Question: Who appointed the author of DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia to the Supreme Court?

full_context: Document 1: David Souter: David Hackett Souter ( ; born September 17, 1939) is a retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He served from October 1990 until his retirement in June 2009. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush to fill the seat vacated by William J. Brennan, Jr., Souter sat on both the Rehnquist and Roberts courts and came to vote reliably with the court's liberal members.
Document 2: Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.: Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 US _ (2012) is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court. It held that pharmaceutical sales representatives were not eligible for overtime pay. The court ruled in a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that sales representatives were classified as "outside salesmen" who are exempt from the Department of Labor's regulations regarding overtime pay.
Document 3: Stephen M. Schwebel: Stephen Myron Schwebel (born March 10, 1929), is an American jurist, counsel and independent arbitrator. He serves as President of the World Bank Administrative Tribunal and as a member of the U.S. national group at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Previously, he served as President of the International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal (1994–2010), as President of the International Court of Justice (1997–2000), as Vice President of the International Court of Justice (1994–1997) and as Judge of the International Court of Justice (1981–2000). Prior to his tenure on the World Court, Judge Schwebel served as Deputy Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State (1974–1981) and as Assistant Legal Adviser to the U.S. Dept. of State (1961–1967). He has also served as a professor of law at Harvard Law School (1959–1961) and Johns Hopkins University (1967–1981). Judge Schwebel is noted for his expansive opinions in momentous cases such as "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons", " Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua" and " Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)".
Document 4: Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila: Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court limited the scope of the Texas Healthcare Liability Act (THCLA). The effective result of this decision was that the THCLA, which held Case Management and Utilization Review decisions by Managed Care entities like CIGNA and Aetna to a legal duty of care according to the laws of The State of Texas could not be enforced in the case of Health Benefit plans provided through private employers, because the Texas statute allowed compensatory or punitive damages to redress losses or deter future transgressions, which were not available under ERISA § 1132. The ruling still allows the State of Texas to enforce the THCLA in the case of Government-sponsored (Medicare, Medicaid, Federal, State, Municipal Employee, etc., Church-sponsored, or Individual Health Plan Policies (High-deductible individual policies, self-pay, any insurance not subsidised by a Private Employer), which are saved from preemption by ERISA. The history that allows these Private and Self-Pay Insurance to be saved dates to the "Interstate Commerce" power that was given the federal Government by the Supreme Court. ERISA, enacted in 1974, relied on the "Interstate Commerce" rule to allow federal jurisdiction over private employers, based on the need of private employers to follow a single set of paperwork and rules for pensions and other employee benefit plans where employers had employees in multiple states. Except for private employer plans, insurance can be regulated by the individual states, and Managed Care entities making medical decisions can be held accountable for those decisions if negligence is involved, as allowed by the Texas Healthcare Liability Act.
Document 5: Stephen Breyer: Stephen Gerald Breyer ( ; born August 15, 1938) is an American lawyer, professor, and jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court.
Document 6: SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC: SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 154 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 1998), was a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that upheld §§ 271-275 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as constitutional against a challenge that the provisions acted as a bill of attainder.
Document 7: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born Joan Ruth Bader; March 15, 1933) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ginsburg was appointed by President Bill Clinton and took the oath of office on August 10, 1993. She is the second female justice to be confirmed to the Court (after Sandra Day O'Connor), and one of four female justices to be confirmed (with Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who are still serving). Following Justice O'Connor's retirement, and prior to Justice Sotomayor joining the Court, Ginsburg was the only female justice on the Supreme Court. During that time, Ginsburg became more forceful with her dissents, noted by legal observers and in popular culture. She is generally viewed as belonging to the liberal wing of the Court. Notable majority opinions Ginsburg has authored include "United States v. Virginia, Olmstead v. L.C.," and "Friends of the Earth Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc."
Document 8: Louis Brandeis: Louis Dembitz Brandeis ( ; November 13, 1856 – October 5, 1941) was an American lawyer and associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939. He was born in Louisville, Kentucky, to Jewish immigrant parents from Bohemia (now in the Czech Republic), who raised him in a secular home. He attended Harvard Law School, graduating at the age of twenty with the highest grade average in the law school's history. Brandeis settled in Boston, where he founded a law firm (that is still in practice today as Nutter McClennen & Fish) and became a recognized lawyer through his work on progressive social causes.
Document 9: Steven Reich: Steven F. Reich is an American attorney. Reich graduated from Columbia College in 1983. He began his career as an associate at the prominent Washington, D.C. law firm Covington & Burling following his graduation from Columbia Law School in 1986. From 1994-1998, Reich served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender for the District of Maryland. In 1998, he moved to the Minority staff of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he was Deputy Chief Investigative Counsel during the impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton. After President Clinton's impeachment by the House, Reich Served as impeachment counsel to the Minority Members of the U.S. Senate. He thereafter served as Senior Associate Counsel to President Clinton from 1999-2001.
Document 10: Arizona v. United States: Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. ___ (2012) , was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law, but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.
Document 11: Burnham v. Superior Court of California: Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990) , was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state. All nine justices unanimously agreed that this basis for personal jurisdiction—known as "transient jurisdiction"—is constitutionally permissible. However, the Court failed to produce a majority opinion, as the members were sharply divided on the reasons for the decision, reflecting two fundamentally different approaches to how due-process issues are to be analyzed. Justice Scalia wrote the lead opinion, joined in whole or part by three other Justices. Justice Brennan wrote an opinion joined by three other Justices. Justices White and Stevens wrote separate opinions.
Document 12: DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia: DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified when arbitration provisions in contracts are governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court reversed a decision by the California Court of Appeal that refused to enforce an arbitration agreement between DIRECTV and its customers. The California Court had ruled that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because, under applicable California law, a class action arbitration waiver between DIRECTV and its customers was unenforceable. However, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the California Court of Appeal's interpretation was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, and the California Court of Appeal was therefore required to enforce the arbitration agreement.
Document 13: Varian v. Delfino: "Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino," 35 Cal.4th 180 (2005) is a California Supreme Court opinion by then-Associate Justice Janice R. Brown interpreting the state's SLAPP statute. Specifically, the case holds that an appeal from a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion stays all trial court proceedings: "The perfecting of an appeal from the denial of a special motion to strike automatically stays all further trial court proceedings on the merits upon the causes of action affected by the motion...you have a right not to be dragged through the courts because you exercised your constitutional rights."
Document 14: Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014): Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission was a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit case vacating portions of the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 that the court determined could only be applied to common carriers. The court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to impose the order in its entirety. Because the FCC had previously classified broadband providers under Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, the court ruled that the FCC had relinquished its right to regulate them like common carriers. The case was largely viewed as a loss for network neutrality supporters and a victory for the cable broadband industry. Of the three orders that make up the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, two were vacated (no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination) and one was upheld (transparency). Judge David S. Tatel wrote the opinion with Judge Judith Ann Wilson Rogers joining. Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote a separate decision concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Document 15: Stephen Sugarman: Stephen D. Sugarman is the Roger J. Traynor Professor of Law at the UC Berkeley School of Law, where he has taught since 1972. He was the associate dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law from 1980 to 1982, and then again from 2004 to 2009. At UC Berkeley, he teaches multiple classes in the social justice curriculum, including classes torts and sports law. He has been a visiting professor at the London School of Economics, at University College, London, and at Columbia University, among other institutions.
ground_truth: Bill Clinton