Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione recap the 2025 Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, offering candid insight into what made this year’s gathering different. From Judge Andy Oldham’s powerful Barbara Olson Lecture to unexpected debate pairings and shifts in programming philosophy, they break down where the convention excelled — and where it missed opportunities.

They discuss the tension between staging debates for show versus digging into substantive legal questions, the increasing presence of younger speakers, the lack of deep dives on topics like tariffs and administrative overreach, and the overall feel of the event’s intellectual energy. Mark and John also highlight memorable moments, including the conversation with Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh, Steve Bradbury’s Department of Transportation panel, and a compelling discussion on free speech rights for non-citizens.

A mix of recap, critique, and commentary, this episode gives listeners an insider’s view of how the conservative legal movement’s biggest annual gathering is evolving in 2025.

Mark Chenoweth: If you think that unwritten law doesn't affect you, think again. Whether you're a business owner or a professional, just an average citizen, you are unknowingly going to fall under vague and unofficial rules. And when bureaucrats act like lawmakers, they're really restricting your liberty without the consent of the governed. Welcome to Unwritten Law with Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione. John, you and I both attended this year's National Lawyers Convention at the Federalist Society last week, and there were several interesting things to talk about – sort of takeaways from the conference. But for me, maybe the biggest came near the end of the conference during the Barbara Olson Memorial Lecture, where Judge Andy Oldham of the Fifth Circuit, I think, in a way, took the society to task.

I mean, he did so gently, but he said, "Look, we're privileging debate. We have so much focus on debate. Is that really what we want to be doing here? It's not as though we don't have principles. We do have principles. Should we be doing more work to sort of push those principles out?" And he didn't mean sort of the, the full gamut of what you might think of as contemporaneous kind of conservative principles.

John Vecchione: Well, that's the question. What did he mean?

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah.

John Vecchione: What did he mean? 'Cause he didn't use an example.

Mark Chenoweth: He did not.

John Vecchione: And I was waiting for an example. And I think he’s being a spark plug. He’s starting to try and push thinking about this. And I think that within the Federalist Society, there is. We just got new leadership. Sheldon just came in –

Mark Chenoweth: Yep. Sheldon Gilbet.

John Vecchione: Yes. And so, I think he wants to push it in one direction. There are folks who don't want to push it in that direction, but none of them are saying exactly what they mean, which is interesting to me. And the reason I bring that up is because I was sitting there going, "I think this is a provocative talk." And he gave a provocative talk at Heritage a week beforehand, right?

Mark Chenoweth: Yes, he did.

John Vecchione: And so, he's really up to something, but he's not showing all his cards yet.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah, that might be right. And maybe we’ll have time to get into the Heritage talk. If not, maybe we can talk about it some other time. But on this occasion, he was really focused on civility and the importance of civility. But also, the fact that when the – and this has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time – that when the Federalist Society does these debates, they aren’t always very clear about having the best possible proponent for, say, the conservative side. But a lot of times they will grab a really good proponent for the liberal side. And so, you have this balanced debate oftentimes. And what purpose does that serve? I mean, it may educate, but it’s certainly not advancing originalism or textualism and what have you. And one of the debates they had, the Rosenkranz debate at this convention, wasn’t at all clear to me. I mean, I support Kristen Waggoner in ADF, but she’s up there arguing for substantive due process, which is not something that very many members of the Federalist Society have been in favor of for very long.

John Vecchione: And who is she arguing against?

Mark Chenoweth: She was arguing against Mary Anne Case, who’s a law professor at the University of Chicago and has been since I was there back in the late 90s. And is, I guess, most famous for her scholarship on bathrooms, which she was talking about in the 90s when no one else was. But here she was really talking about the question of whether does the conservative side really want to claim that there are substantive due process rights for parents to be informed about their children being treated in the school to a new name or a new gender identity, or being allowed to use a bathroom without being told – the parents being told, yeah.

[Crosstalk]

John Vecchione: Without telling the parents. And so, you’d think it would be an easy debate. But I will tell you this. I thought that the professor did better than Kristen, primarily. It was a big room. She was funny.

Mark Chenoweth: She was funny, yeah.

John Vecchione: I cannot remember the last time I saw a debate between a liberal and a conservative, where the liberal was funnier.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah.

John Vecchione: Right?

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah.

John Vecchione: And looser. She was loose.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah.

John Vecchione: Right?

Mark Chenoweth: Well, I think she was enjoying sort of twisting the knife a little bit, like, “Really? You guys want to talk about substantive due process? That’s usually my side.”

John Vecchione: Exactly, exactly. So, she was having fun. So, I did think that – and her big thing is she's usually very sunny, and she wasn't as sunny as she usually is. And as for that debate, one of the things I did not really see – we'll talk about a free speech thing I went to, which is a little bit of this – is you didn't see the intertextualist or originalist fights that are going on 'cause there are some of them going on –

Mark Chenoweth: Oh, some big ones.

John Vecchione: And those used to be very exciting to go to because there were people who were recognized that were within the Federalist Society movement or team. Oftentimes libertarian versus traditionalist, stuff like that, but sometimes not.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah.

John Vecchione: Other kind of things, and I didn't see any of the inter-fights. And I'm wondering if it's ‘cause they're worried that real fights will break out.

Mark Chenoweth: Well, I'll give you an example, John. I'm shocked that there wasn't a panel on tariffs. How could they not have a panel on tariffs? It's the single biggest debate of the year amongst conservatives. Is the president right on tariffs? Is the president wrong on tariffs? They didn't have that topic at this conference. Riddle me that one. I don’t get it.

John Vecchione: Yeah, I don't know why.

Mark Chenoweth: So, but I think it gets back to some of what Oldham was saying is that you're constructing these debates and you aren't necessarily thinking principles first. You're thinking debate first. Although that tariffs one would have been a good debate. So, maybe that's not a good example.

John Vecchione: Well, the other thing about that is when the Justice Department fella came, he was interviewed. No questions. We always have questions. It's almost everywhere. Sometimes you run out of time –

Mark Chenoweth: Right.

John Vecchione: But usually there’s like one guy, and so, I felt that if the Justice Department –

Mark Chenoweth: It’s a little kid glove treatment, a little bit.

John Vecchione: Yeah, yeah. Kid gloves and that has not been the norm. I mean, there have been some tough one – I mean, Amar, from Yale. He takes some really tough questions, right? And some of the others, I remember over the years, they really take all comers.

Mark Chenoweth: Right. Well, and back on the Rosenkranz debate, the other thing we didn’t talk about was the moderator, who was a former D.C. Circuit judge, Thomas Griffith. What a gentle soul.

John Vecchione: Yes.

Mark Chenoweth: I mean, he’s very non-contentious in his demeanor and his questions, etc., and that’s fine, but every other Rosenkranz debate I’ve been to, Nick Rosenkranz was the moderator, I think.

John Vecchione: Right, yeah.

Mark Chenoweth: I think he's always been the moderator when I've been. And Nick is incisive.

John Vecchione: Yeah.

Mark Chenoweth: He asks very sharp questions of both sides.

John Vecchione: Right.

Mark Chenoweth: But sharp questions. He digs in on what's your weak point, and Griffith didn't really do that. I mean, he asked them to say what their weak point was.

John Vecchione: Right.

Mark Chenoweth: But then it was that was almost comedic because both of them were – in fact, that was one of the points where Mary Anne Case was funny because Kristen Waggoner was saying, "Well, you know, I don't know." And then Mary Anne Case is, "Because there's so many weak points and –"

[Crosstalk]

John Vecchione: Right, exactly. Exactly.

Mark Chenoweth: And the crowd laughed at that.

John Vecchione: They did laugh at that. But also, it's bad for – this is why Kristen shouldn't be doing it. She's going to be arguing this case, right?

Mark Chenoweth: Mmm.

John Vecchione: She's going to be arguing one of those cases. She can't say what her weak point is, given that she has to go do that.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah.

John Vecchione: So, it should have been somebody else. Because if you’re going to argue a Supreme Court case, you can talk about it, but how can you possibly do one of these things where it is pedagogical that they want to teach – we’ll talk about young people in a little bit – but you want to do that. But it’s unfair to a lawyer to ask them to do that before they argue before the Supreme Court.

Mark Chenoweth: Right. No, I agree with that. I agree with that.

John Vecchione: And I don't think he thought of that. I don't think Judge Griffith was thinking that, but I was thinking that.

Mark Chenoweth: Well, and we know from experience with Judge Griffith that that's the kind of question he likes to ask, right?

John Vecchione: Yeah, correct.

Mark Chenoweth: He likes to sort of give you a chance to argue your best point, and then he wants to hear you argue your worst point or kind of put you in the other person's shoes. He's a mediator, right?

John Vecchione: Right, that's true.

Mark Chenoweth: That's what he's doing now.

John Vecchione: That’s correct.

Mark Chenoweth: That's not too shocking to hear that from him, but I didn't think it was as effective as Nick Rosenkranz has been as the moderator in other ones. So, that was a little bit disappointing to me. You mentioned young people, John. So, I have a split mind on the young people. They were definitely featured more than I've ever seen before.

John Vecchione: Correct.

Mark Chenoweth: And I understand why they might have this motivation for new blood and not hearing from the same old people all the time – I get that. And some of the young people, particularly, I think, they relied on a lot of current presidents at campus Federalist Society chapters to do the introductions of the moderators, for example. And I thought several of them did a fantastic job, including the one that introduced Judge Oldham for the –

John Vecchione: Yes.

Mark Chenoweth: For the Barbara Olson Memorial Lecture. I was less enamored of the young people on the panels who I think were outclassed, by and large, didn't have very interesting things to say. And there were some panels I went to where I thought there were very important subjects, and I just walked away without any – I just didn't learn anything from the panels.

John Vecchione: Right.

Mark Chenoweth: And I think that you've got limited time. They cut the panels from 90 minutes to 75 minutes, which I think is probably the right move. I think 75 minutes is a better length for these panels. But if that means that you're gonna have four people on these panels, and one of them is going to be somebody who doesn't know very much about the topic, you're really reducing the value to me of the panel, so –

John Vecchione: Well, I’ll tell you, because one of my friends who joined the Federalist Society before me at Georgetown, our chapter started in ’85, and I joined in ‘86, right? So, the 85ers were there to see this guy give the keynote.

Mark Chenoweth: They're the OGs.

John Vecchione: Yeah, to the Georgetown Federalists. But I was reminded that we all went to the first one of these in ‘87 as helpers, right?

Mark Chenoweth: Oh, right, right, right.

John Vecchione: We weren't on any panels, for God's sake. We weren't even lawyers.

[Crosstalk]

Mark Chenoweth: Right, they let you go for free if you –

John Vecchione: Yeah, do stuff.

Mark Chenoweth: Handed out name tags or something.

John Vecchione: Exactly. So, I was reminded of that, and I was reminded of, I mean, it was much more – it was small. It was at the Mayflower. I don’t think there were 200, 250 people there. But it was a lot more contentious and upbeat. It was “we few, we few, we happy few.” And now it’s huge. But I do think that problem of knowledge and incisiveness, but also of confidence. I saw a panel with Luca Posey. He knows lots of things, and he’s very confident, and he’s 31. But he’s not a law student, but he’s very confident. And that panel had a lot of early 30s guys, but who had done things.

Mark Chenoweth: Right.

[Crosstalk]

John Vecchione: Oh, okay. Right, bingo.

Mark Chenoweth: So, like, if Elienak Mani had been on one of these panels – he's a bright guy. He's young, but he's got a lot to say.

John Vecchione: Correct.

Mark Chenoweth: He's very thoughtful. Some of these other folks didn't have much to say.

John Vecchione: I agree with that. Well, we’ll see how it pans out. The problem we have, though, is they do have a lot of people to cater to now. There were over 3,000 people at the dinner. Maybe we should talk about that.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah, is that a least common denominator problem then?

Mark Chenoweth: They’ve always privileged the academic viewpoint more than other organizations do, and it started in the schools. So, I get that, maybe that makes sense for them. But it makes it less useful for me because a lot of times, the academic debates aren’t the ones that really make a difference in practical reality and the kind of cases that we’re bringing. And so, they get hung up on some of these things that I’m not terribly interested in and that I don’t think are going to matter for a hill of beans two years from now. But I think that one of the ways to handle that is you can have some of the panel – by the way, they have academic conferences as well, where they can do that kind of thing. This is supposed to be the lawyers’ convention, where you would think that they would have more takeaways for the lawyers, but they still seem to be hung up on some of the academic things. So, one of my pieces of advice, if they were asking for it, would be focus less on the academic at the lawyers’ conventions. But the other thing that happens with academics is a lot of times they’re focused on the way far back or the case that just happened. And there were a lot of these panels I went to where I thought, “Well, this would have been an interesting talk a year ago, but there’s a lot of things that have happened in the last year, and you didn’t talk about any of those things.” And so, I wonder if practitioners are just more up to speed on what’s actually happening in the courts than some of the folks who are on these panels?

John Vecchione: It could be. And I’ll say one other thing about that is that I think one of the problems they have, also, is that the administration – like the no-questions problem, right – you don’t want to get on the wrong side of the administration. You want to have their input, but they’re not really – we see how they argue and what they’re arguing, and a lot of it isn’t originalist or textualist or anything. It’s “this is what I want,” right?

Mark Chenoweth: Right.

John Vecchione: And so, if you’ve got a legal Goliath as you have in the Justice Department, that is often “this is what I want,” you’re in trouble. I think Harmeet was there, and she has actual – Harmeet Dhillon of civil rights has the right chops for this, is what I would say. But I don’t think there’s lots of that. And so, you don’t have that – during the Bush administration or even during the first Trump administration, his chief of staff from Jones Day, his chief legal counsel from Jones Day –

Mark Chenoweth: Don McGahn.

John Vecchione: Don McGahn.

Mark Chenoweth: Yep.

John Vecchione: Don McGahn gave a rip-roaring Barbara Olson Lecture.

Mark Chenoweth: Yes, he did.

John Vecchione: Yeah, just absolutely rip-roaring. And he –

Mark Chenoweth: Well, I think the line that got the most attention from that speech, although there were a few, was he said something about we didn’t – what do you call it when you have something that you usually do internally, but you export it or you have people on the outside do it for you? I’m blanking on the term for that. But when you –

John Vecchione: Consult.

Mark Chenoweth: Outsource.

John Vecchione: Outsource, okay.

Mark Chenoweth: He said, "We didn't outsource judicial picking to the Federalist Society. We insourced it."

John Vecchione: “Insourced it. We insourced it.”

[Crosstalk]

Mark Chenoweth: That got a lot of attention.

John Vecchione: Yeah, they loved that. So, there were guys like that, and they made it a lot more lively because also they could take a few knocks, right? Don McGahn is capable of taking a few knocks in a jocular way.

Mark Chenoweth: For sure.

John Vecchione: I’m not sure the lawyers they send in this group, in this time, still have that. The –

Mark Chenoweth: The best one I saw here was Steve Bradbury, and he was in the first Trump administration as well.

John Vecchione: Yeah.

Mark Chenoweth: And he was in the OLC during the Bush administration. So, he's been in several government posts.

John Vecchione: Right.

Mark Chenoweth: And Steve can hold his own.

John Vecchione: Yes, exactly.

Mark Chenoweth: But he had a very nice discussion of what they're doing over at the Department of Transportation. But I didn't hear too much. I didn't hear too many other talks that were as edifying as Steve's.

John Vecchione: Well, let’s talk about the dinner –

Mark Chenoweth: Okay.

John Vecchione: ’Cause it’s usually the highlight. And in this case, they don’t tell you who’s going to be there beforehand for security reasons – lots of reasons.

Mark Chenoweth: Right.

John Vecchione: Sometimes, I don't know, I think.

Mark Chenoweth: Although Justice Barrett was there for a book signing in the afternoon, which made me think, “Hmm.” On the one hand, I thought, “Well, that means she’s probably going to be at the dinner, too. But she was also the featured person at the dinner last year.” So, I thought, “Well, it won’t be her twice in a row.” But it was.

John Vecchione: It was, but with Kavanaugh. And it was moderated by Trevor McFadden.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah.

[Crosstalk]

John Vecchione: I thought he was very good.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah, very good.

John Vecchione: He was very engaging.

Mark Chenoweth: Very engaging.

John Vecchione: Every time. I mean, he's really the host with the most. I've seen him at other things. He's very good at this sort of thing.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah, I was at an Inn of Court with him a month or two ago when he was also very engaging. I think he has a knack for this.

John Vecchione: Yes.

Mark Chenoweth: And I had seen Justice Barrett interviewed at – I think it was at the Bloomberg Supreme Court event – by Judge Bumatay. And I thought his questions were maybe a little obsequious. And I didn’t get that with McFadden at all. I thought his questions were really on point.

John Vecchione: Yeah, I thought so, too. And I thought the justices enjoyed it. They were talking about – well, Justice Barrett was talking about young women “stick your guns and have courage” and things like that. And Kavanaugh talked about civility quite a bit. But it wasn’t a burn-down-the-house interview, but I thought it was nice after-dinner conversation, is the way I would put it. And no revelations, like, “She doesn’t read our amicus briefs, like she –”

Mark Chenoweth: Right, right. And this isn’t a criticism of Judge McFadden, or, for that matter, Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh, necessarily. But I do want to make this plea to the Federalist Society, which is the single event that happens every year in Washington, DC, with the largest accumulation of conservative intelligentsia in the lawyer community. It’s the best opportunity possible to put somebody up there to give an interesting speech about something that matters, and they never do it. And I don’t really understand why.

John Vecchione: Well, I think they do it at the Barbara Olson, okay?

[Crosstalk]

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah, yeah. Those have been great.

John Vecchione: Those have been the ones that always everyone comes away talking about.

Mark Chenoweth: The Barry Weiss one was amazing.

John Vecchione: Barry Weiss was incredible.

Mark Chenoweth: Don McGahn, you mentioned.

John Vecchione: I remembered when Ted Olson gave them in the early days.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah.

John Vecchione: They were very good.

Mark Chenoweth: Yes.

John Vecchione: And so, I think the Barbara Olson one has been the one that everyone sort of like, “What’s going to go on here,” right?

Mark Chenoweth: And Andy Oldham was this year.

John Vecchione: Andy Oldham was this year.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah.

John Vecchione: So, I do think that that's where they think it is, and they think that dinner should be a little – but I think it was at dinner where Mukasey was speaking, and he passed out that time.

Mark Chenoweth: Oh, I wasn't there for that. But you're right, you're right.

John Vecchione: Oh, yeah. He was good. It was one of these speeches we were talking about. But he got overcome with heat or something. I forget what it was. I saw him, actually. He told a very funny joke. Someone said, “You look fabulous.” He says, “Yeah, you’re young, you’re old, and then you’re at the you look fabulous stage.”

Mark Chenoweth: That’s funny.

John Vecchione: It was funny. And so, my friend who had just introduced me, we both cracked up. So, he's in fine fettle.

Mark Chenoweth: Sounds like it. But I don't think people would object. If that Oldham speech had been the dinner speech, I think people would have been interested in it.

John Vecchione: That’s probably right.

Mark Chenoweth: And so, why not have two of those?

John Vecchione: But it's also the thing, my wife – she very much liked Justice Barrett last year. There's a lot of non-lawyers at that dinner.

Mark Chenoweth: Right.

John Vecchione: So, the dinner is where people come –

[Crosstalk]

Mark Chenoweth: And they've paid $500 a person, right, to come.

John Vecchione: Right, exactly. And so, yeah. So, that's the one where there are non-lawyers at. So, I think you have to take that into account.

Mark Chenoweth: And when they get really high-profile people, and maybe really high-profile people are less willing to say something –

John Vecchione: Provocative.

Mark Chenoweth: Contentious or provocative. That could be part of what it is. My favorite one of these still is when George W. Bush spoke to the dinner.

John Vecchione: Yes.

Mark Chenoweth: And he was speaking about his judicial nominations and extolling praise on Justice Thomas, among others. I enjoyed that talk. And –

John Vecchione: My wife liked that one, too.

Mark Chenoweth: Okay. Well, yeah, no surprise.

John Vecchione: Yeah.

Mark Chenoweth: The rumor, by the way, that was floating around ahead of the dinner – I don't know if you heard this – but it was that JD Vance was there. And that JD Vance was gonna be the speaker.

John Vecchione: Oh, no. I had not heard that.

Mark Chenoweth: I think that would have been great. And maybe they’ll get him next year or the year after. But it turned out he was there, but he was there for the Marine Ball.

John Vecchione: Oh, yes.

[Crosstalk]

Mark Chenoweth: Or something. It wasn’t for the dinner.

John Vecchione: For the birthday.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah.

John Vecchione: Yes, that’s right. November 10th is the Marine Corps' birthday. Someone asked. I think Dan Troy asked me, "Do you have any idea?" I said, "Tucker Carlson." He cracked up because I did it with a complete straight face, so –

Mark Chenoweth: For the dinner, you mean?

John Vecchione: Yeah.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah. Well, he wanted to talk about a contentious debate among conservatives that would have gotten the job done.

John Vecchione: Oh, boy. No, we're not suggesting that.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah, that’s right.

John Vecchione: Don’t listen – we’re joking.

Mark Chenoweth: All right, well, I'm sure I'll go again next year. I mean, there are usually some good takeaways at some of these panels.

John Vecchione: I do wanna go. So, there's two things.

Mark Chenoweth: Yep.

John Vecchione: Judge Bumatay opened it up, and he was kind of very pointed. He had a point of view about overturning precedent and all kinds of things like that. And so, at the opening speech, he was painting in bright colors and not pale pastels. Let’s put it that way.

Mark Chenoweth: Okay.

John Vecchione: And then I did go to a –

Mark Chenoweth: It wasn’t the salmon, azure, and eggshell of the Democratic convention?

John Vecchione: No, no, no.

Mark Chenoweth: Okay.

John Vecchione: So, also, I went to one on free speech and whether foreigners, aliens, have free speech rights, which was interesting because –

Mark Chenoweth: It was interesting because Philip Hamburger wasn't on the panel and should have been. That was one of my takeaways there.

John Vecchione: But everyone thinks – I think after Murphy v. Missouri – that the listener – there’s tons of cases saying the listener has a right to listen, right? And I think it’s been horribly weakened. They didn’t –

Mark Chenoweth: Murphy?

John Vecchione: Yes.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah, for sure.

John Vecchione: But everyone still thought it was robust. And I thought that was good news. Like, they still thought that that was something in Supreme Court doctrine.

[Crosstalk]

Mark Chenoweth: It hasn't helped us in Powell so far.

John Vecchione: No, it has not. I know.

Mark Chenoweth: The SCC gag-rule case.

John Vecchione: But I thought it was good news. And then the permanent visa holders – most people thought you had to show more. Even the folks who thought that you don't have –

Mark Chenoweth: You mean if you have a green card or –

John Vecchione: Yeah, exactly.

Mark Chenoweth: Okay.

John Vecchione: But the fact is –

John Vecchione: Right, right. But the –

[Crosstalk]

Mark Chenoweth: Student visas.

John Vecchione: The “no rights for aliens” guys were trying to cabin that ’cause really, anything could get you thrown out, right? There would be no regularization because you could say anything bothered you, right? He’s playing Christmas music before Thanksgiving, you know?

Mark Chenoweth: The nerve.

John Vecchione: The nerve. So, you never know. So, I found that an interesting one. And I did find that they still thought the listener had a right, so that was interesting.

Mark Chenoweth: Okay, well, invariably there are one or two panels that are terrific, and sometimes it's not the one that I choose to go to.

John Vecchione: Right.

Mark Chenoweth: So, I have to go watch it later. So, this is one I'm going to have to go watch later, so –

Mark Chenoweth: You have a good point there. And by the way, I didn’t go to the administrative law one, even though I’m part of that practice group. And the reason is because they scheduled it at the same time as the Chicago Alumni Lunch, where Judge Jim Ho was speaking. And I was really interested to hear what he was going to say. So, I went to that instead. But I think those lunches are off the record.

John Vecchione: Yes.

Mark Chenoweth: So, I don’t think I can talk about that. But anyway, I was glad I did that. That was an interesting conversation. And as always with this, what’s the very best thing, John? It’s catching up with people in the hallway, right?

John Vecchione: No, questions. Yep.

Mark Chenoweth: I mean, you see a hundred people that you haven't seen maybe in a year, or at least in six months.

John Vecchione: Everyone came for Ed Ar Tao – became a district court judge. So, all these folks came up from Florida that I had not seen in 40 years.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah.

John Vecchione: And we had a ball.

Mark Chenoweth: Yeah, that's the best part of it. And so, that's why the event will continue to be a success. Sometimes it's called the prom.

John Vecchione: Yes.

Mark Chenoweth: The conservative prom, what have you. And so, kudos to the Federalist Society for another successful event, at least in that regard. And hopefully we’ll see some improvements. And maybe we’ll see. Maybe they’ll heed Judge Oldham’s advice, maybe not. But I do think there’s some room for improvement next year.

John Vecchione: And there's a lot of internecine fights amongst ourselves. We could do them there. No one's going to throw punches.

Mark Chenoweth: Absolutely, I agree with you. You’ve been listening to Unwritten Law. As we like to say here at NCLA. Let judges judge, let legislators legislate, and stop bureaucrats from doing either.

[End of Audio]

Duration: 26 minutes