Diva-licious D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown may be upping the musical reference ante placed by SCOTUS Chief John Roberts. Roberts cited Bob Dylan in a recent SCOTUS dissent.

We’ve had an eye on Brown for a while (see previous coverage here), and she often surfaces as a Supreme Court contender. Perhaps following Roberts’ musical legal reference lead will improve her chances. As reported on Slate’s legal blog Convictions:

D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown has taken this trend to a whole new level: Today she opened the court’s opinion in K&R Limited Partnership v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency [PDF] with a line from … Jimi Hendrix:

“Forty years ago Jimi Hendrix trilled his plaintive query: “Is this love, baby, or is it … [just] confusion?” JIMI HENDRIX, Love or Confusion, on ARE YOU EXPERIENCED (Reprise Records 1967). In this False Claims Act case, we face a similar question involving a mortgage subsidy program initiated in that era: Is this fraud, or is it … just confusion?”

Though Hendrix is arguably “cooler” than Dylan, we are declaring Roberts the winner of the musical reference contest since he actually cites Dylan’s original meaning, while Brown uses the Hendrix quote for a turn of phrase. If she is able to somehow reference Hendrix’s wicked on-stage distortion in a future opinion, we may reconsider.

Janice Rogers Brown Is Experienced [Convictions]
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Brown [PDF]
Love or Confusion [YouTube]

Earlier: SCOTUS Is All Tangled Up in Dylan
Judge Janice Rogers Brown

We have a longstanding obsession with Judge Janice Rogers Brown, the diva-licious D.C. circuit judge who frequently surfaces as a Supreme Court contender. We first wrote about her almost four years ago, and we’ve been JRB groupies ever since.

When we attended a lunch talk by her last year, she struck us as quite fashionable. We described her outfit (see blurry photo at right) as “an elegant, impeccably tailored, black wool-knit suit, with gold buttons and trim. The skirt was demure, falling below the knee. We’re going to guess it was a St. John.”

But maybe we overestimated Judge Brown’s sartorial sense. Check out the opening paragraph of her opinion in Aktieselskabet AF v. Fame Jeans Inc. (PDF), an important trademark opinion construing a recent SCOTUS ruling:

BROWN, Circuit Judge: For some reason, a pair of jeans labeled Jack & Jones will sell for the equivalent of $96. Clearly there is magic in the name, and Fame Jeans tried to capture that magic by registering Jack & Jones as a trademark in the United States. Aktieselskabet (Bestseller), which generated the magic by selling Jack & Jones jeans elsewhere in the world, opposed Fame’s trademark application.

Complaining about $96 jeans? “Sounds like something Andy Rooney would say,” quipped Natalie Hormilla, associate editor of ATL’s sister site, Fashionista. In this day and age, hundred-dollar jeans hardly qualify as “magic[al].”

If Judge Brown finds the notion of $100 jeans offensive, Her Honor should steer clear of 18th Amendment — the jeans maker, not what ushered in Prohibition — and sass & bide (an Australian fashion label, not a law firm). Their jeans can retail for as much as $300 a pair, according to Fashionista assistant editor (and resident denim expert) Britt Aboutaleb.

Then again, who needs $300 jeans, when you get to hide the judicial booty underneath a black robe?

Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001, v. Fame Jeans Inc. [U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (PDF)]

“I wouldn’t call Harry Edwards a ‘judicial divo,’ per se. He’s just really irritable, that’s all.”

This is a continuation of our earlier post about a luncheon talk by the fantabulous Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Judge Brown sits on the D.C. Circuit, the most prestigious appellate court in the country after the U.S. Supreme Court (which she may someday join). She spoke recently before the Federalist Society in Washington, a group that she said she “always enjoys spending time with — despite all the trouble it gets [her] into.”

Discussion and pictures, after the jump.

Ed. note: Fans of diversity will be pleased to note that this post has nothing to do with (1) Aaron Charney, (2) Biglaw pay raises, or (3) Shanetta Cutlar.

“I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again: I am NOT a judicial diva!!!”

(Okay, she didn’t say it quite this emphatically. But Judge Brown did repudiate the “judicial diva” label, when we asked her about it during the Q-and-A session.)

Some time ago — we’re too embarrassed to mention when — we attended a lunch talk here in Washington with Judge Janice Rogers Brown, of the D.C. Circuit. As we’ve previously noted, Judge Brown is a leading judicial diva and possible Supreme Court nominee.

It was a great event, and we took lots of pictures, of the impressively poor quality that you’re used to here at ATL. Our write-up, with pics, after the jump.

Last Friday, we attended a fantastic lunch talk by Judge Janice Rogers Brown (near right; her celebrity doppelganger, Wanda Sykes, is on the far right).

In case you’re not familiar with her, Judge Brown is a leading judicial diva. She’s a former justice of the California Supreme Court and a current member of the D.C. Circuit. In light of her inspirational life story — she’s an African-American female, the daughter of sharecroppers — and her seat on our nation’s most prestigious circuit court, Judge Brown is frequently mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee.

We’ll have more to write about the event later — plus some of our fabulously horrendous photographs, an ATL trademark. For now, though, we just want to share you the best quip of the day (or the “money quote,” as those political bloggers like to say):

“I have NEVER thought of myself as a diva.”

What caused her to utter this sentence? During the Q and A, we got up and asked her (among other things): “Judge Brown, you’re a fabulous judicial diva. But you’re stuck on a court that focuses on administrative law. Do you feel that being on the D.C. Circuit cramps your diva style?”

This was just one of several delightful moments from a great event. We’ll provide a more detailed report later.

Calendar of Lawyer Division Events [Federalist Society]
Fili-BUSTED! Magnificent Judicial Divas [UTR]

Earlier: The Courtroom of Style: Judge Janice Rogers Brown

Rumors that Justice John Paul Stevens is about to step down from the Supreme Court are a recurring feature of the legal gossip landscape. As we previously observed, JPS retirement rumors “return each spring, with the birds and the flowers.”

But hey, we’re good sports, so we’ll blog about them. ‘Cause one of these days, they might actually turn out to be true — and we wouldn’t want to be caught flat-footed. (Our personal view, though, is that Justice Stevens will leave the Court as the late Chief Justice Rehnquist did — through death, not retirement.)

Anyway, here’s the latest gossip. Per Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, and an active participant in judicial confirmation battles:

For the past several weeks, there has been a rumor circulating among high-level officials in Washington, D.C., that a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has received grave medical news and will announce his or her retirement by year’s end. While such rumors are not unusual in the nation’s capital, this one comes from credible sources. Additionally, a less credible but still noteworthy post last week at the liberal Democratic Underground blog says, “Send your good vibes to Justice Stevens. I just got off the phone with a friend of his family and right now he is very ill and at 86 years old that is not good.”

Rushton’s rumor was picked up over at Confirm Them.

If Justice Stevens does resign from the Court, who might fill his robes? U.S. News’s Washington Whispers column offers this intelligence:

President Bush isn’t looking very far for his next conservative pick to the U.S. Supreme Court: His top two candidates work just 12 blocks away in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Insiders say Judge Janice Rogers Brown, appointed in June 2005, tops the list, followed by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, appointed in May.

Also up: Peter Keisler, whose nomination to the D.C. court is pending. So there’s no vacancy, you say? With apologies to Justice John Paul Stevens, 86, it’s his seat they hope to fill.

As ATL readers know, we love ourselves some Janice Rogers Brown. But would this outspoken, conservative judicial diva be able to make it through a Democrat-controlled Senate? The same goes for Brett Kavanaugh, whom Senator Chuck Schumer once described as “the Zelig of young Republican lawyers.”

So we’d be interested in your views on a question that a (clearly conservative) reader sent to us earlier today:

How about a piece on SCOTUS candidates Bush could get through the Senate now that it’s controlled by Communists?

(Now now, dear reader, conservatives are trying to play NICE with Nancy Pelosi and her pals. No name calling.)

One obvious response: Maureen Mahoney (above right). We previously wrote about Mahoney in great detail over here. We expressed concerns over whether she would be perceived as conservative enough to secure the nomination. But in a Senate controlled by Democrats, being a moderate conservative — as opposed to a hardline one — would be a plus.

Thoughts?

Update: Lots of interesting names in the comments.

The Rumor About John Paul Stevens [Human Events]
Talking About Judge Brown [Confirm Them]
Another Reason to Go GOP [Confirm Them]
Washington Whispers [U.S. News and World Report]
Maureen Mahoney: “The Female John Roberts”? [Underneath Their Robes]

* Gay marriages legally-cognizable-relationships-that-will-probably-get-called-civil-unions are coming to New Jersey.

* Superstar lawyer Ted Olson, who is not gay, got married — to a lovely lady named Lady. And ATL has the exclusive photos to prove it.

* Law firms are tying the knot too. The latest to head for the altar: Dewey Ballantine and Orrick.

* Things are going less smoothly for celebrities. Country music star Sara Evans is getting divorced. Jane Pauley is filing suit. Naomi Campbell is getting arrested. And Foxy Brown is getting sentenced.

* Paralegal pay ain’t half bad, as long as you work for Biglaw — and put in lots of overtime.

* Think grammar and punctuation are silly and useless? Listen to the cautionary tale of the costly comma.

* Justice Scalia: You like him, you really like him!

* As for your Least Favorite Supreme Court Justice, we’ll keep the polls open over the weekend. To vote, click here.

* And if you’d like to cast a ballot in a more frivolous poll, help Judge Janice Rogers Brown pick a hairstyle. To vote, click here.

On Fridays, we administer random reader polls here at Above the Law. Last week, for example, we asked you to vote for your Favorite Supreme Court Justice.

(That poll is now closed — and Justice Scalia won, in case you’re wondering. But we’re still taking votes in our poll for LEAST Favorite Supreme Court Justice.)

Today’s poll is a little less weighty. It relates to Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who currently sits on the super-prestigious D.C. Circuit (from whence many Supreme Court justices have come).

Judge Brown, a former justice of the California Supreme Court, is a smart, outspoken judicial conservative — a judicial diva, if you will. She also happens to be an African-American woman. Not surprisingly, JRB is frequently mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee in a Republican administration.

Enough background. For your reference, the top right photo is “Bangs Janice,” and the bottom right photo is “Perm Janice.” Here’s the poll:

We look forward to the results. Thanks for voting!

A Preemptive Rebuttal to the P.C. Police: We do NOT need your lectures on the long and complex history of African-American women and their hairstyles. We are NOT making any grand statement on issues of self-image and self-representation, the highly charged intersection of racism and feminism, or any other weighty subject.

This poll is nothing more than the federal judicial version of the “which look is better” polls that appear in celebrity mags like US Weekly and In Touch. We just want to find out which JRB hairstyle our readers prefer. (We have an opinion, but we’ll keep it to ourselves for now.)

In future polls, we will ask ATL readers about the hair and fashion choices of lawyers and judges from every conceivable demographic group. So don’t read anything into this poll. We’re starting with Janice Rogers Brown because, well, we think she’s magnificent. And we want her to have the full benefit of these poll results as she styles herself for future public appearances.