It's Leahy's turn at SCOTUSblog

His sunshine post made me think of this song.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, a staunch believer in open government, famously said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Transparency enables the American people to hold their government accountable and to engage in the democratic process. Unfortunately, eleven Republican Senators are trying to deny a full and open debate on the next nominee to the Supreme Court – BEFORE that individual has even been named.

The Senate Judiciary Committee began its practice of holding public hearings on Supreme Court nominees a century ago, in 1916, and fittingly the nominee was Louis Brandeis. Since then, the Senate’s process for considering nominees to the highest court in the land has become more transparent and more accessible to the American people. In 1981, for example, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor made history in two ways – she was the first woman nominated to the Court, and her confirmation hearings were the first to be televised. Today, Americans can follow these important public confirmation proceedings through online webcasts, social media, and other platforms. These are positive steps towards opening up the highest court in the land to the Americans it affects.

Recently, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that they want to block this transparent process. They gathered in a closed-door, backroom meeting in the Capitol and unilaterally decided that the Senate Judiciary Committee would not consider any Supreme Court nominee this year. The meeting was closed to press, to the public, and to Democratic Senators who serve on the Judiciary Committee. In a letter to the Majority Leader after the meeting, Republican committee members justified their decision as one “born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people.” What are Republicans trying to protect Americans from? And what exactly was said during that closed-door meeting?

In my forty years in the Senate, every pending Supreme Court nominee has received a public hearing and a vote. This process has given Americans the opportunity to experience democracy in action. It is a chance to witness history in the making as Senators discuss with a Supreme Court nominee pressing issues about our democracy, our government, and crucial questions about our Constitution.

Meantime, the NY Times covers amicus briefs here:

As in all big Supreme Court cases these days, there were scores of supporting briefs filed in Wednesday’s showdown over a restrictive Texas abortion law.
From Our Advertisers

These friend-of-the-court filings — lawyers call them “amicus curiae briefs” — were diverse, but they were not random. They were the product of a coordinated campaign of judicial lobbying called “the amicus machine,” according to a new study based on interviews with more than 20 leading Supreme Court lawyers.

The teams preparing for major Supreme Court cases must now include two new members, the study said: the amicus wrangler and the amicus whisperer.

“The wrangler is gathering the troops,” said Allison Orr Larsen, a professor at William and Mary Law School and one of the study’s authors, “and the whisperer is coordinating the message.”

Finally, Joe Biden has an idea -- nominate Cruz to the Supreme Court:

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had some tongue-in-cheek advice for President Obama on Saturday about whom he should nominate to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that has preoccupied the White House and incited an election-year fight.

Choose Senator Ted Cruz, Mr. Biden joked, referring to the Republican presidential candidate from Texas, who is unpopular with his colleagues.

“Look, I told Barack if you really, really want to remake the Supreme Court, nominate Cruz,” Mr. Biden said at the annual Gridiron Dinner, according to excerpts from his prepared speech released by his office. “Before you know it, you’ll have eight vacancies.”

It was more than just a humorous dig at Mr. Cruz during the traditional Washington event, where politicians roast themselves in speeches and journalists lampoon them in musical skits. Mr. Biden’s remarks hit on the historic stakes facing the president as he ponders his choice to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last month, leaving Mr. Obama with a chance to fundamentally reshape the nation’s highest court by replacing its leading conservative.

Your Friday Afternoon Moment of Zen

A friend of the blog has sent this video for you to enjoy:

Add Robin Rosenbaum to SCOTUSblog's shortlist

Tom Goldstein puts Rosenbaum along with Jordan and Pryor (Jill), right outside of the top 5:

Three judges on the Eleventh Circuit easily could appear on this list of serious candidates from the courts of appeals, although I consider them somewhat less likely for various reasons.
Hon. Aldaberto Jordan was confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit by a vote of 94-5. He previously served as a district court judge, confirmed 93-1.
Hon. Jill Pryor was unanimously confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit.
Hon. Robin Rosenbaum was unanimously confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit, and previously served as a district judge (confirmed 92-3) and worked as a prosecutor.

Justice Kagan knows that there are two Zoolander movies!

She says so in today's dissent in Lockhart v. United States:

JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom JUSTICE BREYER joins, dissenting.

Imagine a friend told you that she hoped to meet “an actor, director, or producer involved with the new StarWars movie.” You would know immediately that she wanted to meet an actor from the Star Wars cast—not an actor in, for example, the latest Zoolander. Suppose a real estate agent promised to find a client “a house, condo, or apartment in New York.” Wouldn’t the potential buyer be annoyed if the agent sent him information about condos in Maryland or California? And consider a law imposing a penalty for the “violation of any statute, rule, or regulation relating to insider trading.” Surely a person would have cause to protest if punished under that provision for vio­lating a traffic statute. The reason in all three cases is the same: Everyone understands that the modifying phrase—“involved with the new Star Wars movie,” “in New York,” “relating to insider trading”—applies to each term in the preceding list, not just the last.

That ordinary understanding of how English works, in speech and writing alike, should decide this case. Avon-dale Lockhart is subject to a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for possessing child pornography if, but only if, he has a prior state-law conviction for “aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.” 18 U. S. C. §2252(b)(2). The Court today, relying on what is called the “rule of the last antecedent,” reads the phrase “involving a minor or ward” as modifying only the final term in that three-item list. But properly read, the modifier applies to each of the terms—just as in the examples above. That normal construction finds support in uncommonly clear-cut legislative history, which states in so many words that the three predicate crimes all involve abuse of children. And if any doubt remained, the rule of lenity would command the same result: Lockhart’s prior conviction for sexual abuse of an adult does not trigger §2252(b)(2)’s mandatory minimum penalty. I respectfully dissent.

The Empire Strikes Back... on SCOTUSblog

Senator Chuck Grassley has responded to President Obama on SCOTUSblog.  You gotta love that a law blog is hosting a debate between the President and the chair of the judiciary committee.  It's incredible when you think about it.  Well, here's the intro:

The Constitution grants the authority to nominate and approve Supreme Court Justices to coequal branches of the federal government. The President has authority to nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court, and the Senate has the authority to consent or withhold consent.
However, in his post, President Obama six times states that he “appoints judges to the Supreme Court.” From that fundamental misunderstanding, he reveals that the person he will nominate, not appoint, will be someone whose decisions are not tied to the Constitution’s text.
Like most of his nominees, the President pays lip service to the notion that judges are to “interpret the law, not make the law,” but then submits that in cases where “the law is not clear” his nominee’s views “necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment.” And of course, his nominee will “arriv[e] at just decisions and fair outcomes” based on the application of “life experience” to the “rapidly changing times.”
The President, candidly to his credit, has unambiguously informed the American people that his nominee will apply his or her own ethics and perspectives in deciding cases. This goes to the heart of the matter and it is a question that confronts the American people during this presidential election.

Meantime, it's NY vs. California in the Apple vs. FBI showdown.  A New York federal magistrate has correctly ruled that Apple does not need to help the government break into one of its customer's phones:

A federal magistrate judge on Monday denied the United States government’s request that Apple extract data from an iPhone in a drug case in New York, giving the company’s pro-privacy stance a boost as it battles law enforcement officials over opening up the device in other cases.

The ruling, from Judge James Orenstein in New York’s Eastern District, is the first time that the government’s legal argument for opening up devices like the iPhone has been put to the test. The denial could influence other cases where law enforcement officials are trying to compel Apple to help unlock iPhones, including the standoff between Apple and the F.B.I. over the iPhone used by one of the attackers in a mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., last year.

Judge Orenstein, in his 50-page ruling on Monday, took particular aim at a 1789 statute called the All Writs Act that underlies many government requests for extracting data from tech companies. The All Writs Act broadly says that courts can require actions to comply with their orders when not covered by existing law. Judge Orenstein said the government was inflating its authority by using the All Writs Act to force Apple to extract data from an iPhone seized in connection with a drug case.

The order is here. 

And if you want some local news, we have West Boca banker Richard Ohrn who is charged with faking getting lost at sea.  From the Sun-Sentinel:

Ohrn on March 31, 2015, set a rented, blood-stained fishing boat adrift in the Atlantic Ocean, used an inflatable boat to motor back to shore and then fled to Georgia in a pickup truck, according to a Palm Beach County sheriff's report.
That triggered more than two days of rescuers searching by air and sea over 3,100 square miles for someone who had actually slipped away to a rented house in Albany, Ga. — all to try to escape mounting costs from a lawsuit, according to the report.
Now Ohrn, 45, faces a felony charge of communicating false distress to the U.S. Coast Guard, according to a grand jury indictment filed Thursday.

Ohrn knowingly caused "a false distress message" that prompted the Coast Guard "to attempt to save lives and property when no help was needed," according to the indictment.
The Coast Guard last year estimated that it cost nearly $400,000 for the aircraft expenses alone in the search for Ohrn.

 Only in the Southern District of Florida!

"Can you give me an area [of law] where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right."

That was Justice Thomas' first question in over 10 years.  Apparently he asked a bunch of questions.  From the Huffington Post:

Justice Clarence Thomas, near the end of a little-noticed criminal law case involving issues of domestic abuse and the potential loss of gun rights, asked his first question from the Supreme Court bench in 10 years.
"Can you give me an area [of law] where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right," Thomas asked of the federal government's lawyer, who was arguing that a federal ban on gun ownership for certain persons who are convicted of domestic violence offenses at the state level should apply if the offense was committed "recklessly."
Ilana Eisenstein, the assistant solicitor general arguing the case, had asked if anyone had more questions for her. That's when Thomas, in his booming baritone, spoke up, asking a lengthy string of questions about an issue so far unexplored in the hearing.
He wanted to know "how long" the suspension of Second Amendment rights was for persons prohibited under federal law to possess firearms, and he pressed Eisenstein to name any other legal analog where the federal government could permanently curtail constitutional rights following a conviction for an unrelated offense.
"Let's say that a publisher is reckless about the use of children ... in indecent displays," he said, and wondered if the government then could suspend that publisher's right of free press permanently.

"Senator Rubio is reviewing it and deciding how to proceed."

That was Marco Rubio’s spokesman Alex Burgos about the nomination of Mary Barzee Flores to the federal bench.  But his statement makes no sense since Rubio supported the nomination in the first place.  Presidential politics stink.

The Miami herald covers it here:

It's no wonder U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio recommended seasoned Miami lawyer Mary Barzee Flores to fill an opening on the busy federal judiciary in South Florida more than a year ago.
She worked her way through the University of Miami and its law school, spent more than two decades as an assistant federal public defender and state circuit court judge, then joined a top commercial law firm before applying for a coveted federal judgeship.
“What a spectacular judge,” said Miami lawyer Edward Blumberg, a former president of the Florida Bar Association, recalling his experience trying a complex medical malpractice case in front of her. “She's one of the best judges I've seen statewide.”
Rubio thought so, too. But since Barzee Flores' nomination by President Barack Obama a year ago, the Miami Republican now running for his party's presidential nomination has held up her confirmation by not allowing the Senate Judiciary Committee to move forward with it.
Rubio, who had recommended Barzee Flores along with his Florida colleague, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, has not submitted a so-called blue slip that would set the wheels in motion for her confirmation — a decision seemingly in lockstep with the GOP-led Senate’s strategy to “slow-walk” the Democratic president’s judicial nominees since early last year. Only 16 federal district and appellate judges have been confirmed since last year by the Senate, including four nominated after Barzee Flores. The president nominated her on Feb. 26, 2015, and Nelson, a Democrat, returned his blue slip for her confirmation immediately.
Rubio's critics, including some in the Republican Party, say his dilatory strategy is indefensible because, in Barzee Flores, the senator is blocking an ideal candidate for a federal judgeship that has been vacant for almost two years. Indeed, the position has been deemed by the court as a “judicial emergency,” leaving other federal judges with heavier caseloads in South Florida.
“I've been honestly shocked by his lack of responsibility as a U.S. senator,” said Miami lawyer Tom Spencer, a Republican who supported Rubio against Democratic challenger Charlie Crist for the Senate in 2010, but backed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush during this presidential primary season. “She's an excellent judge. There is absolutely no reason for him not to move forward with her confirmation. It's an absolute outrage and slap in the face of the people of Florida.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article63008137.html#storylink=cpy

Trial happenings

Most of the white collar bar was watching the criminal trial involving the BP oil spill case in New Orleans.  Yesterday the jury found the engineer that the government was trying to hold responsible not guilty in less than two hours.  From the AP:

A former BP rig engineer was found not guilty Thursday (Feb. 25) on a charge of negligence that contributed to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Robert Kaluza was a rig supervisor aboard the Deepwater Horizon offshore rig when it exploded, killing 11 workers and resulting in millions of gallons of oil spewing into the Gulf and fouling wetlands and beaches.
Kaluza was charged with a single count of violating the federal Clean Water Act. Jurors got the case Thursday afternoon and reached a verdict after less than two hours of deliberation.
Prosecutors told jurors Kaluza and a former co-defendant, Donald Vidrine, botched a crucial pressure test indicating oil and gas could be flowing from deep beneath the sea floor into BP's Macondo well, which was thought to be securely plugged with cement and mud.
"All of the red flags in front of him should have told him that it was a bad test," Assistant U.S. Attorney Gary Winters told jurors after showing them projected images of smoke billowing from the flaming, crippled rig, followed by pictures of oil-coated coastal land.
Defense attorney Shaun Clarke cast Kaluza as a scapegoat. He said federal prosecutors failed to make their case.
Clarke said Vidrine, who has pleaded guilty in the case, was the rig leader who declared the test a success — after Kaluza's watch aboard the rig had ended.
"The Macondo well was under control during every single second of his watch," Clarke said.
Clarke also said other rig workers with 97 years of combined experience in drilling agreed with Vidrine. Clarke disputed Winters' statement that the test was a simple one, saying there were no government standards for the test the prosecution is citing.
"There is no dispute that others were negligent," prosecutor Jennifer Saulino argued later. But Kaluza shared in the negligence that caused the disaster and he should be held criminally accountable for the pollution, she said, as a video of oil flooding from the sea floor flashed on a screen behind her.
Another defense lawyer, David Gerger, argued that failure of multiple, redundant safety systems and equipment caused the explosion, not the interpretation of a test. He pointed to rig crew members failing to notice a "kick" or influx of oil and gas into the rig hours ahead of the spill, a captain's failure to timely operate an emergency system that would have disconnected the well from the rig ahead of the explosion and the failure of a crucial device known as a "blowout preventer" that had not been property certified.

Some of you may remember the prosecutor from the big ATC case here before Judge Seitz.  The defense team involved some of the best lawyers I know -- David Gerger, Robert Hirschhorn, and Jennifer Johnston* to name a few.  Before the trial, the lawyers--with some great lawyering in court and in negotiations with prosecutors--were able to convince DOJ to drop the more serious charges:

Although Kaluza could have faced a year of prison on the pollution charge, he once faced more serious charges. He and Vidrine had been indicted on federal manslaughter and "seaman's manslaughter" charges — 22 counts apiece — stemming from the 11 deaths on the rig. But the seaman's manslaughter counts were thrown out by the courts and government prosecutors late last year backed away from the remaining manslaughter counts.
Prosecutors have recommended no prison time and 10 months of probation for Vidrine. He is set for sentencing in April.

He testified for the prosecution early in the trial, telling jurors that Kaluza never gave him information that prosecutors say was critical. The information dealt with a test meant to show whether two cement plugs, other structures and drilling mud below the ocean floor could stand up to the pressure of oil and gas farther down.

Congrats to the defense team.  What a win.

*Full disclosure -- Johnston used to work with my firm.