Justice Alito was an AUSA from 77 to 81, prosecuting mainly drug trafficking and organized crime cases. I'm not sure whether he'd say the job entailed prosecuting "ordinary" people, but he surely performed the other tasks Paul lists.
[cid:image001.gif@01CF9D14.96ECECD0] Eric N. Kniffin, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | 90 S Cascade Ave Suite 1100 | Colorado Springs, CO 80903-1662 (T) 719.386.3017 | (F) 719.386.3070 eknif...@lrrlaw.com<mailto:eknif...@lrrlaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> [cid:image002.jpg@01CF9D14.96ECECD0] Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP is now Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Finkelman, Paul Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:34 PM To: Levinson, Sanford V; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Cc: CONLAWPROF Subject: RE: Is Discussion of Justices' Religion "Off Limits"? Agreeing with Sandy, I would just add that none (I believe) have even been in a courtroom prosecuting an ordinary person. Have any been involved in a plea bargain? interviewed a witness in a holding cell? or a police station? Except Ginsberg have have they dealt the day-to-day legal issues that most Americans face? ************************************************* Paul Finkelman, Ph.D. President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu<mailto:paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu> www.paulfinkelman.com<http://www.paulfinkelman.com> ************************************************* ________________________________ From: conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Levinson, Sanford V [slevin...@law.utexas.edu] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 3:02 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Cc: CONLAWPROF Subject: Re: Is Discussion of Justices' Religion "Off Limits"? Paul is correct on all counts. I'd be even stronger in emphasizing that none of the current justices has ever seen the inside of a courtroom while representing an " ordinary" criminal defendant. Presidents disproportionately appoint prosecutors and disdain defense lawyers. To engage in zealous representation of a non-white-collar defendant can put a serious crimp in one's hope to be appointed to the federal judiciary. Sandy Sent from my iPhone On Jul 11, 2014, at 1:33 PM, "Finkelman, Paul" <paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu<mailto:paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu>> wrote: Religion is not the only aspect of the Justices that should be considered. I would argue that this Court is dramatically odd in many ways. Except for Thomas all of the Justices come from the northeast or California (or in Breyer's case both). There is no one from the midwest (although Roberts lived there a bit); One southerner (Thomas) even though the South has more than twice the population of the Northeast. There no Protestants even though they are the plurality of the nation. Moreover, I am pretty sure that no one on this court has ever run for office or held any elective office. I do not believe any have actually been involved in electoral politics at all. None (I believe) ever attended a public university of college; they are all graduates of private elite northeastern ivy league law schools. There is nothing wrong with those schools, but it has created a court that is in-bred. The justices are elite not only in education but in their distance from the average American (Ginsberg is the major exception, Sotomayor a bit) in their careers and professional backgrounds. There is no one like Warren or Black who dealt with law and the individual level as a local prosecutor or judge. No one like Powell or Blackmun who had local clients and were involved in business. No one like White who did something before law school. None have even served on a state court or been involved in state law. Historically the Court was "representative" body even if the justices were not elected. Today that is no longer the case. This is not ideological, but more about a culture that has separated the Court from the nation and its people in rather profound ways The position of the Court in Town of Greece illustrates this disconnect. Clearly, no one in the majority has ever represented someone before a city council, town council, or local government board. ************************************************* Paul Finkelman, Ph.D. President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu<mailto:paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu> www.paulfinkelman.com<http://www.paulfinkelman.com> ************************************************* ________________________________ From: conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] on behalf of Richard Friedman [rdfrd...@umich.edu<mailto:rdfrd...@umich.edu>] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:52 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Cc: CONLAWPROF Subject: Re: Is Discussion of Justices' Religion "Off Limits"? Well, one thing that might follow is a discussion of the extent to which we want the Supreme Court to be demographically representative of the nation. In the early years of the Republic, there was a clear understanding that it would be geographically representative -- one member from each Circuit. That eventually washed away, as geography became less salient. There are clearly some other demographic expectations now, concerning gender and ethnicity. I suppose the biggest group not represented on the Court now is Protestants. I'm not advocating religion being a criterion for selection, but I do think that's an interesting issue. Rich Friedman On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> wrote: If I might be so presumptuous as to shift the question somewhat: Of course Justices' religion, and their experiences and learnings as adherents of particular religions, affects their perspectives when they decide cases, especially (but not limited to) cases involving religion (e.g., Town of Greece; Hobby Lobby). If a religion had no such effect on its adherents, it would hardly be worthy of the name, right? So I don't think discussions of this question are or should be "off limits," yet I wonder . . . to what end? If we were all to agree that the Catholic and Jewish Justices on the Court have very different perspectives on these questions, in part (but not entirely) owing to their experiences and understandings as Catholics and Jews, what, exactly, follows from that? On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:17 PM, John Bickers <bicker...@nku.edu<mailto:bicker...@nku.edu>> wrote: When a Justice notes in oral argument (Salazar v. Buono) that the Cross is not limited to Christianity but is simply the default memorial because it is "the most common symbol" of the dead, how can it not be the case that the justices' life experiences--jobs, schools, politics, faith--are playing a role in how they decide cases? John Bickers Salmon P. Chase College of Law Northern Kentucky University ________________________________ From: conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] on behalf of Myron Moskovitz [mmoskov...@ggu.edu<mailto:mmoskov...@ggu.edu>] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:04 PM To: CONLAWPROF Subject: Is Discussion of Justices' Religion "Off Limits"? .... I replied that a judge's life experiences form at least part of his or her approach to resolving cases, and it is naïve to ignore this. Some Justices expressly pepper their opinions and speeches and books with this fact. Thomas does, Sotomayer does, and so do many others. A Justice of a minority religion (whether Judaism, Muslim, Hinduism, or any other) might have had life experiences that make him or her more likely to identify with citizens faced with government-sponsored explicitly-Christian prayers. Tribe apparently believes that such a discussion is "off limits." I don't. Who is right? Myron Myron Moskovitz Professor of Law Emeritus Golden Gate University School of Law Phone: (510) 384-0354<tel:%28510%29%20384-0354>; e-mail: myronmoskov...@gmail.com<mailto:myronmoskov...@gmail.com> website: myronmoskovitz.com<http://www.myronmoskovitz.com/> _______________________________________________ To post, send message to conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this message or any attachments contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
