Thank you for bringing this study to light. To the extent that the conclusions withstand further scrutiny, should the Federalist Society receive a portion of the credit?
Most definitely—credit or blame, depending on one's point of view. But I will, as I did in my recent post, remind folks that FedSoc as an official organization does not do this; I'm speaking of it here as more of a (very powerful) network. So a lot of the work on judges, for example, was done by Leonard Leo—who officially resigned as FedSoc VP to spearhead this.
It will be interesting to see what happens with judges if Trump wins in November. It has been reported that he was unhappy with some FedSoc-affiliated judges who ruled against him (e.g., in election cases). So I don't think FedSoc will have the same level of influence or access when it comes to judicial appointments in a second Trump administration.
That said, the FedSoc network is so large that lawyers and judges who are members or have ties to it will inevitably be getting judicial appointments under Trump. In other words, I think the Trump administration would have a hard time filling judgeships if it required nominees to have no ties to FedSoc whatsoever.
Fabulous reporting, Mr. Lat! This transcends mere legal punditry (which I also enjoy), and constitutes a genuine service to our profession.
I have personal experience only with one of these judges, but I believe I was among the last lawyers to have tried a jury case, which then resulted in a successful appeal, before the Hon. Jennifer Elrod while she was on the bench of the 190th District Court of Harris County (before Dubya nominated her to the Fifth Circuit bench). It was a very garden-variety commercial case, a suit for an accounting arising out of a corporate acquisition. She'd granted partial summary judgment against my client before trial, but I won all the issues submitted to the jury after a very fair trial. I then won a partial reversal of her partial summary judgment, which led to an equitable settlement. When I spoke to her later, congratulating her on her Fifth Circuit nomination, she was extremely gracious about the reversal. And she had other kind words to say about some of my law-blogging she'd come across, which I offer up as a data-point confirming her continuing commitment, on a personal and professional level, to the practicing bar from the bench. I count myself a fan, and I'm entirely unsurprised to see that she scored well in this data-driven analysis.
Thank you (and the professors). It's only fair (and it should be common sense) to judge judges by their "behaviour" (Art. III) and not their appointments under Articles I and II. As Hamilton emphasized in The Federalist No. 78, judges are “servant[s]” or “representative[s]” of “the people,” not of the other public servants responsible for their appointments. Imposing the “standard of good behavior” on judges was carefully chosen to provide an “excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of [all such] representative[s]” and “to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws” by all public servants.
Thank you for bringing this study to light. To the extent that the conclusions withstand further scrutiny, should the Federalist Society receive a portion of the credit?
Most definitely—credit or blame, depending on one's point of view. But I will, as I did in my recent post, remind folks that FedSoc as an official organization does not do this; I'm speaking of it here as more of a (very powerful) network. So a lot of the work on judges, for example, was done by Leonard Leo—who officially resigned as FedSoc VP to spearhead this.
It will be interesting to see what happens with judges if Trump wins in November. It has been reported that he was unhappy with some FedSoc-affiliated judges who ruled against him (e.g., in election cases). So I don't think FedSoc will have the same level of influence or access when it comes to judicial appointments in a second Trump administration.
That said, the FedSoc network is so large that lawyers and judges who are members or have ties to it will inevitably be getting judicial appointments under Trump. In other words, I think the Trump administration would have a hard time filling judgeships if it required nominees to have no ties to FedSoc whatsoever.
Fabulous reporting, Mr. Lat! This transcends mere legal punditry (which I also enjoy), and constitutes a genuine service to our profession.
I have personal experience only with one of these judges, but I believe I was among the last lawyers to have tried a jury case, which then resulted in a successful appeal, before the Hon. Jennifer Elrod while she was on the bench of the 190th District Court of Harris County (before Dubya nominated her to the Fifth Circuit bench). It was a very garden-variety commercial case, a suit for an accounting arising out of a corporate acquisition. She'd granted partial summary judgment against my client before trial, but I won all the issues submitted to the jury after a very fair trial. I then won a partial reversal of her partial summary judgment, which led to an equitable settlement. When I spoke to her later, congratulating her on her Fifth Circuit nomination, she was extremely gracious about the reversal. And she had other kind words to say about some of my law-blogging she'd come across, which I offer up as a data-point confirming her continuing commitment, on a personal and professional level, to the practicing bar from the bench. I count myself a fan, and I'm entirely unsurprised to see that she scored well in this data-driven analysis.
Very interesting! Not everyone who’s a good appellate judge would be a good trial judge (and vice versa).
And as you know as a longtime listener of Advisory Opinions, she’s a fantastic singer as well. Judge Elrod has many talents!
Thank you (and the professors). It's only fair (and it should be common sense) to judge judges by their "behaviour" (Art. III) and not their appointments under Articles I and II. As Hamilton emphasized in The Federalist No. 78, judges are “servant[s]” or “representative[s]” of “the people,” not of the other public servants responsible for their appointments. Imposing the “standard of good behavior” on judges was carefully chosen to provide an “excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of [all such] representative[s]” and “to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws” by all public servants.