Most liberal federal judges? Forum

[Anonymous User]

On the 9th Circuit, William Fletcher was generally considered the most aggressive in trying to set liberal precedent post-Reinhardt, with Berzon and Paez also in his corner.

The 9th had been getting more moderate for 40 years, though, with that perhaps being reversed with the new Biden appointees. The Clinton appointees were less liberal than the Carter appointees, and the Obama appointees were less liberal than the most liberal Clinton appointees (everyone was to the left of Silverman, Tallman, and generally Rawlinson, but no one in that group is the next Fletcher or Paez). The Trump appointees are also generally more conservative than the R's they replaced.

I would watch Sung and Holly Thomas as the potential leaders of the next generation of 9th Circuit liberals.

All of this could position Friedland to be a good feeder since she may not be one of the leftmost on the court anymore.

Is Friedland the most liberal Obama appointee on the Ninth? I'm surprised she hasn't fed more consistently, since she hires SCOTUS-caliber clerks and is so well-respected.

[Anonymous User]

Seconded—Pooler has a poor reputation, not because she’s progressive, just because she’s not competent. Her ideology is like all she has in common with a Berzon or Fletcher.

KN Moore is a good shout.

Curious about this. Why is Pooler incompetent?

Incompetent is a strong word, but from what I gather she is more the William Douglas type progressive insofar as her reasoning is very outcome based and she doesn't do the best job obfuscating it. I guess someone on the opposite of the spectrum (although less progressive) would be Kagan who does a pretty good job at speaking the "language" (which in today's terms means more textualist and pretending to be restrained). That being said I actually find her transparent opinions refreshing in the face of increasing amount of Judges who go to ridiculous pains in showing why their outcome is actually the result of some sort of objective truth. Note, I did not clerk anywhere on the second circuit and have no personal knowledge of this, this is just stuff I have picked up from friends discussing this.

Agreed on the transparency - if Pooler is actually a bad person/boss or very clearly getting the law wrong (in a nonpartisan way and not just reversals by a far-right SCOTUS), then perhaps the poster who called her incompetent is correct. Otherwise, the right doesn't have a leg to stand on if they're calling her incompetent for ideological reasons - especially when they've supported the confirmation of the likes of Ho, Van Dyke, and Mizelle. If you want prime examples of incompetence, just look at anything Elrod on the 5th has put out recently (just to name one example).

I am liberal and clerked on the Second. Pooler isn’t well-respected across the spectrum, it’s not an ideological thing. CA2 has very few political cases in general because it isn’t a significant impact lit venue, has no capital docket, etc. Her writing just isn’t good (albeit that’s judging by the extremely high standards of CA2), she’s from the Northern District which also has a poor reputation, and she has sharp elbows.

[Anonymous User]

On the 9th Circuit, William Fletcher was generally considered the most aggressive in trying to set liberal precedent post-Reinhardt, with Berzon and Paez also in his corner.

The 9th had been getting more moderate for 40 years, though, with that perhaps being reversed with the new Biden appointees. The Clinton appointees were less liberal than the Carter appointees, and the Obama appointees were less liberal than the most liberal Clinton appointees (everyone was to the left of Silverman, Tallman, and generally Rawlinson, but no one in that group is the next Fletcher or Paez). The Trump appointees are also generally more conservative than the R's they replaced.

I would watch Sung and Holly Thomas as the potential leaders of the next generation of 9th Circuit liberals.

All of this could position Friedland to be a good feeder since she may not be one of the leftmost on the court anymore.

Is Friedland the most liberal Obama appointee on the Ninth? I'm surprised she hasn't fed more consistently, since she hires SCOTUS-caliber clerks and is so well-respected.

I'd say so. She's certainly left of Watford. I've been surprised by it also but she did clerk for Tatel/O'Connor which probably hurt her feeding potential, especially with Fletcher and Watford in the mix.

[Anonymous User]

On the 9th Circuit, William Fletcher was generally considered the most aggressive in trying to set liberal precedent post-Reinhardt, with Berzon and Paez also in his corner.

The 9th had been getting more moderate for 40 years, though, with that perhaps being reversed with the new Biden appointees. The Clinton appointees were less liberal than the Carter appointees, and the Obama appointees were less liberal than the most liberal Clinton appointees (everyone was to the left of Silverman, Tallman, and generally Rawlinson, but no one in that group is the next Fletcher or Paez). The Trump appointees are also generally more conservative than the R's they replaced.

I would watch Sung and Holly Thomas as the potential leaders of the next generation of 9th Circuit liberals.

All of this could position Friedland to be a good feeder since she may not be one of the leftmost on the court anymore.

Is Friedland the most liberal Obama appointee on the Ninth? I'm surprised she hasn't fed more consistently, since she hires SCOTUS-caliber clerks and is so well-respected.

Probably. Owens is definitely the least liberal. The other 6 you can kind of throw a hat over, with Watford maybe a little more moderate, but Friedland is maybe a half-step left of Christen, Murguia, etc.

I'm also surprised Friedland has not yet panned out as a feeder. The SCOTUS liberals are down to only 13 slots per year, and they seem more NY/DC centric than ever. But the death of Judge Katzmann, who seemed to have a couple of those 13 slots spoken for every term, leaves a void for someone to fill. And who knows if Justice Jackson will add new feeders to her mix.

[Anonymous User]

If KBJ's willing to go broader for clerks, Friedland has a lot of appeal. She has a great reputation, broad docket on the 9th, SCOTUS-competitive clerks that work hard with her, etc. At least for now, you'd want to try to get SDNY/DDC/EDVa or something also.

[Anonymous User]

Seconded—Pooler has a poor reputation, not because she’s progressive, just because she’s not competent. Her ideology is like all she has in common with a Berzon or Fletcher.

KN Moore is a good shout.

Curious about this. Why is Pooler incompetent?

Incompetent is a strong word, but from what I gather she is more the William Douglas type progressive insofar as her reasoning is very outcome based and she doesn't do the best job obfuscating it. I guess someone on the opposite of the spectrum (although less progressive) would be Kagan who does a pretty good job at speaking the "language" (which in today's terms means more textualist and pretending to be restrained). That being said I actually find her transparent opinions refreshing in the face of increasing amount of Judges who go to ridiculous pains in showing why their outcome is actually the result of some sort of objective truth. Note, I did not clerk anywhere on the second circuit and have no personal knowledge of this, this is just stuff I have picked up from friends discussing this.

Agreed on the transparency - if Pooler is actually a bad person/boss or very clearly getting the law wrong (in a nonpartisan way and not just reversals by a far-right SCOTUS), then perhaps the poster who called her incompetent is correct. Otherwise, the right doesn't have a leg to stand on if they're calling her incompetent for ideological reasons - especially when they've supported the confirmation of the likes of Ho, Van Dyke, and Mizelle. If you want prime examples of incompetence, just look at anything Elrod on the 5th has put out recently (just to name one example).

I am liberal and clerked on the Second. Pooler isn’t well-respected across the spectrum, it’s not an ideological thing. CA2 has very few political cases in general because it isn’t a significant impact lit venue, has no capital docket, etc. Her writing just isn’t good (albeit that’s judging by the extremely high standards of CA2), she’s from the Northern District which also has a poor reputation, and she has sharp elbows.

That's fair. Incompetent seems a little strong to describe her in that case, but to each his/her own. I'd love to hear what you mean by sharp elbows - are her opinions quite critical of the other judges? I personally love it when liberal judges call out conservative hackery, but I understand that's not everyone's cup of tea.

[Anonymous User]

If KBJ's willing to go broader for clerks, Friedland has a lot of appeal. She has a great reputation, broad docket on the 9th, SCOTUS-competitive clerks that work hard with her, etc. At least for now, you'd want to try to get SDNY/DDC/EDVa or something also.

She also seems lovely and well-liked by her clerks, which doesn’t seem to be the case for, say, Nathan.

[Anonymous User]

Seconded—Pooler has a poor reputation, not because she’s progressive, just because she’s not competent. Her ideology is like all she has in common with a Berzon or Fletcher.

KN Moore is a good shout.

Curious about this. Why is Pooler incompetent?

Incompetent is a strong word, but from what I gather she is more the William Douglas type progressive insofar as her reasoning is very outcome based and she doesn't do the best job obfuscating it. I guess someone on the opposite of the spectrum (although less progressive) would be Kagan who does a pretty good job at speaking the "language" (which in today's terms means more textualist and pretending to be restrained). That being said I actually find her transparent opinions refreshing in the face of increasing amount of Judges who go to ridiculous pains in showing why their outcome is actually the result of some sort of objective truth. Note, I did not clerk anywhere on the second circuit and have no personal knowledge of this, this is just stuff I have picked up from friends discussing this.

Agreed on the transparency - if Pooler is actually a bad person/boss or very clearly getting the law wrong (in a nonpartisan way and not just reversals by a far-right SCOTUS), then perhaps the poster who called her incompetent is correct. Otherwise, the right doesn't have a leg to stand on if they're calling her incompetent for ideological reasons - especially when they've supported the confirmation of the likes of Ho, Van Dyke, and Mizelle. If you want prime examples of incompetence, just look at anything Elrod on the 5th has put out recently (just to name one example).

I am liberal and clerked on the Second. Pooler isn’t well-respected across the spectrum, it’s not an ideological thing. CA2 has very few political cases in general because it isn’t a significant impact lit venue, has no capital docket, etc. Her writing just isn’t good (albeit that’s judging by the extremely high standards of CA2), she’s from the Northern District which also has a poor reputation, and she has sharp elbows.

That's fair. Incompetent seems a little strong to describe her in that case, but to each his/her own. I'd love to hear what you mean by sharp elbows - are her opinions quite critical of the other judges? I personally love it when liberal judges call out conservative hackery, but I understand that's not everyone's cup of tea.

Per the other anon, I think the W.O. Douglas comparison is good minus some of the writing skill. I still don't think she is incompetent. Full disclosure I don't think Douglas was incompetent either until like those last few years where he quite literally lost his mind.

[Anonymous User]

Seconded—Pooler has a poor reputation, not because she’s progressive, just because she’s not competent. Her ideology is like all she has in common with a Berzon or Fletcher.

KN Moore is a good shout.

Curious about this. Why is Pooler incompetent?

Incompetent is a strong word, but from what I gather she is more the William Douglas type progressive insofar as her reasoning is very outcome based and she doesn't do the best job obfuscating it. I guess someone on the opposite of the spectrum (although less progressive) would be Kagan who does a pretty good job at speaking the "language" (which in today's terms means more textualist and pretending to be restrained). That being said I actually find her transparent opinions refreshing in the face of increasing amount of Judges who go to ridiculous pains in showing why their outcome is actually the result of some sort of objective truth. Note, I did not clerk anywhere on the second circuit and have no personal knowledge of this, this is just stuff I have picked up from friends discussing this.

Agreed on the transparency - if Pooler is actually a bad person/boss or very clearly getting the law wrong (in a nonpartisan way and not just reversals by a far-right SCOTUS), then perhaps the poster who called her incompetent is correct. Otherwise, the right doesn't have a leg to stand on if they're calling her incompetent for ideological reasons - especially when they've supported the confirmation of the likes of Ho, Van Dyke, and Mizelle. If you want prime examples of incompetence, just look at anything Elrod on the 5th has put out recently (just to name one example).

I am liberal and clerked on the Second. Pooler isn’t well-respected across the spectrum, it’s not an ideological thing. CA2 has very few political cases in general because it isn’t a significant impact lit venue, has no capital docket, etc. Her writing just isn’t good (albeit that’s judging by the extremely high standards of CA2), she’s from the Northern District which also has a poor reputation, and she has sharp elbows.

That's fair. Incompetent seems a little strong to describe her in that case, but to each his/her own. I'd love to hear what you mean by sharp elbows - are her opinions quite critical of the other judges? I personally love it when liberal judges call out conservative hackery, but I understand that's not everyone's cup of tea.

Per the other anon, I think the W.O. Douglas comparison is good minus some of the writing skill. I still don't think she is incompetent. Full disclosure I don't think Douglas was incompetent either until like those last few years where he quite literally lost his mind.

I thought there’s a long history and tradition of conservatives describing liberal female jurists as “incompetent” as a stand-in for their usual vitriol

[Anonymous User]

Berzon and Fletcher are well-known as two of the most progressive of the most prominent judges. Less well-known but Pooler has a rep for being far out on the Second (left of Lohier from my understanding) and Rosenbaum has had some really nasty language in her dissents in the Eleventh.

I’m not sure that there’s really a Reinhardt equivalent of the current prime generation, though I wouldn’t be surprised if some Biden nominees end up around there. Obama didn’t nominate many people with resumes like Abudu and Sung.

To sorta echo part of this, I sat in on some 11 Cir OA a while back where Rosenbaum essentially made up an argument for the more liberal-ish party when it was clear the other judges werent buying it. Her version of it was probably the most plausible of a pretty dubious argument imo.
I have no idea what clerking for her is like, but she seems lovely from the few times I've been able to interact with her.

I've heard that from past clerks that the hours are quite long (like biglaw long) and perhaps even unreasonable (now i'm opining) given how much other clerks for good judges on that circuit work.

[Anonymous User]

On the Sixth Circuit, Judge Moore is extremely liberal. When she gets a favorable panel, there's no telling what she'll do.

[Anonymous User]

Curious about this. Why is Pooler incompetent?

Incompetent is a strong word, but from what I gather she is more the William Douglas type progressive insofar as her reasoning is very outcome based and she doesn't do the best job obfuscating it. I guess someone on the opposite of the spectrum (although less progressive) would be Kagan who does a pretty good job at speaking the "language" (which in today's terms means more textualist and pretending to be restrained). That being said I actually find her transparent opinions refreshing in the face of increasing amount of Judges who go to ridiculous pains in showing why their outcome is actually the result of some sort of objective truth. Note, I did not clerk anywhere on the second circuit and have no personal knowledge of this, this is just stuff I have picked up from friends discussing this.

Agreed on the transparency - if Pooler is actually a bad person/boss or very clearly getting the law wrong (in a nonpartisan way and not just reversals by a far-right SCOTUS), then perhaps the poster who called her incompetent is correct. Otherwise, the right doesn't have a leg to stand on if they're calling her incompetent for ideological reasons - especially when they've supported the confirmation of the likes of Ho, Van Dyke, and Mizelle. If you want prime examples of incompetence, just look at anything Elrod on the 5th has put out recently (just to name one example).

I am liberal and clerked on the Second. Pooler isn’t well-respected across the spectrum, it’s not an ideological thing. CA2 has very few political cases in general because it isn’t a significant impact lit venue, has no capital docket, etc. Her writing just isn’t good (albeit that’s judging by the extremely high standards of CA2), she’s from the Northern District which also has a poor reputation, and she has sharp elbows.

That's fair. Incompetent seems a little strong to describe her in that case, but to each his/her own. I'd love to hear what you mean by sharp elbows - are her opinions quite critical of the other judges? I personally love it when liberal judges call out conservative hackery, but I understand that's not everyone's cup of tea.

Per the other anon, I think the W.O. Douglas comparison is good minus some of the writing skill. I still don't think she is incompetent. Full disclosure I don't think Douglas was incompetent either until like those last few years where he quite literally lost his mind.

I thought there’s a long history and tradition of conservatives describing liberal female jurists as “incompetent” as a stand-in for their usual vitriol

You don't seem persuadable on this issue, but ask the most liberal person you know who clerked on CA2 what Pooler's rep is. The answer will undoubtedly be "very bad." When I clerked on the court, she was universally considered the worst judge. Writing is bad, reasoning is bad, and incredibly slow in issuing opinions. And to preempt the inevitable ad hominem, Carney was way, way, way better, as were all of Pooler's ideological compatriots (Lohier, Calabresi, etc.).

As just one illustration, see Pooler's en banc opinion in Scott, which couldn't even get Katzmann or Lohier's vote, and which (if you actually read the opinion) wasn't even really joined by Leval or Carney either.

If your measure of a good judge is one who "calls out" the conservatives, I guess she's great, though. (By that standard Menashi is the best conservative judge on the court, which is also not something basically anybody who knows the court would agree with.)

[Anonymous User]

Friedland is also known as a tough clerkship hourswise because she works so hard herself. But her clerks generally seem to like her, and she is very well respected. I’d agree that she is the most liberal of the Obama judges, but Christen is not too far away.

[Anonymous User]

You don't seem persuadable on this issue, but ask the most liberal person you know who clerked on CA2 what Pooler's rep is. The answer will undoubtedly be "very bad." When I clerked on the court, she was universally considered the worst judge. Writing is bad, reasoning is bad, and incredibly slow in issuing opinions. And to preempt the inevitable ad hominem, Carney was way, way, way better, as were all of Pooler's ideological compatriots (Lohier, Calabresi, etc.).

As just one illustration, see Pooler's en banc opinion in Scott, which couldn't even get Katzmann or Lohier's vote, and which (if you actually read the opinion) wasn't even really joined by Leval or Carney either.

If your measure of a good judge is one who "calls out" the conservatives, I guess she's great, though. (By that standard Menashi is the best conservative judge on the court, which is also not something basically anybody who knows the court would agree with.)

This is interesting to hear. I was reading my school's student comments on Pooler and I didn't see anything like this, so I'd be interested to hear from other clerks on this

[Anonymous User]

Berzon and Fletcher are well-known as two of the most progressive of the most prominent judges. Less well-known but Pooler has a rep for being far out on the Second (left of Lohier from my understanding) and Rosenbaum has had some really nasty language in her dissents in the Eleventh.

I’m not sure that there’s really a Reinhardt equivalent of the current prime generation, though I wouldn’t be surprised if some Biden nominees end up around there. Obama didn’t nominate many people with resumes like Abudu and Sung.

To sorta echo part of this, I sat in on some 11 Cir OA a while back where Rosenbaum essentially made up an argument for the more liberal-ish party when it was clear the other judges werent buying it. Her version of it was probably the most plausible of a pretty dubious argument imo.
I have no idea what clerking for her is like, but she seems lovely from the few times I've been able to interact with her.

I've heard that from past clerks that the hours are quite long (like biglaw long) and perhaps even unreasonable (now i'm opining) given how much other clerks for good judges on that circuit work.

Rosenbaum is transparent though. In her OSCAR posting, in her interview with clerk candidates, and even in podcasts, she makes clear that she and her clerks work as long as necessary to get the right result. Most of the "extra" work comes from dissents and dissentals, where she is writing to onvince the other circuits. It's easier to be a conservative on the 11th because your colleagues are going to agree with you and you don't need to put in the extra work to convince them.

Also, have spoken with former clerks and the hours are nowhere near big law hours.

[Anonymous User]

I thought there’s a long history and tradition of conservatives describing liberal female jurists as “incompetent” as a stand-in for their usual vitriol

I don't know many (any?) conservatives that would describe Kagan, Friedland, Millett, Krause, Pillard (off the top of my head) as 'incompetent.' All respected.

Pooler is not, because she's a hack. (There are plenty of conservative hacks too. But Pooler is a liberal hack.)

[Anonymous User]

I thought there’s a long history and tradition of conservatives describing liberal female jurists as “incompetent” as a stand-in for their usual vitriol

I don't know many (any?) conservatives that would describe Kagan, Friedland, Millett, Krause, Pillard (off the top of my head) as 'incompetent.' All respected.

Pooler is not, because she's a hack. (There are plenty of conservative hacks too. But Pooler is a liberal hack.)

Wow I had no idea people felt this strongly about Pooler

[Anonymous User]

Berzon and Fletcher are well-known as two of the most progressive of the most prominent judges. Less well-known but Pooler has a rep for being far out on the Second (left of Lohier from my understanding) and Rosenbaum has had some really nasty language in her dissents in the Eleventh.

I’m not sure that there’s really a Reinhardt equivalent of the current prime generation, though I wouldn’t be surprised if some Biden nominees end up around there. Obama didn’t nominate many people with resumes like Abudu and Sung.

To sorta echo part of this, I sat in on some 11 Cir OA a while back where Rosenbaum essentially made up an argument for the more liberal-ish party when it was clear the other judges werent buying it. Her version of it was probably the most plausible of a pretty dubious argument imo.
I have no idea what clerking for her is like, but she seems lovely from the few times I've been able to interact with her.

I've heard that from past clerks that the hours are quite long (like biglaw long) and perhaps even unreasonable (now i'm opining) given how much other clerks for good judges on that circuit work.

Rosenbaum is transparent though. In her OSCAR posting, in her interview with clerk candidates, and even in podcasts, she makes clear that she and her clerks work as long as necessary to get the right result. Most of the "extra" work comes from dissents and dissentals, where she is writing to onvince the other circuits. It's easier to be a conservative on the 11th because your colleagues are going to agree with you and you don't need to put in the extra work to convince them.

Also, have spoken with former clerks and the hours are nowhere near big law hours.

Interesting. Perhaps I misunderstood but I I was under the impression the workday in chambers is a 9-9 or 9-10 pm day on average, while clerk for other liberals on the circuit work like 9-7ish.

[Anonymous User]

I can't speak to what the other liberals on the 11th do but RSR's clerk's hours are nowhere near 9-9. 9-7 sounds about right (which is more than a lot of other circuit judges).

[Anonymous User]

Pooler's questions during OA are super weird and often off-topic as well

[Anonymous User]

I can't speak to what the other liberals on the 11th do but RSR's clerk's hours are nowhere near 9-9. 9-7 sounds about right (which is more than a lot of other circuit judges).

9-7 is what I think of as "standard long-ish hours" for a clerkship. 9-5 is "easy hours." I think most judges work their clerks somewhere between this 8-10 hour per day window (as both of mine have).

Anything more than 9-7, maybe outside of a handful of busy districts that institutionally have long hours, is an outlier judge, as is regular weekend work (outside of trial weeks, emergency duty months, etc.).

[Anonymous User]

You don't seem persuadable on this issue, but ask the most liberal person you know who clerked on CA2 what Pooler's rep is. The answer will undoubtedly be "very bad." When I clerked on the court, she was universally considered the worst judge. Writing is bad, reasoning is bad, and incredibly slow in issuing opinions. And to preempt the inevitable ad hominem, Carney was way, way, way better, as were all of Pooler's ideological compatriots (Lohier, Calabresi, etc.).

As just one illustration, see Pooler's en banc opinion in Scott, which couldn't even get Katzmann or Lohier's vote, and which (if you actually read the opinion) wasn't even really joined by Leval or Carney either.

If your measure of a good judge is one who "calls out" the conservatives, I guess she's great, though. (By that standard Menashi is the best conservative judge on the court, which is also not something basically anybody who knows the court would agree with.)

This is interesting to hear. I was reading my school's student comments on Pooler and I didn't see anything like this, so I'd be interested to hear from other clerks on this

Fwiw there are at least 2, and maybe 3, CA2 clerks criticizing Pooler here, as the more recent posts aren’t from me (the original Pooler poster). The quoted is a bit bombastic for my taste but also basically right.

[Anonymous User]

Good discussion ITT. I would probably add Diane Wood to this list.

[Anonymous User]

I’d add to this Motz on the Fourth Circuit (extremely liberal well respected and has fed clerks in the past, but going senior). In the category of very well respected and liberal but not quite feeders on CA4 I’d also add Harris and Heytens (new but this is a projection).

[Anonymous User]

She's only been name checked a few times, but Judge Pillard is absolutely one of the most "liberal" federal judges. It doesn't come up much on the docket, but on Fourth Amendment stuff, she pushes the envelope a lot (so much that she got unanimously reversed by scotus a few years ago).