"Royal Wedding Collection" [Meghan Markle]

The Meghan Markle story is not quite Hallmark -- she is an actress who falls for a royal, not some average sort -- but it is definitely made for t.v.  This includes her mixed family background and early signs of being a feminist voice.  And, the Lifetime movie as well as the DVD put out of the wedding itself were both very good.  I also liked one of the books that went back and forth covering their story.  I talked about some of this in the past. 

She was in various things though her major role was on the television show Suits as a paralegal/lawyer.  I know a couple people who like that show though did not really get into when checking out the first season. Her character, however, seemed to be appealing as was the person imitating a lawyer.  The other lawyer was more blah and did not find it worth my time to watch more episodes.  The plots did not seem that interesting though they had some flavor at times.  Still, I can see why people like the show.

This entry was a result of checking out a Hallmark DVD featuring her with a royal themed movie tossed it to complete the "royal" theme.  She herself was not in royal movies, but they called it the "Royal Wedding Collection" for obvious reasons. In each movie, she has white parents (Dater's Handbook has her dad dead, so it isn't clear about him -- in real life her mother is black -- though her sister and mom is white; if a picture of the dad was around, didn't see it).  I have noted my concern about lack of diversity in these movies (we have the usual non-white supporting players here too).  (I saw part of the third movie on Hallmark and it was okay.)

Given her real life experiences (including a lifestyle blog), it a bit ironic both movies portray her as a down to earth type whose doomed boyfriend options are the ones more classy about things.  Both are probably best seen as middle of the road Hallmark movies; she is the best thing in both of them. She is particularly cute in Dater's Handbook, doing things like playfully taking food off her date's plates. Markle realistically gets into both of her characters, including the serious moments.  She is an appealing actress. The men are a bit boring in both.  The moms in both are nice.  And, the best friend in When Sparks Fly adds some interest as well. 

I like Dater's Handbook in part because she runs a marketing business and does so well. It's a nice touch and not just a cutesy type thing (like a family fireworks business).  She has problems with dating so decides to follow a self-help book, needing to decide between two guys (obvious choice: the fun one).  Pleasant enough but somewhat forced.  The second one has her leaving her small town to be a reporter in Chicago, coming back to do an article and be the maid of honor for her best friend. Who decided to marry the guy she broke off with when she left seven years earlier.  She has a July Fourth fetish.  That won't go well.  The family biz is also in trouble. I would say the same if more busy.

Hallmark often has a theme where someone reunites with a past love, who were separated often because someone left a small town to try success in the big city.  And, somehow, they usually come back and find small town life better.  The complicated here was the best friend relationship and it is not surprising -- he's a nice guy, she's pleasant enough and they both have a connection to a third person.  Plus, in real life, that can work.  People move on and all that.  OTOH, sometimes, it can cause problems, I gather.  The other movie was more about being true to yourself.  Good theme.

She tells more than one guy not for her in the first movie just that.  In the second, her best friend admits that she was more into the idea of the wedding than the guy.  That fit the plot, but we don't see enough of the relationship to know how true it is.  Other movies did a better job showing an expected wedding breaking up being not the best path while the losing partner comes off as a decent person.  Markle's boyfriend here himself breaks it off with her when he sees what is happening, letting her know that he realized they were different and didn't see their own relationship as too serious anyway.  And, again, real life is like that sometimes.

Hallmark is not meant to be serious business most of the time though there are some serious touches in some flicks. But, the content still can have charm.  These two had some though again were mild overall.  If one is in the mood.

Mets OF

It did not make the days more productive but am actually in the middle of a weekend break from posting tweets (did favor some) though not all online comments. Baby steps.

One more Mets update. Carlos Gomez is DFA to make room for Noah S. He was brought back to provide a bit of OF defense (surely would be helpful) and team speed but his defense has been questionable and offense negligible. And, with Nimmo (poor Smiley) gone so long, Conforto was shifted to CF. Some want Lagares gone instead but it is not like he has been worse. It is not just some money deal; he is not making that much.

Also: McNeil and Alonso (home run derby too), properly, made the All Star Game as reserves; position-wise, others have been better. DeGrom also is going. Hasn't quite been All Star Quality at times. Mets play tonight on ESPN. Eighth time the charm? [Yes. The bats finally out hit the bullpen. Will they play okay now -- like last year -- and nothing really will change?]

Baseball: Fun Times

After Meghan and Harry made an appearance, the first baseball game in London traded six run innings (twice). Orioles blanked the Indians 13-0, again. Second day in a row a former Met pitcher who struggled in his last year (to be fair, he had good years) got out of a jam and Mets scored nothing. "In the ninth, the Mets put the potential tying run on second and winning run on third with nobody out. Michael Conforto, Todd Frazier and Dominic Smith went down in order to end it." And, no wonder no NYC resident wants him to run for POTUS: Bill de Blasio thanked the Wilpons “for all you do for this city and for this great franchise.”

ETA: Cut/pasted that quote from the article yesterday, but now it says: "In the ninth, the Mets put the potential tying run on second and winning run on first with nobody out."

Mets: Too Much Mediocre and Bad Mixed With the Good

The Mets are honoring the 1969 team today. It is unfortunate I was not a fan until the mid-90s since I missed 1986 (they were good for a few years there, but some hard luck). Stat: "Since the start of last season, the Mets' record in... June: 14-38 (.269) All other months: 100-93 (.518)." A bit over .500 (last year, the swoon started in May) is not good enough on its own. Definitely not good enough with those June numbers. Yesterday's sixth loss was telling: DeGrom only went six/three runs. The bats only gave them two. And, Gsellman (after an ex-Met got out of a bases loaded jam) gave up three key runs in the eighth. Group effort.

ETA: The Mets are in Groundhog's Day hell -- game after game the pen blows it. This time Lugo blew a lead after some call-up went four innings, one run, after a rain delay. But, it isn't just the pen as noted. The pen is horrendous. Rather somehow someone blows it on any given day. Some of the newbies actually show something. Thing is the bats have to pick them up. Some teams win by out hitting their pitching. Mets hitting isn't doing this now.

Florida Cross Case (with an aside on Dems Border Bill)

These days, the Supreme Court only fully decides around seventy cases as seen in the opinions of the Court section of its website. This is somewhat misleading though because they do take action on many more, including similar lower court opinions that are returned to be re-examined pursuant to an opinion.  So, e.g., a cross case from Florida was sent back this week.

Given the reluctance of the lower court opinion, more so the concurrences, I'm sure the judges will with relief rule the other way.  This is rather likely the correct path given the current Supreme Court majority though it is not clear to me that the two cases are the same.  I say this accepting there are similarities and the dissimilarities probably do not matter to this Supreme Court.  This is part of judging: unless you are Justice Thomas, perhaps, you deal with the hand in place and work off that.  Legislating is somewhat comparable in its own way, working off the art of the possible and its own limits.*

The cross involved in the Supreme Court case was erected as a memorial to WWI dead and this was of significant note to the majority opinion. There was other details that was flagged by the other side, such as a religious ceremony that suggested sectarian characteristics. But, the alleged secular symbolism of a cross to honor the dead, particularly WWI dead (cf. dissent) was of singular importance here.  The longstanding nature of the display was relevant overall, yes, including in making it clear (while questioning the whole affair) the old tests did not apply.

The pertinent facts are undisputed.  In 1941, the National Youth Administration erected a wooden cross in the eastern corner of Pensacola’s Bayview Park to be the “focal point” of what would become an annual Easter sunrise program.  The program itself was organized by the Pensacola Junior Chamber of Commerce (a/k/a the “Jaycees”) and soon became a tradition, with people gathering for Easter services during World War II to pray, among other things, for “the divine guidance of our nation’s leaders” and for faith to “see through the present dark days of war.”

Is this really the same thing?  You have the time element, yes, but it also suggests that all displays of that caliber are not the same.  The cross was the "focal point" to what amounts to a clear sectarian ceremony.  It was not just a memorial for war dead that can be opposed on grounds that a cross is inherently a Christian symbol.  There is more to it than that.  The ceremony continues. Yes, it was also eventually also used to honor war dead.  So, the opening to apply the Supreme Court case is right there.  Plus, the state funds used for upkeep is smaller.  Nonetheless, the purpose and ongoing effects are different than a cross monument itself. 

OTOH, the majority opinion really didn't offer much to suggest an invitation to parse specific instances in a class of cases that "involve the use, for ceremonial, celebratory, or commemorative purposes, of words or symbols with religious association."  If the displays have some blatant discriminatory character that targets certain groups, an exception might be found.  As noted in the last entry, the general rule supporting felony disenfranchisement was not applied to a state law with a blatant racial purpose.  But, this was a small exception to the general rule.

BTW, the Supreme Court opinion helpfully classifies the various religious liberty cases into various categories. It also calls into question the application of the Lemon Test (including as channeled into the reasonable observer test, apparently)  in actual cases.  Doctrinal tests tend to be flexible as compared to general principles.  Fine enough.  And, even those are not applied totally literally. For instance, basically theistic endorsements of a certain caliber have been accepted though similar things even as state mottoes and the like would be questioned (Scalia himself noted this in oral argument) if we said things like "In Jesus We Trust."

How far to take this in this area is surely debatable -- as seen by the splits in the very case.  Ultimately, you will weigh various things in the context of the situation. And, a gigantic cross on public land that is used for Easter ceremonies to me seems problematic.  

 ===

* This arose recently regarding a border emergency aid bill when the Senate (final vote 84-8 though a 92-8 vote was referenced I cannot find) basically tied the hands of the House.  Leadership really wanted to put in a stronger response to address treatment of immigrants detained, which has received lots of "this is HORRIBLE" reactions. One particularly horrible image is a father and daughter face down dead while trying to cross. The Trump Administration's actions here are severely lacking, worsening a problem that was already a humanitarian crisis before him.

The votes weren't there. The "problem solving" Dems particularly didn't want to go too far. Thus, AOC and other more progressive Democrats cried foul.  Rightly so.  Only so much could be done with the Republicans in control of the Senate, but a good argument can be made that the Senate Democrats made it too easy for them.  A push to end the session for the summer recess and appeals to "compromise" when dead children are involved also rankles.

There is a limit here but within those limits more can be done.  One more thing.  That link to the vote was found by my own research. Article after f-ing article cited the greatly bipartisan Senate vote without linking to it or saying who voted against it.  It is bad enough that online media apparently found a way to stop workarounds to their paywalls more completely lately.  Why cannot they link to or cite such information?  Turns out SEVEN of the eight who didn't vote are Democrats who are running for POTUS. Why didn't any (including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand) vote "no" on the record?  The eight that voted against the final vote are a few liberals and Lee and Paul. Useful information to cite, people.

Item: Florida Limits Recently Restored Voting Rights to Ex-Felons, Drawing Lawsuit

On November 6, 2018 Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment automatically restoring the right to vote to 1.4 million individuals with felony convictions in their past. The amendment restores the right to vote for people with felony convictions, except individuals convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses, once they have completed the terms of their sentence, including probation and parole. The amendment went into effect on January 8, 2019.

Over the years, one issue that I have been paying attention to is denial of voting rights because of conviction of a crime. Given the system in place, this in practice has a racial cast as well as one that burdens on class as well.  This would seem to have constitutional concerns, but except when blatantly so intended, the Supreme Court has not seen to deem it so.  An exception to a never used penalty in the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment ("other crime") was cited.  The dissent to me was correct, more so as applied in various cases.  See, e.g., John Oliver's piece on the arbitrariness of the process to restore voting rights in Florida.

A question posed to some Democratic presidential candidates at town halls referenced people still in prison.  Maine, Vermont and Puerto Rico (as well as many countries, international practice of interest to Justice Alito, as seen in his census opinion)  do allow that.  And, that would be fine with me, especially if there was some exception (crimes like public corruption to me is more suitable here really than violent felonies).  But, it is more realistic and of immediate concern to address those who served their time.  And, a period of "probation and parole" again adds a sort of compromise there.  A person might think once you are out of prison or after a year's time might be more appropriate.  And, if the probation period is too long, especially.

Advancement in this area is likely to come as in many ways via compromises. The Fifteenth Amendment was itself a compromise, some wanting to include other things (such as literacy or property) that have a discriminatory character. A federal poll tax amendment was eventually ratified with state poll taxes deemed unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Backdoor poll taxes continued, including what is cited in the first link -- Florida Republicans (with the governor in his signing statement deeming the popular referendum as "wrong" for going too far) required full payment of fines and court costs. Again, John Oliver had a segment on the breadth of such things, including arising from traffic offenses.  Race and class issues blatantly involved.

Voter identification laws in practice often have been shown to have this character given the costs involved.  It is conceivable to think of (though their necessity for electoral security would remain dubious) a system of free id that would net be beneficial, including an extended rollout with generous exceptions and workarounds (on site photo ids come to mind).  But, in practice, these things tend to be inequitable. It is especially problematic when elections are often close. Florida went Republican in 2000 by a minuscule fraction and something like one percent in 2016. 

The governor's signing statement is interesting (among other things).  It notes the "curious" fact that the measure only applied to voting, not to other civil rights such as  jury service or running for office (I might add RKBA).  But, that is understandable -- again, it was a compromise measure aimed to receive the most support, and voting rights should be the basic floor here.  Jury service itself is a form of voting, but the ballot box is the core.  And, even with the exceptions (overbroad ones as seen by looking at some sexual offender measures alone) left open various violent crimes. Yes. They too, after they serve their time, re-enter society as full citizens.  So said a supermajority by their vote.

The statement also notes that voting rights are restored without regard to the wishes of the victims.  That's an outrageous statement on a basic level. First off, how does one judge who "the victims" are in these cases?  The people who directly were harmed?  What of the spouses and children etc.?  And, what if the crime affects a broad range of people such as let's say poisoning a river, resulting in possibly thousands getting sick?  Do such people ever get some direct say (as compared to be representing by some parole board or such in charge of making the call) in restoration of civil liberties in these case?  No. It doesn't work that way.  The government prosecutes and the government determines the breadth of the penalty.

The statement also says that he will think about restoring other civil rights to offenders here. Which is fine (ha) -- the problem at issue is broad and the amendment (like multiple amendments to the federal Constitution) addressed a particularly blatant issue, leaving open other actions with more nuanced action.  As with state poll taxes, perhaps the Florida Constitution itself can be used to address other matters. For instance, the RKBA might wrongly be denied if a person serves their time for a bar fight or whatever and ten years later, though they have shown themselves as a good citizen, they are still denied the right to possess a firearm.  Not knowing the rules here, I cite this as a possibility. 

The interests here are not merely of a partisan nature. Florida is known generally to be a state full of (ahem) eccentrics who break the law, sometimes in serious ways.  But, once they serve their time, all should recognize the justice of allowing them to vote. And, the measure was supported by over sixty percent of the vote.  The current Republican controlled government might think this too generous.  They would be wrong.

Venus, Voting and Vale (Mets)

Only a few NYPL libraries have DVDs now, but Kingsbridge Library has a bunch. I enjoyed this Canadian GLBTQ (emphasis on the "T") friendly film. After noting it would have mattered in this month's key primary election, I see a ranked choice measure might be on the ballot soon. After ANOTHER blown game, got just amusing, this "put a fork in them" article might be right.

SCOTUS Watch: Final Orders

Here is a summary of the end of term orders, including taking DACA cases, a funding to religious schools and Bridgegate (might continue to narrow political corruption law) case as well as others. A second trimester procedure abortion case (Thomas concurs aiming for bigger game) not taken; count two cases still pending. Sotomayor with her occasional solo criminal justice dissent, including a section on the value of a strong appeals process including in non-capital cases. Summer usually has three days set aside to dispose of various matters.

Democratic Debates

For me, the first Democratic debates were mainly a time to snark and read snark online, but to the degree it mattered: Booker was combative, Warren was pretty good, Castro shone, O'Rourke looked unprepared, Buttigieg was decent, Harris slayed and Biden (who Harris targeted, especially on busing) looked rather bad. Various others should, along with "Beto," just go. Klobuchar and Gillibrand didn't move the needle. And, Chuck Todd was an ass.

We have the "tsk tsk" about debating busing, how unpopular it was etc., but BIDEN is the one who got us here both for his record and bringing up good times with segregationists. Doh! The spin is a broad group likes him, but the controversy is rather expected and he handled it lousy. He repeatedly does. People like me are strongly against him for a reason. And, repeatedly, there is a feeling he is kinda tired. Old. Sanders should go too but he is at this like a lively old radical full time, basically. Biden is basically in semi-retirement.

SCOTUS Watch: Census/Gerrymandering

The tribal dispute first argued in November with more briefing asked for was held over; Stolen Seat Guy didn't take part, so it still might be decided 4-4.  We still have some important orders to hand down tomorrow, including abortion stuff.

The other case basically no one but the participants cared about involved a rule where unconscious drivers by law were deemed to have consented to blood draws.  A majority (with Breyer going along with Alito, again not really having a key "conservative special" to write for the Court this month) reached out to decide that "exigent circumstances" generally allows this.  SSG didn't think that was the question and would "DIG."  Sotomayor for the ladies thought so too but provided a full dissent.

The solution, he would suggest, lies in state courts, constitutional amendments, state redistricting commissions (which he has deemed unconstitutional in the past), Congress, and state legislatures, which is a tiny bit like putting the looters in charge of the looting problem.

Each side here said the matter was "narrow," but the other two cases were of some more importance.  Both are covered by Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog, Dahlia Lithwick has a thing to say over at Slate and so on.  Basically, Kavanaugh provides a fifth vote to firmly say partisan gerrymandering is a political question, both because it's something allowed and because there aren't clear standards for federal courts to handle it.  Let state courts (unless they find something wrong with their approach?), independent commissions (ideal if a state manages to have them and Roberts in a 5-4 opinion -- maybe it's different now? -- already thought there were constitutional problems with them) or maybe bills (sic) proposed in gerrymandered legislatures handle the situation.

Kagan dissented from the bench (her three such dissents were in election cases) noting, yeah, "As I relate what happened in those two States, ask yourself: Is this how American democracy is supposed to work?”  The basic problem here was that for years the liberals said partisan gerrymandering was a problem, Kennedy agreed in principle, but he never provided a fifth vote (he had one more shot last term) to a majority opinion. The opinion is a Kagan special; she helped craft some liberal wins, not this time.

[She dissented from the bench and it took a while. Of course, we did not see it.  This is wrong.  Oyez.com will release it some months down the road.]

Roberts denies there is a constitutional provision violated [as compared to one person, one vote?*]  but equal protection, First Amendment concerns and probably something else (right to vote?) can and has been cited.  As to prudence, I respect the concern up to a point, but the problem is rather egregious to say "not our problem, dude." Cf. Alito's concern in the trademark case: "At  a  time  when  free  speech  is  under  attack,  it  is  especially  important  for  this  Court  to  remain  firm  on  the  principle  that  the  First Amendment  does  not  tolerate  viewpoint  discrimination."  Let's see how those alternative methods work.

The census ruling, which gave various liberals angina the last few weeks worrying about how horrible it would be, was "okay for now." The headnotes suggests as much with various aspects of Roberts' opinion.  The opinion as a whole blessed the use of a citizen question in theory, but that it was done here in an illegitimate matter.  Chris Hayes cynically replied: "Come back and lie to us about your motives more convincingly, please.” Rick Hasen basically figures there is a decent chance this is fair enough.  The Trump crew have until October, it seems, to figure something out. 

As noted at that link, there is clear evidence (with someone who pops up in the partisan gerrymandering dissent too)  that the point of the census opinion is to advance Republican electoral ends.  Justice Alito in partial dissent is all "they call it racism, but a citizenship question is fine policy, just look at international experience and everything!"  Thomas (joined by the Trump guys -- this case again turning on two tainted seats)  is more "there is nothing to see here!"  Gorsuch not worrying about administrative agencies going amuck here. So, even Roberts' limited bowing to the obvious was too much for four of them.

Breyer for the liberals would avoid sending it back, holding it invalid on administrative law grounds now.  He notes the question clearly will inhibit a fair count, the very point of the census provision.  Doesn't say as much, but this appears to violate the Enumeration Clause as applied as well.  The partial dissent was fairly temperate, perhaps realizing they got the most one could hope for. No (cf. travel ban) Sotomayor dissent to call out the racism involved here.  But, this case might be back.

[The updated SCOTUSBlog entry helps clarify who joined what section and it turns out the liberals didn't join the Enumeration Clause section. My reading of Breyer's opinion doesn't suggest he directly says the question was used in away that violated that clause but that does leave it open.] 

Meanwhile, some more Internet links including a screen grab.

===

* To the degree the minimalism here clashes with racial discrimination, remember this is the guy who wrote Shelby v. Holder and while in the Reagan/Bush Administrations was no fan of a strong usage of judicial power in this area to enforce black voting rights. Also, there is going to be overlap -- partisan and racial gerrymanders tend to go hand and hand given party splits.  Toss in state courts, districting battles will still be around.

The liberal judicial minimalism argument is that the result is ideal, putting aside concerns (perhaps) that Roberts et. al. won't be consistent.  But, as noted, judges will still be involved. Plus, even if many of the federal judges will be Republican nominees, they all won't be, and even so, there will be various cases the facts are clear.  The constitutional rule will also apply to state actors, including providing pressure to encourage independent commissions and so forth.

At times, judges might only select certain types of gerrymandering (see Thomas in his census opinion suggesting the district judge was biased for finding problems), but net, what will that give you?  A narrow number of cases.  Some simply will deny evenhandedly.  There still are some liberal judges and friendly appellate courts and we can also play the long game. 

One conservative wondered what liberals were concerned about since both sides gerrymander. Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) replied: "It has become a partisan issue because Democrats have looked for ways to end the practice without unilateral disarmament (as in H.R. 1) but Republicans have looked for ways to keep doing it. Only Rs supporting redistricting reform in places like CA, where Dems have leg lock."  Maybe election reformists know what they are talking about?

(Also: "It is easier for the more rural and exurban party to engineer extreme gerrymanders, so the Court’s abdication will overwhelmingly favor the party of all five members of the majority.")

Women's Human Rights and Migration: Sex-Selective Abortion Laws in the United States and India

This was cited in a discussion of the ruling; the author herself discussed things here. The author argues human rights should be applied within the context of one's society, sex-specific abortions [can be determined early] not a problem in the U.S. (the few times it occurs, it often is gender balancing, one boy/one girl) but causing harms to women in India. Starts with some in the weeds legal theory but then deals with the facts on the ground in a more interesting fashion. Also, notes sex selection comes pre-pregnancy, including sperm sorting!

SCOTUS Watch: Agency Deference

A divided Supreme Court issued a major opinion on administrative law today. The justices declined to overrule a longstanding line of cases instructing courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation – a doctrine sometimes known as “Auer deference.” But in an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, the court made clear that the doctrine has limits, and it will not apply in every scenario in which an agency is interpreting its own rules.

I don't know how "shocking" this opinion is at the end of the day.

As Roberts notes in his concurrence (unlike the other conservatives, he concurred with the opinion itself if not certain sections; the rest concurred in judgment), the subject at hand is different from (to quote SCOTUSBlog again) "Chevron deference, which generally requires courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes enacted by Congress."  Justice Kagan summarized and tinkered with the doctrine, “not quite so tame as some might hope, but not nearly so menacing as they might fear.”  I personally thought retaining the doctrine in a somewhat weaker form was possible.

Kavanaugh (with Alito) is likely right to agree with Roberts that at the end of the day there is not too much distance between Kagan and Gorsuch's positions.  If a lower court judge wants to show less deference, it is likely that in most cases they probably can find a reason.  But, Kagan's opinion (partially a plurality -- more can be done to clarify this) probably still has some bite, including the discussion on the importance of deference here where agencies are deciding various very technical policy questions.  As the "shocking" article notes: "the outcome in Kisor suggests that there is a meaningful distance between Roberts and the more nihilistic members of the court’s conservative majority."

Besides, Kagan is a good wordsmith and it is pleasure to read the opinion.  Justice Alito has his own charms, repeatedly in high snark.  Dissenting in the Gorsuch's (Stolen Seat) opinion [Breyer concurred on narrower grounds]: "Today’s decision is based in part on an opinion that is unpardonably vague and suggestive in dangerous ways." Given Gorsuch is so concerned about vagueness, that might have left a mark. Also, says Gorsuch is not "originalist" and references a bad "trip."*  He challenges Gorsuch's history in the wine regulation case as well, including at one point basically asking him "really?"  Alito writes for a 7-2 Court (Thomas also dissented), leading one to wonder how he suddenly became Mr. Unity.

It was noted that Alito did not have many opinions so that he would be busy in June, but so far, his  opinions for the Court lacked much "conservative special"  (like Hobby Lobby).  The fact Gorsuch (finding another time to split with the other tainted Trumpite) joined the liberals again today should not lead one to forget he is not TOO big of a friend of criminal defendants.  As to his concern for "liberty" in general, see his votes in the travel ban case.   To toss it in there, a lawyer who will work on a podcast with the author of that article wrote this good article on women lawyers using social media.  One more opinion day.

---

* Justice Alito's dissent is rather strong because he thinks Gorsuch has bigger game on what constitutional rules are required for supervised release, which covers a lot of people. As a general rule, when a matter is in doubt, I support the due process friendly opinion.  But, unsure how wrong Alito is though Breyer's opinion probably is correct. Do find Alito's repeated appeals to originalism a bit much except as good rejoinder to Gorsuch laying it on too thick.  Which seems to annoy Alito too at times.

Gorsuch (like Kavanaugh in the Flowers peremptory challenge opinion, the one Mr. Liberty dissented from) has a paean to juries.  Something not around much in the day of plea bargains though history suggests such worship is a bit over the top in general.  Like when I listen to him in oral argument, you get the idea Gorsuch is really into his role.  Just loves fighting the good fight, in his chuckling way, in a stolen seat.  Grr. 

Primary Day: Tiffany Cabán

A new law simplifies NY primaries (one day in June for both federal/state) but it has yet to really promote turnout if the key race where an AOC type upstart appears to have won (after a long term incumbent died in office) as Queens prosecutor (more people than 15 states) is suggestive. Like 10% of registered voters took part, which along with no instant run-off voting (she barely won a plurality; the third place candidate got over 10% and was endorsed by police unions and such) very well might have helped the winner here. No Bronx races, but kept a close look at her returns online as she kept on holding on to a thin lead. Reform possible.

Same Old Mets Alert (LolMets)

After the manager and Vargas were fined 10K (notable if less so for guy making 8M a year; really should be suspended for a game/start) ... and it took to press conferences for Callaway to actually apologize, the Mets blew it again. It was close, but after another mostly reliable bullpen piece gave up a lead, they stopped scoring. After the spot starter fell quickly last time, a good five innings arguably was enough. Got greedy and it burned ya.

SCOTUS Watch: The "FUCT" you say ...

And Also: With DeGrom starting, it looked like the Mets might win three of four vs. one of the teams basically among the beatable non-Dodgers leaders in the NL. But, usually reliable Lugo had a bad day and Callaway (and Vargas) acted like clowns. The inability to win that extra game helps explain the "they are done" talk even if stands-wise that isn't really true given the parity in the league as a whole. Same old injury issues helps deja vu.

And then there were eight.

First orders.  The big news there is probably taking a trio of "risk corridor" cases, a result of one of many conservative moves to weaken ACA.  One can wade into the details at the link, but looks like the challengers have a good argument.  Long term, the way out here is for the Democrats to win in 2020 and having legislation to deal with the situation.  Health insurance policy is not a one moment move.  It requires ongoing action and follow-up legislation (including budgets) to deal with the situation. The inability thanks to McCain and the two women senators to severely weak ACA when Republicans had united government underlines the basic support of that legislation's goals. But, we are still in flux.

The first link provides a summary of other orders. One notable one, at least given my own concerns: "NPR argued that the complete version of the briefs should be available to the public, and today the justices agreed."  Actions on abortion and DACA to come.  Likewise, two of the big opinions (as expected) were not handed down.  I would think there will be two more days (eight opinions in one day is unlikely) with Friday being another order day.  Maybe, the orders will be separated.  Anyway, to toss it in there, Kagan joined Alito's opinion denying punitive damages in a maritime case, the other liberals dissented. Another safe case for Alito.  He's getting in a lot of history these days with WWI crosses, 17th Century double jeopardy and now the history of maritime law.

Gorsuch (Stolen Seat Guy) had two opinions, basically being the swing guy today, though the liberals in one went along with him in part.  First, in another split with Kavanaugh (Rapey Partisan Liar Guy) he found a federal firearms regulation void for vagueness (this would be the second time in a week the liberals in a fashion protected gun rights*).  As noted there, if we recall his strong dissent last week in the delegation case, it suggests a certain strong consistent wariness about governmental power.  OTOH, recall he went along without comment in the travel ban case.  So.

Yes, his concerns are somewhat non-complete, but it does add complexity to the divisions on this Court.  The other opinion, with the liberals (minus Kagan) only joining in part this time,  blocks a FOIA request by a newspaper regarding SNAP related data.  I saw this case pop up in orders repeatedly, so it appears some justices were particularly interested.  The liberals would send the case back to determine if the material is truly protected under the rules.  Of mild interest, but might be of some concern. More here (including on "wooden" textual analysis); this is important in part because the overall issue is a matter of public concern.

The result in the final case -- the FUCT trademark ruling -- is expected. The only thing really in play was the possible breadth.  Kagan (helping to clarify an earlier opinion with two wings) bluntly deemed not allowing the mark as immoral or scandalous as viewpoint discrimination in a short opinion. Alito went along, flagging this as a time when free speech is being threatened (multiple people think this is a subtweet to college campus protests).** Roberts rather decide things more narrowly as does Breyer and Sotomayor, all (with Breyer joining Sotomayor's most extensive remarks).

[To add one more thing, the big picture issue here basically turns on the point of trademarks.  They are in place to help inform people a commercial item is tied to a certain individual or company. There repeatedly is some significant expressive content here. "FUCT," e.g., is supposed to send a certain message. Given traditional free speech rules, including unconstitutional conditions, viewpoint discrimination here is dubious.  This isn't government speech as such.  They don't "endorse" a Nike trademark.  It is a government benefit, but one -- like marriage or whatever -- that should be supplied neutrally.]

What this will amount to long term maybe is somewhat unclear -- the law at issue was around since the 1940s and only recently was this sort of thing deemed unconstitutional -- but it would not surprise if more commercial related regulations will fall by the way-side. At any rate, expect some people to submit claims for various offensive sounding trademarks.  More discussion of these cases can or eventually will be found at SCOTUBlog, Take Care and other such places.  More opinions on Wednesday.

---

*  Reading Kavanaugh's dissent, the point is even more striking. We have a concern an important gun regulation, necessary for public safety, is wrongly being struck down.  It's a strong dissent. I will remain agnostic on how strong it is on the merits.  But, it the sort of thing that can split ordinary ideological lines. Also, as Leah Litman notes in her discussions at the two blogs cited, the case is best seen as fitting into a wider whole of recent case law.

**  Justice Alito's concurrence warrants further comment:

Viewpoint discrimination  is  poison  to  a  free  society.  But  in  many countries  with  constitutions  or  legal  traditions  that  claim to protect freedom of speech, serious viewpoint discrimination is now tolerated, and such discrimination has become increasingly  prevalent  in  this  country.  At  a  time  when  free  speech  is  under  attack,  it  is  especially  important  for  this  Court  to  remain  firm  on  the  principle  that  the  First Amendment  does  not  tolerate  viewpoint  discrimination.  We reaffirm that principle today.

Tad strong there. He also shows, especially counting noses, a more narrowly drawn statute might be acceptable to a majority:

Our decision does not prevent Congress from adopting a more carefully focused statute that precludes the registration of marks containing vulgar terms that play no real part in the expression of ideas. The particular mark in question in this case could be denied registration under such a statute. The term suggested by that mark is not needed to express any idea and, in fact, as commonly used today, generally signifies nothing except emotion and a severely limited vocabulary.

A non-absolutist stance on free speech was the subject of one of Elena Kagan's few works of scholarship.  But, how sound is Alito's comment? The trivialization of the word "fuck" here  is directly challenged by a major First Amendment landmark (Cohen v. California, "fuck the draft" case). What exactly is a "real" part of the expression of ideas?  The concern of Breyer during oral argument is more racial epithet though since the last case in this area involved "the Slants," not sure where to take that. 

Last Bridesmaid

The male love interest in this pleasant Hallmark film, Paul Campbell, is a familiar face. He favors flippant types, sometimes laying it on too thick. Pretty balanced here and the film has a nice message of finding what makes you happy while the love between the two develops. A few good camera/reaction shots that show how he feels for her. A late dramatic moment is believably handled -- he has a reason to be upset. Both leads also have done other things.

Drive Angry

Another good late nite pick. Nicholas Cage has played off kilter characters in various films, some pretty good trash fun. This would be one with AH showing some great kick ass moves too. Some good support. And, nice twist on the finding your bf fucking someone scene.

After Hours

A sequel in the Emma Marx (sort of a "B" more explicit version of Fifty Shades) series where she herself mentors someone was on again this week. Not bad addition to the late nite cable soft porn cycle. Some style and sexiness. Anatomy of Sex, with a handful of sex, I mean set pieces (whatever) is amusing too. The two guys (doctor and patient) are so skeevy looking. The nurses all have a porn star look (especially the eyelashes and makeup) but not quite ridiculous so. I do prefer a more natural look (one series had a sexy episode, e.g., about a couple trying to conceive and the woman being normal looking to me added to the experience). Meanwhile, on Amazon Prime, Moments of Clarity was cute.

ETA: Sven movie this week was Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, which was fun though main monster stuff at the end seemed a tad rushed (think it was somewhat edited from what I can tell from summaries online). A few familiar faces including Roscoe from the Dukes.

SCOTUS Watch: Another Precedent Overturned

We are approaching the end of the first term of the Kavanaugh Court and perhaps it is apt that we have yet another woman (providing in depth details) accusing Trump of rape.  Note that Trump's reply, other than denying he met a woman for which there is a picture in the accounts showing just that, said that those who make such false allegations should "pay dearly."  We have been down this road before, including with the main allegation against Brett Kavanaugh (his statement referenced another woman, which sorta implies -- parsing the guy is somewhat dubious -- he finds Ford's claims more credible).  Republicans want this guy re-elected.

Kavanaugh was especially dubious during oral argument about the use of peremptory strikes in the Flowers case, so it is not surprising he wrote the opinion.  One that is pretty good though some flagged concerns that emphasis it is a uniquely bad case (Alito concurred for that very reason) will mean "run of the mill" racism will be ignored. The opinion (which repeatedly cites the race of people involved, this not being a conservative affirmative case where we are not supposed to see race) does have various statements of principle that will be helpful.  This including how jury service is next to voting the key way citizens participate in the democratic process. (I would toss in militia duty, but that isn't really a thing any more, the 2A now deemed an individual right).

Justice Thomas continues his Thomas on steroids term by writing a forty page dissent (longer than the majority) that has some charming aspects like yet again emotionally stating the details of the crime (due process rights don't disappear in such cases and there serious claims that the prosecution is flawed on multiple grounds including innocence).  He also suggests the Court is unfairly targeting the South.  And, add it to the list, Thomas thinks the thirty year old precedent Batson v. Kentucky probably should be tossed too.  Justice Gorsuch, his join somewhat of a surprise, did not join that section.  Thomas does note that Flowers can be prosecuted again. Seventh time the charm?

Justice Alito joined by Thomas dissented in 7-2 ruling, written by Breyer (there are 12 cases left, most of them will be written by non-Thomas conservatives.  The case held that the federal government under the law at issue "must show that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.”  While the Trump Administration continues to plan to up the targeting of migrant families, such cases the provide some protection for undocumented immigrants are of mild relief.  This is also the sort of case ignored by some people when the complain about the Supreme Court not caring about gun owners.  OTOH, perhaps the class here aren't "the people" cited by the Second Amendment.

Justice Sotomayor wrote what seems to my admittedly uneducated eye a sort of pinprick opinion that limits (as noted by the concurrence in a limited fashion) the ability to tax trust income.  Roberts wrote the second important opinion of the day, a 5-4 job with a strong Kagan dissent (with various reactions focused on stare decisis) overturning a 1980s opinion limiting the right to sue alleged Taking Clause claims in federal court.  A note: be careful about being too critical about overturning precedent because the worm is (though it might be a while) turn.  Down the road, and I might be commenting in whatever venue is around then, we might be trying to overturn the excesses of the Robert Court. 

Now, maybe there is a good case to be made, but the facts suggest the concern of the liberals -- it involved a regulation regarding access to cemeteries during daylight hours.  There is even some doubt if there is actually people buried on the property ("allegedly") in question.  Since property rights include the right of exclusion, this brought a takings claim. This is not quite the infamous Kelo case where someone's home was seized (with compensation) for an ultimately failed economic revival plan.  Thus, one conservative on Twitter was excited about this attack on "bureaucrats."  That is, agents of the people who carry out democratically passed policy.

The dissent argues that longstanding law holds that there is no violation of the Takings Clause immediately at the seizure of the property, but only after the end of a reasonable process in place to compensate the individual. Given the myriad of possible claims, helped by expansions of what "takings" means in recent decades, I can see the problems. Some picayune local regulation of this sort will be a federal case with various nuanced issues of state law arising.  As noted by Kagan, in an opinion in high snark, the result threatens "judicial federalism," which as usual is a selective thing. 

(Thomas, e.g., complained in his dissent the Flowers case was an outlier not apt for federal review, but then though it obvious they should deal with some minor abortion regulation they deemed a lower court handled wrongly. And, was okay with them summarily overturning it without full review though such laws have nuanced issues that might very well so warrant.) 

Anyway, to repeat myself, opinion announcements should be televised or at least transcripts and audio should be available at its website.  We are left to news coverage and (eventually) Oyez.com.

Marion Wilson Execution

And Also: The Enchanted Hour: The Miraculous Power of Reading Aloud in the Age of Distraction is an interesting argument (by a children's book reviewer) for the practice.  Though it does not only benefit younger children, the benefit of engaged (not just audiobooks) reading in respect to them is the main focus. 

I thought we were going to get a break from executions, but Marion Wilson's execution (over twenty years after the crime) was scheduled by Georgia (second of year). He has the dubious honor to be the 1500th execution since the death penalty was rebooted in the 1970s. One summary of the crime:

It was the night of March 28, 1996. Donovan Corey Parks [black] had left the home he shared with his father and brother in Milledgeville, Georgia, to buy cat food. The 24-year-old worked full-time as a prison guard, but that day, he’d done a shift at the Winn-Dixie where he worked to make ends meet. As he exited the local Walmart, Parks was approached by 19-year-old Wilson and 18-year-old Robert Earl Butts Jr. Witnesses said Butts asked if Parks could give them a lift. “And the victim, being the nice guy he was, said, “Sure, I’ll give you a ride,” then-District Attorney Fred Bright told jurors in 1997. The pair had a sawed-off shotgun. Soon after that, Parks was dead from a blast to the head.

The article has some filler but the basic idea is that we don't know who pulled the trigger, he has a horrible childhood, questionable defense and others who committed similar crimes did not get a death sentence. The usual arbitrariness even among a case that normally seems straightforward. Note too he would overlap with recent claims to draw the line at 21. And, we have another long time on death row scenario.  Usual suspects.

The ill-named Robert Earl Butts Jr. has already been executed.  Looking at the final challenges, key is the argument that there is no clear evidence that Wilson was the one who specifically murdered Parks and the prosecutor lied when making the case in sentencing phase.  Thus, it is not clear the death sentence met the rules of due process in regard to properly determining if Wilson is one of the rare people who should be sentenced to die.  The execution was scheduled at 7PM and the the Supreme Court only handed down (without recorded dissents) a denial after 9PM.

Given the limited number of executions and the importance of the matter, I continue to think it would be helpful to summarize the final arguments and say why they were rejected.  It would be educational at least for the justices opposing the death penalty or repeatedly concerned (Sotomayor) to rotate here.  Realize this might be repetitive but see value in it.