Quantcast
Connect with us

REVEALED: New documents show the Federalist Society has lied about its mission — and could blow up on sitting judges

Published

on

On Saturday, political science academics Amanda Hollis-Brusky and Calvin TerBeek wrote an exposé in Politico revealing that the Federalist Society, an association of conservative and libertarian lawyers infamous for forming a semi-official pipeline of right-wing academics into the federal court system, have deliberately misled the public about the purpose of their organization’s existence for years.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Despite what appears to be an obvious political valence, the Federalist Society and its high-profile members have long insisted the nonprofit organization does not endorse any political party ‘or engage in other forms of political advocacy,’ as its website says,” they wrote. “The society does not deny an ideology — it calls itself a ‘group of conservatives and libertarians’ — but it maintains that it is simply ‘about ideas,’ not legislation, politicians or policy positions.”

“Federalist Society documents that one of us recently unearthed, however, make this position untenable going forward,” they continued. “The documents, made public here for the first time, show that the society not only has held explicit ideological goals since its infancy in the early 1980s, but sought to apply those ideological goals to legal policy and political issues through the group’s roundtables, symposia and conferences.”

The newly discovered papers resided in the Library of Congress with the records of the late Judge Robert Bork, President Ronald Reagan’s failed Supreme Court nominee. In one private grant proposal to a prospective conservative donor in 1984, for example, Federalist Society President Eugene Meyer promised that the Federalist Society would promote “the formation of groups of conservative lawyers in the major centers for the practice of law, who feel comfortable believing in, and advocating, conservative positions.” He also suggested the group would advocate against environmental, banking, and employment regulation, and recommend judges for appointments.

All of this could have significant consequences. Earlier this year, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges was modified to prohibit judges from participating in conferences held by groups “generally viewed by the public as having adopted a consistent political or ideological point of view equivalent to the type of partisanship often found in political organizations.”

In light of these documents explicitly revealing the political goals of the Federalist Society, that means that sitting judges may be in violation of the Code if they attend Federalist Society seminars — something conservative judges at all levels of the court system do routinely to exchange ideas and proposals. (The Code is not binding on the Supreme Court, but is on appeals and district court judges.)

ADVERTISEMENT

For his part, Meyer disputes all of this, calling this interpretation of the Code “absurd,” and stating that it is “silly” to treat these documents “as a serious source for what the Society is and does today.”

“If the new advisory opinion is enforced, one can imagine the society or a federal judge suing on the grounds of free speech and freedom of association,” concluded Hollis-Brusky TerBeek. “And, as a testament to its success, the Federalist Society might get a sympathetic hearing from the very same judiciary it helped build.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Democrats crippled their own impeachment effort with a rushed timeline: columnist

Published

on

House Democrats made a conscious decision to keep impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump as short and efficient as possible. On one hand, they had sensible reasons for wanting to do so — they were concerned that a protracted impeachment battle that drags into the 2020 election would lose engagement with the American people and draw criticism for attempting to interfere with the election.

But Thursday, NBC News analyst Kurt Bardella argued that Democrats may also have caused problems for themselves by making the impeachment process too short and setting arbitrary deadlines.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

GOP now stands for ‘Gang of Putin’: Conservative slams Republican ‘affinity’ for Russian president

Published

on

For aging Gen-Xers and Baby Boomers who are old enough to remember the Cold War, the admiration that the alt-right has for Russian President Vladimir Putin — a former KGB agent — is quite ironic. And that irony isn’t lost on conservative Washington Post columnist Max Boot, who is highly critical of President Donald Trump’s pro-Putin outlook in his December 4 column.

Boot, now 50, was born in Moscow on September 12, 1969 — back when Moscow was still part of the Soviet Union. But he was still a kid when his parents fled the Soviet Union and moved to Los Angeles, where he grew up. The Soviet Union ceased to exist in the early 1990s, and Putin is a right-wing authoritarian — not a communist. Boot, however, emphasizes in his column that Russia is still no friend of the United States.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Trump’s promises on manufacturing jobs have collapsed — all thanks to his trade war

Published

on

One of President Donald Trump's biggest promises during the 2016 campaign was to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

However, as Axios reports, the manufacturing sector of the economy is in a major slump and much of it can be attributed to the president's trade wars against multiple countries.

Continue Reading