SCOTUS Watch: Orders & Bad History

Dobbs and Bad History

The Supreme Court these days is big on "history and tradition." 

It is used to address the religious clauses, the Second Amendment, and to overturn Roe v. Wade. History and tradition come off as a form of originalism. Not quite. It is not the same thing. Still, like "textualism" and "originalism," the two concepts are often promoted by the same people. 

Originalism ties itself to specific points of ratification. This leads to certain complications such as the fact things changed between the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. These days, however, a "two-track" system for federal and state law generally is disfavored. A "living" model avoids such problems. 

Originalism is bad constitutional law. It is impractical, unnecessary, and bad in principle. We should apply the Constitution by current understanding, which we built up over time with new knowledge and experience. Meanwhile, we also have multiple legal techniques to use.

I have a degree in history. History is important. It's part of constitutional interpretation. Trying to use it as a primary means to solve recent decisions, especially if the "history" is a point in time of the distant past, is a fool's game. People have spelled this out in detail regarding the Second Amendment. 

The conservative usage of history is more troublesome when they simply do history wrong. This essay (with a citation to a longer paper) shows how Dobbs screws up 19th Century abortion law. See also here, which uses Lawrence v. Texas as a case study of how to correct the misuse of history. 

The essay explains the different context and the often limited nature of the bans. I would mix in more about how prenatal life (helped by an improved understanding of prenatal development) was part of the story. It doesn't change the bottom line that much. 

Justice Jackson has begun trying to provide a "liberal originalism" to provide a counterpoint. Be wary but it can be interesting. I am interested in possible separate opinions in upcoming cases involving guns, abortion, and so on on this front. Like religion, history, and tradition is not just a field for conservatives. 

Order List

There have not been any additional orders since last week after the trans-related case. The next execution scheduled is May. There have been additional "relists" (a case was scheduled for a conference and then "relisted" again) after a notable lull. 

We have a four-page Order List. As usual, there are a few interesting tidbits. Why was only one of two "motions for leave to proceed as a veteran" granted? Why did Roberts not take part in a case? Kavanaugh (without comment) noted he would have taken a Federal Arbitration Act case.

The Court took two cases (granted cert) for full argument. One was a technical case involving attorney fees. Another involved the question if a federal law was correctly applied to so-called certain "ghost guns." They have not handed down the bump stock opinion from this term. 

Upcoming

This will be a busy (four days) week for oral arguments. The big "hot button" cases involve homelessness and the Eighth Amendment, abortion and federal law (emergencies), and Trump immunity. There is also a National Labor Relations Board case that might be of some note. 

This is the last week of oral arguments. May and June will bring a range of opinions since only around a third of them have been released. Meanwhile, other stuff will happen. 

Strict Scrutiny Podcast now has YouTube videos so you can see some of the reaction shots and so on. 

The Man Who Never Was

I enjoyed the B-film Roughshod with Gloria Grahame as the best aspect. I checked to see if the library had other Grahame films.

The Man Who Never Was is based on a true WWII attempt to throw the Germans off the scent of the British intentions to invade Sicily. A dead body would be planted so that it would wash up in Spain, where Germany had spy coverage. The body will have papers suggesting the invasion would be some other place. I read about the caper in some spy-related book.

Clifton Webb leads the cast as the person leading the effort. The film provides various bits of dramatic license, including Graham Greene's role as the roommate as a woman assistant to the intelligence operations. Lucy is in love with a flyer and provides the text of a useful "personal letter" planted on the body. The letter and a later reaction are true to her life.

The film is a well-crafted tale. It is an enjoyable spy procedural with Greene adding an important touch of emotion. The father of the person whose body is used also has a touching scene. The German spy (a dramatic creation) looked familiar. He was the Roman friend/rival of the lead in Ben Hur. 

The real-life person Webb's character is based on has a cameo in the film. He is also Jewish in real life. The film does not include this tidbit. Yes, there is no compelling reason for it to come up though it easily could have. They invented multiple things. Perhaps, some movie viewers simply would not believe the richness of a Jew being behind it all. 

Mayorkas Impeachment Trial

After one more Republican showed up, the House managed to barely impeach -- for the first time (the last time the guy resigned first) -- a sitting cabinet secretary. 

The House referred the impeachment to the Senate for trial. So, it was time for a trial. The president is not involved, so the vice president or president pro tempore (as here) presides. 

Sen. Schumer offered to allow the Republicans time for debate over procedures, allowing them to talk some. Republicans wanted more. Schumer immediately brought a vote for a point of order that the impeachment counts were unconstitutional. I think that is iffy but maybe. [One vote for each count.]

Republicans tried to delay. There was a series of strictly party-line votes though a few Republicans had already said they opposed a full trial. They all went the way of the Democrats. 

Murkowski voted "present" for the first count, “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law," and with the Republicans for the "breach of public trust" count. 

Romney -- who said beforehand he didn't think the two counts met constitutional muster -- released a statement he voted with the Republicans since he wanted some debate. Schumer offered that. The Republicans wanted more. The Democrats already made their argument on the point. It was not some big secret. 

That's it. Trial over. About as much as it deserved though I can be convinced the Constitution suggests a real trial of some sort was appropriate. Still, again, Democrats did offer Republicans more debate, and they played politics about the whole thing. The whole thing is a sham, so the dismissive approach to provide a precedent when blatantly political "no confidence" impeachment votes are involved was acceptable.

The fear is that later on Republicans will try to do that tit-for-tat even when it is not justified. We will take that when it comes. 

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. 

Trump Manhattan Criminal Trial Begins

Multiple Slate people have pointed out that the Manhattan criminal trial, which officially began yesterday, has merit and bite. Some are on the train now, especially with all the others delayed. I supported this from the beginning.

Trump being brought to criminal account matters. He is upset that he needs to do basic things like show up every day like some average defendant. Consequences are for other people, like Michael Cohen, who was prosecuted for taking part in this scheme.  FT. Equal justice for all. 

We can debate the political benefits to one or the other side here. Reports of him dozing off ("Sleepy Donald") don't sound helpful. Some polls suggest various swing voters care about him being prosecuted. If he somehow gets off, that might be positive. Look how OJ (died) came off when that happened, correct? I don't think it turns on this but multiple "meh" sorts say this is what really matters. If he is defeated in the fall. So. 

One person on Twitter said that his civil judgment for his financial fraud should get more attention. But, this is part of a wider whole. The claim is that he broke financial regulations in the promotion of election interference. And, yes, we can call it that. He was trying to hide information relevant to the 2016 election. The rules didn't apply to him there. Rinse/repeat.

[See also, his campaign engaging with the Russians and denying that they were doing so and/or being helped. I think the whole thing is all connected. We can talk about them all. Instead of helping him by belittling it! STOP!]

I find Rick Hasen's handwaving wrong and annoying. "It might be overturned on appeal." When? 2025? We are seeing now how many delays are in place in the other cases? So far, Trump has lost legal challenges, including trying to delay or get around a gag order, in this case. And, I guess the civil fraud case is bad too (as some say) since it might be overturned too.  

The limited prison time involved also is cited. So what? I still doubt the guy will ever see a jail cell. A conviction matters.  Once we have a precedent of a criminal trial, the others can be more smooth going since it is no longer a totally novel thing. 

It won't push the envelope in the polls that a candidate is a criminal, as part of a scheme that continued while he was in the White House, because the penalty might only be for a few years or so? Well, if people like that asshole (is he still pushing his "Democrats filibustering Gorsuch has no value" line?*) belittle it, maybe. Who knows? It won't alone be an issue!

Hasen years back granted Trump would be liable under federal law. It was blocked because he was in office, Barr was the attorney general, and for other not totally clear reasons. Now, after someone else got punished, the chance to prosecute should be ignored? It is "meh"? Trump gets off again.

(Don't say all of these people are soft on Trump. They will get mad. They might have a "baby bear" perfect way to do it. Like a federal path blocked here. Or, the national secrets trial blocked. Or. When something is actually brought to trial, it's not the way to go.)

Can I have a list of crimes Trump has done that we should not prosecute since it is so small potatoes? My take, as a resident of New York (it is "People of the State of New York v. Trump"), is that breaking state law to cover up something as part of a scheme that your lawyer was prosecuted for deserves to be prosecuted. 

He is being forced to actually restrain himself (up to a point) like other criminal defendants. I think of this as a sort of "undercard" prosecution. It is less important in large part because he did so many bad things. A typical former president charged with this sort of thing could be in a lot of trouble.  

Like his "grab her by the pussy" comments not mattering enough, we are pushed to normalize him so much that this first criminal trial of a former president (or whatever he is) is treated as a "meh" by some people.

Not here. I am not on the bandwagon, which always finds a way to belittle attempts to obtain some justice and consequences. People belittled both impeachments. The Georgia trial is now about the prosecutor. Judge Cannon's blatant bias is granted and people still say it's silly to think she should be removed. Not me. 

===

* No, I am not going to let that one go. He repeatedly tweeted the piece he co-wrote about that business and it pisses me off.

I respect Rick Hasen but you can still disagree with people you respect. For instance, he thought it a bad strategy for the Democrats to support a big election reform package. He wanted a "skinny" one. 

But, there was no actual chance that the Republicans in the Senate would support that. So, you are in effect negotiating against yourself, instead of having stuff you can compromise away if you could obtain Republican support. People noted this at the time. 

I felt it clueless. Hasen is also at times easily triggered. A fellow professor said Hasen is usually smart but is not here. Hasen made out as if the person said Hasen was not smart because the two disagreed over something. Strawman. He thinks -- on the merits -- Hasen isn't being smart about a specific thing. 

The Didache and Tradition

I have read The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians multiple times. Perhaps, I should read it every five years or so. 

One theme of the book is that church tradition is a developing thing. The flyleaf has an author summary that touches upon this:

[Thomas O'Louglin's] research explores how our understanding of Christian belief can be enriched by seeing how individual expressions of that faith such as the Didache, can be located within the dynamic life of the communities that produced them. 'Tradition' is not, therefore, a weight from the past that pulls a community backwards, but rather is the life of that community, constantly seeking to reinterpret its inheritance in light of its current experience and hopes. The historical theological's task is, consequently, that of uncovering how a community inherited, lived, shaped and handed on its vision. 

The current conservative supermajority favors using "history and tradition." It is wrong to use only one doctrinal tool. They also used it in a slipshod way. If used correctly, it is part of the answer. As Justice Harlan noted in his seminal Poe v. Ullman dissent (is it bad law now?):

The balance of which I speak is the balance struck by this country, having regard to what history teaches are the traditions from which it developed as well as the traditions from which it broke. That tradition is a living thing. A decision of this Court which radically departs from it could not long survive, while a decision which builds on what has survived is likely to be sound. No formula could serve as a substitute, in this area, for judgment and restraint.

Justice Brennan also (from the liberal side):

The document that the plurality construes today is unfamiliar to me. It is not the living charter that I have taken to be our Constitution; it is instead a stagnant, archaic, hidebound document steeped in the prejudices and superstitions of a time long past. This Constitution does not recognize that times change, does not see that sometimes a practice or rule outlives its foundations. I cannot accept an interpretive method that does such violence to the charter that I am bound by oath to uphold.

(O'Connor and Kennedy rejected the "high Federalist" approach; Kennedy regularly spoke of developing tradition.)

Didache ("Teaching") is an early Christian guidebook. It is estimated from around 50-120. It is likely a reflection of Christian practices (which were far from fixed at this early date) from before Paul died in the mid-60s.

The first part is a list of instructions to follow "the Way" (a reference found in the Acts of Apostles). The book notes this follows Jewish principles that hold that we have a moral choice between good and evil [not fate], community responsibility, a relationship with God, and that doing good is possible. Among the "don'ts" is abortion. Whatever that might entail.

Once you know the rules, you can prepare to be baptized, a pre-existing Jewish ritual. Circumcision or kosher rules are no longer ways to show you are among the community. One theme is that past practices might be followed for new reasons. Didache also generally doesn't go into much detail. There is a lot of flexibility to explain why and how exactly to do things. 

A basic ritual for the Christian community remains to be the Eucharist, giving thanks. The original community (a community of equals coming together in Christ as Paul notes) had an actual meal. Jesus has lots of meals with his disciples and followers. The sharing of bread and the cup was a sign of unity. The meal eventually became symbolized as a ritual quite different from its more primitive origins.

The teachings also discuss how to treat apostles ("those who are sent"), prophets, teachers, bishops, and deacons. The final chapter discusses how (be aware and prepared!) the last days will come. 

The book provides an approachable discussion of these things, including how a cleric accidentally found a copy in the late 19th Century. (The book was not a secret. It was referenced in various earlier works.)  It takes a humble approach to understanding a work from the 1st Century. We do not have all the answers. And, a reference to slaves shows neither did they.

The last chapter of final thoughts is somewhat of a drudge. At least, it was when I tried to read it today. Perhaps, the weather -- I read it outside in the 70s -- didn't help. It has a translation and a few pictures.

I borrowed a paperback version. Recommended. I also like the verse about following the rules the best you can.  

SCOTUS Watch

Opinions

After a short break, the Supreme Court came back on Friday. 

A conference and public sitting (often merely for swearing in lawyers) was on the schedule. We learned mid-week that we would also have opinions though they always say "may" to provide an out if something ever comes up. 

The opinions were each short and unanimous. Chief Justice Roberts' first signed opinion of the term (he might have written the per curiam in the insurrection case) was nine pages regarding the Federal Arbitration Act. Sotomayor dealt with a Securities and Exchange Commission issue in less. 

Barrett, a busy bee so far, dealt with a Takings Clause claim. Her opinion was also short (under eleven pages). It helpfully summarizes precedent. She has shown some flair in writing crisp and approachable opinions. She also tossed in some humor:

The Takings Clause’s right to just compensation coexists with the States’ police power to engage in land-use planning. (Though at times the two seem more like in-laws than soulmates.) 

Five justices joined various concurrences to underline how limited in scope the opinion was. As Gorsuch noted separately, the county government granted the lower court was wrong on a key point. To cite the headnotes: "The Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions."

On the minutiae front, Barrett included links in her opinion. There is a separate page for URLs to prevent dead links. The justices have not used too many this term so far.  

The Supreme Court also announced Tuesday and Wednesday will be opinion days. They are starting to catch up in opinion writing, after being behind schedule. 

Subpoenas  

Some time back, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena Leonard Leo (Federalist Society), Harlan Crow, and a third person (who eventually voluntarily worked with the committee). The subpoenas were part of an attempt to investigate ethical problems, including all those gifts received by Thomas. The third subpoena was dropped. How about Leo and Crow?

Leo -- after the committee voted in November -- finally received the subpoena, which he (as expected) rejected.  Senator Durbin (nice floor speech promoting the confirmation of Adeel Magni) did not explain the delay. [Durbin is the Chair of the Senate Judiciary and has been criticized for his soft approach on various judicial matters]  Now, they have to have a floor vote to enforce the subpoena in court, which the Republicans can filibuster. 

Harlan Crow still has not received a subpoena. Since the Republicans can simply filibuster it, doing so would be mostly symbolic. Still, the Democrats had no apparent good reason to delay things. Overall, this underlines how the current subpoena process is absurdly impractical.  

[The below underlines why Steve Vladeck's concerns about being "too partisan" are aggravating. I comment there too.]

The Republicans are full of shit about the whole thing, arguing ethics problems everyone sees is just some ideological campaign against conservatives on the Supreme Court. The problem is that the concern is particularly focused on Thomas and Alito, not every conservative.

Thomas, of course, still has not accounted for most of his free trips on his disclosures, which by and large do not wholly count as “personal hospitality,” given that a private jet or yacht do not count as “facilities” under the reporting exemption.

The link notes Justice Jackson updated some of her financial forms. Kagan and Jackson have explained why they recused. The others have and all of them (except Sotomayor, I believe) have had opportunities to do so since the ethical guidelines have dropped. 

And, to the extent ethical rules should be upheld generally, it should be a bipartisan theme. Plus, the insurrection case was a problem all around, though five justices were worse. 

Orders

The housekeeping order on Friday regarded an upcoming case involving the Eighth Amendment and the homeless (the solicitor general of the U.S. can take part) and an abortion case involving emergency care (divided argument refused). 

The Order List is longer than usual because Sotomayor and Jackson provided a statement (Sotomayor) and two dissents (one each) regarding denials of cert.

Sotomayor provided the statement in a case already undergoing years of a winding road where someone received civil liability for negligence arising out of a Black Rights Matter protest. Someone else hit a police officer with a hard object and the leader of the protest was blamed. 

Sotomayor cites a case that arose later that should block the "negligence" test but notes the denial of cert. could arise for numerous reasons. So, might be okay.  

(ETA: The case was "relisted" seven times while it was being considered. So, there was likely some discussion behind the scenes.)  

Jackson dissents in a case where a coerced confession was treated as a "harmless error." She argues it was wrongly handled, particularly given the importance of the confession on the facts involved. 

Sotomayor (with Jackson) dissents from denial in a case where she flags sex discrimination in peremptory challenges of jurors in a capital case. 

Kavanaugh (without comment) would have taken a case with this question presented:

Whether federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 over a petition for habeas corpus alleging that a prisoner’s unconstitutional conditions of incarceration require release, either because habeas jurisdiction generally extends to conditions-of-confinement claims, or because it at least extends to such claims when the prisoner seeks his release from custody?

We also have (again) multiple conservatives (Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) who did not say why they recused from cases (Thomas and Gorsuch did so too in the past) while Kagan (Jackson has done this in the past) again explained why. I do not think Sotomayor had a chance to explain since the ethical guidelines dropped.

This Week 

We will also have three days of argument (Mon-Wed) and another conference on Friday. Thursday will be their fun day. Maybe. 

Roughshod

Roughshod is a Western which I came across when looking for something else. We have fewer Westerns these days but from the 1920s to the 1950s (and then it shifted to television though some notable films continued) there were quite a few. 

(On Saturdays, there are often Westerns on various channels. Checking in, I am overall impressed with the quality of writing.)

Many Westerns focused on specific heroes while a few had bigger vistas. The archetypical heroes and villains were often the favorites. The best ones often showed shades of gray. The heroes had flaws; they might even be antiheroes. The villains had some just cause or perhaps standards. 

This film is more standard. The main villain has it in for our hero for capturing him. The hero doesn't like killing. We see what happens when bad guys are left alive, even put in prison. They escape and kill. We hear little of his (his two helpers are given even less backward) past crimes. But, he led the three to kill three people to take their clothes, and two more (including a woman) later on.  So, clearly is pure evil.

Our hero is going to start a ranch with his kid brother, a good-hearted teenager (the actor was 14/15). He comes upon four showgirls who were kicked out of a town. He takes them along. One befriends the kid brother, teaching him how to read (!).  

Turns out none of them are quite as "loose" as they might seem. One is emotionally and physically (I thought at first the idea was that she was pregnant) upset. There are a good couple of scenes at her parents's house, both with the gang (they get supplies and don't otherwise harm them) and the good guys. Good character actor performances.  

One soon leaves to get married. One falls for our hero (played by Gloria Grahame, she is a typical tough girl with a soft heart). The last (the toughest talker) decides to stay with a gold miner (unwise choice though unlike the others, we do directly see her shot).  

Our good guy is played by Robert Sterling (in his early 30s), who at times seems a bit too clean-cut. Seems like a guy who can play some sucker. but, he handles the role well enough. The little brother is a bit annoying but does the job too. The two gang flunkies are ciphers I would have liked them to have a bit more to do.  They do come off as follower types.

The film overall is well-paced. Gloria Grahame is the best thing in it. The final shootout is decent. Again, the whole thing is not overly complex. But, it is handled professionally and you care for the characters overall. 

Leonard Maltin gave the film two and a half stars out of four. I agree. 

Island of Terror

This week's Svengoolie film is a 1960s British horror involving cancer research gone wrong. New life forms endanger people on an island, including killing multiple scientists and costing horror veteran Peter Cushing's character his hand.

I saw this film in the past and caught parts of it this week. It's an enjoyable enough programmer. Two of the scientists (including Peter Cushing particularly in one scene) are rather blase about the lost of life. The other surviving scientist basically handwaved it as a cost of science. Wonder what he will say when he learns the creatures are now in Japan.

Couple Classic Books

Nella Larsen lived a complicated life. A biracial child, her cultural heyday was in the 1920s. After a plagiarism allegation (deemed unfounded) and a painful divorce, she went off the radar. 

After her husband died (she lived off alimony), Larsen went back to nursing. She tried to meet up with her half-sister near the end of her life, but the sister didn't want to acknowledge her.  

Passing is a novella (it's under 100 pages) about a light-skinned woman (she can "pass") with a darker-skinned husband. Irene by chance meets up with a childhood acquaintance, who is passing (her husband is a bigot). Irene was passing herself at the time. After finding out about her bigot white husband, Irene wants nothing to do with Claire. 

But, Claire misses interacting 'with her own kind" and pushes herself back into Irene's life. This causes complications. Irene has her own demons to address. The book ends on a tragic note when the husband finds out about Claire and Irene does not warn her. 

I read the book along with another book she wrote over ten years ago. I hold to my original statement that it is a good read overall.   

(ETA: The book is first person through Irene's eyes. So, it is a somewhat unreliable narrator.)

After writing this, I decided to take out a complete work volume. 

The three short stories were quick reading (one had a lot of dialect) and two particularly had some atmosphere. Her first novel, which I originally noted was semi-autobiographical [surely not all of it but she did things like go for a trip to her European relatives], was a trudge. 

A young educated interracial woman (20s) is unsatisfied with her life. Her [black] father abandoned her mother, who died young. She also had the same conflicted attraction to being "with her own kind" as the tragic figure in Passing. 

Helga (yes), however, went through more unsatisfying experiences. Her last attempt at happiness is to suddenly marry a black preacher (whom she just met) and go to his poor Southern parish. She then started to have a lot of children. This too turned out not to be a permanent road to happiness. 

However, it was harder to escape. In fact, the book ends with her pregnant for a fifth time (after her fourth baby died shortly after the birth, during her extended postpartum depression), and having lost faith in God. And, she basically hates her husband. Her own personal hell. 

The particularly tragic and depressing ending left me "I plowed tedious pages of her whining for this?"  Yes, that is harsh, but there was a "tragic poor little rich girl" feel to it, especially after her uncle gives her $5000 (this is the 1920s; what happened to it? Did she give it to her husband? She cannot have gone through it in a few years; the book surely doesn't say she did). 

Her unhappiness about her place in the world had dramatic charms. The book provides a social criticism of black colleges and a whole lot more. It did not hold back in its criticisms, which likely excited some readers in the 1920s. But, what a cruel ending. Quicksand indeed.

==

I heard about God's Little Acre (from the early 1930s) in a few ways. It is one of the books subject to censorship as sexually explicit. One daughter has sex with multiple people in the book. A daughter-in-law is lusted after by multiple people (even one of the black sharecroppers).  

Ensign Pulver also enjoys the book in Mister Roberts:

He's been reading God's Little Acre for over a year now. He's underlined every erotic passage and added exclamation points. And after a certain pornographic climax, he's inserted the words "Well written."

The film version (I reserved it) has multiple familiar faces, including Michael Landon (as an albino!) and Jack Lord (not in Hawaii yet). Tina Louise (Ginger on Gilligan's Island) plays Griselda, the object of all that lust. In the book version, at least, she is not [as] slutty like her sister-in-law Darling Jill.

Erskine Caldwell has lots of writings throughout his long career. He wrote many works about poverty in the South. This book focuses on a father of five (three sons -- one left home and is a successful cotton broker) who has spent fifteen years digging holes in his land to try to find gold. One of his daughters is married to a cotton mill worker, currently on strike.  

The book is a mixture of the absurd, symbolism, raw passions, and a look at a time and place. The author provides perspectives from various characters, including the two black sharecroppers. My version of the book also has hand-drawn photos of the main characters by Milton Glaser. 

There are amusing aspects. One bit is that Ty Ty (the father) dedicated an acre of his land to God but keeps on moving it around to make sure he doesn't have to actually donate the proceeds to the local church.  

Ty Ty's gold fetish is absurd. Nonetheless, he comes off as a sympathetic character overall. The book is around two hundred pages and is a quick read. It rambles around some. Then, it builds up to multiple tragedies. It ends with Ty Ty back digging for gold, the one bit of steadiness left after multiple deaths in his family (with one more possible).  

I enjoyed the book as a whole. These days, I find it hard to read long books, especially fiction. 

(ETA: The universal narrator does provide a diverse mix of perspectives, white and black, men and women. Blacks have agency, including one able to admit to his lust for a white woman. Women have their own sexual desires, including a desire for a man who truly is passionate for them. 

The book remains generally seen through a masculine point of view, including women who are men-focused. There are many references to breasts. The mother is dead and the rich man's wife, who might provide a somewhat different perspective, is always out of the picture.)  

Both books were a more reasonable portion. Both also have been made into films. God's Little Acre is listed at around two hours. That seems a tad long but there are enough scenes in the book to fill the running time, I guess.