I have updated my list of Scalia’s involvement with this Think-Tank. I will further update if more is found.
Justice Scalia has I involvement spanning from 1977 to late 2012 with this Conservative Think-Tank. That very Think-Tank prior to 2009 held an event that was named “Is the Voting Rights Act Constitutional?” The man pushing the Supreme Court was also the participant at this event.
Even with this case before him Justice Scalia was speaking at AEI in later part of 2012, even it was known American Enterprise Institute has been involved in asking the question is the Voter Act necessary. I have included a variety of links linking Scalia to the Conservative Think-Tank, as well as AEI’s interest in the Voter’s Act. To about 1992 Scalia wroter for AEI. To about 1985 Scalia wroter for AEI. He was a co-editor of ‘Regulations’ a journal of AEI wich came our abour six times a year. Scalia was considered a adjunct scholar. After becoming a Supreme Court Justice Scalia would be the speaker at some AEI events.
AEI held an event in 2009 called “Is the Voting Rights Act Constitutional?” I have included that information below. Also in 2006 AEI also sponsored several pages concerning the voting Rights act with Edward Blum. That document can be found on the very bottom of this blog.
The Koch brothers has spent well over six figures funding this this Think-Tank.
Edward Blum is also the director of The Project on Fair Representation. From all documents it appears a project of The Project on Fair Representation is the Voting Rights Act. From a certain document released by Edward Blum the American Enterprise Institute is also a part of The Project on Fair Representation’s involvement in the Voting Right Act. (The complete document is below at the very bottom of this blog). Edward Blum is also involved in thr Texas Supreme Court Case involving Affirmative Action.
Background information on American Enterprise Institute
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI)—which had been renamed in 1962—remained a marginal operation with little practical influence in the national politics until the 1970s. Baroody recruited a resident research faculty; Harvard economist Haberler was the first to join in 1972. In 1977, former president Gerald Ford joined AEI as its “distinguished fellow.” Ford brought several of his administration’s officials with him, including Arthur Burns, Robert Bork, David Gergen, James C. Miller III, Laurence Silberman, and Antonin Scalia. Ford also founded the AEI World Forum, which he hosted until 2005. Other resident scholars hired around this time included Herbert Stein and Walter Berns. Baroody’s son, William J. Baroody Jr., had been an official in the Ford White House and now also joined AEI, taking over the presidency from his father in 1978.
Legal and constitutional studies
The AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest, formed in 2007 from the merger of the National Legal Center for the Public Interest, houses all legal and constitutional research at AEI. Legal studies have a long pedigree at AEI; the institute was in the vanguard of the law and economics movement in the 1970s and 1980s with the publication of Regulation magazine and AEI Press books. Robert Bork published The Antitrust Paradox with AEI support. Other jurists, legal scholars, and constitutional scholars who have conducted research at AEI include Walter Berns, Richard Epstein, Bruce Fein, Robert Goldwin, Antonin Scalia, Laurence Silberman, and Daniel Troy. Goldwin, assisted by Art Kaufman, William Schambra, and Robert A. Licht, edited the ten-volume “A Decade of Study of the Constitution” series from 1980 to 1990.
AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest was formed when the National Legal Center for the Public Interest was merged into the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute in September 2007. Its stated mission is to “foster knowledge about law and the administration of justice, especially with respect to individual rights, free enterprise, property ownership, limited government, and a fair and efficient judiciary. It has pursued its educational and intellectual missions through a publishing program, conferences, and the annual Gauer Distinguished Lecture in Law and Public Policy.”
“AEI’s PR efforts increased the groups fundraising ability as well as its visibility; Ford hosted an annual “World Forum” in Vail, Colorado, where the Baroody bunch hobnobbed with the wealthy. Baroody’s strategy was extremely successful, turning AEI into a $9 million, 154-person Republican government-in-waiting. AEI employees who eventually became high-level Reagan officials included James C. Miller, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Murray Weidenbaum and Antonin Scalia.
Despite (or because of) its close ties to Reagan administration appointees and policies, the AEI became a leading source of guests for PBS’s NewsHourduring the 1980s. Between January 1982 and October 1990, AEI spokespersons appeared on the NewsHour 142 times, an average of 1.4 appearances per month–almost twice as often as representatives from the Carnegie Endowment or Brookings Institution (Soley, The News Shapers).”
Reported by the AP PRESS on October 5, 2012, 4:14 and titled Scalia: Abortion, death penalty “easy” cases, Scalia spoke at the American
Some of the statements he made at the American Enterprise Institute as reported by the AP Press were
“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”
“Look it, do not believe anything you read about the internal workings of the Supreme Court,” he said. “It is either a lie because the press knows we won’t respond — they can say whatever they like and we won’t respond — or else it’s based on information from someone who has violated his oath of confidentiality, that is to say, a non-reliable source. So, one way or another, it is not worthy of belief.”
“We can disagree with one another on the law without taking it personally.”
Nomination of Antonin Scalia To Be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
Taming Globalization: International Law, the U.S. Constitution and the New World Order
AEI, Twelfth Floor
1150 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
(Two blocks from Farragut North Metro)
Walter Berns and the Constitution: A Celebration of the Constitution, with Opening Remarks by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
AEI Program on American Citizenship
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 | 12:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
About This Event
Online registration for this event is closed, walk-in registrations will be accepted.
For more than fifty years, Walter Berns has analyzed the American constitutional order with insight and profundity. It is only fitting that as we mark this year’s Constitution Day—September 17, the day thirty-nine members of the Constitutional Convention signed the draft constitution—we examine his work on the meaning of the Constitution and the American regime it supports. At this event, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will give opening remarks in celebration of the Constitution, and Leon R. Kass (Madden-Jewett Chair, AEI), Jeremy A. Rabkin (Professor, George Mason University School of Law), and Christopher Demuth (D.C. Searle Senior Fellow, AEI) will discuss Walter Berns’s lasting contribution to constitutional studies.
ANTONIN SCALIA, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
The Role of International Law (Video:Scalia speaker)
American Enterprise Institute
Feb 21, 2006
Justice Scalia gave the keynote address at a forum on “Outsourcing American Law.” Justice Scalia talked about the role of international and foreign law in American judicial decision-making. He said that, “foreign legal materials can never be relevant to an interpretation of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.” Following his speech he took questions from members of the audience. There was a contentious exchange with a questioner.
Media coverage of Scalia speech (at AEI)
Justice Scalia spoke at AEI today. In a speech of about 40 minutes (the web-cast should be available later this week), he laid out when it was and wasn’t appropriate to use foreign law in American jurisprudence, and pointed out the contradictions and selective use of foreign law in recent Supreme Court opinions. He then took questions from the audience of over 100. The second person to pose a question seized the microphone, and went on a lengthy rant about Vice President Cheney, and refused to ask a question after multiple prompts to do so; on the last one, he started “That…,” Scalia said “A question doesn’t begin with the word ‘That,'” and moved on. The questioner (a Google search shows that he’s a member of LaRouche Youth) continued to interrupt proceedings, and was eventually removed. There continued to be a mix of intelligent questions (Tom Goldstein and Michael Greve engaged the justice) and provocateurs wanting to make a splash on C-SPAN. Scalia answered questions about his speech, and passed on other questions, but, as if a glutton for punishment (or at least confrontation), he continued to select scruffy leftists/LaRouche Youth who raised their hands (including a German woman who went on a rant about Leibniz), though it would have been easy to bypass them.
Naturally, the only AP coverage of the speech focused on the LaRouche heckler, and (without mentioning his affiliation) made him out to be a censored hero rather than a cult member who�s pulled similar stunts at Kerry and Nader events. This is sure to make the Supreme Court all the more welcoming of tv cameras. (AP link via Bashman)
Update: Link to C-SPAN Real Media coverage.
June 17, 1986
The President today announced his intention to nominate Judge Antonin Scalia to be Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He would succeed Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist upon Justice Rehnquist’s confirmation as the next Chief Justice. Judge Scalia has been sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 1982, when he was named to that court by President Reagan.
Prior to his appointment to the Court of Appeals, Judge Scalia was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He has also taught at Stanford, Georgetown, and the University of Virginia Law Schools. He was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in 1977. From 1974 to 1977, Judge Scalia served in the Department of Justice as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. Judge Scalia practiced law at Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Cleveland, OH, between 1960 and 1967; was General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy from 1971 to 1972; and between 1972 and 1974 served as chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States. Judge Scalia was graduated from Harvard Law School in 1960 where he was note editor of the Harvard Law Review. He received his B.A., summa cum laude, from Georgetown University in 1957, graduating valedictorian and first in his class. During 1960 – 1961, he held a Sheldon fellowship awarded by Harvard University.
AEI Award Recipients
Francis Boyer Award Recipients Antonin Scalia
1978 and mentioned again in 1986
Dates of Publication in the Chicago Tribune
• Antonin Scalia On Courts` Role By Judge Scalia, from a Dec. 12, 1978, debate at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C
Antonin Scalia On Courts` Role
I have little hope that judicial and lawyerly attitudes can be coaxed back to a more restricted view of the courts` role in a democratic society at the same time that we are charging forward on an entirely new front.
Though it is something of an oversimplification, I do not think it unfair to say that this issue presents the moment of truth for many conservatives who have been criticizing the courts in recent years. They must decide whether they really believe, as they have been saying, that the courts are doing too much, or whether they are actually nursing only the less principled grievance that the courts have not been doing what they want.
Judge Antonin Scalia, nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, in “Economic Affairs as Human Affairs,“ published in the Cato Journal, Winter 1985.
The Courts have enforced other rights, so-called, on which there is no societal agreement, from the abortion cases, at one extreme, to school dress codes and things of that sort. There is no national consensus about those things and there never has been. The courts have no business being there. That is one of the problems: they are calling rights things which we do not all agree on.
• APRIL 2009
Is the Voting Rights Act Constitutional?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 | 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
About This Event
On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments to decide whether Section 5 of the recently reauthorized Voting Rights Act is constitutional. The case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, has been described as “the biggest election-law case on the court’s docket since Bush v. Gore” and one that “will set the direction of the debate over race and politics for years to come.”
Reauthorized for the next twenty-five years in 2006, Section 5 requires nine states (mostly in the deep South) and parts of seven others to get “preclearance” from the U.S. Justice Department or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before any election procedures can be altered. Any change–as small as moving a polling location across the street or as large as redrawing an entire congressional district–must be preapproved by the federal government. This preclearance provision is unmatched in our nation’s system of federalism.
With this case, the Court will be asked whether cities, school districts, and–in the case of the appellant–utility districts are allowed to use Section 5’s “bail out” provision to be released from federal oversight. If not, the Court will face an even larger question: did Congress find enough evidence of gamesmanship directed against minority voters to justify reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, or did it overstep its authority? At this panel discussion, scholars and attorneys representing each side will discuss the legal and political issues the case raises. AEI visiting fellow Edward Blum will moderate.
View complete summary.
Edward Blum is a visiting fellow at AEI and the director of the Project on Fair Representation. Mr. Blum studies civil rights policy issues such as voting rights, affirmative action, and multiculturalism. Prior to joining AEI, he facilitated the legal challenge to dozens of racially gerrymandered voting districts, race-based school admissions, and public contracting programs throughout the nation. Mr. Blum is the author of The Unintended Consequences of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (AEI Press, 2007).
Kristen M. Clarke is codirector of the Political Participation Group at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, where she oversees and coordinates the activities of the organization’s legal program in the areas of voting rights and election law. She provided significant legal advocacy during Congress’s 2006 reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act, helping to significantly shape and inform the congressional record. Ms. Clarke has also provided testimony to Congress regarding election reform issues. Her voting rights litigation experience includes a challenge to a statewide redistricting plan and vote dilution claims, among others. Previously, Ms. Clarke worked for several years in the civil rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Ms. Clarke writes and comments frequently on issues concerning race, law, and democracy. She is the coeditor of Seeking Higher Ground: The Hurricane Katrina Crisis, Race, and Public Policy Reader(Palgrave Macmillan, December 2007). Her writing has appeared in a number of books, including the American Bar Association’s book on modern American election law and voting rights, America Votes! (March 2008).
Gregory S. Coleman heads Yetter, Warden & Coleman’s appellate litigation practice. He has handled appeals across a broad spectrum of litigation categories, including complex business torts, class actions, securities, products liability, insurance, bankruptcy, telecommunications, intellectual property, accounting malpractice, constitutional litigation, and governmental representation. Mr. Coleman is board certified in civil appellate law and has successfully represented clients before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and numerous state supreme courts and intermediate courts of appeals. He previously served as solicitor general for the state of Texas, where he was lead appellate counsel for the state. He has also clerked for Edith Hollan Jones on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and for Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court. He was an adjunct professor at South Texas College of Law and at the University of Texas School of Law. Mr. Coleman currently serves as vice chair of the board of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. He also serves on the board of the American Red Cross of Central Texas.
Jon M. Greenbaum is the legal director for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, where he is responsible for overseeing the committee’s efforts to seek racial justice in the areas of employment discrimination, environmental justice, community development, and housing discrimination. Mr. Greenbaum also serves as the director of the Voting Rights Project, where he is responsible for the Lawyers’ Committee’s program to achieve equality and protect advances in voting rights for racial and ethnic minorities and other traditionally disfranchised groups. Mr. Greenbaum has testified before Congress; presented at many of the nation’s finest universities; and discussed voting rights issues in the media, including CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News, National Public Radio, the New York Times, The New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post. Mr. Greenbaum is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center and coauthor of the chapter on voter identification in America Votes! (American Bar Association, March 2008). From 1997 to 2003, Mr. Greenbaum was a senior trial attorney in the voting section at the U.S. Department of Justice, and from 1993 to 1996, he was a litigation associate at Dewey Ballantine.
Anne W. Lewis is a partner in the Atlanta law firm of Strickland Brockington Lewis. Her practice focuses on election-related litigation, including redistricting, voting cases, election contests, and candidate qualifying challenges. Along with her cocounsel, Ms. Lewis represented a bipartisan group of minority voters in Georgia v. Ashcroft. In Larios v. Cox, that same group of lawyers represented another bipartisan group of voters challenging the state’s legislative redistricting plans. The Larios court struck down and redrew the Georgia Senate and House of Representatives plans, and the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed the decision by an 8-1 vote. Ms. Lewis is currently the chief deputy general of the Georgia Republican Party and in May 2009 will become the general counsel. She is the cochair of the Georgia Supreme Court’s Committee on Civil Justice, Georgia’s access-to-justice commission; a member of the executive board of the Atlanta chapter of the Federalist Society; vice chair of the board of directors of the Georgia Resource Center; and a member of the State Bar of Georgia’s Indigent Defense Committee.
Anthony Peacock is an associate professor in the political science department at Utah State University, where he is also the director of the Project on Liberty and American Constitutionalism. He practiced civil litigation in Toronto from 1989 to 1992 and is the author or editor of five books, including Deconstructing the Republic: Voting Rights, the Supreme Court, and the Founders’ Republicanism Reconsidered (AEI Press, 2008); Affirmative Action and Representation: Shaw v. Reno and the Future of Voting Rights (Carolina Academic Press, 1997); Rethinking the Constitution: Perspectives on Canadian Constitutional Reform, Interpretation, and Theory (Oxford University Press, 1996); Guide to the Federalist Papers (forthcoming from the Heritage Foundation); andFreedom and the Rule of Law (forthcoming from Lexington Books). Mr. Peacock has also published numerous articles, book chapters, and book reviews on American and Canadian law and politics. His work has been cited by the Supreme Court of Canada. He has provided radio commentary on state and national politics and has lectured on American politics and law both nationally and internationally. At Utah State, Mr. Peacock teaches courses on constitutional law; constitutional theory; law and policy; and law, politics, and war.