FIRST!!!

An unlikely Souter: Cidney Carson, USC, 2007

No one from Penn State law?? I thought it was a top 10 school???

ugh you penn flamers make me sick

Several justices offered clerkships to Penn State graduates but no one accepted. Most said Washington wasn't far enough away from Philadelphia to make the break with law school complete, but one said he was joining JoPa and Brian Leiter at their new law and philosophy institute at Chicago.

Listen, just because the Penn State is ranked top 10 doesn't mean we have SCOTUS clerks every year. We are too good for SCOTUS.

PEnn: #1 in BIGTENLAW!

Penn and Penn State are two different law schools!!

Cidney Carson is HOT - prob not SCOTUS worthy, but pretty hot. She also goes by Cidney Dutton.

11:43 - WOOSH!

USC and Wisc to T10!

Kansas to T1!

NYU to T(ier)2!

Anyone else click on the link to the Wisconsin girl? Scroll down to the bottom--for all you Wisco grads...Walter Dickey's quote: "She's the best student I've ever had."

That's quite the statement, coming from a guy that generally treats everyone in his class like they are not smart enough to be there in the first place.

Cheers to my lowest grade in law school!

Cidney Carson can't be SCOTUS material, she wasn't even the smartest person in her section

Doesn't the chief get 5 clerks?

Funny thing about 11:42 is that PSU is at least seventh in Big Ten law - USNews order:
Michigan
Northwestern
Minnesota
Iowa
Illinois
Wisconsin

Nice job, Ricky Revesz and whoever is in charge of this at the NYU Law Career Center. I believe Professor Nelson also helps out with clerkship applicants. So, he deserves kudos as well.

NYU has zero clerks. Perhaps a new clerkship strategy is in order. Like inviting judges who don't hire only from from Harvard and Yale (i.e. Breyer) or Yale, Harvard, and Columbia (i.e. Ginsburg) to our school.

Judges such as Thomas and Alito, who appear to hire from all over may be more amenable to hiring NYU grads if we treated that with some respect and did not sign petitions opposing their appointments.

"NYU has zero clerks. Perhaps a new clerkship strategy is in order. Like inviting judges who don't hire only from from Harvard and Yale (i.e. Breyer) or Yale, Harvard, and Columbia (i.e. Ginsburg) to our school. "

Or encouraging its students to behave like adults and treat the other judges who visit (i.e. Scalia) with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Supreme Court to $300k!

12:43--

Make that at least ninth. Ohio State is tied with Wisconsin at #31, and Indiana is only a few spots behind.

US News' order of Big 10 schools is a joke.

Michigan
Northwestern
Minnestoa=Wisconsin
Illinois*
Iowa

That's probably more like it, although the differences are really tiny.

*Illinois is not Gtown, so they should stop trying to adjust their LSAT range to match - and sending state students to T2-4 schools.

Enrolling 186 students is pathetic for a public school in a state which is much larger than MN or WI (both of which enroll ~ 250).

You mean the differences are tiny outside of the break between "the rest" and Michigan/Northwestern, I hope.

Speaking of which...where are Michigan's SCOTUS clerks?

Check out the preftige of Kevin Schwartz (Yale 2006)

Is it possible to also post undergrad for the clerks???

Guys at my high school used to pretend that their state school was T14 all the time. It was no big deal.

What is up with Thomas slumming? GMU, GW, Creighton, and Rutgers-Camden? Seriously?

Scalia was asked a fair question ("Do you sodomize your wife") when he came to visit NYU. He can dish it out, but he can't take it (or maybe he can--a follow-up question should have been, "Do you like having a fist rammed up your ass?").

If you click on the link to Yaakov Roth, the Schmooze falsely suggests that graduting summa cum laude is rare at Harvard (rumors of summa inflation abound). Those who don't earn this superlative appellation may, however, take consolation in the fact that Daniel Tenney, a Souter Clerk for October term 2006, was a mere cum laude graduate of Harvard College.

A cursory check of wikipedia shows 2 NYU clerks hired in the past 4 years (counting this year). Stevens hired one, Thomas the other.

3:24: Summa at Harvard College is not the same as Summa at Harvard Law School. The latter happens around twice a decade.

Guys at my high school hired law clerks from Rutgers-Camden all the time, it was no big deal.

Yeah, how could anyone think "do you sodomize your wife" is an unfair question?

You're a retard.

April 13, 2005
Judicial SIGHT-ation: Justice Scalia at NYU!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
last night, on Tuesday, April 12, Justice Antonin Scalia visited NYU. Justice Scalia was on campus to be honored by the NYU Annual Survey of American Law, which is dedicating its 2005 issue to him.

As reported in the Washington Square News, during a question-and-answer period before the dedication ceremony, the Rock Star of One First Street was asked a rather inappropriate question. A UTR reader offers this eyewitness (or earwitness?) account:

as you already know, scalia was at nyu today. in case you haven't yet heard, someone actually had the gall to ask him during a packed question and answer session whether or not he sodomizes his wife!! it was the singularly most shocking event i have witnessed. the question was asked in connection with his contention in lawrence v. texas that the government can regulate private sexual behavior.

After A3G requested details concerning how Justice Scalia and the crowd reacted to the "do you sodomize your wife" inquiry, her loyal correspondent offered further information:

There was this loud collective gasp from the audience, and for about 5 seconds Scalia stared at the questioner - I wasn't sure whether he was in shock like the rest of us, or whether he was going to come down from the podium and throttle the guy. He finally got a hold of himself and said he wasn't going to answer that and tried to move on to the next question, but for about 30 seconds the guy kept on badgering him and Scalia kept on trying to move to the next question, which he finally did.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comments

Viewing the comment as merely a protest is ignorant and childish. This comment was thoughtful and obviously its meaning went over your head. Take a moment to think about it.

"OMG too much info!" Hmmm maybe the person who is listed in police beat for a sodomy violation is thinking the same thing. Luckily Scalia's homophobia could be curbed by more reasonable minds.

The question to Scalia is entirely appropriate because Scalia has advocated the removal of privacy protection from sodomy inquires. Or does that just apply to everyone else and not him? Or is it that sodomy is so hienous that the question implies a horrible accusation? (Keep in mind that the definition of sodomy includes oral sex.) If you answered yes to either of those questions you are either a fool or a biggot.

Posted by: Daniel McGuinness-Ross | April 15, 2005 at 09:40 PM

"Speak truth to power."

If power has a problem with it, power can act accordingly.

Posted by: | April 15, 2005 at 09:13 PM

Scalia begged the question in his dissent in Lawrence. The question is fair and amounts to no more than "Mr. Scalia are you a hypocrite?" I know I thought it, I know others thought it, and I know that his vote means that ONE's SEX IS A LEGITIMATE ISSUE FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY. Perhaps your distaste is because you aren't legislated against or can buy your freedom from the rules the rest of us "peons" must follow.

- k

Posted by: karl | April 15, 2005 at 02:49 PM

Of course you find the 'do you sodomize your wife?' question offensive. Now think of how it feels as a homosexual to have those very questions asked of you. Have you ever committed sodomy? Have you ever had a blow job?

Bigotry and demands of civil obedience from the oppressors will not be tolerated by us anymore. Certainly not from a Supreme Court Justice who has sodomized the Constitution.

Posted by: Gary | April 15, 2005 at 02:36 PM

To the Mr. Manners who equates embarrassing Scalia with sending DEATH THREATS to Blackmun: is threatening someone's life more or less indelicate than picking your teeth with your fork?

Posted by: | April 15, 2005 at 12:37 AM

Thomas: While our protest was not "very tame" (as I'm very happy to say), no one was shouting obscenities over a bullhorn or banging on the walls. One person brought a bullhorn and briefly tested it in anticipation of its use later in the evening on private property, which ended up not happening. But the chanting people heard was our plain unamplified voices as required by law. And yes, one non-student who was present rolled up a piece of paper and tapped on a window for a couple seconds before being told to stop and immediately complying. No reason to make us sound like a violent mob.

As to another comment: Yes, all these responses of shock are making me start to wonder if people realize that Queen Victoria no longer reigns. Geez.

Posted by: Eric Prindle | April 14, 2005 at 08:50 PM

Why not use this opportunity to practice some estates and future interest problems?

1) A3G owns Kozinskacre in fee simple absolute. She conveys Kozinskacre "to Antonin Scalia and his heirs so long as he never sodomizes his wife, but if he sodomizes his wife, then to Anthony Kennedy and his heirs."

2) A3G owns Hedgehog Estate in fee simple absolute. She conveys Hedgehog Estate "to Kimba Wood for life, then to Eugene Volokh and his heirs, then to the heirs of Kimba Wood."

3) A3G owns Easterbrook Manor in fee simple absolute. She conveys Easterbrook Manor "to the hot Kim Wardlaw and the heirs of her body, then to John G. Roberts, Jr and his heirs if he is appointed to the Supreme Court, but if he is not, then to Stephen Reinhardt for life."

What estates and future interests? Come on, you're studious/dorky enough to answer these!

Posted by: Article Too | April 14, 2005 at 08:08 PM

Whiny little maggots.

Posted by: | April 14, 2005 at 07:19 PM

No, it was a pathetic question and a poor attempt to point out hypocrisy where none exists. It merited no response. I'm glad Scalia didn't give it one.

Posted by: Thomas | April 14, 2005 at 06:39 PM

Rectum? Damn near killed 'im.

Posted by: Carlos B | April 14, 2005 at 06:31 PM

You know, I'm getting tired of people putting on a show of being shocked over this. It was a perfectly legitimate question, and not outside the bounds of taste at all- given Scalia's previous statements and his positions on issues relating to sexuality and the law, he should have been willing, even eager, to answer that question.

So stop it with the histrionics. This was not only a pointed, and appropriate, commentary, it was a damn good question.

Posted by: | April 14, 2005 at 06:06 PM

Additional note: My comment on the level of the outside protests was directed at a report I read on a different site where the person claimed the protests were very tame.

Posted by: Thomas | April 14, 2005 at 05:49 PM

Before I'm attacked, let me make it clear that I don't worship at the altar of Scalia. However...

The question was entirely inappropriate. I blame any support for that kind of question on immaturity. Unfortunately, some people never grow up.

It's hard to believe that people cannot see the difference between Scalia's stinging dissents and what happened here. The two are separated by miles, not inches. The question posed, in any form, bears no resemblance to any comment in any Scalia dissent, concurrence, or opinion that I have ever read. (And I've read them all.)

Also, I take issue with the person who claimed that the protests were barely audible. From what I understand, the protests were loud enough to be a significant annoyance. (I seriously doubt the head of the ACLU would have said something if the protests were very quiet.) Either way, it's an extremely weak form of protest to shout obscenities over a bullhorn and bang on walls. It may make you feel better, and in many cases you have the right to do it, but it certainly doesn't help your cause. The average person is turned off by such displays. Unfortunately, people on both the left and right have yet to learn this. (Think PETA and anti-abortionists)

Posted by: Thomas | April 14, 2005 at 05:39 PM

while i agree that scalia's dissent in lawrence v. texas, like some of his other writing, "uses disrespectful and bigoted innuendo," i remain convicned that the questioner's actions during the q. and a. were out of bounds. i'm not so much offended by the person's crude question as i am by its silly motivation...

did the questioner really believe that his pointing out to scalia that enjoying a little oral (or more) now and then with one's hetero partner was comparable to gay partners getting it on would cause the justice to publicly disavow his lawrence dissent? did he think the question would change scalia's mind and the echo maybe inform scalia's future opinions? perhaps the questioner thought scalia had never considered the hypocrisy of giving his wife a little bottom poke but denying gay couples the same pleasure.

naaah... i'm more than certain scalia knows that his views on sexuality and morality are not shared by all; in fact, i suspect that's precisely why he slithered to d.c. and shook the hands he needed to end up where he is. the questioner was either naive or simply a foolish troublemaker whose act of "resistance" was, in my view, ill-conceived political theater... it was beneath the dignity of such a forum not because the questioner asked a supreme court justice if he sodomized his wife (who was in the adience and must have been mortified), but because the question had no legitimate potential to advance the discussion... it was not designed to elicit a thoughtful response but to shock and offend.

Posted by: gram | April 14, 2005 at 04:54 PM

Don't forget, folks, that sodomy occurs above the waist as well. Poor Mrs. Scalia ...

Posted by: Anderson | April 14, 2005 at 03:43 PM

Folks, I think A3G's problem with the question was not so much its content but the inartful way it was worded. The questioner should have framed his query thus:

"Justice Scalia, what legitimate interest does the state have in your penis, vis a vis its penetrating your wife's ass?"

Had the question been so worded, Scalia would doubtlessly have replied:

"My kind sir, the legitimate interest the state has is promoting morality, an interest that has been part of the state's police powers since the time of the framing. Anal sex between lawfully married, consenting adults violates numerous tenants of that essential document of our society, the Christian bible. As you know, many members of the state legislatures are a part of the Christian religion, as am I, and wish to advance its views. That said, it is fully within the power of the legislature to strike these laws down if viewed as archaic, and indeed, this is the proper course to take over activist constitutional pronouncements. I myself believe that these laws do not violate Christian tenets. In fact, I also advocate the use of orgies to ease tensions. However, since anal sex between a man and his wife is illegal, I, though truly desirous of it, refrain. Furthermore, if we deny the state the power to regulate morality, where is the line drawn? Does the state then not have a legitimate interest in forbidding incest, bestiality, and polygamy? You, sir, forget that judges must not legislate. I urge you, rather, to petition your state legislators, and convince them of the injustice of these laws."

"Thank you for having me, NYU. I'd like to close with the following quotation on anal fisting from the Bible. 'My beloved put his hand by the hole of the door and my bowels were moved for him.' Song of Songs, 5:4."

Yeah, I think it would have gone down like that. Come on guys, don't you know the importance of form over substance? And his heirs! And his heirs!

Posted by: Article Too | April 14, 2005 at 02:57 PM

In an era when the President of the United States is impeached for passively receiving felatio, how can anyone say asking a Chief Justice about his bedroom habits is out of bounds?

Posted by: | April 14, 2005 at 01:25 PM

The New York Post's Page Six is reporting that Justice Scalia's wife, Maureen Scalia, was in the audience. Did anyone see her reaction to the question?

Posted by: Curious George | April 14, 2005 at 11:02 AM

The shocked, no, *shocked* response is the path of least resistance. Does it not matter that Scalia openly displays contempt for those who adopt different legal postions, including sitting Supreme Court Justices? The NYU student used no profanity and, as far as I can tell, not even a threatening tone. It's more likely than not that, if Scalia had been on the other side of Lawrence, and Lawrence had been decided the same way, that Scalia would have posed that exact question to the Justices in the majority.

Are you not offended when a Supreme Court Justice defends his controversial involvement in deciding a Presidential election with "get over it?"

Are you not concerned when a Supreme Court Justice derides most of his colleagues as mere political hacks who decide the law purely on the basis of personal feelings?

No, you're bothered by a student making a point in the only way this Justice can apparently understand.

Posted by: M | April 14, 2005 at 01:14 AM

If a particular government can regulate private sexual behavior, then anyone subject to that government is subject to the inquiry, at least to the government inquirer, if not the public. The questioner was making the rather blunt point that noone likes being subject to that particular inquiry. The question was extremely tasteless, but that's the point isn't it?

Of course government can regulate some forms of private sexual behavior - prostitution, rape, incest, bigamy, etc.. When a person is asked in public if they engage in any of these behaviors, they would most likely be indignant because, of course, as a respectable person, they would never engage in such activity. Just as a question as to whether a person engages in orgies would make a "respectably moral" person indignant. But even though a respectable committed couple may in fact enjoy sodomy, the question is enough to make anyone indignant. And that is exactly the questioner's point.

If Justice Scalia's (and whatever you think of the man, he has certainly earned that honorific) indignation was to the public questioning rather than a particular government, that would certainly be a valid point for him to make. Justice Scalia's appearance was not at a dinner party, but he made that appearance as a very powerful representative of government who has the power (along with 4 others) to allow governments to subject committed couples to this inquiry. The indignation that Justice Scalia is probably less than that felt by those subjected to this inquiry by the government before the Court overruled Bowers.

I imagine that Justice Scalia felt the same indignation that Strom Thurmond felt when asked if he had ever engaged in miscegenation himself.

Posted by: A hetersexual in a committed relationship who would not enjoy being asked this question either | April 14, 2005 at 12:33 AM

I was in the audience and, for one, am glad Eric asked the question he did. Scalia was behaving in a disrespectful fashion, being unresponsive to questions and filling up half of the so-called "Q&A" with his stump speech about originalism. His opinions on the court use disrespectful and bigoted innuendo. Just because he does all this with a certain level of elite decorum doesn't mean he's not doing it. So I see nothing wrong with Eric cutting through the bullshit and getting to the point.

Which was: Sexual privacy is very important to people. It is something most of us won't give up willingly. If we as a society respect individual rights, then Scalia didn't have to answer the question, and likewise, adults engaging the same acts in their homes don't have to answer to the police.

No one really thought Scalia was going to answer the question or even wanted to know the answer. After they turned off Eric's mic, what he was "shouting" was an attempt to make the point I just made. Unfortunately, the dean had him cut off.

Posted by: Eric Prindle | April 13, 2005 at 09:47 PM

"The most disgraceful part about the whole incident is that the dean of the law school didn't cut the guy off, or admonish him, or apologize to Scalia."

The Dean was on stage about 100 feet away. At first, he groaned along with the rest of the audience. When the questioner continued to pepper Justice Scalia with questions, the Dean forcefully stated the student's actions were completely inappropriate. He also motioned to a faculty member closer to the questioner to go and turn the microphone off.

Therefore, to say "the most disgraceful part of the whole incident" was the dean's actions is: 1. inaccurate, 2. disingenuous, 3. strongly suggestive of a conservative bias on the part of the UTR reader. I hope your readers don't allow the actions of one immature student to color their opinions of NYU.

Posted by: Chris | April 13, 2005 at 07:01 PM

Is "butt-clenchingly" a specific response to the mention of sodomy?

Posted by: Anderson | April 13, 2005 at 05:04 PM

Marah Stith is Hot! Is she single?