Leahy was the dem who was known for his staunch opposition to Federalist Society members serving in the Judiciary. After Hillary's election, she became the most vocal and has publicly stated that the Federalist Society is the cornerstone of the VRWC conspiracy, that they are intending on "rolling back the New Deal".
Briefly, the dems base this conspiracy on those feddies working for Reagan influencing the Reagan Whitehouse when the investor protection languge that would become NAFTA Chap 11 was composed. After these investor protections have spread thru-out the western hemisphere via all the FTAs, there will exist duel set of conflicting regulatory laws. Once that happens, the dems say, a Supreme Ct dominated by the Federalist Society would find a case in which they would rule that 90% of the regulatory law that the dems created in the 20th century to be un-constitutional.
This is why the dems have been most opposed to Bush's nominees that were/are members of the federalist society or those that the dems perceive to be stealth feddies such as John Roberts, Janice Brown, and also AG Alberto Gonzales.
The problem for the dems is that if they try to use the this conspiracy in opposition to Alito or any other feddie, they look like kooks.
"Briefly, the dems base this conspiracy on those feddies working for Reagan influencing the Reagan Whitehouse when the investor protection languge that would become NAFTA Chap 11 was composed. After these investor protections have spread thru-out the western hemisphere via all the FTAs, there will exist duel set of conflicting regulatory laws. Once that happens, the dems say, a Supreme Ct dominated by the Federalist Society would find a case in which they would rule that 90% of the regulatory law that the dems created in the 20th century to be un-constitutional."
An interesting conspiracy. However, this isn't what their activists use as rhetoric. They seem very concerned about "globalisation" and corporatism. Why wouldn't they rather be frank and express their fears that the New Deal era regulations would be ruled unconstitutional, and ride with that?
Once that happens, the dems say, a Supreme Ct dominated by the Federalist Society would find a case in which they would rule that 90% of the regulatory law that the dems created in the 20th century to be un-constitutional.
The above appears like wishful thinking, but an originalist court could progressively, and over time, accomplish the same.
Very interesting.....Feinstein's question regarding the commerce clause makes a bit more sense now!!