The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Day One Of #FedSoc2024
Farewell to the Mayflower, hello to the Hilton.
The first day of the 2024 Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention is in the can. And unfortunately, the Fifth Circuit could not stay this change of venue. After nearly four decades at the Mayflower, FedSoc moved about a mile down Connecticut Avenue to the Washington Hilton. Yes, the hotel where President Reagan was shot. Not exactly the best vibes. But I will still try to be objective. The verdict, from my perspective, is mostly negative, but there are some upsides.
I'll start with the downsides. The Mayflower is a classic hotel. Every ballroom was finely crafted with accents on the walls, and a welcoming ambiance. So much history was made in those rooms. The Washington Hilton feels like a hospital. It is cold, sterile, and soulless. The smaller conference rooms have low ceilings and obstructive columns in the middle. The cavernous ballroom has dreadful acoustics. It is nearly impossible to hear anything close to the stage (thankfully there were closed captions). I felt like I was attending someone else's conference. Moreover, the hotel rooms are dark and drab, and desperately in need of renovation. The wireless in the room is also painfully slow--I am on my hotspot at the moment. On a personal note, I have lifetime platinum status with Marriott Bonvoy, but am a mere plebeian with Hilton Honors.
But there are some plusses. FedSoc long ago outgrew the Mayflower. The hotel room blocks quickly sold out, which forced people to stay at nearby hotels. The conference rooms were not nearly big enough. It was difficult to find a seat for most panels, and the overflow rooms were packed. It could take nearly 20 minutes just to get lunch at the buffet. The Hilton has more than enough space to fit four concurrent panels. That simply cannot be done at the Mayflower.
Another plus is the lack of schlepping: the conference is at the same hotel as the annual dinner. That hasn't happened in about two decades. In the old days, everything would be held in the Mayflower. But since the 2000s, the conference would be at the Mayflower, and the dinner would be somewhere else--the Marriott Wardman (now defunct), the Omni Shoreham, and more recently Union Station. The former two hotels were a short cab ride from the Mayflower. The latter could take nearly an hour by cab. (FedSoc members tend not to take the Metro). And do not even remind me of the dreadful time we had to schlep to the Gaylord National Harbor. That took nearly two hours on the busses! But with the Hilton, we merely have to take an escalator to the annual dinner. It was a delight. I didn't need to go outside all day. (It was raining apparently). Plus, this ballroom can fit several hundred more people than Union Station.
It is true that more people can attend, but this leads to a massive drawback. The greatest feature of the National Convention is the networking. The panels are fun, to be sure. But the magic happened outside the sessions. I wrote an entire book chapter about how the constitutional challenge to Obamacare was hatched in the grand hallway of the Mayflower--the Mayflower Compact. That space worked so well because everyone had to congregate in a centralized location to get too and from the panels. There was no way ot avoid the hallway. That was a magical time. Alas, the Hilton has no such centralized place. The 2024 convention takes place on three levels. At any point, FedSoc members are scattered throughout the hotel. And we are no longer standing shoulder-to-shoulder. There is ample space between us--dare I say, social distancing! These positions are simply not conducive to spontaneous order. I can spend an entire day schmoozing and not see certain people that I want to see.
In some regards, the bigger conference space is perhaps emblematic of the bigger tent that FedSoc has become. As the group grows and grows, it becomes harder and harder to forge the sorts of personal relationships that were developed years ago. Sure, we can now fit a few hundred more people into the conference. But that increased head count makes the networking more diffused. It was much easier for me to pinhole Randy Barnett in a single hallway. But I didn't see my colleague at any point today. (We will have a book signing on Friday at 10:45--stop by!).
I understand that we will be stuck at the Hilton for the foreseeable future. I think we'll have to get used to it.
I'll close on a positive note. It was so refreshing to see Justices Breyer and Gorsuch speak at the Scalia dinner. They have such a good rapport, and they demonstrated through word and deed why protecting the Court is so important. I would hope that the American Constitution Society could host a similar gathering at their annual conference. The Court would be in a much better place than it was only a few years ago.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Bloomberg Law reports on the meeting:
"Jones also took aim at the judicial misconduct complaint process, which allows members of the public to file complaints against judges for perceived ethical violations, saying those complaints are “distracting.” And she criticized the judiciary’s work on a draft policy to require organizations filing amicus brief to disclose their financial backers."
Ok, not sure of the merits about requiring amicus briefers to disclose their financial backers but well YES complaints against judges about ethic violations should be a distraction and they must be investigated and action taking if a violation is confirmed.
Edith Jones can fuck herself. She is a vile POS.
Why? Because she’s calling out the bad faith, malicious conniving of the left?
Lol posting spreadsheets about which cases are filed where is “bad faith malicious conniving” now.
No little smart ass, 1000s of baseless complaints against judge cannon and judge Ho is malicious. The same leftist hacks who make careers out of blatant judge shopping to complain about judge shopping suggests some bad faith, as are the criticisms directed not at how any judge acted or ruled, but simply on silly “judge shopping accusations.”
Is Steve Vladeck filing any of these complaints? Has he made a career filing suits in various venues? Because she complained about him specifically.
Can you leftist sludge honestly represent anything? (Rhetorical, I know) Her comments were far broader than simply Vladeck.
Okay. But the notable thing was her attacking Vladeck personally with his tweets.
Like the notable thing about your responses are that they’re bs misrepresentations.
Also congratulations on your imminent circuit nomination. This is exactly the kind of hissy fit that qualifies you to be a Trump appointed federal circuit judge.
I’d rather be in the DOJ to help weed out the lawfare refuse.
“Weed out the lawfare refuse”
“Prosecute Jack Smith” (for what?)
Lol. My favorite thing about right wing internet posters is that they tend to have zero intellectual consistency sentence to sentence.
I’ll have to wait for all the facts, but conspiracy to violate civil rights might be worth looking at for Mr. Smith. And rather absurd to deny the lawfare now and, given the pant wetting going on at DOJ at the prospect of AG Gaetz, the thugs aren’t quite as tough as they like to pretend. As for consistency, wtf? You opened the door for the comment you clown.
Lol you don’t even know that you played yourself, do you?
I’ll defer to you on such matters as playing with oneself.
You said you would get rid of lawfare refuse and then immediately said you hoped to do a political prosecution.
I hope you don’t write briefs with that level of immediate contradiction.
Holding the lawfare thugs responsible for their abuses is justice not political prosecution.
You keep telling yourself that.
Holding Donald Trump accountable for a few of his many many crimes is not lawfare or abuse.
Was that what WH counsel told Fani's "special" counsel? Were those Colangelo's marching orders? Was that part of the guidance unconstitutionally appointed thug Smith was given?
Assuming purely for the sake of argument that your deranged fantasy happened, so fucking what? What does it have to do with whether the prosecutions are "lawfare"?
Assuming purely for the sake of argument that your deranged fantasy happened, so fucking what? What does it have to do with whether the prosecutions are "lawfare"?
That a single incompetent wacko district court judge ignored binding precedent does not make him "unconstitutionally appointed." And even if her terrible ruling were valid, what does it have to do with whether the prosecutions are "lawfare"?
Fani’s boyfriend billed for 8 hours for some sorrt of session with WH counsel. Top Biden DOJ official “loaned” to the no neck fat slog to get Trump. Unconstitutionally appointed Smith met with Biden staffers. And you wonder what all this coordination and assistance with state prosecutions could possibly have to do with lawfare? These little thugs better f’ing preserve all documents for Congress and AG Gaetz. I wouldn’t be surprised if some were even looking for non-extradition countries. And the added bonus, is enjoying the breakdown of you and your little leftist troll scunge pals as they try to gaslight this. Because at your core, Crazy Dave, that's all you really are. Just a leftist troll.
Well, of course, you made some of that up, like Colangelo being "loaned" to anyone. But I didn't "wonder" what they had to do with lawfare so much as I asked what they had to do with lawfare. And — as expected — the bot could not provide a substantive response because that's not in its database; all it could do is repeat the talking points over again.
There were meetings. And? So? As a lawyer, I meet with people all day long. Potential and actual clients, witnesses, co-counsel, adversaries. Sometimes to gather information, sometimes to discuss strategy or compare notes, sometimes for other reasons. What exactly is supposed to be sinister about that?
And I'll ask again just to put it on the record, not because I think there's the possibility of a rational answer: even if Smith were "unconstitutionally appointed," which of course he was not, for multiple reasons, how would that make the prosecution "lawfare"? How would it affect the legitimacy of the charges against him, as opposed to simply requiring a different DOJ attorney to sign pleadings?
Regarding Colangelo, the “loan” comment was a joke crazy Dave. As for why this top DOJ official (was he number 3? whatever he was up there) decided the better career path was the Manhattan DAs office has yet to be clarified, just like all those meetings at the WH. Maybe it’s perfectly innocent and nothing to do with any lawfare plans targeting President Trump but not likely. Not in this reality. Although maybe there's some multiverse troll world where Jack Smith is a hero, who knows?
But pace yourself little troll and hold some ranting BS back. You’re going to need it in the near future.
Prosecute Jack Smith for ANYTHING including having an excessively loud heartbeat.
Question: If Trump can't get Gaetz as AG. can Trump himself serve as AG? I've seen this done on the state level, and the argument is that the cabinet person is merely exercising the executive's power which the exec retains.
No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.
Better to be in the military to help foment a coup.
No, because of her actions as a judge on the bench, e.g., ruling that just because an attorney napped through much of a murder case - that of Calvin Burdine - didn't mean he was ineffective because Burdine couldn't show that it made a difference, and her defence of the death penalty, that it brings religious salvation to the felon.
You will find that she systematically opposes DP appellants - and indeed, criminal appellants in general. Rare is a 5th Circuit case where she dissents from a majority who decline an appeal, or concurs with a majority who accept one.
She's definitely of the Arnaud Amalric school of jurisprudence.
But all you know of her is that people whose poltical views you don''t like, don't like her, so she must be a veritable saint amongst judges.
A gratuitous statement can be just as gratuitously refuted, i.e.
You're the vile POS.
Seriously, she's got pussy hairs with more legal wisdom than wet-dreamt of in your philosophy
Frank
Yeah, all I’m hearing about is Edith Jones just raging that criticism of the judiciary is an attack on rule of law:
“Something’s going on here, and it’s very unsavory,” Jones said. “Attacks on the judiciary, I fully agree with the others, are ultimately attacks on the rule of law.”
No, noting the issue with Texas judge shopping is not an attack on rule of law.
This is 'you're either with us or you're with the terrorist' shit.
Jeez, she sounds like Fauci.
So I take it you don't approve.
Judges as a class are so fucking soft it’s incredible. They wield immense political power but cannot handle the lightest criticism from the public. And the more power they wield and the less they interact with the general public the softer and more pathetic they get. Federal circuit judges are the some of the softest people on the planet “Someone without any actual power is posting spreadsheets on Twitter about venue choice and criticizing the local rules. This is an attack on me and therefore on the rule of law.” Pathetic loser shit.
You and I agree on something. Note the day.
"raging"
LOL Conservatives always "seize" or "pounce" or "rage" in lib land
She commented, made a speech.
I mean there does seem to be a certain amount of rage required to force your clerks to print out someone’s tweets about venue. Non-angry well-adjusted people don’t do shit like that.
No Bobby... in this case she was raging.
"Federalist Society leader Dean Reuter thanked those who represent liberal views at debates hosted by the conservative legal organization, one day after an appeals court judge confronted a co-panelist Georgetown Law professor over his research on judge-shopping.
Reuter, the Federalist Society’s senior vice president and general counsel, said in opening remarks Friday morning at the group’s annual convention in Washington that it’s the organization’s 'calling card' to provide debate and discussion on timely legal issues.
Reuter didn’t mention anyone by name, but appeared to be obliquely apologizing for the conduct of Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones, who one day earlier had sharply rebuked Georgetown Law professor Stephen Vladeck as the two sat on a panel about independence of the judiciary.
Jones’ sharp criticism of her fellow panelist was all the more notable because the Federalist Society prides itself on inviting contrarian voices, such as former ACLU President Nadine Strossen, to speak at its events."
"sharply" "sharp"
Writer's opinion/word choice, doesn't prove much. Did she yell? Throw a law book at him?
Writer needs a thesaurus though. Using the same word in successive paragraphs.
The talk is on video here:
https://www.youtube.com/live/-DBl0vUV0ak
Viewers can judge for themselves the validity of the characterization of Judge Jones’s demeanor: personally, I think it’s fair.
"Attacks on the judiciary, I fully agree with the others, are ultimately attacks on the rule of law."
Well, she's right about that, but I wish people on both sides would stop using "attack" when the mean "criticism".
Criticism of the judiciary is essential to the rule of law.
But she is right that these organized public campaigns to file ethics complaints against judges is stupid, pointless, ineffectual, and also stupid. The complaint process is not a change.org campaign. It's not an excuse for random people with no personal knowledge to weigh in. (And, of course, it is legally not a method to get a judge removed from a case.)
More specifically:
“That’s not the kind of debates that I thought the Federalist Society was interested in sponsoring and I’m disappointed in the conversation that we’ve had today.”
From Barr railing against secular liberals, to Ho's grievance-based worldview, to just fighting with one another over speech...
There's a trend here in Federalist Society events.
I predict this will get worse before it gets better.
I’m a conservative, and I’m not a huge fan. I asked her once what percentage of cases dismissed on standing were just judges being cowardly. She said 0% and said it was a stupid question.
She’s a political hack, although she happens to be on my side.
I also asked Scalia to reconcile Lopez and Raich. He didn't take that well either. Judges really don't like anyone calling them out.
Mayflower hasn't been the same since J. Edgar died. Love how the Bar is called "Edgar", wonder what he'd think of a $22 Old Fashioned?
After nearly four decades at the Mayflower, FedSoc moved about a mile down Connecticut Avenue to the Washington Hilton.
You’re not from around here, are you? The Washington Hilton is about a mile *up* Connecticut Avenue. It’s farther north, and it’s higher in elevation, than the Mayflower.
CPAC went to hell when it moved to National Harbor...
IIRC that's when you say NABLA infiltrated them, right?
No, that was a few years earlier..
I recommend the Motel 6 in West Memphis, Arkansas, where my girlfriend and I stayed in 1981. No much political discussion, but the sex was incredible.
TMI !!!
That was TMI??
I’ll show you some real TMI . . .
I know that girl!
"Addressing the audience about what he perceives as government overreach, Gorsuch commented: "I've just seen too many cases like that. You have just the other day, some of you might have seen one in the newspaper, if the newspapers are to be believed." To laughter from attendees Gorsuch added: "Yes, I'm speaking of Peanut the squirrel." Newsweek
Justice for Peanut!
Must be something wrong with my browser.
I swear I clicked on the VC, but it took me to Yelp instead. Anyone else have that problem?
Hmmm…
…to the immense relief of numerous targets Josh relentlessly stalks at these events, oops, I mean wants to ‘see.‘
Ah, but do they want to see him?
Can you imagine in two decades eminent academic jurists posting about the time they met the inspirational Professor Blackman at a FedSoc con, with photos, and talking about how there were giants in those days? Me neither.
"inspirational Judge Blackman" I think by then
It depends whether he or Steve "the Breeze" Calabresi wins their ongoing bout over who can kowtow more to Trump.
It's been obvious for awhile that young Josh Blackman Esquire is gunning for a judgeship. And Trump's been tasked with filling vacancies with young crazy partisans. I think it's highly likely he may get his wish...what with all the blatant schmoozing and toadying. He's definitely put in the effort (less actual academic or legal achievements, of course)
Giuliani should have thrown the valuables into the ocean rather than turn them over to those two fat jigaboos who won a judgment in a corrupt kangaroo trial.
And another racist enters Muteland
Google them and take a look at pictures of these beasts.
Not "another." Just the same one getting his visa stamped on reentry.
Is Jones the one who can't tell the difference between the New Deal and the Bolshevik Revolution?
Or is that some other much-revered RW judge?
I assume you're actually making a reference to Janice Rogers Brown?