tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-340437932024-03-08T18:37:15.580-06:00MULS Federalist SocietyThis is the blog of the members of the Marquette University Law School Federalist Society. The views expressed are those of the individual members, not Marquette University Law School or the Federalist Society as a whole.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-48246645101877091042007-04-03T00:02:00.000-05:002007-04-03T00:04:02.819-05:00Event UpdateWe've got a room number and some more info about this upcoming event...<blockquote>"Originalism and Formalism in Criminal Procedure: The Triumph of Justice Scalia, the Unlikely Friend of Criminal Defendants?"<br /><br />In two recent lines of cases, governing the admissibility of hearsay in criminal trials and judicial fact-finding at sentencing, Justice Scalia has driven major new pro-defendant doctrines in criminal procedure. Though he is normally thought of as hostile to criminal defendants, he justifies these doctrines based on originalism and formalism. What do these doctrines mean? To what extent has the rest of the Court bought into them? And are these developments that those sympathetic to Federalist Society principles should embrace?<br />Speech: Stephanos Bibas.<br /><a href="http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/sbibas/">Click here</a> for more information about Prof. Bibas<br />Friday April 13, 2007 at 12:00 pm<br />Marquette Law School Room 310, Lunch Provided!<br />RSVP to andrew.hitt@mu.edu<br />Free if RSVP BY April 9th; $10 after April 9th<br />For Directions & Parking: <a href="http://www.marquette.edu/contact/directions/">http://www.marquette.edu/contact/directions/</a><br />Co-sponsored with the Marquette Criminal Law Society</blockquote>Hope to see you there!Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-35489206220117624092007-03-21T12:53:00.000-05:002007-03-21T12:56:27.736-05:00Two Upcoming EventsThe MULS Chapter of the Federalist Society will be sponsoring two interesting events in the near future.<blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">Using Race As A Factor In Grade School Student Placement?</span><br />Join Prof. Moss and Prof. Michael Krauss of George Mason Law School for discussion about two recently heard U.S. Supreme Court cases: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education.<br /><br />Thursday March 22, Room 325 at 12:15 p.m.<br />Questions contact andrew.hitt@mu.edu.<br />Sponsored by the Federalist Society.<br /><br />"Meredith sued the Jefferson County Board of Education for an injunction barring the use of its system for admitting students to all of its schools. For twenty-five years, the Board maintained an integrated school system under a 1975 federal court decree. After being released from that decree in 2000, the Board developed a school assignment plan to maintain integrated schools. The plaintiffs in this case, who include students and their parents, argue that the Board's student assignment plan violates their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States. The 2001 Plan requires each school to have an enrollment of black students between 15% and 50% of the school population. Besides race, placement is determined by factors such as place of residence, school capacity, program popularity, random draw, and the student's choice." <a href="http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certGrants/2006/mervjef.html">Supreme Court Online, Duke Univ</a>.</blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">Originalism and Formalism in Criminal Procedure: The Triumph of Justice Scalia, the Unlikely Friend of Criminal Defendants?</span><br />In two recent lines of cases, governing the admissibility of hearsay in criminal trials and judicial fact-finding at sentencing, Justice Scalia has driven major new pro-defendant doctrines in criminal procedure. Though he is normally thought of as hostile to criminal defendants, he justifies these doctrines based on originalism and formalism. What do these doctrines mean? To what extent has the rest of the Court bought into them? And are these developments that those sympathetic to Federalist Society principles should embrace?<br /><br />Featured speaker is Professor Stephanos Bibas, University of Pennsylvania Law School.<br /><br />Lunch is provided.<br />RSVP to Andrew Hitt (andrew.hitt@marquette.edu).<br /><br />Sponsored by the Federalist Society.<br /><br />Friday, April 13, 2007<br />Noon<br />Room TBA</blockquote>We hope to see you there!Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-19520597626507612892007-03-01T01:14:00.000-06:002007-03-01T01:24:23.825-06:00Symposium, Immigration, Judicial ActivismIt's been a very busy time for the MULS chapter of the Federalist Society. Thanks to everyone who came to the Student Symposium last weekend. We had 13 students from MULS in attendance. That's pretty impressive. I hope that the chapter can continue sending large groups of students to represent us every year.<br /><br />Thanks to everyone who attended our Immigration policy discussion on Tuesday. There were other events at the law school that you could have attended, and we're glad that you chose ours. A special thanks goes out to Professors Stock and Fallone for participating. Their views and comments were insightful and provacative.<br /><br />Next week, the Federalist Society will be sponsoring another event...<blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Judicial Activism": Is it a reality or an empty epithet?<br /></span><br />Join Prof. Moss & Ed Whelan, of the Ethics & Public Policy Center for a debate on Judicial Activism.<br />What does Judicial Activism mean & how does it tie into broader debates over constitutional interpretation?<br />Wed. March 7th, Room 245 at 5:00 p.m.<br />Food will be provided</blockquote>Many of you may know Ed Whelan from the <a href="http://bench.nationalreview.com/">National Review Online's Bench Memos blog</a>. I'm sure that he and Prof. Moss will have a lively and interesting discussion about "judicial activism." We hope to see you there!Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-73207036905376568892007-02-27T09:37:00.000-06:002007-02-27T09:39:45.061-06:00Immigration Event Today!<span style="font-weight: bold;">Federalist Society's "Fences, Amnesty, and Aliens, OH MY!"<br /><br /></span>Please join the Federalist Society and SBA for a discussion of U.S. immigration policy with Professor Margaret Stock of West Point and MULS's own Prof. Fallone on Tuesday, February 27th, in room 307, at 12:15 p.m. Lunch provided.<br /><br />It was one of the hottest issues in American politics last year. With the 2008 presidential race already heating up, what immigration policy the U.S. should embrace will be a major topic again. From McCain/Kennedy to Tancredo, hear how immigration policy affects our economy, national security, and culture.<br /><br />Questions, contact daniel.suhr@mu.edu or joseph.adams@mu.edu<br /><br />Tuesday, February 27<br />12:15 p.m.<br />Room 307Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1172093449550519202007-02-21T15:20:00.001-06:002007-02-21T15:30:49.563-06:00Federalist Society Student Symposium<a href="http://www.law.northwestern.edu/federalist/symposium/program.asp">The Federalist Society Student Symposium</a> is this weekend in Chicago. Members of the MULS Chapter will be heading down to Northwestern to attend. As usual, the Federalist Society has put together an impressive schedule of events. Here is what they've got planned for the two-day symposium...<blockquote>Friday, February 23<br /><br />3:00 p.m.: Registration - Thorne Auditorium<br /><br />5:45 p.m.: Opening Remarks - Thorne Auditorium<br /><br />6:00 p.m.: Debate - Religion in the Public Square<br />(Thorne Auditorium, Northwestern University School of Law)<br /><br />Featuring: Mr. Kevin J. Hasson - Becket Fund for Religious Liberty<br />Rev. Dr. Michael Newdow - Restore our Pledge of Allegiance<br /><br />Moderated by: David McIntosh - Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw<br /><br />7:30 p.m.: Panel - What is Morality? The Philosophical and Theological Foundations of Moral Debate<br />(Thorne Auditorium, Northwestern University School of Law)<br /><br />Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Jr. - Louisiana State University<br />Prof. Randy E. Barnett - Georgetown University<br />Prof. Robert Burns - Northwestern University<br />Prof. Michael J. Perry - Emory University<br /><br />Moderated by: Prof. Richard Garnett - University of Chicago<br /><br />9:00 p.m.: Cocktail Reception<br />(Atrium, Northwestern University School of Law)<br /><br /><br />Saturday, February 24<br /><br />8:00 a.m.: Breakfast<br />(Atrium, Northwestern University School of Law)<br /><br />9:00 a.m.: Panel - Moral Choices and the Eighth Amendment<br />(Thorne Auditorium, Northwestern University School of Law)<br /><br />Featuring: Prof. Ron Allen - Northwestern University<br />Prof. Michael S. Moore - University of Illinois<br />Prof. Laurence P. Claus - University of San Diego<br /><br />Moderated by: Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich - United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit<br /><br />11:00 a.m.: Debate - Same-Sex Marriage: Marriage, Public Policy, and the Constitution<br />(Thorne Auditorium, Northwestern University School of Law)<br /><br />Featuring: Prof. Louis Michael Seidman - Georgetown University<br />Prof. Amy Wax - University of Pennsylvania<br /><br />Moderated by: Judge Diane S. Sykes - United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit<br /><br />12:30 p.m.: Lunch Break<br /><br />2:00 p.m.: Panel - Government Promotion of Moral Issues<br />(Thorne Auditorium, Northwestern University School of Law)<br /><br />Featuring: Prof. Lillian R. BeVier - University of Virginia<br />Prof. G. Marcus Cole - Stanford University<br />Prof. Lino A. Graglia - University of Texas<br />Prof. Steven Lubet - Northwestern University<br /><br />Moderated by: Prof. Stephen Calabresi - Northwestern University<br /><br />4:00 p.m.: Panel - Morality of First Amendment Jurisprudence<br />(Thorne Auditorium, Northwestern University School of Law)<br /><br />Featuring: Prof. Andrew Koppelman - Northwestern University<br />Prof. John McGinnis - Northwestern University<br />Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly - Eagle Forum<br />Prof. Geoffrey Stone - University of Chicago<br /><br />Moderated by: Prof. Orin Kerr - George Washington University<br /><br />6:00 p.m.: Cocktail Reception<br />(Chicago Marriott Downtown Magnificent Mile)<br /><br />7:00 p.m.: Banquet, featuring Keynote Speaker<br />(Chicago Marriott Downtown Magnificent Mile)<br /><br />Featuring: Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. - Eleventh Circuit </blockquote>Over on <a href="http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2007/02/fed_soc_symposi.html">PrawfsBlawg</a>, Prof. Rick Garnett praised the line up...<blockquote>Looking over the program, I'm struck by how "diverse" the program is. That is -- putting aside the keynote speakers -- each of the four panels seems scrupulously "balanced." Views that are contrary to, or in tension with, or that challenge, those positions typically associated with the Federalist Society are not just represented, in a token-type way, but powerfully and fairly represented.</blockquote>That goes to the core of the Federalist Society. We believe that our ideas will win during an open and fair debate. Vigorous debate is always a good thing.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1171674313493625962007-02-16T19:01:00.000-06:002007-02-16T19:05:13.506-06:00More Information on Spring EventsHere is a little more detail about the Spring events from the MULS Chapter of the Federalist Society...<blockquote>Event # 1<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">FENCES, AMNESTY, AND ALIENS, OH MY!</span><br /><br />Please join the Federalist Society for a discussion of<br />U.S. immigration policy with Professor Margaret Stock<br />of West Point and MULS's own Prof. Fallone on Tuesday,<br />February 27th, in room 307, at 12:15, Lunch Provided!<br /><br />It was one of the hottest issues in American politics<br />last year. With the 2008 presidential race already<br />heating up, what immigration policy the U.S. should<br />embrace will be a major topic again. From<br />McCain/Kennedy to Tancredo, hear how immigration policy<br />affects our economy, national security, and culture.<br /><br />Questions, contact daniel.suhr@mu.edu or joseph.adams@mu.edu<br /><br />Event # 2<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Judicial Activism": Is it a reality or an empty epithet?</span><br /><br />Join Prof. Moss & Ed. Whelan, of the Ethics & Public Policy Center for a debate on Judicial Activism.<br />What does Judicial Activism mean & how does it tie into broader debates over constitutional interpretation?<br />Wed. March 7th, Room 245 at 5:00 p.m.<br />Questions contact andrew.hitt@mu.edu<br />Sponsored by the Federalist Society<br /><br /><br />Event # 3<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Using Race As A Factor In Grade School Student Placement?</span><br /><br />Join Prof. Moss and Prof. Michael Krauss of George Mason Law School for discussion about two recently heard U.S. Supreme Court cases: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education.<br />Thursday March 22, Rm 325 at 12:15 p.m.<br />questions contact andrew.hitt@mu.edu<br />Sponsored by the Federalist Society<br /><br />"Meredith sued the Jefferson County Board of Education for an injunction barring the use of its system for admitting students to all of its schools. For twenty-five years, the Board maintained an integrated school system under a 1975 federal court decree. After being released from that decree in 2000, the Board developed a school assignment plan to maintain integrated schools. The plaintiffs in this case, who include students and their parents, argue that the Board's student assignment plan violates their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States The 2001 Plan requires each school to have an enrollment of black students between 15% and 50% of the school population. Besides race, placement is determined by factors such as place of residence, school capacity, program popularity, random draw, and the student's choice." Supreme Court Online, Duke Univ. http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certGrants/2006/mervjef.html </blockquote>We at the MULS Federalist Society hope that you can attend these thought-provoking discussions. Hope to see you there!Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1170214259079177642007-01-30T21:27:00.000-06:002007-01-30T21:30:59.090-06:00Events for Spring SemesterHere is what the MULS FedSoc has planned for Spring Semester...<blockquote>Prof. Margaret Stock of US Military Academy at WestPoint, date TBD, Immigration Debate against Prof. Ed Fallone of the MU Law School<br /><br />Ed Whelan, March 7th, "Judicial Activism" Debate against Prof. Scott Moss of the MU Law School<br /><br />Prof. Michael Krauss of George Mason, March 22, Debate on Affirmative Action: Community Schools v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education.<br /><br />Prof. Stephanos Bibas, April 13, Speech, "Originalism and Formalism in Criminal Procedure: The Triumph of Justice Scalia, the Unlikely Friend of Criminal Defendants?"</blockquote>More information about these events will be posted as it becomes available.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1163892170981004072006-11-18T17:22:00.000-06:002006-11-18T17:22:50.990-06:00Scalia and Alito at the FedSoc ConferenceTonight's episode of America and the Courts on C-SPAN will feature the remarks of Justices Scalia and Alito at this week's Federalist Society Conference. You can watch the video of it <a href="http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=AC&ShowVidNum=7&Rot_Cat_CD=AC&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=100">here</a> on C-SPAN's website.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1163785166344259112006-11-17T11:21:00.000-06:002006-11-17T11:39:26.446-06:00McCain at the Federalist Society Convention<a href="http://www.confirmthem.com/mccain_on_the_judiciary">Confirm Them</a> has linked to the MSNBC site that reproduced <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15754149/">Senator John McCain's speech</a> Thursday at the Federalist Society convention. Confirm Them quoted an interesting portion...<blockquote>They [the founders] enumerated certain baseline individual rights, but instructed that this list was not exhaustive, and they provided that the rights and powers that were not enumerated were reserved strictly to the states and the people.<br /><br /> They created courts of limited jurisdiction, which could hear only "cases or controversies" "arising under" the Constitution. The further development of the common law we inherited from England, and the scope of the individual rights reserved to the states, were questions left to the individual states, removed from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.<br /><br /> By limiting government in these ways, the founders attempted to ensure that no one branch could dominate the others, that the federal government could not usurp state powers, and that one individual asserting his rights could stop the entire machinery of government from taking away his freedom.<br /><br /> Why has the appointment of judges become such a flashpoint of controversy in the past twenty years or so? When you understand our system in the way I've just described, when you see the wisdom in it and the humility it requires of public servants, it's easy enough to understand why we are so concerned that the judges we appoint share that understanding of the nature and limits of power.<br /><br /> Some basic attributes of judges follow from this understanding. They should be people who respect the limited scope afforded federal judges under the Constitution. They should be people who understand that the founders' concern about the expansive tendency of power extended to judicial power as well as to executive or legislative power. They should be people who are humbled by their role in our system, not emboldened by it. Our freedom is curtailed no less by an act of arbitrary judicial power as it is by an act of an arbitrary executive, or legislative, or state power. For that reason, a judgeÂs decisions must rest on more than his subjective conviction that he is right, or his eagerness to address a perceived social ill.<br /><br /> This truth was well understood by Chief Justice Roberts' mentor, my fellow Arizonan Chief Justice William Rehnquist, whose passing we mourn. During his 33 years on the Court, Justice Rehnquist earned our respect for his sharp intellect, his strong sense of fairness, and his enormous devotion to the Court and to public service. His profound understanding of the balance inherent in federalism, between the states and the federal governments, as well as between the three federal branchesÂleft us a strong legacy.<br /><br /> ItÂs a legacy I hope will be respected by the judges President Bush has nominated, and in whom we have vested great trust to discharge their judicial duties with prudence and principle.<br /><br /> I am proud of my role in persuading my fellow Republican Senators to respect the limits of our own power and not abolish the filibuster rule--changes which promised to empower a different majority under another president to impede our cause of limited government and constrained judicial power. Instead we have focused with considerable success on assuring that a high percentage of the President's nominees have been confirmed. And those judges and justices will interpret our Constitution as our founders intended.<br /><br /> The efforts we undertook a year and a half ago, working with Senators of both parties, who were concerned about abuses of the filibuster tradition, was resulted in a substantial increase in the confirmation of the President's Circuit Court nominees. Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and Bill Pryor have all been confirmed, and this year Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The President nominated these individuals; I supported each of their nominations; and we fought successfully to confirm them. President Bush now has a higher percentage of his nominations confirmed to both the District Courts and the Circuit Courts than did President Clinton during his presidency. I am also proud to see Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito serving with such distinction on the Supreme Court.<br /><br /> They are good people, deserving people, and their decisions will be grounded in the text and history of the statute, regulation, or constitutional provision under consideration, and interpreted narrowly in light of the specific facts of the case before them.<br /><br /> Of course, to paraphrase Mr. Madison, if angels wrote laws, we wouldn't need judges at all. Unfortunately, angels don't write laws; Congress does. And we're called a lot of things, but no one would mistake us for angels. Too frequently, we write laws that are unclear, we vote on laws we haven't adequately debated, and sometimes, I am sad to report, we vote on laws we haven't even read. When we pass laws like that, we leave too much to the discretion of our federal judges. We fail in our role to ensure that the judiciary's scope is limited. As we debate reforms to the practices and procedures of Congress, I hope, particularly we Republicans, will take an honest look at how we fail to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities when we write laws that invite judicial activism and misinterpretation.<br /><br /> Why these restraints on federal judges? Because the structure of our government, by itself, will not ensure our freedom. That structure, while it reduces the likelihood of tyranny, is only as strong as our commitment to the rule of law, and the rule of law depends largely on our judiciary's commitment not to impose its will arbitrarily on us.<br /><br /> That's why the appointment of federal judges has become such a flashpoint issue for so many. Judges stand in our system where our commitment to limited government meets our commitment to the rule of law. To the extent that judges impose their own will, they undermine both the structure of limited government and the rule of law.</blockquote>I'd expect the other 2008 presidential hopefuls to talk about the issue of the judiciary in the near future as well.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1163455652958841062006-11-13T15:59:00.000-06:002006-11-13T16:07:32.970-06:00Federalist Society Lawyer's Division ConferenceThe Federalist Society <a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/events/lawyersconvention/2006LawCon/2006LawConIntro.htm">Lawyer's Division Conference</a> begins this Thursday in Washington, D.C. This year's conference will focus on limited government...<blockquote>It is well understood in civics that we have a government of limited powers. But, if we have a limited government, are there changes necessary at the domestic and foreign policy, structural, or constitutional levels to restore and sustain such a limited government? On one side of our society, conservatives and libertarians have expressed great concern over the growth of government, even during a period when the political party which has been more favorable to limited government has controlled all three branches. However, liberals and progressives have expressed concern that government is being ineffective, and they have also expressed a desire for less government on cultural issues (or, at least, posited that government is on the wrong side on cultural issues). They have also expressed concern about U.S. international policy. Just after a midterm election is an opportune time to take a serious look at the concept of limited government, what it does and does not entail, and ideas for revitalizing it.</blockquote>Aside from an interesting topic, the conference has an incredible list of speakers. Justice Alito will be speaking at the Annual Dinner, which this year honors Justice Scalia's twenty years on the Supreme Court. Vice President Cheney will be giving the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture. Other notables include Secretary Michael Chertoff, Senator John McCain, Senator Arlen Specter, and Solicitor General Paul Clement. Take a look at the whole list. It's quite a line up of judges, law professors, and lawyers. <br /><br />Thanks to the <a href="http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_11_12-2006_11_18.shtml#1163439300">Volokh Conspiracy</a> for the heads up.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1162886847800101492006-11-07T02:04:00.000-06:002006-11-07T02:07:27.810-06:00Professor Kmiec on Gay MarriageProfessor Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine University (who will be speaking this Friday at a Federalist Society luncheon) has <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGZjNmEwNjlmZTQ4MDhmM2I4YjJkM2ZlN2M3OWViMGY=">an article in National Review Online</a> about the gay marriage issue. He argues against recognizing gay marriage...<blockquote>Same-sex-marriage bans make good sense for many sound cultural and religious reasons. But beyond that they come to terms with something often overlooked, the empirically undeniable fact of de-population.</blockquote>It is an interesting article and definitely worth a look.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1162462209050167202006-11-02T03:57:00.000-06:002006-11-02T04:10:09.060-06:00Last Night's Debate and an Upcoming EventWe'd like to thank everyone who attended <a href="http://mulsfedsoc.blogspot.com/2006/10/upcoming-death-penalty-debate.html">the Death Penalty debate</a> last night. Once again, we filled Room 307. That's really an accomplishment for an event at 6 PM on a Wednesday night. We'd also like to thank our excellent panelists for their time and insights. Thanks also goes out to the Criminal Law Society for co-sponsoring the event and Dean Rofes for moderating.<br /><br />The Federalist Society is currently in the planning stages for next Spring's events. We will do our best to organize and sponsor interesting, thought-provoking events on current legal issues. <br /><br />There is another event on the calendar for November. The Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter and the Marquette Law Student Chapter are sponsoring <a href="http://my.execpc.com/%7Efedsoc/2006/11/november-10th-douglas-kmiec-supreme.html">a luncheon event</a> featuring <a href="http://law.pepperdine.edu/academics/faculty/kmiec.html">Professor Douglas Kmiec</a>. The topic is "The Supreme Court and the War on Terror --What Remains of the President's Power to 'Wage War Successfully'?" The Lawyers Chapter provides this description...<blockquote>Prior to Hamdi, Rasul, and Hamdan, the Supreme Court had observed that the power to wage war is "the power to wage war successfully." See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 93. (1943). This observation of Chief Justice Hughes was also noted by two famous Court civil libertarians, Justices Douglas and Black, in their concurring opinion in New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714, 91 S. Ct. 2140, 2142 (1971). In light of recent rulings against the President's conduct of the "war on terror," is this still true?</blockquote>The registration form is available <a href="http://my.execpc.com/%7Efedsoc/2006-11-10.pdf">here</a>.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1161657616079078442006-10-23T21:39:00.000-05:002006-10-23T21:40:16.080-05:00Marriage Amendment Debate WebcastThe Federalist Society would like to thank everyone who came to the October 3rd <a href="http://mulsfedsoc.blogspot.com/2006/09/wisconsin-marriage-amendment-debate.html">event</a> "The Wisconsin Marriage Amendment: The Debate Over Gays, Civil Unions, & Beyond." The debate was an overwhelming success, considering that we packed Room 307 (which is no easy feat). If you couldn't make it to the event or just want to relive it, you can download the webcast <a href="http://law.marquette.edu/webcasts/events/MarriageAmmendment.mp3">here</a>. Thanks again to everyone who attended!Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1161657244366757672006-10-23T21:24:00.000-05:002006-10-23T21:34:04.376-05:00Upcoming Death Penalty DebateThe Federalist Society will be one of the sponsors of an interesting debate and discussion on the death penalty in Wisconsin. This November, there will be an advisory referendum on the ballot asking voters whether or not Wisconsin should have the death penalty. In light of the controversial nature and general interest in this issue, the Federalist Society and the Criminal Law Society are sponsoring a debate at the law school. <br /><br />We have assembled an incredible panel, including Professors Geske, Blinka, O'Meara, and McAdams, Charles Rice of Notre Dame Law, Neil McGinn of the State Public Defenders Office, Larry Dupuis of the ACLU, and Jeff Greipp of the Milwaukee County DA's Office. Assistant Dean Rofes will be moderating. <br /><br />The debate will be on November 1st at 6 PM in room 307 of the law school. We hope to see you there.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1161473277377461862006-10-21T18:12:00.000-05:002006-10-21T18:27:57.386-05:00Justice Scalia Debates the ACLU on Civil LibertiesOn October 15th, Justice Antonin Scalia debated ACLU president Nadine Strossen on civil liberties. The debate was carried on C-SPAN and has been uploaded to their website. You can view it <a href="rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e101506_civilrights.rm?mode=compact">here</a>.<br /><br />At the beginning of the debate, NBC correspondent and moderator Pete Williams talked about the cases where Justice Scalia sided with the ACLU. These included the <span style="font-style: italic;">Kyllo</span> case, which discussed whether infrared scanning of houses constituted a search, the <span style="font-style: italic;">Hamdi</span> case, and <span style="font-style: italic;">Texas v Johnson</span>, which discussed the constitutionality of flag burning.<br /><br />Justice Scalia said that the results in these and all of his opinions are not always where he wants to be personally. However, his interpretation of the Constitution has led him this way. He sees his job as preserving the original intent of the Constitution, regardless of his personal views.<br /><br />Justice Scalia also reaffirmed his belief that controversial issues must be debated openly and then voted on by the public. There are exceptions, but those are contained in the Bill of Rights. Those are the issues that have been taken out of the debate. However, those issues that have not been taken out of debate, including abortion and homosexual rights, can be decided by the public. Justice Scalia maintains that he is not saying whether particular laws or regulations are good, just that the public can regulate it.<br /><br />The debate is an excellent discussion of Constitutional law and Justice Scalia's views on it. He forcefully and capably defends his philosophy.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1159493132479817172006-09-28T20:20:00.000-05:002006-09-28T20:25:32.490-05:00Reflections from Justice WilcoxThe Milwaukee Chapter of the Federalist Society has <a href="http://my.execpc.com/~fedsoc/2006/09/wilcox-reflects-on-court-as-he-enters.html">a link</a> to <a href="http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=72896">a great interview</a> given by Justice Jon Wilcox. Justice Wilcox is retiring from the Wisconsin Supreme Court and decided to sit down with WisPolitics for a discussion about his time on the bench. If you have an interest in the Wisconsin Supreme Court in general and Justice Wilcox specifically, it's worth a look.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1159413723446395562006-09-27T22:18:00.000-05:002006-09-27T22:22:03.463-05:00The Wisconsin Marriage Amendment: The Debate Over Gays, Civil Unions, & BeyondMarquette University Law School's GLBT-Straight Legal Society and Federalist Society have organized a panel discussion titled "The Wisconsin Marriage Amendment: The Debate Over Gays, Civil Unions, & Beyond". It will take place on Tuesday, October 3rd in Sensenbrenner Hall with refreshments at 11:45 AM in Eisenberg and the discussion at 12:15 PM in Room 307. Panelists are Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defense Fund and Brenda Lewison of the Law Office of Arthur Heitzer. The event is co-sponsored by the Christian Legal Society, the National Lawyers Guild, and the American Constitution Society. Seating will be limited, so please RSVP <a href="http://law.marquette.edu/jw/debate">here</a>.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1159265222990307662006-09-26T05:06:00.000-05:002006-09-26T05:20:33.923-05:00The Major Court Battles on the Horizon<span style="font-style:italic;">US News and World Report</span> has <a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060924/2supreme.htm">a great article</a> about the upcoming term of the Supreme Court. We are days away from the beginning of the 2006 term. The article makes the point that there are a lot of familiar battles on the horizon. Up first is the always contentious abortion issue...<blockquote>When the U.S. Supreme Court reconvenes next week after its summer break, justices will be asked to decide whether health risks alone should guarantee women access to controversial late-term abortions, typically-though rarely-performed when pregnancies have progressed beyond 20 weeks.<br /><br />That, in and of itself, is significant-"one of the key cases of the term," says Leonard Leo of the conservative Federalist Society. But when the court considers the constitutionality of Congress's Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003-which has no exception for a mother's health-it will also shine a light on the emerging dynamics of the newly formulated and deeply divided panel. And the most closely watched jurist won't be Chief Justice John G. Roberts or his fellow sophomore, Justice Samuel Alito, but Justice Anthony Kennedy, on whose vote these decisions will most likely turn.</blockquote>I disagree with the authors on this point. I will be closely watching all three men. Justice Kennedy should be watched because he made his views on partial birth abortion known in his vigorous dissent in <span style="font-style:italic;">Stenberg v Carhart</span>. Will Kennedy stick to his guns (and his dissent) or will he honor the precedent of the 5-4 majority opinion? I think he's going to stick with his dissent. Justice Kennedy, like all of the Justices, has strong views on the Constitution and law. <span style="font-style:italic;">Stenberg</span> was a recent case and a 5-4 decision. He will not bow to a precedent that young and divided, especially when he feels this strongly. <br /><br />Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito should be watched for similar reasons. While they do not have recorded views on partial birth abortion, they do have the same precedent issue that Justice Kennedy has. Will they follow <span style="font-style:italic;">Stenberg</span>? My best guess is no. I think that there are five votes here to uphold the PBA bans. Of course, this case and its subsequent decision will be big news items. <br /><br />Another important reason to watch Roberts is how he assigns the opinion (assuming that he is in the majority). Will he take the opinion himself, giving us a more in depth view on the new Chief's abortion jurisprudence? Will he give the opinion to Scalia or Thomas to get a "flamethrower" opinion? Will he give it to Kennedy, if he thinks it's necessary to hold Kennedy's vote? Will he give it to Alito, Justice O'Connor's replacement? The language of the opinion may give us special insight into Alito's or Roberts' views on the abortion issue.<br /><br />Up next is another divisive topic, affirmative action and race issues in schools...<blockquote>The court will very likely be deeply divided over challenges to the use of race in assigning students to secondary schools in Seattle and Jefferson County, Ky., which includes Louisville. Parents in both cases, joined by lawyers for the Bush administration, claim that their children's constitutional right to equal protection was violated-in Seattle, when their children were denied enrollment in schools of their choice because race was used as a tiebreaker in an open-enrollment system, and in Jefferson County, when their children were bused long distances for a race-conscious school assignment plan.<br /><br />Three years ago, in the last affirmative action challenge, involving the University of Michigan and its law school, justices approved the use of race in college admissions-but only as part of a "holistic" evaluation of applicants and with no quotas or points system attached to the policy. The Seattle plan, which takes into consideration a student's race if any individual school is oversubscribed or does not reflect the district's student racial breakdown of 60 percent minority and 4o percent white, was upheld by the reliably liberal Ninth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit endorsed the Kentucky plan, which mandates that each school have a black enrollment of between 15 and 50 percent.</blockquote>It hasn't been long since the Court tackled this issue in higher education in <span style="font-style:italic;">Grutter v Bollinger</span> and <span style="font-style:italic;">Gratz v Bollinger</span>. With Justice O'Connor gone, the new Roberts Court gets a chance to put <span style="font-style:italic;">Grutter</span> to the test. Remember, this is another area where Justice Kennedy joined Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas in dissent. This is also another area where Roberts' and Alito's views on <span style="font-style:italic;">stare decisis</span> are material. They have the ability to form a five vote majority here. This could severely limit <span style="font-style:italic;">Grutter</span> or even overturn it.<br /><br />Rounding out the controversy trifecta is global warming...<blockquote>With the U.S. rejection of the global Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases and the failure of Congress to pass similar legislation, Massachusetts is leading a team of a dozen states, along with environmental groups, in arguing that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate greenhouse gas emissions, specifically those from motor vehicles, according to principles defined in the Clean Air Act.<br /><br />The Bush administration has opted to tackle global warming with a policy that promotes technology development and voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gases. But the plaintiffs argue that the policy fails to enforce Section 202 of the act, which says the agency must regulate automobile emissions that "cause, or contribute, to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."<br /><br />The EPA has refused to issue a formal judgment on whether carbon dioxide and other warming gases are pollutants. It argues that the act was never intended to regulate greenhouse gases, nor would it provide such regulation even if it could because federal policy is already in place. A ruling for the plaintiffs would very likely include sweeping new regulatory standards for all industries.</blockquote>The article makes reference to the very splintered DC Circuit opinion. It's possible that all of the excitement over this case will be for nothing. The Court may decide this on a standing issue. Under <span style="font-style:italic;">Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife</span>, the plaintiffs have to establish injury and redressability requirements. It is unsure if they can. The DC Circuit judges tackled this issue, divided as ever. Judge Sentelle said that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing. Judge Randolph assumed that they had standing. Judge Tatel found that Massachusetts itself had standing. <a href="http://eminentdomain.blogspot.com/2006/06/global-warming-and-court.html">All of the discussion</a> about Sections 202 and 302(g) of the Clean Air Act might be premature. This case could end in a whimper.<br /><br />So far, these are the cases to watch. The <span style="font-style:italic;">Phillip Morris</span> punitive damages case will be interesting too. This is an issue that isn't conservative/liberal. Roberts and Alito have the power to make a huge impact here. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1158348993604519052006-09-15T14:34:00.000-05:002006-09-15T14:36:33.613-05:00Debate on the Constitution at MarquetteFrom <a href="http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2006/09/debate-on-living-constitution-monday.html">Professor John McAdams' blog</a>...<div style="text-align: center;"><blockquote>CONSTITUTION DAY CELEBRATION!<br /><br /><br />MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18<br /><br />4:00 - 6:00 PM<br />RAYNOR MEMORIAL LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOMS B AND C<br /><br />Panel on<br />"Is the ("Living"?) Constitution a Sound Basis for Our Government Today?"<br /><br />Panelists:<br /><br />Gordon Hylton, Marquette Law School<br />John McAdams, Political Science<br />Jeffrey Sachse, Political Science<br />Christopher Wolfe, Political Science<br /><br />Refreshments provided</blockquote></div>Prof. McAdams adds...<blockquote>Look for this to end up as a debate between McAdams and Wolfe on the one side, and Sachse and Hylton on the other. The issue: whether judges have a right to blow off the expectations of the Founders and interpret the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean.</blockquote>I'm going to try to attend. It looks like a very interesting event.<br /><br />Cross posted on <a href="http://eminentdomain.blogspot.com/2006/09/debate-on-constitution-at-marquette.html">Eminent Domain</a>Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1158166736730410102006-09-13T11:33:00.000-05:002006-09-13T11:58:56.780-05:00Eugene Volokh Explains the Federalist SocietyMany people have no idea what the Federalist Society is, what it stands for, and who its members are. Politicians, activists, and some members of the media have attempted to portray the Federalist Society as a right wing cabal, secretly plotting to subvert the Constitution to meet their ideologically driven ends. In some circles, calling someone a member of the Federalist Society is a slur. I think it is important to clear the air and let everyone know what this group is all about. I can think of no one better to explain the Federalist Society than <a href="http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/">Prof. Eugene Volokh</a> (this year's <a href="http://law.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/site.pl?2216&deEvent_eventID=1341&date=10-16-2006">Boden Lecturer at MULS</a>).<br /><br />In <a href="http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/fedsoc.htm">this article</a> from the <span style="font-style: italic;">Washington Post</span> entitled "Our Flaw? We're Just Not Liberals," Prof. Volokh lets outsiders know what the Federalist Society is all about...<blockquote>The Federalist Society is a group of conservatives, libertarians and moderates who share two things: an interest in law and a sense that the liberal legal establishment often (not always) gets things wrong.<br />...<br />[O]ur common bond is just that most of us fall somewhere vaguely right of the center of the political spectrum most of the time. Many leading legal academic and professional institutions are dominated by liberals: A recent study finds, for instance, that 80 percent of U.S. law professors describe themselves as "Democratic or leaning Democratic," and only 13 percent call themselves "Republican or leaning Republican." We who dissent from this orthodoxy naturally enjoy talking with each other, even when -- especially when -- we disagree.<br /><br />The society is genuinely open to a variety of views. It takes no position on legislation or on candidates. It files no lawsuits or friend of the court briefs. Its charter is to create discussion, not to lobby, litigate or get out the vote. It welcomes moderates and liberals, if they want to participate, as well as libertarians and conservatives; anyone is free to join.</blockquote>The Federalist Society is all about ideas. We like to talk about the law and the Constitution. We like debates because, as Prof. Volokh puts it, "We think that a fair debate between us and our liberal adversaries will win more converts for our positions than for the other side's."<br /><br />What do Federalist Society members believe? Many things, depending on the particular member...<blockquote>We have no articles of faith. Some of us are pro-choice, others pro-life. Some Federalists -- such as Gary Lawson, a member of the society's board of directors and a professor at Northwestern University School of Law -- think the Constitution should be interpreted primarily based on its original meaning. Others focus more on precedent or on evolving tradition. Some, like professor Randy E. Barnett of Boston University, argue that the Constitution protects a broad range of rights beyond those specifically listed in the first eight amendments. Still others, such as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who was a faculty adviser to the University of Chicago's chapter of the Federalist Society in the 1980s, believe that decisions about such unenumerated rights should be left to the democratic process, not to judges.<br /><br />Many Federalists -- such as Paul Cassell, a prominent critic of Miranda v. Arizona, who teaches at the University of Utah College of Law -- believe the police deserve more flexibility than they now have. Some, like Roger Pilon of the libertarian Cato Institute, are much more skeptical of government power. And still others fall somewhere in between.</blockquote>The variety of viewpoints that one finds in the Federalist Society is one of its greatest strengths.<br /><br />I welcome everyone to attend one of our <a href="http://law.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/site.pl?10917&dfStudentOrg_studentOrgID=18">many events</a> during the school year. I'm sure that you will find it interesting and thought provoking. Our goal is to encourage debate and discussion about the law, and hopefully these events help achieve that goal.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34043793.post-1157758715153254772006-09-08T18:37:00.000-05:002006-09-08T18:38:35.166-05:00The First Year of John RobertsThe Harvard Political Review has <a href="http://hprsite.squarespace.com/judging-roberts-year-one-62006/">an excellent article</a> summarizing Chief Justice John Roberts' first year on the Supreme Court. Writer Vivek Viswanathan begins the article by talking a bit about Judge John Roberts, the then-nominee to the Court. While Roberts had a long career as a private and government litigator, his judicial record was rather short. Many speculated about the kind of Supreme Court Justice that John Roberts would be. Even after his first year, it's still difficult to tell. Viswanathan makes this point (with a little help from a quotation)...<blockquote>What Americans learn about Roberts will likely emerge in bits and pieces over a period of many years. Former Solicitor General Charles Fried testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that if Roberts "tells of his judicial philosophy, it will only be ten or more years from now."</blockquote>While Roberts' entire judicial philosophy is still unknown, we can learn a bit about him from his votes, opinions, and behavior during the last term.<br /><br />Viswanathan quotes Professor Cass Sunstein's assessment of Roberts' DC Circuit record. Sunstein believed that while Roberts was definitely a conservative, his opinions had "none of the bravado and ambition that characterize the fundamentalists. His opinions are meticulous and circumspect. He avoids sweeping pronouncements and bold strokes, and instead plays close attention to the legal material at hand." What does Prof. Sunstein think now? Well, the Harvard Political Review asked him...<blockquote>Roberts, true to his word, has not articulated any judicial ideology or agenda since joining the Court. And yet, for those who hoped that he would stake out a moderate position on the Court, the signs from the first term have not been encouraging. "I'm surprised that he hasn't shown more moderation," Sunstein told the HPR in an interview. Sunstein explained that while Roberts has only served on the Court for a few months, "All early signs, thus far, are of a predictable ally of [Justice Antonin] Scalia and [Justice Clarence] Thomas." He also noted that Roberts "seems to be a fan of clear, simple rules, as Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor certainly was not."</blockquote>Well, no forecast is right 100% of the time.<br /><br />Viswanathan also focuses on Chief Justice Roberts' desire to build a greater consensus on the Court. It may be working too...<blockquote>Indeed, there have been a remarkable number of unanimous opinions thus far in his term, and surprisingly few concurring majority opinions, which can have the effect of muddling Supreme Court precedent.</blockquote>It's difficult to say anything definitive based on this. One term of the Court does not provide much data to analyze. Prof. Sunstein is a bit skeptical of Roberts' consensus building plans...<blockquote>But given the ideological differences among Court members, and Roberts's own conservative leanings, there is no guarantee that those efforts will continue to achieve results, especially when the Court addresses some of the more contentious constitutional issues in America today. "Roberts is apparently interested in achieving consensus, and he may move the Court some; but it would be surprising if he has a huge effect," Sunstein told the HPR. "There are nine independent minds on the Supreme Court."</blockquote>It will be very interesting to see how the dynamics of the Roberts Court work after so many years of an unchanging Rehnquist Court.<br /><br />Cross posted on <a href="http://eminentdomain.blogspot.com/2006/09/first-year-of-john-roberts.html">Eminent Domain</a>.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15569023282141472710noreply@blogger.com0