Mets at the 1/4 Way Point

 

A lot of mediocre teams. A lot of teams are under .500. After 40 games, the Mets are at the bottom of the pack at 15-25. A lot of baseball is left. Still, that's pretty bad.

Umpire John

Judge Sotomayor, before becoming a justice, noted that appellate judges make policy. They set forth rules while district judges largely determine facts.

As Lawrence Hurley reported for NBC News, Roberts continued: “I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do. I would say that’s the main difficulty. “

What is a "political actor?" Let's go the dictionary:

political

adjective

po·​lit·​i·​cal pə-ˈli-ti-kəl 

1a: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government

b: of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy

2: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics

3: organized in governmental terms

political units

4: involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system

political prisoners

The Supreme Court plays a significant role in setting forth policy. It does so in ways with many political implications. Fitting those definitions. 

The term "political" is disfavored by many judges. It sounds like they are "politicians" who are shady sorts. Judges are supposed to be above the fray. They are special.

We accept too much the idea that politicians, who represent us, are allowed to be "dirty." It helps Trump some since "they are all bad, right?" 

But John Roberts is setting forth an artificial dynamic here. The Supreme Court has a political role. His saying after the recent Voting Rights Act opinions is even harder to take. 

Each branch of government has different roles in our system. Courts have a role that is more independent in certain respects. They, however, are not just off on the side, outside of the political system.

Honesty can help us determine how to react, including what sort of reforms of the courts should be sought. 

===

Talking political, I talk about the Virginia Supreme Court (4-3) overturning the redistricting measure here. tl;dr: It was not a scam that they waited to decide, but how they ruled looks pretty sketchy. 

National Day of Prayer

I agree with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, whose lawsuit was successful at the district court level before losing on standing, that this is unconstitutional. (Link to litigation at that linked discussion.) Good luck doing so these days.

The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.

Congress should not be selectively advising people, especially the president [though this one is quite willing to do so without being pushed], to pray. The district court opinion from the before times referenced Justice Blackmun's opinion in a creche case (Allegheny):

It is worth noting that just because Marsh sustained the validity of legislative prayer, it does not necessarily follow that practices like proclaiming a National Day of Prayer are constitutional. Legislative prayer does not urge citizens to engage in religious practices, and on that basis could well be distinguishable from an exhortation from government to the people that they engage in religious conduct. But, as this practice is not before us, we express no judgment about its constitutionality.

The dissent acknowledged that the legislation “is a straightforward endorsement of the concept of turning to God in prayer." [cleaned up] These days, that sort of thing is more and more allowed. It still is bad under the First Amendment.

The word "may" aside, the legislation has the purpose and effect of promoting prayer. It is a "National Day of Prayer." Baptists who respect the separation of church and state see the problem while realizing there are worse breaches.

(There is a reference to meditation, but it remains a day of prayer. And not everyone does that either.) 

I again note that -- though prayer is something many religions do -- the language favors Christianity. There is a reference to "churches," not places of worship. 

Religious liberty warrants a separation of church and state. It also warrants avoiding favoritism, including selectively instructing the president to proclaim about certain religious activities. 

What We Stand For

Joanne Freeman, the historian, argued on BlueSky: 

• Empathy 
• Diversity 
• Equity 
• Humanity (& the humanities) 
• A broad idea of “WE THE PEOPLE” 
• Concern for ANY kind of “we” Truth 
• (Real) history 

The current regime opposes these things. 

Needs to be stated plainly.

SCOTUS Monday (Not a Fun Day)

It started blandly with a four page Order List. Then, Alito provided an expected administrative (temporary) stay to the wrongminded abortion pill ruling. Then, it granted a request to immediately put the Voting Rights Act ruling into effect. Jackson dissented. Alito (with Thomas/Gorsuch) whined about it. Hit too close to home, Sam?

ETA: A request to recall the judgment was denied.

Trump Supports Anti-Christian Bias

Religion Clause Blog reports: 

Yesterday, the President's Task Force to Eradicate anti-Christian Bias issued a report (full text) titled Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias within the Federal Government. The 197-page Report (with an additional 368 pages of Exhibits) focuses on policies of the Biden Administration.

The report has the usual Trump anti-Biden bullshit. Biden, whose expression of religious beliefs was much more honest than Trump's, supposedly is "anti-Christian." 

Biden regularly wore his religion on his sleeve and did so a lot more credibly than the current occupant. His Administration also respected equality, including the diversity of Christian beliefs. 

Trump's Administration selectively weaponizes Christian beliefs, promoting Christian nationalism, while disrespecting many Christians. This includes changing long in place policy regarding ICE enforcement at places of worship.

Where is this so-called anti-Christian bias? For instance, people who blocked clinics, motivated partially by religious beliefs, were not allowed merely to continue to do so. Laws protecting clinics were enforced. So, people could freely obtain health care, pursuant to their (often Christian) moral beliefs.

Vaccine mandates were also enforced. First, the average Christian doesn't find vaccines problematic. Second, requiring workers, including health care workers, to vaccinate or use alternative methods to protect others, is not "anti-Christian bias."  

There are rules in place respecting non-profits with tax breaks. Religions and religious organizations, whatever the religion, don't deserve a special exemption from the rules here. 

And so, it goes on and on. The Trump Administration promotes a selective form of Christian nationalism. The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty has flagged the problems of Christian Nationalism. But then, they aren't the "Christians" the Administration is concerned about.

Religious liberty is a fundamental aspect of freedom, not just in the promotion of some favored ones. It is too precious to let such special pleading go on without comment. See also, Justice Thomas and his confused and biased take on how "they" ignore the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence. 

"Christianity" is not just a conservative form of it. "The left" are alleged to be anti-Christian and anti-religious. This is a vicious slander. 

SCOTUS Watch: Oral Arguments Wind Down

Order List

Two things stood out for me in a four-page order list. As Rick Hasen summarized on Bluesky:

The Supreme Court won't hear the case where a lower court temporarily stopped Texas from using its re-redistricted congressional maps. The Supreme Court just reversed that order without hearing argument or getting more briefs.

The liberals dissented (without opinion). There is a story here. We have another reversal, based on a short per curiam, of a 160-page or whatever district court opinion on the shadow docket. 

Steve Vladeck is on the case, not having patronizing conservatives referencing the "hysteria" over the question. Wow. Breyer says all is well. An accommodationist who is loath to criticize. I think his replacement is more on the money. 

(Vladeck, after the voting rights decision, wrote a partially paywalled piece on reforming the Supreme Court. He opposes court expansion.) 

Meanwhile, quoting Chris Geidner, they also granted another case:

SCOTUS grants another post-Jarkesy case about administrative agencies’ adjudicative powers, involving the Labor Department.

The liberals didn't like Jarkesy, but some left-leaning sorts thought it was correct to require additional usage of the federal courts. So, it's not a crystal-clear issue.

Arguments

The Supreme Court then spent two hours (too long) talking about "geofence" warrants. Sounds like a tricky case that they will try to rule on narrowly. OTOH, maybe it's too soon to judge.

The other notable oral argument (for me) is a late addition involving Trump's immigration policy. And with that, the oral arguments are likely done. 

Now, they will get to opinion writing, probably finishing by the end of June for their summer baseball camp plans or whatever they want to do. We will also likely see if Alito really is going to stay on. 

Opinions

Rick Hasen (Election Law guy) is EXTREMELY concerned about a big 6-3 (Alito v. Kagan) voting rights case handed down. It is "one of the most pernicious and damaging Supreme Court decisions of the last century." He's not one to exaggerate.

Kagan's concern is suggested by her dissent from the bench. Since we don't have audio (Oyez.com will provide it eventually after the term is over) or video, we can just read about both Alito (longer than usual) and Kagan's bench statements. 

Congress could, and eventually should, pass a new voting rights law. They have done so in the past in response to statutory construction. The current executive and legislature are not likely to do so.

I think Congress should have a fast-track process to address Court rulings regarding federal statutes. The 6-3 Supreme Court might then flag an alleged constitutional barrier to the legislation.

This is where court reform comes in. You have ethics reform, tweaking qualified immunity, term limits, and so forth. Various good policies on their own. 

A constitutional decision like Shelby v. Holder sometimes can be addressed (e.g., update the process there deemed out of date). Other times, you will run into a roadblock, like the Trump v. U.S. ruling. 

Some want to expand the Supreme Court. Others worry this will result in tit-for-tat responses and overall diminish the Court. 

Hardball will make for tough decisions at some point, including jurisdiction stripping and targeting their budget (minus reduction in salaries, which the Constitution prohibits). After all, if you use the budget to "blackmail" (pressure) the Court, does that not have some potential at threatening its integrity? 

I think we should put everything on the table. Reform will be tough. Serious reform, whatever it entails, might require ending the filibuster. Whenever bad opinions, especially ones with political/partisan valence like this one, arise, this talk does as well.

A trifecta is necessary. Let's start thinking. Meanwhile, jockeying by both sides in a districting race to the bottom continues. 

==

The first opinion was unanimous. The result in a future case could help liberals or conservatives. It involved the investigation of crisis pregnancy centers. 

Maybe it was the right decision, and it wasn't on the merits, though judges below disagreed. Was it that obvious? Shrugs. More on the background here. 

Executions

James Garfield Broadnax was nineteen when he was part of the robbery/murder of two people in 2008. Texas executed him. 

There is debate over how serious his role is, the use of race in jury selection, and other issues. Two confessed, one was given the death penalty. 

No comment by SCOTUS when rejecting the final appeals. The whole thing seems arbitrary. 

(A few judges have shown some concern about executing people under 21. The line now is eighteen.)

Florida executed someone sentenced to die for the rape/murder of his teenage step-niece, committed in 1976. James Hitchcock is not someone many will have sympathy for. It still is patently ridiculous to execute someone after 50 years. 

Florida is making a habit of this, though, even for them, 50 years is longer than most. As usual, I cite Breyer's dissent in Glossip v. Gross on this issue.

Since only a few justices over the years, none on the Court now, flagged that problem, his final appeals rested on other claims. His lawyers, yet again, raised a claim that the Florida lethal injection process is flawed.

Also, they again raise an innocence claim. It isn't new, so hard to see it working at this late date. He claims his brother did it. I doubt it. The time lag is my issue.

He committed horrible crimes. He was in prison for fifty years. Some members of the victim's family will obtain closure. That is a variable thing, and anyway, not enough to justify a few arbitrary executions.

A long prison term might also have led some to have closure. A lingering execution might have hindered the process as they waited a bit more time for it to happen.

Upcoming

No more oral arguments. 

There will be releases of orders (Monday) and non-argument sessions (often admission of bar members, but some opinion days might be mixed in) and conferences (Thursdays) until the end of June. At least, after a ten-day break after Monday (orders). 

(Memorial Day pushes one order day to Tuesday.)

There will also be various other days with orders and opinions, especially as things speed up in June. And probably a surprise or two mixed in. So, it goes.