Supreme Court Watch: Opinion Day etc.

There were various oral arguments this week, but the biggest news was the Case of the Cursing Cheerleader. A disappointed teen cursed on Snapchat in disappointment for losing a varsity cheerleader position. She was suspended from the team for a year, which is a ridiculous overreaction.

But, is any school penalty for off campus speech of this nature warranted? I am much less sure of the answer to that, and the justices appeared unsure too. Their concern for line drawing would seem to arise when applying Tinker (armbands) in school as well.  After Tinker, the Supreme Court mostly left these disputes to the lower courts.  The exceptions were a vulgar speech at a school event, rules involving a school paper and dealing with a pro-marijuana (though it could have been seen as a nonsense thing) sign at a school event (thus support of illegal conduct).  

It is the sort of case that is a good general thought experiment for the average person (or student) too. C-SPAN, however, decided the live streamed oral argument was appropriate for its more heavily watched three television channels.  This continues to be a complaint of mine -- for years, Brian Lamb and others want the Supreme Court to televise. Now, there is a half-step with live streaming.  But, after doing differently when it first started, C-SPAN only streamed live online. 

===

After the Order List, a miscellaneous order dropped that rejected an application of a stay.  The only real question for me is why it was not just included with the other orders.  These sorts of stand alone things seem not really too time sensitive most of the time.  One other tidbit was that the losing side was represented by Lisa "I'm a liberal but support Trump justices" Blatt, who also represented the school in the cheerleader case. 

===

Only Chief Justice Roberts went to the smaller President Biden Address to Congress (it's not a SOTU! just him talking about the state of the union and offering suggestions for new policy). Biden went to say hi at one point.  Sigh.  I'm not someone who is mesmerized by such speeches, but was so nice to see Biden there.  A real POTUS.  I think the start of the speech, including introducing the two women behind him, was the strongest.  After there was a lot of policy stuff, but the start, including the COVID stuff, was the most powerful.  Some other good spots, including reminding us that this country is based on an idea (equal justice). 

===

The 6-3 ruling, with an unusual voting line-up, left open access to a form of deportation relief for noncitizens who were served a “notice to appear” for immigration proceedings via a series of documents, instead of the required single comprehensive notice.

The one opinion that dropped on Thursday was interesting given the line-up with Kavanaugh (with Roberts and Alito) in dissent. Gorsuch writing the majority opinion was not too surprising -- at times, he will have pro-defendant type opinions, especially if they limit federal power, and he can be convinced that the statutory text requires that result.  Certain flourishes in writing, including repeated dismissive comments about the dissent being basically stupid, also doesn't surprise.  

Was the opinion correct?  I'm inclined to follow a rule of leniency when possible in such cases, but won't pretend to fully know.  Still, such a rule seems to be appropriately applied when all three liberals are joined by three conservatives.  The good result, a good drive of the car, again doesn't mean the car being stolen should be forgotten. Also, here is a liberal take that it really wasn't great anyways -- again see my comments too.

Alito and Kavanaugh going the other way is not too surprising.  Roberts doesn't dissent much, so his vote is interesting.  You would think the logical move was a switch of Roberts and Thomas, but guess here the statutory etc. argument convinced him.  Barrett seems at this early date someone who will not just be a kneejerk conservative, at least when there is wiggle room.  Kavanaugh wrote the dissent here, which was longer than the majority opinion.  Breyer probably was happy to have another "see! we don't just split in obvious ways" example.

(There is an edit to the opinion though "complaint" sounds right.) 

ETA: This analysis flags the majority's use of "alien," which the Biden Administration has deemed inappropriate. I wonder how Sotomayor felt. 

===

Death Penalty: I referenced in a past entry the short briefing requested by the Supreme Court involving the the opening of arguing that the firing squad is a possible alternative in a Missouri death penalty case.  The multitude of hedges there is telling -- we are not exactly talking about a sure thing. 

The state provided its reply this week as seen on this page.  Basically, the danger of lethal injection in the case is alleged to be weak, but anyways, the two "alternatives" (lethal gas and firing squad) are not available anyway.  Since the current, dubious, rule is that you need both, that's 0/2.  Again, the record for lethal injection has been at best mixed in recent years.  

It's a bit gruesome, but I continue to look for an execution using an alternative method.  The firing squad always a bit "niche" and seen as a bit to graphic among other things, nitrogen gas seems the more likely option.  

====

No further orders on Friday or opinion days scheduled. 

A couple of books

The big news this week was the Oscars (not much interest) and Biden's Address to Congress (see brief remark in Supreme Court wrap-up tomorrow).

I had various false starts book-wise and wound up re-reading Robert Kennedy's short book on the Cuban Missile Crisis (more of an uncompleted manuscript with an extended postscript commentary by two others), Thirteen Days. Years ago, I also saw the movie with Kevin Costner playing a supporting character. The book is a basic under 100 page account that would make good high school reading. The prologue written years later noted things actually was more on edge than was actually assumed at the time.

I watched Elizabeth Becker on C-SPAN discuss her book You Don't Belong Here: How Three Women Re-Wrote the Story of War. That subtitle might promise too much, but it is a well written account of three journalistic pioneers during the Vietnam War. In the process, we also learn a lot about the conflict itself. So, it's a two-fer. The author herself also eventually reported on an aspect of the conflict.

SCOTUS: Order Day

We had big news today but there were various other notable things in today's Order List. There were also two oral arguments, involving disclosure laws (current Court worse on this than the Kennedy/Scalia version) and a chance to get the feds to at least partially cover payment to clean-up a toxic waste dump of Guam (170K, no vote for POTUS, only a non-voting delegate in Congress, and maybe a t-shirt). On the former, Barrett was asked to recuse, including by one of the people supporting a court expansion bill.

Okay. Let's deal with some of the other stuff in the Order List.  There was a per curiam without a dissent that was one of those error correction cases that the Supreme Court occasionally takes.  Justice Sotomayor, for one, has flagged that sort of thing as liable to be biased toward prosecution cases. Back in 2016, there was already a clear trend toward that in habeas cases.  This one at any rate flagged what it held to be a mistaken interpretation of being "in custody" in a habeas dispute that below helped the defendant. 

The other written opinion was a dissent by Alito (and Thomas), whose position on the now decades long practice of avoiding taking disputes among states.  He very well might have a point that the Constitution warrants at least minimally substantively taking such cases, one of the jobs of the Supreme Court being to handle disputes among states.  For a different view, see here (I comment too).

The Court did not accept a state challenge to the Biden Administration's change in policy on the "public charge" rule, in part for not going thru the Administrative Procedures Act.  But, in an extended paragraph, it flagged the states still can bring a challenge later on.  So, this might be a red flag that Biden might (like Trump did a few times) get in trouble on APA grounds, which makes it harder to get rid of old policies and/or permanently put in place new ones.   

Separately, SCOTUS wanted to know the Biden Administration's plans regarding a more restricted family planning rule that Trump put in place.  Also, a request for comment in another case (Breyer did not take part -- like Alito in another case, this is likely a financial conflict issue).  

===

The big news, which was just a matter of time -- especially on the Barrett Court (Roberts supported the punt in the last 2A case) -- was a case taken on this question: "Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment." The original question: "Whether   the   Second   Amendment   allows   the   government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from  carrying  handguns  outside  the  home  for  self-defense."  

I think after ten years that it makes some degree of sense really that the Supreme Court does more than drop a mostly forgotten punt (the eight person Court stun gun case) involving "arms" outside the home.  We can disagree with Heller and all that, but there were loads of lower court rulings -- with some disagreement -- on the general matter of regulating arms (mainly firearms).  A basic job of the Supreme Court is to provide some basic unity, and they are going to eventually decide this general question.

The basic problem for some is going to be the result.  But, another is the people making the decision.  A tainted Supreme Court, especially given on this issue there is a clear shift on liberal/conservative grounds (Roberts more to the center here) based on those new members. As with the campaign disclosure case (where the state might lose on narrow grounds with a different Court), if such a basic question is decided, we need a Court that we have a reason to respect on legitimacy grounds.  

 ===

There were two other interesting grants -- something about the power of a local government to censure (huh) and a state secrets case, but one that feels like a glaring "state is going to win" grant since it involves active CIA goings on. On other facts, there might be hope that the tainted long rule where state secrets are used to deny justice (including in cases where the stuff is not really secret), but not sure this is a good grant there. 

(The case is the first GITMO case SCOTUS took for over a decade and involves "black sites" and torture.  Plus, here too, just how "secret" things are is rather unclear.  The Trump Administration asked for review and the Biden Administration has gone alone so far.  The cover-up has been something of a bipartisan effort though the Obama Administration did make some effort to bring out in the open reports of abuse.)  

ETA: Also, with COVID distancing and all that, even with them all being vaccinated, it was reported only the Chief Justice will show up at Biden's Wednesday address to Congress (saw a reference to only 200 members of Congress showing up too, at least in the chamber itself).  Probably will be a bit weird for him.

TV Update

I finished the first complete swing thru Friends DVDs last May, buying the last set since the NYPL was closed (also the first earlier since they don't have it). Now there is a later version out there with a bit more material. I'm on the second run now. Skipping more, but still enjoying it, both on a comfort level but at times still laughing or being touched.

Again, I think the last two seasons could have been one, and the Joey "marries" Rachel subplot was forced (also to expand the double episode to end the 8th season -- which I just watched -- they tossed in a "who cares" subplot involving Phoebe). If not as bad as the Rachel likes Joey subplot to fill space later. In a later 8th season episode, Phoebe reads tea leaves that she will find her true love. This happens (with a fairly boring person, which sorta fits her character wanting realiability, but is boring) in the 9th season.

The Sven movie was Gargoyles. The first hour or so was pretty good (it was actually a t.v. movie), but found the last third sorta lame. Today is also the Oscars, which when I used to steadily go to the movies, was something I often enjoyed. Haven't really cared for some time. The film (Little Women) I managed to watch last year before the Big V actually won something. This year? I am at best familiar with some of the movies. I'm sorta curious about Minari. Jon Batiste of Colbert [did] win for his soundtrack work.

Big V Update: J&J (the "Joe Shot") Back etc.

I received the Big V vaccine after seeking out the "one shot" version that was put on a pause recently.  The specific blood clot condition arose in adult women basically of child bearing age, so didn't apply to me in that sense.  Still, it is of somewhat specific concern to me.

The pause was seen by many as absurd (see the Colbert bit that smartly notes the variety of things with much more than "7 cases per million doses among women between 18 and 49" problem at issue).  There has to be a general intelligent realization that nothing is pure, though with those odds, we are getting to Ivory Soap numbers.

And, the average person does seem to know this as they go about their lives though they might exactly be overly consistent about the whole thing. But, I respect the judgment calls of those running the show, and this is such a huge enterprise with two other options.  It to me was good "precautionary principle" doctrine to be real careful, especially since the net effect of the whole thing is minor.  After a few weeks, it will now be used again, especially since it has various benefits (including the one shot nation).

The vaccine can be generally reviewed, since weighting costs/benefits here includes a clear understanding of the imperfections. One still drives a car with the possibility of an accident, but it's better for car makers to be well aware of the problems when millions drive it.  Plus, Johnson & Johnson already got in trouble for a production error.  There is still absurd enabling of vaccine hesitancy.  It pays to play this real carefully.  

===

2020 had the largest "above normal deaths" in history though modern day advances still made things a lot better than the pandemics like the Black Death. The citation of 1918 also is misleading since the population was much smaller then, so the better statistic would be some sort of rate.  

This isn't my only concern -- which mind you might sound like flyspecking, but discussion of effects surely should factor in percentage; it is like citing the number of Civil War deaths without taking into consideration the much smaller 1860s population than today (though raw numbers is bad enough).  The comment that we should be informed by nations that handled things better is fine.  We should look abroad for what is done right; for instance, critics of the Supreme Court should point to foreign nations to show another way, including in constitutional courts.  

But, what countries? Vietnam?  Going to the Vox article linked, we are reminded that it is a one party communist country.  Note it isn't small population wise.  Looking, though it is  cited as a poorer country, it has close to 100 million people.  So, on that front, it should be honored for controlling the disease with fewer resources.  Plus, as an Asian country, it very well might be more open to danger from a disease that in some large part arose in China.  Still, it is not exactly the United States.  

Okay.  The article notes there are democratic countries that are doing well.  Fine enough.  A key lesson here was travel restrictions and that was done in other countries, including those with democratic governments  But, it cites island nations repeatedly, including small ones like New Zealand.  Again, we are not talking the United States, a much larger country with multiple entry points at various areas of the country, putting aside the differences in government reality (clearly not all ideal).  

And even democratic countries can be more authoritarian and/or comfortable for an expanded period of time of more restrictions.  This very well might be something that needs to be accepted though some of these countries at least have restrictions we shouldn't be as supportive of in various respects.  The blog cited has called out New York (and New York City), which is fine (especially later on), but I still don't think the comparison to smaller states was completely fair though to the degree a state's overall government is better than ours, well that's a long time thing New York does have to address.  And, the same thing comes to mind here.

The world has a lot to teach us.  Cuba, e.g., might have potential as a center of vaccination.  This might surprise some that see it as a backward commie nation, but it has done some very good things in respect to public health in the Castro years.  When we do that, we also need to take into consideration differences.  How that matters depends on the case.  

It still is an important factor -- so when people cite New Zealand, e.g., responding to a shooting with a big change in gun regulation as if the U.S. is seriously deficient to not follow, sure we are, but it is still a lot harder in a country with a lot more than less than five million people.  This is not the (or should not be) road to inaction; it the road to realism.

Supreme Court Watch: Opinion Day etc.

Thursday is starting to be a semi-official Opinion Day for this term, repeatedly the day announced when there are opinions to be handled down. Monday after conference will give you orders and sometimes Friday (the usual conference day) will also lead to announcement of a day where where opinion or opinions might be handled down. And, it again repeatedly has been Thursday. But, as in the past, we have various odds and ends relevant to Supreme Court matters. 

One bit of news is reports of a sizable (2M, noticeably more than Thomas and Sotomayor's autobiographies)  advance for a Barrett book, including an alleged theme of how justices shouldn't let personal opinion interfere with judging.  Dahlia Lithwick had a good response, including the telling "irony" that Breyer, Sotomayor and Gorsuch assuring people they are just going about their business (if at times strongly disagreeing!) is itself a form of "political theater" in response to pressures and criticisms.

She also (quoting a good piece by Chris Geidner) suggests even if some people (to me prematurely) think liberals are dropping the ball on court reform, their actions actually very well might be having concrete effects already.  I will repeat my sentiment that change here happens in various ways. There are a lot of moving parts.  I think the filibuster is comparable. Reconciliation is one way around it.  It was already weakened regarding executive appointments.  I think more can be done there -- how exactly can be debated -- especially since completely abolishing with 51 votes seems a bit unrealistic.  Not bad on policy grounds; unrealistic.  

===

One ongoing battle -- over a year -- in the Supreme Court that had various ebbs and flows concerned having the spiritual minister of your choice in the execution chamber.  As part of the "shadow docket," a majority of the Court (how many? unclear -- Kagan wrote a plurality of four that Barrett joined; three dissented on the record)  held that at least given current federal statutory protections for prisons, there is one.  This was a mild example of religious liberty.  Texas took the hint and changed their policies (an execution scheduled in May) to allow it.  

====

The controversial opinion handed down was a 6-3 upholding of a LWOP by someone who was convicted of murdering his grandfather at age 15.  Kavanaugh wrote the majority, disagreeing in part with the author of the substantive opinion (Kennedy wrote the follow-up, but it was a procedural question; Roberts agreed there but dissented in the original opinion) -- Kagan joined Sotomayor's strong dissenting opinion with Breyer.  

The debate was just how broad was the limit on LWOP for juveniles who committed murder. Sotomayor (and the author of the opinion again apparently agrees) argued that it limited it to a very narrow number of cases.  And, it is the obligation of the court to determine if that "worse of the worst" subset is in place.  The majority saw the rule as more of a non-mandatory LWOP test, giving more discretion to the government. 

It is unclear how many more minors will have LWOP sentences here, in part since the actual test will only come decades from now when they age out.  Plus, the states would have to disallow any actual means of parole, such as some power of the governor to commute.  I'm generally inclined to go with the critics, particularly since in my ideal world the earlier case would have had further -- EVERY person who commits a crime as a minor should at least have the chance of parole.  Heck I'd say any person.

The stakes there after all only take us so far -- didn't Charles Manson have periodic parole hearings? It is not a parole by right.  And, putting aside -- as Sotomayor notes in her opinion -- the facts of this case is a particularly dubious application of LWOP, what is involved here?  Thirty years down the road, maybe, the teen involved (who here is now around 32) will be released?  A gruesome murder by someone 17 years old getting that much time in prison to me is not actually weak willed justice. 

There is also the "come on you are thinking it too" fact that there is something um off with Kavanaugh writing an opinion that restrains the limits on letting the wrongs of a teenager lead to life time effects.  I've seen this framed a bit too broadly* -- he is not saying that NO concern should be given to the youth of the wrongdoer -- but yes, the person whose actions as a teenager surely should not be used to restrain his ambitions decades later (so it is said) being an author of this opinion is a tad ironic.  And, this isn't the first time this came up -- Alan Simpson spoke out against treating teens too strictly, bringing up his own past. 

====

We have two other opinions.  Breyer for everyone said the Federal Trade Commission -- even if it would be nice -- didn't have the power under current law to respond to a deceptive payday lending activity as it did. He notes that if they can get Congress to change the law, as tried, go at it. 

Sotomayor in part had everyone in allowing a challenge involving an Appointments Clause matter (which on the substance has repeatedly split the Roberts Court in liberal/conservative fashion). In another -- as is common these days -- brief opinion, she settled the technical issues. Thomas (with Gorsuch and Barrett) and Breyer alone each only went part of the way, noting why in brief concurrences. Why the five person majority went further is unclear to me (seems silly), but unlike a truly splintered Court, we still had a clear majority opinion.  

Breyer in his recent Scalia lecture noted his general ideal is to get broad agreement, even if he personally might disagree. There are various cases where he clearly -- given his druthers -- wouldn't have gone along, but did so for that reason.  I find that a generally commendable approach in group decision dynamics.  He also added that sometimes a judge is unable to do that, at times based on idiosyncratic experiences and thoughts. That might be a factor here since administrative law is a particular concern of his.

===

The conference day order (a common occurrence is some mild action or at times a grant to hear a case)  allowed a reply brief out of time. Yes, a lot of these orders are rather bland.  There was also an announcement two more Thursday opinion days will occur this month.  

==

I see that there is a new Court photo, "the product of Court packing by a Republican [travesty], Donald J. Trump, and a Republican-majority Senate."  I said more, but that will do.

----

* Repeatedly.  So, e.g., we have lame arguments that the Founders would have opposed D.C. statehood.  And, then we have responses of a bunch of things they would have opposed (or what they supported).  I can provide a long discussion here, but let's say, it was an over-correction that mixed in some error on top of error. The net answer is that the arguments are lame and the true concern is political.  The Constitution itself leaves a lot of room for development and picking among choices there. 

Reopening Muslim Minds: A Return to Reason, Freedom, and Tolerance

The month of Ramadan is that in which was revealed the Quran; a guidance for mankind, and clear proofs of the guidance, and the criterion (of right and wrong). And whosoever of you is present, let him fast the month, and whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, a number of other days. Allah desires for you ease; He desires not hardship for you; and that you should complete the period, and that you should magnify Allah for having guided you, and that perhaps you may be thankful.

[Quran 2:185]

The author's website has the NYT op-ed that led me to read this book. It in part seemed fitting to do so in the month of Ramadan. Since it has not updated to put in a page for this new book, here's his Cato page. See also, this review.  Mustafa Akyol has wrote other books on the same general theme as well as Jesus' role in Islam.  He writes here as a Muslim and does not defend the legitimacy of Islam.  He might do that elsewhere.

This helps add force to his argument for a liberal reading of the religion, one that promotes freedom of thought.  Akyol accepts that his position is a minority one, arguing that Islam has a lot of self-reflection to do. But, he offers historical and scriptural evidence that he path is both reasonable and has precedent.  At times, he even uses a form of originalism to argue the true original text and practice, as compared to years later, fits his approach.

How much that is true is something I leave to others who know such things more than I.  It helps when such a thing is at least reasonably left open. Akyol promotes a view where reason and basic morality/justice is basic and that Islam and the Koran should be applied in a way that the two don't clash. And, it helps that even without being creative, this is quite possible. So, there is a basic "no coercion in religion" verse, one that others challenge (such as tacking on "well, we mean no coercion to become a Muslim .... once you are ...."), as well as "let Allah judge." 

We get some discussion of a few people over the centuries with ahead of the curve views among Muslim thinkers.  The author, again, does accept that the Islamic World itself did not have an Enlightenment period, though tells us much less on why as compared to how the Islamic World moved on from a more libertarian position in the promotion of authoritarian rule.  That would have been interesting -- in the Middle Ages, Western Europe wasn't that backward, after all, but did have issues as compared to the Muslim World.   And, as the book shows, there were various sects of Islam and room for a freedom of thought approach.  

The book does touch on a bit on how the Ottoman Empire passed some reforms in the 19th Century and how even the strict approach today differs in degrees depending on the Muslim nation involved.  So, there is room for change, especially (as was the case for Christianity) since it is strategically a good idea to deal with current realities.  And, there are some open minds there -- for instance, it is appalling so many are open to the idea that apostates can be killed, but I note that the actual cases (even private action) does not reflect what the poll data might suggest is possible.

Anyway, the book is an interesting -- and mostly approachable (all the Muslim/Arabic terms after a while get a bit confusion) -- argument that reason and religion, human rights and Islam, can go hand in hand. In fact, huh, it might be the best reading of the tenets of the religion. I'm not quite sure how far reason can take you, in the modern era, to defend belief in Allah and all that, but religion mostly not heavenly beings anyways.

SCOTUS Order Day

The Order List was over twenty pages, so I knew there was something other than the usual things. Still, there were a few notables even there: a criminal justice grant, a lingering Trump election case (it's like the last Confederate raider surrending or something) and so on. The page length, however, was a pair of Sotomayor criminal justice case red flags, which she does from time to time. One about cavity searches, the other shackles in court.

Also in the news, other than talk of a William Barr book in the works, is this: "Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s last pick for the Supreme Court, has also sold a book — garnering a $2 million advance for a tome about how judges are not supposed to bring their personal feelings into how they rule." Ha ha. So, Gorsuch (out there promoting civics) has a book out too, so where's Kavanaugh? So, it's a work of fiction?

Late Nite Watching Update

The few hits to this blog often are to a discussion of Sensual Survialists, a Showtime late nite soft porn deal involving an nude survialist reality show plot. I think a "X-rated" version of that basic cable show is a good idea, but this movie leaves something to be desired. I'm more for the lighter, less blatantly fake looking (including less tattoos) fare around in the past such as Cinderalla's Hot Night. And, various other fare with Lynne and Nguyen though the "Emma Marx" movies cited in that review [which until recently was also available] had some charms.

The fare available now on Showtime demand leaves a lot to be desired. Erotic Uncoupling is basically the best bet (for simple watchability) though something like Amorous Amnesia is passable. One or more is simply unpleasant, including the medical one. The survialist movie is at times okay, and the secondary big boobed actress is actually pretty good in other stuff (including a podcast!) but ugh the guy on the reality show. We used to have more than one decent series; now even non-cheap looking films are hard to come by.

The Crawling Eye

Another enjoyable Svengoolie film that is partially amusing since a (serious) lead is a familiar from F-Troop. Good atmosphere and acting from the cast, including the woman with telepathy. Gets somewhat tedious toward the end. And, a bit unclear why people go psycotic when under the control of the mist. Why cut off heads?

Children Under Fire

I saw the story of a friendship between Ava Olsen (white girl from South Carolina) and Tyshaun McPhatter (black boy from Washington D.C.) on Twitter with a suggestion to read the title book to learn more. And, it is a powerful book, well written. 

A basic message is that the victims of gun violence in this country are much more than those who are directly shot with guns. They include those who loss someone, who experienced violence in some other way, and/or those who live in fear. And, a single incident can linger on for years. Such is true for all involved, but when dealing with people under ten years old, well, that is something. 

Ava Olsen loves writing and books.  The video talks about her letters (they are well written; one doubts Trump wrote the replies; she did get a second reply) to Trump. I thought a touching reference was something she had about the joy of friendship -- "I listen with my heart. I do not argu."  She saw her best friend die in first grade and years later was still greatly traumatized (she would be about 10 now).  Tyshaun, if not from the book as psychologically traumatized as she was in some sense, still is hurting too.  Just one of many.  While providing useful background material, the book tells some of their stories, including Ava's teacher (shot herself). 

The book ends with three main reform suggestions: universal background checks, child protection laws (keeping guns at home secure from children; the laws must have real bite for violators) and more research.  All can be provided without "violating the Second Amendment," including using that term to me some wider symbolic view of the importance of freedom of have guns. As one South Carolina government official said, such reasonable policies if anything can protect the Second Amendment.  

While reading this book, another child was killed by police, and it became another national outrage.  Adam Toledo was thirteen.  He was shot at 2:35 AM after he was seen having a gun.  This is not said to justify what was done, but it has to be said.  Why did he have a gun?  This is an earlier reporting, before the most recent which provides video that shows his hands up without a gun.  Many will point to the evil police officer, who recklessly shot a child.  The mayor said that city failed him. Yes. In multiple ways, including allowing him somehow to get a gun.  

Police related deaths have resulted in a lot of protests in recent years. The solutions to me often are big picture -- the #DefundPolice movement, for instance, to me hits to an important point.  Some argue it is too extreme.  I think it validly deals with structural problems that are much more than bad police officers or even lack of a means to address their wrongdoing. It is often the use of police -- in a traffic stop, to deal with someone mentally ill or a reckless drug bust -- itself that is the problem.  

[Let me insert here this bit about "are there good cops" from some guy who loves to toss around "fascists" and the like.

My reply, which got some attention, tried to look at it from a different point of view.  I suggested that the problem is partially the system.  Besides, even a small subset of problem cases would be problematic.  So, I suggested granting "most" police are individually okay.  This didn't mean the system is or that there weren't a sizable number of problem officers.  But, just working off the idea "cops = bad" is not to me a helpful approach.

Again, some didn't like my reply.]

We also are logically emotionally affected by mass shootings, especially involving schools.  But, the boy's dad was killed outside of a school.  He still is hurting.  Suicide is a major way people die from guns.  Gun safety and research would significantly address that issue, including when children kill themselves or suffer when those close to them do so.  Universal background checks is a broad means to address the gun problem.  And, trying to point out that such and such would not stop such and such event -- if we even can figure that out -- doesn't mean all are important.

Ultimately, the book promotes empathy.  We care about these children.  We care about those in school and in their families who suffer along with them and try to do what they can to address their needs. And, that too is important.  I think of one thing that is put forth as a scare tactic these days -- trans people, often kids. It often is about having basic empathy.  To treat them as people with specific needs, not a specter.  Empathy can help with big solutions too.  But, ultimately, it is helpful day to day. 

SCOTUS Watch

Death Penalty: After the Supreme Court allowed Trump to rush three executions in January (normal order there would have delayed things and they all probably would not have been executed), there hasn't been one since. One footnote referenced here was a request for a short brief involving the firing squad. As seen on this page, the defense submitted it, focusing on procedural matters. A reply from the state is due soon.

A bit of background. Since at least early this century, concerns about lethal injection (backed up by various botched executions as well as some more hazy evidence) has led to various Supreme Court battles. Early on, it was the right to raise a claim, including those who claim drug use or something might make the lethal injection problematic. After an early more direct challenge (Baze v. Rees) failed 7-2, there was more of a strong split later with strong replies by both sides (Alito and Gorsuch writing the majority opinions as compared to Roberts suggests why).  

Basically, the Supreme Court firmly said that not only is the death penalty constitutional, but that the government also has a strong interest in carrying it out.  So, leaving open in theory some extreme case [e.g., actual burning at the stake, not disputed evidence lethal injection would in effect feel like that], not only did they reject the immediate claims (5-4, both times with strong dissents), but also requiring those making a claim that a particular execution protocol was illegal needed to provide an alternative method that was clearly available.  Sotomayor repeatedly railed against this and she is correct.

This is the immediate issue at hand: at first, there was an attempt to offer nitrogen gas as the alternative, but this was rejected for whatever procedural reason. For instance, one the argument was that the person waited too long to raise a claim.  Another time it was more like it is too novel and there really isn't a clear available process in place. A new "unusual" method might be legally complicated for that reason, even if it  is the latest method assuredly safe and effective, though it has yet to be used for an execution. Use for other reasons, or accidental deaths, not quite the same.  But, I am not aware of an in depth analysis on this issue though have read a bit that was said, including comments for/against. 

Anyway, that leaves the firing squad, which was the issue for the brief here.  And, some actually suggest it is safer than lethal injection, if not as pleasant optics-wise.  Again, state brief forthcoming. 

====

Rules: Rules of Appellate and Bankruptcy Procedure, per statutory power given to them, were transmitted to Congress this week.  

====

"We are Good" Campaign: Breyer, as noted last time, had a big lecture recently; he had another public appearance promoting public education of how the Court is doing its job.  Sotomayor and Gorsuch also promoted civics, including the message that they might disagree, but they are doing their job.  So, you know, don't interfere!  I respect these efforts, especially in promotion of civics education, even Gorsuch somewhat (SOMEWHAT), but you know, come on.  The shadow docket b.s. also is a problem, showing they aren't even doing normal judging appropriately.

They might not want to mention the pig in the room, but it's there.  Three corrupt nominations, especially Gorsuch + Barrett (toss in Kavanaugh), cannot be ignored.  This has led to a few people in the House and Senate to push a bill to expand the Supreme Court by four.  Good luck with that; still, it is an appropriate move as part of the whole process.  I saw reference to this being a sign of their "fury," which is fine and justified.  

It isn't JUST that though -- it is also a rational reply to re-calibrate given the excesses by one side, which already had too much power in a bad system.  Other than Breyer retiring -- I'll give him some slack in the Obama years, but yeah, he really should retire by the end of the term -- it is not horrible for these people to play things like this. They are restrained by their position.  I say this only so much though, since they are bringing this up, which they need not.  It comes off again as a subtweet message against packing.  Sorry people.  We saw what happened.  

Video of the announcement can be found here and one important part is the statement that this is the "education" period for such a proposal. It's a marathon, not a sprint.  A campaign, not a single moment. Pick your metaphor.  As with the Biden Commission, it's best to remember the big picture, and not be too defeatist.  Some already are; it's wrong.  An article on the preliminary activities of the Biden group, including (as I thought logical) splitting up of what some argue is a too large group into focus groups suggests it can help advance the "conversation" as well. 

===

Solicitor General Actions: There was a conference on Friday, which means orders on Monday.  An order was also dropped -- as is sometimes done on a Conference day -- this time regarding giving the SG time in a couple arguments and not giving time to the Ute tribe.  The cases involve the proper allotment of COVID to certain Native groups and for whatever reason it was decided that that specific request was not necessary.  

This is just one of lots of requests addressed without comment, there often being desire for different groups to get in on the oral arguments.  There being a limited amount of time, sometimes they lose out, though the SG rarely does.  We hear tell of a "shadow docket" of decisions, but this is the sort of mundane decisions where lack of an explanation is much more appropriate.  It might be nice if some brief comment is dropped at times, but I think bottom line the approach works okay,.

The "hope she just remains in place" acting SG dropped a request for the Supreme Court not to take a sex specific draft case, noting Congress will be examining the issue.  This would make it premature to take the case. The brief does not take a position on the bottom line issue. Good approach.

==

No late nite cases this time.  Opinion(s) on Thursday.

Mets: First Place & Even Getting A Few Games In

In the current "World Series" era, there were twenty-one perfect games, the last three in 2012. After a no-hitter (first time for San Diego), there was an almost one this week -- a HBP in the ninth killed it. Thirteen were ruined with one batter to go, not this one; this included the infamous bad call at first base.

No Mets no-hitters this season yet, but a lot of cancelled games, as well as one that was suspended in the first inning. That will be restarted. The Nats series (COVID), three, and then rain-outs (Marlins and two for Phillies, one made up) ... and tonight there was a "snow-out" in Colorado. This too will (hopefully) be covered with a DH, which means another pair of seven inning games (the Mets swept their first, one game taking eight).

The Mets looked to be in a groove versus the Phillies, a flawed team, but it's a bit too soon to assume much. The big test is like the late May/June period, that repeatedly put them into a hole. Stroman and Walker, however, have looked good, and Peterson did well the second time around. DeGrom was very good, but the team managed to lose both times. #5 will go tomorrow. Lindor looking energetic early; Conforto having a slow start.

Biden Administration: Two Tough Calls

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been put on pause because of blood clotting issues in women. Late Show writer @ElianaKwartler is here to speak on behalf of women in the 18 to 48 demographic. #LSSC pic.twitter.com/45DIUoWPtq

— A Late Show (@colbertlateshow) April 15, 2021

This is an amusing (and well performed) bit in response to a pause of the usage of the J&J vaccine (the one shot, which I used) after six women in this demo were found to have rare blood clots after using the vaccine. As noted, a range of commonly used drugs have much higher risk factors.  

Which doesn't mean the pause was wrong, especially given all the criteria, including the presence of two other vaccines and concerns about public reactions (likely not as rational about the realities of risk factors) overall.  I'm glad that isn't my call.  See also, making a range of decisions involving terrorist threats and any number of things.  This is a mixture of trusting experts and the Biden Administration as rational and sound actors generally.

They will make questionable calls, sometimes even bad ones, but as a whole, I think we have grounds to rely on them.

====

Another concern in recent days was the border, which involves various things, though again, people (including the press) will mix things together. There are unaccompanied minors, general numbers and refugee admissions, to name three. There has been some negative reactions from some members of the press (as well as John Oliver on his show) about Biden delaying raising the refugee admission cap, which he said he intended to do.  

After repeated questions if the border was a "crisis," the latest was constant asks of Jen Psaki about it, which she repeatedly put off. This bothered some, with one Washington Post article suggesting Biden "might" be worse than Trump on the overall subject.  It's April 2021, not 2024 people.  My reaction was "that's bullshit," but yeah, what's the problem with the decision?  

Well, one was made today, a sort of suspicious Friday deal, after an earlier than usual press briefing in the morning (Jen Psaki looked  a bit fancy, maybe even with makeup; I wonder if she was going to some event*).  It took off a barrier to refugees from certain places, but did not raise the cap.  It DID leave that open if the current cap was filled.  Either way, this really pissed some people off.  I was not ready to be, though ready to be upset, since didn't think Biden was going to fail to disappoint (plus you know he has a lot on his plate and so far did a lot of good too). 

A later announcement "clarified" things and said it is likely some increase (suggestion: not as high as the original plan) will be announced by May 15th.  And, which was cited before now, "the decimated refugee admissions program we inherited, and burdens on the Office of Refugee Resettlement" is why the original plan didn't work out.  Some basically now are assuming the criticism pushed Biden to spin or pull back or something.  But, I'm again not really sure what really changed.   

I'm doing an ongoing project involving U.S. and world history, which suggests the range of material out there even in an area for which I'm much more familiar than many people.  And, there is much there I do not know, though it helps that there the job is to provide short summaries and outlines. So, what I'm going to do here is to not feel bad for knowing only so much of what is going on here.  From what I can tell, the reporting itself at times leaves something to be desired. After a not that long determination that leaves open a raise in the cap, e.g., it is somehow a big flip that one is now supposed (again, pending a final determination).

Plus, one more time -- it's April.  It's just too soon, including with all that is going on, to speak in the dark tones of some.  Be it the courts, this or any number of issues.   

---

* Doing a bit of research, it turns out she has two sisters, at least one who looks very like her. 

Austentatious (and more)

It actually is now a while ago, but I had a time about a decade ago where I read through the Jane Austen novels along with some biography and other stuff. (Emma entry written in July of 2011!) My energy level regarding reading makes it hard to imagine trying to re-read these works though enjoyed the fictional The Jane Austen Society. Didn't see the Sanditon PBS series though. 

A search of the title often leads to an improvised comedy take off of Jane Austen. But, I'm concerned by the lesser known ten episode modern day television light comedy series, using four of the women (Lizzie, Emma, Marianne/Elinor) with a few of the guys (yes, "Brandon" is young form of a character that pined for the other Marianne). I found out about it because one of the actresses was in another television movie (playing Amish!) and checked her other roles. It is light and amusing. There is so much potential material, you can figure a lot more can be done to fill in the characters, including "that bitch Susan."

One review kinda wanted more and I do think it started out with a bit more potential earlier. But, again, it's well worth a check (got a DVD on Ebay for under $10), especially if you are a fan of the books. With so many options these days for programming, a Jane Austen related series of this nature [like even with modern copyright rules, she's in the public domain!] seems pretty obvious stuff. You already have a cottage industry of books out there some take-off of Jane Austen, including in modern form. 

With four women characters, plus a few guys (one a friend of the women), it is not too surprising that all do not get equal billing. Marianne, for instance, eventually doesn't do too much after she gets a job at a juice shop. Liz has some time parrying with Darcy, here a lawyer who hires her to get a house, and amusingly dealing with Colin's crush.  Darcy is handled pretty well and Liz has a nice light touch. She isn't as much of a rebel type as in the book, but definitely is appealing.  It's too bad really we don't see her interact with her family, who she does mention, other than a bit with her parents (first episode). 

Emma, whose foreign accent stands out here, doesn't have too much to do really though has some amusing scenes. She has a "not a boyfriend, friend who is a boy" relationship with the guy she winds up in the book, here not as clearly older than here -- each of the women are really, but Emma's youth stands out there.  The last two episodes deal with a bit more about their relationship, he clearly being jealous when she goes out with someone else. 

Marianne's sister Elinor, actually, might be the one who gets the most complex attention, including once her crush turns out to have a girlfriend. He himself says so (after she found out but didn't tell him), realistically not saying it isn't going badly or anything -- he recognized Elinor (the serious sister) and him had a connection, and wanted to be honest when their time working together was over.   The whole thing was handled rather nicely, including the actress (cute but not sexy) having a nice role.  

The ten episodes end with things hanging -- Marianne is planning to go to Paris with a name that sounds familiar, it is hinted there might be romance for Emma, things are left open for Liz/Darcy after we get a cameo of his sister and Elinor has a broken toe.  I guess that's nice -- the episodes do tend to end with a bit of a wrap-up and suggestion of further adventures.

 ====

Judy Blume:  After her death at 104, I read and mostly enjoyed Socks, an old classic from a children's author.  Judy Blume is still around and in her 80s.  I checked out her most recent adult book, In the Unlikely Event, which was written about five years ago and is based on real life events in the early 1950s (three plane crashes).  The book has a slew of characters, both adults and teenagers, each getting first person attention over the span of the novel. A style I appreciate; it gives you multiple points of view.

I read the first section (about 100 pages) matching up to the first plane crash.  It was pretty good and quite readable.  As noted in the past, in recent years, my ability to read longer books is much less in place than in the past. And, simply did not have the wherewithal to read around four hundred pages of this sort of thing.  Again, it would not be hard to do so really given the book is basically a bunch of thumbnail chunks (though a teen somewhat modeled on Judy Blume is the key focus) quite approachable.  

But, at this time at least, a little of that goes a long way.  I have this idea that the other three hundred pages wouldn't add much more.  Either way, the size was a red flag when I saw it, and was right. Still, someone else, they might enjoy the whole thing. 

===

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen: I recall watching this some years back (it is a 2011 film) and perhaps looking at the source book, which tells the story via email and other media. The movie is low key and charming; will try to check out the book later on.  (The film was on cable again.) The entry notes the differences between the two, but as with the book/film Hopscotch, that can still work.

[I looked at the book, but could not get into it.  It is basically a series of communications between the characters, which makes it a harder go.]

Ewan McGregor, Emily Blunt (fishing expert and financial expert), Kristin Scott Thomas (edgy press agent for British PM, but also mom) and Amr Waked (sheik) each play their part well.  McGregor's Scottish accent is rather strong here.  Just to toss it there, nice to see "Timmy" from Rules of Engagement in a new sitcom, though don't know how it will go.

[I eventually saw a bit of it, but it didn't look too promising. He's a translator from Afghanistan, which in time became rather topical.]

6th Circuit En Banc Upholds Ohio's Ban On Doctors Knowingly Performing Abortions Because of Down Syndrome

TRAP laws are laws that target abortion providers particularly, and from the mid-1970s, that was a basic problem. The result included the courts deep diving among medical regulations and some finding that bad. Evenhanded medical regulations would avoid that problem.

This law has shades of that, but also is a general anti-abortion message regulation that as noted by the main dissent (last one) is offensive even to the degree you focus on the assumed group being aided. Perhaps, choice and more assistance to all with disabilities would be a better option? It also is an overall part of a wider battle to find a way to attack Roe/Casey, which the dissents also address (see Leah Litman tweets cited).

The majority needs to interpret that law strictly and still it burdens abortion choice, which includes being able openly to discuss your choice with your doctor. The right to choose includes making a range of hard choices, choices some will deem very wrong. As one dissent notes, the majority in the process of unduly burdening abortion rights infringes free speech too. And, making choices here is not "eugenics" except to the usage there to private choices that would include avoiding conception at all. Would birth control decisions in that respect be banned too? At least, for the one condition singled out here?

Supreme Court Watch

Breyer: I referenced the Breyer lecture briefly as an update and many highlighted a limited portion against "packing." The extended lecture is more than that and has some familiar themes. Breyer has written books and regularly lectured to promote his point of view, an educator as much as a judge at heart. Some suggest the lecture helps the idea he is retiring, it having that feel. Maybe. I hope he does; it is a good time. A wait can be very problematic.

His concern about the importance of courts having their authority respected is fine. But, and this is not surprising, it is just not fully honest to face up to WHY court packing is specifically flagged as a necessity now. I realize he would see it as unethical to talk about the specifics as it applies to the Court for which he currently judges. Still, he is making a claim here. Don't bring it up if you can't fully examine the situation. There is a way to go at it sideways, perhaps. A direct opposition to packing without facing up to why, however, is not too credible. 

(People will use his words to oppose change and likewise that will be telling only part of the story, not very credibly.)  

Breyer's discussion on judging is overall fine too. It involves some useful details, including his personal support of compromise and summary of the factors used. The average day judging is not some stereotype one might see. But, here too, Breyer goes too far. A sort of rosy-eyed myth making for the masses. He notes the average judge honestly uses standard techniques, even if they might disagree on the details, disagreements affected by their experiences.

This alone is notable since the current system involves picking some with these "experiences" etc. in a more ideological fashion. The basic concern for me is not that a Gorsuch is just making shit up in a partisan way. He can quite honestly believe he is simply being neutral. It is that in practice we have clearly different results, ideologically so. This might be more narrow than some think, but it does have significant effects. The concern for the courts is not a result of people being confused about that sort of thing. "Packing" is a result of blatant abuse there. 

Order: Meanwhile, an order dropped rejecting a request to interfere in a lower court matter [interfering in the "shadow docket" done more often of late] but "without prejudice." That is, the party can try again if another matter arises that warrants it. The case itself is not exactly run of the mill: it involved Mississippi's plea to stay a CA5 ruling supporting a parents' school funding suit tied to post-Civil War Readmission Act. That is, the act included a still active education requirement! 

Arguments: The rest of the arguments will follow the telephonic method. The justices might all be vaccinated, but all the lawyers out there are not, and there still are issues. We have not gone back to normal; so this is a sensible path for the final month plus (there being a May argument).   

Biden Commission: An announcement has been made about the commission that Biden promised ("President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States").  The membership is pretty good with various familiar names, from both sides, including people I have read over the years.  

It was given a six month deadline, so some final report (might not include recommendations as such) will be a while coming.  In one interview, Chuck Schumer told Rachel Maddow that he'd wait on the Supreme Court, but is supportive of more immediate action on lower court judges.  I see btw that Mitch McConnell strongly criticized the commission, anything he says on this matter of course not worthy of much comment.  

There is a concern this is a "kick the can down the road" mechanism, which really seemed the point when it was proposed during the campaign.  I'm somewhat more supportive of a presidential commission here than that article since as with other things (e.g., civil rights) there is a chance that sort of thing will have some added symbolic weight.  What would recommendations get you anyway?  I'm likely sure it will have some conclusions suggesting a path forward anyhow.  

Ultimately, the ball is Congress' court to push things along, and adding membership has always been a longshot as is.  We need to focus on other things, including voting rights.  Yes, ultimately, the courts will matter there too.  But, one step at a time, especially 50-50 in the Senate, is a realistic path.  The article is by someone likely to give you a somewhat more left leaning take than perhaps warranted at times, but I grant his concerns are valid overall.  I do note a former member of Strict Scrutiny Podcast defended the conservative judge that recently retired. 

Late Night Fun:  I scheduled this post Saturday morning since -- though it hasn't happened for a little while -- there repeatedly has been late night Friday orders. And, checking the NYT late nite, I see we have another. This sort of this again is offensive practice, even beyond the merits.  As usual, Amy Howe is a helpful place to go to see what is going on in these "shadow docket" orders as well as in general.  

The ruling is another involving religious gatherings and turns on a tainted seat that even people who were wary of court packing said was a dangerous bridge too far.  It sets forth a rule that is a result of cases, often with some lack of clarity of who exactly voted for the five person majority and what they supported, that pushed the meaning of "religious liberty." 

Roberts, without fucking explaining why, would refuse the emergency petition. Lower courts "might what to know."  That makes it 5-4.  Justice Breyer might explain to him how this leads to distrust of court power.  The unsigned order is impatient at the apparently clear repeated breach of their shadow rules, but the Chief Justice of the United States does not think the order is necessary.  Kagan for the liberals has a two page dissent (over the four page per curiam). 

Kagan sounds tired too: "As the reliance on separate opinions and unreasoned orders signals, the law does not require that the State equally treat apples and watermelons."  And, "Because the majority   continues   to   disregard   law   and   facts   alike,   I   respectfully dissent from this latest per curiam decision."   Breyer has a sort of fifth column against his efforts, apparently -- the members of his own Court dropping midnight orders that its own Chief Justice "indicates" (Amy Howe) he disagrees with via a simply "would deny the petition." 

Rachel Maddow noted the Republican Party officially is still kissing the ring of Trump, including going down to his Florida home (or whatever that is) and allowing him to still benefit financially from his grift. This continues to make the party not worthy of respect. And, these actions, here because of a so-called "justice" shoved down our throats by the assholes who would not give Garland a hearing, including an announcement during a sort of super-spreader event, makes SCOTUS of the same caliber.  

RW also was glad she got fully vaccinated, tearfully, probably in part because the love of her life had a bad case of the Big V.  The disease has not affected me as much as some and the vaccine -- which contra to her sympathies to those wary about it -- is rather easy to get.  It is not even akin to a blood draw.  She had a negative reaction to a past shot in a different case, so again she might have a special reason for empathy there along with her fear of needles.  The COVID rules that SCOTUS keeps on interfering with -- selectively -- are in place as we still fight the virus, in some places with upticks that are scary.  

One more thing ... I checked Twitter shortly before midnight and saw some reference of the Padres finally getting a no-hitter, but no reference to this case.  This was including a law professor and Mets fan that agrees that call the other day was bogus saying he loves baseball.  A professor who earlier flagged a critic of his take on the shadow docket.  He updated in the morning.  See here for discussion on a related recent matter. 

ETA: One other thing flagged by commentary is the Kagan (the circuit judge of the 9th Cir.) seemed to name check the lower court judges involved. At the very least, it was noted that the panel was made up of Trump and Bush43 people, though saying that might make Breyer cry. 

Also, it is supposed that Alito or maybe Gorsuch wrote the opinion, which does match the tone.  The others have gone along though Kavanaugh and Barrett have flagged some desire to suggest they are moderating themselves a bit here.  Those two have been the strongest on this issue. 

 ===

There was no scheduled Conference this week or opinion days announced for next week. So, next week might be low key, though there is an Conference scheduled for next Friday, leading into a more busy two weeks. We shall see how things go.  One thing that won't happen later this month is an execution -- Texas postponed what looked to be the first state execution this year, but it is now scheduled for November. 

Made in China

Book: Online sources provide a slew of book options and some good hits lately. The latest in Made in China: A Prisoner, an SOS Letter, and the Hidden Cost of America's Cheap Goods, which a good example of a helpful subtitle. The author talked about it on a C-SPAN series recently. No photos (other than the cover), but it's an informative, quick reading account that highlights personalities while also covering the wider systemic problem.

Mets Win Badly

A basic continuing treasure regarding Mets baseball has been its radio and television coverage, including Gary, Keith and Ron (not shown) in the television booth. The side line reporter and after game analysis people leave something more to be desired. But, the game analysts (including Howie Rose on the radio) are great. The television analysts particularly also really care about the game, including it being played and called right.

This arose in yesterday's home owner versus the Marlins, which resulted in a typical Marlins/Mets slog. The Mets were down 2-1 in the ninth, but the Marlins closer has started the season badly. He struggled here, with an opening homer to tie and loading the bases. Next came Michael Comforto, who has been struggling early. The pitcher gutted out an out, throw still had the bases loaded with one out ... oh wait. The umpire totally blew the call.

GKR was pissed off that a ball in the strike zone (clearly) that Comforto didn't try to avoid (if anything, he blatantly put his padded elbow in the zone) was not called a strike. The ump admitted his mistake later. Lot good it did to the Marlins, who have one win this season. Upsets me too -- sometimes, you have bad breaks, including marginal calls. But, sometimes, it is just damn unfair. That's life too, but it still ruins things. 

(ETA:  I saw something on Twitter where Keith gave an interview and rambled a bit about Conforto, not wanting to call it "cheating."  Uh huh. The responsibility is on the umpire to enforce the rules.  But, it looked to me that his elbow was blatantly in the strike zone.  Some players don't try to avoid being hit -- which as I understand is required -- but having your elbow blatantly in the strike zone is a step further.  Conforto has some responsibility here too.) 

It is appreciated that many Mets fans on Twitter agreed with the trio in varying degrees. They realized it was unfair. A win is not just a win. It's also about playing fair and right. Someone said "it wasn't like Astros cheating." No kidding. It wasn't kosher either. And, damn, the ump has one job ... well, more than one, but for a game to end on such a blatant blown call is just bad.

No Adam In Eden

After a quickly published (and it shows) sequel, the author of the infamous Peyton Place mixed personal history and real life into her next two works as well. This is her fourth, and like her third, I bought a paperback version online and liked it. The third was her favorite; this appears to be her most autobiographical.

She was a French-Canadian with guy, mother and drinking issues too. If this multigeneration story of one family did match her own, hers was rather screwed up. Basically, the men were largely okay (though one was an alcoholic and his pampering helped screw up his daughter), but of the family, only one woman turns out okay. The book does end on her.

Grace M. herself died before forty the next year basically destitute of alcoholism. She tossed in an extended dedication to her children. Same good writing mixed with sex and a dark view of human nature with some empathy.

SCOTUS Order/Opinion Watch

When an Order List is over twenty pages, except when they need to play catch-up and dispose of a lot of rejects, it is often a sign there is something interesting (like a per curiam) there. Today, we had an extended Thomas concurrence to the mooting of the Former Guy's Twitter case that is being seen by some as a subtweet about Fox News being worried about being cancelled or something. Thomas solo comments are a ymmv thing.

Gorsuch/Alito again is pushing for strong religious accomodations rules and there they might very well have a Court. And, SCOTUS for some reason doesn't want for now to dispose of a Medicaid work requirement rule case the Biden Administration said they no longer support ("held in abeyance pending further order of the Court"). They also granted a habeas case.

The one opinion also is noticably long and involves two old guys (Breyer and Thomas) on opposite sides talking about Google [who won] programming usage. Alito joined Thomas in dissent. Breyer tossed in the "one of the world's shortest stories," in English and Spanish. Breyer's use of hypos during oral arguments was covered in this video. ETA: Typo found; revision noted on website. Breyer with a big lecture (if old themes).

Undead (and books)

Another good Svengoolie film (though not just him) is a Roger Corman past live/time travel story with the added gimmick (if not as much as intended) of much of the dialogue in verse. Fun movie with a good sense of place and good script.

Books: With Beverly Cleary recently dying (did people "too soon" when she was over 100?), I checked out Socks, which is not about Clinton's cat. Not the original with more classic style drawings, but still charming. Rachel Maddow's Bagman about Spiro Agnew is also good. The "this is all so crazy" tone at times is a bit too much; still, the breezy style made the whole thing more readable than her other books. (At least her first; not sure if I tried to read the second.) Lousy author picture (her co-author's pic is fine).

Big V (x2) and MLB

MLB, against the wishes of Stacey Abrams really, decided to not play the All Star Game in Atlanta in response to the offensive anti-democratic (in both senses) new Georgia voting law. Atlanta and its suburbs was a big reason the Dems won Georgia.

It's a hard call really. North Carolina was boycotted in respect to its anti-trans law, but this has more of an ironic feel. The solutions are hard but do include litigation and passing a strong new federal legislation.  This should help push things along, including support from corporations who want to show they have non-racist bona fides. This should be a bipartisan thing akin to the economic package. And, underlining the fault is ultimately those who passed the laws. Not just "what will you do" as if only Dems have agency.

Multiple Eeyore pictures on one blog as if everyone is just needlessly pessimistic aside, the Big V is far from over, including upticks in various places (including New York). This means we should not recklessly open things or assume all is over.

On a personal front, after trying for multiple days, I found somewhere close by (a little pharmacy; nice to get one dose without needing to wait at some large outlet in Manhattan or something) to get my own single dose (J&J) Fauci ouchie. Someone cancelled, then there was a problem with the computer system, but I came back in time when the issue was fixed. Feels like maybe I'm mildly feeling it, but overall, seems not to be an issue.

(To add the procedure. The specific location singled out phone scheduling and I did that. When I got there, I had to fill out a form that basically said I never had a vaccine, if I had any issues and my insurance information. I was due to wait for about forty minutes or so before the computer system was down. I came back and got called within ten minutes. The shot was quick. Then, you wait about fifteen minutes to see if there is any negative reactions.

I twice had COVID tests and the whole affair was comparable except for a shorter wait afterwards; there as I recall, you talked to someone, so it did take a few minutes. The COVID test was actually more since if you took the test/antibody test, you had to get a nose swab and a needle. Once, they had an issue drawing blood, which is harder than simply giving a shot.)

Seems hard to believe that I'm okay Big V-wise. And, even if the vaccine does protect me, we as a society have a ways to go. So, you know, we an handle that July 4th goal date that Biden put to put things somewhat back to normal. We can wear masks even if vaccinations, e.g., since I'm not wearing a badge saying I was.  I did not suffer as much as many people. 

The whole thing for me personally basically was more annoying with the masks and all.  My life did not change significantly really.  Still, as with the stimulus check, the ability to within the week get a shot and be done once I was qualified (under 50; no special qualifications) just underlines how we are at the moment. We are doing things right.

And, the whole Mets/Nationals series was cancelled for Big V reasons, but you can watch various former Mets players (such a Matt "I'm going to get every ounce out of me" Harvey starting for the Orioles -- he went four and change and did okay on that level)  all the same.  I wasn't really in it last year with the shortened season and all. I'm not really excited this year either though there is of course grounds to hope they will have a good season. As the start shows, we aren't quite at "normal" yet. 

Whatever that might be.  

ETA: Michael Conforto, union rep, passed alone the party line that vaccinations are a "personal matter," which on some obvious level they are unless people are going to force them. But, as Sandy Alderson basically noted in referencing education being provided since "There has been some hesitation on the part of some players. We want to get as many players as possible vaccinated," it is more than that.  Vaccination is also a personal duty, particularly given the Big V's effects on a team sport.  The framing here might be tricky on some level, but "personal matter, full stop" is bad.

Play Ball! (Not You, Mets)

Mets made a variety of moves this off-season, including building up its rotation with some reliable arms (if one now hurt). The big news was at shortshop -- one will be out for cheating, opening up room for their new superstar. And, now he's set for ten years, after the owner tossed in a bit more money. $325/10 seemed rather enough, especially since risking injury and free agency in a tougher class was a bit risky for him.

But, $341/10 with limited no trade and no opt out is a reasonable compromise going by his push for two more years. Reasonable in today's world, more or less. Plus, his energetic reaction is sure to please fans (what sort of player will you be at the end of the 10 years? "I'll be a bad mother f'er.")

That drama -- agreement in principle happening late in the night after extended fan drama -- done, time to play ball! Well, no. The Big V hit the Nats and will delay things until at least Saturday. So it goes. We aren't done with this stuff yet. BTW, I saw someone note that the universal DH is not there, but they still have that automatic runner thing. Already had extras, including a Yankee loss. Seven inning DHs too.

SCOTUS Opinion Day

Big news on the court front is the first set of Biden's judicial appointments, including a diverse group by race, public defenders, many law schools and so on. We also finally have text for the 14A, sec. 3 enforcement bill that should get prompt attention.

The opinions today are basically non-controversial, including a FCC ruling decided on narrow grounds, avoiding potential controversy suggested by some of its details. One was a water dispute. The third is amusing since Scalia's pal lost in a statutory language dispute though the opinions did give their book a good amount of attention. Justice Alito's "remember these rules are more like guidelines" concurrence is pretty on the money.

No additional orders yet. Will add if any come up. [No change. There will be orders and probably one or more opinions on Monday.]