DOCSLIB.ORG

Charting the Influences on the Judicial Mind: an Empirical Study of Judicial Reasoning Gregory C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Charting the Influences on the Judicial Mind: an Empirical Study of Judicial Reasoning Gregory C Cornell Law Library Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Cornell Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 11-1998 Charting the Influences on the Judicial Mind: An Empirical Study of Judicial Reasoning Gregory C. Sisk University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) Michael Heise Cornell Law School, [email protected] Andrew P. Morriss Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub Part of the Judges Commons, and the Legal History, Theory and Process Commons Recommended Citation Sisk, Gregory C.; Heise, Michael; and Morriss, Andrew P., "Charting the Influences on the Judicial Mind: An Empirical Study of Judicial Reasoning" (1998). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper 741. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/741 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUM:E 73 NOVEMEBER 1998 NUMBER 5 CHARTING THE INFLUENCES ON THE JUDICIAL MIND: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF JUDICIAL REASONING GREGORY C. SISK* MICHAEL HEISE:** ANDREW P. MoRmss*** In 1988, hundreds of federal districtjudges were suddenly confronted with the need to render a decision on the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act and the newly promulgatedcriminal Sentencing Guidelines. Never before has a question of such importance and involving such significant issues of constitutional lan, man- dated the immediate and simultaneous attention of such a large segment of the fed- eral trial bench. Accordingly, this event provides an archetypalmodel for exploring the influence of social background,ideology, judicialrole and institution,and other factors on judicial decisionmaking. Based upon a unique set of written dccisions involving an identical legalproblem, the authors have produced an unprecedented empiricalstudy of judicial reasoning in action. By exploiting this treasure trove of * Professor of Law, Drake University ([email protected]). B.A., 1981, Montana State University, J.D., 1984, University of Washington. In 1988, 1 was a member of a small team of attorneys in the United States Department of Justice leading the government's defense against constitutional challenges to the Sentencing Guidelines in district courts and courts of appeals throughout the nation. I want to thank several people whose support and generous contribution of time and information were essential to this project. John Steer, general counsel, and Mary McDowell, staff attorney, at the United States Sentencing Com- mission, provided thoughtful advice on background research and access to invaluable data, while securing my agreement to protect the confidentiality of judges who had reported oral rulings on the constitutionality of the Sentencing Guidelines in 19S8. Professor Sheldon Goldman of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst very kindly shared information on American Bar Association ratings and racial background of judges from his invaluable database of information, thereby encouraging a young scholar to persevere with this pro- ject. Bill Davis at the National Archives Legislative Records Center spent many hours locating legislative materials on judicial nominees. Others reviewed drafts, provided valua- ble comments on substance and technique, shared data or information, assisted in other ways, or offered encouragement, including Frank Bowman, Robert Carp, Frank Cross, Barry Friedman, Sheldon Goldman, Stanley Ingber, Douglas Letter, Bryan Liang, Deborah Jones Merritt, Thomas Millet, and Kevin Saunders. As my research assistants, 1377 HeinOnline -- 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1377 1998 Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Law Review NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 73:1377 data, the authors have looked deeper into the judicial mind and observed the emer- gence of influences upon the manner in which a judge examined the constitutional issues, adopted a constitutionaltheory, and engaged in legal reasoning. I. Introduction ............................................ 1380 II. Prior Studies, the Present Study, and Their Value and Lim itations .............................................. 1385 A. Prior Empirical Research on Judicial Decisionmaking ..................................... 1385 1. Studies of Social Background and Other Factors Influencing Judicial Decisionmaking ............ 1385 2. The Problems of Incomparability, Inauthenticity, and Superficiality in Prior Studies .............. 1392 B. The Sentencing Guidelines Crisis of 1988 as a Basis for the Study of Judicial Decisionmaking ........... 1396 1. The Sentencing Guidelines Crisis of 1988 ....... 1396 2. The Sentencing Guidelines Cases Database ..... 1407 3. The Value and Limitations of the Sentencing Guidelines Decisions for Empirical Study ...... 1409 a. Resolving the Problem of Incomparability: The Identical Legal Problem ............... 1409 b. Deepening the Search: Analyzing the Content of Judicial Reasoning in Opinions. 1410 Candace Dunley, Drake Law School Class of 1995, skillfully organized numerous judicial background factors into a data ledger, and Julie Bettenhausen, Drake Law School Class of 1998, charted the chronology of precedents and carefully proofed drafts. I gratefully ac- knowledge Drake University for awards of faculty research grants and Deans David Walker and Peter Goplerud and the Board of Governors of the Drake University Law School Endowment Trust for the award of research stipends that supported the completion of this project. Most importantly, I appreciate my coauthors who caught the vision of this project and recognized the richness of the data, and whose determination, hard work, ex- pertise, and wisdom made completion of the project possible. An earlier version of this Article was presented on a panel at the American Political Science Association's 1998 an- nual meeting in Boston. ** Assistant Professor of Law, Director of the Program in Law and Education, Indiana University-Indianapolis ([email protected]). A.B., 1983, Stanford University; J.D., 1987, University of Chicago; Ph.D., 1990, Northwestern University. Generous faculty research grants provided financial support for this Article. My thanks to Barry Friedman, Eric Muller, Ronald Krotoszynkski, and Daniel Cole for comments on the draft. *** Professor of Law and Associate Professor of Economics, Case Western Reserve Uni- versity ([email protected]). A.B., 1981, Princeton University; J.D., M. Pub. Aff., 1984, University of Texas at Austin; Ph.D. (Economics), 1994, Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology. I thank Deans Michael Gerhardt and Gerald Korngold at Case Western Univer- sity for research support and my coauthors for everything Greg said and more. Thanks to my colleagues Jonathan Entin, Neil Kinkopf, and Ann Southworth, several anonymous promotion and tenure reviewers, and participants at a Cornell Law School faculty seminar for additional suggestions. HeinOnline -- 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1378 1998 Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Law Review November 1998] JUDICIAL REASONING c. The Strength and Weakness of Using a Single Legal Problem ....................... 1412 d. Federal District Judges as a Subject of Study ....................................... 1415 I. The Independent Variables ............................. 1417 A. Demographic Variables ............................. 1417 B. Political Variable .................................... 1419 C. Prior Employment Variables ........................ 1420 D. Judicial Role or Institution Variables ............... 1421 E. Promotion Potential ................................ 1423 F. Precedent ........................................... 1427 G. Summary of Independent Variables ................. 1429 IV. The Dependent Variables-Outcome and Reasoning ... 1430 A. Analysis of Judicial Decisions-Outcome as Dependent Variable ................................ 1430 B. Analysis of Judicial Decisions-Reasoning Categories as Dependent Variables ................. 1434 1. Method of Analyzing Opinions ................. 1434 2. Methodology and Summary of Results ......... 1438 a. Constitutional Claims Rulings .............. 1438 i. Separation of Powers-Branch Location ................................ 1438 ii. Separation of Powers-Judge Members. 1441 iii. Non-Delegation Doctrine Rulings ...... 1441 iv. Due Process Claim Rulings ............. 1443 b. Reasoning Approach ....................... 1444 i. Practical Versus Theoretical Reasoning. 1444 ii. Originalist Versus Nonoriginalist Reasoning .............................. 1446 V. Findings and Interpretation ............................. 1451 A. Demographic Variables ............................. 1451 1. Sex ............................................. 1451 2. R ace ............................................ 1454 3. A ge ............................................. 1459 4. Region .......................................... 1460 5. Crime Rate ..................................... 1461 6. Law School Education .......................... 1463 B. Political/Ideological Variables ....................... 1465 C. Prior Employment Variables ........................ 1470 1. Criminal Defense Lawyer ....................... 1470 2. Government/Political Positions .................. 1473 a. Prosecutorial Experience ................... 1473 b. Political Experience ......................... 1474 HeinOnline
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation
    THE FELLOWS OF THE AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION 2015-2016 2015-2016 Fellows Officers: Chair Hon. Cara Lee T. Neville (Ret.) Chair – Elect Michael H. Byowitz Secretary Rew R. Goodenow Immediate Past Chair Kathleen J. Hopkins The Fellows is an honorary organization of attorneys, judges and law professors whose pro- fessional, public and private careers have demonstrated outstanding dedication to the welfare of their communities and to the highest principles of the legal profession. Established in 1955, The Fellows encourage and support the research program of the American Bar Foundation. The American Bar Foundation works to advance justice through ground-breaking, independ- ent research on law, legal institutions, and legal processes. Current research covers meaning- ful topics including legal needs of ordinary Americans and how justice gaps can be filled; the changing nature of legal careers and opportunities for more diversity within the profession; social and political costs of mass incarceration; how juries actually decide cases; the ability of China’s criminal defense lawyers to protect basic legal freedoms; and, how to better prepare for end of life decision-making. With the generous support of those listed on the pages that follow, the American Bar Founda- tion is able to truly impact the very foundation of democracy and the future of our global soci- ety. The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, 4th Floor Chicago, IL 60611-4403 (800) 292-5065 Fax: (312) 564-8910 [email protected] www.americanbarfoundation.org/fellows OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE Rew R. Goodenow, Secretary AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION Parsons Behle & Latimer David A.
    [Show full text]
  • One Man's Token Is Another Woman's Breakthrough - the Appointment of the First Women Federal Judges
    Volume 49 Issue 3 Article 2 2004 One Man's Token is Another Woman's Breakthrough - The Appointment of the First Women Federal Judges Mary L. Clark Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Mary L. Clark, One Man's Token is Another Woman's Breakthrough - The Appointment of the First Women Federal Judges, 49 Vill. L. Rev. 487 (2004). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol49/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Clark: One Man's Token is Another Woman's Breakthrough - The Appointment 2004] Article ONE MAN'S TOKEN IS ANOTHER WOMAN'S BREAKTHROUGH? THE APPOINTMENT OF THE FIRST WOMEN FEDERAL JUDGES MARY L. CLARK* I. INTRODUCTION NIO women served as Article III judges in the first one hundred and fifty years of the American republic.' It was not until Franklin Del- ano Roosevelt named Florence Ellinwood Allen to the U.S. Court of Ap- peals in 1934 that women were included within the ranks of the federal 2 judiciary. This Article examines the appointment of the first women federal judges, addressing why and how presidents from Roosevelt through Ford named women to the bench, how the backgrounds and experiences of these nontraditional appointees compared with those of their male col- leagues and, ultimately, why it matters that women have been, and con- tinue to be, appointed.
    [Show full text]
  • Miriam G. Cederbaum.2.2
    IN MEMORIAM: JUDGE MIRIAM GOLDMAN CEDARBAUM Sonia Sotomayor * Miriam Cedarbaum had been a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for six years when I joined that court in 1992. I count myself as lucky for so many reasons, but getting to serve alongside and learn from Judge Cedarbaum falls high on that list. Judge Cedarbaum mentored me in my first few years on the bench and served as a steady source of strength and wisdom in the years after. This relationship began when she stopped by my office during my first week on the bench, a tradition she followed with every new judge on her court. It continued afterwards because our offices were on the same floor of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, just around the corner, and we kept the same arrangement when renovations moved us to the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse. I learned much from Judge Cedarbaum. In this space, I want to record those lessons so that other judges, those not fortunate enough to be paid a visit by her during their first week on the bench, can learn from her still. Be careful. A district court judge labors in the boiler room of our judicial system. Alarms constantly sound, work never stops, and thanks rarely materialize. While toiling away, a district court judge may be tempted to cut corners, to make the job just a little easier. Not Judge Cedarbaum. Read any one of Judge Cedarbaum’s decisions and her attention to the facts and mastery of the legal issues leap off the page.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 10-324: United States V. Praylow
    No. 10-324 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. RORY PRAYLOW ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NEAL KUMAR KATYAL Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Section 924(c) of Title 18 requires specified manda- tory consecutive sentences for committing certain weap- ons offenses in connection with “any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime,” “[e]xcept to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law.” The question presented is whether the “except” clause permits a district court not to impose a manda- tory minimum consecutive sentence under Section 924(c) if the defendant is also subject to a greater mandatory minimum sentence on a different count of conviction charging a different offense involving different conduct. (I) In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 10-324 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. RORY PRAYLOW ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI The Acting Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States of America, respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in this case. OPINION BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (App., infra, 1a- 4a) is unreported but is available at 2010 WL 2340169.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the SECOND CIRCUIT
    Case: 11-1111 Document: 90-1 Page: 1 02/14/2013 845599 24 11-1111-cv Gatt Commc’ns, Inc. v. PMC Associates, L.L.C. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2011 (Argued: February 6, 2012 Decided: February 14, 2013) Docket No. 11-1111-cv GATT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, –v.– PMC ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., DBA PMC ASSOCIATES, PMC ASSOCIATES, INC., DBA PMC ASSOCIATES, PHILLIP M. CASCIANO ASSOCIATES, INC., DBA PMC ASSOCIATES, PHILLIP M. CASCIANO, BRYAN CASCIANO, THOMAS WINELAND, VESEL RADIVIC, Defendants-Appellees, JOHN DOE, HENRY HOE, RICHARD ROE, Defendants. Before: WESLEY, CARNEY, Circuit Judges, and CEDARBAUM, District Judge.* Appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Deborah A. Batts, Judge), granting Defendants- Appellees’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint. We conclude that Plaintiff- Appellant Gatt Communications, Inc., lacks antitrust standing to bring its claims * The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Case: 11-1111 Document: 90-1 Page: 2 02/14/2013 845599 24 under the Sherman Act and the Donnelly Act. We also hold that Gatt’s common law claims were properly dismissed as a matter of law. AFFIRMED. KAREN F. NEUWIRTH, Law Office of Martin S. Rapaport, New York, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant Gatt Communications, Inc. MICHAEL J. HAHN (Kristin A. Muir, on the brief), Lowenstein Sandler PC, New York, New York, for Defendants-Appellees Philip M. Casciano Associates, Inc. DBA PMC Associates, Philip Casciano, Bryan Casciano, and Vesel Ramovic.1 DANIEL E.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: a Retrospective (1990-2000)
    The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: A Retrospective (1990-2000) The New York County Lawyers’ Association Committee On The Federal Courts December 2002 This report was approved by the Board of Directors of the New York County Lawyers’ Association at its regular meeting on January 13, 2003. Copyright December 2002 New York County Lawyers’ Association 14 Vesey Street, New York, NY 10007 phone: (212) 267-6646; fax: (212) 406-9252 Additional copies may be obtained on-line at the NYCLA website: www.nycla.org TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COURT (1789 TO 1989)................................................................2 THE EDWARD WEINFELD AWARD..........................................................................................7 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MARY JO WHITE (1993-2001): FIRST WOMAN TO LEAD THE OFFICE....................................................................................7 THE COMPOSITION OF TODAY’S COURT ..............................................................................8 Chief Judges: Transition and Continuity ........................................................................... 8 THE COURT’S CHANGING DOCKET ......................................................................................10 NOTABLE CASES, TRIALS, AND DECISIONS.......................................................................11 Antitrust
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Clerkship Manual
    Judicial Clerkship Manual Last updated January 15, 2020 Table of Contents I. DECIDING IF YOU SHOULD CLERK ................................................................................... 1 A. Career Considerations ......................................................................................................... 2 B. Financial Implications ......................................................................................................... 2 C. Term versus Career Clerks.................................................................................................. 3 II. CHOOSING WHERE TO APPLY ........................................................................................... 3 A. Geographic Considerations ................................................................................................. 4 B. Trial Courts versus Appellate Courts .................................................................................. 4 1. Trial Court Clerkships .................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Appellate Court Clerkships .......................................................................................................................... 5 C. Federal Courts versus State Courts ..................................................................................... 5 1. Federal Courts ..................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Justice Press Release
    Department of Justice Press Release For Immediate Release United States Attorney's Office October 5, 2010 Southern District of New York Contact: (212) 637-2600 Faisal Shahzad Sentenced in Manhattan Federal Court to Life in Prison for Attempted Car Bombing in Times Square PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, JANICE K. FEDARCYK, the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), and RAYMOND W. KELLY, the Police Commissioner of the City of New York ("NYPD"), announced the sentencing today of FAISAL SHAHZAD to life in prison for his attempt to detonate a car bomb in Times Square on the evening of May 1, 2010. SHAHZAD was sentenced in Manhattan federal court by U.S. District Judge MIRIAM GOLDMAN CEDARBAUM. SHAHZAD, 31, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, was taken into custody at John F. Kennedy International Airport ("JFK Airport") on May 3, 2010, after he was identified by the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Customs and Border Protection while attempting to leave the United States on a commercial flight to Dubai. SHAHZAD was then charged in a five-count criminal Complaint. On May 18, 2010, he was presented in Manhattan federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge JAMES C. FRANCIS IV. On June 17, 2010, SHAHZAD was indicted in the Southern District of New York for ten offenses relating to the May 1, 2010, attempted bombing. Based on the offenses alleged in the Indictment, SHAHZAD faced a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
    [Show full text]
  • Clues of Integrity in the Legal Reasoning Process: How Judicial Biographies Shed Light on the Rule of Law
    SMU Law Review Volume 67 Issue 4 Article 8 2014 Clues of Integrity in the Legal Reasoning Process: How Judicial Biographies Shed Light on the Rule of Law Harvey Rishikof National War College, [email protected] Bernard Horowitz American Bar Association, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Harvey Rishikof & Bernard Horowitz, Clues of Integrity in the Legal Reasoning Process: How Judicial Biographies Shed Light on the Rule of Law, 67 SMU L. REV. 763 (2014) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol67/iss4/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. CLUES OF INTEGRITY IN THE LEGAL REASONING PROCESS: HOW JUDICIAL BIOGRAPHIES SHED LIGHT ON THE RULE OF LAW Harvey Rishikof* Bernard Horowitz** NE of the fascinating dimensions of historiography is the ten- dency of genres of historical scholarship to come in and out of Ofashion. In the 1940s, when Mark DeWolfe Howe began his au- thorized biography of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, not many scholars could expect to penetrate the circles of family members, executors, law clerks, and disciples that restricted access to information about “their” judge. Moreover, few collections of the private papers of judges were available, and even fewer collections of their internal court papers. There were many reasons not to write judicial biography, and the major biogra- phies of Supreme Court Justices could have been counted on the fingers of one hand.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation
    THE FELLOWS OF THE AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION 2011 Chair 2011-2012 Doreen D. Dodson Chair – Elect Myles V. Lynk Secretary Don Slesnick The Fellows is an honorary organization of attorneys, judges and law professors whose profes- sional, public and private careers have demonstrated outstanding dedication to the welfare of their communities and to the highest principles of the legal profession. Established in 1955, The Fellows encourage and support the research program of the American Bar Foundation. The American Bar Foundation works to advance justice through research on law, legal institutions, and legal processes. Current research covers such topics as end-of-life decision making, the value of early childhood education, how lawyers in public interest law organizations conceptualize and pursue their goals, what people think of the civil justice system against the backdrop of the politics of tort reform and the changes in the law that have resulted from the tort reform movement, and the factors that play a psychological role in laypersons’ decisions about justice and responsibility. The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, 4th Floor Chicago, IL 60611 (800) 292-5065 Fax: (312) 988-6579 [email protected] www.americanbarfoundation.org OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE OFFICERS OF THE FELLOWS, CONT’D AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION Don Slesnick, Secretary William C. Hubbard, President Slesnick & Casey LLP Hon. Bernice B. Donald, Vice President 2701 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 200 David A. Collins, Treasurer Coral Gables, FL 33134-6041 Ellen J. Flannery, Secretary Office: (305) 448-5672 Robert L. Nelson, ABF Director Fax: (305) 448-5685 Susan Frelich Appleton [email protected] Mortimer M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Way Pavers: Eleven Supreme Court-Worthy Women
    Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 7-2018 The Way Pavers: Eleven Supreme Court-worthy Women Meg Penrose Texas A&M University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Judges Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Meg Penrose, The Way Pavers: Eleven Supreme Court-worthy Women, Harv. J.L. & Gender Online 1 (2018). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/1261 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE WAY PAVERS: ELEVEN SUPREME COURT-WORTHY WOMEN * MEG PENROSE Introduction Four women have served as associate justices on the United States Supreme Court. Since the Court’s inception in 1789, more than 160 individuals have been nominated to serve as Supreme Court justices.1 Five nominees, or roughly 3 percent, have been women.2 To help put this gender dearth in perspective, more men named “Samuel” have served as Supreme Court justices than women.3 Thirteen U.S. presidents have each nominated more people to the Supreme Court than the total number of women that have served on the Court.4 Finally, there are currently as many Catholics serving on the Supreme Court as the number of women confirmed in the Court’s entire history.5 Women, once thought of as “one-at-a-time-curiosities” on the bench, now constitute nearly one-third of all state and federal judges.6 They occupy the highest posts on state supreme courts and can be found, in similar numbers, at the trial and appellate * Meg Penrose is a full Professor at Texas A&M University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • * Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sitting by Designation
    06-1867-cv MLB Properties v. Salvino 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 - - - - - - 4 August Term, 2006 5 (Argued: January 23, 2007 Decided: September 12,2008) 6 Docket No. 06-1867-cv 7 _________________________________________________________ 8 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PROPERTIES, INC., 9 Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant- 10 Appellee, 11 - v. - 12 SALVINO, INC., 13 Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant. 14 _________________________________________________________ 15 Before: KEARSE and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges, and CEDARBAUM, 16 District Judge*. 17 Appeal by defendant from so much of a judgment of the 18 United States District Court for the Southern District of New 19 York, Richard Conway Casey, Judge, as dismissed its counterclaim 20 alleging that the organization and activities of plaintiff as the 21 exclusive licensing agent for Major League Baseball intellectual 22 property constitute a per se or "quick-look" violation of the 23 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. See 420 F.Supp.2d 212 (2005). 24 Affirmed. * Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 Judge Sotomayor concurs, in a separate opinion. 2 JAMES T. McKEOWN, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (G. 3 Michael Halfenger, Foley & Lardner, 4 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Gary A. Adler, 5 Bingham McCutchen, New York,New York, 6 on the brief), for Plaintiff- 7 Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellee. 8 MAXWELL M. BLECHER, Los Angeles,California 9 (John E. Andrews, Blecher & Collins, 10 Los Angeles, California, on the 11 brief),for Defendant-Counterclaimant- 12 Appellant. 13 KEARSE, Circuit Judge: 14 Defendant Salvino, Inc. ("Salvino"), appeals from so much 15 of a final judgment of the United States District Court for the 16 Southern District of New York, Richard Conway Casey, Judge, as 17 dismissed its counterclaims alleging that the organization and 18 activities of plaintiff Major League Baseball Properties, Inc.
    [Show full text]