# Partisanship at the ABA **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722 "2017-11-15T21:30:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/1 "2017-11-15T21:30:04Z")
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](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/11/15/aba_and_dems_smear_court_picks_135539.html). 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2017, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/2 "2017-11-15T22:49:26Z")
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: > [@](#): > > At the outset, Professor Nance noticed that a number of lawyers were missing in the nominee’s report of his “10 most substantial litigated matters.” As she began the evaluation, Professor Nance encountered a reluctance on the part of members of the Nebraska bar to respond to her inquiries. Among those who did respond, many expressed reservations about speaking, and were concerned about possible repercussions from their participation. During the course of her evaluation Professor Nance became concerned about a clear, consistent pattern of the criticisms that emerged from the interviews. Mr. Grasz’s professional peers expressed concerns about his views of stare decisis, and questioned his commitment to it. In addition, a number of Grasz’s colleagues expressed the view that, in terms of judicial temperament, as evaluated by the Committee, Mr. Grasz is not “free from bias.” Specifically, they expressed the view that he would be unable to separate his role as an advocate from that of a judge. Finally, members of the bar shared instances in which Mr. Grasz’s conduct was gratuitously rude. The concerns were sufficient enough that Professor Nance was not dissuaded over the seriousness of these allegations by the fact that she had interviewed some lawyers who said they did not share these concerns. > > Mr. Laurence Pulgram’s evaluation encountered a similar and unusual fear of adverse consequences expressed by those from whom interviews were solicited, of all political parties, based on the nominee’s deep connection and allegiance to the most powerful politicians in his state. Mr. Grasz has stated that he spends about 50% of his professional time lobbying and 50% of his time in litigation. Many questioned whether Mr. Grasz would be able to detach himself from his deeply-held social agenda and political loyalty to be able to judge objectively, with compassion and without bias. 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.) ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2017, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/3 "2017-11-15T23:07:22Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![AlsoNamedBort](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alsonamedbort/32/3213_2.png) [@AlsoNamedBort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlsoNamedBort)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/4 "2017-11-16T00:08:59Z")
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._ ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/5 "2017-11-16T00:30:53Z")
[Brett Talley](http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2017/11/alabama_judicial_nominee_who_n.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/6 "2017-11-16T00:51:38Z")
Here’s the list of all ratings since they started in 1989 - [Ratings of Article III and Article IV Judicial Nominees](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary/ratings.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/7 "2017-11-16T04:02:52Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/8 "2017-11-16T14:13:14Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/9 "2017-11-16T18:35:06Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > [Brett Talley](http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2017/11/alabama_judicial_nominee_who_n.html) 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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/10 "2017-11-16T18:40:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/11 "2017-11-16T18:53:28Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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? 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? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/12 "2017-11-16T18:58:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/13 "2017-11-16T19:08:52Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/14 "2017-11-16T20:51:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/15 "2017-11-16T20:56:45Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > the ABA has a reputation for being quite conservative. 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.” 😉 ) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/16 "2017-11-16T21:03:43Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > 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? 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? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/17 "2017-11-16T22:37:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/18 "2017-11-16T22:50:46Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2017, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/19 "2017-11-16T23:29:15Z")
Agreed. He’s short 17 years of necessary experience. ---
**Author:** ![carlb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carlb/32/5930_2.png) [@carlb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carlb)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2017, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722/20 "2017-11-17T02:05:06Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-at-the-aba/801722.md?page=2)