DOCSLIB.ORG

9929555.PDF (7.296Mb)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type o f computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infonnation Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE WARRING FACTIONS: SENATORS, NOMINEES, AND INTEREST GROUPS IN THE SENATE CONFIRMATION PROCESS A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy By LAUREN MICHELLE COHEN Norman, Oklahoma 1999 ÜMI Number: 9929555 UMI Microform 9929555 Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 © Copyright by LAUREN MICHELLE COHEN 1999 All Rights Reserved. WARRING FACTIONS: SENATORS, NOMINEES, AND INTEREST GROUPS IN THE SENATE CONFIRMATION PROCESS A Dissertation APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE BY Acknowledgements This project could not have been completed without the assistance o f support of many people: I am indebted to Dr. Gary Copeland, who served as a mentor and friend over the five years of my graduate study at the University of Oklahoma’s Carl Albert Center. Although we did not always agree, his guidance has helped immeasurably to shape my views of political science, scholarship, and the value o f teaching. Without his help, this project truly could never have been completed. To that end, I also owe an enormous debt of thanks and gratitude to the faculty members who gave generously of their time to serve on my general examination and dissertation committees: Dr. Ronald Peters, Dr. David Morgan, Dr. Cindy Rosenthal, Dr. Jill Irvine, Dr. Keith Caddie, Dr. Wilbur Scott of the University of Oklahoma’s Department of Sociology, Dr. Lynda Kaid of the University of Oklahoma’s Department of Communication, Dr. Sally Coleman Selden, now at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School, and Dr. Paul Kramer, now at Moorhead State University. Their advice and support was the foundation of my successful completion of my doctoral degree. I will also forever be grateful to the wonderful group of individuals that I came to call fiends while at the University of Oklahoma. To Lesli McCollum, Jon and Kim Mott, Craig Williams, Kellye Walker, LaDonna Sullivan, Angela Rogers, Jocelyn Jones, Paula Long, Donna Hoffinan, Debra St. John, Gary Gooch, John and Judy Van Doom, and all my other graduate student colleagues, thank you for your friendship, your guidance, and your support. I can only hope to have offered you the same of myself during the time we have known each other. I am blessed to have a wonderful and supportive family, which has always stood by me. I truly could not have finished this project, or my doctorate, without them. My parents - Amie and Celeste Cohen and Fran Collins — all have supported my IV endeavors to reach new heights of scholarship, and I owe my strong beliefs in the importance of education and learning to their examples. I am also lucky to have a sister. Faith Cohen, who I hope realizes that I support her attempts to achieve her dreams as much as I have felt her support to reach my own goals. I am also gratefiil for the financial support of the Carl Albert Center and the University of Oklahoma’s Political Science Department. In addition, the support of the American Political Science Association’s Congressional Fellowship Program, especially Jeff Biggs, and the staff members of United States Senators Edward M. Kennedy and Patrick J. Leahy, especially Melody Barnes, Angela Williams, Dena Graziano, Michael Myers, Bruce Cohen, Mary DeOreo, and Michael Carrasco, made much of the research on this project possible. Thanks also to the interview subjects who gave of their time to make this project better. Among interviewees, I especially appreciate the generosity of Judge Michael Schattman and his wife Mary Ellen Schattman, who were kind enough not only to share with me the extensive files they had collected, but who also opened their home to me for several days during the course of my research. This project is dedicated with love to John Bell, one of the greatest individuals I have ever been lucky enough to meet. His strong support for me is matched only by the strength of his own character. Everyone should be lucky enough to know someone like him. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF T A B L E S.......................................................................................................................................IX ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................................XI INTRODUCTION: THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS FALLS APART..................................1 THE CHANGED NATURE OF THE SENATE CONFIRMATION PROCESS..........................3 INTERESTS GROUPS AND THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS.............................................7 BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................13 DEFINITIONS........................................................................................................................17 ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION........................................................................ 20 CHAPTER ONE: THE CONTEMPORARY CONFIRMATION PROCESS..........................23 HOW THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS WORKS.................................................................26 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 38 CHAPTER TWO: HOW AND WHY THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS CHANGED.... 41 HOW THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS CHANGED........................................................... 46 WHY THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS CHANGED............................................................ 67 CHAPTER THREE: INTEREST GROUPS. AMERICAN POLITICS. AND THE EXECUTIVE CALENDAR.......................................................................................................................84 BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................85 WHY INTEREST GROUPS PARTICIPATE IN THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS...............88 VI INTEREST GROUPS AS STRATEGIC ACTORS...................................................................94 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES OF INTEREST GROUP PARTICIPATION............................. 97 THE CONSEQUENCES OF INTEREST GROUP PARTICIPATION....................................113 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................US CHAPTER FOUR: GROUP DYNAMICS AND THE SENATE CONFIRMATION PROCESS - THE CASE OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY.............................................118 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................... 121 INTEREST GROUPS AND JUDICIAL CONFIRMATIONS.................................................131 AN ANALYSIS OF INTEREST GROUP PARTICIPATION.................................................136 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................161 CHAPTER FIVE: FROM THE BENCH TO THE CABINET. AND BEYOND................166 CABINET SECRETARIES-DESIGNATE..............................................................................168 AMBASSADORS.................................................................................................................. 185 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................195 CHAPTER SIX: LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: INTEREST GROUP PARTICIPATTON AND THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS...........................................................................198 WHY INTEREST GROUPS?................................................................................................ 200 INTEREST GROUPS' TACTICS AND STRATEGIES.......................................................... 203 WHY SENATORS LISTEN...................................................................................................207 CONFIRMATION
Recommended publications
  • Iqbal Brief: Barr Amicus Brief

    Iqbal Brief: Barr Amicus Brief

    No. 07-1015 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States __________ JOHN D. ASHCROFT, former Attorney General of the United States, and ROBERT MUELLER, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Petitioners, v. JAVAID IQBAL, et al., Respondents. __________ On Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit __________ BRIEF OF WILLIAM P. BARR, GRIFFIN BELL, BENJAMIN R. CIVILETTI, EDWIN MEESE III, WILLIAM S. SESSIONS, RICHARD THORNBURGH, AND WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS __________ Paul J. Larkin, Jr. Daniel J. Popeo 1314 Cleveland St. Richard A. Samp Alexandria, VA 22302 (Counsel of Record) (703) 931-1704 Washington Legal Foundation 2009 Mass. Ave, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 588-0302 Date: September 5, 2008 QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether a conclusory allegation that a cabinet-level officer or high-ranking official knew of, condoned, or agreed to subject a plaintiff to allegedly unconstitutional acts purportedly committed by subordinate officials is sufficient to state individual- capacity claims against those officials under Bivens. 2. Whether a cabinet-level officer or other high- ranking official may be held personally liable for the allegedly unconstitutional acts of subordinate officials on the ground that, as high-level supervisors, they had constructive notice of the discrimination allegedly carried out by such subordinate officials. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................... iv INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ...............1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................5 ARGUMENT...............................11 I. THE DECISION BELOW IMPROPERLY PERMITS COMPLAINTS TO PROCEED TO DISCOVERY BASED ON MERE CONCLUSORY ASSERTIONS OF WRONGDOING.......................11 II.
  • By Patrick James Barry a Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The

    By Patrick James Barry a Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The

    CONFIRMATION BIAS: STAGED STORYTELLING IN SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARINGS by Patrick James Barry A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (English Language and Literature) in the University of Michigan 2015 Doctoral Committee: Professor Enoch Brater, Chair Associate Professor Martha Jones Professor Sidonie Smith Emeritus Professor James Boyd White TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 SITES OF THEATRICALITY 1 CHAPTER 2 SITES OF STORYTELLING 32 CHAPTER 3 THE TAUNTING OF AMERICA: THE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARING OF ROBERT BORK 55 CHAPTER 4 POISON IN THE EAR: THE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARING OF CLARENCE THOMAS 82 CHAPTER 5 THE WISE LATINA: THE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARING OF SONIA SOTOMAYOR 112 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION: CONFIRMATION CRITIQUE 141 WORK CITED 166 ii CHAPTER 1 SITES OF THEATRICALITY The theater is a place where a nation thinks in public in front of itself. --Martin Esslin, An Anatomy of Drama (1977)1 The Supreme Court confirmation process—once a largely behind-the-scenes affair—has lately moved front-and-center onto the public stage. --Laurence Tribe, Advice and Consent (1992)2 I. In 1975 Milner Ball, then a law professor at the University of Georgia, published an article in the Stanford Law Review called “The Play’s the Thing: An Unscientific Reflection on Trials Under the Rubric of Theater.” In it, Ball argued that by looking at the actions that take place in a courtroom as a “type of theater,” we might better understand the nature of these actions and “thereby make a small contribution to an understanding of the role of law in our society.”3 At the time, Ball’s view that courtroom action had an important “theatrical quality”4 was a minority position, even a 1 Esslin, Martin.
  • Black Women, Educational Philosophies, and Community Service, 1865-1965/ Stephanie Y

    Black Women, Educational Philosophies, and Community Service, 1865-1965/ Stephanie Y

    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-2003 Living legacies : Black women, educational philosophies, and community service, 1865-1965/ Stephanie Y. Evans University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Evans, Stephanie Y., "Living legacies : Black women, educational philosophies, and community service, 1865-1965/" (2003). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 915. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/915 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. M UMASS. DATE DUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST LIVING LEGACIES: BLACK WOMEN, EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHIES, AND COMMUNITY SERVICE, 1865-1965 A Dissertation Presented by STEPHANIE YVETTE EVANS Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2003 Afro-American Studies © Copyright by Stephanie Yvette Evans 2003 All Rights Reserved BLACK WOMEN, EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOHIES, AND COMMUNITY SERVICE, 1865-1964 A Dissertation Presented by STEPHANIE YVETTE EVANS Approved as to style and content by: Jo Bracey Jr., Chair William Strickland,
  • UC Irvine X-Men Fan Club.Pdf

    UC Irvine X-Men Fan Club.Pdf

    UC Irvine Tossups 4/17/043:51 PM Technophobia 4: Massive Quizbowl Overdose Tossups by DC Irvine X-Men Fan Club (Willie Chen, Jun Tokeshi, and Matt Adams) 1. 1bis man befriended Leonardo DiCaprio while they were making the 'IV series "Parenthood." Now, ignorant girls refer to him simply as "Leo's friend." His first lead role was in the 'IV sitcom "Great Scott!" He played a hitchhiker in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Harvey Stem in Deconstructing Harry, and Paul Hood in The Ice Storm. For 10 points--identify this talented young actor who starred opposite Reese Witherspoon as Bud Parker in Pleasantville. answer: Tobey Maguire 2. In one of her novels, this author tells the stol)' ofWhittman Ah Sing, a San Francisco hippie who tries to stage an epic production of interwoven Chinese novels and folktales. In another novel, subtitled "Memoirs ofa Girlhood among Ghosts," this author retells the stories of Fa Mu-Lan and the woman who killed herself by jumping into a well. For 10 points--who is this Chinese-American author of Tripmaster Monkey and The Woman Warrior? answer: Maxine Hong Kingston 3. The northern part of this countl)' contains many hot springs and has its highest peak at Mt. R1;!apehu. The southern part contains many glaciers and mountain lakes in the Southern Alps, with the highest point at Mt. Cook. For 10 points--identify this island nation composed of the world's 12th and 15th largest islands, which are separated by the Cook Strait. answer: New Zealand 4. He was the alternate US representative to the United Nations General Assembly and a member of the US delegation to the UN Human Rights Commission.
  • Membership of the 115Th Congress: a Profile

    Membership of the 115Th Congress: a Profile

    Membership of the 115th Congress: A Profile Jennifer E. Manning Senior Research Librarian Updated December 20, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44762 Membership of the 115th Congress: A Profile Summary This report presents a profile of the membership of the 115th Congress (2017-2018) as of December 20, 2018. Statistical information is included on selected characteristics of Members, including data on party affiliation, average age, occupation, education, length of congressional service, religious affiliation, gender, ethnicity, foreign births, and military service. In the House of Representatives, there are 238 Republicans (including 1 Delegate and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico), 201 Democrats (including 4 Delegates), and 5 vacant seats. The Senate has 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats, and 2 Independents, who both caucus with the Democrats. The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 115th Congress was 57.8 years; of Senators, 61.8 years, among the oldest in U.S. history. The overwhelming majority of Members of Congress have a college education. The dominant professions of Members are public service/politics, business, and law. Most Members identify as Christians, and Protestants collectively constitute the majority religious affiliation. Roman Catholics account for the largest single religious denomination, and numerous other affiliations are represented, including Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Greek Orthodox, Pentecostal Christian, Unitarian Universalist, and Christian Science. The average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 115th Congress was 9.4 years (4.7 House terms); for Senators, 10.1 years (1.7 Senate terms). One hundred fifteen women (a record number) serve in the 115th Congress: 92 in the House, including 5 Delegates and the Resident Commissioner, and 23 in the Senate.
  • Selected Highlights of Women's History

    Selected Highlights of Women's History

    Selected Highlights of Women’s History United States & Connecticut 1773 to 2015 The Permanent Commission on the Status of Women omen have made many contributions, large and Wsmall, to the history of our state and our nation. Although their accomplishments are too often left un- recorded, women deserve to take their rightful place in the annals of achievement in politics, science and inven- Our tion, medicine, the armed forces, the arts, athletics, and h philanthropy. 40t While this is by no means a complete history, this book attempts to remedy the obscurity to which too many Year women have been relegated. It presents highlights of Connecticut women’s achievements since 1773, and in- cludes entries from notable moments in women’s history nationally. With this edition, as the PCSW celebrates the 40th anniversary of its founding in 1973, we invite you to explore the many ways women have shaped, and continue to shape, our state. Edited and designed by Christine Palm, Communications Director This project was originally created under the direction of Barbara Potopowitz with assistance from Christa Allard. It was updated on the following dates by PCSW’s interns: January, 2003 by Melissa Griswold, Salem College February, 2004 by Nicole Graf, University of Connecticut February, 2005 by Sarah Hoyle, Trinity College November, 2005 by Elizabeth Silverio, St. Joseph’s College July, 2006 by Allison Bloom, Vassar College August, 2007 by Michelle Hodge, Smith College January, 2013 by Andrea Sanders, University of Connecticut Information contained in this book was culled from many sources, including (but not limited to): The Connecticut Women’s Hall of Fame, the U.S.
  • Peter Conti-Brown*

    Peter Conti-Brown*

    CONTI-BROWN 64 STAN. L. REV. 409 (DO NOT DELETE) 2/16/2012 3:58 PM ELECTIVE SHAREHOLDER LIABILITY Peter Conti-Brown* Government bailouts are expensive, unjust, and unpopular, and they usually represent dramatic deviations from the rule of law. They are also, in some cases, necessary. The problem that bailouts pose, then, is that they are almost always inimical to the interests of society, except when they are not. This complexity is ignored under the recent Dodd-Frank Act, which improbably guarantees an end to taxpayer bailouts. Indeed, much of the Act makes bailouts more likely, not less, by making the wrong kind of bailouts available far too often. This Article proposes to solve the problem of bailouts by retaining governmental ability to make the right kinds of bailouts possible through forcing the bailed-out firms to internalize the bailout costs. The proposal—called “elective shareholder liability”—allows bank shareholders two options. They must either change their bank’s capital structure to include dramatically less debt, consistent with the consensus recommendation of leading economists; or alternatively, they must add a bailout exception to their bank’s limited- shareholder-liability status, thus requiring shareholders—not taxpayers—to cover the ultimate costs of the bank’s failure. This liability would be structured as a governmental collection, similar to a tax assessment, for the recoupment of all bailout costs against the shareholders on a pro rata basis. It would also include an up-front stay on collections to ensure that there are, in fact, taxpayer losses to be recouped and to mitigate government incentives for overbailout, political manipulation, and crisis exacerbation.
  • 84Th Senate Rules

    84Th Senate Rules

    SENATE RULES adopted by 84th LEGISLATURE January 21, 2015 SENATE RULES adopted by 84th LEGISLATURE January 21, 2015 Senate Resolution No. 39 The Texas Senate is an Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability in employment or the provision of services. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Statement of Authorization and Precedence..................... 1 ARTICLE I SENATE OFFICERS AND ELECTIONS Rule 1.01 Presiding officer of the Senate ...................................... 1 Rule 1.02 President Pro Tempore ................................................ 2 Rule 1.03 Vacancy in the office of Lieutenant Governor.................. 2 Rule 1.04 Officers of the Senate.................................................. 2 Rule 1.05 Election of Officers .................................................... 3 ARTICLE II ADMISSION TO SENATE CHAMBER Rule 2.01 Access to Senate floor................................................. 3 Rule 2.02 Restrictions on admission ............................................ 4 Rule 2.03 Persons lobbying not admitted ...................................... 5 Rule 2.04 Press correspondents................................................... 6 Rule 2.05 Forfeiture of admission privilege................................... 6 Rule 2.06 Exceptions................................................................ 6 Rule 2.07 Suspension of admission rule........................................ 7 ARTICLE III SENATE DECORUM Rule 3.01 Persons must be properly
  • Fewer Hands, More Mercy: a Plea for a Better Federal Clemency System

    Fewer Hands, More Mercy: a Plea for a Better Federal Clemency System

    FEWER HANDS, MORE MERCY: A PLEA FOR A BETTER FEDERAL CLEMENCY SYSTEM Mark Osler*† INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 465 I. A SWAMP OF UNNECESSARY PROCESS .................................................. 470 A. From Simplicity to Complexity ....................................................... 470 B. The Clemency System Today .......................................................... 477 1. The Basic Process ......................................................................... 477 a. The Pardon Attorney’s Staff ..................................................... 478 b. The Pardon Attorney ................................................................ 479 c. The Staff of the Deputy Attorney General ................................. 481 d. The Deputy Attorney General ................................................... 481 e. The White House Counsel Staff ................................................ 483 f. The White House Counsel ......................................................... 484 g. The President ............................................................................ 484 2. Clemency Project 2014 ................................................................ 485 C. The Effect of a Bias in Favor of Negative Decisions ...................... 489 II. BETTER EXAMPLES: STATE AND FEDERAL .......................................... 491 A. State Systems ................................................................................... 491 1. A Diversity
  • Hormel, James C. (B

    Hormel, James C. (B

    Hormel, James C. (b. 1933) by Linda Rapp Encyclopedia Copyright © 2015, glbtq, Inc. Entry Copyright © 2004, glbtq, inc. Reprinted from http://www.glbtq.com James C. Hormel has a distinguished record as a philanthropist and a proponent of the cause of gay rights. His nomination to become the first openly gay ambassador from the United States drew criticism from conservative groups. A handful of Republican senators managed to forestall his confirmation for almost two years. Hormel comes from a prosperous family. In 1891 his German-born grandfather, George Hormel, founded Hormel Foods, which has grown into a leading meat packing company. Among its best-known products is Spam. James Catherwood Hormel was born on January 1, 1933 in Austin, Minnesota and grew up on the family estate there. He graduated from Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania with a B.A. in history in 1955. He went on to the University of Chicago Law School, where he earned his law degree in 1958. Hormel remained to teach in the law school at Chicago, eventually becoming dean of students. Hormel married in 1955, but a decade later he and his wife decided to divorce, mainly because of Hormel's sexual orientation. The couple have remained good friends, however, and Hormel has always enjoyed an excellent relationship with their son and four daughters. Hormel began a long-term relationship with artist Larry Soule in the early 1970s. The couple lived together for eighteen years. After sojourns in New York and Kauai, Hormel moved to San Francisco in 1976. There he founded Equidex, a company that manages his family's investments and philanthropic projects.
  • Who Is the Attorney General's Client?

    Who Is the Attorney General's Client?

    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\87-3\NDL305.txt unknown Seq: 1 20-APR-12 11:03 WHO IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CLIENT? William R. Dailey, CSC* Two consecutive presidential administrations have been beset with controversies surrounding decision making in the Department of Justice, frequently arising from issues relating to the war on terrorism, but generally giving rise to accusations that the work of the Department is being unduly politicized. Much recent academic commentary has been devoted to analyzing and, typically, defending various more or less robust versions of “independence” in the Department generally and in the Attorney General in particular. This Article builds from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board, in which the Court set forth key principles relating to the role of the President in seeing to it that the laws are faithfully executed. This Article draws upon these principles to construct a model for understanding the Attorney General’s role. Focusing on the question, “Who is the Attorney General’s client?”, the Article presumes that in the most important sense the American people are the Attorney General’s client. The Article argues, however, that that client relationship is necessarily a mediated one, with the most important mediat- ing force being the elected head of the executive branch, the President. The argument invokes historical considerations, epistemic concerns, and constitutional structure. Against a trend in recent commentary defending a robustly independent model of execu- tive branch lawyering rooted in the putative ability and obligation of executive branch lawyers to alight upon a “best view” of the law thought to have binding force even over plausible alternatives, the Article defends as legitimate and necessary a greater degree of presidential direction in the setting of legal policy.
  • The Future of Work of Future The

    The Future of Work of Future The

    Communications and Society Program Bollier THE FUTURE OF WORK What It Means for Individuals, Businesses, Markets and Governments THE FUTURE OF WORK By David Bollier Publications Office P.O. Box 222 109 Houghton Lab Lane Queenstown, MD 21658 11-003 THE FUTURE OF WORK What It Means for Individuals, Businesses, Markets and Governments By David Bollier Communications and Society Program Charles M. Firestone Executive Director Washington, D.C. 2011 To purchase additional copies of this report, please contact: The Aspen Institute Publications Office P.O. Box 222 109 Houghton Lab Lane Queenstown, Maryland 21658 Phone: (410) 820-5326 Fax: (410) 827-9174 E-mail: [email protected] For all other inquiries, please contact: The Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program One Dupont Circle, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 736-5818 Fax: (202) 467-0790 Charles M. Firestone Patricia K. Kelly Executive Director Assistant Director Copyright © 2011 by The Aspen Institute This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. The Aspen Institute One Dupont Circle, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 Published in the United States of America in 2010 by The Aspen Institute All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 0-89843-543-9 11/004 Contents FOREWORD, Charles M. Firestone .............................................................vii THE FUTURE OF WORK: WHAT IT MEANS FOR INDIVIDUALS, BUSINESSES, MARKETS AND GOVERNMENTS, David Bollier Introduction ...............................................................................................