does this sound worth pursuing? anyone have any ideas for where the story should go?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#21391656)

shrews would fucking love it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#21391706)

She chooses to disclose it to the public and is viciously attacked as a whore even by the liberal media and academia. she eventually is forced to produce concrete evidence (tape recordings or secret video) of the justice forcing himself on her.

The justice is forced to resign, and the pres nominates a conservative justice.

The novel ends right as the 5-4 decision overruling roe v. wade comes down.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#21391739)

one thing i'm kicking around is that one of her recommenders was also harassed by the justice and hid it for the sake of the liberal cause. this prof shows hints of regret about her decision and about not warning the main character.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#21391841)

the recommender has a lot of inner turmoil and regret, but ultimately resolves to defend the justice after serious moral reflection. when the clerk comes out with the story, the recommender is on CNN attacking the clerk and falsely insisting that the justice never did anything similar to her.

maybe there was a liberal president when the recommender was a clerk... so it would have been easier on her and her failure to come out then both put the clerk in this situation and necessitated the liberal attacks on the clerk

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#21391885)

What do you think about adding a backstory that the main clerk character was also harassed by a college prof and lodged a complaint, but it didn't go anywhere b/c the prof was so powerful and famous. this makes her more wary about outing the SCOTUS justice harasser and gives ammunition to the people saying she's a lying whore.

Another option is she had a consensual relationship with the college prof.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#21392092)

The consensual relationship thing hurts her credibility more imo because it makes her look like she has a habit of targeting older, ostensibly powerful men

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#21392146)

Lifetime: Television for Idiots

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#21392356)

Melissa Friedman's intelligence and tenacity got her through Stanford and Yale Law, but nothing could have prepared her for the sight of Benjamin Cramer, associate justice of the Supreme Court, dropping his trousers and stroking his erect penis.

"Get over here, sweetheart," he said.

"No. I don't want to do this," she pleaded.

"Do you want to work in this town? Do you want to be somebody? Get your little ass over here, cunt," he growled.

Cunt. He actually called the former valedictorian of New Trier High School a cunt. She never felt so humiliated. So debased.

Tears ran down her face as she bent over and swallowed his engorged member.

Melissa Friedman was in trouble. Big trouble. Cramer was a legend on the court and the left's biggest hero. Who would believe her? How would she ever live a normal life? She would become a national joke.

She considered suicide. Or murder. Maybe both.

Just as Cramer reached his awful climax, the chamber door suddenly opened.

"Melissa? Are you in here? I need help with Justice Taylor's dissent," a male voice said.

It was Ari Silverberg, former Rhodes Scholar and boy wonder at Harvard Law.

"Taylor's comments on the death penalty are pretty harsh, and we just need to know where to draw the line," Silverberg whined.

Cramer shot Melissa a evil glare and smirked as Ari approached the office.

No, nothing at Yale Law ever prepared Melissa Friedman for this kind of dilemma.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#21394596)

fucking loled at this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#21394745)

Perfect.

Write the rest of it now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#22482356)

cast james franco and kathy bates as the lead.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#22481899)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#32978481)

https://twitter.com/jacq_thomsen/status/1227952733489070080

Before delving into my experience clerking for Judge Reinhardt, I would like to first provide some background about who I am and why I became a lawyer. I went to law school to pursue a career in indigent defense: I wanted to serve poor people who are accused of crimes. While at Harvard Law School, I remained committed to pursuing acareer in public interest and participated in a range of internship and volunteer opportunities that provided further exposure to the breadth of work in indigent defense. During my first year of law school, I was strongly encouraged by many of my mentors to pursue a clerkship with a federal judge. This advice was echoed by every available source at Harvard. Beyond my mentors, the faculty as a whole and nearly all of my first-year classmates talked about clerkships as if they were the be-all and end-all for high-performing law students. This is because clerkships are viewed as singular opportunities within the legal profession to develop close relationships with judges, to gain first-hand experience with the judicial system as a young lawyer, and, through the connections to judges’ former clerks, to develop a robust professional network that can open professional doors and lead to further opportunities.

Several of my mentors at Harvard guided and supported my efforts to secure a clerkship. After I had sent out several clerkship applications, a close mentor at Harvard (who was a former clerk to Judge Reinhardt) reached out to me to gauge my interest in clerking for Judge Reinhardt. I had read some of the judge’s opinions and knew his reputation as a “liberal lion,” which aligned with my desire to pursue a career in indigent defense. I interviewed with Judge Reinhardt in early July 2015, after I had concluded my first year of law school. He offered me a clerkship on the spot and I readily accepted. I was thrilled to begin my career with someone who had inspired so many clerks to long careers in public service, and I was eager to develop my nascent legal skills with such an esteemed jurist.

I started my clerkship with Judge Reinhardt in late May 2017, shortly after graduating from Harvard Law School; Judge Reinhardt died on March 29, 2018, and my tenure on the Ninth Circuit formally concluded on June 1, 2018. I then served as a law clerk for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia from August 2018 until August 2019. This past fall, in October of 2019, I began working at the Center for Death Penalty Litigation where I represent clients in capital proceedings as a Staff Attorney. I mention the professional experiences that post- date my clerkship for Judge Reinhardt because they have been critical steps in my journey to being willing to testify today.

II. Harassment During Clerkship With Judge Reinhardt

Before starting my clerkship, I received guidance, including from former Reinhardt clerks, that signaled the upcoming year would be challenging. For instance, I was told that the clerkship would be an “intense” year, and one former Reinhardt clerk cautioned me to brace myself for “your grandfather’s sexism.” Even while preparing for my interview, I had heard that the judge preferred women to wear skirts. My mentor at Harvard who had helped me secure the clerkship also spoke to me about the utmost importance of never letting the judge down and said something along the lines of not to blink first in the chambers environment, emphasizing that Judge Reinhardt liked to keep things fun. None of this fully prepared me for the profane atmosphere I entered when I began my clerkship.

I spent my first two days in chambers training alongside the law clerk whom I was replacing. On the first morning, I met with the outgoing clerk to be briefed on Judge Reinhardt’s current caseload. During this meeting, I found it difficult to focus because there was a peculiar drawing taped over the computer, something I had not seen since middle school algebra classes. The drawing depicted a sine chart, which resembles two hills drawn on an x-axis. However, in this sine chart, someone had added two round dots to the top of the curves such that the chart resembled a woman’s breasts. The clerk noticed me staring at the drawing and explained that he had sketched the sine chart to explain a concept to Judge Reinhardt, and the judge himself had added the nipples. The clerk laughed the incident off as a funny story about the judge, but I remember feeling a range of conflicting emotions that included—among others— shock and trepidation for the year to come.

Two days later, Judge Reinhardt referenced the drawing when he came to my office to check in on me after my first official day as a law clerk. As he was leaving my office, he asked me if I had noticed the drawing and whether I liked it. In addition to emphasizing how proud he was of the nipples he had drawn on the chart and confirming that he and the clerk had made it, he asked me a question about whether or not it was “accurate.” Based on his tone and demeanor, I understood his question to be asking whether or not the drawing looked like my breasts.

I quickly learned how often the judge commented in detail on the appearance of women. During my first few weeks at the clerkship, Judge Reinhardt’s chambers was in the midst of hiring new clerks for future terms. The Judge brought to my office photos that had been printed from the social media accounts of two female applicants who were scheduled to come to chambers for interviews. Judge Reinhardt instructed me to look at the photos and asked me to assess which candidate was more attractive and which candidate had nicer or longer legs. He then asked me which would add more “value” to chambers based on the photos.

Early in my clerkship, I also learned about a shelf in the judge’s office where he kept pictures of some of his female “pretty” clerks, many of which included Judge Reinhardt in the photo as well. Judge Reinhardt made it clear that photographs of male law clerks would not be placed on the shelf and that the shelf was special. Judge Reinhardt discussed the appearance of women directly, but he also had a regular euphemism: he used “short” and “tall” as code for “unattractive” and “attractive,” respectively, when referring to different women—including describing women of the same height, standing next to one another, as short and tall. Sometimes these comments were used to describe people outside of chambers, and sometimes they were used to describe us, his current and former law clerks. Judge Reinhardt only contemplated the attractiveness of women through the male gaze, and at times he used homophobic slurs: for example, a gay female clerk was repeatedly referred to by the judge as a “dykester,” which he found funny.

All of that provides the context within which I experienced direct sexual harassment. Judge Reinhardt routinely and frequently made disparaging statements about my physical appearance, my views about feminism and women’s rights, and my relationship with my husband (including our sexual relationship). Often, these remarks included expressing surprise that I even had a husband because I was not a woman who any man would be attracted to. In that vein, Judge Reinhardt often speculated that my husband must be a “wimp,” or possibly gay. Judge Reinhardt would use both words and gestures to suggest that my “wimp” husband must either lack a penis, or not be able to get an erection in my presence. He implied that my marriage had not been consummated. I was subjected on a weekly, and sometimes daily, basis to these types of comments about my husband, our relationship, and my being a woman who no man would marry—which he attributed both to my being a feminist and to my physical appearance, including my “short” stature. Judge Reinhardt made these comments to me when we were alone, and also in front of other members of chambers at times.

The atmosphere in chambers worsened in late 2017 with the start of the Me Too movement, which became Judge Reinhardt’s favorite topic of conversation. He frequently discussed and always cast doubt upon credible allegations of sexual harassment. The doubts he expressed were sometimes based on his assessment of the attractiveness of the accuser, and sometimes based on his general incredulity that men could be harassing women. For example, Judge Reinhardt told me that the allegations of sexual harassment that came out against people like Louis CK and Harvey Weinstein were made by women who had initially “wanted it,” and then changed their minds. Regarding Louis CK, he repeatedly asked me to explain to him why a man would want to show a woman his penis or masturbate in front of her. When I could not satisfy these kinds of questions about the alleged choices of men, Judge Reinhardt often responded by telling me that women were liars who could not be trusted. Sometimes, he read me emails that he exchanged with his friends about the Me Too movement that cast doubt on women raising sexual harassment and misconduct allegations. When I engaged in these discussions with him and would try to explain that sexual harassment was indeed a pervasive problem, he regularly replied with the same playbook I described above—that I did not understand sexual harassment because I was not attractive, that I did not understand men because I was a feminist, and that my husband was not a real man.

Another turning point in chambers occurred on December 8, 2017, when the Washington Post publicly reported on allegations about Judge Alex Kozinski’s conduct. I was alarmed by Judge Reinhardt’s fury at these allegations against his close friend. I was also concerned that this would prompt other people to raise similar complaints about Judge Reinhardt, even while I was still a clerk in chambers. Shortly after the first media report, the judge again told me that women were not to be trusted and that he did not ever want to be alone in a room with a female law clerk again; he suggested that he would not hire any more female clerks or other female employees for these reasons. After he had made that statement, he would sometimes suggest when he and I were alone that he needed protection because I might sexually assault him.

In the aftermath of the initial press reports about Judge Kozinski, reading news about the allegations and disparaging Judge Kozinski’s accusers became a regular focal point of our lunches and broader discussions with the judge, which often tended towards the graphic and profane. For example, immediately after Dahlia Lithwick published her piece describing her own experience with Judge Kozinski, Judge Reinhardt made us all read it. When it was clear that he was done reading the piece, he began the conversation by saying, “No one has ever ogled Dahlia Lithwick.” Judge Reinhardt also repeatedly told me that he intended to publicly confront one of the women who accused Judge Kozinski at an event at UC-Irvine, with the intention of humiliating or silencing her. I later learned that when he met the woman at the event, he pointedly and publicly insulted her intellect.

I tried different ways to push back during these conversations, to no avail. On one occasion, I told the judge that I was disappointed that someone with his intellect and imagination could not grasp the pervasive and harmful nature of sexual harassment. He screamed at me that I was not as smart as I thought I was—that I was “just a stupid little girl.”

On another occasion, a colleague and I were talking to Judge Reinhardt about a case in his office when the judge became distracted and began talking about how women lied about harassment. In an effort to appeal to his humanity, I tried to describe instances when I personally had been harassed and how those incidents had harmed me. The anecdotes I recounted included: learning on my last day of an internship after college that there had been a bet among colleagues in the office about whether I would sleep with my male supervisor; being chased down York Avenue by a stranger while screaming until a cab driver stopped to help me; and working as a paralegal at a law firm when an intoxicated associate came by my cubicle one night, placed his arms over it, and blocked my exit until I picked up the phone and told him that I would dial 911 if he did not leave. I explained to the judge that I had not reported these incidents, but that they had still hurt and frightened me, and affected the way I moved through the world. Judge Reinhardt became enraged. He yelled at me to stop speaking, and said that none of what I had just said was true. He explained to me that I had never been sexually harassed because no one had ever been sexually attracted to me. He said that to the extent that I believed I was sexually harassed, it was because men wanted to silence me and used harassment to do so—which, he added, was within their rights to free speech.

Towards the end of the clerkship, a member of the judge’s family experienced some significant health setbacks, and I was therefore asked to work with Judge Reinhardt from his home on several occasions. Close to midnight on one of the nights that I was working with the judge from his home, and after we had completed our substantive work, he read aloud portions of an email from the Ninth Circuit about the working group it had created on workplace conduct, which included some proposed reforms and protections for law clerks. I remember the judge reading through each reform and explaining to me why it was unnecessary. In this discussion, he also said that he was the one who should be afraid of being alone in his home with me.

I have not attempted here to recount every instance of sexual harassment that I experienced or witnessed while clerking for Judge Reinhardt. Indeed, after December 8, 2017, there may have been a day in which I was not harassed (whether by reference to my physicality, my intellectual capacity, my feminism, my gender identity, or my sexuality), but I cannot remember one after searching my memory.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#39587907)

his moniker?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2029485&forum_id=2Reputation#39587947)