A retro channel shows "Blondie" films (1940s; there was also a couple of television series based on the comic strip, plus a radio show) each Saturday morning. I talked about this over the years.
The 28 films are of mixed quality. For whatever reason, one film is not shown in the rotation (about a "haunted" house). Blondie Plays Cupid is a good one.
The film is effectively a series of vignettes. It starts with the Fourth of July coming up. Blondie is not a fan of Dagwood and Baby Dumpling's fireworks.
She wants to go somewhere quiet. How about her relatives in the country? Some home and office scenes (where a plan to trick Dagwood backfires; the coworker involved is played by someone else in later films) take place.
Then, an amusing scene on the train, with a familiar face (the grumpy railroad executive on Petticoat Junction; the actor was in lots of character roles). Fans of old shows and films will see other familiar faces throughout the series.
The busy film then shifts to the country, where a young Glenn Ford offers them a ride. That's where the title drop comes in -- he has fallen in love with the neighbor's daughter, but the father opposes the match. The justice of the peace gives an amusing performance.
More hijinks and things end (as they always do) happily. The film is well-paced and well-written, with the interrelated scenes fitting together nicely.
One amusing bit of the "I see what they did there" variety involves Baby Dumpling winding up in a haystack after a joyride. Something is poking him. Turns out to be a needle. In a haystack.
There is also a cute final joke. The last bit involves something that would be rather serious (painful burns) if we took it seriously. The Wikipedia page at the moment somewhat misleadingly notes how things wound up. They don't simply enjoy the end of their vacation peacefully in the country.
The films have various expected components, including the postman getting hit by Dagwood (the film has a twist, including him having a chance to get Dagwood back) during an early scene involving the family having breakfast. The smart aleck neighborhood kid usually gets involved somehow.
Dagwood bumbles a lot, which at some point is a bit tedious. There is also some stereotypical Blondie stuff, including a bit too many scenes of her being jealous or upset (often arising from some misunderstanding) for some reason. She is not as sexy looking as in the comic strip.
Blondie started as a flapper-type character, while Dagwood was a rich man's son who gave up his money out of love. The films skip that backstory.
The strips, at least when I read them much later, also had them being close friends with their neighbors. This film has Blondie talking to the wife on the phone. Most of the films, however, skip them, and one late film has the neighbors annoyed at Dagwood.
The family grows over the decade or so of the films. "Baby Dumpling" becomes Alexander. And, they have a daughter named Cookie. The boss is "J.C" Dithers, though he is replaced later in the series except for the last film. That is, Julius Caesar Dithers.
Today is the Ides of March. It's all connected.
We are amidst a time of attack, from the executive department of the U.S. on down, against trans people.
The Supreme Court has (except in the Bostock case) looked on and said, "You go!" though a few justices would say, "Go faster!" It is not all dark. But it is quite scary for many.
Mayor Mamdani was a strong ally during his campaign. Trans people now, even though it has been less than three months, are impatient for action.
Some, including those noting they are part of the community (one on Bluesky said they had a trans child), are willing to optimistically give him a chance. Others are more pessimistic and/or cynical.
Given the stakes and situation, that's understandable. Again, there is no single reaction here. We need to generally practice human empathy and discernment.
The establishment of the office comes at an uncertain time for access to gender-affirming care for trans youth in New York — a city that also functions as a sanctuary destination for families elsewhere in the U.S. seeking such care. In February, NYU Langone, one of the foremost providers of gender-affirming care in the city, announced that it would cease the provision of such care to minors, citing the “current regulatory environment.”
NY Attorney General Letitia James demanded that the hospital resume, with a deadline that just passed, because of state human rights law. We shall see.
The move, a form of obedience in advance, by NYU Langone, shows some of the results of the human rights violations of the Trump Administration, which is a disgrace to this nation every second they (illegally) continue their injustices.
We need more anger and passion about how horrible things are. One day, we will have to reconstruct our nation. The will to do so has to come with an understanding of the stakes. The harm to trans people is just one of so many examples of what we have to address. It is taken to such cruel levels.
My "impatient" link shows that there are means for the city government to address the situation. Erin Reed and other trans advocates want to know what the mayor is going to do.
The establishment of the first Mayor’s Office for LGBTQIA+ affairs and the appointment of the first out trans person to lead a New York City office as director provide a key avenue to address such things.
A question posed at the announcement addressed the hospital issue:
Question: I'm curious how you see the city's role, potentially this office's role, in responding to actions like NYU Langone and other health institutions moving to end gender-affirming care. And I'm wondering if the city has a role in responding to that, and if you've talked about that at all in discussions with President Trump.
Mayor Mamdani: I think the city has a role in standing up for the rights of New Yorkers and ensuring the compliance with the law. And that is regardless of who impedes upon it. And I made very clear my opposition to the decisions made by NYU Langone. I will continue to make that clear as the mayor of our city. And I am frankly looking forward to working with our new director on seeing the many ways our city can stand up for queer and trans New Yorkers.
That's nice, though it is nothing specific. Such replies warrant follow-up. It annoys me when none come.
The new office, specifically, would be the direct avenue to address it. The leader sounds like a great choice:
Taylor Brown — who is currently working in the state Attorney General’s office in its civil rights bureau, and assisted in a lawsuit launched against Nassau County and its ban on transgender women and girls from playing sports in county facilities — will head the new office. She will be the highest-ranking trans person in New York City government.
Brown also worked for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union, where she was a part of the legal team behind a landmark lawsuit for trans people looking to amend birth certificates in West Virginia.
Change must come from below before it reaches the top. This office is what people voted for. What I voted for.
As Out Magazine noted:
The historic move not only marks an institutional shift for the city but also highlights Mamdani's commitment to the LGBTQ+ community. This draws a stark contrast with other Democrats at a time when the Democratic Party is being urged to "do more" for queer people.
There was a seven-page Order List on Monday. The Court granted one case for review. SCOTUSBlog:
In Prutehi Guahan, the justices will weigh in on a dispute that arises from the U.S. Air Force’s disposal of unexploded ordnance, which it burns or blows up, on a base in Guam.
So notable concern, but based on technical issues:
Four years ago, Prutehi Guahan, an environmental group, went to federal court to challenge the Air Force’s then-pending application to renew its permit, granted to it by Guam’s Environmental Protection Agency under a federal law called the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, for its disposal of ordnance. The group contended that before the Air Force submitted its application, it should have prepared an environmental impact statement, as required by a different federal law, the National Environmental Policy Act.
Kavanaugh didn't take part in deciding a case without saying why. Jackson dissented from a refusal to a motion based on an alleged abuse of the in forma pauperis policy, following her recent practice of doing so for incarcerated persons.
Gorsuch dissents from a denial of cert. As Mark Joseph Stern (Slate) summarizes on Bluesky (noting his position received four votes in the past):
Gorsuch dissents from the Supreme Court's refusal to consider whether a judge (not a jury) can extend a person's prison sentence by finding, by a preponderance of evidence (not beyond a reasonable doubt), that he violated supervised release.
Charles Burton Doesn't Die
Charles Burton has been in prison for over thirty years for his involvement in a robbery/homicide. Burton is in his mid-70s and in a wheelchair. A final SCOTUS appeal (involving procedural issues) was pending.
“I firmly believe that the death penalty is just punishment for society’s most heinous offenders, as shown by the 25 executions I have presided over as governor,” Ivey said in a statement on Tuesday. “In order to ensure the continued viability of the death penalty, however, I also believe that a government’s most consequential action must be administered fairly and proportionately.
Alabama's strongly conservative governor commuted his sentence to life. That's the right move, except that he should really be paroled. He is ailing and was not directly involved in the actual killing. He has already served more than enough for his crime.
Burton wasn't even there when it happened. It was a particularly poor usage of the "felony murder rule." I appreciate her principled pro-capital punishment statement. Yes, I can grant that.
Alabama has not had a great run in recent years executing people, especially respecting the procedure, which led them to shift to nitrogen gas. Give credit where it's due and all that, all the same.
The victim's daughter opposed the execution. That happens, though some seem to think honoring the victims is a one-way ratchet. Still, executions are in the name of the public, not private parties.
The actual killer was sentenced to death. His sentence was overturned on appeal. The government eventually sentenced him to LWOP. He died in prison.
Burton's lawyers removed their final appeal as moot.
Cedric Ricks was sentenced to death for the May 2013 killings of 30-year-old Roxann Sanchez [girlfriend] and her son Anthony Figueroa at their apartment in Bedford, a suburb in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Sanchez’s 12-year-old son, Marcus Figueroa, was injured during the attack.
His attorneys had asked the Supreme Court to stay his execution, arguing that prosecutors violated Ricks’ constitutional rights by eliminating potential jurors on the basis of race.
Previous appeals by Ricks that alleged ineffective counsel and called for the suppression of evidence in the case have been denied.
A horrible domestic violence crime like this warrants serious punishment. It is not, in my view, the "worst of the worst" type murder that warrants the death penalty.
(Texas has executed a handful of people annually in recent years. It is a form of lottery to execute him.)
One more death will not stop the cycle of violence involved. I don't know if the due process concerns flagged tainted the conviction.
They probably are not "cert worthy" since they are most likely singular, not the special class warranting SCOTUS review. The justices should still not have denied without comment.
Justice Joe would provide a brief statement explaining my denial, noting that the taking of a life (especially given my overall constitutional concern about the death penalty) warrants a special exception to the usual "no comment" cert denial policy.
He was executed, providing an apology in his final statement. Media coverage continues to provide the public with information about such final moments.
The almost thirteen-year lag time would have been notable back in the day. It's relatively quick, FWIW, as things go now. COVID probably helped add a few more years that might not have been there otherwise.
Upcoming
I noticed that a media advisory I missed flagged that there will be limited seating for the upcoming birthright citizenship oral argument.
There is an execution scheduled on the 17th. There might be a final order to dispose of like the ones above.
The next scheduled thing is a special event honoring Justice O'Connor (next Thursday) with a livestream. Various Trump officials will take part.
The justices will officially return next Friday. They probably (there is a notice they "may") will hand down one or more opinions. They will also have a conference to consider pending matters.
Other News
Oyez did not have last term's opinion announcements.
The delay led Fix the Court to reach out and obtain them (in a raw form that is harder to access and contains other audio mixed in).
Oyez now has (some) of the opinion announcements up. They are easier to access, but not complete yet.
On X, Tuberville reposted an image of Mamdani next to a photo of the deadly 9/11 terror attacks in New York City along with the words "the enemy is inside the gates."
I have had mixed experiences with books recently. I have had better luck lately. A variety of books with different subject matters are worth noting.
Walter Isaacson’s new book, “The Greatest Sentence Ever Written,” takes as its focal point the document’s second line: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Order List
Sotomayor (with Jackson) dissented from a denial regarding a case about prisoners having the right to split a filing fee. Kagan would have taken the case but did not join. Takes four to grant cert.
We then went into an oral argument involving guns and drugs. Eric Segall has a good commentary. And then the long oral argument was done.
But not the news for the day.
"Emergency" Docket
Steve Vladeck and Chris Geidner discussed two irregular decisions involving a New York City redistricting matter and requiring a school to tell parents their children were using alternative pronouns and so forth. They are the usual 6-3 jobs with Sotomayor and Kagan handling dissents.
Rick Hasen briefly raises red flags about the New York case. The problem there is procedural. Only Alito writes for the conservatives. But he might have an opinion for the Court in an election case soon. That one will matter.
The case page provides the state brief in the trans case, which details various complexities that some skip over since they think the policy is wrong. Erin Reed puts things into a wider context. She covers trans issues. And the SCOTUS conservatives have, over and over again, shown disdain for trans rights.
(The exception being the Bostock case, a statutory interpretation case that is an asterisk without more.)
Overall, Kagan is correct. First, they should have taken it for full review. Second, they are hypocrites regarding substantive due process, including not taking a case where trans parents raised such claims in support of their children's transitioning.
Vladeck flags that the majority -- unsigned though Barrett with Roberts and Kavanaugh concur separately, with a few comments about Dobbs, the abortion case -- rushes through the balancing required in granting the request.
Okay, they did it, as he says, but they did it slipshod, including not being concerned about the interests of the students. For instance, even if you think the parents have a good case, the district court's order appears to be too broad.
Ideally, parents, children, and schools should be on the same page. But things are not always ideal. Forced outing, against the will of the children, is bad too.
A 6-3 "emergency" docket opinion is not the way to handle this situation. But, as Vladeck says, the conservatives are (selectively) impatient.
Billy Leon Kearse Execution
Florida, after SCOTUS dropped a no comment order, executed another person on Tuesday.
Kearse murdered a police officer about thirty-five years ago. Murdering a police officer is one of those narrow classes of cases of particular heinousness. But it was 35 years ago. Too long.
And, even there, only a narrow majority below rejected claims that a death sentence was improper. He was 18 and had serious intellectual disability claims.
The final appeal raised procedural arguments, including those involving the disability, which were probably rightly rejected in this posture. Still, even here, I wish they would briefly explain the ruling.
I continue to find these executions gratuitous and otherwise problematic without being APPALLED each and every time.
Opinions
Wednesday was a scheduled opinion day, though the two unscheduled rulings took some attention off that. Regularly, SCOTUS does things off schedule.
Jackson (standard used in an immigration case) and Sotomayor (NJ Transit Corporation is not an arm of New Jersey, so no sovereign immunity) with unanimous opinions. SCOTUSblog had a live blog.
Upcoming
Another Order List is scheduled for Monday. There will be a two-week break before more oral arguments.
No opinion days are scheduled, but as we have seen, unexpected news might arise at any time. For instance, two years ago, the Supreme Court announced over the weekend that there would be an opinion dropped, without them showing up (cowards).
The Supreme Court does not usually announce news on the weekend. But this was a special case. It was the Trump v. Anderson opinion keeping him on the ballot.
