Weekend

I will take the next few days off from blogging unless something special arises.

SCOTUS Term Ends

Update: Surprisingly,  the stay was lifted on Friday and same sex marriages (including of the lead plaintiffs) started, though an emergency request was later made to Justice Kennedy to stop them.  [Rejected.] Justice Alito also held that the Indian adoption case should go into effect next week.

A few more words about the same sex marriage cases. I again do not find criticism to Kennedy's majority opinion too convincing, especially the idea that it is so very hard to determine what it says. As to the novelty of same sex marriage, there are preludes, and same sex couples lived as married couples already in this nation clearly at least for decades. State sanctioning these unions would be the cherry on the existing pie. And, yes, it is a lot clearer now than in 1996 that it is unconstitutional though DOMA would be problematic even if a state could criminalize sodomy. If it does not, why shouldn't the federal government recognize the marriage?

The division in the two cases regarding standing is also not as confusing as one thinks, since really only three justices split (Breyer and Kagan plus Thomas), Alito particularly for standing in both. It is sort of surprising to me given the orals that Kennedy and Sotomayor wanted to take Prop 8.  But, there are reasons, including pragmatic (and B/K are the ones who joined the Medicaid portion of Sebelius, after all) for the split. Thomas' federalism views particularly would appreciate Kennedy's dissent.  Again, I think the Dellinger approach reasonable, if problematic. 

Moving on, the USSC did a few things today of some note. It granted a couple cases and sent a notable abortion law back to the state court to clarify the reach of state law as to two drugs used for abortions. There were a few opinions regarding various orders, including Justice Thomas wishing to take a case to re-examine an old case that held a federal law can be applied to "deny military personnel the ability to recover for injuries."  Right at the top ... hey, it's Wendy Davis!  A ruling from Texas (which she argued was now moot) was sent back per Shelby. Note the current Twitter hero (among other things!) enabled to block a supermajority in Texas pursuant to a lawsuit under VRA that tossed out a redistricting plan that would have made her winning the seat that much harder. 

As discussed here, today's orders also avoided further involvement in the SSM debate, including rejecting other DOMA rulings (not just sending them back, which leaves some lack of clarity as to scrutiny and federalism questions). A same sex benefits win in Nevada also was rejected, so the breadth of state requirements in this area is still developing.  This is as expected -- the law takes time to develop and the road here involves multiple questions, not just the final question of SSM. As it should be.

And, thus the term ends, though not to worry -- there might be emergency actions and at least three summer order lists. 

Same Sex Marriage Rulings (and Extortion)

Two women then resident in New York were married in a lawful ceremony in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer returned to their home in New York City. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so, however, by a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which excludes a same-sex partner from the definition of “spouse” as that term is used in federal statutes.

The USSC term is not quite over -- there remains some orders. Today had three opinions. The penultimate one was a unanimous ruling (6-3 on reasoning; Scalia for majority, Alito with Kennedy and Sotomayor concurring) rejecting an application of a federal extortion statute. Very exciting to about three people.

First came DOMA -- 5-4 on equal protection grounds with a dash of federalism by Kennedy ("the gay justice") with three dissents that both rejected jurisdiction and supported the law on its merits. Last came Prop 8, struck down on lack of standing with the interesting (if explainable*) dissent allotment of Kennedy (author), Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor. The result if not the vote count was hinted by CJ Roberts' dissent that suggested they disposed of Prop 8. The dissent being upset the majority even ruled upon DOMA is a bit surprising and a tad hypocritical, especially the day after Shelby. 

Scalia being upset at such an "assertion of judicial supremacy" is almost comical.  Alito has a more limited take on that subject, but dissents alone there; Thomas joined Alito's merits discussion, though my reference below as to him stands. Alito notably (alone among the dissenters) would have granted standing, though had a more limited view of things. When the President refuses to defend a federal legislation (even where, like here, the legislation is still enforced), Congress has standing (even one branch) to do so.  I find this a bit curious (part of the whole?) and the majority opinion did not find it necessary to decide the matter.  T

Some have noted the "dog's breakfast" shall we say nature of Kennedy's opinion. Well, we should be used it by now. I think the overall nature of the opinion is fairly clear though if one looks closely, some confusion might arise, especially if you are not sympathetic about his approach. The opinion basically honors state discretion over marriage though noting obviously the federal government does have the power to regulate in the field. Perhaps for that reason, it does not rest on federalism, but equal protection. The jurisdiction discussion, both overall and prudentially, also was sound. A request for benefits was denied and whatever the Administration's sympathies, it wasn't being granted. It basically adds, just don't' make a habit of this sort of thing.  

Still, various points of the opinion has that caliber -- it is particularly notable that DOMA in an unusual way (sort of the Sebelius/Shelby principle again) restrains states in an area they traditionally (yes, tradition was ironically cited in this context) have mostly free reign. This is a sort of red flag along with evidence of a bare desire to harm ala Romer/Moreno etc. No intermediate scrutiny for sexual orientation generally per the request of the Obama Administration. The expected "rational basis plus" language with a new "unusual" wrinkle. Still, when explaining how the federal government is hindering states, it uses language that logically can be applied against other states too:

DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. It prevents same-sex married couples from obtaining government healthcare benefits they would otherwise receive.

The opinion says this in the context of states that chose to sanction same sex marriage. The ability of states and the people therein to do this was noted. It is a strand of the opinion. See also, Jonathan Rauch's Gay Marriage, which fully supports the legitimacy and morality of SSM, while pushing for a state by state recognition approach. But, as with Lawrence v. Texas not addressing marriage specifically, even more so, drawing the line there will not be possible at some point.

A likely next step, especially as we run out of states that can pass SSM by simple legislation, are attacks on state DOMAs using such language. Are they not too on some level "unusual" burdens per usual state practices in respect to marriage? Andrew Koppelman, e.g., in his book noted that even interracial marriages in the Jim Crow South were not as broadly blocked from recognition as at least some state DOMAs require at least if applied literally. And, do they not violate the 14A for the reasons cited? The national DOMA, however, is particularly problematic, and it is a principled and sound argument to focus on it specifically.

One curious thing here is marriages in D.C., which has same sex marriage. The ruling struck down Sec. 3 of DOMA (Sec. 2 allows non-recognition and is largely redundant though has a few troubling applications and is bad symbolically**) without any indication that D.C. marriages or marriage recognition by the military etc. would be treated differently. It was not an "as applied" matter, even though the logic of the focus on the states would seem to make it such. This is a problematic aspect of the ruling just as ignoring the dissent below in Heller, the dissent that noted D.C. is different for 2A purposes because it is not a "state." Federal regulation of D.C. firearm regulations are different in various respects as national laws affecting the states. Same here though it still would be a problem for equal protection reasons. Would a DOMA federal law only applied to D.C. or the military be treated differently by the USSC?

One more thing. Justice Thomas silently went along with the dissents in each case. He concurred separately in the Indian Adoption case to note that constitutional doubt as to state control over domestic relations required the specific interpretation of a statute with various possible meanings. Federalism was raised as a reason for some otherwise sympathetic with his overall jurisprudence. This is where the rubber meets the road. He remained silent. To be fair, cf. Gonzales v. Raich.

I provided a few thoughts on the Prop 8 case in the footnotes. Gov. Brown set things moving to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples once the injunction in place was lifted. Will there be any more complications in that department?!  For instance, will an appropriate party arise that will challenge a same sex marriage at some point?  Notable there that Prop 8 has limited legal effect given protection of domestic partnerships, but perhaps one can be found.  The ultimate end of this story, especially given the drawn out twists and turns that have occurred already, is a clear reversal of Prop 8 by the people of the state.

And, how will the DOMA ruling influence same sex partner benefits in the immigration arena?  To be continued all around.

 ---

* Let me say that I'm sympathetic to the dissent, especially in light of the possible negative results of the majority opinion overall. Honesty dictates that prudence as to the merits is a factor here (likely a motivation for at least some of the justices in the majority, even if they disagreed on the merits), though sure sure, we are supposed to be concerned with legal principles. Still, the development of the law, including on same sex marriage, is a factor here, prudence a legal principle as much as any other. Also, Walter Dellinger's brief explaining why standing should be denied was to me honestly quite convincing. The majority very well might not be on the same ground as his reasoning in all particulars, but really, I did find it convincing. I have a liberal view of standing and jurisdiction overall. The majority does reflect current more conservative rules all the same.

The breakdown of the dissent -- one more time for Scalia/Thomas to break apart -- can be explained in various ways, along with the overall idea that they disagreed with the majority on the merits of the standing question. The dissent does not address the merits of the constitutionality of Prop 8. The four justices probably don't agree on them. The dissent honors state discretion in ways Thomas would find appealing, he also more open to "judicial activism" generally than Scalia. Alito's dissent in DOMA showed no love for the district ruling, so even without going into the merits, he might have be loathe to in effect allow it to be the final word on the question.  Also, he actually supported jurisdiction in DOMA.

** For instance, if non-recognition is allowed even for judgments, it could lead to various complications. Also, there is a minority viewpoint that even though Congress has the power to determine the "effects" under the FFCC, they must do so in a "general" way that could be violated here. The reasoning might be somewhat along the lines of the majority opinion.

CJ Roberts in his dissenting opinion by the way suggested the title of the legislation was not really worth of note as if the "defense of marriage" act that singles out certain types of marriages to the detriment of same sex couples is a trivial thing. Alito's strong dissent underlines that you can't have it both ways here -- an important thing was done here from the title on down. And, that is why for me the whole did is unconstitutional, it is as a whole a violation of equal protection and the right to marry.

Knew There Was Reason I Liked The Mets ...

Bravo to the demise of #DOMA and to @WendyDavisTexas.  I'm inspired today for the system working like it should.

[Twitter: KBurkhardtSNY]

He is the Mets field reporter on SNY and great he supports same sex marriage [more later] and abortion rights. Not totally gung ho about a filibuster even for a good thing, but kudos.

Any Day Now (Spoiler)

This film was a long time coming, based on a story in development for years, involving (in some fashion; a bit of searching didn't find the "true facts") real events in some fashion of a same sex couple (drag queen/lawyer) taking care of a Down Syndrome child while his mother was in prison.  This being the 1970s, they run into roadblocks. It is somewhat contrived, but the talent and humanity overall does win out. Things don't all work out. Update: Some notable "I know him/her" cameos, including the interviewer from social services.

Decision Day 2: Voting, Indian Children and Property

Rick Hasen of Election Blog (who is looking a bit wrong on the IRS "scandal" as more details come out) warned Congress that current doctrine would make the equation used to apply the preclearance provision to certain areas but not others suspect. 

[ETA: As I heard suggested by one commentator, a thoughtful approach would leave open an equitable solution that struck down the provision but left the old rule in place for a limited time so that a solution can be found.  I think this is an equitable power the Court has ala "all deliberate speed" in the school segregation cases. This seems fairer.]

For partially political reasons, the map in question was not brought up to date. On some level, this is troubling, but this does not mean the 5-4 ruling striking it down was the right move. Congress has the power and responsibility by "appropriate legislation" to enforce the 14A and 15A. The word "appropriate" has some limits, but what they are are hazy, and it really should be seen as overall a basic political question. At least, a co-equal branch should not be struck down 5-4, even without the supermajority that was behind this law. Political concerns, the problems with starting from scratch as compared to working off what you have and the legitimacy of continuing to work with the areas with past problems all counsel against that.  [See, e.g., here.]

The ideology of the opinion's author was well known, though his "facts" at time might be off. This open one up to cynicism, but it's expected -- new nominees change things and Ginsburg (who again provides a good dissent to Roberts' majority opinion on a major piece of congressional legislation*) et. al. had a past too. Anyway, Chris Hayes (Twitter) et. al. already have been saying that it is unlikely that this Congress will agree on a new up to date map, particularly since instead of sticking with what they had, it could such and such a representative admitting in 2013 that his or her area warrants extra attention because of discriminatory behavior. Who wants that? We shall see what happens.

For me, an ideal world would involve an up to date map. But, we don't live there. We live in realistic world. In fact, even if this was a few years ago, this decision might not been as problematic. It is harder to imagine this passing though who is to know that even then what would happen if new coverage areas would have to be worked out. The best of all worlds would be to cover the whole country. The 15A didn't and doesn't just cover the South. The North had discriminatory laws and still have some practices with discriminatory effects. If an id law will be a problem, it might be a problem in Indiana as much as South Carolina. Section 2 is still there, so suits can be done after the fact.

As noted in a footnote, the ruling "immobilized" a major part of the Voting Rights Act. But, the VRA is not dead. As AG Holder noted today:

Finally, we need to be clear about what happened today.  Part of the Voting Rights Act, but not all of it, was struck down.  The  constitutionally protected voting rights of all Americans remain fully intact.  And the right to vote, free from discrimination based on race or language, requires our vigilant protection.  We know from many decades of long, hard struggle that the best way to defend a right is to go out and exercise it.  So no one should conclude that today’s unfortunate decision has rendered her or his voting rights invalid, or has made attempting to cast a ballot on Election Day futile.

There were other rulings. Scalia split from Thomas (who did another one man originalist lesson) in an Indian Adoption case, Scalia dissenting (main dissent Sotomayor; Scalia disagreed with a small point, while adding a comment on parental rights) while Breyer concurred to split the liberal bloc again. Alito again had two opinions -- this one along with an important Takings ruling that was something of a surprise 5-4 loss for the government. Kagan had it out again with Alito;** well, actually, she agrees with the majority on a key point.  The property owner in effect has nine justices on his side at least in part, but wins 5-4 at the end of the day. That's probably notable, especially if you know more about this area of law than I. The potential for local land use to be affected seems serious. Still, especially with Kagan in part focusing on facts, how much is unclear.

[Update: The property case has raised various "federalism" responses.  Perhaps, land policy is not quite the same thing as race or religion or crime control in some fashion?  Different views there, clearly. More on the adoption case, including a reference to the fraction Native American that sometimes popped up.  Tribal membership is not merely some fraction of blood.  Also, I would add that F16 of the dissent also brought to mind something I did -- what about the Treaty Clause?  Thomas' separate opinions are sort of comparable to William Douglas: interesting in a fashion, especially if you take them with a grain of salt.]

There is one more case few care about and the marriage cases. They are in effect the season finale and it rubs me kind of the wrong way that the Supreme Court is doing things that in effect make them the finale. Scalia et. al. are annoyed that some single out certain things or stereotype, not looking at the big picture.  But, they are putting a lot of emphasis on two cases that underlines that some things are more important than others. In a big way. Now, this is certainly true on some level. The VRA case or the PPACA cases or these are rather important. And, the time it takes to write, plus them being heard fairly late in the term makes the placement here appropriate enough. Just saying.  Let's hope, as has occurred recently, there aren't any cliffhangers.

The grants are a type of "in upcoming episodes" deal.

---

* One difficulty with the PPACA ruling was (as Federalist Society hero Judge Sutton noted earlier) the presence of a myriad of appropriate applications of people clearly "active" in commerce, thus a facial attack should have failed. Ginsburg notes here that the specific litigant at least is a somewhat lousy choice given the area's voting rights history.  An early footnote provides but one of many good money quotes: "The Court purports to declare unconstitutional only the coverage formula set out in §4(b). [cite]  But without that formula, §5 is immobilized."

There is a certain breed of judicial activism here, including not accepting Congress' fact-finding and judgment that it was not working from scratch, but from a continuing history and remedial framework, which has to be seen as a whole to fully understand the legitimacy of its approach. Upholding the law would be on that level a fully conservative thing to do.  

** Sotomayor opened her Indian Adoption dissent (also against an Alito majority) this way:

A casual reader of the Court’s opinion could be forgiven for thinking this an easy case, one in which the text of the applicable statute clearly points the way to the only sensible result.

It was a messy case from the sad facts on down. Thomas concurred to note how constitutional avoidance influenced his reading of text that could go either way. Breyer concurred to temper the breadth of his join too. But, guess that is what the USSC is there for.

Supreme Court Watch

The prelude was handing down orders, including a per curiam "bad boy" to the 9th Circuit.  You know, rather normal.  More importantly, they (as most expected) granted the Canning recess appointment case.  Wonder how the situation will be politically by the time it is argued/decided. An abortion protest case was also granted -- devil will likely be in the details.

Onward to the main event. The general sentiment was that conservative justices were going to be writing most of the remaining opinions, Alito deemed likely to be the author of a major employee rights case. So it was.* Per SCOTUSBlog (tweet): "Major 5-4 victories for employers and losses for employees in discrimination rulings today."  Expect to find some cynical blog posts like this one on how business tends to win.  Not always, but more so these days.  Conservatives picked more justices after all.

Breyer did write an opinion, again writing for five (while two concurred) as to the reach of a federal law (this one related to the military) covering sex offenders after they leave prison.  This time, Alito also concurred, but Roberts (not Kennedy) was the second concurrence.  Breyer's last ruling here (U.S. v. Comstock) was seen by some as a broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause that might imply a win in the PPACA cases.  Roberts concurred to warn against an reading too much into the opinion no federal police power, no “great substantive and independent power” of that sought enumerated or implied. See also, his opinion in PPACA. Scalia/Thomas dissented, Scalia concurring in part to note Thomas went too far for even him.

SCOTUSBlog also summarizes: "Drug companies prevail in suit over inadequate drug warnings. Claims are preempted by federal law. 5-4."  Usual suspects. The big ticket case decided today is the Fisher affirmative action case.  They punted.  You can tell by the 7-1 vote.  The solo dissent was a brief one by Justice Ginsburg that has some good lines about how race is going to be addressed somehow, so let's not be overly coy about it.  Also, the program is okay, no need to send it back because the lower court allegedly didn't apply strict scrutiny.  If the matter had to be put to a head, her opinion would probably be the right one. 

But, especially since (as Scalia noted in his concurrence; Thomas reached out and said he would overrule) the petitioner didn't ask Grutter to be overruled, this is a way to handle things. Taking this long to say pretty little (some want to read more into it; maybe) is curious, leading to some likelihood that the Court was more divided on the question originally. Kennedy's ruling makes some degree of sense -- the lower court very well might have been too lenient about scrutinizing though doubt it was totally unreasonable to applying Grutter.  But, a dissenter is now the swing vote.

So, the employee cases are losses, but the left yet again (see Arizona voting rights case) got more than one might expect.  We still have VRA, the marriage cases, a tricky Native American adoption case and a Takings case. And, maybe something else of interest, including orders.

---

*This essay supports the dissent, but makes a telling point: the majority rejected the stance of the EEOC.  If a matter of policy and reasonably open to dispute, deference should be given to the administrative agency. 

Hansel And Gretel: Witch Hunters

Fairy tales have resulted in some mixed results in recent years (Tangled was pretty good) and this looked promising. And, though it wasn't so great that it held my interest to watch the whole thing, low attention span these days, this version is pretty fun.  It has a sense of humor about itself and the leads ("Gretel" has been good in a few things already) are fun.

Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America

[A preview though it is far from a gimme that the same sex marriage rulings will be handed down today.]

Two are better than one,
    because they have a good return for their labor:
 If either of them falls down,
    one can help the other up.
But pity anyone who falls
    and has no one to help them up.
 Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm.
    But how can one keep warm alone?
Though one may be overpowered,
    two can defend themselves.

-- Ecclesiastes 4:9-12

I read this book (written in 2004, after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, but apparently before it was applied) as a type of preview to the upcoming same sex marriage cases (to me still the most accurate label & William N. Eskridge used it in his 1996 book).  It was well written and covered a lot of familiar ground.  A few times, e.g., it cited a book on marriage by E.J. Graff though she in the end comes off as more activist.  The homosexual author is also a common thread in all three of these books.

The book has two basic notable aspects -- much of its case relies on marriage being a good thing and explaining how same sex marriage will if anything strengthen the institution.  For instance, if you don't have same sex marriage, cohabitation and various "marriage lite" official alternatives will be used, in part because society is growing in its acceptance of gays and lesbians, and supports some rights.  But, this watered down marriage is not the same thing and will seem attractive to many different sex couples, if anything, probably more number-wise in the long run.  Likewise, marriage will bring positives to same sex relationships, though the discussion here is mainly regarding gay men.  Overall, the argument is an equal protection one (though marriage is also seen as a basic liberty of freedom), not an open-ended argument for sexual liberty.  Marriage is explained to be a social institution -- society expects something from the couple as much as vice versa. -- particularly as a matter of caring for each other.  See, e.g., the vows, which don't focus on sex.

The second notable thing comes in the final chapter (before a type of postscript) -- somewhat suddenly, federalism is promoted.  Marriage equality is argued to be basic fairness and good policy, but this is not a constitutional argument as such -- he says at one point that he is not making a constitutional claim for the right to gay marriage.  This is a bit curious in that equal protection is a constitutional principle, one he notes goes back to the Declaration of Independence.  Rauch, however, is from the "Roe v. Wade was a tragedy" school and has Burkean leanings.  Especially in 2004, it was a bit soon to rest on constitutional grounds here.

Anyway, we are left with news that it might take decades for same sex marriage to pass nation-wide.  Really now.  Loving v. Virginia is barely mentioned.  Why is equality a national demand in one place but not the other?  The problem with a couple being married in one state but not recognized as such in another is barely covered -- this is a basic part of one's life.  You cannot turn it on and off.  The glaring bit, given the upcoming ruling, is Section Three of DOMA is not even mentioned.  It has to be.  It inhibits state discretion by not being evenhanded as to federal benefits.  The take it slow approach is reasonable, I even suggested usage of civil unions in MA back in 2003 (sorry Jonathan), but he doesn't do enough heavy lifting.

Putting aside a somewhat weak final chapter, the book as a whole is very good, a sort of warning to conservatives.  His take on the Prop 8 orals can be found here.

Summer Is Here

Not a big fan personally. Like more temperate weather or even cold. Summer is for kids or those who like the beach or something. Sweat is overrated. Anyway, enjoy the first day, and I'm taking the weekend off here unless something compelling arises.

Red, White, and Muslim: My Story of Belief

And Also:  I read this book along with The Riddle of the Labyrinth, a linguistic mystery (one of the leading players was herself a fan of detective novels) about the meaning of Linear B.  That is, an ancient script used in Crete and elsewhere over three thousand years ago.  Did not quite catch all of the linguistic niceties, but it is geared to the general reader and focuses on three personalities while providing enough specifics to explain things. Brisk enjoyable read, helped by a large font! 

For Hasan, being a Muslim is not merely a matter of birth, but it is a matter of choice. In seven chapters, she presents seven reasons why she is committed to Islam and why it is a viable spiritual option for anyone. 1. Because I was born Muslim. 2. Because Islam gives me a direct relationship with God. 3. Because Islam has a rich mystical tradition in Sufism. 4. Because Islam allows and expects me to make mistakes. 5. Because Islam is ethnically diverse. 6. Because Islam is a woman's religion. 7. Because being Muslim makes me a better American (and being American makes me a better Muslim).

This is how Amazon describes her first book on "Why I Am A Muslim: An American Odyssey," and this volume is apparently a type of reworking of the same basic material. It is a very positive, upbeat volume that is appropriate for the general reader but would likely appeal to teenagers as well.  The author is well educated and is a lawyer, but is not particularly an expert in the field.  The book was vetted though and writers in the field like Reza Aslan (his book on Islam is on my list) provide praise. 

The teenager bit is probably a mild dig -- it is a bit too gung ho, a bit too positive, a bit too lacking in nuance. Truly good things are imperfect.  Islam here seems to be promoted as perfect if carried out by the imperfect. The author promotes a liberal brand of Islam, one where the individual chooses his or her way, but this is helped by that fact that apparently all is hunky-dory -- Allah provided for all here and even if something looks a bit off (some rules of women), it isn't really if we look more closely. Also, as noted earlier, things like what the Koran said are taken a bit too much at face value. Like the Bible and other religious works, you have to take it with a grain of salt.  It is after all the product of man, 7th Century at that.

Still, as an apologia (using the term in its traditional sense), it works fairly well.  It sets forth her personal beliefs and love for the religion in down to earth style and helps explain how we should not have a stereotypical view of what a typical Muslim believes or what the religion stands for.  It also is a strong brief for a liberal interpretation, there perhaps helped by her acceptance of the Koran and basic Muslim doctrine on face value.  On that level, it was a good read.  Still, would not have minded a bit more salt.

The author was born in the U.S., but her parents are from South Asia, Pakistan, her sister also a naturalized citizen.  She blogged the 2008 election; apparently, Obama was reading.  You can read her take on Sufism here to get a taste of that chapter of the book. Overall, again, would recommend the book, even if it seemed a tad Pollyanna to me.  Wonder if there are a collection of books like this -- liberal friendly accounts of religious belief. 

SCOTUS Drags Things Out Some More

This is a bit silly. Only three rulings today: an arbitration case (see Kagan's "in a nutshell" dissent), a criminal/statutory matter (8-1, Kagan wrote the majority) and a 6-2 (Roberts majority, nice Barnette reference, Scalia/Thomas dissent) that is a 1A win regarding limits on aid funding. Not to diminish their importance, but why such back-ending?

Stephen Colbert Eulogizes His Mother (Very Touching)

Not noted: His mom went to the March on Washington while pregnant with him.

Promised Land

This movie received a positive review from my local paper when it first came out and hoped it would provide an interesting view of a salesman of sorts who had a change of heart on fracking. Turned out to be heavy-handed with the idea of an environmentalist craftily coming in to muckrake apparently downright shocking to someone previously portrayed as blithely realizing the right price to pay off local pols. Apparently got worse, but shut it off.

Valerie Plame On NSA Scandal

Mike Sacks (previous known for his law student birds eye view of SCOTUS) had an interesting conversation with her for Huffington Post. She provides a careful middle of the road sort of view and her concern for giving so much authority/money to contractors (raised by Hal Sparks on Stephanie Miller's show too) was important.  Spy book due this Fall.

Juneteenth

Today we celebrate #Juneteenth, commemorating the end of slavery & fulfilling the promise of freedom & liberty for all. - Sen. Gillibrand (tweet).

Collin McHugh also tweeted that the Rockies traded for him as a birthday present. McHugh sounds like a good guy but didn't do well in the majors. Let's see if Young is an upgrade from Cowgill (DFA). Decent sign the Mets can get something for their cast-offs.

Future Preview

Two young pitchers -- Matt Harvey and Zack Wheeler -- started and helped the Mets sweep (though it was nail-biting late again, though only for a short time in the nightcap) the doubleheader today. Nice bounce-back; long 24 hours during which three games were played.

"House GOP Passes Abortion Ban In Deeply Symbolic Move"

The House passed the post-twenty week ban bill basically by party lines.  Curious [see here] about those six Republicans; at least four of the Dems seem to be from conservative areas. To add to my earlier post, even the rape/incest exception eventually added is too weak. BTW, even if the pain issue is open, requiring anesthesia would be a more appropriate rule.

"Joan Parker, 80; philanthropist was muse to late husband"

Two years earlier, Mrs. Parker told the Globe that Silverman could be improved: “I’ve actually grown to like her. But she still ain’t bitchy enough.”

I watched the show and liked for a time the Spenser mystery novels. Sounds like a great lady.

[sigh]

The Mets have five games in four days and six rainouts so far so they were going to play the game even with a three hour rain delay. The game sped along, the Mets pitcher getting the sole RBI in the 7th, Gee throwing under 90 pitches thru eight. Lost it in the 9th, 2-1, failing to get thru the guy who got three of the five Braves hits. Sigh.