Geez Lat, you've been watching too much Sean Hannity if you think #4 an embarrassing question.

Fair to assume it's too late to apply for OT 2009? How far in advance do most people apply? A full two years?

I once saw Justice Scalia piss all over UVA and then eat a pasta dinner in Georgetown.

Yea, more diversitymongering!

Thomas, J. doesn't think about diversity when he hires, why should you?

J. Thomas doesn't think about merit either when making hires, but most people probably shouldn't follow that course!

11:25 - So true, I mean really Thomas, J., GMU? GW? Creighton? and Rutgers?, I haven't seen a lineup that bad since the Bad News Bears opened their inaugural season.

GULC is an F'n joke.

Hook 'em Horns!!!

UVA? STANFORD? Only HLS and Yale should be accepted. This is the most important court in the land after all.

11:17, no you didn't. it was a mere chimera.

11:33, didn't the Bad News Bears win the championship at the end of the movie?

"their names will appear on the Court's official list of law clerks in a few weeks" - where is this on their website?

Keller, a new grad, also has an article coming out in USC's law review, a rather unusual state of affairs which prompted some slight snark over on Volokh yesterday.

I really hope 11:52 is joking.

11:36 - How is GULC a joke here? For 2008, UVA, Chicago, NYU, and Columbia all have 1 clerk as well.

Seriously, whoever thinks GULC is a joke must be a Penn Grad or go to UVA. That is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

How does one get into a position to be one of the Elect and land a $300,000 signing bonus?

Scott Keller rocks. Congrats.

11:25, spoken like someone who never clerked at SCOTUS. How's that view from the cheap seats?

Lat hurling accusations of being precious and self-important? Oh, the delightful irony.

oh, 1:01. you're obviously unaware that a lawyer's merit is solely determined by the name on his diploma. once you get out into the real world, you'll figure out how it works.

OK, if Alito and Roberts were to go to fisticuffs, who would win?

Lat, why don't you do a story that the msm misses, faculty diversity by political preference. It is shameful that most top law schools have a few token conservatives. This is not at all representative of the general population and conservatives are far less represented amongst faculty members at top-10 law schools as well as law firms than women or racial minorities.

1:13, is that the same "real world" where a lawyer with comparatively piddling accomplishments can anonymously demean another lawyer who has achieved the pinnacle of the legal profession?

Good call.

12:40 - no one at UVa thinks GULC is a joke, so spare everyone your indignation.

2:49, don't be such a moron. Not every lawyer who achieves the pinnacle of the legal profession prize actually wins it on merit. Anyone who has competed in any competitive endeavor knows that a whole host of questionable factors play a role in separating winners from losers.. J. Thomas' clerks have obviously gotten the brass ring. But must we pretend that the best and the brightest are coming out of GMU, Creighton, GW and Camden? You don't have to leave the cheap seats to question those hiring choices.

I'm really glad to see some of the justices acknowledge that schools other than Harvard and Yale can produce qualified clerks. Congrats! I'm guessing 11:52 and others of the same opinion have a wee bit of jealousy.

Oh, and who cares, 2:02, that conservatives aren't as represented as other political parties in some aspects of the legal profession? Try being a woman or gay for one day in the legal world...then complain about being a conservative.

3:58 --

Concluding that the best candidate comes from GMU is not the same as saying GMU is better than Yale. Some not-so-prestigious law firms have superstar lawyers that could dominate at the highest level. Should we apply your myopic assumptions across the board?

(No, I didn't go to George Mason.)

Gays get preferential treatment in the law review competition, law firm hiring, and for scholarships. Conservatives (which in elite law schools includes anyone who is not a knee-jerk liberal) have their views openly maligned by law professors, their classmates, and even at law firms. Take two students with equal credentials and one lists ACS on his/her resume and the other lists federalist society, see who gets more callbacks.

Moreover, your ignorance is demonstrated by your assumption that being female or gay and conservative is mutually exclusive.

3:58, your breathtakingly quick resort to petty name-calling reveals why your writing skills haven't merited notice by a SCOTUS Justice.

Even if your criticism was justified by some modicum of reality, unless you've got the same juristic chops as--or a resume even remotely comparable to--those you seek to anonymously criticize, I'd keep my trap shut.

4:17, I agree that on occasion the best student at GMU is better than the best candidate out of Yale (or at least better than the 11th best applicant out of Yale, since after the first 10 Yalies are selected, a Justice must choose between the next best Yale grad and the GMU superstar). But wouldn't you be surprised if in the very same year the best out of GMU, Camden, Creighton and GW were all better than the 11th best Yalie, the 9th best Harvard grad, the 5th best Stanford candidate, the 2nd best from Chicago, UVA, GULC etc?

I am not as myopic as you think. Of course there are diamonds in the rough who achieve a well deserved measure of success. But diamonds in the rough are obviously rare, superstar litigators at cut below firms the exceptions that prove the rule. You can believe that J. Thomas has (1) amazingly found 4 hidden gems all in the same year or (2) that he is hiring on something other than merit, as most would define the term. You can decide which is more plausible. I've obviously cast my lot.

4:23, did it really take your breath away that I resorted to name calling with such celerity? Don't be such a sentimental pansy (oh dear, did I take your breath away again?). And I have a stellar resume, though since when do criticisms that are justified "by some modicum of reality"-an awkward phrase that-have to be made only by those with resumes of my caliber? If a critique is valid, it is valid, and your sanctimonious response hasn't touched the merits.

As a final note, I haven't criticized the Thomas clerks. My criticism-in addition to being aimed at the likes of you-is directed at CT himself.

The venom on this board is totally unecessary and, to use a tedious but frequently-seen legalism, "misplaced." 3:58, I went to a T-1 school, and yes, there are a lot of smart people there. That does not mean, however, that there is not one single student at "GMU, Creighton, GW, [or] Camden" worthy of a SCOTUS clerkship. I know one of the persons in question, and I am quite sure that if you saw that individual in a courtroom, you would get ripped in half.

It's not like any of them fell into the job. Look at the CTA clerkships listed there: Jones, Kavanaugh, Arnold, and double-duty with Chertoff and Sentelle. Get a grip.

LOL @ 5:08

These are clerks, as in 2 years out of law school never seen a courtroom clerks. I love how they are already "laywers" who rip people in half in the courtroom. That really doesn't make sense when you think about the fact that they are appellate lawyers.

Maybe they are great students, who could rip you in half in the classroom.

5:08, I did not claim that there is not one single student at GMU etc. worthy of a SCOTUS clerkship. I made it clear (or so I thought) that this might well be the case. I questioned whether there were 4 people from those schools worthy of a SCOTUS clerkship in the very same year. I continue to think the answer is no. Your reply, seeing as it responded to an argument I didn't make, has not changed my mind.

And are my prior comments really that venomous? We lawyers were once thought to have thick, or thicker, skins.

5:08, why are you so unwilling to accept that CT uses other factors in addition to merit when hiring his clerks? I'm sure there have always been students at GMU, Creighton, GW, and Camden "worthy" of a SCOTUS clerkship. That doesn't mean that there aren't better qualified candidates elsewhere. Statistically, it's highly unlikely that the 4 best candidates all came from crappy schools. It's CT's right to make a statement through his clerk hiring, but it's intellectually dishonest of you to refuse to admit that he's doing so.

(P.S., most of the "T-1" schools suck. So I wouldn't brag.)

- not 3:58

5:03, that is high praise indeed to target me along with Justice Thomas for criticism. I am not deserving of the honor you no doubt did not intend to bestow.

However, despite your vapid protestations to the contrary, your sniveling responses reveal a jealously of those who garnered SCOTUS clerkships which you could not secure, particularly if the clerks possessed diplomas issued by institutions you deem inferior (ironic that).

The "merits" of your point are similarly specious. It matters not what you or I think of the caliber of clerks chosen to clerk at SCOTUS because we ourselves are not so legally sublime as to have been given the unparalleled honor of making such selections. Moreover, I'd wager if you stacked your resume (or mine for that matter) alongside those of the clerks you denigrate, nine out of nine SCOTUS Justices would agree with Justice Thomas' judgment.

5:44, your menagerie of 5-dollar words can't hide the fact that you're an idiot.

5:03 never said s/he was more qualified than CT's clerks. Further, it's silly to assume that his or her argument springs from jealousy. There is no way that 4 candidates from mediocre schools could each be the most qualified options. By definition, success at a mediocre school is a lesser accomplishment than success at one of the world's most elite law schools because competition at the latter is unequaled.

Unless you attend(ed) a mediocre law school and are desperate to believe that you are just as smart as those with a more prestegious education (p.s., you're not), then you have no reason to run from the fact that CT intends to make a statement by hiring clerks based on a metric more complicated than one of merit alone.

"just as smart as those with a more prestegious education (p.s., you're not), . . . ."

It's completely ridiculous to assert that that the person with a more prestigious education is smarter. Even at a place as mighty as YLS, there are a few duds.

"There is no way that 4 candidates from mediocre schools could each be the most qualified options."

5:57, you reveal the fundamental and decidedly non-intellectual flaw in the argument to which both you and 5:03 cling.

First, the mere fact that candidates from schools you label as "mediocre" were selected to clerk at SCOTUS over you or I automatically makes them the "most qualified" applicants.

It must be a heavy burden for your ego to absorb the blow that all of the merit you have slavishly self-appropriated solely from the mere name on your diploma alone has amounted to naught.

Again, your tacit and simpleminded assumption that candidates from schools you see as lesser cannot possibly be as "smart" or "qualified" as someone from a more recognized law school reveals an intellectual laziness and egotistical self-delusion. Your abject willingness to repeat such treacle smacks more of base jealously than of reasoned argument or elevated intellect.

5:44, do listen to 5:57 regarding $5 words. Using big boy SAT words is an art not a science. If pulled off properly it can really add value to a comment (e.g. 5:57's effective application of menagerie). But when the venture fails (as in your use of vapid, sniveling, specious and sublime) it detracts from the point you are trying to make.

And as for that, your test for whether someone merits the job is whether he lands the job. If J. Thomas hired a crack whore to clerk for him and all the Justices passed your resume over, would you say the crack whore a better lawyer than you? It might just be possible that 8 out of 9 Justices think you more qualified than a crack whore but not as qualified as the top Michigan student.

I assure you I am not jealous of any of the SCOTUS clerks (note, this is my first protestation, vapid or otherwise, on the subject). And I wish Thomas' well.

Does it detract as much as using an inapposite "crack whore" analogy to refute a point about SCOTUS hiring?

You are correct, my linguistic elegance can't match your demonstrated mastery of the medium.

The crack whore analogy didn't detract at all. It bolstered my point by showing how ridiculous your argument was and continues to be. I obviously don't think the Thomas clerks are on par with a crack whore.

UVA makes GULC look like GW. This is getting ridiculous.

The first time I use a "crack whore" analogy, much less attempt to defend its use, should be the last time anyone listens to anything I have to say regarding either writing or clerking.

It's called a hyperbole, 7:17.

I never said that students from mediocre schools are less intelligent than those at top schools, I said that YOU aren't smarter. My judgment was based on your inability to think logically, not your mediocre education. However, I do believe that the mean intelligence of students at top schools is far greater than that of students at mediocre schools. This belief has objective support if you believe that college GPA and LSAT scores are even remotely correlated with "intelligence" (I suspect you don't).

Your argument that CT's 4 clerks were the most qualified because they were the ones chosen is circular and stupid. It is also blown away by an argument that CT chooses to make a statement by selecting less qualified (but still "worthy") students at non-elite schools.

There are limited ways for potential clerks to show qualification. One of the primary ways is to show how he or she compares to his or her class. Saying "I am the top student at GMU" (what is a GMU?) does not convey as much information as saying "I am among the top 10 students at HYS" because competition at the latter is more intense.

I'm not an intellectual snob. I went to law school at UCLA, which I will be the first to admit is not a "top" or "elite" school even though it suited my purposes just fine. I'm not jealous of the SCOTUS clerks because their impresseive positions were never on my radar. However, I think you're an insecure idiot with a chip on his/her shoulder who can't write or think logically.

- 5:57

"I do believe that the mean intelligence of students at top schools is far greater than that of students at mediocre schools."

Duh. What the hell does the "mean" have to do with these four clerks?

Let's see, 7:47, perhaps because it significantly decreases the likelihood that "these four clerks" were the most qualified applicants in the same year.

This entire string reeks of jealousy.

The chances of securing a SCOTUS clerkship are so remote that I doubt people are jealous. It doesn't require jealousy to simply notice that Justice Thomas seeks to make a statement through his hiring practices.

5:57 - how does all of your tension relate to the fact that UCLA is not a top 15 law school?

7:44, no chip, but I do have an admitted visceral impatience with those seemingly like yourself and some I went to school with who boorishly equate pedigree with cognition.

By all means continue to think you know better than a SCOTUS Justice what makes a qualified SCOTUS clerk, it matters not to him or me.

8:36, your overly florid language would make you look a lot smarter if you could also get the basics right. It should be "those seemingly like YOU..."

8:36, you are such a silly goose. I specifically stated that I assumed CT's clerks were qualified (i.e., "but still 'worthy'"). I just don't delude myself into thinking that they were the MOST qualified applicants because, statistically speaking, it is highly unlikely that they were. I am truly sorry that you have such poor reading comprehension and reasoning skills. My condolances to your firm and family.

(P.S. I also think I know better than a certain POTUS what makes a qualified SCOTUS Justice.)

- 7:44

This thread is a good example of why law sucks.

Boo hoo. Bunch o' crying.

9:20 gets the closest to the truth out of all these fools.

No, 9:20pm, this thread is a good example of why law students suck. This board would do better to attract actual lawyers at law firms instead of pontificating, overanxious law students.

All JT knows is that JT was top 1% at banging hot actresses. Those grades were enough for a SCOTUS clerkship, which JT turned down in favor of a clerkship at the Vermont Superior Court. What can JT say? JT likes ski country.

JT is the man!

Finally, statistical proof that Ivy League graduates are idiots!

http://volokh.com/posts/1208552563.shtml

Ha ha ha. Your "proof" just got punk'd.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-id-stick-with-yale-clerks-some.html

It seems uncontroversial to accept that the recent graduates of Yale, Harvard, and Chicago are statistically likely to be “more qualified” than recent graduates of Rutgers or Creighton. Analyzing Supreme Court clerkship hires based on the clerk’s school, however, ignores important information: the clerk’s actual skills at clerking.

When a judge hires a recent graduate, she is merely guessing at the student’s abilities. When a justice hires her clerks, however, she knows what the clerk can do because the clerk is already doing it. Of all of the clerks hired this term, Claire Evans is likely to be the safest hire—she apparently has six years of clerking experience in three different chambers.

It may be that Thomas is poor at hiring. Another interpretation of his choices: he weighs the actual work experience of his clerks more than their academic pedigree.

9:20: Amen.

I don't know what you guys think but I consider my San Diego DUI attorney a best one in the world.

Forgot to post their URL. http://www.libertylawyers.com