Federal Employee Religious Speech Memo

Yesterday, the federal Office of Personnel Management issued a memo (full text) to heads of federal departments and agencies on Protecting Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace.

I saw this matter flagged earlier this week. It did not seem at first blush to be too problematic. The ability to express religious beliefs at the workplace is a given. This would include something like a sign on your desk or a religious portrait on your office wall. 

The memo also said one or more employees should be allowed to engage in individual or communal religious expressions and that employees can engage in conversations on religious topics “including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature.”

The thing that gave me pause was the specific emphasis on the ability to proselytize at the workplace. I figured that employees would have a right to talk about religious matters. 

There is that "harassing" limit. Still, emphasizing it seemed to me to be akin to the government encouraging it. And, enforcing the harassment rule can be difficult, especially if a person is hesitant to complain.  

The new policy notes:

“During a break, an employee may engage another in polite discussion of why his faith is correct and why the non-adherent should re-think his religious beliefs. However, if the nonadherent requests such attempts to stop, the employee should honor the request,” the memo added. “An employee may invite another to worship at her church despite being belonging to a different faith.”

I do not know how you necessarily prevent that sort of thing. Do you tell employees, who can talk about their beliefs about various matters (religious and non-religious), not to talk about religion? 

I still am wary about so much emphasis that proselytizing would seem to be normal at work. The workplace is not a great place for that sort of thing. 

Stephen Colbert covered this in his monologue (clearly finding the whole thing a problem) and flagged that promoting religion over history has caused difficulties. I appreciate him covering something that many people are not aware of. 

He also argued that the memo had a Christian bias, though it cited something that referenced a Jewish object (mezuzahs). As noted by The Hill, "The memo, first reported on by Fox News Digital, follows Trump’s executive order on anti-Christian bias, which aims to protect Christians from religious discrimination."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation strongly opposes the new policy. For instance, they flagged that there will be inherent pressure when a superior communicates with an underling, including (to cite an example provided by the government) inviting them to religious services. 

An explanatory appendix specifically cited as an example that a supervisor may post a handwritten note inviting each of his employees to attend an Easter service at his church. Purely voluntary!  

There is also this sort of thing:

Examples of how religious expression may be directed at members of the public include: “A park ranger leading a tour through a national park may join her tour group in prayer. A doctor at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital may pray over his patient for her recovery. A receptionist in a doctor’s office at a VA Medical Center may pray with a co-worker in the patients’ waiting area.”

The ranger example sounds like the "praying coach" case, where a public employee engaging in prayer with students was framed as a matter of private speech. The phrasing is opaque. It would be more blatant if the park ranger led the group in prayer. 

People do have the right to pray at work, including Muslims who have personal obligations to do so multiple times a day. The waiting area example, however, potentially interferes with unwilling listeners. Listeners who are unlikely to complain. 

A doctor praying over a patient seems acceptable, though some patients might not want to be prayed over. This emphasizes my concern that this policy encourages as much as it neutrally states what is allowed. Anyway, is there really much of a problem now if a doctor decides to pray for a patient, unless (maybe) they do so in an excessively showy way?  

FFRF worried that atheists would not be protected because a policy to protect "religion" and not all beliefs and communication might not cover atheism. We should be wary about certain beliefs being disrespected. 

Still, I think the law recognizes that atheism is protected as a matter of religious freedom. The freedom of religion includes arguments that religion itself is wrong. People who do not believe in any sort of god also belong to various religions, including Unitarian-Universalists. Some Jews practice Jewish rituals and follow kosher rules while being atheists. 

Atheism has in the past been generally protected under the "religion" rubric. Nontheistic ethical societies have been treated as religions for tax breaks and other purposes. If people could not talk about atheism, try to convert, welcome people to meetings, and distribute atheistic materials, it would be discriminatory. Be sure that some will make sure that it is known.

My immediate reaction was that this memo had a gratuitous character. It was a way for the Trump Administration to show they were religious (likely interpreted by many supporters as "Christian") friendly. I still think that in some ways.

The coverage, however, makes me concerned about certain aspects of the memorandum. It has an evangelical Christian bias, especially as it is likely to be applied by this Administration. 

Religion is a touchy subject. It should be carefully handled. Those currently in power are not the sort of people I trust with doing so wisely.  

SCOTUS Watch: First Bunch of June Opinions

The Supreme Court had around thirty opinions remaining this week (they were about halfway through with a month left, an unnecessary backloading). 

They handled six with limited dissent. As usual, should have livestreamed the (relatively boring this time) opinion announcements. 

Liberal Strategy?

The three liberals somewhat ironically had "conservativish" opinion results in cases involving discrimination, gun litigation, and religious exemptions. The results were not really surprising. The unanimity might have been somewhat.

Multiple liberals argued that the liberals were able to limit the damage. Also, the unanimity is far from "obvious," given that some courts had alternative viewpoints. It is also a matter of docket selection. 

Liz Sepper, an expert in establishment law, strongly disagreed that Sotomayor's opinion helped much. Sepper is very worried about its possible reach. She did think Jackson tried to cabin it. 

There is a continuing dispute about the value of liberals compromising. Just what are they getting in return? How that applies here is unclear. 

Overall, Roberts used his assignment power quite well here. We will see long-term if it has changed much. 

Mexican Gun Dispute

Michael Dorf was sympathetic about the lawsuit by Mexico involving illegal guns that arose from the United States. He is not a fan of the congressional statute that limits gun lawsuits. 

Nonetheless, as Kagan (and Jackson in a separate opinion) explain, with the law in place, their legal argument was a stretch. Jackson uses her concurrence to reaffirm her "we should follow legislative text and function" message. Thomas briefly concurs, too. 

Discrimination Lawsuits

Jackson, via a short opinion, dealt with a lower court that put a questionable limit on discrimination lawsuits. The court of appeals questioned a claim by a heterosexual woman that she was being targeted for her sexual orientation. 

The appellate court was not alone in applying its rule. A unanimous Supreme Court ruling doesn't mean it is correct. Still, bottom line, the opinion can be interpreted to have a general anti-discriminatory message. 

Thomas with Gorsuch aimed for a bigger game. He also challenged "atextual legal rules and frameworks," which is a tad hypocritical coming from him. Both regularly apply text with certain quite debatable background assumptions. 

Some people flagged the opinion cited Bostock ("sex" includes sex orientation regarding a federal statute). The conservatives didn't say anything in reply! I think they might have read too much into two mundane-looking citations. 

Religious Exemptions 

Sotomayor handled a dispute involving an exemption to unemployment taxes for a Catholic charity. She explained the classification was a violation of both aspects of religious liberty (for the liberals, the Establishment Clause is still a thing). 

Some worried about the possible reach of the principle. As noted above, some are quite upset at the opinion. Jackson's concurrence argued that a related congressional exemption was narrow in scope. 

[Typo Watch: There is already a correction. Also, there have been online sources cited in opinions this term. The page, however, is blank.]

Other Issues 

Alito dealt with a personal jurisdiction dispute. Thomas handled a case about amending a complaint (involving a lawsuit against Hamas). Jackson partially dissented on that one. Jackson continued to make her opinions known in various separate opinions.

And, as Kimberly Robinson (Bloomberg) noted on her Bluesky account, SCOTUS "rejected Labcorp’s bid to limit who can join a class action that accused it of discriminating against blind people with its self-service check-in kiosks." Kavanaugh dissented from the DIG (dismissed as improvidently granted). SCOTUS coverage foreshadowed that result. 

There will be more opinions next Thursday.

Orders

Peter Mosoko Ikome requested a stay. For some reason, there are no links to the briefing. It was ultimately held to be moot. The case somehow involves a longstanding immigration case. 

Steve Vladeck references some mistaken emails SCOTUS sent about the Order List on Friday. On Thursday, on the website calendar, it referenced the usual Monday scheduling at 9:30 A.M.

It has now decided to post the Order List today. Amy Howe says it was a software glitch. Shrugs. 

(Vladeck's Monday round-up explains that the Public Information Office supplied a statement about the glitch. They, again, didn't put it on their website. This just annoys me.)  

They granted a few cases. Barrett recused without saying why. Alito (with Thomas) dropped a statement saying they think a habeas case was wrongly decided, but since it has no real effect, they are okay with not granting cert. 

These Friday afternoon shenanigans are why these things should not be posted too early. 

Trump Enabling Watch 

In two separate emergency rulings, the conservatives lifted a block on Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) personnel accessing sensitive Social Security systems and wiped a ruling forcing DOGE to turn over discovery in a records lawsuit.

The two unsigned orders provide thin and thinner reasoning. The liberals would deny the applications. Jackson (with Sotomayor) explained why in one of the cases. More Friday afternoon follies. 

And, guess what? Kilmar Abrego García is coming back. They think they have found something to prove he is really a big, dangerous criminal.  

Try and try again, I guess. 

ETA: I find the low bar expressed here, by the person who put forth a strong 14A, sec. 3 argument that was actively ignored, appalling. How many constitutional wrongs have to take place to warrant concern in your Ivy Tower? All the others still not back need not. We can have a symbolic CYA or two, and it will be okay.

SCOTUS Watch

Extra: I enjoyed Charlie Brown's Christmas Miracle: The Inspiring, Untold Story of the Making of a Holiday Classic, which is chock-full of information. 

I rewatched the special a few weeks ago and enjoyed that too.

==

There were no oral arguments or scheduled opinion days, but it was still a pretty busy week. 

I addressed a pro forma rejection of final death penalty appeals separately. 

The week started with a ho-hum Order List, which gave me a chance on my substack to provide an Explainer. I wish SCOTUS provided an FAQ. 

After posting, I checked online, and what do you know. There was a per curiam opinion dropped. 

Alien Enemies Act 

The Supreme Court split 5-4 (also by sex), with strong dissents by Sotomayor and Jackson (alone). Barrett joined parts of Sotomayor's dissent. The case involves the Alien Enemies Act.  

There is good and bad news. The majority acknowledged that the government had to provide notice and a chance to be heard before seizing people and sending them off to foreign hellholes. 

So why the passionate dissents? Steve Vladeck and others explain that the limited habeas protections do not meet the moment. The opinion was a gratuitous limitation on addressing the threat. Since so many people will have to sue in the Fifth Circuit, there is also a greater likelihood of conservative results.  

Sotomayor also provided details of what is happening over the bare, unsigned majority opinion, which complained about the "rhetoric" of the dissents. Barrett did not join much of this aspect of the opinion. Kavanaugh dropped an "I'm so reasonable" concurrence, tossing in some mansplaining. 

Jackson strongly called out the majority for using the "shadow of the emergency docket" in a "fly-by-night approach" that is "dangerous." The stakes:

The President of the United States has invoked a centuries-old wartime statute to whisk people away to a notoriously brutal, foreign-run prison. For lovers of liberty, this should be quite concerning. 

Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Garcia fled El Salvador at age sixteen in 2011, illegally entering the country. While looking for work, he was arrested in 2019. A court protected him from being deported because of the risks. 

The Trump Administration illegally deported him and eventually admitted the error. They claimed, however, that they had no power to get him back. A federal judge told them to try. Roberts granted an administrative stay as time ticked by. 

A legalistic per curiam was handed down, providing a "he said/they said." Sotomayor, for the liberals, says more bluntly that there is no evidence he is guilty. They would not have intervened. 

Nonetheless, without dissent, it also noted that the district court's "order properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador."

As the Supreme Court correctly recognized, it is the exclusive prerogative of the President to conduct foreign affairs. By directly noting the deference owed to the Executive Branch, this ruling once again illustrates that activist judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of the President’s authority to conduct foreign policy.

[Justice Department Statement]

As Steve Vladeck notes, the presumption of regularity is problematic. The Justice Department replied, which doesn't bode too well, though hopefully he will come back. What about other people wrongly sent?

And, we simply cannot trust this Administration. After all, for telling the truth to the judge that a mistake was made, the acting deputy director of the department’s immigration litigation division was suspended.

For instance, the district judge called a hearing on Friday. The Administration tried to delay. No. The hearing takes place, and the judge asks where he is and if something is being done to get him back. The official word was "info not available." 

Bullshit. At some f-ing point, these people have to be held legally in contempt. Judges being mad is not satisfying when people are rotting in foreign jails. 

More Trump Rulings 

Another per curiam paused a ruling that stopped firing some government workers. A parallel case is still active. The short opinion noted that the people did not have standing. Sotomayor dissented without comment. Jackson said there was no reason to intervene now. Kagan went along without comment. 

Chief Justice Roberts also supplied an "administrative stay" (a limited pause) blocking illegal firings of members of the Merit Systems Protection Board and National Labor Relations Board. Trump is trying to expand previous Roberts Court rulings.

The new solicitor general claims the lower courts are causing "chaos." This is gaslighting. Trump is doing so by going against long precedent to see how far he can go. And, he might win on this one. 

No wonder a long-term member of the Solicitor General's office (he mentored Alito and Kagan) is retiring. Many others are getting the hell out too. 

And More 

Mark Joseph Stern on Bluesky:

Kavanaugh [issued| an administrative stay freezing a 6th Circuit order directing Ohio to approve, for the ballot, an initiative that would end qualified immunity under state law. Officials blocked the initiative on highly questionable grounds that, per the 6th Circuit, violate free speech.

A new director of the Federal Judicial Center was announced. Does Thomas know about this?

"Center education programs include orientation and continuing education for judges on subjects including law and procedure, case management, and ethics."  

Coming Up

There was no scheduled Friday conference. So, no Monday Order List. They are keeping busy, though. 

They return next Thursday for a non-public argument session. That usually means swearing in lawyers, though maybe they will decide to drop opinions. 

News Round-Up

Checking the news, I noticed multiple interesting stories, including ongoing dramas.

Many headlines, as Greg Olear notes, would read as well or better if we replace "Trump" with "Kremlin." 

"Fraud" 

The ongoing Elon/DOGE drama includes Trump first saying in the joint speech that Musk was the head of DOGE and then telling the Cabinet they have the final decision when the deputy president "recommends" things. Wink wink. Nod nod.

A common approach is to accuse agencies and programs of "fraud." Musk knows fraud. He settled an SEC allegation of fraud in 2018 and stepped down as Tesla's board chairman. His claims of fraud? Iffy.

The linked article shows how "fraud" is often based on either confused information or claims of "waste," which is again repeatedly confused with opposition to the merits of the agencies/programs. 

Also, the true fraud is not their main concern:

There is indeed fraudulent spending across the government — perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars per year, according to analysis by the Government Accountability Office. Inspectors general and the Justice Department have investigated fraud rings seeking to bilk health programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, and contractors who bribed officials to win government business.

Finally, bottom line, fraud is not a big part (one expert cites less than 10%) of the problem. There will be some fraud and abuse. It's the cost of doing business on a basic level. Going after it too often harms good people and programs. See, e.g., "voting fraud."  

Results of Disorder

The helter-skelter nature of Trump's actions, including apparent day or so long tariffs, has resulted in something of a mess. For instance, one article shows how federal workers fired are in a gray zone. Are they "truly" fired? Were they fired for cause? Could they get new jobs?  We are talking thousands of people.  

Trump Goes After the Lawyers

Steve Vladeck has a good Substack about Trump's attack on law firms. Trump has so far gone after two firms in executive orders and is aiming for more. 

The concerns are not only that some members (including those no longer there) worked with Trump's political opponents. It is the new stand: attack on DEI. What is involved here? 

The executive order demands that the federal government suspend the security clearances of at least some people working at Perkins Coie, according to a fact sheet distributed by the Trump administration. The firm represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential race.

The order also banned federal agencies from hiring Perkins Coie employees unless they receive special permission to do so, and declared that the government would not pay for contractors represented by the law firm.

They are also going after educational institutions that have diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, which include a range of benign things. Orwellian. 

The whole thing has multiple First Amendment problems, including going after free speech, education, certain organizations (freedom of association), and lawyers who help people oppose the government. It also hurts those who use firms to obtain other civil and constitutional rights. 

Finally, to toss it in, going after DEIA (“a” for accessibility) generally harms valid efforts (however creaky they might be in certain instances) to promote equality and access to many different groups. 

Eric Adams Goes To Washington

Huh. Looks like when Eric Adams went to a House hearing about sanctuary cities, the Republicans mostly went easy on him. I wonder why. Trump puppet?

Meanwhile, with Eric Adams's re-election looking dim, new candidates in an already (too) crowded (we saw this game in 2021) race are arising. Mind you, there were already some promising options, if no one (here's the rub) that was a true front runner. 

First, we have the specter of Andrew Cuomo. Then, the city council speaker, a black woman confusingly also named Adams, has entered the race. She might arise as the favored anti-Cuomo option.  

The primary is in June. 

Some Books

I enjoyed Cecile Richards's autobiography, reading the young adult's version. Making Trouble was recently reviewed. A useful device would be to compare the original and young adult versions and determine how much is lost in the translation. I see it as a sort of abridged version.

The Night of Baba Yaga (a European fable character) by Akiri Otani is an LGBTQ novel of sorts. A young woman becomes a driver/bodyguard to the daughter of a mobster. Meanwhile, we are given what seems like some details of the daughter's fugitive mother and her lover. Nonetheless, I think if you read closely, you might suspect something is fishy.

The driver/bodyguard is chosen for her fighting skills (and gender). The book has some violent scenes. The book then takes a gender-bending turn, especially as the last part of this small novel skips along from c. 1980 to the current day (around 2020). I found the ending dubious. Overall, however, it was a worthwhile read with some alt-gender content.

The Death of Socrates by Ellen R. Wilson discusses the title subject as well as how it was understood from the time of Ancient Greece until the present (around 2010). It's part of a collection of shortish (not too much over 200 pages with pictures) historical books covering various topics.

I found it an approachable read for someone not too philosophically or historically inclined. She does not address only graduate school people here. The book started to get tedious around the Middle Ages though some of the more modern stuff was okay. The strongest part was the time of the ancients, including the Greeks and Romans. 

The chapter concerning Jesus and Christianity (Socrates and Jesus overlap in various ways though many thought Socrates didn't suffer enough) started to fall into a more academic groove and the book was more of a trudge. The earlier chapters was much easier to read. Still, overall, worthwhile.

I watched some of the film Cluny Brown, one of three adult films (two children's Rescuers films were also made) from books by Margery Sharp. The book version has the same basic characters and storyline but it changes some things around. For instance, Cluny is not so into plumbing and does not meet the professor in the opening scene. 

The professor is also not quite as approachably quirky early on. The two wind up together in the book too (if not quite in the same way) but it seems much more out of the blue this way. In the film, the two had more of a connection early on. The film in some ways is an improvement. The other characters are basically the same in the book and film versions. 

I found the book somewhat hardgoing at times. I read the whole thing and it had its charms. Still, at some point, it felt that nothing much was going on, and the book would have been better if it was around 30-50 pages shorter. The film seems crisper in that sense. 

I will check out her book The Nutmeg Tree next. 

Make Trouble: Standing Up, Speaking Out, and Finding Courage to Lead

Cecile Richards died on Inauguration Day. 

In November, she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. She had been an activist (at least) since junior high when she told her public school teacher that she didn't want to say a prayer at the start of class. She made trouble. 

Richards was a labor activist (her husband continued to be), political campaigner, worked in Nancy Pelosi's office and was the president of Planned Parenthood. Her daughters followed in her footsteps (her son became a chemist though also has an activist side), one being Kamala Harris' campaign communications director (2020). 

I noted in my obituary entry about reading and listening in to some Cecile Richards material. Her autobiography (read the young adult version, which is available for various books) is also a good thing to check out.

The book contains some activist strategies. A chapter on her mom's run for governor offers some lessons. First, you can't win unless you compete. 

Second, politics is ideally a "contest of wills between folks who are satisfied with how things are and those who are passionate about what could be better."  You also have to expect some defeats. Richards was a one-term governor. George W. Bush won that time.  

About starting organizations. First, be practical, and set achievable goals. Second, you have to be willing to ask and obtain financial support. 

Third, when you start your own organization, you own the successes and failures. Fourth, master the organization rules of the road, including using a small room (so it looks crowded!), let everyone speak, do the basics including having a role for everyone and a next step, and overall have fun!

The final chapter was a lesson for campaigns and life. Family life is a team support. Pick your battles. Get comfortable making others uncomfortable. Use your talents to make trouble your own way. Life, like politics, is ideally not a spectator sport.  

We need some of her energy in these times. We need organizers. Why didn't we have pussy-themed mass protests this time around? The need for fighting is ever more important. Since she wrote this book, people lost the constitutional right to choose. Or, as we should think of it, it is being denied. Jim Crow America denied rights that people had.*  

The book was written in 2018, ending with the beginning of the first Trump Administration. We are at this again. As she noted in the chapter about fighting to defend Planned Parenthood in those days:

The fights we're facing -- for affordable health care, equal rights, bodily freedom, and more -- are never fully won. But the lasting legacy of this moment will be the generations of women it has inspired and energized.

Her husband (Kirk) and children (Daniel, Hannah, Lily) surely are still out there fighting in their particular ways. As Lincoln told us at Gettysburg, it is us the living who must honor those who gave their all. 

Paul Krugman offers some good advice:

I’m going ... offer three words of advice to Democratic politicians and MAGA opponents in general: oppose, oppose, oppose. And make noise. A lot of noise. Don’t make conciliatory gestures in the belief that Trump has a mandate to do what he’s doing; don’t stay quiet on the outrages being committed every day while waiting for grocery prices to rise. I can’t promise that taking a tough line will succeed, but going easy on Trump is guaranteed to fail.

Unanimous vote for Marco Rubio. No. Trump has no business being outside of a prison cell. Every day he is in power is a travesty. We cannot normalize things like this in a debating society. A strong Trump critic talked about the right of a president to pick their team.

No. We should not legitimize him. I understand some Democrats will pick their battles. But, there are degrees even there. Anyways, darn Cecile Richards looked tall. And, that haircut looks darn practical.

Rest in peace. The rest of us must fight.  

==

* Some people are cynical/realists about rights. They talk about "nonsense on stilts" when people talk about natural rights or rights that are not enforced. 

I am not naive about reality. Nonetheless, our nation was founded on a sensible principle that some things are "right" even if they are not enforced. Rape is not "right" just because a local thug in power does it.

The Trump Administration is robbing trans people of their rights in the most disgusting way possible. They are calling people in the military who are trans immoral liars. They are wrong. Trans people have rights. We need to ensure they are protected. 

Liberal Blog Upset Readers Tired of Their Tiresome Biden Coverage

Lawyers, Drugs, & Money is a blog I have read and written comments for since the Obama Administration. It leans liberal. 

Erik Loomis, a historian, has regular posts about labor history and graves he visited with mini-biographies. He also talks about other things, at times talking a bit like an asshole. He had a recent blog about Japanese convenience stores where his old man shaking his fist at cloud came out.

Scott talks about law and politics. Robert Farley, an original, speaks about foreign policy from time to time. The one regular woman contributor is Cheryl Roper. She is the only one (except for someone who rarely posts) not joining in with the "we are doomed, Biden must go" drumbeat.

There is also Paul Campos. He's a law professor but he usually doesn't talk about law, except to make some extreme knee-jerk comments (like comparing Lawrence v. Texas with Bush v. Gore as both being all about values, nothing about law). He replaced an even-headed woman who talked foreign policy. So, we now get "Sotomayor must go" stuff. 

Elizabeth Nelson (a musician) sometimes talks about music. 

The main guys went into as I said doom mood since the debate. Over and over again. At times, one or more tossed potshots at President Biden's physical and mental well-being. At least one spread unfounded rumors. People who pushed back were told they were naive fools.

Erik Loomis already had a "what?" post. Loomis sometimes "bluntly tells the truth" in comments by grumpily calling out people as fools and such. Team members preaching about tone is a bit much. 

Now, we get another from Farley. It seems the critics are the problem. We don't like hard truths. We are being too mean. And more tiresome stuff. It has a feel of someone aggrieved like a certain law professor who was upset when protestors strongly opposed him on Gaza. Me? I'm the good guy!

You covered the ground. You talked about it. It has been weeks now. Let it go. It's your blog. This is my space. I try not to be stupid about things even if I have every right to be so. And, almost literally no one reads me. You actually have a broad following, shown by the replies to the posts alone. 

This year didn't start off that great in my view and darn if it is not going that well mid-way in. When will the Mets go into a slump?

Teamster President Speaks

Meanwhile, we have the Republican Convention, and James David Vance as the vice presidential candidate. A young mini-Trump with a beard. 

The Teamsters president spoke and is scheduled for the Democrats too. Some LGM commenter was glad, noting it was just union red meat, and nothing about Republicans. Not quite. As I replied there ...

"President Trump had the backbone ... no one else would" invite him. He's "one tough SOB." A bit of pandering. To be expected. You speak to your audience at least a little bit.

He talked about Republicans, including how their union endorsed Republicans in the past, and how some Republicans worked with them. He praised Josh Hawley, for instance, repeatedly.

He also praised JD Vance, Roger Marshall (one of the few senators who voted to challenge the electors in 2021), and other Republicans. These Republicans "truly care about working people."

I understand him speaking to both sides. That is what lobbyists should do -- try to get support from both parties. A lot of what he says is great. OTOH, Republicans will assure us that they overall support that sort of thing too.

Him speaking at the convention is a good talking point to the workers who support Trump/Vance. The backers know what the guy stands for. 

Vance speaks -- like him -- against "elites," which the people there code as Biden and the Deep State.

They want "change." So, a Trump presidency, the true populist! The deep pockets will understand. They know you have to give something to the little people.

== 

Some of the delegates might have been a bit surprised at the message but they seemed to be fine with it overall. Again, it's fine he was there. His job really.

Update: I thought he went too far supporting Hawley (he was name-checked multiple times) and now he went for him again, even when his position has offensive stuff. The union seems to be at best dubious about his strategy. Ultimately, it's their call.

SCOTUS Watch: Order List

The Supreme Court, as expected, got around to labeling Thursday and Friday as opinion days. There might be over twenty opinions left. I think there will be three opinion days next week. 

The Order List was six pages and bland. Jackson said why she recused, Barrett did not. The case Jackson recused in (previous service) was an Indian Gaming Regulatory Act dispute. Kavanaugh for some unstated reason noted he would have taken the case for review.

The Supreme Court also took four cases for review, their schedule for next term is still somewhat thin. Matching the cases with SCOTUSBlog summaries, the controversies involve a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption, mail or wire fraud, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and False Claims. Nothing hot button.

The bump stock opinion had a typo. It was corrected. 

SCOTUS Watch: Ethics and Opinions (Part I)

Alito and Ethics Reform

The Supreme Court Historical Society has already received some controversy. It provides ideological groups to obtain access. It appeals to groups who bring cases to the Supreme Court for funding. Nonetheless, still seemed a low-key place.

Progressive activist, Lauren Windsor, paid the fee and did her secret taping / I'm one of you routines to get audio from conservatives. Get the smelling salts. 

Roberts sounded reasonable, Alito said some iffy things, and his wife sounded unhinged. See here. 

People want Sotomayor and Kagan to retire.  It's rather late in an election year even if we want them to do so. If we want messaging appeals, let's ask Roberts to retire for the good of the Court. He won't. Neither will they.  

Maybe, I would be more stressed out if Roberts et. al. were willing to talk with Congress.  House Democrats had their own unofficial hearing. The Senate Democrats put a binding ethics bill to a vote, which required unanimous consent. Of course, Republicans blocked it. Sen. Durbin continued to sound so concerned. Where are the damn hearings? 

Meanwhile ... a good article on the Supreme Court advancing transparency by permanently flagging edits to opinions. 

Abortion Pills

Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff's desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue. Nor do the plaintiffs' other standing theories suffice.

The Supreme Court (as expected) via Kavanaugh disposed of the mifepristone challenge on standing grounds. The case was extremely weak. So weak that the Fifth Circuit (reversed again) toned down the extreme district court opinion. 

Abortion pills are in danger in the states. The challenge here is trying to block them across the board. Or, at least, to make their use harder. Anti-abortion health personnel argued that the possibility of harm from the drugs (which rarely cause problems) would give them standing since they might be forced to provide medical treatment (which is doubtful too). And other weak tea.

The argument was so bad that (this is somewhat surprising) Alito and Thomas did not address the merits. Thomas used his separate concurrence to attack standing rules generally. The result is a game of "keep away" that Republicans should appreciate, for the cynics around here. 

A possible problem here is that the opinion assumes a strong conscience protection, which can allow doctors to refuse to provide care even if the result is a threat to a person's health. A lesson that even "easy" and "okay" opinions, especially with this Supreme Court, can be problematic. 

Also, when you dispose of a case on standing grounds, it might come up another way with different plaintiffs. So, the whole thing is really a big "to be continued." 

Labor Dispute 

Justice Thomas had two cases. Eight justices went along with one with Justice Jackson having a strong partial dissent:

The National Labor Relations Board can bring in-house enforcement proceedings against employers and labor unions for engaging in unfair labor practices. Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act authorizes the Board to seek a preliminary injunction from a federal district court while these administrative enforcement proceedings take place. The question in this case is whether the traditional four-factor test for a preliminary injunction articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7 (2008), governs the Board’s requests under §10(j). We conclude that it does, and therefore vacate and remand. 

Thomas handles this in ten pages. Jackson disagrees with the reasoning in part. However, her opinion is sixteen pages more because she is concerned with a wider principle:

I am loath to bless this aggrandizement of judicial power where Congress has so plainly limited the discretion of the courts, and where it so clearly intends for the expert agency it has created to make the primary determinations about both merits and process. 

Jackson continues to speak her mind. She has promoted the importance of congressional intent and judicial restraint. 

"Trump Too Small" Trademark

Someone wanted to trademark the slogan "Trump Too Small," which arose from a Marco Rubio/Trump 2016 campaign bit. Trademark law blocked such usage of the name of a living person without their consent. UPHELD.

The policy was not viewpoint-based, which is a basic "no no" in First Amendment jurisprudence. It is content-based, which can be. Thomas for a unanimous court agreed the policy was constitutional. The justices split multiple ways on why.

The main problem is that Thomas (with Alito and Gorsuch going along the whole way) relied on "history and tradition." Kavanaugh (with Roberts) did not want to only rely on that. 

Barrett was wary of the whole enterprise, not being impressed by the way Thomas collected the historical evidence. Sotomayor (for the liberals) -- taking a potshot at Thomas' Second Amendment case -- rejected the enterprise:

Yet this back-and-forth highlights the indeterminacy of the Court’s history-and-tradition inquiry, which one might aptly describe as the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over everyone’s heads to find your friends. 

It bothers me when a majority opinion needlessly causes confusion. Thomas could have obtained a majority of five by toning down his history and tradition bit (Kavanaugh and Roberts didn't join a section mostly involved in sniping at the other opinions). These plurality opinions are ideological bait.

The bottom line here is that the opinions provided a chance for the justices to debate the "history and tradition" test that has been used in multiple opinions. 

Thomas and Gorsuch care about that. Alito will selectively use it and do so passionately when it suits. Roberts and Kavanaugh will pragmatically go along. Barrett is wary and willing to say so (Prof. Barrett). The liberals do not like it. 

==

So, low-temperature day, but let's not be too "happy-clappy" about the first case. The last case suggests dangers ahead. The middle one shows Jackson's plans to make herself heard, even if she is going alone. You go girl. More to come. 

Some Early May Holidays

The beginning of May is just filled with holidays.

Just what is May 1st? Is it a spring festival (May Day) or in honor of labor (one Bluesky reminds us "labor" only involves workers we like, not people like people or those strike breaker non-armed security guards sitting at your local library). Let me add here that when cynical Erik Loomis thinks there has been good labor news, with the help of President Biden, it's notable. 

Or, perhaps it is Loyalty Day? Apparently, this honoring of U.S. values was started in the days of Eisenhower to combat the workers' celebration. Talk about un-American activities!  

The Congress, by Public Law 100-307, as amended, has called on the President to issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a “National Day of Prayer.”

Ike also made sure to talk about "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, since god is clearly on the side of America, unlike those godless commies. Congress made sure to establish religion in other ways, including having presidents announce a national day of prayer (for some reason, addressed to "citizens"). We spoke about this before, including citing Baptists for religious liberty (they are originalists) against the practice. 

[ETA: A closer reading shows that President Biden calls citizens to give thanks while "all people of faith" are called to ask God for guidance. It is more inclusive than I first thought but still curiously split into factions.]  

The most well-known early May holiday is in the spirit of the Fourth of July in that it involves rebelling against Europeans and not having much creativity name-wise. I speak of Cinco de Mayo, which these days seems mostly to be a day for Mexicans to party or people to celebrate in a Mexican fashion. Like our 4th of July, it honored independence before it actually truly occurred.  The French lost a battle but stuck around for a few more years.  

Don't forget ... Mother's Day is the third Sunday of the month. The month then ends with Memorial Day, which honors the semi-official start of summer. Well, also, people who have died in wars. 

May is also Mental Health Awareness Month. Let's read about mental health symbols!

SCOTUS Watch: Opinions and Stuff

Justice Thomas, without explanation, missed Monday's oral arguments. He was back on Tuesday, which involved not only him announcing an opinion, but also a 1/6 related case. A case, given his wife's involvement, he probably should have recused from. A past case of unexplained absence is unclear. He will take part in the cases he missed.

Trans Case

I will allow Chris Geidner (various bits put together) to explain:

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court — over the dissent of the liberal justices — allowed Idaho to enforce its ban on gender-affirming care for minors for the first time against anyone other than the two transgender minors challenging the law. 

Under the court’s order, the law remains blocked as to those two minors. This was a ruling about the scope of the relief issued by the district court in the Idaho case — a statewide injunction of the entire law — in light of the plaintiffs in the case

Also Amy Howe: 

But here, the challengers emphasized, the district court concluded that the Idaho law should be temporarily blocked in its entirety to make sure that the challengers can continue to receive care. Otherwise, they said, the two teenagers – who are proceeding anonymously – will have to reveal their identities whenever they seek care.

Gorsuch (with Thomas and Alito) concurred with a special focus on criticism of universal injunctions. The alleged "spot-on" nature of this concern generally is less clear here. This is not a typical national injunction that causes concerns. As Jackson (with Sotomayor) notes in dissent, it's a fact-based dispute if this specific one is warranted. 

Kagan would have denied the stay of the district court ruling but did not otherwise have anything to stay. Roberts was totally silent so technically could have not been involved at all. Kavanaugh with Barrett concurred and discussed what should be weighed in cases when the Court is asked to step in. He also referenced the concern about universal injunctions. But, had more on the merits. 

I find the choice of means to address this issue, in a fractured way (3-2 or 3-2-1), in a trans case with these facts dubious. Other children in need of protection can potentially bring a case separately. The case has limited procedural effect. CG was generally moderate in his tone. Still, it rubbed me the wrong way.  More shadow/emergency docket monkey business.

Anyway, we continue to wait for a substantive decision from the Court on various pending major trans cases.  Nonetheless, the practical effect here will harm Idaho trans children in need of treatment. 

Opinions 

[Tuesday]

Jackson had an opinion upholding employment benefits for service members as applied to two provisions. Kavanaugh (with Barrett) concurred to flag his concern for a "veteran canon" which puts a thumb on the scales for veterans. Notes it has equal protection issues. Thomas (with Alito) dissented. 

Thomas had his first opinion of the term. It was another short opinion (a little over six pages with two photos) avoiding a broader result. "It would be imprudent to decide that question without satisfying ourselves of the premise that there is no cause of action."  The Takings Clause claim could be raised in the state court.  Another narrow ruling. 

[Wednesday] 

Kagan with a unanimous opinion (Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh wrote separate opinions concurring in judgment) held that an "employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII suit, she need not show that the injury." Involved a sex discrimination claim.*

Steve Vladeck flagged on Twitter that Kagan has yet to be in dissent this term in fully argued opinions. Alito has also not written an opinion of the Court. Both held today.

Sotomayor with a unanimous opinion (13 pages) concerning federal criminal procedure rules involving forfeiture procedures. The employment opinion was flagged as a good one. This one is not likely to get much attention.

We now have eighteen opinions. I gather this is not even a third of the total number. And, it is mid-April. 

Most of the cases -- the Trump insurrection case is a major exception -- have been limited. There are many hot-button cases this term. Maybe Alito will write for one. 

---

ETA: Professor Murray on Twitter flagged Kagan's opinion (noticeably rejected by three conservatives) as a way to avoid the use of racial discrimination claims as a means to attack diversity programs. 

Her "some" harm rule might help there because employment actions to further diversity would not truly be "harm" even if it meant a change of employee duties. 

We will see how the lower courts handle this. See also, this article on the matter. This shows the many complications of rulings, including specific aspects that might not cause difficulty at that time. Different facts can result in a more divisive ruling. The nuances of the ruling are the rub. 

Leftover In China

I first learned about "leftover women" from Leta Hong Fincher. She wrote a book (tenth-anniversary reprint out recently) about them. She also wrote Betraying Big Brother: The Feminist Reawakening In China. I also went to a panel that she moderated.

My "about the author" summary gives a taste of her background:

Leta Hong Fincher is a journalist (she won the Society of Professional Journalists Sigma Delta Chi award for her China reporting), writer, and Seminar Associate at the Weatherhead East Asian Institute at Columbia University.  

She is fluent in Mandarin.  Her parents were Chinese scholars, and she spent much of her childhood traveling to China.  

Fincher was the first American to receive a Ph.D. from Tsinghua University’s Department of Sociology in Beijing.  She also worked at Radio Free Asia, Asia Television (1997–1998), CNBC Asia (1998–1999), and Voice of America.

Dr. Fincher is an academic. Her writings also have a certain muckraking feel to them. For instance, she wrote about the "Feminist Five," five Chinese activists who were willing to be arrested to protect gender inequality. She also argues that the current leadership in China is anti-feminist, arguing it advances their authoritarian style of rule.  

Looking for something else, I found Leftover In China: The Women Shaping The World's Next Superpower by Roseann Lake. The book was published in 2018, a few years after Leftover Women. It covers some of the same ground though takes a more "Sex in the City" type approach. Mixed in with a lot of informative material (including a chapter covering other Asian nations), we get the dating life of four women in particular.

One review compares:

Lake’s anecdotal approach contrasts with the more political work of Leta Hong Fincher, who has argued that the rhetoric surrounding leftover women is the result of a deliberate government campaign. 

Roseann Lake (going by her photo) is a white journalist, who spent five years in China. She later shifted to Cuba. I think the book is well-written and provides a helpful analysis of the material. Also, the book covers different materials in certain respects than the other book. Multiple books that overlap are useful. Different perspectives help.  

I was surprised that Lake did not cite at all Fincher's work. It is not that she was not aware of it.  She engaged with her years before publication. And, Fincher had done a lot of research on the matter. Lake's book references the feminist five in passing.  That book came later.  

So Hong Fincher was surprised to find that a major new book, Leftover in China: The Women Shaping the World’s Next Superpower (W. W. Norton & Company), doesn’t acknowledge her at all in its extensive bibliography. And it’s more than a matter of ego: Hong Fincher says the book’s author, Roseann Lake, a journalist who now writes about Cuba for The Economist, has been following her work since 2011.

The bibliography is two pages long. There are no endnotes. So, I don't know about "extensive." Nonetheless, I can understand why she is open about being "very angry" that a book that perhaps would receive more attention than her academic work did not reference her work. Academic works are extremely important though get a lot less love.

Roseann Lake's response is not very convincing:

When Leta’s book was released, I decided not to read it because I was working on the manuscript for my own book, and I chose to stay focused on the stories of the women whose lives I feature in it.

This is a non-answer to the concern that her scholarship was not cited. Likewise, the book was not just about "the stories of the women." The book also provided an analysis of the "leftover women" (women not married) situation. She read other stuff to help understand the situation. It seems like she also read work by Leta Hong Fincher. It was wrong not to cite it. 

I cannot without more determine what was going through Roseann Lake's mind or how much it was "calculated erasure." 

I will state that it is important not only to take advantage of the best research. It is also important to give credit where credit is due. I know that my own research, not comparable to people who are professionals, takes time. I am annoyed at people who cannot deign to do a bit to find things out or respect my efforts.

I do recommend Leftover In China. 

Note: One critical review notes "It’s too at odds with her story, which has so firmly cast her subjects as victims and not agents." 

I don't agree. The women to me repeatedly seem to be in control of their lives. They are partially victims. China is still sexist in various respects. But, the book shows the system has positive aspects too. 

Lake, for instance, notes an (unintended) result of China's one-child policy is that daughters were given a lot more attention.

===

Tom Wilkinson has died. 

I have seen many films with this British actor. He has great range, able to play an elite noble judge in Belle (mixing truth with fiction regarding the interracial woman involved) and Americans like Ben Franklin (John Adams miniseries) and James Baker (in an HBO look at the 2000 recount).   

RIP.

SCOTUS Watch: Order Day (Last of Year)

Case Grant

A grant was dropped on Friday:

Issue: Whether the 60-day deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) for a federal employee to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional.

The issue sounds technical but was "relisted" which suggests some notable interest. Of course, we don't know why it was relisted for multiple conferences. The word "jurisdictional" means that the deadline would block a judge from taking a case after the deadline. It is fixed by law. 

Sometimes, for instance, judges have the discretion to do something. A judge might find that a normal deadline could be waived for equitable reasons. Nonetheless, though the details suggest the lack of a hearing is unfair, the argument is that the judges as a matter of law had no discretion. This might be bad in an individual case but the system as a whole is a good policy. At least, Congress has the power to think so.  

A separate due process argument is possible but is not at issue. 

Order List 

We also have the last scheduled Order List of 2023. 

The US Supreme Court tossed competing appellate rulings on an executive order President Joe Biden has since revoked that required all federal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Jackson added statements referencing her views on vacatur (see first opinion of the term).

The notable news in today's final scheduled order list is that three justices want to take a case concerning bans on conversion therapy. Kavanaugh simply said he wanted to take the case. Thomas had an extended dissent, including making it a grave free speech issue. Alito had a more limited dissent that addressed the particulars much less.  

[As usual, Chris Geidner helpfully discusses this case and notes that the claimed circuit split -- a basic reason why the Supreme Court grants cases for full argument -- is disputed]

Alito also added a dissent to a rejection of Robert Kennedy's motion to intervene in a case accusing the Biden administration of violating the First Amendment when communicating with social media companies about content moderation. 

Quoting Alito:

This case concerns what two lower courts found to be a “coordinated campaign” by high-level federal officials to suppress the expression of disfavored views on social media platforms that now serve as the primary source of news about important public issues for many Americans. us.

He already has expressed his view that this was some very concerning threat to free speech when it is much ado about nothing. He was joined there by Thomas and Gorsuch. He speaks alone here. 

==

Justice O'Connor 

Okay. So, this is the final scheduled scheduled order list of the term. There has been a policy of granting cert. (full argument) for other cases in a separate order some time mid-December. Next Monday, O'Connor will lie in repose (the public can give their respects) and a private funeral will occur on Tuesday. 

I expect further orders this year.  

First Monday In October (Not the Film)

After the NY Jets cruelly gave fans hope only to have their QB make a mistake and have KC not give the ball back again, icing the game, we have the beginning of the new Supreme Court term.

==

ETA: Regarding the last term, all of the opinions have been assigned a volume, with a preliminary version posted on the website. 

First is a long clean-up Order List. The biggest news might be that Clarence Thomas, for the first time in a 1/6 related case, recused himself. It involved pal John Eastman (also close to his wife, it seems) and maybe you would think that would factor in as does the fact Ginny Thomas also was questioned by the 1/6 Committee. But, Fix the Court notes that he didn't recuse in the past in cases involving the committee.

Thomas not explaining why he did not take part is not unique. Kagan in recent months a few times (two or three) noted basically the category of reasons she checked off when recusing. No other justice explained their decision. Alito (as a few did in recent decades) noted why he did not recuse. This is not a great policy.  

(The Supreme Court also didn't drop a press release or media advisory noting that they went back to live audio during oral arguments. It would be a simple act of clarity and openness to do so. It only noted it on the calendar, which is a more hidden location.)

Thomas did take part in the decision not to preliminary intervene in a 14A, sec. 3 case. Many think there is an appearance of impropriety to him taking part in any 2020 election dispute, especially involving the insurrection, after it came out that Ginni Thomas was a strong election denier. 

===

The first oral argument was a statutory case that came off as a somewhat absurd law office hypothetical. Barrett dropped the term "Calvinball." But, we should not forget that the case ultimately involves the reach of a criminal justice provision that is of some importance.   

===

Meanwhile: The soon-to-be new senator from California sounds like a promising choice, checking boxes like forty-something, black woman, labor advocate, women's candidate supporter (EMILY's List), lesbian, and more.  

Strict Scrutiny Podcast dropped the news that the mother involved in a tragic atypical case involving a truly late-term abortion was sentenced to two years in prison for her crimes. 

I think that is probably too much, but a summary about some woman who gave abortion pills to her teenage daughter and flagging it as the danger of post-Dobbs is rather misleading.  The facts here could be (and should be) deemed illegal under Roe v. Wade and is not a run-of-the-mill case. 

I agree with President Biden's statement on the budget. 

Baseball Update

The baseball season is about over. But, don't worry if you think you will have Mets withdrawal (a suspended game on Friday night -- though the Cubs keep on losing, so maybe not -- require a Monday cameo appearance). Or, baseball withdrawal after October baseball. The strike is over. So, there will be more television content.

I wanted to replace my Friday post since there have been new developments. The Marlins won, ending the Padres' very slim remaining hopes. The Mariners decided to find a way to beat Texas two times in a row. This gives them a fighting chance (still are likely to miss it by a game) for a playoff spot. Two more wins can even get them a division title and bye!

The Rays, Blue Jays, and Astros or Rangers are still the likely AL wild cards, but we will see. The Phils, Diamondbacks, and Marlins are also the likely NL wild cards. But, as with the final two AL slots, not quite. Reds and Cubs retain a bit of life at the moment, the Cubs requiring the most help. Including the Mets on Monday.

Saturday Night Update: The Mets swept a doubleheader, which appears to erase any shot at them getting a better pick by being among the bottom six in the baseball standings (Nats being a repeat player does not qualify). Daniel Murphy, who is retiring for real now [if not as a Met like Big Sexy], was on hand to throw out a first pitch. Good luck, Roger Ramjet. 

Teams, for people who care about such things, are playing for statistics like being at or over .500. More importantly, the Marlins won and the Reds lost, so the NL wild cards are in place. The question then becomes what seeding the Marlins and Diamondbacks have.  For now, this still can turn on that suspended Marlins/Mets game. The Cubs did win, after blowing a six-run lead, but needed the Marlins to lose out. 

Seattle can play spoiler: the NL West and a bye is still up for grabs. Just not for them.  They are done. Their loss helped the Blue Jays, who now are in. It first eliminated Seattle as the NL West leader. Then, the Astros won, eliminating them totally.  

The last day will determine seeding. A bye and playing the Twins over the Rays is not nothing. 

Sunday: The big news is that the new head of baseball operations decided that Buck should no longer be manager of the Mets. I think he was partially to blame for their failure to get to the promised land last year (if you praise a manager for the good stuff ...) but was not the reason this season. 

How about getting rid of the GM, who made some questionable moves that influenced their current situation (as well as last season, such as not getting a key piece to put them at the deadline over the hump like in 2015)? I'm okay with them moving on with new leadership. The players really like Buck. It would been fine to keep him too. But, not just him!

Anyway, Seattle won again -- they won 3/4 vs. Texas, but the Astros swept the Diamondbacks. In the end, Seattle being able to beat Texas (finally) merely helped the Astros win the division and first-round bye. Yippee. Marlins/Diamondbacks both lost so that last game wouldn't matter. So, the Mets will wound up completing 161 games. 

The Mets wound up 1.5 games ahead of the Angels so came in 7th in the race for the bottom six in MLB for a better draft pick. A tie would have gone to the Angels since the Mets did so well last year. Oh well. One more low pick would be nice but it's still a lot of guesswork and who knows what would have come out of it. Really comes out of the Angels doing so bad. They had the potential to do better than they did

BTW, I have for a while complained about Vogelbach still being around to take at-bats from others. I haven't actually seen him in the lineup for a while.  Small favors. D.J. Stewart, who for a while was hitting very well with DH vibes (and being able to play the field), has struggled. 

Newhart Shows and City Girl (Silent Film)

Catchy Comedy Channel (previously Decades) each weekend has a marathon (binge) of a single sitcom and at times a group (they had Blondie movies and episodes from one of the television offshoots). 

Over the weekend, it was Bob Newhart time, with the Bob Newhart Show, Newhart, and Bob. He had one more comedy with Judd Hirsch of Taxi fame but it did not have his name in it. So, guess that's why it was not included!  Newhart had sitcoms in three decades with a short-lived variety show in the 1960s too.  He popped up in guest star roles into the 21st Century and still comments a bit on Twitter today.  

I know two people who like his first show the best but Newhart is my show, especially once Stephanie and Michael (and of course LDD) are on.  (Kirk is an annoying character.)  I don't only say this because it is the one I watched when it was first aired.  The ensemble cast is very good, including his wife, who not only looks good in sweaters but often has a chance to be amusing too.  It also had an amusing sense of the absurd at times.  

His third short-lived show (two seasons) was amusing and had Lisa Kudrow in a small pre-Friends / Mad About You role (and not a blonde!).  A nebbish who works at the cartoonist's office also popped up in a guest star role in Friends when Joey did his robot t.v. show. 

TCM on Sundays (into Monday morning) often shows silent films. I recall watching one such film.  I basically watched the first half of City Girl and checked out a bit of the second half.  It's very good and quite watchable. Some old films seem slow-paced.  This one mostly seems normal speed.  

There is a lot of interesting backstory and details related to this film.  F. W. Murnau directed.  He is one of the elite directors of early cinema, including his vampire classic, Nosferatu, and Sunrise, which were among the films first honored at the Academy Awards.  Many of his films have been lost. 

A German filmmaker, Sunrise was one of his few Hollywood films along with City Girl.  He clashed with the new owners of the film studio involved, who had a different vision for the film (their version had sound and is now lost)  and left before the film was created.  He died shortly afterward in a car accident in his 40s.

City Girl's cast is also notable.  The father made lots of films before and after.  The male lead, Charles Farrell, later was in a 1950s sitcom.  The small role of the young sister was played by an actress who later took the name of a later role, Anne Shirley of Anne Of Green Gables fame.  Mary Duncan, the female lead, did not have a long film career, her last role (Morning Glory) was Kathleen Hepburn's first Academy Award (1933).  

The film involves a young son of a stern (he yells out at his young daughter for playing with a bit of the wheat crop) Minnesota farmer being sent to sell the wheat crop in the big city.  (The farm scenes were filled in Oregon.)  His good boy bona fides is shown when a tart of a woman tries to engage him on the train.  He falls in love with a city girl, a waitress, tired of the hard and dull life of the city.  She falls in love with his kindness and goodness. 

The contrast between the two places is shown at one point by a scene of the father cutting bread (Our Daily Bread was the original name of the film, suggesting the director's focus on the farm), and then the film cuts to bread being sliced by a machine at the diner. The film has excellent cinematology work, showing us farm life, the train, and a crowded diner in the city.  

Farm life is the main concern of the film, especially in the second half, which gets to be melodramatic. The mother and young daughter are welcoming of the son's wife but the stern father distrusts the outsider. The son at first seems ready to defend his wife but is scared to challenge his father.  The wife then has to handle the uncouth farmhands, especially one in particular who gives her unwanted attention.   

[The farmhands, including the boor trying to turn them against the farmer as a means to get the girl, might also seem topical given that today's Labor Day.  It is probably apt that we are in the middle of a major writer's strike.]

I was not really interested in these scenes but there are again some good stuff there.  The sight of the workers on the farm, including Kate serving them in the field (her husband sulking), is well done.  Kate eventually decides to go away, snapping her husband out of his funk.  He tells his father that he is going after her and that they will move away so they can have a happy wife.  The father realizes he was wrong and things end happily.  

It is well worth a look even if you are not the type to watch silent films. There is an instrumental soundtrack in this version and the usual title cards that keep us abreast of what is happening.  The current use of closed captioning would have been an interesting tool during the silent movie era. I wonder if they would have used the same restrained amount of scripted dialogue or if the use of CC would have allowed basically full dialogue.  

A Bit About Two Films

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

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

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

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

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

==

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

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

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

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

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