Reply to Lawyers: what do you think of Federalist Society today?

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Lawyers: what do you think of Federalist Society today?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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 [i]really[/i] 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 [i]ideas[/i]. 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 [b]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[/b]. 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.[/quote]

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???[/quote]

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.)[/quote]

+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.  [/quote]

You act like that isn’t true on both sides.  Reality bites.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]

“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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics