fbpx

The Most Influential Legal Organization

The Federalist Society is the most important civic organization formed in the last forty years. Even academics are coming around to the conclusion.  In 2010 Steve Teles wrote a marvelous book, The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement, which rightly gave the Federalist Society pride of place as an organization that held the legal right together by providing a place to debate fundamental issues. As Teles observed, because the Society did not take positions in litigation or before legislatures, it was able to attract both libertarians and conservatives who were united both by their antipathy to left liberal establishment and their view that the Constitution should be read according to its original meaning rather than as a document that changed with the times.

In a new book, Ideas with Consequences, Amanda Hollis-Brusky attempts to chart the Federalist Society’s actual legal influence, particularly on the Supreme Court. I reviewed  the book Friday for the Wall Street Journal. While it is not as good a book as  that of Steve Teles, it does show how ideas refined at the Federalist Society conferences have made their way into Supreme Court opinions, in such areas as the Second Amendment, federalism, and campaign finance regulation.

Oddly enough in a book which has Ideas in its title, Hollis-Brusky at times slights the importance of the intellectual environment the Federalist Society has created. For instances, she blames conservative distrust of Harriet Miers on her failure to have participated in Federalist Society events. But as I say in my review:

the lack of credentials was not her biggest problem. The society had given an intellectual depth to conservative jurisprudence that Ms. Miers wholly lacked. The withdrawal of her nomination signaled that a sophisticated framework of ideas can constrain even a right-of-center nominee from a conservative president.

The unique excellence of the Federalist Society thus lies not in credentialing appointees but in creating a standard of intellectual seriousness in conservative legal thought that Republican nominees must now meet. It is unthinkable that a Republican President could nominate candidates like Harry Blackmun or David Souter. Eisenhower may well have been correct when he said referring to Warren and Brennan that his two worst mistakes were sitting on the Supreme Court. But it is likely that, in contrast, George W. Bush’s two best accomplishments are sitting on the Supreme Court.  And a lot of the credit for this goes to the Federalist Society.

Hollis-Brusky is not sanguine about the Federalist Society’s success, because she worries that it will lead to the political polarization of law. Here she is completely wrong.  As I state at end of my review:

The Federalist Society has succeeded because, much like cable news and Internet commentary, it offers an alternative to viewpoints that, for a long time, defined themselves as politically neutral but were in reality left of center. Ms. Hollis-Brusky worries that the rise of the Federalist Society may lead to more polarization of the law. But the alternative would be worse—a progressive ­legal consensus maintained by elite institutions, masquerading without challenge as unimpeachable wisdom.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on September 12, 2017 at 12:38:51 pm

I'm not a lawyer but I am a Californian stuck following in a legal conundrum that seems must contradict Federal Law; Sustainable Development or Smart Growth policies that forcefully move ahead in denial of reality. My life, and others in my state, is being controlled by the state. With Federal dollars being diverted from programs and laws(Governor's executive action) my state is still moving forward. Our property tax dollars as well as incremental tax (future property tax dollars as assessed by the state) are pooled Regionally and given over to publicly transportation and affordable housing.
My question is this. I have asked my city council to stand up and say "no" to the governor. Every law being written is due to global warming, or more accurately because C02 is a pollutant. Our city has been forced through Smart Growth to relinquish Land Development decisions as well as our zoning rights and rewrite our General Plans to what the state requires. Can our City Manager and Mayor stand up and say "No"?

read full comment
Image of Robert Cox
Robert Cox
on September 12, 2017 at 12:40:01 pm

I’m not a lawyer but I am a Californian stuck following in a legal conundrum that seems must contradict Federal Law; Sustainable Development or Smart Growth policies that forcefully move ahead in denial of reality. My life, and others in my state, is being controlled by the state. With Federal dollars being diverted from programs and laws(Governor’s executive action) my state is still moving forward. Our property tax dollars as well as incremental tax (future property tax dollars as assessed by the state) are pooled Regionally and given over to publicly transportation and affordable housing.
My question is this. I have asked my city council to stand up and say “no” to the governor. Every law being written is due to global warming, or more accurately because C02 is a pollutant. Our city has been forced through Smart Growth to relinquish Land Development decisions as well as our zoning rights and rewrite our General Plans to what the state requires. Can our City Manager and Mayor stand up and say “No”?

Reply

read full comment
Image of Robert Cox
Robert Cox
on September 12, 2017 at 12:42:00 pm

PS My city council says there is nothing they can do about it because "its the law"

read full comment
Image of Robert Cox
Robert Cox

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.