Question for anyone who can answer.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

No sorry, while others have rightfully pointed out that these clerks did have bench experience, simply sitting at a desk acting basically as a secretary for a judge, is not the full experience as litigating in the courtroom with a gavel in front of a jury and prosecutor and defense lawyers.

"Generally an attorney" is the key. That means there are clerks who don't have bench experience. "Paralegal" would be the name for someone who has not been a judge or does not have a law degree, but works in the industry under a lawyer or judge.

But sure, I would hope that anyone serving under a SCOTUS was a former judge somewhere, or at a minimum was a court lawyer who has argued in court, and not just sat at a desk.

Clerking for a supreme court justice isn't 'basically a secretary'.  You know you have very limited knowledge about the significance of clerking for a supreme court justice, so why are you drawing strong conclusions based on your poor understanding?  (or why not google it, as someone else suggested instead of just saying ignorant things with confidence?)

Essentially it's the best of the "best of the best".  You have to be in the top tier at a top tier law school to have a shot.  And then you have to be the best of that group.

The clerks write most of the opinions.  The justices might tell them to find justification of the way they want to decide the issue and then the clerks do the research and write the opinion to support the justice's views.