DOCSLIB.ORG

Merrick Garland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Merrick Garland MERRICK GARLAND: 638 EDITORIALS BY OVER 300 EDITORIAL BOARDS IN EVERY STATE & DC URGE SENATE TO HOLD A HEARING AND VOTE ON NOMINEE TO FILL SUPREME COURT VACANCY – STATE BY STATE LINKS/EXCERPTS (as of October 13, 2016) Compiled by Glenn Sugameli, Senior Attorney, Defenders of Wildlife gsugameli@defenders.org and Robert Meltz, Special Counsel, Defenders of Wildlife from Judging the Environment website These 638 Editorials by 301 newspaper editorial boards in all 50 states and DC represent well over 95 percent of the newspaper editorial board opinions revealed by comprehensive online research. LINKS to post- Chief Judge Merrick Garland nomination Editorials are in dark blue LINKS to pre- Chief Judge Merrick Garland nomination Editorials are in light blue Click on these State names for Editorial Board links/excerpts for each State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming National ALABAMA EDITORIAL: Supreme Court nominee needlessly remains a political football (Anniston Star [AL], 09/06/16) "The really unique do-nothing feature of this Congress is the issue of a vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia died in mid-February. President Barack Obama nominated a replacement about a month later. And there the nomination has sat, lonely and neglected in the halls of the Senate. The Republican-controlled Senate has set a record in regards to not considering a Supreme Court nominee. After more than 170 days and counting, Senate Republicans are still refusing to schedule a hearing to consider Garland’s nomination. That is a record. Congrats on your foot-dragging, Republican senators.... Obama entered the White House with Republicans vowing to go to exceptional lengths to thwart his administration, and they are still living down to that promise." EDITORIAL: Act now on Zika outbreak (Randolph Leader [AL], 08/10/16) "Knee-jerk opposition by Congressional Republicans to anything President Obama proposes already has given us a U.S. Supreme Court stalemate, with the lawmakers refusing to even hold a hearing on the suitability of Merrick Garland, the president’s nominee to fill a vacant seat." EDITORIAL: Merrick Garland and our divided U.S. Supreme Court (Anniston Star [AL], 05/31/16) "Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate are standing firm: no hearing or confirmation vote on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland until after someone other than President Barack Obama takes over the Oval Office. That decision — shortsighted, bullheaded, disruptive — is having ramifications. The biggest is on the court itself. An eight-justice Supreme Court still operates, but its rulings are marked with an asterisk" Decoding the Trump Eleven for the Supreme Court: By the editorial board of The Anniston Star (Anniston Star [AL], 05/20/16) "Scalia died 11 months before the end of President Barack Obama’s second term. The president nominated a replacement — federal Judge Merrick B. Garland — not long after. During a typical Senate confirmation process, the Senate would consider Garland over the spring and summer. If his nomination was approved by a majority of senators, Garland could be seated on the Supreme Court well before the presidential election on Nov. 8. This is not a typical Senate confirmation process, however. Within hours of Scalia’s death, the Senate’s Republican majority declared that no Obama nominee would be considered in the president’s final year in the White House. So far, they’ve stuck to that commitment. Garland can’t get a hearing. Garland can’t receive a vote on his nomination. Senate Republicans have gone on strike.... It likely doesn’t play as well with the rest of the nation who see this episode example of a do-nothing Congress. Thanks to Trump’s list, we now have a reminder that there is already one name placed before senators who should perform their constitutional duty and either confirm or reject his nomination." EDITORIAL: GOP senators refuse to do their jobs (Montgomery Advertiser [AL], 05/08/16) "Most people who refuse to do their jobs get canned. Not so with GOP senators in Congress who refuse to hold hearings or vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland. President Obama nominated Garland, a moderate, in March .... Anti-Obama obstructionists in the Senate should stop their disrespectful dereliction of duty. Alabama voters should demand Sessions and Shelby push for timely action on Garland's Supreme Court nomination." Editorial: A divided Supreme Court votes 8-0 (Anniston Star [AL], 04/04/16) "Presidential politics usually brings out the worst in some people .... Even the recent death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is bogged down deep in election-year politics. The president has nominated a replacement and Republican leaders in the Senate have reacted by promising to do nothing. No meetings. No hearings. No vote on Merrick Garland, the judge President Barack Obama named as Scalia’s replacement. Senate Republicans are content to let one seat on the highest court in the United States sit empty for at least a full 12 months." EDITORIAL: GOP should quit stalling on High Court candidate's hearings (Decatur Daily [AL], 03/21/16) "By all accounts, Garland is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. He is considered by all parties politically moderate, and has worked as a prosecutor....The path forward for the Senate, and for the country, is to schedule hearings and weigh the merits of Merrick Garland to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court. That’s what the Constitution requires." Editorial: Credentials of a worthy nominee (Anniston Star [AL], 03/16/16) "In 2005 after John Roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush, this space noted he was a jurist with a keen intellect and an open mind. “This is a man who in the best traditions of the Supreme Court will grow on the job,” we wrote. We could say the same of Merrick B. Garland, the federal judge nominated by President Barack Obama .... Alabama’s Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions are solidly in the camp of senators who are on strike over a replacement for Scalia. What they and others couldn’t win at the polling place — the 2008 election and 2012 re-election of Obama — they are trying to short-circuit by failing to follow the Constitution’s guidance on staffing the Supreme Court." Editorial: The duty of Senate Republicans (Anniston Star [AL], 03/10/16) "President Barack Obama is going about his constitutional duty in considering a nominee to return the court to its nine-member full strength. Senate Republicans declare they will not confirm any nominee put forth by the president. More than that, they won’t allow hearings on a nominee or even one-on-one meetings with a prospective justice. That posture is a sad reflection of the current state of the Republican Party’s congressional leadership. It has attempted over the past seven years to tear at Obama’s legitimacy. ... This is a plea to Senate Republicans: Do your job. The Constitution doesn’t require senators to rubber-stamp a presidential nominee to the Supreme Court. It does expect them to seriously consider each nominee. That’s not going to happen while Senate Republicans, most of whom pledge their undying allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, remain on strike." EDITORIAL: Make the appointment (Times Daily [AL], 03/06/16) "The president has a constitutional duty to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, and the Senate, barring any obvious shortcomings in the nominee, has a duty to confirm that appointment. The president’s nominee won’t be a conservative, which should come as no surprise to anyone, just at President George W. Bush’s nominees to the courts were not liberals or progressives. It is to be expected that a president’s Supreme Court nominees will reflect his or her political leanings. There is no valid reason for Senate Republicans to block the president’s nominee." Editorial: The Supreme Court's empty seat (Anniston Star [AL] , 03/02/16) "Vital cases are being heard by an undermanned bench whose ideological leanings are, in many cases, split somewhat evenly between conservative and liberal justices.... It also illustrates one of the negative byproducts of Senate Republicans’ refusal to consider any of President Obama’s possible Supreme Court nominees. Cases before the Supreme Court deserve to be heard by a fully manned, nine-justice bench. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, is choosing extreme partisan politics over what’s best for the Supreme Court and, ultimately, the Americans affected by the justices’ rulings.... Republicans are selfishly putting their party above that of the Supreme Court and the law it oversees." EDITORIAL: Shelby, Crumpton best options for US Senate (Decatur Daily [AL], 02/26/16) "Shelby voted against the White House 63.9 percent of the time. He leads the Senate in that statistic. His opposition to a U.S. Supreme Court nominee that Obama has not even selected is a recent example of his blind opposition to the president. It may be a politically savvy strategy, but it interferes with the efficient workings of government. While Shelby routinely courts the tea party with such rhetoric, his actions are more prudent." Editorial: Sen. Sessions goes on strike (Anniston Star [AL], 02/24/16) "Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile, should either do his job or step down and let someone willing to do the work of a U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US Policy Scan 2021
    US Policy Scan 2021 1 • US Policy Scan 2021 Introduction Welcome to Dentons 2021 Policy Scan, an in-depth look at policy a number of Members of Congress and Senators on both sides of at the Federal level and in each of the 50 states. This document the aisle and with a public exhausted by the anger and overheated is meant to be both a resource and a guide. A preview of the rhetoric that has characterized the last four years. key policy questions for the next year in the states, the House of Representatives, the Senate and the new Administration. A Nonetheless, with a Congress closely divided between the parties resource for tracking the people who will be driving change. and many millions of people who even now question the basic legitimacy of the process that led to Biden’s election, it remains to In addition to a dive into more than 15 policy areas, you will find be determined whether the President-elect’s goals are achievable brief profiles of Biden cabinet nominees and senior White House or whether, going forward, the Trump years have fundamentally staff appointees, the Congressional calendar, as well as the and permanently altered the manner in which political discourse Session dates and policy previews in State Houses across the will be conducted. What we can say with total confidence is that, in country. We discuss redistricting, preview the 2022 US Senate such a politically charged environment, it will take tremendous skill races and provide an overview of key decided and pending cases and determination on the part of the President-elect, along with a before the Supreme Court of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Opinion As a Meager Influence in Shaping Contemporary Supreme Court Decision Making
    Michigan Law Review Volume 109 Issue 6 2011 But How Will the People Know? Public Opinion as a Meager Influence in Shaping Contemporary Supreme Court Decision Making Tom Goldstein SCOTUSblog Amy Howe SCOTUSblog Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Judges Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Tom Goldstein & Amy Howe, But How Will the People Know? Public Opinion as a Meager Influence in Shaping Contemporary Supreme Court Decision Making, 109 MICH. L. REV. 963 (2011). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol109/iss6/7 This Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact mlaw.repository@umich.edu. BUT HOW WILL THE PEOPLE KNOW? PUBLIC OPINION AS A MEAGER INFLUENCE IN SHAPING CONTEMPORARY SUPREME COURT DECISION MAKING Tom Goldstein* Amy Howe** THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE: How PUBLIC OPINION HAS INFLUENCED THE SUPREME COURT AND SHAPED THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION. By Barry Friedman.New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2009. Pp. 614. $35. INTRODUCTION Chief Justice John Roberts famously described the ideal Supreme Court Justice as analogous to a baseball umpire, who simply "applies" the rules, rather than
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Statement by Law Enforcement Leaders on Protecting Voters
    Joint Statement by Law Enforcement Leaders on Protecting Voters As law enforcement leaders, elected prosecutors, and chief legal officers of our jurisdictions, we know that the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and our identity as Americans, regardless of political affiliation. It is a constitutional right and, ultimately, a public trust and safety issue. Public trust in democracy, the rule of law, and the integrity of our government is integral to public safety. When one system is attacked and fails, it compromises the ability of all systems to function, including our criminal justice system. And when communities do not trust us, we cannot effectively keep them safe. Efforts to interfere with the United States Postal Service imperil the democratic process and erode confidence in the integrity of all government systems. Within the context of a pandemic, we should already be deeply concerned that crowds at polling places will endanger our residents. And now, recent threats and intimidation tactics, including deploying law enforcement to police the polls, raises the prospect of voter intimidation, damaging bonds of trust between law enforcement and communities they serve. This is playing out at a time when the number of Americans expressing confidence in law enforcement has fallen to an all-time low. That is why, as leaders charged with protecting public safety, we call for free and fair elections and condemn efforts to interfere with the Postal Service and undermine the voting process. It is more important than ever that we protect the integrity of our democracy, and, in the era of COVID-19, the ability to vote by mail is essential to protecting our cherished democratic process.
    [Show full text]
  • Maura Healey Was Sworn in As Attorney General on January 21, 2015, Pledging to Lead the People’S Law Firm
    Maura Healey was sworn in as Attorney General on January 21, 2015, pledging to lead the People’s Law Firm. Since taking office, Healey has tackled issues touching the lives of residents across Massachusetts including the heroin and prescription drug abuse epidemic, escalating health care costs, workers' rights and student loan costs. She has focused on strengthening consumer protections and on improving our criminal justice system. Building on her promise to run an office that serves people across the state, Healey launched the Community Engagement Division in May 2015. The first-of-its-kind division brings the Attorney General’s Office and its work into neighborhoods and communities across the state. The Division has launched community office hours and has assisted with the rollout of several policy initiatives including the Earned Sick Time law and Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights. Healey is an advocate for a more equal and inclusive workplace. In May 2015, she announced that her office would provide six weeks of paid family leave for all employees – making the AG’s Office the first state agency to offer paid parental leave. The office has also helped shaped state legislation that would expand opportunities for women in the workplace including Pay Equity and Pregnant Workers Fairness bills. As a civil rights attorney, Healey is committed to ensuring that all residents are treated fairly. As former head of the office’s Civil Rights Division, Healey was the architect of the state’s successful challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and argued the case in federal court. As Attorney General, she has advocated for marriage equality and in support of bills to fight discrimination against transgender people.
    [Show full text]
  • Title Here – Option 1
    Post Election Briefing - State Attorneys General Stephen Cobb: Partner, Former Deputy Attorney General of Virginia Jim Schultz: Partner, Former Senior Associate White House Counsel, Former General Counsel to Pennsylvania Governor Bill Shepherd: Partner, Florida’s Former Statewide Prosecutor December 8, 2020 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP. All Rights Reserved Thank you for joining today’s program • All participants are on mute • Please ask questions via Q&A box • Today’s program is being recorded and will be posted on our website • For technical assistance please reach out to the host via the chat box 2 Today’s Presenters Stephen Cobb Jim Schultz Bill Shepherd Partner Partner Partner Former Deputy Former Senior Associate Florida’s Former Attorney General White House Counsel, Statewide Prosecutor of Virginia Former General Counsel to Pennsylvania Governor 3 The Growing Role of State Attorneys General Looking Back on 2020 The Election Results 2021 – What to Expect 4 Priorities of State Attorneys General During 2020 • Consumer Protection • False Claims Act • Antitrust • Environmental Enforcement Actions • COVID-19 • Data Breach/Data Privacy 5 State Attorney General Race Results . Indiana . Pennsylvania . Todd Rokita (R) defeated Jonathan Weinzapfel (D) . Josh Shapiro* (D) defeated Heather Heidelbaugh (R) . Missouri . Utah . Eric Schmitt* (R) defeated Richard Finneran (D) . Sean D. Reyes* (R) defeated Greg Skordas (D) . Montana . Vermont . Austin Knudsen (R) defeated Ralph Graybill (D) vs. T.J. Donovan* (D) defeated H Brooke Paige (R) . North Carolina . Washington . Josh Stein* (D) defeated Jim O’Neill (R) . Bob Ferguson* (D) defeated Matt Larkin (R) . Oregon . West Virginia . Ellen Rosenblum* (D) defeated Michael Cross (R) . Patrick Morrisey* (R) defeated Sam Brown Petsonk (D) Aside from the 10 races detailed above, Maine’s next state legislature and the governors of New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa are due to appoint new AGs.
    [Show full text]
  • THE COURTS Title 204—JUDICIAL Annex a TITLE 204
    1438 THE COURTS Title 204—JUDICIAL Annex A TITLE 204. JUDICIAL SYSTEM GENERAL SYSTEM GENERAL PROVISIONS PART VII. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PROVISIONS PENNSYLVANIA COURTS PART VII. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF CHAPTER 213. ACCESS TO POLICY CONCERNING OFFICIAL CASE RECORDS OF THE PENNYLVANIA COURTS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COURTS [ 204 PA. CODE CH. 213 ] Subchapter D. PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY Notice of Proposed Public Access Policy Concern- OF THE UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM ing Official Case Records of the Magisterial OF PENNSYLVANIA: OFFICIAL CASE RECORDS OF THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COURTS District Courts Sec. The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts is 213.91. Definitions. planning to recommend that the Supreme Court of Penn- 213.92. Statement of General Policy. sylvania adopt this proposed public access policy concern- 213.93. Requesting Access to Official Case Records of the Magisterial ing official case records of the magisterial district courts. District Courts. 213.94. Responding to Requests for Access to Official Case Records of At my direction, a working group comprised of magiste- the Magisterial District Courts. rial district judges, district court administrators, and 213.95. Fees. Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts/Supreme 213.96. Official Case Records of the Magisterial District Courts Not Accessible by the Public. Court staff crafted this proposed policy that is being 213.97. Confidential Information in Pleadings or Other Papers Filed published for public comment. The proposed policy covers with Magisterial District Courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing Health Care Market Consolidation and High Prices the Role of the States
    HEALTH POLICY CENTER RESEARCH REPORT Addressing Health Care Market Consolidation and High Prices The Role of the States Robert A. Berenson Jaime S. King Katherine L. Gudiksen Roslyn Murray URBAN INSTITUTE UC HASTINGS LAW UC HASTINGS LAW GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY Adele Shartzer URBAN INSTITUTE January 2020 ABOUT THE URBAN INSTITUTE The nonprofit Urban Institute is a leading research organization dedicated to developing evidence-based insights that improve people’s lives and strengthen communities. For 50 years, Urban has been the trusted source for rigorous analysis of complex social and economic issues; strategic advice to policymakers, philanthropists, and practitioners; and new, promising ideas that expand opportunities for all. Our work inspires effective decisions that advance fairness and enhance the well-being of people and places. Copyright © January 2020. Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction of this file, with attribution to the Urban Institute. Cover image by Tim Meko. Contents Acknowledgments iv Executive Summary v 1. Introduction 1 2. Employee Retirement Income Security’s Act 8 3. State Efforts to Promote Transparency 11 4. State Efforts to Regulate Consolidation and Promote Competition 17 5. State Options for Overseeing and Regulating Prices 44 6. Conclusion 68 Notes 69 References 79 About the Authors 86 Statement of Independence 87 Acknowledgments This report was funded by the Commonwealth Fund. We are grateful to them and to all our funders, who make it possible for Urban to advance its mission. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute or UC Hastings Law, its trustees, or its funders.
    [Show full text]
  • Entire Issue (PDF)
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 114 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 162 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2016 No. 43 House of Representatives The House met at 9 a.m. and was point of order that a quorum is not Gunny Stanton first began his train- called to order by the Speaker. present. ing, he attended the basic EOD course f The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8, at Eglin Air Force Base. While in train- rule XX, further proceedings on this ing, his block tests and final examina- PRAYER question will be postponed. tion scores were so high that his The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick The point of no quorum is considered records remain intact to this day. J. Conroy, offered the following prayer: withdrawn. In the course of his 18 years in the Marine Corps, Stanton earned many Merciful God, thank You for giving f us another day. awards too numerous to list in this Your care and wisdom are shown to PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE space. He is preceded in death by his fa- us by the way You extend Your king- The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman ther, Michael Dale Stanton Sr.; and a dom into our world down to the present from Texas (Mr. VEASEY) come forward brother, Brian Stanton. Gunny Stanton day. Your word reveals every aspect of and lead the House in the Pledge of Al- is survived by his loving family: his Your saving plan. You accomplish Your legiance. wife, Terri Stanton; his mother, Gloria designed purpose in and through the Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Recalibrating Judicial Renominations in the Trump Administration
    Washington and Lee Law Review Online Volume 74 Issue 1 Article 2 5-26-2017 Recalibrating Judicial Renominations in the Trump Administration Carl Tobias University of Richmond School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr-online Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Carl Tobias, Recalibrating Judicial Renominations in the Trump Administration, 74 WASH. & LEE L. REV. ONLINE 9 (2017), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr-online/vol74/iss1/2 This Development is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review Online by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact christensena@wlu.edu. Recalibrating Judicial Renominations in the Trump Administration Carl Tobias* Abstract Now that President Donald Trump has commenced the fifth month of his administration, federal courts experience 121 circuit and district court vacancies. These statistics indicate that Mr. Trump has a valuable opportunity to approve more judges than any new President. The protracted open judgeships detrimentally affect people and businesses engaged in federal court litigation, because they restrict the expeditious, inexpensive and equitable disposition of cases. Nevertheless, the White House has been treating crucial issues that mandate careful attention—specifically establishing a government, confirming a Supreme Court Justice, and keeping numerous campaign promises. How, accordingly, can President Trump fulfill these critical duties and his constitutional responsibility to nominate and, with Senate advice and consent, appoint judges? This Article initially canvasses judicial appointments in the administration of President Barack Obama.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
    Case 1:20-cv-00302-WES-LDA Document 8 Filed 07/22/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ______________________________ ) FELIPE DUBON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 20-302 WES ) MERRICK GARLAND1, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5. Plaintiff filed this instant action after Defendants denied his Form I-212 Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. He asks that this Court compel Defendants to “re- adjudicate his Form I-212” as it was “improperly decided.” Id. Defendants move to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)6). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT the Defendants’ 12(b)(1) motion and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and require a jurisdictional prerequisite, which “implicates a court’s 1 Merrick Garland is now the United States Attorney General. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has been substituted for U.S. Attorney General William Barr as Defendant. Case 1:20-cv-00302-WES-LDA Document 8 Filed 07/22/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID> constitutional and statutory power to hear and resolve a case.” Alphas Co., Inc. v. William H. Kopke, Jr., Inc., 708 F.3d 33, 36 (1st Cir. 2013). It is the plaintiff’s burden to prove this jurisdictional prerequisite and establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • TITLE (And Volume Number)
    TITLE (and Volume Number) Call Number Author, Primary Author(s), Added Editor(s) Edition Place of Publication Publisher Year Subject(s) Series (e.g., PBI Number) 10th Annual Oil and Gas Law KFP258 .A1 A715 2018 Pennsylvania Bar Spigelmyer, David J; 10th Mechanicsburg, PA Pennsylvania Bar Institute 2018 Petroleum Law and Legislation; Oil PBI 2018-10095R Colloquium Institute Anthony R Holtzman; J annual and Gas Leases; Natural Gas--Law Nicholas Ranjan; Amy L and Legislation; Gas Industry-- Barrette; Jeremy A Mercer; Environmental Aspects; David J Raphael; Curtis N Environmental Protection Stambaugh; Michael A Braymer; Sean W Moran; Carl F Staiger; David R Overstreet; David G Mandelbaum; Andrew T Bockis; Michael D Brewster; Christopher W Rogers; Stephen W Saunders; Robert J Burnett; Thomas S McNamara; Joseph M Scipione 20 [Twenty] Hot Tips in Family KFP94 .A75 A15 2015 Pennsylvania Bar Helvy, Paul; Ann V Levin; Mechanicsburg, PA Pennsylvania Bar Institute 2015 Domestic Relations PBI 2015-8878 Law: Unique Problems, Practical Institute Jeff Landers; Ann M Funge; Solutions David N Hofstein; Scott J G Finger; Susan Ardisson; Lea E Anderson; Tanya Witt; Natalie Webb; Kaye Redburn; Kirk C Stange; Paul Purcell; Elizabeth L Hughes; Kevin R Brown; Robert J Fall; Jerry Shoemaker; James A Wolfinger; Mary Sue Ramsden; Richard F Brabender; Lea F Anderson; Carol A Behers 2014 Technology Institute KF320 .A9 A15 2014 Pennsylvania Bar Avrigian, Mason; Mechanicsburg, PA Pennsylvania Bar Institute 2014 Information Storage and Retrieval PBI 2014-8056 Institute
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendations for the New Supreme Court Pro Bono Bar and Public Interest Practice Communities
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYU\86-1\NYU103.txt unknown Seq: 1 29-MAR-11 18:27 COUNTERBALANCING DISTORTED INCENTIVES IN SUPREME COURT PRO BONO PRACTICE: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEW SUPREME COURT PRO BONO BAR AND PUBLIC INTEREST PRACTICE COMMUNITIES NANCY MORAWETZ* The emergence of a new Supreme Court Pro Bono Bar, made up of specialty prac- tices and law school Supreme Court clinics, has altered the dynamic of litigation related to public interest issues. The new Bar often brings expertise in Supreme Court litigation to cases where there may otherwise be a dearth of resources to support high quality lawyering. But at the same time, this new Bar is subject to market pressures that have important consequences. This Article shows how mem- bers of this new Bar are engaged in a race for opportunities to handle Supreme Court cases on the merits. At the certiorari stage, this Bar can be expected to engage in truncated case analysis, avoid coordination with lawyers handling similar cases, and otherwise make decisions that are influenced by each firm’s interest in being in a position to handle cases on the merits before the Supreme Court. Moreover, throughout the litigation, this Bar may be influenced by the merits opportunity that provided the incentive to take the case in the first place. This Article explores the implications of this new dynamic in Supreme Court litigation for both pro bono practices and public interest practice communities. With respect to pro bono prac- tices, this Article proposes principles that firms could adopt, including those that relate to the selection of cases for free representation and those that relate to the nature of representation that the pro bono practices provide once the firm has taken on representation.
    [Show full text]