The Fifth Circuit seems to be a good example of what happens when judges don't try even a little to make their opinions look credible to other lawyers, professors and judges. It's so rogue that a Supreme Court chock-full of Federalists keeps slapping it down.
Interestingly, the two biggest hacks on the Court have been there longest, which is true of some judges in the Fifth Circuit. (Edith Jones, appointed by Reagan, springs to mind immediately.) And you can probably make a case that Thomas's, Alito's and Jones's more recent opinions indicate that they feel more empowered today to let their (upside down) freak flags fly than they did earlier in their careers. They welcome the new Trumpist dispensation and its nihilist overlords.
Judge James Ho, IMHO, takes the biscuit for 5th CA extremism, even allowing for his constant auditioning for the next SCOTUS vacancy. His opinions are simply beyond the pale, and fit nicely into a tRumpist schema of stomping on people's fundamental rights under the Constitution.
IMHO, being that "conservatism" is really about enriching the rich at the expense of the rest, it seems to me that any outcome is a bad deal for America as a whole.
Any judicial philosophy that manages to find itself routinely comforting the comfortable is not a judicial philosophy. It's a well-embroidered intellectual fig leaf for power. Mr. Leo's real gift is organizing the paranoia of the donor class so he can fund this grift in perpetuity.
Solid assessment here, by my observation. Thanks. I intend to learn from your thoughts and share in ways I hope leaves followers of the present miasma who I cross paths with, having the unsettling feeling that what they've been standing upon is quicksand.
BTW, I just re-listened to Galadriel's opening narrative for The Lord of the Rings, and find it even more unsettlingly prescient: "... but they were all of them deceived."
That's two of us, Mr. Smith; I grew up in Reagan's home town and was introduced to him by my dad, who was in high school with him. The collective 'we' didn't figure him out then, and clearly have been snookered backside over teacups by his (il) logical successor.
In hindsight, this conflict between the Federalist Society, designed to leverage the legal system using its own procedures, and Trump, who uses personal loyalty to bypass procedures, was inevitable. The only legitimacy Trump is concerned with is his own, and any judge who does not submit to it is his enemy, no matter what reason. A Federalist Society without the ear of a Republican President still has its network and funding. Like never-Trumpers sniping from the sidelines it will go into hibernation until the King is dead, assuming Trump is irreplaceable and things will go back to "normal".
"They’re antithetical to his style of politics, which depends on inconsistency, radical unwillingness to be bound by his own or others’ past actions, and verbal incoherence as a kind of gonzo performance art."
Love this and let's note each of these style particulars rationalize/romanticize ideological positions or at least the attitudes of ideological positions in the base: lost cause fervor, risk taking/lawlessness, and cult celebrity worship.
"The Federalist Society is an ideological machine for taking conservative ideas, kicking the tires to make sure they’ll do what they’re supposed to, and justifying them in ways that make sense for lawyers."
Okay, but the shadow docket and the Dobbs decision and the Trump Immunity decision, etc, seem to indicate their serious guy energies are failing them.
Dishonesty in business, dishonesty in politics, and finally a rank dishonesty in the legal profession defines tRumpism, and that the Federal Society hasn't caught the latter wave is fueling the animus and biting-the-hand-that-feeds-you behavior emanating from the WH and divers MAGA precincts. Not only the FS, but also the American Bar Association has been rudely dropped as guardians of professional standards, since any semblance of standards as an indication of a candidate's "quality" is now irrelevant, having been supplanted by a sort of mob loyalty.
Yes indeed, Mr Farrell, the Emil Bove nomination hearings — presumably there will be same — will serve as a massive tell as to what degree dishonesty could capture the fed judiciary, and leaving the concept of "the rule of law" discarded as a quaint anachronism unequal to "rule by the mob boss".
"They’re antithetical to his style of politics, which depends on inconsistency, radical unwillingness to be bound by his own or others’ past actions, and verbal incoherence as a kind of gonzo performance art." This piece is unsurpassed for analytical brilliance and wit.
One thing this discussion about the Federalist Society did for me was to make me proud that one of the three branches of our federal government is trying to do a good job in the role assigned to it by the constitution, The Judiciary. Please follow the Substack https://tommast.substack.com/p/congress-is-vital-ff6 . A new series begins tomorrow, June 1, on the Federal Debt. It will be followed by a longer series on reforms needed in electoral methods for members of Congress. Tom Mast
That's two of us, Mr. Smith; I grew up in Reagan's home town and was introduced to him by my dad, who was in high school with him. The collective 'we' didn't figure him out then, and clearly have been snookered backside over teacups by his (il) logical successor.
I agree that much depends on the fate of the Bove nomination. But even if it goes through, I don't think that three and a half years in the wilderness will necessarily destroy the Federalists' power.
The Fifth Circuit seems to be a good example of what happens when judges don't try even a little to make their opinions look credible to other lawyers, professors and judges. It's so rogue that a Supreme Court chock-full of Federalists keeps slapping it down.
Interestingly, the two biggest hacks on the Court have been there longest, which is true of some judges in the Fifth Circuit. (Edith Jones, appointed by Reagan, springs to mind immediately.) And you can probably make a case that Thomas's, Alito's and Jones's more recent opinions indicate that they feel more empowered today to let their (upside down) freak flags fly than they did earlier in their careers. They welcome the new Trumpist dispensation and its nihilist overlords.
Judge James Ho, IMHO, takes the biscuit for 5th CA extremism, even allowing for his constant auditioning for the next SCOTUS vacancy. His opinions are simply beyond the pale, and fit nicely into a tRumpist schema of stomping on people's fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Ho is definitely in the running for worst of the worst. He'd do well in a competition between the other circuits. Definitely Final Four material.
IMHO, being that "conservatism" is really about enriching the rich at the expense of the rest, it seems to me that any outcome is a bad deal for America as a whole.
Any judicial philosophy that manages to find itself routinely comforting the comfortable is not a judicial philosophy. It's a well-embroidered intellectual fig leaf for power. Mr. Leo's real gift is organizing the paranoia of the donor class so he can fund this grift in perpetuity.
The silver lining is imagining the Kochs and their libertarian billionaire chums spluttering about property rights.
Solid assessment here, by my observation. Thanks. I intend to learn from your thoughts and share in ways I hope leaves followers of the present miasma who I cross paths with, having the unsettling feeling that what they've been standing upon is quicksand.
BTW, I just re-listened to Galadriel's opening narrative for The Lord of the Rings, and find it even more unsettlingly prescient: "... but they were all of them deceived."
"...having the unsettling feeling that what they've been standing upon is quicksand".
I've been feeling that way ever since Reagan was elected.
That's two of us, Mr. Smith; I grew up in Reagan's home town and was introduced to him by my dad, who was in high school with him. The collective 'we' didn't figure him out then, and clearly have been snookered backside over teacups by his (il) logical successor.
In hindsight, this conflict between the Federalist Society, designed to leverage the legal system using its own procedures, and Trump, who uses personal loyalty to bypass procedures, was inevitable. The only legitimacy Trump is concerned with is his own, and any judge who does not submit to it is his enemy, no matter what reason. A Federalist Society without the ear of a Republican President still has its network and funding. Like never-Trumpers sniping from the sidelines it will go into hibernation until the King is dead, assuming Trump is irreplaceable and things will go back to "normal".
thanks for this clear explanation. very worrying.
Ha!
The Gambetta equilibrium is Trumpism, his theory of the "unitary executive," his political-economy. Ai yi yi.
"They’re antithetical to his style of politics, which depends on inconsistency, radical unwillingness to be bound by his own or others’ past actions, and verbal incoherence as a kind of gonzo performance art."
Love this and let's note each of these style particulars rationalize/romanticize ideological positions or at least the attitudes of ideological positions in the base: lost cause fervor, risk taking/lawlessness, and cult celebrity worship.
"The Federalist Society is an ideological machine for taking conservative ideas, kicking the tires to make sure they’ll do what they’re supposed to, and justifying them in ways that make sense for lawyers."
Okay, but the shadow docket and the Dobbs decision and the Trump Immunity decision, etc, seem to indicate their serious guy energies are failing them.
Dishonesty in business, dishonesty in politics, and finally a rank dishonesty in the legal profession defines tRumpism, and that the Federal Society hasn't caught the latter wave is fueling the animus and biting-the-hand-that-feeds-you behavior emanating from the WH and divers MAGA precincts. Not only the FS, but also the American Bar Association has been rudely dropped as guardians of professional standards, since any semblance of standards as an indication of a candidate's "quality" is now irrelevant, having been supplanted by a sort of mob loyalty.
Yes indeed, Mr Farrell, the Emil Bove nomination hearings — presumably there will be same — will serve as a massive tell as to what degree dishonesty could capture the fed judiciary, and leaving the concept of "the rule of law" discarded as a quaint anachronism unequal to "rule by the mob boss".
"They’re antithetical to his style of politics, which depends on inconsistency, radical unwillingness to be bound by his own or others’ past actions, and verbal incoherence as a kind of gonzo performance art." This piece is unsurpassed for analytical brilliance and wit.
One thing this discussion about the Federalist Society did for me was to make me proud that one of the three branches of our federal government is trying to do a good job in the role assigned to it by the constitution, The Judiciary. Please follow the Substack https://tommast.substack.com/p/congress-is-vital-ff6 . A new series begins tomorrow, June 1, on the Federal Debt. It will be followed by a longer series on reforms needed in electoral methods for members of Congress. Tom Mast
That's two of us, Mr. Smith; I grew up in Reagan's home town and was introduced to him by my dad, who was in high school with him. The collective 'we' didn't figure him out then, and clearly have been snookered backside over teacups by his (il) logical successor.
I agree that much depends on the fate of the Bove nomination. But even if it goes through, I don't think that three and a half years in the wilderness will necessarily destroy the Federalists' power.