Then the article continues with this criticism:
"It creates an echo chamber effect and weakens dissent," says Paul Light, a professor of public policy at New York University.
"This administration seems to have decided that it doesn't really want dissent," Light says. "What it wants are people who are absolute loyalists."
Let me just say that this guy Paul Light seems to be confusing the Federalist Society with ACS. Federalist events are marked by presenting many more points of view than any ACS event, at least on our campus. Social conservative and the libertarians often disagree on about every issue, and they do so in an open way. Honestly, I am not sure if anyone in the Federalist Society here could be described as an "absolute loyalist."
I also doubt that anyone smart enough to attend a top law school and get the top grades good enough to be a clerk for Scalia or Luttig would be willing to be an "absolute loyalist."
I feel that this criticism is really just sour grapes that there are not more Clinton/Gore loyalists at the DOJ to undermine the Bush agenda.