Happy Hanukkah!

 

Pardoning Turkeys

President Biden "pardoned" Peach and Blossom as part of a holiday tradition that goes back to at least President Bush Sr. The event is a time for some fun. And, to promote the turkey industry, which is the likely origin of this whole thing. Turkeys were donated to presidents for quite some time. 

People, rightly up to a point, ridicule the whole thing. We have some silly traditions. They have a place. So, putting aside that I am a vegetarian, I'm not going to belittle the whole thing too much.  

Yes, I find the whole thing silly. We know that presidents do not literally, in a constitutional sense, pardon birds. I suppose the president might have the legal ability to "pardon" certain animals. For instance, as commander-in-chief, they can be in control of animals serving the military. 

Again, as a vegetarian -- and, when I am fully consistent about ingredients, a vegan -- I am insulted by a ceremony that protects two birds while everyone else eats a bunch of them as a meal. I would note that as a food turkey is more dry and less tasty than a simple chicken meal.

The other thing that usually comes up at this time of year is that presidents, including Democrats, should spend more time pardoning people. That's fair though some critics overcompensate somewhat regarding how little Democrats pardon people. We should have a more streamlined process. Congress can help. As usual, the problem is more than one person.

At the very end of the presidency, perhaps even the last moments, is when we usually have a final bunch of pardons and commutations. So, we will have to wait to see what is in store. A special concern, with the incoming Administration, is people on death row. 

Will we get a token effort there too? 

SCOTUS Watch

SCOTUS had no oral arguments. They were somewhat busy with orders and November began with a conference which will bring orders on Monday. 

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed a federal law intended to standardize anti-doping and safety regulations in horse racing to remain in place while a challenge to that law plays out.

Amy Howe dealt with the somewhat confusing procedural dynamics. Bottom line, only Justice Jackson (though Prof. Steve Vladeck on Twitter said she was right) openly disagreed. 

The move suggests that the justices are interested in taking the case. If so, it can have some significant effect on regulatory choice. There was some bipartisan support for this particular regulation with Mitch McConnell among those saying it has made things safer overall.

Gorsuch dissented from the decision to leave Kennedy on the ballot in Michigan. In a short paragraph, he indicated that he largely agreed with the three conservative judges in the 6th Circuit who would have ordered Benson to remove Kennedy from the ballot.

Robert Kennedy Jr. ended his campaign for president and supported Trump. Kennedy then tried to game the ballot process to keep himself on the ballot in states where it would help Trump and remove his name where it would not. 

The Supreme Court turned down two attempts out of Michigan and Wisconsin, two important "blue wall" swing states. Gorsuch alone dissented in one case.  

The lower courts partially were dubious about Kennedy's two-faced approach. Why would it be coercive to force him to be on the ballot only in certain states?  Also, he waited so long, it would be problematic to do so with voting already starting. 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily blocked an order by a federal judge that would have required Virginia to return more than 1,600 people to the voter rolls. U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles found that since early August the state had canceled the registration of more than 1,600 voters – at least some of whom were U.S. citizens eligible to vote – under a program intended to remove suspected noncitizens from the voting rolls.  

The justices, with neither faction explaining themselves, split ideologically 6-3. Steve Vladeck explains how this is another troubling exercise of the "shadow docket." Technically, only the three liberals dissented on the record. 

OTOH, if a conservative wanted not to be counted as going along, they shouldn't do the mostly (especially here, where the ideologically split vote looks bad) useless act of voting in a way only the justices and their clerks know about.

The lower court decided the other way. The stakes warrant an explanation. Yes, people can still register if they have the right information, though it can be burdensome (one person missed hours of work). People who voted by mail and do not realize there is a problem might be out of luck.

Voting is a fundamental right. A federal law was passed to protect erroneous deprivation near an election when there might not be time to fix false positives.  The balance should go to the voter here.

Cornell West   

Meanwhile, without referring it to the whole court, Alito disposed of a request by Cornell West to have polling places in Pennsylvania have signs telling voters they can write his name in. Sounds a wee bit desperate. Alito: no flag for you. 

West is on the list of people who will be counted if voters in New York write in their names for president.

Friday Night Fun 

I thought we were done but they decided to drop another order apparently after 6 P.M. on Friday. 

They refused a GOP request to narrow options for Pennsylvanian voters who botch mail ballots and try to vote on Election Day. This time, there is a statement by Alito (the circuit judge; joined by Thomas and Gorsuch), explaining that though the case addresses a serious issue, the specific claim doesn't work. 

So, the justices can explain when they wish. 

Other News  

SCOTUS dropped a media advisory regarding the limited sitting in a trans rights case. The Trump Administration would have a different take. 

Ready for 2025? January argument time!   

Right now, the Supreme Court is on the ballot. 

SCOTUS Watch

Orders 

The Supreme Court starts a new term on the first Monday in October. Around now, they have a "long conference" to address the summer backlog. 

An administrative stay put on hold — for now — a lower court ruling (challenging the enforcement mechanism) that had said a federal law regulating the safety of horse racing was unconstitutional. 

Robert Kennedy and his team are trying to game the ballot systems of different states to add or remove his name in a way best able to help Trump. 

The Supreme Court rejected an attempt to have his name added to the New York ballot. As usual, there is no explanation for the rejection. More here.

Kennedy was not put on the ballot because the state found that he put the wrong address on his nomination petition. It is too late to change the ballots now. 

The death penalty news was addressed separately. 

Trump News 

Trump argued people who criticized the Supreme Court should be prosecuted. "Lock them up!"

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing about the Trump immunity ruling. The Constitution has explicit protection (Speech and Debate Clause) to stop charges being brought for doing that. 

Such hearings have a limited reach. They do provide a means to air out and investigate disputes. The special importance of the immunity ruling provided a particular need for such a hearing. 

We also had the minority chair offensively claim strong opposition is intimately related to criminal attacks on the judiciary. Senator Graham has been more and more unhinged since John McCain died. 

Other Developments

Senator Whitehouse, who would be a good Judiciary Committee Chair, separately announced his support of legislation to help quickly address Supreme Court rulings affecting legislative power. This shows -- which some critics worry about -- some members of Congress are thinking big.

Senator Whitehouse has repeatedly pushed the U.S. Judicial Conference to clarify ethics rules. They did so recently in a way that helped Justice Clarence Thomas. The article summarizes:

U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges on lower courts do not have to publicly disclose when they dine or stay at someone's personal residence, even one owned by a business entity, under a revised ethics rule.

It is time for Congress to pass a binding ethics code with stronger requirements. 

Cult of the Cobra

Last week's Svengoolie film was Cult of the Cobra, a fun 1950s affair with various familiar faces.  I did not see the film on television. I borrowed a DVD.

Some Air Force guys during WWII sneaked into a cult ceremony and one stupidly took a photo with a flash camera. A curse is placed on them. They go back home (after one dies) and the curse continues to be applied. But, complications arise when the snake woman falls in love with one of her prey.  

The head priest is played by Edward Platt aka "The Chief" on Get Smart. There are six guys, one played someone on Big Valley, another by the lead in The Fugitive. The film ultimately revolves around two of the six, who not surprisingly are the only survivors. 

The film is well-paced and the best performances are the two actresses. The snake woman is the best performance. The guys are sometimes a bit tiresome, including the academic type who suspects what is happening. The snake FX are a bit dubious.

The final reveal is somewhat rushed. The police quickly can do testing on the bodies when it should have taken longer. Also, it is unclear that at least one of the three killed in NYC was even bitten. Finally, why would she leave a person just lying on the floor in her apartment as she does? At least hide it in a closet!

The end of the film is somewhat unsatisfying too. Why did she go to the dressing room of the actress and transform into a cobra? She had no reason to harm her. I can see if she hid in a closet but she did so out in the open. And, she left herself open to be stopped. 

But, as a I whole, I enjoyed the film. 

Books and Films

Marlon Bundo was Mike Pence's daughter's bunny, which was the subject of multiple books. A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo (proceeds going to charity) is a cute children's book about him falling for a boy bunny. 

Pence's daughter (even though there is a stinkbug that looks like Pence and the whole thing is clearly a dig on his anti-gay views) gamely said she was fine with the whole thing, especially since profits went to charity.  

===

I checked out two Bart Ehrman books from a few years ago. Journeys to Heaven and Hell: Tours of the Afterlife in the Early Christian Tradition turned out to be an academic-leaning book. 

It was too "graduate level" for me. Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife was a "trade book" for general audiences. It was generally interesting though it is not really a complete "history," starting with Gilgamesh and Homer. One amusing bit was a sly Clinton joke.

==

I said I wasn't going to read Breyer's new book, which multiple people panned as tedious, but I'll give it a shot. The author's photo reminds us that he is in his mid-80s. The intro has his usual "darn he's so reasonable" tone. He dedicates it to the justices he served with, using their first names!

===

I checked out Ensign Pulver, a sequel to Mr. Roberts because Walter Matthau (playing the William Powell role) was in it. Robert Walker Jr. did a reasonable Jack Lemmon impressive. The ship looks about the same. But, the film overall was not as well written. 

An early weirdly serious scene underlines how off the whole thing felt. It involved a character's young child dying. Also, by some rule of consistency, it turns out the act of rebellion at the end of the first film was only a short-lived moment for Pulver. Plus, they reference Roberts dying and all, but it seems Pulver no longer has his job anymore for some reason (I only saw half of the film; maybe, they explain it later).  

==

Palm Beach Story has a reputation as a classic screwball farce. 

If so, it seems to take a long time to get going. The opening credits are amusing. But, then there is a not-too-funny bit about a nearly deaf "Weinie King" that helps cause problems with the couple. 

The film gets more screwing eventually but I was too bored to stay on. I also am not that big of a fan of Claudette Colbert. 

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. 

The Velveteen Rabbit

I do not think I ever read The Velveteen Rabbit. My general understanding was it is about a toy that a boy loved, even as it got all worn down.

Chandler bought a special edition for Kathy, who he fell in love with even though she was Joey's girlfriend. Being a Friends watcher, I checked it out of the library.

It's a touching book from the 1920s. There is a rule where a child's love makes you "real" ("I really like you!"). When the rabbit was going to disposed -- the boy got scarlet fever and it was seen as contaminated -- a fairy magically made him a real rabbit.

SCOTUS Watch: Orders and Other Stuff

Order List 

SCOTUS is now working on opinions without needing to worry about oral arguments. They don't even have a scheduled conference this week. An opinion day has been scheduled for May 9th. 

Monday's Order List [none scheduled next Monday] was six pages and no drama. They did drop four more grants (clearing away some relists in the process). There are some interesting facts, including medicinal marijuana and pet food. But, we are not talking about "hot button" cases.  

The full court now also denied Peter Navarro’s request for release pending appeal. The former Trump adviser is serving his four-month sentence for his conviction of contempt of Congress.

Gorsuch (without explanation) did not take part in one of the cases denied full review. Only the liberal justices deign to tell us why.

Miscellaneous Orders 

There are scheduled order lists that provide numerous specific orders. A list of orders = Order List. The Supreme Court also hands down separate orders or miscellaneous stand-alone orders. 

Sexual Explicit Online Material

SCOTUS denies a stay of the Fifth Circuit's decision allowing Texas's H.B. 1181's age-verification requirements to go into effect in part. 

The law also requires disclaimers such as:

Pornography is potentially biologically addictive, is proven to harm human brain development, desensitizes brain reward circuits, increases conditioned responses and weakens brain function.

That portion of the law is blocked for now. So, we are concerned about the age verification portion. Pornhub, the online pornography website, is involved here. They disabled access in Texas during the litigation. The link to the docket page shows Pornhub is not the only group involved. 

Chris Geidner, the SCOTUS reporter, argues that the 5th Cir. misapplied Supreme Court precedent. As usual, SCOTUS was silent about why they acted as they did. 

Shrinking Docket 

The shrinking SCOTUS docket has been an issue for years. It is even smaller these days. For some reason, the Court is taking longer this term to hand down the under sixty opinions they did take. OTOH, there are a lot of hot-button cases. Plus, they have public appearances and a variety of summer projects. 

The reasons are unclear but probably mixed. People have various responses, including wanting them to do more work. For instance, Stephen Vladeck wants more mandatory appeals. Others say, "these people?" 

The expansion of the Supreme Court is not really about caseload. Some latch on to the number of circuits (twelve regular and a few specialty ones). But, justices don't "circuit ride" these days. They have limited work overseeing the circuits though we can forsee giving them more.

The article supplies the interesting tidbit that Alito and Gorsuch (an idiosyncratic sort) are the only justices now not part of the "cert pool" that divides deciding what cases to take. 

Alito is a somewhat curious outlier since traditionally the cert pool was a conservative thing. Perhaps, as a FOX News ideologue, he wants to flag some more cases. 

Upcoming

The Supreme Court will be back on track with a scheduled conference next Thursday. 

Thursday will also be a decision day. We might have this as a semi-normal event since we have around forty cases to dispose of by the end of June.  

The next execution is scheduled for the end of the month.

I have read Ronald Dworkin, a legal philosopher, over the years. I first read him in the 1990s. He has some academic stuff that is hard to read. His Freedom's Law collection provides some more approachable essays. 

He gave a lot of responsibility to judges. Dworkin argued that "democracy" involves people having broad individual sovereignty to make personal decisions. Therefore, taking certain powers from the government is appropriate. He argued the courts are the best institution to decide many of these questions. How would he have approached things with this Supreme Court?

Life's Dominion is a 1990s book about abortion and euthanasia. I re-read it. It's a mix of philosophical drudge, some interesting insights, and some questionable assumptions. It also mixes in some of those annoying mistakes (e.g., the majority opinion of Griswold is what "one" person said) that somehow remain after editing and repeated pre-publication reads. 

Dworkin argues that the median position is that people respect the intrinsic value of life in different ways. We should have the right to choose our own path here, which amounts to a type of religious decision. The same applies to end-of-life decision-making. Our decisions there factor in our overall view of our life's meaning. The discussion mixes in some philosophizing that at some points caused my eyes to glaze over a bit.*

I share the sentiment that religious liberty is a central focus, even if it often is not seen that way on the pro-choice side. Planned Parenthood v. Casey referenced the choice as a matter of conscience. The focus of the book emphasizes this angle along with privacy overall. 

The fact a particularly noisy group on the pro-choice side speaks of a "bundle of cells" without any reason for us to care is not mentioned. Also, some see forced pregnancy as a form of slavery (which he did mention in passing and then bounced back to his theme) which is more important to them than making conscientious choices.  

But, I think he has a point. The average pro-choice person probably does understand a pregnancy as a development of life. They do not merely think of an embryo as some cells. They put it all in perspective, factoring in overall questions about their life, the lives of others, and the potential of life in the future. Some women in particular demand autonomy because of their own specific role in making choices about the entity inside them.

Only the last two chapters involve euthanasia specifically and one focuses on those who are in dementia. There are more Supreme Court cases involving abortion. The Cruzan case did occur by the time the book was published; it is only thinly discussed. The family's lawyer wrote a good book about the case, which provides some personal details. 

The book is a mixed bag but worthwhile overall.

---

* The book uses two language norms that are annoying.

He uses the universal male pronoun, even while discussing an incident involving a woman in the euthanasia section. A book on abortion specifically should not do that.

He also uses the standard "fetus," even though a majority of abortions occur before that period of development. A "fetus" also implies a more developed entity, often largely formed (perhaps past viability). When many people think "fetus," they visualize something that helps the anti-abortion side.

Some battles involve "abortions" that are not even abortions since there is no fertilized egg. More recent science (as compared to even references by pro-choice people; see, e.g., the Webster case in 1989) shows "morning after" type pills generally occur before fertilization. 

Either way, some use "abortion" even earlier than the embryo stage. Word usage matters.

How RFK Jr. Hiring a Bird Smuggler Threw His Environmental Group Into Turmoil

We have not heard too much of late about independent candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. though he continues to be a possible wildcard in the presidential race. 

Washington Post returns to an old story whose core dispute was covered in the news at the time it happened (c. 2000). 

Kennedy in the early 1980s was a young man arrested for heroin possession:

In 1984, a judge sentenced Kennedy to two years’ probation. Abandoning his former career path as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan, he entered rehab and eventually began working on a former estate in the Hudson Valley to fulfill his community service requirement. There he encountered the Hudson River Fishermen’s Association, later renamed Riverkeeper, which was setting up its office in a farmhouse on the grounds.

Robert Boyle founded this group in 1966 to address pollution in the Hudson River. When Kennedy resigned around thirty years later, he said that he "co-founded" the group and it had “a budget of zero." The article challenges this account, noting:

By the time Kennedy arrived, the fishermen [working for the group] had notched impressive legal victories against corporations including Exxon and Con Edison and used settlement money to build a private patrol boat, Riverkeeper, in which Cronin cruised the Hudson seeking environmental scofflaws.

Kennedy's involvement in the group helped bring donations. It also helped him build a new career as an environmental activist. Others question the knowledge and ethics of the group under his watch. The article also points to a growing belief he was seen as a prima donna and a bit of an asshole. One example comes from the son who later broke with Kennedy so perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt.  

The founder of the group along with some others on the board resigned after a dispute when Kennedy hired a former friend (or however he wanted to label the relationship):

Wegner, then 49, had been released from federal prison just a few months earlier, after serving about 3½ years of a five-year sentence for tax fraud, perjury and conspiracy to violate wildlife protection laws. The charges all sprang from his roughly decade-long run as the alleged kingpin of a smuggling ring that trafficked in Australian cockatoos. 

An environmental criminal does sound like a bad look. The article also rejects Kennedy's spin that animals smuggled were unwanted "vermin" (really?) species. It does cite someone who liked both sides of the dispute noting that Wegner's actual service in the organization turned out to be fine.

(It's hard to think there was nothing bad you can say about it so I am left with a belief that not everything about that was covered.)

Shortly after the split in Riverkeeper, Kennedy moved on to his current most controversial position (other than Trump enabling):

Two years after the Riverkeeper split, Boyle left the Hudson Valley, moving upstate to Cooperstown. He was there in 2005 when Kennedy published an article falsely asserting that vaccines caused autism — after multiple corrections, it was eventually retracted by Rolling Stone and Salon — and in the ensuing years as Kennedy doubled down on the article’s debunked premise.

The article's overall premise is that various troubling aspects of Kennedy's personality are reflected in his relationship with this group. This includes personal aggrandizement, bad relationships with others, an iffy relationship with facts, and a questionable activist reputation. 

He had an environmentalism-related show on the old Air America. The idea is that he was okay until his anti-vax activism in recent years. First off, that has been going on for around twenty years. Second, there are some red flags besides that. 

The article is a good piece of investigative journalism. 

RIP Flaco: On a somewhat related subject, Flaco, the famous owl, died recently. 

He was 14 but only free from captivity for a little over a year. He died after hitting a building, with glass windows a menace for birds. Christian Cooper in his autobiography noted how ornithologists helped address a problem birds had with lights during ceremonial remembrances of 9/11. 

Tests are being done to determine if he was weakened by eating poisoned rats or something. His death does underline why people worried about him flying around the city though confining an owl in a city enclosure isn't great either. 

ETA: 

===

Obscure Reference: Watching a Mets Classics, Keith Hernadez references a series involving a community whose name reminded him of something mentioned by Gary Cohen. 

He then says a person on it hosted Good Morning America. He made it sound like it was a notable series in the 1970s or 1980s. It was a short-lived series in the mid-1970s. 

Keith sometimes in passing references geographical or historical facts, something that interests him. But this was rather obscure.

Books And Stuff

I watched the first season of The Crown on DVD years ago. I enjoyed it but never saw any other seasons. The second season overall is also good. 

We should not expect pure history here. This is a dramatized view of things. Also, a pure examination of history will likely provide enough material to fill ten episodes each season. The Strict Scrutiny Podcast crew (at least Murray and Litman) noted their love of Ashley Judd's film Double Jeopardy. They know legally it cannot be taken seriously.  

Keeping that in mind, the series is well done. I only was bored a few times, including an episode about the prince (he's the queen's husband, but that's his title) requiring Charles to go to a school that the prince himself had difficulties surviving. 

One thing notably not covered much is the decolonization of Africa. There is a subplot involving the Suez Crisis and the JFK episode partially involves Ghana. Nonetheless, 1955-65 is a major moment there and I think more should have been covered. The whole dancing with an African bit also overblows the importance of the event.  Again, dramatic license, especially to compare Elizabeth and Jackie Kennedy.   

The final season is still ongoing. The summary notes it ends up in the early 21st Century. So they are leaving out fifteen years of QEII's life?  

[ETA: To toss it in, this week's Blondie film on a retro station is Blondie's Big Moment, another rather generic title. 

The truly "big" news is that suddenly there is a new boss (in the last film playing a different role), who Dagwood gets in trouble with even before he knows who he is. Overall mildly enjoyable. Blondie meeting the boss is a good scene. The new boss is younger and the actor does a good job. The fish thing is pretty stupid.]

After struggling through a few books, including one that I finished without liking it too much, this book was enjoyable. It was an easy read while still being over three hundred pages. 

One interesting thing is that the "Darwin's Finches" was not important to Charles Darwin himself to understand the concept of natural selection and evolution. The finches with a common ancestor who diversified depending on the needs of their environment (different beaks) is Darwin's thought in action. But, the idea he himself had an eureka moment by viewing them is a myth.  He did briefly discuss them. They were not that important. 

This is a fun graphic novel with LGBTQ content. The story is engaging and the art is excellent. The pages are glossy and the pictures colorful. 

A daughter in a kingdom where only married women (her father only had a daughter) can inherit pretends to be a man. Her father offered her this option when she refused to marry. He was accepting of her feelings. 

She falls in love with a princess. The feeling is mutual. The princess discovers her secret, but is afraid to come out. Her friend, who had an unloving marriage so she could have a career she loved, talks her into letting true love win. The couple bonds over love of grilled cheese. The character names have are often puns of types of cheese.  

The author, a graphic artist, was inspired by her own life. She is also married to a woman. Who she nicknamed "princess." Princess makes the best grilled cheese sandwiches.  She talks about this in the appendix.

Biden Pardons Two Birds

Following a tradition normalized in the 1980s, Biden also pardoned the turkeys Liberty and Bell yesterday, marking the unofficial start of the holiday season. The birds will move to the University of Minnesota’s College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences where they will become educational ambassadors for a state where turkey production provides more than $1 billion in economic activity and more than 26,000 jobs.

I wish someone would end this asinine process. What exactly is the point of "pardoning" a turkey? The usual process is to have these cutesy names, make some jokes, politick some, and so on. 

West Wing tells us presidents do not have the power to pardon fowl. Well, maybe if they commit some federal crime. The president also might be given the power by statute to do so. He can also pardon a bird (in a non-criminal sense) while carrying out his presidential powers. He is basically given the power to do this by whatever process is in place here.

Local politicians are giving out turkeys around my way. One referenced also giving way produce. Last year, Twitter provided better access to the people I followed. This included a local account that let me know when they were handing out free produce (fruit, vegetables, beans, etc.). My feed is much less helpful. I might have missed one of these hand-outs.

Not everyone eats turkey. I am a vegetarian who tries to be as much of a vegan as I can. I have been so since the mid-1990s. You don't have to be one to find this pardon business silly. It's hard to end these traditions. So, we are going to continue to have them. And, have people complain.

One lay-up is that criminal justice advocates sneer at the limited use of the pardon power for actual humans. One blog, some strongly conservative sort (rabidly so at times) agreed. Our criminal justice system is very troubling. There have been some mild efforts to address the problems. Some bipartisan action has been done there nationwide. Rachel Barkow and Emily Bazelon are two people who have written books on this topic.

I clearly agree. Congress could help by establishing some guidelines, including a special pardon administrator who selects people from a range of places to help them. The president (or members of the Justice Department) can independently do so. There has not been a recent drive to do so. It's a shame. Again, inertia helps here as does fear of crime. Still, there are enough bipartisan forces available for there to be some movement here. 

Thanksgiving can also be designated as a special time to announce many pardons. Actual pardons, not just of turkeys. People can return to their families. People already out can have their records made clean. It would be an appropriate way to celebrate the holiday.  

A final concern would be all those involved in the Thanksgiving season. We can have special concerns for agricultural workers and animals raised. The retailers who sell the food and supplies. The workers there. The mothers and family members as a whole who make the dinners. Some (like me) will join some members of their family to eat outside the home.

I am already seeing Christmas trees (at the store) and displays. Let's focus on that after Thanksgiving. And, let's honor the season the best we can. Or in the words of President Biden:

I encourage the people of the United States of America to join together and give thanks for the friends, neighbors, family members, and strangers who have supported each other over the past year in a reflection of goodwill and unity.

Happy Holidays. 

It's A Great Life (Blondie)

This is from the first Blondie t.v. show, which had the same actor playing Bumstead with everyone else different. He was on an earlier radio program too; that one mostly had Penny Singleton (like the films) too.  

I saw a bit of one episode when there was a Blondie marathon and they had movies and a television show. The episode that was on was not very good and Bumstead came off as different from the films, where he is a goofball. There was an even short-lived 1960s version with Mr. Howell (and the voice of Mr. Magoo) as Mr. Dithers. Doesn't look that good. 

(Here is a video of an episode of the second series, which does have a good opener. Dagwood's hair just looks messy, which is the first red flag.)

After a couple not very good ones, the Blondie film this morning was quite enjoyable. It also is one of the two without "Blondie" in the title and is rather of a rather bland title that has nothing specific to do with the plot involving silliness with a horse. 

The actress they get to play Cookie (their daughter) is a good choice, including because she reminds me of the mother. 

==

By chance, a Petticoat Junction episode that aired earlier on another channel had a fake foxhunt -- it's when a daughter wins an English butler -- and this one is a real one!  Both episodes didn't have the blonde sister, who (in both varieties) is absent in many earlier episodes. Think the third is around more (I think she's too "modern" for the show). 

The dogs in both are well-trained. The horse here is too. Both of those episodes also were amusing (MeTV); the other involved a somewhat strange guest who Uncle Joe thinks is up to no good.

ETA: The new Hallmark Channel film, Field Day, was overall pretty good. Three moms from different circles work together for a school event. They each have issues though the film is focused on a mom still getting over the death of her husband. 

Rachel Boston, who was good in the film about the mom who separated from her husband, was good here too with a familiar love interest. The other two women were good and less familiar to me. One is not even among the "about the cast"! 

Blondie In Society

A movie channel has Blondie movies every Saturday morning (the local Channel 11 in NYC back in the day had Abbott and Costello movies on weekends).  There is a whole Saturday rotation I keep track of on C-SPAN, Hallmark Channel, and so on.  

I read the comic in the Daily News and Dagwood doesn't come off as much of a cartoonish sort in the funny papers but the films do a good job portraying the main characters (a neighbor couple in the comics don't really pop up in the films).  Penny Singleton, who later voiced Jane Jetson, is my favorite as Blondie.  

I have seen parts of various films and some are better than others. A few are sort of forced.  I checked in on each of the three Charlie Chans (other than the forgotten first three films), for instance, and found the second and third a bit much to take.  The "Number Two" son is particularly annoying.  The NYPL only had a few of the latter films though I checked on the first Charlie Chan on YouTube.  Seemed better, watching for a few minutes.

Blondie in Society was on today.  Dagwood loans some money to a former schoolmate and he gets a Great Dane back in lieu of the $50.  This leads to various complications, leading to a dog show.  As in multiple films, there is some family antics/drama involved.  One July 4th-themed film spent about half of the time at home before going on a trip that mixed in the main reason for the film, the family helping a young couple eloping.  

I liked the one as a whole with Penny Singleton having a major role, including a chance to sing near the end (the dog only performed at the dog show when he heard her).  She was quite good and not surprisingly so since she did a lot of singing as an actress.  A familiar face from I Love Lucy and My Three Sons had a supporting role in this film.  There were various amusing bits including one involving a phone call.  

The title is rather inapt though since it does not involve some sort of high society plot or anything.  As noted, it involves a dog and eventually a dog show.  For instance, one film has her starting a bakery business and she's "in the dough," which is a pun.  What's the point here?  

Anyway, I liked it.

==

Just to toss in a few words on sports. Yes, Aaron Rodgers, who I never wanted in the first place, got hurt after four plays.  

The Jets still managed to win the game with their defense and a few offensive weapons and the Bills (again) were very sloppy.  The Giants in their game totally didn't show up, losing to Dallas 40-0, after at least scoring in their Philly playoff fiasco.  Rodgers is out for the season so let's see if the Jets get a new backup.

Meanwhile, the Mets are doing okay (some good starting pitching especially) while various races are going down to the wire, except for the Braves, Dodgers, Brewers, and Twins.  The Orioles slipped some and now have to fight to avoid slipping to the wild card.  

ETA:  We don't have long games as a whole now but Saturday did have two thirteen-inning games that wild card hopefuls both won in come from behind fashion. The Blue Jays and Diamondbacks, Arizona needing to come back three times in extras.  

Can't beat the Mets (one win) but gave the Cubs some trouble.  The Marlins are beating up the Braves, who already clinched, but still. The NL wild card race is very tight with the Phillies continuing to have a bit of cushion for the #1 (of 3) seed.  A lot of offense.  

The Rockies (vs. Giants) and Royals (vs. Astros) playing some spoiler.  After two losses, the Orioles won that important clinching the season series game vs. the Rays, which means a tie would do it for the #1 seed. The Mets (not technically eliminated!) still have a chance to play a role in the playoff race.

... The Mets just play the Marlins (who crushed the Braves this weekend) and the Phils the rest of the way.   

The Orioles did what they had to do by splitting vs. the Rays, holding serve, and keeping a bit of a safety margin. They and the Rays have clinched the playoffs, the Orioles for the first time since 2016.  But, both want that #1 seed.  

Guiding Emily

I read two books recently that were decent but a bit of a slog. They were the sort of books that feel like school in a fashion, like you are learning something but it isn't really enjoyable enough as pleasure reading.

Let's skip to the Hallmark Channel (the mysteries one, which I now have access to, though it isn't quite a fair trade for HBO) film Guiding Emily.  After a recent film involving the break-up of a marriage (the football-related one on Saturday night has a divorced woman; films these days are not just filled with widowed parents), Hallmark had another film with a twist.  The reviews as a whole look good and rightly so.  

The film is adapted from a series of books about a woman who loses her sight and the guide dog who is destined to help her. We get parallel storylines, including hearing the voice (a bit cutesy but the trainer's experience is handled nicely)  of the dog.  The lead actress is a familiar one to fans of a top medical drama; I know her as Stacey from Daria!  

(The books and the film have some different details, going by the summaries on the Amazon page.  One interesting plot point is the usual plot complication that takes place sometime in the latter part of these films. It often comes off as a bit forced. The complication, which we don't worry about since we know what will happen, takes place in the dog's plotline.)

The woman is a positive thinker and passionate sort living a charmed life, including a handsome fiancé.  And, then she has a freak accident (it is noted she had a defect that was a sort of ticking time bomb) and she loses her sight.  The boyfriend turns out to not handle the situation very well and her mother is of limited help (the boyfriend drops out of the picture; the mother largely does as a friend/love interest enters stage right).  

The actress was quite good and the story as a whole was well done.  I did a quick look to see if I could find what the real-life blind community felt about it, but did not see anything.  From what I can tell, the author has down her homework, and she blessed the effort.  I would ask that a blind person do the role but the beginning has her sighted.  OTOH, there are those who have serious sight issues but see enough that they can fake it.  

A nice bit for a co-worker who is the stereotypical socially inept sort who plays a big role in getting her to snap out of her depression.  The film has a man in a wheelchair as part of her team but he's just window dressing. He has nothing to do; we just see him in the background a few times.  A bit of empty diversity.  

I think people with some disability would be a good potential for supporting or main cast in these films.  There was a somewhat based on true life drama involving a deaf woman who helped the FBI.  I saw a reference to an interesting sounding classic film about a blind detective.  They are somewhat running out of scenarios in their cozy mysteries, right?

Anyway, the film might have been a bit rough around the edges, but it was a notably well-done film that respected the sensitive subject matter.  

Lasagna Means I Love You

Lasagna Means I Love You by Kate O'Shaughnessy was misshelved in the library.  I took it out instead of putting it where it belonged.  

Like A Spoonful of Time, the book was about a middle school girl with a non-nuclear family with food playing an important role, particularly with themes involving family and trying to find out about family you don't know.  That one involved time travel, this one about a girl who enters the foster system after her grandmother dies.   

Mo first goes to a woman who already has a foster child, but she soon is put in a "pre-adoption" placement with a young well-off white couple.  This seems a lucky break on her part and a non-white foster child who already had multiple placements grumbled about it. Mo later talks about the unfairness of the situation and we also get a bit of an inside look at the system. It is shown with a certain degree of complexity.

The story takes place in New York City and we get a sense of place there as a whole.  For instance, Mo is a big Jets fan (though for some reason the author did not seem to get the right teams when she cited two games), a an NYT food writer is involved, as trips are on the subway and to Central Park. 

The book is written in Mo's voice -- she writes letters to her grandmother about what is happening -- and overall she comes off as a real character (including having trouble with bedwetting, which at first she wants to blame on someone else).  A few times, I wondered if words were what some typical 11/12-year-old would say, but what do I know about them? 

Her experiences are not exactly typical in some respects  (that whole well-off couple though the author mixes in some nuance by making the wife a former foster kid herself) but the book feels realistic as a whole.  There is a twist, and you are like "the author isn't going to be this mean to this kid, right," but things work out.  

Both books promote diversity with biracial friends and gay-friendly stuff is simply dropped without much comment.  I suppose again this is just normal stuff for many kids these days.  The author went to culinary school so the recipes come from a reliable source on that end too.  The recipes aren't very vegan/vegetarian friendly though I suppose most of them can be changed with some animal substitutes including veggie crumbles for the lasagna. 

And, both of the author's books (the time travel book is by someone else; she talks about her first book a bit in the video) are about family and finding it in new and challenging ways.   

ETA:  I found Because of Winn Dixie by Kate DiCamillo (I read her book about a special French mouse) on the free rack today since apparently it's "middle school girl" theme day.  Food doesn't play as big of a role here though some special lozenges do.  I liked it too.

A girl with only a dad finds a special dog and he helps her make a lot of colorful friends in her new town.  The dog doesn't like to be alone, so I guess when she started school (the book all takes place in the summer), her dad and maybe one of the others helped to take care of him.  Unless the school lets him stick around too.  The book was the author's first and was made into a movie.  She has written many more since then.   

I don't know if any are gay, but it wouldn't surprise me. 

Birding and Petticoats

Chris Cooper in my experience was someone who sometimes popped up as a guest host on Gay USA with his particular interest in Marvel comics/movies.  Cooper once was in the comics business himself.  He also is a birder, now with his own television program.

Most know him from his experience -- while birding -- with Amy Cooper (she's white, he's black), who made it racist when he (as is his way) politely, but firmly, asked her to keep her dog on a leash.  His video of the incident went viral.  One thing I respect about him is that Chris Cooper stayed low-key about the whole thing, including not voluntarily being involved in her prosecution.  The event happened when George Floyd was murdered and Cooper retained some perspective others did not about the whole thing.  

It is only one chapter in his autobiography (he doesn't even mention Gay USA, with not even a blurb from the hosts) but the incident is likely a major reason for his new book.   As a whole, though I wanted to learn a bit more about certain things (he doesn't even talk about meeting his current partner), the book was pretty good.  Here's my extended review. 

Petticoat Junction is on early morning on Saturdays on MeTV and it's part of my Saturday rotation of things to check out (including the Svengoolie and Hallmark movies at 8 P.M as well as C-SPAN history programming) to see if I'm interested.  

The show is amusing if with a mixture of episodes that I'm interested in watching and more silly stuff.  The "Ask Minerva" episode is interesting since it is the opening episode of Season Three, which is when two of the three daughters are now portrayed by new actors.  The dog is here already; he's actually the dog who later plays Benji, with the actor who plays Uncle Joe. 

The best "Bobbi Jo" (the brunette) comes on and a decent if much less used (sparingly for one season) "Billie Joe" (the blonde; the third one is on the longest and the most bland and inappropriately modern for this series).  Kate, the mom, also at times (with pearls!) looks more vivacious (well she is the mom of those daughters) in this episode as well.  

It's a cute episode with Kate taking over as writer of an advice column, doing so on the down low, which causes some hijinks.  The opening with the three sisters in the water tower (bare shoulders and the implication is that they are totally bare, though when we see them swimming in one later episode, they are wearing bathing suits -- boo)  is well done with a great reaction shot from the one actress who plays a sister for the whole run.

This Bobby Jo is ultimately shown to be a bit of an airhead though perhaps in a bit of early segment weirdness, she actually makes a brain-like reference at one point.  The boy crazy sister (here played by a Swedish actress) is not too much different from the first one though she seems to have more hair.  Bobby Jo (who is played by the same actress for the rest of the series' run) is more of a sexy sort than the more restrained first actress.

The episode has an amusing final joke. The daughters think their mom is actually dating the storekeeper and send a letter to get advice.  She (even though she has a chance for syndication) decides it is time to retire, but never reveals her identity.  Joe Carson is the only one not impressed with the column, noting Kate ("your mother") could do a better job.  

The series has a very catchy theme song.  The other thing is that the half-hour seems longer than it should be.  I'm unsure why -- the episodes don't really drag.  It just is the pacing is such that it seems a bit longer than a usual half-hour show often is.  Anyway, the next few episodes (two are shown on MeTV) are notable because the leads from Green Acres pop up.

==

There is a new Hallmark movie coming out tonight (notable for a black lead), but another recent one also is worth referencing.

The leads, especially Rachel Boston, are familiar. I'm not a big fan of Rachel Boston Hallmark films as a rule, but The More Love Grows was an enjoyable one.  And, though there have been a few cases where a lead manages to not be a single parent because of some death in the family, this one actually concerns the separation itself.  What's next? A marital affair?

When the husband who shocks Rachel Boston by telling her he wants a separation (their daughter had just gone away to college) suggests maybe he made a mistake, she even says, no, she realized it was the right move.  The film largely involves her getting used to being separated with a subplot about her daughter having trouble adapting to college life.  

And, yes, there is a bit of romance, though she herself is more concerned about moving on with her life.  She tells the veterinarian (a new dog enters her life) that she is not ready for a relationship though in the end is ready to start one.  It also has an amusing song by her new friend.  

(There is a required plot bit late that is tired but it's over quickly.)

Hallmark is slowly moving along. This plotline is almost a bigger step than its decision to start showing gay and lesbian characters.  I am ready for a bisexual love story where there are the usual hijinks at a wedding or something and a character ultimately drops their drip of significant other for a member of the same sex.  A trans or non-binary character also would be nice.  A sort of Imagine Me & You type of thing.  

Baby steps.  After all, they have even had a Hanukkah film or two!

SCOTUS Watch: Libs Have Their Day

SCOTUSBlog provides a summary of the announcement of opinions which is even more helpful since the Supreme Court refuses to provide audio or video.  So, we can't see Jackson and Sotomayor provide a straightforward summary, Kagan have some fun with a dog toy case, and Roberts provide a long announcement with a bit of drama in a voting rights case.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is first up with Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski, finding that the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act unambiguously creates enforceable rights under Section 1983.  Barrett and Roberts concur to note why it is an easy case. Gorsuch flags a potential way to challenge something like it in the future. Alito and Thomas dissent.   

The case is one of those "trying to do too much but you never know" cases that worry liberal court watchers.  Another possible liberal win is federal regulations and/or criminal cases that are stretched too far.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor handled Dubin v. United States, which limits the scope of identity theft under a federal criminal statute.  Gorsuch, at times worried about federal power, concurred to snark a bit about how far they went.

Then, there are a range of pretty safe cases like the dog toy case which led to a trademark challenge from Jack Daniels.  Kagan had some fun with that one, including bringing a prop to the opinion announcement. Sotomayor (with Alito) concurred to touch upon one issue while Gorsuch (and Thomas/Barrett), while "pleased" to join, questioned the value of a precedent involved.  

The unanimity was a bit surprising, but it was a narrow holding turning on partially that the toy not merely being a parody but a "brand" itself.  We get pictures too.  

===

The last way for liberals to win is to avoid backsliding on important matters (such as the Voting Rights Act).  You might also get a narrow win that is nice but not too exciting, especially since it is a 5-4 breakdown on something that should be much less divisive.  And, sometimes you have a somewhat (or more than somewhat) surprising win.

Allen v. Milligan has a bit of each. President Biden said:

Today the Court ruled that Alabama likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing a map that diluted Black votes in the state. The right to vote and have that vote counted is sacred and fundamental — it is the right from which all of our other rights spring. Key to that right is ensuring that voters pick their elected officials — not the other way around. Today’s decision confirms the basic principle that voting practices should not discriminate on account of race, but our work is not done. Vice President Harris and I will continue to fight to pass both the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act, and the Freedom to Vote Act to ensure fair Congressional maps and that all Americans have their voices heard.

Multiple voting rights advocates were rather shocked at this. Some did remind us that this is the one that the Supreme Court held up in 2022 on their shadow docket (see Steve Vladeck's book) and in the process (others also were blocked) helped the Republicans win a narrow victory in November in the House elections.  The margin of victory was less than the number of House districts involved, all likely to have been Democratic-leaning if the lower court rulings were allowed to stand. 

So, yes, I agree with Prof. Melissa Murray's take.  We can note the victory without being too excited.  People are also not really sure that the ruling turned on the law. One professor argued this was partially Roberts' revenge for Dobbs (abortion).  Many figured it is a response to criticism and concern about going too far.*  Kavanaugh (who was the one vote that switched and who joined most of the opinion) seems to be the sort of prudential sort that would find such weighing quite copacetic.  

Others warn about what is to come -- we didn't have too many really bad rulings this term and the affirmative action case among others are coming.  I think all of these issues (not sure about the revenge thing as much as Roberts finding a mild way to balance it to show the Court is reasonable) play some part in judging.  Lines are drawn. They aren't just mechanical. Wins have some baggage.  

And so on.  Somewhat related, the voting rights advocate Dale Ho (nominated in 2021) appeared to be finally about to be confirmed as a district court judge in New York.  But, a Democratic senator was out for health reasons and it seems Manchin might not want to support him (Manchin rarely opposes nominees, and unclear why he is being a tool unlike say an environmental secretary) so there was no margin for error.

This led to the confirmation being held up.  This pisses me off. Not a single Republican was willing to at least not vote because they so despise voting rights that a blue state district court judge cannot be confirmed.  Why should they get any comity like blue slips if they refuse to act reasonably?  

It is just evidence of having them play you as fools. Dick Durbin is an asshole on this.  The evidence that Republican hardball in the courts helped to win them the House of Representatives only reaffirms this is not a time to be soft.  It isn't too hard.  It just isn't.  It pisses me off.  

===

More to come next week (orders and two days of opinions).  

---

* One Slate analysis argued part of it is that Roberts is bothered by "really bad arguments or overreaching activists."  

And, at one point suggests (a bit tongue in cheek) that "perhaps we have reached the part of the show where simply not being punched in the face over and over at the high court counts as a good day."

Still, the opinion is the law, and lower court judges can't just say "Hey, he didn't really mean it."  This includes a respectful summary of the Voting Rights Act precedents and Kagan comments like:

The principal dissent complains that “what the District Court did here is essentially no different from what many courts have done for decades under this Court’s superintendence….” That is not such a bad definition of stare decisis.

Anyway, life goes on.  

ETA: Also, Melissa Murray and Steve Vladeck co-wrote an op-ed to expand their Twitter comments. Bottom line: don't be fooled into thinking all is well.  Biden reminded us we need a voting rights bill.  Holding a flawed line is not fantastic. 

And, SCOTUS needs to be reformed, including addressing the likes of Kavanaugh, who might eventually, kinda do the right thing, at times.  Don't settle for crumbs or even a bit of crust.

People have pushed back on their tone since it was not a trivial victory.  But, it's too late not to be wary.  And, Kavanaugh was the fifth vote, tossing in a possible poison pill. Ditto that 7-2 with three justices in the majority making sure to hedge and limit.  

SCOTUS Watch

After some blockbusters last term (abortion, religion, guns, etc.), SCOTUS has so far been much more low-key this term. This is partially because not much has gone on. There are still (with five opinions on Thursday and one not decided) under twenty opinions this term so far. There will be another opinion day next week.

Amy Howe analyzes basically the one big (in a fashion) case decided this week, a fractured judgment that upheld a California law regulating the sale of pork:

Approved by California voters in 2018, Proposition 12 bars the sale in California of pork products when the seller knows or should know that the meat came from the offspring of a breeding pig (also known as a sow) that was confined “in a cruel manner.” This means, among other things, that sows must have at least 24 square feet of living space – about the size of two bath towels.

Many thought the justices would somehow strike down the law though the oral argument hinted they were unsure how to draw lines. The case involves (though Kavanaugh especially separately suggested it concerned more) the so-called domestic commerce clause doctrine. That is, even if Congress doesn't say so, certain things can violate the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Or, otherwise violate the rules of a common national market set forth by the Constitution.

The principle is not new though conservatives such as Scalia, Thomas, and now Gorsuch don't like it.  Gorsuch has a point.  It is difficult, without blatant policy-making, to weigh things here.  The courts do weigh policy questions to some extent.  The question then is when they should. And, economic matters do seem like something Congress should regulate here.  

A majority as a whole split the difference and upheld the law in the end.  This is something that does not split between normal ideological lines as seen by the divisions.  It even led Jackson to join a partial dissent, if not totally, which is the first time she did in a fully argued case.  She has still not been fully in dissent.  Which is something.  

There is also the policy choice here.  I think it does help to some degree to have limited efforts that help animals.  There is an argument (Michael Dorf and Sherry Colb have made it to some degree) that such laws are counterproductive, in part by making us think animals are now raised humanely enough.  I have my doubts. Change comes in installments.  

Anyway, this is the sort of opinion Breyer loves -- somewhat of a surprise without blunt ideological divisions. Why? It has various legal policy implications without rising blatantly ideological concerns.  It's an example of where conservative positions can have liberal results.  And, there are three basic blocs with Jackson being the outlier in one but even there she might be doing so since there is a precedent involved.  

Some also might appreciate that the Court restrained itself, but it is unclear how much the justices wanted to do that. There very well might be four votes to send it back with an implication that the 9th Cir. was very possibly wrong.  Also, it is simplistic to call the Court simply activist, full stop. They pick their spots.  You need to know your "enemy" here.  

ETA: I see that the opinion has a few URLs.  The first opinion of the court this term to have them.  

===

The other opinions are not too notable and were mostly unanimous with a justice concurring a bit here (in one Alito opinion, Jackson didn't join a little portion for some reason), Thomas dissenting there.  The cases do not seem too important though there are some things here and there to comment on of varying interest.  

Kagan in a 8-1 opinion started this way:

The question presented is whether the statute categorically abrogates (legalspeak for eliminates) any sovereign immunity the board enjoys from legal claims. We hold it does not. Under long-settled law, Congress must use unmistakable language to abrogate sovereign immunity. Nothing in the statute creating the board meets that high bar.

Very Kagan.  

Jackson dealt with an administrative case involving a "noncitizen" (the statute speaks of "aliens" but she specifically used that term), citing a Kavanaugh opinion that did so.  Alito with Thomas concurred briefly, saying they would decide less than the majority, and quoted something that used "alien."  She also has been praised as a clear writer. 

Jackson tossed in something that is simple but profound too in these trans-hating times. To cite the beginning of the headnotes summarizing her opinion:

Petitioner Leon Santos-Zacaria (who goes by the name Estrella) is a noncitizen in removal proceedings. She sought protection from removal, which an Immigration Judge denied.

The Court also unanimously in a pair of cases continued their policy of making it hard to convict people for political-related fraud, both cases arising from the Cuomo Administration.  As compared to campaign finance cases, again, you find more unanimity in this area, and it is concerning.  Without trying to parse things here, combined with the Citizens United stream of cases, it makes it harder to rein in political wrongdoing.  

===

For those keeping track, the Supreme Court has "rescheduled" (which means the justices meeting in "conference" did not examine it yet) looking at the Glossip appeal.  

There will be orders on Monday.  

Meanwhile, 89-year-old Sen. Dianne Feinstein, working on a limited schedule per doctor's instructions, finally came back to help push a few judicial nominations out of committee. The pictures make her look very frail. Overall, it is outrageous that she is not resigning.

Senate Democrats still refuse as a whole to admit the level of effort, an "all-in," necessary to face the moment, even though there is both a need and probably an opportunity given the growing disgust at the Court. It's aggravating.  

War, Sports, and SCOTUS

We are having various discussions of the twentieth anniversary of the Iraq War, including how it was a sham (with a few trying to convince us it was not).  I discussed it at the time over at the Slate fray.  Remember the "star" days?

My basic take was that war is a last resort (especially with the Bush Administration and some of the seedy characters supporting it on the Iraq side) and the case wasn't made.  At best, there was maybe a case. But, not enough to toss the keys (authorization of force) to Bush. It didn't seem too hard at the time. 

(The war decision.  The alternatives? Harder.  A basic lesson here is that killing people often doesn't solve matters. Horror movies with all those sequels sort of have a point on that end.) 

I also didn't buy the "can't criticize now, the war started" bit.

=== 

Sport is an alternative to war, including worldwide efforts like the Olympics. The World Baseball Classic is truly a "world series," and various baseball fans (and players) had fun with it.  Until now, Japan won twice, the Dominican Republic won once, and so did the United States. After an upset Mexico team (vs Puerto Rico) blew it late, it was U.S. v. Japan.  

The series ended on basically almost a scripted note -- Ohtani v. Mike Trout with the U.S. down by one, two outs, top of the ninth. The Mets connection was that Jeff "Squirrel" McNeil started the ninth with his second walk off the bench.  A double play then set up the finale.  Japan won.  

The spring break feel of it still was there for the U.S. gave some run-of-the-mill type (his overall record about even won/loss) the role as an opener. And, he gave up the two runs that made the final score (3-2).  Still, it was a fun series, even without the new timing and shift rules.  

MLB should have more games throughout Latin America at the very least.  They are starting with a series in England.  Fine.  Do more of that. Rotate in England, Spain, Italy, and so on.  I would have two foreign series to start: one in Europe, and one in Asia.  Promote the world nature of the game.

Our "World Series" amounts to one country and a team from Canada. This was the true World Series.

===

The dog toy parody game had some fun moments though many justices did not seem too interested. It was a fairly quick ninety minutes.  More details on the leak "investigation."  

And, the final March execution scheduled in Texas, for now, is off.  More SCOTUS action next week though.