I'm back!: Greetings, sports fans. It is good to be back home after a nice holiday visit in God's country (i.e., the South). I am catching up on e-mail, snail mail, bills, etc., so it may be awhile before I crank up the posts again. In the meantime, however, I will share an e-mail that I recently received from a loyal reader:

I haven't seen an analysis/speculation anywhere on the role Alberto Gonzales' now-public opinion on the Michigan affirmative action case (he supports the program and would, evidently have the SG file an amicus brief to that effect) will have on his chances of being nominated to the Court, which all Washington-based reporters openly take as a fait accompli.

Does it hurt his chances? It cannot be doubted that conservatives take appointments to the Court as one of the single most important acts of a president. They share that with the left. One of the things that have made them squeamish about Gonzales -- and, correspondingly, the left push his cause -- is their concern that he is "soft" on issues of race and federalism, as much as O'Connor and maybe more. By revealing himself to be a few ticks to the left of O'Connor, it's hard to see how the White House sells Gonzales to the president's core supporters. It's now impossible, I think, for Rove to say to conservatives as once John Sununu, Sr. did in the first Bush Administration: Be quiet, he's really one of us. The record now shows, as clearly as it reasonably can with a man with a man without a long paper trail, that he is not.

Does it help his chances?

You can argue Gonzales' position on the Michigan case helps him if the administration is in full-gale hysteria and wants to run, not walk, to the nearest exit from conservative jurisprudence. In other words, they now fear Schumer's race baiting as much as they once did the patient's bill of rights or global warming as an issue. If Trent Lott was the spark that lit the forest fire, the administration might flee to someone who is on the record as supporting affirmative action -- and is likely to be several ticks to the left of O'Connor on a host of federalism and other issues -- and someone who seems to have the support of the left.

It will be interesting to see how Rove views this and how he balances it.

Any thoughts or comments?

Vacation: I am leaving to go on vacation today and will probably not post many (if any) entries until after I get back on December 30th. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who stops in for a spell to visit my little blog. I do this for my own amusement (obviously), and I am grateful that anyone else is remotely interested in what I have to say. I hope that all of you have a Merry Christmas.

Bag and Baggage: I would like to thank Denise Howell at Bag and Baggage for linking over to my humble little blog. I have already received several referrals from her blog, and am most appreciative. I frequently read Bag and Baggage and had been meaning to add the blog to my small but growing list o' links on the right. I strongly encourage all five of my loyal readers to visit her blog (that means you too, Mom).

Judicial Clerkships: One of the more interesting aspects of being a judicial clerk is that most, if not all, of your family members and friends have no idea what you do. Moreover, when you tell them that you are a "clerk" they tend give you the most sympathetic look imaginable and say something along the lines of "Oh, that's nice." This can be even more problematic when you are single during your judicial clerkship (a problem I, thankfully, don't have to deal with).

The reality, however, is that judicial clerkships are a pretty good gig, if you can get one. There is, of course, a pecking order. The best damn clerkship period is one with the Supreme Court of the United States. To say that only the cream of the crop get these clerkships is the understatement of the century. In baseball terminology, the guys and gals who make it to this level are the All-stars. The next level, in terms of prestige, is a circuit court clerkship. There are currently 12 federal circuits. This is where the majority of all federal appeals are decided (the Supreme Court only takes between 70-100 cases a year). For example, the 11th Circuit is located in Atlanta, Georgia, and covers three states: Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Before moving on to the next level, I pause to note that not all circuit court (or federal appellate) clerkships are equal. Some judges are "feeder" judges, which means that their clerks often go on to clerk for the Supreme Court. Judge Luttig of the 4th Circuit is an example of such a judge. Additionally, some circuits have better reputations than others among the "law geek" crowd. It is all a little silly if you ask me, but never underestimate the power of the ego. Federal district court clerkships are also highly sought after. Federal district courts are the trial level in the federal judicial system. This is where everything starts. In addition to the prestige associated with these clerkships, there is also a great deal of practical value if you want to eventually be a litigator. There are also some specialty federal clerkships that are generally not as prestigious as a federal district court clerkship but valuable nonetheless--e.g., bankruptcy clerkship. A state supreme court clerkship is also fairly prestigious. These clerkships probably fall somewhere between a federal district court clerkship and a specialty federal clerkship. Finally, there are also clerkships for state court of appeals and state trial courts. These clerkships can be extremely valuable (on a practical level), but they are not going to generate any "ooohs" or "ahhhs" from the legal geek community (we can be a snobby bunch). There are other clerkships, of course, but I've covered most of them.

All of this, of course, means nothing to our family members and friends, and means even less to a girl you might try to pick up in bar. Lexistentialist, a contributor to the Greedy Clerks Board on Findlaw, paints a vivid picture of this scenario, in a post entitled "Law clerk as absolute game kill," which I will recount here:

How do you all deal with the problem that being a law clerk is an absolute game kill?

e.g.,

FEMALE BAR PATRON: Oh, so what do you do for a living?
LEX: I'm a law clerk for a federal judge on the ...
FEMALE BAR PATRON: A "clerk," eh? Like a secretary?
LEX: Well, no. It's kind of like an assistant to a judge, but its actually a very desired post.
FEMALE BAR PATRON: Oh, excuse me. I think I have to run to the bathroom. [exit directly to nearest banker]

Wishing the job were called "vice president of legal affairs,"

L[ex]

Here are some of the responses this post generated:

From Eddie Felson:

My solution to this has always been as follows:

FEMALE BAR PATRON: So what do you do for a living?
EDDIE: I'm a lawyer.
FEMALE BAR PATRON: Oh really? (you then get one of the following:) (1) So what kind of law do you practice?
EDDIE: Actually, right now I'm not practicing. I'm a lawyer for a federal judge....(sometimes you can repeat the line from early in the Godfather: "I'm a lawyer, and I have one client.") (2) So where'd you go to law school?
EDDIE: [this is easy; it's off to the races]

THE MORAL: never, ever, utter the word "clerk." It's too hard to spin. But if you never say that word in the first place, you can usually massage your way around it.

Just my $.01 (yes, only 1, given my track record.....)

From Implied oral consent:

"My co-clerk's mother-in-law is convinced that he is a paralegal."

On the more serious side [from erat lux]:

I just finished clerking a few months ago in a city with a very . . . active nightlife. I never said I was "a lawyer to a federal judge." It's not really true, first of all, and second (and relatedly) it both vastly overstates and in important ways understates your job and your relationship with your judge. Plus it just sounds weird. If I heard that from someone I'd just met, I'd wonder why a federal judge would need a lawyer - is he going through a divorce? getting a will written? Neither lawyers nor laypeople think of judges as needing representation in the normal course of their duties, and they're right - judges don't need representation and you don't provide it. Nor do you provide counseling in the way that lawyers provide advice to, say, corporations about how to structure their employee harassment guidelines.

When telling a woman at a club what I did last year (which I tried to avoid, anyway, because I preferred the women who liked me for me, rather than for what I earned), I would always start by just saying "I work for a federal judge." It's about as simple and straightforward and true an opening as there is. It also allows, if she's curious, for an elaborating conversation, and allows her to leave it simply at that if she's not. It runs the risk of her thinking that you do the judge's filing or deliver his mail, rather than executing the oh-so-exalted functions you really do, but I never minded that. If a woman were to exit-stage-left-for-the-nearest-banker upon hearing that, it wouldn't be much of a loss. Certainly I didn't want a relationship with someone like that, so at most I was missing out on a few nights of (likely tepid) sex with a shallow companion.

From Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

"You need to go to bars that are sufficiently upscale that the women don't think you could possibly be a secretary. And if you insist on going to such bars, then you should be able to get away with calling yourself 'vice president of legal affairs.'"

Do any other "clerks" out there have a suggestion on the best way of describing what we do to family, friends, and, for my single friends, strangers in bars? How about [in my best Austin Powers voice]: "Some people practice law. I'm writin' the law, baby. Yeah!"

From the "Wish I'd said that" department: In NRO's "The Corner," John Derbyshire writes:

LOTT NO TRUE SOUTHRON:

You can mark both pluses and minuses against the South as a culture; but I always thought one of the big pluses is, that the South has brought forward the code of gentlemanly honor into the modern age. Now, if a man has embarrassed his colleagues in this way, it seems to me that the honorable thing for him to do is resign. Where is the fault in my logic here?

None whatsoever. I couldn't agree more.

Say it ain't so, Al: According to this article, former Vice President Al Gore is "ready to abandon his White House dream."

It looks like Lott will step down (thank god!): Drudge is reporting that "Republican Leader Trent Lott to hold press conference in Pascagoula, Miss 4:30P central . . . .

Update: From Drudge-"Lott does not intend to step down as Majority Leader. White House has been told Lott plans to apologize again. Rove/Bush has requested a more forceful apology to put this behind him . . . MORE . . ."

A keen observation: The Washington Post ran an article yesterday entitled "Lott Comments May Hurt Pickering," speculating that "Senate Republican leader Trent Lott's recanted remarks that appeared to endorse race separation views of a half-century ago may derail Mississippi jurist Charles Pickering's second chance for the federal appeals court seat." I think someone else made that same point about four days ago (scroll down a few posts).

The Supreme Court and sodomy: Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, of Instapundit fame, has this take on the likelihood that the Court will reverse Bowers v. Hardwick.

"Perhaps you will be the next nominee to Bush’s federal bench": The Alliance for Justice seems to think I meet the criteria. Take the group's "You be the judge" test (which, by the way, is comprised of entirely nonpartisan questions) and let me know your score. I got a zero. :) I am waiting, Mr. President. P.S. The 11th Circuit would be just fine with me.

And the hits just keep on comin': It looks as though yet another shoe has dropped for Sen. Lott. The AP is reporting that back in 1981 Lott tried to help Bob Jones University keep its federal tax-exempt status despite the school's policy prohibiting interracial dating.

Uh Oh, maybe it wasn't a gaffe: It's time for you to step down, Mr. Lott.

Judge Kmiec?: The N.Y. Times is reporting that President Bush is considering naming Douglas W. Kmiec, the dean of the law school at Catholic University and a prominent conservative scholar, to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lott's gaffe and the Pickering nomination: Well, things are finally starting to heat up. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are both calling on Sen. Lott to resign. My guess is that Lott will be forced to step down as majority leader, but will not resign from the Senate. I just cannot see that happening. I do wonder, however, what effect all of this will have on U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering's chances of being renominated and confirmed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Lott is Pickering's biggest supporter, and you can bet your bottom dollar that Lott's dim-witted remarks will come back to haunt him if Pickering is renominated. I can certainly see the dems using a filibuster to block Pickering's confirmation. and using their opposition to the nomination as a means to further attack Lott. The first time around, democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee implied that Pickering was a racist. They eventually backed off of this ludicrous assertion, but by then the damage was already done. Lott's recent remarks will only add fuel to the fire. Although I have great sympathy for Judge Pickering, President Bush would be wise to appoint someone else to the Fifth Circuit.

Maybe it's time to get a new Senate majority leader: At Sen. Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Sen. Trent Lott (R Miss.) made the following statement:

“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

Huh? The primary motivation behind then Thurmond's decision to run for president, as the nominee of the breakaway Dixiecrat Party in 1948, was his opposition to desegregation. During the campaign, he declared that "[a]ll the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches." Moreover, the Dixiecrat Party adopted a platform that said, in part, "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race.” Such conduct is, to put it mildly, hardly praiseworthy.

So what are we to make of this? Is Lott a racist? I don't think that anyone seriously believes that to be the case. Nevertheless, Lott has some explaining to do, and this time he had better choose his words carefully. Otherwise, there is a good chance that Republicans will have a new majority leader in a few weeks. For further details, see this article at NRO.

I'll take domestic policy and prospective Supreme Court nominees for $800, Alex: What does the recent shake up of Bush's economic team have do with the Supreme Court nomination guessing game? A reader offers the following thoughts:

What does the very public dismissal of Paul O'Neill and Laurence Lindsey tell us about this president's prospective nomination(s) to the Supreme Court? Although there seems, at first, to be no reasonable connection, I think there are lessons to be learned about how this Administration does business and what motivates it to do what it does. And I think all this does damage to the fond hopes of the media and liberal interests in Washington who have reported and promoted the idea, respectively, of Alberto Gonzales' near-certain nomination to the Court.

First, this Administration is famous for not talking to the press about important substantive and personnel decisions. The selection of Dick Cheney as vice president, the nomination of Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, the tandem dismissal of O'Neill and Lindsey were all surprises to the media. The president likes surprises and keeps his own counsel. I very much doubt that those who know (the president, the vice president, Karl Rove, John Ashcroft) are talking to the media. So, I have reason to doubt the certainty about Gonzales, all the more so because it seems so widespread.

Second, the one thing that seems to motivate Karl Rove is keeping Bush 43 from reprising Bush 41's mistakes. Politically pallid and utterly ineffectual O'Neill will not be saved as was politically pallid and utterly ineffectual Nick Brady (Bush 41's Treasury secretary) because of family loyalty. Bush 43, et al, are capable of making shrewd and personally tough decisions where needed to avoid the father's mistakes. What is one of the biggest mistakes, in the eyes of conservatives, of the first Bush Administration? David Souter. That's why Bush 43 wasn't shy about naming Scalia and Thomas as his favorites on the Court, pointedly eliding Souter from the list. This makes me wonder if the White House would risk nominating Gonzales against conservative opposition, when they have other Hispanics to choose from (e.g., Miguel Estrada, Raoul Cantero of the Florida Supreme Court, Emilio Garza).

Third, with the public dismissal of Bush 43 friend Lindsey, we also now know that this Administration won't be motivated by personal sentiment. That, too, seems to diminish the certainty of a Gonzales nomination.

Democrats and the media have, to a fault, misread this president and I have growing reason to believe they are doing so again, in predicting the certainty of a Gonzales nomination.

The 1860s reference: Yesterday, I posted the following from a letter to the editor to First Things, a conservative religious publication:

Truth is, the "Old South" is no longer necessarily to be found in a location or on a bumper sticker. Instead it is found in the heart and spirit of the people of today's Dixie. (I pause here to allow readers the opportunity to hear the appropriate timeworn tune in the background as I continue.) "Tis a gift to be simple," the old Shaker hymn reminds us. In that spirit, the Southern Credo remains as simple today as it did in the 1860s: individuals matter. Live life with passion and commitment. Beware of big government. The most important things are God and homeland, family and friends. Be kind and polite. Honor the women.

In doing so, I called it "[a]n excellent summary of my belief system." I also emailed the quote to a few friends. One of them responded this morning and asked: "The reference to the 1860s South is a little unsettling, don't you think?" Here is my response, which I thought would be of interest to Southern Appeal's readers:

Yeah, I probably should have included the following portion of the letter where the writer touches on the very point you raise:

"But what about your poor record on the issue of slavery and race relations?" the readers are sure to ask. Indeed this is a dark blot on our past. We cannot speak for the motives of our ancestors on this issue, for history is indeed a distant land. Moving on to more recent times, I do note that our poor record on race relations . . . stemmed primarily from a spirit of fear, misinformation, and misjudgment of the common white Southerner, coupled with the inherent depravity found in all of mankind. Unfortunately, such depravity exists on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. As Harvard's Robert Coles reminds us, while examining "the problem of Mississippi" he learned that "there's a little Mississippi in all of us--and a little bit of Massachusetts. South Africa, and Northern Island too." . . . . The wounds are far from healed and it remains for future generations to continue the ministry of reconciliation--but at least the process has sincerely begun. God grant that it may be so.

Nevertheless, I should have been more sensitive to the 1860s reference before sending the e-mail out. I mainly wanted to emphasize the latter portion of the quote:

"Live life with passion and commitment. Beware of big government. The most important things are God and homeland, family and friends. Be kind and polite. Honor the women."

Anyway, thanks for reminding me of the importance of being precise and placing things in their proper context. You are a good friend.

A call to arms!: Sometimes the end does justify the means. My fellow Federalists, we must all run out and purchase at least one of Al Gore's sickening piece of crap books in order to convince him to run for president again in 2004.

An excellent summary of my belief system: I recently purchased a subscription to "First Things", a conservative religious publication, and was delighted to read a letter to the editor from a fellow Southerner that included the following words:

Truth is, the "Old South" is no longer necessarily to be found in a location or on a bumper sticker. Instead it is found in the heart and spirit of the people of today's Dixie. (I pause here to allow readers the opportunity to hear the appropriate timeworn tune in the background as I continue.) "Tis a gift to be simple," the old Shaker hymn reminds us. In that spirit, the Southern Credo remains as simple today as it did in the 1860s: individuals matter. Live life with passion and commitment. Beware of big government. The most important things are God and homeland, family and friends. Be kind and polite. Honor the women.

Don W. Buckley, M.D.
Executive Committee Officer
Southern Baptist Convention
Pensacloa, Florida

I could not have said it any better myself. Kudos to you, Dr. Buckely.

You gotta be kiddin' me: From CNSNews.com, "A religious adviser to the nation's largest for-profit abortion provider has provoked a vehement response from pro-life Christians over his claim that Jesus Christ supported abortion." Here is the link to the full article.

Olson v. Starr: Allison R. Hayward of NRO has these thoughts on the oral arguments (taking place today and tomorrow) in McConnell v. FEC, "the omnibus mega-challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), commonly called McCain-Feingold."

This guy needs to write for National Review: Stuart Buck, lawyer and former federal appellate clerk, has posted a powerful blog entry on the issue of abortion as it relates to babies with Down Syndrome.

Bring on the judges!: It looks as though Senator Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will end the long standing "blue slips" policy that allowed senators to block a judicial nominee from their home state. According to Hatch:

"Negative blue slips will be given substantial consideration. But they will not be dispositive unless there wasn't consultation [between the White House and the senator]."

In other words, the White House will inform a senator that it intends to nominate someone from his or her home state, but the Senate Judiciary Committee is free to ignore any objections that a senator may make with respect to that nomination.

I applaud Senator Hatch's decision. The "blue slips" policy is as problematic as denying judicial nominees a floor vote; in both cases the Senate has failed to "advise and consent" in the manner required by the Constitution and the president's constitutional authority to appoint judges is compromised.