Author Topic: Clarence Thomas Clerks & the White House  (Read 1084 times)

Offline Hypestyle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 5921
  • Intellectual Conqueror
    • View Profile
    • Hypestyle's Homebase
Clarence Thomas Clerks & the White House
« on: August 03, 2017, 12:14:34 pm »

There’s a reason Clarence Thomas writes so many solo dissents and concurrences. The second-longest-tenured justice on the Supreme Court has spent more than 25 years staking out a right-wing worldview that can generously be described as idiosyncratic. Thomas’ Constitution is one that gives a president at war the powers of a king while depriving Congress of any meaningful ability to regulate the country. His opposition to the very existence of much of the federal regulatory state, too, has never quite found five votes on the court. No other justice, except perhaps Neil Gorsuch if he continues down his current path, would carry his conservative principles to such an extreme position with regard to presidential authority and congressional constraint.

Now a judge who’s spent his career teetering off the right edge of the federal bench finds himself at the center of the table. Thomas was on hand at the inauguration to swear in Vice President Mike Pence, using the same Bible that Ronald Reagan used when he was sworn in for both of his terms as president. But Thomas is more than just the Trump administration’s philosophical hero. His once-fringy ideas are suddenly flourishing—not only on the high court, through his alliance with Gorsuch, but also in the executive branch.

Donald Trump’s crude understanding of the United States government aligns startlingly well with Thomas’ sophisticated political worldview. The president’s belief that the commander in chief can wage war in whatever way he wishes corresponds neatly to Thomas’ theory of the “unitary executive,” and his visceral hostility to the Affordable Care Act dovetails with Thomas’ abhorrence of the federal social safety net. The two men also share an absolutist opposition to gun control, a belief that the government may favor and promote Christianity over other faiths, a deep skepticism of the elite academic establishment, and a nostalgia for the perceived America of yesteryear. Both take a hard-line stance against illegal immigration and show little concern for the rights of individuals accused of terrorism. Thomas is a thinker and Trump is a feeler, but together they have arrived at similar conclusions. They want less government, a more authoritarian executive, more God, fewer racial entitlements, and more guns.

While Trump may share Thomas’ intuitions, he is far too witless to grasp, let alone implement, the justice’s complex theories of law. And save for the occasional ruling in the administration’s favor, there isn’t much Thomas can do directly to guide the course of Trump’s presidency. Nevertheless, the justice’s fingerprints are all over the executive branch. That’s because he’s trained a small army of acolytes to implement his larger project of shrinking the regulatory state and fighting back against the supposed chokehold of political correctness. (It’s exactly this scourge of “political correctness,” both Trump and Thomas would have you believe, that allowed claims of improper sexual conduct to briefly overshadow their professional accomplishments.)

Everywhere you turn in Trumpland, you’ll find a slew of Thomas’ former clerks in high places. They are serving in the White House counsel’s office (Greg Katsas, John Eisenberg, David Morrell); awaiting appointment to the federal judiciary (Allison H. Eid, David Stras); leading the departments of the Treasury (Heath P. Tarbert, Sigal Mandelker) and Transportation (Steven G. Bradbury); defending the travel ban in court (Jeffrey Wall); and heading the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (Neomi Rao). Thomas clerks are also working with dark money groups to execute Trump’s agenda (Carrie Severino) and boosting him in the far-right media (Laura Ingraham).
Jeffrey Wall 

Former Thomas clerk Jeffrey Wall is now Trump’s acting solicitor general.

Department of Justice

In an era in which former clerks seem, on balance, to be drifting away from Washington jobs, a whole lot of members of the old Thomas crew are moving back home. It’s near impossible to count every former Supreme Court clerk who is now playing a role in the sprawling executive branch, but it’s easy to see that an enormous number of Thomas protégés are stepping into positions of immense power. Every expert we spoke to, among them the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin, agreed the Trump administration has brought on a striking number of Thomas clerks.

To be sure, a number of clerks who trained under Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and other conservative justices have taken jobs with the government. But Stephen Vladeck, who teaches law at the University of Texas and serves as a Supreme Court analyst for CNN, says it’s instructive to compare the career paths of clerks who worked for Thomas and those who served under Scalia. The latter, Vladeck says, have gravitated more toward the conservative establishment—institutions like law schools and legal foundations. The Thomas clerks, who have “a bit more of a libertarian or populist streak,” are a more logical fit for the key legal jobs serving the Trump White House. It is the Thomas alums that have risen to prominence in the past six months, and they are working zealously to put their mentor’s ideas into action.

Consider Wall, Trump’s acting solicitor general, who left his law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, to join the administration. Wall is the attorney who, back in May, so adroitly argued the travel ban case before the lower federal appeals courts and aggressively litigated the case in pleadings this summer at the Supreme Court. It was Wall who insisted on the “presumption of regularity” in the litigation, cautioning the judges to focus on the long tradition of deference to executive authority—especially in the realm of national security—and to ignore Trump’s incendiary tweets and campaign statements.

Wall has said that the judges for whom he has clerked are still his “close friends.” Perhaps most significantly, at an event last year celebrating Thomas’ 25th anniversary on the court, Wall defended the justice’s singular relevance and influence, rejecting any criticism that Thomas hasn’t had a profound impact on the court as “pernicious and wrongheaded.” (He’s quite right about that; liberals consistently underestimate Thomas’ influence.) Describing his former boss as an “intellectual catalyst,” Wall said that Thomas “is content to sow ideas that result later in changes in the law.”

That’s precisely the influence we are now seeing at work across the federal government. In arguing the travel ban cases, Wall insisted that limiting Muslim immigrants’ access to the United States does not amount to unlawful animus, that the president must have near-total authority to control the nation’s borders, and that his decisions must not be second-guessed by the courts. These are classic Thomas principles, and the justice himself embraced them in a partial dissent when the court allowed only part of the ban to take effect.

Thomas’ influence can also be seen in the work of Neomi Rao, whom the Senate recently confirmed to lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Until her appointment as Trump’s regulatory czar, Rao served as a professor at George Mason University’s law school—an institution that, at Rao’s urging, was recently renamed in honor of Antonin Scalia. Rao has devoted her academic career to criticizing the administrative state—the web of agencies and committees that promulgate federal regulations. Her attacks on the government sit at the intersection of two quintessential Thomas principles: an aversion to regulations (especially labor and environmental rules) and a hostility toward limits on executive authority.
Neomi Rao 

Former Thomas clerk Neomi Rao is set to lead the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Screenshot via YouTube

Rao believes, for instance, that independent agencies are unconstitutional. These commissions—which include the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Communications Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Federal Reserve—flourish in part because they are removed from political pressures. Rao would like to change that. She believes that since these agencies are part of the executive branch, the president must be empowered to fire and replace their leaders.

 Thomas sees his clerks as trainees in a very specific ideological program.

It seems extremely likely that Rao has been placed in her perch at OIRA not only to bust traditional agency regulations but also to bring independent agency rules under her purview. While her office does not currently review rules by independent agencies, she has argued that it should. Thomas has strongly suggested that all agencies within the executive branch, independent or not, must ultimately be accountable to the president. If Rao gives herself veto power over these agencies’ rules, she will bring Thomas’ vision a step closer to the reality. In the process, she could nullify whatever vestiges of liberalism are still lingering from the Obama era. For example, the EEOC recently took the position that federal law protects gay employees, directly contradicting Trump’s Justice Department. If Rao’s view wins out, Trump could fire as many EEOC commissioners as he needs to in order to reverse the agency’s position. Thomas, who takes a dim view of nondiscrimination law and gay rights, would be doubly proud.

The justice must already be delighted at the work of his former clerk Allison Eid, whom Trump has nominated to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Eid currently serves on the Colorado Supreme Court, where she established her conservative bona fides by dissenting from a ruling that prohibited the state from sending public funds to private religious schools. The court’s decision was compelled by the Colorado Constitution, which bars the government from spending “any public fund or moneys … to help support or sustain any school … controlled by any church or sectarian denomination.” But according to Eid, this constitutional bar on public funding of parochial schools was likely motivated by unconstitutional animus toward religion—even though its plain text indicates nothing more than a desire to observe the separation of church and state.

Eid’s dissent, which she wrote in 2015, maps neatly onto Thomas’ own concurrence in 2017’s Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. In Trinity, the court ruled that Missouri could not deny a grant to a Christian school solely on account of its “religious character.” (A day after the court decided Trinity, it vacated the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision on parochial schools, effectively vindicating Eid’s dissent.) Thomas asserted that the court had not gone far enough in Trinity: He wrote that the government may never “discriminate against religion” by refusing to subsidize houses of worship and sectarian programs. Thomas, like Eid, appears to believe that when a state declines to fund religious activity—even out of respect for the Establishment Clause—it engages in unconstitutional discrimination. When Eid is confirmed, he will gain a critical ally in his fight for ever-more entanglement between church and state. And she will be the first of many Trump picks who are as immutable in their views as their former bosses. This is a movement and a cause, not just constitutional theory.
Allison H. Eid 

Trump has nominated former Thomas clerk Allison H. Eid to the 10th Circuit.

Joe Amon/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Thomas, who has described his clerks as his “little family,” sees them as trainees in a very specific ideological program. He famously invites them to watch The Fountainhead at his home each year and has taken them on annual trips to Gettysburg to reflect on what he views as the conservative lessons of the Civil War. He also tutors his clerks on his judicial philosophy, instilling in them a profound reverence for his own vision of the rule of law.

It’s no surprise that so many of Thomas’ clerks share a belief system with their former boss, and with each other. Thomas is known to be ideologically rigid when it comes to hiring (and in everything else). Prior to 2013, every clerk he’d brought on during his Supreme Court tenure had first served under an appellate-level judge who’d been appointed by a Republican president.* Even Scalia occasionally hired “counter-clerks,” liberal-leaning men and women who had clerked for Democratic appointees on lower courts. Thomas has expressed no interest in this kind of ideological diversity. (To his credit, he does value educational diversity, intentionally hiring clerks from lower-ranked schools. Compare that with Scalia, who was openly biased against schools outside the T14.)

 Trump’s reactionary view of conservatism is causing a schism at the Supreme Court.

Like all justices, Thomas tends to get his clerks from a handful of feeder judges. Thomas’ chief feeders are J. Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, Laurence Silberman and David Sentelle of the D.C. Circuit, Edith Jones of the 5th Circuit, and William Pryor of the 11th Circuit—all rock-ribbed conservatives except for Wilkinson, who has recently drifted to the center. By drawing from this pool, Thomas ensures he won’t hear many progressive counterpoints to his conservative instincts. And that’s OK with him. Thomas has said that picking clerks is like “selecting mates in a foxhole,” explaining: “I won’t hire clerks who have profound disagreements with me. It’s like trying to train a pig. It wastes your time, and it aggravates the pig.”

While Thomas is famously one of the most personable justices on the high court—the stories of his generosity to former clerks and court staff are myriad—he has also cultivated a with-us-or-against-us mindset that owes more to AM radio than George Will, and that maps perfectly onto Trump’s Fox News–inflected worldview. Thomas is close buddies with Rush Limbaugh (he officiated at Limbaugh’s third wedding) as well as fringe radio dogmatist Mark Levin. Georgetown law professor Peter Edelman has described him as “the Tea Party of the Supreme Court.”
Donald Trump and Clarence Thomas 

President Trump shakes hands with Justice Clarence Thomas at the U.S. Capitol at the inauguration on Jan. 20.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Thomas does not travel in the same conservative legal circles as John Roberts. Throughout his campaign, Trump derided the chief justice as an open traitor to the conservative project, explaining that “what he did with Obamacare was disgraceful.” Trump called Roberts a “nightmare for conservatives” in January 2016 and claimed that he writes like a “dummy.” He has described Thomas, meanwhile, as his favorite justice, calling him “very strong and consistent.” We also know from a leaked email sent to the Daily Beast in February that Thomas’ wife, Ginni Thomas, tried to organize conservative activists to defend Trump’s initial travel ban. This political activism did not preclude Thomas from participating in the court’s travel ban decisions, in which he has twice supported the president. There is a long-standing debate about whether Ginni Thomas’ political activities might affect her husband’s votes.

At the very least, the fact that she openly aligns herself with Trump—even as the rest of the justices try to ignore the unseemliness of it all—reflects his comfort with the Trumpian worldview.

It feels increasingly evident that Trump’s reactionary view of conservatism is causing a schism at the Supreme Court. Over the past two terms, a split has opened up between the two center-right justices, Roberts and Kennedy, and the three far-right justices, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas. One explanation for the trend is that the center of the court is distancing itself from the hard-right crusaders, whom Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono recently dubbed “the three horsemen of the apocalypse.” This rift, if it continues, presages a possible split between the kinds of judges and justices Trump prefers—polemicists and bomb throwers—and the more traditional movement conservatives who have historically populated the federal bench. If Trump seeds the lower courts with judges like Allison Eid who share Thomas’ views, he stands to reshape the country for decades. That means that long after the Cabinet appointees and White House lawyers leave the scene, constitutional law will bear the thumbprints of Thomas and his clerks. Thanks to Trump, Thomas’ ideas—about the unitary executive, the wall between church and state, and so much more—will now surely outlive both men.

Both Trump and Thomas have spent decades as the brunt of liberal jokes and slights. Both see themselves as innocent victims of women and interest groups that have fabricated claims against them. Both have seen their ideas slip from the very fringes of political discourse into the ascendancy.

Now, Thomas stands as a symbol of what a faltering, lawless Trump may yet accomplish—if his supporters can turn a blind eye on the faltering lawlessness. At the precise moment in which the more than 120 vacancies on the federal courts may be the only reason for conservatives to hold their noses and stand by Trump, it’s Clarence Thomas who stands as a living embodiment of wars already won and triumphs yet to come.

 Top image: Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Steve Petteway, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States and iStock.

 *Correction, Aug. 3, 2017: This story originally misstated that during his Supreme Court tenure, Clarence Thomas had never hired a clerk who’d served under a judge appointed by a president from the opposite party. Before 2013, Thomas had not brought on a clerk who’d worked under an appellate-level judge appointed by a Democrat.
Be Kind to Someone Today.

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 10098
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Clarence Thomas Clerks & the White House
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2019, 01:23:29 pm »
Wednesday, 26th June 2019
Today’s Opinion on Deference to Agency Interpretations of Agency Rules
by Ed Whelan

By a 5-4 vote in Kisor v. Wilkie, the Supreme Court today declined to reject so-called Auer deference,* the judicial practice of deferring to a federal agency’s reasonable reading of its own regulations.

Stated at this very general level, the ruling might sound like a significant defeat for those seeking to rein in the administrative state.

But in revisiting what Auer deference means, Justice Kagan’s majority opinion goes so far to cabin it that there may be little or no operational difference between her reconception of Auer deference and Justice Gorsuch’s flat-out rejection of it.

In short, if this is a loss, I wish that many other losses over the years had been so minor.

1. Let’s take a look at the positions of the various justices:

a. Kagan’s lead opinion garnered a majority—herself, her three liberal colleagues, and the Chief Justice—for most of its parts, but lost the Chief Justice on two parts.

In one majority portion (Part II-B) of her opinion, Kagan set forth several limits on the application of Auer deference.

First, “the possibility of deference can arise only if a regulation is genuinely ambiguous, … even after a court has resorted to all the standard tools of interpretation.”

Second, even where a rule is genuinely ambiguous, a court, in deciding whether to accord Auer deference to the agency reading, “must make an independent inquiry into whether the character and context of the agency interpretation entitles it to controlling weight.”

(Emphasis added.)

“The inquiry on this dimension does not reduce to any exhaustive test.” But some essential ingredients include whether the agency reading is actually the agency’s authoritative position;

Would You Like To Know More?

* Not to be confused with Chevron deference, the judicial practice of deferring to a federal agency’s reasonable reading of a statute that it is charged with administering.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 01:26:00 pm by Battle »

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 10098
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Clarence Thomas Clerks & the White House
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2019, 03:26:28 pm »
Monday, 17th June 2019
Clarence Thomas calls for abandoning 'demonstrably erroneous' precedent, touching off Roe v. Wade speculation
by Gregg Re

In a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court case announced Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a lengthy call for his colleagues to overturn "demonstrably erroneous decisions" even if they have been upheld for decades -- prompting legal observers to say Thomas was laying the groundwork to overturn the seminal 1973 case Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion.

Thomas' blunt opinion came in Gamble v. United States, a case concerning the so-called "double-jeopardy" doctrine, which generally prohibits an individual from being charged twice for the same crime.

But both pro-life and pro-choice advocates quickly noted the implications of his reasoning for a slew of other future cases, including a potential revisiting of Roe.

"When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple:

We should not follow it," Thomas wrote, noting that lower federal courts should also disregard poor precedents.

Thomas went on to add that precedent "may remain relevant when it is not demonstrably erroneous."

Kristen Clarke, the President and Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told Fox News that Thomas' comments were part of a larger attack on abortion rights.

"One can't ignore the timing of Justice Thomas's concurring opinion which comes at a moment when we are seeing a coordinated and relentless attack on Roe v. Wade across the country," Clarke said.

"The laws that have been adopted in several states violate the Court's settled precedent in Roe. In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas has made clear his willingness to reject precedents that he personally deems incorrect, a position that unnecessarily politicizes the Court."

"Justice Thomas's view is fundamentally at odds with the way in which the Supreme Court has generally operated," Clarke added.

"It is a view that threatens to further undermine the integrity of the Court and weaken the stability of the institution."

Neal Katyal, a Georgetown Law professor and former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, warned that Thomas' reasoning could have far-reaching implications.

"Justice Thomas is essentially laying the intellectual groundwork for a massive revisiting of settled precedents," Katyal wrote.

"This can prove to be very, very dangerous."

Thomas' argument began by noting that the role of federal courts is primarily to uphold the Constitution above all else -- and if that means overturning long-held precedents set by other federal courts, Thomas wrote, so be it.

"The Constitution tasks the political branches—not the Judiciary—with systematically developing the laws that govern our society," Thomas wrote.

"The Court’s role, by contrast, is to exercise the 'Judicial Power,' faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the laws enacted by those branches."

English common law, Thomas said, relied on a precedent-focused principle called "stare decisis," meaning "let the decision stand."

But unlike English common law, Thomas asserted, "we operate in a system of written law in which courts need not—and generally cannot—articulate the law in the first instance."

Thomas went on to address several counter-arguments, including the idea that precedent allows for more consistent legal determinations, and more certainty for litigants. He cited, for example, arguments to that effect by Justice Stephen Breyer in previous cases.

"As I see it, we would eliminate a significant amount of uncertainty and provide the very stability sought if we replaced our malleable balancing test with a clear, principled rule grounded in the meaning of the text," Thomas countered.

"The true irony of our modern stare decisis doctrine lies in the fact that proponents of stare decisis tend to invoke it most fervently when the precedent at issue is least defensible."

Thomas concluded:

"In my view, if the Court encounters a decision that is demonstrably erroneous—i.e., one that is not a permissible interpretation of the text—the Court should correct the error, regardless of whether other factors support overruling the precedent. ... A demonstrably incorrect judicial decision ... is tantamount to making law, and adhering to it both disregards the supremacy of the Constitution and perpetuates a usurpation of the legislative power."

Throughout the day, analysts noted that Thomas' reasoning could potentially affect more than the abortion debate.

Wrote Slate legal analyst Mark Stern: "[Thomas'] repudiation of stare decisis isn’t really about Gamble. It’s aimed at a clear set of precedents—those enshrining a constitutional right to abortion access and same-sex marriage."

Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Entin, in an interview with Reuters, remarked, “Everyone is concerned about this because they’re thinking about Roe v. Wade.”

Thomas, in the Gamble case, ended up joining the court's 7-2 majority in ruling that individuals can be prosecuted by both the state and the federal government for the same crime, without violating the constitution's double jeopardy rule.

The idea, backed by decades of precedent, is that the states and federal government are separate sovereign entities, and that a crime against one is distinct from a crime against the other.

Therefore, both the state and federal government can prosecute an individual for the same behavior.

That precedent, Thomas ruled, was not demonstrably erroneous, and therefore the majority was justified in following it.

Only the unusual pairing of Neil Gorsuch and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, saying that argument was essentially a loophole to circumvent the Constitution's prohibition against double jeopardy.

"A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it's happy with the result," Gorsuch wrote.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito was more deferential to precedent than was Thomas, saying "special justification" is needed to overturn precedent, even where the Constitution would serve as a lodestar.

Nevertheless, Alito noted that "the strength of the case for adhering to [previous] decisions grows in proportion to their ‘antiquity,'" meaning that newer precedents are less secure than older ones.

Monday's opinion was Thomas' second in as many months to hearten pro-life advocates.

In May, Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in a separate case that the Supreme Court would soon have to address the constitutionality of pro-life abortion laws head-on.

The justices, by a 7-2 vote in that case, upheld an Indiana law requiring the cremation or burial of fetal remains -- but they declined to take up the constitutionality of a law that would have barred abortion based on disability, sex, or race.

"Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation," Thomas wrote,

"the court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana's," Thomas wrote.

"From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics."

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 10098
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Clarence Thomas Clerks & the White House
« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2019, 01:58:04 pm »
Tuesday, 3rd September 2019
Newly Released Documents Show Conservative Judges Are Violating Ethics Guidelines By Appearing At Federalist Society Events
by Elie Mystal

The Federalist Society is a political organization and the only people who won’t say that are willfully ignorant or actively lying.

It is beyond obvious that the group does not merely exist to “debate” conservative and libertarian legal theories; it exists to advocate for specific political and legal outcomes in line with their policy agenda.

The only reason Federalist Society even maintains a facade of being a non-partisan organization is so the judges —  and lawyers who want to be judges — can support the Federalist Society, show up at their events, and maintain an intellectually dishonest stance that they’re just there for the lobster rolls.

An old letter from Federalist Society President Eugene Meyer, unearthed in the papers of Robert Bork and reported on in Politico, show plainly that the Federalist Society is, and always has been, a political organization with a specific policy agenda:

"Federalist Society documents that one of us recently unearthed, however, make this position untenable going forward.

The documents, made public here for the first time, show that the society not only has held explicit ideological goals since its infancy in the early 1980s, but sought to apply those ideological goals to legal policy and political issues through the group’s roundtables, symposia and conferences…

But the newly unearthed documents—a 1984 grant proposal and cover letter, written by Meyer on the Federalist Society’s behalf and now housed in the late Judge Robert Bork’s papers at the Library of Congress—provide evidence that the Federalist Society, in contravention of what the new Code states, in fact “advocates for specific outcomes on legal or political issues.”

This suggests that federal judges, by attending Federalist Society events, are transgressing the Code’s new guidelines. Given the importance of active federal judges to the Federalist Society’s long-term goal of reshaping the law, barring them from the society’s events could hamper its continued ability to exert the political influence it has impressively built over decades…

The Federalist Society promised the prospective donor that the Lawyers Division would have a “dual purpose.” First, to “an even greater extent than the activities of the student and faculty divisions,” the new division would “educat[e] lawyers on legal developments with ideological connotations and how to deal with them.”

The second purpose was “the formation of groups of conservative lawyers in the major centers for the practice of law, who feel comfortable believing in, and advocating, conservative positions.”

The division, Meyer wrote, would mimic the style of workshops and seminars hosted by bar associations:
“Unlike those events, however, the panels will also have ideological overtones, picking topics where the developments are especially good and should be encouraged, or especially bad and should be stopped.” The proposal offered examples of these workshops.

Seattle might focus on the problems posed by “Environmental Regulation”; in New York, “Banking Regulation”; and in Houston, “Employment Discrimination (including the question of whether reverse discrimination is even constitutional).” The proposal also mentioned the Lawyers Division potentially “making its own recommendation for judicial appointments.”

Simply put, when the Federalist Society was describing its mission in private to a politically sympathetic donor, it let drop the group’s public-facing fiction that it is merely a debating society for the organic development of ideas."

Acting like the Federalist Society tries to hide the ball here is actually giving them too much credit.

The FedSoc’s secret isn’t that it is subtle, it’s that most people don’t understand what it does.

They’re basically like leopards, an apex predator that most people will never see.

Right now they’re up in a tree, eating the remains of our judicial system, while people on the ground react to puppetine like he’s the Chupacabra.

You didn’t need a 1984 grant application to tell you that.

Which is also why it won’t matter.

Conservatives have long since stopped pretending that they are restrained by ethics in pursuit of their supremacist ideology.

They want to deny equal rights to blacks, gays, and women.

They know that in order to accomplish that, they have to reinterpret the Constitution along its original lines which protected the rights of wealthy whites and no one else.

They are close to total victory.

That victory is being achieved by getting an army of conservatives jurists to be picked directly by the Federalist Society based on their level of indoctrination and willingness to abandon settled precedent in favor of the Federalist Society’s agenda.

They don’t give a damn about judicial ethics.

If they did, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh wouldn’t have jobs from which they can never be fired.

The Federalist Society will shrug off this memo like Cersei Lannister shrugged off Robert Baratheon’s last will and testament.

The only guiding ideology of the Federalist Society is winning — which is why they win.

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William Pryor is speaking at a Federalist Society event this Thursday.

He was on the shortlist to replace both Merrick Garland and Anthony Kennedy, and while he is a fire-breathing conservative asshole, some have worried if he’s fully committed to the Federalist Society’s agenda.

You think he’d risk pissing these people off by not speaking at their events?


If he wants to be on the Supreme Court one day, these are the people he has to impress.

And he knows it.

And I know it.

And Federalist Society knows it.

And anybody who is paying attention yet claims to not know it is full of crap.

Would You Like To Know More?