[EL] J. Gorsuch Will Be Awful on #SCOTUS for Progressives. Democrats Should Not Filibuster Him

Fri Mar 24 10:39:56 PDT 2017

If vacancy arises during presidential election year, in that scenario the Democrats would have a politically credible argument. If vacancy arises, say, the day after the 2018 election, less strong. But that scenario would obviously force a more "moderate" nominee. It's all rather obvious politics.

Also, I couldn't care less about partisanship/partisan gain. To me it's about the proper interpretation of the Constitution and statutory text.

Ilya Shapiro
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Cato Institute
1000 Mass. Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
(o) 202-218-4600
(c) 202-577-1134
Twitter: @ishapiro

http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html

On Mar 24, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Salvador Peralta <oregon.properties at yahoo.com<mailto:oregon.properties at yahoo.com>> wrote:

It seems to me that you and your allies knowingly set up a constitutional crisis that threatens the integrity of the court going forward, purely for partisan gain.   If the D's retake the Senate in the next election cycle, I don't see why they would agree to a vote to fill any vacancies that may occur on the supreme court given how the Republicans and their allies conducted themselves over Garland.  Will you be zealously advocating for #NOHEARING #NOVOTE when the shoe is on the other foot?

________________________________
From: Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org<mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>>
To: "Bensman, Lina" <lbensman at cgsh.com<mailto:lbensman at cgsh.com>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [EL] J. Gorsuch Will Be Awful on #SCOTUS for Progressives. Democrats Should Not Filibuster Him

I think it would've been dishonest to hold kabuki hearings (even more than they already are) with full intent of rejecting him for nothing to do with him personally. This way he personally wasn't rejected and the political point was made that in that particular circumstance nobody would be confirmed till after the election.

Ilya Shapiro
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Cato Institute
1000 Mass. Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
(o) 202-218-4600
(c) 202-577-1134
Twitter: @ishapiro
http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html<http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html>

On Mar 24, 2017, at 11:20 AM, Bensman, Lina <lbensman at cgsh.com<mailto:lbensman at cgsh.com>> wrote:

The common theme I see used here and elsewhere is to pretend that what happened was specific to Garland when, in fact, it was specific to Obama. Indeed, at a time when Clinton seemed likely to win, a few Republican senators started talking about the possibility of continuing to refuse to hear or vote on Supreme Court nominees for another four years. What the Senate refused to do was allow Obama to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, and that was expressed through a refusal to hold hearings on Garlan’s nomination, but it was never about Garland in particular.

—
Lina Bensman
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Assistant: namitrano at cgsh.com<mailto:namitrano at cgsh.com>
One Liberty Plaza, New York NY 10006
T: +1 212 225 2069 | F: +1 212 225 3999
lbensman at cgsh.com<mailto:%22Lina%20Bensman%22%20%3clbensman at cgsh.com%3e>  | clearygottlieb.com<http://www.clearygottlieb.com/>

From: Margaret Groarke [mailto:margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 12:11 PM
To: Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>>
Cc: Bensman, Lina <lbensman at cgsh.com<mailto:lbensman at cgsh.com>>; David A. Holtzman <David at holtzmanlaw.com<mailto:David at holtzmanlaw.com>>; Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] J. Gorsuch Will Be Awful on #SCOTUS for Progressives. Democrats Should Not Filibuster Him

I don't know why some of you feel it necessary to characterize the treatment of the nomination of Merrick Garland as normal behavior, but I recognize that a lot of people are doing it. Today, there was this tweet:

Retweeted Sherrilyn Ifill (@Sifill_LDF):
"I will not allow the Dems to deny to Trump what every other Pres has been allowed to do - nominate qualified candidates to SCOTUS."

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:
The advice and consent of the senate was declining to confirm Garland. The extensive airing of debate on the issue just goes to the idea that somehow Garland didn't have a hearing. Nothing in the constitution provides any guidance or limitations as to how the Senate may exercise its power to refuse to consent. One way it might do that--and in fact has, many times--is not to have a hearing or to take any action on a nomination.

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
   Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
614.236.6317
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__law.capital.edu_faculty_bios_bsmith.aspx&d=DwMFaQ&c=6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA&r=irZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk&m=s5sh_Y6xqHvOTp5rsv3AHpYx9FFoDQGhkfDw1JpdTLk&s=73o7a5q5mlWkfoJNaswmyxQsJYpXMrBzOhLT0jr2aFM&e=>
________________________________
From: Bensman, Lina [lbensman at cgsh.com<mailto:lbensman at cgsh.com>]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 7:25 PM
To: Smith, Brad; David A. Holtzman
Cc: Election Law Listserv
Subject: RE: [EL] J. Gorsuch Will Be Awful on #SCOTUS for Progressives. Democrats Should Not Filibuster Him
If the goalposts move any farther, we won’t be able to see them anymore. Defining the advice and consent of the Senate as a process that includes the publication of op-eds is a new one on me.

—
Lina Bensman
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Assistant: namitrano at cgsh.com<mailto:namitrano at cgsh.com>
One Liberty Plaza, New York NY 10006
T: +1 212 225 2069 | F: +1 212 225 3999
lbensman at cgsh.com<mailto:%22Lina%20Bensman%22%20%3clbensman at cgsh.com%3e>  | clearygottlieb.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-3A__www.clearygottlieb.com-26c-3DE-2C1-2CthyGLiRv5TJ5OKAlwcMmfR0s2uZYfw3ji-2DNr9w3djjKhzfrqXHyxIrrSNLa601yQyQNAaOvnWbCJj-2DUvrB2TBXz865CojQbn-5FhVkmo1D04PAJ3nOiNVs-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA&r=irZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk&m=s5sh_Y6xqHvOTp5rsv3AHpYx9FFoDQGhkfDw1JpdTLk&s=1exhXCibIT3VfI5Uy2nWTk58QElaZvSU6N7s9dzv_bY&e=>

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Smith, Brad
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 7:11 PM
To: David A. Holtzman <David at HoltzmanLaw.com<mailto:David at HoltzmanLaw.com>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] J. Gorsuch Will Be Awful on #SCOTUS for Progressives. Democrats Should Not Filibuster Him

republicans didn't need to filibuster Garland--a majority of the senate opposed his nomination. I am not sure what you mean when you say he was not "considered"--his nomination was discussed at great length, was it not, and indeed became a major campaign issue. Hundreds of editorials were written, and numerous biographies and backgrounders. The nomination was debated at great length. And every Republican senator-- a majority of the whole Senate--agreed they would not confirm him before the election. He was not "considered" in the particular way you wanted, but was there any reason to do so given the majority opposition?

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2017, at 6:52 PM, David A. Holtzman <David at HoltzmanLaw.com<mailto:David at HoltzmanLaw.com>> wrote:
Wouldn’t it be fair to filibuster Gorsuch for 10 months, to retaliate for Congress’ refusal to consider President Obama’s nominee during 10 months of Obama's presidency?

On 3/22/2017 9:36 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
J. Gorsuch Will Be Awful on #SCOTUS for Progressives. Democrats Should Not Filibuster Him<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-3A__urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-253fu-253dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Flinkprotect.cudasvc.com-5Furl-2D3Fa-2D3Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Felectionlawblog.org-5F-2D253fp-2D253d91762-2D26c-2D3DE-2D2C1-2D2C9c5CuxG-2D5Fez7XpRjQvs-2D5Fk8Ja9GEzNa9-2D5FCHGtzjJNmZHzRyj0FN8qvKJtwFiINboaGOb2sRsIh-2D2D9ZNmaJIRIeWEij2MjnQ4FkiA4bxuJUv6ACYWy5EwQ-2D2C-2D2C-2D26typo-2D3D1-2526d-253dDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA-2526r-253dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta-5FjGFeYk-2526m-253dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-2DTUVUIifoqj9te72-5FXHLwWXAwEWYbA-2526s-253dEcnZYEft0chk43zMG4SJ1NUYHGlmucOsf00zIjSk4kk-2526e-253d-26c-3DE-2C1-2CcVe1FbJyetV3MBFcXlgSrwaIyOTcbfBFgCeDgkL-5FLC2ObAjZLUE1KIv0jnVCK1dfUpWSoqXWVyBh1R617P7OXW9i6hZXId2tAs8Os-5FMemKUECmut-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA&r=irZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk&m=s5sh_Y6xqHvOTp5rsv3AHpYx9FFoDQGhkfDw1JpdTLk&s=p1k4DYNmuPI0LMlWWigJcX2kFle13u_tR0APEoqX5QU&e=>
Posted on March 22, 2017 9:26 pm<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-3A__urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-253fu-253dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Flinkprotect.cudasvc.com-5Furl-2D3Fa-2D3Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Felectionlawblog.org-5F-2D253fp-2D253d91762-2D26c-2D3DE-2D2C1-2D2CL49X-2D5FeYvEtB7Qul-2D5FNZOqL-2D2DTIFpHNRJJS04SWucBmvYx0RJ-2D2DboCLs1r0bYKaPbbDNZMg0EBmoBrZ0GohMc8H-2D2DG3EyGwInK6zVCzhaHhk-2D2C-2D26typo-2D3D1-2526d-253dDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA-2526r-253dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta-5FjGFeYk-2526m-253dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-2DTUVUIifoqj9te72-5FXHLwWXAwEWYbA-2526s-253dWxyKoiLKs1K6LRI-2DY-5F7SAmVPiFj1EIGO5bpMh-5FBUmok-2526e-253d-26c-3DE-2C1-2CB1p3LUsbuMofGf2PdY4dKGg0a7VMxIASF3SwJdPrTzWrzGX21McGb1imB9wxKi2fverb-2DowIuNL4puzriDNkAT1TKz831tebwMlioHQ-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA&r=irZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk&m=s5sh_Y6xqHvOTp5rsv3AHpYx9FFoDQGhkfDw1JpdTLk&s=bHc0E8PDHv-5kKK1nTrVDzJmRMXclIv_vuI8hfzPWLI&e=> by Rick Hasen<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-3A__urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-253fu-253dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Flinkprotect.cudasvc.com-5Furl-2D3Fa-2D3Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Felectionlawblog.org-5F-2D253fauthor-2D253d3-2D26c-2D3DE-2D2C1-2D2Cgzm7KpFeeAEYIPwDXTpO79FvcivjWI4OT4ZA9hdA1RFWj4oCwBhbzukKiABPRXMZXBvUmX3aEWXyya2rN30N0HrqoxfmOs9UT-2D5F0M0jtqSLxdink-2D2C-2D26typo-2D3D1-2526d-253dDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA-2526r-253dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta-5FjGFeYk-2526m-253dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-2DTUVUIifoqj9te72-5FXHLwWXAwEWYbA-2526s-253dr84rtq0kRgmRyNAELueKYdn-2DJZgZJyw9Hr96oq46SuY-2526e-253d-26c-3DE-2C1-2C2umRTJ663Of0iTkhvT3N-5FBQ5dzfV4bv0u24JPJQgfeGVku8LfG4O2WLW1-5FIBrK0eO6LdG6G8Or9aS-5F5JOz5bMi0CDqbDC0tT2vnm3-5FfqhTQ-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA&r=irZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk&m=s5sh_Y6xqHvOTp5rsv3AHpYx9FFoDQGhkfDw1JpdTLk&s=bJ338c_CoDwp3XzCVs6rkbC_91SnaZe_vBv9FKvHPVA&e=>
I have no doubt that a Justice Gorsuch will be awful for progressives on the issues that they care the most about: abortion, affirmative action, campaign finance, voting rights, environmental protection, gun rights, and everything else. I’m even more convinced watching the hearings that Judge Gorsuch fancies himself an originalist and textualist in the mold of Justice Scalia. This means he is likely to be more conservative than Chief Justice Roberts, and could be as conservative if not more conservative than Justices Alito and Thomas. (I wrote about where he is likely to stand on campaign finance and voting rights in this CNN piece<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-3A__urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-253fu-253dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.cnn.com-5F2017-5F03-5F01-5Fopinions-5Fworry-2D2Dabout-2D2Dgorsuch-2D2Dhasen-5F-2526d-253dDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA-2526r-253dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta-5FjGFeYk-2526m-253dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-2DTUVUIifoqj9te72-5FXHLwWXAwEWYbA-2526s-253dwIyYtyxjFfxgs1wqw0O2TqGpDCkJsz-5FhCM5aFHmhq9I-2526e-253d-26c-3DE-2C1-2CzqwC4dDBnIBI1IylK3UWRmRDcHuioLb71UDE7D0xCv7HzzKPLee4XR-2DaHRa5tlSrNYQMVHLtp1xeuXQgKviYz7q81j4lLvvf5aYq4GD-5FL2UFB3riT94SJ91sUA-2C-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA&r=irZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk&m=s5sh_Y6xqHvOTp5rsv3AHpYx9FFoDQGhkfDw1JpdTLk&s=YtVXmRbcxPLqHWalL0g_YcHeTnjyuUMZi5u5ZAv2Gks&e=> and this blog post<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-3A__urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-253fu-253dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Flinkprotect.cudasvc.com-5Furl-2D3Fa-2D3Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Felectionlawblog.org-5F-2D253fp-2D253d91744-2D26c-2D3DE-2D2C1-2D2Czw5scHWunDsBGr8Oiyx8478PxHZsc7OaNcU0pKx4cSOfrpzcJlCOYpnQaaBRaxIyPJ04Qmi-2D5FMWmp1SnmJI8el5I9EegOz3qdWNtJwg-2D2C-2D2C-2D26typo-2D3D1-2526d-253dDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA-2526r-253dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta-5FjGFeYk-2526m-253dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-2DTUVUIifoqj9te72-5FXHLwWXAwEWYbA-2526s-253dlEMskXUbzR2k6oggUfoJmeonynONeKwRYYHeRtuA4Qs-2526e-253d-26c-3DE-2C1-2CRKcqTMED-5F8RjAaWoxNMsxD3pNABlVgMOzAKnlk9c7FZZsbdHdbf-5FQibf3RZJY01iIBnf4mqNZds2KfZLvgZHh4vqj7m1kmYTP8GiqvzwuAo-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA&r=irZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk&m=s5sh_Y6xqHvOTp5rsv3AHpYx9FFoDQGhkfDw1JpdTLk&s=TCkH9eYBnOXKe8kmWHm4Eub4i-Sx4QwnH6WtDI5RqdE&e=>. I also think we need a bit more clarification on his views. based on misstatements at the hearing<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-3A__urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-253fu-253dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Flinkprotect.cudasvc.com-5Furl-2D3Fa-2D3Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Felectionlawblog.org-5F-2D253fp-2D253d91730-2D26c-2D3DE-2D2C1-2D2CYb6hFflTSmTJpUaUsNig-2D2Dl8QFJMv-2D5FbxHBIgtLSCGQpbzFOMqkppLaMeBUkIP-2D5Ff7IMHiWfPpPc8fzFkfpAUf68gwdm1kmi7lyxIaJeBA-2D5Fi64-2D2C-2D26typo-2D3D1-2526d-253dDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA-2526r-253dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta-5FjGFeYk-2526m-253dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-2DTUVUIifoqj9te72-5FXHLwWXAwEWYbA-2526s-253dnsOlgeNj3iXfAHV3LDGQuga-2DCevv0vRIEpQ88EKVbno-2526e-253d-26c-3DE-2C1-2CGj6rUFYvrxV12MEVj7qyg7Isrw59jMEB6qLuRcdmVGEQcgh7GppTY8-5FdeWWxrZIkdOpyHHQO-2DPkiS28bXXw0i4vsYn4DnTuTHfkRmxy71qtxt-2DSX-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA&r=irZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk&m=s5sh_Y6xqHvOTp5rsv3AHpYx9FFoDQGhkfDw1JpdTLk&s=JPvhFJqHM2nXsQMupp8eSOdZyiFHjR4px8lhiGnYlwc&e=>.)
So should Democrats try to filibuster him? Right now it takes 60 votes to bring Gorsuch’s nomination to the floor. If Democrats hang together, they could filibuster him. That would likely cause Senator McConnell to trigger the nuclear option for Supreme Court appointees (just like Senator Reid, for the Democrats, went nuclear a few years ago for all appointees aside from the Supreme Court). He may have some reluctant Republicans to do that, but my bet is he’d get it through.
So why shouldn’t Democrats do it now, to get attention and to protest the shameful failure of Republicans to consider Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court when nominated by President Obama? I’ve struggled with it but now think it better not to filibuster.
Democrats hold a pair of twos.  They don’t have much they can do. Triggering a fight over the filibuster will gain attention, but Democrats can only do it once. The Gorsuch nomination restores the balance of power on the Court to the position it was in before Justice Scalia’s death.
Imagine if in a year or so Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, or Kennedy leave the Court. Then things get MUCH worse from the point of view of progressives. Then Roberts becomes the swing voter and there goes affirmative action, abortion rights, etc. If you think things with the Supreme Court are bad for progressive now they can get much, much worse.
Better to save the firepower for that fight. It is possible that Senators like Susan Collins would be squeamish about such a nominee, and they might not vote to go nuclear. At that point, people can take to the streets and exert public pressure. At that point, the left will perhaps realize what they lost when they lost the 2016 election and how bad things will be.
Another thing. Lots of Trump state Democratic Senators are coming up for reelection in 2018. Democrats need to hold those seats. Democrats and their allies have not done a good enough job painting Judge Gorsuch as a danger to the rights and issues people care about in those states. They would be put to tough votes if they are put in the position to filibuster. They may not do it, and if they do it could make the more vulnerable in 2018.
So while I’ve vacillated, I now don’t think Democrats should trigger the filibuster now.
The future is uncertain. It won’t buy much now. It might buy more in the future. Maybe in the future Democrats will have better than a pair of twos.
<mime-attachment.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-3A__urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-253fu-253dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.addtoany.com-5Fshare-2D23url-2D3Dhttp-2D253A-2D252F-2D252Felectionlawblog.org-2D252F-2D253Fp-2D253D91762-2D26title-2D3DJ.-2D2520Gorsuch-2D2520Will-2D2520Be-2D2520Awful-2D2520on-2D2520-2D2523SCOTUS-2D2520for-2D2520Progressives.-2D2520Democrats-2D2520Should-2D2520Not-2D2520Filibuster-2D2520Him-2526d-253dDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA-2526r-253dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta-5FjGFeYk-2526m-253dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-2DTUVUIifoqj9te72-5FXHLwWXAwEWYbA-2526s-253dgEiIAp9Sk29Ujg6muXj-5FdrStCtS-2DzpjyMt7-2DzF8vqt0-2526e-253d-26c-3DE-2C1-2CAZkDwBSRuH49Hhqoby1nZ9e4f3L0pBiw27AiS787XE5Oq6bY-2DawqtygQ6gNjNqUcDKlNfMEvoPC0fe6d67pIoHi6x2DoP8-2D9eJSoou9iO3SZOtI-2DH0Yt2Q-2C-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA&r=irZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk&m=s5sh_Y6xqHvOTp5rsv3AHpYx9FFoDQGhkfDw1JpdTLk&s=T3JHBg0ie8btE2EAsCGCFihxb4IGmpRBRnWbkTFSRwU&e=>
Posted in Supreme Court<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-3A__urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-253fu-253dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Flinkprotect.cudasvc.com-5Furl-2D3Fa-2D3Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Felectionlawblog.org-5F-2D253fcat-2D253d29-2D26c-2D3DE-2D2C1-2D2C7OQFh3KQlRgf6rWNRjcTpBDGJGGImwf0MX3zqgbpNJ5LUNhopnz-2D2DOJ7jPtDHwsXIim0eS4XdcRDqETKbt9iaEWZhALguBrmAfBUAJ5QvHjg-2D2C-2D26typo-2D3D1-2526d-253dDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA-2526r-253dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta-5FjGFeYk-2526m-253dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-2DTUVUIifoqj9te72-5FXHLwWXAwEWYbA-2526s-253dxgJvWBLoQHEyMohrJlAmP40HChlH9bSH6T2kjAz3UBE-2526e-253d-26c-3DE-2C1-2CV8Q1SsCF3xP4FNLyx8X5o3IdupwwmEyov29B7AJ3iCM0ZB4CnVuKsGMzg1PganzampeZzm9LtHFqa-5FJ0FkiY0R-5Fgsk6Hihln5if9Zh8-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA&r=irZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk&m=s5sh_Y6xqHvOTp5rsv3AHpYx9FFoDQGhkfDw1JpdTLk&s=Ay5SC3kEQLx468HHE08i1YDt0Z_QN9XItQS-H7c4UB8&e=>

[]
--
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com<mailto:david at holtzmanlaw.com>
Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election&c=E,1,HYLaCx3uVQvQpkTvef3gq8UJXC-vm_oXXSWrWFuwRH4qvEmqiWL7kSrv4vkYBaBgcoeFPU29vtawlJfW6aucA_NX91DuD6UCZ5ROTd465g,,&typo=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttps-3A__urldefense.proofpoint.com_v2_url-253fu-253dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Flinkprotect.cudasvc.com-5Furl-2D3Fa-2D3Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Fdepartment-2D2Dlists.uci.edu-5Fmailman-5Flistinfo-5Flaw-2D2Delection-2D26c-2D3DE-2D2C1-2D2CHYLaCx3uVQvQpkTvef3gq8UJXC-2D2Dvm-2D5FoXXSWrWFuwRH4qvEmqiWL7kSrv4vkYBaBgcoeFPU29vtawlJfW6aucA-2D5FNX91DuD6UCZ5ROTd465g-2D2C-2D2C-2D26typo-2D3D1-2526d-253dDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA-2526r-253dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta-5FjGFeYk-2526m-253dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-2DTUVUIifoqj9te72-5FXHLwWXAwEWYbA-2526s-253djf1Npd-2DFGRJVaUnN-5FIZ3WeG85NNb74D-2DRBjRWUufs4E-2526e-253d-26c-3DE-2C1-2Czr9y6N85Ul649G7NLzWJ7YpRIsp3iahUWcobo0UhtXmMGatgFJtA7LddBKbDzL9WmLoNez1rIGJ-5FPBhic3HayzzaNa6bzpbdJTlaWgfYtiHmAxXV-2Dw-2C-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA&r=irZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk&m=s5sh_Y6xqHvOTp5rsv3AHpYx9FFoDQGhkfDw1JpdTLk&s=WOxFZYHSKRMxJD4pKVU5CLDrZrEnYEd_ugxpr8PnEXU&e=>

This message is being sent from a law firm and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy.

Throughout this communication, "Cleary Gottlieb" and the "firm" refer to Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP and its affiliated entities in certain jurisdictions, and the term "offices" includes offices of those affiliated entities.

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA&r=irZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk&m=s5sh_Y6xqHvOTp5rsv3AHpYx9FFoDQGhkfDw1JpdTLk&s=GybY_ZuX68EaeWQGApOjcWRtLQaKdv971sloGc6mC0U&e=>

--
Margaret Groarke
Associate Professor, Government
<~WRD000.jpg>
Riverdale, NY 10471
Phone: 718-862-7943
Fax: 718-862-8044
margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu<mailto:name.name at manhattan.edu>
www.manhattan.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.manhattan.edu_&d=DwMFaQ&c=6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA&r=irZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk&m=s5sh_Y6xqHvOTp5rsv3AHpYx9FFoDQGhkfDw1JpdTLk&s=NjrkRTDYJPopNwPBq4gaYmP72toz-dfMaaOFfR6u2Qo&e=>

This message is being sent from a law firm and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy.

Throughout this communication, "Cleary Gottlieb" and the "firm" refer to Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP and its affiliated entities in certain jurisdictions, and the term "offices" includes offices of those affiliated entities.

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>

http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170324/6bfadb91/attachment-0001.html>