Fleshpot on 42nd Street

Also known as Girls on 42 Street, this was part of TCM's twisted late nite fare, and it is not quite what one expects on the channel. (It might be a somewhat less explicit cut, but there is repeated nudity, if mostly -- but not completely -- of the topless variety.)

It actually is rather good low budget exploitation fare about a woman on the make, let's say.  The movie is generally filmed in cheap looking darkness and was (rather on point) wary when late in the film she was happy and it was a cheery daytime look. The most appealing character is played by Harry Reems, the porn star, here as a "straight" character. The lead, who is good (in the role) and often having sex, was a porn star as well. 

I was skimming a movie review book and passed a film with Sean Connery.  He has died at 90.
 

SCOTUS Watch: Election Orders

There was one more order from North Carolina after this summary, but it was more of the same. For now, no more pending, but more likely to come, I think.

Overall, though I am wary about agreeing that Kavanaugh has some "principled take" as compared to a sort of conservative pragmatism, it seems like a good summary overall of the recent election orders.  Roberts seems to have the best principled take on the conservative side -- generally leave states alone, reject lower federal court intervention.  Maybe, he should have applied that to federal legislation too in Shelby v. Holder.  OTOH, the liberals are right to me to at least at times be concerned about voting rights.  

(See also, Election Law Blog to get a sense of the nuances here, which I won't further try to parse. Kavanaugh corrected one bit after Vermont called him out.  Slate and others called him out for a lot more, but you have to start somewhere. Also, on the internet link page, one election case provided a lot of links.  Looking, I also saw additions from last term on the video page though not really sure what the video -- each very small -- adds to the opinions themselves.  One is a cartoon!) 

The election orders this week cite a "Justice Barrett," which suggests maybe she won't be officially called "Amy Coney Barrett," though that it how she is referenced elsewhere on its website.  The official word there is that she did not take part in the various orders. It doesn't say why.  But, the Public Information Office in some capacity (it is reported by those who cover the Court and Rick Hasen noted it at Election Law Blog) informed that: '"Justice Barrett did not participate in the consideration of this motion because of the need for a prompt resolution of it and because she has not had time to fully review the parties' filings."  This would apply to each election related order since she was sworn in.

At least one reporter flagged that it is notable that such a statement was provided since we usually do not get an explanation why a justice ("justice") does not take part.  There was a push for her to recuse so perhaps she wanted to underline that she was not making a final judgment call on that question. Again, there are likely to be further requests for Supreme Court review, including after a very dubious action arising in Minnesota that seems to violate their rules.  I admit my first thought was negative, thinking the special comment was to suggest she is still open to involvement.  Anyway, it annoys me that this is not put on the website. So, we are left to third parties to inform us of such things.  Not good policy.

The first involvement in Court business for our new tainted member is likely today's conference. One thing that has to be done is to reassign circuits.  As of now, it has not been updated.  If things change, including some late afternoon or whenever order drop, I will edit this entry.  As to the voting cases, all of the bad attempts matter, including the people harmed, doubts tossed out there and long term possibilities of skewered over election law.  On the front, things are not clear at this point. 

... well, one of the election orders had a statement that I never saw before -- "Additional opinions may follow."  But, nothing did so far. And, nothing dropped (it's 9:40PM) after I wrote the above.  So, should be okay, though it hasn't always been this year. 

Haunted Summer

The title of this old young adult book by Hope Dahle Jordan, who wrote in the 1960s and 1970s, came to my notice because it overlaps one about the writing of Frankenstein. Online means provide more ways to come across reading material.  Short paperback (150 pages), but felt a bit too long. Obtained cheaply via Amazon.

It concerns a teenage girl who accidentally hits a child and later leaves him at the hospital without saying who she was. This leads to months of her traumatized with guilt as various not too fascinating, if well written, teenage girl type things happen to her.  She is an appealing character and the gender dynamics (e.g., a girl delivery driver / golfer is seen as particularly notable) are interesting. Might even have trans possibilities, if written differently.  

HBO Max provided the West Wing reunion (remade an election themed episode on stage) done to promote voting free online. The cast did a great job, including the replacement of Leo.  "Ainsley Hayes" was there too, providing the settings/stage directions.

SCOTUS: Now 1/3 Illegitimate

After a 52-48 vote, concern troll from Maine the only senator crossing party lines (Manchin did last time FOR Kavanaugh), Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed. The smart move would have been to quietly take the statutory and constitutional oaths. 

But, she went another way. Like the super spreader event while RBG wasn't even buried yet, a partisan celebratory event with her taking part occurred. Thomas was on hand to give her the constitutional oath and then she posed in that balcony scene. (Roberts Tuesday morning gave the judicial oath, required by statute, and now she can officially do her duties.) She CHOSE to do this. She joined the Republican effort to packed the courts, going along with Trump, down to blocking COVID legislation. The Senate confirmed her and won't be back until after the election. 

Showing some sense of timing, as she was being confirmed, the Supreme Court handed down another election ruling. The result -- rejecting a request to expand time to count ballots in Wisconsin -- was far from surprising.  On the merits, it isn't clear if the result is even totally horrible though Kagan's strong dissent (for the liberals) is convincing.  OTOH, Kavanaugh's all in concurrence, even citing Bush v. Gore (which he helped bring back along with two of his colleagues), is something.  

The opinions (Roberts had a brief statement differentiating between leaving a state court ruling in place; Gorsuch had a longer concurrence to preach judicial restraint ... at least here) provide more detail than other cases on the "shadow docket," but bottom line there isn't a decision for the Court here.  Alito and Thomas didn't join any of the written opinions.  So, basically, we still are waiting a clear opinion of the Court on these matters. Kagan provided a strong loyal opposition sentiment.  We shall see what the the balcony gal does.

Sherman reached Grant and said to him, “Well, Grant, we’ve had the devil’s own day, haven’t we?” Grant looked up. “Yes,” he said, “Lick ‘em tomorrow, though.”

Anyway,  as Gravedigger/Moscow Mitch gleefully crows about his victory here, there really seems to be a poke the bear moment here. It just is all too much.  But, Dems need to win and then need to do something.  Nothing for sure there.  Court reform, and not just limited to expansion, is basic to the democracy now all the same. And, to cite one more Civil War bit, this is also my mood:

After Gen. Early's raid on Washington in mid-July, Grant advised Chief-of-Staff Halleck to see to it that Early was pursued by "veterans, militia men, men on horseback, and everything that can be got to follow," with specific instructions to "eat out Virginia clean and clear as far as they go, so that crows flying over it for the balance of the season will have to carry their own provender with them."

Oh, I can imagine the concern trolls about norms and how reasonable Roberts and company are being.  Sigh. 

ETA: Note, for example, this discussion by a strong Trump opponent and his continual leaning away from court expansion.  In my comment, I note the true breadth of the "switch in time" including FDR getting to pick a new Court anyhow.  References to Roberts and company being somewhat moderate to me doesn't get that breadth of the precedent there.  

This isn't the only concern. First, as noted there, the problem there was basically a felt need for the Court to catch up with the times. This ideological concern does come up now, but I am not aware of a similar belief that the whole confirmation process was broken back then. The "norm" against court expansion might have been different.

Finally, the essay connected to highlights his support of term limits, including the suggestion that somehow this can be done statutorily.  He would, for instance, use it as a warning -- accept the constitutionality of this or else.  But, it is hard for me to accept -- especially if it applies to current membership -- how that would work.  MAYBE, some new "office" can be crafted, but the current membership at least would have life tenure under the old dispensation.  Circuit riding is a red herring -- that was an additional job, not something that factored into life tenure.  

I guess I hope there is a statutory approach to have "senior status" that would now be involuntarily (the rub!), since an amendment is such an uphill battle, but seems a real stretch. Anyway, it only addresses part of the whole problem in front of us, especially if prospective. And, at best, it would be years until even the alternative would affect the current membership other than maybe Thomas.  I'm unsure how all of this would be a deterrence for more of the same in the future while the current beneficiaries stay in office.  At the very least, though this seems to be something "moderates" are loathe to bring up, a serious attempt to impeach Kavanaugh would have to be used there.  

I don't see trying to get Coney-Barrett for perjury because she lied about not knowing about the anti-gay nature of an organization she supported or something is strong enough for impeachment proceedings. It is weak enough that I fear abusive "revenge" in other cases later on. Kavanaugh might have enough problems, including financially, to be different.  Also, his nomination was seen personally tainted by enough people to that level as compared to the other two.  

Again, think on Biden's end, the commission idea makes sense. It might even be useful for the ultimate campaign -- changing the courts should be a careful process that at least has token bipartisan cover.  But, the noises of even some strong critics who still are rather cautious is bothersome.

Giants/Jets Both Back to Form (Losing)

Giants had a bit of a gift win when Washington went for the win at the end of the game. Things balanced out with them losing by one on Thursday Night Football.  Washington then crushed Dallas (25-3). Eagles retained their 2-4-1 first place advantage.  Jets actually looked good at the start, going up 10-0, Buffalo not being able to get out of their own way.  The Bills 18-10 win wasn't exactly prime, but the Jets QB's return in the end got to the same result, after that "false start."  Pats then lost and are 2-4. 

I voted ... is it over now? (Spoiler: No)

 

Early voting started in New York today, and given it wasn't a mid-term election (and a Saturday), there actually was a line.  But, even if I had to wait fifteen or minutes or so (the longest ever ... people waiting for hours is just f-ing insane), and got no pen [on Primary Day, voters at the polling place I worked at got pens to keep that were also had a stylus to use for phones], it was okay.  The polling place like the one nearest to me where one can vote on Election Day is in a school, sensibly enough, and by chance also is the school where a relative teaches (she is registered elsewhere). 

No line in 2018 when I tried it out when it was first a thing.  The closest early voting place is like twenty or so minutes away on foot, but it was almost seventy degrees out and what else did I have to do?  Anyway, I could have waited -- it would have easier some other day, including in the middle of the afternoon or something on a weekday.  Plus, there were drop boxes, if I ahead of time requested a ballot. But, just voting the ordinary way and not worrying about messing up doing that is fine enough.

(Walking out, I saw some litter right outside the door -- a couple bits of campaign literature. Tsk tsk -- not just the litter, but leaving campaign literature right outside the polling place. There is a rule about that sort of thing within a hundred feet or whatever.  While waiting online, some guy behind me kept on not socially distancing either, standing aside the woman he was with. He also noted they were voting differently, so I gather he was the Trump voter. Ha ha.  Anyway, that was annoying.)

Vote411 provided me information on a race (pick three of four, three Democrats and one Republican available) I did not realize was going to be on the ballot:

The Supreme Court of the State of New York is the trial-level court of general jurisdiction in the New York State Unified Court System. Under the New York State Constitution, the New York State Supreme Court has unlimited jurisdiction in both civil and criminal cases, with the exception of certain monetary claims against the State of New York itself. The Supreme Court also hears civil cases involving claims for equitable relief, such as injunctions, specific performance, or rescission of a contract, as well as actions for a declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court also has exclusive jurisdiction of matrimonial actions, such as either contested or uncontested actions for a divorce or annulment. The court also has exclusive jurisdiction over "Article 78 proceedings" against a body or officer seeking to overturn an official determination on the grounds that it was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable or contrary to law.

I continue to find it inane to vote for local judges because there is basically nothing I know about them other than their names and party labels. And, even there, there is limited options -- three of four choices? My little petty protest is to write-in one option.  They don't even tell us about the judicial candidates in the voting guides that come in the mail (I did not get one yet this year), for whatever reason.  A few times, I tried to find out about them in local papers and only limited information is available. 

In theory, local judges have enough power over the lives of local people (and low level policy duties) that voting for some housing judge or something makes some degree of sense. Maybe. Or, in general, maybe there will be a case where a nominee is so bad that it might be a good idea that the people could vote against them. Or, maybe, have a chance to write-in. But, if you don't know anything about them, what really is the point? The average person do not even know what these people do. A "supreme court" judge, for instance, is a trial judge in New York. 

Anyway, my state senator's pal Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou (major Twitter person) wants people to vote on the Working Family Party line, so that is what I did when given the chance. Biden and Biaggi.  Not sure why my local assemblywoman is not on the line.  She filled a seat of someone who supported Biaggi's primary opponent, so maybe she is somewhat mainstream there and didn't seek out their support. Or whatever.  My senators are not up this cycle and city elections are next year. 

AOC had some mix-up so couldn't be on the line.  The AOC race is not really competitive, but it is getting a lot of attention and funding. This is suggested by a few lawn signs (not really a thing around here) that I have seen for her competitor.  If there is a sign -- not many -- it is for him, from what I can tell.  I missed it when I filled out the ballot (thought it said she was on the Green Party line or something), but AOC's failed primary opponent is on the Serve America Movement line. It's some new center right unity sort of thing.  Anyway, the article says that AOC at least is using some of the money she is getting for useful things. 

So, I voted.  Voting early is helpful to ease the burden of all the ballots coming in on Election Day, particularly voting in person.  It also promotes voting to have more days to vote. I emotionally like voting on one day, making it a special civic ritual. That is somewhat silly on some level though I think it works okay if it is a three day weekend sort of deal with extended time to allow people to vote.  Anyway, even with early voting -- and ten days ahead isn't that bad [a month or so seems too long to me though in theory something special might come up even on Election Day] -- many people are going to vote on the day itself.  

The result is key this time, but so is the overall process.  Voting is one of the basic parts of being a citizen (appropriately, I just finished reading Eric Foner's book on Tom Paine .. pretty good academic leaning book).  It is part of an overall process of being informed, speaking out and other things such as donating money and time.  One need not be like me, spending hours on Twitter or blogs keeping up with the day to day political news. But, voting and the rest is part of being a citizen, a duty and a right. 

Anyway, one step closer to 2021.

SCOTUS Update

We had another evening Supreme Court order drop, this time Sotomayor leading the liberals (Breyer and Kagan often keep silent in such cases) in dissent as the conservatives (again without saying why) blocked a lower court ruling allowing curbside voting in Alabama to protect the disabled.  Meanwhile, with the Democrats staying away, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted the latest non-legitimate nominee out and then the full Senate today continuing to set things into motion for confirmation next week.

This Train Is Being Held

 

I saw this young adult love story told through the eyes of a Latino baseball player/poet and mixed race (if looking white and being more upscale) ballet dancer reviewed online.  They meet on the 1 subway train (NYC) and each have various issues to handle though they are loathe to be honest about each other about them.

At the beginning, I liked the voice but wondered if it would hold up for the whole way since we were soon in the middle of their relationship.  The book, however, then had a shift after her brother had a mental health setback and the two were separate for a time.  This helped bridge the story until a rather surprising action packed climax.  Overall, well done.

Balkinization Ends Outside Comments

Over the years, various places allowed me to provide my .02 until comments were cut off.

For years, I took part in the "Slate Fray" until that ended. The movie database IMDB eventually cut off comment threads.  Mirror of Justice and Rewire (current name) had comments once upon a time, both ending it since moderation was not deemed worthwhile.  Comments allowed the former in particular to have a few replies from those somewhat critical of its conservative leaning tone.  The Justia/Verdict essays recently also cut off comments, comments tending to be somewhat trollish. 

Balkinization Blog also provided me a platform though in time the named contributor cut off comments, bothered in particular by disputes involving a trollish person in particular.  Sandy Levinson later repeatedly flagged his annoyance at non-germane comments, including replies to two Trumpy contributors. The two remaining contributors who allowed comments now do not, comments if opened only open to blog contributors. This was finally noted officially after it already occurred.  

I understand why this was done -- as noted by JB, readers (most of whom did not comment) were annoying by the comments becoming flame wars.  Biased I might be, but did think some of the regulars had useful comments. The comments from the two Trumpy types were useful to get a sense of that sort of thing, which led to some strong reactions, including from myself.  But, Sandy Levinson's posts alone were rather strong, so is that really that surprising?  Still, it clearly bothered contributors.

The result is still unfortunate in part because repeatedly the contributors warrant a reply. They often have a speak to the choir type tone (less so various guest contributors) with comments well worthy of criticism. It is well recognized that they have the right to self-expression. Still, comments also provide their own value.  (Sometimes, you get a tired putdown regarding "maybe you should cancel your subscription," or just don't read the stuff, but critics of comments can be answered the same way) 

The guests/at times Marty Lederman with long detailed analysis of certain legal disputes provide the best value.  But, without comments, it is not that worthwhile. For now, it's off my blogroll.

Order List: Still Eight Edition

With SCOTUS next having a conference at the end of the month, today's Order List might be the last one with eight.  (ETA: 4-4 to be cont. election ruling, Dems win for now.)

Curiously, it took a border wall and migration policy case, both tied to Trump being in office.  The other granted case involves entering a house without a warrant even in pursuit of someone allegedly committing a misdemeanor, here a noise related vehicle matter though it later led to a drunk driving charge once the officer talked to the person.  

Gorsuch (with Sotomayor and Kagan, who wrote a concurrence in one case he flagged) -- with a photo (rare even in opinions) -- flagged a lower case as wrongly decided if perhaps not cert-worthy.  It involved a 4A issue and has "see Trump nominees are trustworthy!" cred. Thomas did dissent from another denial, tossing a shot at the big Native American opinion Gorsuch wrote last term in the process.

Sports Update

Astros went from 0-3 to the tying guy on base in the 9th in the seventh game.  Rays hung on. Braves went from 2-0, giving up 11 in the first inning but coming back to win big the next game, but then losing three straight (two close). They were even up by 2-0 early.  Blah!  "Fairness" references Astros cheated the Dodgers, so they sort of deserve it.  Remember when their guy broke the leg of a Mets infielder and his replacement made a key misplay in the World Series late, helping the Mets fall?  I'm not bitter!

The Jets continued to embarrass themselves (24-0!) though the Giants benefited from playing Washington, one of the few teams Daniel Jones had some success playing against.  A defensive score put the Giants up but then Washington tied it 20-19 near the end of the game. Went for the win! Lost.  This is the Giants first win though it counts. Plus, Dallas leads the division with two wins, playing later today.  Still kinda lame. 

Do Devil Dolls Vote?

Lionel Barrymore and a very good cast in support makes this Svengoolie entry enjoyable even if his somehow unrecognizable Mrs. Doubtfire disguise is silly.  Touching ending though his picture was plastered in the papers. How did his daughter (played by the actress who played "Jane" in the classic Tarzan series during the 1930s) not recognize him?  

The special effects of the miniatures was especially good for the times though the science of long distance mind control much less fleshed out. The French setting seems mostly an excuse for the Eiffel Tower scenes.  But, overall the story is good with nice pacing and so forth.

Did he imply he would commit suicide when he told her love that where he was going was somewhere no one would find him?  His wife committed suicide, after his wrongful imprisonment.  And, he readily admitted his path to revenge was cruel and inhumane.  

===

Thank You For Voting was a good book on voting, covering a lot of ground, though the "get out the vote" section was a bit too long for book of that size.  I saw the author on C-SPAN and she does seem to be very gung ho on the topic.  I plan to vote in person, early voting, which voting activist types like Rick Hasen suggests is a good idea to relieve the additional burdens of mail in voting.  Plus, think I screwed up my mail-in ballot last time.

Order Day

The Amy Comey Barrett hearings starting on Monday notwithstanding, Monday was a governmental holiday. So, the Order List was released by the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Another constitutional appointment conflict will be reached regarding patent judges. 

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a statement regarding the denial of review in which he agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up a case but argued that, “in an appropriate case, we should consider whether the text of this increasingly important statute aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed by Internet platforms.” 

Tuesday and Wednesday involved a few oral arguments, including an interesting case involving the reach of the Fourth Amendment in a case where the police shot someone but she managed to flee the scene. Was this a constitutional "seizure" for constitutional purposes. As the telephonic arguments were ongoing, you could switch and listen to day long hearings for the latest not quite legitimate Trump nominee to the Supreme Court. A lot of b.s. there, including her repeatedly assuring us she had no agenda.

Meanwhile, on the shadow docket, the Supreme Court with only Sotomayor dissenting (or explaining herself) on the record, stayed an injunction of a plan to end the census count. The new announcement is now that things will end on October 15th. Sotomayor appears to have made a good case that the stay was inappropriate given the strong case is not present to intervene.  She also noted that even if only a small fraction (maybe less than one percent) of field work is to be done (though that is a factual issue), that could be hundreds of thousands of people particularly of minority groups. 

Some were appalled at the move by the Supreme Court here, seeing it as a basically illegitimate move to enable Trump's screwing with the census count which has implications both in congressional apportionment but for allotment of resources.  Again, I think Sotomayor is probably right, but also as noted I am a census enumerator.  The count seemed about done in late September.  I question how horrid it is that now it is being finished mid-October.  But, Sotomayor notes that even a small fraction matters and in 2010 that fraction was seen as warranting additional action.  Plus, overall, why should one not trust this Administration at all?  That is sound policy.

Still, on balance, this very well might not be a horrible result. At least relatively so.  One can only guess what is involved, including the mindset of Breyer and Kagan, since the justices do not deign to explain themselves. For instance, the administrative discretion allowed here can help the Biden Administration.  Rick Hasen of Election Law Blog suggests (again) there might be some horse trading involving one or more other pending cases.  After all, net, what value is supplied if the dissent is a firm 5-3 over one dissenter and in theory others possibly (though this is not how people see it) dissenting quietly?  

So, mixed bag.  The confirmation hearings will continue.   

More Census News:  The election might in the long run make this all moot, but the Supreme Court took Trump's appeal regarding not counting undocumented immigrants for purposes of apportionment. This not only violates the "person" rule of the 14A, but below was found to violate statutory rules.  Unclear what will come of this. 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett Hearings Begin

SCOTUS off today for the holiday but the Senate Judiciary Committee started the ball rolling in stealing another seat.  Dems didn't JUST focus on ACA, but the dangers of overturning it was a major focus with big pictures of people who would be harmed. It was a bit much.  Amy Coney Barrett had an opening statement showing she is full of shit, including how she didn't expect the slot.  Am I allowed to call her the b word? She is the b word. 

Follow the Stars Home

 

I saw this movie a few times and saw it again (skipping a bit) last night since it is available on Hallmark On Demand.  

Various familiar faces, including an award winning actress there only present briefly.  It concerns a young woman (privileged, my you) decides to bring her pregnancy to term after finding out she would be seriously disabled. Meanwhile, a girl (actress all grown up now) with a mom with problems comes on to help her. Plus, a doctor has a long time thing for the mom, who by the way married his brother, who couldn't handle raising a disabled child.

So, a lot is going on.  As the link notes, you also have the woman's mother, who is a librarian, who is a major character here.  The father brought up that the child would have various problems if an abortion did not occur and the asshole has a point.  The mom asks the doctor if the child would suffer and well he doesn't answer, which is an answer.  One can debate the best choice here and focus on just her experience (again privileged, including costs of medical care apparently not a problem ... to be fair, maybe the book covered that ground more), but it isn't an easy choice.    

Anyway, it is well acted and again a lot going on, all handled pretty well.  Pretty deep stuff. I do wonder about the actress, I think I saw that sisters were used, who played the daughter.  Is she disabled or whatever word we should use in real life?  Hard to tell -- either way, the girls used were very good.

Demi Lovato

Demi Lovato -- who had various ups and downs with image and other personal issues -- posted a photo on Instagram happy about her breasts now that she is not so concerned about her weight. She does look good though again with the OD of tattoos (on her arm).  

"But let this be a lesson y’all.. our bodies will do what they are SUPPOSED to when we let go of trying to control what it does for us." 

Nature Movies: Ape Men and Eight Legged Freaks

 

Some time ago, I watched the second film in what most see as "the" Tarzan series (there being many versions), and it was pretty dark. This includes Jane thinking Tarzan was dead because of the doings of an evil heavy. A lot of early 1930s melodrama.

The first movie, which takes a while to get to Tarzan, had that in spades. (It was on TCM.) The whole African support team was killed and her own father -- in an ironic touch -- died finding the elephant graveyard (for its ivory) he and a younger guy was out there looking for.  Jane (Maureen O'Sullivan) is very good here too, including falling in love with Tarzan, and generally being a little sexy minx. Oh, after her putative love interest kills Tarzan's ape pal, Tarzan gets revenge by starting to kill the support team.  

Not to worry though -- only black natives were harmed except for her father, who had to die anyway to justify her staying.  Cheeta seemed to be killed in the climatic scene (rather violent) but don't worry -- he's okay.  The mini-tribal members according to Wikipedia actually was played by white midgets in blackface!  Really.  Plus, the whole thing -- with some help of stock footage -- was filmed in the United States. The racist aspects and some over the top violence (is this really a "kid's" movie?) should not be hand-waved here.  As a "pre-code" film -- the second film also got in trouble for being a bit too sexy including underwater nudity -- I assume it might had laid the violence on more thick. 

But, though we get a bit too much lead-up (if rather well done, especially noting this was the early 1930s), the film as a whole is rather good.  The production quality is an important part of the mix here as well as pretty good pacing and acting.  "Tarzan" ("white man" in ape speak -- his backstory is not explained, including where he got his knife) looks the part, but the real star of this movie again is Jane. Early on, it is shown (and she shows her mettle in a river action scene) she knows how to handle a gun. We get some "save me Tarzan" stuff, but hey, this is the first time for her in the jungle. And, that sort of thing isn't laid on too thick. She comes off as a strong young woman overall. 

The second "nature" movie was Tarantula, the Svengoolie film of the week. This is a prime 1950s monster animal film with scientific mumbo-jumbo and typical idiot characters and even to make fun of acting. John Agar was prime for this sort of stuff, the average white middle America hero from central casting. There were various familiar faces (to toss it in, the father's colleague in the Tarzan film later played Commissioner Gordon in the Batman series), including Clint Eastwood!  

The actual tarantula was not on the scene most of the time -- we get more of the relationship with the young doctor and cute grad student -- but overall it was a fun movie.

===============

To toss it in, the Yanks lost to Tampa in five, starting pitching a problem though their ace did well, including on short rest.  Losing against a team as good as Tampa in five, with the the finale being 2-1, is nothing to be too ashamed about unless you expect to win it all.  The Astros, in largely because of the expanded playoffs and other teams showing an inability to win playoffs (the AL central was particularly a shame there), is the other remaining AL team.  I reckon even some of their fans figure they need at least a year to have people move on from their cheating scandal. 

Tampa winning -- if only so much -- with a threadbare budget is rather amazing.  One writer criticized them releasing a not too expensive catcher, who did well there and is now thriving in Atlanta (the team left with the Dodgers, fairly easily pushing aside the Marlins ... the Padres, two aces down, couldn't handle the Dodgers though were oh so close early on).  

Somewhat fair, but the Rays have a plan and overall are doing pretty good with it. As to the Mets: "Just as egregious was the Mets' decision to flat out release d’Arnaud in May of last year and absorbing his $3.15 million contract without allowing him time to fully work his way back from Tommy John surgery." Has Bill Madden watch the guy on the Mets?  They probably should have found a way to get something more for the guy, but years of mediocrity suggests why they let him go. 

Diary of a Census Enumerator

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.

Trump is trying to screw the census as with many other things. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court held that the attempt to include a question regarding citizenship was deemed illegitimate on agency law grounds. The Constitution -- both Art. I and the Fourteenth Amendment -- speaks of counting, "enumerating," persons. Not citizens. Evidence came out that the attempt to include a citizenship question was tied to a partisan rationale. Trump then shifted to trying to use only citizen information (obtained by other means) to provide the information used to apportion Congress. This is still in the courts. 

The citizenship question attempt failed, in part because the final decision came too late for the Trump Administration to try again, but still probably poisoned the well some. People already are wary about taking part in the census for a range of reasons, from laziness to privacy concerns. The push to include citizenship questions, which particularly has racial implications since certain non-citizens get particular negative attention, did not suddenly disappear as a concern because of a Supreme Court decision. 

Many, not just newcomers, are not too familiar with the overall concept, which for quite some time also included a chance to collect a range of other information. The basic information this time being age, sex (only "male" or "female"), race, ethnicity, family relations (marital and otherwise) and home/rental information (including mortgage). There are also separate more detailed questionnaires. 

Each household traditionally fills out a census questionnaire with the information tied to April 1st. There was a delay this year given the Big V so follow-up (including in person visits by "enumerators") continued over the summer. Thus, the greater sightings of people with census bags and people ringing bells, including looking for information for neighbors ("proxy" attempts). The original plan was to finish at the end of October. The Trump Administration decided to end a month early, but was blocked by court decision. 

The basic purpose of the census is to count the number of people (again, not citizens; even slaves were counted as "persons," if counted three for every fine) to determine congressional representation. The direct tax aspect never really amounted to much. The census also provides information to determine the needs of different areas, thus all those other questions. For instance, knowing how many people are in such and such an area provides a sense of how to apportion not just representatives but goods and services. And, the specifics -- such as how many have kids or are senior citizens -- spells out needs as well. The count is never going to be perfect, but best to try to make it as good as possible to know how to serve the nation.

I have a special concern here since I am a census enumerator, part of the NRFU (non-response follow-up) campaign. I have such a census bag and smartphone to input information obtained from people who did not fill out a census. We are given a daily "case list" of addresses (not names) to obtain census information for with an obligation to look for neighbors that have knowledge instead if the actual "respondents" are not available or for some reason do not want to provide information. A respondent not available or who will not respond for some reason (including a language problem) are due to get a little "notice of visit" slip. We were given a bonus to encourage us to finish by September 30th. 

A basic problem is that many said they filled out a questionnaire online -- too many to all be lying -- and for some reason it doesn't show up. Many simply have no desire to do so again. Also, quite often people are not home -- the day is 9AM-9PM (8 hours maximum, forty hours a week, though a few overtime authorizations) and rather regularly no one was home. And, even next door neighbors refused to admit they knew basic information about the people. A certain type of person might be convincing here but quite honestly that is not quite my superpower. 

After extensive online training, if mostly self-study (too much, I think), it's off to the field. A fun experience is certain apartment buildings where you need to wait to be let in. Training began at the beginning of August with field work starting mid-August. A few weeks of full work was followed up by a few weeks of on average of about twenty-five hours a week. Again, this was partially a reflection of skill-set since others had more ability to get successful visits. 

Nonetheless, I am not sure how much even the best of people would be for many of my stops -- I had something like twenty hits on my block alone and very few people were home. When they were home, they were not very helpful. A few simply refused to engage, such as one who would not even say if a neighboring house was occupied. By the end, people were starting to be rather crude, showing they were tired of us. 

I mainly received a case list of locations in my general area, it seen as not worth their time to send me somewhere during which I'm paid for an hour or whatever of merely travel. It would be particularly useful to speak Spanish (I do not) though a few other languages, particularly Albanian, popped up as well. We get a "language card" to show to people in such cases that provide a basic thumbnail of why we are there. I really had no basic need for that except for a few times at most. 

Overall, one has to not take rejection personally, the process rather depressing to me given net my success rate was low. It seems that at least in my area that the need for the end of October date might be deemed questionable. There was a limited number of cases left as the final days of September arose, from what we were told at least, though surely there were some that were not accomplished. Since we went by old address information, some addresses were vacant or not really addresses at all (such as a supposed separate unit at a private house). I personally have not received cases since the last full week of September though still am on call if necessary. 

Oh, we always wear masks (cloth masks provided along with hand sanitizer), which is okay, if making it harder to communicate at times.  It was at times a tad bit hot in the middle of August -- sweating while you are in the middle of asking questions is a bit tedious -- but turned out not to be that bad. This included only a few days when rain was an issue.  Holding an umbrella while trying to use a smartphone and holding/giving out/filling out paper forms is rather tedious unless it is inside.  And, I had a lot of private houses on my route.  One got into a groove, but again, it was often a project of futility. 

Kudos who did better than me and those who were pleasant when I stopped by. I will update if necessary. 

Court Reform: Devil in the Details

The path to long term reform there is harder to come by though reading in between the lines Biden/Harris not going on the record to confirm or deny their stance is telling.  It is politically sensible for them to do that.  On the merits, the best approach probably is to be agnostic while opposing confirming Amy Coney Barrett before the election.  "Let the people decide" has some merit now. Plus, it is largely a congressional issue.

A conservative path there would to address things along the edges such as a pending House bill that deals with ethics, open courts and other related issues that should have bipartisan support (though ethics calls to mind specific individuals).  A middle path is some sort of term limit measure, putting side the trickiness including the burdens of an amendment and the trickiness of trying to do it without one.  Again, there is chance for bipartisan support, partially since going forward it can limit Democrats.  

There are also other less talked about approaches. At the end of my last entry, I referenced a book from a couple years ago (e.g., it didn't factor in changes in the law regarding excessive fines) by a conservative appointment, Jeffrey Sutton, in support of state constitutional law.  Again, some things he said did not to me compute -- won't micro-target that here -- but the overall idea is something I support.  For instance, it seems to be dubious for the U.S. Supreme Court to worry about narrow questions of criminal procedure in various cases and apply it to the whole country.  Likewise, if a state wants to use a higher test for separation of church and state, it often is not some free speech or other constitutional violation to do so. And, many cases might be avoided if state courts just rely on state constitutional provisions.  

This goes to a general idea -- see, e.g., Professor Eric Segall -- that the Supreme Court does too much. There are various ways to limit their reach conceptually (such as the "Footnote Four" approach).  A more active approach would be to use congressional powers over the federal courts to do this. Congress did that in the 1990s by limiting federal habeas, which has issues in application, but the concept that only clear violations of federal law should be subject to lower court review there has some logic.  

Traditionally, especially before the Reconstruction Congress expanded federal jurisdiction, federal courts had less call to interpret state law.  And, not just because there was no Fourteenth Amendment. Somewhat related here would be something like requiring six justices to overturn national legislation or the like.  Segall's even numbered court idea in a fashion does the same thing since an evenly divided Court -- if it was split ideologically -- would need crossover to overturn things. 

Thinking long term, an approach with staying power can not simply be one-sided that appeals to one political party.  At certain times in our history, staying power was advanced because of long term party control. So, e.g., Jeffersonians and Republicans from the 1860s and beyond. Such unity in a way was seen in my lifetime -- the last fifty years was a conservative tinged period in the courts though it seems silly to say that for some since it wasn't completely so.  But, it wasn't one sided back then either in all ways -- John Marshall still controlled the Court and black rights soon went into a decline.  

How to put this in place is a hard question and ultimately some of it at least will just have to wait for history to play out.  The most likely amendment, however, is a term limit one and that is quite sensible. It might be best to submit again the opening statutory reforms cited above (with some study of the needs of lower courts that might later lead to additional judges) as well as a term limit measure as an opening gambit. It is quite true that the Democrats might have a small window. But, it might feel well to talk about fifteen seat Supreme Court legislation on February 1st or something, less likely to happen.  

Again, there are sound grounds -- both as a matter of norm correction and overall democratic-republican theory -- to significantly change ground here. And, it is not just a matter of court expansion. The details are as usual where the devil comes.

SCOTUS Watch: Abortion Pills, Court Expansion etc.

Of more than 20,000 FDA-approved drugs, mifepristone is the only one that patients must pick up in person in a clinical setting but are permitted to self-administer elsewhere, unsupervised.

So, maybe there was a reason the lower court found it a substantial obstacle to abortion rights to require it during the Big V. The Supreme Court (which will go telephonic for the rest of the year) punted. They sent it back (Alito and Thomas upset, again we have someone quoting Roberts solo concurrence about letting locals deal with medical issues, the specifics ignored, putting aside again it is just one justice who said that) so the district judge could get more facts. Noted it might result in a more narrow order. Do it within forty days. So, see ya in November?

This is a fairly notable thing, but it is again part of the "shadow docket," though we get a few words about what they are doing this time. It isn't put on the Order List page -- not sure how they figure these things out -- just the "Opinions Related to Orders." Meanwhile, Justice Kagan as circuit justice summarily rejected a mail-in ballot related request from Republicans without comment. We might get around seventy full opinions by a Supreme Court for three hundred and thirty million people, but they do some other stuff along the way.

Showing there are other ways to promote religious group, a liberal leaning group put forth a report summarizing its principles. Meanwhile, the Republicans are continuing in the most crappy way possible (members of the Judiciary Committee are even avoiding to get tested) to put someone on the Court promoting a different view. Third time might be the straw for some with those honestly wary about doing so arguing for court expansion. A basic point here, simply ignored by another "reasonable" [half-serious, half-sarcastic] take, is that it is necessary TO reaffirm norms.

Orin Kerr annoys me repeatedly, even if he also is a reasonable sort (he on the record voted for Hillary Clinton) enough to respect, putting aside his specific areas of expertise (Fourth Amendment). So, he calmly reasons things out -- good -- but goes off the rails at some point. I still am annoyed at his latching on to some senator comparing Trump to Stalin for attacking the press, skipping over the rest. He also was confused (he does a Columbo act at times) why dissenting Republicans are supposed to actually vote against their policy priors to reinforce basic norms. Such a mentality makes it seem asking too much to even temporarily stop a few judges to set a few basic boundaries.

it seems to me that the real cause of the claimed "norm breaking" is the gradual devolution, in both parties, to purely partisan Supreme Court votes in the Senate. This wasn't a big problem when Presidential and Senate control were form the same party. Partisan = confirmed.

"Claimed" norm breaking? Both sides do it! He later notes that he undertands the support for court expansion as the Dems "catching up" in the the game of constitutional hardball. Yeah, Orin. See, BOTH SIDES DON'T DO IT. Do they over time to some degree (Miguel Estrada was cited by someone -- some lower court judge held up in part since he was seen as a possible future SCOTUS nominee -- a favorite example) use politics in judicial nomination wars? Surely. Still, even there, one side played hardball more. This is seen by Leahy respecting blue slips while a similar courtesy is not done the other way. This matters. It isn't just that I vote Democratic.

The basic idea seems to be it was just inevitable and Democrats just had the unfortunate fate of being on the wrong side of things. As if, you know, if things were switched, the Democrats would do the same thing in each case. I don't believe it. This is not some appeal to purity. It just is that Democrats in 2016 would have been more wary (Kerr says as much! Dems are NOW being pushed to play catch-up) both given some traditionalists in key positions and if their candidate had as long of a shot as Trump. For good or ill, also, Democrats didn't go all in as much on nominations.

So, I call bullshit. Anyway, it doesn't matter on some level if the result is chance. The Republicans now three fucking times (oh so reasonable, Orin, I understand I'm just being emotional here) screwed in different ways with the nomination process. Talk of "real cause" here is again somewhat besides the point, putting aside that it's b.s. too. As at least one person noted, it isn't merely that Garland was not confirmed. It's HOW. Fortas had a hearing. It didn't go well and then cloture failed.

And, so it goes. Republicans specifically broke the norms -- again are doing so in a particularly crude way now as their dear leader going off the deep end -- and cannot even provide the fig leaf of "well, the public gets to pick." The solution provided is an amendment that locks in the seats at nine (since 1869, so I guess it has gone fairly well, but seems off to set it at that for all time) and have some sort of term limit scheme (details perhaps forthcoming). I think term limits with something to provide a time limit to help avoid confirmation delays is fine as far as it goes.

But, basically the other side gets to keep their ill gotten gains. Which isn't even accepted as ill gotten! Both sides do it! Just being reasonable -- hey, I said it was "lawful" to expand the Court and that I "understand" the sentiment. Just ignoring that something specifically blatant by one side is being done. This is on one hand aggravating, but again it is a problem in purely cerebal fashion too. I understand that in the real world that what might in the long run work very well will be imperfect and less than what seems "fair" to some people. So, you know, getting three or more seats in the end seems dubious. But, ignoring a basic principle here is problematic.

The norm violations or whatever you want to call it -- want to call it just blatant bad acting? Fine -- is also fit into somewhat related issues. So, e.g., it is more painful and so on because a minority gets long term power. The means there is as before not even the basic problem on some level though it is part of the mix. I have seen some specifically concerned about how SCOTUS handles voting rights as a reason to support expansion. And, it is part of a wider picture anyway -- Electoral College etc.

This op-ed mixes a discussion of the pro-democracy etc. value of expansion along with the need to not just let Republicans to get away with what they are doing. He goes off the limb a bit later on. If the Republicans manage to win an election, it isn't really fine if they have a "tit for tat" expansion. A train of abuses etc. is not the same as managing somehow to get back in power. Thus, there is a value in finding a way to avoid that. In past cases, that was really extended party control [Republicans, e.g., controlled the presidency for a while from the 1860s on.] Orin Kerr's amendment keeping things at nine (another person suggested eleven) tries for that. It's hard but maybe some sort of compromise or something will be managed long term. There were precedents.

Relatedly, you get the idea that there might not be enough support to expand the Court until it blocks some major legislation or something. I just do not know how far Biden and the Democrats will go to address things. We have a ways to go there, it being early October. Meanwhile, even people like Sen. Booker (who favors flashy ideological takes) are reportedly talking with Amy Coney-Barrett as if things will just go as normal. Pelosi spoke over all the "quivers" Dems had to use. Uh huh.

And, this makes a good argument that talking about the religious views of nominees is not a constitutional violation but realistically it is done so badly that pragmatically we should largely avoid it. Moving past all that ... Breyer is just so reasonable. And, maybe, just maybe, I'm about done editing this post.

(The above focused on the Supreme Court, but the lower courts also factor in here, especially control of circuit courts. Moscow Mitch has been filling those lower court judges like a drunken sailor or something, after Republican control held up a bunch of Obama nominees. It would be easier to expand lower courts to some degree, especially if there is a workload reason. Lower courts have significant power within their specific spheres. But, they have less than justices, obviously, and thus there is more flexibility there.)

One more thing -- noting by the way that I realize lately this blog had more courts related stuff than other matters -- I am in the middle of Judge Sutton's book honoring using state courts more to develop constitutional law. I wish I could find a book on New York's constitution and how it was applied by its courts. Anyway, it is fairly interesting, and do actually support the overall principle. Not sure about some of the specific arguments about the effects of let's say them arguably going too fast in respect to certain cases etc. But, it's an interesting book.

Bullies Often Are Just Scared Little Boys

We are getting reports of just how unhinged Trump is since being infected along with probably getting a sense of early election returns. His belittling the effects of the Big V (which doesn't even mean he's not hurt by it, since a big part of this is image, including self-image) almost gets lost there. It is deadly though -- just wearing a mask is not "masculine." See also, the Sunday Night Football guys being as childish. Dangerous and sad.

The same dangerous little boy is seen with the response to arrests related to a terrorist (white militia) plan to kidnap Gov. Whitmer (Michigan) with her strong response to the Big V a basic complaint. Trump responded by whining about her not thanking her while criticizing her for the same things that motivated the militia. He tossed in that he was against all violence, but even a child knows the concept of obligatory words over what really matters.

The "bully pulpit" only goes so far without more but it matters and there is "more" mixed in here too. To toss it in, Republicans are aiding and abetting this, Moscow Mitch's recently statement he didn't go to the White House for a while given their lack of Big V safety protocols only underlining the level of wrongdoing.

First Monday In October

And Also: As the day went on, more and more people -- the last count was like thirty, not counting people like housekeeping staff -- was found to be positive for the Big V.  Trump also continued to be so unhinged that reports are that Don Jr. was worried about it. He was released from the hospital and said he felt better than he did for twenty years and not to let the disease run your life.  The whole thing suggests the value of a congressional body per the 25th Amendment to check the health of presidents. Somewhat relatedly, this discussion on what to me is based on the Emoluments Clause specifically on congressional rules for tax records etc. is sound.

===

The opener of the 2020 Supreme Court term was a pretty busy one, including arguments again telephonically. C-SPAN did not have them on television, only providing a feed online.  One of the channels on the t.v. had the South Carolina Senate debate, but one merely had some political discussion of some sort that seemed not as important. Some at C-SPAN, like Brian Lamb, argued televising the Supreme Court is very important. This sense of lesser priority to me is rather disappointing.

First, we had the release of a long order list to generally get through the results of the "long conference" regularly done before the term to deal with pending matters.  Justice Sotomayor had two statements, as is her thing, flagging concerns in criminal justice cases including one involving lethal injection protocol. She finds a way (partially since the votes aren't there) to explain why she goes along with the denial but still provides strong concern about some matter.  The lethal injection case comes out of Ohio, which has postponed executions for some time now. 

The thing that stood out here was the final disposition of a long pending (it was part of a slew of qualified immunity cases that failed cert) case involving Kim Davis. As expected, she lost, but the joker was a long diatribe (putting her out as a martyr of religious liberty) against the constitutional right of same sex marriage by Thomas that was also joined by Alito.  Again, religious opposition to secular marriage was in place for quite some time (divorce etc.), so this isn't some unique matter. The hypocrisy of this has been cited by Jesuit Father James Martin.

It would be interesting to see if there is more to this story -- why was the case held so long? Was there some chance another justice ("justice") would join in or in some form of the opinion?  The lengths taken makes it difficult to see how any other justice would be willing to join even though one or more (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh particularly) might somehow be sympathetic to the concerns for religious liberty.  Note that Gorsuch's Bostick ruling basically left that to another day. The timing could also be strategic to have it in place for the new term.

The nomination of Amy Coney-Barrett -- her hearing even though multiple members of the Senate Judiciary Committee tested positive is next week -- could only encourage an idea that this would be a good time to release the statement.  Anyway, what a pathetic character she is to take part in this while the spectacle of Trump out there threatening the health of others, the "super spreader" nature of her nomination announcement apparently not a concern for her. Can those liberals who said she lacks a character problem please apologize for their fatuousness?

Anyway, mixed in with the orders are probably some things of some interest even if they don't stand out. For instance, it was flagged on Twitter that "SCOTUS just renewed government's ability to target/deport Ravi Ragbir, immigrants' rights activist who had been targeted by ICE for his political advocacy. " Prof. Victoria Nourse, whose writings on a range of issues I have found excellent and is a filibustered Obama nominee that particularly stings in part since she would be key to control of the Seventh Circuit, has a good op-ed criticizing the textualism of Coney-Barrett.

The order came in a lawsuit filed in May by a group of South Carolina voters, the South Carolina Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs barred the state from enforcing the witness requirement for the state’s June primary and again for the upcoming November election. She concluded that the challengers were “substantially likely” to be able to show that, because of the “unique risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic,” the witness requirement would violate the challengers’ constitutional right to vote. After the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit left Childs’ order in place, state election officials (along with Republican leaders of the state’s legislature and the South Carolina Republican Party) came to the Supreme Court last week.

We also had a "shadow docket" decision in which the Supreme Court intervened in a pending matter to make sure people have a bit harder time to vote.  We did not actually get an explanation why this was done, including given "the head of the state’s election commission has said that the witness requirement does not help to deter voter fraud."  Three justices would have gone further (why? again, no comment), there being an exception for those already submitting, including a two day window. Why two days? Again, no comment.  [Rick Hasen has more here.]

Well, Kavanaugh did provide a short explanation, citing two reasons. First, he cited CJ Roberts (one person) that local governments should be given wide discretion to handle public health matters.  The actual case involved there was special rules in place to deal with the Big V, not inaction in such a way that makes an existing law particularly concerning for a fundamental right. The second is the "Purcell" principle, put forth in the shadow docket itself, which was cited as an inclination (not absolute rule) not to change the rules near an election. But, (1) not absolute (2) the original lawsuit was months ago. If anything, this seems to be the change near an election.

As Hasen notes, one can only speculate, but no dissent suggests a sort of "deal" to allow the exception.  Maybe so and personally I think such "horse trading" is not somehow inherently illegitimate when multi-member courts work out what the law should be. My problem would be that you need to actually explain yourself. I would probably still find the result here problematic, but that is separate from the "since we say so" ruling.  In fact, this order was not even put on the normal order page; you have to go to the less well known "opinions related to orders" page to see it.

The state electoral official statement underlines the weakness of the state case here while also showing how "voter fraud" concerns continue to burden voting rights, evidence of that being a problem still lacking. I am unclear how harsh the result here is specifically as to requirement that requires voters to sign absentee-ballot envelopes in the presence of a witness.  This would be in part a matter of how that is enforced.  But, this is part of a wider whole, so no one case will show the results.

Some Iffy Books

Helped surely from reading so much more online, I'm less able to read books that in the past would have been fine. I'm re-reading Housekeeping (also a film) and darn is it hard-going. A little of the flowery text goes a longggg way. The well received World of wonders: in praise of fireflies, whale sharks, and other astonishments has a similar problem.

Also, I checked out (maybe again?) the Beyond Abortion book, and in general didn't care for it. Didn't like the style -- seems like a first draft or something, plus leaving a lot out.

Supreme Court Update (Sports Too)

Most of the three game Wild Card series were done in two, including the Marlins over Cubs and the Twins continuing their run of futility.  The last game, scoreless mid-way as I type, is one of the exceptions (Cards/San Diego).  Meanwhile, to 0-3 teams faced up for Thursday Night Football, the Jets and the third quarterback time Broncos. The Jets got to the QB in the 4th for two defensive aided scores (if one that was dubiously careful) but they blew it in the end. The ability to end the game without a penalty put a bow on things. The head coach for some reason has job security.

===

The big news -- coming after many went to bed though hints were in place earlier -- is that the First Couple has the Big V, after Hope Hicks was reported (not by the Administration) to have it. After that was known, Trump still went and exposed people at a campaign event. Yeah, that is why the "we need to aim high here" stuff isn't totally in place.  He went to Walter Reed today, upping the drama, but who the heck knows.

This has Supremes implications since there was exposure (though there has been reports the nominee already had it) at the announcement event last Saturday. At least two Republican members of the Judiciary Committee (quarantine rules require more time than the scheduled hearings, but can it be done virtually?) have the virus now.  Maybe, it was a "character issue" for the nominee to take part without social distancing and the like.  Meanwhile, SCOTUS released details for telephonic arguments next Monday, the beginning of the 2020 Term.

There was an order regarding a census dispute [meanwhile, for now, a lower court ruling means the count continues for another month]. As one tweet from a court watcher phrased it: the Supreme Court "agrees to fast-track briefing in dispute over whether people living in US illegally must be included in reapportionment of congressional seats. Orders challengers to respond to government's appeal by 10/7."  More important, an order list today granted some more cases, including a potentially important Voting Rights Act case.  Alito is not taking part in one, so that's seven to eight people involved in deciding the matter.

The tainted Court returns on Monday with orders and orals.