Books and Movies

The slow and talky beginning of The Beast Must Die (a 1970s film with an interesting idea) defeated me. I shut off the Sven movie early. You can check Wikipedia for a spoiler. The Hallmark movie (Sweet Pecan Summer) was one of the pleasant ones (not great, but pleasant enough). Biggest surprise for some viewers might be an Asian lead (white male love interest). Her aunt looks/sounds familiar for a reason -- among other things, she was "Julie" on Friends.

Books: We Served the People: My Mother's Stories by Emei Burell was a good find on the free book shelf at the library. It is a graphic novel about her mom's life during the Cultural Revolution and beyond in China. And, it has a bit too much exposition (but the writing and story is good enough to make it okay), but Lady Derring Takes a Lover by Julie Anne Long is an enjoyable historical romance. There are so many. Now and then, I find one I like.

This grave post about Edith Hamilton reminded me I have her book on Greek mythology somewhere. Liked that. It also led me to check out her other works. But, didn't care for the style, trying more than one of the books. If you like it, and many did/do, go at it.

Shadow Docket Day 2: Eviction Moratorium

While other news (Afghanistan) dominated, the Supreme Court got into the act after 9PM on Thursday by firmly saying that extending the federal eviction moratorium will require congressional action. Via an unsigned order that I'll assume is 6-3, even if the "rules" say only three (Breyer for the liberals) dissented on the record.

The anonymous writer of the majority in its brief eight page (if long for an order on a shadow docket that supposedly is for minor things) opinion made out as if it was all obvious. Not so as the dissent, divided lower courts, and dissenting law voices cited by President Biden. 

The anonymous (cowards) writer also said Biden/Congress was on notice. In a way.  The actual result -- which should matter a little bit -- rejected the challengers.  Four dissented without opinion.  Kavanaugh wrote and said he thought Congress clearly needed to act, but the July deadline made it unnecessary for him to dissent.  

As Breyer noted, "Certainly this Court did not resolve the question by denying  applicants’  last  emergency  motion,  whatever  one  Justice  might  have  said  in  a  concurrence."  The situation has changed, the Delta variant making the situation (which seemed to be getting better) worse.  The new moratorium was more tailored.  The situation changed.  

If the Supreme Court majority thought the matter so clear, they should have done it right.  Have an emergency hearing.  They are doing this by phone. They can do that one more time.  The importance of the issue and national scope warranted a full argument.  But, they have become the Shadow Court. So, why bother?

The Biden response pushed for various groups to help, Jen Psaki bluntly saying Friday the votes aren't there for Congress to change the law at this moment.  And, there are various means present, including money already provided that is not getting out to those in need.  Biden's extension bought some time, though the Supreme Court acted faster than I thought they would.  Some Southern areas will be the most at risk soon.  

What will this wrought? It is guesswork, but the risk (like Breyer not retiring) for serious consequences (thousands of people being hurt or killed was one estimate) is quite possible.  It is a travesty that even a fully legitimate court acts this way.  We have a 2/3 one at best now.  

One final thing.  I saw some comment that the result here was less extreme than it could have been.  Even Ian Millhiser, strong liberal critic, noted this on Twitter.  Eh.  I didn't expect -- all at once -- horrible results. Death by a thousand cuts.  The "Remain In Mexico" policy we just covered, for example, wasn't totally horrible given the lower court.  

Such sentiments are somewhat reasonable on some level, including to remind us what fully occurred.  But, it is in another fashion a bit dangerous. Why worry too much or demand major change?  It could be worse.  The majority had a decent argument.  And so on. Blah to all of that. 

No late night surprises Friday night.  My writing this originally shortly before midnight was okay.

===

A somewhat related issue is the use of religious exemptions for vaccines. This Humanist piece argues against them here.  It notes no major religious group (noting a few minor ones) opposes vaccinations; the list provided even has the Jehovah Witnesses ultimately supporting them.  

And, some of the claims are not really sincere, using religious arguments as cover for vaccination hesitancy (often selectively applied).  The result expands what would otherwise be a narrow group.  There is not a universal clear way to balance who should get an exemption. And, it puts those with medical needs that lead to exceptions at risk. 

I am very sympathetic.  Unlike some liberals (and fewer non-liberals), I am still sympathetic to the idea of religious exemptions generally.  It is part of the balance.  But, vaccines protect public health and guard against harm to third parties.  They are a compelling state interest and all that.  

And, drawing religious lines here will be subjective and again likely based on more than religion.  Consider this appeal, arguing the vaccine somehow (somehow) is tainted by aborted fetal cells or something.  We saw this with contraceptives. Some very indirect connection that simply could not be consistently applied across the board.  

(I find it both wrong-minded on the merits and immoral for health workers to not take a vaccine because of such indirect alleged immorality. If the damn pope doesn't find a problem, them doing so is hard to take.)

But, since this is a hot button issue, it will be selectively.  For reasons that again once just be about religion.  Which is likely repeatedly the case, but compelling reasons like this make it a much harder thing to look past.  This doesn't require tossing out the baby with the bathwater.  No religious exemptions.  I think absolutism is not required yet again. 

It is unlikely we will have a broad change here.  It is quite possible that a few states will change their policies at least to some degree, including for some special cases like hospitals.  And, maybe, limit even more broad "philosophical" exemptions, noting the line there is hard to draw.  

Afghanistan

Trump agreed to a procedure (which included letting out thousands of Taliban from custody) to remove American troops from Afghanistan.

The actual complex final stages was left to a credible Administration. Delayed because the Afghanistan government (since fallen) did not want it to be done sooner since it would be seen as making the situation hopeless, something like 100,000 people have been flown out. This would be any American citizens (including dual citizens) and a range of people who helped us (and their families). This is a remarkable achievement.

It also was not seamless.  No realistic possibility it would be.  Likewise, there was and is no way to get everyone who in some fashion helped and supported the Americans out.  That simply is not possible.  It also underlines the problems with such interventions.  Yes, we have a duty to do the most we can, especially in respect to certain people like translators.  

But, there is just a limit here.  It might be an unpleasant one.  Some, include some voices from the media (which got pushback too, but not all "media," which is also where people like me get their information), have what I would say "harped" or some similar word on how "messy" or "mistakes" made or some other bad mouthing of the Biden Administration. This comes off as fantasy.  This was going to be messy. 

The bottom line is that (as shown by the Trump Administration) there was a broad support for a withdrawal.  Continuing in Afghanistan was not a productive approach.  There was continual loss of life.  After a while, no one paid attention, unlike now, but that doesn't make the life and limb any less lost. 9/11 with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda being harbored in Afghanistan made a limited military intervention reasonable.  But, twenty years?

The withdrawal, with the Taliban agreeing and a deadline (August 31) being in place, was rather peaceful.  Terrorists found this unpleasant, so we had an attack -- last numbers I saw was thirteen Americans (military; 15 wounded) and "as many as 170" (maybe three times as much as the first number I saw) people (locals) killed and one would think many more injured.

The latter underlines how the terrorists (ISIS-K here) yet again ultimately harm locals much more than Americans on a regular basis.  It also underlines the fact that military intervention (and intervention in general) can be a matter of diminishing returns.  Did we not see this in our own country repeatedly, including during Reconstruction?  

President Biden, e.g., tough boy-ed yesterday about going after the people who attacked/killed/injured American troops.  Justice there is a valid sentiment as is (up to a point) the need to have a suitable response. It also is limited. You just cannot keep killing people  here.  And, when you try, you regularly have collateral damage (as the euphemism goes).  

The final point, I'd add, is that the result here is bad leadership -- the Taliban will take over.  Such is the result there and elsewhere of self-government.  This includes needing to deal with them in some way (as they are now).  People will be hurt, at times severely, including women in particular (given the Taliban's perverse cultural approach to Islam).  

Continuing to have troops there won't suddenly change this, even if an alternative Afghanistan government would be able to have more of a presence (with continual attacks) to some degree.  There needs to be some international effort to protect basic human rights world-wide.  Use of U.S. military force (with some limited support from other nations, I would suppose), is a rather problematic approach here with limited long term value.  

A move forward is hard but sometimes appropriate given the problems of the present. This is true here as much as in other areas such as drugs or criminal justice.  The absurd/unserious responses (including Republicans talking about resignation/impeachment while opposing both for four years regarding Trump) as well as the more "concerned but shallow" responses doesn't change that.  Overall, I'm glad we have serious experts like Biden in charge.  I'm sure mistakes of some sort were made in part of how that was the case here for twenty years.  

Withdrawal remains the right way to go.

SCOTUS Watch: Order Day/Shadow Docket

And Also: We have a new governor: Kathy Hochul was sworn in at midnight (Tuesday). She should announce her pick for lieutenant governor later in the week. One article noted: "Ms. Hochul has stood out for her affable personality, deftness in retail politicking and demanding travel schedule."

Order Day: Monday was a summer order day, which usually is a nothingburger. But, this time they granted two cases, held over for a while to wait for a related case to be decided.

The timing is curious: looking, both cases were submitted to the Conference (for a second time) on July 1st. There was an order day on 7/2. Why wait until now? The case involves the right of certain immigrants in detention to get a bail hearing, with an added question on classwide injunctions that could limit their rights more. (Professor Leah Litman was on person who covered this on Twitter.)   

The rights, either statutory or constitutionally, has been the subject of a few cases by now.  Justice Breyer repeatedly was on the dissenting side, rather passionately.  So, there is a good chance of this happening again. 

Meanwhile, the orders had various more mundane details, such as "The motion to substitute Richard Roe, authorized representative, as a respondent in place of John Doe Two, Deceased is granted." (The case involves the reach of a discrimination provision of PPACA, here disparate impact on disabled people.)  I also saw Fix the Court note that Alito now is taking part in some case, apparently (though we don't clearly know given current disclosure rules) because he sold some stock or something.

===

Shadow Docket: To remind, the "remain in Mexico" policy was that matter that Justice Alito granted a partial hold to get briefing (due Tuesday).  Perhaps, not very surprisingly, the Court reject President Biden's request with only the liberals dissenting.   To quote one reporter, "The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Tuesday reinstated a Trump-era policy that requires asylum applicants to wait in Mexico while their claims are evaluated by U.S. authorities."

The order said a relevant test was not met, citing 10 pages of a certain case as the "explanation."  OTOH, the dissenting liberals (who at least put their names on record; technically, all we know is five members of the rest voted the other way) said nothing.  Steve Vladeck, the shadow docket guy, continued his criticism of the Court's usage, which as he has noted, shifted considerably as the personnel changed.  It was not always thus.

"#SCOTUS's rejection of the Biden Administration's request for a stay in the MPP case is the 35th decision this Term from which the three Democratic appointees dissented; the 24th on the "shadow docket"; and the 21st shadow docket ruling from which only *they* publicly dissented."

The result is likely wrong, but the bigger problem is the usage over time with limited or no explanation.  For instance, in theory, a stay of the lower court is a special thing, and the Administration not getting it would be sensible.  But, looking at the Trump Administration record, normal practice was not followed.  

See this thread on the hypocrisy of a couple of them in particular, given a national injunction was at stake.  See here too, with more on how this is especially dubious since the Supreme Court usually gives wide discretion on foreign affairs. Worse, argues the analysis, the Court provides no clarity.  I would again blame the dissent in these cases for not providing some clarity too.  It only makes it easier for the majority. 

The conclusion seems to be that results, not reasoning is what is important.  Justice Breyer has ratcheted up his attempts to resist criticism of the Court as arbitrary and/or political.  But, people who you would think are on his side generally are starting to get tough on such reasoning.  I fear he is starting to really getting high on his supply.  His failure to retire has (rightly) bothered people, probably less will be charmed with his goofy antics.  

So, what exactly is the result here? Amy Howe notes:

In Tuesday night’s order, the court added that its decision not to put the district court’s order on hold “should not be read as affecting the construction of that” order by the 5th Circuit, which had emphasized that the district court “did not order the Government to restore MPP’s infrastructure overnight,” but instead only required it to enforce and implement the policy “in good faith.”

The tack-on of that caveat is but a part of the wider whole of the lack of appropriate judicial clarity here. The Supreme Court is supposed to explain itself carefully when it does significant things. They are not supposed to rule with koans. The caveat is important because (this might be missed with some of the commentary) the court of appeals cushions the blow in various respects. How this will ultimately factor in on the ground is hard to say. And, one is right to be pessimistic about this specific circuit making it too smooth for the Administration.

We will see if any more action will happen this week.  There is some chance the Supreme Court will act on one of the eviction moratorium cases.  The national one.  The next execution is scheduled next month.

Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel's Autism

Peter J. Hotez (MD, PhD) is an expert on vaccines that pop up a lot of media, including MSNBC, leading me to check out two books that he wrote that is available at the library. The first is Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel’s Autism: My Journey as a Vaccine Scientist, Pediatrician, and Autism Dad.

The book is a combination of the story of his daughter Rachel, who has autism (his other three children do not; she is his and his wife's third child), and well, the subtitle. So, we learn about his work with vaccines as well as about autism specifically. The "scientific evidence" (as shown by various studies and the nature of the disease, which arise long before vaccines are given) shows vaccines do not cause autism. 

"An autism father" reviews the book here.  I think his criticism that some of the scientific writing probably will go over the head of the intended general audience.  Science is not my forte, so probably would be a helpful median reader there.  I think the book is fairly okay in this regard, but sometimes it made my eye glaze over a bit.  It is hard really to avoid this sort of thing; it takes a particular skill to translate this stuff to the average reader.

I'm not an autism father, but this to me is a lot more subjective:

My second critique is more personal and subjective. To be frank, I was saddened and sometimes angered at how Dr. Hotez wrote about Rachel, her disabilities, her obsessions, and personality quirks, and his family’s disappointment with her slow progress.

The reviewer argues that parents of autistic children "must focus on their abilities, not their disabilities." I think that unfair. Hotez himself said he was uncomfortable about being fully honest, but felt it was necessary to provide a full account. He also noted that Rachel [now in her 20s] was fully on board, enthusiastic about the effort. It seems to me to rob her of agency to challenge his approach. And, I think it quite possible for people (including members of the community) to say what "must" or "should" be done is a full honest picture. Done with empathy and nuance.

The book ends with a helpful list of "talking points." Childhood vaccines save lives. They do not cause autism. There is a lot of deliberately (his word) misleading information on the Internet. Mandatory vaccines is not a conspiracy. Diseases that vaccination prevent are not gone or mild. Only a tiny number of people vaccinated die from them; much much much more are helped. Our body's natural immunity is not adequate. And, concerns about vaccine ingredients are based on bad information. 

His most recent book is about vaccine diplomacy and his role in doing so (which is covered a bit here).  I'm reading it next.  

Articles of Confederation Tidbit

Polymaths are not people who know various types of math. They are those with a diverse knowledge of a range of subjects. I try to be one, but have my limitations. But, I often am left wanting on the knowledge of certain topics. For instance, I would be reading a news article or something, and feel unsatisfied. It is unclear how I survived life before the Internet.

One area of interest that I have found lacking in resources available is the Articles of Confederation. I wrote a brief summary on it here. And, it is usually covered as something that was ratified and then found lacking. But, not much is said about it specifically. Plus, I could not find any good books on the Articles of Confederation.  For instance, one was independently published by Joshua Mawhorter and is only fifty pages long.  

(Last year, some historian on Twitter said she was writing one.)

I am interested in something akin to the material available on the U.S. Constitution.  This would be both the act of writing the document and its application.  It was ratified in 1781 with the U.S. Constitution ratified in mid-1788 and firmly in place (with a new government) in 1789.  That is long enough to be a notable period of application.  And, did this application (there are clauses that were retained, for instance) influence later law?

I happened to skim my copy of Seriatim: The Supreme Court Before John Marshall, a collection of essays published in 1998.  It's a very interesting look at an often forgotten period of constitutional law, broken down by the justices of the Supreme Court at the time.  

And, one subheading of the chapter on the short tenure of John Blair was entitled "Blair Upholds the Power of the Confederation." The case involved dealt with a significant issue for that time period -- settlement of prize disputes arising from seized ships.  

And, involved in the case (Penhallow v. Doane) was the powers of the Congress during the 1770s and 1780s as well as courts that the Articles of Confederation gave Congress power to create.  The book's summary has the case turn on the power of Congress over prize issues, be it as an inherent feature of sovereignty or a power clearly delegated to it by the states.  This is in a pre-constitutional, weaker national government.

The chapter on John Blair also briefly discusses how the courts created by Congress acted, noting how they often ruled differently than state courts.  This provides an insight on how federal courts, more expansively created by the U.S. Constitution would act, including as a contrast to local courts and having a tendency to favor certain types of litigants more in practice. This might not be a bias necessary, but arising from the nature of things.

It also provides an example of what a book on the Articles of Confederation would cover.  I would note this sort of thing is not atypical. For instance, the Civil War provides loads of literature, but how much talks about Southern law?  I did years back read a book on the Confederate Constitution, which is different from ours in a few notable ways.  Also, the Confederacy never got around to set up a Supreme Court.  Did have local federal courts -- read an article on the issue some time back.  

Anyway, Confederation courts alone would (and I assume people wrote some articles on the topic) provide some fodder. Note how state courts in the 1780s began to apply the practice of judicial review.  And, how did the states and federal government apply other aspects of the Articles of Confederation?  There would be various ways that would arise. 

Little bits can be found in places, often providing something new in books on similar topics, that provide interesting bits that make me go "huh" and want to read more. On this topic, I already did. 

House of Horrors (Replay) (Love the cat!)

Fun Svengoolie film tonite -- find a lot of these things not paced right or whatever but this was overall a good one with some old movie silliness. Yes, that doomed newspaper man was on Car 54, Where Are You as a pussycat police commander mistaken for a tyrant. Think the sculptor (looking like a young Dr. Zachary Smith) was supposed to be gay -- he was no fan of women. Unfortunately, that charming statuesque model accidentally was killed over the tiresome tough talking dame who ended up giving up her job. Anti-feminist to boot!

Mets Update

Alonso told the fans to keep the faith. Well, after going 0 for 20 or whatever, he is showing life. Not so much the team. Other than beating the Nats (who admitted did beat Toronto recently), they eked out a win only by outlasting a bullpen game by the Giants in the 12th. If rookie Megill didn't go six/one run, they easily could have lost that one too.

August has been a freefall though the current bad run goes back to June. The team had problems before then. This fan didn't worry since no other NL East team seemed to want to challenge them. Well, now the Braves are on fire, the Phils had a bit of a run (though also struggled of late), and the Mets can't handle their old just enough over .500 to do it ways.

Injuries continue. RIGHT after I saw a "hopeful" report on their primary catcher (their back-up on the 10 Day IL), he is put on the IL. We can basically sign off on deGrom (who once upon a time seemed to be ready to win the Cy Young again) coming back. Plus, even bit players (like bullpen arm Jake Reed, who seemed to have just got here) keep on getting hurt. 

The Mets lost 10 games in the standing this month.  They are now six games back from the Braves.  The Phils are two games ahead of the Mets, which is saying something too. The Phils have won three of their last ten and recently were basically as bad as the Mets (they were swept, e.g., by the Diamondbacks).  My "don't trust" them sentiments hold. 

(One story in baseball at the moment are the struggles of the San Diego Padres, who looked like a safe bet for one of the wild cards.  They went 2-8 and are now tied with the Reds for the second spot.  The odds here say the Reds have a much better shot at the playoffs now.  The Mets odds there are ... rather low.)  

After my last long post on the Mets, the Nats series came, and it looked a bit better for them.  But, that was before the West Coast trip, that is going about as expected (the Mets have struggles versus the Dodgers in general in recent years).  They have two more games versus the Dodgers (I still think they can manage to win at least one game)  and then three at home versus the Giants.  Their September is mixed, with some real opponents mixed in. 

Bill Madden compares the Mets and Yanks since the trading deadline here.  The Yanks had have much more success with a mixture of good trades and pick-ups that have turned out surprisingly well. The Mets barely were active at the trading deadline with Baez being a very dubious pick-up and Rick Hill a good spare part that is not enough.  So, very well, they might need a better GM or whoever in charge of player development etc.

Baez is simply not what they need, down to his injury history.  It almost seems like they got another flashy move, maybe partially since star player Lindor is friends with the guy.  Now, they both can spend time on the IL together.  Baez's defense is not what the team needs -- McNeil and company did a reasonable job.  They need a good role player who can get on base.  An occasional home run will not address their constant ability to get on base and/or (much more depressing) score those on base.

(With all the injuries, Villar is the regular shortstop now.  Villar is a bench player.  But, he is perfectly fine at that position, and is regularly good for some offense and even an occasional home run. Occasionally, Baez could make a play -- though even he is not perfect -- better.  But, net I doubt if that will be a positive.  The team needs more players like him.)  

The team seemed to benefit from various bench players ("the bench mob") filling in for stars.  Such players cannot take over for the long term, but they can give a team life and provide some offense.  Drury always seemed to get on base when he was told to pinch hit.  A fill-in outfielder has repeatedly burned the Mets now on the Dodgers.  And, not bench, but look at how good Megill is doing.  A winning team has a bunch of good parts.

The bullpen continues -- take that 12th inning game -- to shine though they have burnt them some too.  This is partially probably from overuse, partially with so many injuries.  It has been pointed out that the Mets injuries is not just "all teams have injuries" (though they do & repeatedly they have managed to win). They have more.  It's a problem.

Bill Madden notes that no manager on teams who freefalled from first place (though the Mets first place slot was not as secure) in historic fashion lost their jobs.  I think Luis Rojas should.  I respected him some as the team seemed to stick together thru adversity.  But, to the degree that is true, the buck also stops there now.  And, it just might be that the praise was a bit overblown, if basic problems were not really addressed.

(We hear tell of a "process," which is unclear, but apparently in some fashion includes a style of hitting. Whatever this "process" is, they are not hitting.  Their lack of hitting or clutch hitting is ridiculous.  This was shown last night -- a 3-2 loss -- again.  They basically got a gift run on a wild pitch and a ball that hit Alonso's foot, which shouldn't have counted.  A bad third strike call -- if not horrible -- was mixed in there.)  

The question of manager stressed me out last night.  Rojas is only there because Beltran's involvement in the Astros cheating scandal made him verboten.  But, since then, we had new ownership. A "safe" management choice was not needed.  I firmly think the team needs an older more experienced manager who has had experience on a playoff/World Series caliber organization.  The manager of the Phils (and ex-Yank) could not be the only possibility.  

(Terry Collins, for instance, I think was a good manager for the rebuilding team existing for much of his tenure.  Old hand that could lead the players. He also had a reassuring public face, including his passion for the game.)  

Six games back with forty games to play is not an impossible hill to overcome.  But, it's an uphill battle for a number of reasons, especially without deGrom.  For instance, the standings here provide a metric on "expected record" and basically the Mets have overachieved while the Braves had underachieved.  The Braves 9-1 like run isn't going to hold. But, the pre-August mediocrity very well should be enough unless the Mets (without deGrom) themselves go on a run.  

The Mets are for me not a team I really want to watch right now.  It's just too tiresome with all these issues.  They really shouldn't be this bad.  They seem always to be missing that little bit of extra you need to win.  This is seen in game after game versus the elite of the NL.  And, part of this at least, is management.  Deja vu.

Finally, Madden tosses a "fu" to the Orioles, who are laughingstocks at the moment.  Sixteen losses in a row.  They lost 3-0 to the Braves last night, and that is almost a win.  They have to win sometime and I still think it could be this weekend.  The Nats did manage to beat them once.  Anyway, that is some negative accomplishment for a team that at the very start of the season actually looked credible.  Hard to keep up spirits when you are bad for years, but you do manage to win a game here or there.  

ETA:  Are we talking about next season already.  Well, we are here, and it leads with bringing back Stroman.  Stroman does have a good ERA and spirit.  OTOH, even he had a share of the disappointment.  He has around ten games where he pitched five or less innings.  

This is especially the case since June though he has a great Reds start there and another seven inning affair that was a quality start.  But, he also had -- when the team needed length -- game after game of five inning games.  

If he was solely the third starter (behind deGrom and Carrasco) he was expected to be, a mediocre stretch might be more forgivable.  But, that was not to be, and he was paid 18M with the QO and the article speaks of an expensive long term contract. 

[After weekend games.]  The Braves continued to win, though the Orioles actually had a one run game that turned on the ninth inning.  The Padres had a must win (followed by a loss) after tying the game when the Phils starter was one out away from a complete game.  They won in the 10th.

And, the Mets managed to win one game [still seven games back] with what amounts as a laughter (if not stress free, since it was 3-2 until the seventh) 7-2 win, Stroman pitching six/two runs.   Good karma alert is Baez coming back and getting two hits/scoring one run.  But, others like Davis (who needed it) joined the fun.  A mixture of good starting pitching, relief work, and hitting is how the Mets need to win these games.

Plus, after facing scrubs, the Braves have to face the Yankees.  Both teams have nine game winning streaks with today's Yanks game rained out. The Yanks had some tougher competition mixed in to boot. The Mets do have the Giants.  But, hey, they ended the 2-5 trip on a good foot. 

==

A quick word on football. The Jets have a new rookie QB and we will try again with Daniel Jones for the Giants.  If their main QB is healthy, figure Dallas should be favorites in that division.  And, remember, we have an extra game (17) while one less preseason (3) games.  

It has been fairly hard to get into NY/NJ football in recent times, especially once Eli Manning retired, and you didn't even have sentiment.  Both teams have been rather bad.  "Here we go again" for the Jets, I guess, with some major injury (not familiar with the person) happening to hurt them too. Guess that allows fans to watch them without expecting much while the Giants might have just enough talent to actually believe a bit more.

Whatever.  The Bills should continue to be the NY team to watch.  As to the extra game, profits, of course.  We surely didn't need a longer season.

SCOTUS Watch

Erratum: I regularly miss errors even for short posts. So, I guess when you have a bunch of people to catch errors, you will keep on finding them. Fulton v. Philadelphia (major case) was edited a third time this week! (You can see the date of the editing if not the timing of each edit.) Seems to be a few extra edits this term.

Order List: One pet peeve of mine is that the dates of scheduled summer orders are not put on the calendar on SCOTUSBlog (I flagged this in an email to them a few years ago and got an answer that they only do it for scheduled orders; but these are!) and SCOTUS itself. Well, I happened to look, and see SCOTUSBlog does it now! I emailed SCOTUS. Maybe, they will change in a few terms. Order list scheduled for next week.

Book: Dangerous Ideas: A Brief History Of Censorship in the West, From the Ancients to Fake News is sorta relevant given the job of the Supreme Court. Covers a lot of ground in interesting fashion with a light touch at times. Helpful summary. Last chapter on current times probably can be a bit shorter. For some reason, only has one (risque) photo. 

Late Night Fun:  West Coast baseball (Mets continue to lose, but maybe their fans can have some sympathy for the Padres, who have been in a nosedive recently and now are tied with the Reds for the Wild Card slot) is not the only thing that was happening late last night.  

This entry was originally posted at 10:10 PM last night, on the (by now repeatedly wrong) assumption that nothing else was going to happen. Usually, late night action these days tends to be to give liberals time to write out their dissents to Friday action.  So, this time was a bit different. 

The justices (or whatever the Trump appointees should be called; their court of appeals slots were to me legitimately filled -- though Kavanaugh's confirmation there was not totally  without issues -- so "judges" seems okay) might be on recess, but the court action continues to occur.  There was a bomb threat this week in D.C. and the Supreme Court building (judges not there) was evacuated.  And, briefs continue to flow.

Again, Amy Howe is a useful resource.  She discussed the continuing fight against eviction moratoriums.  But, the late night action was related to ... well, I'll let her tell you:

The Biden administration on Friday afternoon asked the Supreme Court for an immediate reprieve from having to reinstate a Trump-era program known as the “remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border to stay in Mexico while they wait for a hearing in U.S. immigration court. Telling the justices that the lower-court order directing the administration to restore the program “threatens to create ‘a humanitarian and diplomatic emergency,’” Acting Solicitor General Brian Fletcher urged the Supreme Court to block the order, which is otherwise scheduled to go into effect early Saturday morning.

As you might recall, we have an "acting" SG because current law requires someone fill in pending confirmation of Elizabeth Prelogar. [This is a whole complex issue, including who is allowed to be appointed as an acting office holder, one that led to a lot of controversy during the Trump years to those who paid attention to such things.] As Amy Howe noted on Twitter, welcome Brian Fletcher to the shadow docket.

One complaint has been that the Supreme Court under Trump in the eyes of some (raises hand) too often interfered with pending litigation, granting stays to lower court limits on executive actions. However, here the 5CA refused a stay and the district court ruling is a very dubious reading of the law. And, the Roberts Court policy of letting executive power stand has a "what is good for the goose" quality:

Fletcher closed his filing with a pointed reminder that, during the Trump administration, the court “repeatedly stayed broad lower-court injunctions against Executive Branch policies addressing matters of immigration, foreign policy, and migration management.” The court should, he argues, “do the same here.”

Well, Justice Alito (circuit judge of the 5CA) granted a stay of the district judge's blocking of Biden's policy until Tuesday at midnight. This would allow the full Court to consider the matter. Also, the states challenging the policy should reply to the federal government's brief by five p.m. on Tuesday. 

Expect more action next week.

James W. Loewen, Who Challenged How History Is Taught, Dies at 79

I'm not sure, but probably at some point did, if I read Lies My Teacher Told Me. Looking, it is supposed to be at my local library, so will check it out. OTOH, Biggie Trismegistus in this thread rather devastatingly refutes fact after fact in a chapter on Columbus. It just might be that he stretched things too far there, going beyond the area he is particularly a scholar on.

He also had other books, including a long one on "sundown towns" (towns where blacks and others should leave by sundown). His last was a book on his life long love of canoeing, mixing in some thoughts on other matters.

The referenced thread is to a post by Prof. Erik Loomis, who reported his death.  Loomis is particularly concerned about racism (though it isn't his specialty, which is labor and environmental issues; racism, of course, touches all) and compared him to Howard Zinn.  Zinn is a somewhat questionable character.  I read his history of the U.S. and some essays.

It is basically an overcorrection that rams down a socialist view of things.  It's fine to have a point of view, but I personally think the whole thing is too one-sided.  Loomis at one point basically granted his work is flawed, if at the time a helpful re-calibration of a biased study of history.  But, you need more than that.

The NYT obit noted:

Dr. Loewen was a relentless contrarian who challenged anyone who imagined academic life as a passage through genteel lectures on settled matters for drowsy students on leafy campuses. He charged through history like a warrior, dismantling fictions and exposing towns for excluding minorities; teachers and historians for dumbing lessons down; and defendants in 50 class-action lawsuits who, according to his expert testimony, victimized people in civil rights, voting rights and job discrimination cases.

I sometimes feel like (and now and then do) voicing my belief that people, especially those who supposedly know better, should stop promoting ignorance. Basic rule. Try to promote knowledge. But, at the very least, don't cause people to be more dumb. In that respect alone, he should be honored. His new 1970s account of Mississippi history probably would be called critical race theory today. Down to the need to sue to get it used.

The class action lawsuit bit, however, is particular interesting. It adds to his overall life's work.  I having had a sideline writing history summaries and blogs at that last link.  History is not only an interest, it is actually what I have a B.A. in back in the day.  So, his life's work is of interest, especially when he (again, would like to know more) got involved in litigation like that.  

RIP, James, and perhaps one day Erik Loomis will do your grave -- that grave series he has is amazing.  Over 900 and he visited each one, I gather (he includes personal pictures of the grave). 

Quickies

Why “The Framers Never Intended” Is Garbage. The author wrote a book about the creation of the presidential Cabinet and is a historian. I think both liberals and conservatives try too hard to determine what the "Framers intended," often citing particular ones.

What Andrew Cuomo’s Resignation Reveals About the State of American Democracy. The summary notes how Republicans are so far gone and a good extended bill of particulars against Cuomo. And, how it's good news, but took too long.

Mets: We will see what it means long term, but they fell under .500. [ETA: The Mets outlasted the Giants bullpen in the 12th; key was Megill going six/one run.] The Braves continue to dominate bad teams and the Phils continue to seem too flawed to come out on top. We are still hearing about "the process" and so on with stuff from players/the manager as if this is just a blip. They have been ten games under in a stretch going back to late June.

Why Veganism Matters: The Moral Value of Animals

Prof. Gary L. Francione is not quite one for a moderate take and can oppose those who do with some scorn.

I have read Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation (I have an updated version of it) and it seems pretty strong. But, Francione's portrayal of Singer is as squish.  I recall Singer saying that changing your ways but eating eggs now and again or something would be a big step.  Singer didn't say it was fine to eat eggs.  But, if you were regular consumer of animal products, dropping most of it except for eggs on your way to veganism would be a big step.  Sort of like cutting back to a few cigs a day.

Francione, however, portrays him as a quasi-vegan, who thinks promoting veganism at some point is too absolute.  Someone, who still eats animal products occasionally and praises half-measures by animal product producers, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  Someone who thinks some animals have equal moral weight as humans, but still not as equal as them.  Again, having read his book, this seems a tad extreme.

I also am not sure about the general idea that limited goals are not only trivial, but probably counterproductive. I look historically and great wrongs are not attacked all at once.  And, by doing that, it doesn't necessarily mean we think the wrong is fine except for some really bad examples. Take slavery.  Many figured slavery just couldn't be abolished realistically while still thinking it wrong.  They tried to address certain things, like the slave trade.  These things were not trivial by definition. 

Sherry Colb and Michael Dorf -- whose book on animal rights and abortion is part of the collection this book is part of -- also argue this. Someone like Temple Grandin who supports kinder slaughterhouse methods, and has said she thinks animals deserve protection, doesn't really help.  

She just makes people think slaughtering animals is okay.  But, if we slaughter animals, shouldn't we try to help them as much as we can?  It's like saying prison reform is pointless without abolishing prisons.  I understand the concern.  But, people with problems will tell you there are degrees.  Helping the degree matters a lot sometimes. 

The author at times frames it in a strawman sort of way like talk of "meatless Mondays."  Sure.  One day without meat is trivial. But, what if you only ate meat once or twice a week without increasing your net consumption by you know tripling up? Regularly, cutting back leads to simply ending the practice. And, cutting back generally suggests the target is tainted. Why cut back otherwise?  

He briefly notes that if that is the only way you are going to cut back toward a complete vegan life (focused on misuse of animals; Victoria Moran years ago spoke of a wider compassion ethic after all, humans are animals and ending their mistreatment would advance wider vegan principles), that is okay.  But, that to me is the point of those who support stops along the way.  I don't think many of them are saying we should not go further.  Some might.  Trivial improvement does deserve a bit of scorn.

Anyway, I don't think agreeing with people all the way is often necessary to agree on the basics. For instance, a core point he makes is that an animal welfare sentiment that is concerned with not mistreating animals but still treating them as property net will give you piss poor results.  

The average person agrees we should treat animals "humanely," but don't want to give up much of anything.  Use of animals for food, e.g., is far from necessary.  It isn't a hard call (animal testing might be though alternatives exist to make it a lot harder to accept).  But, our mentality allows trivial interests like personal taste to handwave abusive factory farms.  

At some point, you need to accept animals as animals have moral standing, even if it somehow interferes with human interests. Some basic thing has to be involved here -- the author flags sentience (some sense of consciousness from one moment to the next contra some complex over span of time rule someone like Singer or Tom Regan supports) as the principle.  

The alternative, says the author, is animals are property without any rights.  The counter is that we do have animal welfare laws in place. But, he notes, look how weakly they are practiced. Why?  The laws presumes animals aren't really persons with moral standing (even if they might be treated as persons in certain ways).  Like a slave, this sort of thing makes it rather easy for us to find an excuse (however weak) to mistreatment them.

I'm unsure about the whole concept of "moral rights" based on sentience as a "pre-legal" thing as if it is something that is "out there" like a tomato. I think we have to realize that moral rights is a human construct, which is notable in this area. We are humans, so have to see things as humans there, even though (who knows) we are mistreating other animals in the process. 

This also makes me more accepting of treating humans as having a higher status to some degree than animals. Be this "speciesism" or not, it is simply a fact of our being humans.  I noted this in a comment regarding President Biden focusing so much on American troops in a speech on Afghanistan. Yes. He's the leader of the United States.  He is the commander-in-chief of those forces.  It is not wrong to think of them first. 

This doesn't mean the rights of Afghans should be handwaved. It is very well true that such a mentality can make us make decisions that harm such rights. So, it should be done warily.  The presence of nation states, however, will result in such a mentality.  An international organization will be more likely to have a world-wide mentality.  As an aside, that will be of special importance to protect women's rights in Afghanistan.

No matter.  The basic core idea that non-human animals warrant equal treatment in some fashion is why I became a vegetarian in the 1990s. My thought was that equality was a good thing and non-human animals should be treated equal in some basic way too.  As the author notes, it logically follows from our respect of animals' basic welfare.  If we don't think dogs and cats should be harmed, why should pigs for pork production?

We can debate on the philosophical details here, but the bottom line holds. An animal welfare approach without respect for animals having inherent rights has only led to limited benefits. I might say more benefits than he suggests, but that is but detail.  Some like myself (as he notes) will in a variety of ways be willing to accept that even animal welfare warrants veganism.  But, it surely does look like something more is needed.

That something more is some basic respect for the rights of animals. Some theorists will come at this in other ways.  For instance, some argue that our emotional attachment to animals is one important thing here.  Emotional passions is a major driver (I have seen this over the years) for many causes.  Philosophical debates on sentience will only matter so much for such people.  

Still, there is some basic "it" here that is part of things.  Non-human animals have interests warranting protection ("rights"). And, a consistent (though who is really consistent? the inexact, at times arbitrary, nature of human existence might warrant a bit more sympathy here) application would lead to a vegan lifestyle.  Just to help things go down, there are pragmatic benefits and the lifestyle is a lot easier these days than many might think. 

The book has a helpful summary of each chapter in the back (about a tenth of its 175 page length) though no index.  The book is pretty straightforward though at times reads as a bit of an academic essay that might turn off some readers.  It was written in 2020, but don't know how new its arguments really are.  It was for me a helpful refresh of the material. 

House on Haunted Hill

 

I only looked in when it played this week, but did watch this Sven film in the past. It is a fun Vincent Price film about a millionaire who pays people to spend a night at a "haunted" house, but really has an ulterior motive. Price eats the scenery and it's all done with skill.

I have various options on weekends with book/history stuff on C-SPAN, movies on various channels (Sven, Hallmark, Up TV, PBS), and maybe Petticoat Junction/Barnaby Jones early Saturday on MeTV. Not too much on this time (toss in John Oliver, who is on later tonight). I'll add that the reboot, The L Word: Generation Q is back for another season. The first episode wasn't very good, but maybe it will set up better material. I felt the first season was mixed.

Demystifying Shari'ah (and other books)

There are various books out there promoting a liberal view of Islam. Reza Aslam is perhaps the most well know, but there are others. I wrote about one recently, which promoted tolerance within Islam:

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.

The book argued that a correct understanding of Islam promoted tolerance. But, argues the author, at a certain point in its history, intolerance became more acceptable. So, his view is not actually the mainstream view according to many. I don't recall how much of a minority he sees his view. Either way, there was an uphill battle.

Others are less combative, in that fashion, than Reopening Muslim Minds: A Return to Reason, Freedom, and Tolerance. Like various Jews and Christians, they argue their religion can quite reasonably (even if everyone doesn't) be applied in a liberal way. They do mix in some "and that is really doing it right."  I think the best (and perhaps often the main) sentiment is that there is enough discretion possible that at least the spirit of the Quran and Islam itself can be applied in a liberal/libertarian way. 

In both cases, we see some discussion on how Islam was rather liberal for its time. One can say that about Christianity as well in various respects.  The fully honest account here is that the holy books in question were still written quite a long time ago.  We should recognize they are products of their time and we cannot take them literally.  At some point, they are just wrong about certain things, even if better than the then current median.

I read a liberal blog that at times has comments that are anti-religion, which basically is anti-conservative Christianity.  This bothers me since that is not the only form of religion.  The people know in some sense this, unless they are not familiar with Martin Luther King Jr. or something.  Anyway, you don't have to toss out the baby with the bathwater here.  Obviously.

Still, you should understand the limitations of the material.  At some point, I do feel a need to get off the bus totally. For instance, the core concept of Christianity is tied to Jesus dying and being resurrection.  Some don't focus on that; a few early Christians (see, e.g., the Gospel of Thomas, which focuses on knowledge without a passion story added at all) did not.  

But, it still is the basic point of it.  It isn't just about some good guy who promoted reforms and stuff.   And, let's be blunt, that's ridiculous. It is tied to old philosophical and religious concepts, some few accept even if they are practicing Christians.  The gospels have some good stuff in them. You can basically be a "Christian" without concerning yourself with the miracles and all that stuff.  Basically, a Unitarian.  Still.

This is a long prologue to talking about Demystifying Shari'ah: What It Is, How It Works, and Why It's Not Taking Over Our Country.  This is from the "Islam is liberal" field of readings. The author wrote two other books that basically cover the same material, one for teenage readers.  She's child of South Asian immigrants and a liberal minded gung ho Muslim.  

Sumbul Ali-Karamali knows her subject. She is not just a lawyer, but has a degree in Islamic law.  She also has a degree in English, which adds one more useful piece on writing this subject.  Her overall approach is nice but gung ho.  She doesn't want to cause waves -- "people disagree" comes up repeatedly.  She still discusses in detail the charms of her faith and the history behind it. 

And, she is loathe to say she disagrees with anything. Sometimes, human believers did not follow the rules, including in some fashion to build an Islamic Empire (it wasn't all in self-defense!). But, there is nothing really wrong with the material.  So, if you read closely, you will see that there is some double standards about men and women in the Quran. Still, overall it was greatly an advance for the time.  And, it can be interpreted to fit modern day views, especially if you read (as you should!) it using the spirit of the text.  Living constitutionalism should appeal to her.

The books are very helpful to inform.  I am left with some doubts, which this approach will not likely answer.  Again, I don't think you need to toss out the baby with the bathwater.  I personally am not going to be Muslim.  I personally lean toward Unitarianism and am a minister of the Universal Life Church.  As I noted in the past, I think the institution has at its core some value.  All I'm saying, is that you need to meet me half-way.

I will generally comment here.  

First, you have the Qur'an itself (that's how she spells it).  I'll be blunt and say that I doubt the Angel Gabriel told it to Muhammad in a cave and so forth.  But, that is not really my concern. I respect religious role in society, including as a sort of poetry.  Few people (and she doesn't either though the revelation part apparently happened in her view) take all of this literally.  

(I would be concerned with someone who emphasizes the ability to find some exact "word of God" here when we are dealing with a collection of sayings verbally expressed over a span of years and then written down years after the original recipient died.  An oral culture is more able to do something like that accurately, but only so much.) 

No, my concern is more specific.  First, there is the belief it is the very word of God.  The Bible isn't that, is it?  People generally take it as inspired and some take it literally.  But, others accept it is not all the very word of God.  So, you have books of proverbs, poetry, history, and so forth.  Then, you have gospel accounts of specific people and letters.  It's a lot easier to loosely apply some instruction by a human person, especially when it is widely accepted it isn't even "Paul" writing in various cases. 

She notes that Muslims (there being over a billion, I assume this is one of the cases she is taking a median view as she notes at one point) believe the Qur'an cannot be "translated" since it is the actual word of God.  Uh huh. Christians and Jews don't have this problem.  Jews, e.g., translated their scriptures early on into Greek.  The meanings changed at times, and probably some didn't like that, but even then, it is not like the books were the literal words of God.  So, translations into a local tongue would be okay.  

And, basically practical and humane.  She notes Muhammad felt it important to note the universality of Islam.  The first person chosen to announce the times of prayer was a former (African) slave.  But, the very word of God that guides the faith is in 7th Century Arabic.  To truly understand the basic guide of Islam, you need to learn the language. It was problematic when mass was only in Latin. This is so much worse. 

Muslims today clearly do not all know Arabic, even if many do go to school to learn it so that they can truly understand God's word (in their view).  Many basically accept translations (sic) of the Qur'an.  But, being nice and all, she has to voice "the rules" as if it would be rude to challenge them.  

The first book I cited argued there is a limit of open-minded views in Islam.  From reading her, you'd think it was mostly a minority view.  Still, there are doubts to be found if you read closely. First, huh, Muhammad destroyed a bunch of pagan idols, since he was a monotheist.  So, Islam was not quite totally about freedom of religion.  The "people of the book" were favored.

Then, there is the women stuff.  It's fairly easy to respond to stereotypes here.  The most problematic cases are cultural.  There is the "modest" rule. But, that is found in other religions, if you take the text literally.  So, fornication is disallowed as is divorce in most cases.  There is a reference to women covering their heads.  And, more sexist stuff. Catholics still do not have women priests.  Being modest is seen as "Christian" by many.

(And, it is unclear from her summaries that some of the stuff she had to follow is compelled by the text.  Is not dating really necessary?  She herself was raised not to need to cover her head at all, her father noting that in the U.S. that would ironically cause more attention. Okay.  So, why not date?)

Still, men and women are not treated the same.  She argues this is mainly a matter of interpretation based on the times.  True enough.  But, the text also specifically treats women differently in certain instances.  The fact they were treated better than others at the time is very important.  Still, the 21st Century has some advancements there from the 7th.  How do you get around it totally, however, when we are dealing the literal word of God, which has been determined to have existed eternally?* 

That part is just a bit much.  So, e.g., she notes that bans on pork probably arose because it was unhealthy to eat pork at that time. Fine.  Food and other taboos often have such practical origins.  And, it is fine to continue doing them to honor your religious faith.  Still, once the reason for not eating pork passed, what is exactly the value in it?  This is more of a symbolic thing, probably, and as loyalty to your "tribe," it's fine really.  

Anyway, again, given her approach, some of this stuff will not be covered. That's okay as a whole, though readers very well have a reason to at some point feel that she is basically assuming certain things as givens.  Maybe, I'm more scientifically minded than some, but that got me bothered at times.  The books as a whole remain useful to educate, including citing an interesting theory that English common law grew out of Islamic law.  

---

[footnote added]

* She notes the Islamic belief that each people worldwide was sent a messenger like Muhammad at some point.  

A religious book of such a society specific nature seems -- under that principle -- best limited to the society itself.  This probably is best seen in place and time fashion, especially if so much focus will be put on the exact language used.  But, Islam now is a world-wide religion.  Not that even Arabia could fully apply the "original" so long afterwards.

In various ways, we have had seen some value in use of scriptures, religious or otherwise. Ancient philosophical writings still are of some value though only a limited number of people actually read the things. Such value is limited -- Aristotle's view on both science and morals (e.g., slavery) has only held up so much.  Religious texts are no different.

We see this is the Christian Bible, which also includes Jewish scriptures. A lot of religious development occurred over the span of time of even the gospels (decades), a lot more so in Jewish writings.  Many in the Middle East thought Jesus was the final word. Then, Mohamed came along! 

The author recognizes the limits of writings of a certain era, but maybe then it is best not to treat male focused accounts of the afterlife as if they were the eternal word of God. Applying ancient texts to the modern age is possible, but only so much without redacting some content.  It is not to be forgotten, since she references it at one point, the Constitution (unlike the Qur'an) allows amendments.    

I wonder in fact if the messenger of God thought his recitations (not even written down in his lifetime formally!) was the final word.  Why assume he is the final prophet, again after Jesus was not?  Seems presumptuous. 

NY Assembly Leadership Stops Impeachment: FAIL

I noted in my entry on the AG report on Cuomo that the NY Assembly seemed to be slow walking investigating him. After his resignation announcement (aka Two Weeks Notice II (also with Hugh Grant, just more sleazy here), many still wanted him to impeached. For one thing, conviction can block him from running again. Plus, sexual harassment isn't even all that is involved here. The report and resignation basically covers that.

The committee in charge of the investigation, according to the Assembly Speaker (a guy, if not a white guy), will be dropping the investigation. Why? (1) The basic concern was allegedly if he did something worthy of resignation. His resignation announcement makes that moot. (2) A finding -- far from conclusive I bet, since the specific limits of impeachment are overall hazy -- you can't impeach someone who left office. Which he didn't do yet.

Multiple members are now saying this action was a surprise to them as well as not a good idea. We also have Cuomo, even if he doesn't run for re-election, having a 18M campaign fund to use as he likes. That is another concern. Overall, the whole thing is fucking aggravating, especially the back of the room deal / cover-up feel of the whole thing. It will cause people to cynically talk about nothing changing (even as things do change). Self-inflicted.

SCOTUS Matters: Shadow Docket Again etc.

Book: There is a long new bio of Justice John Harlan. I checked it out and it was too long for me. Also, skimming, it repeatedly was too gung ho, not wanting to criticize him for some of his imperfect rulings. Someone else, a lawyer who is very into constitutional history, said he liked the book.

The Republic According to John Marshall Harlan by Linda Przybyszewski is a shorter (about two hundred pages) and more academic account from some time back (think Clinton Administration).  It is not comprehensive, though it covers the basics, and general themes.  The academic flavor is not too thick overall.  And, it is a good honest accounting of how he was a person of his time, not just some "hero."

Nearly seven months after his inauguration, President Joe Biden announced on Wednesday that he has nominated Elizabeth Prelogar to serve as the U.S. solicitor general, the federal government’s top lawyer at the Supreme Court.

Amy Howe provides her usual good account. This includes reporting that appears to explain the reason for the delay.  The White House, says Amy Howe, supported a "more diverse" candidate while the DOJ liked Prelogar (who is after all a woman, which alone is notable).  I noticed on Legal Twitter a lot of support for her, especially among woman law professors and appellate attorneys.  Her name is pronounced "pre-logger."

The problem is that California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger (cited as the DOJ choice) twice rejected the offer.  After all, she already had a nice job.  One added wrinkle that to me seems relevant is that Kruger is often on short lists, maybe at the top, of potential Supreme Court (the U.S.) nomination lists.  SG (see Kagan) is one route to prepare.  

Anyway, Prelogar has already had a lot of experience, arguing nine cases in front of the Supreme Court during the Obama/Biden Administrations.  She seems a fine choice and again many women lawyers are cheering her on.  And, she will be cheering on an acting SG, given the rules in place now require she not serve the position until confirmed. 

===

I was ready for nothing much at all happening at the Supreme Court, but they decided to ruin that again.  

A false non-start was Barrett on her own (not referring it to the whole court; Breyer also disposed of a religious liberty suit this way) rejecting a request for an injunction regarding a university vaccination mandate. When an old conservative and two Trumpies below reject it, you know you are in trouble.  The key thing there, I think, is that there are religious exemptions. That would be the last nail in the "no shot" coffin.

But, later in the day, we do have a shadow docket ruling with Breyer dissenting for the liberals.  After two courts below rejected the claim, the brief unsigned order partially blocked for now a New York eviction moratorium, one that was going to run out at the end of the month anyway. Is this a "I'll go this far, but I won't do that" message after the last move by five of them not to block the federal moratorium?

What exactly was decided? The basic concern, if baldly stated, was that a tenant could declare they were at risk without the landlord having a hearing. But, the moratorium is not permanent.  And, the current rule runs out at the end of the month.  And, tenants can have other arguments -- they can, for instance, prove in court that they are at risk.  My state senator tweeted to say her office was analyzing just what the decision means.  See also here, which provides some more details of what is involved.

So, what exactly is the point of this move, which is an irregular stepping in to stop normal appellate process?  Steve Vladeck, who testified about it to the Presidential Supreme Court Commission (but doesn't really want to DO anything about it much except maybe nudge them), about the shadow docket put the move in context on Twitter.  From various tweets:

In the first 15 Terms of the Roberts Court, #SCOTUS issued a grand total of 4 emergency injunctions pending appeal (in part because the standard for granting one is so high).

This is now the *7th* injunction the Court has issued since Justice Barrett’s confirmation last October.

Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan have dissented from all seven; Chief Justice Roberts publicly dissented from three of the first six. This is a big part of why the “shadow docket” is so significant these days: major, divisive rulings coming down with little to no reasoning.

This is not just about the Big V, which did not just start "last October," but a sign of how that sixth vote matters. Roberts did not want to change the old rules, and consistently rejected interfering with local action (be if harming voting rights or somehow burdening religious liberty) during COVID. But, now with packed Court girl, things change.

Major things, including changes of the law (if in a hazy way that they can tinker with later if they wish*), happen via this abbreviated process. It a tad ironic that the order here -- a bare discussion without normal judicial process -- is concerned about due process.  A sound application of due process of law is not unsigned orders interfering with normal practice of appellate litigation except in extraordinary circumstances. 

I keep on drumming the message on Twitter, yelling at the void or not, that this is a packed Court. There was a bit over at Talking Points Memo, voicing the concern/conclusion of many, that the Supreme Court would strike down a new Voting Rights Act, at least in part. It should be underlined here, however, that any voting rights legislation will have multiple parts.  SCOTUS won't toss it all out.  But, part matters.

We need, over and over again, scream how ILLEGITIMATE that is. They might have the raw power, but that is and was never the only test of legitimacy in this country from even before it was one.

Criticism can be made regardless, but an important part of entrusting governmental officials with broad discretion is relying on basic legitimacy of their appointment and practices.  Bush v. Gore and Roe v. Wade are not similarly applied exercises of judicial power, even if (Thomas might give some trouble) both courts were put together basically without taint.

An expansion of power (such as the size of the infrastructure/budget packages of the Democrats) will be opposed by some generally.  

(It should go down a bit better if there is a real effort made to do so in a reasonable or even bipartisan fashion.  I think in recent memory, Democrats actually did that more.  "Both sides" do it is bullshit at some point, moving past some general bland statement of how things work.)

But, when done by dubiously chosen individuals, this (quoting SV again) becomes even more troubling to me:

Updating shadow docket data for #SCOTUS's October 2020 Term in light of yesterday's ruling on the NY moratorium. That's now *34* rulings this Term from which the three D appointees publicly dissented (22 on the shadow docket); and 18 shadow docket rulings changing the status quo.

I am not going to be pleased when this Supreme Court changes the law using normal judicial processes.  But, this conservative supermajority, a result of packing and other bullshit, going a step further, using the "shadow docket" like this or (potentially) interfering with basic voting rights, will be a step beyond.  And, we have to constantly vocally say so.

---

* Rick Hasen on Twitter suggests that Roberts appreciates the shadow docket to the degree he has to deal with a new five person conservative majority to his right since it allows stuff to happen off the main stage.  

We saw the result of this in Fulton, where he wrote a limited opinion that to three conservatives disrespected a major shadow docket case. This is one value of brief orders without much analysis, not always even having five clear votes on every detail.  Orders not signed, to give them one more hint that nothing much is happening. Hints, to be clear, aren't actual law.

Mets "Got This" (Beating the Nats)

The drama from the Mets losing streak was a bit over the top. The Mets basically was a beneficiary of events that made things feel better than they were. "We are in first place, all is okay." Well, they dropped out. And, the Phils and Braves don't quite seem like pathetic second stringers. Release 'they suck!' Mets Twitter.

The Nats were good for what ailed them, even with rain delaying things (suspended game and a double header, all fit in during the original three days scheduled), with a 8-7 win and an Alonso homer making up for a three run lead blown in the 9th. The Braves blew a 9th inning lead versus the Nats recently and could not come back. The Mets even showed a new guy had some value, giving a good spot four plus innings.

The Braves went two of three versus the Reds while the Phils went one of three versus the Dodgers. Really, each team did what they had to do, given the level of opposition. Result? Mets still not in first place, but just barely. They have Dodgers/Giants games, but showed they still have what it takes to make up some ground versus the Marlins/Nats later.

Cuomo Resigns (in 14 Days)

The governor still faces legal threats. Federal investigators are looking at the handling of nursing home data. The state attorney general is looking at state resources used on his pandemic memoir. And local DAs are considering sex harassment charges.

Gov. Cuomo announced his resignation yesterday after a private attorney paid by the New York taxpayers badmouthed the AG report against him. Then, he had an infomerical about his accomplishments and how he's resigning for the good of the state. He still didn't really admit doing anything wrong from what I can tell. Whatever. I'm ready for a non-asshole. NY had LOTS in state-wide office. Basically, a lot of dubious white guys.

I'm ready for Governor Kathy Hochul, who probably will appoint a lieutenant governor, so we won't have a (as acting) black woman in that role unless she appoints one (perhaps from downstate, since she is upstate girl). We probably should still have an impeachment too, to fully investigte Cuomo officially, and have him liable to be blocked from future state office.

Christina Applegate reveals she has multiple sclerosis

Her latest thing is Dead Like Me, one of the many "other" platform shows (I have television, okay?), but Christiana Applegate for me will always largely be Kelly Bundy. She also has an honorable mention for her great (she did win an Emmy) guest appearances as Rachel's sister on Friends. Reese Witherspoon also had a two episode stint, but Applegate was the real pro. Applegate is basically my age (down to weeks). Seems to have a good overall mentality too.

Health issues is not new for her. In 2008, she made the decision to remove both of her breasts in a double mastectomy because she not only got breast cancer but was found to have a gene that would make it very likely to come back even after treatment. And, she publicized her condition to spread the word, even though she had reconstructive surgery (breast implants) that didn't make it apparent without people being told.

She just announced that she has MS. Selma Blair, her co-star along with Cameron Diaz, in The Sweetest Thing has lived with it for some years now (with some physical problems). The other 1980s star that comes to mind, of course, is Family Ties guy. Many have these conditions, but of course, only a few have such wide fan bases with a certain special personal connection. To the degree celebrity does that. So, like so many, I give her best wishes.

Mets Drop Out of Second Place

And Also: The Hallmark Hall of Fame (the sort of thing CBS played on Sunday nights, not the run of the mill romances ... thus, you know, they have sex) film Loving Leah was on recently. Not on my Hallmark, but a relative DVR'ed it. I cited it multiple times on this blog and enjoyed it again. Still love Harris Yulin in a long beard!

===

To update one summary: "In the span of 11 days, the Mets have turned a four-game division lead into a 2.5-game deficit. They've lost nine of 11." Braves went 7-3 (Nats won one game in the 9th) and the Phils went 8-2 (swept Nats/Mets, but 8-0 is still impressive). Hey, Red Sox went 2-8 too!

So, a Mets dive and two teams doing well (they all played comparable teams, so can't handwave the competition too much) adds up to yes third place (by a .5 game).  That's impressive, if not in a totally good way.  One thing you can't do -- and other than certain Junes -- and what the Mets in recent years have tended to avoid are long losing streaks.  Toss in two teams with good streaks, one (Phils) they haven't had in years, well, not good. And, again, yes, you get complacent since you don't expect both.

They didn't win at least one more after my last main entry. They had an opening on Saturday. Blew it. Then, possible Cy Young candidate (with deGrom out so much) Zack "the Phils still seemed to overpay him, given his overall history with the Mets" Wheeler just dominated. Complete game two hitter. Not good, but more forgivable than Saturday.

Walker also did okay -- yes, needed a shut down. He isn't a shutdown guy. You should have a good chance versus the Phils when you only give up three. After a game off, it's the Nats. But, the Nats gave the Phils a run for their money and beat the Braves once. So, you know. Still, we are talking must win series material. Then, pretend it's better than it is, and make some sort of decent show versus the Dodgers and Giants.

“Mets fans, believe in us. And don’t just believe. Know. Because there’s tough times not just in baseball, but in life in general. Know that this is just a speed bump and a challenge. And also smile. You get to watch baseball. I mean, it’s a game. I know we have the most passionate fan base in baseball. I know that. And I understand it’s frustrating. It’s frustrating for us. But we’re all in this together and we got this. Just smile and know that we got this.”

Ah Alonso. Mr. 0 for 20 with a bunch of walks.

Maybe, if you did more at the deadline and are showing life. Even your pitching is a bit overrated with starters repeatedly giving you short outings and Megill showing cracks. The hitting isn't just in a "rut" -- it had problems for quite some time, if not this bad. The manager also asked fans to support the team.  Not quite reading the room guys.  

Why, after all, should we think "you have this?"  You never quite "have" it all season. If the division was tougher -- and the Phils and Braves since the break showed some toughness along with gumption at the deadline while the Nats/Marlins (at least versus the Mets) showed something -- you would have had less than you have now.  Frustrating? Years of frustration.  Even the end of 2015 was frustrating.  2016 was gutsy. And, then nothing. 

Oh you had an (nothing new) second half streak one of those years and people were excited.  I wasn't -- though near the end of the effort it seemed like they actually would do it -- since it seemed too much of a climb.  Anyway, bottom line, justify it with injuries or whatever, the team has flaws. So, there is no proof they "have this."  Fight for it, sure.  But, that's an old story.  

So, no, I won't "believe" in you.  I'm tired.  Ditto the manager's talk of having the fans supporting the team.  The team is being paid millions and not providing good content right now.  What I want the team to say now is that they are struggling and have to get better. That the fans have a reason to expect more and that they will play better.  Don't talk about "having it," when that is far from clear.  Show more life at the very least.

Also, from the NY Daily News article after the game ...

“He was extremely positive, and he said he was extremely proud of how we played and the heart we show every day,” said Alonso on Cohen’s message to the players. “And not just how we handle ourselves individually, but how we handle ourselves as a team.” 

That's charming. See, that isn't how people, including those whose job it is to report on the team, see it.  They are looking hopeless at the plate, yes, but not seeing a lot of "heart" really.  We saw it when the "bench mob" (with help) repeatedly won games for them.  This is some Stepford Wives, shit, seriously.  "Nothing is wrong, really."  Sure.

Then, there is the manager ...

“I will say that fans should be supporting the guys at this point,” Rojas said. “These guys, they come in everyday ready to play, ready to give 100 percent and I think all of them need [the fans’] support. Nothing more than positive support will help the players play at their best, knowing they have the fan base behind them.”

Well, that's nice, but these are Mets fans.  There are a variety of fans, some who will continue to have support regardless. Some will bitch will doing it.  Others, are tired.  They need something in return for the support. Again, maybe -- like even a team like the Blue Jays who is a long shot -- something more at the deadline. More moves.  Baez is day by day at this point, by the way, tweaking something during the latest loss. 

Other than somehow fixing their approach at the plate, it's unclear what exactly to do with the team.  Gut through it?  I read various reporters and there was really no suggestions of what to do.  I guess if nothing is going to be done, you have to have faith or whatever.  Anyway, win versus the Nats.

BTW, I want them to do something.  Will they continue to play listlessly, show some but not enough life versus the Dodgers/Giants, and then fight back some in September but not quite enough ... wait until next year! Rinse/repeat.  

ETA: I'm tired of seeing various comments that "it's not the manager's fault," especially after he was praised for helping them get through adversity earlier.  The manager is not a potted plant.

As the NY Daily News Mets reporter notes, for instance, the team seems "listless."  This is not just some offense issue.  It's partially, partially, a leadership issue. The manager, including the above cited comments, has something to do with that sort of thing.  

The last part of the column suggests, true enough, the Mets are not dead yet, some Mets fans sentiments aside.  But, other than nothing the flawed nature of the competition, the Phils/Braves are not really covered there. 

Space restraints and all that aside, that is a tad bit hand waving. For instance, I saw reference to the Phils dealing with some injuries during their winning streak (if not deGrom level).  They too have possible pieces that might give them a shot in the arm during the stretch.  And, unlike the Mets, the Braves actually won recently.  They have a bit of reason to say "we got this!"

But, if "waking the hell up" is a problem, well a no drama, safe for the management manager (a hold over from the pre-Steve Cohen era) might not totally be what the team needs.  Maybe, a manager with experience on a team that won big recently could have helped? Over some youngster?

Black Friday

Another pretty good, if somewhat ridiculous and bloody, Svengoolie movie.

Two horror movie greats, but one only has a supporting role. A mild mannered professor gets some brain matter from a killer mobster. That manages to corrupt his brain and lead to nearly ten people dead. And, the professor himself isn't even saved in the end. The scientific value of it all is unclear too. Still, paced pretty well and good acting as a whole too.

The doctor has questionable ethics, but great handwriting.

Mets Drop Out of First Place

I was on the bus most of the time, but checked the status of the final Mets/Marlins game from time to time. The Marlins was basically begging them to win the game. Multiple based loaded situations. They even had Mr. Clutch, Brandon Drury, on deck to tie it in the 9th (he got a measly run). 

But, they lost, helped by a "platinum sombrero" from their new Lindor replacement -- who is basically why they were at least not swept in the four game series -- that being five strikeouts.  Baez avoiding a tag and hitting a two run homer late to win it was nice.  The Mets need some hit for average players too.  And, that last game had two Marlins scoring, possible plays at the plate avoided.  Dropped their lead to .5 games.

The Phils, who managed to sweep the Nats but it wasn't easy, came in to decide first place. The Braves meanwhile has also decided to win games, helped by both the Phils and Braves actually making some major changes at the deadline [Mets got Rick Hill, who will give you five good innings, and Baez, who will amaze in the field, but strike out a lot], too. How dare they. Seriously. I like everyone was lulled to sleep by their mediocrity.

The Mets won enough, even with a bunch of injuries, to retain first place for 90 days. But, not any more. Winning enough is at least winning two vs. the Marlins. And, yeah, long winning streaks by your competition will hurt. Their pitching is mostly good, though the bullpen has been overworked, and not perfect (Diaz gave up the clinching two run homer). 

I fear they will falter a bit too.  Stroman going five yesterday didn't help. He pitched a gem against the Reds when they needed it.  Yesterday, they needed a gem too.  He gave them five with two runs.  The other starter gutted it out for six and (unlike Stroman, who was asked not to swing with the bases loaded to leave it to Nimmo ... who GIDP) got his first RBI as a MLB pitcher -- after nine seasons or whatever.  Phils have iffy pen too.

The Mets were not really expected to win this year, but struggles by other teams (including the Nats) gave them an opening.  Flaws and injuries (you have to deal with them, but well, they had a lot) limited the Mets chance to take advantage.  But, they did seem to have a comfortable, if not gigantic lead.  I admit to being complacent myself.  Oh well.

(My complacency was not totally unfounded.  They beat the Yankees and the Brewers.  They did okay against the Reds.  

But, then they went on a slide, including losing a series vs the Pirates, lucky not to lose more than they did.  Even then, that seemed a sign they would win enough.  Ditto the five game series versus the Braves.  

Braves won 3-2, helped by lack of Mets pitching.  But, that didn't seem enough.  Braves had to dominate.  Well, the Braves then did start a winning streak.  Oh well.) 

I have not really enjoyed the season since the competition seemed so mediocre. It was not like the Mets dominated.  They just was somewhat better.  They avoided a collapse in June like they had for at least two recent seasons.  Still, they had problems. And, deGrom needing to be out longer than we thought surely didn't help. Lindor struggling, and now being out (again), didn't either.  

Now, even people you expect to do more like Nimmo and Alonso (who out of the break seemed to be on a home run tear) are struggling.  And, beyond all that, all it would take was two wins (toss in at least one off their pen to feel good) for them to be a game and half in front on Monday with an off day.  Of course, the Dodgers/Giants would be tough even if you were playing better.  You take that as it comes though. 

The long season tends to balance things out.  So, it will be hard for Seattle (who are losing close games now to the Yankees, the other team looking up at the Wild Card) to stick around.  The Red Sox, who surprised, are struggling now.  Who would be shocked if the Yanks sneak in ahead of them and at least get a Wild Card slot over them?  And, either the Braves or Phils had a potential to get hot.

The Mets were playing on borrowed time in that fashion.  Again, in hindsight (or at the time, by some observers) their deadline moves are dubious.  Rick Hill is fine -- they needed to pick up someone to fill a back-end of the rotation slot until one or more guys come back.  Baez is iffy. They needed someone to fill Lindor's slot, and he gives you some pizazz and defense.  

But, the Mets need steady hitters.  And, when Lindor is back, they have McNeil at 2nd base.  I guess Baez can play third over the alternatives though you know Villar might be a better line-up piece.  More steady.  Plus, the Mets could have used more pitcher, including a reliever. They still were throwing out also rans in key situations. Plus, Hill gives you five, Stroman keeps on not being able to go long, and so on. I worry about a pen implosion ala one of the Mets collapses in the 2000s. 

It would have been better for Mets fans if the division was less weak until now, at least in a way that made many (other than the usual whiners on Twitter) fairly comfortable.  Who knows there -- I have not done a poll. But, just me, it was the Mets and also rans.  Not White Sox dominant, but still pretty good, especially when you were told "well, in 3-5 years, we expect winning it all."  

It also challenges you more.  How often did "bench mob" players do key things?  Maybe, more of them need to play, as the regulars put us to sleep. The manager got a lot of praise as they staid in first place with all the injuries. Let's see how he does now.  This "rut" -- to cite one player -- has been going on for a while.  And, you can't guarantee your pen will shut down the competition so much.  Got a bit greedy there too.

It's only early August.  The Phils swept the Nats, who gave up the season, only by outscoring them.  It wasn't easy.  The Braves have issues too. It's why (for now -- it's only 1/2 game) they are in third place.  But, both made some moves at the deadline, and the Braves have "we are a first place team" in their blood by recent experience (2020 aside).  

For now, I don't see either team winning the division by a comfortable margin.  It easily can go down the last week.  It is all "to be continued." For the Mets, they have to take it game by game.  Win at least one of the next two (two games and first place on Monday would be nice, of course) and somehow survive Giants/Dodgers for like thirteen games. 

And, remember they have a lot of games left vs the Nats and Marlins to make some games up.  Of course, they just were beat three games of four by the Marlins.  Baseball is about short memories. It also can be about some mid-season adjustments.  Let's see how that goes.  Will anything major happen there?  Lindor and some starting pitching appeared to give the team some immediate respect.  Since then, less so.

I don't expect anything BIG will happen -- the Phils went as far as putting their closer in the rotation -- but it might be argued that something should happen.  The deadline suggests it will not. They fired a hitting coach more because he didn't have the right mindset for those in management now.  Is the young manager a right fit for the team?  Again, after criticism, some have praised him for keeping the team together through adversity. 

I even saw someone on MetsTwitter (oh boy) suggesting they should DFA someone big. Conforto was one name tossed out.  I don't think that will happen, but I wouldn't be horrified. The guy is struggling. He will then give you a key hit or play, but his season-wide performance in a walk year (ugh -- an expensive long deal to me is a bad move) has been bad. DFA-ing him would be a serious statement to the team.

Or, they can just feel that they can gut it out, hope injured players will come back and ... someone else will get injured?  I come back to the opening expectations.  2015, when the playoffs was also not expected, is a telling contrast -- they struggled in the first half, but did not lead all the way or something. They had to sweep the Nats for that.  And, they got key players at the deadline, including a reliever and off the bench players.  

And, we have a rich owner now, who seems less risk adverse than the old ownership.  Guess that 3-5 year plan is still in place.

ETA: Their wunderkind rookie Megill is starting to show some cracks. Last time, it was an early grand slam. Now, it was four runs in the fifth.  Meanwhile, other than Megill's double, the Mets sleepwalked versus what was basically a Phils bullpen game.  For a while, they had one other hit.  

And, the Mets bullpen did their the usual -- pitched a lot (3.1 after Megill only pitched 4.2; they had no bottom of the 9th) and well (Diaz, not that one, gave up one run).  Up 5-1, the Phils trusted a weak link, who tbf did okay so far.  Who gave up three straight home runs (the three batter rule is in place). Some life!

So, they brought in the closer. Who gave up a hit.  Mixed in with a Nimmo walk (nice that he is back to form), the end result was the same. The Mets lose and won't be in first place on Monday.  Still need to win tomorrow! And, have life earlier in the game.   

... and the Braves blow a 2-0 lead in the 9th to the Nats, so the Mets don't fall to third place.  For the moment.