The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

Justitia, symbol of the judiciary^[1][2] (statue at Shelby County Courthouse, Memphis, TN, United States)

The "Judiciary" (also known as the judicial system) is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make law (that is, in a plenary fashion, which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case. This branch of the state is often tasked with ensuring equal justice under law. It usually consists of a court of final appeal (called the "Supreme court" or "Constitutional court"), together with lower courts.

In many jurisdictions the judicial branch has the power to change laws through the process of judicial review. Courts with judicial review power may annul the laws and rules of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher norm, such as primary legislation, the provisions of the constitution or international law. Judges constitute a critical force for interpretation and implementation of a constitution, thus de facto in common law countries creating the body of constitutional law.

During last decades the judiciary became active in economic issues related with economic rights established by constitution because "economics may provide insight into questions that bear on the proper legal interpretation".^[3] Since many a country with a transitional political and economic system continues treating its constitution as an abstract legal document disengaged from the economic policy of the state, practice of judicial review of economic acts of executive and legislative branches began to grow.

In the 1980s, the Supreme Court of India for almost a decade had been encouraging public interest litigation on behalf of the poor and oppressed by using a very broad interpretation of several articles of the Indian Constitution.^[4]

Budget of the judiciary in many transitional and developing countries is almost completely controlled by the executive. The latter undermines the separation of powers, as it creates a critical financial dependence of the judiciary. The proper national wealth distribution including the government spending on the judiciary is subject of the constitutional economics. It is important to distinguish between the two methods of corruption of the judiciary: the state (through budget planning and various privileges), and the private.^[5]

The term "judiciary" is also used to refer collectively to the personnel, such as judges, magistrates and other adjudicators, who form the core of a judiciary (sometimes referred to as a "bench"), as well as the staffs who keep the system running smoothly.

History[link]

After the French Revolution, lawmakers stopped interpretation of law by judges, and the legislature was the only body permitted to interpret the law; this prohibition was later overturned by the Code Napoléon.^[6]

In civil law jurisdictions at present, judges interpret the law to about the same extent as in common law jurisdictions^{[citation needed]} – though it may be acknowledged in theory in a different manner than in the common law tradition which directly recognizes the limited power to make law. For instance, in France, the jurisprudence constante of the Court of Cassation or the Council of State is equivalent in practice with case law.

Various functions[link]

Part of a series on
Politics
Primary topics Index of politics articles Politics by country Politics by subdivision Political economy Political history Political history of the world Political philosophy
Political systems Anarchist Capitalist City-state Communist Democracy Federacy Feudalism Mixed economy Dictatorship Directorial Meritocracy Monarchy Parliamentary Presidential Semi-presidential Theocracy
Academic disciplines Political science Political scientists International relations (theory) Comparative politics
Public administration Bureaucracy Street-level bureaucracy Adhocracy
Policy Public policy (Legal doctrine) Public interest Foreign policy
Organs of government Separation of powers Legislature Executive Judiciary Electoral branch
Other topics Sovereignty Theories of political behavior Biology and political orientation
Subseries Elections Electoral systems Voting Federalism Form of government Ideology Political campaigning Political parties
Politics portal
v t e

• In common or provinces^{[clarification needed]}, courts interpret law, including constitutions, statutes, and regulations. They also make law (but in a limited sense, limited to the facts of particular cases) based upon prior case law in areas where the legislature has not made law. For instance, the tort of negligence is not derived from statute law in most common law jurisdictions. The term common law refers to this kind of law.
• In civil law jurisdictions, courts interpret the law, but are, at least in theory, prohibited from creating law, and thus, still in theory, do not issue rulings more general than the actual case to be judged. In practice, jurisprudence plays the same role as case law^{[citation needed]}.
• In the United States court system, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the interpretation of the federal Constitution and all statutes and regulations created pursuant to it, as well as the constitutionality of the various state laws; in the US federal court system, federal cases are tried in trial courts, known as the US district courts, followed by appellate courts and then the Supreme Court. State courts, which try 98% of litigation,^[7] may have different names and organization; trial courts may be called "courts of common plea", appellate courts "superior courts" or "commonwealth courts".^[8] The judicial system, whether state or federal, begins with a court of first instance, is appealed to an appellate court, and then ends at the court of last resort.^[9]
• In France, the final authority on the interpretation of the law is the Council of State for administrative cases, and the Court of Cassation for civil and criminal cases.
• In the People Republic of China, the final authority on the interpretation of the law is the National People's Congress.
• Other countries such as Argentina have mixed systems that include lower courts, appeals courts, a cassation court (for criminal law) and a Supreme Court. In this system the Supreme Court is always the final authority, but criminal cases have four stages, one more than civil law does. On the court sits a total of nine justices. This number has been changed several times.

See also[link]

• Bench (law)
• Constitutional economics
• Corruption
• Judicial independence
• Judicial review
• Legislature
• Rule According to Higher Law
• Rule of law

Further reading[link]

• Cardozo, Benjamin N. (1998). The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Feinberg, Kenneth, Jack Kress, Gary McDowell, and Warren E. Burger (1986). The High Cost and Effect of Litigation, 3 vols.
• Frank, Jerome (1985). Law and the Modern Mind. Birmingham, AL: Legal Classics Library.
• Levi, Edward H. (1949) An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Marshall, Thurgood (2001). Thurgood Marshall: His Speeches, Writings, Arguments, Opinions and Reminiscences. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books.
• McCloskey, Robert G., and Sanford Levinson (2005). The American Supreme Court, 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Miller, Arthur S. (1985). Politics, Democracy and the Supreme Court: Essays on the Future of Constitutional Theory. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
• Tribe, Laurence (1985). God Save This Honorable Court: How the Choice of Supreme Court Justices Shapes Our History. New York: Random House.
• Zelermyer, William (1977). The Legal System in Operation. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

Notes[link]

Look up judiciary in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

v t e Law Core subjects Administrative law Constitutional law Contract Criminal law Equity Evidence Law of obligations Procedure Civil Criminal Property law Public international law Public law Restitution Statutory law Tort Other subjects Admiralty law Aviation law Banking law Bankruptcy Commercial law Companies law Competition law Conflict of laws Consumer protection Cyberlaw Election law Energy law Entertainment law Environmental law Family law Financial regulation Health law Immigration law Intellectual property International criminal law International human rights Labour law Military law Product liability Space law Sports law Tax law Trust law Unjust enrichment Wills Sources of law Constitution Custom Decree Edict Executive order Delegated legislation Rulemaking Precedent Case law Statute Legal systems Canon law Civil law Common law Chinese law Jewish law Roman law Russian law Sharia Socialist law Statutory law Xeer Legal theory Critical legal studies Comparative law Economic analysis History International legal theory Philosophy Sociology Legal institutions Bureaucracy Civil society Election commission Executive Judiciary Legal profession Legislature Military Police Category Index Outline Portal

Nicole Wong is the vice president and deputy general counsel at Google and is responsible for arbitrating issues of censorship for Google.^{[1] [2]}

Biography[link]

Nicole Wong is responsible for Google’s product and regulatory matters. Prior to joining Google, Nicole was a partner at the law firm of Perkins Coie, LLP, where she represented traditional media and “new media” clients, including Hearst Corporation, McClatchy Company, Los Angeles Times, Walt Disney Company, General Electric, Microsoft, Amazon.com and Yahoo!. She is also a co-editor of Electronic Media and Privacy Law Handbook (2003), which is now a collaborative digital treatise maintained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and students at Boalt Hall School of Law.

Nicole has served on the governing committee of the ABA Communications Law Forum since 2001 and on the board of directors of the First Amendment Coalition since 2007. She previously served as a co-chair of the Practising Law Institute’s Internet Law Institute and as a member of the San Francisco Sunshine Task Force. She was one of the founders and the first editor-in-chief of the Asian Law Journal.

Nicole is a frequent speaker and author on issues related to law and technology, including four appearances before the U.S. Congress regarding Internet policy. She also has taught media and Internet law courses as an adjunct professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Stanford University and University of San Francisco. Nicole received her law degree and a master’s degree in journalism from the University of California, Berkeley.

References[link]

This American law-related biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e

Vincent Bugliosi ( /ˌbuːliˈoʊsi/; born August 18, 1934) is an American attorney and author, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson and other defendants accused of the Tate-LaBianca murders, and for defending Stephanie Stearns in the Sea Wind murders of 1974. His most recent books are Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (2007), The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (2008), and Divinity of Doubt: The God Question (2011).

Personal life and education[link]

Bugliosi, who is of Italian ancestry, was born in Hibbing, Minnesota. Bugliosi is a graduate of the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, which he attended on a tennis scholarship. In 1964, he received his law degree from UCLA, where he was president of his graduating class.

He is married with two children: Wendy and Vince Jr. He often refers to his wife, Gail, in his books, referencing her understanding and patience with him. He has also stated that he is an agnostic, although open to the ideas of deism.^[1]

Manson prosecution[link]

As a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, he successfully prosecuted Charles Manson and several other members of his "family" for the 1969 murders of Sharon Tate and six others. He lost only one of the 106 felony cases he tried as a prosecutor, which included winning 21 out of 21 murder cases.^[2] He later wrote, jointly with Curt Gentry, a book about the Manson trial called Helter Skelter. The book went on to become the biggest selling true crime book in publishing history with over 7 million copies sold.^[3]

Political candidate[link]

In 1972, Bugliosi ran for Los Angeles County District Attorney against longtime incumbent Joseph Busch. Joseph Gellman was his legal counsel for this campaign. Bugliosi narrowly lost the campaign. Bugliosi ran again in 1976, after Busch resigned, but lost to interim District Attorney John Van de Kamp.

Legal author and commentator[link]

Bugliosi subsequently became an outspoken critic of the media and lawyers and judges in major trials. In his most recent book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, he made the case that President George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder, based on evidence showing that he had lied to the American people into waging a war of aggression.

O. J. Simpson case[link]

Bugliosi wrote a bestselling book, Outrage, on the acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, in which Bugliosi asserted Simpson's guilt, and criticized the work of the district attorney, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and Judge Lance Ito; he used these profiles to illustrate broader problems in American criminal justice, the media, and the political appointment of judges.

Bugliosi was very critical of prosecutors Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden and pointed out what he regarded as glaring mistakes that they made during the trial. He faulted them, for example, for not introducing the note that Simpson had written before trying to flee. Bugliosi said that the note "reeked" of guilt and that the jury should have been allowed to see it. He also pointed out that there was a change of clothing, a large amount of cash, a passport and a disguise kit found in the Bronco, of which the jury was never informed.

Bugliosi took Clark and Darden to task for not allowing the jury to hear the tape of Simpson's statement to police about cutting his finger the night of the murders.

Bugliosi also said the prosecutors should have gone into more detail about Simpson's abuse of his wife. He said it should have been made clear to the mostly African-American jury that Simpson had little impact in the black community and had done nothing to help blacks less fortunate than him. Bugliosi pointed out that, although the prosecutors knew that Simpson's race had nothing to do with the murders, once the defense "opened the door" by trying to paint Simpson falsely as a "leader" in the black community, the evidence to the contrary should have been presented, to prevent the jury from allowing it to bias their verdict.

In several books, Bugliosi has written that, when preparing a case for trial, he starts with his final summation. In this book, he stated that, if he had been prosecuting the case, he would have put at least 500 hours of preparation into his final summation, and that it was obvious that Clark and Darden had waited until the night before to prepare for it.

Bugliosi wrote at length about the allegations that LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman had planted a bloody glove in order to frame Simpson. He argued that in order for Fuhrman to do this, there would have had to have been a broad-reaching conspiracy between Fuhrman and the other officers who worked the case. Bugliosi pointed out that it was highly improbable that Fuhrman and anyone else involved in the case would have tried to frame Simpson, as California law of the time provided that anyone who planted evidence in a death penalty case could have faced the death penalty themselves.

Bill Clinton[link]

Bugliosi criticized the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Clinton v. Jones. He wrote the book, No Island of Sanity, in which he argued that the right of a president to be unburdened by a private lawsuit outweighed Paula Jones's interest in having her case brought to trial immediately.

George W. Bush[link]

Bugliosi condemned the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Bush v. Gore decision that decided the 2000 presidential election.

Louis Posner of Voter March, with Vincent Bugliosi (left) at New York City Speaking Tour

He wrote a lengthy criticism of the case for The Nation titled "None Dare Call It Treason," which he later expanded into a book titled The Betrayal of America. During 2001 and 2002, Lou Posner of Voter March organized speaking tours in New York City and Voter West in California for Vincent Bugliosi. Some of his criticisms were depicted in the 2004 documentary Orwell Rolls in His Grave.

He also believes that George W. Bush should be charged with the murders of more than 4,000 American soldiers as well as more than 100,000 Iraqis who have died in Iraq since the American-led invasion of that country, because of his belief that Bush launched the invasion under false pretenses. In his book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, he laid out that evidence and outlined what questions he would ask Bush at a potential murder trial. Bugliosi testified at a House Judiciary Committee meeting on 25 July 2008, at which he urged impeachment proceedings for Bush.

Kennedy assassination[link]

In 1986, Bugliosi played the part of prosecutor in an unscripted 21-hour mock television trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. His legal opponent, representing Oswald, was the well-known attorney, Gerry Spence. The program, sponsored by London Weekend Television, required extensive preparations by Bugliosi and inspired him to later write a comprehensive book on the subject of the assassination. His 1612-page book (with a CD-ROM containing an additional 958 pages of endnotes and 170 pages of source notes), Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, was published in May 2007. His book examined the JFK assassination in detail and drew on a variety of sources; his findings were in line with those of the Warren Report, which had concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone in the assassination of the 35th President. He called Reclaiming History his "magnum opus."^[4]

The title of Reclaiming History derived from Bugliosi's belief that the history of the Kennedy assassination has been hijacked by conspiracy theories, the popularity of which, he asserts, has a pernicious and ongoing effect on American thought:

"Unless this fraud is finally exposed, the word believe will be forgotten by future generations and John F. Kennedy will have unquestionably become the victim of a conspiracy. Belief will have become unchallenged fact, and the faith of the American people in their institutions further eroded. If that is allowed to happen, Lee Harvey Oswald, a man who hated his country and everything for which it stands, will have triumphed even beyond his intent on that fateful day in November."

- Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p.1011.

Style of writing[link]

Bugliosi does not own a computer and at one time did all his research through library microfilm archives.^[4] More recently, he has relied on his virtual secretary, Rosemary Newton, to help with these tasks.^[4] He also writes his books entirely by hand; Newton later transcribes his long-hand texts.^[4]

Works[link]

Books[link]

• Helter Skelter (with Curt Gentry) (1974) (Edgar Award, 1975, Best Fact Crime book)
• Till Death Us Do Part: A True Murder Mystery (with Ken Hurwitz) (1978) (Edgar Award, 1979, Best Fact Crime book)
• Shadow of Cain (with Ken Hurwitz) (1981)
• Lullaby and Good Night (with William Stadiem) (1987)
• And the Sea Will Tell (with Bruce B. Henderson) (1991)
• Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder (1996)
• The Phoenix Solution: Getting Serious About Winning America's Drug War (1996)
• No Island of Sanity: Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton — The Supreme Court on Trial (1998)
• The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President (2001)
• Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (2007)(Edgar Award, 2009, Best Fact Crime book)
• The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (2008)
• Divinity of Doubt: The God Question (2011)

In film[link]

Bugliosi has had many of his books adapted to the screen, and appears as a character in several of them.

• Helter Skelter (1976 film) (portrayed by George DiCenzo)
• And the Sea Will Tell (1991 TV) (portrayed by Richard Crenna)
• Till Death Us Do Part (1992 TV) (portrayed by Arliss Howard)
• Helter Skelter (2004) (portrayed by Bruno Kirby)

Articles[link]

• "None Dare Call It Treason", The Nation, February 5, 2001.

References[link]

External links[link]

• VIDEO: Bugliosi talks with Investigation Discovery about the Manson Family murders. July 2, 2008
• Vincent Bugliosi profile, NNDB
• Vincent Bugliosi video interview with the American Book Tour on the Kennedy Assassination
• Vincent Bugliosi Interview on Democracy Now! regarding The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
• Interview on TYT.
• In Depth interview with Bugliosi, November 4, 2007
• Vincent Bugliosi at the Internet Movie Database

Monica Marie Goodling (born August 6, 1973) is a former United States government lawyer and political appointee in the George W. Bush administration who became known in 2007 in the midst of a political controversy surrounding the firings of several United States Attorneys. She was the principal deputy director of public affairs for the United States Department of Justice, serving under Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales. A Department of Justice investigation concluded that she had violated the law, but she was not prosecuted because she had been granted immunity. The Virginia State Bar publicly reprimanded Goodling in May 2011 for "improperly utilized political affiliation and other political considerations when making hiring decisions for career positions."^[1]

Education[link]

Goodling is a 1991 graduate of Northeastern High School in Manchester, Pennsylvania, and received her Bachelor of Arts degree in 1995 from Messiah College. After completing her bachelor's degree, Goodling continued her education at American University,^[2] but she then transferred to the Regent University Law School, where she received her Juris Doctor degree in 1999.

Political and legal career[link]

Goodling worked alongside Tim Griffin as an opposition researcher for the Republican National Committee during the 2000 presidential campaign. She joined the Department of Justice's press office after George W. Bush became president. She moved to the department's executive office, which is responsible for budgeting, management, personnel management and evaluation, later becoming deputy director of the executive office.^[3] Goodling was hired by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan to work in the executive office.^[4]

Less than a year later, Goodling moved again, to the Attorney General’s office, working as the White House liaison.^[3] According to David Ayres, senior chief of staff to Attorney General John Ashcroft, "She was the embodiment of a hardworking young conservative who believed strongly in the president and his mission".^[5] According to Bud Cummins, one of the fired prosecutors and an Arkansas Republican, "She was inexperienced, way too naïve and a little overzealous".^[3]

After moving to the Attorney General's office, she retained some authority over personnel matters. Goodling's authority over hiring expanded significantly in March 2006, when Gonzales signed an unpublished order delegating to Goodling and Kyle Sampson, his then chief of staff, the power to appoint or dismiss all department political appointees besides United States Attorneys, who are appointed by the President. The delegation included authority over interim United States attorneys (who are appointed by the Attorney General) and heads of the divisions that handle civil rights, public corruption, environmental crimes and other matters.^[3][6][7]

U.S. attorneys controversy[link]

According to e-mails, Goodling was involved in planning controversial 2006 U.S. attorney dismissals and in later efforts to limit the negative public reaction.^[8] Goodling "warned of potential political problems with Timothy Griffin's interim appointment as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas and underscored White House interest in getting it done."^[8] Reportedly, Goodling "took a leading role" in Bud Cummins's dismissal.^[8]

Resignation[link]

On March 23, 2007, she took an indefinite leave of absence.^[9] On March 26, 2007, Goodling cancelled her upcoming appearance at a Congressional hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.^[10][11] No Department of Justice employee has ever exercised his or her Fifth Amendment rights with respect to official conduct and remained an employee.^[12] On April 6, 2007, Goodling announced her resignation from the Department of Justice, writing to Gonzales, "May God bless you richly as you continue your service to America."^[13]

Limited immunity to testify[link]

On April 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee voted 32-6 to grant Goodling immunity, meeting the required two-thirds majority, and immediately authorized a subpoena.^[14] In early May 2007, the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility was reported to be investigating whether Goodling violated federal law in making "hiring decisions on assistant U.S. attorneys based on party affiliation."^[15]

Initially, commentators speculated that Justice Department officials could try to bar Goodling's testimony to the House Committee, on the grounds that it might interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation. However, the Justice Department subsequently agreed not to contest the congressional grant of immunity.^[16]

On May 11, 2007, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas Hogan signed an order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her truthful testimony for the investigation of the firings, stating that "Goodling may not refuse to testify, and may not refuse to provide other information, when compelled to do so" before the Committee.^[17]

House Judiciary committee hearing[link]

Goodling appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, on May 23, 2007, under a limited immunity agreement,^[17] and provided to the committee a written statement that she read at the start of her testimony.^[18][19]

In response to questions during the hearing, Goodling stated that she "crossed the line" and broke civil service rules about hiring, and improperly weighed political factors in considering applicants for career positions at the Department of Justice.^[20][21] Link to Washington Post transcript of the hearing.

Investigation of Goodling's hiring practices[link]

On May 3, 2007, the Washington Post reported that the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General launched an internal probe into whether Goodling "illegally took party affiliation into account in hiring career federal prosecutors" in her work at the Department.^[22]

On May 12, the New York Times published an article about Goodling repeatedly engaging in "prohibited personnel practices" while at the Justice Department. "You have a Monica problem" several Justice Department officials told Robin C. Ashton, a criminal prosecutor at the Department of Justice. "She believes you're a Democrat and doesn't feel you can be trusted."^[23] Ashton was denied a promotion during Goodling's tenure, but in the Obama administration, Attorney General Eric Holder determined that she was qualified and appointed her as Counsel for Professional Responsibility, the head of the Justice Department's internal ethics unit.^[24]

One week after Goodling's testimony before the House, the Department's Office of the Inspector General and Counsel for the Office of Professional Responsibility confirmed in a letter^[25] to the Senate Judiciary Committee, that they were expanding their investigation beyond "the removals of United States Attorneys" to also include "DOJ hiring and personnel decisions" by Goodling and other Justice Department employees.^[26]

On July 28, 2008, a Justice Department report concluded that Goodling had violated federal law and Justice Department policy by discriminating against job applicants who weren't Republican or conservative loyalists. "Goodling improperly subjected candidates for certain career positions to the same politically based evaluation she used on candidates for political positions," the report concluded. In one instance, Justice investigators found, Goodling initially objected to hiring an assistant prosecutor in Washington because "judging from his resume, he appeared to be a liberal Democrat type." In another, she rejected an experienced terrorism prosecutor to work on counterterrorism issues at a Justice Department headquarters office "because of his wife's political affiliations,". In another case, colleagues said that Goodling blocked the appointment of a female prosecutor in Washington because she "believed the lawyer was involved in a lesbian relationship with her supervisor", according to the report. "There was no romantic relationship," said Lisa Banks,^[27] the attorney for Leslie Hagen, "but the rumors were pernicious and grew legs, and it cost her the job."^[28] Goodling may also face a criminal investigation into her conduct.^[29] Hagen has since been rehired to her old job.^[30]

Role in other DOJ controversies[link]

On May 7, 2007, National Journal's "Inside Washington" column reported that it was Goodling who ordered drapes to be placed over the partially nude Art Deco statues (Spirit of Justice) in the Justice Department's Great Hall during Ashcroft's tenure as Attorney General. At the time, the department spent $8,000 on blue drapes to hide the two giant, aluminum statues, according to spokesman Shane Hix.^{[citation needed]} The coverings were removed in 2005.

On April 2, 2008, NPR's All Things Considered reported that the Justice Department's inspector general is investigating whether Goodling was instrumental in the February 2007 dismissal of Department career attorney Leslie Hagen from her job due to rumors that Hagen was a lesbian. An e-mail shows that a few months before Hagen was let go, Goodling decided to remove part of Hagen's job portfolio.^[31] On April 4, 2008, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee sought confirmation that the Department of Justice Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) were examining the case of the dismissal of Hagen.^[32][33] According to NPR, the Inspector General confirmed the NPR report, and in February 2009 Hagen was hired back at her previous position.^[34]

On July 15, 2009, Washington Blade's "The Latest" column reported that it was Goodling who asked Michael Elston to lead a 2006 screening committee for the Justice Department Summer Internship Program. The column goes on to describe an evaluation of apparent discriminatory application process similar to the 2007 attempts to remove Department attorneys based on non-qualifying criteria. The research shows that under Goodling/Elston, 82% of applicants with liberal affiliations on their resume were rejected for the program while only 13% of applicants with conservative affiliations were rejected.^[35]

Notes[link]

External links[link]

• Transcript of Monica M. Goodling's May 23, 2007 testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives Congressional Quarterly via The Washington Post, May 23, 2007.
• Goodling's donation to the 2004 election campaign of George W. Bush at Fundrace.org
• Washington Post article on Goodling
• Archived copy of Goodling's Regent University website, circa 1997
• Ranking of Law Schools by US News & World Report (2007)
• Dept. of Justice Report (Jul 2007) in convenient format

Elena Kagan
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Incumbent
Assumed office August 7, 2010
Appointed by	Barack Obama
Preceded by	John Paul Stevens
45th Solicitor General of the United States
In office March 19, 2009 – May 17, 2010[1]
President	Barack Obama
Deputy	Neal Katyal
Preceded by	Edwin Kneedler (Acting)
Succeeded by	Neal Katyal (Acting)
11th Dean of Harvard Law School
In office July 1, 2003 – March 19, 2009
Preceded by	Robert Clark
Succeeded by	Martha Minow
Personal details
Born	(1960-04-28) April 28, 1960 (age 52) New York City, U.S.
Alma mater	Princeton University (A.B.) University of Oxford (M.Phil.) Harvard Law School (J.D.)

Elena Kagan (pronounced /ˈkeɪɡən/; born April 28, 1960)^[2] is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Kagan is the Court's 112th justice and fourth female justice.

Kagan was born and raised in New York City. After attending Princeton, Oxford, and Harvard Law School, she completed federal Court of Appeals and Supreme Court clerkships. She began her career as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, leaving to serve as Associate White House Counsel, and later as policy adviser, under President Clinton. After a nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which expired without action, she became a professor at Harvard Law School and was later named its first female dean.

President Obama appointed her Solicitor General on January 26, 2009. On May 10, 2010, Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy from the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. After Senate confirmation, Kagan was sworn in on August 7, 2010, by Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Kagan's formal investiture ceremony before a special sitting of the United States Supreme Court took place on October 1, 2010.^[3]

Personal life and education[link]

Kagan was born in New York City, the middle of three children, on the city's Upper West Side. Her mother, Gloria Gittelman Kagan, taught fifth and sixth grade at Hunter College Elementary School, and her father, Robert Kagan, was an attorney.^[4][5] Kagan's two brothers are public school teachers.^[6]

Kagan and her family lived in a third-floor apartment at West End Avenue and 75th Street^[7] and attended Lincoln Square Synagogue.^[8] Kagan was independent and strong-willed in her youth and, according to a former law partner, clashed with her Orthodox rabbi over aspects of her bat mitzvah.^[7] "She had strong opinions about what a bat mitzvah should be like, which didn't parallel the wishes of the rabbi," said her former colleague. "But they finally worked it out. She negotiated with the rabbi and came to a conclusion that satisfied everybody." Kagan's rabbi, Shlomo Riskin, had never performed a ritual bat mitzvah before.^[8] "Elena Kagan felt very strongly that there should be ritual bat mitzvah in the synagogue, no less important than the ritual bar mitzvah. This was really the first formal bat mitzvah we had," said Riskin. Kagan asked to read from the Torah on a Saturday morning but ultimately read on a Friday night, May 18, 1973, from the Book of Ruth.^[8] Today, she identifies with Conservative Judaism.^[8]

Childhood friend Margaret Raymond recalled that Kagan was a teenage smoker but not a partier. On Saturday nights, she and Kagan "were more apt to sit on the steps of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and talk."^[7] Kagan also loved literature and re-read Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice every year.^[7] In her Hunter College High School yearbook of 1977, Kagan was pictured in a judge's robe and holding a gavel.^[9]

Next to her photo was a quote from former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter: "Government is itself an art, one of the subtlest of arts."^[10] After graduating from high school, Kagan attended Princeton University, where she earned an A.B., summa cum laude in history in 1981. Among the subjects she studied was the socialist movement in New York City in the early 20th century. She wrote a senior thesis under historian Sean Wilentz titled "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900–1933". In it she wrote, "Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP exhausted itself forever. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America."^[11] Wilentz insists that she did not mean to defend socialism, noting that, "She was interested in it. To study something is not to endorse it."^[12] Wilentz called Kagan "one of the foremost legal minds in the country, she is still the witty, engaging, down-to-earth person I proudly remember from her undergraduate days."^[13]

As an undergraduate, Kagan also served as editorial chair of the Daily Princetonian. Along with eight other students (including Eliot Spitzer, who was student body president at the time), Kagan penned the Declaration of the Campaign for a Democratic University, which called for "a fundamental restructuring of university governance" and condemned Princeton's administration for making decisions "behind closed doors".^[14]

Kagan graduates from Harvard Law School in 1986.

She received Princeton's Daniel M. Sachs Class of 1960 Graduating Scholarship, one of the highest general awards conferred by the university, which enabled her to study at Worcester College, Oxford. She earned a Master of Philosophy at Oxford in 1983.^[15] She received a Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, at Harvard Law School in 1986, where she was supervisory editor of the Harvard Law Review. Friend Jeffrey Toobin recalled Kagan "stood out from the start as one with a formidable mind. She's good with people. At the time, the law school was a politically charged and divided place. She navigated the factions with ease, and won the respect of everyone."^[16]

Kagan has never married and has no children.^[17]

Early legal and academic career[link]

Kagan was a law clerk for Judge Abner J. Mikva of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1987 and for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988. Marshall nicknamed the 5 foot 3 inch Kagan "Shorty".^[7] She later entered private practice as an associate at the Washington, D.C., law firm of Williams & Connolly.^[2]

Kagan joined the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School as an assistant professor in 1991 and became a tenured professor of law in 1995.^[18] While at the University of Chicago, she published a law review article on the regulation of First Amendment hate speech in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul; an article discussing the significance of governmental motive in regulating speech; and a review of a book by Stephen L. Carter discussing the judicial confirmation process.

According to her colleagues, Kagan's students complimented and admired her from the beginning, and she was granted tenure "despite the reservations of some colleagues who thought she had not published enough."^[19]

White House and judicial nomination[link]

In 1996 she wrote an article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine." Kagan argued that the Supreme Court should examine governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases.^[20] She analyzed historic draft-card burning and flag burning cases in light of free speech arguments.^[21]

While serving as an adviser in the White House domestic policy office, Kagan co-authored a May 13, 1997, memo to President Bill Clinton urging him to support a ban on late-term abortions: "We recommend that you endorse the Daschle amendment in order to sustain your credibility on HR 1122 and prevent Congress from overriding your veto."^[22]

On June 17, 1999, Clinton nominated Kagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to replace James L. Buckley, who had taken senior status in 1996. The Senate Judiciary Committee's Republican Chairman Orrin Hatch scheduled no hearing, effectively ending her nomination. When Clinton's term ended, her nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court lapsed, as did the nomination of fellow Clinton nominee Allen Snyder.^[23]

Return to academia[link]

After her service in the White House and her lapsed judicial nomination, Kagan returned to academia in 1999. She initially sought to return to the University of Chicago Law School, but having given up her tenured position as a result of her extended stint in the Clinton Administration, she needed to be rehired and the school chose not to do so, reportedly because of doubts about her commitment to academia.^[24] Kagan quickly found a position as a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. While at Harvard, she authored a law review article on United States administrative law, including the role of aiding the President of the United States in formulating and influencing federal administrative and regulatory law, which was honored as the year's top scholarly article by the American Bar Association's Section on Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, and is being developed into a book to be published by Harvard University Press.^{[citation needed]}

Kagan as Dean of Harvard Law School

In 2001, she was named a full professor and in 2003 was named Dean of the Law School by Harvard University President Lawrence Summers.^[25] She succeeded Robert C. Clark, who had served as dean for over a decade. The focus of her tenure was on improving student satisfaction. Efforts included constructing new facilities and reforming the first-year curriculum as well as aesthetic changes and creature comforts, such as free morning coffee. She has been credited for employing a consensus-building leadership style, which surmounted the school's previous ideological discord.^[26][27][28]

In her capacity as dean, Kagan inherited a $400 million capital campaign, "Setting the Standard", in 2003. It ended in 2008 with a record breaking $476 million raised, 19% more than the original goal.^[29] Kagan made a number of prominent new hires, increasing the size of the faculty considerably. Her coups included hiring legal scholar Cass Sunstein away from the University of Chicago^[30] and Lawrence Lessig away from Stanford.^[31] She also broke a logjam on conservative hires by bringing in scholars such as Jack Goldsmith, who had been serving in the Bush administration.^[27]

According to Kevin Washburn, dean of the University of New Mexico School of Law, Kagan transformed Harvard Law School from a harsh environment for students to one that was much more student-centric.^[32]

During her deanship, Kagan upheld a decades old policy barring military recruiters from the Office of Career Services because she felt that the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy discriminated against gays and lesbians. According to Campus Progress,

As dean, Kagan supported a lawsuit intended to overturn the Solomon Amendment so military recruiters might be banned from the grounds of schools like Harvard. When a federal appeals court ruled the The Pentagon could not withhold funds, she banned the military from Harvard's campus once again. The case was challenged in the Supreme Court, which ruled the military could indeed require schools to allow recruiters if they wanted to receive federal money. Kagan, though she allowed the military back, simultaneously urged students to demonstrate against Don't Ask, Don't Tell.^[33][34]

In October 2003, Kagan transmitted an e-mail to students and faculty deploring that military recruiters had shown up on campus in violation of the school's anti-discrimination policy. It read, "This action causes me deep distress. I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy." She also wrote that it was "a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order."^[35]

From 2005 through 2008, Kagan was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute and received a $10,000 stipend for her service in 2008.^[36]

By early 2007, Kagan was a finalist for the presidency of Harvard University as a whole after Lawrence Summers' resignation the previous year, but lost out to Drew Gilpin Faust. She was reportedly disappointed not be chosen, and supportive law school students threw her a party to express their appreciation for her leadership.^[37]

Solicitor General[link]

On January 5, 2009, President-elect Barack Obama announced he would nominate Kagan to be Solicitor General.^[38][39] Before this appointment she had never argued a case before any court.^[40] At least two previous solicitors general, Robert Bork and Kenneth Starr, also had no previous Supreme Court appearances, though Starr was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit before becoming Solicitor General.^[41]

Kagan was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 19, 2009, by a vote of 61 to 31,^[42] becoming the first woman to hold the position. She made her first appearance before the Supreme Court on September 9, 2009, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.^[43]

The First Amendment Center and the Cato Institute later expressed concern over arguments Kagan advanced as a part of her role as Solicitor General. For example, during her time as Solicitor General, Kagan prepared a brief defending a law later ruled unconstitutional that criminalized depictions of animal cruelty.^[44][45] During her confirmation hearing, she said that "there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage." Also during her confirmation hearing, she was asked about the Defense of Marriage Act, pursuant to which states cannot recognize same-sex marriages originating in other states. Kagan indicated that she would defend the act if "there was any reasonable basis to do so."^[46]

Supreme Court[link]

Obama nominates Kagan.

Prior to the election of President Barack Obama, Kagan was the subject of media speculation regarding her potential to be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States if a Democratic president were elected in 2008.^{[47][48][49][50][51]} This speculation increased after the retirement announcement of Associate Justice David H. Souter, effective at the start of the Court's summer 2009 recess.^[52]

It was speculated that her position as Solicitor General would increase Kagan's chances for nomination, since Solicitors General have been considered potential nominees to the Supreme Court in the past. On May 13, 2009, the Associated Press reported that Obama was considering Kagan, among others, for possible appointment to the United States Supreme Court.^[53] On May 26, 2009, however, Obama announced that he was nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the post.^[54]

Kagan meets with Obama in Oval Office, April 2010.

On April 9, 2010, Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he would retire at the start of the Court's summer 2010 recess, triggering new speculation about Kagan's potential nomination to the bench.^[55] In a Fresh Dialogues interview, Jeffrey Toobin, a Supreme Court analyst and Kagan's friend and law school classmate^[56], speculated that Kagan would likely be President Obama's nominee, describing her as "very much an Obama type person, a moderate Democrat, a consensus builder."^[57] This possibility has alarmed many liberals and progressives, who worried that "replacing Stevens with Kagan risks moving the Court to the right, perhaps substantially to the right."^[58]

While Kagan's name was mentioned as a possible replacement for Justice Stevens, the New York Times noted that she "has supported assertions of executive power."^[59] This view of vast executive power has caused some commentators to fear that she would reverse the majority in favor of protecting civil liberties on the Supreme Court were she to replace Stevens.^[60]

On May 10, 2010, Obama nominated Kagan to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by Justice Stevens.^[61] The deans of over one-third of the country's law schools, sixty-nine people in total, endorsed Kagan's nomination in an open letter in early June. It lauded what it considered her coalition-building skills and "understanding of both doctrine and policy" as well as her written record of legal analysis.^[62]

Kagan, Obama, and Roberts before her investiture ceremony

The confirmation hearings began June 28. Kagan's testimony and her answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questions on July 20 were uneventful, containing no new revelations about her character or background. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania cited an article Kagan had published in the Chicago Law Review in 1995, criticizing the evasiveness of Supreme Court nominees in their hearings.^[63] Kagan, noted Specter, was now practicing that very evasiveness.^[64] On July 20, 2010, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13–6 to recommend Kagan's confirmation to the full Senate. On August 5 the full Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 63–37.^[65] The voting was largely on party lines, with five Republicans (Richard Lugar, Judd Gregg, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe) supporting her and one Democrat (Ben Nelson) opposing. The Senate's two independents voted in favor of confirmation. She was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts on Saturday August 7, in a private ceremony.^[3][66]

Kagan is the first justice appointed without any prior experience as a judge since William Rehnquist in 1972.^[67][68][69] She is the fourth female justice in the Court's history (and, for the first time, part of a Court with three female justices) and the eighth Jewish justice,^[70] making three of the nine current justices Jewish.

Kagan's first opinion, Ransom v. FIA Card Services, was filed on January 11, 2011. In an 8–1 decision, Kagan found that an individual declaring bankruptcy could not count expenses for a car he had paid off in his "applicable monthly expenses".^[71][72]

Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen praised Kagan's "eloquent voice," which he characterized as unusual for a relative newcomer to the Court, and noted her "ability to puncture her colleagues’ bloodless abstractions and tendentious arguments, and to explain the constitutional stakes in plain language that all citizens can understand." He said Kagan's writing was giving Justice Antonin Scalia "a run for his money."^[73]

See also[link]

• Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates
• Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies
• Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States
• List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States

References[link]