Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions Forum

(Seek and share information about clerkship applications, clerkship hiring timelines, and post-clerkship employment opportunities)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about clerkship applications and clerkship hiring. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jul 30, 2022 10:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:59 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:45 pm
Also, let's not pretend any kind of oral argument was going to change the minds of those six hacks on Dobbs.
there is a zero percent chance the GOP would give a promotion to counsel of record to the loser of the biggest SCOTUS case of the century

Democrats have such a loser's attitude -- fatalism, zero accountability, 'we wouldn't have won anyway, deck's stacked against us' etc

like, what is Rikelman's job, if not to persuade Brett Kavanaugh (who, to be clear, is a piece of shit) to keep Roe/Casey alive?

mostly unrelated - I remember a few years ago reading a CA8 amicus brief by either the ACLU or CRR in a reproductive rights case, and the theme was like, the importance of abortion access to poor Black women. intersectionality nonsense that would at best be ignored by the panel, at worst actively annoy/undermine an otherwise semi-persuadable boomer judge. some of the litigation staff at the advocacy orgs (and law firms doing pro bono work) are just total trash -- no idea how to tailor an argument for the given audience.
Yeah my home state is in the Eighth and the local ACLU affiliate regularly files amicus briefs that are useless at best, counterproductive at worst. If they were smart they would seek out liberal counterclerks who speak fluent Fed Soc, at least in red jurisdictions, but instead I’d guess that they’d be very skeptical of such people.

Though I think Dobbs was a case where advocacy obviously did not matter. There just isn’t a colorable Fed Soc friendly argument for Roe on the merits so stare decisis stuff is the best you can do. Rikelman is a mediocre advocate by SCOTUS standards, but you can’t blame her at all. And conservatives don’t have any recent losses on this scale, so there is no comparator, but I don’t think they’d have any compunctions elevating someone on the losing end of one.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 10:27 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:59 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:45 pm
Also, let's not pretend any kind of oral argument was going to change the minds of those six hacks on Dobbs.
there is a zero percent chance the GOP would give a promotion to counsel of record to the loser of the biggest SCOTUS case of the century

Democrats have such a loser's attitude -- fatalism, zero accountability, 'we wouldn't have won anyway, deck's stacked against us' etc

like, what is Rikelman's job, if not to persuade Brett Kavanaugh (who, to be clear, is a piece of shit) to keep Roe/Casey alive?

mostly unrelated - I remember a few years ago reading a CA8 amicus brief by either the ACLU or CRR in a reproductive rights case, and the theme was like, the importance of abortion access to poor Black women. intersectionality nonsense that would at best be ignored by the panel, at worst actively annoy/undermine an otherwise semi-persuadable boomer judge. some of the litigation staff at the advocacy orgs (and law firms doing pro bono work) are just total trash -- no idea how to tailor an argument for the given audience.
Yeah my home state is in the Eighth and the local ACLU affiliate regularly files amicus briefs that are useless at best, counterproductive at worst. If they were smart they would seek out liberal counterclerks who speak fluent Fed Soc, at least in red jurisdictions, but instead I’d guess that they’d be very skeptical of such people.

Though I think Dobbs was a case where advocacy obviously did not matter. There just isn’t a colorable Fed Soc friendly argument for Roe on the merits so stare decisis stuff is the best you can do. Rikelman is a mediocre advocate by SCOTUS standards, but you can’t blame her at all. And conservatives don’t have any recent losses on this scale, so there is no comparator, but I don’t think they’d have any compunctions elevating someone on the losing end of one.
OP who started this whole tangent - I completely agree with you both about the counterproductive arguments that the ACLU and other advocacy groups make. Even as someone who believes the "intersectionality nonsense" (or, you know, just racism) is a problem that needs to be addressed, focusing on it in submissions to a center-right or hard-right panel is not actually going to achieve results for the poor Black women these orgs profess to care about.

Where we disagree is the idea that some of these Fed Soc hacks are persuadable. If anyone honestly believes that McConnell's lapdog Alito is going to read the briefs and consider both sides of an argument, then I have a bridge to sell you. Rikelman was also lead counsel on June Medical Services v. Russo, which she won. It's not defeatist to state the obvious truth that advocacy is not going to matter much going forward with this court, and Dems honestly need to be more aggressive in communicating that this court is nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party at this point. Nominating an advocate who has lost cases is fine - it's not like the Republicans have a leg to stand on with their nominations of Van Dyke and Mizelle.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:59 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:45 pm
Also, let's not pretend any kind of oral argument was going to change the minds of those six hacks on Dobbs.
there is a zero percent chance the GOP would give a promotion to counsel of record to the loser of the biggest SCOTUS case of the century

Democrats have such a loser's attitude -- fatalism, zero accountability, 'we wouldn't have won anyway, deck's stacked against us' etc

like, what is Rikelman's job, if not to persuade Brett Kavanaugh (who, to be clear, is a piece of shit) to keep Roe/Casey alive?

mostly unrelated - I remember a few years ago reading a CA8 amicus brief by either the ACLU or CRR in a reproductive rights case, and the theme was like, the importance of abortion access to poor Black women. intersectionality nonsense that would at best be ignored by the panel, at worst actively annoy/undermine an otherwise semi-persuadable boomer judge. some of the litigation staff at the advocacy orgs (and law firms doing pro bono work) are just total trash -- no idea how to tailor an argument for the given audience.
I agree that not pandering to your audience is incredibly stupid, but how do you do that with Fed Soc hacks? Someone like Alito or Thomas aren’t going to listen in good faith to an originalist argument that has a left-leaning outcome. Bruen was proof of that. They’ll just concoct a favorable historical record that supports their interpretation while jettisoning any piece of history they don’t like/doesn’t support their outcome.

At this point it’s pointless to just get your ass kicked legally again and again like this by fighting on their terms. Dems need circuit court nominees who know how to neutralize decisions in a way that doesn’t signal towards SCOTUS by deciding things on exceedingly narrow grounds. That’s how they play the long game for now, until the composition shifts.

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 8501
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by lavarman84 » Sun Jul 31, 2022 12:15 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:59 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:45 pm
Also, let's not pretend any kind of oral argument was going to change the minds of those six hacks on Dobbs.
there is a zero percent chance the GOP would give a promotion to counsel of record to the loser of the biggest SCOTUS case of the century

Democrats have such a loser's attitude -- fatalism, zero accountability, 'we wouldn't have won anyway, deck's stacked against us' etc

like, what is Rikelman's job, if not to persuade Brett Kavanaugh (who, to be clear, is a piece of shit) to keep Roe/Casey alive?

mostly unrelated - I remember a few years ago reading a CA8 amicus brief by either the ACLU or CRR in a reproductive rights case, and the theme was like, the importance of abortion access to poor Black women. intersectionality nonsense that would at best be ignored by the panel, at worst actively annoy/undermine an otherwise semi-persuadable boomer judge. some of the litigation staff at the advocacy orgs (and law firms doing pro bono work) are just total trash -- no idea how to tailor an argument for the given audience.
You have to be naïve to think there was any chance of convincing the Republicans on the Supreme Court to keep Roe and Casey alive. Even Roberts had no interest in doing that. He just wanted to be more duplicitous about it. There are cases where it doesn't matter how strong the advocacy is, you're not going to win because the judges don't want to rule your way.

Now, I will not disagree with you that civil rights orgs sometimes don't present cases the right way. It wouldn't have changed things in Dobbs, but there are cases it could affect. I recently saw it happen on an issue that I think may have been winnable if the attorneys had presented arguments from a conservative perspective. And the bad precedent it created really screwed up the work I had done painstakingly crafting arguments from that POV for a future challenge I was working on with some colleagues.

So yeah, you're not completely wrong on that. The leading civil rights orgs definitely need to do a better job of recruiting liberal counterclerks and others who have experience on the conservative side of the ideological spectrum. If you don't have anybody who understands how to present a case from an originalist perspective, you're going to lose winnable cases. While I think there are some judges who are partisan hacks who truly don't give a shit, there are others who are more principled and potentially can be convinced if you make an effort to approach things from their POV (two examples off the top of my head from very conservative circuits, Kevin Newsom and Don Willett).

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jul 31, 2022 1:13 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:33 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:59 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:45 pm
Also, let's not pretend any kind of oral argument was going to change the minds of those six hacks on Dobbs.
there is a zero percent chance the GOP would give a promotion to counsel of record to the loser of the biggest SCOTUS case of the century

Democrats have such a loser's attitude -- fatalism, zero accountability, 'we wouldn't have won anyway, deck's stacked against us' etc

like, what is Rikelman's job, if not to persuade Brett Kavanaugh (who, to be clear, is a piece of shit) to keep Roe/Casey alive?

mostly unrelated - I remember a few years ago reading a CA8 amicus brief by either the ACLU or CRR in a reproductive rights case, and the theme was like, the importance of abortion access to poor Black women. intersectionality nonsense that would at best be ignored by the panel, at worst actively annoy/undermine an otherwise semi-persuadable boomer judge. some of the litigation staff at the advocacy orgs (and law firms doing pro bono work) are just total trash -- no idea how to tailor an argument for the given audience.
I agree that not pandering to your audience is incredibly stupid, but how do you do that with Fed Soc hacks? Someone like Alito or Thomas aren’t going to listen in good faith to an originalist argument that has a left-leaning outcome. Bruen was proof of that. They’ll just concoct a favorable historical record that supports their interpretation while jettisoning any piece of history they don’t like/doesn’t support their outcome.

At this point it’s pointless to just get your ass kicked legally again and again like this by fighting on their terms. Dems need circuit court nominees who know how to neutralize decisions in a way that doesn’t signal towards SCOTUS by deciding things on exceedingly narrow grounds. That’s how they play the long game for now, until the composition shifts.
Alito sure, but even Thomas has areas where he is persuadable (or even persuaded). He has also been begging for cases raising equality and substantive rights claims under the Privileges or Immunities Clause for quite a while now, and the originalist literature on it is incredibly complex but generally very liberal-friendly. Thomas is also, of course, the Court's leading critic of qualified immunity and the current state of standing doctrine.

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Roberts are also demonstrably persuadable in some subsets of cases. And on the lower courts there's no shortage of hacks, but even Jim Ho sometimes directs his outrage right (he's another one who's not a fan of qualified immunity).

Anyone familiar with the Fed Soc world will tell you that its judges are a mix of outright reactionaries (e.g. Duncan), practical-minded "lawyers' lawyers" who generally aren't too interested in ideological legal theory (e.g. Nardini), and thoroughgoing originalists/textualists who are willing to follow those theories to liberal results (e.g. Newsom). The latter two types will break left sometimes. Some conservatives even like to show off that they're so originalist that they'll vote for liberals with good originalist arguments. And of course there's probably even more variation in state courts, which are going to become more and more important to liberals with the current direction of the federal courts. Understanding distinctions like this, and using them strategically to try to raise arguments that will appeal to particular panels, is part of the value that a Fed Soc-fluent advocate can provide.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jul 31, 2022 1:55 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:13 pm

OP who started this whole tangent - I completely agree with you both about the counterproductive arguments that the ACLU and other advocacy groups make. Even as someone who believes the "intersectionality nonsense" (or, you know, just racism) is a problem that needs to be addressed, focusing on it in submissions to a center-right or hard-right panel is not actually going to achieve results for the poor Black women these orgs profess to care about.

Where we disagree is the idea that some of these Fed Soc hacks are persuadable. If anyone honestly believes that McConnell's lapdog Alito is going to read the briefs and consider both sides of an argument, then I have a bridge to sell you. Rikelman was also lead counsel on June Medical Services v. Russo, which she won. It's not defeatist to state the obvious truth that advocacy is not going to matter much going forward with this court, and Dems honestly need to be more aggressive in communicating that this court is nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party at this point. Nominating an advocate who has lost cases is fine - it's not like the Republicans have a leg to stand on with their nominations of Van Dyke and Mizelle.
yeah a Justice Alito is just unpersuadable. he's gonna do the substantively conservative thing, your briefing doesn't matter. same is true for like a Justice Sotomayor or whatever -- if you're Paul Clement, you're not writing to her.

but putting aside the Chief, depending on the case, one or more of Justices Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Barrett may be 'in play,' if you tailor your argument appropriately.

Bostock is a good example -- substantively liberal outcome that meaningfully expanded LGBTQ rights based on a not-at-all-slam-dunk textualist arg. that case was a case where the briefing was directed at two-and-a-half judges, really -- Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, and sort of the Chief (he's not really a textualist).

FedSoc judges at the COA level similarly aren't a monolith. there's a mixture of straight up reactionaries (e.g., a Judge Van Dyke), more academic textualist-originalists (e.g., a Judge Bibas), conventional conservative 'lawyers,' for lack of a better word, by which I mean judges who want to start with precedent, not Reading Law -- they're not working top-down from a 'theory of law' (e.g., a Judge Sullivan). people smarter than I can probably throw in more categories

all this is to say, tailored briefing isn't gonna win you every case. but you do have to try.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jul 31, 2022 5:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jul 31, 2022 1:55 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:13 pm

OP who started this whole tangent - I completely agree with you both about the counterproductive arguments that the ACLU and other advocacy groups make. Even as someone who believes the "intersectionality nonsense" (or, you know, just racism) is a problem that needs to be addressed, focusing on it in submissions to a center-right or hard-right panel is not actually going to achieve results for the poor Black women these orgs profess to care about.

Where we disagree is the idea that some of these Fed Soc hacks are persuadable. If anyone honestly believes that McConnell's lapdog Alito is going to read the briefs and consider both sides of an argument, then I have a bridge to sell you. Rikelman was also lead counsel on June Medical Services v. Russo, which she won. It's not defeatist to state the obvious truth that advocacy is not going to matter much going forward with this court, and Dems honestly need to be more aggressive in communicating that this court is nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party at this point. Nominating an advocate who has lost cases is fine - it's not like the Republicans have a leg to stand on with their nominations of Van Dyke and Mizelle.
yeah a Justice Alito is just unpersuadable. he's gonna do the substantively conservative thing, your briefing doesn't matter. same is true for like a Justice Sotomayor or whatever -- if you're Paul Clement, you're not writing to her.

but putting aside the Chief, depending on the case, one or more of Justices Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Barrett may be 'in play,' if you tailor your argument appropriately.

Bostock is a good example -- substantively liberal outcome that meaningfully expanded LGBTQ rights based on a not-at-all-slam-dunk textualist arg. that case was a case where the briefing was directed at two-and-a-half judges, really -- Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, and sort of the Chief (he's not really a textualist).

FedSoc judges at the COA level similarly aren't a monolith. there's a mixture of straight up reactionaries (e.g., a Judge Van Dyke), more academic textualist-originalists (e.g., a Judge Bibas), conventional conservative 'lawyers,' for lack of a better word, by which I mean judges who want to start with precedent, not Reading Law -- they're not working top-down from a 'theory of law' (e.g., a Judge Sullivan). people smarter than I can probably throw in more categories

all this is to say, tailored briefing isn't gonna win you every case. but you do have to try.
This is all basically right. Anyone who has clerked at any level of the federal judiciary has seen the difference that briefing makes at the margins.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jul 31, 2022 1:55 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:13 pm

OP who started this whole tangent - I completely agree with you both about the counterproductive arguments that the ACLU and other advocacy groups make. Even as someone who believes the "intersectionality nonsense" (or, you know, just racism) is a problem that needs to be addressed, focusing on it in submissions to a center-right or hard-right panel is not actually going to achieve results for the poor Black women these orgs profess to care about.

Where we disagree is the idea that some of these Fed Soc hacks are persuadable. If anyone honestly believes that McConnell's lapdog Alito is going to read the briefs and consider both sides of an argument, then I have a bridge to sell you. Rikelman was also lead counsel on June Medical Services v. Russo, which she won. It's not defeatist to state the obvious truth that advocacy is not going to matter much going forward with this court, and Dems honestly need to be more aggressive in communicating that this court is nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party at this point. Nominating an advocate who has lost cases is fine - it's not like the Republicans have a leg to stand on with their nominations of Van Dyke and Mizelle.
yeah a Justice Alito is just unpersuadable. he's gonna do the substantively conservative thing, your briefing doesn't matter. same is true for like a Justice Sotomayor or whatever -- if you're Paul Clement, you're not writing to her.

but putting aside the Chief, depending on the case, one or more of Justices Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Barrett may be 'in play,' if you tailor your argument appropriately.

Bostock is a good example -- substantively liberal outcome that meaningfully expanded LGBTQ rights based on a not-at-all-slam-dunk textualist arg. that case was a case where the briefing was directed at two-and-a-half judges, really -- Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, and sort of the Chief (he's not really a textualist).

FedSoc judges at the COA level similarly aren't a monolith. there's a mixture of straight up reactionaries (e.g., a Judge Van Dyke), more academic textualist-originalists (e.g., a Judge Bibas), conventional conservative 'lawyers,' for lack of a better word, by which I mean judges who want to start with precedent, not Reading Law -- they're not working top-down from a 'theory of law' (e.g., a Judge Sullivan). people smarter than I can probably throw in more categories

all this is to say, tailored briefing isn't gonna win you every case. but you do have to try.
And to take this back to CA8, a lot of the conservatives on that circuit fall into the Nardini/Sullivan bin. Loken, Shephard, Benton, Erickson, etc. aren't liberals by any stretch but also aren't going to bend over backwards to give the "conservative movement" a win where the law doesn't command it. Especially at the COA level, briefing aimed at narrowing the scope of the issue and urging a modest decision is going to be much more effective with your average GOP-appointed judge than the policy arguments ACLU often throws at them.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Oct 02, 2022 4:33 pm

If confirmed, how do Kobick, Calabretta, Subramanian and Pitts stack up for relative feeding potential, and are any of them at the projected Garcia / Heytens level?

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Oct 02, 2022 5:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 4:33 pm
If confirmed, how do Kobick, Calabretta, Subramanian and Pitts stack up for relative feeding potential, and are any of them at the projected Garcia / Heytens level?
I don't know whether Subramanian has personal connections to the justices, but would assume anyone leaving a 7 figure annual paycheck as a rising star at one of the most prominent litigation boutiques in the country has like, 'ambitions.' especially given his age. he's not 60 cruising into retirement.

FWIW, by all accounts he's a fantastic guy

Chokenhauer

New
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:38 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Chokenhauer » Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:04 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 4:33 pm
If confirmed, how do Kobick, Calabretta, Subramanian and Pitts stack up for relative feeding potential, and are any of them at the projected Garcia / Heytens level?
What do people based “feeding potential” on? There are loads of judges with fancy credentials that don’t feed anyone. I’m not convinced that Garcia or Heytens will feed barring some proof that they have a relationship with someone sitting on SCOTUS.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Oct 03, 2022 9:07 am

Chokenhauer wrote:
Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:04 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 4:33 pm
If confirmed, how do Kobick, Calabretta, Subramanian and Pitts stack up for relative feeding potential, and are any of them at the projected Garcia / Heytens level?
What do people based “feeding potential” on? There are loads of judges with fancy credentials that don’t feed anyone. I’m not convinced that Garcia or Heytens will feed barring some proof that they have a relationship with someone sitting on SCOTUS.
Garcia clerked for Kagan.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:03 am

Chokenhauer wrote:
Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:04 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 4:33 pm
If confirmed, how do Kobick, Calabretta, Subramanian and Pitts stack up for relative feeding potential, and are any of them at the projected Garcia / Heytens level?
What do people based “feeding potential” on? There are loads of judges with fancy credentials that don’t feed anyone. I’m not convinced that Garcia or Heytens will feed barring some proof that they have a relationship with someone sitting on SCOTUS.
Heytens sits close to DC, worked in DOJ, clerked for RBG, and was a T14 professor and state solicitor general. No guarantee he's a feeder but that's the profile of someone who is likely to have connections around the Court.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:03 am
Chokenhauer wrote:
Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:04 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Oct 02, 2022 4:33 pm
If confirmed, how do Kobick, Calabretta, Subramanian and Pitts stack up for relative feeding potential, and are any of them at the projected Garcia / Heytens level?
What do people based “feeding potential” on? There are loads of judges with fancy credentials that don’t feed anyone. I’m not convinced that Garcia or Heytens will feed barring some proof that they have a relationship with someone sitting on SCOTUS.
Heytens sits close to DC, worked in DOJ, clerked for RBG, and was a T14 professor and state solicitor general. No guarantee he's a feeder but that's the profile of someone who is likely to have connections around the Court.
In addition, Heytens seemingly wants to be a feeder, which not all people with similar profiles do (e.g. Eric Miller).

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Oct 15, 2022 10:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:42 pm
In addition, Heytens seemingly wants to be a feeder, which not all people with similar profiles do (e.g. Eric Miller).
Heytens is also pretty friendly with Justice Kagan — they overlapped at the SG's office. Hard to know whether he'll become a feeder, but he definitely has the interest and ticks the right resume boxes.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:25 pm

for those with knowledge of SC/DeAndrea Benjamin, is this another Clyburn patronage pick, or legit merit appointment? She seems very well credentialed.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Nov 23, 2022 7:10 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:25 pm
for those with knowledge of SC/DeAndrea Benjamin, is this another Clyburn patronage pick, or legit merit appointment? She seems very well credentialed.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Clyburn has definitely had a hand in the pick, but considering how Graham has for the most part been a fair player on the SJC and both he and Tim Scott returned their blue slips, I'd say it's probably both.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:25 pm
for those with knowledge of SC/DeAndrea Benjamin, is this another Clyburn patronage pick, or legit merit appointment? She seems very well credentialed.
Are people seriously thinking other nominees that Clyburn supported weren’t based on merit? I’d love to hear some justification for that.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:30 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:20 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:25 pm
for those with knowledge of SC/DeAndrea Benjamin, is this another Clyburn patronage pick, or legit merit appointment? She seems very well credentialed.
Are people seriously thinking other nominees that Clyburn supported weren’t based on merit? I’d love to hear some justification for that.
Not OP, but I think it mostly comes from Clyburn being so aggressive in pushing Childs for SCOTUS and then the D.C. Circuit. Childs seems as accomplished as any other district court judge in SC, but she doesn't have the HYS degree/SCOTUS clerkship/COA judgeship that (unfairly in my opinion) have become pretty much expected for SCOTUS nominees. Most D.C. Circuit nominees have also had more traditionally "prestigious" credentials - but to be fair, Henderson (who also coincidentally was also a District of South Carolina judge before being elevated to the DC Circuit) had a career that seems pretty comparable to Childs'. (On a tangent, I'm curious as to why/how Henderson got elevated - did they just know even back then that she would be this partisan ideologue?)

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Nov 25, 2022 11:10 am

Comparing Childs to Henderson is pretty much the worst insult you can give Childs, and the best proof that she shouldn't be on CADC.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Nov 25, 2022 11:34 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:30 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:20 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:25 pm
for those with knowledge of SC/DeAndrea Benjamin, is this another Clyburn patronage pick, or legit merit appointment? She seems very well credentialed.
Are people seriously thinking other nominees that Clyburn supported weren’t based on merit? I’d love to hear some justification for that.
Not OP, but I think it mostly comes from Clyburn being so aggressive in pushing Childs for SCOTUS and then the D.C. Circuit. Childs seems as accomplished as any other district court judge in SC, but she doesn't have the HYS degree/SCOTUS clerkship/COA judgeship that (unfairly in my opinion) have become pretty much expected for SCOTUS nominees. Most D.C. Circuit nominees have also had more traditionally "prestigious" credentials - but to be fair, Henderson (who also coincidentally was also a District of South Carolina judge before being elevated to the DC Circuit) had a career that seems pretty comparable to Childs'. (On a tangent, I'm curious as to why/how Henderson got elevated - did they just know even back then that she would be this partisan ideologue?)
I welcome nominees without the same boxes checked as their predecessors. I see your point, and I agree that it’s unfair to require every appellate judge to have the same experiences as a prerequisite. But I’m a lib, so I want more diverse backgrounds from my judges.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Fri Nov 25, 2022 3:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Fri Nov 25, 2022 11:34 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:30 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:20 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:25 pm
for those with knowledge of SC/DeAndrea Benjamin, is this another Clyburn patronage pick, or legit merit appointment? She seems very well credentialed.
Are people seriously thinking other nominees that Clyburn supported weren’t based on merit? I’d love to hear some justification for that.
Not OP, but I think it mostly comes from Clyburn being so aggressive in pushing Childs for SCOTUS and then the D.C. Circuit. Childs seems as accomplished as any other district court judge in SC, but she doesn't have the HYS degree/SCOTUS clerkship/COA judgeship that (unfairly in my opinion) have become pretty much expected for SCOTUS nominees. Most D.C. Circuit nominees have also had more traditionally "prestigious" credentials - but to be fair, Henderson (who also coincidentally was also a District of South Carolina judge before being elevated to the DC Circuit) had a career that seems pretty comparable to Childs'. (On a tangent, I'm curious as to why/how Henderson got elevated - did they just know even back then that she would be this partisan ideologue?)
I welcome nominees without the same boxes checked as their predecessors. I see your point, and I agree that it’s unfair to require every appellate judge to have the same experiences as a prerequisite. But I’m a lib, so I want more diverse backgrounds from my judges.
Yea agree that diversity of backgrounds is good, and not every CADC judge needs to be a former SCOTUS clerk. My impression was that progressives were more concerned about Childs being moderate/anti-labor than her not having the "right" credentials - Biden should've just elevated her to CA4 and filled the CADC spot with someone younger/more progressive (like whoever the left-wing version of Neomi Rao is).

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Dec 04, 2022 4:07 pm

David Lat reports that Feinerman is resigning imminently. It’s an odd time to resign, leaving his clerks in the lurch, and he’s hired out far. I assume once he realized he wasn’t going to get a CA7 seat he decided to go back to Sidley.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Dec 04, 2022 4:39 pm

Ummm weird bc he show like have known for a year now that his chances were slim. Sad to hear.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427956
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Dec 04, 2022 4:07 pm
David Lat reports that Feinerman is resigning imminently. It’s an odd time to resign, leaving his clerks in the lurch, and he’s hired out far. I assume once he realized he wasn’t going to get a CA7 seat he decided to go back to Sidley.
He placed his future hires with other judges this summer

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Judicial Clerkships”