Well-reasoned as usual, David! My problem w/the boycott is that the judges are also excluding students who may well share their perspectives on various issues. And just a thought: I clerked for a Nixon appointee who was a marvelous judge and a great mentor, even though he and I had views that only rarely overlapped.
I tend to think that boycotts in general are like taking a sledgehammer to something that likely requires a more nuanced approach. However, the boycott approach is also reflective of the general trend these days to take an all or nothing approach to complex issues that require something more thoughtful take rather than a reaction.
Strange that the side that bemoans "activist judges" champions Judge Ho, who disgraces the federal bench not simply with his ridiculous activist jurisprudence but with his juvenile behavior.
I shall entitle this post, "The First Amendment, crybabies, and cowards."
In the history of the First Amendment, the dispute over who did what at Stanford Law ranks as the most absurd. Judge Duncan came looking for a fight and got what he wanted. He then complained his feelings were hurt and his rights violated. This complaining, of course, then got him lots of publicity in the media and right wing legal circles.
Judge Duncan is a coward and a crybaby. He did not try to engage the students (although he could have) or have any kind of discussion. He mouthed insults and was answered in kind. He sought out publicty and cried when he received it. All to elevate his reputation among people who might influence a Supreme Court nomination. He showed his cowadice and his desire for victimhood.
Judge Ho is no better. Why anyone would want to clerk for such a man is beyond me. He does not have an open mind and lacks the good polictical sense to keep his bias hidden. Like Duncan, he is auditioning for a role on a higher court.
When I was in high school (eons ago, unfortunately) we called such people drama queens. Now we must bow and scrape to them because they are federal judges. We cannot expect them to be impartial.
And, once again, David, I must remind you that unruly law students are not the real threat to the First Amendment, despite the publicity they generate. The real threat comes from legilsators at the state leven, who impose their views on everyone. Just today, the Tenneesee House expelled three members because they tried to exercise their free speech rights. Before long, I expect conservatives to demand the death penalty for anyone who dares raise her voice against one of their judges.
David, you have no sense or proportion or who presents the real danger.
I have written frequently about attacks on free speech in various Republican-controlled states. I tackle this a lot on my Twitter feed, as well as in my weekly Judicial Notice news roundups.
But I would never write a full story on Original Jurisdiction about something like the Tennessee situation. When writing for Original Jurisdiction (as opposed to holding forth randomly on Twitter), I have a beat as a journalist, and that beat is "legal elites": leading law firms, top law schools, and the courts, especially federal appellate courts and SCOTUS. My beat is not Tennessee politics, or Florida politics, or free speech writ large (I recommend Ken White's excellent Popehat Substack if you're looking for that).
In responding to folks on Twitter who have made the point you have repeatedly made, I have compared myself to a luxury travel writer. Your complaint is like asking a luxury travel writer why they don't write more about climate change. Of course climate change is an exponentially more serious problem than, say, the failure of poolside staff at a luxury resort to spritz guests with cool water on a hot day. But the former is not the concern of the luxury travel writer. (For the record, I love reading luxury travel magazines, and I don't intend to disparage these reporters; I'm glad that there are talented writers who cover this beat, and I appreciate their work.)
I'm clear-eyed and self-aware about who I am and what I write about. I know that I'm not making the world a better place with my writing. I write about very privileged people—Stanford and Yale law students, Biglaw partners, federal judges—and their "problems," ridiculous though they might be in the grand scheme of things.
Legal elites are what I'm well-situated to write about, given my personal and professional experience, my expertise, and my network of sources. I have no particular insight or comparative advantage when it comes to, say, Tennessee or Florida politics.
If I were a better human being, I would start devoting my talents to covering more serious problems in this world—not even more serious free-speech problems, but more serious problems of any sort, whether climate change or poverty or the war in Ukraine. But I'm almost 50, I have dwelled in and written about the world of legal elites for more than a quarter-century (half my life), and the best way I can make a living for my family is by continuing to cover legal elites. If I were to try to remake myself as, say, a climate-change reporter, I'd have a hard time making ends meet during the years it would take me to become as much of an expert on climate change as I am on legal elites.
So given my journalistic beat, you can see why a controversy at Stanford Law that then spills into clerkship hiring—another obsession of mine here at Original Jurisdiction, since clerkships are for legal elites—is going to get wall-to-wall coverage. Of course it's not a more serious problem than state laws attacking free speech. And of course it's not a serious problem in a world facing all the grave problems that our world faces. But it's the problem that it's my job to cover.
My father always told me that whatever I do, no matter how trivial it might be, I should do it to the best of my ability. My first job was working at McDonald's. When I would go out and pick up garbage from the parking lot on a sweltering summer day, I tried to pick up every last piece of garbage, no matter how small, as flies followed me around, because that was my job.
What I do these days—and what I have done since 2004, when I launched Underneath Their Robes—is cover legal elites. It is, in the grand scheme of things, a pretty unimportant subject—just like luxury travel.
But legal elites are the subject that I'm best equipped to cover, based on my life and career up to this point. I enjoy following and writing about legal elites, even though I know there are more important subjects out there. It's my job, and I work hard at it. And consistent with my dad's advice, I will try to do my job to the best of my ability, no matter how trivial or silly it might be, until the day that I retire or die.
Well-reasoned as usual, David! My problem w/the boycott is that the judges are also excluding students who may well share their perspectives on various issues. And just a thought: I clerked for a Nixon appointee who was a marvelous judge and a great mentor, even though he and I had views that only rarely overlapped.
I tend to think that boycotts in general are like taking a sledgehammer to something that likely requires a more nuanced approach. However, the boycott approach is also reflective of the general trend these days to take an all or nothing approach to complex issues that require something more thoughtful take rather than a reaction.
Strange that the side that bemoans "activist judges" champions Judge Ho, who disgraces the federal bench not simply with his ridiculous activist jurisprudence but with his juvenile behavior.
I shall entitle this post, "The First Amendment, crybabies, and cowards."
In the history of the First Amendment, the dispute over who did what at Stanford Law ranks as the most absurd. Judge Duncan came looking for a fight and got what he wanted. He then complained his feelings were hurt and his rights violated. This complaining, of course, then got him lots of publicity in the media and right wing legal circles.
Judge Duncan is a coward and a crybaby. He did not try to engage the students (although he could have) or have any kind of discussion. He mouthed insults and was answered in kind. He sought out publicty and cried when he received it. All to elevate his reputation among people who might influence a Supreme Court nomination. He showed his cowadice and his desire for victimhood.
Judge Ho is no better. Why anyone would want to clerk for such a man is beyond me. He does not have an open mind and lacks the good polictical sense to keep his bias hidden. Like Duncan, he is auditioning for a role on a higher court.
When I was in high school (eons ago, unfortunately) we called such people drama queens. Now we must bow and scrape to them because they are federal judges. We cannot expect them to be impartial.
And, once again, David, I must remind you that unruly law students are not the real threat to the First Amendment, despite the publicity they generate. The real threat comes from legilsators at the state leven, who impose their views on everyone. Just today, the Tenneesee House expelled three members because they tried to exercise their free speech rights. Before long, I expect conservatives to demand the death penalty for anyone who dares raise her voice against one of their judges.
David, you have no sense or proportion or who presents the real danger.
I have written frequently about attacks on free speech in various Republican-controlled states. I tackle this a lot on my Twitter feed, as well as in my weekly Judicial Notice news roundups.
But I would never write a full story on Original Jurisdiction about something like the Tennessee situation. When writing for Original Jurisdiction (as opposed to holding forth randomly on Twitter), I have a beat as a journalist, and that beat is "legal elites": leading law firms, top law schools, and the courts, especially federal appellate courts and SCOTUS. My beat is not Tennessee politics, or Florida politics, or free speech writ large (I recommend Ken White's excellent Popehat Substack if you're looking for that).
In responding to folks on Twitter who have made the point you have repeatedly made, I have compared myself to a luxury travel writer. Your complaint is like asking a luxury travel writer why they don't write more about climate change. Of course climate change is an exponentially more serious problem than, say, the failure of poolside staff at a luxury resort to spritz guests with cool water on a hot day. But the former is not the concern of the luxury travel writer. (For the record, I love reading luxury travel magazines, and I don't intend to disparage these reporters; I'm glad that there are talented writers who cover this beat, and I appreciate their work.)
I'm clear-eyed and self-aware about who I am and what I write about. I know that I'm not making the world a better place with my writing. I write about very privileged people—Stanford and Yale law students, Biglaw partners, federal judges—and their "problems," ridiculous though they might be in the grand scheme of things.
Legal elites are what I'm well-situated to write about, given my personal and professional experience, my expertise, and my network of sources. I have no particular insight or comparative advantage when it comes to, say, Tennessee or Florida politics.
If I were a better human being, I would start devoting my talents to covering more serious problems in this world—not even more serious free-speech problems, but more serious problems of any sort, whether climate change or poverty or the war in Ukraine. But I'm almost 50, I have dwelled in and written about the world of legal elites for more than a quarter-century (half my life), and the best way I can make a living for my family is by continuing to cover legal elites. If I were to try to remake myself as, say, a climate-change reporter, I'd have a hard time making ends meet during the years it would take me to become as much of an expert on climate change as I am on legal elites.
So given my journalistic beat, you can see why a controversy at Stanford Law that then spills into clerkship hiring—another obsession of mine here at Original Jurisdiction, since clerkships are for legal elites—is going to get wall-to-wall coverage. Of course it's not a more serious problem than state laws attacking free speech. And of course it's not a serious problem in a world facing all the grave problems that our world faces. But it's the problem that it's my job to cover.
My father always told me that whatever I do, no matter how trivial it might be, I should do it to the best of my ability. My first job was working at McDonald's. When I would go out and pick up garbage from the parking lot on a sweltering summer day, I tried to pick up every last piece of garbage, no matter how small, as flies followed me around, because that was my job.
What I do these days—and what I have done since 2004, when I launched Underneath Their Robes—is cover legal elites. It is, in the grand scheme of things, a pretty unimportant subject—just like luxury travel.
But legal elites are the subject that I'm best equipped to cover, based on my life and career up to this point. I enjoy following and writing about legal elites, even though I know there are more important subjects out there. It's my job, and I work hard at it. And consistent with my dad's advice, I will try to do my job to the best of my ability, no matter how trivial or silly it might be, until the day that I retire or die.