Holy Week Is Barely Over, But Pilate Is Still With Us

They had lawyers, trials, most were given pretrial release, allowed to testify in their own defense, got discovery, could call witnesses, could cross-examine witnesses, could present mitigation at sentencing, and had a right to appeal. pic.twitter.com/Is8bqGBVXj

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) April 21, 2025

Stephen Miller thinks “due process” is when the “bad guys” are sent directly to jail, do not pass “Go,” and do not collect $200.  Any one he determines is not a “bad guy” should never even be arrested.

Government of, by, and for, Stephen Miller. He reminds me of Pilate, who was finally removed from Judea for playing a little too freely with the power to crucify so many of the locals.

Satan wouldn’t want this guy around him in hell.

“Dang It, Boy…”

Rep. Diana Harshberger speaking of Rep. Al Green:

"No, that's not me," the lawmaker insisted. "I wanted to go over there and grab a few of them, but Al Green was over here with his cane, and I'm like, gosh, dang it, boy, put that — He does not need that cane. That cane is a prop."

Rep. Green is a black man.

Old times there are still not forgotten.

“Liminal” As In “Eliminate”

 Fr. Murray wants the gospel to be liminal, with people clearly divided by that line:

He went on to object to the ways in which Pope Francis challenged teachings enshrined in the Catholic church. Issues like divorce, remarriage and homosexuality weren't shamed under Francis, the report recalled.

"If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?" Pope Francis said, speaking to reporters while he was returning from a trip to Brazil.

Pope Francis also advocated for decriminalizing same-sex relationships and welcomed members of the transgender community to the Vatican, the Daily Beast recalled. He was also the first Pope to allow priests to bless same-sex relationships.

"Pope Francis basically, when he came in, said, let’s make a mess," Father Murray said.

He noted how he didn’t want a Christianity that said, “before we read the Bible, read the headline, see what they want,” then figure out how to “accommodate the gospel.”

Jesus told his disciples, “Whoever is not against us, is with us.” Jesus also said: “Don’t judge, and you won’t be judged.” And don’t get me started on Jesus and women. Gotta strong feeling Fr. Murray would call that “woke.”

He doesn’t like woke. He also thinks Christ is a free market capitalist.

Father Murray blamed “interesting influences” from Francis' early life that he thinks shaped the "woke" ideology. He cited a woman who was part of the communist party and was close to the Pope in his youth.

"I think that’s one of the reasons why he’s antagonistic to capitalism,” Murray said about the woman. “Why… he took what we would say a leftist political point of view from that perspective.”

During the "Fox & Friends" appearance, he said Pope Francis had a "socialistic" view of economic issues, who supported "free immigration."

The kind of immigration the Holy Family engaged in, according to Matthew.

To quote S.K.: Judge for yourselves.

“Necessity Has No Law”

 I’ve seen that phrase bandied about and, IIRC, attributed to Napoleon. Whether I’m remembering that attribution correctly or not, it predates Napoleon by about 700 years. It comes from the Decretum Gratiani, a foundational source of Roman Catholic canon law. Its meaning is to allow for exigent circumstances. In the immediate context in the Decretum, specifically for the celebration of the mass.

After having stated that the sacrifice must be offered on the altar or in a consecrated place, Gratiani adds, “It is preferable not to sing or listen to the mass than to celebrate it in places where it should not be celebrated, unless it happens because of a supreme necessity, for necessity has no law “ (nisi pro summa necessitate contingent, quintal necessitas legal non habet). More than rendering the illicit licit, necessity acts here to justify a single, specific case of transgression by means of an exception.

Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception, tr. Kevin Attell, The University of Chicago Press, 2005, p. 24.

I would liken this to my days as a student pastor, in seminary. I was authorized to perform the sacraments (only two for us Protestants) at my church building, but not anywhere else. (Our joke was that the Holy Spirit left us when we left the church grounds, and only re-entered when we crossed the property line again.) But that didn’t stop me from taking communion (one of the two) to people who couldn’t get to church.  Necessitas legem non habet.

Which is a far cry from saying necessity is the mother of dictatorship; or even of “states of exception” (what Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence calls “martial law.”) 

But such, as someone observed (I want to say Lewis Carroll?) is human perversity.

N.B. I keep doing this for the comments. Well, that and I’m an opinionated asshole. But the comments are the better part.

🐣 🥚 ☦️

At the corporate Easter Egg Roll at the White House, Donald Trump stands next to Melania (how much is she getting for this appearance?) and a cheesy Easter bunny babbling about how he's "bringing religion back to America."

Separation of church and state, anyone?

What kind of… pic.twitter.com/zqq4w16ZoD

— Art Candee 🍿🥤 (@ArtCandee) April 21, 2025

Does he know the Easter Bunny and Easter eggs are not even vaguely connected to Christianity? (I mean, the Xmas Tree is descended from the Paradeisbaum, and Santa Claus is connected to St. Nicholas. But there’s no Christian bestiary that includes rabbits or connects them to eggs.)

Never mind; rhetorical question. He is bringing religion back to America because so many are asking God to save us from this great mistake we elected. I’ll give him that.

A Mediocre Turnip Would Not Do As Much Harm

 Professor Vladeck reviews Alito’s dissent in A.A.R.P. here. You should read all of it. I just want to highlight his comments on a few of Alito’s bullet points:

Bullet 5: “The papers before us, while alleging that the applicants were in imminent danger of removal, provided little concrete support for that allegation.” [And the standard for an injunction pending appeal is supposed to require more.]

I have been rather … dogmatic … about how much the Supreme Court has flouted the standard for an injunction pending appeal in various rulings over the last few years. (In a nutshell, the Court has regularly granted this especially coercive form of emergency relief in contexts in which applicants couldn’t possibly have satisfied the high bar for obtaining it.) I’m sure it won’t shock you to learn that Justice Alito was in the majority in each and every one of the rulings I’ve criticized on that score.

But even if the Court were to hew to the requirement that coercive relief be granted only when the applicant’s right to such relief was “indisputably clear,” Alito jumps right over the obvious reason why the applicants’ rights to the notice and judicial review they’re seeking in A.A.R.P. was “indisputably clear”: Because the Supreme Court, in an opinion Alito joined, just articulated those rights in the specific context of the Alien Enemy Act on April 7. Indeed, the Court in J.G.G. expressly held that “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” Insofar as the application claims that the Court’s own directives in J.G.G. have not been followed, and that the government was planning to imminently remove at least some of the applicants under the AEA without complying with J.G.G., it sure seems like the standard for an injunction pending appeal was satisfied.

This is precisely why I gave Justice Alito an anatomically impossible directive on Easter Sunday. Because there was very concrete support for the allegation.

The good professor goes on to note the NBC report in his discussion of bullet point 6:

Bullet 6: “[A]n attorney representing the Government in a different matter informed the District Court in that case during a hearing yesterday evening that no such deportations were then planned to occur either yesterday, April 18, or today, April 19.”

This is perhaps the most troubling point Alito makes in his dissent. He is, quite obviously, referring to an exchange between a Justice Department lawyer (Drew Ensign) and Chief Judge Boasberg in the emergency hearing Boasberg held Friday afternoon in the J.G.G. case (where the ACLU was also trying to get a new TRO to block the apparently imminent AEA removals of folks from Texas). According to multiple accounts of folks who were listening, Ensign said he was unaware of any flights scheduled for Friday, but that he was specifically instructed to “reserve the right” for the government to conduct removals on Saturday, April 19. In other words, the DOJ lawyer did not say what Alito said he said.

Alito did this at least once before, that I know of: in the majority opinion he wrote protecting a part-time football coach’s job who claimed he was fired because he led prayers on the field. In truth he was a contract employee, and his contract simply wasn’t renewed. Alito ignored facts like that, and invented some of his own, in order to support his conclusions and grant relief the coach, IMHLO, was not entitled to. As the professor points out, Alito couldn’t have known on Friday night that busses were already heading to the airport. But, had he not misrepresented what Ensign said to Judge Boasberg, Alito could have realized the government was playing fast and loose with J.G.G., something the majority clearly understood. These were, in other words, the “most critical and exigent circumstances.”  Alito just didn’t want them to be, so he tried to erase the inconvenient parts.

I disagree with Popehat. I don’t think Alito is a mediocre turnip. I think he’s a malicious motherfucker who can’t be bothered to give a shit about people who he wouldn’t have dinner with.

It would be bad enough if Alito’s dissent were merely tone-deaf. But its effort to find something wrong with the majority’s intervention smacks of an attempt not to take the law where it leads him, but to try to manufacture a justification for sitting on his hands while even more folks are wrongly removed to a Salvadoran prison, from which it is proving increasingly difficult to get anyone back. It’s fortunate that only one of his colleagues joined him.

I’ll take that as supporting my argument.

Someone Else Who Is Out Of Touch

Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale RTd this thread, which says Trump shld act fast & “Fire people who can't be fired. Force them to litigate. Mass deport people who can't be deported. Force them to litigate. Cancel 100s of billions in funding that are not lawful to cancel & force them to litigate.” 1/

Is Lonsdale not reading the news? That’s what Trump’s doing; and it’s failing spectacularly, in the courts and in public opinion.

These guys really don’t have the first clue about governance. Then again, neither does Trump.

Pope Francis

Easter Monday, 2025

Dearest brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis. At 7:35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father. His entire life was dedicated to the service of the Lord and of His Church. He taught us to live the values of the Gospel with fidelity, courage, and universal love, especially in favor of the poorest and most marginalized. With immense gratitude for his example as a true disciple of the Lord Jesus, we commend the soul of Pope Francis to the infinite merciful love of the One

On What Authority…?

Raskin: The president derives his powers only either from the Constitution explicitly or from an act of Congress and Congress certainly has never given the president the power to relocate prisoners to foreign countries and there's nothing in the constitution that remotely vests… pic.twitter.com/bWXobuh91y

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 21, 2025

So, is the solution in the courts, or in the constitution?

Who’s Out Of Touch?

 People have taken to the streets in record numbers TWICE within a month’s time. But all that matters are Trump’s approval ratings.

People in ruby red America are going to town halls and standing outside in mass numbers because there’s no room for them all, demanding due process for immigrants and asking why Congress is letting the President do whatever the hell it is he’s doing, demanding answers of GOP politicians they’ve re-elected for years, or just elected five months ago. But all that really matters are Trump’s approval ratings.

Musk and Trump realize they have to move faster and break more things before the courts stop them and even GOP Senators go from refusing to defend the idea of sending American citizens to foreign prisons and begin to challenge Trump in the Senate chamber, where words matter, but all that matters is how the public feels in September, according to how they answer poll q questions then.

That, at least, is the insightful analysis of former Bill Clinton adviser Doug Sosnick, who thinks the real question facing the country is whether Trump is subject to the laws of “political gravity,” and how, and if, they will finally affect him:

“Mr. Trump will probably be subject to the same laws of political gravity," Sosnick added, "but he risks an even steeper fall in job approval by early September because of a combination of factors, some of which he shares with his predecessors and some of which are unique to his presidency."

You see, we gotta wait for the polls to know if Trump’s in trouble or not. The polls are the Delphic Oracle of the Vox Populi, and without the high priest pollsters to interpret them, we can’t know what the entrails of the questions and answers mean. Or how Trump is doing. What he is doing, is not even an interesting subject of discussion.

I’ll retire to Bedlam.

“Those Lying To The American People…”

"I would hope that all of us would understand that principle — you're a lawyer", Van Hollen tells Fox host Shannon Bream. "I'm not vouching for the individual, I'm vouching for his rights". https://t.co/JafpqHABtv

— Robert Mackey (@RobertMackey) April 20, 2025

Trump will only vouch for Trump.

Radical Lunatic Democrats and their Comrades in the Fake News Media are falsely making Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia out to be a very sweet and innocent person, which is a total, blatant, and dangerous LIE," Trump said. He then claimed, "Garcia has been found by two separate Courts to be a member of the violent, killer gang MS-13, was in our Country illegally, and is under a Deportation Order."

The president added, "It is despicable and unAmerican for Liberals and the Mainstream Media to hate our Country so much, and be obsessed with protecting criminals, instead of working to keep our Border, streets, and families safe."

"Those lying to the American People on behalf of violent criminals have to be held responsible by the Agencies and the Courts. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" he concluded.

Agrebo Garcia could make Hitler look like a Sunday School teacher. He’s still entitled to due process. The Supreme Court made that perfectly clear.

Trump sounds like a man looking at the ground shrinking away under his feet. Not too confident in his position, IOW. Lotta screaming here, but nothing the Solicitor General can use. Trump also doesn’t sound like a man about to tell the courts to pound sand.

Somebody got wind of that Supreme Court order and turned those busses around, after all.

Whose Hand Is That?

Poorly Photoshopped gang tattoos on knuckles is the new Sharpie marker on a weather map. https://t.co/7BuwHzC6NZ

— Melanie D'Arrigo (@DarrigoMelanie) April 19, 2025

Present it as evidence in court. There it would face rigorous and skeptical examination before it could even be admitted, not blank acceptance that “seeing is believing.” 

Oh, wait, you can’t. You already told the court Abrego García was deported in error. And as the trial court said, the only issue before the court now is relief for the plaintiffs. 

This is completely irrelevant and, frankly, an unverifiable photo offered for purposes of slander is pathetic.

Even more pathetic than the infamous weather map.

Dear Justices Alito And Thomas…

 I know it’s Easter and all, but: fuck you very much.

Video from Friday night shows Immigration and Customs Enforcement buses full of Venezuelan migrants headed toward an airport in North Texas before abruptly turning around before the Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration must, for now, refrain from deporting Venezuelan men based in the state under the Alien Enemies Act.

At least 28 detainees — most, if not all, understood to be Venezuelan nationals — were placed on buses Friday evening at ICE’s Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas, and then driven toward Abilene Airport about 30 miles away.

The motorcade — including at least 18 squad cars from various law enforcement agencies with flashing lights along the north Texas highways — left the ICE facility, with some men on board being told they were being deported to El Salvador and some told they were headed to Venezuela, according to the wife of one of the detainees and two lawyers representing other detainees at the facility. Prior to their departure, it was not clear what their destinations would be.

The video, obtained exclusively by NBC News, shows the ICE motorcade pass the airport’s exit and then turn around, looping back to return to the Bluebonnet detention facility.

Condolences to the U.S. Solicitor General. Your client lied to you.

Just to lay out all the facts:

As the motorcade was headed for the airport, a last-minute federal hearing on the matter was taking place in Washington.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who has been hearing a case related to the flights to El Salvador, scheduled an emergency hearing for Friday evening — just hours after a bus rolled up to Bluebonnet.

Shortly before that hearing kicked off, ACLU attorneys also asked the Supreme Court to step in.

“We hear they are on buses on the way to the airport,” said Lee Gelernt, the lawyer for the ACLU arguing on behalf of detainees on the verge of being deported under the Alien Enemies Act.

Upon learning this information, Boasberg asked Justice Department lawyer Drew Ensign to make calls to ensure there were no flights deporting immigrants from Bluebonnet under the Alien Enemies Act on Friday night.

Ensign said he understood there would be no flights Friday night and that he was “not aware of any plans” for flights on Saturday, but that the Department of Homeland Security reserved the right to conduct flights on Saturday.

At 00:01 (CDT) on Saturday? About the time the Supreme Court handed down its timely order?

Well, whaddya know? 🤔 

I’m also a little curious what the crowd saying Trump is bluntly ignoring court orders has to say.

Trump’s Easter Message

 Fuck all y’all and Yay me!

In the true spirit of Easter. 🐣 

(No, I won’t link to it. You know it’s what he said. It’s what he always says.)

Easter 🐣 Message

 

The Pope Wouldn’t See Him

In what way specifically is Italy a “great ally” of the US while the rest of Europe is not? pic.twitter.com/UWE36jiXjX

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) April 20, 2025

“Only In The Most Critical And Exigent Circumstances”

 That phrase sums up the legal argument of Justice Alito’s dissent in A.A.A.R.P. v Trump. The opinion is a lot of bullet points on the grant of the stay, and nearly every one of them includes a variation on that phrase. 

Basically he and Thomas don’t like it that the majority thought it had to act quickly under the circumstances. 

Popehat has some thoughts:

Martha-Ann Alito gonna be flying a flag tomorrow that just has four bullet points, a face screaming in rage, and a brown guy with a line through him

And:

I know it’s a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it — Sam Alito is a mediocre turnip and the assertion we should take him as a serious intellectual has always been suspect.

Not unlike the obeisance we were supposed to give Scalia. Whatever happened to “originalism,” anyway?

Then there’s my personal favorite:

Angel of the Lord: He is not here, He is risen, just as He said.
Come and see the place where He lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead.

Alito: Okay, first of all, this violates ALL sorts of rules

Thomas: This was a LAWFUL execution, who is God to interfere

Shorter Alito: “So the President is playing fast and loose with court rulings in order to deport a bunch of brown people to a foreign prison hellhole from which they’ll never return, so what? You call that an ‘emergency?’”

He does point out that neither the “putative class” is defined, nor the term “government.” The latter bothers him because it can include the President. Which to the majority is clearly the point, but that’s why Alito objects. He does not, however, bother to define “emergency,” except he knows one when he sees one. And a white part-time football coach praying in the field is one, but sending brown people irretrievably to hell, isn’t.

No Easter eggs for Sammy.

Addendum:

On left:

Alito says SCOTUS didn't need to act because DOJ's Ensign informed Boasberg no deportation planes were "then planned" for Saturday

Then planned. Hmmm.

On right:

Ensign actually informed Boasberg, "I’ve also been told to say they reserve the right to remove people tomorrow" (Saturday)

Missing here are quotes from Scalia’s dissent (“on left”) and an excerpt from an article in Politico (“on right “).

I Know It’s The Wrong Thing To Do

 

That’s why I do it.*

Happy Easter, y’all.

*Call it a “Fuck you” to Tim Burchett. Also the wrong thing to do; but then, I’ve never suffered fools gladly.

“Just As The Sun Was Coming Up

And when the sabbath day was over, Mary of Magdala and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices so they could go and embalm him. And very early on the first day of the week they got to the tomb just as the sun was coming up. And they had been asking themselves, "Who will help us roll the stone away from the opening of the tomb?" Then they look up and discover that the stone has been rolled away! (For in fact the stone was very large.)And when they went into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right, wearing a white robe, and they grew apprehensive.He says to them, "Don't be alarmed! You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified. He was raised, he is not here! Look at the spot where they put him! But go and tell his disciples, including 'Rock,' he is going ahead of you to Galilee! There you will see him, just as he told you."And once they got outside, they ran away from the tomb, because great fear and excitement got the better of them. And they didn't breathe a word of it to anyone: talk about terrified. . . --Mark 16:1-8 (SV)

Evening of Holy Saturday 2025

Now some women were observing this from a distance, among whom were Mary of Magdala, and Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses, and Salome. (These women) had regularly followed and assisted him when he was in Galilee, along with many other women who had come up to Jerusalem in his company.

In the canonical gospels it is consistently the women who pay attention to the body of Jesus. They appear in the Gospel of Mark for the first time at the tomb; but they are two of many, we are told. The irony is not lost on Matthew, who records the days before Jesus' death this way:

Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

And yet to this day, we don't know who she was. Most memorials are like that, though. We see the statue but have no idea who the person was, or what they did. Or we hear the stories, yet misunderstand them or lose their meaning over time. The crucifixion stories are especially subjects of this problem.

And when it had already grown dark, since it was preparation day (the day of the Sabbath), Joseph of Arimethea, a respected council member, who was himself anticipating God's imperial rule, appeared on the scene, and dared to go to Pilate to request the body of Jesus. And Pilate was surprised that he had died so soon. He summoned the Roman officer and asked him whether he had been dead for long. And when he had been briefed by the Roman officer, he granted the body to Joseph. And he bought a shroud and took him down and wrapped him in the shroud, and placed him in a tomb that had been cut out of rock, and rolled a stone up against the opening of the tomb.

The writer of Mark's gospel is concerned to allay stories that Jesus of Nazareth was not dead, and so never rose from the dead. Skepticism abounded, then as now, to such a claim. Joseph of Arimethea is a wealthy follower of Jesus, another unknown person in Mark's gospel until this point. He appears in order to make the burial in a tomb of a Nazarene peasant executed for sedition, for threatening the Pax Romana, credible. Dom Crossan argues it is more likely such a criminal was removed from the crucifix when dead, and tossed in a shallow pit, to be devoured by dogs and carrion eaters. It is not, on the other hand, impossible that a person notable enough to leave such a following behind, would be notable enough in his lifetime to have rich followers who would wish to honor their teacher in death. Paul, after all, had Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth (by law available only to royalty. Did he, though? Did Jesus have Joseph of Arimathea? Who can say for sure? May it be unto you according to your faith.)

Crossan's version helps us strip away the patina of the story after 2000 years, to see it as less an inevitabilty leading to Easter morning, and more as a finality ended before Holy Saturday.

Versions are important here. One version of the Easter story relates it to Ishtar and Sumeria, "[i]n the Sumerian tradition, in which much of the Bible is rooted."  The Gospels, however, are also rooted in Greek traditions, no surprise as they are written in Greek, not in a Semitic tongue like Aramaic or Hebrew. Stories of resurrection of heroes are not unknown in Greek literature; they reflect the special favor of the hero by the gods. Paul's account of the resurrection (which, aside from the eucharist, is all Paul ever tells about the life of Jesus of Nazareth) reflect this understanding of the resurrection. Is the story related to that of Dumuzi and Ishtar? Frankly, that one sounds more like Persephone than Jesus of Nazareth, especially as the "descent into hell" and the "harrowing of hell" are not mentioned in the gospels at all, and come much later in Christian doctrine. But again, versions and interpretations highlight the humanity of the stories. These are myths, perhaps, but "a myth traditionally is not just a false tale. Rather, it is a story that, at least at one point in time, had a very powerful spiritual resonance. The story of death and resurrection is one such story." Restoring the power to that story is ever the task of the body of believers. Annually, is good.

And Mary of Magdala and Mary the mother of Joses noted where he had been laid to rest.

It is a woman who anoints Jesus in all four gospels. And in all four stories, it is women who come to the tomb first. Women care for the dead as if they were living; or, more importantly, as if death really meant something.

2000 years later, it still does, and still should. We gather to worship and pray at the tomb of a crucified god.

Job 14:1-14

14:1 "A mortal, born of woman, few of days and full of trouble,

14:2 comes up like a flower and withers, flees like a shadow and does not last.

14:3 Do you fix your eyes on such a one? Do you bring me into judgment with you?

14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one can.

14:5 Since their days are determined, and the number of their months is known to you, and you have appointed the bounds that they cannot pass,

14:6 look away from them, and desist, that they may enjoy, like laborers, their days.

14:7 "For there is hope for a tree, if it is cut down, that it will sprout again, and that its shoots will not cease.

14:8 Though its root grows old in the earth, and its stump dies in the ground,

14:9 yet at the scent of water it will bud and put forth branches like a young plant.

14:10 But mortals die, and are laid low; humans expire, and where are they?

14:11 As waters fail from a lake, and a river wastes away and dries up,

14:12 so mortals lie down and do not rise again; until the heavens are no more, they will not awake or be roused out of their sleep.

14:13 Oh that you would hide me in Sheol, that you would conceal me until your wrath is past, that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me!

14:14 If mortals die, will they live again? All the days of my service I would wait until my release should come.

Lamentations 3:1-9, 19-24

3:1 I am one who has seen affliction under the rod of God's wrath;

3:2 he has driven and brought me into darkness without any light;

3:3 against me alone he turns his hand, again and again, all day long.

3:4 He has made my flesh and my skin waste away, and broken my bones;

3:5 he has besieged and enveloped me with bitterness and tribulation;

3:6 he has made me sit in darkness like the dead of long ago.

3:7 He has walled me about so that I cannot escape; he has put heavy chains on me;

3:8 though I call and cry for help, he shuts out my prayer;

3:9 he has blocked my ways with hewn stones, he has made my paths crooked.

3:19 The thought of my affliction and my homelessness is wormwood and gall!

3:20 My soul continually thinks of it and is bowed down within me.

3:21 But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope:

3:22 The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases, his mercies never come to an end;

3:23 they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.

3:24 "The LORD is my portion," says my soul, "therefore I will hope in him."

Psalm 31:1-4, 15-16

31:1 In you, O LORD, I seek refuge; do not let me ever be put to shame; in your righteousness deliver me.

31:2 Incline your ear to me; rescue me speedily. Be a rock of refuge for me, a strong fortress to save me.

31:3 You are indeed my rock and my fortress; for your name's sake lead me and guide me,

31:4 take me out of the net that is hidden for me, for you are my refuge.

31:15 My times are in your hand; deliver me from the hand of my enemies and persecutors.

31:16 Let your face shine upon your servant; save me in your steadfast love.

Matthew 27:57-66

27:57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus.

27:58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.

27:59 So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth

27:60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away.

27:61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.

27:62 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate

27:63 and said, "Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise again.'

27:64 Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, 'He has been raised from the dead,' and the last deception would be worse than the first."

27:65 Pilate said to them, "You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can."

27:66 So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone.

Mark Joseph Stern Hits The Na…

 …on the head.

Obviously, a huge victory for the migrants here and a major defeat for Trump’s lawless effort to rush out a rendition flight before the courts could act.

But also—potentially a massive signal from the Supreme Court that it is finally prepared to go toe to toe with Trump to halt AEA deportations.

Not just there:

I think the majority that lifted Boasberg’s restraining order truly believed Trump would heed its warning about due process and pause further AEA renditions until SCOTUS ruled on their legality.

Instead Trump tried to sneak out migrants before courts could act. And now I think SCOTUS is pissed.

That is a key point. The J.G.G. opinion is part of this. But I have to wonder how much the application laid out about the machinations of the government in trying to avoid the Court’s order. The attempt to get around the Court’s order went so far as to employ a Stephen Miller-Raquel interpretation of that order (only notice if removal was required, not notice of opportunity to challenge.) I’m certain that is not a small part of their rush to stay the flights; but how big a part was it?

It is SO unusual for the Supreme Court to issue an order this late at night and honestly incredible only Thomas and Alito noted their dissents.

Also fascinating that SCOTUS rushed out the order before Alito could finish writing his dissent. That basically never happens! Again—majority seems pissed.

The key takeaway. Nobody’s responding, or even noticing, Alito’s dissent (when it comes). He could just copy and paste Stephen Miller quotes, it wouldn’t matter.They don’t care what Alito has to say; not now. The majority is not taking this shit, and they are through playing nice. Trump is on notice.

I know he’s supposed to be “defiant.” But he doesn’t have the balls for this fight.

Something else comes up:

Thanks for this! Is it significant that the order begins, "There is before the Court an application," rather than, "The application presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court"? Was the usual procedure bypassed?

Again, can’t be sure what it means, but:

Yes, that very awkward wording suggests that Alito failed to refer the application to the full Court and the Chief stepped in and brought it "before the Court" before the planes could depart.

I Think They’re All Bozos On That Bus

 Yup:

One point that's going to get lost in the discussion of #SCOTUS's intervention in the Alien Enemy Act case:

This is the *value* of nationwide injunctions. Without them, you have to go district by district, and the government can try to play games by moving people to districts without relief (yet).

Even #SCOTUS's order from last night only applies to folks who were, are, or will be detained *in the Northern District of Texas.* That leaves 91* other federal district courts for the Trump administration to try to mess with.

*Two of the other 93 districts *already* have class-wide TROs in effect.

Which is why:

ACLU planning to file class action cases in all 94 US districts.

Cause Stephen Miller is not above treating the Virgin Islands as a means to escape the rule of law.

Though according to the professor, they only need 91 more.

And yes, I, too, think Stephen Miller is the bozo driving this bus.

The Trial Court Can Add That To The Record

The White House social media account doesn't believe a ruling from the Supreme Court should be followed.

This is where we're at, folks. pic.twitter.com/xjcSE9odYx

— Art Candee 🍿🥤 (@ArtCandee) April 18, 2025

And pipeline it to the Supreme Court.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

 And then we go after “Better Homes and Gardens” for not publishing articles about “lesser homes and gardens.”

[RFK, Jr.] had been nursing grievances about scientific journals for years. Medical and science publishers have long rejected article submissions that purport to show a link between vaccines and autism. (Dozens of studies have failed to establish such a link.)

He said in a podcast interview last year that he would seek to prosecute medical journals under the federal anti-corruption statute.

“I’m going to litigate against you under the racketeering laws, under the general tort laws,” he said. “I’m going to find a way to sue you unless you come up with a plan right now to show how you’re going to start publishing real science and stop retracting the real science and publishing the fake pharmaceutical science by these phony industry mercenaries.”

As examples, he pointed to two prominent journals, The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, and the scientific publishing giant, Elsevier.

Other top health officials in the Trump administration have also criticized the big scientific publishers. In a book published last year, Dr. Martin A. Makary, the new commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, accused journal editorial boards of “gate-keeping” and publishing only information that supports a “groupthink narrative.”

Proving once again Kennedy is neither a lawyer nor a scientist, because tort law nor racketeering law apply to any of his complaints. There are also issues of standing (how is he harmed?) and that pesky First Amendment. And the DOJ lawyers threatening to investigate such journals for “bias” are likely to have their licenses coming under review for abusive and unethical behavior, including abuse of authority. The free market and First Amendment solutions to journals not publishing your articles is to start your own journal. If you can’t get Poetry Magazine to publish your poetry, you can’t sue them for bias against poetasters. The government certainly can’t investigate journals (or anyone/thing) groundlessly. That’s grounds for any government lawyers to lose their licenses.

These people are literally too stupid to understand how stupid they are.

From The Head Down

 Florida goes full Stephen Miller:

Just got out of an interesting hearing before Judge Williams in Miami in the suit challenging Florida's SB 4-C, which criminalizes the entry of unauthorized migrants into the state. This is the law under which U.S. citizen Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez was charged on Wednesday.

You see...

The issue is that Judge Williams issued a temporary restraining order on April 4 blocking enforcement of the law. At the hearing today, on converting the TRO to a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs challenging the law say they know of 13 arrests made under the law in Leon County alone.

But the judge didn’t say “Simon says”.

This did not go over well with Judge Williams. "You can’t possibly be ready to stand up as an officer of the court and tell me that this order has no force and effect for the activities of the Florida Highway Patrol."

Sure they can.

The state's attorney responded "That is our understanding of the order." He says state attorneys around the state are abiding by the TRO, and that when these cases come before them they are dismissed.

Trump does it. Why can’t Florida?

Judge Williams pointed out that it took two days for Lopez-Gomez to be released. The gov't attorney said that's because there was an ICE hold.

ICE, Florida has to obey. Obeying federal judges is optional.

Judge Williams: "I frankly am astounded and don't understand this argument. I thought this was going to be a footnote to today's discussion, but it's clear this is going to have to be briefed." So now we're going to have briefing on how far a TRO extends to non-parties.

I’m sure she used the word “facilitate” in her order, and that gave them the loophole they needed. All the pundits think so.

She extended the TRO until April 29, when she set another hearing, and clarified that the order applies to "anyone tasked with enforcing the law."

So the Florida state attorneys can’t enforce the law, but but the cops can. Because, sure, why not?

🥚

 Invaluable background on this from Professor Vladeck:

Then things got messy. According to media reports, starting on Thursday, a number of non-citizens being held at the Bluebonnet detention facility in Anson, Texas (in the Northern District of Texas) were given notices of their imminent removal under the AEA (in English only), with no guidance as to how they could challenge their removal in advance. Not only did this appear to be in direct contravention of the Supreme Court’s ruling in J.G.G., but it also raised the question of whether the government was moving detainees to Bluebonnet, specifically, to get around the district court orders barring removals of individuals being held at El Valle and other facilities.

The ACLU had already filed a habeas petition on Wednesday in the Northern District of Texas on behalf of two specific (anonymous) plaintiffs and a putative class of all Bluebonnet detainees—captioned A.A.R.P. v. Trump. Judge Hendrix had already denied the ACLU’s initial motion for a TRO—based on government representations that the named plaintiffs were not in imminent threat of removal (he reserved ruling on the request for class-wide relief).

Thus, once the news of the potentially imminent AEA removals started leaking out, the ACLU did two things at once: It sought renewed emergency relief from Judge Hendrix in the A.A.R.P. case, and it went back to Chief Judge Boasberg in the J.G.G. case—which has not yet been dismissed—since that case at least for the moment includes a nationwide class of individuals subject to possible removal under the AEA. And while it waited for both district judges to rule, the ACLU sought emergency relief in A.A.R.P. from both the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court.

The ACLU went back to Boasberg, who said his hands were tied by the 9-0 decision in J.G.G. The judge in Texas said the appeal to the 5th Circuit and the Supremes took jurisdiction from him. So it looked like deportations were imminent.

Then, a little before 1:00 a.m., the Supreme Court stepped in. As noted above, the cryptic order specifies that “The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.” And it notes that (1) the government can respond to the emergency application once the Fifth Circuit rules (which it did even later in the evening—denying emergency relief); and (2) Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, with an opinion from Alito apparently forthcoming.

There were a lot of reasons for the Court not to do this (I’m sure the dissent will list them).  Professor Vladeck has three major categories, and this conclusion:

But this case arose only because of the Trump administration’s attempt to play Calvinball with detainees it’s seeking to remove under the Alien Enemy Act. The Court appears to be finally getting the message—and, in turn, handing down rulings with none of the wiggle room we saw in the J.G.G. and Abrego Garcia decisions last week. That’s a massively significant development unto itself—especially if it turns out to be more than a one-off.

Definitely a come to Jesus weekend for the Administration. I hope they bring eggs.

ADDING: The Supremes may have noticed the Administration was being too cute by half:

To sum up for those who may have missed it, the notice that the government is giving out after SCOTUS said they must provide an opportunity for habeas review says nothing about the right to challenge the removal

DOJ's position is that's all SCOTUS required—notice of removal, not of rights

If it isn’t already clear, that is NOT what the Court said in J.G.G.

To recap: The administration couldn’t deport from South Texas (court order). They moved detainees to north Texas (district), and told the judge there: “No worries, we’re not deporting anyone from north Texas.” They then declared “King’s ‘X’” and began preparing removals with notice ONLY of removals, not rights to habeas, and ONLY in English. Too cute by half, and clearly aimed at avoiding court orders without quite being in contempt.

Now is when it gets interesting.

Did NOT See This Coming

“The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.”

Rare win from the Supreme Court blocking Donald Trump’s administration from deporting immigrants under the Aliens Enemy Act!

7-2.… pic.twitter.com/fe2cF0fvVM

— Art Candee 🍿🥤 (@ArtCandee) April 19, 2025

And part of what it means:

This is an unusual order for several reasons, suggesting the majority thought it necessary. This was issued:

• after midnight

• before the government even responded (perhaps most irregular)

• while a Fifth Circuit request remains pending &

• before a dissenting justice could finish their statement.

This will help provide context:

... if only the SCOTUS were able to decide ASAP what's been obvious since the start--namely, that TdA isn't a nation or government that has natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects, and that therefore the Trump AEA proclamation is unauthorized, full stop.

The short answer is, it doesn’t work that way, or courts would be a super-legislature wandering the land righting wrongs as they saw fit. We’ve already got Trump doing that, and you can see how well that’s working out.

All lower courts should now be laser-focused on getting the *merits* question up to the Court expeditiously.

That’s not how it works, either. As Emptywheel points out:

Note import of what Geidner is saying. Alito dissent may simply say, "this appeal isn't before us, even on rocket docket."

But some majority (not clear it's 7) thought they had to stay up late on most important Catholic weekend to intervene to protect due process for people being loaded on planes.

Not everything goes up the appellate ladder simply because you want it to (again, feature, not bug). In fact, most of this has gone up because the government wanted it to, on emergency appeals, which means there wasn’t a full record before the Supremes. 

Be careful what you ask for. 

And this is the Roberts Court (!) deciding enough is fucking enough, and taking the application of the ACLU(!!) as excuse to follow the example of the 4th Circuit (I REALLY did not see THAT coming!!!) to jump first and ask questions later. They are telling Trump, IOW, what Judge Wilkinson and the panel in the 4th Circuit said: “You are meddling with primal forces, and you have to stop ✋ .” In the name of the law, no less. (Yes, you have to be this old to remember that cliche).

Again, I don’t remember the courts ever moving this fast. To court another cliche, Trump has awakened a sleeping giant. If this and the actions of Sen. Van Hollen and AOC and Sanders work to put some spine in the Congress, Trump’s presidency might yet set a new standard for shortest effective term in modern history.

Easter is a time of resurrection.

Update: HUD finally responded to my request for comment about the HUD secretary sending all employees home early for Easter to reflect on Jesus -- and with a statement so bonkers I laughed out loud. pic.twitter.com/ArNHlx70uY

— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) April 18, 2025

HUD wanted its employees to take Holy Triduum to “reflect on Jesus.” Trump may find this Easter is when he had to “come to Jesus.”

He isn’t going to like that.

Holy Saturday 2025

Good Friday 2025 "Words Are A Stain Upon The Silence"

And when they reached the place known as Golgotha (which means "Place of the Skull"), they gave him a drink of wine mixed with something bitter; and once he tasted it he didn't want to drink it. After crucifying him they divided up his garments by casting lots.  And they sat down there and kept guard over him. And over his head they put an inscription which identified his crime: "This is Jesus, the King of the Judeans."

Beginning at noon darkness blanketed the entire land until mid-afternoon.  And about 3 o'clock in the afternoon Jesus shouted at the top of his voice:  "Eli, eli, lama sabachtani" (which means "My God, my God, why did you abandon me?")

Jesus again shouted at the top of his voice and stopped breathing.

Matthew 27:33-37, 45-46, 50 (SV)

"Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid."--John 19:41

Good Friday should be silent.  The church should be shrouded, the altar stripped, black funereal cloths draped, only prayers and whispers heard.  No music; certainly there should be no music. A few words from the pulpit, perhaps.  Not a sermon, not even a homily.  Scripture readings; prayers.  But largely: silence.

Good Friday should be silent.  This is the one day the church should be dominated by silence. The world needs occasions to consider the values of silence.

This is also the one day of the liturgical year when even Protestants should display a crucifix: a cross with a body on it, hands and feet pierced with nails, blood and liquid running from a wound in the figure's side, crowned with a particularly vicious crown of thorns. Then again, who would come to church to see such a thing, and be reminded?

I will also point out that the words shouted by Jesus are the first lines of the 22nd Psalm.  The one that precedes the much more famous 23rd.  There is an entire sermon in that alone, how the 22nd requires the 23rd, and the 23rd equally requires the 22nd.  But not on Good Friday. This is not a day for more words.

This is a day for the absolute silence of death.

“Gobsmacked” Is Too Light A Term

Holeee shit!

Goodman said Thursday on CNN’s “OutFront” that he was stunned by how fast the appeals court acted.

“They actually did it within 24 hours, and they did it even before the plaintiffs filed their briefs in response to the government's brief,” according to the legal expert.

24 hours? The panel met; discussed; decided; assigned; reviewed what was offered; agreed; and published…in 24 hours? Even writing it out, I don’t believe it. I’ve never heard of lawyers being smacked down this hard. And DOJ lawyers? ETTD. And the fish definitely rots from the head. Lookin’ straight at Bondi and everyone immediately under her. Clowns all the way down.

“They're basically saying, ‘you shouldn't be in our courtroom,’ that this is really improper to be going after the judge for this order now after the Supreme Court has backed her up,” Goodman said.

He added that the Reagan-appointed Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote the opinion for a unanimous panel, and that the conservative jurist had previously upheld the judge that Trump’s DOJ was trying to reverse.

Luck of the draw, DOJ. But there was a time you didn’t need to rely on that. That time was…three months ago? Four?

“He previously said when he upheld her on the first time that this is a path to lawlessness, when he said that the Supreme Court hadn't even ruled.” Goodman said. “Since then, the Supreme Court ruled in her favor to say, ‘this is correct, she is right to order you to facilitate Mr. Abrego Garcia’s release.'”

I think the noose is tightening. I think Trump does, too.

Reporter: If a court holds you in contempt, will you take steps to bring Garcia back to the US and put him in front of a judge?

Trump: I’m not involved in it pic.twitter.com/7d8JLKAMXh

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 17, 2025

And he’s not having it.  Then again, it’s not up to him.

The Toothless Old Lion In Early Spring

Elizabeth Warren on CNBC explains why Trump illegally firing Jerome Powell would wreck the economy and take the US down a fast track toward dictatorship pic.twitter.com/7BdyCPh3WC

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 17, 2025

I read something this morning laying out in detail why the POTUS cannot fire the Chair of the Fed.* But you’ll just have to take Senator Professor Warren’s word for it.

Trump on Powell:

“Oh, he'll leave. If I ask him to, he'll be out of there.”

“I don't think he's doing the job… He's always too late, a little slow.”

“I’m not happy with him.”

“If I want him out, he’ll be out of there real fast.”pic.twitter.com/GcTZjYbsp3

— annmarie hordern (@annmarie) April 17, 2025

This is all a bit muddled. Trump posted his anger with Powell this morning. So:

That was before Trump spoke in the Oval Office. I’ll just point out the S&P closed up 7 points, but the Dow lost 527 points. I’m not sure when Trump spoke. I guess we’ll find out tomorrow.

Here’s what would happen if Trump tried to fire Powell:

A) Trump would get the cameras in so he can say: “You’re fired!” (well, not to Powell’s face. Trump doesn’t have the balls for that).

B) Powell could then:

Quit.

Or tell Trump to pound sand.

Either way, the markets go apeshit. As the White House, if not Trump, knows.

But Trump can no more remove him than he can remove a member of the Supreme Court. The Fed Chair position is a position of law, not the President’s pleasure. Powell is not a member of Trump’s Cabinet.

He doesn’t work for Trump.

Given the shit Trump is doing, I think Powell would go with the sand option. Probably why Trump is talking about it. He knows it’s up to Powell.

Trump dare not look weak. This could be entertaining.

*Found it, if you need more assurance.

The 4th Circuit Is Not MAGA

The 4th Circuit panel writes refusing to stay the trial court and refusing to issue a mandamus:

"The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order," he wrote. "Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear."

Oh, and that “f-word” all the pundits found so concerning?

"The Supreme Court’s decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing," the judge wrote. "It requires the government 'to ‘"facilitate" Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. 'Facilitate' is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear."

Serious occasions call for serious reflections:

The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions," he wrote. "The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph."

Kafkaesque

Oops.

Pamela Rioles Saeed says one morning, she got an email from DHS that said she must leave the U.S. within seven days because her parole was revoked.

But Rioles Saeed is an American citizen born in Boston. She said this letter baffled her.

First question: how was this addressed?

“I thought this was for one of my clients but then i saw that it was addressed only to me," she said. “With the dot gov, it said it was from CBP.”

No, the internsl address.

After she got the email, she spoke with other attorneys in her chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association to see if she was the only one who received this letter.

“Another attorney confirmed that other attorneys in his office received them,” she said.

Seb Gorka warned ya! "The first thing we do, let's deport all the immigration lawyers."

DHS sent Scripps News Tucson a statement that said notices may have been sent to unintended participants. "CBP has issued notices terminating parole for individuals who do not have lawful status to remain," DHS press said in the statement. "This process is not limited to CBP One users and does not currently apply to those paroled under programs such as U4U and OAW.CBP used the known email addresses of the alien to send notifications. If a non-personal email—such as an American citizen contact—was provided by the alien, notices may have been sent to unintended recipients. CBP is monitoring communications and will address any issues on a case-by-case basis.

You can ask for your habeas hearing from CECOT.

For U.S. citizens in the same situation, Rioles Saeed said to ignore the email and for those who are not citizens, to contact an immigration attorney.

“There is a true recklessness coming from the government and shows an intimidating attitude towards our immigrant clients,” she said.

Yeah; I’m not sure ignoring it is sound legal advice right now; at least if you live in Florida. Or just drive through there.

Juan Carlos Gomez-Lopez, 20, was arrested Thursday evening by Florida Highway Patrol and charged under a state immigration law that has been temporarily blocked since early this month. Details of Gomez-Lopez’s arrest and detention were first reported by the Florida Phoenix news site.

After inspecting his birth certificate, Leon County Judge LaShawn Riggans said during the hearing that “this is indeed an authentic document,” but that she did not have jurisdiction beyond finding no probable cause for the charge.

...

Nonetheless, he remains detained locally at ICE’s request, said Thomas Kennedy, a spokesperson at the Florida Immigrant Coalition who attended Thursday’s hearing. “Everything tracks for him being sent to an ICE detention center,” he told NBC News in a phone interview.

...

Gomez-Lopez was in a vehicle with other passengers and was traveling to work from Georgia when they were stopped after entering Florida.

...

Kennedy compared the situation to Franz Kafka’s novel “The Trial” in which man must defend himself against a charge but has no information about it.

“It’s like this bureaucratic, dystopian nightmare of poorly written laws,” Kennedy said. “We are living in a time when this man could get sent to El Salvador because, what, is he going to be treated like a stateless person?”

Kennedy was referring to the hundreds of immigrants who have been sent by the Trump administration to an El Salvador megaprison after they were accused of being gang members under the wartime Alien Enemies Act. Families, attorneys and some U.S. legislators have not been able to have any contact with them.

Florida, man. Gonna have to start treating The Trial as a documentary.

Slaves Never Should Have Been Made Citizens?

Trump on tariffs: We’re going have some other things that we’re going to be adding.. medicines, pharmaceuticals, computer chips, etc pic.twitter.com/lnLQ3w2AX8

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 17, 2025

Good. We already pay more for medicine than the rest of the civilized world. We need to pay still more. It’s what people voted for! And so what if it takes 10, 15 years to build new factories here! It’s all about the “period of transition!”

Trump: I had the most successful four year period in the history of this country. I think we’re going to blow it away this time…. But there is a little bit of a transition. And we’re going to have that transition. And it’s not much of a transition. pic.twitter.com/3REBpipfX2

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 17, 2025

Isn’t that what Mao Zedong said?

Reporter: If that was wrong, why are you considering changing the tax status of Harvard?

Trump: Because I think Harvard is a disgrace… they are obviously anti-semitic.. Tax exempt status is a privilege pic.twitter.com/O8ksdv3yrT

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 17, 2025

Not one bestowed by the Executive. Besides, I’ve seen your DOJ’s work product:

Harvard’s gonna kick your ass up between your ears. They’ll only need a few First Years to do it.

WOMAN: It's an ice fishery, and it's been around since the early 1900s

TRUMP: So it's been around for millions of years pic.twitter.com/ulGwjQPq1p

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 17, 2025

When your grandfather says this, you start removing sharp objects from the room.

REPORTER: How much time will it take for a trade deal with China?

TRUMP: I would think over the next three or four weeks pic.twitter.com/qvA9S3yt9i

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 17, 2025

Narrator: Trump renegotiated NAFTA in his first term. It took almost 2 years. Now he’s torn it up, along with trade agreements with China. He’s not putting Humpty Dumpty together again. He has no idea how. Also: three or four year? A million years? How is he telling time? I think maybe his clock has stopped.

It is literally a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison for the President, VP, or any senior White House employee, to "request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the IRS to conduct ... an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer." https://t.co/uixEuuSwWP pic.twitter.com/iduYayPjr6

— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) April 17, 2025

I’m sure it’s part of Trump’s official duties. Right, Chief Justice Roberts?

Trump on birthright citizenship: "It's all about slavery and if you look at it that way, we should win that case." pic.twitter.com/B8oaFA3lGQ

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 17, 2025

Slaves never should have been made citizens?

Maundy Thursday 2025 and the Sacrament That Wasn't

Exodus 12:1-4, (5-10), 11-14

12:1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt:

12:2 This month shall mark for you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year for you.

12:3 Tell the whole congregation of Israel that on the tenth of this month they are to take a lamb for each family, a lamb for each household.

12:4 If a household is too small for a whole lamb, it shall join its closest neighbor in obtaining one; the lamb shall be divided in proportion to the number of people who eat of it.

12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a year-old male; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats.

12:6 You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month; then the whole assembled congregation of Israel shall slaughter it at twilight.

12:7 They shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it.

12:8 They shall eat the lamb that same night; they shall eat it roasted over the fire with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

12:9 Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roasted over the fire, with its head, legs, and inner organs.

12:10 You shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn.

12:11 This is how you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it hurriedly. It is the passover of the LORD.

12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike down every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both human beings and animals; on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD.

12:13 The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live: when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.

12:14 This day shall be a day of remembrance for you. You shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD; throughout your generations you shall observe it as a perpetual ordinance.

Psalm 116:1-2, 12-19

116:1 I love the LORD, because he has heard my voice and my supplications.

116:2 Because he inclined his ear to me, therefore I will call on him as long as I live.

116:12 What shall I return to the LORD for all his bounty to me?

116:13 I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the LORD,

116:14 I will pay my vows to the LORD in the presence of all his people.

116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his faithful ones.

116:16 O LORD, I am your servant; I am your servant, the child of your serving girl. You have loosed my bonds.

116:17 I will offer to you a thanksgiving sacrifice and call on the name of the LORD.

116:18 I will pay my vows to the LORD in the presence of all his people,

116:19 in the courts of the house of the LORD, in your midst, O Jerusalem. Praise the LORD!

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread,

11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

11:25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

John 13:1-17, 31b-35

13:1 Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.

13:2 The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot to betray him. And during supper

13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God,

13:4 got up from the table, took off his outer robe, and tied a towel around himself.

13:5 Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was tied around him.

13:6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"

13:7 Jesus answered, "You do not know now what I am doing, but later you will understand."

13:8 Peter said to him, "You will never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no share with me."

13:9 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!"

13:10 Jesus said to him, "One who has bathed does not need to wash, except for the feet, but is entirely clean. And you are clean, though not all of you."

13:11 For he knew who was to betray him; for this reason he said, "Not all of you are clean."

13:12 After he had washed their feet, had put on his robe, and had returned to the table, he said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you?

13:13 You call me Teacher and Lord--and you are right, for that is what I am.

13:14 So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet.

13:15 For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.

13:16 Very truly, I tell you, servants are not greater than their master, nor are messengers greater than the one who sent them.

13:17 If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them.

13:31b When he had gone out, Jesus said, "Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him.

13:32 If God has been glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself and will glorify him at once.

13:33 Little children, I am with you only a little longer. You will look for me; and as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, 'Where I am going, you cannot come.'

13:34 I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.

13:35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

Paul doesn't call it a commandment, or a sacrament.  He just passes on to the church in Corinth what he received from the Lord (where and how is never clear.  Biblical scholars wonder about dangling threads like this, and tug at them constantly).  John mentions a commandment:  "that you love one another.  Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another."  Typical for the Johannine narrative, what that means in practice is entirely unclear.  Jesus speaks in confusing parables and makes pronouncements that carry far more under the surface than appears on the surface ("Your faith has saved you; go in peace."  Luke 7:50).  But John doesn't record any parables, at all.  Instead it is Jesus speaking almost gnostically (how, Nicodemus wonders, can one be "born again"?  Jesus makes it clear you either understand him, or you don't.), and here, as usual, he makes a sweeping statement with nothing to back it up.

Except.....

This is one of the few times in John's gospel that Jesus actually does something.  He raises Lazarus from the tomb, he changes water into wine, he speaks and God answers directly.  But none of those actions is comparable to this:  he doesn't talk about the servant role; he literally embodies it. Master of his disciples, head of the table, he takes a bowl and a towel and washes their feet.  The feet of men who have been walking in sandals all day in dust and dirt.  Remember what Jesus said to Simon the Pharisee?

"Do you see this woman? I walked into your house and you didn't offer me water for my feet; yet she has washed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You didn't offer me a kiss, but she hasn't stopped kissing my feet since I arrived. You didn't anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with myrrh. (Luke 7:44b-46, SV)

That's a servant's job.  And it's not one any of us would take up willingly, or accept willingly.  I tried one year to initiate the footwashing service which is allowed, even encouraged in Protestant traditions, on Maundy Thursday.  A few of my church council members were willing to participate, and I had the bowl and towel.  It may be a profoundly moving religious ritual; but unless you are used to it, it is uncomfortable and awkward.  Much like it must have been the very first time it was done for the followers of Christ.

This is Jesus personally acting, and in all of John's gospel, indeed in all of the gospels, there is nothing comparable to it.  Jesus wept at the news of the death of Lazarus, which in John proves Jesus is human (in much of John's narrative Jesus is almost inhumanly abstract, and all but nails himself to the cross.  He doesn't die in agony, he pretty much says "Okay, that's all," and passes on.)  This is Jesus being supremely human, and supremely God.  This is God's weakness being stronger than human strength.  This is what Holy Week should really come down to, and all the rest be anti-climax against it.  It should be.  It isn't.  This is the sacrament that wasn't.  This is the command we still can't quite get around to.

The passover in Exodus is full of details and requirements, and that's actually a good thing.  Ritual demands acts that can and must be repeated to keep the ritual whole, which is almost to say "holy."  Do you open your presents on Xmas Day?  Or Xmas Eve?  First thing in the morning, or after breakfast?  Maybe after lunch, when the family has gathered?  Do you try to do Christmas the same way ever year?  Are the small details important?  No, there's nothing wrong with how the Passover is ordered for memory. The contrast is the simplicity of the footwashing.  Maybe that's why it fails.

Paul gives us a ritual, one most churches follow almost word for word from this passage in Corinthians.  All the words of institution are there, and they are protected jealously.  There is a formula for Christian baptism, and by common agreement it must include the trinitarian formula of being in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Those words; no others.  The words of institution for the eucharist are there, in Paul's words; and you cannot use them for elements other than bread and wine (like, say, hot chocolate and cinnamon rolls on Xmas morning in a UCC church), because those words are "holy words," and not to be used lightly or wrongly.

But footwashing?  What ritual do we have for that?  We don't.  Catholics have, if memory serves, 7 sacraments (baptism, eucharist, marriage, death, confession. I'm probably wrong on some of those); Protestants have only two (Baptism, eucharist).  If the words are not right, if the formula is not preserved, the sacrament isn't a sacrament.  No one has a ritual for footwashing.  Yes, the Pope does it, if he is physically able.  The monarchs did it in Europe, at least in the Middle Ages.  Even then it soon shifted from actually washing feet to simply giving gifts to those whose feet were not washed.  It never held on very long.   As I said, I tried it once on a Maundy Thursdayvwith my church council members.  It was very hard for all of us; I mean very hard.  And it didn't seem to mean much to anyone there, except discomfort.  That's the nature of rituals:  if they are not familiar, they are simply awkward and off-putting.   They gain their power from familiarity, even though they can lapse into roteness and lose their power again.  But when they are awkward and invasive and almost embarrassing, they are just an obstacle.  Footwashing  is too intimate, too personal.  If it was meant by John to be linked to that command that we love one another as Jesus loved us, if it is connected to washing our feet as Jesus connected it to an act of love in Luke , then we have failed this command, and rejected this commandment.

I said rituals are an obstacle, because they are.  Paul told his churches to follow the eucharisto.  It must have been hard for them, because some turned it into play, or an excuse for a feast for those "worthy," and not for the rest.  They didn't want to immediately treat it was a holy sacrament.  But no one wants to be last of all and servant of all.  And yet, that's one of the most important teachings in the gospel.  Being servant of all is the ultimate sign of humility.  It is the true calling to serve God and the Christ (I repeat for emphasis, not to blur the doctrine of the Trinity).  Evangelicals (in the modern sense) think that "true calling" is to "save souls."  But how much easier is it to "witness," than it is to actually serve?  And to make a ritual, a sacrament, of service?  To do as John tells us Jesus did?

Love is so much easier when it remains in our hearts and minds, rather than when it is shown by what we put in our hands.  How we literally and physically show it, in other words. Thinking is easy; doing is always another matter.

Time Passes Slowly

 March 21, 2025:

Donald Trump is more popular now than he was in his first term, but that isn't likely to last if he keeps on his current path, according to conservative columnists

April 17, 2025:

“Trump’s net approval on immigration issues is minus 5%; on deportations specifically, it’s minus 10%,” Downie opined. “When politicians and pundits try to conjure a more pro-MAGA vibe shift, they not only overstate the popularity of Trump’s agenda, but they also understate the scale and the fury of his opposition."

He called Trump's second-term approval ratings “eerily similar to his first: a poor start that only gets worse. Trump’s favorability ratings in January were the "second-worst of any presidency." "By mid-March, his net approval was again negative; by early April, his average disapproval was already more than 50%.”

TBH, polls and their interpretation are pretty useless things. In mid-March the consensus was that Trump was more popular than he’d been at that time in his first term (without noting that twice nothing is still nothing). Yet in mid-April, we are told his approval was already sliding in … mid-March.

One thing is sure: Trump is rallying the crowds for AOC/Sanders in Iowa and Montana and Bakersfield, CA as much as the headliners are.

And he’s only been POTUS since January 20, 2025. 😈

Maundy Thursday: Oily Heads and Perfume (New Revised Version)

The connection to the day and this final version of the anointing is John’s “sacrament that wasn’t.”  John’s gospel doesn’t have a Eucharist, even though almost all the events of his gospel occur in what Christians now call Holy Week. The story John does tell of the last meal in the upper room isn’t “This is my body, this is my blood,” largely for reasons of John’s theology.  Instead, the story is of foot-washing, which perhaps not coincidentally is the anointing story as John tells it, following Luke’s variation.  Let’s start with John’s version:

Six days before Passover Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, the one Jesus had brought back from the dead.  There they gave a dinner for him; Martha did the servince and Lazarus was one of those who ate with him. Mary brought a pound of expensive lotion and anointed Jesus' feet and wiped them with her hair. And the house was filled with the lotion's fragrance.  Judas Iscariot, the disciple who was going to turn him in, says, "Why wasn't this lotion sold? It would bring a year's wages, and the proceeds could have been given to the poor. (He didn't say this because he cared about the poor, but becasue he was a thief.  He was in charge of hte common purse and now and again wouild pilfer money from it.)

"Let her alone," Jesus said.  "Let her keep it for the time I am to be enbalmed.  There will always be poor around; but I won't always be around.

--John 12:1-8, SV

So that's it:  8 verses and done.  But the scene has shifted back to Bethany; the time is back to the days before Passover; and Jesus again refers to the act as a foreshadowing of his death.  But two very important elements have shifted, perhaps through Luke's lens:  now the perfume goes on Jesus' feet, and again, a woman wipes his feet with her hair.  Only this time the woman is named, so perhaps now we can tell this story "in remembrance of her," at least in the modern understanding of "remembrance."

It's interesting, the similiarities between this story and the stories in Matthew and Mark.  There aren't that many commonalities between John and the Synoptics.  John the Baptizer plays an important role in the gospels of Mark and Matthew, a role that reaches its zenith in Luke's gospel, where he begins with the appearance of Gabriel to John's father, Zechariah. In John's gospel the Baptizer appears as a bystander, someone who literally comments on Jesus as Jesus walks by.  No one in John's gospel gets to share center stage, however briefly, with Jesus.  John's gospel has no Sermon on the Mount (Luke)/Plain (Matthew), and precious few parables.  In the synoptics, Jesus' miracles are "acts of power" in the original Greek; in John's version they are "signs."  So the resurrection of Lazarus is a "sign" of Jesus' authority and power, and it is precisely that sign which leads to the crucifixion:

When the huge crowd of Judeans found out he was there, they came not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, the one he had brought back from the dead.  so the ranking priests planned to put Lazarus to death, too, since because of him many of the Judeans were defecting and believing in Jesus.

John 12:9-11, SV

The "sign" of Lazarus was costing the priests their power; at least in John's narrative.  I mentioned before that the cleansing of the Temple seems to have been the historical impetus for the crucifixion.  That occurs just before Passover, a time of tension in Roman occupied Jerusalem.  John includes that story, in a few verses in chapter 2, almost immediately after the first "sign" at the wedding in Cana:

It was almost time for the Jewish Passover celebration, so Jesus went up to Jerusalem.  In the temple precincts he came upon people selling oxen and sheep and doves, and bankers were doing business there too.  He made a whip out of rope and drove them all out of the temple area, sheep, goats, oxen, and all; then he knocked over the bankers' tables, and set their coin flying.  And to the dove merchants he said, "Get these birds out of here! How dare you use my Father's house as apublic market."

(His disciples were reminded of the words of scripture: "Zeal for your house is eating me alive.")

John 2:13-17, SV

It's worth pointing out here, as a side bar, that merchants in the temple weren't necessarily evil.  Temple sacrifice was the point of coming to the Temple during Passover, and most travelers couldn't bring animals with them for the ritual.  They bought animals as they were able to afford:  from doves to ox.  Coins given to the Temple also couldn't bear the image of Caesar, both because humans are made in the image of God (and no images of God can be created), and because Caesar declared himself a "son of God," or divine in his rule over the empire. So the coins of Rome had to be exchanged at Temple for coins acceptable in the Temple.  The problem with both practices, from Jesus' point of view, is that they exploited the poor (like Jesus).  The cost of a dove was already a sacrifice for the poor traveler to Jerusalem coming to the Temple to worship the God of Abraham who taught Israel to think first of the care of the poor.  The exchange rate on Temple coins made money for the banker, and cost the poor, especially, a great deal.  Jesus' objection, in other words, is not pious;  he objects to the economic exploitation of people like him, the very people the God of Abraham professes to identify with.  So you can see why he's pissed off.

You can also see why his protest would upset Pilate.  Pilate's palace overlooked the Temple.  I mean, directly overlooked.  Turmoil in the Temple during Passover, the high holiday of the Judeans (Jews is a bit of an anachronism during the time of Pilate), the "first of months" for the children of Abraham.  It's a time of high political tension for Rome, which tolerated diverse religious beliefs, but not diverse political beliefs.  And Passover was as political as it was religious, so....

Back to Jesus:  the cost of the perfume Mary uses doesn't bother him.  There's no contradiction here; just a contrast.  And a consistency that keeps this version of the anointing at Bethany in line with those of Matthew and Mark.  Luke's is still the outlier; but that outlier finds echoes in John's version.

First, note that the disciples appear in the story in Mark and Matthew, but not in Luke.  And John, who likes to tell more concrete stories (the better to ground his long, abstract discourses by Jesus.  As one of my professors in seminary pointed out, John's Jesus sucks all the air out of the upper room.  Chapter 13 of John begins that event, with Jesus washing the feet of his disciples.  Chapter 18 begins with Jesus finally going to the garden, although he's barely there before Judas shows up to betray him.  The chapters in between are almost all a monologue by Jesus.), replaces Simon the leper/Pharisee with Lazarus (the better to connect the resurrection of Lazarus in chapter 11 to the plot against Jesus in chapter 12) and "the disciples" with Judas Iscariot.  John's character of Judas is the one we all think of as the betrayer, the Iago to Jesus' Othello (except Jesus is not nearly so naive about Judas, especially in John's gospel), the Judas familiar to us from "JCS" (except, again, John's Judas doesn't really have any redeeming virtues).  So Judas is clearly the antagonist in this little story; he is even a hypocrite, because he doesn't care about the poor or whether the mony would go to them.  He's just, in modern parlance, a "troll."

And Jesus' response is equally blunt.  It also lends itself most easily to the dismissal of concern for the poor I've heard from too many professed Christians:  that the poor will always be with us.  It's usually said as if that's not only a fact of life, but the desire of God that some be poor.  As punishment; as part of God's "plan"?  The reason scarcely matters.  The excuse for ignoring them and denying any responsibility for them, is all that matters.

In some ways the Johannine version of this story is the most attenuated, and it suffers from that loss of detail.  John is less concerned with this story than with incorporating it into his narrative because, like the crucifixion, it is a part of the story of the Nazarene that cannot be excluded.  Curiously, it is John's gospel that gives us the long discourse between Pilate and Jesus, the back and forth between the Governor of Judea and a peasant rabble-rouser (which makes it, historically, a highly unlikely event.  Imagine your governor bandying words in public, before TV cameras, with a condemned prisoner just before his execution.)  We owe a lot of what we think about the story of Jesus to John's embellishments.  But in the anointing story John reduces the events to a bare minimum:  now the woman is named:  Mary, the sister to Martha and to Lazarus.  So she is in her brother's home, and yet still serving Jesus at table.  An attenuated scandal since Jesus is above such matters, and the focus stays on him in John's version.  Do you see this woman? Well, don't; she really doesn't matter.  Even the detail of drying his feet with her hair, which now can be a sign of love and honor for what Jesus has done (resurrected her brother Lazarus), but which would also be scandalous (it's still a first century lap dance; and imagine it happening today.  Washing someone's feet is intimate enough.  Drying them with your own long hair?).  John steps over that quickly by shifting attention to Judas, and in the most negative way possible.  Jesus dismisses the whole thing, using it as a foreshadowing of his death.  He doesn't even acknowledge what she's done, or why, except to dismissively say she should save the perfume for his burial preparations.

So the story comes from Mark to Matthew, almost unaltered; and then undergoes a radical transformation in Luke.  Some of those physical changes make it to John's version, but John seems ready almost to discard it, as it's not a "sign" pointing to who Jesus is or what his authority is, and it's not a "teachable moment" allowing Jesus to talk on and on and on about the nature of God and humanity.  For John it's a narrative transition point between the more important story of Lazarus (a "sign" if ever there was one) and the movement of the story into Jerusalem and the "upper room" (the remainder of chapter 12 is Jesus again talking about the concept of "signs" and the narrative moving toward the foot-washing of chapter 13 and the captive audience of the disciples Jesus then lectures for five chapters).  It's like John knows he can't leave this story out, but doesn't really think much of it, himself.  It's a pebble in his narrative shoe that he drops off as soon as he is able.

What, then, do we get from all of this?  This simple story was so important to the gospel writers they all included it (the canonical gospels, I mean; not the non-canonical ones).  Luke alters it dramatically.  From his "Special Luke" source?  From his own interests in the story of Jesus of Nazareth?  For whatever reason, he puts it through a blender, changing time and place and persons, leaving out the disciples and followers so thoroughly it is obvious the woman with the jar is a stranger to everyone else in that room.  There's a reason Luke goes immediately from his anointing story to a catalogue of the women traveling with Jesus.  It may be one of them is the woman in the room, since they provide for Jesus' ministry out of their own resources, and undoubtedly the perfume, even if it didn't cost a year's wages, was very expensive.  Luke is drawing a line underneath the woman's identity, the fact she was a stranger before she entered the room; and the enticing possibility that she is a stranger no more, because Jesus told her she had shown great trust, and that trust had saved her.  Matthew and Mark intimate the woman is one of the group; and maybe that's why Luke says the women had resources to fund the ministry when offerings weren't enough.  Matthew and Mark make it clear this is an anointing:  the perfume goes on the head, like the oil on the head of the king, or as in Psalm 133:

{A Song of degrees of David.} Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

2It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;

3As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.

That is an anointing.  Luke shifts not only time and place (not Bethany; and far earlier than the fateful Passover events) and location (feet, not head).  Is it even an anointing anymore?  John restores (follows?) tradition, by calling the act an anointing, but Mary aims for the feet, not the head.  And in Mary we finally identify a woman (although no one tells that story in memory of her) and a reason for her gratitude (her brother has been restored to life).  John also includes a lovely, concrete detail: "And the house was filled with the lotion's fragrance."  A metaphor?  Or merely a physical detail about the nature of perfume?  Either way it's wiped aside by the actions of Judas and the blunt retort of Jesus.  None of this really interests John; but what's always been interesting to me is why John includes this story; and why he shifts to location to Jesus' feet, even as he keeps up with the tradition of the house being in Bethany, and the disciples (well, Judas) being present.

In "JCS," the anointing story turns into the emotional heart of the story.  Immediately after Judas' lament "Heaven on their minds" we meet the disciples with "What's the Buzz?"  And among them is Mary Magdalene and the women (as a backing chorus) who sing "Let me try to cool down your face a bit", which allows Judas back in with "Strange Thing, Mystifying":

It seems to me a strange thing, mystifying

That a man like you can waste his time on women of her kind.

Yes, I can understand that she amuses,

But to let her kiss you, stroke your hair, is hardly in your line.

It's not that I object to her profession,

But she doesn't fit in well with what you teach and say.

It doesn't help us if you're inconsistent.

They only need a small excuse to put us all away.

That's John crossed with Luke.  The objection is in Judas' mouth; but the objection itself, however obliquely expressed, is that of Simon the Pharisee.  Jesus has already accepted Mary's attention:

Mary, ooh, that is good

How you prattle through your supper,

Where and when and who and how

She alone has tried to give me, 

what I need right here and now.

Which sounds more like Luke than anybody.  This story recurs with the famous love song "I Don't Know How To Love Him."  Again Mary soothes Jesus, upset by the events of the march into Jerusalem (Simon Zealotes tells Jesus to use this power for glory), the cleansing of the Temple ("My Temple should be a house of prayer!/But you have made it a den of thieves!") and the followers ("Christ you know I love you/Did you see I waved?/I believe in you and God/so tell me that I'm saved!") and the beggars and diseased ("See my eyes, I can hardly see/See my legs, I can hardly walk/See my purse, I'm a poor, poor man/See my toungue I can hardly talk") to whom Jesus finally screams "HEAL YOURSELVES!"  And then Mary is back, offering "Myrrh for your hot forehead/calm you and anoint you" as she soothes him to sleep, and then sings her song of confused, bewildered love.  It isn't the song of the woman in Luke's version of the anointing; but it could be ours, if we examine that story carefully, if we take what Luke gives us, seriously.

And here's an interesting thing from the rock opera, too.  Judas says, in the first song, that Jesus has begun to matter more than the things he says.  This is an old discussion in Christianity.  The earliest gospels were likely "sayings" gospels.  Some of those are conjectural:  "Q" is thought to have been a collection of sayings of Jesus.  There's also presumably a "signs" gospel behind John's version.  The Gospel of Thomas is the most famous extant example of these kinds of gospels.  And it’s arguable, especially after the crucifixion, especially today, that Christians honor Jesus more in who he was than in what he taught.  Judas, in other words, is on to something.  Gallup reports that church attendance in America is declining, and thinks this marks something in American cultural history.  Perhaps; or perhaps it just marks a new social willingness to admit you don't go to church anymore.  The decline in attendance has been obvious to pastors and churches for more than half a century now.  Gallup thinks it’s discovered something but, again, the world is just catching up to the church.  And still we're a long way from the early 20th century.  This fight between who Jesus was, and what Jesus said (and which matters more) is a very old one, in other words; and if the latter is starting to prevail over the former (not to its extinguishment, but with a renewed emphasis on the latter above the former), perhaps that's all to the good.  Perhaps that's even the Holy Spirit (Luke) at work.  Perhaps we should let that fragrance fill the house (John).

Luke's story is, in my understanding, a powerful story about grace and salvation, forgiveness and redemption.  We want things to be earned, especially something as important as grace and acceptance (acceptance often includes some manner of forgiveness), but we want these blessings purchased with some coin.  For me that coin should be as small as possible, a mere mite, because surely I am deserving of forgiveness and grace, especially if I can't possibly pay for it.  For you, however?  Well, I'm not sure I want you getting something for nothing.  That seems unfair.  Maybe if you were to show a little love, you'd be deserving.  But to be deserving and to show some love, surely you have to have some prompting to respond to.  So would it work like this?

"I walked into your house and you didn't offer me water for my feet; yet she has washed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You didn't offer me a kiss, but she hasn't stopped kissing my feet since I arrived. You didn't anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with myrrh. For this reason, I tell you, her sins, many as they are, have been forgiven, as this outpouring of her love shows. But the one who is forgiven little shows little love."

But that's an ouroboros, a Moebius strip; it doesn't seem to have a beginning or an end, and if you walk along it, it has only one surface.  There's no way in, no point at which you can begin your payment for that grace.  How do you earn it, then?

Precisely.  Begin there.

On what condition does goodness exist beyond all calculation? On the condition that goodness forget itself, that the movement be a movement of the gift that renounces itself, hence a movement of infinite love. Only infinite love can renounce itself and, in order to become finite, become incarnated in order to love the other, to love the other as a finite other. This gift of infinite love comes from someone and is addressed to someone; responsibility demands irreplaceable singularity.

Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death, tr. David Wills (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), pp. 50-51.

These conflicts and disputes among you, where do they come from? Do they not come from your own cravings that are at war within you? You want something and do not have it, so you commit murder. And you covet something and cannot obtain it; so you engage in disputes and conflicts. You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, in order to spend what you get on your pleasures. Adulterers! Do you now know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. Or do you suppose that it is for nothing that the scripture says, "God yearns jealously for the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"? But he gives all the more grace; therefore it says, "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble."

James 4:1-6

I am reading (Simone Weil's) essays as a part of my Lenten reading...She says that we "...must experience every day, both in the spirit and the flesh, the pains and humiliations of poverty...and further we must do something which is harder than enduring in poverty, we must renounce all compensations: in our contacts with the people around us we must sincerely practice the humility of a naturalized citizen in the country which has received us."

I keep reminding the young people who come to work with us that they are not naturalized citizens...They are not really poor. We are always foreigners to the poor. So we have to make up for it by "renouncing all compensations..."

Dorothy Day, from The Dorothy Day Book, p. 11.