Powered by TypePad

« Intriguing SCOTUS ruling about politicial parties | Main | My statutory interpretation attack on acquitted conduct sentencing enhancements »

January 16, 2008

A (partial) list of whos

Aided by student feedback, I now have this refined (and still growing) list of potential "whos" for in-class "on-call" roles.  Divided somewhat artificially by process and product, possible whos include:

Process whos:

  1. US President (and staff)
  2. US Senator
  3. US House member
  4. US agency head
  5. Ohio Governor
  6. Ohio Senator
  7. Ohio House member
  8. Head of the National Democratic party
  9. Head of the National Republican party
  10. Head of the Ohio Republican party
  11. Head of the Ohio Democratic party
  12. Head of the AARP (or the Sierra Club or the Chamber of Commerce)
  13. Head of a Grass-roots "outsider" group
  14. Professional Lobbyist (will work for lots of $$)
  15. Prominent member of traditional media
  16. Prominent member of non-traditional media (e.g., Oprah, Rush, blogger)

Product whos:

  1. US Supreme Court Justice
  2. US lower court judge
  3. US Attorney General
  4. Ohio Supreme Court Justice
  5. Ohio lower court judge
  6. Ohio Attorney General
  7. Lawyer with mostly individual private clients
  8. Lawyer with mostly institutional private clients
  9. Lawyer with a public policy group
  10. Impacted citizen
  11. Interested citizen

Of course, there are many other possibilities (which folks might use the comments to fill out).  As I mentioned in class, I encourage students to adopt a "who" that connects with personal and professional interests.

January 16, 2008 in Class requirements | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A (partial) list of whos:


What about prosecutors/defense attorneys?

Posted by: Kristen T. | Jan 16, 2008 5:21:57 PM

This probably goes under impacted citizens, but what about classes of people who can't represent their own interests and need other people to act for them? (Children, the insane, immigrants, the mentally challenged...)

Posted by: S. Lee | Jan 16, 2008 5:32:44 PM

I was going to suggest media, but glad to see it's already up there. What about (for "process") a researcher, like one from a university or think tank, who is in expert in the field and can offer up some data to shed light on the issue?

Posted by: Stephanie | Jan 16, 2008 6:06:51 PM

What about religious interest groups and their leaders? I feel like Pat Robertson-esque people who are pushing religious agenda in politics deserve a special category.

Posted by: ebae | Jan 16, 2008 8:59:51 PM

I think that under the list of Who's there should be CEO of a S and P's Top 500 corporation. While this could potentially fall under a lawyer for mostly private individuals, I feel that the roles are vastly different. In the current cases we had read, the legislation has affected business in a dramatic way. This role comes with alot of dimentions. First, the CEO must make sure that his corporation is in compliance with the given legislation, and must also serve as "damage control" if the corporation is not in compliance. A unique dimention of this role is also the fact that the duty of CEO is to maximize shareholder revenue, but at what cost. For example at the time Civil Rights act a CEO at that time could save more money by keeping his current work force. He could keep the biased "white male" employees, and not have to incurr the costs of training new employees, but if he would do so he would not be in compliance with the Civil Rights act.

Posted by: Nick Hurd | Jan 17, 2008 12:07:36 AM

I agree with Nick. I think that a further distinction could be useful between a Top 500 corporation and a smaller local business. The size of a business impacts bargaining power in DC as well as the impact legislation will have on the company.

Posted by: Christina | Jan 18, 2008 11:03:34 AM

I think it would be nice to have the perspective of folks from think tanks and policy groups of various political persuasions. (Cato, Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, Brookings Institution, American Constitution Society, etc.). Their perspective is useful (though sometimes in the same token less practical) because sometimes they operate in a little bit of a vacuum, taking philosophical stands regardless of political considerations.

By this I mean, someone from Cato might believe that a particular law is unconstitutional AND wrong even though legislators of both parties support some version of it. While that viewpoint may not always have a real effect on legislation, I still think the perspective is important.

Posted by: Nathan | Jan 18, 2008 11:22:49 AM

I think we need to include the Grinch in Whoville

Posted by: Adam | Jan 18, 2008 1:41:39 PM

Alright professor, I bite. Are you going to spill the beans about your mention on Mike and Mike in the Morning? Do you perhaps have a clip of it?

Posted by: Nathan | Jan 18, 2008 5:50:50 PM

I would like to be president of NOW (National Organization for Women)

Posted by: Kerry McNally | Jan 23, 2008 1:35:31 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.