Lisa, Sarah, and Sarah (and David)

Some people say it's the new avocado toast!

By and
24

Are you ready for this? Partners at Williams and Connolly Lisa Blatt and Sarah Harris share what it was like to argue before Justice Antonin Scalia, the pros and cons of careerism, the hunger for victory, the dangers of wearing cowboy boots in court, and why life is just a never-ending series of tradeoffs. Also:

-Texas Sarah vs Tennessee Sarah

-Justice Ginsburg’s tip for arguing before the Supreme Court

-Different forms of originalism

-Miffy’s (mifepristone)

-Arguing with Justice Alito

-Women in law

-Poor David

-Don’t follow your passions

Show notes:

-Lisa Blatt’s page at Williams and Connolly

-Sarah Harris’ page at Williams and Connolly

By and
Comments (24)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Jordan Bond

    I have so many thoughts, but I will just say this:
    I am listening to this as a 26yo mother of one who works in the construction industry. My career is high stress, high paying, and male dominated. I feel seen by your feminist manifesto.

    My passion: travel. My career: stressing about other people's time and money. My 20s: dominated by family life AND work. What will I think about on my deathbed: who knows

    Collapse
  2. MKG

    Just wanted to pop in here to say that this was one of my favorite AO podcasts ever (and I've listened to just about every one). Lisa Blatt was a real treat. It was fascinating to get a sense of how real she is despite her status among the rarefied air of top-notch SCOTUS advocates. She minces no words!

    Collapse
  3. Sam19952005

    What a great podcast. Amazing guests, and kudos to the recurring guest for participating appropriately. Hard to get a word in since Sarah has a lot to catch up for with her time away (was she really away?).

    And yeah. AO is the flagship. Sorry to the sensitive #2 and the rest.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    PaulH

    Lisa is so right to debunk the notion that one must "follow one's passion" -- not everyone has a true passion; and that's OK. Or some people have a passion but it is very difficult to make a living at it. The vast majority of people have jobs that they aren't passionate about -- our world wouldn't function otherwise. A much better approach is to look for things that one is good at and one finds interesting. If the role is important or meaningful to you in some way, that is an added bonus. And this is not a recipe for misery. There is lots of satisfaction that can be gained from doing a job well and assisting a client or enterprise in achieving its goals. Passions can be pursued outside of work.

    BTW, it is also true that in one's 20's and 30's one needs to work hard and pay some dues in order to hone skills and position oneself for the more interesting jobs.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Lmvega

    This was an amazing pod. Many thanks to Lisa Blatt and Sarah Harris for robust and passionate conversation ;)

    Collapse
  6. Chipwatkins

    Lisa Blatt filed a killer amicus brief for the Washington Redskins in Matal v. Tam. Check out the lists of derogatory trademarks that had been registered by the TM office. https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/15-1293-amicus-respondent-Pro-FootballInc..pdf.

    Collapse
  7. Rebecca

    I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation! So glad to have Sarah back.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Mark Hunter

    Thank you Lisa Blatt!!! As the doctoral program director in my university department I would often have earnest would be doc students tell me, "I'm very passionate about [x subject]." They thought I was a mean old man when I told them that I didn't really care about their passion. If their passion helped them get through the difficult times they were certainly going to face, then that was fine – it might have some use there. However, passion is no qualification for admission to a doctoral program, and it certainly is not indicative of the ability to learn, research, and write a dissertation.

    Collapse
    1. Biglaw_Blues

      It reminds me of Mike Rowe from Dirty Jobs who had a speech with Praeger (I know Praeger is hit or miss) that was titled "don't follow your passion" and it was very good.

      Link: https://mikerowe.com/2019/12/dont-follow-your-passion/

      Collapse
  9. Biglaw_Blues

    Very interesting pod. Loved hearing Ms. Blatt speaking outside of hearing at oral arguments. I came away honestly liking her quite a bit more! Comments:

    -Advocates saying they don't vote count and tailor arguments to particular justices in the hope to peel them off---lmao.

    -Glad to see Blatt agree that Rahimi will be a narrow case. @David, we (or at least I) blow up the comments not because you keep talking about it, but because of what you say about it! I am completely in agreement that there's criticism about THT when it comes to lower courts that lack the resources of SCOTUS and a flood of amici. But your criticism of THT are just really criticism of originalism itself (history has bad stuff, legislators dumb/bad, history ambiguous, evolving standards of decency/technology, etc), *which is fine!* But originalism already has answers for those critiques, so y'alls discussions about it feels like it's missing the full discussion---especially since progressive-ish criticism of originalism is already abundant.

    -Re: Chevron, I don't understand why everyone speaks about Chevron vs zero deference, versus the real question of Chevron vs Skidmore/Auer deference et al, which wouldn't be that big of a deal. Plus, you have to layer on Jarkesy to Loper Bright for the nondelegation doctrine which is the threshold question in Chevron Step 1. E.g., Chevron Step 1 [Can Congress delegate? (nondelegation Doctrine) + did Congress delegate? (major questions doctrine)] if answer to no, the agency loses *before* deference even applies. Then, at Chevron Step 2: if the grant of authority is ambiguous what is the proper deference? Chevron = "reasonable" but Skidmore = "they have expertise and are persuasive." And Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000) was Justice Thomas, where Scalia concurred saying that the agency shouldn't get the anachronistic Skidmore deference, but Chevron deference. Scalia's support of Chevron is on the losing side of the Conservative Movement, and it makes sense to just have Thomas apply Christensen to all of Chevron and kill it off. But the resulting Skidmore deference would basically apply the actual win rate of SCOTUS implicating Chevron to the *lower courts* which is where it actually tends to matter since SCOTUS (with discretionary cert) does whatever it wants anyways.

    -If I ever argue at SCOTUS I am wearing my ostrich boots, 10,000,000%.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Gray.Kendallm

    Hi Sarah and David,
    Thanks SO much for this interview. I am already urging students and former students to listen (especially the women) so they can take in all that was said by Lisa and Good Sarah about professional choices, gaining experience, and building the confidence needed to take the lead in court. KMG

    Collapse
Load More