SCOTUS nominee to come from the Federalist Society? Must read

[AnnInLa]

Conservative Legal Group's Clout Growing
Email this Story

Jul 18, 2:41 AM (ET)

By NANCY BENAC




WASHINGTON (AP) - At a recent Friday luncheon, former Solicitor General Theodore Olson cast his eyes over a hotel ballroom crammed with lawyers and wryly welcomed "all of you Federalists who seem to have mastered the secret handshake."


......


Founded by three law students in 1982 as a debating society, it now boasts a membership of more than 25,000 that includes prominent members of the Bush administration, the federal judiciary and Congress. Supreme Court justices, Cabinet members and other top Bush aides take regular turns at the society's podium.



While the society has no formal role in consulting with the White House, "the reality is, given the presence of Federalist Society members within the White House counsel's office and the Bush administration, they are playing a crucial role in selecting judges and likely justices," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a liberal Duke University law professor who has addressed the group.



......



The Institute for Democracy Studies, which says it examines "anti-democratic religious and political movements and organizations," calls the society part of "the infrastructure underlying the right-wing assault on the democratic foundations of our legal system."


.....



"These aren't just conservatives. These are top-notch lawyers all over this country, top-notch law students who are just sick and tired of the leftward leanings of our government, and, frankly, wanted to bring some balance," Hatch countered at one hearing. He added that the organization regularly invites prominent liberals to speak at its forums and debates.


---

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20050718/D8BDKUD80.html

[ClintonTyree]

1. The poor persecuted Conservatives...........

don't you just feel SOOOOO sorry for them? :eyes:

"These aren't just conservatives. These are top-notch lawyers all over this country, top-notch law students who are just sick and tired of the leftward leanings of our government, and, frankly, wanted to bring some balance," Hatch countered at one hearing. He added that the organization regularly invites prominent liberals to speak at its forums and debates".

Yes, I've noticed how far left this country has gone over the last 10 years or so. :eyes:

What is it these people want? They control every aspect of our government, what else do they need? If they can't get their agenda through under these conditions, perhaps it's time to review the agenda? :shrug:

[AnnInLa]

2. According to David Brock, in his Blinded by the Right,

they WANT nothing short of complete control of the gov't...a one-party political system, with a nominal, weak, ineffective second party, so as not to alarm the public. This is a plan that has been in the making for quite a few years, and has mainly come to fruition under this administration. The unholy alliance of the corporate-fascists, the imperialist-military-neocons and the social-far-rightists almost ensure that they will succeed...if we don't wake up the sheeple. Sigh.

[H2O Man]

3. That is right.

This "society" represents the same threat to the judicial branch of the federal government that their sibling, the neocons, represents to the executive branch. The chances of Bush not nominating from their ranks seems slender indeed.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. One tenet of the Federalist Society is the interpreting the Constitution

by the doctrine of "original intent". That means either a law is legitimate because it is in black-and-white, clear-as-a-bell, etc. in the Constitution and its Amendments. That also means no more reading between the lines of the Constitution.

Since the Supreme Court took control as sole interpreter of the Constitution from John Marshall on down, common law has been based on interpretation of what the Founders probably intended in the broadest interpretation of a legal concept. From there, precedence has lead to interpretation of interpretations and/or distinction from prior cases.

The Federalist Society would look at an state abortion statute and probably rule that:

A. It's a states' matter and the Supreme Court can't interfere with states' rights. Nothing in the Constitution addresses that as an entity the Federal Supreme Court can hear this kind of case. Remanded to the state's court.

B. Nothing in the Constitution addresses abortion, birth control, or the right to privacy. If Americans want abortion, then they should amend the Constitution to get this right (yeah, fat chance).