From NPR
As I understand the converative arguement, they consider the ABA too liberal and that it is blocking conservative judges. If that is so, then how did Bork clear ABA screening?
Is dropping ABA screening a good idea, or is the public well served by a peer review?
Bad idea. The public is well served by ABA review, which focuses on the experience and scholarly qualifications of presidential nominees to the federal bench. Presidents want judges who will support their ideological agendas. The ABA wants to make sure they are also competent judges, and so do I.
I have seen little or no evidence of ideological bias on the part of the ABA when screening judges. (Although the OP is wrong to imply that the bar had no problems with Bork–his review was mixed.) Bush simply wants to eliminate a process that impedes his ability to put legal lightweights on the federal bench for life. God knows we had enough of that with Clinton’s federal district court nominees, and I have heard that ABA review helped the Senate weed out the worst of them.
But it’s still a free country, so the ABA can continue to review judges as it sees fit. All the White House can do is end its cooperation in the process.
And for those of you who don’t feel like listening to Nina Totenberg and All Things Communist ;), here’s a story from Reuters on cnn.com.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/19/bush.judges.reut/index.html
I find myself a bit confused by the stated objections of one of the individuals interviewed in the Reuters report:
Because, as we all know, compassion has no place in the courtroom, and of course, that idea of equal justice under the law is just a liberal conceit.
That said, I don’t think that the removal of the ABA from the official process will inhibit the public’s information. They will almost certainly continue to evaluate the prospective cantidates, even if those evaluations are no longer used by the President in selecting a new Justice. If they are barred from contributing their evaluations directly to the President (or his office, as the case may be) I’m pretty confident the evaluations will find their way to the major media outlets, not to mention their own website. With all the publicity surrounding it, I wouldn’t be surprised to see that more people suddenly pay attention to the evaluations than they have in the past.
Hard to say for sure about accusations of bias. But it makes sense in that according to your source
It is not inconcievable for the committee to be unbiased despite the policy stances of the same group. But if you had to go before a group whose leadership has taken policy stands opposed to your own, I think you might have a justifiable fear of bias.
I think if the ABA wants to be looked at as a purely professional organization, rating potential judges on merit alone, they might wish to consider avoiding taking stands on policy issues.
(Furthermore, the article states that the ABA “broke with precedent” regarding the Bork nomination, by disclosing the opposition of some members. Not exactly confidence inspiring, from the perspective of a conservative. Furthermore, I don’t there was any non-ideological basis to oppose Bork at all - he was (and is) one of the most prominent legal scholars in the country. So the opposition of even some of the members indicates that there is some degree of polical bias in the ABA ratings).
If you are seriously confused (and not merely making a rhetorical point), I will help you out.
Mr. Leo is not concerned about the possibility of judges being compassionate or committed to equal justice, as you suggest. Rather, he is concerned that ABA screeners will use these criteria to disqualify conservative candidates, by decreeing them to lack compassion or commitment to equal justice based on their conservative ideology. A reasonable concern, considering the opinion that many liberals have of conservatives.
Dues-paying member of the ABA here, and I have no problem with this. The ABA is a lobbying organization – it damn well better be, or I’m asking for my money back. I don’t really see it as particularly ideological, but that is not the only kind of bias.
Lawyers have interests, and judges, especially Supreme Court justices, can affect those interests. If Bush has decided (probably for the wrong “ideological” reasons, but nonetheless) he doesn’t want their input anymore, more power to him.
Sua
It sounds like someone wants to make it easier pack the courts with the same sort of party stalwarts, that got him appointed to his job in the first place. Or is this another one of those “forget the past” kind of things and the president actually has ?
Gee where would anyone get the idea that the conservative philosophy lacks compassion or the desire to uphold equal justice under the law? Haven’t these guys heard of “compasionate conservatisim”? Please let’s try not to bust a gut laughing at this one.
Needs2know
It was a rhetorical point, albeit one with an edge. The quote, perhaps taken out of context by the journalist, does seem to cast those qualities as being unwelcome in a court of law. I don’t have any problem believing that conservatives can and are both compassionate and devoted to the idea of equal justice under the law, but the manner in which the quote was framed did not cast Mr. Leo (and by extension, perhaps unwarrented, conservatives) in the best light.
As opposed to the opinion that many conservatives have of liberals?
To clarify, I don’t really have any problem if President Bush decides he no longer wishes to have the ABA working in an official capacity to screen the prospective cantidates for Court. The role of the ABA was apparently established by Presidential order, I see no reason why it can’t be removed by the same method. As Sua mentioned, “If Bush has decided… he doesn’t want their imput anymore, more power to him.” I think that the opinions and evaluation of the cantidates will still be disseminated to those who are interested in the information. Perhaps, with the greater publicity that is generated from this “controversy” (and I use that term in its broadest possible sense), the information will be more sought after by those who would not normally show an interest in the evaluations.
[totally clueless day]
When did ABBA get back together and where’s this review gonna be showing?
[/totally clueless day]
Answer: Just barely! Quoting from a column by Mark Levin in the national Review,
“Perhaps its most disgraceful behavior occurred when President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork, one of America’s finest legal minds, to the United Supreme States Court. In 1987, in an act of transparent partisanship, the ABA’s judicial-review committee helped undercut Bork’s nomination. Ten members of the committee rated Bork “well qualified,” but four members actually rated him “not qualified.” This was used by Bork’s opponents to unleash a campaign of character assassination, which ultimately helped defeat his nomination.”
And thank you Mr. Levin for your idiotic comments.
Sua
You may not, but others do. Note for example the post by needs2know.
Yes, exactly. However, were the ABA dominated by conservatives (as evidenced in their policy positions) and they announced that they would take into account in their ratings whether prospective judges are “tough on crime”, liberals would see the same red flag.
Sua
Do you think the ABA would be as split on Tribe as they were on Bork?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**
[QUOTEFrom the standpoint of jurisprudence, Bork’s contempt for precedent made him a bad judge. A vital, perhaps the most essential, function of the law is predictability - people can go about their lives knowing in advance what is legal and what isn’t. Bork’s legal philosophy gave insufficient credence to this important precept, and instead advocated judicial activism.
This isn’t limited to conservatives - Professor Tribe is equally unqualified for the same reason.
**[/QUOTE]
Su – I gather that you’re a lawyer, so you know more about this than I do. Bork was a judge with a track record. As I recall, there was no evidence that he had failed to follow precedent. E.g., his decisions hadn’t been disproportionately over-ruled by a higher court. In fact, my memory is that unusually few of his decisions had been over-ruled.
I confess to being more comfortable with Scalia and Thomas than with Bork, but his record does seem to speak for itself.
By the way, why is reverence for precedent only required of conservatives? E.g., where were the criticisms of judges who continued to rule that the death penalty was “cruel and unusual punishment” long after it had been held Constitutional?
Regarding character assassination, Bork was portrayed as an anti-social bigot. Some Democrats attacked him by confusing his Constitutional positions with his political positions. I vividly recall Sen. Kennedy stating that Bork was anti-Black, anti- civili liberties, and that he favored bad consequences that were intended to be cured by various laws whose Constitutionality he had questioned.
Not to turn this into a debate on Bork, but Sua Sponte is dead-on about Bork’s conservative judicial activism and disdain for established precedent. These quotes are from the Senate’s summary of debate on the Bork nomination:
He has also been remarkably inconsistent in his views over the years, changing them to suit the conservative trend of the day.
This statement, from way back in 1987, is particularly enlightening on Bork’s flip flops if you happen to be aware of his current anti-Microsoft stance:
In other words, as Sua pointed out above, there were legitimate reasons for some members of the ABA committee to oppose Bork’s nomination. But even more telling is that, despite these problems, the committee voted 10-4 to recommend that Bork, probably the most conservative judge ever to be nominated to the Supreme Court, be confirmed. So much for that liberal ABA bias.
december
Bork was indeed portrayed as anti-civil rights and an all-around meanie, as you suggest. Notably, however, that was done by individual senators and liberal interest groups–not the ABA.
Bork’s record re: being overruled was about average. However, that is irrelevant to the question of his qualifications. If he were on the Supreme Court, there would be no one to overturn him, and thus he could let his legal philosophy have free rein. There are a lot of things around the office that I’d do if I were boss that I can’t as a worker drone. 
::Sigh:: I can only assume that you aren’t talking to me. I mentioned Professor Tribe as someone I believe to be equally unqualified because of his lack of respect for precedent. If you can find a more esteemed liberal legal philosopher in this day and age, please point him/her out to me.
[/QUOTE]
Izzy, I would be shocked if there were a unanimous recommendation for Professor Tribe by the ABA. At least in the private sector, and with the exception of plaintiffs’ attorneys, we lawyers aren’t a liberal bunch. While it’s possible that the ABA has been hijacked by a group of liberal activists (like the GOP and the religious right? :D), my experience is that the ABA reflects its membership.
Sua
Sorry, I didn’t make the comment, a conservative did. Kind of brings to mind the old saying “if the shoe fits”. I also find it laughable the notion of the ABA being this bastion of liberal idealism. Geez, when I think of the ABA, pictures of portly, white-bearded jurists, dark panelling, leather chairs, and walls of dusty leather-bound books come to mind. Not Greenpeace protests, free cheese, and the Rainbow Coalition.
Are lawyers all that liberal? Oh that’s right I forgot about Ronnie White.
Needs2know
Bork’s record re: being overruled was about average. However, that is irrelevant to the question of his qualifications. If he were on the Supreme Court, there would be no one to overturn him, and thus he could let his legal philosophy have free rein. There are a lot of things around the office that I’d do if I were boss that I can’t as a worker drone.
Sua **
[/QUOTE]
Of course, Sua is correct that as a Supreme Court judge, Bork COULD let his legal philosophy have free rein, but the same is true of any other judge. The point is, what basis did Bork’s detractors have for alleging that he would fail to respect precedent, particularly since his record had demonstrated the opposite?