Let's Talk 3rd Circuit! Forum

[Anonymous User]

I imagine that if Apter doesn't get the New Jersey Supreme Court spot in the end--and how weird is it that they have blue slips for counties--she'd be a leading CA3 possibility for a NJ seat.

[Anonymous User]

having clerked on CA3, really think Biden would do the circuit a favor by putting up an ultra-smart liberal who knows the ins and outs of modern conservative legal theory and can like...feign moderate-ness

I say this thinking of judge Krause. when we sat with Judge Krause my year, she swung votes. numerous times. because she's really fucking smart and can talk to the Hardimans and Bibases in their language. when she was successful, it meant someone wasn't getting deported, or was getting a new trial, or a consequential case wasn't going en banc. it was incredibly impressive, and it "mattered" for the parties. like, case-by-case, she was making the world a better place for criminal defendants, undocumented immigrants, on panels w/GOP nominees

not all judges can do that. plenty on CA3 didn't! you'd read the dissents from certain reliable liberals and they were just completely outmatched. or well-written but arguing on consequentialist, non-legal grounds that a right-of-center judge just doesn't care about.

all that's to say, lot of liberal nominees recently---and not just on CA3---have seemed like they were picked b/c they represent some sort of advocacy/interest group that appeals to the loudest voices in the liberal legal community.

and there's a place for that

but on closely-divided circuits/panels, if those folks can only speak in their 2022 ACLU Voice, that's counterproductive. COA isn't SCOTUS---the litigants sometimes (usually?) have crappy arguments, and a high-quality COA judge can find better ones, and/or reframe them to appeal to an audience which isn't predisposed to agree with them.

and this isn't to say that a critical studies professor or Liberal Advocacy Org program director is incapable of doing that. but like, some of them definitely are not

and if you put that person a panel with a Matey and a Phipps in a close case, you're gonna lose 2-1. whereas, if it was Krause, and there's an interesting statutory interpretation issue, it might go 2-1 the other way.

just one person's view

[Anonymous User]

having clerked on CA3, really think Biden would do the circuit a favor by putting up an ultra-smart liberal who knows the ins and outs of modern conservative legal theory and can like...feign moderate-ness

I say this thinking of judge Krause. when we sat with Judge Krause my year, she swung votes. numerous times. because she's really fucking smart and can talk to the Hardimans and Bibases in their language. when she was successful, it meant someone wasn't getting deported, or was getting a new trial, or a consequential case wasn't going en banc. it was incredibly impressive, and it "mattered" for the parties. like, case-by-case, she was making the world a better place for criminal defendants, undocumented immigrants, on panels w/GOP nominees

not all judges can do that. plenty on CA3 didn't! you'd read the dissents from certain reliable liberals and they were just completely outmatched. or well-written but arguing on consequentialist, non-legal grounds that a right-of-center judge just doesn't care about.

all that's to say, lot of liberal nominees recently---and not just on CA3---have seemed like they were picked b/c they represent some sort of advocacy/interest group that appeals to the loudest voices in the liberal legal community.

and there's a place for that

but on closely-divided circuits/panels, if those folks can only speak in their 2022 ACLU Voice, that's counterproductive. COA isn't SCOTUS---the litigants sometimes (usually?) have crappy arguments, and a high-quality COA judge can find better ones, and/or reframe them to appeal to an audience which isn't predisposed to agree with them.

and this isn't to say that a critical studies professor or Liberal Advocacy Org program director is incapable of doing that. but like, some of them definitely are not

and if you put that person a panel with a Matey and a Phipps in a close case, you're gonna lose 2-1. whereas, if it was Krause, and there's an interesting statutory interpretation issue, it might go 2-1 the other way.

just one person's view

Krause is impressive and this is a good point. Do you have any thoughts on who could fill an NJ seat along these lines?

[Anonymous User]

I'm unfortunately a terrible person to actually name names for NJ, was just offering qualities I think are important in the actual day-to-day work of judging (and that the Biden folks may be overlooking)

totally possible those Rutgers profs fit the bill, I don't know much about them

[Anonymous User]

I see Judge Leeson in Allentown just posted a clerkship, but it's for two years despite the fact that all his previous clerkships have been only one year. Any idea why he would make this change? I'm from the Lehigh Valley so I was actually looking forward to applying to the few federal judges in the region, but I don't know if I would ever want to commit to a two-year clerkship. Ugh.

(Obviously I'm not presuming I'd get the clerkship. I just don't even know if I want to apply now.)

[Anonymous User]

having clerked on CA3, really think Biden would do the circuit a favor by putting up an ultra-smart liberal who knows the ins and outs of modern conservative legal theory and can like...feign moderate-ness

I say this thinking of judge Krause. when we sat with Judge Krause my year, she swung votes. numerous times. because she's really fucking smart and can talk to the Hardimans and Bibases in their language. when she was successful, it meant someone wasn't getting deported, or was getting a new trial, or a consequential case wasn't going en banc. it was incredibly impressive, and it "mattered" for the parties. like, case-by-case, she was making the world a better place for criminal defendants, undocumented immigrants, on panels w/GOP nominees

not all judges can do that. plenty on CA3 didn't! you'd read the dissents from certain reliable liberals and they were just completely outmatched. or well-written but arguing on consequentialist, non-legal grounds that a right-of-center judge just doesn't care about.

all that's to say, lot of liberal nominees recently---and not just on CA3---have seemed like they were picked b/c they represent some sort of advocacy/interest group that appeals to the loudest voices in the liberal legal community.

and there's a place for that

but on closely-divided circuits/panels, if those folks can only speak in their 2022 ACLU Voice, that's counterproductive. COA isn't SCOTUS---the litigants sometimes (usually?) have crappy arguments, and a high-quality COA judge can find better ones, and/or reframe them to appeal to an audience which isn't predisposed to agree with them.

and this isn't to say that a critical studies professor or Liberal Advocacy Org program director is incapable of doing that. but like, some of them definitely are not

and if you put that person a panel with a Matey and a Phipps in a close case, you're gonna lose 2-1. whereas, if it was Krause, and there's an interesting statutory interpretation issue, it might go 2-1 the other way.

just one person's view

Yeah I think there’s probably an increasing value to being able to “speak FedSoc” and thoroughly understand conservative legal theory for liberals overall, both for practitioners and judges. Part of why Kagan seems more effective than Sotomayor, though both have their places in whatever the “liberal legal movement” is.

[lavarman84]

having clerked on CA3, really think Biden would do the circuit a favor by putting up an ultra-smart liberal who knows the ins and outs of modern conservative legal theory and can like...feign moderate-ness

I say this thinking of judge Krause. when we sat with Judge Krause my year, she swung votes. numerous times. because she's really fucking smart and can talk to the Hardimans and Bibases in their language. when she was successful, it meant someone wasn't getting deported, or was getting a new trial, or a consequential case wasn't going en banc. it was incredibly impressive, and it "mattered" for the parties. like, case-by-case, she was making the world a better place for criminal defendants, undocumented immigrants, on panels w/GOP nominees

not all judges can do that. plenty on CA3 didn't! you'd read the dissents from certain reliable liberals and they were just completely outmatched. or well-written but arguing on consequentialist, non-legal grounds that a right-of-center judge just doesn't care about.

all that's to say, lot of liberal nominees recently---and not just on CA3---have seemed like they were picked b/c they represent some sort of advocacy/interest group that appeals to the loudest voices in the liberal legal community.

and there's a place for that

but on closely-divided circuits/panels, if those folks can only speak in their 2022 ACLU Voice, that's counterproductive. COA isn't SCOTUS---the litigants sometimes (usually?) have crappy arguments, and a high-quality COA judge can find better ones, and/or reframe them to appeal to an audience which isn't predisposed to agree with them.

and this isn't to say that a critical studies professor or Liberal Advocacy Org program director is incapable of doing that. but like, some of them definitely are not

and if you put that person a panel with a Matey and a Phipps in a close case, you're gonna lose 2-1. whereas, if it was Krause, and there's an interesting statutory interpretation issue, it might go 2-1 the other way.

just one person's view

Yeah I think there’s probably an increasing value to being able to “speak FedSoc” and thoroughly understand conservative legal theory for liberals overall, both for practitioners and judges. Part of why Kagan seems more effective than Sotomayor, though both have their places in whatever the “liberal legal movement” is.

Eh, Kagan is a great questioner at oral arguments. But I think Sotomayor's writing more effectively cuts through the Republican bullshit and speaks to the average American. JMO.

[Anonymous User]

That’s just not true at all. The only opinion Sotomayor’s written that speaks to the American people is her Trump v Hawaii dissent. Otherwise, she’s a pretty lousy writer, by her own admission and as evidenced by her use of a ghost writer for her memoirs.

[Anonymous User]

Eh, Kagan is a great questioner at oral arguments. But I think Sotomayor's writing more effectively cuts through the Republican bullshit and speaks to the average American. JMO.

maybe, maybe not, but COA isn't SCOTUS, and in my experience on COA was that a Sotomayor-esque approach was pretty ineffective if your goal was developing favorable precedent and getting favorable dispositions for the parties in your cases.

I would say the same thing WRT to judges who want substantively conservative outcomes. Van Dyke is building a name for himself (FBoFW), but he's also losing, and will lose many more, split panels. I guess he likes writing dissents. which, cool, but they're not the law, and the person going to jail or w/e doesn't really give a shit

[lavarman84]

That’s just not true at all. The only opinion Sotomayor’s written that speaks to the American people is her Trump v Hawaii dissent. Otherwise, she’s a pretty lousy writer, by her own admission and as evidenced by her use of a ghost writer for her memoirs.

When I see liberals pulling passages out of dissents on social media, they're typically quoting Sotomayor.

[Anonymous User]

That’s just not true at all. The only opinion Sotomayor’s written that speaks to the American people is her Trump v Hawaii dissent. Otherwise, she’s a pretty lousy writer, by her own admission and as evidenced by her use of a ghost writer for her memoirs.

When I see liberals pulling passages out of dissents on social media, they're typically quoting Sotomayor.

When I see lawyers pulling passages out of dissents, they're typically quoting Kagan

[lavarman84]

That’s just not true at all. The only opinion Sotomayor’s written that speaks to the American people is her Trump v Hawaii dissent. Otherwise, she’s a pretty lousy writer, by her own admission and as evidenced by her use of a ghost writer for her memoirs.

When I see liberals pulling passages out of dissents on social media, they're typically quoting Sotomayor.

When I see lawyers pulling passages out of dissents, they're typically quoting Kagan

Yeah, that would support my point.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone know if McKee is still hiring now that he's going to take senior status/what year he would be hiring for? All I've heard is that he hires really far in advance, but not sure what "really far" means...

[Anonymous User]

Now that we have Freeman for one pa seat (who seems like a solid pick IMO), any idea who the other PA nom will be? I assume Montgomery-Reeves will be a shoo-in for Amber's seat in Del.

[Anonymous User]

Are Porter or Phipps full for 23-24?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone know if McKee is still hiring now that he's going to take senior status/what year he would be hiring for? All I've heard is that he hires really far in advance, but not sure what "really far" means...

I know someone who interviewed for a '24-25 spot months ago

[coolclerk9876]

Does anyone know what Judge Restrepo's hiring process normally looks like? It seems as though he's not on OSCAR. How does one know when he begins hiring?

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know what Judge Restrepo's hiring process normally looks like? It seems as though he's not on OSCAR. How does one know when he begins hiring?

bumping this? Also, any 3rd Cir movement generally?

[Anonymous User]

Does Judge Roth do applications over OSCAR? I can't find any archived postings from her chambers.

[Anonymous User]

Any word on 3rd Circuit/DNJ judges?

[Anonymous User]

Any word on 3rd Circuit/DNJ judges?

Heard Ambro is full for 24-25.

[Anonymous User]

Any word on if Phipps is full for 24 or has made offers? I see his posting on OSCAR is still open, but maybe he just forgot to close it.

[Anonymous User]

Any word on 3rd Circuit/DNJ judges?

Heard Ambro is full for 24-25.

Confirmed; heard he's hired 1-2 for 2025-26

[Anonymous User]

Anyone heard anything good or bad about Wiegand? I saw she just posted.

[Anonymous User]

With the understanding the position was posted today, has anyone heard anything yet re Judge Chung?