When Judges Pick Their Law Clerks As Replacements
By Josh Blackman · Oct 1, 2026, 4:39 PM CDT
In December 2017, I wrote in National Review that Republican-appointed judges should consider taking senior status so President Trump could fill those seats. That essay struck a nerve with a lot of judges. Some of them talked to me privately. Judge Leslie Southwick of the Fifth Circuit chose to address it directly in a Notre Dame Law Review article . Here is an excerpt: The administration itself h
Excerpt shown under fair-use limits. Full text remains with the original publisher.
People in this coverage
Explore their history and attributable record. Being mentioned does not imply endorsement.
Layer 1 · Claims & fact checks
AI analysisLayer 3 · Reporting analysis
AI analysisAnecdotal EvidenceRelies on the author's personal conversations to suggest broader trends without external verification.
Loaded LanguageImparts a conspiratorial tone, implying corruption without presenting concrete proof.
Appeal to AuthorityCites Southwick’s own writings to bolster the narrative, yet does not provide excerpts that directly support the claim about senior‑status timing.
Speculative MotiveInfers strategic intent without documentary evidence or statements from the judge.
Context
AI analysisMissing context
The article provides no independent evidence of any coordinated effort by the White House or Senate leaders to pressure judges, no data on senior‑status trends, and no statements from Judge Southwick, the White House, or the senators referenced. It also lacks details about the nomination process, Senate confirmation votes, or Butler’s judicial record.
Important context
Senior‑status decisions are typically based on personal, health, or workload considerations, and the nomination process involves vetting by the President and Senate Judiciary Committee. Without corroborating sources, claims about political manipulation remain speculative.
Opinion vs. reporting
AI analysisThe piece is predominantly opinion, using anecdotal observations and speculative motives rather than verifiable reporting. It intersperses some factual statements (e.g., dates of announcements) with unsubstantiated interpretations.