DOCSLIB.ORG

Contempt of Courts? President Trump's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Contempt of Courts? President Trump's CONTEMPT OF COURTS? PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TRANSFORMATION OF THE JUDICIARY Brendan Williams* Faced with a letter from the American Bar Association (ABA) assessing him as “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice,” Lawrence VanDyke, nominated by President Trump to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, cried during an October 2019 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.1 Republican senators dutifully attacked the ABA as liberally-biased.2 In a Wall Street Journal column, a defender of VanDyke assailed what he called a “smear campaign” and wrote that “[t]he ABA’s aggressive politicization is especially frustrating for someone like me, an active member of the ABA[.]”3 VanDyke was confirmed anyway.4 Contrary to Republican protestations, the ABA has deemed 97% of President Trump’s nominees to be “well qualified” or “qualified.”5 Indeed, in the most polarizing judicial nomination of the Trump Administration, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh’s defenders pointed to the ABA having rated him “well qualified” despite the association having once, in 2006, dropped his rating to “qualified” due to concerns about his temperament.6 *Attorney Brendan Williams is the author of over 30 law review articles, predominantly on civil rights and health care issues. A former Washington Supreme Court judicial clerk, Brendan is a New Hampshire long-term care advocate. This article is dedicated to his father Wayne Williams, admitted to the Washington bar in 1970. 1Hannah Knowles, Trump Judicial Nominee Cries over Scathing Letter from the American Bar Association, WASH. POST (Oct. 30, 2015). 2Id. 3Adam J. White, Another Smear Campaign from the American Bar Association, WALL ST. J., (Oct. 30, 2019.) 4Matthew Daly, Trump Pick for Nevada Seat on Appeals Court Confirmed Despite Cortez Masto, Rosen Protest, RENO GAZETTE J. (Dec. 11, 2019) (“Among those opposing VanDyke were Nevada Democratic Sens. Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto, who said that despite serving four years as Nevada's solicitor general, VanDyke's qualifications are inadequate and his ties to Nevada ‘minimal.’’). 5Knowles, supra note 1. 6Adam Liptak, Bar Association Questioned Kavanaugh’s Temperament and Honesty in 2006, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 2, 2018). 2 DENVER LAW REVIEW FORUM [28-Oct-20 Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.)—Kavanaugh’s most vociferous defender—even used the ABA’s rating to defend Kavanaugh against charges of sexual misconduct: “If you lived a good life, people would recognize it, like the American Bar Association has—the gold standard . He’s the nicest person—the ABA.”7 For those progressives—or advocates of an impartial judiciary— troubled by the direction of President Trump’s judicial nominations, the concern is hardly the accommodating ABA, it is a combination of Democratic haplessness and the effectiveness of conservative, interchangeable organizations such as the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) and the Federalist Society. Given President Trump’s landmark success in filling judicial vacancies,8 it is ironic that no recent president has been more contemptuous in his regard for the judiciary—even getting into a war of words with Chief Justice John Roberts about whether there are “Obama judges” and “Trump judges.”9 In one fit of pique, President Trump suggested that Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse themselves from cases involving his administration.10 Roberts offered no defense of the two women justices, but, much to Trumps’ delight, Roberts did express public 7Avi Selk, The American Bar Association Had Concerns about Kavanaugh 12 Years Ago. Republicans Dismissed Those, Too., WASH. POST (Sept. 28, 2018). The irony of Graham’s reliance upon the ABA rating was that, following President Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment, Justice Neil Gorsuch (whose top ABA rating Republicans heavily relied upon), it was reported in March 2017 that “[t]he Trump administration has sent the American Bar Association into exile, ending the group’s semiofficial role in evaluating candidates for the federal bench.” Adam Liptak, White House Ends Bar Association’s Role in Vetting Judges, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 31, 2017). 8He began in office with a tremendous advantage. See, e.g., Gretchen Frazee, How Trump is Reshaping One of the Country’s Most Liberal Courts, PBS NEWS HOUR (Aug. 19, 2019), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/planned-parenthood-funding-battle-highlights- trump-focus-on-courts (“When Trump took office, there were more than 100 judicial vacancies across the country — twice as many as President Barack Obama inherited from President George W. Bush. The large number of vacancies was due in part to Senate Republicans’ blocking Obama’s nominees.” 9Mark Sherman, Roberts, Trump Spar in Extraordinary Scrap over Judges, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Nov. 21, 2018), https://apnews.com/c4b34f9639e141069c08cf1e3deb6b84. Roberts enigmatically defended judicial independence in a year-end message in December 2019 that some took as an implied rebuke to Trump. See Adam Liptak, Impeachment Trial Looming, Chief Justice Reflects on Judicial Independence, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 31, 2019). 10See Meagan Flynn & Brittany Shammas, Trump Slams Sotomayor and Ginsburg, Says They Should Recuse Themselves from ‘Trump-related’ Cases, WASH. POST (Feb. 25, 2020). 28-Oct-2020] DENVER LAW REVIEW FORUM 3 umbrage when Trump’s own appointees were criticized by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.).11 Trump has regularly railed against the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in particular.12 When discussing immigration policy, he has stated that “to be honest with you, you have to get rid of judges.”13 During his 2016 presidential campaign, facing litigation over his “Trump University” sham,14 Trump had used racial terms in attacking the Hispanic judge presiding over the case, even falsely accusing him of being born in Mexico. Trump’s attack on the judge prompted a rebuttal from then-U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) for what he characterized as “the 11Robert Barnes & Colby Itkowitz, Roberts Rebukes Schumer for Saying Justices will ‘Pay the Price’ for a Vote Against Abortion Rights, WASH. POST Mar. 4, 2020. 12See Gretchen Frazee, supra note 8. Yet he has been quite successful in packing it with his own judges. See Susannah Luthi, How Trump is Filling the Liberal 9th Circuit with Conservatives, POLITICO (Dec. 22, 2019, 3:54 PM), https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/22/trump-judges-9th-circuit-appeals-court-088833 (“Democratic-appointed judges now hold a three-seat majority, compared with 11 at the start of Trump's presidency.”). 13Steve Benen, On Immigration, Trump Says He Wants to ‘Get Rid of Judges’, MSNBC (Apr. 3, 2019, 1:15 PM). Reportedly, according to the account of one anonymous Administration insider’s book, Trump gave serious thought to reducing the number of federal judges. Michael Warren and Holmes Lybrand, ‘Anonymous’ Book Offers Eye-Popping Insider Details, CNN (Nov. 17, 2019, 9:35 PM). As CNN reported: “Can we just get rid of the judges? Let's get rid of the [f***ing] judges,” Trump once said, according to the author. “There shouldn't be any at all, really.” Trump apparently went on to ask his legal team to write up a draft bill to send to Congress that would reduce the number of federal judges. “Staff ignored the outburst and the wacky request,” the anonymous official writes. Id. 14See, e.g., Josh Hafner, Judge Finalizes $25 Million Trump University Settlement for Students of 'Sham University’, USA TODAY (Apr. 10, 2018) (“Trump University was not an actual university but a for-profit seminar series, and former students waged a years-long battle claiming the course misled them with claims of teaching real estate success.”). 4 DENVER LAW REVIEW FORUM [28-Oct-20 textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable."15 Prior to becoming president, Trump had a long history of legal entanglements—beginning with a housing discrimination case brought against Trump and his father by the Nixon Administration.16 It is clear Trump, who has asserted he is unaccountable to legal processes while president,17 views the judiciary through a contemptuous lens of partisanship and self-interest.18 That contempt seems reflected in controversial criminal pardons he has issued. Trump has, for example, pardoned former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of contempt of court for illegally continuing “detaining people based solely on suspicion of their immigration status” after being ordered to stop.19 He pardoned right-wing conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souza, who had pled 15Tom Kertscher, Donald Trump's Racial Comments about Hispanic judge in Trump University Case, POLITIFACT (June 8, 2016), https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-comments-about- judge-trump-un/. 16See Jonathan Mahler & Steve Eder, ‘No Vacancies’ for Blacks: How Donald Trump Got His Start, and Was First Accused of Bias, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 27, 2016) (“Rather than quietly trying to settle . he turned the lawsuit into a protracted battle, complete with angry denials, character assassination, charges that the government was trying to force him to rent to “welfare recipients” and a $100 million countersuit accusing the Justice Department of defamation.”). 17See Ann E. Marimow & Jonathan O'Connell, In Court Hearing, Trump Lawyer Argues a Sitting President Would be Immune from Prosecution Even if He Were to Shoot Someone, WASH. POST (Oct. 23, 2019) (“President Trump’s private attorney said . that the president could not be investigated or prosecuted as long as he is in the White House, even for shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.”). Following his Senate acquittal on two House articles of impeachment – one of which the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Utah Senator Mitt Romney, voted for – an uncontrite Trump labeled the process “all bullshit.” Caitlyn Oprysko, ‘It was all bulls---’: Liberated Trump Lets Loose in Victory Speech after Acquittal, POLITICO (Feb.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Glaadawards March 16, 2013 New York New York Marriott Marquis
    #glaadawards MARCH 16, 2013 NEW YORK NEW YORK MARRIOTT MARQUIS APRIL 20, 2013 LOS AnGELES JW MARRIOTT LOS AnGELES MAY 11, 2013 SAN FRANCISCO HILTON SAN FRANCISCO - UnION SQUARE CONNECT WITH US CORPORATE PARTNERS PRESIDENT’S LETTer NOMINEE SELECTION PROCESS speCIAL HONOrees NOMINees SUPPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT Welcome to the 24th Annual GLAAD Media Awards. Thank you for joining us to celebrate fair, accurate and inclusive representations of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in the media. Tonight, as we recognize outstanding achievements and bold visions, we also take pause to remember the impact of our most powerful tool: our voice. The past year in news, entertainment and online media reminds us that our stories are what continue to drive equality forward. When four states brought marriage equality to the election FROM THE PRESIDENT ballot last year, GLAAD stepped forward to help couples across the nation to share messages of love and commitment that lit the way for landmark victories in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on whether same- sex couples should receive the same federal protections as straight married couples, and GLAAD is leading the media narrative and reshaping the way Americans view marriage equality. Because of GLAAD’s work, the Boy Scouts of America is closer than ever before to ending its discriminatory ban on gay scouts and leaders. GLAAD is empowering people like Jennifer Tyrrell – an Ohio mom who was ousted as leader of her son’s Cub Scouts pack – to share their stories with top-tier national news outlets, helping Americans understand the harm this ban inflicts on gay youth and families.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 19-5331 in the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA C
    USCA Case #19-5331 Document #1871493 Filed: 11/16/2020 Page 1 of 87 [ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021] No. 19-5331 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD F. MCGAHN, II, Defendant-Appellant. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia EN BANC BRIEF FOR APPELLANT JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK Acting Assistant Attorney General SOPAN JOSHI Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General MARK R. FREEMAN MICHAEL S. RAAB COURTNEY L. DIXON DENNIS FAN Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Room 7243 U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 353-8189 USCA Case #19-5331 Document #1871493 Filed: 11/16/2020 Page 2 of 87 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), the undersigned counsel certifies: A. Parties and Amici The defendant-appellant is Donald F. McGahn, II. The plaintiff-appellee is the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives. Amici curiae in this Court are: Republican legal experts, former government officials, and former members of Congress (Steve Bartlett, Jack Buechner, Tom Coleman, George Conway III, Mickey Edwards, Stuart Gerson, Gordon Humphrey, Bob Inglis, James Kolbe, Steven Kuykendall, Jim Leach, Mike Parker, Thomas Petri, Trevor Potter, Reid Ribble, Jonathan Rose, Paul Rosenzweig, Peter Smith, J.W. Verret, Dick Zimmer); James Murray; former members of Congress and former Executive Branch officials (Thomas Andrews, William Baer, Brian Baird, Michael Barnes, John Barrow, Douglas Bereuter, Howard Berman, Rick Boucher, Barbara Boxer, Bruce Braley, Carol Mosley Braun, Roland Burria, Lois Cappa, Jean Carnahan, Robert Carr, Rod Chandler, Linda Chavez, Bill Cohen, James Cole, Jerry Costello, Mark S.
    [Show full text]
  • Ben Sasse & Deb Fischer
    NEBRASKA TAXPAYERS FOR FREEDOM: CONGRESS WATCH BULLETIN. THE VOTING RECORD OF YOUR SENATORS: 2019. 304 North 168 Cir. #213 11819 Miracle Hills Dr. #205 Omaha, NE. 68118 Omaha, NE. 68154 Phone: 402-550-8040 Phone: 402-391-3411 Fax: 402-391-4725 Sen. Ben Sasse Sen. Deb Fischer 116th CONGRESS – 2019 NTF voting scores during this session: FISCHER: 99% 1st Session SASSE: 95% Taxes. S.J. Res. 50: To disapprove a conservative IRS rule relating to charitable contributions and estate tax deductions when a taxpayer receives or expects to receive a corresponding state or local tax credit. BAD BILL/ FAILED Fischer: NO Sasse: NO Spending. HR 3055 Amend. 1019: To reduce amounts appropriated by 2% than amount appropriated in FY 2019 for several federal programs. GOOD AMENDMENT/ FAILED Fischer: YES Sasse: YES Amend. 1141: To prohibit a liberal test for mass transit expenditures. GOOD AMENDMENT/ PASSED Fischer: YES Sasse: YES Amend. 1250: To not reduce amount appropriated by 1% and put savings towards EPA infrastructure assistance. BAD AMENDMENT/ PASSED Fischer: NO Sasse: NO HR 3877: To amend the Balanced Budget Act of 1985 to suspend the federal debt limit. BAD BILL/ PASSED Fischer: NO Sasse: NO HR 4378 Amend. 942: To reduce appropriated amount by 2% for several federal agencies. GOOD AMENDMENT/ FAILED Fischer: YES Sasse: YES PN 150: To confirm Gordon Hartogensis as Director of Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. GOOD RESOLUTION/ CONFIRMED Fisher: YES Sasse: YES Government Regulations. PN 22: To confirm Andrew Wheeler as EPA administrator. GOOD RESOLUTION/ CONFIRMED Fischer: YES Sasse: YES PN 47: To confirm Spencer Bacchus III as member of the Export-Import Bank of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Open-And-Shut: Senate Impeachment Deliberations Must Be Public Marjorie Cohn
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 51 | Issue 2 Article 3 1-2000 Open-and-Shut: Senate Impeachment Deliberations Must Be Public Marjorie Cohn Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Marjorie Cohn, Open-and-Shut: Senate Impeachment Deliberations Must Be Public, 51 Hastings L.J. 365 (2000). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol51/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Open-and-Shut: Senate Impeachment Deliberations Must Be Public by MARJORIE COHN* Table of Contents I. Impeachment Rules and Precedents ................................................ 368 A. Current Impeachment Rules ............................................... 368 B. A Tradition of Senate Secrecy ............................................ 370 (1) Congressional Rule-Making Authority ........................ 370 (2) The "Closed-Door Policy"............................................. 370 (3) The Twentieth Century: The Door Opens Wider ...... 374 (4) When the Doors Are Closed ......................................... 376 C. Historical Impeachment Rules ............................................ 377 D. Why Did the Presumption of Openness Change in .. 1868 with the Andrew Johnson Impeachment?
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Confirms Lawrence Vandyke to Seat on Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
    N E W S R E L E A S E December 11, 2019 Contact: Amy Weitz (415) 355-8930 Senate Confirms Lawrence VanDyke to Seat on Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals SAN FRANCISCO – The United States Senate today confirmed President Donald Trump’s nomination of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lawrence VanDyke to serve as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Senators gave their consent by a vote of 51-44. Mr. VanDyke, who is expected to maintain chambers in Las Vegas or Reno, Nevada, was nominated to the court on October 15, 2019. He fills the seat of Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee, who will assume senior status on December 31, 2019. Mr. VanDyke joined the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division as the deputy assistant attorney general this year. Previously he served as the solicitor general for the states of Nevada and Montana, and before that position he served as the assistant solicitor general for the State of Texas. Earlier in his career he clerked for Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and worked as an associate attorney at the Dallas and Washington, D.C., offices of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, before and after that clerkship. While in college, Mr. VanDyke was vice president of Performance Machinery Company and project manager of VanDyke Construction Company in Bozeman, Montana. Born in Midland, Texas, Mr. VanDyke received his bachelor’s degree in English, with highest honors, and his Master of Construction Engineering Management from Montana State University in 1997 and 2000, respectively; his bachelor’s degree in theology from Bear Valley Bible Institute, summa cum laude, in 2002; and his juris doctor, magna cum laude, in 2005 from Harvard Law School, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review and editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty's Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism
    Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center Occasional Papers Series Series Editor Tony Saich Deputy Editor Jessica Engelman The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion. By training the very best leaders, developing powerful new ideas, and disseminating innovative solutions and institutional reforms, the Center’s goal is to meet the profound challenges facing the world’s citizens. The Ford Foundation is a founding donor of the Center. Additional information about the Ash Center is available at ash.harvard.edu. This research paper is one in a series funded by the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. The views expressed in the Ash Center Occasional Papers Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard University. The papers in this series are intended to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. This paper is copyrighted by the author(s). It cannot be reproduced or reused without permission. Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Letter from the Editor The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse, 333 Constitution Avenue, NW., 20001 Room 2002, phone (202) 354–3320, fax 354–3412 BERYL A. HOWELL, chief judge; born in Fort Benning, GA; daughter of Col. (Ret.) Leamon and Ruth Howell; Killeen High School, Killeen, TX, 1974; B.A. with honors in philosophy, Bryn Mawr College (President and Member, Honor Board, 1976–78); J.D., Colum- bia University School of Law, 1983 (Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, 1981–82; International Fellows Program, 1982–83, Transnational Law Journal, Notes Editor); law clerk to Hon. Dickinson R. Debevoise, District of New Jersey, 1983–84; litigation associate, Schulte, Roth and Zabel, 1985–87; Assistant United States Attorney, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 1987–93; Deputy Chief, Narcotics Section, 1990–93; Senior Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and the Law, 1993–94; Senior Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition, 1995–96; General Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1997–2003; Executive Managing Director and General Counsel, Stroz Friedberg, 2003–09; Commissioner, United States Sentencing Commission, 2004–11; Member, Commission on Cyber Security for the 44th Presidency, 2008; Adjunct Professor of Law, American University’s Washington College of Law, 2010; appointed judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by President Obama on December 27, 2010, took oath of office on January 21, 2011; appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve on the Judicial Conference of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • How Taking School Demographics Into Account in College Admissions
    YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW Shifting the Scope: How Taking School Demographics Into Account in College Admissions Could Reduce K-12 Segregation Nationwide by Thomas Scott-Railton* Deepening racial and socioeconomic segregation is producing unequal educa- tional outcomes at the K-12 level, outcomes that are then reproduced in higher education. This is particularlytrue as rising competition among colleges has led many of them to focus increasingly on measures of merit that correlate with in- come and as parents and students adjust their behavior in light of those metrics. While existing affirmative action programs at colleges provide some counterweight to this dynamic, they are limited by institutional (and constitutional) constraints. Out of concern for revenue and rankings, many colleges are constrained in the number of students from low-income backgrounds they are willing to admit. Such a limited scope is not inevitable, however. If colleges were to give a substantial admissions bonus to applicants who had attended K-12 schools with at least a certain percentage of low-income students, higher education could become a force for countering inequality at the K-12 level, instead of reproducing it. College admissions policies serve as a crucial reference point for parents, students, and educators on down through K-12. By rewarding applicantsfor attending socioeconomically integrated schools, colleges would mo- bilize the resources of private actors across the country towards integration. The benefits of this would be significant, especiallyfor students from low-income fami- lies who would have an increased chance of attendingintegrated K-12 schools as a result. Such a policy would also help colleges better foster diversity on campuses, as more students would have had priorexperience in integrated settings.
    [Show full text]
  • Steven Menashi President Trump Nominated Steven Menashi to Serve
    Steven Menashi President Trump nominated Steven Menashi to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on August 14, 2019. Menashi is anti-choice. Career1 Bachelor of Arts, Dartmouth College, 2001 Assistant Editor, Policy Review, Hoover Institution, 2001-2002 Associate Editor, Policy Review, Hoover Institution, 2002-2004 Public Affairs Fellow, Hoover Institution, 2002-2004 Editorial Writer, The New York Sun, 2004-2005 Juris Doctorate, Stanford Law School, 2008 Clerk, Judge Douglas Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 2008-2009 Olin-Searle Fellow, Georgetown University Law Center, 2009-2010 Clerk, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, U.S. Supreme Court, 2010-2011 Associate, Kirkland & Ellis, 2011-2013 Of Counsel, Kirkland & Ellis, 2013-2015, 2016-2017 Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, 2015-2016 Koch-Searle Research Fellow, New York University School of Law, 2013-2015 Assistant Professor, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, 2016-2019 (on leave 2017-2019) Acting General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, 2017-2018 Principal Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, 2018 Special Assistant to the President/Associate Counsel, Office of White House Counsel, The White House, 2018-present Record on Reproductive Freedom Menashi submitted an amicus brief on behalf of former U.S. Department of Justice officials in Zubik v. Burwell arguing that the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive- coverage policy forced certain religious groups into “moral complicity” with the use of contraception, despite an accommodation put in place for such groups by the Obama administration.2 Menashi compared such groups’ “moral complicity” in the use of contraception to providing weapons to help someone commit a crime.3 As editor-in-chief of the Dartmouth Review, Menashi wrote several anti-choice articles and editorials.
    [Show full text]
  • ''What Lips These Lips Have Kissed'': Refiguring the Politics of Queer Public Kissing
    Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies Vol. 3, No. 1, March 2006, pp. 1Á/26 ‘‘What Lips These Lips Have Kissed’’: Refiguring the Politics of Queer Public Kissing Charles E. Morris III & John M. Sloop In this essay, we argue that man-on-man kissing, and its representations, have been insufficiently mobilized within apolitical, incremental, and assimilationist pro-gay logics of visibility. In response, we call for a perspective that understands man-on-man kissing as a political imperative and kairotic. After a critical analysis of man-on-man kissing’s relation to such politics, we discuss how it can be utilized as a juggernaut in a broader project of queer world making, and investigate ideological, political, and economic barriers to the creation of this queer kissing ‘‘visual mass.’’ We conclude with relevant implications regarding same-sex kissing and the politics of visible pleasure. Keywords: Same-Sex Kissing; Queer Politics; Public Sex; Gay Representation In general, one may pronounce kissing dangerous. A spark of fire has often been struck out of the collision of lips that has blown up the whole magazine of 1 virtue.*/Anonymous, 1803 Kissing, in certain figurations, has lost none of its hot promise since our epigraph was penned two centuries ago. Its ongoing transformative combustion may be witnessed in two extraordinarily divergent perspectives on its cultural representation and political implications. In 2001, queer filmmaker Bruce LaBruce offered in Toronto’s Eye Weekly a noteworthy rave of the sophomoric buddy film Dude, Where’s My Car? One scene in particular inspired LaBruce, in which we find our stoned protagonists Jesse (Ashton Kutcher) and Chester (Seann William Scott) idling at a stoplight next to superhunk Fabio and his equally alluring female passenger.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapman Law Review
    Chapman Law Review Volume 21 Board of Editors 2017–2018 Executive Board Editor-in-Chief LAUREN K. FITZPATRICK Managing Editor RYAN W. COOPER Senior Articles Editors Production Editor SUNEETA H. ISRANI MARISSA N. HAMILTON TAYLOR A. KENDZIERSKI CLARE M. WERNET Senior Notes & Comments Editor TAYLOR B. BROWN Senior Symposium Editor CINDY PARK Senior Submissions & Online Editor ALBERTO WILCHES –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Articles Editors ASHLEY C. ANDERSON KRISTEN N. KOVACICH ARLENE GALARZA STEVEN L. RIMMER NATALIE M. GAONA AMANDA M. SHAUGHNESSY-FORD ANAM A. JAVED DAMION M. YOUNG __________________________________________________________________ Staff Editors RAYMOND AUBELE AMY N. HUDACK JAMIE L. RICE CARLOS BACIO MEGAN A. LEE JAMIE L. TRAXLER HOPE C. BLAIN DANTE P. LOGIE BRANDON R. SALVATIERRA GEORGE E. BRIETIGAM DRAKE A. MIRSCH HANNAH B. STETSON KATHERINE A. BURGESS MARLENA MLYNARSKA SYDNEY L. WEST KYLEY S. CHELWICK NICHOLE N. MOVASSAGHI Faculty Advisor CELESTINE MCCONVILLE, Professor of Law CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY HAZEM H. CHEHABI ADMINISTRATION JEROME W. CWIERTNIA DALE E. FOWLER ’58 DANIELE C. STRUPPA BARRY GOLDFARB President STAN HARRELSON GAVIN S. HERBERT,JR. GLENN M. PFEIFFER WILLIAM K. HOOD Provost and Executive Vice ANDY HOROWITZ President for Academic Affairs MARK CHAPIN JOHNSON ’05 JENNIFER L. KELLER HAROLD W. HEWITT,JR. THOMAS E. MALLOY Executive Vice President and Chief SEBASTIAN PAUL MUSCO Operating Officer RICHARD MUTH (MBA ’05) JAMES J. PETERSON SHERYL A. BOURGEOIS HARRY S. RINKER Executive Vice President for JAMES B. ROSZAK University Advancement THE HONORABLE LORETTA SANCHEZ ’82 HELEN NORRIS MOHINDAR S. SANDHU Vice President and Chief RONALD M. SIMON Information Officer RONALD E. SODERLING KAREN R. WILKINSON ’69 THOMAS C. PIECHOTA DAVID W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Breadth of Congress' Authority to Access Information in Our Scheme
    H H H H H H H H H H H 5. The Breadth of Congress’s Authority to Access Information in Our Scheme of Separated Powers Overview Congress’s broad investigatory powers are constrained both by the structural limitations imposed by our constitutional system of separated and balanced powers and by the individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Thus, the president, subordinate officials, and individuals called as witnesses can assert various privileges, which enable them to resist or limit the scope of congressional inquiries. These privileges, however, are also limited. The Supreme Court has recognized the president’s constitutionally based privilege to protect the confidentiality of documents or other information that reflects presidential decision-making and deliberations. This presidential executive privilege, however, is qualified. Congress and other appropriate investigative entities may overcome the privilege by a sufficient showing of need and the inability to obtain the information elsewhere. Moreover, neither the Constitution nor the courts have provided a special exemption protecting the confidentiality of national security or foreign affairs information. But self-imposed congressional constraints on information access in these sensitive areas have raised serious institutional and practical concerns as to the current effectiveness of oversight of executive actions in these areas. With regard to individual rights, the Supreme Court has recognized that individuals subject to congressional inquiries are protected by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, though in many important respects those rights may be qualified by Congress’s constitutionally rooted investigatory authority. A. Executive Privilege Executive privilege is a doctrine that enables the president to withhold certain information from disclosure to the public or even Congress.
    [Show full text]