Thread by @joshgerstein

HAPPENING NOW: 11th Cir Judge Bill Pryor opens Federalist Society conference in DC by mocking @SenWhitehouse and poking fun at claims that Leonard Leo is at center of a dark money web

Also getting dinged: @Dahlialithwick @rickhasen @ElieNYC @mjs_DC @atlblog

Not totally sure why @RuthMarcus has been left out but Pryor is still going

It's mostly stand-up but Pryor closes by calling #FedSoc 'an organizational example of the American dream' rising from its modest roots at Yale. (Practice your dripping with contempt voice for that.)

Taking a somewhat different tone, Columbia law Prof. Jamal Greene urges the group not to 'spike the football,' which I guess refers to Dobbs and probably not to Tuesday's election results?

UT law Prof. Tara Grove predicts/laments if GOP takes Senate there will be zero #SCOTUS confirmations and zero fed appeals court confirmations. And vice versa in divided government for foreseeable future.

Conservative plaintiffs' lawyer Ashley Keller denounces Kirkland & Ellis and King & Spalding for kicking elite #SCOTUS litigator Paul Clement to the curb for cases he's won: 'What kind of world do we live in where law firms don't want Paul Clement working for them?' Applause.

One separation was due to gun ruling he won, another due to his defense of the Defense of Marriage Act #DOMA.
More on that here: politico.com/news/2022/06/2…

Prof. John McGinnis offers a shout-out for liberal legal formalism. Perhaps he's thinking of folks at @MyConstitution.

Grove brings up Gorsuch's Bostock decision as one where textualism brought a politically liberal result, broadening long-accepted interpretation of Title VII to include LGBTQ rights. But she notes a lot of conservative lawyers seem grumpy about that b/c of the outcome

McGinnis seems to be arguing for secession of law schools from universities because the broader institutions have an agenda that seems at war with law.

Here we go w/attacks on media. Grove says, accurately, that judges don't like being labeled by press as Trump or Obama or whoever appointees. No specific suggestion about how to accomplish.

Seems to me an elitist argument because the affiliation/identity of the assigned judges is often 1st thing lawyers involved want to know. I've seen lawyers slump over when they hear which 3-judge panel they've drawn. Look here: politico.com/story/2019/03/… But sure it doesn't matter.

Keller rejects the idea we shouldn't label. 'Let's get real...it's pretty logical,' he says, saying that's due in part to orthodoxy Federalist Society insisted on under cry of 'No more Souters.'

Weird dynamic as #fedsoc attendees beat up professors, who agreed to show up at panel here, for purported liberal intolerance at law schools

A few liberalish voices at #Fedsoc2022. One is NYU law prof Sally Katzen, former Clinton regulatory chief, who proudly defends 'the administrative state.' She gets warm applause as she concludes, so at least some attendees are politely adhering to free-speech ideals.

Now, Katzen is dumping on the 'major questions doctrine' & arguing Federalist doctrine would require dismantling the Federal Reserve and turning its work over to politicians.