Clerking and Protests Forum

[Anonymous User]

Can someone help me understand something.

Give my that liberals vastly outnumber fed soc kids at HLS and YLS, it seems like it would be exceedingly easy to “cancel” fed soc— just join the campus organization (and attend x amount of meetings or whatever the requirement is for voting) and vote for liberal president, board, etc. No more fed Soc inviting right wing speakers. It seems like this should be extremely easy and only hasn’t happened because lib students haven’t quite despised fed soc like they seem to do now…

Given that these are the sort of people who cannot even allow a speaker on their campus to voice an opinion that they disagree with at an event that, absent a protest, they would never attend-- you really think they would sit through several such meetings, build credibility, and run? Meanwhile, their liberal peers would "cancel" them for even appearing to be part of the Federalist Society. That' is not going to work. Whining, crying, headbanging on walls, shouting, and violent threats are easy. The whole point of the activity is that it allows the protesting participants to participate in a fantasy narrative where they are somehow heroic (despite being in the very safe majority).

I think the letter/protest was pretty silly of Yale students, but I'm sorry - "conservative tolerance for opposing viewpoints"? Where's that tolerance for all the people chanting "Lock Her Up" to Hillary Clinton but not a peep about Ivanka's private email server? Or the people who stormed the Capitol building because someone who didn't share their views won an election? Or even the few Republican representatives who actually had the guts to vote their conscience on Trump's second impeachment?

Look, if you're conservative and hate liberals (or vice versa), that's fine - just own it. The other side feels similarly, and it's honestly natural given the polarized political environment we live in. But don't pretend that one side is "totalitarian" while the other side is a beacon of tolerance/civility. Neither the truly extreme left nor the truly extreme right will brook any dissent to their orthodoxies. The difference is just that the right (extreme and relatively more centrist) has a supermajority on SCOTUS and a Senate that strongly favors it, so whatever this poster means by "when the gravy train runs out" is much more concerning than whatever petition Yale's NLG is putting out that will ultimately have exactly 0 real-world impact.

The conservative tolerance that I am referencing is that conservative judges hire liberal clerks, some even have an institutional practice of always hiring a liberal. Liberal judges do not hire conservative clerks that same way. The study linked earlier is the support for that proposition.

While I agree that both the "far left" and "far right" are mirrors of each other in totalitarianism, I believe that totalitarianism is dominant in the "left" and "center-left", not just the extreme. Meanwhile, more anti-totalitarian values underlie the "right" and "center-right". Given that judges are much more centrist than truly left/right, this means the community of concern, the people hiring law clerks, are much less totalitarian on the conservative side of the equation. You are much more likely to get dinged by a liberal judge for being affiliated with fedsoc/republican party, than dinged by a conservative judge for an ACS/democrat affiliation.

As for the idea that Liz Cheney is "voting her conscience" rather than trying to make daddy proud-- laughable. Even more hilarious in the context that Dick Cheney was widely regarded as a murderous villain by liberals at the time, but now, that has been forgotten in the wake of Trump, much like how they pretend that Bush was "respectable" when they gave him the same treatment. Of course, come midterms, we will get a new impeachment. Just as Bork-ing returned for Garland, so will fake impeachments return for Biden.

Bottom line: If you want to clerk and you are on this letter, you are not going to get hired by many conservative judges. Because many of the clerks that will be making hiring decisions alongside those judges are going to ding you. If you plan to clerk in the future, do not write or sign on a letter arguing to deny other human beings police protection. Because underneath the pretended LGBQT+ nonsense, the real of the letter is a call to enable violence against people with opinions the majority does not like.

Imagine if, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board, President Eisenhower did not send in the military to protect the Little Rock Nine? They would have been assaulted. Possibly killed. The same will certainly happen to speakers at Yale absent a police presence. Because this is the cowardly approach that liberals take to violence-- too afraid to just say they want it, they remove the safety rails that prevent it, and then act surprised when fires start.

Whoever this poster is is entirely unhinged and not a whit of what they should be given any credibility. They just compared the federal protection of the Little Rock Nine--in a context in which segregationists openly threatened to kill students attending desegregated schools--to police protection at a law school. Whose comment is "laughable"? Pathetic.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone help me understand something.

Give my that liberals vastly outnumber fed soc kids at HLS and YLS, it seems like it would be exceedingly easy to “cancel” fed soc— just join the campus organization (and attend x amount of meetings or whatever the requirement is for voting) and vote for liberal president, board, etc. No more fed Soc inviting right wing speakers. It seems like this should be extremely easy and only hasn’t happened because lib students haven’t quite despised fed soc like they seem to do now…

Given that these are the sort of people who cannot even allow a speaker on their campus to voice an opinion that they disagree with at an event that, absent a protest, they would never attend-- you really think they would sit through several such meetings, build credibility, and run? Meanwhile, their liberal peers would "cancel" them for even appearing to be part of the Federalist Society. That' is not going to work. Whining, crying, headbanging on walls, shouting, and violent threats are easy. The whole point of the activity is that it allows the protesting participants to participate in a fantasy narrative where they are somehow heroic (despite being in the very safe majority).

I think the letter/protest was pretty silly of Yale students, but I'm sorry - "conservative tolerance for opposing viewpoints"? Where's that tolerance for all the people chanting "Lock Her Up" to Hillary Clinton but not a peep about Ivanka's private email server? Or the people who stormed the Capitol building because someone who didn't share their views won an election? Or even the few Republican representatives who actually had the guts to vote their conscience on Trump's second impeachment?

Look, if you're conservative and hate liberals (or vice versa), that's fine - just own it. The other side feels similarly, and it's honestly natural given the polarized political environment we live in. But don't pretend that one side is "totalitarian" while the other side is a beacon of tolerance/civility. Neither the truly extreme left nor the truly extreme right will brook any dissent to their orthodoxies. The difference is just that the right (extreme and relatively more centrist) has a supermajority on SCOTUS and a Senate that strongly favors it, so whatever this poster means by "when the gravy train runs out" is much more concerning than whatever petition Yale's NLG is putting out that will ultimately have exactly 0 real-world impact.

The conservative tolerance that I am referencing is that conservative judges hire liberal clerks, some even have an institutional practice of always hiring a liberal. Liberal judges do not hire conservative clerks that same way. The study linked earlier is the support for that proposition.

While I agree that both the "far left" and "far right" are mirrors of each other in totalitarianism, I believe that totalitarianism is dominant in the "left" and "center-left", not just the extreme. Meanwhile, more anti-totalitarian values underlie the "right" and "center-right". Given that judges are much more centrist than truly left/right, this means the community of concern, the people hiring law clerks, are much less totalitarian on the conservative side of the equation. You are much more likely to get dinged by a liberal judge for being affiliated with fedsoc/republican party, than dinged by a conservative judge for an ACS/democrat affiliation.

As for the idea that Liz Cheney is "voting her conscience" rather than trying to make daddy proud-- laughable. Even more hilarious in the context that Dick Cheney was widely regarded as a murderous villain by liberals at the time, but now, that has been forgotten in the wake of Trump, much like how they pretend that Bush was "respectable" when they gave him the same treatment. Of course, come midterms, we will get a new impeachment. Just as Bork-ing returned for Garland, so will fake impeachments return for Biden.

Bottom line: If you want to clerk and you are on this letter, you are not going to get hired by many conservative judges. Because many of the clerks that will be making hiring decisions alongside those judges are going to ding you. If you plan to clerk in the future, do not write or sign on a letter arguing to deny other human beings police protection. Because underneath the pretended LGBQT+ nonsense, the real of the letter is a call to enable violence against people with opinions the majority does not like.

Imagine if, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board, President Eisenhower did not send in the military to protect the Little Rock Nine? They would have been assaulted. Possibly killed. The same will certainly happen to speakers at Yale absent a police presence. Because this is the cowardly approach that liberals take to violence-- too afraid to just say they want it, they remove the safety rails that prevent it, and then act surprised when fires start.

This is so crazy that it's hard to believe it's not trolling, so I'm not sure how much to bother with this. I'm also obviously not going to change your mind so this is probably a waste of time, but I'll bite one more time. For anyone who might take the above poster seriously, just consider the following:

1. As other posters have discussed, there are more clerkship positions with conservative judges than there are candidates who possess the traditional qualifications for those positions (I think a lot of those traditional qualifications are BS and judges should hire more students from lower-ranked schools, whether liberal or conservative, but that's beside the point). Since conservative judges hire mostly off-plan and thus before liberals, any conservative student with the qualifications will have already gotten a judge (whom they ideologically agree more with) before liberal judges even start hiring. That leaves liberal judges with mostly liberal students with the traditional qualifications to choose from.

2. This poster's weird obsession with Cheney aside, there were nine other Republicans who voted to impeach Trump the second time in the House. Seven Republicans voted to convict in the Senate. Many of those folks have faced death threats: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... s-n1279930.

3. Bit rich to talk about "enabling violence" when DeSantis is signing bills that grant civil immunity to people who drive into protesters. https://www.businessinsider.com/florida ... ill-2021-4

Despite all the quoted poster's wild points, I think they are right that signing the letter will be seen by staunchly conservative (and maybe even right-of-center) judges as disqualifying. I certainly believe a Fed Soc clerk would save the list of signees and cross-check anyone they might consider interviewing against it.

My question is just why somebody who truly believes in the letter (not those who signed it out of peer pressure) would want to clerk for a judge like that? Why would any liberal ever want to clerk for Silberman in the first place - there are many, many other clerkships out there that would be a less soul-sucking experience, and if you have the credentials for the DC Circuit you'll have other options.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone help me understand something.

Give my that liberals vastly outnumber fed soc kids at HLS and YLS, it seems like it would be exceedingly easy to “cancel” fed soc— just join the campus organization (and attend x amount of meetings or whatever the requirement is for voting) and vote for liberal president, board, etc. No more fed Soc inviting right wing speakers. It seems like this should be extremely easy and only hasn’t happened because lib students haven’t quite despised fed soc like they seem to do now…

The YLS chapter of FedSoc, at least, conducts some level of internal ideological screening of new members and puts students under investigation if they're suspected of not being genuinely conservative or committed to the cause.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone help me understand something.

Give my that liberals vastly outnumber fed soc kids at HLS and YLS, it seems like it would be exceedingly easy to “cancel” fed soc— just join the campus organization (and attend x amount of meetings or whatever the requirement is for voting) and vote for liberal president, board, etc. No more fed Soc inviting right wing speakers. It seems like this should be extremely easy and only hasn’t happened because lib students haven’t quite despised fed soc like they seem to do now…

The YLS chapter of FedSoc, at least, conducts some level of internal ideological screening of new members and puts students under investigation if they're suspected of not being genuinely conservative or committed to the cause.

What a way to describe hanging out with members of the board and having a survey asking why members want to join.

And the above posters notion of liberals invading Fedsoc chapters to try and destroy them (because yes, all opposing viewpoints must be silenced) is not new, has been tried at many chapters, and usually fails because spotting fake conservatives that hate dissent so much they’d try something like that is super easy.

[Anonymous User]

Wait what did Komitee say?

He responded saying something like he needed more information but was open to the idea.

[Anonymous User]

Imagine if, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board, President Eisenhower did not send in the military to protect the Little Rock Nine? They would have been assaulted. Possibly killed. The same will certainly happen to speakers at Yale absent a police presence. Because this is the cowardly approach that liberals take to violence-- too afraid to just say they want it, they remove the safety rails that prevent it, and then act surprised when fires start.

This is probably a top 5 most insane thing I’ve read on TLS, and I feel compelled to emphasize it again because it’s genuinely funny. Guy’s working himself into a frenzy imagining YALE LAW students murdering a speaker.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone help me understand something.

Give my that liberals vastly outnumber fed soc kids at HLS and YLS, it seems like it would be exceedingly easy to “cancel” fed soc— just join the campus organization (and attend x amount of meetings or whatever the requirement is for voting) and vote for liberal president, board, etc. No more fed Soc inviting right wing speakers. It seems like this should be extremely easy and only hasn’t happened because lib students haven’t quite despised fed soc like they seem to do now…

The YLS chapter of FedSoc, at least, conducts some level of internal ideological screening of new members and puts students under investigation if they're suspected of not being genuinely conservative or committed to the cause.

What a way to describe hanging out with members of the board and having a survey asking why members want to join.

Those are not the only instigators of YLS FedSoc investigations, which have included overheard comments made in entirely personal contexts.

[Anonymous User]

Those are not the only instigators of YLS FedSoc investigations, which have included overheard comments made in entirely personal contexts.

Are you sincerely expressing outrage that board members aren’t happy to
Find out potential board members actually despise them and might want to know more?

[Anonymous User]

Those are not the only instigators of YLS FedSoc investigations, which have included overheard comments made in entirely personal contexts.

Are you sincerely expressing outrage that board members aren’t happy to
Find out potential board members actually despise them and might want to know more?

Oh so you're admitting now that ideological screening isn't so innocently limited to official hangouts and surveys?

[Anonymous User]

Those are not the only instigators of YLS FedSoc investigations, which have included overheard comments made in entirely personal contexts.

Are you sincerely expressing outrage that board members aren’t happy to
Find out potential board members actually despise them and might want to know more?

Oh so you're admitting now that ideological screening isn't so innocently limited to official hangouts and surveys?

No, that’s 99.9% of “screening” but I guess if you are stupid enough to talk openly about your master plan of infiltrating and destroying Fedsoc you might get asked about it.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Imagine if, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board, President Eisenhower did not send in the military to protect the Little Rock Nine? They would have been assaulted. Possibly killed. The same will certainly happen to speakers at Yale absent a police presence. Because this is the cowardly approach that liberals take to violence-- too afraid to just say they want it, they remove the safety rails that prevent it, and then act surprised when fires start.

This is probably a top 5 most insane thing I’ve read on TLS, and I feel compelled to emphasize it again because it’s genuinely funny. Guy’s working himself into a frenzy imagining YALE LAW students murdering a speaker.

As we speak, Clarence Thomas is chomping at the bit to hire this guy as his next clerk (if he hasn't already) - who needs law review notes when you can submit that post as your writing sample?

[Anonymous User]

Can someone help me understand something.

Give my that liberals vastly outnumber fed soc kids at HLS and YLS, it seems like it would be exceedingly easy to “cancel” fed soc— just join the campus organization (and attend x amount of meetings or whatever the requirement is for voting) and vote for liberal president, board, etc. No more fed Soc inviting right wing speakers. It seems like this should be extremely easy and only hasn’t happened because lib students haven’t quite despised fed soc like they seem to do now…

The YLS chapter of FedSoc, at least, conducts some level of internal ideological screening of new members and puts students under investigation if they're suspected of not being genuinely conservative or committed to the cause.

What a way to describe hanging out with members of the board and having a survey asking why members want to join.

And the above posters notion of liberals invading Fedsoc chapters to try and destroy them (because yes, all opposing viewpoints must be silenced) is not new, has been tried at many chapters, and usually fails because spotting fake conservatives that hate dissent so much they’d try something like that is super easy.

Are you saying schools allow sanctioned campus organizations to throw people out because of politics? I thought first that fed soc was non partisan, but even so I’m not sure how a school (especially a public school) would allow an official organization to say “this guy can’t be in the club (that is officially sanctioned by the school and possibly receives school funds)” because he is a democrat/supports abortion/etc. Unless it is more neutrally written into the bylaws that current press must endorse anyone running for subsequent pres (though again this is just case of voting to change bylaws).

[Anonymous User]

Are you saying schools allow sanctioned campus organizations to throw people out because of politics? I thought first that fed soc was non partisan, but even so I’m not sure how a school (especially a public school) would allow an official organization to say “this guy can’t be in the club (that is officially sanctioned by the school and possibly receives school funds)” because he is a democrat/supports abortion/etc. Unless it is more neutrally written into the bylaws that current press must endorse anyone running for subsequent pres (though again this is just case of voting to change bylaws).

Are you unaware how appointed board positions and/or elections work? Do you think officers are chosen via lottery?

[Anonymous User]

IDK what the point of this is. It goes without saying that it would be wise to avoid hiring people who engage in public displays of mental illness, psychosis, derangement, etc.

[Anonymous User]

At the outset, I'm absolutely not meaning to start a flame war. From posters in the know, and especially current clerks, I'm curious what the reaction has been to the Silberman letter (beyond eye-rolling at such a huge reply-all) across the ideological spectrum.

Fwiw my sense, from my position as a clerk for a conservative semi-feeder who regularly hires liberals, is that being involved in disrupting an event would probably be an auto-ding if we found out about it, and being on the open letter would get some skepticism but would not necessarily be a deal-breaker. I also don't imagine the judge is going to go out of their way to hunt people down, though. Take that for what it's worth as one clerk for one idiosyncratic chambers's perspective.

My take on Silberman's email was that it was to put pressure on Yale to do something about the insanity gripping their campus - the Yale administrators have made it quite clear they aren't going to take any action on their own.

My judge hires liberals with some regularity and they would have cut someone protesting instantly. I suspect there are quite a few more who feel similarly, though they wouldn't openly state it. We wouldn't search for a signature on an open letter, but if we found it, it would also be an auto cut. We do Google search the people we think about bringing in for interviews.

So to be clear here, your judge would deny someone an opportunity at government employment based only on their speech (signing a letter) that is completely unrelated to job ability/duties? That seems very very questionable

OP of this - they’d be cut for showing a lack of common sense, intolerance, acquiescence to/tolerance of peer pressure and threats, inability to reason correctly, concerns about their ability to handle complex and emotionally evocative subjects in chambers, etc. All of these are not only detriments to the chambers environment, but allowing a such a to do work would be doing a disservice to the parties before us. We have hundreds of people capable of doing the job who apply, why would we take a chance on someone we know shows exceptionally poor judgment?

[Anonymous User]

At the outset, I'm absolutely not meaning to start a flame war. From posters in the know, and especially current clerks, I'm curious what the reaction has been to the Silberman letter (beyond eye-rolling at such a huge reply-all) across the ideological spectrum.

Fwiw my sense, from my position as a clerk for a conservative semi-feeder who regularly hires liberals, is that being involved in disrupting an event would probably be an auto-ding if we found out about it, and being on the open letter would get some skepticism but would not necessarily be a deal-breaker. I also don't imagine the judge is going to go out of their way to hunt people down, though. Take that for what it's worth as one clerk for one idiosyncratic chambers's perspective.

My take on Silberman's email was that it was to put pressure on Yale to do something about the insanity gripping their campus - the Yale administrators have made it quite clear they aren't going to take any action on their own.

My judge hires liberals with some regularity and they would have cut someone protesting instantly. I suspect there are quite a few more who feel similarly, though they wouldn't openly state it. We wouldn't search for a signature on an open letter, but if we found it, it would also be an auto cut. We do Google search the people we think about bringing in for interviews.

So to be clear here, your judge would deny someone an opportunity at government employment based only on their speech (signing a letter) that is completely unrelated to job ability/duties? That seems very very questionable

Are you under the impression that federal judges don’t regularly screen clerks on the basis of their political speech and associations?

Clerks aren’t civil service employees who are supposed to be hired apolitically.

Do you have any citation that law clerks fall into the category of "policy making" individuals for which selection based on speech/political association is constitutionally acceptable? (Doesnt matter if they are civil service employees statutorily, since this is constitutional issue)? It would be especialyl ironic for a Fed Soc Judge (who says 'judges shouldnt make policy') to argue that their law clerks are in a policy making position, and thus subject to patronage hiring.

Judges regularly screen for judicial philosophy-- and Fed Soc is (facially, at least) an indicator of judicial philosophy. This is very different than screening for party affiliation or speech. Obviously judges do it, but if a judge were to explicitly say, "I only hire republicans" or were to revoke an offer solely on the basis of political speech that is unrelated to job duties (ie judicial philosophy), I certainly think there would be an issue there. I am interested if you actually have a citation that says this is okay.

Lol are you a 1L? Try suing a judge for not hiring you because you're liberal and see how it goes for you. For one thing, I don't know what your cause of action would be, even if you had a constitutional right--the canonical cases here are all under 1983, which doesn't apply to the federal government, and there sure as hell won't be a Bivens extension to allow you to sue. The employment laws don't give a cause of action for political discrimination either. Some arguments are so bad that nobody's tried making them, so there isn't precedent in the area.

[lavarman84]

Gotta chuckle at the powerful government official claiming that he's supporting free speech by asking other powerful government officials to retaliate against law students for protesting. Silberman manages to beclown himself again via email.

There is a fairly distinct difference between protesting as opposed to screaming incoherently and throwing a fit over speakers you don't like to try and stop their events. In fact, Yale (and most other schools, I'd imagine) has a policy against such actions but has chosen not to enforce it time and time agin.

No, there actually isn't. That's a form of protest.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone help me understand something.

Give my that liberals vastly outnumber fed soc kids at HLS and YLS, it seems like it would be exceedingly easy to “cancel” fed soc— just join the campus organization (and attend x amount of meetings or whatever the requirement is for voting) and vote for liberal president, board, etc. No more fed Soc inviting right wing speakers. It seems like this should be extremely easy and only hasn’t happened because lib students haven’t quite despised fed soc like they seem to do now…

Given that these are the sort of people who cannot even allow a speaker on their campus to voice an opinion that they disagree with at an event that, absent a protest, they would never attend-- you really think they would sit through several such meetings, build credibility, and run? Meanwhile, their liberal peers would "cancel" them for even appearing to be part of the Federalist Society. That' is not going to work. Whining, crying, headbanging on walls, shouting, and violent threats are easy. The whole point of the activity is that it allows the protesting participants to participate in a fantasy narrative where they are somehow heroic (despite being in the very safe majority).

I think the letter/protest was pretty silly of Yale students, but I'm sorry - "conservative tolerance for opposing viewpoints"? Where's that tolerance for all the people chanting "Lock Her Up" to Hillary Clinton but not a peep about Ivanka's private email server? Or the people who stormed the Capitol building because someone who didn't share their views won an election? Or even the few Republican representatives who actually had the guts to vote their conscience on Trump's second impeachment?

Look, if you're conservative and hate liberals (or vice versa), that's fine - just own it. The other side feels similarly, and it's honestly natural given the polarized political environment we live in. But don't pretend that one side is "totalitarian" while the other side is a beacon of tolerance/civility. Neither the truly extreme left nor the truly extreme right will brook any dissent to their orthodoxies. The difference is just that the right (extreme and relatively more centrist) has a supermajority on SCOTUS and a Senate that strongly favors it, so whatever this poster means by "when the gravy train runs out" is much more concerning than whatever petition Yale's NLG is putting out that will ultimately have exactly 0 real-world impact.

The conservative tolerance that I am referencing is that conservative judges hire liberal clerks, some even have an institutional practice of always hiring a liberal. Liberal judges do not hire conservative clerks that same way. The study linked earlier is the support for that proposition.

While I agree that both the "far left" and "far right" are mirrors of each other in totalitarianism, I believe that totalitarianism is dominant in the "left" and "center-left", not just the extreme. Meanwhile, more anti-totalitarian values underlie the "right" and "center-right". Given that judges are much more centrist than truly left/right, this means the community of concern, the people hiring law clerks, are much less totalitarian on the conservative side of the equation. You are much more likely to get dinged by a liberal judge for being affiliated with fedsoc/republican party, than dinged by a conservative judge for an ACS/democrat affiliation.

As for the idea that Liz Cheney is "voting her conscience" rather than trying to make daddy proud-- laughable. Even more hilarious in the context that Dick Cheney was widely regarded as a murderous villain by liberals at the time, but now, that has been forgotten in the wake of Trump, much like how they pretend that Bush was "respectable" when they gave him the same treatment. Of course, come midterms, we will get a new impeachment. Just as Bork-ing returned for Garland, so will fake impeachments return for Biden.

Bottom line: If you want to clerk and you are on this letter, you are not going to get hired by many conservative judges. Because many of the clerks that will be making hiring decisions alongside those judges are going to ding you. If you plan to clerk in the future, do not write or sign on a letter arguing to deny other human beings police protection. Because underneath the pretended LGBQT+ nonsense, the real of the letter is a call to enable violence against people with opinions the majority does not like.

Imagine if, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board, President Eisenhower did not send in the military to protect the Little Rock Nine? They would have been assaulted. Possibly killed. The same will certainly happen to speakers at Yale absent a police presence. Because this is the cowardly approach that liberals take to violence-- too afraid to just say they want it, they remove the safety rails that prevent it, and then act surprised when fires start.

This is so crazy that it's hard to believe it's not trolling, so I'm not sure how much to bother with this. I'm also obviously not going to change your mind so this is probably a waste of time, but I'll bite one more time. For anyone who might take the above poster seriously, just consider the following:

1. As other posters have discussed, there are more clerkship positions with conservative judges than there are candidates who possess the traditional qualifications for those positions (I think a lot of those traditional qualifications are BS and judges should hire more students from lower-ranked schools, whether liberal or conservative, but that's beside the point). Since conservative judges hire mostly off-plan and thus before liberals, any conservative student with the qualifications will have already gotten a judge (whom they ideologically agree more with) before liberal judges even start hiring. That leaves liberal judges with mostly liberal students with the traditional qualifications to choose from.

2. This poster's weird obsession with Cheney aside, there were nine other Republicans who voted to impeach Trump the second time in the House. Seven Republicans voted to convict in the Senate. Many of those folks have faced death threats: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... s-n1279930.

3. Bit rich to talk about "enabling violence" when DeSantis is signing bills that grant civil immunity to people who drive into protesters. https://www.businessinsider.com/florida ... ill-2021-4

Despite all the quoted poster's wild points, I think they are right that signing the letter will be seen by staunchly conservative (and maybe even right-of-center) judges as disqualifying. I certainly believe a Fed Soc clerk would save the list of signees and cross-check anyone they might consider interviewing against it.

My question is just why somebody who truly believes in the letter (not those who signed it out of peer pressure) would want to clerk for a judge like that? Why would any liberal ever want to clerk for Silberman in the first place - there are many, many other clerkships out there that would be a less soul-sucking experience, and if you have the credentials for the DC Circuit you'll have other options.

This makes sense. For the other couple of posters who are thinking about applying to scotus in a few years, would that apply to clerks saving the list etc.?

[Anonymous User]

Gotta chuckle at the powerful government official claiming that he's supporting free speech by asking other powerful government officials to retaliate against law students for protesting. Silberman manages to beclown himself again via email.

There is a fairly distinct difference between protesting as opposed to screaming incoherently and throwing a fit over speakers you don't like to try and stop their events. In fact, Yale (and most other schools, I'd imagine) has a policy against such actions but has chosen not to enforce it time and time agin.

No, there actually isn't. That's a form of protest.

The difference in degree v. difference in kind. Hence why Yale has a free speech policy that explicitly doesn't allow for throwing a fit and incoherently screaming. A good thread on what the differences between good protest and censorious hissy-fits: https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1 ... acKEcXMjsQ

[Anonymous User]

I am clerking for a conservative semi-feeder after I graduate. I'm certain that he would auto-ding someone who signed that letter, and I imagine it is easy to tell during the normal diligence during clerkship hiring.

[lavarman84]

Gotta chuckle at the powerful government official claiming that he's supporting free speech by asking other powerful government officials to retaliate against law students for protesting. Silberman manages to beclown himself again via email.

There is a fairly distinct difference between protesting as opposed to screaming incoherently and throwing a fit over speakers you don't like to try and stop their events. In fact, Yale (and most other schools, I'd imagine) has a policy against such actions but has chosen not to enforce it time and time agin.

No, there actually isn't. That's a form of protest.

The difference in degree v. difference in kind. Hence why Yale has a free speech policy that explicitly doesn't allow for throwing a fit and incoherently screaming. A good thread on what the differences between good protest and censorious hissy-fits: https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1 ... acKEcXMjsQ

The idea that a protest should follow the policy of the people in power tells me that you don't really understand the point of protesting. And lol at the idea of looking to George Conway as an authority on what constitutes a "good protest."

[Anonymous User]

At the outset, I'm absolutely not meaning to start a flame war. From posters in the know, and especially current clerks, I'm curious what the reaction has been to the Silberman letter (beyond eye-rolling at such a huge reply-all) across the ideological spectrum.

Fwiw my sense, from my position as a clerk for a conservative semi-feeder who regularly hires liberals, is that being involved in disrupting an event would probably be an auto-ding if we found out about it, and being on the open letter would get some skepticism but would not necessarily be a deal-breaker. I also don't imagine the judge is going to go out of their way to hunt people down, though. Take that for what it's worth as one clerk for one idiosyncratic chambers's perspective.

My take on Silberman's email was that it was to put pressure on Yale to do something about the insanity gripping their campus - the Yale administrators have made it quite clear they aren't going to take any action on their own.

My judge hires liberals with some regularity and they would have cut someone protesting instantly. I suspect there are quite a few more who feel similarly, though they wouldn't openly state it. We wouldn't search for a signature on an open letter, but if we found it, it would also be an auto cut. We do Google search the people we think about bringing in for interviews.

So to be clear here, your judge would deny someone an opportunity at government employment based only on their speech (signing a letter) that is completely unrelated to job ability/duties? That seems very very questionable

Are you under the impression that federal judges don’t regularly screen clerks on the basis of their political speech and associations?

Clerks aren’t civil service employees who are supposed to be hired apolitically.

Do you have any citation that law clerks fall into the category of "policy making" individuals for which selection based on speech/political association is constitutionally acceptable? (Doesnt matter if they are civil service employees statutorily, since this is constitutional issue)? It would be especialyl ironic for a Fed Soc Judge (who says 'judges shouldnt make policy') to argue that their law clerks are in a policy making position, and thus subject to patronage hiring.

Judges regularly screen for judicial philosophy-- and Fed Soc is (facially, at least) an indicator of judicial philosophy. This is very different than screening for party affiliation or speech. Obviously judges do it, but if a judge were to explicitly say, "I only hire republicans" or were to revoke an offer solely on the basis of political speech that is unrelated to job duties (ie judicial philosophy), I certainly think there would be an issue there. I am interested if you actually have a citation that says this is okay.

Lol are you a 1L? Try suing a judge for not hiring you because you're liberal and see how it goes for you. For one thing, I don't know what your cause of action would be, even if you had a constitutional right--the canonical cases here are all under 1983, which doesn't apply to the federal government, and there sure as hell won't be a Bivens extension to allow you to sue. The employment laws don't give a cause of action for political discrimination either. Some arguments are so bad that nobody's tried making them, so there isn't precedent in the area.

quote]

So I’m guessing the answer to my question then is “no, you don’t have a citation to support the idea that clerks are subject to policy making exception for which speech discrimination is permitted”? I suspect they would come within the exception but it would require fed soc judges to admit they themselves are “policy makers” which would be quite uncomfortable for them. (And the answer to your screed on cause of action is injunctive relief, and second judges have a duty not to violate constitution even if there is no enforcement mechanism in place.) And yes I realize nobody will ever challenge this because it’s career suicide, not because it’s a clear cut bad argument. I’d argue the reason there’s no precedent though is because no judge has been stupid enough to announce, “i have an official policy of automatically discriminating against applicants based on protected speech.”

[Anonymous User]

New poster and recent conservative SCOTUS clerk here. Most justices have no issue hiring moderate or liberal clerks who come recommended by a trusted source. All justices, however, demand collegiality, respect, and open-mindedness. Signing this letter would have been a major no-no for my boss. And you best believe hiring committees conduct due diligence beyond a cursory Google search. Those planning to apply to SCOTUS would do well to withdraw their signature, if possible, from this letter. If not possible, they would do well to have a frank conversation with their feeder judge.

[Anonymous User]

Isn't like the whole theory/point of signing these types of letters to put your reputation on the line and show solidarity with the message. Why are ya'll even signing these letters than freaking out over potential consequences. This situation just feels like a bunch of people wanted the potential benefit and clout but as soon as there was some pushback it's instant regret.

I guess there was a lot of peer pressure maybe? Just having a hard time conceptualizing wtf is going on in Yale Law students' heads—clearly they're out of my league.