DOCSLIB.ORG

AF J NOMINEE REPOR T U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AF J NOMINEE REPOR T U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit kevin AFJ NOMINEE REPORT AFJ newsom U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit WWW.AFJ.ORG CONTENTS Introduction, 1 context of newsom’s nomination, 1 biography, 2 legal career, 3 Death Penalty, 3 Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 5 Private Practice, 7 Additional writings, 8 Conclusion, 11 WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION CONTEXT OF On May 8, 2017, President Trump nominated Kevin Newsom to the Court of Appeals for NEWSOM’S the Eleventh Circuit. Newsom’s nomination was only possible because Senators Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby refused to return NOMINATION their blue slips for Abdul Kallon, currently a On October 26, 2013, Judge Joel Dubina federal district court judge in Alabama, whom took senior status and a vacancy arose President Obama nominated in February 2016. on the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judge Kallon would have been the first African Circuit. Each state in the circuit, which American to sit on the Court of Appeals from comprises Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, Alabama, yet did not even receive a hearing had at least one Republican Senator because the Judiciary Committee followed for the entirety of President Obama’s custom and did not act without the blue slips. presidency. In Florida and Georgia, senators were willing to work with the Newsom has served as Solicitor General President, and ultimately Beverly Martin of Alabama under now-federal judge (and (Georgia), Adalberto Jordan (Florida), extremely controversial nominee) William Pryor. Robin Rosenbaum (Florida), Julia Carnes As Solicitor General, Newsom had a record of (Georgia), and Jill Pryor (Georgia) were defending questionable death penalty practices confirmed to the court. in Alabama and advancing arguments which would curtail civil rights, including efforts to In contrast, Alabama’s senators, most limit critical protections under Title IX. As an notably now-Attorney General Jeff attorney, he has fought efforts by everyday Sessions, refused to work with President Americans trying to remedy wrongs committed Obama to fill seats.1 Early in 2016, Senator against them. He also has written critically Shelby dropped any pretext of cooperating of substantive due process, an essential with the President. He said of vacant constitutional doctrine for women’s rights and judgeships in Alabama, including on the LGBTQ rights, for example. Eleventh Circuit: “Let’s see if we can elect a conservative Republican and fill all those Given his record, Newsom, a member of the seats with Republicans.”2 Federalist Society, must demonstrate at his hearing that he can be a fair and apolitical Nonetheless, after years of Alabama judge rather than a far-right ideologue senators rebuffing the President’s efforts committed to an agenda of rolling back long- to negotiate on the Eleventh Circuit cherished constitutional rights. vacancy, in February 2016 President Obama nominated Abdul Kallon, a federal 1 Brandon Moseley, Shelby Speaks to MARC in Vestavia, Alabama Political Re- porter (Nov. 10, 2016), http://www.alreporter.com/shelby-speaks-to-marc-in-vestavia/. 2 Mary Troyan, New federal judges for Alabama unlikely, Montgomery Advertiser (June 30, 2016), http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/30/ new-federal-judges-alabama-unlikely/86565478/. WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 2 judge in the Northern District of Alabama, to fill the vacancy. Judge Kallon would have been the first African-American judge to sit on the biography Eleventh Circuit from Alabama, a potentially historic accomplishment in a state that has Kevin C. Newsom was born on September long been afflicted by slavery, segregation, 22, 1972 in Birmingham, Alabama. He and discrimination. Both Senators Sessions received his bachelor’s degree from and Shelby had previously supported Samford University and his J.D. from Kallon’s nomination to the Northern District of Harvard Law School, where he served Alabama. Senator Sessions praised him for on the Harvard Law Review.5 Following “his distinguished law career” as well as his law school he clerked for Judge Diarmuid “impressive legal credentials.” He spoke of his O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals 3 integrity, judgment, and legal ability.” When for the Ninth Circuit and Justice David Judge Kallon was nominated to the Eleventh Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court.6 Circuit, the ABA rated him unanimously well- qualified. Neither senator questioned Judge Newsom began his career in private Kallon’s record as a district judge nor raised any practice as an associate in Covington & 4 issue with his legal work. Burling’s appellate group in Washington, D.C, spending two years at the firm after Yet both senators refused to return their his Ninth Circuit clerkship and another two blue slip on Judge Kallon’s nomination to the after clerking for Justice Souter.7 Newsom Eleventh Circuit. And, consistent with the served as Solicitor General of Alabama for practice during the entire Obama presidency, four years from 2003 to 2007.8 Afterwards, in which there were no exceptions, no hearing Newsom returned to private practice as a was held on Judge Kallon’s nomination due to partner at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings the lack of blue slips. Because the Senate did LLP in Birmingham, where he has built a not act, Judge Kallon’s nomination was returned successful appellate practice. He was to the President when the Senate adjourned in appointed in 2011 and 2014 by Chief January 2017. Justice John Roberts to serve on the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules As Senator Shelby admitted, the reason of Appellate Procedure.9 that he and Sessions did not act on Judge Kallon’s nomination was purely partisan, so a Newsom has been a member of the “conservative Republican” could fill the seat. Federalist Society for almost two decades. And, indeed, on May 8, 2017, President Trump He has served as the President of the nominated Kevin Newsom to the vacancy. Birmingham Lawyers Chapter and been a member of the Executive Committee for Federalism and Separation of Powers. In addition to the Federalist Society, Newsom 3 Confirmation Hearings on Federal Appointments Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 5 See Kevin C. Newsom, Bradley, https://www.bradley.com/people/n/newsom-kev- 11th Cong. (2009) (statement of Jeff Sessions, Sen. Ala. on Nominee Abdul Kallon), available at in-c. https://www.congress.gov/111/chrg/shrg63004/CHRG-111shrg63004.htm. 6 Id. 4 See American Bar Association, Rating of Article III and Article IV Vacancies (Jan. 3, 2017), 7 Id. available at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/GAO/WebRatingC- 8 Id. hart114.authcheckdam.pdf. 9 Id. WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 3 is a member of the U.S. Chamber Litigation As Solicitor General, Newsom was Center and the American Law Institute.10 He responsible for all appeals in which has also served as an adjunct professor Alabama was a party before the U.S. at Georgetown University Law Center, the Supreme Court, the Alabama Supreme Cumberland School of Law, and Vanderbilt Law Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for School.11 the Eleventh Circuit. He was responsible for drafting and supervising all briefs and The process for how Newsom was selected amicus briefs and for presenting oral also bears noting. Chairman Grassley, in laying argument in those courts.14 In Alabama, the groundwork for potentially overturning the the Solicitor General serves at the pleasure blue slip tradition that kept Judge Kallon from of the Attorney General. Indeed, Newsom even receiving a hearing, has said that “[i]t’s was personally hired by William Pryor, much more a White House decision on circuit currently the only active Alabama judge judges.”12 Newsom’s nomination belies that on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.15 statement. In fact, Senator Shelby’s staff first Shortly after hand-picking Newsom to approached Newsom, and he first interviewed serve as his Solicitor General, Pryor was with Senators Sessions and Shelby, who one of President Bush’s most controversial recommended him to the White House. The nominees. He was declared “unfit to judge” White House did not interview him until several by both the Washington Post and the months later.13 Atlanta Journal Constitution (newspapers do not normally take a position on judicial nominations, but Pryor’s extreme record was impossible to ignore).16 Among his long LEGAL CAREER list of outrageous statements, Pryor called Roe v. Wade the “worst abomination in the Newsom has had three different positions history of constitutional law”17 and wrote in as a practicing attorney: as an associate at an amicus brief that “states should remain Covington & Burling for four years, as the free to protect the moral standards of Solicitor General of Alabama for four years, and their communities through legislation that as a partner at Bradley Arant for a decade. His prohibits homosexual sodomy.”18 most important legal work, almost exclusively focusing on appellate litigation, can likewise be I. DEATH PENALTY split up into three major buckets: death penalty cases, civil rights litigation, and pro-corporate From 1977 to 2013, Alabama sentenced defense work. He has a mixed track record more people to death per capita than any before the Supreme Court, having lost three of other state in the nation.19 As Solicitor the four cases he has argued. 14 See Solicitor General Division, State of Ala.: Office of the Att’y. General, http://www.ago.state.al.us/Page-Solicitor-General-Section. 15 Kevin Newsom, The State Solicitor General Boom, 32 App. Prac. Jnl. Upd. 6. 16 People for the American Way, In Opposition to the Confirmation of William 10 Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Kevin Christopher Newsom: Questionnaire for H. Pryor, Jr., 1 (2003), http://www.pfaw.org/report/william-pryor-unfit-to-judge/.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Religious Affiliations of Trump's Judicial Nominees
    The Religious Affiliations of Trump's Judicial Nominees U.S. Supreme Court Religion Federalist Society Member Neil Gorsuch Catholic/Episcopal Listed on his SJQ U.S. Court of Appeals Amul Thapar Catholic Former John K. Bush Episcopal Yes Kevin Newsom Yes Amy Coney Barrett Catholic Yes Joan Larsen Former David Stras Jewish Yes Allison H. Eid Yes Ralph R. Erickson Catholic Stephanos Bibas Eastern Orthodox Yes Michael B. Brennan Yes L. Steven Grasz Presbyterian (PCA) Yes Ryan Wesley Bounds Yes Elizabeth L. Branch Yes Stuart Kyle Duncan Catholic Yes Gregory G. Katsas Yes Don R. Willett Baptist James C. Ho U.S. District Courts David Nye Mormon Timothy J. Kelly Catholic Yes Scott L. Palk Trevor N. McFadden Anglican Yes Dabney L. Friedrich Episcopal Claria Horn Boom Michael Lawrence Brown William L. Campbell Jr. Presbyterian Thomas Farr Yes Charles Barnes Goodwin Methodist Mark Norris Episcopal Tommy Parker Episcopal William McCrary Ray II Baptist Eli J. Richardson Tripp Self Baptist Yes Annemarie Carney Axon Liles C. Burke Methodist Donald C Coggins Jr. Methodist Terry A. Doughty Baptist Michael J. Juneau Christian A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. Presbyterian Holly Lou Teeter Catholic Robert E. Wier Methodist R. Stan Baker Methodist Jeffrey Uhlman Beaverstock Methodist John W. Broomes Baptist Walter David Counts III Baptist Rebecca Grady Jennings Methodist Matthew J. Kacsmaryk Christian Yes, in college Emily Coody Marks Yes Jeffrey C. Mateer Christian Terry F. Moorer Christian Matthew S. Petersen Former Fernando Rodriguez Jr. Christian Karen Gren Scholer Brett Joseph Talley Christian Howard C Nielson, Jr. Daniel Desmond Domenico Barry W. Ashe Kurt D.
    [Show full text]
  • Ted Cruz Promoted Himself and Conservative Causes As Texas’ Solicito
    FORMER STATE SOLICITORS GENERAL AND OTHER STATE AG OFFICE ATTORNEYS WHO ARE ACTIVE JUDGES by Dan Schweitzer, Director and Chief Counsel, Center for Supreme Court Advocacy, National Association of Attorneys General March 18, 2021 Former State Solicitors General (and Deputy Solicitors General) Federal Courts of Appeals (11) Jeffrey Sutton – Sixth Circuit (Ohio SG) Timothy Tymkovich – Tenth Circuit (Colorado SG) Kevin Newsom – Eleventh Circuit (Alabama SG) Allison Eid – Tenth Circuit (Colorado SG) James Ho – Fifth Circuit (Texas SG) S. Kyle Duncan – Fifth Circuit (Louisiana SG) Andrew Oldham – Fifth Circuit (Texas Deputy SG) Britt Grant – Eleventh Circuit (Georgia SG) Eric Murphy – Sixth Circuit (Ohio SG) Lawrence VanDyke – Ninth Circuit (Montana and Nevada SG) Andrew Brasher – Eleventh Circuit (Alabama SG) State High Courts (6) Stephen McCullough – Virginia Supreme Court Nels Peterson – Georgia Supreme Court Gregory D’Auria – Connecticut Supreme Court John Lopez – Arizona Supreme Court Sarah Warren – Georgia Supreme Court Monica Marquez – Colorado Supreme Court (Deputy SG) State Intermediate Appellate Courts (8) Kent Cattani – Arizona Court of Appeals Karen King Mitchell – Missouri Court of Appeals Kent Wetherell – Florida Court of Appeals (Deputy SG) Scott Makar – Florida Court of Appeals Timothy Osterhaus – Florida Court of Appeals Peter Sacks – Massachusetts Court of Appeals Clyde Wadsworth – Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Gordon Burns – California Court of Appeal (Deputy SG) Federal District Court (11) Gary Feinerman – Northern
    [Show full text]
  • Investiture of Judge Roy K. Altman by Benjamin J
    The Historical Society of the U. S. Courts in the Eleventh Circuit 11th Circuit Historical News Volume XVI, Number 3 https://sites.google.com/site/circuit11history Winter 2019 Charles A. Pannell, Jr.: a profile By Marti A. Minor On Dec. 1, 2019, Judge Charles A. Charles A. Pannell, Sr., of the Georgia Pannell, Jr. marked his 20th year on Court of Appeals, who told his son the District Court for the Northern that being a judge is really quite District of Georgia. Before joining easy: “You just follow the law.” Of the federal bench, Pannell served course, he undoubtedly knew “the more than 20 years as a superior law” is often murky at best. But over court judge in Georgia’s Conasauga the last 40 years, his son has taken Judicial Circuit, which includes this brilliantly simple instruction Whitfield and Murray counties. from his father and combined it These four decades of public with his own common sense and service have included thousands of keen instinct for fairness to become written opinions, countless hours in a well-known and highly respected open court, instructions to legions trial judge in the state of Georgia. of jurors, and, most importantly, Pannell was born in Georgia, grew decisions, decisions, decisions. The up on a farm in Georgia, attended hallmark of any respected jurist is, public schools in Georgia and after all, well-reasoned decision- graduated from the University of making. For 40 years, Judge Pannell Georgia — undergraduate and law has fulfilled his responsibility to make school. His ancestors fought in the judicial decisions in a deliberate, For more than 40 years, Judge Charles A.
    [Show full text]
  • LECTURE Delivered June 5, 2018 No
    LECTURE DELIVERED JUNE 5, 2018 No. 1291 | SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 The Cardinal Virtues of Good Judging The Honorable Kevin Newsom Abstract: Let us be warriors for the jurisprudential values and ideals that matter most, among which I count objectivity—as enforced through Key Points faithful, rigorous attention to text and history—and humility, as evi- denced by a genuinely modest, Hamiltonian sense of the judge’s role in n As the Latin maxim goes, omne trium perfectum—“everything society. But let us be happy, winsome warriors, fighting fairly and with that comes in threes is perfect.” the common decency that the people of this great country have a right to The “holy trinity” of virtues com- expect from their judges. prises the following qualities, all of which are necessary to good efore I get into the meat of my talk, allow me one tiny digres- and effective judging: (1) objec- Bsion. For a long time now—initially as a law student, then as a tivity, (2) humility, and (3) civility. law clerk and practicing lawyer, now as a judge—and always as a n Objectivity entails a commit- citizen—I have cared deeply about the country’s justice system and ment to both evenhandedness— its courts. The Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, and a that is, impartiality—and an number of other similar groups have long played a vital role—per- “intrinsic rightness.” haps never more so than during the last few years—in identifying n Humility pertains both to: (1) the and promoting truly outstanding candidates for the federal bench.
    [Show full text]
  • Declarations for the Next Supreme Court Justice
    For years, intercessors have been praying about the potential justices that could and would fill the seats of our aging Supreme Court justices. With the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court may look different for the first time in decades. Will President Trump nominate a candidate? Will the Senate move forward? Will we see riots and violence from the left in reaction if they do? All of this needs our fervent prayer. The focus of this Special Report is three-fold. First, we will pray for wisdom and guidance for our President and his ad- ministration in this situation. Second, we encourage you to pray for each of the nominees who are currently on the list of candidates for Supreme Court justice, as recently released by President Trump. Third, pray for our nation and the pro- cess of appointing the next Supreme Court justice. It will be contentious. GOD IS IN THE TIMING Incidentally, Ginsburg died and left this vacancy on Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year—a day of new beginnings. Is this a new beginning for the Supreme Court and perhaps a turning point for our nation? In preparation for an open seat that may occur at any time, a faithful group of believers have been interceding regu- larly for the seats that could be vacated. Seeking God, claiming those seats for God’s chosen judges, is the focus of this small dedicated group of intercessors. Called to intercede particularly for the Supreme Court, these lawyers, lead- ers, and intercessors are well-informed on the happenings of the Court and its processes and the potential candidates who may be put forth by the nominating Administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump's Takeover of the Courts
    University of St. Thomas Law Journal Volume 16 Issue 2 Who Decides? Picking Judges in the Article 3 21st Century April 2020 Trump's Takeover of the Courts Lena Zwarensteyn Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustlj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Legal Profession Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Lena Zwarensteyn, Trump's Takeover of the Courts, 16 U. ST. THOMAS L.J. 146 (2020). Available at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustlj/vol16/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UST Research Online and the University of St. Thomas Law Journal. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\U\UST\16-2\UST203.txt unknown Seq: 1 16-APR-20 15:37 ARTICLE TRUMP’S TAKEOVER OF THE COURTS LENA ZWARENSTEYN* I. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 146 R II. TRUMP’S FIXATION ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY ............ 147 R III. RIGGING THE JUDICIAL SELECTION AND NOMINATION PROCESS ................................................. 151 R A. The Judicial Selection and Nominations Process ....... 151 R B. Breaking Norms ..................................... 153 R C. Discarding Consultation and Blue Slips ............... 155 R D. Limiting Inquiry: Stacked and Sham Hearings ......... 158 R E. Speedy Confirmations ................................ 159 R IV. TAKING OVER THE COURTS ............................... 161 R A. Extreme Conservative Ideology ....................... 162 R B. Astonishing Lack of Representation and Diversity ..... 168 R C. Incompetence ........................................ 170 R 1. Lack of Experience ............................... 170 R 2. Judicial Temperament and Bias ................... 173 R 3. Hidden Records and Omissions ................... 175 R V.
    [Show full text]
  • Federalist Society, Applies a Double Standard, and Leads to Troubling Consequences
    March 18, 2020 Robert P. Deyling Assistant General Counsel Administrative Office of the United States Courts One Columbus Circle, NE Washington, D.C. 20544 Dear Mr. Deyling: We write to express our deep concern with the exposure draft of Advisory Opinion No. 117, recently issued by the Judicial Conference’s Code of Conduct Committee. We believe the exposure draft conflicts with the Code of Conduct, misunderstands the Federalist Society, applies a double standard, and leads to troubling consequences. The circumstances surrounding the issuance of the exposure draft also raise serious questions about the Committee’s internal procedures and transparency. We strongly urge the Committee to withdraw the exposure draft. Judges have long participated in and contributed to our robust legal community. The Judicial Code of Conduct urges that judges “not become isolated from the society in which [we] live[].”1 To that end, Canon 4 of the Code allows judges to serve as members—and even officers—of “nonprofit organization[s] devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.”2 The commentary to Canon 4 “encourage[s]” judges to “contribute to the law” through membership in “a bar association, judicial conference, or other organization dedicated to the law,” including those focused on “revising substantive and procedural law.” For good reason. We are all better served when judges expose themselves to a wide array of legal ideas. And we would like to think that those organizations benefit from having judges participate in them. 1 Canon 4 Commentary. 2 Canon 4(A)(3). Moreover, Canon 4 authorizes judicial participation in community affairs more broadly: “A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects.” Membership in the Federalist Society is wholly consistent with the Code.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump's Judicial Assault on Lgbt Protections
    SPECIAL REPORT 2019 TRUMP’S JUDICIAL ASSAULT ON LGBT PROTECTIONS AFTER THREE YEARS OF TRUMP NOMINEES, BIAS AND BIGOTRY REMAIN THE NORM INTRODUCTION AS WE NEAR THE END OF THE THIRD YEAR OF THE TRUMP-PENCE ADMINISTRATION, THE PROMISE OF A FAIR AND INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY HAS COME UNDER INCREASING THREAT. The Trump Administration, enabled by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, and advised by a powerful but shrouded network of right wing organizations, has worked tirelessly to confirm ideologically driven judges to lifetime appointments in order to further their ultra- conservative policy objectives through the Federal courts. As an organization that has defended the rights of LGBT people in the courts for over 40 years, Lambda Legal believes that it has an obligation to the communities that we serve to sound the alarm about the impact that these nominees will have on the ability of LGBT people to receive fair and impartial justice. THREE KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM OUR ANALYSIS 1 After three years, the overall story remains the same; over 1 in 3 of Trump’s circuit court nominees (36%) have a demonstrated history of anti-LGBT bias. This year they included: Steven Menashi, who supported banning LGB people from the military and denigrated the marriage equality ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. Lawrence Van Dyke who claimed that marriage equality harms children and society. Eric Murphy, who argued the opposing side in Obergefell v. Hodges. Chad Readler, who had his fingerprints on almost every Trump-Pence initiative seeking to undermine LGBT protections while serving in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears: the Devastating Harm Already Done by Confirmed Trump Federal Judges
    Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears: The Devastating Harm Already Done by Confirmed Trump Federal Judges October 2018 A key pledge by Donald Trump that helped him capture the presidency was his promise to work with allies in the Senate, the Federalist Society, and elsewhere to transform the federal judiciary by appointing far-right judges to lifetime federal judicial posts. This includes not only the Supreme Court, but also lower federal courts, particularly the federal courts of appeal, which are the courts of last resort in the vast majority of cases. Such appointments not only fulfill a campaign pledge, but they also help advance the Right’s longstanding goal of using the courts to advance a political agenda that benefits corporations, the wealthy and powerful over the interests of all Americans. That means packing the courts with narrow-minded elitist judges who will dismantle the New Deal and federal protections for the health, safety and welfare of all Americans as well as undermine other fundamental rights, like reproductive freedom, voting rights, and LGBTQ rights. Unfortunately, Trump has so far kept this promise. In less than two years, with the help of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, judge pickers in the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, and dark money spenders like the Judicial Crisis Network, and many others, Trump has placed two far-right nominees onto the Supreme Court. In addition, the Republican goal of “[f]illing out” the lower courts “with an army of conservative jurists” has seen an “historic” number of such judges placed on the bench for life—as of October 15, 53 trial court judges and 29 powerful appellate judges, totaling 84 altogether.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Full Report
    Trump’s Attacks on Our Justice System: 2017 - 2019 1 Contents Executive Summary 3 President Trump’s Impact on the Courts 5 Trump’s Impact by the Numbers 12 Undermining Democracy: Siding with the Wealthy and Powerful Over Everyday Americans 15 Thwarting Public Protections for Health and Safety 15 Access to Affordable Health Care 17 Worker Protections 18 Environmental Protections 19 Gun Violence 19 Education 20 Consumer Rights 21 Eroding Civil Rights and Equality Protections 22 People of Color 22 Women’s Equality and Reproductive Justice 24 LGBTQ Equality 26 Persons with Disabilities 27 Immigrant Rights 29 Native American Rights 30 Undermining Our Democracy 31 Executive Power 33 Degrading of the Senate’s Advice and Consent Duty 35 Changing Senate Rules to Confirm Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh 35 ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE 2 Contents Sullying the Process to Confirm Kavanaugh 35 Changing Senate Rules and Norms to Confirm Lower Court Nominees 37 Hiding and Obscuring Key Data 39 Misleading the Senate 40 Hearings Stacked to Minimize Vetting 42 Condoning Nominees who Lack Basic Qualifications 42 Future Outlook 44 Progressives are Increasingly Galvanized 44 Progressives Will Be Ready On January 1, 2021 45 Progress Was Made on Supreme Court Ethics Reform 46 Appendix 47 Appendices current as of January 13, 2020. Updated appendices available on our website. Alliance for Justice is a national association of over 120 organizations, representing a broad array of groups committed to progressive values and the creation of an equitable, just, and free society. Since 1979, AFJ has been the leader in advocating for a fair and independent justice system, preserving access to the courts, and empowering others to stand up and fight for their causes.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision Making in Us Federal Specialized
    THE CONSEQUENCES OF SPECIALIZATION: DECISION MAKING IN U.S. FEDERAL SPECIALIZED COURTS Ryan J. Williams A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the College of Arts and Sciences. Chapel Hill 2019 Approved by: Kevin T. McGuire Isaac Unah Jason M. Roberts Virginia Gray Brett W. Curry © 2019 Ryan J. Williams ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Ryan J. Williams: The Consequences of Specialization: Decision Making in U.S. Federal Specialized Courts (Under the direction of Kevin T. McGuire) Political scientists have devoted little attention to the role of specialized courts in the United States federal and state judicial systems. At the federal level, theories of judicial decision making and institutional structures widely accepted in discussions of the U.S. Supreme Court and other generalist courts (the federal courts of appeals and district courts) have seen little examination in the context of specialized courts. In particular, scholars are just beginning to untangle the relationship between judicial expertise and decision making, as well as to understand how specialized courts interact with the bureaucratic agencies they review and the litigants who appear before them. In this dissertation, I examine the consequences of specialization in the federal judiciary. The first chapter introduces the landscape of existing federal specialized courts. The second chapter investigates the patterns of recent appointments to specialized courts, focusing specifically on how the qualifications of specialized court judges compare to those of generalists. The third chapter considers the role of expertise in a specialized court, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and argues that expertise enhances the ability for judges to apply their ideologies to complex, technical cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinions of Trump Appellate Judges on Trump Supreme Court Short List
    Opinions of Trump Appellate Judges on Trump Supreme Court Short List Eight of the 37 Trump judges on the federal courts of appeals are also on Trump’s “short list” from which, he has stated, he will select any future Supreme Court justices. The opinions written or joined by these eight Trump judges are very troubling, and it would raise serious concerns if any of these judges receive a Supreme Court nomination. Each such opinion is discussed briefly below, with a link to the more detailed explanation in the relevant PFAW Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears report. Don Willett (5th Circuit) Along with Trump judges Ho, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Willett voted to allow a devastating Louisiana anti-choice law to take effect, a decision that was temporarily reversed by a 5-4 Supreme Court vote in which Gorsuch and Kavanaugh dissented. Willett cast the deciding vote to give Trump the power to fire the head of an independent housing finance agency set up by Congress. Willett cast the deciding vote to affirm a longer prison term for an immigrant, despite a finding of plain error and a dissent by a Bush appointee. Along with Trump judges Ho, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Willett strongly urged reconsideration of a ruling that upheld a federal gun safety law. Along with Trump judge Ho, Willett voted to excuse a police department’s decision to conceal evidence and to reverse a damages verdict for a falsely imprisoned innocent man. Amul Thapar and Joan Larsen (6th Circuit) Along with Trump judges Bush and Nalbandian, Judges Thapar and Larsen cast deciding votes to uphold Ohio’s law barring funding to Planned Parenthood for health care because it provides abortions with non-state funds.
    [Show full text]