•  The Federalist Society, Sam Iannarino, interviewed Professor Mike Distlehorst on July 17, 1998.

    Federlist Society: When were you first interested in the Federalist Society and what was it that interested you?

    Mike Distelhorst: I was first interested in the Federalist Society when Professor David Mayer and I were talking about Thomas Jefferson and David brought the organization to my attention. We were sharing our mutual interest in Jeffersonian ideals. David subsequently invited me to a lunch meeting, which was my first involvement with the local chapter.

    FS: How long ago was that?

    MD: It would have been about three or four years ago, I suppose.
 
    FS: What role do you think the Federalist Society should serve at the law school level? Or maybe I should rephrase that, is there a role at the law school level for debate over Constitutional and public policy issues?

    MD: Yes, I like that. The role for the Federalist Society here at Capital should probably be that of a facilitator of discussion of Constitutional and public policy issues.

    FS: Why should students participate?-even if they want to participate in dissent--which is something we will welcome.

    MD: Any valid discussion of an issue should include the presentation of all sides of the issue. So a legitimate facilitator of debate about public policy issues must invite all sides. Any important public policy issue is likely at some point to involve the Constitution. If law students are not interested in the Constitution, in what will they be interested? I mean, anyone who wants to be a lawyer is going to be interested in the critical role played by the Supreme Court and its Constitutional rulings in the legal system. Now that starts me off on a story. Do you want a story?

    FS: Sure.

    MD: I have been invited a couple of times to stand in for Dean Bahls in making motions in the Supreme Court to have our alumni admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. I get to go to Washington, D.C., stand up in front of the Court in session, and make a 30-second motion, reading the names of the people and moving their admission to the Supreme Court bar. When you are standing there, looking at the justices, your realize that those nine people and the law that they interpret limit the power of everyone, no matter how important he or she thinks himself or herself to be. There is no one in our society above the law, and these nine umpires and the law they pronounce are there to prove it. And then, all of sudden the thought strikes you, that it is lawyers just like yourself who make up the system which allows these nine people to administer this system of ordered liberty of a society under law. They could not function without you and your kind - other lawyers - all over this country. And, wow, you just feel a part of it all. What a surge that is!

    FS: This may be off base, but Chief Justice Rehnquist just denied the Secret Service appeal, is that one for the good guys?

    MD: That is one for the good guys in my way of thinking. No President is above the law, and as much as I love Roman history, the Secret Service are not Imperial guards.

    FS: Do law schools or universities in general have an underlying liberal bias?

    MD: In my opinion, yes. I can only speak anecdotally because I have not done the research, per se, but in my experience, both have what is generally labeled a liberal bias.

    FS: What effect does that have on the student body and is the Federalist Society something that can be a tool to combat such bias by allowing discussion of both sides of these kinds of issues?

    MD: It should be. What you need is an organization that is willing to put principled discussion ahead of political ideology. And whatever organization will have the character to conduct really principled discussions of issues, rather than simple espousing one side's political ideology, is a very necessary organization to real education. But, even if you were to assume for a moment, arguendo, that the Federalist Society tends to be on the conservative side, Reihnhold Neibuhr, who is my favorite justice-based 20th century philosopher/theologian said that you can only have justice when you have a balance of competing powers. So, in a place that is supposedly dedicated to justice like a law school is said to be, you need to have the balance of both views. And, if you are going to have the more liberal political views presented by a large number of faculty, then you are going to have to balance that with the more conservative perspective, as well. So even to the extent that one would say the Federalist Society is more conservative, I think it balances the liberal and very much acts for the good of true education.

    FS: Our hope is to make the Federalist Society a forum for open debate and to talk about issues - and to invite dissent and discussion.

    MD: That's the thing. If you can get the really important, meaningful issues of the day talked about in an honest debate where all sides can come forward, I think you will serve a real purpose and the cause of justice.

    FS: In one of the popular weekly newsmagazines that featured an article of the vast right-wing conspiracy, Ken Starr's picture was in the center and labeled number one. Number two was a jump from Ken Starr to the Federalist Society. Is Ken Starr, in your view, an out- of-control prosecutor, or is he just your typical prosecutor?

    MD: I have met Judge Ken Starr very briefly. He was a commencement speaker here at the law school. And I place Ken Star at the top of my list of people who I most respect in the legal system. And, I will be happy to say that anywhere, anytime. I do not believe that Ken Starr is out of control. I believe he is diligently, competently, and quite courageously carrying out his duties under law. There is nobody currently in our legal system whom I respect anymore than I do Ken Starr. I only wish I could say the same about the leadership of either of the major political parties. Ken Starr's biggest problem with the public may very well be that if you impeach President Clinton, you are left with the Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the public simply does not want to be at the unchecked mercy of that quality of leadership.

    FS: So, drawing the conclusion that Ken Starr is out of control and tying that to the Federalist Society is really nonsense?

    MD: Yes.

    FS: And, making the analogy that Ken Starr is bad, therefore the Federalist Society is bad - students should not be put off by seeing anything like that in a magazine?

    MD: Law students ought not to be fooled by spin or propaganda that they read in magazines or see on television. Maybe they need to re-read George Orwell's 1984. If you are going to be a lawyer, you must carefully investigate and use discernment and judgment in gaining the facts about any subject. Magazine spin and television lawyers must be recognized for what little valid information they provide. It is sad when a member of the lay public is taken in, but it is a tragedy when a real lawyer allows himself or herself to be so easily deceived.