World AIDS Day

World AIDS Day is a global movement to unite people in the fight against HIV and AIDS. Since 1988, communities have stood together on World AIDS Day to show strength and solidarity against HIV stigma and to remember lives lost.

The Trump Administration is not a big fan:

The State Department issued a terse statement last week saying, "an awareness day is not a strategy."

The result is that on December 1, the United States is not commemorating World AIDS Day. It's the first time the U.S. has not participated since the World Health Organization created this day in 1988 to remember the millions of people who have died of AIDS-related illnesses and recommit to fighting the epidemic that still claims the lives of more than half a million people each year.

The move is typical:

The decision not to mark World AIDS Day is in line with the administration's broader approach to WHO and the United Nations more broadly. Trump has been critical of multilateral organizations like the U.N. and of WHO's handling of COVID. One of his first moves, on inauguration day, was to start the process of removing the U.S. from the WHO. 

However, the Trump Administration has marked other days designated by the UN, such as World Autism Awareness Day. The White House issued a proclamation for that day.

It is not totally off limits:

Employees and grantees may still “tout the work” being done through various programs “to counter this dangerous disease and other infectious diseases around the world,” the email said. And they may attend events related to the commemoration.

But they should “refrain from publicly promoting World AIDS Day through any communication channels, including social media, media engagements, speeches or other public-facing messaging.”

Chris Geidner has more. 

A Most Peculiar Book

I have long been interested in the Bible. I have multiple (Christian) bibles, including the Good News (great basic drawings) from high school. An open-minded, questioning, and informed understanding of the complexities of the book* is best.

A Most Peculiar Book: The Inherent Strangeness of the Bible by Prof. Kristin Swenson is a helpful addition to this approach. She has another like it. 

Bart Ehrman, who provides a supportive blurb, has noted his books cover ground familiar to many clergy who learn the material in college and graduate school.

Often, to his annoyance, they don't share the complexities with their parishioners. I think long-term, it would be better if they did. Some believers might be upset. Others would find it rewarding. 

Neither a simplistic support nor rejection of the Bible is the ideal approach. A deep dive, at the very least, will bring up quite a lot of interesting and strange material. It is helpful to have some humility about what we can know about the material available. 

We are dealing with long-ago material in foreign languages where the very translation is sometimes in doubt. Often, some nuances require a close reading of the text, including the original language and context. 

Realistically, believers are going to miss some of this stuff, and the text will be channeled through modern eyes. This is not a new concept. 

For instance, Matthew used a Greek translation ("young woman" vs."virgin") and missed certain nuances. For instance, he had Jesus enter Jerusalem on two animals, which appears to be an overly literal understanding of a Jewish text that used a poetic doublet. Likewise, Chronicles reinterpreted certain events because Jewish doctrine changed. 

The material also welcomes multiple interpretations, often involving bare bones narratives where you can fill in your own details. More people should carefully read and discuss the material. 

This book is sometimes a bit rough regarding how things are explained. I would have expressed certain things somewhat differently. I don't claim some special skills here. A good, smooth account, not too detailed but detailed enough, is tough! 

But, overall, worthwhile. 

==

* As noted by Swenson, it is somewhat misleading to speak of "the book" when there are a variety of Jewish and Christian scriptures. For instance, Catholic Bibles have additional books, including the Maccabees. 

I will also again recommend the writings (RIP) of Rachel Held Evans, especially Inspired. She loved the Bible, like Swenson does, and carefully researched her material. She was also a strong feminist voice, which you will find is a far from unique quality here. 

SCOTUS Related News

Originalism 

This blog post on originalism is interesting even beyond the specific allegation. Originalism appeals to people for various reasons. Sometimes, outdated bad stuff helps conservatives. 

When they want to support things that actual original understanding might not support (e.g., campaign finance bans or regulatory takings), they find a way around it. It's a bit of Calvinball. 

For instance, Dred Scott v. Sandford had to play with history. The dissents show another path.

Brazil Recognizes Rule of Law 

Bolsonaro to Start Serving 27-Year Sentence Over Coup Plot

Trump v. U.S. and the end of the Georgia prosecutions are not the only way. Multiple former Brazilian leaders were prosecuted for crimes. 

I still don't understand, regarding the Georgia news, how some ethical issue involving a romantic relationship with the third choice for prosecutor was some sort of due process issue. Fani Willis at most should have gotten an ethical slap on the wrist. 

As with Trump v. U.S., there was no need for the state supreme court to take the case, delaying things until after the election, which sealed the deal. And that included many state defendants who still could have been prosecuted now. 

Limited Security Funding 

As judges face more threats, only the Supreme Court gets new security funds

The number of judicial threats has increased over the last ten years. Trump's vitriol does not help. It led to multiple threats and even some actual sanctions during his civil and criminal trials. For what good that did.

The failure to provide more security funds for lower court judges (tough on crime!) is suspicious.

According to several former judges, the money issue has also fueled perceptions that President Donald Trump’s administration and its allies in Congress have politicized judicial security. In hearings this year on the judiciary’s budget, some Republican lawmakers criticized judges who had ruled against Trump’s policies and pressed judiciary officials who testified on whether they would try to rein in what the lawmakers called a partisan judicial process.

Right-wing attacks are not the only cause of judicial threats. Vitriolic attacks from the top, however, matter. It worsens the situation. It leads to some more harassment. An article linked to the recent piece notes:

A simpler solution, several former judges said, would be for Trump administration officials to cool their rhetoric, which they believe fuels threats from extremists and fanatical supporters. While the White House has denounced violence against judges, President Donald Trump and some of his most powerful allies have continued to use inflammatory language to lambaste those who rule against administration policies.

In social media posts Wednesday and Thursday, top Trump adviser Stephen Miller called a federal trade court’s ruling against the president’s tariffs a “judicial coup” and reposted photos of the three-judge panel, saying, “we are living under a judicial tyranny.” 

[More here.]

More Trump News 

The Supreme Court *delays action* on Trump's request to fire Shia Perlmutter, the register of copyrights at the Library of Congress, pending the court's decision in two upcoming cases about the president's authority to fire federal officials. Thomas would let Trump fire Perlmutter now.

(Mark Joseph Stern on Bluesky regarding a Wednesday Order. No discussion from justices.) 

The second case is scheduled for January, so it will take some time. Meanwhile, the justices will be back on Monday with stuff scheduled until the 15th.

Trump's Thanksgiving Messages

Two National Guard members, who shouldn't have been in harm's way,* were shot in D.C. Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, 20, has died. Or, as the NYT dubiously phrased it, "succumbed to her wounds."  

(Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remained in critical condition on Thursday after undergoing surgery.)  

Of course, Trump and company exploited this. First, more troops will be sent, which is akin to filling a hole by digging deeper. Second, it was used for by now mundanely horrible attacks on ("Third World") immigrants. 

Trump's comments on Thanksgiving included calling Gov. Tim Walz (who has a disabled son) "seriously retarded.") and crude attacks on the cultural/religious garb of a member of Congress (no kewpie doll for correctly citing the person).

His attack on "anti-American" types is rather ironic. Trump's official Thanksgiving message had the not ideal mix of religious and partisan messaging. 

His secondary message is much worse, including the usual unhinged references to the "Autopen approval process." Where's the 25th Amendment when you need it? 

The suspect is "an Afghan man who once served in an anti-Taliban force supported by the C.I.A." (to quote a NYT article). See also this report on how veterans are disproportionately on death row. 

Trump blamed Biden for the suspect obtaining refugee status, though he came here this year during the Trump Administration. The fact that President Biden provided refuge for "anti-Taliban forces supported by the C.I.A.," generally speaking, is "duh" territory. 

(Surely, any refugee program should have some safeguards. But now that we have Trump in power, surely, that will be covered too, correct?)

Trump's conveniently on-brand anti-certain-immigrants response to a special type of refugee/immigrant is a problem even without all the other baggage involved in the message. The ability to obtain the support of other nations when we need it will meanwhile be made that much harder. 

Anyway, I look forward to his Christmas Message, which will surely make King Herod (whose physical and mental state near the end was iffy) proud.

(Portrayed by Antonio Banderas in Journey to Jerusalem, a musical version of the Nativity Story.)

Some will continue to say "I voted for this." Others who did will be concerned while their Republican representatives do little or nothing in response. 

I understand those who see a possible light at the end of the tunnel, including the 2026 elections. But, at risk of violating Godwin's Law (which is not violated when the reference is correctly applied), the Germans continued to cause damage until May 1945.

==

Note: Chris Geidner, the author of that discussion, resides in D.C. He did not use the term "jackbooted thugs," which some might recall from back in the day.

His concern about not needlessly placing civil or military personnel in harm's way, however, does have a broad application. The same applies to the use of force overall, which sometimes will result in needless tragedy. Conservatives and libertarians, somewhat selectively, are concerned with such things.  

Happy Thanksgiving

Friends had some very good Thanksgiving episodes, including one with Christiana Applegate. The friends were a family. The first season episode emphasized that -- they came together because they could not have dinner with their own families (Phoebe's grandmother celebrated another day).

Here is a history of Thanksgiving I wrote for another website. Harvest celebrations have ancient roots. The French and Spanish celebrated "thanksgiving" with Native Americans. Our modern Thanksgiving holiday was established in the 19th Century. 

Presidential Thanksgiving proclamations also began early. Like Trump's, they had a religious flavor, giving thanks to God. This led President Jefferson to reject the practice, particularly a congressional instruction to provide one. He thought that was a violation of the First and Tenth Amendments.

Presidential proclamations are also cited to justify other governmental endorsements of religion. Jefferson's principled stance is appropriate. At least, in today's world, any proclamation should be comprehensive. 

Justice Blackmun noted some Thanksgiving proclamations were blatantly sectarian. People can complain that some go too far regarding "Merry Christmas," which is a fake issue anyway. But recognizing the nation's diversity is appropriate. 

Personal statements by governmental officials are also not the same thing as showy endorsement. A large cross or Ten Commandments monument is not akin to some words nearly no one reads. 

Thanksgiving, as a basic concept, is fine. It has some baggage, including regarding Native Americans. Food can also be an issue, especially for vegans and vegetarians. There are plenty are options for an animal-friendly meal. Not all involve Tofurky.

Our troubling times also might lead people to be grumpy about giving thanks. For some people, holidays are especially stressful times. We can respect that. We should try to help those who need help. That includes those without much of a family.

At the end of the day, most of us have something to be thankful for. Giving thanks doesn't handwave all the problems. So, pessimists can be satisfied too.

Trump DOGE and Foreign Policy Follies

Paul Krugman's discussion on the privacy invasion involved with DOGE (remain that?) reminds me of a 1970s Supreme Court opinion that upheld a regulation of prescription drugs. 

The opinion has helpful dicta spelling out the contours of the right to privacy. It noted:

A final word about issues we have not decided. We are not unaware of the threat to privacy implicit in the accumulation of vast amounts of personal information in computerized data banks or other massive government files. [Footnote 34] 

The collection of taxes, the distribution of welfare and social security benefits, the supervision of public health, the direction of our Armed Forces, and the enforcement of the criminal laws all require the orderly preservation of great quantities of information, much of which is personal in character and potentially embarrassing or harmful if disclosed. 

The right to collect and use such data for public purposes is typically accompanied by a concomitant statutory or regulatory duty to avoid unwarranted disclosures. 

Recognizing that, in some circumstances, that duty arguably has its roots in the Constitution, nevertheless New York's statutory scheme, and its implementing administrative procedures, evidence a proper concern with, and protection of, the individual's interest in privacy. 

We therefore need not, and do not, decide any question which might be presented by the unwarranted disclosure.

[Paragraph breaks added.]

DOGE had other problems, including the horrible effects of the stripping of foreign aid, which led to a "legacy of death." More State Department news:

State Department Human Rights Reports Will Have Changed Focus

One article cited provides a taste:

The Trump administration is overhauling the State Department’s annual reports on global human rights, emphasizing entitlements “given to us by God, our creator” and issuing new guidance for U.S. diplomats to scrutinize the prevalence of abortion and gender-transition surgery among children.

We are told that the Trumpies provided an "unapologetically U.S.-centric and religiously tinged view of human rights." "U.S.-centric" here is akin to "value voters" in 2004 or often "Christian" today -- it means "a certain breed of conservative." 

For instance, the inability to obtain trans care and abortion services is not likely to get similar scrutiny. On some level, different administrations are likely to have different values here. Still, it's useful to not use supposedly neutral terms that are applied selectively. 

The general idea that this administration can be trusted with human rights has a feel of entrusting foxes with the rights of chickens. Happy Early Thanksgiving. 

SCOTUS Watch: Orders

Texas Restricting

I started this blog in the middle of the first Bush43 Administration. Various shenanigans going on now, including mid-decade redistricting to obtain partisan ends, went on back then, too. A feeling of deja vu.

A 2-1 Fifth Circuit opinion provided a surprising win for the Democrats when the mid-decade Texas redistricting (which led to a retaliatory California effort) was struck down as an illegitimate racial gerrymander. Trump Administration shenanigans were involved. Their incompetence strikes again. 

The Supreme Court earlier held that political gerrymanders are non-justiciable in federal court. The Rucho opinion ended a 4-4-1 stalemate where conservatives wanted to prohibit such appeals and liberals tried to get Kennedy to agree to join them the other way. Kennedy, while not giving a firm "no," never gave them that fifth vote. 

The Supreme Court left such appeals open in the 1980s. I don't know how much the federal courts actually restrained the process. 

I am not aware of any SCOTUS case that struck down a partisan gerrymander (racial gerrymanders were found). The blog discussions against Rucho tend to skip over that part. Not saying Rucho was meaningless. Curious how much it changed things.

There was a very unhinged (and somewhat counterproductive) dissent to the court of appeals opinion. Justice Alito on Friday granted Texas an "administrative stay" on Friday and sped up the briefing. A response is required by 5p.m. today. 

Never-ending drama.

Order List 

Today's Order List is the last thing scheduled until the beginning of December. It had some interesting bits.

As Chris Geidner noted on Bluesky:

The Supreme Court grants no new cases for merits review in today’s orders list, but it does summarily reverse two lower court rulings in criminal cases—one holding a constitutional error in a Mississippi trial, the other holding the Fourth Circuit improperly ordered a new trial in a Maryland case.

The Mississippi case struck down as unconstitutional a law providing a blanket ability to screen child witnesses. A split SCOTUS opinion earlier upheld the practice, but held it must be "case specific." The Court, in a five-page opinion, left open the possibility that the screen would be harmless error in this case.

The case first came last spring and was distributed to multiple conferences. This suggests some concern. I think the case should have been accepted for full review and oral argument.

The Court also (again) refused to take a case to reconsider the Feres doctrine regarding immunity regarding certain military claims. 

Gorsuch would have taken it. Thomas again wrote to explain why he thinks so, too. Sotomayor is sympathetic but argues that stare decisis warrants leaving it to Congress to fix. She makes a good case. 

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. The Chief Justice and Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Only Kagan and Jackson (and somewhat inconsistently Sotomayor) deign to explain why they recuse.

===

The justices will hold oral arguments in the first two weeks of December. 

Then, there is an Order List scheduled for 12/15. That is the last thing scheduled for 2025. 

Other stuff is likely to drop.

ETA: A reference in my daily SCOTUSblog email warrants an addendum.

plainly, courts “call balls and strikes”; they don’t get a turn at bat

The second criminal per curium given short shrift in my comments drops a "balls and strike" reference. 

The lower court explained how the Supreme Court allowed them to raise a problem with a trial that was not cited by the petitioners. So, it is unclear whether the justices were right to call them out here. 

But, overall, the justices don't just call balls and strikes. The Supreme Court repeatedly gets a turn at bat, including changing the questions raised by the lawyers for appeal. 

They also have a lot of power over the batters, including who will get a time at bat, when they will get a time at bat, and what they should do there.

The per curiam quotes an earlier opinion (by Kagan):

In line with our duty to call balls and strikes, we granted certiorari to resolve the split, 589 U. S. ___ (2019), and we now affirm.

Do umpires generally "call balls and strikes" by settling nationwide disagreements on strike calls via official statements of what the rules are?

Meanwhile, here's some more (from me) on judicial review, one of some new essays on that website. 

Jeffries Challenger Blocked

I understand why Mamdani pragmatically opposed a primary challenge to Jeffries. But it is still bothersome. And, a path to victory is not the only reason you do it. You also do it to help push candidates to your side and to promote your cause.

NY Giants Find a Way to Lose (Again)

 

Blow a 4Q lead (59 yd FG) late. Lose to Lions in OT. 

"Is C-Span Bad for Democracy?" No

His hot takes on another blog were a rare opportunity for two sides in the comments to agree that he was wrong. I know the drill about "someone is wrong on the Internet," but this sort of thing is referenced now and then. So, let's cover it. 

GM sometimes has some interesting comments. Other times, including supporting 14A, sec. 3 disqualification (that had NO realistic chance of going anywhere) over impeachment, he is off base. 

He is here regarding televising things. 

Does he think the Watergate hearings being televised was problematic, too? Television has long been denounced (back to the "wasteland" days). It is a mixed bag. 

Does television lead to "verbal slugfests" in committee hearings? Yes. There is a chicken/egg quality here. Person-based politics is generally the norm today for a variety of reasons. 

Most of them, however, get quite limited coverage. Some hearings are available at most online; the three C-SPAN channels only provide so much. 

The limits of the information collection value of hearings have often been cited. They are cited as "kabuki theater." There is some exaggeration to such complaints. Plus, the critics are rarely likely to watch many of these hearings. 

But television doesn't prevent alternatives, as seen by old-time television hearings back in the day, when the methods used were different than today. For instance, television doesn't prohibit the usage of counsel to be in charge of questioning (or use that much more). 

How much more "productive and informative" would daily White House briefings be if they were not televised? The usual suspects would still find ways to keep track, including quoting key bits. 

White House press briefings were established in the first place partially to game the system in support of the White House. It wasn't just for a neutral respect of information release. 

Meanwhile, the public would not have an easy way to access them. Either way, like the Internet, video is here. We need to use them in the best way possible. 

Put another way, has greater transparency improved Congress’s work? I don’t think so. Nobody thinks that Congress is better now than it was in, say, 1980. 

Congress not being better now can be explained in various ways. C-SPAN is fairly far down there as a reason. C-SPAN also isn't just about congressional coverage. It has various other benefits that could help balance the books, even if it is "bad for democracy" in some respects regarding televising governmental proceedings.

In that sense, I support the Supreme Court’s exclusion of cameras from argument. (Personally, I don’t like the live streaming of arguments, but it’s not terrible.)

Lots of courts, here and abroad, provide televised coverage. How television coverage there would change things for the worse is patently unclear. 

The "playing to the camera" stuff present in Congress also does not have a clear overlap in the courts. Some of that was already present anyhow.

(Supreme Court oral arguments used to be more of a public event, in the early 19th Century, than they are today.)

The streaming of oral arguments being bad warrants more detail. A "hot bench" was present for years, with Scalia basically being a pioneer. Livestreaming has not changed the equation much at all there. 

Meanwhile, it gives a chance for legal analysts to comment on the proceedings. This provides the public with more information. How is this bad? 

The lack of televised hearings denies the public (and legal minds in particular) a chance to see the Supreme Court at work. This helps to provide an artificial view of the Court. 

The press is now a gatekeeper, and it only provides a limited view of things. For instance, there was a non-argument public proceeding on Friday. 

What happened? Probably swearing in people. But where has the press noted this? Thus, the Court operates in the shadows. Does GM support that, too?

Fire burns. Sometimes, it can burn your fingers. The aim here should be to improve televised coverage, not provide quixotic appeals to less transparency. 

ETA: This follow-up is also unconvincing.

19th-century legislators gave speeches aimed at their constituents. The empty chamber concept is not novel.

Some justices will grandstand. Doesn't change that televised hearings inform the public. Some bitter will come with the sweet. What else is new?