Where does the ACLU talk about partisan politics in their organization. They’re for civil liberties, and that’s that. Just because the right cries foul nearly every single time the ACLU defends somebody doesn’t mean they’re a liberal front group, and they don’t purport to be. I believe there’s a big difference.

Justin, are you trying to piss me off? I’m going to bite through my lip and not call you a single name — if you think that is easy for me, think again. And the source my indignation really has nothing to to do with Fed Soc (it shall survive), it has to to with intellectual dishonesty and the resulting pile of steaming Donklephant crap.

First of all, lets get our words defined in a semantically logic way. We are comparing “Ideologues” with “Partisans”. As Callimachus rightly points out, the two are not the same, although their shared membership may be great for a very logical reason.

An ideologue is not necessarily a partisan, because “ideology” is always changing and it is a condition precedent to political parties (let alone partisanship). Thus an ideologue can be ahead of the partisan curve. A conservatives can be against the current Republican administration’s quest for benign global hegemony because such a policy is profoundly unconservative.

The portion of Fed Soc page that you quote, some how evidencing partisanship, only calls out the errors of another ideology, NOT a political party. It says, “…orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society.” If this had been written in 1860 it would have been referring to the Republicans, of course. What by the way, is not “centralized and uniform” about “No Child Left Behind”? That isn’t partisan politics, that is an ideological battle that has been going on since Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

Political parties are tools of power and so they require the allegiance TO men. To be a partisan Republican one has to by definition be allegiant to George Bush. In order for your interchangable definition of “ideology” and “Partisan” to work — the source of ideologies would have to be political parties. That ain’t the case and I’m not splittin’ hairs. That is knowing my ass from a hole in the ground. Man thinks before he acts — Of Human Action, Von Mises - read it, it will change your life.

There is a difference difference between being a conservative and being a Republican. Likewise, there is difference between being a liberal and being a Democrat.

Oh come on. You’re not just splitting hairs, you’re splitting atoms.

There is a huge difference between “ideology� and “partisan.�

As I define these terms (which I noted), I completely disagree.

Then Justice Ginsburg having actually worked for the ACLU must make you apoplectic.

Where does the ACLU talk about partisan politics in their organization. They’re for civil liberties, and that’s that. Just because the right cries foul nearly every single time the ACLU defends somebody doesn’t mean they’re a liberal front group, and they don’t purport to be. I believe there’s a big difference.

Thanks for the comments.

As for “up the ladder” of Fed Soc — you are, of course, referring to the 32nd degree Fed Soc red dragon circle — and I’d completely agree, I GETS ROSEMARY’S BABY FREAKY!

So saying that the legal world and law schools are dominated by liberal ideology seems like they’re setting up a false premise in order to dominate the legal world themselves. This is what I mean by one-sided.

And let me speculate for a moment, but something tells me that when you get higher up the Federalist Society ladder, it becomes a lot more “conservative” and a lot less libertarian. Case in point, Adam G. Ciongoli. Anybody who worked as Ashcroft’s top legal counsel does not have libertarian ideals in mind.

Cal, just to be clear…this is how I’m defining these terms.

Partisan:
A person who supports a political party or cause over other parties or causes.

Ideology:
Set of beliefs and goals of a social or political group that explain or justify the group’s decisions and behavior.

Not much of a difference there in my mind, except one is the collection of beliefs, and one is the person who believes in that collection. Now, I can see how you think this is dismissive of the breadth of the Fed Soc’s views, but again, I was talking about their exclusion of liberal ideology.

Yes, I wear my cilices to Court, but that is because of my Opus Dei affilitation. We are scheduling, btw, an joint Opus Dei-Fed Soc Party called “Scarying the Crap Out of Weak Liberals” - SCOWL. :)

If you consider that politically partisan then there really isn’t anything left to say, except maybe “God save this Republic.�

DP, what else am I supposed to think? I really think you should give me a little credit here. It’s not like I didn’t know anything about your org before I wrote the post, even though nearly everybody who’s written a comment or a response post seems to accuse me of such.

I guess I’d ask, how do you NOT consider the “Our Purpose” section politically partisan? Especially when it lists specific political ideology.

Thanks for linking to the FedSoc website, though � but now you might get a strange visit from an albino cleric in the middle of the night. If so, just whisper the code phrase, “Scalito, Aegri somnia� and bow in reverence and you should be okay.

Do you all wear cilices too? I bet that hurts when you’re in court…hurts so good.

To suggest that the FS is politically partisan is idiocy

From the Federalist Society’s website:

* Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.

* The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on 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.

* The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, and law professors.

* In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.

So, that’s in the section entitled “Our Purpose”. I honestly don’t think I need to say much else, but if you want to keep trying to convince me, by all means.

Glen, you said this…

Of course, anybody can go to that wiki article and change it to say any damn thing they want. Which some people frequently do.

If you think the FS is some kind of cabal for theocracy, then you’re dead wrong, but you’re thinking exactly what the wiki author wanted you to think.

See, the beauty of a statement like that is I can then point everybody to the history of changes in that entry where everybody can see that numerous authors have worked on this piece over the past year, and have vetted it pretty thoroughly. Point.

And yeah, if it’s wrong, it’s wrong. But I think Wikipedia is well vetted enough that now YOU have to do the research and prove it wrong, not the other way around.

Of course it’s much more fun to play the “liberals hate everybody” card and try to pin things on me I neither said nor suggested.

Good times.

Of course, anybody can go to that wiki article and change it to say any damn thing they want. Which some people frequently do.

If you think the FS is some kind of cabal for theocracy, then you’re dead wrong, but you’re thinking exactly what the wiki author wanted you to think.

Anyway, what is up with Dems and the Federalist Society? I know they regard non-liberal organizations as criminal, but the law just doesn’t agree.

Justin — here is very good example of you simply not knowing what you’re are talking about. As president of the Federalist Society Student Chapter at a public law school, I can tell you that FS membership comes with NO political or policy litmus test. It is a scholarly legal organization with a wide variety of members that differ dramatically on many policies and legal subjects but share a common respect for a few key constitutional principals — primarily the seperation of powers and state’s rights.

In fact, the FS as a general proposition would full-heartedly disagree with Alito’s so-called Unitary philosophy of the executive (although I don’t think that is Alito’s actual judicial philosophy, but may we never let facts interfer with a good fear-smear campaign).

I am assuming that you find an equal “concern” with the ACLU. As for its “publications” having “printed articles criticizing teaching evolution and attacking the principle of separation of church and state.” Please, post a link to these dreaded articles so that your readers might judge for themselves the spirit and tone of the “attack.” Of course, we all know what you mean by “attack” — which is really to “disagree” with activist liberal dogma. Well, we all can’t be good statist.

To suggest that the FS is politically partisan is idiocy — just as the suggestion that the ACLU is politically partisan would not be correct either. These organizations are founded in deep seated ideals Justin that transcend the lastest poll numbers. The FS and the ACLU are meant to preserve fundamental legal principals from “moderate” politicians that would let those principals erode into oblivion with compromise and sentiment.

I’m confused as to what this post is trying to imply. The Federalist Society isn’t the Free Masons or the Illuminati. It’s an association of conservative lawyers who all hold similar rightwing views on law and legal process.

Not really implying. Merely voicing some information that concerns me. I don’t like organizations like these that are fairly one sided on legal matters.

Alito’s a conservative, so the prospect that he’d hire a conservative clerk is neither surprising nor distressing to me.

Let me put it this way. It’d be one thing if Alito hired a young turk who may have some conservative leanings. It’s another thing to hire a former top aide to Ashcroft and a possible member of the Federalist society. And as wikipedia points out:

Its publications have printed articles criticizing teaching evolution and attacking the principle of separation of church and state.

So yes, it concerns me. But there’s nothing much I can do about it besides highlight it, so there it is.

It goes without saying that I disagree with TFS’s judicial philosophy. But most judges hire clerks in line with their judicial philosophy, which in Alito’s case is a conservative one (indeed, Scalia is famous for hiring one liberal clerk each term, just to keep him on his toes and check the influence of his other clerks). Alito’s a conservative, so the prospect that he’d hire a conservative clerk is neither surprising nor distressing to me.