A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

A very valuable post from law professor Rick Garnett:

Too often, this Administration, prominent nominees, and even Federalist Society members nominated for important positions in government have treated the Society as if it were something out of "The DaVinci Code", or the ultra-secret gaggle of powerful reactionary Rasputins that some on the left imagine, or just a goofy band of train-spotters. In my view, this Administration and the conservative Senators, who owe the clear thinking and dedication to the rule of law of their best staffers, lawyers, and advisors in no small part to the Federalist Society, have an obligation to stop this silly "Federalist Society? Never heart of it!" pose, and forthrightly to endorse, defend, and praise the Society.

The Federalist Society has been — as many honest, left-leaning law professors would concede — an immense benefit to the intellectual culture and the jurisprudential debate in our law schools. It has supplied countless thoughtful, intelligent, conservative lawyers to the bench, the academy, the bar, and public service. It has provided an invaluable forum for a genuine exchange of ideas, and also some accountability for the American Bar Association and the American Association of Law Schools. Its events, debates, and panels are always diverse and provocative. In my view, few lawyers have done as much to promote thoughtful engagement with conservative and constitutionalist legal thinking as have, say, Eugene Meyer and Leonard Leo; few law professors have been as selfless in their work with students as, say, (Fed Soc members) Randy Barnett, Gerry Bradley, and Eugene Volokh.

Just as important, the Federalist Society has provided, in no small part, the intellectual heft for a large part of today's conservative movement in politics. For an Administration that owes its existence to this movement to, time and again, treat the Society like a goofy yearbook photo or an embarasing secret is more than irritating — it is shameful. If the Federalist Society really were a politically useful but in fact weird and non-mainstream outfit, then perhaps the "Fed Soc? Who?" attitude would be understandable. But, if course, the Society and its ideas are — among informed and thinking people, anyway — entirely respectable and, while certainly conservative, entirely "mainstream."

The post notes as well that Harriet Miers supposedly made disparaging remarks regarding the Federalist Society. If that is the kind of mindset that she brings, then conservatives and libertarians are all the more justified in asking what business the White House has thinking that Ms. Miers's nomination represents the interests of those who have supported and voted for the Bush Administration. 

For more on this issue, see here. And thanks to Professor Garnett for his reference to my article.