Underneath Their Robes

Is There Something You'd Like to Tell Us, Justice Stevens?

by Clerquette

There has been some speculation, in the last few months, that Justice John Paul Stevens may be ready to trade in his formal leather throne on the Highest Bench in the Land for something a tad more ... BarcaLounge-y. Or Adirondack Chair-ish. Or pool float-ey. 

What's been fueling the rumors of JPS's yearning for a different seating arrangement? Well, as our colleagues at Above the Law reported back in September, Justice Stevens's hiring for OT 2010 has proceeded at a somewhat, er, leisurely pace: at last count, the Justice had exactly one law clerk in place for the '10 term. Of course, like our fabulous co-blogress, Article III Groupie -- who, in April of 2009 correctly predicted Justice Souter's retirement -- the superstars at ATL are rarely wrong, and are thus entitled to substantial deference.

Then, just yesterday, another esteemed Courtwatcher raised the issue of JPS's potential retirement -- based on her observation of His Honor's uncharacteristically tentative performance at Thursday's session (during which the landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n was announced, in case you happen to have spent the last two days in a dark, Interweb-less hole). According to Jan Crawford, 

Stevens spent a good 20 minutes this morning reading a summary of his scathing dissent in the campaign finance case. And he showed his age. 

The language in his written dissent was forceful. But it was striking to see him appear to stumble over words as he read it, to mispronounce words like “corruption” and “allegation,” to seem to lose his place in his summary, to often hit the microphone with his hand or his papers. 

Maybe it was just a bad day, and Lord knows we’ve all had those. And certainly it was the longest summary from the bench in some time. But it was so different from the John Paul Stevens we’ve come to know. He’s the maverick justice who asks pointed questions from the bench and cleverly makes his points, sometimes with sly dry humor. 

Today, he was different, and almost felt like relief when he finally got through his summary. 

Was it, in fact, just a bad day for JPS? Did the thought of unlimited corporate spending on federal and state elections simply leave him feshemmeled? Did the thought of Sheryl Crow performing with Kid Rock on the Hope for Haiti telethon render him verklempt? 

Clerquette is looking for some cold, hard facts ... or some reasonably good gossip. If you've heard anything about the JPS situation, please email her (or find her on Facebook)!

A Gay Old Time

by Clerquette 

A few stories dominated the news last week: the devastating earthquake in Haiti (have you donated to the relief effort yet, Groupies? If not, here's an option that offers something for everyone!); the star-studded earthquake over at NBC; the linguistic earthquake over Harry Reid's inartful use of the "N" word; and the cyber-quake that will rattle China if Google nobly extricates itself from the hammy fist of government censors. And, of course, from the distant shores of California (and the less distant shore of the Potomac), came news of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 --which dashed the marriage plans of brides, brides, grooms, and grooms in California.

In case you were consumed with one of the other big stories last week, or spent your normally studious weekend wondering whether James Cameron would again declare his absolute sovereignty over, well, the world, Clerquette offers you this brief roundup of news from the Perry v. Schwarzenegger front.

• Everything you wanted to know about the genesis of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (but were afraid to ask) is in this delightfully thorough California Lawyer piece, which provides a juicy glimpse of the cloak-and-dagger secrecy that surrounded the filing of the case.  Is there a certain irony in a trial strategery predicated upon being somewhat closeted? Clerquette leaves this determination in your wise discretion.   
• Air travel in your future? Margaret Talbot's comprehensive piece in the New Yorker will (in typical New Yorker fashion) keep you occupied for as long as it takes for airline security to determine, with respect to each one of your fellow passengers, the answer to the persistent question, "What's in your underpants?" 
• Looking for the answer to another persistent question, to wit: is Ted Olson a lesbian? Short answer: yes.   
• Looking for liveblog coverage of the trial? Try the NYT's Bay Area Blog; see also firedoglake.com (admittedly selected by this blogress because the name "Firedoglake" manages to be both charmingly whimsical and just a little bit badass) and Dan Levine's avatar, "fedcourtjunkie's" real-time tweets. 
• Want your explanation of the Supreme Court's decision to prevent the broadcasting of the Prop 8 trial with a healthy dose of outrage? Check out the brilliant Dahlia Lithwick's take on the matter here. 
• Read SCOTUSblog's analysis -- and Judicial Superhottie Alex Kozinski's letter concerning television coverage of the trial! -- here.
• Tired of all the "strange bedfellows" commentary about Olson and Boies? Feel free to inform your friends and colleagues, in your most officious tone, that the Dynamic Duo are, in fact, long-time friends; indeed, Boies was among the Illawminati at Olson's 2006 wedding to tax lawyeress Lady Booth.
• Finally, for a bit of pure, archival joy, relive ATL's fabulous coverage of the Olson-Booth nuptials here. Some wedding photos are worth seeing again (and again, and again).

And, of course, feel free to email Clerquette with news, gossip, and your very own colorful commentary on this --or any other matter of Article III interest -- at [email protected]!

Note to readers: though we welcome your feedback and seek (even beg for, though in the most distinguished sense of the word) your tips and insights, a clarification is in order. Alas; Clerquette is in no position to offer you assistance with your wrongful conviction, your miscarriage of justice, or your claims of corruption in the ranks of the federal judiciary. Although she shares your desire to attract the attention of an Article III judge, Clerquette suggests that your mail concerning any of the above topics be directed to your local Pro Se law clerk!

Happy New Year, Groupies!

by Clerquette

Send your news, tips, and miscellaneous thoughts to [email protected] , or find me on Facebook!

Twelve days into the new year, Clerquette is finally getting around to one of her New
 Year's resolutions: more regular posts here at UTR. 

As an initial matter, a few words about housekeeping, dear Groupies. Yes, dear Groupies: the annual bout of New Year's-induced ruminating brought this blogress to the unavoidable conclusion that an A3-shaped void had appeared in her daily life. And, yes: as we all know, 2009 was a very hard year for the legal profession. Thus, while we cannot promise you a break from unrelenting bad news about the economy, the threat of terrorism, or the inexplicable longevity of Jay Leno, we have decided to ring in 2010 with more news and gossip about the superstars of the federal judiciary (or "supastars," if you're not afraid of potentially stigmatizing 'dialect'). After all: receiving a giant bonus for standing by while your bank teeters on the verge of implosion may make some people feel better, but getting to know what's underneath the robe of your favorite Article III judge brightens everyone's day. 

So, Groupies: what's new in the new year? Clerquette eagerly awaits your thoughts and insider gossip on law clerks, judges, and other luminaries of the federal bar. In the meantime, take a moment to welcome the New Year with Lauren Collins' profile of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in the January 11 issue of the New Yorker. (We know, we know: the magazine came out last week, and the diligent groupies among us have already read, annotated, and committed to memory the significant portions of the article. But this is New York, folks, where Clerquette has observed fellow subway-riders nosing through the annual Eustace Tilley issue -- a February tradition -- as they fan themselves in the August heat.)

But why wait? As you huddle against the cold, Collins' piece will provide you with a hearty portion of Wise Latina for the soul. In addition the pure joy of consuming S.Ct intel, the article reminds us of why Sonia from the Block is likely to remain in the headlines (despite recent lamentations about her erstwhile privacy). She is a study in contrasts; a Justice for the era of celebrity; the judicial equivalent of a mullet, to wit: business in the front, but with tasteful dose of "party" in the ol' appendix. 

On the business front, colleagues and former clerks emphasize Sotomayor's workman-like approach: she reveres preparation, "believes in the perfectibility of systems," and views legal opinions "like instruction manuals  -- everyone should be able to follow them." (Sorry, future clerks: leave your thesaurus at home, and save your SAT words, like "pellucid," for your emo blog!) According to Collins, her "mode of expression can be inelegant," and "[c]larity, not refinement, is her aim." But is her presence on the bench that has allowed us a glimpse of the multiple faces of Sonia -- at least some of which refuse to be hidden beneath the veil of stodgy precedent.  

Sotomayor has established herself as an active -- and aggressive -- questioner. Collins, for example, describes one of her first oral arguments, in United States v. Stevens, as follows: "A blunt, glottal voice cut in," she writes. "By the end of the hour allotted to the case, Justice Sotomayor - wearing a snaky silver cuff bracelet with her fingernails painted sports-car red - had spoken five times."  And, last month, Sotomayor received a minor bench-slapping, after peppering an attorney with questions before he could answer one already posed by Justice Ginsburg. (Ginsburg responded to Sotomayor's indecorous interruption with a demure, "I'd like him to answer the question that I asked him first." Sotomayor, it was reported, "looked chagrined.")

Of course, there may be some lingering resentment about Sotomayor's decision to ditch the "frilly jabot" that Ginsburg presented to her new g-friend to wear in her official portrait. In any event, the fact remains: in addition to being wise, J-So is just a little more caliente under her non-frilly collar than her distinguished -- if painfully staid -- colleagues. The record reflects, inter alia, that Sotomayor has been known to reward her hard-working clerks with cocktails and late-night Texas Hold 'em; that she "hooks up a mean churrasco with a tangy lemon marinade;" and, juiciest of all, that she has had the honor of being J-Lo's dinner guest.  

So, while J-So insists that she is not out looking for love, and that she misses the anonymity of life on the [still sexy] Second Circuit, we are reasonably certain that the newest Justice will continue to generate buzz.  

And let's not forget about the rest of the fabulous Article III body of luminaries! Stay tuned, Groupies, and send me your thoughts, tips, and gossip about the stars in the A3 galaxy. 

You can email Clerquette at [email protected], or find her on Facebook.