DOCSLIB.ORG

UC Irvine Aborts Hiring Chemerinsky As Law School Dean Page 1 of 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UC Irvine Aborts Hiring Chemerinsky As Law School Dean Page 1 of 3 Los Angeles Times: UC Irvine aborts hiring Chemerinsky as law school dean Page 1 of 3 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci13sep13,0,873705.story?coll=la-home-local From the Los Angeles Times UC Irvine aborts hiring Chemerinsky as law school dean The constitutional scholar says university officials told him the deal was off to head the new school because he was too 'politically controversial.' By Garrett Therolf and Henry Weinstein Los Angeles Times Staff Writers September 13, 2007 In a showdown over academic freedom, a prominent legal scholar said Wednesday that UC Irvine's chancellor had succumbed to conservative political pressure in rescinding his contract to head the university's new law school, a charge the chancellor vehemently denied. Erwin Chemerinsky, a well-known liberal expert on constitutional law, said he had signed a contract Sept. 4, only to be told Tuesday by Chancellor Michael V. Drake that Drake was voiding their deal because Chemerinsky was too liberal and the university had underestimated "conservatives out to get me." Later Wednesday, however, Drake said there had been no outside pressure and that he had decided to reject Chemerinsky, now of Duke University and formerly of USC, because he felt the law professor's commentaries were "polarizing" and would not serve the interests of California's first new public law school in 40 years. News of Drake's decision quickly made its way through academic and legal circles nationally, where it came under criticism from liberal and conservative scholars who said Chemerinsky was being unfairly penalized. "It seems late in the day to notice that Erwin Chemerinsky is a prominent liberal," said John Jeffries, University of Virginia Law School dean. "That's been true for as long as I've known him. It's rather like discovering that Wilt Chamberlain was tall. How could you not know?" Drake said he worried that the firing had the potential to harm the university's reputation. "It was the most difficult decision of my career," he said in an emotional interview, his voice at times quavering. Legal academics said Chemerinsky's sacking could make it difficult for UCI to attract a top-flight dean, students and faculty. Douglas W. Kmiec, a prominent conservative constitutional law professor at Pepperdine Law School in Malibu, called the development "a tremendous setback for UC Irvine. It is a profound mistake in my judgment to have obtained the services of one of the most respected, most talented teachers of the Constitution in the United States and to turn him away on the specious ground that he is too liberal or too progressive. That is a betrayal of everything a law school should stand for." Chemerinsky and Drake agreed the new dean's dismissal was motivated in part by an Aug. 16 opinion article in The Times, the same day the job offer was made. In it, Chemerinsky asserted that Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales was "about to adopt an unnecessary and mean-spirited regulation that will make it harder for those on death row to have their cases reviewed in federal court." But Drake and Chemerinsky split sharply on what role the article played in the decision to fire the incoming dean and whether academic freedom was at stake. "Shouldn't we as academics be able to stand up for people on death row?" Chemerinsky said. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci13sep13,0,4858946,print.story?coll=la-home... 9/13/2007 Los Angeles Times: UC Irvine aborts hiring Chemerinsky as law school dean Page 2 of 3 Drake said that "we had talked to him in June about writing op-ed pieces and that he would have to focus on things like legal education in this new role, and then here comes another political piece. It wasn't the subject, it was its existence. What he said doesn't matter." Chemerinsky, one of the nation's best-known constitutional scholars, will remain a professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C. He said he had lined up a board of advisors for the new school, including the deans of the UC Berkeley and University of Virginia law schools and three federal judges, including Andrew Guilford, a Bush appointee from Orange County. Chemerinsky said that Drake told him during a meeting at the Sheraton Hotel near the Raleigh-Durham airport that "concerns" had emerged from the University of California regents, which would have had to approve the appointment. The professor said Drake told him that he thought there would have been a "bloody battle" over the appointment. Drake disagreed with the account. "No one said we can't hire him," he said. "No one said don't take this to the regents. I consulted with no regents about this. I told a couple people that I was worried and that this might be controversial, but no one called me and said I should do anything." Drake drew support from Christopher Edley, dean of the Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley, whom Drake consulted on the decision to let Chemerinsky go. "It appeared to me that Michael was willing to go forward in the face of opposition but for the fact that he lost confidence in Erwin's willingness to subordinate his autonomy and personal profile for the good of the institution," Edley said. Edley, who worked in the Clinton administration, said it was nothing that he had not been called to do himself. "I was questioned explicitly by people who feared I would turn the deanship into a platform for my own ideological commitments," he said. "But it was clear to me then, and it's clear to me now, that the job requires something else." Chemerinsky has been a professor at Duke since 2004, after 21 years at the USC law school. He was a finalist for the dean's job at Duke last year. During his time in Los Angeles, Chemerinsky was a well-known figure who helped write the city charter and was a frequent legal commentator in the media. In April 2005, Legal Affairs magazine named him one of "the top 20 legal thinkers in America." UCI's law school, which is expected to welcome its first class in 2009, will be the first new public law school in California in 40 years. Last month, the university announced that Newport Beach billionaire Donald Bren had donated $20 million to fund the salary of the dean and 11 faculty positions and have the school named in his honor. A spokesman for Bren said he had nothing to do with the ouster. "Mr. Bren doesn't know Erwin Chemerinsky or know enough about him to have an opinion about him or enough to express an opinion about him to anyone." Chemerinsky had told supporters that the first six to eight faculty members would be from top 20 law schools, and they would be "stars." "The goal is that UCI will be a top 20 law school someday," he said in an e-mail. Among those Chemerinsky had approached about joining the faculty was Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who teaches criminal law and legal ethics at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and who is a frequent commentator on TV and radio. Levenson said she was deeply disturbed by the news. "For a new law school to start infringing on academic freedom, even before it opens its door, does not bode well for this institution," Levenson said. "I have talked to Erwin quite a bit about his plans for the new law school. He did not have a political agenda. He had an excellence agenda." "If there's room for Ken Starr and John Eastman to be the dean of a law school, there's room for Erwin Chemerinsky," Levenson said, referring to the conservative constitutional scholars who are deans at the Pepperdine and Chapman law http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci13sep13,0,4858946,print.story?coll=la-home... 9/13/2007 Los Angeles Times: UC Irvine aborts hiring Chemerinsky as law school dean Page 3 of 3 schools, respectively. Eastman and Chemerinsky frequently debate constitutional law issues on television and radio, and he said their approach to these issues was nearly always in conflict, but "what I appreciate is his willingness to engage in the debate." Jon Wiener, a UCI history professor, called the dismissal "the biggest violation of academic freedom in the history of UCI. Nationally, it is the biggest academic freedom case of the year. Some people are saying we have to take this to the faculty senate and make a faculty-wide statement condemning it." [email protected] [email protected] Times staff writer Richard C. Paddock contributed to this report. If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. Article licensing and reprint options Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service Home Delivery | Advertise | Archives | Contact | Site Map | Help PARTNERS: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci13sep13,0,4858946,print.story?coll=la-home... 9/13/2007 Print: Professor Says His Political Views Cost Him a J... http://chronicle.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://... http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/09/2007091301n.htm Thursday, September 13, 2007 Professor Says His Political Views Cost Him a Job as UC-Irvine's Law-School Dean Before He Started By KATHERINE MANGAN One week after signing a contract to become the inaugural law dean at the University of California at Irvine, Erwin Chemerinsky had a personal visit from the man he expected to be his new boss.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uc Irvine School of Law Commencement Dinner • May 4, 2012
    SCHOOL OF LAW FOUNDING DONORS In Grateful Acknowledgement of Those Whose Foresight and Generosity Made Possible the Building of the Law School for the 21st Century The Donald Bren Foundation Anonymous Joan Irvine Smith & Athalie R. Clarke Foundation Marilyn and John Long Raymond Pryke Melody and Mark P. Robinson, Jr. Acacia Research Corporation Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Andrews & Thornton, Attorneys at Law Philip K. Anthony DecisionQuest Diane and Hon. Joseph L. Dunn Fidelity National Financial Lynn and Douglas K. Freeman Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP Thomas V. Girardi Irell & Manella LLP Jones Day Foundation Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Rosalyn M. Laudati UC IRVINE SCHOOL OF LAW COMMENCEMENT DINNER • MAY 4, 2012 SCHOOL OF LAW FOUNDING DONORS Morrison & Foerster, LLP O'Melveny & Myers, LLP James L. Payne Saveri & Saveri, Inc. Snell & Wilmer, LLP Ellen Bancroft Marcia Brandwynne Susan M. and Richard K. Bridgford Stuart Byer and Jeffrey Rehm Paul J. Couchot The Dorsey & Whitney Foundation Experian Information Solutions, Inc. Vincencia and Ronald C. Lazof Thomas R. Malcolm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Minyard & Morris LLP Microsemi Corporation Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Orange County Bar Association Charitable Fund Orange County Trial Lawyers Association Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Ronald Simon Family Foundation Ygal and Justice Sheila Prell Sonenshine Ann and Marc Winthrop Winthrop Couchot PC UC IRVINE SCHOOL OF LAW COMMENCEMENT DINNER • MAY 4, 2012 SCHOOL OF LAW FOUNDING DONORS American Board of Trial Advocates, Jeffrey M. Verdon Law Group, LLP Orange County Chapter Justice Stephen K. Tamura BARBRI Scholarship Foundation Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP Kaplan Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Debate on Birthright Citizenship
    Florida International University College of Law eCollections Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2011 Debate on Birthright Citizenship John Eastman Dr. Chapman University Fowler School of Law, [email protected] Ediberto Román Florida International University College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation John Eastman Dr. and Ediberto Román, Debate on Birthright Citizenship , 6 FIU L. Rev. 293 (2011). Available at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications/304 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]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 6 FIU L. Rev. 293 2010-2011 Provided by: FIU College of Law Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Thu Jun 22 14:05:02 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. Debate on Birthright Citizenship Dr. John Eastman*& Professor Ediberto Roman' Dr. John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University School of Law, specializing in Constitutional Law and Legal History. He also served as Dean from 2007 to 2010, when he stepped down to pursue a campaign for Califor- nia Attorney General. He is also the founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Juris- prudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment Erwin Chemerinsky
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 44 | Issue 4 Article 7 1-1993 History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment Erwin Chemerinsky Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Erwin Chemerinsky, History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment, 44 Hastings L.J. 901 (1993). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol44/iss4/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment by ERWIN CHEMERINSKY* Introduction My advice to an attorney litigating a case before the current Supreme Court is to buy a copy of Blackstone's history of the common law or at least a good book on legal history. In virtually every area of constitutional law, the Supreme Court increasingly is relying on tradition as its guide in decisionmaking. Repeatedly, the Supreme Court has de- nied constitutional protection by holding that the claimed right was not historically protected. The Court is often explicit in stating that rights should be protected only if there has been a tradition of judicial safe- guards, and its analysis frequently is accompanied by a lengthy exegesis on common-law practices. I believe that this is a perverse and undesirable method of interpret- ing the Constitution. What has been done in the past cannot answer normatively what the law should be in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Ethics
    642 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS IDEOLOGY, JUDICIAL SELECTION AND JUDICIAL ETHICS ERWIN CHEMERINSKY Reprinted from THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS Volume 2, Number 3, Winter 1989 Copyright © 1989 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 643 Ideology, Judicial Selection and Judicial Ethics ERWIN CHEMERINSKY* In the fail of 1986, there was a bitter fight against the retention of three members of the California Supreme Court, Rose Bird, Joseph Grodin, and Cruz Reynoso. Exactly a year later, the nation's attention focused on the battle over Robert Bork's confirmation to the United States Supreme Court. There were ironic parallels between these two events. In both instances, pub- lic opinion and media reporting played an unprecedented role in the judicial selection process. In each situation, there were arguments over whether the candidates' ideology should be a major factor in the evaluations. Liberals in California argued that assuring judicial inde- pendence required that the evaluation be limited to the justices' competence; that the individuals' ideology and prior votes should play no role in the re- tention election. But the sides were reversed in tflMMMMBtfMHMMWM the liberals who ^rgUcd that B<^^^~^v^ml^giig^t^bmtKHmmK tiv&jfem••91& prior votes asri^Bi^gJHBB^rtii^ Conservatives argued that evaluation should be limited to the nominee's competence—that his ide- ology and prior votes should play no role in the Senate's confirmation decision. A cynic might observe that these experiences reflect a pattern of public rhetoric. If jjnp |n nil kill liriHTfihi liiffti jiniiWHi iilmii ni'^nTiTfrrMTITri'P as an issue in your arguments; bat if your candidate's positions ate against the weight of public opinion, you maintain that ideology is irrelevant and that judicial candidates should be evaluated solely on the basis of profes- sional qualifications.
    [Show full text]
  • OPINION and DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; GAIL J
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTIN M. PERRY; SANDRA B. STIER; PAUL T. KATAMI; JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, 1569 1570 PERRY v. BROWN HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, Intervenor-Defendant, and DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; GAIL J. No. 10-16696 KNIGHT; MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ; D.C. No. MARK A. JANSSON; 3:09-cv-02292- PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM-YES ON 8, VRW A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants. KRISTIN M. PERRY; SANDRA B. STIER; PAUL T. KATAMI; JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; PERRY v. BROWN 1571 LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; DEAN C.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from Monitoring Trends in Abundance of Marine Mammals
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Publications, Agencies and Staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 LESSONS FROM MONITORING TRENDS IN ABUNDANCE OF MARINE MAMMALS Barbara L. Taylor NMFS, [email protected] Melissa Martinez NMFS Tim Gerrodette NMFS Jay Barlow NMFS, [email protected] Yvana N. Hrovat University of California - Santa Barbara Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Taylor, Barbara L.; Martinez, Melissa; Gerrodette, Tim; Barlow, Jay; and Hrovat, Yvana N., "LESSONS FROM MONITORING TRENDS IN ABUNDANCE OF MARINE MAMMALS" (2006). Publications, Agencies and Staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce. 318. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub/318 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Commerce at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications, Agencies and Staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, 23(1): 157–175 (January 2007) C 2006 by the Society for Marine Mammalogy No claim to original US government works DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2006.00092.x LESSONS FROM MONITORING TRENDS IN ABUNDANCE OF MARINE MAMMALS BARBARA L. TAYLOR MELISSA MARTINEZ TIM GERRODETTE JAY BARLOW NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, California 92037-1508, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] YVANA N. HROVAT Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, Bren Computing, 3408 Bren Hall, UCSB, Santa Barbara, California 93106-3060, U.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Professor of Law UC Berkeley Law School
    The Bay Area Bankruptcy Forum and our Co-sponsors Present Round-up of Current Supreme Court Cases - Focusing on Those Most Important to Bankruptcy Lawyers and Accountants Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Professor of Law UC Berkeley Law School Erwin Chemerinsky became the 13th Dean of Berkeley Law on July 1, 2017, when he joined the faculty as the Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law. Prior to assuming this position, from 2008-2017, he was the founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, at University of California, Irvine School of Law, with a joint appointment in Political Science. Before that he was the Alston and Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University from 2004-2008, and from 1983- 2004 was a professor at the University of Southern California Law School, including as the Sydney M. Irmas Professor of Public Interest Law, Legal Ethics, and Political Science. He also has taught at DePaul College of Law and UCLA Law School. He teaches Constitutional Law, First Amendment Law, Federal Courts, Criminal Procedure, and Appellate Litigation. He is the author of ten books, including The Case Against the Supreme Court, published by Viking in 2014, and two books published by Yale University Press in 2017, Closing the Courthouse Doors: How Your Constitutional Rights Became Unenforceable and Free Speech on Campus (with Howard Gillman). He also is the author of more than 200 law review articles. He writes a weekly column for the Orange County Register, monthly columns for the ABA Journal and the Daily Journal, and frequent op-eds in newspapers across the country.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rehnquist Court and Criminal Procedure Stephen F
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2002 The Rehnquist Court and Criminal Procedure Stephen F. Smith Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Stephen F. Smith, The Rehnquist Court and Criminal Procedure, 73 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1337 (2002). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/448 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE REHNQUIST COURT AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE STEPHEN F. SMITH* INTRODUCTION This Conference, like a growing body of academic literature, discusses the phenomenon of conservative judicial activism. Has the Rehnquist Court been "activist"-whatever that means-in its approach to constitutional adjudication? With recent rumors that Chief Justice Rehnquist will soon announce his retirement, this is a particularly topical subject. Indeed, even now, one sees the first chiselings of the Court's epitaph, with Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, for example, declaring that the Rehnquist Court has been nothing short of a "disaster" due to its rampant conservative activism.1 The question of whether, and to what extent, the Rehnquist Court is "activist" or practices the "restraint" that judicial conservatives traditionally preach will likely figure prominently in the ultimate assessment of the Court's jurisprudence. Much of this Conference addresses this question within the context of the revival of federalism-based limits on Congress over the last decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter to Supreme Court (Erwin Chemerinsky Is Mad. Why You Should Care) Barry Friedman
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 69 | Issue 4 Article 4 5-2016 Letter to Supreme Court (Erwin Chemerinsky is Mad. Why You Should Care) Barry Friedman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Barry Friedman, Letter to Supreme Court (Erwin Chemerinsky is Mad. Why You Should Care), 69 Vanderbilt Law Review 995 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol69/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Letter To Supreme Court (Erwin Chemerinsky is Mad. Why You Should Care.) Barry Friedman* I. THE PROBLEM WITH CHEMERINSKY'S "CASE" ..................... 997 II. THE CASE FOR ERWIN CHEMERINSKY ............................... 1001 III. THE CONSERVATIVE CASE AGAINST THE SUPREM E COURT ........................................................ 1002 IV. W HAT THE PEOPLE THINK ................................................. 1004 V . TIM E FOR CHANGE? ........................ ............... ................. .. 1007 VI. BACK TO THE (MERITS) FUTURE ........................................ 1014 Dear Supreme Court: You may be wondering why I'm writing. Let me tell you. I was asked to participate in a symposium about Erwin Chemerinsky's The Case Against the Supreme Court. I'm sure you know Chemerinsky. His book is a stinging condemnation of much that you do. And his goal-in which he does not nearly succeed-is to show your work to be unacceptable to the left and the right alike. He fancies that he is offering a non-partisan, non-ideological, non-denominational challenge to your hegemony.
    [Show full text]
  • UCLA LAW MAGAZINE PRESORTED UCLA School of Law, Office of the Dean FIRST CLASS MAIL Box 951476, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476 U.S
    Final Cover 3/26/01 10:13 AM Page 1 UCLA LAW MAGAZINE PRESORTED UCLA School of Law, Office of the Dean FIRST CLASS MAIL Box 951476, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476 U.S. POSTAGE PAID www.law.ucla.edu UCLA [email protected] APRIL 2001 Return Service Requested Friday, April 20, 1 P.M. “The Changing Face of Practice: Perspectives from the Profession and the Law School” A Symposium to mark the 30th Anniversary of the UCLA School of Law Clinical Program with a dinner and tribute to Professor David Binder UCLA LAW MAGAZINE UC L A featuring Shirley M. Hufstedler LAW MAGAZINE The Magazine of the UCLA School of Law MCLE credit approved for 2.5 hours general credit and 1.75 ethics credit Vol. 24 L No. 1 L Fall.Winter.2000.2001 Please call (310) 825-7376 or e-mail [email protected] • Saturday, April 21, 9 A.M.- 6 P.M. AALS Colloquium: Equal Access to Justice Please call (310) 206-9155 or e-mail [email protected] 3030 YearsYears ofof Clinical Clinical LegalLegal EducationEducation • Tuesday, April 24, NOON UCLA Law Alumni of the Year Awards A Salute to The Honorable Elwood Lui [Ret.] ’69 Public/Community Service and N Skip Brittenham ’70 FALL.WINTER.2000–2001 Professional Achievement Century Plaza Hotel Please call (310) 206-1121 or e-mail [email protected] • Tuesday, April 24, 4:30 P.M. The Twelfth Annual Public Interest Awards UCLA School of Law, Room 1430 Please call (310) 206-9155 or e-mail [email protected] MAY 2001 Sunday, May 20, 2 P.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Seeing the Emperor's Clothes: Recognizing The
    SEEING THE EMPEROR’S CLOTHES: RECOGNIZING THE REALITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION MAKING ∗ ERWIN CHEMERINSKY INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1069 I. WHY DOES THE MYTH PERSIST?....................................................... 1070 II. WHY IS THE MYTH’S PERSISTENCE BAD?......................................... 1077 III. HOW CAN THE DISCOURSE MOVE FORWARD?.................................. 1079 CONCLUSION................................................................................................. 1081 INTRODUCTION Increasingly, the rhetoric about judicial review is at complete odds with reality. In the summer of 2005, President George W. Bush repeatedly said that he wanted to nominate judges who would “not legislate from the bench.”1 He wanted judges who would apply, not make, the law. It is a nice slogan, but any first year law student knows that judges make law constantly. The first year student’s common law subjects are almost entirely judge-made law. Interpretation of an ambiguous statute or a constitutional provision’s broad, open-textured language is also a judge’s legal product. At his confirmation hearings for the Chief Justice position, Judge John Roberts began the proceedings by analogizing his future role to that of a baseball umpire.2 Although both make decisions, it is hard to think of a less apt analogy. An umpire applies rules created by others; the Supreme Court, through its decisions, creates rules that others play by. An umpire’s views should not make a difference in how plays are called; a Supreme Court Justice’s views make an enormous difference. Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia frequently disagree in important constitutional cases; everyone knows that it is because their views and ideologies are drastically different. ∗ Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science, Duke University.
    [Show full text]
  • Congress' Constitutional Role in Protecting Religious Liberty
    S. HRG. 105-405 CONGRESS' CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE IN PROTECTING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON EXAMINING CONGRESS' ROLE IN PROTECTING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN THE WAKE OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES IN WHICH THE COURT HELD THE RELI­ GIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT AS APPLIED TO THE STATES OCTOBER 1, 1997 Serial No. J-105-55 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary Legislative Office MAIN LIBRARY U.S. Dept. of Justice U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 47-217 CC WASHINGTON : 1998 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-056351-8 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JON KYL, Arizona DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MIKE DEWINE, Ohio RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama MANUS COONEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel (II) CONTENTS STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator from the State of Utah 1 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts 48 Ashcroft, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri 51 CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES Panel consisting of Douglas Laycock, Alice McKean Young regents chair in law, University of Texas, Austin, TX; Michael Stokes Paulsen, associate professor of law, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; Erwin Chemerinsky, Sydney M.
    [Show full text]