Best conservative judges to clerk for? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I don't think Vivek Ramasawmy is that involved in FedSoc circles, he spoke at national convention once, but by and large its a very DeSantis-supporting membership. His judge list has a few judges attacked on this thread. IMO, these names look like they were chosen out of a hat.

Judges:
Ho (5th Circuit)
Hardiman (3rd Circuit)
Branch (11th Circuit)
Van Dyke (9th Circuit)
Bush (6th Circuit)
Walker (DC Circuit)

Others:
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Paul Clement

Hardiman, Walker, and Clement are upstanding men with the intellect to be worthy of consideration. Hardiman is 58 and Clement is 57. I imagine most would consider them too old for consideration.

Same anon. I should add that I think the impulse to appoint younger and younger judges/justices is somewhere between overdone and mistaken. I understand it as an attempt to lock in "your judges" for 25+ years. But it also means that you're getting someone you know less about and whose jurisprudence could significantly change in the decades to follow. Given that the average retirement age for a SCOTUS Justice is 81, you could put Hardiman or Clement on the bench now and still expect to get 20 years.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think Vivek Ramasawmy is that involved in FedSoc circles, he spoke at national convention once, but by and large its a very DeSantis-supporting membership. His judge list has a few judges attacked on this thread. IMO, these names look like they were chosen out of a hat.

Judges:
Ho (5th Circuit)
Hardiman (3rd Circuit)
Branch (11th Circuit)
Van Dyke (9th Circuit)
Bush (6th Circuit)
Walker (DC Circuit)

Others:
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Paul Clement

Hardiman, Walker, and Clement are upstanding men with the intellect to be worthy of consideration. Hardiman is 58 and Clement is 57. I imagine most would consider them too old for consideration.

Just bizarre that, since age doesn't appear to be a concern, the list doesn't include Kethledge (56) or Thapar (54), both of whom have near-universal approval in conservative legal circles.

[Anonymous User]

I'm probably stating the obvious for most of the people in this thread, but we really should not take these lists too seriously and the people on it especially given what we know about the Trump lists where he basically only wanted two people and then filled out the rest to get base support. The way it works is that you only have like 2 or 3 serious contenders (most likely actually only one) and then you just pad the list to reward people or signal. So statements like but Paul Clement is 57 why would he pick him? Well the answer is Ramasawmy is not going to pick him, he just put him on the list to reward him for getting canceled by Kirkland & Ellis or whatever and also for Ramasawmy to stake out his own legal opinions.

Ramasawmy is signaling that he wants people who are more of a fighter. He is not actually going to pick someone like Branch or Van Dyke, he just put them there for two things (1) signal to the public that he is someone who likes to stand up to the woke crowd, fight against cancel culture, and is combative and (2) signal to serious contenders like Justin Walker that he likes it when people are not reserved should Walker be serious about wanting the role.

[Anonymous User]

I'm probably stating the obvious for most of the people in this thread, but we really should not take these lists too seriously and the people on it especially given what we know about the Trump lists where he basically only wanted two people and then filled out the rest to get base support. The way it works is that you only have like 2 or 3 serious contenders (most likely actually only one) and then you just pad the list to reward people or signal. So statements like but Paul Clement is 57 why would he pick him? Well the answer is Ramasawmy is not going to pick him, he just put him on the list to reward him for getting canceled by Kirkland & Ellis or whatever and also for Ramasawmy to stake out his own legal opinions.

Ramasawmy is signaling that he wants people who are more of a fighter. He is not actually going to pick someone like Branch or Van Dyke, he just put them there for two things (1) signal to the public that he is someone who likes to stand up to the woke crowd, fight against cancel culture, and is combative and (2) signal to serious contenders like Justin Walker that he likes it when people are not reserved should Walker be serious about wanting the role.

Funny thing — once you whittle this list down to actual candidates based on what you've said above (which is all a reasonable take), you're left with Ho, Walker, and Lee as the only real possibilities.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think Vivek Ramasawmy is that involved in FedSoc circles, he spoke at national convention once, but by and large its a very DeSantis-supporting membership. His judge list has a few judges attacked on this thread. IMO, these names look like they were chosen out of a hat.

Judges:
Ho (5th Circuit)
Hardiman (3rd Circuit)
Branch (11th Circuit)
Van Dyke (9th Circuit)
Bush (6th Circuit)
Walker (DC Circuit)

Others:
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Paul Clement

Hardiman, Walker, and Clement are upstanding men with the intellect to be worthy of consideration. Hardiman is 58 and Clement is 57. I imagine most would consider them too old for consideration.

Just bizarre that, since age doesn't appear to be a concern, the list doesn't include Kethledge (56) or Thapar (54), both of whom have near-universal approval in conservative legal circles.

The strangest thing about this list is its exclusion of Oldham (44), who seems to be a slam dunk pick because he has both age (44) and general support among FedSoc crowds, and plus he will have 6+ years of time on the federal bench by the time a SCOTUS nomination comes around, which is a lot of record for decisionmakers to consider

[Anonymous User]

I don't think Vivek Ramasawmy is that involved in FedSoc circles, he spoke at national convention once, but by and large its a very DeSantis-supporting membership. His judge list has a few judges attacked on this thread. IMO, these names look like they were chosen out of a hat.

Judges:
Ho (5th Circuit)
Hardiman (3rd Circuit)
Branch (11th Circuit)
Van Dyke (9th Circuit)
Bush (6th Circuit)
Walker (DC Circuit)

Others:
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Paul Clement

Hardiman, Walker, and Clement are upstanding men with the intellect to be worthy of consideration. Hardiman is 58 and Clement is 57. I imagine most would consider them too old for consideration.

Just bizarre that, since age doesn't appear to be a concern, the list doesn't include Kethledge (56) or Thapar (54), both of whom have near-universal approval in conservative legal circles.

The strangest thing about this list is its exclusion of Oldham (44), who seems to be a slam dunk pick because he has both age (44) and general support among FedSoc crowds, and plus he will have 6+ years of time on the federal bench by the time a SCOTUS nomination comes around, which is a lot of record for decisionmakers to consider

Ho has greater recognition amongst the broader public for "lib owning" and it seems evident Vivek wanted to have a broad geographic range for his list. Ho, ironically, disagrees with one of Vivek's primary policy positions of getting rid of birthright citizenship -- not that much research went into this list.

[lavarman84]

I don't think Vivek Ramasawmy is that involved in FedSoc circles, he spoke at national convention once, but by and large its a very DeSantis-supporting membership. His judge list has a few judges attacked on this thread. IMO, these names look like they were chosen out of a hat.

Judges:
Ho (5th Circuit)
Hardiman (3rd Circuit)
Branch (11th Circuit)
Van Dyke (9th Circuit)
Bush (6th Circuit)
Walker (DC Circuit)

Others:
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Paul Clement

Hardiman, Walker, and Clement are upstanding men with the intellect to be worthy of consideration. Hardiman is 58 and Clement is 57. I imagine most would consider them too old for consideration.

Just bizarre that, since age doesn't appear to be a concern, the list doesn't include Kethledge (56) or Thapar (54), both of whom have near-universal approval in conservative legal circles.

The strangest thing about this list is its exclusion of Oldham (44), who seems to be a slam dunk pick because he has both age (44) and general support among FedSoc crowds, and plus he will have 6+ years of time on the federal bench by the time a SCOTUS nomination comes around, which is a lot of record for decisionmakers to consider

Must agree. If your goal is to pick the biggest Republican crackpot (who is also age appropriate) on a federal court of appeals, Oldham is a strong contender.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think Vivek Ramasawmy is that involved in FedSoc circles, he spoke at national convention once, but by and large its a very DeSantis-supporting membership. His judge list has a few judges attacked on this thread. IMO, these names look like they were chosen out of a hat.

Judges:
Ho (5th Circuit)
Hardiman (3rd Circuit)
Branch (11th Circuit)
Van Dyke (9th Circuit)
Bush (6th Circuit)
Walker (DC Circuit)

Others:
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Paul Clement

Hardiman, Walker, and Clement are upstanding men with the intellect to be worthy of consideration. Hardiman is 58 and Clement is 57. I imagine most would consider them too old for consideration.

Just bizarre that, since age doesn't appear to be a concern, the list doesn't include Kethledge (56) or Thapar (54), both of whom have near-universal approval in conservative legal circles.

The strangest thing about this list is its exclusion of Oldham (44), who seems to be a slam dunk pick because he has both age (44) and general support among FedSoc crowds, and plus he will have 6+ years of time on the federal bench by the time a SCOTUS nomination comes around, which is a lot of record for decisionmakers to consider

Must agree. If your goal is to pick the biggest Republican crackpot (who is also age appropriate) on a federal court of appeals, Oldham is a strong contender.

Not a crackpot but I think Rao also has to be on the shortlist

[Anonymous User]

Not a crackpot but I think Rao also has to be on the shortlist

She can't be on any list Ramaswamy puts together because of Hawley's weird and unexplained feud with her.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think Vivek Ramasawmy is that involved in FedSoc circles, he spoke at national convention once, but by and large its a very DeSantis-supporting membership. His judge list has a few judges attacked on this thread. IMO, these names look like they were chosen out of a hat.

Judges:
Ho (5th Circuit)
Hardiman (3rd Circuit)
Branch (11th Circuit)
Van Dyke (9th Circuit)
Bush (6th Circuit)
Walker (DC Circuit)

Others:
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Paul Clement

Hardiman, Walker, and Clement are upstanding men with the intellect to be worthy of consideration. Hardiman is 58 and Clement is 57. I imagine most would consider them too old for consideration.

Just bizarre that, since age doesn't appear to be a concern, the list doesn't include Kethledge (56) or Thapar (54), both of whom have near-universal approval in conservative legal circles.

Is Kethledge sufficiently conservative ? He clerked for Kennedy and hires liberal clerks. He also doesn’t seem super plugged into the Fed Soc world.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think Vivek Ramasawmy is that involved in FedSoc circles, he spoke at national convention once, but by and large its a very DeSantis-supporting membership. His judge list has a few judges attacked on this thread. IMO, these names look like they were chosen out of a hat.

Judges:
Ho (5th Circuit)
Hardiman (3rd Circuit)
Branch (11th Circuit)
Van Dyke (9th Circuit)
Bush (6th Circuit)
Walker (DC Circuit)

Others:
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Paul Clement

Hardiman, Walker, and Clement are upstanding men with the intellect to be worthy of consideration. Hardiman is 58 and Clement is 57. I imagine most would consider them too old for consideration.

Just bizarre that, since age doesn't appear to be a concern, the list doesn't include Kethledge (56) or Thapar (54), both of whom have near-universal approval in conservative legal circles.

The exclusion of Katsas is also curious. He's extremely conservative and extremely well-respected. If age weren't an issue, you'd think he and Thapar would get serious consideration, and even taking into account age Oldham should get consideration too. as the commenter above pointed out, Kethledge (and probably Sutton as well) probably aren't perceived as conservative enough to be chosen for SCOTUS at this point. Honestly, I would think the same could be true for Hardiman, and ironically Ho is probably less conservative than Katsas, Thapar, and Oldham. As someone said above, this list seems slapdash

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any insight into the experience with the top FedSoc district court judges? I'm thinking Friedrich, Kovner, Pacold, McFadden, Beaton, Nielson, Nichols, etc?

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any insight into the experience with the top FedSoc district court judges? I'm thinking Friedrich, Kovner, Pacold, McFadden, Beaton, Nielson, Nichols, etc?

Heard great things about Kovner and Beaton. Although not sure if I'd call Kovner a FedSoc judge - she was considered for judicial appointment by both parties, was a completely uncontested nom and hires plenty of non-fedsoc people from my school

Heard Friedrich is a demanding clerkship in the normal ways but the rate with which she feeds would prob justify taking the clerkship even if it meant being slapped across the face when you get to chambers every morning

Haven't heard anything about Nelson/Nichols/Pacold/McFadden

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any insight into the experience with the top FedSoc district court judges? I'm thinking Friedrich, Kovner, Pacold, McFadden, Beaton, Nielson, Nichols, etc?

Heard great things about Kovner and Beaton. Although not sure if I'd call Kovner a FedSoc judge - she was considered for judicial appointment by both parties, was a completely uncontested nom and hires plenty of non-fedsoc people from my school

Heard Friedrich is a demanding clerkship in the normal ways but the rate with which she feeds would prob justify taking the clerkship even if it meant being slapped across the face when you get to chambers every morning

Haven't heard anything about Nelson/Nichols/Pacold/McFadden

Kovner’s awkward but is obviously extremely talented and a good clerkship. Cronan across the river is very popular, including with his clerks, and more of a trial judge’s trial judge. Think Richard Sullivan reincarnated. Both work long-to-punishing hours, hire a lot of clerks who aren’t in Fed Soc, especially double-counterclerks (i.e. liberals who clerked for conservative COA judges), and care a lot about grades even by prestigious-federal-clerkship standards.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any insight into the experience with the top FedSoc district court judges? I'm thinking Friedrich, Kovner, Pacold, McFadden, Beaton, Nielson, Nichols, etc?

Heard great things about Kovner and Beaton. Although not sure if I'd call Kovner a FedSoc judge - she was considered for judicial appointment by both parties, was a completely uncontested nom and hires plenty of non-fedsoc people from my school

Heard Friedrich is a demanding clerkship in the normal ways but the rate with which she feeds would prob justify taking the clerkship even if it meant being slapped across the face when you get to chambers every morning

Haven't heard anything about Nelson/Nichols/Pacold/McFadden

Kovner’s awkward but is obviously extremely talented and a good clerkship. Cronan across the river is very popular, including with his clerks, and more of a trial judge’s trial judge. Think Richard Sullivan reincarnated. Both work long-to-punishing hours, hire a lot of clerks who aren’t in Fed Soc, especially double-counterclerks (i.e. liberals who clerked for conservative COA judges), and care a lot about grades even by prestigious-federal-clerkship standards.

Kovner doesn’t hire ideologically and is extremely grade sensitive (you want to be at least top 5% HYS if not higher), has already started to feed a handful to SCOTUS/Bristow and is probably going to do more looking at her current/future clerks, agree with above poster.

Friedrich is similarly very grade sensitive (again talking top 5% HYS if not higher, has hired from top 1% HYS), and her feeding speaks for itself.

If you’re a conservative or moderate gunning for SCOTUS (but don’t want to do double appellate and “waste” a year in case it doesn’t work out), Friedrich and Kovner should be your top choices, and if you somehow got the choice for either Friedrich is probably 1A to Kovner 1B but I personally wouldn’t be surprised if the feed numbers start evening out over the next 5 years or so (to be clear, I think Friedrich will continue feeding quite prolifically and think Kovner will probably start doing so too). Given that there’s 6 conservatives on the Court, even if you’re gunning for SCOTUS as a liberal, assuming you have the grades for it, these two might give you a better outside shot with Kavanaugh/Roberts/Barrett if you’d rather clerk with a conservative on SCOTUS than not at all (compared to going with a Boasberg/Moss/Engelmayer type). Of course, if you’re willing to do double appellate then it’s a totally different question.

Haven’t heard much about the others, as they haven’t emphasized feeding as much, but can add my limited two cents. Pacold hires ideologically (and is probably willing to flex on grades for ideology), has fed once before but isn’t really emphasizing it (but otherwise have heard that it’s a great clerkship). Wouldn’t recommend Pacold for a moderate (depending on who you want to rub shoulders with for a year), she has hired hardcore conservatives (tend to be religious liberty-type conservatives). If you want Chicago but don’t want such a conservative chambers, Seeger doesn’t hire ideologically and is supposed to be a great clerkship as well. Don’t have much about the others.

[Anonymous User]

Friedrich and McFadden have a much better lifestyle than the NYC judges if that matters to you. Friedrich also hires some liberals while McFadden is more ideological. I’ve heard great things about both as bosses and people.

Also, I know Pacold has hired at least one or two liberals, but yeah she’s looking for Fed Soc students and she’s supposed to be great. Second that Seeger has a superb rep as a boss but I’m not sure he’s conservative to any meaningful extent. He hires mostly or exclusively liberal clerks and according to his SJQ has never been a Fed Soc member.

[Anonymous User]

This is also second-hand but I've heard extremely negative things about Stras. One clerk was fired/quit recently and he's very tough. If you're competitive for Stras, then you're competitive for many other great judges. I'd pick one from the field over Stras if I could.

I am a hair late to the party here, but I know that the clerk who left a few years ago (just after the first year of COVID, I think) was not fired. And the Stras clerks I know have really enjoyed the job. Busy clerkship for sure, but that is common on the Eighth Circuit.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any insight into the experience with the top FedSoc district court judges? I'm thinking Friedrich, Kovner, Pacold, McFadden, Beaton, Nielson, Nichols, etc?

Heard great things about Kovner and Beaton. Although not sure if I'd call Kovner a FedSoc judge - she was considered for judicial appointment by both parties, was a completely uncontested nom and hires plenty of non-fedsoc people from my school

Heard Friedrich is a demanding clerkship in the normal ways but the rate with which she feeds would prob justify taking the clerkship even if it meant being slapped across the face when you get to chambers every morning

Haven't heard anything about Nelson/Nichols/Pacold/McFadden

Kovner’s awkward but is obviously extremely talented and a good clerkship. Cronan across the river is very popular, including with his clerks, and more of a trial judge’s trial judge. Think Richard Sullivan reincarnated. Both work long-to-punishing hours, hire a lot of clerks who aren’t in Fed Soc, especially double-counterclerks (i.e. liberals who clerked for conservative COA judges), and care a lot about grades even by prestigious-federal-clerkship standards.

Kovner doesn’t hire ideologically and is extremely grade sensitive (you want to be at least top 5% HYS if not higher), has already started to feed a handful to SCOTUS/Bristow and is probably going to do more looking at her current/future clerks, agree with above poster.

Friedrich is similarly very grade sensitive (again talking top 5% HYS if not higher, has hired from top 1% HYS), and her feeding speaks for itself.

If you’re a conservative or moderate gunning for SCOTUS (but don’t want to do double appellate and “waste” a year in case it doesn’t work out), Friedrich and Kovner should be your top choices, and if you somehow got the choice for either Friedrich is probably 1A to Kovner 1B but I personally wouldn’t be surprised if the feed numbers start evening out over the next 5 years or so (to be clear, I think Friedrich will continue feeding quite prolifically and think Kovner will probably start doing so too). Given that there’s 6 conservatives on the Court, even if you’re gunning for SCOTUS as a liberal, assuming you have the grades for it, these two might give you a better outside shot with Kavanaugh/Roberts/Barrett if you’d rather clerk with a conservative on SCOTUS than not at all (compared to going with a Boasberg/Moss/Engelmayer type). Of course, if you’re willing to do double appellate then it’s a totally different question.

Haven’t heard much about the others, as they haven’t emphasized feeding as much, but can add my limited two cents. Pacold hires ideologically (and is probably willing to flex on grades for ideology), has fed once before but isn’t really emphasizing it (but otherwise have heard that it’s a great clerkship). Wouldn’t recommend Pacold for a moderate (depending on who you want to rub shoulders with for a year), she has hired hardcore conservatives (tend to be religious liberty-type conservatives). If you want Chicago but don’t want such a conservative chambers, Seeger doesn’t hire ideologically and is supposed to be a great clerkship as well. Don’t have much about the others.

Very curious how this would change the decision-making calculus feeding-wise, esp. for conservative applicants (but also for liberals open to counter clerk). If you're open to double appellate, are there judges and/or is there a strategy that seems to make sense to maximize feeding potential?

[Anonymous User]

Traditionally, double appellate has meant one D.C. Circuit judge and one regional circuit judge. The gold standard today is probably Thapar/Newsom/Pryor and Katsas/Rao/Walker. But it's become much more comment in recent years, especially on the conservative side, to clerk for judges on two regional circuits. Often, but not always, this will be one feeder the other either an up-and-comer or an older respected judge who isn't really a feeder. In recent years, respective examples of this have been Edith Jones/Larsen and Thapar/Carnes.

Generally, conservatives have done double appellate while liberals have done district-appellate. But the emergence of Friedrich et al. in recent years (plus some of the older guard like Leon) has made district-appellate-SCOTUS more common on the conservative side too.

[Anonymous User]

From a purely mercenary perspective, your second clerkship might be based on the Justice that you’re targeting, if any. For instance, CT seems to prefer people who have clerked for one of his prior clerks, whereas SA seems to like people who have had a Third Circuit clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

I wonder if we might return this discussion back to mentorship, clerkship experience, and general career support rather than a hyper focus on feeding potential. Law students tend to over emphasize categorical prestige signals. Clerkships can be terrific experiences for the work itself and your judge (as a person/boss) independent of feeder status. Relevant factors might be rigor of research and drafting process, intellectual environment, socializing/lunches with your judge, responsibility (e.g., do you "drive" your cases or is the judge very hands on?), etc. Once you actually start clerking, these matter way more for your development as a lawyer and professional.

[Anonymous User]

Traditionally, double appellate has meant one D.C. Circuit judge and one regional circuit judge. The gold standard today is probably Thapar/Newsom/Pryor and Katsas/Rao/Walker. But it's become much more comment in recent years, especially on the conservative side, to clerk for judges on two regional circuits. Often, but not always, this will be one feeder the other either an up-and-comer or an older respected judge who isn't really a feeder. In recent years, respective examples of this have been Edith Jones/Larsen and Thapar/Carnes.

Generally, conservatives have done double appellate while liberals have done district-appellate. But the emergence of Friedrich et al. in recent years (plus some of the older guard like Leon) has made district-appellate-SCOTUS more common on the conservative side too.

Confused at Newsom over Sutton, and I wouldn’t include Walker, but yes

[Anonymous User]

Traditionally, double appellate has meant one D.C. Circuit judge and one regional circuit judge. The gold standard today is probably Thapar/Newsom/Pryor and Katsas/Rao/Walker. But it's become much more comment in recent years, especially on the conservative side, to clerk for judges on two regional circuits. Often, but not always, this will be one feeder the other either an up-and-comer or an older respected judge who isn't really a feeder. In recent years, respective examples of this have been Edith Jones/Larsen and Thapar/Carnes.

Generally, conservatives have done double appellate while liberals have done district-appellate. But the emergence of Friedrich et al. in recent years (plus some of the older guard like Leon) has made district-appellate-SCOTUS more common on the conservative side too.

Confused at Newsom over Sutton, and I wouldn’t include Walker, but yes

Newsom is better positioned to feed more than Sutton going forward. I personally would reject this entire concept of the DC clerkship now though. Katsas is obviously great but there are at least 7-8 conservative judges who would be objectively better for the majority of aspiring SCOTUS applicants than Rao or Walker.

[Anonymous User]

Traditionally, double appellate has meant one D.C. Circuit judge and one regional circuit judge. The gold standard today is probably Thapar/Newsom/Pryor and Katsas/Rao/Walker. But it's become much more comment in recent years, especially on the conservative side, to clerk for judges on two regional circuits. Often, but not always, this will be one feeder the other either an up-and-comer or an older respected judge who isn't really a feeder. In recent years, respective examples of this have been Edith Jones/Larsen and Thapar/Carnes.

Generally, conservatives have done double appellate while liberals have done district-appellate. But the emergence of Friedrich et al. in recent years (plus some of the older guard like Leon) has made district-appellate-SCOTUS more common on the conservative side too.

Confused at Newsom over Sutton, and I wouldn’t include Walker, but yes

Newsom is better positioned to feed more than Sutton going forward. I personally would reject this entire concept of the DC clerkship now though. Katsas is obviously great but there are at least 7-8 conservative judges who would be objectively better for the majority of aspiring SCOTUS applicants than Rao or Walker.

Agree on the DC clerkship aspect. It seems that Thapar, Sutton, Newsom, Pryor, Oldham, and Grant are all better for pure feeding purposes than any DC Circuit judge other than Katsas.

I do think Sutton = Newsom (at least roughly) when it comes to feeding at the moment. They both feed broadly and hire liberals, so the big difference is just where they are in their respective careers. A call from either one of them can land a candidate a SCOTUS interview that they likely would not have gotten otherwise. I do think that Newsom seems to have more of a connection with Thomas, while Sutton seems closet to Barrett and (interestingly) Kagan, but those are fine distinctions

[Anonymous User]

Traditionally, double appellate has meant one D.C. Circuit judge and one regional circuit judge. The gold standard today is probably Thapar/Newsom/Pryor and Katsas/Rao/Walker. But it's become much more comment in recent years, especially on the conservative side, to clerk for judges on two regional circuits. Often, but not always, this will be one feeder the other either an up-and-comer or an older respected judge who isn't really a feeder. In recent years, respective examples of this have been Edith Jones/Larsen and Thapar/Carnes.

Generally, conservatives have done double appellate while liberals have done district-appellate. But the emergence of Friedrich et al. in recent years (plus some of the older guard like Leon) has made district-appellate-SCOTUS more common on the conservative side too.

Walker is certainly not a gold standard (at least not yet).