I'm reluctant to suggest I know what is best for the @FedSoc as an organization, but, upon reflection, some more thoughts. https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1351536862641479682

Of course, the Society should have been able to muster a statement in defense of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the legitimacy of our institutions around and after January 6, especially when members of the Society played such a central role in setting the stage.

I will always be deeply disappointed in an organization that I so love for failing to do the minimum at a moment of maximum crisis.

In general, I support the organization's refusal to take positions on matters of public controversy, but that should not prevent it from speaking publically to its core principles which were so brazenly violated on January 6.

At the very least, key figures in the Society, whether in current leadership roles or not, certainly could have spoken out in their individual capacity, but too many failed to do so.

Looking back a couple of years, many were more than eager to condemn @gtconway3d and other members of the Society, publically and privately, for having the temerity to suggest that there might be some distance between our values and the political interests of Donald J Trump.

Yet these folks are silent on the sacking of the Capitol, encouraged by "our people," because they have rediscovered that they don't take positions on matters of public controversy.

Yes, there was a culture in the Federalist Society and conservative land in general that encouraged muted voices around real concerns about Trump and his leadership.

And clearly, @davidlat is right that the Society has been way too cozy with elected Rs. People like @NikkiHaley, to take a random recent example, should not get prized speaking slots, whatever their merits, unless they are closely affiliated with law and legal policy issues.

We can and we must do better. It's a Constitution we are defending.