And Also: I added Their Finest to the side panel, having read the book after watching the film. Liked both. Other than reduction to fit into a film, such as two appealing "normal types" supporting characters, both basically follow the same plot. Most of the changes in the film are if anything improvements, toning down a few things, except maybe the film adding a reveal of the writer catching her boyfriend having sex (a standard overused trope) instead of merely being with another woman at an art event.
Supreme Court sweeps month starts with two big decisions that have a "to be continued" aspect in both instances.
The order list was too long to be totally forgettable and a long Sotomayor solo dissent special in a capital case only partially explained why. Two criminal justice opinions were also handed down, one unanimous, one 6-3 (Roberts, Alito and Thomas dissenting). Sotomayor concurred in that one too in part to break a 4-1-4 tie on one point. This avoided them needing to decide clarification of the so called "Marks rule" involving finding the lowest common denominator in such cases. That's a sound use of judicial judgment to decide questions in a way that avoids confusion and respects precedent.
A pending case involving blocking undocumented teens in federal custody from having an abortion has been pending for months for unclear reasons. The matter was finally decided: the positive lower court opinion is vacated since events mooted it as the case was pending. This is not great and maybe sends negative signals about the future. But, a pending challenge should still be in place. The Administration was not granted its request for sanctions because of alleged mishandling though it was hinted the claim wasn't totally bogus. One can see how the justices -- maybe from both ends -- carefully negotiated the terms of this fairly bland order.
The first opinion dealt with a bankruptcy law case, the only notable thing for the general public (or those who care) that three justices didn't join a section discussing the House Report. More legislative history disputes. We eventually (most senior justices go last) got the Masterpiece Cakeshop case with the rather surprising 7-2 (or 6-1-2, Thomas not joining the majority opinion though Gorsuch joined both and tossed in one of his own) judgment for the baker. Kennedy argued that the specific application of the civil rights law here was done in a religiously discriminatory manner.
To add to the cake metaphors, there is a "have your cake and eat it too" quality to this opinion that leaves open hard questions for future cases.* Justice Kagan (with Breyer) concurred separately to basically say that even the couple involved has a right to the cake, but Colorado handled things differently. Her long footnote challenging Gorsuch's analysis flags future debates, such as a florist case now pending Supreme Court conference review. Some might find the result inane on some level, but opinions with comments like "gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth" aren't all that bad.
I agree with the dissent (and this discussion; see also, the link at the bottom, as to its application to the travel ban ruling) on the application of the principles to this specific case. There is reason to fear, see also Hobby Lobby, religious liberty cases will be applied in a way that do not properly respect other interests. Justice Kennedy concurred separately there in part to underline that birth control access is a compelling interest but that there was a way to balance the concerns. In practice, there are complications there, and it simply is impossible to thread the needle equally all the time given the range of religious beliefs and regulations in this country.
Finally, Kennedy's concerns here seem more emotional than relevant. RBG (with Sotomayor) dissented briefly though, perhaps because their differences were less important than their agreement on bottom line important points. To be continued.
---
* As noted in one link, some summaries of the opinion make out as if more was decided than actually was. I'm not sure how weak Kennedy's approach is, think on better facts, there would be a stronger free exercise claim. Net, the baker won, but not sure how happy he should be.
Supreme Court sweeps month starts with two big decisions that have a "to be continued" aspect in both instances.
The order list was too long to be totally forgettable and a long Sotomayor solo dissent special in a capital case only partially explained why. Two criminal justice opinions were also handed down, one unanimous, one 6-3 (Roberts, Alito and Thomas dissenting). Sotomayor concurred in that one too in part to break a 4-1-4 tie on one point. This avoided them needing to decide clarification of the so called "Marks rule" involving finding the lowest common denominator in such cases. That's a sound use of judicial judgment to decide questions in a way that avoids confusion and respects precedent.
A pending case involving blocking undocumented teens in federal custody from having an abortion has been pending for months for unclear reasons. The matter was finally decided: the positive lower court opinion is vacated since events mooted it as the case was pending. This is not great and maybe sends negative signals about the future. But, a pending challenge should still be in place. The Administration was not granted its request for sanctions because of alleged mishandling though it was hinted the claim wasn't totally bogus. One can see how the justices -- maybe from both ends -- carefully negotiated the terms of this fairly bland order.
The first opinion dealt with a bankruptcy law case, the only notable thing for the general public (or those who care) that three justices didn't join a section discussing the House Report. More legislative history disputes. We eventually (most senior justices go last) got the Masterpiece Cakeshop case with the rather surprising 7-2 (or 6-1-2, Thomas not joining the majority opinion though Gorsuch joined both and tossed in one of his own) judgment for the baker. Kennedy argued that the specific application of the civil rights law here was done in a religiously discriminatory manner.
To add to the cake metaphors, there is a "have your cake and eat it too" quality to this opinion that leaves open hard questions for future cases.* Justice Kagan (with Breyer) concurred separately to basically say that even the couple involved has a right to the cake, but Colorado handled things differently. Her long footnote challenging Gorsuch's analysis flags future debates, such as a florist case now pending Supreme Court conference review. Some might find the result inane on some level, but opinions with comments like "gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth" aren't all that bad.
I agree with the dissent (and this discussion; see also, the link at the bottom, as to its application to the travel ban ruling) on the application of the principles to this specific case. There is reason to fear, see also Hobby Lobby, religious liberty cases will be applied in a way that do not properly respect other interests. Justice Kennedy concurred separately there in part to underline that birth control access is a compelling interest but that there was a way to balance the concerns. In practice, there are complications there, and it simply is impossible to thread the needle equally all the time given the range of religious beliefs and regulations in this country.
Finally, Kennedy's concerns here seem more emotional than relevant. RBG (with Sotomayor) dissented briefly though, perhaps because their differences were less important than their agreement on bottom line important points. To be continued.
---
* As noted in one link, some summaries of the opinion make out as if more was decided than actually was. I'm not sure how weak Kennedy's approach is, think on better facts, there would be a stronger free exercise claim. Net, the baker won, but not sure how happy he should be.
2 comments:
Someone commented that it's hard to understand why a religious belief, however sincerely held, against gay people should be respected. We, and likely the court, would not similarly respect a religious belief, sincerely held, in the inferiority of black people.
Few years back that was a debate over at the Catholic leaning Mirror of Justice blog. Belief against gay people by the lights of some was supposed to be given a bit more leeway. I appreciate the Jesuit priest James Martin for being consistent (if you deny gays a job, why not a divorced person?).
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!