If you're suffering from UTR withdrawal, just read this awesome article, by Anna Schneider-Mayerson of the New York Observer, entitled "The Little Supremes." The subhead says it all: "Meet the Next Generation of Robertses and Alitos: Blazers, No Nose Rings, Strunk and White Sarcasm; ‘If They Wanted It,’ One Says, ‘They Wouldn’t Say It.'"
Schneider-Mayerson's article is a fascinating, detailed study of the folks she dubs "Little Supremes": "a handful of earnest, platinum-résumé’d law geeks whose prospects for the Big Bench are the source of constant speculation among friends and colleagues." This glamorous group is dominated (unsurprisingly) by members of the Elect, including several whose names have been splashed generously over the pages of this blog (e.g., Noah Feldman, Kermit Roosevelt, David Schizer, etc.).
Article III Groupie's final reason for recommending this article to you: it includes a shout-out to UTR! Here's the relevant discussion:
At N.Y.U., as at other top schools, somewhere between 15 and 40 students with the top grades get special counseling for prime clerkship placements, the goal being to send the top Supreme Court clerkship candidates to "feeder judges," said [Professor Burt] Neuborne.
These are the old kingmakers of an old profession. In the first half of the century, it was Second Circuit Judge Learned Hand; in the 25 years after that, Second Circuit Judge Henry Friendly. At least six of his former clerks are on the federal bench—including Justice Roberts and Judges Pierre Leval, A. Raymond Randolph, Michael Boudin, William Curtis Bryson and Merrick Garland.
The feeder judges tend to be Supremes-in-waiting themselves. These days, some of those judges are political iconoclasts Richard Posner and Alex Kozinski, conservative sparring partners Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson III, and Second Circuit Clinton appointees Pierre Leval and Guido Calabresi.
"I think Guido picks winners," said Mr. Roosevelt, who didn’t get a clerkship offer from Judge Calabresi but did clerk on the D.C. circuit, considered a training ground for Supreme Court justices.
And it’s a betting man’s game. The wildly irreverent, anonymous legal Web log Underneath Their Robes keeps tabs on where feeder-judge clerks end up, and refers to Supreme Court clerks as "members of the Elect."
Delightful! And don't miss the rest of Schneider-Mayerson's article, which is packed full of such juicy tidbits. You can access it by clicking here. Enjoy!
NYU has pretty much skyrocketed in the last 30 and in particular the last 15 years. Our LSAT and GPA numbers are higher than all but Harvard/Yale/Stanford - except I think the LSAT numbers are higher than Stanford. Unlike a decade ago - when I was applying the school is also no longer picking simply to inflate its numbers but is fishing for the very best candidates. Significantly, over the last 5 years we have gotten many more grads into "the elect" and area in which we had conscpicuoulsy lacked heretofore.
Also, there are exactly how many Chicago or Michigan grads currently on the Court? How many have they had histrically.
(It's true we almos got a UVA grad on - but apparantly W heard A3G's plea and chose Alito over Luttig. A win for Yale but a loss for "the elect").
Posted by: DURAS | November 11, 2005 at 11:03 PM
OK. I'll take the bait. I actually landed an A- in the class. Grades are supposed to be anonymous and teachers should respect the privacy of their students.
I just thought to share an interesting bit of info about one of the little supremes.
Posted by: Michigan Law | November 11, 2005 at 03:14 PM
whaaa. my classmates saw my grade. what a scandal. you pampered little whiner. the only people who care if others see their grades are those whose grades should be higher.
Posted by: gramm | November 11, 2005 at 11:40 AM
isn't it a little presumptuous to list NYU along with Harvard and Yale rather than Columbia, Stanford, Chicago, or Michigan? when was the last time, if ever, that an NYU grad was on the court? and how common is it for an NYU grad to get a SCOTUS clerkship, not just compared to Harvard and Yale but to Columbia, Chicago, Stanford, Michigan, or UVA? And listing NYU wasn't just the New York bias displayed in the rest of the article, since then Columbia should've been mentioned. The author probably has a friend or relative at NYU.
Posted by: guest | November 10, 2005 at 01:16 PM
That article was pretty silly. Most of the people mentioned have absolutely zero chance of being named to the Supreme Court someday. They just happened to be Supreme Court clerks that live in New York.
Posted by: thelawgal | November 09, 2005 at 07:18 PM
One of the so called Little Supremes mentioned in the article includes an old prof of mine at Michigan. For the record, I find the idea of Richard Primus elevated to the Supreme Court horrifying. While a student of his employment discrimination class, Primus had the audacity to send out an email to all of his 100 students. In the email was an excel listing of each student's name with his or hers corresponding grade next to it. It sparked a mini riot amongst students. Talk about the ultimate law school nightmare! Hopefully, that might come up during his confirmation hearing!
Posted by: Michigan Law | November 09, 2005 at 05:09 PM