Joe's Eclectic Thoughts
Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to almostsanejoe@aol.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
About Me

- Joe
- This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.
Thursday, July 10, 2025
Continue to Say No to Cuomo
Tuesday, July 08, 2025
SCOTUS Watch: More Summer Trump Enabling
The Supreme Court had a case involving Trump's plans to reduce the federal workforce for over a month.
It decided to release a thinly argued "go right ahead for now" order only now. As Justice Jackson notes:
[D]espite this fact-bound determination and the extensive fact-finding that supports it, the Court now cavalierly concludes (in just one line) that “the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful.”
We can only assume what happened other than Justice Jackson taking the time to write a solo dissent.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court blocked a lower court order that temporarily stopped President Donald Trump from laying off tens of thousands of federal workers and effectively dismantling congressionally created agencies by presidential fiat. Six weeks ago, Judge Susan Illston, a judge in California appointed by President Bill Clinton, explained at length that Trump was asking her to either declare that dozens of past presidents and congresses “did not properly understand the separation of powers,” or to “ignore” what the executive branch was plainly doing. “The court can do neither,” Illston said.
This is another case of an extensive district court ruling lifted with little or no comment. This time, even Sotomayor went along. She briefly concurred.
Sotomayor agrees with Jackson that Trump cannot reorganize without congressional approval. She argues that the plans themselves are not involved here.
The unsigned order acknowledges this. Nonetheless, Jackson explains how the district court judge carefully explained why the Administration was acting unlawfully and why it was appropriate to leave the lower court's injunction in place.
The court of appeals left it in place. Why should the Supreme Court second-guess the district court?
Mark Joseph Stern, on Bluesky, noted that Sotomayor's concurrence implies a "deal" of some sort. Toss in the length of time this took to be decided. However, it is far from clear how much the "damage is limited." Are we still hoping for that?
Another liberal notes:
I have no problem with Sotomayor's concurrence telling District Courts that they can still (as of now) stop actual plans given that the votes to maintain the stays weren't there, but it's still very hard to imagine stays of specific plans surviving Roberts's shadow docket.
The question then becomes, what is the value of that? District courts can try to "stop actual plans," but if that doesn't survive, what does (yet again) overruling a district court judge get you? Jackson explains why the judge was correct here. Sotomayor ("even Sotomayor") blesses overruling them. For what?
Kagan could have concurred to say that while Sotomayor would continue her cred as a strong dissenter. Kagan has the role of the "reasonable liberal" who still believes in some institutional regularity. If Sotomayor is going to enable the Trump Administration, it should be for something truly significant. As Jackson says, especially at this moment, there is a reason not to do this.
Why can't the justices just enjoy their recess without enabling the Trump Administration for at least a little while? Or, just release this before now? Oh well.
Amy Howe (SCOTUSblog) actually bluntly said only Jackson dissented, violating the assumed rule that you can't assume justices concurred in such cases unless they explicitly said so. I'm fine with that, too.
ETA: A small bit of sanity.
The Court rejected Florida's request for a stay to let it start enforcing a state law that creates state-law crimes for federal immigration violations. A lower court held that it was pre-empted by federal law.
The stay request was rejected without comment.
Saturday, July 05, 2025
Dave's World
I watched this show when it was first on, though for some reason stopped. NYPL has a copy of Season 2. It is thinly based on his life (e.g., he has one son; the show has two, neither named "Rob"). IRL, he also divorced his wife on the show early in its run. The show is a comfortable watch with a charming "Beth" and an amusing assistant.
Friday, July 04, 2025
Thursday, July 03, 2025
Supreme Court Watch: More Orders
I expected a long "clean-up" order list with a bunch of statements and dissents about a variety of cases not taken from the usual suspects. We had less of that this time. Monday's Order List only had a few such things.
(Last year, we had a fifty-three-page final order list. This time it was twenty fewer pages with Sotomayor and Thomas each discussing two cases apiece.)
Today's final scheduled order list before the summer lists was only four pages long, akin to a list after a normal conference. The big news is that they took two cases involving trans athletes. Another case involves regulating where offensive protests can take place.
The Court did not grant an appeal of a state court opinion protecting the right of minors to have an abortion in some cases without their parents' permission. The challenge raised parental rights claims.
Alito (with Thomas) wrote a statement that said it provided a bad vehicle for appeal. Nonetheless, not taking the case should not be inferred to agree with the ruling below. The implication is that parental rights claims (at least here) still might have merit.
Parents of trans children might be an exception.
Coming Up
For your planning purposes, summer order lists are scheduled to be issued on Monday, July 21; Monday, August 18; and Friday, September 5, 2025. Summer order lists usually consist of actions taken by the Court on motions in pending cases, petitions for rehearing, and other miscellaneous matters. Emergency orders, such as in applications for stays, will continue to be released as required.
Wednesday, July 02, 2025
Trump v. NYC
The MAGA bunch is attacking the winning NYC Democratic candidate for mayor, Zohran Mamdani, as a dangerous commie and some such. They are very concerned about our elections.
More concerning are official attacks. Election interference is Trump's m.o. He was (rightly) prosecuted for it in New York City.
Trump then corruptly interfered in an ongoing prosecution of Mayor Eric Adams. Started a criminal investigation, against traditional policy, of another candidate (Andrew Cuomo). Now, he is targeting another Democratic candidate. Consistency.
President Donald Trump’s Homeland Security Advisory Council — a group that includes Rudy Giuliani, cop-turned-actor Bo Dietl and the founder of Bikers for Trump — held its first meeting on Wednesday to discuss the top threats facing the nation.
Tuesday, July 01, 2025
NYC Democratic Primary Final
The votes are counted, and the next step in ranked choice voting took place. We have a candidate for my city council district. Mamdani won 56% of the vote and is a promising sign of the future for Democrats. Yes, some old timers worry about this upstart. Don't focus on that. People love to be all "Democrats in Disarray."