Feeder Judge Ratings OT 2016 - 2020 (and a bit beyond) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Makes sense, also I just remembered that Sykes shouldn't be on the latter because she hired Evan Bernick, which is at least one lefty (though obviously an originalist one)

He doesn’t count - he was pretending to be a social conservative back then.

[Anonymous User]

Only a dozen or so FedSoc feeders even hire counterclerks, although, frankly, I doubt liberals would want to work for the others anyways. Of those who do, most, at least in my experience, prefer Hillary Democrats to lefty hardliners.

You must be defining "feeder" broadly if you're counting to a dozen, and if you are, I don't think this is right. Working down the feeder spreadsheet, Sutton, Thapar, Wilkinson, Livingston, Bibas, Carnes, Hardiman, Cabranes, Colloton, Easterbrook, Scirica, Collins, Ikuta, Park, Stras, Sullivan, Tjoflat, Richardson have hired liberals at least somewhat recently to my knowledge. Some hire liberals every year.

On the other hand, Pryor, Katsas, O'Scannlain, Sykes, Oldham, Rao, Jones, Smith, Silberman, Bress, Bush, Menashi, Walker do not to my knowledge. No idea on the ones I missed, most notably Kethledge, Larsen, and Grant, but regardless I think an absolute majority of Fed Soc judges who have fed since 2016 hire some liberals. I'm sure some prefer Fed Soc but can't reliably pull top classes of four Fed Soc students, some are pretty ideology-agnostic (e.g. Bibas), and some deliberately hire counter-clerks (e.g. Sutton).

It depends on how you define "counterclerk." I know several clerks for one of the "non-counterclerk" judges you mentioned that have hired bleeding heart liberals. But you still have to believe that the best way to interpret text is original public meaning.

Acceptable: abortion is great, medicare for all is needed, and prison is a human rights tragedy
Unacceptable: any of those things are constitutionally mandated.

This is an important point, and one that often goes overlooked. Judges rarely care about personal political convictions, but they often care about how their clerks will interpret the law if hired. A demonstrated willingness to apply OPM originalism almost always suffices. There are exceptions (Alito and Pryor are known to look for markers of Republican political engagement), but they're the exception, not the rule. The counterpoint is that even those FedSoc judges most open to hiring counterclerks won't usually take a chance on someone who thinks their whole approach to law is stupid.

[Anonymous User]

Only a dozen or so FedSoc feeders even hire counterclerks, although, frankly, I doubt liberals would want to work for the others anyways. Of those who do, most, at least in my experience, prefer Hillary Democrats to lefty hardliners.

You must be defining "feeder" broadly if you're counting to a dozen, and if you are, I don't think this is right. Working down the feeder spreadsheet, Sutton, Thapar, Wilkinson, Livingston, Bibas, Carnes, Hardiman, Cabranes, Colloton, Easterbrook, Scirica, Collins, Ikuta, Park, Stras, Sullivan, Tjoflat, Richardson have hired liberals at least somewhat recently to my knowledge. Some hire liberals every year.

On the other hand, Pryor, Katsas, O'Scannlain, Sykes, Oldham, Rao, Jones, Smith, Silberman, Bress, Bush, Menashi, Walker do not to my knowledge. No idea on the ones I missed, most notably Kethledge, Larsen, and Grant, but regardless I think an absolute majority of Fed Soc judges who have fed since 2016 hire some liberals. I'm sure some prefer Fed Soc but can't reliably pull top classes of four Fed Soc students, some are pretty ideology-agnostic (e.g. Bibas), and some deliberately hire counter-clerks (e.g. Sutton).

Can confirm that Sykes hires many bleeding hearts.

It depends on how you define "counterclerk." I know several clerks for one of the "non-counterclerk" judges you mentioned that have hired bleeding heart liberals. But you still have to believe that the best way to interpret text is original public meaning.

Acceptable: abortion is great, medicare for all is needed, and prison is a human rights tragedy
Unacceptable: any of those things are constitutionally mandated.

Makes sense, also I just remembered that Sykes shouldn't be on the latter because she hired Evan Bernick, which is at least one lefty (though obviously an originalist one)

Can confirm that Sykes hires many bleeding hearts.

[Anonymous User]

Just curious, why does everyone think Srinivasan is untouchable? It seems likely enough that other liberal judges will start eating into his feeding numbers… genuinely wondering

[Anonymous User]

Just curious, why does everyone think Srinivasan is untouchable? It seems likely enough that other liberal judges will start eating into his feeding numbers… genuinely wondering

I think this is because a lot of feeding is the result of a positive feedback loop. Once someone starts being a major feeder, they attract the best and brightest candidates. In turn, they keep sending those people to SCOTUS.

Aside from that general point, I think Roberts and Kav would be far more willing to hire clerks from him than other liberals. He is clearly a terrific judge. As a conservative, even when I disagree with him, I find his opinions to be lucid and persuasive. I have talked to other people (in much more important positions than myself) and they tend to think similarly of Sri. I'd bet my house on the fact that Roberts and Kav think the same.

[Anonymous User]

Just curious, why does everyone think Srinivasan is untouchable? It seems likely enough that other liberal judges will start eating into his feeding numbers… genuinely wondering

I think this is because a lot of feeding is the result of a positive feedback loop. Once someone starts being a major feeder, they attract the best and brightest candidates. In turn, they keep sending those people to SCOTUS.

Aside from that general point, I think Roberts and Kav would be far more willing to hire clerks from him than other liberals. He is clearly a terrific judge. As a conservative, even when I disagree with him, I find his opinions to be lucid and persuasive. I have talked to other people (in much more important positions than myself) and they tend to think similarly of Sri. I'd bet my house on the fact that Roberts and Kav think the same.

There's also a positive feedback loop from the Justices perspectives. Once a Justice gets a good clerk from a particular judge, the Justice is much more likely to trust the judge's recommendations in the future.

On top of that, SS is extremely close with Kagan. It's not an accident that he's sent her 10 clerks in the 11 terms for which he could have sent her clerks (and perhaps there will be more for 2023 and 2024).

And it's worth noting that there aren't many liberal judges similarly situated to Sri (if any). He's one of only four circuit judges nationwide who both clerked for SCOTUS and worked at OSG, he's now the chief judge of CADC, and he's pretty moderate.

[Anonymous User]

YLS -> Hardiman -> Alito for OT22

Don’t think Lat reported this one yet, but it’s fairly well known in the conservative world

[Anonymous User]

YLS -> Hardiman -> Alito for OT22

Don’t think Lat reported this one yet, but it’s fairly well known in the conservative world

Interesting to see a Hardiman solo feed. I didn't think he had too many of those.

[Anonymous User]

This is an important point, and one that often goes overlooked. Judges rarely care about personal political convictions, but they often care about how their clerks will interpret the law if hired. A demonstrated willingness to apply OPM originalism almost always suffices.

Judges constitutionally probably aren’t allowed to consider personal political convictions— these being (non political/ policy making) government jobs and the first amendment and all that, but they can obviously consider judicial philosophy, which relates to professional competency.

[Anonymous User]

YLS -> Hardiman -> Alito for OT22

Don’t think Lat reported this one yet, but it’s fairly well known in the conservative world

Interesting to see a Hardiman solo feed. I didn't think he had too many of those.

Quoted anon. He’s older and has been practicing for a while, so I believe it’s one of those feeds where the judge gets “official” credit but didn’t really do much. Not sure though.

[Anonymous User]

This is an important point, and one that often goes overlooked. Judges rarely care about personal political convictions, but they often care about how their clerks will interpret the law if hired. A demonstrated willingness to apply OPM originalism almost always suffices.

Judges constitutionally probably aren’t allowed to consider personal political convictions— these being (non political/ policy making) government jobs and the first amendment and all that, but they can obviously consider judicial philosophy, which relates to professional competency.

Lol I’m literally rolling on the floor laughing that you think judges would or could be restricted in their hiring by some political bias doctrine or that most judges at this point aren’t employing what amounts to basically partisan/political litmus tests in their hiring.

[Anonymous User]

This is an important point, and one that often goes overlooked. Judges rarely care about personal political convictions, but they often care about how their clerks will interpret the law if hired. A demonstrated willingness to apply OPM originalism almost always suffices.

Judges constitutionally probably aren’t allowed to consider personal political convictions— these being (non political/ policy making) government jobs and the first amendment and all that, but they can obviously consider judicial philosophy, which relates to professional competency.

Lol I’m literally rolling on the floor laughing that you think judges would or could be restricted in their hiring by some political bias doctrine or that most judges at this point aren’t employing what amounts to basically partisan/political litmus tests in their hiring.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/181045ppan.pdf

Have a read.(obviously it would be hard to get enforcement, though easier perhaps at state level). It’s not some new doctrine that non policy making positions can’t consider political affiliation. Only a q of whether clerks are policy making or not, and there’s split authority.

And the post I replied to made the point most judges do not in fact care about personal political affiliation.

[Anonymous User]

This is an important point, and one that often goes overlooked. Judges rarely care about personal political convictions, but they often care about how their clerks will interpret the law if hired. A demonstrated willingness to apply OPM originalism almost always suffices.

Judges constitutionally probably aren’t allowed to consider personal political convictions— these being (non political/ policy making) government jobs and the first amendment and all that, but they can obviously consider judicial philosophy, which relates to professional competency.

Lol I’m literally rolling on the floor laughing that you think judges would or could be restricted in their hiring by some political bias doctrine or that most judges at this point aren’t employing what amounts to basically partisan/political litmus tests in their hiring.

Frankly, I don't think that's accurate, and the proof is in the pudding. It's hard to find a conservative judge who has never hired a liberal clerk. To my knowledge, the conservative justices have all hired one or more, although some (Roberts) do it more often than others (Thomas).

[Anonymous User]

This is an important point, and one that often goes overlooked. Judges rarely care about personal political convictions, but they often care about how their clerks will interpret the law if hired. A demonstrated willingness to apply OPM originalism almost always suffices.

Judges constitutionally probably aren’t allowed to consider personal political convictions— these being (non political/ policy making) government jobs and the first amendment and all that, but they can obviously consider judicial philosophy, which relates to professional competency.

Lol I’m literally rolling on the floor laughing that you think judges would or could be restricted in their hiring by some political bias doctrine or that most judges at this point aren’t employing what amounts to basically partisan/political litmus tests in their hiring.

Frankly, I don't think that's accurate, and the proof is in the pudding. It's hard to find a conservative judge who has never hired a liberal clerk. To my knowledge, the conservative justices have all hired one or more, although some (Roberts) do it more often than others (Thomas).

I believe Thomas initially hired some counterclerks but didn't have luck with it and now explicitly says he will never hire a liberal clerk. He has that—admittedly/unfortunately funny—analogy that hiring a counter clerk is like trying to put lipstick on pig, no one enjoys it; least of all the pig.

[Anonymous User]

This is an important point, and one that often goes overlooked. Judges rarely care about personal political convictions, but they often care about how their clerks will interpret the law if hired. A demonstrated willingness to apply OPM originalism almost always suffices.

Judges constitutionally probably aren’t allowed to consider personal political convictions— these being (non political/ policy making) government jobs and the first amendment and all that, but they can obviously consider judicial philosophy, which relates to professional competency.

Lol I’m literally rolling on the floor laughing that you think judges would or could be restricted in their hiring by some political bias doctrine or that most judges at this point aren’t employing what amounts to basically partisan/political litmus tests in their hiring.

Frankly, I don't think that's accurate, and the proof is in the pudding. It's hard to find a conservative judge who has never hired a liberal clerk. To my knowledge, the conservative justices have all hired one or more, although some (Roberts) do it more often than others (Thomas).

I believe Thomas initially hired some counterclerks but didn't have luck with it and now explicitly says he will never hire a liberal clerk. He has that—admittedly/unfortunately funny—analogy that hiring a counter clerk is like trying to put lipstick on pig, no one enjoys it; least of all the pig.

Agreed, I wouldn't expect more. But Thomas is at the far right extreme, and even he's hired a few over the decades.

[Anonymous User]

This is an important point, and one that often goes overlooked. Judges rarely care about personal political convictions, but they often care about how their clerks will interpret the law if hired. A demonstrated willingness to apply OPM originalism almost always suffices.

Judges constitutionally probably aren’t allowed to consider personal political convictions— these being (non political/ policy making) government jobs and the first amendment and all that, but they can obviously consider judicial philosophy, which relates to professional competency.

Lol I’m literally rolling on the floor laughing that you think judges would or could be restricted in their hiring by some political bias doctrine or that most judges at this point aren’t employing what amounts to basically partisan/political litmus tests in their hiring.

Frankly, I don't think that's accurate, and the proof is in the pudding. It's hard to find a conservative judge who has never hired a liberal clerk. To my knowledge, the conservative justices have all hired one or more, although some (Roberts) do it more often than others (Thomas).

I believe Thomas initially hired some counterclerks but didn't have luck with it and now explicitly says he will never hire a liberal clerk. He has that—admittedly/unfortunately funny—analogy that hiring a counter clerk is like trying to put lipstick on pig, no one enjoys it; least of all the pig.

Agreed, I wouldn't expect more. But Thomas is at the far right extreme, and even he's hired a few over the decades.

The "right-wing" spectrum has become pretty broad, and might be throwing people. A classical liberal/libertarian might appear as a counter clerk in Thomas's chambers, but typical for Gorsuch's.

Agree it's mostly about OPM originalism for conservative judges, rather than card carrying party membership. You might be staunchly opposed on issues like drugs or privacy, but at least you're all trying to play by roughly the same rules of analysis.

I know of several fedsoc appellate clerks who voted for Biden, but I wouldn't consider any of them counter clerks or Democrats.

[Anonymous User]

Seems like Lohier is top dog now.

[Anonymous User]

Seems like Lohier is top dog now.

I don't think that sending three clerks to SCOTUS one time makes him "top dog" by any stretch of the imagination. I would bet that any top liberal applicant would still rather take Sri.

[Anonymous User]

Seems like Lohier is top dog now.

I don't think that sending three clerks to SCOTUS one time makes him "tog dog" by any stretch of the imagination. I would bet that any top liberal applicant would still rather take Sri.

You'd be surprised. Not everyone wants to do admin law all day. And speaking from personal experience, people who are choosing from a certain tier of judges do pick based on fit. Of course, I am talking about people who are not automatons, and admittedly many of those who have to make these choices are automatons.

[Anonymous User]

Seems like Lohier is top dog now.

I don't think that sending three clerks to SCOTUS one time makes him "tog dog" by any stretch of the imagination. I would bet that any top liberal applicant would still rather take Sri.

You'd be surprised. Not everyone wants to do admin law all day. And speaking from personal experience, people who are choosing from a certain tier of judges do pick based on fit. Of course, I am talking about people who are not automatons, and admittedly many of those who have to make these choices are automatons.

They hire for vastly different things. Not that much overlap between candidates. I still think Sri is going to have better feed stats going forward. But Lohier is certainly right behind him. Also lol at the idea that the CADC docket isn't attractive; the absence of immigration, habeas and the lower workload is a blessing, plus there's quite a bit beyond admin on the docket (election law, separation of powers stuff, sovereign immunity, antitrust, etc).

[Anonymous User]

Seems like Lohier is top dog now.

I don't think that sending three clerks to SCOTUS one time makes him "tog dog" by any stretch of the imagination. I would bet that any top liberal applicant would still rather take Sri.

You'd be surprised. Not everyone wants to do admin law all day. And speaking from personal experience, people who are choosing from a certain tier of judges do pick based on fit. Of course, I am talking about people who are not automatons, and admittedly many of those who have to make these choices are automatons.

They hire for vastly different things. Not that much overlap between candidates. I still think Sri is going to have better feed stats going forward. But Lohier is certainly right behind him. Also lol at the idea that the CADC docket isn't attractive; the absence of immigration, habeas and the lower workload is a blessing, plus there's quite a bit beyond admin on the docket (election law, separation of powers stuff, sovereign immunity, antitrust, etc).

Yeah, I kinda meant after Sri. But there is a huge gap it seems between Sri, Lohier, and then followed pretty far behind by Pillard/Fletcher.

[Anonymous User]

Would any kind soul wish to post the Lat list released today? I don't sub but am curious

[Anonymous User]

Seems like Lohier is top dog now.

I don't think that sending three clerks to SCOTUS one time makes him "tog dog" by any stretch of the imagination. I would bet that any top liberal applicant would still rather take Sri.

You'd be surprised. Not everyone wants to do admin law all day. And speaking from personal experience, people who are choosing from a certain tier of judges do pick based on fit. Of course, I am talking about people who are not automatons, and admittedly many of those who have to make these choices are automatons.

They hire for vastly different things. Not that much overlap between candidates. I still think Sri is going to have better feed stats going forward. But Lohier is certainly right behind him. Also lol at the idea that the CADC docket isn't attractive; the absence of immigration, habeas and the lower workload is a blessing, plus there's quite a bit beyond admin on the docket (election law, separation of powers stuff, sovereign immunity, antitrust, etc).

Yeah, I kinda meant after Sri. But there is a huge gap it seems between Sri, Lohier, and then followed pretty far behind by Pillard/Fletcher.

Should probably also keep an eye on KBJ's hiring patterns. There may be as few as 3 spots for non-HYS libs in a given year going forward (SS: 2-3, EK: 0-1, KBJ: 1-2, CJR: 0-1).

[Anonymous User]

Duplicate.

[Anonymous User]

Seems like Lohier is top dog now.

I don't think that sending three clerks to SCOTUS one time makes him "tog dog" by any stretch of the imagination. I would bet that any top liberal applicant would still rather take Sri.

You'd be surprised. Not everyone wants to do admin law all day. And speaking from personal experience, people who are choosing from a certain tier of judges do pick based on fit. Of course, I am talking about people who are not automatons, and admittedly many of those who have to make these choices are automatons.

They hire for vastly different things. Not that much overlap between candidates. I still think Sri is going to have better feed stats going forward. But Lohier is certainly right behind him. Also lol at the idea that the CADC docket isn't attractive; the absence of immigration, habeas and the lower workload is a blessing, plus there's quite a bit beyond admin on the docket (election law, separation of powers stuff, sovereign immunity, antitrust, etc).

Yeah they also get tons of FOIA stuff (shudder)

The workload is a big benefit of DC but it’s just not true that it has a better docket than CA2 unless you really love admin