A black woman judge, appointed by a Democrat, behaved badly. The judicial self-regulation left something to be desired.
Liberals, who are not hypocrites overall on the issue, flagged the problem. Judicial ethics and proper congressional oversight should be bipartisan. It is a good campaign issue.
I discussed a book that argues that religious beliefs will sometimes be relevant when determining who is fit for public office. Racist religious beliefs do not get a pass. It is touchy.
The dig is an anti-trans epithet. MAGA selectively cares about religious liberty. Anti-trans rhetoric is here insulting the beliefs of millions of Christians. Among other things, yes, that is disqualifying.
Crawford is a musician and podcaster.
I'm not familiar with him in either case. I am enjoying this book, which focuses on his antislavery efforts, especially as a House member. It's a book geared to the general reader with some neat drawings.
Adams hated slavery, but like many people of the day, didn't care for abolitionists. Slavery was bad, but we were stuck with it.
Early on, when he was a senator, he voted against a limit on slavery. As a diplomat and executive official, national sovereignty was more important than opposing slavery. For instance, limiting the British power to search American ships on the high seas.
Plus, abolitionists, in his view, exaggerated how bad slaves had it. They seemed unreasonable extremists.
Adams became a hero of the antislavery movement after extremists on the slavery side went after the freedom of speech. The "gag rule" arose after abolitionists supposedly started to get a bit too pushy for their own good, flooding the mails and Congress with antislavery materials and petitions.
Give an inch and all that.
Adams noted that not formally accepting petitions broadly endangered First Amendment rights, showing how suppression of liberty tends to spread. For instance, abolitionists were motivated largely by their religious beliefs. Religious liberty was at stake.
It also shows how change happens over time. Abolition seemed hopeless in the 1820s and 1830s.
Adams, with some foresight, noted in his diary that the only way it seemed possible was if the country broke apart and/or went to war. Congress then might have the power to abolish slavery as a war measure.
He died in 1848, though he lived long enough to see the Mexican War, which helped introduce the final chapter (chapters?) that led to that war.
Good book overall.
I discuss the controversy arising from the Giants' QB introducing Trump at a campaign event. Trump is bad, the Giants don't need the drama, and they already had Epstein drama. No handwaving. The criticism of DART is appropriate. Meanwhile, Mets suck again.
The weekly Order List had some interesting bits.
The justices decided the appeals court wrongly decided on procedural grounds a lawsuit involving the free speech rights of immigration judges (not Art. III judges). Thomas (with Barrett) also disagreed on the merits. Free speech fails, for now.
[The backstory is that the administrative process was broken because of Trump's obstructionism. Helped b by the court conservatives. The lower court tried a workaround and was called out.]
The justices, following standard practices since at least the 1970s, rejected even accepting a "bill of complaint" involving a dispute among states.
Thomas (with Alito) took their usual stance (reasonable) that they should at least examine the merits. They also added some right-wing comments on the merits of a dispute involving undocumented people having driver's licenses.
Kavanaugh would have taken a dispute involving arbitration (New York Football Giants v. Brian Flores). He didn't comment on why.
Alito and Thomas would have summarily reversed a lower court opinion involving excessive force and the Fourth Amendment. They cited a lower court opinion they "essentially" agreed with.
Alito (no comment), Kagan, and Jackson (referencing ethical guidelines) did not take part in deciding three cases. I continue to prefer the latter approach.
Finally, in a "to be continued" sort of way, a lower court continued to reject a redistricting map, holding it is racially discriminatory. The Supreme Court, with the liberals dissenting, sent it back.
It is likely to come back.
==
Meanwhile, this is an interesting discussion of the Supreme Court's relation with social media, including suggestions on how it can dip its toes in.
ETA/Opinions:
Barrett, for the conservatives, ruled against two "compassionate release" claims. Sotomayor (with Kagan) concurred on limited grounds in one case, dissented in the other. Jackson dissented in both.
Kavanaugh, it being one of his concerns, wrote a 5-4 opinion supporting a claim alleging racial discrimination in jury selection. Roberts joined, as did the liberals. Gorsuch dissented for the rest.
Gorsuch wrote a brief (less than eight pages) and unanimous arbitration opinion.
The Catholic Church, in various ways, is just plain a problem (understand if some will just say "no!"), but the last two popes were admirable in various ways. The latest from the pope shows why.
A Military Times article had a headline: "13 US troops killed, more than 380 wounded in Operation Epic Fury."
Congress in the 1990s passed a law "recommending" that presidents ask people to pray for potential peace. I think, along with remembering the dead, working for peace (not just praying) is the best way to celebrate the holiday.