Best conservative judges to clerk for? Forum

[Anonymous User]

In terms of raw intellectual horsepower -- who is the smartest conservative judge?

Sutton, Kovner, Easterbrook all stand out

[Anonymous User]

In terms of raw intellectual horsepower -- who is the smartest conservative judge?

Probably Easterbrook or Bibas imo. Easterbrook's academic scholarship is more influential but Bibas was a child prodigy and all.

[Anonymous User]

In terms of raw intellectual horsepower -- who is the smartest conservative judge?

Sutton, Kovner, Easterbrook all stand out

Easterbrook isn't remotely close to a conservative by current standards.

[Anonymous User]

In terms of raw intellectual horsepower -- who is the smartest conservative judge?

Sutton, Kovner, Easterbrook all stand out

Easterbrook isn't remotely close to a conservative by current standards.

Easterbrook is conservative by any standard, he’s nothing like Posner judicially, contrary to occasional misconception. E.g. he played a major role in developing modern textualism.

[Anonymous User]

In terms of raw intellectual horsepower -- who is the smartest conservative judge?

Dan Collins and Greg Katsas are the names I've regularly heard.

[Anonymous User]

In terms of raw intellectual horsepower -- who is the smartest conservative judge?

Non feeder names that I’ve heard on a few occasions: Colloton and Bybee

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any intel into how the experience is with Judge Sykes?

I know two people who have clerked for Judge Sykes recently. They liked the clerkship with her a lot.

[Anonymous User]

In terms of raw intellectual horsepower -- who is the smartest conservative judge?

The name I've heard over and over again from several connected FedSoc types is Oldham

[Anonymous User]

In terms of raw intellectual horsepower -- who is the smartest conservative judge?

Sutton, Kovner, Easterbrook all stand out

Easterbrook isn't remotely close to a conservative by current standards.

Easterbrook is conservative by any standard, he’s nothing like Posner judicially, contrary to occasional misconception. E.g. he played a major role in developing modern textualism.

Easterbrook appears to care less about the original meaning of the text (see his recent vote to allow Illinois's unconstitutional gun control to stay in place, despite that pesky 2A). Following the text is the bare minimum for any judge, and certainly doesn't make one a conservative. He wouldn't get nominated by any Republican today.

[Anonymous User]

In terms of raw intellectual horsepower -- who is the smartest conservative judge?

Sutton, Kovner, Easterbrook all stand out

Easterbrook isn't remotely close to a conservative by current standards.

Easterbrook is conservative by any standard, he’s nothing like Posner judicially, contrary to occasional misconception. E.g. he played a major role in developing modern textualism.

Easterbrook appears to care less about the original meaning of the text (see his recent vote to allow Illinois's unconstitutional gun control to stay in place, despite that pesky 2A). Following the text is the bare minimum for any judge, and certainly doesn't make one a conservative. He wouldn't get nominated by any Republican today.

"Original meaning" and "following the text" aren't the same thing.

[Anonymous User]

In terms of raw intellectual horsepower -- who is the smartest conservative judge?

In D.C., Katsas

[Anonymous User]

In terms of raw intellectual horsepower -- who is the smartest conservative judge?

Sutton, Kovner, Easterbrook all stand out

Easterbrook isn't remotely close to a conservative by current standards.

Easterbrook is conservative by any standard, he’s nothing like Posner judicially, contrary to occasional misconception. E.g. he played a major role in developing modern textualism.

Easterbrook appears to care less about the original meaning of the text (see his recent vote to allow Illinois's unconstitutional gun control to stay in place, despite that pesky 2A). Following the text is the bare minimum for any judge, and certainly doesn't make one a conservative. He wouldn't get nominated by any Republican today.

Kinda wild to criticize failure to follow express text in the second amendment context, of all places

[Anonymous User]

I think it's a bit silly to call a judge who put three clerks into the OT 2022, and maybe the only judge who can potentially hit every justice, "past his prime," but Sutton has never hired like his sole goal in life is to feed. I get the sense that he often hires later, more grade-selectively, less ideologically, and more tie-sensitively than most of the Trump feeders.

More generally there's a divide in priorities among some conservative judges. Some take the attitude that "if I can get conservatives, that's great, but I'm not willing to give them shortcuts on the paper qualifications I want." And if you care a ton about grades, that probably means you're hiring later, which means you hire more non-ideologically, which all else being equal hurts your feeding. You might get clerks with better resumes than Pryor's or Thapar's, but they're less likely to get SCOTUS. Sutton is an example of this tendency to an extent.

Four clerks, in fact. Otherwise, I agree. Sutton has goals beyond pure feeding and he hires more liberals than many of Trump's judges (see, e.g., his recent feeds to Kagan). I doubt he will have many four-clerk terms, but he should continue to place about two every year. More importantly, his recommendation remains at least as strong as the new guard, although he is more of an all-purpose feeder than someone (like Pyror) with consistent pipelines to one or two justices.

[Anonymous User]

How do we define "best" conservative judge ?

Sutton's choice to further the advancement of insufferable libs does not strike me as a point for his pro column

[Anonymous User]

How do we define "best" conservative judge ?

Sutton's choice to further the advancement of insufferable libs does not strike me as a point for his pro column

It really depends, obviously. For some people, ideological purity in hiring is a criteria that they care a lot about in considering who to clerk for. But Sutton has a very good reputation as a boss and as an intellect/thought leader, and it's been proven that he can get his clerks hired with any of the nine current SCOTUS justices (plus Justices Kennedy and Breyer, too). And he is also quite conservative himself, as his recent opinion on the transgender surgery ban in Tennessee shows.

All this to say, some FedSoc students and conservative activist types like to disparage Sutton for not being conservative enough (mostly because he is willing to associate with liberal people and because he occasionally has opinions that don't yield conservative policy results). And yet, if any of those individuals were offered the chance to clerk for Sutton, or got a call from Sutton recommending someone for a job in their office, they would almost certainly listen because of how much weight his name alone has. So whether he is "best" or not, Sutton is undeniably one of the most (if not the most) influential conservative judges in the country

[Anonymous User]

How do we define "best" conservative judge ?

Sutton's choice to further the advancement of insufferable libs does not strike me as a point for his pro column

His liberal feeds are "liberal" at best. The ones who went to my school were middle of the road at the furthest.

Also, call me crazy but judges on both sides are at their best (and should have every incentive to) advance intelligent and ambitious clerks

[Anonymous User]

How do we define "best" conservative judge ?

Sutton's choice to further the advancement of insufferable libs does not strike me as a point for his pro column

His liberal feeds are "liberal" at best. The ones who went to my school were middle of the road at the furthest.

Also, call me crazy but judges on both sides are at their best (and should have every incentive to) advance intelligent and ambitious clerks

Yeah this depends what we mean by “liberal.” Most of the progressives I know would be atrocious clerks for any judge because they are actually incapable of thinking about the law as it is and are simply unable to apply it in an objective manner.

[lavarman84]

How do we define "best" conservative judge ?

Sutton's choice to further the advancement of insufferable libs does not strike me as a point for his pro column

His liberal feeds are "liberal" at best. The ones who went to my school were middle of the road at the furthest.

Also, call me crazy but judges on both sides are at their best (and should have every incentive to) advance intelligent and ambitious clerks

Yeah this depends what we mean by “liberal.” Most of the progressives I know would be atrocious clerks for any judge because they are actually incapable of thinking about the law as it is and are simply unable to apply it in an objective manner.

Crazy day. I just found out that Matt Kacsmaryk, Reed O'Connor, Edith Jones, and Andrew Oldham are progressives.

[Anonymous User]

Those people are probably all more capable than any TLS poster; dunno what youre doing in the "conservative judges" thread if they offend you

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know of any conservative judges (preferably CoA judges, but also open to district judges) that still have spots open for 2024-25? how about for 2025-26?

[Anonymous User]

In terms of raw intellectual horsepower -- who is the smartest conservative judge?

Sutton, Kovner, Easterbrook all stand out

Easterbrook isn't remotely close to a conservative by current standards.

Easterbrook is conservative by any standard, he’s nothing like Posner judicially, contrary to occasional misconception. E.g. he played a major role in developing modern textualism.

Easterbrook appears to care less about the original meaning of the text (see his recent vote to allow Illinois's unconstitutional gun control to stay in place, despite that pesky 2A). Following the text is the bare minimum for any judge, and certainly doesn't make one a conservative. He wouldn't get nominated by any Republican today.

Also, since this thread is about clerking for these judges - Easterbrook is famous on CA7 for doing everything himself. He hires two clerks these days and they each write one opinion during their entire term. Great COL clerkship and a powerful name to have on your CV, for sure. But if you're looking for skills advancement, the other names on this thread will probably help you more.

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts on the "pull" of Texas Supreme or Florida Supreme? While not AIII, seems like they'd be great opportunities with potential "rising stars"/big names in FedSoc world...but is that accurate?

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts on the "pull" of Texas Supreme or Florida Supreme? While not AIII, seems like they'd be great opportunities with potential "rising stars"/big names in FedSoc world...but is that accurate?

Can't speak to Florida Supreme Court, but Texas Supreme Court is very good. I clerked there a few years ago before going onto a Circuit Court. Great overall place to work for and most of them are really good bosses/mentors. All the Justices are conservative but I would say the clerks are like 50/50 liberal and conservative depending on the Justice. Hiring can be a little idiosyncratic tends to be essentially the following: Top 1% at non-UT Texas law schools; top 10% at UT; Top 20% at T14. Many go onto clerk for federal circuit courts but I would say half the federal circuit clerks got their federal COA clerkship before they picked up the Texas Supreme Court one.

If you look at the current members and their credentials and age and you'll see a lot of them are potential Fifth Circuit or Texas district judge picks like Huddle, Busby, Young, and Blacklock (particularly Young and Blacklock I'd say).

[Anonymous User]

If you look at the current members and their credentials and age and you'll see a lot of them are potential Fifth Circuit or Texas district judge picks like Huddle, Busby, Young, and Blacklock (particularly Young and Blacklock I'd say).

Several justices also have CA5/TD connections and experiences. Blacklock clerked for Smith, for example.

[Anonymous User]

If you look at the current members and their credentials and age and you'll see a lot of them are potential Fifth Circuit or Texas district judge picks like Huddle, Busby, Young, and Blacklock (particularly Young and Blacklock I'd say).

Several justices also have CA5/TD connections and experiences. Blacklock clerks for Smith, for example.

Yep, nature of the role of a SCOTX Justice is that you are well-tapped into these areas. Basically all of them right now are also very good bosses or mentors from what I understand. My friend who clerked there also said they have events and lots of cross-Justice interactions with the clerks. Of the current ones I've heard people rave about Lehrmann, Bland, Huddle, Young, Busby, Hecht, and Blacklock. Have not heard anything about Boyd (not necessarily anything negative, just have not heard). With respect to Devine I don't think he hires clerks or maybe doesn't hire that many. Also apparently he is not as involved in the court as the other eight. Most (maybe around 80%) of the clerks have connections to Texas, but I have run into a few SCOTX clerks did not.