DOCSLIB.ORG

AMY CONEY BARRETT Notre Dame Law School Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 (574) 631-6444 [email protected] ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AMY CONEY BARRETT Notre Dame Law School Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 (574) 631-6444 Abarrett@Nd.Edu ______ AMY CONEY BARRETT Notre Dame Law School Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 (574) 631-6444 [email protected] _____________________________________________________________________________________ EMPLOYMENT NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL Professor of Law, 2010-present Associate Professor of Law (with tenure), 2008-2010 Associate Professor of Law, 2006-2008 Assistant Professor of Law, 2002-2006 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LAW SCHOOL Visiting Associate Professor of Law (Fall 2007) GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL John M. Olin Fellow in Law, August 2001-May 2002 Adjunct Faculty Member (constitutional law seminar), Spring 2001 MILLER, CASSIDY, LARROCA, & LEWIN Associate, 1999-2001 JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Law Clerk, 1998-1999 JUDGE LAURENCE H. SILBERMAN UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT Law Clerk, 1997-1998 PUBLICATIONS Introduction: The Interpretation/Construction Distinction in Constitutional Law, 27 CONST. COMM. 1 (2010). Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency, 90 B.U. L. REV. 109 (2010). Federal Jurisdiction in THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Procedural Common Law, 94 VIRGINIA L. REV. 813 (2008). Introduction: Stare Decisis and Nonjudicial Actors, 83 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1147 (2008). The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court, 106 COLUM. L. REV. 101 (2006). Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 317 (2005). Stare Decisis and Due Process, 74 U. COLO. L. REV. 1011 (2003). Catholic Judges in Capital Cases 81 MARQUETTE L. REV. 303 (1998) (with John H. Gar- vey). AWARDS Distinguished Professor of the Year, 2006 COURSES Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Theory Seminar, Evidence, Federal Courts, Statutory Interpretation Seminar EDUCATION NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL J.D., summa cum laude, 1997 Hoynes Prize (awarded to the graduate with the best record in scholarship, deportment, and achievement) Dean’s Award (best exam): Administrative Law, Civil Procedure I, Civil Procedure II, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, First Amendment, Torts II, Legal Research, and Legal Writing Executive Editor, Notre Dame Law Review Kiley Fellow (full-tuition fellowship) RHODES COLLEGE B.A. in English Literature, magna cum laude, 1994 Honors: Phi Beta Kappa, Mortar Board, Omicron Delta Kappa, Most Outstanding English Major, and Most Outstanding Senior Thesis PRESENTATIONS AND WORKSHOPS Participant, Separation of Powers Roundtable, Notre Dame Law School (March 2011). Moderator, Interpretation and Construction (Constitutional Law Section, AALS Annual Meeting 2010). Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency, American University Washington College of Law (October 2009), St. Louis University Law School (February 2009), and Notre Dame Law School Faculty Colloquium Series (February 2009). Procedural Common Law, University of Virginia Law School (November 2007) and Notre Dame Law School Faculty Colloquium Series (December 2006). Protesting the Court, Notre Dame Law School Faculty Colloquium Series (November 2007). Moderator, Symposium on Stare Decisis and Nonjudicial Actors, Notre Dame Law School (March 2007). Panelist, The Jurisprudence of Antonin Scalia, Notre Dame Department of Political Sci- ence (March 2007). Panelist, Catholicism and the Court: The Relevance of Faith Traditions to Jurispru- dence, University of St. Thomas Law School (November 2006). Panelist, Roundtable on Religion in the Public Square, Columbus School of Law, Catho- lic University of America (September 2006). Commenter, Race and Political Influence in America, Interdisciplinary Colloquium Se- ries, Notre Dame Law School (April 2006). Moderator, A Christian and Legal Response to Katrina: Race, Environment, and the Role of Government, The Law Professors’ Christian Fellowship and Lumen Christi Insti- tute Law & Culture Colloquium (January 2006). Moderator, Rebuilding New Orleans: An Interdisciplinary Discussion, Notre Dame Law School (October 2005). Panelist, Women, Families, and the Christian University, Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture Conference (September 2005). Presenter, The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court, Notre Dame Law School Faculty Colloquium Series (July 2005) and University of Illinois Law School (April 2005). UNIVERSITY SERVICE Appointments Committee (chair 2009-10; member 2008-09, 2011-present) University Committee for Women Faculty and Students (2006-10) Early Childhood Development Center - ND Advisory Group (2009-10) Lardy Fellowship Committee (2007-present) Women’s Legal Forum, Faculty Advisor (2006-present) ABA Self-Study Committee (2008-09) Curriculum Committee (2007-08, 2011) Chair, Clerkship Committee (2007-08) Faculty Development Committee (2006-07) Colloquium Committee (2005-07) Advanced Legal Writing Committee (2005-06) Social Justice Forum, Faculty Advisor (2004-06) Admissions Committee (2003-06) PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Member, Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (August 2010 - present) Chair-Elect, AALS Constitutional Law Section (2010-11) Treasurer, AALS Constitutional Law Section (2009-10) Presenter, Statutory Interpretation, Seventh Circuit Bar Association (May 2008) Presenter, Recent Developments in Evidence, St. Joseph County Bar Association (Spring 2004) Presenter, Recent Developments in Evidence, Seventh Circuit Judicial Conference (October 2003) BAR MEMBERSHIPS District of Columbia Virginia (inactive) .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dead Precedents Riley T
    Notre Dame Law Review Online Volume 93 | Issue 1 Article 1 8-2017 Dead Precedents Riley T. Svikhart Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online Part of the Jurisprudence Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation 93 Notre Dame L. Rev. Online 1 (2018) This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review Online by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESSAY DEAD PRECEDENTS Riley T. Svikhart* INTRODUCTION Shaun McCutcheon’s was the “next big campaign finance case to go before the Supreme Court.”1 When the Alabama GOP warned the conservative businessman that his 2010 federal campaign contributions might soon exceed a congressionally imposed limit, he decided to “take a stand.”2 Together, McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee (RNC)—which “wish[ed] to receive the contributions that McCutcheon and similarly situated individuals would like to make” in the absence of such aggregate contribution limits3—challenged the responsible statutory regime4 on First Amendment grounds and attracted national attention en route to a victory before the Supreme Court.5 But while McCutcheon and the RNC prevailed in their case, they failed in another noteworthy regard—Chief Justice Roberts’s controlling opinion declined their request to squarely overrule a relevant portion of the landmark campaign © 2017 Riley T. Svikhart. Individuals and nonprofit institutions may reproduce and distribute copies of this Essay in any format, at or below cost, for educational purposes, so long as each copy identifies the author, provides a citation to the Notre Dame Law Review Online, and includes this provision and copyright notice.
    [Show full text]
  • Oppose Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Nomination to the Supreme Court
    TAKE ACTION TO SAVE ROE: Oppose Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Nomination to the Supreme Court With the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the American people lost a champion for gender equality and reproductive rights. President Trump’s nominee to replace her, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, has the most extreme anti-reproductive rights record of any Supreme Court nominee since the rejected nomination of Judge Robert Bork over 30 years ago. Reproductive rights should not be open for debate. The ability to make these highly personal decisions is central to a person’s dignity and liberty and to gender equality. Take action today to make your voice heard about why Judge Barrett’s nomination must not proceed. PRESIDENT TRUMP’S NOMINEE: WHAT CAN I DO TO STOP THIS NOMINATION AND JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT HELP SAVE ROE? Senators need to hear directly from their constituents President Trump has made reversing Roe v. about why abortion rights and this nomination matters Wade a litmus test for his Supreme Court to you. nominees. Judge Barrett’s record supports that test. Her approach to constitutional 1. Tell your Senators to vote NO on Judge Barrett’s interpretation, opinions as a federal appellate confirmation and urge them to vocally stand up for judge, and vitriolic public advocacy disparaging reproductive rights and the ACA. Click here to send a contraception, opposing abortion, and message or call 202-224-3121. defending “the right to life from fertilization” 2. Share your story or viewpoint on why access to lay bare a deep disagreement with the abortion is important to you by publishing op-eds, established constitutional protections for letters to the editor, and social media posts.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons Learned from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    LESSONS LEARNED FROM JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG Amanda L. Tyler* INTRODUCTION Serving as a law clerk for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Supreme Court’s October Term 1999 was one of the single greatest privileges and honors of my life. As a trailblazer who opened up opportunities for women, she was a personal hero. How many people get to say that they worked for their hero? Justice Ginsburg was defined by her brilliance, her dedication to public service, her resilience, and her unwavering devotion to taking up the Founders’ calling, set out in the Preamble to our Constitution, to make ours a “more perfect Union.”1 She was a profoundly dedicated public servant in no small measure because she appreciated just how important her role was in ensuring that our Constitution belongs to everyone. Whether as an advocate or a Justice, she tirelessly fought to dismantle discrimination and more generally to open opportunities for every person to live up to their full human potential. Without question, she left this world a better place than she found it, and we are all the beneficiaries. As an advocate, Ruth Bader Ginsburg challenged our society to liber- ate all persons from the gender-based stereotypes that held them back. As a federal judge for forty years—twenty-seven of them on the Supreme Court—she continued and expanded upon that work, even when it meant in dissent calling out her colleagues for improperly walking back earlier gains or halting future progress.2 In total, she wrote over 700 opinions on the D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The US Supreme Court and Criminal Justice Policy
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals July 2015 The mpI act of New Justices: The .SU . Supreme Court and Criminal Justice Policy Christopher E. Smith Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Judges Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Smith, Christopher E. (1997) "The mpI act of New Justices: The .SU . Supreme Court and Criminal Justice Policy," Akron Law Review: Vol. 30 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol30/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Smith: The U.S. Supreme Court and Criminal Justice Policy The Impact of New Justices: The U.S. Supreme Court and Criminal Justice Policy by * Christopher E. Smith I. Introduction The Supreme Court is an important policy-making institution. In criminal justice,1 for example, the high court issues decisions affecting institutions, actors, and processes throughout the justice system, from police investigations2 through corrections and parole.3 The Court's policy decisions affecting criminal justice are produced by the votes of the nine justices who select, hear, decide, and issue opinions in cases.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wit and Wisdom of Donald J. Trump - Volume One : 8X10 College Ruled - 200 Blank Notebook Pages Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    THE WIT AND WISDOM OF DONALD J. TRUMP - VOLUME ONE : 8X10 COLLEGE RULED - 200 BLANK NOTEBOOK PAGES PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Buckskin Creek Journals | 202 pages | 11 Aug 2018 | Createspace Independent Publishing Platform | 9781725123359 | English | none The Wit and Wisdom of Donald J. Trump - Volume One : 8x10 College Ruled - 200 Blank Notebook Pages PDF Book Molly Olmstead: Conservatives are already playing up hypothetical anti-Catholic bias against Amy Coney Barrett : Because we all know how concerned conservatives are when it comes to prejudice against minorities? Matties, You are not suspicious of Biden and all the other globalist but suspicious of Trump? Most of them lack context, and may err by omission, but they're not fake news. Romney too wants to reach across the aisle. As former KGB and Washington swamp know now. I have a sister who now is looking for work in Canada because of this election, as well as many other twitter people I follow. The communities welcomed him. Dollar Index at that time, I suggest. To Mr. Read the thread!! But minority rule is on the ballot. The illusion of governance overshadows the chaos in the nuts and bolts of implementation situated in the agencies charged with making it happen. The decision is simple for me. Ever since, the right has mounted an hysterical campaign to take away the rights granted by the Court -- especially abortion, but also the constitutional right to privacy free choice is based on -- and to secure ever greater privileges for the rich as evidenced most clearly by the Court's recent claim that unlimited campaign spending is protected "free speech".
    [Show full text]
  • Trump Judges: Even More Extreme Than Reagan and Bush Judges
    Trump Judges: Even More Extreme Than Reagan and Bush Judges September 3, 2020 Executive Summary In June, President Donald Trump pledged to release a new short list of potential Supreme Court nominees by September 1, 2020, for his consideration should he be reelected in November. While Trump has not yet released such a list, it likely would include several people he has already picked for powerful lifetime seats on the federal courts of appeals. Trump appointees' records raise alarms about the extremism they would bring to the highest court in the United States – and the people he would put on the appellate bench if he is reelected to a second term. According to People For the American Way’s ongoing research, these judges (including those likely to be on Trump’s short list), have written or joined more than 100 opinions or dissents as of August 31 that are so far to the right that in nearly one out of every four cases we have reviewed, other Republican-appointed judges, including those on Trump’s previous Supreme Court short lists, have disagreed with them.1 Considering that every Republican president since Ronald Reagan has made a considerable effort to pick very conservative judges, the likelihood that Trump could elevate even more of his extreme judicial picks raises serious concerns. On issues including reproductive rights, voting rights, police violence, gun safety, consumer rights against corporations, and the environment, Trump judges have consistently sided with right-wing special interests over the American people – even measured against other Republican-appointed judges. Many of these cases concern majority rulings issued or joined by Trump judges.
    [Show full text]
  • What Does Justice Scalia's Death Mean for Congress and the Nation?
    CRS Reports & Analysis Legal Sidebar What Does Justice Scalia’s Death Mean for Congress and the Nation? 02/16/2016 Over the weekend, the nation was shocked to learn of the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The death of the longest serving and, in the view of some commentators, most influential Justice on the current Court will have significant implications for the third branch of government. Justice Scalia’s absence may alter the outcome of several cases of interest to Congress pending before the Court and could mark a seismic shift in many legal doctrines, depending on who is confirmed to fill the newly vacant seat on the Court. The job of confirming the President’s nomination to fill the vacancy resides with the Senate, making Justice Scalia’s death likely to have a profound impact in both the short and long term on Congress. This sidebar, the first of several pending CRS projects on Justice Scalia and the new Supreme Court vacancy, provides an overview of the major implications of Justice Scalia’s death for Congress. Court’s Consideration of Cases in the Current and Future Terms Justice Scalia’s passing will undoubtedly impact the work of the Court in the near and long term. He brought well- known views regarding textualism and originalism to his consideration of cases before the Court. Textualism can be broadly described as a method of construing statutes and other texts that focuses on the plain meaning of the words used, affording little, if any, significance to extrinsic sources, like legislative history.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Sandra Day O'connor: the World's Most Powerful Jurist?
    JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL JURIST? DIANE LOWENTHAL AND BARBARA PALMER* I. INTRODUCTION Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been called a "major force on [the] Supreme Court,"' the "real" Chief Justice, 2 and "America's most powerful jurist."' 3 Others have referred to her as "the most 5 powerful woman in America" 4 and even of "the world.", Even compared to women like Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton, there is no one "who has had a more profound effect on society than any other American woman... If someone else had been appointed to her position on the court, our nation might now be living under different rules for abortion, affirmative action, race, religion in school and civil rights. We might well have a different president." 6 Former Acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger noted, "What is most striking is the assurance with which this formerly obscure state court judge effectively decides many hugely important questions for a country of 275 million people.",7 As one journalist put it, "We are all living in * Diane Lowenthal, Ph.D. in Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University and Barbara Palmer, Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Minnesota, are assistant professors in American University's Washington Semester Program. The authors would like to thank their undergraduate research assistants, Amy Bauman, Nick Chapman-Hushek, and Amanda White. This paper was presented at October 28, 2004 Town Hall The Sway of the Swing Vote: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Her Influence on Issues of Race, Religion, Gender and Class sponsored by the University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class and the Women, Leadership and Equality Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Full What Happened Collection [PDF]
    American Compass December 2020 WHAT HAPPENED THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY IN REVIEW AMERICAN COMPASS is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, launched in May 2020 with a mission to restore an economic consensus that emphasizes the importance of family, community, and industry to the nation’s liberty and prosperity— REORIENTING POLITICAL FOCUS from growth for its own sake to widely shared economic development that sustains vital social institutions; SETTING A COURSE for a country in which families can achieve self-sufficiency, contribute productively to their communities, and prepare the next generation for the same; and HELPING POLICYMAKERS NAVIGATE the limitations that markets and government each face in promoting the general welfare and the nation’s security. www.americancompass.org [email protected] What Happened: The Trump Presidency in Review Table of Contents FOREWORD: THE WORK REMAINS President Trump told many important truths, but one also has to act by Daniel McCarthy 1 INTRODUCTION 4 TOO FEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S MEN An iconoclast’s administration will struggle to find personnel both experienced and aligned by Rachel Bovard 5 A POPULISM DEFERRED Trump’s transitional presidency lacked the vision and agenda necessary to let go of GOP orthodoxy by Julius Krein 11 THE POTPOURRI PRESIDENCY A decentralized and conflicted administration was uniquely inconsistent in its policy actions by Wells King 17 SOME LIKE IT HOT Unsustainable economic stimulus at an expansion’s peak, not tax cuts or tariffs, fueled the Trump boom by Oren Cass 23 Copyright © 2020 by American Compass, Inc. Electronic versions of these articles with hyperlinked references are available at www.americancompass.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Note: Justice Harry A. Blackmun's Observations from Oral
    Taking Note: Justice Harry A. Blackmun’s Observations from Oral Argument about Life, the Law, and the U.S. Supreme Court AMANDA C. BRYAN, RACHAEL HOUSTON, and TIMOTHY R. JOHNSON Introduction Thus, while Blackmun took his (usual) notes on Christopher Wright’s arguments for On November 4, 1992, the U.S. Supreme the federal government, Blackmun’s mind, Court heard oral arguments in Bath Iron and his pencil, wandered to how his life might Works v. Workers’ Compensation Programs.1 quickly change. Writing in his characteristic As attorneys presented their arguments, Jus- green pencil, he mused about the implica- tice Harry A. Blackmun, like the entire tions of the election, “What do I do now. nation, had a lot on his mind because the [R]etire at once, 6/30/93, 6/30/94.” He added, night before William Jefferson Clinton had perhaps nostalgically, “33 years ago today, I been elected the first Democratic President in went on the fed bench! Seems like yesterday. twelve years. While the political implications What a privileged experience!” of the Clinton victory would be undoubtedly We know what was going on in Black- vast, Blackmun was more concerned with mun’s mind that day only because he was a how it would affect him personally. It was just habitual note-taker. In fact, as he did in Bath days until Blackmun’s eighty-fourth birthday, Iron Works, in almost every case Blackmun and it suddenly seemed viable for him to took copious notes about what transpired depart and allow the new President to make a during oral arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversations with Bill Kristol
    Conversations with Bill Kristol Guest: Adam J. White Research Scholar, American Enterprise Institute Executive Director, George Mason Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center Taped September 11, 2019 Table of Contents I. On the Supreme Court Today (0:15 – 44:19) II: The Conservative Legal Movement (44:19 – 1:21:17) I. On the Supreme Court Today (0:15 – 44:19) KRISTOL: Hi, I’m Bill Kristol. Welcome to CONVERSATIONS. I’m joined by my friend, Adam White, who has recently moved from The Hoover Institution to The American Enterprise Institute, where you’re – what’s your distinguished title there? Visiting? Resident Scholar? WHITE: Resident Scholar. KRISTOL: Did you have the same high title at Hoover, or was it just a visiting scholar? You were a resident scholar there. [Laughter] WHITE: I felt appreciated at Hoover too. KRISTOL: That’s good, yes. Anyway AEI has a new program in Social, Cultural and Constitutional Studies, which is great and you’re going to be a key part of that. You’ve obviously been a very – a lawyer and a commentator on all matters legal, judicial, the courts and the administrative state for The Weekly Standard and many other journals. And we had a conversation previously about the courts and the administrative state, before the Trump administration began I guess, I think – right? WHITE: Yeah. KRISTOL: But today we’re going to talk about the Judiciary. Kind of an important topic, a key talking point of Trump supporters, and maybe legitimately so. And I guess I’d like to begin with sort of 30,000 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Discovering Justice Clarence Thomas & the Role Of
    THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN: DISCOVERING JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS & THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL BIOGRAPHIES RACHEL GUY* In his recent study of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, author Corey Robin declares that compared to Thomas, “few judges have made their biographies so central to their understanding of what it is they do as judges.”1 Robin’s book, The Enigma of Clarence Thomas, is an attempt to understand and find cohesion in the Justice’s unique jurisprudence.2 To this end, he finds it necessary to comb Thomas’ biography to explain the Justice’s extreme and seemingly contradictory opinions.3 Robin concedes upfront, however, the discomfort this type of concession to personal history is likely to produce in the legal profession.4 “[T]his is perilous ground,”5 he asserts, as though acknowledging that judges are informed by their personal experiences could destabilize the entire American system of law and government. American law, drawn from its English antecedent, has long been conceptualized as above lived experience, as natural and preexistent, or otherwise “discovered” by disinterested judges.6 In this system, the immense powers of our judiciary is only legitimate if judges—especially Supreme Court Justices—are imagined as the ultimate Wizards of Oz: disembodied legal minds, leaving personal feelings and experiences behind the curtain and off the bench. Robin’s assertion that Thomas, one of only three Justices of color to ever sit on the Court,7 is among a mere handful of judges who have brought their personal experience to bear on their jurisprudence should give his readers pause. Though race figures centrally into the book’s analysis, this flippant assertion is glaringly forgetful of the fact that until the appointment of Justice Thomas’ predecessor, Justice Thurgood Marshall, in 1967, the Court was composed entirely of white men.8 In the words of Sherrilyn Ifill, Robin measures the Justice by the anachronistic yardstick of an era “when white men were the only group permitted * © 2020, Rachel Guy 1 COREY ROBIN, THE ENIGMA OF CLARENCE THOMAS 12 (2019).
    [Show full text]