Various Matters -- Stevens/Planned Parenthood/Trump/Mets

This photo is from one of the entries discussing Justice John Paul Stevens and is from the oral argument (4/20/10) of Dolan v. U.S. The case involves a technical matter regarding the true final date a court can apply a restitution requirement on a criminal defendant. As discussed in the analysis of the case at the link, if somewhat boring for many, this is an important matter both for the defendant and the victim whose welfare the law in place aims to protect. The case itself involves an assault and decision by the court below that finding the correct restitution amount would not be possible by the date designated by the law.  The question was what missing the date means.

Congress's failure to specify the consequences resulting from a violation of Section 3665(d)(5)'s ninety-day requirement is, in essence, a statutory punt to the Court, which necessarily forces the Court to make for itself the difficult policy choice between either sacrificing victims' rights for the government's negligence, or granting the district court nearly unfettered discretion to drag out restitution proceedings as long as it wishes.

Liberal advocate Pamela Karlan (with a specialty in voting rights as well as a lesbian; she was Justice Blackmun's law clerk and worked on his dissent regarding same sex sodomy, Bowers v. Hardwick)  argued for Dolan. He lost by a somewhat atypical split -- the four most senior justices at the time was all in dissent (Roberts, Stevens, Scalia and Kennedy), which split Scalia and Thomas (who assigned). The split is partially explained by concern about textual meaning, Roberts arguing Breyer was too loose with the strictness of the rule in place.  I don't know who is right.

The fact that the Court had to make a "difficult policy choice" was discussed in the analysis.  There was some criticism of Congress not clearly deciding it for themselves. But, this is something they sometimes do. They for whatever reason, often because legislative compromise involves this, let certain things be decided by the courts. Justice Stevens flagged this himself in his book, citing an example of Congress doing this when he was general counsel for the minority of a committee back in the day.  One value of his book was pointing out such complexities of judging where simple answers are not always there.

===

A few days ago, the president of Planned Parenthood was fired after less than a year of being in office.  This is unfortunate in part since an Asian female physician seemed to provide a promising path to add a good perspective to the organization.  However, as discussed there and here (see also comments), it was not a smooth fit.  Given the important place Planned Parenthood has in providing family planning and other health related services, this story is one that appears to be of some importance.

Dr. Wen wished to focus on the organization as providing medical services (which to me is on some level a good thing -- abortion should be covered by health insurance, e.g., because it is part of health services) and clashed with those who had a more political mentality. It also is reported that she did not handle the organization aspects of her job very well.  The coverage I have seen (not too much really though a few conservatives, including the one chosen by Politico to analyze it, had unsurprising "yeah they are just about abortion" comments)  has a bit too much of a "sources say" quality.

===

This piece: "What Americans Do Now Will Define Us Forever: If multiracial democracy cannot be defended in America, it will not be defended elsewhere," is a powerful warning.  This includes concerns about the "foot dragging" of the Democrats. Some people still are loathe to criticize Pelosi and other lead Democrats, even when people like Rep. Nadler show dissent (he voted against tabling the latest impeachment vote). But, at this point, given the stakes, that to me is mistaken.

===

I'm just going to delete my long ramble on the Mets.  Suffice to say they looked pretty good vs. the Marlins (after a hiccup start) and Twins (though see original note) but not so much vs. the Giants.  Well, the pitching was pretty good.  Three low scoring extra inning games (each a loss, each in its own way) and a good outing by a spot starter (the one game they won, 11-4).  But, outside of that one game, neither team had much offense. (Three runs in the ninth vs. a call-up by the Giants in that game.)

Net out of the gate for the second half that's 5-4, which could have been a series win and two splits.  Guess you can look at it that way. Other than getting cash (after giving up a prospect) for helpful middle reliever/long man Font, the Mets have yet to done any trading. Expect little tbh.

---

*  I said "still surging," but looking at the standings, they are but 2.5 games ahead of Cleveland, the Indians now a wild card (about tied with the As).  Was never completely sure about the Twins, perhaps the surprise of the American League this season.  They better be careful.  The Rays led the AL East once upon a time, but faced the buzz-saw of the Yankees, who seem to basically always beat them.  They are 1.5 back from the playoffs completely and also better watch out.  The playoffs basically are those teams (and Houston) though only 3.5 back, cannot really count out the Red Sox.  The Rangers lost seven in a row to fall out of contention.