Dicta

A hearty thank you...

2006-02-16T16:09:00.000-05:00

...to the person who has now written on two of our posters in the men's bathroom here at the law school. As an organization designed to promote meaningful intellectual discussion about law, policy, and the constitution, we are indebted to your addition to the discourse. Your first mark (which crossed out constitution and wrote communist in our group name) was like a breath of fresh air in the stagnant atmosphere of political discussion at our law school.

Your most recent effort crossed out Earned Income Tax Credit and put "wealth redistribution committee" or something to that effect. I cannot emphasize enough how much our group respects and hopes to promote your input into the discussion in our group. Join us! And thank you for your comments!

ACS Website Updated

2006-01-31T10:37:00.000-05:00

The national ACS has finally made their website look much nicer than it did before. It is complete with videos of ACS sponsored events, and has a handy calendar for ACS chapter events around the country.

http://www.acslaw.org/

Also, the local ACS chapter needs your help promoting the Paul Smith event on March 13th! Contact gregory.overholser@richmond.edu to volunteer for publicity.

Finally, the Greater Richmond Earned Income Tax Credit Coalition training will occur Feb. 18th at 1 pm. Hope to see you there,

Greg O.

Ways to get involved

2005-09-21T11:10:00.000-04:00

There are a few ways to get involved with the ACS on a national level: apply to write for their blog, join a Constitution in the 21st Century project group, participate in the ACS Moot Court Competition, and the ACS writing competition. Email me (gregory.overholser@richmond.edu) for more information about any of these projects.

Also, be on the lookout for upcoming events and projects with the ACS chapter here at the law school.

Chemerinsky on Roberts/Establishment Clause

2005-09-14T12:05:00.000-04:00

http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/chemerinsky.pdf
The ACS website posted this document from Professor Chemerinsky. It's not that long, and provides a nice overview of the topic. (Note that this is before C.J. Rehnquist's passing).

First Meeting Reminder

2005-08-31T00:05:00.000-04:00

Our first informational meeting will be held this Thursday, September 1 at Noon in room 114. Come and enjoy the food and learn how to get involved with our stellar group for upcoming events.

Racial Inequality in Criminal Justice

2005-08-29T01:44:00.000-04:00

The following are notes I took during a Racial Inequality in the Criminal Justice System panel discussion presented at the 2005 ACS national conference. The panelists were Allen Jenkins, Executive Director of the Opportunity Agenda; Kevin Johnson, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of Law; Orin Kerr, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School; Carol Steiker, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; and William Taylor, Vice President of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. These notes are not necessarily verbatim or cohesive, and while I have tried to refrain from filling in blanks with my own words, mistakes in quoting are probably extensive and attributable to me alone. These notes are simply a rough record of some interesting points brought up by the panelists.
Greg Pokusa, Vice-President, U. of Richmond ACS

-Regarding one aspect of the criminal justice system with which the panelists were particularly concerned:

KJ: Racial profiling. Since 1975, Mexican appearance has been a legitimate factor in border immigration stops. Who looks Mexican, what does that entail? There are many different types of Mexican and appearances can vary dramatically. Yet this factor has been expanded to current use in both the War on Terror and the War on Drugs. The use of racial profiling in the War on Terror leads to further use of racial profiling by law enforcement. This usage cuts against the 4th and 14th Amendments and alienates communities that need the most help. There was the possibility of a political solution to this problem, and the country as a whole was moving toward abandonment of racial profiling, until 9/11 stopped that movement. A possibly remedy is the Equal Protection Clause, but in order to do so you would have to show a discriminatory intent, which is very hard to do.

OK: What to do next? > 40% of the 2 million people incarcerated in this country are African-American, how do you change such overwhelming figures? Don’t look to the courts, change politically through the press, writing letters, and changing the laws.

CS: Some things were worse in the past, but some things are worse now. No lynching anymore is a good thing; more people in jail as part of the war on drugs is bad.

-Regarding the role of the courts:

OK: Courts can solve things based on a remedy, so they are only really effective for an individual case. To really change things it must be broader, but it’s hard to deal with precedent, you can’t get it wrong.

CS: Does the punishment fit the offense? The Supreme Court (S.C.) has said that a proportionality rule existed, but so far to little effect.

WT: Evolving community standards argument in capital defense has been helped by recent S.C. decisions.

KJ: There is plenty that the S.C could do, but it's not likely. More likely to find relief in the various state court systems.

-In general, and in answering to specific questions:

CS: The death penalty is still rare compared to life sentences, so use energy where it is needed.

WT: There is a push at all levels to collect racial data.

KJ: A court settlement against the California Highway Patrol stated that they had to collect data. Political action is used to require data collection.

AJ: Drug use across races is roughly the same, although African-American men serve the most time (according to the Human Rights Watch). Illinois is bad, but what state is good?

CS: Nebraska has no minorities on Death Row, but how many minorities are there in Nebraska to begin with? Urban impoverished neighborhoods are particularly prone to racial discrimination because police forces can get more arrests and bang for their buck. There are differing approaches to this: New York City chose to punish every little offense that went against the books, and they ended up sending a lot of people to jail; Boston chose to work with black churches in communities and had different results.

OK: Adequate legal representation will always be a big issue, as it is hard for a politician to put support behind giving more money to “bad guys” for lawyers.

WT: Don’t forget about social services, they are almost as important as legal representation.

CS: It takes a crisis to change things, the Public Defenders almost have to go on strike before they can get a pay raise. If they do go on strike, or in the past when they have threatened to, judges either have to convict everyone, or not convict anyone because too many innocent people would end up going to jail for lack of representation.

KJ: Immigrants are far easier for the government to go after as they have fewer rights and the War on Terror is being fought against non-citizens. With so many deported, there is little political support to give them a chance for representation in this country if their few rights are in fact violated.

CS: Gender disparities exist along with racial disparities, but it is hard to argue for more jail time for women, although for instance cocaine use has been found to be equal among the genders.

OK: Where to go? A federal program for defense in state courts. Also, if laws work different than the way they were written, let it be known. Call the press, write your representatives.

KJ: Political action and a consciousness change is needed; multiracial coalitions may help.

Judge, Scholar, Professor, & National Security Advisor?

2005-06-17T17:50:00.000-04:00

Judge Richard Posner has a new book out.

In it, he argues that the centralization of intelligence suggested by the 9/11 Commission was the wrong response to this nation's intelligence problems. Judge Posner believes that surprise attacks are just that, surprises, and there are better ways to spend our resources than what the government is doing to prevent them.

Listen to NPR's interview with Judge Posner here.

Blackmun and His Clerks

2005-05-08T23:52:00.000-04:00

I don't know about you all, but I love reading about what exactly goes on in justices' chambers at the Supreme Court. I especially love behind-the-scenes stories when they involve the justices' law clerks. These clerks are among the best and brightest, young legal minds in America. While each justice's relationship with their clerks is different, they all give them the enviable role of shaping the Court's jurisprudence in some way.

Some more than others.

For behind-the-scenes junkies, David J. Garrow's "The Brains Behind Blackmun" is an interesting piece detailing the apparently heavily clerk-driven legal analysis that appeared in Justice Blackmun's opinions. Garrow takes the position that Blackmun as a justice "who increasingly ceded far too much of his judicial authority to his clerks."

He offers many anecdotes from Blackmun's papers, but perhaps this is the most striking:

Also in the 1989 term, clerk Martha Matthews, who now directs the domestic violence clinic at the University of Southern California Law School, had extensive conversations with clerks in other chambers while opinions were being drafted in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, a landmark "right to die" case to which she was assigned. When Brennan's dissent in the case was first circulated in late May 1990, almost six months after Cruzan was argued, Matthews informed Blackmun that "It covers all the points I think are important (I worked fairly closely with J. Brennan's clerk in drafting this). I do not really know what your views are on this case, but I can see no reason not to join this—with one exception." She added, "I do not know whether you have special concerns or thoughts about the case that might prompt you to write a separate dissent as well. If so, perhaps I could help draft something?"
It is extraordinary for a clerk to acknowledge that she did "not really know" her justice's views on one of the term's most significant cases long after it was argued.

On the other hand, this is one side of the argument, and many could argue that these examples used by Garrow, strung together, create a situation that appears much different or alarming now than it actually was at the time. Maybe Linda Greenhouse's new book on the justice can shed some more light on the situation. Yet, from a purely historical perspective(then and now), considering that Blackmun was so instrumental in shaping the Court's right to privacy jurisprudence, it does make one wonder what exactly goes on in the justices' chambers.

American Constitution Society Convention

2005-05-08T12:32:00.000-04:00

The 2005 ACS Convention will be held in Washington D.C. during July 29-31.

The ACS Chapter at UR Law will be sending quite a few members.

For more information on this event, see the ACS website.

Richmond Event Tomorrow!

2005-04-20T10:01:00.000-04:00

Republican Leadership
WANTS TO END 217 YEARS OF CHECKS AND BALANCES

Help Save the FILIBUSTER

JOIN US AT A RALLY IN FRONT OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 1100 EAST MAIN STREET, RICHMOND, VA
THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2005, AT 10 a.m.

SPEAKERS:
PROFESSOR ADRIENNE E. VOLENIK, U. of Richmond
And other exciting guests

Don’t let them silence the opposition!

For more information, please call Rob Hill
Alliance for Justice, 202.822.6070, andreaL@afj.org
www.afj.org www.independentjudiciary.org

"Constitution in Exile"

2005-04-19T14:29:00.000-04:00

There's a great post on the ACS national website blog about the conservative vision of the U.S. Constitution. It's long but and insightful look at one path we may be heading down.

http://www.acsblog.org/judicial-nominations-700-the-return-of-constitution-in-exile.html

Can You Feel the Filibuster Fever?

2005-04-18T21:23:00.000-04:00

The RTD reports that law professors and students will be engaging in the filibuster debate on Thursday by holding an event outside the home of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The LA Times has a good overview of the current status of that debate and what it means to the federal judiciary. It finds that

Ninety-four of the 162 active judges now on the U.S. Court of Appeals were chosen by Republican presidents. On 10 of the 13 circuit courts, Republican appointees have a clear majority. And, since 1976, at least seven of the nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court have been filled by Republican appointees.

So much for that runaway, activist liberal judiciary that Tom DeLay keeps carping about(when he's not spending time avoiding serious ethics questions.

Here's a breakdown of the appellate bench per the LA Times:

A Republican bench

Of the 162 active judges on the U.S. court of appeals, 94 of them, or 58%, are Republican appointees. There are 12 nominees by President Bush awaiting confirmation, all of whom were nominated earlier but blocked in the Senate.

A breakdown of the circuit courts and their members:

		Democratic	Republican	Bush
Circuit	Headquarters	appointees	appointees	nominees
D.C.	Washington*	4	5	3
1st	Boston	2	4
2nd	New York	7	6
3rd	Philadelphia	6	7
4th	Richmond	4	9	2
5th	New Orleans	4	11	1
6th	Cincinnati	6	6	4
7th	Chicago	3	8
8th	St. Louis	2	9
9th	San Francisco	16	8	1
10th	Denver	5	7
11th	Atlanta	5	7**	1**
Federal	Washington*	4	8

Who appointed current judges

Nixon: 1

Ford: 1

Carter: 9

Reagan: 29

G.H.W. Bush: 29

Clinton: 59

G.W. Bush: 34

Total: 162

"Justice" in whose opinion?

2005-04-15T16:11:00.000-04:00

There's an interesting article in today's NY Times about so-called Justice Sunday on April 24 in which churches can sign up to be part of a simulcast sponsored by the Family Resource Council featuring Sen. Bill Frist and his opinions on the liberal judiciary run amok. For those of you not quite as familiar as I am with the power conservative pastors hold over their congregations, rest assured that holding this propaganda event during the Sunday evening church hour will be enormously effective. I'm still curious about how they maintain their tax-exempt status when they do things like this. Unfortunately, it's going to be difficult for moderates and liberals to find such a captive audience.

Room Change

2005-04-13T18:43:00.000-04:00

Get the word out, we're having the chapter meeting tomorrow (4/14) in Room 102, not 205. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Patriot Act

2005-03-25T09:14:00.000-05:00

Do we really need more evidence that the Patriot Act is dangerous? Conservative organizations are joining liberal ones in the fight against reauthorization.

A Word from the President

2005-03-21T20:20:00.000-05:00

Thanks from the whole exec board to everyone who could come to the meeting today, it's really exciting to see new faces and kick around some ideas for what we want to do. I won't recap all the ideas and plans we came up with, but suffice to say we will probably be pretty busy in the next few months. I'll be communicating with faculty and other ACS chapters in the area (W&M, UVA, etc.) to make the most of any opportunities to host events or at least co-sponsor them. The key, however, is feedback from everyone involved, and so to that end I encourage anyone to send any ideas to gregory.overholser@richmond.edu or to the other exec board members. Thanks, and don't forget to come to the Public Interest speakers this week...

ACS Elects New Officers

2005-03-21T19:54:00.000-05:00

Congratulations to the 2005-2006 ACS Executive Board!

President - Greg Overholser
Vice-President - Greg Pokusa
Secretary - Dorian Dalton
Treasurer - Joanna Suyes

Your Government at Work

2005-01-24T14:32:00.000-05:00

The Virginia General Assembly is back in session. Here's a highlight from the Daily Press of some of the proposals that might be coming up for a vote.

RICHMOND -- The state General Assembly has at least one brain lobe pondering sex.

A flurry of sex-related bills are making their way through various committees. Some are offbeat. Some are serious.

No watching porn videos in your car if other motorists can see, says Sen. Harry Blevins, R-Chesapeake.
No fondling yourself in public, even under your clothes, says Del. Kathy Byron, R-Lynchburg. Stop it with the sex-related clubs in schools, specifically the newly formed Harrison High's Gay and Straight Alliance, says Del. Glenn Weatherholtz, R-Harrisonburg, who wants to ban those clubs.

And pull your pants up, because we really don't need to see your underwear, says Del. Algie T. Howell, D-Norfolk.

"If you were going to apply for a job, would you find this appropriate?" Howell said. "I'm just trying to legislate some common sense. It bothers me that my grandchildren have to see people walking around holding their pants up with one hand."

His measure would fine an offender $50. The nasty flick in the car would net a $250 fine, and the inappropriate-self-stimulation measure would be considered indecent exposure, a misdemeanor punishable by jail time.

More graphic detail can be found here.

The Short Short List

2005-01-22T22:20:00.000-05:00

Despite all the negative that could be said about Chief Justice Rehnquist's ideology and opinions, kudos to him for mustering up the the strength to deliver the oath of office to President Bush.

Linda Greenhouse, NY Times journalist and Pulitizer Prize winner, spoke at the law school on Friday afternoon. Greenhouse doubted that Scalia or Thomas would be elevated to Chief Justice, but noted that if she had to bet on it, hers would be that the fourth one down on this list of potential nominees would be picked to replace Rehnquist.

Civil Slights

2004-12-08T19:16:00.000-05:00

Late last month, a study at Syracuse University stated that the civil rights enforcement by the Justice Department has declined sharply since 1999. According to the survey...

When assistant U.S. attorneys decline a matter they are required to explain why, selecting from a number of different pre-coded reasons. Since FY 2000, for example, the prosecutors said they had decided not to act on 61% of all referrals because government investigators had presented "weak or insufficient admissible evidence" or there was "no evidence of criminal intent" or that "no federal offense was evident." Roughly 20% of the referrals were declined as a result of "instructions from DOJ" or, curiously, at the request of the investigative agencies.

Yesterday, Mary Frances Berry, chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, resigned. The White House insisted that her term ended on Sunday, but Berry and Vice Chairman Cruz Reynoso, who also resigned, claimed their terms weren't over until January 21, 2005. Those familiar with Berry will know that this wasn't the first or only disagreement she's had with the Bush Administration. Berry was a strong advocate of civil rights from the moment she was appointed by President Jimmy Carter.

Who will take two vacated seats on the Commission? One person is from Richmond...

Alabama, We Dare Defend Our Rights.

2004-12-01T22:32:00.000-05:00

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the Massachusett's high court decision to allow gay marriage. The issue is clearly not out of the national picture. If you believe that the "moral values" voters shaped this election, prepare for more pandering to them. In early November, Karl Rove, on the short list for Time Magazine's person of the year[And still bitter about not getting that date with the new Sec. of Education. -ed.], stated that President Bush will "absolutely" seek a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage this term. The Christian Science Monitor now reports that between 12-15 states can put gay marriage on the ballot in 2006.

And now this.

A Republican lawmaker from Cottondale, Alabama wants to ban all books that have gay characters in it from public and university libraries![Wonder where Lynne Cheney stands on this bill. -ed.]

Reefer Madness

2004-11-29T20:23:00.000-05:00

The always-entertaining Dahlia Lithwick has a write-up of Ashcroft v. Raich, a case out of California about the legality of medicinal marijuana. In 1996, California passed the Compassionate Use Act, which stated that:

"seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief."

and

"that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction."

The always-fun Ninth Circuit found for the plaintiffs for pot[Sorry. -ed.] saying, "that prosecution of medical marijuana users is unconstitutional if the pot is not sold, transported across state lines or used for nonmedicinal purposes."

The always-acerbic Justice Scalia asked, "'What about ivory tusks? Or eagle feathers?' he asked. 'We can't tell whether [those items] came through interstate commerce.' Are those laws unconstitutional?'"

Angel Raich, plaintiff, said, "she hopes the 80-year-old chief justice's chemotherapy treatments "would soften his heart about the issue."

"I think he would find that cannabis would help him a lot," said Raich, who uses marijuana every few hours for scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other illnesses.

Questioning Al

2004-11-22T19:44:00.000-05:00

The Senate's top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee says that Alberto R.[what's up with the WH refusing to release his middle name? - ed.] Gonzales is likely to be confirmed.

But the Washington Post wants senators to ask Gonzales this question:

"Why is a lawyer whose opinions have produced such disastrous results for his government -- in their practical application, in their effect on U.S. international standing and in their repeated reversal by U.S. courts -- qualified to serve as attorney general?"

It's an absolutely valid question. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee will have bigger fish to fry later, but they should not let Gonzales have a free pass. While Gonzales may be more personally appealing than John Ashcroft, there is no indication that the policies of the Justice Department will change substantially. If anything, it's likely that the much ballyhooed loyalty Gonzales has for President Bush will impede him from thinking and acting with a great degree of independence that the Justice Department needs.

Ministry of Justice

2004-11-22T10:52:00.000-05:00

Instead opening the today's class with a review of the last federal rule analyzed on Friday, imagine starting Civ Pro class today with a prayer and look at Leviticus 18. Welcome to Liberty University School of Law.

Straight Outta the West End

2004-11-21T13:25:00.000-05:00

With Spectergate over, the season for judicial nominations can officially begin. One person on Bush's short list doesn't just sit on the bench at the 4th Circuit here in Richmond, but he was raised here, too. Who is this mystery man? Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III.

Today's Richmond Times-Dispatch has a nice write-up about Judge Wilkinson which includes a few quotes from Dean Smolla. Smolla characterizes Wilkinson as a "moderate conservative in most areas." It's a good profile of Judge Wilkinson especially since it highlights his relationship with a former Supreme Court justice who also hailed from Richmond.

Scary Times

2004-11-21T10:58:00.000-05:00

Just weeks after the election, and already the President and his minions are up to no good. An abortion clause added to a spending bill... what's next?

Reporting for duty.

2004-11-18T14:26:00.000-05:00

Even though Blakely decision on sentencing may have momentarily thrown the federal courts into "unprecedented chaos and procedural paralysis," some judges are still having fun with how they opt to punish convicted criminals.

A Monterey County judge gave a 24-year old convicted of felony possession of marijuana the option of serving time in jail or enlisting in the military.

As surprising as the sentencing was, this option was apparently common during the 1960s and 1970s. What's old is new again!

Classic Casual American

2004-11-16T20:06:00.000-05:00

Abercrombie & Fitch(not your grandad's fishing store anymore!)[Thanks Prof. Swisher! -ed] just settled a class-action lawsuit for $40 million. The suit was filed by minority job applicants who claimed the company discriminated against them in hiring and also for promotions.

"We have, and always have had, no tolerance for discrimination," said Mike Jeffries, chairman and chief executive of New Albany, Ohio-based Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

A&F won't be off the hook by just forking over $40 million earned from sales of their high-priced clothes.

"The company, in consenting to the terms of a preliminary settlement, agreed to a six-year, court-supervised process by which it must frequently report on its efforts to project a diverse image in its retail workforce as well as through its advertising materials."

Messing with Texas.

2004-11-15T20:22:00.000-05:00

On Monday, the Supreme Court overturned a death sentence handed down in Texas of a convicted killer because the trial jury did not get to consider factors such as his learning disability, his age, and his troubled home life.

In the 7-2 unsigned opinion(guess which justices dissented), the Court said, "There is no question that a jury might well have considered (Smith's) IQ scores and history of participation in special-education classes as a reason to impose a sentence more lenient than death."

Also, in a report released Sunday, the Justice Department indicated that the number of people sentenced to death row reached a 30-year low in 2003. There's some disagreement about just what the decrease in numbers means...

In Defense of Marriage?

2004-11-14T15:14:00.000-05:00

After 11 states passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage last week, gay rights groups are proceeding cautiously. For now, these groups will avoid filing suit in federal court to argue the constituionality of these new amendments. With the very real possibility of a federal consitutional amendment in the near future, attempting to change public attitude in regard to this debate is on the forefront of their agenda.

What's Going on in Gitmo?

2004-11-11T15:49:00.000-05:00

Are protections of the Geneva Convention being unlawfully denied by the Bush Administration? Is the government using the "war on terror" as a sanction to undermine domestic and international law? A federal court seems to think so...

Death With Dignity

2004-11-11T13:58:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration is requesting the Supreme Court block the assisted suicide law in Oregon. It is currently the only law in the nation permitting physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. This issue is important to the conservative Christian right - a large component of Bush's base, helping him land a second term in office. But will Oregon voters get to have a say? Check out the Daily Legal News.

Take a Look at the Latest Casualties in Iraq...

2004-11-11T13:07:00.000-05:00

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

Going Gonzales.

2004-11-11T13:05:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, President Bush announced that he will nominiate White House counsel Alberto Gonzales to replace John Ashcroft as the Attorney General. This is good and bad news. The good news is that he's not John Ashcroft. The bad news is that picking Gonzales to be Attorney General removes him from Bush's short list for Supreme Court nominees, a list full of people significantly more to the right than Gonzales.

President Bush is paying his conversative base back for their huge turnout, and one of the best ways to do so was not to nominate Gonzales to the Supreme Court. In a May 26, 2003, Time Magazine article about Gonzales, Phyllis Schafly, president of the Eagle Forum, said "the appointment to the Supreme Court ranks as the No. 1 issue that they care about. Bush went through the campaign saying his favorite Justices were [Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas. We are not going to put up with another [David] Souter."

According to the Washington Post's profile of Gonzales, "The National Review said a joke among GOP aides in the Senate was "Gonzales is Spanish for Souter."

It's certainly not a compliment to be likened to Justice Souter in conservative circles. According to the same Time Magazine article, here's why conservatives feared Gonzales could turn out to be another Souter:

Pro-life advocates believe that if the right jurist replaces either O'Connor or Stevens, the court will finally have a chance to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established the right to have an abortion. Though Gonzales' views on the matter are not known, opponents cite his vote--and the concurring opinion he wrote--as a Texas Supreme Court judge allowing a girl to use a bypass provision of a state parental notification to get an abortion. "Pro-life conservatives will oppose him for that," says Terry Jeffrey, editor of Human Events, a conservative magazine.
Gonzales opponents also see the White House counsel as having a hidden hand in what they regard as the President's too soft position on the Michigan affirmative-action case. For that case, the White House filed a Supreme Court brief opposing the University of Michigan's admissions program but did not push to end affirmative action outright. And Gonzales did not help himself with a speech to a group of Evangelical leaders last year in which he did not strongly call for reversing Roe.

Apparently, ordering military tribunals for suspected terrorists, fighting for the non-disclosure of Vice President Cheney's records on the energy task force, chucking the traditional ABA's role in rating potential judicial nominees, writing memos arguing for noncompliance of the Geneva Convention, and authoring the PATRIOT Act didn't make Gonzales conservative enough for Bush supporters.

Dogs and Drugs

2004-11-11T01:30:00.000-05:00

One of the two questions presented to competitors in this year's Carrico Moot Court Competition was whether the a dog sniff, without suspicion of criminal activity, a lawful search permissible under the Fouth Amendment.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard Illinois v. Carballes, the case involving precisely that question. Here's an article from Slate reviewing the argument made before the Court.

Ashcroft on his way out?

2004-11-04T13:49:00.000-05:00

Various news outlets are reporting that Attorney General John Aschcroft might submit his resignation over the next few weeks. It's a move that has been expected by many, but it shouldn't comfort his critics too much. Just because a replacement will likely have a much lower profile, that nominee should still receive the scrutiny that Ashcroft did before he was approved by the Senate. Also, the nomination and approval process for Ashcroft's replacement will be a test of the Bush administration's political capital before the impending Supreme Court nominee fight.

Not so frivilous after all.

2004-11-03T13:31:00.000-05:00

Slate's Dahlia Litwick writes...

The real reason Ohio didn't become Florida isn't just that Kerry lost the popular vote, unlike Gore four years ago, or that the margins were too close to beat. The reason was that much maligned lawyers all around the country did their jobs. There's a reason we all talk trash about ambulance chasers, yet would never dream of buying a house, or writing a will, without an attorney: Lawyers are troubleshooters and problem-solvers, sherpas through ambiguous terrain.

Oh How I Hate Ohio

2004-11-03T10:53:00.000-05:00

With 100% of the precincts reporting, President Bush has a 136,221 vote lead in Ohio. There are estimates that as many as 250,000 provisional ballots need to be counted.

The Ohio GOP has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Cincinnati seeking uniform standards for counting the provisional ballots.

Both parties are sending more lawyers down to the Buckeye state for the count.

But it won't matter since Senator Kerry just called President Bush to concede the election.

Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Stevens can start calling their travel agents now.

Voters Prefer Bush to Make SCOTUS Picks

2004-10-28T22:45:00.000-04:00

The future of the Supreme Court reemerged as a hot political issue after we learned that Chief Justice Rehnquist is being treated for cancer.

A Washington Post daily tracking poll "found that 49 percent of all likely voters surveyed said they had more confidence in the president to choose future Supreme Court justices while 42 percent favor Kerry -- preferences that were sharply shaped by party identification. Three in four Democrats -- 76 percent -- believe Kerry would do a better job filling future vacancies while 89 percent of Republicans chose Bush. Political independents split equally between the two candidates. "

The responses are not surprising, but are they informed ones? How much do polltakers actually know about the President's history of judicial nominations or even Kerry's judicial nomination criteria?

The Future of the Courts

2004-10-23T13:34:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post has been running a series of editorials comparing the records and proposals of the presidential candidates on various issues. Saturday, the Post examined the candidates' positions on the federal judiciary and concluded that "possibility of conservative judicial radicalism, however overstated by liberal interest groups, certainly is greater today than the possibility of out-of-control liberal activism. "

Welcome!

2004-10-22T13:04:00.000-04:00

This blog was started by members of the American Constitution Society's chapter at T.C. Williams School of Law at the University of Richmond. According to its website, the ACS is

"a national organization of law students, law professors, practicing lawyers and others. We want to help revitalize and transform the legal debate, from law school classrooms to federal courtrooms. We want to counter the dominant vision of American law today, a narrow conservative vision that lacks appropriate regard for the ways in which the law affects people's lives. We seek to restore the fundamental principles of respect for human dignity, protection of individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, and access to justice to their rightful—and traditionally central—place in American law."