I won't cry for you, Patrick Leahy: Here is just a taste of Sen. Leahy's whining session during yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee Judicial Nominations Hearing:

Today the Judiciary Committee meets in an extraordinary session to consider six important nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench. During the last four years of the Clinton Administration, this Committee refused to hold hearings and Committee votes on qualified nominees to the D.C. Circuit and the Sixth Circuit. Today, in sharp contrast, this Committee is being required to proceed on three controversial nominations to those circuit courts -- simultaneously. This can only be seen as part of a concerted and partisan effort to pack the courts and tilt them sharply out of balance . . . .

I am very disappointed that the Chairman has unilaterally chosen to pack so many circuit court nominees onto the docket of a single hearing. This is unprecedented in his tenure and simply no way to consider the controversial and divisive nominations he has selected for a single hearing. This is no way for us to discharge our constitutional duty to advise and consent to the President’s nominees.

While I was Chairman over 17 months we reformed the process of judicial nominations hearings. We made tangible progress in repairing the damage done to the process in the previous six years. We showed how nominations of a Republican president could be considered twice as quickly as Republicans had considered President Clinton’s nominees. We added new accountability by making the positions of home-state Senators public for the first time and we did away with the previous Republican practice of anonymous holds on nominations.

To proceed as they have chosen, Republicans are rewriting the rules or simply breaking them. This is the first judicial nominations hearing I have ever seen where the Committee has not even taken the step of formally consulting home-state Senators. As far as we have been informed, no “blue slips” have been received on these particular nominations. Indeed, we understand that they have not even been sent out by the Committee. Today’s majority, when they were yesterday’s majority, respected objections from Republican Senators to President Clinton’s judicial nominees within their States, within their circuits and sometimes clear across the country. Their ability to pivot on a dime on these matters is breathtaking and unfortunate.

Treating the vetting of appointments to some of the highest courts in the land with little more attention and scrutiny than we would pay to appointees for a temporary federal commission on this or that is a disservice to the citizens of these circuits and to all Americans.

The American people can be excused for sensing that there’s the smell of an inkpad in the air, and that the rubber stamp is already out of the drawer.

You reap what you sow, Leahy.

Sporadic Postings: My postings will be a little on the light side this week. I am working on a fairly difficult opinion, and I have a job interview on Friday way down South in Dixie. Wish me luck, y'all.

Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! Nino and Darth Bader on an elephant?: For some time now, I have been a great admirer of Professor Jerry Goldman's--a political science professor at Northwestern University--Oyez Project web site, which is chock full of neat information on the Supreme Court. Yesterday, I received an e-mail from Professor Goldman--sent to all Oyez subscribers, no I am not special--providing me with a link to the Oyez's Project's beta release. According to the e-mail, the Oyez project is "about to move to a new phase in its development . . . providing substantially more multimedia content -- oral arguments, oral announcements of opinions, images . . . [and] a new site architecture." One of the coolest features is the ability to view the chambers of Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer. In Justice Ginsburg's office you can see a picture that was the inspiration for the title of this post. Any thoughts for an appropriate caption? Ah yes, we could have fun with that one. I also have new respect for Justice Breyer, who, despite his many faults, has a fabulous book collection.

Since this is an early beta release, Professor Goldman is encouraging visitors to give him bug reports and suggestions. You can contact him at j-goldman@northwestern.edu

Bush likely to fill Supreme Court vacancy with conservative: The Washington Post has this report.

Supreme Court grants cert. in Georgia redistricting case: The Washington Post has this report.

I lived in Georgia when the dems--who controlled every branch of government at that time--redrew the lines. Here is a site that has the redistricting maps in question (i.e., for state senate, state house, and congressional districts).

My guess is that it will no longer be his "prerogative" and that he might end up being someone's "Candy Girl": The Atlanta Journal Constitution is reporting that singer Bobby Brown (of New Edition fame) has been ordered back to jail after a DeKalb County, Georgia judge held that Brown's televised appearance at the American Music Awards show violated his bond. His cellmates will, no doubt, be watching "every little step" he takes. O.k., this is getting a tad obnoxious. I will "cool it now." :)

NARAL name change: NARAL has changed its name to "Pro-Choice America," but some members of the pro-abortion community are growing tired of the word games. In a recent New York Time op-ed, Peggy Loonan (no, not Peggy Noonan--whom I love dearly), in especially blunt terms, criticizes NARAL's name change, noting "The abortion-rights movement should be honest. Legal abortion kills pre-viable human life. But the rights of a pre-viable human life should not take precedence over the rights of a woman."

Attention all Harry Potter fans: "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," by J.K. Rowling, the fifth in the bestselling series has been scheduled for release on Saturday, June 21, 2003 in the United States, Britain, Canada and Australia, and is over a third longer than the previous book, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire." The announcement was made today by Scholastic and Bloomsbury publishers. According to Booksamillion, the book begins with the following words:

"The hottest day of the summer so far was drawing to a close and a drowsy silence lay over the large, square houses of Privet Drive . . . . The only person left outside was a teenage boy who was lying flat on his back in a flowerbed outside number four."

Later in the novel, Rowling writes:

"Dumbledore lowered his hands and surveyed Harry through his half-moon glasses. 'It is time," he said '"or me to tell you what I should have told you five years ago, Harry. Please sit down. I am going to tell you everything."

"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is over 255,000 words compared to over 191,000 words in "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire." The new book is 38 chapters long, one more than "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire."

Reserving judgment on Eldred: I am too busy working on an opinion to actually read the Court's decision in Eldred (handed down today). In a nutshell, the Court held that Congress, in extending the duration of existing copyrights via the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act ("CTEA"), did not exceed its powers under the Copyright Clause. My gut reaction, after reading Justice Breyer's dissent--and it pains me to type this--is that he got it right. Here is the opening paragraph of the dissent:

The Constitution’s Copyright Clause grants Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science . . . by securing for limited Times to Authors . . . the exclusive Right to their respective Writings.” Art. I, §8, cl. 8 (emphasis added). The statute before us, the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, extends the term of most existing copyrights to 95 years and that of many new copyrights to 70 years after the author’s death. The economic effect of this 20-year extension—the longest blanket extension since the Nation’s founding—is to make the copyright term not limited, but virtually perpetual. Its primary legal effect is to grant the extended term not to authors, but to their heirs, estates, or corporate successors. And most importantly, its practical effect is not to promote, but to inhibit, the progress of “Science”—by which word the Framers meant learning or knowledge, E.Walterscheid, The Nature of the Intellectual Property Clause: A Study in Historical Perspective 125–126 (2002).

As a textual matter, the issue seems fairly simple. The crucial question, however, is whether the terms used in the clause incorporate a historical meaning (present at the time of ratification) that supports the majority's holding. I doubt it, but we shall see.

The Snoop Dogg Shizzolator: Ever wondered what your blog would look like in gangsta speak? Snoop Dogg can help you see your blog in a whole new light. Click here for further details. Here is a sample from my blog (after being run through the Shizzolator):

White supremacist charged wit soliciting judge's murder: Fox Informative Shiznit is reporting that Matt Hale, heezee of da racist World Church of da Creator, wuz taken into custody by agents of an FBI-led terrorism task force as tha dude arrived at Chicago's federal courthouse fo' a contempt of court hearing in a trademark infringement lawsuit based on an indictment that tha dude tried--between November 29, Two Thousand 'n '02 'n December 17, Two Thousand 'n '02, get someone kill U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow n' shit. According da article, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald be like da "conduct alleged in this indictment is disturbing on many levels, but particularly so because that shiznit targeted a judge, whose sworn duty is apply da law equally 'n fairly izzall who appear before her, know what I'm sayin'? "

Scalia criticizes Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence: For a report on Justice Scalia's speech, click here.

Roe v. Wade "overturned"?: Matt Evans, a contributor to "The Buck Stops Here" (and a Harvard law student I presume), passes along an interesting account of a subtle (but funny), ongoing battle in the abortion war taking place at the Supreme Court between conservative and liberal law clerks. This, of course, begs the question: What do the "moderate" clerks do when presented with the situation described in the foregoing post?

Bristling Dixie: Dahlia Lithwick of Slate has written an excellent article on "[t]he ill-conceived school bans on cheesy Confederate T-shirts," which you can access here.

With a Rebel Zell . . . .: The Wall Street Journal has this take on Zell Miller's announcement that he will not seek reelection to the Senate in 2004.

White supremacist charged with soliciting judge's murder: Fox News is reporting that Matt Hale, head of the racist World Church of the Creator, was taken into custody by agents of an FBI-led terrorism task force as he arrived at Chicago's federal courthouse for a contempt of court hearing in a trademark infringement lawsuit based on an indictment that he tried--between November 29, 2002 and December 17, 2002, to get someone to kill U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow. According to the article, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said the "conduct alleged in this indictment is disturbing on many levels, but particularly so because it targeted a judge, whose sworn duty is to apply the law equally and fairly to all who appear before her."

Zell Miller's announces that he will not seek reelection to the Senate: The Washington Post has this report. On an entirely related matter, you heard it here first: Ralph Reed will, in short order, announce that he intends to run for Miller's Senate seat in 2004. Reed will win the Republican nomination, and soundly trounce any opponent the dems run against him. At least that's my prediction. What's yours?

President Bush renominates Owen and Pickering: The Washington Post has this report.

Things are about to get nasty on the judicial nominations front: Ralph Neas, grand poobah of the People for the (Un)American Way, sent out a mass e-mail yesterday to journalists, which you can access here, bemoaning the "The Approaching Armageddon on Judicial Nomination." In the "Editorial Memorandum," Neas asserts that:

"A Supreme Court with a Scalia-Thomas majority could overturn more than 100 precedents and turn back the clock decades on civil and voting rights, privacy and reproductive choice, religious liberty, environmental protection, consumer and worker safety, and more. Preventing ideologues who want to return our Constitution and country to the 'states’ rights' judicial era from dominating our highest court will be a monumental struggle over the nation’s future."

Neas goes on to note that:

"There is an urgent need for a vigorous national debate on the Bush-Scalia-Thomas judicial philosophy and the impact the President’s judicial nominations could have on the daily lives of every American. What would it mean to privacy rights, civil rights, reproductive choice, clean air and water, and religious liberty if President Bush fulfills his promise to appoint judges like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia? Americans have a right to know what is at stake before they wake up one morning in 2004 or in 2005 and discover that overnight they have lost fundamental rights, liberties, and protections that they thought were theirs forever."

Does anyone actually take anything this joker says seriously? More on this later, I have to get back to eroding Americans' civil liberties. In the meantime, check out the WSJ's response to this pathetic tirade.

Bush may appoint a southern federalist to the Eleventh Circuit: The Birmingham News is reporting that President Bush may appoint Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor for a judgeship on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I've had the pleasure of meeting General Pryor at Federalist Society gatherings. He is extremely bright and a nice fellow to boot. I hope he ends up getting the nod from the president.

I've been saying this for years: Marci Hamilton has an excellent article on FindLaw explaining why liberals are wrong in contending that the Supreme Court's recent federalism decisions are harmful to the promotion and/or preservation of civil rights.

The Supreme Court rumor mill: The Washingtonian is reporting that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is bucking for a spot on the Supreme Court and that Justice Clarence Thomas will, thanks to disgraced Sen. Trent "I really am sorry" Lott (R-Miss.), replace William Rehnquist as the Court's next chief justice.

The new face of the Republican Party: The Republicans finally have a leader worth following.