LGBTQ Films

I re-watched Boy Meets Girl (trans) and Liberty's Secret (lesbian), both of which I referenced on this blog. They are free online. There are several gay and lesbian films on places like YouTube or Tubi. I am trying to find some more trans-related romantic films. 

(Re-reading my comment on Liberty's Secret, I understand the reviewer's concerns. The romance aspect is curiously restrained. Overall, imperfections noted, I still liked the film.)

There is a tendency to focus on transgirls, especially in the sports context. I'm a heterosexual. Sure. I like transgirl romances. There was something on YouTube about feminization. It later became dark. But a positive film about that would be good too. 

SCOTUS Watch

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan will appear July 14 before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, which has jurisdiction over the annual spending measure that funds the Supreme Court, according to a scheduling announcement from House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.).

The Supreme Court might be in recess, but it is still in session. Odds and ends still occur.* 

The most notable news, however, is that two justices will (for the first time since COVID) appear before Congress. Thomas, for some reason, stopped by recently. Not in an official capacity. 

The usual procedure was to have a liberal and a conservative justice, as we have here. The appearance provides members to ask justices non-budget related questions. 

“the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community”

We will also have many term round-ups. 

Prof. Dorf discusses a controversial reference in the birthright citizenship opinion. I don't think he quite salvages the reference. Yes, noncitizenship is "less secure." Noncitizens still have rights.

Prof. Segall talks about Kavanaugh's de facto acceptance of living constitutionalism. Brett has to bow down to the originalist god, including talking about how constitutional "meanings" hold firm. 

As with the English language generally, however, meanings change over time, too. Sorry dude. 

==

Note: The summer is sometimes so lacking in SCOTUS news that I am left to cite the website providing a typo correction to one of its opinions. 

The Court used to fix typos silently as if there were editing elves doing so out of public view. Now, they openly cite even the smallest edits. 

They also provide the final "bound" version of the opinion, which in the past took years but now starts during the term itself, including any changes at the bottom of the page.  

Check out here. There are "revisions" with the date provided. You can also look down the page and see the first twenty or so opinions now have exact page locations. 

The changes, like the different versions of biblical verses (h/t Bart Ehrman), are often trivial. Nonetheless, it is a good bit of open government. 

ETA: Graham Platner finally formally removed himself from the Senate race. The new replacement of Senator "Kavanaugh Won't Overturn Roe!" will hopefully be picked later this month. 

Doonesbury + Socialists

I have not kept up with the now Sunday-only strips, but read it over the years. Good bio overall with many comics. Meanwhile, recent wins by "Democratic Socialists" led me to write this.

Happy 4th

It's the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. I would link to my book review, but the page is dead, along with the Symbol website. You can search archived pages. 

Happy Independence Day

 

The day they actually voted for independence. 7/2/1776.

SCOTUS Watch: Summer Recess

The shitty trans athletes opinion shows the importance of voluntary trans protections, including those in New York.

The summer recess begins. The justices will have to address some things that pop up. They also have scheduled stuff:

For your planning purposes, summer order lists are scheduled to be issued on Monday, July 20; Monday, August 17; and Friday, September 4, 2026. Summer order lists usually consist of actions taken by the Court on motions in pending cases, petitions for rehearing, and other miscellaneous matters. Emergency orders, such as in applications for stays, will continue to be released as required.

Fix the Court suggests justices should circuit ride. I think it would be a decent idea if they spent more time in the lower courts. One idea: have each circuit justice preside over en banc hearings. 

The justices (minus two) might not be great at being district court judges. But I'm open to some thoughts.

We can spend the summer thinking about the Supreme Court. People think "court reform" means more justices. Let's think further. It's more than that. 

ETA: A pending case on the shadow docket involved a stay for reporter Catherine Herridge, who faced a daily $800 fine for refusing to name her sources in a Privacy Act lawsuit. 

Chris Geidner has the details. The facts go back at least to 2017, but now she has superlawyer Paul Clement on her side. No dice. Only Kavanaugh, without comment, would have granted the stay. 

(The lower panel had judges from the Carter, Biden, and Trump administrations, nomination-wise.) 

The final decision was handed down Thursday. It shows that we still will have some miscellaneous stuff popping up during the summer recess. 

Once upon a time, the Supreme Court was officially out of session. If it wanted to hear something as a group, they had to make a special effort. Individual justices handled things in the meanwhile.  

That is no longer the case. The individual justices still handle circuit matters. Nonetheless, the Court as a whole is still in session.  

SCOTUS Watch: Opinions/Orders

Orders

The Order List had some notable content, including multiple grants and no grant in the E.J. Carroll case. Maybe, just maybe, Trump will have to pay up for his sexual assault.

Gorsuch (with Alito and Thomas) returns to his concern about health workers not being able to obtain an exemption from vaccine mandates. NY, among other things, argues it is a bad "vehicle" for review. 

Thomas (with Gorsuch) wants to re-examine NYT v. Sullivan, citing original understanding (the case involves Alan Dershowitz suing CNN). If they want to quote original understanding, quite a few modern-day First Amendment cases should be decided the other way. A lot more limits were allowed back then. 

Sotomayor, for the liberals, dissented in a qualified immunity case involving a prisoner alleging mistreatment. There is a good originalist argument, ignored by conservative justices, that juries should have wide discretion to find government officials liable for wrongdoing. The Founding generation thought juries were the "palladium of liberty," even more than judges, who were creatures of the state.  

Each Trump nominee did not take part in a case without saying why. 

There should be another "clean-up" order, with perhaps more recusals, later in the week.

Opinions 

Barrett (with Roberts + the liberals) upholds a rule regarding mail-in ballots. Rick Hasen argues that "text,  history, and longstanding practice going back to the Civil War" back her up. A somewhat unhinged Alito opinion, however, still received four votes. 

Kagan continues the expansion of the reach of the Fourth Amendment to "geofence warrants," regarding the location of cellphone users. Alito, Thomas, and Barrett dissented. Gorsuch concurs but tosses in some cosplay about original understanding.

[Orin Kerr of Volokh Conspiracy is one resource for this topic.]

Roberts had the big two for the day involving agencies. The Federal Reserve, 5-4, can retain its "for cause" removal rules. The dissenters partially complain about the reach of the opinion, which broadly rules to bring clarity to the question.

(People are arguing that Roberts/Kavanaugh selectively exempt the Federal Reserve "to protect their stock portfolios." The special exemption is dubious. OTOH, various agencies regulate financial matters. They also affect stock portfolios.)

Not so for other agencies, overturning long practice (at least from the late 19th Century) and precedent (from the 1930s). The whole thing is bullshit, 6-3, Sotomayor (Kagan usually handles this issue) with the dissenting opinion for the liberals. 

(Her dissent, which she read from the bench, is very good. We should have audio/video.) 

The First Congress split various ways regarding the proper constitutional and policy rules for removal. It is a political question that should be left to congressional discretion. The dissent is correct that the majority forgets its "place." The voters need to secure a new Congress that reminds them. 

The 6-3 majority puts its thumb on one side. Perhaps, it is an ironic move to honor the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (tyrannical king). 

Some more opinions tomorrow.

ETA: A discussion about them.