Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=306610
Although I occasionally hear rumblings of fabled off-plan liberals (and they'll all be off-plan if the plan crumbles again), I echo this sentiment. If you have a good GPA and a pulse, FedSoc will pump you right into its pipeline and have you a clerkship while you're practically still in the womb. No need to expand your ideological horizons unless that's something you're particularly interested in, i.e. you'd rather be a counterclerk than a regular clerk.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:52 pmI’m not aware of any off-plan liberals. Your best bet off-plan is fedsoc and conservative judges
Really appreciate your thoughts. I’m conservative but I’m not sure I’m like...Pryor-level. And frankly I think I’d enjoy being a counter clerk in an open environment more than being given a purity test on originalism every day.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:14 pmAlthough I occasionally hear rumblings of fabled off-plan liberals (and they'll all be off-plan if the plan crumbles again), I echo this sentiment. If you have a good GPA and a pulse, FedSoc will pump you right into its pipeline and have you a clerkship while you're practically still in the womb. No need to expand your ideological horizons unless that's something you're particularly interested in, i.e. you'd rather be a counterclerk than a regular clerk.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:52 pmI’m not aware of any off-plan liberals. Your best bet off-plan is fedsoc and conservative judges
I think you're overestimating the "purity" of the majority of conservative judges--especially pre-Trump appointees, but probably the majority of Trump appointees as well. I clerked for a conservative Bush appointee on a CoA and my views generally aligned with his, but the job felt much more like "being a counter clerk in an open environment" than "being given a purity test on originalism." We only had one case the entire year where an originalist interpretation of the constitution was really even necessary, and the day-to-day climate in chambers was the judge and clerks trying to think things through from all sides and get the cases right. My co-clerks were kind of all over the place ideologically, and none of us ever felt uncomfortable speaking up or making arguments.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:21 pmReally appreciate your thoughts. I’m conservative but I’m not sure I’m like...Pryor-level. And frankly I think I’d enjoy being a counter clerk in an open environment more than being given a purity test on originalism every day.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:14 pmAlthough I occasionally hear rumblings of fabled off-plan liberals (and they'll all be off-plan if the plan crumbles again), I echo this sentiment. If you have a good GPA and a pulse, FedSoc will pump you right into its pipeline and have you a clerkship while you're practically still in the womb. No need to expand your ideological horizons unless that's something you're particularly interested in, i.e. you'd rather be a counterclerk than a regular clerk.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:52 pmI’m not aware of any off-plan liberals. Your best bet off-plan is fedsoc and conservative judges
I've heard from a clerk for one of the other conservatives on the Second that Menashi basically tries to hire the most conservative students he can, similar to Owen or Ho or O'Scannlain, while Nardini, Park, Bianco, and Sullivan do not really want or look for ideologues.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 2:29 pmI think you're overestimating the "purity" of the majority of conservative judges--especially pre-Trump appointees, but probably the majority of Trump appointees as well. I clerked for a conservative Bush appointee on a CoA and my views generally aligned with his, but the job felt much more like "being a counter clerk in an open environment" than "being given a purity test on originalism." We only had one case the entire year where an originalist interpretation of the constitution was really even necessary, and the day-to-day climate in chambers was the judge and clerks trying to think things through from all sides and get the cases right. My co-clerks were kind of all over the place ideologically, and none of us ever felt uncomfortable speaking up or making arguments.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:21 pmReally appreciate your thoughts. I’m conservative but I’m not sure I’m like...Pryor-level. And frankly I think I’d enjoy being a counter clerk in an open environment more than being given a purity test on originalism every day.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:14 pmAlthough I occasionally hear rumblings of fabled off-plan liberals (and they'll all be off-plan if the plan crumbles again), I echo this sentiment. If you have a good GPA and a pulse, FedSoc will pump you right into its pipeline and have you a clerkship while you're practically still in the womb. No need to expand your ideological horizons unless that's something you're particularly interested in, i.e. you'd rather be a counterclerk than a regular clerk.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:52 pmI’m not aware of any off-plan liberals. Your best bet off-plan is fedsoc and conservative judges
There is certainly a small handful of judges who consider themselves conservative warriors (Owen and Ho on the 5th are the first two who come to mind), but they're the exception rather than the rule, and their approach should be clear from the interview process.
It sounds like some of the judges you'd be really happy with are not off-plan liberals, but on-plan conservatives. Michael Scudder in CA7 comes to mind--although he's a Trump appointee, he's extremely reasonable and frequently hires moderates and even liberals.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:09 pmOP here. The main thing for me is I'd rather not get the whole ideology-seeking series of hypos in the interview room and then fail / decide to withdraw after the fact because I'm not a True Believer. Would very much either try to go for a conservative who doesn't stress test on ideology or an open liberal both in terms of the interview / application experience and the chambers experience that I want.
I totally hear the prior poster that originalism probably won't factor into most cases that come up in the clerkship, but again, to the extent that purity comes up in the interview process (especially for Trump appointees), I just don't want to be grilled or evaluated on that dimension.
It’s not that I’m scared of the question (I’m happy to explain my views and have a conversation in depth about them), but given how fast hiring occurs, I don’t want to waste time in the process interviewing in a chambers that’s trying to ID my “belonging” like the first interviewing judge you mentioned.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:42 pmOff topic but I know Scudder. He's the nicest, most down-to-earth federal judge you'll ever meet and not ideological at all. In fact I don't think he really hires from Fed Soc.
OP, I don't get the fear of judicial philosophy questions in interviews. Even judges that are liberal or nonideological ask them to see where you're coming from. If your judge cares about your ideology to the degree that you get rejected for it, it's probably not a good fit anyway. That happened to me with a well-known federal appellate judge who was obviously unsatisfied with my lack of love for the GOP and I ended up with a different (also Fed Soc/Trump) judge that I think I'll be a much better fit with in large part because they're much less of an ideologue.
My judge is very ideological, but wouldn't care if you started espousing purposivism if you can present your ideas cogently. I personally think this is a lot of ado about nothing.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:46 pmIt’s not that I’m scared of the question (I’m happy to explain my views and have a conversation in depth about them), but given how fast hiring occurs, I don’t want to waste time in the process interviewing in a chambers that’s trying to ID my “belonging” like the first interviewing judge you mentioned.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:42 pmOff topic but I know Scudder. He's the nicest, most down-to-earth federal judge you'll ever meet and not ideological at all. In fact I don't think he really hires from Fed Soc.
OP, I don't get the fear of judicial philosophy questions in interviews. Even judges that are liberal or nonideological ask them to see where you're coming from. If your judge cares about your ideology to the degree that you get rejected for it, it's probably not a good fit anyway. That happened to me with a well-known federal appellate judge who was obviously unsatisfied with my lack of love for the GOP and I ended up with a different (also Fed Soc/Trump) judge that I think I'll be a much better fit with in large part because they're much less of an ideologue.
Just came across this and wasn't sure if I was parsing it right. Did you mean that Ho et al. are not looking to hire super ideologically?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:02 pmAdding some points here. There's a very strong batch of Trump appointees who aren't looking to hire super ideologically / run their chambers that way. Many of the obvious warriors have been listed, and I'll add some more, too: Ho, Menashi, R. Nelson, Branch, Engelhardt, Brennan, VanDyke, and some others.
Some are on the path to being very respected and typical, if varying degress of conservative, circuit judges: Bibas, Bade, St. Eve, Phipps, Newsom, etc.
Fuck my life, I wish this were true.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:14 pmAlthough I occasionally hear rumblings of fabled off-plan liberals (and they'll all be off-plan if the plan crumbles again), I echo this sentiment. If you have a good GPA and a pulse, FedSoc will pump you right into its pipeline and have you a clerkship while you're practically still in the womb. No need to expand your ideological horizons unless that's something you're particularly interested in, i.e. you'd rather be a counterclerk than a regular clerk.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:52 pmI’m not aware of any off-plan liberals. Your best bet off-plan is fedsoc and conservative judges
Also hoping for clarity here. Ho and some others on this list absolutely DO hire ideologically and have since the beginning, and it would be a significant piece of news if that's now changed.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:49 pmJust came across this and wasn't sure if I was parsing it right. Did you mean that Ho et al. are not looking to hire super ideologically?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:02 pmAdding some points here. There's a very strong batch of Trump appointees who aren't looking to hire super ideologically / run their chambers that way. Many of the obvious warriors have been listed, and I'll add some more, too: Ho, Menashi, R. Nelson, Branch, Engelhardt, Brennan, VanDyke, and some others.
Some are on the path to being very respected and typical, if varying degress of conservative, circuit judges: Bibas, Bade, St. Eve, Phipps, Newsom, etc.
Not the same anon, but he meant that the first group (Ho, etc.) is absolutely looking to hire ideological conservatives. The second group (Bade, etc.) seems more similar to the vast majority of Bush, Reagan, etc. appointees and are conservatives, but less likely to screen by ideology in hiring. People without anything ideological on their resume, and likely even "soft liberals," will get strong looks from these judges. (I use "soft liberals" because even less-ideological conservative judges who are generally open to hiring liberals might be hesitant to interview someone whose entire resume screams "left wing ideologue.")decimalsanddollars wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:03 pmAlso hoping for clarity here. Ho and some others on this list absolutely DO hire ideologically and have since the beginning, and it would be a significant piece of news if that's now changed.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:49 pmJust came across this and wasn't sure if I was parsing it right. Did you mean that Ho et al. are not looking to hire super ideologically?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:02 pmAdding some points here. There's a very strong batch of Trump appointees who aren't looking to hire super ideologically / run their chambers that way. Many of the obvious warriors have been listed, and I'll add some more, too: Ho, Menashi, R. Nelson, Branch, Engelhardt, Brennan, VanDyke, and some others.
Some are on the path to being very respected and typical, if varying degress of conservative, circuit judges: Bibas, Bade, St. Eve, Phipps, Newsom, etc.