Lawyers: what do you think of Federalist Society today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Edgelords is a good word for what I thought in school: people who were taking an unpopular position for the attention.

Now I think they actually want to destroy the country. Their obsession with undoing "the administrative state" will set us back decades, at best, in all kinds of science, safety, and public health fields, but they think they won't be the ones hurt.

I don’t understand their goal. Why?

They don't want to destroy the country. They want to make their corporate sponsors wealthy.

Destroying the country is a convenient byproduct.

As is their own financial enrichment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Chicago Law not too long ago. Fed Soc was prominent and well-funded. Events were packed because they brought in prominent speakers and served good (free) food. The network clearly served those who wanted a clerkship with a conservative judge quite well. Over half of the members were unremarkable: establishment Republicans, centrists to just right of center folks gunning for clerkships, even some “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” types. A vocal minority represented the far-right, and there were a handful of rather extreme Joshua Generation types in the membership.

I am not a litigator and candidly don’t have much of an interest in politics and the judiciary. Other than the known outliers whom I want nothing to do with (and they probably want nothing to do with me), I really don’t care or remember if the classmates I am still in contact with or encounter in practice had any connection to Fed Soc. I have conducted OCI interviews for and taken candidates from various schools to lunch and have yet to come across Fed Soc on a resume.

I went to Chicago Law 20 years ago, and Fed Soc was also prominent and well-funded. Events were well-attended by students and faculty from across the spectrum. Even we moderates wanted to hear John Yoo try to defend torture or Kenneth Starr still complain about the Clintons or a very young pre-senate Ted Cruz give a talk in which he was the most nauseatingly smarmy lawyer I've ever seen (true to this day) or, more frequently, the likes of Easterbrook and Posner debate about whatever.

My attitude and feeling about the people who were super involved in Fed Soc has evolved. In law school, it seemed like they were really passionate about "small 'c' conservatism," judges who "called balls and strikes," pride in the supremacy of the American rule of law, and opposition to judicial activism. I wasn't a very political person so it just seemed to me that they were really focused on ideas. I was friends with a lot of them. And I'd talk to people who were way to my left--especially from other schools where there wasn't as much cross-pollination of the political spectrum--and defend how they weren't bad people, they just really believed in certain principles.

Then after law school I watched as mediocre Fed Soc leaders got amazing clerkships and plum jobs (at least, what seemed to me as a young lawyer to be plum jobs), thanks to conservative affirmative action. Which was and is a very, very real phenomenon. The Fed Soc people I knew from Chicago didn't even deny it, they proudly admitted it, because they thought they were fighting back against the monolith of liberalism. And I was sort of jealous of that.

And finally now, I realize that the talk about big ideas and conservative principles was essentially all a lie, just a cover for naked lust for power and political control, and a long attempt to shape the one arguably non-political branch of the federal government into their own image. At best, the "grand principles" people were useful idiots, giving cover to the most craven parts of their movement, and at worst they were lying from the get-go. I'm embarrassed to have been as Fed Soc-adjacent as I was, even though not a member, and it definitely does not have the same meaning to me that it once did when I see it on a resume.

This is such a dumb take. The only kind of hiring preference FedSoc got is for right-leaning politically charged orgs and posts that liberals wouldn’t want anyway. How that you are suggesting that an unfair preference is beyond me. You don’t think the ACLU likes to hire people with clubs thats signal progressive commitments???

DP but no, the whole way the FedSoc set up the clerkship racket was ridiculous. It used to be there were judges that leaned one way or the other but a law student could easily apply to a whole range. The FedSoc system was that a chunk of clerkships got reserved exclusively for FedSoc law students, making it easier for them and harder for everyone else.

Now would I want to clerk for Judge Ho? Of course not but there are Republican-appointed judges I’d be happy to clerk for, and there didn’t use to be those kind of true nutjobs on the bench.

The process of making law students identify as FedSoc to get on the gravy train of the conservative legal ecosystem has meant that ecosystem is off on its own getting crazier and crazier because the incentives are to be more and more conservative as early in your career as possible and continuing right up until you are a supreme court justice or you ask the president to make you acting attorney general so you can help him with his autogolpe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Chicago Law not too long ago. Fed Soc was prominent and well-funded. Events were packed because they brought in prominent speakers and served good (free) food. The network clearly served those who wanted a clerkship with a conservative judge quite well. Over half of the members were unremarkable: establishment Republicans, centrists to just right of center folks gunning for clerkships, even some “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” types. A vocal minority represented the far-right, and there were a handful of rather extreme Joshua Generation types in the membership.

I am not a litigator and candidly don’t have much of an interest in politics and the judiciary. Other than the known outliers whom I want nothing to do with (and they probably want nothing to do with me), I really don’t care or remember if the classmates I am still in contact with or encounter in practice had any connection to Fed Soc. I have conducted OCI interviews for and taken candidates from various schools to lunch and have yet to come across Fed Soc on a resume.

I went to Chicago Law 20 years ago, and Fed Soc was also prominent and well-funded. Events were well-attended by students and faculty from across the spectrum. Even we moderates wanted to hear John Yoo try to defend torture or Kenneth Starr still complain about the Clintons or a very young pre-senate Ted Cruz give a talk in which he was the most nauseatingly smarmy lawyer I've ever seen (true to this day) or, more frequently, the likes of Easterbrook and Posner debate about whatever.

My attitude and feeling about the people who were super involved in Fed Soc has evolved. In law school, it seemed like they were really passionate about "small 'c' conservatism," judges who "called balls and strikes," pride in the supremacy of the American rule of law, and opposition to judicial activism. I wasn't a very political person so it just seemed to me that they were really focused on ideas. I was friends with a lot of them. And I'd talk to people who were way to my left--especially from other schools where there wasn't as much cross-pollination of the political spectrum--and defend how they weren't bad people, they just really believed in certain principles.

Then after law school I watched as mediocre Fed Soc leaders got amazing clerkships and plum jobs (at least, what seemed to me as a young lawyer to be plum jobs), thanks to conservative affirmative action. Which was and is a very, very real phenomenon. The Fed Soc people I knew from Chicago didn't even deny it, they proudly admitted it, because they thought they were fighting back against the monolith of liberalism. And I was sort of jealous of that.

And finally now, I realize that the talk about big ideas and conservative principles was essentially all a lie, just a cover for naked lust for power and political control, and a long attempt to shape the one arguably non-political branch of the federal government into their own image. At best, the "grand principles" people were useful idiots, giving cover to the most craven parts of their movement, and at worst they were lying from the get-go. I'm embarrassed to have been as Fed Soc-adjacent as I was, even though not a member, and it definitely does not have the same meaning to me that it once did when I see it on a resume.

This is such a dumb take. The only kind of hiring preference FedSoc got is for right-leaning politically charged orgs and posts that liberals wouldn’t want anyway. How that you are suggesting that an unfair preference is beyond me. You don’t think the ACLU likes to hire people with clubs thats signal progressive commitments???

Um no, this description of conservative affirmative action for clerkships, government leadership roles, and ultimately judicial seats is 100% accurate. (NP and also a Chicago grad.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Chicago Law not too long ago. Fed Soc was prominent and well-funded. Events were packed because they brought in prominent speakers and served good (free) food. The network clearly served those who wanted a clerkship with a conservative judge quite well. Over half of the members were unremarkable: establishment Republicans, centrists to just right of center folks gunning for clerkships, even some “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” types. A vocal minority represented the far-right, and there were a handful of rather extreme Joshua Generation types in the membership.

I am not a litigator and candidly don’t have much of an interest in politics and the judiciary. Other than the known outliers whom I want nothing to do with (and they probably want nothing to do with me), I really don’t care or remember if the classmates I am still in contact with or encounter in practice had any connection to Fed Soc. I have conducted OCI interviews for and taken candidates from various schools to lunch and have yet to come across Fed Soc on a resume.

I went to Chicago Law 20 years ago, and Fed Soc was also prominent and well-funded. Events were well-attended by students and faculty from across the spectrum. Even we moderates wanted to hear John Yoo try to defend torture or Kenneth Starr still complain about the Clintons or a very young pre-senate Ted Cruz give a talk in which he was the most nauseatingly smarmy lawyer I've ever seen (true to this day) or, more frequently, the likes of Easterbrook and Posner debate about whatever.

My attitude and feeling about the people who were super involved in Fed Soc has evolved. In law school, it seemed like they were really passionate about "small 'c' conservatism," judges who "called balls and strikes," pride in the supremacy of the American rule of law, and opposition to judicial activism. I wasn't a very political person so it just seemed to me that they were really focused on ideas. I was friends with a lot of them. And I'd talk to people who were way to my left--especially from other schools where there wasn't as much cross-pollination of the political spectrum--and defend how they weren't bad people, they just really believed in certain principles.

Then after law school I watched as mediocre Fed Soc leaders got amazing clerkships and plum jobs (at least, what seemed to me as a young lawyer to be plum jobs), thanks to conservative affirmative action. Which was and is a very, very real phenomenon. The Fed Soc people I knew from Chicago didn't even deny it, they proudly admitted it, because they thought they were fighting back against the monolith of liberalism. And I was sort of jealous of that.

And finally now, I realize that the talk about big ideas and conservative principles was essentially all a lie, just a cover for naked lust for power and political control, and a long attempt to shape the one arguably non-political branch of the federal government into their own image. At best, the "grand principles" people were useful idiots, giving cover to the most craven parts of their movement, and at worst they were lying from the get-go. I'm embarrassed to have been as Fed Soc-adjacent as I was, even though not a member, and it definitely does not have the same meaning to me that it once did when I see it on a resume.

This is such a dumb take. The only kind of hiring preference FedSoc got is for right-leaning politically charged orgs and posts that liberals wouldn’t want anyway. How that you are suggesting that an unfair preference is beyond me. You don’t think the ACLU likes to hire people with clubs thats signal progressive commitments???

Um no, this description of conservative affirmative action for clerkships, government leadership roles, and ultimately judicial seats is 100% accurate. (NP and also a Chicago grad.)

Better than racial affirmative action! At least ideological viewpoint is a CHOICE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Chicago Law not too long ago. Fed Soc was prominent and well-funded. Events were packed because they brought in prominent speakers and served good (free) food. The network clearly served those who wanted a clerkship with a conservative judge quite well. Over half of the members were unremarkable: establishment Republicans, centrists to just right of center folks gunning for clerkships, even some “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” types. A vocal minority represented the far-right, and there were a handful of rather extreme Joshua Generation types in the membership.

I am not a litigator and candidly don’t have much of an interest in politics and the judiciary. Other than the known outliers whom I want nothing to do with (and they probably want nothing to do with me), I really don’t care or remember if the classmates I am still in contact with or encounter in practice had any connection to Fed Soc. I have conducted OCI interviews for and taken candidates from various schools to lunch and have yet to come across Fed Soc on a resume.

I went to Chicago Law 20 years ago, and Fed Soc was also prominent and well-funded. Events were well-attended by students and faculty from across the spectrum. Even we moderates wanted to hear John Yoo try to defend torture or Kenneth Starr still complain about the Clintons or a very young pre-senate Ted Cruz give a talk in which he was the most nauseatingly smarmy lawyer I've ever seen (true to this day) or, more frequently, the likes of Easterbrook and Posner debate about whatever.

My attitude and feeling about the people who were super involved in Fed Soc has evolved. In law school, it seemed like they were really passionate about "small 'c' conservatism," judges who "called balls and strikes," pride in the supremacy of the American rule of law, and opposition to judicial activism. I wasn't a very political person so it just seemed to me that they were really focused on ideas. I was friends with a lot of them. And I'd talk to people who were way to my left--especially from other schools where there wasn't as much cross-pollination of the political spectrum--and defend how they weren't bad people, they just really believed in certain principles.

Then after law school I watched as mediocre Fed Soc leaders got amazing clerkships and plum jobs (at least, what seemed to me as a young lawyer to be plum jobs), thanks to conservative affirmative action. Which was and is a very, very real phenomenon. The Fed Soc people I knew from Chicago didn't even deny it, they proudly admitted it, because they thought they were fighting back against the monolith of liberalism. And I was sort of jealous of that.

And finally now, I realize that the talk about big ideas and conservative principles was essentially all a lie, just a cover for naked lust for power and political control, and a long attempt to shape the one arguably non-political branch of the federal government into their own image. At best, the "grand principles" people were useful idiots, giving cover to the most craven parts of their movement, and at worst they were lying from the get-go. I'm embarrassed to have been as Fed Soc-adjacent as I was, even though not a member, and it definitely does not have the same meaning to me that it once did when I see it on a resume.

This is such a dumb take. The only kind of hiring preference FedSoc got is for right-leaning politically charged orgs and posts that liberals wouldn’t want anyway. How that you are suggesting that an unfair preference is beyond me. You don’t think the ACLU likes to hire people with clubs thats signal progressive commitments???

Um no, this description of conservative affirmative action for clerkships, government leadership roles, and ultimately judicial seats is 100% accurate. (NP and also a Chicago grad.)

Better than racial affirmative action! At least ideological viewpoint is a CHOICE.

Yeah, who cares about the stupid old Constitution? It's totally cool to shut down chunks of government by refusing to allow Democrat Presidents to fulfill their obligation to appoint judges and justices.

[Anonymous]

Conservatism used to be about hiding behind the rule of law to preserve the status quo in the face of blatant violations of "All men are created equal".

Then they stopped bothering to hide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Conservatism used to be about hiding behind the rule of law to preserve the status quo in the face of blatant violations of "All men are created equal".

Then they stopped bothering to hide.

+1

They no longer have to hide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:bunch of nut jobs destroying the country

Op wasn’t asking about democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Chicago Law not too long ago. Fed Soc was prominent and well-funded. Events were packed because they brought in prominent speakers and served good (free) food. The network clearly served those who wanted a clerkship with a conservative judge quite well. Over half of the members were unremarkable: establishment Republicans, centrists to just right of center folks gunning for clerkships, even some “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” types. A vocal minority represented the far-right, and there were a handful of rather extreme Joshua Generation types in the membership.

I am not a litigator and candidly don’t have much of an interest in politics and the judiciary. Other than the known outliers whom I want nothing to do with (and they probably want nothing to do with me), I really don’t care or remember if the classmates I am still in contact with or encounter in practice had any connection to Fed Soc. I have conducted OCI interviews for and taken candidates from various schools to lunch and have yet to come across Fed Soc on a resume.

I went to Chicago Law 20 years ago, and Fed Soc was also prominent and well-funded. Events were well-attended by students and faculty from across the spectrum. Even we moderates wanted to hear John Yoo try to defend torture or Kenneth Starr still complain about the Clintons or a very young pre-senate Ted Cruz give a talk in which he was the most nauseatingly smarmy lawyer I've ever seen (true to this day) or, more frequently, the likes of Easterbrook and Posner debate about whatever.

My attitude and feeling about the people who were super involved in Fed Soc has evolved. In law school, it seemed like they were really passionate about "small 'c' conservatism," judges who "called balls and strikes," pride in the supremacy of the American rule of law, and opposition to judicial activism. I wasn't a very political person so it just seemed to me that they were really focused on ideas. I was friends with a lot of them. And I'd talk to people who were way to my left--especially from other schools where there wasn't as much cross-pollination of the political spectrum--and defend how they weren't bad people, they just really believed in certain principles.

Then after law school I watched as mediocre Fed Soc leaders got amazing clerkships and plum jobs (at least, what seemed to me as a young lawyer to be plum jobs), thanks to conservative affirmative action. Which was and is a very, very real phenomenon. The Fed Soc people I knew from Chicago didn't even deny it, they proudly admitted it, because they thought they were fighting back against the monolith of liberalism. And I was sort of jealous of that.

And finally now, I realize that the talk about big ideas and conservative principles was essentially all a lie, just a cover for naked lust for power and political control, and a long attempt to shape the one arguably non-political branch of the federal government into their own image. At best, the "grand principles" people were useful idiots, giving cover to the most craven parts of their movement, and at worst they were lying from the get-go. I'm embarrassed to have been as Fed Soc-adjacent as I was, even though not a member, and it definitely does not have the same meaning to me that it once did when I see it on a resume.

This is such a dumb take. The only kind of hiring preference FedSoc got is for right-leaning politically charged orgs and posts that liberals wouldn’t want anyway. How that you are suggesting that an unfair preference is beyond me. You don’t think the ACLU likes to hire people with clubs thats signal progressive commitments???

Um no, this description of conservative affirmative action for clerkships, government leadership roles, and ultimately judicial seats is 100% accurate. (NP and also a Chicago grad.)

+1 I had a front row seat to see it in action for a while. Watched iffy folks get appointed to the bench and to leadership roles in the executive branch. Not pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:bunch of nut jobs destroying the country

Op wasn’t asking about democrats.

You’ve got nothing better than trying “I’m rubber you’re glue”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Chicago Law not too long ago. Fed Soc was prominent and well-funded. Events were packed because they brought in prominent speakers and served good (free) food. The network clearly served those who wanted a clerkship with a conservative judge quite well. Over half of the members were unremarkable: establishment Republicans, centrists to just right of center folks gunning for clerkships, even some “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” types. A vocal minority represented the far-right, and there were a handful of rather extreme Joshua Generation types in the membership.

I am not a litigator and candidly don’t have much of an interest in politics and the judiciary. Other than the known outliers whom I want nothing to do with (and they probably want nothing to do with me), I really don’t care or remember if the classmates I am still in contact with or encounter in practice had any connection to Fed Soc. I have conducted OCI interviews for and taken candidates from various schools to lunch and have yet to come across Fed Soc on a resume.

I went to Chicago Law 20 years ago, and Fed Soc was also prominent and well-funded. Events were well-attended by students and faculty from across the spectrum. Even we moderates wanted to hear John Yoo try to defend torture or Kenneth Starr still complain about the Clintons or a very young pre-senate Ted Cruz give a talk in which he was the most nauseatingly smarmy lawyer I've ever seen (true to this day) or, more frequently, the likes of Easterbrook and Posner debate about whatever.

My attitude and feeling about the people who were super involved in Fed Soc has evolved. In law school, it seemed like they were really passionate about "small 'c' conservatism," judges who "called balls and strikes," pride in the supremacy of the American rule of law, and opposition to judicial activism. I wasn't a very political person so it just seemed to me that they were really focused on ideas. I was friends with a lot of them. And I'd talk to people who were way to my left--especially from other schools where there wasn't as much cross-pollination of the political spectrum--and defend how they weren't bad people, they just really believed in certain principles.

Then after law school I watched as mediocre Fed Soc leaders got amazing clerkships and plum jobs (at least, what seemed to me as a young lawyer to be plum jobs), thanks to conservative affirmative action. Which was and is a very, very real phenomenon. The Fed Soc people I knew from Chicago didn't even deny it, they proudly admitted it, because they thought they were fighting back against the monolith of liberalism. And I was sort of jealous of that.

And finally now, I realize that the talk about big ideas and conservative principles was essentially all a lie, just a cover for naked lust for power and political control, and a long attempt to shape the one arguably non-political branch of the federal government into their own image. At best, the "grand principles" people were useful idiots, giving cover to the most craven parts of their movement, and at worst they were lying from the get-go. I'm embarrassed to have been as Fed Soc-adjacent as I was, even though not a member, and it definitely does not have the same meaning to me that it once did when I see it on a resume.

This is such a dumb take. The only kind of hiring preference FedSoc got is for right-leaning politically charged orgs and posts that liberals wouldn’t want anyway. How that you are suggesting that an unfair preference is beyond me. You don’t think the ACLU likes to hire people with clubs thats signal progressive commitments???

Um no, this description of conservative affirmative action for clerkships, government leadership roles, and ultimately judicial seats is 100% accurate. (NP and also a Chicago grad.)

+1 I had a front row seat to see it in action for a while. Watched iffy folks get appointed to the bench and to leadership roles in the executive branch. Not pretty.

You act like that isn’t true on both sides. Reality bites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Chicago Law not too long ago. Fed Soc was prominent and well-funded. Events were packed because they brought in prominent speakers and served good (free) food. The network clearly served those who wanted a clerkship with a conservative judge quite well. Over half of the members were unremarkable: establishment Republicans, centrists to just right of center folks gunning for clerkships, even some “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” types. A vocal minority represented the far-right, and there were a handful of rather extreme Joshua Generation types in the membership.

I am not a litigator and candidly don’t have much of an interest in politics and the judiciary. Other than the known outliers whom I want nothing to do with (and they probably want nothing to do with me), I really don’t care or remember if the classmates I am still in contact with or encounter in practice had any connection to Fed Soc. I have conducted OCI interviews for and taken candidates from various schools to lunch and have yet to come across Fed Soc on a resume.

I went to Chicago Law 20 years ago, and Fed Soc was also prominent and well-funded. Events were well-attended by students and faculty from across the spectrum. Even we moderates wanted to hear John Yoo try to defend torture or Kenneth Starr still complain about the Clintons or a very young pre-senate Ted Cruz give a talk in which he was the most nauseatingly smarmy lawyer I've ever seen (true to this day) or, more frequently, the likes of Easterbrook and Posner debate about whatever.

My attitude and feeling about the people who were super involved in Fed Soc has evolved. In law school, it seemed like they were really passionate about "small 'c' conservatism," judges who "called balls and strikes," pride in the supremacy of the American rule of law, and opposition to judicial activism. I wasn't a very political person so it just seemed to me that they were really focused on ideas. I was friends with a lot of them. And I'd talk to people who were way to my left--especially from other schools where there wasn't as much cross-pollination of the political spectrum--and defend how they weren't bad people, they just really believed in certain principles.

Then after law school I watched as mediocre Fed Soc leaders got amazing clerkships and plum jobs (at least, what seemed to me as a young lawyer to be plum jobs), thanks to conservative affirmative action. Which was and is a very, very real phenomenon. The Fed Soc people I knew from Chicago didn't even deny it, they proudly admitted it, because they thought they were fighting back against the monolith of liberalism. And I was sort of jealous of that.

And finally now, I realize that the talk about big ideas and conservative principles was essentially all a lie, just a cover for naked lust for power and political control, and a long attempt to shape the one arguably non-political branch of the federal government into their own image. At best, the "grand principles" people were useful idiots, giving cover to the most craven parts of their movement, and at worst they were lying from the get-go. I'm embarrassed to have been as Fed Soc-adjacent as I was, even though not a member, and it definitely does not have the same meaning to me that it once did when I see it on a resume.

This is such a dumb take. The only kind of hiring preference FedSoc got is for right-leaning politically charged orgs and posts that liberals wouldn’t want anyway. How that you are suggesting that an unfair preference is beyond me. You don’t think the ACLU likes to hire people with clubs thats signal progressive commitments???

Um no, this description of conservative affirmative action for clerkships, government leadership roles, and ultimately judicial seats is 100% accurate. (NP and also a Chicago grad.)

+1 I had a front row seat to see it in action for a while. Watched iffy folks get appointed to the bench and to leadership roles in the executive branch. Not pretty.

You act like that isn’t true on both sides. Reality bites.

Inaccurate -- I did not "act like [it] isn't true on both sides", I merely commented on what I had the opportunity to see. I'm not going to speculate on what I didn't witness (what happens on the other "side" as you call it isn't really relevant to OP's query anyway). Oh, and "Reality bites" is no intellectual gift to this conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Chicago Law not too long ago. Fed Soc was prominent and well-funded. Events were packed because they brought in prominent speakers and served good (free) food. The network clearly served those who wanted a clerkship with a conservative judge quite well. Over half of the members were unremarkable: establishment Republicans, centrists to just right of center folks gunning for clerkships, even some “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” types. A vocal minority represented the far-right, and there were a handful of rather extreme Joshua Generation types in the membership.

I am not a litigator and candidly don’t have much of an interest in politics and the judiciary. Other than the known outliers whom I want nothing to do with (and they probably want nothing to do with me), I really don’t care or remember if the classmates I am still in contact with or encounter in practice had any connection to Fed Soc. I have conducted OCI interviews for and taken candidates from various schools to lunch and have yet to come across Fed Soc on a resume.

I went to Chicago Law 20 years ago, and Fed Soc was also prominent and well-funded. Events were well-attended by students and faculty from across the spectrum. Even we moderates wanted to hear John Yoo try to defend torture or Kenneth Starr still complain about the Clintons or a very young pre-senate Ted Cruz give a talk in which he was the most nauseatingly smarmy lawyer I've ever seen (true to this day) or, more frequently, the likes of Easterbrook and Posner debate about whatever.

My attitude and feeling about the people who were super involved in Fed Soc has evolved. In law school, it seemed like they were really passionate about "small 'c' conservatism," judges who "called balls and strikes," pride in the supremacy of the American rule of law, and opposition to judicial activism. I wasn't a very political person so it just seemed to me that they were really focused on ideas. I was friends with a lot of them. And I'd talk to people who were way to my left--especially from other schools where there wasn't as much cross-pollination of the political spectrum--and defend how they weren't bad people, they just really believed in certain principles.

Then after law school I watched as mediocre Fed Soc leaders got amazing clerkships and plum jobs (at least, what seemed to me as a young lawyer to be plum jobs), thanks to conservative affirmative action. Which was and is a very, very real phenomenon. The Fed Soc people I knew from Chicago didn't even deny it, they proudly admitted it, because they thought they were fighting back against the monolith of liberalism. And I was sort of jealous of that.

And finally now, I realize that the talk about big ideas and conservative principles was essentially all a lie, just a cover for naked lust for power and political control, and a long attempt to shape the one arguably non-political branch of the federal government into their own image. At best, the "grand principles" people were useful idiots, giving cover to the most craven parts of their movement, and at worst they were lying from the get-go. I'm embarrassed to have been as Fed Soc-adjacent as I was, even though not a member, and it definitely does not have the same meaning to me that it once did when I see it on a resume.

This is such a dumb take. The only kind of hiring preference FedSoc got is for right-leaning politically charged orgs and posts that liberals wouldn’t want anyway. How that you are suggesting that an unfair preference is beyond me. You don’t think the ACLU likes to hire people with clubs thats signal progressive commitments???

Um no, this description of conservative affirmative action for clerkships, government leadership roles, and ultimately judicial seats is 100% accurate. (NP and also a Chicago grad.)

+1 I had a front row seat to see it in action for a while. Watched iffy folks get appointed to the bench and to leadership roles in the executive branch. Not pretty.

You act like that isn’t true on both sides. Reality bites.

Inaccurate -- I did not "act like [it] isn't true on both sides", I merely commented on what I had the opportunity to see. I'm not going to speculate on what I didn't witness (what happens on the other "side" as you call it isn't really relevant to OP's query anyway). Oh, and "Reality bites" is no intellectual gift to this conversation.

“Republicans do this terrible thing where the most qualified aren’t nominated!” implies Dems don’t. Which is an outright lie and you know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Chicago Law not too long ago. Fed Soc was prominent and well-funded. Events were packed because they brought in prominent speakers and served good (free) food. The network clearly served those who wanted a clerkship with a conservative judge quite well. Over half of the members were unremarkable: establishment Republicans, centrists to just right of center folks gunning for clerkships, even some “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” types. A vocal minority represented the far-right, and there were a handful of rather extreme Joshua Generation types in the membership.

I am not a litigator and candidly don’t have much of an interest in politics and the judiciary. Other than the known outliers whom I want nothing to do with (and they probably want nothing to do with me), I really don’t care or remember if the classmates I am still in contact with or encounter in practice had any connection to Fed Soc. I have conducted OCI interviews for and taken candidates from various schools to lunch and have yet to come across Fed Soc on a resume.

I went to Chicago Law 20 years ago, and Fed Soc was also prominent and well-funded. Events were well-attended by students and faculty from across the spectrum. Even we moderates wanted to hear John Yoo try to defend torture or Kenneth Starr still complain about the Clintons or a very young pre-senate Ted Cruz give a talk in which he was the most nauseatingly smarmy lawyer I've ever seen (true to this day) or, more frequently, the likes of Easterbrook and Posner debate about whatever.

My attitude and feeling about the people who were super involved in Fed Soc has evolved. In law school, it seemed like they were really passionate about "small 'c' conservatism," judges who "called balls and strikes," pride in the supremacy of the American rule of law, and opposition to judicial activism. I wasn't a very political person so it just seemed to me that they were really focused on ideas. I was friends with a lot of them. And I'd talk to people who were way to my left--especially from other schools where there wasn't as much cross-pollination of the political spectrum--and defend how they weren't bad people, they just really believed in certain principles.

Then after law school I watched as mediocre Fed Soc leaders got amazing clerkships and plum jobs (at least, what seemed to me as a young lawyer to be plum jobs), thanks to conservative affirmative action. Which was and is a very, very real phenomenon. The Fed Soc people I knew from Chicago didn't even deny it, they proudly admitted it, because they thought they were fighting back against the monolith of liberalism. And I was sort of jealous of that.

And finally now, I realize that the talk about big ideas and conservative principles was essentially all a lie, just a cover for naked lust for power and political control, and a long attempt to shape the one arguably non-political branch of the federal government into their own image. At best, the "grand principles" people were useful idiots, giving cover to the most craven parts of their movement, and at worst they were lying from the get-go. I'm embarrassed to have been as Fed Soc-adjacent as I was, even though not a member, and it definitely does not have the same meaning to me that it once did when I see it on a resume.

This is such a dumb take. The only kind of hiring preference FedSoc got is for right-leaning politically charged orgs and posts that liberals wouldn’t want anyway. How that you are suggesting that an unfair preference is beyond me. You don’t think the ACLU likes to hire people with clubs thats signal progressive commitments???

Um no, this description of conservative affirmative action for clerkships, government leadership roles, and ultimately judicial seats is 100% accurate. (NP and also a Chicago grad.)

+1 I had a front row seat to see it in action for a while. Watched iffy folks get appointed to the bench and to leadership roles in the executive branch. Not pretty.

You act like that isn’t true on both sides. Reality bites.

Inaccurate -- I did not "act like [it] isn't true on both sides", I merely commented on what I had the opportunity to see. I'm not going to speculate on what I didn't witness (what happens on the other "side" as you call it isn't really relevant to OP's query anyway). Oh, and "Reality bites" is no intellectual gift to this conversation.

“Republicans do this terrible thing where the most qualified aren’t nominated!” implies Dems don’t. Which is an outright lie and you know it.

You aren't a lawyer, are you? Because if you were, you would have at least a modicum of critical thinking ability -- which you don't appear to have. So why are you hanging out on a thread about the Federalist Society? Ugh, I forget how this forum is so full of wannabe lawyers who go on about things they don't understand. It's weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Chicago Law not too long ago. Fed Soc was prominent and well-funded. Events were packed because they brought in prominent speakers and served good (free) food. The network clearly served those who wanted a clerkship with a conservative judge quite well. Over half of the members were unremarkable: establishment Republicans, centrists to just right of center folks gunning for clerkships, even some “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” types. A vocal minority represented the far-right, and there were a handful of rather extreme Joshua Generation types in the membership.

I am not a litigator and candidly don’t have much of an interest in politics and the judiciary. Other than the known outliers whom I want nothing to do with (and they probably want nothing to do with me), I really don’t care or remember if the classmates I am still in contact with or encounter in practice had any connection to Fed Soc. I have conducted OCI interviews for and taken candidates from various schools to lunch and have yet to come across Fed Soc on a resume.

I went to Chicago Law 20 years ago, and Fed Soc was also prominent and well-funded. Events were well-attended by students and faculty from across the spectrum. Even we moderates wanted to hear John Yoo try to defend torture or Kenneth Starr still complain about the Clintons or a very young pre-senate Ted Cruz give a talk in which he was the most nauseatingly smarmy lawyer I've ever seen (true to this day) or, more frequently, the likes of Easterbrook and Posner debate about whatever.

My attitude and feeling about the people who were super involved in Fed Soc has evolved. In law school, it seemed like they were really passionate about "small 'c' conservatism," judges who "called balls and strikes," pride in the supremacy of the American rule of law, and opposition to judicial activism. I wasn't a very political person so it just seemed to me that they were really focused on ideas. I was friends with a lot of them. And I'd talk to people who were way to my left--especially from other schools where there wasn't as much cross-pollination of the political spectrum--and defend how they weren't bad people, they just really believed in certain principles.

Then after law school I watched as mediocre Fed Soc leaders got amazing clerkships and plum jobs (at least, what seemed to me as a young lawyer to be plum jobs), thanks to conservative affirmative action. Which was and is a very, very real phenomenon. The Fed Soc people I knew from Chicago didn't even deny it, they proudly admitted it, because they thought they were fighting back against the monolith of liberalism. And I was sort of jealous of that.

And finally now, I realize that the talk about big ideas and conservative principles was essentially all a lie, just a cover for naked lust for power and political control, and a long attempt to shape the one arguably non-political branch of the federal government into their own image. At best, the "grand principles" people were useful idiots, giving cover to the most craven parts of their movement, and at worst they were lying from the get-go. I'm embarrassed to have been as Fed Soc-adjacent as I was, even though not a member, and it definitely does not have the same meaning to me that it once did when I see it on a resume.

This is such a dumb take. The only kind of hiring preference FedSoc got is for right-leaning politically charged orgs and posts that liberals wouldn’t want anyway. How that you are suggesting that an unfair preference is beyond me. You don’t think the ACLU likes to hire people with clubs thats signal progressive commitments???

DP but no, the whole way the FedSoc set up the clerkship racket was ridiculous. It used to be there were judges that leaned one way or the other but a law student could easily apply to a whole range. The FedSoc system was that a chunk of clerkships got reserved exclusively for FedSoc law students, making it easier for them and harder for everyone else.

Now would I want to clerk for Judge Ho? Of course not but there are Republican-appointed judges I’d be happy to clerk for, and there didn’t use to be those kind of true nutjobs on the bench.

The process of making law students identify as FedSoc to get on the gravy train of the conservative legal ecosystem has meant that ecosystem is off on its own getting crazier and crazier because the incentives are to be more and more conservative as early in your career as possible and continuing right up until you are a supreme court justice or you ask the president to make you acting attorney general so you can help him with his autogolpe.

+ 1. I did clerk for a Republican judge although I’m a lifelong Democrat. Bush II appointee. Conservative but not crazy like today’s conservatives. Most of his clerks have been Democrats because most of the FedSoc folks he interviews are a$$holes. And legal writing ability and not being an a$$hole have always been his top criteria. Not ideology.