Two More Executions

Joseph Corcoran

Indiana last executed someone fifteen years ago. They will still, arguably not have involuntarily executed anyone since 2009. Corcoran decided to end appeals. He was a "volunteer." He was (now) given the right to have a spiritual counselor present 

Corcoran murdered four people, including his brother in 1999 because he thought they were talking badly about him. Twenty-five years lag time raises Glossip (Breyer) problems. There was evidence of mental incompetence. His lawyers, opposing his execution, argue that it warrants not fulfilling his wish.  

His mental status raises questions about the voluntariness of his decision. I am less enthused about a complete denial of anybody having the right to turn down appeals. The essay's "natural rights" argument is too extreme. What about euthanasia? 

Gary Gilmore shows the importance of some minimal appeals process to protect the integrity of the system. Justice White, who granted the constitutionality of the death penalty, dissented on that ground. But, this is not always a problem. Some appeals have run the course.

A person on death row is not a free agent. Still, people who make decisions often are choosing between bad options. It is rational not to want to live one's life, often in isolation, in a tiny cage for decades on end. The death penalty overall is wrong. If we are stuck with the wrong things, there is a right to choose them.  

Another concern is keeping the press away. The press provides an important function to inform the public and check the government. This provides justification for a right of access, which is standard practice. 

The lack of independent witnesses is problematic. Chris Geidner has more, including notice that a reporter did witness the execution because the murderer put him on his witness list. 

The prosecutor now has second thoughts about applying the death penalty in his case. A family member also opposes his execution. It is likely that the family of the victims, like mine, would have different views. We cannot simply appeal to the victims. 

A final Supreme Court appeal was rejected without comment. The lower court (see Geidner) split 2-1. Liberal justices (Sotomayor or Jackson) have chosen to pick limited spots to dissent or provide statements in capital cases. This was a good time to do so.  

Corcoran was executed shortly after midnight. The sole media witness provided an account.  As Chris Geidner notes, the execution procedure started shortly after midnight, but it is unclear when the drugs began to flow. The reporter only had a view inside of the death chamber shortly after 12:30 AM. 

It is ridiculous to allow a media witness and not even provide a full view of the execution. 

Kevin Ray Underwood

Underwood brutally murdered a ten-year-old girl. The facts suggest the sort of "monster" that people might want off the face of this earth. The murder took place over 18 years ago. The trial was closer to fifteen. 

A mental health claim failed. The execution was delayed a year when the attorney general asked for executions to be spaced out more. No clemency. 

The Supreme Court the morning of the scheduled execution finalized things by rejecting a petition based on the clemency procedure. The usual five-person board now was a three-person board.  No comment. 

The case is likely much weaker than the first case but still would like at least a brief discussion before someone's life is taken. I think a life warrants that. 

The final execution of the year brings us back to those cases that are more about a pure concern about the death penalty. An amoral (the crime was a result of some twisted fantasy) person does something that violates basic human decency. What do we do?

An execution remains a dubious approach. The system as a whole is a problem. If you allow it here, more troublesome (like the first case) will be allowed too. 

Confinement is not an ideal solution but appears to be the best available. The execution of a few of the "worse of the worst," granting that is okay for "the worst act of your life," is an arbitrary lottery.  

And, that (number 25) is the last execution of 2024. On the guy's birthday yet. Oh well. 

SCOTUS Watch: Orders and Opinions

Order List

After granting cases on Friday, the Supreme Court released the usual ho-hum Order List on Monday. 

Alito didn't take part in a couple of cases, as usual, not saying why. I will continue to flag that until the conservatives join the liberals in saying why they recuse, which the new ethical guidelines encourage. 

As usual, there were various odds and ends. The most notable thing is some statements/dissents from some conservatives in hot-button cases. 

Alito/Thomas would have taken a case involving affirmative action while Gorsuch said the matter is moot with a change of policy. 

Thomas/Alito and Gorsuch (less bluntly) flagged a case where the Hawaii Supreme Court received some attempt by thumbing their nose at the current SCOTUS gun policy. They granted it was not a ripe case but were concerned about the issues. 

Kavanaugh without comment and Alito/Thomas (on standing) would have taken a case involving parents asserting a right to know if their children came out as trans at school. Alito was sympathetic about an unenumerated right of parents raising their kids, a week after the trans case involving parents concerned about the health care of their children.  

Alito argued that standing has been used to wrongly avoid certain cases. Justices are selectively worried about such prudential standing decisions.  Chris Geidner shows how hypocritical/FOX News-y Alito/Thomas is here to reach out to take this case. 

Opinions

The first two opinions were a per curiam and a one-line statement that said a case was improvidently granted. IOW, "We shouldn't have taken it."

On Human Rights Day, we had the first signed opinion of the 2024 Term. The day was the 76th anniversary of the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our courts, including the Supreme Court, provide a fundamental means to uphold our rights. Rights ultimately rely on us all.

Anyways, back to the Supreme Court, and its first signed opinion of the term.  Justice Jackson, who will get a chance to fulfill a dream on the stage, wrote a unanimous opinion in an immigration dispute. 

The facts might be sympathetic, but the Court determined that a challenge to an alleged "sham marriage" determination should fail. Jackson argued the law gives the agency involved discretion without the courts having the authority to second guess. 

There was a dispute over the law here so the answer to the question was not totally clear. I will not pretend to argue that I know the right answer. Suffice it to say, that a unanimous court is not necessarily a right court. Ultimately, the value here is to have an agreed-upon answer that can be applied consistently.  

As usual, the opinion announcement was not live-streamed, so you will have to wait for Oyez.com to release it sometime after the term (or find where it is stored and access it). Now, the whole thing is announced on social media, including court reporters telling us how many boxes of opinions there are as a sign of how many opinions there might be. 

The Court decided having an opinion day was so much fun that they would have one on Wednesday too. As with the first "opinion day," it turned out to be another case of them deposing the case as improvidentially granted ("DIG"), which was not surprising from the coverage of the oral argument. 

The case involved the use of NVIDIA chips by crypto miners. Okay. So we had four opinions this term, one a per curiam (unsigned opinion of the court) released separately. Two opinion days involved DIGS and only one with a signed opinion. 

More Orders 

The Supreme Court rejected a stay of a coal regulation. The "brief" order business is the standard talk for a standard rejection without comment. Stays are not usually granted though sometimes justices at least show some concern about the EPA these days.  

The Court also dropped an order after their Friday conference that added two more arguments. Thus, two of the matters they "relisted" for further discussion have been addressed. More orders are due Monday. 

Court Seating 

The Supreme Court livestreams audio but does not provide video of oral arguments. Also, people like to be present in the room. But, there is limited seating, resulting in some problems. The Supreme Court is starting a trial lottery process for public seating.  

The inability to provide video or photographs leads to the usage of sketch artists. William Hennessey, a long-time SCOTUS sketch artist, has died. 

Thus ends a busy if not too profound week. 

SCOTUS Watch

Ethics

Jodi Kantor co-authored another inside look at the Supreme Court. The subject is ethics, which will continue to be an issue while Republicans refuse to address it since their people control the Supreme Court.  

The article provided an interesting examination for the general public. Court watchers realize that the justices are divided ideologically on this question. The article includes some new details, including how Gorsuch made his voice known about the problems of ethics rules. 

The letter from Supreme Court Clerk Scott Harris did not explain why Gorsuch was recusing himself, saying only that "consistent with the code of conduct" he had decided not to participate.

Gorsuch has also decided not to take part in an upcoming environmental case. A request was placed for him to recuse given links to a billionaire involved in the case. It would have been helpful if there was more clarity on why he recused. Conservatives, as I have noted before, do not follow the practice of the liberal justices of openly citing specific ethical guidelines when officially not taking part in a case.  

Some people, especially conservative-minded types, worry about the leaks involved in these news articles. If the institution could handle The Brethren, I think the limited details provided here won't mean the end of the institution. Leaks provide a safeguard when powerful institutions are involved. Gorsuch worries about federal power. 

Maybe, he should be consistent when his own federal institution is involved. To the degree he is open to recusals when appropriate, I appreciate it. 

Ethical guidelines cannot simply be about self-regulation. It is not for other courts. Mark Joseph Stern rightly is not too impressed by Gorsuch's actions. Nonetheless, self-regulation is not without value. His recusal suggests that pressure still can encourage the justices to act. 

Oral Arguments 

The Supreme Court has two weeks of oral arguments in December. The cases largely do not involve "hot button" cases. The one exception involves trans rights and medical care for children. 

A historical moment was the argument by the first openly trans advocate in front of the Supreme Court. The argument (as expected) did not bode too well for the challengers of the Tennessee law. 

The liberals were strongly against it. Gorsuch, who was likely to be an important swing justice (Bostock), didn't ask a single question. Roberts, the other conservative vote in Bostock (a statutory case) sounded doubtful about the challenge. 

As will regularly be the case, liberals are left to be hopeful about Barrett's vote. Barrett was surprised at the idea that there was a long history of anti-trans legislation. Seriously? I would think it was in the briefing somewhere at the very least.  

I was wary about this whole thing with this Supreme Court. Chris Geidner argued the federal government was correct to appeal it, including because the law is particularly bad. Maybe. Who am I to say, I guess.

The other thing is that as seen by people waiting overnight in the cold for limited seating, watching the oral arguments is useful. Live audio is nice; video would be better. Other courts manage both binding ethics rules and televised oral arguments. 

We are left with a few observers, including those with press credentials to give us a visual accounting. 

Other SCOTUS News 

I'll let Amy Howe summarize one order:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday appointed a former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts to defend a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in an immigration case after the Biden administration declined to do so.

Friday's conference will lead to an Order List on Monday. As is normally the case, the justices dropped an order in the afternoon stating the cases (three, involving two issues) they granted for review. One is somewhat notable -- it involves the power of U.S. courts to try a damage case involving terrorism (PLO).

There will be one or more opinions announced on Tuesday. Last time that meant a one-sentence "our bad" opinion noting it was a mistake to take the case. 

I think there will be a real opinion this time though it won't be a barnburner. SCOTUSBlog flagged the news but the regular reader of the SCOTUS website would be left searching out the calendar.

A simple press release on the relevant page would be a more logical approach. 

New York Legal News

I grant I might pay too much attention to national news. New York has legal news as important as dealing with each miscellaneous SCOTUS order.

New York City, for instance, recently decriminalized jaywalking. Now, that does not seem to be that profound, especially since people tend to jaywalk without worrying about arrest. 

Nonetheless, jaywalking laws have been used as a reason to stop and frisk people. Evidence suggests they are arbitrarily applied. And, they have little safety value in practice. The law goes into effect in February.

Deborah Rhode wrote an interesting small book about adultery explaining its history and problems with prohibition. NY was one of the remaining states that had a criminal law (rarely enforced) on the books. 

New York, perhaps surprisingly, can be conservative about change. It took a long time to become a no-fault divorce state.  New York has now decriminalized adultery.  Note that bigamy is still not allowed.

Missouri Executes Christopher Collings

Christopher Collings was convicted of raping and killing nine-year-old Rowan Ford in November 2007. Her body was found six days after she went missing, naked in a McDonald County cave. An autopsy determined she died from strangulation. Collings confessed to the crime. Rowan’s stepfather, David Spears, also pleaded guilty for his role in her death and has since been released from prison. Collings is currently being held at the Potosi Correctional Center, awaiting his execution scheduled for December 3.

An article that provides the basics regarding an upcoming execution likely led many people to believe it was the correct result. I have consistently not shied away from stating the crimes in my accounts, contrary to the common trope that opponents do. 

You can read more (picture) about the horrible details. The defense focused on avoiding the death penalty:

The prosecution sought the death penalty after highlighting the aggravating factors of the case, while the defense opposed the death sentence and asked for life imprisonment by highlighting that Collings was diagnosed with both severe disorganized disassociative attachment disorder and intermittent explosive disorder, and had a dysfunctional family background and tragic upbringing.

The prosecution accepted a lesser plea from the stepfather because they had less conclusive evidence that his role was as significant as Christopher Colling's actions. Nonetheless, there is reasonable justification to think the stepfather (who has more responsibility to the child than a stranger) still had a significant one. 

The Supreme Court in mid-November rejected one motion. Another longshot appeal argued the defense had the right to evidence that would have allowed them to challenge a key witness regarding his confession. Not worthy of SCOTUS review.

I don't mind that they didn't grant the Hail Mary appeal. Most of these appeals are not certworthy. This does not mean a statement or explanation is not warranted. The state is taking someone's life. And, sometimes, the appeal has some merit. And, there is still radio silence.

I have often cited Justice Breyer's argument against the constitutionality of an execution handed down long after the sentence. Twelve years (they were sentenced in 2012) is relatively reasonable as these sorts of things go.  

I do think execution after over fifteen years from the crime is somewhat questionable. Granted, executions twenty or more years afterward are a clearer case.  

A child kidnapping/rape/murder is the sort of "worse of the worst" crime that objectively warrants the death penalty if the death penalty is allowed. 

The mitigating factors included alleged mental health conditions. Perhaps. If he was another case of a victim who later victimized, it would be a tragic old story. It underlines that subhuman "monsters" do not exist. Just humans who do horrible things.   

The prosecution had reasons for giving the stepfather a plea deal. Still, he was not just a small cog in the crime. He is out of prison while Christopher Collins dies. Both should have had long prison terms.

One is now free while the other was executed by lethal injection. Two more executions are scheduled later this month. Happy holidays?  

==

A bad system will have incidents that are less horrible than some others. The system as a whole should end. Such is the case with the machinery of death.

Nonetheless, Arizona, led by a Democratic governor, plans to start that machinery once more. 

The Trump Administration (a travesty that I have to write that) is quite likely to do so at some point too. It's just a question of how. 

More Line Drawing: Child Pornography

Constitutional analysis is often one big slippery slope exercise. 

Where do we draw lines? These days a "limiting principle" is as popular as talking about putting things in "buckets" (seriously; they started this in recent years for some reason). For instance, will same-sex marriage lead to incest and polygamy? 

Will protecting peyote in religious exercises mean marijuana too? And, maybe, that won't be so bad! The game is played for free speech too. There are various categories not covered including threats, libel, and perjury (not lying across the board). 

Obscenity is one unprotected category. For whatever reason, selling the idea Nazism is fine is okay, but certain types of patently offensive matters of prurient interest don't have enough protection for First Amendment purposes. It's sort of f-ed up.

The more logical approach is to protect minors and unwilling viewers. Yes, we have had various debates on line drawing, including involving George Carlin's dirty words on the radio. But,  as a general matter, that is a lot more narrow in scope than a total ban.

Likewise, certain types of sexual materials can be banned. For instance, the distribution of private nude photos and videos without permission, especially "revenge porn," in certain cases can be illegal.

A prime case of regulation is child pornography. Yet again, however, we have line drawing. Young adult fiction will deal with sexual topics. If we are drawing the line at eighteen, some portrayals of sexual acts do not seem outrageous. Especially in France. 

There is also the question of art and photography. A 1970s sex education book from Germany, Show Me!, received some controversy. 

Child pornography cases will sometimes raise the usual nude children at the beach hypos. BTW, nudism photography is allowed even if it has minors. If it is purposely lewd, you might get into trouble.  

The Supreme Court has held that fake (virtual) child pornography is also protected. OTOH, though the Supreme Court protected personal protection of obscenity in the home [not downloading it], they drew the line (6-3) at child pornography.  

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a New York law banning the distribution of materials portraying minors involved in non-obscene sexual acts. The state court struck it down as not narrowly tailored enough. 

I'm inclined to agree with them though maybe not for the exact grounds provided. The text:

A person is guilty of promoting a sexual performance by a child when, knowing the character and content thereof, he produces, directs or promotes any performance which includes sexual conduct by a child less than seventeen years of age.

What is "sexual conduct"? For instance, is Pretty Baby by Brooke Shields a problem? I think you need a few more adjectives and details. The oral argument suggests there are additional things involved when applying the statute including "lewd" conduct. But, the text alone does not say that. 

It is one of those cases where the specific facts make you wonder why we are here. The case involved a video of teen boys masturbating. It should have been possible to prosecute it as obscenity.  

The defendant's lawyer basically provided a "how-to" on why they screwed up. After all, double jeopardy ensured Ferber was safe. Chief Justice Burger clearly expressed his distaste over the defense's argument.  

The main opinion held the possible legitimate applications (Show Me! was cited in the oral argument) were minor enough not to strike it down as overbroad. Four justices showed some additional concern that sometimes such works could have enough value to be worthy of protection.  

Note that the defense's position was not that any material was protected. He granted you could ban obscene works. He just did not want a looser rule for child pornography. It is unclear how much that will matter in practice. As noted, the material in question sounds like it could be targeted as obscenity.  

Basic rules of consent are legitimate reasons to limit certain behaviors to adults. We can expand that rule to the filming and distribution of those behaviors. So, child pornography rules in principle are acceptable.

The question then becomes where to draw the line. Just because minors are involved, there still will be stuff that should be protected. The easier calls are written and virtual works. Ditto, in the other direction,  material which is blatantly child porn. 

Such material in certain cases might be acceptable in limited instances. For instance, people learning about sexual abuse can view certain materials. Certain works otherwise not allowed might be legitimate in small amounts in documentary and news accounts.  

The rest are the judgment calls that is what law is all about. We should be careful about targeting such materials except in narrowly defined situations. 

For instance, teens spreading nude photos can be problematic, but it is also problematic to make people who willingly send such things into criminals. A single act of downloading child pornography can be a federal offense. But, zero-tolerance also is questionable.

Harmful to Minors, which I read some time back, provides a libertarian point of view about children's sexuality. We can recognize some limits here. Wherever we do, we should do so carefully. 

SCOTUS Watch

Order Watch  

The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is denied.

The final scheduled summer order list is coming up and there are five executions later this month. Meanwhile, other SCOTUS actions.

The first miscellaneous order concerns an attempt to delay prison time, appealing to a 1/6 related case. The crime:

Applicant, a former assistant inspector general and contracting official in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 1519 by, among other things, omitting from his annual financial disclosure forms $80,000 in loans that he had received.

No dice and no comment. Of more note:

The Supreme Court has rejected Oklahoma's attempt to claw back millions in Title X family planning funds that it lost because it refused to comply with program rules requiring clinics to offer information about abortion to patients who request it.

Oklahoma sued the administration in 2023 after it lost roughly $4.5 million in annual Title X funds for refusing to comply with the abortion counseling and referral requirements. The lower court rejected the claim. Litigation continues, underlining abortion lawsuits will not end after Dobbs. 

The Biden Administration offered to let them merely offer patients a national hotline number to obtain information about making an abortion appointment out of state. The state said "Nope."

The Biden administration redistributed the funding that had been going to Oklahoma’s health department to two independent providers who have agreed to abide by the abortion referral requirements.

This time, though there were no explanations, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch publicly dissented. 

Books 

Someone recommended a 1960s book entitled A Supreme Court Justice Is Appointed, which discusses Justice Pierce Butler. Justice Butler is the least talked about of the four conservatives nicknamed the Four Horsemen (of the Apocalypse) during the New Deal.  

(Here's a law article on Butler that argues he is worthy of somewhat more attention.) 

They had liberal moments, including Justice McReynolds writing Meyer v. Nebraska and some well-known civil liberty rulings of George Sutherland. Pierce Butler dissented in the Olmstead (wiretapping) and Buck v. Bell (eugenics) cases too. Van Devanter wrote the least though he was around the longest. His forte was more behind the scenes. 

The book is a mostly engaging discussion of the ins and outs of Butler's appointment. The last quarter of the book had some chapters that were written in academic-ese. Academics should be able to discuss such matters without causing eyes to glaze over.

Meanwhile, Justice Jackson's autobiography (she has a co-author, who she thanks but does not get a co-writing credit) is out. I have it on reserve. 

She is doing interviews, including noting that she is okay with a binding ethics rule for SCOTUS. She was on Colbert* as was her old boss (Justice Breyer) earlier to promote his latest book (rather dull). Years back, in a rather nifty seven or so minutes, Justice John Paul Stevens was a guest on the Colbert Report.  

In one interview, she was interviewed with her husband, who noted he always knew that she would be on the Supreme Court. He got a bit teary. Definite "awww" moment. 

Sotomayor has multiple books. She now has a musical, which is based on one of her books for children. The musical has adults portraying children, discussing growing up with different disabilities. 

Did any talk about watching Sotomayor on Sesame Street? Barrett and Kavanaugh's books are pending. 

==

* Airing tonight. 

ETA: Colbert referenced early that a justice will not discuss certain matters. It would have been helpful for Jackson to briefly explain why.

Jackson briefly explained her dissent in the Trump immunity case. She has decided this would be one of the things she could talk about.

Colbert noted the practice of dissenting from the bench. Jackson explained it was a way to express your strong feelings about a case. 

She dissented from the bench twice this term, including in the Idaho abortion case. She said (or claimed) she didn't remember the exact cases. I have my doubts that she truly forgot them.  

Arkansas Again

While Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders takes credit for the 4-3 ruling that kept an abortion rights ballot measure away from voters, things are not going well.

The Washington Post — showing that MSM is not only trolling us with pro-Trump fact checks — had a good (if depressing) report:

This state calls itself the ‘most pro-life.’ But moms there keep dying.

The problem of maternal health is so bad that Gov. Sanders knew she had to act:

This spring, facing pressure from business leaders and the medical community, Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders launched an initiative to address maternal health, an issue that she acknowledged “we’ve ignored for far too long.” Yet she declined to support extending Medicaid postpartum coverage to a year from 60 days, saying the state’s existing insurance system was enough. Arkansas will soon be one of only two states not adopting such coverage.

Banning nearly all abortions doesn't quite do it. One glaring issue is teenagers:

Though teen birth rates are falling nationally, federal data shows the statistic for Arkansas is almost twice the U.S. average. Lack of access to contraception is a major factor; the rate at which teens in Arkansas have unprotected sex is 75 percent higher, according to a report from the nonprofit Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.

The Dobbs ruling that overturned national abortion rights arose out of Mississippi, which has such bad social welfare stats that it is something of a sick joke. The briefing underlined who would be particularly harmed by an abortion ban.

In theory, you can ban abortion and address other problems. In reality, states with strict abortion bans are not likely to be good places for women and families overall.

Abortion providers do not just provide abortions. The lack of abortion rights is not just about “federalism” (sorry James David Vance) or “pro-life” ends.

North Carolina, helped by a traitor former Democrat, tried somewhat:

The bill also contains a number of provisions cracking down on where and how women can get abortions, and how many steps they must take prior to making the decision — including multiple in-person meetings with a doctor. There's also more state funding for adoption services, maternal health programs and religious charities that run antiabortion clinics called crisis pregnancy centers.

The state has a Democratic governor and a shot in hell for a Harris win so it is not too surprising it did not go the totally extreme route. It drew the line at twelve weeks. You know, slavery-lite. 

State funding of religious charities and crisis pregnancy scams also is not too liberal. But, yes, they could be said “not to be Arkansas.”

At the end of the day, if you are pro-life (not “pro-life with baggage”), Rachel Held Evans (RIP) was right. You should vote blue.

Abortion bans will not do much to reduce abortion rates and the people behind them have too much negative baggage.

The Christmas Note + Two Books

This film was on Hallmark a few weeks back. I missed the beginning but was able to find it at the library. 

The most familiar face is Jamie-Lynn Sigler (The Sopranos), who has a podcast with Christiana Applegate about MS. The lawyer is also a familiar player in these sorts of films.

The Christmas Note is based on a novel, which is often the case with these films. A mom with a young son comes back home while waiting for her husband to return from military service. (It is hinted early on that he's dead but he's just injured.)  She helps a neighbor when her mother dies. 

While at the mother's house, they find a note from the mother letting her daughter know that she gave up a child for adoption. The mom and daughter had a difficult relationship, ultimately not seeing each other for ten years. The two women, growing close, try to find the sibling. 

The reveal is not too surprising. There is an annoyingly heavy-handed soundtrack. The film tones down the negative aspects of the mother found in the book Wikipedia tells me, e.g., the mom is portrayed as an alcoholic and sexually promiscuous in the book, which is not covered in the film.

It is a nice film overall, one that covers somewhat different ground than the usual Hallmark Channel film. There are three channels now and this would be appropriate for the "family drama" channel when it isn't playing The Waltons or something.  

The film tosses in a small romantic subplot involving the mom's [played by Sigler] long divorced parents. There is also a theme about the importance of family and redemption. The film is somewhat heavy-handed at times and the son is a bit annoying. 

Still, the whole thing is well-paced, and the search for the sibling is well done, serving as a chance to address other themes. Overall, recommended.

==

The free rack at the local library often has romance paperbacks. I read a couple recently. There are so, so many romance novels out there. Overall, I am not much of a fiction reader. As a child, I never really read fiction. I didn't have the usual childhood fiction. 

Taking Love In Stride is part of a series of books that take place in each state of the Union. The authors of the fifty books (none listed for Puerto Rico etc.) appear to be all women. Short book of a little over two hundred pages (at least my copy). It is from 1991.

The book concerns a woman track coach falling for the father of a student. There is some family drama, including the grandfather who was once a runner, but who is now in a wheelchair. 

Early on, the book shows the point of view of both leads but then it focuses on just the woman. She has a bad relationship with her father and it slants her view of the dad she falls for. The whole thing is okay. It's a PG-related affair -- no sex though some passion.

A Haven for Christmas is a more recent book. It is part of the Amish romance genre. This time, a cowboy and former military guy who is also a recently on-the-wagon alcoholic falls for an Amish widow. 

The book is somewhat more in his point of view but we see things through both of their eyes. His adaption to the Amish lifestyle is rather smooth, even a potential rival for the widow/mom's affections soon being on his side. A tad too smooth, to be honest.

It is quickly apparent they care for each other though her being Amish and all makes it seem like nothing can come of it. This being an Amish tale, we do not see any hot and heavy stuff though they do kiss near the end. Racy! Again, there is some passion. 

Other than a late conflict (the whole thing is dealt with in the last twenty pages or so), things go rather smoothly. The Amish lifestyle and the cowboy struggling with his addiction/need to find a purpose in life are handled pretty well.  

Overall, it was a pleasant enough read, light enough to quickly consume while having enough serious components to still be nourishing. It was a "larger print" book -- new to me -- so easier to read without being completely large print.  

[The Amazon link has the book listed as 224 pages while my copy was closer to 400 pages.]

Some books use too small of a font. I suppose it is part of my eyes wearing down some but it does seem noticeably bad in some cases. I don't need large print and can manage to read the smaller print books. Still, this is a good middle approach.  

The book had multiple forms to send for free copies of romance novels to encourage people to obtain a subscription. The book is from 2020 and I will see if I get any.  One form promised the free copies and then you are sent more but can return them. 

I am reminded of the ability back in the day to obtain four or so hard-cover books for only the price of shipping and handling. Sometimes, they sent you a book you didn't order, and I would just drop it in the mailbox. That is when you could do that. Now, they only have a small slot, people trying to steal mail.

ETA: These books, like all romance novels I recall reading, are rather predictable. If one of these books went in a surprising direction, I guess, readers would feel cheated. The same would be true if there was no happy ending. Some books might have that plot device but standard romance novels do not. 

One new film shows that some authors go another way but even there people by now expect it. 

Some Romance

The Dueling Duchess by Minerva Spencer is the middle novel in a trilogy involving women at a female circus in Regency England (most of this book took place in 1815-6, during the decade when King George IV stood in for his ailing father). It is the "Wicked Women of Whitechapel." She has multiple series.

The fact the book is part of a series involving three women (fighter, markswoman, knife show/some sort of spy) explains why some of the details of when the two main protagonists met were not spelled out. A trio of nobles (including an upright sort, a playboy, and a taciturn spy) go undercover in the circus as part of a plan to save one of their brothers, trapped in France. 

All three turn out to fall in love with members of the circus. This book concerns the Frenchwoman who now runs the circus and is the daughter of a great gunsmith. She gets involved with the playboy but there are various other plots. The whole thing gets to be a bit silly, but guess that's expected.  

Overall, I enjoyed it as a generally light reading, though various serious things happened. For instance, they take in a girl, whose parents died, and she has been living on the streets. She struck the jackpot finding these two. Still, so many others did not.

There are so many romance novels out there. I have not read that many. From time to time, I find one that I by chance find enjoyable. Some of these books are pretty long. This one was over three hundred and fifty pages. No wonder there was so much going on.  

A charm of these books is that they are not that deep. They are quick reading affairs. They have a few steamy sex scenes. There are a range of locales, both historical and otherwise. General fun. 

Hopefully, the characters are not totally cardboard. OTOH, some may like that sort of thing. Some have religious themes. For instance, the Amish or other comparable sects seem to be popular. These books tend to have less steamy sex scenes. 

I have three Hallmark Channels (one often has mysteries), Up TV, and Great American Family Network. So, even without others, there are a lot of light romances and cozy mysteries. 

People who watch these channels even semi-regularly realize there are regular actors, often familiar faces from the past. Oh ... it's the actress from Wonder Years ... it's that guy again ... it's Autumn Reeser.

The third actress stars in Junebug (not the Amy Adams movie), which premiered last night. I saw a preview a couple weeks ago and it looked promising. 

An adult woman (turning 40) starts to see her eight-year-old self, who is not too pleased about her boring life. Appropriately, Juniper (Junebug as a child) now edits children's books. She falls for a painter, who she selects to be an illustrator. 

Reeser has been in many Hallmark films (and a few other things). I have liked some of them. She's good here though the guy is a bit of a boring hunk type. 

Juniper has a nicely normal bestie and even-keeled parents. The story takes place at a leisurely pace and the usual difficulty that pops up is handled quickly. 

There is also a charming reference to Say Anything, including a good moment when she is excited when her new love interest (she breaks up with her boring boyfriend midway) knows about that John Cusack film. She would have been rather young to truly enjoy that 1989 film when it first came out.  

One thing about many of these films is that the characters are generally privileged. Some people could not simply quit their jobs as she does to fulfill her dream to become a writer. Another film involved someone living in the basement apartment of her sister and it was a nice basement apartment.

The different channels have a somewhat different feel. GAMF films come off as more forced. Up TV went all in with diversity (well non-white characters-wise) before Hallmark. It also is likely to have more religiously themed films.  And, if you flip through the channels, you can find others with romances too.

I'm not sure if any channel goes with having more average people having romances. One thing a lot of these films do not have is things happen in urban areas. A lot of small towns. This film had some visuals that suggest a larger location but hard to tell. 

I have a dream that I will someday of a woman mayor and president. New York currently does have a woman governor. She wouldn't be my first choice but she's okay. And, we were this close to a no drama woman mayor instead of Eric Adams. Sigh. 

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer would be a good choice for president. Now, however, we have a different choice. Well, that will do it. One out of 47 is enough, right? 

I saw Whitmer on Stephen Colbert not that long ago. She supported Biden staying in the race and promoted her book. It's a small book (around 150 pages) entitled True Gretch: What I've Learned About Life, Leadership, and Everything In Between. 

Yes, she does have that midwestern accent. I say that as a guy from the Bronx, who people say has an accent (sometimes people hear some Boston). Whitmer to me looks something like Geena Davis. 

The book is a handy quick way to get a feel about Gov. Gretchen Whitmer as she gives some advice and talks about her life and career. 

She puts herself out as a plainspoken person who doesn't take herself that seriously. She has a sense of humor, enjoying an SNL bit about her while making sure to correct the actress about using a Canadian beer. 

Whitmer also got stuff done, including her party regaining control of a state Trump won, if by a fraction of a percent. (47.50 v. 47.27). BTW, when I see talk of polls against Harris in Georgia, I say "calm down a bit." We are talking about 1-2 percent with the undecideds more than the margin. 

Geena Davis and Michael Keaton were in a political-themed romantic comedy called Speechless. Yes, I can connect a lot of things together. It was a pleasant enough film back in 1994 and they were speechwriters for competing candidates.  

Gretchen Whitmer has two daughters from her first marriage. True love forever is often not reality. Heck, even Hallmark has some characters who are divorced. 

There even was a sequel to a film (The Nine Lives of Christmas) where the match actually didn't stay together. I could not get into the film (the guy was rather stiff even in the first film) so do not know what happened in the end.  The first film was cute. 

Airplane!

I enjoyed Zero Hour! both on its own as a 1950s airplane disaster film and because it is so much like Airplane!. I decided to watch the "real thing" so to speak and see the two parody films.

The Airplane! DVD menu is set up creatively with airplane jargon. It also has a commentary track, an extended version track, and a track with trivia. I checked out the other tracks (not the extended version -- should have just watched it -- most DVDs have a collection of extra scenes). The commentary was reasonable but didn't watch the whole thing.

Airplane II: The Sequel's DVD just had the movie. The film is predictably not as funny as the first but as sequels go is fine. William Shatner (this was just when he began again in the Star Trek films) was especially fun. It also has the early 1980s "we will give you one" bit of gratuitous topless nudity in a PG film.  

I haven't watched either film for a long time. I was still amused and impressed at how much work went into both of them. The films have three basic classes of actors. You have older actors like Robert Stack who were known for their serious roles. Toss in a gimmick role of a basketball player (Zero Hour! had a non-professional play a pilot).  

You had the two leads who at that time hadn't done too much (one did have a sitcom role in Angie). So, it was a good find (one trivia bit said David Letterman read for the Striker role!) to get such perfect choices. 

And, then you had a bunch of supporting roles, including many very amusing bits. A few faces are familiar (Jonathan Banks, who later was familiar playing heavies, had a small role). It takes a lot of talent to have such a large cast do so much good.

Books 

Herod the Great: Jewish King in a Roman World by Martin Goodman is a straightforward history of the Jewish king best known as a heavy in the New Testament. The book is part of a series of short Jewish biographies. We mainly know about him because Josephus wrote about him in his histories.  

The "killing of the innocents" story is fictional. OTOH, he did have a history of having multiple family members (including a wife, multiple sons, and an elderly grandfather-in-law) killed for fear that they threatened his authority. Early on, it was impressive he rose so far without being in a royal family. 

Not that engrossing but was an okay way to learn about the biblical character. 

==

Piglet is a recent fictional novel. The title comes from an unfortunate childhood nickname that stuck. Her bestie doesn't use it but we never hear her use the actual name either. So, she's always referenced as "Piglet." We get the real name near the end.

We never (quite annoying) are told what horrible secret her fiancé told her two weeks before the wedding. Whatever it is, her attempt to continue with the wedding plans led her to have a sort of mental breakdown. Meanwhile, she had more and more embarrassing things happen to her. Rather depressing.

The book starts fine enough and it was easy reading as I hoped (1) to find out the secret and (2) get her to move on from being such a pathetic loser but it basically didn't go anywhere. She finally realizes that the marriage is a big mistake late in the book. 

Oh, joy.  The book promises to be a story about a woman who realizes her life is unsatisfying. But, it really doesn't seem to be that bad, except for her loser of a husband-to-be. Not marrying a jerk is significant but the book jacket suggests a bit more. 

She has an embarrassing family (her parents after all still call her "Piglet") but that is fairly typical. It is suggested at one point her sister has her own body issues but that is dropped. 

She's also a food editor and the book has a lot of food stuff. So, we have pages of her prepping and cooking meals and such. It reads natural enough, to the degree I can tell (not much of a cook), but again, it doesn't really go anywhere. It feels like filler. 

I don't read much fiction. This was not a good example of the few I do read. 

ETA: After writing this, I found a famous modern version of Gilgamesh -- the ancient myth -- with various appendixes. I read it a long time ago in school. It has a lot of stuff, including an early flood narrative.

Freaky Friday

I recently learned that there was another version of Freaky Friday, a musical. I saw the Lohan version and might have seen the Jodie Foster version. I checked out some of this one and it has some charms. 

The mom (a lot of stage work) looks normal, sings well, and is a good actress. The songs overall are good. A supporting character is played by someone fans of Becker might recognize. 

The basic plot remains fascinating. What would happen if we switched bodies? How would we learn about the person whose body we switch into? What strange things would we experience?  

(A boy/girl switch would be weird. I suppose in some versions of the concept they would portray the person having sex in their new bodies.) 

BTW, it seems Colbert has a lot of vacation time. He works four-day weeks anyhow (sometimes filming double, so it really is three days), and now this is the second straight week of vacation. Nice job if you can get it.  

The Velveteen Rabbit

I do not think I ever read The Velveteen Rabbit. My general understanding was it is about a toy that a boy loved, even as it got all worn down.

Chandler bought a special edition for Kathy, who he fell in love with even though she was Joey's girlfriend. Being a Friends watcher, I checked it out of the library.

It's a touching book from the 1920s. There is a rule where a child's love makes you "real" ("I really like you!"). When the rabbit was going to disposed -- the boy got scarlet fever and it was seen as contaminated -- a fairy magically made him a real rabbit.

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!

Branching Out

Hallmark Channel (there are three; one emphasizes cozy mysteries while one is more a "drama" channel with some older Hallmark films, The Waltons reruns, etc.) is trying to diversify these days. There is more gay and lesbian content, a few more non-white leads, and know of two recent films involving blind people. 

Have ways to go but it's a start. We also have a few films -- there still are usually the standard storylines (this includes non-urban settings; small towns and farms are favorites with a few travelogue-type films, often with Lacey Chabert) -- with novel stories. One film [one of those generic types of titles] involved a woman separating from her husband and she stayed separated even when the husband started to have a change of heart.  It was pretty good.

Branching Out concerns a woman who had a daughter with IVF. Sarah Drew also played in a Hallmark film involving a woman who loses her sight. I thought that one was done pretty well (it was based on a series of books). She was good in this film as well. She voiced the dim member of the popular clique on Daria. 

The film is not about the IVF process. The daughter is in elementary school and doing a family tree project. The mom does not have much family (her dad left while she was growing up) and is unmarried. 

So, the daughter is upset she does not have much of a tree. She knows about IVF and wants to find the dad. They take a genetic test and quicker than it probably would actually be in real life, the dad is found. We get a lesson on the different types of families. And, this being a Hallmark film, the mom and biological dad eventually fall for each other.

I am wary about that part of things. It is quite true that sometimes children find out about their biological parents (gay couples have children too so sometimes the person can be the biological mom). I think this tends to happen later than the events of this film. But, it does happen. 

Sometimes, the person forms a connection with the child. The romance is a bit much, but yeah, it's Hallmark. I guess overall the film was decent. It examined the difficulty of the mom relating to the new members in her daughter's life and so on. As usual, the woman had an interesting professional job (an architect partnership) and a great house.  

I had some problems with the ease of finding the dad and then how easily he came into the daughter's life. He is a Mexican-American -- a few Hallmark Channel films have light-skinned people of color in the leads or as love interests. A channel like Up TV is more likely to have non-whites. 

Overall, decent try. 

Films (DVDs)

A red cow has special significance in Jewish practice as a sacrificial animal and a sign of the final days. 

Red Cow involves such symbolism in an Israeli drama about a teenage girl living with her father in an illegal settlement. She falls in love with a visiting young national service teacher. Meanwhile, she has some conflicts with her father. Her mother died during childbirth.    

The actress is closer to thirty than seventeen but mostly pulls it off. This Israeli independent film provides a well-acted (the love interest is a bit underwritten at times) look at another culture. I was confused about the ending, where she goes on a trip (was it a long one? would she have been gone for a while?) to see a performance in the city.  

Mamma + Mamma (Mom + Mom) is a 2018 Italian film about two lesbians who decide to have a child. The film is based on the experiences of the director (one character has her name). 

It is a drama with some comedy about their struggles to have a child, including raising money to do so in Spain since Italy does not allow IVF for gay couples. We see some of the family of one of the women, including a supportive grandfather. There are some dream sequences.  

The film is a short 81 minutes and felt it probably could have been a bit shorter. Overall, it was a charming and well-acted film. 

The Italy of the film has some picturesque flavor including the grandfather's farm but other than needing to go to Spain to do the procedure, there is a generally universal feel to this film. Perhaps, the fact the two living with a guy (who has his own girlfriend) suggests a European flavor though I would not choose Italy as the place for that. 

Both films have good, clearly understandable subtitles. Sometimes, foreign films can have subtitles with a small font and/or in a color that makes it harder to read. My eyesight isn't great and I was fine with these subtitles. I don't mind foreign films if the subtitles are easy enough to read. 

I saw You're Next mentioned in a book about horror films. I did not manage to complete the book but did check out the film. The book defined "horror film" broadly and this one is not about a monster.  

We have a type of "10 Little Indians" scenario here where characters are threatened one by one. Helpful to have grown up in a survivalist family! 

I sometimes like horror films and/or in jeopardy films. Megan Fox went all in as a wife handcuffed to a dead boy in Till Death. I enjoyed most of the Chucky films (tired of the series), both the mostly straight original, and as the films became more comical (the last two went back to being mostly straight; the third one was pretty lame and I didn't like the last one much). Some classic horrors (some on Svengoolie) are good.  

Slasher films? Some are enjoyable enough. They often don't have enough content to keep you interested the whole way simply as a film. I tried watching the first Friday the 13th and thought that way.  The film was okay enough (especially when you remember that at the time it was one of the first modern-day slashers) quality-wise if somewhat basic but it was boring. 

Some slashers mix in humor (the second and third Sleepaway Camp films come to mind). There was also the traditional gratuitous nudity. There were lots made. Some are crap. That is true for many genres.  

BJ Colangelo and others have taken such films seriously. She used to have a blog named after the original title of the infamous I Spit On Your Grave, a film that deserves some respect as a dramatic effort. I realize it is also an exploitation flick. I speak of the original. The remake came off as an overproduced fake effort. Skipped the sequels. I did not see the long-delayed sequel of the original which was way too long. 

This film received some good reviews as a novel twist on the genre. It is generally well-made with a good lead. I think the best way to talk about the whole thing is that it's functional. It starts with a prologue with a couple having a quickie with the woman not enjoying it much. Some of the characters don't have much sense as is common in films of this sort. 

The final kill is accidental. The DVD had two commentary tracks. 

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. 

Biden Pardons Two Birds

Following a tradition normalized in the 1980s, Biden also pardoned the turkeys Liberty and Bell yesterday, marking the unofficial start of the holiday season. The birds will move to the University of Minnesota’s College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences where they will become educational ambassadors for a state where turkey production provides more than $1 billion in economic activity and more than 26,000 jobs.

I wish someone would end this asinine process. What exactly is the point of "pardoning" a turkey? The usual process is to have these cutesy names, make some jokes, politick some, and so on. 

West Wing tells us presidents do not have the power to pardon fowl. Well, maybe if they commit some federal crime. The president also might be given the power by statute to do so. He can also pardon a bird (in a non-criminal sense) while carrying out his presidential powers. He is basically given the power to do this by whatever process is in place here.

Local politicians are giving out turkeys around my way. One referenced also giving way produce. Last year, Twitter provided better access to the people I followed. This included a local account that let me know when they were handing out free produce (fruit, vegetables, beans, etc.). My feed is much less helpful. I might have missed one of these hand-outs.

Not everyone eats turkey. I am a vegetarian who tries to be as much of a vegan as I can. I have been so since the mid-1990s. You don't have to be one to find this pardon business silly. It's hard to end these traditions. So, we are going to continue to have them. And, have people complain.

One lay-up is that criminal justice advocates sneer at the limited use of the pardon power for actual humans. One blog, some strongly conservative sort (rabidly so at times) agreed. Our criminal justice system is very troubling. There have been some mild efforts to address the problems. Some bipartisan action has been done there nationwide. Rachel Barkow and Emily Bazelon are two people who have written books on this topic.

I clearly agree. Congress could help by establishing some guidelines, including a special pardon administrator who selects people from a range of places to help them. The president (or members of the Justice Department) can independently do so. There has not been a recent drive to do so. It's a shame. Again, inertia helps here as does fear of crime. Still, there are enough bipartisan forces available for there to be some movement here. 

Thanksgiving can also be designated as a special time to announce many pardons. Actual pardons, not just of turkeys. People can return to their families. People already out can have their records made clean. It would be an appropriate way to celebrate the holiday.  

A final concern would be all those involved in the Thanksgiving season. We can have special concerns for agricultural workers and animals raised. The retailers who sell the food and supplies. The workers there. The mothers and family members as a whole who make the dinners. Some (like me) will join some members of their family to eat outside the home.

I am already seeing Christmas trees (at the store) and displays. Let's focus on that after Thanksgiving. And, let's honor the season the best we can. Or in the words of President Biden:

I encourage the people of the United States of America to join together and give thanks for the friends, neighbors, family members, and strangers who have supported each other over the past year in a reflection of goodwill and unity.

Happy Holidays.