Dan Epps

And I struggled to kind of figure out, you know, he was very supportive of Judge Jones and he's been very critical of Steve and has, you know, kind of Trumpian, you know, derisive nicknames for him.

But again, I was trying to understand what the position being advanced is, and it seems to be that we're just not supposed to criticize judges at all, I guess, and that somehow doing that is destructive of the rule of law.

But again, I was trying to understand what the position being advanced is, and it seems to be that we're just not supposed to criticize judges at all, I guess, and that somehow doing that is destructive of the rule of law.

Well, maybe someone out there will come up with better versions of these arguments. But yeah, it was not. I mean, Steve raised this question in his post on his Substack in the aftermath about should he still engage in these Fed Soc events. And he says he's definitely still going to do the student events, but he's not sure he's going to do the national events.

Well, maybe someone out there will come up with better versions of these arguments. But yeah, it was not. I mean, Steve raised this question in his post on his Substack in the aftermath about should he still engage in these Fed Soc events. And he says he's definitely still going to do the student events, but he's not sure he's going to do the national events.

I think that's really up to Steve. I think in terms of what my view is, I mean, I probably would still do them. I don't think the Federalist Society showed itself in its best light. And I do think that this suggests that maybe having this kind of mix of panels is maybe not ideal. Academics, judges, including some judges who feel a personal stake in some of the criticisms being made.

I think that's really up to Steve. I think in terms of what my view is, I mean, I probably would still do them. I don't think the Federalist Society showed itself in its best light. And I do think that this suggests that maybe having this kind of mix of panels is maybe not ideal. Academics, judges, including some judges who feel a personal stake in some of the criticisms being made.

And then you have Supreme Court And appellate litigators, people like Cannon, who are going to necessarily be constrained in what they can say, given their role. It seems like maybe not a recipe for the right kind of serious debates for which the Federalist Society is known, or at least wants to be known, right?

And then you have Supreme Court And appellate litigators, people like Cannon, who are going to necessarily be constrained in what they can say, given their role. It seems like maybe not a recipe for the right kind of serious debates for which the Federalist Society is known, or at least wants to be known, right?

It's not the kind of thing the Federalist Society usually does. So usually it kind of is very kind of hands off, doesn't take any positions, anything like that. So I was a little surprised by that.

It's not the kind of thing the Federalist Society usually does. So usually it kind of is very kind of hands off, doesn't take any positions, anything like that. So I was a little surprised by that.

Yeah. That, that was honestly, that is, that was my take on it at the end, which is, uh, having to go through the thought process of, do I say something? Do I not say something? This is a sitting federal judge. I don't really want to get into something with a sitting federal judge, but I also don't want to let some of this stuff go without comment and make it seem like I agree with it.

Yeah. That, that was honestly, that is, that was my take on it at the end, which is, uh, having to go through the thought process of, do I say something? Do I not say something? This is a sitting federal judge. I don't really want to get into something with a sitting federal judge, but I also don't want to let some of this stuff go without comment and make it seem like I agree with it.

That wasn't my favorite. But again, being biased, but I do think that it helped propagate my ideas in that way. So I don't know. Got a few free nights in DC.

That wasn't my favorite. But again, being biased, but I do think that it helped propagate my ideas in that way. So I don't know. Got a few free nights in DC.

It's a good one. But I guess from the Fed Soc's perspective, if the goal of the Fed Soc is largely to advance conservative ideas, it seems like a better panel would have been me and Steve and then people like you or Steve Sachs, right? Sure. Who are going to come in with pretty hard-hitting arguments. And Steve has wrote something in response to –

It's a good one. But I guess from the Fed Soc's perspective, if the goal of the Fed Soc is largely to advance conservative ideas, it seems like a better panel would have been me and Steve and then people like you or Steve Sachs, right? Sure. Who are going to come in with pretty hard-hitting arguments. And Steve has wrote something in response to –

One of my court reform pieces that was – I don't agree with much of what he has to say, but it was really good and made some hard arguments. And that seems like that's what the Fed Soc should want. And so maybe having this kind of weird role mismatch between kind of academics who are pretty free to say –

One of my court reform pieces that was – I don't agree with much of what he has to say, but it was really good and made some hard arguments. And that seems like that's what the Fed Soc should want. And so maybe having this kind of weird role mismatch between kind of academics who are pretty free to say –

whatever we want, and judges who are constrained and who are not kind of engaged in that kind of same kind of inquiry, same kind of freewheeling discussion, they're somewhat constrained. And then lawyers who are also somewhat constrained. Maybe it seems like you should have academic panels and you should have judge panels.