COURTSIDE ELECTION SPECIAL🇺🇸🗽⚖️👍😎 — HARRIS, BIDEN, DEMOCRACY BIG WINNERS — THIS TIME AROUND, THE MAJORITY RULES, AS DEM DUO SWEEPS TO VICTORY IN BOTH POPULAR VOTE AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

President Elect Joe Biden — Official portrait of Vice President Joe Biden in his West Wing Office at the White House, Jan. 10, 2013. (Official White House Photo by David Lienemann).

Vice President Elect Kamala Harris
Official Senate Photo
Public Realm

🇺🇸🗽⚖️👍😎COURTSIDE ELECTION SPECIAL: HARRIS, BIDEN, DEMOCRACY BIG WINNERS — THIS TIME AROUND, THE MAJORITY RULES, AS DEM DUO SWEEPS TO VICTORY IN BOTH POPULAR VOTE AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

Nov. 7, 2020. Vice President and soon to be President Elect Joe Biden’s 33-year long quest for the U.S. Presidency will come to fruition on January 20, 2021. His running mate and soon to be Vice President Elect Senator Kamala Harris will become the first woman and the first African American to hold the number two job.

Although the results of the Presidential contest were long in coming, they basically fulfilled pre-election predictions. Harris-Biden are on pace to win a clear majority of the popular vote by over four million votes, in the process compiling the highest vote total in U.S. election history.

Unlike 2016, this time the popular vote translates into an insurmountable 59 vote margin and a majority in the electoral college. Fittingly, Biden’s apparent victory in Pennsylvania put him over the top. But, with the Biden Harris team in the lead in the “undecided” states of Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia that electoral margin seems likely to widen when the final vote is tabulated. Only the remaining states of Alaska and North Carolina appear to be falling into the Trump column, which would still leave the soon-to-be former President woefully short of an electoral majority.

Indeed, he is now on pace to lose by the same electoral majority than he compiled in defeating Clinton notwithstanding losing the popular vote to her by millions. At that time, Trump characterized his electoral college victory as a “landslide,” notwithstanding his very clear defeat in the popular vote. While compiling a head-scratchingly large cult-like following of tens of millions that propelled him to victory on 2016 and helped prop up his bizarrely incompetent presidency, Trump was never popular with the majority of Americans, except in his own muddled mind.

In winning a convincing victory, if not the overwhelming one that Democrats hoped for and that many pundits and pollsters predicted, Biden/Harris appear to have held every state won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 while “flipping” Biden’s birth state of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by narrow margins. If their narrow current leads in Arizona and Georgia hold, they will add “flips” of these traditional GOP strongholds to their list of election achievements.

Biden becomes only the third candidate since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 to unseat a sitting elected President, the others being President Ronald Reagan and President Bill Clinton. (President Jimmy Carter unseated President Gerald Ford in 1980, but Ford was never elected to either the Vice Presidency or the Presidency.) Biden also becomes the fourth Vice President in the past 70 years to later win a Presidential election.

Harris is a graduate of Howard University and Cal Hastings Law. Her win is a huge milestone for “historically black colleges” and their many talented graduates throughout our nation.

Biden is a graduate of the University of Delaware and Syracuse Law. The Harris-Biden tandem may be the first time that “non—Ivy” lawyers have held both of our top elected positions. That’s a tribute to the many fine law schools outside the Ivy League that produce the vast majority of the nation’s legal talent and fuel most of the “practical lawyering and usable scholarship” that keeps our legal system afloat.

Hopefully, our new leaders will keep that in mind when filling key positions in their upcoming Administration and particularly in making Federal Judicial appointments at all levels. That’s especially important considering the disturbing failure of many graduates of so-called “elite” law schools serving us as public officials and judges to effectively and courageously stand up to the all out assault on the rule of law, ethics, constitutionally required due process and equal protection, and human decency by the Trump regime.

Any surviving functionality and integrity in our courts and public institutions is largely the result of courageous and under-appreciated attorneys, many working pro bono, who have fought at the “retail level” of our justice system to preserve those human rights and fundamental values upon which our legal system rests. All too often, they suffered bullying and abuse from the cowardly Trump regime for their efforts, while life-tenured Federal Judges failed in their duty to intercede to protect officers of their courts and their clients whose rights were being trampled by a group of out of control White Nationalist bigots.

Thus, the Biden-Harris team will enter what is probably the most consequential Presidency in U.S. history at one of the most most difficult and contentious times. With an out of control pandemic, high unemployment, rapidly deteriorating environment, festering racism, looming healthcare, opioid, and educational crises, cratering international prestige, trade wars, a crippled and demoralized career civil service, a failing judicial system, dysfunctional immigration and refugee systems, lack of trust in Government, disquiet in the intelligence and military communities, lack of competent Executive leadership over the past four years, and about 70.3 million Americans essentially living “in a parallel universe” but still our fellow citizens and essential to our society, saving American democracy would be a daunting task for any leaders. Some would say “mission impossible.” But, I can’t think of anyone better suited than the Biden-Harris team to undertake that mission.

In a democracy, successful outcomes are never guaranteed. But, if our democracy turns out to be beyond reclamation, it almost certainly will be because “We the People” fail to give our new leaders the support they need and deserve.

As for Trump, ever the total boor and purveyor of hate, division, and lies, he sent a missive from his golf course saying that he wouldn’t concede and pledged to continue to pelt our already crumbling court system with yet more frivolous litigation. Thankfully, most news commentators chose to read only a few lines of his incoherent rant before returning to the real news surrounding Biden and Harris. How quickly even the most bombastic ones with the biggest egos become “yesterday’s news.”

So, unsurprisingly, Trump, who undoubtedly will go down as the worst, most corrupt, and least competent President in U.S. history, will exit with the same disturbing lack of class, honesty, and fundamental human decency that has characterized his four-year “nightmare reign.” Meanwhile, as he relaxes, pouts, and sulks on the links, the pandemic that he failed to take reasonable steps to address or control, and consistently and dishonestly tried to downplay, continues to rage unabated and ravish our nation.

One of the hardest hit areas: The Upper Midwest, particularly my native state of Wisconsin. That might explain why today Trump is playing golf and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are sharing center stage! For a change, its nice to have folks who represent some of the most admirable human qualities that America has produced getting their time in the spotlight.

The good news: After 12:01 PM on January 20, 2021, the majority of us won’t care about the antisocial antics of the biggest loser of this election!

ATTENTION NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY: CALS Fellowships Available @ Georgetown Law – Great Training For The Radically Progressive Humanitarian Federal Judiciary Of The Future That Will Finally Make The 5th, 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendments To The Constitution A Reality!👩🏻‍⚖️⚖️🗽🇺🇸

CALS Graduate Teaching Fellowships

FELLOWSHIP ANNOUNCEMENT

2020-2022 Clinical Teaching Fellowship

The Center for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) at Georgetown Law announces that it is now accepting applications for its annual fellowship program in clinical legal education. CALS will offer one lawyer a two year teaching fellowship (July 2020 June 2022), providing a unique opportunity to learn how to teach law in a clinical setting.

At CALS, our two fellows and faculty members work as colleagues, sharing responsibilities for designing and teaching classes, supervising law students in their representation of clients, selecting and grading students, administering the clinic, and all other matters. In addition, the fellow will undertake independent legal scholarship, conducting the research and writing to produce a law review article of publishable quality.

This fellowship is particularly suitable for lawyers with some degree of practice experience who now want to embark upon careers in law teaching. Most of our previous fellows are now teaching law or have done so for substantial portions of their careers.

Since 1995, CALS has specialized in immigration law, specifically in asylum practice, and our docket focuses on presenting asylum claims in immigration court. Applicants with experience in U.S. immigration law will therefore, be given preference. The fellow must be a member of a bar at the start of the fellowship period.

The fellow will receive full tuition and fees in the LL.M. program at Georgetown University, and a stipend of 57,000 in the first year and 60,000 in the second year. On successful completion of the requirements, the Fellow will be granted the degree of Master of Laws (Advocacy) with distinction.

Former holders of this fellowship include Mary Brittingham (1995-97), Andrea Goodman (1996-98), Michele Pistone (1997-99), Rebecca Story (1998-2000), Virgil Wiebe (1999-2001), Anna Marie Gallagher (2000-02), Regina Germain (2001-2003), Dina Francesca Haynes (2002-2004), Diane Uchimiya (2003-2005), Jaya Ramji-Nogales (2004-2006), Denise Gilman (2005-2007), Susan Benesch (2006-2008), Kate Aschenbrenner (2007-2009), Anjum Gupta (2008-2010), Alice Clapman (2009-2011) Geoffrey Heeren (2010-2012), Heidi Altman (2011-2013), Laila Hlass(2012-2014), Lindsay Harris (2013-2015), Jean C. Han, Rebecca Feldmann, Pooja Dadhania, and Karen Baker. The current fellows are Faiza Sayed and Deena Sharuk. The faculty members directing CALS are Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip Schrag.

To apply, send a resume, an official or unofficial law school transcript, a writing sample, and a detailed statement of interest (approximately 5 pages). The materials must arrive by December 2, 2019. The statement should address: a) why you are interested in this fellowship; b) what you can contribute to the Clinic; c) your experience with asylum and other immigration cases; d) your professional or career goals for the next five or ten years; e) your reactions to the Clinic’s goalsand teaching methods as described on its website, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/experiential-learning/clinics/center-for-applied-legal-studies/; and f) anything else that you consider pertinent. Address your application to Directors, Center for Applied Legal Studies, Georgetown Law, 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Suite 332, Washington, D.C. 20001, or electronically to lawcalsclinic@georgetown.edu.

Georgetown University is an equal opportunity affirmative action employer. We are committed to diversity in the workplace. If you have any questions, call CALS at (202) 662-9565 or email to lawcalsclinic@georgetown.edu.

*******************************************

Great opportunity, at a great school, with great Clinical Professors! (Full disclosure: I am an Adjunct Professor @ Georgetown Law.)

The “CALS Alumni List Above” reads like the “All-Star Team of Social Justice.” They are doing great things and teaching others, literally from coast to coast.

There is only one place where they can’t be found – yet! That’s the Federal Government, particularly our failing Federal Judiciary!

One of the reasons our nation is in turmoil, governed by a kakistocracy, with failing institutions, is the glaring lack of immigration and human rights expertise and the concomitant courageous commitment to Constitutional principles of Due Process, Fundamental Fairness, Equal Justice for All, and practical problem solving that it brings! The stunning and disgraceful lack of all these necessary qualities for a successful, prosperous, vibrant 21^st Century democratic republic runs throughout the Executive, Legislature, and particularly the Judiciary – including both the Article IIIs and the “wannabes” (like Immigration “Courts” that don’t function like “courts” but could be fixed with better leadership and a merit-based judiciary.)

So, what about teaching and advocacy? Aren’t they supposed to be the goals of CALS? Well, as once pointed out to me by a colleague, judges are teachers and courtrooms at every level also function as classrooms. And, advocacy? Well, what is great judging if not a form of unswerving fearless advocacy for due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all?

There is no doubt that CALS and similar programs at other institutions have played a seminal role in improving advocacy. Today’s leading immigration advocates are superstars in what has become the most important field in today’s law – one that combines intellectual challenge with practical humanity, all in the context of the highest stakes imaginable for individuals, our nation, and our world.

But, too often today that great advocacy is falling on the tone-deaf ears of a non-responsive, non-representative, far right-wing judiciary selected for their commitment to a cruel, exclusive, basically anti-Constitutional, and often virulently anti-democracy agenda. In this toxic context, even the greatest advocacy becomes largely an exercise in futility. It’s past time for the leading lights of immigration and human rights advocacy, many of them CALS alums, to penetrate the Federal Judiciary and eventually dominate it.

To survive, prosper, and lead into the future, our diverse and talented nation needs a “radical progressive humanitarian judiciary.” So, my advice to those of you wanting to lead the way to a better and more just future: Get your CALS Fellowship Application in now! Prepare yourself aggressively to seek political, governmental, and judicial power and progressively to use it for the common good!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-24-20

Sometimes, Saying Nothing & Just Going About Your Business Is The Best Strategy

http://time.com/4664957/trump-tweets-judiciary-judges-gorsuch/

Mark Sherman reports in Time:

“(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s unusually personal criticism of federal judges has drawn rebukes from many quarters, including from Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, but not from the judges themselves.
And that’s not likely to change, even if the tweeter in chief keeps up his attacks on judges. Bolstered by lifetime tenure, independent judges should not respond to criticism, no matter how harsh or that its source is the president, said a former judge, a law school dean and a constitutional law professor.
Judges “should basically give the tweets the attention they deserve, which means they should be ignored. This is basically a childish tantrum from someone who didn’t get his way. And the judiciary should go about its business and decide cases, including cases involving him,” said Vanderbilt University law professor Suzanna Sherry.
Trump’s style may be different and his language more coarse, but the comments themselves are not the “threat to judicial independence that some commentators have made them out to be,” said University of Pennsylvania law school dean Theodore Ruger.
Former U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell said judges would find themselves in unfamiliar territory “if they start critiquing the Twitter feed of the president.”
Chief Justice John Roberts has apparently embraced that advice. Roberts declined through a court spokeswoman to comment for this article.

Roberts himself was Trump’s first target during the presidential campaign. Last winter, Trump called the chief justice “an absolute disaster” and “disgraceful” mainly for the two opinions Roberts wrote that preserved President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
Next in Trump’s sights was U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was presiding over fraud lawsuits against Trump University. In June, Trump called Curiel “a hater of Donald Trump” who couldn’t be fair to him because Curiel is “of Mexican heritage” and Trump had proposed building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.
Last week, Trump pegged U.S. District Judge James Robart as a “so-called judge” after Robart imposed a temporary halt on Trump’s executive order barring people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from coming to the United States. On Sunday, Trump renewed his Twitter attacks against Robart: “Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!”
On Wednesday, he said the “courts seem to be so political,” in reference to the three federal appeals court judges who are considering the administration’s plea to enforce the order.
Later Wednesday, Gorsuch said he found the president’s attacks on the judiciary “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” The comments were made in a private meeting with Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, although senators often provide an account of what was discussed in such meetings. Gorsuch’s confirmation team confirmed the essence of the remarks.
Trump is not the first president to object to court decisions or to opine about how a court should rule, said Paul Collins, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Obama used his 2010 State of the Union message to assail the Supreme Court’s Citizens United campaign finance ruling, with several justices in the audience. Obama also delivered a lengthy pitch for his health care law while the court was weighing the case in 2015.
With the exception of John F. Kennedy, every president since Dwight Eisenhower has been critical of some Supreme Court decisions, said Collins, drawing on research he did with co-author Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha of the University of North Texas.
But past presidents did not make their displeasure known by “attacking judges … or by questioning the decision such that there’s a possibility of undermining faith in the judicial system,” Collins said. “I get this uncomfortable sense that the president may be trying to lower confidence in judges in anticipation of defying a ruling.”
Ruger said Roberts, as the head of the judicial branch of government, or another justice might feel compelled to speak up about the importance of an independent judiciary if the attacks continue.But Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah who was a judge from 2002 to 2007, said Trump has the right to voice his disagreement. “We live in an age now where, for better or for worse, the language we use is getting rougher in a variety of contexts,” he said.”

********************************

It also helps to have a job with life tenure.

PWS

02/09/17

🇺🇸🗽⚖️👍😎COURTSIDE ELECTION SPECIAL: HARRIS, BIDEN, DEMOCRACY BIG WINNERS — THIS TIME AROUND, THE MAJORITY RULES, AS DEM DUO SWEEPS TO VICTORY IN BOTH POPULAR VOTE AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

Related posts:

CALS Graduate Teaching Fellowships

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts: