Love, Classified

I missed this film when it first came on, but caught it mid-way when it was rebroadcast this weekend. I liked it as a whole, characters, pacing, overall story, and so on. And, it doesn't hurt that a major subplot involves a lesbian romance, including kissing mid-way (the traditional Hallmark film often has the kiss at the very end).

I am 2/3 of the way through The Great Stewardess Rebellion: How Women Launched a Workplace Revolution at 30,000 Feet. Good read. I read about flight attendants in the past (including a lesbian pulp type book). This is a good addition to that genre.

SCOTUS Watch: Final Breyer Argument Edition

The final oral arguments of the October 2021 Supreme Court term were complete. Chief Justice Roberts noted the 150th argument of a federal government lawyer (Edward Kneedler). The official audio/transcript of the case was complete. Then, he made another personal statement:

"For 28 years this has been his arena for remarks profound and moving, questions challenging and insightful, and hypotheticals downright silly. This sitting alone has brought us radioactive muskrats and John the Tiger Man." Roberts choked up as he added that "we leave the courtroom with deep appreciation for the privilege of sharing this bench with him."

It was a touching statement and shows that Roberts himself deeply appreciates Justice Breyer's role on the Supreme Court. Breyer is a bit of lifer, starting on the court of appeals back in 1980, and deeply believes in the ability to work together and obtain a good result. His latest "book" was a bit too naive and fatuous about that. But, it is an honest and appealing effort.   We are truly at an end of an era of sorts, for good or bad.

(It would be nice if we had video of this moment.  Since it was not technically part of the oral argument, the Supreme Court audio doesn't even provide it.  Oyez.com uses that feed.  C-SPAN does have Roberts' remarks, and they can be found at the end of the audio here.)

Arthur Lien, a longstanding court artist, is also retiring.  But, there might still be stuff for him to draw this term.  

Death Penalty:  Four executions were scheduled for the last two weeks of April.  One actually occurred.  It still isn't clear what the screw-up was that stopped the execution in Tennessee.  One red flag in executions in recent years is the move to keep many details secret, which is more glaring with problems with lethal injection protocols and suppliers.   

The very dubious Texas execution of a woman whose child died on unclear circumstances was held up in part because her very guilt is unclear. Basically, enough time has passed that the right thing to do is to release her.

South Carolina decided problems with lethal injections warranted making the alternatives electrocutions and firing squads.  Of the two, though bluntly shooting someone is seen as too personal and direct, the latter very well might be the best (so to speak) for the person killed.  But, that is being held up, though it isn't clear why.   South Carolina has another execution scheduled mid-May.

Opinion Day:  The one opinion handed down was by Chief Justice Roberts (6-3, normal split) with Breyer in dissent.  Kavanaugh/Gorsuch concurred to suggest that the better way was to cut off the option in question unless Congress clearly authorizes it.  Breyer added a quote by his old boss (Justice Goldberg) to show the importance of bring such suits.

The matter involves the right to bring a certain type of emotional distress damages action against certain federally funded bodies.  The ability to do so was rejected.  The specific case involved a deaf and legally blind woman who was told by a leading therapy provided that they would not provide an interpreter, who she needed to communicate.  

From what I can tell, the decision extends an older precedent in a way that is arguable but far from compelled.  One other personal bit is that a disability lawyer, whose website notes he has three deaf relatives, argued the case.  Listening, his argument seemed a bit halting, but one of the hosts in Strict Scrutiny Podcast flagged at the time his background as possibly a reason for that.  That is, communicating with the deaf would be a bit different. 

Some did some inside baseball guesswork and suggests the abortion opinion (same argument session) will now be given to another person.  Maybe so.  Or, maybe the case is a special case, and the usual policy of equally apportioning opinions will be handled a bit differently here.  I understand the desire to predict, but I'm ready to wait to June.

The automatic release online of the opinion did not come with a "R" number on the opinion page.  That means another case was coming, but Roberts is the most senior.  So, going by the usual practice (nearly always followed), any opinion would either be by him or per curiam. 

A statutory dispute over a railroad law (with Barrett not taking part) split 4-4.  The 4-4 split means the lower court's judgment in LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad remains standing. The lower court from adopted a narrow definition of the "use" of a locomotive and, in doing so, rejected a claim from an injured railroad worker.  

But, no national rule is established by the judgment, which is basically the point of taking the case. The justices did have fun with a bunch of legal hypos and little engine that could stuff at the argument.  The case also shows how judges can split in various ways, especially in non-ideological cases.  

Prof. Nourse (who should be on the 7th Circuit, to cite an old argument) flagged the split to show how textualism has a lot of play in the joints.  IOW, it is far from some magic judicial restraint solution.  Law is about making judgment calls and drawing lines.  

Finally, it suggests maybe we should have a system -- like other courts and foreign supreme courts often manage -- where a justice by designation can be used.  Kennedy or Souter [O'Connor ill] would be a logical choice, but that isn't the only way to go.  A sorta non-result in a few cases isn't really a big deal, but again, it is common practice to have a judge by designation. 

There was also a typo correction in the Puerto Rico opinion. 

Conference Day:  There will be orders and opinion(s) on Monday.

===

Meanwhile ... "Federal judges and Supreme Court justices must make more timely and accessible disclosures of their financial holdings and potential conflicts of interest under legislation that’s one step closer to becoming law after a voice vote in the House Wednesday."  Baby steps.  

There is continuing pressure to have a binding system of ethics applicable to the Supreme Court. In practice, it would realistically still be voluntary, but there can be ways to flag violations.  And, likely, it would have some effect.  A hearing flagged Thomas, which is simply reasonable given how far he has gone and his long tenure/importance, but not only him.  Republican claims of hypocrisy is understandable, if not credible on the merits.  Anyway, a binding ethics rule should be a non-partisan thing.  

===

We also finally had some clemency and pardons dropped. The best approach would be a comprehensive reform there. 

I Do, I Do, I Do

I re-watched this film via Hallmark On Demand and it was an enjoyable, comfortable experience. I like Autumn Reeser as an actress (she is in many Hallmark films while having some roles when she was younger). She has a light touch and comes off as an average sort even though she has the bone structure and everything of a model. I think the black hair helps.

Autumn was in a range of roles and generally like her films. Her sister (a sort of dirty blonde) is a familiar face too, often in support, but has her own films too. The actress has eventually come out as lesbian and got a chance to play one (if in a small part of the film) in a Hallmark film recently too.

Here, Reeser plays someone whose wedding day happens over and over, until she figures out that the problem is marrying the guy instead of his brother. As is often the case in the films, there is a bit of tragedy mixed in. The reason she plays it safe is because her parents died in a car accident. The film basically makes the mother-in-law to be the heavy, the finance a bit of a dud, but deep down not really a bad guy. 

There are a ton of these films and leading indicators of an enjoying one are  good leads (Reeser dominates, especially given the story, but the others are pretty good -- her father-in-law btw is another familiar face in bit roles), enough story to keep you interested [check], and overall decent writing/pacing/maybe a little twist (such as fantasy here).  

Joe's Constitution argues that animals, or at least certain sentient animals, should be treated as a form of "person" for legal reasons.  

The idea that they should be treated as constitutional actors (well, if corporations can) might be a tad much for many (except for a few people who want to give habeas rights to elephants or the like), but the average person does think certain non-human animals should be treated as more than mere property.  Cruelty to animals laws go back to the beginning of our settlement in America in some fashion.

Treatment of animals as more than property as various legal implications as shown by this interesting article in a local paper (or digital platform):

New York is one of only 13 states that categorize pets that way. The other states consider them as at least sentient beings. That gives pets higher legal status than mere possessions and allows owners an ability to seek compensatory damages if they are mistreated.

It is troubling that harm to companion animals, who humans treasure more than the mere financial worth one might have, are not given more respect. As always, financial line drawing (the article focuses particularly on vets) can be tricky.  But, like state practices that do not treat pets as mere property for divorce settlement purposes (will we have a Solomon sort of solution?), there should be a way to balance things out.

I have a lot of U.S. Supreme Court content on this site, but there are also a lot of state court opinions.  State courts are important for a range of reasons, especially since they can decide on independent state grounds even when the Supreme Court rejects a claim.  They also cover state law issues generally.

Multiple states, red and blue, have done so in regard to partisan gerrymandering.  Since certain people are upset about today's news, I wish to underline that a bit. As NYT noted:

This year alone, state courts in Ohio, North Carolina, Kansas and Maryland have scrapped plans put in place by lawmakers because they ran afoul of state constitutional language outlawing partisan mapmaking, like that adopted by New York voters in 2014. The courts are widely expected to scrutinize new lines in Florida that overwhelmingly favor Republicans[.]

I do not know how much this all breaks down -- the idea Republicans alone benefit at the very least is overblown -- but its complicated. Surely, the best appropriate is to have a national law in place to even the playing field. The problem is that Republicans refuse to support voting reforms and two Democratic senators refuse to make an exception to the filibuster to pass something.  It's a travesty given what is happening nation-wide.

New York, in part to try to help the Democrats to win in November, drew clearly partisan maps.  The question is if it went too far.  Today, New York struck down the new state and federal maps (one state map not covered since the Republicans didn't sue for whatever reason) as an inappropriate partisan gerrymander, given state limits on the practice.  

But, the result was 4-3 (Gov. Hochul's appointee was in the dissent; the two final Cuomo ones joined the majority), so it is likely open to debate. I won't pretend to know what side is right, not being some sort of expert here.  As a raw matter, my sentiment tends to be that most questions that split that closely have arguments for both sides.  So, I'm wary.

So, what does this mean? Some basically have a reaction that it will just help Republicans win in November.  These Eeyores are likely to figure that was going to happen anyway.  The maps basically appear make a difference in a few races.  At any rate, the general vibe that I saw before the ruling was that the maps were obviously partisan gerrymandering.  We have some sort of limit to that though maybe not as strong (see the result here) as other places.  So, the result is not exactly surprising.  

Anyway, now new maps will have to be drawn, with oversight of some sort of special master.  We are likely to have two sets of elections, the recent united primary (end of June) seen as too soon to settle the new maps. This will lead to some confusion and decreased voting turnout. And, more work for poll workers.  

We will see how it all turns out, including what my current state senator will do and what exactly are the lines of the House district she is running for. 

Avanti!

I happened upon this film in the Leonard Maltin review book (started out as a t.v. movie book with below average/average/above average rankings, as I recall), which I still enjoy look at sometimes. With IMDBD and all, he stopped publishing in 2015.

The title means "enter," particularly something you say to agree for someone to enter your room at a hotel. Jack Lemmon plays an uptight businessman whose father died in Italy. Turns out the father had a mistress, who also died in the car accident. Jack's character falls in love with her daughter, who is supposedly chubby, though Juliet Mills surely is not.

The film is charming and is largely a travelogue or rather a sort of advertisement for Italy. It is very laid back, basically a matter of Jack's character to learn to accept Italy. It takes place in the early 1970s. Well acted with many quirky characters.

Order Day

The Supreme Court didn't drop any additional news on Friday, either order or opinion day related. There was some news over the weekend, some climate activist killing himself as a somewhat opaque act of protest in front of the Supreme Court building. Happy Earth Day.

Today's Order List was not too notable, except that two cases were granted. One case involves rules for jurisdiction that might be an important corporate litigation issue. The other will set rules for when you can bring a DNA testing claim.

The Supreme Court has a few notable oral arguments this week, the last of the term (and for Breyer), including today. They also dropped another order, the High Federalists dissenting without comment. As one tweet summary notes: "SCOTUS won't require Virginia public high school to revise admissions criteria for upcoming year after a lower court said new policy discriminated against Asian American applicants." [Here's some detail.]

Mets Update

Some people wanted the Mets to re-sign Michael Conforto, at least for the "qualifying offer" year. He turned down the nice QO, hoping to make the bucks in free agency. He chose unwisely:

The surgery closes the book on what ended up being an underwhelming 2021-22 free agency period for Conforto. He entered the offseason ranked as the No. 19 free agent in MLB.com’s free agent rankings and declined the Mets' $18.4 million qualifying offer in November, setting up what he hoped would be a big payday. That didn’t end up being the case, however, as Conforto’s name was notably absent from both the pre- and post-lockout free-agent spending frenzy.

The problem seems to be an injury he received while training in the offseason. Maybe, he didn't get those offers because it wasn't that secret that something was off. But, if he took that money, he would have kept it, even if the same injury happens.  And, it was already a risk on his part, since his 2021 season wasn't great.

I figured he would get a nice contract some place and that it was not worth it for the Mets to match that.  He gave them a good run and it was time to move on.  As to the QO, well thanks, since they have a pretty good outfield now with Marte, Canha, Nimmo, and company (a speedy Thor looking guy and the not bad not quite outfielders Smith/Squirrel).  

The Mets as a whole are starting well with five straight series with not really a bad loss among them.  Oh, the bullpen faulted a bit and a spot starter who was underused did badly yesterday, but even that one was followed up with a good bullpen effort.  The result are each series were won even with two fill-in starters and maybe this time it will stick.

Oh well. Maybe, it will in the May-July period with a career manager in place.  The one person from last year's crew that stuck around, previous struggling starter for the Mets (Jeremy Hefner), is the pitching coach. He always looks so serious next to Buck.  And, well the pitching is looking pretty good so far.  

We might know how deGrom is after some more tests though we got some bullshit about his last season.  Megill is doing great filling in. Cano, who I still rather not there, started well, but is not doing as good now.  Well, they have him on the books until 2023.  

As to the rule changes, we already had a stupid 10 inning deal, and the Mets won it.  No one seems to like that rule except the players who voted to support it.  I still don't like the DH though I guess it helps the starting pitching.  Not really sure how it helped the offense.  But, I stick to my argument that as whole no DH helps the game to be more interesting. 

So, good start for the Mets, rougher start for their NL East competition, and the Nationals remain pretty bad.  To be cont.

ETA: So many series that I don't watch, including those on cable stations I actually have access to these days.  I saw the first episode of the new show Gaslit (Julia Roberts and Sean Penn -- under a lot of make-up -- play the Mitchells) that provide us a look at Nixon's White House.  First episode was decent enough though the "all these people are unpleasant and/or morons" factor was a tad too high. Will check out Episode 2.  

There is also a new cable series about first ladies and I checked that out.  The bad reviews seem on the money on first viewing.  The idea is that the top talent involved are lost among bad make-up or more importantly dubious writing.  We basically get some snapshots, balancing around so we do not really get into any one story, of various first ladies.  Nah on this one.

RIP (Sorta) Orrin Hatch

Orrin Hatch, someone who was a familiar political figure in the last few decades as a leading Republican has died. Hatch's heyday was basically in the 1980s-2000s, Senator Edward Kennedy's death sort of an end point there. Hatch and Kennedy joined together at times, especially to promote policies helping children.

Hatch was a cultural conservative who wore that on his sleeve. This led him to come off as a bit of an asshole, including when supporting the nomination of Clarence Thomas. But, again as shown by his working with Kennedy, Hatch did seem like someone who was reasonable.  One interesting moment was when he supported a voting member for D.C.* in the House in return for another representative for Utah. Never happened.

He later became an ally of Donald Trump, using his role as chairman of the powerful Senate finance committee to get a major rewrite of the US tax codes to the president’s desk. In return, Trump helped Hatch deliver on a key issue for Republicans in Utah with a contentious move to drastically downsize two national monuments that had been declared by past presidents.

Nonetheless, it is best not to glorify the guy too much, especial for his strong conservative moves against abortion. And, when Trump came to the scene, he was a big supporter.  So, push comes to shove, he did not care about the good of the republic as a whole. Anyone who did would not support Donald Trump.  Then, the difference between "old Republicans" (including Bob Dole, who died in December) and new is limited.

One article noted he "retired" (telling word for an elected official without term limits) in 2019.  He died at 88, so that means Hatch didn't run for re-election in his mid-80s.  Small favors as seen by Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein (not up yet for re-election, but various reports are her mental agility is slipping significantly) and others.  After he left office, I basically heard nothing about him.  He's one of those "he was still alive? huh" sorts. 

Hatch was followed by Mitt Romney, who is not exactly ideal.  But, he at the very least voted twice to convict Donald Trump.  Minimal republican (small "r") values there.  He also was one of three Republicans who voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson.  Net improvement there.

I'm sure Hatch will be honored by his long term colleague President Joe Biden.  And, as a link shows, even someone who thinks him pretty horrible grants he did a little good.  Not much, but that's something for one's time on earth.  

----

[Let's now deal with an extended aside.]

* I did not research the matter in depth so can not convincingly say if this was merely a cynical move on his part, especially since he figured it would fail somehow.  But, this does suggest he supported D.C. having a voting member in Congress.  It was not a one-off.

I personally am wary about giving D.C. a voting member of the House using the current Constitution.  The Constitution seems to say that only states are members of Congress.  As a matter of justice, yes, I think D.C. should have home rule [with some limited federal check involving national concerns, perhaps] and a voting member. I guess the Constitution does not expressly deny this option though it might not hold up in court.  

[Art. I says the House is made up of representatives of "states." The arguments for seem to be general principle, equality, and the Seat of Government Clause.  An explicit reference to the House being made up of states seems rather damning there.  Logically, the Territorial Clause would give the Congress power to bring in voting members for other areas too.]

Two senators for D.C. or statehood (with all that entails) is dubious to me.  Statehood brings with it certain power these days that can be problematic, especially when dealing with an area around the seat of government.  It is bad enough that a few states with less than a million people have two senators and all the powers of a state.  I note that even Indian tribes, who are "nations" in a way, have limited powers. 

The basic reason for doing so is a way to balance the over-represented thinly populated states. I have warily come to accept that sort of "affirmative action" type of argument, especially since it has about the same population as a few states.  Territories other than Puerto Rico do not.  

Sen. Hatch supporting D.C. having a vote in the House without doing so cynically is not really hard to believe. Ultimately, this involved a single vote in the House. I do not know how broad his support for local rule was (gather, e.g., he did not support abortion rights there), but this is a rather limited thing, especially if he got something in return. He might be for Utah, but he also was a U.S. senator, with some national feelings.

Florida Not A Great Place To Get An Education

Book: I stopped by the library the other day and there were a lot of nice looking (visually) books. I borrowed Heart of Atlanta: Five Black Pastors and the Supreme Court Victory for Integration By Ronnie Greene. The book is not a great place to look for the law (e.g., there was no Eleventh Circuit then) of this important case that upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The book is better in getting the people story, especially the various black clergy who protested.  It is written by a journalist and he also puts it into the wider context of things, ending with a reference to Black Lives Matter.  It would be good for a young adult library though fine for adults too.  One thing it has is an extensive discussion of how it obtained its material. 

We also get a lot on Lester Maddox, a dead-ender, who refused to integrate his restaurant (HOA eventually did desegregate). OTOH, he did become governor. Sorta not a bad booby prize.  Maddox was partially angry because blacks actually had voting rights in Atlanta, as shown by them stopping him from being mayor.  

Maddox ruled as a populist sort as governor and made some effort to give blacks government spots.  But, he held his grudges, including his reaction to MLK's funeral.  Maddox, to be clear, did not just want to keep the feds off his business. That's a common line.  He CHOSE to keep blacks out.

===

Slavery, segregation, eugenics, redlining — these are all irrefutable historical facts. Educating young minds about these topics in an age-appropriate and sensitive manner should be acceptable practice to those on both ends of the political spectrum.

[I wrote most of this entry on critical race theory, but a high school teacher in a Bronx school wrote the last portion.] 

This sort of history, include all the messiness involved, should be part of our educations. I continue to educate myself, certain books more education, that that enjoyable as books qua books.  And, education includes children and colleges.  This scares some people.  Fear often leads to attacks, even when the fear is based on chimeras.  

[This violent threat of a dictionary company is but a blatant example. Hate crimes come in various forms. To be clear, like the 2016 election, this stuff will cause real harm.  Real fucking harm.]

The front-line in the war against education -- though others like the new Republican governor of Virginia take part -- is Florida.  There is a mix of factors here.  We have the "don't say gay" mixed with anti-trans stuff, the latter polluting our country at the moment in many states.  

There is some mix of critical race theory phobia and other teaching styles that scare people, leading to certain math textbooks somehow a problem.  The need to stop "bad ideas" includes targeting Disney (who GLBT groups argue were too weak protesters anyway), tenure, and academic freedom.

The laws will potentially go beyond education in some fashion, one "individual liberty" type law seems to applicable to businesses too.  What exactly these laws will do is unclear.  They -- like the abortion ruling coming in June -- will likely require some work for judges.  But, the basic negative reaction from people who aren't assholes is on the money.

The whole thing has shades of ugliness and ignorance, which are often related.  Siblings even, since I'm writing a lot about symbolism lately.  As we need to continue to fight, it is all so depressing.  And sad.  Florida is the third most populated state.  Texas has its own ugliness, and it is the second most.  

We have so much further to go. 

April Executions Begin

Four executions were scheduled for the last two weeks of April, two for Texas, and one for Tennessee and South Carolina.

First, the liberals (per Sotomayor) dissented in a cert. denial on Monday, arguing there was a racist juror that tainted things.  And, remember that religious liberty case recently decided about the right of the damned to be touched and have spoken prayer in the execution chamber?  

The Texas prosecutor had a change of heart and not only thinks executing him is "unethical" but broadly opposes seeking the death penalty in future cases.  This might surprise, but even in Texas, executions have been sparse in recent years.  Plus, when they do occur, only certain counties are much more likely to be involved.  

[There have been four executions this year so far.  Two in Oklahoma, one each in Alabama and now Texas.]

Back to the April executions.  Each has problems in their own ways. It is unclear how the ones scheduled next week will go. And, Tennessee started things on the wrong foot today as well, one article speaking of some "oversight" in the lethal injection process delaying things. SMH.

The two executions scheduled today both involved old white guys on death row for decades.  Justice Breyer repeated his early statement in the Texas case that he finds executing people on death row for decades, especially when they are in effect in solitary during much of the time, particularly problematic.  Texas executed him, or given his age and health problems, should I frame it as a sort of forced euthanasia? 

The Tennessee case had that problem too, but the last minute appeal rested on an innocence claim.  The lower court said it was weak.  The justices rejected the whole thing without comment.   I continue to find that -- especially when no liberal even provides a statement -- dubious.   

Maybe, the guy's case is really weak.  That can be noted, explaining to people why someone with a claim of innocence is being rejected by the Supreme Court.  Sometimes, as Breyer noted the first time in the Texas case, there is a problem procedurally in taking these cases.  The Supreme Court is not merely there for error correction.  But, that too can be clarified, especially the few times the taking of a human life by the state is involved.

At the end of the day, Tennessee postponed their execution.  The possible firing squad execution is in limbo at the moment.  And, the screwed up Texas proposed execution of a woman is to be determined.  How about we just stop the whole thing? 

Opinion Day

The Supreme Court cleaned some pending matters today with a busy opinion day. Five opinions, one each for the five with the least seniority (Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Kagan, and Sotomayor).

That is one unlikely majority, especially with Breyer more senior along with the Chief Justice, Thomas, and Alito. Sotomayor has it a bit easier with Breyer replaced with a junior liberal. Still unlikely as would be the in theory possible Kagan-Jackson majority. The best bet is to find something the high Federalists would dissent for and Roberts is recused. Kagan is harder. 

(The release -- again automatically since they don't show up for opinion announcements these days, denying us a chance for opinion announcement audio at Oyez.com -- came least seniority to most.  I won't do it in that order.) 

There were two unanimous opinions.  Barrett had a procedural opinion that gave a limited win (allowing the person a chance to fight on) regarding a tax case. Happy Tax Week.  Maybe, the IRS will finally clear up my issue.  (I asked AOC's office for help.  I thought they forgot about me but then got a call that they need a privacy waiver.  That day I receive another letter from the IRS saying they found another reason to delay things.)  

==

Kagan also had a procedural opinion that helped the person who brought the appeal, but only so much.  Providing some of her skillful prose ["The path of our decision has been as short as the hunt for Rue Saint-Honoré was long; our ruling is as simple as the conflict over its rightful owner has been vexed."], and attaching a couple pictures of the art, she explained why California law should be applied in an attempt to get back some Nazi seized art that wound up in Spain.  To be continued. 

(SCOTUSBlog has analysis to explain the nuances a bit more and  it sounds like the family of the original owners still have a stiff hill to climb.)

==

Kagan's pen, quite sharp, was in dissent in a Gorsuch case involving habeas.  I do not claim to have the expertise to parse such things, but Steve Vladeck and Leah Litman are usually reliable. So, if Mr. Shadow Docket thinks Kagan (for the liberals) is right for sneer at Gorsuch's "law office history" etc., her passion not for this case particularly, but the likelihood of what it will bode for the future, I'm inclined to agree. 

[Prof. Litman also panned Breyer's latest "book" (if noting her liking the man) in a well received article.]

===

Sotomayor had the opinion (Alito thought the the majority went somewhat too far; Thomas for Gorsuch & Barrett dissented) in case involving regulating signs.  The ordinance was upheld and as Breyer noted in a fairly convincing (to me) concurrence, part of the problem here is that the Roberts Court has become too one note regarding free speech cases, even when regulating commercial matters of this type.  

==

The most notable opinion involved Puerto Rico.  

Kavanaugh had the opinion upholding a federal policy where someone might be denied SSI benefits if they live in Puerto Rico. Ian Millhiser wrote last year (this case was argued fairly early, making one wonder about the drafting) that this was a tragic case.  His write-up today does as well.  

The tragedy is that justice is on the side of the litigant, but the result might be open season to second guess financial policy that can lead to unfortunate results.  For instance, my governor was upset the Supreme Court didn't take a case where blue states alleged a certain tax policy was discriminatory to blue states.  But, what constitutional rule protects states like that?

This suggests why this opinion was 8-1 though the opinion itself was a thin six pages.  It is basically a case of wanting to get rid of the thing.  Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence finding a new constitutional toy -- he argues that federal equal protection should not be a 5A due process matter, but rest of the 14A Citizenship Clause.  Thomas does, unlike in his same sex marriage dissent (where he had a long passage sneering at it), recognize equal citizenship has a "dignity" component.

At least, he "tentatively" talks about this. Now, on some level, a broad reading of the Citizenship Clause is not a bad idea (various liberals suggest it), but using (as noted in Legal Twitter) his usual selective history, abhorrence at applying equal protection to benefits, and so forth, the whole result is something of a mess when he does it.  Plus, history and precedent does back an equality aspect to due process of law too.

Gorsuch, in one of his "when the asshole is right, he's right" opinions, concurs to argue the Insular Cases should go.  These were a series of cases from the turn of the 20th Century until around 1920 that held the territories obtained after the Spanish American War can be treated differently than others.  He notes (as does Sotomayor) that it was not requested, so he would not dissent on that ground.  

(A few noted that since Gorsuch's concurrence summarized our racist history, that it might not be able to be taught some places who have problems with critical race theory.  Perhaps, such laws are vague enough to have loopholes for this sort of thing.)  

Anyway, it isn't clear (thought the majority avoided the point), if that alone would do the trick. During oral argument, the federal government argued that it was reasonable to treat states differently for purposes of tax policy if it was rational to do so. And, that is fair, but Sotomayor argues in her dissent (agreeing on the Insular Cases) that it is not shown here.  

The advocate for the claimant here (and it seems if he was granted a waiver, the whole matter could have been avoided) made some open-ended arguments during the oral argument.  He suggested the Guarantee Clause and so forth warranted treating the Territory Clause as not a fully open-ended congressional power.  The assumption was that at some point a territory would become a state or be treated on some sort of equal footing.  

It was a rather broad argument though could be a method of constitutional avoidance mixed in with an argument that Puerto Rico is special too in that it is more powerless (no representation in Congress except for a non-voting delegate).  But, Sotomayor argued even rational basis failed.  

I think the case was hard (see Ian Millhiser again), but would look at the regulation with a questioning eye all things considered. Thus, to use the jargon, at least apply rational basis with teeth.  And, policy-wise, change the rule.  Administratively, give the guy a waiver.  Avoid hard cases when possible.  

It seems like it was possible here.  

===

There was also a separate press release announcing an upcoming celebration of Justice John Paul Stevens (who would have been 102 on 4/20) on May 2nd.  Stevens regularly posted speeches on the Supreme Court speech page.  Perhaps, in honor of his open government approach, the release notes the event (which will involve Garland, Stevens' granddaughter, and other notables) will be streamed via the website.  

ETA: I also see a few more online links have been added.

Lessons in Chemistry

I have trouble finding fiction that I enjoy so Lessons in Chemistry is a particularly notable gem. One blurb compares it to The Queen's Gambit, which does have some similarities, including a smart, independent woman who survives hard times. The book also has an unpleasant children's home, if for the boy who grows up to be the love of her life.

The book takes place around 1960 and involves a woman chemist, who ultimately has a t.v. cooking show. She uses the show to teach chemistry and life lessons. The book also has various great characters, some whimsy (especially involving a dog), and a good amount of tragedy. In the end, however, the character has her happy ending.

I saw it in the library and thought it looked interesting. It was very good and was a quick reading 400 pages. The book is being made into a series for some platform. If done right, should be popular. First book for the author and hope she writes another in a few years.

Order Day

The Supreme Court released an order list on Monday that was mostly mundane. The one exception was a dissent from cert by Justice Sotomayor in a death penalty case. I'll wait on that since two executions are scheduled later this week. Mark Joseph Stern (of Slate, sometimes a tad over the top voice) summarized one order on Twitter:

The Supreme Court vacates a lower court decision that had blocked the Trump administration from approving work requirements as a condition of Medicaid coverage. The Biden administration revoked approval, so SCOTUS says the case is moot.

Later on, a separate order (with the three High Federalists dissenting) on the "emergency docket" (shadow docket) -- again thanks to Amy Howe for adding details -- rejected another attempt to put on hold a military vaccine requirement. One thing flagged by Mark and others is that the claims in part make political opposition to the mandate into a religious claim:

I find it difficult to see how a fundamentally partisan hostility toward the COVID vaccine can form the basis of a valid religious objection. But Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are the philosopher kings, not me. https://t.co/owrTHhPLOP pic.twitter.com/nn5fggMuMc

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 18, 2022

The politically motivated or at least timed nature of the "religious" claim is notable if we still actually care about "sincere" being a check on religious liberty. A law professor once flagged it is. Uh huh. In practice, it has little teeth, mostly applied somewhat ad hoc in patently dubious claims. 

Maybe, this is one such claim, though the district judge (religiously?) seems not to think so. But, I think that is likely a limited guide, especially in these times.  You take what you are offered, but me personally, I think compelling state interest and public interest (such as public accommodations and here the military) should be major factors.  

==

Religious faith alone is being used to broadly and the net result are arbitrary lines (see the Hyde Amendment).  This sort of blows into  Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law, which is discussed as part of a symposium on the blog he sometimes post on without (even when the blog had them) allowing comments.   

Most of the book is familiar stuff about how conservative judges operate, including how originalism is a conservative "shibboleth" (one of those fancy words ... turns out the idea is that two ancient tribes were fighting and they said that word differently ... so it's a sort of code word to see who your friends are) and so on.  

The book also seemed almost too optimistic about the limits of judicial power (this was before RBG died but it surely was a possibility to have 6-3 Court, which would change the dynamic).  It did seem to assume abortion rights were on the way out -- even with a 5-4 Court -- though you know, it wasn't seen as HORRIBLE that it would happen.  Guess there is a certain matter of fact about that, but you know, would a woman be so blase?

Still, overall, the first part is useful, if somewhat boring ... since I'm familiar with the whole thing.  The last two chapters were more interesting since they provided some possibilities for progressives in the future.  A basic approach being a sort of popular constitutionalism where the people overall say what the Constitution means.  If "health care is a right," well maybe it darn well should be.  Federal courts aren't god.

The book didn't really cover the next step -- what would happen if courts challenged this?  It suggested that local governments might accept it, which would make it "law" in practice.  The book also suggested some sort of popular constitutional convention.  This would at least put pressure actual governments.  

I saw a discussion on C-SPAN of A Constitution for the Living, regarding a thought experiment of actual conventions happening every twenty years or something (taking Jefferson's idea  of constitutions being for the living and running with it).  Sounds interesting though the library doesn't seem to have it.  Like the idea of fixing the Senate without amendment, this all is a thought experiment, but so was overturning Roe/Casey not that long ago.

===

There are a few arguments (they seem like technical issues, but surely, none of these cases have no effect ... well most of them, at least) this week. There is also an opinion day on Thursday.  We will see how that goes as does two scheduled executions. 

Easter TV & Egg Rolls

Faith, Hope & Love was a nice movie on Up TV last night. A few familiar faces popped up in small roles, including (hard to catch until he has a moment later in the film) Michael Richards (from Seinfeld) and Ed Asner (in one of his last films; he pops up in a lot of Hallmark type films as grumpy old men). The movie was from a few years ago, but Richards is 72 (!) today. Doing the math, that works, but it is less blatant for the others who are younger.

The co-star does a good job in her first acting role, known particularly (fittingly given the plot) from her role on a dance program.  The guy behind the film plays a widow who is dealing with losing his wife in a car crash a few years ago.  The actor is a bit rough here and has had mostly small roles back to the 1980s.  

The film overall has Christian overtones, but they aren't overdone.  It is mixed with standard romance t.v. movie vibes, though the woman being a divorcee is a bit irregular in these films.  The film is basically a case study on how to do a film like this.  It has some rough edges, but good pacing overall, and I like the cast as a whole.  Nice to see some familiar faces too.

It shows the widow as someone with strong Christian faith, the woman open to it, but not in a heavy-handed way.  The older daughter being trusted to stay out late for her prom and coming home early when the party got too wild (showing his trust was warranted) is a nice touch of the family dynamics.  

The title is a sort of Bible pun (the Bible loves puns, many biblical names actually puns), since it is not only a familiar Pauline reference, but a mash-up of the name of two of the characters with a toss in.  The name drop comes late in the movie in an amusing way.  

===

The Big V has made White House Easter Egg Rolls not a thing the last two years.  A sign of (modified) normalcy is having one this year, reportedly with 30K people (seems a lot) expected.  Of course, there is a theme:

The White House announced today the full program of activities for the 2022 White House Easter Egg Roll, a tradition dating back to 1878.  A teacher for more than 30 years, First Lady Jill Biden created this year’s event theme, “EGGucation!,” with the South Lawn to be transformed into a school community, full of fun educational activities for children to enjoy. 

1878?  Yup, a lot of history there.  I guess as a vegetarian leaning vegan, I am not a big fan of a egg hunt (or roll) with real eggs.  But, they do not here for practical reasons.  Which is good.  Things seem to have gone okay with people allowed to take part in groups.  Wooden eggs were used:

This year’s eggs featured the White House pets and the signatures of the president and the first lady. Each child received a commemorative wooden egg to take home.

Impressive.  

Under the Starry Flag / NY State Politics

I was basically 3/3 in my book selection when I went to the new mid-Manhattan library, Under the Starry Flag: How a Band of Irish Americans Joined the Fenian Revolt and Sparked a crisis over Citizenship providing an interesting and down to earth account. 

History, including constitutional history, is filled with details. An important issue, which is still debated in various respects, is the matter of citizenship. A basic debate there was over race, blacks in particular not seen as fit to be citizens.  But, there was a wider concern there, including the matter of immigrants.  The "Know-Nothing" Party in the 1850s shows this.

This book touches upon that issue while addressing a lot lesser known conflict.  Fenians, Irish nationalists, got mixed here.  The center of the action involves a naturalized Irish immigrant, John Warren.  Along with others, including natural born American citizens, he planned to join an Irish rebellion shortly after the American Civil War.  

It didn't go well though the aftermath included an extended battle on citizenship, including the right to renounce your citizenship and become a citizen of a new country.   This was seen in the times of the Declaration of Independence as a natural right.  But, it was actually quite controversial, with other nations (and some in the U.S. too) rejecting the very idea.  

If you were born a citizen (or more so, a subject) of the United Kingdom, darn if you remained one.  This was a major problem in the days before the War of 1812, causing problems when the British "impressed" people the U.S. deemed American citizens.  And, even if the concept should be accepted, there was a debate over how long it should take. 

There are a lot of issues here as well as the overall central event of a failed invasion, the legal and diplomatic wranglings afterward, and so on.  The book, which includes some good photos, covers this overall well.  It also does so in a little over two hundred pages, which is about how long I like books these days, since I read so much online as well. 

===

Talking politics, after mostly thinking the now not so new New York governor is low drama vis-a-vis Cuomo, Gov. Hochul now has an issue.  I don't think it is enough for me not to vote for her in the primary -- overall, I still am glad she is there, and my relief is balanced over my general support for a more liberal platform.  

OTOH, maybe my usual move to vote left in the primary should hold here.  I don't think she is really at risk in the general and the extra push that might be warranted there is not really present.  This thing along with various odds and ends, including involving funding a stadium for the Bills, probably warrants a message vote.

The lieutenant governor, a black pol who she chose largely to get some downstate support [her strength and origins is upstate] was indicted for campaign violations.  He resigned, but as of now, he is still on the ballot.  

There are a few creative ways to deal with that [e.g., his bail conditions might make it impossible for him to be in Albany, but he can stay out of state with family ... that might make him illegible].  One apparently clean way is just to pass a law to do so.  This is in a vacuum a decent idea in this scenario -- why should someone who drops out for legal reasons and is a sort of "dead" candidate, not have this option?  

But, yeah, Republicans are calling foul.  Heck with them.  They had their issues with campaign violators and the like.  This can help them in the future too.  Meanwhile, Ana Maria Archilla seems to be the logical choice for me to choose in the primary, various liberal voices I support or respect generally, pointing her way.  

Supreme Court Watch

The April arguments, the last set of the term, will continue the Big V policy of limited court presence and live audio.

The Supreme Court also submitted to Congress proposals for court procedure, which Congress can accept, deny, or (likely) edit in some fashion. This includes: Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Criminal Procedure.  Technical stuff, except if the procedures matter to the lawyers involved.

The weekend religious holidays pushed the conference back to Thursday (4/14) with a order dropped providing various bookkeeping type orders for upcoming cases.  There will be an Opinion Day next Thursday, orders on Monday, and two weeks of oral arguments (finishing up the term).

For whatever reason, I came across the "Powell memo," the in some quarters infamous marching orders by Lewis Powell (then not a justice) to big business to control messaging. On some level, there is nothing too corrupt or anything about it; it really is a lesson to any group on how to frame one's argument. Of course, one can dispute the message here.

But, it is a lesson that humans make arguments, and they frame their messages. We should keep this in mind and ensure this is done in an aboveboard way, and not let certain groups dominate the discussion. How to do that is the rub. 

[I originally had this as part of the last entry.  I split the two, adding content to both entries.  Perhaps, we won't have anything new until Monday.]

Adultery: Infidelity and the Law

I recently finally went to the new Mid-Manhattan, which has a different name now, which re-opened last year after being renovated. It looks nice and there is for now no guards to check your bags on the way out. There are guards at the research library across the street.

A smallish book is by Deborah Rhode, who turns out to have been a long term legal ethics expert, who also died last year. This obit has various interesting and at times amusing information about her long and much respected career. One part of her deep life is a skill at amateur photography, including taking pictures of Thurgood Marshall, who she law clerked for. 

Prof. Rhode argued that adultery should not be illegal or generally (except in special circumstances, such as interfering with chain of command in the military) be used for negative results.  The book is not comprehensive (and some Muslims might argue she provides a too narrow view of Shariah law), but does its job pretty well.  

She also includes an argument regarding accepting polygamy, but not recognizing it legally. Showing her reasonable approach, Rhode recognizes that polygamy in action will involve some troubling issues (such as underage "marriages" in some cases), which would have to be addressed.  But, as with other possible concerns, criminality across the board is not the best way to address such things.  A good pragmatic approach.

Ultimately, Rhode notes she personally tells people she opposes adultery. As a whole, the book suggests people still think of adultery as a bad thing, if perhaps likely to exist in some form.  The numbers there seem a bit extreme, especially given how often adultery actually occurs. 

I think ultimately it might not be necessarily always a bad thing (putting aside what amounts to agreed upon behavior, including open marriages, which is sort of separate), especially with special circumstances.  If a person, e.g., has an elderly spouse unable to provide certain sexual outlets, is it really horrible to have an affair?  [Entry expanded.]

But, morality and the law often should be separate. 

Though None Go With Me [and other weekend viewing]

There were various religiously themed movies on Up TV on Palm Sunday including the Mel Gibson Christianity porn film. This one was originally a Hallmark Channel movie.  It is basically an example of how you can have a faith based film that wider audiences can enjoy.  

As usual, "faith based" tends to mean "at least somewhat conservatively Christian/evangelical," but it can also have a more general Christian flavor to it. There are also liberal versions, where the film promotes some sort of message that includes faith and love in some fashion, including faith in basic ideas.  

Amy Grabow (who has by now been in many things, this film from 2006) plays Elizabeth, a young woman in a 1950s small town.  The setting is underlined by the Korean War (which comes into the plot) and various films that is playing at the local movie theater.   

Her mom has died and it seems at some point she got some teaching training.  Her dad is the local doctor.  She falls in love with the new minister though a childhood friend pines for her.  Elizabeth also rocks the red lipstick.  The friend eventually marries her, after taking her in when her father dies (in debt) while the minister is over in Korea.  His death was mistakenly reported, but she was married by the time she found out.

An older Elizabeth (Cheryl Ladd in dubious makeup) is telling this story to her granddaughter (given her luck, yes, her one son and his wife dies when the granddaughter is a baby) before she is going on the road with some dubious band person.  The film is largely about young Elizabeth, but then we skip to see the car crash and Elizabeth dealing with her husband having Alzheimer's.  He eventually dies.  At a celebration of her fifty years helping the church and town, hey, the minister is back. 

The granddaughter eventually comes home, being on the road to California enough to convince her small time life isn't that bad yet.  The title is based on a hymn and the film is based on a book.  The author of the book is something to be desired.  But, focusing on this film, it is pretty good.  This is so even if you do not buy all of the faith stuff. 

The framing pieces are okay as with older Elizabeth (a briefer part of the film), but the best part of the film is with the young Elizabeth, the lead actress key here.  

A Royal Runaway Romance was on over the weekend, one of the first of the new spring love movies.  It was basically a travelogue, a princess falling in love with her bodyguard on the way to a court artist who she thought would be "the one."  I was not paying full attention, but as a whole, it was a pleasant watch.  It probably was best on the road.

(The road trip ended with around 15 minutes left in film, so the usual complication part of the film didn't worry us too long.)  

These royalty themed Hallmark films tend to be about male royals, often at first not known to be royals to the women involved. A few films did involve women (the ones I know are about princesses), generally sticking with the "don't know" part.  This one was not only open (bodyguard) but the princess was eventually going to take over from the queen.  

One film -- the third in a series really -- involved a somewhat bratty prince (open) but the couple eventually had a daughter.  A plot point in the third film (which overall was about the American doctor having the baby) was the rule that only males became heirs to the throne.  

She did some research and that wasn't the literal requirement.  The somewhat traditional based monarch (Mr. Sheffield from The Nanny, who has multiple European royals roles these days) eventually went along.  It was a nice touch.  I saw the first and third film; both were pleasant trifles.

===

Nick had an award show on Saturday night as well and Miranda Cosgrove (on two Nick shows) co-hosted.  Nick (as it did with the first episode) offered a regular viewing option to see the season two premiere of the iCarly reboot. Like the first episode, it just felt off, including how Freddy and Carly even look. 

Spencer looks fairly normal (just older, especially since the actor himself is notably older than his character), but didn't really act as his character would have here.  Lewbert (now looking normal and with a law degree) comes back to sue Carly for damages (yeah -- she was a teen back then ... not realistic) and her brother (he had three days of law school and hated it) offers himself as her lawyer.  

He wouldn't do something so stupid (especially given the stakes) on the old show.  Even worse, the whole thing comes off as forced and not funny.  I guess it is popular enough for the platform it is on, being the second season and all.  Still, like various other shows, such as Murphy Brown, the return is dubious. 

Joe's Eclectic Thoughts: Weekend Edition

Book: I saw the author of Smashing Statues: The Rise and Fall of America’s Public Monuments interviewed on C-SPAN, being interested enough to check out the book. (I checked it out of the library.) I read the Sandy Levinson book cited in this capsule review, including an update. I also read another book, talking about Confederate monuments. All three are somewhat of a piece, focused on what one might call "bad monuments."

All three are worthwhile (yeah, the other one slips my mind at the moment) in their own ways. The book here is a bit misleadingly named. The book is largely about Confederate monuments with a bit about others such as the knocking down George III's monument.  But, even in that respect, it isn't really comprehensively about bad ones.  The main focus in about Confederate monuments though there is (to be fair) a chapter on Christopher Columbus.  

[On that subject, there was traditionally not too far from me -- if I went to public high school, I was zoned for it -- a school called Christopher Columbus High School.  We also traditionally had a Christopher Columbus parade down the main block near me.  The school broke into smaller schools.  COVID made the parade not a thing recently.]

I would have liked a more complete book about monuments (celebrations) and memorials (mourning something).  Why not a chapter on some "good" monument, or at least one that has so far met the test of time, such as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial?  Or, something like the Statue of Liberty?  If the book is meant to be about those that are "smashed," even so -- this sort of thing will provide a comparison.  

Still, the chapters on various memorials -- to be fair there are ones on matters other than the Confederate monuments -- and monuments are pretty interesting. One thing of note is her argument that Confederate monuments partially was a way to stop rising labor unrest, especially when it was biracial in nature.  Bits like that adds new details.

===

Let's Play Ball! Injury to an ace and another try manager-wise? Check! Still, we have some reason to hope this year is a bit different, with a career manager in place, a stud ace signing, and some good additions. I think two time cheater Cano should have been gone, but early on at least (it is the Nats, the predicted NL East whipping boy) he seems to be a promising addition too, especially with the DH (boo) giving him more playing time.

The first two games of a four game series versus the Nationals already had some drama.  We had deGrom out, so Megill started (well), and then Apple TV (not too well apparently) had the second game.  And, as if that and Scherzer (vs his old team) was not enough, yet another hit by pitch had some drama (we got a bit of video on Twitter for those who wasn't watching).  

The game was delayed twice -- lighting issues and at the end (which could have been avoided perhaps without the first delay) some rain.  Mets 2-0, top of the NL East.  So it begins.  Nice to see GKR back and I listened some on the radio, which has its charms.   And, Howie Rose (cutting back apparently this season after a health scare) is getting pretty good at Twitter, giving the daughter involved in the biz a run for her money.

===

Academy Awards: I didn't watch, there was some drama -- as noted -- when Will Smith (who from what I can tell is not a "bad boy" type, but I don't pay much attention) hit Chris Rock for making a joke about her lack of hair (a result of a medical condition).  At the time, the Oscars let him stay, and Smith then came on the stage after winning an award.

That was not ideal.  But, if a tad late, the Oscars has penalized him by banning him from the awards for ten years.  Will Smith himself resigned from the academy, basically meaning he doesn't get a vote.  He can be voted for, since that is a separate matter.  That might confuse a bit, but it makes sense (mostly).  He did not somehow corrupt the acting process or something (such as if a director was caught abusing a cast member).  

I think the thing to do was address the matter in the moment. This is not totally bad though.  For one thing, the tradition is for the Best Actor winner to be a presenter the next year.  So, this sort of thing matters in a message way in that direct fashion.  (It matters more there to the degree his absence is specifically notable.)  

And, often -- though it is unfortunate -- it is hard to do things "in the moment."  Ideally, Will Smith should have left, though just what happened there is subject to conflicting reports in the coverage I saw.  Some talk of him being "asked" to leave, but not too strongly; maybe not?  Unfortunate there was not some more lag time, perhaps before him winning. 

Is ten years the right length?  Maybe a bit much, but you cannot handwave physical violence against presenters.  These things sometimes will include presenters or categories for things that might in some fashion will invite the unhinged to do something.  Plus, violence in general should be strongly rejected.  

And, we are not talking prison time here or something. 

===

Border Issues: One thing a repeat ask at Jen Psaki's daily White House press conferences (saw news she is leaving soon, but after a few questions -- which she waived off -- about talks with MSNBC, saw/heard nothing ... though she seems to be highlighting support staff more lately as if in preparation) is Title 42.  A bit of immigrant/COVID inside baseball.

I have not gone into the weeds too much here, but have seen some criticism of the Administration continuing a Trump policy here.  The idea is that there is a health need -- COVID (Big V) -- to be more strict regarding migrants wishing to come in, resulting in over a million (some duplicates, but it is still a big number) being blocked. Better be necessary, right?

The link provides some helpful analysis.  Jen Psaki basically had a mantra that it was a health measure.  But, the article argues that the actual health officials at the CDC never really thought it was necessary.  So, there is some idea that was a makeweight argument.  Now, there are plans to end it, and (shocker here) Republicans (and some others) are worried.

Republicans, of course, are regularly against any number of COVID restrictions.  When it is a border matter, largely involving Latin Americans, suddenly they change their tune.  Repeatedly, health experts are wary about the laissez faire policies of the Republicans in this area.  HERE, we have actual evidence (a recent court case reaffirmed this, though upholding the policy as a matter of law, excepting those at risk of torture or the like) from experts the policy is unnecessary.  

The reactions underline why the Biden Administration is loathe to have a more liberal immigration policy, even to the degree that in various respects would be a good thing.  JUST how much criticism they warrant is far from clear to me, but that sort of real politics reality also should be factored in. 

===

Blogger Issue: Twice now, for some reason, Blogger has blocked my  posts.  One, regarding the bike death of a media critics, was shortly thereafter found to be okay.  I didn't closely read the email to see what the alleged issue was.

Another, an earlier version of my latest SCOTUS post was allowed too, after a somewhat longer review.  The first time for some reason "spam" was the problem.  I then posted a short post summarizing it, with "Blogger" in the title and a link to the content policy. THAT was blocked!  

I reposted a new version, taking out a couple embedded tweets and some other formatting.  THAT was allowed.  A recent short Judge Jackson post had an embedded tweet.  I have been doing this since 2003 without one case of having something blocked, including linking to porn.  

I'm unsure why there is an issue here, but it's annoying, in part since there does not seem to be a way for me to simply ask Blogger what the issue here.  There is a "help" page with FAQ material and an option to post questions.  If I'm blocked, I rather have a chance to ask directly.

Supreme Court Watch

Graham and Inhofe voted from the cloakroom on Jackson nomination. They poked their heads out and voted thumbs down. They were not dressed in proper attire for Senate floor, which means wearing ties.

When Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation vote occurred yesterday, it was done by voice vote, each senator voting aloud. This was a pretty cool moment as we heard each senator, in varying tones. Sen. Sinema, who we haven't heard much about recently, was notably enthusiastic.

It seemed like Sen. Rand Paul did not vote.  And, yes, he was the one who made people wait for a while (apparently about fifteen minutes):

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) remained noticeably absent. Once Paul surfaced after roughly 15 minutes, he cast his vote from the cloakroom, as well.

Senators were told ahead of time to be at their seats for this historical vote. So, it was bad enough for Paul to make everyone wait.  He could have, of course, not vote.  Recently, for a lower level position, some Democrat for whatever reason made the Senate wait much longer and in that case it was a 50-50 result.  Not sure the issue there, though that was not great. 

The worse thing, and this is for all three, is that the reason they didn't do so was some tie thing.  Sen. Graham had a tie another time that day. And, of course, if we want to be all "born yesterday" here, someone could have lent them a tie.  For the purpose of making a historical vote, someone could have given Paul a jacket, if necessary.  

The whole thing is a total asshole move on all there of their parts, and people have every right to assume it was intentional.  Sen. Lindsey Graham surely has it in him to be petty.  As to one comment that it is "white," well, the others (minus one) Republican are white.  They managed to vote on the floor.  Some of them are a tad racist.  So, no, it seems more of an asshole move.

There was ceremony with the President and Vice President outside the White House in honor of the confirmation with Justice-Elect Jackson herself giving some remarks.  Powerful moment that I bet the usual suspects would say reaffirms her "critical race theory" vibes.  Everyone can be a bit more blunt now.

There have been some controversy regarding the involvement of the White House in judicial confirmation ceremonies.  I want to draw some lines here. This sort of event is separate from the official swearing in (there are two oaths there) of Supreme Court justices.  That is the official start of their tenure.  It is sensible to not have that at the White House, which is how the last member of the Court handled things.

One more thing that I saw was that Judge Jackson will continue to recuse on the Court of Appeals, pending her final swearing in to the Supreme Court.  She will remain on the court, though I do not know what she will do there.  One useful thing there is that she would get paid. 

 

ETA: Of course, there is more material about "Justice-designate" (or "Justice-Elect")  Ketanji Brown Jackson.  

We have an op-ed about her first name (which in an "African" -- whatever that means -- language basically means "lovely" & so far, including her voice, humor, and more, it fits well).  

There is also a first official photo, which is nice, though the background is a bit weird. The photographer is a young black woman artist from the Bronx (does Sotomayor know her?).  As someone noted on Twitter, it is important (when possible) to give credit when credit is due for official photos. 

Another young black woman photographer (I sense a theme) was behind an iconic photo of her husband (and daughter) looking on with emotion and joy.   One profile page notes: "Most recently, SB received a grant from the Pulitzer Center to continue documenting a story about pregnancy and housing inequality during the coronavirus pandemic."

There is also support for her use of "methodology" to interpret as compared to some fixed single interpretative approach (textualism etc.).  As noted at an ACS page, this is both with precedent and a more appropriate/honest way of doing things.  I am not sure if her answer was complete enough -- it probably will do along with other things -- but some "just so" one is bad too.  Anyway, she genuflected to originalism, if probably in a confused way that was as  much about confirmation protocol.  

One law professor (Liz Sepper, who generously follows me on Twitter) recently noted on Twitter a cab driver asked her about the law.  She asked people to offer something.  I said that applying the law is usually a choice among various options, no matter how much some insist otherwise.  The choice is a human one that in our system depends in a significant part on who controls the nomination process and how they apply it.  

One more thing, for now.  The 53-47 vote avoided the stated possibility that we would need the vice president to break a tie. VP Harris recently did that (again) to move along an executive nominee.  It was done a few times to break tie votes there too.  

The idea it is unconstitutional, as compared to unfortunate policy, is to me silly.  Are you telling me it is clear that a vice president can vote for major policy (including I gather involving the Supreme Court), but not to break a tie for a minor appointment?  You can probably manage some argument here, but text, history, and basic principle/logic makes the idea stupid. 

===

Meanwhile, Justice Thomas (who took part in last week's oral arguments remotely) seems to be feeling better. The fact he is up and about doesn't necessary say he is in perfect health or something. But, it is notable. And, the problems of only limited disclosure of his recent health issues remain. 

Justice Thomas is an honorary board member of an institution that handed out some kind of award.  That sort of thing normally is not really too notable, except that people might wish to know about it.  The difference here is that the honoree is running for an important political office involving the divided Senate, against one of the two people who arguably (at least according to tie-less Graham) is the difference of Jackson even being confirmed.   

Justice Thomas at the moment arguably might be a tad bit more careful about the appearance of impropriety given the issues involving his wife and all that.  Regardless, in this general time and environment, selfies, which easily can be made into political advertisements, with political candidates, especially at that level, to me is questionable.  There have been various other instances of Alito et. al. being at events of a partisan nature.  

I don't think this will make much of a difference, especially in scope, but it does have a sort of gratuitous nature.  On other matters, we might see soon how Justice Thomas acts regarding recusing in 1/6 matters, which ethicists and others have made into a sort of "red line" at this point.  I suppose some "line" might be drawn between the 14A, sec. 3 cases though at some point that gets a tad fine, especially with the texts we have from his wife.  

Think my basic concerns pretty on the money after checking out a few reactions on Twitter. Mark Sherman, a SCOTUS reporter says that it is "Very unusual to see a sitting justice pictured with a candidate for partisan political office."

Fix the Court suggests if it was some lower court judge, who have binding ethics rules, it would violate the current rules regarding avoiding political activity.  The Fox News link I added noted a campaign worker posted the photo.   [Last two paragraphs added; there were other "this is bad" comments from people in the know.]

===

The next scheduled thing is a conference next Friday. Of note too, there are multiple executions (including a dubious one involving a woman) scheduled later this month as well.

Justice-Elect Ketanji Brown-Jackson [53-47]

BREAKING: Senate confirms Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court in historic 53-47 vote.

Jackson will become first Black woman on the Supreme Court. https://t.co/aZ27lbCV4P pic.twitter.com/zNuyXFrDwU

— NBC News (@NBCNews) April 7, 2022

This is a day of joy, in part thanks to the voters of Georgia, at least according to Sen. Lindsey Graham. He said that a Republican Senate wouldn't have allowed this vote. Breyer's retirement letter said he would step down at the end of the session. This would bring in the third Justice Jackson around the beginning of July. Note the term itself ends the day before the first Monday in October. White men will be a minority. Four women, one black man.

RIP Eric Boehlert

This post (I changed the formatting of a quote) was originally -- first time this ever happened -- blocked for content.  I now received a message that it was "re-evaluated" and okay. 

I listen to the Stephanie Miller Show, a liberal radio show led by basically a comedian, but which has many serious politically minded guests on. The first regular, e.g., is Lee Papa, a local professor also known as "Rude Pundit" for his crude, but largely on the money, political analysis. He looks like a hobo and talks like a sailor, but deep down comes off as a sweet guy.

Fucking hell. Eric Boehlert wasn't a close friend or anything, but we talked a number of times, often about music we loved. And his writing on the Clinton and early Bush years inspired me to join in this rhetorical fight. He was killed riding his bike today. Goddamnit.

— The Rude Pundit (@rudepundit) April 6, 2022

He was one of many (on and off the "Steph gang") who wrote distraught and touching comments about the death of the person who comes after him each Monday on the show. Eric Boehlert was a media critic, particularly upset about how the media furthered anti-liberal frames.  Boehlert came off as a nice guy, who I thought at times was a bit too one note on message. I basically only listened, not reading his stuff.  But, he backed it up. 

Pearls Before Swine had a comic about the too personal nature of social media, where people talk about the death of pets [horrible day for Stephanie Miller -- one of her dogs died, which was why Carol Burnett's daughter [Jodie Hamilton] -- her usual Tuesday guest and sometime fill-in -- was on today & then after the show, she finds out about this]  and so forth.  And, we basically have all this personal stuff about strangers thrown at us.

It is part of why social media, including Twitter, is so addictive. I am not a fan of reality programming, but can see the same thing happening there.  You basically get engaged into something, and it feels personal.  It is in a fashion though it still is not your life.  That allows, though sometimes not so much, a certain distance.  So, that might allow you to enjoy things too, since if it was a family member, it would be too much.

And, though there are other people that I feel more attached to online -- such as people I regularly engage with on Twitter -- Eric Boehlert did seem like a little part of my life in a fashion.  Also, he is important indirectly, since he plays a bigger role in the lives of people like Stephanie Miller, who I have been listening/watching (there being an online feed) for years now.  Plus, you can read all the responses, some (including Rude)  even providing some audio.  

I reckon tomorrow morning on the show will be emotional as well.  Miller after all already has a dog issue (she lost a dog she had for a long time not too long ago; this one was much younger).  And, Eric Boehlert was sudden too, a victim of a bike accident (Miller is a big bike rider), some sort of freak thing (details unclear so far as I can tell now) involving him being hit by a train (NJ line) while riding his bike.  Trains do sometimes go on street level, but that just seems strange.  Probably a freak accident.  

The whole thing is a bit strange. The accident happened Monday night, first reported Tuesday as someone being hit without a name.  Perhaps, there was some problem with identification.  And, then the family had to deal with their grief before telling outsiders.  EB was on the show Monday.  It was his last media appearance.  But, his death only came out Wednesday afternoon.  The article linked has this nice bit:

In front of their Montclair Ave. house, a large stuffed bear sits on a swing, something Breslin said her husband put out on occasion for the neighborhood children, until it became a fixture during the pandemic. "He just loved children and loved to make them happy," she said.

Eric Boehlert is beloved both as a person and for years (I might have saw Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, this blog starting during the early Bush years) as a strong liberal minded media critic.  I have long been on that beat as a sort of hobby and hobbyhorse, but there are people who go the extra mile and do it professionally (at times, also managing to do other things).  

Such people are much appreciated for promoting truth and the preferred American way.  And, doing it so while being a nice person. I can tell you, being a nice person is not that easy.  #RIP