It’s hardly surprising that the annual dinner of the Federalist Society, a noted conservative group, included representatives of businesses and groups eager to see the national health care law struck down.
This included the law firm of Bancroft PLLC, one of whose lawyers, Paul Clement, will present the case to the court. Bancroft was one of the sponsors of the dinner — along with, among others, Jones Day, a firm representing one of several trade associations challenging the law, and the pharmaceutical firm Pfizer, which will benefit handsomely if the law is overturned.
What is surprising was the presence of two nominally impartial jurists.
Their presence at the annual dinner of the federalist Society - an regular event that occurs to commemorate another year in the organization's existence and not some meeting convened specifically to craft some kind of official strategy for dealing with FHer-care, is not surprising, is it? You're talking about legal scholars who champion freedom. It would make perfect sense for them to be there.
It appears 2 of the Supremes might have gotten wet in the britches over a free lunch, because, as you know, men can lubricate too:
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.nj.com/njv_fran_wood/2011/11/ethical_lapse_of_us_supreme_co.html
It’s hardly surprising that the annual dinner of the Federalist Society, a noted conservative group, included representatives of businesses and groups eager to see the national health care law struck down.
This included the law firm of Bancroft PLLC, one of whose lawyers, Paul Clement, will present the case to the court. Bancroft was one of the sponsors of the dinner — along with, among others, Jones Day, a firm representing one of several trade associations challenging the law, and the pharmaceutical firm Pfizer, which will benefit handsomely if the law is overturned.
What is surprising was the presence of two nominally impartial jurists.
And you know who they were, dontcha bloggie?
Their presence at the annual dinner of the federalist Society - an regular event that occurs to commemorate another year in the organization's existence and not some meeting convened specifically to craft some kind of official strategy for dealing with FHer-care, is not surprising, is it? You're talking about legal scholars who champion freedom. It would make perfect sense for them to be there.
ReplyDelete