Friends: The Last One

This was the season that at first was not planned to occur (there were enough episodes for a good syndication run) and one that not each cast member was that gung ho about. They were already starting to get new post-show roles and their new schedules also had to be worked around. It was decided to make only eighteen episodes though multiple ones were extended, so there was the same amount of content over twenty.  Thus, there was some additional cutting to fit into syndication.  DVD episodes already has extras bits and syndication often cut off final credit scenes as is.  There is a new set, I think, that found a bit more material. 

Each season has something of a "reason" for it, such as the previous two being largely focused on Rachel being pregnant and having the baby with other subplots. So, e.g., we had the risky but fairly successful plot of Joey falling for Rachel. What was left open here really? Two basic things: Chandler/Monica for a while wanted a baby and that was not addressed. The other matter was Mike, who it was flagged was someone serious for Phoebe. The second could have been addressed if Season Nine was the final one. A couple episodes were Phoebe focused there including one of the best episodes of S10 (her wedding) but not much time was spent there really. Mike/Phoebe seemed times less of a concern than even Chandler/Janice though Mike seems nice enough. A bit bland.

One common thread here is the absence of Ben Geller though he is referenced at the hospital when Emma is born but afterwards basically disappears. It would not have been hard to at least mention him more often.  Have the child actor with his baby half-sister at least once.   Rachel's mother not being around at the hospital is clearly a matter of casting a name actress, but addressing Ross' son -- hey, maybe even reference the moms moving away which is how one explained it years later -- could have been easier. Rachel's dad does pop up in S10 in a pretty good episode. Ross continues to shine in this season. In the last few episodes, it is apparent "Monica" (who in a commentary it was noted had her own pregnancy issues) is pregnant in real life. Monica and Rachel are the ones who clearly aged, especially since Courtney Cox is older than her character anyways.

This review looks pretty good.  It references the now standard case of Janice popping up.  Always fun but yeah there seems a bit recycled here, even pretending Chandler still wants her to keep her away.  Janice in an earlier season had a serious moment when she met Rachel, talking about her marriages.  I think they could have gone another way here too. It is almost forgotten that once Chandler was stricken breaking up with her, their break-up scene other than the questionable ending (going for comedy) rather touching. I think now that they all matured some more that a different approach that touches upon that some would have worked better here.  It adds to some plot laziness though that pops up (at times late in the season) in past seasons too.

Basically, I think as originally planned, it was possible to make things work with nine seasons though (with some lame aspects) it worked fairly well.  S9 was good as a whole.  The Rachel likes Joey subplot, which even the actors didn't care too much for, easily could have been removed.  The Charlie subplot was okay enough, with some amusing moments, but that too was disposable (as were some other moments; even the Rachel/Paris subplot though the last night episode was especially touching) to fit things into one season.  The Phoebe break-up/back with Mike stuff wasn't really necessary though it did allow one more David moment.  S10 did have some good moments, all which might not have fit.  Rachel/Phoebe's siblings had nice returns. One more flashback and Thanksgiving (the first half was mostly filler), plus Emma's birthday.   And, the surrogacy handled in a bit of an abrupt manner, though Chandler shined in the episode where they were picked and the meeting of another adoptee couple was amusing.* 

Series Finale has various callbacks including a reference to Ben that was nice too but it really would have been nice if we actually saw Ben and/or his moms one last time.  The twin surprise in the commentary was as with some other moments admitted to be "because the funny" and yeah the thing that comes to mind is that Monica would have wanted to see the ultrasound pictures where that would have come out as well as other medical materials.  It is suitable that one of the people in the commentary was emotional at the end since the cast was as well.

We have the usual three episodes (the Thanksgiving episode and finale is expected; the stripper one too really with the flashback material and it being a favorite of one of the producers) of  commentary.  There are also bloopers (including the first four seasons) and interviews of some guest stars (Charlie, Amy and Mike).  Christiana Applegate was one of the three guest stars who was in that segment but she did not note that she worked with "Joey" in Married ... with Children. Time goes on -- she is basically my age and I first saw her as Kelly and she aged a lot there, in a series that ran even longer (somehow) than this one. 

There is a also a documentary with talk from not only the producers but also the stars. "Joey" as the others say goodbye (the segments taped before the last episode aired) notes more was to come, probably in reference to his spin-off.  Other than one special documentary of producing an episode on one DVD, we get very little of the cast [bloopers give us a sense] as such in these DVDs extras so this is notable.  For instance, "Ross" directed several episodes (two of Joey), and it would have been interesting to at least get a comment.  More so to get him to do a commentary track of one of the ten he directed!

As with the first season -- which is not in NYPL -- it was worth to pay about $5, this time since the library was closed.  Nice box too.  Anyway, need to find a new series. This was fun.  A reunion was scheduled this year though its release has been delayed because of ... you know. 

---

* Anna Faris played the surrogate here and it is sort of an in joke since she was in a parodies franchise significantly about the films Courtney Cox were in.  She had a few appearances here, but was not too notable.  The potential here is seen in the surrogate arc in Rules of Engagement, including Audrey wanting to be part of the process and being jealous at times of the surrogate.  We get more in past seasons too, back to S1 where Monica's desire for a child was first seen, including signs (before the writers thought it would be a thing) of a special connection between her and Chandler.  The two simply work. I'm Team Chandler/Monica.

Opening Schools in the Fall and Big V Constitutional Liberty Issues

I agree that the linked piece regarding the perils of returning to school [specifically college and so forth but the concerns are largely applicable to lower grades] in the fall and the conservative views on certain subjects helps provide common ground.  In the comments, it was noted that special concerns should be given to return of schoolchildren.  I agree since we are dealing not just with the needs of parents but children, who have more of a need for education at that age for different reasons.  Relatedly, though the complaints at times seem a bit exaggerated, there are grounds to worry about Zoom teaching:

For reasons I describe here, in-person teaching has important advantages over online instruction. Among other things, in-person teaching makes it easier for faculty to make eye contact and otherwise gauge the reactions of students, and to make sure that the latter are "getting" what the instructor is saying. Being in class also makes it easier for students to stay focused and effectively interact with each other.

A Trump supporter complained about "moral panic" and "overreaction" of what something (other than New York and maybe a few bad apples) was basically "a bad flu season." Mark Field in a later comment noted something like 12x (in May) normal net deaths is a tad worse than that.  Also, the person failed to (as is his wont) be evenhanded both selectively citing information and in apportioning blame. He alleges there is "Trump Law" that selectively targets Trump.  I think he practices the reverse.  Anyway, as I note there, such complaints are overblown and 100K (so far) etc. if anything warranted more action though the various things done including social distancing and isolation followed standard protocols.

Another person went back/forth with someone even less worthy of reply (though for years people have, with a mixture of vitriol and facts) regarding how government regulation here overlapped with traditional methods. The usual cases here involved regulating transit points, particularly quarantining or blocking entry totally of ships and people.  The broad sweep of such principles (see New York v. Miln) was limited somewhat in Edwards v. California, which barred blocking entry merely to keep out paupers.  Nonetheless, the basic principle appears to be good law.

There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution. But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.

Not that we have many recent precedents that appear on directly on point. If so, it is unclear why Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) is quoted so much.  That case involved a state compulsory vaccination ($5 fine, which was notable but not confiscatory at that point) that was used during a smallpox epidemic. And, there was a process set up to determine if the vaccination was necessary, which was met there. Finally, the opinion left open a special case where the vaccination would case special harm to the person in question.  The link shows that there was some allegation of particular harm, but apparently was not strong enough for this exception.  Likewise, the law was not applied in an "unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive manner."  Note two justices did dissent.

So, it was not a compulsory vaccination of a baby, let's say, as an absolute rule.  The opinion has various quotable language such as how the minority protected by a locality could not in such cases allege a right to be excepted from a general law passed in protection of the community.  In Prince v. Massachusetts, a 1940s case allowing applying child labor laws even if the behavior is religious in nature, the case was cited to show general applicable laws are valid in such a case.  The cases that grant exemptions to my knowledge was in applying statutory exemptions and maybe RFRA type laws. That question is still somewhat open. 

And, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the law still was cited in good law, but that the general state interest in protecting life was not strong enough to meet the test to justify a general abortion ban. This would be a useful citation against various attempts to severely limit abortion rights without good cause during the pandemic.  As noted here, in general, modern day views of liberty would in various cases be more stringent than in 1905.  It is unclear, putting aside ability to send children to school or something, if a compulsory vaccination program of adults would be allowable. Various cases against compulsory medical procedures can be cited. OTOH, one can be detained in a mental institution if one endangers others.

Though dealing with the breadth of action present today has no exact recent precedent, over the years there were general principles that could be applied.  A prime case here would be the well being of those in state run institutions, which includes certain due process protections for safe conduct.  Various cases, imperfectly applied in recent days, also protect voting rights and guide how the laws should be applied in this case.  Broad executive power should be carefully analyzed, but emergency situations repeatedly have been shown to justify it, especially if the legislature provides guidelines.  Religion is of special concern but general rules still apply.  Emergencies do not provide "anything goes," but that hasn't been the case now, even in places like New York City.

A value of our system of law is the ability to reason and apply, a form of common law within constitutional and statutory guidelines.  A final word can be said about an interesting precedent, noting that new times bring new practices, so I'm not saying it just means we can apply what they did. But, it still is helpful and informative. I speak of the 1793 yellow fever epidemic, yellow fever being what led to a few cases of the Supreme Court (and lower court judges in some cases) closing shop temporarily. Over the years, plague, yellow fever and related instances led to broad social and legal implications that do provide some help to our current affair.

Various things stand out in the discussion, putting aside disputes (at times having a partisan tinge) over proper medical techniques. The government had the power to close ports, block scheduled coach schedules, require private religious burials (and hold church bells) and had special cleaning regimes put in place.  Quarantines were enforced including limiting the movement of refugees.  And, in general, limits on normal business were allowed.  This is a time with less population and government in general. Overall, though it's a fool's game to rely on this in many cases, a conservative legal mind could find the current methods "originalist."

A basic thing in my own comments in the opening link is care. It is unclear what will happen and given the scope of the harm to life and well being, we should be careful.  This can be difficult -- it seems that the New York City schools should have been closed sooner, but that had a range of difficulties that led me to be wary about it early March.  And, there is a national need here, as noted by one who cited how the mismanaged travel ban probably worsened the situation.  It's May, so it's unclear to me what exactly should be done regarding colleges in September. The article is helpful as we figure how to handle this, any solution a balance of costs/benefits.

This is will also apply to sports -- Gov. Cuomo has reportedly welcomed the opening of training facilities and efforts are being made to do so also in Florida regarding the Mets.  This sign of  restarting of Spring Training suggests that it is more likely than before that there will be a baseball season of some sort perhaps starting in July.  More so a football season. I'm wary about the scope necessary to do this, including the more close nature of football (with more people close together on the field).

But, we shall see.

===

* I think this should be separated as a bit of a footnote. 

The Trump supporter I clashed with tends to latch on to certain things, one thing there being nursing homes.  It is hard to keep up with all these details, so it is best to try to keep on track with general principles. Generally, it is logical that many would die at nursing homes given that older people are especially at risk here and they would be a logical place where at risk people would be or would be place.  There still are about 70K who did not die there.

The implication was that somehow people were wrongly sent to nursing homes and this negligently infected people there. But, nursing homes would seem like a logical place to send people to be cared for though ideally we would have independent areas, perhaps, set up as have been to isolate people without the means to do so on their own .  The person in question argued in a previous comment that ventilators should be distributed based on means to pay, so he might not be a good advocate here. It seems on a basic level, see the numbers, more dust.

And, we have this:

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a memorandum on March 13 stating, in part, "Nursing homes should admit any individuals that they would normally admit to their facility, including individuals from hospitals where a case of COVID-19 was/is present."

I didn't look that up at time but thus what is the argument? Many people died at nursing homes?  What does this tell us?  The concern here was to avoid overwhelming hospitals with those who were not in immediate need of medical care.  Perhaps, this is also a sign of where truth arises from collision of error to the extent I looked it up after reading his bs.

Some Books

I have been finding it hard to get into books since March, which overlaps with the Big V, though it is dubious to just blame that.  There has been a general practice over the years with so much more reading online for it to crowd out book reading. I still have read some books (at least around 15-20 a season) though back in the day read more. In the midst of the Internet Age, did read the novels of Jane Austen, except for most of her stories written as a teen.  One useful approach here is finding set times to read, which used to be during traveling on the train or during meal breaks.  More recently, found it helpful to read some when I first get up.

In the last few months, many books didn't take. An Unsuitable Job for a Woman was the most recent.  I watched a televised version years back, so far back that I do not think it was version that was part of a series that starred "Emily" from Friends* so it seems to be the 1982 version.  But, I just remember seeing it and basically nothing else. Anyway, the first seventy pages or so was okay, but got tired of it.  In part, it was a matter of being tired of the usual citation of background details present in many mysteries.  But, the story itself annoyed me and skipped ahead didn't improve things.  The 7% solution Holmes book was easier in that respect.

After reading a biography by her daughter (though her daughter's book on her world-wide travels during WWII was too overwhelming for me), I tried a book on the Curie women particularly.  I didn't like it either -- in part, it was because it only tells part of the story, particularly focused on the coming to the U.S. and years afterward.  The incomplete account was not helped by the writing style.  So, Marie Curie and Her Daughters was another pass though I would like to read more on the subject.

Starting with the mid-nineteenth-century campaign by the American Female Moral Reform Society to criminalize seduction and moving forward to the late twentieth-century conservative effort to codify a national abstinence-only education policy, Regulating Desire explores the legal regulation of young women's sexuality in the United States. The book covers five distinct time periods in which changing social conditions generated considerable public anxiety about youthful female sexuality and examines how successive generations of reformers sought to revise the law in an effort to manage unruly desires and restore a gendered social order.

This is sort of a collection of essays in a fashion, only 150 pages, dealing with five specific case studies.  It is not a complete analysis of the subject matter; after all, there was a free love movement in the 19th Century.  But, overall, I found it interesting and well written.  She more recently co-wrote a book on "abortion regret" (many accounts speak of childbirth regret)  and wrote on on teen choice regarding abortion that she summaries here. She cites a book that came after that one, Girls on the Stand, which I spoke about on this blog.

With the libraries closed, though I did have multiple books out to read, re-reading some stuff I have and purchase have filled the gap. Some failed too, including The Amendment That Failed To Die (14A; a somewhat rambling book). Others including The Color of Rain worked better. Another was a little book by someone whose brother was murdered that later because an advocate of forgiveness.  Coffee Shop God was followed by a documentary about her experience, including meeting the murderer.  A short video on her website is probably suggestive of the wider effort. She continues to speak out from flags that come up of her recent experience, the book in question published in 2009.

Next up is Goodbye, Mr. Chips, the version having extra material including from the author and illustrations.  That should be safe.  I watched the original movie years ago as well as a lesser t.v. movie version with the guy who perhaps best know as Doc Martin but also did various other stuff.

(Starting to read it, there is a lot of overlap, but some differences including the sort of details used to fill in an extended film. His wife did help promote his popularity and sense of humor, e.g., but their meeting was different as was the use of a foreign born professor. A bit about him being ill at ease in punishment was generally referenced but not the keeping them from a key sports event that was highlighted in the film.) 

===

*  Season 10 of Friends is later dealt with separately. 

Primary Update

I only saw the very end of their debate but apparently the opponent of AOC (two or three times, I received texts on my phone for polls that turned into what looked like an anti-AOC push poll) is laying it on thick.  The most important thing is, glitches and all, we did get a debate between the primary candidates.  It was on BronxNet, one of various public/community access type channels for which FIOS provides no guide information so I do not know when things are on ahead of time. I did notice among the channels I now get (Bronx) News 12 though it would be more helpful if it was on Channel 12 as it is on another provider.

Some people in a safe seats, especially now, rather not debate so again it's appreciated.  As is the news that the federal court of appeals, with NY not planning to appeal, upheld the district court ruling requiring a presidential primary election.  Simply cancelling in midstream, especially with mail-in balloting and 2/3 of the counties (including NYC counties) already having races, was in bad form.  The limited amount of extra resources necessary to send and process mail-in ballots -- which push comes to shove it could have done like other states if in person voting in any area was problematic -- still does not seem to be worth it balancing other interests.  And, the lag time for the failed litigation cuts short prep time to meet deadlines.

This ruling also influenced Puerto Rico, with a similar law as NY originally had, to set a primary in early July.  The court said it deciding mostly for the reasons of the district court but a full opinion would come later.  Meanwhile, this state court of appeals opinion regarding two candidates kept off the ballot for reasons connected to the Big V seems petty and not compelled (see dissents).  OTOH, this does seem like there is something real there and it isn't the first time.   Recall that in New York, the "Supreme Court" is actually the lowest court in the chain. 

Two primaries this week.  First, we had Oregon on Tuesday with sixty-one delegates and then Hawaii on Friday with twenty-four.  Sanders always had enough to break the 15% floor in Oregon but edged a little bit higher near the end.  Then, it held around 85% of the vote cast.  Warren has around 10% and Gabbard and sign-in both are around two percent each. It might suggest the left-leaning nature of the state that even at this late date a third voted against Biden.  Though there is still more votes to count, both AP and 270 to Win estimates a split of 46/15 delegate-wise between the two candidates. A strict population apportionment without the fifteen percent floor would give Warren about six delegates and even Gabbard might get one.  Now, each get nothing and one can debate at least if 10% of the vote makes the just.  Again, one can see how all this can matter in an actual election with more bite.

Shades of some late 2016 states that gave anti-Trump support in the twenties or something. There is no sign of that now, suggesting the need for a real protest Republican candidate like Pat Buchanan in the days of yore.  It is misunderstood by some, saw this myself, that the reason is that there really aren't Republican presidential primaries.  One problem is that there is no candidate likely to obtain a floor, the usual being 15%, which is the rule in many states. New York cancelled it because no candidate could get signatures in all the districts.  But, we still are having many Republican presidential primaries.

Take Nebraska, a small but Republican friendly state. Bill Weld, who couldn't get on the ballot in NY, received 8.5% of the vote.  Not bad for someone who basically stopped running even his kinda campaign months ago.  Imagine some big name with the resources and drive to give it a go the whole way? It is a blot on the party no one did.  And, even Oregon, which I see only has Trump on the ballot, there was over six percent write-ins, which is a pretty large number as to that method. Over twenty-four thousand people felt it obligatory to go out of their way to vote Republican and vote for someone other than Trump. I think that matters.  The write-in for the Democratic senator race is less than two percent.

Hawaii had its primary on Friday, and apparently because the primary was originally April 4th, not just the "final four" (Biden/Sanders/Warren/Gabbard) were on the ballot this time.  The results came out early evening on Saturday and the AP with less than 35K voting (over 500K voted in Oregon, again we aren't just talking presidential races), the split is 16/8, again fairly not surprising in a liberal leaning state.  That would be 63/37 percentage-wise with ranked choice run-off voting to eliminate the other candidates.  Just by mail but the later date did leave more time to register.   The turnout is a tad disappointing when you note that there are over one millionaire people in Hawaii compared to over four million in Oregon. Even if you factor in the population differential, Oregon did better voting.  OTOH, Oregon had some state elections too. 

Meanwhile, some have a "vote by mail" mantra. As with the "vice presidents don't matter at all in elections" line, this raises my "no absolutes" spider sense. And, experts do say that voting by mail plus is the way to go.  This includes drop boxes, which is a good idea -- you can track the ballot (if you have computer access) if it is set like media mail and the like, but some would actually want to drop off. But, in person methods also would be useful, including to ask questions and so forth.  In some cases, at least in a limited form (Rick Hasen is against unlimited means to collect ballots), having third parties pick up your ballot and deliver them also might be a good idea.  Anyway, the experts also say we have a ways to go to be fully ready and the asshole isn't helping with his ranting.

Oh well.  That's all they wrote primary-wise until June.

ETA: In a past entry, third parties were referenced and 2016 suggests this addendum is warranted.  Jo Jorgenson, a past vice presidential candidate (1996) and Clemson psychology lecturer (not quite Gary Johnson) was nominated to be the Libertarian candidate.  There was some concern with Justin Amash's run but he decided the time wasn't right.  They went another way.

"Trump Is Failing at Governing But Winning at Authoritarianism"

Joe Biden was on Colbert the other night (the at home format is pretty charming, including the often low rent, low romance -- some guests go all casual -- remote interviews) and came off pretty well. You get the idea why people are reassured by the guy. Colbert liked him in 2016; at least, when he came on, Colbert seemed to emotionally ask him to run. Now, Colbert does his Joe Cool shtick involving Biden. It's a bit lame. It seems maybe Colbert supported someone else. Well, I did too.

But, he's basically the nominee in all but name, even if I'll vote Warren in the NY primary on principle. It's about time to move on with the grumbling, which was acceptable. Now, it's not. He's not "just better than Trump," though serious people would realize that is enough. Latching on to a rather dubious allegation (even before more info came out to make it more so) and pretending like dropping out is even possible was stupid. Or, latching on to some gaffe "gotcha." GTFU. We need to win and win big.

The subject article provides some more details of the stakes. As if we don't have enough. Emoluments, blocking oversight, firing inspector generals, interfering in criminal investigations, "can you do me a favor, though?" And, now trying to badmouth voting by mail. Since we aren't like some third world country with knocks on the door, there is some ability to handwave. But, we should not. Move beyond the policy stuff. Judges. etc. Sigh.

"A Feud in Wolf-Kink Erotica Raises a Deep Legal Question"

There are a range of things worthy of discussion in the news beyond the usual suspects and the subject article flags this. The idea that the Internet is generally used for porn has been well cited. But, it is not just visual. There was and continues to be a great outpouring of erotic/pornographic writing, including chat rooms.

The copyright conflict here arises is some part of this -- the similarities of two erotic writings seem at least partially because they were inspired and got material from online erotica. I'm curious what sort of "research" was done by Kitty Bennett and Susan Beachy, the first at least sounds like a pen name. I sorta kid though the legal work here sounds somewhat interesting. The efforts, some quite skillful if done for subjects that some find distasteful, of Omegaverse & others also is noteworthy. Plus, the overall dispute can arise outside of this one area.

SCOTUS Order/Opinion Day: Not Much Happens

There were more time with May arguments and many cases pending, but nothing much this morning. This includes regarding dealing with a bunch of pending 2A issues other than declaring one moot. Thomas flagged a circuit split apparently to deal with too many prisoners gaining relief once they are released. The one opinion was unanimous per Gorsuch and held against Sudan regarding punitive damages under the relevant law.

Update: Texas has put off multiple executions but Missouri decided to push ahead with a problematic case though at first it looked a federal judge would hold up. But, the court of appeals overturned and (without comment) the Supreme Court let that stand on Tuesday. He was executed. I'm glad I don't "deep dive" these things like last year. Depressing.

Virtual SCOTUS News

The Supreme Court had telephonic arguments from Monday to Wednesday on various major issues (tribal sovereignty, rules for discrimination claims for teachers at religious schools, Trump financials and faithless electors). Roberts seemed a bit stressed on Monday, but things ended on a good note, perhaps because the justices as a whole wanted to avoid problems in the last case. If anything, more state power over elections can be applied to help Trump.

No orders on Monday, one unanimous trademark decision on Thursday and a conference today. Sotomayor's opinion there however was overshadowed by a "statement" (more like a dissent) joined by RBG to an appeal from the 5CA (which overturned a district judge's ruling for the prisoners) involving the needs of older prisoners in these times. As she notes: "May we hope that our country’s facilities serve rather than cautionary tales." The Supreme Court rejected the appeal without comment. Maybe, a bit of comment as they stay at home would have been appropriate. OTOH, see its Wisconsin primary opinion.

Also, Michigan plans to settle the literacy case, so the lower court stands for now.

One Woman's Fight

With libraries closed, I'm spending some time rereading books and referenced this book here some time ago. Turned out around the time when she died, her not only around in the 1990s for a reprint first published in the 1950s, but living into the 20th Century. It is part of a wider whole of books that are basically case studies, of which I read many.

She was behind the McCollum "release-time" decision, the first time the Supreme Court struck down a law on Establishment Clause grounds. She notes another state case involving "release time" not on the premises, suggesting her own case might be decided differently. The U.S. Supreme Court so decided though the book itself doesn't add a footnote to say so. The first case had four opinions: a blithe one by Justice Black, a more detailed account with history but basically as separatist by Frankfurter, one by Jackson wary of too many cases (and noting religion will still be taught in a variety of ways) and a solo dissent by Reed.

All have something useful to say. It is suggested by two justices that not much harm is present here. The abuse inflicted on the child here suggests otherwise (the mother's obit adds a macabre detail about a cat that the book merely notes was lost). Some "free" exercise. And, the net result favors some sects who run the programs in place. No wonder the author notes many religious believers supported her cause. Worthy rereading.

Primary Update: Nebraska etc.

Twenty-nine Nebraska convention delegates were at stake in yesterday's primary. I will use this entry to cover various electoral related matters.

For instance, today the finale of the telephonic Supreme Court arguments (no orders on Monday even though there was a conference on the previous Friday) involved faithless electors. As one might recall, Bush won in 2000 with four more electoral votes (really three but a D.C. elector submitted a null vote to call attention to something or other, nothing if the vote mattered, it would have gone to Gore). The two cases were split because Sotomayor recused in one because she is friendly with a party.  The tenor of the arguments suggest a majority will find a way to avoid denying the states power here though a few justices might disagree somewhat.

[Somewhat relatedly, Aimee Stephens, a party in one of the GLBT employment cases has died though like a religious liberty case argued this week, I gather her spouse still has standing regarding damages or the like.]

Also, for now, New York will have a presidential primary pursuant to a district court ruling overturning its cancellation.  The state is appealing though the opinion (basically resting on First Amendment grounds) seems sound.  As noted, even if the candidate is a given, the election is “also serves to determine the party’s principles and goals through the adoption of a platform.”  Either way, by some measure, Sanders would get some sort of fraction of New York delegates by agreement, but here the voters decide.  Even if allegations of specific anti-Sanders (or primary challengers) bias is overblown, refuting that sort of thing is also helpful.

The decision seems to leave open in-person voting but not sure if that is compelled -- Andrew Yang surely seems to think mail-in voting would be acceptable.  OTOH, even if the same number of regular polling places need not be open if it is unsafe, some in person locations is likely important.  And, showing that the technicalities of New York elections still has some ability to pop up (if not quite like one person who might have had her name kept off the Democratic ballot) in inane ways -- AOC had too few signatures to get on the Working Family Party line.  She really should have made sure to have a few extra, given how these things go, but as her campaign notes, it doesn't really matter.  After all, we are talking a new limit of fifteen.  But, it still is rather silly, especially since there are no other candidates for that line.

(Here is another picayune ruling by a lower court  that turns on a filing a day late in the middle of a pandemic, the person in the hospital and clashing with a law that changed in midstream.  There are going to be asinine applications of the law but New York seems to have this happen too often. The legislature might want to clarify things some more.)

Indiana was due to vote on May 5th but postponed. Wyoming also voted for various Republican races, causing some controversy.  It is to be noted again that though presidential races might be handled separately, especially this year, there is usually more races than the now mostly sealed (again except for convention delegates and the chance to vote) presidential races.  This would also include Nebraska, which has in person voting if with special rules for social distancing, not using rest rooms or providing voting stickers.  Recall again that Nebraska is the one state with a unicameral (one house) legislature with each member called "senator."

Nebraska ran a caucus system in 2016 but per party pressure was one that shifted to a primary.  Wyoming did so for Big V purposes, having a mail-in primary.  Iowa, Nevada, North Dakota and some territories did or plan for now to have caucuses.  Puerto Rico has not re-scheduled its primary and if there isn't any, Biden would likely get most of them though some agreement might be made to provide some to Sanders.  The rules originally would strip Sanders of lots of delegates for suspending but Biden agreed not to have that occur. So, even if New York has no primary, it is unlikely in the end that all 200+ delegates would go to Biden.

Results. Again, there were other elections (and a vote on a bond issue) with Kara Eastman, e.g., getting a second chance to beat the Republican House candidate (she lost in a close race last time).  She is the more left leaning candidate though I have seen some suggestion she compromised a bit to gain support.  This is Nebraska.  Sanders won Nebraska in 2016; this time it does not appear he even met the 15% floor (there is no instant run-off voting, so Warren's six percent and Gabbard's 3% was key -- Sanders received 14% so surely could have received around four delegates in another system -- a small matter here but suggestive of how election procedures do matter).  So, 29 more delegates for Biden.

Next Tuesday: Oregon.  Kentucky postponed. West Virginia was also originally  yesterday but postponed. 

A Question of Choice

Sometime in the past, I read Sarah Weddington's (who argued Roe v. Wade) original account, A Question of Choice. I found a 40th anniversary edition (2013).  One of many books on the subject (e.g., read one by Laurence Tribe) I have read throughout the years.  Be interesting if I found one that covers other efforts (Liberty and Sexuality briefly covers this ground) of the many other cases, including Doe v. Bolton also lead by women advocates.  The charm of the copy I found was that not only did she sign it, but the previous head of Planned Parenthood who wrote a new introduction (Cecile Richards) did as well.

On some level, this is suitable Mother's Day reading -- the basic question of choice regarding motherhood is at stake. Weddington herself had an illegal (if safe) Mexican abortion in the 1960s but never did have children (yes, some might disagree). Many others who had abortions were already or later on did. The author of the ruling had three daughters.  One good book I found that summarizes the history of abortion and includes many first person accounts of women who had them (Abortion and Life) has a woman pregnant (the author) on the cover.  Motherhood includes a mix of things, including in a plurality of the total cases, abortions.

A previous entry referenced this book, but will add a few words now that it is completed. It is best for the details on leading up to (including winning state office) and after (she worked in the Carter Administration though she didn't provide her role in RBG being appointed judge, even though now she is justice -- the original was written twenty years before). She slips up (you can listen and read along her arguments and you might catch a couple mistakes) there but overall good.  At times, you wish she added a bit more -- Linda Coffee basically disappears though then briefly pops up when the t.v. movie is referenced (one I saw back in the day) -- but good.  Also, she is not clear that basically after Carter lost re-election she went into academia.

The update is a tad disappointing. The original appears to have ended with Thomas being appointed including her testimony against and then you'd think we would move on to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Nope. It is briefly referenced near the end (with the stupid mistake that O'Connor alone wrote the opinion). Instead, we basically get boilerplate on her anti-abortion forces increased, general statements about the opposition and the importance of choice and then a list of things to do.  The things that happened since 1993 were somewhat touched upon, yes, but in a way that left something to be desired. For instance, a snapshot of RBG being appointed (again, she was "there" when Carter appointed her the first time) would have been nice.  Instead, RBG is briefly mentioned a few times.

So, get the book for completeness, but the original is basically as good. One little quirk -- the author, like the author (Marvella Bayh) of another book recently read knew Lady Bird Johnson.  Her husband died the day Roe v. Wade was decided, but she lived until 2007.  I checked, and her real name was Claudia, though her nickname (Wikipedia says it basically became her official name) allowed repeated use of the "LBJ" initials (even the dog).  Perhaps, there will a fiftieth anniversary edition in a few years. 

6th Circuit Enjoins Ban On In-Person Worship Services Reprise

We have a follow-up in which the 6CA stands its ground regarding an injunction barring enforcement pending appeal of Kentucky Governor Andrew Beshear's COVID-19 order banning in-person church services. It makes clear that it accepts the action is not a matter of animus or singling out churches specifically. But, the exceptions does show it is not a general applicable rule (this is often a stickler -- few things are totally absolute, so we have an all/nothing problem unless exceptions are upheld using strict requirements).  And, the general told holds via a per curiam without dissent or concurrence to at least give a hint more supportive of the other side.

"Keep in mind that the Church and its congregants just want to be treated equally."  By getting special dispensation from rules. The rejoinder is that there are exceptions and we get this with a Gorsuch type tone:

Come to think of it, aren’t the two groups of people often the same people—going to work on one day and going to worship on another?  How can the same person be trusted to comply with social-distancing and other health guidelines in secular settings but not be trusted to do the same in religious settings?  The distinction defies explanation, or at least the Governor has not provided one.

Well, the lower court, as I said last time, did provide one:

Plaintiffs seek to compare in-person attendance at church services with presence at a liquor store or “supercenter store[].” The latter, however, is a singular and transitory experience: individuals enter the store at various times to purchase various items; they move around the store individually—subject to strict social-distancing guidelines...—and they leave when they have achieved their purpose. Plaintiffs’ desired church service, in contrast, is by design a communal experience, one for which a large group of individuals come together at the same time in the same place for the same purpose.

The court of appeals is not impressed at such logic:

The Governor suggests that the explanation for these groups of people to be in the same area—intentional  worship—creates  greater  risks  of  contagion  than  groups  of  people,  say,  in  an  office setting or an airport.  But the reason a group of people go to one place has nothing to do with it.  Risks of contagion turn on social interaction in close quarters; the virus does not care why they are there.  So long as that is the case, why do the orders permit people who practice social distancing and good hygiene in one place but not another for similar lengths of time?  It’s not as if law firm office meetings and gatherings at airport terminals always take less time than worship.

The opinion notes that the people involved promise to follow social distancing rules and not do things like share chalices or the like.  As noted last time, there is evidence that the rules were not followed in various cases already.  They are violated generally (see, e.g., people in my area not wearing masks in public places though they are required).  It to me is ridiculous to say that the "reason a group of people go to one place has nothing to do with it."  See the previous paragraph. The specifics factor in here and it is just silly that there is not more chance of extended interaction at a damn church service than the likes of an airport terminal.

Various exceptions are not likely in practice, and general rules are logically formulated that way, to ever have the same type of gathering than church services.  A laundromat a place with limited people where you stay for limited periods of time.  I have gone to one repeatedly the last couple months and say this from inexperience.  Question that law office meetings will have the time and numbers (including more likely older people) of a service.  Many will likely be by phone or video chat. And, airports will have less tendency of interaction, generally being atomistic locations. Plus, there is more chance there to use blunt social distancing rules.

Again, religion is an important part of human existence, especially in these times, and the Constitution and our laws do specifically protect it.  So, if possible, I understand the concern over allowing in-person services which are seen as fundamental to many to practice their religion.  But, there is good reason to apply social distancing rules to religious services even if certain life sustaining matters are allowed. If anything, the exceptions already are probably somewhat too broad. Religious services have aspects that also make them more concerning, aspects which in other ways are benign and go to the heart of their nature.

As  individuals,  we  have  some  sympathy  for  Governor  DeWine’s  approach—to  allow  places of worship in Ohio to hold services but then to admonish all of them (we assume) that it’s “not  Christian”  to  hold  in-person  services  during  a  pandemic.    Doral  Chenoweth  III,  Video: Dewine says it’s “not Christian” to hold church during coronavirus, Columbus Dispatch, April 1, 2020.  But the Free Exercise Clause does not protect sympathetic religious practices alone.  And that’s exactly what the federal courts are not to judge—how individuals comply with their own faith as they see it.

I rather not have judges provide asides like this in official opinions regarding what their "sympathies" are respecting how to be a good Christian.  If we want to provide a full accounting of what religious liberty entails, it is likely not having what amounts to quasi-official endorsements of not only Christianity (there are other types of worship) but sectarian suggestions on top of that. Basically, religious liberty includes following certain general rules, and contra to the analysis provided (with limited hints of the state side), that if anything goes against the claims here.

Anyway, it's a bit of a have your cake and eat it too approach that is of limited value.  I still think drive-in services might work, but as a matter of allowable discretion, without more, inclined to support the governor here. But, given the rules of the game these days, who is to know?  Still, especially given the district court opinion, I rather hear more than what is provided here.

Virtual SCOTUS Week Continues

Yet another pandemic-related emergency filing reached the Supreme Court tonight. A group of Pennsylvania businesses led by the Friends of Danny DeVito, a committee formed to support a candidate for a seat in the state’s legislature (and no relation to the famous actor), asked the justices to temporarily block the enforcement of the executive order entered last month by the state’s governor, telling them that the order and others like it are doing “substantial, unprecedented damage to the economy.”

Busy week for Virtual SCOTUS. Monday -- Orders, Mon-Wed -- Arguments (four total), Thursday -- Opinions and Friday -- Conference with odds and ends mixed in.  (The odds and ends including rejecting, without comment, a request to override a stay it home order; the lawsuit not related to the actor).  This includes RBG dealing with a benign gall bladder (though giving some stress) issue, taking part in the  Wednesday conference call argument to call out threats to the birth control mandate from her hospital room.  She sounded feisty, let's say.

The second argument involving robocalls was a less controversial issue but had a bit of a bump when a toilet flushed. The Court delayed release of the audio and transcript; looking into it (comparing the audio posted on Twitter), they edited out the unscheduled sound effect.  The first week of live streaming of telephonic arguments overall was fine with many appreciating them, including law professor types.  The glitches were minor -- Breyer, e.g., accidentally got cut off, Thomas for some reason wasn't ready the first time he was called and we had that little toilet thing that amused a lot of people. But, we had a lot of this in the Age of Zoom, be it companion animals, children or whatever.  The justices seem to take things in stride and basically are pretending like nothing much special is happening. If this little silly toilet thing is latched on as some excuse to restrict livestreaming, it is stupid. 

The informative live-streaming of arguments followed up by special discussion (both on C-SPAN and SCOTUSBlog & likely other places) will continue next week, including with an issue involving faithless electors. Imagine if that was a thing (besides one who submitted a null vote since nothing turned on it) in 2000 when a handful of electoral votes determined things.  Or, in 1877 -- what if some faithless elector complicated things there?  Like the Third Amendment, these constitutional debates seem largely theoretical until suddenly they are a thing.

Anyways, opinions.  (There was an important district court ruling, but it might be short-lived and also seems best for next week's primary entry.) First, from the oral argument not too surprising, the Supreme Court via Kagan said the Bridge-gate prosecutions at issue was a misapplication of the relevant federal statute.  As the opinion notes, this doesn't erase the abuse of power.  Plus, not only were three people fired, but a person not covered by the litigation pled guilty to other charges.  And. Gov. Christie's national hopes were seriously hurt by the whole thing.  Finally, there have been many local (the persons here might have been guilty of local crimes) and federal prosecutions of government officials over recent years.  Things are not all hopeless though a few responded as if things are.

Let me toss in yet again that ideally we would have audio from the Supreme Court for these opinion announcements, but with the Big V., it doesn't even look like we will get a lot of them even (months later) on the Oyez.com website.  The usual practice is to announce them in court with the justice providing an opinion announcement and more rarely dissenting from the bench.  They could have done a livestream of that too.  When talking about livestream or video of oral arguments comes up, this subject often isn't even raised though it is even less defensible not to post it than video (which lots of appeals courts do now without difficulty). 

Anyway, the second opinion appears to be something of a surprise except for Thomas also concurring separately to find one more area of law he wants to do away with, because a conflict that seemed to be over the free speech overbreadth of a federal statute was a slam-down (in another unanimous opinion, this time by RBG) on the appeals court for reaching out to decide things in a certain fashion.  Guess adding new arguments is SCOTUS' job. Seriously, this seems like a somewhat curious opinion.

And, thus we come to the virtual conference. The results will be provided on Monday.  Meanwhile, CJ Roberts held up the release of grand jury materials from the Mueller Investigation for a response, due within ten days.  The House accepted that beforehand though maybe not for that long.  Meanwhile, the independence of said investigation is being screwed over by the Barr Justice Department, clearly not free from bias but not recusing, changing its mind regarding the Flynn prosecution.  The guy pled guilty over two years ago, so that delay alone pissed me off.  And, now this.

Oral arguments for the Trump financials will be heard next week.

ETA:  I thought things were over for the week, but one additional thing occurred arising from an allegation that the seat (soon to be filled, confirmation recently accomplished, by Judge Justin Walker, an under 40 Trump troll type) that opened up on the D.C. Court of Appeals might have done so because of undue influence of Sen. McConnell.  Judge Thomas Griffith, a conservative judge, is retiring in September, apparently because he has fifteen years of service time and thus gets full benefits.  Note the link -- he is sixty-five, so that  adds up to "80." 

The current Chief Judge (who recently replaced Merrick Garland and was also on the short list to replace Scalia) asked to have the complaint handled by another circuit to avoid claims of bias.  On the merits, I think the allegation as applied to this specific person probably was dubious, but seemed sound to at least investigate.  I saw a reference by a member of the Strict Scrutiny Podcast (liberals) that she respected Judge Griffith and was sorry to see him go.  I will grant that he is a respectable sort etc., but appearance of bias is important too. 

Well, it was reported today that Chief Justice Roberts rejected the move on procedural grounds.  As with tossing out the complaints against Kavanaugh once he became a justice, which btw was done per rules that Sen. Warren proposed changing, maybe this is sound application of the rules.  I'm not going to pretend to know otherwise.  But, if there was any reasonable chance to have the matter investigated, and I'll bet my nonexistent farm that there probably was reasonable grounds to go the other way, it would have been good to do so.

National Day Of Prayer

If you put the title in the search bar, you see I have talked about this over the years, and I still share this sentiment: "In a nutshell, the main problem with the National Prayer Day is that it is government-sanctioned religion, which is unconstitutional."

Obama might have toned things down and was less offensive on such issues as compared to Trump, but the bottom line holds. This not about taking God (G-d?) out of the public sphere. Public officials can talk about their faith or the faith of others. It is about an official endorsement, establishment, of specific religious beliefs. Mild or not, this violates the First Amendment and otherwise is a bad idea. We should not have official religious feast days.

The Color of Rain

Reread. The evangelical tone is a bit offputting at times, but the basic story of two people falling in love after meeting up on account of their spouses dying is well told with down to earth alternating narrators. I thought the Hallmark movie good until it decides to use lame "plot complication" that didn't happen. An update is that one of the sons also had cancer, but seems to have fought thru it, helped by up to date treatment techniques.

Telephonic Monday

First off, I read The Seven-Percent-Solution by Nicholas Meyer (I'm sorry -- "edited by" since the conceit is that it is from an unpublished John Watson manuscript), which explains those mystery years where Holmes disappeared after supposedly being killed. Turns out, Watson tricked him into going to get treatment for his cocaine addiction from Sigmund Freud and along the way they got mixed into a caper.  It later was made into a film.

As a whole, it was good, but some rough going and the treatment is rather quick. The adventure climax is a bit hard to take seriously, but guess it might work good in the film version.  Meyer was involved in Time After Time and more than one Star Trek film.  In the Acknowledgements, Harriet Pipel's name same up. She's best known for her ACLU/abortion rights related work.  One more little surprise find that overlaps worlds. 

===

There will be more oral arguments this week and opinions on Thursday, but first thing -- orders at 9:30 as usual after a conference the previous Friday.  Two grants, one that will help deal with the reach of the non-unanimous jury opinion, there being many people in prison in the two states (put aside Puerto Rico, which again is rarely referenced) who were convicted by a less than unanimous jury.  This was a major red flag for the dissenters in the case. The other case  involves the Anti-Injunction Act and can have fairly broad reach in an economic sense as well.  Various other odds and ends, one petition rejected was not considered by Sotomayor for some unknown reason. A pending House bill might help address that.

The bigger news is that today was the first day of live streaming what amounts to oral argument by conference call.  With a few minor glitches, nothing really much of note, it went off rather well.  C-SPAN and others allowed the general public to hear audio and not wait until Friday when such things are generally released.  Usually, news organizations could show up (including in a nearby room to hear the audio feed), but the Big V shut that down.  So, instead of just giving special access to the media, we all got to listen.  I'm not really too upset if I have to wait even a few days for oral audio, but by 2020 -- especially since many places now have video -- it is really time to have live streaming.


The actual oral argument involved trademark rules regarding Booking.com and many people would sort of miss the specifics. After the oral argument was over, there was a panel discussion on C-SPAN.  I think it would have been better if we had a summary beforehand, not just someone generally talking about the oral arguments on the Washington Journal episode.  This after all is the first time this is happening ever and a few more people are listening anyway because they are home when they would not otherwise be.  And, the question is basic if technical.

I surely wasn't that clear about the specifics beforehand, only glancing over the preview on SCOTUSBlog (which has a lot of material including video for schools tied to these argument).  So, I was mostly paying attention to the basic set-up, including each justice by seniority having one round of questions.  Justice Thomas, who has voiced distaste at the free for all usual oral argument method, actually asked questions.  Justice Breyer seemed chipper (wished people "good morning") and the second time asked one of his long (four criteria to cover!) questions.  And, Lisa "Kavanugh Booster" Blatt was her usual over assured (the other side are morons basically) self.

As usual, the transcript of the oral argument was posted later in the day and you would not really know from it that it wasn't basically a normal oral argument except for the seriatim questioning.  One tweet said that the court crier (Oyez Oyez etc.) slightly changed the usual bit since it wasn't actually happening in the courtroom -- something about "draw near" -- but Roberts etc. mostly pretended all was normal.  Again, simply having Breyer say "good morning" -- which basically flagged things weren't just normal -- was notable.  The most notable being Thomas asking questions. 

People can now download SCOTUS oral arguments on Fridays and check the same day for transcripts. Livestream audio is a means for more people to listen (since you just have to go to CSPAN or whomever provides it) and also allows you to listen immediately.  Again, normally, I do not know how time sensitive these oral arguments really are though for big cases, waiting to the end of the news will be somewhat problematic since the news will be somewhat stale (the "news" of oral arguments tend to be limited).  It might be more important for certain people (including lawyers).  And, it is good on principle.  So, making this permanent is sensible.

Also, a basic thing about livestream is that you now can have live tweeting!  One thing C-SPAN and other places, such as Court TV, that provides the audio should do is provide limited info during the oral argument such as reminding people what the case is about and other specifics (think Pop Up Video if not that detailed).  C-SPAN included photos but did not provide one for the government lawyer.  SCOTUSBlog has a court artist rendition on its website from a past case.  

As to the specific situation, it is appreciated that the Supreme Court worked within the limits of the times and handled things smoothly.  Roberts ("Chief") did a good job as traffic cop here.  Other courts including the Michigan Supreme Court have provided video, but baby steps. And, once they take this one step, where is the stopping point? 

===

A second day followed mostly like the first except we had two guys and did not have one of the "superadvocates" taking part (that is, one of those who pop up in lots of cases).  From what I can see, including from legal types, the responses were very favorable. But, a longtime vet [Lyle Denniston] disagreed:

Likely I have heard far more arguments over 62 years, and I disagree. This harms equal status of each Justice, gives the CJ arbitrary power, diminishes cross-bench exchanges, promotes wool-gathering by lawyers, prizes order over depth, lets technology triumph, looks amateurish.

He rather have things settle on briefs than such "argument" (dismissive).  Well.  I'm not really in agreement though I think you probably can flag some concerns -- I'm open to them at least.  I don't think the Chief Justice was given  much "arbitrary" power here.  I don't think it really increased "wool-gathering" (blather), technology is not triumphing in any negative fashion and to the degree it looks "amateurish," that too is unclear really.

I do think it helpful to have "cross-bench exchanges," but in time, I think that would like develop in some form if they stuck with this format.  OTOH, how often is that really done now?  I also don't know how much "depth" was net harmed here.  The regular format has its own problems there with certain justices dominating, constant interruptions harming the change to develop arguments and so forth.  Encouraging each justice to ask questions (they can pass if they wish) probably benefits depth. 

And, I have expressed my support in having Justice Thomas (in Tuesday's case, he is the sole justice in the previous case at issue that dissented though that didn't really come out in his questions) taking part.  If this way helps, that too is a merit.  So, for now, I disagree with LD, who after all a while back also supported the holding in Bush v. Gore.

Drive-in Services Upheld For Now

The exception for “life-sustaining” businesses allows law firms, laundromats, liquor stores, and gun shops to continue to operate so long as they follow social-distancing and other health-related precautions.... But the orders do not permit soul-sustaining group services of faith organizations, even if the groups adhere to all the public health guidelines required of essential services and even when they meet outdoors.

There seems to have been a few lawsuits regarding "drive-in" religious services and this appeal ruling allowing them in Kentucky, if social distancing rules are applied, for the time being is of that character.  I am somewhat open to such a move and am sympathetic to the need of such services on some level.  Religion is a basic part of the human condition, especially in these times. And, unlike a variety of things (including services inside), this seems to be a reasonable attempt to accommodate the various needs of the times.  Finally, details matter a lot here.

But, I will reaffirm my distaste at weak comparisons. On some facial level, a person might sarcastically note liquor stores are deemed "life-sustaining" while limits are put on religious gatherings. But, religion still is life-sustaining on some level.  The specific concern here are meetings and contact.  A liquor store is a notable contrast here.  Think of a typical liquor store encounter.  A few people at most will be in the store at one time, for a brief time to obtain liquor with minimal communication.  Take this summary of the drive-in concept regarding a typical service:

But then the staff of The Grove Church in Marysville, Washington was having a meeting to try and figure out what to do in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Normally, the church would have about 1,200 people gather in the sanctuary on a Sunday, but health officials were discouraging any groups over 50. There was talk of “social distancing,” requiring healthy but possibly infectious people to stay at least six feet away from each other, reducing human contact to limit the spread of the coronavirus.

The discussion at the very least shows the need to think outside the box since the normal relations here is far more troubling in this context than a liquor store or even a normal business situation.  This would be true as well when comparing the usage of these things in these times.  I had to wait outside and interact with someone through plastic while wearing a mask recently when buying some Chinese takeout.  One on one situation, for a short period.  More complicated is the supermarket.  At any given time, there might be numerous people inside, though lately there was a move to limit this.  For instance, I had to wait last night to enter Rite Aid.  But, again, limited time inside, brief engagements with people. There I can even self-check out.

I know the governor of Kentucky is a Democrat and all, but it is still Kentucky.  If he was wary of drive-in services as a type of "mass meeting" that needs for the time being be blocked, gather he has some grounds to do so.  The general concerns was addressed here, e.g., though the drive-in concept was not addressed specifically.  The Republican AG is cited in the first link in this paragraph and does the comparison with businesses thing. But, there are distinct differences here.  And, there are ways to exercise one's faith without doing this.  It is a false choice to say that the only way to do so is in person. 

As noted in that article, there was evidence of people not truly social distancing.  It simply is common sense to fear such things, especially given some of the remarks we are hearing from various sources, putting aside the cosplay protests that our disease vector-in-chief gave aid and comfort to recently.  How do we keep track of such things?  I have seen people in my own neighborhood, in the Bronx, without masks along the avenue, which is not isolated from other people. This is in violation of the current rules in place.  Are we to think that often conservative minded types are going to faithfully (ha) follow social distancing rules in an extended religious service?  One often with particularly at risk individuals?

There has been overall only limited strict application of the rules (NY and CA being two places cited) overall here in the first place.  Again, details matter and I would be interested in reading and listening to an extended discussion of the facts here.  The general concept of people in their cars while a sort of drive-in movie concept takes place or perhaps more like a concert (with a person on a stage) as suggested by a photo here on some level seems workable.  But, how does it work?  What happens when numerous people travel and come together, with people not merely staying in cars, talking and praying [note the oral vectors of the virus) again with elderly parishioners involved?

Such details would be useful for me to get a full accounting of the situation. It is fine to speak in hypothetical but that is not how life works. And, it is not like these things have not occurred.  There should be some evidence on the subject.  And, I see the lower court was less sympathetic to the claims, for reasons akin to what was said above.  For instance, the "these things aren't the same" reality is well addressed:

Plaintiffs seek to compare in-person attendance at church services with presence at a liquor store or “supercenter store[].” The latter, however, is a singular and transitory experience: individuals enter the store at various times to purchase various items; they move around the store individually—subject to strict social-distancing guidelines...—and they leave when they have achieved their purpose. Plaintiffs’ desired church service, in contrast, is by design a communal experience, one for which a large group of individuals come together at the same time in the same place for the same purpose.

Given the extra protections pursuant to state and federal RFRAs, who is to know what the "best" legal argument is on some level.  As seen with the contraceptive mandate, there is also some tendency to be selective in practice.  (The ridiculous amount of effort being made even when all that is required is filling out form is compared to basic denial of coverage for abortion services, even when many religions deem them appropriate comes to mind here. An evenhanded respect for religious liberty is not shown, putting aside the extreme arguments would make them simply impractical.)

But, generally speaking, it very well seems appropriate to block mass gatherings.  Not religion per se.  And, as noted by the judge there, the general rule is being consistently applied. It is one side here that is asking for special rules, which at times might be warranted, but let us admit what the request is all the same.  Anyways, again, when these matters are covered in the press, a full accounting should be made, and the article with photos is an example that helps a lot to understand what is involved.

Such coverage would be a lot more useful to me than some of the stuff that dominates the news these days. I'm left wanting oftentimes and others aren't going to do the searches that I do to get a fuller feel of the situation.  Providing clarity would be a better use of limited space and television news time. OTOH, you would think there would be enough time here given 24/7 news coverage on certain channels, often having different shows cover the same material, all somewhat lacking.

===

Of some interest here would be the data on risk, putting aside that there was one infamous case abroad where a religious service was the source of a mass infestation.  I have the "luck" of being in NYC where the death toll is over 10k.  The death toll is not divided by zip code but the data here on positive tests is suggestive.  I looked at the three zip codes of members of my immediate family, including myself, the numbers as of 4/28.

By the data, there were 2580 positives in the 10469 zip code.  1984 in the 10462 zip code. 1594 in the 10463 zip code.  This is just a rough sense of things, but interesting.  It might not be surprising that the first zip code generally overlaps with the neighborhoods of a public middle and high school.  The person I know who was infected (better now) is also a school teacher though the timing there is unclear with school closing.

Perhaps, when people talk about religious liberty and so forth -- the cries here not just cosplay morons protesting outside of government buildings and so forth -- we should remember the humans reflected by this data. 

Primary Update: Kansas and Stuff

Reason number x why we need to get rid of Trump -- the Administration is refusing to let National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci testify in front of a House Committee.  Maybe, they should just have SNL stand-in Brad Pitt testify for him. This is fucking asshole behavior even without the stakes, besides being a form of obstruction of Congress.  They should impeach him or something. 

If things went on schedule, the primary season would have basically over somewhere in April, needing to deal with Trump helping to convince people to really around Biden.  This already was happening by mid-March, but we do not have winner take all primaries, so it still was going to require April for Biden to rack up the votes.  Without the stress of the Big V., there was a good chance Sanders would not have suspended, even though there would have been a similar delegate gap by April 1st. with more March delegates going to Biden.  As things went, we back-loaded things, with  over 1200 delegates to be apportioned after May.

April was to end with New York and related primaries.  Now, for now, New York won't even have a presidential primary and Ohio (postponed from March) provided more than half of the limited delegates in that month. May only has 160 total, Kansas and Guam scheduled today.  Thus, Oregon with around sixty delegates is at this point over a third of total for the month, which at this point is an also ran (Wisconsin was a story for a horrible reason; Ohio for a somewhat better one in comparison).  But, politics continues, and without sports, it is one more reason to "scoreboard watch."

(Here is a take on the first press conference from the new Trump press secretary, who is by chance the wife of former Mets reliever, Sean Gilmartin.  His forte being back-end reliever; her, troll.)

Regionally, the split this month is Kansas/Nebraska (68 total), Oregon (61; originally potentially a Sanders goal) and Guam/Hawaii (31 total; originally April).  Actually, trying to find news about Guam, it looks like they postponed what was originally listed as a caucus.  Guam was a bit of a footnote in the whole USS Theodore Roosevelt controversy.  To remind, Puerto Rico also postponed indefinitely, Virgin Islands is due in June, Sanders over Biden 4/2 in North Mariana Islands and Bloomberg over Gabbard (her only delegates) by the same in America Samoa. And, let's not forget Democrats Abroad, which Sanders won nine to four but Warren did receive over fourteen percent of the votes, so really deserved at least one delegate.  Missed floor.  Instant run-off people!

(Something like forty thousand votes were involved in that last little known primary, about double the ultimate votes in Alaska. Also, about five percent were split around the also rans in this case.  The instant runoff option here is less important than when more people and delegates are at issue, but it is an example of the "waste" that can occur and how borderline vote counts just missing cut-offs can result in loss of delegates.)  

Kansas went with all mail-in voting and it was seen partially as a sort of test run for November.  Maybe, New York should have kept that in mind and not basically cancel primary elections is those more thinly populated counties that only had presidential primary elections.  This is the sort of wrinkle, other than giving the people the chance to do their basic right and duty as citizens in a democratic republic (not begrudging the others), that suggest these races still provide some purpose.

The candidates are Biden, Sanders, Warren, Gabbard and Uncommitted.  May 2nd was the final day for mail-in voting but the results were not available until Sunday.  Kansas went with a ranked choice approach with a fifteen percent floor.  I noted above that Warren in one race might have obtained a delegate (or two) if things were handled differently in certain race. But, this depends on the system.  So, here "Biden was the first choice of 70% in the first round, compared to Sanders’ 18.1%. Warren drew 7.8% and Gabbard 1.1 %. A remaining 3 percent of voters were uncommitted as their first choice."  The final result: "After the ranked choice process was complete, Biden had 76.9% to Sanders’ 23.1%."

Read more here: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article242468411.html#storylink=cp

Read more here: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article242468411.html#storylink=cpy

We recently held news that Rep. Amash was seeking out the Libertarian nomination.  It looks like third parties are already have begun to nominate people.  Perennial candidate Rocky De La Fuente was nominated for the Alliance Party.  The Constitutional Party chose troll Don Blankenship, a familiar name as well.  Libertarian is due later this month, Green later on.  And, there are others listed at that last link.  There is a standard comment that Clinton won the popular vote over Trump.  But, in 2016, the third party vote was more than the margin of victory.  And, unlike 2000 (Gore/Nader had a clear majority), the ultimate split there is a bit unclear.  An instant run-off system would basically turn on the Libertarian vote.  People skip over that part though in some other context would support IRV.

(That link also clarifies what I saw regarding Biden having hundreds more delegates.  Apparently, some are counting superdelegates pledged to him. But, I'm going with the "pledged" delegates at the 270 to Win website.) 

I bet one didn't think there was that much more to say at this point, huh? Telephonic Supreme Court orals soon ...

May ... really

Basically, we had three Marches -- the "before time" when things looked normal, a middle where people were wary but not quite sure about things (I was wary of closing city schools) and Big V time. The last might have flowed into April. That might help to explain why March seemed to take about two months and April seemed to all happen in a puff of smoke though we are after all only talking about one day difference.

So, yes, it's May. And, April (for me at least) basically seemed like we should simply skip over it. Thus, we flow into May. Yes, it's May. This might confuse you since there is no baseball, there seems to be a lot more primaries than there should be left and the Supreme Court is holding oral arguments next week. No really. Is it 2021 yet?

May 1st is "May Day" -- a holiday that basically reflects the season though it also eventually was taken as a labor holiday. In a few days, we have the Fifth of May aka its Spanish name. Plus, May 4th has a Star Wars flavor. But, hey, it's time for a Christmas display case! The facts make it a harder "longstanding display" avenue to update holiday display law, but we are due for one at SCOTUS eventually. I think it was decided correctly on the facts, but we shall see.