Some Books

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.”

An apt entry for the 250th anniversary of our independence. The book is tiny -- it is around sixty-four pages -- and half of it isn't even directly about the sentence. He includes an essay about the importance of supporting the common good. He also includes multiple documents, including a first draft.

I also liked Edward Larson's, best known for his book on the Scopes Trial, book on 1776 overall. 

I found this author because she has a new book. This is an older one that was at the library. The "Jenna" book club references Bush43's daughter. 

It covers the life of its character from 7-18 (for whatever reason, the plot ends about a decade before the book was published) or thereabouts. It is not a young adult book, but it reads like one. It is in her voice. 

Her father is unreliable, her mother is trying to survive with two children from different fathers, and Sam likes to climb. We get some plot from when she is younger, but a chunk takes place when she is around 15-18. 

I liked it overall, though it probably went too long. 

I found a picture of this book and the next one, which were read over fifteen years ago. I listened to this one (don't recall doing so) while reading it this time. 

I did listen to The Devil in the Junior League, which is a summer read that I put on the side panel (btw, one image appears to not show up on some browsers). A good performance -- appropriate Southern accent (though one person said it wasn't Texan ... I didn't notice the difference -- IITW took place in Texas btw) with a nice sound effect simulating phone calls and use of a microphone. Got a kick out of it -- sometimes, it doesn't take much to amuse me.

The author had a bunch of romance novels. This one was inspired by her own life (she moved to NYC from Texas). It was a fun story of a twenty-something whose comfortable life falls to the wayside, but she manages to find a way. 

One thing that originally attracted me to the book was that I watched a LGBTQ film (It's In the Water) that took place in a similar milieu. That is, a junior leaguer stepped outside of her comfort zone, this time accepting her lesbianism. 

Blechman’s forte clearly is in his character studies of these and other pigeon enthusiasts. His account of the historical pigeon, on the other hand, is a bit mottled by his lack of footnotes or bibliography. One can neither check up on details nor expand one’s knowledge. The engaged reader, of course, wants to do both.

The book covers various subjects (including Darwin, beauty contests, food, and target practice) but emphasizes pigeon racing. It is well written. Pigeon enthusiasts might want a bit more about the birds themselves. 

The bird racing was familiar. My dad raced birds. He fit the m.o., coming from a working-class ethnic background. We had a coop on the roof. 

He had one of those clocks that were used to track when birds arrived. I'm not sure how he started. For whatever reason, he eventually stopped. 

Midaq Alley (Arabic: زقاق المدق, romanized: Zuqāq al-Midaqq) is a 1947 novel by Egyptian author Naguib Mahfouz, first published in English in 1966. The story is about Midaq Alley in Khan el-Khalili, a teeming back street in Cairo which is presented as a microcosm of the world.

I found out about this book because it was adapted into a film (taking place in Mexico). The book is a tad risqué (involving homosexuality, prostitution, and other mature topics) with various human dramas taking place. Good translation. 

Mahfouz was a leading Egyptian novelist who repeatedly used "alleys" in his works. I don't read much fiction, especially "classic" novels. Overall, I enjoyed it, though now and then the exposition went on a bit too long. 

I never saw the film. 

Ted Danson, during his appearance on Stephen Colbert, recently referenced that he has a podcast. There are lots of podcasts out there. 

I checked it out. He has some interesting interviews. 

I listen to a few podcasts. I often get bored with podcasts. Strict Scrutiny Podcast, concerning the Supreme Court, which is a prime interest of mine, often goes too long. 

But I listened to both parts (about two hours total) of the interview he had with his wife. They met while doing a film together. They acknowledged the film didn't do well. 

The marriage did. It has been around thirty years. 

SCOTUS Watch

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. 

War With Iran

Dorf on Law has two good entries on how the war (sic) with Iran is illegal. I have my upfront .02. Stephen Colbert was great last night, too, covering it, both his monologue and first guest.

SCOTUS: More Opinions

Opinions

Two opinions dropped on Tuesday. 

[1]

Sotomayor handled a civil procedure case relatively quickly. It involved a dispute about allegedly tainted baby food. Thomas added a concurrence to flag yet another issue he is concerned about. 

[2]

Thomas had the majority in the second case regarding the limits of sovereign immunity in a case alleging race discrimination by the post office. 

Sotomayor, for the liberals, and Gorsuch (a limit on federal agencies of any type is his thing) dissented. She felt the woman had a right to sue. 

The facts make this a sympathetic case. The split shows the limits of textualism. On that general subject, Eric Segall has a good blog post. 

Congress can pass a new statute to clarify matters. This is often the case. Many cases involve statutory matters for which the legislature can tweak things. Congress might fail to do this (see tariffs), and in response, the courts increase in power.  

[3]

Kagan and Jackson wrote the Wednesday opinions. So, readers can expect things to go pretty well. Each was unanimous in result, with a few conservatives adding comments. A brief summary below.

Justice Jackson affirms the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on the scope of the right to counsel during breaks in trials. Accepts some limits on counsel engaging with the defendant (as a witness), adding some clarifying details about the rules.  

[4]

Kagan has an opinion on whether a government contractor can immediately appeal an order rejecting its claim to sovereign immunity derived from its work for the government. They can't.

One of the many technical cases they take. Kagan often can write these opinions in at least a halfway understandable way.  

The case also has a topical connection. Appeals take a long time. The facts are now around ten years old. They involve facts alleging a contractor's work policies for detainees violate a federal bar on forced labor and Colorado’s prohibition on unjust enrichment.

Melvin Trotter Execution 

A crack addict named Melvin Trotter fatally stabbed 70-year-old Virgie Langford in the corner grocery store she ran for 50 years. Trotter has been on death row for nearly 40 years for the murder.

Colorful summary. His lawyers argued that the claim of "premeditation" is dubious when he seized a knife at the scene. That is a big reason why he got the death penalty. Even bad crimes might not warrant it. 

An organization against the death penalty argued:

Melvin’s death sentence was handed down by a non-unanimous jury on two separate occasions. Florida is one of the only states that allows a death sentence to be given without the full confidence of the jury, making it widely recognized as unreliable. Melvin’s life was shaped by severe trauma, instability, and intellectual limitations that were never meaningfully addressed in court.

The final appeal alleged problems with the Florida execution protocol. Sotomayor (for herself) dropped a statement "to express concern about Florida’s implementation of its execution protocol and the secrecy surrounding it." 

Sotomayor has been the justice most concerned about lethal injection protocols. She noted the claim alleged flagged problems like "incorrect drug doses, the use of nonprotocol drugs, and recordkeeping lapses that could mask yet additional failing."

She joined the "no comment" denial because there wasn't (in her view) enough evidence in this case. It is rare to see any discussion in these final appeals. 

I continue, like apparently no justice is left on the Court, to find it problematic to only execute someone decades after the conviction. Forty years on death row is punishment enough.

Florida executed him a few hours later. 

Opinion Announcements

We also have good news: Fix the Court managed to access last term's opinion announcements. They are (for now) in a harder-to-access form, but the effort is appreciated. It would be simpler if SCOTUS posted it themselves. They think it is worthwhile to have them.

Upcoming

More orders and oral arguments next week/month.

ETA: There will also probably be one or more opinions dropping on Wednesday. Also, Tom Goldstein, founder of SCOTUSblog, was convicted.

Ted Lasso

Ted Lasso began as a character in a witty advertisement campaign for airing British football in the United States. Ted Lasso and Beard (looking a bit different) are both in the segments. It became a beloved Apple TV series. 

People love the empathy. Ted Lasso is signed as a sort of Major League (which gets named dropped -- dropping cultural references is a big Ted thing) revenge by an ex-wife to ruin her ex-husband's team. 

This American coach seems to know nothing about the game (honestly, he couldn't get the job -- you need a license that shows your skills). That was a major part of the joke of the ad campaign.  

Appearances can be deceiving. He's a great coach as a coach. And his right-hand man knows something about the game. Plus, the kitman (equipment guy), Nate, turns out to be a bit of a "wunderkind" and helps, too. 

Ted Lasso, as a person, is what is essential here. He becomes beloved, including by the owner (as her goddaughter says, she is a "boss bitch," and that is a term of endearment), played by a tall cup of water who is best known for her stage work. And his goofy charm also (at first) hides a lot of pain. 

Her ex, the one main character who is allowed simply to be bad (and not 100%), is Giles from Buffy. Well, the actor. There is a great cast, multiple people who also did well in other, rather different roles. Keeley plays a serious role on the Fargo (another show which gets a lot of kudos) television show, now with a Minnesota accent. 

Various characters go through plot arcs. Nice guy Nate has a heel turn when he thinks he is not being given enough credit. It's an excellent cast, and each has a chance to shine. Multiple characters are also musically inclined, like the actors who play them. 

But the show's niceness keeps it from wanting (nearly anyone) to be truly mean or hurt. They all get smoothed out, though no one gets a totally happy ending. 

The show begins around thirty minutes, with some longer episodes. A couple of extra episodes were added to the second season that basically stood outside the normal plotline. A therapist, who is a good character, comes in Season Two. Season Three episodes were longer, over an hour. 

The characters, writing, and humor continue into the third season. I don't think the longer episodes, especially later on, were a good thing. It probably eventually drew things out too much. A short episode in multiple cases would have been tighter. 

Also, the show became bland, since everything just worked out. A player comes out to the team, and nothing happens except that one player was mad because he didn't trust him. He gets his dream of kissing his boyfriend after a major win, and there is no reaction shot from anyone. 

There were multiple examples of this. It felt good because it was nice, and the characters we wanted to do well got nice things. 

People did get hurt -- Keeley's girlfriend turns on her. But then she gets a soft landing when Rebecca gives her the money to run the business. She can afford it, especially after she sells nearly half the team and gets a LOT of money. 

The season would have been better with ten shorter episodes. Or ten shorter episodes mixed with two special toss-ins. (I thought the S2 Beard episode was a bit too weird and drawn out. But it's okay to have a sort of WTAF episode.) 

It is somewhat comparable to Gilmore Girls when the show didn't want Rory or Lorelei to move on. Rory becomes, well, she becomes a bitch, but she cannot truly be punished. She's Rory! And Lorelei continues to pine for her teenage boyfriend. 

The show got tiresome, though the last season was okay. It didn't want to have the courage to break the characters a bit. Lorelei/Rory's boyfriends were also dubious. At least, it didn't become 75 minutes long.

Ted Lasso wasn't that bad. It retained many of its good qualities even in the last season. It was still ill-advised to expand the episodes. 

I'm glad Nate got a girlfriend and all. But it was a bit weird just to have him return to the team to his old job. Wasn't there a way to have him remain a coach on his new team, but one who was a better person? 

Overall, I enjoyed the first three seasons. The DVDs have no extras. That's weird. Could they not even obtain the rights to the Ted Lasso advertisements? Provide a behind-the-scenes segment? Have one or more people do at least one commentary track? 

A fourth season, after a lag, has been announced. Wikipedia references that Ted Lasso will coach a women's team. It looks like the key cast (maybe not the teammates overall?) are coming back, including Roy FUCK! Kent. 

Will I actually get the app to watch it, or wait until it comes out in DVD? Time will tell. 

SCOTUS: Orders

Steven Vladeck references one other SCOTUS rule change (other than the monetary recusal matter that received signficiant attention): 

The second, which got no media coverage, clarifies that, even when a party electronically files a cert. petition through the Court’s e-filing system on or before the day that it is due, it must still complete physical service of the petition within three days. (The sequencing of electronic filing and physical service had been unclear under the previous iteration of the rule; my own risk-averse approach had been to ensure that they happened on the same day.)

Today's Order List mostly deposed many petitions while only granting one for review. They accepted the second question.

Issue: (1) Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate; and (2) Whether this court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear this case.

Mark Joseph Stern on Bluesky:

The Supreme Court takes up a MAJOR climate case that asks whether federal law preempts (that is, forbids) state-level claims against fossil fuel companies for damages related to climate change.

(See also this discussion from a conservative p.o.v.) 

Kagan, noting why, recused from the determination of two cases. Jackson followed her new rule of not going along with blocking free petitions deemed from those abusing the privilege if the person is currently incarcerated.

There are two opinion days scheduled, so we might get a bit more news than that. There are also oral arguments, including one about the Takings Clause, but they aren't too notable. 

The author was a prosecutor there. Interesting book. 

The Stars Between Us

 

I enjoyed this film. The lead (woman) was in Guiding Emily (where she went blind), which was also very good. 

Rubio's European Address

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz shake hands at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month. 

Rubio's speech received some attention. The link (The Guardian) acknowledges he was reasonable as compared to Vice President James David Vance's speech last year. OTOH, they have different purposes.

Rubio provides the patina of reasonableness. Vance is full-fledged MAGA. This is a matter of degree.

Rubio’s speech was more subtle and coherent, but he in essence sang from the same hymn sheet: the message from Washington remains that Europe and the US should be defined by ethno-political values of culture, tradition and religion. 

The fact that such history has also bred nationalism, racism, fascism and colonialism is apparently nothing to be ashamed of.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation focuses on the so-called common religion tradition angle. 

“We are part of one civilization — Western civilization,” he claimed. “We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir.”

Christian Nationalism was more blatantly expressed during the National Prayer Breakfast. 

Trump’s religious adviser Paula White-Cain introduced the U.S. president as “the greatest champion of faith that we have ever had in the executive branch,” claiming he has “brought religion back to this nation and beyond.”

Trump then mixed politics and religion, including denouncing Democrats as un-Christian. 

The baggage involved in these events has led many Democrats who otherwise support the concept to be wary about the whole thing. FFRF and others have covered this over the years.

Lawfare, which leans center-right, also has a summary. For instance, there are such passages as "rules-based global order—an overused term."  

See also:

Under President Trump, the United States of America will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration, driven by a vision of a future as proud, as sovereign, and as vital as our civilization’s past. And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe. 

The "renewal and restoration" talk is basic "Make America Great Again" rhetoric. 

Rubio is sending the message that America is supporting authoritarians (darn rules!) like in Hungary that promote that message. And the U.S. (and other nations willing to go along shouldn't feel bound to those rules in doing so either. 

Also, Trump's overall immigration policy is furthered by this passage:

“in a pursuit of a world without borders, we opened our doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people.” 

The Lawfare summary ends with a brief translation of the speech, including the non-Vance tone:

But all of that is rude to say. And it makes us look bad. And it makes you all worry. So let’s collectively indulge the polite fiction that we have more in common than we do. Let’s overstate a shared history. Let’s pretend we agree on shared challenges. And let’s pretend I’m not saying that the basis for our future cooperation is that you submit to our will. The first step in this regard is that I flatter you. The second step is that you applaud for me. And then I will fly home.

Many Democratic senators have had buyer's remorse for going along with the unanimous confirmation of this guy. Rubio was supposedly a reasonable guy, unlike the Secretary of Defense or Health and Human Services. 

Maybe on some sort of curve. Still, how surprising is it that Rubio is going along with Trump's policies without much serious pushback? Nothing in his past suggests the guy has some sort of spine. He would be a loyal soldier. Plus, even in a vacuum, Rubio had issues.

Now, he is the Secretary of State in the Trump Administration. Yes, we can have worse. 

OTOH, with people like Trump's former real estate lawyer and the Boy Wonder (Kushner, who always looks damn creepy in photographs) travelling the world and doing foreign policy, it is unclear how much better things are now.  

And his Munich speech suggests what is what as well.

===

Meanwhile: Mets lost their ST opener 2-1. Some nobody gave up an unearned run for the loss.