Mets Baseball Is Back

Baseball is back. Pitchers & Catchers' First Workout was 2/14. Tomorrow, the first full-squad workout takes place. And, we have Spring Training games next weekend. The theme for 2024 is "Don't worry, we didn't expect much anyhow, right?"

The usual naysayers are talking about things being worse than last year. It's pretty hard to see that. It isn't that hard meeting or surpassing a 75-win season. How is the team worse? Their star closer being back alone should help them win some games. Scherzer (who is hurt again) was never his old self in 2023. Verlander only came back (and he's hurting now) mid-season. 

The usual spin doctors have a point. The rotation is decent. There are multiple #5 options. There should be some more (including prospects) available later in the season. I think the team has a reasonable 1-3-4-5. 

Yes, there does not seem to be a #2 as such, Mr. Q is more of a 3/4 type. He did play like a #2 at times last season. But, hoping one pitcher (it doesn't have to be the same one) stepping up enough to fill the gap seems not too hopeful. Diaz will help shorten the game. The team picked up a few good and/or promising bullpen arms.  The pen is reasonable. 

The line-up is largely the same. Marte's season will help decide as will the performances of various young players. Harrison Bader should do well in the field in centerfield. A key will be how the DH will play. They didn't sign one of the older vets for that role but Vientos and company have potential.  

The team should be interesting with prospects, old favorites, and new players to watch.  I think we can hope for .500 and dream for more. Last season, too much reliance was put on two overpriced old stud or "stud" starters. The team was right to cut bait and get some prospects. They went with short-term blue-collar type starters. If they do well, they can add at the deadline (if not go crazy). They are building for the future with a young head of baseball operations and an owner still only a few years in. 

In the past two years, there were times when I wanted them to do more. The deadline in 2022 was dubious. Keeping a non-performing DH for 2023 was annoying. If you have the position (and I still rather not), you need a good bat for it.  But, hoping everything went the right way after a bad first half (and a lackluster July) last deadline? Not the best approach.  

So, the deadline (though I hoped they got rid of even more) move to collect prospects and cut bait was fine. They tried to get a stud Japanese pitcher, but the Dodgers went crazy. More than one potential ace (or #2) was not signed by other teams either. I don't think anyone was really left on the table. The DH options were not must-haves for sure.  

The pick-ups were not "sexy" but overall were helpful. They even got a potential upside Japanese reliever. I don't think it unreasonable to hope they sneak in with a Wild Card. But, it won't be horrible if they do not. It's somewhat nice to be able to not sweat or be overly disappointed.  It also is not a "punt of a season."  It is a building year. 

More than once, a team played better than expected and got to the playoffs (or beyond) sooner than expected. The Mets did themselves in 2015. Jerry Blevins noted in a podcast that if everything goes right, he can see this team winning over 90 games. That seems a tad much, but hey, why not in the 80s? Severino, for instance, can bounce back. 

Let's play ball! 

ETA: Of course, now we hear Senga will be out for a significant period. 

Speaker Johnson: Christian Nationalism in the Speaker’s Office?

Congressman Jared Huffman started a Congressional Freethought Caucus. They are all Democrats and all House members but from a range of religious beliefs. He personally is a secular humanist.

Freedom From Religion Foundation this week had him on to discuss a white paper on the current Speaker of the House. Christian Nationalism is the belief that Christianity and the state should be one. 

The BJC (Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty) strongly opposes it. You can listen to its weekly podcast, by two very reasonable sounding women. 

I wonder if everything cited, including the use of a painting of Jesus in a courthouse, is problematic. (To be clear, that's a minor thing on the list of particulars.) Also, the much cited comment about Mike Johnson being a "Moses" is a tad overblown.  

I think of it partially as a symbolic reference to his mission using the language familiar to his own personal beliefs. Many people feel some sort of "calling." It is correct to be wary about "God talking to you" since a person should have some humility in that respect. 

We need not worry about everyone who thinks they have a spiritual mission in life. Civil rights heroes can be labeled the "Moses" of their people. A personal belief that a governmental role is blessed by God (or some other divine being or "stuff") is not by definition troubling. In my view, "God" has various meanings.  

But, overall the paper makes a good case. Rep. Mike Johnson opposes the separation of church and state. And, his personal views include support of discriminatory policies, some directly arising from his religious beliefs. If his view of a "new Moses" means a governmental role that mixes church and state in a troubling evangelical Christian way, it is a problem.  

Religion is an important part of our lives, including those who choose not to follow a belief structure traditionally labeled religious. Freethought provides a path to applying it appropriately. As shown by the membership of the caucus, it can also be promoted by various religious beliefs. 

Religion Clause Blog, a good resource, reported on a recent protest by the caucus. Jack Hibbs, a recent guest chaplain, has Christian Nationalist beliefs. The full letter provides other problems. It also references a past denial of an invitation to Dan Barker (former preacher and co-president of FFRF) to be a guest chaplain. 

As Rep. Huffman said in an interview, he questions the presence of legislative chaplains. I also find them problematic though the Supreme Court upheld the practice. But, if it exists, he wants the chaplaincy to be applied in an evenhanded way. That is repeatedly an uphill battle. 

People have made invocations to start proceedings with a non-deistic message. It is only fair to include such people. To simplify matters, we can say around ten percent [over thirty million] of the country are atheists or agnostics. There is also a growing "nothing in particular" group (nones) with a mix of spiritual beliefs. 

Some people find it necessary to start a government proceeding with a religious ceremony. When the House of Representatives has a "pro forma" session, it includes the Pledge of Allegiance (with "Under God") and a prayer. The Senate does not, which means the whole thing takes less than a minute many times. The ceremony for some provides a fundamental symbolic and practical role.

The inclusion of all beliefs will as well. 

An Open Letter to Lawyers Drugs and Money Blog

I read various online sources to keep up with news, politics, legal affairs, and (to some extent) sports. 

I appreciate those who provide an option for me to comment. This ability has been reduced in recent years as those who run the sites feel unable to keep up with trolls and content deemed offensive/counterproductive. This is both understandable and unfortunate.

One of my favorites, both for the content and comments, is Lawyer Drugs and Money.  I appreciate both the content and the comments. I appreciate being able to comment. I have an evangelical side on that front. 

Of course, sometimes, I disagree with the content. I was not a fan of the idea it was stupid to enforce rules against steroids in sports. Or, that punishing the Patriots for a certain infraction was some great wrong warranted multiple posts. The "you don't have to read" reply is silly. Comments are left open. People can dissent. 

Nonetheless, I am more concerned than usual about multiple posts, from different contributors (not only the one I specifically dislike*), on political events. The overall approach simply is not helpful. I think it is counterproductive though they surely think they are helping.

Erik Loomis (whose regular entries on labor and visits to the graves of historical figures are excellent) seems to have moved on to "Biden is likely going to lose" mode. I have seen the sentiment in multiple entries. Perhaps, this is a useful psychological exercise to soften the blow. I don't know. But, I don't find it particularly helpful.

Anyway, a recent one warned people about voters (don't call them stupid! I get to call people stupid for other reasons though!) who will vote third party or whatever:

But there is a singular type of threat to Biden from the left and it is a combination of his policies toward Palestine and the importance of very specific purple states to the election.

I don't know how people will react to this issue since a lot can happen in nine months. And, I grant the concern. Still, a useful approach entails citing the multiple things he has done to help. Not just include a picture of Biden (looking a bit decrepit) hugging Netanyahu or something. 

Is this not a value of this sort of blog? Biden worked to obtain a temporary ceasefire to address human rights needs. He is supporting a two-state solution. He passed executive orders doing things like helping Palestinians extend their stays in the U.S. and penalizing wrongs in the West Bank. I have also seen reports about further efforts to work toward just resolution for both sides. Put aside the alternative (Trump) is horrible.

Furthermore, Biden is threading the needle here. There are two sides to close elections. If he is seen as anti-Israel, other voters can turn against him from the right. This balance is shown in another area where Mr. Loomis in a one-note way calls him horrible, namely, immigration matters.  

Ezra Klein is the second Times pundit to actually specify how and possibly with who Joe Biden could be replaced, which I sincerely respect more than pure Johnny Unbeatable wishcasting.

Moving on to Scott Lemieux (not a hockey player). Multiple comments, in my view correctly, strongly criticized Klein's take. His providing additional details does not really change it from "wishcasting," including some of the possible alternatives provided. 

Furthermore, Klein's reference to Ruth Bader Ginsburg is annoying. She died, allowing Trump the power to select her replacement. She was older and repeatedly had cancer. Is there some idea Biden is on death's door? The guy "reads" frail but there is no evidence of that being likely before the election. "Being another Ginsburg" here is a dubious comparison.

The blog post agrees that there is reasonable evidence that Vice President Harris is a somewhat weaker option as a candidate. This is far from surprising. Name a recent vice president who was a stronger candidate than the president with the possible exception of Joe Biden if Obama could run for a third term (Biden might have been a better candidate for 2016).  

A wider problem I have with these comments is that again they are incomplete. One commenter (Mark Field) in another context said that we should just attack Trump. I understand the sentiment. But, I think there is a place to respond to criticism as well as support our side. 

And, that is what is required here. Vice President Harris should get more of a defense. Heather Cox Richardson** in her excellent daily Substack referenced Harris:

At the Munich Security Conference, where leaders from more than 70 countries gather annually in Germany to discuss international security policy, Vice President Kamala Harris today responded to Trump’s recent attacks on America’s global leadership with a full-throated defense of global engagement.

People who want to keep up with the Vice President can also track statements posted on the White House website. Not surprisingly, one issue she has been quite vocal on is reproductive rights. 

I personally wish there was more, including an official schedule. Video of her presiding over the Senate, including providing vote after necessary tie-breaking vote to advance Democratic policies would be a nice touch. 

Overall, instead of just being concerned (one person on that blog sometimes seems to have two speeds, doom and saying doom is counterproductive), provide a reply. Show why Vice President Harris is doing her job. Thus, the possibility that she might have to take over at some point would not seem so bad. 

Finally, there is Merrick Garland. Erik Loomis has a post up basically saying "told you so." After the special prosecutor released a report saying Biden should not be prosecuted mixed with some choice Biden bashing that furthers favored frames, THREE members of the blog went after Garland. 

Talk about overkill. First, like their repeated sarcasm about "but Biden is old," this sort of thing can be counterproductive. There is no bad advertising, so they say. If you keep on referencing Biden being old, etc., even mixed with criticism of the coverage, the meme continues. The need to respond often is a defeat. And, at some point, it's belabored.

Second, the responses are too one-sided. Some comments (though the posts are catnip for the "fire Garland, that loser" brigade as if he did nothing for three years) did push back. Not just me. There is a path that allows for reasonable criticism. The blog's tendency toward sarcasm and satiric photos also can be too much. 

A basic problem here is that Garland himself is not solely to blame. I think overall (see also as a Supreme Court nominee) he has multiple good points. Let's move past that. 

First, President Joe Biden picked him, knowing he was a traditionist of a certain sort. If you wanted a strong reformer who would change "the rules," he wasn't the person to pick. Multiple other options (some wanted Doug Jones, a moderate senator from a red state) would have acted comparably.  

Special counsel rules are also problematic, even if they have some wiggle room. This is not a new thing. Again, there are two sides here. There is value in a conservative-leaning sort investigating Biden and finding him innocent of basic wrongdoing. Who do you pick in this situation? Someone that would be seen as on your side? 

(Also, Robert Mueller did good, including providing a case against Trump. He was a junior official. He could not prosecute Trump on his own. And, he was screwed by William Barr, who was specifically chosen for that reason.) 

The independent counsel law seemed like a good reform. But, there were problems, including conservative judges picking the likes of Kenneth Starr. Then, the law was allowed to run out. We are back to the administration choosing them in certain situations. There still are problems, including some of the people chosen. 

And, again, why not lead with the positive? We can quote the report (it's hundreds of pages long; it is not just a few choice anti-Biden parts) itself to show Biden supported the investigation and is innocent of wrongdoing. Post after post about old man GARLAND is helpful, how? 

To quote President Biden:

The special counsel that acknowledged I cooperated completely, I did not throw up any roadblocks, I sought no delays.  In fact, I was so determined to give the special counsel what he needed, I went forward with a five-hour in-person — five-hour in-person interview over two days on October the 8th and 9th of last year, even though Israel had just been attacked by Hamas on the 7th and I was very occupied.  It was in the middle of handling an international crisis. 

Again, as I noted in response to Mark Field, critique is warranted up to a point. It is fine for blogs to discuss the problems with the special counsel's report. Or, how Attorney General Garland is too moderate in response. And, so on. 

I think the takes repeatedly do not provide a totally fair account of what he did. But, a bigger problem is that it belabors one aspect of the conversation, furthering the doom in the process. There is too much of that. I again get the idea if Biden loses (please no), we will get a bunch of faux cynical realistic takes about how it was all so predictable.  

LGM is a successful blog. They get to write whatever they want. But, I do wish they provided a more nuanced take on things recently.  Provide a more positive, strong response to current events. Limit the promotion of the other side's doom and negativity. And, provide a more complete account.

Thanks for allowing comments so others can discuss these matters.  

ETA: Checking on Sunday, there is yet another post about "Biden is old" coverage. 

At some point, isn't this counterproductive? "Biden" and "old" are tied together as a given. People on our side then say "yeah Biden is old but." "Boy, is he old." etc. 

Why don't we just talk about President Biden and not act like the age thing is so bloody important? It is not going to change. Maybe, if WE don't keep on making it an issue, helping the meme, it will help? 

---

* I miss multiple women contributors, who provided foreign policy and social commentary in the past. One of them was replaced by someone I find not a helpful addition. 

** Fans of the film Heathers might remember her as the Heather who liked history.  

Odds and Ends: Mostly Election Related

New York Congressional Map

After the new Hochul additions to the New York Court of Appeals (highest court) made the difference, the districting of the state's House districts was resubmitted to the independent commission set up for the job.

We now have a map, with only one dissent, from the commission. The legislature now has to agree. This back-and-forth happened before, resulting in a final map the pre-Hochul Court found illegal. The result was a court-drawn map that helped the Republicans win Congress. I doubt it was the only thing, but it helped.

We shall see what happens with this one. It is perhaps notable that more than one top Republican (including former candidate for governor, Lee Zeldin) supports the map. Not a great sign, perhaps.

Trump Trial News 

The NY election case now has a late March trial date. Let's see if that holds. If it does, reasonable chance it would be the first case to be brought to trial. 

It's a helpful thing in that the general argument is that "yeah, he's probably guilty, but it's just too small fry." Toss in "it's novel." I think something is to be said about applying the law, even "minor ones," to Trump.

Meanwhile, some people are very concerned ("Who will tell the children?!") about Fani Willis' relationship ethics. Prof. Anthony Michael Kreis, a person I go to for legal analysis on Georgia matters, on Twitter basically said there was a lot of messiness, but it is unclear how the hearing taking place actually changed anything. 

Plus, the double standard (with racism and sexism) involved is rather offensive. People raise Trump being a sexual predator. Well yes. I'm not sure of the specific relevance to the election crimes he is being charged with. There are somewhat, including when election officials are targeted. But, it does remain as an overall thing above everything. 

Let's focus on the real picture here. We can go on and on about how she should have handled herself better. We can say that about lots of public figures. Bottom line, however, what relevance does this have to the fairness of the trial? 

ETA: A former Watergate prosecutor reaffirms the value of the "hush money " prosecution. 

Back in Trump's Russia 

Recent news includes a reference to Trump supporting attacks on NATO. Trump's support of worldwide authoritarianism is a major issue in this election. Russia helped him win in 2016. Trump's team helped them.

There is now news that Alexei Navalny has reportedly died in prison. I am rather surprised it took this long. A Putin opponent in prison always seemed like a dead man walking.

Recall that Trump's side cheers on his killers. 

Meanwhile, even if he is not doing enough, the Biden Administration is trying to promote international justice. The latest is helping Palestinians remain in this country. 

Note: I will likely do the SCOTUS update on Tuesday, after the order list drops. Recall Monday is a holiday. 

After Elizabeth: Can the Monarchy Save Itself?

After Elizabeth: Can the Monarchy Save Itself? by Ed Owens is an overall interesting book. Owens is a British expert and critic of the monarchy. 

He shows how the English monarchy used its role as a paternalistic family-based institution. They also used the media to do this, which also involved advancing the modern seedy tabloid press in various ways. Owens finally questions paternalism, including for charity, when such things (including health care) should be a governmental/public function.  

(Also, the history that shows the promotion of "family values" is a rather hypocritical one given the history of the English monarchy.)

The history (from the late 18th Century but particularly in the 19th as the power of the monarch truly declined) included some use of power beyond "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn" in practice. This included things that were done behind the scenes. For instance, a recent disclosure pointed to a power to veto things that applied to the monarch, including environmental rules.  

Ed Owens proposes a change. The monarchy will be smaller (junior royals not included) and have less of a public role. The monarch's function will be to promote democracy, including ethical rules and promoting civic education. A Crown Commission would oversee such things with the monarch providing symbolic cover and oversight of some sort.

This change would be carefully handled. The alternative is Brexit, which was an uninformed action based on a single vote of 52% of the population. His proposal would be proposed in a two-step informed process. I have in the past felt Brexit was problematic in part because of how it was passed. Constitutional amendment processes (sometimes requiring two votes separated in time) provide a sensible alternative.  

The book also cites "Nolan principles" (it doesn't say who "Nolan" is) set forth by the UK government in 1995: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, openness, accountability, honesty, and leadership.

Finally, Queen Elizabeth played the "ostrich," not adequately following the lessons of past monarchs who realized they had to change as the public. The Crown had Charles constantly crying from the wilderness on that front. Let's see how much he actually changes things now that he has the power. 

[I recently watched Season Five. It was a rather depressing season that was too focused on downer drama. It also underlines the value of having some young characters -- 20s/30s -- among the plot lines. Diana was not that old but seemed so given her life's problems. 

Finally, the past seasons had more other stuff. The season showed a bit of that, including Yeltsin, but not enough. I fear when I see four episodes in the last season dealing with Diana's death.]

The book is helped by its short chapters. It was interesting to read about another culture though by now (especially after reading about The Crown) much of the material is familiar. Overall, I'm somewhat supportive of a monarchy as a national symbol. The British royalty has something to be desired, especially since a Queen Meghan is only a distant possibility. 

Mayorkas Impeached

The Democrats gained back a seat in the special election to fill the Santos vacancy. The Republicans made sure to re-vote to impeach Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas. 

This time (with two members of both parties not participating, canceling each other out), they got it through by one vote. Since the only other Cabinet member impeached raced to resign before the vote (the Senate decided they still had jurisdiction), this is the first sitting Cabinet member impeached. A bit of history. 

President Biden:

This impeachment already failed once on a bipartisan vote. Instead of staging political stunts like this, Republicans with genuine concerns about the border should want Congress to deliver more border resources and stronger border security. Sadly, the same Republicans pushing this baseless impeachment are rejecting bipartisan plans Secretary Mayorkas and others in my administration have worked hard on to strengthen border security at this very moment — reversing from years of their own demands to pass stronger border bills.

There were two counts:

ARTICLE I: WILLFUL AND SYSTEMIC REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW

ARTICLE II: BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST

I referenced in the past the argument that this is an unconstitutional impeachment. I think a good argument can be made for that. I am inclined to think that the impeachment provision is so open-ended that it is something of a close question. Yes, I think it is fairly clear this is really a policy dispute mixed with an allegation of maladministration. Still, I don't know if this sort of thing (if backed up) would not qualify:

Alejandro N. Mayorkas has knowingly made false statements, and knowingly obstructed lawful oversight of the Department of Homeland Security (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘DHS’’), principally to obfuscate the results of his willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law. 

My philosophy is not to try to make a harder case than necessary. The move here is a question of prosecutorial discretion. Clinton was technically liable to impeachment. That didn't mean his impeachment was justified. I think that holds now. The policy motivation is important to address. But, I am inclined not to call it "unconstitutional." I accept it though.

[ETA: Here is more, including what should be done. Again, I am inclined to think there is a good argument to be made as a whole this was an illegitimate impeachment. But, there is too much discretion in the clause to be a slam-dunk.]

We will see how long the process takes including if there will actually be a trial. The desire is to do the minimum. So, an actual trial with multiple days of argument and such might not happen. There is no requirement that the v.p. presides (though Aaron Burr did when Justice Chase -- not that one -- was impeached). And the intent is to use the pro tempore. 

The whole border thing is mixed up with Trump and the 2024 elections. On that front, Trump on Monday (Lincoln's Birthday) petitioned for a SCOTUS hearing in the immunity case. A government reply is due in a week. Then, Trump replies. 

Let's hope this thing is done by the end of the month. 

ETA: The government reply was submitted today.

Also, to toss it in, this is some collection (partial list) of impeachment managers, including Liz Cheney's replacement: Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Clay Higgins (R-LA), and Harriet Hageman (R-WY). 

Updates On Recent Posts

The "wisdom of the stairs" (sounds better in the original French) means stuff we think about after the fact.

When write stuff on this blog, there is sometimes stuff I think about after the fact. I sometimes add it. This is more so when the subject is complicated, such as the recent Supreme Court oral argument. On that front, here is some more on the bogus concern about one state deciding a national issue. 

I have seen more complaints about Merrick Garland regarding the special counsel in the Biden records case. I continue to think belaboring the point as compared to emphasizing his innocence and overall abilities helps promote the narrative the other side wants to promote. 

Robert Hur's report has dubious aspects that have been covered by some outlets. We need to learn from the problems with special prosecutors, including the asshole in charge of the Hunter Biden matter. But, belaboring the issue does not help. Too much "Democrats in Disarray."  

The bottom line remains Biden is innocent, worked with the prosecutor, and so on. Garland also has done a lot of good. Plus, I don't see him going anywhere though maybe (he is over 70) a new attorney general (who people will complain about) will come in Biden's second term (knock on wood).

As to the memory business, "there is nothing new about Mr. Biden’s memory lapses, malapropisms and rambling, sometimes embroidered anecdotes." We know that about him. As a whole, it does not matter. He is a good president and (unlike past years) is president at the right time. 

The usual suspects will latch on to this (people are still sending memes of him sniffing hair) while Trump is out there acting unhinged and showing much greater signs of mental deficiency in various cases. It is what it is. We shouldn't help the matter by dwelling so much on it.  

People sometimes think they are being realistic cynics but might be putting on a pose that is not actually accurate.  

ETA: I noted that I would not provide a summary of the Super Bowl. Just to update that. The Harlem Globetrotters won again. After all these years, I shouldn't care, but yeah, I'm annoyed. Objectively, in my view, the predictable is not entertaining. 

And, that is what happened. I'm annoyed.

Killers of the Flower Moon

I did not see the movie but read the book it is based on. That would be Killers of the Flower Moon, an epic tale of murder and greed.

The Osage Nation reflects the tragic tale of many Native American tribes whose lands were taken and numbers decimated after the coming of whites. And, once they went to a reservation (or designated location), they were abused some more. 

This is not just a "whites are bad" story. Like fear of immigration, the tale of some indigenous group being overridden by newcomers is a worldwide thing. For instance, Aryans in Ancient India supplanted existing residents.

There is an additional tragic wrinkle here. The Osage were able to control their sovereignty somewhat more than other tribes. They had good representation and leadership. This allowed them to negotiate better terms, including better allotment terms and retaining mineral rights for their land. 

Unfortunately, the government still paternally controlled them, including requiring many to have white guardianships. These guardians regularly abused their fiduciary duties. Whites who married members of the tribe to obtain their oil wealth also regularly abused their privileges. 

If this was not bad enough, the book explains how murder (often by poisoning) was used to obtain the wealth of the members. The book and film focus on one particular rich landowner and his nephew, who married a Native woman. 

All three of her sisters and her mother died, and two sisters were clearly murdered (one shot, the other along with her white husband having her house bombed). The other sister and maybe her mother died suspiciously. The last sister also was likely slowly poisoned if saved. 

The FBI, partially as a way for a young J. Edgar Hoover to start his leadership on a good foot, eventually obtained partial justice. Nonetheless, the book shows that the conspiracy was a lot wider than the people eventually charged and prosecuted. This includes the murders of multiple whites who tried to help obtain justice. The early death toll officially was over twenty but in actuality might be in the 100s.   

The oil wealth, besides being misused, eventually largely ran out. The oil boom took place in a short period in the early 20th Century. The book suggests it ran its course by the Great Depression though oil to some extent continued to flow into the 21st Century. The ideal thing to do would have been to carefully invest the money.  

It's a horrible bit of history that is at least being made more well-known. Note that Robert DeNiro plays someone who was like thirty years younger at the time of the events. 

Also, the book drops the name of Charles Curtis, a part-Native American who was then a member of Congress. It does not reference the fact, but he later became Herbert Hoover's vice president. Basically a conservative guy. 

Meanwhile, this week's Svengoolie movie -- The Monster That Challenged The World -- was overall fun. The monster did not quite "challenge the world," but I forgive the title. 

SCOTUS Watch: Not Our Job Edition

Two Opinions 

The Supreme Court released two more opinions on Thursday. We are left with a few accounts of people there since there is no video. There is not even audio (until Oyez.com eventually releases it) of these announcements. 

Gorsuch wrote a unanimous one holding a statutory right to sue regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Sotomayor had another upholding a lesser standard for whistleblowers to meet in another context. Alito (with Barrett) added a concurrence while also supporting the opinion. Yawn. 

Insurrection Orals 

On January 6, 2021, a mob of insurrectionists forced its way into the U.S. Capitol building and congressional office buildings and engaged in acts of vandalism, looting, and violently attacked Capitol Police officers.

    - U.S. Congress

The big news was the oral argument in the case challenging Colorado's blocking Trump from the ballot. New York's election officials (the two Republicans deciding the matter by law) for now allowed him on. It is now up to the courts. If we even have a primary since it will be obvious by then who the nominee is. 

A few professors might want have convinced themselves that there was doubt but we knew how this was going. The question was how and by how many. 

The joker here was Justice Jackson promoted the "president is not an officer as a democracy protective argument" (since it is apparently in doubt) bullshit. Really, Ketanji?*

Kagan was concerned that Colorado was deciding this question for the nation. They really aren't. States also have the power to decide qualifications that can turn elections and control of Congress or the presidency. 

Kagan wrote the faithless electors case noting the power states have over electors. The state legislature can choose the electors. One of the two cases even came out of Colorado. Lots of painful moments. 

The Slate duo correctly sneers at Chief Justice Roberts' concern about judicial humility NOW. Toss in some historical confusion, including not a word (unless I missed it) about how state legislatures used to select senators. 

Roberts made a comment about how the Fourteenth Amendment was about limiting state power. This is the author of Shelby v. Holder, which limited congressional power to protect voting rights in the name of federalism. 

The Fourteenth Amendment is ultimately about protecting rights and stopping any attempt to corruptly limit Lincoln's "new birth of freedom." States have a role. The very provision here applies to state and federal officials. 

I put a bit of blame here on the advocate (regarding the senators thing) though he did reference how different ballot procedures in the 19th Century made things different from today. Justice Thomas, who supposedly cares about history, didn't seem to care.

I'm still disgusted Vice President Breckinridge, later a Confederate general and Cabinet officer has gone down the memory hole. The "not an officer" dodge covers vice presidents too. 

Toss in Gorsuch's typical smarminess, including some scenario about Trump's immediate disqualification causing problems since then everything he did at the end of his term can be challenged that is a bogus concern. 

(Griffin's Case, the circuit decision by Chief Justice Salmon Chase getting so much attention, itself provides a means to address the matter. 

Simply put, everything an official suddenly found unqualified did does not automatically become void. This rule applies in various contexts, including marriages.) 

He didn't want to hear about other qualifications but we could think of some scenario where we found out a supposed president is not a natural-born citizen after they were in office too. He also tied his former clerk in knots by some "office" angels on a pin parsing.  

Appeals to a dubious atypical Chief Justice Chase circuit opinion might want to recall his position on legal tender (unconstitutional) or the Slaughterhouse Cases (in dissent). Or we have appeals to democracy from a justice nominated by a person who received a minority of the vote.  

Other than pushing back from excesses of the Trump lawyer, including a state being unable to remove someone who blatantly admits being an insurrectionist, he had a rather easy time of it. This is so even though he repeatedly led with his worst arguments. 

Justice Sotomayor was the only justice who showed some hint of not going with the herd. Please, write a separate opinion, if not a dissent, to not let the "reasonable" punt totally off the hook. Well-meaning justices like Kagan or Jackson will be tainted by the effort. 

The avoidance mechanism here might be something that somehow passes the smell test, but there was a lot of stink in today's argument. Historians and others have spelled out what the Fourteenth Amendment provision was intended to do. So little of this history was respected during the oral argument. 

The provision results in some messiness, including fact-finding issues of each state. But, again, states have power over electors, voting, and ballot eligibility in numerous ways that result in that. And, the Supreme Court has to deal with similar matters. They should not try to "gerrymander" (as Sotomayor noted) this one situation as an avoidance mechanism. 

As the state lawyer noted, that is a feature, not a bug. But, by then (as SCOTUSBlog noted) the justices were not really paying attention. The state was given ten minutes since the challengers were voters (Republicans and independents). The state had its own interest. 

Congress has the overall power to enforce the amendment in ways that are the supreme law or even to lift the disqualification. Congress, including when controlled by Democrats, didn't want to do either. 

But, it is not really up to the Supreme Court to save them. We might not be a "mature democracy," but we don't have a mature Supreme Court either. 

I also often remind people that things are complicated. There is a shame of credit and blame. A basic responsibility here is that Congress did not take this provision seriously. 

As one expert notes, the Supreme Court's concerns could have been addressed by national legislation. We can note (like for other provisions of the amendment; no enforcement to have due process rights or something) it should not be necessary. The point holds. I will point out the inaction on emoluments too. 

We knew where this was going. We still should not give them a pass. The fact that the first question was posed by Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife was involved in the "Stop the Steal" efforts underlines this. 

An ethical Supreme Court would have decided this with eight justices. Why could they not rule 7-1 or whatever? Again, each justice is part of the conspiracy now. Too many people resigned to or even supportive of the result, will blandly let it be. They too, in their fashion, will be enablers. 

Let's see if they figure out to say "not our job" in the least pathetic fashion possible. And, how many people at least will be a bit upset about it.

Next Week

There are no oral arguments next week. The next conference (along with a non-argument public session) is next Friday. 

No conference today means no scheduled Order List on Monday. Nonetheless, we can have other news. Nonetheless, the Trump immunity D.C. Circuit ruling goes into effect on Monday unless SCOTUS acts. So it has a big decision to make. 

---

* Justice Jackson's view of history often can provide a useful perspective. History is going to be part of the story. 

But, "Just So" stories can show up on both sides. Her account here had too much of that. 

There were better ways to punt the case than an appeal to "democracy" when the provision is in place to advance it. Along with most if not all of the other justices, she is too much concerned with her own view of the best result.  

2024 Election Tidbits

President Joe Biden is going to be the nominee. Trump is also going to be the nominee. Hey, he just won the Virgin Islands! That surely clinches it. 

I am kidding. For the one person reading. The question is if one or more (N.Y.?) of his trials will manage to be completed. A prosecuted Trump might, I mean might, be an interesting development.

Some time back, the Stephanie Miller Show endorsed Adam Schiff, saying he was the next senator from California. I complained since Katie Porter is a strong candidate, who many listeners support. The third option is a sentimental favorite of some, if not likely to win. I was told by Chris L. that they have every right to endorse the guy. Fine. 

I saw a troubling Slate piece that suggests Schiff is trying to help the very lame Republican candidate. The primary system there chooses the top two winners of a "jungle primary," even if they are Democrats. He rather not run against Rep. Katie Porter, who already has given up her shot at running for re-election. 

(I don't think Schiff can either.)  

This is a dubious game. If the Republican manages to win -- which still seems like a longshot though there are enough Republicans in California to make it possible -- it can help other Republican candidates since now more Republicans would be coming to the polls. I don't know how many more would show up. Still, there are some close races.  

Schiff is admirable in various ways. This sort of thing is sort of skeevy. I also find him a bit hard to take at times. I will worry about New York races (key in 2020 for Republican control), but sort of rooting for Katie Porter. 

Like the exhausted majority of Marylanders, I'm completely fed up with politics as usual," Hogan said. "We can do so much better."

Yeah. Help Mitch McConnell control the U.S. Senate. That will end "politics as usual." Lying asshole. 

If a red state troll (either senator of Texas comes to mind) is replaced by this sort of Republican, it can be helpful. It won't change the chances (now troublingly difficult) of the one-party willing to govern retaining control. 

BTW, is he supporting Trump as the nominee? Every article should clarify.

Gov. Sununu is "anti-Trump" and supports Nikki Haley ... for now. He said if Trump was the nominee, he would support him. So, that does not clarify to me his position. Every article about Republicans running should clarify, especially the announcement of a run article.

Gov. Larry Hogan showed the Republicans could win statewide offices in blue states. There are examples the other way too. Gerrymanders can be avoided when the people of the state at large vote. These blue state sorts repeatedly were okay. But, there are limits. 

Special Counsel Says No Charges Warranted In Biden Documents Case

You would think the headline was GOOD NEWS. Well, sorta, how it is being reported and spun. The line is as much as Democrats in disarray. This includes the usual suspects who rail against MSM, the Village, or whatever overall cutesy labels are tossed around. 

And, some more Garland bashing. For instance, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo says this bit of Garland bashing is "about right":

First off, Merrick Garland is a disastrously bad AG.  He has appointed special counsels he never should have.  And he had no business allowing a report to be released that violated DOJ guidelines.  Most of all, his two years of fruitless propitiatory delay moving on the elite insurrectionists has America and the world on the doorstep of disaster.

I will correct myself here to note that who he chose in one or more cases was problematic. If that is the idea. But, I still think the responses have been unfair (including a later one calling out his "cowardice"). 

Take this "gotcha" from one online person:

Always remember: It took Garland TWO YEARS to appoint Smith. It took Garland two WEEKS to appoint Hur. 

They aren't the same thing. Hur was appointed as special counsel because Biden himself was being investigated. Smith was appointed when Trump ran for POTUS. There was much less of a reason to appoint one early though 

Elizabeth Warren's idea of a special investigator upfront was a good idea. Like with Watergate, however, I think that would have required a joint effort. Biden could have announced he wanted it. Democrats in Congress too. But, did they? It's not on Garland alone. 

"Always remember" is a tell. It's like "So you are saying." Often, no, I'm not saying that. 

Also, what the hell with this "two years of fruitless propitiatory delay" business? A single murder case can take years. The delay was far from "fruitless." I don't bow to Empty Wheel and others, but they spell out what was involved here, and what was obtained. This includes actual convictions of top leadership, if not (to cite one online critic) top Republican leaders. 

Garland is supposed to be a victim of the "elite lawyer brain" (to quote the weak link of that blog) for following standard policies. I will not give him a total pass here. 

But, who appointed him? President Biden knew who he was. He is acting as advertised. People like finding scapegoats, when the situation is wider. This is not (see another picture on that blog) Comey and the perennial Republicans for the FBI and similar jobs. 

It is logical to have a special counsel not of the same party. The problem is that the rules are not played the same there. Mueller investigated Trump; both are Republicans. 

The focus should be that President Biden did not do anything worthy of prosecution. Instead, we are focusing on the special counsel gratuitously saying the guy is an old man with a poor memory. 

Repeating it over and over, complaining about Garland in the process. Charming. Reports Biden was angry and festy about it isn't that helpful. Sure Grandpa. 

The commentariat will argue they are being truth-telling critics. But, how much are they helping? The basic line should be that Biden is not guilty. Oh? Some Republican hack is going after his memory? We saw how he is doing his job. The details are bullshit too. And, again, the guy says Biden should not be charged. 

Is this what multiple people are leading with? Nope. More horse race stuff about how this will affect the race. More Democrats in Disarray stuff about Garland and company. More doom comments. One said Garland should have charged Trump the day Garland came into office. Before an investigation? This is the mindset of too many people. 

Again, I'm not taking Garland totally off the hook. The background of Robert Hur does not make it surprising he mixed some partisan bullshit in his report here. OTOH, how much worse is it to keep on promoting his message? 

But, I think the system as a whole was at fault. If we wanted a speeder trial for Trump and others, it would have taken a system-wide shakeup and speed-up. Problems in the FBI alone were part of the problem. 

Was it possible to select someone who would be a big reformer to upset the apple cart? Maybe, though in real life systematic reforms of major departments is a very uphill battle. 

Is it likely Biden, an institutionalist, would pick such a person, even if they were available? That it might not somehow backfire in some way?

Biden had reason to trust a long-term judge and former top deputy in the Clinton Justice Department. To remind:

In the 1990s, Garland was working for the Clinton administration as Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's principal associate deputy attorney general. In that role, Garland supervised several high-profile domestic terrorism cases, including the Oklahoma City bombing, "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, and the Atlanta Olympics bombings.

Ultimately, count me as supporting (more or less) this Slate take:

Going forward, this could also set Biden up to stride easily over a low bar; if undecided voters are primed to expect someone who is literally senile, and then see him mixing up a name or two but otherwise describing various issues coherently and with evident emotional engagement, they may decide that the whole thing has been overblown.

As multiple people noted in response to the claims, the average witness in the situation, including those decades younger, would have done the same or had a much worse time of it. I would include myself.

Let the blather go. 

ETA: Again, focus on what is right. Biden did not obstruct or act in ways otherwise culpable. Put aside the scope of misuse is just not comparable. A 340-page report spells this out. Don't latch on, even just to bash Garland or whatever, to Republican talking points. 

Not A Great Day For Republicans

Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role — the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes — thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of the Congress.

After the Supreme Court refused to take the case ahead of time, it was up to the D.C. Circuit to hear Trump's case claiming immunity from prosecution in the election crimes trial. The arguments, including a double jeopardy claim arising from the failed impeachment trial, were specious. 

People, including me, wanted the D.C. Circuit to hand the opinion down right away. February coming without an opinion was upsetting, with some blaming the one Republican appointee. A strong per curiam (no separate opinions) was handed down yesterday. The trial can be put back on track unless the Supreme Court acts by Monday. 

Meanwhile, the House brought the bogus impeachment of Mayorkas to the floor. It failed by one vote. One Republican was not available. Three voted against it. And, a Democrat out sick made a surprise appearance to make it a tie. The final vote was 216-214 since that was needed procedurally to have another vote in the future. If that absent Republican came back, and it is unclear if he will, the vote might go the other way. 

Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, allegedly needs to be impeached because he is not properly handling the border. A border bill, which some on the left strongly opposed as a negotiating tactic, that would address the matter (damn you for giving stuff we want) is being opposed by Trump and House leadership. 

This forced Republican Senate leadership to oppose it too. After they harped on it as a necessity and appointed a conservative to negotiate it. The Wall St. Journal and Trump-supporting Border Union people endorsed it.  So much winning. President Biden promised (quite rightly) to hang this around the Republicans' necks in his campaigning if it fails.

(They also, for whatever reason, held and lost a vote on an Israel-only spending bill. The vote needed a supermajority under the rules and did not get it.) 

Meanwhile, a sort of fake Republican primary took place in Nevada. Trump Republicans -- even though they were likely to win big anyhow -- set it up so anyone involved in the state-run primary could not take part in the party-run caucus. It also advanced their "election security" propaganda, including the fact that the primary included mail-in balloting. 

Haley, who did not put much effort into it partially since it was sorta pointless, got around 30% with 60% (basically Trump voters) going for "None of the Above." Pence advanced expectations with around 4%. Trump is likely to get around 99% of the caucus votes since the only person still running actually involved besides him is some obscure guy. 

Ronna McDaniel, the chair of the Republican National Committee, has discussed with Donald Trump the possibility of resigning from her position after the South Carolina primary, according to multiple sources familiar with the conversation.

She is no longer “Romney” largely thanks to Trump. Now, she is not election-denying/pro-Trump enough. Not that she is somehow independent now. But you have to bow to Trump these days. So, she’s a dead woman walking, apparently.

===

In non-Republicans in disarray news, there was an interesting article about some naturalized citizen running for president as a Democrat. Another "both sides are bad" guy, he's an asshole. Under current law, you are allowed to (but do not have a right to) be on a ballot as an unconstitutionally qualified candidate. I find that somewhat dubious given a ballot spot is state action. It isn't just a fun straw poll.

Anyway, he has a fantasy that he will win the right to president on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. "One person, one vote" rules do not apply to the U.S. Senate. And, the natural born citizenship rule for president (horrible and out of date it might be) was not negated by the Fourteenth Amendment. Maybe in some ideal world, it should be. But, it wasn't. 

The last real amendment was ratified around fifty years ago. Rick Hasen has a new book proposing a voting rights amendment. I think an amendment dealing with voting overall, or amendments, is warranted. That would include allowing territorial citizens to vote for president. And, people to vote for naturalized citizens. I would add popular vote for president. But, at least the first two could get supermajority support. 

Beware of Blondie

The cycle of Saturday Morning Blondie (a 1940s series from the comic strip) has run its course again today on one of the movie channels.

The film is somewhat of a lackluster if painless effort. We also see the neighbors, who in the strips these days are friends of the Bumsteads. Now, they are not that friendly. The films did not have them before. The neighborhood know-it-all is a familiar face.

Beware of Blonde involves Dagwood (who someone notes has the most seniority) in charge of the office while Mr. Dithers is on vacation. Dithers has not been present in recent entries, having sold the company. He is barely present here (on the phone, his face not shown; the usual actor wasn't involved). 

I only watched a little bit of the last film. One summary on TCM talks about the company being restructured somehow. Maybe they explained how Mr. Dithers came back as an owner. It is taken for granted here that there is nothing special going on. Anyway, as usual, it's ridiculous that whoever owns the company gives the guy any real responsibility. He is obviously a doofus, even if there is evidence he is good at draftsmanship.

Anyway, the typical concept of these films is that various subplots tie up at the end. This is not really what happens here. He is tired on his first day as a temporary boss because he is up doing taxes. This does lead to an amusing final bit involving the postman, which makes for a nice consistency to end the series.  But, it really doesn't matter much.

We do have another case of Blondie being jealous because he is somehow involved with a pretty woman, here a con who for some reason latches on Dithers construction company. She sees an opportunity when Dagwood stupidly talks about the signed checks he was given. But, I'm not sure why she was around in the first place. His being tired really plays no role. He has confused people when given the responsibility to do deals regularly. 

Anyway, as with the boss trusting the doofus, Blondie knows he is loyal. Her being jealous continuously (it pops up in the very first film) makes her look idiotic.  The plot itself, as I noted, is basically linear. He bumbles some, he has a somewhat amusing dream about being convicted for fraud (he gives a check to pay off the supposed angry husband of the woman), and so on. 

The way he is saved is also tacked on. The better films balance the subplots and one is involved with the others. For instance, Blondie starts a bakery business and the goofy guy she befriends turns out to be the president of an important client. How does he get out of this one? It turns out that Dithers accidentally gave him checks from a defunct bank account. 

The two con artists had at this point fled town. So, basically other than wasting their time, they should get off easily too unless the guy they have to cash the check somehow messes things up. Anyway, if that happens, it's off-screen. The plan was for the Bumsteads to mortgage their house to get the money (a sizable $5000 for 1950), but not necessary.  

Anyway, Arthur Lake (Dagwood) later played the doofus in a short-lived television series. Penny Singleton (Blondie) was the voice of Jane Jetson. 

Odds and Ends

Let's do a catch-all post.

Mets Update

The Mets signed two more helpful bullpen arms. Jerry Blevins, the former Mets pitcher, and current commentator, on a podcast, said he felt there was a possible 75-95 (ten-game levels of worse case/probable/best case) range for the 2024 season. 

The high end seems a tad generous but overall it seems reasonable. The starting rotation has some question marks but is credible. It is overall not as bad of a team as some make it out to be. This season is clearly a stepping stone to the future, which is probably for the best. 

Bill Belichick 

I thought that he was a good possibility for the Atlanta Falcons, a team that knew how to blow games. In a weak division, the Falcons are a team that could easily have a turnaround season. But, it looks like the Hoodie won't even have a job. One report noted:

Sources close to Belichick also cited a frosty relationship with Falcons president Rich McKay as a primary reason the parties might have decided they could or should not work together.

In general:

Three primary reasons were echoed by numerous league sources: Belichick’s mishandling of the Patriots’ quarterback situation in recent years, his desire to maintain total control of football operations and a growing concern over the coach’s ability to relate to this generation of players.

Sounds reasonable. It is silly to badmouth the guy or say he only won because of Tom Brady. This is shown by a year when Tom Brady was hurt and they managed to almost get to the playoffs with a rookie back-up. Nonetheless, the team has struggled after Tom Brady left. There clearly have been problems. And, someone over 70 set in his ways and a bad fit for the current era is not that surprising. I still thought he would find a team. 

New York Trump Trial

The Trump judge who should be recused is delaying things in Florida. Georgia has lots of defendants even with some plea deals. The patently full-of-shit immunity case for some reason is still not done in D.C., which is driving me and others nuts. So, it looks like the "runt of the litter" might actually go first. That is the NYC corruption case.

I have consistently argued this case deserves to be tried. People worry about the novelty of the argument and reliance on an asshole for a chief witness. But, Trump chose the asshole. Having a conspirator turn state's evidence is standard. Plus, as someone argued, there is value to the basic simplicity of this case. 

Two civil cases have basically run their course (E.J. Carroll and the civil fraud trial). It's time for a criminal trial to get things rolling. And, damn it, can the D.C. Court of Appeals rule? The March trial date has now officially been suspended. 

Middle East 

After three servicemen were killed by a drone attack, the U.S. counterattacked. This continues to show the possible expansion of the conflict arising from the Hamas attack and Israel's response.

Left-leaning scholar Juan Cole suggests other options. I admit my ignorance of this overall situation (more so than some things I opine on). I am wary even to comment on these things on blogs. But, I do overall lean toward non-military options when possible. 

I do want to push back somewhat on the idea President Biden is somehow all-in with Israel. It is not true. He has worked to obtain ceasefires. I have seen pushback about Israeli excesses. He has spoken about two-state solutions. There are also reports of them investigating recognizing Palestine. If Hamas earned blame for starting all of this, Israel has earned blame for the counterattack. 

I put aside the fact Congress is pro-Israel so it is dubious that he realistically has much wiggle room anyhow. There is a fear that the issue will suppress needed support, including Arab-Americans in necessary states like Michigan. What is their alternative? Robert Kennedy Jr.? And, the election is over six months away. Who knows what will happen.

I welcome more pushback on Israel, including not supplying them with as much support, and whatever the Administration can do to show support for both sides. He has put forth an executive order that in a small way (it appears) penalizes settlers in the West Bank for excesses there.

I accept the idea that more can be done to stop our at times too one-sided pro-Israeli policy. My own representative has shown his excesses, including joining a petty resolution against a member of his own party. Nonetheless, we should not use that to not give credit where it is due or provide a one-sided attack on President Biden. It's unfair and unproductive.

Harry and Meghan 

I recently finished watching S4 of The Crown. The next two seasons, including the just completed last one, do not appear to be in the NYPL system. I also read two helpful historical companion volumes by Robert Lacey that overlap with the first three seasons. I do not see additional ones. 

In that spirit, I rewatched the Harry and Meghan Wedding DVD. I also reserved another DVD providing background and a fictional film. In the past, I read a biography and skimmed Harry's overlong autobiography. The whole thing is sweet and to the degree they have a rebellious side, it is easy to root for them. An interracial marriage, with a commoner from America, also has a Hallmark Channel flavor. Better than her two blah films!

One thing that caught my eye when re-watching the video involved the vows. There was the usual exchange of vows (they personally didn't have personal vows like in some weddings). But, then the minister asked the audience to voice their support. This is a good touch. It is what a wedding is all about. It is a public support of the wedding.

But, having the audience chime in that they support the wedding is a nice official touch. Other rituals also appeal to me. For instance, some weddings have a form of handfasting ceremony, where the hands of the couple are symbolically bound. I think that is a good touch as well. 

Anyway, it will be six years this May. Tempus Fugit. 

SCOTUS Watch

Sonia Sotomayor

We do not have video of the Supreme Court, including justice-only events such as opinion announcements and swearing in members of the Supreme Court Bar. Many lower courts (including federal courts of appeals) and foreign courts do have video. 

So, we are left mostly (limited SCOTUS events have been put on video) justice appearances. Fix the Court has provided a running list of audio and video available. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Barrett have had recent appearances. 

Sotomayor has received attention for noting how "frustrated" she has been lately regarding some conservative opinions. Balls and Strikes welcome such strong criticism. Perhaps, they should say more about term limits, ethics, and other issues. Justice Kagan supporting ethics rules, for instance, received some attention. 

She also suggests a "tough" caseload. Some lower courts might disagree, but she cites the emergency (shadow) docket. That may help explain why the Supreme Court had only handed down a single opinion. Some might suggest if it is so tiresome, she should retire to safeguard a liberal seat. Nonetheless, Sotomayor notes she feels she must not quit. She may be a bit sure she is irreplaceable. 

I welcome justices making appearances and answering questions. Only a limited audience is aware of these things though (not the channel has that much of an audience) when they are on C-SPAN, it helps. The Supreme Court should think about having more official efforts, including putting links on their website to appearances, to promoting public awareness. 

March Arguments

The March Argument calendar has dropped. Cases include government involvement in social media and alleged inference with NRA freedom of speech (which seems like an especially weak conservative conspiracy-type case). There are various other cases but the big one is the abortion pill controversy. 

There is another abortion case in April. 

Trump Case 

The next oral argument, of course, is the special 2/8 Thursday argument regarding Trump's removal from the Colorado primary ballot. The case has wider implications though there is a chance (many rather not this to be true) for a narrow ruling. 

The final briefing (reply) is due on Monday. There have been multiple excellent briefs in support of the state ruling from historians and others. The assumption is that Trump will win. I am not sure exactly how the Supreme Court will rule. They might find a means to punt in a limited way. 

The case involves a challenge from Republicans and Independents voters (though the implication is made that "Democrats" are trying to keep him off the ballot). Since the state has a clear interest, Colorado asked for some time during oral argument. They were granted ten minutes. 

The Court website calendar also now says that opinions might be announced on the oral argument day. There has been only one so far (a punt) and it is notable that no more followed yet.

West Point Affirmative Action 

The Supreme Court opinion restricting race-based affirmative action in colleges had a footnote making clear that it was not addressing military colleges. 

The group then tested the waters by challenging West Point's admissions program. The district court denied their request. Going for the gold, the group asked the Supreme Court to step in before the Court of Appeals ruled. Not yet.

The Supreme Court, showing how they can insert a bit of clarity when they want, dropped a comment: 

The record before this Court is underdeveloped, and this order should not be construed as expressing any view on the merits of the constitutional question.

Judicial Nominations

President Biden (175) and Senator Durbin (Chair of the Judiciary Committee) are proud of their record. 

They are right to be up to a point. Even a strong liberal critic of not enough being done in response to conservative onslaughts (his tone after a while is tiresome) agrees. 

We should respect what was accomplished. There are no "blue slips" used to allow home state (including Republican) senators to hold up nominations. The Senate had a 50-50 majority and then a 51-49 (often with one or more Democrats absent). Some movement is even being accomplished in red states. 

Nonetheless, the stakes are too high for the Democrats not to do everything possible in one of the areas that they have the power to do. As noted by the critic: "As of this writing, there are 59 open seats throughout the federal judiciary. Biden has made nominations for only 22 of those seats, and many of those 22 are withering on the vine in Durbin’s committee." 

Nearly all are red states. The Democrats might very well lose their majority in January. Federal judges are fundamentally important. They can not rest on their laurels. Trump had three justices to confirm. And, what about those subpoenas or a binding ethics bill? Why has it not been brought to the floor?

Mitch McConnell was very active in 2020. Barrett was confirmed as people voted for Biden. The judge slow-walking Trump's Florida-based federal national security papers prosecution was also a late confirmation. Republicans were trying (and failing) to retain the presidency and the Senate. He still got many confirmations through. He did not let up. He knew he had to speed up.

The Democrats have a duty to as well. The blue slips for district court judges are not just following tradition. Republicans rejected them from blue state senators when they had power. 

After their fit after the Democrats in the Judiciary Committee simply tried to subpoena two people in the face of clear ethical breaches, why should they be treated with kid gloves? Durbin is the leader and has received (rightfully) a lot of blame. He has leadership responsibilities and personally supports blue slips. But, Biden et. al. have played a role. 

Senator Lindsey Graham, the ranking chair, has repeatedly been unhinged. Are nominees going to be left on the table for the ridiculous assumption these people will provide comity if they regain power? Isn't that fucking asinine? 

National Prayer Breakfast

It is that time of the year again.

Last year, I discussed the event, which has traditionally been controversial because of its connections with "the Family." Liberals websites and other outlets flagged the problems with that group over the years. 

There was an effort for a "reset" that separated things from that group:

[T]he prayer breakfast, whose highlight is typically a speech from the sitting U.S. president, is no longer run by the International Foundation, a Christian group also known as the Fellowship Foundation and more familiarly referred to as “the Family.”

There were still concerns, including from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (who talked about it on their weekly radio show at the time), that there were too many connections remaining:

FFRF President Annie Laurie Gaylor told RNS in an email that her organization welcomes the changes, but said, “it does look as though the creation of a new entity to sponsor the prayer breakfast is essentially a subterfuge, because the folks running the NPB Foundation are all connected with the Fellowship.”

Rep. Mark Pocan (who once sponsored a failed attempt to have a former pastor and co-president of FFRF give an invocation to the House) is still concerned.  The group, for instance, is anti-gay and supports gay hate laws in Uganda.

The National Prayer Breakfast Foundation says they welcome all faiths to the breakfast. Nonetheless, if you go to their website, there is a direct Christian message. The all-comers policy (check their vision page) is for a reason:

When the group began, there was an understanding that this would be a meeting of friends to which all members would be invited. The purpose would be to grow in personal relationship with God and bonds of friendship with each other and to be an encouragement to one another as friends. These friendships often transcend party differences and opposing views on national and international issues. It is with this spirit that we aim to be a vehicle of fellowship and connection through the life of Jesus.

It is inherently sectarian to use "prayer" overall, which was flagged in a Supreme Court case involving adding a reference to prayer to a moment of silence law. It is a step beyond according to this vision statement. It directly speaks of a concern about the "life of Jesus." This is a Christian path. 

The National Prayer Breakfast has a wider symbolic meaning. It is a means for politicians to express their religious beliefs. But, there is a concern limit here that the values statement underlines. A Hindu might be welcome, but they would find the "fellowship" somewhat selective.

I noted last year:

And, even if we might be upset that Congress is not a true cross-section of a growing non-official (about 30%) religion-supporting country (no open atheists, a handful of non-Christians cited in a poll of membership), it is appropriate for government officials like everyone else to show their religious side.  

A "national prayer breakfast" has a certain implication, but it is not truly official.  It is not a "national day of prayer" authorized by congressional legislation and official presidential pronouncement.  

I basically hold to that. I still am concerned about the whole thing, especially since it does have the patina of an official event. President Biden has worn his faith on his sleeve. This provides him a chance to express it with the reassurance that some separation from the conservative group was made. 

I saw someone annoyed that President Biden didn't completely wash his hands from the group. The message there would be spun as anti-religious even if it is bullshit. 

The more important thing for me is the move to have a separation in the event itself. If it is far enough is not clear to me but it appears it is not just a Potemkin Village effort too. I will remain agnostic, however, since there still can be too close connections. I did not do a deep dive. 

I also don't know how sensible and appropriate it would be for the President to opine on religious groups overall. He has underlined his opposition to hate and discrimination.  

You can listen to President Biden's remarks. It provides a good message. 

ETA: In fact, in their overall strong disagreement, the FFRF statement singled out his remarks as overall benign. The other remarks were more strongly Christian. 

They still opposed him giving the overall event, taking place at a Capitol venue, his blessing.