Underneath Their Robes

More from Above the Law

The new website that Article III Groupie mentioned yesterday, Above the Law, is up and running. Here are a few posts that readers of UTR might enjoy:

1. Every Unhappy Appellate Court Is Unhappy In Its Own Way (about benchslappery at the Sixth Circuit)

2. The White House Counsel's Office: Here Comes the Cavalry (about various job moves by conservative "young gun" lawyers)

3. Yo Holmes! The Tenth Circuit's Newest Member (about Judge Jerome Holmes, just confirmed to the Tenth Circuit)

4. Another Judge Leaves for Greener Pastures (about Chief Judge Michael Mukasey's retirement from the S.D.N.Y.)

5. Neal Katyal: The Paris Hilton of the Legal Elite? (about Neal Katyal, one of the brightest stars in the SCOTUS clerk firmament)

6. The Upcoming SCOTUS Term: More of the Same (an irreverent preview of October Term 2006 at the Supreme Court)

7. Legal Eagle Wedding Watch (links to multiple posts, collected on one page) (exegesis of the New York Times wedding announcements of high-powered lawyers from the past few weeks)

Okay, now A3G is really signing off for the holiday. Happy Labor Day!

Another Cool New Website

It's called Above the Law. Check it out here.

Supreme Court Law Clerks: Where Are the Women?

For those of us who find Supreme Court clerk hiring news "more riveting than any offering on reality television" -- okay, Project Runway comes close -- this New York Times article, by Linda Greenhouse, is a must-read. Here's the key take-away:

Everyone knows that with the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the number of female Supreme Court justices fell by half. The talk of the court this summer, with the arrival of the new crop of law clerks, is that the number of female clerks has fallen even more sharply.

Just under 50 percent of new law school graduates in 2005 were women. Yet women account for only 7 of the 37 law clerkships for the new term, the first time the number has been in the single digits since 1994, when there were 4,000 fewer women among the country’s new law school graduates than there are today.

Oh, tell Article III Groupie all about it! But A3G won't engage in conspiracy-theorizing. Even the liberal justices don't blame the drop in female law clerks on anything nefarious:

In interviews, two of the justices, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer, suggested that the sharp drop in women among the clerkship ranks reflected a random variation in the applicant pool.

Here's one explanation that has been floated:

Some speculated that Justice Antonin Scalia, who hired only two women among 28 law clerks during the last seven years and who will have none this year, could not find enough conservative women to meet his test of ideological purity. (Justice Clarence Thomas will also have no female clerks this year, but over the preceding six years hired 11.)

Interesting. It's certainly true that Justice Scalia hasn't hired many women over the years. Last Term's crew was all-male, as is this Term. Does anyone have any inside information on this? If so, please drop A3G a line. (If you just have speculation, no need to write; A3G can speculate as well as anyone.)

Digression: One of the two women hired by AS in the past seven years is Susan Kearns, whose NYT wedding announcement A3G dissected here. She is still at Kirkland & Ellis, where she is up for (non-equity) partnership soon. Mr. Susan Kearns -- a.k.a. Steven Engel, himself a former Kennedy clerk -- recently left Kirkland for a high-powered post as Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General at the Office of Legal Counsel. (The AAG at OLC -- a.k.a.  Headmaster of the Finishing School for the Elect -- is former Thomas clerk Steven Bradbury, whose confirmation has been held up by the Senate Democrats, for political reasons unrelated to Bradbury himself. Naughty Democrats!

By the way, it's interesting to see an article on law clerk hiring coming from the keyboard of Linda Greenhouse. She tends to write less about the Elect than Supreme Court reporters for other top newspapers. And sometimes NYT articles about SCOTUS clerks are penned by other Times reporters -- like this one, by Adam Liptak.

Greenhouse drops a hint as to why she doesn't like to write about clerks that much. In today's article, she can't resist trying to pop the bubble of beliefs about the influence of the Elect at One First Street:

They do not, contrary to myth — propagated in part by law clerks themselves — run the court. They do play a significant role in screening new cases, though, and they help their justices in preparing for argument and in drafting opinions.

C'mon, Linda, don't be such a party pooper!

Of course, taking the clerks down a notch is in Greenhouse's own self-interest. Among the Supreme Court press, she's widely envied for having the best access to the justices themselves (several of whom she quotes in today's Times piece). So diminishing the role played at the Court by law clerks relative to justices is self-aggrandizing for Greenhouse: she relies upon clerkly sources much less than the SCOTUS reporters who are her closest competition.

But even grumpy Greenhouse can't deny the value of the Supreme Court clerkship as a credential (literally, not just figuratively):

While their pay is a modest $63,335 for their year of service, a Supreme Court clerkship is money in the bank: the clerks are considered such a catch that law firms are currently paying each one they hire a signing bonus of $200,000.

Okay, time for an announcement: Supreme Court clerk profiles are coming back! Just as she did last year, A3G will prepare a series of profiles for all current members of the Elect. (Links to the October Term 2005 profiles are collected near the end of this post, the last in the series.)

So don't delay. Please send fun facts -- and interesting tidbits of gossip -- about any current Supreme Court clerk to Article Three Groupie, by email. She will take the best of what you send her, do some poking around of her own, and deliver the results over the next few weeks (going chambers by chambers, as she did last year).

Thanks in advance for your delicious contributions, which make UTR possible. Have a fun and restful Labor Day weekend!

A Cool New Website

Article III groupies everywhere are sure to love this new website: The Robing Room.

The Robing Room is sort of like an online version of the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary. At the site, lawyers (and others) can say basically whatever they want about federal judges -- on an anonymous basis.

But the Robing Room has some advantages over the AFJ. Since it's online, it's updated more frequently, and it's accessible to everyone (not just subscribers). And it's free, which is nice, since the AFJ costs a pretty penny.

Of course, the Robing Room is only as good as the information the editors receive. So head over there and put in your two cents about your favorite -- and least favorite -- Article III judges.

Remember: federal judges are public figures. Actual malice, baby!

Click here to check out The Robing Room. Enjoy!

Riding Circuit -- In a Taxicab?

Judge Thomas M. Hardiman (W.D. Pa.) is quite the judicial wunderkind. He was appointed to the federal trial bench before the age of 40. And now, after less than three years of service as a district judge, he may be in line for a promotion:

Thomas M. Hardiman, 41, who became a judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania in October 2003, could fill a vacancy created on the appeals court after Richard L. Nygaard, of Erie, became a senior judge last summer.

His colleagues have nice things to say about him: "an absolute star," who is "intelligent, hard-working and willing to listen." (But this comment, from former Chief Judge Donald Ziegler, sounds a trifle backhanded: Hardiman turned out to be a "very, very pleasant surprise on the District Court.")

Interesting tidbit: Judge Hardiman worked as a taxi driver before attending law school.

"Um, the far corner, please. Yeah, right here is just fine. Can I get twelve back, Your Honor?"

Judge Hardiman considered for federal appeals post [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]
U.S. judge here eyed for court of appeals [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review]

(Robe swish: How Appealing)

An Interesting Review of Jeremy Blachman's "Anonymous Lawyer"

Available here.

Earlier: A UTR Summer Reading List

Judicial Diva, She's Homeless

"La da dee la dee da,
La da dee la dee da..."

Yes, it's true: Judge Carolyn Kuhl, one of UTR's top three judicial divas, has been bounced out onto the mean streets of LA. Details here. (Robe swish: How Appealing.)

First political hacks hold up Judge Kuhl's nomination to the Ninth Circuit  (which she eventually asks to be withdrawn). And now, denied a seat on the federal bench, Judge Kuhl is reduced to working on street corners -- literally. Check out this photo (by Richard Hartog/LAT):

Article III Groupie has said it once, and she'll say it again: State court judges are icky. It's hard out here for a non-Article III judge!

P.S. Is Judge Kuhl stifling a yawn -- or is she just about to sneeze?

The Chief's New Biatch

Administrative assistants to powerful Washingtonians are often highly attractive (e.g., Taylor Hughes, Karl Rove's assistant). Hiring a hottie is eminently sensible. If the duties to be performed are relatively straightforward, why not have them performed by someone comely?

Chief Justice John G. Roberts's new "administrative assistant," Jeffrey Minear, is an exception to this rule. Although reasonably attractive for a man of his age, Minear's no hottie -- unless you're talking about his resume. Here's an excerpt from the SCOTUS press release announcing his appointment:

Minear was a chemical engineer for Union Carbide Corporation in Texas City, Texas, from 1977 to 1979. After receiving his law degree in 1982, he held a one-year appointment as a judicial clerk for Judge Monroe G. McKay of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Minear then joined the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the United States Department of Justice.... From 1985 to 1998, he was assistant to the Solicitor General, United States Department of Justice, responsible for Supreme Court and appellate litigation focusing on civil, environmental, and intellectual property issues. In his current position as senior litigation counsel, Minear is responsible for Supreme Court and appellate litigation and for overseeing the government's participation in all Supreme Court original actions. Minear has argued 56 cases before the Supreme Court.

Wow -- how many "administrative assistants" have argued before the Court 56 times?

But then again, the Chief Justice's "administrative assistant" isn't your typical administrative assistant, as the WSJ Law Blog notes:

Minear’s title will be administrative assistant, which, frankly, sounds like a lame title for a guy who has argued 56 cases before the Supremes.... Think of him as Roberts’s chief of staff, helping run the court and monitor judicial issues. (Congress created the administrative assistant position by statute in 1972; maybe it thought that the title of “Chief of Staff to the Chief Justice” sounded funny.)

So don't expect Minear to be fetching coffee and muffins for the chambers. After all, that's Chief Justice Roberts's job...

Heigh Ho, Heigh Ho, It's Off to One First Street They Go

Justice White (Snow, not Byron): "Okay, raise your hand if you vote to affirm!"

If you're reading this blog, congratulations. Give yourself a big pat on the back. Odds are that you are much smarter and more well-informed than the average American. Consider the results of a recent poll:

Sleepy, Grumpy, Larry, Moe, Krypton -- that's what seems to stick in the national mind-set these days. Americans are more familiar with the Seven Dwarfs, the Three Stooges and Superman than with current events and world leaders, according to yet another poll that reveals our trite side.

In a survey released yesterday, veteran political pollster John Zogby determined that although 77 percent of us can identify two of the Seven Dwarfs, only 24 percent could name two Supreme Court justices.

God save the Republic...

Okay, let's say you're a justice on the Supreme Court, and you want to increase your name recognition. What should you do?

We recommend public discussion of the oeuvre of Long Dong Silver:

"Not surprisingly, Clarence Thomas, whose nomination was marked by controversy, was the most recognized justice -- identified twice as often as his next best-known peer on the Supreme Court -- Antonin Scalia," the survey stated.

Justice Thomas was cited by almost 20 percent of the respondents and Justice Scalia by a little less than 11 percent. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were tied at 9 percent. Sixty-three percent were unsure just who was on the Supreme Court. Only 11 percent knew that Samuel A. Alito Jr. was confirmed as the 110th Supreme Court justice in January.

You can be a brilliant law professor and former D.C. Circuit judge, like Justices Scalia and Ginsburg; a top Supreme Court litigator, like Chief Justice Roberts; or a former U.S. Attorney and one of the nation's best appellate judges, like Justice Alito. But the American people still won't have a clue about who you are, even after you're appointed to the Supreme Court.

We live in a great nation. Nothing captures the public imagination like pubic hair in carbonated beverages...

(For more on the Supreme Court and the Seven Dwarfs, check out this post at Southern Appeal. Genius.)

Summer School for Chief Justice Roberts?

There are some people out there who just seem too perfect -- you know, like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, or Chief Justice John G. Roberts. We cherish those rare moments when these figures show that they are, in fact, human.

Like when Condi falls asleep in a meeting , or when Chief Justice Roberts misspeaks. Or when the Chief fumbles his response to an interview question:

When asked which Framer Roberts would most like to have been, Roberts responded that he liked to think that he would have been a Framer that “brokered the great compromises.”

A Framer who "brokered the great compromises"? Sounds like a punt to us, Mr. Chief Justice. Care to name names? It's like being asked which former Supreme Court justice you would most like to have been, and answering, "Uh, like, the one who wrote all those cool opinions."

Summer reading for Chief Justice Roberts: some good histories of the Founding.

(No, A3G also can't name the specific Framer(s) who "brokered the great compromises." But she's not the Chief Justice of the United States -- or even a member of the Elect. So don't look to her for that kind of knowledge. For extra credit, identify the great compromise brokers in the comments to this post.)

C-SPAN Interviews Chief Justice Roberts [Orin Kerr]