Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[Anonymous User]

More info on the ninth circuits insufferable personalities - the widespread imposition of unpaid training (many judges do this for a whole week). Probably illegal. Very disrespectful. Another judge has in the chambers guidelines that clerks are not to leave the country for one week after the end of the clerkship. (Not enforceable and probably also raises a thirteenth amendment issue since judges are government officials and clerks aren't prisoners). No normal human beings behave this way on other circuits.

This has to be a troll post right? Boo hoo, you can't jet off to Europe the day your clerkship ends? Lot's of government jobs restrict foreign travel; even after leaving government employment and for much longer than a week. How on earth would that implicate the anti-slavery amendment?

Not the PP and agreed that an unenforceable post-employment travel ban does not raise Thirteenth Amendment issues. But what government jobs restrict post-employment foreign travel?

[Anonymous User]

More info on the ninth circuits insufferable personalities - the widespread imposition of unpaid training (many judges do this for a whole week). Probably illegal. Very disrespectful. Another judge has in the chambers guidelines that clerks are not to leave the country for one week after the end of the clerkship. (Not enforceable and probably also raises a thirteenth amendment issue since judges are government officials and clerks aren't prisoners). No normal human beings behave this way on other circuits.

This has to be a troll post right? Boo hoo, you can't jet off to Europe the day your clerkship ends? Lot's of government jobs restrict foreign travel; even after leaving government employment and for much longer than a week. How on earth would that implicate the anti-slavery amendment?

Not the PP and agreed that an unenforceable post-employment travel ban does not raise Thirteenth Amendment issues. But what government jobs restrict post-employment foreign travel?

Mea culpa, I may have been too overconfident. I was thinking of the ongoing travel reporting requirements for any positions requiring a clearance (which is a lot of positions, more than the traditional NatSec ones). It's a restriction in the sense that you could face consequences for your travel, like losing your clearance, but I don't know of any specific prohibitions on the travel itself (this is not legal advice). I apologize for the mistake

[Anonymous User]

As a center-left liberal I typically have no problem applying to Republican judges. I don’t believe law and politics are the same thing and I actually think a lot of the Court’s decisions (student debt forgiveness, etc.) have been principled from a legal perspective regardless of my policy preference.

Having said that, the torture memos made me just not comfortable applying to Jay Bybee. I just didn’t feel good about it. I keep thinking about the people getting waterboarded and stacked up naked in those pictures. I’ve applied to all kinds of judges who are anti-abortion, gay marriage, other things I support, but somehow in this case I found my line.

[Anonymous User]

As a center-left liberal I typically have no problem applying to Republican judges. I don’t believe law and politics are the same thing and I actually think a lot of the Court’s decisions (student debt forgiveness, etc.) have been principled from a legal perspective regardless of my policy preference.

Having said that, the torture memos made me just not comfortable applying to Jay Bybee. I just didn’t feel good about it. I keep thinking about the people getting waterboarded and stacked up naked in those pictures. I’ve applied to all kinds of judges who are anti-abortion, gay marriage, other things I support, but somehow in this case I found my line.

I wouldn't be surprised if his opinion on torture has changed. It's easy to look at those memos now and judge those who wrote them, but I think we have to remember the national climate in the years following 9/11. I don't like it, but for a lot of people (left included), legal principles go out the window when national security is at stake. Now that the fear of attack has subsided, I wonder if those memos would be written the same way today.

As a wise man once said: "People can change. Let the boy hold the baby."

[Anonymous User]

Wardlaw and Bea are outright assholes to their clerks. Source is that Bea unintentionally sent emails meant for his clerks and wardlaw clerks talk trash about her that is easily overheard.

Response from a Bea clerk when I asked how the year was going: "I do not feel comfortable talking about that."

[Anonymous User]

Bea also is on the list of judges to be wary of at several schools clerkship offices. As to the poster above who said they wouldn't feel comfortable applying to bybee, I respect that decision. However I note that bybee is one thing of the most wonderful people to work for. As for the "travel ban" judge that is Ikuta. To the poster minimizing the salience of that, it's not the fact that you can't go to Europe after your clerkship ends but the fact that a judge thinks they have any authority to issue any rules about post clerkship restrictions on how you use your time that is appalling. Goes to the point above about these judges being unchecked ego maniacs.

[Anonymous User]

A good judge to work for is hurwitz. He's a genuinely good person. Kind to his clerks, lots of feedback, good sense of humor.

[lavarman84]

As a center-left liberal I typically have no problem applying to Republican judges. I don’t believe law and politics are the same thing and I actually think a lot of the Court’s decisions (student debt forgiveness, etc.) have been principled from a legal perspective regardless of my policy preference.

Having said that, the torture memos made me just not comfortable applying to Jay Bybee. I just didn’t feel good about it. I keep thinking about the people getting waterboarded and stacked up naked in those pictures. I’ve applied to all kinds of judges who are anti-abortion, gay marriage, other things I support, but somehow in this case I found my line.

Rolling my eyes at the bold. On Bybee, I can understand the stance. But he's actually a good boss, a personable guy, and is willing to hire liberals. If you're looking for a good clerkship experience, he'd likely provide it.

[Anonymous User]

The student loan decision was dog shit. Sorry but there was no standing and it's wildly inconsistent with precedent like clapper. Talked to an ex Scalia clerk and he agreed that Scalia would have said no standing. Nevertheless, there are republican appointed judges who provide a great experience and hire liberals - bybee being a primary example.

[throwawayt14]

The student loan decision was dog shit. Sorry but there was no standing and it's wildly inconsistent with precedent like clapper. Talked to an ex Scalia clerk and he agreed that Scalia would have said no standing. Nevertheless, there are republican appointed judges who provide a great experience and hire liberals - bybee being a primary example.

It's quite funny to witness lawyers who, within their first year post-law school are in the top 3% of income earners in America, and still have the gall to complain about not receiving a blatantly unlawful windfall from the least well-off.

[Anonymous User]

I didn't have student loans. But the decision was still dog shit on a legal basis. In any case even if I did have student loans, it is quite funny to watch lawyers use well known logical fallacies like attacking the source rather than the argument.

[Anonymous User]

I didn't have student loans. But the decision was still dog shit on a legal basis. In any case even if I did have student loans, it is quite funny to watch lawyers use well known logical fallacies like attacking the source rather than the argument. This btw raises a problem with the trump conservatives. They don't care about things like standing and are ideological mad men see e.g. "crying at confirmation hearing Larry" vandyke.

[Anonymous User]

As a center-left liberal I typically have no problem applying to Republican judges. I don’t believe law and politics are the same thing and I actually think a lot of the Court’s decisions (student debt forgiveness, etc.) have been principled from a legal perspective regardless of my policy preference.

Having said that, the torture memos made me just not comfortable applying to Jay Bybee. I just didn’t feel good about it. I keep thinking about the people getting waterboarded and stacked up naked in those pictures. I’ve applied to all kinds of judges who are anti-abortion, gay marriage, other things I support, but somehow in this case I found my line.

Rolling my eyes at the bold. On Bybee, I can understand the stance. But he's actually a good boss, a personable guy, and is willing to hire liberals. If you're looking for a good clerkship experience, he'd likely provide it.

Judge Bybee is also open to talking about the torture memos, particularly with clerks. If you don't want your name associated with the torture memos in any degree, then you probably shouldn't apply. But Judge Bybee by no means expects his clerks to agree with those memos, and he is happy to answer questions about them or even debate their merits.

[lavarman84]

The student loan decision was dog shit. Sorry but there was no standing and it's wildly inconsistent with precedent like clapper. Talked to an ex Scalia clerk and he agreed that Scalia would have said no standing. Nevertheless, there are republican appointed judges who provide a great experience and hire liberals - bybee being a primary example.

It's quite funny to witness lawyers who, within their first year post-law school are in the top 3% of income earners in America, and still have the gall to complain about not receiving a blatantly unlawful windfall from the least well-off.

It was an unprincipled, poorly reasoned opinion. I say this as somebody who has no student loans and would have received no benefit from the debt forgiveness.

There was no standing whatsoever. And even if you reached the merits, the "major questions doctrine" is a disgrace. Its transformation from a Chevron doctrine (a use I don't necessarily object to) to an excuse for the Republicans to ignore the plain text of statutes, if they disagree with the executive policy at issue, is shameful. (Don't even get me started on Roberts's ridiculous textual analysis.)

But even more significantly, this same majority stayed a district court injunction that blocked Trump from using national emergency powers to fund his border fence after Congress refused to grant him the funding---allowing him to build the fence, while blocking Biden from using national emergency powers to forgive debt after Congress refused to pass a law authorizing it. There is no principled way to reconcile those decisions.

[Anonymous User]

Agree with the last poster. Unprincipled decision. Watford retired because he didn't want to apply asinine precedent from the Trump inflected SCOTUS. Too bad; he was a good boss.

[throwawayt14]

Agree with the last poster. Unprincipled decision. Watford retired because he didn't want to apply asinine precedent from the Trump inflected SCOTUS. Too bad; he was a good boss.

Lol (to both the previous messages), but totally off-topic.

However, on Watford, I would tend to believe the larger determinant of his retirement decision was being overlooked for SCOTUS twice. He recognized that after KBJ, his chances were slim. Much better to collect a massive sum from Wilson Sonsini; the retirement of Gregg Costa highlighted to many judges just how valuable they are on the open market. See also Feinerman, Gary.

[Anonymous User]

Wrong. I know for a fact that's why watford retired it's not speculation

[Anonymous User]

Wrong. I know for a fact that's why watford retired it's not speculation

[Anonymous User]

The student loan decision was dog shit. Sorry but there was no standing and it's wildly inconsistent with precedent like clapper. Talked to an ex Scalia clerk and he agreed that Scalia would have said no standing. Nevertheless, there are republican appointed judges who provide a great experience and hire liberals - bybee being a primary example.

It's quite funny to witness lawyers who, within their first year post-law school are in the top 3% of income earners in America, and still have the gall to complain about not receiving a blatantly unlawful windfall from the least well-off.

It was an unprincipled, poorly reasoned opinion. I say this as somebody who has no student loans and would have received no benefit from the debt forgiveness.

There was no standing whatsoever. And even if you reached the merits, the "major questions doctrine" is a disgrace. Its transformation from a Chevron doctrine (a use I don't necessarily object to) to an excuse for the Republicans to ignore the plain text of statutes, if they disagree with the executive policy at issue, is shameful. (Don't even get me started on Roberts's ridiculous textual analysis.)

But even more significantly, this same majority stayed a district court injunction that blocked Trump from using national emergency powers to fund his border fence after Congress refused to grant him the funding---allowing him to build the fence, while blocking Biden from using national emergency powers to forgive debt after Congress refused to pass a law authorizing it. There is no principled way to reconcile those decisions.

There was no standing in Moore, either. Liberals and conservative are (unfortunately) equally capable of overlooking standing issues when they get in the way. Good bosses come in all ideological stripes, as others in the thread have noted. Hopefully this thread inspires some to consider counter-clerking if they find the right judge.

[Anonymous User]

Which of the Biden COA appointees have turned out to be bad bosses? I’ve seen negative things on this forum about Pan (CADC) and Merriam (CA2), and curious if any others have come to light.

[Anonymous User]

Which of the Biden COA appointees have turned out to be bad bosses? I’ve seen negative things on this forum about Pan (CADC) and Merriam (CA2), and curious if any others have come to light.

Childs’ chambers is apparently a nightmare/mess

[Anonymous User]

Wardlaw and Bea are outright assholes to their clerks. Source is that Bea unintentionally sent emails meant for his clerks and wardlaw clerks talk trash about her that is easily overheard.

Response from a Bea clerk when I asked how the year was going: "I do not feel comfortable talking about that."

The talk about Bea on this forum is totally overblown. He is a good boss and gives his clerks tons of responsibility. He also genuinely listens to your recommendations. And contrary to some of the other comments here, he has a sharp legal mind and is a pleasure to learn from. I clerked for him several years ago and it was the best learning experience I've had. I've heard similar reviews from other clerks I've talked to.

Sure, he is old school and has high expectations for his clerks, so he will call out your mistakes. But it's almost never in a mean way unless it's something egregious. Once you get to know his personality, it's obvious his snide comments are tongue-in-cheek.

I guess YMMV, but I think it's an excellent clerkship and would recommend it to anyone. You just have to be prepared for his quirky personality and have some thick skin.

[Anonymous User]

He's now senile so a few years ago really not much help. Bea is also on the judges to watch out for list of at least three top ten schools.

[Anonymous User]

It's sort of funny how the judges hated by other judges on the ninth are actually much better than the ones well regarded by their peers. I.e Collins is a really nice to his clerks, very smart , and on point whereas Bea is a fucking asshole, wrong on most things, and mean to his clerks. Collins is also drawing a much higher caliber of law clerk applicant than Bea.

[Anonymous User]

It's sort of funny how the judges hated by other judges on the ninth are actually much better than the ones well regarded by their peers. I.e Collins is a really nice to his clerks, very smart , and on point whereas Bea is a fucking asshole, wrong on most things, and mean to his clerks. Collins is also drawing a much higher caliber of law clerk applicant than Bea.

It correlates. If you're smart/sharp I think you can tend to 1) get away with more stuff in life and 2) are at risk of an inflated ego if you lack self-reflection. So tldr what I am saying is if you're of normal intelligence, mean, and can't network, you're probably not becoming a judge, but if you are smart and mean there used to be a chance.

This all being said, as both parties are increasingly putting a big thumb on the scale for ideology and political connections, I wonder if we will be seeing the end of the super mean but smart intellectual types that used to be common on courts.