DOCSLIB.ORG

Keeping Faith with the Constitution in Changing Times

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Keeping Faith with the Constitution in Changing Times Vanderbilt Law School Program in Constitutional Law & Theory and The American Constitution Society Present KEEPING FAITH WITH THE CONSTITUTION IN CHANGING TIMES October 6-7, 2006 Flynn Auditorium Vanderbilt Law School What does it mean to be faithful to the meaning of the Constitution? Can progressive approaches to constitutional interpretation persuasively lay claim to principle, fidelity, adherence to the rule of law and democratic legitimacy? How can these approaches be effectively communicated and made part of the public debate about the Constitution? A diverse group of scholars, lawyers, journalists and judges will address different aspects of this inquiry over two days of panel discussions and roundtable conversations during “Keeping Faith with the Constitution in Changing Times,” a conference sponsored jointly by Vanderbilt Law School’s Program in Constitutional Law & Theory and the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. CONFERENCE SCHEDULE Friday, October 6 8:45-9:15 Continental Breakfast in North Lobby 9:15-9:45 Opening Remarks Dean Ed Rubin, Vanderbilt Law School Lisa Brown, Executive Director, ACS 9:45-10:30 Origins of the Debate over Originalism and the Living Constitution (Christopher Yoo, Moderator) Barry Friedman Howard Gillman 10:30-10:45 Break 10:45-12:15 Constitutional Fidelity Over Time (Ed Rubin, Moderator) Erwin Chemerinsky Marty Lederman John McGinnis 12:15-1:30 Lunch North Lobby 1:30-3:00 The Varieties of Historical Argument (Deborah Hellman, Moderator) Peggy Cooper Davis Robert Gordon Richard Primus Keith Whittington 3:00-3:15 Break 3:15-4:45 A Dynamic Rule of Law: Using Text, Structure and History to Derive Constitutional Meaning (Doni Gewirtzman, Moderator) Jack Balkin Michael Greve Kermit Roosevelt 5:30-7:30 Reception and Kickoff Event for Nashville ACS Chapter North Lobby CONFERENCE SCHEDULE Saturday, October 7 8:30-9:00 Continental Breakfast in North Lobby 9:00-10:30 Constitutional Fidelity over Time and Democratic Legitimacy (Lisa Bressman, Moderator) Rebecca Brown Frank Michelman Robin West 10:30-10:45 Break 10:45-12:15 Beyond the Ivory Tower: Translating Ideas into Action (Andrew Pincus, Moderator) Melody Barnes Pamela Karlan Edward Lazarus William Marshall 12:30-1:45 Lunch and Judicial Perspectives – A Conversation (Stefanie Lindquist, Moderator) Judge Theodore McKee Judge Gilbert S. Merritt CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS Jack M. Balkin is Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. He is the founder and director of the Information Society Project, devoted to the study of law and new information technologies. He is the author of over seventy scholarly articles and has written op-eds and commentaries for many newspapers. He writes political and legal commentary at the weblog Balkinization (http://balkin.blogspot.com). Professor Balkin’s work ranges from theories of cultural evolution to legal and musical interpretation. His books include Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking (5th ed., with Brest, Levinson, Amar & Siegel); What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said; What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said; Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology; and The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life. Melody Barnes is the Executive Vice President for Policy at the Center for American Progress. From 1995 until 2003, she served as chief counsel to Senator Edward M. Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ms. Barnes has served as Director of Legislative Affairs for the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and as assistant counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, where she worked closely with Members of Congress and their staffs to pass the Voting Rights Improvement Act of 1992. Ms. Barnes began her career as an attorney with Shearman & Sterling in New York. She is a member of the Board of Directors of The Constitution Project, The Maya Angelou Public Charter School, The Moriah Fund, and Progress Through Action. She received her law degree from the University of Michigan and her bachelor’s degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where she graduated with honors in history. Lisa Schultz Bressman has established herself as an innovative scholar in administrative law. A graduate of the University of Chicago Law School, Professor Bressman joined the Vanderbilt Law School faculty in 1998 after working in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice and clerking for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and now-Second Circuit Judge José Cabranes. Her research explores the intersection between constitutional theory and administrative law. She is particularly interested in the extent to which political control and judicial review improve the legitimacy of agency decisionmaking. Professor Bressman teaches Administrative Law, Constitutional Law I, Legal Process, and Government and Religion. She is Co-Director of the Vanderbilt Regulatory Program. She also serves as faculty advisor to the Vanderbilt chapter of the American Constitution Society. Rebecca L. Brown is the Allen Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School. After earning her B.A. at St. John’s College in Annapolis and her J.D. at Georgetown, she clerked for then-Chief Judge Spottswood Robinson III, of the D.C. Circuit, and for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. She served as an attorney advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice, and as an associate at the law firm of Onek, Klein & Farr, before joining the Vanderbilt faculty in 1988. Her scholarship has focused primarily on developing an understanding of the Constitution premised on a relationship between equality and individual liberty. She teaches courses in constitutional law and theory, and is a convenor of the Annual Constitutional Theory Conference jointly sponsored with the NYU and University of Pennsylvania law schools. Currently, she serves as co-chair for the ACS Issue Group on Constitutional Interpretation and Change, and as a member of the Board of Advisors for the Nashville Chapter of the ACS. Erwin Chemerinsky, Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science, joined the Duke faculty after 21 years at the University of Southern California Law School, where he was the Sydney M. Irmas Professor of Public Interest Law, Legal Ethics, and Political Science. Before that he was a professor at DePaul College of Law and practiced law with the United States Department of Justice, and at Dobrovir, Oakes & Gebhardt in Washington, D.C. He received his B.S. from Northwestern University and J.D. from Harvard Law School. Author of four books and over 100 law review articles, Professor Chemerinsky writes a regular column on the Supreme Court for California Lawyer, Los Angeles Daily Journal, and Trial Magazine, and is a frequent contributor to CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS newspapers and other magazines. In April 2005, he was named by Legal Affairs as one of “the top 20 legal thinkers in America.” He has received numerous awards for his contributions to civil liberties and public service. He has argued many appellate cases and has testified many times before congressional and state legislative committees. Peggy Cooper Davis, John S. R. Shad Professor of Lawyering and Ethics and Director, Lawyering Program, joined the New York University School of Law faculty in September 1982, after having served for three years as a judge of the Family Court of the State of New York and having engaged, during the preceding ten years, in the practice and administration of law. Her scholarly work has been influential in the areas of child welfare, constitutional rights of family liberty, legal pedagogy, and interdisciplinary analysis of legal process. Her 1997 book, Neglected Stories: The Constitution and Family Values, illuminated the importance of antislavery traditions as interpretive guides to the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a co-founder of the Lawyering Theory Colloquium, she has been among the pioneers in scholarly study of law “in use” by practitioners, judges, and claimants. She received her J.D. from Harvard Law School and her undergraduate education at Western College for Women and Barnard College. Barry Friedman is the Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law at New York University School of Law. He has written extensively in constitutional theory, judicial behavior, and federal courts. He is the co-editor of (and contributor to) the recent book, Judicial Independence at the Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Professor Friedman is a frequent participant at legal history and political science conferences, as well as those in law. He also is a convener of the Annual Constitutional Theory Conference. He has been a visiting scholar at the Rockefeller Foundation Study and Conference Center in Bellagio, Italy. Professor Friedman has engaged in a range of service activities, including extensive involvement with the American Judicature Society. He currently serves on the Steering Committee of New York University’s Institute for Law and Society, and as Director of the Furman Program, devoted to preparing young scholars for academic careers. Doni Gewirtzman is currently the Vanderbilt Fellow in Law at Vanderbilt Law School. Prior to his arrival in Nashville, Professor Gewirtzman served as the co-Associate Director and Acting Assistant Professor of Law at New York University’s Lawyering Program. After graduating from Boalt Hall in 1998, he began his legal career as a Skadden Fellow at Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, and later joined the litigation department at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison in New York. His most recent article, Glory Days: Popular Constitutionalism, Nostalgia, and the True Nature of Constitutional Culture, was published in the March 2005 edition of the Georgetown Law Journal. Howard Gillman is Professor of Political Science and Associate Vice Provost for Research Advancement at the University of Southern California; he also holds courtesy appointments in the Department of History and the Gould School of Law. He received his Ph.D.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The University of Michigan Law School Faculty, 2003-2004
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Miscellaneous Law School Publications Law School History and Publications 2003 The niU versity of Michigan Law School Faculty, 2003-2004 University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/miscellaneous Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the Legal Education Commons Citation University of Michigan Law School, "The nivU ersity of Michigan Law School Faculty, 2003-2004" (2003). Miscellaneous Law School Publications. http://repository.law.umich.edu/miscellaneous/2 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School History and Publications at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Miscellaneous Law School Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Michigan Law School FACULTY 2003-2004 " l arrived at the U of M Law School itmnediately after finishing a Ph.D. in history with the hope and expectation that law school would constitute another major step in my intellectual growth, not just professional or vocational training in law as a trade. My expectations were more than met by the crew of humanistic intellectuals- not just historians but accomplished scholars in philosophy, literature, political theory, anthropology, psychology, and other fields - that made up a large part ofthe Michiganfaculty. In this atmosphere, the study of law 1 was the best sort of professional training, the kind that equipped me both to enter the profession at a high level-for me, a Supreme Court clerkship - and to get the critical perspective and intellectual training that prepared me for the academic position that 1 had aimed at front the start.
    [Show full text]
  • January 2007 2:June 2004.Qxd.Qxd
    PUBLIC JANUARY 2007 JANUARY AFFAIRS COUNCIL When Worlds Collide Is First Amendment Absolute? During Crises, Sandman says, Politics Bloggers Run Risks and Government are Separate Spheres They Don’t Think About, The next time a candidate for political office says he or Expert Warns she wants to run government like a business, refer that person to Peter M. Sandman. “There’s 50 million blogs,” the saying goes. “There’s a huge difference between how business “Some of them have to be good.” With millions leaders and how political leaders should respond to more coming online as fast as you can point and problems, or potential problems, because their worlds click, a few of them might even be trustworthy. are very different,” the crisis communications strategist But with many bloggers blissfully unaware of Peter M. Sandman tells Impact. libel laws and other legal niceties, who’s to Then Sandman adds, almost ominously: “But this, too, is true: Politicians know? And if you’re a blogger yourself, what need to know that politics isn’t politics-as-usual these days any more than risks might you run by blabbing your off-the-cuff business is business-as-usual. They must recognize that reality. The opinions to all and sundry? unprecedented free flow of information that characterizes the world of And who — in all this giddy growth — is electronic communications has changed everything.” looking at the risk that companies run by turning Sandman’s advice to incoming Democrats in this changed environment? loose their executives and employees to comment “Just be careful and think about how you act when you might have a problem on anything and everything? Leib Dodell, on your hands.
    [Show full text]
  • How Is the Federal Government Organized with Respect to Influencing Child Hunger?
    How is the Federal Government Organized with Respect to Influencing Child Hunger? Edward M Cooney Executive Director Congressional Hunger Center April 13, 2011 The Congressional Hunger Center gratefully acknowledges the generous support of the ConAgra Foods Foundation for The CHILD Project (Children’s Hunger Initiative on Learning and Development) for which this paper was prepared. Introduction and Background What is the Role of Government in Addressing Child Hunger? Hubert Humphrey once said: “the moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, disabled and the handicapped”. This viewpoint captures how Congress and the Executive Branch of government (with a few notable exceptions) have viewed their role in addressing child hunger through the latter part of the 20th and early 21st century. America has a rich and bipartisan tradition of addressing the needs of its poor and hungry people. Perhaps President Nixon captured the essence of the paradox of hunger existing in a nation of great wealth and compassion when he said: “We don’t know just how many Americans are actually hungry and how many suffer from malnutrition, who eats enough and who doesn’t eat the right things. But we know that there are too many Americans in both categories. We can argue the extent of hunger. But hunger exists. We can argue its severity, but malnutrition exists! The plain fact is that a great many Americans are not eating well enough to sustain health” (1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health).
    [Show full text]
  • President Barack Obama Meets with President's Commission on White House Fellowships & Fellows
    President’s Commission on White House Fellowships · Summer 2014 Newsletter President Barack Obama meets with President’s Commission on White House Fellowships & Fellows PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION — This January, the President’s WHITE HOUSE FELLOWS — President Barack Obama met the Commission on White House Fellowships met with President Barack 2013-2014 White House Fellows in the Roosevelt Room and later, in- Obama during its mid-year meeting. It was the first mid-year meeting vited them to visit the Oval Office. In advance of the meeting, the led by the new Chair, Mary Zients, and we welcomed four new Com- President received summaries of the policy proposals the Fellows had missioners. Though the weather was snowy enough to elicit closing written in their White House Fellowship applications, as well as the federal government offices, most of the Commissioners enthusiastical- issues they work on day to day. This year’s class is working together on ly attended. It was a great opportunity for the Commissioners to hear, several projects areas involving cross-agency collaboration, such as directly from the President, the great value the White House Fellow- Strengthening Communities, Technology and Entrepreneurship, Veter- ship holds in enriching this nation’s leadership. The President engaged ans Issue Areas, and the President’s Management Agenda. the Commissioners in a lively discussion about the future of the pro- The President was briefed on their work to strengthen communities, gram, and one of our veteran Commissioners, whose service has which includes Choice Neighborhoods, Promise Zones, the Task spanned several administrations, noted that the meeting was notably Force on Expanding Community Service, and mostly recently, My unique and inspiring.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2017
    IDEAS LEADERSHIP ACTION OUR MISSION 2 Letter from Dan Porterfield, President and CEO WHAT WE DO 6 Policy Programs 16 Leadership Initiatives 20 Public Programs 26 Youth & Engagement Programs 30 Seminars 34 International Partnerships 38 Media Resources THE YEAR IN REVIEW 40 2017-2018 Selected Highlights of the Institute's Work 42 Live on the Aspen Stage INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT 46 Capital Campaigns 48 The Paepcke Society 48 The Heritage Society 50 Society of Fellows 51 Wye Fellows 52 Justice Circle and Arts Circle 55 Philanthropic Partners 56 Supporters STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION 90 2017 Annual Report WHO WE ARE 96 Our Locations 98 Aspen Institute Leadership 104 Board of Trustees LETTER FROM DAN PORTERFIELD, PRESIDENT AND CEO A LETTER FROM PRESIDENT AND CEO DAN PORTERFIELD There is nothing quite like the Aspen Institute. It is In the years to come, the Aspen Institute will deepen an extraordinary—and unique—American institution. our impacts. It is crucial that we enhance the devel- We work between fields and across divides as a opment of the young, address the urgent challenges non-profit force for good whose mission is to con- of the future, and renew the ideals of democratic so- vene change-makers of every type, established and ciety. I look forward to working closely with our many emerging, to frame and then solve society’s most partners and friends as we write the next chapter on important problems. We lead on almost every issue the Institute’s scope and leadership for America and with a tool kit stocked for solution-building—always the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Friday Report
    ITEM IV B SIMON AND COMPANY INCORPORATED Washington Friday Report Volume XIV, Issue 2 January 13, 2012 For more, including a link to the recent White House report I NSIDE T HIS W EEK titled Investing in America: Building an Economy That Lasts, click on Insourcing American Jobs. 1 White House, Insourcing, Transportation, Debt Transportation Update and Strategy 2 Drug Court, Choice Neighborhood, Ex-Offenders On Wednesday, we had the chance to participate in a strategy 2 Freight, Protest, Disaster, Oceans, Civic session with key members of the staff of the Rails to Trails Conservancy. Topics of discussion included: transportation enhancements funding in the upcoming transportation Lots of activity this week as summarized below. Next week, reauthorization vote in Congress which may happen, most we’ll be at the U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting here likely, in February or March; a draft resolution to circulate in Washington – a big chunk of the Cabinet and lots of among City officials in support of transportation Congressional leaders will be there and we look forward to enhancements, recreational trails, and safe routes to school; reporting back to you on what we learn. possible amendments to preserve trail funding in MAP-21, the Senate’s version of the reauthorization; and next steps in the White House Staff Changes and Consolidation effort to protect and expand funding for bike paths and pedestrian walkways. We will continue to work with our As you likely know, current White House Chief of Staff partners on initiatives to secure additional funds for more William Daley, the son and brother of former Chicago Mayors, livable communities and will update you on any new has resigned and replacing him next month will be Jack Lew, developments.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission to the Courthouse: Does Civil Rights Litigation Remediate Racial Inequality in the Workplace?
    From the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission to the Courthouse: Does Civil Rights Litigation Remediate Racial Inequality in the Workplace? By David Berney ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the ability of civil rights litigation to redress racial inequality in the workplace. It enters the larger historical debate regarding the effectiveness of civil rights litigation to serve as a force for progressive, socio- political change. To focus my inquiry, I studied the operations of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, an administrative agency charged with enforcing civil rights laws. I also interviewed major participants in the civil rights litigation system, including complainants, attorneys, and judges. I drew upon my own experiences as a practicing civil rights attorney. My investigation employed a range of different methods, including interviews, ethnographic observation, and archival research. This is, to my knowledge, the first full study of the actual operations of an important state civil rights agency in close to fifty years. My dissertation finds that litigation has historically promoted racial equality in employment. But two factors have contributed to limit what lawsuits can realistically accomplish today. First, starting in the 1970s, Republican presidential administrations appointed judges who proved less sympathetic to civil rights claims. The resulting case law made it much harder to bring successful lawsuits. Second, expressions of workplace bias became much more covert over time partly as a consequence of the successes that civil rights litigators achieved. The litigation paradigm is not well designed to tackle such subtleties. Beyond a lack of effectiveness, litigation can also have deleterious effects as it can cause employees to suffer psychic injury on top of whatever racial indignities they have endured.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case for the Twenty-First Century Constitutional Canon: Schneiderman V
    C:\program files\qualcomm\eudora\attach\394840.doc Saved on: 1/22/2003 6:15 PM A Case for the Twenty-First Century Constitutional Canon: Schneiderman v. United States DAVID FONTANA∗ I. INTRODUCTION Hidden in the basements of American law libraries and in the Westlaw and Lexis databases is a generally ignored 1943 case, Schneiderman v. United States.1 Schneiderman is a case of substantial importance and in- terest that has belonged in the constitutional canon for some time. In Schneiderman, the Supreme Court of the United States blocked the gov- ernment’s attempt to denaturalize an American citizen, a leader of the Communist Party, because the Court found that Communists could be “at- tached to the principles of the Constitution.”2 The Court also announced a new, relatively high evidentiary burden that the government has to meet in order to strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship.3 Schneiderman is of even greater importance after September 11, 2001, because it sheds light on several key issues facing both this country and its law students and lawyers. September 11, 2001 was a monumental day in American history, politics, culture, and law. The after-effects of that day have just begun to trickle into university classrooms across the country. There are many reports of course offerings that address topics related to September 11. For instance, immediately after September 11, the Univer- ∗ D.Phil. expected, Oxford University, 2004; J.D. expected, Yale University, 2004; B.A., Univer- sity of Virginia, 1999. Many thanks to the following individuals for their assistance with this project and for their comments on all or part of the ideas in this Article: Bruce A.
    [Show full text]
  • Visiting Judges
    Visiting Judges Marin K. Levy* Despite the fact that Article III judges hold particular seats on particular courts, the federal system rests on judicial interchangeability. Hundreds of judges “visit” other courts each year and collectively help decide thousands of appeals. Anyone from a retired Supreme Court Justice to a judge from the U.S. Court of International Trade to a district judge from out of circuit may come and hear cases on a given court of appeals. Although much has been written about the structure of the federal courts and the nature of Article III judgeships, little attention has been paid to the phenomenon of “sitting by designation”—how it came to be, how it functions today, and what it reveals about the judiciary more broadly. This Article offers an overdue account of visiting judges. It begins by providing an origin story, showing how the current practice stems from two radically different traditions. The first saw judges as fixed geographically, and allowed for visitors only as a stopgap measure when individual judges fell ill or courts fell into arrears with their cases. The second assumed greater fluidity within the courts, requiring Supreme Court Justices to ride circuit—to visit different regions and act as trial and appellate judges—for the first half of the Court’s history. These two traditions together provide the critical context for modern-day visiting. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38ZK55M67 Copyright © 2019 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Omnipresent Student Speech and the Schoolhouse Gate: Interpreting Tinker in the Digital Age
    Saint Louis University Law Journal Volume 59 Number 2 Current Issues in Education Law Article 9 (Winter 2015) 2015 Omnipresent Student Speech and the Schoolhouse Gate: Interpreting Tinker in the Digital Age Watt Lesley Black Jr. Ph.D. [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Watt L. Black Jr. Ph.D., Omnipresent Student Speech and the Schoolhouse Gate: Interpreting Tinker in the Digital Age, 59 St. Louis U. L.J. (2015). Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj/vol59/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Saint Louis University Law Journal by an authorized editor of Scholarship Commons. For more information, please contact Susie Lee. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW OMNIPRESENT STUDENT SPEECH AND THE SCHOOLHOUSE GATE: INTERPRETING TINKER IN THE DIGITAL AGE WATT LESLEY BLACK, JR. PH.D.* INTRODUCTION Historically, school authorities rarely took note of student expression that occurred outside of the school setting, but the times have changed. Technological advances have broadened the scope and reach of student speech in ways that were difficult to imagine twenty years ago. Students are using technology to threaten, bully, and harass not only their classmates, but also school employees. School administrators face enormous pressure to effectively address these issues, but they must also consider the First Amendment rights of students when deciding how and when to discipline them for what they say online while off campus.
    [Show full text]
  • Obama Transition Team
    President-Elect Barack Obama and Vice President-Elect Joe Biden Today Announced its Leadership For the Transition of Administrations Chicago -- For the past several months, a board of advisors has been informally planning for a possible presidential transition. Among the many projects undertaken by the transition board have been detailed analyses of previous transition efforts, policy statements made during the campaign, and the workings of federal government agencies, and priority positions that must be filled by the incoming administration. With Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s election, this planning process will be now be formally organized as the Obama-Biden Transition Project, a 501(c)(4) organization to ensure a smooth transition from one administration to the next. The work of this entity will be overseen by three co- chairs: John Podesta, Valerie Jarrett, and Pete Rouse. The co-chairs will be assisted by an advisory board comprised of individuals with significant private and public sector experience: Carol Browner, William Daley, Christopher Edley, Michael Froman, Julius Genachowski, Donald Gips, Governor Janet Napolitano, Federico Peña, Susan Rice, Sonal Shah, Mark Gitenstein, and Ted Kaufman. Gitenstein and Kaufman will serve as co-chairs of Vice President-elect Biden’s transition team. Supervising the day-to-day activities of the transition will be: Transition Senior Staff: Chris Lu -- Executive Director Dan Pfeiffer -- Communications Director Stephanie Cutter -- Chief Spokesperson Cassandra Butts -- General Counsel Jim Messina -- Personnel Director Patrick Gaspard -- Associate Personnel Director Christine Varney - Personnel Counsel Melody Barnes -- Co-Director of Agency Review Lisa Brown -- Co-Director of Agency Review Phil Schiliro -- Director of Congressional Relations Michael Strautmanis -- Director of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs Katy Kale -- Director of Operations Brad Kiley -- Director of Operations The phone number for the transition headquarters is 202-540-3000.
    [Show full text]
  • Third Judicial Circuit Courts and Community Committee 2019 Activity Report
    THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURTS AND COMMUNITY COMMITTEE 2019 ACTIVITY REPORT March 24, 2020 Third Judicial Circuit Courts and Community Committee 2019 Activity Report The governing body of the federal courts, the Judicial Conference of the United States, recently “affirmed that civics education is a core component of judicial service; endorsed regularly-held conferences to share and promote best practices of civics education; and encouraged circuits to coordinate and promote education programs.” The Courts and Community Committee for the Third Judicial Circuit is proud to be part of the judiciary’s national initiative to present and promote civics education programs. The Third Circuit Committee had another busy year in 2019. This Activity Report highlights some of the initiatives that our judges and court staff participated in throughout the year as part of the Committee’s ongoing effort to connect our courts to our communities and improve understanding of the role of the judicial system in our democracy. ADULT CIVICS EDUCATION PROGRAM At the behest of Third Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith, and after many months of planning, the Committee sponsored a ten-week adult civics education course that was launched in September 2019 at the Community College of Philadelphia. Courts and Community Committee Co-Chairs Midge Rendell and Cynthia Rufe created a ten-class curriculum and recruited federal and state judges, as well as attorneys, to lead and present topics of interest for each fifty-minute session on Monday nights during the fall. Dean Dave Thomas, along with strong administrative support, registered over sixty students for the minimal fee certificate course.
    [Show full text]