This grooming of recent law school graduates to perform in a way that conservatives want should stop. There is nothing wrong with recruiting those who agree with one, but there is something wrong with making it secret, which also feels subversive.
5
This should be illegal. Why isn't it?
19
This article is horrifying. The Federalist Society's goal, a right wing putsch aimed at taking over the Federal Court system, is an antidemocratic assault on our constitution. But equally disturbing is the tenor of Adam Liptaks's article. Mr Liptak, there is no "liberal counterpart" to the Federalist Society or to this "academy". Your journalistic ethics require you to accurately report on this attack on our constitutional system, not to normalize it.
36
The fact you have to have earned your stripes in the federal judiciary to become before serving as a judge is indicative of the polarization and segmentation of society along religious, economic and social lines. The days when a Supreme Court justice appointment was not preordained by and for some faction of the Washington elite disappeared with Eisenhower’s appointment of Earl Warren --- an appointment that truly made America a better place. Unfortunately, the arch conservatives, oligarchs and religious fanatics produced by the Regan revolution took over in the 80’s and have won… for now.
3
Read Democracy in Chains by Nancy Maclean to see more of this type of thing that has been going on undercover for many years. Easy to see why Kavanaugh felt he deserved his appointment. He was on the track.
4
This is part of the dark money long term strategy by families like the Koch Industries brothers. Thank you for publishing this information. Next please inform the public about what is happening at George Mason University and other academic institutions as part of the destruction of our democracy for libertarian takeover.
6
Let's be clear about the fact that law "clerks" are paid employees of the people of the United States. They swear to uphold and protect the Constitution. This precludes any political agenda that they may have. They are NOT political appointees. They should not be trained by partisan groups.
10
Please don't try to tell me the liberal left isn't doing something similar from the other side.
@Dave Dufour they are not ..ok? capice? there is one party that is criminally overtaking our law-based society, and another party that is doing nothing to stop it..duh!
8
This subject should be discussed with court nominees when they are reviewed by the senate.
7
The fact that they shut down the program when it was made public says everything. These groups are anti American and should be purged.
54
As a former federal law clerk for 5 different judges, I find this disturbing and completely objectionable. I wasn’t even allowed to put a campaign bumper sticker or yard sign in my yard. How could this sort of secret political indoctrination be permissible?
192
A "deep bench of potential judicial nominees" is precisely what the founders did not foresee; they expected very few men would reach the learning required for the job and those few would be so steeped in their studies they wouldn't have time for party affiliations. Clearly, it's time for an update of our constitution.
9
I thought a lawyer’s oath was to the Constitution and the fair application of justice, not a secret society directing the law and Justice to their own objectives. Can you say “conflict of interest”?
Where is “We the People” in this? Or has the definition of “people” in the Constitution reserved for the .1% and corporations?
5
"I'm shocked, gambling in Casablanca?"
The liberal / leftist / progressive factions of America has been doing this for decades.
OK, through a different arrangement of "educational" / NGO / lobbying / civic / advocacy front groups and using funds mostly extorted out of public / governmental employees via formerly coerced union dues. And even funds from government grants to "community organizers."
Big deal. I will repeat "Big Deal."
I don't care.. and I love how other NYT readers are in a snit fit over this.
The reality is that the endpoint is the same.
A long term attempt too "pack" the judicial system with a particular brand of thinkers.
I love how the Liberal / Leftist / Progressives are now complaining about how things have gone against their way of thinking.
Why do you think those of us who used to be solidly liberal / progressive ended up voting for Trump?
We got sick and tired of the liberal / leftist / progressive identity politics of identifying people by their race and class and gender.
We got sick and tired of the courts making law, as liberal / leftist / progressives don't trust the will of the people and the legislative process, at any level.
To the Liberal / Leftist / progressives....GIVE ME a reason to vote for you.
Or you will be "out in the cold" for the next 80+ years as conservatives were since FDR "packed the courts" in the late 1930's.
The liberal / leftist / progressive coalition today is not the same one that backed Jack Kennedy.
2
So do leftists. Constitution Society. Several Soros funded groups do the same. Try being honest: I know it doesn’t come naturally.
Applicants were required to promise to keep the teaching materials secret? Seriously? If that doesn't strike fear in the hearts of all Equality-Before-the-Law adherents, I don't know what will. Unbelievable. Here's an apropos quotation that sums up their tactics:
"The main benefit of controlling a modern bureaucratic state is not the power to persecute the innocent. It is the power to protect the guilty.”
― David Frum, Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic
As I read that, I had another bone-chilling realization: The Heritage Foundation doesn't view the Justice Department as a neutral arbiter of the law, or an integral part of the checks-and-balances our founding fathers built into the Constitution. They view it as a bureaucracy to be manipulated and controlled just like the Executive and Legislative branches; no more, and no less.
12
indoctrination is best served to supple young minds. This is a classic Judicial “nomenklatura” boot camp. The Soviets in their day and Chinese today groom elite candidates to operate the levers of societal power. The Chinese “clique” programs are fastiodusly organized to develop cadres who follow the true path. Xi Dada protégés the mark of a class conscious alumni on the way up!
Lenin, Trotsky, Marx and Engels along with Goebbels are all smiling down upon the happy campers. It takes a Village, of elitist to run the show properly.
8
Secrecy is the most important functional criteria for these reactionary think tanks. Jane Meyer exposed this credo as the essential foundation of all Koch-funded organizations - because the American public would never accept their agenda.
The rapidity with which all traces of the program were removed from the Heritage Foundation's website confirms the nefarious and insidious methodologies such groups will employ to accomplish their undemocratic goals.
3
Besides being a GOP party hack, hadn't Brett Kavanaugh been through this ideological training mill? (It reminds me of an American version of the SS "Ordnungsbürge" to train new generations of Nazi leadership for what was billed as a "thousand-year Reich.")
11
“Please identify the United States Supreme Court justice (past or present) whose jurisprudential philosophy and approach to judging you agree with most, and explain why.”
I’m pretty sure the next statement was, “If you didn’t say Antonin Scalia, please defend your response and prepare to find another position.”
11
And no mentioning of "Judicial Crisis Network?" An outfit run by a former clerk of Thomas pouring a lot of doughs into getting Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS?
This is another example of the well planned and funded manner in which Conservatives have been shaping our Nation. The Non-Conservatives (Liberals, Democrats, Independents), have to start understanding the long range strategy of these groups and developing their own strategies to counter them. The Conservative arms, such as the Federalist Society have looked to the future of jurisprudence and developed the strategy for weighting court decisions in their favor for decades to come. Where is the long range thinking of the other side? Time to wake up and educate people on the issues and their critical obligation to vote to be heard.
5
All law clerks should be prohibited from participating in partisan political indoctrination.
6
Lol. That would include law school right?
2
Oh, so there are a few tiny institutions pushing back on the systemic brainwashing of youth by left-wing idealogues in modern academia! Thank goodness!
4
Whether at the federal, state or municipal level, there’s nothing wrong with law clerks, attorneys and judges being reimbursed travel, lodging and meal expenses for a seminar sponsored by a private organization. I worked as many years as an attorney for a liberal-leaning NGO and had my expenses reimbursed to attend privately-sponsored training sessions where attorneys for the State’s Attorney, Public Defender and Public Guardian offices also participated.
The problem here is the application materials where attendees are expected to to sign a non-disclosure agreement and pledge fealty to the Heritage Foundation. So these clerks will be attending a secret conference where, as a result of hearing lectures the “originalism” and “textualism” approaches to deciding constitutional law, they’ll never take an approach contrary to the goals of the Heritage Foundation? That’s outrageous!
Also, the application’s reference to” generous donors” making “significant financial investment” in attendees makes it appear like they’re getting paid to attend.
8
Note with Republicans in control of both houses and the Presidency this is an attempt to strengthen the Republicans goal of dictatorship. That is what is in today's environment.
4
No different than liberal college professors and certain law schools training students in the ways of socialism, tainting their world view, then unleashing them in the areas of education, community organizing, politics, communications and as lawyers who are later appointed or elected as judges. Same exact thing.
3
Time for an FOI request into the clerkships of all the conservative justices to know whether or not they went through this programming. The public must take a stand and demand that its judiciary be neutral arbiters of the constitution and its laws.
9
This is a coupe and every one on that list should now be removed from office or ineligible for appointment
Their loyalty is to their benefactors and not the constitution
5
This is an absolute outrage. Comparisons in these comments of the Heritage Society to the top law schools (supposedly liberal bastions producing the likes of Brett Kavanaugh, Richard Posner, Richard Epstein et al) is a further outrage. What next? Will Heritage Society start running full-tuition paid summer camps with brown shirt counselors to shape the minds of students admitted to those law schools? Maybe better to start in 3rd grade before those pesky liberal high school social science teachers get their hands on little Judy and Johnny. Is there no limit to the perversity? America is doomed.
5
Insidious, invidious, corrupt, ethically bankrupt and morally indefensible. This infection to our constitutional system must be fully investigated, exposed, and expurgated from our midst.
The "Heritage" Foundation and "Federalist" Society -- funded by unnamed, secret billionaire & corporate donors -- clearly seek to inculcate a secretive rightwing and highly partisan mindset in all of its legal trainees.
These organs of Conservatism do not seek to promote a neutral, detached magistrate. Instead, they aim to install "Salem judges" (read Arthur MIller's "The Crucible") whose extremist conservative political views (poorly masked in constitutional garments) would vote to destroy all constitutional rulings which would be antagonistic to conservative ideology.
This is the antithesis of how our future practitioners in legal and constitutional jurisprudence should be molded. This entire fraudulent enterprise should be fully exposed for what it is: nothing but a hyper-partisan, rightwing extremist ideological indoctrination of state and federal judges and justices.
8
We shouldn't be concerned at all -- we should be terrified and outraged.
What is the purpose of the Heritage Foundation? To put the fix in.
They are assembling an army of clerks in hopes of taking over the country's judicial system through "legal" means.
Only a group of truly maniacal manipulators could hatch such a devious plan built to last generations. How truly unAmerican of them!
6
Any clerk who participated in this should be fired.
6
You need to dig much deeper. Find out if the Federalist Society or Heritage are inculcating Christian Reconstructionist beliefs.
This anti-democratic (small d) movement is a radical religious ideology that focuses on converting law students, judges, and politicians to their extreme beliefs.
4
I'm close to this situation so I want to add one thought. The real problem here is that sharp law students are recruited by both the left and the right. If those students "play the game" with skill they go from law school, law review, clerkship, insulated and lucrative legal practice, government "service", to the judiciary. What's missing? Contact with real people and the need to make a living outside the insulated ideological cocoon. We would all be much better off if judges were chosen from the best and most respected lawyers who help real people solve real problems. If you know a talented law student tell them this: avoid the gifts of rich people who want to groom you. Help real people solve real problems: start a company, file a trademark, get a visa, get money back for a hardworking person who has been swindled. Judges should be chosen for their wisdom and experience helping people with legitimate problems. Not for ideology.
41
This is not the direction things should go, but it is another instance how the Republicans have neglected neither nook nor cranny in their effort to find every lever of power in the American system. They have been spectacularly successful and the Democratic leadership is still being outflanked by a powerful machine that is superbly organized from the lowest city council to the supreme court. It is this success which enables them to achieve spectacular command of government while garnering a minority of votes.
10
It is sad to see the courts - an institution that is supposed to be impartial and blind to politics - being systematically undermined by the political parties of America. Courts should be independent and judge each case on its legal merits, not on the political ideology of the day.
7
If this indoctrination class was cancelled because it was 'outed', that does not mean the Heritage and Federalist political operatives have seen the error of their ways.
The indoctrination training will simply go deeper underground.
Organizations with no ethical or moral boundaries do not suddenly develop ethics and morality. They just become more devious.
11
They don’t care about ethics.
They care about winning.
5
As Nelson Mandela said about apartheid, "People must learn to hate." Same with the Heritage Foundation's extreme conservative ideology. Same with the Koch brothers' extreme libertarianism. Same can be said about ideologically driven socialism on the extreme left (i.e. Soviets, not democrats.)
I don't believe the same can be said of democracy. Democracy changes and grows as the norms within society change. Ideology is fixed. That is my criticism of it. It doesn't change with new information. It fits the facts to fit the belief rather than the other way around.
Strict adherents to a particular ideology will always be a minority. Life experience is too varied for a majority to be so disciplined, even among law students. But if a minority is disciplined enough to act and vote as a block, they can undermine how democracy works.
Hence, the special interest in judges. The Kochs had surprising success with voting, but that was mostly due to the horrors of the financial crisis and fear of a black president. They can't count on that happening again. So take over the judiciary. That is small enough that the minority of strict adherents can have an outsized effect.
7
It's not as if they're little children. Freedom of association is a nice guarantee we have. Heritage's PR here was clumsy.
2
@Frunobulax
"Heritage's PR here was clumsy."
And heavy-handed.
1
I was a law clerk back in the day. They are federal emplyees with a civil service classification. How can they accept remuneration from a political group when they are on the federal payroll? This is a no-brainer, really.
5
@Peggy Jenkins
Huma Weiner was a full time employee of the federal government, deputy assistant to Hillary as Secretary of State. In addition to her full time federal salary, she was paid $150,000 per year as a consultant to an organization owned by Blumenthal as well as $150,000 as an employee of the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation was receiving billions in contributions from foreign governments in exchange for preferential treatment by Hillary, and the same donors were paying Bill Clinton $30 million per year for consulting and speeches.
Are there any questions in your mind as to why Hillary approved the sale of Uranium One to Russian oligarchs while the company was under investigation by the FBI for money laundering?
It seems that this particular program was targeting recent law school graduates who had obtained jobs as federal clerks, and the three day training class was taking place before they started their federal employment. They were "future law clerks."
3
Pledging to protect the “interest and mission of the Heritage Foundation”??? How about pledging to “uphold and defend the Constitution of these United States.” What a frightening story! Thank you, NYTimes, and God save our democracy.
8
This troubling tutorial scheme being mounted by the brazen Heritage Foundation certainly sounds like a concerted, well-planned effort to basically lobby federal law clerks regarding its right wing judicial objectives. As such, is it subject to federal lobbying laws? And do the program's "faculty" members, including sitting judges, also fall within the purview of those laws and regulations?
4
I am not a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge no graduate from a law school is required to sign what seems to be a non-disclosure agreement. Actually, something more than a typical NDA because it seems to demand lifetime fealty to the Heritage Foundation in exchange for a few days of indoctrination.
A great document for its time, the US Constitution needs amending. It needs to address the financing of political campaigns; limits for federal judges, senators, and representatives; clarification that corporations are not persons; Electoral College, as well as a host of other matters not present in 18th century America.
Originalism is a self-serving theory of conservatives, from which they happily depart whenever it’s a question of “mo’ money.”
For an example of a modern constitution, readers can look up the German constitution, the Grundgesetz, which spans some 70 pages and contains about 140 articles.
Unfortunately, the US Constitution is nearly impossible to amend for anything of substance relevant today.
8
Minions swear allegiance to this partisan group and you too can hobnob with the super wealthy, have your debts erased, and dreams made real. Forget your legal and ethical obligations and toe the carefully scripted line. There is no problem in being conscripted in this manner right? Aren't these people those who speak of the dreaded "deep state"? Are these conscripted future jurists the even worse, "deep un-state?"
6
Old Saying: Judges are just politicians in robes. Clerks too, apparently.
3
Considering how anti-originalist a blatantly partisan judiciary is, yeah, it's been a concern for a long time. Thanks for noticing.
4
“Generous donors,” the application materials said, were making “a significant financial investment in each and every attendee.”
Well, if you are a new lawyer, supposedly with fresh ethical training under your belt, these application material quotes should make you run out the door if you are indeed ethical.
There is no free lunch. You’ll have to pay back in some capacity. Or, you’ve bought in and are partisan hack.
8
Why don't Dems have similar programs? Where is our Federalist Society? Our Dem leadership is just awful.
I like to think Dems don't have a similar program because it's just plain unethical.
6
All of law school is your Federalist Society.
Constitution Society. NLG. ACLU. All feeders to clerkships. Also, the vast majority of law professors and law schools are hard left. There are scores of leftist law clinics, funded by taxpayers, that are training centers for future clerks. You people are being willfully ignorant.
Conservatives know they do not have the number to win elections. To preserve their previleges in the society, they are rigging the supposedly non polical judicial system to their advantages. No wonder laws governing the voting rights, district gerrymeandering, religious freedom, racial equality, women rights, affirmative actions, and human rights in the US are being rolled back.
The shining city on hill top is dimming. This report scares me.
5
@Agostini
You mean Democrats are in the minority. Republicans are in the majority, and a minority of them are conservatives, the rest being moderates. But Republicans in general believe in the rule of law. Leftists judges have demonstrated that they believe the law is whatever they feel it should be at the time they make a decision.
3
These kinds of activities undermine our system of democracy. Federal judge and Supreme court Clerks are not supposed to be representing the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society. They are supposed to be serving the nation and the Constitution. These activities are insidious. It also represents to what extend the ultra conservative faction of our nation is willing to go to control the rest of us. Imagine if it was found out that a progressive group was holding this kind of seminar - these same groups would be shouting from the roof tops that the Courts are being undermined by left wing Socialists and Communists!!!!! I'm glad these folks were outed, so to speak - but it won't stop them. They'll just be more secretive about their efforts.
8
“Generous donors,” the application materials said, were making “a significant financial investment in each and every attendee.” In exchange, the future law clerks would be required to promise to keep the program’s teaching materials secret and pledge not to use what they learned “for any purpose contrary to the mission or interest of the Heritage Foundation.”
How is this not bribery under federal law (18 U.S.C. 201)? These clerks who agreed to this quid pro quo after being selected to be federal clerks (i.e., federal employees) and the judges who knew about this program should all face serious consequences. Democrats had better speak out about this
9
@PM
The students are future clerks, they are not currently federal employees.
Where was the Democrat concern over the Clinton quid pro quos that enabled them to go from dead broke in 2001 to members of the 0.1% on a civil service salary plus civil service pension?
Where was the concern that Huma Weiner was collecting a full time salary as an employee of the State department while a consultant for a political operative as well working for the Clinton Foundation?
Outrage that individuals who are not federal employees are getting a three day all expenses paid weekend, but indifferent to the Clintons selling government influence and paying a full time employee $300,000 per year in outside income.
2
Someone needs to break faith and leak all these papers, agreements, manuals, and deals with with the devil. Heritage is not to be trusted at all.
7
Indoctrination.....how different is this from the religious radicalists? Methinks not much. While they may not be blowing up buildings, they are blowing up widely held values for conservative values...and have the hubris to believe the former is a lower form than the latter.
5
The oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution is first and foremost. Next, there's a large body of standards for all members of the Bar. How quaint.
There are few among our governing highest echelons who even aspire to the above. As the foremost among them often states, "How sad."
8
It’s appalling that judicial clerks need to go to Heritage to learn how to apply the law as written because their insanely expensive, progressive law schools refuse to do so.
6
Loyalty is a dirty word which should never be spoken by the judiciary.
7
What concerns me about groups like the Heritage Foundation is their interest in finding and nurturing only those law students who have been inculcated in the most conservative of viewpoints. There is no attempt to encourage these budding lawyers to learn to think like lawyers: that is, they are not being tasked with analyzing questions from multiple perspectives, nor are they encouraged to respect the principle of 'stare decisis.' Instead, they are indoctrinated in the theories of "originalism," otherwise known as trying to second guess what the writers of the Constitution meant in their own time, by the language they used.
Besides the fact that we no longer live in 1784, the problem with originalism, which is the step-child of Justice Scalia and much loved by those like him, is that our Constitution, by the writers' own expressed intentions at the time, was NOT intended to be a static document, bound up in the "holy writ" of its text. It was intended to be a dynamic, flexibly living document that allowed for the growth, over time and unpredictably changing circumstances, of a radically new form of nation.
The Heritage Foundation, and its ilk, are among the most un-American of organizations claiming to interpret U.S. law, and it is all to the good that we cast a critical eye upon their message to our future generations.
12
Originalism is silly. Not even the most erudite and experienced leaders and jurists of 1789 could make any sense of the world in which we live. The practice of this country since the Constitution was written was to adapt a new form of government to the real challenges which the world posed. The principles of liberal democracy and of respecting liberties and of equality before the law are the concepts which the founders intended to guide this republic.
But this kind of government was untried and they were very concerned that the extreme differences between the average person and themselves could make democracy impractical. They feared that a powerful central government would present an opportunity for tyrants to destroy the republic. So they wanted to go slow. That resulted in a circumstance where the franchise was determined by property not one man one vote. The Senate was chosen by state legislatures not the people. The military was focused upon state militias not a national one.
So in these long ago policies and practices modern extremist conservatives, reactionaries actually, they see a way to eliminate democratic institutions which treat all equally, and of weakening national government to where local power centers can operate like oligarchies to restore what they believe is a better form of government by the best people, the wealthiest and most accomplished. The Greeks called it, Aristocracy, the rule by the best, the aristos.
16
When I read every thing they learn must remain secret I knew it was sanctioned by the GOP culture of corruption. They like justices need term limits. This is what lifetime appointments bring up secrecy and distrust. Why are the Republicans so corrupt . Very sad.
7
The Heritage Foundation is a political organization. According to its website, “The mission of Heritage is to formulate and promote conservative public policies ....” The website also states that Heritage “has been the bastion of the American conservative movement since our founding in 1953.”
Heritage has no business “training” judicial clerks, let alone demanding oaths of secrecy, and clerks have no business taking part in such training, or giving such oaths. Clerks play a crucial role in helping their Judges reach decisions and draft opinions. Their analysis can and often does influence the outcome of a case.
The hallmark of the judicial branch is total independence from political influence. Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides, “A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary.” That is why federal judges enjoy lifetime tenure. Judicial independence must be jealously guarded against interference by political actors, whether liberal, conservative or otherwise. Canon 3(A)(1) makes clear that judges “should not be swayed by partisan interests ....” Obviously, these ethical considerations apply with equal force to judicial clerks. Clearly, any attempt to subject these clerks to partisan training is highly unethical.
Congress should investigate Heritage and determine the scope and extent of any undue influence it may have exerted over the Judicial branch under its so-called “training” program for law clerks.
11
@Jeffrey Zuckerman
If you can point to any decision made by the four leftist justices on the Scotus that are not partisan, and not made in lockstep on any controversial issue, you can advance your opinion that the SCOTUS has ever been independent of the political opinions of justices appointed by Democrats.
In the last 40 years, the only swing justices have been appointed by Republicans. Democrats universally appoint ideologues. Souter, O'Connell, Kennedy, Roberts routinely ruled in opposition to their personal opinion as well as contrary to their political leanings.
1
Very scary, these folks are dangerous. this is Authoritarianism 101.
10
While I may not share their conservative viewpoints, I am not in the least bit troubled by a group of like-minded professionals assembling in order to discuss and debate their interpretations of our legal code and our Constitution.
However, I am deeply troubled by the notion that deep-pocketed donors are setting a proscribed understanding of US law that federal judiciary employees pledge to accept but not discuss, and that such employees feel it is appropriate to omit mention of their group affiliation to those who hire them.
Nothing good happens in dark, hidden places.
10
The Right is threatening American jurisprudence in ways that make the subject of this essay look like child's play.
I must bring to your attention one very SPECIFIC INSTANCE of the degradation of American Law that is receiving almost no discussion in the media.
Let me explain. Bear with me. THIS IS BIG.
As we all know, Courts are supposed to apply the rule of Law that Courts applied in the past. Of course there is an exception: When the rule of law is considered wholly wrong and indefensible, Courts will overrule existing law and craft a new rule (For example, Plessy v Fergusen (1896), which justified racial segregation was overthrown by Brown v. Bd of Ed (1954))
HOWEVER, SOMETHING NEW IS APPEARING. Sometimes Courts state, in their decisions, "this case will have no precedential effect." This means that the rule of law expressed in the case will NOT be followed in subsequent cases.
THIS VIOLATES THE BEDROCK OF OUR DEMOCRACY. We are supposed to believe that a law that is good enough for Mr. A is good enough for Mr. B. When Court's decide that cases will not have precedential effect they are giving themselves license to subject different people to different rules of law.
The first time the Courts did this was in the infamous decision Bush v. Gore.
Now it is becoming more frequent.
When I went to law school, rendering (or should I say butchering) legal decisions in this way was considered beyond the pale and alien to American democracy.
13
@David Gottfried
In Bush v. Gore, the justices ruled 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court had erred in allowing Gore's version of the recount, which directed the counters to use their imagination to determine the wishes of the voters that had voted a straight Democrat ticket except for president and had either voted for Bush, not voted or had voted for both candidates. Of course, Gore wanted them counted for him.
Florida had certified the election, and the Florida Supreme Court had erred in their remedy. There was no time to do a valid recount. The liberal justices wanted to disenfranchise Florida voters and prohibit them from being seated, which would reduce the size of the Electoral College and give the election to Gore. The Republican appointed justices ruled that since the decertification was improper, the certification would stand.
As it turns out when the votes were recounted a year later, it turns out that Bush won Florida, so the partisan decision to give the election to Bush was both legally and factually a better solution than that proposed by the Democrats, disenfranchisement of all voters in Florida.
To suggest that a decision with respect to a peculiar set of facts should set a precedent is absurd. It is not the first time in history, or unprecedented, for a decision to be declared applicable to a specific case. All 4-4 decisions do not set a precedent.
Your opinion IS NOT BIG.
1
Reading this, I almost laughed. Not to condone what Heritage may be doing, but anyone who has stepped into the halls of Columbia or Harvard Law School knows that there is no threat to the absolute hegemony of the left in training young lawyers.
10
Front and center in every article mentioning the heritage foundation or the cato institute is the fact that they are Libertarian front groups. Their funding originates from the Koch machine. They are not interested in academics except in so far as they can legitimize their political ends. They are in no way to be considered anything approaching objective.
I would say that ALL big money (the .01% financial elite) funded "think tanks" and institutes should be continually and rigorously identified by who funds them and what they represent, and not simply what they say the represent.
The heritage foundation and cato institutes are not blandly benign "foundations" and "institutes". Their history starts with the Koch brothers. They don't have a vaunted history or academic roots. They are functionally a propaganda machine for the radical Libertarian NeoFeudalists who believe wealth is a more legitimate power than democracy. There are a number of other foundations, institutes, councils and the like with the same group of financial elite funders. Not just the Koch Brothers but a cadre of financial elites the Kochs brought together to usurp US democracy.
10
@Trebor For every Koch brother, there are 10 leftist members of the 0.1% who own the Democrat Party.
Next time Forbes publishes the richest Americans list, start at the top and Google the names. The top 100 are 90% Democrat donors.
Soros funds hundreds of leftist organizations.
Remember the two women who cornered Jeff Flake in the elevator screaming, "Look at me!!!!!" One of them was the executive director of a leftist organization whose 2016 salary was $180,000. The protesters are the Kavanaugh hearing were primarily people whos travel expenses were being covered by Soros they were not representative of American women.
1
"The idea that clerks will be trained to elevate the Heritage Foundation’s views, or the views of judges handpicked by the foundation, perverts the very idea of a clerkship.”
Clerkship? That's the least of it; it perverts the very idea of justice itself.
13
The Heritage Foundation is the Fox News of jurisprudence. They justify their partisan indoctrination by asserting as dogma that the mainstream is biased, so "balance" can only be achieved by extreme bias in the other direction.
22
Can you imagine the outrage if George Soros funded a secret program for federal law clerks (aka, federal employees)? And provided the list of judges to consider for the Supreme Court?
12
The article states..'indoctrinated' judges ruled a difference of 4% on a right/left scale.
I wonder how graduates interning at the ACLU would measure. Justice Ginsbergs has proven to be at least 33% the other way...
3
As far as I am aware, the ACLU is not funded by oligarchs and corporate entities, and does not require a loyalty oath. Perhaps also relevant to add that the goals of the American *Civil Liberties* Union involve the promotion and protection of the civil liberties enjoyed by all Americans, rich or poor, corporate or no. This is not, has never been and will never be true of a lobbying org like Heritage, whose goal is the protection and promotion of higher profits, looser regs and lowered tax/regulatory expenses for a small group of humans and corporations who demand that their privilege be maintained, extended and hidden/protected from government. In other words, a false equivalency.
88
I imagine they're not bound by oaths and gag rules for starters.
Just like a conservative, you're justifying despicable behavior by an unfounded assumption that "the left does it too".
No, we don't. Someone has to maintain morality and ethics.
13
@Meuphys
"As far as you know" is a pretty low bar. Donors to the ACLU are not public knowledge. It is likely there is a great deal of dark money which is why they have become politicized.
There was a day when they were non-partisan. That is no longer the case.
This is blatant corruption. Clerks and judges are supposed to be independent. If they have to break a promise in order to make decisions that are seen as "contrary to the mission" of the Heritage Foundation, they are not independent.
The students are selling out their impartiality. That is not just "raising moral questions". Those questions have been answered long ago. Just hang the bell on the cat: It's corruption.
23
This program strikes me as improper indoctrination -- the cultivate of a right-wing cadre among judicial law clerks -- and I am glad that it seems to have been suspended. (And I am not a liberal.)
Attention should also be focused on a program run at George Mason Law School in northern Virginia, for federal judges. It is hard to assess what judges are currently being taught at George Mason (and graduate law programs for judges, as taught at the University of Virginia School of Law, can be valuable.) But as originally run by Henry Manne, George Mason's program for judges amounted to an immersion course in law-and-economics, which I consider a more pernicious doctrine than originalism.
5
Those who, such as "Peter" below, who characterize the administration of justice and practice of Western jurisprudence in terms of "Left,""Right," "Liberal," or "Conservative" have lost sight of the reality of the law. They have fallen into a trap in which they see all of life in terms of gamesmanship, win or lose. The law, as I was taught it, is an ideal and an idea. It exists as a function of civilization to maintain civilization and while an abstract must be interpreted in the real world. The law is not competition, it is salvation the barbarity of unconstrained behavior. I was taught to read the cases, to read the written legislation, to examine the facts, and to do the best I could to meld these often contradictory factors into a decision that was as just, fair and consistent as possible. Casting the law as an ideological creation is tyranny, God help us all.
43
The Federalist Society was created to cultivate and empower conservative/originalist lawyers/judges to protect us from leftist judges who create yet another constitutional right to get them what they want when the legislative process refuses to provide it. It is the only defense against judicial authoritarianism.
9
@Jesse James
Uh the second amendment shenanigans? Citizens United? The one off Gore v Bush?
Here is the thing. Saying things doesn’t make them true. That is the federalist error.
6
I think you're confused about authoritarianism.
Forcing your rightwing, anti people, pro corporate oligarchy down America's throat is fascist.
7
Concerns over this program are over-hyped and misplaced. Most law schools (and universities) are overflowing with liberal professors and administrators. If it is wrong for a conservative association to offer training to future clerks, than it must be similarly wrong for liberal law schools to provide such training.
Right?
6
Citizen: on what facts do you base your opinions?
4
Considering that probably 95% of law school professors are Democrats (that's no exaggeration - just look at which political parties law faculty donate to), and many of them are far more radical than your typical Democrat, the Heritage event is a necessary corrective. Hopefully they will re-instate and expand it.
7
If what the Heritage Foundation is doing is so necessary and justified and fair, why the secrecy? People hide things they are ashamed of, or that they know are wrong.
2
These clerks are public employees. I don’t care that some judge (also a public employee) hand picked them. If they are receiving a freebie they are taking a bribe. And keeping the materials secret is it right. This should be subject to public disclosure.
12
If the Federalist Society and the Heritage foundation were truly in accord with the founding principles of our democracy, they would be open and transparent about their goals, values, and methods. Such emphasis on secrecy suggests more of a cabal than enthusiastic membership in an open society.
17
This is not illegal so they are breaking no laws. We need some conservatives on the bench and this is a good start. We have seen for too long liberal judges shaping America's policies. We need a balance and this is one way to achieve it. It is only fair.
8
It’s not fair for corporate America to be a person and the money trail to be hidden
It’s okay to have differing views
These move have changed the rules of the game
10
@WPLMMT That something is legal does not make it ethical. Fouls means to a fair end tains the result, not that I agree that a partisan judiciary, whether liberal or conservative, is a fair end.
11
As much as the rightwing likes to lie, steal, and cheat their wayuinto power, given that 70% of Americans support liberal policies, "balance" does not mean a 40/60 left/right makeup of the court.
3
This is akin to Amy Chua, a contributor to The Federalist Society, hand-picking clerks for Brett Kavanaugh, who then sent them up the line to Justice Roberts. Meanwhile, Justice Roberts tells America that he is extremely concerned about "judicial independence." Uh-huh.
12
One way, of course that the rich get richer, is never giving up the riches they already have. How do you keep those riches? You manipulate the law and the law keepers to help you keep it. Why would the Heritage group go to the trouble of keeping the curriculum secret, when it's no secret what they're teaching their clones?
11
Yes. Well planned. Let's make sure the one question never to come up in vetting a judge is their view on the most consequential judicial belief in terms of corruption--corporate personhood--ever to be mainstreamed.
Scalia never questioned this, Kennedy, Roberts and on and on. Abortion rights, gay marriage-- on the table. But for a true conservative judge, the most interpretive ruling in history (that a corporation is a person) is accepted as being totally in line with the framers intent.
This is the most obvious corruption and it is staring everyone in the face.
16
The corruption of the federal judiciary moves right along. Moneyed interests seek to fill the judiciary with 18th century minds that will foster the "natural aristocracy" notion of representative democracy. "Originalism" is just another name for an archaic feudal social system of moneyed elites maintaining their privileges.
The only good outcome will be that it will foster a revolution against the oligarchs sooner or later.
7
I'm confused; isn't law school supposed to provide instruction on these topics? Maybe too objective for these clerks, though. Given that they have to apply for this program, it's a self-selecting group that is already well aware of the Heritage Foundation's mission. Really, this is just conservatives preaching to the (professionally questionable, biased and compromised) choir.
11
I guess the Heritage Foundation behaves like the Star Chamber - alt-right wing cult paid for by "generous donors" promoting an alt-government that is taking over our judicial system - just like other right wing extremists are doing to undermine all other parts of OUR government. Secret teaching [indoctrination] materials? Loyalty? Really? Those teachings and loyalties must be revealed during any confirmation process in the interest of the American citizenry.
Candidates from partisan groups should be disqualified by default from serving on any court.
16
any news on the conference of Catholic scholars were they will discuss expanding influence on public policy were Justice Gorsuch is speaking, and where journalists are barred (from WSJ)??
3
The real issue here may not be the "training", but rather the use of this as an audition for the degree of True Believerness for future recommendations for judicial appointments.
9
Any and all IRS tax provisions awarded to The Heritage Foundation should be immediately suspended for such a travesty. This smacks of lessons learned on how to treat our government by the present leadership in D.C.
12
One of the key concepts promoted by groups like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundations is "Originalism" - which can be defined as 'some of the most backward-thinking people of today claiming to understand the intent of some of the most forward-thinking people of 230 years ago.'
27
@morphd What I find most amusing, in a dark sort of way, is the ability of originalists to completely ignore the writings of the founding fathers conceding their acceptance of the fact that the Constitution, while the greatest form of protection for our liberties, is an imperfect document that should be improved upon over time.
Per Thomas Jefferson:
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. "
11
This merely compensates for the left wing bias the same clerks were consistently exposed to in law school. Just balances things out.
6
@Mark T
No,No,No. There is no comparison between what you call a "compensation" for the "left wing bias" of "law school" and the creation of a privately founded and funded, and worse, a secret "training academy" to groom clerks for service in the Federal Courts, with participants pledged not to reveal what that closed-door program consists of.
This sounds like a plan for indoctrinating young lawyers to infiltrate the federal judiciary, which at last notice was one of the three branches of the federal government, organized under the Constitution and laws of the federal government and, presumably, not a political branch of government, or an entity under the direction of the GOP or the Mercers, though recent events indicate otherwise.
The brainchild of Heritage, funded by "generous donors" (the Kochs) seems patterned after arcane secret societies, like the Illuminati, or Skull and Bones, etc., all (or originally) white, male, Christian, economically privileged. That's the point, of course: to groom a new phalanx of lclerks working to speed up the total politicization of the judiciary, as if we weren't looking!
What you claim to be a "left wing bias" in law schools has given us a conservative SCOTUS, comprised exclusively of elite Yale and Harvard Law grads (RBG is the only outlier, having attended Harvard, but graduated from Columbia), one that delivered Citizens United handily, even without Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.
"We the people" -- words fading into oblivion.
9
Nonsense. There is a big difference between listening to a Critical Legal Studies professor in a Con Law class go through a standard curriculum and being politically indoctrinated prior to a judicial clerkship where you will research and write legal opinions for your judge or justice.
6
Actually there’s no difference at all. That’s pretty much the fundamental premise of the Crits, that all law is, is a superstructure erected on political preferences.
This sounds like another secret society or fraternity or exclusive prep school, where what happens there stays there. Conservatives see nothing wrong with such groups or with their alumnae running things. They have fits, however, when progressive organizations try to have or keep secrets.
18
To those readers who think this is just a re-balancing of law schools with "Left Wing academics":
There would be nothing wrong with the Koch family endowing as many law schools with as many millions of dollars with the most conservative professors as it likes. Students could decide whether to apply to those schools, which might provide free tuition. Those students could be required to sign non-disclosure agreements about their education. Their resumes would then identify them, and we would know who they are.
29
During the campaign, Trump took issue with his Trump University case being adjudicated by a judge who had been an active member of La Raza, a hispanic organization that vocally opposed Trump's campaign positions on immigration. The left defended the judge's impartiality on the ground that he was free to associate with such organizations in his private life.
Lawyers freely choose the continuing legal education programs they attend even though some of them are partisan and polemic. The fact that this one may have a conservative tilt does not bother me if the attendees self-select.
On a government level, I am as afraid of many of the organizations on the left as progressives are are afraid of the Federalists. That's my problem. The essence of America is that organizations on both sides have the right to promote their ideas to willing listeners. This no-platforming nonsense has got to stop.
3
These folks are public employees. If they are receiving training from an outside source then what they are learning should be subject to public disclosure. There’s also a good argument that this violates all sorts of ethics rules.
17
Can you list some of the organizations on the left that you are referring to in your post.
3
This seems to speak mostly of an inappropriate dogmaiic view of the Heritage Fondation. But I am not convinced that it is a wise strategy. Law school students spend three years learning to think for themselves and then three days learning to think like the Heritage Foundation. They are not readily brainwashed. And trying too hard can be self-defeating.
3
@michjas You should read Nancy MacLean's book "Democracy in Chains" and then determine whether you think this is a losing strategy. Charles Koch has scored an enormous win, with the help of Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders who first refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing and then installed Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the GOP-led Senate is busy confirming these pro-corporate lawyers on the federal bench. Don't be so sure these law students are so pure of mind and so opposed to being foot soldiers for the richest 1%.
7
@michjas Actually, in most American law schools today, students are taught to think like NARAL, Human Rights Watch, Greenpeace and the Environmental Defense Fund. Federalists tend to be a small group of heretics failing to hold back the progressive tide on campus. Conservatives are as rare in law school faculties as they are elsewhere in academic life.
Not only are students indoctrinated in progressive orthodoxy in their classroom work, virtually every clinical program is routed in some progressive crusade being pursued by a faculty member.
A few hours with the Heritage Foundation hardly balances the scales.
2
It's not a question of "balancing the scales." It's a question of ethics at the very best, and corruption at worst.
1
It's no secret who the donors are-it's the Koch brothers! One more way they are buying the country that we are so easily selling to them!
26
This isn't proof of a conspiracy theory. It's proof of conspiracy.
82
Welcome to the Heritage Foundation course. This program will teach you how to interpret the thought patterns and intent of wealthy, white, possibly slave owning males in the 18th century, so you can be officers of the law in the 21st century.
This will aid the sponsors of the course: wealthy white males, who secretly regret they can't be slave owners (as the law is presently interpreted).
45
The Mafia does the same thing but they are more experienced in hiding their activities and intentions.
31
Did Brett Kavanaugh learn to lie under oath and be an open partisan hack at these secret meetings?
74
"could nurture the next generation of . . . Brett Kavanaughs."
LOL!
11
yeah, it's a coup d'etat. The conservatives are playing with fire. Now I know what it feels like to live under some disgusting, oligarchy that is wielding government power to enrich themselves, everything else be damned. As the entrenchment of these conscienceless cabal gets deeper and deeper, there will be no alternative but to take to the streets in revolt against their system. I never thought the US could become like this, but it is happening.
31
Law school graduates are becoming more liberal because reality has a liberal bias. The Heritage Foundation has to act clandestinely because they’re fighting reality.
100
@Vanessa Hall I don't think law school graduates are becoming more liberal. They always have been, being young and idealistic. Hence the saying - "a young man who is not liberal has a hard heart; an old man who is not conservative has a soft head."
4
Lifetime appointments are a problem. They originated when a life expectancy was significantly less than one is today. Let's knock things down to 15 or 20 years.
54
@Emily J Hancock If you are speaking about the US Supreme Court, maybe, but I would guess it will be a long time before there is another Constitutional Amendment.
Like maybe after the Martians have landed.
2
It is unlikely that Heritage put this corporate sponsored program together without the knowledge and support of Chief Justice Roberts. One tell tale sign will be if the Chief takes action to derail the program
16
Fascinating. I always thought that conservatives sounded paranoid when they claimed that there was some sort of liberal conspiracy in academia designed to indoctrinate young people with partisan political ideas, and that one of the results of this was a supposedly “activist” liberal judiciary. Little did I know that, even as they complained, conservatives were actually doing exactly that on the other side of the aisle, and trying their best to keep it all hush hush.
56
@JDM
Propagandists always accuse others of doing what they themselves are doing.
38
These clerks are public employees. They are receiving a tangible, privately paid benefit. That’s a pretty clear ethics violation. Additionally, even if it wasn’t an ethics violation, the fact that the training is meant to be used in public employment should make it subject to disclosure. Pretty simple really.
21
As a former federal clerk I have to say it would be unethical for any clerk to participate in something like this. Maintaining the appearance of impartiality, even for law clerks, is a cardinal rule for the judiciary. You're not even supposed to post things on facebook!
I can't imagine that any judge worth his/her salt would tolerate their clerks participating in something like this. Unfortunately the times are a changin.
363
@Alex
As a former law clerk, I find this "indoctrination" disgraceful and unethical. Another sign that the idea of justice being blind is a myth in our current judiciary from the highest court on down.
21
@Alex As a former federal law clerk, you never read Woodward and Armstrong's "The Brethren," the inside story (pretty obviously based on information from Supreme Court clerks) of the late Warren/early Burger Supreme Court? It's a pretty eye-opening story of, among other things, how the then clerks, who tended (as most young lawyers do, being...young) to be fairly liberal, would lobby their Justices to arrive at liberal judgments.
But that's okay, right? Comparisons to conservative clerks are an example of "false equivalence," right? - that term so much in vogue these days - and certainly in NYT comments - that, as far as I can interpret it, means "Yeah, my tribe does that too, but it's different because our motives are good, whereas the other side's are pure evil."
If that is the case, this runs exactly contrary to the recent statement of Chief Justice Roberts, on how is attempting to run an open and fair Supreme Court.
In fact one of the comments herein was on point. This is being financed by the 1%. The quid pro quo ultimate accommodation of their viewpoint, which would be those who bought and paid for them. And the rest of us wouldn't be able to have an unbiassed decision in any federal court.
This along with voter suppression, and gerrymandering, is turning this country into an authoritarian state controlled by the few right wing wealthiest who have bought our democracy.
Isn't this exactly why our founders fought our Revolution?
60
@Quandry
Yes indeed. And to top it all off, what many people don't know is that the founders never considered having political parties . . . . fancy that!
2
This is a slow motion coup d'etat that is taking place right under our noses. It's a variation on the Manchurian Candidate, creating ways for trained people to infiltrate the halls of power and take control without being elected democratically.
The Democrats need to have a very high turnout in November, and clean house as much as possible. But we are all in trouble due to the difficulty of getting these snakes out of the grass where they're hiding.
62
“Law clerks are not supposed to be part of a cohort of secretly financed and trained partisans of an organization that describes itself on its own web page as ‘the bastion of the American conservative movement,’”
No, they are supposed to read into the law and the Constitution whatever liberals want at the time they want it.
After decades of perverting articles such as the Commerce Clause, so as to let the Federal govt. insert itself into every part of everybody's daily life, some people have the idea that maybe that's not such a good idea. In fact, it's the very opposite of what Federalism is supposed to be.
25
@Daedalus
As long as you allow symmetry. Thus, your statement should be...
(Conservative/Liberal) law clerks are supposed to read into the law and the Constitution whatever (conservatives/liberals) want at the time they want it.
We all believe what we need to believe. It is only an awareness of this fact, and the pursuant second question (Why?) that saves us from perdition. Judges in particular need greater measures of this faculty. Else they use their often considerable intellectual skills to craft answers that fit their needs rather than the data.
4
@Daedalus
What perverted the Commerce Clause was the invention of the telegraph, telephone, internet, and the modern multinational corporation. What perverted the Commerce Clause was the development of the modern economy so that goods and services not connected to interstate commerce are shrinking. A conception of interstate commerce based on how the Founders understood it (which was based on what it was in their lifetimes) is totally ignorant of modern corporations, their ways and power. A government with this understanding of interstate commerce is the wet dream of national and international corporations, since under such a government they are invisible to, and therefore beyond, the law.
Government limits on individual freedom are obvious in this way of understanding, while business limits on individual freedom are invisible, inconceivable, and therefore do not exist. Canadians are free not to worry about heath care insurance costs and coverage, for example, while we get the freedom to outsmart or outgamble germs, mutations, and contracts.
8
Yes, lets limit the scope of the Commerce Clause so the Federal government can't regulate pollution, racial discrimination, gun trafficking, securities fraud, etc. The National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Clayton Act and RICO will be nullified since the commerce clause is their constitutional basis. The FBI will largely cease to function since the constitutional basis for much of Title 18 is the commerce clause. Then interstate criminals will have a field day and each of the 50 states can decide how they want to regulate these issues. We'll be back to the days of the Articles of Confederation. Unfortunately, Fox News will not tell its audience how well those worked.
9
"Jill Dash, vice president for strategic engagement at the American Constitution Society, which is often described as the Federalist Society’s liberal counterpart, said there was no comparable program aimed at liberal law clerks.
“I am not aware of anything like this on the progressive side,” she said."
It's called law school.
9
@Fred So all lawyers are Progressives?
11
@Fred
Really? I graduated from law school about a decade ago and never was I asked or required to keep the contents of any program, class, or clinic I attended secret or private. In addition, there certainly were no unnamed donors paying for law school expenses in exchange for students' loyalty. Please provide the names of the law schools that offer such programs. I, and I am certain others, would be interested to know.
Thanks.
10
@TrumpLiesMatter At the age they are when most go to law school, yes. I was too, way back then.
1
Donors training lawyers to vote for donors' interests - and Trump has the ability to appoint more than 100 of these right-wing-prescribed federal judges.
For everyone who stayed home and didn't vote because Clinton wasn't progressive enough - I'm assuming that you realize now what a horrific mistake you made, and we don't have to tell you again?
44
What part of the phrase “an independent, non-partisan judiciary” is it that the Republican Party cannot fathom?
Judges are granted sweeping powers because they are devoted to the rule of law, to justice for all, to constitutional democracy. Any attempt to turn our federal judges into political operatives is unconstitutional treason.
35
@Tom W- oh no, they understand and fear it all too well and have been trying, successfully, to suborn it these last 30 years.
6
It goes without saying that it must be shut down. On the face of it, it is a seedbed of corruption.
23
@Grittenhouse
Are you writing about the Heritage Foundation "training program"? Or the GOP?
2
Is this legal? If it is, it shouldn't be.
29
The GOP plays the long game. That’s why they win. Wake up, Democrats. You could learn from them.
18
I am a Canadian and am sure most readers of the NYT know what is going on. I have been commenting for over a decade and watched as more and more of my fellow commenters have stopped believing they will ever get their country back. I am sure I was not the only one to snicker when Lindsey Graham talked about the unruly mobs that a a Republican victory would unleash and I am not the only only to say if only Lindsey had for once spoken the truth.
The readers of NYT, The Post, The Atlantic and the New Yorker are a tiny minority of the population and though not all liberal they know the country they grew up believing in is disappearing.
For Canadians our national newspapers like the Toronto Star and Montreal Gazette have made it clear your government is not on our side. Three months ago when our Foreign Affairs Minister expressed her concerns about the arrest torture and murder of journalists, the Saudis immediately went to the Kavanaugh defense of feigned outrage. This was followed by the expulsion of our ambassador and the removal of Saudi nationals from our soil.
I would guess over 90% of NYT readers know Kavanaugh assaulted Dr Ford and understand the dynamics.
The readers of the times know that the GOP uses the rules that evolved over 240 years against those who believe in those rules. The readers of the NYT know of the reign of terror and fear the mobs but know of no way of combating of those like Lindsey Graham who feign their love of freedom and democracy to destroy it.
36
Of course the whole point of the clerking system had traditionally been to mentor young lawyers of whatever stripe, and of course the airheads who’re always blathering about tradition have been the first to tear that down.
5
This is not at all surprising but disgusting nonetheless. Our democracy is being demolished inside our own borders-who needs the Russians?
17
@CJ
However, this situation CAN be turned around. Our democracy has been damaged, not destroyed. We can repair what has been accomplished by our misguided countrymen.
The 242-year-long pursuit of a nation built on freedom, fairness and democracy continues. In this, we should not despair or ever accept defeat.
VOTE November 6th It matters.
7
This is beyond creepy, brainwashing generations of apparatchiks after seeing what happens when intelligent decent people operate the courts for just a few decades (~1950-1980 pretty much)
17
This is why "non-profits" must go.
Whether secular or religious, they have simply become secret slush funds, conduits for "dark money".... In short, cults.
In this case, if you are a law clerk you cannot take the oath to uphold the Constitution, because you have already taken an oath to uphold and protect a non-profit that is determined to overtake the legal system.
Why isn't that treason?
And that is not a rhetorical question.
Why isn't that treason?
Swearing an oath to protect and defend a secret society (which is the other name for a "private program") is the textbook example of treason.
Skull And Bones. Freemasons. Templars. Zealots.
Heritage. Cato. Federalist Society.
John Birch Society.
Someone tell Ms. Deutsch that there really is no "undo button".
That's just a commercial on teevee, you know, magical thinking....
I consider these persons to be cultists.
Jim Jones.
Kool-aid.
The true "Enemy Of The People".
Yank their tax-exempt status!
30
@rosa
ALL non-profits? What about the Red Cross, Meals on Wheels, Make-a-wish, Habitat for Humanity, performing arts organizations, PBS, organizations working on medical research, etc? Your solution is worse than the problem!
4
Are they training Fascists to take over our country? The Republicans invited white supremacists to speak at their club. "The Proud Boys were in Manhattan thanks to an invite from the Metropolitan Republican Club." (The Daily Beast) The answer is yes.
26
Yeah, I'll say this raises ethical questions. As stated here the problem is that this will undermine the rule of law in a very detrimental way. But this is only one part of a vast conspiracy of the right to destroy our democracy.
20
Jill Dash, vice president for strategic engagement at the American Constitution Society, which is often described as the Federalist Society’s liberal counterpart, said there was no comparable program aimed at liberal law clerks.
“I am not aware of anything like this on the progressive side,” she said.
To which, I would respond: "We might want to start one up."
Convention and precedent be damned. Liberals continue to bring butter knives to gun fights. Look where that's got us.
Sigh...
12
While I understand the value of networking, particularly for those who want an insider track to plum jobs, it seems that such an event should be considered disqualifying for any job where one is supposed to be impartial. Like being a judge or working in any capacity in government.
Then again, such partisan networking did wonders for Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
18
As a current student in a T14 law school, I can speak to how insidious and dishonest these groups really are. The Federalist society portrays itself as collegial, open minded, and deliberately obfuscates the local chapters links with the national organization. Using it's impressive outline bank and social cache it accumulates a large and broad membership base who has no idea they're in an organization that is directly responsible for the appalling and undemocratic rightward shift in our judiciary.
Warren Burger (a conservative chief justice) called the interpretation of the second amendment espoused by these groups "the greatest fraud ever hoisted on the American people by special interest groups." That's what these groups do -perpetuate falsehoods and frauds.
447
@Clark I have been a member of the Federalist Society for 22 years (as a law student, and attorney), and you're incorrect. The FS truly believes in the marketplace of ideas, and welcomes all points of view among their members, as well as event participants (aka nonmembers). There is nothing "dishonest" or "insidious" about the organization. And the "rightward shift" of the judiciary has much more to do with the President (and Congress) than it does with a non-profit organization. So blame voters, Clark, not the FS.
@Charles
"...the Federalist Society’s supporters include well-known industry-oriented and libertarian-minded business leaders like Charles G. and David H. Koch; the family foundation of Richard Mellon Scaife; and the Mercer family, which gave significantly to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and helped start Breitbart News."
NYT, March 18, 2017. That does not sound to me like the "marketplace of ideas." More like one idea backed by a lot of money.
12
@Clark You need to spend more time with your studies and less taking Justice Burger's comments out of context.
Because the Chief Justice never said anything about the Second Amendment when he was actually on the Supreme Court. (Half a dozen Supreme Court decisions affirm that the Second Amendment is an individual right.)
Nor did Mr. Burger write anything about the Second Amendment in scholarly legal or historical journal. (The scholarly consensus is virtually unanimous that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right).
No, the Chief Justice wrote about the Second Amendment in Parade magazine, in a short article in January 1990. (A shorter version was later printed in some newspaper editorials.) This article represents, in a sense, the high-water mark for anti-Second Amendment "scholarship." Because the gun prohibition lobbies will continue to promote the late Mr. Burger's "research" about the Second Amendment.
In case you wondered how the alt right neocon Heritage and Federalist societies have hijacked the Supreme Court and lower federal courts....
Ever wonder how free speech became Citizens United
Or how these organizations are at the forefront how the 1 percent owns congress and how they write the laws?
These aren't neoconservatives....they are the foot soldiers of the 1 percent....
466
@Michael Thank you for dotting the i's and crossing the t's. It seems that connection is lost on most Americans as it seems to be lost on most media. But then again, considering which class owns the media, maybe "lost" is not the right word.
2
@Michael
Citizens United is a non profit organization that is organized under the same IRS code as the ABA, Boy Scouts of America, the lobbying arm of Planned Parenthood, moveon.org, Media Matters, OFA, ACORN, and a multitude of leftists organizations that are funded by Soros.
In order for SCOTUS to have ruled that the FEC was correct to silence Citizens United as Hillary had demanded, they would have to make it illegal for the local Little League to lobby for better maintenance of municipal parks. Moveon.org would be prohibited from any political speech for 30 days prior to any primary and 60 days prior to any general election.
Hillary's complaint regarding Citizens United was a demand on her part for selective enforcement against a political opponent.
@Michael We've seen this before...in Nazi Germany, where the judiciary was subverted by ideology. At least it was honest about it, not like the GOP flacks using innocuous or patriotic names.
If you want to see where that led, I'd comment readers to rewatch "Judgment at Nuremberg" (keep your eyes on the judge played by Burt Lancaster) or look at the trial of the July 20, 1944, conspirators against Hitler on YouTube. The trial judge was Roland Friesler, appointed to the bench by Heinrich Himmler, and his behavior makes Brett Kavanaugh's outbursts appear mild.
These facts have long been there for all to see...if they cared.
3
We have heard concerns about the independence of the judiciary. I have litigated in federal courts for forty years. This news leave me more than worried.
This requires the immediate attention of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Every federal judge in the country should determine whether his or her clerks have had this training, which should then be disclosed to all lawyers admitted to practice in that court. This is the absolute minimum. The absolute minimum.
528
@Museman
Well said, Sir. Well said.
5
Any lawyer employed by the US government who has agreed to abide by an organization’s secret training regarding performance in the position should be professionally disciplined and fired.
14
@Museman You are so right. Also, same treatment for lawyers who were members of the ACLU or the Lawyers' Guild. Only fair, no? Or do we need only to root out potential conservative biases?
Honestly, given how vehemently liberal most law school faculty members are, I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. Law students spend 3 yrs being indoctrinated in liberal ideology. A few sessions of conservation indoctrination should be no big deal.
And yes, I know that of which I speak. Both my husband and I are recent law school grads and while I’m largely a-political, I have vivid memories of some of my fellow students being verbally dressed down when they dared take a conservative stance with our professors. My husband was as a different top tier law school and the situation was even worse there.
7
@LK you are making a false equivalence.
First, law professors possess a wide range of viewpoints. Second, they are open about their positions and have their positions vetted by the marketplace of ideas.
Second, this effort is one that is done in secret for the sole position of political indoctrination to a single point of view.
24
@LK
Are you able to describe in detail just one instance of what you describe constituting a verbal dressing down, and in what law class it took place?
With your recently acquired legal skills, do you not see a difference between "conservative indoctrination" v. secret big money donors paying to buy and promote the careers of law clerks who, in return, owe these donors a debt?
9
@JP C'mon, JP. First, no they don't possess a wide range of viewpoints. They're overwhelmingly liberal. And there's no marketplace of ideas in a classroom presided over, and to whose participants grades that will very materially affect their success, or not, in their chosen profession will be given by, those liberal professors.
How does an attendee of the Heritage Foundation indoctrination camps (now or future "refresher" seminars) answer if, during an FBI or state background check as a future judicial nominee or appointee to another government position, they are asked about attending, and are asked to provide any materials received? Can the attendee refuse to answer? Will Heritage insist on nondisclosure and protection of its materials? Does a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee have a right to insist on accurate answers to questions about the training and materials the nominee/ appointee received?
52
They shred the materials and say “I forgot. That is the first thing They teach you. Who is They? I forgot. That is the second thing They teach you.” Props to John Schlesinger and Robert De Niro.
6
It's my understanding that the Federalist Society makes it possible for selected students at Harvard Law to apply for clerkships through the Society's system of contacts and to do so earlier than their classmates.
It's hard not to stand in awe of the long range planning and quiet patience of the right. As someone once told me, "Genuinely frightening people don't make threats. They make plans."
I get it now.
There is, as far as I know, no similar approach, structural or otherwise, on the left. More's the pity.
72
@crowdancer
Exactly right. The radical right-wing is unified in their pursuit of one goal: an ever-increasing rate of upward wealth transfer from us to them.
Progressive interests are varied and disparate, but those already at the top of our socio-economic system do not worry about rights, justice, liberties etc. because they already have those. But you can always be richer, and your interests can always be guarded more closely.
19
Until the start of the modern era it was believed that all truths were absolutely true, always, and that all knowledge was already known and accessible by learning from well known authorities.
In October of 1492, that ancient system of beliefs was disproven, absolutely. The reason that most highly educated people are liberal is because their system of beliefs is modern rather than pre-modern. The most famous conservative figure of the last century, William F. Buckley proudly proclaimed that there was nothing new under the sun since the coming of Christ, and he meant it.
Only in religion do educated people think that man knows any absolute truths and we consider discovery a normal part of life. Furthermore in a liberal democracy with guarantees of individual liberties almost nothing about conservative beliefs are not in opposition, they favor powerful elites over popular decision making and group domination over non-confirming behaviors. They easily reject science in favor of what they believe are truths from unknowable super intelligent powers recorded by prophets. To be free in a democratic system means equality and liberty for everyone or nobody. Separation of church and state, high taxes to assure a well functioning society with equal opportunity for all, and everyone having a say in policy making regardless of their individual wealth, power, and virtuousness are all essential.
9
Scary stuff. A long term, well and privately funded insidious strategy to usurp the independence of the US justice system over time and slant it to the benefit of one group, their views and ideology.
It's like the cold-war Russians planting assets in the US under cover to look and operate like everyday US citizens, and undermine from within.
40
The Federalist Society represents a small slice of lawyers in the United States, but make up a greatly outsized portion of Judicial appointees during both Dubya and Trumpov’s terms.
Trump and Mitch are trying to cram a young woman to an appellate seat that has not even practiced law for 12 years. Her only qualification to be at that level is that she is a reliable radical right wing Federalist Society member.
108
"...originalism, which seeks to interpret the Constitution as it was understood by those who drafted and ratified it..."
This fiction should be permanently retired, along with that of the "activist judge." These are meaningless terms that are only used to justify one's own opinion or criticize someone else's.
34
@Pat to be fair, the Federalist Society is de-emphasizing originalism, and has retired its objection to "activist judges." Their alleged philosophy has always been carefully recalibrated to reflect the outcomes they want rather than any core belief about how one should read law.
6
@Pat
I agree with your comment. It would have been more accurate if the article said "...which *claims* to interpret..." or "...which hides behind the claim that it seeks to interpret..."
3
The coup. The Republicans said:"Let's just approve these 15 Federal judges before you go home to campaign-- or do you want to use up the three weeks before 2018? They approved the 15 and ent home. Yesterday, I see on the national news:"all Democrats were not attending while Republicans approved MORE than the 15. " Why lobby a democratically a elected representative when you can buy a judge? So much cheaper. Say you are in favor of mountain top removal for 12 inch coal deposits. It ruins hundreds of square miles per year, year in and year out, making them look like rubble, no vegetation, no woods, no clean streams. What happens when you install a judge, and the people file a petition that they would like that national forest to stay pristine, and not get turned into rubble? Pennies on the dollar.
13
It is really sad. These ultra-conservatives may pack the courts, and they may feel like they have "won". But it will be a hollow victory because not enough Americans buy into the idea that it was done legitimately, especially when you take McConnell into the picture. A "great" America is not one where half it's citizens feel their courts are not legitimate (even if they are). Nor is a "great" America one in which is justices represent minority views. Conservatives may feel smug today, but smugness is not a healthy diet for the soul. Think of it this way - does your birthday cake taste better when everyone at the party respects you and your position, or when half your guests actually loathe you?
There must be compromise and common ground, because without it, no one really wins - not left or the right. A partial victory for all is better than a hollow victory for some.
13
@Syliva
Pretty sure they don't care. It won't matter how much of America questions their legitimacy when they hold all the cards. Conservatives seek only power and money, not respect. Even a hollow victory is a victory for them, and most definitely a loss for us.
3
The insidiousness and the extent of the conservative conspiracy against law schools, including indoctrinating recent graduates, is truly astounding. It's amazing what can be accomplished with money.
10
It's not conservatism: it is rightly called authoritarianism.
68
Max Boot is right.
8
Ok so I'm a truck driver. I work hard every single day. I'm not that smart nor educated. Dropped out of high school in my 2nd year. But I am smart enoughto not vote against my own interests. Not sure voting democrat is the best but lack any better choices.
What I would like to know is what are these guys trying to do? What is their agenda? They are vicious in their efforts to make this country a 1 party nation. What would our country look like if they were successful?
98
@Michael
I think we're seeing what will happen as they are more and more successful. They are stacking the courts at the federal level with right-wing judges and have skewed the court with right and far-right judges, in contrast to the country at large. They give huge tax cuts to businesses and the top 1% of the country's wealthiest people, while promising not to cut Social Security and Medicare--and now they are talking about cutting, yep, Social Security and Medicare. They promised to destroy the Affordable Care Act but to replace it with something 'better.' Well, they are gutting the ACA but what little they have done in terms of replacement is allow insurers to sell policies at very low cost which exclude virtually everything and so are worthless in real life and will very soon make it impossible for individuals with pre-existing conditions to get insurance. And this while for the first time campaigning as people whose families have been touched by the need for health insurance, families with members with pre-existing conditions--framing themselves as committed to the protection of healthcare for Americans. Right--how many times have the Republicans voted to repeal the ACA?
Their agenda is power and to rebuild the nation for people like themselves--rich, white men, mostly self-identifying as christian. Power equals wealth.
13
@michael - you’re seeing it now under Trump and the Republicans. No need to wonder. And you are a lot smarter and more strategic than the voters who stayed home or voted for Jill Stein because the Democrats didn’t have a perfect or more progressive candidate.
2
@Michael
Mexico.
Brothers Koch and other mega wealthy capitalists have been funding a campaign to treat willing conservatives (politicians, legal professionals, professors, educators) to “educational” events and programs to bolster and entrench conservative views amongst the influential elites. See: Nancy MacLean, “Democracy in Chains.” The program in place for many years has been very effective ( example, SCOTUS appointees). This level of effective indoctrination is a serious risk to a free thinking nimble proactive effective Democracy. The hapless progressives have no similar strategic program. The sins of identity politics and tribal [I know what is best (for me) “for you”], winner take all agendas are our burden to overcome.
5
I am a former federal clerk and this is stomach turning. It is continued evidence of attempts to pervert the judiciary and poison it with politics.
113
Nothing here is remotely surprising. Conservatives see the law as an extension of their power, to be used for their personal benefit. There is nothing new in the news that far-right white supremacist groups are training extremist soldiers to stomp out dissent. It just happens to be lawyers this time.
21
Disturbing, to say the least :(
8
Training??? Sounds like indoctrination to me. You gotta give it to the right-wing though, always working hard to pursue their mission.
12
Yet one more disturbing indication that the United States is moving rapidly toward right-wing fascism. These clerks are the life-blood of the judicial system. The Heritage Foundation is nothing but a propaganda machine for right-wing causes. Putting their thumb on the scale of justice at the clerk level is just one way the alt-Right plans to take over our government. This influence should be halted. Every potential clerk should be asked if they have been indoctrinated in this way, and they should be rejected if they have.
20
"In a brief interview on Tuesday morning, Breanna Deutsch, a spokeswoman for Heritage, declined to answer detailed questions about the event."
“It’s a private program, and that’s the way we’d like to keep it,” she said."
---------------------------------------
The arrogance. The hubris. The utter gall.
The sheer vulgarity of it all.
Despicable.
86
THIS is what the Times needs to be focusing on, the hijacking of our judiciary and with it our country, NOT the incredibly pointless, misogynistic attacks on Hillary Clinton’s freedom of speech like the one posted yesterday. Thank you for this scary yet vital peek into a group I’ve known for decades was a direct threat to my life and freedom.
“...but this reads like a kind of indoctrination.”
Indoctrination is what religious cults do, so it should not be a surprise to learn that many of these people are rabid evangelicals seeking to return the US to a white heterosexual Christian male patriarchy by force of twisted legal interpretation.
I’d appreciate an analysis from the Times of actual names of people with ties to this group who are also known evangelicals. I’m sure there are dominionists in the group who are pushing to install a theocracy in the US. Why isn’t that a direct violation of the First Amendment? Why isn’t anyone suing? And where are the progressive attacks on this insidious stealth jihad? Time to get it together and go after these anti-American traitors. It’s war people and Democrats have been asleep for decades.
47
The left does have this - it's called "law school."
5
@K where did you go to law school?! that was NOT my experience.
7
@Mike
Yale. I had one professor in 3 years that talked about originalism. Is it so crazy for Heritage to offer an extra 3 days?
@K yeah, sorry, that isn’t believable. First of all, the one professor would likely be your first year con law prof. Why would a torts professor talk about originalism? Why would a practical seminar professor?! Originalism isn’t a political doctrine.
I wonder how many current US citizens will like living in a country governed by Religious zealots who will be able to codify religious backed behavior via the courts?
This is really getting scary to be honest......Religion will burn the country down if we let it
Please help!
Vote
14
"Cultivating"? Is that what we're calling it now?
Because if they were judges already, or internts, or doctors it would be called bribery or indoctrination and it would, in many cases, be a crime.
Here you have a hugely well funded political machine, the Heritage Foundation and that godawful Federalist Society committed openly to one thing,: the politicization and destruction of American Jurisprudence.
Its working because, as they demonstrate every day, time and time again, American rich people are infinitely greedy and abominably stupid.
Epic stupid.
Having benefited, legally and not, from the political system that more than any other in all of history made their wealth and power possible, these overstuffed boneheads have begun to believe their own press.
They think they are wise. They think they are noble.
They think they know how to run everything.
Most amusing, they think they are smart.
And so, as one might expect, they think they need to be in charge. Of everything.
Its like Evangelicals, but with money.
So what is their brilliant plan?
To destroy the country that made them who they are. To rip its politics, its traditions, its community out at the root.
Like the idiot businessmen currently focused on selling our water (read: our lives and our futures) to the highest global bidder, these heedless lawyers and the people who buy them believe they can pervert America and somehow win.
Its frightening and disgusting in one happy package.
18
"Originalism" is such a crock. It's code for "consistently ruling in favor of corporations, Republican politicians, and right-wing Christian evangelicals over the interests of anyone else." That's the most reliable predictor of these judges' decisions - not some claptrap about "original interpretation" or "what the Framers intended." Just look at the mental gymnastics the late Justice Scalia indulged in to justify rulings that were contradictory in all senses except who benefited politically.
99
Everyone who is concerned about how the right came to own all three branches of our government must read "Dark Money". My hair is still on fire from what the Kochs, the 1%, the non-christian evangelical 1%ers have done to our American Democracy. It's no coincidence that every GOP Congressman denies climate change. In exchange for Koch donations and elections, the GOP signs an agreement NEVER to do anything to cost fossil fuel any money;the Kochs have known that fossil fuel emissions causes climate change since 1978 when Exxon Mobil's own scientists lied& hid the science to protect their huge global oil holdings & the climate be damned.The Kochs were also behind the destruction of the first electric car, the EV1. If you've never seen the full video, "Who Killed the Electric Car" you've missed the reality of what could have been.These cars were only leased & when those who had them raved had great they were, all the leased vehicles were rounded up, smashed, pulverized;one was put in a museum without the engine or any trace of how it worked;you can't understand the power &the evil of fossil fuel people until you see this;trump has global oil interests, many in russia, as told by eric when he said "well that's were most of income comes from" Once you sign with the Kochs, you follow their party line which is anti-Democracy & has been since the patriarch father worked for Stalin drilling oil for him;they are anti tax,anti social security,anti medicare,mitch is their mouthpiece
23
This sounds like a neo Nazi plot to make America a white Christian nation again with our version of oligarchs running the govt under a Trump style dictator. They have their right wing brown shirts ready to attack liberals and "others" as Trump yelled at his followers get them beat them up I will pay your legal expenses. Trump would not pay as usual but his rallies and labeling the press as enemies of the people give us a clue to his authoritarian nature along with his worship of dictators. American oligarchs need version of Putin to protect Heritage white rich Christian old white straight men free to loot tax free and grab women at will 1950 again.
14
Wow, the "Amerikans?"
7
This is the Deep-State-in-waiting.
12
I don't see what training the Heritage Foundation could offer judicial law clerks that could possibly be relevant to what law clerks do.
A law clerk has three tasks and three tasks only: conducting legal research, performing legal analysis (that means digesting and applying their research), and then writing up the results, either in the form of a memo to the judge or a draft opinion (and I do mean draft) for the judge's consideration.
How a conservative agenda plays into those functions is beyond me, especially when the vast majority of cases in the federal courts (and I do mean well in excess of 99%) don't involve any sort of "hot button" social issues. Finding the law, considering what it means, and then applying it to the facts before the court are simply not matters that change based on the liberal or conservative bent of the judge, let alone the judge's clerks.
This is a whole lot of fuss over nothing.
4
@abg
So Heritage and the Federalist Society and their billionaire backers are just wasting their money because they don't know what law clerks do? Research proves otherwise--the opinions of a given judge will shift politically based on the polical views of their clerks. This is cited in the article, but you apparently missed that and substituted your own imagination.
12
@abg
I don't think the Heritage Foundation is concerned about the law clerks going out and influencing their judges to a more conservative viewpoint. Clerking for judges is the first step on the rung of the ladder to a judgeship for the clerks themselves. The Heritage Foundation is grooming them for when they are sitting on the bench.
3
@abg
You answered you own question. Conservative clerks will interpret their research and write their opinions with a cjnser
3
Again
Dangerous
This is a case of cultivating partisan ideology
Then installing that bias into the legal system
This is working backwards to provide platforms for dangerous policy and shields to protect their enforcement
54
A laundry list of 'conservative' judicial nominees, hand-picked by private right-wing 'think tanks,' most of them with none of the experience required to serve on the federal bench, rubber stamped by a slim, strictly partisan majority in Congress; some of them snuck in through the back door while Congress is in recess.
A closed door, 'private training program' for federal judicial clerks, who will do the research and drafting to implement conservative policy for those inexperienced, fresh faced, mostly white male country club conservative judges with barely more experience than their clerks. All judges with life tenure that will leave them occupying the bench for the next 30 to 40 years or more.
At this point, why don't we just come clean about it: the 'conservative' political establishment and its private donor class are in the process of 'privatizing' the federal judiciary and remaking it in their image - predominantly privileged white male "Christian conservatives" ready, willing and now able to impose their sanctimonious, regressive 18th century "morality" on the American public with the force of law.
Is this a great country or what?
135
Wouldn’t the problems or issues with this training be more easily solved by offering comparable quality alternatives to identify potential future jurists without the ideological angle or with a different ideological underpinning? With respect to the author, the complaint seems to be that liberals are decades behind conservatives in an organizational sense. Whining is not a way to catch up.
1
@Gerald
I like the idea of training others to spot those with ideological agendas, but the problem is that jurists with those agendas are in all likelihood too valuable to the far-right to care about the objections. After all, despite the well-founded concerns about Brett Kavanaugh's qualifications, the GOP, in their naked pursuit of more power, forged ahead and he now holds a seat on a corrupted SCOTUS.
9
Federal court law clerks (the people who actually write the opinions that the judge signs) are being feted, and simultaneously indoctrinated as partisans in secret meetings. Anonymous people pay their way. Then they pledge that their supposedly nonpartisan work will forever after adhere to the party line of of two right-wing political organizations.
Am I reading about how the judicial system in Russia has been corrupted under Putin? Or how the courts work in China? This can't be America, where we have, you know, a Constitution, can it?
86
Why should public employees be attending secret trainings conducted by an outside group with a political agenda? This should be prohibited by law.
183
@Carol, I'm not sure about a legal prohibition, but it definitely smacks of fascist methodology.
15
This has been going on for years. It was written about by Jane Mayer in her book, "Dark Money".
The Koch brothers and the billionaire donors of the Republican party have bought all three branches of our government.
Unfortunately, it'll be much more difficult to get the money out of politics now that they own the Supreme Court.
207
@L A decent beginning would be to reimpose Ike's (or at least LBJ's) top marginal income tax rates on million-dollar incomes and to limit "charity" deductions to true charities, that is, to organizations that provide for the poor. The criteria for tax-exempt organizations also should be examined.
2
“These networks could nurture the next generation of Neil Gorsuches or Brett Kavanaughs.”
For the sake of the country and the rule of law, let's hope so.
3
@Michael
For the sake of the country? What country? Not the United States--our Constitution is being undermined by these people. A better description is bought--people like the Koch brothers and the DeVos family are buying the judiciary through the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society; they have they are buying state government through their organization American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the folks who have brought the country the scourge of 'stand your ground' laws; and gerrymandering at the state level has bought them the Congress.
The rule of law? Law for whom? Most assuredly not the persons of color who do not benefit from those same 'stand your ground' laws. Not same-sex couples who are treated still as second class citizens by bakers and florists and photographers who claim their 'faith' keeps them from extending the kindness of doing business with people seeking to commit to faithfulness in marriage. Not women who seek only to be able to make decisions about their own bodies without the interference of lawmakers who in some states have mandated that physicians LIE to them as they provide reproductive care.
The sitting president is enthralled with authoritarian regimes around the world and denies the work of our country's intelligence services and those charged with keeping us safe. He belittles the free press and his supporters believe him over facts. We are on a slow march to our own authoritarian regime.
How is this good for US?
51
Indoctrination is the nemesis of an open mind.
When a case makes it to the Supreme Court, by definition it has a history of divided appeals court perspectives. It is the values of Justices, and their clerks, even when couched in the idiom of precedents, that determine the decision. Bush v. Gore is the only one that admitted this, as it had the unique clause that this decision is not to be used for precedent. It could have been restated, "We award the Presidency to George W. Bush, because we have the power to do so"
More and more decisions could be defined as such. Now with this repulsive "training" where these scholars agree to secrecy, we have the evidence that the Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with scholarship, that deep endless dive into intellectual strands of thought. It now defines itself as a cult, such as Masons and Scientology, secret societies that are bound together by oath.
The constitution states that the president's selection of Judges is to be with the "advice" of a specific entity. Not a cult, or even his political party, but the Senate, that body that reflects the diversity of the country's people. When Trump states, and then restricted his selection of Justices to those of two partisan groups he had breached this constitutional requirement.
This three day seminar is the unlikely coda the pernicious destruction of the spirit of our Constitutional principles,
29
@Call Me Al
While I broadly agree with you, I think Masons would be horrified to be grouped with Scientology. Masons are not a controlling organization. On the other hand, grouping the Heritage program with Scientology looks like a home run.
8
@Call Me Al I take exception only to "...the Senate, that body that reflects the diversity of the country's people." This is not and never has been the case, which was by deliberate and pernicious design, or we wouldn't be in this mess today.
9
@Davide
In the aggregate Senate does represent this diversity, and certainly one hell of a lot more than the Heritage Federation.
Trump should have been taken to task when he first came out with the list, and then ignored the advice of the Senate, that had been reflected in the tradition of district and appeals court judges requiring the approval of the Senators, of both parties, to go forward in the confirmation procedure.
Majority rule is a blunt instrument, one that the Senate had not by tradition been bound to.
Law professors should respond to this, not by starting an equally-unethical liberal institute of their own, but rather grooming students to infiltrate this group.
Those students can later offer testimony to public defenders in death penalty states, supporting valid claims of judicial bias.
That will, at the very least, make a public record of what is going on, and name names.
76
Heritage is simply offering a balance to the left-wing indoctrination most of the recent grads probably got in law school.
3
@goackerman
Do you know anything at all about law schools?
14
@goackerman
If the far-right doesn't soon give up its addiction to paranoia, it will take the country down with it. They have already tolerated Donald Trump's presidency in their naked pursuit of power. When they talk about the deep state, it must surely be ironic. Would that it were also another example of their paranoia.
22
@Thomas Zaslavsky Yes. I went to one.
“I am not aware of anything like this on the progressive side,” she said."
That's because right-wing propaganda outlets such as the Heritage Foundation were formed and continue to be funded by wealthy patrons who wish to protect their own interests.
101
“On average, a justice would cast around 4 percent more conservative votes in a term in which she hired her most conservative clerks versus a term in which she hired her most liberal clerks,” said Maya Sen, a political scientist at Harvard and one of the authors of the study..."
Even a political "scientist" should know that 4% is very likely to be below the margin of error. Fake science, for sure.
2
I see something terribly wrong with a group that wants to sign up court employees as members of a secret society that is anti-government.
156
I have been aware of this for much longer than the past couple years with Trump's two nominations. I read at least ten years ago that the Republicans long-term strategy for affecting our country was putting as many of 'their people' on our courts. And they have been very successful, especially with their henchman Mitch McConnell heading it all up. Mitch obstructed all of Obama's District Court picks and then has been ramming them through under Trump. I find that DISGUSTING and possibly the ruination of America. No respect for truth and non-partisanship which is what the law demands. No. Mitch and the Federalist Boys demand loyalty to the party. Is it any wonder that we are all cynics now?
And these are not top-flight lawyers. Many of them that have been rammed through have never even tried a case in court and now they are going to sit on the bench FOR LIFE. Most are young, all are white, all are Christian Evangelical, all are Republican.
And that is why I have no faith in America's future. And it's all because of Mitch and the Federalists.
Our children will curse us - for not stopping Climate Change and for packing the courts against anyone but white males.
Am I angry? You bet I am.
282
@sophia Democrats have a lot to answer for as well. Where have their heads been while the Republicans have been implementing their long-term strategy?
3
@sophia Yes, sophia, well-stated. The right wing is legislating from the Judiciary now because they know their days are numbered in Congress, even with gerrymandering and electoral college and voter suppression. The majority of Americans want something else. Overturning the judiciary by constitutional amendment is extremely difficult.
And yet conservatives complain that liberal and lefty college professors are "indoctrinating" students! The Heritage Foundation has a right to advocate its agenda, but its influence has grown too great, and the secrecy surrounding this program for law clerks is troubling.
76
@Chris Rasmussen
Part of their strategy has been to re-label as 'liberal' or 'leftist' any organization that strives to be balanced/moderate.
4
No one worth their salt who was considering in a position that should be free of political bias would agree to keeping the materials they are being taught a secret.
106
It’s a shame that the law is no longer sufficient to determine court decisions.
18
If they are training federal employees, that material should be available to the public.
217
It’s amazing how close we are to Spencer Tracy and the German judges in Judgement at Nuremberg.
39
Deep state.
21
And you can bet they are going to keep a list of those who are invited but don't attend....
43
Ah, the old conservative canard—we need a factory churning out defenders of ideological nonsense, because the rest of the world is just so hopelessly liberal.
Progressives had better wake up to this power-hungry conservative drivel—if Kavanaugh wasn't sign enough, what is?
187
We Americans are tethered to a document that was written for a country that no longer exists. A constitutional convention to create a constitution for the 21st century rather than the 18th century is imperative. A black person is not 3/5 ths of a white person.
27
@ML Sweet
What you describe is a 'dead' constitution, in line with what the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society believe. Instead, the genius of the Constitution is that it is a living document--the concepts translate over generations and hundreds of years. It's limitations, which as you say were and are tethered in time, have been and should continue to be repaired through amendments.
However, a constitutional convention is the deepest desire of the far-right and would likely be the death-knell of our republic. It puts everything on the table--the very nature of citizenship; who is entitled to what rights based upon origins, sexuality, and who knows what other perverted standards; women would certainly be relegated to a permanent second-class citizenship, losing all control over their bodies to largely white men, largely wealthy, and overwhelmingly conservative, eager to impose their religious values upon them.
In fact, rather than a republic, we would in all likelihood become that much-ballyhooed yet imaginary theocracy which evangelical christians have claimed this country to be for decades. Those same people would, rather than seeking to balance the scales of justice more fairly, instead try to right what they see, in their paranoia, as their status as a persecuted minority.
No, a constitutional convention is the last thing we need.
28
@ML Sweet
The constitution that would result from such a convention would be a very different and likely more restrictive constitution than we presently have. Say good bye to the fourth and eighth amendments, and serious reconsideration of the first, whether embedded in the text or appended as amendments.
11
@ML Sweet
Just what we need, a constitutional convention in an era of dark money buying politicians, elections and entire legislatures.
6