(Longtime HN lurker and FedSoc member/leader, although speaking for just myself here.)
The Federalist Society's entire annual convention was just broadcast online this past week,[0] and it's pretty typical of the Society's activities: hosting panels, debates, and speeches on the law featuring a wide breadth of views. If the Federalist Society is some kind of "conspiracy"—one that you can join today, for fifty bucks!—then so is pretty much every other civic organization in existence.
It isn't a conspiracy. It is the organization most at fault for mitch's anti-democratic actions regarding the supreme court that I honestly believe has the potential to completely undermine our government. The supreme court's move to a completely partisan institution is a huge step toward a populist dictatorship. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/supreme-revenge/
It depends pretty much entirely on how you define "conspiracy". Eg "conspiracy to commit murder" (or election fraud or something, more topically) doesn't require secrecy at all (except in order to be successful, maybe) while "conspiracy theory" (when it's not being abused to the point of meaninglessness to dismiss legitimate accusations) is specifically based on the implausability of many thousands of people not just keeping a secret, but concealing any evidence that there even is a secret.
Plenty of things are conspiracies in the "conspiracy to commit murder" sense, without being conspiracies in the "conspiracy theory" sense.
The supreme court partisanship is overstated. It's brought out all the time as though the sky is falling, but typically when the court is tilted, side-switching magically appears.
Roberts, Gorsuch, Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter all switched sides on major issues. Conservatives switch sides a lot more often, but perhaps because the court has been tilted towards Republican nominees.
Sure, but partisanship is getting much worse. The precedent has now been set to completely reject any nomination from the opposing party. That will lead to even more partisanship as nominating "moderates" no longer makes sense. We're in for a future of nothing but Alito's and Thomas's.
In the past that has been true. But if every confirmation from now on is as partisan as Alito and Thomas are(who as far as I'm aware almost never rule against republican causes) that will soon cease to be the case.
I don't see how Alito and Thomas show a trend here. Roberts joined after Thomas and Gorsuch joined after Alito, and both have a more independent record.
Among the Democrat appointees, Kagan has a more independent record than Sotomayor but came afterward.
I know there are counterexamples but my point is that there's not an obvious trend toward more partisan justices, or at least no evidence has been presented so far in this thread.
Partisanship in the nomination process, sure, but it remains to be seen if the more recent nominees will be impartial judges. After all, several court decisions have already not gone the way the gop wanted.
It does indeed remain to be seen—but those recent cases were completely ludicrous! That some semblance of logic remains does not help me sleep at night.
>typically when the court is tilted, side-switching magically appears
For people like me, I don't care what "side" a justice is on. The justices literally choose which cases they accept... Of course there will be some debate on them.
What I find absolutely horrid is that the courts are packed with nominees hand selected by a group of US senators who not only cannot represent the majority of the US population/citizenry, but are also actively antagonistic toward people's will to determine their own future (see obstructionism by McConnell during the Obama years).
"Packed" is a loaded term in the context of the courts. I assume you just mean there are a lot of Republican apointees.
Part of the job of the Senate is to represent the minority. They typically aren't the starting place for major legislation, but often slow down or heavily amend it.
You could argue that the minority should have no power at all, I suppose. Democrats used a similar argument to remove the judicial filibuster, which was a great idea right until they became the minority in the Senate.
That's really the big lesson that people never seem to learn about democracy: you'll be in the minority at some point, so get protections/obstacles in place while you're in the majority, or you'll regret it sooner than you think.
Minority in the Senate means something completely different from reality. Count how many people voted for D senators and how many people voted for R senators. Then count how many judicial appointments D presidents have made and how many R presidents have made (in the last 20 years).
The math is transparent.
The filibuster is just something the senate made up. It does not exist in the constitution, so it is not a true obstacle. The R senators would have gotten rid of it anyway. It doesn't even protect the Senate "minority".
And the Senate's job is to prevent people from determining their own future. It was championed by anti-democracy activists like Alexander Hamilton. I hope it no longer exists by the time I perish.
There are a lot of Republican appointees because the Republicans have been playing political hardball with judicial nominations for decades. The Democrats eliminated judicial filibusters because Republicans were attempting to prevent Obama from getting any judges on the bench in the two years the Democrats had the Senate. Then they lost the Senate and the Republicans simply stopped allowing Obama to get judges on the bench, creating a huge backlog which they could fill when Trump took the presidency. Then they eliminated the blue slip rule to further weaken any control the Democrats might have over the process. And they have expanded state courts, a.k.a "packed them". All of this has the same practical consequence: controlling policy outcomes you can't win through elections by nullifying them in the courts.
Sure, this is a lesson about democracy. It's a lesson about how to subvert democracy.
Are any of them advocating the seizure of the means of production for the workers? Abolish the state or private property? Devolve control into local worker's councils or other non-hierarchical means of decision-making?
The US, in general, does not have any non-conservative judiciary. Stare decisis by itself ensures that there is a strong conservative streak in the available pool of jurists. So yes, the Supreme court has center-left (Sotomayor), centrist (Breyer, Kagan), center-right(Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch), and reactionaries (Alito and Thomas), but nobody as far "left" as it has "right".
Historically, for example, William O. Douglas was about as left as the court has gotten, and he was more in favor of environmentalism and ending the Vietnam war than really aggressive left wing concepts.
The original claim was that thr Supreme Court has become highly partisan. The fact that justices switch sides and join with appointees of the opposite party is evidence against that claim.
Now you're bringing up a different claim, which is that the two major parties don't really represent a variety of ideas. That's a fine claim to make, but it doesn't contradict my point.
My point is that there is no "switch sides", because there are only 1.5 sides. Also, partisanship isn't the only force determining outcomes in the supreme court, it's just the most important one for many purposes.
The other major shift is actually more along the axis of social libertarian vs authoritarian, which is not as clearly divided as "republican vs democrat", especially considering the late RBG was clearly an authoritarian in some respects, despite being fairly left of center.
Taking any of this as evidence that the court is non-partisan is pretty incorrect: They're consistently partisan in clearly obvious ways, even controlling for other issues.
> Are any of them advocating the seizure of the means of production for the workers? Abolish the state or private property? Devolve control into local worker's councils or other non-hierarchical means of decision-making?
Are any of them arguing for an ethnostate? For shipping non-whites "back to where they came from"? For re-establishing anti-miscegenation laws?
Your perspective is absurd. Of course the court has a left wing. It's just not radical enough for your liking and, similarly, the court's right wing isn't radical enough for David Duke's liking.
Concentration camps and prison slavery not right wing enough for you? Just because it's commonplace here doesn't mean it's not extremely right wing. I don't think we need to get to full scale ethnic cleansing to be considered right wing. Voter disenfranchisement alone is something you rarely see outside of full on authoritarian dictatorships.
To be generous and read between the lines, the Supreme Court eventually comes around to opinions that agree with a majority of Americans.The idea of it as an apolitical organization is to ignore reality.
FedSoc has a well known reputation for being a nice civic organization for the legal profession and also endorsing the most radical right wing supreme court nominees. Without the broad acceptance by the legal community, it wouldn't be as effective.
While we might disagree over who's a "radical right wing" nominee, it's indisputable that the Federalist Society hasn't endorsed any nominee for any position.
" Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.
This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community."
Conspiracies don't have to be spoken in hushed words in smoke-filled rooms to be conspiracies. Nothing about redlining, for instance, was particularly secret, but it was still a conspiracy.
> If the Federalist Society is some kind of "conspiracy"—one that you can join today, for fifty bucks!—then so is pretty much every other civic organization in existence.
The connotation of secrecy with the work "conspiracy" is only one definition. "Conspiracy" and "conspire" have the same root:
> A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective.[1] A conspiracy may also refer to a group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act.
> This is a list of political conspiracies. In a political context, a conspiracy refers to a group of people united in the goal of damaging, usurping, or overthrowing an established political power. Typically, the final goal is to gain power through a revolutionary coup d'état or through assassination. A conspiracy can also be used for infiltration of the governing system.
The Federalist Society's entire annual convention was just broadcast online this past week,[0] and it's pretty typical of the Society's activities: hosting panels, debates, and speeches on the law featuring a wide breadth of views. If the Federalist Society is some kind of "conspiracy"—one that you can join today, for fifty bucks!—then so is pretty much every other civic organization in existence.
[0] https://fedsoc.org/conferences/2020-national-lawyers-convent...