President Bush Nominates Sam Alito

I'm just going to collect a bunch of articles for anyone who is interested in reading about Judge Alito:

1. Ann Althouse's NY Times op-ed discussing why the nickname "Scalito" is a misnomer
2. Washington Post article discussing the likely Senate vote breakdown
3. Blue Mass Group blog's analysis of "One Liberal who Likes Alito"
4. Jonathan Adler's piece in Opinion Journal about Alito's "brilliant judicial mind"
5. The Daily Princetonian's article about their alum
6. SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston's take on Alito
7. A good overview of Alito's important decisions provided by SCOTUSblog
8. And finally, ones reading is never complete without a peak at what A3G has to say over at Underneath Their Robes.
   

Harriet Miers Withdraws Her Nomination to the Supreme Court

Earlier this morning the President accepted Harrient Miers's withdrawal from her nomination to the Supreme Court (you can read the text of her letter here and RedState.org has the President's letter accepting her withdrawal here). Apparently Miers was "concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and its staff and it is not in the best interest of the country." The White House added that it accepted her withdrawal in part due to concerns that Senators would demand privileged White House documents. The latter reason seems to track Charles Krauthammer's October 21st prediction:

That creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege.

Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

The "Krauthammer Factor" is further discussed in this SCOTUSblog post.

For the full Miers withdrawal story, check out this CNN article or this article in the Washington Post (which runs a tad on the editorial side of things for a "news" article). Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy also discusses the Miers withdrawal as he makes guess as to who the next nominee will be:

The question now is who the President will pick as a replacement. It's impossible to know, of course: Who expected that Bush would select Miers? If I had to guess, though, the current political situation will push the White House to pick someone with broad and deep support on the Right who also won't cause a revolt among Democrats. To me that suggests someone like Michael McConnell or Karen Williams. (For my post making the case for McConnell, click here.)

Professor Bainbridge also predicts a McConnell nomination. Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit is hoping for an Alex Kozinski nomination. NRO's The Corner has a quote from Federalist Society Executive Vice President, Leonard Leo (and a good discussion going on in general). Amazingly NRO has already gotten an editorial up. For a left of center look at the Miers withdrawal, check out one of my new favorite blogs, The Plank (from the folks at The New Republic). Finally, be sure to check Chapman's own Nexus Journal blog. They have had a lot to say about Miers and are sure to post interesting stuff.

So what do you guys think? Were you a Miers fan? Or are you glad that her nomination with withdrawn? Who do you think the next nominee will be? What characteristics do you think that nominee should have? Do you think that O'Connor's seat is a "woman's seat?" Feel free to use the comments section of this post to discuss any aspect of the Miers nomination and withdrawal or the judicial confirmation process in general.

Proposition 75

According to the California Attorney General’s report, Proposition 75 “amends state statutes to require public employee unions to get annual, written consent from a government employee in order to charge and use that employee’s dues or fees or political purposes. This requirement would apply to both members and nonmembers of a union.”

So, does Proposition 75 protect public employees or suppress their unions’ ability to represent them? Come find out!

“Proposition 75: Paycheck Protection or Worker Suppression?”
FEATURING: Mark Bucher, Local Attorney in Private Practice and Businessman
&
Beverly Tucker, Chief Counsel, California Teachers Assoc.

DATE: Thursday, October 27, 2005

TIME: 5:00 p.m. until 6:30 p.m.

PLACE: Gulliver's Restaurant (18482 MacArthur Blvd., Irvine, across from John Wayne Airport)

COST: $15 (walk-ins welcome)

Mark Bucher served as author and Co-Chair of the first Paycheck Protection Initiative, Proposition 226, under Governor Pete Wilson and played an active role in Proposition 22 (defense of marriage) and Propositions 174 and 38 (school choice). He also serves as Treasurer and Vice-Chair of Operations for the Orange County Republican Party.

Beverly Tucker has served as chief counsel of California Teachers Association since August 1988. She manages the CTA Group Legal Services Program for CTA members, supervises eight staff attorneys, and advises the CTA board of directors and officers.

The End of Federalism?

Professor Eastman has an interesting take on the Miers nomination. Basically he posits that the Miers nomination "boxes out" the strict constructionists, the federalists and the libertarians from the conservative coalition:

When President Bush announced to the conservative coalition that Harriet Miers is the best qualified person for the Court, it is with this new understanding of the coalition triad in mind. Her inner-circle advice to the President in matters dealing with the war on terrorism has undoubtedly played to the Hawks, and the strongest devotees of the Nixonian understanding of executive power have been quick to praise the nomination. Her professional career as a top business lawyer has played to the big business component of the Marketeers, and it is therefore no surprise that the Chamber of Commerce was also among the first to warmly embrace the nomination. And of course there is Ms. Miers's much touted membership in a conservative evangelical church to ensure the enthusiastic support of the new Doves. Who can be opposed? Well, the old glue: Strict constructionists. Federalists. Libertarians. People like Randy Barnett, John Yoo, Roger Pilon, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and George Will. We've been boxed out, and we know it.

Read the entire article here. What do you guys think?

Want to be a Supreme Court practitioner?

How to Build a Top Supreme Court Practice: Does it take a village or a superstar? Or is there more than one way to skin a cat?

On one hand is Jones Day, where five different lawyers argued a total of six cases last term, the most by any one firm. Washington, D.C., partner Glen Nager, who heads the firm's issues and appeals practice, takes pride in the fact that the Supreme Court work was spread around; Nager, in fact, argued only one case...

And then there is Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, which argued five cases last term. Or to put it more simply, Seth Waxman argued five cases. The former solicitor general is now co-chair of Wilmer's appellate and Supreme Court litigation group.

DANGEROUS LIAISONS: FEMA, Moral Hazards & Dangerous Decisions to Set up Home or Shop in Dangerous Places

Professor Kochan has put together this timely panel discussion on federal and private insurance and unsafe places. The panelists include a former City Attorney who is now consulting on landslides, Tim Canova; Henry Butler from across the street in Bus/Econ; Marc Maister a partner at Irell & Manella, Bob Burnham, Community Recovery Coordinator for Laguna Beach, CA; and Denis Binder as Moderator. Professor Kochan and The Federalist Society Lawyers Division President will be giving introductory remarks.

Fundamentally, the question for this panel will be whether public and/or private insurance markets tend to encourage locating homes or businesses in high-risk areas. Does the public safety net of the Federal Emergency Management Agency create a moral hazard – i.e. allow individuals to place their homes or businesses in naturally unsafe areas without fear that they will eventually need to internalize the costs of their location decisions because someone will be there to bail them out if things go wrong. Does the existence of a federal bailout regime skew investment decisions?

As an alternative argument, is there a social responsibility to provide protection for harmed individuals regardless of their location? The entire country has profited from such risky developments, has it not? As the country braces to confront each natural disaster, including the recent one in New Orleans, it is imperative that we analyze how the law should be structured to reflect properly the economic realities and incentives involved in locating properties when known risks exist. This panel will provide an in-depth view of the issues involved.

WHAT: Dangerous Liaisons Panel Discussion
WHERE: Room 237A/B
WHEN: October 18, 7pm

The Rehnquist Legacy

The OC Lawyers division of the Federalist Society is hosting a panel discussion on the Rehnquist legacy. Two Chapman professors, Celestine McConnville and Katherine Darmer, are on the panel. Lawyers events are always a good way to network with like-minded attorneys.

Panelists:
Professor Celestine McConville – Chapman Law School, former Rehnquist law clerk: Chief Justice Rehnquist’s Federalism jurisprudence
Professor Barry McDonald – Pepperdine Law School, former Rehnquist law clerk: remarks on Chief Justice Rehnquist’s Free Speech jurisprudence
Professor Katherine Baird Darmer – Chapman Law School, scholarship on: Rehnquist’s Criminal Procedure and Civil Rights jurisprudence

Thursday, October 13th
Buffet Luncheon at 11:45
Scott’s Seafood across from South Coast Plaza

$25 lawyers, 1 CLE credit available
$15 students, all pay at door

For more information, contact Karen Lugo: kajoie@yahoo.com or (714) 345-7107

Harriet Miers & The Federalist Society

Apparently the President's pick to fill Justice O'Conner's spot is no fan of everyone's favorite conservative cabal, the Federalist Society. Check out Professor Richard Garret's comments over at Bench Memos (here is a taste):

I have, in several posts and comments (for example, here), criticized some of the criticisms of Ms. Miers's nomination, and expressed my view that it is a mistake to assume too quickly that the President has failed to nominate — as promised — conservatives to the Court or to fetishize service on the federal courts. I have to confess, though, that the recent reports (for example: here and here) about Ms. Miers's deprecating remarks about, and less-than-enthusiastic attitude toward, the Federalist Society are extremely frustrating. In my view, they also undercut the claim (which, again, I have made) that Ms. Miers is and should be regarded as, despite her lack of a paper trail or "movement" credentials, a conservative.

As an aside, I have worked with a couple of other Federalist Society members to develop a t-shirt with the top ten reasons ( a la David Letterman) to be a Federalist. That project got pushed aside but I think it needs to be revived. Let me know if any of you are interested in getting your hands on such a shirt.

Dr. John Lott

Dr. John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute will be visiting Chapman next Wednesday to discuss his forthcoming book, Dumbing Down the Courts: Why the Confirmation Battles Keep on Becoming More Vicious and Which Nominees Face the Toughest Battles. Dr. Lott has previously spoken at Chapman about his book, More Guns, Less Crime. I had the chance to discuss Dr. Lott's new book with with him at the Federalist Society Conference this summer and Dumbing Down the Courts is sure to be as thought provoking as More Guns, Less Crime.

Here is an excerpt from the first chapter of the book:

Americans used to be blissfully unaware of the daily work of federal judges. But over the past five decades, it’s become almost impossible to escape the newspaper headlines and talk show debates about the delays, accusations, and attacks in the increasingly hostile confirmation process through which today’s judicial nominees (and the rest of country) have to suffer. Once confirmed, more and more decisions that judges make become front-page news, sparking a whole other round of fights.

Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States. The appointments are made with the “advice and consent” of the United States Senate. That means the President nominates, and the Senate either confirms or turns down the nominations. The President is going to have to take this process into account in deciding whom to nominate in the first place.

From the first Supreme Court nomination in 1789 until 1950 -- the first 87 nominees -- the average confirmation (all the way from nomination to confirmation) took just over 11 days. From 1951 through 1976 the average increased to more than 50 days, and after that it rose to 68 days. Now it seems, even when the President and Senate are controlled by the same political party, the gap between those bodies is measured not in feet but in miles. The role of “advice and consent” has become a practice of “resist and refuse.”

WHO: Dr. John Lott
WHAT: Discussion of the Judicial Confirmation Process.
WHERE: Room 379
WHEN: Wednesday, October 12 at 12pm.

The Evolution/Creation Debate

Some of the most interesting and famous legal battles in America have been over religion and it's proper role in society. At the forefront of the debate is the role religion should play in public education. Even the most disinterested Americans have heard of the Scopes Trial (The validity of evolution prohibition statutes eventually reached the Supreme Court in Eperson v. Arkansas). More recently, litigation has focused on things like school vouchers that can be used at religious private schools and--the flip side of the evolution debate of the 1930s-1970s--teaching creationism (and/or intelligent design) in public school.

The New York Times has put together an interesting collection of articles covering the Evolution vs. Creation debate currently brewing in quite a few states. Especially interesting is the article discussing scientists' views on religion and G-d. When a panel of scientists at a science conference was asked if one could be a good scientist and still believe in G-d,

Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. "No!" declared Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the chemistry prize in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals.

Belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science, Dr. Hauptman declared, "this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race."

But agnosticism is not the only "religion" of scientists. As the article notes,

But disdain for religion is far from universal among scientists. And today, as religious groups challenge scientists in arenas as various as evolution in the classroom, AIDS prevention and stem cell research, scientists who embrace religion are beginning to speak out about their faith.

"It should not be a taboo subject, but frankly it often is in scientific circles," said Francis S. Collins, who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and who speaks freely about his Christian faith.

Other articles of interest are Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey, Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution, Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution and the Op-Ed Design for Confusion