Underneath Their Robes

Win A Date With... One of the Elect!

Inspired by the highly entertaining and grossly underrated movie Win A Date With Tad Hamilton!, UTR brings you its latest contest: Win A Date With One of the Elect! (For those of you who are new to UTR, "the Elect" or "the Anointed" is UTR-speak for Supreme Court clerks. For more detailed discussion, replete with howls of lamentation, please see this post.)

********************

Here's how the contest will work:

1. Single members of the Elect of either gender will submit, by e-mail, flattering pictures and witty descriptions of themselves, in the style of a personal ad. (Please keep descriptions under 250 words, and please include all relevant personal data, including what city you live in, your height and weight, your hair and eye color, your hobbies and interests, etc.)

2. Article III Groupie will review the submissions and post the profiles of selected members of the Elect on UTR for open bidding. Think of it as E-Bay for the E-lect! (The timetable for the posting of profiles and the number of profiles to be posted have not yet been established; much will depend upon the level of reader response.)

3. During the bidding period (again, dates to be determined), members of the Great Unwashed (i.e., the non-Anointed) will submit, by e-mail, bids for a date with the member of the Elect in whom they are interested. A "bid" constitutes a promise by the bidder to donate the bid amount to that most worthy cause, the Supreme Court Historical Society. Bids will be blind, so please submit your very best offer. Also, please note that the bidding process is not open to members of the Elect. Article III Groupie is sick and tired of you people marrying each other--try dating a commoner for once!

4. After the close of the bidding period, Article III Groupie will announce the winners of the bidding and which member of the Elect each winner gets to take out on a date. The winner is entitled to go on one (1) date with the member of the Elect that he or she has "won." Winning bidders and members of the Elect will be put in touch with each other by Article III Groupie.

A few more rules:

--The winner shall pay for all costs of the date, including transportation of either or both parties to the date as necessary; none of these costs shall be borne by UTR or Article III Groupie.

--The member of the Elect, in order to verify that the winning bidder has in fact donated the bid amount to the Supreme Court Historical Society, has the right to request written confirmation of the donation at the start of the date (e.g., a canceled check, a credit card statement, or a letter from the Society confirming the gift).

--All participants in "Win A Date With One of the Elect" (hereinafter, "the Contest"), by participating in the Contest, do hereby release, waive, and discharge Underneath Their Robes or Article III Groupie from liability from any and all claims resulting in personal injury, accidents or illnesses (including death or food poisoning), and property loss arising from, but not limited to, participation in the Contest. (In other words, if either the winning bidder or the member of the Elect turns out to be a crazy stalker--well, it's not Article III Groupie's fault!)

********************

If you're a member of the Elect, you're probably asking yourself: Given my high station, why should I degrade myself by applying to become an internet chattel? Article III Groupie offers you at least three reasons: (1) it's for a good cause; (2) UTR is now a respectable blog, approved by none other than Judge Kozinski; and (3) who knows--you might actually find true love! Even if you don't hit it off with the bidder who "wins" you, your picture and profile will be disseminated to UTR's mass audience; some of these readers may find you appealing and then contact you sua sponte. (UTR will provide your contact information to the winning bidder only, of course. But with Martindale-Hubbell, Google, Lexis-Nexis, etc., you are probably not too difficult to track down.)

If you're a member of the Great Unwashed, you're probably asking yourself: How much of my next paycheck can I afford to spend on the incredible opportunity to date a legal professional demi-god or goddess?

AFFIRMED! This happy couple met through UTR's dating service. Watch his right hand as it slips underneath her robes...

(Photo credit: Pics4learning.com.)


Article III Groupie is very interested in whether this project will fly. If it succeeds, who knows what might come next--Win A Date With a Federal Judge? It isn't as far-fetched as it sounds; after all, as Judge Alex Kozinski notes in his hilarious letter to Article III Groupie, he has been a contestant on the Dating Game--twice! (He was not, however, a federal judge at the time of his participation. To watch a supremely entertaining video clip from the show, click here.) And astronomical sums could surely be raised by auctioning off dates with any one of the three Right-Wing Judicial Divas.

So please, all you single members of the Elect out there: Help out the Supreme Court Historical Society, as well as all those lonely hearts out there among the Great Unwashed, and submit your application materials with all deliberate speed!

Going, going, gone,

Article III Groupie

(Image credits: APerfectWorld.org.)

Courthouse Forum: The Hot. Alex Kozinski

With a nod to Penthouse Forum, UTR brings you Courthouse Forum: Letters to Article III Groupie. As you know, reader correspondence is critical to UTR's mission of delivering its readers the juiciest federal judicial gossip, thereby allowing them to peek "underneath the robes" of our federal judges. As a general matter, Article III Groupie reviews the many letters submitted by her readers, makes judgment calls, and then publishes what she feels like publishing. Most of the time, Article III Groupie publishes only excerpts or fragments from reader letters. But some pieces of correspondence are so sizzling and so scrumptious that not publishing them in their entirety would be a miscarriage of justice. Hence the need for Courthouse Forum, where reader correspondence will be published in unredacted form. UTR believes these letters will be as stimulating to connoisseurs of federal judicial gossip as Penthouse Forum is to those who appreciate erotica. "Judge, is that a gavel underneath your robe, or are you just happy to see me?"

The first letter being published in Courthouse Forum is from one of the brightest superstars in the federal judicial firmament, an Article III celebrity of Tom Cruise-esque proportions, who has already made multiple apperances in these hallowed pages: Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit (shown at right handing down the court's decision in the recall election case). In case you're wondering, this is an actual letter from Judge Kozinski, and Article III Groupie practically peed in her (very expensive) La Perla Black Label panties upon receiving it. Below please find the full text of AK's missive. Enjoy!

****************

Dear A3G:

I must say that I'm severely disappointed in the slate of candidates you have fielded for your Judicial Hottie contest. While I think the list of female candidates is excellent, the list of male candidates is, frankly, lacking. And what it's lacking is me.

Sure, John Roberts and Jeff Sutton are young and extremely handsome, but so what? I have it on very good authority that discerning females and gay men find graying, pudgy, middle-aged men with an accent close to Gov. Schwarzenegger's almost totally irresistible.

So I nominate myself.

Yes, I know, the nomination period ostensibly ended [on Friday, June 18], but my nomination falls within the penumbra of the rule, so I say it's timely. You will doubtless find any number of opinions written by me that say filing periods must be strictly construed, but I was writing for the Ninth Circuit, and you know what that means.

Here are the arguments in support of my nomination:

* I am the only Article III judge to have appeared on the Dating Game--and I was on twice. I even won once, and I have the tape to prove it.

* I had my own photo-spread in George Magazine, with lots of sexy pictures of me jumping. This was a few years back, but I've only gotten cuter with age.

* I also had a photo-spread in Snow Country Magazine, mostly pictures of me snowboarding. I am, in fact, an authority on snowboarding, as the attached article will prove. And snowboarders are, by definition, hotties.

* I recently co-presided at a very swank wedding at the Larchmont Yacht Club--a club so exclusive it probably wouldn't admit me as a member--which was reported in the New York Times and discussed in great detail on a very prestigious weblog.

* I wrote the screenplay for the blockbuster Schwarzenegger movie, Total Recall. Well, not really, but I came mighty close. (Read esp. pp. 1301-02, but the whole thing is worth a read if you can bill it to a client.)

* I was a recent cover boy for Legal Affairs Magazine. [Ed. note: Click on the link, then click on the thumbnail for a larger view of this delightful photo. Judge Kozinski is ready for his close-up!]

* I cut a dashing figure in court.

* I often hang out with that other judicial babe magnet, Stephen Reinhardt:

(I'm the one with the goofy sweater and the suave pocket pen.)

* I bear an uncanny resemblance to Moses, of Old Testament fame. [Ed. note: Don't miss out--click on the link to see Helmut Newton's "celebrity portrait" of Judge Kozinski!]

* I have my own fan web page.

* I write a mean dissent.

* I bungee jump. [Ed. note: Click on the link to play this very fun little video clip--and make sure your sound is turned on!]

* I recently played a key supporting role in the 20-minute short Inside Story, directed by my son Yale Kozinski, written and produced by former Kozinski clerk Leslie Hakala, and featuring former Kozinski clerks Tara Kole, Troy Foster, Chris Newman, Leslie Hakala and Theane Evangelis. [Ed. note: Like Judge Kozinski, Hakala, Kole, and Evangelis are all members of the Elect--a term first explained here.]

If you can provide me with a name and address (it could be of a friend, so as not to reveal your identity), I'd happily send you an autographed DVD of Inside Story--the sad tale of an 8th-year associate (Tara) who gets hoodwinked by a slick (but sexy) operator (Troy) into revealing securities secrets, thereby getting fired by the Big Cheese Partner (me). Believe you me, you don't want to pass up the chance to have your very own (autographed) copy of this as yet undiscovered art treasure, which (unfortunately) I must condition on your waiving the rules a teensy-weensy bit by adding my name to the list of nominees.

I could say a lot more, but it would probably compromise my chances for elevation.

I know that that the voting is already well underway, so that adding my name to the list will put me at a disadvantage in collecting votes, yet somehow I feel that if I can make it onto the list, even at this late date, I might still have a chance, if only a small one, of being selected as among the top 3 male judicial super-hotties.

I anxiously await your response.

Ciao. AK

****************

How can Article III Groupie refuse such a brilliant and hilarious prayer for relief? Petition granted! And so the Hot. Alex Kozinski (9th Cir.) joins the ranks of the nominees for Superhotties of the Federal Judiciary!

The extension of the nomination period beyond June 18 (as explained in this post) has produced, in addition to Judge Kozinski, a few other worthy nominees, so Article III Groupie is actually glad that things worked out this way. Nominations will continue to be accepted until 11:59 p.m. on Friday, July 2, 2004. So if you have any other nominations, don't delay. Please send them by e-mail to me, Article III Groupie, in timely fashion!

Swooning like a schoolgirl from her brush with judicial celebrity,

Article III Groupie

(Photo credits: Alex.Kozinski.com. Image credits: APerfectWorld.org.)

Bench-Slapped! Reinhardt v. O'Scannlain

WHACK! Consider yourself BENCH-SLAPPED! Welcome to the inaugural post of "Bench-Slapped! Article III Infighting," dedicated to chronicling spats, feuds, and rivalries within the Article III judiciary.

The title "Bench-Slapped!" is derived, of course, is from the term "bitch-slap." Lest you think Article III Groupie profane or uncouth, she would note for the record that this venerable term has been recognized by no less an authority than the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines "bitch-slap" (yes, it's hyphenated) as follows: "to deliver a stinging slap to (a person), esp. in order to humiliate one regarded as inferior." Considering that the Article III bench is occupied by 877 legal egos, many of them enormous, bench-slappery is inevitable--which is fortunate for us, because watching brilliant and distinguished jurists bench-slap each other silly is a deliciously guilty pleasure, Article III's answer to female mud wrestling.

"That is a manifestly untenable theory of ERISA preemption--you stupid skank!" (Photo credit: Tronster.com.)

Let us now consider the different forms bench-slappery may take. Bench-slappery within the district court bench is fairly limited. Because each district court judge is master of his domain, capable of treating his personal courtroom as his own little fiefdom, bench-slappery within federal trial courts is not very widespread. If district judges don't get along, they can simply avoid each other around the courthouse.

Significant bench-slappery takes place between the trial and appellate courts. Bench-slapping is frequently done "to humiliate one regarded as inferior," and what could be more inferior than a (literally) inferior court? Of course, not every negative action that an appellate court takes with respect to a trial court constitutes a bench-slap. A bench-slap must be personal: a district court gets reversed; a district judge gets bench-slapped. Thus, a garden-variety reversal should be viewed as simply an exercise in the correction of legal error. But issuing a writ of mandamus, for example, can be viewed as a stinging bench-slap of the district court judge. E.g., "The district judge presiding over the case went buck-wild--so we had to mandamus his ass!"

The greatest amount of bench-slappery takes place within the circuit courts. The structure of the appellate decision-making process, with cases decided by panels of three (or more) judges, requires circuit judges to interact with each other quite extensively. When this many egos rub against each other, chafing is inevitable. Even though many federal appeals courts are marked by a high degree of collegiality, such as the First Circuit and the Third Circuit, others are regular snake pits, such as the Sixth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit--the source of today's bench-slappery.

Very well, enough of the preliminaries--let's get nasty. It's time to get Bench-Slapped!

****************

MEOW! With the possible exception of a French manicure, there is nothing Article III Groupie likes better than a good old-fashioned cat-fight. And this, dear reader, is no ordinary cat-fight. It is the latest battle in the long-running jurisprudential warfare between Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the Liberal Lion of the Ninth Circuit, and Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, the Conservative Cougar of the same court. (Yes, the notoriously left-wing Ninth Circuit does have a few token conservatives lying around.)

Judge Reinhardt, the Liberal Lion of the Ninth Circuit: He eats conservative judges for breakfast! (Photo credit: GeekPhilosopher.com.)

Both of our combatants are well-known and highly respected jurists with strong, and diametrically opposed, judicial philosophies. Both judges also possess strong feeding patterns. By "feeding patterns," UTR is referring, of course, to how frequently they send their clerks on to clerk at the Supreme Court, i.e., to join the ranks of the Elect. During the past ten terms, from October Term 1994 to October Term 2003, Judge Reinhardt sent six of his clerks to the Court, making him the 15th-ranked feeder judge for this period, and Judge O'Scannlain sent eight of his clerks to the Court, making him the 14th-ranked feeder judge.

For you law school gunner-types out there: If one were to prepare a Billboard Hot 100 chart of Supreme Court feeder judges, Judge O'Scannlain would be a bulleted entry, posssessing upward momentum. Focusing only on the past five terms, Judge O'Scannlain moves up to become the 10th-ranked feeder judge (and he goes as high as #8 if one removes two senior judges, Judge Silberman and Judge Williams of the magically delicious D.C. Circuit, whose feeding has dropped off sharply since they took senior status). Maybe you can't pronounce Diarmuid O'Scannlain's name, but Nino Scalia sure can! (Judge Reinhardt, in contrast, falls to #18 if one considers only the past five terms.)

As for their non-Supreme-Court feeding patterns, Judge O'Scannlain keeps himself quite trim and fit, as you can see here (right column), while Judge Reinhardt is on the heavy side, as shown in this picture--let's hope that beverage is low calorie! Judge Reinhardt hates following Supreme Court precedents authored by Justice Scalia, but perhaps he should consider following Justice Scalia's dietary precedent, by giving the Atkins Diet a try.

Judge Reinhardt loves carbs almost as much as he loves granting asylum petitions and habeas relief. Clerks who sat with Judge Reinhardt at the Ninth Circuit clerks' orientation in San Francisco have reported to UTR concerning his monopolization of the table's communal bread basket. (Photo credit: GeekPhilosopher.com.)

(Sorry, Article III Groupie apologizes for that digression. Such information properly belongs in UTR’s forthcoming report on the care and feeding of Article III judges, tentatively titled “A Hunger for Justice," which is described in the list of UTR's coming attractions near the end of this post. Now, back to the bench-slappery!)

Earlier this month, Judge Reinhardt and Judge O'Scannlain administered some fairly strong bench-slaps to each other, in their dueling opinions in Kennedy v. Lockyer. In this case, a Ninth Circuit panel majority--composed of Judge Reinhardt and Judge Raymond C. Fisher, a high-ranking DOJ official in the Clinton Administration and a member of the Elect--held that habeas relief should have been granted to the defendant in a case under California's "three strikes" law, in which the defendant's third strike was for "selling 0.08 grams of a substance in lieu of a controlled narcotic drug--a substance that looked like an illegal drug but wasn't--to an undercover police officer for $20." (Yes, yes, Article III Groupie realizes this decision is fairly old news; the opinions were filed on June 14, 2004. She apologizes for the delay and once again blames her day job.)

Judge O'Scannlain's fiery dissent begins with the following:

This case represents a triumph of lawyering from the bench. While I share some of the court's evident sympathy for the defendant--whose third strike resulted from the sale of less than one-tenth of one gram of a legal substance to an undercover officer--I respectfully dissent from its decision to step into counsel's shoes and tango its way around the deference we owe to state courts as coordinate expositors of federal law.

Whack! Did somebody just get bench-slapped?

Well, Judge Reinhardt can give as good as he gets. Check out footnote 20 of the majority opinion (some citations omitted):

Our dissenting colleague once again appears to enjoy playing numbers games in a desire to prove that the judicial system is flawed because a single district judge may declare an enactment unconstitutiona, or because less than a unanimous court may decide a case. Remarkably, he devotes a full section of his dissent to complaining about such conduct by the court which is such a source of "embarrassment" to him, and of which he involuntarily remains a member, see Statement of Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Improving the Administration of Justice: A Proposal to Split the Ninth Circuit (April 7, 2004). It is partly on this basis that, as he so inelegantly puts it, he "lamentably" dissents.

Whack! Was that the sound of one hand slapping? Catty references to matters unrelated to the case at hand, namely, Judge O'Scannlain's support for splitting the Ninth Circuit? Attacks on the quality of a colleague's prose styling? Article III Groupie hasn't seen this level of slappery since Amanda Woodward and Allison Parker went to town on each other on the dearly departed Melrose Place!

Judge Reinhardt isn't the only one, however, capable of catty citations. Take a look back at the dissent, specifically, footnote 7 and the accompanying text. Here Judge O'Scannlain seizes upon Judge Reinhardt's responses to Howard Bashman's "20 Questions for the Appellate Judge" feature on the appellate blogspot How Appealing, which he uses to criticize Judge Reinhardt's approach to judging as, well, lawless.

My goodness! Is commentary even needed for such flagrant bench-slappery? We all paid good money for our law degrees, so let's say the words together: Res ipsa loquitur.

Okay, fine, Article III Groupie feels a twinge of guilt over not adding more value, so she will endeavor to offer a few brief remarks. In case you have been hiding under a rock for the past decade, Judge Reinhardt and Judge O'Scannlain have been engaged in jurisprudential warfare for years. Because the Supremes have his back, Judge O'Scannlain often has the last word. But Judge Reinhardt views reversal by the Fascist Supreme Court as a badge of honor, and he is thus quite indifferent to bench-slaps administered by the Supremes.

(By the way, for those of you who cook, here's a recipe for you to try at home: (1) take an important and loopy opinion by Judge Reinhardt with wide-ranging implications for future cases; (2) add a dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing by Judge O'Scannlain; and (3) stir well. Presto! You've got yourself a delicious summary reversal. Indeed, to assist sleep-deprived members of the Elect in going through the pool of cert petitions, the Supreme Court Clerk's Office now requires petitioners seeking review of Judge Reinhardt's opinions to print the covers of their petitions not on standard white cardstock, as required by Supreme Court Rule 33, but on photographs of Judge Reinhardt.)

Some judges disagree jurisprudentially but get along quite well personally. According to Article III Groupie's Ninth Circuit correspondents, however, the difficulties between Judge Reinhardt and Judge O'Scannlain are personal as well as political. Judge Reinhardt's chilly relationship with Judge O'Scannlain can be contrasted with his friendship with the Ninth Circuit's most prominent conservative, Judge Alex Kozinski, the fifth-ranked feeder during the OT 1994 to OT 2003 period. (For those of you not in the know, "OT" is Elect-ese for "October Term." Fox is currently developing a show called The OT, in which gorgeous, scantily clad members of the Elect--all of whom hail from the East or West Coast--have their world turned upside-down when Chief Justice Rehnquist hires a hunky juvenile delinquent from Bumblef**k, Kansas, to clerk for him.)

Judge Reinhardt and Judge Kozinski make a big show out of their trans-ideological friendship, in a cute, somewhat self-congratulatory sort of way. Taking their judicial Punch and Judy show on tour, the two judges engage in frequent, spirited, good-natured debates on a wide range of subjects, held at different venues around the country. The subtext of the Kozinski-Reinhardt friendship is: "Yes, we disagree with each other violently. But we're BFFs because we're the coolest kids on the playground--the two smartest judges on the Ninth Circuit!" Because of his high-profile friendship with Judge Kozinski, Judge Reinhardt's frostiness towards Judge O'Scannlain contains within it a dismissiveness of Judge O'Scannlain as a jurist and thinker: "Sure, I can be friends with conservatives--but only conservatives I respect!"

For his part, Judge O'Scannlain does not deny Judge Reinhardt's intelligence. If anything, Judge O'Scannlain views Judge Reinhardt as too intelligent for his own good--and, for that matter, the good of the free world. Judge O'Scannlain believes that Judge Reinhardt, like the Emperor Palpatine of Star Wars, has decided to employ his powers for evil ends. He thinks that Judge Reinhardt is, as the Church Lady might say, "Satan?"

In sum, Judge Reinhardt disrespects and dislikes Judge O'Scannlain, and Judge O'Scannlain similarly dislikes Judge Reinhardt, whom he views as the hub of the axis of evil. (Other points in this alleged axis: Judge Harry Pregerson; Judge Betty B. Fletcher; and Judge Betty's devil spawn, Judge William A. Fletcher, a member of the Elect.) We can surely count on Judge Reinhardt and Judge O'Scannlain for some fantastic bench-slappery in the years ahead.

By the way, in case you're wondering, Judge Reinhardt is the Emperor rather than Darth Vader because Darth Vader's position is already taken: by the brilliant, cold-as-ice Judge Marsha Berzon. A member of the Elect, Judge Berzon uses the light-saber of her chilly intellect to cut down all who stand in her way. President Clinton spent a tremendous amount of political capital pushing Judge Berzon's nomination to the Ninth Circuit through the Senate, despite strong opposition from the Republicans, because he knew that only she was qualified to take up the mantle of Judge Reinhardt. After Judge Reinhardt's inevitable passing, only Judge Berzon can provide comparably courageous and cunning leadership for the left wing of the Ninth Circuit. Article III Groupie is both obsessed with and deathly afraid of Judge Berzon, who will no doubt cast her dark shadow over the pages of UTR in the not-too-distant future. (For those of you Harry Potter fans out there, Judge Berzon will sometimes be referred to in the pages of UTR as "She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" or "You-Know-Who.")

Please send tips for "Bench-Slapped!" to me, Article III Groupie, by e-mail. Tips about She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named are especially welcome--even though Article III Groupie may be too afraid to publish them! (But Article III Groupie does not want to hear that You-Know-Who is actually a sweet, warm-and-fuzzy person who loves small animals. This would just ruin the magnificent fantasy Article III Groupie has built up in her head of an out-of-control, Left-Wing Judicial Diva!)

Bench-slapped and reeling,

Article III Groupie

P.S. For those of you Ninth Circuit groupies out there, here is one question about She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named that Article III Groupie would like answered: Is her middle initial "L.", as indicated here, or "S.", as indicated here? Presumably it is "S.", as indicated in her published opinions. But why does a Google search for "Marsha L. Berzon" generate so many results, including references to such official sources such as the Federal Judicial Yellow Book and Senate proceedings concerning her nomination?)

Superhotties on the Back Burner

Due to the impositions of Article III Groupie's day job, which is requiring her to work on a Saturday night, UTR will be taking a slight hiatus. The announcement of the federal judicial superhottie nominees, which you are surely awaiting with bated breath, has been postponed to a future date that remains to be determined. (Article III Groupie may also be somewhat slow in responding to reader mail, for which she apologizes.)

"Would you like to get underneath my robes?"
(Image credit: APerfectWorld.org.)

In the meantime, please feel free to send in more nominations; the nomination period has been extended indefinitely (in part because of work, but in part because of a dearth of nominees on the male side; if you can think of any judicial hunks, please e-mail me).

Hasta luego,

Article III Groupie

Justice Is Blind: Delicious Gossip About Judges Who Shall Remain Nameless

Welcome to Justice is Blind. In the finest Page Six tradition, UTR will regularly publish so-called "blind items," scrumptious morsels of gossip in which the identities of the federal judges under discussion remain undisclosed. The principle behind "Justice Is Blind" items can be summed up by roughly paraphrasing the motto of the old show Dragnet: "The gossip you are about to hear is true. Only the names have been omitted, to protect the guilty--who are, after all, federal judges."

Before proceeding, Article III Groupie has a few preliminary comments to make. First, she would like to apologize, yet again, for her absence over the past few days. Unfortunately, the partners she works for have been harassing her with that unpleasantness known as "work." Don't they understand that she has better things to be doing? There are federal judicial rumors just waiting to be mongered!

Second, Article III Groupie would like to emphasize that she is aware of her legal duties as a responsible journalist, as well as the significant First Amendment protection she enjoys. She has just reread New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), which sets an appropriately demanding standard for public figures to satisfy when suing for libel. Federal judges are, of course, public figures, and Article III Groupie--far from harboring any actual malice towards these legal superstars--admires them deeply, even obsessively. When it comes to federal judges, Article III Groupie loves "not wisely, but too well." (Please don't correct her in schoolmarmish fashion for her use of "actual malice," which she recognizes as a term of art within libel law; she was just trying to make a cute pun!)

Article III Groupie has also just read last year's decision by the Ninth Circuit in Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). The court's opinion--authored by Judge Marsha Berzon, Left-Wing Judicial Diva and member of the Elect--provides important First Amendment protection to internet sites like UTR. For a learned exploration of the doctrinal implications of Batzel--well, go somewhere else! To echo Barbie's famous dictum concerning math, Article III Groupie says: "Case law is hard!" This is why she leaves the heavy lifting of legal analysis to other blawgs. Having read two whole cases--or at least dropped two whole case names--Article III Groupie has done her cardio for the day. She has eaten her brussels sprouts, and now it's time for dessert: federal judicial gossip!

And so, without further ado, here are the inaugural "Justice Is Blind" items for your edification and entertainment:

1. The Right-Wing Judicial Divas do not have a monopoly on diva behavior. Like some high-maintenance celebrity, this West Coast appeals court judge requires not only bottled water, but a specific brand of bottled water: Evian. When he was in another city for an oral argument calendar, someone made the mistake of bringing this judge Poland Spring. This triggered a judicial tantrum: "I can't drink this! I can taste the plastic!"

Next time he travels, this judge should take a page from the J. Lo playbook. He should fax over, in advance, a memorandum specifying the requirements for his trailer, er, his chambers.

2. This Southern District of New York trial court judge used the federal courthouse at 500 Pearl Street for his daughter's wedding, presumably at some taxpayer expense (they buff the floors every day as it is).

3. This well-known circuit court judge, who has sent more than one clerk of his to the Supremes, has issues concerning the appropriate treatment of female clerks in his chambers. These issues go beyond mere banter about a can of Coke with floaties. (If this reference eludes you, please see this transcript of Professor Anita Hill's testimony at Justice Thomas's 1991 confirmation hearings.)

In case you're wondering, "floaties" is an Article III Groupie neologism, defined as "particulate matter suspended in a liquid in which it does not belong." Usage example: "Excuse me, waiter, may I please have another glass of water? This one has floaties." For the record, if you are ever inclined to offer Article III Groupie a carbonated, pubic-hair-laden beverage, please remember she prefers Diet Coke. Article III Groupie works hard to maintain her girlish figure, and pubic hair has enough calories as it is.

4. UTR has previously discussed--in bitter rants such as this one--the yawning chasm between the Brahmin, i.e., Supreme Court clerks, and the Untouchables, i.e., the rest of us. This southern appeals court judge has a caste system within his own chambers. His two clerks from "top" law schools assist the judge with his work on published opinions, while his two clerks from "lesser" law schools work on unpublished dispositions, provide research support to their two co-clerks, and run miscellanous errands.

5. Even though she looks like a sweet old grandma who loves to bake, this East Coast circuit judge is one tough cookie. A clerk once asked her for permission to step out of chambers briefly to check on his girlfriend, who had been in an accident and was hospitalized. The judge refused to let him go, telling him, "The only time you should be in the hospital rather than in chambers is when you are in need of emergency medical treatment!"

********************

In the finest Gossiplist.com tradition, in addition to sharing blind items about federal justices, "Justice Is Blind" will reveal the identities of individuals featured in the blind items of others. Let's start with "the Gray Lady," namely, the New York Times, a favorite among UTR readers.

The June 6, 2004 issue of the New York Times Magazine featured this interesting cover story on the sentencing of white-collar criminals by prosecutor turned novelist Mark Costello. Costello, who worked for five years an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of New Jersey, describes two unnamed federal trial judges in his article.

1. "In my time as a fed, I knew only one judge who took pleasure in sentencing. This judge was smart and very hard-working. He said he believed that male prosecutors should wear only white shirts. If you came in with a blue or, God forbid, a patterned shirt, you would be admonished from the bench. He didn't care what defense attorneys or female prosecutors wore in terms of shirts, which some women found a relief and others considered insulting. The fact that the judge had us all thinking about the meaning of shirts, and the rules about shirts, gives you some idea of the unique psychic force field that was the man's courtroom. When the judge rendered a sentence on an embezzling bank executive, you could see him up on the bench, going over the sentencing memo submitted by the defense, reviewing the various grounds for mercy:

Your Honor, my client has given generously to the Temple Beth Emmanuel. He is a Little League dad. Last month his wife lost a breast to cancer. He has never embezzled before and will never embezzle again. He is sorry, Judge. He is human, Judge. He is ruined, Judge.

I could see the judge reading down the paragraphs, his neck cords working. For him, each of these things was an advantage the banker had that a black kid from Newark's Fourth Ward didn't have. . . . . [This] 'worming out,' this use of white-collar establishmentarianism to humanize and generate the perfume of sympathy, was physically repulsive to the judge. The only way to purge disgust was to blast Mr. Embezzler, to annihilate him in words, dress him down, rub his nose in his crime, then to max Mr. Embezzler under the guidelines (that is, to give him a year and a half, instead of a year), then to blast the defense attorney for having 16 typos in his sentencing memo. Disgust and anger were ebbing now, and with them, the pleasure of release. The judge would then remember to appear evenhanded. He would turn to me and find something in me that repulsed him as well. Despite his solid sentences, prosecutors hated being 'wheeled out,' or assigned, to his courtroom."

Item [1] is referring to Judge Alfred J. Lechner, Jr..

2. "We much preferred the gentler, more dignified, more scholarly judges. One judge was particularly beloved. He was literally courtly, the very picture of a judge. Born wealthy, this judge had never grubbed for money. Being a rational man, he proceeded cautiously when dealing with any phenomenon that he did not feel he understood. I think that is why this judge was a relatively timid sentencer, afraid to really ram a defendant."

Item [2] is referring to Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise.

Thanks to all of my correspondents for these scoops. Please continue to submit proposed "Justice Is Blind" items by e-mail; Article III Groupie is keeping an eye out for them!

Further affiant sayeth not,

Article III Groupie

("Justice Is Blind" image credit: APerfectWorld.org. "Eye" photo credit: GeekPhilosoher.com.)

Inbreeding at One First Street

Article III Groupie feels like vomiting -- and no, it's not because she's bulimic (or has had one too many cosmopolitans). A reader just e-mailed her this wedding announcement from Sunday's New York Times, with the following subject line: "Nauseating, isn't it?" Article III Groupie couldn't agree more.

You're about to ask: "Article III Groupie, this is just the wedding announcement for Susan Kearns and Steven Engel, two associates in the D.C. office of Kirkland & Ellis, the elite Chicago law firm. What does this have to do with federal judicial celebrities?" Article III Groupie has several responses. First, multiple federal judges were in attendance at the wedding, as discussed in more detail below. Second, Mr. and Mrs. Engel -- yes, she's taking his name -- are no ordinary law firm associates. They are members of the Elect.

As you may recall from UTR's special report on the Right-Wing Judicial Divas, "the Elect" is UTR-speak for Supreme Court clerks: those divine, incandescently brilliant men and women who have descended from the heavens to grace the rest of us with their presence. (Article III Groupie has also heard them referred to as "the Anointed," with the rest of us called "the Great Unwashed," and these terms will also be used in UTR's pages.)

Members of the Elect are an appropriate topic for discussion here for at least two reasons. First, they are fabulous celebrities of the federal judiciary in their own right. The 35 young men and women who clerk each year at the U.S. Supreme Court are, quite simply, the best and the brightest of the roughly 50,000 new lawyers minted in America each year. Indeed, it is only a matter of time before the Elect go on to become federal judges themselves.

Pictured at right: The Supreme Court building at One First Street, where the Elect sit around and reflect on their own greatness. (Photo credit: Geek Philosopher.)

Second, this blog will frequently, and justifiably, talk about law clerks. When we see Article III jurists working their judicial magic, pulling brilliant opinions out of hats and making cases and controversies disappear, we can't overlook the important contributions of their law clerks. The law clerks who provide their bosses with critical research and writing assistance -- and who, for lazier judges at least, come perilously close to exercising the judicial power of the United States -- are the Santa's elves of the federal courts. Like Santa's elves, clerks are the behind-the-scenes workers whose efforts are essential to the proper functioning of the system. As the Divine Miss M might say, law clerks are the wind beneath the wings of federal judges.

So, back to the wedding announcement of the Engels, who are members of the Elect. By the way, please note the careful statement that the Engels are, not were, members of the Elect. As the old saying goes, "Once a Supreme Court clerk, always a Supreme Court clerk." There is no such thing as a former Supreme Court clerk -- being a Supreme Court clerk is not a job, but a state of being.

Here is UTR's annotated version of the announcement (which you can compare with the original if you are so inclined):

Susan Elisabeth Kearns, a daughter of Elsie R. Kearns and Thomas M. Kearns of Larchmont, New York -- #179 on Worth magazine's exclusive list of the 250 richest towns in America, with a median home price over $625,000 -- was married there yesterday to Steven Andrew Engel, a son of JoAnn and Mark F. Engel of Sands Point, New York -- which comes in at #44 on the Worth list, with a median home price of $1.1 million. Judge John G. Koeltl of the Federal District Court in Manhattan -- who is the bride's uncle, who clerked for Justice Potter Stewart, and who used to be a partner at the white-shoe New York law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton -- officiated at the Larchmont Yacht Club. Fifth-ranked feeder Judge Alex Kozinski of the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- who clerked for Justice Kennedy (back when he was on the Ninth Circuit) and then Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, and who feeds his clerks to AMK like grapes -- took part in the ceremony.

The couple, both 29, met in 2000 when both were law clerks for Judge Kozinski, who works his clerks to death. (Thus, before getting married, the couple lived together -- in the slave ship called the Kozinski chambers, that is!) The following year, they were clerks at the Supreme Court, she for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and the bridegroom for Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The bride and bridegroom are now associates in the Washington office of Kirkland & Ellis, the Chicago law firm, where they get much better assignments than their colleagues from the Great Unwashed.

Mrs. Engel graduated summa cum laude from Duke and received her law degree from New York University. Mr. Engel graduated summa cum laude from Harvard and received a master's degree in history from Cambridge, where he was a Knox Fellow. He received his law degree from Yale.

Pictured at left: Surely the Engels' cake was more luscious than this one. (Photo credit: Pics4learning.com.)

Wow, Article III Groupie doesn't know what hit her! Was that the announcement for a wedding, or for a legal professional eugenics experiment gone mad? Such is the way of the world. The rich get richer: Larchmont marries Sands Point. The smart get smarter: legal geniuses marry each other (and produce brilliant babies). The Elect, like Ptolemaic rulers, marry one another, so as not to dilute their bloodlines. Their weddings are presided over by fellow members of the Elect. And a generation later, their offspring will join the ranks of the Elect themselves, heading off to clerk at the Court, where they will in turn meet the loves of their lives, beginning the cycle anew...

(Before you object that Article III Groupie is getting carried away, she would point out that marriages between Supreme Court clerks happen with remarkable frequency. She can think of at least five such high-powered couples in the past ten years, which perhaps she will profile in future reports.)

For the record, Article III Groupie harbors no ill will towards the happy couple. Indeed, she sends her best wishes to the Engels (who are supposed to be lovely people, quite friendly and humble despite all of their accomplishments). But she strongly objects to how Supreme Court clerkships have become the Willy Wonka golden tickets of the legal profession. So many top-shelf opportunities within the law, such as tenure-track professorships and jobs in the SG's office, are already reserved for members of the Elect. Must we add romantic love to the list of goodies that you're entitled to only if you've clerked for the Supreme Court?

No, no, don't be silly; Article III Groupie isn't bitter or resentful or anything! Article III Groupie isn't thinking right now about how, if only her own Supreme Court clerkship interviews (yes, that's plural) had worked out, her life would be so different today. ("Could have been so beautiful, could have been so right...")

Oh, who are we kidding? Woe is her! If Article III Groupie were one of the Elect, she would be writing appellate briefs on sexy constitutional issues -- not reviewing documents in the fug of an interior conference room (and spending her limited free time venting her spleen in self-indulgent rants over the internet). If she were one of the Elect, she would be sharing her bed with a hunky Supreme Court clerk -- not a pint of Uncanny Cashew and the remote control for her TiVo.

Pictured at right: The Great Unwashed. They didn't get Supreme Court clerkships -- and now their lives are ruined! (Photo credit: Pics4learning.com.)

And so Article III Groupie issues this clarion call to her fellow members of the Great Unwashed: "Non-Supreme-Court-clerks of the world, unite!"

Mad as hell and not going to take this any more,

Article III Groupie

P.S. Yes, Article III Groupie realizes that she is being ridiculous in asking for your sympathy given her privileged position. Article III Groupie is grateful for all of her blessings: her family and friends, her excellent education, her lucrative employment, and her Jimmy Choo shoes (not necessarily in that order). The foregoing just goes to show that, no matter how much you achieve and how fortunate you are, you can always find someone to be jealous of, someone to make you bad feel about yourself!

"It's getting hot in here": The first slate of nominees for Superhotties of the Federal Judiciary!

"It's getting hot in here--so take off all their robes!" Thus spake Nelly, when UTR invited him to be a guest judge for Superhotties of the Federal Judiciary. He graciously declined, but the competition will proceed.

Before proceeding to discuss the competition, which you are surely eager to hear about, Article III Groupie would like to offer her profuse apologies for her absence from these pages over the past few days. Unfortunately, much of last week was taken up by a very unpleasant document production. Despite certain time-saving rules that she employed (e.g., "when in doubt, it's non-responsive"), slogging through the boxes took Article III Groupie many, many hours--and also caused her to break a fingernail. This kind of mind-numbing drudgery is not what Article III Groupie had in mind when she signed up to be a Biglaw Litigatrix. (In between brutal documention productions, Article III Groupie consoles herself by blowing too much of her six-figure salary on clothing by Prada.)

Anyway, back to matters of substance. Thanks to everyone who has written in thus far with federal judicial superhottie nominations. Nominations will be accepted by e-mail until 11:59 p.m. on Friday, June 18, 2004. When you submit a nomination, please provide brief explanation of why you think the nominee is sufficiently delectable to merit consideration as a Superhottie, as well as a photograph (if possible).

After the close of nominations, UTR will post the list of nominees, together with comments on each nominee (as well as photographs if available). The polls will then be open to UTR readers to vote, by e-mail, for the one male or the one female they would like to see elected to Superhottie status. Voting will be by e-mail, to avoid any American Idol-style voting controversies, and you should vote for only one man or one woman. Article III Groupie is a traditional kinda gal, and she does not support any newfangled, harebrained, Lani Guinier-style voting schemes. Polls will close at 11:59 p.m. on Friday, June 25, 2004. Shortly thereafter, the top three female and male vote getters will be announced, in rank order, and crowned Superhotties of the Federal Judiciary.

And so, without further ado, the judicial hotties currently under consideration as possible Superhotties of the Federal Judiciary are:

The Hot. Frank M. Hull (11th Cir.) (female)
The Hot. Reena Raggi (2d Cir.)
The Hot. John G. Roberts, Jr. (D.C. Cir.)
The Hot. Jeffrey S. Sutton (6th Cir.)
The Hot. Kim McLane Wardlaw (9th Cir.)
The Hot. Kimba M. Wood (S.D.N.Y.)

These nominees certainly get Article III Groupie's pulse racing! But as Ryan Seacrest of American Idol might say, "America, don't forget--you have to vote for the judicial hotties." So if you aren't excited about the nominees listed above, do something about it--send Article III Groupie an e-mail with the judge that you would like to see crowned a Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary!

All hot and bothered,

Article III Groupie

Fili-BUSTED! Magnificent judicial divas have been stopped dead in their tracks. Now UTR asks: Who is the biggest diva?

Fili-BUSTED! Three prominent, conservative female jurists have had their nominations to important federal appeals courts stopped by filibusters in the Senate.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court, left, has been nominated to the D.C. Circuit. Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl of the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County, middle, has been nominated to the Ninth Circuit. Justice Priscilla R. Owen of the Supreme Court of Texas, right, has been nominated to the Fifth Circuit. But the nominations of Justice Brown, Judge Kuhl, and Justice Owen (collectively, "the Judicial Divas") won't be going anywhere soon. These strong, smart women have the Senate Democrats running scared, which is why the Democrats have resulted to the drastic step of filibustering their nominations.

President Bush has made valiant efforts to push the Judicial Divas' nominations forward. Last November, he brought the Judicial Divas -- singled out from among all of his nominees -- to the White House, for a special press conference demanding fairness in the judicial nominations process. The President declared that "these three ladies" -- the federal judicial equivalent of Charlie's Angels -- are "the absolute right picks for their respective positions."

Despite such pressure from the White House, the Senate Democrats are not budging. Twenty-five less controversial nominees will make it through to confirmation as part of an agreement between the White House and Senate Democrats (described here by the Washington Post). But the Judicial Divas are most definitely not part of that deal.

Will the Senate Democrats ever relent on the President's judicial nominees -- especially if he wins a second term? Perhaps -- but it is unlikely that they will allow all of the nominees currently being filibustered to make it to the Senate floor. Difficult choices will have to be made. The White House will have to decide which of its most controversial nominees it will to go to the mat for, and which nominees are not worth the political capital.

Which nominee will President Bush support to the bitter end, and how will he make his decision? President Bush, in conjunction with White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, will surely make his decisions based on pragmatic political considerations. But if I, Article III Groupie, were queen for a day, the President's decision would be based not on ideology, demographics, or confirmability, but on the answer to a single question:

Who is the biggest judicial diva?

How does one measure the diva quotient of judicial nominees? One reader offers this proposal:

1. Set up a catwalk on the South Lawn of the White House.

2. Require Justice Brown, Judge Kuhl, and Justice Owen to stride up and down the catwalk, wearing black judicial robes and Manolo Blahnik stilettos, while Supermodel by RuPaul blares over the loudspeakers: "State court judge, you better work! Work it, girl! Sashay, shante!"

3. After watching the women strut their stuff, Al Gonzales decides who is the biggest diva.

President Bush introduces the Judicial Divas at an Oval Office press conference, under the watchful gaze of RuPaul, non-judicial diva par excellence.

Thankfully, there are easier ways to measure diva power. Look no further than UTR's patented J.D. Degree system. "J.D" does not stand for "Juris Doctor" -- it stands for "Judicial Diva"!

The J.D. Degree system measures diva-hood on a scale of 0 to 100. A nominee's overall score is calculated based on her scores in three subcategories, namely, the three "A"s: Attitude, Aptitude, and Attractiveness.

1. Attitude (50 percent)

Attitude is the most important attribute of the Judicial Diva, accounting for half of her overall score. The Judicial Diva must be confident, even arrogant. She does not suffer fools gladly -- and, to the Judicial Diva, almost everyone is a fool. The Judicial Diva is outspoken, voicing her views in forceful and saucy fashion. Her abrasive manner may alienate some, but she doesn't care -- she's a Judicial Diva!

2. Aptitude (30 percent)

A music review in the October 21, 2002 issue of Time magazine offers the following observation: "By definition, a diva is a rampaging female ego redeemed, only in part, by a lovely voice." Similarly, the Judicial Diva is a rampaging female ego redeemed, only in part, by a brilliant legal mind. Hence the importance of aptitude, the Judicial Diva's legal ability and acumen, as measured by the firepower of her résumé and her achievements within the profession.

3. Attractiveness (20 percent)

Obviously attractiveness cannot be the most important quality of the Judicial Diva (which is why it accounts for only 20 percent of her score). After all, we're talking about Judicial Divas. It would be disingenuous, however, to claim that beauty is irrelevant to the diva calculus. All things being equal, a federal judicial super-hottie will out-diva a federal judicial supernottie any day of the week.

Using the J.D. Degree system, UTR will now conduct a head-to-head comparison of the three Judicial Divas.

********************

1. Justice Janice Rogers Brown: "The Uppity Black Diva"
(Please do not mistake this for racism; it is a reference to Justice Thomas's famous condemnation of his confirmation hearings as "a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks.")

Attitude: 9.5
That Justice Brown is one sassy lady! Some provocative excerpts from her speeches and judicial opinions have been collected here by the People for the American Way ("PFAW"). Here is a revealing excerpt from a report on Justice Brown, also prepared by the PFAW:

[Justice Brown] has been severely criticized concerning her judicial temperament and collegiality. Some of her dissenting opinions have been contemptuous of her colleagues. Sources on the court reportedly stated that her fellow justices have privately complained about her “poison pen” and have called Brown a “loose cannon when she has a typewriter in front of her.”

Justice Brown's outspoken nature may not earn her points with the People for the American Way. But it sure does wonders for her diva rating!

Aptitude: 7.0
Justice Brown received a mixed ABA rating, with a majority deeming her "qualified" and a minority deeming her "not qualified." Her résumé is perfectly fine, but not spectacular.

Attractiveness: 7.0
As explained here by the New York Times, you can post a person's photograph on the website Hot or Not to obtain a fairly objective assessment of the subject's attractiveness...

Justice Brown's J.D. Degree: 82.5 (magna cum laude)

********************

2. Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl: "The California Dreamin' Diva"

Attitude: 7.0
Although her opponents attempt to depict her as a raving, right-wing zealot -- see, e.g., this report by the Alliance for Justice ("AFJ") -- Judge Kuhl appears to be fairly restrained in her demeanor. At her confirmation hearings, Judge Kuhl came across as more moderate and open-minded than her critics claim, even distancing herself from some of her prior positions, as this AFJ report suggests. The ideal diva, however, would have stood her ground, roundly condemning the committee Democrats as a bunch of petty, emasculated political hacks. (This is how the scene will unfold in the made-for-television movie "Judicial Divas," with Judge Kuhl portrayed by her fellow California blonde, Heather Locklear.) While Judge Kuhl's decision to present herself as reasonable is pragmatic and understandable, it does not earn her diva points.

Aptitude: 9.5
It would be difficult to find a résumé more impressive than the résumé of Judge Kuhl: Princeton; Duke Law School; a clerkship with Justice Kennedy, when he was on the Ninth Circuit; various positions at the Department of Justice, including the unspeakably prestigious post of Deputy Solicitor General; and a partnership at the powerhouse L.A. law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson. Judge Kuhl's mixed ABA rating of "well qualified"/"qualified" is thus difficult to comprehend; a more eminently qualified candidate for judicial service would be hard to imagine. Perhaps Judge Kuhl fell victim to "player haters" on the ABA committee -- mediocre lawyers not fit to button an assistant solicitor general's morning coat.

(Why doesn't Judge Kuhl get an aptitude score of 10, you might ask? Well, back when Judge Kuhl clerked for AMK, he was merely Judge Anthony M. Kennedy of the Ninth Circuit, not Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court. Thus, because Judge Kuhl is not among "the Elect" -- UTR-speak for Supreme Court clerks -- she is automatically ineligible for a perfect aptitude score.)

Attractiveness: 7.5

Judge Kuhl's J.D. Degree: 78.5 (cum laude)

********************

3. Justice Priscilla Owen: "The Lone Star Diva"

Attitude: 9.0
Justice Owen is the second most frequent dissenter among the justices currently serving on the Texas Supreme Court, as noted in this report by the PFAW, and she does not pull her punches. Colleagues have criticized the "inflammatory rhetoric" of her scorching dissents, as the PFAW notes here. Justice Owen even locked horns with White House Counsel Al Gonzales when he was on the Texas Supreme Court, outflanking him on the right, as noted in this amusingly titled PFAW press release, Alberto Gonzales v. Priscilla Owen.

Aptitude: 9.0
As Justice Owen's biography and résumé reflect, she graduated at the top of her law school class at Baylor, where she served on the law review. She then proceeded to have a very successful career in private practice, making partner at Andrews & Kurth, a leading Texas law firm. Justice Owen's legal experience isn't marked by much diversity, and her résumé may not "shock and awe" like Judge Kuhl's, but Justice Owen's steely competence is undeniable. The ABA is no friend to conservative judicial nominees, as Professor James Lindgren explains in this article, but even the ABA was compelled to award Justice Owen a unanimous rating of "well qualified."

Attractiveness: 7.0

Justice Owen's J.D. Degree: 86.0 (summa cum laude)

********************

And so the winner of our competition is Justice Priscilla Owen, "The Lone Star Diva," who receives a total score of 86, earning her J.D. degree summa cum laude. (If you think UTR's grading system is a little strange, well, it's loosely based on that of the University of Chicago.) Although Justice Brown, "The Uppity Black Diva," may have more attitude, and Judge Kuhl, "The California Dreamin' Diva," may have a slightly more golden résumé, Priscilla is the Queen -- not just of the Desert, but of the Right-Wing Judicial Divas.

In closing, your loyal correspondent, Article III Groupie, would like to state for the record her own views on the Right-Wing Judicial Divas. As Samantha Jones of Sex and the City might say: "Judicial Divas? They're fabulous!" References in these pages to Justice Brown, Judge Kuhl, and Justice Owen as Right-Wing Judicial Divas should not be viewed as derogatory. To the contrary, as far as Article III Groupie is concerned, few stations are more noble than right-wing judicial diva-dom. Indeed, it is the state towards which all female lawyers ought to aspire.

The term "right-wing" is an epithet to many, but not to Article III Groupie, whose own views are conservative. Similarly, the term "diva" may be widely viewed as pejorative, but not by Article III Groupie. Article III Groupie admires strong, confident women -- she likes to think of herself as one -- and she understands, all too well, how women must be assertive and aggressive in order to succeed in the male-dominated world of law.

Article III Groupie holds Justice Brown, Judge Kuhl, and Justice Owen in the highest esteem -- and she hopes to someday join their distinguished ranks. UTR wishes these highly accomplished women the best of luck in their efforts to win Senate confirmation to the Article III bench.

Sincerely,

Article III Groupie

Who wants to be a millionaire--AND a Supreme Court Justice?

YUM! The delicious financial disclosure reports required for the justices of the Supreme Court were recently released to the public by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as the Associated Press reports here and the Washington Post reports here. These financial disclosure reports are required by the Ethics in Government Act. (Article III Groupie loves the Ethics in Government Act!)

Not surprisingly, most of the justices are quite affluent. Some of the justices appear to have enjoyed significant success in their investments, which may explain why their wealth exceeds what one might expect based just on their judicial salaries. (As of January 2004, the Chief Justice earns $203,000 a year, and the Associate Justices receive $194,300 each in annual salary, as shown in this handy table of salaries for federal officials. These are handsome amounts, although they're a far cry from what partners at major law firms earn, as breathlessly recounted each year by The American Lawyer.)

As the AP article notes, at least five of the nine justices are millionaires: Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. And Justices Souter and Ginsburg, with reportable assets of at least $5 million, qualify as filthy stinking rich. Two more justices, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia, are also quite comfortable, with reportable assets that may exceed $1 million. Only two justices, Justices Kennedy and Thomas, have reportable assets under $500,000. (Perhaps Justices Souter and Ginsburg can write a book of financial advice for Justices Kennedy and Thomas. Proposed title: Rich Judge, Poor Judge.)

Here's UTR's dishy take on the 2003 reports, justice by justice. The reports aren't as juicy as they could be, insofar as they (1) don't require the justices to report all of their assets, just certain investment assets (e.g., securities, trusts, IRA accounts; personal residences are not included); and (2) only require the justices to give a range of values for each asset, rather than the exact amount. But the reports are still full of pretty interesting info, and UTR is glad to have them.

1. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

In addition to his salary as Chief, WHR received a $25,000 advance for his new book, Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876, as well as $10,000 in royalties. He also received a nice $12,500 stipend for his participation in a teaching program at the University of Arizona School of Law.

The Chief's reportable assets come in between $530,000 and $1.2 million. He appears to be a rather conservative investor, with a cautious investment strategy that appears to be focused on principal preservation and income generation over capital appreciation. (Let the retirement speculation begin anew!)

2. Associate Justice John Paul Stevens

JPS's report isn't too thrilling. He's a pretty "clubby" guy, having received gifts of honorary membership in no less than three clubs: the Coral Ridge Country Club, the Union League Club of Chicago, and the Washington Golf and Country Club. His reportable assets are beween $1.6 million and $3.4 million. That's a lot of bowties!

3. Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

SDO's report is quite complex, replete with numerous footnotes, as a result of her extensive (and nicely diversified) investments. Her reportable assets--which include real estate partnerships, T-bills, municipal bonds, fractional interests in oil wells, and about 40 individual stocks--come in between $2.9 million and $6 million. (Despite her wealth, SDO appears to be a pleasant and down-to-earth person. "Don't be fooled by the rocks that she got!")

SDO appears to be a rather sophisticated investor. But she, like many of us, got burned by the techs. Last year she sold, at a loss, shares in Cisco, Qualcomm (misspelled in her report), and Sun Microsystems. Sandy, we feel your pain.

4. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia

A former law school professor, AS supplemented his salary through teaching at four universities, earning an extra $23,000 (the maximum permitted) for his efforts. When not duck hunting with Vice President Cheney, AS took 20 expenses-paid trips to destinations as far-flung as Alaska, Italy, France, and Japan, to speak at various universities or before different groups. AS's reportable assets amount to between $710,000 and $1.3 million. The Duck Hunter isn't exactly Scrooge McDuck, but that kind of dough is nothing to quack at!

(BTW, for someone widely regarded as always wanting to be right, AS's report is not pretty. Misspellings, typographical errors, and typing outside the boxes all can be found in abundance.)

5. Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

Like AS, AMK earned an extra $23,000 through teaching, and he took numerous paid trips (but to considerably less exciting destinations, e.g., Sacramento). AMK's investments are painfully boring, consisting of two bank accounts and three life insurance policies. AMK appears to have paid dearly for this "stuff-it-in-the-mattress" investment strategy: his reportable assets amount to only $75,000-$180,000. Perhaps SDO should put AMK in touch with her financial planner.

6. Associate Justice David H. Souter

DHS is known for being a solitary sort of fellow, and his financial disclosure report bears this out. Unlike most of his colleagues, he earned no outside income, took no paid trips, and received no gifts. But the value of his reportable investments is an eye-popping $5.2 to $25.5 million (compared to between $1 million and $5.4 million in 2002). A footnote in the report suggests that the acquisition of Granite State Bankshares by Chittenden Corp. was very, very good to him. The use of value ranges makes it impossible to determine with certainty, but it is possible that DHS may have overtaken Justice Ginsburg, the perennial winner of the "who's the wealthiest" contest, as the richest justice.

With this kind of wealth, who needs the Secret Service? DHS, who was recently assaulted while taking a jog, can live it up "P. Diddy"-style: he can hire bodyguards to jog along with him, just as P. Diddy did when he ran the New York City marathon.

(I know, I know--as Slate explains in this article, the Secret Service isn't charged with ensuring the safety of the justices, who are actually protected by either Supreme Court police officers or federal marshals. I just couldn't resist the opportunity to breezily ask, "Who needs the Secret Service?")

7. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas

The most interesting fact in CT's report is the hefty $500,000 advance he received for his memoirs, expected to be published next year by HarperCollins. In the book, CT is expected to discuss his 1991 confirmation battle (which apparently he enjoys talking about around the Supreme Court building, like a veteran telling war stories, which might be surprising given its bitter and lurid nature). CT's reportable assets, which presumably do not reflect this advance, are worth between $210,000 and $410,000.

8. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

RBG is livin' large, with reportable assets between $5.6 and $23.4 million. With assets like that, they should call her Justice Ruth "Bling-Bling" Ginsburg. RBG might want to diversify by investing in a makeover, however, so she would look less like Heather Matarazzo from Welcome to the Dollhouse.

How did RBG amass such wealth? RBG was a law professor and ACLU lawyer before taking the bench, so you'd think she wasn't exactly rakin' in the dough. But RBG's husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, was for many years a superstar tax partner at the high-powered New York law firm of Fried Frank (where he remains of counsel, having retired from full-time practice some years ago, in order to teach law). His biography on the Fried Frank website humorously notes that for college he "attended Cornell University, [where he] stood very low in his class and played on the golf team. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School which, in those years, did not field a golf team." It also notes, with wry understatement, that he moved as a law professor from Columbia to Georgetown in 1980, "when his wife obtained a good job in Washington." (That "good job" would, of course, be RBG's appointment to the D.C. Circuit, the muscularly powerful federal appeals court whose judges are handmaidens to the Supremes.)

(RBG's financial disclosure report is commendably detailed, as one might expect from a former professor. For example, she provides an attachment with a narrative explanation of the various gifts she received, including a defense of each gift as proper under the rules of judicial ethics.)

9. Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer

Like Delta Airlines, SGB loves to fly, and it shows. SGB accepted expenses-paid trips to several European destinations, including Luxembourg, Paris, Florence, and London. SGB's investments are, like SDO's, extensive and well-diversified, including numerous individual stocks, municipal bonds, and real estate. Ranked by reportable assets, SGB comes in third, behind DHS and RBG, with holdings valued between $4 million and $15 million.

Okay, that's all for now. Please e-mail me with any comments, corrections, or additional tidbits. Thanks!

Hugs and kisses,

Article III Groupie

Underneath Their Robes: Mission Statement

FEDERAL JUDGES. You've read their opinions in the Federal Reporter. You, or your clients, have complied with their orders. But how well do you really know our nation's federal judges -- not just as jurists, but as people? Enquiring minds want to know: What do federal judges have going on "underneath their robes"? (Does Chief Justice Rehnquist wear boxers or briefs? Probably boxers, except when playing tennis with his law clerks.)

"Underneath Their Robes" ("UTR") is a combination of People, US Weekly, Page Six, The National Enquirer, and Tigerbeat, focused not on vacuous movie stars or fatuous teen idols, but on the federal judiciary. The mission of UTR is to get "underneath the robes" of our federal judges, to find out what they are really like -- not as impersonal guardians of the Constitution, or as disembodied legal minds analyzing complex legal disputes, but as human beings. After all, federal judges are people too, with unique personalities, private lives, and peccadilloes, all just waiting to be explored.

There are some one million lawyers in the United States, but only 877 active federal judges. These 877 brilliant men and women represent the top 0.1% of American lawyers. Prior to taking the Article III bench, they distinguished themselves as practicing lawyers, state court judges, non-Article III federal judges, or legal academics. Now these superstars of the legal profession have been apotheosized, through nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate, to life-tenured positions of tremendous power and prestige. Federal judges are the gods and goddesses of the American justice system. The decisions that they make affect all of us, touching countless aspects of our everyday lives.

In short, federal judges are legal celebrities. Although certain flashy criminal defense or plaintiffs' lawyers might be more well-known to the general public, federal judges are the "rock stars" of the legal profession's upper echelons. Although they might not admit it, practicing lawyers spend countless hours around the water cooler gossiping about the federal judges before whom they appear. Ambitious law students seeking prestigious judicial clerkships become similarly obsessed with Article III jurists, fixating on them as if they were teen idols. In light of federal judges' high station and great influence, as well as the insights of legal realism concerning the important role that a judge's personality and private life can play in judicial decisionmaking, such keen interest in federal judges as people is understandable and justified.

Despite this interest, surprisingly little attention is paid by the news media to the personal lives of federal judges. This is in part the result of the low profiles kept by many federal judges, who often seek to present themselves to the public as judicial machines, administering justice with absolute impartiality. But the insufficient attention paid to federal judges as people is also the fault of news reporters and legal commentators who spend hours poring over the latest judicial decisions, but hardly any time delving into the personal backgrounds of the decisionmakers.

UTR seeks to change all that, by bringing you the latest news and gossip about federal judiciary: who's good, who's bad, and who's ugly. Yes, UTR will expose the shortcomings and imperfections of our federal judges. But it will also celebrate their positive attributes. Adjectives commonly used to describe our federal judges include honorable, intelligent, learned, distinguished, and hardworking. UTR proposes to add a few more to the list: glamorous, sexy, fun -- and fabulous!

These upcoming reports from UTR provide a taste of what you can look forward to in future posts:

The Wheels of Justice: What do our nation's judges drive? (Hint: Jaguars are surprisingly popular. Grrr!!!)

UTR Cribs: Inspired by MTV Cribs, UTR goes inside the halls of justice, with this exclusive report about the luxurious residences of the most well-heeled federal jurists.

Superhotties of the Federal Judiciary: "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?" Or, less poetically: Which legal minds have the best bodies? UTR is now accepting your nominations for the hottest women and men whose firm, toned butts occupy the Article III bench. Please send nominations to UTR by email, preferably with photographs.

A Hunger for Justice: Judge Jerome Frank and his fellow legal realists thought that a case might get decided "based on what the judge had for breakfast." So -- what did the judge have for breakfast? What judges have idiosyncratic culinary tastes? Which judges are on diets -- and which judges aren't, but should be? Find out in UTR's exploration of the care and feeding of Article III judges.

A final note: UTR is only as good as the information obtained by yours truly, Article III Groupie. Drawing upon a wide range of news sources, she conducts diligent research to bring you the latest news about the federal judiciary, which she combines with her own unique and colorful commentary. But she relies upon you, her readers and correspondents, for the "inside scoop" about federal judges -- the juicy morsels of gossip, the piles of dirty laundry that never make it into the sanitized pages of our media outlets. So please, email your news and gossip about federal judges to Article III Groupie, early and often!

Welcome to the pages of UTR!

Yours truly,

Article III Groupie