Lib Bloggers in conference call with Schumer this morning

[AnnInLa]

You guys better go read...it ain't lookin' good.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010744.html

[Spazito]

1. Geez, the dems HAVE to fight this tooth and nail!

"Sen. Schumer was emphatic in his remarks to us. He said the hard right, both economic and religious, has decided that the only way to push their agenda through is to control the courts. If they win and gain control of the courts, both economically and socially, they will roll back America to the 1930's or the 1890's.

He said that the hard right made a deal with George Bush during the election. It would support him and "not hound him", but he had to cede control of his judicial nominations to the Federalist Society."

I have NO doubt about the deal between bush and the Federalist Society, none whatsoever!

[BurtWorm]

3. Remember the closed door session with the Christian right in 2000?

Before the election? No one could get a transcript or a photo, or even a quote from anyone there. This must have beeen the day of the deal.

[Spazito]

5. Yep, it makes perfect sense

and also answers the question of why the CR have been muted on issues they would normally be up-in-arms about concerning actions the bush cabal has taken.

[bryant69]

2. Oy

One hope is that this might be a phyrric victory (i.e. they offend so many people winning they lose the midterms) - but even that seems like a slim hope.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Just Me]

6. Actually, we've already seen evidence of a "phyrric victory".

Neat phrase, "phyrric victory".

The Shiavo spectacle was a political disaster.

This nuclear crap is also a political disaster.

The social security privatization is a political disaster.

The Iraq war continues to be a political disaster.

Galloway's testimony was absolutely delicious!!!

And "slim" always comes with hope.

[BurtWorm]

4. Recommending the thread.

[AnnInLa]

7. The Federalist Society

"He said that the hard right made a deal with George Bush during the election. It would support him and "not hound him", but he had to cede control of his judicial nominations to the Federalist Society."

me: I am reading about the Federalist Society right now in David Brock's book, Blinded by the Right. I don't want to give a bunch of info about it right now, unless anyone is interested? Or does everyone already know the why/what/who about it?

[MrMonk]

8. Start a thread

All I know about the Federalist Society is that a number of the young ones are arrogant and obnoxious, they "kiss up and kick down", and have no clue that they are shitting in their own beds.

On edit: eliminated a euphemism from my metaphor.

[Spazito]

9. Here is a good article on the Federalist Society, makes for....

VERY interesting reading, not only who is in it but what their goal is.

The Federalist Society
The Conservative Cabal That's Transforming American Law

By Jerry Landay

snip

Law, politics, or both?

Funnily enough, despite all that its members and affiliates have done in the service of the conservative cause, the Federalist Society is decidedly reluctant about claiming credit for its impact out in the political world.

"We do not touch partisan politics in any way shape or form," says the Society¹s executive director Eugene Meyer. "We do not lobby. We are a forum for ideas, discussion, and debate."

Meyer has financial reasons to say this: The Society¹s tax-exempt status requires it to stay away from political activity. But to call the society apolitical is a bit of a stretch, says Alfred Ross, whose Institute for Democracy Studies tracks right-wing organizations and will soon publish a report on the Federalist Society. Ross points out that strategizing and working to change the law is an inherently political act. The Society "pollinates, permeates, and shapes the rhetoric and the debate about the law itself" says Ross. "To the extent that the judicial system is how a democratic society is organized, of course the Federalists are political."

To see that he¹s right, one need only review changes that litigators linked to the Federalists have wrought upon the law. They have weakened or rolled back statutes on civil rights and affirmative action; voting rights; women¹s rights and abortion rights; workers¹ rights; prisoners¹ rights; and the rights of consumers, the handicapped, and the elderly. Add to that the consequences of non-delegation if further extended. Regulatory oversight by federal agencies would then be kicked back to Congress and the states--like the power to preserve open pipelines in telecommunications, to regulate transportation, the drugs we take, the food we eat. Would we really want elected officials directly responsible for regulating industries that are also major sources of their campaign funds? That is very much a political question--one to which the Federalist Society¹s answer is unfortunately all too clear.



http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html