NYT: Women Suddenly Scarce Among Justices’ Clerks (SCOTUS)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30scotus.html?hp&ex=1156996800&en=f7897a410e22d170&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Everyone knows that with the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the number of female Supreme Court justices fell by half. The talk of the court this summer, with the arrival of the new crop of law clerks, is that the number of female clerks has fallen even more sharply.

Just under 50 percent of new law school graduates in 2005 were women. Yet women account for only 7 of the 37 law clerkships for the new term, the first time the number has been in the single digits since 1994, when there were 4,000 fewer women among the country’s new law school graduates than there are today.

Last year at this time, there were 14 female clerks, including one, Ann E. O’Connell, who was hired by William H. Rehnquist, the chief justice who died before the term began. His successor, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., then hired Ms. O’Connell.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who joined the court in January, hired Hannah Smith, who had clerked for him on the appeals court where he had previously served. So by the end of the term, and counting Ms. O’Connell twice, there were 16 women among the 43 law clerks hired by last term’s justices.

After years in which more than a third of the clerks were women, the sudden drop was a hot topic this summer on various law-related blogs. Word of the justices’ individual hiring decisions spread quickly among those for whom the comings and goings of law clerks are more riveting than any offering on reality television.

[Erika]

1. The GOP right wing religious says women belong at home

That says it all. Keep the women barefoot and pregnant.

[tanyev]

4. Can't be letting the wimmen have authority over the men-folk.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Read "The Brethren" by Woodward to find out why.

The clerks read the briefs, do the legal research, draft the opinions, and advise the justices. When you see a SC decision, something like 85% of it is written by a (a very bright) law graduate, not the justice him/herself.

The justices select the clerks on a variety of factors. Gender may not be a primary factor, but it's there. Unless the female clerk is Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schlafy-like, the clerk may not be likely to endorse the continuation of the Roe decision, and may endorse an exception here, an exception there until the original decision has no force in law. If the clerk is male, he's too young to remember pre-Roe days and may be able to entertain post-Roe either personally or due to the "compelling argument" in the briefs.

The clerks hold a lot of sway. Ask CJ John Roberts. He clerked for Rehnquist.

[Occulus]

7. It seems to me, too much sway

Does the public know who these clerks are? Did the public have any role at all in their selection? We did for the justices themselves; why are the clerks exempt, if they're the ones actually writing the decisions, if they're the ones actually performing the mental gruntworks, if they're the ones actually doing the research?

What exactly are the SCOTUS justices, if not a simple yes/no rubber stamp, under such a system? I don't think we have any former SCOTUS justices or clerks on DU; therefore, we (and presumably, the rest of the nonlegalistic public) can have no truly clear picture of just exactly how the court churns out its decisions.

I guess my point is, your statement that "something like 85% of it is written by a (a very bright) law graduate, not the justice him/herself" just does not sit well with me. Not that I disagree with you, it's just that that number doesn't seem right, somehow. How the hell did the clerks get themselves into a position where they have (as you claim) a 'supermajority share' of the written decision itself?

Can we presume that the justices may not even read some decisions, or parts of decisions, leaving matters in their clerks' oh-so-competent (as we have to assume) hands? Just exactly how much does each justice have to do with the decisions of the Court, anyway? Do all judges in high positions- appeals court judges, for example- have the same practices in their courtrooms, or is this a special system of clerks not found outside the SCOTUS?

I have to say it again- this just doesn't sit well with me. The SCOTUS justices were all subject to Congressional approval; their clerks are not. Why, then, are the clerks being allowed to have their hands so very deeply in the most important function of this court? To my mind, they shouldn't be anywhere near the final decision; that ought to be solely the responsibility of the Justice in question.

Or do I just have no clue what I'm talking about, here? Please, someone, clarify this for me. I don't much like what no_hypocrisy said about the SCOTUS clerks. It bothers me; it seems like a 'chink in the armor', as it were; a place where someone with an agenda to hide could get (more likely, has already gotten) a foothold. It doesn't seem, to me, to be a very good situation- or am I concerned about nothing, here?

[SpiralHawk]

3. "Mission Accomplished" - Commander AWOL Codpiece

[Ian David]

5. They're tired of Justice Thomas putting pubic hairs in their cokes. n/t

[iverglas]

6. interesting point!

Has the number of women candidates declined too?

That wouldn't affect the court's responsibility to make some effort to reflect the diversity of US society (and the wisdom of reflecting the diversity of legal thought) in its hirings, but it would be interesting to know! Maybe the best and the brightest (and not just the women) aren't applying.

[leftyladyfrommo]

8. What women would even want to work for those guys?

Can you imagine what it would be like to work for Thomas or Scalia?

Yuk!

[N90ATC]

9. Souter

Souter has hired all men. The new guys have women clerks. Why doesn't Souter hire women?

[Anakin Skywalker]

10. Go Back To Yer Kitchens, Womenfolk!

Where y'all belong! And take off de damn shoes!