Sports Sunday

Long football day with another London game that was played in the morning. 

New York fans had games in the three football windows afterward. The Giants were overmatched (the backup QB came in for much of the fourth quarter), not scoring a TD. A star player that went to the Eagles shined in a 28-3 domination.

It was a close game in the first half of the Titans/Bills game. Then, the Bills scored 27 unanswered in the second half. Talk about one-sided adjustments.

Jets had the Sunday Night game with Russell Wilson coming back from injury for the Steelers. Somber moment mid-third quarter with a serious Jets injury that delayed things. Wilson eventually got going. The Jets kicker again missed an easy field goal (blocked). 

The Jets stopped scoring -- I think it was karma for a dubious earlier call that gave them two points. Well, fans could switch to watching the Mets. Maybe not. 

Aaron Rodgers had a couple good drives and also parts of drives (ending on turnovers or stops). They scored 15 points; none in the second half. They gave up 37. 

Not good, Bob. 

Maybe, Jets/Mets fans should have checked on the Mets. There was no magical ending. But, a four-game losing streak is pretty sad, and this one wasn't close.

Mr. M. didn't have it and had to be pulled out early. The bullpen gave up a few. The closer was in the game in the fourth inning. No shame to falter against the #1 seed in Game 6 of the NCLS. 

(The Guardians fell to the Yanks in 5.)

It still was a respectable 7-4 (with many people left on base) in the seventh inning. Dodgers had a bullpen game but they have a tough bullpen. The Mets went with Senga over Buttó. That worked for an inning.

Mets turned into a pumpkin. Oh well. 

Bonus: New York Liberty wins first WNBA championship. Don't watch, but congrats. 

I Felt Myself Slipping

 

Ray was born and raised in central Illinois, and was drawing as soon as they could hold a pencil. They knew from a young age that they wanted to tell stories, and after years of growing up on manga and webcomics, they pursued further art education in college. They have been making comics since 2013, telling stories of identity, interpersonal relationships, and mental illness. Their quiet narratives emphasize the minutia of life, giving meaning to the mundane and balance out themes of trauma, grief, and toxic relationships with radical empathy, queer joy, and healing.

I saw this graphic novel on the NYPL website.

The story is interesting and has at least some autobiographical aspects. For instance, the author has experience in gymnastics. The "they" pronoun shows a queer-consciousness. 

The book also takes place in the 1990s, which is not really necessary to the plot. It also is arguably a bit anachronistic to the degree that things like having two dads are taken totally in stride. OTOH, if the author is partially writing from experience, it clarifies some.

The plot is summarized in one place as "teen gymnasts in a small city in Illinois navigate friendship, love, and loss." One is deaf and has two dads, one who died in a car accident. The other has an "androgynous, punky style" [I did not quite realize it was a girl at first] and comes from a biracial family.  She also has some problems with her self-confidence.

There is some suggestions of attraction between the two girls. Nonetheless, the book is more a case of friendship. There are no amazing developments. It also focuses some on the gymnastics routines.  

It is a quick reading book with interesting art, which should build your hopes for human nature. 

Gov. Walz and Trans Equality

Gov. Walz's support of trans people has been used by Trump supporters as a target of attack. Others think his GLBTQ allyship is a good thing. 

The fear of trans people arose recently in a controversy involving an Olympic athlete that is not trans but people thought was not female enough. Chris Geidner and others also have kept track of nationwide attempts, including in litigation, to target trans people.

On a basic level, and not in a good way, this concern for trans people, including knowing if someone is trans, is weird. The latest thing is an asinine "Tampon Tim" hashtag arising from legislation he signed supplying free menstrual products in grades 4 to 12.  

The legislation arose from teen heroines who spoke about a need. I discuss a book concerning the wider issues of menstrual equity here. 

The immediate issue here was that some Republican legislators supported an amendment specifying the products would be supplied in women's and gender-neutral bathrooms. The sponsor of the failed amendment supported the final bill. Gov. Walz signed the legislation. He didn't craft it. 

The final law recognizes that trans and non-binary people menstruate. These people might not only use women's and gender-neutral bathrooms. 

Also, the legislators overall decided the amendment was not necessary. The law now, to quote one article, "requires school districts to develop plans to ensure all students who menstruate can access free tampons and pads."

(The article notes that Gov. DeSantis vetoed funding in his state.)

I did not go into the weeds here but the general principle here is that you do not need a special provision that in practice will target trans students. You should support a general policy that can be applied as needed.  

This principle can be applied to handling health care for trans people. States do not need to have laws targeting trans people, denying care, and/or putting special barriers in place. 

Sometimes, there will be some tricky line drawing, including in school locker rooms. The proper rules for men's and women's sports also will in a few cases not just be "common sense." 

Nonetheless, the anti-trans approach that currently is often the norm for Republicans (if not across the board) is offensive, bad policy, and in many ways (though the issues are pending)  unconstitutional.  

ETA: People are starting to try to have "gotchas" about Gov. Walz, including an offensive and dumb attempt to argue a guy who was in the military for over twenty years tried to resign to avoid service in Iraq. The timetable also shows it's misinformation.

People are also trying to parse what he says. A segment on voting intimidation and misinformation included a passing remark on "hate" speech. 

In context, it sounds like he was talking about hateful intimidation of voters and so forth. Any inference he supports some open-ended ban on hate speech is unfounded. But, perhaps, it is a lesson on how Walz should be somewhat careful in his remarks. 

On the general point, even a conservative-leaning free-speech scholar found his remarks reasonable. 

Mets vs. Orioles

Buck last night said that "though people would not think so" Megill's was a step forward. The NY Daily News take is a common one: 

Megill lasted only 4 2/3 innings, exiting after giving up five earned runs on nine hits and striking out three.

The headline talked about his "struggles."  A manager often emphasizes the positive, but this is not a total sham job.  A back-end starter, call-up or not, will give up hits against the Baltimore Orioles.  He did not walk anyone.  Peterson did go a scoreless three, which was a glorified "opener" role, showing of late he has shown some improvement.  

Still, not exactly a charming game, though the optimistic will wait and see how Megill does against a team not sure of a juggernaut.  The top three in the line-up had all the offense until a hit in the ninth.  Nimmo, back from a few days out, tried to stretch a single into a double.  Just another "trying too hard" moment.  The no-name pen did okay with two runs.  

[Alonso does not truly seem "back" given his recent play.]

Nimmo and Marte (off all year) were back, but not for long. This was the Sunday line-up:

LF Jeff McNeil

SS Francisco Lindor

1B Pete Alonso

RF DJ Stewart

C Omar Narvaez

3B Mark Vientos

DH Brett Baty

2B Danny Mendick

CF Rafael Ortega

—

LHP Jose Quintana

This didn't go well on Mets Twitter.  There are a few moves that can be justified.  You are going to play your backup catcher sometime (he also got a hit in his first at-bat).  

Marte is obviously struggling.  Nimmo likely is not 100%, so he was rested for a day game after a night game.  Baty needs at-bats too.  Yes, you would like to see Alvarez, but is he hitting too well lately?  He seems to be not throwing out runners lately either.  He's the one person that you might want to see in the line-up but a day off is not stupid either.  

DJ Stewart clean-up is a bit curious though he has some potential.  The team is short on outfielders, so if Marte and Nimmo aren't playing, who else will play?  People want to see certain prospects but they are deemed not ready yet.  I think the struggles of Baty suggest speeding people along there is not a great idea.  And, partially for that reason, with "the beard" out and McNeil playing the outfield, yes you are going to see Mendick.  

So, yes, we are stuck with that line-up.  The fact one of the two reliable starters is available was helpful  You play some of your scrubs when you have a good starter.  Sunday games also normally have more of them.  Overall, the lineup is understandable, even though you want your best lineup out there in the middle of a long losing streak.  

Key players are hurt, struggling, or not ready yet.  The rotation is weak after two trades and you are not going to replace key arms until the off-season.  This is not really "tanking" but if you don't want to watch it, fine. The starter is the main draw.  But, there has been a lot of that this year.  

Scrubs have shown some life lately, including the Nats and Kansas City.  The Tigers beat the Rays last night.  So, the Mets -- as I have noted before -- should be able to show some life, even against the big boys.  Today?  Mr. Q. did very well.  A pair of single-run innings thru six.  It is "what if" if the Mets had their full rotation from the beginning along with Diaz.  

And, even then, at least one of those runs came off questionable defense. But, you are stuck with that at least at third base, which is a growing pains slot for both Baty and Vientos.  One was an inherited run given up by the pen, but even then, you come in with a guy on first and third, that's not a bad result. Toss in Ottavino, that's two runs in eight versus a top team in baseball.  Unfortunately, no runs for the Metsies.

Time for the stud closer. Score one for the Mets future with Vientos getting a double.  Baty couldn't advance him.  Nimmo pitch-hit with one out.  Fly out.  No advance.  Vogelbach.  Fan favorite! (Haha.)  Strikes out. Can we DFA him now?!  Oh well, the pitching was impressive.  And, the Baltimore starter only went 4.2.  So, Q. really won on points.  That counts, right? 

Seriously, the batters did show some life today (after Buck criticized them according to Gary Cohen), but Pete Alonso especially didn't show up at key spots.  If this team was clicking, and maybe if it had a real DH available off the bench, this was very well a winnable game.  Against a stud team.  

So, 0-6 is not a reason to feel good about yourself.  And, multiple players had bad moments.  But, this game did have a "moral victory" feel somewhat.  Anyways, I'm an Orioles fan, so basically happy they won.  

==

I'm not a soccer person but women's soccer has a lot of fans.  Not a lot of scoring in the latest tournament with multiple games where no scoring took place.  Rather boring after a while in my view.  

It ended on kicks, which is rather unsatisfying.  Guess hope Sweden does well.  Got to love a chance to play an Abba song.  

==

I noted that I'm on Bluesky thanks to Chris Geidner. He has a "substack," a media platform that sometimes has some good content from people of his ilk.  Geidner and Steve Vladeck both have good legal content.  

I signed up but don't know how much content I will have.  One useful thing is that it is easy to post an audio file and I actually don't sound too bad when I posted a bit of my voice. The sing-song quality is also sort of purposely affected.   

Trump Federally Indicted

We also slowly (the big confirmation happening yesterday) got the news that indictments are coming against Trump regarding mishandling documents. TPM has the basic right stance to take while [many] Republicans rant and rave:

But it’s worth resisting that feeling, stepping back from it. It grants Trump too much. If you brazenly commit crimes again and again there’s a good chance you’ll get charged with a crime. That’s normal and commonplace. It is as predictable as night following day, the order of the seasons.

Trump has gotten away with too much over the years. He basically saw civil penalties -- now and then -- as the cost of doing business. Enough occurred involving civil rights violations, personal wrongs, and so forth to warrant deeming him persona non grata. Our nation took a different path.  

This has made some people mad and cynical.  I'm in the mix here to some degree. The whole editing of the emolument clauses out of the Constitution as if it is the Third Amendment or something.  The ability to stonewall and obstruct and not even have Mitt Romney vote him guilty for that impeachment content.  

And so forth.  

But, things did happen.  His charities, "college," and business were targeted successfully.  And, he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. More civil suits are forthcoming. And, the criminal charges have begun, including in New York City, where the attacks basically are everything but "he didn't do it."  

Everyone knows he did.  As David French, a conservative sort, noted he is not above the law: 

It would place presidents outside the rule of federal law and declare to the American public that its presidents enjoy something akin to a royal privilege. But this is a republic, not a monarchy, and it is right to make Donald Trump answer for the crimes he is accused of.

There are some who were disdainful of the ability and desire of the Garland Justice Department (a few still sneer at his nomination to the Supreme Court) to prosecute. The time that passed did bother me but justice is slow. Normal serious crimes can take years.  This was a multi-part criminal conspiracy also involving lots of others.  Very well its novelty is a result of dubious things like Ford pardoning Nixon and one party refusing to take part in justice.  But, we are stuck with the complications.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Gerard Magliocca is still on his 14th Amendment, Section Three kick, which you know, is a matter of "why not both?" He argues:

Note that these objections do not apply to Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. No executive pardon can be given for a Section Three disqualification. The proceedings cannot be delayed because a decision must be held before elections are held. And Trump would either be found eligible or not by the Supreme Court. Just saying.

He argues that the criminal prosecutions will encourage him to go all in to be elected president. And, it won't hurt his cause.  GM doesn't say it but the cynic might think it better for Trump to be a candidate with a cloud than someone else.  But, on that front, it is not clear. Maybe, Trump is the best candidate the Republicans have (sadly for them/us on some level).

[ETA: I can expand on this ad nauseam, more so than I have, but two things. If Trump isn't going to win anyway, the disqualification is of limited value. Two, it often is seen as a sort of punishment. And, a big approach is to say "How dare you take it away from the voters."  On that front, that "alternative" here is not quite even that at all.]

This doesn't erase the importance of prosecuting him. It isn't a one-sided thing.  His getting away with his crimes puts him above the law. It encourages others in the future to follow that theme.  A prosecution also regularly helps prosecute other people and bring to light various things.  The limited risk of his chances increasing is only one part of the equation. And, the risks are debatable.  They also can be reduced if we as a society understand our own civic responsibilities here.  The fight is worth it.  

The possibilities of delay do not generally stop us from prosecuting crimes. It took too damn long for him to get civilly found liable for sexual abuse. Was that not worth it?  

And, how does GM's method help here? The process will take time. It will be subject to extended appeals (we saw that in the emoluments matter; he ran out the clock).  And, there will be arguments it won't even be "ripe" unless he won.  Or, it will be up to Congress, a political question, for them to decide when counting votes.  

Finally, there is the issue of pardons.  First, the 14th Amendment has a mechanism to remove the insurrection (and Trump is not guilty of only that) related barrier to office.  At any rate, if the people vote into office someone who wants to grant him a pardon, we are in a bad place at any rate.  Moving aside from the possibility it will be a result of anti-democratic forces (see 2000 and 2016), it also is what the "people want." So be it.

Granted, you can say that a conviction followed by a pardon does vindicate the rule of law, but this is probably not what the prosecutors pursuing Trump have in mind.

GM was against the second impeachment (on weak grounds as I noted at the time) and put an artificially high barrier to conviction in the first. He is the sort of "Never Trumper" who always finds a way, even while assuring us he is against Trump.  

Take this. Why wouldn't the rule of law be vindicated?  Would a person who supports the death penalty not try to obtain a death sentence since the next governor might commute it?  Why isn't investigating and prosecuting, to the extent everything is in your power, doing all you can to vindicate the rule of law?  

There are always problems and chances of failure long term.  Prosecutors in general focus on their jobs, not what might happen if someone else comes into office.  It's asinine to try to find reasons like this to have a narrow focus on your hobby horse. 

Trump is guilty of a range of crimes. He is not above the law.  The provision should be applied to him but it alone is not enough.  And, the prosecution will help with the application of the provision. It's a joint thing. 

He isn't charged with insurrection (the indictment was dropped today after I first wrote this; it has more counts than previously suggested) here.  But, there is a separate investigation for that (maybe it's related somehow?)  and criminal prosecution would be a way to determine if "insurrection" for 14A purposes occurred.  

The provision does not require a full-press criminal prosecution. Every single person subject to it from acts arising in the Civil War didn't first have the protections of a criminal trial.  But, it is going to be one of the various questions that would arise when applying it to Trump in the 21st Century.

GM supported (as do I) a House bill that provided a civil procedural process that gave the Attorney General a chance to seek a finding that it is applicable.  The report of the 1/6 Committee flagged the issue.  But, there was no sign of much concern over the matter.  The legislation isn't likely now.  

The prosecution would be useful here, including an overall feeling that someone is guilty of mishandling national defense information is "insurrection-y, "especially after the House charged him with it, 57 senators agreed, and others basically did so and let him off on other grounds. So, yes, let's do both.

There seems to be a game going on at times when assurances of consequences amount to smoke.  Oversight is resisted since impeachment is an option.  Then, impeachment is deemed problematic somehow, but prosecution is said to still be open.  At least after the term of office is done.  But, then, something else.  The 14th option is yet another way to find a way not to do anything really, claiming otherwise.  

We are getting consequences. Some major sentences in the 1/6 prosecutions. And, now Trump is feeling the heat.  It's time.  Not enough especially after a lifetime of getting away with it.  But, we have to do the best we can. 

The Indictment Itself

A standard approach is to try to minimalize, even if as a whole something is bad. It is a standard strategy and how we handle our lives in various moments.  Everything seems bad, but we can focus on something specific.  Doesn't seem too bad, really, right?  We can adapt to it. 

This is a standard technique used by Trump, defenders, and enablers.  It is repeatedly a sham.  It is a sham in the civil suits. It is a sham in the New York City prosecution. And, it is a sham here.  You will hear it at times. The "real" thing should be election-related (1/6 or Georgia). 

And, then something will be wrong there.  Don't believe it.  His wrongs might be different but each is wrong.  He surely shouldn't get a break. And, this is serious too.  National security is involved.  He was given a lot of rope.  He obstructed the government repeatedly.  This is a trend. At some point, you cannot just let him get away with it.  

And, he and his family have for a long time done business with people and businesses against the well-being of the United States.  This underlines why he had no f-ing business in power. Ditto for people like George Santos or Marjorie Taylor Greene or any number of people we are stuck with.  

People running against Trump up to a point granted he crossed a line though they all in some fashion still supported him and still are willing to do so in various respects.  So much that GM basically assumes they will pardon him if he himself (whose election is taken as a possibility, calmly cited without comment on its basic travesty) isn't elected. 

[The one thing I skipped in my summary last time was the Saudi Arabia union with the PGA Tour.  It might not be final. We know about Kushner and that country. Then, there is China, the Soviets, and more. This is something that factors into prosecutorial discretion.]

There is one more thing to toss in here.  There is the basic irony of Hillary Clinton allegedly being unfit for mishandling documents. Exactly what she did wrong there was a bit hazy, but it received lots of press.  The former head of the FBI (now with a mystery novel!) played his part.  The richness of this given who was running against her has been cited by various people.

(Compare Bush43 whose family values reputation put against Bill Clinton was not really a sham. From what I know, the guy was not a womanizer. It's true that on a wider level, Democrats were better for family values.) 

A link to the indictment with NYT annotations is provided. It is one of those "narrative" indictments that tell a story.  We have such things last Trump's comments on the importance of document security and excerpts of conversations.  These documents should get more attention.  It's a nifty way to explain what is at stake.  

(Here is a link without a paywall.)

Matt Harvey Retires

Matt "Dark Knight" Harvey was going to be the leader of a new generation of Mets starters. Well, this being the Mets, it was a rocky road.  On and off the field.

The Mets had various problems (as they continue to have) with their starters, including Matt Harvey being out because of an injury.  Then, like David Cone back in the day for the Yankees, he came back and shined some more.  But, we had the probably misguided attempt to stretch into the ninth during the deciding World Series game, and it went downhill from there.  

Harvey never really came back to form though he gutted it out with the Mets and various other teams.  He was credible for the Reds. Then, the Angels (with that Disney money) dubiously gave him 11M for a year.  Not so credible.  The struggle then was to find a few innings here and there where he looked good.  Harvey finished off on a nice note with some good innings representing Italy for World Baseball Classic.

That would be after a suspension when he admitted to drug use.  He has now retired from baseball and I wish him well.  Pitching asks people to do unnatural things.  Some pitchers more than others.  Baseball generally has a dark side too, the things that make you a celebrity superstar having the possibility of giving the bitter with the sweet.  

[Mets managed to win tonight vs. the Rockies, a 1-0 win with some nail-biting in the last two innings.  They were swept by the lowly Tigers though Verlander finally did pitch, two early homers and no offense (he faced the true ace of the staff, but the other two losses were less respectable) burnt them.]

I am not a Sports Illustrated swimsuit guy myself.  More power to Padma Lakshmi, a fifty-something "culinary personality" who was a model in her younger days.  I'm not sure about the quality of that bikini but it does celebrate her body pretty well.  

I'm middle-aged myself though at times do not feel it.  But, yeah, watching Friends, I'm more the age of Richard and Monica/Ross' parents than the friends.  People age.  I do think there are a variety of people in their 40s, 50s, and yes even 60s, who look pretty good.  On air and off.  

I do think the women on that show started to look ... well weird ... toward the end.  Courtney Cox definitely had some bad plastic surgery (she also was pregnant the last season, rather obviously so at some point).  Other actresses from the era still look pretty darn good.  Those three do make me wonder.

[Christiana Applegate is my age and she's always Kelly Bundy for me though she also was great as Rachel's sister.  She has MS and is gutting it out with her usual guts and gumption.  Or something.]

How about that cover model?  Well, nice butt, but a bit skinny on the top.  Nice hair.  There are sports where bathing suits make sense but are not quite "sports" related.  On the other hand, she does seem like someone who might be very athletic.  I can see her at the gym or at a swim meet.  Impressive too with someone around all that food.  Congrats again.  

Brian's Song

I saw Brian's Song (or at least part of it) some time back. It was on one of the movie channels and I caught a bit of the film again. It was a well received t.v. movie (1971) and is actually pretty short -- less than 75 minutes. It's a tear jerker, a way for men to cry (heck it's mixed with sports), and the interracial friendship still had some bite then.

I checked it out of the library and the DVD has the leads provide commentary. There is also a featurette with the real Gale Sayles (played by a young Billy Dee Williams, pre-Star Wars, in the film with James Caan playing Brian Piccolo). Something like forty-minutes is sports related, include Sayles dealing with his first injury (a second shortened his career and he went into academia and business), the last thirty or so minutes focusing on Brian's illness.

It's a crisp film. Well acted, with various familiar faces (the wives were in some things), and superior fare for a t.v. movie. The dramatic music was a tad too heavy-handed.

LGBTQI+ Pride Month

I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2022 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to recognize the achievements of the LGBTQI+ community, to celebrate the great diversity of the American people, and to wave their flags of pride high.

Pride Month is timed in honor of the Stonewall riots, which took place at the end of June in 1969.  The full acronym seems to be ever expanding (no "A" for asexual or something?), but the riots provided a taste of the diversity of the movement. For instance, trans people were surely involved, even if today they are treated as an appropriate target in multiple states.  

The riots were a reaction to continual harassment and mistreatment.  The specific spark was yet another police raid to a mob controlled bar.  But, there was a wider meaning to the whole thing.  The bar was one of the few places certain people could openly associate and be themselves.  And, even there, they could not truly be safe from often dehumanizing police attacks.

The Biden Administration (following in the footsteps of the Obama Administration)  has taken special care to emphasize its support of pride. This includes both who they appoint (including a member of the Cabinet and the current press secretary as well as multiple judges) and its policies.  Meanwhile, it took until 2019 for the Trump Administration to announce pride month, and in multiple ways it opposed LGBTQI+ rights. 

There has been some signs in recent years, on a bipartisan basis, that society respects the pride banner.  Individual Republicans and at times as a group in power respect gays and lesbians and trans people in various ways.  Multiple Republican governors in recent days have at least opposed the breadth of anti-trans measures, including by vetoes.  All the same, there is still a clear division between the parties on such issues. 

This month honors the complexity and diversity of sexuality.  History has always shown that humans cannot be put into clean little boxes here.  It might be noted that in some general fashion certain basic classifications are in place across cultures.  This does not mean, to be clear, such "basic" lines are the only valid ones.  But, some very basic lines can be seen. 

But, even there, there tends to be complexities and exceptions.  And, even such little things as hand-holding and other signs of affection being more accepted among men in some cultures reflects the differences.  Gender particularly has various cultural differences.  And, then, we can see specific differences in people themselves, including sexual characteristics.

Complexity can be confusing, complicated, and at times a bit scary (or some "c" word meaning that).  We can admit that and work together to find common ground and respect each other.  And, as we do so, we can respect the accomplishments and abilities of everyone involved.  This can be true even if we do not always accept everything about each other. 

As noted on this week's episode of Gay USA, a weekly LGBT (as noted at its website) news show that I have personally watched for approaching twenty years now, a fitting symbol was put in place recently to honor pride month:

After years of advocacy spanning across two presidential administrations, LGBTQ activists and federal park officials joined together to raise a Rainbow Flag on federal property at Christopher Park on the first day of Pride Month.

(You can see a photo of the long serving co-hosts of Gay USA at that link. One occasional fill-in host is the activist/bird watcher, who became nationally known for an infamous Central Park encounter.)

A rainbow flag, showing all colors, is a fitting symbol for the diversity honored this month.  We have gone far -- in the 1990s, the specter of same sex marriage was so horrible to consider that the federal government singled it out for burdens.  This is so even though the idea was not truly novel even then.  I found a paperback book on weddings published in the early 1970s, which has a few pages of same sex weddings.

We still have a ways to go, again noting how multiple states (including Florida and Texas) are going after trans children, particularly in athletics.  There is reason to fear that this Supreme Court will go backward though it is unclear how far.  We still have gone quite far.  We should remember that, especially when the times leads some to be quite bleak.  

For now, as another Joe, I say let us honor and celebrate LGBTQI+ and the diversity and complexity of us all.  

ETA: This blog post cites a recent state trans bill to "save women's sports" or some such.  It is the sort of thing being tossed out there -- some specter of trans athletes ("trans" many might say) threatening women's sports.  

In practice, you have a few trans students, fewer playing sports, and we are talking single digits regarding any with any real special skills that would matter.  Meanwhile, you have others who have some special athletic ability or some other non-trans related body type that is atypical particularly.

For this "problem," there is a blunderbuss approach that invites abuse.  A few (two in particular) in comments try to small print the whole thing, which is bending over backward for something that doesn't warrant good faith assumptions.  It not really much different than burdensome rules against non-existent problems of "voting fraud." 

Such people are annoyed in part at what they see as overheated rhetoric, which is invited by the people involved. This includes the latest Republican tactic at hearings in Congress to ask people to define "men" and "women" or ask things like "can men have abortions."  I find screeching annoying myself, but you know, at some point it's understandable given the trolls involved.  And, even there, regularly they are right on basic points. 

Steroids Are Wrong etc.

One thing Scott at LGM harped on over the years was the stupidity and hypocrisy of efforts against cheating in sports (such as the Pats issues), especially steroids. Paul Campos has been on this for years, as this 2006 article shows. I think they both are wrong, but at some point, it's pointless to pushback. People have strong views and debate is not going to be had.

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Membership in the Baseball Hall of Fame, based on the criteria itself puts forth, is not just a matter of athletic ability, full stop. A rapist, for instance, need not be admitted into the HOF. The "integrity" and "character" rules here have some bite. No matter if it is not consistently applied. That is the road to nihilism. 

This argument has a lot of force, but, in the context of professional sports, there is also something hypocritical about it. We are perfectly happy to, for example, allow athletes to destroy their bodies.

When this sort of slippery slope rule is put forth by libertarians, the LGM crowd is likely to sneer at it. Here, suddenly it seems to have some bite. Still fails.  There are limits.  Lines are drawn.  

The claim that what they did was wrong because they may have acquired PEDs without legally required prescriptions is an obvious red herring.

Why is it a red herring?  Prescriptions are a means to provide limits here, including guarding against abuse and dangerous unregulated actions. This includes for more at risk players including minor leagues or even in high school and college ball.  Toss in the handwaving if people aren't put in the HOF because they lied to investigators and so forth.

Then, there is the statement that it wasn't even cheating at all since baseball "had no policy against the use of PEDs prior to the 2003 season."  

I saw some form of that argument over the years and overall discussions repeatedly do not clarify the exact details in an easy to examine way.  This is often the case when dealing with issues and I welcome those who provide carefully crafted summaries.  Wikipedia helps here, including providing links and general details you can use for further research. 

Anyway, that's WRONG.  There WAS a policy against use of PEDs (performance enhancing drugs) before then. What exactly it is I do not know.  It was in place. People who said players were "cheaters" were not just deluded.  The basic change there was TESTING.  Caps can be annoying.  They have their uses.  

For instance, this ESPN summary notes that "steroids have been banned in MLB since 1991."   Nineteen Ninety One.   So, we are left with details. What steroids.  How to prove their usage.  The spirit of the rules. etc.  The arguments about the "sanctimony" of opposition here move back and forth from details ("no policy") to specifics and "the rules are so arbitrary."  Regularly, rules in place is not the issue either.  

Anyway, like Doug Glanville and various others, I am not somehow appalled that Bonds et. al. are not in the HOF.   Specific choices are going to be closer calls in various respects, but especially given the overall criteria will not just be about steroid use (see my reference the other day to David "Big Papi" Ortiz), the calls will involve various criteria.

Like the current effort, however incomplete, dealing with domestic abuse, "everyone does it" or "we are inconsistent" is not an answer.  We can toss that out about everything.  Brian Flores' race discrimination lawsuit?  Well, sure, but hey, discrimination goes on in a bunch of ways. We allow it.  It would be arbitrary to just benefit him here!   

But, steroids isn't race discrimination!  Obviously.  They are a matter of fairness.  Some people do not want to harm their body using dangerous substances (again, there is not some "if you put yourself in harm's way, you can't complain about anything" rule), while others are pressured to do so because PEDs are assumed legitimate in some fashion.  And, the people who are harmed most often are marginal people, often of a certain race.

Its said that the accomplishments of athletes who use PEDs are tainted because their feats are a product of their drug use rather than the hard work necessary to fully develop natural athletic talent. But this claim is based on a misunderstanding of how PEDs work. No PED in and of itself enhances athletic ability: the value of such drugs is that they allow athletes to train harder, to build greater muscle bulk and endurance and to recover more quickly from the stress such intense training causes to their bodies. 

I don't see the "misunderstanding" here.  The results very well are a "product" of drug use.  It allows them to "recover more quickly," which makes it easier for athletes.  The drugs also leads to better results, given the alternative -- given the limits of human endurance -- will lead to less results.  People who use the drugs very well, at least in various cases, still work hard.  But, they are quite reasonably deemed tainted. 

The fact it is somewhat more complicated than some frame it (which is standard -- people simplify when they summarize things -- and the usual suspects selectively patronizingly call them on it) doesn't change the basic bottom line here.  Again, certain things are allowed here.  No shit.  

Other things are not.  If a secret pill, e.g., allowed people to throw 125mph, we can ban it.  Talking about how so arbitrary (condescension on high) that might be since we allow people to drink coffee etc. does not change that.  The same applies to performance enhancing drugs.  

Individual cases might be complicated or mitigating factors can be involved.  A few months of steroid use might not be enough for a voter to block a Hall of Fame admission.  A recent case of an Olympic hopeful who used marijuana to self-medicate was very unfortunate if you look at the details.  But, studies have shown marijuana affects (in various ways) performance.  The rules in place are there for a decent reason.  

Scott at LGM at times compares sports and criminal drug policies. They are not the same thing.  Requiring athletes to follow now clearly in place policies, including testing, and penalizing them financially when they break them, is not akin to locking up some poor black person or denying them college funds.  Comparing A-Rod to that is fucking asinine.  

Anyway, read again the rules for membership in the Hall of Fame. And, no, it isn't some special sacred thing.  It has some symbolic value, surely, but there are more important things.  People still can be great players if they are not entered into the HOF.  

The entrance rules still involve more than winning a lot of games and so forth.  And, rightly so.

Raffensperger Tries To Show He Is Okay to Anti-Voters

The big news for some this week was Georgia beating Alabama for the national football championship. January is now Georgia's month. Last year, they elected two Democrats in a pair of run-offs, giving the Democrats control of the Senate. A key aid to Biden as well given the power of the Senate to potentially block nominations alone.

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger came out as a hero as well when he strongly resisted pressure from Trump to find some votes and so on. This, of course, made him a bad guy for many Trump loyalists.  

As the Democrats go the to the next step toward trying to pass voting rights legislation, one prime target is Georgia. Which passed anti-voting legislation, which in part is intended to rein in people like Raffensperger and the ongoing investigation of Trump trying to pressure him.  So, he's trying to find a middle path, yes?

I saw something among the updates at Talking Points Memo yesterday, where Raffensperger tried to show his bona fides via  three step plan (other than general ridicule of the Democrats), using standard talking points.  

First, you have the collection of votes by others, such as to help isolated rural voters who have a hard time getting to the polls and even might live where postal service is sketchy.  This is attacked as "ballot harvesting."  

The practice generally is regulated in various ways, but there is always some call for more, which could particularly problematic during the Big V pandemic (e.g., some strong rule regarding notarized witnesses or something).   Basically, it's fine on some level to regulate; the problem is when you demonize and totally ban something that is helpful to various people. 

Second, he went with the tried and true voting identification thing. Voting id for in person voting (as compared to registration) is is another troll device, especially when it requires special types of picture identification. If you simply require something like a utility bill or something, it really can be a mild requirement.  It also is basically pointless.  

Still, if you include a mild voting id requirement as part of a wider voting rights package, it need not be a poison pill.  You should encourage and promote picture ids -- they are useful to have.  You should provide an extended time to roll things out.  Have exceptions and affidavit options for special cases. And so on.  Again, we are talking Republican here. I realize there is going to be some imperfections here.  It's a scale thing.  

The last thing was promotion of a state and federal amendment to block non-citizens from voting.  As a general matter, I'm not going to argue too much about non-citizen voting.  Personally, I am okay with it, especially with some restrictions.  Ditto there service on juries or something.  But, voting is a logical part of citizenship, and it is not some sort of travesty to think it of that way.  It is not the same as those who already served their time having the right to vote.  More like the convicted in prison.

What really bothers me here is the idea we should amend the fucking Constitution (reminded me of when people wanted to do it to "defend" marriage against the gays) to stop it.  Like there is some glaring problem.  I'm sure -- like after Hawaii looked like they might protect same sex marriage -- New York City (Mayor Eric Adams decided he didn't have to worry about it, after wavering, so no veto) passed a non-citizen voting law for local offices.  

We should amend the U.S. Constitution because a few localities allowing non-citizens to vote is so problematic?  We need to send a message by putting it in dark black text, so to speak, that only citizens should have the right to vote?  For those who care, historically, many places in the past allowed non-citizens the right to vote.  And, the basic thing that will happen will be a few places will allow it, especially if there is a limited right to vote for special elections such as school elections.  

There is no big possibility that Georgia will suddenly pass a law allowing non-citizens to vote.  If they did, the horror, I know.  Likewise, if it allowed local option, such as such suburb of Atlanta allowing it in school elections. Who cares?  Raffensperger is basically trolling here, if in a somewhat less offensive way than others.  So, the state constitution thing is only somewhat less bad.

But, the overall message is still poisonous.  A distrust of non-citizens, of "them," so much that you need extra protections against them. You are going to have unnecessary message type laws. It's part of the deal.  Sometimes, however, the message (think DOMA) is bad and helps add oxygen to worse things.  That is the nature of all of these things.

Meanwhile, we are looking at how the Senate is doing on voting. 

ETA: On that front, there is the usual tiresome arguments/warnings against/about at least a partial change of the filibuster.  The problem there is twofold: (1) people thought these things through and realize net it won't be worse (2) on principle and overall practice, the current policy is far from ideal.  

As noted by one person on Twitter: "A gridlocked government promotes extremism and performative politics. Since you can't do anything to address the major problems of our time, you end up with a Congress that just posts all day."  Meanwhile, workarounds have been done to pass stuff, including reconciliation, and judges were dealt with separately.  

And, it is a guesstimate (yeah, I see you smarty-pants, who cited Trump as a possibility pretty early), but a supposed 2025 trifecta is likely to include an impatient raw conservative component that will want certain policy things done. Filibusters by a supposed 54/46 (R) Senate or something stopping them much is dubious.  

Of course, we can stop that from happening (voting rights and judicial reform can help) at least in some form, including a second presidential term.  This can also involve passage core legislation now of some popularity (see ACA), which can have some degree of staying power.

Again, let's see how that goes.

Captain Midnight Leaves the Building

This is a 2001 HBO film that portrays the Wannsee Conference, which ironed out the terms of the "Final Solution." Many familiar faces. Well acted and straightforward with Stanley Tucci as Adolf Eichmann (though he comes off more like a "Stanley Tucci character"). Lot of food and smoking.

And I thank you. https://t.co/eZpycs339y

— Steve Somers (@stevesomerswfan) November 12, 2021

I have not regularly listened to WFAN for a while, but was a fan of Steve Somers (how can one not) when I did. After almost thirty-five years, he is being forced out, the last of the originals. He might be "Captain Midnight," but he's a bit old to be required (as was the offer) to go back to nights. Guess the financials pan out here, but still seems wrong. Days would seem to be where the money is anyway. Can't leave him in his spot? Oh well.

In the news ... Olympics and 1/6 Select Committee

Simon Biles: I don't watch the Olympics, but Simon Biles is so prime GOAT material (plus saw her in at least one ad) that I'm familiar with her. The big news this week is that she step aside mid-competition because of mental stress. Caring about mental well being is more acceptable these days. Good. Let's remember the human side of sports, including that humans are involved. Comes out in baseball in various ways.

1/6 Select Committee: While the #3 Republican in the House goes full "we are at war with [checks notes]," the commitee started with the two House Republicans willing to not be totally in the hock for Trump. Very emotional beginning with police officer testimony. Also, a reminder at the power of witnesses, even if "we know this, so why is this necessary?" Or, "this is all theater." Yeah, it's a bit more complicated.

Good beginning. This includes keeping two Republicans off the commitee who either might be a witness or started off from right after being picked showing his total disdain of things. Pelosi didn't use her veto power (power in place only because the independent commitee option was filibustered) to block all Republicans, even one who challenged the electors. Next steps, including who to subpoena and making sure to go big or go home, will be harder.

Sha’Carri Richardson, a Track Sensation, Tests Positive for Marijuana (STUPID?! Or maybe not?)

The American sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson, who was set for a star turn at the Tokyo Olympics this month, could miss the Games after testing positive for marijuana.

This story, with her being a talented young black woman adding to the situation, is getting a lot of attention. So, e.g., on a blog that railed against steroid rules in MLB (tiresomely -- performance enhancements are just that, negatively affect health, and not enforcing the rules will burden those who don't want to use them), labeled her "another victim of the War on Drugs." That is the general line of the readership and probably some others.

I would push back some.  My basic reaction is that it is stupid and immature on some level to break the rules here.  You can find the rules stupid (see below).  There are stupid rules.  We need to act maturely here all the same.  Given the stakes, using marijuana is stupid.  It isn't even like some athletes who maybe are unclear about what exactly isn't allowed. 

Marijuana is not some sort of hazy issues.  It is against the rules.  Maybe, as one person noted, it is seen as even more important to strictly apply the rules because local law in Tokyo (the location of the Olympics) is stricter than it is generally in the United States.  I don't know.  But, the bottom line is there are drug testing rules.  By now, they are well known.  This isn't like (if that was really a thing) "hey, Bonds was unfairly treated since they didn't really follow the rules."  They do. 

She's a sympathetic case going by the coverage. The article notes that she found out about a death in the family, triggering her anxiety.  She used marijuana to relieve it.  I'm not going to handwave that as one person sneered when answering a comment of mine saying you can deal with sadness (how the blog framed it) in other ways.  

But, it's true.  There are other ways.  This isn't just someone with a strict on the job drug testing regime at CVS or something.  You have to follow rules, even when it sometimes hard to do so.  AGAIN, this is not belittling the stress involved. But, that is part of maturity.  Yes, maybe you should give people a break in various instances.  Still, the criticism is not merely focused on why she took the marijuana.  It is that the rule is simply stupid. 

Following links,  clarification is made why the rule is in place. One standard response is that it is simply stupid to think marijuana use is helps competitiveness -- doesn't it more likely do the reverse?  Well, that too would be problematic!  Nonetheless, there is a report citation that very well shows it also can help competition in certain cases. 

A constant appeal here is that there are a ton of things out there that might help competitive advantage.  Okay.  So, what, anything goes?  If there was some drug in place to improve competitive advantage by 10x or something, is that okay?  We saw the lengths taken, e.g., by Soviet bloc countries here. Athletes are skilled enough.  It is not absurd to have limits here.

It is hard to draw lines here, but in real life, lines are actually drawn. Lines that will in various cases be debatable or even bad along the edges. This might suggest (see below) zero tolerance is bad. Still, it is far from apparent that banning marijuana is stupid here. Its familiar qualities would interfere with competition.  It is akin to not allowing people to use it within a certain period of time and then driving.  Games where fractions of a second can win a contest will also mean even small effects matter.  

Does marijuana being "bad" color the situation?  I would not be shocked if it did.  Still, taking this perfectly scientifically, it is not absurd to deem it problematic -- again, it need not just be a positive enhancement.  "Well, it just will hurt her" doesn't cut it.  The sanctity of the overall contest as well as the good of the team matters here too.  

The "war on drugs" causes a lot of harm. But, this is not a criminal law. There is no evidence in the early accounts I have seen to suggest she is being selectively targeted. One person, who is usually reasonable, cited someone years ago whose medal was not taken away. She didn't have a medal taken away.  She isn't being allowed, for now, to compete because she failed the drug test.  It isn't the same thing.  

[A reply noted that not only was the wrong name given, but the specific case involved someone who had some excuse, and that the rule involved was changed.  The person admitted being too lazy to look up the facts. 

That's human when just commenting on the latest thing, but sometimes it leads to confusion.  After years of admittedly too much focus on online debates, and public things in general, one of my concerns ... hobbyhorses if you like ... is more educated discourse in general here.]  

Since I'm careful, though I was accused not to be, I'll say here that there is some concern big picture that ANY drug policy here will result in discriminatory results.  But, this isn't a case of someone being found to have marijuana in their possession or something.  It is actual use.  If that is problematic, and this is a theme on that blog, it is bad to regulate competitive drugs that enhance in general. I reject that as extreme.

Someone cited another thing that received attention regarding not allowing a certain type of swimming cap that is used by those with hair that is common for many black athletes.  See?!  It isn't the same thing. It is again not shown that black athletes with failed marijuana tests are selectively being denied. Or, that -- like the swimmers -- somehow this burdens black people specifically.  Marijuana is used by whites and blacks.  

And, again, there is evidence that marijuana will negatively (one way or another) affect athletic performance.  The cap issue is unclear -- maybe the rule is in place allegedly because other caps give an alleged advantage. At some point, looking up every specific thing is a bit much, but again, there is more to weigh there given the specific needs of black athletes. 

[I later saw AOC reference how marijuana policy is racist in a tweet opposing the disqualification.  Again, how is this relevant exactly? If she took another banned substance that mirrored the effects of marijuana to deal with her emotions after finding out about her biological mother's death, would it be okay to disqualify her?]

Bottom line, it is reasonable to say that if she broke the rules arising from an emotional event in her life, that a zero tolerance rule is unjust. Push comes to shove, I usually find these things nuanced.  Still, the broad responses to me are annoying too.  On a basic level, people in her position are careful to follow rules given the stakes.  Even stupid rules. And, it isn't even clear how stupid this rule is as  a whole.  

The best approach here is a "let those who commit no sin throw the first stone" approach.  Zero tolerance is often a bad policy.  If people just left it at that, my response would be much less "can we grow up a bit?"  But, even that is problematic when you are part of a worldwide system.  If that is a problem, the problem is not merely the U.S. enforcing the rules here.  

If you want to blame someone, blame the World Doping Agency.  As one reply, thankfully reasonable, noted: "This wasn't just American anti-weed obsession. It was a recent evolution, led by multiple constituent bodies in sport. In international sports, the USOC actually has surprisingly little pull for its size." If true, the rule might still be stupid, but let's focus on the real problem. 

Again, if problem there is. These things tend to be a lot more complicated than at first blush.  And, hopefully, long term, discussion will help clarity there. Knee-jerk reactions are human, but also dubious.

SCOTUS Watch: Part 1 of At Least Three

Orders: The order list was not notable.  After I first posted a form of this entry (so, you know, this will be edited some over the day probably), for whatever reason, they dropped an additional order that formally nixes challenge to Trump-era "remain in Mexico" policy after Biden administration abandons the policy.  Without dissent, it is declared moot.  We are left to guess, but this has a feel of them saying this order is a bit more notable, which is why it is separate. 

Student Athletes: So, moving to opinions, the most newsworthy one [typos later found] is not too surprising -- NCAA can not deny student athletes the ability to get certain types of compensation. Gorsuch adds a bit on how they only were judges, so the opinion only goes so far.  Blah blah.  Yes, I appreciate that sentiment up to a point, but not sure how much I believe it coming from some people.

I was somewhat more sympathetic to non-profit rules, but it seems even there the rules were applied in an unreasonable way. Congress can always fix this.  A bit more -- Kavanaugh had brief concurrence that is getting support saying that the athletes have a strong case.  Not the first time his interest in sports got some attention.  But, college athletes is complicated.  For instance, tuition, training, experience, and a chance to be pick for a professional league all provide some sort of "compensation" that is not going to be treated the same way as some other businesses. 

Appointments: Maybe, the judges should have took that judicial restraint mood to heart in another case involving the rules for appointing patent judges. Roberts for a fractured Court with Thomas joined (in part) by the liberals dissenting on the merits. [Barrett majority alert.]The Roberts Courts have been active in finding rules for agency removal and appointments that don't quite seem to be there. Like we don't need MORE petty confirmations.  And, even if that is not specifically at issue, the administrative state had various types of positions where some flexibility is both allowed and warranted.  Unless clearly compelled, Congress should have a lot of flexibility here to set forth the rules. 

And Also: The other case regarded rules for class actions. Separately, Sotomayor and the High Federalists didn't go along all the way with Barrett's opinion. She shouldn't be there. In a just world, it would be dealt with somehow. Anyway, this term, her vote mattered for the shadow docket. More here on why her vote in the the patents case was important.  Twelve cases left.

Supreme Court Watch: Opinion Day etc.

There were various oral arguments this week, but the biggest news was the Case of the Cursing Cheerleader. A disappointed teen cursed on Snapchat in disappointment for losing a varsity cheerleader position. She was suspended from the team for a year, which is a ridiculous overreaction.

But, is any school penalty for off campus speech of this nature warranted? I am much less sure of the answer to that, and the justices appeared unsure too. Their concern for line drawing would seem to arise when applying Tinker (armbands) in school as well.  After Tinker, the Supreme Court mostly left these disputes to the lower courts.  The exceptions were a vulgar speech at a school event, rules involving a school paper and dealing with a pro-marijuana (though it could have been seen as a nonsense thing) sign at a school event (thus support of illegal conduct).  

It is the sort of case that is a good general thought experiment for the average person (or student) too. C-SPAN, however, decided the live streamed oral argument was appropriate for its more heavily watched three television channels.  This continues to be a complaint of mine -- for years, Brian Lamb and others want the Supreme Court to televise. Now, there is a half-step with live streaming.  But, after doing differently when it first started, C-SPAN only streamed live online. 

===

After the Order List, a miscellaneous order dropped that rejected an application of a stay.  The only real question for me is why it was not just included with the other orders.  These sorts of stand alone things seem not really too time sensitive most of the time.  One other tidbit was that the losing side was represented by Lisa "I'm a liberal but support Trump justices" Blatt, who also represented the school in the cheerleader case. 

===

Only Chief Justice Roberts went to the smaller President Biden Address to Congress (it's not a SOTU! just him talking about the state of the union and offering suggestions for new policy). Biden went to say hi at one point.  Sigh.  I'm not someone who is mesmerized by such speeches, but was so nice to see Biden there.  A real POTUS.  I think the start of the speech, including introducing the two women behind him, was the strongest.  After there was a lot of policy stuff, but the start, including the COVID stuff, was the most powerful.  Some other good spots, including reminding us that this country is based on an idea (equal justice). 

===

The 6-3 ruling, with an unusual voting line-up, left open access to a form of deportation relief for noncitizens who were served a “notice to appear” for immigration proceedings via a series of documents, instead of the required single comprehensive notice.

The one opinion that dropped on Thursday was interesting given the line-up with Kavanaugh (with Roberts and Alito) in dissent. Gorsuch writing the majority opinion was not too surprising -- at times, he will have pro-defendant type opinions, especially if they limit federal power, and he can be convinced that the statutory text requires that result.  Certain flourishes in writing, including repeated dismissive comments about the dissent being basically stupid, also doesn't surprise.  

Was the opinion correct?  I'm inclined to follow a rule of leniency when possible in such cases, but won't pretend to fully know.  Still, such a rule seems to be appropriately applied when all three liberals are joined by three conservatives.  The good result, a good drive of the car, again doesn't mean the car being stolen should be forgotten. Also, here is a liberal take that it really wasn't great anyways -- again see my comments too.

Alito and Kavanaugh going the other way is not too surprising.  Roberts doesn't dissent much, so his vote is interesting.  You would think the logical move was a switch of Roberts and Thomas, but guess here the statutory etc. argument convinced him.  Barrett seems at this early date someone who will not just be a kneejerk conservative, at least when there is wiggle room.  Kavanaugh wrote the dissent here, which was longer than the majority opinion.  Breyer probably was happy to have another "see! we don't just split in obvious ways" example.

(There is an edit to the opinion though "complaint" sounds right.) 

ETA: This analysis flags the majority's use of "alien," which the Biden Administration has deemed inappropriate. I wonder how Sotomayor felt. 

===

Death Penalty: I referenced in a past entry the short briefing requested by the Supreme Court involving the the opening of arguing that the firing squad is a possible alternative in a Missouri death penalty case.  The multitude of hedges there is telling -- we are not exactly talking about a sure thing. 

The state provided its reply this week as seen on this page.  Basically, the danger of lethal injection in the case is alleged to be weak, but anyways, the two "alternatives" (lethal gas and firing squad) are not available anyway.  Since the current, dubious, rule is that you need both, that's 0/2.  Again, the record for lethal injection has been at best mixed in recent years.  

It's a bit gruesome, but I continue to look for an execution using an alternative method.  The firing squad always a bit "niche" and seen as a bit to graphic among other things, nitrogen gas seems the more likely option.  

====

No further orders on Friday or opinion days scheduled. 

Bonus SCOTUS Content

Since the release of census data is time sensitive, it was suggested that the Supreme Court would address it soon. And, they did via a short per curiam disposing it on standing and ripeness grounds. There seems to be some merit to that, noting (as more than one blog noted) such things are applied arbitrarily. Wrongful actions alone won't get you a decision (but maybe this is an unjust result) though the dissent flags that the government here clearly stated its intentions and in the process will cause unnecessary delay and cost. OTOH, it seems fairly clear that the Trump actions are not final, plus just what they entail is in doubt.

(Some were annoyed that the Supreme Court did not sign the opinion dropped here, but as things go, this is a more appropriate usage of per curiam. That is traditionally used to drop uncontroversial brief opinions that do not substantively address the merits of a claim. [Other special cases arise, such as the author of the opinion leaving the Court.] But, here, there was a strong dissent. So, as a matter of good policy, it probably would be better for it to be signed. Cf. the Texas per curiam which was a dismissive rejection that only had a brief "statement" of two justices adding something to it. This "back of the hand" from the Court very well might have been too brief, but it is the sort of thing that makes sense for the Court as an intitution, so to speak, to "say.")

The liberals via Breyer dissented, going to the merits in an opinion about three times as long, spelling out why Trump's position is stupid. At first blush, interesting Breyer would not accept a punt, especially with the Biden Administration coming in. But, he did partially dissent in a previous census case, and veteran Supreme Court journalist Lyle Denninson entitled his summary "Trump gets big — temporary — win on census." And, the merits after all are pretty obvious, including both on partisan and racist (a theme in the earlier opinion too) grounds. As Breyer noted: “History shows that, all things considered, that approach has served us well. Departing from the text is an open invitation to use discretion to increase an electoral advantage.”

But, we had even more bonus content. Supreme Court reporters on Twitter referenced a new policy of some sort of a bonus order day even without a conference intervening, to fill in the argument slots (good many) still open. If this is a thing, not that they would explain it, or not, they granted a few cases of some note either way. SCOTUSBlog summarized:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday morning added three new cases to its merits docket, agreeing to hear arguments in a pair of consolidated cases in which the justices will decide whether colleges should be able to provide greater compensation to student-athletes, as well as an appeal from the credit-reporting giant TransUnion, which is challenging a class action lawsuit against it.

The student athlete matter touches upon the important issue of the amount of compensation allowed, something that gets some degree of attention. College sports, at least football and basketball in some schools, can be quite profitable. How much students should be compensated, besides something like tuition (not nothing), is debated. 

The other matter has potential, especially with a six person majority, to move the needle on class action law. An amusing thing for me there was the competing summaries of the nature of the harms. The credit reporting company spoke of "an inaccurate credit report hindered his effort to secure credit, caused him embarrassment in front of family, and led him to cancel a vacation." While the other side flagged people being accused of being terrorists or drug dealers. A bit different, huh?

We also had a few orders dealing with the new normal regarding applying the Cuomo religious liberty case to various pending litigation. The rule seems to be that some will be sent back without comment, but (as was flagged by Kagan for the liberals in one case, arguing the case was moot) maybe now and then there will be a split. Why this is not just all treated together as compared to drip drip via often opaque orders via the shadow docket is up to the reader to figure out

Another, this time even less religious institution focused (thus the dissents flagged possible "hybrid" rights or something), was turned down (again in an unsigned order) for time reasons with Alito/Gorsuch dissenting.  Gorsuch again laid it on thick about religious liberty allegedly (no) getting second class treatment. They want to pull back Oregon v. Smith, the religious liberty case setting down the generally applicable law rule. Might get their chance, but not quite yet.

Is this it for 2020? Again, might get some stray order, and these days more would not really surprise.

The Queen's Gambit

I don't like e-books, but by accident really obtained a copy of The Queen's Gambit (no wonder it was so cheap) that way.  Don't have a portable e-book device except for my smartphone, which is a bit too small to enjoy reading.  So, used my laptop, which limits reading time some.  It was okay though -- not too long so good to read in small chunks.

It's one of the new "in" series, but it is also based on a 1980s novel by a guy, who also wrote The Hustler and some other stuff. The book is about a girl orphan who becomes a chess wiz while dealing with alcohol and pill addiction among other things. Don't play chess, so all those details really go over my head, but overall I liked the book. It had the easy to read style that appeals to me though at times (like when she had to handle alcohol) could have used a bit more depth. Possible expansion for a series.

SCOTUS: As we wait for more Trump related stuff (including another census case), an order dropped rejecting an appeal involving prison conditions in an elderly unit down in Texas.  Sotomayor dissented (joined by Kagan alone -- notable since she often doesn't join these dissents, at least unless it is a joint liberal effort).  She flagged how the district court's findings should be accepted, there being a strong assumption there, but not doing so has repeatedly occurred in these "shadow docket" situations. 

The court of appeals noted a prison grievance procedure and other technical reasons that Sotomayor rejected.  As usual, I'm wary to try to second guess the technicals though usually relying on her is a safe bet. The original dissent had a few typo like problems so there is a corrected version now. 

Opening Schools in the Fall and Big V Constitutional Liberty Issues

I agree that the linked piece regarding the perils of returning to school [specifically college and so forth but the concerns are largely applicable to lower grades] in the fall and the conservative views on certain subjects helps provide common ground.  In the comments, it was noted that special concerns should be given to return of schoolchildren.  I agree since we are dealing not just with the needs of parents but children, who have more of a need for education at that age for different reasons.  Relatedly, though the complaints at times seem a bit exaggerated, there are grounds to worry about Zoom teaching:

For reasons I describe here, in-person teaching has important advantages over online instruction. Among other things, in-person teaching makes it easier for faculty to make eye contact and otherwise gauge the reactions of students, and to make sure that the latter are "getting" what the instructor is saying. Being in class also makes it easier for students to stay focused and effectively interact with each other.

A Trump supporter complained about "moral panic" and "overreaction" of what something (other than New York and maybe a few bad apples) was basically "a bad flu season." Mark Field in a later comment noted something like 12x (in May) normal net deaths is a tad worse than that.  Also, the person failed to (as is his wont) be evenhanded both selectively citing information and in apportioning blame. He alleges there is "Trump Law" that selectively targets Trump.  I think he practices the reverse.  Anyway, as I note there, such complaints are overblown and 100K (so far) etc. if anything warranted more action though the various things done including social distancing and isolation followed standard protocols.

Another person went back/forth with someone even less worthy of reply (though for years people have, with a mixture of vitriol and facts) regarding how government regulation here overlapped with traditional methods. The usual cases here involved regulating transit points, particularly quarantining or blocking entry totally of ships and people.  The broad sweep of such principles (see New York v. Miln) was limited somewhat in Edwards v. California, which barred blocking entry merely to keep out paupers.  Nonetheless, the basic principle appears to be good law.

There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution. But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.

Not that we have many recent precedents that appear on directly on point. If so, it is unclear why Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) is quoted so much.  That case involved a state compulsory vaccination ($5 fine, which was notable but not confiscatory at that point) that was used during a smallpox epidemic. And, there was a process set up to determine if the vaccination was necessary, which was met there. Finally, the opinion left open a special case where the vaccination would case special harm to the person in question.  The link shows that there was some allegation of particular harm, but apparently was not strong enough for this exception.  Likewise, the law was not applied in an "unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive manner."  Note two justices did dissent.

So, it was not a compulsory vaccination of a baby, let's say, as an absolute rule.  The opinion has various quotable language such as how the minority protected by a locality could not in such cases allege a right to be excepted from a general law passed in protection of the community.  In Prince v. Massachusetts, a 1940s case allowing applying child labor laws even if the behavior is religious in nature, the case was cited to show general applicable laws are valid in such a case.  The cases that grant exemptions to my knowledge was in applying statutory exemptions and maybe RFRA type laws. That question is still somewhat open. 

And, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the law still was cited in good law, but that the general state interest in protecting life was not strong enough to meet the test to justify a general abortion ban. This would be a useful citation against various attempts to severely limit abortion rights without good cause during the pandemic.  As noted here, in general, modern day views of liberty would in various cases be more stringent than in 1905.  It is unclear, putting aside ability to send children to school or something, if a compulsory vaccination program of adults would be allowable. Various cases against compulsory medical procedures can be cited. OTOH, one can be detained in a mental institution if one endangers others.

Though dealing with the breadth of action present today has no exact recent precedent, over the years there were general principles that could be applied.  A prime case here would be the well being of those in state run institutions, which includes certain due process protections for safe conduct.  Various cases, imperfectly applied in recent days, also protect voting rights and guide how the laws should be applied in this case.  Broad executive power should be carefully analyzed, but emergency situations repeatedly have been shown to justify it, especially if the legislature provides guidelines.  Religion is of special concern but general rules still apply.  Emergencies do not provide "anything goes," but that hasn't been the case now, even in places like New York City.

A value of our system of law is the ability to reason and apply, a form of common law within constitutional and statutory guidelines.  A final word can be said about an interesting precedent, noting that new times bring new practices, so I'm not saying it just means we can apply what they did. But, it still is helpful and informative. I speak of the 1793 yellow fever epidemic, yellow fever being what led to a few cases of the Supreme Court (and lower court judges in some cases) closing shop temporarily. Over the years, plague, yellow fever and related instances led to broad social and legal implications that do provide some help to our current affair.

Various things stand out in the discussion, putting aside disputes (at times having a partisan tinge) over proper medical techniques. The government had the power to close ports, block scheduled coach schedules, require private religious burials (and hold church bells) and had special cleaning regimes put in place.  Quarantines were enforced including limiting the movement of refugees.  And, in general, limits on normal business were allowed.  This is a time with less population and government in general. Overall, though it's a fool's game to rely on this in many cases, a conservative legal mind could find the current methods "originalist."

A basic thing in my own comments in the opening link is care. It is unclear what will happen and given the scope of the harm to life and well being, we should be careful.  This can be difficult -- it seems that the New York City schools should have been closed sooner, but that had a range of difficulties that led me to be wary about it early March.  And, there is a national need here, as noted by one who cited how the mismanaged travel ban probably worsened the situation.  It's May, so it's unclear to me what exactly should be done regarding colleges in September. The article is helpful as we figure how to handle this, any solution a balance of costs/benefits.

This is will also apply to sports -- Gov. Cuomo has reportedly welcomed the opening of training facilities and efforts are being made to do so also in Florida regarding the Mets.  This sign of  restarting of Spring Training suggests that it is more likely than before that there will be a baseball season of some sort perhaps starting in July.  More so a football season. I'm wary about the scope necessary to do this, including the more close nature of football (with more people close together on the field).

But, we shall see.

===

* I think this should be separated as a bit of a footnote. 

The Trump supporter I clashed with tends to latch on to certain things, one thing there being nursing homes.  It is hard to keep up with all these details, so it is best to try to keep on track with general principles. Generally, it is logical that many would die at nursing homes given that older people are especially at risk here and they would be a logical place where at risk people would be or would be place.  There still are about 70K who did not die there.

The implication was that somehow people were wrongly sent to nursing homes and this negligently infected people there. But, nursing homes would seem like a logical place to send people to be cared for though ideally we would have independent areas, perhaps, set up as have been to isolate people without the means to do so on their own .  The person in question argued in a previous comment that ventilators should be distributed based on means to pay, so he might not be a good advocate here. It seems on a basic level, see the numbers, more dust.

And, we have this:

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a memorandum on March 13 stating, in part, "Nursing homes should admit any individuals that they would normally admit to their facility, including individuals from hospitals where a case of COVID-19 was/is present."

I didn't look that up at time but thus what is the argument? Many people died at nursing homes?  What does this tell us?  The concern here was to avoid overwhelming hospitals with those who were not in immediate need of medical care.  Perhaps, this is also a sign of where truth arises from collision of error to the extent I looked it up after reading his bs.