Monday Thoughts -- Mets, SCOTUS Orders

Mets: The final slots on the Mets Opening Day line-up are coming in and there weren't really too many surprises. We have some new faces as role players and the usual suspects. Gsellman was slotted in -- after helping them in 2016 as a starter, he has been mediocre, but that's useful, especially with multiple guys like Lugo hurt (plus he is both cheap -- they let go one guy who wasn't -- and has "options" -- so can be sent down).

The NL East is likely to be tough with even the Marlins better than many other teams out there. The Mets has a pretty good team, especially with a new slew of role players. The outfield is not elite -- you have a hitter (Dom "no DH" Smith) and decent defensive guys starting. We will see how JD Davis does at third. Catching is a hopefully reliable guy and Nido, who in the past was a third stringer at times. 

And, with Carrasco out for maybe months now, you have DeGrom and some good arms, but some question marks given how they are fairly new, didn't play much (see Stroman) or more of a swing starter type. Still, they all are promising and "openers" can shorten the game. Let's see how the team does in June.

SCOTUS Today's Order List had a grant (involving the right to step in to defend an abortion law, the opposition saying it is reaching to decide a non-cert worthy issue) and some death penalty related stuff. By coincidence, the request for a short brief (five pages) regarding a death penalty case -- involving the need to offer an alternative method of execution -- involves a case that the guest in the latest Strict Scrutiny Podcast was involved in. 

A per curiam, involving an error correction in a real old case, also arose out of a death penalty case. The Supreme Court from time to time flags a lower court case it deems simply wrong, it not clear how they pick and choose here, and it is open to some criticism partially as pro-prosecution or whatever.  One can just hear the disdain in this summary:

But almost 35 years later, the Sixth Circuit held that Hines was entitled to a trial and sentence because his attorney should have tried harder to blame another man.

Sotomayor (not surprisingly) dissented but without opinion (more surprising).  As is usual in such "shadow docket" type decision-making, we can guess some what is going on.  Maybe, e.g., the majority is correct that the lower court was stretching things, but Sotomayor didn't think it was so wrong that the Supreme Court should have struck out its neck like this. Or, maybe she thinks the opinion lays it too thick.  Anyway, for the nth time, I wish an explanation was actually provided. 

The order list had the usual minutiae like decisions involving appendixes that I seem to be the only one that want to know more about.  It also continued to hold on to an abortion and gun rights case. Later on, something is dismissed (see Rule 39.8). What? See here.  The Court has orals and an Opinion Day (Thursday) scheduled this week.

Other:  I'm reading Te-Ping Chen's short story collection Land of Big Numbers and it's pretty good (some stories better than others).  Was watching some of That Girl (hey! It's Rachel's mom) and thought about her distinctive voice.  I checked the TV Tropes page and apparently at some point the actress (per the style of the day) stopped wearing a bra on the show.  The website says Rachel also appears rarely to wear one.  Finally, caught a bit of the Jesus themed t.v. show The Chosen on Up TV. You can find episodes on You Tube.  It looks like a serious effort.