Blogging has been light over the past week, in part because I attended the National Lawyers Convention of the Federalist Society. This is an event I’ve wanted to attend since I joined the Society in 1996, but could never justify the time, trouble and expense of flying across the country for. Now that our nation’s capital is a mere 2 hours away by car, it’s tougher still to justify not going, so there I was. While at the convention, I ran into two fellow bloggers, Ilya Somin and Orin Kerr, neither of whom I had an opportunity to chat up (it probably didn’t help that my name tag said “[censored]” rather than “Xrlq”). Neither of these bloggers has shared their thoughts on the convention yet, but here are mine.

John McCain offered a mostly great speech in which he rightly proclaimed that “We are a nation that limits government so that government cannot limit us,” even while failing to explain why he led the charge to pass a law limiting private citizens’ ability to even talk out loud about government, much less limit it. He also remained unrepentant about his role in the Gang of Fourteen, arguing:

I am proud of my role in persuading my fellow Republican Senators to respect the limits of our own power and not abolish the filibuster rule–changes which promised to empower a different majority under another president to impede our cause of limited government and constrained judicial power. Instead we have focused with considerable success on assuring that a high percentage of the President’s nominees have been confirmed. And those judges and justices will interpret our Constitution as our founders intended.

It was difficult to gauge the audience’s response to this statement, as most Federalist Society members – make that all Federalist Society members except myself and Ann Coulter, and Ann wasn’t there – are exceedingly polite. Besides, this part was near the middle of the speech, so it’s impossible to know if any of his standing O was because of this part of the speech or in spite of it, as the rest of the speech sounded all the right notes. McCain did not elaborate on whether he was equally proud of the fact that helping to persuade six of his fellow Republicans to vote for “no nukes” may have cost two of them (Chafee and DeWine) their jobs in a year when only three (Chafee, DeWine and Snowe) were up for re-election. More on McCain’s speech here.

That said, it probably doesn’t matter now. As of the New Year, the Democrats will control the Senate, and therefore the committees, so they won’t need the filibuster to play obstructionist anyway. In fact, if I’m not reading too much into some of income Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s comments at the convention, that dreaded filibuster may ultimately prove to be our ace in the hole. He didn’t quite come out and say it, but he strongly implied that if another seat were to open up on the Supreme Court, and the Democrats were to deny the nominee an up-or-down vote, the Republicans just might turn around and filibuster the living daylights out of every single piece of legislation the Democrats care about. On the one hand, that particular use of the filibuster likely would have survived a nuke, as it would target ordinary legislation rather than a judicial nomination. On the other, it’s hard enough to justify some filibusters while attacking others, and almost impossible to defend with a straight face the right of a minority part to employ a filibuster to help a judicial nominee while simultaneously attacking the very constitutionality of a filibuster designed to hurt him. So on balance, I have to say that judicial nominees will probably fare better this term, and certainly won’t fare any worse, than they would have if the nuke had gone through. And I’m saying that as an unabashed supporter of the nuclear option, and as one who still hasn’t forgiven John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe or John (*&^%& for thwarting the nuclear option in 2005.

Samuel Alito was the dinner speaker (shame on the idiot McCain staffer who claimed that McCain was in the above-linked transcript) and he was great. So too was the original Scalito, Nino Scalia, who appeared earlier that night with his Italian-sized family in tow. **** Cheney’s speech was not half bad, either, but getting to the speech at all was worse than entering an airport or waiting in line for a Nintendo Wii. Even Arlen Specter’s speech strongly implied he’d bend over backwards to ensure that Bush’s future nominations got an up or down vote, which is the most we can realistically expect from the guy who helped to confirm Justices Thomas, Roberts and Alito but also helped to bork Bork – the one common thread being that he didn’t help to deny an up-or-down vote to anybody. Between his comments, McCain’s, and especially McConnell’s, my outlook on judicial nominations has improved significantly. My old view was complete and total despair, similar to Patterico’s pronouncement that Bush has confirmed his last decent judge. My revised position, following the conference, is one better described as “cautiously pessimistic.” I still think the appellate courts will remain understaffed, as they have been for decades, but I don’t think the Dems can afford an eight-member Supreme Court, and do think that if one more liberal (can you say “Stevens?”) steps down in the next two years, a constitutionalist Supreme Court is possible. Not probable, mind you, but possible.

Most of the other sessions qualified for CLE, and followed the usual Federalist Society format. If you’re Prick Durbin, you probably think “the usual Federalist Society format” means everybody meets in an undisclosed location, gives the secret handshake, and then quietly debates whether Pat Buchanan’s view on the topic is sufficiently conservative vs. unacceptably liberal. If you’re anyone who’s actually been to a Federalist Society function, you know that the format is somewhat different: a panel of individuals representing a wide range of views all say their piece, rebut some of each other’s views, and then take questions from the floor. Among the organizations represented where the ACLU, People for the American Way, People Against the American Way, the Eagle Forum, Human Rights Watch, and even the ABA. Everyone was treated with respect, whether they deserved it or not. To partially rectify this gross injustice, I’ve identified three examples of truly batty ideas that were batted around by the obligatory dissent:

1. In the first panel discussion, titled “Limited Government and Spreading Democracy: Uneasy Cousins?” Cato Institute representative Tom G. Palmer ranted and raved about the arrogance of the Bush Administration for having the gall to pursue an aggressive foreign policy promoting democracy abroad while much more serious human rights violations (e.g., farm subsidies) exist at home. When asked by the floor what he would do differently at this juncture, he admitted he had no clue, even while insisting he “knew” it was a mistake not to leave Saddam in power. When asked by another audience member what he recommended in lieu of military force to promote democracy abroad, he insisted that cultural imperialism (my terminology, not his) was key. As an example, he cited South Korea, which democratized purely because the U.S. exported sufficient quantities of Coca-Cola, McDonald’s hamburgers, Levi’s jeans and Dixie Chicks CDs, not because of any military action the U.S. ever took on that peninsula. Left unanswered was why this strategy had only succeeded in South Korea. Isn’t there some other country on that peninsula, too?
2. In a panel discussion titled “Civil Rights in the 21st Century,” Center for American Progress fellow Mark Agrast decried the “so-called Michigan Civil Rights Initiative” and implied it was unconstitutional. Apparently, Mr. Agrast knows something I don’t know, else I can’t imagine any reason for him to think that today’s Supreme Court would hold that the Fourteenth Amendment requires what three of its current members (not including Roberts or Alito) are on record ruling it does not even allow.
3. In the last panel discussion, titled “The Role of Government in Defining Our Culture,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero pooh-poohed the “war on drugs” and advocated legalization instead. He then went on to pooh-pooh the war on terror as an equally ill-conceived, not-to-be-taken seriously “war” he described as the son of the war on drugs. Presumably, it too could be solved by legalizing … terrorism?! Mr. Romero then proceeded to go Sullivan on us, bringing up gay marriage on four subsequent occasions. He also described the recent failed abortion ban in South Dakota not as an example of why we don’t need Roe to protect good domestic policy, but instead described as bad “foreign policy” the fact anyone was allowed to vote on it at all.

In other news, I had the pleasure of meeting frequent commenter JJV and fellow blogger Michael W. of A Secondhand Conjecture. In compliance with the Silly Names Act, I met up with Michael in Ballston. Nice guy, and very bright. If you don’t read his group blog, you should.