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.
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.
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).
I am a fan of Dave Barry and enjoyed his columns. I have not read his fiction. Dave Barry Slept Here, a parody of American history written around 1990, is both amusing and often accurate. The illustrations for his columns were drawn by the cartoonist behind the Shoe comic strip. (He died before Barry stopped writing his column in 2005).
His autobiography, which quotes significantly from his columns, is overall light and enjoyable. It has some serious moments, including involving his parents. Barry does not talk much about his family overall, including once referencing his first two marriages. He notes he will not discuss those two wives to protect their privacy, except to say they were good people and his divorces were not their fault.
His Wikipedia page has a link to a marriage announcement, but it does not say when he was divorced from his first wife. Beth is the mother of his son, often referenced in his columns, and his "TV" wife in the sitcom sorta -- he has two sons there -- based on his life.
Barry talks about his father's fighting alcoholism and his mother's suicide. A 1991 Newsweek profile added that one of his brothers is also an alcoholic, and his sister (not referenced in the acknowledgements; she's older than him and I assume she died) is an institutionalized schizophrenic. Not referenced in the book. It is not some tell-all.
Barry does talk about his childhood, early career, and road to being a humor columnist. He puts forth a general happy-go-lucky exterior but clearly has a serious side. It comes out from time to time. For instance, he wrote a book with a title referencing one of his dogs that has some serious moments.
He notes his opinion that the liberal leaning media, thinking Trump is horrible (which he agrees with), slanted their coverage against him. Barry acknowledges that many intelligent people he respects do not agree. They are right.
At the very least, they did not go soft on Hillary Clinton. How much that led to her losing is unclear, though some will blame it on that, but it was fairly blatant. He should have referenced that if he was going to editorialize.
One other annoying thing was his late comment that, overall, everything would turn out okay. This is somewhat curious after Covid.
Also, regarding stuff he said that everyone keeps on saying might happen but don't, I think fascists have taken over. This book was published after Trump won again, though perhaps he finished it beforehand. Finally, no, it won't always be okay. For some people, it won't be.
I am not saying he is completely wrong. On some level, I think he has a point. It still is (1) harder to say these days (2) needs an asterisk. Things might have gone great for him, for instance, but that isn't true for some people. Coming from him, with his happy-go-lucky life, it is a bit too much.
Overall, however, it was an enjoyable book.
==
Note: One book review, which I won't try to find, noted he still looks quite boyish. His author photo, however, doesn't look very youthful. Also, some photos online particularly make him look his age (77).
He still has a boyish vibe.
Financial Disclosures
The Supreme Court released financial disclosures, part of the ethical rules currently in place. The SCOTUSblog coverage notes (without adding "and he should have been impeached"):
Justice Clarence Thomas, whose failures to disclose (among other things) private jet and superyacht trips in prior years led to investigations by ProPublica and calls for ethics reform by the justices, did not list any non-investment income, any travel reimbursements, or any gifts for 2024.
Barrett Article
Jodi Kantor, who is a good get, has another long-form article on the Supreme Court. The article is geared toward the average reader, providing an easy-to-read narrative and tossing in some interesting details.
It discusses Justice Amy Barrett (yes, I'm not going to do the no-label thing). The headline has the usual "confounding left and right" bit, while the article shows she is still rather conservative, if not knee-jerk. If her nomination was above board, she could have been a decent in-context option for the Kennedy seat. Instead, she was shoved on late.
Two liberal law professors whom I like, Melissa Murray (Strict Scrutiny Podcast and cable news appearances) and Michael Dorf (Dorf on Law), are quoted.
Order List
A short Order List with two grants.
Both are relists, one more so, suggesting an ideological nature. The government's brief argues (the briefing is linked to the SCOTUSblog page) that for multiple reasons, there is no compelling need to take this case as one of the few cases SCOTUS takes for full review.
The case involves a crisis pregnancy center, which would make it appealing for multiple conservative justices. Also, a judge below dissented, which provides a flag to invite review. A Trump appointee, even if he at times votes in a libertarian way.
There is also a GVR, also involving abortion, sending a longstanding dispute back to the lower courts (grant, vacate, and remand). New York supported the move. So, not surprising, but shows the implications of the referenced opinion.
(If you follow the link, it goes to the docket page, and there is a supplemental brief on the point.)
So, yes, even in a short, otherwise bland Order List, there is something notable. Tends to be.
Exaggerated Agreement
Two legal Substacks challenged the suggestion that the recent slew of agreements should be taken to mean the justices are not ideologically divided.
We still have some controversial cases left. There is a tendency to backload such cases to the very end of the term. The emergency/shadow docket is repeatedly ideologically divided, including all the Trump cases.
The docket is also carefully selected, with the justices having near total opportunity (except for some election cases) to choose what they want. They can pick cases with certain fact patterns and legal issues. Sometimes, they goof, leading to multiple DIGs this term ("improvidently granted").
The justices also carefully decide the cases, which helps explain why it takes so long to write certain opinions. Divisive issues are sometimes avoided.
The divisions are sometimes not totally papered over, as shown by concurring opinions. The justices in a few cases are firmly divided in reasoning. Other times, one or more justices flag issues that the opinion avoids, including possible routes for the future or attempts to limit its reach.
Joan Biskupic flags a concurrence in one of these cases by Thomas with Gorsuch that tosses in a dig at DEI referencing a brief by a group started by Stephen Miller. Gorsuch, team libertarian. Yes, separate opinions have a personal flavor.
The selection of a few key cases, this term was less hot-button than some others, is a prudential approach. The Supreme Court used to take many more cases. The current Court has more power to control its docket. It is also much more active in the shadow docket, including (much to Jackson's annoyance) granting relief in pending cases.
This is inside baseball stuff. It still has some rather important consequences. More opinions on Wednesday. Hot-button cases coming up.
The Democrats did not control the New York Senate for years, partially because of a coalition of independents that Governor Cuomo helped as a means to retain power. The legislature was divided, leading to a "three men in a room" (governor and one from each legislative body) dynamic.
My former state senator, the granddaughter of a disgraced member of Congress, helped to end their control and regain Democratic control of the Senate. Biaggi was young and enthusiastic. She is a strong feminist voice.
An article on IDC challengers notably cites two (including Jessica Ramos, making her support of Cuomo that much more disgusting) who are running for mayor. And, won't win. I think it's fairly safe to say that. Still, Zellnor Myrie is fine.
President Trump should start with a nationwide address condemning violence and taking steps to bring people together as a national leader. As someone who has been the victim of political violence himself, he should understand the stakes and the need for empathy, reassurance, and guarantees of free expression and democratic engagement.
Order Watch
Alito recently put an "administrative stay" on a bankruptcy case. That is, he held it up temporarily to examine it. He removed it this week.
There were Hail Mary death penalty-related orders in the usual "no dice, no comment" -- which I dealt separately in the execution entry.
Order List on Monday.
Uptick in Executions?
I have not seen a reference to a limited uptick of executions. Nineteen have occurred so far in 2025, with six scheduled this month.
There were twenty-five in 2024. The six this month would give us that with half a year to go. We would still be relatively speaking talking a relatively small number. Still, that seems notable.
Summary
Three of the executions scheduled this week were for murders that occurred before 1995. The fourth was "recent," with things happening in 2006.
Newsweek summarizes. I will not provide as in-depth a discussion as I sometimes have with all the people involved. I am getting weary of it.
Three of the executions clearly (if we use twenty years as a dividing line) raise lingering death problems. See here (Breyer's dissent) and here.
Why is it taking so long? To address one execution (the co-defendant died on death row in 2023), cited by Newsweek:
Appeals have been filed over the years concerning attorney misconduct, criticism of DNA evidence found at the scene, and a letter from Hamilton claiming he was the one who shot Gayheart, but all were denied, according to The Florida Times-Union.
You also have this sort of thing, which is a last-minute thing the judges won't (with reason) take seriously.
The South Carolina murderer claims mental illness mitigated his crimes. The prosecutor said he was "just plain evil." Sounds a bit biblical. Another also argues that someone else is more to blame.
The Supreme Court dealt with final claims against the first two executions, as usual, without comment. As usual, I think someone should comment, even if briefly. Here is a summary of the first two executions.
If you want, you can click above to read the details, but let me just acknowledge, we have a bunch of horrible murders here. Sexual assault was involved in more than one. Someone murdered after escaping prison, where he was serving for a non-capital crime.
The states: Florida (lethal injection), Alabama (nitrogen gas), Oklahoma (lethal injection), and South Carolina (chose lethal injection after reports of problems with the firing squad). Not that the state had a smooth time of it with either one.
South Carolina, after another without comment rejection by the Supreme Court, was the fourth and last state to execute. The final challenge concerned the dangers of the state's execution methods and the secrecy that burdened obtaining information.
These are valid concerns, but the Supreme Court has not shown much concern about them. The lack of novelty helps explain the final rejection though does not erase the problems of judicial silence.
Oklahoma
The Oklahoma execution was thanks to Trump. The Biden Administration did not consent to a transfer as he served a life term for bank robbery and other crimes. Trump is more pro-execution, which he is using to promote his other policy goals.
In addition to pursuing the death penalty where possible, the Attorney General shall, where consistent with applicable law, pursue Federal jurisdiction and seek the death penalty regardless of other factors for every federal capital crime involving (i) the murder of a law-enforcement officer; or (ii) a capital crime committed by an alien illegally present in this country.
I agree with this analysis that argues against this policy, particularly as "dangerous speech" against a specific group. There are various valid criteria when determining prosecutorial discretion. This is not one.
The Oklahoma execution was held up in state court because one of the three votes against clemency came from someone who worked for the Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office when Hanson was being prosecuted. He argued he wasn't really involved.
The paper-thin 3-2 vote against commutation is even more questionably the deciding factor when there is some reason to doubt the impartiality of the deciding vote. Death should not turn on such things.
The court of appeals found that (1) the judge didn't have the power to hold up things, (2) it's moot since without that vote, it would have been 2-2, which wasn't enough anyway.
SCOTUS also rejected a Hail Mary appeal without a comment. He was then executed.
Final Thoughts
Executions after thirty or more years also particularly bother me. The executions this week show that horrible crimes warrant long prison sentences. The death penalty is too problematic even here.
See here for some discussion of how so-called tough-on-crime punishments often do not serve the interests of justice. I think the overall principles also apply to the death penalty. All four states went another way.
There are two more executions scheduled this month.
The third Hallmark Channel is the place to go for older films (not that old; I'm talking pre-2010), including "Hallmark Hall of Fame" performances. Hallmark Hall of Fame films were the ones you could find on CBS before we had all these Hallmark films, and were higher standard fare.
Wedding Daze is somewhat standard Hallmark fare concerning a dad (John Larroquette, yes, Dan Fielding) dealing with the wedding of his three daughters. Another familiar face, Karen Valentine, plays his wife. French Stewart is the uptight but efficient wedding planner.
It was a pleasant time-waster with good performances without any tiresome "special complications." The film also had a few good lessons that were not applied in a heavy-handed fashion.
I'm not sure about the likelihood of success of a firm that names things, but perhaps that might work. What do I know? Plus, their house seemed suitably middle class, not as over the top as many of those films.
But maybe they lived in a state that did not recognize that?* Seriously, they went another way.
A rabbi accidentally showed up for another event. He performed the wedding. That's open-ended for everyone, including the perhaps somewhat traditional Italian family of one of the future husbands. Maybe I'm being a bit stereotypical, but overall, some might not like this.
(The rabbi insisted they include the glass-breaking ceremony. For those interested, check out the tradition here.)
The issue wasn't really addressed, but apparently, the family overall was not deeply religious. Many people think certain religious officiants are necessary to properly legitimize the wedding. Others are not as particular. A religious officiant generally sanctifies. Why not use a rabbi?
I recently read a discussion of the usage of Old Testament readings in Christian services. Often, so said the discussion, the passage is not given much attention. At best, the Old Testament is a prelude to the main event, so to speak.
Others find this problematic. If we take Christianity seriously, we should take the whole Bible seriously. Jewish sources would provide a helpful bit of context. Amy-Jill Levine, who also talks about the New Testament through Jewish eyes, would be a useful example.
A helpful approach would welcome helping hands to fully understand things. For instance, a discussion about the anti-abortion movement could include input from members.
We might disagree with their position. Nonetheless, people like Mary Ziegler, who talk about them, helpfully cite their views directly. The same idea can be used to discuss religion, politics, history (a Mexican view of the Mexican War), and other subjects.
A religious ceremony can have guest lectors from other religions when appropriate. A CCD class can have guest speakers to provide helpful context. And, why not use clergy from other faiths when possible for ceremonies?
(At the very least, some dual religious couples have clergy from multiple faiths involved in their ceremonies.)
One more reference -- the rabbi presiding reminds me of official chaplains. Yes, there often are multiple chaplains for different faiths. Nonetheless, we can also have one overall top chaplain who can serve the needs of various faiths.
Anyhow, I think a rabbi standing in for the wedding ceremony was a nice touch. Hey, it worked in Robin Hood: Men in Tights, right?
==
* The law in New York is somewhat convoluted, with a lower court covering 3/5 of New York City (but not Bronx or Manhattan, so Joey was safe), some time back, questioning if an Internet minister qualified.
A more recent state law allows a run-of-the-mill non-religious officiant to apply to have a one-off right to preside. I personally registered years back as a Universal Life Church minister in New York City.
This blog used to have a semi-regular "Rev. Joe" feature that reflected my ministry. I never had an opportunity to use my "authority."
ETA: Multiple media sources had analyses discussing why Cuomo is now getting support as a "strong" candidate. #MeToo is seen as old news. I discuss how this is a horrible approach here.
Democrats can include up to five choices on their ballots this month. Republicans, too, but that's not my immediate concern here. There are more than five mayoral candidates.
Andrew Cuomo, bad for various reasons, someone who had to resign as governor for that reason, is the frontrunner. If he does not receive 50% (lead rank), a form of instant run-off voting occurs. So, rank wisely: rank those likely to have a chance to win, and don't rank Cuomo.
I am okay with any of the candidates running in the Democratic Primary, especially those with any chance, except for Cuomo. I have no excitement level for Brad Lander, for instance, but figure he would make a decent mayor.
Scott Stringer is a bland progressive choice who faltered last time, partially because of how he handled two old sexual harassment accusations. And because he is boring as dishwater. He is again not getting much traction.
I would like a woman mayor. Adrienne Adams, speaker of the City Council, seems like the best bet. She knows the city government while not too liberal to avoid people supporting her at least as a back-up choice.
I think Adams or Lander would be the best chances. Two guys with a first name starting with "Z" are also good -- one as the leftie choice, the other as the sane progressive choice. The leftie choice's main flaws are a lack of experience and less ability to form a coalition. The other has limited support.
My real decision (other than order) was a fifth choice. Adrienne Adams, the two Zs, Lander, and who else? I figured Jessica Ramos. She's a state legislator, a progressive, and, sure, a woman. And, a strong Cuomo critic, in part calling him a "bully."
Mike Blake sounds good when I looked him up. Neither honestly has any real chance.
Ramos is now a "no." She did the right thing, which someone like Stringer should do -- she admits she has no chance. The candidates should realize the problem is defeating Cuomo.
A few should drop out (yes, their names will be on the ballot) and narrow the field. A person who does not provide much of a difference from other candidates, that much more so.
The candidates need to be serious. The policy of supporting multiple endorsements makes sense given the ranking system. My city council district has led to a clear frontrunner and multiple endorsements of a second candidate (Diaz). This joint endorsement policy is much more important in the mayoral race.
Ramos, however, decided to endorse Cuomo. She said he had to resign as governor. She flagged sexual abuse allegations against him. She knows he is unfit.
But now decides to endorse him, allegedly in part since he would be the strongest against Trump. Which is rather doubtful, especially for someone who helped independents control the state senate to protect his own power. He is as likely to compromise.
Progressives, rightly so, are fleeing her like the plague. Cuomo didn't even endorse her. He said she endorsed me, but I don't endorse her. Any ridicule and scorn she is receiving is well deserved. She is a traitor, hypocrite, and coward.
We need minimum standards in these times. If Cuomo won the nomination, Ramos still should not support Cuomo if there is a strong alternative. There very well might be a Working Family candidate in that scenario.
If you have to swallow the bile to avoid a Republican mayor, okay. I can understand that. But the primary is not over yet. There is no good reason for her to support Cuomo now.
People like her should be shunned. These types of decisions helped us get to the current situation, no matter what political stripe they reflect. Republicans cowardly support Trump. Now, Ramos cowardly supports a Trump-like figure.
The saving grace is that she is such a trivial voice now that her endorsement is fairly meaningless.
The Supreme Court had around thirty opinions remaining this week (they were about halfway through with a month left, an unnecessary backloading).
They handled six with limited dissent. As usual, should have livestreamed the (relatively boring this time) opinion announcements.
Liberal Strategy?
The three liberals somewhat ironically had "conservativish" opinion results in cases involving discrimination, gun litigation, and religious exemptions. The results were not really surprising. The unanimity might have been somewhat.
Multiple liberals argued that the liberals were able to limit the damage. Also, the unanimity is far from "obvious," given that some courts had alternative viewpoints. It is also a matter of docket selection.
Liz Sepper, an expert in establishment law, strongly disagreed that Sotomayor's opinion helped much. Sepper is very worried about its possible reach. She did think Jackson tried to cabin it.
There is a continuing dispute about the value of liberals compromising. Just what are they getting in return? How that applies here is unclear.
Overall, Roberts used his assignment power quite well here. We will see long-term if it has changed much.
Mexican Gun Dispute
Michael Dorf was sympathetic about the lawsuit by Mexico involving illegal guns that arose from the United States. He is not a fan of the congressional statute that limits gun lawsuits.
Nonetheless, as Kagan (and Jackson in a separate opinion) explain, with the law in place, their legal argument was a stretch. Jackson uses her concurrence to reaffirm her "we should follow legislative text and function" message. Thomas briefly concurs, too.
Discrimination Lawsuits
Jackson, via a short opinion, dealt with a lower court that put a questionable limit on discrimination lawsuits. The court of appeals questioned a claim by a heterosexual woman that she was being targeted for her sexual orientation.
The appellate court was not alone in applying its rule. A unanimous Supreme Court ruling doesn't mean it is correct. Still, bottom line, the opinion can be interpreted to have a general anti-discriminatory message.
Thomas with Gorsuch aimed for a bigger game. He also challenged "atextual legal rules and frameworks," which is a tad hypocritical coming from him. Both regularly apply text with certain quite debatable background assumptions.
Some people flagged the opinion cited Bostock ("sex" includes sex orientation regarding a federal statute). The conservatives didn't say anything in reply! I think they might have read too much into two mundane-looking citations.
Religious Exemptions
Sotomayor handled a dispute involving an exemption to unemployment taxes for a Catholic charity. She explained the classification was a violation of both aspects of religious liberty (for the liberals, the Establishment Clause is still a thing).
Some worried about the possible reach of the principle. As noted above, some are quite upset at the opinion. Jackson's concurrence argued that a related congressional exemption was narrow in scope.
[Typo Watch: There is already a correction. Also, there have been online sources cited in opinions this term. The page, however, is blank.]
Other Issues
Alito dealt with a personal jurisdiction dispute. Thomas handled a case about amending a complaint (involving a lawsuit against Hamas). Jackson partially dissented on that one. Jackson continued to make her opinions known in various separate opinions.
And, as Kimberly Robinson (Bloomberg) noted on her Bluesky account, SCOTUS "rejected Labcorp’s bid to limit who can join a class action that accused it of discriminating against blind people with its self-service check-in kiosks." Kavanaugh dissented from the DIG (dismissed as improvidently granted). SCOTUS coverage foreshadowed that result.
There will be more opinions next Thursday.
Orders
Peter Mosoko Ikome requested a stay. For some reason, there are no links to the briefing. It was ultimately held to be moot. The case somehow involves a longstanding immigration case.
Steve Vladeck references some mistaken emails SCOTUS sent about the Order List on Friday. On Thursday, on the website calendar, it referenced the usual Monday scheduling at 9:30 A.M.
It has now decided to post the Order List today. Amy Howe says it was a software glitch. Shrugs.
(Vladeck's Monday round-up explains that the Public Information Office supplied a statement about the glitch. They, again, didn't put it on their website. This just annoys me.)
They granted a few cases. Barrett recused without saying why. Alito (with Thomas) dropped a statement saying they think a habeas case was wrongly decided, but since it has no real effect, they are okay with not granting cert.
These Friday afternoon shenanigans are why these things should not be posted too early.
Trump Enabling Watch
In two separate emergency rulings, the conservatives lifted a block on Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) personnel accessing sensitive Social Security systems and wiped a ruling forcing DOGE to turn over discovery in a records lawsuit.
The two unsigned orders provide thin and thinner reasoning. The liberals would deny the applications. Jackson (with Sotomayor) explained why in one of the cases. More Friday afternoon follies.
And, guess what? Kilmar Abrego GarcÃa is coming back. They think they have found something to prove he is really a big, dangerous criminal.
Try and try again, I guess.
ETA: I find the low bar expressed here, by the person who put forth a strong 14A, sec. 3 argument that was actively ignored, appalling. How many constitutional wrongs have to take place to warrant concern in your Ivy Tower? All the others still not back need not. We can have a symbolic CYA or two, and it will be okay.
[I added a general discussion of the moment and what we need to do long term at the Substack.]
I talk about some New York Democratic politics matters in a Substack entry. The response to an incident at a Democratic congressional office suggests the limits of Jeffries' leadership (he never did appeal to me). Another challenger for Gov. Hochul in next year's race. And more on Cuomo.
As they say, keep an eye on your own house. MAGA-friendly leadership in Poland seems bad. But we have stuff to worry about in the United States. Let's localize that. N.Y.
The same applies regarding Israel. The situation there continues to be horrible. For the Palestinians. The wrongs of 10/7 do not erase the tens of thousands of civilians who are suffering and dying. The results will be more hatred and violence against Israel. Which will result in more suffering.
Multiple violent attacks, the latest resulting in twelve (so far) people hurt, in the United States, again show this is not just an "out there" problem. The result again will be counterproductive if you are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. The Trump Administration will continue to cynically and hypocritically use it to go after immigrants and dissent.
American Jews have a reason to be scared, partially since their Administration "protectors" leave a whole lot to be desired. The leadership (or whatever it is) in the relevant places, including the Attorney General, Department of Homeland Security, State, and FBI, also doesn't lead one to be secure.
Meanwhile, we enter the sixth month of 2025.
SCOTUS granted a few more cases in some interesting if not particularly hot button areas.
Alito, Kavanaugh, and Jackson didn't take part in two cases. Only Jackson (in a case Kavanaugh staid mute on) explained (previous judicial service).
Jackson (with Sotomayor) wrote a dissent to a cert denial involving when a racial discrimination claim was still ripe.
We will have one or more opinions on Thursday.
Meanwhile, Emil Bove is so bad that Ed "Zillow" Whelan is concerned. Also, originalism taken seriously regarding 14A, sec. 3.
Thomas (with a written dissent), Alito, and Gorsuch would have taken a case where a Second Amendment claim involving AR-15s was denied (as it was in another circuit). Kavanaugh was sympathetic but wanted the issue to "percolate" more, noting multiple other pending cases.
The cynic might determine they didn't have a fifth vote and that is why Kavanaugh is waiting. Some might be "infuriated" at somebody (that guy is usually only being annoyed at Roberts and Barrett).
Kavanaugh cites the Heller "common use" rule and how many people now have the weapon. I question if the fact some weapon is own by a lot of people (at least in raw numbers) alone should be the test.
Some argue that is living constitutionalism. Somewhat unfair if a 18th Century rule is applied. Such a rule will apply current conditions. The Internet wasn't around either. Whatever "free speech" meant, you have to decide if the Internet matches its characteristics. Today, not in 1985.
The courts below argue that applying traditional rules (history and tradition) to a modern gun allows the laws involved. The test is flexible. Roberts has not shown much concern about the laws being around.
It probably turns on Barrett. Kavanaugh suggests she will get a shot either next term (the cases being taken now are for next term) or the one after. We will see.
