# Bush wants to scrap ABA review of judicial appointments **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2001, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718 "2001-03-20T14:49:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/1 "2001-03-20T14:49:06Z")
From [NPR](http://news.npr.org/xpr/news/us.html) > [@](#): > > For 50 years, all judicial nominees for the federal bench had to be vetted first by the American Bar Association. Now President Bush is considering putting an end to this special relationship with the ABA. 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? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/2 "2001-03-20T15:16:28Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/3 "2001-03-20T15:26:38Z")
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://cnn.com). [http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/19/bush.judges.reut/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/19/bush.judges.reut/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Ankh\_Too](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3ab097/32.png) [@Ankh\_Too](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ankh_Too)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/4 "2001-03-20T16:18:46Z")
I find myself a bit confused by the stated objections of one of the individuals interviewed in the Reuters report: > [@](#): > > _Sourc: Reuters_ > \*\*Leonard Leo, who monitors the ABA for the Federalist Society organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers, said the group is mostly criticized for its standards for considering judicial temperament. > > He said critics were concerned that by allowing consideration of traits including – in the ABA’s words – _“compassion … and commitment to equal justice under the law,” the process can be opened to a consideration of a candidate’s judicial philosophy or ideology._\*\* > _emphasis added_ 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. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/5 "2001-03-20T16:30:03Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by minty green \* > I have seen little or no evidence of ideological bias on the part of the ABA when screening judges._\* Hard to say for sure about accusations of bias. But it makes sense in that according to your source > [@](#): > > Conservatives have complained about liberal stances taken by the organization on such issues as abortion, capital punishment and religious liberty. > > In 1997, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, ended the ABA’s official role in the panel’s consideration of judicial nominees, citing its political positions. > > Barnett said the judicial committee’s work was separate from such policy stances and only the committee was aware of its work prior to a nomination. 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). ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/6 "2001-03-20T16:37:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ankh\_Too \* > I find myself a bit confused by the stated objections of one of the individuals interviewed in the Reuters report: > > > [@](#): > > > > _Sourc: Reuters_ > > \*\*Leonard Leo, who monitors the ABA for the Federalist Society organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers, said the group is mostly criticized for its standards for considering judicial temperament. > > > > He said critics were concerned that by allowing consideration of traits including – in the ABA’s words – _“compassion … and commitment to equal justice under the law,” the process can be opened to a consideration of a candidate’s judicial philosophy or ideology._\*\* > > _emphasis added_ > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/7 "2001-03-20T16:54:10Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/8 "2001-03-20T17:13:18Z")
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 ? ---
**Author:** ![Needs2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5e925/32.png) [@Needs2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Needs2know)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/9 "2001-03-20T17:55:49Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Ankh\_Too](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3ab097/32.png) [@Ankh\_Too](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ankh_Too)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/10 "2001-03-20T18:55:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*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_. \*\* 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. > [@](#): > > **A reasonable concern, considering the opinion that many liberals have of conservatives.** 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. ---
**Author:** ![dublos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f08c70/32.png) [@dublos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dublos)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/11 "2001-03-20T19:33:11Z")
[totally clueless day] When did ABBA get back together and where’s this review gonna be showing? [/totally clueless day] ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/12 "2001-03-20T19:38:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Homebrew \* > \*\*From [NPR](http://news.npr.org/xpr/news/us.html) > > 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? > \*\* 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.” ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/13 "2001-03-20T20:30:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > 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. 1. Having “one of America’s finest legal minds” makes one a good law professor, legal philosopher, or ethicist, but not necessarily a good judge. From 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. 2. Accordingly, the four who rated Bork “unqualified” were taking a valid and justified position. 3. As for the “campaign of character assassination” - huh? I recall no stories about Bork and pubic hairs, orgies, illegitimate children, drugs, etc. If taking strong exception to a nominee’s legal philosophy is character assassination, then everything is. Sua ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/14 "2001-03-20T20:37:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ankh\_Too \* > 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 You may not, but others do. Note for example the post by **needs2know**. > [@](#): > > As opposed to the opinion that many conservatives have of liberals? 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? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/15 "2001-03-20T21:00:01Z")
[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. 1. As for the “campaign of character assassination” - huh? I recall no stories about Bork and pubic hairs, orgies, illegitimate children, drugs, etc. If taking strong exception to a nominee’s legal philosophy is character assassination, then everything is. \*\*[/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. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/16 "2001-03-20T21:03:18Z")
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](http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/1001/1001348.htm): > [@](#): > > We are also concerned about and disagree with Judge Bork’s refusal to recognize the right to privacy. The Supreme Court has long held that such a right exists. We consider this issue settled and no longer open to dispute. However, Judge Bork contends that the Supreme Court is wrong about the right to privacy and that it is not in the Constitution. In Griswold v. Connecticut, for example, the Supreme Court ruled as a matter of constitutional law that no State has the right to prevent married couples from using contraceptives. Yet Judge Bork, as recently as 2 years ago, said that there was “no supportable method of constitutional reasoning” to justify this Supreme Court decision. . . . Lacking respect for precedent, Judge Bork would radically alter the direction and balance of the Supreme Court. Anyone working in the legal system knows of the respect and even reverence granted to precedence. The principle of “stare decisis” is the cornerstone and foundation of our legal tradition. Judge Bork, though, continues to deemphasize the importance of precedence and has stated that he “would have no problem whatever in overruling a nonoriginalist precedent” since that precedent would be illegitimate. He has also been remarkably inconsistent in his views over the years, changing them to suit the conservative trend of the day. > [@](#): > > Judge Bork, during his confirmation hearings, has shifted his position on a variety of issues. Many observers of the hearings indicated that he casually disavowed views which he had expressed strongly and frequently in his writings. In his famous 1971 Indiana Law Review article, for example, Judge Bork explicitly stated that in his view only political speech was protected by the First Amendment. He further indicated that the courts should not “protect any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary, or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic.” In 1984, in a letter to the ABA Journal, Judge Bork partially modified those views saying moral and scientific debate are central to democratic government and deserve protection. And during the recent hearings, Judge Bork disavowed both of his previous positions and indicated that he never really believed in either of his previous positions. 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: > [@](#): > > Judge Bork’s judicial views on antitrust would effectively reverse a century of laws and Supreme Court decisions. He has been outspoken in stating that efficiency is the only goal of antitrust law, and since bigger corporations are more efficient than smaller ones, they are better. This view obviously ignores the concerns of small business. Moreover, Judge Bork would remove the legal protections that enable innovative small businesses to enter the market and prosper. 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. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/17 "2001-03-20T21:07:55Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/18 "2001-03-20T21:26:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > 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. 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. 🙂 > [@](#): > > 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? ::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 ---
**Author:** ![Needs2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5e925/32.png) [@Needs2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Needs2know)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/19 "2001-03-20T21:44:36Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718/20 "2001-03-20T21:48:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\* 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? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-to-scrap-aba-review-of-judicial-appointments/58718.md?page=2)