.
Everyone is talking about Mukasey colllapsing after delivering this speech to "the federalist society", what they don’t report is the actual speech and it is alarming.(The mere fact that he was addressing the federalist society in the first place is alarming I might add)
For those of you who didn’t know, the federalists are a group of people who embrace laws they see in the constitution they like and ignore laws and principles clearly written in the constitution which they don’t like.
The federalists were discredited when the constitution was written yet they survive today and in today’s corporate media they are given some kind of reverance as if their interpretation is historically correct. (it’s not)
Here is a snippet from our attorney generals’s speech;
Perhaps of most obvious interest to the members of the Federalist Society are the judges and justices whom the President has appointed to the federal bench. As the President recently explained to the Cincinnati chapter of this Society, he has sought out, as he put it, "judges who would faithfully interpret the Constitution – and not use the courts to invent laws or dictate social policy." With the help of many in this room, the President has succeeded in this effort and appointed many well-qualified and accomplished judges who understand their role in interpreting — not writing — the laws.
Most notably, the President has appointed two members of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. These men are no strangers to the people in this room — indeed, they both spoke to this Society last year. Both of these remarkably accomplished justices will continue to serve the Nation for many years to come, and we are grateful not only for their service, but also for their approach to the difficult questions of constitutional law and statutory interpretation that the Court faces each term. The President is rightfully proud of his selection of both of these men, and the Federalist Society should be proud of the role it played in supporting their nominations.
The President also has nominated – and the Senate has confirmed – many other well-qualified judges throughout the Federal courts. Unfortunately, still other good and well-qualified people were denied the same opportunity. We have seen the nominations of skilled, experienced, and well-respected candidates delayed or frustrated through procedural tactics. Quite frequently, it has been hard for these nominees to receive a vote in the Senate or even a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. For those who never received a vote, or even a hearing, I offer my profound regret — you deserved better.
Tonight, however, we should take note of our successes. Indeed, this Administration’s judicial legacy includes 61 judges appointed to the courts of appeals and 261 judges appointed to the district courts. The President and the members of his Administration will leave office in January, but these good judges will remain in place, many for decades to come.
The Federalist Society should be proud of the role it played in supporting these judges, but it also should be proud of the basis on which it did so. As the members of this Society recognize, the core meaning of judicial independence is independence from the political pressures and fashions of the moment. Otherwise, judges become simply politicians who are independent only in the sense that they have life tenure and so are not subject to the discipline of the political process — namely, elections. Although judges are appointed through a political process, once they take the oath, they are confined to exercising a power that is, under Article III, judicial only. Which is to say, one that should involve a faithful, not a fanciful, reading of the laws and the Constitution.
That is what our children are going to have to face, judges who believe the federalist’s discredited world view.
We’ve seen Alito for instance, decide on the defense’s position when the defense is a corporation and then in exactly where the accuser is the corporation deciding again for the corporation.
The name of their society would be more accurate if they used "the robber baron society".
Now this is interesting;
First Mukasey speaks about defending the written principles of the constitution as they are lawm then he brings up 9/11 and actually brags about the things the adminstration did that violate the constitution.
Have a read of the entire speech.
Do not forget, a majority of democrats had to approve this man for him to have this position



23 Comments




Good catch! Thanks.
This is rich:
Having collapsed, or whatever, I suppose no one had a chance to discuss the progress made on investigations into political appointments to the judiciary during Bush’s watch.
I wouldn’t call it rich, I would call it typical Republican projection. These judges are the epitome of succumbing to “political pressures” and yet they are touted as just the opposite. They despise the Constitution.
except of course when agreeing with it benefits themselves, then they are fine with it
I meant rich in the sarcastic sense. I was expressing disbelief and disgust.
Separated by a common language.
Thank you perris, Jim, alank, and all.
…presenting Michael Mukasey, Attorney for the Defense in the case of The People vs The Criminal Crew. . .
Absolutely. There was no intent to argue.
I opened DIGG and recommended.
Thanks again to Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein for the second-worst attorney general ever.
No offense, but learn to spell check
I agree with the gist of your post that what Mukasey is saying here is alarming. That said, it was already pretty generally known that Mukasey was a member of the Federalist Society prior to becoming Attorney General. So are Antonin Scalia and John Roberts, among others.
There is no connection between the Federalist Society, which was founded in 1982 and the federalists
Of note is this portion of the wiki entry:
In a nutshell, another fine example of how the conservative movement is basically built on quicksand.
In my personal opinion, the “originalist” concept is a load of crap in my mind as its presence depends on mind-reading, that is they say that they attempt to discern the framer’s original intent – unfortunately a lot of people in power believe in this clap trap, but then again a significant portion of the US population doesn’t “believe” in evolution either.
Finally this:
is just down right wrong.
See here and here
Of note:
In fact, if it were not for the Federalists and the Federalist Papers, we would not have a Constitution in the first place.
a great and informative post, with some addendums I agree with what you’ve written
some federalist agenda was finesome were not
The battle between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists has been going on from the start of the Republic to this very day, they just call themselves different things now.
I read your piece and whether Jefferson righted wrongs or not is a matter of opinion. Furthermore society in early 19th century was a little different than that what we know today.
What is interesting, actually, is that the Federalists Society call themselves Federalists, but in fact many of their members champion “states” rights and are, by their own admission “libertarians.”
I find this:
compared to this:
Republicans glorifying the need of the common man? Hmmmm.
Also this:
Wondering if ol’ Fourth Branch believes in this?
Federalist Society: pure trade association, advocating the rightwing causes of its lawyer members. Its advice should be taken with the same grain of salt used with an addict’s recommendation about which nighttime ATM a tourist in Manhattan should frequent.
Yeah, I was going to add the dems not only had to approve Mukasey, they had a big hand in choosing him. gah.
this is what I meant when I said the federalists were discredited back when the constitution was written
yes, I know they are now “libertarians” which is another word for ‘anarchist’, they love the laws that protect their property, hate the laws that force them to pay their own bills
Aha! That’s one of the best descriptions of a libertarian I’ve ever heard. Thanks. I’m passing it on.
It is a little more complicated than that. There were Federalists at the time of the Ratification of the Constitution debate (and I suspect this is what the Federalist society thinks they are imitating even if they are not and then there were the Federalists of the 1790s associate with the Washington and Adams Administration. The Federalists of the Constitution didn’t lose–theirs was the vision of the constitution that triumphed at the time. Jefferson’s rhetoric was addressed against the Federalists of the 1790s. Also Jefferson’s “republican” party was actually the “Democratic-Republican” party which morphed into the “Democratic” Party during the Jacksonian period and continues with the modern Democratic party. “Our” republicans didn’t get organized till the 1850s.
Isn’t this sorta what Christians do when they “cherry pick” the Bible?
Don’t forget; it was Feinstein and Schumer who rammed Mukasey’s nomination thru when alot of Dem Senators were looking the other way. I think they barely had a quorum. I still wonder why they did it….cept that they’re Blue Dogs, I guess……
muchas gracias for posting the speech senor perrís
Mukasey speaks in code when he references 9/11, very curious …indeed.
Laxity in pursuing white-collar financial crime on a large scale, has always been my guess. In the present free-fire environment you need someone well-trained in the customs of the financial world, both Wall St and whatever it is in SanFran, to guarantee that they don’t accidentally, and publicly, draw too much fire to ignore while on some other hunt.
A social networker could have a lot of fun with Mukasey, Schumer, Spitzer, and a lot of other folks in the NY orbit. Then toss in the OC and SanFran …
Thanks Perris. Good to see it laid out. Illuminating would be an understatement.