What? No Craigslist ad?

I've had some terrible interview experiences. There was a certain District Attorney's office that chastised me for not liking Giada de Laurentiis. (See parenthetical below- I promise I will learn how to footnote as I evolve as a "blawger.") There was the 15 minute power-house interview with San Bernardino Public Defender's Office where I was certain the corpse of a 17th Century Amish mute would have had more personality. (Apologies to any zombie Amish, please do not buggy to my apartment and eat mah brains.)

Still, despite and maybe even because of these terrible interview experiences, I was a little disappointed that Craigslist or Indeed didn't let me know of the most recent vacancy to our nation's highest court sooner. I mean, I have the appropriate degree, right? I weighed in handedly when my 1L section discussed important precedents. (Actually, I pioneered the methodology known as "doodle-briefing" and really wish I still had that notebook.) I disagreed with Scalia for all the right reasons and always thought Kennedy seemed like a nice guy. (Is he related, anyway? Shouldn't he be dead or drunk or something?) My six months' felony experience measures up to any Appellate Court judge. (I mean, I'm pretty sure clerks do all the work while the justices wear black robes with our imagination's reeling as to what's on underneath.)

In any event, and with all tom-foolery aside, I can't help but feel that I need to weigh in on the current confirmation hearings. First, even with my infantile experience, Supreme Court precedent has dictated a lot of my actions as a young attorney. That's kind of neat. It's easy to say discovery, Brady, Trombetta motion, and Miranda and forget that 9 justices had to get to some kind of consensus first. To me, at least, it's kind of incredible that my profession enjoys that trickle-down effect. Which leads me to having to weigh in on the current lady in the hot seat.

Firstly, can't really hate on her too much. She's the mother of a nurse. Bah! You've already won my empathy. (Or wait, is it sympathy? I never paid attention in English, since I already knew the language, and it didn't affect me that much. Wait... is that effect? Damn!)

Second, she's enjoyed a pretty diverse legal career. Big city prosecutor, corporate litigator, trial judge, appellate judge. She's even participated in a police chase. (See NY Times article, supra.) Ok, fine, you're a badass chick from the block and I will not talk about the rocks that you got.

Here's where I will get concerned, though. (Curve Ball alert) I DO NOT CARE ABOUT REVERSE RACISM, WISE LATINA COMMENTS, EMPATHY, BLAH BLAH BLAH. Honestly, it's getting beaten to death with some issues being left by.

First, I get concerned as a defense attorney about the big city prosecutor experience, chica. Are you gonna screw with the Fourth or Sixth at all? Please don't. K, thanks.

Secondly, are you gonna mess with abortion? Much obliged if you don't.

Finally, keeping in mind that Supreme Court nominees are pretty much the longest lasting legacy a prez can leave, are you gonna be flexible? We all know that Clarance decides cases without hearing opposing arguments, and that Scalia is a slave to the text of the Constitution, but what I like in a Justice is the chance for a departure from an expected agenda. Mostly, b/c it makes the bench all cook and zany, but partially because I'm a secret fan of judicial independence.

Good luck in the hot seat, mamà.















(Ok, I have to sidebar this in a parenthetical, as there's a lot to say on it. First, sorry to those who I may offend in this tirade. Second, I am, without a shred of doubt or hubris, one hundred percent accurate. Giada is terrible. Her food? Meh. Her head? Gigantic. The fact that she pops one button too many to obscure the former set-backs? Deplorable. Her over-pronunciation of Italian phrases? Nails on a chalkboard, people. Before you get on the defensive, please scroll up to the second caveat.)