that was really good!

Would the demand for supreme court clerkships be substantially less if the bonuses were smaller? I bet if you took a poll of those who ultimately succeeded in getting them, they most certainly would have still applied and accepted their jobs even with smaller bonuses.

Great job, Lat. I don't agree with your reasoning entirely, but the Op-Ed was terrific. Congrats.

This is a particularly amazing feat, given that the article was banal, meandering, and less informative than my wristwatch.

Hey Lat, you've moved up a spot. As of 12:55 PM, you're #20.

Anyone else smell sour grapes? Mr. Lat's piece is a perfect example of what happens when high-achievers, after years of clearing hurdles with effortless ease, finally hit the wall. I think it's called whining.

Although there may be a million sound reasons to puncture the logic behind $250K bonuses, the reality is that SCOTUS clerks have the "golden ticket" and you do not. Period. Close is not close enough. It’s what the rest of us mere mortals have been struggling with for years.

Here’s your view carried to absurd ends: I didn't get into Yale/Harvard/Stanford law, but I was really close and therefore I should have the exact same career opportunities coming out of the gate. (Doesn’t happen.) I was second in my class from a top-30 law school and clerked for a district court, but I was obviously really close to a circuit clerkship and should therefore be extended all the same accolades. (Doesn’t happen.) I didn’t pass the bar, but based on my score, I was really close so I don’t think it should matter. (Doesn’t happen.) I barely exceeded the minimum billing requirement, but I was really close to the person with the most billable hours in my class and therefore I should receive a comparable bonus. (Doesn’t happen.)

Grow up, Mr. Lat. Regardless of why or how SCOTUS clerks managed to grab an illustrious position that you never could, they got it and you don’t. Sometimes life’s just unfair.

Sour grapes? Lat is praising the SCOTUS bonuses. Have I missed something?

"For every Supreme Court clerk, there is another similarly gifted lawyer who could do law firm work just as well, but who narrowly missed out on a high court clerkship. Such “near-misses” are like generic drugs, or store-brand paper towels: they perform the same function, at a fraction of the cost. For every $250,000 Supreme Court clerkship bonus, a firm could pay five clerkship bonuses of $50,000 — the going rate — to former appeals court clerks who just missed out on clerking for the Supreme Court (disclosure: I’m one of those former appeals court clerks who didn’t get a golden ticket)."

"For every Supreme Court clerk, there is another similarly gifted lawyer who could do law firm work just as well, but who narrowly missed out on a high court clerkship. Such “near-misses” are like generic drugs, or store-brand paper towels: they perform the same function, at a fraction of the cost. For every $250,000 Supreme Court clerkship bonus, a firm could pay five clerkship bonuses of $50,000 — the going rate — to former appeals court clerks who just missed out on clerking for the Supreme Court (disclosure: I’m one of those former appeals court clerks who didn’t get a golden ticket)."

If you want to accuse Lat of sour grapes re: SCOTUS clerkships, at least use the right citation:

http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2004/06/article_iii_gro.html

And don't claim that your "sour grapes" observation is some sort of revelation. Lat's envy of Supreme Court clerks is open and notorious (and has been for years).

It's 1:09 PM. You're up to #19, Lat!

12:59:

There was no sour grapes at all. Lat was praising the bonuses that Supreme Court clerks receive. You should reread the piece.

Lat:

Wow, you sound like a Democrat in that piece. Good work. Maybe if your party encouraged more people like you and dumped the Monica Goodlings, the Republicans wouldn't be in the awful situation they are in now.

Try not to destroy the respect that I have gained for you today by posting a RNC talking point. Give it a day, and enjoy the accolades for the piece before ruining it.

I'm sorry . . . I didn't see a citation in my original post. So I'm a little confused as to how I could've used the wrong citation when one didn't even exist.

And I'm also confused as to where I indicated I was making some sort of revelation. But thanks for clearing that up.

You folks are so clever.

there's another pro-bonus argument that Lat never quite makes explicit, I think. I take it to be that there is a positive externality in the huge bonuses that the elect get: it causes more/better qualified people to do the COA clerkship thing than would otherwise do it.

this is the opposite of the pro-athlete effect, right? huge salaries cause lots of kids to focus on sports in high school and college, hoping to be one of the pros. Most of them end up less qualified for work after their sports career is over than they would have been had they not been dreaming of going pro.

Good luck getting higher than #19. You're stuck behind Thomas Friedman.

You can forget about overtaking the article about the recall of "Tommy the Tank" toys (currently #7). Every yuppie parent in Manhattan is emailing that one around.

I hear rumors among the hiring partner types that it'll hit $300,000 by 2009. Bonuses are now lagging the increase in base salaries, firms that want to keep up are already talking about their next move.

their expansive knowledges of penumbras entirely justfies their bonuses.

their expansive knowledge of penumbras entirely justfies their bonuses.

Climbing fast: 1:32 PM, number 18!

(At Above the Law headquarters, interns are frantically emailing this article to themselves and their immediate families, over and over again.)

12:59/1:11:

Since you need it broken down for you:

1) You got the "wrong citation" by using the wrong example of "sour grapes," not by incorrectly citing to the article you used. This would have been obvious to you if you had paid any attention to the link provided by your detractor.

2) The way you began your post, "Does anyone else smell sour grapes?" implies that you are noticing something, and believe you may be the first to point it out to the rest of the group. Not quite the same as claiming a "revelation," but that's hardly as absurd as you try to make it out to be.

Hope that helps. Now get the fuck over yourself.

Mr. Weary:

Profanity always demonstrates a sound mind. Bravo.

(1) Actually, not at all. Although Mr. Lat's article may advance "revelations" supporting the sizeable clerkship bonus, there is a very vivid undercurrent of resentment. For instance, he indicates that for every SCOTUS clerk "there is another similarly gifted lawyer" who is not a SCOTUS clerk. (Fine, fine. You're as good as the SCOTUS clerks, Mr. Lat.) Or he makes the assumption that gifted COA clerks like himself "just missed out on clerking for the Supreme Court." (Sure, sure. You were next on the list. Sure. We believe you.) Although better "citations" may exist, that Mr. Lat cannot manage to suppress his "sour grapes" in an article that supports large rewards for SCOTUS clerks speaks volumes.

(2) Literacy is overrated. I wrote "Anyone else smell sour grapes?" not "Does anyone else smell sour grapes?" If anything, this only implies I wish to strike up a conversation on a particular subject matter. Why aren't you ridiculing the "Climbing fast" posters? Talk about a "revelation."

2:27: Lat had a Scalia interview:

http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1161162315435

Scalia typically interviews eight people for four clerkships. Lat may not have been "next on the list," but he couldn't have been that far off.

I think Lat also had a Kennedy interview.

How many Supreme Court clerkship interviews did you have, 2:27?

2:39: Lat, is that you?

Of course. Can he talk about anything else?

"I applied to clerk on the Supreme Court after my circuit court clerkship, and I interviewed for a clerkship with Justice Scalia, but I didn't get the job in the end."

http://www.jdblissblog.com/2006/11/david_lat_forme.html

ha ha ha ha . . . folks . . . here lies a pissing contest if I've ever seen one.

Lat, I commend your use of the adjective "clerkly" to describe the paltriness of clerk salaries. Well done!

"Profanity always demonstrates a sound mind?" What's the matter, couldn't find any typos to nitpick?

1) my original "1)" was solely an explanation of the other poster's criticism. I actually don't care at all about which article betrayed more resentment by Lat.

Unearned and inapt indignation is just a pet peeve of mine, so I called you out on yours. There was a rather obvious interpretation of the poster's comment that you ignored on the way to your "riposte," so I pointed it out.

2) Again, I merely sought to explain to you why your dudgeon was misplaced. I really don't care about how accurate the other poster's comment was; my point was only that your little show of sputtering incomprehension was absurd.

Hence the request to "get the fuck over yourself." Now, perhaps when you've recovered from the vapors (two bad words I've posted before your delicate eyes now!), you can do just that.

But then, again, you can feel free to ignore me since, obviously, my use of four letter words has given away my complete mental unsoundness, thus negating all my thoughts and opinions forevermore...

You're a real jerk. Good with a thesaurus though . . .

Sound mind = a mind that demonstrates competence, sensibility, a freedom from defect as to logic or judgment. If the best argument you can come up with in closing is "get the fuck over yourself," do you really think that definition applies to you? My pet peeve is people who think profanity makes them bigger, stronger and scarier . . . Ohhh!

I understood Mr. Lat's argument perfectly well and only further bolstered my point in my second post – to which, may I point out, “you [entirely] ignored on the way to your [little] ‘riposte.’” Demeaning insults about my “sputtering incomprehension” aside, that Mr. Lat complements SCOTUS clerks while promoting himself betrays the way he rolls. The indignation was very much earned. He didn’t clerk for the Court and he needs to get over it.

"Although there may be a million sound reasons to puncture the logic behind $250K bonuses, the reality is that SCOTUS clerks have the "golden ticket" and you do not."

Unless, of course, "you" happen to be an investment banker.

"that Mr. Lat complements [sic] SCOTUS clerks while promoting himself betrays the way he rolls. "

The word you're looking for is "compliments."

You're welcome.

My apologies. You certainly showed me. By placing that "e" instead of an "i," it's almost as my argument . . . dare I even say my life . . . has no merit and is totally unworthy of any response.

You guys sure are smert.