Category Archives: Law: The Supremes

A New Way to Think of Supreme Court Justices

john_marshall.jpg
In a faculty seminar earlier this week, a (female) colleague said, apropos Chief Justice Marshall, that he “is the only Supreme Court Justice I would have liked to date.”

This is, to me, a wholly new way to think of Supreme Court Justices.

Any other candidates?

Posted in Law: The Supremes | 1 Comment

Sotomayor Quits the Belizean

Sotomayor quits women's club after GOP criticism – Yahoo! News

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor resigned Friday from an elite all-women's club after Republicans questioned her participation in it. Sotomayor said she resigned from the Belizean Grove to prevent the issue from becoming a distraction in her confirmation hearings.

Meanwhile, in the lucky-in-her-enemies dept., Judge Sotomayor was snubbed by Senator Inhofe:

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is dead set on voting against Sonia Sotomayor's nomination. In fact, he's so certain of his position that he refuses to even meet with her.

Sotomayor has been meeting privately with Senators over the last few weeks, but when it was Inhofe's turn, he declined.

Inhofe's spokesman explained that since the Senator has already decided to vote against the nomination, there's no reason to waste time on a sit-down discussion.

Earlier this week, Inhofe called his vote against Sotomayor a “foregone conslusion,” citing his vote against her nomination to a circuit court in 1998.

Given that he's about the craziest Senator not actually known to be guilty of a sexual peccadillo, this is a pretty good enemy to have.

Previous post: Sotomayor is Lucky in Her Enemies

Posted in Law: The Supremes | Leave a comment

Sotomayor is Lucky in Her Enemies

Ed Meese, he of the “Experts Agree” T-Shirt, is back in the news today for his orchestration of the opposition to Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination.

This news comes on the heels of the first possibly significant blot on her otherwise sterling record: it seems Sotomayor is a member of an all-woman club, the Belizean Grove. This is an issue because the Code of Judicial Conduct bans memberships in groups that practice invidious discrimination. The defense that discrimination by the relatively less powerful against the more powerful is not “invidious” cuts little ice with me. The defense that no men have actually attempted to join is a closer call. It's probably true, so it's technically sufficient. But it's also the same defense used by men-only and whites-only and {fill in the blank}-only clubs for decades, as they sat secure in the knowledge that no one would bother trying given formal or informal rules limiting membership.

So, Ed Meese's intervention comes at a very fortunate time for Sotomayor.

Posted in Law: The Supremes | 6 Comments

Redesigning the US Supreme Court’s Web Site

The Sunlight Foundation proposes Redesigning the U.S. Supreme Court's web site.

Looks good to me.

Posted in Law: The Supremes | Leave a comment

Redesigning the US Supreme Court’s Web Site

The Sunlight Foundation proposes Redesigning the U.S. Supreme Court's web site.

Looks good to me.

Posted in Law: The Supremes | Leave a comment

Sotomayor By the Numbers

Prof. Eric Posner blogs at the conservative Volokh.com, that if you ignore her first couple of years — on the theory that it takes new appellate judges some time to find their groove — Sotomayor may well be one of the top appellate judges in the country in terms of influence as measured by citations per opinion.

In various other measures, she ranks average, above average, or well above average.

Posted in Law: The Supremes | Leave a comment

Sotomayor’s Techlaw Jurisprudence

Via James Tyre, a pointer to this interesting BNA-provided tidbit: TechLaw: Judge Sotomayor Is First Nominee With Cyberlaw Record. In fact, she's participated in quite a lot of tech-related cases.

Specht is a good decision. It's both conservative and liberal: it's conservative in the sense that it followed precedent (I think it would have been unremarkable 10 years earlier) but liberal in the sense that it resisted, and may have helped stop, an incipient trend to push contract notice law in a more anti-consumer direction.

Posted in Law: The Supremes | 1 Comment