SCOTUS Watch: Summer Odds & Ends

RIP: As noted earlier this week, Justice Sotomayor's mom (in her 90s) has died. She has a great life story, including training to become a nurse in her 40s.

Summer Orders Update: The first scheduled summer order day is next week. It is not likely to be too notable, but we are for completeness here. Also, it annoys me that a scheduled order day gets so little respect, including at SCOTUSBlog. It is as much a scheduled order day as one during the regular term!

Roe: Various odds and ends continue to be covered as there is a lull in Supreme Court news. One thing is the start of anti-abortion briefs, including one joined by most Republicans (three women senators and around twenty-five or so House members did not join; three Republican senator trolls joined a stronger anti-Roe brief) focused on disposing of the viability line. In practice, that would result in a free-fall for abortion rights.  People do not just want to tinker with second trimester abortions here.  

Eviction Moratorium: We also had a notice from the Biden Administration regarding a CDC eviction moratorium that is due to run out at the end of the month.  It supports a legislative expansion and a partial extension by administrative means. 

The problem (other than the complications of legislative fixes) is a shadow docket ruling from last month that turned on Kavanaugh's vote -- the quote in the notice is actually not from the "Supreme Court," but his brief opinion saying he rejected the challenge only so far as the moratorium would run out at the end of July.  

The statement notes: "the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that “clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31.”  But, the quote is from the Kavanaugh opinion.  The basic effect is the same.

Four conservatives, without an opinion explaining why, would have put the moratorium on hold.  Four justices (including Roberts) rejected that without an opinion.  Now, I have seen some liberals/moderates suggest on statutory grounds there is a reasonable argument that the CDC's move was not authorized.  I don't know.  But, it would be nice if we actually had some sort of explanation.  Note even the old SCOTUS vet, who is still grumpy about the telephonic arguments and is kneejerker speaks of "abusing" of the shadow docket. 

Corrections: We also continue -- including in opinions related to orders -- corrections. I wonder how that sort of thing is done. Do people point it out to the chambers?  Do the justices have their clerks double check?  Are the justices bored and re-read while traveling or something?  

BTW, it's one more thing that would be useful on a FAQ page for orders and opinions.  They do have a FAQ, but it isn't comprehensive.  My push for a FAQ for orders stands -- orders have a bunch of minutiae that are lost on even regular court watchers.

Trump Tax Returns: The House might actually get the returns, years after they should have.  Dawn Johnsen, Acting Attorney General for OLC (her being blocked when nominated by Obama was something that particularly pissed me off -- I saw her as a special symbol to re-gain integrity and she was blocked for bullshit reasons)  signed an opinion authorizing it. 

The OLC opinion spent a lot of time interpreting the Supreme Court opinion (when they got around to it) worrying about the lower court not taking Trump's interests in hand enough.  A bullshit argument even if the net result was supposedly a sign the Roberts Court wasn't in the hock for Trump.  But, even granting that, DJ explains how there is a valid public purpose in the House commitee getting returns here.  I am just left with a "yeah, duh."

Mets Update

In recent memory, the Mets have went on a dive, not being able to catch up in the end. This would be a "June swoon." Last season, the weird Big V fraction of one, was a lost one, even though the Marlins getting to the postseason showed the potential.

This season, there was not really a June swoon. More of a period of mediocre play that continued into July. The Nats had a lousy time of it, this time not coming out of their hole. The Marlins are the Marlins. The Phils are the Phils (sorta a .500 team, but something of a tease). And, the Braves with injuries etc. would appreciate actually being over .500.

Net result, especially with so many injuries (e.g., deGrom has been out for a while now and it's like he is almost an forgotten man), the Mets seem pretty comfortable, even if their lead is only around four games.  Like they just lost another series to a divisional rival (Braves, 2-3), but it was like "who cares?"   The Phils struggled to come up even versus the Nats.  I simply am not worried about them.  The Braves?  They are four games back and this series underlines their problem having an extended winning streak -- the opening to put a scare was there. Gained a game.

Someone on Twitter challenged me, saying it was an opportunity to move ahead by six games or something.  I guess.  But, the competitive difference is not so much that I really expected much more anyway.  Yes, with so many games and injuries, they tossed in some AAA guy that gave the Braves a laugher.  Even there, the guy in the past wasn't THAT bad.  

I noted last season that I was not really into baseball with the Big V delaying the season and so on.  The Mets struggling to gain traction didn't help.  This time, the Mets are showing something, managing to win no matter how many people are injured.  But, the division is so middling.  It's depressing on a competitive level to see so few (other than three NL West teams) good teams.  The Cubs showed some life and now they are giving away the store.  Will the Reds show something?  Didn't look too scary when they played the Mets the first time. 

The Mets wasn't really expected to make the playoffs (shades of 2015?) yet. But, why not? They picked up old vet Rick Hill and Trevor Williams (back-ended fill-in starter material). And, with Lindor hurt, they have his pal Javier Báez as a rental. When Lindor is back, seems a bit crowded, since McNeil already gives you a pretty good second baseman.

And, if Carrasco actually is healthy (he starts today -- the Mets are also bringing back black jerseys), we still have deGrom and maybe Thor too add arms later on.  Someone starting now (a guy named Megill is the new wonder, the new Matz, but more calm) can go into the pen.  And, the pen now is rather good, no one (other than Seth Lugo, off an injury) really struggling.  Also, if Walker -- who hasn't pitched much the last few years -- needs a break (he is struggling after his All Star appearance), he can get a rest too.  So, I think the pick-ups at the trade deadline are okay. 

You got a couple arms, will get some back, and JB is a nice bat. In 2015, they picked up Cespedes (who they should have then let go) and some bench guys.  They already have some good bench guys.  Overall, the Mets should be able to win the division (knock on wood) and no reason they cannot beat a team like the Reds/Brewers.  The rest is gravy.

And, if the Phils/Braves go on roll, the Mets still should be okay unless they go into a freefall.  This is not that likely with the mediocrity as a whole.  The pick-ups, people coming back, and not too many make-ups left will help there too.  Average play until further notice should be enough with a burst of late season energy -- also quite possible -- providing an edge. 

I would actually welcome a threat, finding the current situation a bit boring. One more thing: the on the cusp team to root for in my book are the Mariners. They very well might not quite make it, already having slumps. But, with the Twins and "Cleveland Guardians" out of it, the Mariners are aiming for at least a Wild Card. More likely than Toronto, who seems to be paying some money/prospects for hope and prestige. 

And, they might actually be able to play at home, deprived of the privilege so far because of stricter Canadian Big V rules. 

ETA: In somewhat suspicious timing -- reports are that the Mets tried to get a better starter (with Walker iffy of late, Stroman is the one safe top three guy until Carrasso -- love how he has a nickname (Cookie) as if he has been around all season -- proves himself) but the asking price was too high -- deGrom now is reportedly out to at least September.  

Again, this is not too shocking -- I saw a note that suggested he was getting along, but it's like he was totally MIA after what I thought would be like a short injury stint.  And, though he nasty for the first half, he repeatedly showed signs of being human. One reporter kept on saying "stop worrying," but it was worry-some. 

deGrom out, Walker scuffling, and they still are doing okay pitching-wise (it is not like the losses tend to be blowouts).  Shows a certain depth, especially a pen that even has "B" teamers holding people down. No "waiver moves" this time after the deadline -- rule change.  Let's see if that means something.

In the news ... Olympics and 1/6 Select Committee

Simon Biles: I don't watch the Olympics, but Simon Biles is so prime GOAT material (plus saw her in at least one ad) that I'm familiar with her. The big news this week is that she step aside mid-competition because of mental stress. Caring about mental well being is more acceptable these days. Good. Let's remember the human side of sports, including that humans are involved. Comes out in baseball in various ways.

1/6 Select Committee: While the #3 Republican in the House goes full "we are at war with [checks notes]," the commitee started with the two House Republicans willing to not be totally in the hock for Trump. Very emotional beginning with police officer testimony. Also, a reminder at the power of witnesses, even if "we know this, so why is this necessary?" Or, "this is all theater." Yeah, it's a bit more complicated.

Good beginning. This includes keeping two Republicans off the commitee who either might be a witness or started off from right after being picked showing his total disdain of things. Pelosi didn't use her veto power (power in place only because the independent commitee option was filibustered) to block all Republicans, even one who challenged the electors. Next steps, including who to subpoena and making sure to go big or go home, will be harder.

RIP Bob Moses

Gay USA honors various activists who have died. History is not just about snapshots, even if we often study it that way. It is for the long haul. This is seen by civil rights activist, Bob Moses (well named; RIP), who later on started the Algebra Project (news to me, but so is many things) to promote math education.

The White House honors his memory. The best way to honor his memory is to do things to advance what he fought for. On that front, this op-ed challenging Biden's "all in" sentiments on voting rights is correct. Yes, the economic program will help blacks too. But, I'm sort of tired about hearing how supportive the President is about things. There is a certain not quite all in sentiment that belies just what is at stake. People DIED for voting rights in the 1960s.

I could add this to a SCOTUS post, but I will toss it in that Justice Sotomayor's mother has died. She also is a civil rights icon in her own fashion.

Abortion Ruling is Clearly A Religion Clause Issue

Reference is made recently at Religion Clause of a district court issued a preliminary injunction to the severe anti-abortion law in Arkansas.

This is the sort of thing Texas is trying to avoid via their "hey, it's just private parties" enforcement approach. Think antebellum states trying to get out of the fugitive slave retrieval business while also passing laws that support the slave states. How well this will work remains to be seen. The validity of the move as noted in the comments is dubious, but will it be hard to attack pre-enforcement in the courts? The comments are closed here but other law professors appear more open to the suit.

The district court opinion is really a holding action until the packed Barrett Court decide abortion cases. But, the citation on a blog focused on religious issues, without discussion of why exactly (as if it's obvious), is fitting. Abortion disputes are in a basic way about religious matters. Planned Parenthood v. Casey correctly spoke of it being a matter of conscience.

More On SCOTUS

I was upset that the Presidential SCOTUS Commission is not getting more attention, including in lieu of the same old, same old.  So, it was nice to see that Jamelle Bouie has an op-ed concerning the body and notes how it is "interesting, illuminating and worthy of your attention." For instance, it flags the testimony of Vicki Jackson (who was an amicus in the DOMA case):

"It is an unstable situation for a party supported by a minority of the population to be able to control the Senate, frequently the presidency, and the Supreme Court,” she writes, “If citizens cannot look to elections, nor to the Courts, nor to the amending process, to achieve a federal government that is in broad terms responsive to democratic views, what remains are methods that should trouble all who believe in the rule of law.”

Her testimony did not just support (like many) term limits, but flagged specific problems (not just, as some witnesses spun, the idea this is all about one side being upset at results of cases) and the state of recent nominations:

In 2016, the Senate refused to consider President Obama’s nominee to the Court, asserting that it was doing so because he was in the last year of a two-term presidency. This was a novel claim and decried as illegitimate by many at the time. More recently, the head of the Republicans in the Senate announced thatif Republicans regained a majority in the 2022 elections, no nominees of the President--in the last two years of his first term--would be confirmed.

She is not the only person who did this either, showing this is not all above the fray type of testimony. Jackson does not support court expansion particularly, but realizes there are problems behind such talk, problems that should influence any reforms proposed. The op-ed finds chances of reform in the short time unlikely, but it worthwhile to bring this all out.

I agree. Just what will come out of this in the short term is unclear. But, for instance, calling into question (with vague details in the coverage) the FBI investigation of Kavanaugh is appropriate. There should generally been a value to openness and providing a better understanding of what happened. Likewise, it causes a shadow to be put on those involved, which helps in some fashion the possibility of change and a better path forward.  

Someone was annoyed at my use of slow old fashioned techniques etc. It is unclear what special techniques was desired.  And, I support adding people to the Supreme Court, ending the filibuster and so forth.  You can scream about that only so much.  Change is a long process and "softening them up" helps.  The witnesses also at times suggested certain reforms, such as ethics or more openness of the courts, are possible.  These things make it more possible, since they aren't so sacrosanct or "not able to be touched."

Plus, while Sen. Whitehouse et. al. does things (including getting media coverage), others can do "less politically correct" stuff too. For instance, during the Kavanaugh hearings, protesters sought out senators in elevators and the like.  The more attention given here, the more chance of this happening too.  This includes even something many deem forgettable, that is, hearings and reports.  This nuts and bolts stuff has value.

===

A former clerk of Justice Thurgood Marshall (not Kagan) has a good long discussion of him that provides various insights.  

Also, for the sake of completeness, I see yet another edited (dated 7/23) to Supreme Court opinions.  Other than a challenged citation in an opinion related to an order early in the term, I am not aware of anything really substantive in these corrections.  They appear -- though I have not looked at every last one -- to all be of a typo variety.  The latest cited the wrong place regarding a historical reference.  Often it is a matter of a typo in a citation.

War of Independence

Patriot Battles: How the War for Independence Was Fought is an interesting approach.

The first part talks about the various aspects of fighting (armies, weapons, etc.; one thing not covered was POWs) while the second are basically case studies for various battles (with maps; the first half could have been helped with pictures too). The battles including a touch of naval though the first half does not cover the navies.

The writing style is approachable with some touches of spleen to add some bite. The few comparisons to recent times to me overall works. (An end note expands a comparison of two Georges.) I was less interested in the nuances of the battles, but they aren't so detailed (the chapters are all pretty short) to be too tedious. And, again, the maps help you get a sense of what happened. Overall, recommended, especially since I like a complete approach.

SCOTUS Watch: Presidential Commission

We have an order -- special briefing rules to address Big V delays were revoked. As of now, the building is scheduled to be open for next month. One person (didn't notice) pointed out that the Court calendar repeatedly said that and took it back once the month came. [And, it was marked closed by Friday.]

The second (and perhaps last) big public hearing day for the Presidential SCOTUS Commission was held on Tuesday. Again, there were some interesting witnesses, including a Canadian judge in the final panel. I listened to some of the opening panels. I think it can be criticized, but some diversity was present. I also wish there was more public reporting -- e.g., Rachel Maddow led with yet another Trump scandal that evening. Why not give this a try?

Meanwhile: There was strong strong criticism of Garland when it came out the Justice Department would not prosecute Wilbur Ross even after an inspector's report showed he lied to Congress. I was less appalled given how these things tend to go (the talk of "rich whites" was stupid -- poor blacks don't get prosecuted either). I did want to see the report. Then, it turns out new information led to a correction: the TRUMP Justice Department made the decision. Okay. Watch out for hot takes. Hot news sometimes is updated!

Books and Film

I am writing a blog on another website about cavewomen. Looking into it, one book about the general subject that I found was The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory. As suggested in this review, it's a mixed bag, including a lot of "filler" that is not about women particularly. The writing style also was a bit chunky or something. But, it had some interesting details. Among the stuff I found is this interesting piece.

I enjoyed Crucible of Faith: The Ancient Revolution that Made Our Modern Religious World more. This is a look at the developments in Palestine from Greek times until the early Common Era. It arose from my interest in the time period of the first Hanukkah. I would still like a book focused on that, but this as whole is a good account. A few times, going into the weeds of the beliefs is a bit tedious, but even there, it is mostly very readable.

Our new film (I will re-watch Walking on Sunshine, a fun 1980s pop hits musical), new to me, is Mama. The executive producer is behind the very good Pan's Labrinth, where a girl used fantasy to deal with WWII horrors. The fantasy was more reality here. Jessica Chastain has a very good supporting role as sort of the "new" mama. The ending is kinda dumb. 

ETA: I enjoyed Walking on Sunshine again, catching a bit more on a second watch.  (Much more than second, but usually listen only to the songs.)  The DVD extra is a bunch of cast interviews.  One big issue: there is no closed captioning.  This is particularly problematic for this movie, which is very good to sing along to.  When I had it available via a t.v. viewing, I could access the captions/lyrics.  

One thing that all the new platforms (which I don't personally have though I temporarily registered for Hulu last year to check out a Christmas movie involving lesbians) provide is reboots of old shows.  Sometimes, you can get a taste of them on regular television, such as a new Star Trek series.

Nickelodeon aired the premiere episode of the iCarly reboot (with the main characters, minus Sam -- the actress moved on from acting at the moment; Gibby also does not seem to be involved). "Mosby" from Suite Life directed the episode.  "Harper" is not THAT one (that's Disney).  Anyway, nice to see everyone, but the episode itself was rather blah.  It is basically set-up, so maybe the later ones are better.  It was renewed already.

SCOTUS Watch

The tainted 6-3 Supreme Court will start its first full term -- the ninth member railroaded in as we voted in October -- in October. The October Term argument schedule was posted with some key cases. Again, I won't shut up about this, with a fucking tainted Court.

The summer will have mostly odds and ends in respect to Supreme Court news. A good interview from the High School SCOTUS team of a top Supreme Court reporter. We are up to the final orders regarding the Online Sources Cited page. (I also saw an opinion edit dated 7/16.) A good analysis by Prof. Nourse, including about originalism fan fiction.

Another Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court public meeting next week. One appellate lawyer called them out for having basically one token woman (with one exception) on each panel. Six panels; likely another long day.

NYC Primary A Bit More Final

Kathyrn Garcia had a quotable line in her concession speech (Wiley also conceded) last week: "People will try to hand you a jacket that's made for someone else. You don't have to accept it. Wear one that fits you.”

Things are more final today with only basically a handful of votes left. The difference is less than one percent, if not .5, which where an automatic recount is required. There doesn't appear to be any issues. Sigh. So close.

As I noted before, maybe Eric Adams is a sort of Biden (who he met recently to talk guns and such; ETA: also a bit of a lovefest with Cuomo/ugh), and overall is okay, especially with progressives around him. I still am not too excited and maybe a third party protest/symbolic vote is in my future. There are options. No ranked choice. Meanwhile, the public advocate marries a lobbyist. Not a big deal really, I guess, but a tad depressing.

Books and Film

Books: I'll Be There For You about the show Friends. It starts with an extended discussion of its creation, which covers ground basically found in the official coffee table book published at the show's completion. That book often talks about how the show handled 9/11.The show does not directly reference it, but they show Joey wearing NY type tee-shirts and all. Plus, it helped people have something light to watch.  Which is nice, but it is not exactly some profound statement. 

This book doesn't really have much special (except reference to a lawsuit lost by a writing assistant). It was a quick read, so perhaps it would be a good summer read.  Since reading is harder for me these days, partially since I read so much online, that is of some value.  But, the book was somewhat lacking if okay.

It also leaves out stuff like Christiana Applegate, who as a major actress and Emmy winner deserves at least a footnote. After all, she did work with "Joey" before.  And, a chapter that discusses gay issues doesn't reference how one of the writers/producers is gay himself.  His husband is referenced in passing before.  It's not like she doesn't realize he is gay or anything.  Seems like his .02 would be relevant. Sorta annoying. 

I realize you can include only so much but some things are a bit worth tossing in.  And, the late seasons are basically skipped over (the Joey likes Rachel bit is covered briefly and then Rachel likes Joey, but I think Rachel having a kid warrants more than a quick reference).  After the book provides a pretty in depth look at how the show started, the actual ten seasons are not given a complete look.  Even Matthew Perry's drug addiction is only referenced as part of what he did AFTER the show.  

Again, quick read, and the allegation of sexual harassing work environment in the writer's room was an interesting bit, but a bit lacking as  a whole.  And, pictures would again be useful, though the author's pic is good.

===

The book is from a few years ago.  No Common Ground: Confederate Monuments and the Ongoing Fight for Racial Justice is written more recently.  It provides a history behind the monuments and how they were not just memorials of the dead.  They were from the beginning clearly (including as shown by the speeches given at their dedications) there to promote the values of the Confederacy.  

Thus, there would be no "common ground" today.  The author wrote about the Daughters of the Confederacy organization in the past. So, she knows a bit about such messaging.   This one has photographs. The book is under two hundred pages, but arguably might have been a bit shorter.  Overall, it is an interesting account, including up to date battles.  

Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies is by Sanford Levinson, who also writes over at Balkanization.  I re-read the original version, written over twenty years back.  An update was written in 2018 and he adds a blog on the subject in 2020 too.  This is when comments from outsiders were still allowed, so you can see some, both from people like myself and those who are basically Confederate sympathizers. Well, at least one such person, who lives in South Carolina.

I am not a great fan of the original.  It has enough material, including a helpful summary of options to address monuments (though as noted below, after listing, the possibility of applying them is basically "not happening really"), to be useful to some degree.  Still, re-reading it, it has issues.

It has some tedious philosophizing that seems a bit too stream of consciousness.  As noted below, it reminds me of his blog style, pre-blog. It is something of an extended personal essay and it shows. This includes his white Southerner viewpoint, if one that is more liberal than some others. 

The opening is basically that, talking about monuments in Hungary.  Then, the core of the short book (one hundred and forty or so pages) about the subject of the newer book basically.  OTOH, his history is much less clear about how the monuments clearly were put in place to advance racial inequality.   The new book provides clear evidence that memorializing the death, full stop, was just not why they were put up.  Why there is "no common ground" today.  If Levinson accepts (up to a point) that as to Confederate flags, monuments to Lee etc. should follow.

He also suggests secession is legitimate -- majority rule and all (okay -- see Sandy, they had majority rule -- they lost the 1860 elections), but slavery did make it problematic.  I don't accept this -- are you saying if they strongly disagreed with the North about industrial policy (and it wasn't code word for slavery), it would have been okay for them to go?  

You actually have to show your work there.  The Union was a creation of the  nation as a whole. Chunks of the Confederacy was actually bought and created by a national entity.  A national entity on principle should be involved if it is broken apart.  The South in effect argued that there was a just cause for secession.  Maybe, a grave injustice would warrant that, though even there, it is complicated.  What about California. Does "consent of the governed" allow a region to break apart? 

But, still those monuments are not just for promotion of slavery.  What about the ordinary solider?  So, the Lee and other major figure ones can go?  He tosses in that he sees the Vietnam War about as bad as the Civil War, so a monument to soldiers there would be problematic.  Putting aside the issue of those drafted and all, maybe if the monument was as racist as the average Confederate monument.  And, the U.S. was racist too. It did not break apart from England in basic part to defend slavery; its Constitution did not as blatantly protect it either. Oh let's have him ramble a bit.  

(The blog also has this character.  I'm being a bit mean here, especially since he repeatedly complimented my comments -- when I can still make them -- but his style is an extended stream of consciousness which tosses in grumpy comments about how screwed up our Constitution is in practice and other stuff that often do not hold up to scrutiny.  But, there is so much there, it's hard to really fully answer what he is saying.) 

It has a discussion on constitutional issues, but does not raise the potential Thirteen Amendment argument that Confederate flags at least are "badges of slavery."  Then, it has various options, none of which he really thinks is likely to actually happen though if the people agreed, he would generally be okay with putting monuments in museums.  

Though apparently that would be hard to do, since the first nuclear bomb drops exhibit was controversial and stuff.  Since a significant amount has happened flag/monument-wise since 1998, the update (which I think I might have read though maybe not) has a lot to cover.  Hopefully, maybe a bit less ignorance of the depth of the history.  

===

Film: I recently re-watched Two Weeks Notice, so decided to check out some other Hugh Grant material.  I noted that the film was pleasant enough though the third act (to use a term used in the film I will get to it in a moment) was problematic.  It has a basic quality to it, but basically did not handle it smoothly. This often happens -- comfort food takes work.

The Rewrite was the film that was most immediately available. Music & Lyrics is a longer wait in the NYPL queue.  But, it turns out all three are from the same director.  Each has Hugh Grant with a familiar actress (Sandra Bullock and Drew Barrymore before).  The latest (2014) is Marisa Tomei, which the DVD box has being in The Wrestler.  Is this the film most people know her from? 

[The writer/director actually was behind even more films with Bullock and Grant that I watched.]

This one actually does not have a problematic third act.  It is not surprising really -- the one hit wonder screenwriter decides he likes teaching college writing -- but it is paced better.  The film overall is less amusing than the first one, and perhaps the second (from what I remember of it).  Still, it is charming -- I liked the story and respected the performers. Plus, it has some familiar old hands, which is a good way to make things go down smoothly.

The extras are two minor deleted scenes and a "making of" bit.

SCOTUS Watch: Clean-Up

Doing a check, multiple -- including some from a while ago in the term -- SCOTUS opinions have been edited. Online urls cited in opinions are also slowly being addressed. And, elsewhere, Charles Fried's brief testimony (another term limit supporter) was added to the Presidential SCOTUS Commission page.

There are various takes that this term was surprisingly not that conservative with various people saying "um," including myself. One correction there is here at NPR.

Interesting article on a few places that allow non-citizens to vote. I'm for that, especially for (or at least for) local issues like school elections. In the past, many places did allow non-citizens (at least those on the road to citizenship) the right to vote. And, residents are required to follow the law and even is liable for treason. So, actually do have some "tie."

Mayor Eric Adams: The First Vegan Mayor?

After flubbing the first unofficial count, the Board of Elections wasn't going to do it again. They didn't release the results until the early evening, after earlier tweeting to expect a more "brunch" time result. Either way, the main results were not too surprising.

Eric Adams had a small lead before the absentee ballots were counted with Kathyrn Garcia a close second. Same thing yesterday -- less than a 9K difference, without the same chance of catching up with the remaining votes. Garcia and Wiley conceded today, even if it won't be truly official for another week. Other races also seemed set.

As noted in the article, a major goal this time was a female mayor. It is open to some debate how much more liberal Garcia is than Adams. I took a quiz, though, and she was much closer to my answers. Still, maybe he will be a sort of "Biden" type. And, the comptroller and City Council will be more progressive. I'm still not very excited for the November race.

A Call to Spy

There are various books about women spies in World World II and the general subject (include code breaking) has beee fodder for television too. A Call To Spy is a good based on film from a couple years back. It's on Showtime now and can be downloaded for demand.

I watched it late last night and basically watched it straight thru. A compliment from me these days. It is well acted by people I am generally not aware of seeing before. The exception would be a supervisor played by Linus Roache, who played a prosecutor on Law & Order. The story of the agent killed was condensed.

SCOTUS: We have the list of law clerks for the 2021 Term. Fifteen of them should not be there (three Trumpies and Breyer; a retired justice gets a single clerk though Souter takes none). Yes. I continue to be PISSED OFF. And, simply stating the truth.

Books and Stuff

I am starting to contribute longer "blog" type entries on the Teach n' Thrive website such as this one. For now, it seems they will lean toward world history with some U.S. history content. The website is run by a high school teacher and (don't hold it against her) my sister.

Films: I could not get into this week's Svengoolie but did rewatch It Was Always You (first saw lead actress on Army Wives). It was well paced/acted and I could believe the two leads have a special connection. There are lots of these films; some stand out.

Books: I saw parts of a CSPAN book program on The Butchering Art (Joseph Lister, the surgeon) and it was interesting. The book so far is a bit dry at parts but interesting. Pictures would help. After reading a recent one involving a woman lawyer, I checked out Finding Ashley by Danielle Steel (shades of Philomenia with #MeToo and other stuff). Both books are quick, straightforward reads with a lot of plot/attractive characters. A problem here: we have a birth mom and daughter reunited and neither think about the birth father.

ETA: The surgery book sorta petered out and we are not told the specific method he used later was replaced. Subject good; follow thru a bit rough.

Supreme Court Watch: Final Orders

The final order list of the term, after recess begins, cleans things up. As usual, there is a lot of stuff disposed of in the process. Amy Howe -- who continues to do a good service here helping to clarify often bare bones orders and order lists -- discusses it here.  I also continue to think a FAQ page on the website would be good too, to help explain various odds and ends, such as talk of things like publishing appendixes or other things.

One thing disposed of is a long pending controversy arising from the House Judiciary Committee seeking out grand jury testimony from the Mueller Investigation. There was a dispute if an impeachment proceeding is a "judicial proceeding" for purposes of the rules involved. The lower courts determined it was, but the whole thing dragged out. 

The Trump Administration as the House noted "ran out the clock." Thus, the House agreed the whole thing was now moot, but hoped the Biden Justice Department would clarify the rules to prevent this from happening again. This whole thing pisses me off, including how the Roberts Court aided and abetted this running out the clock enterprise regarding various disputes. 

===

Death Penalty: The Supreme Court dropped one more per curiam, which was basically an "error correction" enterprise that overturned a lower court ruling in a capital case.  I find this bothersome.   

It is far from clear, especially with a 6-3 split [three dissents; I will assume silence means consent], that the lower court was so obviously wrong here.  Maybe, there is room for debate.  I'm sympathetic to the liberals here, but maybe they are wrong.  It seems notable that though Breyer dissents without comment, Kagan (again) joins Sotomayor's dissent. Kagan again is in "I have no reason to compromise any more" mode.  

But, intervening in another "shadow docket" case here should only be done in limited cases.  They have a limited full docket and are not there to error correct. And, it's a capital case. A higher test should be present there. The author of the opinion tossed in gratuitous remarks regarding the facts of the crime, which is simply not relevant in this case.  

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has declared a moratorium on executions while an investigation is performed. The terms seem somewhat limited.  It also doesn't disallow supporting ongoing litigation or prosecutions in capital cases.  Hopefully, more will be done.  Obama didn't have any executions, but let things be. That left things open for thirteen executions in the final eight months of the Trump Administration.  

Grants:  Ten cases were granted for full argument.  One notable one involves a challenge to Maine tuition-assistance program that prohibits aid to students who want to use public funds to attend schools that provide religious instruction.  

Responses to Denials: The statements or dissents from cases not taken or sent back were all from conservatives.  

Thomas again wanted to take a case to clarify qualified immunity. He also again flagged his desire to change the rule to determine libel.  Gorsuch now agrees with him there, noting how there are so many new forms of media and so forth.  I'm not sure how much that really matters though in theory some tweak of the rules might be acceptable.  But see here.

Alito basically simply makes it known he thinks a case involving the Amish and disposal of waste water was clearly wrong. So, it's right to send it back.  Gorsuch does so with more verbiage, citing a federal law particularly protective of religious based land disputes.  The local nature of the dispute to me shows how troublesome it is nationalize these things simply because religion is involved.  Even if the Amish seems sympathetic.

Disposing -- at least for now -- a long lasting dispute, SCOTUS will not take up the case of Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman, who declined to create custom flowers for a same-sex wedding. Justices Thomas, Alito & Gorsuch indicated that they would have granted the petition in Arlene's Flowers.  They did not provide an opinion.

Thomas (with Gorsuch; Kavanaugh would take the case but did not join the opinion) did provide a short opinion dissenting from not taking a case to at least clarify the big Kelo v. City of London Takings Clause case.  

The emotional thing there was that someone's house was taken for what turned out to be (from what I can tell) failed economic reform business plan by the government.  Here, it's a vacant lot.  And, it is not merely to fight "blight" (which historically had racial implications given slum clearance), at least as discussed by Chicago's brief. 

Kelo received a lot of criticism, including from some liberals, but I think it was overblown.  States could limit economic takings, and there was no dispute really that even a house could be taken for any number of rather trivial "public" purposes.  Such as an unnecessary government building or something.  The person was compensated.  Rules were in place to avoid procedural violations.  Kennedy noted such in his concurrence.  

This case is a step beyond. Maybe, just maybe, a home has special significance -- a sort of Fourth and Fifth Amendment running into each other matter.  A recent Supreme Court case honored the importance of the home. But, this is a darn lot.  Like the Amish case, in this cases, I think respect for federalism and local discretion is the way to go.  

---

Recent opinions had various citations that includes website urls. The Supreme Court now stores hard copies to avoid "broken links" on a separate page.  It is in need of updating, various cases arising since the last entry.  Talking about separate pages, the press release page has a notice about a new public relations officer.  I saw someone honor a retiring Court librarian as well.  The staff at the Court is small and those involved in court business have a lot of respect and sometimes love for those involved.  

They also scheduled the summer order lists, the first somewhat later than usual.   In 2019, going back to normal times, the first one was mid-July. Ditto 2018. Now, it's August 2.  The retiring PIO is still cited. 

---

I will end with Breyer.  He joined Kagan's fiery dissent in the Voting Rights Act case yesterday, but as some noted, it was just a dissent. Doesn't make it pointless.  Over the years, injustices happen, and you have to fight them. Just letting them go without comment, or doing so mildly, is not great. That can help enable in its own fashion.  Maybe, her dissent will help push voting rights law reform on a national and state level.  

But, it was just a dissent, and as one commentary notes, the majority was  a sort of Republican talking points affair.  Breyer not retiring risks leaving his replacement significantly at the fate of such people.  The Democrats control now and it is doubtful Breyer will stick around so long that a Democrat won't at least nominate his replacement.  But, it's 50-50.  Democrat control of the confirmation process is not guaranteed there.

And, now is a good time to have a confirmation even if one looks at things from his perspective.  It would be a smoother one and it would lower the temperature a bit as strong critics look and see a younger black progressive leaning new justice.  Imagine doing so in 2022 in an election year.  

I'm sick of those badmouthing RBG, who I have at least partially defended given all the factors.  But, either way, she's dead.  Breyer is not and is aware of all that happened.  Him not retiring is wrong.  People are right to be pissed off at him.  He is acting like a clueless asshole here.  And, if it is true (as referenced) he hired a full allotment of clerks, why even -- see, e.g., Strict Scrutiny Podcast -- make his retirement even on the "who knows" level.  Those who said "no evidence he wants to resign" were right. 

And, now we have to cross out fingers some more to hope nothing bad happens.  OTOH, if the Dems lose control of the Senate, dealing with replacing the seventh seat on the Court might not even be the most immediate issue we have to worry about. 

Sha’Carri Richardson, a Track Sensation, Tests Positive for Marijuana (STUPID?! Or maybe not?)

The American sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson, who was set for a star turn at the Tokyo Olympics this month, could miss the Games after testing positive for marijuana.

This story, with her being a talented young black woman adding to the situation, is getting a lot of attention. So, e.g., on a blog that railed against steroid rules in MLB (tiresomely -- performance enhancements are just that, negatively affect health, and not enforcing the rules will burden those who don't want to use them), labeled her "another victim of the War on Drugs." That is the general line of the readership and probably some others.

I would push back some.  My basic reaction is that it is stupid and immature on some level to break the rules here.  You can find the rules stupid (see below).  There are stupid rules.  We need to act maturely here all the same.  Given the stakes, using marijuana is stupid.  It isn't even like some athletes who maybe are unclear about what exactly isn't allowed. 

Marijuana is not some sort of hazy issues.  It is against the rules.  Maybe, as one person noted, it is seen as even more important to strictly apply the rules because local law in Tokyo (the location of the Olympics) is stricter than it is generally in the United States.  I don't know.  But, the bottom line is there are drug testing rules.  By now, they are well known.  This isn't like (if that was really a thing) "hey, Bonds was unfairly treated since they didn't really follow the rules."  They do. 

She's a sympathetic case going by the coverage. The article notes that she found out about a death in the family, triggering her anxiety.  She used marijuana to relieve it.  I'm not going to handwave that as one person sneered when answering a comment of mine saying you can deal with sadness (how the blog framed it) in other ways.  

But, it's true.  There are other ways.  This isn't just someone with a strict on the job drug testing regime at CVS or something.  You have to follow rules, even when it sometimes hard to do so.  AGAIN, this is not belittling the stress involved. But, that is part of maturity.  Yes, maybe you should give people a break in various instances.  Still, the criticism is not merely focused on why she took the marijuana.  It is that the rule is simply stupid. 

Following links,  clarification is made why the rule is in place. One standard response is that it is simply stupid to think marijuana use is helps competitiveness -- doesn't it more likely do the reverse?  Well, that too would be problematic!  Nonetheless, there is a report citation that very well shows it also can help competition in certain cases. 

A constant appeal here is that there are a ton of things out there that might help competitive advantage.  Okay.  So, what, anything goes?  If there was some drug in place to improve competitive advantage by 10x or something, is that okay?  We saw the lengths taken, e.g., by Soviet bloc countries here. Athletes are skilled enough.  It is not absurd to have limits here.

It is hard to draw lines here, but in real life, lines are actually drawn. Lines that will in various cases be debatable or even bad along the edges. This might suggest (see below) zero tolerance is bad. Still, it is far from apparent that banning marijuana is stupid here. Its familiar qualities would interfere with competition.  It is akin to not allowing people to use it within a certain period of time and then driving.  Games where fractions of a second can win a contest will also mean even small effects matter.  

Does marijuana being "bad" color the situation?  I would not be shocked if it did.  Still, taking this perfectly scientifically, it is not absurd to deem it problematic -- again, it need not just be a positive enhancement.  "Well, it just will hurt her" doesn't cut it.  The sanctity of the overall contest as well as the good of the team matters here too.  

The "war on drugs" causes a lot of harm. But, this is not a criminal law. There is no evidence in the early accounts I have seen to suggest she is being selectively targeted. One person, who is usually reasonable, cited someone years ago whose medal was not taken away. She didn't have a medal taken away.  She isn't being allowed, for now, to compete because she failed the drug test.  It isn't the same thing.  

[A reply noted that not only was the wrong name given, but the specific case involved someone who had some excuse, and that the rule involved was changed.  The person admitted being too lazy to look up the facts. 

That's human when just commenting on the latest thing, but sometimes it leads to confusion.  After years of admittedly too much focus on online debates, and public things in general, one of my concerns ... hobbyhorses if you like ... is more educated discourse in general here.]  

Since I'm careful, though I was accused not to be, I'll say here that there is some concern big picture that ANY drug policy here will result in discriminatory results.  But, this isn't a case of someone being found to have marijuana in their possession or something.  It is actual use.  If that is problematic, and this is a theme on that blog, it is bad to regulate competitive drugs that enhance in general. I reject that as extreme.

Someone cited another thing that received attention regarding not allowing a certain type of swimming cap that is used by those with hair that is common for many black athletes.  See?!  It isn't the same thing. It is again not shown that black athletes with failed marijuana tests are selectively being denied. Or, that -- like the swimmers -- somehow this burdens black people specifically.  Marijuana is used by whites and blacks.  

And, again, there is evidence that marijuana will negatively (one way or another) affect athletic performance.  The cap issue is unclear -- maybe the rule is in place allegedly because other caps give an alleged advantage. At some point, looking up every specific thing is a bit much, but again, there is more to weigh there given the specific needs of black athletes. 

[I later saw AOC reference how marijuana policy is racist in a tweet opposing the disqualification.  Again, how is this relevant exactly? If she took another banned substance that mirrored the effects of marijuana to deal with her emotions after finding out about her biological mother's death, would it be okay to disqualify her?]

Bottom line, it is reasonable to say that if she broke the rules arising from an emotional event in her life, that a zero tolerance rule is unjust. Push comes to shove, I usually find these things nuanced.  Still, the broad responses to me are annoying too.  On a basic level, people in her position are careful to follow rules given the stakes.  Even stupid rules. And, it isn't even clear how stupid this rule is as  a whole.  

The best approach here is a "let those who commit no sin throw the first stone" approach.  Zero tolerance is often a bad policy.  If people just left it at that, my response would be much less "can we grow up a bit?"  But, even that is problematic when you are part of a worldwide system.  If that is a problem, the problem is not merely the U.S. enforcing the rules here.  

If you want to blame someone, blame the World Doping Agency.  As one reply, thankfully reasonable, noted: "This wasn't just American anti-weed obsession. It was a recent evolution, led by multiple constituent bodies in sport. In international sports, the USOC actually has surprisingly little pull for its size." If true, the rule might still be stupid, but let's focus on the real problem. 

Again, if problem there is. These things tend to be a lot more complicated than at first blush.  And, hopefully, long term, discussion will help clarity there. Knee-jerk reactions are human, but also dubious.

Other Non-SCOTUS Stuff

While looking into Catherine the Great, I saw something about a woman painter who painted her granddaughters. Catherine was upset that the painting included bare arms; the painter drew sleeves. That aside, the painter has a lot of impressive works.

The bio I found was somewhat less so (good photos though), starting to get a tad repetitive, and not given a very in depth look. A lot of "she provided love letters to elites, liked the scenery, didn't get along with her daughter, and painted" stuff after a while. Okay.

Two Weeks Notice was on television and I missed the beginning. So, I just bought a used copy of the DVD. When I first saw it, it was pleasant, though the last third was somewhat tired and Alicia Witt wasted. Basically the same years later, though now I have commentary and extra wedding footage (plus another scene). Pleasant enough time waster.

The Mets are sputtering through a stream of divisional games, just losing two of three vs. the Braves. They easily could have lost one or two more. Yesterday (a night that had the Yanks get seven in the 1st and give that many in the ninth, losing the game), the Mets lost 20-2, their back-up OF, Almora, closing things off. They are still in first place by two games at the moment with the Nats having a long series vs. the Dodgers too. Still.

SCOTUS Watch: Kagan is PISSED

Noah Feldman, who basically was one of the "things are fine really" people in yesterday's Presidential Supreme Court Commission session repeatedly suggested that those who (the horror!) want to expand the Court are upset at results. And, you know, you win some/lose some.

That is PART of it.  And, it is not totally wrong in the least.  If the Supreme Court for an extended period of time -- to quote President Biden -- in a "span of just eight years, the Court has now done severe damage to two of the most important provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965" -- we might be concerned.  Especially, if it is not the only problem regarding their results in past republican value rulings alone.  

That is not the ONLY part of it, especially for me. A major concern is how the judges got there.  If over and over again, the process was tainted, including overriding public will (e.g., voting in a key member as voters were choosing a new president, a far from surprising result), that matters a lot too.  The courts will not always rule as each side wants. 

But, they need a basic legitimacy.  A related reason why Trump was so much worse than Bush43 or any likely alternative, even if policy-wise there was a lot of overlap.  The process with McConnell/Trump is very significant.  It is however a longer term process where the people since 1992 by popular will vote for one side, except once (a bit of "fruit of the poisonous tree" energy even there), but still the Court is a Barrett Court.  

As a whole, there is a reason, even if it is simply not realistic at the moment, to push for an expanded Supreme Court.  

To balance not just results (that do matter to people, obviously), but how the process was so screwed up.  If you have three tainted seats, not because they are conservatives alone, adding seats to provide an answer is a re-calibration.  It in some way doesn't just let them get away with it and go up a level.  See, Gorsuch/Barrett. 

It is not clear -- are clerks talking? -- how much the opposition and partisan split influences the Court's rulings. Roberts by nature wants to go slow though there are a few issues (voting and race particularly) where at least long term he seems to have a plan.  Then, again, he was working in a political system that counseled care plus for most of a time (until now -- dramatic music) with a 5-4 Court.  Maybe, we will see next term.

Kagan pissed.  The first opinion today was Alito v. Kagan with a quiet short concurrence by Gorsuch (and Thomas) noting a stronger ground to attack voting rights claims by just avoiding to even have to defend them.  Roberts has been out for voting and race issues since the 1980s. 

As noted, here Alito for the Court avoided miminalism -- there was a way to give voting rights a loss but let Kavanaugh do it with a gentler blow -- which suggests the basic nature of Kagan's dissent.  It is fun to read on some level.  On other, you realize she is pissed off and repeatedly shows the majority no respect at all as law for a reason.  And, it's a dissent.  

The opinion is on its face a statutory interpretation case, so Congress can change the law.  This was done before in this general area. But, the majority is also about a tone -- concern about state power -- and sentiment. So, noting it will take time and they can only do so much, would not be surprised the Supreme Court would find a way to water down/find constitutional problems with a new law too.   Ultimately, the nature and composition of the Court is relevant here. 

The second was Roberts v. Sotomayor (again for the liberals) to make it harder to defend a disclosure law, which Citizens United actually supported as a concept.  It was a "faux minimalism" sort of thing.  Or, rather, a fake umpire move -- more like changing the strike zone than calling balls/strikes.  Sotomayor is disdainful but in a more "this is bad on law" sort of way than Kagan.  She adds a "with respect, I dissent," which sounds a bit sarcastic, but Kagan just ended with a mike drop.  

===

And, the Supreme Court goes into recess until October.  There will be a conference today and orders tomorrow (usual clean-up orders). Then, there will -- if normal practice follows -- a few scheduled summer order days (rarely of note but maybe something interesting) and miscellaneous orders.  The link provides various staff retirements.  One person not on said list. 

Meanwhile, the presidential commission continues, judicial nominations continue, and other court related issues in the political sphere and elsewhere will still occur.  And, of course, lower courts will have decisions.