This letter speaks for itself

[Lynne Henderson]

I am a bit concerned about how "liberal" and "conservative" are being
defined here.  I suppose if a clerk is a memeber of the Federalist society,
he (or she) could be labeled "conservative"--although a certain kind of
conservative.  Is a libertarian a "conservative" or a "liberal?"  what does
"liberal" even mean anymore, given that it has become a term of denunciation
in many quarters?  The changes in the Democratic party over the past 10
years indicate what was once liberal is now what I would have once thought
was conservative, and the appropriation of liberal rhetoric by republicans
has turned what was once "liberal" into "conservative".
Also, I know there have been concerns voiced  about failures of justices to
hire people of color, and the pattern remains as far as I know.  I am not
sure about hiring of white women as S Ct clerks.


-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for con law professors
[mailto:CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 9:00 AM
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: This letter speaks for itself


Surely one should not forget that Richard Posner and Michael McConnell both
clerked for Justice Brennan.  My impression--and I would be genuinely happy
to be corrected on this--is that Justice Thomas has hired *only* certified
conservatives and that Scalia is much the same.  (Larry Lessig is scarcely
a conservative now, but I have no idea how he was perceived at the time he
was hired as a clerk.  But, then, perhaps Posner and McConnell were thought
to be Brennanite liberals when they were hired!)

Let me ask the following question, though:  What if a judge says, "I prefer
to hire conservatives (or liberals) because I want to minimize the
possibility that my clerks will have serious qualms (or even refuse) with
regard to writing opinions for me.  One response, of course, is to say that
the clerk-candidate is a disciplined professional who can write persuasive
opinions on either side.  But why, exactly, is that so admirable.  If
someone, for example, believes that the death penalty, either per se or as
administered, is both immoral and unconstitutional, why should it count in
his/her favor that he/she would gladly clerk for Thomas?  Or that a
committed Federalist would sign on for Breyer?  Does that bespeak
professionalism or simply careerist opportunism?

sandy

At 11:37 AM 04/23/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>This is all anecdotal, but:  among the clerks for Thurgood Marshall:
>Ralph Winter and Douglas Ginsburg (Reagan appointees to the courts of
>appeals); Brennan, under political pressure, revoked his clerkship offer
>to Michael Tigar.  And, of course, one would really want to know the
>liberal/conservative proportions among law students (or law students
>with the relevant credentials -- which, I suppose, creates a problem if
>liberal faculty members give high grades to people like them and low
>ones to conservatives) at the time each judge/justice was doing the
>hiring.
>
>Attachment Converted: "h:\tushnet10.vcf"
>