Samuel Alito

Today at approximately 8am PST Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit was confirmed for a spot on the United States Supreme Court. He filled the vacancy left by Justice Sandra Day O'Conner's retirement. Here is a little bit of backround info on Justice Alito:

Alito argued twelve cases before the Supreme Court for the federal government during his tenure as assistant to the Solicitor General. While serving as an attorney for New Jersey, he prosecuted many cases that involved drug trafficking and organized crime.

Alito was nominated by George H. W. Bush on February 20, 1990 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Alito was rated by the American Bar Association as “Well Qualified” at the time of his nomination. He was confirmed by unanimous consent in the Senate on April 27, 1990.

President Bush nominated Alito to the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on October 31, 2005.

The $40 Lawyer

Take a break from your class for a second to enjoy this hilarious article about the $40 lawyer.

An Interesting Discussion of Scalia's Recent Dissent...

In light of Justice Scalia's (relatively) recent visit to Chapman, I thought you all might be interested in an interesting analysis of his recent dissent in Gonzales v. Oregon (you can read a good analysis of the case at SCOTUSblog). Professor Bainbridge has posted a transcript of a conversation between Professor Eastman and Professor Hewitt. Basically, Professors Bainbridge, Eastman and Hewitt note a distinction between the jurisprudence of Justices Scalia and Thomas. Justice Scalia has resigned himself to the status quo. That is, he has accepted Wickard as settled law (Wickard was the case the found that the Commerce Clause can reach wholly intrastate activity if the activity, in the aggregate, would substantially affect interstate commerce; it paved the way for the modern administrative state). Justice Thomas on the other hand, thinks Wickard is an incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause and wants to overturn it and the massive, unruly and relatively unrestrained administrative state that Wickard made possible. The money quote is at the end of Professor Bainbridge's post, "There is much to be admired about Scalia. It no longer seems possible, however, to believe that he is developing a coherent conservative jurisprudence. Nor, insofar as results are concerned, that he can be expected to bring back the Constitution from the exile to which Wickard assigned it."

What do you guys think? Are you a Scalia-ite or a Thomas-ite? Or neither? Do you think there is a place in American Jurisprudence for bad interpretations of the Constitution if the public/government has relied on that opinion for a long time?

Mark Your Calendars!!! Exciting Debate Coming to Chapman!!!

I am very pleased to announce that the Chapman Federalist Society--in conjunction with the Anti-Defamation League, Christian Legal Society, Jewish Law Students and American Constitution Society--will be hosting a series of three debates about the Religion Clauses in the First Amendment. The first debate will take place on January 19 at 6pm between Professor John Eastman and ACLU Southern California Director, Steven Rohde.

WHO: John Eastman & Steven Rohde
WHAT: The Intent of the Founding Fathers
WHERE: Room 237
WHEN: January 19, 7pm