There has recently been a spate of articles alleging partisan influences on the ABA’s ratings of Trump’s judicial nominees. Here is one example. Previously, I had regarded the ABA as rather non-partisan and impartial, but these recent events are causing me to reconsider that position. Do you consider the ABA to be an impartial and fair “judge” of a judicial nominee’s fitness? I’d particularly like to hear from the lawyers among us, but obviously anyone can comment.
At first glance, it sure seems like the criticism of the ABA on these not qualified reports is a purely partisan attack.
For example, one of the nominees who was rated as not qualified seems to be obviously not suited to the job. The committee looking into the background on the Gratz nomination interviewed 183 people, but an interesting thing happened: some people were scared of talking to the ABA committee during these confidential interviews. As the report states:
I challenge anyone to answer this question: if you were looking at hiring someone for a job in their company, and you were getting references on a potential hire, and the references came back with this sort of response, would you hire the person?
And more to the point, would you hire this person to a job that you cannot then fire them from?
Hell fucking no.
So it is pretty clear in this case that Republicans are attacking the ABA purely on partisan grounds of opposing a Trump nominee. As far as the other “not qualified” opinions go, I’m not familiar with the specifics of those cases, so I can’t render judgment in total. But quite a few Trump appointments have garnered “well qualified” ratings, among them the new messiah of conservatives with an interest in the judiciary, Neil Gorsuch.
I’m highly inclined to think that the criticisms of the ABA on these “not qualified” ratings are just a smear campaign by Trump allies. (As if such reckless attacks aren’t routine from those quarters, like Betsy “Death Panels” McCaughey.)
the ABA has a reputation for being quite conservative. I decline to join for that reason. (I’m not interested in working from the inside to improve it)
I haven’t seen any ratings that seem hard to understand, although I’m sure a few could be judgment calls either way.
Side note: I was contacted by the ABA to give input on one of Trump’s nominees to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that particular case I thought the judge nominated was an excellent choice and I said so.
Something not being addressed here is that Trump is nominating people before they’re being reviewed. Something I’m sure Fox News is bringing up is that none of Obama’s nominees were rated as not qualified. That’s side stepping the fact that 14 of his candidates came back not qualified so he didn’t nominate them.
Brett Talley is nominated for a district Judge spot in Alabama. If one posits an infinite number of alternate universes, I suppose there might be one where this kid is qualified for the federal bench. This ain’t that universe.
Here’s the list of all ratings since they started in 1989 - Ratings of Article III and Article IV Judicial Nominees
Who’d’a’thunk the nincomprez whose fans like the idea that he has absolutely no government experience would try to appoint a bunch of his toadies who have absolutely no government experience and are thus unqualified to work in senior government positions?
Don’t worry, Jared Kushner is going to sort all this out. Right after Middle East peace.
How significant is the lack of litigation experience to a federal judicial nominee, in your view?
The article mentions several times that he “never tried a case.” Do you share that specific concern, or are you more generally concerned about his lack of legal chops?
“Never tried a case” is a concern, but I don’t think it should automatically disqualify. (I don’t think William O. Douglas ever tried a case.) In this instance, IMO, he just doesn’t have enough experience for a lifetime appointment. He’s very young, and absent some evidence he’s a wonder-kid, I think he should work in the legal field for awhile before being considered. He seems like a political hack whose main qualification was attacking Clinton.
There may be another issue. I know of someone who was asked questions about another employee and was assured that the answers were strictly confidential. Within 48 hours one of the interviewers told the employee in question what everyone had said. Do you think anyone at that company will answer “confidential” questions in the future?
Nah, we dominate this Board far too often and too much. Seems to me “never tried a case” and a “lack of legal chops” are pretty much the same thing. But let’s hear the distinction, tell us what you think.
Specifically.
While there would be significant overlap between the two, they are not the same. A law professor, for example, might spend 40 years studying legal theory and have “legal chops.” A corporate lawyer might “litigate” hundreds of cases without every participating in a trial.
Generally, I would like judges to have trial experience, but I don’t think it should always be a requirement.
I agree with Procrustus.
For instance, a lawyer who has spent 30 years doing corporate law, teaching at a law school, and writing peer-reviewed articles on commercial law issues may not have stepped into a court room for that entire time, but would sound to me to be a good candidate for a court that does corporate and commercial law.
There’s also lawyers who do a lot of court work but who don’t try cases, i.e. don’t run trials that require witnesses and appearing before a jury. I’m one myself. I do appellate work, chambers work, judicial review applications, and administrative tribunal work, but I’ve never run a trial on my own since my first year called to the bar.
Whether that amounts to “legal chops” I leave as an exercise to the reader, but it does illustrate that the public perception that you’re not really a lawyer unless you do trial work has been badly flawed by Perry Mason, Law and Order, and Matlock.
Interesting. The Canadian Bar Association has the opposite reputation, of being relatively liberal (to the extent any group of professionals who wear garb which dates back to medieval England can be said to be “not conservative.” 
)
With 183 people being interviewed, I don’t think this hypothesis holds water. Especially since, to the best of my understanding, they conduct interviews with lots of people for any one of these investigations; if non-responsiveness or fear of retribution were a common issue, why call it out specifically with this nominee?
Both. “Never tried a case” is disqualifying, in my view, especially for a trial court judge. Multiply x 10 for a Federal District Judge. I don’t care where he went to school, whether he made law review or moot court, none of that crap. I do care that the ink on his license is barely dry. Three years of any kind of practice isn’t enough to be a federal judge.
Good point. Sometimes it takes more than 3 years to get a case to trial. I don’t like hard and fast rules, but I’d be very reluctant to put anyone on the federal bench with less than 20 years experience.
Agreed. He’s short 17 years of necessary experience.
What is the evidence that the ABA might be partisan? That Pres. Trump’s nominees are less well-rated than in previous administrations? There are two possibilities (as I see it):
[ol]
[li]The ABA is biased toward liberals/Democrats and therefore puts its collective thumb on the scale against the conservative/Republican nominees, or,[/li][li]Pres. Trump is nominating candidates who are perceived to be less qualified than nominees of previous administrations.[/li][/ol]I know nothing at all about the inner workings of the ABA, so I cannot intelligently comment on the first possibility. Given the way other offices within the Trump administration have been filled, I have absolutely no problem believing the second option.