With the Kavanaugh hearings underway and the Federalist Society on the cusp of completing their 30 year mission to turn the courts conservative with their hand-selected people, I’m feeling pretty dark.
The Daily’s episode from yesterday (https://www.nytimes.com/podcasts/the-daily) is a great history of The Federalist Society’s impact on the courts, culminating with their President, Leonard Leo, being given [by Trump] full control of appointing the 26 appellate judges and 2 Supreme Court justices, thus far:
For those into Deep State theories, The Federalist Society is Deep State in broad daylight. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society)
The Supreme Court and the Justice Department, is supposed to stand outside of politics. The White House is hiding 100,000 pages of Kavanaugh’s record during his time under Bush, records that would be released anyway (confidentiality expires) next year.
Long after Agent Orange is gone, this will be the legacy of his presidency.
mayjay last edited by
@approxinfinity Just another legacy of the Dem’s practice of nominating historically unpopular candidates just because they are viewed as ideologically pure in some fashion or to some vested branch of the party.
Dems routinely lop off anyone who looks threatening to the ideological purists. God forbid anyone ever made compromises with the other side, or had realized issues are complex. They have done it since the 60’s. The Repubs are doing much the same now, but their efforts may not be as suicidal because the Internet’s self-reinforcing-bias effect has created a means to keep the narratives churning along.
@mayjay I’m interested in a history lesson if you feel like entertaining my laziness and expounding on the history of the Democratic nominees. Was Merrick Garland too liberal?
Also, the Democrats don’t have anything similar to The Federalist Society normalizing the opinions of their candidates right?
mayjay last edited by mayjay
@approxinfinity Sorry, I was referring to presidential candidates. McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Hillary–a whole slew of stiff “I know better than you” candidates that cost the Dems the chance to name Sup Ct justices. (Carter won, but Ford was a sitting duck after pardoning Nixon, and although Ford was in fact a pretty decent guy, he appeared really dumb.) Obama was a unique exception, as was Bill Clinton, but both of them managed to lose Congress to the Repubs with short-sighted policies (causing Garland to be the ultimate casualty of a power play that was belated revenge for the abysmal treatment Bork received).
My point is if you can’t win elections and instead rely on court rulings for 5 decades to make policy, you will ultimately be unhappy for decades thereafter.
@JayHawkFanToo so this is an endorsement for Hillary Clinton in the eyes of conservatives right? Wait… A knock against Brett Kavanaugh… Hold on, this is aimed at liberals to make Kavanaugh appealing… But… real liberals hate Hillary too… I’m all confused. Nobody liked Hillary so nobody should like Kavanaugh and so this lady is just weird, right?
This is just pillow talk. The fact of the matter is that Kavanaugh is a Federalist Society product and it’s very clear where he stands and he’s not going to go Sandra Day O’Conner on us when Roe v. Wade gets challenged or Affirmative Action gets challenged.
Come on, you can do better than that. She is an extremely well known and competent attorney (argued 35 case in the Supreme and won 33 of them) and happens to be an Obama, Hillary supporter and very liberal whose idol is Justice Ginsburg, the most liberal Justice in recent memory and yet, she believes judge Kavanaugh is well qualified, “I am Spartacus” buffoonery moments notwithstanding.
As far as the Federalist Society, from the link you posted…
The society asserts that 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."
Lawyers wanting to follow the Constitution, imagine that…oh the horror…
You know that there are many other comparable groups that advocate for liberal causes, right?
@JayHawkFanToo I’d be happy to hear what groups you think are comparable to the Federalist Society and liberal. Show me a liberal organization that cultivates liberal judges from college all the way to the Supreme Court.
Anyway, my point was that we know where Kavanaugh stands. You can window dress him, call him a great baseball coach, or cart out someone on the liberal side willing to shill for him. That doesn’t change a thing.
Try The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.
@JayHawkFanToo hmm. Good find.
The group’s stated mission is to "promote the vitality of the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental values it expresses: individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, access to justice, democracy and the rule of law."
Hmm. Imagine that. Lawyers wanting to uphold the Constitution. Oh the horror. Lol
You really don’t see the difference between the two definitions?
DoubleDD Banned last edited by
You don’t get it do you? Roe versus Wade is never going away. The supreme court could be stacked with the far rightest judges that you can find and it’s still not going away.
It’s just like Gun rights they’re not going away. Doesn’t matter how many far leaning leftist you can find Gun Rights aren’t going away.
These issues are used by both the left and the Right to rally their bases. Ever Notice with every election the Dems and the Reps bring out these issues. Like somehow this is the election that will change everything. Yet it never changes.
Its really sad.
@JayHawkFanToo yes, I do see the difference. I was just trolling you. Literal vs interpretive, I suppose. Both sound like BS.
@DoubleDD Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land according to Kavanaugh. So you and I can agree that this is BS that he doesn’t believe. Good. We may be getting somewhere.
I was thinking along the lines of constitutionalists versus activists…but we all see things differently.