Talk:Lists of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States/Archive 2

Notables versus list?
While I am not in the law field, I know the significance of being a supereme court law clerk. However, this page seems to not encapsulate that idea. I look at the list, and over 90% seem to be red links and not blue links. I don't see the notability of who was a law clerk in 1941, unless that person rose to prominence other than just becoming the law clerk, i.e. we should have a page dedicated to the blue links, explaining the importance of the position, and maybe a list of current law clerks. Otherwise, all we have is an almost unwieldy list of names where most of them are not notable except for one achievement. It's like listing every student ever getting a scholarship to Harvard or Yale; going to those schools is notable, but not enough so to list every single name, just the notable ones. Angryapathy (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between omitting the name altogether, and simply not putting a red link there. bd2412  T 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Still, that avoids the issue that whether or not the names or red linked or not linked, these names are not notable in themselves to be put into a massive list for purely being a law clerk. I personally think this article would be better if we cut out the non-notables. Anyone have an opinion on that? Angryapathy (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's providing useful information, particularly with regard to patterns relating to law schools and prior clerkships. If we're going to include those two details, omitting the clerks' names seems pointless. SS451 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the concern; listing every single clerk is not notable. A list of notable clerks, and who they clerked for, could be useful, but to have such a long list of just people who did a random job, no matter how prestigious, feels gratuitous. In contrast to this page, we don't have a list of everyone who was ever been a US senator because each of those people is important to have a page in their own right. If a clerk is not important enough to have their own page I don't think we should list them. I feel like most people not very invested in this page would agree as well. THEMlCK (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability of the list itself is derived from the Justices, not the clerks - the individual clerks are not per se notable. What this article does is organize relevant biographical information about the Justices - who they chose and from which school.   Obviously, not all of them deserve their own article, and therefore should not be red linked. MattDredd (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Rufus Day
William R(ufus) Day's clerk is listed as Rufus Day, meaning he clerked for himself. That should be fixed... --Rajah (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why deleting the subpages makes no sense
Most of the sub pages of this article were deleted as redundant. In fact, they were not--it was necessary to edit the subpages, which showed up through templates here. I undeleted the pages to merge in the content, but having done so, we're looking at a monstrous >300k page.

Therefore, I will undue all of the edits and restore everything the way it was before the PROD deletions. Cool Hand Luke 19:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent fix. Then the "Chief Justice" section can be removed from this entry, since that section is duplicated at List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Chief Justice) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to do cleanup once you get the basics done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The list should be rearranged by Justice in chronological order
This list is awkwardly presented in terms of being presented as "Chief Justice", "seat two", "seat three", etc. Virtually no historical works on the Supreme Court think in those terms (except occasionally in the context of the historic, and now obsolete, sometime allocation of "the Southern seat," "the Catholic seat," and so forth). Rather, people think in terms of eras on the Court. Thus, by far the most useful format for a listing would probably be by Justice, from the earliest Justice to employ a law clerk to the current Justices. An alternative that might be acceptable would simply by Term (i.e., all the law clerks in 1931-32, all the law clerks in 1932-33, etc.). But the current set-up is really not user-friendly. Thanks for your consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Its odd that near-contemporaries should be so widely dispersed. I plan to make this sort of rearrangement some day unless someone disagrees. Cool Hand Luke 15:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * One way to make this work for everyone (including criticism of change made above in June 2006, and March, July, and December 2007): Create one gigantic table using a format similar to that used in List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Add a column for the Seat Number, change the column of the justices so that the justice name is listed on every line, and make every column sortable. Then the reader could sort by seat, justice, law clerk, start or end date, law school, or previous clerkship. This would enable the reader to see the progression of clerks by seat, or look at clerks who served in a particular year, or track the movement of an individual clerk, or look at the influence of a particular law school. The only information lost would be about the seat itself (when established, etc.), which could be appended as a footnote, and information about when the justice served, which can be obtained by clicking on the justice's name. The table would be long (2,000 rows?), but it would be complete and allow analysis from many directions. Randy Schutt (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

List converted into one gigantic sortable table
Per my suggestion above (28 May 2013), I have converted the 9 tables (each enclosing two sub-tables) that previously made up this page into one gigantic sortable table with 8 columns and 1,955 rows. By being sortable, this new format makes it much easier to see the law clerks hired in a particular year, the clerks with degrees from a particular law school, the clerks who previously worked for a particular circuit court judge, all the justices that a particular clerk worked for in her career, etc. or by some combination of these by shift-clicking on several column sort arrows. Note that this reformatted table relies on a new template called Template:U.S. law clerk row.

In making this conversion, I made only a few changes to the content:
 * Fixed a few obvious typos and formatting errors/inconsistencies and added missing parameters.
 * Added sorting information to the Justices and clerks so that names sort by last name
 * Added sorting information to the longer dates so they sort properly (but this doesn't seem to be working quite right).
 * Changed the name of the following Justices to the form they are most known by:
 * Joseph Philo Bradley to Joseph P. Bradley
 * Thomas Stanley Matthews to Stanley Matthews
 * Louis Dembitz Brandeis to Louis Brandeis
 * Harlan Fiske Stone to Harlan F. Stone
 * Owen Josephus Roberts to Owen Roberts
 * Arthur J. Goldberg to Arthur Goldberg
 * Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. to Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

I also rewrote the introduction (previous here: Template:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States/introduction) to indicate that Chief Justices other than Rehnquist have hired fewer than 5 law clerks and that judges in Senior status often hire a law clerk. The information describing when each of the Supreme Court seats was created (and when 2 of them were abolished) is now in a note linked at the top of the table.

I did notice two errors in the data: Edwin McElwain is listed as clerking for William Howard Taft in 1938–39, eight years after Taft's death. I don't know the correct information, so I left this. I also saw that Ashby D. Boyle II was listed as graduating from Emmanuel College, Cambridge in England, but the degree he earned was a Masters in Criminology. His JD was from Columbia in 1990, so I changed that.

The only information deleted: the dates of active service of the Supreme Court Justices. But this information can be obtained by clicking on the Justice's name. The main value of this information is to be able to tell when a law clerk is working for a retired Justice (in Senior status). In the future, it might be useful to color code the rows of clerks working for retired Justices to visually highlight them (but I don't know how to do this with a template).

The rows are listed in the same order as before: by seat number (Chief Justice first), then by Justice chronologically (Justice number), and then by law clerk start year. But now, of course, they can be sorted other ways on this page.

I have left intact the original 9 subpages (that were previously transcluded onto this page), with links to them at the bottom of this page (so others can more easily check that I haven't mangled the content). But these pages are no longer linked to this page, so they must be updated separately (and, eventually, abandoned and delinked).

NOTE: Because this table is sortable and so large, it takes a long time to load. On my computer it takes about 25 seconds to render and display and then about 4 seconds to execute each sort. The previous configuration only took about 5 seconds to load. Scrolling is also sluggish and editing is now so slow that it really must be done on an outside editor (copy all the content and paste it to an outside editor, make changes, copy and paste everything back, then save).

The slow rendering and difficulty editing may be unacceptable. And since this table will expand by 40 rows each year, it will only get worse over time. Should my changes be reverted back to the previous, unsortable version with the 9 transcluded tables? Or is there another solution? Ideas? Randy Schutt (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Randy Schutt and All, I have done a re-format of "list of...CJ" on my sandbox User:The_Original_Filfi/sandbox (I do need my sandbox for some other bits and pieces, however, I will leave this here for 7 days or so, or until a way forward is agreed) and the size has reduced to 23kb from 55kb+, I have added a minor amount of extra information, made the table sortable, removed dead links, (after testing on a tool to do this specifically, adding back the links will only take 2kb or so) and made the table specific to law clerk, all in all, the added functionality and the reduction of size makes the page more effective, if I repeat this on the other "list of law clerks" articles we could re-apply the trancluded articles to meet all requirements I amended the entry for Edwin McElwain and notated such, however I have left the error on Ashby D. Boyle II, which is still shown on the "List of..CJ" article to highlight one of the other benefit of the transclusions. I have kept all my work and can add back any items that anyone feels may be needed, please feel to review and comment, offer suggestion etc Kind regards The Original Filfi (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it better to have one big table that can be sorted in every way or 9 smaller tables that can be sorted in every way except across the 9 tables (that is, is it useful to be able to sort the career of a clerk who worked for more than one justice or be able to sort by year or by law school across all justices)? This is the question that must be resolved. Filfi has created an example of the smaller table (though removed the Justice number which makes it possible to sort chronologically by justice). But is the reduction in size worth the limitation in sorting ability? I don't know the answer to this question. What do others think? Has the size of the one large table made it difficult to use? Has the additional sorting capability been useful?


 * I'm inclined to keep the larger table since the size and loading speed problems seem to be less than I worried about. Have these been problems for others? Having one table also makes it much easier to edit for those who don't understand transcluding. And I think the additional functionality (sorting capability) is worthwhile. I changed to one big table because of all the concerns expressed before about inability to sort and edit (read through the Talk page above). Randy Schutt (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can add edit links to the source trancluded pages which should direct any editors to the correct table to add or amend any details. Where a clerk has clerked for different courts, he or she may still have 2 entries (or more) which is not so clean, that is certainly a negative. Where we have one place to correct any errors or add details that populates all tables is certainly a positive. I am kind of sitting on the fence a bit here I know. I notice that the current listings by court are not sortable, only the main one is, thanks to Randy. My logic for notating the justices, rather than leaving them in order, is that this is a clerks list and not a justices listing, we can add a "see also" to the justices listing on each article including the main one for navigation and completeness. As any good lawyer or accountant says before committing himself... I will take some advice, lol.The Original Filfi (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Law clerks in progress. copied form talk The Original Filfi.
Hi Filfi,

The table you've created in your Sandbox looks like it might work, that is, enable all the columns of List_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States to actually be sorted across 9 separate files. How does that work?

If I'm interpreting this correctly, then you could exactly reproduce the table I created with 9 files (or even more). The only thing I see that is clumsy about your table is the extra column needed for editors to find the information they want to change. I also worry that when an editor wants to add data to the table (especially when all the new law clerks are hired and there is a lot to add), they may not be able to figure out how/where to do that (over time, they may make a mess of files).

I also wonder if this will actually speed up the load and edit times for the page. It is possible that the transclusion of multiple files will slow things down.

If you do decide to make this change, I encourage you to keep the columns in the same order as they are now: the law clerks aren't nearly as important as the justices they work for and I imagine most users are more interested in seeing all the clerks who worked for a justice than seeing all the justices that a clerk worked for. But, of course, since all the columns are sortable, this isn't essential. It _is_ essential that the justice number be kept so that the table can be sorted chronologically by justice and I think also that the seat number be kept so they can be sorted by seat.

I am also still wondering if the current table is a problem. No one has complained on the Talk pages about it taking too long to load or edit. Is this a problem you need to solve? Wouldn't it be wise to let the page stay the same for a while (through one law clerk hiring cycle) and see if anyone complains? Randy Schutt (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Randy, I will try to address in the order you posted above.

This process, if adopted, could allow for richer base article, extra pictures, most notable cases and significant precedent setting rulings etc. without effecting the main page. I note Law Clerks...6 has external links, (some of which will date relativity quickly), that appear as if they are a wiki link, I think this need changing regardless ASAP. And finally, this will not necessarily be a quick fix, I can write some tools to speed up the process, however beforehand we should beta test one court on a sandbox page, then, when and if approved/agreed by consensus, the roll out could be quite quick. Kind regards The Original Filfi (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The workings is based on reformatted and repositioned "include" tags, relatively simple in the end.
 * 2) Agreed, slightly clumsy, I can not find a effective way around that. I can add links to the top of the article to clarify to editors where to add new clerks and an editors note in the tranclusion page to assist in directing them to the right "base page", the edit functionality should suffice for editors wishing to amend or add details to existing entries only.
 * 3) I think, based on a limited test, there will be virtually no difference between current and proposed load times, proposed might be 3-5% faster at most, please refer to answer 5 below for rational, edit times should be significantly quicker as the editor will only be working on the relevant seats table.
 * 4) Totally agreed
 * 5) The only two problems I see, and my ambit here is; A. The size of the article on file, which is a ~9% concern for me at most, and B. Multiple replication of the same information, where one correction is not carried through to the main page or vice versa, so that any updates are not truly reflected, depending on which article the reader or editors are looking at or working on. If we let this carry through to a new set of hirings the same issues apply.

Hi Filfi,

Regarding point 2. If you make this change, instead of adding an extra column on the right with the edit information, perhaps there could be editor instructions at the top to click on the seat number and have the seat number link to the appropriate editing page.

Regarding point 3. If there is no change in the load time, then I'm not sure that there is any advantage to going back to the 9 seat pages, except it might be easier to edit. And if edit time is important, then breaking the file into 18 pieces (two for each seat) or 27 (three for each seat) is probably better than 9 (perhaps, for example, for each seat have one file for 1888-1970, one for 1970-1995, and one file for since 1995). Or perhaps even better would be to create a separate file for each justice (from 36 to 112, a total of about 75 files) and have the links on the main page be from the justice number.

Regarding point 5. The only reason I left the 9 seat pages intact (instead of removing them altogether) was so that people could check that I had made changes correctly. Since I changed the main page (created the one big table), editors should be making changes to the main file (and either making the same changes to one of the 9 files or doing nothing with them). I'm not sure if that is happening - if not, someone should update the main file with any changes made to the seat pages since I switched to the one big table. I'd be in favor of deleting the individual seat pages so that editors are not confused.

I think I still favor doing nothing for another six months or so and see if anyone else complains or has suggestions. Changing this page is a lot of work. If it is not necessary, then no reason to do it.

Shouldn't this discussion be on the page's Talk page instead of here? Randy Schutt (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability
By attempting to include every law clerk in the history of SCOTUS, this list appears to fail WP:NLIST. Of course, omitting non-notable clerks (e.g. those with red links currently showing) would be ridiculous. Is this list worth having? G. C. Hood (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I find the inclusion criteria to be well-defined, the topic is notable, and I've personally found the list to be useful. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the US be trimmed down to include only notable clerks?
Should the List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the US be trimmed down to include only notable clerks? Angryapathy (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I see that there is strong support for keeping the list, but according to LibertyLaw, it is useful to keep a list of current and former clerks for each sitting justice; however, I still see no reason to keep the extremely incomplete list of clerks from retired/deceased judges. Angryapathy (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is not "extremely incomplete"; in fact, a relatively small percentage of entries are missing. Besides, there is no deadline to uncover the remaining omissions. Billyboy01 (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see that while this list does not follow WP:STAND: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)," since the vast majority of the names on the list will never get their own articles, it looks like consensus goes more toward WP:IAR. It's odd that this list is so important to court-watchers, no other legal site has bothered to list all this information. Angryapathy (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Yes: This list has become overly cumbersome. The sheer number of clerks begs the question why every single one deserves mention on WP. According to WP:STAND: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." The majority of these names will most likely not be receiving individual article treatment. Angryapathy (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No: This list is an important resource for Court-watchers and clerkship-watchers. It's relevant to keep track of which Justice likes to hire from which schools and appellate judges, and from the other side, it's relevant to keep track of which schools and appellate judges are good at placing their students/clerks at the Supreme Court. Additionally, Supreme Court clerks have a high probability of becoming notable in the future, even though few of them are notable at the time they are hired. The complete list is thus useful as a "people to watch" list as well. --Libertylaw (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So does that explain the need for the clerks in 1910? Angryapathy (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No: Libertylaw's argument is persuasive, and there's something to be said for completion when listing members of this select a group. If this particular list becomes difficult to manage, there's nothing that says it can't be split by era, or by justice, or something of that kind. Ray  Talk 03:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No: The length of this article is not unmanageable. There is no reason to make it just about notable clerks. Many people use this article to notice trends in law clerk hiring. Which law schools? Which feeder judges? etc. A more comprehensive list is needed to allow a more accurate perusal for trends, not a trimmed one. BoBo (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur: All Supreme Court justices are notable, and this list tracks trends in their hiring practices. Omitting non-notable hires would obfuscate these trends. For example, how many non-Columbia grads did Harlan Fisk Stone hire while seated as an Associate Justice? It's not much different than trying to determine how many non-Canadians were selected in the 1963 NHL Draft. In both cases, a comprehensive list of selections made by notable entities contains some non-notable entries, but trying to remove non-notables from the lists would confuse matters by painting an incomplete and misleading picture. That said, I would agree that the article has too many red links and that it makes sense to remove the wiki links for non-notables. Billyboy01 (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No: per BoBo Ngchen (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No: This is possibly the only place in the world where a compilation of this information exists. Plus, as alluded to above, this list is finite.MattDredd (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes: While I agree with BoBo that "A more comprehensive list is needed to allow a more accurate perusal for trends", and Billyboy01 for his reasons for concurrinng, and with Ngchen for saying that this may be the only compilation of this material presented in this way, my recognition of the value of this information is unrelated to the fact that Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of resource. As a long-term goal, almost every name worth mentioning on Wikipedia, even as part of a list, ought to either link to a wikipage for that person or to some single notable event in which they had major participation.  It is a bother for readers not doing research to come across exhaustive lists that will never be developed, and that is what is happening here.  There are rows of dead wikilinks for people who are not known to be notable, and this does not make for a good article.  Blue Rasberry  19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. As per Rasberry & WP:SALAT. The goal of the list is admirable, but the exhaustive nature of the list is more appropriate to an legal almanac, not an encyclopedia. If this list holds real value to members of the legal community, I'm sure it can find a home on an open-content legal website. --Whoosit (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes: Per WP:SALAT. I agree with Whoosit's statement above. Some clerks go on to be federal judges or politicians. However, not all rise to any notability. I believe the standard should be set where the people on the list could each individually have their own article. This high standard I believe is nessacary. --Reubzz (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No: Per Bobo and BillyBoy01--Rajah (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes: Per WP:SALAT. This is a extremely long list of predominantly non-notable people.  The law school preferences of certain justices -- a frequently cited justification for the project -- is itself of extremely questionable notability or interest to anyone other than an extremely small set of lawyers who seek these short-term positions.  The article is comparable to a list of "persons who took a prestigious residency at Johns Hopkins," "people who became the personal assistant to Brad Pitt" or "pilots qualified to fly the SR-71 Blackbird" or any of the other millions of lists that could be conceived of hard-to-get jobs connected to some notable institution or person.  --Red375 (talk) 5 October 2010.
 * No: For lawyers, this is like a list of teams in the NCAA Sweet 16, or of winners of the Boston Marathon. Further, the number of Supreme Court clerks each year is small. There's no good reason to prune the list.--Bhagerty (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No. The decision on what constitutes a "notable" clerk will certainly be arbitrary. For example, what about the professor you have in law school? Or the partner in your law office?  I have accessed the site dozens of times for various reasons.  There is no good reason to shorten the list--wikipedia is not running out of storage space.  Those who would prefer the list as is should be able to access it as it is. If a shorter list is prefered, then a simple subheading before the large comprehensive list can be included to say "Notable Clerks."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.42.162 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Of historical interest. The composition of the clerks is a perennial news story. The clerks are far more notable than the fourth-string quarterback for the Buffalo Bills, but we don't have a problem with complete NFL rosters for every team for every year. 72.66.102.153 (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Fine arguments have been made above about the inherent "notability" of the contents of this list.  I think a lot of the criticisms citing WP:SALAT are inapplicable to a list like this that is so objectively finite.  The test for determining a notable clerk will be unavoidably arbitrary, and the points about a complete list being cumbersome are far outweighed by the historical and current importance of a comprehensive list. Verkhovensky (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No: This list is an incredibly valuable resource that lawyers and legal journalists rely on frequently. Within the last 24 hours, after some of the names were deleted (to apparent error in deletion by Explicit, I heard from both a leading legal journalist as well as a Supreme Court practitioner (two different people) asking what had happened to the list.  It is useful and important.Broodingomnipresence (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No. For God's sake. The space argument is spurious; previous iterations of the page are archived so what difference would it make? It grows at a rate of 40-odd clerks per term, and is manageably finite. People who use this page as a reference -- practitioners, journalists, academics, court-watchers, hobbyists -- find it useful in its relatively complete state. Those who don't, want it trimmed for no discernible reason other than housekeeping. So you get it neato -- so what? The utility is gone for everyone else. 220.255.2.83 (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Law students, professors, and clerkship applicants use this list frequently to track lower judges' success in placing clerks and to research law schools' influences on particular justices.  I'd add that some of the "yes" advocates above don't appreciate what an accomplishment a Supreme Court clerkship is in the legal field.  Of the 45,000 or so JDs produced each year, fewer than 2,000 will clerk on an Article III court.  Of those, only 40 will clerk on the Supreme Court.  We mortals are intensely interested in who gets these clerkships.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edh2013 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Link to other page requested
I am listed as a clerk to David Souter from 1994-1995. You can link my name to the biography page for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Greenfield_(law_professor)

Thank you, Kent Greenfield

136.167.173.140 (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Altamel (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Some final observations on numbers of clerks and a count of law schools
Having completed a three-month update of the law clerks Main Page and Seat pages, a few final numbers for total clerk count, 1882-2017: there are 2,392 entries in the list; of these, 115 are multiple entries for 55 clerks (e.g., a clerk served two justices in two successive terms); and 156 entries for 72 clerks are "shared with" clerks; so the true number of unique clerk names is 2,248 from 83 law schools. We are still missing 40 or so clerks, which would raise the total number to 2,290, which is the true number of clerks based on the most comprehensive law review counts.

This list is the fifth-largest on Wikipedia and is of interest (beyond the subject matter of law clerks) on the topics of: 1) shows that lists can be noteworthy; and 2) illustrates the issue of citations and reliability in large lists.

Of the 2,248 clerks on this list, 469 (21%) have Wiki pages, and are in a sense "verified." The remaining 79% do not have citation. Reliability of the list data rest on each name having sufficient importance that it is "checkable" on public databases (e.g., District of Columbia Bar database), and has been checked by Wiki editors across sources, "Wash Post/NY Times", "Martindale-Hubble", "Praebook," or "Harvard Law School Alumni Magazine"; on the standing of the Wiki editor community monitoring the list and continuously improving its accuracy; and, further, on the list having sufficient traffic that the page visitors will correct errors. Due to these factors, this list is reliable. The issue of how to handle citations is tied to the decision not to allow inline links to outside sites, such as law firm or law school bios, discussed at length above.

In editing, I added middle initials, middle names and married names to roughly 700 clerks. Recording all names of a clerk helps verify law school graduation and prior clerkships, and helps reveal family ties to prior generations of clerks. But the markup highlights the inadequacy of the standard format of recording "married names", e.g., recording "Jessica Bulman(-Pozen)" as the married name of "Jessica Bulman." Several issues: why only record women's married names? should we try to distinguish between those who use or omit a spouse's name? how to record successive spouses? what if a person prefers to use only a married name and not the maiden name? etc.

I previously posted tables that included duplicate counts of "shared with" clerks. The data below is updated to remove double counts.Bjhillis (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Three tables are presented below: (1) Law school distribution of clerks, 1882-2017 (five or more clerks, ranked by number of clerks); (2) All clerks, 1882-2017; and (3) Recent clerks last 12 years, 2005-2017.

'''Table 1. Law school distribution of clerks, 1882-2017 (five or more clerks, ranked by number of clerks):'''

Rank/ Law School/ # clerks / %

1)	Harvard	607	27%

2)	Yale	396	18%

3)	Chicago	156	7%

4)	Stanford	137	6%

5)	Columbia	135	6%

6)	Virginia	110	5%

7)	Michigan	87	4%

8)	Georgetown	61	3%

9)	Berkeley	59	3%

10)	NYU	54	2%

11)	Penn	48

12)	Northwestern	42

13)	Texas	35

14)	GW	26

15)	Duke	21

16)	UCLA	19

17)	Notre Dame-17

18)	BYU	13

19)	Indiana	11

20)	Minnesota-11

21)	Georgia	10

22)	Cornell	9

23)	Boston College	8

24)	USC	8

25)	Arizona	7

26)	NC	7

27)	Univ Washington	7

28)	Kansas	6

29)	Vanderbilt	6

30)	Illinois	5

31)	National	5

32)	Wash U	5

33)	Washington&Lee	5

_____________

Total from 33 schools above=2,133 (95%)

OTHER LAW SCHOOLS=85 (4%); No law school/unknown=30 (1%)

_____________

Total clerks 2,248

'''Table 2. Law school distribution of clerks, 1882-2017 (all clerks, alpha sorted by name)'''

Rank/ Law School/ # clerks

1	Alabama	2

2	Albany	1

3	American	1

4	Arizona State	2

5	Arizona	7

6	Berkeley	59

7	Boston College	8

8	Brooklyn	1

9	Buffalo	2

10	BYU	13

11	Cardozo	1

12	Case Western	2

13	Catholic	4

14	Chicago	156

15	Colorado	2

16	Columbia	135

17	Cornell	9

18	Creighton	1

19	Denver	1

20	Detroit	2

21	Duke	21

22	Emory	1

23	Fordham	3

24	George Mason	1

25	Georgetown	61

26	Georgia	10

27	GW	26

28	Harvard	607

29	Hawaii	1

30	Houston	2

31	Howard	1

32	Illinois	5

33	Indiana	11

34	Iowa	4

35	Kansas	6

36	Kentucky	1

37	Louisville	1

38	Loyola (LA)	2

39	LSU	1

40	Maine	1

41	Maryland	1

42	McGeorge	1

43	Miami	2

44	Michigan	87

45	Minnesota	11

46	Mississippi	4

47	Missouri	2

48	National	5

49	Nebraska	1

50	New Mexico	1

51	NC	7

52	Northwestern	42

53	Notre Dame	17

54	NYU	54

55	Ohio St	4

56	Penn State	1

57	Penn	48

58	Pepperdine	3

59	Rutgers	2

60	Santa Clara 	1

61	Seattle	1

62	Seton Hall	1

63	SMU	3

64	St. Mary's	1

65	Stanford	137

66	SUNY Buffalo	1

67	Temple	2

68	Texas AM	1

69	Texas	35

70	Tulane	2

71	UCLA	19

72	USC	8

73	Utah	4

74	Vanderbilt	6

75	Villanova	1

76	Virginia	110

77	Wash U	5

78	Washburn	1

79	Washington&Lee	5

80	Univ Washington	7

81	William & Mary	1

82	Wisconsin	2

83	Yale	396

________________	Total clerks from 83 schools above	2,218 Unknown/no law school	30

________________

Total clerks	2,248

'''Table 3. Recent Clerks, 2005-2017'''

I posted this table at the Univ of Georgia Law School talk page, showing clerk distribution in the last 12 years:

Rank / Law School / # clerks 2005-2017

1 Harvard 124

2 Yale 120

3 Stanford 39

4 Virginia 32 (Public university)

5 Columbia 24

6 Chicago 24

7 NYU 17

8 Georgetown 14

9 Michigan 14 (Public university)

10 Northwestern 10

11 Berkeley 9 (Public university)

12 Duke 9

13 Penn 7

14 GW 7

15 Georgia 6 (Public university)

16 BYU 4

17 Texas 4 (Public university)

18 Utah 4 (Public university)

19 University of Notre Dame 4

20 Cornell 2

21 Minnesota 2 (Public university)

22 Pepperdine 2

23 Vanderbilt 2

24 Brooklyn 1

25 Cardozo 1

26 Creighton 1

27 George Mason 1

28 Hawaii 1 (Public university)

29 Kansas 1 (Public university)

30 LSU 1 (Public university)

31 Ohio St 1 (Public university)

32 Rutgers 1 (Public university)

33 Seton Hall 1

34 UCLA 1 (Public university)

35 Wisconsin 1 (Public university)

______________________

Total clerks: 489

wikilinks / external links / no links
I'm not sure they should all be redlinked, or externally-linked for that matter. Red-linking seems wrong, because they're not all going to be notable -- especially the ones who have clerked just in the past ten years or so. And externally linking this large list of people seems, frankly, unduly promotional. So right now, it seems to me that unless someone has a WP entry already -- or is already notable such that they should have a WP entry -- then I would delete the wikilinks and, frankly, the external links. Which will be horrible to police and maintain. Please see WP:EL : "[I]t is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. " and "Long lists of links are not acceptable." and "Stand-alone lists or embedded lists should not be composed mainly of external links." and NOTLINK. --Lquilter (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion that none of these former clerks should have external links to their current law firm profile pages. It's just advertising for their firms. Most of these folks do wind up being at least marginally notable, though, so I think redlinking everyone is fine. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Chiming in three years later to add my opinion that the redlinks should all be removed, with the exception of individuals who genuinely merit their own biographies. I don't agree that most Supreme Court clerks become notable enough to make a separate biography appropriate. Those who do eventually merit their own bio do so for reasons other than their clerkship. By analogy, consider if we redlinked the name of every congressional staffer. Many congressional staffers do go on to be independently notable, but we shouldn't preemptively redlink all of them for that reason. I believe the list itself is valuable, particularly because Wikipedia is the only place where this information is aggregated (though admittedly it creates source and citation issues). Evaus (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Of the 2,250 clerks listed, 479 currently have their own Wiki bio pages. My only concern in removing the redlinks is that when someone puts up a new Wiki page they will not take the time to link to it from this page. For example, in Jan 2017, someone put up a Wiki page for former Deputy Solicitor General Paul Bender, former law clerk to Learned Hand and Felix Frankfurter. With the redlinks, this page automatically links. Whether "everyone" will someday become notable is a valid point, and many of the new clerks do not have redlinks in recognition it is unlikely they rise to notability, but I hesitate to remove the redlinks from the older names. As a throw away, my estimate is of the 1,750 clerks without a Wiki page, more than half are sufficiently notable to deserve a Wiki page, it's just a matter of time and energy to build them, e.g., John Paul Frank, one of the most brilliant lawyers of his generation, and Francis Kirkham, who was a partner at Pillsbury Madison & Sutro and then general counsel to Standard Oil (both notable but have no Wiki page).Bjhillis (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Table code changes
I saw you changed the table code on the law clerks page, reducing the file size. Good idea. However, two problems: 1) we lost the "Seat Number" of the justices from the end of Ruth Bader Ginsburg through most of Sandra Day O'Connor; and (2) the new code is harder to edit than the old code, so the people who drop in and occassionaly edit may have difficulty in making additions.

Can you fix the Seat Number problem?

I'm not sure whether losing the editing ability is worth the file size improvement, still pondering that.Bjhillis (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks, sorry! Rolapib (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, again not yet sure the benefit of the more compact file size is worth the change in editing challenge, mostly because relatively new users drop in on this page with corrections.Bjhillis (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing pics
I reverted a good faith edit removing the pic from the front page. Nothing wrong with deciding not to use pics--it was a recent change--but this edit was from an anonymous IP and there was no discussion in Talk ahead of time about the change. As far as the pic adding to file size, note a Wiki editor changed the page coding a month or so ago and shrunk file size by about a third. I'm open either way on the pics. Should we continue with the pics, or no? There is the pic on the front page, and one each of the Seat pages.Bjhillis (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability of law clerks discussion
Notability of law clerks discussion is occurring.Bjhillis (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150208034348/http://review.law.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Newsletter_Fall_2005.pdf to http://review.law.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Newsletter_Fall_2005.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160705031043/http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/students/student-services/files/Clerkships/handbook_5.2.16.pdf to http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/students/student-services/files/Clerkships/handbook_5.2.16.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

William L. Taylor
The list includes a William L. Taylor who clerked for Rehnquist. This is *not* the same William L. Taylor who has a Wikipedia article. I tried to remove the link to the Wiki article but couldn't (or, to be more precise, don't know how to remove the link without also removing the name).Redound (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is fixed on the main page, and the Chief Justice page.Bjhillis (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding pictures? In memoriam links?
Moved part to archive.

Ideas on the next picture to swap for Judge Jackson on the main page? Either the Dan Walker or Joseph Rauh pics above? Also, time to swap out the 9 Seat pics? They've been up a year.Bjhillis (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Propose posting this pic next of the front page in a day or two:

(Pic removed) Dan Walker, pictured shaking hands at a parade, clerked for Justice Fred M. Vinson in the 1950 Term. Photo by John H. White.]]Bjhillis (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC) Moving Dan Walker pic to front page.Bjhillis (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible next pics to post on the front page: Chai Feldblum; Laura Ingraham, one of the most highly visited of the law clerks Wiki pages. (Pics removed)Bjhillis (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC) Bjhillis (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Other possible next pics: Louis H. Pollak, Wendy Long, Kenneth Starr, Lee Bollinger.Bjhillis (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

In the next week or so, Suggest to swap out the Dan Walker pic on front page with the pic of Chai Feldblum.Bjhillis (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Swapped out Dan Walker pic on front page for Chai Feldblum.Bjhillis (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

In a few weeks, will plan to post Laura Ingraham pic after Feldblum.Bjhillis (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Swapped out Chai Feldblum on front page for Laura Ingraham. Also, an editor deleted the Chai Feldblue pic from the front page saying it was unrepresentative and unnecessary. I reverted but welcome a discussion on the pic feature. As you can see from the discussion in Archives, it's an experiment added when we completed a large update of the clerks list. Pics also appear on the Seat pages. Should we keep pics or revert to the prior, no pics format?Bjhillis (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

, contrary to your implications on my talk, there is consensus for a rotating cast of pictures. Indeed, you were the only one to propose, support, and implement it. I thus lodge my previous complaint in the edit summary (irrelevant, unrepresentative) and do give notice that I will WP:BRD remove the picture to conform with the situation before the picture rotation (now put into question) was put into effect). Iseult   Δx parlez moi 00:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain your view why pics of clerks on the clerks page is either irrelevant or unrepresentative?Bjhillis (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * simply put, pictures add nothing to the list. If pictures are to be included at all, they ought to be so done in the body of the article, not in the lede, as demonstrated here. Such a picture also presumes a degree of representation, hence inclusion of generic images in articles, and here there are possibly none (I must note that pictures in ledes of lists are, too, highly unusual). Iseult   Δx parlez moi 03:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing clerk added: Charles C. Moore, Breyer 1997
An anonymous editor posted a missing clerk for Justice Breyer: Charles C. Moore, clerked 1997-1998, Stanford Law School (1995), prior clerkships Tatel, DC Cir. When you count the numbers, this Wiki list is still missing three dozen or so clerks, mostly older terms. But to find a missing 1997 term clerk shows it's possible more recent term clerks could be absent.Bjhillis (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 Term transition
Finished adding the 2018-2019 Term clerks reported by David Lat. Added Anthony Kennedy clerks, even though he's retiring. Law.com. Kennedy keeps one in retirement, Samuel Alito has announced only one 2018 clerk so far, so perhaps he will take Kennedy's clerks, or Brett Kavanaugh might if he's confirmed. For the 2017 Term clerks, added "2018" to cap the term. Will migrate this info to the Seat pages shortly.Bjhillis (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Completed copying main page new clerk updates to each Seat page.Bjhillis (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Seat Numbers
Can anyone explain the numbering of seats 1–4 used in this article? This article has Sotomayor as 1, Breyer as 2, Kagan as 3, and Kennedy as 4. But elsewhere on Wikipedia (for example, in our list of justices by seat), we have Kennedy as 1 (rather than 4), Breyer as 2 (which is the same), Sotomayor as 3 (rather than 1), and Kagan as 4 (rather than 3). (The numbering systems agree on seats 6, 8, 9, and 10.) These numberings can't both be right. Do we have any sourcing at all for either of these numbering schemes? Is there a reason why our articles are inconsistent with regard to which seat is which number? For that matter, is there really any reason at all for associating clerks with a (possibly mythical) seat number? Is there anything that really unites clerks who served different justices that happened to occupy the same seat on the Court that doesn't also unite them with other clerks who served other justices occupying other seats? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the source for the seat numbers. Is the correct seat number (in the article you refer) the circuit the justice is assigned? Seems easy to get that right. The seat number used to mean the law clerks were primarily derived from that circuit, in part because the justice often came from that circuit, so seat-clerk meant something historically.Bjhillis (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's just it. I'm not sure any of the seat numbers are "correct". I am unaware of any external sources which would support either system of numbering we use. (I'm not saying there aren't any; I just don't know what they are or where I found them.) Your suggestion that there might be a connection between the seat number and the justice's assigned circuit is an attractive and very clever one, but unfortunately it won't wash, at least not with regard to the modern Court. First of all, neither of our numbering systems line up that way. For example, the Chief Justice has been assigned the Fourth Circuit (as well as the DC and Federal Circuits) since he joined the Court, but we have either Kennedy or Kagan as holding Seat 4. On the other hand, we have Kennedy in either Seat 1 or 4, but he has recently been assigned to the 9th Circuit. And so on. But the other, probably greater problem with this suggestion is the fact that the justices' circuit assignments are not fixed; rather, they can be changed, and they have been. O'Connor was assigned to the 9th Circuit before she retired, but when she did Kennedy took over the 9th Circuit and Thomas took Kennedy's 11th Circuit and Alito got Thomas's 8th Circuit. Since then, Alito has migrated to the 3rd and 5th Circuits with Gorsuch taking the 8th, and Breyer took over the 1st Circuit when Souter left the Court, with Sotomayor (Souter's successor) taking Breyer's 10th Circuit. So the mystery with regard to our numbering of the seats remains, I'm afraid. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to know! Nothing to change on the seat numbers on the clerks' pages, then, unless it's worth syncing up on the seat numbering in the referenced Wiki article. Or adding to the opening paras in the clerks' articles that the seat numbers in the article are not derived from official SCOTUS source.Bjhillis (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I lost track of this thread. Well, it seems to me like we need to do something. I am uncomfortable both with the fact that (1) we are inconsistent in how we label (number) the seats and (2) we don't seem to have any outside sourcing for any of our various numbering schemes. At the very least, I think we need to pick a single scheme, make it consistent, and then explain in each place where we use it what we're doing. An alternative to any of the existing schemes we are currently using which does not involve us simply choosing for ourselves how to assign numbers to the seats is to switch to a system where we label each associate justice's seat according to the first incumbent. So the Kennedy/Kavanaugh seat would not be 1 or 4, but rather the Rutledge seat since it was first held by John Rutledge. This is an objective and incontestable fact about the seat which Kennedy held for the last thirty years and doesn't involve us manufacturing a label which is not firmly grounded in facts outside Wikipedia. Thoughts? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * there are no external sources that support the numbering of Supreme Court seats. The system used on the various Wikipedia SCOTUS pages is unique to Wikipedia. This being the case, perhaps the introduction of each article that focuses on or lists SCOTUS "seats" ought to state that the seat numbers in the article are not derived from official SCOTUS sources, but used as a way of detailing the succession of justices (which is, I surmise, the purpose of numbering seats). Also, I agree that one numbering scheme should be used throughout Wikipedia for numbering SCOTUS seats. The numbering scheme used in List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat, List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States, and List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States is:
 * seat 1, 1789, first held by John Rutledge → vacant (Brett Kavanaugh?)
 * seat 2, 1789, first held by William Cushing → Stephen Breyer
 * seat 3, 1789, first held by James Wilson → Sonia Sotomayor
 * seat 4, 1789, first held by John Blair → Elena Kagan
 * seat 5, 1789, first held by James Iredell — abolished 1867
 * seat 6, 1807, first held by Thomas Todd → Ruth Bader Ginsburg
 * seat 7, 1837, first held by John Catron — abolished 1866
 * seat 8, 1837, first held by John McKinley → Samuel Alito
 * seat 9, 1863, first held by Stephen Field → Neil M. Gorsuch
 * seat 10, 1869, first held by Joseph Bradley → Clarence Thomas
 * As this ordering of seats appears to conform with these lists of justices/SCOTUS nominees: &, as does the ordering and numbering of justices in List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, I propose that this page and the out-of-sync clerk pages be changed to match the others. I'll help with the implementation, if there's a consensus to make it so. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree.Bjhillis (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am all in favor of a solution that makes the arrangement consistent across Wikipedia. But inasmuch as the Supreme Court and Senate websites don't number the seats, I don't think it's fair to talk about the "conformity" of our numbering system with those lists. The numbering system you favor is based on the commission dates of the original holders of seats 1–5, which is a reasonable idea (the alternative numbering system is based on the oath dates of the same original incumbents, a different reasonable idea). What's wrong with dropping both numbering systems in favor of just naming the seats after the original incumbents? It's a kind of thing which is done in other contexts and which clearly highlights the continuity of each seat but without seeming to impose some kind of ordination on the associate justice seats which they don't actually bear and which official sources don't grant them. The seat recently vacated by Kennedy was not distinguishable from the other four associate justice seats authorized by the Judiciary Act of 1789 as being somehow first; it is simply the seat continuously occupied by the first of the associate justices to be commissioned by President Washington and his successors. It's not that Rutledge was appointed to Seat 1, but rather that we have decided to call it "Seat 1" because it's the seat Rutledge had. But in that sense it seems like it would be much more sensible and honest and less imposing of our own perspective to call it the "Rutledge seat" rather than "Seat 1." If the Supreme Court gets by just fine without numbering the seats, I'm not sure why we should add numbers to them. If we need to be able to distinguish them, I think naming them is a more neutral and less contestable approach. Kavanaugh has not been nominated to a position on the Supreme Court known as "Seat 1"; he's been nominated to be an associate justice, "vice Justice Kennedy, resigned," who was nominated "vice Justice Powell, resigned," etc. all the way back to Rutledge. It's the Rutledge seat, not Seat 1. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC
 * I'd have no problem with dropping both numbering systems in favor of just naming the seats after the original incumbents; I find it preferable to my proposal actually. Drdpw (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the Seat numbers we use are not taken from the Court, it is concerning readers will have the wrong impression. I do worry it will be more complicated to use justices' names. No strong views on this.Bjhillis (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, unless there's an alternative proposal, it seems like we have a tentative consensus in favor of naming the seats? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Seat Numbers – Redux
With the pending division of this page and the consequent updating of the seat pages, I wish to bring up an important discussion from earlier this year on SCOTUS seat numbering, now archived HERE. During that discussion, I wrote,

As this ordering of seats appears to conform with the federal government's ordering of justices/SCOTUS nominees on these lists: &, as does the ordering and numbering of justices in List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, I propose that the content of the out-of-sync clerk pages (seats: 1, 3, 4), be changed accordingly during this transition. Drdpw (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I have gone ahead and switched the tables in the 3 out-of-sync pages. Drdpw (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Seat Numbers – Redux
With the pending division of this page and the consequent updating of the seat pages, I wish to bring up an important discussion from earlier this year on SCOTUS seat numbering, now archived HERE. During that discussion, I wrote,

As this ordering of seats appears to conform with the federal government's ordering of justices/SCOTUS nominees on these lists: &, as does the ordering and numbering of justices in List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, I propose that the content of the out-of-sync clerk pages (seats: 1, 3, 4), be changed accordingly during this transition. Drdpw (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I have gone ahead and switched the tables in the 3 out-of-sync pages. Drdpw (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)