Ted Lasso

Ted Lasso began as a character in a witty advertisement campaign for airing British football in the United States. Ted Lasso and Beard (looking a bit different) are both in the segments. It became a beloved Apple TV series. 

People love the empathy. Ted Lasso is signed as a sort of Major League (which gets named dropped -- dropping cultural references is a big Ted thing) revenge by an ex-wife to ruin her ex-husband's team. 

This American coach seems to know nothing about the game (honestly, he couldn't get the job -- you need a license that shows your skills). That was a major part of the joke of the ad campaign.  

Appearances can be deceiving. He's a great coach as a coach. And his right-hand man knows something about the game. Plus, the kitman (equipment guy), Nate, turns out to be a bit of a "wunderkind" and helps, too. 

Ted Lasso, as a person, is what is essential here. He becomes beloved, including by the owner (as her goddaughter says, she is a "boss bitch," and that is a term of endearment), played by a tall cup of water who is best known for her stage work. And his goofy charm also (at first) hides a lot of pain. 

Her ex, the one main character who is allowed simply to be bad (and not 100%), is Giles from Buffy. Well, the actor. There is a great cast, multiple people who also did well in other, rather different roles. Keeley plays a serious role on the Fargo (another show which gets a lot of kudos) television show, now with a Minnesota accent. 

Various characters go through plot arcs. Nice guy Nate has a heel turn when he thinks he is not being given enough credit. It's an excellent cast, and each has a chance to shine. Multiple characters are also musically inclined, like the actors who play them. 

But the show's niceness keeps it from wanting (nearly anyone) to be truly mean or hurt. They all get smoothed out, though no one gets a totally happy ending. 

The show begins around thirty minutes, with some longer episodes. A couple of extra episodes were added to the second season that basically stood outside the normal plotline. A therapist, who is a good character, comes in Season Two. Season Three episodes were longer, over an hour. 

The characters, writing, and humor continue into the third season. I don't think the longer episodes, especially later on, were a good thing. It probably eventually drew things out too much. A short episode in multiple cases would have been tighter. 

Also, the show became bland, since everything just worked out. A player comes out to the team, and nothing happens except that one player was mad because he didn't trust him. He gets his dream of kissing his boyfriend after a major win, and there is no reaction shot from anyone. 

There were multiple examples of this. It felt good because it was nice, and the characters we wanted to do well got nice things. 

People did get hurt -- Keeley's girlfriend turns on her. But then she gets a soft landing when Rebecca gives her the money to run the business. She can afford it, especially after she sells nearly half the team and gets a LOT of money. 

The season would have been better with ten shorter episodes. Or ten shorter episodes mixed with two special toss-ins. (I thought the S2 Beard episode was a bit too weird and drawn out. But it's okay to have a sort of WTAF episode.) 

It is somewhat comparable to Gilmore Girls when the show didn't want Rory or Lorelei to move on. Rory becomes, well, she becomes a bitch, but she cannot truly be punished. She's Rory! And Lorelei continues to pine for her teenage boyfriend. 

The show got tiresome, though the last season was okay. It didn't want to have the courage to break the characters a bit. Lorelei/Rory's boyfriends were also dubious. At least, it didn't become 75 minutes long.

Ted Lasso wasn't that bad. It retained many of its good qualities even in the last season. It was still ill-advised to expand the episodes. 

I'm glad Nate got a girlfriend and all. But it was a bit weird just to have him return to the team to his old job. Wasn't there a way to have him remain a coach on his new team, but one who was a better person? 

Overall, I enjoyed the first three seasons. The DVDs have no extras. That's weird. Could they not even obtain the rights to the Ted Lasso advertisements? Provide a behind-the-scenes segment? Have one or more people do at least one commentary track? 

A fourth season, after a lag, has been announced. Wikipedia references that Ted Lasso will coach a women's team. It looks like the key cast (maybe not the teammates overall?) are coming back, including Roy FUCK! Kent. 

Will I actually get the app to watch it, or wait until it comes out in DVD? Time will tell. 

SCOTUS: Orders

Steven Vladeck references one other SCOTUS rule change (other than the monetary recusal matter that received signficiant attention): 

The second, which got no media coverage, clarifies that, even when a party electronically files a cert. petition through the Court’s e-filing system on or before the day that it is due, it must still complete physical service of the petition within three days. (The sequencing of electronic filing and physical service had been unclear under the previous iteration of the rule; my own risk-averse approach had been to ensure that they happened on the same day.)

Today's Order List mostly deposed many petitions while only granting one for review. They accepted the second question.

Issue: (1) Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate; and (2) Whether this court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear this case.

Mark Joseph Stern on Bluesky:

The Supreme Court takes up a MAJOR climate case that asks whether federal law preempts (that is, forbids) state-level claims against fossil fuel companies for damages related to climate change.

(See also this discussion from a conservative p.o.v.) 

Kagan, noting why, recused from the determination of two cases. Jackson followed her new rule of not going alone with blocking free petitions deemed from those abusing the privilege if the person is currently incarcerated.

There are two opinion days scheduled, so we might get a bit more news than that. There are also oral arguments, including one about the Takings Clause, but they aren't too notable. 

The author was a prosecutor there. Interesting book. 

The Stars Between Us

 

I enjoyed this film. The lead (woman) was in Guiding Emily (where she went blind), which was also very good. 

Rubio's European Address

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz shake hands at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month. 

Rubio's speech received some attention. The link (The Guardian) acknowledges he was reasonable as compared to Vice President James David Vance's speech last year. OTOH, they have different purposes.

Rubio provides the patina of reasonableness. Vance is full-fledged MAGA. This is a matter of degree.

Rubio’s speech was more subtle and coherent, but he in essence sang from the same hymn sheet: the message from Washington remains that Europe and the US should be defined by ethno-political values of culture, tradition and religion. 

The fact that such history has also bred nationalism, racism, fascism and colonialism is apparently nothing to be ashamed of.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation focuses on the so-called common religion tradition angle. 

“We are part of one civilization — Western civilization,” he claimed. “We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir.”

Christian Nationalism was more blatantly expressed during the National Prayer Breakfast. 

Trump’s religious adviser Paula White-Cain introduced the U.S. president as “the greatest champion of faith that we have ever had in the executive branch,” claiming he has “brought religion back to this nation and beyond.”

Trump then mixed politics and religion, including denouncing Democrats as un-Christian. 

The baggage involved in these events has led many Democrats who otherwise support the concept to be wary about the whole thing. FFRF and others have covered this over the years.

Lawfare, which leans center-right, also has a summary. For instance, there are such passages as "rules-based global order—an overused term."  

See also:

Under President Trump, the United States of America will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration, driven by a vision of a future as proud, as sovereign, and as vital as our civilization’s past. And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe. 

The "renewal and restoration" talk is basic "Make America Great Again" rhetoric. 

Rubio is sending the message that America is supporting authoritarians (darn rules!) like in Hungary that promote that message. And the U.S. (and other nations willing to go along shouldn't feel bound to those rules in doing so either. 

Also, Trump's overall immigration policy is furthered by this passage:

“in a pursuit of a world without borders, we opened our doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people.” 

The Lawfare summary ends with a brief translation of the speech, including the non-Vance tone:

But all of that is rude to say. And it makes us look bad. And it makes you all worry. So let’s collectively indulge the polite fiction that we have more in common than we do. Let’s overstate a shared history. Let’s pretend we agree on shared challenges. And let’s pretend I’m not saying that the basis for our future cooperation is that you submit to our will. The first step in this regard is that I flatter you. The second step is that you applaud for me. And then I will fly home.

Many Democratic senators have had buyer's remorse for going along with the unanimous confirmation of this guy. Rubio was supposedly a reasonable guy, unlike the Secretary of Defense or Health and Human Services. 

Maybe on some sort of curve. Still, how surprising is it that Rubio is going along with Trump's policies without much serious pushback? Nothing in his past suggests the guy has some sort of spine. He would be a loyal soldier. Plus, even in a vacuum, Rubio had issues.

Now, he is the Secretary of State in the Trump Administration. Yes, we can have worse. 

OTOH, with people like Trump's former real estate lawyer and the Boy Wonder (Kushner, who always looks damn creepy in photographs) travelling the world and doing foreign policy, it is unclear how much better things are now.  

And his Munich speech suggests what is what as well.

===

Meanwhile: Mets lost their ST opener 2-1. Some nobody gave up an unearned run for the loss. 

SCOTUS v. Trump: Tariffs

Congress should have handled this. 

But, since they are led by chickenshits, a 6-3 Supreme Court opinion blocked Trump's patently illegal (and financially stupid) usage of tariffs.

People wondered why they were taking so long. The 170 pages of opinions help explain why. 

Roberts handled the majority and did so in twenty pages. Kavanaugh (for Thomas and Alito) wrote a dissent three times as long. 

Gorsuch wrote a "combative" (to cite one comment), quotable concurrence twice as long.

Gorsuch, essentially thinks virtually everyone else is wrong, hypocritical, or both. He, virtually alone, is pure.

Right you are, Law Dork. Gorsuch is a prick and remains one even if he sometimes is on the right side.  He took over for Scalia and has improved his writing. 

Still a prick. People are loving some of his concurrence. Kagan and Barrett show that some of it is hot air. Dude goes too far. Keep that in mind. 

Both Barrett and Kagan, in different ways, basically told him to stop mansplaining. Kagan, for the liberals, didn't use the "so-called major questions doctrine." 

Kavanaugh and Thomas (adding some other originalist invention that many originalists aren't aware of) found a way to avoid it. Some are surprised at Kavanaugh's vote, but other than Alito and Thomas, he has been the most Trump-friendly. He did go the extra mile here. Give that man a beer. 

Jackson, arguing that it is what many legislators use more than bare citation of text, appealed to legislative history. She will be fighting the young Trump appointees for years to come. You go, girl! 

When Congress tells us why it has included certain language in a statute, the limited role of the courts in our democratic system of government—as interpreters, not lawmakers—demands that we give effect to the will of the people.

Barrett's opinion (a few pages, since she's not a blowhard) specifically answered Gorsuch, tossing (as required) a couple of citations of her former boss (Scalia). She noted:

Textualists—like all those who use language to communicate—do not interpret words in a vacuum. Instead, we use context, including background legal conventions, common sense, and constitutional structure, to ascertain a text's most natural meaning. (cleaned up)

Which is fine. Just to be clear, those terms are rather flexible. Again, that is fine, since any interpretative method will be, especially in hard cases. 

It is just that when Scalia or Gorsuch claims their method is special while the other side is lawless or something, they are full of themselves. 

I wrote something about originalism and Richard Hasen's book (not new) about Scalia here. More here ("Joe from the Bronx"). 

He has a chapter about "word games," arguing that textualism sometimes is just that. Like Jackson, Hasen also cites others who have found that Congress expects its laws to be handled differently. 

The majority opinion argues that there is no "foreign policy exception" to the major questions doctrine, especially when it involves taxation, a basic congressional power. Reminds me of the Steel Seizure Cases and the Supreme Court's citation of domestic powers. 

Roberts left open the possibility that Trump has the power to apply tariffs using some other legislative authority. Such authority has various limitations. It won't let him do his unhinged, power-hungry routine against various nations. Well, as badly. 

The law is crystal clear; conservatives are wary about tariffs, and it is a way for the Supreme Court to show they are not a potted plant. 

TPM is correct that the Supreme Court took too long. This has been going on for around a year. The tariffs are lawless. They caused lots of problems. 

Let's not exaggerate. The Supreme Court should have restrained Trump much more. And, the result is messy, since it does not handle the relief for taking money illegally. More litigation will follow. 

But you take the wins when they come. Trump reportedly was cursing when he found out about the opinion. He later said at a press conference:

Trump praises Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas for dissenting on the tariffs ruling before, calling the other justices "a frankly disgrace to our nation" who are "very unpatriotic and disloyal to our constitution" and are "just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats."

Justin Baragona on BlueSky also flagged that he still welcomes three of the justices to his speech to Congress, while others are "barely" invited. Barrett and Gorsuch are embarrassments to their families. 

Yeah. I'm still with the House Minority Leader.

"Fuck Donald Trump and his vile, racist, and malignant behavior

“This guy is an unhinged bottom feeder,” Jeffries added. “Every Republican sycophant who continues to stand by their cult leader should be run out of office.”

Let's end where we began. Congress could and should have handled this. They still can. 

A Democratic Congress would have had a better shot.

ETA: The law here should not cloud the policy. 

The very reason this lawsuit could be brought is that it brings financial harm to the challengers.

My reference to Congress touches upon this. Democrats are already highlighting the economic harm and demanding refunds for ill-gotten funds. 

Trump promoted tariffs as a fundamental aspect of his economic policy in the 2024 elections, to much scorn from reasonable people. Reason, however, did not win out. Many still realize the policy was stupid and (contra to his lies) mostly paid by Americans. 

Other Stuff

They also changed the rules to help flag financial conflicts. The public information office posted an explanation (sometimes just notify the press). 

It would be even better if Roberts and Alito (well, he might be gone soon) sold their stocks. Also, be nice if all of them, not just Kagan and Jackson, explained why they recuse from cases. 

There was also a housekeeping order. More orders on Monday. Two opinion days next week. They are back hearing oral arguments. So busy, busy. 

They will also have (in March) an event in honor of Sandra Day O’Connor. 

55 Steps

 

An excellent character study involving a significant ruling involving the right to refuse drugs while civilly detained. More details here. 

SCOTUS Watch: Past and Future

Scalia/Court Expansion 

The tenth anniversary of Justice Scalia's death recently passed. Volokh Conspiracy had multiple positive accounts. A Fix the Court email update I received was more negative. 

My position is also largely negative. See here. I linked a VC post, and "Joe" says more over there. 

Scalia's death led to a de facto "packing" of the Court when Republicans refused to even have a hearing for Merrick Garland. They then rushed (one month) the confirmation of Barrett. 

Raw political hardball mixed with hypocrisy.

A minority argues that the overall history here warrants court expansion. Only a small number of Democrats in Congress openly support this. Some observers are loudly supportive. 

The FDR court "packing" scheme is cited by both sides. Did it help change the law, or is it generally a sign the whole thing is a bad idea? 

FDR'S Gambit by Laura Kalman provides a detailed account while near the end drops an opinion that it was helpful for FDR's ends.

I found the book a tedious slog, without ignoring it is also an impressive work of scholarship. There is a lot of unnecessary detail without overall seeming to add much. I finally gave up reading the book straight through around 100 pages in. 

There are, as is usually the case, some interesting and informative details. Overall, however, I don't think I learned much new about the bottom line. 

The book ends up somewhat agnostic if dubious about a court expansion proposal today. The book was published in the middle of the Biden Administration. 

Ultimately, an expansion proposal should at least be pushed as a negotiation tactic. I have discussed this in the past and won't repeat myself here.

We now have evidence that Alito will retire soon, maybe in a few months. A 6-3 Court with four (and I think Thomas will resign before the end of Trump's term) younger conservatives nominated by Trump is just appalling.

Something major has to be done if the Democrats get a trifecta. A strong expansion faction might make it more likely that we will have serious reforms passed. 

SCOTUS News

SCOTUS dropped a schedule for the final oral arguments.

It also "may" (nearly always means they will) announce opinions on the 20th (when they officially come back from their break), 24th (they start hearing orals again the day before), and 25th (my sister's birthday). SCOTUSblog will have live blogging. 

For whatever reason, Oyez.com still doesn't have the opinion announcements from last term. There is a new AI-aided approach to provide video. Fix the Court has more, and its comments are basically on point. 

John Oliver's dog justice videos were good, too. 

Holiday

Okay. So, next Friday is when the justices officially come back with a conference (surely) and opinion announcements (probably). 

Tomorrow is a holiday. A historian is wary about the "monarchial" practice of celebrating presidential birthdays. Her piece is generally on point. 

The name of the holiday varies, including the use of punctuation. On the federal level, it is George Washington's Birthday, which was originally February 22 (using today's dating), so it is somewhat early to celebrate it on the 16th. 

SCOTUS Watch: More Executions

Ronald Heath

The Supreme Court, without comment, rejected a final appeal on the day Heath was scheduled to die. 

The result is probably justified given the law in place. Still, before a final sign-off for deprivation of life, an explanation is warranted. 

And a liberal using yet another criticism of the lethal injection procedure (cited in the final appeal) to flag its problems would have worked. Having been a Sotomayor statement about that in a while. 

He was executed later in the day. 

Florida continues to execute people for decades (1989) old crimes. I continue to find that problematic, constitutionally or otherwise (see Glossip v. Gross, Breyer's dissent). 

Heath's brother pleaded guilty and received life imprisonment. They murdered a travelling salesman in a robbery. Some legal claims:

The Florida Supreme Court denied appeals filed by Ronald Heath last week. His attorneys had argued that Florida corrections officials had mismanaged their own death penalty protocols, that the state's secretive clemency process blocked due process, that Heath's incarceration as a juvenile stunted his brain development, and that jurors did not recommend the death penalty unanimously.

[The unanimous jury issue has been a repeat loser, though on some basic level it does seem wrong.] 

One anti-death penalty discussion notes that Heath's brother was the triggerman. Prosecutors said Ronald Heath also murdered someone else. Plus, at sixteen, he murdered someone with two others. 

Heath was released early for that previous crime, which is understandable since he was a teenager. He deserved a long prison sentence. It is doubtful he would continue a life of violent crime in his mid-60s. 

An execution over 35 years after the crime, at any rate, is a dubious matter. Such dangerous people being incarcerated, at least during their violent years (not sure about the mid-60s), is justified. The lottery capital punishment system is not.

Kendrick Simpson 

Simpson murdered two people twenty years ago. 

The details are aggravating. The judge claimed he showed "no remorse." 

Simpson’s lawyers told the board that Simpson was sexually abused as a child and his mother was addicted to crack cocaine. That trauma continued into his adulthood after someone shot him five times in New Orleans in 2004, leading to 16 surgeries. 

The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board voted 3-2 against recommending clemency. So, even here, there was only a borderline rejection of not executing him.

His final appeal to SCOTUS flagged alleged due process problems with the state not properly hearing certain claims. Same deal: denied, no comment. 

Oklahoma executed him. 

ETA: Also, in death penalty news.

Biden commuted the sentences of 37 of 40 people on federal death row. Three infamous mass murderers are still on death row. 

Trump then ordered twenty-one to be sent to a supermax prison. A Trump-nominated judge ruled that this was done without proper due process. 

Various others might be prosecuted for state capital crimes. This would be quite expensive and likely lead to years (if not decades) of appeals. 

Another person (not of this bunch) was sent to a state that executed him last year. The Trump 1.0 Justice Department waited until mid-2020 to early 2021 to execute people. So, it might be a while now, too.