Talk:Federalist Society

message: Hello, I recently read that Bush has been using the Federalist Society to review and approve judges rather than the American Bar Association, as was the practice before this administration.  Is this true and, if so, what does this mean?  I would love to see this mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.123.105 (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bush Administration announced in March 2001 that it would no longer provide the ABA with a list of prospective judicial nominees, but the ABA has never had any official role in the evaluation of prospective federal judges, much less the Federalist Society.  Even so, the Federalist Society has long been known among legal professionals to be a career vehicle for law enforcement officers, criminal prosecutors, and conservative judges. // NetEsq 04:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush

message: Some comments on your page:  I think there could be a clearer first sentence simply defining what the Federalist Society is/does, rather than its history, which could go in the second sentence.  I have read the entry and am confused about whether it's a non-profit organization, a thinktank, a membership organization, or a system of ideas taken up by member groups at law schools.  Also, is James Madison the father of the constitution or the father of the Bill of Rights?  If either one is true, then he should be listed in the entry List of people known as the father or mother of something, where he is listed as father of the Constitution.  Also, this has nothing to do with your article, but since Madison did an about-face in later life and abandoned the Federalists for the Democratic-Republicans, why would he be the poster boy for the Federalist Society?  And, if he was involved with the writing of the Bill of Rights, and advocated an even wider list of protected rights, why would the Federalist Society champion him and oppose the ACLU?  Bruxism 17:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: General suggestions for improvement

message: Under the "Background" heading in the article, federalism is defined as "the concept that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be." I don't think that is an accurate definition of federalism, which really has more to do with the relationship between levels of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.134.25 (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: The current text of the article quotes Sidney Blumenthal's Guardian Unlimited article, "All the president's men":
:According to one source, "There is simply not a single presidential appointee in a position of legal responsibility who is not a card-carrying member."
I have to wonder if this is even the least bit accurate. If the U.S. president appoints all Federal justices, including all Supreme Court justices, does this mean that all Federal justices and all nine current members of the Supreme Court are members? Or are the non-members not considered to be "in a position of legal responsibility"? If Blumenthal was referring specifically to the current president's appointees, as the tone of the article may suggest, the inaccurate blanket implication should be corrected in our article. Does anyone have some clarifying information on this? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pretty obvious that Blumenthal is refering to current appointees. Blumental is well-known, and the Guardian a world-newspaper, so I'm sure this quote is totally relevant & should be added again to the entry. Stop bickering over POV, any way, liberals who are reading this page will read it from their POV, and the same goes for conservatives - whatever the page itself says. Wikipedia is not a place to convince people, but just to display various opinions and facts. People don't change ideas so easily! So, the best action is simply to put the maximum info possible, of course with quotes and references, using a quiet factual language. But a factual language also means that various interpretations are to be taken into account, as they are no pure facts, only interpretations, and interpretations are always efficient; hence, they're factual... Tazmaniacs 18:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Presidential appointee" quote

message: The opening paragraph mentions the "top-20-ranked law schools", but by whom are they ranked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.234 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: U.S. News is inarguably the definitive source for American law school rankings.  You can safely assume that that was what the opening paragraph was referring to, unless it stated otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.149.159 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Top 20

message: The article suffers from obvious partisan bickering and it really confuses any reader actually seeking to inform themselves of what the Society stands for and what sort of activities it puts on.  Particularly troubling is the selection of the most hot button issues - ones that aren't libertarian but instead are nakedly "right-wing" (anti-evolution teaching, etc.) followed by a one-sentence that these are not endorsed by the society itself.  A cursory read might glance right over this explnation...also what's with the back-and-forth over the ABA?  This article isn't about the ABA and its not really about some left-wing group's charge that the Fed Soc. is engaging in some back-scenes lobbying to push conservative judges.  That whole section should be taken out.
In short, I would ask authors of this article, particularly those with an obvious bone to pick with the Feddies, not to conflate the views of Federalist Society members with the goals of the organization itself or its leadership.  Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.168.170 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, Federalist/Federalism historically referred to the founding fathers, who dismantled the Articles of Confederation in favor of a national Constitution.  However, our Constitution is a Republic or federation of States.  The contemporary liberal is typically in favor of a more "national" approach to governance than the contemporary conservative or libertarian who typically favors a federation of semi-independent States. Hence, the "Federalist" moniker belongs not to nationalists but to supports of a true Republic.  --Davidp 14:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement is grossly inaccurate.  The founding fathers wanted to make a STRONGER national government than the one available under the Articles of Confederation (there were multiple debates about just how much stronger it needed to be, but everyone agreed that a weak national government was inadequate).  Moreover, Alexander Hamilton, who wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers (after which the society is named) was as big a nationalist as you can get.  149.101.1.116 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey, how about everyone shuts up? 

message: "Its publications have printed articles criticizing teaching evolution"  The issue before last of the Federalist's Harvard Journal has a very pro-evolution article.  I have been a member for years and have never read anything that was anti-evolution.  I have removed the remark and expect to see evidence for this bizarre claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.255.219 (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution

message: this article is "POV by omission"; it has whitewashed out a discussion of the controversy generated by the organization.  there is no "controversy" section at all, which is customary for controversial topics. Benwing 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. A Controversy section should be added, and controversies should be discussed. Engender (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Seems the article is still missing any such sections. Somehow I doubt that there's literally never been any criticism/controversy surrounding the group. While WP:CRIT may suggest that dedicated "Criticism" sections should be avoided (if not carefully watched, they can just end up becoming a dumping ground for every negative thing said/written about the topic), major criticisms/controversies can be important enough to deserve their own section. Otherwise, criticisms can also be worked into the rest of the article as appropriate. V2Blast (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV by omission 

message: A series of glosses and conclusions were included with links to the People For the American Way.  These aren't quotations or citations to statements of the Federalist Society.  If a section on "opposition" wants to be created, then perhaps the PFAW links are appropriate there.  Otherwise, they're conclusory allegations that aren't facts about the history of the organization.  Simply stating that the Federalist Society helps Bush and the Right isn't a fact; it's POV meant to drive attention-grabbing. Zz414 15:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly Agree/Strongly Support.--Black Flag 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PFAW POV 

message: Who were the founders of the Federalist Society?  According to this New York Times article, Prof Stephen Calabresi of Northwestern was one of them ... can anyone find info on who the others are, so it can be included in the article? MOXFYRE (contrib) 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to a Weekly Standard article about Fred Thompson, David McIntosh was one of the founders. Sbowers3 18:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founders? 

message: I am a relatively new user of Wikipedia so forgive me if I am wrong about a style issue, but shouldn't references be references, i.e. have  and  tags? Then they would show up in the references/footnotes section with some details about the reference. Most of the references seem to be inline links to outside web pages. Sbowers3 18:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  references should be references, no? 

message: The problem with listing links to the webpages of individual chapters is that there are 180 student chapters alone, not to mention lawyer chapters.  You can't possibly list links for every one that has a webpage, as it would make the links section insufferably long.  So then you're left with deciding which chapters get a link and which don't--an unresolvable issue.  The best solution is to have no links at all.  Most (i.e., the best) fraternity, club, organization, etc. pages don't have links to individual chapters for precisely this reason. --Velvet elvis81 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Perhaps the main Federalist Society site has a list of individual chapters, and we could link to that list? MOXFYRE (contrib) 18:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual Chapter links 

message: Monica Goodling stated she is a member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.103.62 (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monica Goodling 

message: The Membership paragraph under Aims and Membership is a rather clumsy "guilt by association" tack. If the Federalist Society itself did not do this, it does not belong in an article about the Federalist Society. To say that "Federalist Society members helped..." without citing WHO or HOW is just not useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverstarseven (talk • contribs) 14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point? 

message: The Federalist Society is neither conservative nor libertarian, they are neocons:
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9231
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8558
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8329
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8395
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=12039
http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11800
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3261
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3961
--195.0.220.117 (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What it is 

message: Is it possible to find an alternative source for the membership section besides People For the American Way, a clearly biased source?  I am not specifically disputing the inclusion of any of the named members, but there should be a more reliable source than a liberal/progressive political advocacy 501(c) group (which are "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees") Biccat (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable members 

message: Listing individual members of the Federalist Society is like listing individual members of the ABA or the District of Columbia Bar or the American Medical Association or the Democratic Party. Every attorney of a certain age who isn't left of center is going to be a member of the Federalist Society, because it's about the only such organization for conservative or libertarian lawyers. http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/fedsoc.htm  Gabriel Duvall (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whew! No more WP:BLP or WP:NOR concerns now! By the way, I give all apologies for trying to contribute to an "unencyclopedic" list. I first became familiar with the FS from Jack Huberman's 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America book, which another editor recently claims isn't a reliable source. But of course, we can list the head members of the FS, including Antonin Scalia (who's something like the original faculty advisory right?) I also said that original research was a concern because Wikipedia would be at risk of slandering certain people through "guilt-by-association" (as seen from [coughcoughcough] Conservapedia's infamous "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" list) --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huberman isn't encyclopedic.  There are numerous scholarly books and law review articles about the history of the Federalist Society.  The Federalist Society website lists its most prominent members, who serve on various committees. If you are interested in improving the article, I suggest you go to those.  When you persist in relying upon unreliable sources such as left-wing blogs, Lyndon Larouche, and Jack Huberman, it suggests unfairly you have an agenda other than improving the encyclopedia. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership lists 

message: The Federalist Society in practice is extreme-right, not libertarian.
For instance, it supports corporate personhood, which is fascist, not libertarian. We might as well call them "Adolf-tarian."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.86.250 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Not libertarian

message: Should mention the infamous spreadsheet which emerged from the coverage of the U.S. Attorneys firing scandal -- this was actually some of the widest general media publicity that the Federalist Society has ever achieved... AnonMoos (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: spreadsheet

message: This article quite strongly reads like an advertisement. It is written in a tone that feels as though it suggests that the organization is just and righteous, which is rather non-POV. It needs to be rewritten in a far more neutral tone. Antman -- chat 02:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Dispute 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Federalist Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.fed-soc.org/abaw8969.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Might need to be in article.--Wikipietime (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeff Sessions joking about Russians, Nov 16 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Federalist Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221015400/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221015400/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718170139/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0703.levine.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0703.levine.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An IP number keeps removing mention that the FS has been accused of judicial activism from the lede. This text is reliably sourced, and absolutely crucial to include in the lede, given that the lede would otherwise uncritically regurgitate the group's own self-serving self-description. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. Nothing about alleged judicial activism is fleshed out in the body, so per WP:LEAD we shouldn't be including it so prominently. Current placement is giving too prominent of WP:WEIGHT to unnamed critics. And it's normal per WP:ABOUTSELF to include how a group describes itself as long as it is clearly attributed. Marquardtika (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judicial activism 

message: That the Federalist Society is a client of a PR firm involved in smearing a victim coming forward about sexual assault from FS's hand-picked Supreme Court justice nominee is obvious pertinent information and mentioned by the cited RS. After Marquardtika's edit, the Wikipedia page only mentions that it's client of a PR firm without elaborating any further on what kind of PR firm and what kind of activities it has been involved in. It's doing our readers a disservice, and it's not adhering to the RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the source say that the Federalist Society has something to do with these smears? No, it says Federalist Society is also a client of this firm. PR firms have lots of clients. So? Seems like you're trying to make a guilt by association argument here. Not neutral, and not in the sourcing you've provided. Marquardtika (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, somehow a high-quality RS finds it important to note that the Federalist Society uses this firm of smear merchants. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with the Federalist Society. It does not belong here at all. Tchouppy (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  FS is a long-standing client of a firm that is most prominent for running the Swift Boat smears against Kerry. This same firm coordinated the conspiracy theories on behalf of FS against Dr. Ford during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Which of these facts do not belong in the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This content belongs in the article about Creative Response Concepts, the PR firm in question. There is absolutely no reason the Federalist Society article should have more ink devoted to these issues than the CRC page does (which is currently the case). It's WP:COATRACK. What does one PR firm's client have to do with another (was Federalist Society involved in Swift Boats/Blasey Ford...?) I would suggest proposing some content and launching an RFC to get WP:CONSENSUS. Marquardtika (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  That FS associates so deeply with this firm of smear merchants and the fact that this firm runs smear campaigns on behalf of FS is entirely due. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

text:  Somehow, every single RS that covers FS and CRC together deems it important to note what CRC is famous for, yet here we have editors declaring that it's entirely unimportant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Do you have a source that says the Federalist Source associates "deeply" with CRC, or just that they are one of their clients? The fact that you refer to CRC as "smear merchants" makes it seem like perhaps you can't approach this topic in a neutral manner, as I've noted that none of the sources you've provided uses the word "smear." Marquardtika (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A client of CRC 

message: Can we include text about the Federalist Society's use of the PR firm CRC, which is renowned for the 2004 swiftboat smears against John Kerry, and for pushing the conspiracy theory that the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh (someone that the Federalist Society pushed hard for to become a Supreme Court justice) had confused Kavanaugh with a "doppelganger"?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a note that Barack Obama (as well as any statements about Jeremiah Wright) must comply with WP:BLP whereas this page (or any statements about CRC) does not, I’m not entirely sure that this is the best example or even a good example. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I also agree with Emir of Wikipedia below that the "conspiracy theory" wording of the Blasey sentence fails verification. R2 (bleep) 20:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

text: * In what world is swiftboating not a smear campaign? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: The Federalist Society's use of the PR firm CRC 

message: * Support, but we should as much as possible limit the information about CRC to that most directly concerning the Federalist Society, of which there appears to be plenty. No need for more than a line about Swift boat, Kavanaugh etc. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a note that Barack Obama (as well as any statements about Jeremiah Wright) must comply with WP:BLP whereas this page (or any statements about CRC) does not, I’m not entirely sure that this is the best example or even a good example. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I also agree with Emir of Wikipedia below that the "conspiracy theory" wording of the Blasey sentence fails verification. R2 (bleep) 20:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

text: * In what world is swiftboating not a smear campaign? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I moved this discussion up to the "Methods and influence" section as most of the discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal is already discussed in the methods and influence section. I would like to trim it down some more since these are all arguments that have already been discussed in the methods and influence section. Furthermore, at this point, it is only a proposal and has not been adopted yet, so a full section of its own is hardly necessary. Tchouppy (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States proposal 

message: It seems to me that the opinion (even published) of one of the Federalist Society's founders is not strongly enough connected to the organization itself to merit inclusion in a general article about the Federalist Society, unless there is evidence that it somehow represents the thinking of the group itself or a significant vein of thought within the group. I removed this paragraph once before, with a note explaining that it was "tendentious" (i.e., not WP:NPOV) and dealt with "a comment made by one of the group's founders which does not reflect the positions or policies of the organization." This was summarily reverted by another editor with just a single word explanation: "relevant." I fail to see how calling it relevant makes it so, although the editor followed up with the addition of a second citation to the paragraph, which however still failed to connect Calabresi's opinion to the Federalist Society itself (the article's only mentions of the Federalist Society were to note that Calabresi was a co-founder and to explain that the Society has been influential lately). Obviously, Calabresi's personal opinions are fair game in his own article (which indeed includes a more or less identical version of the same paragraph with the same sources), but they do not belong in this article, any more than the personal individual opinions of other members (or even founders) of the Federalist Society do. I actually think that the specific sections in this article discussing the Federalist Society under the Bush and Trump administrations are questionable as a whole, but at least the rest of the material presented in those sections is connected to the Federalist Society itself: its events, its publications, its influence, etc. (My objection probably has more to do with the presentation and arrangement of this information, rather than its inclusion.) This particular instance, however, is different, and does not belong in this article, so I am deleting it once more and asking for further discussion here on the talk page before any effort is made to reinsert it. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calabresi Op Ed 

message: There needs to be a section dedicated to criticism.  Such as their promotion of theocrats. 2601:346:C201:60C0:21F0:D0C0:F954:CDAB (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wholeheartedly agree. The article does have discussion about things like this but it does a bit seem "hidden" under more value-neutral subject headings, not a criticism section, in contrast to common practice elsewhere in Wikipedia. 45.43.101.69 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: The article has an unnecessary amount of direct quotes from Politico which are not WP:NPOV
compliant 81.2.103.240 (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politico 

message: That's the title of this article. Might be of use. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Trump adviser manipulates free speech to advance his causes and ‘hurt his adversaries’