"The image is saintly."

Announces Washington Post fashion writer Rachel Tashjian, in "Jill Biden is Vogue’s cover star. What timing. The first lady covers Vogue for the third time, positioned by the magazine as a savior of the country’s fate."

Here's the image:

Tashjian proclaims that "a striking, fascinatingly out-of-character image in its storytelling."  What's the usual "character"? More smiley? More of a sidekick? I really don't know. Do you? We're told "the religious undertones are startling": "Her pose and visage, not to mention the color of her dress, recall religious paintings of saints communing with their higher power."

At the Sunrise Café...

... you can talk all night.

I took this photo yesterday at 5:24 a.m. and then I forgot to put it up — after driving out to Spring Green to see "Much Ado About Nothing." Sleeping a bit late this morning — almost until 5 a.m. — I skipped this morning's sunrise.

You can lie at Elon's place, but you'll look ridiculous.

When will politicians, or at least the intern who runs their account, learn that lying on this platform doesn’t work anymore? pic.twitter.com/wP7H4AJFwG

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 1, 2024

ADDED: If I had to argue that Kamala Harris was not lying, I would say that Trump's statement that he will not sign an abortion ban is not security enough. We lost a treasured right after he appointed 3 Supreme Court Justices, and he has touted the overruling of Roe v. Wade as a reason why voters should support him. In that light, we should not trust him to refrain from signing legislation that limits the right to abortion. Kamala Harris can't know what lies in the future if Trump is elected, and she may be sincerely expressing her belief about what he will do.

By the way, the use of the word "ban" skews this discussion. Few would ban abortion to the point of criminalizing all abortion — including abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy and where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. The concern should be about federal law that limits abortion, and it makes sense to think that Trump might sign legislation like that.

"As for a President's unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The principles we set out in Clinton v. Jones confirm as much."

"When Paula Jones brought a civil lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton for acts he allegedly committed prior to his Presidency, we rejected his argument that he enjoyed temporary immunity from the lawsuit while serving as President. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President's decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. The 'justifying purposes' of the immunity we recognized in Fitzgerald, and the one we recognize today, are not that the President must be immune because he is the President; rather, they are to ensure that the President can undertake his constitutionally designated functions effectively, free from undue pressures or distortions. '[I]t [is] the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who perform[s] it, that inform[s] our immunity analysis.' The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's unofficial acts."

From the majority opinion in Trump v. United States, issued this morning.

Where is the line between official and unofficial in the charges against Trump? The lower courts rushed through the question, which means the issues are not properly developed for the Supreme Court:

It's the last day for Supreme Court opinions before the summer break.

Watch the minute-by-minute reports at SCOTUSblog:

We are waiting on the court's ruling in the presidential immunity case, Trump v. US. We're also waiting on three cases from February: Corner Post v. Federal Reserve and the NetChoice cases....

UPDATE: The first case is Corner Post, a 6-3 decision, divided in the usual way, written by Justice Barrett. SCOTUSblog: "The court holds that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge an agency action first comes into being when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.... Justice Barrett started her announcement with a joke about how this case was not one that we were here to hear.... Justice Jackson... writes that 'there is effectively no longer any limitations period for lawsuits that challenge agency regulations on their face.'"

UPDATE 2: Justice Kagan writes the opinion in Moody v. NetChoice. Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett join in full. Jackson joins in part and has a concurring opinion. Thomas has an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Alito has an opinion concurring in the judgment and joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. From Alito's opinion: "It is a mystery how NetChoice could expect to prevail on a facial challenge without candidly disclosing the platforms that it thins the challenged laws reach or the nature of the content moderation they practice."

UPDATE 3: "The court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers. Former presidents are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts. There is no immunity, the court holds, for unofficial acts...." Here's the text: Trump v. United States. Written by Roberts. 6-3, in the usual lineup. Justice Barrett is in the 6, but she does not join Part III-C.

From the case syllabus: "Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."

What is the plural of "mosquito"?

The question occurred to me after I wrote "mosquitos" in the comments to the previous post and saw that someone else had written "mosquitoes." My version looks spiffier and more Spanish — and the word is, the OED says, "A borrowing from Spanish" — but "mosquitoes" seems to coordinate with "tomatoes" and "potatoes." Why does that "e" intrude itself in the plural? (It can even over-intrude, as it did on poor Dan Quayle, who is remembered these days only for misspelling "potato.")

Anyway... take your pick. Both "mosquitoes" and "mosquitos" are correct. I give you this image from the OED, which treats both plurals equally and which also shows you the wild history of the spelling of "mosquito," beginning with "muskyto":

"I called on Mr. Biden to step aside almost a year ago, warning that he would be forever known as 'Ruth Bader Biden' if he didn’t."

"Since then, each time I would bring up that idea, publicly or privately, people would dismiss it out of hand: Get on board, they’d say, the Democrats will never replace him, it’s off the table.  Well, now it’s on the table, where it always should have been. And far from being some kind of disaster for the Democratic Party, it plays right into what works best in 21-century American culture. Americans like new.... Democrats could not buy, with all of George Soros’s money, the enthusiasm, engagement and interest they would get from having an open convention — and in Chicago no less, famous for Democratic convention drama. Suddenly, instead of rehashing the debate from hell — worst episode of 'The Golden Bachelor' ever — they would be hosting a competition, something Americans love. Who will get the rose this August in Chicago? Gavin or Gretchen? Suddenly, Stacey Abrams might say she’s in! And so might Tim Ryan, and Josh Shapiro! And Amy Klobuchar and Ruben Gallego! And Mayor Pete and Raphael Warnock! And Wes Moore, and who knows, maybe Andrew Yang says he’s a Democrat again!... My pick would be Gavin Newsom.... "

Writes Bill Maher, in "Why I Want an Open Convention" (NYT).

Maher, a comedian, claims not to be joking, but how can there be an open convention when the Democrats announced a plan to nominate Biden through a virtual convention that would take place in time to meet Ohio's ballot-access requirement?

But that's not the only reason to balk at a chaotic convention. Bandying about all those names of people who did not subject themselves to any of the debates and primaries that voters think of as a democratic process?

But let's look at the rules —"What happens if a presidential candidate cannot take office due to death or incapacitation...?" (Brookings):

"When age comes in, wit goes out."

A line that jumped out at us in the play we saw last night.

The play is "Much Ado About Nothing," the prescient wordsmith, William Shakespeare.

"Only the National Rally appears in a position to secure enough seats for an absolute majority. If it does, Mr. Macron will have no other choice..."

"... than to appoint [28-year-old Jordan] Bardella prime minister. He would then form a cabinet and control domestic policy. Presidents have traditionally retained control over foreign policy and defense matters in such scenarios, but the Constitution does not always offer clear guidelines. That would put an anti-immigrant, Euroskeptic far-right party governing a country that has been at the heart of the European project. Mr. Bardella could clash with Mr. Macron over issues like France’s contribution to the European Union budget or support for Ukraine in its war with Russia.... If the National Rally fails to secure an absolute majority — Mr. Bardella has said he would not govern without one — Mr. Macron could be facing an unmanageable lower house, with two big blocs on the right and left opposed to him. His much-reduced centrist coalition, squeezed between the extremes, would be reduced to relative powerlessness...."

From "Four Takeaways From France’s Snap Election/It was a big day for the far-right National Rally. Just how big will not be clear until a second round of voting is over" (NYT).

Milkweed.

"[O]ne person close to Biden described his mood as humiliated, devoid of confidence, and painfully aware that images of him appearing confused..."

"... during the debate could be damaging to both his campaign and presidential legacy. Another source close to Biden suggested that First Lady Jill Biden’s opinion will significantly influence the President’s decision. 'The only person who has ultimate influence with him is the first lady,' the source said. 'If she decides there should be a change of course, there will be a change of course.'" 

From "White House denies rumors Biden is heading to Camp David to discuss dropping out of race with family/'The premise of the story is not accurate,' a White House official said" (Post Millennial).

I keep seeing this message to Biden: If you drop out, we will portray you as a noble and beloved public servant, but if you don't let go, everything you've done over your long life will count for nothing as against this one cataclysmic wrong — letting Trump back into the Oval Office.

And I guess it's really a message to Jill: That's a grand, honored husband you have there, and if you don't take him home and hide him, he's going to be attacked and scorned for the rest of American history.

Who came into the debate with a planned zinger that just had to be zinged and that was supposed to be the focus of the post-debate spin?

I think he practiced that line and received coaching on how to look and sound truly angry. I think his people believed this was the stake to drive into Trump's heart. But Biden looked old and ugly and weird, and Trump grabbed that stake and clonked him over the head with it.

***

"Clonked" seemed like exactly the right word, but I got distracted wondering if "clonk" is a real word.

"Pride Month has always been about a political and progressive embrace of our rainbow of choices. But lately..."

"... I find myself feeling alienated by loud voices among activists in the L.G.B.T.Q.+ community on all sides of the Israel-Gaza war. They’re intolerant of nuance, complexity and opposing views."

Writes Amichai Lau-Lavie, leader and a co-founder of Lab/Shul, in "The Pride March Doesn’t Have a Place for Me" (NYT). Amichai Lau-Lavie "is the spiritual leader and a co-founder of Lab/Shul, an everybody-friendly, God-optional congregation in New York City."

Why would a parade about pride partake of nuance, complexity and opposing views?

"For [Biden] to remain the Democratic candidate... would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment."

"It is entirely possible that the debate will not much change the polls; it is entirely possible that Biden could have a much stronger debate in September; it is not impossible to imagine that Trump will find a way to lose. But, at this point, should Biden engage the country in that level of jeopardy? To step aside and unleash the admittedly complicated process of locating and nominating a more robust and promising ticket seems the more rational course and would be an act of patriotism.... To stay in the race would be pure vanity, uncharacteristic of someone whom most have come to view as decent and devoted to public service. To stay in the race, at this post-debate point, would also suggest that it is impossible to imagine a more vital ticket. In fact, Gretchen Whitmer, Raphael Warnock, Josh Shapiro, and Wes Moore are just a few of the office-holders in the Party who could energize Democrats and independents, inspire more younger voters, and beat Trump."

Writes David Remnick, in "The Reckoning of Joe Biden/For the President to insist on remaining the Democratic candidate would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment" (The New Yorker).

Does trying to "energize" people — at this late stage — about Gretchen Whitmer/Raphael Warnock/Josh Shapiro/Wes Moore seem "more rational" to you? Gretchen Whitmer/Raphael Warnock/Josh Shapiro/Wes Moore did not go through the primary process, interacting with real people across the country and standing up to months of scrutiny, outlasting others. And what would this alternative process — this "admittedly complicated process" — consist of? It seems as though it would resemble the process of picking the VP candidate — similar to the way Kamala Harris was picked 4 years ago. Why would voters be "inspir[ed]" to have such a person foisted on them by the same people who presented Biden as excellent and are now asserting that he's hopelessly decrepit? I know they just want to win, but that's not the stuff of hopes and dreams.

Remnick worries about Biden's "self-delusion," but what about his?

By the way, is it "entirely possible that Biden could have a much stronger debate in September"? Not only is it entirely possible for Biden to have a much stronger debate in September, it's entirely possible that if you calm yourself, clear your head of preconceptions, and cue up last Thursday's debate and watch it again, you will perceive it as a much stronger debate than it seemed on first watch. 

And I will resist putting my time into a little exercise in cynicism, but this sentence is begging for a paraphrase: "To stay in the race would be pure vanity, uncharacteristic of someone whom most have come to view as decent and devoted to public service."