That’s fair. When looking at previous feeder judges, they also seemed heavily Republican stacked, but I didn’t want to check them all
TIL 11/14 current feeder judges (those whose clerks most frequently go on to SCOTUS clerkships) were Republican appointees
a day ago by idiomaddict to c/til
wjrii 5 points a day ago
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).
acockworkorange 5 points a day ago
Why NSFW?
idiomaddict 7 points a day ago
Accident
acockworkorange 5 points a day ago
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.
idiomaddict 4 points a day ago
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.
acockworkorange 2 points a day ago
Thank you for your service 🫡
cAUzapNEAGLb 5 points a day ago
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
idiomaddict 9 points a day ago
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.
wjrii 8 points a day ago
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.
cAUzapNEAGLb 2 points a day ago
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?
wjrii 6 points a day ago
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.
til
@lemmy.world
31121
1900
5024
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
go to feed...
til
@lemmy.world
31121
1900
5024
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
go to feed...
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.
save