Alito’s Clerk A Federalist Society Member?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Supreme Court
Alito just hired one of his former clerks, Adam G. Ciongoli, to work with him at the SCOTUS. As the NY Times points out, Ciongoli was also the top aide to John Ashcroft when he was Attorney General. So what about the Federalist Society connection? Well, Ciongoli was a speaker at last year’s Federalist Society National Convention. That’s where I got the picture from. I don’t know if he’s a member, but Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia sure are. And I would imagine that if he’s not a member, he’s certainly a friend of the Society.
From the NY Times:
JUSTICE SAMUEL A. ALITO JR., who was so bland and self-effacing at his Supreme Court confirmation hearings last month, made a bold decision on arriving at the court. He hired Adam G. Ciongoli, a former top aide to Attorney General John Ashcroft and an architect of the Bush administration’s legal strategy after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to be one of his law clerks.[...]
“We don’t normally contemplate a high-level Justice Department official becoming a Supreme Court clerk,” said Ronald D. Rotunda, a specialist in legal ethics at George Mason University School of Law. “It’s just asking for problems that are unnecessary.” Most Supreme Court law clerks, who prepare memorandums and draft decisions for the justices, have little of note on their résumés beyond superior grades at a top law school and a clerkship with a federal appeals court judge.
“They’re like legal Doogie Howsers â€â€? child prodigies of the law,” said David Lat, a former federal prosecutor whose blog “Underneath Their Robes” reports on the hiring of Supreme Court clerks. “Yet they’re influencing decisions that affect millions.”
Mr. Ciongoli, 37, represents a different model. He has a rich and public history in government and, most recently, as a senior lawyer at Time Warner.
“It really indicates a lapse in judgment,” Deborah L. Rhode, who teaches legal ethics at Stanford, said of Justice Alito’s decision. “I just don’t think it helps your reputation for nonpartisanship, particularly after such partisan confirmation hearings, to start out by hiring someone who is perceived to have an ideological agenda.”
Interesting. Will Alito maintain nonpartisanship on the high court?
My doubts are certainly still firmly in place.
This entry was posted on Sunday, February 19th, 2006 and is filed under Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 19th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
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.
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.
February 19th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
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.
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:
So yes, it concerns me. But there’s nothing much I can do about it besides highlight it, so there it is.
February 19th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
[...] It personally irritates your humble pundit to a certain degree to hear the caterwauling some are making about this ‘connection’ as if this highly reputable organization is somehow evil or worthy of scorn. What has been somewhat amusing to watch over the course of the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito is the aura of suspicion some have foisted upon the Federalist Society. The utterance of the name has nearly reached the echelons of “Halliburton” and “Enron” as a liberal mantra or rallying cry. Most individuals outside the legal community, and some within the community, do not have the foggiest idea what principles and tenets are held by this organization. Yet, with the way in which it has been demonized demonstrates that it does not matter in the least what is held in high regard by this organization. [...]
February 19th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
“I don’t like organizations like these that are fairly one sided on legal matters.”
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.
February 19th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
I doubt if history judges great Supremes by their clerks. The great Oliver Wendell Holmes had Alger Hiss for a clerk.
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.
February 19th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Justin: And as wikipedia points out:
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.
February 20th, 2006 at 1:34 am
From the Federalist Society’s website:
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…
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.
February 20th, 2006 at 10:31 am
If you consider that politically partisan then there really isn’t anything left to say, except maybe “God save this Republic.” 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.
February 20th, 2006 at 11:58 am
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.
Do you all wear cilices too? I bet that hurts when you’re in court…hurts so good.
February 20th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Justin — I disagreed with the majority of Fed Soc student members over the Iraqi war. Some were socially conservative, others were libertarians and socially liberal, other’s neo-cons, some politically unaffiliated who were drawn to the organization because it was seen as a ideological counterweight with the pervasively left-wing environment of lawschool. Now you might not agree with the broad judicial and legal philosophy of the Fed Soc, but your use of the word “partisan” seems to dispute the breadth of those ideals. Trust me, the Fed Soc has plenty of moderates (like you) and plenty of right-thinking idealist (like me). True, you will not find many bongo-drums and joints being passed around at the National Fed Soc Convention, hardly any of them play hackey-sack and the word “dude” is used very infrequently — but this does not make the FedSoc a partisan Republican organization.
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. :)
February 21st, 2006 at 5:06 am
Is there a difference between “ideological” and “partisan”? If not, why do we have both words?
February 21st, 2006 at 11:17 am
DP, I’m not saying your experience wasn’t what you describe. But what I am saying is that their own charter specifically calls out liberal ideology as something to counteract/counterbalance. Frankly, I find that aim disingenuous because the courts are fairly balanced on the whole. Sure, you have like Roe, but overall, those do not define the whole of the judicial system, even though some want it to.
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.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Justin - you are correct, to a degree, that law schools and the legal profession have become much more balanced. Why do you think that is? Hint: The Federalist Society. Go ahead and ask J. Roberts, A. Scalia, C. Thomas, S. Alito, Luttig, Wilkenson, Posner — I’m not suggesting that all of these people were or are active members of the Federalist Society, but I bet they would tell you that Fed Soc has done more than any other organization to bring about an ideological balance in the legal profession and legal academia. In fact, this one one of the major gripes by conservatives against Harriet Miers. Fed Soc has worked tremendously hard to cultivate conservative legal scholars. Now if Fed Soc was “partisan” would any of that make sence. “Balance” is not brought about by self-identified “moderates”, balance is brought about by ideological counterweight. To suggest political partisanship is the sine qua non of Fed Soc is just plain wrong. 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. There is a huge difference between “ideology” and “partisan.” I would bet that the vast majority of people in this country consider the Reps & the Dems different sides of the same coin. Bill Clinton got in office and cut welfare - Republican. Bush gets into office and goes on international adventures and spends money like a drunken valley girl - Democratic. Two sides, same coin.
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!
February 21st, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Justin, if Alito having a clerk who is a member of the Federalist Society is troubling, then Justice Ginsburg having actually worked for the ACLU must make you apoplectic.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Oh come on. You’re not just splitting hairs, you’re splitting atoms.
As I define these terms (which I noted), I completely disagree.
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.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:37 pm
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.