SCOTUS and Other Legal Stuff

Book: I saw the author of From Back Alley to the Border: Criminal Abortion in California on C-SPAN give a lecture (she is a teacher of history) on abortion. It was a basic survey and did not really tell me much new that I did not know.  I know more about abortion history than many people do. 

This book (in its 200 pages of core material) has some of that.  It includes A LOT of history (from the road to criminalization and snapshots of various eras covered before going into some specific stories).  It might try to do a bit too much there though it's a helpful summary.  The best part of the book is the stories of the specific subject of the title, including an abortion syndicate attempted in the 1930s. The author is firmly pro-choice.

New York Chief Judge:  State Republican senators decided to open a legal case to try to claim that it violated the state constitution not to have a floor vote.  So, the Democrats had one, and LaSalle (who for some reason was there to see himself lose) lost big.  One of his few Democratic supporters didn't even show up.  Okay.  Can we move on now?  

The claim was stupid but the vote saved time. In some other environment, maybe, LaSalle could have won with bipartisan support.  But, that isn't where we are now.  This is especially the case after the 2022 elections went badly in various respects (at least on the federal level) for Democrats.  

I do not know why Gov. Hochul could not accept -- even if the nomination itself can be defended on some level -- the political reality here.  

One Less Biden Lawsuit (For Now): The Supreme Court canceled the March 1 oral argument in Arizona v. Mayorkas, involving the Title 42 immigration policy.  The Biden Administration recently told the justices that the case may become moot on May 11 because the policy will expire when the COVID emergency formally ends.

A lot of inside baseball here.  First, Gorsuch dissented from taking this case, and Jackson joined his dissent.  (I noted at the time that I wasn't sure how strong his argument was, but it's notable even he didn't want to decide this.)  Second, when the public information office posted a media advisory (expecting higher than normal coverage) [ETA: which is later removed], there was this tidbit: 

PIO will send an email confirming day passes for March 1 by close of business on Thursday, February 16.

(Checks calendar. Wait.  Darn, 2023 is almost over!)  So, the timing of the cancellation is somewhat logical.  We are not actually told why it was done.  It was not even done via an order on the Order Page.  If you follow the case link, you can follow links to the docket page, where the notice is posted. This bit of timing (which at least one Supreme Court reporter suggested might not mean the case is over) is therefore a bit low-key.  

The action was a bit unexpected all the same.  We can see there the other stuff posted around it, including a brief posted after the announcement. 

Other Stuff: The Supreme Court is back from their little break, having a Friday conference. There is some stuff on the plate for next week, including more scheduled execution (this time out of Florida).  One bit of stuff in the news is supposed to be plans to honor Thomas in Georgia.  Charming.  

Next Week: Let's not forget that Monday is a holiday. (The White Plains Library [NY] was closed for Lincoln's Birthday, but the NYPL was open.).  President Taft was the only person who was both on the Supreme Court and also a president. Various presidents argued in front of the Supreme Court, both before and after [never during!] their terms.  

As I expected might happen sooner than later, there is also a notice on the website that they may (read that as "probably will") announce one or more opinions on Wednesday.  There is also an oral argument scheduled so that will be later than usual while the opinion is read from the bench.  

This time, one would think, they all will be there (unlike the first announcement this term, which was not only Barrett's first but the first since they ended up doing so for COVID).  

The sensible approach would be to have audio for both the announcement and the oral argument.  They do not want to do that so will only provide audio for the second.