SCOTUS: Order List (and Oral Arguments)

Light Order Day, with the usual complaint that the Supreme Court could be much more helpful with a FAQ and an easy way to link to the case docket pages. Sotomayor flagged an issue involving a means to challenge alleged civil liberty violations. 

Did not dissent from cert. denial. Again, a FAQ would helpfully summarize what it means when the Court does not take a case, basic recusal rules [a justice recused without comment], and odds and ends. For instance, references to certain rules regarding abusive complaints. A friendly Supreme Court can obtain useful positive p.r., which is rather useful.

Justices do not (publicly at least) pop up on social media accounts like Twitter/X. They regularly give speeches, have interviews, and so on. Justice Jackson posting the transcript of a speech was something not done since before Ginsburg died. Is the concern that posting a speech will be treated as "official" in some respect? Why did they set up that page at all?

The issue tangentially arose in two cases argued this week concerning the ability of public officials to block people on their social media accounts. The basic debate turned on if the account was "official" and how you determine that (an effects test?).  Also, is a disclaimer that an account is not public necessary? How much would it matter?

The issue arose without it being decided by the Supreme Court during the Trump Administration. The Biden Administration also uses social media. I think there is likely a right to block people as long as it is clearly not an official account. Disclaimer rules can be required there. Some sort of effects (how it operates) test is likely sensible. And, for fear of censorship, no "one strike and you are out" rule. Edge cases can be flagged, and discussed, and then the person will be aware of the rules.  

The first case argued this week involved what rule to use in an asset forfeiture case. This area has been controversial, with some concern coming from various sectors, for decades. The specific case is narrower. 

The case tomorrow will involve a trademark case involving political speech. Since I don't really discuss cases at the oral argument stage, I'll leave it there.  But, the government is in trouble, probably. Friday Conference and more orders/orals next week. 

ETA: Listening to the orals, not quite as sure about the result.

I Vent While Making Some Hopefully Broader Points

I have discussed issues online for a long time. I still get upset when I think people make bad arguments, especially those who we have some reason to expect more from. I know the drill. I have that "Someone Is Wrong On The Internet" comic on my wall near my desk. I inked in "not a role model" or thereabouts. 

I don't think I'm going to change. Some lawyer who has spent a lot of time breaking down the law regarding Trump annoyed me. 

I went back to see if my comment had a reply. The whole reply was a link to some FAQ on criminal law and a "maybe this will help" comment. My comment was long and had various aspects, including disagreement with the person's citation of a commentator.* 

The link was non-responsive and implied I'm some idiot who is not aware of the criminal law. The reply pissed me off. I should have just ignored it. 

Not my style. For instance, my comment was in part in reply to someone arguing we should just let the system run its course until Trump is incarcerated. My comment in part suggested that is not guaranteed. It's something we need to factor in. I did not mean that suddenly we should just assume guilt. I would have clarified if the person didn't patronize me. 

Another person was upset that multiple defendants noting Trump incited them was not enough for a gag order. A respectful response to pushing back would ask if the person would accept the understanding more evidence that their claims were sound was necessary.

Okay. Instead, the person replied suggesting his approach would result in justice worse than Stalin's Russia. By chance, I just wrote something about the history of Ukraine during Stalin's control. 

Suffice it to say, the comment is f-ing asinine even granting the approach would result in injustices. This was again not some rando. The person was an expert who we have some warrant to expect more from.

Relatedly, we have Mark Meadows, who recent news brought to light received immunity from Jack Smith for testimony. He's the sort who won't testify (or will play somewhat coy) while writing bullshit books about the situation. 

The Slate summary shows how full of shit this guy is. He thinks he is above it all, not like trolls like Rudy or Sidney Powell. He's just one of the "serious people" who had to deal with Trump. These are the sorts who are particularly troublesome and horrible.

They are cynical bastards. And, they do get away with it all enough for their cynical assurances to be rather sensible. 

Meanwhile, people talk about Trump as if this whole thing is some sort of First Amendment f-ing thought experiment. 

---

* The person speaks here on recent anti-semitism. I respect the person. But, citing him as some calm and collective source that is a special snowflake of rationality is a bit much. 

He repeatedly has spoken in very strong terms against the Supreme Court, whose rulings he repeatedly disagreed with, including when arguing the case. How a link to a criminal law FAQ is responsive to my take here is unclear.

A reply to his comment includes this comment:

An oft-repeated mantra among some is that Israel is a settler colonialist country and should be forced to give the land back to the Palestinians. I have no idea how it would be determined who is rightly entitled to what land, but I do know that calling for the total elimination of Israel is antisemitic.

I reckon maybe a law professor could have "some" idea here, including how territory that under international law is supposed to be temporarily occupied should not have permanent settlers who make a two-state solution basically impossible. A fair reply is to note, perhaps, especially since in this fashion it very well is a "settler colonialist" country. 

I don't think a "total elimination of Israel" is very likely though I would like to know what that entails. Some argue we could not actually have a "one-state" solution where Palestinians simply are given an equal role country as a whole. They could outnumber the Jews. "Israel" would be eliminated.

How many protesters with any real power are truly asking for the "total elimination" of Israel? That is, in this country. I'm almost inclined to say other places too though I assume some in the Middle East would not mind. The land they want to be returned is the occupied territories. At least, that is likely the median position of even some of these vitriolic comments.

I am not trying to handwave things. See also here. I'm just trying to come at this in a more even-handed way.  

RIP A Pair Of Sitcom Stars

A relative's dog died and then someone else told me about an elderly neighbor dying. I was like "Okay is someone ELSE going to die today?" 

The emphasis on "else" perhaps was a warning. It turns out Matthew Perry, best known as Chandler on Friends died as well. Fans will know that Chandler (at least early in the series before the character began to mature) had a silly emphasis thing. Perry at an early age found it amusing.  

The NYT obit (which dubiously relies on IMBD at one point) references a previous article (updated on Christmas Day!) talking about young fans of the show. There were multiple fans of Chandler, both sexes. 

Sadly, none of the people liked Monica the best.  I am totally Team Monica/Chandler. You just knew, at least in hindsight, they were meant to be together. Just think of the first season episode when Ross' son was born. They did wound up together, before 40, and even had twins! 

I did not watch Friends consistently in the 1990s. I stopped watching after the two-parter involving Chandler and Monica's engagement. As I recall, I thought it was badly handled. I still don't like the concept. Monica's old boyfriend coming back is forced and he's not as free and easy as he was originally. And, the whole "I'll trick her into thinking I'm not into marriage" thing was lame stupid Three's Company stuff an early episode joked about.

As I have noted in the past, I started watching it much more around five years ago and saw all the episodes on DVD, including stuff cut from the final episode and extras/commentary. Friends is on multiple channels, including hours of it each night on Nickelodeon (I have eastern and western feeds, so get double!).  I still enjoy some of the episodes.

The show is comfort food. I know the usual criticisms and some are valid. The first and last seasons particularly leave something to be desired. Still, it has various complexities, including Ross multiple times having non-white girlfriends (it is still bothersome to me that Phoebe, the supposed free-spirited hippie type, did not have more diverse boyfriends). 

It has some very funny stuff and some good serious moments too. I do wish it had the courage to be a bit more deep, but hey, it's a sitcom. Still, why not let Chandler find his peace in the end with Janice? If he can accept the maturity to have a child, he can accept Janice, who once (very touchingly; I stanned that relationship too) was his true love.  

(Chandler is also the character I most associate with, though again, there are differences. For instance, my parents are both run-of-the-mill types.)

Matthew Perry's other performances are more mixed and he particularly had problems finding success after Friends. He did play Oscar Madison for a few years in a reboot that I didn't like. He had a mixed record in films, but I enjoyed him in The Whole Nine Yards and the silly historical satire, Almost Heroes. At the time, but not when I saw it years later, Three To Tango also was pleasant enough. A good bit on West Wing. 

I skimmed his autobiography. He honestly spoke about his problems with drugs and relationships. He had some "Chandler" in him, including his relationship with his mother (his father, who played the father of Rachel's boyfriend Joshua in one episode, was not a trans person though!). It is worth a read. I also saw that a few days ago, he posted a picture of the hot tub he was found dead in. I think Matthew Perry would appreciate that.

==

Richard Moll, Bull on Night Court, died at 80 recently as well. This is less surprising than someone like Perry dying in his mid-50s though he has had health issues. BJ Colangelo wrote a nice obituary. She explains he had a diverse career, including as an "ex-gay" in But I'm A Cheerleader.

She's a horror movie fan. I first read her years back at her Day of the Woman blog, named after a movie better known as I Spit On Your Grave. Like me, she was not a big fan of the remake.  She knows her films and is quite a character as people who follow her on social media know. Also, she is tough, including fighting cancer in her 20s.  

I was a fan of Night Court during the 1980s. I wanted to like the reboot, but like multiple ones (many don't like Frasier), it left something to be desired. Richard Moll had issues with the person guy who played the judge and wanted to get passed the role. The one remaining cast member of Gilligan's Island, Ginger, didn't take part in the movies.

["Roz" was in the season finale of the first season of the reboot.]

==

Time marches on. For instance, I also grew up watching Married ... with Children and am a big fan of Kelly Bundy. She's just not a slut, you know! The later episodes suggest it very well might have been interesting to see how Kelly Bundy turned out. 

Christiana Applegate had two great appearances on Friends as Rachel's sister. She's dealing with MS now. She's easy to root for, including her down-to-earth, plain-spoken social media comments. She was bemused when she found out her Twitter/X account was hacked.  

Stop Second Guessing the Mets Season

"Bill Madden: Diamondbacks in the World Series proof that Mets gave up too early on season"

No, it isn't. Might want to look up what "proof" means.

The Orioles were eliminated right away. I'm unsure what special energy the Mets had to ride the storm here.

Arizona led the division early. This isn't some total shock. The Mets had a chance to show they had something in July. They played listless .500 ball [if that] after a short good stretch (helped by beating up Arizona, in the midst of a drop-off at that point of the season). 

When did the Mets EVER lead like Arizona? Yes, they had a shot at the playoffs, but it was a shot on top of a shot that they would get far. Take the Padres. They were two or so games (including a hard-luck loss late) away. They had a September run. Mets, even if they got help at the break, had about as much of a chance as them. Especially with Scherzer hurt. 

In 2015, the Mets had a single team to beat (flawed Washington), and kept around .500. They needed a special push to make it. And, even then, again, they needed the Nationals to blow it. Much harder this season. Far, far bigger hole to catch up to Atlanta.  Had a hole in the wild card race. Some teams that didn't make it had as much of a chance or more than them. 

The Mets played for the future. That made sense. Stop it.

ETA: A rather embarrassing New York clash this weekend. 

The Giants had to play with their third-stringer (not a relative of Danny DeVito, as far as I know), but the Jets defense gifted them a 10-7 lead. Both teams with multiple key in-game injuries. 

It easily could have ended there but with under a half minute left, helped by the Giants runner giving himself up instead of just trying to get one more yard, a mid-range FG was missed. A longer one was missed earlier. 

The Jets' offense suddenly came alive again and got a FG. Then, after the Giants did nothing in OT, the Jets (helped by a Giants pass interference) got another to win the game. Not pretty. 

The Jets somehow is alive after beating multiple good teams (and Denver, who should be better than they are, though they upset KC today, to make Taylor Swift sad). The Giants won two games on their defense and the other teams making mistakes. 

Almost got a third.

New York 2023 Early Voting Begins

The early voting for New York elections began today.

Off-year elections are important in the United States. We do not just have presidential elections or even congressional elections (every two years, a third of the U.S. Senate each time). There are a slew of others, including for state governors and a ballot measure that could bring reproductive liberty to Ohio. Other elections are still important on a local basis. 

New York City is largely a Democratic town though a few Republicans now manage to win city council seats. My Bronx district is one of the few races labeled competitive. So, when I went to my nearby early voting location [not all polling places, but a good many, more were added last year], there was a competitive race for me.  

FIND YOUR POLLING PLACE

However, the uncompetitive nature of the area is suggested by the Bronx district attorney candidate running unopposed. This is a dubious Republican choice for an important state office [DA is a state officer; it does not have ranked choice voting during the primary].  It is a good policy to at least run a candidate to promote the brand as well as individual people.

There are also local judicial races. I never found these sensible. The choices are selected by some sort of commission or whatever. Who knows. The voting guide you are sent in the mail needs to address the question, including providing the names of those on the ballot. The judges regularly run unopposed. I regularly write in one or more protest votes.

Democracy is very important. It should be carefully used. This includes providing a well-run election system with broad suffrage. 

Nonetheless, there should be some care on what the people vote for. Some positions (and issues) are better left to our representatives. The people are asked to vote for judges here with very little information. This is beyond the dangers of popular elections of judges generally, including partisanship infecting justice. It is a sham of a choice. 

[ETA: Here is more on judicial races, including boroughs where there is actually competition. So, the choices are mostly made by insiders, and this gives a Potemkin Village sort of gloss of democratic legitimacy? Okay.]

The Ohio referendum to place reproductive liberty in the state constitution is an important way for the people to express their will. Ohio is a gerrymandered state. Direct democracy is most appropriate when there is a concern that normal republican (small 'r') measures do not work fairly. 

The two proposals on the New York ballot are another matter. They involve important issues involving funding small city school districts and sewer funding. The state constitution requires a public vote before the fiscal changes, which does not seem to have much opposition at all [this time, the voting guide did discuss it; no opposition was noted], are passed. 

Nonetheless, it is a dubious method of direct democracy. Why should people in New York City have much say at all about how small city school districts fund themselves?  What does the average voter know about sewer funding? These are specialized items that should be hashed out by others. 

I think in New York there are limited measures that are sensible things the public at large reasonably would vote for. For instance, if a state constitutional amendment strengthened reproductive liberty or changed how we voted. A permanent no-excuse mail-in voting provision, for instance. The two measures, which I voted "yes" each time since I did not understand anyone really thought otherwise, are not that.  

Anyway, I again did my civic duty. I received my free sticker and kept the stylus pen (little rubber top to sign in, pen to fill in the ballot). New York does not provide a receipt to the voter, which is somewhat dubious. But, the whole thing went smoothly. The privacy booth was a bit too close to one of the tables. You should do something about that.

I have some interest in this whole voting thing since on Election Day I will be a poll worker. Do your part. Educate yourself.  Vote.  

Get a sticker.  

ETA: Saw an article in the NY Daily News, on Sunday, that the Conservative Party is against both proposals. Okay. Anyway. 

SCOTUS Watch

Order List 

Chief Justice Roberts granted an administrative stay recently. 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to block a ruling by a federal appeals court that would allow a Native American tribe in Florida to take online sports bets. In a brief unsigned order, the justices turned down a request by two casinos located in Florida to put a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on hold while the casinos seek Supreme Court review.

Kavanaugh had a brief statement in part suggesting the possibility of favoring one Native American tribe. If that happened, he said it would raise equal protection issues. The idea that tribal policy would raise that issue is not really something that should be blithely tossed out as an aside.

Anyway, since he wrote something, the order is on the "Opinions Relating to Orders - 2023" page on the website. I don't claim my comment to the web administrator is the reason, but two errors on the case list were fixed. One had the most recent Missouri case dated incorrectly. The second had "BK" (Kavanaugh) as the author when he only submitted the order to the full court.  

[I was promised an email to confirm I submitted a comment. I never received one. Blah.]

William Speer Execution 

On the day William Speer was scheduled to be executed, he obtained a stay so that the Texas courts could examine various due process claims.

Speer has received some sympathy for his good conduct in prison (at least after he murdered a prisoner there to join a gang) and a horrible childhood.  Also, the victim's daughter opposed the execution. 

I was ready to sigh about another case of someone in prison for over twenty years (death row) before they were executed, seeing it all as a waste. It might still happen.  But, not yet.  Yes, even Texas holds up executions. 

Thomas Again 

A Senate committee, investigating something flagged in news coverage, raised red flags regarding a loan forgiven that benefits Justice Thomas.

This is old news -- the whole thing was completed over a decade ago -- but it covers stuff that has been cited repeatedly. Disclosure problems that raise ethical and maybe criminal implications. Sweetheart arrangements with rich people (atypical here is that an actual old friend was involved). 

The theme usually is that conservative rich people are trying to get in with Justice Thomas. This doesn't seem to have that aspect. It does have the now standard theme of Thomas liking nice things and rich friends helping. 

BTW, can these articles, at times long-form magazine articles, help a guy out by providing bullet points? Some "tl;dr" quality here.  

Book Review

I already read Cliff Sloan's smaller book on Marbury v. Madison and thought it provided a good basic account. 

The Court At War is a longer volume about the Supreme Court during WWII. It isn't that long -- the main text is around 350 pages. A lot of endnotes. 

A chunk of it is focused on a few standard cases (flag salute, Japanese internment, etc.). I didn't need an extended chapter on the moribund attempt to get Douglas on the ballot in 1944. But, that overall aspect of it is again a good standard account. Well written.  

The book had some interesting stuff that is a bit less known, including the length of the justices' coziness with FDR (Stone and Roberts mostly accepted). A few important but lesser-known cases such as the white-only primary case are also covered. I did hope for a bit more there.

Overall though it was not the GREAT BOOK one law professor who got an early copy made it out to be (did he not read any other accounts of this period?), it is a worthwhile read. And, Sloan overall has a liberal mindset, including comparing Skinner (eugenics) with Dobbs.  

[I was able to borrow via interlibrary loan a book put together from Justice Robert Jackson's notes regarding FDR. I found it hard to read though as an insider, it is surely a good historical resource.] 

==

SCOTUS will go back to hearing oral arguments next week. There are some important cases.  An Order List will drop on Monday.  

Some Odds and Ends About Religious Issues

The new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, leaves a lot to be desired for a variety of reasons.  He is big on "religious liberty" through the eyes of a certain conservative lens. 

I am for a separation of church of state approach, which respects religion (FFRF is fine in various respects but is a bit too anti-religion overall for me). Since the Supreme Court does not have a religious liberty case on its docket yet, the BJC podcast dealt with an old issue: legislative prayer. 

(Amanda Tyler, the co-host, also testified again at Congress against Christian nationalism, which is a major mission of hers.) 

The organization supports moments of silence as an option in that context. That is a good approach though if the government in question truly is evenhanded, which perhaps is a fool's errand, roving invocations might be acceptable. The problem there is yes in practice the majority usually wins out (or select disfavored groups are ignored or even blocked, like a Wiccan group is rejected). Also, for some, any mixture is even sacrilegous.  

The corrupt Supreme Court's stripping of abortion rights in Dobbs continues to have aftershocks. An important, but not final, ruling in Georgia (for now) upheld a "heartbeat" ban. Tennessee is trying to justify even blocking abortion information, which led them to lose federal funding. This is simply an outrageous interference with health care.  

I will say a bit more about The Court At War in the Supreme Court round-up, but Jehovah's Witness issues were a major concern. This group is a prime instance of constitutional rights arising from people who are at least rather annoying, if not downright offensive.  

The book, for instance, notes the author of the famous Barnette (flag salute) case dissented in many cases involving the group.* Justice Jackson thought various regulations, such as dealing with the privacy of the home [from in some cases repeated visits from missionaries] were legitimate.  

A rare unanimous loss was Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), which is even more striking that Justice Frank Murphy (who at times was a sole dissenter) wrote the opinion. The Wikipedia article notes there is some claim to argue that Chaplinsky's cries of "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist" were understandable in context. The opinion notes:

Chaplinsky's version of the affair was slightly different. He testified that, when he met Bowering, he asked him to arrest the ones responsible for the disturbance. In reply, Bowering cursed him and told him to come along. Appellant admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the Deity.

The opinion, for some reason, argued the claims that provocation as defense was solely a state matter. Why it does not fall under federal due process is not clear to me.  

Also, "Bowering" here is not just someone in the crowd. He is a town marshall. Noting that in 1942 (after the U.S. entered WWI) terms like "fascist" had more power than today, it is still dubious to apply the "fighting words" rule in this context. Later opinions made it harder to get a conviction in these cases. I don't think these facts would do it.  

(The book notes that Frankfurter labeled his opponents on the Court -- at first Black, Douglas, and Murphy -- the Axis. During WWII, now those are fighting words.)  

* [Added] The cases are still a timely discussion of some of the harder questions when dealing with religious liberty in the modern world.

Martin v. City of Struthers, for instance, was a 5-4 ruling where the dissent (Jackson did this separately) argued the regulation was a legitimate regulation of privacy of the home. The test then would be line drawing.

Note too how the dissent references an important principle: "Changing conditions have begotten modification by law of many practices once deemed a part of the individual's liberty." 

Other dissents have a more extended analysis of the meaning of religious liberty and its limits. Likewise, there is a concern that the cases are being handled without carefully examining specific facts. The "case or controversy" rule and good practice require more careful analysis. 

These concerns are now made by many modern-day liberals when religious accommodations are argued to be taken too far. Then, it was the start of the application of the religious clauses in modern jurisprudence. We have our modern-day "Jehovah's Witnesses," including those with much more influence, up to and including the Speaker of the House. 

Ms. Christmas Comes To Town

It's the holiday season. What? It's not even Halloween! But, come now. Canadian Thanksgiving happened weeks ago. You all know that means it is the start of the Christmas season. After all, these Hallmark Channel films have a large Canadian component!

Well, it's the holiday season (we have a few Jewish films these days and if there are some Kwanza or other themed movies tossed in, it would not surprise) on Hallmark Channel. I personally have two channels now, including Hallmark Channel Movies and Mysteries. I am not a big fan of the "cozy" mysteries but some of the holiday films are good.  

Ms. Christmas Comes To Town has a familiar trio of stars, especially "Ms. Christmas" (a home shopping host) and the male love interest. Ms. Christmas' assistant and chosen replacement is also fairly well known, especially if you are a fan of certain television programs. 

All three do a good job here, especially Barbara Niven (who is in a lot of Hallmark stuff), who has a more serious than usual job here. After all, the plot is that it's her final run because she finds out she doesn't have too long to live. So, her last hurrah is a national tour of sorts (thus the title) with the guy coming along as her nurse. Mixing with the budding romance between the nurse and her assistant, an old love of her returns too.  

This is not totally new material for Niven as shown in the independent film A Perfect Ending. (That will be a bit of a surprise for some of her fans since it contains a lesbian angle.) I won't say the end of this film is "perfect," but do think it was fine. It was not quite your typical ending (the credits rolling was a tad surprising) but I think it worked fine. I enjoyed the film.

Hallmark is (up to a point, fairly) ridiculed for its films. We are talking about a company known for its greeting cards. As I recently noted, CBS used to have "Hallmark Hall of Fame" movies that were supposed to be elite television. Loving Leah, for instance, fell under their banner. 

Many of these films are not that deep. That's fine. The films regularly deal with important topics, including addressing grief and moving on. Family is a big part of these films too, including created families. 

They try to be more diverse these days. One this week had a woman who was scheduled to go to the space station but a car accident made her medically unqualified. Her love interest is a divorced dad with a daughter in a wheelchair. The love interest's parents are in an interracial marriage. I did not see the whole movie. Am not sure if there is GLBTQ content!

(An upcoming film, which looks promising, involves a blind man with a daughter. A recent film involved a woman who went blind.)  

One promotion noted that there will be a new film a week. So, I'm sure they will not all be gems. But, there surely will be a lot, deep into the night. And, this one was very good. Check it out if it comes on.  

New Speaker of the House

After weeks of shenanigans, the House Republicans went with a "dark horse" candidate by the name of Mike Johnson to replace Kevin McCarthy for Speaker. They went through "David Duke without the baggage" Scalise, "crazy jacket-less guy who covered up sexual abuse Jim Jordan, and some guy named "Emmer" (too sane; he not only didn't vote to block the 2020 elections but supported the Respect for Marriage Act.

Emmer was part of a sort of "speed dating" round which originally had around nine candidates. Rep. Mike Johnson gave a speech from the dias once chosen that included some religious conservative talking points and an argument that the deficit is the nation's biggest problem. Not democracy or something. He is a far-right evangelical conservative. 

The title of the linked blog post is appropriately careful in its framing: "New House Speaker Has Long Record of Conservative Advocacy on Religious Freedom Issues." This includes early anti-gay advocacy, the religious beliefs of those who support them not so essential to him. 

It is noted there that he and his wife are in a "covenant marriage." You can dislike that as a religious matter. Catholic doctrine on divorce is also dubious. The immediate concern is that it is actually a state option in a few states. It is one thing to recognize free exercise. It is another to have an actual specific state policy that makes it harder to divorce.

Speaker of House Mike Johnson, second in line to the presidency [fair as a rule, probably], also is a big election denier. He was cited as the "most important architect" of a lawsuit that would have overturned the election in four states. His name was on the cover of the brief. Over a hundred of his fellow Republicans signed it. Each is horrible. But, he led the effort. 

As noted at the link, Republicans do not want to talk about it. This is a standard device. They make outrageous claims and then when challenged get all hedge-y. It's like the hypocrisy of blocking Garland while speeding through Barrett while Biden voters were in the process of electing him. You might have the raw power to do it, but you have to admit that's all it is.

Have no fear though. Justice was reached in the true crime:

Jamaal Bowman Charged With Setting Off False Fire Alarm

Rep. Bowman, a leading progressive in the House, got caught pulling a fire alarm supposedly to try to delay the Kevin McCarthy-led last-minute vote to avoid the shutdown. You know, the immediate cause of his ouster for someone who looks like he is from central casting but has worse views. 

(We will see how Mike Johnson is personally, including his subservient tendencies regarding retaining power.) 

A few liberals had the vapors about how "stupid" that was with one even suggesting he would lose his seat (yes, Bronx liberal voters care so much about that). It was at most a stupid move in the heat of the moment. You do stupid things. Let's have a bit of perspective.  

Congressman Bowman was treated like anyone else who violates the law in the District of Columbia,” Mr. Shoglow-Rubenstein [a spokesman for the D.C. attorney general’s office] said in a statement. “Based on the evidence presented by Capitol Police, we charged the only crime that we have jurisdiction to prosecute.

Okay. Well, if pulling a fire alarm is a zero-tolerance crime in D.C., the police must be darn busy. We have so much more to worry about. But, it is just asinine that this was prosecuted, even if it is just $1000, and will be dropped with payment and an apology in a few months. 

What about someone else? Maybe, who doesn't have the money or who an arrest would matter much more? For instance, the article noted that Bowman would be processed. You are going to force someone to go to the police station or courthouse to be fingerprinted and the like for that? Again, what if they have a job or if even a misdemeanor charge will burn them?

It's an abuse of the criminal justice system. Anyway, we will see the staying power of the new speaker. And, let's make sure when the next counting of electoral votes occurs, a Democrat holds the office.  

Good luck, Arizona!

Some teams spent a lot of money and their seasons went badly, including the Mets and Padres (didn't quite make it with a late run). The Texas Rangers spent a lot of money and did. They along with the Diamondbacks (much more of a surprise) are going to the World Series.

After the first two rounds often did not seem competitive, both leagues took seven games in the last round. Texas blew a perfect opportunity in Game 6 with a blown save. The Phils went up 0-2 and 3-2 but lost in seven. Former Mets journeyman, Paul Sewald, suddenly is a master closer. I wanted the Orioles, but not a bad match-up. Good luck, Arizona!

Footlight Glamour (Blondie)

Today's Blondie film is Footlight Glamour.

The main focus in hindsight of this film is the early role of Ann Savage, who is better known for her film noir work. 

She is not really put to great use here. She is a rather formal and stuffy young daughter of a potential client, who has the acting bug. The film is largely about the performance of a play that she has written. Her father doesn't want her to be involved in acting, especially since he thinks a man is only helping him as a way to get her money. 

The film is overall amusing, basically among the better group of Blondie films. It has an extended set piece involving the performance, which gets more and more absurd. The bits involving the fact that the outfit Dagwood wears was previously used by a magician are the funniest parts. 

The film is also the last one before a short interim in the series during the middle of World War II. It includes various war-related jokes, if not as totally focused as Blondie for Victory. So, there is a joke about ration cards and meatless days.  There are also references to a couple older workers at the office, the younger ones doing their part in the war.  

The supporting cast overall is well-handled. The mailman here has a bigger role since he is involved in the play. Cookie, the youngest, has a few amusing lines. The annoying neighbor boy Alvin also has a few good wisecracks, including a pun on "giving the bird." 

And, it's nice to see Mrs. Dithers too. Finally, there is something reassuring about Mr. Dithers being resigned to how Dagwood is. He knows that Dagwood is part of things and it's his fate to deal with him. If only we were more accepting in real life. 

There are a few standard things that are more tiresome. The last few minutes are handled by Dagwood thinking Blondie went away with a director. Like Blondie at times being distrustful of Dagwood involving a man, this is simply stupid. He knows she is not going to leave her husband and two children like that. 

The bit where she says she is done with acting and glamour (a sort of title drop) at the end is also a bit tiresome. Blondie in the comics now is not as heavyhandedly "I'm a housewife and I'm glad for it" and in fact over recent decades (when I read it more), don't recall that. 

Of course, it makes more sense for her to be like that in the 1940s. Anyway, Blondie being in a non-professional play, money going for some war charity, is not a problem. It's annoyingly antiquated. After all, putting on a show like that seems perfectly innocent, including something to do for church or a Christmas pageant in Little House on the Prairie! 

So, the film is not a complete success. Nonetheless, overall, it was an enjoyable entry. I would give it two and a half stars.  

SCOTUS Watch

Ethics 

I know the drill. The “all nine justices are very committed to the highest standards of ethical conduct" bit is the standard "we are all pals working hard for the public" line. But, it is a bit much since we are not morons.

If we are keeping track, it seems like Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Kagan now have openly supported -- in some fashion -- a formal ethics code that applies to the Supreme Court. 

Kagan is the only one (to my knowledge) who openly granted Congress some role in regulation. I did not listen to her full answer but the reporting suggested it was a general comment. This is overall appropriate but it doesn't tell one much.  

A person who wants to be optimistic here would appreciate Justice Barrett's general support. I personally do not trust the Supreme Court itself to self-regulate. That is not the constitutional system we have. We have checks and balances. Congress has some role in regulating the "good behavior" of federal judges. That is the test. It is not just "life tenure."

Roberts wrote a letter to the Senate saying it was a threat to the separation of powers to voluntarily show up in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Justices have repeatedly shown up in front of Congress. The best approach would be to have a liberal/conservative justice show up. 

Anyway, John Roberts won't save us. I thought the Senate was supposed to have a vote on its SCOTUS ethics bill when it came back for the summer. 

Orders 

We had some notable developments in cases worth watching.

[1] Ghost Guns

SCOTUS, without any comment, granted the federal government's request to lift a stay and allowed it to enforce a regulation involving "ghost guns." Amy Howe has the details, which involve specific companies. 

[2] Racial Discriminatory Districting

After the Supreme Court somewhat surprisingly determined rules against racial discriminatory districting have some teeth, there were various districts involved (including the one involved in the case itself) to address.  

The justices (with Justice Jackson with a brief statement) denied a stay to a Fifth Circuit ruling holding up a re-districting case. The order (not explained) is only found on the "Opinions Related To Orders" page.  

Amy Howe discussed it and summarized Jackson's statement:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with the court’s decision not to put the 5th Circuit’s ruling on hold, but she wrote separately (although alone) to stress that the Supreme Court’s decision not to step in was not an endorsement of the appeal court's order, and that the litigation should be resolved in time for the 2024 elections.

[3] More Guns 

On Friday, also on the opinion related to orders page, a request to stop a district court opinion blocking a Missouri "Second Amendment Preservation Act" was denied. The page now cites "BK" in the justice column (Kavanaugh) which seems wrong since that is who wrote something. The case was handled by Kavanaugh; he wrote nothing. 

Thomas without comment said he would grant the stay. The law purports to block federal laws invading the Second Amendment. Gorsuch with Alito dropped a brief statement, with a charming reference to the case letting Texas' SB8 abortion ban law (pre-Dobbs) stay in place.  

[4] Biden Social Media 

After four o'clock in the afternoon, perhaps after the justices kept track of the news that (after three votes where he got less and less support), Jim Jordan was out of the Speaker of the House race, we had more news.

This is a convoluted case with various ups and downs involving stays and so on. But, the basic point was that the district court (restrained somewhat by the Fifth Circuit) interfered with the Biden Administation's efforts to stop false information from being spread on social media. 

The justices took the case for full argument. Alito with Thomas and Gorsuch publicly dissented. Alito partially complains that the unexplained stay violated standard rules, including not showing a compelling need. He's not consistent here though he might be taken more seriously if he was.

But, the dissent also clearly frames things in a way that assumes the conspiracy theory against the government is accurate:

At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate.  

Most unfortunate. Your neutral concern is touching. A major issue here is not only that it is far from clear that the government did anything wrong. The decision below amounts to a prior restraint on the government. The balance of equities, and sure, explain it, seems pretty clear there.  

[Okay. This time the order is dated on the chart "10/23." Someone is having a case of the Fridays.]  

Congress

While the House of Representatives was without a speaker, the Senate operated normally. They went back to confirming judges. Also, Dianne Feinstein's committee slots, including on the Judiciary Committee (her replacement took her spot there), were re-filled without controversy. 

There was a fear that Republicans would block it, helped by the fact they refused to allow a temporary replacement when she was out. But, that is not the same thing, and Republican senators have their seats become vacant too. There really was not much of a likelihood they would have denied a new senator their equal rights as a senator. It would be institutionally extreme in a way that individual senators would find troublesome.  

Sen. Butler, who like Stephen Colbert is out with COVID, has announced she will not run for re-election in 2024. That was a prime reason another possible placeholder, a black woman congressman in her 70s, was not chosen for the position. Good luck holding the fort. 

Term Limits

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has been strongly critical of the Supreme Court and has brought receipts. I am not gung ho, however, of his support (with some other good senators) of a term limit bill. It's obviously merely symbolic now. So, since I support them overall, it is okay. 

Nonetheless, I would focus on ethics, including Steve Vladeck's suggestion (in a paywalled One First) of some sort of inspector general, who (which) would provide oversight with teeth (what this could entail would be open to debate). The summary connects the bill with ethics, but I think it is a bit of a reach. I think it takes the eye off the main ball.

Any benefit would be long in coming, this bunch will be here for a long time. What would have a more immediate effect? A term limit bill with court expansion, the latter part not constitutionally problematic. This brings to mind the FDR expansion bill (I'm about to read a book by Robert Jackson, which discusses it) that tied it to those justices over 70. If there was no justice over seventy, there were no justices added. It in that fashion was a means to encourage a seventy-year-old retirement age. 

The argument that court expansion won't happen at this time is no less convincing here than for any other piece of legislation that looks to the future. The term limit bill is definitely not going to happen though there is a lot of public support. It also has the added constitutional problem ("for good behavior"). So, why not combine the two?

I am willing to accept the timing since Sen. Whitehouse is not suddenly not going after the Supreme Court on ethics. I do support term limits as constitutional policy. The blurb in the summary that the Supreme Court was supposed to merely "administrative" originally is somewhat dubious and besides the point (things change as the government grows). However, overall, I think something like an eighteen-year term is a fine idea.

I still think other issues should be front and center. For instance, I recall that there was going to be a vote on the ethics bill after the summer break. This never happened. What happened to that? Durbin is still out there hoping Roberts will do something. Eye on the ball, people. 

==

As you can see, even when there are no oral arguments, stuff is happening that relates to the Supreme Court. It is after all the head of the third branch of government. Anyway, no order list next week is scheduled, but orders might drop related to the conference. An execution is also scheduled. 

Local City Council Race

I live in an Italian rich neighborhood that decades back was represented in government by at least one Republican. A political office nearby still has the conservative candidate in the city council primary in its window. 

Kristy Marmorato, the Republican X-ray technician running against New York City Council Member Marjorie Velázquez in the Bronx, has been endorsed by several prominent individuals with close ties to former President Donald Trump.

So, it is not too surprising that the city council race is one of the most competitive. It is also not surprising that the Republican candidate has Trump connections. Having someone who is Proud Boy-friendly, still, is not really a good endorsement to have for this area. It still is at best moderate Republican as a whole, even if it did go for a clearly unqualified guy running for mayor vs. a former cop who is far from liberal. 

The main thing the Republicans might have going for them is that voters are not too knowledgeable about the details. I do not claim to know much about either candidate. I was annoyed the incumbent opposed a local site for a halfway house but did not keep track of the Bruckner Blvd thing. 

There are a handful of Republicans in the City Council, including the woman who decided to take a gun to a political rally. The Bronx district attorney (a state race) election does not seem like it is close. I checked and a summary of the two ballot measures -- as referenced recently -- noted that there was apparently no opposition to them either.  

So, it's notable if there is a competitive race here. By the way, a local dollar store recently opened near me, across from the post office. It is now closed with a sign referencing safety to consumers and staff. A Facebook discussion said there was a robbery though the councilwoman's office has not heard about it. A bit of direct involvement in the acts of the day. 

===

Prof. Eric Segall is against applying the 14A, sec. 3 measure to Trump. His overall reason is prudential, which is an appropriate aspect of constitutional analysis. I question his reasoning (see also this overheated discussion, which tosses in a misleading analysis of what is covered) there. 

My basic argument is that -- to the degree we can reasonably predict -- if the Supreme Court actually upheld a claim (far from likely; more likely it never would be decided or would be punted), the Republican Party would pick someone else. The public, watching Trump be criminally tried (a top figure in the conspiracy, Sidney Powell, pled guilty in Georgia), would find this a reasonable approach. Some will grumble, but most will accept it.

(See, e.g., Bush v. Gore. )

There would not be some violent overthrow of peace and safety. If this occurred in late 2024, yes, I can see that being problematic. But, I don't think that will happen. I surely don't want to imagine a situation where Trump actually legitimately won the relevant popular votes. And, 14A, sec. 3 battles to me are going to be the least of our concerns then. 

But, fine,  putting aside that his tone is rather assured (this is a guy begging people to support Michael Bloomberg in 2020) at times. I am much less supportive of him and others trying to toss in a bunch of bogus arguments to stack the argument about how "difficult" the question is. 

The arguments are repeatedly lame. The title alone. What "chaos"? There would be an extended, peaceful, process, with lots of bottlenecks that make this whole thing largely academic. The provision applies to presidents. Not a serious argument. And, it is not limited to the Civil War. The Constitution is for today. The language doesn't suggest that. And so on.

The need for federal enabling legislation argument is more serious though it's still weak. It is at best a prudential thing. It does not really work as applied to state offices, which the provision covers, even there. The amendment gives power to Congress to enforce the provision, just as it has the power to clarify what "privileges" or "immunities" are and so on.

Who enforces the provision and who is a serious question with strong political question vibes. For instance, the president has strong foreign policy authority, which needs congressional involvement (such as funding). There are constitutional duties there. The argument here is more than that. Segall wants the provision not to be applied at all. So, in effect, nullify it. 

The final question covered is the application of "insurrection" to Trump. Again, it is not just about him. Still, this is a complicated factual question. I covered this before and think the answer is "yes." 

It is not just about criminal provisions directly about "insurrection." It is about the constitutional reach of the provision. Consider. Is the argument that if a state denies someone an office, except for a few people convicted for sedition or the like, they acted unconstitutionally?  

Michael Dorf noted on social media he disagreed with Eric Segall and would respond. He has not of this writing though said in the past that he supported the arguments of the other side overall. 

Odds and Ends

With Love, From Cool World is not a great title but the book does have a nice cover. It is also an overall good read, a well written romance that juggles various serious issues, including foster care and LGBTQ+ acceptance.

New York has a couple state constitutional ballot measures on the ballot. I think it's stupid since the average person really has little knowledge on these issues. But, a vote is necessary, and this provides some useful info.

Jim Jordan, the insurrectionist, unhinged, sexual abuse ignoring guy, got 200 votes for Speaker of the House. A travesty, but not quite enough. Better luck tomorrow. Meanwhile, the Rangers are up 2-0, and the Diamondbacks (hoping to win at least a game or two) are down 1-0. Not too excited about most of the MLB teams left. Phils have talent. Yippee.

SCOTUS Watch: Orders List

I briefly referenced two orders by Roberts and Alito from last week in their role as circuit justices. A bit more on them.

One case involved a sports betting lawsuit:

The Florida pari-mutuel outlet had asked the United States Supreme Court on Oct. 6 to prevent the Seminole Tribe of Florida from resuming the taking of mobile and online sports bets through its Hard Rock BET app. West Flagler asked for the stay, it said in its filing, to prepare an official plea to the Supreme Court, called a writ of certiorari, to settle a matter that has dragged on since 2021.

On Thursday, Chief Justice John Roberts granted the stay request temporarily. The US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit had ruled in June that the Seminoles were legally able to resume sports betting activity in Florida. The Department of the Interior, which regulates tribal gambling compacts and is the target of West Flagler’s litigation, has until Oct. 18 to respond. The Court will make a final ruling on the stay thereafter.

[Legal types might note that the Seminole Tribe was involved in a major Eleventh Amendment case back in the day and that too involved gambling.]

The other (via Chris Geidner) involved Missouri v. Biden, the social-media influence case. Alito, again, issued an administrative stay of the July 4 injunction in the case after the 5th Cir wrested control of the case back and expanded its injunction (nonetheless still narrowed from the original).

Or (that's from a tweet), as he said: "tl;dr: The Biden admin is not bound by the injunction currently." This matter was referenced here before. As Geidner, who does yeoman work keeping details straight in these sorts of cases, discusses, it is part of a rather convoluted series of events. 

===

The normal practice is to drop cert grants on Friday before a Monday Order List (where pro forma stuff is handled).  Amy Howe discusses the cases here. The main one of interest allows Justice Jackson to take part in a major dispute. The grant was foreshadowed by the other case not being scheduled among the released December Calendar cases. So, things wrap up nicely.

==

I grant (ha) that these sorts of insider baseball details interest me a lot more than the average person. But, there are a lot of little things of some importance (granted, "in a fashion" in various cases) going on at the Supreme Court. 

I continue to think there should be more clarity and assistance in understanding them. This would include Order List sections that are not merely screenshots of orders but with actual links to the docket page, so we can see what happened and read more on the case. 

Such things, including a frequently asked question (FAQ) page to clarify the basic parts of a typical Order List, would be quite helpful. Why not show the average reader (and many not-so-average) that even your run-of-the-mill order has some interesting little details.  

==

The Monday Order List was a bit more thin than usual (less than three pages). The Crook v. Sheriff reference was a bit amusing. 

"Rule 39.8" is a reference to a frivolous petition. A few justices back in the day (Stevens included) opposed this policy when it was first applied around 1990. I wonder if Justice Jackson has any thoughts given her criminal defense background. As usual, even for this thin Order List, a FAQ as well as links to the actual cases cited would have been careful.

Chris Geidner referenced the recent execution where the Supreme Court lifted a lower court stay with three justices merely citing their dissent without comment. He argues it is an institutional failure not to explain. He noted in a comment the quite true fact that liberal justices stay quiet for various reasons. All things considered, I still oppose not explaining the reasons or disagreeing with the result, at least in this case. 

There is a wider belief by some that the votes in each and every case should be open. I doubt this is really necessary and it would probably lead to a policy of default votes. Will there be a rule that non-binding straw votes not be allowed or something? I don't really care if a justice or two silently dissented in not granting a case today. I do basically consider it, not a dissent unless it is actually public. "Technically" true or not.  

==

Anyway, again, that's all she wrote for now. There is another execution scheduled later in the month. The next conference is on the 27th and then the month ends with two argument days. There are those pending stays from Robert and Alito. And, something else might come up.

The corrupt packed Supreme Court is never totally not working. 

It's A Great Life (Blondie)

This is from the first Blondie t.v. show, which had the same actor playing Bumstead with everyone else different. He was on an earlier radio program too; that one mostly had Penny Singleton (like the films) too.  

I saw a bit of one episode when there was a Blondie marathon and they had movies and a television show. The episode that was on was not very good and Bumstead came off as different from the films, where he is a goofball. There was an even short-lived 1960s version with Mr. Howell (and the voice of Mr. Magoo) as Mr. Dithers. Doesn't look that good. 

(Here is a video of an episode of the second series, which does have a good opener. Dagwood's hair just looks messy, which is the first red flag.)

After a couple not very good ones, the Blondie film this morning was quite enjoyable. It also is one of the two without "Blondie" in the title and is rather of a rather bland title that has nothing specific to do with the plot involving silliness with a horse. 

The actress they get to play Cookie (their daughter) is a good choice, including because she reminds me of the mother. 

==

By chance, a Petticoat Junction episode that aired earlier on another channel had a fake foxhunt -- it's when a daughter wins an English butler -- and this one is a real one!  Both episodes didn't have the blonde sister, who (in both varieties) is absent in many earlier episodes. Think the third is around more (I think she's too "modern" for the show). 

The dogs in both are well-trained. The horse here is too. Both of those episodes also were amusing (MeTV); the other involved a somewhat strange guest who Uncle Joe thinks is up to no good.

ETA: The new Hallmark Channel film, Field Day, was overall pretty good. Three moms from different circles work together for a school event. They each have issues though the film is focused on a mom still getting over the death of her husband. 

Rachel Boston, who was good in the film about the mom who separated from her husband, was good here too with a familiar love interest. The other two women were good and less familiar to me. One is not even among the "about the cast"! 

Brooklyn Councilwoman Charged After Openly Carrying Gun at Protest

There are not many Republicans (45/6 according to a quick search) in the New York City Council. Still, New York City Council Member Inna Vernikov (R-Brooklyn) is getting a lot of attention, if not quite in positive ways.

She was in the news in the summer when some jerk came up to her in a public place, kissed her, and walked away. She (rightly) was like "What the actual ..." and there is a clip of it that was posted. 

The NYT article (linked in a City & State article, one of a few useful online news sources for city and state news as seen by my side panel) provides a bit of context:

Ms. Vernikov, a lawyer who was born in Ukraine, describes herself in her City Council biography as “a leading voice against antisemitism.” She posted a video of herself at the Brooklyn College rally, which was organized by the group Students for Justice in Palestine, saying that the protesters supported Hamas.

“If you’re here today standing with these people, you’re nothing short of a terrorist without the bombs,” Ms. Vernikov said in the video.

There has been a mixture of Palestine-themed responses to the events, a few (which have received significant attention and have greatly upset some Jews) are a tad offensive. They might not only ignore the wrongs of Hamas but even simply provide support to the resistance of Israel that comes off as blatant support of Hamas terrorism. 

Others (quite understandably given some of the one-sided support of Israel, including its non-proportional response, which is of course totally unsurprising) are more about supporting the Palestinians. It is unclear without carefully looking at the details where in the spectrum the rally that upset her sits, but students are not always known for finesse.

Okay, her response is questionable but unsurprising. There will be pushback on both sides and she is a Republican. The problem is suggested by this screenshot:

There is a New York state law passed last year that bans the possession of firearms at protests and rallies – even with a concealed carry permit (which she has). A former public defender is cited in the C&S piece noting that a typical minority arrested would be liable to be in trouble, including possibly for "menacing" since the gun is quite apparent. The gun actually doesn't seem very "concealed" to me. We are not an open-carry state. 

The councilwoman's colleague, Tiffany Cabán, noted that as a former public defender, the fact IV only got a desk appearance ticket when she turned herself in is rather notable. The people she dealt with did not get them. The NYT reports the police said she was not "menacing" anyone, so that should not be a problem. Given her position, a conviction is not likely.

The law (as compelled by Supreme Court doctrine) limits itself to "sensitive places" when banning bringing a gun to a protest. There is some debate over exactly where she was standing (the sensitive place being the school). This flags another reason why a criminal charge is unlikely. Often the issue is not the conviction. It is the arrest and all that comes with that. 

She might get in trouble in-house on an ethics charge. I doubt she is going to be expelled for this. I don't think she deserves that for a one-off myself, but it is not a trivial matter, especially in these times:

New York City Council Minority Leader Joe Borelli: “There’s a responsibility that comes with owning a firearm, and she’ll have to address these charges with the court,” Borelli told The New York Times. “I know she is sorry about what happened.”   

Well, I'm "sorry" for a lot of things, but sometimes that isn't enough. The core issue here is that guns at rallies are trouble. The First Amendment speaks of "peaceful" assembly. A gun is inherently not peaceful. 

A gun is menacing as a result, putting aside the exact reach of that term in a criminal sense. It is unclear why she felt a need to get a concealed carry permit in the first place. Seems like theater to me but I grant some strange didn't come up and kiss me. Not that a gun would have helped much there. 

I personally think there is a constitutional right to own a gun. Public places are a special situation. This applies in general. For instance, public accommodations warrant civil rights laws that include equal engagement, even if that clashes with your religious beliefs. 

A truly private place is different. The right to own a gun is not limited to your home. But, once you take them into crowded public places, well, it's clearly a different matter. The Heller decision written by Scalia included "sensitive places" as an area where regulation is clearly possible. 

The opinion his pal Thomas wrote called into question just how much you can regulate public places. But, the overall point holds, this time with a clear need to balance constitutional rights (see also, how fair public trials and the First Amendment requires sensitive balancing). 

There is also a matter of judgment. For instance, one reporter asked Gov. Hochul about Palestinians and her answer was that they should follow the rules set forth by Israel. It was a one-sided answer. That's bad judgment. The Israel/Palestinian Conflict has a lot of that. Both sides might not have the same amount of power in various respects. But, there are some "both sides" here. That concept is often abused without being totally incorrect.

The presence of guns at protests is a thing. Some people blatantly carry large scary-looking guns at a few protests as a sort of theater, though clearly a form of menacing theater. It is a bad thing.  Guns in public places cause trouble. This is a red flag with "stand your ground" type laws, even as people try to nitpick things to death. They change the dynamic and invite problems. Legally innocent does not mean someone isn't dead. 

The councilwoman here did not go that far. But, her actions were irresponsible. I hope they help lead her to lose her office in November though unless she is in a narrowly divided district, not likely. Still, something this misguided is that level. 

It is just plain stupid. 

Film and Books

The NYPL doesn't have much in the way of Clara Bow, the famous "flapper" actress, films. But, did have this interesting film where she is not the main attraction. She plays "Kittens," the selfish daughter, who takes after her father, a philandering businessman. 

Left out is her mother, who left the stage to marry, but she decides to "live" some herself. Alice Joyce (about 35 here) according to Wikipedia was in films at least as far back as 1910. Both actresses made a few talkies, Bow retiring under the age of 30. 

This silent, based on a play, has feminist aspects. The ending has her refusing to go back to her husband and daughter. The instrumental soundtrack gets a bit one-note after a while. Still, at about an hour, the film was quite watchable. I overall enjoyed it. 

==

The Gaza Strip/Israel conflict makes the timing of a book about the history of The Jewish Deli feel a bit off. 

Still, we can't require it to carry that burden. The graphic book is an enjoyable and informative volume. There is even a reference (if not among the full profiles) of a vegan deli. There seem to be a lot of eggs in Jewish foods, putting aside all the meat, fish, and dairy meals. I did have a bagel for breakfast to be in the groove. 

I heard the author of The Tango War give an interview about her recent book on the Catholic Church (Freedom From Religion interview). This one covers the various aspects of Latin America's role in World War II. I am familiar with some of this ground but not all of it. Well done. I will likely provide a more extensive book summary in a few weeks. 

Congress Follies

After Kevin McCarthy gave the trolls the power to oust him quite easily, well, one did -- Matt Gaetz. It looked like Scalise, who once said he was the David Duke without the baggage (and later was shot by a left-leaning unhinged person), would be the next Speaker of the House. 

He only received 110 votes in the Republican caucus vote, yes, but wasn't that supposed to be binding? It still was a majority. Not really. The person from my vantage point (not that I keep too much track) seemed like an ideologically acceptable type while still having some credibility as an institutionalist (he was in leadership in the past) did not get enough support. So the reality program goes on. Who will get the rose?

[There are six delegates with limited powers, but no floor votes, representing territories. Three are Republicans and they did vote in the caucus. I'm not sure but their vote might not be binding though at the end of the day the whole thing was moot.]

Meanwhile, there is the Senate. Military and ambassador positions continue to be blocked by Republican actions, not just Tommy Tuberville. This underlines, that even if Senate Republicans are somewhat more sensible than House Republicans (though the Senate Judiciary faction leaves a lot to be desired), they have little standing as credible legislators.  

Senate Democrats have a few issues, including Senator "I won't support child poverty funding" Manchin. The one lacking in credibility to govern is Senator Robert Menedez (D-NJ), who a majority of the Democratic caucus (including his fellow senator) says should resign. 

Already indicted for bribery, new charges were dropped that he acted as a foreign agent for Egypt. This is not well timed given the Israel/Gaza conflict, including Egypt's resistance to accepting Gazan refugees.  

Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog simply notes "serious." The NYT summary emphasizes that this charge directly challenges his loyalty to his constitutional oath. Ah. Sounds like our 14A, sec. 3 discussions. Legislators do take an oath. It often is not really treated as meaning much. This is somewhat unfortunate, especially as legislators fail in their responsibilities.

===

SCOTUS Update

Meanwhile, a few odds and ends at SCOTUS. A couple stays (Roberts and Alito). The release of the December calendar, which is somewhat thin, but does include the tax case involving Alito's Wall St. Journal pal (Alito was ethically obligated to recuse but refused). 

I also saw a bit of old news referenced (h/t SCOTUSBlog) involving a large piece of marble that fell inside the Court last term, but for whatever reason they refuse to talk about it on the record. This sort of lack of transparency is standard. Sometimes, the press officer will release statements but rarely put them on the website.

Monday is an order day and then they pop up again at the end of the month for the November Argument. Will we have a speaker of the House by then?  ETA: Jim Jordan was chosen but (if more than Scalise) didn't get enough House Republican support to risk a floor vote. Oh well. Can't see some Republicans, including in Biden districts, vote for that character. 

SCOTUS Watch: Order List Day

The Order List was dropped today because yesterday was a federal holiday. Whatever you want to call it. 

An aside. I'm half-Italian, half-Irish, and joke that March 18th (between feast days for Irish and Italian) should be called "JP Day" in honor of my first and middle names. Columbus Day is not a great means to promote Italian heritage. The guy is a dubious character. 

(See here for a book summary that references the Italian thing.)

I referenced a New York gun regulation case that Sotomayor rejected in her role as circuit justice. The litigant tried again with Thomas. This maneuver is allowed but basically (am not sure if it ever worked) hopeless. It was here though it took a little while to process (referred to the Supreme Court conference last month).  

The other somewhat notable matter (see first link) is that Justice Thomas again made clear he does not like New York Times v. Sullivan (absolute malice standard for libel). The case was not a good platform to challenge it, says he, but the law is still bad and not originalist.  

Even Thomas in his statement notes "the law was not static" regarding free speech but argues the issue of libel was a state issue the Court "usurped" in Sullivan. Apply that to guns, maybe?  

Anyway, Justice White over the years also argued the law went too far in one direction but some reporter on the Supreme Court talking about "nuking" freedom of the press here is rank hyperbole. That sort of talk is how token limits are labeled as "course correction" (see my previous post).  Yes, his selective concern for originalism here does help some elites get protection (Trump is against the rule) but any change would not just help one side. Left-leaning types would also use weaker libel laws.  

===

There were not a lot of oral arguments scheduled this month (the end of the month is technically the November argument) though a few are notable for various reasons. An important administrative law case was up last week. 

A former Sotomayor clerk and Take Care Blog podcast host (remember that anti-Trump blog?) vs. Eugene Scalia (yes, that Scalia) today went head-to-head in a whistleblower case. Easha Anand sounded quite good, having the steady rational tone of the U.S. solicitor general.  

A former Trump acting solicitor general challenged the How Appealing Blog (appeals courts matters) in a maritime law case. Both are lower key cases, the sort of "meat and potatoes" that the Supreme Court should handle to oversee the interpretation of federal law. 

A districting case involving racial discrimination claims is up tomorrow.  

==

Today's Mental Health Awareness Day. It also is World Against The Death Penalty Day. A somewhat inapt day for an execution. 

Jedidiah Murphy was scheduled to be executed by Texas today. A district court granted a stay of execution. The conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it 2-1 with a curious "fake" dissenting opinion as Chris Geidner discussed. I'm unsure how upset we should be about the dissent but it does seem at least childish. As he noted:

The district court had issued Murphy a stay of execution because of ongoing questions about Texas’s post-conviction procedures and the availability of DNA testing (or, to be more precise, unavailability) for certain people facing execution, including in a case pending before the Fifth Circuit.

The Supreme Court then -- without explanation -- vacated the stay. The liberals would have denied the request. Why? They didn't say. I have been on this point for a while now, but this pisses me off. 

And, this is not some longshot appeal which is basically a Hail Mary even in the eyes of this opponent of the death penalty. It is a more special case where a lower court (here a conservative one) held up an execution but the Supreme Court actively stepped in to overturn the stay. The "fake dissent" business just makes it more notable though again I don't know how much we should care about that sort of thing. 

A Dallas County jury convicted Jedidiah Murphy in 2001 for shooting and killing Bertie Lee Cunningham [79-year-old woman] during the carjacking. I continue to think that executing people on death row for over twenty years is problematic. (See Breyer dissent in Glossip v. Gross) One issue in the case is a dispute over the aggravating circumstances involved.

It is gratuitous to overturn the stay here. I guess the "fake" dissenter has the final laugh. Texas executed Mr. Murphy after the Supreme Court (now without dissent) denied one more request alleging the lethal injection drugs were tainted. He was one of the younger people executed at 48.

Over the years, various concerns involving the drugs (including secrecy and lack of clear guidelines) have not obtained much Supreme Court review at all after an early case (Baze v. Rees) involving procedural safeguards during the execution itself was rejected 7-2. Justice Stevens said the evidence was mixed but did suggest if the death penalty as a whole was at issue, he would deem it unconstitutional as arbitrary. Breyer concurred in judgment, only later turning against the penalty as a whole.  

Once, Jackson (with Sotomayor) dropped a written dissent after the execution. There is a bit of logic to doing this, not rushing to get it in by the end of the day or something. After noting my disgust on social media at the lack of a written dissent, I left that open.  I doubt it will happen but if she drops one later today, I will edit this entry.  

(I was going to publish this yesterday but delayed it when the execution did not happen until later in the day.)