Indiana and Tennessee Declare June as Nuclear Family Month

I discuss the various problems with this here. I toss in a link to an amusing "drag comedy" that is also a satire of teenage films. 

Andrew Lukehart Execution

Andrew Lukehart, after previously being found guilty of child abuse, was sentenced to die by Florida for the death of a five-month-old child. He first made up a kidnapping story.

That was thirty years ago. Breyer explained why it is constitutionally and otherwise problematic to execute someone after all that time. Florida is making it a habit.

The first article suggests it is still somewhat unclear what exactly happened. Why did he murder the child? Child abuse, including lethal child abuse, arises for various reasons.

The crime is horrible, especially when you look at the picture of the child. The news article starts with a trigger warning. Still, thirty years in prison is a very serious punishment. 

The final appeal, rejected by the Supreme Court the day before without comment, was a standard red flag about Florida execution procedures. Old ground

It also added a novel argument that forcing him to choose an alternative means of execution (you must do so if you challenge the method) is a violation of his religious liberty. There is a federal statute protecting the religious liberty of prisoners. 

His execution doesn't provide much value, in my opinion, to the public welfare. Safeguarding children is precious. An arbitrary execution does little to advance it. 

Supreme Court Order List

Today's Order List was a bit long since the justices tossed back a death penalty case (7-2) because the lower court wrongly took into consideration evidence the jury didn't see. They granted a case first sought by a pro se prisoner. Also, the "bill of complaint" issue (two views) came up again. I basically agree with Michael Dorf. 

Judges Behaving Badly

A black woman judge, appointed by a Democrat, behaved badly. The judicial self-regulation left something to be desired. 

Liberals, who are not hypocrites overall on the issue, flagged the problem. Judicial ethics and proper congressional oversight should be bipartisan. It is a good campaign issue.

Ken Paxton Attacks Opponent's Religious Beliefs

I discussed a book that argues that religious beliefs will sometimes be relevant when determining who is fit for public office. Racist religious beliefs do not get a pass. It is touchy.

The dig is an anti-trans epithet. MAGA selectively cares about religious liberty. Anti-trans rhetoric is here insulting the beliefs of millions of Christians. Among other things, yes, that is disqualifying. 

John Quincy Adams

Crawford is a musician and podcaster. 

I'm not familiar with him in either case. I am enjoying this book, which focuses on his antislavery efforts, especially as a House member. It's a book geared to the general reader with some neat drawings.

Adams hated slavery, but like many people of the day, didn't care for abolitionists. Slavery was bad, but we were stuck with it.

Early on, when he was a senator, he voted against a limit on slavery. As a diplomat and executive official, national sovereignty was more important than opposing slavery. For instance, limiting the British power to search American ships on the high seas.

Plus, abolitionists, in his view, exaggerated how bad slaves had it. They seemed unreasonable extremists.

Adams became a hero of the antislavery movement after extremists on the slavery side went after the freedom of speech. The "gag rule" arose after abolitionists supposedly started to get a bit too pushy for their own good, flooding the mails and Congress with antislavery materials and petitions. 

Give an inch and all that.

Adams noted that not formally accepting petitions broadly endangered First Amendment rights, showing how suppression of liberty tends to spread. For instance, abolitionists were motivated largely by their religious beliefs. Religious liberty was at stake.

It also shows how change happens over time. Abolition seemed hopeless in the 1820s and 1830s.

Adams, with some foresight, noted in his diary that the only way it seemed possible was if the country broke apart and/or went to war. Congress then might have the power to abolish slavery as a war measure.

He died in 1848, though he lived long enough to see the Mexican War, which helped introduce the final chapter (chapters?) that led to that war. 

Good book overall. 

"Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery."

 

Trump is anti-legal immigrant, even if "illegals" is the favorite go-to. My grandparents were immigrants. On the other side, they were once denounced as unfit to be American. Pig is right.

Giants QB Campaigns For Trump

I discuss the controversy arising from the Giants' QB introducing Trump at a campaign event. Trump is bad, the Giants don't need the drama, and they already had Epstein drama. No handwaving. The criticism of DART is appropriate. Meanwhile, Mets suck again.

SCOTUS Order List

The weekly Order List had some interesting bits.

The justices decided the appeals court wrongly decided on procedural grounds a lawsuit involving the free speech rights of immigration judges (not Art. III judges). Thomas (with Barrett) also disagreed on the merits. Free speech fails, for now. 

[The backstory is that the administrative process was broken because of Trump's obstructionism. Helped b by the court conservatives. The lower court tried a workaround and was called out.] 

The justices, following standard practices since at least the 1970s, rejected even accepting a "bill of complaint" involving a dispute among states. 

Thomas (with Alito) took their usual stance (reasonable) that they should at least examine the merits. They also added some right-wing comments on the merits of a dispute involving undocumented people having driver's licenses. 

Kavanaugh would have taken a dispute involving arbitration (New York Football Giants v. Brian Flores). He didn't comment on why. 

Alito and Thomas would have summarily reversed a lower court opinion involving excessive force and the Fourth Amendment. They cited a lower court opinion they "essentially" agreed with. 

Alito (no comment), Kagan, and Jackson (referencing ethical guidelines) did not take part in deciding three cases.  I continue to prefer the latter approach. 

Finally, in a "to be continued" sort of way, a lower court continued to reject a redistricting map, holding it is racially discriminatory. The Supreme Court, with the liberals dissenting, sent it back. 

It is likely to come back.  

==

Meanwhile, this is an interesting discussion of the Supreme Court's relation with social media, including suggestions on how it can dip its toes in.

ETA/Opinions: 

Barrett, for the conservatives, ruled against two "compassionate release" claims. Sotomayor (with Kagan) concurred on limited grounds in one case, dissented in the other. Jackson dissented in both.

Kavanaugh, it being one of his concerns, wrote a 5-4 opinion supporting a claim alleging racial discrimination in jury selection. Roberts joined, as did the liberals. Gorsuch dissented for the rest.

Gorsuch wrote a brief (less than eight pages) and unanimous arbitration opinion.  

Pope v. AI

The Catholic Church, in various ways, is just plain a problem (understand if some will just say "no!"), but the last two popes were admirable in various ways. The latest from the pope shows why. 

Memorial Day Weekend

A Military Times article had a headline: "13 US troops killed, more than 380 wounded in Operation Epic Fury." 

Congress in the 1990s passed a law "recommending" that presidents ask people to pray for potential peace. I think, along with remembering the dead, working for peace (not just praying) is the best way to celebrate the holiday.

Goodbye, Stephen Colbert

It's over. Yesterday was Stephen Colbert's last night. 

It was also the last show of the CBS late-night show overall. There won't be repeats. They will immediately shift to a non-political comic show. 

Multiple celebrities had cameos. There was some gimmick that supposedly six bananas were a retirement gift. 

The final guest (who also sang "Hello Goodbye) was Paul McCarthy, who had that famous appearance over sixty years ago in the theater where Colbert had his show. Quite fitting, though he seemed a bit uncomfortable as the solo guest in a long-form way.

I DVR-ed it, and for whatever reason, it did not record the whole thing. It was about twenty minutes longer, and the DVR cut off at the normal end of the show. I saw what I missed online on YouTube. 

The show was a tad indulgent, overdoing a metaphor of some wormhole who sucked that everything into it. They probably could have handled it with a normal length, especially since they included a "meanwhile" segment with at least one story that wasn't too topical. 

Still, if it amused him, more power to him. I wish him well. I probably will check out Jimmy Kimmel a bit.

They had that short-lived comedy game show-like program after Stephen Colbert with a young woman comedian, who wanted to continue her stand-up full-time instead of continuing. It must have taken a lot of effort. They will now just have comedian stuff.

There are still two talk shows at 11:30 and one at 12:30, both with middle-aged white guys. Why can't they have some variety? John Oliver has a good show, but again, enough guys! 

I'm sure you can find a lot of women in various contexts. But, unfortunately, none of these talk shows entrusted a woman for any length of time (Joan Rivers once had a short-lived show). The late-night talk show might be on the way out, but this is still a problem. 

(We did have a black host once upon a time.) 

I enjoyed Stephen Colbert, though I think he didn't take enough risks. The show was a bit bland. Also, watching was often a matter of liking the guests. 

Basically, he seems like a nice guy with good values, with a wickedly funny side. We saw that more on his old show, but it showed up here, too.  

He will have a small voice role on a Star Trek television show. He's co-writing a Lord of the Rings screenplay with his son. He will find something else to do, maybe after taking time off.  

One possibility is a longer form conversation format like Conan O'Brien and others do. He can show his musical theater side. He might do some drama. 

I think he will be fine. The overall annoying thing is that the network didn't find a way to end things on a nicer note. Colbert might still be angry because he didn't trust their reasons. But it seems gratuitous. 

==

Their Finest tells the story of a British Ministry of Information film team making a morale-boosting film about the Dunkirk evacuation during the Battle of Britain and the London Blitz. It's based on a book.

Gemma Arterton is the lead, and she's great. I rewatched the DVD and enjoyed it. I will eventually see if I like re-reading the book.  

I also rewatched Walking on Sunshine, which uses 1980s songs to tell a story. Arterton's sister plays one of the leads. Fun film. 

Great songs, well choreographed. 

Executions

There were three executions scheduled this week:

May 20 AZ Leroy McGill

May 21 TN Tony Carruthers

May 21 FL Richard Knight

Tony Carruthers is most troubling. 

But in the decade that followed the trial, as post-conviction litigation played out in the courts, testimony from other forensic experts cast serious doubt on those supposed facts. Now, with the state set to execute Carruthers on May 21, his attorneys are arguing not only that forensic testing might prove his innocence, but that his death sentence was based on an inflammatory falsehood. 

Other than the three-decade wait, which yet again is a problem, this execution has a bunch of issues. We had a serious innocence claim, mental health issues, self-representation, and more. 

He was released in late 2015. Before his release, how­ever, in 2010 and 2011, he met with members of a fed­er­al defense team and affirmed what Mr. Carruthers had long main­tained: Mr. Carruthers was not involved in the crime. Instead, he point­ed to an alter­nate sus­pect who was killed in 2002 but whose fin­ger­prints and DNA sam­ple are on file with the med­ical examiner’s office. 

I understand that liberals feel they should pick their spots. But this is a case that deserved at least a statement. Instead, we had multiple "no comment" orders rejected various claims. 

It also deserved a commutation. The co-defendant is out of prison. Instead ... he wasn't executed.

Why? They botched it. See you in 2027?

==

McGill flagged procedural problems and didn't have a final appeal. Horrible crime, which happened about twenty-five years ago. Again, that's too long ago. (Breyer, dissenting.)

Florida has executed some long-in-tooth cases. This one was "only" about twenty years ago. Domestic crime where the person also murdered a child. 

The challenges repeated stuff that was rejected before. Understandably, no justice commented. 

Both were executed. 

==

The first case is particularly arbitrary. 

The other two are more standard "death penalty as a whole is a bad policy" cases. 

PUNT

The Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. Jackson wrote a quickie on ERISA, Kagan had a solo dissent in a second, and they punted.

(More next Thursday.) 

Hamm v. Smith involved the rules in determining when someone is intellectually disabled enough to avoid execution. Some worried that it would result in a significant shift rightward, perhaps on much more than the specific subject matter.  

The justices decided to "DIG" it as improvidently granted. You can hear Alito grumbling. 

Kagan, Barrett, and Kavanaugh didn't provide any thoughts. Sotomayor (with Jackson) explained why they thought it a bad vehicle and responded to Alito's dissent (with Thomas joined in full, Roberts and Gorsuch mostly). A lot of writing for a DIG. 

Thomas, on his own, also strongly dissented, wanting to toss Atkins v. Virginia (intellectually disabled cannot be executed) entirely. 

Net result: The Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, lets stand lower court decisions tossing out Joseph Clifton Smith's death sentence in Alabama because the court found he is intellectually disabled.

Tina Peters Commutation + $1.776B Trump Slush

I cover both here. 

SCOTUS Watch: Order List

A ten-page Order List with various odds and ends.

Chris Geidner notes on Bluesky:

Also in today’s orders, SCOTUS sidesteps ruling on private enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, sending two cases back for post-Callais reconsideration. Jackson dissents, pointing out that Callais had nothing to do with private enforcement and saying she would have summarily reversed.

Rick Hasen summarized:

Justice Jackson dissented from the order, on the sensible grounds that Callais did not consider the right to sue question. Of course, the stakes are much lower now that Section 2 is essentially dead no matter who sues.

(His colleague was more sympathetic.) 

Also, a cert grant (per Geidner):

The Supreme Court takes up a case over whether employees of federally funded schools can sue to enforce Title IX’s sex discrimination bar. 

Kavanaugh, without comment, noted he would have granted cert. in another case. If you do a docket search (on another page since the Order page does not provide links):

Whether a multiemployer pension plan that terminated through mass withdrawal before the 2020 plan year is eligible for Special Financial Assistance under 29 U.S.C. 1432(b)(1)(A).

Alito and Barrett didn't take part in the examination of a couple of cases. Again, only Kagan and Jackson regularly explain why they do that. 

Sotomayor added a brief statement noting that she agreed with the court not taking a criminal case because the government admitted error and the defendant received all that was requested for. 

The next thing on the schedule is an opinion day on Thursday. Next week's orders will be on Tuesday because of the holiday. 

===

I agree with Steve Vladeck that justices should show up more in front of Congress. Court reform includes multiple things, including some that should have bipartisan support. This is one such proposal. 

“Rededicate 250"

The “Rededicate 250: A National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise & Thanksgiving” event in D.C. today had a Christian Nationalism feel. 

The Washington Post article's title:

Trump-backed prayer festival on National Mall draws thousands: ‘We welcome Jesus!’

It was not merely a private event:

A crowd of thousands transformed a block of the National Mall into an evangelical-style worship service Sunday at an event backed by President Donald Trump and funded with millions of taxpayer dollars.

Trump didn't show up. They played a video of his reading a Christian Nationalism-friendly biblical quote from a different event. A few signs of religious diversity (including the usual Judeo-Christian touches with Judaism as a the clearly junior party) aside, the dominating force was apparent:

People described a variety of reasons for coming — to bring awareness to what they see as harassment of or disfavor toward conservative Christians, to pray for the country to repent for its sins, or to fortify what they call the Christian roots of the country — in particular against Islam or other faiths outside Christianity or Judaism. 

Pete Hegseth referencing the mythical story of General Washington kneeling to pray story is the flavor of "history" we will see here. An honest accounting of our nation's religious story would be helpful. 

This bunch, with Trump as their false god, won't give it to you.  It is more likely to be blasphemous, including to many Christian believers. And, to our overall values.  

SCOTUS Watch

The Supreme Court is beginning its final end-of-term push. They will meet on Thursdays until the end of June. Opinions dropping will be likely.

More VRA News 

They had no Order List on Monday. No problem. They often make news outside of those often no-drama orders.

For instance, the aftermath of a major Voting Rights Act decision continued. It involved Alabama. Sotomayor dissented for the liberals. 

The conservatives didn't explain themselves. Bad decision, but not the end of the line. Meanwhile, there continues to be a lot of jockeying in multiple states.

The Virginia state supreme court ruling was not a good decision. The Hail Mary federal challenge was also not good. It was rejected without comment. 

Arguments 

We don't get video or even audio (for opinion announcements) of the proceedings. 

Amy Howe showed up since we cannot. She promoted, as a witness, greater transparency during the proceedings of the Biden Supreme Court Commission. Her summary of this term's arguments is interesting. 

Opinions 

The usual practice is for the justices to drop a limited number of opinions in late May and early June. Then, we will have an influx, with multiple decision days in one week to complete the job. Late term rush.

There are worse things to worry about. All the same, this is a bad job of pacing yourselves. 

Anyway, as expected, the two opinions (both unanimous with one concurrence) are non-controversial. The usual sentiments about how such opinions are still of some significance aside, neither is not a "high profile" case worthy of much attention. 

Abortion Pill News

The Fifth Circuit dropped a ridiculous opinion preventing Mifepristone from being prescribed by telemedicine and delivered by mail. The decision is bad both procedurally (standing) and on the merits.

Justice Alito, in charge of the Fifth Circuit, granted a temporary halt (administrative stay). He (selectively) had it expire on Monday afternoon and then extended it to Thursday afternoon. So, after two opinions few cared about dropped, bigger news was forthcoming.

(The link underlines how the change in Administration matters.) 

The Court, about a half hour late, granted a regular stay. Thomas and Alito dissented for different reasons. Alito noted the Court did not explain itself (which is unfortunate), which he did not find problematic about an hour later, when an execution was involved.

One notable thing about Alito's dissent is that he references how a change of policy in the Biden Administration helped protect the supply of abortion pills after Dobbs. State shield laws, including in New York, were also quite important.

Michael Dorf has more, including a reference to a good article on the Comstock Act. A previous discussion, which includes a reference to a Biden DOJ policy statement, is also worthwhile. 

Busby Execution 

A murder apparently motivated by robbery led one person to be sentenced to death, the other to prison. 

After over twenty years, too long (Breyer), Texas was ready to execute him. There was a claim of intellectual disability, which even the state witness granted.

The Supreme Court has held that intellectual disability at a certain point will make execution unconstitutional. It is also a mitigating factor. 

The seriousness of the claim is suggested by the fact that even the conservative-leaning Fifth Circuit at least temporarily held up the execution. The justices overturned the stay without comment.

Kagan dissented without comment. Jackson (with Sotomayor) briefly noted how gratuitous it all is. 

He was the 600th execution in Texas since 1982.

Upcoming

Order List on Monday, and another opinion day on Thursday. Who will buy Souter's home? 

In-Lawfully Yours

I referenced this film about six years ago. The video I used is blocked. I summarized:

Up Channel has "new" films on Sunday nights at 7/11 that are actually not new but promoted as new. For a few weeks now, the picks have been overall pretty good. 

This week, we had a city girl, not much into God, come to help her old mother-in-law (as in ex -- the hubby cheated on her) move after the father-in-law died. She falls for the new minister, whose deceased wife was her sister-in-law. 

Thus, the punny title. Various familiar faces, including two people in current shows and two from old shows. It has light touches mixed with a lot of serious content. 

Well-acted, with the story pretty well paced too. Sorta topical.

The film was a Regents University production. The DVD behind-the-scenes extra talks about that, including how film students were involved. 

Its website offers:

Experience the difference of America’s Premier Christian University that offers over 150 areas of study online and on campus in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

"Christian" means a variety of things. The film promotes an open-minded view. After all, the minister might be a widower, but the other love interest is a divorcee. 

At one point, her ex comes back pretending to want to reunite. He claims to be reformed. It is a trick. Some Christians would find that troublesome. Why not make it a redemption story and save her from the evils of divorce?!

She asks a lot of questions about the Bible and religion in the film. The film cheats a bit by not providing too many answers to her questions. 

Yes, how do you know you chose the right religion? Yes, how did Job getting a new family really help him after his old one all died?  

The film does know that a "message" film should first be a good film. The Bible is filled with stories that teach us. They are also enjoyable stories. They were passed down for more than their moral lessons.

I re-watched the film (at least for a third time) and still enjoyed it. The husband's coming back is a bit heavy-handed, but it is an understandable plot device. Got to earn that nice ending. 

Still, I want to get past that and back to the pastor and his sister-in-law building a relationship. They are a good couple. And both are well-rounded, complex characters. 

Mets at the 1/4 Way Point

 

A lot of mediocre teams. A lot of teams are under .500. After 40 games, the Mets are at the bottom of the pack at 15-25. A lot of baseball is left. Still, that's pretty bad.

Update: Good week, including an "instant classic" win vs. the Yanks. 

Umpire John

Judge Sotomayor, before becoming a justice, noted that appellate judges make policy. They set forth rules while district judges largely determine facts.

As Lawrence Hurley reported for NBC News, Roberts continued: “I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do. I would say that’s the main difficulty. “

What is a "political actor?" Let's go the dictionary:

political

adjective

po·​lit·​i·​cal pə-ˈli-ti-kəl 

1a: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government

b: of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy

2: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics

3: organized in governmental terms

political units

4: involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system

political prisoners

The Supreme Court plays a significant role in setting forth policy. It does so in ways with many political implications. Fitting those definitions. 

The term "political" is disfavored by many judges. It sounds like they are "politicians" who are shady sorts. Judges are supposed to be above the fray. They are special.

We accept too much the idea that politicians, who represent us, are allowed to be "dirty." It helps Trump some since "they are all bad, right?" 

But John Roberts is setting forth an artificial dynamic here. The Supreme Court has a political role. His saying after the recent Voting Rights Act opinions is even harder to take. 

Each branch of government has different roles in our system. Courts have a role that is more independent in certain respects. They, however, are not just off on the side, outside of the political system.

Honesty can help us determine how to react, including what sort of reforms of the courts should be sought. 

===

Talking political, I talk about the Virginia Supreme Court (4-3) overturning the redistricting measure here. tl;dr: It was not a scam that they waited to decide, but how they ruled looks pretty sketchy.