The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
New In Civitas: Judge Andrew S. Oldham's Barbara K. Olson's Memorial Lecture
Yet another FedSoc debate or an existential challenge?
On Friday evening, Judge Andrew Oldham of the Fifth Circuit delivered the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture at the National Lawyer's Convention.
I discussed his remarks in my new column at Civitas Outlook. Here is an excerpt:
The world of 2025 is different from the world of 1985. This change raises an inevitable question: Should the Federalist Society, the venerable debating society, also change? This was the theme of Judge Andrew S. Oldham's remarks at the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture. Judge Oldham's speech challenges two FedSoc orthodoxies. First, he asks if the organization should remain, as it always was, a debating society. Second, he questions the merits of expanding the tent to attract more people. He rejects the "libertarian instinct to debate all things" and "focus[] on the big tent" as helping us "los[e] focus on the principles that motivated all of this in the first place." Indeed, Oldham worries that "Big Tentism could turn FedSoc into a right-of-center bar association" where people come to "see and be seen."
At the core of both challenges is Judge Oldham's solemn commitment that originalism provides "clear and objective answers" and that originalists, including FedSoc, should do more to acknowledge those truths. And once the right answer is settled, Oldham would say, there is no reason to debate further. Instead, we should go forth and apply those principles.
And from the conclusion:
I'll close by noting a certain irony. FedSoc chose to invite Judge Oldham to deliver the Olson lecture, likely without knowing what he would discuss. Judge Oldham walked to the podium and laid down what I see as an existential challenge to FedSoc's core commitment to debate. But rather than settling that issue with a clear right-or-wrong answer, Judge Oldham instead started a new debate. And this will not be a debate for the sake of debating.
I thank Judge Oldham for making us think all more deeply about what FedSoc is, and ought to be.
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
At the core of both challenges is Judge Oldham's solemn commitment that originalism provides "clear and objective answers" and that originalists, including FedSoc, should do more to acknowledge those truths.
Sounds more like the Vatican than a law society
I bet Oldham is "challenging" ideas of originalism!
He's challenging basic ideas of jurisprudence. Just look at the opinion he wrote in RNC v. Wetzel (joined by his fellow clown, Ho).
Seriously, read it. It is ... wow. It's something. It is the single most outcome-oriented, twisted reading I have ever read in my life.
And considering some of his other opinions that I have read, that is saying something.
For bonus fun, I recommend reading his concurrence in the 5th Circuit's denial of rehearing en banc of his opinion- the one where he says (without irony) that he does not recognize the panel decision described by his dissenting colleagues.
But then he goes on to both acknowledge what the dissent correctly points out and ... um ... make a strawman (saying that without what he is doing, federal law would have no limits on ballot acceptance) .... that he isn't engaging in any kind of actual analysis, just, you know, making stuff up. Because HE IS THE DECIDER.
Ugh. Just the worst.
The sort of person who would make a liberal miss Alito?
" And once the right answer is settled, Oldham would say, there is no reason to debate further. Instead, we should go forth and apply those principles."
That ... I mean, I don't even think Alito would go there. That's basically the "I GOT THIS, AND Y'ALL SHUT UP" theory of jurisprudence that you see from internet commenters, not judges.
“That's basically the "I GOT THIS, AND Y'ALL SHUT UP" theory of jurisprudence that you see from internet commenters, not judges.”
They’re the same picture now.
“originalism provides "clear and objective answers"
It’s really funny(?) that the people with three-year degrees in reading casebooks that have positions of power and prestige genuinely believe this but the people who pursue history as an academic discipline in obscurity don’t.
Like I would take this more seriously as a belief structure if I thought any self-professed originalist could explain what historiography is. How many of them have even read Novick or Hayden White?