While Scalia is undoubtedly a radical, at least he didn't perjure himself during his confirmation hearings -- unlike his colleagues Roberts, Alito and Thomas.

Their "say whatever it takes to get confirmed" perjuries during their confirmation hearings should lead to their collective impeachment (and general housecleaning on the Supreme Court) as soon as the Democrats have a two-thirds majority in Congress.

The Federalist Society is an anti-democratic subversive organization dedicated to the misapplication of state power. Judges like Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas have proved that membership (admitted or not) should disqualify life-time appointment to the federal judiciary.

You will forgive me, but the educator in me needs to make a few points. This is a really poorly written screed. Your overall point is a pretty radical, wouldn't you say? I don't know what circles you run in, but not one of your points is self-evident, or even all that accurate.

I think that the the Federalist society has an incredibly important point in many legal debates. In the 70s, it provided an important counterpoint to the legal philosophy of the the then supreme court. Now that their philosophy has become more or less mainstream, they need a counterbalance, but it doesn't make them wrong.

Please provide some specifics, other than "Roberts, Alito and Thomas have perjured themselves," why have they been so disastrous? Why is the Federalist so anti-democratic and subservise? In what way do they advocate the misapplication of state power?

You might have some good answers, but you actually need to provide an argument. Just saying things and assuming you are incorrect is a very weak way to proceed.

Grade: D+

What makes The Federalist Society so damaging is that fundamentally they (like Scalia) are intellectually dishonest. One need only read Scalia's opinions on issues he has deeply held POLITICAL beliefs - like Raich, Kelo, BushVGore to see that he is just as willing to invoke contemporaneous understanding and social structure to make his case as are the "living constitutionalists". And this largely applies to most Federalist Society arguements and advocates as well.

Of course this is necessarily so because of how human brains work and how human societies develop and diverge in their values. Essentially it is biophysiologically impossible to set aside the acculturization of the environment and society we grew up in. It will ALWAYS influence us in some way. And thus it is impossible to truly understand "original intent", except in the context of current culture and political thought.

Yet this is exactly what The Federalist Society argues that we should pretend to do.

Now if there was a broader spectrum of political thought behind the membership of the Federalist Society, one might be willing to concede that they are just uninformed on modern brain and developmental science and that their goal is simply the improvement of how court decisions are made.

But the fact that Federalist Society members invariably also share a POLITICAL viewpoint makes it impossible to take at face value the idea that their "originalism" is anything but an intellectual rubrik within which to promote their personal beliefs.

That's what makes them harmful: Intellectual dishonesty for the purpose of advancing a political agenda but in the guise of political neutrality.

I agree with you. In my opinion the intellectual dishonesty of Scalia and supposed "original intenters" like him is their pretense that issues they are asked to decide in general belong exclusively in the realm of the state legislatures and the sum total of the Supremem Court's responsibility lies in strickly interpreting the seven or so pages of the original constitution (except for things like appointing Bush or saving Terri Schiavo). Every time I hear him spout this line I want to slap his fat smug mug and remind him that there is also a Bill of Rights which the people insisted be added to the Constitution in order to achieve ratification so that the courts would protect the citizens from the abuses of their governments. You are right, the federalist are a group of hacks for government support of corporate America hiding behind the pretense of an original intent which never was.

But the fact that Federalist Society members invariably also share a POLITICAL viewpoint makes it impossible to take at face value the idea that their "originalism" is anything but an intellectual rubrik within which to promote their personal beliefs.

Given that the Constitution itself is a political document that is an expression of a particular political ideology, why would it be strange to find originalists sharing a similar political outlook?

I have no problem with a SCOTUS justices approaching the law or the US Constitution bring with themselves their aggregate sum of experiences, life's learnings and beliefs. In fact that is what judges are SUPPOSED to do. Where the dishonesty comes into play is when a judge like Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Robertson - or the whole damn Federalist Society, wrap themselves in the FALSE cloak of "originalism".

They have no more accurate insight into "original intent", nor adherence to the Law or the Constitution in the face of their beliefs, than "living Constitution" justices. It is their claim to the difference that is the dishonesty.

That said, I seriously doubt Scalia shares the same political ideology as the authors of the US Constitution. Remember these were men who were largely PRO slavery (and I don't think Scalia is), ANTI Papist (and Scalia is very obviously a Papist), had little if any truck with Governmental regulation of what anyone ate, or drank - having just come through a rebellion based on the taxation of those very things (and Scalia demonstrated in Raich his willingness to ignore both the intent and text of the Constitution in prohibiting medical marijuana).

So its not a case of matched ideologies. It is a case of Scalia PRETENDING to set aside his POLITICAL ideology, just so that he can get into a high dudgeon when other justices don't assume that pretense. Its simply dishonest.

Two of the delegates, both of them signers of the Constitution, were Catholic -- Daniel Carrol(MD) and Thomas Fitzsimoms(PA). Charles Carrol was a signer of the Declaration. While it is true that catholics were disadvantaged under English law here in the colonies, and public sentiment -- outside of MD, that is -- was ant-papist in the main, the revolution at least changed the legal context viz. catholics in America.

There were also, as you know, anti-slavery folks at the convention...

This is all, however, a digression... the big problem I have with Scalia et al is that their conservatism relies on refusing to recognize that those authors of our founding documents were in thought and deed radicals... They know this, but can't admit it lest the cognitive dissonance either drive them to insanity, or -- a fate they consider much worse -- to giving up in favor of liberalism...

I'd argue that they aren't really conservatives. Instead they are radicals - but right wing radicals ala the neo-monarchist Hamilton

What makes the Federalist Society a dangerous subversive organization?

They seek unfettered state/oligarchic/corporate power over the individual. Look up their rulings and find a case where they have ruled otherwise.

Furthemore, as in the cases of Thomas, Alito and Roberts, they are willing to perjure themselves during confirmation hearings to hide their judicial philosophies in order to obtain lifetime appointments -- all to advance their radical political agenda.

They should be more accurately described as the "Feudalist Society."

I wouldn't call it direct perjury. Its more akin to the kind of infintesimally narrow parsing that lead us to the "definition of 'is' is", and the redefinition of torture.

Yeah, if your kid did it to you it would be considered a lie by most parents. But in this case it was an abidcatoin by various Senators of their responsibility to see through that level of dishonesty.

JackHughes:

What makes the Federalist Society a dangerous subversive organization?

They seek unfettered state/oligarchic/corporate power over the individual. Look up their rulings and find a case where they have ruled otherwise."

Um, try the Kelo case (the one about Eminent Domain, a pretty clear case of individuals vs. Corporations). The "conservative" Justices (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist) sided with the rights of individuals (even poor ones) to not have their homes taken by the Government, while the "liberal" ones (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter) sided with the Government to claim the homes for CORPORATE interests.

Sucks when you can't just declare one side "OMG EVIL MONSTERS AND WE SHOULD KILL THEM ALL!!!!!!oneone" doesn't it Jack?

You, JackHuges, have advanced a completely deranged position, indefensible, and typical of liberal rage -- you'd rule that membership in the Federalist society is per se evil, and should overrule the Constitution. Just for a way of THINKING. So maybe you'd ban the Federalist Society? Idiotic. Unless you're a liberal who loves "thought crime."

What a pathetic argument. Are you that sad and frustrated with life?

In a separate thread I'll compare the judges who favor a "living breathing" (i.e., "Weathervane" Constitution with those who favor a Constitution allowing for some predictability and consistency.

JackHughes:

The Federalist Society is an anti-democratic subversive organization dedicated to the misapplication of state power. Judges like Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas have proved that membership (admitted or not) should disqualify life-time appointment to the federal judiciary.

Ah yes, typical liberal "tolerance." Maybe you can get them to wear Scarlet "Fs" for violating your thought crimes, Jack.

How pathetic.

I like the "admitted or not" part too. You'd love to have little inquisition-boards rooting through people's information just to find out if they were one of "them." What if someone dared TEACHING that way of thinking? Or just espousing it in (gasp!) PUBLIC! No job for you! Jack says so! Damn the Constitution!

Anything goes as long as it's YOUR way of thinking, eh? "Sacrifices have to be made," I guess.

The Kelo v City of New London rebuttal is good (if a little under explained, it's an extremely long opinion, but ok, this is the Fray, not a law journal), but you know, the name calling bit is just a little much. Two posts just to call someone else's ideas pathetic? Scalia gets a little sarcastic in his opinions in all, but his name calling is a little less harsh.

And aren't you, secretary, doing exactly what you accused the other guy of doing... with the vilification, thought policing, the "so long as it's not what I agree with I'm going to trash it" routine?

I look forward to being called a pathetic closet liberal in return for my criticism. But, someone above managed to introduce contrary points --the catholicism history at founding times, for instance-- without being downright rude. It can be done.

Torture, money as free speech, "bong hits for Jesus," Bush v. Gore, medical marijuana, etc., etc.

Property rights? You've got me there..

Actually the "conservative" Kelo opinions are particularly telling in how "activism" really just means that you disagree with the decision. In Kelo the conservatives invoke

• "the most natural reading [emph. added] reading of the Clause"
• "But were the political branches the sole arbiters of the public-private distinction, the Public Use Clause would amount to little more than hortatory fluff."

So much for deferring to the legislature, or to the text of the document. Instead its all about how Scalia, Thomas et. al. BELIEVE about what should and should not be the outcome.

So please don't cite Kelo as an example of liberal "activism". If anything, it is "textualism" run Amok - and the "conservatives" completely abandon "textualism" "originalism" to argue based on a purely contemporaneous understanding of the implications, meaning and limitations of the text.

IOW its simply about Poltiical Beliefs. nothing more or less.