the show also took refuge from the rain in my car, and we subsequently had sex a number of times.

[Mr. Bumble]

You’re right Studly, I don’t believe it.

[Magister]

But you didn't complain, did you, Bumble?

Sadly for you, it is entirely true; we were married and attended the show together. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

Hah!

[Mr. Bumble]

"Sadly for you," In what possible way?

[Magister]

That your stated belief is immediately proven wrong? I guess for you that's routine around here, though, so maybe it doesn't make you sad.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, but did you have sex in the car???

If so, make and model?

Although I did have a client who named her daughter "Odyssey" because she was conceived in the back of a Honda Odyssey with a man whose name she did not know. I am not making this up...

[grb]

Good book too....

[SRG]

My boarding school had a small amphitheatre for plays, etc. They put on a production of King Lear and had a real storm with lightning in the distance during the storm scene.

[Michael P]

she has a super-orgasm (watch her eyes cross!)

This reminds me of the originally-Japanese trope ahegao, which is an exaggerated version of that. Tying this back to a legal topic, it is interesting that the Chinese registrant (at the USPTO) for the "ahegao" word mark claimed that the mark has no meaning in a foreign language. Setting aside the prior uses of the term, I wonder what that false claim does to the validity of their registration.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's OK to portray graphic sex on screen so long as the characters don't smoke afterwards.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "Are you doing a Penthouse Letters thread?"

A typical VC thread is right-wing political porn. Why not the real thing? Can’t be more obscene……

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Looky here, the Crypt Keeper dusts off all the old cobwebs and manages to type out a screed with his paper thin buzzard like claws.

[Dan Schiavetta]

BCD,

A couple of days ago, in the comments on A Clockwork Orange, you advised me that you (unlike me) are careful to inculcate in your children self control and respect for others.

What if one of your children made a comment like you just made here? Would you discipline him/her?

[Mr. Bumble]

Seriously? Go back to reviewing 50 year old porn.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Imagine my child was a pigeon, could you tell me how you would do that?

[Dan Schiavetta]

You have invalidated everything you said in that thread. I don't know if it means anything to you but you are now muted.

[Mr. Bumble]

How "adult" of you.
Are your liberal sensitivities that offended?

[CJColucci]

A partisan campaign pamphlet elevated to authoritative wisdom on the meaning of the Constitution because people who become judges or academics heard of the Federalist Papers in high school.
Why the possibly insincere assurances of the Federalists are any better guide to the Constitution's original public meaning than the expressed fears of the Anti-Federalists has never been satisfactorily explained.

[Dan Schiavetta]

True.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Excellent point.

Also, as political theory, they had one serious omission. Based on the human drive for power, they thought that members of Congress would stand up for Congressional prerogatives, members of the executive for executive prerogatives, and members of the judiciary for judicial prerogatives, and that it would create enough conflict as to prevent one faction from becoming dominant.

But what if a member of Congress doesn’t want to strengthen the institution of which he is a member, but wants to have a cushy Congressional job for as long as possible? In that case his incentive would be to avoid rocking the boat: don’t defy the head of your party (Pres), don’t stake out controversial positions when you could just as well pass the buck (e. g., to the courts), in general don’t stick your neck out even for the interest of the institution of which you’re a member. I mean, what would be the use of sticking up for Congressional prerogatives if it means getting a radioactive reputation as a tell-it-like-it-is maverick, losing one's Congressional position, and getting shunned afterwards?

I mean, compared to cashing their salary checks, looking forward to a fat pension, getting free health care, taking their spouses/lovers to fancy dinners, and getting a featherbedded job upon leaving office, how important is legislative privilege (apart from getting out of speeding tickets, that is)?

[BrotherMovesOn]

True also.
Just ask former Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Michelle Bachmann addressed this a while back -- she said that upon arriving in Congress, she realized that it was a good gig and she could have a good time there if she didn't care about actually accomplishing anything.

But it was a very different story if she did -- which she did...

[David Nieporent]

Why the possibly insincere assurances of the Federalists are any better guide to the Constitution’s original public meaning than the expressed fears of the Anti-Federalists has never been satisfactorily explained.

I would think that would be pretty obvious. Suppose that you and I are both members of an organization. I propose that our organization adopt a rule. Other members ask, "Why?" I answer, "It's a great idea because it will solve such-and-such problem by doing great thing X." You argue, "No, it will actually do bad thing Y." If the membership votes to approve it, which is more plausible? That they agree with me that it means X, or that they agree with you that it means Y?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think the better question to ask, David, is why they felt it necessary to publish these anonymously. Yes, we *now* know who wrote them, but I don't believe it was common knowledge at the time...

[Mr. Bumble]

Both sides made their best case and the Federalist apparently had a more convincing argument.
That doesn't mean the Constitution that was approved was perfect, only that it was better than what went before and was amenable to a majority of the people.

[CJColucci]

Are you saying the Federalists won because they were right, or that they were right because they won?

[Dan Schiavetta]

They won because the Constitution as (laboriously) negotiated was presented to them with no alternative. Everyone (except Rhode Island, of course) agreed the Articles had been shown to be unworkable. The only thing to be done was append a "Bill of Rights" which did not change the structure.

The issue is now of only historical interest, because state vs. federal control had different consequences then, and the emergence of new and more important issues have changed the equation.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes I know about that. Akkkk!!

[Gandydancer]

Also http://www.floridacapitalcases.state.fl.us/Documents/Case_updates/Htm/067048.html

Still not clear why this guy is still alive 45 years later.

[Frank Drackman]

Because he's already been born

[Mr. Bumble]

Whatever.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte.

BLACK men voted in Massachusetts on the ratification question (although we don't know which way they voted), this was raised in the Dred Scott dissent.

And second, it was a FAMILY vote, cast by the husband because the wife was usually either pregnant or nursing and in either case it rather sucked to go to the polls in such condition -- in November or March -- although she knew how her husband voted, her friends would tell her.

So don't go with this bullshyte about how it was only White men -- remember that a lot of White men could NOT vote because they didn't own enough real estate...

[BrotherMovesOn]

Could you be any more effeminate?

[David Nieporent]

And second, it was a FAMILY vote,

Dr. Ed, making shit up again.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fuck you.

I'm sorry but that's all I can say. I know a shitload about Massachusetts history -- and you probably can't even spell Massachusetts.

So Fuck You.

I don't know what I ever did to deserve this abuse, nor do I really care -- I've never blocked anyone before but you now are. Fuckhead.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Dr. Ed is such an expert on Massachusetts history that he has achieved a state where he can imagine impossible lines of sight, like his declaration that one can see Old North Church from School Street.

[Magister]

I don’t know what I ever did to deserve this abuse

Being obviously wrong over and over? Plenty of examples in yesterday's Supreme Court history thread.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don’t know what I ever did to deserve this abuse,

Are you sure you don't know?

(I think it's great that this group of white, male, movement conservative law professors has developed this collection of right-wing fans. Disaffected, bigoted, delusional, backward, awkward, subliterate, fringe, cranky -- the perfect complement to and audience for the Federalist Society's thinking.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Parker House is at 60 School Street.
There is a plaque outside the Parker House identifying the view.
You can see it from there.

Beyond that, I have no idea….

All I can say is that the Parker House is 60 School Street…

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sorry but all I can think of is my (not too bright) cousin always saying, “Up your hole with a Parker House roll!”