Sotomayor Apologies

Justice Sotomayor publicly called out Kavanaugh for his Kavanaugh stop opinion, basically saying his privileged upbringing made him not understand the people involved. Some people handwaved it, but others acknowledged it was a significant comment. 

At a recent appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, I referred to a disagreement with one of my colleagues in a prior case, but I made remarks that were inappropriate. I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague.

She had second thoughts. She publicly apologized via the public information office. 

It would be interesting to know what happened. Did Kavanaugh suggest his feelings were hurt? Did colleagues tell her she crossed the line? Did she realize Murc's Law (only Democrats have agency)? 

Chris Geidner, after some people pushed back, posted a discussion on why the apology made sense. Eh. Sure. Typical small group dynamics, even beyond the importance of his vote. 

Plus, it's the classy thing to do. You apologize sometimes when you deep down don't think you should have to do so. 

It reminds me of when there was talk that Sotomayor was bothered about Gorsuch not wearing a mask. He was sitting next to a senior citizen with diabetes. He apparently thought people were being too "woke" about COVID or something.

They released a treacly joint statement about how they were pals. She didn't ask him to wear a mask. It was one big misunderstanding. Sure.

Did a conservative justice ever apologize? Ginsburg apologized for publicly saying she didn't want Trump elected. Stevens, during the Kavanaugh confirmation, noted people told him he was too public about his opposition to Kavanaugh after his outburst. He seemed a bit embarrassed.

When did a conservative justice apologize? That's what rankles. She has to publicly apologize for that asshole? Well, that's what adults do, I guess. 

ETA: I have seen people compare her statement with Justice Thomas criticizing "progressives." 

Thomas has promoted his conservative values for years. He has strongly supported his wife, who is a big Trump supporter, including after the 2020 elections.

He was not specifically criticizing a colleague. I do not think some of his more overheated dogma should get a pass. Still, it is not really the same thing. 

Religious Liberty Commission Follies

At a Monday (April 13) hearing at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican and the chair of the commission, asked, “Would it not be a good recommendation that every school, every university, every business, has to have that one sheet on the bulletin board about protecting people’s religious liberty, and that the separation of church and state is the biggest lie that’s been told in America since our founding?”

The Trump Religious Liberty Commission meeting at the Museum of the Bible (book) is fitting. The museum is an evangelical enterprise significantly funded by Hobby Lobby. 

The chair argued that "the anti-God left has used ["separation of church and state"] to suppress people of religion in our country." This is the "biggest lie" told in America since our founding. "Slavery is a positive good" is third or fourth, perhaps. 

Religious liberty is extremely important. It is also highly debated. But the commission is not set up for an honest discussion. The discussion might offer references to Baptists, Madison, and Jefferson strongly supporting state/church separation. 

This caricature of right-wing beliefs leads some to disdain any talk about religion. We will get references to fantasy people in the sky or some such thing. 

A pending case reflects one single-minded view. A Catholic organization wants an exception to an LGBTQ equality provision. Another lawsuit involves a hospice that claims a religious exemption from a trans equality provision. 

I find such litigation selfish. Not all Catholics believe in this anti-LGBTQ doctrine. Regardless, if you want to take part in public affairs, including public welfare services, it is not outrageous that basic equality has to be followed. 

Is this what you want to worry about when providing hospice care to people? Not allowing them rooms in their self-designated genders? Will you only provide them care if they pray to Jesus Christ, too? How shallow a Christian you are. 

(Catholic nuns don't use birth control.* That is b.s., too. The concern has to be the employees. 

Some janitors at a school can't have birth control, even if it is their own employment-based health care. Some sisters realize that it is moronic.)

Last month, Meenu Batra, 53, who has lived in the South Texas border colonia of Laguna Heights since 2002, was on her way to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to work another case. She’s been a court interpreter for over 20 years, the only one licensed in Texas for Hindi, Punjabi, or Urdu. Her language skills are requested nationwide, where she’s contracted to help people making their way through the immigration court system, just as she did for herself 35 years ago when she immigrated from India to New Jersey before settling in Texas.

I think this is probably a more troublesome threat to religious liberty. Such a translator is likely used by Hindus and other minority faiths partially to obtain religious services. 

Respect for immigrants is generally a religious obligation in many faiths. Some people do oppose anti-immigration policies, especially those of a Trumpian nature, on religious grounds.

Is the presence of "woke" religions a "big lie," too? 

==

Note: Maybe some Catholic nuns do use birth control. Some gay priests are sexually active. 

The "birth control" also sometimes has other health uses. I'm not sure how much that comes up with Catholic nuns. I assume they are not deemed "sluts" if they use it for non-contraceptive reasons. 

Braving the Truth

 

Rachel Held Evans died in 2019. Multiple additional books, including this collection of essays (with additional commentary by others), followed. I talk about it here and here. With additional Trump b.s. 

SCOTUS Watch: Order List [And Other Stuff]

The Supreme Court handed down a short Order List before going on a little mid-April break. One grant:

Issue: Whether the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act stripped district courts of the jurisdiction, recognized by this court in Johnson v. Robison, to hear challenges to the constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting veterans’ benefits.

A bit of lay-up since both sides agreed they should take the case. The solicitor general also argued that the court below was correct. He also suggested the plaintiff sued the wrong person, helping to explain the curious "U.S. Congress" part of this case. 

Meanwhile, among the orders is one in which Gorsuch did not take part. Only Kagan and Jackson explain themselves when such a recusal happens. They are right to do so. 

Again, nothing is scheduled until next week, on Friday (conference/non-argument session, likely to swear in people), but something might come up. 

Steve Bannon

SCOTUSBlog provides more details that show that even a brief, bland-looking Order List can have some interesting details. More Trump news, too:

The justices also sent the case of Stephen Bannon, a former adviser to President Donald Trump who was convicted of contempt of Congress, back to the lower court, where the Department of Justice has filed a motion to dismiss his indictment.

Bannon served his brief sentence. This has a symbolic quality. After an extended -- ridiculously so -- process, which must be reformed, Bannon actually was punished for obstruction of Congress.

This, of course, has to be discouraged. I am being sarcastic. Anyway, this seems to have a gratuitous feel to it. The United States provided a brief reply that it was dismissing the indictment "in the interests of justice." Yes. Justice for Trump stooges.

They had the prosecutorial discretion to do this, though in this case, it is horribly applied. Once they do so, the argument is made that the procedure applied here in this order is appropriate. 

Iowa decided to supply an amicus as part of its Republican/Trump support role. It is laughable that Iowa felt it necessary to get involved here. 

The procedural move here does not appear improper. The ultimate problem is that Trump yet again finds a way to remove even the bare minimum justice for the past wrongs he and his minions inflicted. 

I'm open to being proven wrong. It does seem wrong that the Justice Department can step in at this point. But if the prosecution was actually improper, a later action of this sort might be sensible. 

So, again, it does seem like it turns on discretion. 

ETA: On the odds and ends front, some more rules (Appellate/Bankruptcy/Evidence) were released. 

SCOTUS doesn't intervene in an election dispute. Sounds like a blatant case, even if you don't like the law. Might have line drawing issues. Easy case here.

I say more here including about Sotomayor stuff. 

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

I read a book about Roots, which was written by Alex Haley, who wrote an extended epilogue to this volume. My copy also had a foreword by Malcolm's oldest daughter. The book as a whole was quite readable, if somewhat repetitive. Don't trust all of his citations of ancient history. Tragically, he was assassinated right when he was taking a more open-minded approach. But it was like it was fated.

Extended Discussion.

DALLAS v. STANGLIN

Stanglin was released on April 3, so was part of a list of cases on a website that provides day-by-day summaries. The case involves a law that "authorizes the licensing of 'Class E' dancehalls, restricting admission thereto to persons between the ages of 14 and 18 and limiting their hours of operation."*

I have written various posts on this blog dealing with privacy-related cases, particularly involving birth control and abortion. This case came up a couple of times, including a review of a book on dance. 

The challenger ended his oral argument in this case on a privacy note, though freedom of association was a key issue. The lower court cited precedent to show that "social" association is included there.** 

The right to freely associate is not limited to "political" assemblies, but includes those that "pertain to the social, legal, and economic benefit of our citizens."

The Supreme Court overturned. It cited a recent case limiting "intimate" association to small groups (the dance halls had hundreds of people). The case, the majority by Chief Justice Rehnquist argued, also did not expand "expressive" association to social dancing. 

Rehnquist applied "social" narrowly to mean "nothing more than that the right of expressive association extends to groups organized to engage in speech that does not pertain directly to politics." That's dubious. 

Justice Stevens (with Blackmun) agreed that the law was legitimate while noting in an opinion concurring in judgment that:

the opportunity to make friends and enjoy the company of other people — in a dance hall or elsewhere — is an aspect of liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

He did not provide an analysis for this conclusion, but it is correct. We have a right to marry, for instance, and that entails meeting people in various contexts on the road to marriage. 

(I'll toss in that even non-expressive athletic dancing is important to personal wellness to a degree that it is not a trivial aspect of personal freedom.)

The opinion is partially concerned with limits. Anything -- we saw this with the conversion therapy case -- might involve expression. 

We express ourselves in some fashion by basically anything we do. Dance halls are also not the first thing you think about regarding the "right to association." 

Nonetheless, people go to dance halls quite literally to associate. They meet people and interact. They express themselves. Dancing, including "social" dancing, is a means of expression. The importance of dances in Jane Austin novels comes to mind. 

A social gathering at a restaurant is also not what many people would associate (ha) with the First Amendment. But it has some of that character. We meet and talk. We associate. We share ideas.  

I found it troubling years ago, and still do, that Brennan and Marshall just went along with the open-ended language of the majority opinion. The concurrence provided a way to underline that there were constitutional interests involved. 

They probably thought the case was not worth worrying about. Easy cases, if this is one, however, leave open the possibility of troublingly open-ended legal conclusions. The ability, if sometimes taken too far, to regulate minors was a way to uphold the law.

Likewise, the regulation of business establishments, including those with a large number of people, might warrant freer rein. The law did not deny teenagers the ability to dance with adults. It regulated a certain type of for-profit establishment of a certain size. 

Stevens argues that this law, if anything, furthered the constitutional rights that the class of teenagers had. No need to say they have none (other than some general right against arbitrary treatment) in this context. 

A question by Rehnquist suggests a red flag. Could the government (when this could be criminalized) ban two men dancing to advance anti-same sex sodomy laws? Limits of gay bars, including bars with large clientele, had First Amendment and right to privacy implications. Social activity = rights.

Social dancing should not be treated on the same level of constitutional scrutiny as the regulation of eyewear and other "rational basis" cases. The case is a troubling overreach and unnecessarily so. 

Justice Brennan was careful not to even let cases involving alleged child pornography (e.g., Osbourne v. Ohio) be used to limit the right of privacy and other constitutional rights. His silence here was dubious. 

 ==

* The enterprise appears to have arisen from another daily SCOTUS history project, which provides single moments involving various subjects. It always not case specific. Some key cases are not chosen.

I comment there now. A recent comment on a school prayer case received more than usual attention. I stopped replying since I think I said enough. 

** Griswold v. Connecticut cited free speech and freedom of association cases to help show how privacy is necessary to protect constitutional rights. Multiple cases also protect, if to a somewhat more limited degree, the constitutional rights of minors. 

Sex of Comments

People commenting online often either have masculine or neutral-sounding handles. I generally assume, especially if they are assholes, that these people are men. But there are enough shitty people who are not men that I probably assume too much.

Sigh

I enjoy commenting online. I have done so for decades now. But some people repeatedly cannot handle discussing things reasonably. They often, sarcastically, "translate" what you have to say in ignorant ways using a biased translator. They make snide remarks based on ignorance. They don't want to or have the ability to honestly engage, no matter how much you work at it. It is so tiresome. 

SCOTUS Watch

Order List

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to weigh in on a procedural question arising from a pregnancy discrimination case – specifically, whether a defendant can raise an affirmative defense (that is, a legal excuse or justification) later in the proceedings when it did not raise that defense in the answer to the plaintiff’s complaint.

After a brief order list, Sotomayor (with Jackson) spends some time explaining why the justices should have taken a criminal justice case. Finding troubling criminal justice cases that suggest the arbitrary nature of the criminal justice system is her thing.  

(The opening link provides more details) 

Opinions 

Happy Trans Visibility Day, which once was allegedly an anti-Easter plot or something, since it coincidentally overlapped that year. By chance, the justices decided the conversion therapy case.

Justice Gorsuch, having the opinion (which, like multiple other opinions he had in cultural war cases, was procedurally dubious), was a bad sign. Worse, only Jackson dissented. It was a good dissent. 

(Jackson used a Calvinball ruling -- see Breyer's angry dissent -- to her benefit. Okay. But realistically, that is how it is going to be. Selective application.) 

The conservatives upheld anti-trans care policies, even though such policies clearly have ideological motivations. This time, when trans people are protected, the regulation is suddenly thought control.

The law involves the regulation of people with a state license to practice medicine and only covers minors. So, it is not about the conversion therapy of adults or therapy by unlicensed people, including clergy. 

Under this logic, any medical treatment delivered through words rather than instruments could now carry First Amendment protection—a framework that could shield a doctor who encourages a patient to commit suicide, a dietician who tells an anorexic patient to eat less, or a therapist who deliberately steers a vulnerable client away from life-saving treatment. It could also extend well beyond medicine: a financial advisor who talks an elderly client into a bad investment is exercising speech-based professional conduct, as is a lawyer who gives harmful legal advice.

Not good. Kagan (with Sotomayor) concurred in full, citing an alleged limitation. But, as Jackson noted, the limitation in context is fictional. If they concurred strategically, Gorsuch's language is far from restrained.

The opinion says strict scrutiny is required. Some misleading coverage aside, the Court did not strike down the law. Colorado has a higher test to meet. 

But that is usually an uphill battle. Gorsuch's rhetoric, as SCOTUSBlog flags, is also not reassuring:

But the Supreme Court also strongly hinted that the ban would fail that test. In his 23-page opinion, Gorsuch stressed that in cases like Chiles’, Colorado’s ban “censors speech based on viewpoint.” Because the First Amendment “reflects … a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth,” Gorsuch continued, “any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”

The possible Robert Kennedy Jr.-ing of medical care is not ideal. I say that even if the opinion leaves open a way to uphold this law (strict scrutiny met) or to craft another policy that will protect children. 

Kagan, in the past, disliked "Lochner-ing" or the weaponizing of the First Amendment. Blah. 

Upcoming

The conference was on Thursday, given the Easter weekend. Monday will be an Order List. They then take a two-week break until April 17th. 

A media advisory regarding an oral argument that will likely have more demand for sitting flags the change at the top of Homeland Security. 

(ETA: The SCOTUS PIO released a statement on a news story involving Alito going to get checked out -- he is in his 70s, so this wasn't that notable on its own -- but didn't post it on the website. Yet again.)

Birthright Citizenship Trivia

Trump showed up for the birthright citizenship oral argument (left after the solicitor general was done), which would be the first time a sitting president did so. Notably, he picked this case to do so.

Talk about this being an "attempt to intimidate the justices" seems a tad overblown. Separation of powers? Eh. Members of Congress show up. 

Nixon and John Quincy Adams argued cases. Lincoln, too (a more forgotten detail). Not while in office, of course. Taft became Chief Justice. Ditto. 

John Marshall served as Secretary of State briefly after becoming Chief Justice. The Constitution does not -- unlike for members of Congress -- clearly ban that sort of thing. Justices also served in diplomatic roles. Robert Jackson was a prosecutor at Nuremberg.