Hey, guess what? Above the Law is no longer the most junior member of the
Conference Dead Horse Media family of websites. Today marks the launch of Supermogul.com.
It’s nice not being the most junior member. Just ask Justice Breyer, who was delighted when Justice Alito arrived at the Court. As the most junior justice, Justice Alito took over from Justice Breyer the duty of answering the door — and fetching the coffee — when the justices are meeting in private conference.
So now that Supermogul is around, maybe ATL won’t have to fetch the coffee? Uh, think again. We’re probably still on coffee duty — because we’re the lawyers, and they’re the clients.
SUPERMOGUL.com is a business site for C-level (CEO/CFO/COO/etc.) executives and senior-level managers. Check it out here.
Welcome to Supermogul [Supermogul]
Dead Horse Media Introduces Supermogul.com [DealBreaker]
Hey, guess what? Above the Law is no longer the most junior member of the
We have not forgotten that we owe you a report on the very interesting debate we attended last night, between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen G. Breyer, on constitutional interpretation.
Our report, and a handful of photos (not as many as we hoped), will appear… shortly. Alas, it will take us a little time to upload the pictures and review our (copious) notes.
In the meantime, if you really can’t wait for our account, click here, for the AP wire story. It’s a fairly good summary, although not as detailed as our forthcoming report (in which we’ll tell you about how Justice Breyer’s cell phone went off in the middle of the event).
And if you have ninety minutes to spare, and want to experience the proceedings firsthand, then click here, for video of the event. Enjoy!
US Supreme Court justices debate their views of Constitution [Associated Press]
Justices Breyer and Scalia Converse on the Constitution [American Constitution Society]
Earlier: Programming Note: Nino-Breyer Smackdown
We’ll be stepping away shortly to attend what should be a fantastic event: A Conversation on the Constitution: Perspectives from Active Liberty and A Matter of Interpretation. It’s being sponsored by the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society, and we’re attending as a guest of the ACS (whom we thank for the gracious invitation).
Two Supreme Court heavyweights will be stepping into the ring. In the liberal corner: Justice Stephen G. Breyer, author of Active Liberty. In the conservative corner: Justice Antonin Scalia, author of A Matter of Interpretation. The referee: Jan Crawford Greenburg, of ABC News (who recently interviewed Chief Justice Roberts).
So if our posting is sporadic over the next few hours, it’s because we’re watching Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer trade benchslaps. Check back soon, either later today or tomorrow, for our full report on the
jurisprudential battle to the death proceedings. Hasta luego!
- Affirmative Action, Anthony Kennedy, Constitutional Law, John Roberts, Paul Clement, Racism, SCOTUS, Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases concerning the use of race as a factor in assigning students to public schools: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District #1, out of the Ninth Circuit, and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, out of the Sixth Circuit.
It appears that SCOTUS virgin Teddy Gordon, representing the petitioners in Meredith, did just as badly as many members of the snooty SCOTUS bar expected. For a blow-by-blow account of his ill-fated argument, see this reader comment.
Our commentary on the arguments, plus links to audio-casts and written transcripts, after the jump.
* This, this, and this from How Appealing on the race in public schools cases argued before the Supreme Court yesterday.
* And for the second straight day, someone blames their crime on bingo. [CNN]
* A “temporary” solution for being burned out on biglaw. [WSJ Law Blog]
* I guess this is kinda like the flip-side of using someone as a human shield. [CNN]
* Always get it in writing, especially when it comes to constitutions. [Jurist]
In about fifteen minutes, the Supreme Court will start hearing oral argument in two big-ticket cases about the use of race as a factor in assigning students to public schools. One case comes from Louisville, Kentucky, and the other from Seattle, Washington.
Expect a packed courtroom — the cases are sexy enough to merit same-day audio — and some less-than-stellar advocacy. From Tony Mauro of the Legal Times:
[T]he suspense will [also] focus on Teddy Gordon, the Louisville solo practitioner who will argue against using race. His nine-page merits brief was attacked as “extremely weak” by Columbia Law School professor Michael Dorf, a former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy who wondered in a Findlaw column why Gordon should be allowed to “waste everybody’s time” at argument.
The Court may feel the same way. Solicitor General Paul Clement, who sides with Gordon, asked for 10 minutes of Gordon’s half-hour argument time. The Court gave Clement 15 instead, an unusual move. Top practitioners could not persuade Gordon, who has handled the case since 1999, to step aside.
Ouch. At that point, Gordon should have taken the hint. But then again, he can’t be blamed for wanting to tell his grandkids that he once argued before the SCOTUS.
[A spokeswoman for Gordon] acknowledges that he “has never been inside the [Supreme Court] building,” but adds that he did buy a suit for the occasion “from the famous French designer Jacques Penney.”
If that was a joke, it wasn’t funny.
(Yes, we know that David Boies used to wear Sears suits to court — which is almost as bad as wearing J.C. Penney. But that’s David Boies.)
Schoolyard Bullies: Landmark Race Cases Come Before High Court [Legal Times]
Chief Justice Roberts Advocates the Passive Virtues, Even as the Supreme Court’s Docket Reveals their Subtle Vices [FindLaw]
Schools argument 12/4/06: Could this be “Brown III”? [SCOTUSblog]
- Advertising, Crime, Death Penalty, Drinking, Drugs, Eavesdropping / Wiretapping, Free Speech, Gambling / Gaming, Jury Duty, Marijuana, Morning Docket, Old People, Politics, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, War on Terror
* You have a right to a jury trial, whether you want it or not. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution via How Appealing]
* Santa’s big behind is gonna make kids want to drink beer?. [CNN]
* Now my case is at the Supreme Court, and I know why; because I got high, because I got high, because I got high… [WSJ Law Blog]
* It’s sad when otherwise good people get sucked into the seedy underbelly of the Arizona bingo scene. [MSNBC]
* Nice try, Jane, but a little too late to get your job on the Intelligence Committee back. [Jurist]
- 5th Circuit, 7th Circuit, Biglaw, Bonuses, Books, Frank Easterbrook, Hotties, Judicial Nominations, Lee Rosenthal, Money, Morris Arnold, NYU Law School, Politics, Richard Posner, SCOTUS, Senate Judiciary Committee, Sex, State Judges, State Judges Are Clowns, Supreme Court, Weddings, Week in Review
* It’s all about the benjamins, baby. Bonus season is upon us. And we’re standing by to broadcast every move. So please email us with any news, rumors, and leaked memos about bonuses.
* Truthful tips are especially welcome. Look for the first wave of bonus announcements in the coming week.
* And check out the most anal retention letter ever.
* In non-Biglaw developments, it was a busy week for the Supreme Court. They heard all about EPA regulatory discretion, the Federal Circuit’s recondite jurisprudence, and other fun topics.
* On tap for the SCOTUS: Ken Starr and a bizarrely fascinating case. It’s like Bill ‘n Monica, all over again. But is it sexy enough for same-day audio-cast? Probably not.
* Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the imminent Democratic takeover is already being felt at the Senate Judiciary Committee. The big white-collar shops are eagerly anticipating lots of new business.
* Speaking of elections, please cast your vote for November 2006 Couple of the Month. And if you’re an NYU Law School student, please forward us the results of voting in the 3L hottie contest.
* In federal appellate judge news, Judge Morris Arnold is recovering nicely, Judge Richard Posner is getting testy, and Judge Frank Easterbrook is now Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook.
* And over in the district court, Judge Lee Rosenthal (S.D. Tex.) is probably out of the running for a promotion to the Fifth Circuit (despite being very highly regarded).
* Finally, in state court land, some judges are getting a little big for their
britches robes. They’re mouthing off, railing against immigrants, and making spectacles of themselves. Pipe down, Your Honors, and stay out of trouble.
And they agreed to hear two other cases: a taxpayer lawsuit, and an appeal involving the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management. Control your excitement, people.
Tom Goldstein is a bit peeved at how late the Court is granting certiorari. This leaves relatively little time between the cert grant and the argument, which has unfortunate consequences:
The failure to adapt the briefing schedule to the smaller size of the Court’s docket produces expedited briefs that are less thorough and helpful to the Justices and creates a recurring cycle in which it is necessary to apply still more expedited schedules.
But we’re not shedding tears for the attorneys whose cases get granted. The opportunity to brief and argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court is once-in-a-lifetime experience. Suck it up and deal, people.
(Of course, Goldstein — a veteran Supreme Court litigator — probably doesn’t quite the same thrill from strutting his stuff at One First Street as SCOTUS virgins.)
Supreme Court Takes ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ Case [New York Times]
Court grants three cases [SCOTUSblog]
An Update on the State of the Docket [SCOTUSblog]
- Anthony Kennedy, Boring Stuff, Environment / Environmental Law, Linda Greenhouse, SCOTUS, Supreme Court
This post has nothing to do with the gastrointestinal tract of a certain Supreme Court reporter. Rather, it’s about Massachusetts v. EPA, the greenhouse gases/global warming case, argued before the Supreme Court yesterday.
We’re relatively late in covering this — you’ve probably read about it already elsewhere — so we’ll be brief.
(1) Can the EPA (read: Bush Administration) get away with refusing to regulate carbon dioxide in automobile emissions, even though a bunch of states, cities, and environmental groups want it to?
(2) Do these entities have standing to object to the refusal?
(3) Has President Bush been reading too much Michael Crichton?
Money Quote(s): Eh, there weren’t any. This argument was no KSR v. Teleflex.
And are you really surprised? It’s an administrative law/environmental law case, concerning the proper construction of the Clean Air Act, with a big threshold question about standing. Not exactly a barrel of laughs.
Likely Outcome: Who knows? We agree with Tony Mauro and Lyle Denniston: It all comes down to Justice Kennedy.
Roberts may be the Chief, but it’s Kennedy’s Court. And everyone else is just sitting on it.
Massachusetts v. EPA, No. 05-1120 [On the Docket / Medill]
Justices’ First Brush With Global Warming [New York Times]
Massachusetts v. EPA oral argument transcript [Supreme Court (PDF)]
Eyes on Kennedy as Supreme Court Debates Global Warming Case [Legal Times]
EPA argument 11/29/06: Major precedent looms? Maybe not [SCOTUSblog]
Analysis: Kennedy key to global warming challenge [SCOTUSblog]
Today at the Supreme Court: Preemption and Global Warming [WSJ Law Blog]