SCOTUS Watch, Hallmark Reconsiders etc.

Let's lead with something nice. Hallmark (or their parent company), after a lot of negative reactions, decided it was wrong to pull the wedding ads for having women kissing.  The whole thing is a self-own by the conservative group involved when the net response is this:

Hallmark said it would be "working with GLAAD to better represent the LGBTQ community across our portfolio of brands" and "reaching out to Zola to reestablish our partnership and reinstate the commercials."

Great news.  The network is by nature conservative though it doesn't lay it on thick as seen by the typical movie ending with the leads kissing.  There is a charming older (2011) film entitled Trading Christmas with one of the two couples (the woman is played by Faith Ford and is quite good; she is a widow)  actually making out during the film and regular views have a reason to be shocked at the whole thing.

The channel rarely has religious content though certain films do have it as a component of the film (one volunteers at a church related program, for instance).  So, someone who is liberal minded and not a fan of showy conservative material (sometimes on UP Channel, let's say) can enjoy the movies while admitting their problems (e.g., the lack of racial diversity as compared to Lifetime, which just last night had a black woman lead in one of those royalty romances that even on other channels nearly never -- know of one -- involve a woman royal in the lead).

But, conservative minded Christians in generally probably can comfortably watch the average movie.  OTOH, "controversial"[which the company first flagged the commercial] includes making a show out of being conservative.  So, especially with people already complaining there are not even any openly gay characters (one actor is openly gay in real life ... more probably ... but saw it referenced in an article), going out of the way to remove the ads was a bit much.  The ad was really a safe way to barely put its toe in the water (it does have gay and lesbian themed greeting cards after all) to reflect modern times.  Yes, someone would be upset but I'm sure there is something else in one of the movies to upset someone too.  And, thus the mea culpa.

===

A nice teachable moment that has potential to turn out positive in the long run.  Meanwhile, we have our normally scheduled football programming. Eli Manning had a promising first half last week but the offense came to a halt in the second.  It looked like it would be a problem this week to vs. the Dolphins, but it turned out it was the Dolphins due for a really bad day.  THIS time, the Giants found a way after halftime and the score turned into a laugher.  It is likely Manning's final home game as a Giant and we can look past the competition to be happy for him.  It is sorta also the team's only clean win (Tampa blew it at the end; the Redskins was a mess at the time, but the young QB and company was rather messy in the game too).  Can still play spoiler.

The Jets (TNF) ran into the buzzsaw of the Ravens, who even while up big go for it on Fourth Down.  The Bills had the Sunday Night Game and the "who it the QB this week" Steelers gave them a run for it, down to the end where a penalty gave them forty more seconds for a respectable shot (toss in a roughing call) but that rookie QB wasn't quite up to it.  So, the Bills are in the playoffs and have the most wins (10) in this century.  [They did get in once 9-7.]  SF was the upset of the day with the Falcons ("we aren't THAT bad!" run of games) having a TD reversed and a non-TD reversed to win at the very end (:02 left, SF fumbled the final play & the Falcons scored again!).  Dallas was sorta an upset but the Rams aren't that good.  Dallas/Eagles both 7-7.

===

SCOTUS. Well, as usual, the Friday grants were followed by more boring orders.  The five page job shorter than usual with the usual caveat that there are odds and ends that a key would help decipher and interesting cases not taken.  For instance, one of the cases denied cert. was "relisted," suggesting one or more justices found it interesting:

In an opinion that began with the obvious quote from Anatole France, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment bars a city from prosecuting people criminally for sleeping outside on public property when they have no home or other shelter to go to.

Looking, it was written by and joined by two "controversial" 9CA judges with a "look at us" dissent when en banc review was denied.  The case, after extended procedural discussions, basically rely on a 1960s duo of cases that barred prosecuting drug addiction but allowing it for public drunkenness.  The first is a condition that could not be avoided and here without the means, so is public homelessness.  A related case was decided there in the past.  The Supreme Court has basically underenforced the provision in question, the cases basically all capital punishment in nature or involving minors (no mandatory LWOP) or prison conditions.  ONCE it held a non-capital LWOP punishment (and that 5-4) as unconstitutional.  It also had limited cases involving fines.

But, the other cases that leave open more coverage are still good law and it's good that it still can have some bite. A taking case is also flagged here. The Supreme Court might have some unscheduled order, but they are officially done for the year.

(Since the press release/media advisory/speeches pages are so rarely used, just to flag it,  a media advisory was posted last week regarding seating for a January 2020 oral argument in an important religious funding case.)

Update: Well, okay. So, SCOTUS did grant some cases on Wednesday, including a potentially fairly significant pair of cases to clarify the rules regarding applying employment discrimination rules in religious organizations like schools.