DOCSLIB.ORG

Participation by the Public in the Federal Judicial Selection Process

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Participation by the Public in the Federal Judicial Selection Process Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 43 Issue 1 Issue 1 - January 1990 Article 1 1-1990 Participation by the Public in the Federal Judicial Selection Process William G. Ross Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Judges Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation William G. Ross, Participation by the Public in the Federal Judicial Selection Process, 43 Vanderbilt Law Review 1 (1990) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol43/iss1/1 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]. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 43 JANUARY 1990 NUMBER 1 Participation by the Public in the Federal Judicial Selection Process William G. Ross* I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 2 II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ................................ 3 A. Early H istory .................................. 3 B. The Early Twentieth Century .................. 6 C. Hughes and Parker ............................ 10 D. Black, Frankfurter,and Clark .................. 13 E. Haynsworth and Carswell ...................... 15 F. Rehnquist Nomination: 1971 .................... 21 G. Recent Nominations ........................... 22 III. DEFINING THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC ...................... 25 IV. THE ROLE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ......... 35 A. Procedures and Practices ...................... 35 B. The ABA Case ................................ 42 1. Antecedents ............................... 42 2. The District Court's Decision ............... 45 3. The Supreme Court's Decision .............. 48 4. The Concurring Opinion ................... 51 5. Criticism of the Majority and Concurring O pinions .................................. 54 V. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEw OF THE ABA STANDING COMMIT- TEE ..................................................... 61 VI. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ACTIONS ..................... 69 A. Confirmation Votes Defined As "Legislation" .... 69 * Assistant Professor of Law, Cumberland School of Law, Samford University; member of the New York Bar. A.B., Stanford University, 1976; J.D., Harvard Law School, 1979. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 43:1 B. Nominations As a "Campaign" or "Election" .... 72 C. PoliticalExpenditures .......................... 73 D. Criticism of IRS Actions ....................... 75 E. The Association of the Bar Case ................ 78 VII. CONCLUSION ............................................. 82 I. INTRODUCTION The firestorm ignited by the 1987 nomination of Robert H. Bork provided a vivid reminder that public opinion and organized interest groups can have a potent and even decisive impact upon the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges. Al- though the Constitution vests the prerogative of nomination in the President and the power of confirmation in the Senate, the public also is a partner in the selection process in ways that often extend far be- yond the citizenry's election of its President and representatives in the Senate. Public opinion has influenced the judicial selection process throughout the history of the Republic, although public participation in that process has been sporadic. The sharp contrast between the public controversy over the recent Rehnquist and Bork nominations and the widespread public silence concerning the Scalia and Kennedy nomina- tions suggests that organized interest groups are not likely to have a significant role in every nomination. A clear trend, however, exists to- ward an increased public awareness of the importance of federal judi- cial nominations and a growing public participation in the selection process. Several recent and pending developments are likely to influence the scope of future public participation in the federal judicial selection pro- cess. For example, the procedures and role of the American Bar Associ- ation (ABA) in both the nomination and confirmation of federal judges may change as a result of criticisms by both liberals and conservatives. Although in June 1989 the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to re- quire the ABA's Committee on Judicial Selection to open some of its meetings and records to the public,' the Committee's practices have at- tracted the scrutiny of both the Bush Administration and the Senate. The Department of Justice has insisted that the ABA refrain from us- ing ideology in its ranking of judicial candidates, and the Senate Com- mittee on the Judiciary is reassessing its own reliance upon the ABA. Recent tax developments also are likely to affect the scope and na- 1. Public Citizen v. United States Dep't of Justice, 109 S. Ct. 2558 (1989). This case was consolidated with Washington Legal Foundation v. United States Department of Justice. 1990] JUDICIAL SELECTION ture of public participation in the judicial selection process. The Inter- nal Revenue Service (IRS) has promulgated a new rule, proposed regulation, and announcement that will affect the tax status of certain nonprofit organizations that lobby for and against judicial nomina- tions.2 Congress may enact legislation to override at least part of these actions. Meanwhile, the Second Circuit has held that the Association of the Bar of the City of New York is ineligible for full tax exempt status because it rates candidates for elective judicial office.' The controversy over the ABA's participation in the judicial selec- tion process and the recent, potentially restrictive tax developments demonstrate a growing awareness of the significance of public participa- tion in the judicial selection process. Accordingly, it is useful to analyze the appropriate scope and functions of such participation. In analyzing the role of the public in the federal judicial selection process, Part II of this Article first will explore the historical develop- ment of public participation in the nomination and confirmation processes. Part III will demonstrate that the increasing importance of public participation is consistent with the growth of participatory de- mocracy, and it will explain why the excesses of the campaigns for and against Bork should not discredit the need for a broad public role in the judicial selection process. Part IV of the Article will argue that the Su- preme Court's decision in the Association of the Bar case (ABA case) was decided wrongly because the application of the Federal Advisory Committee Act was consistent with the language and intention of that statute and would not have violated the doctrine of separation of pow- ers. In Part V the Article also will contend that the ABA should con- tinue to have an important role in the judicial selection process but that the ABA needs to reform some of its rating procedures for judicial can- didates. Finally, Part VI of the Article will assert that the internal reve- nue laws should not be designed to discourage public participation in the federal judicial selection process. Accordingly, the Article will argue that the recent IRS actions misinterpret the Internal Revenue Code and represent bad public policy and that the Code should be amended to eliminate the restrictions created by the ABA case. II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND A. Early History From the Republic's earliest history, public opinion has influenced the Supreme Court appointment process. President George Washing- 2. See infra notes 305-73 and accompanying text. 3. Association of the Bar v. Commissioner, 858 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 1768 (1989). VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 43:1 ton's unsuccessful nomination of John Rutledge for Chief Justice in 1795 created an uproar that extended far beyond the chambers of the United States Senate.4 The Federalist press in the North denounced the nomination with particular vehemence.5 The press also vigorously encouraged the defeat of James Madison's nomination of Alexander Wolcott in 1811.8 On a number of other occasions during the nineteenth century, the Senate's highly partisan opposition to Supreme Court nominees was accompanied by free-wheeling attacks on the nominees in the newspapers. In opposing the nomination of Roger B. Taney to be Chief Justice, for example, one Whig newspaper proclaimed that "[tihe pure ermine of the Supreme Court is sullied by the appointment of that political hack ... ." The press's role in opposing nominations during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries is especially signifi- cant because at that time newspapers had a potent impact on shaping public opinion.' In the absence of any significant political activity by voluntary organizations-labor unions, for example, did not exist yet-the press represented the major intermediary between private citi- zens and their government. During the nineteenth century, political parties and private citizens also had a significant impact upon presidential selections and Senate confirmations of Supreme Court Justices.9 Voluntary organizations also had a role. 10 Private citizens, elected officials, and organizations regu- larly petitioned the Department of Justice for the nomination of partic- ular individuals for vacant seats on the Court. The petitioners usually resided in the candidate's home state or had professional or school ties with the candidate. In 1853, for example, a number of prominent Ala- bama citizens petitioned President Franklin Pierce to nominate John A. Campbell
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Law and Lawyers: the Road to Reform Kenneth W
    Fordham Law Review Volume 63 | Issue 4 Article 3 1995 Law and Lawyers: The Road To Reform Kenneth W. Starr Recommended Citation Kenneth W. Starr, Law and Lawyers: The Road To Reform, 63 Fordham L. Rev. 959 (1995). Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol63/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LAW AND LAWYERS: THE ROAD TO REFORM KENNETH W. STARR* M Y reflections this evening, which focus on our nation's justice system, reflect broader social concerns, going to the basic struc- ture of American institutions and the precipitous decline in trust re- posed in those institutions. Let me not mince words. As a people, Americans have become highly distrustful and disrespectful of institutions, ranging from the basic social unit of the traditional nuclear family to churches and syna- gogues, schools and universities, and in this election season, of govern- ment itself. Courts-the justice system-are no exception to this powerful trend. In my view, the trend is broad-based and deep enough to be profoundly disturbing. What explains this trend of distrust and disrespect? Part of the an- swer, I believe, lies in America's inherent, culturally rooted suspicion of power. We are, at bottom, an anti-power society. We are a revolu- tionary society.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey United States Senate Washington, D
    I The University of Chicago Chicago 37, Illinois August 2, 1955 The Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey United States Senate Washington, D. C. Dear Senator Humphrey: You asked me what function I thought the Subcommittee on Dis­ armament of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee might fulfill in the short period of time and with the limited means available between now and the first of January, and you suggested that I put my thoughts on paper. The main issue as far as substance is concerned, it seems to me, can be phrased as follows: 11 What kind and what degree of disarmament is desirable within the framework of what political settlement?" It seems to me that one would only add to the already existing confusion if disarma­ ment were discussed without stating clearly what is being assumed concern­ ing the political settlement within which it would have to operate. I assume that few Senators will be available between the im­ pending adjournment of Congress and the first of January, and thusthe ques­ tion is what could be accomplished by a competent staff. I believe such a staff could hold conferences of the fol_lowing sort: Men like Walter Lippman, George Kennan, and perhaps five to ten others who in the past have written on one aspect of the problem or another, would be asked to prepare their thoughts on the "whole problem" and to tell to a critical audience, assembled by the staff, what they would regard as a desirable settlement. They must imagine that somehow they are endowed with such magical power of persuasion that they could convince the
    [Show full text]
  • Of Judicial Independence Tara L
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 71 | Issue 2 Article 3 2018 The Origins (and Fragility) of Judicial Independence Tara L. Grove Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Tara L. Grove, The Origins (and Fragility) of Judicial Independence, 71 Vanderbilt Law Review 465 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol71/iss2/3 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]. The Origins (and Fragility) of Judicial Independence Tara Leigh Grove* The federal judiciary today takes certain things for granted. Political actors will not attempt to remove Article II judges outside the impeachment process; they will not obstruct federal court orders; and they will not tinker with the Supreme Court's size in order to pack it with like-minded Justices. And yet a closer look reveals that these "self- evident truths" of judicial independence are neither self-evident nor necessary implications of our constitutional text, structure, and history. This Article demonstrates that many government officials once viewed these court-curbing measures as not only constitutionally permissible but also desirable (and politically viable) methods of "checking" the judiciary. The Article tells the story of how political actors came to treat each measure as "out of bounds" and thus built what the Article calls "conventions of judicial independence." But implicit in this story is a cautionary tale about the fragility of judicial independence.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. President's Committee for Hungarian Refugee Relief
    DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER LIBRARY ABILENE, KANSAS U.S. PRESIDENT’S COMMITTEE FOR HUNGARIAN REFUGEE RELIEF: Records, 1957 A67-4 Compiled by Roland W. Doty, Jr. William G. Lewis Robert J. Smith 16 cubic feet 1956-1957 September 1967 INTRODUCTION The President’s Committee for Hungarian Refugee Relief was established by the President on December 12, 1956. The need for such a committee came about as a result of the United States’ desire to take care of its fair share of the Hungarians who fled their country beginning in October 1956. The Committee operated until May, 1957. During this time, it helped re-settle in the United States approximately 30,000 refugees. The Committee’s small staff was funded from the Special Projects Group appropriation. In its creation, the Committee was assigned the following duties and objectives: a. To assist in every way possible the various religious and other voluntary agencies engaged in work for Hungarian Refugees. b. To coordinate the efforts of these agencies, with special emphasis on those activities related to resettlement of the refugees. The Committee also served as a focal point to which offers of homes and jobs could be forwarded. c. To coordinate the efforts of the voluntary agencies with the work of the interested governmental departments. d. It was not the responsibility of the Committee to raise money. The records of the President’s Committee consists of incoming and outgoing correspondence, press releases, speeches, printed materials, memoranda, telegrams, programs, itineraries, statistical materials, air and sea boarding manifests, and progress reports. The subject areas of these documents deal primarily with requests from the public to assist the refugees and the Committee by volunteering homes, employment, adoption of orphans, and even marriage.
    [Show full text]
  • DISQUALIFICATION of JUDGES: in SUPPORT of the BAYH BILL Jomi P
    DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES: IN SUPPORT OF THE BAYH BILL Jomi P. FRANK*t The defeat of Judge Clement Haynsworth, Jr., for the Supreme Court demonstrates that the federal law of disqualification of judges needs to be rewritten. As Justice Blackmun said of a shift in his own personal disqualification practice, "The times have changed."1 John Marshall heard Marbury v. Madison although the substance of the case involved problems arising from his own failure to deliver papers when he was Secre- tary of State in the Madison administration. Justices Byron White and Thurgood Marshall, former Deputy Attorney General and Solicitor General, never hear cases involving matters with which they dealt in the Department of Justice. The difference is not in the character of the Justices, but in the governing law and the changed attitudes of recent times. In Marshall's day, the law of disqualifica- tion was governed by two maxims from the sages. Coke, in the most famous rubric of the law of disqualification, had said, "aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa," or no man shall be a judge in his own case Blackstone had reduced this to a straight matter of pocketbook interest by excluding the possibility of disqualifica- tion for bias or prejudice or relationship, "for the law will not suppose the possi- bility of bias or favor in a judge."' * (Mr. Frank, author of numerous books on the United States Supreme Court, is presently in private practice in Phoenix, Arizona Ed.) t I have been assisted in this article by Mr. John McLamb, a student at Yale Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations
    S. Prt. 107–84 EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF THE SENATE PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS VOLUME 4 EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION 1953 ( MADE PUBLIC JANUARY 2003 Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 83–872 WASHINGTON : 2003 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Jan 31 2003 21:53 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 083872 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HR\OC\83872PL.XXX 83872PL COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 107TH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio MAX CLELAND, Georgia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah MARK DAYTON, Minnesota JIM BUNNING, Kentucky PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Staff Director and Counsel RICHARD A. HERTLING, Minority Staff Director DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio MAX CLELAND, Georgia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah MARK DAYTON, Minnesota JIM BUNNING, Kentucky PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois ELISE J. BEAN, Staff Director and Chief Counsel KIM CORTHELL, Minority Staff Director MARY D.
    [Show full text]
  • SENATE Back in His Accustomed Seat, and We Wish Thomas H
    <ronyrrssional Rrcor~ United States PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 84th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION of America happy to see the Senator from Texas California.-William F. Knowland and SENATE back in his accustomed seat, and we wish Thomas H. Kuchel. for him in the years ahead good health Colorado.-Eugene D. Millikin and TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 1956 and happiness. [Applause.] Gordon Allott. The 3d day of January being the day Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi­ Connecticut.-Prescott Bush and Wil­ prescribed by the Constitution of the dent, I appreciate very much the state­ liam A. Purtell. United States for the annual meeting ment the Vice President has just made ' Delaware.-John J. Williams and J. of Congress, the 2d session of the 84th about me. No one can know how glad I Allen Frear, Jr. Congress commenced this day. am again to be able to stand by this Florida.-Spessard L. Holland and The Senate assembled in its Cham­ desk, in the company of my treasured George A. Smathers. ber at the Capitol. friends on both sides of the aisle. I am Georgia.-Walter F. George and Rich­ RICHARD M. NIXON, of California, grateful to all of them for their under­ ard B. Russell. Vice President of the United States, standing, their patience, and the affec­ Idaho.-Henry C. Dworshak and Her­ called the Senate to order .at 12 o'clock tion which they expressed during the man Welker. meridian. dark days through which I have jour­ Illinois.-Paul H. Douglas and Everett The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown neyed. M.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Law V8n1 2018-8-1
    INTRODUCTION “THE CIRCUIT JUSTICE IS A VERY IMPORTANT PERSON” DID IN-CHAMBERS CONCERNS HELP DERAIL A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE’S CONFIRMATION? Ira Brad Matetsky† his Journal of In-Chambers Practice focuses on opinions and orders that Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States issue in their individual capacity, or “in chambers.” It has now been four Tyears since any Justice issued an in-chambers opinion,1 although the Court’s recent per curiam opinion in Benisek v. Lamone2 cited not one but two of them. The fact that a Justice can act on certain matters individually, rather than as one-ninth of the Court as a whole, ordinarily receives little atten- tion outside the Court, some of its Bar, and readers of its Journal. In at least one instance, however, the significance of the Justices’ in-chambers authority was used strategically, as part of an ultimately successful effort to defeat a nomination to the Supreme Court. In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned. To succeed him, President Rich- ard Nixon nominated Clement Haynsworth, a Judge of the U.S. Court of † Partner, Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer, LLP, New York, N.Y. 1 The Justices’ four most recent in-chambers opinions, issued between 2011 and 2014, are reprint- ed in the Rapp’s Reports section of this issue. 2 138 S.Ct. 1942 (2018) (citing Lucas v. Townsend, 486 U.S. 1301, 3 Rapp 1284 (1988) (Kennedy, J., in chambers); Fishman v. Schaffer, 429 U.S. 1325, 2 Rapp 721 (1976) (Marshall, J. in cham- bers)). See Tony Mauro, In-Chambers Supreme Court Opinions Get Rare Nod in Gerrymandering Ruling, https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/06/20/in-chambers-supreme-court-opinions-get- rare-nod-in-gerrymandering-ruling (June 20, 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • Building a More Inclusive Federal Judiciary
    GETTY WATSON IMAGES/JIM Building a More Inclusive Federal Judiciary By Danielle Root, Jake Faleschini, and Grace Oyenubi October 2019 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Building a More Inclusive Federal Judiciary By Danielle Root, Jake Faleschini, and Grace Oyenubi October 2019 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 4 Part I: The federal judiciary’s diversity problem 13 Part II: Diversity on the federal bench matters 22 Part III: Recommendations 40 Conclusion 41 About the authors and acknowledgements 42 Methodology 43 Endnotes Introduction and summary Federal judges wield immense power. Each day, they make decisions that affect people’s livelihoods, well-being, and fundamental rights. They serve as a check on the executive and legislative branches. This balanced system is designed to ensure that lawmakers and the president adhere to the United States’ constitution and established laws. Federal judges serve for life and therefore can determine the nation’s laws for generations. This is particularly true today as federal judges are serving longer terms.1 In order to function properly, however, the federal judiciary needs the public to trust that the institution and the decisions it renders are legitimate. Otherwise, judicial rulings would be virtually impossible to enforce. Instead of being the final arbitrator of the law, the judiciary would take on a mere advisory role. Many people—including legal scholars, judicial commentators, and legal practitio- ners—have raised concerns about the federal judiciary’s current legitimacy crisis. Members of the public increasingly perceive federal courts as unfair, particularly to underrepresented groups, and as entities that favor corporate interests over the public good. In particular, federal judges—especially Supreme Court justices—are increas- ingly viewed as political actors, while the courts are viewed as partisan institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 NLG Honorees
    ww.nlg.org/conventionLearn more! Dozens of social justice oriented CLEs, workshops, panels and events on movement law! Honoring Soffiyah Elijah • Albert Woodfox • Michael Deutsch • Audrey Bomse Javier Maldonado • Noelle Hanrahan • Emily Bock • With Keynote Speaker Elle Hearns Co-Sponsored by NYU School of Law Public Interest Law Center* | National Lawyers Guild Foundation *Current NYU Law students and 2016 graduates will receive complimentary convention registration New York City & the Origins of the Guild The New York City Chapter is thrilled to welcome you to the 2016 NLG Convention. It has been a long while since the convention was last held in NYC. Through the generous co-sponsorship of the Public Interest Law Center at NYU School of Law, including Dean Trevor Morrison, Assistant Dean for Public Service Lisa Hoyes and Prof. Helen Hershkoff, our conference this year has access to wonderful Greenwich Village classroom meeting facilities and dormitory housing. Our sincere thanks to NYU for partnering with us. 2016 is turning out to be a turning point year for law in our country. Thus, we feel especially privileged to engage allies from social justice organizations in New York and the East Coast in discussions about the future of crucial progressive issues. The Supreme Court is in the balance for the next generation; public figures project a vision which is less fair, less tolerant, and downright racist. Shocking as these times are, this is when the NLG needs to be at its best to defend peoples’ rights. Hard times have often brought out the best in the NLG. From the Guild’s early beginnings, when it was formed as a racially and ethnically integrated alternative to the segregated American Bar Association, NLG-NYC members have played an integral role.
    [Show full text]
  • No Watergate with Judge Taylor 43
    SEPTEMBERJuly 2020 2009 SEPTEMBERNOVEMBERNOVEMBER 20082009 2008 LocalLocal Rules Rules vs. vs. Standing Standing Orders Orders JarvisJarvis Oral Oral History History No Watergate with Judge Taylor TheThe courts courts have have long long had had Standing Standing Orders, Orders, plus plus Local Local Rules, Rules, and and InIn his his oral oral history, history, conducted conducted by by the the Court Court Historical Historical Society Society in in sometimessometimes it it hasn’t hasn’t been been easy easy to to determine determine in in which which of of these these cat cat-- 2001,2001, Judge Judge James James H. H. Jarvis Jarvis43 gave Yearsgave an an interestingAgo interesting account account of of the the egoriesegories a adirective directive issued issued by by the the court court should should be be placed. placed. occasionoccasion on on which which he he received received a atelephone telephone call call from from President President Reagan“EveryReagan tellingmember telling him him of he thehe was waspress going going corps to to nominatewas nominate interested Judge Judge in Jarvis Jarvis finding for for the thehis own AA July July 1927 1927 booklet booklet in in the the Court Court Historical Historical Society’s Society’s archives archives re re-- federalWatergate.”federal judgeship. judgeship. flectsflects the the similarity similarity ofof the the directives.directives. TheThe 36-page36-page bookletbooklet is is titled titled “Rules“Rules of of the the United United States States District District Court Court for for the
    [Show full text]
  • NLG #Law4thepeople Convention
    NLG #LAW4THEPEOPLE CONVENTION August 2016 New York City NYU School of Law 1 Cover: Guild contingent at disarmament rally, New York City, 1982. From left: Teddi Smokler, Stanley Faulkner, Ned Smokler, Peter Weiss, Deborah Rand, Harry Rand, Victor Rabinowitz, Gordon Johnson, unidentified. Photo curated as part of the NLG's 50th anniversary photo spread by Tim Plenk, Joan Lifton, and Jonathan Moore in 1987. Layout and Design by Tasha Moro WELCOME TO NEW YORK! Dear fellow Guild members, supporters, and allies: On behalf of the New York City Chapter, welcome to the NLG’s Annual Banquet. Each year convention participants pause for an evening of celebration, to savor reflection with like-minded legal activists and recommit to the work of justice. We hope you have enjoyed convening on campus, which was once the traditional format for NLG conventions, and that you have found the facilities amenable to productive work. Please join us in heartfelt thanks to New York University School of Law’s Public Interest Law Center (PILC) for co-hosting the Convention, including Dean Trevor Morrison, Assistant Dean for Public Service Lisa Hoyes, Prof. Helen Hershkoff, NYU Law’s Events Coordinator Josie Haas, Alesha Gooden, Nikita Chardhry, Ashley Martin, and Jerry Roman of NYU’s Office of Housing Services. A special salute goes to Lisa Borge, Programs Manager of the NYU Law Public Interest Law Center. The New York City Chapter has been fortunate to have generations of members who have worked in support of movements for social justice. They have founded projects that have gone on to become national programs or nonprofit organizations, and started law collectives, movement offices, and public interest law firms.
    [Show full text]