DOCSLIB.ORG

Lawyerord SPRING 2004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

stanfLawyerord SPRING 2004 Anthony Romero ’90 has persuaded thousands of people that it’s patriotic to join the ACLU. Who’s Un-American? stanfLawyerord Issue 68 / Vol. 38 / No. 2 Editor JONATHAN RABINOVITZ Communications Director ANN DETHLEFSEN (BA ’81, MA ’83) [email protected] Art Director ROBIN WEISS [email protected] Production Coordinator LINDA WILSON [email protected] Copy Editor DEBORAH FIFE Contributing Editors MANDY ERICKSON JUDITH ROMERO [email protected] Class Correspondents 61 RESOURCEFUL ALUMNI Editorial Interns LIEF N. HANIFORD (BA ’03, MA ’04) JOSEPHINE LAU (BA ’03, MA ’04) CHRISTINE LIYANTO (BA ’05) Production Associates JOANNA MCCLEAN ON THE DOCKET MARCH ROBERT MARY ANN RUNDELL Stanford Lawyer Upcoming Law School events* (ISSN 0585-0576) is published for alumni and friends of Stanford Law School. Battle of the Brains: Mar. 12 Fiduciary College: May 20–21 Correspondence and A Jeopardy-like contest among http://www.fiduciarycollege.com information should be sent to faculty and students sponsored Editor, Stanford Lawyer Stanford Law School annually by the Stanford Law Directors’ College: June 20–22 Crown Quadrangle Students Association. This year’s http://www.directorscollege.com 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305-8610 master of ceremonies: Ben Stein. or to: Best Practices in Marketing Software [email protected] Bringing Africa to the Forefront: and Other Content to the World over Changes of address should be sent to: Contemporary and International the Internet: June 25 [email protected] Law and Development in “Africa’s http://www.law.stanford.edu/ Copyright 2004 by the Board of Trustees Century”: Mar. 12–13 programs/academic/lst/ of Leland Stanford Junior University. Reproduction in whole or in part, without http://sjil.stanford.edu/YSS.htm permission of the publisher, is prohibited. Alumni Weekend 2004: Oct. 21–24 Issues of the magazine since Securing Privacy in the fall 1999 are available online at Internet Age: Mar. 13–14 *Advance purchase of tickets or pre-registration www.law.stanford.edu/alumni/lawyer. Issues from 1966 to the present http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/ is required for some Law School events. Visit are available on microfiche through privacysymposium/ http://www.law.stanford.edu to keep up to William S. Hein & Co., Inc., 1285 date on programs at Stanford Law School. Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14209-1987, or order online at www.wshein.com/ Finance, Audit, and Risk Issues for Board Catalog/Gut.asp?TitleNo=400830 Members: Mar. 24–26 Stanford Lawyer is listed in: Dialog’s http://www.boardfinance.com Legal Resource Index and Current Law Index and LegalTrac (1980–94). Printed on recycled paper COVER STORY BRIEFS DEPARTMENTS 14 TAKING THE ACLU 8 Matt Gonzalez ’90 makes a bid 2 CITES for mayor of San Francisco. INTO THE LIMELIGHT 3 FROM THE DEAN ACLU Director Anthony 9 The source of the funding behind 4 LETTERS Romero ’90 is hoping to change a student award is revealed. Americans’ attitudes about civil 6 DISCOVERY A host of unusual 9 A Stanford Law School professor liberties. talents hits the big time: the New York Times acrostic. 32 AFFIDAVIT Two firsts for Stanford Law School: a Latino alumni FEATURES 10 Faculty, alumni, and students association and a Public Interest make the grade. Lawyer of the Year Award 20 BROWN, 10 The School’s Center for Internet 33 CLASSMATES 50 YEARS LATER and Society gets involved in an Three Stanford Law School election machine case. 78 IN MEMORIAM professors discuss the legacy of 11 Brown v. Board of Education with Students direct the discussion and 81 GATHERINGS one of the attorneys who argued cook up pizza in two innovative the case before the Supreme SLS classes. Court. 12 REMEMBERING FORMER DEAN Alumni Weekend 2003 kicked off with the JOHN HART ELY Alumni and col- University's roundtable forum, "Power of leagues remember former Dean Influence, Influence of Power," featuring (left 26 ALUMNI WEEKEND John Hart Ely for his big heart to right) Professors Judith Goldstein (Political 2003 and sporting sense of humor. Science), Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar (Law), It was a time for laughter and David W. Brady (moderator; Political Science learning: nearly a thousand alums and Business), Joseph A. Grundfest '78 (Law), and Stephen H. Schneider (Biological came to the Law School last fall Sciences). to visit with old friends, ask ques- tions of a Supreme Court Justice, Cover: PHOTO BY STEVE GLADFELTER and receive insider information This page: PHOTO BY STEVE GLADFELTER on world conflicts. 2 CITES SPRING 2004 “The amazing thing is not that the “The president seeks an unchecked copyright system is working, but how power to substitute military rule quickly it has adapted.” for the rule of law.” —PAUL GOLDSTEIN,STELLA W. AND —JENNY MARTINEZ,ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW, ARGUING IRA S. LILLICK PROFESSOR OF LAW, IN NOV. 17 BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND A NOV. 21 DAILY JOURNAL ARTICLE CIRCUIT THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT INDEFINITELY DETAIN A ABOUT HIS APPROACH TO COPYRIGHTING CITIZEN AND PROHIBIT HIS MEETING WITH COUNSEL SOLELY MATERIAL FROM THE INTERNET. THE PRO- BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAS DECREED HIM AN ENEMY COMBAT- FILE OF GOLDSTEIN DESCRIBED HIM AS ANT. MARTINEZ HAD FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF A “VISIONARY” AND A “GIANT AMONG JOSE PADILLA, WHOM THE GOVERNMENT HAD HELD INCOMMUNI- SCHOLARS.” CADO SINCE JUNE 2002, AFTER ACCUSING HIM OF RUSS CURTIS PLOTTING TO SET OFF A “DIRTY BOMB.” THE COURT RULED IN HER FAVOR. “Unfortunately, when the energy bill went into conference, bipartisanship went out the window.” STEVE GLADFELTER —SENATOR JEFF BINGAMAN ’68 (D–NEW MEXICO) IN A NEWS RELEASE ISSUED NOV. 21, AFTER HE AND 57 OTHER SENATORS VOTED DOWN A SWEEPING ENERGY POLICY BILL THAT WAS THE PROD- UCT OF REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS IN THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. BINGAMAN, THE RANKING MEMBER ON THE SENATE’S ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, HAD BACKED AN EARLIER BIPARTI- SAN SENATE VERSION OF THE LEGISLATION. “I am accepting no money.” OFFICE OF SENATOR BINGAMAN OFFICE OF SENATOR —LADORIS CORDELL ’74 ON HER WEBSITE FOR HER UNCONVENTIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR A SEAT ON THE PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL. CORDELL, A STAN- “The election for President of the FORD VICE PROVOST AND SPECIAL COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT JOHN HENNESSY AND A FORMER SUPE- Guild on Sept. 19 must be set aside.” RIOR COURT JUDGE, WAS ELECTED NOV. 4. —WILLIAM GOULD IV, CHARLES A. BEARDSLEY PROFESSOR OF LAW, EMERITUS, IN HIS SPECIAL REPORT, ISSUED JAN. 5, ON WHETHER THE PRESIDENT OF THE WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA,WEST, WAS ELIGIBLE TO BE A UNION MEMBER. AS A RESULT OF HIS CONCLUSION, THE GUILD’S PRESIDENT,VICTORIA RISKIN, RESIGNED FROM THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNION, WHICH REPRESENTS 9,000 HOLLYWOOD WRITERS. THEODORE H. MOCK STANFORD DAILY STANFORD “Suddenly, overnight, people said, ‘Oh, my God, this could be my drinking water.’” JESSICA BOROWICK, —TED SMITH ’72, FOUNDER OF THE NONPROFIT SILICON VALLEY TOXICS COALITION, LINLY HARRIS LINLY AS QUOTED IN A NOV. 17 ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, EXPLAINING HOW A LEAK AT A SEMICONDUCTOR PLANT IN 1982 HELPED TO CHANGE PEOPLE’S PERCEPTIONS OF HIGH-TECH MANUFACTURING AS CLEAN AND SAFE. HIS WORK HIGHLIGHTING THE DANGERS OF CHIP “You can’t make $2 million PRODUCTION LED TO A TRIAL LAST FALL IN WHICH a pop and be independent in TWO FORMER IBM WORKERS, WHO CLAIM TO any meaningful way.” HAVE CONTRACTED CANCER FROM THEIR WORK, SUED THE COMPANY FOR DAMAGES. —JOSEPH BANKMAN,RALPH M. PARSONS PROFESSOR OF LAW AND BUSINESS, ON THE OCT. 19 EDITION OF 60 MINUTES, CRITICIZING ACCOUNT- ANTS AND LAWYERS WHO PROMOTE QUESTIONABLE OFFSHORE TAX SHELTERS FOR INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS. SCOTT LEWIS/BIZ INK FROM THE DEAN 3 STANFORD LAWYER What Makes SLS Special: A Top-10 List BY KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN Dean and Richard E. Lang Professor of Law and Stanley Morrison Professor of Law t isn’t easy being dean (see p. 28). But it’s been incred- spirit of entrepreneurship. Silicon Valley got its start here. ibly inspiring, rewarding, and fun. When I finish my Stanford folks invent things in their own garages. Our law term this September, I will miss it greatly. I will espe- school too has a spirit of experimentation and flexibility. No cially miss traveling the country to talk with our idea is too new for us to try. alumni and friends about the School. 5. We’ve brought the students into the light. No, this does not I have tried to keep my speeches fresh, and our refer to religious revelation, but rather to our 2001 renova- students and faculty provide plenty of new material. tion of the classrooms and our creation last year of a new But let’s face it, there are a few lines I’ve used a time bright and open reading room in the Robert Crown Law Ior two. As I head into decanal twilight, I think back on vari- Library, both of which our students love. ous Sullivanisms by which I’ve tried to capture what makes our law school special. Here is an annotated top-10 list. 4. We are the leading law school in California, the nation’s most diverse state. With the largest percentages of students and of 10. We may have warm weather, but we don’t have hot air. We faculty of color among our peer law schools, we are leaders have an unpretentious, friendly, collegial, academic culture. in showing that excellence and diversity work hand in hand. We emphasize what is practical and real. We insist on facts. We like our students. We aren’t stuffy. We believe that intel- 3. We are the leading American law school on the Pacific Rim.
Recommended publications
  • Author and Activist Lawrence Lessig

    Author and Activist Lawrence Lessig

    Big Money Bulletin Author and reform activist Lawrence Lessig Inside to headline WDC annual meeting on May 2 Harvard University professor and campaign finance reform crusader Page 2 Lawrence Lessig will be the keynote speaker for the Democracy Supreme Court drops another bomb Campaign’s annual membership meeting to be held on Friday, May 2. Wisconsin communities move to amend Lessig is the author of Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress Page 3 — And a Plan to Stop It and founder of the national group Rootstrikers. Change in leadership coming at WDC He is the driving force behind the New Hampshire Rebellion that started Less for voters, more for lobbyists with a 185-mile walk across the state and now is working to make sure that every federal candidate in the 2016 primaries is asked one question: Page 4 “How are YOU going to end the system of corruption in Washington, Kissing the ring in Vegas D.C.?” Lessig also is well known for his dynamic TED talks. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment and Design and is a nonprofit devoted to spreading ideas, usually in the form of short, powerful talks of 18 minutes or less. Started in 1984, the group’s mission is promoted through conferences and videos in more than 100 languages that cover topics from science to April 2014 business to global issues. Edition No. 89 This year’s WDC membership meeting is being held at Madison’s Barrymore Theatre, located at 2090 Atwood Avenue on the city’s near east side. On the Web: Registration will begin at 5:30 p.m., with the evening’s program starting www.wisdc.org at 6.
  • CNN/WMUR/UNH Tracking Poll -1- January/February, 2016 1

    CNN/WMUR/UNH Tracking Poll -1- January/February, 2016 1

    Conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center Interviews with 914 adults in New Hampshire conducted by land line and cellular telephone on January 27-30, 2016 including 409 who say they plan to vote in the Republican presidential primary and 347 respondents who say they plan to vote in the Democratic presidential primary. The margin of sampling error for results based on Republican primary voters is plus or minus 4.8 percentage points and for results based on Democratic primary voters is plus or minus 5.3 percentage points. EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: Sunday, January 31 at 6:00 p.m. CNN/WMUR/UNH Tracking Poll -1- January/February, 2016 1. (UNDECLARED / INDEPENDENT LIKELY VOTERS ONLY) “"Which Presidential primary election do you think you will vote in ... the Republican Primary or the Democratic Primary?" PROBE: “As of RIGHT NOW, which primary do you think you will vote in?” Dec. Jan. Jan. 2015 13-18 27-30 REPUBLICAN PRIMARY 48% 44% 47% DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY 38% 48% 42% UNDECIDED 14% 8% 11% CNN/WMUR/UNH Tracking Poll -2- January/February, 2016 2. (REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS ONLY:) “Have you definitely decided who you will vote for in the New Hampshire primary … are you leaning toward someone … or have you considered some candidates but are still trying to decide?” June Sept Dec Jan Jan. 2015 2015 2015 13-18 27-30 DEFINITELY DECIDED 8% 13% 18% 31% 39% LEANING TOWARD SOMEONE 17% 28% 26% 26% 24% STILL TRYING TO DECIDE 75% 59% 56% 43% 37% 3. (REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS ONLY:) "I’m going to read you the names of the candidates who are either running or considering running for the Republican nomination.
  • Declaration of Cameron R. Azari, Esq. on Implementation of Settlement Notice Plan in the United States District Court for the C

    Declaration of Cameron R. Azari, Esq. on Implementation of Settlement Notice Plan in the United States District Court for the C

    Case 2:14-cv-01855-GW-GJS Document 123 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 47 Page ID #:6092 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DONALD M. LUSNAK, on behalf of ) himself and all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No.: CV 14-1855-GW-GJSx ) v. ) DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. ) AZARI, ESQ. ON BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and DOES ) IMPLEMENTATION OF 1 through 10, inclusive, ) SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN ) Defendants. ) ) I, Cameron Azari, declare as follows : 1. My name is Cameron R. Azari, Esq. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, and I believe them to be true and correct. 2. I am a nationally recognized expert in the field of legal notice, and I have served as an expert in dozens of federal and state cases involving class action notice plans. 3. I am the Director of Legal Notice for Hilsoft Notifications, a business unit of Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. (“Epiq”) that specializes in designing, developing, analyzing and implementing, large-scale legal notific atio n plans. 4. This declaration will describe the implementation of the Settlement Notice Plan (“Notice Plan” or “Plan”) and notices (the “Notice” or “Notices”) for the recent settlement in Lusnak v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., Case No. 14-1855-GW-GJSx in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. I previously executed my Declaration of Cameron R. Azari, Esq, Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. on December 27, 2019 (Dkt. 113), in DECLARATION OF CAMERON R.
  • THE FUTURE of IDEAS This Work Is Licensed Under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License (US/V3.0)

    THE FUTURE of IDEAS This Work Is Licensed Under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License (US/V3.0)

    less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page i THE FUTURE OF IDEAS This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License (US/v3.0). Noncommercial uses are thus permitted without any further permission from the copyright owner. Permissions beyond the scope of this license are administered by Random House. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.randomhouse.com/about/ permissions.html The book maybe downloaded in electronic form (freely) at: http://the-future-of-ideas.com For more permission about Creative Commons licenses, go to: http://creativecommons.org less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page iii the future of ideas THE FATE OF THE COMMONS IN A CONNECTED WORLD /// Lawrence Lessig f RANDOM HOUSE New York less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page iv Copyright © 2001 Lawrence Lessig All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States by Random House, Inc., New York, and simultaneously in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. Random House and colophon are registered trademarks of Random House, Inc. library of congress cataloging-in-publication data Lessig, Lawrence. The future of ideas : the fate of the commons in a connected world / Lawrence Lessig. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 0-375-50578-4 1. Intellectual property. 2. Copyright and electronic data processing. 3. Internet—Law and legislation. 4. Information society. I. Title. K1401 .L47 2001 346.04'8'0285—dc21 2001031968 Random House website address: www.atrandom.com Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 24689753 First Edition Book design by Jo Anne Metsch less_0375505784_4p_fm_r1.qxd 9/21/01 13:49 Page v To Bettina, my teacher of the most important lesson.
  • Post-Election Attorneys General November 7, 2018 TBD** 2020

    Post-Election Attorneys General November 7, 2018 TBD** 2020

    November 7, 2018 State Attorneys General Post-Election Report 2018 The Top Line Results New Attorneys General 18 new attorneys general will take office in January as a result of this election cycle, including • 10 Democrats elected (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin) • 3 Republicans elected (Florida, Ohio, and South Dakota) • 4 attorneys general yet to be appointed (Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine) • 1 attorney general to be appointed to fill a vacancy (Missouri) Turnovers There were four states that turned over party control. All turnovers were Republican to Democrat: Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada. In all of these races, the governorship went to the Democratic candidate as well. Partisan Split Party control among attorneys general is expected to be split among 27 Democratic and 24 Republican attorneys general, assuming that the three governor-appointed attorneys general will follow the governor’s party (Alaska, Wyoming, and Hawaii) and that Maine will be Democratic based on the composition of the state legislature. Before the election, the partisan split was 28 Republicans, 22 Democrats, and one Independent. Incumbency All incumbents seeking reelection won another term, except for one. Republican Brad Schimel (WI) lost his bid for reelection. Attorneys General Running for Higher Office 9 incumbent attorneys general sought higher office, with only three (Maine, Missouri, and Ohio) succeeding in that effort. Cynthia Coffman (R-CO) lost her party’s nomination for governor; Janet Mills (D-ME) won the governorship; Lori Swanson (D-CO) lost her party’s nomination for governor; Josh Hawley (R-MO) won a seat in the US Senate; Adam Paul Laxalt (R-NV) lost his race for governor; Mike DeWine (R-OH) won his race for governor; Bill Schutte (R-MI) lost his race for governor; Marty Jackley (R-SD) lost his party’s nomination for governor; and Patrick Morrissey (R-WV) lost a race for a Senate seat and will thus remain as attorney general.
  • Lawrence Lessig

    Lawrence Lessig

    TRANSCRIPT Money in Politics 2009 Conference Pre-Luncheon Keynote Presentation: Lawrence Lessig Susan Liss: I'm director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center and our campaign finance work falls under our side of the aisle called Democracy. I am incredibly thrilled to be working with fantastic colleagues and I really want to thank all of my colleagues who have put this program together today. My mind is just twirling on the things that we can do and we've only had one panel and two wonderful kickoff speakers. I'm here to introduce our keynote, and we are delighted and honored that professor Lawrence Lessig from Stanford Law School has been willing to fly across the country to share his knowledge with us. I know many of you are very familiar with his contributions to this field already. He is currently a professor of law at Stanford Law School and the founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society. He is one of the foremost intellectuals on intellectual property and intellectual property law and the Internet; from what I understand that tremendous knowledge base has seguewayed into a fascination and interest with these very important underlying issues involving campaign finance reform. He will be moving to Harvard to start a study on ethics and to start a center on ethics and institutional corruption in the fall. We are really very honored and so pleased to welcome him here and thank him for coming. Professor Lessig. Lawrence Lessig: Thank you very much. The advertisements for this conference said that the first keynote would provide some statistics and I, quote, "would provide slides" so here I am to provide the slides.
  • The Roles of Litigation in American Democracy

    The Roles of Litigation in American Democracy

    Emory Law Journal Volume 65 Issue 6 The 2015 Pound Symposium — The "War" on the U.S. Civil Justice System (Co- Sponsored by the Pound Civil Justice Institute and Emory University School of Law) 2016 The Roles of Litigation in American Democracy Alexandra D. Lahav Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj Recommended Citation Alexandra D. Lahav, The Roles of Litigation in American Democracy, 65 Emory L. J. 1657 (2016). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol65/iss6/12 This Articles & Essays is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory Law Journal by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LAHAV GALLEYSPROOFS2 6/13/2016 1:15 PM THE ROLES OF LITIGATION IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY ∗ Alexandra D. Lahav ABSTRACT Adjudication is usually understood as having two functions: dispute resolution and law declaration. This Article presents the process of litigation as a third, equally important function and explains how in litigation, participants perform rule of law values. Performativity in litigation operates in five ways. First, litigation allows individuals, even the most downtrodden, to obtain recognition from a governmental officer (a judge) of their claims. Second, it promotes the production of reasoned arguments about legal questions and presentation of proofs in public, subject to cross-examination and debate. Third, it promotes transparency by forcing information required to present proofs and arguments to be revealed. Fourth, it aids in the enforcement of the law in two ways: by requiring wrongdoers to answer for their conduct to the tribunal and by revealing information that is used by other actors to enforce or change existing regulatory regimes.
  • John Hart Ely's "Invitation"

    John Hart Ely's "Invitation"

    Indiana Law Journal Volume 54 Issue 2 Article 5 Winter 1979 Government by Judiciary: John Hart Ely's "Invitation" Raoul Berger Member, Illinois and District of Columbia bars Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Courts Commons, Fourteenth Amendment Commons, and the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Berger, Raoul (1979) "Government by Judiciary: John Hart Ely's "Invitation"," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 54 : Iss. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol54/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Government by Judiciary: John Hart Ely's "Invitation" RAOUL BERGER* Professor John Hart Ely's Constitutional Interpretivism: Its Allure and Impossibility' solves the problem of government by judiciary quite simply: the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment issued an "open and across-the-board invitation to import into the constitutional decision pro- cess considerations that will not be found in the amendment nor even, at least in any obvious sense, elsewhere in the Constitution. ' 2 This but rephrases the current view, framed to rationalize the Warren Court's revolution, that the "general" terms of the amendment were left open- 3 ended to leave room for such discretion. By impossible "interpretivism" Ely refers to the belief that constitu- tional decisions should be derived from values "very clearly implicit in the written Constitution"; he labels as "non-interpretivism" the view that courts must range beyond those values to "norms that cannot be discovered within the four corners of the document."'4 But unlike most of his confreres, Ely insists that a constitutional decision must be rooted in the Constitution,5 though he does not explain how extra-constitutional factors can be so rooted.
  • 3.24.20 Defense Production Act Letter

    3.24.20 Defense Production Act Letter

    STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Josh Kaul Room 114 East, State Capitol Attorney General PO Box 7857 Madison WI 53707-7857 (608) 266-1221 TTY 1-800-947-3529 March 24, 2020 SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY [email protected] [email protected] The President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20500 Re: Shortage of critical supplies Dear Mr. President: We write regarding the immediate need across the country for vital support and to urge you to fully utilize the Defense Production Act to prioritize production of masks, respirators, and other critical items needed to fight the coronavirus pandemic. We are on the brink of catastrophic consequences resulting from the continued shortage of critical supplies. The federal government must act decisively now and use its sweeping authority to get as many needed supplies produced as soon as possible for distribution as quickly as possible. News reports from around the country have highlighted shortages in equipment and testing, with headlines like ‘At War with No Ammo’: Doctors Say Shortage of Protective Gear Is Dire1 and There Is a Shortage of Coronavirus Tests in Wisconsin, and Even Health Care Workers Are Having a Hard Time Getting One.2 Reports like these are consistent with our understanding of the supply shortages our jurisdictions and others across the country are facing or may soon face. 1 Andrew Jacobs et al., ‘At War with No Ammo’: Doctors Say Shortage of Protective Gear Is Dire, N.Y. Times (Mar. 19, 2020), http://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/health/coronavirus-masks-shortage.html.
  • Marquette Lawyer Summer 2021 from the Dean

    Marquette Lawyer Summer 2021 from the Dean

    SUMMER 2021 LOOKING AT JUDGING FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE Problem-Solving Courts and Other Newer Thinking ALSO INSIDE: The Politics, Law, and History of Political Redistricting • Sociological Legitimacy and the U.S. Supreme Court Out-of-State Investors and Home Ownership in Milwaukee • Law Students Take Pro Bono Virtual 1 MARQUETTE LAWYER SUMMER 2021 FROM THE DEAN What Does—and Should—a Judge Do Today? A few years ago, after one of our distinguished This issue’s cover story inquires whether the role lectures, which draw to Eckstein Hall so many of the state trial judge (if the term is still apt) has engaged members of the profession, one attendee, been changing and, if so, what one might make of not an alumnus, said to me, “Eckstein Hall is the any trends. Our focus is not traditional civil litigation, center of the legal profession in this region.” This where at least since Professor Judith Resnik’s famous was a high compliment, but I largely demurred. For 1982 article in the Harvard Law Review, “Managerial me, the nearest state courthouse will always be the Judges,” there has been considerable discussion of heart of the legal profession anywhere. It is the place the changing role of judges. Rather, in this instance that symbolizes justice, and to which, as a society, we we consider, in particular, “problem-solving courts” want our fellow citizens to resort, whether via the and the interest on the part of many Wisconsin trial criminal law or through civil litigation. judges in what they term “better outcomes.” And at the center of the courthouse, and of the Better outcomes would not, historically, have profession, are judges.
  • June 28, 2021 by OVERNIGHT MAIL Hon. Nancy Pelosi Speaker U.S. House of Representatives Hon. Kevin Mccarthy Minority Leader U.S

    June 28, 2021 by OVERNIGHT MAIL Hon. Nancy Pelosi Speaker U.S. House of Representatives Hon. Kevin Mccarthy Minority Leader U.S

    June 28, 2021 BY OVERNIGHT MAIL Hon. Nancy Pelosi Hon. Kevin McCarthy Speaker Minority Leader U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives Hon. Maria Cantwell Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr. Chair Chairman U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Science, & Transportation Commerce Hon. Roger Wicker Hon. Cathy McMorris Rogers Ranking Member Ranking Member U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Science, & Transportation Commerce Re: Consumer Protection and Recovery Act (H.R. 2668) Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Chair Cantwell, Chairman Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member Wicker, and Ranking Member McMorris Rogers: As the leading antitrust and consumer protection officers in our respective States, we write to express our strong support for the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act, H.R. 2668 (“Act”), which will ensure the ability of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to obtain equitable monetary relief and redress harms to consumers impacted by fraud or anticompetitive conduct. We applaud the Act’s goal of redressing harms suffered by victims of anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive trade practices, and its application to FTC cases that are currently in litigation. The Act is essential to prevent the severe harm to consumers that will result from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission,1 which held that the FTC lacks the authority to obtain equitable monetary relief through its Section 13(b) enforcement actions.2 The AMG decision upends four decades of FTC practice and seriously undermines the FTC’s efforts to combat fraud and other anticompetitive or unfair trade practices.
  • The Political Process, Equal Protection, and Substantive Due Process

    The Political Process, Equal Protection, and Substantive Due Process

    ARTICLES THE POLITICAL PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS Jesse H. Choper* Stephen F. Ross** ABSTRACT In its landmark decision in Carolene Products, the Supreme Court crafted a uniquely American solution to the counter-majoritarian dilemma present in any constitutional democracy: when unelected judges should substantively review policy choices made by elected legislators and executives. The political process theory underlying that decision is that a court with a history of decisions based on judicial ideology should limit close review of government actions to three situations: (1) when the action contravenes a specific provision of the Bill of Rights, (2) when the action threatens to improperly limit the political process, or (3) with regard to the broadly worded Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, when courts determine that the political process does not work normally. The Supreme Court has not faithfully implemented this approach over the years. However, neither Justices nor commentators have developed a superior alternative approach. We believe that most Americans ought to prefer a return to Carolene Products, as superior (either philosophically or because of risk aversion) to leaving important constitutional precedents subject to the vagaries of highly partisan politics. Our approach builds upon insights of Justices Harlan Fiske Stone, Robert Jackson, and Thurgood Marshall. First, courts should consider challenges initially under the Equal Protection Clause. Second, the category of cases warranting heightened judicial scrutiny should be expanded to include those in which claimants can prove that they are excluded from the Madisonian factional “wheeling and dealing” that characterizes ordinary politics. Third, substantive due process claims should remain available, but only where claimants can demonstrate that animus or prejudice precludes their ability to use the political process to redress their grievances.