Jessica Kellgren-Fozard

 

JKF's video came into my YouTube feed. 

She has some interesting content, especially related to LGBTQ and disability issues. She is a lesbian mother and with various disabilities. She has a quirky voice though you can tell here (when she is tired) it is somewhat an affect. 

We can be overwhelmed with all of this content. But it also is amazing, huh? Should I check up more on stuff that would turn me off? Probably. You know, watch a bit of Fox News or a dubious podcaster. OTOH, there is so much other stuff. Oh well. 

Quickies

I re-read The Sunflower Forest. I wrote a review. Overall, I enjoyed it. Not sure about the triple murder.

Roberts handed down an administrative stay in the Trump Ballroom Case. Such stays often are only temporary. The litigation has been going on for a while as illegal construction occurs. Congress has the best ability to address this. But Trump Republicans control. 

The Mets are playing well. Oh well. Credible shot at .500 or close. 

Florida Executes William Frances Silvia

He murdered his wife about twenty years ago and seriously hurt his mother-in-law. 

The jury later decided it warranted a death sentence, 11-1. His lawyers tried to challenge the unanimous jury finding, but a court held that he waived the challenge.

It does sound like he had mental health issues:

In 1999, Silvia's mother was killed by a drunken driver, and two years later, his brother John died from a drug overdose. According to defense psychologist Deborah Day, Silvia has a history of mental illness in the family, with his sister suffering from bipolar disorder and having been committed multiple times. Silvia himself attended sessions with a psychiatrist during his first marriage and was put on medications for six months.

The final appeal flagged that Silvia, in the end, had to rely on a lawyer also defending another person recently executed. This allegedly resulted in inadequate representation.

The Supreme Court, as usual, rejected this final appeal (this morning) without comment. These last-minute appeals are often somewhat desperate. This one isn't much different.

I still would have liked at least some justice to discuss the matter since we are talking about a final appeal, the end result being the deprivation of life. Oh well.

This is another case where people won't cry much for the person executed. It also does not appear to be a "worst of the worst" case. 

He viciously murdered his spouse. There is a lot of domestic violence, often by people with a lot of issues. This was murderous. Warrants a long prison sentence. Instead, he lost the execution lottery. 

Florida has been the busiest again, executing 13 of the 23 people executed this year. Texas had four and still has multiple scheduled for later this year. Oklahoma had three. Three states had one each. This is partially a game of catch-up. But still. 

SCOTUS Reminds Us To Be Ashamed (Yes, About Trump)

The second (of three) scheduled Supreme Court summer order list was released today. 

The usual housekeeping dominated the short list of orders. Alito didn't take part in one case. The usual "rehearings denied" (they are nearly never granted) were included. 

The list started this way:

REHEARINGS DENIED

25-432 PUCKETT, CARL E., ET UX. V. AIN JEEM, INC., ET AL.

25-567 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC, ET AL.

25-573 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. CARROLL, E. JEAN

As noted by my local paper:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday again rebuffed President Donald Trump’s push to throw out a jury’s $5 million finding that he sexually abused the writer E. Jean Carroll at a New York City department store in the mid-1990s and later defamed her.

Many people alleged* that Trump, in various respects, sexually assaulted women. Trump has been accused of trying to see teen beauty contestants in a state of undress. He bragged about being able to do these things with impunity.  

The "grab the pussy" talk received some attention. We know how things have gone. See also, Thomas and Kavanaugh.

E.J.  Carroll, taking advantage of a New York law that extended the window, was able to obtain a jury verdict that Trump sexually assaulted her. 

He denied it. Toss in defamation. He kept it up after the civil judgment. Another jury found defamation again. This time with a much higher financial judgment. The appeal for that is still pending. 

People, if they are halfway honest, don't have the vapors about either charge. Defamation? 

To slightly paraphrase a Supreme Court opinion, "Lying was and still is his habit." 

The denial of rehearing is not truly news. There was no real chance that it would be granted. 

(Trump already gave her the money, but it was held in trust until the finalization of the appeal.) 

What it does help remind us is the nature of the person in the Oval Office. The election of Trump will be a blot on our country for time immemorial. 

Sexual wrongdoing has been a major concern in multiple political races this election cycle. The Democratic candidate for governor in California and for Senate in Maine are different than expected for that reason. OTOH, we have Max Miller. 

Trump remains a symbol of what not to do. 

===

* One woman, someone who would otherwise be a Trump supporter, particularly comes to mind.

She alleged wrongdoing. Trump defamed her. She sued. The litigation went on and on and on.

She finally gave up. It wasn't worth the hassle, including not being able to openly talk about it. The Trump side alleged total vindication. 

Reasonable Doubts

 

I saw Stripped to Kill on YouTube. Kay Lenz co-starred, making me think of her role in this television show, which I watched when it was first on. A few episodes, at least, are also on YouTube. 

Stripped to Kill is enjoyable "B" film fare, though the plot gets a bit too silly. The ending, for instance, is too drawn out. The first episode of Reasonable Doubts brings an overdone plot device or two (crooked cops, huh?). But I found the show overall comfort food television. 

August Executions

Three executions in three states. None in Florida or Texas.

Anthony Darrell Dugard Hines (TN)

These lengthy delays create two special constitutional difficulties. First, a lengthy delay in and of itself is especially cruel because it “subjects death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehumanizing conditions of confinement.” Second, a lengthy delay undermines the death penalty’s penological rationale.

Hines was sentenced to die for a rape/murder committed forty years ago. I hold to my repeated concern, with the usual Breyer reference, about these delays. Sotomayor and/or Jackson should support it. 

Various reasons to suggest he is guilty, but he claims innocence. The final Supreme Court appeal cites red flags as to state execution procedures, including not supplying enough details about them. 

The Court, per curiam (Sotomayor dissented), earlier overturned a lower court holding of ineffective counsel. This time, as usual, they rejected the final appeal without comment. 

The execution occurred later that morning. 

Carlos Cuesta-Rodriguez (OK) 

Rodriguez opposed commutation of his death sentence from over twenty years ago for murdering his girlfriend (common law wife). He's 70. The execution is a semi-voluntary euthanasia move. 

The main argument against execution is that there are possible mitigating factors, including acceptance of his guilt. Another "lottery" pick for execution. 

Jeremy Williams (AL) 

Williams admitted guilt of a truly horrible crime: the rape and murder of a young child. He waived appeals. 

Remarkably, the crime took place less than five years ago. I complained about delays. So, yes, that is good on some level. There was some time to ensure the execution is appropriate, even if he accepts it.

(If you want to click, you can see the details of the crime. I'm not avoiding them. I accept hard cases. The details are horrible, especially who helped him.) 

His remorse is a reason not to execute him. Alabama also has had multiple problems with execution procedures. That is a problem, even if the person is crystal clear guilty and worthy of death.

Williams was the last of the three to be executed. Alabama used lethal injection; nitrogen gas was blocked in an earlier case in court. 

===

Another execution is scheduled next week.

We also have a schedule of the current November oral arguments. For completeness, let's toss in that Kagan provided a one-day administrative stay here. 

Bikini Spring Break

 

I referenced watching this film (with Robert Carradine slumming it) a while back and re-watched it on Tubi. It gets the nudity (breasts) out of the way in the first scene, including repans to show you again. The rest is largely exposition, though sometimes the scenes set up some more breast exposure. Limited bikinis. 

This is not high art. It has one or more (huh; she sorta looks like Selena Gomez) kinda familiar-looking types. But it is silly fun. It has enough plot and likeable characters. Now and then, it also has a semblance of wit. Does it's "direct-to-video" job. Kudos. 

The Tubi video is in English, but that's fun too. 

Fair Game (Not that One)

 

There is the Valerie Plame book and film. 

I watched part of a 1980s film, one of several "woman's revenge thrillers" via Tubi. Her being used as a "hood ornament" was one thing. Killing her horse really did it. The actress is very good. 

No revenge, but one woman vs. a bunch of men? Hunting Emma. Foreign, but you barely need the subtitles. Wife who snaps? Got that. Hilarious bad and period piece? I Spit on Your Tombstone. 

Todd Blanche: Confirmed at 4 A.M. Saturday Morning

 

Jimmy Kimmel knew Sen. Cassidy, now a lame duck after losing the primary for not being 100% Trumpian, was a weasel years ago. 

But Collins and Murkowski (50-49) are not much better. They support Republicans. Their usually gratutious "nay" votes (though they couldn't even support an abortion rights bill) just give them the credibility necessary to win in Maine and Alaska. 

Anyway, this is a new low. Blanche ... when Pam Bondi is too independent. Republicans need to go the way of the Whigs.

Tamara

 

I saw this on cable a long time ago. I said it was sort of "lame." 

Overall, I liked it this time, including a great scene where an innocent wife has to fight two murderous teenagers. The very end tosses in a lame horror trope. They should have left it be with a good way to close the story out. Good lead and pretty good support.

I mostly liked American Mary. Directors known for twisted stuff. The lead was excellent. Amusingly, a supporting character was in the WWII television drama Bomb Girls. Kind of a different role. 

SCOTUS Watch

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court released its calendar for the October argument session, which lasts from Monday, Oct. 5, to Wednesday, Oct. 14. 

The beat goes on. A notable environmental case is one of the first big cases. 

The link goes to a conservative who signed a letter in 2016 explaining why it was essential for conservatives to be against the election of Trump. 

He has been praised as a fair conservative mind. 

I have found him generally so (he had his bad moments), though I am annoyed at how little he responds to Trump shenanigans. 

This is a theme on that website, which has a few Trump loyalists (Josh Blackman), but many who don't care for him much. Other than one person (and one person who sometimes pops up), they rarely say anything.

This is not an appropriate response to the times. 

==

BJC has a podcast discussing religion and the Supreme Court. It was on hiatus until the new term. They had a special SCOTUS preview and announced a co-host is leaving.

==

Precedent and Personnel: When the Justices Change so Does the Constitution

Prof. Eric Segall is a liberal law professor. 

I disagree with him from time to time, including on some of his hobbyhorses. This one, which he has been on for decades, is rather tedious.

He LOVES the Legal Tender Cases example. It's not a normal one. The Chief Justice ill-advisedly decided a significant case on a short bench. 

He was on notice and did so anyway. When two new justices joined, the cases went the other way.  

Compare this to what John Marshall and Warren Burger did. Marshall held cases over in the 1830s when the justices divided, and a new membership might change the result. 

The Burger Court had a special committee when they had seven justices to decide what to hold over if the two might change the result. 

What does ES want? Abraham Lincoln in his first presidential inaugural address argued:

At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

The justices on a short bench by a closely divided vote held one way. The majority arguably was quite off base on an important constitutional issue. 

A single case should not be the immediate end of the line. Stare decisis is important. But the issue wasn't firmly established. New justices, selected by people we elect (if indirectly, especially pre-17th Amendment), will factor into this equation.

This case is a rather incomplete example to examine the wider question. It might have been wrong. It might have been right. It still is a special case.

New justices over time do change the law. It is a significant way the law changes over time. Likewise, legislatures and executives change over time. Their view of what the Constitution means also changes. 

Justices, even the current bunch, also don't simply ignore precedent. It would be tedious to list the number of things, including some things of importance, that are basically the same now.

We can also list a bunch of things the current majority has done that significantly disrespect precedent. I find many of these cases dead wrong. 

Nonetheless, the fact they are making new law alone isn't the problem. The way they are doing it, both procedurally and substantively, is the problem. The problem here is the merits. 

What happens, imagine with me, if the Supreme Court eventually is ideologically reasonable? Liberals and moderates have a supermajority. This happens because of new membership. Look at the early 1960s.

A nuanced approach can result in liberals cautioning courts to be conservative. At some point, a conservative approach is ill-advised. But that would at least make more sense than this simplistic take. 

The law is not obtained by looking at the sky, entrails, or original understanding. I repeat myself. It is a value judgment that significantly depends on the judges.

We should be open about this. We should carefully handle the situation. Judges should still act like judges. And, yes, ES, life tenure and so forth give the justices much more power to act arbitrarily.

This warrants special attention. I still don't accept simplistic cant. With respect, #JustSaying. 

===

On my Substack ... comments on a pending Massachusetts abortion bill. 

Mets Trading Deadline

 

The Mets traded all the good pieces (and Peralta) they expected to trade. They were unable to get rid of any of the (to be mean) trash, including Robert Jr. Taylor, the sole position player (minus a minor leaguer) who went. Eh. I want Stearns GONE. 

ETA: Mets won four straight. Competition isn't great, but still impressive. Still don't want to see the overpriced new guys. 

I Spit On Your Grave

Checking Tubi, I see the original and the sequel are available. I hold to my earlier remarks. The author of a (defunct) blog named after the film continues to post on social media (including Bluesky) and elsewhere. The sequel looks ridiculous (and ridiculously overlong). 

ETA: I saw Angel (or parts of it). Some 1980s exploitation film charm with breast shots. The lead (in her 20s but playing a teen prostitute) doesn't really do much other than look like a good girl with sorta slutty makeup. Also, Mama Weed (French film) was decent. 

Missionary, Birthright Citizenship, Gay USA

I cover various topics on Substack, including how the Trump Administration is honoring a Catholic martyr while violating all he stood for. Also, co-host of Gay USA retires after thirty years. 

I recently watched Once and Again on YouTube. I vaguely recall watching at least some of it. It was first on before this blog began (mid-2003). I found one passing reference on the blog. 

Florida's Double Execution

Carrying out multiple executions within a day is rare in the modern era, with only two states doing so in the past 26 years: Arkansas in 2017 and Texas in 2000. Florida hasn’t executed more than one person in a single day since 1964, according to the state’s correctional records.

The Supreme Court rejected final appeals in two death penalty cases from Florida. A core concern: Florida was executing two people on the same day. 

Questions have arisen about the state's lethal injection execution protocols after execution logs were released last year that seem to show cases where insufficient or even different chemicals were used, and autopsy records for 33 executed inmates that showed each one suffered flash pulmonary edema, which causes a feeling like drowning.

That makes it more likely for problems to occur. Problems repeatedly alleged to have been ongoing. Not that anyone, except for Sotomayor (once), said a word about such claims.

Occhicone, convicted of the 1986 murder of his ex-fiancée's parents, is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection six hours after the planned execution of another man, former Lake County police officer James Duckett, convicted of the 1987 rape and murder of 11-year-old Teresa Mae McAbee. If both executions go as planned, it would be the first multiple execution in Florida since 1964.

 

Florida continues to execute people first sentenced years back. They keep on having a new "oldest inmate to be executed," this time someone eighty. That adds another layer to the reasons for complaint: older people having various ailments affecting the execution. 

These lengthy delays create two special constitutional difficulties. First, a lengthy delay in and of itself is especially cruel because it “subjects death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehumanizing conditions of confinement.” Second, a lengthy delay undermines the death penalty’s penological rationale.

There remains the general concern regarding executing people after such a long time, which no current justice has deemed problematic. The second crime specifically is particularly heinous. But it happened 40 years ago.

Volokh Conspiracy had several Supreme Court posts, including talking about leaks. One comment (not from a troll) noted that the justices explained their "decisions." 

That is bullshit unless you are using it narrowly to apply to a small subset of decision-making. Steve Vladeck's book covers that ground. Today's "no comment" orders underline the point. A "decision" was made. No explanation.

Many will say that the final appeals were weak tea. They don't deserve any comment. 

I disagree, including when the challenge regards something occurring only for the third time in sixty years. The last time didn't go smoothly. 

Either way, a decision was made. No comment. It's the shadow docket. Sorry, Justice Kagan. 

Florida executed both. 

One thing that stands out in that discussion is that a jury split 7-5 on giving one of the two the death penalty. This sort of thing repeatedly occurred. But it doesn't really become less troubling. 

The other (more heinous) defendant partially alleged innocence. DNA evidence that might provide proof, however, was at best inconclusive. 

I have not found a comprehensive take on how recent executions in Florida match the allegations of problems. Each article I see simply states the person was executed. 

The Martian

I read The Martian after watching part of it on television. The book has too much science porn. 

I'm not a scientist. If this were about a subject I knew more about, the level of "into the weeds" in it would still get too much at some point.

Plus, it got repetitive. People obviously enjoyed the book. But just saying as one of them.

Something comes up, he figures a way to deal with it, in intricate scientific detail, rinse/repeat. Please, can we get back to the other people? They even sometimes have to deal with intricate scientific details. They do not go into that much detail. Other stuff also happens.

It's appreciated that we get repeated reminders of the possibility of human error, unplanned occurrences that will screw things up, etc. But this got tiresome.

I liked the book as a whole once I got into a groove of quickly reading all of these details.  I have noted that it is harder for me to get into books in recent years. 

I completed this book in less than a day. So, you know, not all bad.

The human element is done well overall. Sometimes, I wanted to learn more about the other characters. The rest of the crew, e.g., seem interesting.

I suppose online there is fan fiction covering their adventures. We receive a few snapshots of their personal stories, including a single home-to-ship live communication. Three are married, and the other two have a thing going on with each other.

We know the maroon crew member's parents are alive; he's from Chicago and doesn't seem to have a significant other. Other than that, there is no backstory. One of the discussion questions addresses that. The book is largely about one guy, alone, and you do not get to really understand him too much. 

It was flagged in an earlier morning thread that a key science point was problematic. The author edited the book over time as he received feedback on scientific details (my copy has an interview with the author). 

He did not fix everything. Dramatic license and other factors do come into play.

He later noted he was aware of the issue. And, anyway, I saw one account that said it "may" be a problem. We don't know for sure.

The book tosses in a somewhat out-of-left-field comment about alternative food supply options. I wondered how long that would last.

Checking online, one commentary noted they left that part out. It is a cannibalism hypo. I can see why. 

They also left a few things out of Hail Mary, a recent well-received film also based on the author's novel. My copy provided the first chapter as a preview.

From what I saw, the Matt Damon film was well made. Good cast and so on. 

I cannot judge the science of it all.

I also appreciate the sentiment about how it is human instinct to help people, with some exceptions. A key plot point involves the Chinese Space Agency helping, with some sacrifice to their own efforts. 

Checking Wikipedia, the film tells you what Matt Damon's character will do when he gets back. 

The book ends with his rescue. So, you know, maybe there is a disaster later on, and the whole crew dies! 

SCOTUS Watch: Summer Order List

The Mets came back and played competitively against two good teams. A misplayed ball by Baty, who shouldn't have been playing the outfield, was a major reason why they didn't win both series. 

Order List

Oh. This is supposed to be about the Supreme Court. Well, the week was somewhat bland. 

The big news was that they granted cert in a case involving the Excessive Fines Clause. It is somewhat unclear why it did so now, but it isn't shocking or anything. They, for whatever reason, got it over with. 

The first scheduled summer order list was otherwise, as usual, basically a housekeeping matter. As noted here, did provide a way to finalize some things sooner rather than later. Nothing special, though.

The cert grant had a catchy hook about someone's plane being seized for illegally transporting a "six pack of beer" to a dry town in Alaska. That is more sloganeering than the full story. There was much more beer involved. 

OTOH, along with them taking the case when the lower court ruled against the defendant, it might have been a sign of what is to come. 

Kagan Spins 

Justice Kagan, during her joint testimony with Barrett, pushed against the "shadow docket" label since they have been doing a better job at transparency. 

It is a work in progress. It was as much spin as truth.

I re-read Steve Vladeck's book on the subject. He's writing a new one on judicial reform. A new edition of The Shadow Docket would have a new introduction, which would show that there are a lot of shadows remaining. Sorry, William Baude.* 

She also told the Ninth Circuit, where she's the circuit justice, that the Supreme Court is not a "rubber stamp" for Trump. Hey, look at the tariffs and birthright citizenship decisions!

Kagan has to work with these people. She is trying to win as much as she can. She can't say they are just a rubber stamp. They acted like one regularly, though. 

And Also ...

Thomas Goldstein, previously of SCOTUSBlog, has been sentenced. Sounds like a prime candidate for a Trump pardon. 

Upcoming

There are two more scheduled summer order lists. Two executions are likely next week. 

The Nixon Tapes case was handed down fifty-two years ago. Nixon resigned soon afterwards.

Wasn't that fun? 

---

Shadow Docket: Let's do a bit of a deep dive here on this issue. The "shadow docket" is, as Steve Vladeck notes in his book, a collection of things. 

It would include the choices made in the Order List, such as choosing this specific Eighth Amendment case over numerous others involving a person serving a long prison sentence. 

The shadow docket is not just the "emergency docket," though final death penalty appeals both fit that bill and underline that the term still fits. If anything, we have less transparency; Sotomayor, for instance, provides fewer statements in such cases.

Baude (and the new SCOTUSBlog) wants to use "the Interim Docket," which is bullshit. 

As Vladeck and others note regularly, the things decided there are effectively final. We saw that with a lot of the Trump administrative state destruction. 

Baude (see the link in the main discussion) is upset—is he afraid of Alito? -- that the term sounds "nefarious."  Also, we see what they do (often digging deep on the docket pages, not linked to the main orders, where their bare decisions are noted), so it is not really "hard to see."

Again, that is bullshit. We do not know a lot about their decision-making. They still largely work in the shadows, including decision-making (this is cited in the book) by not posting transcripts on the website.

Ginsburg did so. Kagan, after defending her colleagues for being more transparent, did not. 

ETA: I also was excited about Melissa Murray's new constitutional commentary. Eh.

The preface was a quick summary of its creation that seemed like forcing a bunch of stuff into a few pages. And doing so in a somewhat simplistic way.

The summary of each section is helpful, if often a tad too basic for someone who already has more than a passing understanding. It isn't meant to be comprehensive, but sometimes it seems a tad thin. 

It serves its function as a one-volume reference book for the average reader (though now and then tossing in words like "chattel" without comment). Sometimes, there are particularly interesting discussions, at times, with very up-to-date material. 

Murray provides a balanced view, including points of view that she personally doesn't support. At times, you do get the idea she isn't some originalist. 

The subtitle is "A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader." It does cover the whole document in annotated form and is written for the modern reader. It has Civics 101 potential.  

The book is formatted comfortably. OTOH, there are no charts, pictures, or anything of that sort. 

I enjoyed Linda Monk's books better. 

SCOTUS Watch: Budget Edition

Kagan/Barrett Testimony

COVID and other things (that can't explain the much longer Senate lag time) ended the regular tag team (one liberal, one conservative justice) going up to Congress at budget time. 

The appearances not only provided a chance to discuss budget matters. Congress members could ask justices other questions, including diversity of court personnel and other matters. 

For instance, the "shadow docket" or ethics. To cite stuff covered this time. Likewise, an ethics code, which Kagan is open to having some enforcement mechanism. Leaks were also discussed. 

It is a useful, if not profound (hearings rarely are), dance. Some useful information is shared, and justices remember that they are not just above it all. 

One thing some sneered at was the justices' discussion of increased security concerns in recent years. "Yeah, threaten our liberty, you will get push back." 

Barrett being told by her security staff to wear a bulletproof vest is a bit more. Bluesky comments talked about gun drills in schools. Okay?

If people sent you pizzas in the name of a judge's murdered son or "swatted" (fake police reports) your house, it still would bother you, correct?  This is not a pissing contest. There are serious concerns here. 

It is not totally coincidental that the uptick overlaps with the Trump Era. Liberal and conservative judges have been affected. But Trump stands out. 

He played a significant role. Schumer once talking about "reaping the whirlwind" doesn't make it "both sides do it," when Trump regularly uses violent and delegitimizing rhetoric about the courts.  

Yes, Barrett is part of the problem. She supported Trump, significantly so she could get her job.

But security is still a concern. 

Dennis Sochor Execution

Florida continues to execute senior citizens. Sochor raped and murdered someone in 1981. 

These lengthy delays create two special constitutional difficulties. First, a lengthy delay in and of itself is especially cruel because it “subjects death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehumanizing conditions of confinement.” Second, a lengthy delay undermines the death penalty’s penological rationale.

Yes, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens. 

The final appeal, rejected without comment, provided additional information regarding alleged evidence that Florida's execution method is cruel and unusual. 

His lawyers claimed Florida wrongly blocked an attempt to make such a claim. Various recent appeals in some fashion addressed this concern, including requests for information. 

Sotomayor once released a statement noting her concern. Otherwise, crickets. 

Kagan, during her testimony, challenged the use of the term "shadow docket" because the justices have explained things more. Well, that explanation is only a matter of degree. 

He was executed later in the day. The coverage does not suggest any issues. But I did not find any in-depth discussion of the overall claims, either. 

Two more at the end of the month.

Trump News

The Supreme Court has done much to help enable Trump. One thing they did not do was block this. 

They did delay it somewhat. The other civil judgment, involving much more money, is still pending. 

Carroll received the money more than three years after a jury found that the president was liable for sexually abusing her in a Manhattan department store in 1996, and then for defaming her on social media. Trump has repeatedly appealed the judgment to no avail — including petitioning the Supreme Court multiple times — and last week launched a last-ditch attempt to block her from getting the money.

But this is a start. 

Like the one successful prosecution, thank you, New York, for helping to obtain a modicum, a small modicum, of justice and consequences. 

Other Stuff

The first summer Order List, traditionally a short nothingburger, is due on Monday. 

Mets End First Half 40-57

 

But firing the manager doesn’t change what is ultimately a disjointed, poorly constructed roster. You could also make the argument that when it comes to the 2026 Mets, this team is what it is: talented individual players who can’t seem to fit together, regardless of who is calling the shots.

Maybe another guy "calling the shots" should go.

Senator Lindsey Graham Dies

He had his moments. He was lately a tired, pathetic Trump supporter. More here with an extended bit on Mitch McConnell.