Conservative Legal Fellowships Forum

[aegor]

The responses in this thread have vindicated basically all of the OP's "not caring." First, a user cannot even make a completely facially neutral inquiry into conservative fellowships without being challenged on ideological grounds. How often does the reverse happen here or on law school campuses? Second, not only did Democratic candidates in 2020 way outraise Republican donors (including from out-of-state individuals and entities in state-wide races), Democrats also raised more dark money in the 2018 and 2020 elections. That story made the fundraising news circuit.

Please just answer OP's question or shut the fuck up. This is not the place to practice Durbinesque confirmation hearing grandstanding.

[AAPLTSLADIS]

You might have to reapply until you hit. The quadfecta is difficult to achieve. Very competitive and increasingly more so with every passing year.

Out of 100, I'd rank the level of difficulty of gaining acceptance as follows:

100 John Marshall
92 Originalism Summer Seminar
85 James Wilson
82 James Kent

John Marshall is the most difficult of all. By far. Not easy at all.

I was hoping to get admitted and attend two of the Originalism Summer Seminar, James Wilson, or James Kent before applying to the John Marshall Fellowship. And I have been admitted to at least one of those programs for this year. My concern is that I’m entering my last year of clerking next term so whenever I’ll be slated to apply for John Marshall, I’ll either be a clerk in the final months of my term, or a private practitioner at a boutique lit firm. Does that status diminish my chances? From my understanding, these programs are usually for prospective clerks or people who are planning to do one in the future. I, on the other hand, will be finished with clerking after next year (barring a miracle SCOTUS clerkship which is 100% impossible for me to get haha).

It will definitely diminish your chances for John Marshall. Maybe slightly for Originalism Summer Seminar. Negligible/unnoticeable impact for James Kent and James Wilson.

If I were you, I would look up all their previous fellows. You will see outgoing SCOTUS clerks. You will see people working at a firm (the moar prominent the better). The main thing they are looking for is bang for buck. Of course, they would prefer to get bang from influencing an upcoming clerkship, in addition to everything that comes after, but they will (to varying degrees) settle for only post-clerkship bang if they can see you having a large impact down the road. John Marshall is the least likely to accept only post-clerkship bang.

I would mention that you are seeking a SCOTUS clerkship. John Marshall, for example, may let that likelihood influence the application decision or tip the scale.

Thanks for your insight. Full disclosure -- I've been accepted to the Originalism Summer Seminar and am in the process of applying to James Wilson/James Kent, but I can only do one or the other this year as the dates overlap. Unfortunately, I can't do John Marshall this year as my next Judge is adamant that I start before the date the Fellowship is supposed to commence. My hope is that next year, with--hopefully--two of the four under my belt, I can still be a competitive applicant for John Marshall. I'll definitely let them know about my future plans (SCOTUS clerkship app, an additional circuit clerkship in the next few years) and maybe that will, as you say, tip the scale despite my resume looking like I'm done with clerkships (I would have done 2 years D.Ct. plus 1 year Circuit Court).

Whoa whoa whoa. I think I would apply to John Marshall now. Many times, it takes several attempts to hit. Go ahead and apply now to show that your interest is long-standing. Look at it this way. If you get dinged, you can re-work your materials for round 2 and come back stronger and demonstrate long-standing and continuing interest. Plus you get a free year-long subscription to their magazine if you get dinged lol. If you get accepted, you can ask them to defer for a year because X, Y, Z. I would feel comfortable doing this because the odds of acceptance are so low, and it helps your application to have tried, and tried, and tried.

Also congrats on Originalism Summer Seminar. Randy is AMAZING.

If the low chances of me getting John Marshall this year happens, do you think requesting to defer my fellowship would be reasonable (because of my next clerkship’s start/end dates)? I’d be scared to burn that bridge. Obviously this may be an irrational concern since I most likely wouldn’t get it this year anyways, and I think having two of the four fellowships on my resume may substantially help next year.

Good question and you have framed this correctly. Some thoughts.

First, I could tell you with much more certainty if I knew your resume and creds. Right now, I am operating under a non-feeder judge assumption. (Take a look at the judges John Marshall clerks are clerking for and you will see an unmistakable pattern.) Based on that, you are an average application, and the odds are normally low. (I am making a lot of other assumptions that I'm not stating here.) If I am wrong about my assumptions, then I am wrong about your candidacy specifically.

Next, John Marshall has a waitlist. If you approach things correctly, there should be no bridge burning.

Finally, if you did hit John Marshall on the first try, I think I would be inclined to defer the Originalism Summer Seminar and attend the John Marshall Fellowship instead. I think that would be the easiest way to go for reasons.

My recommendation is a tough call if you are extremely competitive. If looking at the prior fellow bios you feel they have better ones than you at the moment, then it is not a tough call and I would apply now.

[AAPLTSLADIS]

The responses in this thread have vindicated basically all of the OP's "not caring." First, a user cannot even make a completely facially neutral inquiry into conservative fellowships without being challenged on ideological grounds. How often does the reverse happen here or on law school campuses? Second, not only did Democratic candidates in 2020 way outraise Republican donors (including from out-of-state individuals and entities in state-wide races), Democrats also raised more dark money in the 2018 and 2020 elections. That story made the fundraising news circuit.

Please just answer OP's question or shut the fuck up. This is not the place to practice Durbinesque confirmation hearing grandstanding.

Imagine how boring this world would be if the smartest people (in terms of raw intelligence and mental processing power) were unbrainwashed and logical and could be bothered to Google things they disagreed with (like "dark money liberals"), and matured each year.

Instead, the smartest people around are brainwashed, illogical, usually mentally disturbed, and take their political cues from literal imbeciles on television.

It is like putting an Apple M1 chip inside a piece of excrement. That's a liberal these days.

We are forced to deal and argue with liberals constantly, and in the process sharpen our minds, out of necessity. But this was not the time and place. The "innocent" questions/statements smacked of derailment. So... not this time. Go bother Google or the Reddit echo chamber. We are discussing important things right now amongst ourselves.

[Iowahawk]

I feel like Fed Soc types should be at least a bit ashamed that dark money is so omnipresent in their world

+1.

There are obviously similar liberal-leaning fellowships and otherwise, but the difference is that those fellowships are funded by ideologues that don't typically financially benefit from this work, whereas the folks funding these conservative institutions are far more often promoting/funding scholarship that advances their own business or industry.

Of course, that obviously doesn't mean that you can't be a conservative that engages in high-quality, good-faith scholarship that you firmly believe is appropriate (even if it does happen to financially benefit the folks that fund your scholarship). I don't see that as the issue (though there are obviously plenty of bad-faith actors in the conservative legal realm). The issue is that the opposing counterparts aren't funded as acutely and as aggressively because there is often far less of an acute financial benefit to protecting the general public against whatever the moneyed interests want. And there isn't very much of a culture (if at all) of conservatives -- at least the ones that are funded by these fellowships and similar -- to self-regulate to honestly and accurately represent the best arguments against their case in good faith. The end result is not just that the arguments promoting the moneyed interests are buoyed, but that they are often buoyed inappropriately, because that the literature produced through and elevated by these forums is far more likely, on balance, to inaccurately skew toward benefitting some moneyed interest at the expense of the general good.

I'm not too familiar with this world, so I look forward to any good-faith pushback those on this thread may have. My sources are pretty limited (i.e. reading Dark Money like two years ago, watching Rachel Maddow and having close friends in a top school's Federalist Society).

For anyone reading this ... just ignore. I don't care what a liberal (with a hegemony in education, media, tech, and expanding to corporate America and religion) has to say about our small conservative oasis with paltry funding.

I don't care for your attempt at FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).

Rachel Maddow. Lol. How are those tax returns in Russia going?

I cited watching Rachel Maddow as an explanation of my admittedly one-sided/limited knowledge.

Yet you felt it was a sufficient basis to slander conservative lawyers as intellectually dishonest and beholden to "dark money" interests if they have the audacity to attend a week-long program to learn about originalism. This isn't the place to have the argument you're clearly trying to provoke.

I mean we all know these aren't one week programs to "learn about originalism." You can't get selected unless you have already proven yourself to be a committed originalist, etc. Donors fund them to try to influence judges and/or help conservative young attorneys make connections.

Also lol @ the poor oppressed conservatives just trying to enjoy their sinecures in peace. Whoever will speak up for conservatives in the federal judiciary? First they came for the Heritage Federal Clerkship Training Academy...

[Anonymous User]

I feel like Fed Soc types should be at least a bit ashamed that dark money is so omnipresent in their world

+1.

There are obviously similar liberal-leaning fellowships and otherwise, but the difference is that those fellowships are funded by ideologues that don't typically financially benefit from this work, whereas the folks funding these conservative institutions are far more often promoting/funding scholarship that advances their own business or industry.

Of course, that obviously doesn't mean that you can't be a conservative that engages in high-quality, good-faith scholarship that you firmly believe is appropriate (even if it does happen to financially benefit the folks that fund your scholarship). I don't see that as the issue (though there are obviously plenty of bad-faith actors in the conservative legal realm). The issue is that the opposing counterparts aren't funded as acutely and as aggressively because there is often far less of an acute financial benefit to protecting the general public against whatever the moneyed interests want. And there isn't very much of a culture (if at all) of conservatives -- at least the ones that are funded by these fellowships and similar -- to self-regulate to honestly and accurately represent the best arguments against their case in good faith. The end result is not just that the arguments promoting the moneyed interests are buoyed, but that they are often buoyed inappropriately, because that the literature produced through and elevated by these forums is far more likely, on balance, to inaccurately skew toward benefitting some moneyed interest at the expense of the general good.

I'm not too familiar with this world, so I look forward to any good-faith pushback those on this thread may have. My sources are pretty limited (i.e. reading Dark Money like two years ago, watching Rachel Maddow and having close friends in a top school's Federalist Society).

For anyone reading this ... just ignore. I don't care what a liberal (with a hegemony in education, media, tech, and expanding to corporate America and religion) has to say about our small conservative oasis with paltry funding.

I don't care for your attempt at FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).

Rachel Maddow. Lol. How are those tax returns in Russia going?

I cited watching Rachel Maddow as an explanation of my admittedly one-sided/limited knowledge.

Yet you felt it was a sufficient basis to slander conservative lawyers as intellectually dishonest and beholden to "dark money" interests if they have the audacity to attend a week-long program to learn about originalism. This isn't the place to have the argument you're clearly trying to provoke.

I mean we all know these aren't one week programs to "learn about originalism." You can't get selected unless you have already proven yourself to be a committed originalist, etc. Donors fund them to try to influence judges and/or help conservative young attorneys make connections.

Duh. Given that conservatives compromise about 5% of your average law school's student body, it makes sense they'd want to network outside of the other 10 FedSoc members on campus.

[Iowahawk]

Yes, it must be awfully hard to have so little competition for the ~100 judges who exclusively hire students from your organization that anyone with a pulse and a membership card at a T14 can get a COA. However will you network without paid vacations?

[AAPLTSLADIS]

Yes, it must be awfully hard to have so little competition for the ~100 judges who exclusively hire students from your organization that anyone with a pulse and a membership card at a T14 can get a COA. However will you network without paid vacations?

Ignant

[Iowahawk]

Imagine how boring this world would be if the smartest people (in terms of raw intelligence and mental processing power) were unbrainwashed and logical and could be bothered to Google things they disagreed with (like "dark money liberals"), and matured each year.

Instead, the smartest people around are brainwashed, illogical, usually mentally disturbed, and take their political cues from literal imbeciles on television.

It is like putting an Apple M1 chip inside a piece of excrement. That's a liberal these days.

We are forced to deal and argue with liberals constantly, and in the process sharpen our minds, out of necessity. But this was not the time and place. The "innocent" questions/statements smacked of derailment. So... not this time. Go bother Google or the Reddit echo chamber. We are discussing important things right now amongst ourselves.

180.

[Anonymous User]

Yes, it must be awfully hard to have so little competition for the ~100 judges who exclusively hire students from your organization that anyone with a pulse and a membership card at a T14 can get a COA. However will you network without paid vacations?

Dude, this is such a dumb take. You speak as if there are hordes of below-median T14 students waltzing into clerkships. Can you direct us to this group? Because all the FedSoc clerks at my school are easily top third, and many are top 10%. Regardless of comparative competitiveness with liberal clerks, that is a far cry from "anyone with a pulse and a membership card."

More broadly, I feel bad that you have so much animus toward people you do not even know. Joining an intellectual group of people from different places and different backgrounds with similar beliefs is something that is self-evidently appealing to a substantial majority of human beings. Factor in both institutional and social resentment toward a group, and the appeal is even more obvious. That is why affinity groups exist in the first place. I hope you manage to interact more charitably with your fellow humans.

[Iowahawk]

Yes, it must be awfully hard to have so little competition for the ~100 judges who exclusively hire students from your organization that anyone with a pulse and a membership card at a T14 can get a COA. However will you network without paid vacations?

Dude, this is such a dumb take. You speak as if there are hordes of below-median T14 students waltzing into clerkships. Can you direct us to this group? Because all the FedSoc clerks at my school are easily top third, and many are top 10%. Regardless of comparative competitiveness with liberal clerks, that is a far cry from "anyone with a pulse and a membership card."

More broadly, I feel bad that you have so much animus toward people you do not even know. Joining an intellectual group of people from different places and different backgrounds with similar beliefs is something that is self-evidently appealing to a substantial majority of human beings. Factor in both institutional and social resentment toward a group, and the appeal is even more obvious. That is why affinity groups exist in the first place. I hope you manage to interact more charitably with your fellow humans.

I know and like plenty of conservatives, I grew up in bumfuck nowhere (see username). I just think it's absurd that elite conservatives at elite law schools doing elite clerkships--clerkships which, regardless of my (only slight) hyperbole, they have tremendous advantages in over liberal and moderate students--think they're oppressed to the degree that they need "affinity groups." And of course I see why paid vacations are attractive to clerks, I'd totally do a junket in California if I was conservative, but that doesn't stop them from being pretty weird.

[Anonymous User]

I know and like plenty of conservatives, I grew up in bumfuck nowhere (see username). I just think it's absurd that elite conservatives at elite law schools doing elite clerkships--clerkships which, regardless of my (only slight) hyperbole, they have tremendous advantages in over liberal and moderate students--think they're oppressed to the degree that they need "affinity groups."

Then you are off the mark entirely and have zero understanding of what the situation is. Few or no FedSoc students are claiming "oppression" in the clerkship market in the first place. The desire for affinity stems from operating in academic and social environments entirely dedicated to everything that FedSoc people ideologically oppose. Surely anyone can understand how that would be isolating and why an edge in clerkships (which applies only to a self- and grade-selected subset of FedSoc students) is completely irrelevant to the actual concern, hence the propriety of an affinity group. Affinity groups by definition provide a place for individuals with a minority attribute/trait/status. If you prefer the term "ideological affinity group" or just "ideological group," fine. But the principle is basically the same.

And of course I see why paid vacations are attractive to clerks, I'd totally do a junket in California if I was conservative, but that doesn't stop them from being pretty weird.

Your mind will be blown when you discover industry conferences.

[aegor]

accidental anon

[Iowahawk]

Your mind will be blown when you discover industry conferences.

As far as I know, you usually pay to go to industry conferences, the goal of which is to make money in, well, industry, not to indirectly influence the federal judiciary to favor donors' economic interests. You don't have to get high-and-mighty, just enjoy the sunny weather and the perks of alignment with power.

Anyway, I keep telling myself I'm going to stop beating the dead horse, but it's hard to resist such earnest bait.

[aegor]

As far as I know, you usually pay to go to industry conferences, the goal of which is to make money in, well, industry, not to influence the federal judiciary in line with donors' preferences.

That is just false, at least in many industries, including academia and education.

And I take your silence on the actual substance of my post as a concession, which it obviously is. I hope you manage to increase your amount of empathy or at least ability to understand human motivation re: social interaction.

[Iowahawk]

As far as I know, you usually pay to go to industry conferences, the goal of which is to make money in, well, industry, not to influence the federal judiciary in line with donors' preferences.

That is just false, at least in many industries, including academia and education.

And I take your silence on the actual substance of my post as a concession, which it obviously is. I hope you manage to increase your amount of empathy.

Yes, I totally concede your "substance," you indeed are very oppressed. And with my background I obviously have no idea what it's like to be an ideological minority.

Also, you do pay to go to academic conferences (which in any case are not really "industry conferences")? What are you even talking about. To take a random example, it costs $425 for non-member entry to MPSA even with their pandemic discounting and without a hotel room. Scholarships for grad students to go are a pretty big deal because they're so expensive.

Anyway I am actually going to stop beating the dead horse.

[aegor]

Yes, I totally concede your "substance," you indeed are very oppressed.

I never said I was in FedSoc. And I certainly never said that anyone in FedSoc was oppressed in any way by virtue of being in FedSoc. Again, I do not get where your animus comes from or why you fail to comprehend the very obvious reality that people who are in a minority want an opportunity to band together with other people in that minority. In other words, form affinity groups.

Also, you do pay to go to academic conferences (which in any case are not really "industry conferences")? What are you even talking about. To take a random example, it costs $75 for entry to MPSA even with their pandemic discounting and without a hotel room. Scholarships for grad students to go are a pretty big deal because they're so expensive.

None of my PhD friends or teacher/administrator friends have ever had to pay out of pocket. All of my friends and family friends in the corporate world also go to conferences on the company's dime. But this is a total digression, so hopefully we can end it here.

[Learned'sHand]

Good on you for not caring, OP.

I have heard great things about this one: tinyurl.com/MarshallFund2022.

[AAPLTSLADIS]

Good on you for not caring, OP.

I have heard great things about this one: tinyurl.com/.

What's the long URL?

Edit: I used archive.is to get the URL. You'se a big dummy. And terribly unoriginal.

Also, I'm not surprised to hear you heard great things about it. I assume your parents and grandparents are old school Democrats, and that you heard great things about it from them? That would make perfect sense.

[AAPLTSLADIS]

Here's another one:

https://www.adflegal.org/training/young-lawyers-academy

Just beware this may be too spicy for some judges and justices.

[Barrred]

Good on you for not caring, OP.

I have heard great things about this one: tinyurl.com/MarshallFund2022.

Good to know that the Godwin's Law interval on TLS, at least when a conservative asks a question, is about 24 hours.

[legalnovice]

Here's another one:

https://www.adflegal.org/training/young-lawyers-academy

Just beware this may be too spicy for some judges and justices.

Thanks for that. I actually applied to the Legal Academy this year. Someone from ADF called--which was a nice touch--and told me they weren't taking clerks for the Legal Academy but they'd very much want me to do it when I'm a practitioner. They also told me to keep an eye out for the Young Lawyers Academy.

Your assumptions are also correct about my application, especially compared to the current/former John Marshall Fellows. I'll take your advice and apply this year to build that "relationship" with the Institute-- plus, the year-long subscription to their magazine/literature as a consolation prize isn't bad! And hopefully, I'll have a much more better chance of getting accepted next year despite having no upcoming clerkships (but I'll definitely indicate further clerkship aspirations, maybe even a SCOTUS clerkship app run).

[Iowahawk]

Here's another one:

https://www.adflegal.org/training/young-lawyers-academy

Just beware this may be too spicy for some judges and justices.

For non-flaming takes, my sense is that ADF may cause long-term career issues that the more mainstream ones won't and I don't get the sense that it's as well-regarded as e.g. the Marshall in the conservative legal world, so I don't know if there's much upside. And I believe you may have to disclose all of this stuff on a judiciary questionnaire if you're ever nominated for something.

[AAPLTSLADIS]

Here's another one:

https://www.adflegal.org/training/young-lawyers-academy

Just beware this may be too spicy for some judges and justices.

Thanks for that. I actually applied to the Legal Academy this year. Someone from ADF called--which was a nice touch--and told me they weren't taking clerks for the Legal Academy but they'd very much want me to do it when I'm a practitioner. They also told me to keep an eye out for the Young Lawyers Academy.

Your assumptions are also correct about my application, especially compared to the current/former John Marshall Fellows. I'll take your advice and apply this year to build that "relationship" with the Institute-- plus, the year-long subscription to their magazine/literature as a consolation prize isn't bad! And hopefully, I'll have a much more better chance of getting accepted next year despite having no upcoming clerkships (but I'll definitely indicate further clerkship aspirations, maybe even a SCOTUS clerkship app run).

Nice. ADF is great. I hear they help with clerkship placements. Really, all these groups are wonderful. It is such a shame that we have so few fellowships and lose out on credentialing and teaching so many talented likeminded folks. For example, First Liberty, Pacific Legal Foundation, Becket Fund, Landmark Legal Foundation, etc. should all be putting week-long fellowships. It is not expensive at all.

If I were you, I would keep trying. You have great credentials. Keep racking up wins.

[AAPLTSLADIS]

Here's another one:

https://www.adflegal.org/training/young-lawyers-academy

Just beware this may be too spicy for some judges and justices.

For non-flaming takes, my sense is that ADF may cause long-term career issues that the more mainstream ones won't and I don't get the sense that it's as well-regarded as e.g. the Marshall in the conservative legal world, so I don't know if there's much upside. And I believe you may have to disclose all of this stuff on a judiciary questionnaire if you're ever nominated for something.

Perhaps. Like I said, ADF is spicy. Right up there with the Family Research Council. But ADF gets results and they are committed to the fight. People have no idea. They achieved an important SCOTUS win just yesterday, for example.

The only people who might be allergic to ADF that are of consequence are corporate Republicans. But even then, that is a questionable proposition. As far as disclosure on judiciary questionnaires, that is not important whatsoever. For example, it did not hurt Allison Rushing one bit. We just roll our eyes at the Dems when they are not around and provide innocuous responses to their questionnaires. The days of Kennedy-type judicial appointments are over.

[lavarman84]

Here's another one:

https://www.adflegal.org/training/young-lawyers-academy

Just beware this may be too spicy for some judges and justices.

For non-flaming takes, my sense is that ADF may cause long-term career issues that the more mainstream ones won't and I don't get the sense that it's as well-regarded as e.g. the Marshall in the conservative legal world, so I don't know if there's much upside. And I believe you may have to disclose all of this stuff on a judiciary questionnaire if you're ever nominated for something.

At the rate we're going with partisanship, I doubt it'll make a lick of difference.