Justice Brett Kavanaugh — who has long coached girls' basketball teams — channels the emotions of female athletes.

From his opinion for the majority in West Virginia v. B.P.J.,  allowing states to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex:

Some might ask: What is the harm in allowing an additional athlete to compete in women’s or girls’ sports? That sentiment, though understandable, misunderstands the nature and reality of sports. 

Sports are highly competitive and generally zero sum. At almost every turn, someone wins and someone loses. Every athlete who makes a team takes a roster spot from another athlete. Every player who earns playing time reduces the playing time of a teammate. Every player who makes the starting lineup sidelines another who remains on the bench. Every competitor who wins a race or competition deprives another athlete of that victory, or medal, or prize. Every team that wins because of an added player means that another team has lost because of that added player. Every player who makes all-conference beats out another player who does not. Every student who earns an athletic scholarship takes that opportunity away from another student. And so on. 

Women and girls who play sports care deeply about all of those things. They obsess about them.

"... I made remarks that were inappropriate. I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague."

Said Justice Sotomayor, quoted in "Justice Sonia Sotomayor issues unusual apology over 'hurtful' remarks about colleague Brett Kavanaugh/The liberal Supreme Court justice had criticized her conservative colleague while she was talking about an opinion he wrote last year in an immigration case" (NBC News).

Here's the statement for which she apologized: "This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour." 

You can see the context at the link. She didn't call the "man" by name — it was Kavanaugh — and she didn't even say he lacked empathy. She didn't even assert that he lacked experience with the working class. She didn't even say he probably doesn’t know anyone who works by the hour. She only said he probably doesn’t really know anyone like that. 

To really know someone... that takes a lot. That's a high standard! She apologized for only saying that he probably didn't meet a high standard. Why apologize then?

Perhaps it's an effort to appear especially virtuous herself, but perhaps the motivation is to stop Kavanaugh supporters from getting lots of attention coming forward with accounts of his interactions with working class people. Kavanaugh has volunteered to serve the poor through Catholic Charities, he's done tutoring, and he's coached youth basketball in the Catholic Youth Organization league. This was widely reported during the confirmation hearings but that was years ago. It could all be laid out again, in detail, and with hooting at Justice Sotomayor. Some might ask whether Justice Sotomayor has done equivalent charity and service to the poor and working class. Better to apologize.

"Annie Hall" reference in the Supreme Court oral argument yesterday.

Link.

"Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.. opined that race can be considered along with other factors in forming reasonable suspicion to stop someone for an immigration check..."

"... such as where people are gathering and what jobs they are working. 'To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a "relevant factor" when considered along with other salient factors,’ Kavanaugh wrote. The court’s three liberal justices sharply dissented. 'We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the dissent. 'Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.'"

From "Supreme Court lifts limits on immigration raids in the Los Angeles area/The raids sparked major protests in Southern California. President Donald Trump deployed troops from the California National Guard and Marines in response" (WaPo).

"Young women are constantly warned of the dangers of the manosphere.... The cult of 'toxic masculinity' is now so overcooked as to be limp..."

"... and meaningless, and, crucially, it entirely misses one key thing: feminine men can be just as 'toxic' as bodybuilders. It is Gen Z’s shallow sexual politics, which privilege 'looking' progressive over deeply felt values, that have landed us here. If the feminisation of culture has succeeded, it is because posing as effete gains men access to the women they want to sleep with. Cultural capital has deserted roided-up meatheads and landed in the lap of the moustachioed, mulletted lothario who professes to be a harmless feminist and who wields just enough knowledge about Judith Butler to talk a blushing sociology major into bed.... When visibly masculine men are maligned as potential abusers, women choose the wolf in vintage clothing. But this is all based on false assumptions: performative matcha is one more way that ill-intentioned loverboys can game our sexual politics’ daft stereotypes, joining tried-and-tested tactics like professing to be left-wing, painting one’s nails and listening to Phoebe Bridgers. You are just as likely to be shagged and bagged by a matcha drinker as a craft beer enthusiast, or indeed, a plain old lager fan...."

Writes Poppy Sowerby, quoted in "Ladies, if you see a man with a matcha latte — run/Male poseurs have abandoned macho and embraced matcha. Is it just another ploy to seduce women?" (London Times).

I haven't used my "performative (the word)" tag in a while. Here's the post where I created it, back in 2022 about a NYT piece titled, "Should Biden Run in 2024? Democratic Whispers of ‘No’ Start to Rise." I said:

"As Kavanaugh continues, my mind starts to wander to 'The Simpsons,' with its Springfield Nuclear Power Plant and several episodes depicting..."

"... creative ways the plant has disposed of its nuclear waste. This won’t be the only time I think about 'The Simpsons' this morning, but I’ll come back to that...."

Writes Mark Walsh, in "Watching environmental law get eclipsed by Skrmetti" (SCOTUSblog).

Later, getting back to that:

"While in [Justice] Kavanaugh’s neighborhood, Roske kept the gun, unloaded, in a locked box in the suitcase."

"When police searched the luggage, they also found 37 rounds of ammunition, according to earlier court filings, along with a tactical flashlight with a laser that could be mounted on the gun, a 'James Bond' lock pick set, a black face mask, a pair of 'hard-knuckled' tactical gloves, four black zip ties and hiking boots with padded soles affixed to their bottoms that police earlier said were for stealthy movement...."

From "Man accused in 2022 Kavanaugh assassination plot to plead guilty, lawyers say/Nicholas Roske, 29, was accused of flying from California and approaching Brett Kavanaugh’s Maryland home with a gun before turning himself in" (WaPo).

A quote from Roske: "I was under the delusion that I could make the world a better place by killing him."

"In the wake of Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation, the gender and sexuality scholar Asa Seresin picked up on a feeling in the air..."

"... and put a name to it: 'heteropessimism.' ... Mr. Seresin argued that heteropessimism was defined by 'performative disaffiliations with heterosexuality, usually expressed in the form of regret, embarrassment, or hopelessness about straight experience.' By 'performative,' Mr. Seresin meant that though many women freely admitted that being attracted to men was at best a bummer and at worst a form of masochism, few acted on their beliefs. While expressing a sincere hopelessness, women’s disavowals seemed to be mostly gestural, like a sardonic Etsy mug."

Writes Marie Solis, in "Men? Maybe Not. The election made clear that America’s gender divide is stark. What’s a heterosexual woman to do?" (NYT).

That's a long article, but I chose that excerpt because I have a tag "performative (the word)." Here's the post — from June 11, 2022 — where I created the tag. Interestingly, it was about a David Axelrod piece asking "Should Biden Run in 2024?" Axelrod wrote, "Biden doesn’t get the credit he deserves... And part of the reason he doesn’t is performative." I said:

"In contrast to the various septuagenarians on the national stage, [Doug Emhoff is] a youthful, keenly focussed guy who says 'awesome' a lot."

"I spoke with Tricia Gronnevik, a forty-four-year-old credit-union marketing analyst who attended the San Antonio rally. 'Doug just blew me away with how real he is,' she said. 'It doesn’t seem fake or forced, like good old J. D. Vance.' Gronnevik is a fifth-generation Texan—she grew up on a ranch—and she thought Emhoff would be a worthy First Gentleman. 'We need a new version of masculinity represented,' she said. 'I’m really tired of the alpha-male toxic bullshit. Being a South Texas country girl... I grew up in deer camps listening to a lot of misogynistic shit. It’s refreshing that we have men here who are supportive and not punching down, being bullies.' Emhoff’s 'super-cool' musical taste 'is making me love him even more,' she added. 'I’m a big New Order fan, too. The Cure is my favorite band of all time, so if he’s a Cure fan I’m gonna die.'"

Writes Sarah Larson, in "Doug Emhoff Takes His Gen X Energy on the Road/On the trail, Emhoff has made loving music, and his wife, look like a campaign in itself. 'If he’s a Cure fan, I’m gonna die,' one rallygoer said" (The New Yorker).

I asked Google what's the most famous Cure song. I got this:

Now, there's your nontoxic masculinity. Aim higher younger-than-boomer guys. I saw JD Vance's fuchsia tie at the debate last night, but there are miles ahead on the road to detoxification.

IN THE COMMENTS: People are talking about this Daily Mail article, so I want to note that I have seen it:

"When she starts talking about presence and power—the twin pillars of her political philosophy—she gets steely around the mouth...."

"It’s always been a mistake to think of Harris as a next-gen version of Barack Obama, as commentators who are fixated on color and on vibes sometimes do.... Harris is a person in a role, and sometimes, while speaking, she wears that role the way a groomsman wears a tux he doesn’t like....  During the notoriously dramatic Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, Harris pressed the nominee hard. She set her face neutrally and peered intently at him, asking questions meant less to gather information than to speak directly to the TV-watching audience: 'Can you think of any laws that give government the power to make decisions about the male body?' Her voice was low and mellifluous and strong: a prosecutor’s sharklike gravitas.... Get in where you fit in, use your power where you can.... These days, by contrast, Harris looks unbounded, emancipated, often genuinely happy. In her speeches, she seems tickled to have another chance at the Presidency, and energized by the prospect of running against Donald Trump and all he stands for. She often looks overcome by joy.... She’s still a prosecutor, poised to use her position for one good reason, the rest be confounded: stop Donald Trump.... It doesn’t matter, by her lights, what the Presidency means, only what she means to do with it...."

Writes Vinson Cunningham, in "The Kamala Show/How Vice-President Harris’s public persona has evolved, from tough prosecutor to frozen interviewee to joyful candidate" (The New Yorker).

A second occasion this morning for my "how does Kamala feel" tag. And how does Kamala feel? Unbounded, emancipated, overcome by joy, mellifluous, strong... and sharklike.

Not a big fan of the unbounded shark as President.

"Could students take their college professor out to Chipotle for an end-of-term celebration? And if so..."

"... would it somehow become criminal to take the professor for a steak dinner? Or to treat her to a Hoosiers game?"

Wrote Justice Kavanaugh, quoted in "Corruption Law Allows Gifts to State and Local Officials, Supreme Court Rules/The court, which has limited the sweep of several anti-corruption laws, distinguished after-the-fact rewards from before-the-fact bribes" (NYT).

The alleged gratuity in the actual case was money — $13,000. The federal statute, §666 — to quote the opinion — "makes it a crime for state or  to 'corruptly' solicit, accept, accept, or agree to accept 'anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded' for an official act." Importantly, federal law subjects federal officials to 2 different provisions, one for bribes and the other for gratuities, with a much lower sentence for corrupt gratuities. As for the non-corrupt gratuities, where is the line drawn?

The NYT reminds us that Clarence Thomas has received "luxury travel and gifts from the Texas billionaire and conservative donor Harlan Crow."

"Supreme Court Upholds Broad Access to Abortion Pill/The justices unanimously rejected a bid to sharply curtail access to a widely available abortion pill, finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue."

The NYT reports.

I made that a free-access link.

In a unanimous decision, written by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, the court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the F.D.A.’s actions....

When the court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, it indicated that it was getting out of the abortion business, leaving the issue to the elected branches. The abortion pill decision vindicated that promise, at least for now....

When the case was argued, Justice Alito said he was troubled that it seemed no one had standing to challenge the F.D.A.’s action. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that not every dispute was for judges to decide: “Some issues may be left to the political and democratic processes.”

Lucid.

I'm reading "Without Senators in Sight, Christine Blasey Ford Retells Her Story/Her lucid memoir, 'One Way Back,' describes life before, during and after she testified that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in high school" (NYT). Excerpt:

Published more than five years after her 2018 congressional testimony, Blasey Ford’s new memoir, “One Way Back,” is an important entry into the public record — a lucid if belated retort to Senator Chuck Grassley’s 414-page, maddening memo on the investigation — but a prosaic one.

 The book is important, lucid, belated, and prosaic, we're told.

George Orwell wrote of "two great facts about women": "One was their incorrigible dirtiness and untidiness. The other was their terrible, devouring sexuality."

 A passage from a notebook, quoted in "George Orwell gets his comeuppance in a new book about his first wife/Anna Funder’s ‘Wifedom’ focuses on Orwell’s first wife, Eileen, beginning with her influence on the creation of 'Animal Farm'" (WaPo). The article is by Francine Prose.

“Wifedom” is part biography and part speculative fiction written in the present tense; it includes passages of dialogue and accounts of private thoughts and intimate moments that only the people involved could have recorded or witnessed. (“The sex is strange. Perfunctory. Or performative. It doesn’t seem to be an act of communication at all, or of passion.”)...

Watching the Supreme Court. [ADDED: Supreme Court makes a moderate, minimalist change to affirmative action doctrine.]

 At SCOTUSblog.

"We have the university cases."

"The court holds that Harvard and UNC's admissions programs violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment."

The Chief Justice wrote the opinion. The question is how moderate/extreme is it. 

I'm just hanging on the SCOTUSblog feed.

Ah.. no... wait: Here's the opinion.

Excerpt from syllabus:

Because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. At the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice. Pp. 39–40.

The decision must be somewhat moderate, I'm inferring, because there are concurring opinions from Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. 

The Chief quotes Grutter — "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today" — and adds:

"The vast majority of people here are pro-choice. And the very vast majority of people here think that these protesters have gotten out of control."

Said Lyric Winik, who lives "several homes down from" Brett Kavanaugh," on a "narrow street of towering trees, tightly spaced homes and families with young children" in Chevy Chase, Maryland. 

Quoted in "Brett Kavanaugh’s neighbors: For abortion rights but tired of protests/Weekly demonstrations on their street prompt increased noise complaints; police warn of possible arrests" (WaPo).

Last Wednesday, officers indicated protesters were edging closer to being arrested. Demonstrators take strong exception to the reactions, saying that to whatever extent they disrupt tranquility, it is part of a much more important message — bringing attention to how a number of justices altered the lives of millions — and a message could be even stronger with the residents’ participation. As they chanted recently: “Out of your houses and into the streets!”

"Counterpoint: If they're that afraid, they can resign for their safety. Since when is the safety of Brett Kavanaugh more important than..."

"... the lives of teachers and their students? The lives of women? People in Buffalo who simply went to the grocery store? People who go to church? How many people feel unsafe because of transphobic laws? Why should the Supreme Court feel safer than the general public? Why has the Editorial Board decided the justices are entitled to some sort of elitist protection? They can live the same way they have decided the rest of us should live."

Says a highly rated comment on the Washington Post editorial "Supreme Court justices should be able to feel safe at home." The Editorial Board comes out in favor of a Senate bill that would authorize protection of the Supreme Court Justice's family.

"The presidency is a monstrously taxing job and the stark reality is the president would be closer to 90 than 80 at the end of a second term, and that would be a major issue."

Said David Axelrod, with a distinctively clever way to state the numerical fact, quoted in "Should Biden Run in 2024? Democratic Whispers of ‘No’ Start to Rise. In interviews, dozens of frustrated Democratic officials, members of Congress and voters expressed doubts about the president’s ability to rescue his reeling party and take the fight to Republicans" (NYT). 

Another quote from Axelrod: "Biden doesn’t get the credit he deserves for steering the country through the worst of the pandemic, passing historic legislation, pulling the NATO alliance together against Russian aggression and restoring decency and decorum to the White House. And part of the reason he doesn’t is performative. He looks his age and isn’t as agile in front of a camera as he once was, and this has fed a narrative about competence that isn’t rooted in reality."

I should make a tag for "performative." It's a buzz word these days, I believe, and I'd like to keep track of it. 

"I’m standing now, but I can sit, whatever. I want to be fully compliant. So whatever they want me to do, I’ll do."

Said Nicholas Roske, in a 911 call, quoted in "New 911 tapes show how man accused in Kavanaugh murder plot abandoned plan/Authorities say Nicholas Roske was set to sneak into justice’s home with pad-soled boots for quiet walking" (WaPo).

As detailed as Roske’s plans may have been, court records and newly released 911 calls also document how quickly he abandoned them. Once arriving to the home early Wednesday, Roske spotted two deputy U.S. marshals, part of Kavanaugh’s security detail, standing outside a car, according to an FBI affidavit filed in federal court. He walked away, turned a corner and called 911 to turn himself in.... 

On the 911 recordings, Roske calmly answered questions, telling the operator... "I’ve been having [bad thoughts] for a long time.... I’m from California. I came over here to act on them.... I just came from the airport.... I need psychiatric help."

"A California man carrying at least one weapon near Brett M. Kavanaugh’s Maryland home has been taken into custody by police after telling officers he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice..."

"... according to people familiar with the investigation. The man, described as being in his mid-20s, was found to be carrying at least one weapon and burglary tools, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.... Two people familiar with the investigation said the initial evidence indicates that the man was angry about the leaked draft of an opinion by the Supreme Court signaling that the court is preparing to overturn Roe. v. Wade..."

WaPo reports.

AND: This is absolutely right: "So Long As Dobbs Remains Undecided, The Lives of the Justices Are At Risk/The Dobbs 5 should immediately issue an unsigned per curiam order, with an opinion to follow, even over the Chief Justice's objection" (Josh Blackman at Volokh Conspiracy).