We’ve Touched a Nerve with the National Review
Packing the courts is the political effort most desperately pursued by Republican donor interests.
Sometimes you touch a nerve. Why would the right-wing mouthpiece National Review run not one but five articles opposing a rather abstruse draft Judicial Ethics opinion? Sherlock Holmes made a famous deduction from the dog that didn’t bark; perhaps here a deduction can be made from the one that won’t stop barking.
Packing the courts is the political effort most desperately pursued by Republican donor interests. The Federalist Society serves as a tool of those interests in the court-packing effort. Much of what the Federalist Society does is wholly legitimate, but its role in the selection of judges has become a key link in the court-packing scheme. It is funded by a network of anonymous donors spending a quarter billion dollars on the influence campaign; read this Washington Post investigation for more. The author of the five National Review articles is actually the president of a group in that network — a group that has accepted two $17 million anonymous contributions to fund campaigns for Federalist Society-approved nominees to the Court.
A pair of closing thoughts to consider:
- We’ve seen the right-wing outrage machine, including the author of the National Review series, kick into high gear before in response to efforts outing donor interests’ court capture operation. A field biologist would feel right at home analyzing their collective behavior. Check out these remarks at the National Press Club for more.
- They never answer why it’s okay for big anonymous donors to fund the selection of judges, the TV campaigns for their nominations, and hordes of litigant groups appealing as amici curiae. Because it’s not okay.
