Trump's hiring freeze

Seek and share information about clerkship applications, clerkship hiring timelines, and post-clerkship employment opportunities.
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about clerkship applications and clerkship hiring. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous User
Posts: 313760
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Trump's hiring freeze

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:41 pm

This has already been asked in the main employment thread but maybe people in this thread will have an answer.

Would a Trump hiring freeze affect judicial clerkships? I've accepted an offer to clerk for next cycle. I can't imagine we're going to freeze clerkships and require every federal judge in the country to operate without a clerk for the foreseeable future. Anyone know anything?
Last edited by Anonymous User on Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 7649
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby lavarman84 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:47 pm

How would it work for the judiciary? Wouldn't judicial interference come into play?(I truly have no idea)

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby rpupkin » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:00 pm

lawman84 wrote:How would it work for the judiciary? Wouldn't judicial interference come into play?(I truly have no idea)

lol@the notion of Trump caring about separation of powers generally or "judical interference" in particular.

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 7649
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby lavarman84 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:06 pm

rpupkin wrote:
lawman84 wrote:How would it work for the judiciary? Wouldn't judicial interference come into play?(I truly have no idea)

lol@the notion of Trump caring about separation of powers generally or "judical interference" in particular.


I don't think highly of Trump, but I'm sure he has some knowledge of separation of powers. But even if he doesn't, it doesn't change the fact that his ability to act is limited by the Constitution.

User avatar
Dcc617

Gold
Posts: 2288
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby Dcc617 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:14 pm

lawman84 wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
lawman84 wrote:How would it work for the judiciary? Wouldn't judicial interference come into play?(I truly have no idea)

lol@the notion of Trump caring about separation of powers generally or "judical interference" in particular.


I don't think highly of Trump, but I'm sure he has some knowledge of separation of powers. But even if he doesn't, it doesn't change the fact that his ability to act is limited by the Constitution.


But isn't the Constitution just a piece of paper? Who's going to actually stop him?

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 7649
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby lavarman84 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:16 pm

Dcc617 wrote:
lawman84 wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
lawman84 wrote:How would it work for the judiciary? Wouldn't judicial interference come into play?(I truly have no idea)

lol@the notion of Trump caring about separation of powers generally or "judical interference" in particular.


I don't think highly of Trump, but I'm sure he has some knowledge of separation of powers. But even if he doesn't, it doesn't change the fact that his ability to act is limited by the Constitution.


But isn't the Constitution just a piece of paper? Who's going to actually stop him?


Mechagodzilla

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby rpupkin » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:17 pm

lawman84 wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
lawman84 wrote:How would it work for the judiciary? Wouldn't judicial interference come into play?(I truly have no idea)

lol@the notion of Trump caring about separation of powers generally or "judical interference" in particular.


I don't think highly of Trump, but I'm sure he has some knowledge of separation of powers. But even if he doesn't, it doesn't change the fact that his ability to act is limited by the Constitution.

LOL again. You're assuming Trump has respect for the rule of law. Why would Trump do something (or not do something) just because of a judge's order?

jd20132013

Silver
Posts: 1378
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby jd20132013 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:06 pm

The most annoying thing about people's misunderstanding of the situation is they don't seem to get that things like "laws" and the "Constitution" only constrain those who wish to be constrained.

Half if not more of the authoritarian regimes today have "constitutions".

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 7649
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby lavarman84 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 5:35 pm

jd20132013 wrote:The most annoying thing about people's misunderstanding of the situation is they don't seem to get that things like "laws" and the "Constitution" only constrain those who wish to be constrained.

Half if not more of the authoritarian regimes today have "constitutions".


This isn't a country where that will be tolerated. Not at this point in time. You really think the Republican Party will let Trump flout the Constitution and lawful orders? They'd impeach him in a heartbeat.

jd20132013

Silver
Posts: 1378
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby jd20132013 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:27 pm

You really think the Republican Party will let Trump flout the Constitution and lawful orders?


Have you seen these guys in action over the past 9 months ?

User avatar
heythatslife

Silver
Posts: 1203
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby heythatslife » Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:30 pm

jd20132013 wrote:
You really think the Republican Party will let Trump flout the Constitution and lawful orders?


Have you seen these guys in action over the past 9 months ?

I read that as sarcastic.

jd20132013

Silver
Posts: 1378
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby jd20132013 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:47 pm

I did at first too but it's consistent with the guys other posts in this thread

Anonymous User
Posts: 313760
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:54 pm

jd20132013 wrote:I did at first too but it's consistent with the guys other posts in this thread


Pretty sure that wasn't sarcastic.

Dude, what can I say, rooting that some former clerk on Trump's staff will have pity and influence our fascist-elect in the right direction. I wouldn't repose too much faith in the man's own respect for any particular norm or piece of paper.

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 7649
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby lavarman84 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:31 pm

Nope. Not sarcastic. Some of y'all are just being unrealistic. Trump being elected isn't the end of the world. The guy isn't going to destroy the separation of powers, nor could he. America will continue humming along as always. He may do some damage as President, but he's not going to destroy our government or way of life. Nor will he be able to disregard the judiciary. You may not like the Republicans, but they're not going to let him tear up the Constitution and do what he wants.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:35 pm

(or at least, none of them are really going to care about judicial clerks.)

jd20132013

Silver
Posts: 1378
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby jd20132013 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:53 pm

You are delusional lawman. But there's really no need to fight about it here, since we'll all see soon enough.

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 7649
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby lavarman84 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:15 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:(or at least, none of them are really going to care about judicial clerks.)


That too. But we all know that the Republicans would love to a have a President that is more easily controllable. They'll look to impeach Trump if he gives them cause. That's why I'm not worried.

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby rpupkin » Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:40 am

lawman84 wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:(or at least, none of them are really going to care about judicial clerks.)


That too. But we all know that the Republicans would love to a have a President that is more easily controllable. They'll look to impeach Trump if he gives them cause. That's why I'm not worried.

Many Republicans were terrified of opposing Trump in their own party's primary for fear of popular backlash. And you now think those same politicians are eager to impeach Trump? C'mon dude. If Trump ends up impeached, it won't be because of any Republican-initiated action. Given how Republicans treated Trump during the general election, most of them don't seem to have much of a problem with his anti-constitutional views.

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 7649
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby lavarman84 » Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:07 am

rpupkin wrote:
lawman84 wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:(or at least, none of them are really going to care about judicial clerks.)


That too. But we all know that the Republicans would love to a have a President that is more easily controllable. They'll look to impeach Trump if he gives them cause. That's why I'm not worried.

Many Republicans were terrified of opposing Trump in their own party's primary for fear of popular backlash. And you now think those same politicians are eager to impeach Trump? C'mon dude. If Trump ends up impeached, it won't be because of any Republican-initiated action. Given how Republicans treated Trump during the general election, most of them don't seem to have much of a problem with his anti-constitutional views.


Yes. Because they're not up for immediate election anymore. The American people won't remember who supported impeachment after time passes. And frankly, you can spin the impeachment to get the American people to support it. They're not going to let Trump trample all over the Constitution. It's just not a realistic fear. There are plenty of things to be worried about, but that's not one of them. This isn't a country where one man can take over the government.

In four years when America is still America, you'll understand.

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby rpupkin » Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:39 am

lawman84 wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
lawman84 wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:(or at least, none of them are really going to care about judicial clerks.)


That too. But we all know that the Republicans would love to a have a President that is more easily controllable. They'll look to impeach Trump if he gives them cause. That's why I'm not worried.

Many Republicans were terrified of opposing Trump in their own party's primary for fear of popular backlash. And you now think those same politicians are eager to impeach Trump? C'mon dude. If Trump ends up impeached, it won't be because of any Republican-initiated action. Given how Republicans treated Trump during the general election, most of them don't seem to have much of a problem with his anti-constitutional views.


Yes. Because they're not up for immediate election anymore. The American people won't remember who supported impeachment after time passes. And frankly, you can spin the impeachment to get the American people to support it. They're not going to let Trump trample all over the Constitution. It's just not a realistic fear. There are plenty of things to be worried about, but that's not one of them.

They're not up for immediate election anymore? The members of the house of representatives have to run every two years-- they're always up for election. Unless you think Republican House members are going to impeach Trump during his first few months in office--which strikes me as rather unlikely--the populist pressures that deterred them from opposing Trump in the primaries and general election will also deter them from moving to impeach.

As far as your lack of concern for the possibility that Trump will violate the Constitution, I suspect that you and I have very different views of what the Constitution requires. Trump has quite publicly--and without any meaningful Republican opposition--demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the Constitution. He has contempt for Article III, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. I'm sorry, but when a successful candidate for President of the United States openly opposes constitutional guarantees, I don't think "it's all good because others in his party will check him." That reaction seems bizarrely naive.

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 7649
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby lavarman84 » Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:56 am

rpupkin wrote:They're not up for immediate election anymore? The members of the house of representatives have to run every two years-- they're always up for election. Unless you think Republican House members are going to impeach Trump during his first few months in office--which strikes me as rather unlikely--the populist pressures that deterred them from opposing Trump in the primaries and general election will also deter them from moving to impeach.

As far as your lack of concern for the possibility that Trump will violate the Constitution, I suspect that you and I have very different views of what the Constitution requires. Trump has quite publicly--and without any meaningful Republican opposition--demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the Constitution. He has contempt for Article III, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. I'm sorry, but when a successful candidate for President of the United States openly opposes constitutional guarantees, I don't think "it's all good because others in his party will check him." That reaction seems bizarrely naive.


Naivete is believing that this country will let a President get away with tossing out the Constitution. You don't like the guy. Okay. Neither do a lot of Americans. Deal with it. It doesn't make him Hitler, and this certainly isn't Nazi Germany. America will be America in 4 years. All of this alarmist behavior will seem silly. I don't like Trump. But I'm not going to lose my mind and start predicting the end to America. The next 4 years might lead to policies and legislation that a lot of us hate. It might damage this country. But it won't be because nobody had the balls to reign in Dictator Trump. The guy is like any other candidate you didn't like. He's not going to get what you want done, but he's not going to destroy our system of government.

And no, they won't be deterred from impeaching him if he oversteps his bounds. They'll spin it. The American people will eat that shit up. They'll (the Republicans) get a President they likely prefer.(I'd rather have Trump than Pence)

RaceJudicata

Gold
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:51 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby RaceJudicata » Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:34 am

lawman84 wrote:
rpupkin wrote:They're not up for immediate election anymore? The members of the house of representatives have to run every two years-- they're always up for election. Unless you think Republican House members are going to impeach Trump during his first few months in office--which strikes me as rather unlikely--the populist pressures that deterred them from opposing Trump in the primaries and general election will also deter them from moving to impeach.

As far as your lack of concern for the possibility that Trump will violate the Constitution, I suspect that you and I have very different views of what the Constitution requires. Trump has quite publicly--and without any meaningful Republican opposition--demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the Constitution. He has contempt for Article III, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. I'm sorry, but when a successful candidate for President of the United States openly opposes constitutional guarantees, I don't think "it's all good because others in his party will check him." That reaction seems bizarrely naive.


Naivete is believing that this country will let a President get away with tossing out the Constitution. You don't like the guy. Okay. Neither do a lot of Americans. Deal with it. It doesn't make him Hitler, and this certainly isn't Nazi Germany. America will be America in 4 years. All of this alarmist behavior will seem silly. I don't like Trump. But I'm not going to lose my mind and start predicting the end to America. The next 4 years might lead to policies and legislation that a lot of us hate. It might damage this country. But it won't be because nobody had the balls to reign in Dictator Trump. The guy is like any other candidate you didn't like. He's not going to get what you want done, but he's not going to destroy our system of government.

And no, they won't be deterred from impeaching him if he oversteps his bounds. They'll spin it. The American people will eat that shit up. They'll (the Republicans) get a President they likely prefer.(I'd rather have Trump than Pence)


I'm with lawman. Hate the guy (trump), but c'mon... I want to bottle up all these posts (and those on my FB feed) and show people in four years when things are largely the same. He already took some major steps back on 60 Minutes last night, and hired RNC guy as Chief of Staff... he's going to fall right in line with the "establishment" he hates so much. Going to be more of the same, IMHO.

User avatar
jbagelboy

Diamond
Posts: 10251
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby jbagelboy » Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:39 am

lawman84 wrote:
rpupkin wrote:They're not up for immediate election anymore? The members of the house of representatives have to run every two years-- they're always up for election. Unless you think Republican House members are going to impeach Trump during his first few months in office--which strikes me as rather unlikely--the populist pressures that deterred them from opposing Trump in the primaries and general election will also deter them from moving to impeach.

As far as your lack of concern for the possibility that Trump will violate the Constitution, I suspect that you and I have very different views of what the Constitution requires. Trump has quite publicly--and without any meaningful Republican opposition--demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the Constitution. He has contempt for Article III, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. I'm sorry, but when a successful candidate for President of the United States openly opposes constitutional guarantees, I don't think "it's all good because others in his party will check him." That reaction seems bizarrely naive.


Naivete is believing that this country will let a President get away with tossing out the Constitution. You don't like the guy. Okay. Neither do a lot of Americans. Deal with it. It doesn't make him Hitler, and this certainly isn't Nazi Germany. America will be America in 4 years. All of this alarmist behavior will seem silly. I don't like Trump. But I'm not going to lose my mind and start predicting the end to America. The next 4 years might lead to policies and legislation that a lot of us hate. It might damage this country. But it won't be because nobody had the balls to reign in Dictator Trump. The guy is like any other candidate you didn't like. He's not going to get what you want done, but he's not going to destroy our system of government.

And no, they won't be deterred from impeaching him if he oversteps his bounds. They'll spin it. The American people will eat that shit up. They'll (the Republicans) get a President they likely prefer.(I'd rather have Trump than Pence)


This is naive.

User avatar
jbagelboy

Diamond
Posts: 10251
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby jbagelboy » Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:43 am

That being said, I don't think there will be an immediate impact on clerkship positions except for two trends: demand will continue to increase as other federal gov't jobs evaporate/are no longer desirable; and congress will finally fill the vacancies on the federal bench, with long term implications for many of the circuits (up to ten or so 9th circuit judges could be appointed over the next four years, shattering the current ideological balance), which might increase supply for conservative leading students.

I don't think Trump will interfere directly with how many clerks a judge gets to hire.

jd20132013

Silver
Posts: 1378
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Trump's hiring freeze

Postby jd20132013 » Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:19 pm

RaceJudicata wrote:
lawman84 wrote:
rpupkin wrote:They're not up for immediate election anymore? The members of the house of representatives have to run every two years-- they're always up for election. Unless you think Republican House members are going to impeach Trump during his first few months in office--which strikes me as rather unlikely--the populist pressures that deterred them from opposing Trump in the primaries and general election will also deter them from moving to impeach.

As far as your lack of concern for the possibility that Trump will violate the Constitution, I suspect that you and I have very different views of what the Constitution requires. Trump has quite publicly--and without any meaningful Republican opposition--demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the Constitution. He has contempt for Article III, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. I'm sorry, but when a successful candidate for President of the United States openly opposes constitutional guarantees, I don't think "it's all good because others in his party will check him." That reaction seems bizarrely naive.


Naivete is believing that this country will let a President get away with tossing out the Constitution. You don't like the guy. Okay. Neither do a lot of Americans. Deal with it. It doesn't make him Hitler, and this certainly isn't Nazi Germany. America will be America in 4 years. All of this alarmist behavior will seem silly. I don't like Trump. But I'm not going to lose my mind and start predicting the end to America. The next 4 years might lead to policies and legislation that a lot of us hate. It might damage this country. But it won't be because nobody had the balls to reign in Dictator Trump. The guy is like any other candidate you didn't like. He's not going to get what you want done, but he's not going to destroy our system of government.

And no, they won't be deterred from impeaching him if he oversteps his bounds. They'll spin it. The American people will eat that shit up. They'll (the Republicans) get a President they likely prefer.(I'd rather have Trump than Pence)


I'm with lawman. Hate the guy (trump), but c'mon... I want to bottle up all these posts (and those on my FB feed) and show people in four years when things are largely the same. He already took some major steps back on 60 Minutes last night, and hired RNC guy as Chief of Staff... he's going to fall right in line with the "establishment" he hates so much. Going to be more of the same, IMHO.



Guess who else he just hired as senior adviser to the president ? Stephen Bannon. Nothing to worry about here though !



Return to “Judicial Clerkships�

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.