About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts

Sunday, December 29, 2024

RIP Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter survived to vote for Kamala Harris. It looked like he would die some time ago, especially after he went into hospice care. 

He died at 100, after his beloved wife, and an unfortunate election. It was his time to go. I know that is a somewhat silly statement but it is sometimes true. No reason for him to linger on any longer. 

I provided my modest take on Jimmy Carter. (Photos and final edits are the responsibility of the website owner.) A more educated historian provides his obituary here. I think overall Erik Loomis did well there.

Overall, his take is that Jimmy Carter was a good man and led a good life, but was a bad president. Still, even there, Carter did some good. 

Read through the obituary. His foreign policy overall had multiple highlights. He commuted the Vietnam resisters. There were multiple good domestic policy moves even without referencing his Biden-esque court diversity project. 

(Both Breyer and Ginsburg first were nominated under his tenure.)

Yes. We can list his problems, including the independent-minded stubbornness which ironically helped him win in the first place. There is a chicken-and-egg quality there -- if you wanted someone else who could have done more with the liberal majority, who would be elected? 

I will leave that to people more familiar with the field.  His libertarian sentiments were also a sign of the times as we saw in the 1980s and internationally.

Carter served as a nuclear technician in the Navy so was not just some peanut farmer. He was able to win state and federal office so had some political chops. He had his limitations. 

Shades of John Quincy Adams, who like his father was a one-term president, but unlike him had a long career afterward. And, though his anti-slavery stance is quite admirable, Carter did a lot more concrete good in human rights and health care. 

Jimmy Carter lived his Baptist faith by following Micah's basic rule of humbly doing justice and loving goodness. He withdrew from the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000 because of its stance on women being subservient and not being pastors or deacons. 

They followed pseudo-Paul on that. The actual Pauline letters have repeated praise for women in ministerial roles.

Sarah Weddington, of Roe v. Wade fame, served in his administration. Carter has had mixed positions on abortion. I read in one of his books that Carter opposed criminalization, citing how it was counterproductive in Latin America. 

I am not sure if he was always consistent in his public statements on that matter but that is the right take for those personally against abortion. He supported the Hyde Amendment, an unjust and unconstitutional denial of Medicaid funding.  

Still, his judicial picks were generally liberal, Breyer eventually co-writing the dissent in Dobbs

Rest in peace, Jimmy. 

===

I regularly see some trivial bit of news when I check online, including such and such relatively minor person dying. Now, this is not a complete dis on such things. History and life are filled with such people. But, the amount of "who the heck is this person?" I see is a bit silly.  

Other times, the person is someone people are likely to know for certain roles. A sort of fifteen minutes of fame, even if they did other things.

Olivia Hussey generally fits the bill. She had various roles but what she really is known for is her role as Juliet in one of the leading film versions of Romeo and Juliet. I saw some of the film in Catholic school, leading me to wonder if the principal realized there was an actual sex scene with nudity.  

It was brief but still -- we were a Catholic school after all. The Wikipedia page notes that nudity became controversial, particularly because they were actually about the age of the teenage characters.  

Friday, December 13, 2024

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. 

Saturday, December 07, 2024

The Indian Card: Who Gets to Be Native in America

Recent census data shows that many more people are putting down they have Native American heritage as compared to the number of people in officially accepted tribes. The Indian Card: Who Gets to Be Native in America by Carrie Lowry Schuettpelz examines the situation.

Carrie is an enrolled member of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. Congress recognizes them as "Indians" but not as an official tribe. The arbitrary way the federal government has handled Native sovereignty has a long history. This book covers that, the author's personal story, and some extended look at some other Native Americans' experiences.

The author worked in the Obama Administration. It is somewhat strange that she does not reference the current (Native American) Secretary of the Interior. I talked about President Bidens' apology for Indian boarding schools here.  

The author does not provide a deep dive analysis in the book about the numbers. It is more a personal account and a summary of the history of Native American relations with the United States. The author is 1/4 Native American (her last name is German). How "blood quantum" should be involved in deciding who is a member of a tribe is addressed.

The book is well-written for the average educated reader. Some books these days are translated into young adult editions. I think this might be one that would be suitable. There are no pictures, except for an author's photo. That is somewhat disappointing.  

Sunday, November 10, 2024

More Than Democrats Have Agency: Election 2024 Edition

The media now is shifting to their preferred "only Democrats have agency" mode. Since that is covered, let's talk about some other stuff.

Eugene Volokh is a prime example of a sane-sounding guy who will push come to shove and lean the expected way. He votes Libertarian (the Purity Pony Party is a coalition this election) but "likes" some poorly argued Bret Stephens op-ed (I had a long comment in reply as JoeFromthe Bronx).

He follows up with another reference to the Democrats supposedly acting like French people by loudly saying things only they understand. I again responded since it's crap. Not only do Trump voters repeatedly support Democratic policies but Democrats repeatedly make appeals to all voters. 

The truth is shown by what amounts to split-ticket voting. Democrats have won statewide races in North Carolina, Kansas, and the supposed "Blue Wall" states that they could win on the top of the ticket this time. 

People in Trump states voted for abortion rights and other liberal policies. Florida voters supported abortion rights (if not quite the supermajority necessary). They supported expanding voting rights a few years ago. Then, the legislature overrode them. 

Chris Geidner's piece about trans rights has some good analysis of the election. I would note that it is likely too soon to completely judge what happened. 

But, "Democrats are wrong" takes when it is as much about mid-term concerns about Biden, the poisonous appeal of Trump, economic concerns that there were no magic answers for, and so on is bullshit.  

We have to accept that a chunk of the population has very problematic views, even if some conservative op-ed columnists don't want to hear it. Trump is a horror show. Democrats can't do Trump-lite without selling their soul. Marginal voters going the other way again after another four years without Trump is quite likely. 

There are a lot of people to blame. The media, courts, and Republican Party all in their own fashion helped Trump win. The media soft-soaped him. The comparison after Biden had a bad debate and a slew of bad press kept on coming is quite telling.  

Other than a slim (and very appreciated) old-guard Republican dissent (and nearly all were not in power), the Republican Party was again in the pocket of Trump. Since Trump won, this will not be deemed problematic by the media and others. They won so selling your soul is fine. It's not f-ing fine. 

I just had a court entry so won't repeat myself but the Supreme Court helped too. I'm sorry. The idea is just to blame Merrick Garland, right? 

My argument continues to be even to the degree Garland is part of the problem, he is not some superhero. He had a lot of help. And, he worked in an environment much unlike the Watergate Era

It was self-perpetuating. People who are mad the Democrats didn't do more have a case. But, it isn't just one person. Blaming one person is part of the problem. President Biden was in "just doing my job like the world wasn't on fire" mode in part because that is what the nation as a whole elected him to do. Chicken/egg. Do you want someone else? The type of "all-in" person who did not win for a reason.  

We can assign some blame to the Democrats. Others will do that a lot. Again, so much of it will be badly assigned. Senator Sanders said the Democrats sold out workers. The President who walked on a picket line? The number of union people who endorsed Harris underlines the truth of the matter.  

Also, late in the game, people will say Biden should have stepped down early. The counterfactual of doing that -- a rather ahistorical approach -- makes one wonder what magic unicorn could have beat Trump. Not just make the race closer.  

Democrats did not just run a left-friendly race. They supported a conservative border bill. Multiple policies, including things like money for home health aides under Medicare, had bipartisan reach. 

Clearly, a prime message -- Trump is simply unfit and dangerous -- did not get through. 

Trump is constitutionally unfit under the Fourteenth Amendment. His presidency will also inherently obstruct justice by preventing his own trials. 

I am so horrified that the voting public doesn't care. It is something of a messaging problem akin to non-racists running in the segregationist South. 

But, what was the alternative there? Treat him as not unfit and dangerous? How would that help you win? 

People can debate what Democrats have to do. The media thrives on chatting about that. All the bad stuff about Republicans will be ignored since they won. 

I am going to stick to my values while you all do it and not ignore that bad things often happen because bad forces unfortunately have more power.  

We can apportion blame, and it can help for next time, but that bottom line still can be true. Let's keep our perspective about things while self-flagellating ourselves. 

ETA: BTW, WTF with those polls? It was a "toss-up," not one-sided Trump's way.  

Monday, November 04, 2024

SCOTUS Watch: Order Day

While we, as noted yesterday, on in the "final countdown," SCOTUS is back to remind us how the courts on on the ballot. The oral argument today might have been dull but they can't avoid that.

Today's Order List, which is (as usual) not too fascinating has various reminders of this fact. Some lower court cases are disposed of with reference to SCOTUS cases involving administrative law and gun regulation. (Amy Howe has more.)

Court personnel and the federal government's position in these cases are significantly affected by who controls the other two branches of government. 

Jurisdiction is noted in two cases involving the use of race in districting with oral argument pending. Election cases are one of the few areas where Congress restricted the Supreme Court's ability to pick and choose what cases to take. Liberals regularly hold their breath in such cases.

One case involving immigration law was granted. Riley v. Garland might have a different caption (name) when the case is handed down. It is likely that whoever wins that we will have a new attorney general.  Let's see how this one is judged.

There is also a short per curiam that sends back a case involving intellectual disability and the death penalty to clarify what the lower court meant. Thomas and Gorsuch would have taken the case now. The case had been "relisted," suggesting some complications behind the scenes. This result feels like a compromise that kicks things down the road.  

===

Today's Strict Scrutiny Podcast talked about Alito and the princess, which is the stuff they (especially Meghan Markle fan, Melissa Murray) LIVE for. One wrinkle is a possible violation of the Titles of Nobility Clause. Sure, why not? 

Steve Vladeck talked about presidents and justices in his weekly substack. And, what is a Vladeck post without a helpful spreadsheet?

President Biden had one justice vacancy to fill while Trump had three. Let's not give him two more.  

Saturday, November 02, 2024

TV: Time Marches On

I came upon an episode of Wizards Beyond Waverly Place

The original ended twelve years ago. Justin returns in a leading role with various family members having guest appearances. Alex (Selena Gomez) pops up in the first episode. The series starts with him being 34, the same age as the actor. Time flies. 

I liked the original after it got going with a subplot with a vampire family (the daughter later becomes another character in Good Luck Charlie; the actress is Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's -- yes that one -- niece). 

The first episode of this series was a bit forced, but the other took a while to get into a groove. 


I saw Emily Osment on After Midnight. She did the comedy panel stuff well enough though did come in third per the somewhat arbitrary point system.  

Emily had a guest appearance on Friends in a Halloween episode as a cute trick-and-treater with a long name. She was best known by some as "Lily" on Hannah Montana, which is about as long ago as Wizards. She was also in many other things, including a serious role (with a downer ending) on Mom.

She is all grown up and on a sequel to a prequel of Big Bang Theory. The show is on so much on syndication (seems less so of late) so I caught it from time to time. That show ended in 2019 though the second prequel starts in real time in 1994.  

I have only watched a tiny bit of the prequel, which had a good run. In the latest, she plays an older woman who marries the older brother (who is around 18). The "first marriage" in the title is quite true according to Big Bang Theory, which once noted he married and divorced twice.  

Hallmark Channel is the place to really feel old. A variety of old television actors from at least back to the 1970s have been in films over the years. 


The early morning duo of Petticoat Junction episodes on MeTV included the "last" episode of the sixth season and the first episode of the seventh. 

The curious nature of the season finale is that the mom is still in the opening credits even though the actress had died earlier in the season (they never address it except by cutting her out of the credits). 

Wikipedia explains the episode was pre-empted and time-wise (as shown by the youngest daughter still being pregnant) fit in near the beginning of the season. They sort of overdo that baby bump. 

The other surprise is that the black actor [who is light-skinned] who replaced the season regular on Hogan's Heroes pops up in a guest appearance. The actor is the one surviving character from the main cast. He guest-starred before serving in that late-season role.  

(The Russian spy who guest starred in some episodes is still alive too per Wikipedia.) 

Was there another black actor on the show?!  

Friday, November 01, 2024

South Carolina Executes Richard Moore

We earlier discussed how the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld its death penalty. 

Two justices argued the firing squad violated the state constitution and one justice added that so did the electric chair, which is the default if someone does not pick. The state then executed Freddie Owens.

Richard Moore was sentenced to death for the murder of a store clerk during a robbery.* His lawyers have alleged racial bias in the selection of the all-white jury who convicted him in 2001. 

The Supreme Court rejected a final appeal arising from these allegations without comment. This is typical. And, as usual, I think the end of a person's life warrants a brief statement. Well, at least, they got it out of the way the day before. 

Chris Geidner discussed the request, in part noting:

In Moore’s request, his lawyers noted that he is the only person remaining on the state’s death row sentenced to death by an all-white jury.

A delay of over twenty years also raises problems discussed by Justice Breyer in his dissent in Glossip v. Gross. COVID and lack of execution drugs helped to delay executions in South Carolina.  

A state judge rejected an attempt to have consideration of commutation done by someone other than the governor because of concerns of bias. Some states, including Texas, puts the responsibility in the hands of others. The president makes the decision themself.

Moore had a history of robbery but did not bring a gun to the store. He obtained it from the clerk. This is one of those cases where it is quite debatable if the person (assuming the penalty is just) is a member of the "worst of the worst" who deserves to be executed. 

Toss in due process concerns, this is an unjust execution, which is also likely unconstitutional.  

==

Alabama executed two people using nitrogen gas. 

There was clear evidence the first time was problematic. The second might have been relatively speaking a better attempt. Still was iffy.  

==

* This article provides some details of the crime including the absurd fact that the clerk had three guns. The defendant stole over $1400, which seems like a lot of money. It suggests premeditation though he was not armed when he went in. 

The article also notes -- this is common -- multiple jurors who sentenced him to death are now opposed to the execution. Jurors decide things based on the evidence available and for a limited purpose. They are not there to judge if now -- twenty years later -- things have changed and a commutation is warranted. 

Many probably figure their decision is not final. This has been flagged by some defense attorneys as worrisome since it provides jurors more incentive to sentence people to death. 

Juror statements might be helpful to determine if new information would have changed their mind. For instance, if new evidence is found that arguably should have been available and might have changed the final result.

OTOH, many people second-guess their decisions. 

Sunday, October 27, 2024

Biden Visits Indian Country and Apologizes for Federal Indian Boarding Schools

Cheryl Rofer noted that President Biden did something important recently ("Biden Apologizes for Government Role in Residential Indian Schools"). Rofer is a good addition to the blog, including avoiding some of the macho bullshit of the veterans. You can read his remarks here.

President Biden made a historical appointment by making a tribal member his Interior Secretary (Deb Haaland is an enrolled member of the Laguna Pueblo tribe). Perhaps, that should be a constant.

Has it really been ten years since a sitting president came to Indian Country? What is up with that? The map shows how large the Indian country is with a few small pockets on the East Coast. Doing the map, President Obama stopped by but not Trump. That seems somewhat expected.

(Native Americans can be an important voting group in certain swing states. They tend to lean Democratic with some exceptions. A few Republican members of Congress are/were enrolled members.)  

Biden took the opportunity during his visit to apologize for the federal government's involvement in Native American bordering schools. He spelled out some of the horrors: 

Children abused — emotionally, physically, and sexually abused.  Forced into hard labor.  Some put up for adoption without the consent of their birth parents.  Some left for dead in unmarked graves. 

And for those who did return home, they were wounded in body and in spirit — trauma and shame passed down through generations. 

He made a formal apology:

I formally apologize — (applause) — as president of the United States of America, for what we did.  I formally apologize.  And it’s long overdue.

He bluntly said it was great wrong:

It’s horribly, horribly wrong.  It’s a sin on our soul.

News coverage reports the emotional reaction to his remarks. They matter. A recognition of what happened and an apology is not magic. But it matters. The proof is in the reactions of those involved. Their testimony means more than any other words.  

It also reported his argument that our great country -- he has repeatedly spoken of our greatness and potential -- must be honest about our past:

“It did take place,” the president continued. “Darkness can hide much. It erases nothing. Some injustices are heinous and horrific. They can’t be buried. We must know the good, the bad, the truth. We do not erase history. We make history. We learn from history, and we remember so we can heal as a nation.”

First Lady Jill Biden repeatedly came to Indian Country. The Vice President did as well. Native News Online reported:

In July 2023, the Vice President made history by visiting the Gila River Indian Community, becoming the first sitting President or Vice President to do so. During her visit, she emphasized the Biden-Harris Administration's commitment to Tribal Nations and Native communities. She also received an update on the Gila River Indian Community’s Reclaimed Water Pipeline Project, a water infrastructure initiative funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that aims to provide reliable access to clean water and reduce reliance on the Colorado River.

During Biden's remarks, a heckler shouted about Palestinians. It seems to be an inapt moment to do that. Disrespecting Native Americans. I suppose there are ways to defend it, including as another example of injustice.

The transcript tells his response:

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  Let — let her go.  There’s a lot of innocent people being killed. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  There’s a lot of innocent people being killed, and it has to stop.

People have -- with some force -- criticized the Administration for being too supportive of Israel. But fair is fair, we should also remember the efforts they made -- in the face of opposition from Israeli leadership -- to provide support for the Palestinians. The United States aren't the ones fighting the war there. Our support helps but is far from essential. 

I keep on seeing reports about how close the election is. It is a sign of how this country is broken. It should not be close given the alternative.

For now, let us honor a great president and his fitting somber reminder.  

Saturday, October 12, 2024

New York City Ballot Measures

Federal Races 

The most important thing on the ballot in November, as people have already begun to vote, is the defeat of Donald Trump. 

It would be appalling if Trump, a convicted felon who is unfit across the board, wins. Do we want to be a nation where his message and cause is endorsed by the people at large?

We also need to focus on Congress. Both to act legislatively in a positive way, and to not endorse Trump enablers and supporters, congressional races matter. The path to a House majority includes a few swing districts in New York. 

The Senate remains an uphill battle. It would be appalling (less so than Trump winning) if President Harris is handcuffed by Senate Republicans. It is time for change in places like Texas and Florida. 

State/Local Races 

State and local races also matter. 

Attorney generals and local prosecutors have much power. The counting of votes in the presidential election in 2020 significantly turned on state and local officials. States have much discretion. 

Ballot measures also are an important means for the public to make policy. Abortion is on the ballot in over ten states. Any number of other issues, including marijuana policy, are covered by such proposals. 

New York State Proposal

New York City residents also will vote on six proposals (back of the ballot). 

The first is a statewide measure which is repeatedly promoted and/or thought of as a "state ERA" or an an abortion rights measure. It covers more ground:

This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy. It also protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy.

Some criticism its wording. Why not directly talk about abortion rights? The proposal (rightly) covers more ground. Abortion rights are part of a wider whole, involving "pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy." 

The amendment also covers more ground that that. The measure covers "ethnicity, national origin, age, disability." The first categories expand and clarify existing protections regarding race and color. 

The next two expand existing protections in other areas. Without knowing for sure, it appears to me a more significant addition to the state constitution. 

I guess it might be argued that too much is being added at once. It also allows specific classifications being "piggy backed."  I figure less people are worried about "age' while "disability" will interest a specific sector of the population more than others.  

New York City Proposals

New York City residents have five proposals, which are basically the result of mayoral action. There is some mayor v. City Council drama involved. Some argue that mayoral overreaching alone makes all of these provisions dubious. 

Mayor Adams is now under federal indictment for campaign related crimes involving foreign deals. Many city residents (I will count myself among them) are not that so happy with his overall reign. 

The provisions also involve various inside baseball proposals that seem dubious fodder for the ordinary public. The support of a general equal protection measure is something the average vote can have a basic sense about. These measures? Not so much

Some form of both of these concerns leads me to be wary about most of the city measures. How important one of more of them will be in practice is far from clear. Nonetheless, as a matter of principle, I am included to vote "no" down the line.

The one exception might be the second ballot measure overall (and first city ballot measure), which involves sanitation. It seems benign:

This proposal would amend the City Charter to expand and clarify the Department of Sanitation’s power to clean streets and other City property and require disposal of waste in containers.

Granting that is unclear if it is necessary to use a ballot measure to do this, the overall sentiment makes sense. Some areas now fall outside of the Department of Sanitation's jurisdiction. It seems sensible to be more comprehensive. 

And, if you like the mayor's policies involving new garbage cans and the like (from what I can see, a modest but important good sense policy proposal from Adams), that's another reason to support it. 

I have concerns that make me lean toward "no." First, again, the overall process involved here is questionable. I am not inclined to give this mayor the benefit of the doubt. Overall, I would let the City Council handle making sanitation policy, not the public at large via ballot proposals.  

Second, the measure involves additional power to regulate vendors. There is a connection there and sanitation. Nonetheless, as the linked article notes, it appears that the measure misleads the public -- if more power to regular venders is at issue, why not openly mention it? 

This is the sort of inside policy details that makes me wary about policy by ballot. Sometimes, there is some obscure proposal on the ballot involving state law. For instance, something about regulating parkland. Why is this on the ballot? The state constitution apparently requires it in various instances. Fine if annoying.

There is no such compelling need for these measures to be on the ballot. Again, one or more might not be problematic, or even might be useful. 

But there is some debate on the matter.  Like voting for some local judges with little clarity on whom you are voting for and often little discretion ("pick three" and there are only three options), sometimes there is too much democracy. That might sound bad but republican democracy involves a balance there.   

It is counterproductive in an overall civics sense to have people vote for things for which they have little grounds to make a sound choice. People have a rough idea who to pick when voting for major candidates, especially when they have party-based choices. 

Some ballot measures will confuse people. We can reasonably hope that a half-way sound approach will be possible when the people vote. At some point, however, a line is crossed. When we get to:

“This proposal would amend the City Charter to require fiscal analysis from the Council before hearings and votes on laws, authorize fiscal analysis from the Mayor, and update budget deadlines.”

I think we crossed it. Anyway, early voting in New York will begin on October 26th and run to November 3 (also "fall back" time day). Then, you will have a day off to worry about Election Day itself. 

Not that it will be the end of things either though except for the stray race it might be in New York.  

Friday, October 04, 2024

Update In the Last Colony

Someone on an open thread referenced news summarized in one article as "Britain Agrees Chagos Island Sovereignty Deal with Mauritius."

I wrote a book summary regarding an account of the long struggle to address a human rights wrong growing out of British colonialism. As noted in a recent article:

Britain, which has controlled the region since 1814, detached the Chagos Islands in 1965 from Mauritius - a former colony that became independent three years later - to create the British Indian Ocean Territory.

In the early 1970s, it evicted almost 2,000 residents to Mauritius and the Seychelles to make way for an airbase on the largest island, Diego Garcia, which it had leased to the United States in 1966.

Sands provides some more detail in his nifty book, which covers a lot of ground in a way approachable to the general reader. The book ends with a victory if one unenforced. We now have a next step.

A NYT article provides more detail with a comment from Sands:

“It’s a settlement which Mauritius and the United Kingdom can both be proud to be associated with,” said Philippe Sands, an international lawyer who helped draft the original legal arguments for the handover of the islands. “It allows the United Kingdom to stand tall with its head held high on international law.”

Perhaps, the author will release a new edition with a brief update. The decades-long fight here shows the complications and imperfections of the battle for justice. Wins are received while wrongs continue.

Monday, September 16, 2024

Andrew Jackson and the Constitution

I just re-read Gerard Magliocca's Andrew Jackson and the Constitution: The Rise and Fall of Generation Regimes (short book), which covers both presidential politics and the Supreme Court. 

He recently took a blogging break though without comments his often brief idiosyncratic takes (on Balkanization, he was the only one both sides regularly pushed back on) are somewhat less fun. GM is a strong supporter of using the 14A, sec. 3 method to disqualify Trump (good), but not impeachment or the criminal process (bad).  

The book is a case study of how the Constitution has been applied over time via an ebb-and-flow process of generational conflicts. The winners of each generation arise among conservative pushback and new arising viewpoints. There is no magical "fixed" constitutional meaning. And, there is a lot of stretching going on.*

He talks about the "common-law process at work, where intuitions drive the results and the deeper justifications come later." The opinions have legal-sounding language. They are structured using legal principles. Such things matter. However, neutral legal principles are not the only factor involved.  

This includes Supreme Court opinions such as "preemptive opinions" that try to block change. Two examples would be Worcester v. Georgia (Native Americans) and Dred Scott v. Sanford (slavery). Both opinions as neutral constitutional law leave something to be desired, even if the former is now often cheered.  

The book provides an interesting snapshot of American history, including how Andrew Jackson and his opponents battled over the meaning of the Constitution. Jacksonians often simply worked around SCOTUS opinions, especially McCulloch v. Maryland, which provided an open-ended defense of federal power. 

One interesting character is Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen, who opposed Cherokee removal. It is not noted in the book but he later was Henry Clay's (Jackson's leading opponent) running mate. GM argues the battles over Native Americans were a significant influence in anti-slavery conversations. 

Interesting book. I read the sequel some time back and other books by the author. Overall, they are worthwhile reads, though one on the Bill of Rights was not that good in comparison.  The biographies of John Bingham (14A) and Justice Bushrod Washington were very interesting. His books also overall tend to be short, this one 129 pages, the rest notes and credits being the shortest of the bunch. 

==

* Will Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen wrote a follow-up to the Trump v. Anderson ruling. They overall share GM's distasteful reaction. 

OTOH, not sure GM would agree with this bit of fiction: 

Putting aside the obvious  point that it is the original meaning of the text of the Constitution—not  twentieth century Supreme Court decisions—that supplies the fundamental law of this country

Such a Platonic forms view of the "fundamental law" is simply not how things have gone. Even if it was true, it is far from an "obvious point." 

Cf. Originalism As Faith by Eric Segall. 

Saturday, September 14, 2024

Man Eat Cat Story

The Springfield City School District closed Roosevelt Middle School and evacuated Perrin Woods and Snowhill Elementary schools Friday morning after the city received two bomb threats via email, according to a city release. Cliff Park High School, a charter school outside the Springfield district, was also evacuated.

The specter of people eating pets provided a sense of the absurd to the presidential debate. 

We should not just see it as a joke. The slander of Haitians is part of a long-time anti-immigrant campaign that is a dark part of our history.  

We are a nation of immigrants. They provide a revigorating component that adds to our well-being.  It requires a lot of effort to bring them in and help them assimilate. But, that holds true.

Verbal attacks are not empty vessels that will have no effect. It might seem that way to some, who see it as a sort of game. The bomb threats show that attacks on immigrants have real consequences. 

We can use the attacks to provide a more productive analysis of what is going on. For instance, we can examine Haitian immigration, including the ongoing problems in Haiti that drove people to leave. 

And, it can be part of the discussion about a useful path forward in immigration reform. Versus slander and racist lies. 

Heather Cox Richardson provides her usual helpful context, including the origins of the whole thing and how it is being used to try to gain political control of the Senate. Ohio is a key battle. 

I remain appalled at the distinct possibility the Democrats will lose the Senate. The result would be handcuffing of President (knock on wood) Harris in many ways. Likewise, it would block change. 

Be careful about saying "nothing" could be done. No, we won't have "zero" judicial confirmations. Also, executives have a lot of power. 

Finally, the stuff that was passed during the Biden Administration stays in place. If the Democrats (as favored) win the House, we probably even will have a small movement forward when the budget and such are worked out. 

Still, the Senate is obviously extremely important. I think more attention should be given to key races. Let us hear more about Tim Sheehy, who is allegedly the presumptive future senator of Montana. 

Finally, we should have more attention -- including in places like Talking Points Memo and places like Lawyers Drug and Money -- on races where there is a chance to have an upset. The Democrats cannot put all their eggs in a 50-50 Senate basket.   

Republicans are weird and trolls. The incumbents up for election and those running for office have a lot of fodder. And, I'm not forgetting the anti-Trump guy who wants to help Trump supporters control the Senate by winning a seat in Maryland.   

This election is not just about Trump. If we "don't want to go back" and instead go forward, Democrats need to control Congress. I grant that they still will accomplish something without Congress. 

But, it would be a perennial lower expectations affair, battling for simple things like Cabinet seats.  The assholes supporting bashing immigrants and basic American values should not have the power to do that. The cowards who enable Trump and such lies should not have the power to do that. 

My feeling on the point is rather visceral.  

Saturday, September 07, 2024

The Legend of Auntie Po

A local library has a "free book" day on the first Friday of the month and I have kept on forgetting about it. I finally managed to show up and picked up a couple books. Libraries are free always. 

This time you can keep the books. The first one was a quick reading but wonderfully drawn graphic novel: 

The Legend of Auntie Po is my second full-length graphic novel and my first middle grade (and historical fiction!) book. Thirteen-year-old Mei reimagines the myths of Paul Bunyan as starring a Chinese heroine while she works in a Sierra Nevada logging camp in 1885.

Aware of the racial tumult in the years after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, Mei tries to remain blissfully focused on her job, her close friendship with the camp foreman’s daughter, and telling stories about Paul Bunyan–reinvented as Po Pan Yin (Auntie Po), an elderly Chinese matriarch.

The Legend of Auntie Po is about who gets to own a myth, and about immigrant families and communities holding on to rituals and traditions while staking out their own place in America.

The author notes that she did not intend to be totally true to life though the book was based on history, including a book by Iris Chang. 

For instance, the Scandinavian-American manager of the logging camp eventually resists anti-Chinese sentiments. The logging camp unites together and the book ends with the Chinese cook (Mei's father) cooking a Chinese New Year meal for everyone. 

I reckon there were some positive moves here in the history involved. There are dreams of her going to college. I don't know how many Chinese women at the turn of the 20th Century went to college. It would be interesting to read about.  

On her website, the author notes that "I create comics at the intersection of race, gender, immigrant stories, and queerness." She uses a "they" pronoun.

Mei has some queer qualities, including a crush on her friend, the daughter of the manager of the logging camp. This part of the story is not dwelled on too much and the feelings are not returned in a romantic sense. Still, it is representation.

The book provides an interracial cast. The author notes that she did not include named Native Americans though they were present in the history of logging camps. She granted her limitations in expressing their story. It is hard to be truly complete.

For instance, I wrote for the last few years for a history website. There are numerous non-white entries, especially since it took some topics from another history website with an African focus.  

Surely, however, it is not a comprehensive look at the history. Many people, like Erik Loomis (when not being a jerk), can address some other details, including labor history. This book adds to the mix. 

Monday, August 05, 2024

Dred Scott and the Existence of Some Civil Rights

Strict Scrutiny Podcast had the author of Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights on in a recent episode. 

He discusses how black Americans had some civil rights even in slavery days. The fight for equality should not lead to an "all or nothing" understanding. I discussed Kat Masur's book on the antebellum civil rights movement. This book provides a more complete look, helped by in-depth research of the available legal records.  

We should not frame things like Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott. Blacks did have some rights white men had to respect. The very litigation underlines the point. Missouri gave blacks the right to bring freedom suits. The law involved not only allowing court-appointed attorneys but also protections from retaliation for bringing the suits. 

The two dissents provided another framing of the constitutional reality. Justice McLean's dissent is broader while Justice Curtis (who opposed multiple Lincoln policies during the Civil War) had a somewhat more conservative approach.  McLean was a President Jackson appointee while Curtis was an appointee of Millard Fillmore. 

Both offered the possibility of black American citizens. McLean argued for purposes of diversity jurisdiction (a suit between states), freedom and residency (domicile) was satisfactory.  He did make this dubious claim:

In the case of Groves v. Slaughter [cite] Messrs. Clay and Webster contended that, under the commercial power, Congress had a right to regulate the slave trade among the several States; but the court held that Congress had no power to interfere with slavery as it exists in the States, or to regulate what is called the slave trade among them. If this trade were subject to the commercial power, it would follow that Congress could abolish or establish slavery in every State of the Union.

The Court only ruled that the state did not enact legislation to enforce a ban on the importation and sale of slaves. Therefore, the challenged contract was valid. The wider constitutional question was avoided. 

Other justices went further. Nonetheless, there is no clear reason why there should be a slavery exception to the Commerce Clause.  There was a general belief that the federal government could not interfere with slavery in slave states. The Constitution itself left that open. For instance, Congress could regulate the mail.

It does not necessarily follow that regulation of commerce means Congress could abolish or establish slavery in each state. The regulation of territories or the nation's capital was broad indeed. The regulation of interstate commerce was more limited.  

Why would Congress not have the power to regulate one aspect of trade when regulating interstate commerce? The limited references to slavery did not remove that power. The prudential avoidance of doing it does not mean the power was not present. 

The potential for mischief here -- in the view of some -- factors into why the election of Abraham Lincoln was so much a concern. Don Fehrenbacher argues the point in his final book. The federal government had multiple powers that could limit slavery.

To sum up, the fact that blacks did not have full citizenship rights (or slavery was supported in various ways) left open some paths for civil rights. Slaves themselves even had limited rights, clearly granting in practice this left a lot to be desired.  

For instance, a dog could simply be shot dead if they killed someone. A slave was tried with minimal due process rights in place. The Constitution says a slave is a "person," not mere property, even if there was a habit to suggest otherwise. 

As Justice McLean noted:

A slave is not a mere chattel. He bears the impress of his Maker, and is amenable to the laws of God and man; and he is destined to an endless existence.

The overall lesson here is that we should be careful about extreme statements regarding the lack of rights. We can do so without artificially providing an optimistic view of the current situation.* 

People work within the art of the possible. And, this has and continues to include doing the best you can, even if the situation is far from ideal.

==

* For instance, medical exceptions to abortion bans often apply extremely sparingly. We saw this when Texas rejected a suit trying to give them some teeth. 

The rule is doubly bad. First, there should be a general right to choose. Second, the exceptions are more generous in theory than in fact. 

Nonetheless, we should be careful when declaring such exceptions are meaningless. There will be cases when people will benefit, especially in liberal jurisdictions such as Houston, Texas. 

Friday, July 19, 2024

SCOTUS Watch: Orders and Execution

The Supreme Court will have its first summer order list next week. This week was fairly busy with multiple orders, including a rare granting of a stay in a death penalty case. No Alito flag news. 

The ongoing political news -- in some quarters focused on trying to get Biden to step down -- has significant relevance. Who wins in November will have a major influence on how SCOTUS and SCOTUS-related activities will play out.  

New York Trump Trial

The Supreme Court dropped a miscellaneous order on Friday regarding a silly interstate dispute:

Upon consideration of Missouri’s motion for expedited consideration, it is hereby ordered that New York is allowed until July 24, 2024, to file a response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and the motion for a preliminary injunction or stay. 

New York opposed the request for expedited consideration, partly explaining that Trump won't be sentenced to September. The dispute involves the remaining gag order in effect arising from the trial now covering individual prosecutors, court staff, and their families (from the state's brief):

Missouri seeks modest relief: a stay of New York’s gag order and impending sentence against Donald J. Trump during the 2024 Presidential election season so Missourians can participate in the election free from New York’s exercise of coercive power limiting the ability of Trump to campaign.

The validity of using the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction for such a dubious request to interfere with New York judicial proceedings is dubious. 

OTOH, the Trump immunity ruling (which now is alleged to cover the New York case given some of the evidence covered his term) shows how far the Supreme Court has reached out to help Trump.  

Confederate Monuments 

Behind bare orders, including a no comment refusal to stay a pending case, there are cases important to the litigants.

Three people protested a Confederate monument. They were prosecuted for obstructing a major passageway. They were sentenced to a week in jail. The time to serve is now.

The stay request notes that a challenge would take longer than their jail sentence. They claim the First Amendment was violated. The justices were not convinced a stay was warranted based on the law in place. No reason was provided to say why. 

[The litigants could theoretically obtain damages for false imprisonment if they win their appeal.]

Yes, Master 

A long-lasting interstate dispute now has a new "special master" to oversee things.  

Ruben Gutierrez 

Gutierrez was sentenced to death by Texas for his part in a brutal robbery/murder of an elderly lady. 

He has repeatedly tried to get DNA testing, claiming he did not take part in the actual murder. He claims he was outside and not aware the others would kill her. It is far from clear that even granting the request would help him in the end. 

The Supreme Court previously granted evidence hearing (one hour before his execution in 2020) regarding his claim Texas should allow a chaplain in the execution chamber. A separate case protected even the laying of the hands. 

His final SCOTUS appeal relates to the DNA claim. Nonetheless, both executions this week arise from events over 25 years ago. Breyer's concern for executions after an extended period on death row holds true. 

The Supreme Court held up deciding the case (dropping the order referenced above earlier) into the evening. It is bad policy to make each execution day a "waiting for SCOTUS" affair. SCOTUS should decide this before then. 

They granted a stay. The issue very well might be procedural -- the right to bring the claim -- and not the merits. SCOTUS in an earlier case protected the right to a similar challenge. If they take the case, it can be limited to the procedural issue, and he still might ultimately lose the case on the merits.  

So, more waiting. 

Keith Edmund Gavin 

Gavin shot and killed a man, getting an attempted murder add-on for shooting at a law enforcement office. He had already served a 17-year stint for murder. 

His lawyers (technically "he," but Gavin isn't making these arguments) argued that he had inefficient counsel and the jury did not hear enough mitigation testimony. Gavin also seems to have been a model prisoner. Not so model outside.

[The Supreme Court in 2023 denied his appeal.] 

Alabama, which has botched multiple executions in the last few years, agreed to his request for them not to perform an autopsy. Gavin's religious beliefs oppose it though with the state's record, there might be a penal purpose in having one. 

The previous murder conviction and shooting at the law enforcement officer make this a harder case for someone against the death penalty. 

Still, the original vote to sentence him to die was 10-2 (non-unanimous juries for that function allowed at that time). He was in prison for around 25 years. 

The coverage does not suggest he was a dangerous prisoner. Execution was not fundamentally necessary.  Alabama, especially, has at this point run out of strikes regarding screwing up executions. 

Gavin himself (pro se) submitted a handwritten request for a stay of execution. The state argues he has money in an account to pay a filing fee. 

He claims indigency.  The lack of fee blocks a late claim alleging the state does not have jurisdiction to sentence him to death. The state replies that even if the fee matter is waived, that argument fails on the merits. It does look like a last minute Hail Mary.

I don't know why this last minute appeal was filed pro se. The coverage references him still having lawyers. And, though it might be somewhat petty, it does look like he had enough money to pay the fee. If the state waived it here, it would be a precedent for other frivolous appeals. And, yes, this amounts to one.  

SCOTUS disposed of it without comment and then he was executed. The next execution is due next month. 

(The request was worthy of rejection but even here there should be an explanation since someone's life is at stake. That remains my basic sentiment.) 

Court Reform 

President Biden let it be known that he will support court reform. He has already said he supports a national law to protect abortion rights. Other things can also respond to wrong-minded SCOTUS rulings.

I will await the details but this is a sound move. People criticized him for not promoting this issue beforehand. He's an institutionalist at heart. He wasn't going to do so until he was pressed. Where was everyone else?  

Also On The Website 

On the trivia front, I'm not sure if they are done posting stuff, but the online material in opinions so far has been limited this term.  

Tuesday, July 02, 2024

SCOTUS Watch: Final Orders

The Supreme Court had its "clean-up conference" and released some final orders, grants, and statements/dissents.

The first link (relist watch) is a helpful way to cross-check the four grants. We have e-cigarette regulations, the standard to use when testing an Internet age requirement, First Step sentencing issue (two cases), and this fascinating issue:

When a noncitizen’s voluntary departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, is a motion to reopen filed the next business day sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart? 

The final order list before summer break also allows the justices to say some stuff about cases they did not take. Sotomayor and Thomas are the most vocal with Jackson (Sotomayor going along) having one. Kagan joined one involving life without parole for teens. 

Alito dissented without an opinion regarding taking a case involving "assault weapons." Alito has less than an average amount of opinions this term. It is quite possible that he lost two cases in the writing. 

Among the issues, Sotomayor has a statement regarding the dangers of faulty science being used to prosecute cases. A statement allows a justice to voice concerns or explain their stance while not dissenting from the Court not taking a case for full review.  

(Texas recently scheduled an execution arising out of a conviction that might be based on faulty science.)

So, the Supreme Court goes on vacation, the only official thing scheduled being three summer order lists to deal with stuff:

For your planning purposes, summer order lists are scheduled to be issued on Monday, July 22; Monday, August 19; and Friday, September 6, 2024. Summer order lists usually consist of actions taken by the Court on motions in pending cases, petitions for rehearing, and other miscellaneous matters. Emergency orders, such as in applications for stays, will continue to be released as required.

Responses

AOC announced that when the House returns from its own recess she will have an impeachment resolution for the justices. I do not know the exact form this will take. Nonetheless, it is a helpful way to keep the issues alive. 

The Supreme Court should be an election issue. Such "theater" (as one response handwaved) is politics. 

President Biden also had a brief statement, which he made himself to the press, in response to the Trump immunity case. He reminded people of what happened on 1/6. He said that there should be a trial before the election but the Supreme Court (wrongly) made that very unlikely.  

Biden reaffirmed the principle (7/2/1776 is the day independence was declared) that we do not have a king. He agreed with Sotomayor's dissent, including the importance of dissenting from the majority opinion. 

The bottom line is that it is up to us:

Perhaps most importantly, the American people must decide if they want to entrust the president — once again, the presidency to Donald Trump, now knowing he’ll be even more emboldened to do whatever he pleases whenever he wants to do it.

President Biden looked energetic though when he walked away he looked a bit more frail. I think it was a good statement. A few were annoyed that he voiced restraint after the Supreme Court allegedly gave the president carte blanche. They didn't do that. Would they just let Biden do whatevs? 

We don't want a "good dictator." The people in 2020 showed that they wanted a person of character. Biden was correct to contrast himself with Trump on that issue. And, contra some comments I saw, it was not the time to bring up other things such as Hunter Biden or the debate. The statement is fine. 

The ruling was bad. It stripped Jack Smith of the ability to bring certain charges and made it harder to bring others:

It ruled that Trump is absolutely immune, and thus cannot be prosecuted, for any attempts he made to get his Justice Department to do sham investigations in order to show that the 2020 election was conducted illegally – the “big lie” that Trump and his allies have pressed since that election and that got him in legal trouble. Those dealings with the Justice Department were the only ones ruled by the Court to be totally protected from prosecution.

It decided that Trump has a tentative form of “presumed” immunity (which prosecutors can try to overcome) by attempting in January 2021 to persuade his Vice President, Mike Pence, to stop the counting of Electoral College votes that made Joe Biden the winner of the Presidency.

Again, certain types of evidence are also withheld from the prosecutor's toolkit. And, just what this will wrought is unclear. We are assured, for instance, that the Georgia case will largely be unaffected. To be determined! 

President Biden's statement is a relatively rare direct statement about the Supreme Court itself. This election is among other things about the federal courts. 

We are not just talking about nominations and confirmations. We are talking about oversight, reforms, and passing legislation to address decisions. For instance, yesterday's agency decision allowing more challenges can be addressed via legislation. 

Heather Cox Richardson in her Facebook chat about the Trump immunity opinion (Substack here) suggests everyone do their part depending on their strengths. One of mine is to provide analysis and details. An informed public is essential. One person complimented a comment of mine as "lapidary." I like that.  

Amee Vanderpool:

We need to reform the US Supreme Court by adding more judges to the bench and rotating the docket. This is a simple idea for a not so simple fix that will require a Constitutional Amendment at a time when we will be lucky to have a slim majority. This means we will have to elect Democrats, in mighty numbers, who are willing to pursue court reform, to do the job. Sadly, based on the political history of our country and the basic nature of human behavior, it will likely take even more to push the dial back to center. Buckle up, this is just the beginning of a very long road to reform.

I do not agree with defeatist people, including talking about the "end of democracy." There is a certain degree of privilege in such comments. How did African Americans think about that issue a hundred years ago?  

AV thinks yesterday's decision will help voters choose correctly in November. As we get ready to celebrate the Fourth of July (sit down, John!), let us remember our nation's values, and how people gave blood, sweat, and tears (not necessarily in that order) to fight and defend them.  

ETA: The latest news is that the sentencing in the NY case is now delayed until September to examine how the immunity case applies. Total bullshit but again don't tell me how the Georgia trial won't be affected. At least for Trump, very well will be. Ditto for any Trump officials involved. 

Wednesday, June 19, 2024

Juneteenth

Juneteenth became a national holiday in 2021

The holiday celebrates the end of slavery in Texas. As Vice President Harris recently said:

For more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, as we all know — two years after — hundreds of thousands of Americans in Texas were still enslaved.  Then, Union troops arrived in Galveston, and on June 19th, 1865, the enslaved people of Texas learned they were free.  On that day, they claimed their freedom. 

And today, as we celebrate Juneteenth, together we are reminded of the promise of America: a promise of freedom, liberty, and opportunity not for some but for all. 

In many ways, the story of Juneteenth and of our nation is a story of our ongoing fight to realize that promise, our ongoing fight to build a nation that is more equal, more fair, and more free; a nation where every person has the opportunity not to just get by but get ahead.

Since taking office, with the support of so many of the leaders here today, President Biden and I have continued that fight. 

Juneteenth celebrates the day that slaves in Texas found out they were free. The Emancipation Proclamation declared slaves in areas under Confederate control immediately free. Nonetheless, the law developed that freedom came when Union troops controlled the area. See, e.g., John Fabian Witt's Lincoln's Code.

Texas was the last state controlled by Union troops, the surrender of Kirby-Smith's forces coming in early June 1865. For those who like to know all the details, President Andrew Johnson officially declared the Civil War completely over the next year, when Texas organized a new government. See the note at the last link.

I write various comments about the holiday and slavery in remarks in the thread here ("Joe from the Bronx"). Some argue the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment is a better day. The ratification took place in December, which is the heart of its own holiday season.

Juneteenth has over the years been celebrated as a day in honor of freedom from slavery. It is partially a logical day since this is the time of year to celebrate our values (Flag Day and Fourth of July). The holiday celebrates something that deserves its own holiday. Carping on date placement is silly.

Thursday, June 06, 2024

SCOTUS Watch: Still More Low Temp Stuff

The Supreme Court released three opinions on Thursday. None were too exciting. Yes, Supreme Court opinions are not really meant to be "exciting" but it's June. They have in the last few decades had some hot-button cases in June.

An insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is sufficiently concerned with, or affected by, the proceedings to be a “party in interest” that can raise objections to a reorganization plan. Section 1109(b) grants insurers neither a vote nor a veto; it simply provides them a voice in the proceedings. 

Justice Sotomayor wrote a unanimous bankruptcy opinion. Alito was recused. He did not say why. The general reason he recuses is that he has some financial conflict, which is made more likely since his stock portfolio opens up much more of a chance for problems than his colleagues. 

A corporation’s contractual obligation to redeem shares is not necessarily a liability that reduces a corporation’s value for purposes of the federal estate tax. 

Justice Thomas had a unanimous opinion in a case whose main interest appears to be that one of the parties is also named "Thomas." 

The question before us is whether ISDA requires IHS to pay contract support costs to support tribal programs funded by such third-party payments.

The opinions are announced in order of seniority. When Thomas announced, the next one was going to be Thomas, Roberts, or perhaps an unsigned per curiam. So, people watching the opinions show up online [there being no video, though there should be], had some reason to expect a significant opinion to finish things off. 

Not really. The case involves the allotment of federal health funding to tribes with some effect on tribal self-determination. Thus, the case is of some interest to Native Americans. The case was a win for the tribes so it is not surprising that Gorsuch went along. Kavanaugh for the other conservatives dissented. But, it is still not exactly a hot-button case.

There are three more weeks in June. The Supreme Court is going to have to do more than release three or so opinions once a week to complete their work. Next Thursday is now scheduled as an Opinion Day. There will eventually be additional days to handle the twenty-something cases left.

The policy of back-ending so many cases, especially hot-button cases, is misguided. It is a college cram style of doing things.

There is an execution scheduled for next week. An Order List will come on Monday. More flag news? Won't surprise. 

ETA: Native American case, as noted, has some interesting aspects about Native American self-government. It also covers questions of congressional intent, agency discretion, and more. "Low temp" cases can still be notable.

Insular Cases 

I also forgot to include a SCOTUS-related Justice Department statement, responding to a congressional request. 

The Justice Department strongly rejects the racist rhetoric of the Insular Cases, a series of early 20th-century cases treating new territories obtained overseas differently than old (white) territories. 

The opinions assumed the new people were unfit to be treated on equal standing with the rest of the country. The Justice Department does not say they want a full overruling because there can still be some differences between territories and the states/D.C. America Samoa, for instance, does not want to be treated completely like American citizens. 

(Comparably, Native American tribes are not treated the same as everyone else. For instance, tribes can have religious establishments. Also, partially given how small many are, jury requirements are different.)  

The line drawing there is complicated with some apparent injustices as seen in one case involving disability benefits in Puerto Rico. Overall, it is unclear what is realistically left of the Insular Cases, including the idea that the Bill of Rights need not be applied to overseas territories. 

The Insular Cases are a relic. If we do not apply an absolute "Constitution follows the flag" rule, it is time to clearly overrule them and clarify.