Yeah, I really doubt WHC and the Senate actively inquire into how judges treated their clerks (or how new nominees treated their subordinates), and it's going to take a lot for a former clerk to come forward and bring it up on their own, if they're even paying that close attention to nominations etc. (not trying to open a can of worms, but see Dr. Blasey Ford/Kavanaugh - obv he wasn't her boss/different facts and it was a long time ago, but I doubt that encourages people to report). I know judicial temperament and courtroom deportment come up in evaluating nominees, but they tend to measure the judge's treatment of litigants, not staff, and a judge who abuses their staff can still run a great courtroom. And even then, I'm not sure bad reviews in those categories ever sink a nominee.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 6:10 amWho's to say it doesn't come up? But the former clerks have two choices: (1) say nothing and slightly increase the prestige of their judge's name on a resume, or (2) say something that might turn into Congressional testimony attached to their own name. WHC and Senate probably aren't checking these forums for unverified anon reports that Judge Merriam screams or that Judge Pan is a bad boss for no specific reason. These reports are useful for students seeking employment, but they won't sink a nomination.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 6:35 pmWhy would the Senate care how clerks are treated? They care about results. And plenty of senators and congressional staff mistreat their workers too.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:29 pmI’m really surprised things like this don’t come up when they vet judges being considered for elevation. Or maybe they just don’t care. See also Pan, who gave her DDC clerks hell.
Plus (leaving aside egregious examples like Kozinski), most judges who are shitty bosses aren't doing anything illegal, and even where you have sexism/racism/other illegalities at play, proving that is incredibly hard, especially in such a small setting as chambers (few witnesses, everyone's job depends on the judge). There's a case of a clerk (post-Kosinski) who brought a complaint because she took maternity leave during the clerkship and her judge subsequently fired her, costing her the job she had lined up after the clerkship. The judge and permanent clerk came back with all kinds of examples of her incompetence. I have no idea which side is in the right, but it's hugely messy and now that's going to be out there for every potential employer to see. (I think the clerk sued, not the judge but the judicial complaint people, and lost, but I might be misremembering some of that.)
Don't get me wrong, it would be great if the Senate cared if the judges they elevate are crappy people, but as already suggested, that's definitely not what they're selecting for. The only extent to which they'd potentially care is if the problem is bad enough to result in a lawsuit/impeachment/some other kind of political consequence.
I don't think it helps, either, that clerkships are temporary positions that are so sought after - while I agree that these things don't justify judge abusing you for a year (which is a big deal and can have lasting negative consequences), no one has to take a clerkship, most clerks still probably benefit from having had the job, and there's a built-in end date. It's hard to build up reforms given those circumstances. (Not saying this is how the world should work! But I'm pessimistic about the potential for change. I agree that applicants need more access to this kind of information, though.)