[Eugene Volokh, July 10, 2009 at 5:54pm] Trackbacks
Federalist Society Online Debate on the Sotomayor Nomination Unfolding

here. As you might expect from the Federalist Society, the panelists are an ideologically mixed group -- Tom Goldstein, Wendy Long, Prof. Louis Seidman, Prof. David Stras, and Ed Whelan.

Steve:
Apropos of Bernstein's post on Bork earlier today, the posts by Long and Whelan aptly illustrate how "original meaning" often signifies nothing more than a desire to dress up one's own policy preferences in jurisprudential language. Long particularly gives away the game when she argues that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment didn't understand the "original meaning" of their own words.
7.10.2009 6:25pm
Observer:
You would never see ACS inviting Wendy Long or Ed Whelan as panelists, why is Fed Soc inviting Tom Goldstein? Or another way to phrase this: If Fed Soc is simply a debating society for people of all views, why then do people think of it as a generally right-leaning organization?
7.10.2009 6:36pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

If Fed Soc is simply a debating society for people of all views, why then do people think of it as a generally right-leaning organization?

I'm going to ignore the question-begging part, and suggest that a one-sided debate would be quite boring. ("Ronald Reagan: Great President or Greatest President?")
7.10.2009 6:55pm
frankcross (mail):
There is little more self-demeaning than only listening to those with whom you agree. If you have a modicum of principle and confidence in your beliefs, you would want to hear those who disagree with them. I don't know who ACS invites, but it would look pretty bad if they don't include conservatives.
7.10.2009 6:58pm
BRM:
ACS usually invites one conservative/libertarian to its panels. ACS also tends to invite diverse views from the "left".

You would never see ACS invite Wendy Long because ACS tries to bring in principled conservatives. ACS has in fact had Ed Whelan as a speaker, just a few weeks ago.
7.10.2009 7:10pm
krs:

You would never see ACS inviting Wendy Long or Ed Whelan as panelists, why is Fed Soc inviting Tom Goldstein? Or another way to phrase this: If Fed Soc is simply a debating society for people of all views, why then do people think of it as a generally right-leaning organization?


The Fed Soc does not claim to be "simply a debating society for people of all views." What it does claim to be is here. See, especially, the second bullet point, which states that Fed Soc "is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order."

That said, one of the things that people of all political persuasions have praised the Fed Soc for--and one of the things that ACS has sought to emulate to some degree--is its seriousness about ideas and about holding real "debates" with different sides of an issue represented by intelligent people. I don't know if the ACS has ever invited Wendy Long or Ed Whelan to speak, but if you look at the program from the national convention last month, among the speakers are Judges Jeffrey Sutton and J. Harvie Wilkinson, Prof. Nelson Lund, and Roger Pilon. I think liberals are better represented among FedSoc panels than conservatives are among ACS panels, but the general point stands, I think.

Of course, the real highlight of the FedSoc Convention is when everyone puts on their tri-corner hats, raises a chalice filled with the blood of oppressed peoples, and participates in a seance to summon Ronald Reagan and James Madison.

The ACS Convention highlight is when everyone gathers around a bonfire (which is full of copies of the text of the "dead" Constitution), lights up a bong, and listens to a dramatic reading of Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron as an example of what they're all striving for.

Though I don't think the "dissenting" panelists are invited to either one.
7.10.2009 8:06pm
Phillip (mail):
Wendy Long is getting me hot.
7.10.2009 10:00pm
ColumEx (mail) (www):
Prof. Seidman (my Criminal Procedure professor) goes by Michael (his middle name), not Louis (his first name). L. Michael Seidman.
7.10.2009 10:03pm
drunkdriver:
I don't think this directly reflects on Sotomayor but some of the folks on the periphery of the debate are already reaching new lows: People for the American Way has been urging reporters to do hit pieces on Frank Ricci, and Dahlia Lithwick takes the bait.
7.11.2009 12:38pm
gerbilsbite:
ColumEx: But to those of us he likes, it's Mike. :)
7.11.2009 8:19pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Link B I Strike Block Quote
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.