I had thought the purpose of internship (at least it was when I performed mine as a massage therapist) was to give the intern some practical experience and learning that would benefit them when they set out to earn their living.

But fixing meals and buying groceries? Hardly a way to teach an aspiring lawyer the nuances of the judicial process.

Not only is having unpaid interns reprehensible in this case, but the "wise Latina woman [redundant]" is grossly misusing them. They get absolutely no benefit from this arrangement.

I can't understand why anyone would volunteer for this. Are they so in awe of Supreme Court justices that it's some wondrous privilege to work for one without compensation?

You get to observe and meet amazing people and you get a really enormous thing to put on your resume.

"You get a really enormous thing to put on your resume" - until employers come to suspect that this item on your resume means you were a servant rather than assisting with the law.

"You get to observe and meet amazing people", or do you get to be abused by amazingly entitled a**holes? I suspected that when I heard Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark, but this goes far beyond that.

And you get to learn that Sonia Sotomayor is the Arianna Huffington of the Supreme Court.

"You get to observe and meet amazing people", or do you get to be abused by amazingly entitled a**holes?

Probably both.

It's earning tribal membership. You do enough of it so that the ruling class starts to accept you as one of their own. Once that happens, you're on your way. You can be living on Easy Street, with wealth, power and control, not too many years afterward.

If one voluntarily serves as a slave, I'm not sure what laws are actually being broken.

Cousin Dave is on to something (he usually is): this is a bullet point they can throw into their resume so that when the apply to, oh, say the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation they've established their tribal creds. And get a 6 figure income right off the bat.

I'm reliably one of you, and I'm willing to do whatever it takes to advance the agenda.

But fixing meals and buying groceries? Hardly a way to teach an aspiring lawyer the nuances of the judicial process. ~ Posted by: Patrick at October 1, 2015 3:29 AM

Who's teaching aspiring lawyers?

"Justice Sotomayor's job description, posted on a Latino Facebook page and other places, tells us that applicants do not need a law degree...."

This is all about feeding the ego of the "wise Latina."

Sotomayor is the least intellectually curious Justice, and the most partisan. Her questions during the gay marriage hearings revealed she had already made up her mind and was looking for a question or answer that could be used as a soundbite to affirm her already-established position on the subject.

She does not seem to come into hearings with even the pretense of an open mind. She does not look at issues with the idea that the Supreme Court is to decide Constitutionality or the extent or existence of government over-reach, but with the idea that she's there to affirm policies put into place and/or approved by the Democratic Party.

The hard-core conservative justices at least put up a facade of impartiality and curiosity when hearing an argument. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg manages that and, until Sotomayor, she was the Court's hard-core left-wing partisan.

Conan, quoting the article: "Justice Sotomayor's job description, posted on a Latino Facebook page and other places, tells us that applicants do not need a law degree...."

I'm aware of what it says, Conan, but in likelihood, serving an internship to a Supreme Court justice would most likely attract aspiring lawyers. Even though she doesn't require a law degree (or even a law student), that's probably what she's getting.

Oh, and by the way, it's "wise Latina woman." When ridiculing Sotomayor, I would recommend using all the weapons at your disposal, including the redundancy of calling herself a "Latina woman." It's a nice piece of irony when you consider that she was complimenting herself as "wise."

And I agree that Sotomayor is probably the most partisan, least curious and likely the least qualified SCOTUS justice of them all. Though I also confess a distaste for Kagan, in light of her history of expelling military recruiters from college campuses.

Hopefully, Obama will not have the opportunity to appoint any more SCOTUS justices. The two he gave us are arguably the worst ones.

If we're getting rid of gendered pronouns, we need to be getting rid of gendered adjectives too. I think from now on, Sotomayor needs to refer to herself as a "wise Latinxe pxon". It's progressive, you know.

Though I also confess a distaste for Kagan.... ~ Posted by: Patrick at October 1, 2015 10:03 AM

I was trying to remember her name when typing my post and couldn't remember.

I'm not a fan of hers, but at least she evinces some intellectual curiosity and willingness to hear both sides of an argument.

Unlike Sotomayor's questions, hers don't run along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife?"

but in likelihood, serving an internship to a Supreme Court justice would most likely attract aspiring lawyers. Even though she doesn't require a law degree (or even a law student), that's probably what she's getting. ~ Posted by: Patrick at October 1, 2015 9:56 AM

True, but in specifically saying a law degree is not required she has revealed that she has no intention of mentoring aspiring lawyers, even if that's what she's most likely to get as applicants.

Basically, she's looking for a poli-sci major to act as a go-fer, a major with interest in polishing her ego and no real job prospects enabling the intern to leave when he realizes he's a quasi-legal slave (and it will be a he - better to stick it to the patriarchy).

As Cousin Dave opined, the only appeal to being Sotomayor's whipping boy is earning membership into the tribe.

Given what Sotomayor is requiring, she might do better hiring culinary arts students.