Lawyers: what do you think of Federalist Society today?

[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.)

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.

Sorry you dislike the Biden Rule, partisan hack

[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.)

PP with the dumb take here. It’s not just my take and what I observed, it’s what FedSoc classmates told me. “Conservative AA” was terminology that FedSoc people I knew routinely threw around in private with a wink. Never heard anything like that from libs, but I’m not claiming to know what everyone and every judge in the world does or thinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They seem really neutral to me.

Same. Wish I had joined in law school. But I was caught up in Obamamania and didn’t get it.

LOL. This is idiotic. They are deeply opposed to the basic principles of American democracy.

[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.)

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.

Sorry you dislike the Biden Rule, partisan hack

Do you think saying these deeply stupid things is convincing ANYONE?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I graduated from Notre Dame Law School years agoj. It was a great place then. It has since been taken over by the Federalist Society and it’s awful. It’s not the same school AT ALL. I’m embarrassed to be an alum.

Man I feel the same but opposite about my school. It used to be a true professional school. Now it seems to be all about woke politics.

“Woke” politics? Gimme a break.

[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.

NP. We're talking about people who had been out of law school about 8 years, getting appointed as judges and agency general counsel. People who the ABA rated "unqualified" becoming federal judges. That actually is unprecedented.

[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.

They hope to profit off the chaos? Become more powerful when society eventually rebuilds?

I don’t understand evil so I struggle with this.

[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.

NP. We're talking about people who had been out of law school about 8 years, getting appointed as judges and agency general counsel. People who the ABA rated "unqualified" becoming federal judges. That actually is unprecedented.

The ABA is not an objective source, its approval ratings are highly colored by its liberal political views. The underqualified young judge thing is just the end state of the gaming of the life tenure system, increasingly practiced by all parties and driven by the incentives associated with a highly politicized judiciary. (I’m sure we won’t agree on who started THAT lol) The Federalist Society is not a conspiracy, it’s a credible way for law students to signal Republican-aligned political views, and it’s a predictable and healthy response to the overwhelmingly left-wing perspective of the legal academy and the utter shamelessness of the ideological testing that goes on on the liberal side. Scalia famously hired clerks with liberal views to reduce the risk of group think; not common for progressive judges as I understand it.

[Anonymous]

They were fine when I was in law school. Not necessarily aligned with my political views but typically run-of-the-mill traditional conservatives who brought pretty interesting speakers to the school. It seems like they got pretty MAGA post-2016 and my friends who were in it agree.

[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.

NP. We're talking about people who had been out of law school about 8 years, getting appointed as judges and agency general counsel. People who the ABA rated "unqualified" becoming federal judges. That actually is unprecedented.

The ABA is not an objective source, its approval ratings are highly colored by its liberal political views. The underqualified young judge thing is just the end state of the gaming of the life tenure system, increasingly practiced by all parties and driven by the incentives associated with a highly politicized judiciary. (I’m sure we won’t agree on who started THAT lol) The Federalist Society is not a conspiracy, it’s a credible way for law students to signal Republican-aligned political views, and it’s a predictable and healthy response to the overwhelmingly left-wing perspective of the legal academy and the utter shamelessness of the ideological testing that goes on on the liberal side. Scalia famously hired clerks with liberal views to reduce the risk of group think; not common for progressive judges as I understand it.

Calling everything you dislike "liberal political views" is classic tactic, I guess, but a tired one. The ABA is a bastion of the status quo, prone to both-sidesim, and criticized for rating minority candidates lower. They are not leftists.

Reasonable people do not think a 30 year old with limited work experience is qualified to be a judge. You've explained why they were appointed so young, but that doesn’t make them qualified.

BTW, lawyers with no experience in practice shouldn't be law professors either, or agency SES. All these jobs require experience applying the law in the messy real world, and the humility and caution learned from there being consequences to your errors.

[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.

DP - I am happy to entertain the idea that this is happening on the left in much the same manner as the Federalist Society operates, but the plain truth is that there isn't any evidence of it. Which is why we are discussing the Federalist Society and not a made up organization that exists only to be your straw man.

[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.)

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.

Sorry you dislike the Biden Rule, partisan hack

Do you think saying these deeply stupid things is convincing ANYONE?

Democrats play worse politics with judges and it’s ridiculous to pretend otherwise. Bork. Miguel Estrada. The only deeply stupid thing here is you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They seem really neutral to me.

Same. Wish I had joined in law school. But I was caught up in Obamamania and didn’t get it.

LOL. This is idiotic. They are deeply opposed to the basic principles of American democracy.

You are majorly stereotypical FedSoc as an organization. FedSoc as an organization is not opposed to the basic principles of American democracy. Some FedSoc members may be. Should I call Democrats a bunch of socialists because a subset of them are?

[Anonymous]

/\ majorly stereotyping

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. We're talking about people who had been out of law school about 8 years, getting appointed as judges and agency general counsel. People who the ABA rated "unqualified" becoming federal judges. That actually is unprecedented.

The ABA is not an objective source, its approval ratings are highly colored by its liberal political views. The underqualified young judge thing is just the end state of the gaming of the life tenure system, increasingly practiced by all parties and driven by the incentives associated with a highly politicized judiciary. (I’m sure we won’t agree on who started THAT lol) The Federalist Society is not a conspiracy, it’s a credible way for law students to signal Republican-aligned political views, and it’s a predictable and healthy response to the overwhelmingly left-wing perspective of the legal academy and the utter shamelessness of the ideological testing that goes on on the liberal side. Scalia famously hired clerks with liberal views to reduce the risk of group think; not common for progressive judges as I understand it.

Calling everything you dislike "liberal political views" is classic tactic, I guess, but a tired one. The ABA is a bastion of the status quo, prone to both-sidesim, and criticized for rating minority candidates lower. They are not leftists.

Reasonable people do not think a 30 year old with limited work experience is qualified to be a judge. You've explained why they were appointed so young, but that doesn’t make them qualified.

BTW, lawyers with no experience in practice shouldn't be law professors either, or agency SES. All these jobs require experience applying the law in the messy real world, and the humility and caution learned from there being consequences to your errors.

DP. Your beef is with Trump not FedSoc for crying out loud. He’s the one picking the unqualified judges.