SCOTUS Reminds Us To Be Ashamed (Yes, About Trump)

The second (of three) scheduled Supreme Court summer order list was released today. 

The usual housekeeping dominated the short list of orders. Alito didn't take part in one case. The usual "rehearings denied" (they are nearly never granted) were included. 

The list started this way:

REHEARINGS DENIED

25-432 PUCKETT, CARL E., ET UX. V. AIN JEEM, INC., ET AL.

25-567 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC, ET AL.

25-573 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. CARROLL, E. JEAN

As noted by my local paper:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday again rebuffed President Donald Trump’s push to throw out a jury’s $5 million finding that he sexually abused the writer E. Jean Carroll at a New York City department store in the mid-1990s and later defamed her.

Many people alleged* that Trump, in various respects, sexually assaulted women. Trump has been accused of trying to see teen beauty contestants in a state of undress. He bragged about being able to do these things with impunity.  

The "grab the pussy" talk received some attention. We know how things have gone. See also, Thomas and Kavanaugh.

E.J.  Carroll, taking advantage of a New York law that extended the window, was able to obtain a jury verdict that Trump sexually assaulted her. 

He denied it. Toss in defamation. He kept it up after the civil judgment. Another jury found defamation again. This time with a much higher financial judgment. The appeal for that is still pending. 

People, if they are halfway honest, don't have the vapors about either charge. Defamation? 

To slightly paraphrase a Supreme Court opinion, "Lying was and still is his habit." 

The denial of rehearing is not truly news. There was no real chance that it would be granted. 

(Trump already gave her the money, but it was held in trust until the finalization of the appeal.) 

What it does help remind us is the nature of the person in the Oval Office. The election of Trump will be a blot on our country for time immemorial. 

Sexual wrongdoing has been a major concern in multiple political races this election cycle. The Democratic candidate for governor in California and for Senate in Maine are different than expected for that reason. OTOH, we have Max Miller. 

Trump remains a symbol of what not to do. 

===

* One woman, someone who would otherwise be a Trump supporter, particularly comes to mind.

She alleged wrongdoing. Trump defamed her. She sued. The litigation went on and on and on.

She finally gave up. It wasn't worth the hassle, including not being able to openly talk about it. The Trump side alleged total vindication. 

Reasonable Doubts

 

I saw Stripped to Kill on YouTube. Kay Lenz co-starred, making me think of her role in this television show, which I watched when it was first on. A few episodes, at least, are also on YouTube. 

Stripped to Kill is enjoyable "B" film fare, though the plot gets a bit too silly. The ending, for instance, is too drawn out. The first episode of Reasonable Doubts brings an overdone plot device or two (crooked cops, huh?). But I found the show overall comfort food television. 

August Executions

Three executions in three states. None in Florida or Texas.

Anthony Darrell Dugard Hines (TN)

These lengthy delays create two special constitutional difficulties. First, a lengthy delay in and of itself is especially cruel because it “subjects death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehumanizing conditions of confinement.” Second, a lengthy delay undermines the death penalty’s penological rationale.

Hines was sentenced to die for a rape/murder committed forty years ago. I hold to my repeated concern, with the usual Breyer reference, about these delays. Sotomayor and/or Jackson should support it. 

Various reasons to suggest he is guilty, but he claims innocence. The final Supreme Court appeal cites red flags as to state execution procedures, including not supplying enough details about them. 

The Court, per curiam (Sotomayor dissented), earlier overturned a lower court holding of ineffective counsel. This time, as usual, they rejected the final appeal without comment. 

The execution occurred later that morning. 

Carlos Cuesta-Rodriguez (OK) 

Rodriguez opposed commutation of his death sentence from over twenty years ago for murdering his girlfriend (common law wife). He's 70. The execution is a semi-voluntary euthanasia move. 

The main argument against execution is that there are possible mitigating factors, including acceptance of his guilt. Another "lottery" pick for execution. 

Jeremy Williams (AL) 

Williams admitted guilt of a truly horrible crime: the rape and murder of a young child. He waived appeals. 

Remarkably, the crime took place less than five years ago. I complained about delays. So, yes, that is good on some level. There was some time to ensure the execution is appropriate, even if he accepts it.

(If you want to click, you can see the details of the crime. I'm not avoiding them. I accept hard cases. The details are horrible, especially who helped him.) 

His remorse is a reason not to execute him. Alabama also has had multiple problems with execution procedures. That is a problem, even if the person is crystal clear guilty and worthy of death.

Williams was the last of the three to be executed. Alabama used lethal injection; nitrogen gas was blocked in an earlier case in court. 

===

Another execution is scheduled next week.

We also have a schedule of the current November oral arguments. For completeness, let's toss in that Kagan provided a one-day administrative stay here. 

Bikini Spring Break

 

I referenced watching this film (with Robert Carradine slumming it) a while back and re-watched it on Tubi. It gets the nudity (breasts) out of the way in the first scene, including repans to show you again. The rest is largely exposition, though sometimes the scenes set up some more breast exposure. Limited bikinis. 

This is not high art. It has one or more (huh; she sorta looks like Selena Gomez) kinda familiar-looking types. But it is silly fun. It has enough plot and likeable characters. Now and then, it also has a semblance of wit. Does it's "direct-to-video" job. Kudos. 

The Tubi video is in English, but that's fun too. 

Fair Game (Not that One)

 

There is the Valerie Plame book and film. 

I watched part of a 1980s film, one of several "woman's revenge thrillers" via Tubi. Her being used as a "hood ornament" was one thing. Killing her horse really did it. The actress is very good. 

No revenge, but one woman vs. a bunch of men? Hunting Emma. Foreign, but you barely need the subtitles. Wife who snaps? Got that. Hilarious bad and period piece? I Spit on Your Tombstone. 

Todd Blanche: Confirmed at 4 A.M. Saturday Morning

 

Jimmy Kimmel knew Sen. Cassidy, now a lame duck after losing the primary for not being 100% Trumpian, was a weasel years ago. 

But Collins and Murkowski (50-49) are not much better. They support Republicans. Their usually gratutious "nay" votes (though they couldn't even support an abortion rights bill) just give them the credibility necessary to win in Maine and Alaska. 

Anyway, this is a new low. Blanche ... when Pam Bondi is too independent. Republicans need to go the way of the Whigs.

Tamara

 

I saw this on cable a long time ago. I said it was sort of "lame." 

Overall, I liked it this time, including a great scene where an innocent wife has to fight two murderous teenagers. The very end tosses in a lame horror trope. They should have left it be with a good way to close the story out. Good lead and pretty good support.

I mostly liked American Mary. Directors known for twisted stuff. The lead was excellent. Amusingly, a supporting character was in the WWII television drama Bomb Girls. Kind of a different role. 

SCOTUS Watch

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court released its calendar for the October argument session, which lasts from Monday, Oct. 5, to Wednesday, Oct. 14. 

The beat goes on. A notable environmental case is one of the first big cases. 

The link goes to a conservative who signed a letter in 2016 explaining why it was essential for conservatives to be against the election of Trump. 

He has been praised as a fair conservative mind. 

I have found him generally so (he had his bad moments), though I am annoyed at how little he responds to Trump shenanigans. 

This is a theme on that website, which has a few Trump loyalists (Josh Blackman), but many who don't care for him much. Other than one person (and one person who sometimes pops up), they rarely say anything.

This is not an appropriate response to the times. 

==

BJC has a podcast discussing religion and the Supreme Court. It was on hiatus until the new term. They had a special SCOTUS preview and announced a co-host is leaving.

==

Precedent and Personnel: When the Justices Change so Does the Constitution

Prof. Eric Segall is a liberal law professor. 

I disagree with him from time to time, including on some of his hobbyhorses. This one, which he has been on for decades, is rather tedious.

He LOVES the Legal Tender Cases example. It's not a normal one. The Chief Justice ill-advisedly decided a significant case on a short bench. 

He was on notice and did so anyway. When two new justices joined, the cases went the other way.  

Compare this to what John Marshall and Warren Burger did. Marshall held cases over in the 1830s when the justices divided, and a new membership might change the result. 

The Burger Court had a special committee when they had seven justices to decide what to hold over if the two might change the result. 

What does ES want? Abraham Lincoln in his first presidential inaugural address argued:

At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

The justices on a short bench by a closely divided vote held one way. The majority arguably was quite off base on an important constitutional issue. 

A single case should not be the immediate end of the line. Stare decisis is important. But the issue wasn't firmly established. New justices, selected by people we elect (if indirectly, especially pre-17th Amendment), will factor into this equation.

This case is a rather incomplete example to examine the wider question. It might have been wrong. It might have been right. It still is a special case.

New justices over time do change the law. It is a significant way the law changes over time. Likewise, legislatures and executives change over time. Their view of what the Constitution means also changes. 

Justices, even the current bunch, also don't simply ignore precedent. It would be tedious to list the number of things, including some things of importance, that are basically the same now.

We can also list a bunch of things the current majority has done that significantly disrespect precedent. I find many of these cases dead wrong. 

Nonetheless, the fact they are making new law alone isn't the problem. The way they are doing it, both procedurally and substantively, is the problem. The problem here is the merits. 

What happens, imagine with me, if the Supreme Court eventually is ideologically reasonable? Liberals and moderates have a supermajority. This happens because of new membership. Look at the early 1960s.

A nuanced approach can result in liberals cautioning courts to be conservative. At some point, a conservative approach is ill-advised. But that would at least make more sense than this simplistic take. 

The law is not obtained by looking at the sky, entrails, or original understanding. I repeat myself. It is a value judgment that significantly depends on the judges.

We should be open about this. We should carefully handle the situation. Judges should still act like judges. And, yes, ES, life tenure and so forth give the justices much more power to act arbitrarily.

This warrants special attention. I still don't accept simplistic cant. With respect, #JustSaying. 

===

On my Substack ... comments on a pending Massachusetts abortion bill.