If @FedSoc wants to remain relevant to the right, it should reject Lat’s vision.
It’s unclear why a Fed Soc like that Lat proposes would maintain any political influence (or appeal to donors) in a world of growing politicization.
1/5
It’s unclear why a Fed Soc like that Lat proposes would maintain any political influence (or appeal to donors) in a world of growing politicization.
1/5
https://twitter.com/davidlat/status/1351536862641479682
Lat’s Fed Soc would offer little to the right (who couldn’t have confidence in its members on important political questions decided by the judiciary), and still wouldn’t appeal to the left (who always pick nominees who will side with them politically).
2/5
2/5
Further, Lat’s Fed Soc, by shunning anything seen as political, would invariably converge with the (leftwing) political norms of law schools—rendering it nominally apolitical, but practically just another variant of the ubiquitous professional orgs in left-dominated fields.
3/5
3/5
It’s unclear if it’s even possible for the law—especially of the sort Fed Soc focuses on—to be apolitical. Certainly, apolitical ideals are not what motivate most students to join Fed Soc. And as politicization is increasingly forced on us, this will become even more true.
4/5
4/5
An organization that stands for nothing sufficiently distinct will have no constituency and no reason to exist.
In sum, Lat’s proposal for the Fed Soc is a recipe for irrelevance.
5/5
In sum, Lat’s proposal for the Fed Soc is a recipe for irrelevance.
5/5
Correction: It would not become irrelevant; it would be harmful to the right, misleading students and sucking donor dollars for years until they come to terms with its impotence.
All who care about @FedSoc must recognize any push in this direction poses an existential threat.
All who care about @FedSoc must recognize any push in this direction poses an existential threat.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
