The Federalist Society and the Nomination of Supreme Court Justices

Many statements about the nomination of justices to the Supreme Court by political figures have been made, but few come as strongly as the quote from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: ldquo;Those justices were purchased by the Federalist Society.rdquo; This assertion brings to light the complex relationship between political ideologies and the judiciary, particularly through the lens of the Federalist Society.

Origins and Influence

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump sought to establish a connection with the Federalist Society, a non-partisan group supporting Constitutional originalists. When asked for a list of potential Supreme Court nominees, Trump turned to the Federalist Society, which was praised in the polls as one reason he won the election if not for the single reason. The three justices he ultimately appointed came from lists prepared by the Federalist Society, but importantly, Trump made the final choice himself and was under no obligation to choose from these candidates.

The Role of the Federalist Society

A common misperception is that the Federalist Society actively nominates justices to the Supreme Court. In truth, the Society does not directly nominate anyone; instead, they question and vet potential candidates during hearings. Historically, Federalist Society nominees tend to be center-right, not necessarily far-right, as the chart still reflects this alignment despite being a year out of date. However, the reality is that the Federalist Society’s influence extends far beyond mere recommendations.

Political Connections and Influence

During the Trump administration, the Federalist Society played an instrumental role in selecting potential judges for every appointment to the federal bench, including the Supreme Court. This arrangement was part of a deal with the religious right, which funds the Society with dark money, thus keeping the true decision-makers behind closed doors. This practice is more than just concerning; it represents the ultra-rich religious conservatives having a decisive influence on some of the most important legal questions of our time.

Democrat-Society Influence

Contrary to the Federalist Society, there is also the American Constitution Society (ACS), a group that supports more progressive judicial nominees. Both societies generate lists of qualified judges, and the president’s people then select from these lists. However, it is worth noting that the influence of these societies has been exaggerated in some narratives.

Expertise and Political Leeches

The idea that presidents, even progressive ones like Joe Biden, are not well-versed in legal matters is often disregarded. Instead of knowing a plethora of potential nominees, presidents typically rely on legal experts, such as those from the Federalist Society and ACS, to provide qualified candidates. Additionally, political appointees and party leeches have little direct input in the nomination process, contrary to public perception. The role of Mitch McConnell is often misunderstood, with many believing his influence extends far beyond subtle refusals to hold confirmations. This misconception highlights a broader misunderstanding of the real dynamics at play in judicial nominations.

Conclusion

In summary, the nomination of Supreme Court justices is significantly influenced by the Federalist Society, a non-partisan group that supports constitutional originalists. This influence extends from recommending judicial candidates and vetting them to playing a crucial role in shaping the ideological landscape of the federal judiciary. Understanding the complex relationship between political ideologies and the judiciary is essential for a clear picture of the nomination process.