DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Original 437.74 KB

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Original 437.74 KB The Confirmation Process for Lower Federal Court Appointments in the Clinton and W. Bush Administrations: A Comparative Analysis Matthew R. Batzel Submitted to the Department of Government, Franklin and Marshall College Advisor: D. Grier Stephenson, Jr. Submitted: April 29, 2005 Defended: May 4, 2005 Expected Graduation Date: May 15, 2005 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Overview of paper 5 Previous Research 6 Research methods 7 Background- Constitutional Convention 8 U.S. District Courts 10 U.S. Courts of Appeals 10 Process 10 History of Nominations 12 Clinton’s years with United Government 18 Structure 18 Process 18 Results 19 District Court Appointees 20 Appeals Court Appointees 21 Extreme Judges? 21 Analysis 22 Clinton’s years with Divided Government 22 Structure 23 Process 23 Results 26 District Court Appointees 26 Appeals Court Appointees 29 Sampling of Judicial Nominees 30 The Effect of Presidential Politics 32 Politics 32 Fourth Circuit 33 Blocking nominees 33 Confirmation delay 34 Scrutinizing women and minorities? 35 Clinton effect 36 Use of Blue Slip System 36 Ronnie White 37 Congressional Record 38 Unprecedented? 41 Analysis 42 Bush’s years with Divided Government 43 Structure 43 Process 45 Departure from Status Quo 45 Results 47 District Court Appointees 48 Appeals Court Appointees 49 2 Sampling of Judicial Nominees 50 Politics 52 Unprecedented? 55 Congressional Record 56 Analysis 57 Bush’s years with United Government 58 Structure and Process 58 Results 58 Sampling of Judicial Nominees 59 Politics 60 Unprecedented? 62 The Filibuster 64 Congressional Record 66 Analysis 68 Explanation of contentious judicial debate 69 Conclusion 71 Future 72 Bibliography 74 Endnotes 76 3 Introduction Judicial appointments help presidents leave their mark on the nation. Presidents make lifetime appointments often of individuals who they hope will represent their values long after their presidencies are over. While most of the research on judicial appointment analyzes only Supreme Court nominations, there are many lower federal judicial appointments that likely have a large impact. During a four-year term a President typically appoints well over 100 lower federal judicial appointments, but might only appoint a few (or no) Supreme Court Justices. President Clinton appointed two Supreme Court Justices, while President Bush has not appointed any. Vacancies in the District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeals may allow the President to make hundreds of lifetime appointments. Clinton appointed 386 lower federal judicial appointments and Bush (43) appointed 168. The sheer number of lifetime appointments signifies their importance. Thus, the judges are part of presidential legacies. But it is not just the President who has an impact on the lower federal judicial appointments. Senators see their role of ‘advice and consent’ as important to the balance of powers. The confirmation process is one that is often politicized and vividly shows the division of partisan politics. A portion of a speech from a U.S. Senator captures the problem. “Free and full debate over judicial nominations is healthy. The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees--yes or no.”i This quotation could have come from either a Democrat during the Clinton presidency or a Republican at the time of the Bush(43) presidency. 4 It is common to hear accusations from both parties that the other side is drastically changing the judicial appointment process. Democrats criticize the way the Republican majority handled President William J. Clinton’s nominations. Similarly, Republicans have critiqued the way the Democratic senatorial minority has affected President George W. Bush’s judicial nominations. Each party has accused the other of causing gridlock, ie., blocking or delaying the confirmation of the President’s nominees. So has the judicial confirmation process drastically changed during the past two administrations? If so, then why has it changed so much and what is the nature of the change? This paper will explore these questions by looking closely at the process during both the Clinton and Bush (43) years. Overview of paper Before looking at the specifics of either administration I will set the stage for the discussion of judicial nominations. This includes previous research on this subject and how it influences this particular study, the different research methods that were used, the background of judicial nominations, the process of how nominations are made and then how the Senate traditionally has handled them, and the history of nominations under different administrations. I will compare the process under Clinton and Bush. This entails examining their presidencies in different periods, with divided and united government. Clinton’s first two years were with a united government. In other words, the Democrats had a majority in both houses of Congress, during the 103rd Congress. Clinton’s second period was with divided government. In 1994, the Republicans took over control of both houses of Congress and held the majority in the Senate until 2001. So Clinton’s second period is 5 from 1996-2000, the 104th (1995-1996), 105th (1997-1998), and 106th (1999-2000) Congresses. For Bush’s presidency, in effect his first two years were with divided government because no judicial nominations were acted upon before Vermont Sen. James M. Jeffords left the Republican Party and gave the Democrats the slim majority in the Senate by 1. So Bush’s first period will be the 107th Congress (2001-2002). Then Bush had united government in the second two years of his first term, the 108th Congress (2003- 2004). Within each period I will look at several aspects. First is the structure within the president’s administration and the individuals who were working on judicial nominations. The second consideration is the process those officials used to bring about a nomination. The results and confirmation process will be analyzed as well as the unprecedented changes in each situation. Then conclusions can be drawn from each period. Previous Research Many authors have looked at the judicial confirmation process over the years. David C. Nixon and David L. Goss studied the length of time it takes to fill a judicial vacancy to demonstrate conflict between the president and the Senate.ii They found that “institutional and partisan conflict between the Senate and the White House drive the confirmation process for the federal appeals courts, but delay tactics employed by the Senate are only partially strategic.”iii Nolan McCarty and Rose Razaghian studied executive branch nominations from 1885-1996 and made the case that while some nominations are confirmed at high rates, the length of time that confirmation requires varies greatly.iv Even though they did not 6 focus on judicial appointments, they found in general that Senate procedures make long delays possible through partisan and ideological proponents’ actions.v Garland Allison demonstrated that judicial confirmation rates decrease and delay increase later in a president’s term.vi Also, there is an increase in confirmation delay for appellate court judges as opposed to district court judges due to the circuit courts’ heightened importance in policy making. The lower federal courts are important in policy making because the Supreme Court handles such a tiny number of cases and these lower courts very often are the final place cases are heard. Finally, Allison found that scrutiny will more likely be greater in times of divided government, but may exist regardless of partisanship because of institutional rivalry.vii Additionally, Hartley and Holmes argued that increased senatorial scrutiny of lower federal court nominations has been long in the making even before Clinton.viii They noticed that changes instituted by President Carter increased the tensions between the president and Senate. Sheldon Goldman and Elliot Slotnick have done a significant amount of valuable research on each period of both Clinton and Bush’s presidencies. Focusing on how president’s appointments were confirmed, their research provides the most extensive basis for my study. They have compared each time period to the past five presidents: Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, and Bush (43). But their analysis did not directly compare Clinton and Bush (43)’s terms, which this study will do. So I will build upon much of their research. Research methods My research began with several books and articles that have focused on the judicial confirmation process of lower federal courts. In particular, for all of President 7 Clinton’s presidency and the first half of President Bush’s presidency, Sheldon Goldman’s and Eliot Slotnick’s articles provided a foundation from which to work. For the second half of President Bush’s term I created my own base from information about the candidates from Department of Justice’s webpage on judicial nominations.ix I contacted a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s staff for background, but was told that they were not allowed to do interviews due to the sensitive nature of this issue. As a substitute, I used Senators’ speeches from the Congressional Record. I also talked to a Clinton-appointed District Court Judge to get a firsthand perspective of the process. These methods combined enabled me to make conclusions from the information I found. Background- Constitutional
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lloyd Cutler
    White House Interview Program DATE: July 8, 1999 INTERVIEWEE: LLOYD CUTLER INTERVIEWER: Martha Kumar With Nancy Kassop MK: May we tape? LC: Yes, but I’d like to have one understanding. I have been misquoted on more than one occasion. I’ll be happy to talk to you about what I think about the transition but I don’t want my name attached to any of it. MK: Okay. So we’ll come back to you for any quotes. We’re going to look at both aspects: the transition itself and then the operations of the office. Working on the theory that one of the things that would be important for people is to understand how an effective operation works, what should they be aiming toward? For example, what is a smooth-running counsel’s office? What are the kinds of relationships that should be established and that sort of thing? So, in addition to looking at the transition, we’re just hoping they’re looking toward effective governance. In your time in Washington, observing many administrations from various distances, you have a good sense of transitions, what works and what doesn’t work. One of the things we want to do is isolate what are the elements of success—just take a number, six elements, five elements—that you think are common to successful transitions. What makes them work? LC: Well, the most important thing to grasp first is how much a White House itself, especially as it starts off after a change in the party occupying the White House, resembles a city hall.
    [Show full text]
  • Government Turns the Other Way As Judges Make Findings About Torture and Other Abuse
    USA SEE NO EVIL GOVERNMENT TURNS THE OTHER WAY AS JUDGES MAKE FINDINGS ABOUT TORTURE AND OTHER ABUSE Amnesty International Publications First published in February 2011 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2011 Index: AMR 51/005/2011 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of 2.2 million people in more than 150 countries and territories, who campaign on human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We research, campaign, advocate and mobilize to end abuses of human rights. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. Our work is largely financed by contributions from our membership and donations CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Judges point to human rights violations, executive turns away ........................................... 4 Absence
    [Show full text]
  • Reimbursing the Attorney's Fees of Current and Former Federal
    (Slip Opinion) Reimbursing the Attorney’s Fees of Current and Former Federal Employees Interviewed as Witnesses in the Mueller Investigation The Department of Justice Representation Guidelines authorize, on a case-by-case basis, the reimbursement of attorney’s fees incurred by a current or former federal govern- ment employee interviewed as a witness in the Mueller Investigation under threat of subpoena about information the person acquired in the course of his government du- ties. October 7, 2020 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION You have asked for our opinion on the scope of the Attorney General’s authority to reimburse the attorney’s fees of federal employees who were interviewed as witnesses in connection with the investigation by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III into possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election (“Mueller Investigation”). The Civil Division reviews requests for such reimbursement under long-standing Department of Justice (“Department”) regulations. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 50.15–50.16. You have asked specifically how certain elements of section 50.15 apply to the Mueller Investigation: (1) whether a person interviewed as a witness in the Mueller Investigation under threat of subpoena should be viewed as having been “subpoenaed,” id. § 50.15(a); (2) whether a witness inter- viewed about information acquired in the course of the witness’s federal employment appears in an “individual capacity,” id.; and (3) what factors should be considered in evaluating whether the reimbursement of the attorney’s fees of such a witness is “in the interest of the United States,” id.
    [Show full text]
  • American Civil Liberties Union V. Department of Justice
    Case 1:02-cv-02077-ESH Document 1 Filed 10/24/02 Page 1 of 12 • 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004, and ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER 1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009, and AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS FOUNDATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION 139 Fulton Street., Suite 302 New York, NY 10038, CASE NUJ.!BER 1: 02CV02077 ;(' and JUDGE: Ellen Segal Huvelle . DECK TYPE: FOIA/Privacy Act FREEDOM TO READ FOUNDATION 50 East Huron Street, DATE STAMP, 10/24/2002 Chicago, IL 60611, Plaintiffs, v. FILED DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. OCT 2 4 ZOOZ Washington, DC 20530, Defendant. ........ COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for injunctive and other appropriate relief, and seeking the immediate processing and release of agency records requested by plaintiffs from defendant Department ~--~~----------------- --~~--. ~ --- ~~-~~,_,~,~-,,-,-"~------------------------- Case 1:02-cv-02077-ESH Document 1 Filed 10/24/02 Page 2 of 12 0 0 of Justice ("DOJ") and DOJ's component, Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). 2. Plaintiffs' FOIA request seeks the release of records related to the government's implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act ("Patriot Act" or "Act"), Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (Oct. 26, 2001), legislation that was passed in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Neither this suit nor the underlying FOIA request questions the importance of safeguarding national security. However, there has been growing public concern about the scope of the Patriot Act and the government's use of authorities thereunder, particularly in relation to constitutionally protected rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Documents
    Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Monday, May 8, 2000 Volume 36ÐNumber 18 Pages 943±1020 VerDate 20-MAR-2000 09:10 May 10, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 1249 Sfmt 1249 W:\DISC\PD08MY00.PRE ATX006 PsN: ATX006 Contents Addresses and Remarks Bill Signings Council of the Americas 30th Washington Federal reporting requirements, statement on ConferenceÐ970 legislation amending certainÐ975 Employment reportÐ1015 Communications to Congress Independent Insurance Agents of America's National Legislative ConferenceÐ961 Colombia, message transmitting report on the Iowa, Central High School in DavenportÐ988 national emergency with respect to Kentucky, Audubon Elementary School in significant narcotics traffickersÐ978 OwensboroÐ978 Crude oil, letterÐ945 Michigan Communications to Federal Agencies Commencement address at Eastern Additional Guidelines for Charter Schools, Michigan University in YpsilantiÐ948 memorandumÐ1012 NAACP Fight for Freedom Fund dinner in White House Program for the National DetroitÐ953 Moment of Remembrance, memorandumÐ Minnesota, City Academy in St. PaulÐ990 978 Ohio, roundtable discussion on reforming America's schools in ColumbusÐ1000 Executive Orders Pennsylvania, departure for FarmingtonÐ Actions To Improve Low-Performing 1015 SchoolsÐ985 Radio addressÐ945 Establishing the Kosovo Campaign MedalÐ White House Conference on Raising 987 Teenagers and Resourceful YouthÐ967 Further Amendment to Executive Order White House Correspondents' Association 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in dinnerÐ946 Federal GovernmentÐ977 (Continued on the inside of the back cover.) Editor's Note: The President was in Farmington, PA, on May 5, the closing date of this issue. Releases and announcements issued by the Office of the Press Secretary but not received in time for inclusion in this issue will be printed next week. WEEKLY COMPILATION OF regulations prescribed by the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register, approved by the President (37 FR 23607; 1 CFR Part 10).
    [Show full text]
  • White House Compliance with Committee Subpoenas Hearings
    WHITE HOUSE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 6 AND 7, 1997 Serial No. 105–61 Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 45–405 CC WASHINGTON : 1998 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Jan 31 2003 08:13 May 28, 2003 Jkt 085679 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HEARINGS\45405 45405 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas JOHN E.
    [Show full text]
  • RLB Letterhead
    6-25-14 White Paper in support of the Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff’s June 25, 2014 appeal of the June 2, 2014 President Reagan Library FOIA denial decision of the plaintiff’s July 27, 2010 NARA MDR FOIA request re the NARA “Perot”, the NARA “Peter Keisler Collection”, and the NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents. This is a White Paper (WP) in support of the Robert II v CIA and DOJ, cv 02-6788 (Seybert, J), plaintiff’s June 25, 2014 appeal of the June 2, 2014 President Reagan Library FOIA denial decision of the plaintiff’s July 27, 2010 NARA MDR FOIA request. The plaintiff sought the release of the NARA “Perot”, the NARA “Peter Keisler Collection”, and the NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents by application of President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526, Classified National Security Information, 75 F.R. 707 (January 5, 2010), § 3.5 Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR). On June 2, 2014, President Reagan Library Archivist/FOIA Coordinator Shelly Williams rendered a Case #M-425 denial decision with an attached Worksheet: This is in further response to your request for your Mandatory Review request for release of information under the provisions of Section 3.5 of Executive Order 13526, to Reagan Presidential records pertaining to Ross Perot doc re report see email. These records were processed in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2207. Id. Emphasis added. The Worksheet attachment to the decision lists three sets of Keisler, Peter: Files with Doc ## 27191, 27192, and 27193 notations.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2021 Spring 2021
    SPRING 2021 SPRING 2021 INSIDE 42 Unscripted: How filmmakers Peter Berg ’80 and Jason Blum ’87 evolved during a year of COVID-19 By Neil Vigdor ’95 c 56 Confronting the Pandemic Dr. Paul Ehrlich ’62 and his work as a New York City allergist-immunologist By Bonnie Blackburn-Penhollow ’84 b OTHER DEPARTMENTS 3 On Main Hall 5 Social Scene 6 Belonging 24/7 Elena Echavarria ’21 8 Alumni Spotlight works on a project in 20 In Print Advanced Ceramics 26 Around the Pond class, where students 62 do hands-on learning Class Notes in the ceramics studio 103 Milestones with teacher Claudia 108 Looking Back Black. ROBERT FALCETTI 8 On MAIN HALL A WORD FROM HEAD Managing Stress in Trying Times OF SCHOOL WILLY MACMULLEN ’78 This is a column about a talk I gave and a talk I heard—and about how SPRING 2021 ON THE COVER schools need to help students in managing stress. Needless to say, this Volume 91, Number 2 Students enjoyed the warm spring year has provided ample reason for this to be a singularly important weather and the beautiful flowering EDITOR trees on the Jig Patio following focus for schools. Linda Hedman Beyus Community Time. ROBERT FALCETTI In September 2018, during my opening remarks to the faculty, I spoke about student stress, and how I thought we needed to think about DIRECTOR OF MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS Kaitlin Thomas Orfitelli it in new ways. I gave that talk because it was clear to me that adolescents today were ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS experiencing stress and managing stress in different ways than when I Debra Meyers began teaching and even when I began as head of school just 20 years PHOTOGRAPHY ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation of the Portrait the Honorable Ricardo M
    JUDGE URBINA’S JUDICIAL COLLEAGUES OLIVER GASCH GLADYS KESSLER WILLIAM B. BRYANT PAUL L. FRIEDMAN AUBREY EUGENE ROBINSON JR. EMMET G. SULLIVAN JUNE L. GREEN JAMES ROBERTSON JOHN H. PRATT COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY P RESENTATION OF THE P ORTRAIT CHARLES R. RICHEY HENRY H. KENNEDY JR. THOMAS A. FLANNERY RICHARD W. ROBERTS OF LOUIS F. OBERDORFER ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE HAROLD H. GREENE REGGIE B. WALTON T HE H ONORABLE R ICARDO M. U RBINA JOHN GARRETT PENN JOHN D. BATES U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT J UDGE JOYCE HENS GREEN RICHARD J. LEON NORMA HOLLOWAY JOHNSON ROSEMARY M. COLLYER THOMAS PENFIELD JACKSON BERYL A. HOWELL THOMAS F. HOGAN ROBERT L. WILKINS STANLEY S. HARRIS JAMES E. BOASBERG STANLEY SPORKIN AMY BERMAN JACKSON ROYCE C. LAMBERTH RUDOLPH CONTRERAS JUDGE URBINA’S LAW CLERKS CLAUDIA VON PERVIEUX SARAH GILL BRIAN NUTERANGELO AMY DUNATHAN JUAN MORILLO JAMES CHEN VERONICA WILES TERESA GOODY SUSAN SANTANA JOSHUA PANAS MICHAEL KIM DANIEL ROSENTHAL JOHN TRUONG MACRUI DOSTOURIAN CHRIS LANGELLO JEFF COOK LUIS ANDREW LOPEZ DUSTIN KENALL CATHERINE SZILAGYI AMANDA LUCK J UNE 2 , 2 01 6 JOHN BRENDEL ELIZA BRINK CRYSTAL MORALES ELIKA NARAGHI C EREMONIAL C OURTROOM JULIAN SAENZ JASON PARK JASON HALPERIN TEHSEEN AHMED E. B ARRETT P RETTYMAN U NITED S TATES C OURTHOUSE JESSICA ATTIE CAROLINE DANAUY W ASHINGTON , D.C. JAMES AZADIAN JEROME MAYER-CANTU JUDGE URBINA’S SECRETARY MARIBEL ALVARADO PRESIDING ABOUT THE PORTRAIT Judge Urbina acknowledges with appreciation the generous support for his HON. BERYL A. HOWELL portrait and this event provided by his law clerks, by the Hispanic Bar Associa- CHIEF JUDGE, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freedom of Information Act and the Ecology of Transparency
    University of Pennsylvania Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 9-2-2008 The rF eedom of Information Act and the Ecology of Transparency Seth F. Kreimer University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Administrative Law Commons, American Politics Commons, Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Communications Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legislation Commons, Politics Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Kreimer, Seth F., "The rF eedom of Information Act and the Ecology of Transparency" (2008). Faculty Scholarship. Paper 192. http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/192 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND THE ECOLOGY OF TRANSPARENCY Seth F. Kreimer∗ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: THE FLAWS OF FOIA? .................................1012 II. THE ECOLOGY OF TRANSPARENCY: FOIA AND CONSTITUTIVE STRUCTURE .................................................1016 A. “If a Policy Falls in the Forest and No Trees Are Killed”: The Creation of Records...............................1017 B. A Machine that Won’t Go Of Itself: FOIA Requesters1020 C. FOIA and Spheres of Public Contention .....................1025 1. Prerequisite Knowledge and Public Contention...1025 a. The Problem of Aladdin’s Lamp and the Status of “Deep Secrets” ................................1025 b.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Hosts for June 2009 Chinese Student Program in Washington, D
    US-ASIA INSTITUTE SZYMANSKI RULE OF LAW PROGRAM FOR CHINESE LAW STUDENTS Host List for Summer 2018 Program (June 25 – July 20, 2018) Washington, D.C. Participating Students: Ms. Floy Chen, Ms. Jennifer Hu, Mr. Henry Hu, Mr. Frank Jiang, Ms. Sally Zhang, & Ms. Rose Zhu (The following list was prepared for their benefit.) LEGISLATIVE BRANCH (CONGRESS) – THE SENATE • Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, Chairman, Science & Space Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, & Transportation (“Commerce”) Committee (also serves on the Committees for Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry (“Agriculture”); Environment & Public Works (“EPW”); and Veterans’ Affairs); • Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Ranking Member, Environment & Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, & Wildlife (also serves on the Commerce, Energy & Natural Resources, and Small Business Committees). • Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, Minority Whip (Sen. Durbin has served as the #2 Democratic leader in the Senate since January 2005; he also serves on the Appropriations, Judiciary, and Rules Committees). • Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Member, Appropriations Committee (Sen. Flake previously served in the House); Staff: • Ms. Adrian Arnakis, Majority Deputy Staff Director, Commerce Committee (Sen. John Thune, Republican Conf. Chair); • Ms. Hazeen Ashby, Minority General Counsel, Commerce Committee (Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida); • Ms. Chanda Betourney, Minority Dep. Staff Director, Appropriations Committee (Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont); • Mr. Chris Bates, Chief Counsel, Judiciary Committee (Sen. Orrin Hatch / Chairman Chuck Grassley); • Mr. Walton Chaney, Legislative Aide, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi; • Mr. David Cleary, Majority Staff Director, Health/Educ/Labor (HELP) Committee (Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tenn.); • Mr. Mike Davis, Majority Chief Counsel for Nominations, Judiciary Committee (Sen.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School College of The
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts CITIES AT WAR: UNION ARMY MOBILIZATION IN THE URBAN NORTHEAST, 1861-1865 A Dissertation in History by Timothy Justin Orr © 2010 Timothy Justin Orr Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2010 The dissertation of Timothy Justin Orr was reviewed and approved* by the following: Carol Reardon Professor of Military History Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Director of Graduate Studies in History Mark E. Neely, Jr. McCabe-Greer Professor in the American Civil War Era Matthew J. Restall Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Colonial Latin American History, Anthropology, and Women‘s Studies Carla J. Mulford Associate Professor of English *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School ii ABSTRACT During the four years of the American Civil War, the twenty-three states that comprised the Union initiated one of the most unprecedented social transformations in U.S. History, mobilizing the Union Army. Strangely, scholars have yet to explore Civil War mobilization in a comprehensive way. Mobilization was a multi-tiered process whereby local communities organized, officered, armed, equipped, and fed soldiers before sending them to the front. It was a four-year progression that required the simultaneous participation of legislative action, military administration, benevolent voluntarism, and industrial productivity to function properly. Perhaps more than any other area of the North, cities most dramatically felt the affects of this transition to war. Generally, scholars have given areas of the urban North low marks. Statistics refute pessimistic conclusions; northern cities appeared to provide a higher percentage than the North as a whole.
    [Show full text]