On Monday, Adam Liptak had an interesting article about Supreme Court clerk hiring and possible political polarization. From the New York Times:
A new study has found that former clerks have started to take jobs that reflect the ideologies of the justices for whom they worked.
“It’s cause for concern mainly because it’s a further piece of evidence of the polarization of the court,” said William E. Nelson, a law professor at New York University and one of the authors of the study.
Now, anyone who follows SCOTUS clerk hiring today might yawn at this. Is it really surprising that, as reported in the study, the Bush Administration hired more clerks from the conservative justices, the Clinton Administration hired more clerks from the liberal justices, and certain firms skew conservative (Kirkland & Ellis) or liberal (WilmerHale) in their hiring of former Supreme Court clerks?
But here’s the interesting part:
Until about 1990, the study shows, there was no particular correlation between a justice’s ideological leanings and what his or her clerks did with their lives…. Before the 1990s, the study found, all sorts of former clerks served in the government under all sorts of administrations….
In addition, there have been changes with respect to clerks entering academia:
From about 1940 to 1990, the study found, about a third of all clerks became law professors. There was variation among the chambers, but it was not correlated to the justices’ ideological leanings…. [But now] clerks from conservative chambers are less likely to teach. If they do, they are more likely to join the faculties of conservative and religious law schools.
We’ve heard anecdotally about anti-conservative bias in law faculty hiring (similar to what you sometimes see in law firm hiring). Does this study support the sense of some conservatives that the legal academy is hostile to their ideas?
More discussion of the article, plus the latest in Supreme Court clerk hiring news, after the jump.
The article is an interesting read; check it out here. We posted it on Facebook, expressing surprise that politicization wasn’t always present, and received some good comments:
“I’m also surprised that the change is so dramatic. But wasn’t this kind of the purpose of founding the Federalist Society?”
“Justice Scalia always talks about after he was nominated, the Senate voted for him 98-0, so yeah, things have changed recently.”
“That article seems more a commentary on the more politicized hiring of administrations, law schools, and law firms than more politicized hiring of justices.”
The hiring decisions of the justices — that’s the next subject of this post. Quite a lot has happened since our last Supreme Court clerk hiring round-up.
We have independently confirmed these hires by Chief Justice John Roberts (first reported on Law Clerk Addict):
1. Paul Crane (UVA 2007 / Wilkinson)
2. Kathryn Tarbert (Vanderbilt 2005 / Ginsburg (D.C. Cir.))
3. Kate Heinzelman (Yale 2009 / Garland)
And we know the fourth hire too: Zac Hudson (Yale 2009 / Kavanaugh).
Kate (Komp) Tarbert’s hiring is confirmed on the website of Vanderbilt Law. We’re guessing that Kate Tarbert is related — perhaps married? — to Heath Tarbert, who also clerked for Judge Douglas Ginsburg in 2005-2006 (en route to a clerkship with Justice Clarence Thomas).
Justice Kennedy is also done hiring for OT 2010. Here’s what we’ve learned and/or confirmed:
1. For October Term 2010, he has hired Rob Johnson (Harvard 2009 / Kozinski) and James Stern (UVA 2009 / (Wilkinson).
2. For October Term 2011, he has hired Ishan Bhabha (Harvard / Garland).
Interesting tidbit: Ishan’s father is Homi Bhabha, the renowned literary scholar and postcolonial theorist.
In addition, according to Law Clerk Addict, Justice Clarence Thomas has hired Will Peterson (Texas 2008/Jones (5th Cir.)). We haven’t confirmed this specific hire, but we are inclined to credit it, since we’ve heard that CT is done for OT 2010.
Here’s the table of October Term 2010 clerks so far. Some of these hires are recent, and some are less recent. As we’ve explained before, we generally don’t report SCOTUS clerk hiring in real time, one clerk at a time; we usually wait until we have multiple names to announce.
If you notice an error or omission, or if you can fill in some information that we are missing, please email us (subject line: “SCOTUS clerk hiring”). Thanks!
OCTOBER TERM 2010 SUPREME COURT CLERK HIRES (as of December 23, 2009)
Chief Justice John G. Roberts
1. Paul Crane (UVA 2007 / Wilkinson)
2. Kate Heinzelman (Yale 2009 / Garland)
3. Zac Hudson (Yale 2009 / Kavanaugh)
4. Kathryn Tarbert (Vanderbilt 2005 / Ginsburg (D.C. Cir.))
Justice John Paul Stevens
1. Sam Erman (Michigan 2007 / Garland)
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
[Ed. note: Might JPS be retiring? See here and here. If you know something concrete, please email us.]
Justice Antonin Scalia
1. Robert Allen (Harvard 2009 / Boudin)
2. Matt Owen (Michigan 2008 / Gorsuch (about to start Bristow Fellowship))
3. Adam Unikowsky (Harvard 2007 / D. Ginsburg)
4. Jason Wilcox (Chicago 2009 / Sutton)
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
1. Steven Horowitz (Harvard 2009 / Posner)
2. Rob Johnson (Harvard 2009 / Kozinski)
3. Richard Re (Yale 2008 / Kavanaugh)
4. James Stern (UVA 2009 / Wilkinson)
For October Term 2011:
1. Ishan Bhabha (Harvard 2009 / Garland)
Justice Clarence Thomas
1. Will Peterson (Texas 2008 / Jones (5th Cir.))
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
1. Amy Bergquist (U. Minnesota 2007 / W. Fletcher / J. Tunheim (D. Minn.))
2. Keith Bradley (Columbia 2007 / Janice Rogers Brown)
3. David Newman (Yale 2006 / Katzmann / Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.))
4. Elisabeth Theodore (Harvard 2009 / Garland)
Justice Stephen G. Breyer
1. Erika Myers (Stanford 2008 / Kozinski)
2. Brian Netter (Yale 2006 / Rogers (D.C. Cir.))
3. Natalie Ram (Yale 2008 / Calabresi)
4. David Zionts (Harvard 2008 / Garland)
Justice Samuel Alito
1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired):
1. ?
Justice David H. Souter (retired):
1. ?
If you’re aware of SCOTUS clerk hiring news not previously reported in these pages, or if you notice an error, please email us (subject line: “SCOTUS clerk hiring”). Thanks.
In Supreme Court Clerks’ Careers, Signs of Polarization [New York Times]
SCOTUS OT 2010 [Law Clerk Addict]
SCOTUS Clerk Hiring [Clerkship Notification Blog]
List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States [Wikipedia]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Supreme Court clerks (scroll down)
Theeeese pretzels are making me fiiirsty!
I’m going to see The Squeakuel! How about you guys?
Nelson (although a nice guy) was generally very hostile to conservative thought and he was on NYU’s hiring committee.
nibanme
Yeeeahhh! The Squeakuel! Awesome!
Jesus Christ ATL cannot fucking stop the Kirkland bashing. Kirkland is a great firm and it’s hard to see any conservative skew.
Everything said in a high, chipmunk voice is funny. EVERYTHING.
6 – Dumbass, that’s not from ATL, that’s from the Times. Read the NYT article:
“The study also showed polarized hiring at the law firms with significant Supreme Court practices.”
“Kirkland & Ellis, for instance, hired 22 former clerks from 1990 to 2006, all from the four most conservative chambers, according to the study. (A Kirkland spokesman added that the firm also hired two former clerks to Justice Byron R. White.) The firm is home to Kenneth W. Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor who was solicitor general in the administration of the first President George Bush.”
Cooley graduates go on to clerk at Alberstons
I’m a clerk at Wal-Mart.
FAMU Secure.
William F. Buckley, Jr. worked at Kirkland as a semen aggregator for many years.
Why are there no Cooley or Pace students on there?
12,
See Matt Owen. The post says Michigan and Cooley has 3 schools in Michigan so it is likely he attended Cooley.
Why are there no NYU or Columbia Grads on there?
@14, because they have to retake their contracts final, ZIIIIIINNNNGGGGGGG
I must admit I’m a bored 2L who has made one stupid comment after another today.
Kate and Heath are indeed married. They met during the clerkship.
I heard JPS is hiring Paul Hastings
6 – It’s only “bashing” if you think conservatism is bad.
Thank you for telling the truth about Kirkland. Kirkland sucks.
I’m not too keen on the “squeakuel” language. What happens if the word catches on? It could mean decades and decades of sqeuakuels. We’ve got to nip this one in the bud, folks.
I just came in my pants.
I nailed this chick who used to clerk and the whole time she was all like “oh the situation, oh f— me, oh the situation, pull out and blow your hot load all over my stomach.”
So I pulled out and blew my hot load all over her stomach.
- The Situation
Oh man, The Situation really owns. I’m hoping for a Situation Squeakuel!
SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE SQUEAKEL!!!
Ha, 25, you nailed the Dave impersonation! Great work!
I can’t WAIT until The Squeakuel comes out!
I also like to blow my hot load in a girl’s face. I nailed this one chick and she was all like “oh the situation, oh f— me, oh the situation, pull out and come all over my face.”
So I pulled out and blew my hot load all over her face.
- The Situation
The Situation Squeakuel achieved! Best day ever.
No fucking NYU grads??
NYU is just one continuous phail, 29: accept that and move on.
People who aren’t thinking logically shouldn’t be teaching law. Fanatical conservatism, dogmatic religious adherence, righteousness of any sort, and other such things are indicators that a person is probably not thinking at a level sufficient to educate others (unless of course the teacher is facilitating the party line at a school that only exists to perpetuate its own bias).
I’ll perpetuate my bias all over your dirty face. You know you like it.
SoTTTomayor
wow so many former DC Circuit clerks!!! how about some more variety, guys?
Yes, I teach at a law school, and law faculties are very liberal. At most schools, being a moderate or a conservative would absolutely be frowned upon.
Yes, I teach at a law school, and law faculties are very liberal. At most schools, being a moderate or a conservative would absolutely be frowned upon.
SoTTTomajor is a wetback.
“Nelson (although a nice guy) was generally very hostile to conservative thought and he was on NYU’s hiring committee.”
“Why are there no NYU or Columbia Grads on there?”
“No fucking NYU grads??”
Well, let’s see – a school creates an environment that is hostile to one side of the ideological spectrum and justices from that side don’t seem to want to pick many alumni as clerks . . . I’m sensing a connection here.
- NYU Law alum
Whoever thinks a conservative former SCOTUS clerk would be discriminated against in faculty hiring is retarded. Any former clerk wanting a teaching job can have one. Likely they have more marketable talents and can make more money in the productive sector than their leftist peers.
I went to NYU law school.
Notre Dame’s faculty has a ton of former Scalia & Thomas clerks, with a couple from Rehnquist and O’Connor for variety.
38, I don’t get it. You’re saying that a school that prides itself on paying lip service to diversity, inclusion and tolerance is in fact enforcing its own orthodoxy and hostile to those who may disagree with it? Can’t be true.
–Turned Down NYU for This Very Reason Secure
Conservatards already have their own law school online; it’s called the Volokh Conspiracy.
“Conservatards already have their own law school online; it’s called the Volokh Conspiracy.”
“Name-calling for beginners”, page one of liberals’ two-page debating playbook.
Conservatives generally believe that there’s an invisible man in the sky who watches everything they do and wants them to do certain things and not do other things. They believe that if they talk to this invisible man, he’ll listen to them, and he’ll grant them wishes, so long as they do what he tells them to do. This is such a fundamentally insane belief that it serves as basically incontrovertible evidence that the people holding this belief are certifiably insane. There’s nothing wrong with not wanting to hire crazy people.
Interesting, I didn’t realize the majority of Democrats were atheists.
Do they know this?
I’ve begun worshipping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It’s there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There’s no mystery, no one asks for money, I don’t have to dress up, and there’s no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate.
“Conservatives generally believe that there’s an invisible man in the sky who watches everything they do and wants them to do certain things and not do other things.”
Tell me about it. All of those completely insane teachings. Like forgive those who harm you. And give to the poor. Absolute lunacy!
“And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate.”
And interestingly enough, I have found that people who have a (D) behind their name generally fall into the category of those you despise, so while your specific vendetta probably deserves someone who cares more than I, it appears your judgment when it comes to the voting is quite misguided.
The main problem with liberals, though, is they can’t have more than one god and the one in the White House is currently requiring their preeminent attention.
47, you replace with God with political and cultural orthodoxy and you have a liberal. Watch a European Green in a religious fervor about wealth redistribution and tell me that’s not ecstasy on par with Medieval monastic orders. It’s no more a leap of faith to believe in God than it is to believe in universal human rights, “equality,” rule of law, you name it.
I believe, though, that if I drive my car too much, mother Gaia is going to destroy the ice caps, flood the cities, and bring destruction upon me!
I believe this so much I’ll happily hide all data and destroy any studies that say otherwise.
Al Gore told me so!
49, President Obama = Magical American President Jesus. Just ask any one of his cheerleaders, I mean supporters. Just one word for you: Hope, Muthafu**er!
If I pay for my plenary indulgences…er, “carbon credits”, however, that will assuage my sins and I will be free of guilt again!
No, no, no, 53, the industrialized world must atone for its sins against the meek…er, redistribute its wealth to third-world nations to help them develop in an environmentally sound fashion.
46, ahhh yes, didn’t you know that all enlightened people, in particular liberal Democrats, are atheists! In fact, our very own President–brilliant, rhetorically gifted, politically enlightened–is himself a non-believer. Er…actually, wait a sec. I’m an f’ing idiot. He’s a self-avowed, vocal, demonstrative Christian. Silly f’ing me!
Look, 55, it’s simple–He spent 20 years going to a church without noticing any of the racist or anti-American aspects of it. What makes you think he paid attention to the parts about god?
See! You’re welcome.
- 46
Bill Nelson is a knock-kneed, obnoxious buffoon who simply bullies people who think differently than he.
What a hypocritical bastard.
And, no, I did not have him in law school. I did, however, have to suffer through a dinner with him. What a disgrace.
“Does this study support the sense of some conservatives that the legal academy is hostile to their ideas?”
Yes, Lat et al., the legal academy and other academies and houses of scholarship are generally hostile to conservative ideas not because of any inherent bias, but rather because conservative ideas are generally not worthy of the rigorous analysis and thought that requires an academy.
And yes, I know there are approximately six conservative “scholars” that will be waved in my face (Burke, Hayek, Friedman, Buckley, etc.), but such people do not academia make.
59, so you spout a few names to signal to the board that you have some eduction. No brains, mind you, just education. You proceed to say something so smug and profoundly stupid to not even warrant a response on its merits, but something that would nevertheless get vigorous applause among your equally educated (and equally brainless) circle of friends. Yep, you’re a liberal.
“And yes, I know there are approximately six conservative “scholars” that will be waved in my face…”
Charles Fried (yeah, I know, he supported Obama, but is generally considered a conservative), von Mises, the Chicago boys in general (and the overall outlook of what has generally considered the top economics department in the U.S.), Adam Smith, Richard Epstein, Richard Posner, Edward Prescott (the Nobel economist responsible for one of my favorite quotes:”The idea that you can increase taxes and stimulate the economy is pretty damn stupid.”)…How many more do you want?
You realize you are an idiot for saying that right?
Robert Nozick, anyone? And yes, 59 is a massive retard.
Yes, 60, I have some eduction [sic].
And it’s definitely up for debate and discussion whether any “bias” against conservatives in academia is due to actual bias or just due to the fact that conservative scholarship and ideas are not up to intellectual snuff.
It’s like the left-of-center “bias” in journalism, medicine, law, the social sciences, the hard sciences and the humanities. Not to mention every artist under the sun. When you’ve lost this many smart, powerful people (and when your politicians can’t even borrow a song without getting threatened with copyright infringement), it’s time to throw in the veritable towel.
Adam Smith is a conservative? Huh? Saying Adam Smith is a conservative is like saying Darwin is a liberal. Smith built modern economics, just like Darin built the theory of evolution, but neither can or should be politically pigeon-holed.
Posner? Chicago has the top economics department in the U.S.? That’s laughable. Now you’re just getting lazy.
“And it’s definitely up for debate and discussion whether any “bias” against conservatives in academia is due to actual bias or just due to the fact that conservative scholarship and ideas are not up to intellectual snuff.”
It’s not up for debate when your side has at best a cartoonish understanding of what the other side is. And they don’t. And don’t pretend you do (I saw you on a thread prior to this–you claimed you did until you were called to actually debate it and then wimped out like a little pussy). The average college-educated conservative has a better understanding of the underpinnings of liberalism than most liberals do and the average college-educated liberal knows next to nothing about the background of conservatism or the right in general. Pretending to be broad-minded and intellectual doesn’t make you one (c.f. Wolf Blitzer on Jeopardy).
“And it’s definitely up for debate and discussion whether any “bias” against conservatives in academia is due to actual bias or just due to the fact that conservative scholarship and ideas are not up to intellectual snuff.”
Who says? You? And for someone who insists on correcting a spelling mistake, like a little puss, the first two sentences of your last paragraph are something a sixth grader shouldn’t write. Are you drunk? Your post barely makes sense.
59 has the right sense, but missed the larger point – the handful of thoughtful, intellectual conservatives (Hayak, Posner, et al) are FAR outweighed (in numbers and vociferousness) by the numb nuts parading around the country thigh-deep in their own bulls*** who try to require everyone else to adhere to ideological nonsense. Belief in wish-granting genies is within your own discretion until you start imposing it on others in the public sphere. This used to be one way we proudly distinguished ourselves as a nation from theocracies. Sadly, the inability of the thoughtful conservatives to disavow the numb nut faction or to control it or educate it is one of the largest failues of our time.
33,
Nicely done. That post never gets old.
“…are FAR outweighed (in numbers and vociferousness) by the numb nuts parading around the country thigh-deep in their own bulls*** who try to require everyone else to adhere to ideological nonsense…” Are you talking about liberals or right-wing conservatives? In either case, you’re right. The right-wingers are a terrible drag on thoughtful conservatives.
“Adam Smith is a conservative? Huh?”
Um, yeah, the “invisible hand” and a laissez faire outlook were staples of his work and if you had ever read any of them, you’d know that. Maybe you could quibble about him falling more into the libertarian category, but as far as a conservative economic outlook, this isn’t remotely debatable. You know absolutely nothing about this subject if you’re going to try to argue this.
“Chicago has the top economics department in the U.S.? That’s laughable.”
Again, you’re an idiot when it comes to the subject you’re trying to argue about.
If you want back-up on this, I got bored, looked for a ranking, and U.S. News currently has them as being merely tied for #1 instead of being #1 all by themselves, but more to the point, you really are an idiot when it comes to the subject you’re trying to discuss.
Being an idiot is bad enough, trying to act smug about what you don’t know just makes you look ten times as foolish. Their provincialism is why this a flaw many liberals, like yourself, suffer from.
65 et al.,
What’s hilarious is that you’ve turned this into a debate on whether college-educated people have better understandings of the underpinnings of liberalism or conservatism (as if either could be easily defined without a serious butting of heads…see Peter Berkowitz’s work).
The truth is that the vast majority of the intellectual elite (as well as the intellectual class in general) in this country are NOT conservative. They may not all be uniformly “liberal” in the modern-day parlance, but they are DEFINITELY not conservative in any modern sense of the word. It’s a shame, really, that this is the case, but it’s the world as we know it. Now, we can work backwards from this conclusion and construct some premises that would logically lead down the path, but it’s not really much of an effort it if the only premise you investigate is the so-called anti-conservative “bias” in academia.
-58, 61 and 63
“What’s hilarious is that you’ve turned this into a debate on whether college-educated people have better understandings of the underpinnings of liberalism or conservatism”
It’s not hilarious, 71, it’s entirely to the point, the politics of people who are educated mean nothing if they know little about politics and the knowledge of the group you’re citing for back-up is provincial–purposefully so because of justifications like you espoused earlier in this thread.
71 – you aren’t the first person to make this observation. John Stuart Mill famously observed that “not all conservative people are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative.”
“you aren’t the first person to make this observation. John Stuart Mill famously observed that “not all conservative people are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative.”
I wasn’t sure who wrote page one of liberals’ two-page debating playbook, “name-calling for beginners,” but he looks like a strong candidate.
71, please tell me you’re just posting to get a rise out of people. Surely you don’t actually believe that just because so-called “intellectual elites” believe something that it is, in fact, so. Please tell that someone taught you to think for yourself.
70’s use of U.S. News’ rankings to buttress his point is pitch-perfect.
Chicago is tied with three other schools for #1. 70 and others have said that the Chicago school economists are prime examples of conservative scholars.
However, Chicago is the only top research university with a noted number of conservative scholars. The three other schools tied for #1 and the rest of the top 10 do NOT have the same sort of conservative presence (if they have any conservative presence). 70 – don’t use rankings when they only hurt your case.
Notwithstanding the quote, JSM would be more of a modern libertarian or conservative. He may have been a liberal of his time but there is a significant difference between a 19th century liberal and a 21st century liberal. The name’s the same but that’s about it.
Notwithstanding the quote, JSM would be more of a modern libertarian or conservative. He may have been a liberal of his time but there is a significant difference between a 19th century liberal and a 21st century liberal. The name’s the same but that’s about it.
I just want to wish Justice Ginsburg good luck- we’re all counting on her
“70’s use of U.S. News’ rankings to buttress his point is pitch-perfect.”
Just admit you don’t know what you’re talking about. Saying it’s “laughable” a school is the top one in the U.S. when it’s tied for #1 is just plain stupid. Admit it, it’s just stupid. Rankings are the easiest way to show that, but feel free to find something else. Chicago is notable in that the theories its synonymous with started gaining popularity there, but the idea that it gets to a ranking of #1 now yet has a collection of economists who are on the complete opposite end in all their theories from the other top schools is just idiotic. This is as stupid as saying Adam Smith wasn’t a laissez faire conservative.
Liberals believe that all the matter in the universe was once the size of a period. For no apparent reason, the period exploded and scattered pell mell at roughly the speed of light unguided by any intelligent force. A random combination of materials combined to create galaxies, stars and planets, and on one planet, materials randomly combined to create primitive life. That primitive life eventually evolved into primitive people capable of believing that they are the product of chaos and disorder. Employers shouldn’t hire primitive people
81 = prime example of why there is a bias against conservative ideas, not against conservatives themselves.
81 – employers are primitive people, too.
wgwag
50 FTW
58 FTL: How often do you deal with academic scholarship of any kind? If you did, you’d understand why this is not surprising:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Kenneth Starr works for Gibson Dunn now, right? Not K&E.
The majority of Americans, left and right, are religious. So go after religious people, not conservatives. Blind ideological worship is rampant among leftists (even those who don’t believe in a god–as pointed out above).
Seriously, there are few people nowadays educated enough to actually discuss ideas. All you people do is spout off a twisted version of what your talking head of choice told you (Fox, Obama, NY Times, Hannity) and make personal attacks based on inflated stereotypes (you are just a backwards bible thumper/greenie homo). No one engages in personal, independent, deep research into the issues they claim to have opinions about. If it doesn’t fall neatly into a red/blue category you don’t even think about it. Really, you should all be ashamed at how intellectually vapid and superficial you are.
No females with Scalia perhaps makes sense but what’s with Kennedy?
Alito sent out letters in the second week of December saying he’d finished hiring. I don’t know whom he hired, however. Time for ATL to do some sleuthing.
Kennedy had 4 male clerks last Term. He has 4 male clerks this Term. Now he’s hired 4 male clerks for next Term and 1 out of 1 for the following Term.
89: wow. that is interesting. little sketchy of Kennedy.
Nelson’s article is not well done if you read it. I don’t buy that conservatives are discriminated against in law school hiring. I think at schools with a liberal reputation like NYU, being a conservative is actually a plus. Much like seeking other kinds of diversity, conservative legal scholars are a minority and would get a boost.
Have no idea what Nelson is talking about that conservatives can’t write scholarship because their writings wouldn’t be respected…except law and econ. Makes no sense.
86, no. Check the respective firms’ websites.
75 – See Harvard Business Cases that are the gospel of most top 25 MBA programs. Total garbarge. “Experts” that praise the business models and amazing strategies of CEOs that are now in jail.
Vanderbilt LOL
Do Notre Dame and Vanderbilt matter?
wahoo wa
wahoo wa