SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships Forum

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for this OP. Much appreciated.

You mentioned how HYS internally calculate their #1 students for clerkship purposes. Since HS have grades beyond just H, such as DS or book awards, I can see how this would be possible. But for Y, since they don't have any grades beyond H, what happens when there are multiple students with all H's? I can imagine dean minow calling up judges and selling the fay diploma recipient but wouldn't this be harder to do at Yale since Yale's grade system leads to less distinction between the top 5-10 students who have all H's?

I've always theorized that b/c of this, it's 'better' (at least for SC clerkship purposes) to go to harvard if you know you can become the top student. Of course, this is faulty thinking b/c you can't ever know how well you will do at any one law school.

bump. wasn't sure if you intentionally skipped it OP but in that case, feel free to ignore.

This is OP. Did not deliberately ignore. I do not deliberately ignore anyone's posts, but I am very busy. So I sometimes miss them if there's a very large number between my rashes of responses. But I do not deliberately ignore any posts.

I guess this might be right, if you can be sure to be #1. But how could you be? And how many people have this choice anyway?

If we're having a totally theoretical discussion, I guess it would be better to have the Fay Diploma from Harvard than to be one of Yale's top 3-4 that the school tries to position all as #1. But all of those people are in unbelievably strong positions for their whole legal careers. I feel almost a little ridiculous answering this. Then again, I didn't say "only non-ridiculous questions allowed." So there you go.

[Holly Golightly]

Is the work as much fun and as awesome as it is in my head or does the stress take away from the awesomeness?

Can you shed any light generally on the opinion-drafting process or is that too confidential?

[Anonymous User]

Is the work as much fun and as awesome as it is in my head or does the stress take away from the awesomeness?

Can you shed any light generally on the opinion-drafting process or is that too confidential?

This is OP. At the risk of sounding taunting, the job is every bit as amazing and awesome, in the non-trite, non-contemporary sense of inspiring awe, as you would hope. I suspect it is irreplaceable and not replicated anywhere else in the profession. Maybe in any profession.

I can't speak as to opinion-drafting.

Edit: This is OP. Off-topic, but I don't intend to post in any other threads, so there's no other place, and I imagine I've bought a little indulgence from the mods. Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly is, in my mind's eye, the pinnacle of cinematic beauty.

[Anonymous User]

This is OP. I will be available to answer questions today and possibly tomorrow, but I do not know when my next series of responses will be after that. I'm not sure if that will be the end of the thread or not. But I don't warrant replying to anything posted after tomorrow. So if you have any final questions, please go ahead now.

[Anonymous User]

This is OP. Thank you. I'm glad you appreciated it.

I'll go out a little on a limb for you here. Those two are good. But a comprehensive answer depends on which Justices you might be a good fit for. Eric Posner is good regardless, and accessible. Bernard Harcourt if you're liberal. Adam Mortara has a close relationship with Justice Thomas. Todd Henderson doesn't have special clout, but writes good letters and makes good phone calls. Joking aside, Will Baude surely has serious connections with the Chief. But what you really want is an in with UC's clerkship guru.

Thanks a ton - I'm going to have to do some soul-searching as to fit with justices.

Harcourt is two steps out the door, btw. All but official at this point.

[Doorkeeper]

FYI: It is official. Harcourt is going to Columbia.

[Anonymous User]

FYI: It is official. Harcourt is going to Columbia.

Thanks - it was rumored most of the year. Hadn't heard the official word.

[Anonymous User]

When you say political recommendations from the Federalist Society or ACS can help a candidate, do you mean the student organization leaders themselves, the faculty sponsors for the student organizations, or the national organizations? If student orgs, are some schools' recs more valuable than others?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Edit: This is OP. Off-topic, but I don't intend to post in any other threads, so there's no other place, and I imagine I've bought a little indulgence from the mods. Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly is, in my mind's eye, the pinnacle of cinematic beauty.

Lordy, have you been in most of the on-topics lately? No indulgence needed. But in any case, thank you so much for this thread - it's incredibly informative. Like someone earlier, I really appreciated your post about how, if you get the SCOTUS gig, you have to face that your satisfaction/happiness is up to you. (Not that I am ever going to be in your position, but it's still a great point.)

[Anonymous User]

When you say political recommendations from the Federalist Society or ACS can help a candidate, do you mean the student organization leaders themselves, the faculty sponsors for the student organizations, or the national organizations? If student orgs, are some schools' recs more valuable than others?

This is OP. I mean the national organization. The national home office.

[Anonymous User]

Edit: This is OP. Off-topic, but I don't intend to post in any other threads, so there's no other place, and I imagine I've bought a little indulgence from the mods. Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly is, in my mind's eye, the pinnacle of cinematic beauty.

Lordy, have you been in most of the on-topics lately? No indulgence needed. But in any case, thank you so much for this thread - it's incredibly informative. Like someone earlier, I really appreciated your post about how, if you get the SCOTUS gig, you have to face that your satisfaction/happiness is up to you. (Not that I am ever going to be in your position, but it's still a great point.)

This is OP. You're all very welcome. I'm glad to do it. And the existential point is a broad one. But never teed up so perfectly as when you get exactly what you think you wanted.

[Anonymous User]

OP, do you have any experience reading Boalt transcripts? If so, can you offer any insight into what would a "competitive" set of grades might look like?

Based on something you said a few posts ago, I'm thinking the details of the grades might not really matter so long as the reviewer knows the applicant's overall rank, but I figured I might as well ask.

[Anonymous User]

OP, can you discuss the timing of a faculty call to the Court? When would it be most effective?

[Anonymous User]

OP, do you have any experience reading Boalt transcripts? If so, can you offer any insight into what would a "competitive" set of grades might look like?

Based on something you said a few posts ago, I'm thinking the details of the grades might not really matter so long as the reviewer knows the applicant's overall rank, but I figured I might as well ask.

This is OP. I have experience reading all the top schools' transcripts, as would basically any SCOTUS clerk (more or less).

Competitive at Boalt is approximately all high honors with LR and a feeder clerkship. Then someone would call the registrar/dean and ask where the applicant fell in class rank. Yes, Boalt ranks, because law schools that say they don't rank are lying, because they do, in fact, rank. Competitive in this context would be top 5 students or so.

Your instincts are basically right. Rank matters more than grades as a rule. Grades matter: if you get a bad grade in federal courts, con law, or similar it is going to be worse than if you got a bad grade in a less critical course. And the Justices/clerks care about your transcript looking like you took serious courses rather than fluff. But rank matters more than grades generally. If Yale suddenly enforced a rigorous C curve, a student with all B+s would be incredibly impressive all of a sudden.

[Anonymous User]

OP, can you discuss the timing of a faculty call to the Court? When would it be most effective?

This is OP. When the Justice is starting to review applications, or right after the Justice has finished interviews, but before making offers.

I know. That's opaque. But hey, if you're that competitive you probably have an inside connection.

There's a reason I said many successful candidates had SCOTUS friends. They're valuable. It's really hard to overstate the power a clerk has to nudge or tank an application during his or her year.

[Anonymous User]

Insofar as you can discuss this, do the justices discuss hiring amongst themselves at all? For some reasons but not for others? Do they discuss specific candidates?

[Anonymous User]

Thoughts on the best recommenders from HLS (defined however you want)? Aside from the super obvious like Prof. Tribe. Are there any professors who might be more under the radar so to speak with respect to SCOTUS recommending/connections.

[Anonymous User]

Insofar as you can discuss this, do the justices discuss hiring amongst themselves at all? For some reasons but not for others? Do they discuss specific candidates?

This is OP. I'm sorry, I definitely cannot discuss whether the Justices discuss anything with each other (if I'd even know).

Confidentiality is serious stuff. I'm trying my best to divulge everything that I could have learned outside of SCOTUS if I knew where to look without violating the pledge we all take at the start of our terms. All of this information is accessible out there, somewhere.

[Anonymous User]

Thoughts on the best recommenders from HLS (defined however you want)? Aside from the super obvious like Prof. Tribe. Are there any professors who might be more under the radar so to speak with respect to SCOTUS recommending/connections.

This is OP. The previous SCOTUS clerks. Which is many of them! There are many fantastic choices for recommenders at HLS. Manning, Glendon, Liz Warren's husband (whose name escapes me right now), Stephenson, Gersen, Fallon, Bebchuk, Kaplow, Kennedy... it's really hard to go wrong.

Sorry to give you an obvious answer, if that was obvious. If you asked me to pick the best recommender among the more junior people it would probably be Jacob Gersen, who I think was poached from Chicago fairly recently. Year or two ago?

[canoe]

Thoughts on the best recommenders from HLS (defined however you want)? Aside from the super obvious like Prof. Tribe. Are there any professors who might be more under the radar so to speak with respect to SCOTUS recommending/connections.

This is OP. The previous SCOTUS clerks. Which is many of them! There are many fantastic choices for recommenders at HLS. Manning, Glendon, Liz Warren's husband (whose name escapes me right now), Stephenson, Gersen, Fallon, Bebchuk, Kaplow, Kennedy... it's really hard to go wrong.

Sorry to give you an obvious answer, if that was obvious. If you asked me to pick the best recommender among the more junior people it would probably be Jacob Gersen, who I think was poached from Chicago fairly recently. Year or two ago?

Hey OP, do you mind answering the same question with regard to NYU and/or UVA professors? I'd much appreciate it.

[Anonymous User]

Insofar as you can discuss this, do the justices discuss hiring amongst themselves at all? For some reasons but not for others? Do they discuss specific candidates?

This is OP. I'm sorry, I definitely cannot discuss whether the Justices discuss anything with each other (if I'd even know).

Confidentiality is serious stuff. I'm trying my best to divulge everything that I could have learned outside of SCOTUS if I knew where to look without violating the pledge we all take at the start of our terms. All of this information is accessible out there, somewhere.

Let me ask a slightly different question. Let's say someone has an interview and is told it'll be a while before a decision is made. Is there anything wrong with that applicant asking his recommenders to go to bat for him with another justice who might hire in the interim?

[Holly Golightly]

Edit: This is OP. Off-topic, but I don't intend to post in any other threads, so there's no other place, and I imagine I've bought a little indulgence from the mods. Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly is, in my mind's eye, the pinnacle of cinematic beauty.

Lordy, have you been in most of the on-topics lately? No indulgence needed. But in any case, thank you so much for this thread - it's incredibly informative. Like someone earlier, I really appreciated your post about how, if you get the SCOTUS gig, you have to face that your satisfaction/happiness is up to you. (Not that I am ever going to be in your position, but it's still a great point.)

I just wanted to echo the thanks, this thread is one of the most interesting things I've ever read on TLS. And Audrey as Holly is incredible. I think I may rewatch Breakfast at Tiffany's tonight!

[Anonymous User]

Insofar as you can discuss this, do the justices discuss hiring amongst themselves at all? For some reasons but not for others? Do they discuss specific candidates?

This is OP. I'm sorry, I definitely cannot discuss whether the Justices discuss anything with each other (if I'd even know).

Confidentiality is serious stuff. I'm trying my best to divulge everything that I could have learned outside of SCOTUS if I knew where to look without violating the pledge we all take at the start of our terms. All of this information is accessible out there, somewhere.

Let me ask a slightly different question. Let's say someone has an interview and is told it'll be a while before a decision is made. Is there anything wrong with that applicant asking his recommenders to go to bat for him with another justice who might hire in the interim?

This is OP. No, there's nothing wrong with this, though it may or may not be strategically wise, depending on way too many factors to generalize about.

[Anonymous User]

Thoughts on the best recommenders from HLS (defined however you want)? Aside from the super obvious like Prof. Tribe. Are there any professors who might be more under the radar so to speak with respect to SCOTUS recommending/connections.

This is OP. The previous SCOTUS clerks. Which is many of them! There are many fantastic choices for recommenders at HLS. Manning, Glendon, Liz Warren's husband (whose name escapes me right now), Stephenson, Gersen, Fallon, Bebchuk, Kaplow, Kennedy... it's really hard to go wrong.

Sorry to give you an obvious answer, if that was obvious. If you asked me to pick the best recommender among the more junior people it would probably be Jacob Gersen, who I think was poached from Chicago fairly recently. Year or two ago?

Hey OP, do you mind answering the same question with regard to NYU and/or UVA professors? I'd much appreciate it.

This is OP. Is there a chance you could narrow this down to some selections for me to compare and contrast, just for (a) ease and (b) so I don't reveal my comparative knowledge of the two faculties too much? Happy to answer. Just trying to finesse this a little.

[Anonymous User]

Edit: This is OP. Off-topic, but I don't intend to post in any other threads, so there's no other place, and I imagine I've bought a little indulgence from the mods. Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly is, in my mind's eye, the pinnacle of cinematic beauty.

Lordy, have you been in most of the on-topics lately? No indulgence needed. But in any case, thank you so much for this thread - it's incredibly informative. Like someone earlier, I really appreciated your post about how, if you get the SCOTUS gig, you have to face that your satisfaction/happiness is up to you. (Not that I am ever going to be in your position, but it's still a great point.)

I just wanted to echo the thanks, this thread is one of the most interesting things I've ever read on TLS. And Audrey as Holly is incredible. I think I may rewatch Breakfast at Tiffany's tonight!

This is OP. You're welcome. I'll choose to interpret your someecard implausibly to think she's to whom I'm typing then.

And collectively: you're all certainly welcome.