Greatest Footnote Ever

Every law student knows that the best information about cases is in the footnotes. These notes are a source of gold for students. This note though is possible the best ever.

"Deciphering motions like the one presented here wastes valuable chamber staff time, and invites this sort of footnote," wrote a miffed Clark. Lawyers practicing before the 58-year-old jurist, who presides over cases in San Antonio..."

The note is actually a quote from an adam sandler movie. It quotes this scene...

Read more...

For Steele: A Brief Understanding of Law

I think it might be a waste of my time to respond to chairman Steele's ridiculous assertions regarding the linkage of empathy and law. I feel like Steele's comments deserve the Billy Madison response. Despite this inclination i want to address Steele and help him understand why his comments are so divorced from reality and an understanding of how the law works.

Other than "possession is 9 tenths of the law" this is probably the most quoted passage having to due with the law,

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics."

Now compare this quote from Holmes to the words of Chairman Steele,

STEELE: Good morning y’all, we’re back in the house. We’re talking a little bit of Constitution and a little bit Supreme Court. And a whole lot of saving America’s judicial system and saving our rights as citizens and not having empathetic judges decide cases, but rather judges who are actually understanding the rule of law and what the Constitution and those laws are all about. And how to apply the facts to the law and the law to the facts. And adjudicate my case. I don’t need some judge sitting up there feeling bad for my opponent because of their life circumstances or their condition. And short changing me and my opportunity to get fair treatment under the law. Crazy nonsense empathetic. I’ll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind. Craziness.

First tip for Steele is to stop trying to talk like he is beyond the cutting edge. It doesnt work and it makes it hard to take him seriously. His major point though seems to be that in a slam dunk case where he should win the life experience or situation of the other guy will steal his win. That is absolutely not how it works and is the absolute wrong conception of what barack obama means by empathy. A better look at what Obama means by empathy is Lily Leadbetter,

For nearly 20 years, from 1979 until she retired in 1998, she worked as a supervisor at Goodyear's tire plant in Gadsden, Ala. She was an area manager, one of the few women in such a position. At first, her pay was in line with what the men in the same job made. Then it slipped. By the end of 1997, she made $3,727 a month. The lowest paid man doing that same work made $4,286 a month, and the highest paid men were getting $5,236. So she sued.

"I just could not believe that they would separate the female pay so far down the line from my male peers," she told NBC News at the time. "I was shocked when my attorneys accumulated all the information, and I saw how low it was."

Her legal argument was this: Every time the company wrote her a check, it was committing sex discrimination. But she lost. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, said she waited too long to sue. The majority said federal law requires workers to file their complaints within 180 days of an act of discrimination. In other words, the court said, that clock starts ticking when an employer decides how much to pay, not each time a paycheck is written, years later.

In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg said employers often keep salaries secret, meaning it can take years for workers to realize that discrimination was keeping their pay lower. She accused her male colleagues on the court of failing to understand how pay discrimination works. It's not like being denied a promotion, she wrote, when you know right away what happened. And, at first, women may not want to make waves if they think their pay is low, she said.

Empathy from the bench is understanding that a technical issue like the one in the leadbettter should not overcome the injustice done to her by the discrimination. The first rule of the federal rules of civil procedure is that the rules should be interpreted to secure just, speedy, and inexpensive resolutions. It is impossible to evaluate the justness of a situation if you cannot understand or automatically discount the policy arguments being made. The decisions from the Court and from appeals benches have real world impacts.

When a judge talks about "making policy" what they mean is that the result of a decision at the high levels of the justice system defines the law and how it will apply in similar situations in the future. They do this though only in murky situations without clear answersThey cannot simply issue the law by fiat.

First, let's tackle the easy issue: Do judges make laws, or, acting solely on personal will, do they create broad rules for everyone to follow? No. Federal courts only hear cases or controversies involving disputes over federal law (with very few exceptions). Outside of these cases or controversies, courts, unlike lawmakers and executives, cannot simply announce policy.
...
When judges decide cases, the issues are usually straightforward. But there are many cases where the law is either unclear or where the relevant constitutional provision, statute or common law principle leaves a fair amount of discretion for courts to pick among reasonable choices. In those instances, particularly in the context of constitutional law, courts arguably "make policy" as they attempt to define the boundaries of legal constraints and obligations. Conservative and liberal rulings follow this principle.

The incorporation of empathy into deciding murky cases with far reaching implications is hardly crazy. It is essential to accomplishing what steele says he wants, equal protection under the law. In fact, if courts act in ways that run contrary to the will or feelings of the general public, there is a way to fix this. This marvel that constrains the ability of the court to make policy is called the legislature. thats right, in most cases congress can edit or rewrite the law to preclude the reading that the judiciary attaches to it. This is exactly what congress did when they passed the Lilly Leadbetter act as the first piece of legislation this term. If you have any doubt about the need for empathy in the judiciary see this post by hilzoy,

Here's some evidence from Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine, pp. 218-219 (note that Justice Powell was the swing vote in this case, and came down in favor of upholding Georgia's sodomy statute):

"One Saturday in the spring of 1986, Justice Lewis Powell struck up a conversation with one of his law clerks, Cabell Chinnis Jr., about Bowers v. Hardwick. As Chinnis recounted the exchange to Joyce Murdoch and Deb Price, authors of a history of gay rights at the Supreme Court, Powell asked about the prevalence of homosexuality, which one friend-of-the-court brief estimated at 10%. Chinnis said that sounded right to him. "I don't believe I've ever met a homosexual", Powell replied. Chinnis said that seemed unlikely. Later the same day, Powell came back to Chinnis and asked, "Why don't homosexuals have sex with women?" "Justice Powell," he replied, "a gay man cannot have an erection to perform intercourse with a woman." The conversation was especially bizarre not just because of its explicit nature but because Chinnis himself was gay (as were several of Powell's previous law clerks.)"

You have to feel for the poor clerk: there he is, a closeted gay man, being quizzed by his boss about why homosexuals don't have sex with women. (Apparently, Justice Powell wasn't thinking of lesbians at all.) I think that a good working definition of empathy would be: that quality that allows a straight man or woman to know the answer to that question without having to ask his or her law clerks. And I would think that the fact that Justice Powell had to ask that question might explain why he believed, falsely, that he had never met a homosexual: if you were gay, would you tell him?

Justice Powell was, as I said, the swing vote in a case that upheld criminalizing consensual gay sex carried out in the privacy of one's own home. It seems pretty clear that he had no conception of what it was like to be gay, and was therefore in no position to decide on the importance of the rights that he was deciding on. That is not a good way to interpret the law when, as in this case, the importance of a right is central to the question whether or not it is protected.

Empathy is simply understanding how things actually are in the real world. Whether this comes in the form of understanding that gay people are not straight or that women actually face discrimination in pay and that sometimes its not easy to spot or that diversity for its own sake has merit and so considering race may not be bad in all possible instances empathy is far from a bad characteristic in a jurist, it is essential. The law is not black and white michael steele. Please stop acting like it is and contributing to a misinformed discussion of the subject.

Read more...

Finals Time

So its Finals again. this means rather light blogging as i concentrate on studying.

Read more...

A Liberal on the Court

Is it too much to ask that President Obama place and actual liberal on the SCOTUS? Since the end of the Warren Court the court has been shifting rightwards slowly but surely eroding protections established under Warren. The current Court has a strong rightward lean with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and often Kennedy join for the majority, as they did in DC v Heller. In light of this the replacement for Souter is not going to be able to swing the court to the left by a significant margin. However, the value of ability to write dissents and to stand solidly in opposition to Alito et al cannot be understated. In light of this i would encourage President Obama to stand firm against the bipartisanship crowd and nominate a solid and dependable liberal to the SCOTUS.

Here is the quote from the transcript of Obama's response to how he views the selection of supreme court justices during the primaries.

Now with respect to the bench, I think you are exactly right, we have to have people with the intellectual qualifications and academic credentials to perform. But, that can’t be the only criteria. We have generally, lately, drawn only from the academic areas. And, some of our best justices have been people who know a little bit about how the world works; know what it looks like outside of a court. Because part of...especially when you get to the highest levels, the Supreme Court, and I taught constitutional law for ten years. 95% of the cases that come before the Supreme Court or the appellate courts are actually pretty easy to resolve. A lot of these cases are cases that where there’s a clear statutory, you know, there’s clear language that tells you what the law is, or there’s clear precedent that tells you what the law is, and Scalia and Ginsburg will agree on the interpretation. And, those cases usually get washed out. The cases that we pay attention to, that we care about are the 5% of the cases, or the 1% of the cases, and what makes them hard cases, is because they’re conflicting values. It’s not just that they’re, its right and wrong, its, there might be two rights or two wrongs and you’ve got to try and resolve them. And there, the question is, what’s in the persons heart and their gut, not just what’s in their head. And what I want are people on the bench, who have enough empathy enough feeling for what ordinary people are going through, that they’re not just in a bunch of abstractions up there, but they’re focused on, you know, what does this really mean. Brown vs. Board of Education is a great example, I mean, the truth is; is that the science that showed that black children going to segregated schools was bad for them, the sociology that was used was imperfect. I mean, it wasn’t really perfect science, but people on that bench, people like Earl Warren and Brennan and others, they understood you know what, what’s really happening is that this is part of a stigmatization of blacks, and so you cant pretend that there is anything like separate and equal, its inherently unequal, that’s a statement of values, and a statement of morality, and a statement of who we are and what we believe in.And, I want my judges to understand that part of the role of the court is to look out for the people who don’t have political power, the people who are on the outside, the people who aren’t represented, the people who don’t have a lot of money, who don’t have connections, that’s the role of the court. And yes, I want women on the court absolutely.

The allusion to brown is an important one. If Obama truly identifies with the way that the Warren Court decided Brown it presents an important insight into the way he understands the role of the judiciary. This response indicates a view that the court is an instrument of social justice with ability to reshape policy to protect the interests of the traditionally disadvantaged groups in society. Obama is advocating for a judicial awareness that the decisions made by the SCOTUS really impact the lives of people. By referencing Brown and the ability to pierce the evidence and facts presented in the case Obama seems to support a legal realist point of view.

Obama's discussion of empathy and understanding is actually encouraging because it takes us away from an understanding and framing that the right has successfully propagated for years, the "activist judges" meme. Activist judge is simply rightwing code for liberal. A judge who asserts the rights of the oppressed based on the principles illustrated in the constitution applied to the real world is an activist. A judge who ignores the real world effects, the practicalities, of the decisions and the concept of justice is one who "adheres to the constitution". Liberals lose the framing battle on the courts because they are afraid to stand up for their ability to interpret the constitution. They essentially cede the argument that scalian textualism is the true form of interpretation.

This is why i find it somewhat disheartening to see reports like this, Obama May Seek Out Centrist to Replace Souter on Supreme Court

Senators from both parties said the Democratic president should avoid filling the vacancy with an “ideologue.”

“I don’t like to see an ideologue of either the right or the left,” Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” today. “I don’t think we’re going to have one.”

Obama “probably understands he is going to have more than one appointment,” said John O. McGinnis, a conservative legal scholar at Chicago’s Northwestern Law School who served in the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. “It may well be he doesn’t want to make a very divisive appointment immediately given that he is pursuing so many other matters.”
...
Choosing a relative moderate would square with Obama’s campaign promise not to seek Supreme Court “activism,” while leaving open the possibility of a bolder nomination for a future vacancy. It would also help ensure an easy Senate confirmation, burnishing Obama’s centrist credentials while he seeks support for a health-care overhaul and other priorities.

Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama said on CNN today it would be “good for the country” if Obama appoints “a pragmatist, someone who is not an ideologue.”

“I think the criteria should be to follow the law, not to make the law,” said Shelby.

Do i need to say how foolish listening to Orin Hatch and Richard Shelby about SCOTUS appointments would be? The other ridiculous notion in this quote is the idea that Obama should pick a middle of the road person this time and save the possible liberal for later. Cause, like, you know he has so much on his plate and he will need the political oxygen and plenty of other Steak Sauce esque prattle. The GOP is going to try and block whoever it is that Obama nominates. They havent voted for anything he has proposed so far so why start now? Who really believes the GOP wouldnt take a watered down nomination and try and block it anyway? They have a anti-roe litmus test and i cant imagine Obama nominating someone who would want to repeal that precedent. What this article is all about is pushing against an actual liberal on the court.

As encouraging as Obama's initial statement about empathy and an understanding about the real world effects of judicial opinions his follow up in an interview last year was disappointing,

In a 2008 interview with the Detroit Free Press, Obama identified Marshall and other liberal icons of the court as "heroes of mine." But he added: "That doesn't necessarily mean that I think their judicial philosophy is appropriate for today."

At other times, Obama suggested that he was inclined to name moderates in the mold of President Clinton's choices of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer -- not known as bold advocates of liberal jurisprudence in the way Scalia is viewed on conservatism.

The Court needs a champion of the rights established by the Warren Court. The center of the current court is very far to the right. If Obama nominated someone to be in that center that would only increase the erosion of rights that Obama asserts admiration for. It is interesting that most people laud the rights enshrined by the Warren Court but wont approve of the way they were arrived at. If your philosophy couldnt have decided Brown v Board against the segregationists thats a problem. The Court makes policy and there is no way around that, pretending that a moderate centrist is going to deliver on the policy Obama claims to favor isnt wise.

A young brilliant counter to Scalia and Alito is whats needed, someone who can articulate a liberal judicial philosophy. Lani Guinier explains,

Depending upon the choice President Obama makes — Justice Souter’s legacy could be the opening up of the court to a pragmatic politician who understands Justice Brennan’s “rule of five” for a majority opinion. However, President Obama’s nominee might be even more influential if she understands her power as a dissenter and uses her voice on the court to mobilize the people themselves to change the meaning of the Constitution over time.

We’ve seen this on the right, where Justice Scalia plays an active role in creating the philosophical ground upon which citizens can advance alternative interpretations of the constitution of their own.

In his dissent, for example, in Lawrence v. Texas , which found the Texas sodomy statute unconstitutional, Justice Scalia was in conversation with a conservative constituency.

Within a few days of having published his dissent in that case, conservative activists were circulating copies of it. We have also seen it on the left, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issuing several forceful oral dissents on gender issues, including one in the pay equity case of Lilly Ledbetter.

Justice Souter joined Justice Ginsburg in dissenting from the majority opinion, which threw out Ms. Ledbetter’s suit because she did not file it as soon as she received her first shortchanged paycheck. Yet Ms. Ledbetter, an Alabama grandmother, did not learn of the pay disparity she suffered until someone put an anonymous note in her box. Moreover, as Justice Ginsburg explained, women in an all-male work force are often scared to make waves.

Justice Ginsburg’s forceful and passionate dissent helped frame the issue. Her plain language spurred activists, politicians and the Obama campaign to push Congress to change the law. As a result of this mobilization, the first major piece of legislation signed by President Obama, the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, overruled the court majority’s cramped decision.

With conservatives strongly positioned in the majority on the court, President Obama’s nominee will likely have to show her judicial philosophy primarily in dissent. President Obama should appoint a jurist who, like Justices Ginsburg and Scalia, speaks directly to the American people in a voice they can understand.

Obama cannot afford to play it safe on his first pick because there is no guarantee that he gets to make another pick even if Stevens is 89 years old.

Read more...

Female Judges Evaluate Law Differently

With the retirement of Souter from the SCOTUS the search for the replacement is on. I have proposed in the past that the replacement should be a female minority in order to get a more diverse life experience onto the court. A life experience that is representative of a great swath of the country. The idea that the next justice be female is typically met with scorn and hostility based on the premise that "we should simply get the most qualified person" or the "smartest" or the "best" or by claims that it shouldn't or doesnt matter whether a woman is evaluating the law. I want to address that topic and assert that it does matter and that there is evidence to support a material distinction between female and male justices.

There is a difference between female and male justices as distinct classes. In a groundbreaking, and award winning, paper (pdf) "Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging," Washington University's Christina L. Boyd and Andrew D. Martin and Northwestern School of Law's Lee Epstein use a statistical analysis of decisions in various categories of cases to arrive at the conclusion that,

The likelihood of a judge deciding in favor of the party alleging discrimination decreases by about 10 percentage points when the judge is a male. Likewise, we find that men are significantly more likely to rule in favor of the rights litigant when a woman serves on the panel. Both effects are so persistent and consistent that they may come as a surprise even to those scholars who have long posited the existence of gendered judging.

i dont want to say that this is the only study on the subject or that every study comes out the same. The Boyd et al paper makes that clear in a brief survey of the prior research in the field,

On the other hand, the resulting research findings are so mixed that they practically defy characterization. By our count, social scientists and legal academics have produced nearly 30 systematic,multivariate analysis of the extent to which female judges make decisions distinct from their male colleagues (individual effects) or cause male judges to behave differently than they otherwise would(panel effects). Of those, roughly one-third purport to demonstrate clear panel or individual effects, a third report mixed results, and the final third found no sex-based differences whatsoever.

Because some of the existing studies examine areas of the law for which even Justice Wilson and others in her theoretical camp would have difficulty sustaining claims of gender difference(e.g., disputes involving the Internal Revenue Service), uneven results are not surprising. But even those investigations focusing on areas where a link between sex and judging seems quite plausible (e.g., sex discrimination) are notable for their incongruous findings. Three recent examples serve to make the point. In her analysis of statutory sex discrimination disputes in the U.S. circuits between 1999-2001, Peresie (2005) reports non-trivial sex eects at both the individual and panel level: female judges were more likely to nd for the plaintiff, as were panels that included a female. Westergren's (2004) examination of a similar set of cases, however, reveals neither individual nor panel effects based on gender. Crowe's (1999) study of the same courts splits the difference. Like Peresie, she finds that female judges were more favorable toward plaintiffs in sex-discrimination suits; and like Westergren, she unearths no evidence that the presence of a female judge affected the decision making of males on the panel.

After reading the Boyd paper i find their argument about the methodological short comings of regression analysis in these situations compelling enough that i favor their propensity score matching methodology.

They deal primarily in sex discrimination cases. This is an important point because it is where a common sense observer would say the biggest difference would be if females are deciding cases differently than men. The difference in probability that a woman alleging sex discrimination will receive the vote of a female justice instead of a male justice is twice as great at the highest degree of liberalism.

Observe that the estimated probability of a female judge casting a pro-plaintiff is close to 0.40 at the highest levels of liberalism;for even the most left-of-center male, that figure just barely exceeds 0.20.

This is the individual effect finding. This finding is signifigant because it shows how even the most liberal, enlightened of men is less likely to reach the same conclusion as a liberal woman. Part of the argument against using female as a selection criteria for the next vacancy has been that a man is just as capable of evaluating the case as a woman. That may still be true, however, the two genders appear to reach different conclusions in these types of cases. The panel effect, the effect of having a woman on a panel versus an all male panel is also striking.

If our descriptive analysis of the differences between male and female judges heartens proponents of gender-difference theories, our assessment of panel effects brings even more encouraging news. As we show in Figure 6, for not one model does the 95% confidence interval come near the zero line(indicating no difference between all-male and mixed-sex panels). Rather, we observe large causal effects, ranging from 0.12 to 0.16 meaning that the likelihood of a male judge ruling in favor of the plaintiff increases by 12% to 16% when a female sits on the panel.

On its face, this causal effect of panel composition is quite substantial, perhaps surprisingly so. Think about it this way. Because panels with female judges are significantly more plaintiff friendly than all-male panels, defendants should be more likely to settle after they observe assignment to a mixed-sex panel. To the extent that this form of selection bias exists, it ought mitigate against a finding of a strong causal panel effect. As a result, our findings, however substantial, may actually underestimate the impact of panel composition on outcomes.

According to the Boyd analysis in cases where discrimination is alleged having a woman on the panel makes it much more likely that the allegations will be sustained. This is a causal relationship meaning that the change in ruling comes from the change in gender. Without a woman on the panel the plaintiff would have lost in more than 1 in 10 instances.

In many ways the findings of the study affirm the previous theories about the way women will treat cases of gender discrimination and possibly discrimination in general. Justice Jane Matthews of the Federal Court of Australia had this to say (Doc) in response to earlier findings in the same vein,

To me this makes a great deal of sense. We are, all of us, the product of our life experiences. It is now openly acknowledged that judges, particularly appellate judges, are in the daily process of making the law. In doing so, they clearly impose their own values which are in turn molded by their life experiences. In general, women’s life experiences are very different from that of men. As a result, they are probably more sensitive to gender issues, and perhaps also to other aspects of the human condition.

The proposition that women do find differently from their male counterparts in gender related cases is borne out by a number of United States studies, which have shown no difference between the outcomes of cases of cases heard by men and women in economic rights or criminal cases, but a significant difference in discrimination case, with women being more sensitive to the discrimination issues involved. Whether this necessarily leads to better decision making might be a matter of debate. But I do not think that anyone would dispute that he public perception of the judiciary would be enhanced if it were seen to be more representative of the community at large.

If you are willing to accept that there is a difference between the way men and women adjudicate cases, if only in cases with alleged discrimination, the next question is whether or not we want this difference to be affirmed as good. It is possible that the women who tend to rule in favor of plaintiffs in discrimination cases go too far. for example we might assume that the 40% likelihood figure for the most liberal women finding in favor of a plaintiff is too high and constitutes discrimination in favor of the plaintiff. At the same time it is also possible that the 20% figure for the male justice it too low. This would still indicate that a woman is an important component in adjudicating these decisions.

Of course not all women are the same and not every woman is going to have such a high individual factor. However, if the mere presence of a woman is such an important factor in these cases then it might indicate that having women on the supreme court makes a very big difference in the out come of cases involving discrimination. Again whether that outcome is desirable is up for debate.

Read more...