Federalist Society’s Role In Picking SCOTUS Nominees
Articles,  Blog

Federalist Society’s Role In Picking SCOTUS Nominees


PRESIDENT TRUMP IS MAKING A SUPREME COURT PICK. THEY ARE HISTORIC AND CERTAINLY WILL CARRY LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR A GENERATION. CENTRAL TO THE ELECTION OF BRETT KAVANAUGH, WAS THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY. THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK, A GROUP OF CONSERVATIVES WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS A GROUP DEDICATED TO REFORMING THE CURRENT LEGAL ORDER. THE SOCIETY HAS SPENT DECADES GROOMING CONSERVATIVE LAWYERS AND JUDGES, HELPING THEM TO GET NOMINATED TO HIGHER COURTS. JENNIFER IS IN ATTORNEY, A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY IN BOSTON. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING IN. FIRST OF ALL, WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE NOMINATION? I THINK IT IS AN EXCELLENT CHOICE. I THINK EVERYONE ON THE LIST WAS HIGHLY QUALIFIED. JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH MOST OF ALL WITH HIS WIDE RANGE OF EXPERIENCE. OVER ONE DECADE ALREADY ON THE BENCH AND HIS STELLAR ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS. LOTS OF DECISIONS OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY PUT TOGETHER THIS LIST OF JUDGES FOR THE PRESIDENT. NEIL GORSUCH CAME FROM THAT LIST. BRETT KAVANAUGH CAME FROM THE LIST. THIS GROUP, WHICH IS FUNDED BY OUTSIDE MONEY, PRESENTS NAMES TO THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT THEN PICKS FROM THOSE. IS THAT HEALTHY FOR MAKING SURE WE ARE COMING UP WITH INDEPENDENT-MINDED JUDGES? I WILL TELL YOU WHY, THE PAST TWO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS, WERE BOTH LAWYERS THEMSELVES. IN FACT THEIR WIVES WERE LAWYERS. SO THE CLINTONS ATTENDED THE GAIL, THE OBAMA IS HAD ATTENDED HARVARD. THEY KNEW VERY WELL THE TYPES OF PEOPLE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO A POINT TO COURT. INDEED, THEY WERE FRIENDS WITH MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO WORK ON THE LIST. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS HAVE NOT HAD THAT BACKGROUND. RIGHT? EVEN BUSH, NOW PRESIDENT TRUMP, NOT LAWYERS. NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THE BENCH, SO TO SPEAK. SO IT MAKES SENSE THAT THEY WOULD DEFER TO EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE PLAYERS. THE ONE TIME YOU REALLY DID NOT SEE THAT HAPPEN WAS WHEN PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH SELECTED HARRIET MYERS FOR THE SUPREME COURT. WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN A PRESIDENT IS NOT A LAWYER, HE DOES NOT RELY ON EXPERTS, HE TENDS TO THE FIRM — HE TENDS TO REFER TO CRONYISM. HE ENDED UP PULLING HER. YES, BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT QUALIFIED. I HAVE READ ARGUMENT — I HAVE READ SOME ARTICLES WHERE THE SOCIETY HAS SAID THEY WERE NOT FAMILIAR WITH HER. SO THEY SENT A SIGNAL. IT WAS NOT THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE THE CONSERVATIVE CREDENTIALS, SHE DID NOT HAVE THE LEGAL CREDENTIALS. SHE WAS NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME. WHEN SPEAKING OF PRIME TIME, AS QUESTIONING BEGINS FOR THE JUDGE, WE KNOW IN RECENT DECADES, EVER SINCE — IT HAS EVOLVED. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE FOCUS OF THE QUESTIONING WILL BE FOR THE JUDGE AND BECAUSE ROE V. WADE IT SEEMS TO BE THE ISSUE THAT IS BEING TALKED ABOUT PREDOMINANTLY, WHAT DO YOU THINK HIS VIEWS ARE ON ABORTION RIGHTS? HIS FOCUS WILL BE ON ROE V. WADE. I DON’T THINK THAT IS NECESSARILY A GOOD THING FOR THE SYSTEM, BUT, I THINK IT WILL BE ON THAT BECAUSE IT RAISES MONEY. SO DEMOCRATIC SENATORS CAN MAKE A BIG POINT OF AFFIRMING THEIR SUPPORT FOR ABORTION RIGHTS AND IT HELPS TO FILL THEIR COFFERS FOR REELECTION. I DON’T THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEMSELVES NEED TO FOCUS ON THAT SO MUCH BECAUSE WE DON’T EVEN KNOW IF AN ABORTION RELATED CASE WILL COME BEFORE THE COURT. EVEN IF IT DOES ROE V. WADE HAS BEEN REAFFIRMED SEVERAL TIMES. SO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT WILL ONLY BE TO WHAT EXTENT CAN STATE JURISDICTIONS REGULATE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ROE V. WADE. THE OTHER ISSUE THAT IS MAKING HEADLINES, BRETT KAVANAUGH WROTE A ARTICLE IN 2009, ARGUING THAT CONGRESS SHOULD PASS A LAW EXEMPTING PRESIDENTS FROM BEING INVESTIGATED OR SUED. PRESIDENT FROM FACES BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES RIGHT NOW. HE FACES A POSSIBLE SUBPOENA FROM ROBERT MUELLER. THAT WOULD GO TO THE SUPREME COURT. WHERE DO YOU THINK BRETT KAVANAUGH WILL STAND ON THAT POSITION? I THINK THEY WILL ASK HIM ABOUT THAT NEXT WEEK BUT I THINK HE WAS CLEAR IN HIS ARTICLE THAT HE THOUGHT CONGRESS SHOULD PASS THE LAW TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT FROM THOSE SORTS OF INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE POLITICALLY IT DISTRACTED HIM FROM THE WORK OF THE NATION. HE DID NOT SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT ALREADY HAD A RIGHT TO BE INSULATED FROM THOSE THINGS OR COURTS COULD GRANT THOSE RIGHTS. IN FACT, AS A CONSERVATIVE, MY GUESS IS HE WOULD NOT THINK THE COURTS COULD GRANT SUCH A RIGHT. IN FACT, HE WOULD BE DIFFERENTIAL TO CONGRESS, WHICH IN THIS CASE HAS NOT ACTED. YOU THINK YOU WOULD ALLOW A SUBPOENA? THAT WOULD BE MY GUESS.

One Comment

  • dbdevour

    The Federalist Society = Anti-American Anti-Human Anti-Democratic 1% Parasitic Zombies…
    Why would you give any air time to this Anti-American Sycophant???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *