Skip to Content

Pawlenty's 2 Supreme Court choices cement a key part of his legacy

Judge Lorie Skjerven Gildea
Judge Lorie Skjerven Gildea

In these final months of his run as governor, talk already has begun of Tim Pawlenty’s legacy.

One area seems firm now: He has created a Supreme Court that is conservative.

This morning, in a room jammed with friends, family, judges and reporters, Pawlenty announced that he has promoted Lorie Skjerven Gildea to be the chief justice of the state’s highest court.

Additionally, he named David Stras, a former law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and a member of the Federalist Society, to fill the opening on the court created when the current chief justice, Eric Magnuson, announced that he would leave the court next month.

Given the ages of Gildea, 48, and Stras, who at 35 may be the state’s youngest judge ever, the decisions of these judges will be around long after Pawlenty is gone.

Judge David Stras
Judge David Stras

It’s safe to assume that had Stras been on the bench a few weeks ago, Pawlenty’s unallotment use would not have been ruled unconstitutional. In that case, recall, that Gildea defended Pawlenty’s unallotments with a strong minority dissent from the 4-3 majority. Stras, a University of Minnesota law professor, wrote a brief in support of the legality of the governor’s use of the unallotment statute.

Not surprisingly, neither the governor nor Gildea nor Stras would comment about what might have been, or what might be in the future, in the area of unallotments.

“The unallotment case has been decided,’’ Pawlenty said.

Gildea and Stras made roughly the same comment, both adding that as judges, it would be inapprorpriate for them to comment on any future case that might come before the court.

Pawlenty didn’t come right out and say he valued “conservative” in the qualities he was seeking in filling the two positions. Rather, he used the word “restraint’’ in talking about what he wants in a court member.

He was, he said, looking for people “who interpret the law as written.’’

Gildea, in dissenting from the majority on the unallotment case, used virtually that same language.

“The judiciary's duty is simply to apply the law as written by the Legislature,’’ she wrote in her strong dissent, adding that her colleagues in the majority had to jump to conclusions to come to the decision that the Pawlenty unallotments overstepped executive bounds.

Magnuson, who also was a Pawlenty appointee, wrote the majority opinion in the unallotment case.

Stras received most of the attention from the media, for two reasons: connections to Clarence Thomas and to the Federalist Society.

In his comments in accepting Pawlenty’s appointment, Stras called Thomas “my mentor.’’

Asked later about whether he shares Thomas’s views of the law, Stras again called Thomas “my mentor. ... But we have differences in our approach.’’

What does that mean?

Stras suggested that reporters spend some time reading his “scholarly papers.’’

The other flag on Stras’ biography is his membership in the Federalist Society. That organization was formed by students at the University of Chicago in the early 1980s as an antidote to what they saw as the liberal orthodoxy of the courts. There are now 20,000 members of the society. Those members operate on the premise that the courts should make rulings based on what the law says, not what judges think it should say.

Both Stras and Gildea have extraordinary academic records. Stras was a star student at the University of Kansas School of Law, who went to work as a clerk for two federal court justices, then spent a year in private practice in Washington, D.C., before accepting the clerkship under Thomas.

He came to Minnesota as a member of the University of Minnesota law school faculty in 2004, quickly earning tenure. He also does work for the Minneapolis law firm Faegre and Benson.

Pawlenty said that he had met Stras on a few occasions, but he sounded as if the Stras appointment was something of a late development in his thinking.

Pawlenty had appointed Gildea to the high court 2006. She, too, was a superstar law student, attending Georgetown University. Following graduation, she practiced law for a firm in D.C., returning to Minnesota as a University of Minnesota lawyer in 1993. In 2004, she worked briefly for the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, was appointed to the Hennepin County District Court by Pawlenty in 2005. Four months later, he appointed her to the Supreme Court.

In accepting the promotion, Gildea thanked former Justice Rosalie Wahl, the first female member of the court, and Kathleen Blatz, the first female chief justice, “for lighting your lamps.’’

In those remarks, she also spoke warmly of Pawlenty’s leadership in Minnesota.

“Thank you for all the good and great things you do for Minnesota,’’ she said.

She wasn’t quite so warm when talking about legislators, whom she described as “well meaning.’’

One other point about Gildea and Stras: Not only are they young and appear to be solidly conservative. They’re also short.

Gildea eyed up Stras and said, “I may no longer be the shortest person on the court.’’

Doug Grow writes about public affairs, state politics and other topics. He can be reached at dgrow [at] minnpost [dot] com.

Related Tags:

Comments (4)

I can't imagine that anyone is surprised by the elevation of Judge Gildea, whom Pawlenty appointed to both the Hennepin County District Court and the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Judge Stras' bio can be found here, along with a link to his CV. Frankly, I'd prefer a judge with more experience than three years as a clerk and two years engaged in the actual practice of law. Frankly, it's unlikely he had any significant level of responsibility in his first position as associate.

I'll be looking for Gov. Pawlenty's rationale for selecting Stras. On the basis of what I've seen to date, it seems his academic record, youth and conservatism won the day.

From his CV:

Hon. Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC
Law Clerk, 2002-2003.

Hon. J. Michael Luttig, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Alexandria, VA
Law Clerk, 2000-2001.

Hon. Melvin Brunetti, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Reno, NV
Law Clerk, 1999-2000.

Faegre & Benson LLP, Minneapolis, MN
Of Counsel, 2009-Present
Specializing in appellate advocacy, including writing briefs for clients in cases pending before the Minnesota and federal appellate courts.

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP Washington, DC
Associate, 2001-2002.
Practice primarily involved appellate litigation and white collar criminal litigation. Co-wrote numerous briefs, including a merits brief before the United States Supreme Court (Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co. v. Ayers). Handled post-trial motions for a pro bono murder case.

I'd be interested in knowing what Stras learned from Clarence Thomas, beyond concurring with someone else 99% of the time.

Is Justice Stras's background what now stands for judicial experience and experience in the private sector that we hear so much about?

Sounds like ideology was the real qualification.

If we had a Governor that followed the law as written, the Minnesota Supreme Court would have never been forced to get involved. Pawlenty was the 'activist' in this little tale of woe, not his own appointee Magnuson or other members of the majority who ruled Pawlenty 'out of order'.

Good thing our Supreme Court is still subject to the electoral process (both Stras and Gildea will face elections in 2012, if I'm not mistaken).

I believe that Governor Pawlenty's choice of Mr. Stras was based more on politics than merit.

Who were the alternatives that he considered? And were they less qualified? Let the public decide.

It's hard to think this wasn't done in response to his disappointment with former Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, who stood up for adequate funding of the judiciary and the justice system from the get-go. That did not sit well with the govornor.

Oh, yes, and Magnuson told the governor that he had exceeded his authority in unallotment.

But, calls to politicize the judiciary through partisan appeals or infusions of money in elections are wrong and dangerous.

As Republican U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham has said about the Kagan nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by Obama: elections have consequences.

That said, presidents and governors have not infrequently been surprised by the voting records of their judicial appointees.

That is as it should be.

Judges, we hope upon appointment, take their oaths seriously, and do justice based on the facts and the law. Not based on who appointed them.

So, calls to "get even" at the next judicial election are foolish - absent clear and serious problems.

We have to have a way to rid our system of bad judges.

People talk about election systems - retention election systems being one alternative.

What never gets mentioned is our current state board that takes up complaints against Minnesota judges.

It is underfunded and too political. I say that as a former Strib reporter that covered courts for 17 years.

That board needs to be credible and have teeth to do thorough reviews of complaints. Ultimately, their conclusions are only recommendations to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

But a credibly functioning judical conduct review board would go a long ways towards giving credibility to the judiciary. That would be a wonderful first step. The public should demand it.

Let's be clear. The record of states who have made elections for their judges a matter of politics and money is appalling.

The U.S. Supreme Court has paved the road for just such elections in the state courts. But, we don't have to go down that road in Minnesota as other states have to their detriment.

How we prevent it can be a matter of honest disagreement.

But prevent it we must.

So, when you see competing plans for doing so, scrutinize and ask questions about the reasoning and the interests of the players: the political parties, the special interests groups, the lawyers, and even the judges themselves.

Ask how these plans best serve the goal of an impartial and quality judiciary for Minnesota.