The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Goldwater Institute Is Hiring
The public interest law firm in Phoenix is looking for a Senior Attorney, a Staff Attorney, and and Legal Programs Manager
Goldwater Institute – Senior Attorney (Phoenix, AZ)
The Goldwater Institute is looking for a Senior Attorney to join our litigation team in our Phoenix office, litigating a wide range of cases in the effort to curb government excesses and the protection of individual rights. Must exhibit strong written and verbal advocacy skills, serve as a mentor to less-experienced attorneys on staff, have first-chair experience in evidentiary hearings, depositions and appeals and have a collegial attitude. Responsibilities include developing and leading second-chair cases, providing litigation support, providing nurturing mentorship to less-experienced attorneys on staff, writing articles and engaging in media outlets, and assisting as a team player in Institute functions and activities. Must be (or become) a member of the Arizona State Bar, have at least three years litigation experience in such matters as evidentiary hearings, depositions and appeals, have strong written and be comfortable working in a fast-paced environment. To apply, qualified candidates should submit a cover letter, resume, writing sample and salary expectations to kday@goldwaterinstitute.org.
Goldwater Institute – Staff Attorney (Phoenix, AZ)
The Goldwater Institute is looking for a Staff Attorney with 0-3 years experience for its Phoenix, Arizona office. Staff attorneys work on our legal team litigating vital constitutional issues in state and federal courts nationwide under the supervision of our senior attorneys. They also engage in important legal and policy research and analysis and writing op-eds and scholarly papers on topics that advance the Institute's mission. Applicants must have a Juris Doctor from an accredited law school, be (or become a member) of the Arizona State Bar, have strong research, writing, public speaking, and editing skills, and be comfortable working in a fast-paced environment—and be ready to help advance the Institute's mission and public policy objectives. To apply, qualified candidates should submit a cover letter, resume, writing sample, and salary expectations to kday@goldwaterinstitute.org.
Goldwater Institute – Legal Programs Manager (Phoenix, AZ)
The Goldwater Institute is looking for a Legal Programs Manager for our Phoenix office, to manage our American Freedom Network of pro bono attorneys, coordinate events and seminars, and help build our nationwide team of legal freedom fighters. Responsibilities include maintaining and building relationships with the private sector attorneys and law firms who contribute their time to helping the Institute defend constitutional rights in court, developing marketing strategies to identify litigation opportunities and to communicate with our allies across the country, and identify and evaluate potential cases for consideration and referral to our Network. Legal experience is not required, but is helpful. Applicants should have a highly entrepreneurial spirit, three or more years of experience, including program or project development experience, an ability to cultivate and develop relationships with law firms, pro bono attorneys, and other public interest organizations, and a strong philosophical commitment to the Goldwater Institute's mission of expanding freedom. To apply, submit a cover letter, resume, writing sample, and salary expectations to kday@goldwaterinstitute.org.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Goldwater Institute? Do you have to cynically appear to embrace white supremacists under the banner of 'state's rights' and 'freedom of association?'
You hate states' rights...until you love them, as with sanctuary cities.
I support them...as a power against the feds, not necessarily as policy. I pick my kibitzing carefully.
I doubt it, you're all in for local/state gun control, affirmative action, etc?
But, of course, my comment was an empirical claim about a specific historical-sociological moment.
I'm in for government not bossing people around because some charismatic demagogue on the take, and their corrupt henchpeople, can promise BS to lord over others and feel good about themselves as the waggle their fingers in cloakrooms.
Don't care what level of government.
Introduce a new level of government, those new corruptions seek to increase their power as center of gravity.
You need power to threaten freedom, to get paid to back off.
A libertarian in the streets, a cuomosexual in the sheets
Every moment is an historical sociological one.
Oh, I think Goldwater came by his dislike of the CRA honestly.
Dunno if naiive and not cynical helps him or hurts him morally, though.
True, I think.
His record on civil rights in Arizona was actually quite strong.
Correct. He was opposed on free association grounds. He was of the mind that you cannot legislated what is in men's minds and hearts.
"He was of the mind that you cannot legislated what is in men's minds and hearts."
I sense he would have made an exception for legislation that provided snowflakey, nearly limitless special privilege to superstition-based claims, like any dutiful clinger.
But bigotry . . . not a real big issue for Republicans. Well, except for ardent efforts to carve out special exemptions from generally applicable law to protect our vestigial right-wing racists, misogynists, gay-bashers, and xenophobes, of course.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your obsolete, ugly thinking could carry anyone is modern America, that is.
Free association, and enumerated powers: The 14th amendment only reached state actions, and he wasn't into BS claims of interstate commerce clause or N&P power.
He was of the mind that you cannot legislated what is in men's minds and hearts.
No, you can't. But so what? By that logic you wouldn't outlaw murder because you can't prevent me from hating someone and thinking I'd like to kill them. You can legislate behavior, though, which is what the CRA did.
Right, the question here is whether racial discrimination is akin to murder, or is just a disreputable exercise of freedom of association.
Unless our goal here is to set up an "All that's not forbidden is mandatory" dystopia, you're going to have to accept people sometimes doing something you disapprove of. The fact that you disapprove of something, by itself, isn't enough to justify prohibiting it.
You need some principle to distinguish between the things you disapprove of, and the things that should be prohibited. Between the things you approve of, and the things that should be mandated.
Goldwater had such a principle. I'm not sure you do, you show no sign of it.
Again, history showed otherwise.
We became a much more free country after the CRA was passed, for both blacks and whites.
I think that, in retrospect, he turned out to be right about the CRA: It's application of non-discrimination to individuals did massively expand to a degree most would not have anticipated, eating away at traditional individual liberties.
And it's still tucking in at the buffet to this day.
Backwater birther Brett beholds another bigoted angle he likes!
How's that search for the Kenyan Socialist Muslim Communist's birth certificate coming among the stale white breaders (who are, of course, "toast") of can't-keep-up rural America? Last I heard, Trump was hot on the trail of something "really big!"
Wonder if those investigators he sent to Hawaii are back yet?
I doubt mocking Trump and his gullible right-wing fans will ever get old.
Senator Goldwater was right, Brett. Time has proved it so.
He was wrong.
Even the stupendous problems you imagine the CRA created wouldn't outweigh the real problems it solved.
We don't have to imagine the problems it created, they're all around us.
Says the guy who thinks the Bell Curve has some good points, and it's detractors are just biased.
And didn't you cite the Camp of Saints as something predicting a future you were worried would come to pass?
Forgive me if I don't give your take on our racial health a lot of credence.
Love the scare quotes. Freedom -- who needs it?!
Freedom of association wasn't in a lot of places in 1963.
I'm more of a Blackwater man myself.