Tuesday News and Notes

1. If a criminal defense lawyer did this, we'd be locked up. For Justice Thomas, it's just a mistake.

2. President Barack Obama has selected White House Deputy Counsel Donald Verrilli Jr. to serve as Solicitor General. From BLT:

If confirmed by the Senate, Verrilli would fill the position now held by acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who stepped into the job when Solicitor General Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court.

Verrilli was the former co-chair of the Supreme Court and Appellate practice group in the Washington office of Jenner & Block from 2000 until he joined the Obama Department of Justice in 2009 as an associate deputy attorney general. While at the Justice Department, Verrilli focused on domestic and national security policy issues.

Verrilli is a veteran Supreme Court advocate. He has argued 12 cases before the justices and participated in more than 100. His cases have ranged from the intricacies of intellectual property, such as his defense of music industry copyrights in 2005, to the complexities of the death penalty, such as his pro bono work in Wiggins v. Smith.

Besides his work in the Supreme Court, Verrilli also has participated in about 90 cases in federal and state appellate courts, arguing more than 30 appeals. While at Jenner, he was a member of the firm’s governing policy committee and chair of its diversity committee.

A former clerk to Justice William Brennan Jr., Verrilli is a graduate of Columbia Law School.

The solicitor general is the only position in government which, by law, must be filled by someone “learned in the law.”

3. Which Supreme Court Justices will attend the State of the Union tonight? Remember the controversy last year with Obama and Alito getting into it... ATL has the odds of who will show up here.

4. SFL has some (good) advice for Yoss. And Rumpole is right on with his rant about the closing of I95 yesterday. Perhaps all the traffic delayed him in getting me my check... I'm still waiting for the $50 he owes me from last year's bet.

Monday morning hits

1. Who wouldn't pick Justice Kagan for jury duty? (via Washington Post)

2. 9th Circuit judge Stephen Reinhardt was reversed twice last week on the same day. Ouch. (via WSJ)

3. SFL writes the obit for the Miami City Club.

4. "I am not a terrorist." That was Mike Tein's client at the Playstation sentencing last week. Judge Gold sentenced the three defendants to 6 months of home confinement. (via Miami Herald). Disclosure -- I (along with Silvia Pinera-Vasquez) represented one of the defendants in the case.

Justice Scalia complains of an “Alfred Hitchcock line of…jurisprudence.”

A unanimous Supreme Court (per Alito) in NASA v. Nelson upheld the government's right to conduct background checks on employees. Justice Scalia (along with Justice Thomas) concurred, saying that the Court again refused to answer the main questions presented by the case and that the minimalist strategy of the Court is bad for lower courts and others trying to figure out what the case means. From the NY Times:

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself and Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a caustic concurrence. He said he “of course” agreed with the result in the case, saying the plaintiffs’ objections to the background checks were ridiculous.

“The contention that a right deeply rooted in our history and tradition bars the government from ensuring that the Hubble telescope is not used by recovering drug addicts” is, he said, “farcical.”

But Justice Scalia aimed his harshest criticism at the six justices who signed the majority opinion, returning to a theme he pressed last year — that the court is violating its duty and harming its reputation in issuing vague decisions.

“Whatever the virtues of judicial minimalism,” he wrote, “it cannot justify judicial incoherence.”

The majority opinion, he continued, “provides no guidance whatsoever for lower courts” and “will dramatically increase the number of lawsuits claiming violations of the right to informational privacy.” Though the court ruled against the plaintiffs, he said, the majority opinion amounts to “a generous gift to the plaintiffs’ bar.”

Justice Scalia said he would have taken a simpler approach in the case, NASA v. Nelson, No. 09-530.

“I would simply hold that there is no constitutional right to ‘informational privacy,’ ” Justice Scalia wrote.

“Like many other desirable things not included in the Constitution,” he wrote, “ ‘informational privacy’ seems liked a good idea.” But he said it should be enacted through legislation rather than imposed by judges through constitutional interpretation.

While we are on the subject of fun writing, Judge Carnes is at it again, this time in Carolyn Zisser v. The Florida Bar. The intro:

This case reminds us of the observation of the Grand Inquisitor in Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Gondoliers. Upon finding that all ranks of commoners and servants have been promoted to the nobility, he protests that there is a need for distinction, explaining that: “When everyone is somebody, then no one’s anybody.”* The same is true of a state bar’s certification process. If every attorney who practices in an area is certified in it, then no one is anybody in that
field. The easier it is to be certified, the less that certification means. The goal of the Florida Bar’s certification process is to recognize in various fields of specialization exceptional attorneys, meaning those who stand out from others in all of the ways that make an attorney outstanding. To ensure that certification achieves its purpose, the Bar has established a body of rules and procedures, including a confidential peer review process, so that an attorney
certified in an area of practice truly is “somebody” in that field. Without such rules and procedures, the process, the decisions it produces, and the resulting recognition would not amount to much.

*W. S. Gilbert, The Savoy Operas 543 (Wordsworth Editions 1994) (1889) (spelling altered).

In defense of old judges

The blawgosphere is all aflutter about this Slate article criticizing life tenure for federal judges because some really old judges are making mistakes. As if young judges don't. (See the cover of the DBR today about a young Broward state judge who is defending himself before the JQC because he "made a mistake.")

The WSJ summarizes some statistics from the article:

About 12 percent of the nation’s 1,200 sitting federal district and circuit judges are 80 years or older;

Eleven federal judges over the age of 90 are hearing cases—compared with four just 20 years ago;

The number of octogenarians and nonagenarians on the federal bench has doubled in the past 20 years.

The increase, explains the Slate piece, is largely attributed to a few factors. Life tenure for federal judges is written into the Constitution; people are living much longer lives than they did in 1789; and the job of a federal judge has over the years actually gotten less taxing in many ways.

So what? I miss the old (school) judges from our District -- Davis, Roettger, Spellman, Atkins, Highsmith, etc. Each of them (and others that I'm forgetting -- I must be getting old) had a real sense of justice and brought that to each case. The stories in the Slate piece are horrific, but if there are particular judges who are having issues, then that should be addressed on an individual basis. I don't like the idea of having mandatory retirement for judges. I think they have that in the state system, and it forces good judges off of the bench.

Interestingly, our bench in the Southern District of Florida is now a very young bench. We have no active district judges in their 70s, 80s or 90s. Our Chief judge is in his 50s. Our "older" judges have taken senior status. But even they are young. For example, Judge Huck turned 70 last year, but he seems much much younger and is on top of his game. It would be awful if we forced good judges to retire because they hit a certain age.

Justice Breyer: "And in my experience, too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear."

Whether their jokes are humorous or not, Supreme Court Justices often get [Laughter]. Not so much when the lawyers try to make a funny. The WaPo has the story here. An excerpt:

Still, nothing is more perishable than what passes for humor at the court. You really have to have been there. To wit, from the transcripts:

JUSTICE BREYER: So you're saying that if the government has the most amazing, let's - I'm trying to think of something more amazing than what I just thought of."

[Laughter.]

Those notations of "[Laughter]" have now formed the basis of two studies of the court. In 2005, Boston University law professor Jay Wexler counted the number of times "[Laughter]" was noted in the court's transcripts, attributed the funny to whichever justice's comments preceded it, and declared Scalia the court's funniest justice.

***

It is from an inexplicable tangle of words from Breyer in a 2009 oral argument about the strip search of a teenage girl, in which the justice was attempting to show that perhaps it was not unusual for children at school to be seen in their underwear.

Justice Breyer: In my experience when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day, we changed for gym, okay? And in my experience, too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear -

[Laughter.]

Justice Breyer: Or not my underwear. Whatever. Whatever. I was the one who did it? I don't know.

Here's a diagram of who gets the most laughs.

I hope everyone is enjoying MLK day. Marlon Hill has an excellent op-ed in the Miami Herald that is worth a read.