Montana Legislators Need A Bit Of Basic Empathy

The Republican candidate in a hotly contested special House election in Montana was charged with assaulting a journalist on Wednesday at what was to be a final rally in Bozeman on the eve of the vote. The attack brought police officers to the event and sent the reporter to the hospital for X-rays.

After winning a congressional seat, and Trump and other Republicans cheering him on, that thug became governor of Montana.  

So, the people of Montana have a somewhat poor taste for leaders. Still, the legislature's efforts in the promotion of trans hate have been taken to a new level.  Sadly, this is not atypical these days:

The Republican governor of Montana, Greg Gianforte, signed a bill into law on Friday to restrict transition care for transgender minors, joining about a dozen states that have adopted similar laws since the beginning of the year.

The thing that depresses me even more -- it doesn't surprise me at this point, but on a human level, it is so very very horrible -- involves sixty-eight members blocking a trans member from the House floor.  For what? Not even the basically fake grounds in Tennessee involving allegedly aiding a protest on the floor.  For her fucking words:

In a speech on the House floor last week, Ms. Zephyr told her conservative colleagues that the ban would put “blood on your hands,” and that denying transition care would be “tantamount to torture.” For days after, House leadership refused to call on Ms. Zephyr during discussion of any bill up for consideration before the House.

The lack of human empathy here is shared by Gov. Gianfonte who ignored his own child (non-binary) trying to get him to veto it. Some mother said she rather her child die than transition.  So, you have the usual horrible. But, this was the act of sixty-eight legislators.  For a trans person being emotional about something that directly affects who she is.

The lack of basic human decency here is painful.  Can't they -- even if they hate trans people -- on a personal level realize that someone would be emotional about something personal to them?  What if they have a wife or husband or daughter or son or whatever who is personally affected by a piece of legislation?  Can't they understand on a basic human level?

She was recently elected to represent her district.  This is a "screw you" to them.  For what?  Did she show a continual inability to maintain decorum? There wasn't enough time for much of a record to form there!  From what I can tell, she didn't make some personal attack on a specific person, unless the comments are supposed to be impliedly against the person who proposed the bill or something. It's so petty on any level.

A Nebraska state lawmaker and mother to a trans child is being formally investigated over a potential conflict of interest for opposing restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors, a move that several senators from both parties were quick to denounce.

Sen. Megan Hunt (Nebraska's unicameral legislators are all senators) has not been polite in challenging anti-trans efforts.  But, members on both sides (how many? I don't know ... but some) have a shadow of humanity on this issue.  Maybe, they can share it with the Montana legislators.

We need to show some human empathy. We can't be monsters. 

Roberts Prefers Not To

There have been repeated stories about Justice Thomas' failing to disclose and his palsy-walsy with rich donors.  The stuff isn't new but we got some new details. Then, we got a failure to disclose for Gorsuch involving selling a house, suspiciously timed with his confirmation.  

Toss in what the Supreme Court and lower courts are doing decision-wise, this has been getting a lot of controversy.  There is more and more demand for a binding ethics code for justices. Over ten years ago, Roberts explained how the rules only really apply to lower court justices, though justices voluntarily follow them.  Here is a FAS report as well.  

Sen. Durbin, the chair of the judiciary, requested that Roberts (and/or someone else) come to talk to the committee next week.  He noted, for instance, that Scalia and Breyer came to talk about various matters, including ethics.  I saw a reference as well that Roberts himself talked about ethics to Congress directly in the past.  I'm not sure of the details. There are so many.

Durbin also pushed Roberts to investigate Thomas. Roberts instead referred the request from Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin to the Judicial Conference, which serves as the policy-making body of the federal courts. (Sen. Whitehouse supported that path anyhow.) Durbin, when asked, said he didn't ask Thomas to come since Thomas would probably say "no." 

Roberts said "no" to showing up, adding an appendix (signed by each justice) to summarize the current ethics rules.  As various people note, the letter is bullshit, and the appendix is not too much better (especially since the liberals signed on to this portion).  Roberts is concerned about the separation of powers, but grants justices did show up and talked about various subjects.  Why are things like funding (salaries are expressly cited in Art. III) okay but not ethics? Again, the subject was talked about in the past.  

The Slate piece cites the Vox reporter. One of his pieces blames the Constitution, but we had that for over two hundred years, and federal judges as a whole have life tenure.  Only SCOTUS doesn't have a binding ethics policy.  As Steve Vladeck noted, in the past, the Supreme Court was regulated in a range of ways.  Congress can regulate them more today.

The Roberts letter includes the appendix to help deal with "misconceptions" but don't think there are too many.  I think the misconceptions might be on their end. And, Kagan apparently joking about the situation is not too appreciated.  Kagan has had thin skin in the past when she thought people were attacking the Court.  Sotomayor references the importance of pushing for change but then joins with Gorsuch in "my friend" statements when he refuses to wear a mask.  

Feinstein is still out, so the Senate Judiciary Committee is evenly divided, but even if they tried to subpoena Roberts (try it, sure), he would declare privilege. Yes, it should be deemed bullshit, but if Trump flunkies can stonewall for years, even during impeachment, good luck with pressing the point.  I do think they should push it.  You pick your spots, and this is a good moment.  A "bipartisan" ethics bill was also proposed by Murkowski and Angus from Maine.  The Senate Dems can hold the court's budget hostage.

Meanwhile, the report (of course they don't post this on the website) is that there won't be any opinions of the court (still around 45 left) until at least May 11.  There will be scheduled orders days before then.  

ETA: Durbin followed up with a "Can you clarify this" letter.  Come on.  At least, send it to or "cc" each justice. They each signed the attachment.  Really, they look like powerless clowns here. 

The Dems.  (The letter got a brief reply that Durbin wasn't too happy about either. Back/forth.  See also this op-ed.)

Alito Comments: Roberts can't show up but Alito can feel aggrieved to the Wall St. Journal.  I read recently that Breyer in an interview opined that the Dobbs opinion leaker won't be found but that the leak helped cement the draft opinion in place. Whatever the motives, that seems to be true. 

Alito, complaining that the opinion has put his life at risk (seriously), said he has a good idea who the leaker is, but not enough to actually say.  Okay, tease-lito.  He does not think it is someone who supports the opinion.  His judgment, let's say, has shown to be lacking in the past.

I put this here since it underlines the state of affairs that Roberts refuses to try to bring down a tad even if they play nice during oral argument.  FWIW, the SCOTUS reporter Joan Biskupic, promoting her new book on the Court during a Strict Scrutiny Podcast, says she doesn't know who it is but doubts it is a justice. 

People are cocksure they know, though they have given different justices as the leaker.  

Films and Book

On my recent trip to the 42nd St. NYPL (it has a new name, but it used to be the Mid-Manhattan), I checked out the DVD section.  

I found this 1950 women's prison film, which co-stars Agnes Moorehead as a sympathetic if often powerless prison superintendent.  I didn't recognize her but she later was the mother in the Bewitched sitcom.  Eleanor Parker plays the innocent who becomes hardened.  She later was the baroness in The Sound of Music.  The film is well acted and I liked it.  

I also found this PBS film (based on the book Small Island), which I at first thought I saw a piece of, but probably (?) not.

It is a WWII drama concerning two couples' lives, one a white couple from Britain, the other from British Jamaica.  It is well-acted though translating a long book into a few hours makes a few things a bit abrupt.  The film is well-acted by all involved.  I am most familiar with the husbands, including someone who later was in A United Kingdom, which is based on a true story of an African leader who married a white woman.  

Both women, who have some of the most dramatic moments, were very good too.  I would like to see some more things with Ruth Wilson, who plays the white wife (both women have marriages of convenience though they develop some feelings for their husbands) who has a black child.  She was very good.  

[She was in the Showtime series The Affair, which received good reviews. I believe I saw a bit of it.]

The father is actually a guy the other woman has grown up with and believes was lost in the war.  I don't know if it comes out in the book, but it is never revealed.  We see something near the end (the black couple eventually raises the interracial child)  where a photo is found and we think it is the reveal.  It turns out to be a picture of the mother.  Everything need not be tied into a bow.

I also read After The Miracle: The Political Crusades of Helen Keller.  The subtitle is important.  The book does cover her life in general, including a chapter on her cut-off love affair (Anne Sullivan and her mother stopped the marriage).  But, it is focused on her political crusades.  She was a true blue socialist, including later on supporting communism (if not Stalin).  

I liked the book overall though did feel a bit cheated since I didn't get a complete feel of her life and internal sentiments. The book was not meant to be so, but it would interest me to read more about how she experienced life as a deaf and blind woman.  

The book is appreciated as a human accounting, including showing evidence Anne Sullivan (if not originally on purpose though she probably covered up her role) was to blame for an embarrassing moment where a young Helen put out a story as her own.  

The book is easy to read and has some black-and-white photos. 

Odds and Ends News

The Neil Simon-based film The Goodbye Girl was on TCM last night. The film is a bit too corny at times but enjoyable.  Nice to see the "precocious" daughter has basically kept the same personality:

At the age of 9, Quinn Cummings learned a new vocabulary word—precocious. That’s what people were calling her 1977 Oscar-nominated turn as Marsha Mason’s glib, brainy daughter in Neil Simon’s The Goodbye Girl. Never mind that Cummings was the same offscreen; she despised the word. “I asked my mother if it was Latin for brat,” says Cummings, now 34. Her movie mom had a more appropriate description. “Quinn knew all of her lines way before Richard [Dreyfuss] and I,” says Mason. “She was so incredibly enterprising.”

See also this stand-up routine. 

==

I also saw presidential-related stuff that I wanted to flag.  First, following up on a C-SPAN history lecture from a month or so ago, more correction of the stereotype that President Carter was a total loser.  Carter did accomplish some things, even if his personality and the times made things hard for him.  One important precedent: human rights. 

"All told, these temporary humanitarian programs could become the largest expansion of legal immigration in decades."

I have also seen numerous complaints from the left side regarding President Biden's immigration/border policies.  This is a mixture of okay pushback and unfair one-sided sentiments that regularly do not address the times he is dealing with and the basic reality of a moderate president.  

I think this NYT article comes off a bit too one-sided (did some Biden person write it?) but it helps remind us there is more than the proverbial "dime worth of a difference" between Biden (about to declare for 2024) and others.  

==

There is always more news and you can be lost in worrying about it. We should make sure not to lose perspective, even if I will always be somewhat concerned about current events.  And, sometimes notable things occur.

Two surprising departures.  Don Lemon is gone from CNN and (more shocking) Tucker Carlson is gone from Fox News.  Neither apparently expected it.  Carlson ended his last broadcast on Friday with a "see ya Monday" sort of thing.  And, I saw something that even this morning the network was still promoting him.  

===

A day when there are a lot of social media back-and-forths on these topics is an appropriate one for SCOTUS to decide to take a couple cases regarding public officials blocking people on Twitter/Facebook.

Sotomayor (with the liberals) also found another criminal justice case (often death penalty related as this one is) that she thinks they should have taken. Again, they have one more set of oral arguments, none of which look to be too earth-shattering.  

ETA: Various proposed amendments to rules of procedure were also submitted.  I have noted in the past that the Supreme Court has jumped ahead and started to put this term's opinions in a new volume. The Supreme Court also now a citation. 

Mets Update

We are approaching the first month of the season and the Mets are doing well. Wins-wise. They are doing this with a lot of pitching issues. Not as many position issues, if a few.  

One of the new old studs has not pitched a regular season game. The other just was suspended for ten days.  This would not be horrible -- it is only two starts and one would be against the Nationals -- if it wasn't for all the other starter issues. Cookie is out (though Lucchini came back with the first seven-inning appearance, pitching a gem) and another newbie might come back in the summer.  And, Peterson is not doing well lately.  

The Scherzer thing arose because he allegedly misused rosin after being warned.  A first offense here does not seem to warrant ten games and the whole thing seemed rather arbitrary.  Did he really blatantly violate the rules after being warned?  Or, were the rules not totally clear?  Perhaps, it would make sense there to have some experience determining the rules of the game before kicking someone out for ten games.  

Scherzer in the long run will be helped if he has time off, probably, which is the balance of having an older pitcher with such a heavy contract.  He does bring a special vibe to the team.  I do not begrudge them for getting him.  A second pitcher, even older, being paid around 40M for two seasons does seem a bit iffy.  The Mets winning now with the new Japanese pitcher and back-ups (if mostly of MLB caliber) suggests maybe losing deGrom didn't mean you needed to do that.  Well, the owner has the money, I guess. 

The new catcher also got hurt so the rookie was called up.  Fans were pushing him (and Baty at third, who had a good spring and early weeks in the minors) to come up.  Escobar is not having a great April.  Well, neither is Lindor, from looking at his stats.  The team still is scoring runs.  

Needs more out of their starters.  Their pen is doing well, including the Scherzer game (a call-up bridged the gap after he pitched three) and yesterday (three innings from some call-up after Peterson gutted out a bad five).  The pen has a number of "B" team guys, especially with the closer out for the year.  So far, again, doing fine. Their eighth-inning guys, after all, are closer worthy.  Good thing, since that is what they are now.  

I have not seen too many games but not sure about how the new rules (and larger bases) are affecting steals.  Since you have limited times to toss over, there would seem to be more chances to steal.  As to the time of the game, to belabor the point, not seeing much of a change myself.  

Now and then, the toss to first bit is overdone, so guess limiting toss-overs makes sense. The pitch clock and "disengagements" and so on stuff seem tedious but if the players like it overall, fine.  Net, that sort of thing might make the game somewhat crisper.  I'll shut up about it.  

I did not really find the whole thing in recent years too bothersome.  But, fine enough.  Don't know how much changing the shift matters either.  That just seems stupid to me -- it is a change in strategy.  Fight fire with fire there.   

Anyway, I appreciate how the Mets are gutting things out as a team, with a bunch of role players and lesser-known pitchers doing their part.  I am glad Nimmo is doing well.  He's a fun player.  Alonso is showing his power.  Lindor and a few others have had slower starts.  Back-up outfielder Pham (maybe it's the new prescription in his contacts!) has shown value.  The Mets are playing the Giants now.  They have four ex-Mets there!  

The Mets are playing California teams now.  One is Oakland, which is getting sneers for being pathetic.  They aren't a good team and started with a horrible 17-6 drubbing.  But, give them props -- the next two games were impressive.  They lost both, but they were low scoring (one went to the 10th) and had many crisp plays.  I sort of wished they won one of the games.  Not big on moral victories but those two games were for them. 

The Mets often have a good April.  In recent years, late May and June were their problem child.  Last season, it was September and October.  They have the usual injuries.  But, the Phils showed last season that the main job is to get to the postseason.  Only one team gets that bye.  The rest (including three wild card teams) are mostly on equal footing, home field not as important in baseball in many cases.  So far, so good.  

And, certain players will return. Makes room for more injuries!

ETA: After two wins, they lost the second two games vs. the Giants and now have to win against old friend Trevor Williams to avoid being swept by the Nats.  The first four-game losing streak for Buck. Oh well.  

Two Skimmed Books

I checked out The Perfect Find by the author of Seven Days of May, which I liked. 

This earlier book is less serious though we also get the perspectives of both the man (a younger guy here) and the woman (a forty-something former top fashion editor who has to begin again).  The author has a beauty editor background so is writing from experience.  I didn't get into it like the last book but can see it has charms.  Skimmed it some.  

It is being made into a series on one of the many platforms.  

===

I happened to find A Matter of Temptation by Stacy Reid when searching for something else.  She is a black romance novelist who now lives in Jamaica (thus her watching such things as Ten Miles of Peach Blossoms). This book is one of a slew of 19th Century romances involving rich people if here one down on her luck and another who is a reformer type.  

Mina has some spunk, including being willing to tease and express her desires.  She stands in for her brother (who challenged someone to a duel after cheating out of desperation, a bit of complexity) and does best the challenger at fencing.  Unfortunately, he catches her disguise, and this leads to her being hired as his secretary.  An affair results.  

I skimmed the book (there just wasn't enough to keep one's interest for 300 pages; it's amazing how people can write so much) and it was enjoyable enough on that level.  I was annoyed that it never gave Mina the chance (though she handled flirting well) to lead while they had sex.  It was always him driving her wild.  Come on with that stuff.  Give her a chance!

And, she secretly married (it was never consummated) but usefully it turns out her never in the picture husband conveniently died sometime before. She didn't realize this until her lover investigated and found out.  Oh well.  

The book had a short (about a hundred pages) second story that I didn't read.  I have found a few of these books enjoyable if I was in the mood and they were written in the right style.  Of course, there are a proverbial million of them. Racks of books in the romance novel stacks.  

SCOTUS Grants Stay In Abortion Pill Case

Justice Alito granted an "administrative stay" that ended at 11:59PM on Wednesday for the abortion pill cases and then extended it to that time Friday night. We got a decision about six hours early.

Inside baseball alert: an administrative stay is a brief hold, in this case, to allow a justice (each justice oversees one or more circuits of appeals) or the Supreme Court as a hold to consider a request.  It is often a nothingburger with nothing being done.  Here, somewhat surprisingly, a stay was granted.

The question is to read the tea leaves to determine why more time was granted. The additional time suggested that the end result would be more than what happened. A stay with one justice writing a few pages. The actual stay is boilerplate. Sometimes, the language is carefully crafted with some compromise language or special instructions. 

Here? The stay of the lower court of appeals opinion (again, better than the district court opinion, but only so much) was granted pending disposition of the appeal.  Nothing special there.  Of course, perhaps, one or more justices wanted more.  Maybe, they wanted to wait until the Friday conference to finalize things.  Maybe, others wrote more but held back in the end.

(One suggestion was that the liberals would have disposed now on standing but didn't ultimately have the votes.) 

Two justices dissented on the record (again, for me, that's it -- silence means to consent to me). Thomas simply noted he would not have granted the stay.  Alito wrote about three pages.  It was a mixture of whining (about criticism of the shadow docket) and an argument that there was no compelling need for a stay.  

He in part argued (as liberals like Kate Shaw in that op-ed I talked about) it is far from clear the FDA would enforce anything as the cases were pending.  He tossed in a suggestion the government was gaming the system too (given how conservatives do that on a regular basis, that is rich).  

I don't really think Alito is an honest broker here, but from someone else, it might be a somewhat credible argument.  Note that the majority didn't explain why a stay, which in theory should be an extraordinary remedy, was necessary.  So, stones/glasshouses too.  Again, I am not saying Alito is right overall (he is likely exaggerating how minor the argument for a stay is) and this suggests his overall aggrieved tone:

Contrary to the impression that may be held by many, that disposition would not express any view on the merits of the question whether the FDA acted lawfully in any of its actions regarding mifepristone. 

This is not the first time Thomas stayed quiet about his reasons and did not join in Alito's whining.  The bottom line, this is a bit of sanity, which underlines how bad the lower courts' rulings are. And, before we breathe freely, this just delays things until a final judgment by the lower court. 

A stay in some fashion implies the lower court misstepped somehow but without any explanation of how exactly is unclear. The shadow docket strikes again.  To be continued.

The bottom line here is that the ruling here is sensible if warranting a bit more explanation.  The Supreme Court, for now at least, seems sane. After the Dobbs decision, many observers noted this is not the battle they or their supporters want to fight.  SCOTUS is not the totally knee-jerk affair some make it out to be.  They pick their spots.  

Let's not grant them too much kudos here as noted regarding Roberts maybe deciding to accept the Senate Judiciary Committee's request (see last entry).  The Dobbs ruling is a major reason why we are here as well as past actions involving agencies and lower court happenings.  

Which are encouraged by no explanation orders like this too. What exactly is wrong here?  The shadow knows.  And, again, we are not at the end of this particular affair.*  

===

Meanwhile, no other Friday orders, and no announcement of future opinion days.  There will be orders on Monday and one more set of oral arguments. No more executions this month.

===

There was a potentially important oral argument this week regarding the rules for determining true threats.  It has split some usual allies, splitting a strong free speech approach and recognition of limits.  I support free speech even at times when some don't but have seen some overly dismissive comments when it comes to harassment and threats. 

One red flag in the oral arguments was a mockery of the problem at hand, which was more notable among the male justices.  Barrett, for instance, played Prof. Barrett regarding hypos but when the advocate made a joking reference to being told he would "die" or such, she was a bit less jokey about telling him hopefully the context showed it was not actually a threat.  

And, Sotomayor did show some concern about intent but did not do the stuff the link addressed. 

---

* President Biden is correct:

The stakes could not be higher for women across America. I will continue to fight politically-driven attacks on women’s health. But let’s be clear – the American people must continue to use their vote as their voice, and elect a Congress who will pass a law restoring the protections of Roe v Wade.

Our rights are in abeyance.  (Quote added.)

Checking In On Republicans

It is about time for the House Republicans to pass some empty debt ceiling measure (e.g., involving repealing basic provisions of past Biden policy).  This is almost charming on some level. It is b.s., it will fail, etc. You expect this sort of thing, especially in a divided Congress. So, you know, okay.

Trans hate is another matter: 

House Republicans on Thursday approved legislation that would bar transgender women and girls from participating in athletic programs designated for women, part of a nationwide push by conservatives to restrict transgender rights as they make culture issues a centerpiece of their political message.

The bill, approved entirely along party lines on a vote of 219 to 203, was the latest attempt by House Republicans to take up a potent social issue that has rallied their base and been championed at the state level by Republican lawmakers.

As I understand it, this will primarily be done as a string on federal education funding.  

There are also things like this:

Last month, House Republicans approved legislation that would mandate that schools make library catalogs and curriculums public, and require parental consent before honoring a student’s request to change their gender-identifying pronouns. 

The use of this sort of thing on a national level -- sort of shows why the Biden Administration figured that the new trans policy on what is banned needs some air -- is a mixture of fear, hate, and partisan bullshit, a sort of unholy trinity. 

It's one of those times you just want to say ARE YOU NUTS? Are you worried about this? As national policy. 

Anti-trans measures are the flavor of the hate these days, the question being just how much will be allowed.  

After the Tennesse Republicans went after three (expelling the two young black legislators, who quickly came back), we have Montana (tossing in misgendering) silencing (somewhat ashamed) a trans legislator for being too blunt about the anti-trans hate out there. 

Of course, there is the continuing fear of voting rights. It's nice they got a big Trump Stop The Steal hero there (was Ginny Thomas not available?) including such concerns about those darn kids:

“What are these college campus locations?” she asked, according to the audio. “What is this young people effort that they do? They basically put the polling place next to the student dorm so they just have to roll out of bed, vote, and go back to bed."

This leads me to be somewhat dubious about the idea that Republicans in the Senate have a limit regarding blocking Feinstein's replacement even if she actually resigns. I'm warily inclined to agree though it is academic since her actually resigning does not seem likely.

Republicans have blocked (weird after she congratulated Sen. Graham on his handling of the Barrett nomination!) an attempt to temporarily replace her on the now evenly split Judiciary Committee.  

No matter that some still want to handwave this (and people like Nancy Pelosi suggest it is somehow sexist to want someone who has shown her inability for years now to resign), this does have consequences.  It won't block all nominees (they had an evenly split committee the first two years), but a 51-49 Senate was supposed to help ease things. 

The presidency and the U.S. Senate are what the Democrats have to counter the Republicans.  Yes, they also can say some great things in the House, great for sound clips and all, but Democrats have real control of the other two places.  They need to step up here, including ending things like blue slips.  

The latest Thomas ethics issues and the pending abortion pill litigation just remind us of the stakes as does continual horrible things like the anti-trans efforts. Durbin "invited" Roberts to testify on May 2nd, making sure to say it can just be about ethics.

One Supreme Court watcher said that he is not one to totally shrug off such a request, though (as offered) he might send one or two (perhaps a Gorsuch/Sotomayor tag team?) in his stead.  Uh-huh.  Don't let a bit of reasonableness take the eye off the ball.  Small fixes are no longer enough.

The stakes are high. If Roberts is willing to show up, let him offer advice on the terms. But, a binding ethics bill (the Senate needs to okay funding) better not be taken off the table.  We are far past the "just trust us" phase. 

Some Books

I sometimes go to one of the local libraries that is near some stores and check out the book displays.  (It is set up nicely.) If I see anything of interest, I write the title down and reserve it.  The book then is sent to the library right near me.  I have had mixed success here but two good hits recently.

Ferryman  is a young adult book about a teenage girl killed in a train accident.  She and her  "ferryman" to the "other side" fall in love.  She manages to meet up with him again (accidentally destroying the soul of someone he is ferrying -- she's upset about it some but does risk her soul to save another) and they make it back to mortal existence.  Well written.

The book is being made into a film and there is a sequel.  There is a lot of good imagery regarding the things she passes on her way.  The final destination is not too exciting.  Standard stuff.  I'm not sure if the sequel (which I'm not too interested in) adds much more though apparently their "escaping" will cause some issues.  

I expected she would become a ferryman (person?) herself.  The ending is a bit disappointing.  And, no, they both actually wind up back in normal life.  The whole thing isn't some sort of metaphor or illusion while she struggled unconsciously.  

Seven Days In June also is being filmed reportedly.  It is a romance about two thirty-something black writers who first fell in love as very troubled teenagers.  The book has about twenty-something supportive blurbs in the opening pages and is a Reese Witherspoon Book Club pick.  

It is well written though the promise of sex scenes is a bit overblown. It took around half the book for one quick (semi-public) sex scene and even after that, there wasn't that much sex.  OTOH, she does write erotic fiction and there is a lot of heat throughout the book.  The characters (we get both of their viewpoints and some bits of others) are well drawn and I appreciate that the woman has a chronic ailment that is shown to seriously affect her day-to-day life (though she lives with it).  

The book also concludes with a well-written extended epilogue.  The reader at first might think the book suggests the two lovers are destined to only have "seven days in June" (fifteen years apart).  But, as the woman has a summer away exploring her family's past, things develop, and we have a sweet ending.  I will check out a different book by the author soon.

The White House In Mourning (by an amateur historian) was a book I found while looking up a book on mourning in American history by the author of The Cabinet.  This book is a rather tedious (if detailed, for those interested in all the minutiae of things like presidential funeral trips) account that has some questionable asides when providing historical background.  

But, it is serviceable regarding its subject and has a lot of good photographs.  I also wonder if "my partner and special friend" is code for talking about his soulmate (or whatever word one uses).  

Mid-Week Legal News

New York Court Of Appeals

Gov. Hochul went the extra mile in a losing battle to replace a conservative chief judge of the state's highest court with a questionable moderate.  

She got a clue and went with a great choice (on the court already) and a pretty good one (state solicitor general, some good/not good appellate work).  They were both confirmed.  

Let's see how things go including regarding a recent challenge of the redistricting plan from last year.  

Jury Duty

I have been on two juries (a run-of-the-mill drug sale/mixed verdict and an incest case/hung after sequestration), both back in the 1990s.  I was called maybe two other times, once to federal service. No juries there. After a long time, I was called again, and it looked like I was going to be on a jury.

The $40 isn't great but still would have liked it, along with the chance to be on a jury.  (Two options not picked noted they were working on their own but even without additional pay would deem it their civic duty.  The judge had his picture taken with them.  They appeared to be immigrants.)  

The case was a criminal one that I believe took place in 2019.  So, not sure why it took until the sitting of a jury to settle somehow.  But, it was,  so no jury service for me.  (Much like the Dominion/Fox jury! Ha ha! Not "fine" btw -- strawman on the "fun" bit, and I think it will matter enough.)

I recall it has been a while, in the past, they did provide money for carfare. Not sure why the Bronx cannot simply provide MetroCards. Isn't it public transportation?  The other thing I would say is that it is a bad idea to ask sensitive questions about crimes you and your family were involved in open court.  

I find it hard to believe only about half of the jury had any crimes for/against their whole family.  This is NYC.  

Supreme Court

There was an order day on Monday and two opinion days on Tuesday (one) and Wednesday (three).  The opinions were all relatively low temperature, including a no-drama NY/NJ dispute and a unanimous bankruptcy case.  Kavanaugh had two opinions, one a 6-3 limited win for justice that merely allowed a DNA claim in a capital case to be brought.  

[ETA: SCOTUSBlog starting to talk about the opinions. As noted here, the Kavanaugh DNA opinion is very short, perhaps to highlight how it doesn't do much.  The dissents go into more detail to swat away the claims with Thomas and Alito/Gorsuch involved.  Gorsuch's occasion anti-government sentiments have not shown up as much in death penalty cases.]

The order list had no separate opinions and what seems to be a not too exciting grant.  

I didn't catch any of it (must have activated the live audio link on its website too soon -- when I went to listen to the oral argument, I didn't see it), SCOTUS accidentally live-streamed some of today's opinion announcements.  I agree ... not a bad thing.  Jackson (taking part remotely) apparently has a dog (bark). 

Alito also pushed up the deadline of an "administrative stay" that holds up the only somewhat less bad 5CA abortion pill ruling until Friday.  The stay is a limited delay so that justice or the whole Court can consider a pending matter.  It often is of little note though here the stakes are higher. 

Meanwhile, this CREW complaint regarding Thomas is helpful to (1) show what is partially at stake and (2) what theoretically actually can be done about it if the system actually cared.  

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans blocked an attempt to temporarily replace Sen. Feinstein on the now evenly split Senate Judiciary Committee.  She needs to resign and the blue slips for district court judges need to end. Come on!

Film and A Couple Books

I watched various movies from works of Nick Hornby, including his adaptation of another work (Wild).  I saw Juliet, Naked a few years ago and enjoyed it again a second time.  

Even if the Roger Ebert website only gave it two stars.  Rose Byrne is charming, and Ethan Hawke is good as a long-ago rocker who her boyfriend is obsessed with and (sure) she in fact winds up hooking up with.  I can see how it can be labeled "rambling," but it works for me.  That's the sign of a good three-star movie, I guess. 

==

I saw the book The Cabinet about the creation of the in the past, but just wound up reading it.  The book is somewhat comparable -- it's an easy read. The author provides an extended prelude, arguing Washington prepared for it by his wartime service.  

The book then is basically early U.S. history stuff that is familiar such as the Whiskey Rebellion. But, it provides some good stuff on the various principles he followed and so on.  

And, as usual in such familiar books, there are a few more tidbits, like a bit on the second Attorney General and details on how Edmund Randolph had a fall from grace.  

==

I also found a book on the free rack at the library based on a podcast about serial killers.  This is like the second book on such a subject, the other based on a podcast of two British women.  This one is apparently a bit light, since mixed in are jokes.  

The book: The Last Book On The Left: Stories of Murder and Mayhem from History's Most Notorious Serial Killers.  I actually read it while waiting to be called for jury duty, which is fitting, perhaps.  The book seems to be a takeoff of a movie title that wasn't really about serial killers.  

Fairly interesting; one chapter was about a Soviet murderer that was the basis for an HBO movie (that apparently changes things around a bit since the book doesn't highlight a single detective as in the film).  I finished it and was picked for a case the next day.

SCOTUS Update

Updates

The 5CA rather quickly (with a briefing schedule on steroids) partially overturned the really really bad abortion pill opinion to make it really bad (but perhaps with enough of a patina of sanity for SCOTUS to allow it to stay in place).  

The conservative with two previous pieces (before and after the district opinion dropped) has a third against the court of appeals. He no longer ends on quite the same note (how it will fail/trust the process).  He looks forward to the Biden Administration brief.

[more]

There was also more from the conflicting ruling.  The basic fact here is that the Supreme Court needs to step in.  I don't say this because I trust them or anything.  But, it is a bit of a mess and underlines the need for a different system (united in one circuit) involving such nationwide actions. 

Justice Alito (as apparently generally expected) granted an "administrative stay" mid-afternoon on Friday that will remain in place until the end of next Wednesday.  This will hold up the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' bad opinion until then.  Briefs are due by noon on Tuesday.  

==

The latest on the Thomas: Justice Ethics Fail news is an undisclosed purchase by his billionaire friend of a home Thomas' mother is still living in (Thomas is over 70; his mom still being alive suggests he is not retiring any time soon).  It's for a good cause:

In response to ProPublica’s new reporting, Crow said he bought Williams’ home to “preserve it for posterity,” with a goal of eventually turning it into a museum dedicated to Thomas. The justice did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the property sale to Crow.

Sen. Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has called for Roberts to address this whole issue.  There is no real way for that to happen at this point.  There has to be a binding ethics code and Thomas really needs to resign.  Senator Whitehouse on Twitter (and one supposes elsewhere) appealed to the Judicial Conference to forward the whole thing to the Justice Department or something.  

"The Judicial Conference [chaired by the Chief Justice] convenes twice a year to consider administrative and policy issues affecting the federal court system, and to make recommendations to Congress concerning legislation involving the Judicial Branch."

Good luck with that.  

Thursday Order 

The Supreme Court rejected a stay (put on hold) in a case "about a limited set of student borrowers who were outright defrauded by for-profit scam colleges."  There is no comment (as usual).  

The lack of a written opinion in any way is much more appropriate for this sort of order.  Nonetheless, I think it is a good policy to at least provide a brief comment (summary) for orders that are linked to the Orders List page.  There is a range of other developments (as you can see on a typical docket page for cases).  But, there are a limited number of orders on that page.  Why not simply provide a brief summary or something? 

Friday Opinion 

The slow walk of the 2022 term continues with a single opinion dropping today (less than 10 opinions so far). It is a relatively short (under 20 pages) right-to-sue case touching upon administrative law.  This means it touches on a more expansive subject.  

As noted in the SCOTUSblog entry, the case is a sign of the times when administrative law is more easily challenged.  In fact, a key precedent -- Free Enterprise -- was a loss for Solicitor General Kagan with Justice Breyer writing a four-justice dissent.

Kagan found a way to get eight people to agree with her. A quick read suggests to me it is purposely dry. Thomas concurred saying he is open to doing more if given the chance.  Gorsuch concurred separately.  The two concurrences explain why the whole file is almost fifty pages.  

It is telling to me that the four without an opinion at this point are Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh (possible swing in some controversial cases).  The others have two (Jackson has one) opinions, none really too controversial from what I can tell.  

There were some strong feelings (the limited criminal law win had a strong dissent) but nothing too earth-shattering.  One was punted.  There is an "ominous music" feel about things.  Meanwhile, there is only one link on the "Online Sources Cited in Opinions" page (to save files to guard against dead links), and that isn't even a case cited in an opinion for the court. 

Friday Orders 

The conference day order (a common occurrence; a sort of housecleaning business) involves solicitor general time at oral argument.  

==

SCOTUS will now go into the final stretch (including a notable religious accommodations case) of oral arguments.  There will be orders on Monday and two opinion days (Tuesday and Wednesday).  Since one single opinion dropped today, it is unclear what this actually will entail.  

==

The Fifth Circuit case led to more talk to a 5CA vacancy in place for over a year.  It's unclear why it took that long to even nominate. Figure there is some sort of backstory there.  Anyway, looks like there will finally at least will be a nominee. So, complaints can be moved to something else.  

Louis Gaskin Executed

Over thirty years ago, Louis Gaskin murdered two people and tried to murder more. It appears he was at least somewhat influenced by mental illness. The jury split 8-4 regarding the death penalty (in Florida), even given horrifying facts. But, unanimity is not required.  I might be somewhat supportive if the split was 11-1 or something, but a third of the jurors dissenting seems a tad much. 

The Supreme Court in recent years has held that unanimity is necessary to convict people (nearly every state by that time already agreed). Personally, I think the extra level of guilt necessary to execute warrants the same rule.

The Supreme Court has not been so supportive, ignoring multiple petitions involving the matter. It never held that a jury was necessary for sentencing (if specific facts are required so that it is in effect a separate crime, a jury does have to convict: Ring v. Arizona). Gorsuch has been pro-death penalty.

They turned down Gaskin's final petition without comment. Gaskin's lawyers focused on the divided jury, arguing current societal standards oppose this, adding a bit more about the evidence they argue was not properly considered. Nothing really new. But, I still think the continual silence from liberals in these final execution orders is problematic.

Justice Breyer had a special concurrence in Ring v. Arizona, arguing a jury was particularly required as representatives of the community handed down a death sentence. He also repeatedly spoke against executing people on death row for decades.

(One example here would be his dissent in Glossip v. Gross. Richard Glossip still lives with the latest being the state attorney general supporting overturning his conviction. In prison for over twenty-five years, even if his conviction was not so tainted, I think he has served enough time. Breyer's dissent holds up.)

The public welfare value of executing Gaskin at this point continues to escape me. He was executed.

Gov. Hochul Is Learning: New Court of Appeals Picks

If you want to understand what the Governor’s inspired decision to nominate RDW to be chief judge means, check out @CCA_NY’s clear and even-handed fact sheet below.

Today is a *great* day for New York. Brava @GovKathyHochul! https://t.co/jX1P09KBsZ

— Noah Rosenblum (@narosenblum) April 10, 2023

Gov. Hochul really messed up her first big responsibility to start her full term though it carried over from the end of her first term. 

She's learning.  Prof. Rosenblum was a strong opponent of her first pick for the chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals (highest court). He is now one of many critics very supportive of Judge Rowan Wilson, an existing liberal on the court.  He would also be a "first," the first African-American chief judge.  

Gov. Hochul is also craftily finding a way to bring in a more moderate pick.  Caitlin J. Halligan is another option that on paper in various respects looks like a good pick (see her first failed pick). She was formerly a solicitor general of New York (the "Elena Kagan" route).  She was a blocked Obama nominee to the federal bench. And, to quote the organization cited in the tweet:

In her pro bono work in recent years, Halligan has argued in favor of defendants’ constitutional rights to confront witnesses against them, the constitutionality of New York City’s rent control statutes, and New York State’s right to require Amazon to provide better conditions for their workers than those required by federal law.

Yes, there is a "but," though it's doubtful with the general abhorrence of the New York Senate to block nominees, the first half of the package (if he's confirmed, Halligan would fill the vacancy), and the rest of her record. Halligan has also defended corporate clients and in her official governmental role advanced conservative arguments.  But, if corporate clients are a choice, so are pro bono clients. 

She is replacing a conservative. A great leader would be put in place and the bench still should shift to 3-2 overall.  Halligan is someone you expect a conservative in various ways Democrat like Gov. Hochul (Cuomo's choice for lieutenant governor) would choose.  But, as a package, I think this is okay. If she did this the FIRST time, it would have gone even better.  

It's hard to see either not confirmed though there is some grumbling among Republicans that it is illegal to nominate two at once in this fashion. Seems like a picayune dispute that won't be having staying power.  

Two News Events: Abortion Pills and Legislators Expelled

I won't say they are the only thing of special note, but two big things happened in the past week. 

Tennesse and Republican Government

First, the Tennessee House expelled two young black legislators for their roles in a gun control protest. A more veteran white woman legislator missed being expelled by one vote.  This is a supermajority Republican (modern-day version) legislature on steroids.  

I think the veteran status meant something, but sorry, any concern this was racism plain and simple is earned.  Also, the two might be back soon. At least one, maybe both, can be temporarily reappointed and then it will be left to voters to decide in a special election. This happened historically when legislators were expelled or resigned under pressure.  

There is a mixture of racism, attacking free speech and protest, and unhinged partisanship here.  This includes critics arguing peaceful protests here were like or worse than 1/6/21.  Finally, expelling representatives in this fashion might even be a Guarantee Clause violation.

This is one of those moments that should not just be labeled "just another thing."  It is a next-level thing and should be labeled as such. More cases might be on the horizon, this serving as a "precedent."

ETA: Both were reinstated by their localities. There will now be a special election.  They both plan to run.  Self-own, Republicans. 

Abortion Pill Rulings

Judge Kacsmaryk (who subtweeted Steve Vladeck for criticizing him, getting schooled in a Slate piece in response) was expected to strike down the usage of the abortion pill mifepristone.  Some conservatives beforehand flagged how the case was weak for various reasons. As one noted:

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit is extremely weak and deserves to lose. I believe it will.

Well, if it does, it won't at this level.  

[ETA: He has a strong criticism up now but I think is a tad too optimistic about how much this is an outlier, especially in the 5CA and about abortion overall.  And, you can be against abortion.  

But, strong advocacy, especially legal advocacy, is likely at some point to influence your judging. People are nominated for their backgrounds for a reason here.  It isn't merely some big academic thought experiment. Anyway, not going to get people to trust here if such people use their bench for opinions like this.]

Two Strict Scrutiny Podcast co-hosts have takedowns, each strongly attacking it using their own styles. Leah Litman at Slate in part attacked his biased rhetoric:

There are several ways the opinion is lawless, as Mark Stern has already pointed out. Start with the tone. Footnote 1 of the opinion announces that it is “unscientific” to use the term “fetus,” and so the great scientist (or judge, it’s hard to keep track) Matthew Kacsmaryk prefers the phrases “unborn child” or “unborn human.” (He cites a philosopher and political scientist for back-up.) Footnote 2 of the opinion then recycles personal-jet-flying, superyacht-riding world traveler Clarence Thomas’s efforts to falsely equate support for abortion rights with eugenics.

Kate Shaw (who has a pending law article with the third host about the claim Dobbs was "democratic" in nature) brings in her restrained anger style at NYT.  To touch upon that:

The drug’s long-settled approval is the result of a functioning democratic process: an accountable federal agency, exercising authority delegated to it by Congress, conducted a rigorous review process — one recognized worldwide as the gold standard. The F.D.A. concluded that mifepristone is incredibly safe, and independent research has since confirmed that it is safer, in fact, than Tylenol, penicillin and Viagra.

Prof. Shaw includes various strategic moves that the Biden Administration (the president and vice president both strongly criticized the ruling) can take besides (as they did) appeal.  The case is made more complicated because a competing opinion came down about the same time on Friday. The op-ed is an important reminder that a bad ruling does not necessarily mean that one judge simply can hold up the government.  

(More links. The Biden Administration's argument a law against abortion products being mailed should be interpreted in a limited fashion. Also, an article on New York's response to the ruling.)  

This ruling is again something that should not be treated as just more of the same.  This is different since unlike expelling legislators we have many more horrible lower-court opinions.  And, it underlines the need to update how we handle nationwide injections, judge shopping, and other matters.  But, even as such opinions go, this one is a doozy.  

Both news stories do touch upon wider things that have been taken "to eleven" (I would worry about this reference if anyone reads my blog) in these cases.  It is fine to talk about that.  Michelle Goldberg, who wrote a book about reproductive policy some years back, talks about the Comstock Act reborn as a whole.  Susan Collins "concerned" with this one opinion won't do it.  

As Biden notes:

But let’s be clear – the only way to stop those who are committed to taking away women’s rights and freedoms in every state is to elect a Congress who will pass a law restoring Roe versus Wade.  

We can note the particularly horrible nature of these two events while still noting the wider problem.  

ETA: This puff piece (curious how personal it is when he isn't supposed to be letting his personal experiences influence his rulings) on the conservative judge won't help NYT critics.  

I looked up the writer, and she's a new member of the SCOTUS coverage team with some real liberal crime coverage cred.  It's a depressing early effort.  

The Green Pastures

I took out a live performance DVD of Jesus Christ Superstar (I watched a bit of the film before) and did not like it.  

The stage version (including the Jewish priests in totally modern attire) is a collection of staged songs with no real narrative to connect them.  Maybe, I would have liked the film version better though I have doubts.  I did watch the "Why do I love Him" Mary Magdalene number on YouTube.  She is the usual former prostitute, unlike her likely real-life role.

(I reference her portrayal in the gospels.  The details are bare so even using that would entail a lot of supposition.  And, the gospels are not history in various ways, so the creation of a new life for Mary is not really totally a bad thing.  The question is ultimately what you want from the story, including how the prostitute bit has various stereotypes.)  

I did like The Green Pastures, which made for sensible Easter watching (it was on TCM at 7 A.M., but I did not watch it straight thru all at once).  As the opening note says, the film is a view of how "negroes" (this is the 1930s) often view biblical events, different people seeing them thru their own eyes.  One familiar face (or voice!) to Jack Benny fans is "Rochester," here before they met -- the actor plays Noah.  

So, we see bible stories from creation to the crucifixion (the whole thing is about 90 minutes so only certain highlights) as average poor blacks might imagine them, complete with "ten cent cigars" at the heavenly picnic.  As Robert Osborne notes in the TCM intro (not shown today), the result might come off as somewhat offensive.  I'm not the best to say.  I will say the whole thing is done respectfully and is a quality piece of work. 

Before the flood, to take an example, we see various stereotypically black sinners that you might find in the South, including gamblers and good-for-nothing guys and women playing around. Cain VI or something kills a rival, not having his gun with him at the time.  

This is black stereotyping, but you can have a similar poor white scenario.  It also is a fine translation of the basic story using modern-day motifs.  Also, most people have a rather limited concept of the basics.  There is a relatively rare bit of humor where Noah tries to convince God that he should take two jugs of liquor (no, Noah, one is enough) with him on the Ark. 

The God (Da Lawd, also playing a couple other characters) here is remarkably human in various ways.  He is a kindly creature but also one with a "wraith" for his often disappointing creation.  We also see his anguish at what is happening.  He reminds us (recall this is an all-black cast) at one point that all is his own creation, including the enslavement of the Israelites.  The finale involves a man telling him about how we learned about mercy and developed a new view of a God of mercy.  Mercy came from suffering.  Cue the angels seeing Jesus being crucified.  

Zora Neale Hurston, the black woman author and anthropologist, a few years after the film wrote her own version of the Moses story.  I read it some years ago and liked it.  The story basically is the Moses story from an African-American perspective.  Whites have told bible stories through their own perspectives over the years.  So, this is proper.  The usual bible film of the era is full of schlock aspects.  This film is quite respectful all totaled. 

The Wikipedia summary might be a reference to the original play because the film has different framing pieces (a black preacher teaching Sunday school and it ends with him leaving, an old man holding a sleeping black baby in the last shot).  

Happy Easter.  

Natural Selection (and other films)

I like looking thru movie review books and reading movie reviews. I used to regularly see films in theaters (about once a week). 

The whole experience was enjoyable, including going to the theater (there used to be a multiplex, the Whitestone, within walking or biking distance, for instance) and so on.  

The increase of movies on cable and computers in general tempered things some. Other issues also arose, including COVID. I have not gone to see a movie since COVID led to the closing of theaters. There are often not even films in the theaters that really interest me.  

Things such as the NY Daily News no longer having movie reviews or even listings (at least in their ever-decreasing hard copies) don't help either. Fridays used to be a big thing for me with reviews and so on.  I also have less patience for films generally.  Again, it helps when you are not at a movie theater.  After paying and all.

==

So, I was glad to enjoy Natural Selection, including Rachael Harris. She is great in this film as a naive woman who deep down is someone a guy would like to have as a wife. The idea her husband doesn't want to have sex with her (after a botched abortion) is a travesty really.  She surely wants to have sex!

We find out about that abortion when she finds a guy [it best not to think too hard about her finding him] who is the result of her husband secretly all these years donating at a sperm clinic. If the abortion is botched, you would think it was before it was legal.  

[The biological son is in his early 20s so maybe it works if it is the early 1990s.  Sperm banks apparently started in the 1960s. The film seems to take place in the 1980s at best.  No computers, cell phones, and so forth.  Surely doesn't look like 2011.]

The film has a good supporting cast and the reprobate son is also very good. The film also doesn't quite go in the direction you might think (no happy ending where she runs away with the guy) though her getting pregnant (it barely is clear they even had sex, but it is lampshaded by him saying he is very fertile -- he already has three kids).  Harris deserved more leading roles!

BTW, contra Roger Ebert's review, if she takes a literal fundamental view of things, she probably would consider having sex with her husband's son incest.  

==

I tried some other films that didn't work. Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands is a famous 1970s film with a sexy reputation with a young Sônia Braga.  It takes place in Brazil, but the DVD commentary (the director was even younger than Braga at the time!) by the director is in almost accent-less English.  

I got bored with the film since the first part is dominated by the first husband, who basically isn't that interesting even if one can see why Dona Flor would be turned on by him.  The commentary track was interesting enough if the film was more so.  We do see some nudity though a Brazilian nude (without from what I saw any of her crotch, to be blunt) really comes off like some Showtime late-night soft porn with tanned actresses. 

==

I believe I saw Mississippi Masala in the theater back in the day.  Yes, I did. I have a list of books and films in theaters since 1988.  I saw it at the Whitestone, gave it 3.5 stars (of 4), and said "performances + characters are a treat to see."  I saw some other films directed by Mira Nair (including the not that good Amelia Earhart film).  Recall watching her Kuma Sutra film.

I checked out Nair's Vanity Fair (a bit of her commentary and all the extras), a form of the very long [though it was originally a bunch of installments] British 19th Century novel.  I listened to the very beginning of her commentary on Monsoon Wedding.  No.  It's a film I might have handled when it first came out all the same.  Her narration is fine though. Very down to earth.  Again, slight accent, influenced by a lot of English language education, perhaps. 

===

I have no real interest in watching The Da Vinci Code film (partially since the bad history will annoy me) though just read (re-read?) Bart Ehrman's book on real history.  The book is basically cotton candy reading since it is not only short (around 200 pages but a small 200 pages) but he covers the same ground I read about (including by him -- his books repeat certain key bits) already.  Still, like an easy-to-make/eat pasta dinner, why not? 

After all, Easter is tomorrow.  I will check out a performance of Jesus Christ Superstar (the last DVD to watch) on that date. I watched a bit of a couple scenes already before.  I also have a soundtrack CD.  Maybe I'll comment.  ETA: Nah.

Supreme Court Watch

Wisconsin Supreme Court Race

I talked about the book A Right To Lie, which had a chapter on a draw-out ethical dispute involving one of the conservative justices. State, that is. 

It ultimately split the Wisconsin Supreme Court evenly, the justice himself recusing from the dispute.  We also had bad feelings that ratcheted so high that one justice accused another of choking her.  This is the era that brought us Scott Walker and ultimately the state voting for Trump.  

Things have gone somewhat better in the Trump Midwest, especially in Michigan.  Wisconsin has a Democrat as governor, even if he is a bit alone as is the case in North Carolina.  But, unlike there, we have good news on the Supreme Court front.  After two of their justices were on Strict Scrutiny Podcast (though not because of!), the liberal-leaning option won a big election.  We will have a 4-3 (six women!) liberal learning court.  

The hope, for instance, is that such a court will help address the blatant partisan gerrymandering in that state.  We shall see.   

Order List

The election (the progressive Democrat also won the Chicago mayoral run-off) happened on Tuesday, but it is worthy of a lead.  The Monday Order List was basically low-key, except for another dissent by Justice Jackson (now joined by both Sotomayor and Kagan) involving a high-profile death penalty case. 

Jackson is starting to get a reputation for these crisp, few pages criminal justice dissents.  After all, her criminal justice props, including as a member of the Sentencing Commission, was one thing her supporters felt would provide good potential.  I do wish she said a bit more about those final death penalty orders (pro forma "no comments") though. 

Joan Biskupic Book

Top Supreme Court journalist, Joan Biskupic, has various books under her belt already, including about John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor. Nine Black Robes, which promises to provide some inside material about the road to the Trump Judge Era, already is getting some positive props.  

And, its launch day was only Tuesday.  I was somewhat underwhelmed by Linda Greenhouse's "first year of Barrett" book, thinking it didn't really tell us more than what was already in the news.  It was a decent summary, especially for those less aware of things.  I think the Blackmun book was a better summary of things.  Different type of book, but I liked it better. 

I think this book will have some more material though at times we should be careful about one person's insights.  I thought the "big reveal" about Roberts' choices in the PPACA Cases was a bit exaggerated.  I still am not sure exactly what happened there.  

Thomas Yet Again 

Also in the news (again -- the article cites the matter covered over a decade ago): Thomas' ethical problems.  

The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee promises something will be done and re-upped calls for a binding ethics policy.  Democrats just might have the juice to force that into a budget measure.  Will see.  Good message. But, enough with mere words. These people are not going to be shamed into action.  

Thomas defended himself partially with an "innocent look" defense that gives the breadth of involvement and past actions regarding lack of disclosure don't come off as too credible.  But, you know, it just underlines the limits of a "trust us" approach here.  

Steve Vladeck on Twitter argued we should focus on stronger control of the courts to address ongoing problems.  I think that only goes too far -- I think his comments tend to handwave concerns about specific justices as if addressing them is "partisan" or something -- but that's part of the correct response.  So, on this issue, a binding ethics rule is valid.  

Orders: Trans 

After holding on to it longer than some court watchers deemed normal, SCOTUS rejected West Virginia's request to enforce a state law barring transgender girls from girls' sports teams against a 12-year-old wanting to compete on her middle-school track team while litigation continues.

Alito (with Thomas) with a brief public dissent, granting the state delayed challenging it and so on, but you know, putting that aside, they wanted to use the emergency [shadow] docket to hold things up. Sure.  So, it took longer for this bit of hypocrisy? 

Some reports, as tends to happen when SCOTUS merely fails to intervene, probably implies to some this matters more than it really does. Trans issues continue to be the ongoing issue of the day, including being a sort of acceptable demonization target in various states. 

This whole thing is "to be continued" with a Biden agency proposal (which will take time to finalize) that has received some criticism but also very well might be a reasonable approach.  

Next Up

The next thing on the actual SCOTUS schedule is a conference and opinion release day next Friday (4/14). 

Trump Arraignment (Manhattan)

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise

Trump was arraigned for thirty-four felony counts.  The indictment is not a "narrative" as some are so there is a separate statement of facts. The first is dry stuff. NYT annotated it. 

The second has things like this:

B. Suppressing the Doorman’s Story

10. A few months later, in or about October or November 2015, the AMI [National Enquirer] CEO learned that a former Trump Tower doorman (the “Doorman”) was trying to sell information regarding a child that the Defendant had allegedly fathered out of wedlock.

Two women are cited (Woman 1 and Woman 2), one addressed as an "adult film actress."  Stormy Daniels gets a lot of attention but Karen McDougal also is involved.  McDougals' Wikipedia page has this little tidbit:

In June 2021, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) found that the National Enquirer violated U.S. election laws and that the $150,000 paid by AMI [owns National Enquirer] to McDougal amounted to an illegal campaign contribution. AMI agreed to a fine of $187,500. Because the FEC was equally divided on party lines, it could not pursue further investigation into Trump, who accordingly will not be punished or be the subject of further inquiry by the FEC.

The division of FEC was one of those multiple stories about how a divided government led to inaction. It also is just another reason why justice was delayed (sitting president etc.).

There is also continued hand-wringing about doing things the wrong way, including by Rick Hasen (who sometimes falls into this trap).  The idea is that this particular indictment (with the current schedule having the next hearing next December!) somehow will drag on in the courts more so than some others, for instance.  Georgia and the U.S. have not indicted him yet.  ANY prosecution will be a drawn-out affair.  There are no "slam dunks."

I won't repeat my arguments for thinking this is a good move "politically" too.  As to having one shot at the king, New York is not the only sovereign who will have a chance. And, with multiple other concerns, the feds now likely see this as a backburner sort of deal. So, the result basically is yet another "reason" by someone who assures us they are not a Trump supporter (no no!) to de facto enable him.  

[Hasen noted in 2018 that the feds probably could charge Trump for reasons related to what Michael Cohen is prosecuted for, but you know, no sitting president and all that.  The former Manhattan DA says the Barr-led Justice Department encouraged him not to prosecute before the feds look into it (any day now!).  Garland wasn't going to prosecute Trump on this before all the other stuff either.  So, the net effect is likely that state charges are the only realistic way to go after Trump on this issue.]

Here is one discussion of the not trivial crime of falsification of business records.  Manhattan District Attorney Bragg suggested in his short press conference that we might find more information in the coming days. He also emphasized that the business capital of the world and such makes this issue of special importance.

Meanwhile, we have headlines like "Prosecutors Cite Payoffs to Porn Star, Playboy Model and a Doorman."  And, over the top Trump bootlicking that never actually denies he did what he was charged for.  Since we know he did it.  The basic precedent of biting the bullet and realizing that the rule of law applies to former Oval Office members is set. 

It was also reported by a few people that Trump's son retweeted (or whatever; it was on Truth Social) an article with a picture of the judge's daughter. This was made out as basically an implicit threat.  The explanation is that she worked for the Biden/Harris campaign, so the judge is biased.  I'm sure they are very upset about Clarence Thomas.

(I don't like showing family members' pictures in this fashion but it's somewhat hard to see how even making the claim -- it's a standard one -- is illicit.  It is a real concern -- a federal law was recently passed to protect the family of federal judges.  But, it's probably a hard call.)  

ETA: The "hard call" is regarding people who see this as a blatant threat. I think it's bad. And, Trump (yet again) bad-mouthing the judge and his family on a personal level is also horrible on a moral principle matter. This sort of thing matters. Also, two of the Strict Scrutiny Podcast crew had an excellent summary of things.]

This covered alleged acts that happened before the events covered in the federal and Georgia investigations.  It made sense it came first. And, New York already gained a conviction of Trump's family business last December.  That too took time and energy.  

[Trump still has state civil charges pending, a lawsuit arising from the woman he denied he raped, and who knows what coming up.]

I am sympathetic to those who argue that it takes a long time to prosecute.  But, years have passed now since January 2021.  It was time to start the indictment/arraignment ball rolling too.  I support this effort.  

ETA: I think the Leah Litman and Kate Shaw remarks I cited in my update are very good.  Chris Geidner, who is no kneejerk sort, also challenges Rick Hasen (if more briefly) here.  As someone noted, isn't Manhattan -- Trump's home for most of his life -- a perfectly logical (and reasonable) place to try him? 

I think he's right too, especially from the political angle.  I am quite annoyed at the other side, who people already are flagging, and we will likely see more "even them" talk.  Thanks, guys!

Ian Millhiser is another hand-wringer here.  I'm getting tired of his general shtick.  He repeatedly comes off as over the top and it is getting old.  It's a "type."  It's just one that annoys me.