Minnesota Lawyer Blog

We have written about the local chapter of the Federalist Society a few times on this blog -- mostly to debunk the view that the group is any kind of clandestine society spreading right-wing conspiracies with secret handshakes. Sure the federalists are conservative and libertarian lawyers, but they wear their political leanings on their sleeve and have been responsible for some intelligent debate locally.

When we heard the group was having a CLE program on judicial elections, we decided to send a member of our editorial staff to see what the panelists would say. What, we wondered, would be the group's take on one of the most controversial subjects facing the state's legal community?

Well, it turns out, the federalists, like everyone else, are pretty much all over the map. Some want to keep judicial elections as they are, with challengers having the ability to run against incumbents; others want to switch over to some sort of retention system. This should dispel any idea that the Federalist Society is a monolithic group of identically minded individuals.

That is not to say its members don't occasionally get a pro-conservative plug in here and there. In the Minnesota Lawyer article on the program, I was amused by a quote attributed to Minneapolis attorney Bill Mohrman, who favors keeping the system as it is. Here is the quote along with the sentence preceding it:

"Mohrman countered that he’s confident in the ability of voters to sort through these issues at the ballot box. 'I think the common man is inherently conservative, and I trust the ability of the citizens to vote in contested elections,' he said." (For the full article, click here, password required.)

With all respect to Bill, whom I know to be a fine lawyer, how can he be so sure that the "common man" is inherently conservative? Is that actually true? I suppose your answer to that question might depend upon which philosopher's or theologian's view you ascribe to. For example, it may inform your decision whether you believe that man is inherently good or inherently evil.

Personally, I have no idea whether the common man is conservative or liberal. But the next time I run across one, I will be sure to ask.

The local chapter of the Federalist Society is presenting a one-credit CLE on "White, The Quie Commission and The Future of Judicial Selection in Minnesota" this Thursday.

The featured speakers include: Governor Al Quie, the chair of the Citizens Commission for the Preservation of an Impartial Judiciary; Minnesota Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson; Minneapolis attorney Bill Mohrman; and Minneapolis attorney Rick Morgan.

The event will be held from 4:00 pm-6:00 pm at The Radisson Plaza Hotel, Norway Room, 3rd Floor (35 South 7th Street, Minneapolis). Admission is $20 for members and $25 for nonmembers (which includes appetizers) .

The topic sounds pretty interesting and is worth checking out. Even if you are not interested in judicial elections, you could always go to discover what this exotic creature called a Federalist eats.

If you would like to attend, RSVP to Susan Shogren Smith, 612-812-8160, sssmith2@stthomas.edu.

More happenings on the U.S. attorney front, with the revelation that the Department of Justice maintained spreadsheets containing the names of U.S. attorneys (and U.S. attorney candidates) with a special check-off area noting if they were members of the Federalist Society. Minnesota's new U.S. attorney, Rachel Paulose, had a check next to her name.

The Federalist Society -- a group for conservative lawyers -- has gotten a lot of bad P.R. lately. I saw one press article refer to it as a "secretive" society. I can only speak to my experience with the Minnesota chapter, but these folks seem to be a generally astute set of lawyers and law students who just happen to be conservative in philosophy. I hear -- though cannot confirm -- that some of these folks have actually gone on to live productive lives.

That said, Sen. Amy Klobuchar touched on my major concern, which is that the importance of membership may have been overemphasized. It certainly is not a qualification for being a U.S. attorney -- only an indicator of a conservative outlook. It would be ridiculous to make it a litmus test for service as a U.S. attorney, just as it would be ridiculous for a Democratic administration to make membership in the ACLU a litmus test.