DOCSLIB.ORG

Press Releases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Press Releases Press Releases Dellinger to Receive Two Awards for Civil and Human Rights Advocacy June 3, 2019 RELATED PROFESSIONALS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Walter Dellinger WASHINGTON, DC—June 3, 2019—O’Melveny partner Walter Dellinger will receive two prestigious Washington, DC awards this week for his civil rights and advocacy work. He will also lead a discussion with a panel of D: +1­202­383­5319 judges. RELATED PRACTICES On Tuesday, Dellinger will be honored by the Mississippi Center for Justice at their annual Mississippi on the Potomac event for his work advancing civil and human rights. Dellinger, who began his legal career Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation teaching Political and Civil Rights to one of the first integrated classes at the University of Mississippi Law School, is cited for being an “influential authority on appellate and Supreme Court jurisprudence and a Litigation committed contributor to a wave of social and generational change in Mississippi.” The Mississippi Center for Justice is a nonprofit, public interest law organization committed to advancing racial and economic justice. On Wednesday, Dellinger will be presented with the Rex E. Lee Advocacy Award at the annual luncheon of the J. Ruben Clark Society. Rex Lee served as the Solicitor General of the United States, the founding dean of the J. Ruben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University, and later as president of the university. The award “is presented to a distinguished advocate who has exemplified excellent and principled advocacy throughout his or her legal career.” US Senator Mitt Romney will give the keynote address at the luncheon. In addition, Dellinger will lead a discussion on Saturday at the final plenary session at the annual convention of the American Constitution Society in Washington, DC. The topic is “Doing Theory/Doing Law: Practicing, Teaching, Governing, and Judging.” Dellinger will be joined by Judges Pamela Harris (Fourth Circuit), Sri Srinivasan (D.C. Circuit), and David Barron (First Circuit). Judges Srinivasan and Harris are former colleagues of Dellinger’s at O’Melveny and Judge Barron worked with him at the Department of Justice. Dellinger is an influential authority on public law, lending his experience as a former head of the Office of Legal Counsel and acting Solicitor General and decades of legal knowledge to amicus briefs and numerous pro bono clients, as well as public and private companies. Dellinger has published articles on constitutional issues for scholarly journals including the Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal, and has written for the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Slate, New Republic, and London Times. A frequent commentator on major television networks, he holds the designation of the Douglas B. Maggs Emeritus Professor of Law at Duke University. Dellinger was named one of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America by the National Law Journal and recognized with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Lawyer. Among his Supreme Court arguments at O’Melveny are his victories in Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington, which established the constitutionality of using lawyers’ trust funds to provide financing for legal services, and Jackson v. Birmingham, recognizing the right of coaches and teachers to sue for retaliation under Title IX when fired for opposing unequal treatment of girls’ teams. Dellinger helped convince the US Supreme Court that proponents of Proposition 8, California's ban on same­sex marriage, did not have standing to appeal a court order invalidating it. That ruling, Hollingsworth v. Perry, cleared the way for marriage equality in California and eventually nationwide. About O’Melveny It’s more than what you do: it’s how you do it. Across sectors and borders, in board rooms and courtrooms, we measure our success by yours. And in our interactions, we commit to making your O’Melveny experience as satisfying as the outcomes we help you achieve. Our greatest accomplishment is ensuring that you never have to choose between premier lawyering and exceptional service. So, tell us. What do you want to achieve? Visit us at omm.com. Contact: Christopher Rieck O’Melveny & Myers LLP +1 212 326 2218 [email protected] Press Releases Dellinger to Receive Two Awards for Civil and Human Rights Advocacy June 3, 2019 RELATED PROFESSIONALS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Walter Dellinger WASHINGTON, DC—June 3, 2019—O’Melveny partner Walter Dellinger will receive two prestigious Washington, DC awards this week for his civil rights and advocacy work. He will also lead a discussion with a panel of D: +1­202­383­5319 judges. RELATED PRACTICES On Tuesday, Dellinger will be honored by the Mississippi Center for Justice at their annual Mississippi on the Potomac event for his work advancing civil and human rights. Dellinger, who began his legal career Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation teaching Political and Civil Rights to one of the first integrated classes at the University of Mississippi Law School, is cited for being an “influential authority on appellate and Supreme Court jurisprudence and a Litigation committed contributor to a wave of social and generational change in Mississippi.” The Mississippi Center for Justice is a nonprofit, public interest law organization committed to advancing racial and economic justice. On Wednesday, Dellinger will be presented with the Rex E. Lee Advocacy Award at the annual luncheon of the J. Ruben Clark Society. Rex Lee served as the Solicitor General of the United States, the founding dean of the J. Ruben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University, and later as president of the university. The award “is presented to a distinguished advocate who has exemplified excellent and principled advocacy throughout his or her legal career.” US Senator Mitt Romney will give the keynote address at the luncheon. In addition, Dellinger will lead a discussion on Saturday at the final plenary session at the annual convention of the American Constitution Society in Washington, DC. The topic is “Doing Theory/Doing Law: Practicing, Teaching, Governing, and Judging.” Dellinger will be joined by Judges Pamela Harris (Fourth Circuit), Sri Srinivasan (D.C. Circuit), and David Barron (First Circuit). Judges Srinivasan and Harris are former colleagues of Dellinger’s at O’Melveny and Judge Barron worked with him at the Department of Justice. Dellinger is an influential authority on public law, lending his experience as a former head of the Office of Legal Counsel and acting Solicitor General and decades of legal knowledge to amicus briefs and numerous pro bono clients, as well as public and private companies. Dellinger has published articles on constitutional issues for scholarly journals including the Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal, and has written for the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Slate, New Republic, and London Times. A frequent commentator on major television networks, he holds the designation of the Douglas B. Maggs Emeritus Professor of Law at Duke University. Dellinger was named one of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America by the National Law Journal and recognized with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Lawyer. Among his Supreme Court arguments at O’Melveny are his victories in Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington, which established the constitutionality of using lawyers’ trust funds to provide financing for legal services, and Jackson v. Birmingham, recognizing the right of coaches and teachers to sue for retaliation under Title IX when fired for opposing unequal treatment of girls’ teams. Dellinger helped convince the US Supreme Court that proponents of Proposition 8, California's ban on same­sex marriage, did not have standing to appeal a court order invalidating it. That ruling, Hollingsworth v. Perry, cleared the way for marriage equality in California and eventually nationwide. About O’Melveny It’s more than what you do: it’s how you do it. Across sectors and borders, in board rooms and courtrooms, we measure our success by yours. And in our interactions, we commit to making your O’Melveny experience as satisfying as the outcomes we help you achieve. Our greatest accomplishment is ensuring that you never have to choose between premier lawyering and exceptional service. So, tell us. What do you want to achieve? Visit us at omm.com. Contact: Christopher Rieck O’Melveny & Myers LLP +1 212 326 2218 [email protected].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Barron Nomination Could Be on Senate Floor As Early As This Week
    WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE OFFICE URGENT: BARRON NOMINATION COULD BE ON SENATE FLOOR AS EARLY AS THIS WEEK May 5, 2014 Re: Need for All Senators to Read Key OLC Opinions, Including Ones Authorizing the Killing of a United States Citizen Away from a Battlefield, Before Voting on the Nomination of their Author, David Barron, for the AMERICAN CIVIL United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit LIBERTIES UNION WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE OFFICE 915 15th STREET, NW, 6 TH FL Dear Senator: WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T/202.544.1681 F/202.546.0738 Before voting on the nomination of David Barron for the United States WWW.ACLU.ORG Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the American Civil Liberties Union LAURA W. MURPHY strongly urges you to read the two known Justice Department legal opinions, DIRECTOR authored or signed by Mr. Barron, which reportedly authorized the killing of an NATIONAL OFFICE American citizen by an armed drone, away from a battlefield. The ACLU also 125 BROAD STREET, 18 TH FL. urges you to obtain and read any and all other legal opinions related to the NEW YORK, NY 10004-2400 T/212.549.2500 targeted killing or armed drone program that were written or signed by Mr. Barron. The ACLU does not endorse or oppose any nominee, but strongly urges OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS SUSAN N. HERMAN the Senate to delay any vote on confirmation of Mr. Barron until all senators have PRESIDENT an opportunity to read, with advice of cleared staff, these legal opinions that ANTHONY D. ROMERO authorized an unprecedented killing, as well as any other opinions written or EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR signed by Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Bruce Ackerman
    BOOK REVIEW CONSTITUTIONAL ALARMISM THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC. By Bruce Ackerman. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2010. Pp. 270. $25.95. Reviewed by Trevor W. Morrison∗ INTRODUCTION The Decline and Fall of the American Republic is a call to action. Professor Bruce Ackerman opens the book with the claim that “some- thing is seriously wrong — very seriously wrong — with the tradition of government that we have inherited” (p. 3). The problem, he says, is the modern American presidency, which he portrays as recently trans- formed into “an especially dangerous office” (p. 189 n.1) posing “a se- rious threat to our constitutional tradition” (p. 4). Ackerman urges us to confront this “potential for catastrophic decline — and act before it is too late” (p. 11). Concerns of this kind are not new. Indeed, in some respects De- cline and Fall reads as a sequel to Professor Arthur Schlesinger’s 1973 classic, The Imperial Presidency.1 Ackerman writes consciously in that tradition, but with a sense of renewed urgency driven by a convic- tion that “the presidency has become far more dangerous today” than in Schlesinger’s time (p. 188). The sources and mechanisms of that purported danger are numerous; Decline and Fall sweeps across jour- nalism, national opinion polls, the Electoral College, civilian-military relations, presidential control of the bureaucracy, and executive branch lawyering to contend that “the foundations of our own republic are eroding before our very eyes” (p. 188). ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ∗ Professor of Law, Columbia University. For helpful comments on earlier drafts, I thank Akhil Amar, David Barron, Ariela Dubler, Jack Goldsmith, Marty Lederman, Peter Margulies, Gillian Metzger, Henry Monaghan, Rick Pildes, Jeff Powell, John Witt, and participants in faculty workshops at Vanderbilt University and the University of Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • The Obama Administration and the Prospects for a Democratic Presidency in a Post-9/11 World
    NYLS Law Review Vols. 22-63 (1976-2019) Volume 56 Issue 1 Civil Liberties 10 Years After 9/11 Article 2 January 2012 The Obama Administration and the Prospects for a Democratic Presidency in a Post-9/11 World Peter M. Shane The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/nyls_law_review Part of the Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, and the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter M. Shane, The Obama Administration and the Prospects for a Democratic Presidency in a Post-9/11 World, 56 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 28 (2011-2012). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Law Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. VOLUME 56 | 2011/12 PETER M. SHANE The Obama Administration and the Prospects for a Democratic Presidency in a Post-9/11 World ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. 27 THE PROSpeCTS FOR A DemoCRATIC PRESIdeNCY IN A POST-9/11 WORld [W]hen I won [the] election in 2008, one of the reasons I think that people were excited about the campaign was the prospect that we would change how business is done in Washington. And we were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn’t change how things got done. And I think that frustrated people.
    [Show full text]
  • Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee
    Stanford Law Review Volume 73 June 2021 NOTE Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee William S. Janover* Abstract. As arbiter of the constitutionality of executive actions, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) possesses vast authority over the operation of the federal government and is one of the primary vessels for the articulation of executive power. It therefore is not surprising that the OLC has found itself at the center of controversy across Democratic and Republican administrations. OLC opinions have justified the obstruction of valid congressional investigations, the targeted killing of an American citizen overseas, repeated military incursions without congressional approval, and, most infamously, torture. These episodes have generated a significant body of proposals to reform, constrain, or altogether eliminate the OLC. All of these proposals can be categorized as either direct or indirect constraints on how the OLC operates. Direct constraints target how the OLC actually creates its legal work product. Indirect constraints instead focus on the OLC’s personnel or the public scrutiny the Office’s opinions will face. This Note expands on this existing body of research, focusing on how one institution unstudied in this context, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, can operationalize meaningful indirect constraints on the OLC. Unlike the other actors that scholars have examined, the Committee’s position outside the executive branch allows it to sidestep the President’s ever-expanding reach within the federal bureaucracy. At the same time, the Committee’s oversight powers and its central role in the nomination of both the OLC’s leader and Article III judges give it important constitutional and statutory authority to constrain the Office.
    [Show full text]
  • The Career Connection
    INSIDE THIS ISSUE ● MAY 16, 2016 Career Planning Events Calendar…………………………………………………….2 Akron Bar Association Events Calendar......………...……………………................2 News Flash……………………………………………...……………………................2 The University of Akron School of Law Job Announcements………………………………….………………………..............7 Career Planning & Placement Office Attorney Positions………………………………….………………………...……7 General Office Hours: Jobs Received from Various Legal Recruiting Firms……………………....…14 Judicial Clerkships…..………………………….………………………….……..16 Monday: 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Tuesday: 8:00 a.m. – 6:30 p.m. Other Positions….……………………………………..…………………….……31 Wednesday: 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Articles and Items of Interest………………………..………………………………..35 Thursday: 8:00 a.m. – 6:30 p.m. Friday: 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Useful Links….……..…………………………………...……………………..............35 If you would like to schedule an appointment, please call 330-972-5321 or e-mail [email protected] Office Staff: Alisa N. Benedict O’Brien, Esq. Director Career Planning & Placement MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENTS Debbie Casey Student Services Counselor The Career Planning Office is now located in the Law Library on the second floor in room 264. Come see us! Angela S. Smith Coordinator, Office Administration On The Web: www.uakron.edu/law/career www.twitter.com/AkronLawCareers Our Summer Hours are Monday – Friday, 8:00 AM – 4:30 PM Career Planning Events Calendar: Stay Tuned for our Fall 2016 Programs! You may access all previous career planning workshops at http://www.uakron.edu/law/career/students/videos.dot Akron Bar Association Events Calendar: Note: most events require an RSVP to the Bar Association. A full calendar of Akron Bar events is located at: http://www.akronbar.org/calendar.aspx. Upcoming Section and Committee Meetings: The CPPO encourages Akron Law students to attend Akron Bar events and CLE.
    [Show full text]
  • Wordperfect Office Document
    PANEL & MODERATOR BIOGRAPHIES HONORABLE LINCOLN D. ALMOND Lincoln D. Almond graduated "with distinction" from the University of Rhode Island in 1985 and with "high honors" from the University of Connecticut School of Law in 1988. He was admitted to the Connecticut Bar in 1988 and the Rhode Island Bar in 1990. Judge Almond clerked for United States District Judge Peter C. Dorsey in the District of Connecticut from 1988 to 1990. He worked in private practice from 1990 to 2004 concentrating primarily in litigation/labor and employment law. Judge Almond was appointed Magistrate Judge in the District of Rhode Island on September 10, 2004. ATTORNEY ELIZABETH BADGER Elizabeth Badger is the Senior Staff Attorney at PAIR and manages the Access to Justice for Immigrant Families initiative. Elizabeth received her J.D. from Boston University School of Law and received her B.A., from Dartmouth College. After law school, she served as an Immigration Law Clerk at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Elizabeth has worked in immigration law for over a decade, focusing on representing non-citizen children, asylum-seekers, victims of crimes, and persons in prolonged immigration detention. Prior to coming to PAIR, Elizabeth was the Senior Attorney at the Boston Office of Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), from 2014-2018. From 2010-2013, Elizabeth taught in the Boston University School of Law’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic. She has also worked at Lutheran Social Services, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute (MLRI), and with other members of the Massachusetts immigration community on various law reform projects. In 2007-2008, Elizabeth was a staff attorney at PAIR, managing over 100 New Bedford Raid cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Judiciary Tracker
    Federal Judiciary Tracker An up-to-date look at the federal judiciary and the status of President Trump’s judicial nominations October 23, 2020 Trump has had 225 federal judges confirmed while 25 seats remain vacant without a nominee Status of key positions 25 President Trump inherited 108 federal requiring Senate 41 judge vacancies confirmation As of October 22, 2020: ■ No nominee ■ Awaiting confirmation 157 judiciary positions have opened up ■ Confirmed during Trump’s presidency and either remain vacant or have been filled Total: 265 potential Trump nominations 225 Source: United States Courts Trump has had more circuit judges confirmed than the average of recent presidents at this point Number of Federal Judges Nominated and Confirmed Trump 161 53 2 ■ District court judge ■ Circuit court judge ■ Supreme Court judge Obama 128 30 2 Source: Federal Judicial Center Bush 165 35 Clinton 169 30 2 HW Bush 148 42 2 In three and a half years, Trump has confirmed a higher number of circuit judges as prior presidents in four years Number of Federal Judges Nominated and Confirmed Trump 161 53 2 ■ District court judge ■ Circuit court judge Obama 141 30 2 ■ Supreme Court judge Source: Federal Judicial Center Bush 168 35 Clinton 169 30 2 HW Bush 148 42 2 An overview of the Article III courts US District Courts US Court of Appeals Supreme Court Organization: Organization: Organization: • The nation is split into 94 • Federal judicial districts • The Supreme Court is the federal judicial districts are organized into 12 highest court in the US • The District of Columbia circuits, which each have a • There are nine justices on and four US territories court of appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LAW PRESIDENTS MAKE Daphna Renan*
    COPYRIGHT © 2017 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION THE LAW PRESIDENTS MAKE Daphna Renan* The standard conception of executive branch legal review in the scholarship is a quasi-judicial Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) dispensing formal, written opinions binding on the executive branch. That structure of executive branch legalism did have a brief heyday. But it obscures core characteristics of contemporary practice. A different structure of executive branch legalism—informal, diffuse, and intermingled in its approach to lawyers, policymakers, and political leadership—has gained new prominence. This Article documents, analyzes, and assesses that transformation. Scholars have suggested that the failure of OLC to constrain presidential power in recent publicized episodes means that executive branch legalism should become more court-like. They have mourned what they perceive to be a disappearing external constraint on the presidency. Executive branch legalism has never been an exogenous or external check on presidential power, however. It is a tool of presidential administration itself. Exploring changes in the structure of executive branch legal review sheds light on the shifting needs of the * Assistant Professor, Harvard Law School. From 2009–2012, I served in the Justice Department as Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and then as an Attorney Advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel. The views expressed are my own and the discussion is based only on publicly available materials. For generous engagement with this project at various stages,
    [Show full text]
  • Appellate Court Extra-Record Factfinding
    GOROD IN PRINTER PROOF 10/6/2011 6:57:08 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 61 OCTOBER 2011 NUMBER 1 THE ADVERSARIAL MYTH: APPELLATE COURT EXTRA-RECORD FACTFINDING BRIANNE J. GOROD† ABSTRACT The United States’ commitment to adversarial justice is a defining feature of its legal system. Standing doctrine, for example, is supposed to ensure that courts can rely on adverse parties to present the facts courts need to resolve disputes. Although the U.S. legal system generally lives up to this adversarial ideal, it sometimes does not. Appellate courts often look outside the record the parties developed before the trial court, turning instead to their own independent research and to factual claims in amicus briefs. This deviation from the adversarial process is an important respect in which the nation’s adversarial commitment is more myth than reality. This myth is problematic for many reasons, including the fact that it obscures the extent to which some of the most significant cases the Supreme Court decides, such as Citizens United v. FEC, rely upon “facts” that have not been subjected to rigorous adversarial testing. The adversarial myth exists because the U.S. legal system’s current procedures were designed to address adjudicative facts—facts particularly within the knowledge of the parties—but many cases turn instead on legislative facts—more general facts about the state of the world. Recognizing Copyright © 2011 by Brianne J. Gorod. † Counsel, O’Melveny & Myers LLP. For their helpful comments and suggestions, I am grateful to David Barron, Michael Bern, Joseph Blocher, Michael Bosworth, Jessica Bulman- Pozen, Amanda Frost, Brian Galle, Herbert Gorod, Lynn Gorod, Jeff Hauser, Allison Orr Larsen, Marty Lederman, Jaynie Lilley, Eloise Pasachoff, Jennifer Peresie, Thomas Pulham, Judith Resnik, Andrew Woolf, Steven Wu, and the participants in the Georgetown Law Summer Workshop Series.
    [Show full text]
  • Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center Presents Charles A
    TOURO COLLEGE JACOB D. FUCHSBERG LAW CENTER PRESENTS CHARLES A. REICH (1928-2019) Charles Reich was born in New York City in 1928. His father Carl was a doctor who specialized in hematology. His mother pursued a career in school administration. Charles’ younger brother Peter was born in 1931. At his mother’s direction, Charles attended progressive schools in New York City. After high school, Charles attended Oberlin, where he excelled as a liberal arts student. Uncertain about what to do after graduation, he decided to apply to Yale Law School. This decision was made after speaking with Professor Tom Emerson, a family friend and professor at the law school. Reich was admitted and matriculated in the fall of 1949. Although he often shied away from speaking in class, Reich was an excellent law student. His strong academic performance earned him an early slot on the Yale Law Journal. Later he was elected editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal. During his last year of law school, Reich applied for a clerkship with Justice Hugo Black. He found Black’s dissents in a number of civil liberties cases inspiring and enlisted support from Dean Wesley Sturges, Professor Emerson, and Professor David Haber for his application. In his letter of recommendation, Professor Haber noted that “despite an outer appearance of reticence and modesty, [Reich] proves to be an extremely warm and outgoing person, quite sensitive to, and aware of some of the problems of leading a life that has integrity and meaning.” Reich interviewed with Justice Black, and was offered the clerkship.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Judicial Nominations During the Obama Administration
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2017 Cooperative Judicial Nominations During the Obama Administration David Fontana George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Fontana, David, Cooperative Judicial Nominations During the Obama Administration (March 28, 2017). Wisconsin Law Review, Forthcoming; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2017-24; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2017-24. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2942297 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FONTANA – FORTHCOMING – WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW (2017) 3/28/2017 COOPERATIVE JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DAVID FONTANA Introduction ................................................................... 101 I. Naming ..................................................................... 108 II. Numbing ................................................................... 124 III. Numbers .................................................................. 130 Conclusion .................................................................... 138 INTRODUCTION During his eight years in office, President Barack Obama changed
    [Show full text]
  • Lochner for the Executive Branch: the Torture Memo As Anticanon
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLP\7-1\HLP107.txt unknown Seq: 1 5-MAR-13 13:41 Lochner for the Executive Branch: The Torture Memo as Anticanon Andrew Kaufman* During Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s 2007 confirmation hear- ing, the nominee was asked about the infamous August 1, 2002 “torture memo” issued by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).1 Mukasey could have anticipated the question. Since the torture controversy erupted in 2004, it seems that any discussion of the OLC inevitably turns to the torture memo.2 Mukasey responded that the memo was “worse than a sin, it was a mis- take.”3 Senator Patrick Leahy then asked, “Would it be a safe characteriza- tion of what you just said that you repudiate this memo as not only being contrary to law but also contrary to the values America stands for?”4 Mukasey replied affirmatively.5 Mukasey’s unequivocal statements echoed a consensus viewing the memo as executive branch lawyering gone wrong.6 This article aims to * Alan Morrison Supreme Court Assistance Project Fellow, Public Citizen Litigation Group; J.D., Harvard Law School; B.A., Carleton College. Thanks to David Barron, Patrick Gibson, Joshua Matz, Benjamin Mundel, Lauren Wroblewski, and the editors of the Harvard Law & Policy Review for helpful comments. 1 Memorandum from Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Att’y Gen., Office of Legal Counsel, to Al- berto R. Gonzalez, Counsel to the President (Aug. 1, 2002) [hereinafter Bybee Memorandum], available at http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/memo-gonzales-aug2002.pdf. 2 See, e.g., Bruce Ackerman, Legal Acrobatics, Illegal War, N.Y.
    [Show full text]