NYT: Debating the Subtle Sway of the Federalist Society (re: John Roberts for the Supreme Court)

New York Times ^ | August 1, 2005 | JASON DePARLE

[OESY]

...President Bush has repeatedly drawn from the Federalist Society for cabinet members, senior aides and judges. And perhaps to deflect what many conservatives call unfair attacks by liberals, the nominees have repeatedly claimed to know little about the group's beliefs....

Then an old directory surfaced last week, listing Judge Roberts as part of one of the group's steering committees. The White House spokesmen clung to their line; since Judge Roberts had not, apparently, written a $25 membership check, he was not a formal member.

Who cares? Lots of people, it seems, because a fight over the influence of the Federalist Society is a proxy in the war over the federal judiciary and the Constitution itself.

Remarkable in its growth and reach, the society was founded in 1982 by law students unhappy with what they saw as liberal dominance in law school faculties and the courts. It now claims 35,000 participants (some paying dues and some not) and has chapters in virtually every law school and in 60 cities. Part of the society's influence stems from its sponsorship of public debates, which hone and promote conservative points of view.

But much of the influence, and most of the intrigue, flows from an informal social network, which members use to advance one another's causes and careers. Openly and behind the scenes, members have played prominent roles in the most pitched political battles in recent years, including the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and the Florida recount fracas in 2000 that led to the election of Mr. Bush.

The society takes few official positions. But to some liberal critics, the activism of its members conjures all they fear about the legal right, from the defense of states' rights and business interests to attacks on affirmative action, gay rights and abortion....

[Wonder Warthog]

"Debating the Subtle Sway of the Federalist Society (re: John Roberts for the Supreme Court)"

As opposed to, for example, the very unsubtle bludgeon of the ACLU?? Geez, give me a break!!!!

[stoney]

Too bad this was a NYSlimes story and you only posted an excerpt. I would have liked to have read the rest of it.

[Unam Sanctam]

How come the New York Times doesn't run articles examining and analyzing the beliefs of the American Bar Association?

[The Electrician]

"Just because someone belongs to the Federalist Society does not inherently disqualify them," Mr. Neas said. "But it certainly raises a lot of questions about whether that individual adheres to the judicial philosophy of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia," who are not "mainstream conservatives," he said.

As if the left-wing extremist Neas is an authority on what it means to be a "mainstream conservative". Justices Thomas and Scalia are certainly mainstream conservatives, as is Rush Limbaugh (and a host of other "household names" that the left abhors). Neas probably believes that Mario Cuomo is a "mainstream conservative".

[CFC__VRWC]

Someone commented last week that he didn't know why the White House appeared to be running away from the Federalist Society in it's public campaign for John Roberts (incidentally, I thought that was one of the dumbest moves this administration has made). The comment was something like, "It's not like the Federalist Society is the Communist Party."

The media is now going all-out to make membership in these organizations equivalent in the eyes of the public.

[SpinyNorman]

It simply amazes me that Robert's membership in the Federalist Society can trump, or even equal, Justice Ginsberg's membership in the ACLU, as anti-American and anti-Constitutional a group as you can get!