"write opinions based on his mind alone"

I read a book by Christian Cooper, who is among other things gay, and now read one by Austen Harke. Harke wrote Transforming: The Bible & The Lives of Transgender Christians.  Worthwhile read.  

==

Justice Barrett talked to a judicial conference, as justices tend to do (they each oversee at least one court of appeal), and touched upon an issue of the day:

“Public scrutiny is welcome,” Barrett said. “Increasing and enhancing civics education is welcome.”

Barrett, 51, said the immediacy and amount of information that is available has fed the increased scrutiny of the Supreme Court.

“You’re not waiting once a day to read your print newspaper,” she said. “You’re seeing things come across your phone all the time, and you’re seeing pictures of people.”

Not quite as newsworthy as Justice Kagan saying Congress had some power to regulate the Supreme Court, but somewhat newsworthy.  It is a bit of boilerplate though well if you want "public scrutiny," well, we will give it to you, Amy.  

Justice Thomas is the one who is the gift that keeps on giving. Over 100 (he has been around for over 30 years) of his clerks thought it a good idea to put forth a hagiography in the form of a letter to defend him.  

The letter does not actually substantively address any of the charges of ethical violations.  It just praises as so special that it is basically blasphemous to doubt him.  The letter is prime comedy. I dare people who are not big fans (and even some of them) to read it with a straight face.   

This is the story of Justice Clarence Thomas. It is a story that should be told in every American classroom, at every American kitchen table, in every anthology of American dreams realized.

I'm not paraphrasing. There is a lot more of that sort of thing. It ends on a similar note.  Again, just quoting the thing:

A bust of his grandfather—himself raised by a grandmother born into slavery—watches over his office. It is an ever-present reminder that he is no ordinary Justice. Come the first Monday in October, the Justice, born into poverty few can fathom and educated in a segregated Savannah school room, will take the bench and begin his thirty-third year on the U.S. Supreme Court. He will ask a question most haven’t considered. And he will cast his votes and write opinions based on his mind alone.

The "mind alone" bit sounds like Trump's claim to be able to declassify with his mind.  People led with the likes of John Eastman (indicted and liable to lose his law license in California) signing the thing, but they really should focus on the actual content.  Once you move past the humor, it comes off as both sickening and pathetic that so many signed this thing.

ETA: This is why I should wait until the end of Friday to write these things.  I was wondering about Alito and Thomas's financial disclosures after they both took the extra time.  They are now available.  Ah, the value of financial disclosures.  

There are various articles discussing them, including at Slate, which also links another fawning statement labeled "on behalf of Client Justice Clarence Thomas," which among other things attacks left-wing "watchdog" (its scare quotes) groups.  You know, maybe just stop it, okay?  The bit in the disclosure about needing to use private transportation given potential threats after Dobbs (only him?) is also a nice touch.  

[Thomas has a long discussion/defense of things he did/updated, not using Alito's method of Wall St. Journal op-eds and fawning articles.]

Chris Geidner flags separately (on Twitter) how it's wrong for a justice to have so many financial entanglements (Alito's disclosure has over 100 financial transaction details) that in various respects touch on the business of the Court.  Alito recuses in various cases, but his level of financial holdings is atypical.  

I welcome the additional watchdog coverage arising from these disclosures.  

==

No more orders or anything of that sort so far this week though they are continuing to work on including opinions in the preliminary bound volume.  If you look at the opinion page, notice the growing number of cases with a full citation.  

The Hush Money Prosecution Matters

It’s true that the New York City case against Trump pales in comparison to the gravity of the one over the theft of classified documents and even more to those over his attempted 2020/21 coup. What gets forgotten is that this “paper crime” was directly tied to gaming the 2016 election. While Trump had his assignation with Stormy Daniels in 2006, the hush money pay off happened weeks before the 2016 election, specifically in order to prevent the story from becoming public. He committed financial and tax fraud to win the 2016 election. He tried an inverted version of that gambit with the threat of withholding weaponry from Ukraine in 2019 once the power of the presidency gave him the power to do so. Both of Trump’s two impeachments were over criminal attempts to subvert the 2020 election.

The NYC case is important.  It is Georgia on a small scale.  

While Trump was in office, people like Rick Hasen granted the events appear to be criminal.  Hasen wanted -- like Trump's lawyer was (Michael Cohen) -- federal law to be applied.  Now, he and various others think it is a dubious novel application of the law.  The net result, though they will surely insist in an aggrieved fashion how much they want justice and find Trump horrible and dangerous, is enabling Trump. He gets away with it.  

At the time, the policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents kicked in.  Later, it probably was seen as too "small potatoes" to use it as a precedent to prosecute a former president, especially for events years before.  And, then a lot more water went under the bridge, and it became a sideshow.  But, his lawyer went to prison.  The acts are crimes (for some too petty to care about).  They are an abuse of both the corporate and political system.  

Trump's m.o.  It also was important in the moment.  There was a concern that one more sex scandal (along with the "grab them in the pussy" video) would really burn him.  He broke the law to help stop this, running into campaign finance and corporate laws in place to protect the integrity of the system. They matter.  The seediness of the whole thing also is fitting.  

The feds can focus on the documents and the 2020/1 crimes.  New York has its own concerns here, including both the integrity of the elections and the corporate system.  Why should Trump get a pass here?  Let's underline that 2020 is not new.  

There is always a supposed reason to kick the can or get Trump off the hook.  People still want this to be settled at the polls. So he can corrupt the process for a third time?  So various people (the NYC indictment includes various details of "little people" involved) can take part in the conspiracy and be harmed?  So various state electoral processes (along with the federal process) can be corrupted a third time?  More violence? 

That will surely go down well.  

Ohtani Hurt

Ohtani, showing why some ridiculously large contract is not a good idea for most teams, was discovered to have an arm injury that might have him out for a long time.  How long will he be able to pitch and hit?  Would a team want him to do so even now?  If he just hits, he's still a really great player, but just how much is a really great hitter worth?  

A unique superstar like him, especially on a team like the Angels with limited things for fans to be happy about, is treated in unique ways. He is given a lot of discretion.  This is understandable.  

An article suggests this might have meant (the GM is being coy with details, according to this account) that he was allowed to beg off a testing procedure that might have caught things before the injury got to a more serious point:

However, the Angels have come under fire for giving Ohtani too much autonomy to call his own shots. Ohtani seems to mostly decide when he will and won’t play with the club believing that fewer restrictions allow him to harness his full potential.

Unfortunately, they also allowed him to get injured.

I'm not sure how we know 1+1=2 that this is why he got injured.  But, yeah, it's something you deal with regarding superstars.  The immediate thing that caught my eye, however, was the usage (common enough) that he "complained" about such and such pain.  It is a curious usage since the word is usually more in the sense that someone whines or generally feels aggrieved about something.  Such as a "complaint" in court.

The usage here is more like that someone "reports" that they are hurt.  The usage is not just used for sports stars.  People in general are sometimes said to "complain" about pain. Again, it is a curious usage of the word since it is often not something about a neutral statement about something happening to you.  Maybe, someone "complains" about a bad day as in feeling annoyed about it.  But, do we "complain" about having a fever?

Just a thing that makes me go "hmm" -- for whatever reason, I have felt more like a philosopher thinking about the meaning of things in the last few years.  On the other hand, that sort of thing is more something I have picked up for a longer time.  Anyway, the Mets are playing the Angels now, which is why the Ohtani thing is particularly directly notable, as is the fact that some have dreamt about the Mets getting him.

This was never really that likely while the Mets' multiple needs made such an expensive superstar contract dubious, even if we have a billionaire owner.  The injury might even make it more likely the Angels might keep him, especially if they continue to give him that discretion. Some other team, for instance, might not want him to pitch and hit so much.  

Meanwhile, the Orioles closer just got hurt. I hope they can get past it since I'm rooting for them to go far this season.  They seem continuously to have nail-biter games and this is worrisome. Seattle -- who many thought weren't quite there yet -- are now (aided by the Rangers having a long losing streak) at the top of the AL West.  Diamondbacks are back in the hunt too. 

Birding and Petticoats

Chris Cooper in my experience was someone who sometimes popped up as a guest host on Gay USA with his particular interest in Marvel comics/movies.  Cooper once was in the comics business himself.  He also is a birder, now with his own television program.

Most know him from his experience -- while birding -- with Amy Cooper (she's white, he's black), who made it racist when he (as is his way) politely, but firmly, asked her to keep her dog on a leash.  His video of the incident went viral.  One thing I respect about him is that Chris Cooper stayed low-key about the whole thing, including not voluntarily being involved in her prosecution.  The event happened when George Floyd was murdered and Cooper retained some perspective others did not about the whole thing.  

It is only one chapter in his autobiography (he doesn't even mention Gay USA, with not even a blurb from the hosts) but the incident is likely a major reason for his new book.   As a whole, though I wanted to learn a bit more about certain things (he doesn't even talk about meeting his current partner), the book was pretty good.  Here's my extended review. 

Petticoat Junction is on early morning on Saturdays on MeTV and it's part of my Saturday rotation of things to check out (including the Svengoolie and Hallmark movies at 8 P.M as well as C-SPAN history programming) to see if I'm interested.  

The show is amusing if with a mixture of episodes that I'm interested in watching and more silly stuff.  The "Ask Minerva" episode is interesting since it is the opening episode of Season Three, which is when two of the three daughters are now portrayed by new actors.  The dog is here already; he's actually the dog who later plays Benji, with the actor who plays Uncle Joe. 

The best "Bobbi Jo" (the brunette) comes on and a decent if much less used (sparingly for one season) "Billie Joe" (the blonde; the third one is on the longest and the most bland and inappropriately modern for this series).  Kate, the mom, also at times (with pearls!) looks more vivacious (well she is the mom of those daughters) in this episode as well.  

It's a cute episode with Kate taking over as writer of an advice column, doing so on the down low, which causes some hijinks.  The opening with the three sisters in the water tower (bare shoulders and the implication is that they are totally bare, though when we see them swimming in one later episode, they are wearing bathing suits -- boo)  is well done with a great reaction shot from the one actress who plays a sister for the whole run.

This Bobby Jo is ultimately shown to be a bit of an airhead though perhaps in a bit of early segment weirdness, she actually makes a brain-like reference at one point.  The boy crazy sister (here played by a Swedish actress) is not too much different from the first one though she seems to have more hair.  Bobby Jo (who is played by the same actress for the rest of the series' run) is more of a sexy sort than the more restrained first actress.

The episode has an amusing final joke. The daughters think their mom is actually dating the storekeeper and send a letter to get advice.  She (even though she has a chance for syndication) decides it is time to retire, but never reveals her identity.  Joe Carson is the only one not impressed with the column, noting Kate ("your mother") could do a better job.  

The series has a very catchy theme song.  The other thing is that the half-hour seems longer than it should be.  I'm unsure why -- the episodes don't really drag.  It just is the pacing is such that it seems a bit longer than a usual half-hour show often is.  Anyway, the next few episodes (two are shown on MeTV) are notable because the leads from Green Acres pop up.

==

There is a new Hallmark movie coming out tonight (notable for a black lead), but another recent one also is worth referencing.

The leads, especially Rachel Boston, are familiar. I'm not a big fan of Rachel Boston Hallmark films as a rule, but The More Love Grows was an enjoyable one.  And, though there have been a few cases where a lead manages to not be a single parent because of some death in the family, this one actually concerns the separation itself.  What's next? A marital affair?

When the husband who shocks Rachel Boston by telling her he wants a separation (their daughter had just gone away to college) suggests maybe he made a mistake, she even says, no, she realized it was the right move.  The film largely involves her getting used to being separated with a subplot about her daughter having trouble adapting to college life.  

And, yes, there is a bit of romance, though she herself is more concerned about moving on with her life.  She tells the veterinarian (a new dog enters her life) that she is not ready for a relationship though in the end is ready to start one.  It also has an amusing song by her new friend.  

(There is a required plot bit late that is tired but it's over quickly.)

Hallmark is slowly moving along. This plotline is almost a bigger step than its decision to start showing gay and lesbian characters.  I am ready for a bisexual love story where there are the usual hijinks at a wedding or something and a character ultimately drops their drip of significant other for a member of the same sex.  A trans or non-binary character also would be nice.  A sort of Imagine Me & You type of thing.  

Baby steps.  After all, they have even had a Hanukkah film or two!

Right to Reproductive Freedom Ballot Measure

Republicans in Ohio don't want a reproductive rights ballot measure to simply be allowed to be voted upon normally. 

First, they tried making ballot measures harder to pass. Now, the summary is being played around with. Note how they are using the usual buzzwords ("abortion" and "unborn child"):

In the new version, that section becomes: “Prohibit the citizens of the State of Ohio from directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing, or prohibiting abortion before an unborn child is determined to be viable, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means."

The ballot measure is not just about abortion. It is a reproductive health measure, just as the constitutional right of abortion is part of a wider collection of rights.  The full text does provide some "small print" on the limits of abortion rights but the summary still is not a fair summary of its breadth. The opening of the measure seems a good summary:

Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion.

Consider part of the summary in Roe v. Wade of the right to privacy with the case citations removed:

[This right of privacy] has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child-rearing and education.

Dobbs claims there is no right to choose an abortion but that its ruling does not interfere with other rights.  Justice Thomas concurred to say that he would go further.  The dissent says "Don't you believe it."  And, lower courts are starting to use it to water down trans rights.  

The right to choose an abortion is part of a collection of rights necessary for liberty and equality.  Ohio's ballot measure recognizes that what is at stake is not some "right to abortion" but a wider matter of reproductive decision-making.  The summary makes it about "unborn children" and "abortion."  

It's bullshit.  

ETA: This article provides a good analysis of the situation, including an additional concern regarding the use of "pregnant woman" instead of the more generic "pregnant patient."  The measure is not just about women -- men use contraceptives -- and "women" are not the only people who get pregnant.  It is not only a trans, non-binary, or queer issue. What of girls? 

Mugshots and Republican Debate

On my substack, I talked about the Trump mugshot and related issues. So many links!

We also had the first Republican debate, which Trump did not show up at.  I don't actually watch debates (I probably should in limited cases involving certain local races though even there I question it as a whole) but keep track of online reactions, including at Talking Points Memo. Twitter also is a useful place to go, and yes, I'm still going to call it that.  

FWIW, Nikki Haley apparently won the debate on points, though actual Republican voters did not really think so.  She came off as reasonable though it doesn't matter much for reasons she helped advance:

She described herself as “giddy” about Trump’s victory in 2016, contributed her credibility to his administration by joining it as U.N. ambassador, and reportedly spoke to him frequently to angle for influence by disparaging others who worked for him. She appeared on Fox News in January 2021 to argue that he did not deserve to be impeached over Jan. 6, and until this point in the race has only criticized him in a wishy-washy, indirect way. At several junctures, she’s told Republican voters that Donald Trump is fit to be president, and they listened to her. Isn’t that nice?

DeSantis did not get a lot of attention, furthering the sentiment he is just a horrible candidate.  It's depressing this guy is doing so much damage in Florida, but to be clear, he needs a willing audience and set of enablers for that to happen.  Some crazy asshole Scrappy Doo type got the most attention from the others and he might have a boomlet before people realize he's not a credible Trump alternative.  

The few people I saw also suggested Christie didn't really show up that much.  He criticized Trump but in a short lackluster way.  Pence had his moments, but it's hard to see (rightly so) how he could be the nominee. Both parties (rightly) don't overall respect him.  And, Tim Scott, who might on some level seem like a good candidate, also didn't show up much.  

Of course, the whole thing in many people's minds is a big also ran affair since Trump still has most of the support.  We actually have people arguing that banning him (via the 14A, sec. 3) is akin to "banning one of the two major parties," as if he's the party.  If he is, perhaps the party is dead.  

SCOTUS: Order List

A local article (h/t SCOTUSBlog) provides some details regarding an "order in a pending case" that dropped last week. Headline: "U.S. Supreme Court makes final decision on Miami’s voting map for upcoming election."

We have the same "brief" opinion reference that is typical in coverage.  This is again misleading. This is the whole opinion:

The application to vacate stay presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied.

The title is "Order in A Pending Case" and the only thing else is the docket number and case name.  It would easily be quoted or just have an image of the whole thing embedded into the article.  

Anyway, the article notes that the dispute involves Miami redistricting, which a community group charged was discriminatory. The map chosen by Miami city commissions was challenged and a federal district judge agreed it was improper.  An ACLU-supported map was chosen instead. The court of appeals (in the conservative-leaning 11th Circuit, which Justice Thomas covers as circuit justice) said the city's map was okay.  

The Supreme Court did not grant a request to intervene. As the article notes:

Thursday’s decision is one part of a broader pending federal lawsuit against the city that was filed by community groups in late 2022. The organizations, which include two local chapters of the NAACP, accused commissioners of approving an unconstitutional voting map in March 2022 that racially gerrymandered city districts.

This has not received much attention (a story was briefly noted at Election Law Blog earlier in the month but this order was not addressed) but it is of interest to local voters in a major city of the country.  

==

The Order List is as usual not exciting. It's a bit hard to even stretch a minimum about of interest for allowing the joint appendix to not be printed or for West Virginia not given argument time in one case.  

There is also the usual rehearings denied (were they ever not?) with one mild matter of interest that Alito for whatever reason (involvement with the company?) not taking part in one of the decisions.  

There is one more order list in September and that is when the next execution is scheduled.  Also waiting for Alito/Thomas financial disclosures, their 90-day extension time being over.  

==

I also have a new summary of Dobbs on one of the other blogs. 

ETA: The phony "praying coach" case has an update with news he is back at his job. Well, at least -- some reports suggested otherwise -- the whole thing was not a total sham, and he actually was interested in that.  

This is the case (that tossed in a gratuitous burial of the Lemon Test, the three-part test to determine if the Establishment Clause is violated, with the "history and tradition" test that is starting to invade constitutional law) where a coach blatantly was not "privately praying." 

Justice Sotomayor's dissent had pictures (a bit less so, but still rare in Supreme Court cases).  But, the majority ignored this.  And, it shows the general spirit of the already problematic on its own (it's fine to factor it in) of accuracy that the test is being applied.  

Couple Morning Thoughts (Spoiler Alert)

I found a free paperback copy of LM Montgomery's Anne of Green Gables. Some years back, as an adult, I read that amusing book about a red-haired girl.  I also read the sequel and recall reading at least one other in the series.  She had additional ones, including a collection that was published long after her death.  

She also wrote lots of short stories, a trio of "Emily" novels, and various other stand-alone novels.  A few of the books are adult novels, including The Blue Castle, about a twenty-nine-year-old woman.  This is a fun novel about a quiet, unhappy woman who thinks she is going to die, so decides to stop worrying about what others think.  

It has an extended passage that basically talks about a year she had in her "blue castle" and then has a happy ending.  

===

I don't want to say much more now about the 14A, sec. 3 article I referenced in my recent SCOTUS post.  Eric Segall's blog post, which I referenced, dropped.  A few words.  

I am not an originalist and do think we have to apply the Constitution as we understand things today, with prudence and current democratic needs factoring in.  I respect that general argument.  I think others also do more than some "pure originalism" (see, e.g., two people at another blog), noting that originalists tend to do in the end anyhow.   

Prof. Segall flags Chief Justice Chase's application of the provision as a rejoinder to the article.  But, Chase -- Segall knows this from his citation of the Legal Tender Cases in his book -- is not free from "values judging." And, people have spelled out (including Mark Graber, who I cited, who argues that Chase simply didn't like the provision, and was not a fair player here) why we should take his interpretation with a hefty grain of salt. 

What does Segall do?  As usual, we get a bit of "originalism is okay if done right" with this comment:

And he did so because he found the consequences intolerable (every official act by the thousands of Southern government officials who participated in the rebellion would be called into question). 

I don't know what this means, actually, but Chase "did so" for some dubious reasons.  See also his overall continual delays in prosecuting Jefferson Davis, which has a lot of politics and policy judgment mixed in.  I am somewhat aggravated about this attack of originalism that involves a confused analysis of what the actual history is.  It just confuses things. 

As Graber et. al. argues, the "authors" Chase went against were not the two who wrote the law article.  It was the actual framers of the amendment.  This is not a big "gotcha" about originalists refuting "someone there."  The ability of people "there" people wrong is suggested by the 5-4 Slaughterhouses Cases.  

Anyway, I'm fine with worrying about "consequences" and think various people who talk about the provision do factor that in.  Plus, some examination of the text and history will help us decide the question, especially since such arguments are repeatedly used by all sides.  

Mets (Shell) vs. Braves (Real Deal)

The Mets won a series against the Cubs, who are among the teams trying to win the NL Central (which has more talent than the AL Central while still a weak division) and/or third wild card contender. 

The third wild card contenders are struggling so much of late that the Mets barely moved in the race while going 2-8.  Trying to chase that spot while still being not as good as various teams in front of you was a dubious reason to "stand pat" even without a seven game deficit.  They did the right thing, even though a few (some are just "don't say die") still say "What if."

One person on Twitter -- I am sticking to my policy of taking three days off Fri-Sun tweeting-wise but have fallen back to checking it -- referenced the 14-9 July record.  They had an early winning streak and then went 8-9.  This likely helped show that they were not going on some sort of "run" and even this streak was helped by the Diamondbacks, which went off a cliff. 

The Cubs series gave the team a bit of respect, which they hopefully enjoyed given the competition this month is tough.  The Braves came next and even though flawed (pitching), they are a juggernaut.  Their pitching is good enough against this Mets line-up (Nimmo and Lindor even were hurting some over the weekend) and their hitting is killer against AAA candidates.  Some bad luck didn't help, nor did one or more bad plays.

Friday involved the Mets somehow not scoring when the Braves gave up nearly 10 walks.  Megill (who you want to root for) bent and then broke.  Some AAA guy then held the Braves scoreless for around three innings.  This is the Mets pitching this season: a lot of AAA pitching, sometimes good, sometimes not so good.  Loss but not that embarrassing.

This would be the first game of the Saturday doubleheader. The 21-3 loss.  The Braves AAA pitcher (and a position player in the ninth, who also had a good time at the plate) held the Mets scoreless. Vogelbach, who is there to piss off Mets fans, taking at-bats away from people with a future, hit a meaningless three-run homer in the eight, the team down 13-0.  This apparently bothered the Braves, who knocked around a Mets position player (who did get an out painlessly in the eight), scoring eight more runs.

The Mets are not "tanking" for a draft pick. It isn't that easy to get one even if they manage to be one of the six worst teams (three or so are gimmes, and the Mets are hanging around 2-3 others).  New rules to reduce tanking and a payroll penalty make it harder. And, it doesn't mean much anyway.  Loads of draft picks do not do anything.  It's just something on Twitter.

The trades made sense.  And, the bad line-ups are only to a limited degree about Canha and Pham no longer being around.  Marte is hurt.  Nimmo is hurting, so they kept him out a bit.  Lindor had a scare and was out a bit.  The third baseman (especially with Baty sent back) is a rookie in training.  McNeil plays the OF to fill in and "the beard" is hurt too.  So, this adds no names in the IF like Mendick and people like Locastro playing center to take some pressure off Nimmo's side or whatever is hurting. 

They have two good pitchers.  Carrasco is struggling.  The Mets will get two new ones from the free agent market at least to make a decent rotation.  The pen is filled with AAA pitchers.  Diaz will be back and they will get help there too.  Getting rid of Scherzer/Verlander made sense.  

This line-up isn't going to be here next year.  Baty shows that it makes sense not to rush up prospects.  The team is going to get a free agent or two that will help with the outfield and maybe the infield.  Hopefully, Marte will be okay by then.  What magical line-up are they supposed to put up there?  Again, the only thing that really annoys me is Vogelbach.

I saw something on Twitter that Peter Alonso likes him.  Does this factor in?  Maybe.  Doesn't change things, really, since it would very well "send a message," including after a trading deadline that was basically about admitting Verlander was a mistake, getting rid of short-timers, and moving on from Scherzer, who wasn't happy and was struggling.  

He helped change the culture in 2022 but with the season a lost cause, moving on made sense.  There was a bad vibe all season -- what is this bit about Lindor never buying McNeil the car he promised for winning the batting title about anyway? -- and some personal favorites sticking around even partially for that reason is just part of the problem.  

Mr. Q. had another good outing -- one run in six -- though people had to watch it on FOX.  For some reason in hell, the Mets have the Sunday Night game.  Did they not have the ability to switch for an actual competitive game that means something?  Senga is pitching against someone the Mets can actually (in theory) beat, to be a tad bit fair.   

Anyway, the Mets did not score again, though they actually had a real chance with Alvarez up in the eighth. This after Drew Smith (with a bit of help from "defense") gave up three runs.  And, then the Braves iced it with two more.  Well, the game was semi-respectable.  Not that I watched it, the GKR SNY team is the only way to really watch even a good Mets game.

(There is a documentary about the team's first 18 years.  I'm unsure why they did not wait two more years.)  

The Cubs games show that the Mets won't just be this horrible the rest of the way.  The talent is enough to beat the likes of the Pirates and company.  When Nimmo and Lindor can play, the line-up is not that bad, though underperforming.  Still, there will be a lot of pain, if you don't just laugh it off.

Mets fans (including on Twitter) are a mix of realistic, cranky, and fantastical.  So, the fact some are annoyed is not surprising.  Sometimes, like with Vogelbach or trusting Drew Smith with 1-0 leads, they have a point. Other times, yelling at Buck for "tanking" when he has little to work with, is a tad unreasonable.  Whatever it takes to get through the day.  

BTW, the Jets won a shutout versus another not good team (Panthers) and it's pre-season football.  Doesn't tell me much about Zach Wilson.  

Sunday Night: The ESPN game started with three runs in the first for the Braves versus Senga.  Ah. More of the same?  Not quite.  The Mets managed, after thirty-plus innings, to have a big inning in the fifth.  And, it was a close thing, the starter going 4.2.  

But, they got their six-run inning, many of them from the Irregulars.  Cheers to the "B" team.  

And, Senga -- like a good pitcher -- didn't give anything else in his six innings of work.  So, it turned out to be a "quality start" and some of those runs were off short-time Mets pitcher Colin McHugh.  After six, the score was 7-3, Mets.  But, they had to get those nine outs.  

The Guardians blew two close leads versus the Rays, finally holding on to a big one, in the ninth.  The Yanks today gave up five runs in the ninth.  Oakland somehow managed to give up six runs versus the Nationals.  Or the other way around.  

Okay, it was 7-6 in the eight with two outs after Raley (one of the remaining regulars) helped the nail-biting.  Drew Smith.  I'm sure a lot of Mets fans were happy to see him there with one man on!  He got out of it though.  Be nice if they had more than that big inning, but they did! They had that extra run.  

Well, that was a nice run to have!  Ottavino to save.  Which he got.  Shred of dignity retained.

Book and Film

A local library had a display of books about books.

One book that I checked out was not for me.  The graphic novel Book Love, however, was very enjoyable.  The author's representation of herself is very cute.  She has some others, including one examining her troubles with depression and the beginning of her marriage.  They each have charms but the book one is the best in my view.  Good for a book lover!

History Is Made At Night was on television recently but I missed it.  The library had a DVD with various extras (mostly about the director).  

It turns out that the director has many films, but this one is particularly deemed a classic.  Jean Arthur (more known for her comedies) and Charles Boyer star.  Colin Clive (best known for being Dr. Frankenstein) plays a really f-ed up guy.  The actor died shortly afterward.  

I think Charles Boyer is the true star of this picture.  Jean Arthur plays his love interest, ever trying to escape a dangerous and unhinged husband.  But, Boyer controls his fate throughout, including (after falling in love with her practically at first sight) dropping everything to go to America to chase after her.  Arthur is good but her character has a lot less agency.

The film has some very romantic aspects.  The problem for me is that the whole thing is so over the top.  Boyer chasing after her and then being able to suddenly (with his friend, a chef) take over an American restaurant suggests the movie-level escapism of this whole effort.  And, the husband is so unhinged, in the end, willing to have a ship sink to get his revenge.  

If this quality is okay (not for me last night), check out the film.

==

The director of The Exorcist and The French Connection recently died.  Reminder again that people do die.  I know the passage of an era (such as a musician who died recently) of sorts has sad aspects.  But, "Oh god! can't believe this!" when someone in their 80s dies to me is a bit much.  

I saw the former film in the theater some years back, perhaps a 30-year anniversary or some such thing.  I thought it had too much exposition.  From what I can tell watching parts of the latter, it also to me comes off as a lot of style, but still somewhat overrated.  I enjoyed the director's Killing Joe lark and the silliness of The Guardian (not that one!) more.  

Gay USA mainly addressed Cruising, which they labeled a homophobic effort, and his earlier work filming The Boys in the Band, an early play (if with a negative plot) examining gay issues. 

Various Supreme Court Orders

The Supreme Court handed down some orders in some notable cases. I already referenced the ghost guns case, which granted a Biden Administration request to reinstate a "ghost gun" ban for now. The order noted specifically what they were addressing, but did not explain why they voted 5-4 to do so. We can guess why, including Barrett's first vote with the liberals (and Roberts) to make a majority in such a case. But, she didn't say.

A major "tester" case -- where people or groups "test" to see if someone is discriminating or the like (here on a mass level) -- still is on. The woman involved asked the Supreme Court to declare it moot.  But, the Supreme Court denied her request, noting the matter will be addressed during oral argument.  No discussion on why they ruled this way.

The Supreme Court granted the Biden administration’s application to prevent the Second Circuit’s approval of the Purdue Pharma/Sackler bankruptcy reorganization plan from going into effect.  There is some debate over if the plan would rightly or wrongly remove some liability from the opioid manufacturer's liability.  The Court will now hear the case.

We will see how next week goes. Summer order list later on in the month. No executions are scheduled for the rest of August.

==

Meanwhile, we have another ProPublica story (with prime facts and photographs; the stories about Thomas and Alito have great photos) about Thomas' billionaire friends and how his actions likely violated legal requirements.  A Slate article suggests:

What stands out above the increasingly numbing details of Thomas’ extravagant travel and recreational experiences are the efforts of his access-seekers to build a national cult around the justice. With each story it becomes plainer that his closest, richest friends appear eager to idolize the justice, creating a hagiography in which Thomas is not just a great and brilliant man, but an almost messianic leader for whom no earthly reward can be sufficient. It’s not just the travel and vacations they finance. It’s a set of shrines and temples, films, books, paintings, and myths.

Thomas should resign.  He no longer is serving in "good behavior" as set forth in Art. III.  The House of Representatives isn't going to impeach and the Republicans in the Senate won't convict.  But, Thomas swore to uphold the Constitution too.  The evidence is getting quite blatant:

At this point, Thomas’ covert acceptance of billionaires’ endless largesse—and his refusal to disclose it, which amounts to serial lawbreaking—is well known.

Some appellate lawyer said that he was very upset about all of this but would be "as" concerned if it was Kagan.  I would not.  Yes, there is a bit of "she isn't horrible" but it's not that I would think she was innocent. Thomas has more seniority and power.  More of his former clerks are state and federal judges and were major players in the Trump Administration. He has more power. But, Kagan would be quite guilty either way.

But, she isn't.  And, these stories aren't about all the conservatives either though there is this story about his wife's legal consulting work.  But, it's just that.  It's "one" thing.  Alito and Thomas keep on keeping on.  I think Roberts failed a basic leadership role and should resign too. Thomas and Alito still have gone the extra mile.  It isn't a "conservative" thing.  

==

Somewhat related, two conservatives argue (mixing in originalism) that Trump obviously is disqualified under the 14A, sec. 3 provision. I did not try to wade through the over 100 pages, but I appreciate the effort. 

The link provides a bit of commentary and links to an NYT article.  I have spoken about the blog author in the past; one of the articles of his own he links is much shorter, the other still shorter than this effort.  A person referenced in the news article also weighs in at a conservative/libertarian-leaning blog.  

The bottom line, this won't magically operate, and Trump would likely have the means to challenge any actions in court or answer in some other fashion, including if the matter came to the head in Congress.  Also, the provision is not just about Trump.  If you swore to uphold the Constitution, including as a member of the military, involvement in 1/6/21 can mean that the provision applies.  This means applied to state and federal offices.

I think the provision, like other matters (emoluments come to mind), has not received the attention it deserves.  A majority in both branches of Congress decided Trump should be impeached and convicted for insurrection.  Seven Republican senators agreed.  Others (including Mitch McConnell) did not take him off the hook, merely deciding that for some fashion he should not be convicted (e.g., the false idea it was constitutionally wrong to have a trial once he left office).   

The people ultimately will have to decide here as will Republican officeholders and other party leaders who still refuse to draw a line in the sand about Trump.  Paper barriers have a certain limited value but they still express important values.  And, again, they apply to possibly hundreds of people somehow involved who might now or in the future be blocked from office.  For these people, it would take a lot less to apply its commands.

Eric Segall said he will comment next week on the article at Dorf on Law, suggesting he doesn't like the style of argument.  This isn't surprising given his critique of originalism and a co-author in particular.  I also would not use the specific interpretive means they would use in various respects.  

But, I stick to my take that the provision should be put into use though we can debate the proper means to enforce it.  

More Hunter Biden News

While checking the news, I saw a reference to Attorney General Merrick Garland being scheduled to give a special announcement. It turns out the U.S. attorney overseeing the Hunter Biden investigation was made a "special counsel." Garland appointed two others, one for the President Biden documents investigation and Jack Smith for the Trump investigation.

Early reporting merely reported that he made the appointment, with one article referencing that Garland did it at the person's request.  We had a few comments on social media wary about the move and/or complaining about Garland bending over backward to please Republicans. 

(ETA: I saw Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, a political commentary blog, suggest the appointment is misguided means to appease the Republicans.  As I discussed, this is far from clearly the case, including what the prosecutor himself said.  

Now, maybe deep down it's all about satisfying Republicans. Or, maybe, Garland and company are doing their jobs as members of the Justice Department, and the situation as a whole warrants it.  Maybe, those whose very job it is to comment about the situation should do a more nuanced job of doing it.)  

The guy investigating asked for the change in status.  I'm sick of this Garland bashing.  I also was annoyed that the early reporting didn't clarify what this move did and why he might have done it. This is a basic thing to cover.  It's like saying someone bought a gun but failing to note that they did so because it was an antique.  

When I tried again, I found a bit more clarity.  As noted, in the words of a CNN article: "prosecutor, David Weiss, asked Attorney General Merrick Garland for the new authority after plea talks to resolve tax and gun charges fell apart, with a trial now likely."  

Weiss has clarified, recall he is a Trump-appointed prosecutor, that he did not ask for this title in the past.  Republican criticism factors into the whole equation -- sensitive investigations are a basic reason for special roles -- but that is not the reason from what I can tell.  

There was a plea deal but it broke down over the judge not being satisfied.  Seems a bit of a mess, but too soon to think they won't manage to figure things out.  Still, since the matter is being taken to a new stage, the additional discretion and powers of the role make it now appropriate.  As one article summarized the Garland statement:

“This appointment confirms my commitment to provide Mr. Weiss all the resources he requests. It also reaffirms that Mr. Weiss has the authority he needs to conduct a thorough investigation and to continue to take the steps he deems appropriate independently based only on the facts and the law,” Garland said.

Any commentary, online or not, should help the average person understand the nature of the move and why specifically it might have been done.  For instance, what difference would it make if Weiss was not given this title in such and such situation?  Overall, I think it sensible that the prosecution of the son of the president is carefully handled.  Someone sniped that this is a "private" citizen as it is some Joe Smoe.  

It also is not too surprising that Republicans are making political hay about this.  It is rather rich -- and Democrats should very well use this to their benefit -- given Trump and Trump's family.  The limited value Hunter Biden received for his family (oh the vapors!) is in no way comparable to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, both of whom had actual official roles.  

The whole thing is a sideshow and net works out to Biden's benefit in a variety of ways. First, the investigation is being handled correctly overall.  Second, Biden is showing empathy for his son.  Third, any attempt to make hay just provides a big blatant opening to remind how much the Trump family monetized their access to government.   

There is a stupidity zone here, including "both sides do it" and reporting that does not provide useful context, leaving us to kneejerk based on names and "something big happening" or something.  If we are going to have a lot of commentary, let's just do it right.  When something is done, provide full context, including the nature of the event and why it occurred.  

(For instance, I saw a tweet saying that the status would mean that the prosecutor could avoid testifying to the House Oversight Committee. I did not see this in the coverage yet.  It might be the case. Sort of useful to note.)  

17th Amendment Musings

Mitch McConnell seemed to have some sort of medical moment recently and it brought to mind once more the concerns about people staying around too long.  The clear example lately continues to be Dianne Feinstein. 

Sen. Feinstein is a frail ninety (these days a lively ninety is quite possible and there are multiple celebrities that can be cited).  Her colleague Chuck Grassley is not much younger but seems much less frail.  Feinstein was wrong to run for re-election and has been slipping for years.  She could have ended her service in her mid-80s. Not exactly a bad run.  

She is due to leave in January 2025.  That is too long.  And, no, Republicans won't block her replacement.  What they did was refuse to allow a rule change when she was out sick.  A Republican senator already resigned and was replaced. The replacement got committee assignments and so forth.  For now, we have to grin and bear it.  

We also have talk about Biden being too old.  But, like other politicians his age (Nancy Pelosi is older), Biden appears to be doing a good job.  Given my druthers, I rather someone younger.  We don't live in such a fantasy world.  He is the best choice and is doing a great job as president.

Back to Mitch.  McConnell was out for some time recently after a fall or something, and the news accounts after his "moment" here flagged some evidence he is slipping.  I don't know how bad it is.  He seems okay.  But, the immediate reason for this post is a Kentucky rule in place if he happened to resign.  Recall, Kentucky has a Democratic governor.

The Governor shall fill vacancies in the office of United States Senator by appointment and the appointee shall serve until a successor has been elected and qualified under [subsections below.] The appointee shall be selected from a list of three (3) names submitted by the state executive committee of the same political party as the Senator who held the vacant seat to be filled, shall have been continuously registered as a member of that political party since December 31 of the preceding year, and shall be named within twenty-one (21) days from the date of the list submission.

A piece discusses this provision and questions its constitutionality.  First off, as a policy matter, I am inclined to support it.  The people voted for a certain senator with the assumption that they were voting for a member of a certain party.  It is a relatively rare case that the person is so special that other factors dominate.  A John McCain is a special case, for instance, but even there, people were still voting for a Republican.  

It seems to me that a temporary replacement should reasonably be of the same political party.  The essay notes the 17th Amendment was ratified in part with suspicion of power brokers.  Okay.  But, it also was ratified with the sentiment that the people -- not the state legislature -- should choose.  Yes, the governor is voted in by the people.  The original senator was as well.  They expect certain things for six years when they vote for the person.  A member of a certain party to me is one such thing.

When a member of the House of Representatives no longer can serve (resignation or death), there is no mechanism in place for a temporary appointment.  A special election "shall" be called.  (See, one of those Art. I. provisions often forgotten about.)  The term is two years over the six years of the Senate, so there is a less great effect if there is a vacancy until the next regular election.  

The Seventeenth Amendment requires ("shall") an election to fill in a vacancy while also leaving an additional option:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Is the Kentucky option (that now helps Republicans but in some other cases can help Democrats) a violation of its terms?  I don't think so.  

First, my overall interpretative sentiment is that in political matters, the people should have overall discretion to choose their leaders unless the rules clearly block them.  I felt this way when people tried to argue Ted Cruz is not really a natural born citizen, using technical arguments that to me are not compelled by the text of the Constitution.  I find the guy a total asshole.  But, he was a citizen at birth in my book, a natural born citizen being a rule to run for president.  The same applies here.

The Kentucky legislation empowers (gives authority) the governor to make a temporary appointment.  The essay argues the term gives the governor discretion not to choose (note the lack of "shall").  So, the "shall" in the law is dubious.  Eh.   First, what happens if the governor does not act?  Is there practicable any means to force him?  If inaction meant a default selection, that would be problematic.  But, I don't see that as happening here.

Second, that is a nuanced view of "empower" that to me is not compelled by the usage of the word.  You can empower someone in various respects, including giving them authority that they are under an obligation to use.  We can debate reasonableness but it is far from clear to me and that to me leads me to at the very least oppose judicial nullification of the rule.

Okay, the amendment says the legislature can empower the governor to make a selection.  Does limiting their discretion violate the terms?  I do not think so.  I think the amendment leaves open various means to empower the governor.  The governor here also still has some discretion.  

Again, if the choice is a fait accompli, it would be a problem. The law could not simply say that the party gets to make the choice.  But, the party is not making the choice.  The logic of the complaint suggests the shortlist is not the only issue. Even saying the person has to be of the same party would be problematic.  It would arguably take power away from the people's choice (though a governor need not be) to choose the best person. 

The governor here is making the final choice.  The literal text is being followed.  The legislature is giving authority to the governor to make the final choice.  A choice that is limited but when we give people the power to make choices, that is often the case.  For instance, the president has power to nominate, but sometimes there are limits on who they can nominate. 

I think this is a somewhat interesting question but the text is at the very least not clearly being violated.  The core concern of the Seventeenth Amendment is to give the people the right to elect senators. The replacement limitations here reflect the spirit of honoring their choice.  

The temporary replacement rule is not something just made up when the amendment was ratified.  It was in the original Constitution when a vacancy took place during the recess of the legislature, the body which then selected senators.  The 17th Amendment rule provides the legislature a bit more discretion (the original was not optional), but if anything, that can help the cause here by emphasizing the value of legislature discretion.

I think constitutional procedure rules should be political questions except in clear cases.  Discussing the nuances can be interesting but also people can start to be a bit too sure their far from compelled arguments are compelling.  In this case, I think the rules are both good policy and meet constitutional guidelines.  

Marijuana Users and the Second Amendment

I added a bit earlier that the Supreme Court put on hold a lower court opinion involving ghost guns (the order provides a little detail of what specifically was done without saying why).  SCOTUS will decide a case next term summarized thusly:

Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

Along with the Dobbs decision last term, the 6-3 Supreme Court expanded the reach of the Second Amendment.  Lower courts often used a two-step process that led to many regulations being deemed acceptable. Now, "historical tradition of firearm regulation" is the test.  Bruen also clearly provided open-ended, if unclear, protection for public use.

This has led to some more confusion in the lower courts as well as more regulations going by the wayside.  For instance, one regulation cited on Legal Twitter involved a ban on butterfly knives.  We now have a 5th Circuit ruling (the circuit where that domestic violence case is coming out of, one many think will be deemed going too far) involving marijuana use.

The concurrence notes that the Supreme Court made a reference to "lawful users" but then what does he know?  He tosses in some reference to "self-regulation" (using quotes) though the Second Amendment does not actually say "self."  But, the Supreme Court did talk about lawful users. The use of marijuana under federal law is unlawful.  QED? 

Guess not. The historical practice (see, e.g., a law review by old conservative judge Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain) does not show a comparable regulation.  Oh.  Is there a lot of gun regulations in the 18th and 19th Century involving marijuana?  No.  But, hey, we can use "the next closest comparator," alcohol.  Sure.  Does that work with meth and heroin?

Our regulation of drugs leaves a lot to be desired but trying to find 18th and 19th Century analogs to something that underwent a lot of change per modern-day knowledge and practices is asinine.  I realize that the lower courts have to follow asinine Supreme Court cases.  But, that doesn't erase that it's asinine.  And, that alcohol is not a great analog to drugs.

We get an early note that: "it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage."  But, the person admitted to smoking marijuana “approximately fourteen days out of a month."  Oh, we don't really know how much of that actually involves intoxication, especially at the time of the arrest.   

I think there is some cause to be concerned that "unlawful" action will lead to the removal of Second Amendment rights.  There should be some degree of a good fit, at least granting that includes an individual right to own a firearm (note the person here had "two loaded firearms: a 9mm pistol and a semi-automatic rifle").  But, the person did not merely have a little pot in his cabin.  He was a regular user of the stuff. 

We are supposed to think he has a constitutional right to have a loaded semi-automatic rifle because hey we don't know exactly how much marijuana use he partook in, granting by his own admission it was not trivial?  Because 19th Century practice was to lightly regulate those who used alcohol and owned firearms?  Just asinine stuff.

I again grant the responsibility of inferior courts here but like the concurrence (who is critical of Bruen but goes along with the majority without issue) can voice my concerns here.  The basic practice here is bad constitutional law.  I found something I wrote a few years back:

The Constitution is a living document. It is by basic reality, not some sort of blind faith. Its terms don't have meaning on their own. They have meaning in action. The action continues ever on. This is what its writers said and it is what experience shows. This is not idealism. It is imperfect reality.

My mantra is that we need to apply the Constitution based on what have learned, up to and including today.  History is a guide but it is the full history.  Regulations of drugs in the modern state are something we learned about in the 20th and 21st Centuries.  Again, this can have a certain degree of liberal and libertarian results as applied to drug policy.

But, not in this ham-handed fashion.  I question (see Gonzalez v. Raich) how this Court actually would apply the Second Amendment to drug users.  We will see how they apply it to domestic violence next year and perhaps more "clarification" on the amendment.   

ETA: A reasonable 2A scholar who is no big fan of the current doctrine deals with the opinion and says the result is reasonable.  I'm not one to dispute him on the bare law of the situation.  Either way, the reasoning to me is absurd as is the overall law.  He doesn't agree with all of it.  

He also separately "Hunter Biden’s 922(g)(3) charge would have to be dismissed under this ruling," but others disagree.  IDK.  First, he was prosecuted in another circuit, so it would have to follow the ruling.  Second, he took more dangerous drugs.  

Now, my quick reading of the opinion doesn't lead me to think the relatively safety of marijuana is the turning point.  But, it very well could be if the matter was pressed.  

Ohio Votes "No" To Making Democracy Harder

There is a line that you can't prosecute during an election campaign, but we are basically in a continual campaign these days.

Ohio followed the Progressive Era theme and gave more power to the people, through direct democracy.  This allows a simple majority to amend the state constitution.  But, what about when there is an abortion rights measure on deck and a gerrymandered anti-choice Republican legislature?  

Well, after already recently doing away with mid-summer elections as low turnout misguided affairs, you try to increase the threshold needed.  And, since the people like having the power to amend and continuously have shown an interest in protecting abortion rights, it was strongly rejected. 

We live in a democratic republic.  The people have a lot of power but there is a general move toward representative government.  But, this includes certain basic rights that should not be lost in simple elections. Things like basic liberty and equality.  So, no, this is not really a lesson on why abortion rights should be up to popular vote.   Sorry, Alito.  

A woman's control of their body is a basic requirement for true equality.  This was recognized in early abortion disputes.  And, protecting things that further sexism does have 19th Amendment implications.  Either way, reproductive liberty covers a lot of ground, essential for multiple rights. 

Onward to November in Ohio. 

===

Meanwhile, after extending the time a few more days, the Supreme Court today voted 5-4 (Barrett with the majority) to for now reinstate a "ghost guns" regulation.  We can guess why, including why this time Gorsuch and Thomas aren't concerned with a national injunction, but it would be guesswork.  

Mets vs. Orioles

Buck last night said that "though people would not think so" Megill's was a step forward. The NY Daily News take is a common one: 

Megill lasted only 4 2/3 innings, exiting after giving up five earned runs on nine hits and striking out three.

The headline talked about his "struggles."  A manager often emphasizes the positive, but this is not a total sham job.  A back-end starter, call-up or not, will give up hits against the Baltimore Orioles.  He did not walk anyone.  Peterson did go a scoreless three, which was a glorified "opener" role, showing of late he has shown some improvement.  

Still, not exactly a charming game, though the optimistic will wait and see how Megill does against a team not sure of a juggernaut.  The top three in the line-up had all the offense until a hit in the ninth.  Nimmo, back from a few days out, tried to stretch a single into a double.  Just another "trying too hard" moment.  The no-name pen did okay with two runs.  

[Alonso does not truly seem "back" given his recent play.]

Nimmo and Marte (off all year) were back, but not for long. This was the Sunday line-up:

LF Jeff McNeil

SS Francisco Lindor

1B Pete Alonso

RF DJ Stewart

C Omar Narvaez

3B Mark Vientos

DH Brett Baty

2B Danny Mendick

CF Rafael Ortega

—

LHP Jose Quintana

This didn't go well on Mets Twitter.  There are a few moves that can be justified.  You are going to play your backup catcher sometime (he also got a hit in his first at-bat).  

Marte is obviously struggling.  Nimmo likely is not 100%, so he was rested for a day game after a night game.  Baty needs at-bats too.  Yes, you would like to see Alvarez, but is he hitting too well lately?  He seems to be not throwing out runners lately either.  He's the one person that you might want to see in the line-up but a day off is not stupid either.  

DJ Stewart clean-up is a bit curious though he has some potential.  The team is short on outfielders, so if Marte and Nimmo aren't playing, who else will play?  People want to see certain prospects but they are deemed not ready yet.  I think the struggles of Baty suggest speeding people along there is not a great idea.  And, partially for that reason, with "the beard" out and McNeil playing the outfield, yes you are going to see Mendick.  

So, yes, we are stuck with that line-up.  The fact one of the two reliable starters is available was helpful  You play some of your scrubs when you have a good starter.  Sunday games also normally have more of them.  Overall, the lineup is understandable, even though you want your best lineup out there in the middle of a long losing streak.  

Key players are hurt, struggling, or not ready yet.  The rotation is weak after two trades and you are not going to replace key arms until the off-season.  This is not really "tanking" but if you don't want to watch it, fine. The starter is the main draw.  But, there has been a lot of that this year.  

Scrubs have shown some life lately, including the Nats and Kansas City.  The Tigers beat the Rays last night.  So, the Mets -- as I have noted before -- should be able to show some life, even against the big boys.  Today?  Mr. Q. did very well.  A pair of single-run innings thru six.  It is "what if" if the Mets had their full rotation from the beginning along with Diaz.  

And, even then, at least one of those runs came off questionable defense. But, you are stuck with that at least at third base, which is a growing pains slot for both Baty and Vientos.  One was an inherited run given up by the pen, but even then, you come in with a guy on first and third, that's not a bad result. Toss in Ottavino, that's two runs in eight versus a top team in baseball.  Unfortunately, no runs for the Metsies.

Time for the stud closer. Score one for the Mets future with Vientos getting a double.  Baty couldn't advance him.  Nimmo pitch-hit with one out.  Fly out.  No advance.  Vogelbach.  Fan favorite! (Haha.)  Strikes out. Can we DFA him now?!  Oh well, the pitching was impressive.  And, the Baltimore starter only went 4.2.  So, Q. really won on points.  That counts, right? 

Seriously, the batters did show some life today (after Buck criticized them according to Gary Cohen), but Pete Alonso especially didn't show up at key spots.  If this team was clicking, and maybe if it had a real DH available off the bench, this was very well a winnable game.  Against a stud team.  

So, 0-6 is not a reason to feel good about yourself.  And, multiple players had bad moments.  But, this game did have a "moral victory" feel somewhat.  Anyways, I'm an Orioles fan, so basically happy they won.  

==

I'm not a soccer person but women's soccer has a lot of fans.  Not a lot of scoring in the latest tournament with multiple games where no scoring took place.  Rather boring after a while in my view.  

It ended on kicks, which is rather unsatisfying.  Guess hope Sweden does well.  Got to love a chance to play an Abba song.  

==

I noted that I'm on Bluesky thanks to Chris Geidner. He has a "substack," a media platform that sometimes has some good content from people of his ilk.  Geidner and Steve Vladeck both have good legal content.  

I signed up but don't know how much content I will have.  One useful thing is that it is easy to post an audio file and I actually don't sound too bad when I posted a bit of my voice. The sing-song quality is also sort of purposely affected.   

I'm On BlueSky

Chris Geidner, the legal commentator who I follow on Twitter, tweeted the other day that he had a code to Bluesky.  It's waiting list or an invite code these days. Others said they were interested but he was nice enough to give it to me (we engaged a bit tweet-wise a few times in the past and he knows me that way). 

So, I'm on.

I don't see hashtags and for now there is more limited content on the feed. I followed some of the people I followed on Twitter. Only a handful followed me back so far. A few key people (including Mets and Supreme Court reporters) do not seem to have an account or are too active (Steve Vladeck). It mostly looks like Twitter format-wise.

For those who like Twitter as a platform except for the owner and the trolls, Bluesky seems to be the best option. Some seem to like Threads but it has issues, even if the Facebook connection isn't a deal breaker. The biggest is that you can't use it on your desktop/laptop. Many do use apps on their phone but that is for me not a good way to post content, with all you have to do including typing, copying and pasting, posting saved photos, etc.

I use my phone (which still has a Twitter bird icon, haha, Chief Twit) to check on Twitter and sometimes post. But, it is a tedious way to add content, and sometimes I need stuff not on my phone.  I don't know why Meta decided to use such an app-focused approach.  Anyways, for now, I still am focused on Twitter, including when I post my own material.

I don't think many people are reading the stuff but posting so much when I have five followers seems a bit silly.  I hope Bluesky does well.  And, thanks again to Chris Geidner.  I finally subscribed (there is a free option) to his substack.  I guess I might need to get one of those too.

Mets Need Inspiration From The Royals

The Mets did not have a "fire sale" (see Marlins after World Series) or a "rebuild." They had a partial do-over.

The game last night versus the Orioles, a team their current manager managed for nearly a decade until it started a try rebuild, was clear evidence of this.  It was not pretty and it showed the limitations that Mets are playing under.  This is clearly the case against an elite team like the Orioles, who are beatable from time to time.  Still, the game shows you how they will beat you if not quite 10-3 like they did.  

The line-up was mostly respectable with just one OF fill-in since Canha and Pham leaving made the outfield a bit thin.  Baty (still having growing pains after a brief quick start) and others might not be hitting well, but it sure did not look like a "tank" line-up.  The team doesn't have far to go to put out a good team in 2024 with Vientos even a potential DH.  

(Ah, Vogelbach.  Along with Carrasco someone the team should DFA. Cookie tempted you versus the Royals for six innings, but he repeatedly just doesn't have anything.  Why not use the next few months to take a look at some of the minor league talent?  At the very least, against the Royals with a chance to bring someone up for just one game.)  

A major problem is that the team as a whole just is not hitting. Marte has had problems all season, the latest migraines.  Nimmo was out a few days so might have been a bit rusty but even he as I recall was not doing too well recently.  Alonso is said to "be back," which might be the case, I guess, though it didn't seem like it too much in the last few days on a consistent basis.  The rookies are still not in a groove other than Alvarez.  

I was annoyed at all the talk about how "anything can happen" and how much the team changed.  So, Gary Cohen last night in the middle innings flagged David Robertson not being there.  Not the reason the team gave up two four-run innings tossed by some also-rans they picked up from the trash heap. The problem there, like it was all season except for a short time, was the shortage of starting pitching.  Even better pens can be stretched too far if you constantly have to have them pitch four or more innings.

The lack of Robertson is likely to affect them but they were not swept by the lowly Royals for that reason.  Carrasco actually had a decent game, battling some through six innings and giving up three runs.  The manager knew the weekend will be tough with Peterson not stretched out to start and a call-up (Megill, who very well might not last too long), so he pushed him a bit further.  Before you know it, it was 6-0, on the path to a route that allowed a position player (you have to be down eight) to pitch.

Gary Cohen noted last night that Lindor, cited as a team spokesman, noted that the team had a certain lack of energy in the Royals series.  Gary noted that was understandable.  Gary didn't even show up for that series, avoiding needing to go to Kansas City or deal with the immediate aftermath of the trades.  Anyway, understandable or not, you have to suck it up and not be swept by the second-worst team in the AL.  

I was annoyed that Gary (or Darling) just let that comment go without pushback.  They aren't supposed to be "homers" and well-paid major league players have to snap out of it and be more professional.  Use playing a bad team as inspiration to show some life and have some respect.  Meanwhile, Kansas City is having a winning streak.  As horrible teams do.  Maybe, one of these days -- after briefly showing they had it in them at the start of July (padding the record) -- the Mets can have one too. 

(The Nats are another team showing some life.  The Mets managed to win 3/4 after the Nats' pen blew the first game.  But, the Nats beat the Giants and then beat the Brewers 2/3 and last night the Reds.  Clear spoiler energy.  Do the Mets have it in them?)  

The Orioles beat up the Mets by taking advantage of questionable pitching (Peterson had a scoreless three innings; I hope he does well along with Megill the rest of the way).  But, of course, James McCain -- ex-Met and their light-hitting backup catcher -- had a big game.  He even stole third!  Baty didn't apply the tag well.  The call was originally "out" but it was overturned.  A close play at the plate also was not overturned.  OTOH, they did tack on a run late.  No position player at the end this time.

("No!  Come on guy!  We were down by eight.  I was going to save the pen.  Why did you have to go and score a run?")

The key moves at the deadline was to trade pitching. Leone was a minor trade that also might have some effect since he was one of their more reliable relievers.  I think Scherzer and Verlander can be replaced after the season by the free-agent market.  A flawed Scherzer surely could.  But, that is then.  Now, the team has to deal with two good starters and some more lackluster options, though you might get some good innings in.

(A couple free agent signings and finding an in-house option + two starters in place already handles the rotation.  Ottavino, Raley, and Diaz can be the core of the pen.  Drew Smith and company can provide a few more arms. Again, there isn't too far to go to have a competitive winning team here.)  

This very well might be the road to a record closer to 70 than 80 wins.  But, you need to have more respectable efforts.  The last Kansas City game fell apart late but even early you started to think that a 3-0 game was a lost cause.  The MLB website provides odds of winning and they had Kansas City with good odds with that score.  This is a tad sad with their overall talent level though they should repeatedly that they do have some.

The Mets for a few innings last night battled.  It was 2-2 midway.  Then, the McCann buzzsaw began.  But, the Mets surely didn't help.  A bad play here.  A failure to get a double play or prevent a steal there.  Lack of hitting. Again.  They need to show more life.  And, this is not new. Something seems to be missing all season.  I don't know if the manager is involved but if they were doing well, I'm sure he would get some credit.

There is talk Buck might not be around next season.  I don't know if that is the appropriate path.  IF that is the path taken -- I don't know if the rest of the season is some sort of test -- maybe they should have let him go already.  If they are just keeping him in to play the string out, it is a message to the players to do so as well.

Sigh.  I admit it.  I want the Orioles to sweep the Mets.  I'm rooting for the Orioles and it is going to be neck-and-neck for them the rest of the way most likely in their race with the Rays.  They have a small lead now but it is quite likely at some point they have a bit of a hiccup.  Every win versus scrubs is helpful.  

I think the Mets probably can win one.  Two straight series sweeps would not be nice.  But, so be it.  

===

I guess I should toss in that football season is upon us, the Jets playing a game against the Browns.  Zack, Mr. Back-Up QB, was said to have some life.  I didn't see much of the game and am not really overly impressed by his actions in such a contest.  Do we really think he's the QB of the future?  Who knows?  Who would have predicted the return of Geno Smith?

The Yanks are far from out of it -- in the NL their record would be quite respectable in the wild card race -- but they will have to play better to have a shot.  So, maybe Mets and Yanks fans are both appreciative that they have something else to focus on at least part of the time now.  

FWIW, the Jets lost the game.