Liberal American Bar Association opposes Alito's nomination

[Sauron]

Which is why they gave him such high marks, I suppose. So much for another urban conservo-myth about the ABA:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/04/alito/index.html

Bar association: Supreme Court nominee 'well-qualified'
Alito given a boost as he prepares for next week's hearings

From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Wednesday, January 4, 2006; Posted: 12:58 p.m. EST (17:58 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has been given the American Bar Association's highest rating for professional stature and integrity, an important political legal barometer, as he prepares for confirmation hearings next week.

[godfry n. glad]

You mean that some neo-con has actually intimated that the ABA is "liberal"?

What? Did the ABA disagree with something, like torturing to get confessions?

[The Lone Ranger]

Didn't Bush try to stop the ABA vetting of judicial candidates after they gave low marks to some of his proposed candidates? I seem to remember hearing that, but I could be mistaken. I certainly remember hearing some conservatives complain about the ABA's "liberalism" after they gave less than glowing reviews of some of Bush's apointees.

Cheers,

Michael

[D. Scarlatti]

I don't understand the thread title. Could someone explain it?

[godfry n. glad]

[Dingfod]

Newsmax article on ABA liberal bias from 2001.

A study by a Northwestern University law professor Monday accused the American Bar Association of a liberal bias in ratings of nominees for federal appeals court openings during the Clinton administration.

Slightly more than a month into his term, President Bush ended the ABA's longtime role of screening potential federal judges before nominations are sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I assumed it was something like that. I have no idea who says that the ABA opposes Alito's nomination, however. Some members may oppose it, but the organization certainly doesn't.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

I assumed it was something like that. I have no idea who says that the ABA opposes Alito's nomination, however. Some members may oppose it, but the organization certainly doesn't.

Nobody.

The stinkin' "liberals" approved of Alito.

Also, given the track record of Bush appointees to those of Clinton appointees, I'm not surprised that the Clinton appointees got more approval. I think it could be that Clinton actually appointed people with a brain and conscience. The same cannot be said of Bush (see Ashcroft, Brown and Gonzales, as well as Harriet Meyers), who seems to have a penchant for appointments which are dreadfully unqualified.

Can we all say "CRONY"?

I knew we could.

[D. Scarlatti]

I can't think of any Bush court appointees offhand that have turned out to be the disasters some liberal groups made them out to be. In fact one of them just unceremoniously defrocked creationism's cheap tuxedo.

Although Alito may not be the judge us fans of John Paul Stevens would have selected, to suggest he's not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court is just silly. Of course he's qualified.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I certainly remember hearing some conservatives complain about the ABA's "liberalism" ...

They'd complain about anyone that was slightly to the left of Attila the Hun.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

I can't think of any Bush court appointees offhand that have turned out to be the disasters some liberal groups made them out to be. In fact one of them just unceremoniously defrocked creationism's cheap tuxedo.

Although Alito may not be the judge us fans of John Paul Stevens would have selected, to suggest he's not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court is just silly. Of course he's qualified.

The ABA criticized Clarence Thomas' nomination on the ground that he was (apparently truthfully) rather ordinary and mundane, sort of like Harriet Miers - but without the charm. For that action, they were widely criticized as being a liberal organization.

[D. Scarlatti]

Clarence Thomas was and is an entirely different story. I think a colorable* argument could be made that after nearly 15 years on the bench he's still not qualified.

* No pun intended, lest I be accused of a "high-tech lynching."

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

In fact one of them just unceremoniously defrocked creationism's cheap tuxedo.

Yep, and another Shrub appointee shot down that laughably frivolous attempt a couple of years back to overturn Roe v. Wade via motion for relief from judgment.

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Although Alito may not be the judge us fans of John Paul Stevens would have selected, to suggest he's not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court is just silly. Of course he's qualified.

True dat. Qualifications and desireability are completely different bundles o' laundry, at least in this context.

[godfry n. glad]

Okay, guys, straighten me out on this judical appointment thing.

I was under the impression that the chimp-in-chief was rather constrained in his appointments for the federal courts due to foot-dragging on the part of the opposition in Congress. It's my understanding that federal court dockets are backed up because if inadequate number of justices at circuit and appellate levels. Thus, anything which did make it through is fairly well vetted and reasonably acceptable...as far as judicial appointments go.

Has this changed?

[D. Scarlatti]

I'm sure Maturin could answer that question far better than I, but according to the Dept. of Justice there are currently 50 Article III vacancies and only 20 pending nominations, so it looks like if there's any foot dragging going on, it's on the part of the President.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

I assumed it was something like that. I have no idea who says that the ABA opposes Alito's nomination, however. Some members may oppose it, but the organization certainly doesn't.

I think he was being as sarcastic about the ABA opposing the nomination as he was about the ABA being liberal.