U.S. schools should discourage students from applying for clerkships with #ClarenceThomas; faculty should refuse to recommend students for those clerkships; firms and other legal employers should refuse to hire people who have chosen to clerk for Thomas starting this year (when the large extent of his corruption became known). To do otherwise is to be complicit with Thomas’s unethical conduct. #LawFedi #LegalEthics #JudicialEthics
🇳🇱
I have no love for Thomas.. but no just ew no. Working for someone doesnt mean you should be an outcast for life... no lets stop with this petty nonsense. Focus on Thomas if you want to boycott someone.
They said "starting this year". Anyone who worked for him in the past is fine, but people choosing to work for him are most certainly aware of the reporting about him.
Personally I think that's generous. It's unlikely that his clerks were totally unaware of how he was operating.
Its not about awareness. People need to feed their families, or are trying to get training so they can get hired.
Not to mention that forcing him to not have a staff isnt going to solve a damn thing, if anything will just make him worse not better.
Since 2020 he has had 18 law clerks.
6 from Yale, 5 from Chicago, 3 from Harvard, and 1 each from NYU, Virginia, George Mason, and Alabama.
Each class of 37 law clerks (4 per justice 5 for chief justice) is on a path towards being able to wield power and influence that will impact every person living in the United States.
Yes they are, and who they worked for should not change that. Now if they actively did anything on their own then by all means hold it against them. Thomas's decisions arent their own, nor do they necessarily have the luxury to quit.
None of these folks would have trouble getting a job with likely better pay.
With very few exceptions, they have a previous clerkship with a federal judge.
By helping Thomas justify his opinions, they literally further his potentially corrupt influence.
Regardless, even if they could find a job, no this is wrong without actively reviewing their specific actions. They may very well be offering dissenting opinions to Thomas and very much trying to push him the opposite direction.
These sort of idiotic blanket boycots on people simply by association, particularly employment, is not the way to go on any level.
For the corruption component I see two sides... Before the corruption was exposed they may not have known, so i wont hold that against them unless specific evidence surfaces they knew... After the corruption was exposed its not their responsibility to judge or investigate if the corruption is legitimate. There are mechanisms in place for that already and that is where that should be decided.
@freemo Keep moving those goalposts.
@cuibonobaby LOL as if adapting ones position when new information is learned is a bad thing.
@freemo what new information did you lthat caused you to change your position? In fact it appears like you couldn't defend your first position so you just adopted another one.
@freemo *did you learn.
How has my original position changed? huh
The new information I responded to was the assertion that they could probably find new jobs easily enough. My original position never asserted that them being unable to find new work is the only reason that would justify them being a clerk, so how did I move the goalposts?
@freemo I stand corrected. You didn't change your original position.
@cuibonobaby appreciate the intellectual honesty on that reply, thanks.
@freemo @heidilifeldman
That might be a compelling argument in the case of a justice who wasn't tainted by the appearance of corruption.
Corruption isn't something you sway with a slick legal argument. Corruption dictates the outcome and finds justification after the fact.