Best and worst judges to clerk for Forum

[Anonymous User]

This opinion is so unnecessarily personal toward Judge Fletcher. It’s telling that even Judge R. Nelson, who dissented from the panel opinion, did not join it.

It just boggles. Part of being a Circuit judge is being a repeat player. You'll have to work with these people for a large part of the rest of your life. Why start off this way?

I have no skin in the game, but people seem to be misinterpreting what Van Dyke wrote in that footnote. He's not calling out any judge in particular. He's calling out the Ninth Circuit's habeas jurisprudence as a whole. Seems people on law twitter that were bashing him are either purposely being uncharitable or don't have the greatest reading comprehension skills.

[Anonymous User]

This opinion is so unnecessarily personal toward Judge Fletcher. It’s telling that even Judge R. Nelson, who dissented from the panel opinion, did not join it.

It just boggles. Part of being a Circuit judge is being a repeat player. You'll have to work with these people for a large part of the rest of your life. Why start off this way?

I have no skin in the game, but people seem to be misinterpreting what Van Dyke wrote in that footnote. He's not calling out any judge in particular. He's calling out the Ninth Circuit's habeas jurisprudence as a whole. Seems people on law twitter that were bashing him are either purposely being uncharitable or don't have the greatest reading comprehension skills.

Eh. That footnote was at the 9th circuit generally. However, later on, he did accuse the panel (who I think was lead by Judge Fletcher) of some pretty shady stuff. Even if he is correct that the panel was intentionally overreaching, calling colleagues "nefarious" may not be the right move.

[LBJ's Hair]

I can sort of understand VanDyke's frustration w/CA9 habeas practices, but---and maybe you don't appreciate it until you've clerked, drafted dissents---this thing is *so* aggressive, *so* personal

you could say the same thing with 1/10 the vitriol and it'd be 10x more persuasive. and you wouldn't piss off all your colleagues. (guess he's already done that, though)

feel like he doesn't appreciate the value of shit like basic collegiality, appearance of reasonableness. you can get votes in close cases that way. another judge doesn't see things exactly the same way, but she likes you personally, thinks you do things in a principled way, will work with you.

[mjb447]

I can sort of understand VanDyke's frustration w/CA9 habeas practices, but---and maybe you don't appreciate it until you've clerked, drafted dissents---this thing is *so* aggressive, *so* personal

you could say the same thing with 1/10 the vitriol and it'd be 10x more persuasive. and you wouldn't piss off all your colleagues. (guess he's already done that, though)

feel like he doesn't appreciate the value of shit like basic collegiality, appearance of reasonableness. you can get votes in close cases that way. another judge doesn't see things exactly the same way, but she likes you personally, thinks you do things in a principled way, will work with you.

+1. There's no need to assign "nefarious" or "sinister" motives or make accusations of "hostage taking" in order to say an opinion shouldn't include lengthy dicta and, if it does, it should get the law it's applying right. There's no real reason to get into motives at all - one could simply "fear" or "lament" that, under the binding dicta rule, the majority's erroneous analysis will be relied upon as the law of the circuit by a future sympathetic panel. It implies (or maybe it outright says) that the other judges couldn't possibly have reached the result they reached in good faith, which is a conclusion you should be very hesitant to come to (and, even if you do, you probably shouldn't publish it).

[kolio6]

I think Judge Fletcher’s dissents are a lesson in collegiality. Take his dissent from en banc rehearing in Cooper v Brown—when he criticizes the district court he’s quite clear that he understands his criticism is harsh but warranted under law. Likewise, his dissent in Navajo Nation v USFS never criticizes the majority itself—he criticized the majority’s analysis

[Anonymous User]

I can sort of understand VanDyke's frustration w/CA9 habeas practices, but---and maybe you don't appreciate it until you've clerked, drafted dissents---this thing is *so* aggressive, *so* personal

you could say the same thing with 1/10 the vitriol and it'd be 10x more persuasive. and you wouldn't piss off all your colleagues. (guess he's already done that, though)

feel like he doesn't appreciate the value of shit like basic collegiality, appearance of reasonableness. you can get votes in close cases that way. another judge doesn't see things exactly the same way, but she likes you personally, thinks you do things in a principled way, will work with you.

I'm the anon from above. I did clerk -- on one of the 2nd/9th/DC Circuits. And I generally agree. I would never write a cheeky dissent myself if I was clerking, but that was just my judge's style. That being said, I think Van Dyke is being treated unfairly by people who are either intentionally twisting his words or who have bad reading comprehension skills (or both).

[LBJ's Hair]

I can sort of understand VanDyke's frustration w/CA9 habeas practices, but---and maybe you don't appreciate it until you've clerked, drafted dissents---this thing is *so* aggressive, *so* personal

you could say the same thing with 1/10 the vitriol and it'd be 10x more persuasive. and you wouldn't piss off all your colleagues. (guess he's already done that, though)

feel like he doesn't appreciate the value of shit like basic collegiality, appearance of reasonableness. you can get votes in close cases that way. another judge doesn't see things exactly the same way, but she likes you personally, thinks you do things in a principled way, will work with you.

That being said, I think Van Dyke is being treated unfairly by people who are either intentionally twisting his words or who have bad reading comprehension skills (or both).

In the first two pages, he compares the panel majority to "a sullen kid who spits in the cookie jar after being caught red-handed," states that they only "decided that [] they couldn’t get away with directly defying AEDPA in this case," describes them as "AEDPA-disdaining colleagues," accuses them of "inventing stuff," then concludes by saying that he believes they are "likely trying to do something more nefarious."

[lavarman84]

That being said, I think Van Dyke is being treated unfairly by people who are either intentionally twisting his words or who have bad reading comprehension skills (or both).

Or VanDyke is an asshole, and you're on the wrong side of this issue.

[Anonymous User]

You might even say he's arrogant, lazy, and an ideologue; lacks humility; has an "entitlement" temperament; does not have an open mind; and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful.

[GoneSouth]

It’s a pattern too. He’s had several opinions already where he directly attacked the motives of other judges. Just this week he did it to now-passed Judge Reinhardt: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... -70127.pdf.

^and that was an opinion where he was to the right ofIkuta

[Anonymous User]

It’s a pattern too. He’s had several opinions already where he directly attacked the motives of other judges. Just this week he did it to now-passed Judge Reinhardt: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... -70127.pdf.

^and that was an opinion where he was to the right ofIkuta

Attacking that scumbag Judge Reinhardt is a social good that should be encouraged though. Also is something the Supreme Court has done.

[Anonymous User]

It’s a pattern too. He’s had several opinions already where he directly attacked the motives of other judges. Just this week he did it to now-passed Judge Reinhardt: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... -70127.pdf.

^and that was an opinion where he was to the right ofIkuta

Attacking that scumbag Judge Reinhardt is a social good that should be encouraged though. Also is something the Supreme Court has done.

Reinhardt's a scumbag no doubt, and it's very much a social good for people--especially those who agree with his jurisprudence--to discuss and accept that uncomfortable fact. But an appellate opinion on an unrelated issue is not the right place for that conversation. And as for the Supremes, they do a lot of foolish things. Doesn't make it right.

[Robot]

While the ABA probably made some mistakes in the Trump era (Kobes, Teeter), in hindsight its report on VanDyke is prescient, he really is probably the most intemperate judge in the country. I don't get what he thinks he's getting out of his behavior. Like if Clarence Thomas, Bill Pryor, Diane Sykes, etc. don't see the need to do this stuff, why does he?

[Anonymous User]

I'm the anon from above. I did clerk -- on one of the 2nd/9th/DC Circuits. And I generally agree. I would never write a cheeky dissent myself if I was clerking, but that was just my judge's style. That being said, I think Van Dyke is being treated unfairly by people who are either intentionally twisting his words or who have bad reading comprehension skills (or both).

As someone who clerked on the Ninth after Van Dyke's appointment and got a sense of how he works -- nope, I think people are reading exactly what he intends to put in there.

[GoneSouth]

It’s a pattern too. He’s had several opinions already where he directly attacked the motives of other judges. Just this week he did it to now-passed Judge Reinhardt: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... -70127.pdf.

^and that was an opinion where he was to the right ofIkuta

Attacking that scumbag Judge Reinhardt is a social good that should be encouraged though. Also is something the Supreme Court has done.

1. This is abuse of anon.

2. The attack was mostly on his reasoning, in exceptionally personal terms. Not, with the exception of one footnote that I’m sure VanDyke thought was clever but comes off as a potshot, about his other misdeeds

[Anonymous User]

As someone who clerked on the Ninth after Van Dyke's appointment and got a sense of how he works -- nope, I think people are reading exactly what he intends to put in there.

It isn't the orientation video, but: how does he work, pray tell?

[Anonymous User]

Notable: from a press release by GMU it appears that Bill Pryor has hired a clerk who was (based on public reporting) fired from Turning Point USA in a racism scandal (among other things, she reportedly sent a text that said “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE”). Seems bad.

https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/ca ... st2021.pdf

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... n-activity

And also wow has GMU been killing it recently in the conservative clerkship market for a school of its tier

[Skool]

Notable: from a press release by GMU it appears that Bill Pryor has hired a clerk who was (based on public reporting) fired from Turning Point USA in a racism scandal (among other things, she reportedly sent a text that said “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE”). Seems bad.

https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/ca ... st2021.pdf

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... n-activity

And also wow has GMU been killing it recently in the conservative clerkship market for a school of its tier

yes, it’s very impressive when a trash school places an openly racist clerk with a right wing judge. A triumph of networking. Applicants take note!

[lavarman84]

I'm really not surprised. Pryor strikes me as a lot like Alito. Awful, just awful.

[Anonymous User]

Notable: from a press release by GMU it appears that Bill Pryor has hired a clerk who was (based on public reporting) fired from Turning Point USA in a racism scandal (among other things, she reportedly sent a text that said “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE”). Seems bad.

https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/ca ... st2021.pdf

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... n-activity

And also wow has GMU been killing it recently in the conservative clerkship market for a school of its tier

yes, it’s very impressive when a trash school places an openly racist clerk with a right wing judge. A triumph of networking. Applicants take note!

I know you're being facetious but it probably has more to do with her being besties with the Thomases.
https://twitter.com/oldmanebro/status/1 ... 32/photo/1

[Anonymous User]

Notable: from a press release by GMU it appears that Bill Pryor has hired a clerk who was (based on public reporting) fired from Turning Point USA in a racism scandal (among other things, she reportedly sent a text that said “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE”). Seems bad.

https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/ca ... st2021.pdf

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... n-activity

And also wow has GMU been killing it recently in the conservative clerkship market for a school of its tier

yes, it’s very impressive when a trash school places an openly racist clerk with a right wing judge. A triumph of networking. Applicants take note!

I know you're being facetious but it probably has more to do with her being besties with the Thomases.
https://twitter.com/oldmanebro/status/1 ... 32/photo/1

[Anonymous User]

Did Berman just fire another clerk? He's posted on OSCAR for an opening to start in November.

[Anonymous User]

Did Berman just fire another clerk? He's posted on OSCAR for an opening to start in November.

I saw that and thought exactly the same thing. Another Berman clerk bites the dust…

[Saami]

Did Berman just fire another clerk? He's posted on OSCAR for an opening to start in November.

Why do people apply to clerk for him?

[Anonymous User]

Here are the Ninth Circuit judges I would apply to in Pasadena and San Diego:

McKeown, Wardlaw (some people in this thread have had negative things to say, but I've also heard very positive views from some of her clerks), Paez, M. Smith, Nguyen, Watford, Owens, and Lee. It is too early to say about Bumatay, but I've heard early positive rumblings about him.

I haven't heard anything about the clerkship experience itself, but I've heard from a reliably positioned source that Bumatay is a difficult, very substantive interviewer.

Anon to agree that, from personal experience, Bumatay is a particularly challenging clerkship interview. But it's not Bumatay himself- his clerks screen aggressively on his behalf, so once you make it to Bumatay himself it's a fit interview.