This Phillip Weiss essay about Justice Kagan's recent forays into hunting feels like it could stumble across an interesting observation were it not so resolutely opposed to it. Indeed, Weiss' final paragraph (where he -- natch -- explains how this all inexorably points to the end of Zionism) is almost incomprehensible. Nonetheless, I do think Justice Kagan's experiences in this area raise some very important points about assimilation and the status of Jews in America.
The question of Elena Kagan and hunting first arose during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, the result of rural-representing Republicans who were concerned that Kagan would be hostile to gun rights while on the Court. The problem was that Kagan came from a particular culture -- east coast, urban Jewish -- that really doesn't have much of a tradition with regard to firearms. And hunting, in particular, is discouraged amongst observant Jews. Nonetheless, Kagan gamely volunteered that she'd be willing to try hunting, and that promise smoothed (albeit certainly didn't clear) the path to her eventual confirmation.
This story always resonated with me because I have also thought a bit about how the "gun question" might sink my own fantasy confirmation hearing.* Like Kagan, I have very little gun experience -- limited to once at summer camp when I was in 4th grade (I'm quite proud to report that one shot did strike the edge of the paper). And I have no interest in going hunting -- frankly, the idea makes me a little queasy. So what could I do to assert my red-blooded Americaness? Somehow, I don't think professing my love for the History Channel's Top Shot is going to cut it.
To be fair, I don't disagree with Weiss that trying something outside ones comfort zone displays a laudable flexibility when one is about to be installed in such a powerful decision-making position. But there is another way of looking at this, which is that, despite her incontestable status amongst America's rarefied elite -- Harvard Law School Dean, Solicitor General, Supreme Court nominee -- Kagan's Jewish culture still rendered her an untrustworthy outsider. If she wanted to truly be accepted as "one of us", she would have to distance herself from being distinctively and differentially Jewish.
As best I can tell, Weiss views this as a good thing. Kagan is a "Jew who was granted enormous power and who then felt a keen responsibility to represent a broader constituency than her own group." Dominant groups in America don't face these sorts of choices, because they perform their status as part of that "broader constituency" simply by living their lives. Their Americaness is an entitlement, while Jews have to earn it by casting aside their Jewishness. Jews, as a small minority in America, cannot be Jews qua Jews while legitimately exercising power. We must become "just" Americans. The "melting pot", assimilationist ideal is fundamentally incompatible with the distinctiveness of minority and marginalized groups.
Contra Weiss, this does not show that "Zionism is doomed." If anything, it shows Zionism's enduring appeal for Jews, because Zionism holds out a promise to Jews that they need not make this choice. A Zionist state is to Jews what America is to Antonin Scalia -- a place where he can just be Antonin Scalia and it is entirely normal and unremarkable. That's going to be very appealing to a lot of people.
* Of course, in the real world my lack of gun ownership would play no role in sinking my judicial candidacy. This blog's archives would more than suffice my chances of ever being confirmed, or even nominated.
Showing posts with label Elena Kagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elena Kagan. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
But Will It Be Enough?
Solicitor General and SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan advanced out of committee today, garnering the surprise support of South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. Some commentators are now wondering whether Graham will face a backlash from the far-right base over the lethal apostasy of not filibustering each and every Obama-led initiative that comes down the pike (Erick Erickson -- best known for calling David Souter a "goat-fucking child molester" -- said not filibustering Kagan would constitute "a high act of confirmation treason"). In response, a Graham consultant argued that Senator Graham is "a thinking person's conservative. I expect him to do well among voters with IQ's in triple digits."
Steve Benen took note of that passage and observes that any Democrat who essentially called opposing voters idiots would be tarred and feathered as an elitist. Fortunately, since I'm not really a public figure, I'm simply free to wonder whether the class of voters with IQ's over 100 is sufficient to cobble together a winning coalition in a South Carolina GOP primary (ask Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) about that).
Steve Benen took note of that passage and observes that any Democrat who essentially called opposing voters idiots would be tarred and feathered as an elitist. Fortunately, since I'm not really a public figure, I'm simply free to wonder whether the class of voters with IQ's over 100 is sufficient to cobble together a winning coalition in a South Carolina GOP primary (ask Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) about that).
Friday, May 28, 2010
Post-Panel Roundup
Today was a successful day. Aside from moving most of my stuff out of my apartment to the building I'll (hopefully) be living in next year, I also had my first academic panel. And it was great! Most shocking was the fact that people -- by which I mean, random people, people who had no connection to any of us or any reason to show up -- came to the talk. And they were attentive! And they asked great questions! And everybody was really positive towards all the papers! It was wonderful.
* * *
Sometime at Alas, a Blog (I forget if it was during my guest-blogging stint or in the comments), somebody responded to my critique that their position on Israel/Palestine was completely disengaged from mainstream Jewish experience by saying she could solve that simply by talking with and forming coalitions with leftist, anti-Zionist Jewish groups. I argued then, and still believe, that due respect for the Jewish community is not demonstrated when you only talk with those members who already agree with you -- particularly when that subset represents a tiny fringe of the whole. I thought of that event in reading this piece in the Forward, which makes it sound like the Presbyterian Church is going out of its way to avoid mainstream Jewish groups in formulating its Israel policy. And to the extent it does talk to them, it talks down to them. The bottomless pit that is Christian arrogance towards Jews never ceases to astound me.
Interesting post about an American Jew in Damascus.
Studies suggest that video gamers have better control over themselves in their dreams. I actually have had this experience, though I wouldn't have thought to associate it with gaming.
Twenty-somethings are not idiots about Elena Kagan. Yay my generation!
Leon Wieseltier correctly notes that the Sheikh Jarrah settlers are effectively claiming a right of return akin to that of the Palestinians. Having already established that reconciliation between Israel and Palestine means that not everybody gets to go home again, I can hardly making an exemption for a particular, formerly Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem.
I just can't get upset about the so-called Sestak-gate.
J Street disavows Marcy Winograd (see my prior post), but Democracy for America stands by her after she came out in favor of a single-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and implied that Reps. Jane Harman (D-CA) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) were not loyal to America.
The Episcopalian Church slaps the wrist of its American branch for ordaining a lesbian bishop.
* * *
Sometime at Alas, a Blog (I forget if it was during my guest-blogging stint or in the comments), somebody responded to my critique that their position on Israel/Palestine was completely disengaged from mainstream Jewish experience by saying she could solve that simply by talking with and forming coalitions with leftist, anti-Zionist Jewish groups. I argued then, and still believe, that due respect for the Jewish community is not demonstrated when you only talk with those members who already agree with you -- particularly when that subset represents a tiny fringe of the whole. I thought of that event in reading this piece in the Forward, which makes it sound like the Presbyterian Church is going out of its way to avoid mainstream Jewish groups in formulating its Israel policy. And to the extent it does talk to them, it talks down to them. The bottomless pit that is Christian arrogance towards Jews never ceases to astound me.
Interesting post about an American Jew in Damascus.
Studies suggest that video gamers have better control over themselves in their dreams. I actually have had this experience, though I wouldn't have thought to associate it with gaming.
Twenty-somethings are not idiots about Elena Kagan. Yay my generation!
Leon Wieseltier correctly notes that the Sheikh Jarrah settlers are effectively claiming a right of return akin to that of the Palestinians. Having already established that reconciliation between Israel and Palestine means that not everybody gets to go home again, I can hardly making an exemption for a particular, formerly Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem.
I just can't get upset about the so-called Sestak-gate.
J Street disavows Marcy Winograd (see my prior post), but Democracy for America stands by her after she came out in favor of a single-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and implied that Reps. Jane Harman (D-CA) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) were not loyal to America.
The Episcopalian Church slaps the wrist of its American branch for ordaining a lesbian bishop.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
A New Low
I'm actually amazed (and it's tough for media depravity to amaze me) that the Washington Post managed to put together a whole article on how Elena Kagan doesn't cross her legs when she sits. You have got to be kidding me.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
The Right Republican Tactic Towards Kagan
Miguel Estrada -- the talented conservative Latino judge who Democrats famously blocked from being appointed to the DC Circuit (and thus, the Supreme Court) -- has come out and endorsed Elena Kagan's nomination. This "may have the bizarre result of fueling suspicion from some on the left who worry that Kagan is a right-winger in Dem's clothing." I don't think this is bizarre at all, and part of me thinks it might be calculated. There are plenty of liberals grumpy over the Kagan nomination (I'm relatively neutral on the matter). But Republicans can't block her -- they already know she'll be confirmed. So they have two choices.
First, they can wage a furious but futile battle against the Solicitor General, hopefully riling up their base in the process. And that would be the standard tactic. But it seems relatively superfluous -- the GOP base is plenty riled, and there are plenty of things to be done between now and November to keep them riled. Meanwhile, the standard Republican temper tantrum is the best way to pave over the fissures that are developing over the nominations. Liberals may not like Kagan, but they'll be reminded of how insane Republicans are, and for the past few cycles "Republicans are batshit crazy" has been the best mobilizing tool the Democrats have ever had.
Alternatively, they can recognize the writing on the wall, and give her a nice reception, and a healthy confirmation margin. What will happen? Well, the Republican base might pitch a fit. But, as I said, they'll get over it between now and November. And in the meantime, they'll have scored two essential victories. First, they'll be able to claim the high ground on the judicial confirmation fight. Right now, it is buried in a mishmash of "he started it". If Republicans can say, quite plausibly, "Obama nominated one of his top choices -- not a compromise -- a solid, unabashed liberal whom we could have attacked over (among other things) the Solomon Amendment, and we confirmed her with virtually no fuss", they will be in a dominant position the next time they're occupying the Oval Office (not to mention if Obama ever gets the chance to nominate a true liberal's liberal).
But second, and more importantly, Republican behavior like this would crack the left wide open. Liberals are already suspicious that Kagan is our own version of Souter. If Republicans treat her like they think she's the best gift that ever happened to them with this President and this Senate, there will be no containing the internal strife. The liberal base will be demoralized, perhaps irrevocably, and the already pro-GOP fundamentals will lead them to a rout. And the sacrifice? Justice Kagan, who, to reiterate, will be on the court anyway. Oh, and maybe a slightly less reared-up Republican base -- but if they take back the House, who cares if the base is happy or sad about it?
First, they can wage a furious but futile battle against the Solicitor General, hopefully riling up their base in the process. And that would be the standard tactic. But it seems relatively superfluous -- the GOP base is plenty riled, and there are plenty of things to be done between now and November to keep them riled. Meanwhile, the standard Republican temper tantrum is the best way to pave over the fissures that are developing over the nominations. Liberals may not like Kagan, but they'll be reminded of how insane Republicans are, and for the past few cycles "Republicans are batshit crazy" has been the best mobilizing tool the Democrats have ever had.
Alternatively, they can recognize the writing on the wall, and give her a nice reception, and a healthy confirmation margin. What will happen? Well, the Republican base might pitch a fit. But, as I said, they'll get over it between now and November. And in the meantime, they'll have scored two essential victories. First, they'll be able to claim the high ground on the judicial confirmation fight. Right now, it is buried in a mishmash of "he started it". If Republicans can say, quite plausibly, "Obama nominated one of his top choices -- not a compromise -- a solid, unabashed liberal whom we could have attacked over (among other things) the Solomon Amendment, and we confirmed her with virtually no fuss", they will be in a dominant position the next time they're occupying the Oval Office (not to mention if Obama ever gets the chance to nominate a true liberal's liberal).
But second, and more importantly, Republican behavior like this would crack the left wide open. Liberals are already suspicious that Kagan is our own version of Souter. If Republicans treat her like they think she's the best gift that ever happened to them with this President and this Senate, there will be no containing the internal strife. The liberal base will be demoralized, perhaps irrevocably, and the already pro-GOP fundamentals will lead them to a rout. And the sacrifice? Justice Kagan, who, to reiterate, will be on the court anyway. Oh, and maybe a slightly less reared-up Republican base -- but if they take back the House, who cares if the base is happy or sad about it?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Real Pain for My Sham Friends
Elena Kagan's Friends: She's Not Gay.
Elena Kagan's real friends: It doesn't matter if she's gay or not, and whether she is is her business, not yours.*
* Not an attack on the friends in the Politico piece, but a general comment on how this whole issue is beginning to infuriate me.
Elena Kagan's real friends: It doesn't matter if she's gay or not, and whether she is is her business, not yours.*
* Not an attack on the friends in the Politico piece, but a general comment on how this whole issue is beginning to infuriate me.
The Universal Tantrum
Jon Chait thinks that the political calculus that went into the Kagan nomination may have been miscalculated:
I think it's obviously true that Republicans would throw a temper tantrum regardless of whether the nominee was Kagan, Wood, or even Garland. Throwing a fit is kind of all Republicans do, nowadays. However, I think there might be a difference in terms of how the tantrum is portrayed. Diane Wood, fairly or not, was presented as the liberal end of the nomination spectrum. Hence, media coverage of the inevitable Republican freak out would have cast it as justified, or at least politically expected even under normal circumstances. The goal with Kagan, I take it, is for Republicans to flip out and for it to look unreasonable -- proof of the degree to which the party is hostage to its most extreme elements.
Of course, the problem with this strategy is that the media doesn't have a spine, and thus takes the very fact of a Republican hissy fit as per se proof that the fit is reasonable. But the analysis does, I think, go one level deeper than Chait takes it.
Substantively, I'm pretty happy with the Elena Kagan nomination. Politically, though, I suspect the White House has made a mistake. The calculation seems to be that Kagan is their most confirmable pick. Why? Well, Senators like Orrin Hatch have said nice things about her in the past. Conservatives at Harvard like Charles Fried like her.
On the other hand, there are entry points to rile up the conservative base against her. There's Kagan's opposition to ROTC based on the military's discrimination against gays. She wrote a college paper that seemed vaguely sympathetic to historical socialism. Tea Party Nation has emailed its supporters calling her a "radical leftist."
Now, maybe these concerns will remain marginal in the face of a selection that enjoys the support of Republican elites. But the last 15 months have shown that, in the face of conservative outrage or organized Republican opposition, the support of a smattering of Republican elites tends to melt away very quickly. What Republicans are going to want to invite a Tea Party-backed primary challenge by voting to confirm Kagan? In the end, I think no more than a couple GOP Senators will be left standing. If the White House predicts a 70+ vote cakewalk, I suspect it's mistaken.
I think it's obviously true that Republicans would throw a temper tantrum regardless of whether the nominee was Kagan, Wood, or even Garland. Throwing a fit is kind of all Republicans do, nowadays. However, I think there might be a difference in terms of how the tantrum is portrayed. Diane Wood, fairly or not, was presented as the liberal end of the nomination spectrum. Hence, media coverage of the inevitable Republican freak out would have cast it as justified, or at least politically expected even under normal circumstances. The goal with Kagan, I take it, is for Republicans to flip out and for it to look unreasonable -- proof of the degree to which the party is hostage to its most extreme elements.
Of course, the problem with this strategy is that the media doesn't have a spine, and thus takes the very fact of a Republican hissy fit as per se proof that the fit is reasonable. But the analysis does, I think, go one level deeper than Chait takes it.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
It's a Pirates Life for Me, Maybe? Roundup
Yes, yes -- these roundups are the epitome of lazy blogging. Sorry. I'll snap out of it eventually.
* * *
Big Labor pushes through majoritarian democracy.
I was waiting for the first person to argue that two straight female SCOTUS nominations (making for three of nine female justices total) equals a de facto exclusion of men. Thanks, K-Lo!
A mild surprise in West Virginia, as centrist Dem Alan Mollahan (D) goes down in the primary to an even more conservative candidate.
Seattle police officer taped beating a Latino robbery suspect (who turned out to be entirely innocent, not that it matters).
Ta-Nehisi Coates on why Obama's anti-X-box-ism is genuine.
Andrew Sullivan's haywire gaydar re: Elena Kagan is really starting to piss me off.
Recently defeated (at the GOP nominated convention) Utah Senator Bob Bennett (R) is in no rush to decide his next move.
If you're a Republican in Alabama, believing in science is a smear.
* * *
Big Labor pushes through majoritarian democracy.
I was waiting for the first person to argue that two straight female SCOTUS nominations (making for three of nine female justices total) equals a de facto exclusion of men. Thanks, K-Lo!
A mild surprise in West Virginia, as centrist Dem Alan Mollahan (D) goes down in the primary to an even more conservative candidate.
Seattle police officer taped beating a Latino robbery suspect (who turned out to be entirely innocent, not that it matters).
Ta-Nehisi Coates on why Obama's anti-X-box-ism is genuine.
Andrew Sullivan's haywire gaydar re: Elena Kagan is really starting to piss me off.
Recently defeated (at the GOP nominated convention) Utah Senator Bob Bennett (R) is in no rush to decide his next move.
If you're a Republican in Alabama, believing in science is a smear.
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Futile Symposium Roundup
Tomorrow is going to be a hilarious meeting.
* * *
The tea-baggers have taken Maine.
Ta-Nehisi Coates on what other people can supposedly say.
The emergent attack on Elena Kagan is that she's too tough on slavery.
...Well, that, and that she's fat.
Something different: A radio debate where the liberal opposes Kagan and the conservative supports her.
Medical marijuana stores firebombed in Montana.
Friendly fire costs a Democratic seat in Hawaii: The DCCC is pulling out since the two Democratic candidates are going to split the vote and let a GOPer slip through the middle.
* * *
The tea-baggers have taken Maine.
Ta-Nehisi Coates on what other people can supposedly say.
The emergent attack on Elena Kagan is that she's too tough on slavery.
...Well, that, and that she's fat.
Something different: A radio debate where the liberal opposes Kagan and the conservative supports her.
Medical marijuana stores firebombed in Montana.
Friendly fire costs a Democratic seat in Hawaii: The DCCC is pulling out since the two Democratic candidates are going to split the vote and let a GOPer slip through the middle.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Fork in the Road
Orin Kerr comments on the phenomenal diversity of Obama's reported short-list for Justice Stevens' soon-to-be vacant SCOTUS seat:
Reading through the recitation of the trio's clerkships, I still thought this was serious -- I was imagining some in-depth discussion of the different branches of liberalism represented by Justices Blackmun, Marshall, and Brennan. Alas, I was met with sarcasm instead. Albeit funny sarcasm.
However, Professor's (fully-warranted) snarking aside, I think there are some significant choices inherent in the Wood/Kagan/Garland decision. First, in terms of relative controversy of appointment, there are notable differences -- Wood looking like the most likely to spark a fight, Garland the least likely, and Kagan somewhere in the middle. Kagan would be a change in being a rare (in recent times) Justice with no prior judicial experience -- folks vary as to whether that's a good or bad thing. At the same time, she has a reputation for being a consensus-builder -- an attribute Stevens shared and that Obama may thus value in the ever-present battle to secure Justice Kennedy's vote. Kagan also is probably the most sympathetic to expansive executive power of the three.
Garland is known for being a "moderate", although I'm not quite sure where that reputation comes from -- I had always thought of him as the second of the two liberal lions on the DC Circuit (alongside Tatel). And Wood, for her part, might be the purest intellect of the threesome (no knock on the other two) -- if Obama wants someone capable of going toe-to-toe with Scalia, Wood is battle-tested from her years of sparring with Posner and Easterbrook on the 7th Circuit.
Of course, the three do all share one critical attribute: all are clearly qualified and would make stellar Supreme Court Justices.
First, consider the broad range of choices Obama faces. His shortlist consists of former law clerks to a wide range of the liberal Justices of the 1970s and 1980s. Obama must choose between a Brennan clerk (Garland), a Marshall clerk (Kagan), and a Blackmun clerk (Wood). Further, the shortlisters differ dramatically in that they had different high-level positions in the Clinton Administration. Will Obama pick the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (Garland), the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division (Wood), or the former Associate White House Counsel (Kagan)?
Even if Obama decides on a former academic, he has to pick which kind of resume he wants. For example, does he pick the woman who was a full-time law professor at the University of Chicago from 1981 to 1993 (Wood)? Or does he pick the woman who was a full-time law professor at the University of Chicago from 1991 to 1995 (Kagan)? Obviously, these are big choices.
No matter who he chooses, Obama will continue to break new ground, or at least help bolster some of the low numbers of people of certain arguably underrepresented backgrounds on the current Court. For example, Elena Kagan would become only the second former Harvard professor presently on the Court (joining Justice Breyer). Either Kagan or Wood would be only the second Chicago professor (joining Justice Scalia). Further, Merrick Garland would be only the second Justice on the Court who went to Harvard College; then Harvard Law School; then clerked for Henry Friendly; then clerked at the Supreme Court; and then worked at DOJ and was a partner at a big DC law firm before serving on the DC Circuit (joining Chief Justice Roberts).
Elena Kagan would also bring notable educational diversity to the Court. Kagan would be the very first Justice ever to have attended Princeton and then Harvard Law. Obviously, that would be a major break after two consecutive nominees who had attended Princeton and then Yale Law (Justices Alito and Sotomayor). Whoever Obama picks, I think it’s clear that Obama faces a major choice and that his selection will be a historic occasion.
Reading through the recitation of the trio's clerkships, I still thought this was serious -- I was imagining some in-depth discussion of the different branches of liberalism represented by Justices Blackmun, Marshall, and Brennan. Alas, I was met with sarcasm instead. Albeit funny sarcasm.
However, Professor's (fully-warranted) snarking aside, I think there are some significant choices inherent in the Wood/Kagan/Garland decision. First, in terms of relative controversy of appointment, there are notable differences -- Wood looking like the most likely to spark a fight, Garland the least likely, and Kagan somewhere in the middle. Kagan would be a change in being a rare (in recent times) Justice with no prior judicial experience -- folks vary as to whether that's a good or bad thing. At the same time, she has a reputation for being a consensus-builder -- an attribute Stevens shared and that Obama may thus value in the ever-present battle to secure Justice Kennedy's vote. Kagan also is probably the most sympathetic to expansive executive power of the three.
Garland is known for being a "moderate", although I'm not quite sure where that reputation comes from -- I had always thought of him as the second of the two liberal lions on the DC Circuit (alongside Tatel). And Wood, for her part, might be the purest intellect of the threesome (no knock on the other two) -- if Obama wants someone capable of going toe-to-toe with Scalia, Wood is battle-tested from her years of sparring with Posner and Easterbrook on the 7th Circuit.
Of course, the three do all share one critical attribute: all are clearly qualified and would make stellar Supreme Court Justices.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Round Two Picks
Fresh off the verification of my oracle status with the selection of Sotomayor two years after I made the call, I'm deciding to let it ride. Supreme Court appointment #2 will be granted to Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
Can I go two-for-two? We eagerly await the next chime on the SCOTUS death clock to find out!
Can I go two-for-two? We eagerly await the next chime on the SCOTUS death clock to find out!
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Project SCOTUS Justice
Paul Campos collects an array of disturbing comments implying that any female judge appointed to the SCOTUS needs to be appropriately thin. Specifically, appearance (oh, excuse me, "health") is being used to attack Sotomayor and Kagan in favor of Wardlaw and Wood.
There are so many factors that go into choosing your SCOTUS nominee, making it virtually impossible to know whether any particular element played a role. But still: Gag. Kagan and Sotomayor are extremely qualified nominees who would make great justices. It's entirely possible Obama might end up choosing someone else. But it should be based on a real reason.
Also, has anyone looked a Nino lately? So thin and svelte!
There are so many factors that go into choosing your SCOTUS nominee, making it virtually impossible to know whether any particular element played a role. But still: Gag. Kagan and Sotomayor are extremely qualified nominees who would make great justices. It's entirely possible Obama might end up choosing someone else. But it should be based on a real reason.
Also, has anyone looked a Nino lately? So thin and svelte!
Monday, January 05, 2009
Kagan and Johnsen to DC
Elena Kagan, one of the hottest young stars in the legal profession, will be leaving her position as Dean of Harvard Law School in order to become Barack Obama's Solicitor General, where she will be the first permanent female appointee to that position. Congratulations! Joining her in DC will be Dawn Johnsen as head of the Office of Legal Counsel. Johnsen was a part of the Clinton administration, and also was the former legal director for NARAL. She currently teaches at the University of Indiana-Bloomington Law School.
Congratulations to both!
Congratulations to both!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
