Most liberal federal judges?
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:00 pm
Just curious
Pillard and Lohier come to mind
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=312815
Pillard and Lohier come to mind
Agree with the above - there's not really a liberal equivalent of Van Dyke or Ho (or any of the partisan warriors on the 5th really) if that's what you're asking. Rosenbaum on the 11th does do a good job of calling out Fed Soc BS, though rumors are that a clerkship with her is very intense (which I think is also important--maybe even more important--to consider in deciding who to clerk for). Moore on the 6th does as well (see, e.g., https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/absolut ... -footnote/).Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:39 pmBerzon 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.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:39 pmBerzon 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.
I would not call Pooler an "awesome" progressive voice, but she is definitely the furthest left on the court.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:45 amAgree with the above - there's not really a liberal equivalent of Van Dyke or Ho (or any of the partisan warriors on the 5th really) if that's what you're asking. Rosenbaum on the 11th does do a good job of calling out Fed Soc BS, though rumors are that a clerkship with her is very intense (which I think is also important--maybe even more important--to consider in deciding who to clerk for). Moore on the 6th does as well (see, e.g., https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/absolut ... -footnote/).Anonymous User wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:39 pmBerzon 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.
Pooler on the 2nd is an awesome progressive voice for sure. Others that immediately come to mind include (but definitely are not limited to) Chin (2d), McKee & Restrepo (3d), Dennis (5th), Stranch (6th), Wood (7th), Kelly (8th), Paez (9th), and pretty much all the Dem nominees on D.C. Cir. (except maybe Srinivasan, who is more center-left). Among the Biden nominees, I think Perez (2d), Jackson-Akiwumi (7th), Rossman (10th), and Thomas (9th) are the most likely to be progressive (in addition to Sung and Abudu mentioned above).
Curious about this. Why is Pooler incompetent?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:49 amSeconded—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.
This is wrong.
Really?
A current Breyer clerk previously clerked for Oetken, and then of course there's Joshua Matz: https://www.kaplanhecker.com/our-talent/joshua-matz. You can dispute whether he is a proximate cause of his clerks getting SCOTUS (like, it's conceivable that he just hires people who are very competitive applicants in the first place), but you can't doubt that he feeds.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:16 amReally?
"2. Feeder judges. There’s much more diversity on the feeder judge front, but that’s largely a function of how many clerks do two (or more) clerkships before arriving at SCOTUS. The 37 clerks for OT 2018 come from 41 different lower-court judges.
The judges with more than one clerk at the Court for the upcoming Term are Judges Kavanaugh (6), Griffith (3), Srinivasan (3), Tatel (3), Feinerman (3), Garland (2), Katsas (2), Pryor (2), Oetken (2), and Sullivan (2). Out of those ten judges, a whopping six sit on the Most Holy D.C. Circuit: Judges Kavanaugh, Griffith, Srinivasan, Tatel, Garland, and Katsas. Three are district judges: Judges Feinerman (N.D. Ill.), Oetken (S.D.N.Y.), and Sullivan (S.D.N.Y., but on his way to the Second Circuit). [UPDATE (8/3/2018, 12:44 a.m.): This paragraph has been edited to correct the number of Kavanaugh clerks (six rather than five), to correct the number of Feinerman clerks (three rather than two), and to add Judge Katsas (with two clerks at the Court this Term).]"
Source: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/08/supreme ... term-2018/
How is feeding relevant to how liberal a judge is?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:21 amA current Breyer clerk previously clerked for Oetken, and then of course there's Joshua Matz: https://www.kaplanhecker.com/our-talent/joshua-matz. You can dispute whether he is a proximate cause of his clerks getting SCOTUS (like, it's conceivable that he just hires people who are very competitive applicants in the first place), but you can't doubt that he feeds.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:16 amReally?
"2. Feeder judges. There’s much more diversity on the feeder judge front, but that’s largely a function of how many clerks do two (or more) clerkships before arriving at SCOTUS. The 37 clerks for OT 2018 come from 41 different lower-court judges.
The judges with more than one clerk at the Court for the upcoming Term are Judges Kavanaugh (6), Griffith (3), Srinivasan (3), Tatel (3), Feinerman (3), Garland (2), Katsas (2), Pryor (2), Oetken (2), and Sullivan (2). Out of those ten judges, a whopping six sit on the Most Holy D.C. Circuit: Judges Kavanaugh, Griffith, Srinivasan, Tatel, Garland, and Katsas. Three are district judges: Judges Feinerman (N.D. Ill.), Oetken (S.D.N.Y.), and Sullivan (S.D.N.Y., but on his way to the Second Circuit). [UPDATE (8/3/2018, 12:44 a.m.): This paragraph has been edited to correct the number of Kavanaugh clerks (six rather than five), to correct the number of Feinerman clerks (three rather than two), and to add Judge Katsas (with two clerks at the Court this Term).]"
Source: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/08/supreme ... term-2018/
I assume the person misread "Federal Judge" for "Feeder Judge"Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:28 amHow is feeding relevant to how liberal a judge is?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:21 amA current Breyer clerk previously clerked for Oetken, and then of course there's Joshua Matz: https://www.kaplanhecker.com/our-talent/joshua-matz. You can dispute whether he is a proximate cause of his clerks getting SCOTUS (like, it's conceivable that he just hires people who are very competitive applicants in the first place), but you can't doubt that he feeds.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:16 amReally?
"2. Feeder judges. There’s much more diversity on the feeder judge front, but that’s largely a function of how many clerks do two (or more) clerkships before arriving at SCOTUS. The 37 clerks for OT 2018 come from 41 different lower-court judges.
The judges with more than one clerk at the Court for the upcoming Term are Judges Kavanaugh (6), Griffith (3), Srinivasan (3), Tatel (3), Feinerman (3), Garland (2), Katsas (2), Pryor (2), Oetken (2), and Sullivan (2). Out of those ten judges, a whopping six sit on the Most Holy D.C. Circuit: Judges Kavanaugh, Griffith, Srinivasan, Tatel, Garland, and Katsas. Three are district judges: Judges Feinerman (N.D. Ill.), Oetken (S.D.N.Y.), and Sullivan (S.D.N.Y., but on his way to the Second Circuit). [UPDATE (8/3/2018, 12:44 a.m.): This paragraph has been edited to correct the number of Kavanaugh clerks (six rather than five), to correct the number of Feinerman clerks (three rather than two), and to add Judge Katsas (with two clerks at the Court this Term).]"
Source: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/08/supreme ... term-2018/
"The person" here... I did misread it. Oops. Carry on!Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:47 amI assume the person misread "Federal Judge" for "Feeder Judge"Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:28 amHow is feeding relevant to how liberal a judge is?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:21 amA current Breyer clerk previously clerked for Oetken, and then of course there's Joshua Matz: https://www.kaplanhecker.com/our-talent/joshua-matz. You can dispute whether he is a proximate cause of his clerks getting SCOTUS (like, it's conceivable that he just hires people who are very competitive applicants in the first place), but you can't doubt that he feeds.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:16 amReally?
"2. Feeder judges. There’s much more diversity on the feeder judge front, but that’s largely a function of how many clerks do two (or more) clerkships before arriving at SCOTUS. The 37 clerks for OT 2018 come from 41 different lower-court judges.
The judges with more than one clerk at the Court for the upcoming Term are Judges Kavanaugh (6), Griffith (3), Srinivasan (3), Tatel (3), Feinerman (3), Garland (2), Katsas (2), Pryor (2), Oetken (2), and Sullivan (2). Out of those ten judges, a whopping six sit on the Most Holy D.C. Circuit: Judges Kavanaugh, Griffith, Srinivasan, Tatel, Garland, and Katsas. Three are district judges: Judges Feinerman (N.D. Ill.), Oetken (S.D.N.Y.), and Sullivan (S.D.N.Y., but on his way to the Second Circuit). [UPDATE (8/3/2018, 12:44 a.m.): This paragraph has been edited to correct the number of Kavanaugh clerks (six rather than five), to correct the number of Feinerman clerks (three rather than two), and to add Judge Katsas (with two clerks at the Court this Term).]"
Source: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/08/supreme ... term-2018/
Good shout here. Definitely the most liberal district or circuit judge within CA5's territory.
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.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:32 amCurious about this. Why is Pooler incompetent?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:49 amSeconded—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.
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).Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:14 pmIncompetent 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.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:32 amCurious about this. Why is Pooler incompetent?Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:49 amSeconded—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.
All of this could position Friedland to be a good feeder since she may not be one of the leftmost on the court anymore.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:47 pmOn 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.