Supreme Ambitions by David Lat Page B

care, right?”
    We chuckled dutifully—law clerks as judicial laugh track.
    Following review of the existing cases, we turned to discussion of the new cases that had just arrived in chambers.
    â€œThere is one case that you should not assign amongst yourselves as usual,” the judge said. “I will personally decide who will work with me on Geidner .”
    â€œWhat’s that case about?” Larry asked.
    The judge sighed; Amit rolled his eyes. Larry didn’t know about Geidner because he didn’t come into work the prior weekend (or any weekend), which is when Amit and James and I had talked about it.
    â€œ Geidner is an appeal from the ruling of a district court here in Los Angeles that struck down Proposition 8, California’s ballot proposition banning same-sex marriage,” said Judge Stinson, sounding like a first-year law student who got called upon in class. “Judge Amanda Nathanson held that the ban violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Now the proponents of the ban are appealing, although the official defendants—the governor and the attorney general—are not.”
    â€œOkay, I get it,” Larry said. “The gay marriage stuff.”
    â€œYes, exactly—the gay marriage ‘stuff,’” Judge Stinson said, with barely concealed pique. “This case concerns a politically charged issue and presents many … complexities.”
    We all knew—well, everyone except Larry knew—what the judge was alluding to. Gay marriage was a hot-button issue, and the 2012 presidential election was just a few weeks away, making for a volatile political climate. The opinion polls suggested the election would be very close, and gay marriage could possibly affect the voting, at least in certain swing states.
    â€œThis case must be handled with delicacy and finesse,” the judge said. “How it is handled could affect my … future prospects. I would not mind if this case could be, shall we say, placed on the back burner for a time.”
    We all knew what this meant too. If the Republican nominee, businessman Craig LaFount, won the presidential election, the judge could be a Supreme Court nominee—provided that her work on a controversial case didn’t derail things. A case like Geidner was dangerous. If the judge handled it in too liberal a way, she could upset conservatives, including some of the people who might have a say in selecting the next SCOTUS nominee in a Republican administration. If the judge handled it in too conservative a way, she could alienate some Democrats—who controlled the Senate, and who would probably still control the Senate after the election. So the judge just wanted Geidner to go away until after the election. If something significant happened in the case before the election, then Geidner specifically, or gay marriage more generally, could become a campaign issue—with unpredictable consequences.
    â€œThis is a very important and interesting case, certainly one of the most important to come across my desk during my time on this Court. And it involves sensitive issues that some of you might be uncomfortable handling, perhaps because of strong personal views one way or the other. So let me ask: are all of you willing to work with me on this case if chosen?”
    I nodded vigorously—working closely with the judge on a headline-making case like this represented a huge opportunity to get into her good graces—and then looked around the table to see who else was volunteering. James and Larry and Amit were also nodding, but Amitlooked uncomfortable as he did so. Did he have some deep objection to gay marriage, perhaps on religious grounds? Did he want the assignment so badly that he couldn’t bear the thought of not getting it?
    â€œVery well,” the judge said. “Here is a homework assignment for everyone. Take a look at the briefs and record