Mets Update

After a disappointing season, especially since the weak division should have gave the Mets an opening to at least be in the hunt until late, we yet again have excitement. No not new ownership. We had that already.

There is reason to be excited though also a sense of deja vu. First, we have a big name, one would think independent, manager. Then, we have a stud (Max Scherzer), who helped his cause by standing out during the labor dispute. Plus, already, various useful parts were added including Marte. Figure a few more minor moves to come.

The new West Coast GM already has brought talent from over there and we have another with former As Chris Bassitt. He looks like a prime #3 candidate with Stroman gone and various slots injury iffy. With multiple relievers gone (including Famalia and Loup), they also picked up once Yankee, Adam Ottavino. Let's see if anyone else will leave.

The Devotion of Suspect X

The review for The Cult of the Constitution was posted on the Books in a Flash website. I assume that website gets at least marginally more hits than this one. I say this since someone else is involved and wishes it and others gets some attention.

I found The Devotion of Suspect X on the free rack at the library. Turns out it is an English translation to a book by a very popular Japanese mystery writer, whose work often is translated into television and film. This very novel has multiple adaptations.

I picked it up since it had a down to earth style (surely partially a sign of a good translator) that drew me into the story. The book also draws you into a creative somewhat Columbo-like mystery (we see what happens near the beginning) by providing different points of view. I got a bit impatient at some point, but the different points of view helped keep my interest.

Saturday News: Academy Awards and Abortion

Rita Moreno is covered in an article that is part of various looks as we approach the Academy Awards. I used to be a big fan though as with my general interest in going to the movies, eventually no longer really paid it much mind. I have not really watched it for a while. It doesn't help that I see nearly none of the films.

Rita Moreno, who I saw on Colbert some months back (she is one of those actors around 90 who look great), was a pioneer as the first Latina who won an Academy Award. Sixty years later, she was involved in the latest version of West Side Story. It's on cable now, so maybe I'll check it out. 

The article is silly at one point by censoring a quote (can we allow a 90 year old to use a curse word?) with [expletive].  Come on.  

===

The Texas Supreme Court (the NYT article notes they are all Republicans -- hope Breyer doesn't cry) hold SB8 "ties their hands" and they just have to say that it does not allow lawsuits.  Private civil action alone is authorized. The argument was that in actuality various public officials are involved in one way or another, including health authorities. 

The 5th Cir. Court of Appeals, with the U.S. Supreme Court looking on, sent the matter back to them to settle this issue.  Or, something of that nature -- the article does not talk about this, but it sounds like the issue that was sent back to the state court to decide.  And, another article does cite that.  See also.

It all is bullshit to me -- the courts are being used (not purely private) and it very well changes the actions of multiple public officials, even if it is a creative lie that allows some bullshit claim of non-public involvement.  State officials can have their cake (hands off) and eat it too (this is a great moment for pro-life!). 

The article notes the courts have "failed," but I would say more than that.  I found this law professor as an example of the sort of not showing the right amount of strong reaction given the stakes.  

I realize the whole "wrong person on the Internet" issue, but it can also serve as a platform for a reaction.  My general reason for being upset at this person is that the whole thing seems like an interesting academic problem to him.  And, his blog comments are off even on that level at times.

He once compared it to the NYT v. Sullivan case (major libel case involving civil rights), which bothered me since the two things aren't comparable in a real world sense.  I note the person is an enthusiastic supporter of free speech, at times in ways that to me seem a tad overheated.  So, e.g., it bothers him rather much when a sports stadium wants to stop what is seen as offensive fan reactions.  That riles him up.  This is a sort of word problem.  You don't see the same reaction.  It's offensive. 

The case there was troublesome for the paper (and certain people who signed the ad in question) as the issue was litigated.  This is standard on some level.  But, it is not as if reporting of the civil rights movement stopped.  The threat on the ground to abortion services is much greater here.  Also, the libel suit was nefarious, sure, but in a basic way followed normal legal rules.  This case is upsetting to people in part since the legal system is being altered (the procedural road blocks in fact bother some on principle, aside from the abortion rights issue).  Again, the two are not the same.  It bothered me that he made the comparison. 

Data released in February shows that the Texas law cut the number of abortions in the state by 60 percent. Planned Parenthood clinics in neighboring states have reported an 800 percent increase in women seeking abortions. But that avenue, too, is likely to close soon.

For instance, Oklahoma (a bordering state) passed a six week ban. Missouri, as we have seen, is thinking about addressing out of state abortions too.  The best bet might be New Mexico and (rather ironically) perhaps Mexico, since its Supreme Court recently protected abortion rights.  The travel to other states underlines the national effects of such laws and why we should have one, equal, national right to choose.

And, we will soon have a ruling by the Supreme Court, a ruling that will be fucking illegitimate on a basic level.  The Supreme Court, however, with their sixth corrupt vote, decided to rush things along by letting Texas nullify constitutional rights.  It could not just hold things up, knowing they had the votes to do so in June, but do this.  It was patently corrupt. 

The courts alone did not fail us.  The Biden Administration did try, suing Texas.  The Supreme Court blocked the lawsuit without deigning to even fucking explain themselves. There wasn't even a fucking dissent -- Sotomayor dissented without opinion, using her spleen elsewhere repeatedly.  Which is great, but the issue of executive power to enforce constitutional rights was a separate issue that warranted comment.  

One legal journalist offered the idea of some sort of federal abortion doctors though I still don't know how it would have gotten around the Hyde Amendment.  No matter how cute, there would have been some sort of federal funds involved.  Letting abortions be performed on federal military bases or something simply is not allowed under the current law generally.  

The Democrats tried to pass a national abortion rights bill. Two didn't go along.  Collins and Murkowski, complaining about the size of a hose while the house is on fire, didn't support even debate.  Not that it would have mattered with the filibuster.  But, it underlined their lack of true concern regarding abortion rights in the face of the flames.

The sixty percent citation above is notable  Abortion, full stop, is not nullified as a right in Texas.  A significant amount of people have abortions very early in the pregnancy.  So early that, depending on the counting, they can get in within six weeks.  It is probably that a more closely enforced (including via lawsuit) law would reduce even that 40% number.  Still, Texas is the second most populous state. Even half of that is significant. 

SB8 is a type of slow burn -- the burning is taking over six months, but flames are apparent all the same.  Not enough was done in response, noting we do have so much more to keep our attention.  

While the Republicans rallying around symbolic end federal vaccine mandate votes (failing 49-50 on party lines the other day before an omnibus spending bill was passed), more and more efforts of involuntary servitude are being made.  

Some efforts are particularly bad.  They show the excited passions and excitement of the moment.  Meanwhile, so many fail to care. 

"In a Post-Roe World, Can States Prevent Women From Seeking Abortions Out-of-State?"

We are at most a three months away from determining what the Supreme Court will do in the major abortion. There is a game in predictions, but at this point, we can also just wait.

The assumption, including by some law professors who are well informed about the specific subject matter, is that it will be a broad attack on abortion rights. This to me is many things, including surprising.  Less so with a sixth vote, yes, and I hoped Ginsburg would live long enough to avoid that. 

Meanwhile, states have already started to push the envelope. Five members of the Supreme Court has provided an opening for them to do so by allowing SB8 to stay in place, even though it is patently in violation of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  Chief Justice Roberts  before the beginning of this term joined the liberals to show there is no actual good reason to do this.  Faux restraint in fact is a threat to judicial and constitutional values.

One proposal, and this is all it is, suggests you can apply SB8 type laws to abortions performed in another state.  The logic of the bill is broader as those who warn about these sort of things note.  "Abortion" here can include use of morning after pills.  In theory, why not birth control?  

Prof. Dorf, a reliable liberal, notes that it is not actually fully clear that such "long arm" attempts are unconstitutional in all cases.  I'm willing to take that as a hypo; of course, there is also the basic reality that law is in flux.  Still, I wonder both on principle grounds (Thomas and maybe Gorsuch) and pragmatic grounds (Roberts and maybe Kavanaugh), you would get (granting the liberals are safe) five votes here.  

Professor Kreimer, however, does to me make a strong argument. I checked out the third article cited, and find his constitutional argument rather convincing.  It sounds like the guy is more open to federalism with local discretion than I would appreciate (shades of Prof. Hills, who does at least leave comments open) though it's somewhat hard to say from one article. 

All the same, the argument is pretty good.  Prof. Dorf quotes from a reply that argues the limits on extraterritorial reach here has various caveats. Again, I won't claim to say I went into the weeds.  It also seems somewhat theoretical.  At the very least, there seems to be a general understanding that what Missouri might do here is rather dubious.  

Prof. Dorf's wariness of taking the Bigelow v. Virginia language too far also does not convince.  (The article also covers the case.)  For instance, the basic issue in U.S. v. Guest is the reach of federal power and it is argued that protecting the right to travel offers a reason for its legitimacy.  

The article again goes into more detail here. It also gives a good twist on the privilege and immunity issue  [both the Art. IV provision (these days seen as a sort state equal protection provision) and the 14A, setting up a clear national right of citizenship].  If Missouri leaves open a Missouri citizen to be specially liable for an abortion in Illinois, basically there would be two classes of citizens in Illinois.  

The hypos Prof. Dorf offers makes me wonder but actualities. It seems unlikely that parents never got into trouble for harming their children while on vacation in another state.  What happens in such scenarios?  

I would think that the vacation state would be the one with criminal jurisdiction. OTOH, if the parent takes the child back, the home state would be concerned about someone in their state now.  Out of state action, like speech in discrimination suits, very well might be relevant.  

We would not likely have a state that does not prosecute murder. The real issue there is likely borderline cases.  Is the act truly murder or involuntary manslaughter or something.  Maybe euthanasia issues would arise.  Again, did this never come up?  I would like to know the specifics. 

Consider Burr and Hamilton.  Let's say a state allows duels and two duelists go there to avoid local murder laws.  Can the foreign state prosecute the duelist?  What if the person killed was a state official? Did this never arise?  I know one or more states did things like deny duelists to practice law or something.  A privilege of state citizenship there could be (I reckon) based again on out of state action.  It is an active state issue. 

My opposition to some absolute rule would arise in part since there seems to be some situations where a state actively regulates people as they travel. Consider a governor who on an out of state junket bribes someone.  Or, a licensed doctor.  Stripping them of their license for an out of state abortion seems okay.  If the abortion is not protected.  

I don't say this with full assurance, but it does not seem outrageous.  OTOH, a more open-ended attempt to penalize someone for out of state conduct is a lot more troubling.  What power do states have over things that occur elsewhere as an open matter?  As the article notes, this simply was not accepted as a general matter, for a variety of reasons.

My one note of concern here might be that there is some power of the federal government over acts internationally.  OTOH, they have express powers to do so, including matters of interstate commerce.  The feds have power over the nation and the world to some degree.  

The Slaughterhouse Cases also references a right of U.S. citizens to have protection abroad.  I assume some might argue individual states should have the power to protect their own citizens in other states.  But, the Constitution already protects them -- states protect their own and must treat travelers equally.  And, the feds protect the people as a whole.   

The Constitution provides very limited interstate reach to state power.  States had some obligation to at least not (wrongly) interfere with the retrieval of fugitive slaves.  This was not left to implication. The same applies now with fugitives generally.  And, even here, there was a strong argument that this was a duty that could not be compelled by force.  A sort of "comity" that the states would follow by "gentlemen agreement."

If even that limited issue had to be spelled out, the power of Missouri to make people liable for large civil suits (and in theory arrested) for abortions in New Mexico seems constitutionally a bit outrageous.  

The hope would be that two members of the Supreme Court conservative wing, on principle or pragmatics, would realize this. I realize some find that as very naive.  Still, these people are not just robots.  There is some nuance. Justice Thomas, for example, accepted California's power to allow intrastate marijuana use.  Yes, abortion is religiously laden though then so is the war on drugs for many people.   

We will see where this all leads.  I think on some level absolute lines tend not to work here.  But, this is not some fine line issue.  It burdens another state from equally allowing certain health care and so on.  

What is the state interest in doing this?  Some general interest to protect life in Missouri is cited in the articles (if you follow the links).  What is the stopping point there? I would think some might think a bit more narrowly, perhaps arguing the "father" of the "child" has a right to defend here.  

Going by Kavanaugh's argument during the Dobbs argument, the Constitution allows local options in this case.  Why should one state reach cross state lines in this fashion and interfere with how the other state chooses?  Again, various problems arise.  At best, quite narrow cases should be allowed here.  This does not seem to be one of them.

But, reasonable results is not guaranteed with the tainted six.  So, we shall see.  I would note that this would also be a logical issue for Republicans in the U.S. Congress to regulate.  At least there, the Congress has some clear interstate reach.  

It's somewhat defensible such as some law that targets someone that wrongly helps someone cross state lines for some wrongful act such as [goes the argument] helping a teen to obtain an abortion without parental involvement. 

====

Supreme Court: They are on a bit of a break with the next conference coming 3/18.  Will see if anything pops up before then. 

After writing this entry, I see there is a bit of news -- the current limited seating and live audio will be continued for March arguments.  Maybe, someone can ask Jackson if she will post her public speeches on the speech page of the website. 

Let's Play Ball

A new collective bargaining agreement was agreed to today, after the negotiation process went OT. We will see if they can still squeeze in 162 games.

Labor negotiation is messy, but the drawn out process was tiresome. Yes, the people who actually play basically come off as having more cred here. Still. And, I don't like multiple changes, including the to me asinine decision to end the shift (next season, I guess).

Well, MLB has to catch up, including (Mets et. al.) making a lot of deals and prepping for the new season. Let's play ball and all that. The universal DH is stupid. And, maybe I'll figure out the whole international draft business eventually.

Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act

"Although no legislation will reverse the pain and fear felt by those victims, their loved ones, and Black communities, this legislation is a necessary step America must take to heal from the racialized violence that has permeated its history," [Senator] Booker said.

We have a federal anti-lynching law (final when President Biden signs it) after over one hundred years of trying. The basic purpose of this law is the "message" it sends. Sen. Rand Paul held up this "good-intentioned but symbolic bill," but ultimately the will of the majority prevailed.

Three Republican members of the House voted against the bill.  They voiced libertarian concerns that some will disdain as covering racism.  We should let local governments handle these crimes.  A "hate" law is really a free speech issue.  It doesn't just cover race, but things like gender identity. And, as Rand Paul worried about, maybe it will be applied too broadly.

I sorta respect that sort of thing.  I looked at the text (it's brief) and basically it appears to be about (1) the name (2) increasing the punishment of the applied offenses from ten years to thirty.  The name  is "lynching," but the text goes to an existing law that talks about a certain degree of bodily injury.  It is not specifically about "lynching" per se. 

One discussion notes that the bill is broader than another version.  Again, from what I can tell, it piggybacks on the existing federal hate crime law.  The issue, and this is far from trivial obviously, is the MESSAGE.  

After so long, with an infamous history of the federal government blocking a means to address local racist violence (a badge and incident of slavery as well as often done with government involvement or at least negligence), a federal anti-lynching bill has been passed.  The increased penalty sends a message as well.  This is a BFD and we really care about it.

The message aside, people can reasonably be wary though one might not trust the good faith of these three.  Today, what is the need of another federal law like this?  It is after all not just a resolution; it changes the criminal law.  When will a locality not punish in a case today?  And, given the possibility that would occur, when does the federal hate crime not apply?  Finding a federal hook (when such a federal prosecution is warranted) would not be hard in nearly any actual case.  

You will likely have double dipping in major cases too.  State and federal prosecution is not "double jeopardy" as a constitutional matter.  At least as currently understood.  It still is somewhat concerning.  There is something to be said with making existing hate crime comprehensive (such as applies it to GLBTQ).  This isn't even that. 

What is the need for something that can be up to thirty years of prison?  Existing law, especially with people liable to be guilty of multiple counts, have ways to sentence people to rot in prison for a long, long time.  The asshole (Paul) has a point there are better ways to address the problems of racism.  Including things like addressing immunity.  

Granting that, I think it is okay to vote for this sort of thing, even if you otherwise would on principle find extending federal law/punishment a problematic matter.  Sometimes, messages matter, or at least, are reasonable uses of governmental power.  

And, I doubt this will make things worse on a criminal justice level.  The gratuitous nature of the additional penalty goes both ways in that respect.   I do wish they would have left out that thirty year bit.  Thirty years is just too long.  It isn't mandatory or anything, but it is just too long.  The enrolled text also doesn't have the "whereas" history stuff I would expect either.  

If this is a message bill, we need to use it to inform people of that history.  And, very well, there are substantive reforms that should be passed besides this.  This is an easy message thing.  Well, it taking this long to pass suggests it is not TOTALLY easy, but okay.  There is harder things, including police reforms, even if (like the postal bill that passed) the result is more watered down than many people would like.

So, celebrate and continue fighting. 

East Side Sushi

There are so many channels these days and I rarely find much that I really want to watch on them. At times, as seen by Split Second, there are some good finds. This was one of them, about a Mexican single mom who wants more out of life. She finds her bliss as a sushi chef.

The film has what you want for in a nice independent type of movie of this genre. There is enough "food porn," but also a good sense of character. I felt the lead was quite good, in a low key but well done performance. Multiple supporting actors did a good job, especially a supportive chef. And, there is a mix of trope and reality, to avoid spoilers.

Brittany Murphy aimed to be a ramen chef in The Ramen Girl, but that left something to be desired. Unpleasant lead. Meanwhile, King of the Hill revival coming. Basically tragic if you had Bobby (blah) but Luanne gone. Still, will see how her daughter is doing.

SCOTUS Watch: Order/Opinion Monday

Somewhat busy day at the Supreme Court though nothing much really happened.

Order List: Amy Howe's Order List summary suggests numerous decisions of note were made even if there was no grants or notable orders other than rejecting some things involved.  And, she doesn't even include them rejecting a COVID vaccine mandate rule out of New York that Sotomayor rejected, the litigants tried again with Gorsuch, who referred it to the Court, which rejected it again. 

Bill Cosby case was rejected.  A death penalty case they repeatedly relisted was denied without comment for whatever reason. Thomas with a statement involving his concerns about the application of an Internet immunity law in a way he deems too broad (see also, The Cult of the Constitution).  Thomas might have a point there, especially if Mary Anne Franks is correct.  

Oh. I forgot to mention one other thing that Amy Howe helpfully tossed in.  A law professor requested ("my bad") for more time, saying he made a mistake based on changing COVID filing rules.  The mistake led to his (one) client to run out of time.  They rejected the request without comment. It looks gratuitous since they could have accepted the filing and rejected the case as a whole anyways.  I guess you have to have one set of consistent rules, but you still can grant a reasonable mistake happened. 

SCOTUS Opinion:   The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) has for years now tied various justices in knots.  Prof. Leah Litman of Strict Scrutiny Podcast is one expert on the matter.  The "criminal" won here and did so unanimously.  

The nine did split in various ways with Gorsuch simply concurring in judgment.  His pal Sotomayor joined a chunk of his analysis while still joining Kagan's (her first of the term; Kavanaugh is the one with none now) opinion.   

This is one of those cases where the purpose of the Supreme Court to put out a single clear answer on federal law to provide guidance for others comes into play.  Kagan being a good writer is particularly helpful. 

She also tosses some spleen at concurring judges Barrett and Gorsuch.  Who toss some back.  Kavanaugh pats Gorsuch on the head, but says why he is wrong.  And so it goes.  This is how the colleagues split into factions while trying to retain an overall sense of politeness. 

(And, for sake of completeness, a couple typos were found in the torture case.  Recently, I also found this "activity page" on the website!)

Redistricting Dispute:  In theory, the Supreme Court could now take a bit of a break, the next conference coming next week.  Not so.  In recent memory, the Supreme Court -- even after handing down orders and/or opinions in the morning -- repeatedly had something else up their sleeve.

This time it was two orders regarding disputes over the well litigated issue of redistricting.  A Pennsylvania case was simply rejected, noting a three judge court was handling it.  The expected three (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch) would have intervened in North Carolina. Kavanaugh is game (though the argument is bogus) but not here.  

It's a matter of time for this case to be tossed on the pile with a bunch of other ideological disputes the Barrett Court will decide.  They just don't want to use the "shadow" or whatever you want to call it docket to deal with it.  And, when the matter is finally decided, my money is on five votes (at least) for more federal interference on what state judges can do to decide federal redistricting cases, even under state law.  

===

What next?  We shall see.   One possibility is action in the next ten days or whatever regarding emergency relief sought in a RFRA case involving anti-vaxxer SEALS.  That case already has brought some drama.  Or, it can be something else.

THE QUIET BEFORE: ON THE UNEXPECTED ORIGINS OF RADICAL IDEAS

This is an interesting book about ideas ("This book should be read by anyone interested in thinking" says one blurb) that helpfully is broken down into various easier to consume case studies. The book is not complete -- the first case is in the 17th Century and many are in the last decade or so -- but covers a lot of ground. I also found some chapters more interesting than others.

The first chapter covers a lesser known science minded sort that was particularly interested in longitude.  A key moment was to make sure various people from a range of locations observed the same event to help measure distances.  

Of special value here was not just printing, but a reliable and fairly quick postal system.  A book on Genghis Khan and the Mongols also cited their reliable postal roads.  

These two things allowed for a conversation as did someone who was able to properly engage with a range of people.  This goes to another matter addressed by others -- having certain people who are useful conduits.  

This was also seen in a 20th Century example, where an educated black intellectual used a newspaper in the British Gold Coast to form a community that could develop into an independent black nation.  Likewise, there was the samizdat, or self-publishing, as a means of resistance in Soviet Russia. 

A somewhat different issue was important -- though again having the right leadership mattered -- with the Chartist movement in 19th Century England. This was named after the "People's Charter," or a broad attempt to have the people use the old British right to petition to develop a sort of popular movement.  This would eventually develop into a strong enough interest to pressure the government and was a first step to wide suffrage.

The later chapters emphasized that there is an importance to some means to have a small scale community where ideas can truly develop. Something like Facebook or Twitter alone is too open ended, with protests at best being sudden expressions of dissent.  The problematic example of Egypt is flagged -- a bad leader resigns, but long term change is a lot harder.  

This small scale community of interest to flesh out ideas was present for good (COVID scientists) and bad (racists in 2017).  This is contrasted with a method of bring out discontent (the "futurists" in early 20th Century Italy, the Black Lives Matter protests) that expresses displeasure with the existing times but not necessarily being productive in the long run.

We also get a snapshot of the early days of what might be said to be the pre-Internet in the mid-1980s.  This includes a reminder that it wasn't just some free reign affair.  Shades of message of The Cult of the Constitution.  

One value of the book is that you get various snapshots through the ages and world, which helps inform you about things that many might not know much about.  I didn't really care about the futurists (who came off as assholes), but it was an interesting snapshot all the same.  And, when Mussolini popped, well there was also clear historical importance.  

I started to get more bored with the book in the last few chapters.  This might partially be me or that the situations were more familiar.  All the same, it was an interesting and very readable bit of intellectual history.  So, net success there. 

Split Second

I caught a bit of this on a movies classics channel and found it on DVD. It's a good B-Movie about some people holed up with prison escapees with a nuclear bomb test about to happen. Directed by actor Dick Powell, it has various career character actors.

SCOTUS Watch: Got Some Opinions

Abortion (Procedural): The case that should have dropped first on Thursday was a 8-1 opinion that Justice Breyer clearly dropped a spoiler about in a recent argument though the result was only anyway surprising (maybe) as to the votes.

This was the Kentucky abortion case where changing political control led to changing positions regarding defending an abortion regulation. It also turned on what state law allowed regarding who can defend a law and the specifics of this particular ligation.  Kagan/Breyer concurred separately to say the lower court was wrong to not allow the suit, but would have avoided the constitutional implications of the main opinion. 

The situation here opened up a chance to limit abortion rights, but the overall principle in some other case could have a liberal result.  A person supporting abortion rights might be suspicious, but this sort of thing suggests the wider nature of the litigation.  Sotomayor dissented, concerned about opening up a can of worms, including given the specifics the case that seemed to her to be abusing the process.  

I was wary about this case, thinking the conservatives on the Supreme Court was reaching out to help anti-abortion challenges. It is not like procedural rules have been consistently followed over the years.  But, reading a summary, I'm somewhat reassured.  Again, this sort of thing is not necessarily ideological in application.

[Bit of a glitch on the release of this opinion of Thursday.  This came out since with Twitter, reporters could announce things in live time.  A typo was also eventually corrected. 

Breyer's opinion was released first though release usually goes by reverse seniority.  The press also had access to Alito's opinion as well before it was posted on the website.  The website  followed the ten minute rule that was applied when there were live opinion announcements.]

States Secrets:  The abortion procedural case was written by Alito.  Alito also wrote the second (unanimous) state secrets opinion.  This was released on Friday.  The Supreme Court (without separate opinion) held that the lower court was wrong to think a specific provision of the FISA law (allowing courts to examine secret materials) overrode the state secrets privilege.  This was in relation to a lawsuit against the FBI.  

This is troubling, since the state secrets privilege has been abused, and FISA would seem to be a way to balance secrecy and justice.  But, we are talking about the reach of a statute here, so good policy is not the only issue at hand.  I would myself think the interests of justice warrant interpreting the law here to -- if possible -- provide the exception. I also would support change of the law to so provide.  

Abu Zubaydah isn’t asking for much. Although the U.S. government has never charged him with a crime, it has detained him for two decades on the belief that he is a terrorist. Before transferring Zubaydah to Guantanamo in 2006, the government tortured him at two different “black sites” in Thailand and Poland. Today, Polish prosecutors are investigating whether to bring charges against the perpetrators of these abuses, and they’ve asked Zubaydah to submit evidence. He now seeks depositions and documents that would confirm his inhumane treatment in Poland—information that’s already been disclosed by unofficial sources.

The bigger case involved a lawsuit to obtain information on what is known to be the U.S. government being involved with torture and (to add insult) doing so as a result of mistaken assumption of the evidence the person had.  This sort of thing is going to happen.  

If you want to be generous, you can cite the stakes (9/11 and all that).  But, it happens.  And, when it happens, there should be a way for the U.S. government -- as much as if it was some sheriff who beat a confession out of someone (or tried to do so) -- to admit error and provide some degree of relief for the person.  Repeatedly, this simply was not done in this context.

A fractured Court (led by Breyer) rejected the request here.  Only Roberts fully went along.  Barrett and Kavanaugh had a short concurrence (they joined most of the opinion) that to me seems to underline how limited review of state secrets claims will be.  Thomas and Alito didn't support most of it, thinking he had even a weaker case.  Kagan agreed somewhat but would not have dismissed the case.  

Gorsuch (with Sotomayor) had a strong dissent. Gorsuch's anti-government power side (far from consistent) and outraged tone was appropriate here.  The best you can say about Breyer's opinion is that he was not really the fifth vote.  It did not skip over that "torture" was involved. He might have figured, especially since he did leave Z. a chance to try again and that a lot of the information is already known (but that works both ways!), him writing the opinion would lead to the best result as far as one could.

But, the net result was more of the same -- state secrets, which deserves sarcasm quotes here, was used an excuse to hide and paper over official wrongdoing.  It is -- well ironic is one way to put it -- something that we are told that the U.S. government -- who wrongly tortured someone in more ways than one -- cannot be forced to officially admit something (that is known) since it will interfere with future investigations. 

[To add one thing, one of the articles flagged that the Supreme Court is selective about supporting concerns about international commitments as seen by its blocking President Biden's position in the "remain in Mexico" immigration case. We have legal commitments that block some absolute discretion here and on balance this is a bad call.]  

Boston Bomber: The other case on Friday involved overturning the lower court blocking the death sentence here because certain evidence that could have mitigated guilt was not allowed.  There was also an issue of  pretrial publicity; the dissent did not address this, resting on the other matter.

One notable issue here is that not only did Biden say he was now opposed to the death penalty, but there is currently a moratorium in place (if based on somewhat limited grounds).  The Justice Department could have simply conceded error here (or changed positions and not appealed), the only real justification not to do so being that maybe the lower court opinion would apply not just for death penalty cases.  They shouldn't have continued the case. 

Barrett with Kavanaugh gratuitously concurred to question if a court of appeals had the general oversight power of district courts applied here. The majority [via Thomas] flagged that there was some doubt on the issue, but noted that the government did not challenge it.  So they granted it for sake of argument, but did hold that the court of appeals overreached here.

I have written elsewhere about the problems inherent in a system that allows for the imposition of the death penalty. [Cite omitted] This case provides just one more example of some of those problems.

Breyer wrote the dissent for the liberals.  This is one of those cases where even people upset about the death penalty might be wary about opposing it.  But, the dissent suggests even here, there are troubling aspects.  Kagan and Sotomayor [both, as a correction made clear] didn't go along with this brief reference to Breyer's wider doubts about the death penalty.  It's non-absolute phrasing makes me a bit annoyed the two felt unable to join. 

More Opinions: Monday has been announced as another opinion day.  Maybe, we will get that old (fast tracked) religious minister in the death chamber opinion?  Kagan and Kavanaugh have yet to write though it's possible/somewhat likely one or both could have written a per curiam. 

====

New Justice: Judge Jackson's hearing has been scheduled.  Spring will bring that bit of theater.  This suggests the whole thing should be over pretty quickly, and the senators (now with their 50th member back) can focus on confirming lower court judges.  Do as many as you can by December!  

One quirk here is that she should be (knock on wood) confirmed with months to spare.  Justice Byron White notified Clinton about the same time that he was retiring. But, RBG was not actually nominated until June.  Here, we will have a sort of "justice elect," which seems not to have happened before. (It did happen for a lower court judge.)

===

Conference: The judges did not take the bench to release opinions but did have a conference today.  An Order List will come on Monday.  There is no conference scheduled next week.  The week after does have one.  Then, we will have two weeks of arguments, including as KBJ testifies.  

After the Order List drops, there might be miscellaneous orders dropping in the next two weeks.  And, there is by now basically the general assumption that that from time to time some shadow docket or whatever thing will drop too.  I will yet again say that I wish they at least had audio of opinion announcements.  Other courts have video.  

Some Local Political News

Councilwoman Marjorie Velazquez, seen with Mayor Eric Adams, has angered the Bronx Albanian community by blocking the renaming of a street in Morris Park after Albanian icon Fan Noli.

Not being fully trusting of the NY Post, I dropped an email to my new Councilwoman about this issue. My assemblywoman, who took over the seat of Mark Gjonaj, also tweeted concerned words about the whole thing. Being a Gjonaj supporter, her comment also came off as biased.

Gjonaj submitted the thing at the end of his term.  I think he is Albanian himself and these sort of street naming things (the street is not too far from me) are a common bit of symbolism and honoring people.  Fine enough. Albanians are a major immigrant community in this area, one of somewhat lesser known groups with growing numbers in recent years.

I have voiced my opposition to Gjonaj, including his stepping down from the NY Assembly mid-term to (by coincidence, a more lucrative position) move to the City Council.  He is more conservative than his replacement, grumpily noting that he wasn't going to run for re-election given the more liberal times.  What else did he do near the end of his term?

"Bronx Democrat Mark Gjonaj asked colleagues to delay the bill, saying it could make the city’s elections vulnerable to nefarious foreign threats or people who are “transient.”  

Charming. So while pushing for some street sign naming, he also tried to make it harder for many Albanian immigrants, legal residents if not citizens, to vote in local elections.  I'm sure THEY were not the "transients" and "nefarious foreign threats" he was worried about! 

[See also: "New York Republicans Urge Support for Ukraine Refugees, After Taking Immigration Hard Line Alongside Trump."]

Anyway, the email (basically as her statement cited in the article notes) let me know that there is nothing nefarious going on.  There is no "blocking" go on.  The process takes time and anyway it would make more sense to do it in the spring, where the warmer weather (though these days, any given day might be nice) are better for public events.  

One thing I noted in the email is that these street signs are a tad obscure. I wish there was a plaque or something on the corners.  Also, is there is a website where someone can search names and get bios? The councilwoman's aide said she did not know, but will get back to me.

Meanwhile, she is also put out as a possible replacement for Senator Biaggi, my state senator, who cannot run for re-election because state rules do not allow her to do so.  Why?  She plans to run for a new congressional district (bordering mine; I still have AOC, barely) and state law doesn't allow her to run for both the state and federal races.  

Biaggi is a bright enthusiastic progressive (she is in her 30s) and I'll miss her.  I misread an article and thought it said she couldn't stay in office while  running.  But, a request for information let me know she will stay in office to the end of her term in December.  I appreciate the reply to that email too.

I do not pay enough attention to local politics, but strong progressive voices (who at times tweet news) helps.  Local elections were last year, but will have some notable state races, including probably more than one decent option to replace Biaggi.  Primary only a few months away.

Women's Health Protection Act Blocked ... SOTU

Folks, advancing liberty and justice also requires protecting the rights of women. The constitutional right affirmed by Roe v. Wade, standing precedent for half a century, is under attack as never before. If you want to go forward not backwards, we must protect access to healthcare — (applause); preserve a woman’s right to choose — (applause); and continue to advance maternal healthcare for all Americans. (Applause.)

It's March 2022. So, we have President Biden's first true State of the Union, which is referenced in the Constitution. You know, the duty to from time to time provide information of the state of the Union.  Biden was only a child back then.  They didn't reference him personally.

The "constitutional right" affirmed by Roe v. Wade is the right to privacy.  In particular, it involves the right to choose an abortion. Not that Biden actually wants to use that word.  See, for instance, a statement in reply to a failure to advance the Women's Health Protection Act.  

(The failure to say "abortion" is bothersome.  It is duly noted that at issue is a lot more than abortion. Abortion is part of a wider concern, including rights and health care.  But, abortion specifically is at risk now. Say the word.)  

It was flagged that the vote was not even a majority.  The bill has the support of forty-eight Democratic senators, one of whom is still out after a health issue, another who didn't vote here. But, it is notable that this was a procedural vote.  People voted against even letting them move things to the next stage.  And, like Jen Psaki said, we are basically talking about Senate Republicans.  Manchin wast the lone Democrat (guess Casey did not vote).

Two Democrats are against abortion rights (Bob Casey and Joe Manchin; here Sinema is on the right side).  And, the two (though at times you hear of a third) putative pro-choice Republicans found a reason to vote against it.  A few senators didn't vote, so the final vote here was 46-48.  To yet again even block debate.  Which is ridiculous.

The pro-choice Republican duo (who voted for the three Trumpies, if not voting once in each case) offers an alternative.  They argue this one goes too far.  50 votes (at most) still is not enough.  The vote was clearly a message vote and their message was to find a way to vote against abortion rights.  Not having sixty votes, it is not like "it's better than nothing" (surely is) is so much better here.  If they brought eight more, come back to me.

And, with the Barrett Court, a law that merely reaffirms Planned Parenthood v. Casey's undue burden test is dubious.  It means a lot less with this Court than it did even when Roberts was the fifth vote.  This means the Women's Protection Act going "beyond" it is especially not some damning thing. 

What "conscience" problem did the Women's Health Act risk?  That's another thing people like Collins flag.  The actual threat with RFRA in place, as seen in Hobby Lobby, is to people who want abortion rights.  Or, even birth control.  

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m not — I’m not going to make a — I’m not going to make a judgement for other people.

President Biden considers himself a Catholic and received ashes for Ash Wednesday.  This also leads to some, including at press briefings, certain people to challenge his bona fides on abortion.  But, he -- like many who self-represent as Catholic -- thinks being pro-choice honors religious freedom.  Is religious conscience actually a one-way ratchet? 

March is Women's History Month (thus, black women get 59 days) as well being six months in for SB8.  Hope for abortion rights via the Congress with this Senate is dubious.  A serious attempt would at least be to allow this thing to go to debate, where concerns about reach can be debated. 

And, then the final path will be blocked by filibuster or Collins/Murkowski will find some other thing to fault it with.  But, I guess the Dobbs ruling coming down is the logical next guidepost.  Will it have enough fig leaf to it to allow the pro-choice Republican twins to be satisfied?

===

As to the State of the Union overall, I listened to it.  It seemed pretty  good, if nothing too special.  A few nice moments, including some cute boy and Breyer looking goofy and embarrassed when President Biden singled him out for praise (including noting his military service).  

Ukraine dominated the top.  The usual wish list stuff is nothing surprising, including some attempt to promote a common ground, and to pat on the back various successes including the infrastructure law. Some were annoyed he didn't bash the Republicans some more, but that his both not his m.o. and his view of what a national SOTU is meant to do. 

Anyway, I saw some poll that said the public at large liked it. I am not generally a big fan of speeches. This one wasn't special.  Overall, however, it reaffirms my faith and judgment about Biden being an intelligent and honorable person. Like Obama, somewhat less at times Clinton, I am proud to have voted for the guy.  At least, unless you are a strong partisan the other way, it's hard to see how you can't at least respect him.

Poll data and so forth suggest that is a bit of a dream.  Oh well. 

SCOTUS Order List / Other Legal Stuff

Books: I reviewed The Cult of the Constitution here and might say more on another book review site later on. My views basically held after re-reading it. 

===

I'm reading Taking Down Backpage, which covers one aspect of her views about the need to limit excesses on the Internet.  It is good so far -- she is a good writer -- though there are dissenters on attacking Backpage. 

John Oliver's segment on sex work last night argued it helped fight trafficking (she notes it did only so much, basically a sort of minimum "cost of doing business" sort of thing) and that it just transferred trafficking to less reachable overseas places (which it was doing already before the prosecutions began). 

She upfront says going after sex trafficking is not the same thing as sex work generally.  As to the idea it was merely "was simply a conduit for third-party" advertisers, she provides evidence this is bullshit.  Her general work against those who profit from abusive sex work does not appear to be some sort of simplistic prosecution approach. 

Plus, there are real victims (often minors) here, even if (like I) you think sex work should be legal for consenting adults.  The book (now that I finished it) also ends with a good chapter discussing the needs of victims in sex work, including supporting structural improvements and so forth.  She notes that California opposes prosecuting minors for sex work.  

The John Oliver piece was good, but the one prosecutor voice we get is someone who says prosecutions are the only way for victims of sex work to get help.  The book is not of that mentality; it does argue there are abuses that are appropriate targets.  She notes things like sexual trafficking should be the concern there, not simple streetwalking type of things.  

She also is concerned with labels, including not victimizing people. Backpage was eventually taken down because of financial wrongdoing. She gives one side, but it also sounds like the people behind it also could have been convicted of other things, not just being a "platform." 

Like Franks' book, we see here that there is a dark side here, even for those with libertarian views. I think there is a right to intimate association, even if obtained financially.  There are reasonable regulations.  And, the concern for people pressured into the business because of lack of alternatives should note the same is true for other choices (consider the military).  We should address structural concerns there.  And, deal with abuses and victims.  

The book is recommended as both a well written book on the work of a prosecutor as well as one that sees the wider picture. 

===

Order List:  Various of the usual procedural orders, which a quick look at Legal Twitter did not flag as notable.  Notable grants addressing various issues related to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. Recall that the Secretary of the Interior is a Native American.  More eating the marshmallows now?

Four conservatives flagged what they saw as a very concerning ministerial exemption case, but agreed as a procedural matter it is not a good case to grant.  They notably had the votes to do so.  Their summary, which I don't grant as telling the whole story, suggests an academic dispute with religious connotations. 

Sotomayor (by herself) would have summarily granted a criminal matter, which various lawyers on Twitter thought was a patently clear injustice. As one noted, her doing it alone suggests perhaps some procedural issue, including perhaps a concern about merely doing "error correction."

===

Orals: Big EPA case argued today.   From what I can tell, the exact result is unclear, but likely some poison pills will result (including maybe clearly establishing the "major questions doctrine") with implications down the road.  

A strong dissent (at least in part) from the liberals also likely -- they were especially dominant when the challengers were up.  The conservatives seemed mostly to want some help writing their anti-regulatory opinion. 

Ukraine Invaded By Russia ("Special Military Operation")

I really don't have anything profound to say about Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It is horrible and I am glad that even trollish leaders like the Hungarian fascist have found a reason to oppose Putin here. The future is unclear but dark.

The whole thing in a fashion was like the Supreme Court nomination since it was a slow walk to the inevitable as people kept on asking what President Biden will/could do to address Russian troops collecting outside of Ukraine. You know, for totally legitimate reasons, like stopping Nazis in a country led by a Jew with family members who were victims of the Holocaust. Some articles here.

I recall watching the attempt to overthrow Gorbachev around thirty years ago. Now, we get to see and discuss things minute to minute on Twitter. One can debate how far we truly have gone. I will just put it out there, something that should be brought up over and over again -- the leader of Ukraine is the same guy Trump was impeached trying to blackmail. Republicans just enabled him while saying (at times) how naughty he was.

SCOTUS Update: Judge/Justice Jackson Edition

I am not the only one interested in minutia and cute little things.

Breyer was front and center in some stuff this week, all in some fashion not too remarkable.  First, eagle eared (mixing metaphor sorta works here) listeners of oral argument caught what sounded like a spoiler.  A comment on what "just" was decided actually sounded like a case that was not.  

As I said, if he actually sent a message that "another blow to abortion rights advocates by siding with a Kentucky GOP official trying to defend the state’s abortion restrictions," it is far from a surprise.  That was the expected result.  

The question would be why a case argued in early October has yet to be decided.  Then, again, only eleven opinions (not counting notable "shadow docket" material) were handed down, with multiple per curiams meaning multiple judges have yet to author an opinion.  Yes, I still don't want to call the Trump trio "justices" since I think their confirmations were corrupt.  

[The shortage of opinions will be handled to some degree with two opinion days now announced for next week, Thursday and Friday.  Does this mean one opinion a day?  We shall see.]

Breyer's comment implied it was recently decided in some fashion, but the actual opinion (Amy Howe in the SCOTUSBlog live tweet joked [?] maybe it was a troll) handed down on Thursday was a copyright opinion.  Bird watchers might appreciate Breyer's short opinion for six, but the SCOTUSBlog summary underlines how minimalist the whole thing is.

[The summary: "In Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP, the court ruled 6-3 that lack of either factual or legal knowledge can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration under the safe-harbor provision in 17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(1)(A)."  Many cases are technical with limited scope.  This one appears particularly unimportant.]

The High Federalists -- Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, the last not joining part of the short dissent -- didn't go along for procedural reasons. They argued the argument offered was a johnny come lately one and would have disposed of the case.  The majority argued it was close enough.  Suffice to say Alito particularly has not been consistently concerned about form. 

Breyer is also notably involved in the third bit of news -- Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson (Biden did promise to decide by the end of the month; weekend announcements dubious, it was either today or Monday) was announced as the president's choice for his replacement.  

Eagle eyed observers noted her D.C. Circuit handed two opinions down yesterday, which is not the normal date.  A similar thing was done before Kavanaugh was nominated.  This is just form -- her being nominated was expected.  There was also a back-up, if necessary.  The drawn out affair is somewhat tiresome (and we just have started).  I'm aware of how these things go -- the system has a lot of theater and covering bases.

President Biden's big supporter being on Judge Michelle Childs side as well as various details about her record (plus and minus) put her out there. She's still up for D.C. Court of Appeals.  [Jackson being confirmed will give Biden another vacancy in a key COA to fill. Democrats need to continue to confirm -- there are multiple people in the queue.]

Likewise, Sen. Lindsey "Drama Queen" Graham latched on to her as the "compromise" choice.  And, after the news came out, he trolled some about how Jackson (who he voted for already, knowing she was on the short list) is the "left" ... blah blah.  He's a troll and unlike the likes of Tuberville, you can't even convincingly say he can't help it.  Years more of this asshole.

Judge Jackson is a great choice for a variety of practical and substantive reasons.  Her criminal justice (public defender etc.) record is a plus alone.  She had the usual top law school background, but you can't have everything, I guess.  Jackson was born in D.C., but grew up in Miami. So, that is at least not yet another tristate/D.C. area connection.  The link above also shows (a lawyer I know on Twitter also flagged this) she has procedural chops.  Breyer should appreciate that sort of thing.

The Eeyore view here is that we still have a 6-3 Supreme Court and (like with Breyer himself) the next nominee might be long coming.  Handwaving the first black woman to the Supreme Court, one who has multiple great things going for her, is a bit too much.  Change happens in a variety of ways.  This matters and damn let's be happy with it.

I don't deny AT ALL the problem. One reason I thought Breyer should retire was that a judicial nominee of this scope would bring an opening to talk about wider issues.  A black woman being nominated does just that in a basic way.  The specific issue I had in mind, of course, was the nature of the Supreme Court, and the courts more widely.  We should not let the (appropriate) celebration of the first black woman nominee to erase this.

The Biden Presidential Supreme Court Commission -- which basically has entered the memory hole (aided and abetted by many strong critics of the courts, who badmouthed it as useless or even counterproductive) -- again comes to mind here.  A leading black woman civil rights figure, who some felt would have been a very good choice here, was on the commission.  As was the recently deceased (and much beloved) Walter Dellinger.  

The "6-3" also comes to mind. Yes.  I am not simply resigned to granting that as the state of affairs as I was when Justice (sic) Clarence Thomas was confirmed or something.  I am still fucking angry at it.  Each Trump nominee has a problem. Each confirmation is corrupt in its own way.  

This corrupt process is already bringing first bitter fruit (for some), fruit that aided and abetted the people behind the nominations and confirmations.  Don't go and on about Trump and 1/6, and so on, without speaking about the sorts of things that helped him gain and retain power.  

And, this includes rejecting even limited refusal to normalize (no matter how much you strongly disagree ... you are normalizing them Eric Segall) enablers.  People praised his support of dissent there.  Like it's easy to talk the talk there.  It's like supporting cute babies.  But, it was not merely not being open to dissent for someone cited to draw a line at national Federalist Society events.  Can't say he isn't engaging at all.

"It won't matter" is also bullshit.  His fellow bloggers don't consume animal products.  That won't stop animal abuse.  It is a line drawn.  And, just joining with the other side, being their designated cute grumpy dissenter, helps them.  It legitimizes them.  He even has noted he was his law school's Federalist Society advisor at some point since no one else was available (I'm not sure of the exact details.)  It's for the students! They need to be part of the future Thomas feeder program or something.  

A Justice Jackson is likely to be on the Supreme Court for at least twenty years, going by recent trends.  So, we have to look down the road here.  Her vote and voice will matter and will matter more in the future.  And, the long haul also means promoting causes which will not win out at the moment.  To add to the conversation and move the needle somehow.  I'm talking court expansion here, but not alone.  

I still question the idea she should have been nominated over Garland in 2016.  I agree with others that she is a very good option now.  She has been vetted, repeatedly confirmed, and on the merits is a great choice.  

There are a ton of bits about her including being related by marriage to Paul Ryan and replacing Garland on the D.C. Circuit.  She even did improv in college and at one point worked with Matt Damon ... who later portrayed Kavanaugh on SNL.  This sort of trivia is what I have always live for.  I was the kid who knew it was not just 2.5, but 2.54 centimeters per inch.

Anyways, the formal announcement was made, and good luck. 

ETA: Americans United for Separation of Church and State has issued a statement supporting her nomination.  I take that her talking about faith during her remarks at yesterday's announcement (people noticed it though it wasn't that heavy) was not a turn off for them.   

But, in part given her role mostly as a district judge and a career more focused on criminal matters, her views on such questions are somewhat unclear.  There are limits of clarity here even in this much more ideologically secure age of judicial nominations.  (Even compared to the 1990s.) 

OTOH, Kagan had a limited writing trail, and she has brought few surprises.  Kagan did have certain specific leanings, including a stronger respect for precedent (see her joining a three person dissent in the unanimous jury case).  Even Hallmark movies have a few surprises. 

We can suppose she would generally put forth a liberal view, but even the liberal/moderate wing of the Supreme Court has had shades there.  Is she more Sotomayor or Kagan/Breyer on this question?  

To jump ahead, the betting line is at least a 52-48 confirmation, KBJ receiving three Republicans for court of appeals. Many more Republicans voted for her much less important sentencing and district judge positions. 

Them not voting now (less so Graham) isn't much of a "gotcha."  Maybe, more will vote for her?  The betting line also is that Republicans will make a bit of noise (they already are), but will not do too much to delay things.  Who she is overall is not a surprise; she has been confirmed three times already, including the last time when her SCOTUS nomination was pretty likely.  Yes, we have Kavanaugh-like surprises out there.

One more thing ... as I said yesterday, Jackson's nomination is something to celebrate. Even Elie Mystal, whose grumpiness and pessimism is sorta his thing, was happy yesterday.  Skimming Twitter -- a special occasion, I broke my new rule to keep off Twitter totally on weekends -- you can see the simple joy, especially among black legal women. 

Mystal also wrote a good commentary about not taking fair shots at black people who played by the rules (here going to elite institutions).  I thought the same regarding some of the criticism of Judge Childs' legal work.  Ditto someone like Kirsten Gillibrand having some corporate work of a dubious nature earlier in her career.  The issue that had some bite to me about Childs is when someone looked at how she decided certain criminal matters while a judge.  There she had more discretion.  

One more bit of trivia -- though Marshall and Thomas were once married to black women, tossing in KBJ, each black justice would also have been in interracial marriages.  Thurgood Marshall's second wife was Asian. And, KBJ's husband (this is hinted by her connection via him to Paul Ryan) is white.  Obama's mother was white and Kamala Harris has a white hubby. 

[KBJ's husband is a physician, not a career political operative like Ginny Thomas.  She has two children, both around college age.]

The Baháʼí Faith encourages such diversity in marriages. I am not sure if there is some point to it all, but it seems rather statistically notable that so many "firsts" on a national level are in biracial relationships. 

===

An order dropped today too.  "The joint motion of the parties and the Solicitor General for leave to file a revised redacted joint appendix for the public record is granted."

This involves a case argued next week.  So, it sort of explains why it was dropped now, instead of being part of the Monday Order List.  Why certain things like this are flagged on the Orders Page while various other happenings are not is not totally clear to me. 

An argument recap in the Native American dual sovereignty double jeopardy case also was helpful to me.  I was confused listening to the oral argument, in part because the case  might turn on limited grounds.  It has already been decided in the 1970s that tribes are separate sovereigns for double jeopardy purposes.  

The Supreme Court upheld the dual sovereignty concept in general there not that long ago. But, the specific types of tribal courts here arguably are too connected to the federal government.  It's not an all/nothing thing there.  Gorsuch is also a joker, since he is a tribal rights guy and was a dissenter in the dual sovereignty case.

Captain Ron

I watched the first half of this last night and then there was some glitch in the DVD. The second half has some sort of adventure plot, including a chance for the mild mannered father (somewhat curiously played by Martin Short with Kurt Russell playing the captain as a sort of stoner version of his Escape From New York character) to shine.

I like this "Does Captain Ron Deserve Cult Status" analysis. Various reviews pan the film. And, it has various signs of a tired enterprise. But, it also has some interesting touches. Kurt Russell actually is a good fit. The others (Mary Kay Place continues until today to find work; the kids include the future son on The Nanny and the lesser known sister of a familiar actor) do a pretty good job too. Looks the part too, including the old boat and Caribbean locale.

As the analysis shows, the movie has signs of a more explicit and deeper film. There are various amusing bits, including the mom being upset someone rudely put food on the kitchen table. The solid stuffy dad's fantasy has a bit of bite too. The movie can be panned as average fare that doesn't live up to its potential. Still, any "BOMB" sort of rating is unfair.

SCOTUS Watch: Order Day

TwosDay: The most important thing about today might be that it is an "ubiquitous palindrome date." 2/2/22. It is also President's Day, but that was observed yesterday.

Order Day: Various orders with two grants and Sotomayor finding another criminal justice matter to be concerned about. Her solo statement this time concerns the problem of sex offenders in New York needing to stay imprisoned longer when they are unable to find housing the right distance away from a school.

The most notable grant concerns a web designer not wanting to follow public accommodation rules. I'm sorry; "whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” 

Sounds like a rhetorical question presented. This thread suggests the possible reach, suggesting at one point that the assumption SCOTUS will say "no" is not guaranteed.  I find that somewhat dubious.  Justice Breyer early in a recent interview might not want to admit that his Court has as much of a "mission" by now as the Warren Court, but the trend is apparent.

There are also a few oral arguments this week.  Tomorrow's case is about states defending policies when the feds (aka the Biden Administration) stops.  Like the case taken today (looking at the docket page), as flagged by Strict Scrutiny Podcast, it looks like the Court is reaching to decide.

Today was a pair of Native American cases, one a double jeopardy matter.  The other involved gambling and the High School SCOTUS write-up flags its potential economic effects.  That website does an impressive job, including with some more technical cases which the average reader might not be much interested in.  

[ETA: The "bingo" case went on rather long and had some amusing aspects. I wonder if they just liked to have an non-ideological oral argument. As the "view from the Court" analysis notes, by the way, Sotomayor is back. She's double masked, but now no one else is. Maskgate? What's that?]

Meanwhile ... the Colombia Constitutional Court (5-4) broadly protects abortion rights.  

Mala's Cat

An analysis on why the Holocaust graphic novel Maus (Mouse) has been such a target argues that many want a "friendly" account. Seems logical on some level. [I don't remember it much, but did read Maus eventually.]

As I noted in a comment, the diary of Anne Frank is largely a Young Adult novel plot. Imagine a graphic novel that involves her final months, including each one of the family (except for Otto Frank) dying in the camps. I saw one account fairly recently that said that Peter (or whatever his real name is) died (at least officially) about when the camp he was in was liberated.  Or, brings up Otto Frank trying to get permission to emigrate to America, but stopped by its immigration policy.

There are now various accounts that tell a more complete story, including how Otto Frank edited the diary to remove some more negative or explicit material (nothing too bad).  There was also the overall knowledge of what happened.  Plus, the usual diary volume had an introduction that provided various details.  Still, many just read the diary (or parts of it) or watched the movie (or maybe saw a play version).  Again, nothing too dark.

Maus has some vulgarities that people can point to ("inappropriate for eighth graders" or something), but the basic "issue" might be book provides a messy version of things.  At least, it's a reasonable hypothesis (if maybe not the whole story), and you can read the blog post to see how the person makes the case.

Mala's Cat (originally published in the 1990s as Alone in the Forest) is an autobiography, but deals with the dark side.  The antisemitism starts before the Germans come, including the Mala being smacked so hard by a teacher once that she was knocked unconscious.  She later has to beg for food and sees her brother murdered by her side.  Surviving at times means lying, including to an old lady who thinks she is a relative. 

The title (and cover) might suggest it is a cute book about a teen and her cat.  The teen protagonist sees the cat as a sort of guardian angel (who interestingly happened to disappear when she was engaged to be married after the war ... making one wonder if the cat was symbolic, though she says otherwise ... how the cat was able to stick with her while she traveled all over is curious).

The book starts before the war and quickly enough (in the first 100 pages) her immediate family is rounded up when she is away.  And, she is on her own, though she does come back to her home village (by then a ghetto) for short time.  We get  a mix of stuff within those pages, from her happy childhood, economic struggles in the mid-1930s, and then antisemitism and the problems war brought.  

Given my current issues with books, I really had not big desire to read the last two hundred pages.  The book is well written (a lot of detail and so forth) though it feels a bit stiff at times.  We aren't talking a professional author after all.  I wonder how many others didn't feel a need to read three hundred pages of it. 

Already (at around 15) used to begging and surviving on her own (including taking the place of her older sister when called up for work), she learns how to live by her wits.  Readers will often be impressed by her ability to survive.  She eventually pretends to be a Christian and obtain work as a maid until the war ends.  

There are various people who survived the war "on the run" basically like Mala did.  She is not exactly a typical person, but neither was Anne Frank with her years in an "attic" in hiding.  I think many should like this book and it includes some of the horrors of war.  We know ultimately that Otto Frank was the lone survivor.  But, he is not the narrator of the story.

 ===

ETA: I skimmed the rest of the book.  After avoiding being arrested as a Jew more than once, Mala finds another Jewish girl [how exactly she "looked" Jewish isn't clear].  

The girl said she was going to be pretend to be from a destroyed Polish town -- a punishment for resisting the Germans -- thus her records were destroyed.  Mala already found a Christian girl whose name she took as her own.  Given identification documents, Mala then was sent with other Polish girls to Germany, and obtained work. She staid there until the Allies took over.

On the way there, some mean girl from her home area recognized her, and threatened to expose Mala as a Jew if she did not give up her coat. She talked so loudly, a guard noticed.  But, Mala called her a crazy person, sticking by her story [and pretending not to understand German] even when taken into custody.  It is suggested that instead the other girl was arrested or worse [Mala heard "torturing" with dogs and so forth while being questioned].

Mala had various moments in Germany too, in part since she continued to be reckless (taking the "P" off to more free wander around etc.).  She once even wrote to some family, implying she was their imprisoned mother/wife, to show her fellow workers that she had family herself back in Poland.  

Again, it is hard to believe her cat managed somehow to stick around for years as she traveled to Germany and so on.  But, the amount of trickery and so on Mala herself managed is rather amazing too. 

Attack of the Puppet People

The title is a misnomer in this Svengoolie entry since not only are the "people" here supposed to be dolls, they do not really "attack" except to a degree to free themselves. (Well, at least the two are supposed to care about.) I switched it off after the silliness of the office assistant going to the police (basically on her say-so) that um her boss changed people into dolls. The police officer just goes over and well the guy denies it. 

(Turns out he has a bunch of dolls that look like the boyfriend and destroys one of them to show they are just dolls.  Knowing his secret, and wanting to leave, it's time for the woman to join the rest of the dolls. The officer does investigate further later on.)

I reserved it in the library and will see if the DVD is the one with a commentary track. [It does not.] The film has some charms before that bit of silliness that (unsurprisingly) leads to another victim. The evil doll maker (already looking old, though in his 50s, he later was on the sitcom Gimme a Break!) was very good. John Agar does his usual stolid hero role.

June Kenney, who had a much shorter career, makes a good heroine. The two ironically see another sci fi specialty effects film involving a man shot up to a gigantic size. Overall, the first half provides some creepiness and character while I suppose (from reading about it) the second half has some fun even if some plot issues.  If I see more, I'll add to this a bit. [I did]

From my uneducated eye, the 1950s reduction special effects look pretty good.  How a puppeteer/puppet maker figures the science of reduction is unclear, but hey, it's all so simple.  

The main character is good though the others are a rather boring bunch if okay. His somewhat troublesome old friend comes off the best.  The salesman hero is pretty boring; the woman has potential but mostly has little to work with.  There are some creepy touches and a bit when a girl sees the shrunken cat is handled well.  

The movie is about eighty minutes long and I think it could have been about ten minutes shorter.  One person who works at the theater later was on Green Acres.  Also, what happened to the old postman? Was he too boring or troublesome to be a live friend?  

There is a good bit where the puppeteer forces the woman to be part of a sort of puppet show.  A believable bit of trickery for the two to disappear is imagined, but then basically the movie disappoints.  The movie thus far was pretty good story-wise, minus the police bit.  It sorta gives up now. 

How do they manage to even get outside of the theater?  Then, our two heroes need to go a mile outside back to the factor. It's early in the morning but no one sees them?  They would be about ten inches tall.  That part is weak and other than seeing a few animals (cat, dog, mouse), nothing much is shown.  

And, sudden our heroes are full sized.  We don't know how they got that way (it skips from them being outside the office to them full sized and walking out).  The movie then ends with the dollmaker crying about being left alone. 

We last heard about the others at the theater, when the dollmaker heard them cry out for help.  There is no sign he found them, him winding up alone at the office.  One guesses they will be found.

The whole thing is a sorta partial credit thing.  

The Sure Thing might not get as much kudos at John Cusack's Say Anything,  but both are clearly his best teenage comedies (here with a special focus on the love story).  I recall, though I would have only been around 14 at the time (I'm still a bit of a review junkie), Roger Ebert reviewing it on his show, the credit card bit in the rain the clip that comes to mind.  He enjoyed standard fare when feeling it was done honestly and with skill. 

I saw it again with the director Rob Reiner's interesting (and telling, such as his assumptions about boys being less mature about girls; suggests why his films have certain stereotypes) commentary.  It is also notable to recall the film was released in the mid-1980s, in the midst of less classy teen films of this nature.  The college freshman here had sex multiple times in high school, but you know, was deep down looking for something more.  

The core of the film is John Cusack and Daphne Zuniga (amusing when she comments once she dreamed as a little girl of being a princess and later she played one in the Mel Brooks Star Wars spoof) going cross country ala It Happened One Night.  But, like a third of the movie happens before then, and we see the two (if John Cusack clearly the bigger focus) at college.  

A chunk of the film is thus something of a character profile as compared to a comedy.*  And, it also has various actors who people probably recognize from later roles from Tim Robbins (show tune loving carpool driver), the guy who played "Mr. Heckles" on Friends, and Anthony Edwards as Cusack's pal.  Nicolle Sheridan plays the "Sure Thing," who turns out to look the part, but seem like a nice girl not quite sure about what is going on. 

[Nicolle Sheridan later had her most success on television. She had one of the more atypical Hallmark Channel lead performances in Honeymoon for One, in her late 40s.  These days some older actor [including guys] like that would be more likely to pop up in a supporting role.]

It's a charming movie though I felt the first part of the movie went too long (not that it was badly done).  Also, John Cusack plays decent guys in his 1980s movies, but there was also a tiresome goofball quality to him too.  Here, it was complicated by someone who appeared to basically realize that it was time to grow up (and he was only 17/18, so had time). 

Still, it was a bit tiresome.  One wished for more of these films to be through the point of view of the Alison character.  Daphne Zuniga herself is still acting, only having a few big roles in films, but making a go at least for now forty years all the same.   

[Looking, she is actually over 3 1/2 years older the Cusack and she does look somewhat more mature than the baby faced Cusack.  He looks notably older in Say Anything.  Cusack was only around eighteen when this film was released.  

I added this comment along with the third review.  The DVD also has a "trivia" track, providing Pop Up Video style trivia throughout.  Neat  idea.]

---

* The "oh my dad said to only use it in case of emergency" moment was a very funny moment.  As was Cusack pretending to be a nut when a driver went to sexually attack Alison [hitchhiking is okay, you know, but best to do it together!].  

The scene with Cusack going to a bar to fuel his sorrows about Alison talking to her boyfriend and meeting up with some lovable loser types was one of the more tiresome moments where it was time to shift to the commentary track. 

==

Uncorked was also on again.  

I talked about it before, and the same basic thoughts basically hold.  The widower at one point makes a comment about God and faith.  Shows how a film can be Up TV friendly without being heavy-handed.  

Interesting to read the IMDB reviews. Some appreciated it as somewhat different Hallmark fare; others didn't like it much.  I had a profile there and like 100 reviews, but it was attached to a defunct email.  Checking, someone told me the old account therefore could not be reestablished.

I skipped starting from 0 again.