A Few More Words

Rachel Held Evans in the book discussed last time examines what the Bible says about womanhood. 

This effect includes looking at the actual words and researching what various sources have analyzed them to mean. This is the work of a lifetime for many.

I was quite interested in college reading biblical commentaries, a study room having a multi-volume set covering the books of the Bible. I have The New American Bible (Catholic) and it has in-depth footnotes that provide loads of context.

People are generally left with reading the Bible in translation. One website helpfully provides many versions to pick from when you search for a biblical verse. For instance, the version I have does not translate Proverbs 31 as talking about a "woman of valor" but as a "worthy woman." 

[See, e.g., this comparison of translations of the same verse from Ruth, a "woman of valor."]

The value of a good translator is seen when you read a foreign novel in English translation. If you think translation is trivial, compare some first-year Latin student's translation of Julius Caesar with an expert. 

A good Bible will have footnotes that cross-referenced verses. The Bible is filled with material that becomes richer if you understand the allusions to other books as well as when the same themes are covered elsewhere. 

The Bible is made richer if you understand the context. For instance, it has two sets of books that discuss the kings of Israel. Each was written at different times, from different points of view.  

Translations also can rob the text of basic meanings. Muslims take this to an extreme by arguing the only true version of the Quran is in the original Arabic, which quite a few believers do not truly understand. 

For instance, the Bible can translate something as "God," when this specific name of God matters. The New Testament sometimes speaks of "powers," which are not just a reference to the Romans. In some cases, they are references to literal evil forces in the world. 

Evans shows the value of a deep reading of the Bible. For instance, some translate a portion of Genesis to mean Eve was a "help-meet" of Adam, interpreting it in a submissive way. Evans notes the term was also applied in other cases to God himself. 

See also, Acts 15, which discusses the Council of Jerusalem which sets forth four basic rules for Gentile Christians to follow. The language in different versions is notably different. Do people have to avoid "sexual immorality" "fornication" or "any kind of sexual sin?" And, what do these terms even mean? 

[I recall one interpretation was concerned with Jewish marriage rules. A looser translation would allow premarital sex if it was not "immoral" or "sinful" in nature. People find a lot of wiggle room there.]  

And, different translations are more poetic. I love the "for now we see through a glass, darkly" line but that is only in some versions. Years back I read a good young adult book that had that line it it. 

I enjoy Bart Ehrman's writings but sometimes he does assume too much. For instance, we simply do not know how much of the gospels are accurate. 

They discuss stuff that happened forty or more years before, using varying details. Any assumptions, e.g., about Judas Iscariot (whose "last name" alone is not totally clear) are guess estimates. 

The Hebrew scriptures are even more worthy of a grain of salt. They were written a range of dates over a span of hundreds of years. Sometimes, such as Daniel, they clearly are a form of historical fiction only said to be written in the period covered. And, they are largely based on oral and written materials we do not have. 

Those who interpret and apply all these materials have to do the best they can. The effort can be fascinating. It would be great, for instance, if I could find a book on Ruth (a book of four chapters) that provides an in-depth look at the many things taking place. Note too that some see Naomi and Ruth as a model for lesbians. Okay. Well, just remember, Ruth is her daughter-in-law.  

No wonder Rachel Held Evans loved the Bible so much. I'm no evangelical, and find it quite interesting.

A Year of Biblical Womanhood by Rachel Held Evans

Rachel Held Evans was a popular Christian blogger. She grew up as a faithful evangelical who did things like take chastity vows. 

Rachel grew more liberal as she got older, which often occurs with evangelicals.* She wanted to be a writer since she was a child and already had her first (autobiographical) book in her 20s. 

Her blog became a popular space for people to be Christians but think things through. She was particularly passionate about honoring women, including their right (resisted by some evangelicals) to express themselves. 

Her second book (2012) was entitled A Year of Biblical Womanhood. She briefly references another well-known book with a comparable title. But, as a Slate reviewer noted:

The secular Jewish writer A.J. Jacobs attempted a similar feat with his 2007 best-seller The Year of Living Biblically, but Jacobs is a humorist and commentator, not a believer. 

Conversely, Evans’ intended audience doesn’t think the Bible is a kooky ancient document—they believe it is the living, inerrant word of God and arrange their lives according to their interpretation of it. 

(See link at this article about some controversy arising from the book since she uses the word "vagina.") 

The Bible is a sacred collection of letters and law, poetry and proverbs, philosophy and prophecies, written and assembled over thousands of years in cultures and contexts very different from our own, that tells the complex, ever-unfolding story of God's interactions with humanity. 

Rachel argues the Bible should be accepted as a living thing. Ultimately, she notes that it "isn't an answer book" and there isn't one single model for womanhood. 

Determining "Biblical Values" is not an easy thing. It often involves a lot of "proof-texting," such as citing a few quotes to prove that women should be submissive. 

She corresponded with an Orthodox woman, who helped her understand the Jewish understanding of some "Old" Testament texts that were different from what some Christian evangelicals said.  

(Unlike her later book on the Bible, Inspired, she doesn't even drop a note that some of these commands are not even from letters likely to be from the actual Paul ... or Peter for that matter. For details, check out Bart Ehrman.

Thomas Nelson, the conservative biblical publisher, did publish the thing, and "vagina" used once in a discussion about purity promises was controversial.)  

Her "project" had to be somewhat artificial since you are not going to live for a year like an ancient woman of Israel. Plus, there are so many different rules. 

So, she focused on one theme a month (domesticity, beauty, silence, and so on) while having a few general rules (involving mild dress, listening to her husband, domestic affairs, and so on). 

She tossed in projects and special events (visiting an Amish household, interviewing a polygamist, etc.). Some things -- like camping outside for a few days while having her period (Orthodox Jews can't even touch their husbands for 12 days a month) -- were symbolic. 

The whole thing is a mix of interesting, a chance for her to muse, and some silliness. I liked Inspired (around 200 pages, summarizing the Bible using a range of methods, including a short play) the best. But, this is definitely a way to get a good taste of Rachel Held Evans. 

Her third book was more inside baseball. The details cover some ground that might be more of interest if you were evangelicals who experienced that stuff. 

I'm not totally sure she would have written the last one the same way if she had a chance. 

Yes. She died, with two young children, before she was 40. Some freak thing -- she had some allergic reaction, was put in a coma, and never came out. 

I was saddened when I heard about her passing and didn't even know about her at the time. Evans touched many Christians as she struggled with her faith while sticking by it throughout. A children's book about God also was published after she died. 

I won't say she is "with God" now. But, her search for God is not a bad way to go about it. 

[This is my second time reading this book. I read it for the first time five years ago. Almost exactly.) 

===

* Her books are not quite like some books by authors who write about how they moved past harmful sects of Christianity, often coming out still as Christians in the end. 

She did eventually say on her blog that she was struggling with evangelicalism. It would have been quite interesting to me if she was around to respond to the ex-evangelicals book I linked. 

In 2016, she noted she was pro-life, but was voting for Clinton. Her overall views made that not surprising.

Liberal Blog Upset Readers Tired of Their Tiresome Biden Coverage

Lawyers, Drugs, & Money is a blog I have read and written comments for since the Obama Administration. It leans liberal. 

Erik Loomis, a historian, has regular posts about labor history and graves he visited with mini-biographies. He also talks about other things, at times talking a bit like an asshole. He had a recent blog about Japanese convenience stores where his old man shaking his fist at cloud came out.

Scott talks about law and politics. Robert Farley, an original, speaks about foreign policy from time to time. The one regular woman contributor is Cheryl Roper. She is the only one (except for someone who rarely posts) not joining in with the "we are doomed, Biden must go" drumbeat.

There is also Paul Campos. He's a law professor but he usually doesn't talk about law, except to make some extreme knee-jerk comments (like comparing Lawrence v. Texas with Bush v. Gore as both being all about values, nothing about law). He replaced an even-headed woman who talked foreign policy. So, we now get "Sotomayor must go" stuff. 

Elizabeth Nelson (a musician) sometimes talks about music. 

The main guys went into as I said doom mood since the debate. Over and over again. At times, one or more tossed potshots at President Biden's physical and mental well-being. At least one spread unfounded rumors. People who pushed back were told they were naive fools.

Erik Loomis already had a "what?" post. Loomis sometimes "bluntly tells the truth" in comments by grumpily calling out people as fools and such. Team members preaching about tone is a bit much. 

Now, we get another from Farley. It seems the critics are the problem. We don't like hard truths. We are being too mean. And more tiresome stuff. It has a feel of someone aggrieved like a certain law professor who was upset when protestors strongly opposed him on Gaza. Me? I'm the good guy!

You covered the ground. You talked about it. It has been weeks now. Let it go. It's your blog. This is my space. I try not to be stupid about things even if I have every right to be so. And, almost literally no one reads me. You actually have a broad following, shown by the replies to the posts alone. 

This year didn't start off that great in my view and darn if it is not going that well mid-way in. When will the Mets go into a slump?

Teamster President Speaks

Meanwhile, we have the Republican Convention, and James David Vance as the vice presidential candidate. A young mini-Trump with a beard. 

The Teamsters president spoke and is scheduled for the Democrats too. Some LGM commenter was glad, noting it was just union red meat, and nothing about Republicans. Not quite. As I replied there ...

"President Trump had the backbone ... no one else would" invite him. He's "one tough SOB." A bit of pandering. To be expected. You speak to your audience at least a little bit.

He talked about Republicans, including how their union endorsed Republicans in the past, and how some Republicans worked with them. He praised Josh Hawley, for instance, repeatedly.

He also praised JD Vance, Roger Marshall (one of the few senators who voted to challenge the electors in 2021), and other Republicans. These Republicans "truly care about working people."

I understand him speaking to both sides. That is what lobbyists should do -- try to get support from both parties. A lot of what he says is great. OTOH, Republicans will assure us that they overall support that sort of thing too.

Him speaking at the convention is a good talking point to the workers who support Trump/Vance. The backers know what the guy stands for. 

Vance speaks -- like him -- against "elites," which the people there code as Biden and the Deep State.

They want "change." So, a Trump presidency, the true populist! The deep pockets will understand. They know you have to give something to the little people.

== 

Some of the delegates might have been a bit surprised at the message but they seemed to be fine with it overall. Again, it's fine he was there. His job really.

Update: I thought he went too far supporting Hawley (he was name-checked multiple times) and now he went for him again, even when his position has offensive stuff. The union seems to be at best dubious about his strategy. Ultimately, it's their call.

Torasco v. Watkins

God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World and Why Their Differences Matter had a chapter on atheism. It led me to Torasco v. Watkins. 

This 1961 Supreme Court case involves a Maryland constitutional provision that required a declaration of a belief in God to be a notary public.

The lower court noted: "To the members of the Convention, as to the voters who adopted our Constitution, belief in God was equated with a belief in moral accountability and the sanctity of an oath." After all, people say "so help me God."

The Maryland Constitution also notes:

[N]or shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

Yes, present tense, though after Torasco (which struck down the requirement for notaries), the provision was held to be unconstitutional. Torasco listed Buddhism as among "religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God."  And, the state case involved a Buddhist:

In this appeal by a Buddhist from a conviction of murder, we are confronted with the question of whether the provision of Article 36 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights that no person shall be deemed incompetent as a juror on account of religious belief "provided he believes in the existence of God" has been rendered unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The original state ruling noted that the state constitutional provision could logically mean atheists could not be witnesses. This was not deemed a problem. Shades of 19th-century cases when certain states did not allow black people to testify. The state did allow affirmations since after all even Jesus himself instructed people not to swear.  

The Supreme Court basically thought the Maryland religious test oath was absurd in our constitutional system. However, it was not the only state with such a provision. 

And, we still accept references to "God" in oaths and the Pledge of Allegiance. I suppose if it ever came up, Torasco v. Watkins would require an affirmation option. 

Either way, it is a type of establishment of religion. Engel v. Vitale (school prayer) in a footnote noted:

There is of course nothing in the decision reached here that is inconsistent with the fact that school children and others are officially encouraged to express love for our country by reciting historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by singing officially espoused anthems which include the composer's professions of faith in a Supreme Being, or with the fact that there are many manifestations in our public life of belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State of New York has sponsored in this instance.

A reference to a historical document is not an establishment of religion. A reference to God in the Star Spangled Banner might be acceptable. OTOH, how about if God Bless America was an official anthem?  What about Jesus Bless America? At some point, we might have an issue.  

The "manifestations in our public life" amount to a range of things, including presidential speeches and Thanksgiving proclamations. If a "patriotic or ceremonial occasion" is a sectarian religious event, it might very well be a problem.

The footnote is vague enough that it is not totally clear what we are talking about. An obvious instance is the then recently added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. Public school students daily proclaiming God's role in this country via a state-crafted statement of belief is problematic. 

The fact it is "patriotic" is the whole point. What is an official establishment of religion if not a statement that patriotism involves following a certain religion or religious belief? "Americans believe in God."

Engel is obviously wrong since it involves a state-crafted (bland) prayer. Justice Stewart argued it was a matter of free exercise to allow students to say it. But, it is absurd not to think it problematic that the government crafted a prayer for use in public schools. Is that what we want them to do?  

Nonethless, the flag salute case shows that "test oaths" can come in various forms. A student can skip the pledge if they are conscientiously opposed, including atheists. The usage of "under God" is a separate establishment issue.

Torasco reminds us that the free exercise of religion includes non-belief in God. We still do not quite understand this, especially when Christian nationalism is promoted.

Mets and Book

The Mets have fought themselves out of a big hole to be in the wild card race at the end of the first half. 

They have one of the easier schedules in the second half. The person who was supposed to be their best pitcher should be back soon. It's no gimme, especially with the Diamondbacks now breathing down their necks. But, why not? 

I thought that they had a reasonable shot at the beginning of the season with a good line-up and just enough pitching. The line-up started poorly. It shifted into gear with the help of a few key additions (OMG!). 

The rotation did badly. They are suddenly doing well, with multiple seven-inning games. The pen is still a problem (Houser has suddenly had a couple bad performances) but a new pick-up and few arms are reliable. They need more. Another reliever and an OF bat would be helpful. 

2024 was in my eyes supposed to be a development year with some chance of a wild card spot. How they have been playing, it would be disappointing if they don't get it. Once they do, it's house money time.

BTW, I'm just waiting for the Astros to pass the fairly middling Seattle Mariners in the NL West. Not quite there yet.  

I might eventually post an extended discussion that is inspired by this book. The book covers the usual suspects along with Yoruba religions (Santeria is an offshoot) with the "three ways" of China and atheism included.  

The book suggests various definitions of religion. One basic rule would be that each religion sees a problem, a solution, a path, and people who are guides on the path. Atheism is quickly examined; the other chapters are around 35 pages each. So, not comprehensive, but you get a good general sense of Hinduism, Confucianism, and other religions.  

The title also references the author's argument that there is not just one God that is expressed differently. People have strongly different ideas of what God entails. These differences matter in the real world. It's best to understand this, even if the other path seems idealistic and charming.

A couple of additional bits. The author argues not everyone who is a member of a religion is a "believer."  Religion can often be about a community or practices. Jews can be atheists.  Also, "sin" is largely a Christian concept. Muslims do not believe in original sin. Jews have some concept of sin but original sin is not a general Jewish belief.  

I continue to think religion and belief in God is a form of poetic metaphor for our concerns as humans. The overall conceit of Jesus dying for our sins to me is rather ridiculous and primitive. Eastern religion has some interesting philosophies. OTOH, some of the mystical stuff, including reincarnation, is not for me. I am also with the "friendly" atheists. 

Some liberals look at how conservatives use religion and treat it with disdain. I think we should have more empathy for the billions who have religious beliefs. Plus, again, I do not think they all are treating their beliefs quite as literally as some people think. And, there are a lot of non-assholes among them. 

Religion continues to be a fascinating and fundamental part of humanity.

Assassination Attempt

I earlier discussed a powerful Reuters article entitled "Judges in Trump-related cases face unprecedented wave of threats." 

Since Trump launched his first presidential campaign in June 2015, the average number of threats and hostile communications directed at judges, federal prosecutors, judicial staff, and court buildings has more than tripled, according to the Reuters review of data from the Marshals Service, which is responsible for protecting federal court personnel. 

Many of the threats against judges examined by Reuters echo Trump’s statements in social media posts and speeches, where he has attacked judges as “totally biased,” “crooked,” “partisan” and “hostile,” dismissed courts as “rigged” and called prosecutors “corrupt.” 

Threatening messages on pro-Trump online forums often repeat those terms or cast the former president as a heroic figure besieged by corrupt judges in secret “Democrat” plots.

Trump's language helped led to gag orders (and sanctions when he violated them) during his civil and criminal trials. 

He has used dehumanizing language against immigrants. Trump v. Hawaii handwaved his anti-Muslim comments. 

Trump sent winks and nods to white nationalists. He helped incite the 1/6 insurrection attempt. 

Meanwhile, Trump Republicans often strongly oppose any type of gun regulation. The Trump Administration did support the overturned bump stock rule. (How much the rule matters is also debatable.) 

President Biden opposes all these things. He has strongly spoken out about the importance of peaceful dissent and sane gun regulation. 

His response to the assassination attempt of Trump last night is par for the course. 

I am not trying to argue that Trump instigated this attack. I am suggesting his rhetoric, more so some of his more rabid supporters, is quite dangerous.

The Reuters article shows the possible effects. In recent history, right-wing violence has been worse. We speak of overall numbers. That doesn’t mean only right-wing violence exists. Nonetheless, the research data shows a trend.

Violence begets violence.

A historian might be reminded of the failed attempt on Theodore Roosevelt's life during the 1912 presidential campaign. The result there was different. The shooter was captured and later spent the rest of his life in a mental institution.  

The 20-year old here was "neutralized" (shot dead).  A bystander, 50-year-old former firefighter, died. Two are in critical condition. Trump appears to have been slightly wounded by being hit by some shrapnel.

What we know so far is that the shooter was the usual young miscreant who often is involved in these shootings. It appears he was outside of the standard defensive perimeter. Rep. Giffords and others can tell you the dangers of being a public official.  

We don't know all the facts but some "failure" of Secret Service protections is also premature, especially since the suspect was killed and Trump was barely hurt in the attempt. 

I am not handwaving the situation. But, you are not going to have 100% protection. I suppose Republicans who broadly support gun use and limited acceptance of regulations agree. The reports are the shooter used his father's semi-assault rifle. 

Political violence is a horrible part of our history. It is somewhat surprising we did not have more of it in recent years. Multiple people have been targeted. Nancy Pelosi's husband was brutally attacked. A top member of the Republicans in the House was shot. 

I appreciate President Biden's response, including (unlike a few people) not wanting to publicly make any assumptions without the facts. He said he planned to talk to Donald Trump himself. Would someone want to talk to Trump if the situation was turned around? I wouldn't want to talk to him.

Melania Trump tried to personalize DT:

“A monster who recognized my husband as an inhuman political machine attempted to ring out Donald’s passion — his laughter, ingenuity, love of music, and inspiration,” she wrote in the statement. “The core facets of my husband’s life — his human side — were buried below the political machine.”

She encouraged people to look beyond partisan politics: “Let us not forget that differing opinions, policy, and political games are inferior to love.”

Okay. Whatever it was, it was an act of a chaos agent that should not take our mind off the ball of sanity. Shooting chaos agents is not that. 

Note: Events are still developing to be clear.

RIP x 2

Shelley Duvall had an over thirty-year career in television and film.

She was in multiple seminal films in the 1970s and 1980s. Duvall was in The Shining and played Olive Oyl in the Robin Williams' Popeye film. She also was the host of Faerie Tale Theatre, an offbeat cable series. She also was in Roxanne, an amusing Steve Martin film.

She later appeared to have some issues, or at least, a bad interview with Dr. Phil. Duvall recently had another role, perhaps open to more. 

[I expand this discussion here.] 

===

Ruth Westheimer, another person in the "she was still alive?" sweepstakes, died at 96. "Dr. Ruth" had a more interesting life than a "short woman with a funny accent that talked about sex."  

Ruth was a Holocaust survivor, sent to Switzerland, while her family died in Germany. She was injured while trained as a sniper in Israel, injured by an exploding shell, but never killing anyone. 

Karola Ruth Siegel was married twice before finding her true love with her third husband, giving her the now famous last name.  She was named project director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Harlem in 1967, and she continued her night studies until she received her doctorate in education.

A community affairs director of a NYC radio station heard her give a lecture on sexual literacy to broadcasters. The rest as they say is history.

In 2023, Dr. Westheimer was named New York State’s first honorary “ambassador to loneliness” by Gov. Kathy Hochul. In that position, which RW had proposed, Dr. Westheimer would “help New Yorkers of all ages address the growing issue of social isolation, which is associated with multiple physical and mental health issues."

Sexual literacy and positivity remain important issues today. Many states have attacked both. 

ETA: Richard Simmons, famous for being a somewhat uncomfortable seeming fitness guru, has also died.

Abortion in America (book) and Other Related Issues

And Also: Not quite 2015, but sweeping the Nats put the Mets for the moment in the playoffs as the third wild card. And, the second wild card is close at hand. Don't "believe" but they have a decent shot. The new reliever had a good first appearance. 

Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy,1800-1900 by James Mohr is a well-known history written in the 1970s. 

It is an academic work and is sometimes hard going. Nonetheless, it is fairly approachable for general readers. 

We move to no laws other than the quickening (when movement is felt) in 1800, to early moves in antebellum times to change that rule and the successful change from the late 1850s to the end of the 19th Century.  The discussion includes the development of law and social and professional understandings. One interesting bit is that many churches did not take a large role in the anti-abortion effort. 

The book provides a useful well-rounded discussion of why establishment physicians opposed the traditional “quickening” rule. Some accounts focus on disreputable concerns, including nativism and conservative religious beliefs. But, that is not the whole story. For instance, modern science made quickening a less logical line.

We should apply current realities when determining our law, including a constitutional right to choose. A full understanding of history, however, is helpful. This book provides a useful discussion of part of the story.

===

The book was written in the late 1970s with an afterword discussing Roe v. Wade and the reaction to the ruling.  We are now in a new age. States are again dominant in abortion regulation with multiple efforts to safeguard abortion rights on the ballot. One is the New York ERA amendment.

The text is open-ended, and also covers LGBTQ issues:

1. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability creed, or religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state pursuant to law.

2. Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulation, program, or practice that is designed in order to avoid or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section.

A proposed amendment has to pass two consecutive legislative sessions before being put on the ballot. The rule was upheld here. The second section addresses affirmative action-related policies. It also would address concerns that religious organizations would be wrongly implicated. 

The amendment applies to "discrimination by the government." People therefore would have an important vote to submit, even if their districts were strongly red or blue. New York in 2022 was also a significant part of the change of control of the House of Representatives. There are multiple swing districts open to both sides. New York has a lot to vote for in 2024.

==

Meanwhile, we have had a partial leak of the Republican platform, framed by some media as a "softening" of their abortion policy. 

No reason to have the same one after they always caught their roadrunner, the ending of Roe v. Wade. 

We proudly stand for families and Life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights. After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the States and to a vote of the People. We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments.)

Mary Ziegler, the abortion history expert, notes that the Republicans are purposely being vague here. The language can be sold to both sides, depending on their priors. Nonetheless, the code words are there.

What is the reference to the Fourteenth Amendment and "51 years" (Roe was decided in 1973) reference? The 14A is a clear personhood for prenatal life dog whistle. States do not just have the power over late-term abortions. 

We already have been told that "birth control" does not necessarily include IUDs and birth control pills. Part of Project 2025 is the use of the Comstock Act to broadly criminalize abortion on a federal level. So, this is not merely a federalism issue. 

And, Senate Republicans already refused to vote for IVF protections. One option would be to deny Medicaid coverage to states that do not allow IVF. The net value to those who want IVF coverage of this proposal as compared as a way to further attack Medicaid is not clear.  

Supporting mothers and policies that advance prenatal care is empty drivel. I suppose they support the expansion of Medicaid and paid family leave? The path to true reproductive liberty here is voting blue. 

Biden Gives Press Conference

President Biden continued his excellent presidency by honoring the 75th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 

Taking a break from its drumbeat against Biden, the NYT had an op-ed on how Trump is unfit to lead. His opposition to NATO and support of Russia factors in here. The op-ed, again after weeks of selectively attacking Biden even though Trump has shown his mental and physical unfitness, covers a lot more ground. The right choice is akin to those ads where Derek Jeter is on the bench to pinch-hit for a neighborhood baseball game.  

It is appalling we are at the point where polling has Biden losing in key states with this opposition. (How two points, within the margin of error, is "it's done" is unclear to me.)  It isn't as much as Biden as everyone else to blame. Harping on his inability helps how? The story is more Biden -- has been for weeks now -- than Trump, the Supreme Court, and more. 

This has a ring of familiarity. 2016 media coverage harped on Clinton's emails. We were told both candidates were disliked. The election was a choice between two evils. Clinton was brought down to Trump's level. We know who Trump is now even more. It is outrageous we are doing this again. The self-fulfilling prophecy, surely to be later given more "I told you soes," being set up has certain villains. One not really being Biden. 

Biden's skills also underline the value of staying the course. Are we supposed to ignore the growing pains of the inexperienced, even to some extent Vice President Kamala Harris in these matters?  

His abilities were again shown in a press conference last night. Some were still unsatisfied. Rick Hasen before the press conference alleged President Biden had "scant activity" to prove himself after the debate. Biden had multiple public appearances, meeting with governors and other insiders, and a speech at NATO. How much more does he have to do?

Multiple media accounts also latch on to his gaffes (like at first confusing Zelensky and Putin's names, like a mom might confuse two children's names). Biden has been a gaffe machine for his whole career. But, now people will latch on to moments, skipping over him talking to the press for an hour or so with intelligent answers about current events.  

I am just plain equally angry and depressed (more angry) by these developments. A problem is that we still have ways to wait until the Democratic Convention, which would settle the nominee. So, this slow water torture will continue, including biased [his wife's position on Israel] celebrities like George Clooney decide to join the circular firing squad. 

To be clear, many are coming out in support, including the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Latino Caucus, governors like Gretchen Whitmer -- put out as an option -- and others. AOC is one strong supporter. 

Commentary, however, says how so few people are coming out on their side. The flawed commentary from typically anti-Trump voices is appalling. Lawyers, Guns, and Money blogger regulars, minus the one woman, continue the drumbeat. A recent blog talked about marginal Democrats (in stronger Republican areas) being wary of Biden. Why wouldn't they be less likely to support Biden? He's less popular there! 

If the people will not support Biden even with all he accomplished -- a sentiment helped by accounts that do not remind people what he did, instead talk about "Democrats in Disarray" -- replacing him with a person who either has to sell the same thing (Harris) or start anew is a questionable way to save us.  

I truly doubt the problem is him personally. It always was going to be close. 2020 was helped by COVID and the specter of someone in office already. And, in the swing states, it still was close. The enemy appears to be us. If we have to "be honest with ourselves," maybe the "Biden has to go" crowd has to look further than one person. If the public still wants Trump over Biden in November, voters have agency. They are lost souls. 

Again, however, polling puts the difference at one or two percentage points with Robert Kennedy Jr. still getting a big chunk (one poll I saw said 10%, which seems too high to hold). Polls in 2016 led people to believe Trump would lose, even if knowing the result might have helped people to see hints. The fatalism to me is just too premature.  

Meanwhile, because of the asinine Supreme Court immunity case, the sentencing of Trump in New York was pushed back until September. It was previously supposed to come before the Republican Convention.  

Biden/Harris is the ticket. Support the ticket. Stop badmouthing it. Focus on the problems of Trump and why we need to vote blue. 

SCOTUS Watch

Active Liberty

Justice Breyer published a book that arose from a lecture series [it is a small-sized book and is around 130 pages] usefully timed in 2005, which would be the beginning of the Roberts Court. I have referenced it from time to time.

Breyer usefully summarized the different ways judges interpret the law and Constitution:

They read the text’s language along with related language in other parts of the document. They take account of its history, including history that shows what the language likely meant to those who wrote it. They look to tradition indicating how the relevant language was, and is, used in the law. They examine precedents interpreting the phrase, holding or suggesting what the phrase means and how it has been applied. They try to understand the phrase’s purposes or (in respect to many constitutional phrases) the values that it embodies, and they consider the likely consequences of the interpretive alternatives, valued in terms of the phrase’s purposes.

The book itself argues judges should promote "active liberty" in close cases. Active liberty is an expression of the people's will through democracy. Freedom of speech would easily fit as a way individual liberty intersects with active liberty. Breyer takes a pragmatic, purpose-filled approach. 

The Originalism Trap promotes inclusive constitutionalism, which overlaps. The author goes into more detail about how individual liberty is essential for democracy. For instance, women's control of their bodies is vital for their equal role in democracy. Her book is less purpose-driven.

Before the most recent volume, Breyer had two longer books about the Supreme Court generally (including a celebratory view focused on a few cases) and international law. Both books are somewhat recommended though the first one is again probably a rosy-eyed view of things.  

Vice President Harris' husband also published his Glossip v. Gross death penalty dissent with commentary. Breyer also had what amounted to an extended lecture against politicizing the Supreme Court. Let's say, this didn't go over well in some quarters (including here but read LL). 

Meanwhile, his replacement does what a liberal justice should do: speak to the future, just like Rehnquist and Thomas did/do. Hopefully, a majority will form around her. 

Court Ethics 

"Appointment of a special counsel would serve the public interest," Whitehouse and Wyden wrote in their letter. "The public must have confidence that the judiciary and the Department of Justice execute their responsibilities fairly, impartially, and without respect to political expedience or partisan interests."

Senators Whitehouse and Wyden (done some good work on Trump's financials) have asked Attorney General Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate Justice Thomas' repeated financial improprieties. His actions do not merely have ethical implications. He might have broken laws.

The Senate Judiciary Committee could have had public hearings on this question. Durbin, however, mostly wants to write letters and pontificate. I truly hope if the Democrats manage to win the House back that Rep. Raskin and others will be more proactive on such questions. 

Impeachment

AOC filed impeachment articles for Thomas and Alito. 

The articles involve failure to disclose and recuse. The Alito articles do not include his failure to recuse in Moore v. U.S. 

The articles are avenues to promote a message regarding the corruption of the Supreme Court. Others might argue justices should be impeached for joining certain cases, including the immunity decision. That would set a bigger precedent.

I'm not sure but perhaps an impeachment resolution is privileged and the House has to vote on it, if only to deny reporting it to a committee. I appreciate the effort. 

Chief Justice John Roberts should also resign for not doing his job, including providing leadership (the good kind). I doubt he committed as blatant an impeachable offense. 

Lower Court Judge Resigns

The investigation found he engaged in unwanted and abusive conduct. He had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a former law clerk, and then he actually lied to the chief judge and others about that relationship.

Meanwhile, the value of a binding ethics code with an investigatory system in place was shown in a case involving a district court judge nominated by Trump. Some nasty details. A tip to the Ninth Circuit led to a review panel and the appointment of an outside investigator.

The Supreme Court self-regulates. Thomas doesn't think anything is present worth worrying about.  

Security Shoots Teen 

The shooting occurred Friday at 1:17 a.m. around the U Street corridor, D.C. police said.

Kentrell Flowers, 18, of Southeast Washington was a passenger in a silver Toyota minivan that pulled alongside a parked unmarked government vehicle and stopped, according to court documents. A marshal was seated inside the vehicle as Flowers left the van’s rear right passenger door and approached and pointed a handgun through the window in an apparent attempted carjacking, charging documents say.

A member of Justice Sotomayor's security team shot a teenager who allegedly tried to carjack his car. A major act of misjudgment on the teen's part. 

A few people might recall that a bodyguard of Justice Stephen Field shot and killed someone in self-defense. The Supreme Court broadly (but not unanimously) upheld his right to do so. The incident arose from a personal grudge, one of multiple differences between the two events.

Other News 

The Supreme Court used to have a formal end-of-session during the summer. Any summer sessions would have to be specially reconvened. After 1980, that changed, and the term does not formally end until the new one starts in October.

[Discussed here in the trivia section.]

The Supreme Court, however, has limited activity, including three scheduled summer order lists. Other than that, we can look for stray orders, things like corrections of opinions (typically mild typos), and the latest Alito flag news.

The time does provide an opportunity for a more complete examination of wider issues as well as the many cases decided in June. Some newspapers might take a break from their Biden is Disarray (even while he does things like having good NATO speeches) coverage to cover such things.

For instance, multiple cases will have significant effects on the Administrative State. A few articles, with input from agency personnel, experts, and so on, would be helpful. 

Ballad of a Soldier

Ballad of a Soldier is a 1950s Soviet film about a young Russian soldier during WWII trying to get home on leave. He gets leave after destroying two German tanks, more as a matter of fearful self-defense than bravery.

The director was a thrice injured WWII vet himself, providing honesty to the portrayal. As noted in the TCM intro, the film was made in a short period of liberalization after the death of Stalin. 

The film is beautiful to look at and involves a series of vignettes, including the soldier falling in love with a young woman. We are told upfront, even before we see the soldier, that he is going to die. This provides a bittersweet, if quite appropriately Russian, overlay to the whole thing.  

Near the beginning of his travels, he meets an injured more world-weary older soldier, who is on crutches. He says he is done fighting and is worried about being a burden on his wife. He decides not to send her a telegram saying he is not coming home after the telegraph clerk berates him. His wife turns out to be very happy to see him. Only as he walks away from the train do we see that one of his legs is amputated.   

[I might have missed some evidence of him missing a leg but that is how I saw the scene. We only see his missing leg in full at the end of the vignette. It adds power to the scene.] 

The film shows how a person can enjoy a foreign film. The film could easily have been an English language independent film. The subtitles in the beginning did seem too small but as the film went along, I didn't have trouble reading them.  

The young couple and the director had many additional films over the years. The young actress died in 2011. 

SCOTUS Wrap-Up

Term Wrap-Up

Amy Howe's SCOTUS term summary is entitled "Roberts court hands major wins to Trump, conservative movement in 2023-24 term." 

There is even a "Trump docket" where Trump and his allies were 3/3 (the statutory case warrants a bit of an asterisk pending a determination of how broad it will apply). 

Likewise, there was a "war on the administrative state" and wins for conservatives on voting rights and regulating the homeless. The fact it could have been worse doesn't change these things. 

One conservative said the term was fine, except for the two Trump constitution cases (not surprising given his long article taking another view in the insurrection case).  

On this issue, there were signs of "Trump exceptionalism."  Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln? These two cases alone are days of infamy.

A major problem this term was ethics. Alito and Thomas had repeated problems. Roberts failed to show up. 

And, the ethical guidelines were so lamely respected that only the liberals even cited them to inform the public about why they recused. Senate Republicans cried foul even when the Democrats tried to subpoena Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow. Total fail. 

The summer will have little official business. There are summer orders, miscellaneous orders, and whatever news the Alitos will bring us. TBD. 

There is plenty of time to discuss the Supreme Court and the courts. Likewise, lower courts will continue to decide things. Or not decide things, if you are Judge Cannon. 

Books 

I noted that Stephen Breyer's latest book is a trudge. His aim (why else go on talk shows promoting it?) is to attract a wider audience. The book is not written with that in mind. I appreciate the goal. The follow-through was dull and I'm more likely than some to plow through this sort of thing.

His first non-technical book, Active Liberty, did a better job. It was originally given in lecture format. It's a small size book that is around 130 pages. It is a more bite-sized method to inform the public of his overall pragmatic vision. 

The Originalist Trap by Madiba K. Denne is another book aimed at a wider audience. It's a mixed bag. She argues we should interpret the Constitution using an "inclusive constitutionalism" that promotes democracy for all. There is no completely objective approach here.

The subtitle is "How Extremists Stole The Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back." She worked among other places at the Brennan Center of Justice. She also has had teaching jobs. This is her first book. 

The book is also mostly serious with some attitude (she is a writer at Balls and Strikes after all). There is a clear audience being addressed. She is not trying simply to be neutral. The subtitle shows upfront what she thinks about originalism. 

My approach is to use current knowledge to apply constitutional terms. It is asinine to try to determine the often ill-informed view of people from times past. And, as she notes, the whole thing is applied selectively. The often more inclusive Reconstruction Era principles are too often ignored, for instance. This is not the way to "do law."

The first fifty pages probably could have been more crisp. We then get chapters about substantive due process, elections, and the census. Overall, she discusses how originalism is not the way to go there. Surely. 

The last chapter is about fighting to "take back" the Constitution. People can vote (for those who pick judges and sometimes the judges themselves), serve on juries (she supports jury nullification), frame battles using inclusive constitutional ideals, and use legislation with an eye to the future. 

Lawyers can strategically use lawsuits, help inform, help activists when they need legal support, and promote inclusive constitutionalism however they can, including in legal education. They can also push to limit the harm. Judges can also use dissents to frame, appeal to legislatures and others, and as a voice for a better future.  

Everyone should not be defeatist. A reminder now regarding the election. Mark Tushnet in 2020 (before Barrett) also provided some "popular constitutionalism" lessons which can be helpful. A basic approach here is not to grant legitimacy to Supreme Court rulings when not warranted. 

One response to the infamous Dred Scott ruling:

This Dred Scott decision, we need hardly say is entitled to just so much moral weight as would be the judgment of a majority of those congregated in any Washington bar-room.

The Trump immunity ruling is as worthy of respect, except that might insult the wisdom of drunks. Since we can't have good things, the sentencing in the New York trial will be postponed to at least September. It was due next week!

I have said in the past that we should have a long-term vision. Stuff has improved in the last twenty-five years though we have had some backsliding. But, that's annoying. 

Buckle Up and Support Biden/Harris

A blog entry yesterday quoted Langston Hughes to remind us of our values in honor of the Fourth of July holiday:

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—

Let it be that great strong land of love

Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme

That any man be crushed by one above.

We should remember what matters. The Supreme Court aside, we are a nation of laws. We have no kings above the law. 

We have equality under the law, for everyone, even if we do not completely fulfill the demand. We should respect others. We should be guided by reason, not our passions, even if our passions can help guide us.

Democrats currently provide the path to further these ends. President Biden has shown in the last three-plus years much ability to do so. His administration as a whole has been very impressive. A single hour of debate time also did not erase that before and after Biden showed the physical and mental acuity necessary for the job. He wasn't even that horrible during the debate if you went by the transcript and his late debate second wind. 

The other major party is led by someone patently unfit to lead, including for his part in insurrection and sexual assault. As the NYT said, if buried in one of their absurd drumbeat to force President Biden to step aside, he is also old:

There is a line in Princess Bride about being a man of action, or something; thus, it is appropriate to be honest about reality. I am not seeing that in various responses.

CNN had a tidbit (I saw it on Twitter) where President Biden told state governors he would not schedule events after 8 P.M. as a way to ensure he gets more sleep. Are we supposed to think this is upsetting? My immediate reaction was "Who the f-cares?" As someone noted, by the time his day ends, Biden is still likely to go to bed much later than 8 P.M.!

I'm not shocked certain people at LGM (where I saw the poem, from the one sane contributor of late) latched on to a bad debate performance to reaffirm their previous opinions. Opinions that both were anti-Biden and defeatist about the chances of him winning. 

But, Scott doing so is a bit depressing:

I think that Biden deserved the benefit of the doubt until the first debate that he insisted be early. It would at this point require the deepest denial not to acknowledge that he’s forfeited it.

This reminded me of Southerners before the Civil War who were conditional Unionists. Until one thing happened to break their support. We have reason to doubt the firmness of their loyalty. 

The "deepest denial" is a nice touch. Oh, believe me, many comments made their displeasure known. It even led Erik "flamethrower" Loomis to write an apologetic reply wondering why people were being mean. 

We knew Biden was older and human. He could make a mistake about having a debate (I think it was a mistake). He also will have moments when his age catches up with him. We are adults. Can't we realize this? Maybe not all of us.

This "just asking questions" exercise is foolhardy. It is reinforcing the Republican talking points, which would be bad even if Biden was doubtful. He isn't, mind you, but the stakes are high here. The focus should be on Trump, winning, and Biden/Harris. As Mark Field, a LGM commenter noted:

I start with the tactics that help succeed politically. As we've learned over the past 40 years (and should have realized earlier), the first rule of politics is "don't back down, double down". Pushing for Biden to withdraw now, after months of R scare ads about his health, both validates their position and makes Dems look weak/corrupt. It does not matter if Biden's health is failing. We can and should deal with that after the election. In the meantime, close ranks and start screaming about Trump's health and mental decomposition.

Josh Marshall (Talking Points Memo) not only referenced the one-note campaign of the NYT (continuing today) to push Biden out and help Trump win, but that (other than an NYT poll) the poll numbers have barely moved. Something like a single point down for some voters (Biden) and no movement on Trump.

(See also here.) 

So, contra Scott et. al., there is not "deep denial" in thinking the "polling is NOT horrible."  Instead of self-fulfilling prophecies, can we support Biden and the ticket, while addressing the horrible Supreme Court rulings and Trump's continuing horror show? The latest ... well there's always something new. 

Trump supports anti-American principles. Project 2025 is trying to make sure he carries them out in a more organized way. Yes, this causes people to fear and lose hope. 

But, misplaced anti-Biden attacks (we love to attack our own) is not the way to go. And, yes, the Supreme Court and the courts generally should be a campaign issue. Some Democrats are taking them seriously. Note the obligatory Ruth Bader Ginsburg potshot.* 

Biden/Harris '24 is the message for multiple governors, including Gov. Whitmer (my choice for 2028) and my own (Gov. Hochul). It is my message too.  

ETA: Scott is still at it basically:

I think it’s pretty obvious which of these is the most likely, but as long as Biden is determined to stay in I guess we have to hope that the most likely probability turns out to be wrong.

The dig at Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who will be cited after I'm dead, probably) is telling. The "told ya so" energy at this point is such that if Biden wins, they will be disappointed. 

He is "determined to stay in" because (1) there is no good reason for him to drop out (2), especially since doing so very well is likely to not improve the situation. 

He's not "indispensable." He's the damn president and has been down this road before. Shades of getting out of Afghanistan. The "even his supporters" comments write themselves. Bunch of fucking summer patriots. 

---

* Leading with asking Sotomayor and Kagan to retire, when they surely are not, is also far from useful.

My general sentiment about Ginsburg is that I really hoped her failure to retire would not matter. It did but she's human. 

Finally, the counterfactual of her retiring was not necessarily nirvana. A trifecta Republican Party (Congress/presidency) could have done something like expand the Court to reach their goal. 

Fourth of July Values Still Matter

On July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congres voted for independence:

“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

John Adams thought this would forever be celebrated as a pomp and circumstance holiday. Instead, somewhat to his annoyance, we celebrate on July 4th, when the Declaration of Independence was signed. 

The Revolutionary War arose from some events [my summary] particular to this country. The French Revolution (and their Declaration of Rights) arose from different events. The French also have a different relationship with religion than the United States. Context matters. 

We celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence largely because we celebrate a nation based on fundamental principles. We believe in fundamental rights, limited government, and democracy. These principles were tied to specific events (see the list of abuses against the king). Books by Carl Becker, Pauline Maier, and Danielle Allen (linked) are recommended among others to understand the details. 

Heather Cox Richardson discusses the background in her Substack including Thomas Paine's writing the "common sense of the matter" of how the independence movement was in promotion of a national of laws, not the absolute rule of the king. Perhaps, John Roberts should read a copy.

My respect for my country is an honor of our diversity and values. The willingness to welcome new people. And, well, I was born here. It's what I know. We have a ways to go. We lived in troubled times. The country, however, is worth fighting for. 

I would be fine living in different places in the world. I'm not big on "the best country in the world" stuff. Other nations celebrate the good things we do. I don't live there. I suppose they have some things I might like more and some things I would like less. 

The Declaration of Independence appeals to the decent respect of the world. We should try to obtain that and work with them to have a better world. The document ends with a declaration of independence to do what a free nation "may of right do." 

That also is what makes this country great. It is not just that we have the power to do something. We make sure to do it right. 

SCOTUS Watch: Final Orders

The Supreme Court had its "clean-up conference" and released some final orders, grants, and statements/dissents.

The first link (relist watch) is a helpful way to cross-check the four grants. We have e-cigarette regulations, the standard to use when testing an Internet age requirement, First Step sentencing issue (two cases), and this fascinating issue:

When a noncitizen’s voluntary departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, is a motion to reopen filed the next business day sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart? 

The final order list before summer break also allows the justices to say some stuff about cases they did not take. Sotomayor and Thomas are the most vocal with Jackson (Sotomayor going along) having one. Kagan joined one involving life without parole for teens. 

Alito dissented without an opinion regarding taking a case involving "assault weapons." Alito has less than an average amount of opinions this term. It is quite possible that he lost two cases in the writing. 

Among the issues, Sotomayor has a statement regarding the dangers of faulty science being used to prosecute cases. A statement allows a justice to voice concerns or explain their stance while not dissenting from the Court not taking a case for full review.  

(Texas recently scheduled an execution arising out of a conviction that might be based on faulty science.)

So, the Supreme Court goes on vacation, the only official thing scheduled being three summer order lists to deal with stuff:

For your planning purposes, summer order lists are scheduled to be issued on Monday, July 22; Monday, August 19; and Friday, September 6, 2024. Summer order lists usually consist of actions taken by the Court on motions in pending cases, petitions for rehearing, and other miscellaneous matters. Emergency orders, such as in applications for stays, will continue to be released as required.

Responses

AOC announced that when the House returns from its own recess she will have an impeachment resolution for the justices. I do not know the exact form this will take. Nonetheless, it is a helpful way to keep the issues alive. 

The Supreme Court should be an election issue. Such "theater" (as one response handwaved) is politics. 

President Biden also had a brief statement, which he made himself to the press, in response to the Trump immunity case. He reminded people of what happened on 1/6. He said that there should be a trial before the election but the Supreme Court (wrongly) made that very unlikely.  

Biden reaffirmed the principle (7/2/1776 is the day independence was declared) that we do not have a king. He agreed with Sotomayor's dissent, including the importance of dissenting from the majority opinion. 

The bottom line is that it is up to us:

Perhaps most importantly, the American people must decide if they want to entrust the president — once again, the presidency to Donald Trump, now knowing he’ll be even more emboldened to do whatever he pleases whenever he wants to do it.

President Biden looked energetic though when he walked away he looked a bit more frail. I think it was a good statement. A few were annoyed that he voiced restraint after the Supreme Court allegedly gave the president carte blanche. They didn't do that. Would they just let Biden do whatevs? 

We don't want a "good dictator." The people in 2020 showed that they wanted a person of character. Biden was correct to contrast himself with Trump on that issue. And, contra some comments I saw, it was not the time to bring up other things such as Hunter Biden or the debate. The statement is fine. 

The ruling was bad. It stripped Jack Smith of the ability to bring certain charges and made it harder to bring others:

It ruled that Trump is absolutely immune, and thus cannot be prosecuted, for any attempts he made to get his Justice Department to do sham investigations in order to show that the 2020 election was conducted illegally – the “big lie” that Trump and his allies have pressed since that election and that got him in legal trouble. Those dealings with the Justice Department were the only ones ruled by the Court to be totally protected from prosecution.

It decided that Trump has a tentative form of “presumed” immunity (which prosecutors can try to overcome) by attempting in January 2021 to persuade his Vice President, Mike Pence, to stop the counting of Electoral College votes that made Joe Biden the winner of the Presidency.

Again, certain types of evidence are also withheld from the prosecutor's toolkit. And, just what this will wrought is unclear. We are assured, for instance, that the Georgia case will largely be unaffected. To be determined! 

President Biden's statement is a relatively rare direct statement about the Supreme Court itself. This election is among other things about the federal courts. 

We are not just talking about nominations and confirmations. We are talking about oversight, reforms, and passing legislation to address decisions. For instance, yesterday's agency decision allowing more challenges can be addressed via legislation. 

Heather Cox Richardson in her Facebook chat about the Trump immunity opinion (Substack here) suggests everyone do their part depending on their strengths. One of mine is to provide analysis and details. An informed public is essential. One person complimented a comment of mine as "lapidary." I like that.  

Amee Vanderpool:

We need to reform the US Supreme Court by adding more judges to the bench and rotating the docket. This is a simple idea for a not so simple fix that will require a Constitutional Amendment at a time when we will be lucky to have a slim majority. This means we will have to elect Democrats, in mighty numbers, who are willing to pursue court reform, to do the job. Sadly, based on the political history of our country and the basic nature of human behavior, it will likely take even more to push the dial back to center. Buckle up, this is just the beginning of a very long road to reform.

I do not agree with defeatist people, including talking about the "end of democracy." There is a certain degree of privilege in such comments. How did African Americans think about that issue a hundred years ago?  

AV thinks yesterday's decision will help voters choose correctly in November. As we get ready to celebrate the Fourth of July (sit down, John!), let us remember our nation's values, and how people gave blood, sweat, and tears (not necessarily in that order) to fight and defend them.  

ETA: The latest news is that the sentencing in the NY case is now delayed until September to examine how the immunity case applies. Total bullshit but again don't tell me how the Georgia trial won't be affected. At least for Trump, very well will be. Ditto for any Trump officials involved. 

Freaky Friday

I recently learned that there was another version of Freaky Friday, a musical. I saw the Lohan version and might have seen the Jodie Foster version. I checked out some of this one and it has some charms. 

The mom (a lot of stage work) looks normal, sings well, and is a good actress. The songs overall are good. A supporting character is played by someone fans of Becker might recognize. 

The basic plot remains fascinating. What would happen if we switched bodies? How would we learn about the person whose body we switch into? What strange things would we experience?  

(A boy/girl switch would be weird. I suppose in some versions of the concept they would portray the person having sex in their new bodies.) 

BTW, it seems Colbert has a lot of vacation time. He works four-day weeks anyhow (sometimes filming double, so it really is three days), and now this is the second straight week of vacation. Nice job if you can get it.  

SCOTUS Watch: More Opinions with Some Tyranny

Stephen Breyer's Book

Various liberals were not impressed by Stephen Breyer's latest book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism. 

The book's purpose was to explain his approach to serving as a justice and judge and interpreting the law. His guest appearance on Stephen Colbert (blah) underlines he is writing for a broad audience. He has written some books for specialists. He intended a broader audience here. 

If you want a readable (if still somewhat academic) book on his constitutional vision, you should read Active Liberty. It is shorter and covers the important bases. He had a longer one, which was still approachable. His book on international legal disputes also was not bad though some might find it too long.

This book is a slog. His message is important, which makes it unfortunate Breyer could not manage a condensed version. I am sympathetic to his purpose-based approach. I find originalism asinine. Textual (not the same thing) without more is inadequate. And, a book about how the Court is doing it wrong (though he is loathed to admit his colleagues, to whom he dedicated the book, using their first names, are ideologically biased) has value. 

I wouldn't suggest this one even if from time to time there are some kernels of interest. 

Yes, It's Bad, Even if It Is Not TOTALLY HORRIBLE

Some takes on the Supreme Court opinions underline how horrible everything is. Then, some people respond to argue things aren't that bad. They are pretty bad.

Multiple cases (including one handed down today allowing more time for people to sue) are blows against the administrative state. The opinions were 6-3 and each liberal took turns dissenting from the bench. The administrative state isn't dead. But, surely, as a whole, these cases were a BFD that were part of a years-long campaign.  

The 1/6 statutory case was of limited reach. Nonetheless, it was problematic, especially how the case was framed. And, the majority [Jackson tried to show otherwise in her concurrence] helped. The "vibes" can influence lower court actions and how the overall prosecutions are interpreted publicly:

Among other things, that misperception will only further embolden a future President Trump, if he wins election this November, to drop the remaining January 6 prosecutions and pardon those already convicted — even where the charges are completely unrelated to the statute the court narrowed in Fischer. The justices are savvy, smart people who live both physically and metaphorically inside the Capital Beltway. They should have known better.

A reference in today's immunity case even suggests it might have some implications in the Trump trial. The Trump immunity opinion, which is horrible in a variety of ways, does not seal out all means to prosecute him.

Nonetheless, it significantly expanded (with the backing of a majority opinion of the Supreme Court) the reach of immunity from prosecution. Official presidential acts or even those on the edge ("presumptively" protected) now are immune, based on made-up rules. Melissa Murray of Strict Scrutiny underlines the breadth (here Barrett got off the bus):

Another huge aspect of this decision that is not being covered in media coverage--conduct that is protected (i.e. cannot be prosecuted) also can't be used as evidence to prove charges stemming from conduct that is unprotected. Totally hamstrings the prosecution. This is huge.

You know this is bad when the dissents don't end with "respectfully" dissent:

With fear for our democracy, I dissent. [Sotomayor]

In the meantime, because the risks (and power) the Court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, I dissent. [Jackson]

Sotomayor dissented from the bench. The Supreme Court does not deign to provide audio or a transcript. Jackson dissented from the bench in today's administrative law case, which received less attention but was still important.

To bring the liberal trifecta (Barrett wrote the administrative case & Roberts the Trump immunity case), Kagan had the middle case involving Texas and Florida laws that targeted social media. All nine justices agreed the litigants aimed too high ("facial challenge").  

A mixed majority went along with some more of Kagan's opinion, including a takedown on the Fifth Circuit. Three conservatives and to a lesser extent Jackson were careful to note the complexity of the issues. They felt the majority went too far into the weeds. 

Kagan crafting together as much of a majority (six justices joined parts of her opinion) was something of a surprise. Many predicted someone else would write the opinion and that it would be more fractured. Anyway, the opinion was the calm in the storm, between two more problematic rulings.

Opinions done. They will hand down a "clean-up" Order List tomorrow. And, then it's summer recess with the usual practice being three summer order lists to quickly address odds and ends that come up before they come back. 

Call to Action 

The Supreme Court reminds us about what should be our focus. Dwelling on a bad debate performance or hoping for unicorns? Not what we should be doing.

First, we need to win in November. 

Second, we need to reaffirm basic values. Justice Jackson's dissent in the Trump immunity case was a philosophical exercise, including the importance of individual accountability and limited presidential power. The administrative law cases also provide us a chance to address basic principles, including the role of Congress and expertise.

Finally, we have to focus on the problems with the Supreme Court. And, this Supreme Court in particular. They have ethical problems. Have too much unlimited power. And, standing pat without statutory and perhaps constitutional change (e.g., term limits) is untenable at this point.

The last part is a long time process. Change also will often require a trifecta (control of the presidency and Congress). We can imagine limited change (e.g., ethical tweaks) without that. Also, control of one house can result in oversight hearings and some pressure. 

An informed citizenry starts now.