DOCSLIB.ORG

Lawyers 14 Faculty 18 Practice Groups 22 State Courts 24 Capitol Hill 25 State Attorneys General 26 Alumni Relations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lawyers 14 Faculty 18 Practice Groups 22 State Courts 24 Capitol Hill 25 State Attorneys General 26 Alumni Relations TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 6 STUDENTS 10 LAWYERS 14 FACULTY 18 PRACTICE GROUPS 22 STATE COURTS 24 CAPITOL HILL 25 STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL 26 ALUMNI RELATIONS NATIONAL LAWYERS 28 The Federalist Society for Law The Society seeks both to promote an awareness CONVENTION KEEP IN TOUCH of these principles and to further their application through its activities. REGULATORY TRANSPARENCY and Public Policy Studies 36 WEBSITES PHONE PROJECT fedsoc.org (202) 822-8138 is a group of conservatives and This entails reordering priorities within the legal system fedsoc.org/probono ARTICLE I INITIATIVE EMAIL libertarians interested in the current to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional 38 no86.org [email protected] values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the 40 DIGITAL articleiinitiative.org state of the legal order. It is founded recognition of the importance of these norms among rtproject.org ADDRESS on the principles that the state lawyers, judges, law students, and professors. In 44 INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS stateags.com 1776 I Street NW working to achieve these goals, the Society has created statecourtsguide.com Suite 300 exists to preserve freedom, that the a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that PUBLICATIONS & BLOG 46 globalgovernancewatch.org Washington, D.C. 20006 extends to all levels of the legal community. separation of governmental powers is 48 BENEFACTORS SOCIAL MEDIA central to our Constitution, and that In its mission and purpose, the Federalist Society is FINANCIALS unique. By providing a forum for legal experts of 54 /Federalist.Society @fedsoc it is emphatically the province and opposing views to interact with members of the legal 55 OFFICERS & STAFF /TheFederalistSociety @fedsoc duty of the judiciary to say what the profession, the judiciary, law students, academics, and the architects of public policy, the Society has redefined /company/the-federalist-society law is, not what it should be. the terms of legal debate. For the Federalist Society, the opportunities for public discussion and debate—can help and challenges have never been greater. inform solutions to this challenge as well. That was going to be the lead for this message COVID-19 also presents the Society with before COVID-19 broke. At the time, I was operational challenges. Because of your thinking of the opportunities and challenges support, the Federalist Society now maintains brought to the Society by increased press student chapters at nearly every ABA-accredited attention, with the result that many students law school in America, as well as professional and lawyers with any interest in public policy events for legal practitioners in more than 100 now know our name or have, at the very least, cities nationwide. In 2019, our conferences encountered a description of what we do, even continued to be a major draw for our members, if it’s inaccurate. with the 2019 National Lawyers Convention attracting more than 2,400 people. We held COVID-19 has not led these earlier challenges extensive programming in the states, where we and opportunities to disappear. But it has examined the role of state, as well as federal, presented new ones, of a different and in some judges. And, because of your generosity, ideas ways even more fundamental kind. about originalism, the rule of law, and the importance of free markets are now widely Since 1982, we have worked diligently to discussed throughout the legal community. promote three principles: that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation For most of the Society’s history, this discussion of governmental powers is central to our has largely taken place through in-person Constitution, and that it is emphatically the meetings. The closing of law school campuses province and duty of the judiciary to say what and restrictions on public gatherings means the law is, not what it should be. that at least in the near term that model will not work. Fortunately, over the past five years, The biggest challenge we now face is a new the Society has greatly expanded its virtual one: how to confront the COVID-19 threat offerings. The current crisis gives us the vigorously and with the necessary resolve while opportunity to take this work to the next level. continuing to respect these principles. The rule of law and the Constitution leave room for In spite of past challenges, our efforts have met emergency measures. But exactly what? What with enormous success. We remain convinced can federal or state executives order? And what that even greater opportunities lie ahead. can be done to limit appropriate emergency This is largely because of our tremendous actions to the emergency, given the well- supporters and volunteers. We thank you and established tendency for temporary increases are grateful to so many of you for your help in in governmental power to remain in place all of this. Because of all that you do, our work indefinitely after the emergency has passed? is both possible and tremendously rewarding. We do not have all the answers. But we are Gratefully, convinced that the Society’s general approach to controversial questions—one that gives all perspectives a fair and level platform and that elevates, rather than degrades, the standards President & CEO 4 THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE Prof. Rick Garnett and Prof. Jeff Pojanowski discuss the October U.S. 1,175 Supreme Court term at Notre Dame. STUDENT CHAPTER EVENTS IN 2019 STUDENTS 1 University of Chicago chapter members pose for a picture with Student Division staff after winning Chapter of the Year. 2 3 5 The Student Division continued to foster debate and Economic Sanctions.” The event closed with a fireside chat 1. Former Senator Jon Kyl interviews Arizona Governor discussion on some of the most pressing legal and policy issues between Senator Jon Kyl and Governor Doug Ducey. Doug Ducey at the National of the day. Student chapters across the country hosted 1,175 Student Symposium banquet. events throughout the year, reaching approximately 65,407 In July, more than 200 chapter representatives attended the 2. Kristen Stoicescu individuals. Debates and panels were especially popular, with Student Leadership Conference. This conference allowed the (Northwestern) asks a question an average attendance over 68 for these 432 events. students to learn best practices for running their chapters from at the Student Leadership Conference. the student division staff. They also had the opportunity to Federalist Society chapters were once again the strongest meet other chapter leaders, build relationships, and exchange 3. Brandon Masin (UNT Dallas College of Law) at the Supreme extracurricular groups on most law school campuses. ideas for the upcoming school year. On the second night of Court reception. the conference, attendees were able to enjoy a reception at The student chapter at Arizona State University hosted the Supreme Court with members of the libertarian and 4. Hon. Amy Coney Barrett with the Executive Board of the UVA its first National Student Symposium in March on “The conservative legal community. Student Chapter. Resurgence of Economic Liberty.” The symposium began 5. Chase Browndorf (Harvard) with a discussion on the original understanding of “privileges For the second straight year, the Federalist Society saw a assisting with book signings by or immunities.” Other panels over the weekend included “Is record-breaking number of volunteers at the National Lawyers Professors Richard Epstein and Economic Protectionism a Legitimate State Interest?” and Convention in November. Three hundred students traveled Ilan Wurman at the National Lawyers Convention. “Economic Liberty in Criminal Justice: Business Crimes and to Washington, D.C. to help make this event a success. 4 8 | Students The Federalist SocietyAnnual Report 2019 | 9 More than 300 people attended the Western Chapters Conference at the Ronald Reagan Library in California. 482 LAWYERS CHAPTER EVENTS IN 2019 LAWYERS 11 1 2 110 LAWYERS CHAPTERS WITH FOUR NEW CHAPTERS: • Mississippi Coast • Sarasota • Southwest Florida/Naples Hon. Don McGahn, former White House counsel, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the Kentucky Chapters Conference. • Wilmington, NC 3 4 The Federalist Society’s lawyers chapters continue to flourish, history in 2019, with a focus on regulatory reform, religious with a record-level schedule of programing, steadily increasing liberty, the First Amendment, the future of the U.S. Supreme 1. Sen. Rick Scott at the Miami membership and attendance, and expansion into new areas Court, lower court judicial nominations, and state court 30th Anniversary Gala. of the country where Federalist Society lawyers chapters jurisprudence. Programming also touched upon national 2. Hon. Beth Williams speaks at the previously have not existed. Over 110 chapters are active, priorities, including the Regulatory Transparency Project, the Texas Chapters Conference. including four young lawyers chapters and nine newly Article One Initiative, and the State Courts Project. 3. Solicitor General Noel Francisco launched chapters. This increased activity is an outgrowth of speaks at the Ohio Chapters strong leadership, innovative programming, continued young Speakers included Senators Mitch McConnell, Marsha Conference. lawyers outreach, and engagement with the Federalist Society’s Blackburn, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Marco Rubio, and Rick 4. Hon. Paul Matey, Prof. Emily national projects. Our lawyers chapters continue to prioritize Scott; Florida Governor Ron DeSantis; United States Court of Bremer, and Prof. Adam White bolstering membership and chapter infrastructure, recruiting Appeals Judges Amy Barrett, Alice Batchelder, Joseph Bianco, at the Third Circuit Chapters Conference. young lawyers, retaining recent graduates, coordinating with Lisa Branch, Marsha Berzon, John Bush, Kyle Duncan, Jennifer other chapters in the same state, and tying programming to Elrod, Harris Hartz, Jim Ho, Sandra Ikuta, Edith Jones, Paul 5. Hon. Stephanie Silver, Hon. current events that pose rule of law challenges. Chapters remain Matey, Ryan Nelson, Andrew Oldham, David Porter, Chad William Altfield, Hon. Vivian Del Rio, and Hon.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Judges 1985–2017 Notre Dame Law School
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument Conferences, Events and Lectures 2017 List of Judges 1985–2017 Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_moot_court Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Notre Dame Law School, "List of Judges 1985–2017" (2017). Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument. 1. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_moot_court/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences, Events and Lectures at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. List of Judges that Have Served the Moot Court Showcase Argument 2009 to present held in McCarten Court Room, Eck Hall of Law Updated: March 2017 Name Yr. Served ND Grad Court Judge Alice Batchelder 3/3/2017 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Chief Justice Matthew Durrant 3/3/2017 Utah Supreme Court NDLS 1992 Judge John Blakey 3/3/2017 BA-UND 1988 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Chief Justice Matthew G. Durrant 2/25/2106 Utah Supreme Court Judge Alice Batchelder 2/25/2016 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen Kelly 2/25/2016 BA-UND 1983 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Joel F. Dubina 2/26/2015 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Chief Judge Frederico A. Moreno 2/26/2015 United States District Court - Miami, FL Judge Patricia O'Brien Cotter 2/26/2015 NDLS 1977 Montana Supreme Court Judge Margaret A.
    [Show full text]
  • Ben Sasse & Deb Fischer
    NEBRASKA TAXPAYERS FOR FREEDOM: CONGRESS WATCH BULLETIN. THE VOTING RECORD OF YOUR SENATORS: 2019. 304 North 168 Cir. #213 11819 Miracle Hills Dr. #205 Omaha, NE. 68118 Omaha, NE. 68154 Phone: 402-550-8040 Phone: 402-391-3411 Fax: 402-391-4725 Sen. Ben Sasse Sen. Deb Fischer 116th CONGRESS – 2019 NTF voting scores during this session: FISCHER: 99% 1st Session SASSE: 95% Taxes. S.J. Res. 50: To disapprove a conservative IRS rule relating to charitable contributions and estate tax deductions when a taxpayer receives or expects to receive a corresponding state or local tax credit. BAD BILL/ FAILED Fischer: NO Sasse: NO Spending. HR 3055 Amend. 1019: To reduce amounts appropriated by 2% than amount appropriated in FY 2019 for several federal programs. GOOD AMENDMENT/ FAILED Fischer: YES Sasse: YES Amend. 1141: To prohibit a liberal test for mass transit expenditures. GOOD AMENDMENT/ PASSED Fischer: YES Sasse: YES Amend. 1250: To not reduce amount appropriated by 1% and put savings towards EPA infrastructure assistance. BAD AMENDMENT/ PASSED Fischer: NO Sasse: NO HR 3877: To amend the Balanced Budget Act of 1985 to suspend the federal debt limit. BAD BILL/ PASSED Fischer: NO Sasse: NO HR 4378 Amend. 942: To reduce appropriated amount by 2% for several federal agencies. GOOD AMENDMENT/ FAILED Fischer: YES Sasse: YES PN 150: To confirm Gordon Hartogensis as Director of Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. GOOD RESOLUTION/ CONFIRMED Fisher: YES Sasse: YES Government Regulations. PN 22: To confirm Andrew Wheeler as EPA administrator. GOOD RESOLUTION/ CONFIRMED Fischer: YES Sasse: YES PN 47: To confirm Spencer Bacchus III as member of the Export-Import Bank of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House Of
    1 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. INTERVIEWOF: DON MCGAHN Friday,June 4,2021 Washington,D.C. The interviewin the above matter was held in Room2141, Rayburn House Office Building,commencingat 10:05 a.m. 2 Present: RepresentativesNadler, Jackson Lee,Johnson of Georgia, Raskin, Scanlon, Dean, Jordan, and Gaetz. Staff Present: Perry Apelbaum,Staff Directorand Chief Counsel; Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel; Arya Hariharan,Chief Oversight Counsel; Sarah Istel,Oversight Counsel; PriyankaMara, ProfessionalStaff Member; Cierra Fontenot,Chief Clerk; Kayla Hamedi,Deputy PressSecretary; Will Emmons,ProfessionalStaff Member; Anthony Valdez, ProfessionalStaff Member; Steve Castor,Minority GeneralCounsel; James Lesinski, Minority Counsel; Betsy Ferguson,Minority Senior Counsel; Caroline Nabity, Minority Counsel; Michael Koren, Minority Senior ProfessionalStaff; Darius Namazi, Minority Research Assistant; and Isabela Belchior, Legislative Director for Representative Matt Gaetz. 3 Appearances: For DONMCGAHN: ALLISON MCGUIRE WILLIAM A. BURCK QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1300 I Street NW Suite 900 Washington,D.C. 20005 For the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: ELIZABETH SHAPIRO, COUNSEL For the OFFICE OF THE FORMERPRESIDENT TRUMP: SCOTT GAST 4 Mr. Hiller. All right. We'll go on the record. Good morning. I'm Aaron Hiller,deputy chief counselfor the House Judiciary Committee,and I havethe honor of kickingthings off today. This is a transcribed interview of former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn. Would the witness please state his name and formal position at the White House for the record? Mr. McGahn. I'mDonald McGahn. I was the counsel to the President. Mr. Hiller. Thank you, sir. Thank you for appearingheretoday. I will now ask everyone who is herein the roomto introducethemselves for the record.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President
    (Slip Opinion) Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President The immunity of the President’s immediate advisers from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers. This immunity applies to former senior advisers such as the former White House Counsel. According- ly, the former Counsel is not legally required to appear and testify about matters relat- ed to his official duties as Counsel to the President. The President does not waive an adviser’s immunity from compelled congressional testimony by authorizing disclosure of any particular information. The disclosure’s impact on executive privilege does not ultimately bear on any underlying immunity from compelled testimony. Because Congress may not constitutionally compel the former Counsel to testify about his official duties, he may not be civilly or criminally penalized for following a presiden- tial directive not to appear. The same rationale applies equally to an exercise of inher- ent contempt powers against a senior aide who has complied with a presidential direc- tion that he not provide testimony to a congressional committee. May 20, 2019 MEMORANDUM FOR THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT On April 22, 2019, the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives subpoenaed Donald F. McGahn II, the former Counsel to the President, to testify about matters described in the report of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III. You have asked whether Mr. McGahn is legally required to appear. We provide the same answer that the Department of Justice has repeat- edly provided for nearly five decades: Congress may not constitutionally compel the President’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties.
    [Show full text]
  • MEMORANDUM FROM: Victoria Bassetti, Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice TO: Interested Parties DATE: April 11, 2018 RE
    Brennan Center for Justice At New York University School of Law Washington, D.C. Office 1140 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1150 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone 202.249.7190 Fax 202.223.2683 MEMORANDUM FROM: Victoria Bassetti, Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice TO: Interested Parties DATE: April 11, 2018 RE: DOJ ORDER OF SUCCESSION If President Donald Trump wanted to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller he would have to get the Attorney General to do so. By law, only the Attorney General can fire Mueller. The President himself cannot do so. In the wake of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal from the matter, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has been the Acting Attorney General regarding Russian interference with the 2016 election and related matters. Rosenstein appointed Mueller as Special Counsel on May 17, 2017.1 He did so under his statutory authority to “specially appoint[]” an attorney to “conduct any kind of legal proceeding.” In addition, he indicated that Mueller would be bound by regulations governing Special Counsels. 2 Those regulations provide that only the Attorney General can only fire the Special Counsel for cause and must do so in writing. They provide: The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.3 In addition, since Mueller was appointed pursuant to a statutory provision, Supreme Court precedent holds that he can only be removed by the department head (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Notre Dame Lawyer—2018 Notre Dame Law School
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Notre Dame Lawyer Law School Publications 2018 Notre Dame Lawyer—2018 Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/nd_lawyer Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Notre Dame Law School, "Notre Dame Lawyer—2018" (2018). Notre Dame Lawyer. 39. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/nd_lawyer/39 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Lawyer by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Q&A with Dean Newton Pg. 2 Big Ideas The expansion of ND Law’s intellectual property program is bearing fruit Pg. 20 20 18 A DIFFERENT KIND of LAWYER PHOTOGRAPHY Alicia Sachau and University Marketing Communications EDITOR Kevin Allen Notre Dame Lawyer 1337 Biolchini Hall Notre Dame, IN 46556 574-631-5962 [email protected] Inside 2 Dean Newton 4 Briefs & News 10 Profiles: A Different Kind of Lawyer 16 London Law at 50 20 Intellectual Property 26 Father Mike 30 Faculty News 36 Alumni Notes 44 In Memoriam 46 The Couples of ’81 48 Interrogatory Briefs Dean Newton Steps Down Joseph A. Matson Dean and Professor of Law Nell Jessup Newton will conclude her tenure as dean of Notre Dame Law School on June 30, 2019, after 10 years of service. What was your rela- ÅZ[\\QUMIVLM^MVUMM\QVO sion that leads to follow-up tionship with Notre Dame Fr. Ted. These memories MUIQT[)_ITSIZW]VL\PM before you became the Law are even more tender TISM[WZ\W\PM/ZW\\WKIV School’s dean? because Rob died in 1995 provide a moment to be My brother Rob Mier of lymphoma caused by his grateful for all the ways that attended ND on a Navy exposure to Agent Orange the Notre Dame community ROTC scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Yale Law & Policy Review Inter Alia
    Essay - Keith Whittington - 09 - Final - 2010.06.29 6/29/2010 4:09:42 PM YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW INTER ALIA The State of the Union Is a Presidential Pep Rally Keith E. Whittington* Introduction Some people were not very happy with President Barack Obama’s criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court in his 2010 State of the Union Address. Famously, Justice Samuel Alito was among those who took exception to the substance of the President’s remarks.1 The disagreements over the substantive merits of the Citizens United case,2 campaign finance, and whether that particular Supreme Court decision would indeed “open the floodgates for special interests— including foreign corporations—to spend without limits in our elections” are, of course, interesting and important.3 But the mere fact that President Obama chose to criticize the Court, and did so in the State of the Union address, seemed remarkable to some. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the “setting, the circumstances and the decorum” of the State of the Union address made it an appropriate venue for criticizing the work of the Court.4 He was not alone.5 Criticisms of the form of President Obama’s remarks have tended to focus on the idea that presidential condemnations of the Court were “demean[ing]” or “insult[ing]” to the institution or the Justices or particularly inappropriate to * William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University. I thank Doug Edlin, Bruce Peabody, and John Woolley for their help on this Essay. 1. Justice Alito, who was sitting in the audience in the chamber of the House of Representatives, was caught by television cameras mouthing “not true” in reaction to President Obama’s characterization of the Citizens United decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Originalism and Constitutional Construction
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2013 Originalism and Constitutional Construction Lawrence B. Solum Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1301 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2307178 82 Fordham L. Rev. 453-537 (2013) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Legal Theory Commons ORIGINALISM AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION Lawrence B. Solum* Constitutional interpretation is the activity that discovers the communicative content or linguistic meaning of the constitutional text. Constitutional construction is the activity that determines the legal effect given the text, including doctrines of constitutional law and decisions of constitutional cases or issues by judges and other officials. The interpretation-construction distinction, frequently invoked by contemporary constitutional theorists and rooted in American legal theory in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, marks the difference between these two activities. This Article advances two central claims about constitutional construction. First, constitutional construction is ubiquitous in constitutional practice. The central warrant for this claim is conceptual: because construction is the determination of legal effect, construction always occurs when the constitutional text is applied to a particular legal case or official decision. Although some constitutional theorists may prefer to use different terminology to mark the distinction between interpretation and construction, every constitutional theorist should embrace the distinction itself, and hence should agree that construction in the stipulated sense is ubiquitous.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring Adam Bonica
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2016 Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring Adam Bonica Adam S. Chilton Jacob Goldin Kyle Rozema Maya Sen Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Adam Bonica, Adam S. Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema & Maya Sen, "Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring" (Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics No. 767, 2016). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring Adam Bonica, Adam Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema, & Maya Sen∗ July 21, 2016 ∗Bonica: Stanford University, Department of Political Science, e-mail: [email protected]. Chilton: University of Chicago Law School, e-mail: [email protected]. Goldin: Stanford Law School, e-mail: js- [email protected]. Rozema: Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, e-mail: [email protected]. Sen: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, e-mail: maya [email protected]. For helpful com- ments, we are grateful to Omri Ben-Shahar, Erin Delaney, Joshua Fischman, Tom Ginsburg, William Hubbard, Tonja Jacobi, Jim Lindgren, Robin Kar, Anup Malani, Jonathan Masur, Richard McAdams, Jennifer Nou, Eric Posner, Max Schanzenbach, Matt Spitzer, Eugene Volokh, and seminar participants at the University of Chicago Law School and at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Religious Affiliations of Trump's Judicial Nominees
    The Religious Affiliations of Trump's Judicial Nominees U.S. Supreme Court Religion Federalist Society Member Neil Gorsuch Catholic/Episcopal Listed on his SJQ U.S. Court of Appeals Amul Thapar Catholic Former John K. Bush Episcopal Yes Kevin Newsom Yes Amy Coney Barrett Catholic Yes Joan Larsen Former David Stras Jewish Yes Allison H. Eid Yes Ralph R. Erickson Catholic Stephanos Bibas Eastern Orthodox Yes Michael B. Brennan Yes L. Steven Grasz Presbyterian (PCA) Yes Ryan Wesley Bounds Yes Elizabeth L. Branch Yes Stuart Kyle Duncan Catholic Yes Gregory G. Katsas Yes Don R. Willett Baptist James C. Ho U.S. District Courts David Nye Mormon Timothy J. Kelly Catholic Yes Scott L. Palk Trevor N. McFadden Anglican Yes Dabney L. Friedrich Episcopal Claria Horn Boom Michael Lawrence Brown William L. Campbell Jr. Presbyterian Thomas Farr Yes Charles Barnes Goodwin Methodist Mark Norris Episcopal Tommy Parker Episcopal William McCrary Ray II Baptist Eli J. Richardson Tripp Self Baptist Yes Annemarie Carney Axon Liles C. Burke Methodist Donald C Coggins Jr. Methodist Terry A. Doughty Baptist Michael J. Juneau Christian A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. Presbyterian Holly Lou Teeter Catholic Robert E. Wier Methodist R. Stan Baker Methodist Jeffrey Uhlman Beaverstock Methodist John W. Broomes Baptist Walter David Counts III Baptist Rebecca Grady Jennings Methodist Matthew J. Kacsmaryk Christian Yes, in college Emily Coody Marks Yes Jeffrey C. Mateer Christian Terry F. Moorer Christian Matthew S. Petersen Former Fernando Rodriguez Jr. Christian Karen Gren Scholer Brett Joseph Talley Christian Howard C Nielson, Jr. Daniel Desmond Domenico Barry W. Ashe Kurt D.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S6886
    S6886 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 31, 2017 that—exactly the opposite. She wrote EXECUTIVE SESSION preme court justices who were not ap- that if a judge’s personal views were to proved by Republican Senators to move impede that judge’s ability to impar- to the Federal bench: Lisabeth Tabor tially apply the law, then the judge EXECUTIVE CALENDAR Hughes from Kentucky, Myra Selby should recuse herself from the case. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under from Indiana, Don Beatty from South As the coauthor of that article and the previous order, the Senate will pro- Carolina, Louis Butler from Wisconsin, current president of Catholic Univer- ceed to executive session and resume Patricia Timmons-Goodson from North sity recently put it, ‘‘The case against consideration of the Barrett nomina- Carolina. Prof. Barrett is so flimsy, that you tion, which the clerk will report. Senate Republicans turned obstruc- have to wonder whether there isn’t The senior assistant legislative clerk tion of judicial nominees into an art some other, unspoken, cause for their read the nomination of Amy Coney form under President Obama. Yet Sen- objection.’’ Barrett, of Indiana, to be United States ator MCCONNELL, day after day, has It does make you wonder. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit. said: ‘‘I think President Obama has To those using this matter as cover The PRESIDING OFFICER. The as- been treated very fairly by any objec- to oppose Professor Barrett because of sistant Democratic leader. tive standard.’’ her personally held religious beliefs, Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Senator He comes to the floor now regularly let me remind you, there are no reli- MCCONNELL has come to the floor to to complain about ‘‘obstruction’’ of gious tests—none—for public office in complain about what he calls obstruc- Trump nominees.
    [Show full text]
  • Angry Judges
    Angry Judges Terry A. Maroney* Abstract Judges get angry. Law, however, is of two minds as to whether they should; more importantly, it is of two minds as to whether judges’ anger should influence their behavior and decision making. On the one hand, anger is the quintessentially judicial emotion. It involves appraisal of wrongdoing, attribution of blame, and assignment of punishment—precisely what we ask of judges. On the other, anger is associated with aggression, impulsivity, and irrationality. Aristotle, through his concept of virtue, proposed reconciling this conflict by asking whether a person is angry at the right people, for the right reasons, and in the right way. Modern affective psychology, for its part, offers empirical tools with which to determine whether and when anger conforms to Aristotelian virtue. This Article weaves these strands together to propose a new model of judicial anger: that of the righteously angry judge. The righteously angry judge is angry for good reasons; experiences and expresses that anger in a well-regulated manner; and uses her anger to motivate and carry out the tasks within her delegated authority. Offering not only the first comprehensive descriptive account of judicial anger but also first theoretical model for how such anger ought to be evaluated, the Article demonstrates how judicial behavior and decision making can benefit by harnessing anger—the most common and potent judicial emotion—in service of righteousness. Introduction................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]