NEWS: Stanford President and Law-School Dean Apologize to Judge Duncan nationalreview.com/bench-memos/st… Read apology letter here and Judge Duncan's acceptance and commentary. 1/
Apology by Stanford president and law school dean faults DEI dean Tirein Steinbach: “staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.” 2/
Interesting to see that apology's characterization of Steinbach's conduct differs markedly from Dean Martinez's statement yesterday ("well-intentioned" effort at "managing the room ... went awry"). Perhaps explains why Stanford *president* co-signed letter. 3/
You'd ordinarily think that university president would leave a matter like this to law school dean. Sure seems that President Tessier-Lavigne might have been upset at Martinez's excuse-mongering for Steinbach. 4/
Apology is tepid in assertion that Stanford is “taking steps to ensure that something like this does not happen again.”
Firing Steinbach would be good first step. Publicly censuring students who engaged in flagrant misconduct would be another. 5/
The strong and clear stance that Stanford president Tessier-Lavigne has articulated on precisely this situation makes it all the more plausible that he was appalled by Dean Martinez's coddling of DEI dean Steinbach.
Since Steinbach can't in good faith embrace Stanford's policy on free speech, she should have the integrity to resign forthwith.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
New in Confirmation Tales: "The Umpire Strikes Back: John Roberts's apt baseball simile."
“Judges are like umpires.” Among the hundreds of thousands of words spoken by senators, witnesses, and John Roberts himself across the four days of his confirmation hearing in September 2005, those four words uttered by Roberts in his opening statement stood out. 1/
In his statement explaining why he would vote against Roberts’s confirmation, then-senator Barack Obama provided his contrary account of what judging consists of, an empathy standard embedded in a remarkably clumsy marathon metaphor. 2/ confirmationtales.com/p/the-umpire-s…
The triumph of Roberts’s umpire simile over Obama’s empathy standard is no better shown than in the testimony of Obama’s own Supreme Court nominees. 3/ confirmationtales.com/p/the-umpire-s…
New from Confirmation Tales: "Fishing for John Roberts's Executive-Branch Records: A justice delayed could become a justice denied" 1/ confirmationtales.com/p/fishing-for-…
If you’re working to defeat a Supreme Court nomination, you will try to dig up all the negative stuff you can find about the nominee, and you will seek as much time as possible for your digging. For Senate Democrats in 2005, John Roberts’s years as a lawyer in the executive branch provided an obvious opportunity. “We’re not looking to go on a fishing expedition,” declared Senator Teddy Kennedy, as he packed his tackle box. 2/ confirmationtales.com/p/fishing-for-…
In document demand on Roberts, the competing legal arguments—e.g., the executive branch’s interest in preserving the confidentiality of deliberations and legal advice on sensitive matters versus the Senate’s interest in having as much information as possible about a Supreme Court nominee—were beside the point. As is generally the case in fights over judicial nominations, what mattered were intensely political considerations. 3/ confirmationtales.com/p/fishing-for-…
Apologies for wrong first report. Unanimous ruling in favor of Trump. Liberal justices concur in judgment. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Per curiam majority (5 justices): Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.
ACB, concurring in part, concurring in judgment: No need to address whether federal legislation is exclusive vehicle.
3 liberal justices concurring in judgment: Similar to ACB.
Four justices who concur in judgment object that majority "shuts the door on other potential means of enforcement" of section 3, "forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision" (e.g., criminal defendant challenging prosecutor), and rules out "enforcement under general federal statutes requiring the government to comply with the law."
My new Confirmation Tales post: "John Roberts's Gay-Rights Surprise: A revelation that would have prevented his nomination doesn't disrupt it." 1/ confirmationtales.com/p/john-roberts…
The same piece of information about a candidate/nominee can have dramatically different impact depending on when it surfaces. 2/ confirmationtales.com/p/john-roberts…
2 weeks into Roberts's nomination in 2005, newspapers reported that Roberts had done pro bono work a decade earlier in support of gay-rights activists in Romer v. Evans. Lawyer who argued the case called his strategic advice "absolutely crucial." 3/ confirmationtales.com/p/john-roberts…
New from Confirmation Tales: Controversy in 2005 over whether Supreme Court nominee John Roberts had ever been a member of Federalist Society. 1/ confirmationtales.com/p/roberts-fede…
In effort to make path to confirmation as smooth as possible, White House raced to correct widespread reports that John Roberts had been a member of Federalist Society. His involvement, it said, consisted of “speaking at Federalist Society forums (as have lawyers and legal scholars of various political stripes.” But never a dues-paying member. 2/ confirmationtales.com/p/roberts-fede…
But WaPo then discovered that Roberts was listed in Fed Soc’s leadership directory one year, as a member of steering committee of D.C. chapter. I suddenly found myself part of the story, as I was also listed as a member. 3/ confirmationtales.com/p/roberts-fede…
Will run long thread here of today's oral argument. Here's my guide to what to listen for.
Oral argument is set to start at 10, but with opinion(s) being announced probably won't start until 10:05 or 10:10. 80 minutes are allotted, but Court has been *very* generous with time, so expect argument to go double that. My guess is that it will end some time between 12:30 and 1:00.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/a-…
First up will be counsel for Trump, Jonathan Mitchell. Then two counsel on the other side, one for private plaintiffs, one for the Colorado secretary of state. Then a rebuttal round for Mitchell. So four separate turns at the podium.
I'm going to try to summarize exchanges that I find interesting or significant, but that's tough to do on the fly, so apologies in advance for any errors.