In seeking admission to the Federalist Society it may help if you’re a brilliant licensed attorney; otherwise its exclusive membership is restricted “to anyone who wishes to join.” So you just might be able to wrangle a membership card if you’d like to increase the odds of one day saying to your spouse: “Sorry, hon, gotta run. I’m meeting John Roberts at the club.” (The press has repeatedly, mistakenly cited the judge as a member). And there is yet one other loophole you can take advantage of in skirting its rigorous membership qualifications and hobnobbing with legal greats. From its Web site: “Q. Who can attend Federalist Society meetings? A. Everyone.”
As you can see, I’ve been wandering around the Federalist Society’s cyber-HQ, mainly because the organization has been in the news so much lately. The trip was worth it. While learning more about the Society -- “a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order” -- I was also reminded of how good the right is at framing the opposition, framing itself, and, in the process, seducing honest but lay onlookers.
A few passages from the site’s “About Us” section illustrate. It begins with a forewarning of an omnipotent liberalism up to no good.
Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society.
I’m not sure what that means, but it sure sounds menacing. The writer probably meant “centralized state,” since a “centralized society” implies little more than a physical concentration of people. But the use of “centralized” is to the right what “ontological” is to academics: an impressive term one can throw into any sentence without the burden of relevance. It’s nifty and sounds smart. As for what a “uniform society” means? Got me, especially since the right dwells on blaming the left for promoting “multiculturalism.”
Moving right along.
We are committed to 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.
There you go, the real and misleading nut of it all.
I suppose I belong to what the Federalist Society disparages as the school of “orthodox liberal ideology,” yet I, and every orthodox liberal ideologue I know, would happily concur with the principle that the state exists to preserve freedom. I won’t enter the philosophical debate of negative versus positive freedom that can drag both left and right into Byzantine obscurity. Let it suffice that most people understand and embrace the general concept of freedom, or liberty, and liberals are as committed to it as anyone on the right -- even more so at times, especially when it comes to restricting “centralized” state powers that might limit freedom (see Patriot Act). But the Society’s propagandistic point sticks to those who don’t pause: Liberals’ close relation is the Big Brother of oppression who wants to strip you of your freedom -- and the right says “Nay.”
Back to its core principles, the second of which is that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution. Again, that view holds from the left, but, also again, even more so these days. Has it not been the right assaulting the principle of powers-separation? Haven’t we suffered constitutional revisionism only from right-wing loonies like Tom DeLay, not Ted Kennedy? What have I missed?
And here’s a choice item. Last Friday on Hardball, conservative-libertarian, presidential hopeful and Federalist Society-honored speaker Senator George Allen said that what America needs are judges who will interpret, not invent, the law; and in nearly the same breath said judges should focus on upholding “the will of the people” -- in reference, of course, to socially conservative issues. Ponder that demagogic contradiction for a while.
Which elucidates the Society’s real commitment to its third principle -- that it is the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. Senator Allen already has shown us the way. True law is what the Federalist Society and right-wing politicians say it is. The fact that true law happens to square with their political philosophy is pure coincidence.
It’s a pity. I had hoped to find at least some semblance of ideological honesty and consistency on the Web site of such a regularly touted institution of “principles.” I found neither, and the omissions were in bold. Just shallowness and hypocrisy, the hallmarks of modern “conservative-libertarian” values.
The Federalist Society’s site does, however, stealthily accomplish its political objective -- that of hoodwinking the American electorate. It extols a supposedly beleaguered belief in “individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law,” and paints liberals as those lying in oppositional hostility to them.
That is bunk, and bunk is indeed something that liberals do oppose.
Recent Comments