SCOTUS Watch: Order List (1) and Some Books

Order List 

The normal term is over, but there is a significant amount of stuff left to clear away. Monday is the first of two order days. Most weeks only have at most one. 

The first order list is fairly busy. They granted a few cases, including a major campaign finance case.

[ETA: The next day, the Supreme Court appointed someone to argue the case.] 

Thomas and Sotomayor have statements and dissents in a few cases. Thomas didn't take part in a case without comment. Sotomayor and Kavanaugh would have taken cases without saying why.

(Curiously, the Sotomayor statement regarding the U.S. Sentencing Commission was joined by Barrett, with Jackson -- who had experience there -- not adding any comment.) 

A per curiam yet again rejected a Bivens claim (right to sue for damages, here a prisoner alleged physical abuse). The short opinion, without dissents, cites an earlier case saying there is an alternate route for relief. The liberals dissented there to point out the problem. Congress can address this problem. Ha ha. 

The Court also GVR'ed (grant, vacate, remand) a case, which is fairly common. The notable thing is that they granted a petition for rehearing in the process, something nearly never done. The case has been lingering since last summer. 

More to come on Thursday.  Also, for your scheduling pleasure, here are the three summer order list dates. 

Books

I was looking at a discussion of some fictional accounts of the Supreme Court and checked out two books from the early 1980s. 

Both are easy reading, while not too realistic (or detailed) accounts of the Supreme Court. They have some insider stuff while largely focusing on others tangentially connected to them. 

Margaret Truman (Harry’s daughter) wrote (or had a ghostwriter write) many mysteries, including ones with D.C. locations.

One involved Murder in the Supreme Court. The book doesn’t provide too many Supreme Court insights, tossing in some conspiracy stuff, but it is decent as a mystery. It provides various points of view, including a few justices and law clerks. The action largely focuses on the two people investigating the murder. 

Again, the Supreme Court stuff isn’t too impressive. For instance, why have a justice patterned on William O. Douglas and reference the actual person? The "youngest justice" was Joseph Story. The book takes place in the 1980s. Someone who fought in the Korean War is not too young.  

No More Dreams by William J. Coughlin is also from the early 1980s. Coughlin was an author and United States administrative judge. This book concerns the effort to replace a judge on a 4-4 Court. Tad heavy-handed with one justice supposedly deciding a bunch of life-changing things.

The Supreme Court took many more cases in the early 1980s. Many (most?) of them weren't too significant. The book also includes a rather unlikely law suppressing the freedom of the press (multiple serious articles are not published since the law makes the press liable for the results of the story, including a reduction of the collection of tolls after a story about the bridge being structurally unsound).  

The book largely focuses on a man's job (and various other personal things while he is there to investigate a possible candidate. Since the guy is principled, the ending is not too surprising. 

It is sometimes too detailed, but it is mostly a quick reading three hundred pages. 

Roberts Vents 

Meanwhile, Roberts is fine if you "vent" about bad rulings. He thinks mostly that it is about disagreement with the results, not the unfairness of the process.

OTOH, many argue it very well is about that. 

Strict Scrutiny Podcast

Strict Scrutiny had two "emergency" podcasts to cover the Planned Parenthood and birthright citizenship decisions (and other stuff) last Thursday and Friday. Both were around fifty minutes. I think that should be about the length of regular episodes. The hour-plus episodes sometimes seem too long.  Today's episode follows up, particularly about the LGBTQ+ case. 

You can listen and watch (the YouTube stuff is available a little after the audio). The episodes led me to again wonder why the "fourth Beatle" (Jaime Santos) left the show. 

She brought more appellate lawyer to the show, not being a law professor like the other three hosts. The (short) Wikipedia page does not even mention her. 

Curiously, after I once added a comment about her, it was removed. Did she just leave because she was too busy or felt it wasn't for her? 

I don't remember them making a reference to her leaving. Also, when she was an advocate in a case, the reference to her on the show sounded uncomfortable. I think it wasn't exactly a smooth break. 

It's all somewhat weird. 

Trump Defends Religion Again

A libertarian on a conservative-leaning blog flags the Trump Administration targeting some Iran Christian refugees. I wrote about the limited freedom of Christianity in Iran. Two key problems: Islam-Christian converts and people in sects not deemed "Christian."

Follow the Stars Home

I have watched this Hallmark Hall of Fame film multiple times. 

These films are not like the usual current Hallmark fare. They are more often serious and not merely focused on romance. They were on CBS on Sundays before we had a Hallmark Channel. (Or three) They are now most likely to be found on Hallmark Family.  

The film has many familiar faces, including Blair Brown as the mom who is a librarian. Alexa Vega (many know her from Spy Kids)  is all grown up now and pops up in some Hallmark films as a lead. 

"That girl" (that is, someone you know from somewhere else) includes a young mom who decides to keep her baby even after she finds out that she will be disabled. Her husband cannot handle it and abandons them. 

Skip ahead six years, and she's dealing with a girl with special needs, helped by his brother (a doctor) who clearly loves her. Alex Vega, whose mom is an alcoholic and has an abusive boyfriend, comes in as a "mother's helper."  Vega has needs of her own, as a reference to her social worker shows. 

The whole thing is a flashback of sorts, starting with a car accident. It is based on a book.  Not a short one. As usual, they change a few things, including from looking at Amazon, a good change.  No, I never read the book, which is somewhat strange, since I first watched this thing a long time ago. 

The film has many moving parts, all of which are generally well done. There are some good scenes between the mother and her mother. The problems of caring for a special needs child while still being blessed. The girl struggles with her own mother while also showing her value, including being a friend to the disabled daughter (who seems to be played by two non-disabled child actors*). And, the husband who is unable to handle the responsibility of a disabled child.

It is a lot. For instance, the mother (Dianne) of the disabled child becomes something of a second mother for Alexa Vega's character. This is a difficult situation. Once, Dianne's mother suggested she take Vega for a special trip that they often took as mom/daughter. Dianne notes, "She isn't my daughter."  

There are various little moments. For instance, Blair Brown's character is retiring partially to help care for her granddaughter. She will miss being a librarian. We see her tear up on her last day.  

The husband obviously does not come off very well. There is little to defend, except to somewhat understand, his abandoning his family. There is some realism there. His argument that she should abort and telling his brother that he too would want her to is also realistic. Many people will feel that way.

The result helps his argument to some extent. The girl does suffer. She has a condition that limits her mentally and physically. She is too young to understand, including understanding the physical pain it entails. Morally, it is a serious question if it is right to put her through that by not aborting.  

People will argue her life is still worth living. The point is generally moot once the mother decides to have the child. The child is surely alive, then, and people have an obligation to her needs. The mother was informed about the risks. Once she made her decision, it was correct for her brother-in-law to respect it and help her in whatever way he could.  

Some parents and family members do not want to deal with people in their family who have problems. They would rather ignore them if possible. 

That's a problem. This includes if someone still wants to stay but does not pay attention to that person. So, the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but ignores the needs of his child. 

I think the film is well-acted and written. Not surprising since I watched it so many times. 

It also might be deemed "pro-life," but that doesn't make it anti-choice. Her ability to make a choice made the result that much more significant. Yes, the only person who puts forth the other option is coded as horrible. A more appealing relative also voicing doubts would have been nice.  

(The Amazon summary says they found out "weeks before" the birth. In the film, it was early enough for her to have an abortion.) 

I can carp about some part or another, but the film is rather remarkable for all it does. Okay. A few times, the soundtrack is annoying. And, the mom has one of those special jobs (she seems to build dollhouses or something) that allows her not to struggle for money while having a comfortable existence. 

Overall, it's well recommended. 

ETA: I also watched Remembering Sunday, another Hallmark Hall of Fame film. The guy has the "Momento" disease, where he wakes up each day forgetting everything since his brain went screwy. 

He does have long-term memory, so he remembers his best friend and sister. Zachary Levi plays the guy who manages (for a time) to have a job, though he doesn't tell his boss about his condition. 

Alexis Bleisdel (Rory Gilmore) is a waitress waiting for an inheritance (how convenient!) and falls in love with him. She only finds out about his condition near the end. He did try to tell her about it, if not right away. Overall, an interesting movie with a twist. 

No totally happy ending. 

==

* The two actresses do a good job in a role that is not easy. They need to realistically portray a child with Spina Bifida and Rett Syndrome.  

SCOTUS Watch: Final Opinions

Amy Howe provides a helpful summary of the final ten cases that were left to be decided this week. 

Thursday Opinions (4) 

They had two boxes (four cases) on Thursday. Previously, the assumption was that they might be able to handle the cases in two days. 

There were two boxes led some people to assume more than two days. But the Court did announce that Friday was going to be the last day for opinions.

Thursday was somewhat less painful than some liberals thought. Jackson, logically given her experience on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, had the First Step Act case. Roberts and Gorsuch went along with the liberals except when Jackson spoke about "context and enactment history."

Sotomayor handled the death penalty case. Barrett briefly noted disagreement on something. Thomas and Alito (with Thomas and Gorsuch) spent more time explaining why Sotomayor was (way) off base. Conservatives will now and then help form a majority in capital cases, but they don't make a habit of it.  

Alito handled a deportation case. Sotomayor for the liberals (and mostly Gorsuch) was annoyed ("heartland of illogic and absurdity") and mostly dissented. Alito still uses "aliens," while the dissent uses "noncitizens." The noncitizen here worried about his safety. Gorsuch, this time, was concerned about that. He was less concerned earlier in the week.  

(The case is serious, but Steve Vladeck on Bluesky suggested it addresses a narrow number of cases. So, I am not sure HOW bad it is. OTOH, liberals don't want Alito to have this sort of case.)  

South Carolina defunded Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood because it also performed abortions. The big bad case on Thursday (via Gorsuch for the conservatives) denied these people the right to sue. Thomas wanted to do more.

Jackson has a strong dissent. As a matter of principle, this shows the hypocrisy when conservatives talk about the right to choose your own doctor, including according to your own moral and religious beliefs. 

Friday Opinions (5) 

The Supreme Court had big opinions today that took over an hour to announce (with multiple dissents from the bench). It was wrong to shove so much in one day. Hundreds of pages of opinions today.  

It was also wrong not to live-stream the announcements. If they think they are important, the general public should be able to hear them now. 

(Oyez.com releases them sometime after the term.)

The morning started with a half hour spent dealing with the birthright citizenship opinion. I guess there was no punt! They did punt in one case. 

A Voting Rights Act case (among the much smaller than historically the case mandatory docket) will be reargued next term. Thomas dissents. 

Kagan has a 6-3 (Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito) delegation case. She handled the dissent in the online porn case (Thomas wrote for the conservatives) which allows a lower level of scrutiny in upholding an identification requirement. 

Kavanaugh has an appointment clause case (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch) case but it's a limited win for liberals. Robert Kennedy Jr. can simply remove the  Preventive Services Task Force members or block its decisions. Still, a limited act of sanity. 

A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses "a very real threat of undermining" the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill. 

Two big problems today (the porn case is sort of a smaller problem). Sotomayor dissented from the bench in both. Again, we should be able to hear this. 

We also should be able to hear Alito broadly summarize why parents should be able to opt out (like a Chinese menu) from exposing their children to certain stuff taught in their public school. The net result will often be that certain stuff simply won't be taught. 

Sotomayor correctly replies:

Today’s ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The Court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.  That decision guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society.  Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now. 

She is upset:

The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent. 

(Alito provides some photos from a book while Sotomayor posts the whole thing.) 

The other case, which experts are already parsing in various ways, deals with universal injunctions. This is a controversial tool that has been abused, including by conservative judges. 

Nonethless, conveniently, it is addressed during the Trump Administration. And, via a case heard in May regarding something that is one of the least apt vehicles to attack it. The opinion did not address the merits of challenges to Trump's birthright citizenship order. 

Barrett deals with the particulars, with multiple conservatives providing concurrence. There are ways to provide wide relief without universal injunctions (class actions are cited by some replies). It is unclear how satisfactory this will be. Also, the opinion ultimately has a somewhat unclear reach. 

The liberals (Sotomayor and Jackson have strong dissents) are quite angry with the result. The "cumbersome" class action alternative is not an adequate alternative. 

Barrett takes a potshot at Jackson:

"We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

The justices who joined Trump v. U.S. can STFU about that. 

Sotomayor is partially angry because the Trump Administration is gaming the system and notes it is a "leap of faith" for the majority to assume the Administration will (eventually) accept a ruling on the merits. Why would they want to risk SCOTUS taking a case for review? 

Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent."

Jackson speaks of an "existential threat to the rule of law" via a "smokescreen." And, after this opinion was handed down, they had four more to go!

Coming Up

Roberts moves on to thanking court employees, the Supreme Court bar, and the mentioned retirees, before he turns to Marshal Gail Curley, who announces that court is “adjourned until Monday, Oct. 6, at 10 o’clock” before banging her gavel and the justices disappear behind their red velvet curtain.

Again, in a sensible world, we would be able to see this by live stream. If the proceedings of the first branch are aired on C-SPAN, so can the proceedings of the third branch. Open government, please.

There will be two order days next week: Monday (ordinary Order List) and Thursday (clean-up Order List with justices providing some statements and dissents regarding various cases and some other actions by the Court regarding pending cases).  

A Few More NYC Primary Thoughts

Brad Lander, who cross-endorsed Mamdani, told Cuomo in the same debate: “Everybody here knows that you sexually harassed women, that you created a toxic work environment.”

There have been some "ding dong, the witch is dead" remarks regarding Cuomo's bad showing. 

I find this somewhat concerning, even if he conceded a week before New York will goto the next round of the ranked choice voting count process since no one received a majority in the first round. Some observers argue that it looks like Cuomo is done. I hope so. 

[ETA: For now, it looks like he is still in. 

The best hope is that the non-Mamdani candidates share an overall electorate. It still is important for Cuomo to have the smallest support base as possible.]

People (and some are starting to) need to get behind Mamdani (by the way, his mother is Mira Nair, the director of such films as Mississippi Masala) so that his success appears to be a fait accompli. Many people and groups (including unions and Jessica f-ing Ramos) supported Cuomo since they thought he was going to win and being on his bad side was dangerous since he is such an asshole.

Mayor Eric Adams, who it is somewhat hard to believe is still a thing, has started his de facto campaign to be the quasi-Republican candidate [there is an actual one, but it is hard to take him too seriously]. And, why not do it on Fox News? 

November's electorate is going to be somewhat different, especially since many Republicans did not vote this time around.  In my district, the only race for them to vote for was the comptroller contest. And, though there was a significant increase in early voting, the turnout was under 30% in major New York cities. That isn't good, but it's not new either.  

New York helped things by having early voting/no excuse voting by mail as well as stopping the practice of having two separate primaries for state and federal elections [presidential elections are separate]. Also, the articles discuss another tweak that doesn't seem to affect NYC too much.  

I don't think having a primary in September instead of June would change much overall. Congressional primaries regularly have small turnouts, including when AOC first ran. You might hope the mayor would be more likely to bring in voters. Also, maybe a non-partisan primary with the top two running in November would make sense.  

There very well might have been a broad assumption that Cuomo was going to win. The biggest energy then went into providing an enthusiastic progressive alternative. Unfortunately, many people didn't feel comfortable with either. So, you were resigned to Cuomo, but also lacked the passion to vote for someone else. 

The broad number of candidates might have hurt things there for those who didn't like Cuomo and thought Mamdani was not for them. Plus, these other people did not reach too many people, especially in the last month. I'm talking about campaigning and ads. Adrienne Adams came to the race late. 

Brad Lander, who might otherwise be the presumed frontrunner, was crowded out by Mamdani. He correctly realized Cuomo was the biggest problem, and they cross-endorsed each other. Lander is quite progressive. Mamdani just outdid him on energy and possibility. Sort of an Obama. 

If we had a non-partisan primary, Curtis Sliwa (who ran unopposed as a Republican) very well might not have come in second. Eric Adams might have run. If he did, Cuomo very well might not have. We would have Mamdani vs. someone else in November. 

For now, let's see how the ranking process completes. For instance, the Democratic primary for the city council in my district is still open. 

The other borough-wide and city-wide races went down as expected, including the favored city comptroller. Shekera Algarin (I wrote in a name) won the civil judicial race. 

Thanks to those who said no to Cuomo, who is patently unfit for public office. If we cannot manage to realize that in NYC, it is rather unfortunate.  

ETA: A few days later, there is this "Mamdani, who I'm not that big a fan of, is going to win" op-ed. 

It's fairly convincing. If he had one serious opponent without baggage (0/3, one way or the other), it would be much more possible. He does not. 

Still seems a bit crazy. Knock on wood. Can New York actually get a decent mayor? Or, will he flub things up? Well, let's not skip ahead. 

The ranked choice process did not even finish! 

SCOTUS Watch: Order List, Torture-Enabling, and Two Executions

The June rush continues. Some notable stuff happened before they even started to hand down their final scheduled opinions for the term. 

Order List

The Monday Order List had a few interesting odds and ends. 

Alito and Roberts did not take part in a case. Roberts did not take part in a frivolous petition in which he was involved. Either way, only the liberals explain why they recuse.

SCOTUS reinstated briefing for a previously granted case involving a dispute over a Biden-era student loan forgiveness program. The case was originally put on pause on request by the Trump administration. 

They took a case to decide whether government officials can be held personally liable for violating an inmate’s religious liberty. The case involves blatant facts where a prisoner showed someone a court order protecting him, and they ignored it. 

In fact, they threw away the copy of the order when he showed it. Appealing facts help determine the legal result. And, since it involves religious liberty, even Alito will likely be sympathetic. 

Trump Enabling 

The most significant action on Monday separately took place on the shadow/emergency docket. 

A lower court judge, after the Administration repeatedly did not follow (or violated the spirit of) court orders, held that non-citizens had a right to contest being sent to a country where they face a credible threat to be mistreatment. As noted in the opinion, even the Trump S.G. seemed to agree. 

Sotomayor, for the liberals, had a strong dissent accusing the Court of a (non-explained) decision that "obstructs those proceedings, exposing thousands to the risk of torture or death." Their action "rewards lawlessness." 

She ends with "Respectfully, but regretfully, I dissent." At some point, you have to leave off the "respectfully." 

Steve Vladeck has more, calling it "disastrous." 

Executions

Florida executed Thomas Lee Gudinas for a heinous rape/murder that he committed in 1994. 

The defense argued that Gudinas was incapacitated at the time of the homicide, had an IQ of 85, suffered from personality disorders, was developmentally impaired and was abused and diagnosed as "sexually disturbed" as a child. 

The appeals dealt with various matters. SCOTUS rejected his final appeal without comment. 

Mississippi, which last executed someone in 2022, prosecuted Richard Gerald Jordan in 1976. Kidnapping and murder. You can hear from the victim's son here. 

There were various procedural problems. During the appeals, he became liable for the death penalty, which factors into a final appeal. 

A judge also rejected an appeal based on the danger that the midazolam drug won't work appropriately. The Supreme Court has not shown concern about that, even though, as Prof. Lain shows in her book, they should. 

I continuously argue that executing people long after their sentencing has special problems (Breyer). I think fifty years is rather blatant. This would be a good time for Sotomayor or Jackson to flag the problem. 

They had multiple chances (which they did not take) since not only was a cert grant tossed in among the list of cert denials in the Order List, but three final orders were handed down today. 

No comment as his five-decade delay of death ended.  

NYC DID Say No to Cuomo!

I continued my up-close experience of New York City elections by being a poll worker. I helped to check in voters at a local polling place on primary day. 

Early voting began around when I started voting at the polling place. So, election day itself is no longer as important. It still has a certain energy and symbolic importance. 

I discuss things further, including comparing the upset of Cuomo with Democratic leadership here. 

Bombing Iran: A response

More here.

Sex Kittens Go to College

This is a ridiculous film that was on TCM. A different sort of "classic." Somewhat strangely, it was on at around 7 A.M. This is late-night fare.

Mamie Van Doren (Wikipedia tells me she is still alive and in her 90s) plays a former stripper who is the surprise new brainy professor at a college. Tuesday Weld, a serious actress, played a student, as did Brigitte Bardot's sister. One of the "hey! it's that guy!" roles was played by someone many know from the Addams Family (1960s version).  

Van Doren has a dance routine at one point, but overall plays it fairly "straight" in this film. Much of the movie is badly acted and written "comedy" material. Then, late in the film, in the most gratuitous way possible (it appears to be a robot's dreams), there is a series of topless women. 

Not quite what you expect on TCM at shortly before 9 A.M. I figure various cuts of this film do not have this sequence. After that scene, we go back to the movie for a largely tacked-on conclusion. 

The whole thing has some "so bad it's good" value, but at some point it is rather dull.  The nudity is a surprise. The Wikipedia summary does not even discuss that part of the film. Again, I think some cuts of the film just leave the whole thing out. 

I think Mamie Van Doren, as a brain blonde bombshell, does an okay job. She has a blog, and the last entry is at the end of 2023. Good to know her political bona fides seem to be reasonable. 

SCOTUS Watch: Sotomayor/Jackson Dissent a Lot Edition

More Opinions

Friday brought six more opinions. There are ten left, which might be two days of opinions. Maybe three, which I would not be surprised about. So, they are mostly on schedule. 

There was a good amount of writing, though we are not talking hot-button stuff overall. The things covered included various regulatory issues, a disability claim that led to a strong dissent by Jackson, and a unanimous (on result; the one case Sotomayor and Jackson simply went along). decision about jurisdiction in a lawsuit against the PLO.

Kagan had a strong dissent for the liberals in a regulatory matter arising from fax machines (just the fax, ma'am). She was not happy about the result ("Those words mean what they say, or anyway should.") I usually trust her judgment. 

Alito (with Gorsuch) grumbled some in dissent that provided a limited liberal result in a sentencing case. "Veteran trial judges often complain that their appellate colleagues live in a world of airy abstractions." The two former district court judges joined the majority opinion. Barrett replied at one point in a footnote regarding his "curious" allegations. 

Jackson, who used to be a sentencing commission member, concurred to partially disagree with some aspects of the opinion. She had a strong dissent (Sotomayor went along part of the way) in that disability case. 

Jackson included an on-point footnote answering Gorsuch's charge that she avoided relying on pure textualism as "insufficiently pliable." She noted that "ambiguous text" requires using multiple interpretive approaches because "pure textualism is incessantly malleable." 

Yes. People too often are cocksure about what the text means, sometimes in annoying Gorsuch-like fashion accusing people of making shit up because they are biased if they don't agree. This is not just something conservatives do, though they often are more likely to do so.  

Text is not always so clear. We often look at it through a glass, darkly, to quote Saint Paul. The appropriate means of interpreting the English language includes factoring in multiple criteria. Pure textualism, whatever that means, alone means using textual interpretative devices (with obligatory citations of a Scalia text) that offer multiple options.

Anyway, the cases are not overly exciting, and Kagan only dissented in one. They are of some importance, which again explains why Sotomayor and Jackson have so many separate writings. There are various lessons to be learned.

Eric Segall (Dorf on Law) on Bluesky noted:

The Court’s 4th case, for standing nerds, basically stands for the proposition that companies seeking profits have a much better chance of getting standing than civil rights groups and journalists. Pitiful and pathetic.

I'm not a standing nerd but respect his opinion (up to a point) on such matters. Jackson's dissent (Sotomayor dissents less strenuously) basically agrees with him, referencing eroding public trust and so forth. 

Jackson today knows her role -- liberal dissenter, speaking for the future. She has the "lone ranger" role Rehnquist had in the 1970s. This makes a Bluesky comment about her being a future Chief Justice even more apt. Took fifteen years, so have a ways to go. 

Mark Joseph Stern: "What you see in today's opinions is the three liberals assuming different roles. 

Kagan is the conciliator, siding with the conservatives to assure them she's reasonable. KBJ is ready to shoot flaming arrows and burn it all down. 

[#TeamJackson!] 

Sotomayor is in between them, trying to find middle ground and keep the peace." Sotomayor as peacemaker is almost amusing, but she does that. She had spoken of "her friend Gorsuch," for instance. 

Chris Geidner also has more on the trans health case, which deserves firm denunciation. 

Trump Enabling Watch 

The 9th Circuit helped Trump regarding his power to send the National Guard to California. They provided a rather low bar for determining normal means was not enough. 

Courts will be loath to interfere with executive discretion in such cases, but Judge Breyer (not that one) had a point. Overall, procedurally, it was a limited win for Trump.  

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court handed down an order that "the motion of petitioners to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied" in a tariff case. 

Coming Up

We are coming up to the home stretch of the June home stretch. Another Order List on Monday. At least two opinion days. Two executions scheduled. 

The next opinion day for now is Thursday. That would allow for opinions days on Thursday and Friday, with a clean-up on the following Monday (June 30). 

Class Clown: The Memoirs of a Professional Wiseass: How I Went 77 Years Without Growing Up

I am a fan of Dave Barry and enjoyed his columns. I have not read his fiction. Dave Barry Slept Here, a parody of American history written around 1990, is both amusing and often accurate. The illustrations for his columns were drawn by the cartoonist behind the Shoe comic strip. (He died before Barry stopped writing his column in 2005). 

His autobiography, which quotes significantly from his columns, is overall light and enjoyable. It has some serious moments, including involving his parents. Barry does not talk much about his family overall, including once referencing his first two marriages. He notes he will not discuss those two wives to protect their privacy, except to say they were good people and his divorces were not their fault.  

His Wikipedia page has a link to a marriage announcement, but it does not say when he was divorced from his first wife. Beth is the mother of his son, often referenced in his columns, and his "TV" wife in the sitcom sorta -- he has two sons there -- based on his life. 

Barry talks about his father's fighting alcoholism and his mother's suicide. A 1991 Newsweek profile added that one of his brothers is also an alcoholic, and his sister (not referenced in the acknowledgements; she's older than him and I assume she died) is an institutionalized schizophrenic. Not referenced in the book. It is not some tell-all.

Barry does talk about his childhood, early career, and road to being a humor columnist. He puts forth a general happy-go-lucky exterior but clearly has a serious side. It comes out from time to time. For instance, he wrote a book with a title referencing one of his dogs that has some serious moments.

He notes his opinion that the liberal leaning media, thinking Trump is horrible (which he agrees with), slanted their coverage against him. Barry acknowledges that many intelligent people he respects do not agree. They are right. 

At the very least, they did not go soft on Hillary Clinton. How much that led to her losing is unclear, though some will blame it on that, but it was fairly blatant. He should have referenced that if he was going to editorialize. 

One other annoying thing was his late comment that, overall, everything would turn out okay. This is somewhat curious after Covid. 

Also, regarding stuff he said that everyone keeps on saying might happen but don't, I think fascists have taken over. This book was published after Trump won again, though perhaps he finished it beforehand. Finally, no, it won't always be okay. For some people, it won't be.

I am not saying he is completely wrong. On some level, I think he has a point. It still is (1) harder to say these days (2) needs an asterisk. Things might have gone great for him, for instance, but that isn't true for some people. Coming from him, with his happy-go-lucky life, it is a bit too much.

Overall, however, it was an enjoyable book.

==

Note: One book review, which I won't try to find, noted he still looks quite boyish. His author photo, however, doesn't look very youthful. Also, some photos online particularly make him look his age (77). 

He still has a boyish vibe. 

SCOTUS Watch: Anti-Pride Month Edition

Financial Disclosures 

The Supreme Court released financial disclosures, part of the ethical rules currently in place. The SCOTUSblog coverage notes (without adding "and he should have been impeached"):

Justice Clarence Thomas, whose failures to disclose (among other things) private jet and superyacht trips in prior years led to investigations by ProPublica and calls for ethics reform by the justices, did not list any non-investment income, any travel reimbursements, or any gifts for 2024.

Justice Alito delayed providing his probably because he has a lot of investments. It would be helpful if these things were cross-referenced to recusals. 

Opinion Days

If you go to the Supreme Court website, there is a calendar. Click such and such a day and see if anything is scheduled. Wednesday and (eventually) Friday were labeled as days when opinions might come down. They nearly always will be. 

There is no livestreaming of opinion announcements. Nonetheless, reporters live blog them, including at SCOTUSblog and Bluesky. So, for instance, we know how many boxes of opinions are out. Today it was three. That means a bunch of opinions. 

The opinions are released in reverse order of seniority (Jackson to Roberts; any unsigned per curiam comes last). The first was handed down by Kavanaugh, but then it was Thomas handing down a not too divisive case. The next opinion was either Thomas's or Roberts's. A big opinion was likely.  

The Others 

The justices (Gorsuch, with Alito and Thomas dissenting) found a way to avoid a tricky case involving the disposal of nuclear waste on standing grounds. Kavanaugh has done that before.

Thomas handled two environmental cases. Gorsuch (with Roberts, with a relatively rare dissent) disagreed with how he handled it, dissenting in one case and concurring in the other. 

After the big decision, Roberts had a good opinion that expanded access to a jury trial under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Barrett wrote the dissent there for the other conservatives (minus Gorsuch).  

Some are sneering at the NYT article on maverick Barrett, but it also had multiple people warning "ignorant conservatives and wishful liberals" expecting too much. I did hope she would not be too bad on trans issues. Oh well. So did a trans activist.

Trans Medical Care  

Judge Sutton and the 6th Circuit ruled against same sex marriage, unlike nearly every other court. This led the Supreme Court to take up the issue ten years ago. Sutton was behind the anti-trans ruling, too.

We have a different Supreme Court now. It was risky to bring an appeal. This was not a statutory case involving employment. The regulation of medical care for minors would give the necessary justices more room for concern. Gorsuch, who wrote the Bostock opinion, didn't even open his mouth during the oral argument. The question was how bad it would be. 

Tennessee’s legislature passed the law, known as SB1, in 2023. SB1 emphasizes that the state has a “legitimate, substantial, and compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty.” It prohibits (as relevant here) the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender teens while allowing the use of the same treatments for other purposes. 

[The bold is from two linked articles.]

Not good, though it could have been worse. Roberts wrote the majority, though a lot of the 118 pages were concurrences and dissents (Sotomayor dissented from the bench; Kagan didn't join one part while Jackson joined all of Sotomayor's dissent).  

The opinion didn't go far enough for Barrett, Alito, and Thomas. They would have bluntly said that transgender people should not receive heightened scrutiny. Roberts claimed the case didn't bring up the question. Alito was more honest than that. 

Significantly, Tennessee’s law is also quite explicit that the purpose of this law is to ensure that young people do not depart from their sex assigned at birth. The law declares that its purpose is to “encourag[e] minors to appreciate their sex” and to prevent young people from becoming “disdainful of their sex.” That is an explicit sex-based classification. Patients who Roberts refers to as “biological women” are allowed to fully embrace femininity in Tennessee. But a child who is assigned male at birth may not.

Roberts could have done less than he did, given the limited question presented. Kagan separately talked about that. I had hoped perhaps someone like Barrett (not thinking she was so anti-trans) could write a minimalist opinion. Unfortunately, Barrett decided to instead reach out to belittle the risks of trans people.

Roberts didn't go as far as he could. It still is not good. For instance, "We have not yet considered whether Bostock’s reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context, and we need not do so here." The Bostock author went along with this possibly "applying it to its facts" limitation without comment. 

The Bostock logic should apply to other federal and state legislation with similar "because of sex" language. The "Title VII context" isn't somehow unique. I'm worried about that possible poison pill. 

The opinion cites Dobbs and an old "pregnancy discrimination isn't sex discrimination" precedent to add insult to injury.  The opinion is sort of a bad Roberts special: it has a desired result, sounds reasonable, but the reasoning falls apart with scrutiny. 

Chris Geidner and Erin Reed have more. CG argues there are avenues left open, including when animus is shown. Some, however, (rightly) argue that it was present here. He notes the "disingenuous wordplay" involved. And, this was the better half of the majority.

Erin Reed speaks about how "devastating" the ruling is while also noting its limited reach: 

The case raised foundational constitutional questions: whether transgender people constitute a class triggering higher constitutional scrutiny, whether laws targeting them violate equal protection, and whether the Constitution guarantees their right to access medically necessary treatment. The Court sidestepped nearly all of those questions.

ER covers how the opinion is horrible and poorly argued within the context covered. This includes Orwellian language that uses the criteria of trans people to classify and says the state is not classifying by trans status. A big TBD:

The ruling effectively greenlights medical care bans across the country and may pave the way for broader restrictions, including for adults, while leaving lower court rulings on bathrooms, schools, sports, and employment remain intact—for now.

The opinion, overall, should not be exaggerated to some degree -- it covers a limited ground -- but it is true (to quote Blackmun) that an ill wind blows.  

(Sotomayor provides her dissent "in sadness" instead of "respectfully." She should say "in anger," which is expressed in various parts of her dissent.)  

On a related subject. I watched Newton's Law, an Australian show, on DVD. It had a trans healthcare storyline. Another episode of the enjoyable legal drama involved a property dispute over a dog. A good change that addresses the old "pets are just property" concept was recently put in place.

A recent book about a German sex researcher provides a more open and liberal minded vision that apparently is still ahead of its time a hundred years later.  

Trump Checks In 

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration is continuing its anti-LGBTQ efforts:

President Trump’s administration has ordered a crisis service for LGBTQ youth to close within 30 days in a move that opponents have said will have dire consequences. 

Since federal spending is involved, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration referenced "LGB+ youth," editing out trans people. 

To be continued ... 

SCOTUS Watch: Order List

Barrett Article 

Jodi Kantor, who is a good get, has another long-form article on the Supreme Court. The article is geared toward the average reader, providing an easy-to-read narrative and tossing in some interesting details.  

It discusses Justice Amy Barrett (yes, I'm not going to do the no-label thing). The headline has the usual "confounding left and right" bit, while the article shows she is still rather conservative, if not knee-jerk. If her nomination was above board, she could have been a decent in-context option for the Kennedy seat. Instead, she was shoved on late.  

Two liberal law professors whom I like, Melissa Murray (Strict Scrutiny Podcast and cable news appearances) and Michael Dorf (Dorf on Law), are quoted.  

Order List 

A short Order List with two grants. 

Both are relists, one more so, suggesting an ideological nature. The government's brief argues (the briefing is linked to the SCOTUSblog page) that for multiple reasons, there is no compelling need to take this case as one of the few cases SCOTUS takes for full review.

The case involves a crisis pregnancy center, which would make it appealing for multiple conservative justices. Also, a judge below dissented, which provides a flag to invite review. A Trump appointee, even if he at times votes in a libertarian way. 

There is also a GVR, also involving abortion, sending a longstanding dispute back to the lower courts (grant, vacate, and remand). New York supported the move. So, not surprising, but shows the implications of the referenced opinion. 

(If you follow the link, it goes to the docket page, and there is a supplemental brief on the point.) 

So, yes, even in a short, otherwise bland Order List, there is something notable. Tends to be. 

Exaggerated Agreement

Two legal Substacks challenged the suggestion that the recent slew of agreements should be taken to mean the justices are not ideologically divided. 

We still have some controversial cases left. There is a tendency to backload such cases to the very end of the term. The emergency/shadow docket is repeatedly ideologically divided, including all the Trump cases.

The docket is also carefully selected, with the justices having near total opportunity (except for some election cases) to choose what they want. They can pick cases with certain fact patterns and legal issues. Sometimes, they goof, leading to multiple DIGs this term ("improvidently granted").

The justices also carefully decide the cases, which helps explain why it takes so long to write certain opinions. Divisive issues are sometimes avoided. 

The divisions are sometimes not totally papered over, as shown by concurring opinions. The justices in a few cases are firmly divided in reasoning. Other times, one or more justices flag issues that the opinion avoids, including possible routes for the future or attempts to limit its reach.  

Joan Biskupic flags a concurrence in one of these cases by Thomas with Gorsuch that tosses in a dig at DEI referencing a brief by a group started by Stephen Miller. Gorsuch, team libertarian. Yes, separate opinions have a personal flavor. 

The selection of a few key cases, this term was less hot-button than some others, is a prudential approach. The Supreme Court used to take many more cases. The current Court has more power to control its docket. It is also much more active in the shadow docket, including (much to Jackson's annoyance) granting relief in pending cases. 

This is inside baseball stuff. It still has some rather important consequences. More opinions on Wednesday. Hot-button cases coming up.

Sunday Thoughts: Politics and Violence

The Democrats did not control the New York Senate for years, partially because of a coalition of independents that Governor Cuomo helped as a means to retain power. The legislature was divided, leading to a "three men in a room" (governor and one from each legislative body) dynamic.

My former state senator, the granddaughter of a disgraced member of Congress, helped to end their control and regain Democratic control of the Senate. Biaggi was young and enthusiastic. She is a strong feminist voice. 

An article on IDC challengers notably cites two (including Jessica Ramos, making her support of Cuomo that much more disgusting) who are running for mayor. And, won't win. I think it's fairly safe to say that. Still, Zellnor Myrie is fine.

President Trump should start with a nationwide address condemning violence and taking steps to bring people together as a national leader. As someone who has been the victim of political violence himself, he should understand the stakes and the need for empathy, reassurance, and guarantees of free expression and democratic engagement.

Richard Hasen, Election Law guy, says this in his statement responding to a political assassination in Minnesota. We are at that point in the chat. 

Anyway, Hasen's strong denunciation of political violence is valid. I do not support the "punching Nazis" even as a a rhetorical strategy. 

Use some other language. Violence these days is dangerous, even rhetorically. 

One person said we need to be open to serious harm to ourselves in the fight against fascism. Okay. I don't know when he is going to be seriously at risk of being beaten up by the police or something, but okay. 

Still, it is hard to take to have him saying that and not say "yeah right." He pardoned insurrectionists and multiple other people involved in political violence. Is he going to suddenly stop? Being a victim of political violence (barely -- I'm sorry -- he was grazed) didn't stop him there.

Trump is suddenly now going to show "empathy, reassurance, and guarantees of free expression and democratic engagement"? Who is going to take him seriously? There are some people and institutions (including leaders of the Republican Party) who might take a lesson here. Perhaps, Trump can show himself by his actions. I don't trust him to stay on script if there is some sort of national address.  

When people say this sort of thing, they need to at least note reality. 

No Kings Day, Flag Day, and NYC Votes

Busy day. I cover it all here. (More here.) 

SCOTUS Watch

Order Watch

Alito recently put an "administrative stay" on a bankruptcy case. That is, he held it up temporarily to examine it. He removed it this week.

There were Hail Mary death penalty-related orders in the usual "no dice, no comment" -- which I dealt separately in the execution entry.  

Order List on Monday. 

Opinion Announcements

Some reporters, after Roberts did not respond, posted their letter requesting live streaming of opinion announcements. I have long held that SCOTUS should provide them. It's not asking for much. 

One comment on the letter: the justices don't let the opinions "speak for themselves." They have the opinion announcements in open court. They think they have some value. There is no good reason for the Court not to include them.

Opinions 

Thursday brought more opinions. SCOTUSblog has more coverage, but I will briefly summarize. 

There were six opinions with only two dissents (both solos by Gorsuch). They are continuing to clear the brush. Yes, many of these cases are mundane.

Jackson wrote an opinion explaining how federal law in such and such a case makes it difficult to raise a second habeas claim. 

Barrett explained how a taxpayer's right to appeal was blocked. Gorsuch, dissenting, appeals to the rights of the ordinary person. 

OTOH, litigants had better luck in lawsuits arising from a prison dispute (rare Jackson/Thomas concurrence), disability claims (Roberts had a nod to the needs of parents and disabled children, perhaps with a silent nod to Barrett, who has one), and a family whose home was wrongly raided. Gorsuch would dismiss the first case as improvidently granted. 

Thomas has another unanimous case in a dull-sounding matter (often his métier when writing for the Court) about whether a law providing combat-related special compensation to qualifying veterans confers authority to settle such claims. He concurred in the disability case (with Kavanaugh) to do what he often does when writing separately -- going for bigger game. 

Juneteenth is a federal holiday, so the next conference will be next Wednesday. Expect opinions then, too. There are twenty-one cases left.  So, one opinion day for the next two weeks won't cut it. 

I expect about four.

Four Executions

Uptick in Executions?

I have not seen a reference to a limited uptick of executions. Nineteen have occurred so far in 2025, with six scheduled this month. 

There were twenty-five in 2024. The six this month would give us that with half a year to go. We would still be relatively speaking talking a relatively small number. Still, that seems notable. 

Summary

Three of the executions scheduled this week were for murders that occurred before 1995. The fourth was "recent," with things happening in 2006. 

Newsweek summarizes. I will not provide as in-depth a discussion as I sometimes have with all the people involved. I am getting weary of it. 

Three of the executions clearly (if we use twenty years as a dividing line) raise lingering death problems. See here (Breyer's dissent) and here.  

Why is it taking so long? To address one execution (the co-defendant died on death row in 2023), cited by Newsweek:

Appeals have been filed over the years concerning attorney misconduct, criticism of DNA evidence found at the scene, and a letter from Hamilton claiming he was the one who shot Gayheart, but all were denied, according to The Florida Times-Union.

You also have this sort of thing, which is a last-minute thing the judges won't (with reason) take seriously. 

The South Carolina murderer claims mental illness mitigated his crimes. The prosecutor said he was "just plain evil."  Sounds a bit biblical.  Another also argues that someone else is more to blame. 

The Supreme Court dealt with final claims against the first two executions, as usual, without comment. As usual, I think someone should comment, even if briefly. Here is a summary of the first two executions.

If you want, you can click above to read the details, but let me just acknowledge, we have a bunch of horrible murders here. Sexual assault was involved in more than one. Someone murdered after escaping prison, where he was serving for a non-capital crime. 

The states: Florida (lethal injection), Alabama (nitrogen gas), Oklahoma (lethal injection), and South Carolina (chose lethal injection after reports of problems with the firing squad). Not that the state had a smooth time of it with either one. 

South Carolina, after another without comment rejection by the Supreme Court, was the fourth and last state to execute. The final challenge concerned the dangers of the state's execution methods and the secrecy that burdened obtaining information.

These are valid concerns, but the Supreme Court has not shown much concern about them. The lack of novelty helps explain the final rejection though does not erase the problems of judicial silence.  

Oklahoma 

The Oklahoma execution was thanks to Trump. The Biden Administration did not consent to a transfer as he served a life term for bank robbery and other crimes. Trump is more pro-execution, which he is using to promote his other policy goals. 

In addition to pursuing the death penalty where possible, the Attorney General shall, where consistent with applicable law, pursue Federal jurisdiction and seek the death penalty regardless of other factors for every federal capital crime involving (i) the murder of a law-enforcement officer; or (ii) a capital crime committed by an alien illegally present in this country.

I agree with this analysis that argues against this policy, particularly as "dangerous speech" against a specific group. There are various valid criteria when determining prosecutorial discretion. This is not one. 

The Oklahoma execution was held up in state court because one of the three votes against clemency came from someone who worked for the Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office when Hanson was being prosecuted. He argued he wasn't really involved. 

The paper-thin 3-2 vote against commutation is even more questionably the deciding factor when there is some reason to doubt the impartiality of the deciding vote. Death should not turn on such things. 

The court of appeals found that (1) the judge didn't have the power to hold up things, (2) it's moot since without that vote, it would have been 2-2, which wasn't enough anyway.  

SCOTUS also rejected a Hail Mary appeal without a comment. He was then executed. 

Final Thoughts 

Executions after thirty or more years also particularly bother me. The executions this week show that horrible crimes warrant long prison sentences. The death penalty is too problematic even here.  

See here for some discussion of how so-called tough-on-crime punishments often do not serve the interests of justice. I think the overall principles also apply to the death penalty. All four states went another way.

There are two more executions scheduled this month.  

Wedding Daze (Including a Serious Aside)

The third Hallmark Channel is the place to go for older films (not that old; I'm talking pre-2010), including "Hallmark Hall of Fame" performances. Hallmark Hall of Fame films were the ones you could find on CBS before we had all these Hallmark films, and were higher standard fare.

Wedding Daze is somewhat standard Hallmark fare concerning a dad (John Larroquette, yes, Dan Fielding) dealing with the wedding of his three daughters. Another familiar face, Karen Valentine, plays his wife. French Stewart is the uptight but efficient wedding planner.  

It was a pleasant time-waster with good performances without any tiresome "special complications." The film also had a few good lessons that were not applied in a heavy-handed fashion. 

I'm not sure about the likelihood of success of a firm that names things, but perhaps that might work. What do I know? Plus, their house seemed suitably middle class, not as over the top as many of those films.  

A late complication was that the minister originally scheduled for the wedding had a late medical emergency. So, who would preside? Joey on Friends might have suggested an Internet ministry.* 

But maybe they lived in a state that did not recognize that?* Seriously, they went another way.

A rabbi accidentally showed up for another event. He performed the wedding. That's open-ended for everyone, including the perhaps somewhat traditional Italian family of one of the future husbands. Maybe I'm being a bit stereotypical, but overall, some might not like this. 

(The rabbi insisted they include the glass-breaking ceremony. For those interested, check out the tradition here.) 

The issue wasn't really addressed, but apparently, the family overall was not deeply religious. Many people think certain religious officiants are necessary to properly legitimize the wedding. Others are not as particular. A religious officiant generally sanctifies. Why not use a rabbi?

I recently read a discussion of the usage of Old Testament readings in Christian services. Often, so said the discussion, the passage is not given much attention. At best, the Old Testament is a prelude to the main event, so to speak.

Others find this problematic. If we take Christianity seriously, we should take the whole Bible seriously. Jewish sources would provide a helpful bit of context. Amy-Jill Levine, who also talks about the New Testament through Jewish eyes, would be a useful example. 

A helpful approach would welcome helping hands to fully understand things. For instance, a discussion about the anti-abortion movement could include input from members. 

We might disagree with their position. Nonetheless, people like Mary Ziegler, who talk about them, helpfully cite their views directly. The same idea can be used to discuss religion, politics, history (a Mexican view of the Mexican War), and other subjects. 

A religious ceremony can have guest lectors from other religions when appropriate. A CCD class can have guest speakers to provide helpful context. And, why not use clergy from other faiths when possible for ceremonies?

(At the very least, some dual religious couples have clergy from multiple faiths involved in their ceremonies.) 

One more reference -- the rabbi presiding reminds me of official chaplains. Yes, there often are multiple chaplains for different faiths. Nonetheless, we can also have one overall top chaplain who can serve the needs of various faiths. 

Anyhow, I think a rabbi standing in for the wedding ceremony was a nice touch. Hey, it worked in Robin Hood: Men in Tights, right? 

==

* The law in New York is somewhat convoluted, with a lower court covering 3/5 of New York City (but not Bronx or Manhattan, so Joey was safe), some time back, questioning if an Internet minister qualified. 

A more recent state law allows a run-of-the-mill non-religious officiant to apply to have a one-off right to preside. I personally registered years back as a Universal Life Church minister in New York City. 

This blog used to have a semi-regular "Rev. Joe" feature that reflected my ministry. I never had an opportunity to use  my "authority." 

Jessica Ramos Endorses Cuomo (WTAF)

ETA: Multiple media sources had analyses discussing why Cuomo is now getting support as a "strong" candidate. #MeToo is seen as old news. I discuss how this is a horrible approach here. 

Democrats can include up to five choices on their ballots this month. Republicans, too, but that's not my immediate concern here. There are more than five mayoral candidates. 

Andrew Cuomo, bad for various reasons, someone who had to resign as governor for that reason, is the frontrunner. If he does not receive 50% (lead rank), a form of instant run-off voting occurs. So, rank wisely: rank those likely to have a chance to win, and don't rank Cuomo.

I am okay with any of the candidates running in the Democratic Primary, especially those with any chance, except for Cuomo. I have no excitement level for Brad Lander, for instance, but figure he would make a decent mayor. 

Scott Stringer is a bland progressive choice who faltered last time, partially because of how he handled two old sexual harassment accusations. And because he is boring as dishwater. He is again not getting much traction.  

I would like a woman mayor. Adrienne Adams, speaker of the City Council, seems like the best bet. She knows the city government while not too liberal to avoid people supporting her at least as a back-up choice. 

I think Adams or Lander would be the best chances. Two guys with a first name starting with "Z" are also good -- one as the leftie choice, the other as the sane progressive choice. The leftie choice's main flaws are a lack of experience and less ability to form a coalition. The other has limited support. 

My real decision (other than order) was a fifth choice. Adrienne Adams, the two Zs, Lander, and who else? I figured Jessica Ramos. She's a state legislator, a progressive, and, sure, a woman. And, a strong Cuomo critic, in part calling him a "bully." 

Mike Blake sounds good when I looked him up. Neither honestly has any real chance. 

Ramos is now a "no." She did the right thing, which someone like Stringer should do -- she admits she has no chance. The candidates should realize the problem is defeating Cuomo. 

A few should drop out (yes, their names will be on the ballot) and narrow the field. A person who does not provide much of a difference from other candidates, that much more so.

The candidates need to be serious. The policy of supporting multiple endorsements makes sense given the ranking system. My city council district has led to a clear frontrunner and multiple endorsements of a second candidate (Diaz). This joint endorsement policy is much more important in the mayoral race. 

Ramos, however, decided to endorse Cuomo. She said he had to resign as governor. She flagged sexual abuse allegations against him. She knows he is unfit. 

But now decides to endorse him, allegedly in part since he would be the strongest against Trump. Which is rather doubtful, especially for someone who helped independents control the state senate to protect his own power. He is as likely to compromise. 

Progressives, rightly so, are fleeing her like the plague. Cuomo didn't even endorse her. He said she endorsed me, but I don't endorse her. Any ridicule and scorn she is receiving is well deserved. She is a traitor, hypocrite, and coward. 

We need minimum standards in these times. If Cuomo won the nomination, Ramos still should not support Cuomo if there is a strong alternative. There very well might be a Working Family candidate in that scenario. 

If you have to swallow the bile to avoid a Republican mayor, okay. I can understand that. But the primary is not over yet. There is no good reason for her to support Cuomo now.

People like her should be shunned. These types of decisions helped us get to the current situation, no matter what political stripe they reflect. Republicans cowardly support Trump. Now, Ramos cowardly supports a Trump-like figure.

The saving grace is that she is such a trivial voice now that her endorsement is fairly meaningless.