November 22, 2011

ABA has found 14 of 185 of Obama's potential judicial nominees "not qualified."

The NYT has learned through sources. We're not told who these individuals are, and we may never know, because they won't be nominated. But the NYT says that the ABA panel found that 6 of the 14 lacked sufficient experience, 5 had temperament issues, 3 were short on competence, and 3 had ethics problems. (3 fell short in more than one category.)
Officials of Mr. Obama’s legal team have met several times with the chairman of the bar association panel over the last year to raise concerns over the number of negative ratings, and have raised the possibility that the panel’s emphasis on trial experience may have a disparate impact on female and minority lawyers because they may have been less likely to become litigators.
Another way of putting that would seem to be that Obama is overreaching in an effort to name more women and minorities.

The ABA is rejecting 7.5% of Obama's potential nominees after rejecting only 2% for each of the previous 2 Presidents.

48 comments:

Maguro said...

The ABA is rejecting 7.5% of Obama's potential nominees after rejecting only 2% for each of the previous 2 Presidents.

The only plausible explanation is racism. Hopefully Eric Holder will start a civil rights investigation pronto.

Rob said...

The public, not knowing the political bias of the ABA, would not understand how amazing this is.

somefeller said...

The ABA is rejecting 7.5% of Obama's potential nominees after rejecting only 2% for each of the previous 2 Presidents.

The ABA is rejecting Obama's potential nominees at a greater rate than prior Presidents? How can that be? After all, the ABA is supposed to be a bunch of liberals who are totally biased in favor of Obama and the Democrats. So confusing.

Ann Althouse said...

"The ABA is rejecting Obama's potential nominees at a greater rate than prior Presidents? How can that be? After all, the ABA is supposed to be a bunch of liberals who are totally biased in favor of Obama and the Democrats. So confusing."

Read Rob's comment.

somefeller said...

I read his comment. And it doesn't really say anything other than another version of the standard conservative line that the ABA is just a bunch of biased liberals who presumably will do whatever Obama and the Democrats want. Even when they aren't doing so, as is the case here. For years, the conservative legal community (and I was a member of the Federalist Society in law school and for a little while afterward, so I'm familiar with what that community says) has said that the ABA can't be trusted to do a good vetting job because of their supposed liberal bias. And yet here they are, doing a vetting job that displeases a Democratic President. Such bias!

Tim said...

"ABA has found 14 of 185 of Obama's potential judicial nominees "not qualified.""

That would be shocking, yet because there is no equivalent of the ABA to assess potential presidential nominees as "not qualified," we ended up with a "not qualified" president proposing a high rate of "not qualified" judicial candidates.

Try harder next time, America. Your future depends upon it.

edutcher said...

Interesting that, when this happened to Dubya, it was world news.

somefeller said...

The ABA is rejecting 7.5% of Obama's potential nominees after rejecting only 2% for each of the previous 2 Presidents.

The ABA is rejecting Obama's potential nominees at a greater rate than prior Presidents? How can that be? After all, the ABA is supposed to be a bunch of liberals who are totally biased in favor of Obama and the Democrats. So confusing.


Possibly they're so lame even a bunch of Lefties can't support them and still look themselves in the mirror.

AJ Lynch said...

What the heck does the ABA know anyhow? They thought Julius Erving was a Doctor!

EDH said...

somefeller said...
The ABA is rejecting Obama's potential nominees at a greater rate than prior Presidents? How can that be? After all, the ABA is supposed to be a bunch of liberals who are totally biased in favor of Obama and the Democrats. So confusing.

I suppose the alternative, ABA acting true-to-form explanation is that Obama is more likely to send up an even more liberal replacement nominee.

John M Auston said...

The ABA is rejecting 7.5% of Obama's potential nominees after rejecting only 2% for each of the previous 2 Presidents.

But it gets worse. The ABA is almost certainly trying HARD to NOT reject these types of folks put up by Obama. So JUST IMAGINE the pieces-of-work we will be getting in the person of those who just squeak by.

This sounds like a disaster in the making, with effects lingering for years to come.

Chip S. said...

...the panel’s emphasis on trial experience may have a disparate impact on female and minority lawyers...

I'd be appalled by this argument if I weren't so enervated by its banality.

Seven Machos said...

It's amazing that Somefeller still -- still can't quit George W. Bush. It truly must be psychological at this point.

I mean, really, dude. When do you suppose you will be able to talk about Obama on his own merits? (Though merits isn't quite the right word considering Obama's massively failed presidency.)

A. Shmendrik said...

It is amazing. I was just admitted to another state bar in the past year and you get the free ABA membership for a year. Their assumption is that I am some rookie just out of law school and the free year will get me hooked. I am appalled at the ABA Journal - it's the monthly publication of some cross between the DNC and the Trial Lawyers Association. Wait, that wouldn't be a cross. But based on my experience with the ABA - any greater then 2% reject rate tells me that Obama is sending over some shitty picks.

Mary Beth said...

Is there something other than personal choice keeping women or minority lawyers from becoming trial lawyers?

Milwaukee said...

Hello 0bama Supporters: Whatever you do for him, isn't enough. Someday, sooner or later, he will be disappointed in your lack of support. Where do those ABA lackeys get the nerve NOT to rubber stamp the 0's choices?

Thanks for the insight, Rob at 9:30 pm.

AJ Lynch said...

Does Obama have any litigation or trial experience?

Tim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

And the ABA--by reputation at least--is highly inclined to liberal activist candidates. Obama must be flying some real turkeys up the line.

David said...

Mary Beth said...
"Is there something other than personal choice keeping women or minority lawyers from becoming trial lawyers?"

Not any more. Some of the best trial lawyers in my old firm were female.

Seven Machos said...

My wife works at a large law firm. She has done well. She got a compliment from a client the other day that basically amounted to: one reason we like you is because you aren't like all the other bitchy cunt women who practice law.

Milwaukee said...

I used to work with a really sharp female assistant principal. One day I went to her with a request and her response was "Why does everybody want me to do their dirty work? Do they all think I'm some sort of super-bitch?" I meekly replied, "Well, yes, but, you're really good at it."

Milwaukee said...

Oh man, the verification word is "uncet". Is that like almost an anagram for a secret message?

somefeller said...

Seven Machos says:It's amazing that Somefeller still -- still can't quit George W. Bush. It truly must be psychological at this point. I mean, really, dude. When do you suppose you will be able to talk about Obama on his own merits? (Though merits isn't quite the right word considering Obama's massively failed presidency.)

Where in my comments did I criticize George W. Bush? Answer - nowhere. Also, I haven't mentioned him much since he's left office. It sounds like you are the one with W on the brain, not me. The topic I was talking about was the supposed liberal bias of the ABA. If one reads conservative criticisms of the ABA, one would think that the ABA is in the pocket of whatever Democratic President is in office at the time. This pushback against Obama undermines that argument, which is my point.

And if you want a criticism of Obama, here's two. First - this rejection rate is far too high and doesn't speak well for his appointments / suggested appointments. Second -- the argument that this has disparate impact because of a supposed pro-litigator bias is absurd for many reasons, not the least of which being that traditionally litigation is a place where women and minorities have made stronger inroads in the legal profession, as opposed to the world of business transactions / corporate law, which has more of an old boy network reputation. There's a criticism of Obama on the merits. Has that made your evening?

Seven Machos said...

That indeed makes my evening.

The ABA is shit, though. It is a lobbying organization that should have no more to do with how anyone does anything than the AARP, or for that matter NAMBLA.

somefeller said...

Actually, I agree with your view about the ABA. I've never joined it and I see it as the worst sort of a guild organization - an incompetent one. If it was worth a damn, it wouldn't accredit every fourth-rate law school that has a building and a dean and it would take steps (like the AMA has) to have some sort of matching of graduates and jobs. And it would also would encourage law schools to reform their curricula, such as by shortening the length of law school to two years. Don't get me started on their lameness. But the one thing they seem to do well is take professionalism seriously when it comes to judicial evaluations, so I'll give them that.

Gary Rosen said...

"This pushback against Obama undermines that argument"

Only if you assume his picks are objectively as capable as those of "the previous two Presidents", one of which, rumor has it, was a Democrat.

Seven Machos said...

Feller -- It's always a great pleasure to find common ground. I bet there's a lot more.

I also agree with Gary. Party affiliation is a variable that explains a lot. Republicans have to pick better candidates because they will get pilloried if they don't. (The same goes with sex. Barney Frank can have sex with prostitutes and Ted Kennedy can commit manslaughter on a failed drunken one night stand. No big whoop. But tap your foot in an airport lavatory if you are a Republican...)

It's very likely that Obama expected to get a pass on weak candidates, because he's a Democrat and because he still manages to think people love him.

murgatroyd666 said...

Two to one odds that one of those nominees was Brenda Morris.

beast said...

Speaking of Brenda Morris can someone explain how obstruction of justice isn't a crime because a judge didn't say so.And I agree Obama must be sending up some really exemplary candidates.

murgatroyd666 said...

I can think of a law professor who might be able to explain it to us. I hope she does.

Otherwise it just appears as though the weasels look after their own.

The Drill SGT said...

panel’s emphasis on trial experience may have a disparate impact on female and minority lawyers because they may have been less likely to become litigators

Course I'm not a lawyer, I just sleep with one, but isn't litigation what goes on in a Courtroom?

and wouldn't lack of experience litigating make you less qualified to, you know, judge litigating?

Pogo said...

"Obama's judicial nominees suck; women and minorities hardest hit."

Sorun said...

There are a lot of minority judges in the movies and on TV. Isn't that enough?

Tank said...

Rob said...

The public, not knowing the political bias of the ABA, would not understand how amazing this is.


Well, that made me laugh out loud. Truth does that sometimes.

When I was first admitted to the bar, lo those many years ago, I joined the ABA, the NJBA and my local County BA. After a couple of years, I only belonged to the County BA. They actually advocated on behalf of lawyers, and didn't disgust me with their liberal idiocy.

Let's see, if you nominate Judges based on egalitarian principals, rather than merit based principals ... what could go wrong?

Hint: Think wise Latinas.

Jay said...

Oh shock!

A completly unqualified President nominates a high number of completely unqualified judicial nominees.

Stop.The.Presses!

MadisonMan said...

She got a compliment from a client the other day that basically amounted to: one reason we like you is because you aren't like all the other bitchy cunt women who practice law.

The only possible response would be And I like you as a client too. Because you pay your bills on time.

Shawn Levasseur said...

This is suprising, but with that qualifying term "Potential" coming before the word nominee, I'd have to say that I'm going to give Obama a bit of slack.

It could be Obama was being generous to a number of them by leaving them on the list longer than other presidents would have before elimination (better to let the ABA tell them that they aren't up to snuff rather than break the news yourself).

The other more paranoid possibility is that the ABA, knowing that they have a president on "their" side are pushing harder for judges that they would prefer.

machine said...

It doesn't matter anyway..the republicans block every nominee for every office...

Carnifex said...

@ Machine

Ever hear of a guy named Robert Bork? If you treat someone unfairly, you can't cry when you get the same treatment. You are the weakest link!

If Kagan, and Sotomayer made it through one shudders to imagine the ones that are getting blocked.

As far as the ABA, I would think one should take Groucho's stance on associations.

Like my Daddy always said "When you're in a room with a bear, and rattlesnake, and a lawyer, And all you've got is a gun with 2 bullets in it, shoot the lawyer twice."

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Another way of putting that would seem to be that Obama is overreaching in an effort to name more women and minorities.

Some occupations are just too important and vital to be used as affirmative action petri dishes.

Doctors, Judges, Emergency Response Teams all come to mind.

I want to know that my doctor is doing the job because he is qualified and not there just by the color of his/her skin. Same thing for judges who also hold life and death in their hands.

Real American said...

"Not qualified?" That is also an accurate description of Obama.

Jay said...

machine said...
It doesn't matter anyway..the republicans block every nominee for every office...


Really?

How did they block Justice Kagan again?

Original Mike said...

Incompetence is as incompetence does.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ds5929 said...

The ABA is to good law what the AMA is to good medicine,or the NEA to good education.

Paul said...

Obama can't help himself. He picks the bottom of the barrel cause that is pretty much the way he came up and that is the depth of his experience.

I mean, 'community organiser'? His was a loser's job of the can't-hack-it-in-the-real-world crowd.

Face it, Obama should never have been President. He was unqualified and still is.

2012 can't come to soon.

james said...

it may comfort those out in the Hinterlands that the Administration is abiding by the opinions offered by the ABA vetting process. let's not forget the bigger picture: they have 171 "qualified" candidates. nominate them and move on.

admin said...

Obama may be on his way out http://tinyurl.com/6qw5u49 if you know what I mean.