Last week’s Moms for Liberty convention in Tampa, Florida was a banner occasion for the anti-groomer community.  Among the speakers was Dr. James Lindsay, a self-proclaimed Christian nationalist, who is credited with having coined the term “groomer.”  Moms for Liberty and the parade of candidates for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination quickly jumped on his bandwagon.  Senator Tim Scott (REP-SC) has hosted fundraisers for the organization.  Former VP Mike Pence decried an Iowa school district’s accommodation of trans-students which he labeled “a gender transition plan.” Ron DeSantis released an anti-LGBT video which criticized Donald Trump’s empathy for victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting, which even members of the Log Cabin Republicans thought was a bridge too far.

Despite all their bluster, there is not one documented instance of a school teacher being responsible for a homosexual or a transgender conversion.  Not that evidence of grooming is necessary in today’s legal environment following last Friday’s Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative LLC v Elenis. The owner of 303 Creative LLC Lorie Smith sued the state of Colorado because (in the words of Justice Neil Gorsuch who wrote the majority opinion), “Ms. Smith worries (my emphasis) that Colorado will use the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to compel her–in violation of the First Amendment–to create websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse.”  Every imaginary fear is now an accepted basis for litigation in an already too litigious society.  If only that elderly lady had known she did not have to scald herself to sue McDonald’s for serving too hot coffee.  Just like Trump and declassification of secret documents, she could have just thought it.

From the above, you might assume I pooh-pooh (to quote Nancy Pelosi) the concept of grooming.  However, you would be wrong.  I believe there is an overt case of grooming in America, just not the one Moms for Liberty avows nor is it directed at school teachers.  It is called the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (FedSoc).  Their target is not impressionable third-graders, but impressionable law students. Founded in 1982 at Yale, Harvard and University of Chicago law schools, FedSoc has chapters in over 200 law schools.  But the grooming does not end upon graduation.  FedSoc has established divisions to reinforce their view of American jurisprudence for law faculty and practicing lawyers.  When it comes to judicial appointments, FedSoc has been described by one of its own members Amanda Hollis-Brusky “as the de facto gatekeeper for right-of-center lawyers aspiring to government jobs and federal judgeships under Republican presidents.”  Is there any more powerful evidence FedSoc’s view of the Constitution is not based on ideology but its hold on and manipulation of the GOP?

In a classic example of gaslighting, FedSoc’s stated mission is “checking federal power, protecting individual liberty and interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning.”  And how do federal judges and Supreme Court justices, who have been groomed by FedSoc, fufill that objective?

• Declaring “money is speech” and “corporations are people” under the First Amendment despite no evidence of such claim in the language or in the writings of Madison or other drafters of the U.S.  Constitution.
• Ignoring the inconvenient phrase “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” to justify expanding the right to gun-ownership.
• Denying women the individual right to determine their own health care and allowing government to intervene between a woman and her health provider.
• Approving Trump’s ban of travelers from Muslim-majority nations despite his many statements that it was tied to their faith, not evidence of any documented terrorist threat (the official party line).
• Endorsing discrimination against protected groups in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment as was the case in Friday’s 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis decision.
• Selectively nullifying actions by the President and Congress which are reserved for those branches of government under Articles I and II.  In other words, checking everyone’s federal power except that of the judiciary.
• Accepting cases in which the plaintiff does not have standing or there has been no discernible harm.
• Using the shadow docket to make consequential rulings without benefit of a full briefing, oral arguments or any written opinion justifying the decision.  For example, in June 2022 the six FedSoc approved justices used the shadow docket to reinstate Louisiana’s racially gerrymandered congressional map previously voided by the Fifth Circuit Court.
• Violating the Establishment Clause in the first amendment, the six FedSoc justices sanctioned a coach-led Christian prayer on the field after football games.

This list goes on and on.  And is not likely to end any time soon as the Federalist Society expands its influence in one of the two major political parties and hones its grooming skills at the nation’s law schools.  Of course, all this costs money, which is where Leonard Leo comes in.  Leo, who most recently made headlines as the individual who introduced Samuel Alito to his fishing buddy Paul Singer, is credited with bundling as much as $250 million in dark money to fund FedSoc.

Chief Justice John Roberts wonders why the Supreme Court’s favorability rating is at an all time low.  What else could one expect when it is at the center of a perfect storm consisting of dark money, rejects a code of ethics and is dominated by six justices who live by the mantra “watch what we say, not what we do.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr.  ESP