Posted on 08/31/2006 5:25:42 PM PDT by KingofZion
The big talk in law blogs this week is about the scandalously small number of women among the elitest of the elite, the law clerks to the Supreme Court justices. It isn’t just the number of women sitting on the bench that’s been reduced by 50 percent. This year, only seven of the Supreme Court’s 37 law clerk’s will be women. Shame on them.
When I clerked on the Supreme Court nearly 30 years ago, 5 of the clerks were women. From five to seven in 30 years? Why does it matter?
Supreme Court clerkships are like the final gold star in an academic record. They “only” pay $63,335, which is a lot less than these same kids could be making in the open market, but they open doors like no legal job does. Teaching jobs, the top “special assistant” government jobs, the best private practice jobs -- the clerks have their choice.
***
When I was applying, we used to hear “gossip” that certain judges and Justices wouldn’t hire women.
***
But there was a catch. Sex. Mine. Judge Wright, according to my research, had had one woman clerk in about 30 years. Justice Brennan had maybe had one. Both of them had taken every single Harvard Law Review president who had ever applied to them without even holding an interview. Would they take me?
Judge Wright did. Justice Brennan wouldn’t. Nothing personal, Judge Wright explained to me on my first day of work, but I was going to have to find someone else to clerk for. Justice Brennan wasn’t going to hire me because I was a woman. That’s how it was.
MORE
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Remember the liberal motto: Do as I say, not as I do.
Unlike 30 years ago, this problem can now be "corrected" with surgery. Would that satisfy the author?
But quite a few of those believe in the rule of lawyers.
Catatonic Discrimination Rampant On Supreme Court
There, that's better.
Your are wrong. The Congress and Senate omitted themselves from all Affirmative and sexual discrimination laws.
So it isnt only the SCOTUS.
Sure, being a Supreme Court clerk is great if you want to argue cases to the court; or be an educator or senior staff political clerk. Or maybe if you want to sit on the bench yourself.
But by the time you get out, you realize that the opportunity for real challange in the legal profession isn't in any of those places. The bench is occupied by individuals who are not successful in private practice; so are the law school professorships. And political clerks are still clerks who don't get to make decisions and don't get in on any real action.
A number of top students are still very insecure--for those who aren't, the real action is in private practice representing clients who are doing real deals participating in the free enterprise system at its best.
This is the funniest thing I've read in years.
There's a column in Slate by Dahlia Lithwick, Wednesday IIRC, about the lack of women clerks.
She notes that Justice Scalia hasn't hired many women, although she doesn't have any numbers on how many applied.
She thinks that there must be more than four people who could do these jobs, I suppose implying that the Justices ought to throw in a woman. Why not throw in an Eskimo, a Buddhist, a basketball player, a disabled and a senior, too?
I wonder why all these moonbat pro-abortion socialists would apply for a job with Scalia in the first place when they hate the man.
This was true until 1995 when the GOP congress passed a law which made all of these laws apply to Congress pursuant to the contract with america.
Guess what....no more stupid affirmative action laws since 1995.
GOP are not hypocrites like Dems.
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.