SCOTUS Watch

The Supreme Court continues to do some notable things as they go into a mini-recess. Of sorts. 

Order List 

The final conference of the year led to two grants and a non-descript order list on the following Monday. The Supreme Court separately amended a grant to specify that they were not concerned with the second question submitted for review.

In the Order List, Thomas publicly said (without comment) that he would take an issue involving the EPA. Alito did not take part in a case without saying why. Only the liberals explain their non-involvement.

Other Orders 

The justices without comment denied an "application to recall and stay the mandate" involving a habeas claim. The lower court (citing the petition) "held that a new expert report based on a previously available claim can restart the clock for filing a habeas petition that is otherwise untimely by years."  

The Supreme Court provided accelerated oral argument (January 10) in the TikTok case. Steve Vladeck supported the move with the law going into effect on January 19th. 

I bow to his knowledge but note that the Court can speed things along if it wants to do so. Cf. Trump cases. Also, will this be the current S.G.'s swan song?

(A media advisory is a red flag that there promises to be some extra call for seats for the TikTok orals.) 

The Supreme Court also granted a case involving Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. A quite different solicitor general will handle that one. 

Broadway Debut

Some coverage of Justice Jackson's Broadway debut including some behind-the-scenes video. She is not the first person who popped up on screen like this. 

Justice Sotomayor was on an episode of Sesame Street. Justice Blackmun waited until he was retired for a cameo in Amistad, playing someone a couple decades younger than him. Breyer replaced Blackmun on the Court and Jackson replaced Breyer.  

Lower Courts  

President nominated Adeel A. Mangi as a court of appeals judge and he would have been the first Muslim in that role. He was blocked for bullshit reasons with three Democrats going along with all the Republicans. Mangi used a letter to President Biden to make some parting shots, providing receipts. 

This was a sad day for America, including for religious liberty. I cited the letter on a blog, and someone responded with a bunch of invective. 

The letter provides multiple refutations. Chris Geidner has more. 

A lower court judge was flagged (since they have binding ethics) for criticizing Alito. Another (James Ho, who surely seems like he is pining for a seat on SCOTUS even if a supporter denies it) can spout partisan cant willy-nilly though. 

The new budget increases money provided to defend justices' safety. Perhaps, a quid pro quo requiring more ethics in return would be justified.  

SCOTUS Watch: Orders and Opinions

Order List

After granting cases on Friday, the Supreme Court released the usual ho-hum Order List on Monday. 

Alito didn't take part in a couple of cases, as usual, not saying why. I will continue to flag that until the conservatives join the liberals in saying why they recuse, which the new ethical guidelines encourage. 

As usual, there were various odds and ends. The most notable thing is some statements/dissents from some conservatives in hot-button cases. 

Alito/Thomas would have taken a case involving affirmative action while Gorsuch said the matter is moot with a change of policy. 

Thomas/Alito and Gorsuch (less bluntly) flagged a case where the Hawaii Supreme Court received some attempt by thumbing their nose at the current SCOTUS gun policy. They granted it was not a ripe case but were concerned about the issues. 

Kavanaugh without comment and Alito/Thomas (on standing) would have taken a case involving parents asserting a right to know if their children came out as trans at school. Alito was sympathetic about an unenumerated right of parents raising their kids, a week after the trans case involving parents concerned about the health care of their children.  

Alito argued that standing has been used to wrongly avoid certain cases. Justices are selectively worried about such prudential standing decisions.  Chris Geidner shows how hypocritical/FOX News-y Alito/Thomas is here to reach out to take this case. 

Opinions

The first two opinions were a per curiam and a one-line statement that said a case was improvidently granted. IOW, "We shouldn't have taken it."

On Human Rights Day, we had the first signed opinion of the 2024 Term. The day was the 76th anniversary of the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our courts, including the Supreme Court, provide a fundamental means to uphold our rights. Rights ultimately rely on us all.

Anyways, back to the Supreme Court, and its first signed opinion of the term.  Justice Jackson, who will get a chance to fulfill a dream on the stage, wrote a unanimous opinion in an immigration dispute. 

The facts might be sympathetic, but the Court determined that a challenge to an alleged "sham marriage" determination should fail. Jackson argued the law gives the agency involved discretion without the courts having the authority to second guess. 

There was a dispute over the law here so the answer to the question was not totally clear. I will not pretend to argue that I know the right answer. Suffice it to say, that a unanimous court is not necessarily a right court. Ultimately, the value here is to have an agreed-upon answer that can be applied consistently.  

As usual, the opinion announcement was not live-streamed, so you will have to wait for Oyez.com to release it sometime after the term (or find where it is stored and access it). Now, the whole thing is announced on social media, including court reporters telling us how many boxes of opinions there are as a sign of how many opinions there might be. 

The Court decided having an opinion day was so much fun that they would have one on Wednesday too. As with the first "opinion day," it turned out to be another case of them deposing the case as improvidentially granted ("DIG"), which was not surprising from the coverage of the oral argument. 

The case involved the use of NVIDIA chips by crypto miners. Okay. So we had four opinions this term, one a per curiam (unsigned opinion of the court) released separately. Two opinion days involved DIGS and only one with a signed opinion. 

More Orders 

The Supreme Court rejected a stay of a coal regulation. The "brief" order business is the standard talk for a standard rejection without comment. Stays are not usually granted though sometimes justices at least show some concern about the EPA these days.  

The Court also dropped an order after their Friday conference that added two more arguments. Thus, two of the matters they "relisted" for further discussion have been addressed. More orders are due Monday. 

Court Seating 

The Supreme Court livestreams audio but does not provide video of oral arguments. Also, people like to be present in the room. But, there is limited seating, resulting in some problems. The Supreme Court is starting a trial lottery process for public seating.  

The inability to provide video or photographs leads to the usage of sketch artists. William Hennessey, a long-time SCOTUS sketch artist, has died. 

Thus ends a busy if not too profound week. 

Some Books (+ One Film)

I read a collection of Jane Austen's three unpublished novels, which we covered earlier this week.

Free Speech In Its Forgotten Years (1870-1920) by David Rabban is from the 1990s and was read some time ago. The re-read was worthwhile if mixed. 

The last few chapters were about the standard WWI stuff and a quick summary of (then) recent events. One thing not covered much is sex-related cases, the focus on the dissenters, not the cases themselves. 

Letter to the World: Seven Women Who Shaped The American Century was a chance to have a quick read about Dorothy Thompson. She was flagged for her concern about the Nazis in a blog before the election. 

The book provides a chapter each about Eleanor Roosevelt, Dorothy Thompson, Margaret Mead, Katharine Hepburn, Babe Didrikson Zaharias, Martha Graham, and Marion Anderson. Good read. 

Side Quest: A Visual History of Roleplaying Games was an interesting graphic account of the history of tabletop role-playing games (think Dungeons & Dragons). 

The book explains how historical role-playing developed from ancient times. The last chapters were not as interesting for me since it was focusing on present-day games. Overall, it was interesting. 

===

I checked out Love & Friendship, a film based on Lady Susan, the Jane Austen novel. The first time I watched it, it was not a success. I saw more this time but again not enjoyable. 

It has some charms. It was generally loyal to the book. The actors were good. Good sets. I just found it too dry and shut it off eventually.  

SCOTUS Watch: Opinion Day

David S. Mao has been named the new Librarian of the Supreme Court of the United States. Gorsuch wants to add a book about how we have too many laws.

Opinions 

The two opinions released on Thursday were largely low temperature. 

The Internet allows us to follow along somewhat with opinion announcements, including a "live blog" at SCOTUSBlog. People have also provided live coverage of the New York Trump criminal trial. 

Nonetheless, it only goes so far. We should have audio and video of opinion announcements. Some people think they are a waste of time. SCOTUS still thinks they are a good idea even if there was a report that Gorsuch wanted to stop doing them. Share it with the class, please. 

[civil forfeitures]

Sotomayor for the liberals did show some passion in dissenting in a civil forfeiture case involving the right to have a hearing before the seizure of a car. The dissent noted that such seizures can harm marginal groups. Also, some localities have incentives to seize property to fill their coffers. 

(The dissent was one of those opinions that look beyond the immediate case to discuss wider concerns. Sotomayor and Jackson have done this regularly in cases involving civil rights and criminal justice.)  

The dissent argued that the majority opinion went too far in limiting the types of hearings that would be required. Mark Joseph Stern flagged on Twitter how Kavanaugh played fast and loose with precedents to make his case. This included, as noted by Sotomayor, using a comment during oral argument to determine what one of the cases meant. 

Gorsuch (joined by Thomas) concurred while spending almost as much time as the dissent to discuss historical processes. They were concerned about new procedures threatening property rights. 

The possible abuses of civil forfeiture have joined liberals and libertarians (plus a few conservatives) over the years. The opinions show the potential for a better result, perhaps in a case with better facts. These cases are carefully chosen for review. So, take that last part with a healthy grain of salt.  

Two opinions, one much more than the other, flagged the problems with civil asset forfeiture. The government takes property without due process, using lower standards than necessary to prove a crime. 

Some of the responses are a general "police are horrible" or the like. I find that sort of open-ended thing of limited value. Try to address the issue at hand. 

ETA: To emphasize that last point, Chris Geidner (strong liberal) notes all nine justices supported a "timely" hearing. Five underlined the current policies are problematic. 

The specific case involved an alleged "innocent owner" (two people lent cars to people who allegedly committed drug crimes, apparently without their knowledge) unlike various other civil forfeiture cases. 

(Shades of an old case where a wife had half-ownership in a car and her husband used it to have sex with a prostitute.)  

The majority notes the specific litigants took a long time to bring their claim. The case was more of a vehicle than a clear injustice in the view of various members of the majority. Nonetheless, the result is a general rule that no hearing is necessary before the car is seized.

These are the details in this specific case and a general blunderbuss approach of the evils of the police etc. provides more darkness than light in various respects. Yes, sometimes, we should think of the wider picture. But, that also can be misleading, especially in case-by-case analysis. 

[copyrights]

Kagan wrote the second with Gorsuch dissenting (with Thomas and Alito). This case involved a copyright claim and took twelve pages in total. The litigation involved the timeliness of a claim, here complicated by two prison stints. The case turns on technical issues that courts rightly handle.  

Beyond the Courts

Slate Magazine has a collection of articles about the problems with originalism. Originalism appeals to "original understanding" (phrased and determined in various ways) as "the law" (as if there isn't any other way) as well as a way to restrain judges (not the same thing; it also doesn't work).  

My long-held belief is that we need to apply the Constitution as we understand it today, using all that we understood up until today. This is a fashion of "common law constitutionalism." It is not mere "policy making." Originalism is impractical and misguided even if you try to "do it right." 

The start of a solution is for the public to realize the problem and believe there is an alternative. The Constitution must be enforced by everyone. Not just the courts. Sometimes, the courts are wrong. Plessy v. Ferguson did not permanently void equal protection of the laws. 

Upcoming

Order List on Monday. Another conference is next Thursday. Also, there is now a flag that more opinions might be released. I expect the conference/opinion day on Thursday schedule will continue regularly until late June. 

Saturday Watching and Reading

This week's Svengoolie film is one that I have not seen. The Sven stuff includes new material since it references not only Elon Musk but the upcoming eclipse. The show is now in a two-and-a-half-hour time slot. Some of the films are pretty short but overall this seems to work okay. 

The film is The Time Travellers, which partially inspired another MeTV late-night staple, Time Tunnel. The woman scientist at her desk keeping track of things is the time tunnel television show staple, the woman there is played by the daughter-in-law on Barnaby Jones. 

The film has our scientists travel from their cheap looking lab to the last 21st Century, which among other things has a type of transporter device. One of the people in this film was in the original Star Trek pilot, the creator was impressed with this film, including its special effects on a low budget. 

The mid-1960s film had one risque scene in a women's steam room-type location, where Svengoolie notes all the actresses were actually nude [we see a bit of side boob]. Overall, though low budget in some ways, the whole thing is enjoyable enough. It also has something of a trick ending though how the apparent "time loop" is created is unclear.  

===

It's National Poetry Month so Quiet Fire: Emily Dickinson's Life and Poetry is an appropriate read.  

The book is a young adult volume (listed as appropriate for grades 7-9 and ages 11-18, which doesn't quite overlap). I assume the two authors are present for this purpose, one as an expert on Emily and the other as someone who writes for children. The text is at times clearly written for this audience. A high schooler might find some of it a bit simplistic.

Still, overall, the book covers a lot of ground. This includes a discussion of poetic styles and GLBTQ aspects of her life and work. I found the whole thing a useful introduction/summary of her life and times.  

On a rather different subject, The Stuff They Don't Want You To Know is based on a podcast on conspiracy theories. The topics include aliens, chemtrails, and propaganda. The book argues conspiracy theories include some fact, including multiple governmental uses of dangerous chemicals to investigate the possible effects of biological warfare.  

Interesting collection in down-to-earth language with some good pictures. The Emily Dickinson book is also rather colorful with lovely smooth pages. Check both out! 

Barbie

The Oscar nominations have dropped. Years ago, I watched and kept track of the Academy Awards. Not so much now. I checked and am not too interested in the leading films.

Barbie is one of the top films that received a somewhat ridiculous amount of anticipation and attention. The other (on reserve) involves a biopic of someone leading the creation of the nuclear bomb. The two were like the two "must-see" films. Few had anything bad to say.

I am not here to dis the film. The Academy Awards nominators did that by not nominating the director or Margot Robbie (who played the lead Barbie, "stereotypical Barbie"). America Ferrera (not a Barbie) received a Best Supporting Actress nomination. "Ken" (Ryan Gosling) also received a Best Supporting Actor nomination. 

[Greta Gerwig, of course, is a big part of why the film was nominated for Best Picture. She also was nominated (with her husband) for Best Adapted Screenplay. It also has awards for production design, costume, and song.]

It is seen as a bit much that Barbie did not get a nod but Ken did. This is fair to a point. But, a woman did get a nod too. The message is that Barbie dolls are objects of others. These "others" in a fashion received their due here. 

[ETA: Upon further thought, I think the argument leaves something to be desired as to Margot Robbie. 

Ryan Gosling received a supporting nomination. A woman also did for this film. So, should Robbie (since "Ken" did) replace another Best Actress nomination? I can see how a close split resulted in someone else getting in there. It is not a sexist plot. 

This isn't the first time the director of a top Best Film was not nominated. Still, directing was an important part of making this film. 

Again, you would have to decide if someone else should be knocked off. She also received a writing nod, if shared. Was this a possible tie-breaker? Who knows.]

The film did a great job giving us a look at Barbie-Land and an imaginary look at Mattel HQ. It should get some sort of technical awards for this magic of the movies accomplishment. And, yes, ultimately, the director should be honored for the overall accomplishment.  

I liked the film as a whole. A good judge of this is that I was able to watch it straight through. I have issues with watching films straight through these days. It might be a result of the Internet or whatever. The acting was good, including America Ferrera, a mom who is actually the cause of Barbie's existential crisis. 

She added to the whole wonderland feel. The overall plot is good. It is not extraordinary. That is fine. It just is that some of the talk makes it sound like this is a classic film. I don't think so. It's a good film. It has movie magic. It just is not AMAZING as some make it out to be. 

Don't say I am not the audience. I liked AF's traveling pants films. I can relate to "women's" pictures (and it is appropriate things begin when the mom has issues; in a fashion, it's like Mamma Mia! for speaking to adults).

A charm of this film is creating a Barbie universe (including an all-women Supreme Court, which many girls playing with Barbie dolls won't think about ... some will!). It is also about the overall message. The director repeatedly has made films with strong women characters. 

Barbie suddenly is depressed (that's weird!) and has to find the "girl" who played with her to find out what is happening. Ken (who has his own crisis when he realizes his existence is all about Barbie, not himself) goes along. He is amazed at how men control everything. He goes back and Barbie-land is controlled by men. 

Until Barbie and company save the day. Then, Stereotypical Barbie decides she needs to be human. She becomes Barbara Handler. The film ends with her going for her first gynecological appointment! Talk about metaphors. 

Still, women can play Barbie. Or watch this film.

A Beginning's Guide to Japanese Haiku is the source of this quote. Haiku is short Japanese poetry with a naturalistic focus. It was interesting to read about it. Still, for me personally, a few short verses will do it. A book fill of them with short biographies of the poets was a tad tedious. 

Still glad I skimmed it. 

A Bit About Two Films

A classic movies channel has a Blondie feature on Saturday mornings.  The old comic strip (still going on, the character being a flapper suggests how long ago it began) became a film series during the 1940s.  Those were the days of multiple pleasant standards including the Bowery Boys and Andy Hardy.   

Blondie was of this character; two attempts at television series (one with the original Bumstead though watching a bit once he seemed more serious) were not as successful.  Penny Singleton played the title character; the character's husband was clearly the show's star. He was laid on a bit thick though then we are talking about a comic strip character.

Penny Singleton later was the mother's voice on The Jetsons, which she also played years later when a film was made (Tiffany voiced the daughter).  Her Wikipedia page (see also) highlighted as well her later work as a labor representative, including testifying in front of Congress about how "B-Girls" were exploited.  She even was accused of slander against a labor leader though the charge was eventually dropped. 

She plays a standard housewife type (being Dagwood Bumstead's wife though does require some levelheadedness and independence of mind; can't rely on that goofball too much).  The character is not as sexy as the comic strip version though Penny Singleton's background would be comparable to the "flapper" version.  I was not aware of her interesting advocacy.

Today's film was Blonde in the Dough (cookies that is) in which radio plays an important role.  Typical Bumstead clowning.  

==

Strawberry & Chocolate is a well-received Cuban film from a few decades ago about a surprising friendship between an artistic-loving gay guy and a somewhat hapless straight guy.  I could not really get into it though it seemed well-made and well-acted.  The film was somewhat controversial as a criticism of the Cuban position on GLBTQ issues and such.

A few notable scenes even in the first ten minutes or so.  Our hapless straight guy is not having too much luck with a girl. He gets a view of what he was missing by listening (and then viewing through a peephole) to a couple having sex in the next room.  A nice visual of the rather big-chested woman with a full shot as well of her hairy crotch.

(U.S. films -- even soft porn on Showtime -- are very hesitant to give us such a view.)  

There is also a sly attempt by the homosexual character to pick up the guy, including a bit about ice cream. There is also a bit involving a bit with a civilian official asking if the couple consents to marriage after being made aware of "Articles 24-28." I checked and this refers to provisions that provide a socialist-inspired bit of equality in marriage, including a responsibility of providing equal support in the marriage.  

I'm all for that to be at least part of our marriage vows.  Anyway, as I said, the movie did seem to have potential, if I was in the mood for such a thing. A very helpful thing was that the subtitles were nice and clear.  A few films have tiny subtitles [NY Daily News shrunk lately; I wrote them a letter complaining and it actually was published] and it's hard for me to see.  

SCOTUS Watch: Opinion Day

News coverage sometimes suggests SCOTUS just leaving a pending case or not taking a case for review is more than it is. 

SCOTUS (until Kavanaugh and Barrett) was so willing to avoid 2A cases after Heller that a few justices claimed they were treating it as a second-class right.  And, even now, I don't think them letting a pending assault-style weapons case be is that notable.  Anyways:

The application for a writ of injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Barrett and by her referred to the Court is denied.

No public dissents. Meanwhile, Steve Vladeck's The Shadow Docket book was officially released. He is having a lot of press and podcasts about it. I reserved it and will comment on it soon.  The order here is in fact a lesser example of the practice.  It is one of the minor moves where quiet is mostly acceptable.  As compared to resulting final death penalty appeals etc.

===

We then move on to Thursday and another Opinion Day.  They also have another Thursday conference / Monday orders set.  And, we will have another opinion day next Thursday.  They are coming in bunches now.

The pork case last time was split in various ways.  There was a lot of agreement today though for whatever reason it took five or more minutes after 10 A.M. for the opinions to start coming.  Yes, the "big" Twitter and Google cases were handed down.  But (as many hoped while a few feared them "breaking the Internet"), they were basically narrow.  

(Roberts has his first opinion, which I missed at first, maybe since it is so forgettable -- a unanimous tax case most notable because of the Jackson/Gorsuch concurrence the same day we have a GorsuchJackson concurrence. The delay of the "big boys" having opinions so far has not brought out anything too notable.)  

The first opinion was a unanimous one by Stolen Seat Guy. I still am not over how he and his two Trumpies got here.  Not merely going to accept that the car is stolen and politely deal with thieves. Even if Gorsuch and Jackson already (again today) are uniting up in certain cases.  But, I will note the opinion seems well written.  It's a medical patent case.  

Thomas had the Twitter case (the Google case was disposed of as a per curiam) and a technical case (he has more than his fair share), which Alito and Gorsuch dissented from.  The day was full of basic agreements, including Jackson briefly mentioning in the Twitter case that she went along given it was narrowly decided.  One of the liberals from Slate praised the opinion for its restraint.  

Oh, and then there was the 7-2 (Gorsuch/Jackson concurring, but joining the majority too) with three opinions spanning almost ninety pages total though that includes a lot of photographs (it is a copyright dispute involving a photo of Prince; we also have multiple Marilyn Monroes and classical nudes).  

The two would be Kagan (full Kagan, believe me) and Roberts.  One appellate lawyer noted the "Kagan and Roberts" rule that when they both agree, the opinion is likely right.  I don't claim to know the answer here, but Kagan's opinion [praised by one appellate lawyer for its overall skill] is a wonder to read. She is full of snark, and colloquial comments to the reader.  There is a reason why (along with Roberts) she is put forth as the best writer of the bunch.  I think she probably lays it on a tad thick, but it's fun. 

The Supreme Court has been subject to a lot of appropriate attacks of late but their opinions so far have been overall good ones. We had a few divisions. It is something that one of the strongest is Kagan v. Sotomayor and it would be even more striking if she dissented alone!  The dissent makes me sad that things did not go as they should have personnel-wise.

Kagan should be the de facto co-Chief Justice in a liberal-leaning Court. More analysis can be found at SCOTUSBlog.  Meanwhile, to toss it in, these cases brought in a few more URLs for those keeping track. 

==

The "Title 42" border policy was recently ended.  SCOTUS declared a challenge to it moot with Jackson saying she would have just dismissed it as improvidentially granted. 

Gorsuch added a statement concerned about emergency powers and so on.  He dissented when five justices granted the case originally, but I noted he had some language that led me to be wary of praising him too much.  

Same here, with his paeon to civil liberties, citing Aristotle and tossing in things like "Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country." 

(checking) Slavery and Jim Crow were during peacetime, correct?  This is also the guy that was part of the five who took abortion rights away. I'll get my libertarian appeals elsewhere, thank you.  

[One scornful response cited the Japanese internment cases but Gorsuch did toss in "peaceful" at one point.  A basic pet peeve of mine is when people do not read close and do not think things through, resulting in easy-to-refute claims often strenuously expressed.  And, yes, it's a human failing, that I'm sure I myself have done from time to time.]   

ETA: This entry is a bit long already, the late-term rush mixing with other news, but I just saw a view from the courtroom article. Since the Court wrongly doesn't provide us audio or video of opinion announcements, we are left to such secondhand reports.  Breyer was in the house among other things.  We also might have seen why there was about a five-minute delay before the opinions were posted: Roberts had a bit of Breyer-related stuff.  

===

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is back, helping the confirmation of lower court judges, but so far there has been a certain "drip drip" feel to it as a handful were confirmed. And, then, they are out for most of the rest of the month, only having pro forma sessions.  And, Feinstein is appearing even more decrepit (so not a healthy and fit 89) than before.  

I think the courts as a whole are a concern, just as no one aspect of the Supreme Court (ethics or whatever) is a problem by itself.  The chair of the Judiciary Committee still thinks blue slips (where Republicans can hold up nominees after they refused to do so when they had power) should be allowed. There is a whole "what the fuck is wrong with you" quality.

Senate Dems can show they have generally confirmed judges, though the numbers (showing better success than Trump) are a bit misleading since they are behind (catching up) on the appellate courts. Blue slips also help block filling nominations from red states.  Moderate efforts are not enough these days, especially when the Senate is where the Dems have power.

The Supreme Court is even affecting state court nominations. The situation clearly affected how a power-shifting opportunity in the N.Y.  Court of Appeals was handled.  Now a Connecticut judicial nominee got in trouble for her signing a letter supporting the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett.  I'm all for a hardline there.  No business for Democrats in that situation, even more so than the Gorsuch matter, to support her.  

The service as conservative justices' law clerks should not be assumed to be itself disqualification.  Liberals have done that.  She then served as an appellate attorney at the Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice under Bush43, which I saw someone flag.  Not really sure if that sort of thing matters. 

But, her comment that she didn't realize Barrett would overturn Roe v. Wade. is hard to take seriously. 

#LGM

Mets baseball is back. There is an amusing, well-done commercial on SNY with various members of the team serving as customer hotline reps, answering questions, and taking seat orders. Diaz has a good bit about "closing."

Scherzer started (and pitched two innings) in the Sunday game. The sideline reporter had an opening bit and noted how he "hasn't slowed down." Gary also had some positive opening remarks. Both are sorta full of shit.

Scherzer started strong but then got hurt. He was out of the rotation for a long period and then did not seem to same when he came back. His failure to seal the deal in the final days -- both at the end of the season and in the first round of the playoffs -- was an important part of the Mets running into a brick wall. Why can't you say this? Are we stupid?

One NY Daily News analysis [the paper is one of many that got rid of Dilbert after the "anti-woke" cartoonist really crossed the line] noted that the Yanks and Mets still have issues. Sure enough. 

But, the idea that the new Japanese pitcher has to be better than Bassett (a #3) is dubious. The team won 101 games. The PHILS -- the third-place team -- got to the World Series. Only the first seed gets a bye. So, really, getting a wild card (two options) is basically not a big problem. The Mets don't have that much of a home-field advantage.  They will find a way to stress us out.

There are questions to be answered about the two old pitchers and the new Japanese pitcher, who has so far fit in well with the team and fans as far as I can see. The big issue really is if there will be a bit more offense, especially from DH and some rookies. 

There are various mostly tiresome new rules. This doesn't involve a change of the ghost runner or no DH, which would be actually an improvement. The bigger bases might mildly help safety. Doubt it helps much. It also might help base stealing in some cases.  The whole shift deal is stupid to me. They are mildly banning it. If you want to get around a new strategy, use a new strategy.  

Last year, the Mets were a bit better [until the end] than expected. This season should be a bit more balanced expectations-wise. The team would be a major disappointment (with two wild cards) if they didn't make the postseason. OTOH, with two strong rivals (it will be determined to see if the Nats are AS BAD), unless we have another collapse, the second place won't be as upsetting.

Meanwhile, hopefully, the Orioles can keep up their decent record last year, and don't revert some. It is tough though to see them do much more with the competition. Still, with a second wild card, there is some chance for an upset team.

There is also news of an 83-year-old pitching coach for the Mets bringing an age discrimination suit.  If some behind-the-scenes stuff is nasty, fine, but replacing him (after he helped the pitchers reduce their ERA some) with Jeremy Hefner is not exactly harsh in my opinion.  That was a few years ago.  How long is an eighty-something going to have a full-time position?

What the Ermine Saw

I'm not much into art, but recognize value. I don't recall knowing about this painting by Mona Lisa guy. But, it has an interesting backstory, including its journeys through the centuries. The author is not a historian or art expert, so be somewhat beware of the details (there are no end notes). Still, I liked the book overall, and it has a lot of good pictures.

The painting itself is interesting. The ermine looks a bit weird (some thought it was a "weird dog") and her one hand looks weird too. Also, apparently the style was to tamp down all the hair. The subject of the picture was probably a teenager when it was painted; maybe 15/16.

SCOTUS Watch: New Term Begins

There used to be February and August terms. "Congress moved the Court term’s start date from the second Monday in October to the current first Monday."  This means the "2022 term" started today.  First Monday In October was a play (and then okay movie) that foreshadowed the first appointment of a women.  White males are now a minority of the Court. Clearly, it is time to end affirmative action as we know it!

It took a little while (though it was up by around 10 A.M.) for the website to set up the link to the morning orders, needing to set up a new "2022" link.  The order list was a sort of "clean-up" list (nearly 50 pages long) and they have a set of new cases. Most aren't too exciting. They did take a possibly important case about regulating the Internet (Section 230).

[ETA: Here is a "view in" with a comment that the old term officially ended technically this morning.]

A SCOTUSBlog analysis that argues Thomas is the de facto chief, including talking about his national influence such as how many clerks are in important places of power (both locally and on the federal bench). Also, nice memorial for retiring court artist (Art Lien).  Also, lately it seemed to get the morning round-up out a bit earlier, after it often taking a bit too long.

The first argument involved the reach of federal power over wetlands, which has been one area conservatives have used to target federal regulatory power.  Justice Jackson got into the questioning early on.  The argument was scheduled to be an hour.  The challenger had that long.  It went more like 1:40.  

A HEY YOU to C-SPAN here. Brian Lamb was long pushing them to allow  video.  We now have audio.  But, for whatever reason, C-SPAN -- even on the first day of the term/new justice -- doesn't feel it is important enough to air it live on C-SPAN television.  You can check online for it.  On television, they didn't even have a congressional session at 10 A.M. They even aired a (not live) SCOTUS panel.  If the Supreme Court coverage is so important, why not air it? Many are not aware of the website content or might not have access.  Television (with photos to deal with lack of video and maybe a segment before/after) is useful here. FAIL.

Tough questioning for the anti-EPA side but largely from the liberals with the conservatives pushing back seemingly in a more gentle way.  Long term observer suggests SCOTUS might be looking for larger game here.  This bunch likes to ask questions. Arguments often go long. With less cases, they surely have more time for that sort of thing.  

The next case was more dull, but Justice Jackson asked a question early on as well. She had a nice sounding voice. Gorsuch sounds smarmy.  Kavanaugh sounds like a dick.  Alito sounds cranky.  Barrett aims for reasonable.  Kagan is your opinionated friend, who is somewhat nicer about it (at times).  She can bring the snark.  Sotomayor doesn't  tone that down.  Thomas is now rather chatty.  Roberts is your reasonable dad though at times he will get somewhat miffed or doubting sounding.  

To toss it out there, Roberts got a new assistant.   Tomorrow will have another big oral argument about racial redistricting matters.  Prof. Steve Vladeck (Shadow Docket guy/Mets fan living in Texas) noted how lower court districting cases could turn the 2022 elections.  Litigation already affected New York state races pursuant to state court action. 

SCOTUS Watch: Long Conference Edition

As the Supreme Court prepares for a new term, they had a "long conference" this week to deal with pending matters from the summer. And, other matters.

Arguments: The Supreme Court announced they will have in person oral arguments, public included, masks optional. Otherwise the building will be closed to the public. I don't know if there is spacing in the courtroom, but there is not much seating for there to be too much. If there is oral argument seating, not sure if you can't have the building itself (with more chance of social distancing) open. I guess it is not too important.

The Supreme Court will continue live audio, which various law related people was very happy about.  I think it is fine, but again, it is not to me that exciting over waiting a little while.  Yes, it is a level of openness and transparency. They cannot edit the content and you have it right away.  I have not really read, however, them editing it any, and listening to an old "partial birth" abortion case, I even heard a protester yell left in.

The big improvement would be if they allowed video or even added opinion announcement audio.  They did not say if they will turn to opinion announcements, which they have not had since COVID began (and the pre-COVID opinion announcements of that term are not available).  Not having that this term (which ends on the first Sunday in October) was really notable, especially the lack of public dissents from the bench.  

Justice Jackson: There are thirteen federal circuits (federal, D.C., 1-11), each having a circuit justice (Roberts deals with the feds and the 4th, Alito his old 3rd and ideologically suitable 5th, Kavanaugh has 6/8, and the rest have one each, largely their old haunts, with Kagan having the 9th). 

Some use this to suggest we should have thirteen justices, but we aren't talking circuit riding or anything.  They don't do much except dealing with a limited number of emergency appeals, referring notable ones to the whole Court.  Roberts and Kavanaugh dealt with such a matter this week that is on the orders page.  At times, decisions are made by circuit justices that are only on the docket page of the case. 

Breyer used to be a judge in the 1st Cir., so logically had that.  Roberts filled in after he retired.  Now, Jackson, who clerked there, has that slot.  

[Justice Jackson and Dr. Patrick Jackson on the plaza after her investiture (Friday morning) Amy Howe on Twitter.  Amy Howe also co-wrote an account, which has a lot of details, including note that Justice William Douglas' fourth wife -- who I think now is around 78 so still younger than him at his death in 1980 -- was in the room.] 

The other notable Jackson moment is her formal investiture, a ceremonial affair involving Chief John Marshall's chair and everything started by Chief Justice Burger, who liked pomp and ceremony.  She was, of course, already sworn in after the end of the regular term.  This is a ceremonial matter and one that unlike the swearing in is more private, no video provided.  

Orders:  Along with the order announcing the new circuit assignments, there was one citing the solicitor general being allowed to take part in the oral argument in two cases, including a copyright matter involving Andy Warhol.  It is one of the "fun" cases of the new term that people are watching, in part since it is not likely to cause a lot of pain and suffering.

Ginni Thomas: The January 6th committee interviewed Ginni Thomas, who reportedly tried to get multiple state legislatures to reject the official counts in 2020 among other things.  It is good to get her on the record, especially with a lot of people talking about her, after reading article after article about it. 

She made "yeah sure" comments like Clarence Thomas not caring about politics or talking to her about her actions at all.  The whole thing is symbolic on some basic level since she has no real power and doubtful she has much influence.  Yes, she gets into the room and such since Justice Thomas is her husband.  And, yes, it was dead wrong (and impeachable) that he continued to take part in Trump election related cases. 

Do we really think she or Clarence Thomas had any significant role in the whole election theft attempt?  It is not trivial on some level, yes, especially when we are talking a member of the Supreme Court.  This also factors into the concept of appearance of impropriety.  We can note this while also being reasonable about what exactly their role was specifically.  

Relatedly, there is a Politico article about justices' spouses and proper disclosures.  When Ginsburg became justice, there was the well reported fact that her husband decided to change careers to avoid conflict. The article notes that Barrett's husband went another way:

A year after Amy Coney Barrett joined the Supreme Court, the boutique Indiana firm SouthBank Legal opened its first-ever Washington office in Penn Quarter, a move the firm hailed in a 2021 press release as an “important milestone.”

The head of the office, Jesse M. Barrett, is the justice’s husband, whose work is described by the firm as “white-collar criminal defense, internal investigations, and complex commercial litigation.”

Continuing evidence about the trade we got. Oh this too:

But if anyone wants to find out whether Jesse Barrett’s clients have a direct interest in cases being decided by his wife, they’re out of luck. In the Supreme Court’s notoriously porous ethical disclosure system, Barrett not only withholds her husband’s clients, but redacted the name of SouthBank Legal itself in her most recent disclosure.  

The article provides some other red flags involving spouses, but that is rather blatant.  There are recusal policies that the justices at least say they follow (again congressional legislation applies in a narrow area though the justices never admitted it legally applied to them).  This is the sort of appearance of impropriety that ethics rules address.  

Like "Clarence? he doesn't care about politics!"  there is a point when this is just piss you off blatant.  I don't care on a basic level here that it is somewhat symbolic. The "the rules don't really apply" concept does not stop here.  There is a general "fuck you, the rules don't apply to us" concept that touches important matters too.  

And, when Kagan publicly starts to be upset, Alito is out there whining about it.   

===

To answer that call, liberal leaders must size up the sources of political strength that undergird the Supreme Court majority’s audacious demolition campaign—defenses that are formidable but by no means invulnerable.

Finally, there was a useful analysis on how Democrats can try to address the current Supreme Court majority.  The analysis  does not provide a bunch of specific policy proposals.  It addresses targets, including a "political bulwark of the rightist justices’ pursuit of their agenda."

[1]  The 6-3 majority itself seems stuck in place unless a strong Democratic sweep, probably for two election cycles, allows them to "eliminate or degrade" it.  I'm unsure if this is totally true. Still, the key point here is to know your target.

[2] The court majority supports (unpopular) Republican political goals.  Democrats can use politics (e.g., the unpopularity of the Dobbs anti-abortion ruling) to make the Republicans less gung-ho about certain things.  I would add maybe there will be more of an opening in the lower courts, including to get some Biden picks confirmed. 

[3]  Public ignorance of the Supreme Court's agenda.  Citizens United was a major avenue of public discontent here and Sen. Whitehouse especially has been on the case of how "dark money" is behind nominations and choices of cases.  The public also figured abortion as a whole was safe.  We now see abortion rights is not. 

[4]  Perhaps the most vulnerable according to this analysis is the idea that the Supreme Court is above the fray, ruling by law instead of politics and ideology.  The presence of justices that were "swing" or did not purely match ideological/partisan issue voters were key here. Also, the way the latest people were confirmed, some of their off the court habits, Ginni Thomas, etc. 

The ultimate question is what this "constitutional conversation" and "de-legitimization" will get you.  Will the justices (and judges) be more wary at certain points to go too far?  Will the public accept more challenging of the courts (including lower courts) in certain respects?  Will the public accept more regulation or other court reforms?  Something else?

The analysis is not really about answering those questions.  But, there are questions that can be made. It is hard to imagine how to address the Supreme Court.  It is helpful to look at things from various sides.  

Film and Books

I saw The Slipper and the Rose in my movie review book (Leonard Maltin) and actually found a full cut on Youtube. It is a 1970s British take on Cinderella, adding music. The familiar face is Richard Chamberlain as the prince. And, this version does focus largely on the royal side of things. 

We do get Cinderella too though there is no comeuppance for the wicked step-family.  She (to the stepmother's annoyance and you think something will come of it, but no) forgives them since she has found true love and happiness. A healthy sentiment.  Still, some might want more "Cindy" [note this is an insulting name, from the "cinders" she cleans up] when watching.

The post-ball material is somewhat off (the whole shoe fitting thing quickly is handled, no one is found, and later on we don't even see Cinderella's foot in the shoe -- she just finds it!).   But, overall, it is an enjoyable film, well acted with a wonderful story-like setting, and good singing and choreographically as a whole.  Cinderella never looks very down and out, but the actress looks young, beautiful, and full of life, as necessary.

[Beyond This Tale: There are varieties of this story, including ones that might add some literal meaning to the "fairy" godmother -- using an impolite use of that term -- but one I would be interested in seeing is one via the perspective of the stepmother and stepsisters.  

I think Angelina Jolie is another context was in a film where an "evil stepmother" type character is given some perspective.  A revisionist view would likewise try to consider the second wife and how she would have to handle two daughters and a daddy's girl etc.  I even was thinking, though this is really going out there, having a stepsister win out in the end.

The Drew Barrymore take-off had the younger step-sister at least fairly decent as I recall.  And, the stepsisters -- like Cinderella -- are possibly but teens.  Cinderella was a minor in this film.]  

====

Books: I found two books at the Van Nest Library, which has various displays of shiny new looking books.  One is a young adult book by someone with many (I'm not familiar with her) entitled Every Single Lie.  A teen finds a dead baby and the rumor mill (helped now by Twitter) kicks in, her family already dealing with the death of a father with various issues.  

The book is well written and we find out in the end that it is inspired by various facts in the author's life (various parts, not the united whole).  The book covers such things as social media and how tragedy is reported and exploited.  I did feel a bit put upon that when I finally took a break from Twitter, which I use too much even if I now do so only Mon-Th, I had to read about Twitter too!

At some point, there is a feel that the poor girl has one thing after another put on her, down to the final reveal.  Still, I liked it, and the simple statement that some junior in high school is having sex is just tossed out without much comment.  It's one of the nice realistic feeling touches. 

(There is a "friend" who turns out to be not much of one, but to remember, the girl is only around fourteen.  She is selfish and has horrible judgment, but she is an immature girl.  Also, an assumption is made mid-plot that makes sense up to a point, but is somewhat less realistic today.  OTOH, it adds to the "assumptions we make" theme of the book.) 

The other book is a manga entitled Banned Book Club, which is based on college protests and related action during military rule in early 1980s South Korea.  The power of books [the deeper meaning of Shakespeare is touched upon] and resistance is still very topical around the world.   The heroine using her assumed innocence to her benefit in one side was great. 

Talking about 1980s, the son of the infamous Marcos duo will now be the leader of the Philippines.  I find these reboots a bit tired after a while.

Friday was Jen Psaki's last day.  And, since the Internet and so on is addressed above, this analysis on the "marketplace of ideas" is apt.

Charlotte Salomon

One thing I like to do is to read reviews and saw a review of a new animated film (Charlotte), which is about the German Jewish painter Charlotte Salomon, who was murdered (let's use the right word) in the Holocaust. I was not aware of this woman, but she has an interesting story. And, a sort of family tradition of suicide, multiple family members doing so.

Charlotte eventually sought refugee in France though eventually full German control of the country led to her death. Her father and stepmother sought refugee in Holland, but eventually were able to survive the war in hiding. Her French connection suggests why a French author and screenwriter to find her fascinating.

He eventually wrote a sorta biography (largely based on her magnum opus) of which I read an English translation. I liked it; it was almost written like a poem. I tried to find some other things in the library, but the books were limited (a collection of artists) or an academic essay collection. I did see other books online. I did not see the animated biopic yet.

Opinion Day

The Supreme Court cleaned some pending matters today with a busy opinion day. Five opinions, one each for the five with the least seniority (Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Kagan, and Sotomayor).

That is one unlikely majority, especially with Breyer more senior along with the Chief Justice, Thomas, and Alito. Sotomayor has it a bit easier with Breyer replaced with a junior liberal. Still unlikely as would be the in theory possible Kagan-Jackson majority. The best bet is to find something the high Federalists would dissent for and Roberts is recused. Kagan is harder. 

(The release -- again automatically since they don't show up for opinion announcements these days, denying us a chance for opinion announcement audio at Oyez.com -- came least seniority to most.  I won't do it in that order.) 

There were two unanimous opinions.  Barrett had a procedural opinion that gave a limited win (allowing the person a chance to fight on) regarding a tax case. Happy Tax Week.  Maybe, the IRS will finally clear up my issue.  (I asked AOC's office for help.  I thought they forgot about me but then got a call that they need a privacy waiver.  That day I receive another letter from the IRS saying they found another reason to delay things.)  

==

Kagan also had a procedural opinion that helped the person who brought the appeal, but only so much.  Providing some of her skillful prose ["The path of our decision has been as short as the hunt for Rue Saint-Honoré was long; our ruling is as simple as the conflict over its rightful owner has been vexed."], and attaching a couple pictures of the art, she explained why California law should be applied in an attempt to get back some Nazi seized art that wound up in Spain.  To be continued. 

(SCOTUSBlog has analysis to explain the nuances a bit more and  it sounds like the family of the original owners still have a stiff hill to climb.)

==

Kagan's pen, quite sharp, was in dissent in a Gorsuch case involving habeas.  I do not claim to have the expertise to parse such things, but Steve Vladeck and Leah Litman are usually reliable. So, if Mr. Shadow Docket thinks Kagan (for the liberals) is right for sneer at Gorsuch's "law office history" etc., her passion not for this case particularly, but the likelihood of what it will bode for the future, I'm inclined to agree. 

[Prof. Litman also panned Breyer's latest "book" (if noting her liking the man) in a well received article.]

===

Sotomayor had the opinion (Alito thought the the majority went somewhat too far; Thomas for Gorsuch & Barrett dissented) in case involving regulating signs.  The ordinance was upheld and as Breyer noted in a fairly convincing (to me) concurrence, part of the problem here is that the Roberts Court has become too one note regarding free speech cases, even when regulating commercial matters of this type.  

==

The most notable opinion involved Puerto Rico.  

Kavanaugh had the opinion upholding a federal policy where someone might be denied SSI benefits if they live in Puerto Rico. Ian Millhiser wrote last year (this case was argued fairly early, making one wonder about the drafting) that this was a tragic case.  His write-up today does as well.  

The tragedy is that justice is on the side of the litigant, but the result might be open season to second guess financial policy that can lead to unfortunate results.  For instance, my governor was upset the Supreme Court didn't take a case where blue states alleged a certain tax policy was discriminatory to blue states.  But, what constitutional rule protects states like that?

This suggests why this opinion was 8-1 though the opinion itself was a thin six pages.  It is basically a case of wanting to get rid of the thing.  Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence finding a new constitutional toy -- he argues that federal equal protection should not be a 5A due process matter, but rest of the 14A Citizenship Clause.  Thomas does, unlike in his same sex marriage dissent (where he had a long passage sneering at it), recognize equal citizenship has a "dignity" component.

At least, he "tentatively" talks about this. Now, on some level, a broad reading of the Citizenship Clause is not a bad idea (various liberals suggest it), but using (as noted in Legal Twitter) his usual selective history, abhorrence at applying equal protection to benefits, and so forth, the whole result is something of a mess when he does it.  Plus, history and precedent does back an equality aspect to due process of law too.

Gorsuch, in one of his "when the asshole is right, he's right" opinions, concurs to argue the Insular Cases should go.  These were a series of cases from the turn of the 20th Century until around 1920 that held the territories obtained after the Spanish American War can be treated differently than others.  He notes (as does Sotomayor) that it was not requested, so he would not dissent on that ground.  

(A few noted that since Gorsuch's concurrence summarized our racist history, that it might not be able to be taught some places who have problems with critical race theory.  Perhaps, such laws are vague enough to have loopholes for this sort of thing.)  

Anyway, it isn't clear (thought the majority avoided the point), if that alone would do the trick. During oral argument, the federal government argued that it was reasonable to treat states differently for purposes of tax policy if it was rational to do so. And, that is fair, but Sotomayor argues in her dissent (agreeing on the Insular Cases) that it is not shown here.  

The advocate for the claimant here (and it seems if he was granted a waiver, the whole matter could have been avoided) made some open-ended arguments during the oral argument.  He suggested the Guarantee Clause and so forth warranted treating the Territory Clause as not a fully open-ended congressional power.  The assumption was that at some point a territory would become a state or be treated on some sort of equal footing.  

It was a rather broad argument though could be a method of constitutional avoidance mixed in with an argument that Puerto Rico is special too in that it is more powerless (no representation in Congress except for a non-voting delegate).  But, Sotomayor argued even rational basis failed.  

I think the case was hard (see Ian Millhiser again), but would look at the regulation with a questioning eye all things considered. Thus, to use the jargon, at least apply rational basis with teeth.  And, policy-wise, change the rule.  Administratively, give the guy a waiver.  Avoid hard cases when possible.  

It seems like it was possible here.  

===

There was also a separate press release announcing an upcoming celebration of Justice John Paul Stevens (who would have been 102 on 4/20) on May 2nd.  Stevens regularly posted speeches on the Supreme Court speech page.  Perhaps, in honor of his open government approach, the release notes the event (which will involve Garland, Stevens' granddaughter, and other notables) will be streamed via the website.  

ETA: I also see a few more online links have been added.

Joe's Eclectic Thoughts: Weekend Edition

Book: I saw the author of Smashing Statues: The Rise and Fall of America’s Public Monuments interviewed on C-SPAN, being interested enough to check out the book. (I checked it out of the library.) I read the Sandy Levinson book cited in this capsule review, including an update. I also read another book, talking about Confederate monuments. All three are somewhat of a piece, focused on what one might call "bad monuments."

All three are worthwhile (yeah, the other one slips my mind at the moment) in their own ways. The book here is a bit misleadingly named. The book is largely about Confederate monuments with a bit about others such as the knocking down George III's monument.  But, even in that respect, it isn't really comprehensively about bad ones.  The main focus in about Confederate monuments though there is (to be fair) a chapter on Christopher Columbus.  

[On that subject, there was traditionally not too far from me -- if I went to public high school, I was zoned for it -- a school called Christopher Columbus High School.  We also traditionally had a Christopher Columbus parade down the main block near me.  The school broke into smaller schools.  COVID made the parade not a thing recently.]

I would have liked a more complete book about monuments (celebrations) and memorials (mourning something).  Why not a chapter on some "good" monument, or at least one that has so far met the test of time, such as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial?  Or, something like the Statue of Liberty?  If the book is meant to be about those that are "smashed," even so -- this sort of thing will provide a comparison.  

Still, the chapters on various memorials -- to be fair there are ones on matters other than the Confederate monuments -- and monuments are pretty interesting. One thing of note is her argument that Confederate monuments partially was a way to stop rising labor unrest, especially when it was biracial in nature.  Bits like that adds new details.

===

Let's Play Ball! Injury to an ace and another try manager-wise? Check! Still, we have some reason to hope this year is a bit different, with a career manager in place, a stud ace signing, and some good additions. I think two time cheater Cano should have been gone, but early on at least (it is the Nats, the predicted NL East whipping boy) he seems to be a promising addition too, especially with the DH (boo) giving him more playing time.

The first two games of a four game series versus the Nationals already had some drama.  We had deGrom out, so Megill started (well), and then Apple TV (not too well apparently) had the second game.  And, as if that and Scherzer (vs his old team) was not enough, yet another hit by pitch had some drama (we got a bit of video on Twitter for those who wasn't watching).  

The game was delayed twice -- lighting issues and at the end (which could have been avoided perhaps without the first delay) some rain.  Mets 2-0, top of the NL East.  So it begins.  Nice to see GKR back and I listened some on the radio, which has its charms.   And, Howie Rose (cutting back apparently this season after a health scare) is getting pretty good at Twitter, giving the daughter involved in the biz a run for her money.

===

Academy Awards: I didn't watch, there was some drama -- as noted -- when Will Smith (who from what I can tell is not a "bad boy" type, but I don't pay much attention) hit Chris Rock for making a joke about her lack of hair (a result of a medical condition).  At the time, the Oscars let him stay, and Smith then came on the stage after winning an award.

That was not ideal.  But, if a tad late, the Oscars has penalized him by banning him from the awards for ten years.  Will Smith himself resigned from the academy, basically meaning he doesn't get a vote.  He can be voted for, since that is a separate matter.  That might confuse a bit, but it makes sense (mostly).  He did not somehow corrupt the acting process or something (such as if a director was caught abusing a cast member).  

I think the thing to do was address the matter in the moment. This is not totally bad though.  For one thing, the tradition is for the Best Actor winner to be a presenter the next year.  So, this sort of thing matters in a message way in that direct fashion.  (It matters more there to the degree his absence is specifically notable.)  

And, often -- though it is unfortunate -- it is hard to do things "in the moment."  Ideally, Will Smith should have left, though just what happened there is subject to conflicting reports in the coverage I saw.  Some talk of him being "asked" to leave, but not too strongly; maybe not?  Unfortunate there was not some more lag time, perhaps before him winning. 

Is ten years the right length?  Maybe a bit much, but you cannot handwave physical violence against presenters.  These things sometimes will include presenters or categories for things that might in some fashion will invite the unhinged to do something.  Plus, violence in general should be strongly rejected.  

And, we are not talking prison time here or something. 

===

Border Issues: One thing a repeat ask at Jen Psaki's daily White House press conferences (saw news she is leaving soon, but after a few questions -- which she waived off -- about talks with MSNBC, saw/heard nothing ... though she seems to be highlighting support staff more lately as if in preparation) is Title 42.  A bit of immigrant/COVID inside baseball.

I have not gone into the weeds too much here, but have seen some criticism of the Administration continuing a Trump policy here.  The idea is that there is a health need -- COVID (Big V) -- to be more strict regarding migrants wishing to come in, resulting in over a million (some duplicates, but it is still a big number) being blocked. Better be necessary, right?

The link provides some helpful analysis.  Jen Psaki basically had a mantra that it was a health measure.  But, the article argues that the actual health officials at the CDC never really thought it was necessary.  So, there is some idea that was a makeweight argument.  Now, there are plans to end it, and (shocker here) Republicans (and some others) are worried.

Republicans, of course, are regularly against any number of COVID restrictions.  When it is a border matter, largely involving Latin Americans, suddenly they change their tune.  Repeatedly, health experts are wary about the laissez faire policies of the Republicans in this area.  HERE, we have actual evidence (a recent court case reaffirmed this, though upholding the policy as a matter of law, excepting those at risk of torture or the like) from experts the policy is unnecessary.  

The reactions underline why the Biden Administration is loathe to have a more liberal immigration policy, even to the degree that in various respects would be a good thing.  JUST how much criticism they warrant is far from clear to me, but that sort of real politics reality also should be factored in. 

===

Blogger Issue: Twice now, for some reason, Blogger has blocked my  posts.  One, regarding the bike death of a media critics, was shortly thereafter found to be okay.  I didn't closely read the email to see what the alleged issue was.

Another, an earlier version of my latest SCOTUS post was allowed too, after a somewhat longer review.  The first time for some reason "spam" was the problem.  I then posted a short post summarizing it, with "Blogger" in the title and a link to the content policy. THAT was blocked!  

I reposted a new version, taking out a couple embedded tweets and some other formatting.  THAT was allowed.  A recent short Judge Jackson post had an embedded tweet.  I have been doing this since 2003 without one case of having something blocked, including linking to porn.  

I'm unsure why there is an issue here, but it's annoying, in part since there does not seem to be a way for me to simply ask Blogger what the issue here.  There is a "help" page with FAQ material and an option to post questions.  If I'm blocked, I rather have a chance to ask directly.

SCOTUS: Order List Day

The Order List reported that SCOTUS granted three cases that were among those discussed at the SCOTUS Relist Watch. They are not big "hot button" issues per se, but deal with important matters, including the ability of states to have animal welfare legislation. Michael Dorf and Sherry Colb probably will shrug and note such laws are dubiously symbolic.

Alito for the High Federalists (not Barrett this time) wrote another statement [last time it was religious liberty] aiming to find a good case to target delegation. This is one of the campaigns of the Federalists these days, with special concern here giving Alito's "white whale" approach to PPACA challenges.

Meanwhile, Thomas reportedly is back, if taking part in oral argument remotely. The 1/6 Committee is interested in questioning Ginni Thomas. Let's see how far that goes. And, here is a written statement of one of the Jackson witnesses (supporting). I read her in the past. Sends a "she's so reasonable" message.

House of Horrors (Replay) (Love the cat!)

Fun Svengoolie film tonite -- find a lot of these things not paced right or whatever but this was overall a good one with some old movie silliness. Yes, that doomed newspaper man was on Car 54, Where Are You as a pussycat police commander mistaken for a tyrant. Think the sculptor (looking like a young Dr. Zachary Smith) was supposed to be gay -- he was no fan of women. Unfortunately, that charming statuesque model accidentally was killed over the tiresome tough talking dame who ended up giving up her job. Anti-feminist to boot!

Other Non-SCOTUS Stuff

While looking into Catherine the Great, I saw something about a woman painter who painted her granddaughters. Catherine was upset that the painting included bare arms; the painter drew sleeves. That aside, the painter has a lot of impressive works.

The bio I found was somewhat less so (good photos though), starting to get a tad repetitive, and not given a very in depth look. A lot of "she provided love letters to elites, liked the scenery, didn't get along with her daughter, and painted" stuff after a while. Okay.

Two Weeks Notice was on television and I missed the beginning. So, I just bought a used copy of the DVD. When I first saw it, it was pleasant, though the last third was somewhat tired and Alicia Witt wasted. Basically the same years later, though now I have commentary and extra wedding footage (plus another scene). Pleasant enough time waster.

The Mets are sputtering through a stream of divisional games, just losing two of three vs. the Braves. They easily could have lost one or two more. Yesterday (a night that had the Yanks get seven in the 1st and give that many in the ninth, losing the game), the Mets lost 20-2, their back-up OF, Almora, closing things off. They are still in first place by two games at the moment with the Nats having a long series vs. the Dodgers too. Still.

This Train Is Being Held

 

I saw this young adult love story told through the eyes of a Latino baseball player/poet and mixed race (if looking white and being more upscale) ballet dancer reviewed online.  They meet on the 1 subway train (NYC) and each have various issues to handle though they are loathe to be honest about each other about them.

At the beginning, I liked the voice but wondered if it would hold up for the whole way since we were soon in the middle of their relationship.  The book, however, then had a shift after her brother had a mental health setback and the two were separate for a time.  This helped bridge the story until a rather surprising action packed climax.  Overall, well done.