Follow the Stars Home

I have watched this Hallmark Hall of Fame film multiple times. 

These films are not like the usual current Hallmark fare. They are more often serious and not merely focused on romance. They were on CBS on Sundays before we had a Hallmark Channel. (Or three) They are now most likely to be found on Hallmark Family.  

The film has many familiar faces, including Blair Brown as the mom who is a librarian. Alexa Vega (many know her from Spy Kids)  is all grown up now and pops up in some Hallmark films as a lead. 

"That girl" (that is, someone you know from somewhere else) includes a young mom who decides to keep her baby even after she finds out that she will be disabled. Her husband cannot handle it and abandons them. 

Skip ahead six years, and she's dealing with a girl with special needs, helped by his brother (a doctor) who clearly loves her. Alex Vega, whose mom is an alcoholic and has an abusive boyfriend, comes in as a "mother's helper."  Vega has needs of her own, as a reference to her social worker shows. 

The whole thing is a flashback of sorts, starting with a car accident. It is based on a book.  Not a short one. As usual, they change a few things, including from looking at Amazon, a good change.  No, I never read the book, which is somewhat strange, since I first watched this thing a long time ago. 

The film has many moving parts, all of which are generally well done. There are some good scenes between the mother and her mother. The problems of caring for a special needs child while still being blessed. The girl struggles with her own mother while also showing her value, including being a friend to the disabled daughter (who seems to be played by two non-disabled child actors*). And, the husband who is unable to handle the responsibility of a disabled child.

It is a lot. For instance, the mother (Dianne) of the disabled child becomes something of a second mother for Alexa Vega's character. This is a difficult situation. Once, Dianne's mother suggested she take Vega for a special trip that they often took as mom/daughter. Dianne notes, "She isn't my daughter."  

There are various little moments. For instance, Blair Brown's character is retiring partially to help care for her granddaughter. She will miss being a librarian. We see her tear up on her last day.  

The husband obviously does not come off very well. There is little to defend, except to somewhat understand, his abandoning his family. There is some realism there. His argument that she should abort and telling his brother that he too would want her to is also realistic. Many people will feel that way.

The result helps his argument to some extent. The girl does suffer. She has a condition that limits her mentally and physically. She is too young to understand, including understanding the physical pain it entails. Morally, it is a serious question if it is right to put her through that by not aborting.  

People will argue her life is still worth living. The point is generally moot once the mother decides to have the child. The child is surely alive, then, and people have an obligation to her needs. The mother was informed about the risks. Once she made her decision, it was correct for her brother-in-law to respect it and help her in whatever way he could.  

Some parents and family members do not want to deal with people in their family who have problems. They would rather ignore them if possible. 

That's a problem. This includes if someone still wants to stay but does not pay attention to that person. So, the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but ignores the needs of his child. 

I think the film is well-acted and written. Not surprising since I watched it so many times. 

It also might be deemed "pro-life," but that doesn't make it anti-choice. Her ability to make a choice made the result that much more significant. Yes, the only person who puts forth the other option is coded as horrible. A more appealing relative also voicing doubts would have been nice.  

(The Amazon summary says they found out "weeks before" the birth. In the film, it was early enough for her to have an abortion.) 

I can carp about some part or another, but the film is rather remarkable for all it does. Okay. A few times, the soundtrack is annoying. And, the mom has one of those special jobs (she seems to build dollhouses or something) that allows her not to struggle for money while having a comfortable existence. 

Overall, it's well recommended. 

==

* The two actresses do a good job in a role that is not easy. They need to realistically portray a child with Spina Bifida and Rett Syndrome.  

SCOTUS Watch: Final Opinions

Amy Howe provides a helpful summary of the final ten cases that were left to be decided this week. 

Thursday Opinions (4) 

They had two boxes (four cases) on Thursday. Previously, the assumption was that they might be able to handle the cases in two days. 

There were two boxes led some people to assume more than two days. But the Court did announce that Friday was going to be the last day for opinions.

Thursday was somewhat less painful than some liberals thought. Jackson, logically given her experience on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, had the First Step Act case. Roberts and Gorsuch went along with the liberals except when Jackson spoke about "context and enactment history."

Sotomayor handled the death penalty case. Barrett briefly noted disagreement on something. Thomas and Alito (with Thomas and Gorsuch) spent more time explaining why Sotomayor was (way) off base. Conservatives will now and then help form a majority in capital cases, but they don't make a habit of it.  

Alito handled a deportation case. Sotomayor for the liberals (and mostly Gorsuch) was annoyed ("heartland of illogic and absurdity") and mostly dissented. Alito still uses "aliens," while the dissent uses "noncitizens." The noncitizen here worried about his safety. Gorsuch, this time, was concerned about that. He was less concerned earlier in the week.  

(The case is serious, but Steve Vladeck on Bluesky suggested it addresses a narrow number of cases. So, I am not sure HOW bad it is. OTOH, liberals don't want Alito to have this sort of case.)  

South Carolina defunded Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood because it also performed abortions. The big bad case on Thursday (via Gorsuch for the conservatives) denied these people the right to sue. Thomas wanted to do more.

Jackson has a strong dissent. As a matter of principle, this shows the hypocrisy when conservatives talk about the right to choose your own doctor, including according to your own moral and religious beliefs. 

Friday Opinions (5) 

The Supreme Court had big opinions today that took over an hour to announce (with multiple dissents from the bench). It was wrong to shove so much in one day. Hundreds of pages of opinions today.  

It was also wrong not to live-stream the announcements. If they think they are important, the general public should be able to hear them now. 

(Oyez.com releases them sometime after the term.)

The morning started with a half hour spent dealing with the birthright citizenship opinion. I guess there was no punt! They did punt in one case. 

A Voting Rights Act case (among the much smaller than historically the case mandatory docket) will be reargued next term. Thomas dissents. 

Kagan has a 6-3 (Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito) delegation case. She handled the dissent in the online porn case (Thomas wrote for the conservatives) which allows a lower level of scrutiny in upholding an identification requirement. 

Kavanaugh has an appointment clause case (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch) case but it's a limited win for liberals. Robert Kennedy Jr. can simply remove the  Preventive Services Task Force members or block its decisions. Still, a limited act of sanity. 

A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses "a very real threat of undermining" the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill. 

Two big problems today (the porn case is sort of a smaller problem). Sotomayor dissented from the bench in both. Again, we should be able to hear this. 

We also should be able to hear Alito broadly summarize why parents should be able to opt out (like a Chinese menu) from exposing their children to certain stuff taught in their public school. The net result will often be that certain stuff simply won't be taught. 

Sotomayor correctly replies:

Today’s ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The Court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.  That decision guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society.  Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now. 

She is upset:

The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent. 

(Alito provides some photos from a book while Sotomayor posts the whole thing.) 

The other case, which experts are already parsing in various ways, deals with universal injunctions. This is a controversial tool that has been abused, including by conservative judges. 

Nonethless, conveniently, it is addressed during the Trump Administration. And, via a case heard in May regarding something that is one of the least apt vehicles to attack it. The opinion did not address the merits of challenges to Trump's birthright citizenship order. 

Barrett deals with the particulars, with multiple conservatives providing concurrence. There are ways to provide wide relief without universal injunctions (class actions are cited by some replies). It is unclear how satisfactory this will be. Also, the opinion ultimately has a somewhat unclear reach. 

The liberals (Sotomayor and Jackson have strong dissents) are quite angry with the result. The "cumbersome" class action alternative is not an adequate alternative. 

Barrett takes a potshot at Jackson:

"We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

The justices who joined Trump v. U.S. can STFU about that. 

Sotomayor is partially angry because the Trump Administration is gaming the system and notes it is a "leap of faith" for the majority to assume the Administration will (eventually) accept a ruling on the merits. Why would they want to risk SCOTUS taking a case for review? 

Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent."

Jackson speaks of an "existential threat to the rule of law" via a "smokescreen." And, after this opinion was handed down, they had four more to go!

Coming Up

Roberts moves on to thanking court employees, the Supreme Court bar, and the mentioned retirees, before he turns to Marshal Gail Curley, who announces that court is “adjourned until Monday, Oct. 6, at 10 o’clock” before banging her gavel and the justices disappear behind their red velvet curtain.

Again, in a sensible world, we would be able to see this by live stream. If the proceedings of the first branch are aired on C-SPAN, so can the proceedings of the third branch. Open government, please.

There will be two order days next week: Monday (ordinary Order List) and Thursday (clean-up Order List with justices providing some statements and dissents regarding various cases and some other actions by the Court regarding pending cases).  

A Few More NYC Primary Thoughts

Brad Lander, who cross-endorsed Mamdani, told Cuomo in the same debate: “Everybody here knows that you sexually harassed women, that you created a toxic work environment.”

There have been some "ding dong, the witch is dead" remarks regarding Cuomo's bad showing. 

I find this somewhat concerning, even if he conceded a week before New York will continue the voting count process since no one received a majority in the first round. Some observers argue that it looks like Cuomo is done. I hope so. 

[ETA: For now, it looks like he is still in. 

The best hope is that the non-Mamdani candidates share an overall electorate. It still is important for Cuomo to have the smallest support base as possible.]

People (and some are starting to) need to get behind Mamdani (btw, his mom is Mira Nair, the director of such films as Mississippi Masala) so that his success appears to be a fait accompli. Many people and groups (including unions and Jessica f-ing Ramos) supported Cuomo since they thought he was going to win and being on his bad side was dangerous since he is such an asshole.

Mayor Eric Adams, who it is somewhat hard to believe is still a thing, has started his de facto campaign to be the quasi-Republican candidate [there is an actual one, but it is hard to take him too seriously]. And, why not do it on Fox News? 

November's electorate is going to be somewhat different, especially since many Republicans did not vote this time around.  In my district, the only race for them to vote for was the comptroller contest. And, though there was a significant increase in early voting, the turnout was under 30% in major New York cities. That isn't good, but it's not new either.  

New York helped things by having early voting/no excuse voting by mail as well as stopping the practice of having two separate primaries for state and federal elections [presidential elections are separate]. Also, the articles discuss another tweak that doesn't seem to affect NYC too much.  

I don't think having a primary in September instead of June would change much overall. Congressional primaries regularly have small turnouts, including when AOC first ran. You might hope the mayor would be more likely to bring in voters. Also, maybe a non-partisan primary with the top two running in November would make sense.  

There very well might have been a broad assumption that Cuomo was going to win. The biggest energy then went into providing an enthusiastic progressive alternative. Unfortunately, many people didn't feel comfortable with either. So, you were resigned to Cuomo, but also lacked the passion to vote for someone else. 

The broad number of candidates might have hurt things there for those who didn't like Cuomo and thought Mamdani was not for them. Plus, these other people did not reach too many people, especially in the last month. I'm talking about campaigning and ads. Adrienne Adams came to the race late. 

Brad Lander, who might otherwise be the presumed frontrunner, was crowded out by Mamdani. He correctly realized Cuomo was the biggest problem, and they cross-endorsed each other. Lander is quite progressive. Mamdani just outdid him on energy and possibility. Sort of an Obama. 

If we had a non-partisan primary, Curtis Sliwa (who ran unopposed as a Republican) very well might not have come in second. Eric Adams might have run. If he did, Cuomo very well might not have. We would have Mamdani vs. someone else in November. 

For now, let's see how the ranking process completes. For instance, the Democratic primary for the city council in my district is still open. 

The other borough-wide and city-wide races went down as expected, including the favored city comptroller. Shekera Algarin (I wrote in a name) won the civil judicial race. 

Thanks to those who said no to Cuomo, who is patently unfit for public office. If we cannot manage to realize that in NYC, it is rather unfortunate.  

SCOTUS Watch: Order List, Torture-Enabling, and Two Executions

The June rush continues. Some notable stuff happened before they even started to hand down their final scheduled opinions for the term. 

Order List

The Monday Order List had a few interesting odds and ends. 

Alito and Roberts did not take part in a case. Roberts did not take part in a frivolous petition in which he was involved. Either way, only the liberals explain why they recuse.

SCOTUS reinstated briefing for a previously granted case involving a dispute over a Biden-era student loan forgiveness program. The case was originally put on pause on request by the Trump administration. 

They took a case to decide whether government officials can be held personally liable for violating an inmate’s religious liberty. The case involves blatant facts where a prisoner showed someone a court order protecting him, and they ignored it. 

In fact, they threw away the copy of the order when he showed it. Appealing facts help determine the legal result. And, since it involves religious liberty, even Alito will likely be sympathetic. 

Trump Enabling 

The most significant action on Monday separately took place on the shadow/emergency docket. 

A lower court judge, after the Administration repeatedly did not follow (or violated the spirit of) court orders, held that non-citizens had a right to contest being sent to a country where they face a credible threat to be mistreatment. As noted in the opinion, even the Trump S.G. seemed to agree. 

Sotomayor, for the liberals, had a strong dissent accusing the Court of a (non-explained) decision that "obstructs those proceedings, exposing thousands to the risk of torture or death." Their action "rewards lawlessness." 

She ends with "Respectfully, but regretfully, I dissent." At some point, you have to leave off the "respectfully." 

Steve Vladeck has more, calling it "disastrous." 

Executions

Florida executed Thomas Lee Gudinas for a heinous rape/murder that he committed in 1994. 

The defense argued that Gudinas was incapacitated at the time of the homicide, had an IQ of 85, suffered from personality disorders, was developmentally impaired and was abused and diagnosed as "sexually disturbed" as a child. 

The appeals dealt with various matters. SCOTUS rejected his final appeal without comment. 

Mississippi, which last executed someone in 2022, prosecuted Richard Gerald Jordan in 1976. Kidnapping and murder. You can hear from the victim's son here. 

There were various procedural problems. During the appeals, he became liable for the death penalty, which factors into a final appeal. 

A judge also rejected an appeal based on the danger that the midazolam drug won't work appropriately. The Supreme Court has not shown concern about that, even though, as Prof. Lain shows in her book, they should. 

I continuously argue that executing people long after their sentencing has special problems (Breyer). I think fifty years is rather blatant. This would be a good time for Sotomayor or Jackson to flag the problem. 

They had multiple chances (which they did not take) since not only was a cert grant tossed in among the list of cert denials in the Order List, but three final orders were handed down today. 

No comment as his five-decade delay of death ended.  

NYC DID Say No to Cuomo!

I continued my up-close experience of New York City elections by being a poll worker. I helped to check in voters at a local polling place on primary day. 

Early voting began around when I started voting at the polling place. So, election day itself is no longer as important. It still has a certain energy and symbolic importance. 

I discuss things further, including comparing the upset of Cuomo with Democratic leadership here. 

Bombing Iran: A response

More here.

Sex Kittens Go to College

This is a ridiculous film that was on TCM. A different sort of "classic." Somewhat strangely, it was on at around 7 A.M. This is late-night fare.

Mamie Van Doren (Wikipedia tells me she is still alive and in her 90s) plays a former stripper who is the surprise new brainy professor at a college. Tuesday Weld, a serious actress, played a student, as did Brigitte Bardot's sister. One of the "hey! it's that guy!" roles was played by someone many know from the Addams Family (1960s version).  

Van Doren has a dance routine at one point, but overall plays it fairly "straight" in this film. Much of the movie is badly acted and written "comedy" material. Then, late in the film, in the most gratuitous way possible (it appears to be a robot's dreams), there is a series of topless women. 

Not quite what you expect on TCM at shortly before 9 A.M. I figure various cuts of this film do not have this sequence. After that scene, we go back to the movie for a largely tacked-on conclusion. 

The whole thing has some "so bad it's good" value, but at some point it is rather dull.  The nudity is a surprise. The Wikipedia summary does not even discuss that part of the film. Again, I think some cuts of the film just leave the whole thing out. 

I think Mamie Van Doren, as a brain blonde bombshell, does an okay job. She has a blog, and the last entry is at the end of 2023. Good to know her political bona fides seem to be reasonable. 

SCOTUS Watch: Sotomayor/Jackson Dissent a Lot Edition

More Opinions

Friday brought six more opinions. There are ten left, which might be two days of opinions. Maybe three, which I would not be surprised about. So, they are mostly on schedule. 

There was a good amount of writing, though we are not talking hot-button stuff overall. The things covered included various regulatory issues, a disability claim that led to a strong dissent by Jackson, and a unanimous (on result; the one case Sotomayor and Jackson simply went along). decision about jurisdiction in a lawsuit against the PLO.

Kagan had a strong dissent for the liberals in a regulatory matter arising from fax machines (just the fax, ma'am). She was not happy about the result ("Those words mean what they say, or anyway should.") I usually trust her judgment. 

Alito (with Gorsuch) grumbled some in dissent that provided a limited liberal result in a sentencing case. "Veteran trial judges often complain that their appellate colleagues live in a world of airy abstractions." The two former district court judges joined the majority opinion. Barrett replied at one point in a footnote regarding his "curious" allegations. 

Jackson, who used to be a sentencing commission member, concurred to partially disagree with some aspects of the opinion. She had a strong dissent (Sotomayor went along part of the way) in that disability case. 

Jackson included an on-point footnote answering Gorsuch's charge that she avoided relying on pure textualism as "insufficiently pliable." She noted that "ambiguous text" requires using multiple interpretive approaches because "pure textualism is incessantly malleable." 

Yes. People too often are cocksure about what the text means, sometimes in annoying Gorsuch-like fashion accusing people of making shit up because they are biased if they don't agree. This is not just something conservatives do, though they often are more likely to do so.  

Text is not always so clear. We often look at it through a glass, darkly, to quote Saint Paul. The appropriate means of interpreting the English language includes factoring in multiple criteria. Pure textualism, whatever that means, alone means using textual interpretative devices (with obligatory citations of a Scalia text) that offer multiple options.

Anyway, the cases are not overly exciting, and Kagan only dissented in one. They are of some importance, which again explains why Sotomayor and Jackson have so many separate writings. There are various lessons to be learned.

Eric Segall (Dorf on Law) on Bluesky noted:

The Court’s 4th case, for standing nerds, basically stands for the proposition that companies seeking profits have a much better chance of getting standing than civil rights groups and journalists. Pitiful and pathetic.

I'm not a standing nerd but respect his opinion (up to a point) on such matters. Jackson's dissent (Sotomayor dissents less strenuously) basically agrees with him, referencing eroding public trust and so forth. 

Jackson today knows her role -- liberal dissenter, speaking for the future. She has the "lone ranger" role Rehnquist had in the 1970s. This makes a Bluesky comment about her being a future Chief Justice even more apt. Took fifteen years, so have a ways to go. 

Mark Joseph Stern: "What you see in today's opinions is the three liberals assuming different roles. 

Kagan is the conciliator, siding with the conservatives to assure them she's reasonable. KBJ is ready to shoot flaming arrows and burn it all down. 

[#TeamJackson!] 

Sotomayor is in between them, trying to find middle ground and keep the peace." Sotomayor as peacemaker is almost amusing, but she does that. She had spoken of "her friend Gorsuch," for instance. 

Chris Geidner also has more on the trans health case, which deserves firm denunciation. 

Trump Enabling Watch 

The 9th Circuit helped Trump regarding his power to send the National Guard to California. They provided a rather low bar for determining normal means was not enough. 

Courts will be loath to interfere with executive discretion in such cases, but Judge Breyer (not that one) had a point. Overall, procedurally, it was a limited win for Trump.  

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court handed down an order that "the motion of petitioners to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied" in a tariff case. 

Coming Up

We are coming up to the home stretch of the June home stretch. Another Order List on Monday. At least two opinion days. Two executions scheduled. 

The next opinion day for now is Thursday. That would allow for opinions days on Thursday and Friday, with a clean-up on the following Monday (June 30).