I’m less concerned here because the justices pick their own clerks. The slight over-representation versus 6-3 suggests to me that, true to form, the conservatives have a little gaggle of elite judges that they rely upon, rather than giving the clerks from many judges a shot.
That’s fair. When looking at previous feeder judges, they also seemed heavily Republican stacked, but I didn’t want to check them all
It’s certainly worth pointing out, though, as it underlines how self-reinforcing the judiciary is, and your data shows just how well the republicans have done to get judges confirmed (fuckin’ Mitch McConnell).
When one side plays to win, and one side plays to pretend to be different.
Are there any examples of what kind of power and infpuence a clerk wields in the scotus?
Like, what kind of actions are clerks able to do - assuming the sc judge gives a long leash?
I dont have much insight at all into the justice systems sausage making process
In an absolutely broken office (coughThomascough), the clerks could theoretically be told how the justice intends to vote, then cut loose to do all the research, formulate all the arguments, and write the entire opinion to receive rubber stamping by the justice. The justice might then, again completely hypothetically, be free to fuck off to god knows where in his bus-sized RV and enjoy all the best things that billionaires have to offer their good friends who became their good friends after joining SCOTUS.
In a properly functioning office, clerks will do all those things only after having been tutored on a cogent judicial philosophy, informed of some of the primary caselaw the justice knows of/respects, and have the opinions significantly reviewed and reworked by the justices themselves. The whole thing will generally be very collaborative, but with a justice making a good faith effort to evaluate the case before them. That said, even when applying them in good faith, some of the justices have extremely naive and unworkable judicial approaches that result in needless cruelty and can break a government built around a very high-level and obsolete consitution that depended WAY more on custom and assumptions of good faith than we might have thought.
What effects do the judges opinions actual have? Is it literally just like a news paper opinion columm - formal soap box, or does the opinion actually change how things are done and have tangible impacts for how governance is actioned?
In many ways, they are the work and they are the effects. American legal education, especially in the first year of the three, is largely an exercise in analyzing and extrapolating from these opinions.
The opinions of the court announce the decision, but they also declare the reasoning, which determines how it will apply to similar situations not under litigation, sometimes pretty formally and possibly even with bright-line limitations. They also reveal the court’s thinking, inviting people to pursue similar logic in cases they may file.
For more complex cases, an opinion will even set some of this out in a test with specific steps in the analysis, or with certain required elements to apply (e.g. Miranda warnings). There was a recent case that will likely be hugely influential where some guy got his civil penalty undone, but the real meat of it is that the majority opinion said that federal regulatory agencies have no power to interpret their own subject matter, and instead must defer all ambiguities to judges. Maybe good from time to time, such as when utterly unqualified boors are running the agencies, but generally this is going to make it very difficult for government to be effective, and it comes specifically from what’s in the opinion.
Even dissenting opinions can be important, outlining the opposing way of thinking and sitting there ready to be used if a similar question comes before a court with a different generational or political makeup.
Clerks tend to do research and draft legal opinions for the judges they serve under, which can absolutely influence those judges, but the main reason people want a SCOTUS clerkship is for the resume boost.
Clerking for a Supreme Court justice opens doors in big law, at political think tanks, and helps increase your visibility for your own potential nomination as a judge.
Why NSFW?
Accident
You can edit it. And also add a link to the source of the claim that 11/14 are Republicans. Would improve your post significantly.
I did edit it, as soon as I saw your comment, it might just take a while to federate.
Judges do not necessarily disclose their political affiliations, so I wouldn’t want to say something that I can’t confirm, but most presidents don’t appoint judges they don’t tend to agree with. I just clicked through on each of them to see who appointed them.
Thank you for your service 🫡
Haha Shocker