DOCSLIB.ORG

Here Are Many Accounts of Such Unity and Mutual Encouragement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

HARVARD JOURNAL of LAW & PUBLIC POLICY VOLUME 43, NUMBER 3 SUMMER 2020 ESSAYS THE ROLE OF THE EXECUTIVE William P. Barr ........................................................................ 605 CIVIC CHARITY AND THE CONSTITUTION Thomas B. Griffith ................................................................... 633 ARTICLES SIXTH AMENDMENT FEDERALISM Louis J. Capozzi III ................................................................. 645 TAKING ANOTHER LOOK AT THE CALL ON THE FIELD: ROE, CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, AND STARE DECISIS Thomas J. Molony .................................................................... 733 NOTE DEATH QUALIFICATION AND THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY: AN ORIGINALIST ASSESSMENT Douglas Colby ......................................................................... 815 HARVARD JOURNAL of LAW & PUBLIC POLICY Editor-in-Chief NICOLE M. BAADE Deputy Editor-in-Chief Articles Chair R.J. MCVEIGH Managing Editors JACOB THACKSTON HUGH DANILACK AARON GYDE Executive Editors Senior Articles Editors ALEX CAVE AARON HSU DOUGLAS COLBY Deputy Managing Editors KEVIN KOLJACK ANASTASIA FRANE MAX BLOOM RYAN MAK JOSHUA HA CHASE BROWNDORF JAMES MCGLONE ADAM KING JOHN KETCHAM JOEY MONTGOMERY BRIAN KULP STUART SLAYTON WHITNEY LEETS Articles Editors ANNA LUKINA Chief Financial Officer NICK CORDOVA JOHN MITZEL DYLAN SOARES JAMIN DOWDY JASJAAP SIDHU AARON HENRICKS BRYAN SOHN Deputy Chief Financial Officer JASON MUEHLHOFF DOUG STEPHENS IV COOPER GODFREY ALEX RIDDLE MATTHEW WEINSTEIN OLIVER ROBERTS Communications Manager JAY SCHAEFER Notes Editors WENTAO ZHAI JESSICA TONG DAVIS CAMPBELL TRUMAN WHITNEY BRIAN KULP Events Manager VINCENT WU TRUMAN WHITNEY Website Manager Social Chair MARK GILLESPIE JAY SCHAEFER Senior Editors JOHN BAILEY AARON HENRICKS OLIVER ROBERTS VINCENT WU NICK CORDOVA JOHN MORRISON JAY SCHAEFER WENTAO ZHAI JAMIN DOWDY JASON MUEHLHOFF ISAAC SOMMERS ROBERT FARMER ALEXANDRA MUSHKA JESSICA TONG ALEXANDER GUERIN ALEX RIDDLE AARON WARD Editors JOHN ACTON JUAN FARAH JAKE KRAMER BRYAN POELLOT JASON ALTABET WILLIAM FLANAGAN BENJAMIN LEE NATHAN RAAB MATT BENDISZ CATHERINE FRAPPIER MAGD LHROOB JACOB RICHARDS AUGUST BRUSCHINI CHRISTOPHER HALL KEVIN LIE BENJAMIN SALVATORE ALAN CHAN JACOB HARCAR PRANAV MULPUR ADAM SHARF CATHERINE COLE CHRISTIAN HECHT DANIEL MUMMOLO DUNN WESTHOFF JONATHAN DEWITT ROSS HILDABRAND ELI NACHMANY ASHLEY VAUGHAN TYLER DOBBS MARIA HURYN CARSON PARKS JUSTIN YIM RYAN DUNBAR ALEXANDER KHAN HUNTER PEARL Founded by E. Spencer Abraham & Steven J. Eberhard BOARD OF ADVISORS E. Spencer Abraham, Founder Steven G. Calabresi Douglas R. Cox Jennifer W. Elrod Charles Fried Douglas H. Ginsburg Orrin Hatch Jonathan R. Macey Michael W. McConnell Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain Jeremy A. Rabkin Hal S. Scott David B. Sentelle Bradley Smith Jerry E. Smith THE HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY RECEIVES NO FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM HARVARD LAW SCHOOL OR HARVARD UNIVERSITY. IT IS FUNDED EXCLUSIVELY BY SUBSCRIPTION REVENUES AND PRIVATE CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS. The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. ISSN 0193-4872. Nonprofit postage prepaid at Lincoln, Nebraska and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. Yearly subscription rates: United States, $55.00; foreign, $75.00. Subscriptions are renewed automatically unless a request for discontinuance is received. The Journal welcomes the submission of articles and book reviews. Each manuscript should be typed double-spaced, preferably in Times New Roman 12-point typeface. Authors submit manuscripts electronically to [email protected], preferably prepared using Microsoft Word. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Society or of its officers, directors, editors, members, or staff. Unless otherwise indicated, all editors are students at the Harvard Law School. Copyright © 2020 by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc. PREFACE COVID-19 has created a pandemic unprecedented in modern times. Schools, businesses, restaurants, and even churches have closed their doors to limit the spread of the virus. Many of life’s most cherished events, including weddings, graduations, births, baptisms, and, perhaps most tragically, funerals, have been postponed, conducted virtually, or limited to only immediate family members. It is times like these that can bring us together as a nation in thought, prayer, word, and action. And there are many accounts of such unity and mutual encouragement. However, the pandemic has also highlighted the divisive parti- san rhetoric that unfortunately characterizes this country—a divisiveness that threatens, among other things, our constitu- tional structure and the liberty it guards. In this Issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, we have the honor of publishing two Essays based on speeches addressing constitutional concerns related to partisanship in this country. In one, Judge Thomas Griffith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit laments the loss of civic charity— the “spirit of amity” and “mutual deference” as George Washington put it—that helped forge the Constitution and is required to maintain it. In another, Attorney General of the United States William Barr—in the Nineteenth Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture at the Federalist Society’s 2019 National Lawyers Convention—condemns partisan attacks on the executive power that the Framers enshrined in the Constitution, particularly those directed against President Donald Trump’s Administration. He warns, “In this partisan age, we should take special care not to allow the passions of the moment to cause us to permanently disfigure the genius of our constitu- tional structure.” Special thanks are due the editors from other law schools who volunteered to stay on for yet another issue to prepare Attorney General Barr’s speech for publication. We could not have published it without their outstanding work. We are delighted to follow these Essays with two excellent Articles on current legal issues. The first Article, by Louis Capozzi, is a fifty-state survey of the right to appointed counsel in misdemeanor cases and shows that many states have pro- Preface ii vided a broader right to counsel than that required by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Capozzi provides a di- verse array of approaches to misdemeanor justice that states may consider instead of a one-size-fits-all approach. In the sec- ond Article, Professor Thomas Molony traces the history of opinions written or joined by Chief Justice Roberts in cases in- volving stare decisis with an eye to how the Chief Justice might rule in a case challenging Roe v. Wade. He concludes that the Chief Justice’s devotion to judicial restraint and the rule of law would lead him to vote in favor of overruling Roe only if a chal- lenged abortion regulation cannot be upheld on narrower grounds and if reaffirming Roe would cause more harm to the Constitution than casting the abortion question out of federal courts and back to the States. Finally, we have the pleasure of publishing one of our own in this Issue. In another piece on the Sixth Amendment, Douglas Colby argues that death qualification—the process of removing potential jurors who are unwilling to impose the death penalty— does not violate an originalist understanding of the the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. I end this preface of my last Issue on a more personal note. It has been a true honor to serve as Editor-in-Chief of this excep- tional journal. The Journal has been my home since my first year of law school. As Editor-in-Chief, I have seen all of the hard work and dedication that editors put into this journal at every stage. More than that, I have the privilege of calling each and every member of this journal not only a classmate and col- league, but a friend. It is bittersweet to be graduating and leav- ing behind my work on the Journal, but I am confident the next masthead will continue its legacy of excellence, and I look for- ward to seeing the bright futures of all of its members unfold. Nicole M. Baade Editor-in-Chief THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY presents The Nineteenth Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture Featuring Attorney General William P. Barr The Role of the Executive November 15, 2019 The staff acknowledges the assistance of the following members of the Federalist Society in preparing this speech for publication: National Editor Hugh Danilack Harvard Law School Executive Editors Michael R. Wajda Timothy J. Whittle Duke University School of Law University of Virginia School of Law General Editors Cameron L. Atkinson Cody Ray Milner Quinnipiac Univeristy School of Law George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School Sarah Christensen George Mason University Ashle Page Antonin Scalia Law School University of North Carolina Law School Mary Colleen Fowler Steven M. Petrillo II University of Kansas School of Law Rutgers Law School—Camden Stacy Hanson Cynthia M. Tannar University of Illinois College of Law Georgetown University Law Center Kelly L. Krause Nicholas J. Walter Marquette University Law School Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Abbey Lee University of Kansas School of Law THE ROLE OF THE EXECUTIVE WILLIAM P. BARR* Good Evening. Thank you all for being here. And thank you to Gene Meyer for
Recommended publications
  • A Bibliography for the United States Courts of Appeals

    A Bibliography for the United States Courts of Appeals

    Florida International University College of Law eCollections Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1994 A Bibliography for the United States Courts of Appeals Thomas E. Baker Florida International University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Courts Commons, and the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Thomas E. Baker, A Bibliography for the United States Courts of Appeals , 25 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 335 (1994). Available at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications/152 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A BmLIOGRAPHY FOR THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS· by Thomas E. Baker" If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice. - Learned Handl This Bibliography was compiled for a book by the present author entitled, RATIONING JUSTICE ON ApPEAL - THE PROBLEMS OF THE V.S. COURTS OF APPEALS, published in 1994 by the West Publishing Company. That book is a general inquiry into the question whether the United States Courts of Appeals have broken Judge Hand's commandment already and, if not, whether the Congress and the Courts inevitably will be forced to yield to the growing temptation to ration justice on appeal. After a brief history of the intermediate federal courts, the book describes the received tradition and the federal appellate ideal. The book next explains the "crisis in volume," the consequences from the huge docket growth experienced in the Courts of Appeals since the 1960s and projected to continue for the foreseeable future.
  • Judicial Clerkship Handbook 2013

    Judicial Clerkship Handbook 2013

    Career Services Office | CLERKSHIPS JUDICIAL CLERKSHIP HANDBOOK 2013 - 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview of the Clerkship Program 2 Should I Seek a Clerkship? 3 Where Should I Apply to Clerk? 4 Type of Court 5 State Courts 5 Federal Courts 6 Federal District Court 7 Federal Appellate Court 7 Clerkships with Specialized Courts 8 Bankruptcy Courts 8 U.S. Magistrate Judges 8 U.S. Claims Court 9 U.S. Tax Court 9 Federal Circuit 9 U.S. Court of International Trade 9 U.S. Supreme Court 10 How Do I Apply for Clerkships? 11 Clerkship Application Materials 12 Cover Letter and Resume 13 Transcripts 14 Writing Sample 15 Letters of Recommendation 16 Envelopes and Labels 17 Step-by-Step Instructions 18 Clerkship Interviews, Offers and Acceptances 22 APPENDICES Appendix A: Timeline and Checklist Appendix B: USC Law School Graduates & Students with Clerkships Appendix C: USC Faculty Who Clerked Appendix D: California State Court Hiring Practices Appendix E: Optional Recommender Questionnaire Appendix F: Resources for Researching Judges and Courts Appendix G: Loan Repayment Assistance Program Appendix H: Supplemental Readings Appendix I: Sample Cover Letters Appendix J: Form of Address Appendix K: Mail-Merge Instructions Table of Contents OVERVIEW OF THE CLERKSHIP PROGRAM A judicial clerkship can be a very rewarding work experience for a recent law graduate, and it is a great way to begin your legal career in almost any area of practice. The Law School and the Clerkship Committee strongly support our students’ efforts to apply for judicial clerkships through several means, including the following: ASSIGNING YOU A CLERKSHIP ADVISOR If you participate in the Clerkship Program, we will assign a member of the Clerkship Committee or the Career Services Office to be your advisor throughout the application process.
  • ADVOCATE.Fall 2015.FINAL MASTER

    ADVOCATE.Fall 2015.FINAL MASTER

    Illustrious Firsts I Monumental Legacies I Scholarships Pay It Forward I Then and Now: Starting Law School TheADVOCATE LEWIS & CLARK LAW SCHOOL I PORTLAND, OREGON I FALL 2015 CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION! Alumni Board of Directors Board of Visitors 2015-16 Table of Contents 2015-16 John E. Bates Features Matthew P. Bergman ’89 Tonya Alexander ’01 Illustrious Firsts: A Timeline . 10 Sidney K. Billingslea ’84 Katheryn Bradley ’86 Monumental Legacies . 16 Bowen Blair ’80 Coby Dolan ’99 Paying It Forward With Scholarships . 20 Monte Bricker Dan Eller ’04, President Then and Now: Starting Law School . 21 Jerry F. Carleton ’07 Courtney Flora ’98 Windows Into the Past . 24 Adina Flynn ’96, Past President Ying Chen ’95 The Right Dean for the Times . 28 David Hittle ’74 Jonathan B. Cole ’76 Three Eminent Ties to Apron Strings . 32 Thomas C. Jensen ’83 Bruce I. Crocker ’76 Centennial Celebration Weekend . 36 Jeannie Lee ’08 Victoria E. Cumings ’04 Honor Roll of Donors . 58 Molly Marcum ’82 Jeffrey B. Curtis ’86 Hon. Keith Meisenheimer ’76 Stephen A. Doherty ’84 Departments Sarah Melton ’08 Barnes H. Ellis Events in the News . 2 Ajit Phadke ’98, Vice President David A. Ernst ’85 Commencement. 6 Justin Sawyer ’01 M. Carr Ferguson Faculty and Staff News . 38 Kenneth “KC” Schefski ’99 Paul T. Fortino Class Notes . 46 Heather Self ’01 Hon. Julie E. Frantz ’75 In Memoriam . 56 Jason Wilson-Aguilar ’96 Hon. Susan P. Graber D. Lawrence Wobbrock ’77 Gary I. Grenley ’75 Volume 38, Number 1, Fall 2015 Edwin A. Harnden The Advocate Recent Graduate Christine Helmer ’74 Lewis &Clark Law School Council Steven J.
  • Third Circuit

    Third Circuit

    Full_Name City State Last_Name Next Clerkship Opening Accepting Applications Mail, Email or OSCAR? Post Grad Experience? Notes Thomas L. Ambro Wilmington DE Ambro 2021 posted on OSCAR online preferred Stephanos Bibas Philadelphia PA Bibas 2020 and 2021 posted on OSCAR online, email, do not send paper preferred Michael A. Chagares Newark NJ Chagares 2022 posted on OSCAR online, paper requires district court clerkship Robert E. Cowen Trenton NJ Cowen No longer hiring term clerks n/a n/a D. Michael Fisher Pittsburgh PA Fisher 2020 posted on OSCAR online May be reducing workload/going to 2021 but not accepting applications 3 clerks. Does not want paper Julio M. Fuentes Newark NJ Fuentes now no online prefers prior clerkship or work experience applications, will post on OSCAR Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. Newark NJ Greenaway 2020 yes paper requires one year post-grad work experience not hiring at this time, no other Morton I. Greenberg Trenton NJ Greenberg information no paper prefers prior clerkship Thomas M. Hardiman Pittsburgh PA Hardiman 2020 posted on OSCAR online Kent A. Jordan Wilmington DE Jordan 2021 yes paper Cheryl Ann Krause Philadelphia PA Krause 2021 posted on OSCAR online prefers prior clerkship Paul Matey Newark NJ Matey 2021 posted on OSCAR mail, email preferred Prefers candidates with a public interest background and work Theodore A. McKee Philadelphia PA McKee not accepting applications no paper experience Richard Lowell Nygaard Erie PA Nygaard No longer hiring term clerks n/a n/a David J. Porter Pittsburgh PA Porter 2020, 2021, 2022 posted on OSCAR online, paper, email May be reducing workload/going to Marjorie O.
  • March 12, 2013

    March 12, 2013

    REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES March 12, 2013 The Judicial Conference of the United States convened in Washington, D.C., on March 12, 2013, pursuant to the call of the Chief Justice of the United States issued under 28 U.S.C. § 331. The Chief Justice presided, and the following members of the Conference were present: First Circuit: Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch Judge Paul J. Barbadoro, District of New Hampshire Second Circuit: Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon, Eastern District of New York Third Circuit: Chief Judge Theodore A. McKee Judge Joel A. Pisano,1 District of New Jersey Fourth Circuit: Chief Judge William B. Traxler, Jr. Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow, District of Maryland 1Designated by the Chief Justice as a substitute for Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster, Western District of Pennsylvania, who was unable to attend. Judicial Conference of the United States March 12, 2013 Fifth Circuit: Chief Judge Carl E. Stewart Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance, Eastern District of Louisiana Sixth Circuit: Chief Judge Alice M. Batchelder Chief Judge Thomas A. Varlan, Eastern District of Tennessee Seventh Circuit: Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook Judge Ruben Castillo, Northern District of Illinois Eighth Circuit: Chief Judge William Jay Riley Judge Rodney W. Sippel, Eastern District of Missouri Ninth Circuit: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski Judge Robert S. Lasnik, Western District of Washington Tenth Circuit: Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe Judge Dee V. Benson, District of Utah Eleventh Circuit: Chief Judge Joel F. Dubina Judge W. Louis Sands, Middle District of Georgia 2 Judicial Conference of the United States March 12, 2013 District of Columbia Circuit: Chief Judge Merrick B.
  • The Face of the Law School

    The Face of the Law School

    The University of Virginia School of Law UVALawyer Fall 2004 The Face of the Law School The University of Virginia School of Law contents UVALawyer Fall 2004 Vol. 28, No. 2 Departments 3 Dean’s Message 4 Law School News 22 Faculty Briefs 4 57 Class Notes 82 In Memoriam 84 In Print 88 Opinion: 32 Corporate Diversity is Invaluable and Incomplete Charles Tribbett III ’80 Features 32 A Man for the Season: Don Yee ’87 Cullen Couch 38 38 Center Sparks Dialogue on Race and Law Denise Forster EDITOR Cullen Couch 42 Behind the Scenes of Brown: E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr. ’53 ASSOCIATE EDITOR Denise Forster Cullen Couch CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Margaret Heritage, Earthen Johnson, Luana Mendes-Martinez, 48 Bakke Revisited Mike Marshall, Mary Wood John C. Jeffries, Jr. ’73 DESIGN roseberries 52 Klarman Offers New Argument on Origin and Effects of Brown PHOTOGRAPHY Tom Cogill Cullen Couch ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY Ian Bradshaw, Cullen Couch, Susan Baker Kalergis PRINTING Schmitz Press Department text starts here after head 2 Spring2004 dean’s message The Face of the Law School I John C. Jeffries, Jr. ’73 This issue of UVALawyer celebrates diversity in the Law School. Diversity, of course, has many dimensions. Perhaps the most important — and certainly the most disputed — is use of diversi- ty as a factor in admissions. At the Law School, assessments of individual applicants begin with intellectual aptitude and academic achievement. We also look for accomplishments and experiences that predict success. These include significant achievement in extracurricular activities, meaningful work experience, successful military service, and contributions to campus or community through service and leadership.
  • Nonparty Insurers in Federal Civil Actions: Civil

    Nonparty Insurers in Federal Civil Actions: Civil

    NONPARTY INSURERS IN FEDERAL CIVIL ACTIONS: THE NEED FOR NEW WRITTEN CIVIL PROCEDURE LAWS JEFFREY A. PARNESSt TAIT J. LUNDGRENtt I. INTRODUCTION ................................... 191 II. THE TREATMENT OF NONPARTY CLAIMS AND NONCLAIM MATTERS IN WRITTEN FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION LAW S .............................................. 192 III. COMPELLING THE ATTENDANCE OF NONPARTY INSURERS AT SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES ................................... 198 IV. RESOLVING THE SUBROGATION CLAIMS OF NONPARTY INSURERS AGAINST THEIR IN SUREDS ......................................... 204 V. REFORMING OTHER CIVIL PROCEDURE LAWS INVOLVING NONPARTY INSURERS .............. 206 VI. CONCLUSION ..................................... 210 I. INTRODUCTION Written laws guiding civil actions in the federal district courts chiefly address the presentation, preparation and resolution of claims involving parties. However, the courts often also consider claims in- volving nonparties as well as nonclaim matters involving parties and nonparties alike. Guidelines here mainly appear in federal precedents and, to a lesser extent, in local court rules. They often follow in-state court practices. The absence of written general laws for nonparty claims and nonclaim matters often leads to unnecessary confusion and t Jeffrey A. Parness is a professor of law at Northern Illinois University. He holds a Juris Doctorate from the University of Chicago and a Bachelor of Arts from Colby College. tt Tait J. Lundgren is a second-year law student at Northern Illinois University. He holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Dayton. CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 36 unfair procedures.' New, generally applicable written guidelines could help reduce uncertainty and promote fairness. 2 To exemplify, we shall particularly explore possible reforms in settlement conference settings where the interests of nonparty insur- ers are at stake, as well as in adjudicatory settings where nonparty insurers seek recoveries from proceeds obtained by their insureds as party claimants.
  • Honorable Nathan L. Hecht Chief Justice of Texas PRESIDENT-ELECT

    Honorable Nathan L. Hecht Chief Justice of Texas PRESIDENT-ELECT

    Last Revised June 2021 PRESIDENT: Honorable Nathan L. Hecht Chief Justice of Texas PRESIDENT-ELECT: Honorable Paul A. Suttell Chief Justice of Rhode Island ALABAMA ARKANSAS Honorable Tom Parker Honorable John Dan Kemp Chief Justice Chief Justice Alabama Supreme Court Supreme Court of Arkansas 300 Dexter Avenue Justice Building Montgomery, AL 36104-3741 625 Marshall St. (334) 229-0600 FAX (334) 229-0535 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-6873 FAX (501) 683-4006 ALASKA CALIFORNIA Honorable Joel H. Bolger Chief Justice Honorable Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice 303 K Street, 5th Floor Supreme Court of California Anchorage, AK 99501 350 McAllister Street (907) 264-0633 FAX (907) 264-0632 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 865-7060 FAX (415) 865-7181 AMERICAN SAMOA COLORADO Honorable F. Michael Kruse Chief Justice Honorable Brian D. Boatright The High Court of American Samoa Chief Justice Courthouse, P.O. Box 309 Colorado Supreme Court Pago Pago, AS 96799 2 East 14th Avenue 011 (684) 633-1410 FAX 011 (684) 633-1318 Denver, CO 80203-2116 (720) 625-5410 FAX (720) 271-6124 ARIZONA CONNECTICUT Honorable Robert M. Brutinel Chief Justice Honorable Richard A. Robinson Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice 1501 W. Washington Street, Suite 433 State of Connecticut Supreme Court Phoenix, AZ 85007-3222 231 Capitol Avenue (602) 452-3531 FAX (602) 452-3917 Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 757-2113 FAX (860) 757-2214 1 Last Revised June 2021 DELAWARE HAWAII Honorable Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Honorable Mark E. Recktenwald Chief Justice Chief Justice Supreme Court of Delaware Supreme Court of Hawaii The Renaissance Centre 417 South King Street 405 N.
  • Freedom of Thought, Offensive Fantasies and the Fundamental Human Right to Hold Deviant Ideas: Why the Seventh Circuit Got It Wrong in Doe V

    Freedom of Thought, Offensive Fantasies and the Fundamental Human Right to Hold Deviant Ideas: Why the Seventh Circuit Got It Wrong in Doe V

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UNH Scholars' Repository The University of New Hampshire Law Review Volume 3 Article 3 Number 2 Pierce Law Review 5-1-2005 Freedom of Thought, Offensive Fantasies and the Fundamental Human Right to Hold Deviant Ideas: Why the Seventh Circuit Got it Wrong in Doe v. City of Lafayette, Indiana Clay Calvert Pennsylvania State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr Part of the First Amendment Commons, Psychiatry and Psychology Commons, and the Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons Repository Citation Clay Calvert, Freedom of Thought, Offensive Fantasies and the Fundamental Human Right to Hold Deviant Ideas: Why the Seventh Circuit Got it Wrong in Doe v. City of Lafayette, Indiana, 3 Pierce L. Rev. 125 (2005), available at http://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr/vol3/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of New Hampshire – School of Law at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The nivU ersity of New Hampshire Law Review by an authorized editor of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. File: Calvert-Macroed Created on: 4/15/2005 2:19:00 PM Last Printed: 5/18/2005 10:46:00 AM Freedom of Thought, Offensive Fantasies and the Fundamental Human Right to Hold Deviant Ideas: Why the Seventh Circuit Got it Wrong in Doe v. City of Lafayette, Indiana CLAY CALVERT* I.
  • The Political Ideologies of Law Clerks and Their Judges

    The Political Ideologies of Law Clerks and Their Judges

    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2016 The olitP ical Ideologies of Law Clerks and their Judges Adam Bonica Adam S. Chilton Jacob Goldin Kyle Rozema Maya Sen Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Adam Bonica, Adam S. Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema & Maya Sen, " The oP litical Ideologies of Law Clerks and their Judges" (Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics No. 754, 2016). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Political Ideologies of Law Clerks and their Judges Adam Bonica, Adam Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema, & Maya Sen∗ February 29, 2016 We study the political ideology of judicial law clerks using a novel dataset that combines the most comprehensive data sources on political ideology and the identity of U.S. federal law clerks. First, we examine the distribu- tion of clerks' ideology and find that clerks tend to be disproportionately liberal, with clerks on lower courts being more liberal on average than clerks for higher courts. Second, we find that judges tend to consistently hire clerks with similar ideologies and that those ideologies track available measures of the judge's own ideology.
  • Council and Participants

    Council and Participants

    The American Law Institute OFFICERS DAVID F. LEVI, President ROBERTA COOPER RAMO, Chair of the Council DOUGLAS LAYCOCK, 1st Vice President LEE H. ROSENTHAL, 2nd Vice President WALLACE B. JEFFERSON, Theasurer PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, Secretary RICHARD L. REVESZ, Director STEPHANIE A. MIDDLETON, Deputy Director COUNCIL Kim J. ASKEw, K&L Gates, Dallas, TX JOSE I. ASTIGARRAGA, Reed Smith, Miami, FL DONALD B. AYER, Jones Day, Washington, DC SCOTT BALES, Arizona Supreme Court, Phoenix, AZ JOHN H. BEISNER, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Washington, DC JOHN B. BELLINGER III, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC AMELIA H. Boss, Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law, Philadelphia, PA ELIZABETH J. CABRASER, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, San Francisco, CA EVAN R. CHESLER, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York, NY MARIANO-FLORENTINO CUELLAR, California Supreme Court, San Francisco, CA IVAN K. FONG, 3M Company, St. Paul, MN KENNETH C. FRAZIER, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, Washington, DC STEVEN S. GENSLER, University of Oklahoma College of Law, Norman, OK ABBE R. GLUCK,Yale Law School, New Haven, CT YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland, CA ANTON G. HAJJAR, Chevy Chase, MD TERESA WILTON HARMON, Sidley Austin, Chicago, IL NATHAN L. HECHT, Texas Supreme Court, Austin, TX WILLIAM C. HUBBARD, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Columbia, SC SAMUEL ISSACHAROFF, New York University School of Law, New York, NY III COUNCIL KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC WALLACE B. JEFFERSON, Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend, Austin, TX GREGORY P.
  • Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals Marin K

    Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals Marin K

    Cornell Law Review Volume 103 Article 2 Issue 1 November 2017 Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals Marin K. Levy Duke University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Marin K. Levy, Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 103 Cornell L. Rev. 65 (2017) Available at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol103/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\C\CRN\103-1\CRN102.txt unknown Seq: 1 17-NOV-17 13:58 PANEL ASSIGNMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS Marin K. Levy† It is common knowledge that the federal courts of appeals typically hear cases in panels of three judges and that the composition of the panel can have significant consequences for case outcomes and for legal doctrine more generally. Yet neither legal scholars nor social scientists have focused on the question of how judges are selected for their panels. Instead, a substantial body of scholarship simply assumes that panel assignment is random. This Article provides what, up until this point, has been a missing account of panel assignment. Drawing on a multiyear qualitative study of five circuit courts, including in-depth inter- views with thirty-five judges and senior administrators, I show that strictly random selection is a myth, and an improb- able one at that—in many instances, it would have been im- possible as a practical matter for the courts studied here to create their panels by random draw.