I read with great interest a recent biography in The New Yorker about Justice John Paul Stevens.  There were some great biographical tidbits in the article, like the reason John Stevens started using his middle name in professional life (“I had a professor who said that every lawyer should have something unique about them…”) and about how he was known as the “FedEx Judge” in the 1980s because he spent so much time in Florida that he was forced to correspond with his chambers by overnight mail.

But perhaps the most important and consequential information in the article relates to Justice Stevens’ (possibly) imminent retirement.  At 89, Justice Stevens is one of the oldest and longest-serving justices in the history of the Supreme Court.  He ordinarily hires four new law clerks each year, but hired only one this year, leading many commentators to speculate that he would be retiring this year.

Jeffrey Toobin, the author of The New Yorker piece, asked Justice Stevens about this speculation, and Justice Stevens explained that he is still making up his mind, but would make the decision “within a month.”  That was on March 8.  Even more recently, Justice Stevens confirmed that a decision would be forthcoming soon, explaining that “there are still pros and cons to be considered.”

If Justice Stevens makes the decision to retire, as it seems likely he may do, the speculation about his replacement will ramp up even more intensely than it already has.  Even if he does not retire in the coming weeks, Justice Stevens told Toobin that he will definitely retire within the next three years, meaning we can all look forward to being inundated with analysis and commentary about who President Obama will nominate. That analysis is sure to include a discussion about whether the next judge should be black, white, Asian, Hispanic, male, female, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or [insert your own demographic identifier].

But there was another point in the New Yorker article that struck me as particularly interesting, despite the fact that it seems to get little analysis. Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

The 2009 session of the Supreme Court of the United States, or SCOTUS for short, began with a case argued by Maryland’s Attorney General and a Maryland Public Defender.  Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler and Assistant Public Defender Celia Anderson Davis had the distinction to be the first case heard this year before the nine justices on a case involving a defendant’s constitutional rights to his right to counsel, after they were invoked more than two years before the questioning.

Two days later, I am in the Supreme Court, eating bacon, eggs, and home fries before my first time before the nine justices that sit on the nation’s highest court.  Let me clarify, I am not there to argue.  I don’t think I would have been able to eat anything, less a meal that included crispy, cooked to perfection bacon.  I am there as part of a group of Maryland lawyers (through the Baltimore County Bar Association), to be admitted to practice in the Supreme Court.  I know what you are thinking — What are the odds that Michael Siri will ever have a case before the Supreme Court?  My answer — most likely never, but the trip and the experience is certainly worth the time and expense.

On the day of the swearing in, we arrive at the the Supreme Court, eat breakfast, meet Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger (who will move our admission into the Court), and we are then whisked away into the courtroom.  Our seats are less than 10 feet from the trial tables and 20 feet from the bench.  Unlike my experience with other courts, the Justices take the bench at exactly 10:00 a.m., the time we are told everything will start.  The atmosphere is surreal, the place is packed (I eye Nina Totenberg from NPR in the press box) and suddenly court is in session.  We are quickly admitted as members of SCOTUS and the real fun begins — oral arguments.

We know we are going to hear Salazar v. Buono, which asks whether a cross erected as a memorial within a California national park is constitutional, and one of the hottest cases before the Court this year.  We have all heard about the demeanor of the justices and the precision in which they craft their questions.  It is another thing to actually be there and watch.  All in all, it’s one of those days that makes you feel good about being an attorney.  My advice to any young lawyer — gain admission to the SCOTUS, if not only for the experience, but for the breakfast.

Powered by Bookmarkify™