DOCSLIB.ORG

Hamdan V. Rumseld: the Legal Academy Goes to Practice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hamdan V. Rumseld: the Legal Academy Goes to Practice Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2006 Hamdan v. Rumseld: The Legal Academy Goes to Practice Neal K. Katyal Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 941203 This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/534 http://ssrn.com/abstract=941203 120 Harv. L. Rev. 65-123 (2006) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Legal History Commons, and the Litigation Commons COMMENT HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD: THE LEGAL ACADEMY GOES TO PRACTICE Neal Kumar Katyal TABLE OF CONTENTS I. HAMDAN: H ow THEORY INFORM ED PRACTICE ............................................................. 72 A. Framing Effects ...................................................................................................................... 73 B. The Passive Virtues ............................................................................................................... 84 C. Default Rules and the Veto .............................................................................................. 94 II. HAM DAN: HOW PRACTICE REINED IN THEORY ......................................................... 97 A. Inherent Authority ............................................................................................................... 97 B. Deference ............................................................................................................................. 105 II. FUTURE REFORM .................................................................................................................. 114 A. In the Government ..............................................................................................................115 B. In Law Schools .................................................................................................................... ir6 i. Oral Advocacy ................................................................................................................117 2. W orking in Groups ......................................................................................................... 118 3. A M oral Com pass ........................................................................................................... I19 IV CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 122 HeinOnline -- 120 Harv. L. Rev. 65 2006-2007 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD: THE LEGAL ACADEMY GOES TO PRACTICE Neal Kumar Katyal* Hamdan v. Rumsfeld1 is a rare Supreme Court rebuke to the Presi- dent during armed conflict. The time is not yet right to tell all of the backstory of the case, but it is possible to offer some preliminary re- flections on how the case was litigated, the decision, and its implica- tions for the oft-noticed divide between legal theory and practice. In a widely cited article, Judge Harry Edwards lamented "the growing disjunction between legal education and the legal profession," claiming that "many law schools. .. have abandoned their proper place, by emphasizing abstract theory at the expense of practical scholarship and pedagogy. '2 This observation is truer today than when Judge Edwards penned those words in 1992. Perhaps fueled by an intense desire to move up in published law school rankings, 3 many of the nation's leading law schools have ramped up course offerings and the number of faculty members devoted to legal theory while dis- paraging practitioners. 4 Like any excluded group, practitioners have * Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. For helpful comments, I thank Bruce Ackerman, Alex Aleinikoff, Akhil Amar, Judy Coleman, Jack Goldsmith, Tom Goldstein, Julie Hilden, Vicki Jackson, Christine Jolls, Dan Kahan, Sonia Katyal, Richard Lazarus, David Luban, Liz Magill, Jon Molot, Judith Resnik, Jeff Rosen, Joanna Rosen, Jonathan Siegel, Charles Swift, Carlos Vhzquez, Stephen Vladeck, and Kathy Zeiler. Given extremely unusual time pres- sures for publication, the research of many (Laura Alexander, Jillian Ashley, Jennifer Davitt, Josh Friedman, Brian Hart, Martin Kurzweil, Adam Lawton, and Jay Smith) contributed greatly to the final product. I served as Counsel of Record in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and this Comment is dedicated to my co-counsel Lieutenant Commander Charles D. Swift (of the United States Navy); Joseph McMillan, Charles Sipos, and Harry Schneider (of the law firm Perkins Coie); Tom Goldstein and Kevin Russell (then of the firm Goldstein & Howe); and dozens of students from Duke College and Georgetown, Harvard, Michigan, and Yale Law Schools. These men and women represent the best of the public and private bar, both its present and its future. 1 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006). 2 Harry T. Edwards, The Growing Disjunction Between Legal Education and the Legal Pro- fession, 91 MICH. L. REV. 34, 34 (i992). 3 See Paul L. Caron & Rafael Gely, What Law Schools Can Learnfrom Billy Beane and the Oakland Athletics, 82 TEX. L. REV. 1483, 1509-14, 1525-29 (2004) (book review) (describing how U.S. News and World Report law school rankings have created market pressure leading to, among other things, "increased course offerings in nontraditional areas" and "a desire to measure indi- vidual contributions" of faculty - contributions measured, almost invariably, in terms of schol- arly productivity and reputation alone). 4 For example, Professor Lawrence Solum has collected data noting "a marked decline of the 'Trade School' model," with more than one-third of new hires possessing advanced doctoral de- grees in a discipline other than law. See Legal Theory Blog, http://lsolum.typepad.com/ legaltheory/2004/o7/hiringtrendsa.html (July 19, 2004, 13:24 EST). HeinOnline -- 120 Harv. L. Rev. 66 2006-2007 2006] THE SUPREME COURT - COMMENT begun disparaging the theoreticians in return. 5 We are witnessing one of the most significant developments in the history of American law: the majority of professors on many law faculties are now specializing in areas that are of no obvious relevance to their students' activities 6 upon graduation. This Comment uses Hamdan to illustrate why the disparagement of theory is partially wrong. By examining the litigation of the case, it demonstrates some of the benefits of theory to practice. At least three different theoretical tools were involved in Hamdan: (i) psychological research on framing effects and bias toward compromise; (2) theoreti- cal inquiry into the timing of Supreme Court litigation and the "pas- sive virtues"; and (3)economic analysis of penalty default rules and po- litical science research on the veto. The study of each in law school is widely - and incorrectly - believed irrelevant to practice. To take one example, sophisticated Supreme Court practitioners sometimes employ a strategy that turns out to harness what cognitive psychologists call "extremeness aversion."7 An advocate files a certio- rari petition based on arguments that push the lower court's logic to the maximum, and then argues that if the opinion becomes the law, a parade of horribles will inevitably follow. The petition then advocates a strong, but seemingly more reasonable, position completely opposite to that lower court opinion, thereby casting the dispute as a fairly ex- treme one. The sharply opposed positions might persuade the Court to hear the case. At that moment, the advocate changes her goal - from getting the case selected to winning it. Winning often requires the definition of a narrower rationale. The extreme position announced in the petition becomes not a liability, but rather a useful anchor for the discussion by presenting the advocate as a reasonable friend of the Court who would be content with more lim- ited relief. The advocate comes across not as reversing course, but merely as courting the Court by acceding to the inevitable compro- mises the Justices will seek. In taking this turn, the lawyer cannot give up on the broader position; instead, she explains that the broad- yet-defensible position is not necessary to reach because of an avail- able, and more limited, rationale in her client's favor. Oral argument both continues this strategy and furthers a second objective. The ad- 5 See Rena I. Steinzor & Alan D. Hornstein, The Unplanned Obsolescence of American Legal Education, 75 TEMP. L. REV. 447, 457-64 (2002) (describing "tensions" between the bar and the academy and stating that "many practicing lawyers feel varying degrees of impatience with the academy's esoteric pursuits"); see also AM. BAR ASS'N, LEGAL EDUCATION AND PROFES- SIONAL DEVELOPMENT - AN EDUCATIONAL CONTINUUM 3-8 (1992) (similar). 6 See Kara Abramson, "Art for a Better Life": A New Image of American Legal Education, 2oo6 BYU EDUC. & L.J. 227, 283-84 (describing this disjunction). 7 See infra pp. 76-83. HeinOnline -- 120 Harv. L. Rev. 67 2006-2007 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [VOL. 12o:6 5 vocate must now explain why the other side's position is extreme, and how its purported compromises (if any) remain extreme (unlike her own, which are of course entirely reasonable). This pattern, from petition to oral argument, repeats itself all the time. Take the Pentagon Papers case, the last strong Supreme Court rebuke of the President during armed conflict." Alexander Bickel, the lawyer for the New York Times, opened his brief with the broad
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 [email protected]. 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]
  • 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]
  • Dunwody Distinguished Lecture in Law*
    DUNWODY DISTINGUISHED LECTURE IN LAW* INTERPRETING THE SUPREME COURT: FINDING MEANING IN THE JUSTICES’ PERSONAL EXPERIENCES Amy Howe** Abstract At his 2004 confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. famously compared the role of a Supreme Court Justice to that of a baseball umpire and promised “to remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes.” Roberts likely intended this to mean that he would serve as a neutral arbiter of the law, who simply applies the existing rules to reach the correct outcome. But in judging, as in baseball, that is not as easy as it sounds, especially when one of the primary criteria on which the Court relies to choose its cases is whether the lower courts are divided on the legal question presented by a case. In the absence of a clear right or wrong answer, the Justices often have to operate in a gray area, and this is where their life experiences may play a role, because two people may—based on their own unique life experiences—see the same things very differently. To be sure, life experiences may not always be determinative, particularly when the Justices are dealing with more technical areas of the law. And even Justices who share similar life experiences may nonetheless view an issue very differently, as is the case with Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor when it comes to affirmative action. The key is to look at a Justice’s entire life experience collectively because that is what the Justice will rely on to make decisions and that is what will inform how she sees the tough questions that the Court decides.
    [Show full text]
  • Roberts at 10: Chief Justice Roberts and Big Business
    Roberts at 10: Chief Justice Roberts and Big Business By Tom Donnelly I. Introduction In June 2013, legal commentator Jeffrey Rosen interviewed Justice Elena Kagan at the Aspen Ideas Festival. This event came on the heels of an historic (and contentious) Term. In the Term’s closing days, the Roberts Court issued opinions on a range of hot-button topics, weighing in on the issue of marriage equality,1 largely punting on the constitutionality of affirmative action,2 and voting 5-to-4 to gut the Voting Rights Act.3 In addition to these headline-grabbing blockbusters, the Court’s business docket also ended with a bang, with the Court deciding a series of ideologically divided cases on issues including workplace discrimination, arbitration, drug safety, and environmental protection.4 Although these decisions covered a wide range of issue areas, each decision had two things in common: 1) a cohesive (and victorious) bloc of conservative Justices siding with the business community, and 2) a scathing dissent from one (or more) of the Court’s progressives, including a powerful oral dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accusing the Chief Justice and the Court’s conservative majority of being “blind to the realities of the workplace.”5 Given this context (and Justice Kagan’s own blistering dissent in an important arbitration case6), it’s perhaps little surprise that Rosen asked Justice Kagan a question that’s been on the minds of many legal commentators throughout John Roberts’s tenure as Chief Justice: “Is this a pro-business Court?” While Justice Kagan initially hedged, she eventually settled on a stinging—if measured— critique of the Roberts Court’s business jurisprudence: “I think there were a number of cases where the Court made it more difficult for injured persons to come to court and to use federal and state law to hold business to account for injuries that they’ve done.”7 Justice Kagan’s 1 Hollingsworth v.
    [Show full text]
  • 2001-2002 Supreme Court Preview: Contents Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2001 2001-2002 Supreme Court Preview: Contents Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "2001-2002 Supreme Court Preview: Contents" (2001). Supreme Court Preview. 130. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/130 Copyright c 2001 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview SUP-REM C I 'V ~ P What to Ex From the Ne v September 21-22, 2001 Supreme Court Preview, 2001-2002 Schedule of Events Friday, September 21, 2001 5:15 pm: Registration Table Opens McGlothlin Courtroom William and Mary Law School 6:10 pm: Welcome Davison Douglas Director, Institute of Bill of Rights Law 6:15 - 7:45 pm: Moot Court Argument: Adarand v. Mineta (Constitutionality of affirmative action program) Advocates: John McGinnis, Petitioner Erwin Chemerinsky, Respondents Court: Joan Biskupic, Chief Marcia Coyle Clark Cunningham Neal Devins Linda Greenhouse Phoebe Haddon Tony Mauro Jeffrey Rosen Kathryn Urbonya 7:50 - 8:30 pm: The Rehnquist Court at Fifteen Years Moderator: Steve Wermiel Panel: Linda Greenhouse John McGinnis Jeffrey Rosen David Savage 8:35 - 9:15 pm: The Legacy of Bush v. Gore Moderator: Mike Gerhardt Panel: Joan Biskupic Erwin Chemerinsky Lyle Denniston Alan Meese 9:15 pm: Recess Saturday, September 22, 2001 Morning Session Room 120 William and Mary Law School 9:00 - 9:50 am: Civil Rights Moderator: David Savage Panel: Erwin Chemerinsky Linda Greenhouse Phoebe Haddon Charles Lane Featured cases: Correctional Services v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ginsburg Court? a Contrarian View
    THE GINSBURG COURT? A CONTRARIAN VIEW Benjamin Beaton* JUNE 2010: SCENE CHANGE During the last week of June 2010, the life of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the history of the U.S. Supreme Court changed forever: • June 27: Justice Ginsburg’s “biggest booster”1 and larger-than-life2 husband, Marty, lost a long bout with cancer. • June 28: Ginsburg returned to the bench to announce an opinion during the final day of the Court’s term.3 • Hours later: Justice John Paul Stevens retired, informally elevating Ginsburg to the seniormost position on the more liberal side of the Court.4 As if that weren’t enough, just two days later the diminutive New York progressive—clearly still grieving—interviewed and soon hired a lanky conservative law clerk from Kentucky. Unlike the rest of the week’s events, this hiring of an aberrant “counterclerk”—now a baby judge back in the Bluegrass State—would not, far as I know, leave any discernible imprint on history. Though perhaps it should’ve tipped us off: The Court in the 2010s might look a little different than what came before. On one level, it surely did. The Court, try as it might, rarely escaped the headlines during the ten years between Justice Stevens’s departure in 2010 and Justice Ginsburg’s in 2020. On another level, however, the Court * Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, and law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during October Term 2011. 1. Michael S. Rosenwald, “My Dearest Ruth”: The Remarkable Devotion of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Husband, Wash.
    [Show full text]
  • Vice Presidential Secrecy: a Study in Comparative Constitutional Privilege and Historical Development
    St. John's Law Review Volume 84 Number 2 Volume 84, Spring 2010, Number 2 Article 1 Vice Presidential Secrecy: A Study in Comparative Constitutional Privilege and Historical Development Roy E. Brownell II Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 84 St. John’s L. Rev. 423 (2010) ARTICLES VICE PRESIDENTIAL SECRECY: A STUDY IN COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT ROY E. BROWNELL II† INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 426 CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE ....................................................... 437 I.THE CONSTITUTIONAL NORM OF ENCOURAGING EFFECTIVE DECISIONMAKING ............................................................... 437 A. The Gathering of Information .................................... 437 B. Immunity Against Civil Suit for Official Actions ....... 440 C. Constitutional Privileges and Governmental Structure ..................................................................... 444 1. Separation of Powers and Constitutional Privileges ................................................................ 444 2. Why the Vice President Should Be Treated Like Any Other Constitutional
    [Show full text]
  • Leading Lawyers
    The influencers The influencers t h e Leading500 Lawyers i n a merica The influencers inside Q&As A wiTh l wdrAgon 500 MeMbers IP Law’s new enTrepreneuriAl clAss wAr criMes TrIaLs in The forMer YugoslAviA The influencers inside Q&As A wiTh l wdrAgon 500 MeMbers IP Law’s new enTrepreneuriAl clAss wAr criMes TrIaLs in The forMer YugoslAviA 102806-MOL_Agility_8x10.5_R4_HR.pdf 9/16/10 3:39:53 PM C M Y CM MY CY CMY K Complexity Requires Agility Complex litigation has evolved. Most law firms haven’t. The legal, technical, and economic demands of today’s sophisticated litigation require agility in staffing, fee structures, and strategic approach. That agility can be found only in a firm comprised exclusively of smart, experienced advocates, who not only are committed to understanding a client’s litigation challenges and goals, but also are willing to share a client’s risk by betting on themselves to achieve success. MOLOLAMKEN. A new model for today’s litigation environment. “Two superstars are opening their own boutique, MOLOLAMKEN.” The American Lawyer Both of our founding partners have been named to this year’s Lawdragon 500. Contact Steven Molo at 212.607.8160 (NY) or Jeffrey Lamken at 202.556.2000 (DC). www.mololamken.com One of the nation’s premier plaintiff’s personal injury law firms renowned for its achievements in the courtroom and its contributions to the community. Trial lawyers 33 N. DEARBORN, CHICAGO, IL 60602 | 888.364.3191 | WWW.CORBOYDEMETRIO.COM LAWDRAGON HONORS... Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, founded in 1997, has grown to over 250 lawyers practicing in offices stra- tegically located throughout the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Leading the Court: Studies in Influence As Chief Justice
    Saint Louis University School of Law Scholarship Commons All Faculty Scholarship 2011 Leading the Court: Studies in Influence as Chief Justice Joel K. Goldstein Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/faculty Part of the Courts Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons No. 2011-08 Leading the Court: Studies in Influence as Chief Justice 40 Stetson Law Review 717 (2011) Joel K. Goldstein Saint Louis University School of Law Leading the Court: Studies in Influence as Chief Justice Joel K. Goldstein * * © 2011, Joel K. Goldstein. All rights reserved. Vincent C. Immel Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law. I am grateful to other participants at the Constitution Law Discussion Forum at the University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law on December 15–16, 2010 for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this Article , to the sponsors of that event, and to Russell Weaver and Mark Killenbeck for the invitation to participate. Stacy Osmond and Margaret McDermott, Esq. provided research assistance. I alone am responsible for the views and shortcomings of this Article. John G. Roberts, Jr. has now served more than five years as the seventeenth Chief Justice of the United States. He has held that position longer than Harlan Fiske Stone did and for nearly twice as many days as John F. Kennedy was President. Although Roberts’ judicial opinions, and those of the Court, offer jurisprudence to analyze, it is too early to reach definitive judgments regarding Roberts’ influence as Chief Justice or his success in that position.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamdan V. Rumsfeld: the Legal Academy Goes to Practice
    COMMENT HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD: THE LEGAL ACADEMY GOES TO PRACTICE Neal Kumar Katyal TABLE OF CONTENTS I. HAMDAN: HOW THEORY INFORMED PRACTICE .............................................................72 A. Framing Effects......................................................................................................................73 B. The Passive Virtues...............................................................................................................84 C. Default Rules and the Veto ..................................................................................................94 II. HAMDAN: HOW PRACTICE REINED IN THEORY..............................................................97 A. Inherent Authority ...............................................................................................................97 B. Deference.............................................................................................................................105 III. FUTURE REFORM..................................................................................................................114 A. In the Government ..............................................................................................................115 B. In Law Schools....................................................................................................................116 1. Oral Advocacy ................................................................................................................117 2. Working in Groups.........................................................................................................118
    [Show full text]
  • Section 2: the Court and the 2016 Election
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2016 Section 2: The ourC t and the 2016 Election Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 2: The ourC t and the 2016 Election" (2016). Supreme Court Preview. 265. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/265 Copyright c 2016 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview II. The Court and the 2016 Election In This Section: “PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WILL SHAPE SUPREME COURT, AND NATIONAL p. 20 POLICIES, FOR YEARS TO COME” Jess Bravin “THE SUPREME COURT REALLY MATTERS IN THIS ELECTION” p. 23 Albert R. Hunt “CLINTON'S COURT SHORTLIST EMERGES” p. 25 Lydia Wheeler “TRUMP'S SUPREME COURT PICKS COULD BRING REAL-WORLD p. 27 EXPERIENCE” David Hawkings “SCOTUS UNITES TRUMP AND SENATE GOP” p. 29 Sam Hananel and Mary Clare Jalonick “CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT TRUMP’S SCOTUS SHORTLIST” p. 32 Josh Blackman “HOW THE G.O.P. OUTSOURCED THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION PROCESS” p. 35 Linda Greenhouse “OP-ED: FILLING SUPREME COURT VACANCIES ISN'T A GOOD ENOUGH p. 39 REASON TO VOTE FOR TRUMP” John Yoo and Jeremy Rabkin “RUTH BADER GINSBURG, NO FAN OF DONALD TRUMP, CRITIQUES LATEST p. 42 TERM” Adam Liptak “JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG CALLS TRUMP A 'FAKER,' HE SAYS SHE p. 45 SHOULD RESIGN” Joan Biskupic “JUSTICES HAVE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS TOO” p.
    [Show full text]
  • The King in His Court: Chief Justice John Roberts at the Center
    0169 POMERANCE, CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS AT THE CENTER 1/17/2020 3:01 PM THE KING IN HIS COURT: CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS AT THE CENTER Benjamin Pomerance* This was supposed to be the United States Supreme Court Term in which everything changed.1 From the moment when Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the federal government’s loftiest bench, observers and commentators burst forth with predictions of a new order on the Court, a new day in which political conservatives would finally maintain an unquestioned majority.2 Opinions emerged from both sides of the aisle about the imminent reversal of longstanding precedents, with political liberals worrying and political conservatives cheering.3 Statements from many * Benjamin Pomerance serves as a Deputy Director with the New York State Division of Veterans’ Services. J.D., summa cum laude, Albany Law School; B.A., summa cum laude, State University of New York at Plattsburgh. All opinions stated here are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the Division of Veterans’ Services or any other New York State Government entity. The author owes the utmost thanks to the staff of the Albany Law Review for their meticulous editing; to Prof. Vincent Bonventre for his continued dialogues about judges and politics; and to his parents, Ronald and Doris Pomerance, for their daily inspiration in all things. 1 See Chris Cillizza, Anthony Kennedy’s Retirement Just Confirmed Every Republican’s Dream Scenario for Trump, CNN (June 27, 2018, 5:00 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27 /politics/kennedy-retirement-donald-trump/index.html [https://perma.cc/K3HZ-BCG7]; Filipa Ioannou, Liberals Freak Out over Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Retirement, S.F.
    [Show full text]