Posted on 08/29/2018 12:58:19 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Allison Jones Rushing has a sterling academic record, high-profile clerkship experience, and doubtless a solid vote for protecting the rights of fetuses as, based on her résumé, she still is one. Rushing graduated from Wake Forest in 2004 and Duke Law School in 2007. After three clerkships — with then-Judge Gorsuch, Judge Sentelle, and Justice Thomas — she joined the ranks of Williams & Connolly where she’s practiced actual law for a mere seven years.
Doesn’t anyone think we’re, forgive me, “rushing” this? She could go to her 10-year Gorsuch clerkship anniversary already a federal appellate judge herself. Before this administration is over, a 3L serving as FedSoc Treasurer at Ole Miss could get a district court nod and not a single goddamned one of you will be shocked.
Obviously, Rushing’s clerkships speak to her academic acumen and her work at as a rising star at Williams & Connolly are nothing to sneeze at. Certainly a far cry from the last mid-thirties nominee the administration tried to stuff into an adult-sized robe in the form of ghost hunter and KKK enthusiast Brett Talley. But the operative word in the phrase “rising star” is “rising.” Rushing was building a résumé that could very well earn her a place on the bench after another 10 or 20 years of practice. But the grifters holding the White House despite losing the popular vote by millions know they’re likely not getting another crack at this for a decade and are ready to throw anyone into these seats who’ll still be on the bench in 2056 when Tomi Lahren’s as-yet-unborn son is ready to serve as Barron Trump’s running mate.
Is it unfair that an accomplished young lawyer is going to be stuck with this belittling image as a baby judge? No. It is, however, unfortunate and that’s on the administration for putting her in this position even after they saw what happened to Talley’s nomination, which, people may forget, was already going to hell on the youth issue before we learned about his bizarre habits.
The irony is, despite her dearth of practical experience, Rushing is potentially one of the better selections in Trump’s cavalcade of mostly laughable judicial nominations. Beyond the aforementioned Talley, we’ve had Jeff “Satan Boy” Mateer, Matthew “the dog ate my homework” Petersen, and Ryan “what I meant when I said minorities were whiny ethnics was…” Bounds. At least she’s not in any danger of getting an ABA “not-qualified” tag like now confirmed Judge L. Steven Grasz and her appellate practice is certainly a better résumé line item than “anti-gay blogger” like confirmed Judge John Bush. When your expectations are so low, the little things matter.
It seems as though Trump’s circuit court nominations largely fall into three categories: comically inexperienced, so embarrassingly ideological that even conservatives blush, or both. Rushing seems to fit the first category. Whether or not she fits into the third remains to be seen, but with the joint Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation vetting process, it’s hard to imagine they picked the next David Souter.
A known solid conservative whom I will guess is about 36. Get her into a starter judgeship now and in less than a decade, if she continues to do well, she will be a prime candidate as a USSC nominee.
The simple fact is that such nominees are now widely considered to be viable only from their late 40s to early 50s, which makes many of them simply miss the “correct” age window because the Dems are in power or there is no opening. This is a bigger issue for the GOP than the Dems, because so many lawyers lean to the left, and especially for actually conservative, top GOP attorneys, who aren’t that plentiful.
Far better that we think flexibly enough to give our best candidates a wider window of viability so they can more likely make it to be a nominee. Already she has great experience in her clerkships and in the practice of law.
If Americans are eligible to be voted in as president at age 35, I think a top, experienced candidate above that age threshold is fine as a circuit judge.
We have a stupid system now when you have to be just the very “right” age, within a very narrow band, to get a USSC nomination. Politically smart to stretch it a bit to the younger, so you don’t lose the actuarial number of years out of an appointment, but also don’t end up on passing on so many of your best nominees because they don’t quite precisely fit that narrow age window.
Really? You wouldn’t hire a manager without at least 7 years experience? Then you’d likely be missing on a lot of top managerial talent, since they tend to get promoted onto that track much sooner than 7 years in.
Just out of curiosity, in what industry do you do this managerial hiring?
Except politically of course it does.
SCOTUS ASAP! Trump can do it in year 8 AFTER the court is stacked with CONFIRMED conservatives. That would insure she’s a long term squish.
But how can she achieve such poor anti-Constitutional and anti-American decisions being made by Federal court appointees at this moment? Hopefully, even a recent Constitution-faithful law grad (or a conservative FR poster) could do better.
For a department manager? Yeah three or four years in the field, three years as a supervisor...
And then to run a department? Seven years is not a lot of time.
Not sure where you work, but 7-10 years to a department manager is pretty normal.
He prefers judges that rule on their emotional connection with the case, no experience required. Beyond the emotional quotient, he would like to have a judge who relies on foreign law and Non-christian religions practices, and finally, a decision based on popular progressive fads.
He will likely to be disappointed with this nominee.
Field, supervisor—customer service? Manufacturing or utilities?
I am from the tech industry where the talent is very smart and if it also has the managing gene, it ripens faster than that!
Oh, and of course she already had 3 years of grad school, including no doubt internships and the like, before her 11 years of experience in practce and as a clerk to the very top. She is probably another. 5+ years from possible consideration to the high court.
Oh, and of course she already had 3 years of grad school, including no doubt internships and the like, before her 11 years of experience in practce and as a clerk to the very top. She is probably another. 5+ years from possible consideration to the high court.
Which “he” are you referring to?
Fancy that, a liberal writer making a comment that makes my day.
Started out in field engineering for broadband, then general operations, then big call centers. About 40 years from Supervisor to Manager to GM to VP, SVP and EVP.
The tech world may be organized for projects, but they are among some of the worst “people managers” in the world. They generally lack social skills and the ability to see grey areas.
But to each his own.
I find that new employees THINK they are qualified now in about four months, but they continually screw over their peers and subordinates because they either don’t know what they are doing, or they think the world is run like Big Brother.
Most of our problems started when we got this silly idea that the law was so complicated that only someone who studied for years could understand it.
The author leaves out the elephant in the room - judges serve for life. Trump is remaking the judiciary and his efforts will last for many many years.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.
Pleasant looking young woman. But that is a secondary consideration.
That’s why i say SCOTUS ASAP. Push the left’s button. Just make sure Ruth Buzzi, and 2 others are replaced. Give Thomas an early retirement and her the job.
She’s a cutie pie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.