SCOTUS Order Day

The Order List was over twenty pages, so I knew there was something other than the usual things. Still, there were a few notables even there: a criminal justice grant, a lingering Trump election case (it's like the last Confederate raider surrending or something) and so on. The page length, however, was a pair of Sotomayor criminal justice case red flags, which she does from time to time. One about cavity searches, the other shackles in court.

Also in the news, other than talk of a William Barr book in the works, is this: "Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s last pick for the Supreme Court, has also sold a book — garnering a $2 million advance for a tome about how judges are not supposed to bring their personal feelings into how they rule." Ha ha. So, Gorsuch (out there promoting civics) has a book out too, so where's Kavanaugh? So, it's a work of fiction?

Late Nite Watching Update

The few hits to this blog often are to a discussion of Sensual Survialists, a Showtime late nite soft porn deal involving an nude survialist reality show plot. I think a "X-rated" version of that basic cable show is a good idea, but this movie leaves something to be desired. I'm more for the lighter, less blatantly fake looking (including less tattoos) fare around in the past such as Cinderalla's Hot Night. And, various other fare with Lynne and Nguyen though the "Emma Marx" movies cited in that review [which until recently was also available] had some charms.

The fare available now on Showtime demand leaves a lot to be desired. Erotic Uncoupling is basically the best bet (for simple watchability) though something like Amorous Amnesia is passable. One or more is simply unpleasant, including the medical one. The survialist movie is at times okay, and the secondary big boobed actress is actually pretty good in other stuff (including a podcast!) but ugh the guy on the reality show. We used to have more than one decent series; now even non-cheap looking films are hard to come by.

The Crawling Eye

Another enjoyable Svengoolie film that is partially amusing since a (serious) lead is a familiar from F-Troop. Good atmosphere and acting from the cast, including the woman with telepathy. Gets somewhat tedious toward the end. And, a bit unclear why people go psycotic when under the control of the mist. Why cut off heads?

Children Under Fire

I saw the story of a friendship between Ava Olsen (white girl from South Carolina) and Tyshaun McPhatter (black boy from Washington D.C.) on Twitter with a suggestion to read the title book to learn more. And, it is a powerful book, well written. 

A basic message is that the victims of gun violence in this country are much more than those who are directly shot with guns. They include those who loss someone, who experienced violence in some other way, and/or those who live in fear. And, a single incident can linger on for years. Such is true for all involved, but when dealing with people under ten years old, well, that is something. 

Ava Olsen loves writing and books.  The video talks about her letters (they are well written; one doubts Trump wrote the replies; she did get a second reply) to Trump. I thought a touching reference was something she had about the joy of friendship -- "I listen with my heart. I do not argu."  She saw her best friend die in first grade and years later was still greatly traumatized (she would be about 10 now).  Tyshaun, if not from the book as psychologically traumatized as she was in some sense, still is hurting too.  Just one of many.  While providing useful background material, the book tells some of their stories, including Ava's teacher (shot herself). 

The book ends with three main reform suggestions: universal background checks, child protection laws (keeping guns at home secure from children; the laws must have real bite for violators) and more research.  All can be provided without "violating the Second Amendment," including using that term to me some wider symbolic view of the importance of freedom of have guns. As one South Carolina government official said, such reasonable policies if anything can protect the Second Amendment.  

While reading this book, another child was killed by police, and it became another national outrage.  Adam Toledo was thirteen.  He was shot at 2:35 AM after he was seen having a gun.  This is not said to justify what was done, but it has to be said.  Why did he have a gun?  This is an earlier reporting, before the most recent which provides video that shows his hands up without a gun.  Many will point to the evil police officer, who recklessly shot a child.  The mayor said that city failed him. Yes. In multiple ways, including allowing him somehow to get a gun.  

Police related deaths have resulted in a lot of protests in recent years. The solutions to me often are big picture -- the #DefundPolice movement, for instance, to me hits to an important point.  Some argue it is too extreme.  I think it validly deals with structural problems that are much more than bad police officers or even lack of a means to address their wrongdoing. It is often the use of police -- in a traffic stop, to deal with someone mentally ill or a reckless drug bust -- itself that is the problem.  

[Let me insert here this bit about "are there good cops" from some guy who loves to toss around "fascists" and the like.

My reply, which got some attention, tried to look at it from a different point of view.  I suggested that the problem is partially the system.  Besides, even a small subset of problem cases would be problematic.  So, I suggested granting "most" police are individually okay.  This didn't mean the system is or that there weren't a sizable number of problem officers.  But, just working off the idea "cops = bad" is not to me a helpful approach.

Again, some didn't like my reply.]

We also are logically emotionally affected by mass shootings, especially involving schools.  But, the boy's dad was killed outside of a school.  He still is hurting.  Suicide is a major way people die from guns.  Gun safety and research would significantly address that issue, including when children kill themselves or suffer when those close to them do so.  Universal background checks is a broad means to address the gun problem.  And, trying to point out that such and such would not stop such and such event -- if we even can figure that out -- doesn't mean all are important.

Ultimately, the book promotes empathy.  We care about these children.  We care about those in school and in their families who suffer along with them and try to do what they can to address their needs. And, that too is important.  I think of one thing that is put forth as a scare tactic these days -- trans people, often kids. It often is about having basic empathy.  To treat them as people with specific needs, not a specter.  Empathy can help with big solutions too.  But, ultimately, it is helpful day to day. 

SCOTUS Watch

Death Penalty: After the Supreme Court allowed Trump to rush three executions in January (normal order there would have delayed things and they all probably would not have been executed), there hasn't been one since. One footnote referenced here was a request for a short brief involving the firing squad. As seen on this page, the defense submitted it, focusing on procedural matters. A reply from the state is due soon.

A bit of background. Since at least early this century, concerns about lethal injection (backed up by various botched executions as well as some more hazy evidence) has led to various Supreme Court battles. Early on, it was the right to raise a claim, including those who claim drug use or something might make the lethal injection problematic. After an early more direct challenge (Baze v. Rees) failed 7-2, there was more of a strong split later with strong replies by both sides (Alito and Gorsuch writing the majority opinions as compared to Roberts suggests why).  

Basically, the Supreme Court firmly said that not only is the death penalty constitutional, but that the government also has a strong interest in carrying it out.  So, leaving open in theory some extreme case [e.g., actual burning at the stake, not disputed evidence lethal injection would in effect feel like that], not only did they reject the immediate claims (5-4, both times with strong dissents), but also requiring those making a claim that a particular execution protocol was illegal needed to provide an alternative method that was clearly available.  Sotomayor repeatedly railed against this and she is correct.

This is the immediate issue at hand: at first, there was an attempt to offer nitrogen gas as the alternative, but this was rejected for whatever procedural reason. For instance, one the argument was that the person waited too long to raise a claim.  Another time it was more like it is too novel and there really isn't a clear available process in place. A new "unusual" method might be legally complicated for that reason, even if it  is the latest method assuredly safe and effective, though it has yet to be used for an execution. Use for other reasons, or accidental deaths, not quite the same.  But, I am not aware of an in depth analysis on this issue though have read a bit that was said, including comments for/against. 

Anyway, that leaves the firing squad, which was the issue for the brief here.  And, some actually suggest it is safer than lethal injection, if not as pleasant optics-wise.  Again, state brief forthcoming. 

====

Rules: Rules of Appellate and Bankruptcy Procedure, per statutory power given to them, were transmitted to Congress this week.  

====

"We are Good" Campaign: Breyer, as noted last time, had a big lecture recently; he had another public appearance promoting public education of how the Court is doing its job.  Sotomayor and Gorsuch also promoted civics, including the message that they might disagree, but they are doing their job.  So, you know, don't interfere!  I respect these efforts, especially in promotion of civics education, even Gorsuch somewhat (SOMEWHAT), but you know, come on.  The shadow docket b.s. also is a problem, showing they aren't even doing normal judging appropriately.

They might not want to mention the pig in the room, but it's there.  Three corrupt nominations, especially Gorsuch + Barrett (toss in Kavanaugh), cannot be ignored.  This has led to a few people in the House and Senate to push a bill to expand the Supreme Court by four.  Good luck with that; still, it is an appropriate move as part of the whole process.  I saw reference to this being a sign of their "fury," which is fine and justified.  

It isn't JUST that though -- it is also a rational reply to re-calibrate given the excesses by one side, which already had too much power in a bad system.  Other than Breyer retiring -- I'll give him some slack in the Obama years, but yeah, he really should retire by the end of the term -- it is not horrible for these people to play things like this. They are restrained by their position.  I say this only so much though, since they are bringing this up, which they need not.  It comes off again as a subtweet message against packing.  Sorry people.  We saw what happened.  

Video of the announcement can be found here and one important part is the statement that this is the "education" period for such a proposal. It's a marathon, not a sprint.  A campaign, not a single moment. Pick your metaphor.  As with the Biden Commission, it's best to remember the big picture, and not be too defeatist.  Some already are; it's wrong.  An article on the preliminary activities of the Biden group, including (as I thought logical) splitting up of what some argue is a too large group into focus groups suggests it can help advance the "conversation" as well. 

===

Solicitor General Actions: There was a conference on Friday, which means orders on Monday.  An order was also dropped -- as is sometimes done on a Conference day -- this time regarding giving the SG time in a couple arguments and not giving time to the Ute tribe.  The cases involve the proper allotment of COVID to certain Native groups and for whatever reason it was decided that that specific request was not necessary.  

This is just one of lots of requests addressed without comment, there often being desire for different groups to get in on the oral arguments.  There being a limited amount of time, sometimes they lose out, though the SG rarely does.  We hear tell of a "shadow docket" of decisions, but this is the sort of mundane decisions where lack of an explanation is much more appropriate.  It might be nice if some brief comment is dropped at times, but I think bottom line the approach works okay,.

The "hope she just remains in place" acting SG dropped a request for the Supreme Court not to take a sex specific draft case, noting Congress will be examining the issue.  This would make it premature to take the case. The brief does not take a position on the bottom line issue. Good approach.

==

No late nite cases this time.  Opinion(s) on Thursday.

Mets: First Place & Even Getting A Few Games In

In the current "World Series" era, there were twenty-one perfect games, the last three in 2012. After a no-hitter (first time for San Diego), there was an almost one this week -- a HBP in the ninth killed it. Thirteen were ruined with one batter to go, not this one; this included the infamous bad call at first base.

No Mets no-hitters this season yet, but a lot of cancelled games, as well as one that was suspended in the first inning. That will be restarted. The Nats series (COVID), three, and then rain-outs (Marlins and two for Phillies, one made up) ... and tonight there was a "snow-out" in Colorado. This too will (hopefully) be covered with a DH, which means another pair of seven inning games (the Mets swept their first, one game taking eight).

The Mets looked to be in a groove versus the Phillies, a flawed team, but it's a bit too soon to assume much. The big test is like the late May/June period, that repeatedly put them into a hole. Stroman and Walker, however, have looked good, and Peterson did well the second time around. DeGrom was very good, but the team managed to lose both times. #5 will go tomorrow. Lindor looking energetic early; Conforto having a slow start.

Biden Administration: Two Tough Calls

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been put on pause because of blood clotting issues in women. Late Show writer @ElianaKwartler is here to speak on behalf of women in the 18 to 48 demographic. #LSSC pic.twitter.com/45DIUoWPtq

— A Late Show (@colbertlateshow) April 15, 2021

This is an amusing (and well performed) bit in response to a pause of the usage of the J&J vaccine (the one shot, which I used) after six women in this demo were found to have rare blood clots after using the vaccine. As noted, a range of commonly used drugs have much higher risk factors.  

Which doesn't mean the pause was wrong, especially given all the criteria, including the presence of two other vaccines and concerns about public reactions (likely not as rational about the realities of risk factors) overall.  I'm glad that isn't my call.  See also, making a range of decisions involving terrorist threats and any number of things.  This is a mixture of trusting experts and the Biden Administration as rational and sound actors generally.

They will make questionable calls, sometimes even bad ones, but as a whole, I think we have grounds to rely on them.

====

Another concern in recent days was the border, which involves various things, though again, people (including the press) will mix things together. There are unaccompanied minors, general numbers and refugee admissions, to name three. There has been some negative reactions from some members of the press (as well as John Oliver on his show) about Biden delaying raising the refugee admission cap, which he said he intended to do.  

After repeated questions if the border was a "crisis," the latest was constant asks of Jen Psaki about it, which she repeatedly put off. This bothered some, with one Washington Post article suggesting Biden "might" be worse than Trump on the overall subject.  It's April 2021, not 2024 people.  My reaction was "that's bullshit," but yeah, what's the problem with the decision?  

Well, one was made today, a sort of suspicious Friday deal, after an earlier than usual press briefing in the morning (Jen Psaki looked  a bit fancy, maybe even with makeup; I wonder if she was going to some event*).  It took off a barrier to refugees from certain places, but did not raise the cap.  It DID leave that open if the current cap was filled.  Either way, this really pissed some people off.  I was not ready to be, though ready to be upset, since didn't think Biden was going to fail to disappoint (plus you know he has a lot on his plate and so far did a lot of good too). 

A later announcement "clarified" things and said it is likely some increase (suggestion: not as high as the original plan) will be announced by May 15th.  And, which was cited before now, "the decimated refugee admissions program we inherited, and burdens on the Office of Refugee Resettlement" is why the original plan didn't work out.  Some basically now are assuming the criticism pushed Biden to spin or pull back or something.  But, I'm again not really sure what really changed.   

I'm doing an ongoing project involving U.S. and world history, which suggests the range of material out there even in an area for which I'm much more familiar than many people.  And, there is much there I do not know, though it helps that there the job is to provide short summaries and outlines. So, what I'm going to do here is to not feel bad for knowing only so much of what is going on here.  From what I can tell, the reporting itself at times leaves something to be desired. After a not that long determination that leaves open a raise in the cap, e.g., it is somehow a big flip that one is now supposed (again, pending a final determination).

Plus, one more time -- it's April.  It's just too soon, including with all that is going on, to speak in the dark tones of some.  Be it the courts, this or any number of issues.   

---

* Doing a bit of research, it turns out she has two sisters, at least one who looks very like her. 

Austentatious (and more)

It actually is now a while ago, but I had a time about a decade ago where I read through the Jane Austen novels along with some biography and other stuff. (Emma entry written in July of 2011!) My energy level regarding reading makes it hard to imagine trying to re-read these works though enjoyed the fictional The Jane Austen Society. Didn't see the Sanditon PBS series though. 

A search of the title often leads to an improvised comedy take off of Jane Austen. But, I'm concerned by the lesser known ten episode modern day television light comedy series, using four of the women (Lizzie, Emma, Marianne/Elinor) with a few of the guys (yes, "Brandon" is young form of a character that pined for the other Marianne). I found out about it because one of the actresses was in another television movie (playing Amish!) and checked her other roles. It is light and amusing. There is so much potential material, you can figure a lot more can be done to fill in the characters, including "that bitch Susan."

One review kinda wanted more and I do think it started out with a bit more potential earlier. But, again, it's well worth a check (got a DVD on Ebay for under $10), especially if you are a fan of the books. With so many options these days for programming, a Jane Austen related series of this nature [like even with modern copyright rules, she's in the public domain!] seems pretty obvious stuff. You already have a cottage industry of books out there some take-off of Jane Austen, including in modern form. 

With four women characters, plus a few guys (one a friend of the women), it is not too surprising that all do not get equal billing. Marianne, for instance, eventually doesn't do too much after she gets a job at a juice shop. Liz has some time parrying with Darcy, here a lawyer who hires her to get a house, and amusingly dealing with Colin's crush.  Darcy is handled pretty well and Liz has a nice light touch. She isn't as much of a rebel type as in the book, but definitely is appealing.  It's too bad really we don't see her interact with her family, who she does mention, other than a bit with her parents (first episode). 

Emma, whose foreign accent stands out here, doesn't have too much to do really though has some amusing scenes. She has a "not a boyfriend, friend who is a boy" relationship with the guy she winds up in the book, here not as clearly older than here -- each of the women are really, but Emma's youth stands out there.  The last two episodes deal with a bit more about their relationship, he clearly being jealous when she goes out with someone else. 

Marianne's sister Elinor, actually, might be the one who gets the most complex attention, including once her crush turns out to have a girlfriend. He himself says so (after she found out but didn't tell him), realistically not saying it isn't going badly or anything -- he recognized Elinor (the serious sister) and him had a connection, and wanted to be honest when their time working together was over.   The whole thing was handled rather nicely, including the actress (cute but not sexy) having a nice role.  

The ten episodes end with things hanging -- Marianne is planning to go to Paris with a name that sounds familiar, it is hinted there might be romance for Emma, things are left open for Liz/Darcy after we get a cameo of his sister and Elinor has a broken toe.  I guess that's nice -- the episodes do tend to end with a bit of a wrap-up and suggestion of further adventures.

 ====

Judy Blume:  After her death at 104, I read and mostly enjoyed Socks, an old classic from a children's author.  Judy Blume is still around and in her 80s.  I checked out her most recent adult book, In the Unlikely Event, which was written about five years ago and is based on real life events in the early 1950s (three plane crashes).  The book has a slew of characters, both adults and teenagers, each getting first person attention over the span of the novel. A style I appreciate; it gives you multiple points of view.

I read the first section (about 100 pages) matching up to the first plane crash.  It was pretty good and quite readable.  As noted in the past, in recent years, my ability to read longer books is much less in place than in the past. And, simply did not have the wherewithal to read around four hundred pages of this sort of thing.  Again, it would not be hard to do so really given the book is basically a bunch of thumbnail chunks (though a teen somewhat modeled on Judy Blume is the key focus) quite approachable.  

But, at this time at least, a little of that goes a long way.  I have this idea that the other three hundred pages wouldn't add much more.  Either way, the size was a red flag when I saw it, and was right. Still, someone else, they might enjoy the whole thing. 

===

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen: I recall watching this some years back (it is a 2011 film) and perhaps looking at the source book, which tells the story via email and other media. The movie is low key and charming; will try to check out the book later on.  (The film was on cable again.) The entry notes the differences between the two, but as with the book/film Hopscotch, that can still work.

Ewan McGregor, Emily Blunt (fishing expert and financial expert), Kristin Scott Thomas (edgy press agent for British PM, but also mom) and Amr Waked (sheik) each play their part well.  McGregor's Scottish accent is rather strong here.  Just to toss it there, nice to see "Timmy" from Rules of Engagement in a new sitcom, though don't know how it will go.

6th Circuit En Banc Upholds Ohio's Ban On Doctors Knowingly Performing Abortions Because of Down Syndrome

TRAP laws are laws that target abortion providers particularly, and from the mid-1970s, that was a basic problem. The result included the courts deep diving among medical regulations and some finding that bad. Evenhanded medical regulations would avoid that problem.

This law has shades of that, but also is a general anti-abortion message regulation that as noted by the main dissent (last one) is offensive even to the degree you focus on the assumed group being aided. Perhaps, choice and more assistance to all with disabilities would be a better option? It also is an overall part of a wider battle to find a way to attack Roe/Casey, which the dissents also address (see Leah Litman tweets cited).

The majority needs to interpret that law strictly and still it burdens abortion choice, which includes being able openly to discuss your choice with your doctor. The right to choose includes making a range of hard choices, choices some will deem very wrong. As one dissent notes, the majority in the process of unduly burdening abortion rights infringes free speech too. And, making choices here is not "eugenics" except to the usage there to private choices that would include avoiding conception at all. Would birth control decisions in that respect be banned too? At least, for the one condition singled out here?

Supreme Court Watch

Breyer: I referenced the Breyer lecture briefly as an update and many highlighted a limited portion against "packing." The extended lecture is more than that and has some familiar themes. Breyer has written books and regularly lectured to promote his point of view, an educator as much as a judge at heart. Some suggest the lecture helps the idea he is retiring, it having that feel. Maybe. I hope he does; it is a good time. A wait can be very problematic.

His concern about the importance of courts having their authority respected is fine. But, and this is not surprising, it is just not fully honest to face up to WHY court packing is specifically flagged as a necessity now. I realize he would see it as unethical to talk about the specifics as it applies to the Court for which he currently judges. Still, he is making a claim here. Don't bring it up if you can't fully examine the situation. There is a way to go at it sideways, perhaps. A direct opposition to packing without facing up to why, however, is not too credible. 

(People will use his words to oppose change and likewise that will be telling only part of the story, not very credibly.)  

Breyer's discussion on judging is overall fine too. It involves some useful details, including his personal support of compromise and summary of the factors used. The average day judging is not some stereotype one might see. But, here too, Breyer goes too far. A sort of rosy-eyed myth making for the masses. He notes the average judge honestly uses standard techniques, even if they might disagree on the details, disagreements affected by their experiences.

This alone is notable since the current system involves picking some with these "experiences" etc. in a more ideological fashion. The basic concern for me is not that a Gorsuch is just making shit up in a partisan way. He can quite honestly believe he is simply being neutral. It is that in practice we have clearly different results, ideologically so. This might be more narrow than some think, but it does have significant effects. The concern for the courts is not a result of people being confused about that sort of thing. "Packing" is a result of blatant abuse there. 

Order: Meanwhile, an order dropped rejecting a request to interfere in a lower court matter [interfering in the "shadow docket" done more often of late] but "without prejudice." That is, the party can try again if another matter arises that warrants it. The case itself is not exactly run of the mill: it involved Mississippi's plea to stay a CA5 ruling supporting a parents' school funding suit tied to post-Civil War Readmission Act. That is, the act included a still active education requirement! 

Arguments: The rest of the arguments will follow the telephonic method. The justices might all be vaccinated, but all the lawyers out there are not, and there still are issues. We have not gone back to normal; so this is a sensible path for the final month plus (there being a May argument).   

Biden Commission: An announcement has been made about the commission that Biden promised ("President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States").  The membership is pretty good with various familiar names, from both sides, including people I have read over the years.  

It was given a six month deadline, so some final report (might not include recommendations as such) will be a while coming.  In one interview, Chuck Schumer told Rachel Maddow that he'd wait on the Supreme Court, but is supportive of more immediate action on lower court judges.  I see btw that Mitch McConnell strongly criticized the commission, anything he says on this matter of course not worthy of much comment.  

There is a concern this is a "kick the can down the road" mechanism, which really seemed the point when it was proposed during the campaign.  I'm somewhat more supportive of a presidential commission here than that article since as with other things (e.g., civil rights) there is a chance that sort of thing will have some added symbolic weight.  What would recommendations get you anyway?  I'm likely sure it will have some conclusions suggesting a path forward anyhow.  

Ultimately, the ball is Congress' court to push things along, and adding membership has always been a longshot as is.  We need to focus on other things, including voting rights.  Yes, ultimately, the courts will matter there too.  But, one step at a time, especially 50-50 in the Senate, is a realistic path.  The article is by someone likely to give you a somewhat more left leaning take than perhaps warranted at times, but I grant his concerns are valid overall.  I do note a former member of Strict Scrutiny Podcast defended the conservative judge that recently retired. 

Late Night Fun:  I scheduled this post Saturday morning since -- though it hasn't happened for a little while -- there repeatedly has been late night Friday orders. And, checking the NYT late nite, I see we have another. This sort of this again is offensive practice, even beyond the merits.  As usual, Amy Howe is a helpful place to go to see what is going on in these "shadow docket" orders as well as in general.  

The ruling is another involving religious gatherings and turns on a tainted seat that even people who were wary of court packing said was a dangerous bridge too far.  It sets forth a rule that is a result of cases, often with some lack of clarity of who exactly voted for the five person majority and what they supported, that pushed the meaning of "religious liberty." 

Roberts, without fucking explaining why, would refuse the emergency petition. Lower courts "might what to know."  That makes it 5-4.  Justice Breyer might explain to him how this leads to distrust of court power.  The unsigned order is impatient at the apparently clear repeated breach of their shadow rules, but the Chief Justice of the United States does not think the order is necessary.  Kagan for the liberals has a two page dissent (over the four page per curiam). 

Kagan sounds tired too: "As the reliance on separate opinions and unreasoned orders signals, the law does not require that the State equally treat apples and watermelons."  And, "Because the majority   continues   to   disregard   law   and   facts   alike,   I   respectfully dissent from this latest per curiam decision."   Breyer has a sort of fifth column against his efforts, apparently -- the members of his own Court dropping midnight orders that its own Chief Justice "indicates" (Amy Howe) he disagrees with via a simply "would deny the petition." 

Rachel Maddow noted the Republican Party officially is still kissing the ring of Trump, including going down to his Florida home (or whatever that is) and allowing him to still benefit financially from his grift. This continues to make the party not worthy of respect. And, these actions, here because of a so-called "justice" shoved down our throats by the assholes who would not give Garland a hearing, including an announcement during a sort of super-spreader event, makes SCOTUS of the same caliber.  

RW also was glad she got fully vaccinated, tearfully, probably in part because the love of her life had a bad case of the Big V.  The disease has not affected me as much as some and the vaccine -- which contra to her sympathies to those wary about it -- is rather easy to get.  It is not even akin to a blood draw.  She had a negative reaction to a past shot in a different case, so again she might have a special reason for empathy there along with her fear of needles.  The COVID rules that SCOTUS keeps on interfering with -- selectively -- are in place as we still fight the virus, in some places with upticks that are scary.  

One more thing ... I checked Twitter shortly before midnight and saw some reference of the Padres finally getting a no-hitter, but no reference to this case.  This was including a law professor and Mets fan that agrees that call the other day was bogus saying he loves baseball.  A professor who earlier flagged a critic of his take on the shadow docket.  He updated in the morning.  See here for discussion on a related recent matter. 

ETA: One other thing flagged by commentary is the Kagan (the circuit judge of the 9th Cir.) seemed to name check the lower court judges involved. At the very least, it was noted that the panel was made up of Trump and Bush43 people, though saying that might make Breyer cry. 

Also, it is supposed that Alito or maybe Gorsuch wrote the opinion, which does match the tone.  The others have gone along though Kavanaugh and Barrett have flagged some desire to suggest they are moderating themselves a bit here.  Those two have been the strongest on this issue. 

 ===

There was no scheduled Conference this week or opinion days announced for next week. So, next week might be low key, though there is an Conference scheduled for next Friday, leading into a more busy two weeks. We shall see how things go.  One thing that won't happen later this month is an execution -- Texas postponed what looked to be the first state execution this year, but it is now scheduled for November.