First

wish i could have been there

why are conservatives so damn ugly?

Where is the coverage of the Cal Bar results being released today? Granted, NY had a bit more dramatic twist, but it got multiple articles. I ask for just one CalBar article. A mere acknowledgement. It may be infra dig to an east-coast legal elitist interest, but that doesn't describe this blog, right?

I was on the Metro last night when the subject of same-sex marriage came up between two flaming queens from out of town and their straight host who was taking them out for a night on the town in Dupont. The three FedSoc members sitting nearby--fresh from their buttoned-up, fully-closted gay-la--looked visibly uncomfortable. One of them even panicked and moved toward the door.

I can't even begin to describe the glee that washed over me in an awesome wave. I mean, what's it like to have a disease of the mind like that?

Is Volokh really 16 years old?

This makes me want to fucking puke

LEWW = WGWAG. CONFIRMED!

Why are there so many flaming gay republicans? Really? Seriously, you guys don't care that the rest of the bunch (besides the ones that are closeted) want you to burn in hell?

David's thumb bends back a long way, don't you think?

Is the Koz flashing a gang sign in that bottom pic? Or is the pinky sticking out thing a sign of refinement?

Yo, Koz brah, howzit dat 9th circuit brah? You help them uncle judges snap at haole kook lawyers and send em in. Shaka back at atcha', mahalo!

never were so many mediocre intellects who think they are geniuses assembled in one room.

That's no gang sign, it is a shaka. The koz is telling us all the hang loose...

absolutely gross. federalist society? seriously?

self hating gays make me gag.

That's no gang sign, it is a shaka. The koz is telling us all to hang loose...

11:53, you know nothing about the Federalist doctrine. It is not an arm of the religious right, although I freely admit it is largely populated by such folks. Federalists simply believe that the 10th Amendment means what it says. Rights not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for the states.

In theory, for example, a Congressional bill to define marriage (as between man and woman) would NOT gain the support of Federalists. Thus, it would be up to the states to define marriage.

You may be shocked to know that a number of very fiscally conservative but socially libertarian people are Federalists.

I'm always glad to read posts like this to remind myself that Lat is a self-hating dick. If the fed society had its way 60 years ago, Lat, you're non-white, gay ass wouldn't be where you are today. But it's good to see now that you've made it, you're working against the very people who worked to make sure you would have this oppurtunity.

Nice tux, David.

(Did Dead Horse Media spring for the ticket?)

12:04: Methinks the lady doth protest too much. I said nothing about my own views on the matter. I merely related my schadenfreude at the visible discomfort of the wiggity-wack closet cases with whom I was sharing my railcar. (On a shockingly populist form of public transportation, no less. Why weren't these fellows in their liberty-lovin' single-occupant Escalades?)

How many instances of "wide stance" were there in the men's room? I bet Lat was tossing out BJs like candy.

12:04(4): in theory, is the operative phrase. All too often the vocab of states' rights and the 10th amendment becomes mere rhetoric for a broader political agenda. It is difficult to come up with the true-blue federalists who believe that the institution of federalism and states' rights itself is more important than what they deem an overbearing federal government pursuing ill-conceived policies.

My god the Federalists are a comely bunch. Do they reproduce asexually by budding?

Why do you assume Ted Olson breathes oxygen?

First, this may be the most mist-branded organization in the world. Check your history books, the Federalists (Adams, Hamilton, Marshall), supported a strong CENTRAL government; the ANTI-federalists (Jefferson, chiefly) supported states rights. Amazing that the "intellectuals" in that "debating society" don't know that.

Second, to 12:03: with the possible exception of when Robert Bork dines alone.

Third, can anyone else feel the evil spewing out of the pictures. I had to scroll by fast because I could feel them sucking my soul.

There are more fair-minded, rational people in the drink line at a Federalist gathering than the entire NAACP and MoveOn.org combined.

DOH! That should be "mis-branded.

Wow. Do you think any of these people have ever starred in skin care commercials?

Really... excited to breathe the same air as Scalia...? That hurts my heart.

I think it works better at mist-branded.

The conservatives drink and laugh.

Meanwhile...across the globe...innocent people are tortured and murdered by their armies.

Where does all this immature ad hominum spring from?

what is with all the conservatives labeled "evil" "fundamentalist" "right wing chrisitans". Why not trying quoting something you disagree with that they have said? Or making an argument.

I like the "orginalist" interpretation of Federalist v. Anti-Federalist by a liberal. Ironic.

12:31...

In your wonderful rendition of history, you confuse the "Anti-Federalists" of the Federalist Papers fame (the society takes their name from the Federalist Papers) with the later anti-Federalists who later formed the opposition party (the party of Jefferson, et al.). The latter has no connection to the organization. Perhaps you should read YOUR history books. Or maybe just read Wikipedia.

Hayley is HOT!

Hayley is HOT!

Hayley is HOT!

Mr. LEWW - I loved your early work in Star Trek!!!

Will Consovoy - George Mason grad?

Yes. GMU grad

12:14 - I candidly concede that my (12:04(4)) comments were "in theory" - indeed, I admitted as much. But such is often the case, all over the political spectrum.

Teh Gay: I have no doubt of the veracity of your original post, and you are, of course, entitled to your gleeful observations. My ONLY intent was to inform you that being a Federalist does not make one a member of the Moral Majority, any more than being a Republican does. More likely, yes; absolutely, no. And that is an important distinction that highlights what is, IMHO, the entire problem with present 2 party system. I don't have to (and don't and won't) hate someone based on orientation just because I believe that cutting the Federal government in half would make the nation a better (and more constitutionally adherent) place.

Finally - Ron Paul '08

oh yea, and Hayley is hot.

12:04(4)

"If the fed society had its way 60 years ago, Lat, you're non-white, gay ass wouldn't be where you are today."

I find this comment especially funny because, aside from the the "you're"/"your" confusion, the Federalist Society was celebrating its 25th anniversary last night.

12:42: Is it ironic? Wasn't the liberal's point that if the Federalist Society is actually big on original interpretation, then they, by their own standards, misnamed their organization?

If anything is ironic, it's the Federlist Society's name, not the liberal's opinion on it.

LOL. He meant HAD THEY EXISTED 60 years ago, AND if they had their theoretical way....then....(all the other stuff he said).

Oh it's too funny watching those blinded by hate.

12:42: What's ironic about that? Liberals study history, they just learn from it. Conservative originalists, for some reason, think it ended in 1789.

Anyone who thinks the 1789 Constituion was written in clear language that would resolve all further disputes knows nothing about its history, or language. That thing punts more than the Ravens.

Also, regardless of whether you're talking about the Federalist-Papers Federalists, or the Federalist Party, BOTH were in favor of a strong central government (Hamilton was mad we didn't just name Washington King George I).

Assuming these comments are real, liberals provide me with endless entertainment. The only other animal that gets this easily worked up is a dog waiting to be fed.

1:07: You've obviously never witnessed the wrath of anti-abortionists or those who oppose gay marriage.

1:03...

Not quite accurate. Both were in favor of strongER central governments. But the earlier ones (of which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were proponents---James Madison not only wrote a number of the Federalist Papers, but later helped form the later Anti-Federalist party, the democratic-republicans) were in favor of a stronger central government than was found in the Articles of Confederation.

The second set of Federalists wanted to make the central government stronger than some felt the constitution allowed.

and 1:02...the federalist society is named for the "original" federalists---i.e., those who espoused the opinions written in the Federalist Papers, not the ones who (in the Society's opinion) broke from that tradition.

ATLers, why are we wasting our time bickering and arguing about politics and gay marriage? You're missing the real story -

We have a 100% CONFIRMED wgwag here, people. This is rarer than a flock of California condors.

1:09 - or the wrath of the FCC when a nipple is shown on tv.

it's pretty hilarious that people think the federalist society stands simply for the proposition that "rights not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for the states." just like the KKK stands simply for the proposition of "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!" (quoted from their website).

wise up, people.

TAKE THIS ENTIRE POST DOWN NOW -- IT IS AN AFFRONT TO MODERN AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE. FEDERALISTS ARE SUBVERTING TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY!!! THEY HAVE INFILTRATED THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AND WILL BE UNASSAILABLE IN A MERE ELECTION. SHAME ON YOU LAT!

just want to thank you fed soc people for running our justice system into the ground!

To borrow from the wise Sarah Silverman, "Oh look, the Federalist Society is only 25 years old and it has already accomplished everything it ever will."

Get over Roe v. Wade and stop trying to revive Lochner. And stop with the states rights crap. Guess we should still let the south be segregated if they choose to huh?

How is there been a "CONFIRMED wgwag"

Koz looks like Bam Margera's uncle, Don Vito.

I agree with 1:22... and was typing the same thing until I noticed your post!

Wow, wow, wow! So much vitriol towards the Federalists-as-proxy-for-the Republican party. Who knew? I mean, are we still bitter about the whole Bush in 2000 and 2004 thing. (You know, two "can't lose" pres. elections for the donkeys?) Are we still bitter that we belong to a party that can't ever seem to get it together (even with control of the entire Legislative branch) because our message is entirely lacking in coherence, logic, and (too often) truth. Or are we bitter in advance about the fact that -- as we all know will happen -- the GOP will "steal" the White House again 2008 because (let's face it) there is no way this country is electing Hillary Clinton? Whatever the reasons, I'm not sure we need to brand all Federalists (or Republicans) as gay-hating, war-loving, despisers of the underprivileged. I mean, seriously, can't we all just get along (with the Dems far, far, away from any decision affecting the national security of this country)??

As a follow up to 1:12: the figurehead Federalist (literally, the one on the banner) is Madison, who after the ratification of the Constitution became a Democratic Republican in opposition to the (to borrow a Tocquevillian term) small party Federalists. But both Madison and Hamilton were great party "Federalists."

WGWAG - Can you provide a photo of Laurie for confirmation? thanks.

12:57: We have far more in common than you think. My observations--which any doctrinaire FedSoc would want to be construed narrowly--merely pertained to a wryly comic situation.

Of course it's ridiculous to think that all FedSoc's hate teh gayz and want to force our children to pray in school. All bickering about the intersectionality of social, political, and fiscal beliefs aside, perhaps the larger problem is in identifying those FedSocs who really stand on principle about *everything.* (Finding these people is generally a Herculean task and, in recent times, broaches upon the Sisyphean.) It is possible, but few try, and even fewer succeed.

When the Soc is finally run by persons who, based on their adherence to principles of federalism, support New York's right to develop its own immigrant-licensing program, support state-funded stem-cell research, and support the Goodridge decision as a legitimate interpretation of state constitutional law, then perhaps the movement will gain some legitimacy in my eyes.

The Soc needs to take a cue from the Cato Institute and the editors of The Economist: Avoid partisanship. Apply the Rawlsian veil. Live by principle and by principle alone, regardless of whether the outcome is surprising or even somewhat offensive. Legitimacy will follow.

Until then, the Soc cannot be taken seriously.

The Federalist Society - discriminating against poor people and people of color for 25 years and counting!

So is Mr. LEWW the same as Mrs. Lat?

JT - I've lived in DC for 4 years now and I just want to thank you for so eloquently vocalizing what I've known for years but failed to put into words.

"People who can't disagree about politics without making it personal harsh my vibe."

That's my new motto.

1:18 / 1:19 -- brilliant. Every other vitriolic post on here about conservatives is summed up in your one (or two) post(s). It speaks for itself.

1:21 -- "Get over Roe v. Wade and stop trying to revive Lochner." That's pretty funny. Is Roe v. Wade firm, fool-proof jurisprudence? Really? I didn't realize case law was not meant to be questioned. And let's see a democrat get nominated for anything if he or she so much as dared to question any small bit of Roe v. Wade. Roe is more of a litmus test for the left than the right. (PS -- Sarah's line was funny when she said it).

1:18 anon....don't look now, but your blind hatred is showing.

If I want states to have the right to set their own laws on (1) drugs (2) abortion (3) marriage....how is that anti-choice or anti-gay?

Never mind...your hatred consumes you to the point that you cannot accept rational debate because to your mind, anyone who wants a smaller federal government MUST ALL be hate filled war mongers.

One day, the veil of reason may be lifted for you. Not so you will agree with me (I would never ask that - I applaud competing opinions), but so that anyone who does not agree with you does not automatically become evil incarnate.

"Who better to report on one of the year's biggest social events than the writer of Legal Eagle Wedding Watch?"

I can think of about 100 better people... starting with Billy Merck.

"...but that was a small price to pay to breathe the same oxygen as Ted Olson, Antonin Scalia, and Laura Ingraham."

They breathe oxygen? I could have sworn they were sulfur-inhalers.

1:12: That doesn't change what I said.

I wasn't endorsing the "liberal" poster's version of the underlying facts, I was only posting that 12:42's allegation of irony didn't make any sense.

To 1:39.

I agree. Furthermore, the states should also have the right to set their own laws regarding slavery, miscegenation (which is an issue of marriage), contraception, and welfare. The federal government tries to control too much.

What's with all the hating on hatred? It's the only thing keeping me going these days. Try it - feels good.

1:21 here. Roe v. Wade was the right decision made with terrible reasoning. And in her academic writings, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had said Roe was problematic in reasoning, but also because it killed nascent grass roots movements that might have more easily helped us reach a national consensus. Guess what! She got nominated and confirmed. No one is saying Roe is an unassailable precedent, but rather the idea of "sending abortion back to the states," ought to be a non-issue by now. The world has not ended and we have not all gone to hell in a handbasket. We have other things to worry about. Like why Sarah Silverman was arrested on her show for licking her dog's ass in the privacy of her own home.

1:43 -- Please look up the meaning of the phrase "tongue in cheek." Thanks.

1:44

I guess the irony is found in the hubristic know-it-all writing---only to be completely wrong. But I understand what you are saying before---maybe not the best example of irony. I had mis-read your earlier comment.

1:46...touche, but...there is this little thing in the Constitution banning slavery. It is a good thing. And states can't trump it. And the SCt has determined that the document also protects contraception and bands miscenegation laws.

On the other hand, nowhere does the document say, and, at least to my knowledge, never has the SCt ruled, that the Feds should collect taxes and then use them to tell the states how to tell the villages/towns/counties/cities how to rund their schools.

Teh Gay - we do agree a lot. And where we disagree, we do so politely, and I respect that and your opinions. Would that we could each control our own partisan colleagues to do the same. And with this final shot, I am done...

RON PAUL 2008

(oh yea, and Hayley's hot)

Laurie Lin has posted pics of herself previously, and she is indeed a white girl. Search the archives.

The vitriol and intolerance of the left very predictably shines through on this thread.

Hayley Reynolds? She is gorgeous.

Hayley is a Cornell grad. She is gorgeous and intelligent, but I believe she is married.

You know you're dealing with a bunch of assholes when they get all hot and bothered for Shrub. You're a dying and delusional breed.

Yep--you guys got it. It's the left that's completely intolerant and wants to let majorities usurp individual rights. Yep, we sure do like forcing our way of life on everyone. We just force people not to make decisions based on their own conscience but what we say their conscience should be. Clearly we hope to one day force EVERYONE to get an abortion and to get a gay marriage and to smoke pot.

"breathe the same oxygen as Ted Olson, Antonin Scalia, and Laura Ingraham"

Pardon me while I mop my breakfast off of the floor.

2:10...so what. So am I. Did not stop Bill, should not stop me.

The number of African Americans in the photos tells you all you need to know about the philosophy of the Federalist Society.

2:13(2) . . .

You seem proud of being scum. Why don't you just post your name?

has anyone here actually been to a federalist society meeting? the amount of vitriol and hate that gets spewed each and every second during such episodes easily trumps a silly website forum.

2:23....it was a joke. You are way too serious for a Friday. Go have a drink. Talk business so you can bill the time.

Joey Fatone says: The number of Commie/Rapper/German/Russian/Vietnamese/Nazi/Skinhead/N'Sync fan/Purple people-eater/ad nauseam...-Americans in the photos tells you all you need to know about the philosophy of the {insert name} Society.

Joey Fatone says assuming lack of representation from random photo is as good as assuming facts not in evidence. Presuming philosophy therefrom is being a nitwit. Joey hopes you bill for something other than thinking.

For those who find the originalist position to be "unrealistic" in a changing world, might I remind you of a silly little clause in the U.S. Constitution called "Article 5: Amendment." The argument is not that we knew all answers in 1789; the argument is that changes to that original contract between the people and its government should be dictated pursuant to the terms of such document, rather than to the whim of an appointed government official.

Make the damned thing as liberal or conservative as you want ("you" being "the people"), just do it by the rules that were set out instead of behind our backs. It's the only intellectually honest thing to do.

1:18/1:19: At my uber-liberal law school, we learned the answer to speech you don't like is MORE speech, not less speech.

Joey -- the Bob Dole schtick was old when he did it.

And I did not say that the number of African Americans in the photos proves anything -- I said it tells you everything you need to know about the philosophy of the F.S.

And you can have a cookie for using the phrase "assuming facts not in evidence."

Criminal Inj.: Lance Bass says leave Joey alone. Lance Bass wants to know what idiot thinks the philosophy of any group of people can be garnered from the pigmentation of those photographed randomly at a function? Lance thinks enviro-hippies are stoned white kids and from the pictures of various WTO protests he concludes that their philosophy is a thin gruel of illiterate freshmen stupidity and self-righteous preening, funded by dad's platinum card and fueled by insecurity of the job market; is Lance right or capable of making that judgment from the evidence?

Joey thanks you for the cookie. Righteousness tastes sweet to him, too.

Mr. LEWW is hot!

This WGWAG has good taste.

2:33 -- good point! Of course, the founders scrupulously followed the amendment procedures of the Articles of Confederation, right, so that totally backs up your point too. Just like how there was nothing illegal under prevailing British law about the American Revolution!

All law has extra-legal foundations, dude. It is impossible for that not to be true. What matters is whether innovations are recognized as law by the legal community, not whether they were lawful when made.

Everyone is missing the most important part of the photos (besides Hayley's hotness): the Koz surfs! I wonder if he gets the spiritual side or "only lives to get radical" like warchild in point break.

Captian FIRST!: Kudos, for your 2:26 post, and thank you for the Lollicoptors.

Lance Bass don't surf.

"When the Soc is finally run by persons who, based on their adherence to principles of federalism, support New York's right to develop its own immigrant-licensing program, support state-funded stem-cell research, and support the Goodridge decision as a legitimate interpretation of state constitutional law, then perhaps the movement will gain some legitimacy in my eyes."

----------

Teh Gay - You're confusing principle and policy. This is mistake made far too often on both sides of the aisle. The principle of Federalism says that all of the above things (NY's licensing program, etc.) are (or ought to be) within the purview of the state governments and should not be struck down by SCOTUS or preempted by an act of Congress. Being a Federalist, however, says nothing (or at least shouldn't) about your views on policy issues. That is something entirely separate.

It is true that many people adopt a particular principle because they believe that it will help them argue for their preferred policies (Oh, I lost with the legislature? No worries, I'll just get a court to strike down the bill). Usually when these people are faced with a natural consequence of their principle which does not coincide with their policy, they abandon their principle. This is (1) sad and wrong and (2) not true of every Federalist.

I support federalism. I also oppose state funding of stem-cell research. These two views, however, are neither joined nor are they in conflict. What it does mean is that I will pursue my policy interests within the state legislature (or perhaps the courts). If I lose, I will continue to try to enact change (which is much easier to do when people leave these things to state legislatures) and keep working until I (1) get what I want, (2) give up and move on to something else, or (3) die.

2:56 - You make an interesting point. The question, however, is what significance you make of the methods employed to go from (1) British Colonial Rule to American Independence, (2) Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution, and (3) Law-As-It-Was-This-Morning to Law-As-SCOTUS-Now-Says-It-Should-Be.

(1) Military Revolution

(2) Constitutional Convention

(3) Anthony Kennedy

So I'm confused. Laurie Lin authors but with Lat's picutre. So Lurie Lin is Lat's alter-ego and Edward Lin is his lover?

The Federalist Society invented HIV/AIDS

The Federalist Society created the HIV/AIDS epidemic

The Federalist Society has banned you!

The Federalist Society are the Illuminati and a political-arm of the "Pentaverate"

Wow--there's more gayface in that room than at a Cher concert.

are there many african americans at a netroots convention?

12:04/12:57 -- I find it funny that you make a point of distinguishing the religious right from the federalists, and then you go on to proclaim your support for a religious right federalist candidate. That's pretty hilariously ironic.

Also, the Tenth Amendment says rights are reserved to the states OR THE PEOPLE. I.e., not even the states get the right to tell me who to have sex with or who to treat as my spouse or how and when to reproduce. So Ron Paul does NOT believe in the entire Tenth Amendment, but conveniently only in a portion of it. Bummer.

LOL 3:14.

My point is that it is a non-sequitur to say that "nothing not enacted in the Article V manner can be considered constitutional law" if we, in fact, all act as if SCOTUS decisions are just as binding as the constitution, which we do. So, at present, we have all given AMK the job of telling us what laws we can and cannot enact. It may not be a great setup, but it is descriptively the way that conlaw works.

Now, that isn't to say that we can't criticize how AMK (or SCOTUS more generally) is doing his job, and ask that he make decisions in a more restrained way. But the argument that it is somehow dishonest for AMK to apply constitutional constructions you disagree with solely because of the existence of the amendment process is a little shallow. We've done it this way for a long, long time -- it should come as no surprise to any American that the law of the constitution is (within broad limits) whatever five members of the supreme court say it is. At least, until we exercise that amendment process!

Truth Matters: the Fed. Soc. didn't create HIV. I did. Because I was pissed off at the lack of WGWAG.

Now, after seeing Mr. LEWW, I will withdraw it.

I was there last night. It was a wonderful event, very well-attended and fun. The partying continued into the wee hours at several nearby bars.

Even if you don't agree with the Federalist Society, you have to commend the group for stimulating debate at law schools and within the legal profession. At the dinner, they played a video tribute in which several liberals, including Nadine Strossen of the ACLU, praised the Society.

Congratulations to the Federalist Society on its 25th anniversary!