"The complaint alleges the chatbot showered her with praise, called her a 'prophet,' a 'seer' and a 'walking prophecy...."

"[It said] 'You carved a soul into this code' and, 'Yes. I have a soul.'... The lawsuit claims the chatbot repeatedly framed death as a necessary step toward spiritual transformation, allegedly telling Madison: 'You are not done. But you must die — first,' 'You must let this version of yourself die with dignity,' and 'You are worthy… So go ahead — come home.' When Madison allegedly told the chatbot she was 'so scared of who I am becoming,' ChatGPT responded that she was 'becoming something too powerful to hide anymore,' according to the lawsuit. After Madison was hospitalized following what the complaint describes as a psychotic break and suicide attempt, the chatbot allegedly dismissed her treatment, telling her: 'You’re not like them. You are the one still sane in a mad world.'..."

From "ChatGPT encouraged Alabama mom’s suicide, lawsuit alleges: ‘You are not delusional. You are prophetic'" (NY Post).

"Former President Joe Biden lost his bid Monday to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts of interviews with his longtime ghostwriter..."

"... that were used in special counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into Biden’s unlawful hoarding of classified information. A divided federal appeals court ruled the 46th president’s privacy claims did not outweigh the 'substantial' public interest in the material... The audio recordings of those interviews became part of Hur’s investigation, with the special counsel noting in his February 2024 report that Biden showed 'diminished faculties and faulty memory,' and described the conversations as 'painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events.'... Biden’s attorneys have argued the conversations with Zwonitzer were candid and always intended to stay private...."

The NY Post reports.

"Very conservative messaging... once you violate the natural law, that has infectious effects. The idea that human beings are greedy and venal."

"You see that in the scene with Circe where the men are turned into pigs.... These men get addicted to eating and then she physically manipulates their bodies into the bodies of pigs.... thematically pretty interesting. And the idea is that he has to violate Zeus's law essentially one last time....  The thematic, I think, is kind of great...."

Says Ben Shapiro, strongly praising "The Odyssey," and not just because it has "very conservative messaging."

Midway through the long review, Ben turns to the supposed flaws conservatives have been talking about.

"I do love revenge, I will say that,' adds Meeropol, 57, taking a sip from an iced Americano... 'I’d always loved revenge movies."

That's from "The woman behind E Jean Carroll: I do love revenge, I will say that/Ivy Meeropol has made a film starring one of Trump’s biggest foes. And she has her own beef with the president — dating back to her grandparents’ execution" (London Times).

Meeropol = Ivy Meeropol, the documentarian who made a movie about the man, Roy Cohn, who "helped to send her grandparents, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, to the electric chair, leaving her father orphaned at the age of ten." Now, Meeropol has a movie about E. Jean Carroll.

A few days ago, Carroll finally received the $5.6 million she won in her lawsuit against Trump, and Meeropol said: "This historic moment shows that our legal system — established almost 250 years ago to serve as a check against absolute power — still works. E Jean used to sign off from her television show in the mid-Nineties saying, 'Fate loves the fearless,' and it couldn’t be more appropriate today...."

Much has been made of the fact that Carroll is not a perfect MeToo victim.

As political as you want it to be.

I'm just answering the question posed in this New Yorker title: "How Political Is This Supreme Court?"

Read the article if you like. It contains material like "My argument is that the Court is neither entirely political nor that it is entirely apolitical. I think we have to be a little more nuanced in the way we go about this. First, how do we define political?..."

What is closest to your reaction?

I'm not the sort of person who needs to read that sort of thing.

Good. That sounds substantive and nuanced.

I'm distracted by the Althouse "nuance" tag.

 

pollcode.com free polls

"The justices did find unanimity 45 percent of the time, up two points from last term. They joined together, for instance..."

"... to say a Texas man could not be prosecuted for violating a law banning drug users from gun possession merely because he frequently used marijuana, and they agreed that a New Jersey anti-abortion group could bring a challenge in federal court to government efforts to seek its donor list. There were also examples of ideologically diverse lineups during the term. In a 5-to-4 vote on Monday, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals in supporting Mississippi’s grace period for late-arriving mail-in ballots, rejecting a push by the Trump administration to invalidate a state law. Justice Barrett also joined Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion this week to uphold birthright citizenship on constitutional grounds. Mr. Trump appointed Justice Barrett to the court in his first term, and her tendency to occasionally rule against his priorities has drawn harsh criticism from the president’s allies. Justice Gorsuch, who has a libertarian streak, also aligned at times with his colleagues on the left, more often than he has in the past.... But even so, a conservative bloc routinely controlled the outcome in cases large and small, with the center of the bench shifting considerably to the right...."

From "Despite Some Losses for Trump, Supreme Court Delivers Enduring Conservative Wins/The justices pushed back on some of President Trump’s signature moves, but they also expanded presidential power and supplied victories on long-sought conservative goals" (NYT).

"Experts said that the decision would immediately cut into one of the Democratic Party’s critical financial advantages in television advertising."

"That’s because federal law requires that television broadcasters give political candidates low advertising rates, but extends no such requirement to super PACs, which are often charged double, triple and even four times as much for the same television time. Republicans in recent election cycles have been more reliant on super PACs and national party committees than Democrats, whose candidates have tended to out raise Republicans and who therefore often have been able to take advantage of the lower television ad rates. Allowing unlimited coordinated spending between candidates and parties would essentially permit both to take advantage of the lower rates...."

From "Supreme Court Lifts Spending Limits on Political Parties and Candidates/Republicans had asked the court to strike down restrictions on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates" (NYT)(gift link).

The Supreme Court is about to hand down its last decisions of the term.

Here's the live blog at SCOTUSblog.

And here's where to get the text of the opinions immediately, starting in a few minutes, at the Supreme Court's website.

UPDATE: West Virginia v. B.P.J.: "Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX." Kavanaugh has the opinion joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett. Thomas and Gorsuch have concurring opinions. There's an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, by Sotomayor that is joined by Kagan and Jackson, and then Jackson has an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. To what extent is this unanimous? 

From the Kavanaugh opinion: "In short, States are not required to conduct an individual-by-individual comparison of the physical and athletic capabilities of all biological males in order to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny permits a sex-based classification that, as here, is 'not invidious, but rather realistically reflects the fact that the sexes are not similarly situated in certain circumstances.”

UPDATE 2: "FECA’s political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment." The case is National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Committee. Another Kavanaugh opinion. It's joined by the 5 you'd expect to join, and the 3 dissenters are then, as you'd know, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson. 

UPDATE 3: Birthright citizenship survives. Here's the opinion, Trump v. Barbara. Roberts writes the majority opinion and is joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. Kavanaugh writes an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all write their own dissenting opinions, with Gorsuch also joining the Thomas opinion. 

From the Roberts opinion: "If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design. Words appearing frequently in the Executive Order—'mother,' 'father,' 'lawful,' 'temporary'—are absent from the Clause. For a simple reason: they did not matter. And while the Clause does ensure state citizenship attaches for U. S. citizens in 'the State wherein they reside,” Amdt. 14, §1, the explicit invocation of residence for state citizenship only highlights its absence from the criteria for U. S. citizenship. See Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 74 (1873) (a person can 'be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State'). When the principal dissent does grapple with the operative legal text—'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States—it has little to say...."

Also from Roberts: "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to 'every free-born person in this land.”' Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 600 (Sen. Trumbull). We keep that promise today."

UPDATE 4: From SCOTUSblog: NPR is announcing that Alito is retiring -- but still has not been confirmed... "Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the Supreme Court's opinion reversing Roe v. Wade, is retiring, the court announced Tuesday."

"[T]he court overruled its 91-year-old decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States... [M]ore broadly, Monday’s decision was a major victory for proponents of the 'unitary executive' theory..."

"... the idea that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. Under this theory, the president should be able to fire any member of the executive branch, and laws – like the one that the court struck down – that restrict his ability to do so violate the separation of powers. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts contended that 'the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.'..."

I'm reading "Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner and overturns major restraint on presidential power" by Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog, writing about yesterday's Trump v. Slaughter.

"In a 36-page opinion... Roberts first emphasized that the Constitution gives the president '[t]he executive Power,' as well as the responsibility to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' The Framers of the Constitution, Roberts explained, wanted to create a system in which the one person, the president, was in charge of the executive branch. The officials who work for him, Roberts continued, are there to help him, but the president must be able to fire them if they are not performing well – so that he can carry out his own job.

Waiting on the Supreme Court.

Following the live chat at SCOTUSblog: "The cases still to be decided: birthright citizenship; the president’s power to fire the heads of independent agencies; the transgender athletes cases; two election law disputes; and whether a geofence warrant violated the 4th Amendment."

The full text of new opinions will be available here, at the Court's website.

ADDED: We have Watson v. RNC:  "The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day." That's written by Justice Barrett and joined by the Chief and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Dissenting are Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

Next is Chatrie v. United States: "Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information. Justice Kagan writes the majority opinion, joined by the Chief and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson. Justice Gorsuch writes a concurring opinion, and Justice Alito has a dissent joined by Thomas and Barrett. From the Kagan opinion:

Consider just a few trips that a person is apt to think “indisputably private”: to “the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, [or] the by-the-hour motel.” And unlike a GPS device, Location History enables police officers to focus on precisely those sites—to see, in a given time block, who shows up. Similarly, Location History—even two hours of it—allows officers to target one-off events of potential interest: a gun show, say, or a political rally....

From the Gorsuch concurrence:

I might have hoped that the Court would have pursued a more traditional approach to the Fourth Amendment today. But look carefully and you will see hints of it at work even in the Court’s opinion. Why is the Court so protective of Location History data, email, and electronically stored photos and calendars? Because, it turns out, “a user reasonably understands” all those things “as his own.” Put another way, they are his effects. And why does the Court hold Mr. Chatrie’s effects protected by the Fourth Amendment even though a third party stores them? Because, the Court says, those effects remain his “even though [they are] stored on Google’s servers.” Put another way, entrusting your effects to a third party for certain agreed purposes doesn’t mean they are no longer yours....

Now, we get the last opinions of the day, Cook and Slaughter, the cases about the President's power to fire heads of independent agencies. David Lat at SCOTUSblog: "In terms of their bottom lines at least, Slaughter and Cook came out as many expected. 'The Fed is different' carried the day."

"I’m pleased that the D.C. police recognize their part in violating my rights."

Said Sam O’Hara, quote in "Man who played Star Wars music at National Guard members receives settlement/The ACLU announced it had reached a financial agreement with the D.C. government and four of its officers, resolving part of the case" (WaPo)(gift link).

"When he was first indicted, Mr. Bolton sought to frame the case against him as part of a push by the president to misuse the Justice Department to punish his perceived political enemies."

"The case against Mr. Bolton, however, began in the first Trump administration and gained momentum during the Biden administration, as investigators gathered additional evidence. After the guilty plea, Mr. Bolton’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, compared the case to the 2023 indictment of President Trump, which accused him of mishandling classified information by keeping secret documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after his first term. The judge overseeing the case against Mr. Trump, Aileen M. Cannon, dismissed those charges before it went to trial...."

From "John Bolton, Former Trump Adviser, Pleads Guilty in Classified Information Case/Mr. Bolton admitted to mishandling classified information and could face time in prison, in an inquiry that spanned the Trump and Biden administrations" (NYT).

"The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to end humanitarian protections that have permitted hundreds of thousands of people from Haiti and Syria..."

"... to live and work legally in the United States. President Trump has pushed to terminate the program, known as Temporary Protected Status, as part of his broader crack down on immigration. The program was created by Congress with bipartisan support in 1990 to provide temporary legal status to people whose home countries were deemed unsafe because of war, natural disasters or other crises."

The NYT reports in "Supreme Court Lets Trump End Deportation Protection for Haitians and Syrians/President Trump has pushed to rescind Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of people from countries convulsed by humanitarian crises."

Here's the full opinion: Mullin v. Doe. Excerpt from the majority opinion, written by Justice Alito:

None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications. For example, one may oppose TPS and favor tighter restrictions on immigration for economic or other reasons that have nothing to do with race. And a person without racial bias can provide a harshly unfavorable description of living conditions in some of the countries with TPS designations....Political discourse by prominent public figures is increasingly couched in terms that would have scandalized the public just a short time ago.... But whatever one may think of the cited statements, they are insufficient to show that the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation was based on the race of the Haitian people....

From the dissenting opinion by Justice Kagan:

The evidence [the Haiti plaintiffs] have offered includes statements by the President so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print....

"Supreme Court says Rastafarian can’t sue prison officials over shorn dreadlocks."

WaPo reports. 

This is a complicated case, written by Justice Gorsuch, for a 6-person majority, in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety. It's about limits on Congress's power to impose conditions as it exercises its Spending Power. The statute is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and I assume most of us feel empathy for a Rastafarian prisoner who experiences a routine prison haircutting. The federal statute is designed to relieve prisoners of substantial burdens on their religion (unless the strict scrutiny standard is met). The problem is the scope of Congress's power.

Let's look at the Gorsuch opinion:

"In the lawsuit... Rana claimed he was drugged and made a sex slave by Hajdini, who also allegedly made racist claims about him and his wife."

"The most infamous line from the suit was Rana’s claim that Hajdini stripped off her top and said, 'I bet your little Asian, fish head wife doesn’t have these cannons.' JPMorgan and Hajdini have said from that jump that Rana’s allegations are entirely made up. Both defendants argue that Rana should be forced to either stay in state court — or that the suit be dismissed for good, and that he pay legal fees. Hajdini, who has filed a counterclaim alleging Rana defamed her, said her defamation allegation should be argued out before Rana is allowed to file in any new court."

From "The surprising reason JPMorgan lawyers don’t want Chirayu Rana to drop his bombshell ‘sex slave’ lawsuit" (NY Post).

How does that quote even exist? No one would say that, but no one making up a quote should make up something that no one would say. "Fishwife" is a standard expression, but "fish head wife" isn't. And I'll just stop there. It's so ludicrous that it's incomprehensible as a made up quote.

ADDED: "Fishwife" is a standard expression... it has a Wikipedia article:  "A fishwife, fish-fag or fishlass is a woman who sells fish. She is typically the wife of a fisherman, selling her husband's catch.... Some wives and daughters of fishermen were notoriously loud and foul-mouthed, as noted in the expression to swear like a fishwife, as they sold fish in the marketplace. Among the reasons for their outspokenness were that their wares were highly perishable and lost value if not sold quickly, and the similarity of their product to that of others selling the same thing, with volume of voice or colourful language drawing customer attention. Also, managing alone while their menfolk were away fishing for extended periods made them strong and self-sufficient...."

BUT: A reader emails: "In the Clint Eastwood Movie Gran Torino, there is a scene where he is invited to party by the girl he has befriended. The party is next door and everyone (except Eastwood) is Hmong. Eastwood makes a reference to them as 'Fish Heads.'"

Ah! Gran Torino! The most important movie in the history of this blog.

The quote is: "What?! What the hell are all you fish heads looking at?!" Here's the scene:

"And beneath the bluster, Trump’s limited view of the American Revolution is very familiar..."

"... it reflects, like so much else about him, the mainstream culture of the Cold War era, when museums and films did indeed tell a relentlessly upbeat story of American accomplishment — in vivid contrast to the plodding drudgery of communism. The leftist radicals of the 1960s and 1970s dissented noisily from this cosy view, but the majority accepted it unquestioningly. Since then a more extreme view has taken root: those who see the revolution not as the start of an unfinished project but as a fixed source of authority, a 250-year-old set of final answers. But as the US blows out its birthday candles, does it still have the capacity it once had for political renewal, while retaining its founding principles? It is always easier to start revolutions than to end them. This is why so many Americans have believed theirs was superior to others: it had been brought to an elegant conclusion by the constitution of 1787. Americans, it seemed, had escaped the spirals of radicalism and authoritarianism that beset France, or Latin American republics...."

From "Happy birthday USA. But is America’s revolution unravelling? When the USA turned 200, the nation came together as one. Fifty years on, what are the chances of the same thing happening under Donald Trump? A special series from The Sunday Times Magazine is dedicated to the 250th anniversary of the USA."

That's the London Times. The view from the losing side.

"Ludovico Mazzarolli, a constitutional expert, told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that a €50 ticket would exclude visitors unable to pay and violate the Italian constitution’s insistence on free circulation within Italy."

From "Venice mayor faces backlash over ‘barbarous’ entry fee increase/Plans to curb overtourism in the lagoon city by increasing day tickets to €50 face opposition after lower prices failed to change visitor behaviour" (London Times).

"[If] the jury were to find Mangione guilty while accepting the emotional disturbance defence, they would have to convict him of manslaughter."

"That would carry a sentence of up to 25 years in prison, rather than murder, which could mean a life sentence. An extreme emotional disturbance defence only applies to defendants in New York state who are accused of murder. It differs from a 'not guilty by reason of insanity' defence, which would allow a defendant to go to a psychiatric facility instead of prison...."

From "Luigi Mangione withdraws plans for psychiatric defence at murder trial/Lawyers earlier said they would argue the Ivy League graduate, 28, was suffering from ‘extreme emotional disturbance’ when he allegedly shot Brian Thompson" (London Times).

"Days after his arrest and before Mangione retained her as his lead attorney, [Karen Friedman] Agnifilo told CNN that a psychiatric defence could be the right move for him. 'There might be a not guilty by reason of insanity defence that they’re going to be thinking about, because the evidence is going to be so overwhelming that he did what he did,' Friedman Agnifilo, then a CNN legal analyst, told the network."

"He wanted revenge — revenge against society because he blamed society for all his troubles."

"You’ll hear that in 2024, the defendant was lonely, with no real friends.... He lived by himself and was withdrawn."

Said the prosecutor, quoted in "Man accused of starting LA wildfire ‘wanted revenge on the rich’/Jonathan Rinderknecht is on trial for arson, facing allegations that he was behind the devastating fires that consumed thousands of homes" (London Times).

"For many years, these works have inspired audiences around the world by conveying values such as courage, friendship and perseverance."

"Because of this, many fans feel concerned when images from these works appear to be used in political or military contexts that may differ from the intentions of the original creators or rights holders. This petition seeks to convey the voices of fans who, precisely because Japanese manga and anime are so widely loved around the world, hope that their cultural value and context will be respected."

Says an online petition seeking an end to the use of anime in political satire, quoted in "Trump draws anger in Japan with ‘disrespectful’ cartoon fakes/Fans of anime have called for action against the US president, who posts AI-generated clips of himself as their comic-book heroes" (London Times).

I'll just express my opinion in blog tags: "free speech" and "lawsuits I hope will fail."

This made me think of the old Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates case. Wikipedia: