MULS Federalist Society

We've got a room number and some more info about this upcoming event...

"Originalism and Formalism in Criminal Procedure: The Triumph of Justice Scalia, the Unlikely Friend of Criminal Defendants?"

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?
Speech: Stephanos Bibas.
Click here for more information about Prof. Bibas
Friday April 13, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Marquette Law School Room 310, Lunch Provided!
RSVP to andrew.hitt@mu.edu
Free if RSVP BY April 9th; $10 after April 9th
For Directions & Parking: http://www.marquette.edu/contact/directions/
Co-sponsored with the Marquette Criminal Law Society

Hope to see you there!

Posted by Steve at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Comments

The MULS Chapter of the Federalist Society will be sponsoring two interesting events in the near future.

Using Race As A Factor In Grade School Student Placement?
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.

Thursday March 22, Room 325 at 12:15 p.m.
Questions contact andrew.hitt@mu.edu.
Sponsored by the Federalist Society.

"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.

Originalism and Formalism in Criminal Procedure: The Triumph of Justice Scalia, the Unlikely Friend of Criminal Defendants?
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?

Featured speaker is Professor Stephanos Bibas, University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Lunch is provided.
RSVP to Andrew Hitt (andrew.hitt@marquette.edu).

Sponsored by the Federalist Society.

Friday, April 13, 2007
Noon
Room TBA

We hope to see you there!

Posted by Steve at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments

It'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.

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.

Next week, the Federalist Society will be sponsoring another event...

"Judicial Activism": Is it a reality or an empty epithet?

Join Prof. Moss & Ed Whelan, of the Ethics & Public Policy Center for a debate on Judicial Activism.
What does Judicial Activism mean & how does it tie into broader debates over constitutional interpretation?
Wed. March 7th, Room 245 at 5:00 p.m.
Food will be provided

Many of you may know Ed Whelan from the National Review Online's Bench Memos blog. I'm sure that he and Prof. Moss will have a lively and interesting discussion about "judicial activism." We hope to see you there!

Posted by Steve at 1:14 AM | Permalink | Comments

Federalist Society's "Fences, Amnesty, and Aliens, OH MY!"

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.

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.

Questions, contact daniel.suhr@mu.edu or joseph.adams@mu.edu

Tuesday, February 27
12:15 p.m.
Room 307

Posted by Steve at 9:37 AM | Permalink | Comments

The Federalist Society Student Symposium 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...

Friday, February 23

3:00 p.m.: Registration - Thorne Auditorium

5:45 p.m.: Opening Remarks - Thorne Auditorium

6:00 p.m.: Debate - Religion in the Public Square
(Thorne Auditorium, Northwestern University School of Law)

Featuring: Mr. Kevin J. Hasson - Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Rev. Dr. Michael Newdow - Restore our Pledge of Allegiance

Moderated by: David McIntosh - Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw

7:30 p.m.: Panel - What is Morality? The Philosophical and Theological Foundations of Moral Debate
(Thorne Auditorium, Northwestern University School of Law)

Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Jr. - Louisiana State University
Prof. Randy E. Barnett - Georgetown University
Prof. Robert Burns - Northwestern University
Prof. Michael J. Perry - Emory University

Moderated by: Prof. Richard Garnett - University of Chicago

9:00 p.m.: Cocktail Reception
(Atrium, Northwestern University School of Law)


Saturday, February 24

8:00 a.m.: Breakfast
(Atrium, Northwestern University School of Law)

9:00 a.m.: Panel - Moral Choices and the Eighth Amendment
(Thorne Auditorium, Northwestern University School of Law)

Featuring: Prof. Ron Allen - Northwestern University
Prof. Michael S. Moore - University of Illinois
Prof. Laurence P. Claus - University of San Diego

Moderated by: Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich - United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

11:00 a.m.: Debate - Same-Sex Marriage: Marriage, Public Policy, and the Constitution
(Thorne Auditorium, Northwestern University School of Law)

Featuring: Prof. Louis Michael Seidman - Georgetown University
Prof. Amy Wax - University of Pennsylvania

Moderated by: Judge Diane S. Sykes - United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

12:30 p.m.: Lunch Break

2:00 p.m.: Panel - Government Promotion of Moral Issues
(Thorne Auditorium, Northwestern University School of Law)

Featuring: Prof. Lillian R. BeVier - University of Virginia
Prof. G. Marcus Cole - Stanford University
Prof. Lino A. Graglia - University of Texas
Prof. Steven Lubet - Northwestern University

Moderated by: Prof. Stephen Calabresi - Northwestern University

4:00 p.m.: Panel - Morality of First Amendment Jurisprudence
(Thorne Auditorium, Northwestern University School of Law)

Featuring: Prof. Andrew Koppelman - Northwestern University
Prof. John McGinnis - Northwestern University
Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly - Eagle Forum
Prof. Geoffrey Stone - University of Chicago

Moderated by: Prof. Orin Kerr - George Washington University

6:00 p.m.: Cocktail Reception
(Chicago Marriott Downtown Magnificent Mile)

7:00 p.m.: Banquet, featuring Keynote Speaker
(Chicago Marriott Downtown Magnificent Mile)

Featuring: Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. - Eleventh Circuit

Over on PrawfsBlawg, Prof. Rick Garnett praised the line up...

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.

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.

Posted by Steve at 3:20 PM | Permalink | Comments

Here is a little more detail about the Spring events from the MULS Chapter of the Federalist Society...

Event # 1

FENCES, AMNESTY, AND ALIENS, OH MY!

Please join the Federalist Society 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, Lunch Provided!

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.

Questions, contact daniel.suhr@mu.edu or joseph.adams@mu.edu

Event # 2

"Judicial Activism": Is it a reality or an empty epithet?

Join Prof. Moss & Ed. Whelan, of the Ethics & Public Policy Center for a debate on Judicial Activism.
What does Judicial Activism mean & how does it tie into broader debates over constitutional interpretation?
Wed. March 7th, Room 245 at 5:00 p.m.
Questions contact andrew.hitt@mu.edu
Sponsored by the Federalist Society


Event # 3

Using Race As A Factor In Grade School Student Placement?

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.
Thursday March 22, Rm 325 at 12:15 p.m.
questions contact andrew.hitt@mu.edu
Sponsored by the Federalist Society

"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

We at the MULS Federalist Society hope that you can attend these thought-provoking discussions. Hope to see you there!

Posted by Steve at 7:01 PM | Permalink | Comments

Here is what the MULS FedSoc has planned for Spring Semester...

Prof. Margaret Stock of US Military Academy at WestPoint, date TBD, Immigration Debate against Prof. Ed Fallone of the MU Law School

Ed Whelan, March 7th, "Judicial Activism" Debate against Prof. Scott Moss of the MU Law School

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.

Prof. Stephanos Bibas, April 13, Speech, "Originalism and Formalism in Criminal Procedure: The Triumph of Justice Scalia, the Unlikely Friend of Criminal Defendants?"

More information about these events will be posted as it becomes available.

Posted by Steve at 9:27 PM | Permalink | Comments

Tonight'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 here on C-SPAN's website.

Posted by Steve at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments

Confirm Them has linked to the MSNBC site that reproduced Senator John McCain's speech Thursday at the Federalist Society convention. Confirm Them quoted an interesting portion...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 judge’s decisions must rest on more than his subjective conviction that he is right, or his eagerness to address a perceived social ill.

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 branches—left us a strong legacy.

It’s 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'd expect the other 2008 presidential hopefuls to talk about the issue of the judiciary in the near future as well.

Posted by Steve at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Comments

The Federalist Society Lawyer's Division Conference begins this Thursday in Washington, D.C. This year's conference will focus on limited government...

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.

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.

Thanks to the Volokh Conspiracy for the heads up.

Posted by Steve at 3:59 PM | Permalink | Comments