Underneath Their Robes

Judicial SIGHT-ations: Halloween Special Issue

WHEW! Article III Groupie is absolutely exhausted, after a busy week both in the office and the blogosphere. She doesn't need very much sleep--which largely explains how she can balance UTR and her day job, and which also explains why she e-mails and blogs at odd hours--but she still does get tired. So please don't expect this post, composed on a lazy Sunday afternoon, to display much energy. After taking orders and working her tail off for most of last week (yesterday included), A3G is going to kick back and let others do most of the work today.

In case you've forgotten, today is Halloween. And that means scary federal judges are out and about, haunting litigants and law clerks with their chilling judicial visages. BOO!

In honor of the occasion, here are some Judicial Sight-ations (some of them Halloween-related, others not):

1. Third Circuit Judge Walter K. Stapleton, pictured at right, was seen in the federal courthouse in Wilmington, Delaware, dressed as Homer Simpson, including an oversized plastic Homer head.

2. As for Halloween festivites, the Ninth Circuit had a Halloween party in its Pasadena courthouse on Friday. Unfortunately, no judges wore costumes. A correspondent reports: "The only adult who showed up in costume was Eve Fisher (no relation to Judge [Raymond C.] Fisher), the deputy in charge of the Pasadena clerk's office, who came dressed as a Tiki drink and brought her tiny new daughter, dressed as mouse with a very long tail."

The absence of judges in costume was (almost) made up for by the fact that four Ninth Circuit judges in attendance were overheard discussing UTR...

3. WHAT? Second Circuit Judge Pierre Leval marries his (male) law clerk?! Yes, it's true! You can read all about it here.

(Ah, the delights of ambiguous transitivity...)

After officiating last weekend at the wedding of his law clerk, Thomas Glenn Saunders, to Elizabeth Susan Nathan, Judge Leval presumably had another wedding to attend this weekend. After numerous people reached UTR by Googling "samuel rascoff married" and "samuel rascoff wedding," A3G did some research and learned that Samuel James Rascoff, who clerked for Judge Leval and then Justice Souter (OT 2003), is to be married today to Lauren R. Geller, a doctor-to-be.

As reflected in this wedding announcement, Mr. Rascoff has a résumé that is literally breathtaking: Harvard College, summa cum laude; Marshall Scholarship; Oxford, first-class honors; Yale Law School; Leval and Souter clerkships. He now works as an associate at uber-prestigious Wachtell Lipton, which routinely has the highest profits per partner of any major American law firm, and where associates who are members of the Great Unwashed can actually earn as much as their Anointed counterparts at other law firms.

But A3G derives perverse pleasure and consolation from the fact that Mr. Rascoff is "only" a Marshall Scholar, i.e., NOT a Rhodes Scholar (previously described in UTR as "the pre-law equivalent of the Elect"). She can imagine a cocktail party conversation in which Mr. Rascoff vaguely alludes, with false modesty, to his "time at Oxford," and his interlocutor asks, "When were you at Oxford?" The following exchange ensues:

Rascoff: "I was there after college, on a fellowship."
Cocktail Party Guest 1: "Oh--were you a Rhodes Scholar?"
Rascoff: "No, I was a Marshall Scholar."
Cocktail Party Guest 1 (masking disappointment): "Oh, okay."

HEE-HEE! Yes, A3G really is this bitter and petty. And no, her schadenfreude knows no limits...

4. David Starkoff of Inchoate recently spotted Judge Randall R. Rader of the Federal Circuit. Click here for his account of the sight-ation (for which A3G is grateful, even if it's a bit too substantive for her tastes, as well as lacking in sartorial detail).

5. On Friday, Judge Diane S. Sykes, a nominee for Superhotties of the Federal Judiciary, was sworn in as a Seventh Circuit judge (by Judge Terence T. Evans, for whom she clerked). Click here for the story, and click here for a photo.

A3G admits this is not a true sight-ation, since Judge Sykes was spotted in an official rather than personal capacity. But A3G really liked this picture, which shows Harry Potter in attendance at the investiture. (Okay, that's probably Judge Sykes's son Alex--but he sure does look like Daniel Radcliffe, doesn't he?)

A3G also thought a shout-out to Judge Sykes, whom some people find quite frightening, was eminently appropriate on Halloween. Of course, Judge Sykes is no match for She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named--whose malevolent, unspeakably vast power can barely be kept in check by the entire conservative wing of the Ninth Circuit. (If you're new to UTR and wondering about A3G's obsession with You-Know-Who, read the last few paragraphs of this post.)

6. Justice Thomas recently paid a visit to the University of Kansas School of Law, as reported here by the Lawrence-Journal World. As noted here by How Appealing, the reporter responsible for the article could use a civics lesson, having written the following about Justice Thomas:

"I look at it as a job," he told students. "When you think you're all that important, you run the risk of thinking you can raise the level at which you impact the country. I am a Title 3 (federal district court) judge, and I will not try to be God."

Mortifying! How could anyone confuse Article III of the Constitution with "Title 3"? If "Title 3" is supposed to be referring to Title 3 of the United States Code, then we're not even talking about the correct branch of government. (Alas, this reporter isn't the only one who makes such mistakes--someone recently arrived at UTR after running a Google search for "title iii groupie.")

Furthermore, how could anyone confuse an exalted Supreme Court justice with a mere district court judge? With all due respect to our esteemed federal trial judges, several of whom read UTR (and correspond with A3G), A3G will now quote from the explanation of the federal judicial system contained in America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction, by Jon Stewart and the writers of the Daily Show (a very funny book that A3G recommends highly, despite her ideological disagreements with Mr. Stewart):

It all starts with the U.S. district courts, the first stop whenever someone decides to "make a federal case" of something. Judges in these courts can barely read, and instead of gavels bang their thick skulls against their desks to bring the court to order. It is not unusual for a district court judge to throw his sandwich at a lawyer he dislikes.

Actually, Mr. Stewart and his colleagues may be in need of correction. The foregoing description would be more accurately applied to icky state court judges!

The article about Justice Thomas's visit to KU contains another statement in need of correction or clarification. The article quotes one student as follows about Justice Thomas: "He was very easy-going and easy to talk to," said student Holly Hydeman. "We make them (justices) out to be demagogues [sic; demigods?]. He's a guy who drives a Saturn."

Say what? Contrary to Ms. Hydeman's statement, Article III Groupie's research discloses that Justice Thomas is the proud owner and driver of a far more fabulous vehicle, a black Corvette ZR1 (as noted here, here, and here). Presumably Ms. Hydeman's reference to a Saturn was a rhetorical flourish intended to underscore how down-to-earth Justice Thomas is (or maybe CT rented a Saturn for his visit to KU). Unfortunately, her statement could very easily be misinterpreted, which is why A3G feels compelled to clarify matters. (If A3G is incorrect, and Justice Thomas has traded in his magnificent ZR1 for a Saturn, please let her know. And if you have any other tidbits about Justice Thomas and his Corvette, please send them to A3G for inclusion in The Wheels of Justice.)

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

Of course, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Two recent posts on UTR were not as complete as they could have been, and A3G would like to set matters straight. For filing under Amended Opinions, A3G directs your attention to two excellent posts on other blogs that supplement these incomplete UTR posts:

--Stuart Buck, of The Buck Stops Here, offers additional commentary on liberal judicial diva Susan J. Dlott (S.D. Ohio) in this post (scroll down for hilarious discussion of Judge Dlott's canine obsession); and

--this post over at the Bertrand Russell Blogspot points out that A3G's correspondent, Southern Diva of New York, "missed the most fabulous element of Judge Loretta Preska's outfit": the judge's fabulous, bright red high heels!

Speaking of pumps,* it's time for Article III Groupie to take off her own and put her tired feet up on the couch. She is completely beat! She blames her fatigue for the fairly dry tone of this overlong post, but she promises to make it up to you in the days ahead. Lots of UTR goodies are on the way, including the latest installment of "Courthouse Forum," featuring sizzling new judicial (and judicial spousal) correspondence. And tomorrow morning, A3G will unveil the "Questions Presented" interview of Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw. If you enjoy Judge Wardlaw's wise and witty responses half as much as A3G did, you'll love 'em!

Happy Halloween!

Trick or treat, smell her feet, give her judicial gossip to eat,

Article III Groupie

*A3G is referring to rhetorical pumps; even she doesn't wear heels on the weekend (unless she has a special event to attend that requires them).

P.S. Thanks to How Appealing for the links in item 6 and item 7--and belated birthday wishes to Howard Bashman!

In Camera: Fabulous Photographs of Article III Stars!

Recently Article III Groupie received the following e-mail from a reader:

You tend to write about the same small group of judges over, and over, and over. How about casting your net a bit wider? There are so many judges about whom I'd like to learn. Mad props otherwise, Devoted Fan

Now, in A3G's defense, Devoted Fan's observation is not completely accurate. Several of the judges that A3G has written about this month--such as Judge Sotomayor, Judge Preska, Judge Dlott, and Judge Sprizzo--are new to the pages of this web log. In the wake of Grutter v. Bollinger, A3G grudgingly acknowledges diversity as a compelling state interest, and she does aim for a good mix of judges--from different courts, parts of the country, and personal backgrounds--in the pages of her blawg.

It cannot be denied, however, that there is some truth to this criticism. Article III Groupie has two responses. First, please don't forget how much A3G depends on her readers for information. The fact that she may write more about some judges and courts than others largely reflects that some UTR readers are much more diligent than others about writing her with tidbits. Second, not all federal judicial celebrities are created equal. Can A3G be faulted for spilling much ink over Article III boldface names like Judge Posner and Judge Kozinski, while neglecting district court judges in [insert obscure judicial district here]?

As noted in UTR's mission statement, Underneath Their Robes is like People or US Weekly, but for the federal judiciary. Would anyone ever write in to People or US Weekly to complain that they spend too much time on the likes of Julia and Jude, and not enough time on Wallace Shawn and Lupe Ontiveros? With all due respect to Mr. Shawn and Ms. Ontiveros, both of whom A3G deeply admires as actors, clearly the answer is no.

This train of thought got A3G thinking about why she enjoys pop culture and celebrity gossip rags like People, US Weekly, and In Touch. Sure, she does enjoy their insightful and well-written articles--just like many men read Playboy "for the articles."* But please, we're among friends, so let's dispense with pretense. What's the main attraction of such publications? It's the pictures, stupid! The celebrity photos that appear in such magazines tend to divide into a delicious dichotomy: dazzling or disastrous. Whether these pics show stars at their best or their worst, A3G loves them all.

On the subject of photographs, Article III Groupie recommends to her readers the remarkable 32-page portfolio by the great Richard Avedon that appears in the current issue of the New Yorker. Entitled "Democracy," the portfolio consists of Avedon's portraits of Americans, both famous and not-so-famous, in the weeks leading up to the election. Avedon passed away earlier this year, as did two other great photographers, Henri Cartier-Bresson and Helmut Newton (who took this awesome photograph of Judge Kozinski). The elegant, beautiful, soulful photographs taken by these masters of the medium differ greatly from the guilty pleasures of supermarket tabloid celebrity pics, but A3G loves them just as much.

And so, with the delights of both high and low photography in mind, A3G announces the newest feature of Underneath Their Robes: In Camera: Fabulous Photographs of Article III Stars! "In Camera" will offer UTR readers exclusive pictures, both artistic and trashy, of the federal judges that we all admire and adore.

Now, where will Article III Groupie get these photographs? In an ideal world, she would take them herself. She would just love to conduct a shoot with photogenic judicial celebrities like the highly respected Judge David M. Ebel (10th Cir.), who is a member of the Elect (he clerked for Justice White); the brilliant and larger-than-life Judge Edward R. Becker (3d Cir.), one of Article III's most colorful characters, who enjoys spirited legal discussion with his clerks over Chinese food; or Kerry Supreme Court short-lister Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, who has been known to mandamus her husband when he forgets to take out the garbage. A3G is not saying these judges are necessarily judicial hotties (although Judge Motz is assuredly attractive); she just thinks they have a lot of character, which makes them great subjects for portraiture.

Article III Groupie can picture the photo shoot now. Imagine a large studio in an airy loft. Swimming in the spotlight, judicial robe in full billow thanks to an industrial fan, Judge Ebel or Becker or Motz is vamping up a storm for A3G. The judge changes poses and facial expressions with the chameleon-like ease of Linda Evangelista; A3G is furiously snapping photographs in rapid succession, while simultaneously offering direction to her model: "Judge, let me see fierce. Fierce! Yes, just like that, fierce, fierce. Great, great stuff. Okay, now I'm looking for sultry, Your Honor. Sultry, sultry. Yes, perfect, that's it! Show me some love, Judge! Work it, work it!"

Unfortunately, for various reasons, the above scenario is not possible (although there is precedent for federal judicial photo shoots; in addition to Judge Kozinski and Helmut Newton, liberal judicial diva Susan Dlott has been photographed by Annie Leibowitz, as noted here and here). Accordingly, the success of "In Camera" will have to depend upon you, the readers of UTR. And so A3G hereby issues a UTR Discovery Request: Please submit federal judicial photographs for possible publication by e-mail. (Thank God for the rise of digital cameras! A request for such photos made just a few years ago would have yielded a fraction of what A3G hopes to obtain from her readers today.)

The "In Camera" submission guidelines are as follows:

1. Submissions should be exclusive, i.e., photos not available anywhere else. Please do not download pictures available elsewhere on the internet and send them to A3G (which she is perfectly capable of doing herself).

2. Feel free to crop or otherwise alter pictures for appropriate purposes. What is an "appropriate purpose" for A3G? Well, like Justice Stewart, she knows it when she sees it. Cropping a picture to remove people who are not fabulous federal judges is perfectly acceptable; pasting federal judicial faces on to naked bodies may be more problematic.

3. Feel free to submit information about the circumstances surrounding the taking of the photo and/or a suggested caption or captions (which A3G may or may not use).

4. By submitting a photograph, you are granting A3G permission to do with it as she will. Possible purposes to which pictures might be put include, but are not limited to, publication in "In Camera"; suitable deployment in another, non-"In Camera" post; and keeping A3G company in her bubble bath, as she relieves the stress of a long day...

To start things off, A3G offers you this photograph of Judge Kozinski, entitled "IMMOOSE." A picture is worth a thousand words, so no commentary is necessary (and the title pretty much says it all anyway). Enjoy!

Ready to make love to the camera,

Article III Groupie

*Speaking of Playboy, did A3G forget to mention that Judge Kimba Wood (S.D.N.Y.)--the #1 Female Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary--was once a Playboy bunny? Oh, and with Election Day just a few days away, John Kerry has asked me to remind you: MARY CHENEY IS A LESBIAN!!!

UTR's Latest Dating Contest: Supreme Bachelors and Bachelorettes!

Back in June, before many of you had even heard of UTR, Article III Groupie issued this post, Win a Date With One of the Elect! The "Win a Date" contest called upon Supreme Court clerks to volunteer themselves up to be auctioned off for dates. Even though the contest was designed to raise money for a good cause, the Supreme Court Historical Society, the members of the Elect refused to come out and play (perhaps out of modesty, selfishness, a desire to maintain their privacy, or some combination of these factors).

When no one volunteered, the contest died a quiet death (in contrast to UTR's successful Superhotties of the Federal Judiciary contest). This was disappointing to many, not just A3G. In correspondence with one crestfallen reader, A3G speculated that perhaps many Supreme Court clerks feared that participating in the "Win a Date" contest might somehow damage their judicial aspirations. This reader replied: "Silly members of the Elect. Don't they know dating games actually propel them toward judicial nominations? It's too bad there aren't any takers - I needed something to blow my summer associate salary on. I guess I will have to fill the void at Barney's!"

Summer has turned into fall, but Article III Groupie knows that the public still lusts after single Supreme Court clerks. Indeed, she was recently reminded of this when a web surfer was brought to UTR by running this MSN search: orin kerr professor cute. So here she goes again, with a second attempt to unearth the legal profession's most eligible men and women. Welcome to Supreme Bachelors and Bachelorettes!

A3G may not be one of the Anointed, but she can still be executed consistent with Atkins v. Virginia. And she has learned, from American history--which some claim could repeat itself--about what to do when your call for volunteers goes unanswered. The solution: You institute a draft!

Yes, you heard her correctly. No more Mrs. Nice Gal! This time, Supreme Court clerks will be dragged kicking and screaming into the pages of UTR; there will be no waiting for volunteers. This time you, the readers of UTR, will nominate the single Supreme Court clerks that you believe to be the most desirable among the Anointed. A3G will publish their profiles, whether they like it or not, and you will vote for the ones that you believe to be the brainiest and most beautiful. At the end of the process, one man and one woman will be left standing, and they will each receive a title that no one else in the world--not even another one of the Elect--can claim: Supreme Bachelor and Supreme Bachelorette!

First, a few words on eligibility. By "single," A3G is referring to the truly unattached (not just the unmarried). If the prospective nominee is casually dating someone, that's fine; but if the prospective nominee is engaged, or in a serious long-term relationship (e.g., "engaged to be engaged"), they are not eligible. By "Supreme Court clerks," A3G is referring to Supreme Court clerks of the past, present, and future, without any age limit. (Please note A3G's careful avoidance of the term "former Supreme Court clerk," which she finds most objectionable. As A3G explained back in this post, "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.")

Okay, now that we've cleared up eligibility, let's discuss the contents of a nomination package. You may nominate as many people as you like--your friends, enemies, colleagues, law school professors--as long as they meet the eligibility requirements. Pursuant to UTR's standard e-mail policy--which provides that anything e-mailed to A3G is fair game for publication in UTR, but without attribution to the correspondent, unless the correspondent consents--the identities of all nominators will be maintained in confidence.

Please provide, by e-mail, the following information for each nominee:

(1) name
(2) age
(3) height (estimates okay)
(4) weight (estimates okay)
(5) eye color
(6) hair color
(7) educational history
(8) employment history
(9) nomination blurb (250 words or less on why your member of the Elect is delectable)
(10) a digital photograph (REQUIRED; entrants without pictures will not be considered)

Items (7) and (8) are essential to Article III Groupie, who is an incorrigible credentials slut and prestige whore. This is, after all, the bizarro world of UTR, where "a cute butt is sexy, but a Bristow Fellowship is sexier," and "the judicial power of the United States is the ultimate aphrodisiac."

Article III Groupie will collect and publish the entries that she receives. She will then allow her readers to vote for the most eligible male and female contestants, with the male winner and female winner crowned, respectively, as the "Supreme Bachelor" and "Supreme Bachelorette." And what will happen to the winners? Well, if they don't rush off and marry each other--as Supreme Court clerks are wont to do--they will hopefully agree to auction themselves off for dates with UTR readers, with auction proceeds going to the Supreme Court Historical Society. (A3G is confident that she will be able to obtain their cooperation. She believes that once the Supreme Bachelor and Supreme Bachelorette have been selected and identified, they will find themselves under considerable public pressure to be good sports and to donate their time for a worthy cause.)

Okay, that's all for now. Additional contest details, including nomination and voting deadlines, will be announced once A3G has a better sense of the interest level and number of nominations. To submit a nomination, or to request more information, please contact A3G by e-mail. She can't wait to see how this contest turns out!

Eagerly anticipating Elect-ion returns,

Article III Groupie

UTR News and Views: One First Street Edition

So much news, so little time! Today's news report will focus exclusively on goings-on over at One First Street, but even with that limitation, there's still too much to cover.

Where shall we begin? Well, let's start with the bad news.

1. Chief Justice Rehnquist hospitalized. As everyone knows by now, Chief Justice Rehnquist has been hospitalized since last Friday for thyroid cancer treatment, which included a tracheotomy over the weekend. For news coverage, collected by the indefatigable Mr. Bashman, click here and here.

This distressing news came as quite a shock to Article III Groupie, seeing as nothing in the Chief's horoscope for this month suggested medical problems. Chief Justice Rehnquist is in the thoughts and prayers of A3G, and she joins her colleagues throughout the blogosphere in wishing WHR a speedy recovery.

A3G's heart also goes out to a very special circuit judge, as well as to Michael Passaportis and his WHR co-clerks for OT 2005. She can't imagine what they must be feeling right now. If A3G landed a Supreme Court clerkship, and then her justice was hospitalized with serious illness before she started her clerkship, you can be certain that she would be maintaining a bedside vigil for her future boss, a defibrillator panel in each hand. "CLEAR!"

2. Supreme Court speculation. Chief Justice Rehnquist's latest health problems will only increase the Supreme Court speculation that has reached a fever pitch in the past few weeks. Indeed, as Linda Greenhouse reports here, "Liberal groups said they hoped to use the Rehnquist news to prod uncommitted voters to choose Senator John Kerry," with last-minute e-mail campaigns capitalizing on this unfortunate development already in the works.

Is A3G the only one who thinks this is in extremely poor taste? She has a feeling that her friends over at Nomination Nation, who have declared their intention to "temporarily abstain from discussing who might fill the potential vacancy with the hopes that the Chief mades a swift recovery," would agree.

Since the issue of Supreme Court succession is already on the table (and was even before the unfortunate news about the Chief), A3G will comment, albeit briefly. News articles about possible nominees in Bush and Kerry administrations abound--visit How Appealing for the latest links, or check out this article by Dahlia Lithwick. After reviewing some of the various short lists floating around, A3G had this reaction: Both sides have a surfeit of excellent candidates. The real issue is: How can one choose between the short-listers, especially candidates with similar appeal? Here are some suggestions for how to choose between pairs of comparable candidates:

(a) Judge Sonia Sotomayor (2d Cir.) versus Judge Sandra Lynch (1st Cir.). If John Kerry wins the election and wants to appoint a woman to the Court, these two judges are leading candidates. In terms of a method for choosing between them, the answer is so obvious as to be cliched: mud wrestling!

Judge Lynch, the "five minutes ago" judicial diva of Robing Room Report, is no pushover. But Judge Sotomayor, who made it all the way from the mean streets of the Bronx projects to the hallowed halls of 500 Pearl Street, is much tougher than A3G originally reported. If she were a betting gal, A3G would say the odds are three-to-one in favor of "Sonia from the Block" making the "Yankee Ice Princess" eat a mouthful of wet soil.

(b) Judge Alberto Gonzales (White House Counsel) versus Judge Emilio Garza (5th Cir.). If President Bush wants to appoint the first Latino justice, he will probably be choosing between these two jueces. Just as they did with the kid from Tegucigalpa, Hispanic interest groups will criticize the Hispanic "inauthenticity" (i.e., conservativism) of either candidate.

So why not hold a Latino-themed cooking competition, a la Iron Chef, to determine which judge is most in touch with his Hispanic heritage? Today's ingredients: frijoles and Tostitos. ¡Ole!

(c) Judge J. Michael Luttig (4th Cir.) versus Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson (4th Cir.). If President Bush wants to please the conservative wing of the Republican Party, he can nominate one of these two men. Both are conservative, white male jurists from the Fourth Circuit. Neither adds to the diversity of the Court, so choosing between them is largely about competence.

Some scholars have analyzed judicial competence by asking, "Who would win a tournament of judges?" A3G says, "Good idea!" If liberals criticize the Fourth Circuit for dispensing "medieval justice," then why not pick between Luttig and Wilkinson by having them do battle in a jousting tournament! (Their clerks can serve as their squires, helping them into their armor and handing up their lances.)

3. Underneath Their Robes--ICK! As reported here and here, retail giant Wal-Mart canceled its order for America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction, by Jon Stewart and the writers of the Daily Show, after learning "there were naked Supreme Court judges lurking inside."

(Oops, sorry to get your hopes up! The book does not contain actual photographs of the Naked Nine. A more precise formulation, used in the CNN piece, would be: Wal-Mart canceled its order for the book "after executives learned that it contained a photo of nine naked, aged bodies, each with the superimposed head of a Supreme Court justice.")

Hmm, what is there to be said? Guess it just goes to show that some people can't handle what lies beneath the robes... (A3G thanks Dylan of The Slithery D for bringing this to her attention.)

4. The Rock Star of One First Street. A3G previously noted how much Justice Scalia is like a rock star--and this was before he got into a squabble with a paparazzo...

5. Justice Breyer, A3G's Favorite Liberal Justice. Of the four justices in the Court's liberal wing, Justice Breyer is the most independent-minded. (Some of you are thinking, "What about Justice Stevens?" But A3G said "independent-minded," not "loopy.") Not a political hack, Justice Breyer votes with the conservatives when he believes they have the better of the argument. And he should be commended for his intellectual honesty, as demonstrated by his very interesting recent comments questioning his own ability to be impartial back when he voted in Bush v. Gore.

Juan Non-Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy nicely paraphrased Justice Breyer's remarks as, "Justices are people too"--and that, dear friends, is what UTR is all about.

A Person Too,

Article III Groupie

Amended Opinions: A Correction from Judge Posner!

Yes, dear readers, it's about that time--time for more Amended Opinions: UTR Corrections and Clarifications. Article III Groupie's latest mistake is highly regrettable, but there is a silver lining to this cloud of error: today's correction flows from further federal judicial celebrity correspondence with A3G.

A few days ago, in this post, A3G discussed the recent visit of that Article III supernova, Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit, to the law and economics workshop at Harvard Law School. Her post relied in large part upon the reporting of her blogosphere buddy Waddling Thunder, who provided this account of the event (which came to her attention via How Appealing).

Yesterday A3G received the following e-mail, which she reprints with the permission of its author:

To: Article III Groupie

Subject: Plagiarism

From: Richard Posner [e-mail address omitted]

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:55:29 -0500

Dear Ms. Groupie, I believe the Harvard student misquoted me on the subject of plagiarism. What I recall saying at the Harvard law and economics workshop is the following, which was intended to be tongue in cheek, and not at all stinging:

"My paper meanders, but at least I wrote it myself. And while naturally I have not acknowledged my predecessors generously, neither have I made a wholesale appropriation of someone else's ideas. But while on the topic of not acknowledging predecessors generously, I have to say that although I cited Professor [Steven] Shavell's article on contract interpretation, I did not acknowledge the importance of the article in stimulating my own desire to explore the economics of contractual interpretation." (Professor Shavell is a good friend of mine and one of the two professors who run the Harvard law and economics workshop.)

This probably is not absolutely word for word what I said, because I was extemporizing, but unless I am much mistaken it is very close to what I actually said. I wish the bloggers (including you, Ms. Groupie) had checked with me before publishing the (alleged) quotation.

Not that it is a matter of any consequence.

Very truly yours, Richard A. Posner

Article III Groupie deeply regrets the error, and she thanks Judge Posner for bringing it to her attention. She apologizes to Judge Posner for the misquotation, and she hereby issues an official "Amended Opinions" correction (which she will append as an update to the original post).

Reversed and remanded, for proceedings not inconsistent with Judge Posner's e-mail,

Article III Groupie

Justice Is Blind: Matters of Taste

Article III Groupie is embarrassed to see that almost a month has passed since the last edition of Justice Is Blind. So here is the latest crop of federal judicial blind items for your consideration:

1. The Hallways of Justice. This district court diva, who harbors delusions of grandeur, placed large stonework lions on either side of the door to her chambers. Her neighbor down the hall, an appeals court judge, found the lions absolutely ridiculous (and ugly to boot). Shortly thereafter, he placed two hideous, plastic pink flamingos flanking the entrance to his own chambers.

The district court diva took the hint. She removed her leonine decorations sua sponte, without waiting for the mandate to issue from the appellate court...

2. Law Suits: Pants v. Skirts. This blind and rather elderly judge, who has somewhat old-fashioned ideas about proper courtroom attire, vehemently believes it is improper for women lawyers to wear pantsuits. He has instructed his clerks to let him know when female attorneys are appearing before him in pantsuits, so he can reprimand them for their inappropriate dress.

A3G's initial, admittedly non-PC reaction, was: "What does he care--he's blind!" Upon further reflection, however, she came to the conclusion that he is just as entitled as any other judge to enforce his views concerning courtroom dress codes. (Perhaps the very thought of a woman in a pantsuit crossing the threshold of his courtroom causes him psychological injury.)

And now, a digression. Article III Groupie believes that pantsuits are entirely proper business attire for women, and she is glad she can wear them--dealing with hose can be a major pain! At the same time, however, A3G is probably more partial to skirt suits than the average woman of her age; skirt suits compose a relatively high percentage of A3G's wardrobe.

To be sure, pantsuits are much more comfortable and convenient than skirt suits. They're great to wear for an ordinary day at the office. But for major events, such as depositions or court appearances, A3G brings out the sartorial big guns. In her view, few figures within the world of litigation are more fearsome than a litigatrix clad in the full body armor of a well-tailored skirt suit.

When A3G enters a deposition room wearing her dark blue, Chanel-inspired skirt suit,* she feels like she owns the place. The other lawyers in the room may be tall, white male partners, ten or twenty years her senior, who earn hundreds of thousands more than she does. But when A3G strides into that room, her skirt suit revealing gym-toned calves shimmering beneath pale stockings, she thinks to herself: "Eat your hearts out, boys. You ain't got nothing on me!"

3. Somebody Needs His Meds... This East Coast trial judge has major mood swings and fickle tastes in draftsmanship. One day he complimented his law clerk for preparing an "excellent" facts section for an opinion. A few days later, the judge physically threw the same pages of the opinion at his clerk, calling him "psychologically inept" (whatever that means), and yelling, "How would you like to have your name attached to this piece of [expletive omitted]?" Later that day, the judge announced a lunchtime outing for the chambers staff. But assuming the role of Wicked Judicial Stepmother, he pointedly told Cinderella Clerk, "You should probably stay behind, so you can work on that opinion..."

On another occasion, Judge and Clerk had an exchange along the following lines:

"I don't like the two-part test in this section of the opinion. Get rid of it," said Judge.

"Judge, it's the test set forth by the Supreme Court," Clerk replied. "And the Second Circuit applied this test in [X v. Y]."

"Oooh, the Second Circuit... And who wrote that opinion?"

"Judge [so-and-so]."

"What does he know? He's never practiced a day in his life!"

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

Thanks to the contributors of these blind items from the undersigned--who has practiced law for far too many days, and billed far too many hours, in her life...

Further affiant sayeth not,

Article III Groupie

*No, it's not an actual Chanel suit (neither vintage nor Karl Lagerfeld). But, despite its lack of a marquee designer's name, it's A3G's favorite suit. It just looks great on her, better than many other suits of hers with fancier labels.

Judicial SIGHT-ations: Federal Judges Busting Out All Over!

With an insouciant swish of their robes, after leaving their law clerks with the babysitter, federal judges around the country have flown their judicial coops! As a result, Article III Groupie has a veritable cornucopia of "Judicial SIGHT-ations" to share with her readers. Here they are:

1. The Court That Prays Together, Stays Together. A D.C.-based reader reports:

I was at the annual Red Mass (held for those in the law profession) [a few] Sundays ago at St. Matthew’s Cathedral in D.C. and spotted all three Roman Catholic justices of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, all three justices sped off before anyone could attempt to say hello. One thing I noted was the order in which they left – Scalia, Kennedy, and then Thomas. Do they obey seniority even in public situations, or was it pure coincidence? I was at the mass the previous year and the Chief Justice happened to be there as well (although he is not Catholic) as well as Scalia. Rehnquist left first last year, so I have to wonder if this is not a coincidence. Incidentally, Rehnquist walked off chatting away with Cardinal McCarrick – a scene I am sure that would have sent chills down Barry Lynn’s spine (Americans United for Separation of Church and State).

Article III Groupie says: Thank heaven for little girls--and Supreme Court justices! No saint herself, A3G is grateful for her religious reader's report. She also has a question for her Catholic readers: there are several patron saints for lawyers; is there a patron saint for gossip columnists?

2. Go West, Not-So-Young Man. A correspondent in Sacramento writes:

Justice Kennedy [pictured at right] returned to his hometown of Sacramento this past Saturday to attend the 80th anniversary of McGeorge School of Law, where he has taught for almost 40 years. He was a fabulous Con Law professor.

A3G hopes that AMK enjoyed his time soaking up the California sun, and she wonders: Did he return to Washington with tan lines underneath his robe?

3. Federal Judicial Hotsteppers Hoof It to Harvard. Waddling Thunder, of his eponymous blog and of Crescat Sententia, offers this account of two Article III celebrities returning to their alma mater, Harvard Law School:

My law and economics seminar had the pleasure to hear [Seventh Circuit] Judge Richard Posner present his paper on tools of contract interpretation today. I'm not sure that the discussion between the famous judge, some of the attending professors, and the eminent Judge Michael Boudin of the First Circuit changed my opinion of Posner's paper, but the appellate judiciary's most prolific writer did manage to get off one particularly stinging line - pointing absently to an outline of his piece on the projector, Posner noted (I paraphrase), "my paper meanders a bit, but I will say that it's not plagiarized." I'm pretty sure everyone here got his point.

[Update from A3G: The foregoing account is the subject of a UTR correction; please click here and here.]

My goodness! A3G is surprised that Pound Hall didn't burst into flames from this agglomeration of federal judicial superstars! The combined brainpower of Judge Posner and Judge Boudin could have ripped Gannett House out of the ground and tossed it across Mass. Ave.; the sheer feeding power in that classroom could have solved many an African famine.

This was not the first time that Judge Posner and Judge Boudin have been at the Law School at the same time. Back in the 1960s, well before they were stars, they overlapped at HLS: Judge Posner graduated in 1962, and Judge Boudin graduated two years later, in 1964. They later joined the ranks of the Anointed. Judge Posner headed straight into a clerkship with Justice Brennan (OT 1962), while Judge Boudin went on to clerk for Justice Harlan (OT 1965), after a stint with the legendary Second Circuit Judge Henry J. Friendly (1964-65). (Other former Friendly's employees who are now federal judges include Judge Pierre N. Leval (1963-64), Judge A. Raymond Randolph (1969-70), Judge William Curtis Bryson (1973-74), and Judge John Roberts (1979-80).)

Today Judge Posner is most closely associated with the University of Chicago Law School, where he was on the faculty for many years (and where he still teaches, and occasionally forgets to return library books that his research assistants have borrowed on his behalf). Judge Boudin's allegiance to Harvard Law School remains undivided; his ties to HLS have stayed strong over the decades. Judge Boudin taught at the Law School part-time for many years, while still practicing law (and later serving as a district judge) in Washington, and he is married to HLS Professor Martha A. Field. Judge Boudin and Professor Field live in Cambridge, within walking distance of the Law School (although it's a long-ish walk).

4. Judgz N the Hood. From the fragrant metropolis of Newark, New Jersey, comes the following dispatch:

Hello from "the 'hood," i.e., Newark, NJ. I just came back from picking up lunch, after dodging bullets (okay, panhandlers) on Broad Street. While I was out and about, I spotted a judicial celebrity of the first order: Judge Michael Chertoff of the Third Circuit, former AAG for the DOJ Criminal Division (and a member of the Elect, having clerked for Brennan). Judge Chertoff [pictured at left] has been colorfully described by one leftist commentator as "Ashcroft's Top Gremlin" and "a scary looking guy if ever there was one" [click here], but I didn't find him scary-looking; intense-looking, sure, but not "scary." He's lanky and lean, with a thin, elegant silver beard. He was walking with another tall but much younger fellow, presumably one of his law clerks.

Today Judge Chertoff's overall look was "ghetto-fabulous." The "fabulous" part was this beautiful, very expensive-looking car coat, in a rich, chocolate brown wool. (If I had to guess, I'd say Zegna.) And the "ghetto" part? His Honor was carrying his own take-out lunch, in a white plastic bag with an enormous yellow smiley face on it. Quelle horror!

This is scandalously beneath the dignity of the Article III judiciary. How can I ever appear before Judge Chertoff, having seen him like this? Even a "brown bag" lunch would have been so much better than A YELLOW SMILEY FACE PLASTIC BAG. This is as traumatic as seeing my parents naked. I'm going to need therapy to get over this...

A3G agrees that this is pretty horrifying. She must also chide Judge Chertoff's law clerk for not going out to pick up the boss's lunch for him (or, if Judge Chertoff insisted on coming along for the walk, not carrying the judicial lunch on the way back to chambers). What good is a law clerk who can't fetch the Article III wittles?

5. Should Friends of Judge Wardlaw Be Allowed to Get Married? A UTR fan in the Big Apple provides this delightful account of a star-studded Federalist Society event, "Same-Sex Marriage: Who Decides?":

Last week I went to a debate on gay marriage sponsored by the New York chapter of the vast right-wing conspiracy. The debate was nominally about who should decide the issue (e.g., courts vs. legislatures), but it included significant discussion of the underlying merits. It was a pretty lopsided affair: Professor William N. Eskridge of Yale Law School trounced Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst College.

The most entertaining part of the evening, in a Jerry Springer-ish sort of way, was Professor Arkes's shockingly rude treatment of the moderator, Judge Loretta Preska (S.D.N.Y.). When Judge Preska gently tried to get the meandering Professor Arkes back on topic, he bristled. With barely suppressed anger, he said, teeth clenched, "I would appreciate the courtesy of being allowed to finish my remarks." He later referred to Judge Preska, in a very snide tone, as "the so-called moderator" and "the immoderate moderator."

Not surprisingly, the audience was aghast. Even sans robe, a federal judge is still a federal judge! And federal judges bench-slap mere mortals--not the other way around! (One dime store psychological theory: the diminutive and frumpy Professor Arkes felt threatened and emasculated by the much taller, highly attractive Judge Preska.)

For UTR purposes, I'm writing with several "Judicial SIGHT-ations" from the evening. Several federal judicial celebrities attended this event; here are my notes on their appearance, including style ratings on a 10-point scale:

1. Judge Loretta A. Preska (S.D.N.Y.). In a word: magnificent. Tall, thin, elegant. Great bone structure, perfectly coiffed silver hair. Note to self: nominate for superhotties contest next year? Fabulous dark blue suit. Who designed? Dramatic, extra-long jacket, white-trimmed lapels; tapers down towards clasp, then flares out again--gorgeous cut. Nice accessories: big gold eagle pin, ladies-who-lunch pearl necklace, matching earrings. Delivers intro like newscaster, smooth as butter. Gestures grandly with long fingers; flawless manicure. WOW! Judicial style score: 9.5.

2. Judge Dennis G. Jacobs (2d Cir.). Not exactly a hottie. Could probably afford to lose some pounds, gain some hair. But pleasantly WASP-y bearing: dignified, genial. Wardrobe not L'Uomo Vogue, but gets props for clear, consistent theme: PREPPY. Captain's blazer (navy blue w/gold buttons), khaki pants, yellow button-down shirt, hunter green emblematic necktie with gold pig print. (Tie is from J. Press, A3G--here's the link.) Judicial style score: 7.0. [Ed. note: A3G has invited herself over to Judge Jacobs's splendid prewar co-op, on New York's exclusive Fifth Avenue, which she will visit in a future installment of UTR Cribs.]

3. Judge John E. Sprizzo (S.D.N.Y.). Somebody call FEMA--federal judicial style DISASTER! Morbidly obese. Hideous, thick-framed black eyeglasses--plastic? Balding, with remaining hair "sprizz"-ing out in all directions. Judicial pay not partner money, but NO EXCUSE for ugly grey jacket from Salvation Army. All in all, hopeless case, beyond makeover--could not be saved even by Fab FIFTY. Worse than Ruthie! Judicial style score: 2.5.

I later learned that two other federal judges--Judge Richard Owen (S.D.N.Y.) and Judge Samuel Conti (N.D. Cal.)--attended the event. Unfortunately, I didn't get to scrutinize them that night.

Also on the scene: right-wing uber-blogger James Taranto of Best of the Web Today, who can be very funny sometimes (even though his conservative politics--like yours, A3G--are pretty f***ed up). Taranto was actually looking kinda cute--although more time out in the sun, or maybe on a treadmill, wouldn't hurt him.

Yours,

Southern Diva of New York

A3G thanks "S.D.N.Y." and all of her other correspondents around the country for these wonderful Article III celebrity sightings. Please keep them coming!

Blinded by the light of federal judicial superstars,

Article III Groupie

Judicial Birthday Watch: Birthday Baci for Guido!

Article III Groupie is a day late (and more than a few dollars short). But she can't miss this opportunity to bestow birthday baci upon Judge Guido Calabresi (a.k.a. "Guido") of the Second Circuit. This past Monday, October 18, Guido turned 72. Happy Birthday, Guido!

Last week, a reader in New Haven provided A3G with this report concerning the birthday festivities for Guido planned by students in his torts class at Yale Law School:

The 51 1Ls who comprise Guido's Torts class at YLS will throw a surprise birthday party for him this Monday morning. The plan, thus far, is as follows: We walk into class, and for the first 15 or 20 minutes or so, no one will say a word. Then, one of Guido's favorite 1Ls will raise his hand to answer a question. He will answer semi-coherently. When Guido, who is having hearing problems, walks over to hear him better (as he always does), the student will yell: "That reminds me of a song I used to sing when I was little... every year... on my birthday." At this point the whole class will burst into Happy Birthday - IN ITALIAN! People will bust out their party hats and noisemakers, and enjoy Italian pastries and gelato.

Yesterday all went according to plan, according to UTR's correspondent:

A student from Utah raised in hand in class and began the birthday tune in Italian. We had fresh gelato from an Italian pastry shop in Wooster Square, fresh Italian cheesecake, a birthday cake made especially for Guido by one student's young child, and five dozen Dunkin' Donuts. The 90-minute lecture turned into story time (which happens often), and Guido recalled a lot of personal and family stories, which I don't think I am at liberty to share.

During "story time," Guido touched on what this reader referred to as "the Justice Thomas portrait affair" (which you can read about in this article from the Washington Post, part of a fascinating two-day series about Justice Thomas that A3G recommends most highly; the various articles have been collected here and here by How Appealing). According to the Post piece, Justice Thomas, class of 1974, refused to allow a portrait of him to be hung in the Yale Law School library--where portraits of five past justices who graduated from or taught at Yale can be found--in "silent protest against what he still considers Yale's failure to back him against Anita Hill, a Yale alumna, during his bitter 1991 confirmation hearings."

Birthday boy Guido, however, shared this comment with his students: "I am not so sure Thomas has any say in whether we put up his portrait." As explained by UTR's correspondent, "it's more of a money issue. Presidents, Justices, and Chief Circuit Judges have automatic permission" to have their portraits hung in the library, but the school does not pay to commission their portraits (in contrast to the portraits of YLS deans, which the school does pay for). Thus, per UTR's source, whether Justice Thomas's portrait ends up in the YLS library "is up to Thomas only in that if he wants it, he can make arrangements to fund it. If the school finds some other way to fund it, then Thomas has NO say. [Even if Thomas] doesn't [want his portrait hung], but someone else funds it, then Thomas has no say."

In addition, this same correspondent reports that this past Sunday, Guido hosted his class at "Guido Farm," his 140-acre country estate. The sprawling acreage appears to be the main attraction; the house itself is "modest, old, Italianesque." Guido served homemade lasagna and salad and took his young charges on a two-mile hike through the forest.

And now, a bit of backtracking. For those of you who don't recall, or who were not yet reading UTR at the time, A3G blogged in great detail about Guido back in this post, "Kiss Me, Guido." This post, one of UTR's most controversial, generated many responses from A3G's readers, including some rather critical ones. (The post certainly raised A3G's profile in the blogosphere, demonstrating the truth of the old adage, "The fastest way to become famous is to throw a brick at someone famous.")

A long time ago, A3G promised to address reader comments about "Kiss Me, Guido," but she never got around to it. So, with apologies for the delay, she will now discuss them briefly here.

First, many readers wanted to know, "Why Guido?" There was speculation that A3G had some axe to grind with Guido. Some suggested that she was a frustrated clerkship applicant to Guido, while others wondered whether she might be a Yalie who got a bad grade in his torts class.

A3G must emphasize that she has nothing against Guido personally. To be perfectly honest, her selection of Guido was politically motivated. She therefore pleads guilty as charged to the allegations in the following, rather colorful letter from a state court clerk:

Word up dog, or as you white people would say, greetings from a New York ghetto (i.e., the NY Court of Appeals). Yo, why are you trying to diss my man Guido? What's up with that? Don't make me open a can of wop [sic] ass on you. When it comes to that guy you consider your pimp whose last name I am not going to bother trying to spell, you pile on the bull. But when it comes to Guido, a liberal, you pee all over his brand new shoes, and then tell that it is not your urine, but water from the heavens. I think you deserve a b[enc]h-slap, but that's just me. After all, what else are groupies for anyway?

As A3G has previously confessed in these pages, she is conservative. Guido, of course, is the #1 liberal feeder judge, as well as an outspoken critic of President Bush, going so far as to compare the president to Mussolini and Hitler. Should it come as any surprise that A3G selected Guido as a target, um, topic for discussion? And should anyone be surprised by A3G's refusal to prepare comparable profiles for conservative jurists like Judge Alex Kozinski or Judge Frank Easterbrook, two subjects suggested by her readers as ripe for her scrutiny? (A3G would be especially reluctant to criticize Judge Kozinski. You don't bite the hand that feeds you!)

Second, some readers were troubled by the tone of "Kiss Me, Guido." These comments from a reader are representative:

I confess I was a little taken aback by the tone in some places. You were properly careful to temper your criticisms with statements of regard for the work of Professor Calabresi and Dean Calabresi, and rightly so. Still, at times your prose, normally delightfully snarky, had rather an acid taste to this tempered admirer of the Guido I knew (as dean, to be sure, not as Judge). But I suppose I am always free to set up my own Web site and write my own profile. And I did recognize the Guido I know in your Guido, every last quirk in place. (As far as I know, though, your theory -- facetious? -- about an unloved infant Guido later seeking praise from all is not founded. The behavior -- yes, certainly. But not the cause. Possibly his parents held out impossibly high standards? Well, armchair speculation.)

Shortly after she wrote "Kiss Me, Guido," A3G was feeling quite defensive about it, so she was not yet ready to process criticism. With the benefit of hindsight and the passage of time, she now admits to making some stylistic miscalulcations. A3G prides herself on calibrating her writerly tone with great precision, to produce a distinctive voice that is definitely irreverent, even "snarky," but not downright nasty. In rereading "Kiss Me, Guido," she sees that perhaps she may have crossed the line into nastiness in that post. (It should be noted, however, that some of the harshest comments about Guido appear in direct quotations from her readers.) And so she would now like to apologize, to her readers and to Guido, for her transgressions.

Finally, some readers suggested that "Kiss Me, Guido" was less about Guido and more about A3G, as well as too "heavy" or "deep" for an irreverent, ironic, and superficial blog like UTR. Consider this letter:

I have been highly entertained by your fresh, original blog. You manage to write with intelligence and wit, but within a relatively restrictive literary form--pop culture gossip rag--that usually displays neither attribute. I particularly loved the super hottie competition.

But my reaction to Guido's story was different. I found it very moving, but less with respect to Guido, than to you. Frankly, even within the context of your E! channel sensibility, I found the discussion a bit unseemly. Engaging in arm-chair psychoanalysis (though I suspect you are quite right) in a very personal criticism of his behavior seems to me to be quite different from the obviously tongue-in-cheek discussions of relative "hotness." I usually have a pretty high tolerance for edgy humor, but this seemed too personal, your qualifications and disclaimers notwithstanding. Perhaps I am becoming an uptight fuddy duddy in my dotage, I don't know. I llike the Buddhist saying: Generally, it is more important to be kind than it is to be right.

You seemed to acknowledge that the narrative -- your choice of what to say and how you said it -- expresses more about you than it does about him. Perhaps because I share and have not come to terms with some of feelings you express -- being among the great unwashed, as a lowly former 3d Circuit clerk, who left a top 5 Wall Street firm before partnership consideration, which was not a realistic possibility, and who since has more or less Daddy-tracked himself into professional underachievement. I wonder more about you than the judges you write about. You hint at some very fundamental questions about how one should live one's life, what goals one should set and how to choose those goals, how one should deal with disappointments, and whether being disappointed in the first instance is ever a useful reaction to life events.

Maybe that sort of self-expression belongs elsewhere -- you are, in effect, the Joan Rivers of the judicial red carpet, and no one expects her to segue from discussing Julianne Moore wearing Vera Wang to Susan Sontag on literary criticism.

Just some rambling thoughts from a loyal and appreciative reader.

A3G thanks the reader who sent her this very eloquent and thoughtful letter. She agrees that some of the discussion in "Kiss Me, Guido" is somewhat discordant with the typical contents of "Underneath Their Robes," and she will do her best going forward to maintain a tone that is as fun and frivolous as possible.

Before she abandons substance completely, however, A3G would like to leave you with some Reflections on Life, which she has been prompted to share by the series of profound questions raised near the end of her loyal reader's missive. Before doing so, she must issue a "Spoiler Alert": if you're in a good mood right now, stop reading here, before the depressive A3G ruins it for you.

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

Still here? Okay, you've asked for it--don't say she didn't warn you! In a nutshell, here's A3G's Philosophy of Life:

1. Some people are Important. Within the legal profession, the ranks of the Important include federal judges, Supreme Court clerks, and a handful of others who have, by dint of their professional achievement, managed to transcend their Great Unwashed status (e.g., Ted Olson, David Boies). The rest of us--including A3G--are Unimportant.

2. For the Important, Life is a never-ending parade of triumphs and joys. Victories follow one after the other, in rapid succession; everything they touch turns to gold; their paths are showered with rose petals.

3. For the Unimportant, including yours truly, Life is an entirely different affair. To be sure, the Unimportant can try to walk through the brick wall that separates them from the Important; we can try our best to become federal judges, or the next Olson or Boies. The chances of that happening, however, are exceedingly low.

4. And so, for the Unimportant, Life is the process of coming to terms with our own mediocrity. Life is what we call that intervening period of years--between youth, before the doors have closed in our faces, and death, the great and merciful equalizer--during which we struggle to make our peace with our own insignificance.

One of the best ways to achieve some measure of contentment is to create a false consciousness within yourself, by convincing yourself that because you have "subjective" importance, i.e., importance within a limited sphere--you're important to your spouse, or your kids, or your clients--you are therefore just as worthy a human being as people with objective or widespread importance, i.e., "the Important," capital "I." There is nothing wrong with this effort at self-brainwashing. Indeed, it is a dignified and noble response to the disappointments of life--certainly more dignified than airing your psychological dirty laundry in the blogosphere, which is what Article III Groupie does...

Not Listening to Her Prozac,

Article III Groupie

P.S. Yes, A3G realizes that people come to "Underneath Their Robes" seeking humor and entertainment, not gloomy musings. She believes, however, that comedy and suffering are profoundly and inextricably linked. She also hopes that these glimpses into her disordered mind are at least interesting or engrossing for her readers--admittedly in a somewhat lurid way, like a car accident that you can't stop staring at...

Searching Underneath the Robes: Federal Judicial Nudity

Here's the latest collection of interesting, unusual, or funny internet searches that have delivered web surfers to the pages of UTR. A3G has grouped the searches loosely under various headings.

1. "Paging Article III Groupie, paging Article III Groupie":

--strange hot women

--weird sexy women

--horny people who have made their own websites

2. Whatever floats your boat. As the searches below suggest, some people get turned on by the strangest and most surprising things--including, but not limited to, federal judicial nudity:

--nora manella nude

--colleen mcmahon nude

--martha stewart swimsuit photo [Sorry--if you're looking for that, click here.]

--katherine harris sexy ass

--Katherine Harris panties

--"catherine harris" [sic] florida nude photos

--sex and cocaine blog

--hot girls 16 and under for dates in michigan

--men wearing maxi pads

--male brazilian wax video

A3G must confess to deriving an inordinate amout of amusement from the fact that the very proper Judge Nora M. Manella (C.D. Cal.)--who quipped that UTR's Superhotties of the Federal Judiciary contest "makes me reconsider my support of the First Amendment"--has now been reduced to an internet sex object. In criticizing the SFJ contest, Judge Manella cited the aphorism that "Fools names' and fools' faces are often found in public places." Well, it looks like some people are hoping to find pictures of Judge Manella's judicial face--and much, much more--in a very public place, to wit, the internet!

Perhaps A3G is being too hard on Judge Manella for her hostility to the SFJ contest. One UTR reader offers this possible explanation for her reaction:

I have to say Nora Manella is #1 on your short list of hotties. Is she single? I do not think she has ever been married but her attitude towards your blog rating of her may indicate why she is still single. Good-looking women her age should just accept compliments. Perhaps she feels that if she acknowledges how she looks it may lessen her "other" qualifications. I am 10 years younger than her and would still consider her a top pick. Body, brains, sophistication, great looks (at 53!), money, good family, power . . . . what else could you want in a "Sugar Momma"?

In response to this reader's question, A3G's research indicates that Judge Manella is not married (but if this is incorrect, please let her know).

3. Say What? These rather bizarre searches made A3G do a double-take and ask, "Whatchoo talkin' bout, Willis?"

--statutory hotties

--Judge Berzon conservative

--Duck hunting pornography

--see through robes [Hmm... Does Alexandra Kerry (see right) plan to abandon filmmaking for a career in judicial robe design?]

--"Harvard Law School" "hot women"

Talk about looking for love in all the wrong places! Lest there be any confusion on this score, Legally Blonde was not a documentary.

Speaking of Harvard Law School hotties, based on the two searches below, some UTR readers appear to be quite curious about the marital status of HLS Dean Elena Kagan. (With all due respect, Dean Kagan does not strike A3G as a hottie. But UTR's readers have disagreed with A3G in the past--see, e.g., Souter-gate.)

--elena kagan marriage

--elena kagan husband

4. Stalkers of The Easy Rider. It appears that A3G isn't the only one with a keen interest in the personal life of Judge Kozinski. Consider these searches that directed internet traffic to "Underneath Their Robes":

--alex kozinski homosexual

--Alex Kozinski's accent

--alex kozinski girlfriend

For the record, Judge Kozinski is a friend of Judge Wardlaw, but not a "friend of Judge Wardlaw." He is also, to the disappointment of women everywhere (including yours truly), not on the singles market. Judge Kozinski has been happily married for many years to lawyer Marcy J.K. Tiffany (who is, incidentally, also an avid reader of UTR). As noted here, they have three sons: Yale, Wyatt, and Clayton.

5. Eduardo Penalver. Ever since the Vanity Fair piece on Bush v. Gore was published (click here for UTR's take on the piece), numerous people have been reaching UTR by Googling Eduardo Penalver. Penalver was one of Justice Stevens's law clerks during OT 2000; his name came up repeatedly in the Vanity Fair article. For those of you who are looking for more information on this particular member of the Elect, click here, then navigate through to Penalver's faculty profile at Fordham Law School, where he teaches property and land use.

6. Law Clerk Hiring. The season is pretty much over, but perhaps one judge still looking to hire conducted this web search:

--high-maintenance celebrity assistant

Wishing for a personal assistant of her own,

Article III Groupie

UTR Cribs: Judge Dlott's Federal Judicial Mega-Mansion!

Welcome to the first of what will hopefully be many installments of UTR Cribs: Inside the Homes of Federal Judges. UTR Cribs was described back in this post as follows: "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." In a nutshell, think of UTR Cribs as "Lifestyles of the Rich and Federal." To paraphrase the description of MTV Cribs on the show's website, UTR Cribs is "the most exciting way to peep into your favorite [federal judicial] celebrities' homes, without getting slapped with a restraining order!"

As one can gather from the recurring hubbub over the need for federal judicial pay increases--which Chief Justice Rehnquist describes, perhaps hyperbolically, as "the most pressing issue facing the federal judiciary today"--the wealth enjoyed by many federal judges does not come from their salaries. With circuit judges earning only $167,600 a year, and district judges earning only $158,100 a year (see this table), federal judges make less than many first-year law firm associates. Federal judges certainly earn less than members of the Elect, who can rake in over $300,000 in their first year after leaving One First Street.

Although their salaries may be relatively modest, many federal judges are extremely wealthy. The sources of judicial affluence are varied, but common ones are lucrative pre-robescent employment, marrying into money, and inheritance or family wealth. As shown in this report by the Alliance for Justice, the average net worth for an appellate court judicial nominee from President Bush's first year in office was a healthy $1.63 million. The average net worth of one of President Clinton's 2000 nominees was even higher: $2 million. As Diddy, P., might say, "Being a federal judge? It's all about the BENCH-amins, baby!" Puff Daddy, It's All About the Benjamins, on All About the Benjamins (New Line Records 2002); see also Jennifer Lopez, Jenny from the Block, on This Is Me... Then (Sony Records 2002) ("Don't be fooled by the rocks that I got.") (Lo, J., protesting too much methinks).

(For example, consider the nine members of the Supreme Court. Despite salaries that are perfectly pleasant, but far from princely--Chief Justice Rehnquist earns $203,000, and each associate justice earns $194,300--the Supremes are pretty much rolling in it. As noted in UTR's irreverent review of their financial disclosure forms, Who wants to be a millionaire--AND a Supreme Court justice?, a majority of the justices are millionaires, some of them several times over.)

So yes, many federal judges have lots of cash stashed under their robes--cash they frequently drop on large and lavish lairs. In the weeks ahead, UTR Cribs will spirit you away to some of our nation's most exclusive residential enclaves, popping into federal judicial mansions around the country. Future destinations of UTR Cribs include Manhattan's super-patrician Upper East Side; sun-drenched Palm Beach, Florida; and some of Los Angeles's toniest suburbs, including Ranchos Palos Verdes and the Oak Grove neighborhood of San Marino.

Today, however, with the election moving into high gear, UTR Cribs follows the candidates to the battleground state of Ohio. The Buckeye State is home to Judge Susan J. Dlott, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Judge Dlott is married to Stanley M. Chesley, the prominent, hugely successful plaintiffs' lawyer.

Stan Chesley and Judge Dlott recently bought a new house. And this, dear readers, is no ordinary house. Holy mansion, Batman!

This article in the Cincinnati Enquirer offers the following juicy details:

Real estate agents had said it would take someone with extravagant taste to buy this house. Enter prominent class-action lawyer Stan Chesley.

Chesley has purchased what is believed to be the most expensive single-family home listed in Greater Cincinnati, possibly ever.

The elegant French chateau... in Indian Hill, which has six bedrooms, seven full bathrooms, custom chandeliers and a wine cellar, carried an asking price of $11.9 million when it first went on the market last October.

That's the biggest price ever listed on the Multiple Listing Service of Greater Cincinnati, which has been around for about 60 years. . . . .

The home includes two four-car garages with apartments on top and 27,000 square feet of living space. It sits on 5.3 acres nestled into 300 acres of private green space.

There's also a game room, exercise room, a theater/media room, separate two-bedroom carriage house for live-in parents or hired help and an outdoor kitchen for entertaining friends and family. The indoor kitchen has hidden appliances.

Chesley is married to Susan Dlott, who was appointed a U.S. District Court judge by President Clinton in 1995.

The home even has its own Web site. [A3G's note: It appears that the site has been taken offline. But you can get more details about the house in this realtor's listing. Additional realty listings for the property, featuring the dimensions of specific rooms, have also been taken offline--but you can access cached versions of them here and here.]

WOW! With almost 30,000 square feet, Judge Dlott's federal judicial mega-mansion is larger than certain small federal courthouses in less populous judicial districts.

The reader who submitted this delicious tip to A3G offered additional information about Judge Dlott and her high-flying hubby:

[U]ber-plaintiff's lawyer Stan Chesley's wife is left-wing judicial diva Susan Dlott, of the Southern District of Ohio. Not as glamorous as a circuit judge, but at least not an icky state court jurist! Judge Dlott was appointed the bench by President Clinton following a number of major donations to Clinton and the Democrats by her husband. Of course, those two things are surely unrelated....

In a subsequent message, UTR's loyal correspondent added:

More on Judge Dlott.... And, it's not that I have a vendetta against her or anything (reportedly, they are lovely people, and I have yet to have the opportunity to appear in her courtroom). But I do think this additional information may qualify her as a Judicial Diva, even aside from the 27,000 square foot home! Therefore, I feel compelled to apprise you of this situation, even though she is but a meager district court judge here in S.D. Ohio. However, I'm sure you'll agree with me that it takes grit and determination to be a Judicial Diva as a district court judge! (What with that appeal-as-of-right business and all.) So, here goes...

This op-ed about Judge Dlott in the Cincinnati Enquirer of April 30, 2003, entitled "Judge Has Stepped in It Now," begins as follows: "A federal judge who lets her dogs dump on the floor of our U.S. Courthouse and once had them sworn in as federal marshals might have a problem getting much respect from real law enforcement officers."

And here's another article, from the Cincinnati Enquirer of February 7, 2004, in which Judge Dlott's potential recusal in a white collar bank fraud case is discussed by the criminal defendant... and caught on tape by the FBI! The defendant in question liked his chances with Judge Dlott, what with her being "sympathetic to white collar criminals," as well as being "one of the best friends" of said defendant's own attorney.

With press like this, I too would want to repair every evening to a massive French chateau--perhaps to spend a long evening in the well-stocked wine cellar!

Oh, I forgot to also mention that Judge Dlott's husband represented the victims of the bank fraud case in a civil suit in state court, and garnered a $16.8 million settlement for them. Not that this would be a conflict or anything, because he wasn't appearing in HER court, you see.

Article III Groupie agrees with her correspondent: the mini-scandals discussed in the articles cited above leave the unmistakable odor of canine fecal matter in the air. But she also believes that, the bad press coverage notwithstanding, Judge Dlott and her hubby have a pretty good gig going. They enjoy the best of both worlds: the money of a successful plaintiffs' lawyer, and the power of a federal judge!

Thus, despite her deeply troubling left-wing politics, the Honorable Susan J. Dlott is an inspiration to Article III Groupie. A3G describes herself as "an aspiring federal judicial diva with a real estate fetish." Judge Dlott demonstrates to A3G that, if she plays her cards right, she too can score herself a lifetime appointment exercising the judicial power of the United States--and a phat crib!

May your champagne wishes and caviar dreams come true,

Article III Groupie