Just out of curiosity, what is it that I need to back up? That the Federalist Society has its own ideological bent? OK, here is what their own website (http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/) says:
"The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order." It's specific goals are highly conservative in nature, as outlined on their site and discussed in a 2000 Washington Monthly article (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html).
There is no doubt the author of the WSJ article is using the report for ideological purposes, if you closely read the article that it is linked to on the rankings page. That is what I outlined, and I stand by my characterization of it.
Saying that I "sound dumb," that I am an "8 year old," and that I should "go away," are, honestly, things that an 8-year old would say. Your frantic waving-about of this report and your need to reiterate that experts-dammit-experts contributed to this report (and thus, it is somehow above reproach?) is daft. You realize, of course, that these conclusions are quite similar to Schlesinger's in his study of the presidency? Would you like the citation for his book and some analysis of the rankings? How about a comparison between this and the 2000 report that the same author put together for the Federalist Society?
You don't want to debate; you want to dismiss. You aren't even paying attention to the details; you insult with broad strokes and little substance. So, until you are prepared to cite, debate, and analyze the material and issues at hand, perhaps you should take your own advice.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-05-29 02:32 am (UTC)"The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order." It's specific goals are highly conservative in nature, as outlined on their site and discussed in a 2000 Washington Monthly article (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html).
There is no doubt the author of the WSJ article is using the report for ideological purposes, if you closely read the article that it is linked to on the rankings page. That is what I outlined, and I stand by my characterization of it.
Saying that I "sound dumb," that I am an "8 year old," and that I should "go away," are, honestly, things that an 8-year old would say. Your frantic waving-about of this report and your need to reiterate that experts-dammit-experts contributed to this report (and thus, it is somehow above reproach?) is daft. You realize, of course, that these conclusions are quite similar to Schlesinger's in his study of the presidency? Would you like the citation for his book and some analysis of the rankings? How about a comparison between this and the 2000 report that the same author put together for the Federalist Society?
You don't want to debate; you want to dismiss. You aren't even paying attention to the details; you insult with broad strokes and little substance. So, until you are prepared to cite, debate, and analyze the material and issues at hand, perhaps you should take your own advice.