Books and Films (History, Supreme Court, Trump)

John Adams Book

I enjoyed Lindsay M. Chervinsky's book on George Washington's Cabinet (not cabinet). Easy reading, informative, nicely formatted (my eyesight might be going in my not-that-old age or too many books have too small print) historical reading. I had hopes for her book on John Adams.

It didn't work for me. The formatting did not help -- smaller print and harder to read. This makes the book seem longer than it already is (it is over three hundred pages without notes). 

The content was okay but it is overly detailed general history. The book is sold as an explanation of how John Adams "made" the presidency. I got through around a third and it was just a trudge and too much of it was simply a history of the time. 

It isn't about "John Adams" as such. We learn about him along with various other things. Some of the details, including Jefferson coming off rather badly, are interesting. Still, it was too much of a trudge.

Not needing to read it for an assignment, I moved on.

Jeanne Moreau & The Supreme Court Again  

We recently talked about The Lovers, a Louis Malle film starring Jeanne Moreau, and how it reached the Supreme Court. They later had a second positive experience, Viva Maria!, this time Brigitte Bardot co-starred with a supporting role for George Hamilton (was he speaking French?). 

Viva Maria! is about two "Marias," one a half-Irish freedom fighter, who helps to accidentally invent the striptease (a PG version). The "PG" was enough for Dallas to label it as not suitable for young people. 

They eventually (after an hour or so of lighthearted content, after a pre-credits sequence) get involved with a Latin American revolution. Things continued to be not too serious though by then I was bored.  

The film was fun but not enough for me to watch it for two hours. Malle knew enough to not give us two hours in the first film. Anyways, the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge on vagueness grounds.

The opinion seems somewhat tediously long but does its job. At one point, a lesson for free speech and trans challenges these days, it flags how the statute is a model of sorts for others. So, stopping it is important.

The opinion does drop this bit at one point:

Moreover, a local exhibitor who cannot afford to risk losing the youthful audience when a film may be of marginal interest to adults - perhaps a "Viva Maria" - may contract to show only the totally inane. The vast wasteland that some have described in reference to another medium might be a verdant paradise in comparison. 

The First Amendment interests here are, therefore, broader than merely those of the film maker, distributor, and exhibitor, and certainly broader than those of youths under 16.

Again, there are later cases, some around today, where an attempt to "protect the children" can lead to burdens on adults. Justice Harlan alone dissented.

The opinion leaves open the possibility a clearer statute could limit material that would be acceptable to adults. Douglas/Black denies that should be possible. 

I'm wary about suggesting nothing can be denied to ten-year-olds, even if it's hard to see even "obscenity-lite" would warrant blocking everyone under sixteen from watching this film. But, yes, IF we allow that, the rules better be very clear. 

Melania Trump: Oh So Liberal

Melania Trump has an autobiography. 

It is unclear where she will go to promote it. Will she be on Stephen Colbert's show and get to meet her impersonator?  I have my doubts.   

There are a few surprises, including a strong pro-abortion rights stance. She also, perhaps suitably given her background, supports immigrants. 

Melania says she generally wishes to only privately disagree with her husband. Why change now? Well, there can be various reasons, including helping her husband or (can be both) grifting. 

I praised Liz Cheney in a separate discussion. I don't think Melania Trump is quite ready to be cheered on. But, hey, if she wants to support Kamala Harris ... 

SCOTUS Update

Harris and the Supreme Court

Vice President Harris strongly supported abortion rights during the presidential debate. She also supports court reform:

Vice President Harris believes that no one is above the law. She’ll fight to ensure that no former president has immunity for crimes committed while in the White House. She will also support common-sense Supreme Court reforms—like requiring Justices to comply with ethics rules that other federal judges are bound by and imposing term limits—to address the crisis of confidence facing the Supreme Court.

(New issues page on her campaign website.) 

Judges for Court Reform 

Justice Kagan reaffirmed her support of a binding ethics code enforced by lower court judges. Likewise, she noted that the "emergency docket" (aka shadow docket) has been overused. Prof. Melissa Murray of Strict Scrutiny Podcast interviewed her.

(Kagan also warns Dobbs can be an open-ended threat to other rights.) 

Former Chief Judge Diane Wood supports statutory term limits of federal judges. She even positively cited the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court. That commission deserves a bit more love. 

Broad 19th Amendment

I have previously argued that the 19th Amendment suggests an open-ended view of sexual equality. 

Sexual equality is required to truly protect voting rights. Also, equal voting rights are part of a united whole of equal citizenship. More here with a connection to Dobbs (abortion). 

Trump v. Anderson 

A duo who argued the 14th Amendment warrants Trump's disqualification, using originalist arguments, has a follow-up to the ruling itself. 

I don't agree with everything they say, especially that "obviously" original understanding, not SCOTUS precedent, provides meaning to the Constitution. However, it is overall a strong and correct reply. 

They argue the per curiam -- at least the final version -- does not actually (contra the main concurrence) say only federal legislation will enforce 14A, sec. 3. States can't (even there, maybe they would have a role). 

OTOH, the opinion leaves in language that leads people to think that. So, what it "really" says might be beside the point. If it is assumed they said it, it might be enough. Anyway, the whole thing is likely academic. As to Trump, one surely hopes so. 

Ketanji Brown Jackson 

Jackson's autobiography, Lovely One, provides an intimate life of her life. 

The four hundred-page book, which she wrote with someone thanked in the acknowledgments, should appeal to the general reader. It might be a bit too long at 400 pages, but it is easy reading overall. 

We learn about her parents, her academic drive (including debate in high school), her relationship with the white future doctor who became her husband, and the struggles of her older daughter (neurodivergent).  The last subject is one of the more personal discussions, including the couple's struggles to balance career and family & find out what was the best academic path for their daughter.  

[Like two ships passing in the night, Jackson and Barrett also worked at the same law firm, but apparently not at exactly the same time.] 

She also informs us how she came upon her current hairstyle. Hair is very important to women of color. Melissa Harris-Perry on her MNBC weekend show (Perry and Chris Hayes had more ability to have free-range discussions on those shows) once had a very interesting segment on the subject.  

Some readers might wish she talked more about law and her legal experiences. Jackson did cover that too though the section on her law school experience is brief except for a discussion on the law review. 

The book ends with her Supreme Court confirmation so don't expect her to talk about her time there. She also followed the usual rules about talking about her Supreme Court clerkship though provided some basic details while not talking about inside material.

Overall, it was an interesting and personable book that should get a wide readership.  

Upcoming 

The new term will start on the first Monday of October. We will likely have more miscellaneous orders before then. 

There will also be multiple executions, starting next week. There might be one or more final orders dismissing Hail Mary attempts to stop them. 

SCOTUS Watch

Order Watch  

The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is denied.

The final scheduled summer order list is coming up and there are five executions later this month. Meanwhile, other SCOTUS actions.

The first miscellaneous order concerns an attempt to delay prison time, appealing to a 1/6 related case. The crime:

Applicant, a former assistant inspector general and contracting official in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 1519 by, among other things, omitting from his annual financial disclosure forms $80,000 in loans that he had received.

No dice and no comment. Of more note:

The Supreme Court has rejected Oklahoma's attempt to claw back millions in Title X family planning funds that it lost because it refused to comply with program rules requiring clinics to offer information about abortion to patients who request it.

Oklahoma sued the administration in 2023 after it lost roughly $4.5 million in annual Title X funds for refusing to comply with the abortion counseling and referral requirements. The lower court rejected the claim. Litigation continues, underlining abortion lawsuits will not end after Dobbs. 

The Biden Administration offered to let them merely offer patients a national hotline number to obtain information about making an abortion appointment out of state. The state said "Nope."

The Biden administration redistributed the funding that had been going to Oklahoma’s health department to two independent providers who have agreed to abide by the abortion referral requirements.

This time, though there were no explanations, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch publicly dissented. 

Books 

Someone recommended a 1960s book entitled A Supreme Court Justice Is Appointed, which discusses Justice Pierce Butler. Justice Butler is the least talked about of the four conservatives nicknamed the Four Horsemen (of the Apocalypse) during the New Deal.  

(Here's a law article on Butler that argues he is worthy of somewhat more attention.) 

They had liberal moments, including Justice McReynolds writing Meyer v. Nebraska and some well-known civil liberty rulings of George Sutherland. Pierce Butler dissented in the Olmstead (wiretapping) and Buck v. Bell (eugenics) cases too. Van Devanter wrote the least though he was around the longest. His forte was more behind the scenes. 

The book is a mostly engaging discussion of the ins and outs of Butler's appointment. The last quarter of the book had some chapters that were written in academic-ese. Academics should be able to discuss such matters without causing eyes to glaze over.

Meanwhile, Justice Jackson's autobiography (she has a co-author, who she thanks but does not get a co-writing credit) is out. I have it on reserve. 

She is doing interviews, including noting that she is okay with a binding ethics rule for SCOTUS. She was on Colbert* as was her old boss (Justice Breyer) earlier to promote his latest book (rather dull). Years back, in a rather nifty seven or so minutes, Justice John Paul Stevens was a guest on the Colbert Report.  

In one interview, she was interviewed with her husband, who noted he always knew that she would be on the Supreme Court. He got a bit teary. Definite "awww" moment. 

Sotomayor has multiple books. She now has a musical, which is based on one of her books for children. The musical has adults portraying children, discussing growing up with different disabilities. 

Did any talk about watching Sotomayor on Sesame Street? Barrett and Kavanaugh's books are pending. 

==

* Airing tonight. 

ETA: Colbert referenced early that a justice will not discuss certain matters. It would have been helpful for Jackson to briefly explain why.

Jackson briefly explained her dissent in the Trump immunity case. She has decided this would be one of the things she could talk about.

Colbert noted the practice of dissenting from the bench. Jackson explained it was a way to express your strong feelings about a case. 

She dissented from the bench twice this term, including in the Idaho abortion case. She said (or claimed) she didn't remember the exact cases. I have my doubts that she truly forgot them.  

Trying again to revive ERA

Lyle Denniston earlier this month flagged another attempt to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment [N.Y. has their own state version on the ballot]:

In a vote at the annual meeting in Chicago of the ABA’s policymaking arm, the House of Delegates, the lawyers’ group approved a nationwide campaign to make the Equal Rights Amendment the Constitution’s 28th Amendment. That would be done without any need for further action by Congress or by the states, but by a simple declaration by a federal government official, the National Archivist – the keeper of the federal government’s records.

The Bar Association’s new plan is based on three legal propositions:

1. That 38 states, the necessary minimum number, have already ratified the ERA.
2. That no state will be allowed to withdraw its earlier ratifying vote – as six states have attempted to do.
3. And, that the Constitution does not allow Congress to put any time limit on when a proposed amendment must be ratified to complete the process specified by the Constitution’s Article V. 

I have examined this issue in the past. My reading of the history and tradition along with text and other interpretative mechanisms is that states do not have the power to withdraw. 

Art. V. suggests that a state ratifies. There is no suggestion of "backsies." Likewise, multiple times, covering more than one amendment, an attempt for a state to revoke ratification has been rejected. 

I disagree that the Constitution does not give Congress the ability to set a time limit on when an amendment must be ratified. Multiple amendments do have one in the text of the amendment. It also can be provided as a separate matter in the enabling resolution.

(A resolution -- like applying the punishment after conviction in an impeachment -- can be done by a majority vote. If a time limit is in the amendment, change can only come via a supermajority vote.)  

The ERA was passed with such a deadline, which was extended for three years. The new deadline expired over forty years ago. 

This procedure was a sound means to execute the amendment process. Congress has the power to "fill in the blanks" via the Necessary and Process Clause. 

Reference is made to the 27th Amendment, which was first proposed along with the Bill of Rights (another amendment was as well and was never ratified). There was no resolution providing a time limit. 

Also, there is some evidence that people in the early 19th Century didn't think the proposed amendment was still active.*

Dillon v. Gloss (1921) reasonably suggested the implication was that proposal and ratification would be "sufficiently contemporaneous." A more contemporaneous article discussed the matter, covering more ground. I found it convincing. 

The Supreme Court at that time thought it somewhat absurd to think two amendments proposed in 1789 could still be ratified. I agree with them. 

The Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller (1939) reexamined the question. It addressed both a time limit in the amendment itself and in the "resolution of submission." The Supreme Court said that it was a political question for Congress:

In short, the question of a reasonable time in many cases would involve, as in this case it does involve, an appraisal of a great variety of relevant conditions, political, social, and economic, which can hardly be said to be within the appropriate range of evidence receivable in a court of justice and as to which it would be an extravagant extension of judicial authority to assert judicial notice as the basis of deciding a controversy with respect to the validity of an amendment actually ratified.

Four justices went further and would have made the whole amendment process a political question. Two justices dissented, arguing at least given the facts of the case, the Supreme Court could and should deem the amendment in question no longer ripe after thirteen years.  

I will not say that the ruling of Coleman v. Miller provides such a compelling case that no other position is reasonable. Likewise, just because the Supreme Court ruled on something in the 1930s, it does not mean it should hold for all time. 

The ruling, however, is reasonable. There is no sound reason to overrule such a longstanding precedent. Congress set forth a deadline. It passed. 

The final three states do not count unless Congress revokes the deadline. It has the power to do so though I doubt it would be a good idea. The body with the official duty to certify that an amendment passed has not done so. They were right.  

I think the text of the ERA is overall a positive thing though I do not quite know its true reach. What does "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex" mean? It is broader than the Equal Protection Clause. How much so? 

I'm also wary about an equality provision singling out one class of people. I like general provisions like the First and Eighth Amendments. Still, I'm open to the idea. If we ratified it now, it would probably have GLBTQ reach that the original framers might not have expected. I am fine with that.**

But, I do not think it is sensible constitutional procedure to hold open an amendment to the Constitution for over 50 years! If we still think it is necessary -- a lot of water has flowed under the bridge -- it should be resubmitted. 

The American Bar Association doing this has symbolic significance. There also have been multiple attempts by people in Congress in recent years to ratify the amendment. The filibuster made it particularly unlikely. Many people are not aware of the efforts. I think the ratification of an amendment probably warrants more popular knowledge.  

What value would ratification now bring? Current doctrine holds that classification by sex must meet "exceedingly persuasive justification." 

People point out that the law can change. Also, the ERA appears to require a higher test. What sorts of things would change? Often discussion is rather vague. Other times they are somewhat misguided. 

For instance, Dobbs rejected arguments that a constitutional right to choose an abortion was required for sexual equality. The ERA by itself would not necessarily change that.  

The ratification history of the ERA suggests that its backers supported a broad reach. The provision spoke of "equality of rights under the law" and "denied or abridged." The Civil Rights Cases held that the 14th Amendment did not apply to public accommodations. 

Would the ERA? Perhaps so. The 1970s view of equality was open-ended. We now have a wider view of rights, including talking about "right to health care."  The reach of the ERA should be broad.

If so, it only underlines the importance of a contemporaneous ratification. An argument can be made that Congress provides a proper means of representing the will of the people here. 

Nonetheless, Art. V provides a higher test. When we change the Constitution, it should be a higher test than the passage of legislation. Maybe, the current process to too tough, allowing a few small states to block change. The overall principle still holds.

The ERA was proposed at a different time and place addressing different concerns. Coleman v. Miller soundly held that Congress can factor that when setting up the rules for ratification. 

I think the ERA is probably no longer ripe. Congress under Coleman v. Miller does have the power to revoke the deadline. They rightly have not.  

At the very least, if we grant 38 states "ratified" the amendment and that no state can take their votes back, a time limit is sound constitutional practice. It is in Congress's court to decide if the ERA should be ratified. Once it is, there is a two-year grace period before it is put into place.   

In 2020, the OLC determined that Congress could not extend a deadline. I don't think that is sound, especially given Coleman v. Miller.  It is also questionable a Biden/Harris OLC would hold the same thing. They should not. 

For now, the question is somewhat academic, but we do that sort of thing around here too.  

==

* I don't have a link but recall reading a law article discussing how one or more amendment proposals in the early 19th Century assumed failed amendments at some point were no longer active. Such early practice is of limited interest but somewhat notable.  

The amendments in question would be congressional pay, apportionment rules, and (later on) an amendment extending title of nobility limitations. 

Later on, the "Corwin Amendment" that would limit federal power over "domestic" institutions also was pending. The amendment particularly covered slavery but the text does not only cover that institution.  

The 27A covers a very limited ground and eventually was ratified by over 40 states. One idiosyncratic example is not enough to settle the question.  

Maybe, the ERA is mostly symbolic at this point, but it has more bite than the 27A. 

** Michael Dorf here argues there is no actual difference given current precedent. It's a symbolic measure. 

Why wouldn't adding the word "abridge" mean anything? Ditto factoring in the broader intent of the amendment. I also don't know what "equality of rights" adds. Still, different wording might matter. 

He separately notes singling out sex won't burden the attempt to protect other types of equality. Maybe?

Dorf also links to a Verdict article that covers the overall ground of my discussion. It is generally agnostic but somewhat leans toward accepting ratification. To that degree, I somewhat disagree.  

Vance, Harris, and a Flubbing Beauty Contestant

Upton, now a 35-year-old mother of two who has posted conservative memes, wild claims of voting fraud and Students for Trump material, did not see his joke in a positive light. “It’s a shame that 17 years later this is still being brought up. Regardless of political beliefs, one thing I do know is that social media and online bullying needs to stop,” she said on X—then deleted her account shortly afterwards.

Caitlin Upton (listed as 5'10") was a Miss Teen USA (Trump owned the pageant from 1996 to 2015) flubbed an answer about maps in 2007. She was the subject of ridicule. I'll grant that I thought the answer was really stupid. 

(“Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can’t locate the US on a world map. Why do you think this is?” Aimee Teegarden of Friday Night Lights asked the question.) 

Still. She was eighteen. She froze while answering a question. It's like when someone gives a stupid answer on Family Feud. And, sometimes, when you start saying something stupid (to be blunt), you continue to ramble. It's best, after being human about it, to have some empathy. Or, empathy first, if possible.

Anyway, why is this whole thing -- which is "more than 17 years old" to quote a label when I looked up an article on the matter -- relevant again? Yes. James David Vance is being an asshole again:

JD Vance posted a video of Upton’s humiliation with the caption, “BREAKING: I have gotten ahold of the full Kamala Harris CNN interview.”

So topical, James. The coverage includes a notice (did not recall reading this) that Caitlyn revealed that she was so upset at the reaction to the original flub that she had thoughts of suicide. 

National embarrassment is horrible. Again, some empathy, even for the latest subject of ridicule ... at least, if they are just guilty of goofing up. If they did something really wrong, they deserve more shame.  

When asked about the joke:

Vance expressed sympathy but did not apologize, stating, “I’m not going to apologize for posting a joke, but I wish the best for Caitlin and hope she’s doing well.”

Slate discussed why Vance is so bad at telling jokes. Jokes for him are a way to express bitterness. He has problems "reading the room." Shades of McCarthyite in The Best Man, he lacks a certain general empathy.

Upton herself found that she still had issues with the general public. As noted in the opening quote, she has been a Trump supporter and not just back in the day when he ran the pageant. People reminded her.

She took down her Twitter/X account. I think it is appropriate to tell the whole story here so did lead with both parts of the opening quote.  

This does not justify Vance's comment. It was a crude, sexist attack -- par for the course -- against the first major Harris/Vance joint media interview. On a lesser level, besides again shaming a teenage girl, it used an outdated meme that is one more level of stupidity.

(The interview overall appears to have generally been a success with nothing too earth-shattering said.) 

A long time ago, if not as long ago as the map flub, I thought up "six simple rules," leading with not being a dick. It's hard when that is a basic part of your personality.  I'll have some empathy for Vance, but darn, he should be nowhere near being vice president. 

And, Trump has had his own rambling flubs, but he's no teenager. I don't think I want Upton in office either. She's an adult now and should know better. 

==

Note: An article discussing Trump's bouncing around regarding the Florida abortion measure was telling. 

Multiple Republicans, including strongly anti-abortion people, both tried to convince themselves "deep down" that he was right on the issue or justified voting for him. Talking about human nature ... not surprising. 

Arkansas Again

While Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders takes credit for the 4-3 ruling that kept an abortion rights ballot measure away from voters, things are not going well.

The Washington Post — showing that MSM is not only trolling us with pro-Trump fact checks — had a good (if depressing) report:

This state calls itself the ‘most pro-life.’ But moms there keep dying.

The problem of maternal health is so bad that Gov. Sanders knew she had to act:

This spring, facing pressure from business leaders and the medical community, Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders launched an initiative to address maternal health, an issue that she acknowledged “we’ve ignored for far too long.” Yet she declined to support extending Medicaid postpartum coverage to a year from 60 days, saying the state’s existing insurance system was enough. Arkansas will soon be one of only two states not adopting such coverage.

Banning nearly all abortions doesn't quite do it. One glaring issue is teenagers:

Though teen birth rates are falling nationally, federal data shows the statistic for Arkansas is almost twice the U.S. average. Lack of access to contraception is a major factor; the rate at which teens in Arkansas have unprotected sex is 75 percent higher, according to a report from the nonprofit Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.

The Dobbs ruling that overturned national abortion rights arose out of Mississippi, which has such bad social welfare stats that it is something of a sick joke. The briefing underlined who would be particularly harmed by an abortion ban.

In theory, you can ban abortion and address other problems. In reality, states with strict abortion bans are not likely to be good places for women and families overall.

Abortion providers do not just provide abortions. The lack of abortion rights is not just about “federalism” (sorry James David Vance) or “pro-life” ends.

North Carolina, helped by a traitor former Democrat, tried somewhat:

The bill also contains a number of provisions cracking down on where and how women can get abortions, and how many steps they must take prior to making the decision — including multiple in-person meetings with a doctor. There's also more state funding for adoption services, maternal health programs and religious charities that run antiabortion clinics called crisis pregnancy centers.

The state has a Democratic governor and a shot in hell for a Harris win so it is not too surprising it did not go the totally extreme route. It drew the line at twelve weeks. You know, slavery-lite. 

State funding of religious charities and crisis pregnancy scams also is not too liberal. But, yes, they could be said “not to be Arkansas.”

At the end of the day, if you are pro-life (not “pro-life with baggage”), Rachel Held Evans (RIP) was right. You should vote blue.

Abortion bans will not do much to reduce abortion rates and the people behind them have too much negative baggage.

Item: Democracy Does Not Exist in Arkansas

Of the 11 states where organizers have submitted petitions to qualify ballot measures aimed at protecting or expanding abortion rights this year, Arkansas' is the only effort that has so far been officially rejected.

(Nebraska's measure is pending.) Erik Loomis posted a blog post reporting on the Arkansas Supreme Court upholding a decision to block a proposed amendment to extend abortion access.

The court ruled 4-3 that the secretary of state reasonably blocked it for not following the rules. Loomis notes he has a "correspondent" who says the "rules" are Calvinball in nature. The closely split opinion does suggest the reasoning is iffy.  

Arkansas has very restrictive abortion laws. The backers receive some pushback for choosing a twenty-week ban:

The Arkansas ballot proposal lacked support from national abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood because it would still have allowed abortion to be banned 20 weeks into pregnancy. 

They also showed some bravery:

It faced heavy opposition from abortion opponents in the state. One of the groups, the Family Council Action Committee, published the names of people gathering signatures for the abortion measure and had vowed to challenge the proposed constitutional amendment in court if it made the ballot.

One blog comment noted the voters have agency. The person criticized the headline since the voters chose anti-choice people in statewide elections. Is this not "democracy" in action?  

Two things. First, the state allows a form of direct democracy. If the process was improperly blocked, a case can be made that "democracy does not exist."

Second, in a different sense, democracy is not just about voting for governors and other representatives. It does not only include direct democracy options such as ballot measures and recall efforts. 

Democracy involves basic freedoms such as those found in the First Amendment. These are necessary for a functioning democracy. Civil rights and liberties are part of democracy, including abortion rights. 

I do not think democracy does not exist at all in Arkansas. Nonetheless, it is severely lacking. "Thanks" Donald Trump and the Republican Party. 

It is appreciated that most states where the people want a referendum on abortion rights -- including Florida (60% requirement) -- will have one. We should not have to rely on such measures. 

We should never accept Dobbs as something to take for granted. It continues to be an unjust ruling that was handled in a corrupt way. The people have struck back but we still have a ways to go democracy-wise. 

ETA: I do think the ruling is suspicious and a conservative state's supreme court split 4-3 helps confirm that. Not knowing the intricacies of state ballot law, however, I will leave a bit of doubt on bare state law grounds as compared to the shitty nature of the overall policy choices.  

"What can be done about this Supreme Court’s very worst decisions?"

Ian Millhiser wrote a piece with the above title. 

Milhiser has little expectation that any of the major Supreme Court reforms will be passed. 

And, if they were passed, the Supreme Court could strike them down. He doesn't clarify but doesn't seem to think ethics reform will do much either. Millhiser references the chance of a national law protecting abortion rights. Does not say if that too will be struck.

He notes that the Republicans won on abortion as part of a long game. State laws limited abortion rights. Then, a sort of trifecta allowed them to overturn Roe v. Wade. It was darn close -- if Ginsburg lived a few more months, wouldn't have happened. I put aside if she would have retired earlier.

Mark Tushnet (writing in 2020) suggested there was a way for the people themselves to get around the courts if there was the will to do so. The underenforcement of racial equality, criminal justice amendments, and the separation of church and state suggests some possibilities on the ground. 

Millhisher also provides some options for "very worst decisions." The Trump immunity decision makes shit up and endangers the rule of law. Before overturning Roe, the same five justices allowed Texas to ignore it. 

Biden v. Nebraska both should have been dismissed on standing grounds and on the merits. A Second Amendment ruling put in place a doctrine that led to confusion in the lower courts.  

He is not sure if Dobbs should be placed among those "fundamentally hostile to constitutional democracy." But, why? He goes into a discussion about how rights ultimately rely on what five justices decide. 

"Once that majority is lost, the right disappears." So, people have a false security that once the right is there it won't disappear over time. And, Dobbs being on the books provides a warning, which shows why we need to vote for a liberal political majority.  

A few things. It took a long time and a perfect storm for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. Abortion rights were not a wispy thing. Rights protected by judicial means have some real teeth. They are not forever necessarily. But, that is not the same thing, anyhow.

And, we were not naive about the limits of the Supreme Court until Dobbs. The separation of church and state was not truly honored. And, then, a conservative supermajority underlined the point. 

Second, why were the other rulings clearly horrible? One possibility is that they blocked political change. Dobbs, at least not yet, has not disallowed the protection of abortion by statute and state constitutional means.  

Let's put aside the possibility that Dobbs will block congressional protections since it implies no right to abortion means to power to enforce, denying state power to ban. Also, Dobbs lowers the bar. Now, a "compromise" is a twelve-week ban.

Beyond such concerns, abortion rights are fundamental to constitutional democracy. They are essential for equal citizenship. Religious liberty and other rights are part of our democratic system. 

Next, the cases represented a broken judicial system, including letting lower courts ignore judicial precedents. However, Dobbs too represented a broken system, including a slipshod approach in overturning law on the books for almost fifty years.  

Finally, what does a right "disappearing" mean? The fact five justices claim a right doesn't exist should not lead the public to automatically accept that the right does not exist. "Judicial supremacy" should not be applied that broadly. 

Surely, in practical reality, a Supreme Court judgment can lead to a constitutional right not existing. Texas can now ban abortion except in very narrow cases. 

Constitutional rights are still present in some form. Consider the Fifteenth Amendment, which bars racial discrimination in voting. In practice, this amendment was held in abeyance in many parts of the country for almost a hundred years. It still was there, if people were willing to demand that it was enforced.  

The meaning of the Constitution arises from many sources. A dissenting group kept alive a principle of true equality during Jim Crow. People right now are keeping alive the principle of a right to choose. 

What can be done? State and federal abortion protections. Electing the people who will enforce the right policies and choose liberal-leaning judges. Pushing back on the courts, which will in a limited sense cause them to be cautious.  

And, yes, continue to fight for judicial reforms, including less talked about matters such as national injunction reform. Such reforms -- like same-sex marriage or an African American woman as president -- will seem impossible until they actually are not. 

Finally, we should respect the courts, but realize there are limits. We should demand them to be ethical and set basic limits on who could be judges. 

And, judges are not gods. If they say 2+2=5, it isn't totally so.  

"Abortion Politics and the Court: How the Left is Winning by Losing"

Prof. Eric Segall is "radically" pro-choice while a long opponent of Roe v. Wade. He cites an op-ed by a leading conservative pro-life [I'm not going debate labels here] advocate:

If the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement is to reduce the number of abortions, not just to change legal precedent, then these numbers and these electoral outcomes are deeply alarming. If present trends continue, then abortion opponents will have won an important legal battle, but they’ll ultimately lose the more important cultural and political cause.

Segall argues Roe and Casey were wrong on legal and pragmatic grounds. His blog here is more pragmatic. But, why were they wrong legally? 

Casey reasonably upheld Roe as precedent. Roe itself (and I have said a lot here and elsewhere) was a correct application of precedent and constitutional principles. At worst, Roe went too far. 

Nonetheless, some right to choose would be appropriate. This also (to jump ahead) will cause problems with his pragmatic concerns. The pro-life movement (which has a strong anti-feminist and evangelical component) would still have arisen if Roe-lite was decided. If abortion is murder, it is still murder if it only is done 10% of the time or if states have the discretion to allow it. There was a strong constitutional personhood movement. 

Also, the Medicaid cases -- as even strong Roe critic (who later supported Casey on precedential grounds) John Hart Ely Jr. noted, were wrong on equal protection grounds. I also think they are wrong on freedom of religion grounds. Again, pushback is part of a wider whole that helped the Reagan Revolution and later on the Trump presidency.  

Segall claims to be a strong feminist. I will grant his honesty if not quite his judgment. Abortion rights are fundamental to upholding sexual equality. 

He grants that the Supreme Court is never really restrained by text. Abortion being an unenumerated right is not grounds to deny protection. Legally, abortion rights should be protected.

Segall's strongest and most emotional case is pragmatic. Roe v. Wade resulted in a strong backlash. But, the idea that Roe itself was essential is a much harder case to make. 

First, again, I think even Segall would accept a limited right to abortion [at least, state discretion to allow, and abortion in extreme cases, such as when very important for health]. 

Second, a range of things influenced the conservative backlash. The literature, for instance, suggests that abortion was used as a more polite tool by people more concerned about race. 

Segall suggests Roe was key to Trump being elected. Really, dude? He wouldn't have been elected for other reasons?  

Americans prefer making their own decisions when it comes to deeply contested moral issues and do not want to be told how to live their lives by the Supreme Court.

History suggests the people are rather comfortable with giving the Supreme Court broad power to set constitutional rights. The same conservative backlash that led to Dobbs led to rulings overturning affirmative action programs and gun regulations. Segall might be (somewhat*) consistent regarding a limited view of judicial review. Americans are not.  

A counterfactual regarding Roe v. Wade being decided differently is at this point basically a dubious parlor game. We can limit ourselves to Dobbs. 

The op-ed notes that the abortion rate has slightly risen. A logical reason is that it led to less reproductive healthcare, resulting in somewhat more pregnancies. 

Abortion bans are of limited benefit to reducing abortion generally. They are more likely to lead to unequal results, physical harm, and other bad things. 

Jimmy Carter in one of his books noted he opposed abortion bans, referencing the experience in Latin America. He opposes abortion but bans aren't a productive approach to reduce abortions. Rachel Held Evans said the same thing when supporting Clinton.

It is appreciated that there was a strong pro-choice backlash to Dobbs. Dobbs was an extreme overreach, even if you are a Roe critic as Roberts's concurrence underlined. Again, John Hart Ely Jr. supported Casey.

The "winning" comes with a serious cost. People in Florida and Texas, the third and second most populous states in the United States, especially have been burdened. We have national rights in this country. Should we just handwave chunks of people who do not have them since "so many" do? 

It is great that a mixture of state ballot measures and court rulings [the people making their own decisions, right?] have protected abortion rights or will be on the ballot in November. Constitutional rights, however, should not be on the ballot. 

State-authorized segregation is both wrong and unconstitutional. Nonetheless, it took a Supreme Court ruling to set the principle in place before Congress strongly started to act. There was a strong backlash, one that helped Republicans gain control.

Some people have called out Democrats for not supporting abortion rights by national legislation. A  majority of Republicans and a minority of anti-choice Democrats combined to make this impossible.  

As with Brown, Roe provided a safety net. Now, the safety net is gone. "The Left is winning" the battle in many ways. There is a long way to go.** 

===

* Segall did not oppose the same-sex marriage cases. 

The only consistent reason that comes to mind here is that the public as a whole is not as similarly split on the issue. It cannot be a consistent application of his tough rule for judicial review. The ruling was 5-4! 

The public is more divided over trans issues, as shown by legislation passed in many states. Does he think such laws should be upheld? 

Likewise, in the past, Segall noted abortion should be seen as a values policy debate, not a constitutional right. He does support a constitutional amendment that more clearly protects it. I think the current Constitution does. 

Why is homosexuality different?  Sex and sexual orientation discrimination are both class-based.

What level of public support is necessary to uphold clear constitutional rights, including freedom from slavery (forced motherhood)? Roe v. Wade was decided 7-2. There was a strong public dissent but the same is true for a range of issues. 

You are left with "this caused that" which is far from apparent, including by scholars who studied the matter. Segall notes he has lived in Georgia for a long time and has first-hand experience.

** There is an argument that a national abortion law is unconstitutional. 

Congress has the power to enforce the 14th Amendment, but Dobbs held there is no right to choose an abortion protected by that amendment. The Supreme Court repeatedly overturned national legislation on federalist grounds.  

Can an abortion rights statute be protected on Commerce Clause grounds? Perhaps. There is also the possibility that Congress includes a jurisdiction-stripping provision that protects the law from review.

A Year of Biblical Womanhood by Rachel Held Evans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===

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

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

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

Abortion in America (book) and Other Related Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

===

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

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

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

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

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

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

==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCOTUS Opinions: Day 2

A recent Amy Howe summary of remaining cases helpfully provides information, including a link to the case page which also will include the opinion. Yes, there now will be a fourth day on July 1st, which is rare in recent decades, with COVID pushing things back in 2020 providing a rare exception.

The delay on some level really doesn't matter. What does a few days matter? It isn't just that they want to delay the Trump case until after the debate. They could do it tomorrow. Anyway, the real problem there was both taking the case and slow walking it.  

Today's federal law/anti-administrative state day. The abortion ruling wrongly posted yesterday also dropped.  On that, yes, it is not a "victory for abortion rights." I support Jackson's partial dissent. She (partially) dissented from the bench. It helps that ultimately her vote didn't matter. That allows you to blithely go further. So, factor that in. 

But, I realize Sotomayor and Kagan are concerned about patients in need of emergency care.  If there was a firm five to deny them care, a temporary stay would be of some use. We can talk about sending a message in November but this narrow issue net is of limited value there. 

Without carefully looking, the general assumption seems to be that the content of the opinion that was wrongly posted is basically the same, minus typos and formatting issues. Another case is pending in the Fifth Circuit on this issue. So, this issue will be back to the Court soon. 

Then, we will see what the conservative six will do. Barrett (with Roberts and Kavanaugh) seems to want to find a way to wish the problem away. Alito (with Thomas and Gorsuch) wants to deny there is a problem while tossing in "unborn child" repeatedly. Dobbs remains horrible law. 

The big bankruptcy case involving OxyContin split the liberals. Jackson silently went along with Gorsuch's opinion while the other liberals (and Roberts) joined a Kavanaugh dissent arguing it unnecessarily harmed the victims. She apparently thought congressional intent and the law itself required that result. The case is complicated. Neither side is great. 

[ETA: An important context to this decision is that the U.S. government opposed the deal that was struck down. Like the death penalty, there is also no one answer the victims' support. It's a hard case.]

The SEC result (written by Roberts with Gorsuch/Thomas having a preachy concurrence) limited the harm. It involved a big attack on the agency along with a more limited challenge resting on the need for civil juries. The majority took that route. 

Sotomayor for the liberals still strongly dissented. Long practice allowed not using juries (which to be clear conservatives are not so keen about in a variety of cases) in this context. 

Some liberals were sympathetic to a jury requirement. And, it is unclear just how problematic the result will be in practice. Nonetheless, it comes off as an anti-administrative state result with a wider reach than this one agency. Sotomayor dissented from the bench. 

(Preaching about "due process" or not caring about the enforcement dynamics since that's just "political" while this is constitutionally required is simplistic. Also, yes, Justice Brennan supported juries in some cases in this context. But, the dissent argues only in a limited way.)  

The fourth case was a special hearing (maybe Steve Vladeck's shadow docket writings are getting to them) to determine if the EPA should hold up "good neighbor" air pollution regulations. The guys (Gorsuch) vs. the gals (Barrett) in this case with Barrett having a strong dissent about how unfounded it is for SCOTUS to reach out to delay things. 

==

A final bit. The Supreme Court started to speed along the preliminary bound copies of opinions. One result was a reduced amount of revisions flagged on the website. Any changes were noted at the bottom of the link to the bound copy [see opinions with page numbers]. 

For whatever reason, they have been noting revisions more often lately, even if the revision amounts to the change of one word. 

==

I will leave it there, noting these are complicated opinions, each with a sort of asterisk to them (the EPA case is probably the easiest to disagree with).  See Slate, Vox, and Chris Geidner (Law Dork) et. al. for more details.

See you tomorrow.

SCOTUS Watch: Two Down

The Supreme Court set up three opinion days this week to handle around twelve cases (some cases involve the same general subject). They decided to hand down two today. The first:

the case about social media "jawboning" -- the government's communications with social media companies during the 2020 election season and COVID-19 pandemic. The court holds that the challengers -- two states and five social-media users -- do not have standing -- that is, a legal right to sue.

(SCOTUSBlog live blogging summary.) 

Justice Barrett wrote the opinion, which was expected by those who kept track of who wrote opinions from that argument cluster. A bit of inside baseball: the Supreme Court has monthly argument schedules. They generally evenly divide the opinions from each argument. Barrett, who already had fewer opinions than some justices, did not have an opinion from that set. Kavanaugh handled another standing case recently.

The general assumption was that the standing argument was weak. Justice Alito (back on the bench; Gorsuch was out) along with Thomas and Gorsuch though there was standing. They also saw this as a grave free speech issue. It comes off as some Fox News conspiracy.  

[Mark Joseph Stern has more.]

The government flags COVID lies, Facebook or Twitter takes them down, and it's "censorship."  As both liberal and conservative justices noted during oral argument, the government -- including press secretaries -- regularly references stories they deem unfair and so on. 

The open-ended nature of the claims, another Fifth Circuit special, made this an easy case. There is a point that even this Court will say "enough." Again, however, we should not be that impressed with minimal sanity. 

==

The other case was another in a long line of cases (sometimes unanimously) where the Supreme Court applied corruption laws narrowly. SCOTUSBlog summarizes:

The court rules in Snyder v. United States, that federal bribery law does not make it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. Federal law, the court writes, “leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”

(The Supreme Court will then strike down these local regulations on other grounds, including First Amendment or due process.)  

Justice Gorsuch concurs again to toss in his now common comment how he is glad to join his fellow justices (or politely disagrees). He also says any "fair reader" would find the application by the federal government unreasonable. 

Jackson for her fellow liberals disagrees. Jackson summaries: 

involves one such person. James Snyder, a former Indiana mayor, was convicted by a jury of violating §666 after he steered more than $1 million in city contracts to a local truck dealership, which turned around and cut him a $13,000 check.

She argues the majority accepted an "absurd and atextual reading." Jackson continues to be the "keeping it real" justice.

The Court’s reasoning elevates nonexistent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute and is a quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog.

Mark Joseph Stern of Slate summarized on Twitter:

Jackson, in dissent, says the majority's decision allows state and local officials to accept "rewards" for official acts "in ways that are functionally indistinguishable from taking a bribe," carving a massive hole into the federal anti-bribery law. 

More than one member of the majority are somewhat biased when it comes about line drawing when it comes to bribery. 

==

Kimberly Robinson, referencing other reporting from her paper said on Twitter that SCOTUS

inadvertently released its opinion in EMTALA abortion case earlier this morning. The Justices are poised to allow emergency abortions in Idaho, suggesting the Court shouldn't have gotten involved in the early litigation.

I refreshed the website multiple times and did not see this. So, it must have been there only for a very limited time. I am not sure why they did not hand it down today.  It would have made more sense to hand down three opinions, two involving limited but significant issues and a third having some wider implications. We shall see what happens.

A reporter eventually tweeted a link to the opinions. There are separate opinions joined by nine justices (2-3-1-3), which is weird in such a dismissal. The formatting looks weird. And, there are typos. It does seem like it was not ready to be posted. So, perhaps the release was an accident, simple as that. Other reasons were offered, including that they were waiting for the presidential debate to be over [why release the Biden case then?]. 

A CSPAN producer in charge of the courts posted this statement from the "SCOTUS spokesperson." (I suppose the public information office.) I continued to be annoyed that such things are not posted on the Court's website as a "press release" or "media advisory," to cite two sections on the website. We have to get them secondhand. 

As the Supreme Court turns continues. 

Some Books

And Also: I should add here that the Mets have been doing well. They won seven in a row before finally losing a close game. The Mets are still under .500 but with the weakness of the NL, they are in the Wild Card Hunt. 

Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson is an expert on Freud, psychotherapy, and related subjects. He also wrote many books about animals. 

The Cat Who Came In From The Cold is "a fable" about the first cat who decided to stay with humans. The cat travels around India, talking with different animals about their relationship with humans. An imperfect one at best, the cows perhaps particularly not that impressed ("sacred cows").

It is a charming little book with some lessons along the way.

===

“When you’re actively listening, you’re not just receiving information, you’re saying something even when you’re not even speaking.”

“Listening skills will help you in pretty much every relationship – professional, personal, or some combination of the two.”

Being a good listener is “about noticing cues that signal something might be up, responding to shifts in tone or topic appropriately, and knowing how to ask questions that open a space for discussion.”

Say More: Lessons From Work, the White House, and the World by Jen Psaki is not a regular memoir. The subtitle tells it all: it is more of an instruction manual about communication with wide applications. She has a lot of good advice. Sometimes, I wished she had a final checklist or something to sum things up better! 

I miss her being President Biden's press secretary. Her replacement is likely quite qualified in various ways. Nonetheless, Psaki has a certain ease up there that made it enjoyable to watch. Karine Jean-Pierre has a less smooth approach. It comes off as more scripted and forced. Not "must see."

==

I enjoyed a young adult book on the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The author is best known for her fiction. Nonetheless, the book crisply summarised the basics. 

The longer (still reasonable length) book by Mary Ann Glendon (perhaps best known for her conservative-leaning legal philosophical views on subjects such as abortion) did not really add much more. 

A World Made New (written around twenty years ago, but nothing much changed) adds a few details. The best chapter might have been a short one discussing how a special panel independently agreed that there were certain universal dos and don'ts that the world's society could agree upon. This belies the concern that there are really no universal truths. 

It was a good read overall. Still, the other book was fine.

==

I should add -- since I used my entry on Christine Blasey Ford to mostly talk about the issues -- her book is well written. She has an honest and open tone that is very appealing. Not bad for a first book by a person who specializes in data and research. Yes, she is a professor too so has some skills in translating stuff for an audience.

===

The new book (Undue Burden) on multiple human stories regarding life after Roe is a major accomplishment. I just did not have it in me to read around three hundred depressing pages of stories.

I also thought the introduction was too strong. Roe v. Wade was not "clearly" on the way out for years. It was a close thing that it eventually overturned. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg lived a few more months, things could have been significantly different. 

I re-read the shorter Generation Roe by Sarah Erdreich. I briefly talked about the book here back in 2014 (sigh):

It is quick reading and covers standard ground from an activist's perspective c. 2013. Some good stuff included: perspective of medical students, abortion portrayal on t.v. and the conservative nature of big abortion rights groups. References but does not discuss, to its detriment, the abortion battle during the ACA legislation process.

I suppose the matter has gotten better, but one thing that stands out there is the portrayal of abortion on television and films. I don't begrudge a film like Waitress (for purposes of plot; she also lives in the South, where certain values could have been drilled into her) but too often the idea on television is that people who would otherwise have an abortion for a variety of reasons have the baby. Abortion is a common procedure. You might never know it from its portrayal on television, especially back in the day.