Maureen Mahoney for SCOTUS Justice?

Maureen E. Mahoney,” Lathan & Watkins LLP, http://www.lw.com/attorney/attorneysearch_profile.asp?attno=00571.

Maureen Mahoney,” Wikipedia, last updated 27 October 2005, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maureen_Mahoney.

Mahoney,” by Jessica Gavora, The Corner, 27 October 2005, http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_23_corner-archive.asp#080989.

Maureen Mahoney is an eloquent critic of Title IX, beyond the scope of her duties

Was Maureen Mahoney merely loyally representing her client (Brown University, whose case against sex quotas she appealed to the in 1997) when she went on the record with me opposing sex quotas in 2000? Perhaps. But why would she take the time to talk to me — a writer she never heard of — if she didn’t believe what she was saying? The Cohen v Brown case was long over. The Supreme Court had refused to hear it. So why didn’t she just tell me she was busy? And who opposes sex quotas but favors racial quotas? Who does that?

When I talked to her, one of the many great points Maureen made was that schools should be allowed to determine how many female and male athletes they sponsor based on interest in athletics (not quotas) — just like they determine how many single sex dorms they have based on interest in housing. So where are all the Title IX lawsuits clamoring for “gender equity” in campus housing, I asked? Here’s what Maureen told me in 2000:

There is a normative judgement going on here that underlies this whole thing. Some people have gotten together and decided that we think men and women should be equally interested in sports and therefore participation has to be fifty-fifty. But when you look at the housing situation you don’t see universities saying, “We think men and women should be equally interested in living in campus dorms.” What’s different here is women have decided that men and women should be equally interested in varsity athletics. But as a normative matter, why should we think that? Why should we prefer that women play soccer as opposed to live in a dorm or dance ballet?

maureen_mahoney_md
Former Deputy Solicitor General Maureen Mahoney

Why does this matter? Well, some biographical information from the Wikipedia:

Maureen Mahoney (born 1955) is an appellate lawyer at the law firm of Latham & Watkins LLP in Washington, DC who has argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. She served as deputy solicitor general in the George H. W. Bush administration, where she was a colleague of Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts.

Mahoney clerked for Justice William Rehnquist when he was an associate justice on the Supreme Court. She also clerked for Judge Robert Sprecher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

With ‘ recently withdrawing her Supreme Court nomination, Ms. Mahoney is being mentioned as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court.

From her corporate page:

Ms. Mahoney has handled a broad range of constitutional and appellate litigation in the Supreme Court and other courts throughout the country, representing clients as varied as the United States House of Representatives, Union Pacific Railroad Company and the Government of Saudi Arabia. She represented the University of Michigan before the Supreme Court and won the landmark case upholding the constitutionality of admissions programs that consider race as one of many factors in order to attain the educational benefits of a diverse student body. The Legal Times reported that this ruling was a “personal win” for Ms. Mahoney and called her “a skilled appellate advocate, unruffled and poised.” The Daily Journal awarded Ms. Mahoney the “Best Oral Argument” in the individual category accolade for that Supreme Court term and went on to say that she “withstood withering questioning from Justice Antonin Scalia while stressing the points relied upon by O’Connor in her opinion for the 5-4 court.” Most recently, she successfully argued her thirteenth case in the Supreme Court on behalf of Arthur Andersen in a challenge to the firm’s criminal conviction. The Legal Times described the argument in Andersen as “one of the term’s best.”

Ms. Mahoney argued her first case before the Supreme Court in 1988, when the Court specially selected her to argue a case. She won the case in a 5-4 decision, and the American Lawyer reported that “her presentation was so well-schooled, poised, and disciplined that, according to one justice, the justices passed notes among themselves during the argument praising Mahoney and asking questions about her background.” In 1993, Ms. Mahoney successfully defended a highly publicized challenge to US immigration policies. The American Lawyer reported that Ms. Mahoney used “forensic magic” in the argument, and David Broder’s Washington Post column called her argument “superb.” She also represented the House of Representatives in its successful Supreme Court challenge to the Commerce Department’s plans for the use of sampling in the 2000 census.

She was a leading candidate in July… will October be General Mahoney’s lucky month?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *