The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Biden Nominee to the First Circuit Faces Potential Democratic Opposition Over Abortion
A nominee's work defending a state parental-notification law in 2005 may be a stumbling block to his confirmation.
With the Senate nearly evenly divided, Senate Democrats do not have many votes to spare when it comes to confirming President Biden's judicial nominees, particularly those nominated to appellate courts. Repubilcans have been fairly united in opposing most of Biden's circuit court picks, so even a few Democratic defections or absences can prevent a nominee from advancing.
The Associated Press reports that Biden's nomination of Michael Delaney to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit may be in trouble because, among other things, when he was a deputy attoreny general in 2005, he signed a brief defending the constitutionality of a New Hampshire law requiring parental notification before a minor could obtain an abortion. From the AP report:
At issue is a New Hampshire law, passed in 2003 but repealed in 2007, that required minors to tell their parents before they obtained an abortion. As the state's deputy attorney general, Delaney was among those who signed a brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court that defended the law because it "does not present a substantial obstacle to any woman's right to choose an abortion."
The law, according to the brief filed in the case, Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, "promotes compelling state interests, not the least of which is protecting the health of the pregnant minor by providing an opportunity for parents to supply essential medical history information to the physician."
Delaney's involvement is detailed in response to written questions from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that he submitted after his confirmation hearing last month. But his signature on the brief has caused consternation for Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a strong supporter of abortion rights.
New Hampshire's two Democratic Senators still support Delaney, but other Senate Democrats might not. From the AP report:
Besides Blumenthal, two other Democratic members of the closely divided Senate, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, have also expressed general reservations about his nomination, particularly as it relates to [his handling of a sexual assault case at St Paul's boarding school]. And at least one other Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is concerned about Delaney's involvement in the Planned Parenthood case, according to a person familiar with the senator's thinking who spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing deliberations over the nomination.
One factor being weighed is how much Delaney's involvement in the brief was just a matter of course in his job. Delaney told senators that he was not involved in the decision to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, nor did he represent New Hampshire during oral arguments there. He was not directly involved in formulating the brief's arguments, he said, and while he read the brief before it was submitted, he said he does not recall whether he offered substantive feedback. . . .
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a potent political force in Democratic politics, was noncommittal on Delaney's nomination, saying in a statement: "Planned Parenthood conducts a review of the records of federal judicial nominees. Our review of this nominee and his involvement in the Ayotte case is ongoing."
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
This man forgot the cardinal rule. Nothing is more important to leftists than killing unborn babies and gay men shooting off inside another man's rear passage.
Well, Gary Studs allegedly did 3 years of the latter at St. Paul’s School — and it’s alleged that the NH AG’s Office didn’t exactly investigate that.
NB: Done to students while he was faculty…
It was "Gerry"
Studds died on October 14, 2006, in Boston, at age 69, several days after suffering a pulmonary embolism.[13] Due to the federal ban on same-sex marriage, Hara was not eligible, upon Studds' death, to receive the pension provided to surviving spouses of former members of Congress.[14] Hara later joined a federal lawsuit, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, that successfully challenged the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.[15]
In a 2018 lawsuit, Studds was accused of sexual misconduct toward students at Saint Paul's School in Concord, NH, while he was a teacher there in the 1960s.[16]
In August 2019, Studds was one of the honorees inducted in the Rainbow Honor Walk, a walk of fame in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood noting LGBTQ people who have "made significant contributions in their fields.
And as a former high school teacher who had some very cute students flirting with him, and who instead acted professionally (and obeyed the law on statutory rape), I state that if the alphabet coalition had a shred of integrity, it would disown him, regardless of how his name was spelled.
There are certain things that are not acceptable -- if they are not acceptable in the heterosexual world, they ought not be acceptable in any other world as well.
If one disregards common sense and the laws of nature to engage in this type of act, it's not much of a step to disregard rules on child abuse. "Consenting adult" is as much a legal fiction as anything else.
Janitor. You're a janitor.
Moron. You're a moron.
A win for Republicans. If any sitting judge who applies Dobbs is automatically shot down, Democrats won’t be able to confirm any experienced or potentially persuasive candidates. Their impact on the judiciary will be reduced.
"a New Hampshire law requiring parental notification before a minor could obtain an abortion"
Jeezo-Beezo, thats literally Nazi Germany!!!!!!!!!!!
and can you get a more motley crew than "Danang Dick", "Cory (I'm not Gay because I played College Football) Booker, and Crazy Mazy Kimono??? OK, maybe pull Poke-a-hontas out of her Wigwam and you've got a Foursome.
Question, does Stuttering J-J-J-ohn Fetterman get to vote from the Sanitorium??
Frank
These are your fans and your target audience, Volokh Conspirators.
And the reason mainstream legal academia sees you as the clowns in a fading wingnut circus.
(Think I have it wrong? Ask your dean.)
And your fans are the types of people who like to watch and film you grooming little boys for gay sex.
Hey, watch your "Tone" when addressing Penn State Legend Jerry Sandusky!!!!
What do Republicans think of him? If Judiciary chair Dick Durbin is willing to let the nomination out he might be the least bad option.
Alot of Dicks in the DemoKKKrat Senate
"least bad option"
A mythical creature. All Dem nominees are bad, no exceptions.
Admit it, you have read their platform.
yawn
I think this is a bit drastic overreaction. Attorney's General are obligated [sometimes explicitly by statute and] the nature of their office to defend laws passed by the legislature from constitutional attack. I realize some AGs will refuse to do so if they don't agree with the law strongly enough; but this is a somewhat futile tactic as the Courts will appoint someone (or some law firm) to simply take the place of the AG to defend the law. Meh.
It was his damn job, as Blumenthal, a former state AG, ought to know.
Agreed.
It is, but the St. Paul's case involved threats by Delaney to make the 15-year-old rape victim's name public during the litigation.
Is that within bounds, or not?
Why should he need that excuse?
If he NOW asserts that parental notification of a minor's intent to abort is unconstitutional he shouldn't be a judge, so vote against him, full stop.
Well the law was later overturned/repealed by the legislature so it's a moot issue (in NH). But really, some assistant AG likely wrote the brief. This guy in some supervisory role signs off on it and according to him, didn't argue the case itself. So having an obligatory signature line on some random case just doesn't mean anything substantively about the person whose signature it is. Its just a stupid thing to hold against someone IMO if they are otherwise qualified for the judicial position. Especially by members of the president's own party.
You paid no attention to what I said, did you?
I'm focusing on his CURRENT behavior.
Even if we grant that "Attorney's General are obligated [...] to defend laws passed by the legislature from constitutional attack", they are not, anywhere in the US, obligated to appeal loses all the way to the SCOTUS. They absolutely can say "well, we lost" and let that be.
Appealing all the way to the SCOTUS? Is a decision, not an obligation.
No John Adams comments from the libs here?
Male, white, not known to be gay; no lib will quote him ever.
I mean that punishing lawyers for their clients usually brings out the Boston Massacre trial comparisons from the libs here.
So conservatives think lawyers *should* be punished for the clients they represent? I don't understand why that would be a liberal/conservative issue. I would think the concept that everyone is entitled to a defense would be one of those rare issues on which liberals and conservatives ought to be in agreement.
Are you really so stupid that you missed Bob's point THAT badly?
Bob said something stupid; I merely pointed out how stupid it was by taking it literally. Sometimes the best way to demonstrate that something is stupid is by taking it literally.
You “pointed out” no such thing. Nothing Bob said, literally or otherwise, implied in any way that “conservatives [or Bob] think lawyers *should* be punished for the clients they represent”. The only stupidity on display is yours. Now twice over.
Bob: "I mean that punishing lawyers for their clients usually brings out the Boston Massacre trial comparisons from the libs here." I realize he used a four-syllable word and that may be too much for you, but no need to guess at what he meant because he did tell us.
And stating that liberals do X raises the question of whether that means non-liberals do non-X. I was giving him the opportunity to clarify by taking his comment literally. Sorry that whooshed right over your head.
Yes, Bob did tell us exactly what he meant {“…punishing lawyers for their clients usually brings out the Boston Massacre trial comparisons from the libs here”) and, AGAIN, your gloss on that (“conservatives think lawyers *should* be punished for the clients they represent”) is simply bizarre.
Your capacity for determined stupidity would be beyond belief if I hadn’t seen it from you so often before.
Yes. Yes, he is.
Didn't you watch "John Adams" on HBO??? He was called a "Hermaphrodite" and "His Rotundity"
The St Paul matter is far worse: https://www.necn.com/news/national-international/new-hampshire-attorney-general-investigates-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-teachers-at-st-pauls-school/1999094/
It started with a Boston Globe article on male students being raped by male faculty and then exploded with the trial of an 18-year-old male senior accused of raping a 15-year old female freshman and over four decades of sexual abuse of minors being hushed up over the years.
It was then alleged that the NH AG office intentionally dropped the ball on the investigation, in part because Thomas Hassan, husband of then Governor Maggie Hassan, was principal at Phillip's Exeter Academy until he retired in 2015 -- and was censured in 2016 for covering up sexual abuse by a teacher there.
There was more, or at least Boston's Howie Carr thought there was, and if -- I repeat IF -- this guy was involved in covering up any of that, he should not be on the bench at all, and definitely not the 1st Circuit.
I agree that the St. Paul's issue is much worse, though my understanding is that the issue is some of the tactics used by Delaney when representing the school.
By itself I doubt the parental notification business would amount to anything.
https://www.wmur.com/article/tom-hassan-stayed-quiet-on-teacher-misconduct-after-national-group-bestowed-prestigious-award/5209941
What does a 2016 article about Phillips Exeter have to do with St. Paul's?
The Governor's Husband was involved in covering up incidents at Phillip's Exeter and it was felt that the Governor wasn't overly enthusiastic about investigating this stuff in general.
But there is nothing about Delaney in your linked article, so why is this relevant to the OP.
And this is the mechanism driving ideology as the primary determinant for constitutional law decisions.
Dude might lose his promotion because of a minor situation where he just did his job rather than focus on ideological purity.
Everyone else can learn from his pain.
If “doing his job” was covering for the rich & famous, then I don’t want him on the court. IF he was involved in covering up for St. Paul’s, he ought to be disbarred….
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/st-pauls-school-nh-prep-school-details-more-cases-of-sex-abuse-by-ex-faculty/56054/
The primary issue here involves Delany's routine legal work for the State of New Hampshire, defending a law that 16 years later doesn't meet the demands of the left.
That article doesn't mention Delany at all. That seems a second issue, need more information. We can understand the first issue and how ideological purity has come to define the selection process for appeals court judges.
As always when Dr. Ed posts something: what the fuck are you talking about? What cover up? Delaney was a partner at a law firm representing St. Paul's after it was sued by a girl who was raped at the school. This was all public.
The sexual abuse went back at least 40 years, including the years when he was in the AG office.
Baby-killing above all else!
I am not deeply familiar with questions and concerns regarding Michael Delaney’s nomination, but I sense focus on abortion issues in this context is misplaced. The nominee’s role in defending a school at which a student reported she was raped is the objection I have heard about.
The abortion angle seems to have predictably riled this blog's collection of clingers, though.
“Mr. Delaney represented St. Paul’s School, a private New Hampshire boarding school, in a lawsuit filed by the family of a 15-year-old student who was sexually assaulted by a classmate on campus. After a criminal trial, in which the accused student was found guilty of misdemeanor sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child and felonious use of a computer, the victim’s family sued the school, alleging that the sexual assault was a “result of the school fostering, permitting, and condoning a tradition of ritualized statutory rape.” The school allegedly had a tradition called the “Senior Salute” in which senior male students would compete to “hook up” with underclassmen female students, which the plaintiffs argued led to their daughter’s assault. During the course of litigation, Mr. Delaney, on behalf of St. Paul’s, moved to have the victim’s name, which had remained protected until that point, revealed publicly. The tactic led to the victim coming forward and revealing her identity. The parties settled in 2018. “
https://www.afj.org/document/micheal-delaney-fact-sheet/
There are links in the afj page.
If Delaney's written response on this issue is even close to correct (and it's all based on filings/timeline in the case so he wouldn't have had much room to flex the facts without torpedoing his nomination for certain), this is just another inflammatory, selective-truth take by an activist group.
His response starts on the end of page 2 in the above PDF, and explains the entire procedural history of the case. The motion he filed asked for the plaintiff's real name to be used privately pre-trial (e.g., in depositions subject to a protective order), and then publicly at trial only (which he says was consistent with how other courts had handled such cases -- Eugene may have a better sense how correct that is). He sums it up:
That seems pretty cut and dried to me. The only truth in the AFJ's description was the timeline of the events: they deceptively inferred causality between them.
First, I don't believe that the AFJ is exactly a right-wing organization -- I may be wrong on this, but a quick look at their objectives makes me think they aren't.
Notwithstanding that, the standard I use is "what if a Republican did this?" What if it were the *exact* same set of facts and circumstances but, say, Clarence Thomas had done it.
What if a male conservative lawyer had done the exact same thing?!? I think this is a fair question -- and the converse is also a fair question. So, like, ummm, what would be the response if a conservative lawyer had done this?
Above and beyond this, I am concerned about his relationship with the NH AGO, where he had spent a good chunk of his career, and all the rumors of coverups.
We need to know...
Oh, I think they're quite the opposite. And that's part and parcel with the abortion issue raised by this post: Delaney isn't left enough for the lefties, so they're taking shamelessly deceptive potshots at him to try to kill his nomination.
And looking at the apparent actual facts as I walked through them above, I think any hit job along these lines on anyone of any political persuasion is wrongheaded and opportunistic. The plaintiff was already under leave of court to proceed anonymously, but her lawyers made a strategic decision to voluntarily refile with her real name -- maybe even to try to provoke just this sort of outrage, who knows?
That characterization is transparently false. Here is what he had to say regarding pseudonymity in the motion:
Yeah, that seems fully consistent with what he said in response to the committee's questions. No there there at all.
Thanks for bringing this up as part of the discussion.
Even though I am a strong believer in leaving abortion decisions to the patient, her doctors and other support, I do think that parental notification is acceptable. So, this would not be an issue for me while the defense of the school might be an issue.
When you are talking about a 15-year-old, the ability to give an accurate (relevant) medical history is a very real issue. Her accurate memory of things like allergies goes back what -- maybe 5 years and unless her parents have fully briefed her on what happened before, she isn't going to know what she is allergic to, etc.
She's going to remember what she was allergic to at age 5 -- which was only 10 years earlier? Of course not....
And an abortion *IS* surgery...
The law in question required notification only, not consent or consultation with the parent(s), making it that much less objectionable from a pro-choice standpoint.
Is an abortion surgery when it's just a couple pills for the vast majority of them?
It is when the pills have a 9% complication rate, a good chunk of which requires real surgery to fix bleeding and/or remove baby parts left behind.
"Clingers" such as, I suppose, those in control at the Associated Press who green-lighted the article cited/extensively quoted in the post. That's quite the hammer you're carrying around, Artie.
I'm not "riled", I'm amused.
Actually, it's predictable that every time you post your determined ignorance will be put on display. Can you read?:
Apparently in your mind (I use the word loosely) this transformed the AP into a collection of "clingers"
You mean someone on Masie Hirono's staff told her to express reservations.
Feinstein also gets a mention, despite her advanced dementia.
Has Fetterman weighed in?
Holy smokes. Shoot down your own party's nominee b/c something in a brief he signed ~20 years ago wasn't loony-toon enough to suit the current bleeding edge. Remind me who are the blind, raving ideologues in Congress again?
Both sides have raving ideologues. Only one side put an insurrectionist lunatic into the White House, and appears disposed to put him there again.
TDS for the win! It never, ever fails.
Feel free to refute what I said. Or continue basking in the glory of your bullshit ad hominem. Whatever works for you.
Anything approaching an on-point response to my question ended with your first sentence. Feel free to respond to the rest of your gratuitous rant yourself -- I suspect you'll be in very close alignment.
If you want to be narrowly literal, then sure, my first sentence was the complete answer to your question. But reading it the way a normal person would, i.e., “which party has more/is more beholden to ideologues and other extremists; which party is saner/more responsible,” then both of my sentences were germane. Since you’re in this for the hostility more than the argument, you of course chose the idiosyncratic reading that teed up your next insult. That, plus you knew what I said was irrefutable. Bask away. You earned it.
Ackshully, Leo, my question was explicitly scoped to Congresscritters — those at issue in this particular tale. Your eyes may have glazed over that part in your haste to chuck in your super-smug whataboutery.
See above. Every accusation is a confession.
Guy who burps up "insurrectionist lunatic" whines about "ad hom" and demands "proof" that Trump isn't an "insurrectionist lunatic".
Lefties are such clowns.
Biden has confirmed he's running for reelection? Hah!
There was no insurrection, nor were there any insurrectionists. And anyone who thinks there was is the actual lunatic.
'Cory Booker of New Jersey and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, have also expressed general reservations about his nomination, particularly as it relates to [his handling of a sexual assault case at St Paul's boarding school].'
Yes, this also seems relevant.
The complaint about St. Paul's seems truly bizarre. Democrats not only tolerate, but actively celebrate, the appointment of lawyers who represent actual rapists. But they're concerned that this guy represented a school that was alleged to have been liable for a sexual assault committed by a student, in a case that appears to have ended with a settlement before discovery?
It's not that he represented them, they seem to have a problem with how he handled it. A bit more detail about those objections would be useful.
Also, criminal defense ≠ civil defense.
It wasn't the only sexual assault there -- remember he was also in the AGs office.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/3909173-anti-trans-rant-at-san-francisco-cheesecake-factory-caught-on-video/
"When Contino asked a waiter to get the manager, the older woman stood up and left the restaurant. Eventually, a store manager apologized to Contino and paid for the cost of her meal due to the incident. She says this isn’t enough.
“I would love to hear from The Cheesecake Factory. I would love an apology. I would love to hear how they are going to make sure it never happens again because clearly their staff is not well equipped to deal with these kinds of situations,” she said."
I would love to hear how The Cheesecake Factory did anything wrong. These people are perpetual "victims."
How long was the bigot able to continue her antisocial activity?
If the restaurant responded promptly, it would be difficult to fault the restaurant. If the restaurant failed to respond promptly, its hospitality was deficient.
You can't give a minor an aspirin without parental notification but the minor can be given an abortion and parents are forbidden from finding out about it. How does that make any sense?
I’m shocked, shocked to find political litmus tests discussed in judicial nominations!
We're used to litmus tests regarding how a judge might rule.
What this is regards routine legal work done twenty years ago, which has minuscule value in predicting how the judge might rule on an appeal. The hyper-litmus test. Turbo-litmus. There won't be anyone left.
His present failure to defend the brief does in fact speak to how he will at present rule as between ideology and actual law.
"They" don't have sense enough to distance themselves from the likes of Hirono and Blumenthal, so no.
No they don't. E.g, the answer to "How will you rule on maintaining Dobbs?" could function as a perfectly good litmus test, though getting a straight answer could be hard.
Hadn’t read that far.
Bad commenting software design has consequences.
But I’m not surprised that I’m not the only one who notices that Artie is an idiot.
You apparently don’t understand what you actually wrote.
Or what I did.
Pick one or two.
7/7/2019? Come on, Queen. This is weaker than your usual weak sauce.
Yeah, it's almost like no one asked any of Trump's SCOTUS picks about how they'd rule on Roe or something.
They certainly ought to have demanded an answer to that question, and it absolutely should have functioned as a litmus test. But what this has to do with what I said eludes me.