Posts Tagged ‘Neil Gorsuch’

March 22 roundup

  • Gorsuch hearing “unlikely to change a single vote on anything” [Ilya Shapiro] “No, there is no way to force Supreme Court nominees to give revealing answers” [Orin Kerr] Members of Supreme Court bar are keen on the nominee [letter courtesy SCOTUSblog] And many law professors, even [letter via Will Baude]
  • “Nice Try! Judge Nixes Attempt To Turn $4 Million Worth Of Stickers Into $10 Million Bonus” [Daniel Fisher]
  • Problems here would seem to go beyond lack of court interpreter: “Interpreter no-show stalls Chigwedere witchcraft case” [The Herald, Zimbabwe]
  • “The Strange Case of Everet vs. Williams: When Two Highwaymen Took Each Other To Court” [Paul Anthony Jones, Mental Floss]
  • Important Phil Hamburger op-ed: Chevron entrenches a judicial bias in favor of state, Gorsuch is right to oppose it [New York Times]
  • It’s cute when legislators try to legalize dachshund racing [Lowering the Bar, Idaho, earlier]

Attacks on Gorsuch — and on the rule of law

“I’m not sure who decided that the Democratic critique of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch would be that he doesn’t side with the little guy. It’s a truly terrible idea.” Judges should stand up for the law and their interpretation of the correct way for it to develop, rather than ruling consistently with the interests of a particular category of litigant. “…consider the whole point of a rule-of-law system: It establishes rules so that people can be confident in advance of how decisions are made. That creates regularity and predictability. And in the long run, it protects the little guy a lot better than a system rigged to favor one side, because such systems will naturally tend to favor the rich and powerful, not the poor and downtrodden.” So cut it out, interest groups with your stop-Gorsuch campaign [Noah Feldman, Bloomberg View] More: David Harsanyi.

March 15 roundup

  • A workplace hazard? Push in Britain to “make it illegal for a company to require women to wear high heels at work.” [Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Reason]
  • Service dogs on planes: “a ‘credible verbal assurance’ books Fido a trip to San Francisco for the weekend” [David Post, Volokh Conspiracy] Australia, too, sees trend toward exotic service and emotional-support animals [Workplace Prof; earlier]
  • Trial lawyers would like Supreme Court to squash the arbitration alternative, but few signs Judge Gorsuch is on board with that plan [Edith Roberts, SCOTUSBlog]
  • New York radical lawyer Lynne Stewart, not a favorite in these columns, dead at 77 [Scott Johnson, PowerLine, earlier]
  • Baltimore police scandal, “yes means yes” bill for MoCo schools, homicide rap for overdose suppliers?, school wi-fi scare, Tom Perez, and more in my Maryland policy roundup [Free State Notes]
  • Suing so soon over White House regulatory reform, Public Citizen, and with so little show of injury? [Brian Mannix, Law and Liberty]

Crime and punishment roundup

  • Dairy Queen manager charged with involuntary manslaughter following suicide of teen employee reportedly bullied on the job [AP, Missouri]
  • Court orders new trial: carpenter, in school to argue against son’s school suspension over knife, had displayed knife he carries as part of work [Lancaster Online, Commonwealth v. Goslin]
  • Desires for retribution aside, hanging homicide rap on dealers after overdoses unlikely to solve opiate problem [Mark Sine and Kaitlyn Boecker, Baltimore Sun]
  • “Man wrongly convicted with bite mark evidence confronts bite mark analysts” [Radley Balko]
  • Judge Neil Gorsuch and over-criminalization [C. Jarrett Dieterle, National Review]
  • Debate over DoJ oversight of city police forces continues [David Meyer Lindenberg, Fault Lines (report on Chicago) and more]

Schools roundup

  • Judge Neil Gorsuch on education law issues [Clint Bolick and Marty West, Education Next] And if you haven’t read Gorsuch’s dissent in the “burping student” case, A.M. v. Holmes — among his most famous opinions — it’s here;
  • Tables for sharing food at cafeterias: “‘It’s the same objections every single time,’ he said. ‘There’s this myth that they’re going to get sued.'” [Michael Melia, AP/Yahoo]
  • “Why heroin and classroom sex aren’t enough to get teachers fired anymore” [Julia Marsh, New York Post]
  • “…a story of the pitfalls that await teachers who make extended efforts to aid troubled students.” [Andrew Marra, Palm Beach Post]
  • St. Paul, Minn. saga of school discipline and “disparate impact,” cont’d [Katherine Kersten, earlier here, here, and here]
  • “I first found ‘Free Range Kids’ from the Overlawyered site” — one commenter’s tale of the fate of children’s books at a local library after CPSIA came in [Free-Range Kids]

March 1 roundup

Banking and finance roundup

Gorsuch nomination roundup

More on the nominee, starting with a Washington Post profile:

  • How to read last year’s Garland precedent? [David Post, Jonathan Adler]
  • Gorsuch “consistently applied established First Amendment protections” [Adam Liptak, New York Times quoting Gregg Leslie of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press]
  • We’ve earlier linked Cato podcasts on the nomination with Ilya Shapiro and Andrew Grossman and now here’s a somewhat more skeptical one featuring Ilya Somin;
  • On product liability [Eric Wolff, Perkins Coie]
  • California Federation of Teachers, explaining its opposition to the nomination, dismisses his constitutionalism as devotion to a document “drafted to protect the interests of white slave owners” (via Amy Alkon);
  • “Follow the law, as judges are supposed to do, and you’ll get tarred as a supporter of criminals” when Nancy Pelosi et al. go low: [Eugene Volokh on gun cases U.S. v. Games-Perez and U.S. v. Reese]

Harvard law faculty (and Mike McConnell) on Neil Gorsuch

The Harvard Gazette asked HLS faculty what they thought of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch:

“He’s a brilliant, terrific guy who would do the court’s work with distinction.” — Laurence Tribe.

“He’s immensely qualified for the Supreme Court — an outstanding lawyer, and judge, and person.” — Jack Goldsmith.

“The Democrats have to let somebody go through. And there is not going to be anybody more acceptable than him.” — Charles Fried.

“The single most qualified person” on Trump’s list of 21 potential nominees, a judge “who is smart and has integrity. This is a man of enormous achievements” — Richard Lazarus.

“”What struck me was his real, genuine reverence for the Constitution and the rule of law that came through on a daily basis, As a judge, he believes that cases should be decided on the basis of the law and not on the basis of policy or personal preferences. His judicial record shows he applies the law impartially.”

“He’s really a kind, genuine and decent man,” she said. “He’s a great boss and a great mentor for all clerks, including myself. Any clerk you speak to, would just speak glowingly and lovingly of him.” — Jane Nitze, who served in the Obama administration after clerking first for Gorsuch and then for Sonia Sotomayor (Gorsuch serves as a feeder judge for liberal as well as conservative Justices).

More here (Liz Mineo, Harvard Gazette). And for those who prefer a West Coast academic view, Prof. Michael McConnell — a rare conservative on the Stanford law faculty who formerly served as a judge alongside Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit — in this appreciation at Hoover salutes Judge Gorsuch’s impartiality and devotion to constitutional principle:

I asked my research assistant to pull every case in the last five years where Judge Gorsuch sat with both a Republican-appointed and a Democratic-appointed judge and the panel split as to the outcome. The results were striking. In almost a third of the cases, Judge Gorsuch voted with his presumably more liberal Democratic colleagues rather than the presumably more conservative Republicans. That is the mark of an independent, non-partisan jurist.

This is not just my opinion. In the days since the nomination, several liberal professors have studied his record and come to a similar conclusion.

Free speech roundup