The A.B.A. and Judicial Nominees

[groovedaddy]

President Obama has decided to restore the American Bar Association’s traditional role in vetting judicial nominees. There is a real value in having knowledgeable lawyers who have firsthand experience with the justice system vetting prospective judges.

As the A.B.A. resumes this role, a new study suggests that it may have a liberal bias. There is little support for this claim. Indeed, there are signs that the group has been cowed by conservative critics in recent years into approving less-than-qualified nominees. The A.B.A. needs to ensure that its evaluators make assessments based on the nominees’ merits, not on political pressure.

The A.B.A. reviewed prospective judges at the White House’s request for decades, until the Bush administration — responding to conservative charges that the group had a liberal bias — stopped asking for its input. The Senate Judiciary Committee continued to seek the A.B.A.’s evaluations.

A study by a University of Georgia professor and two other political scientists reviewed those ratings from 1985 to 2008 and found that President Clinton’s nominees were 14 percent more likely than the Republican presidents’ choices to receive a “well qualified” rating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/opinion/14tue2.html?th&emc=th

[Liberal813]

1. Reinstating the A.B.A. Vetting Process

Since many attorneys are involved with the court system on a regular basis; it falls well within the scope of their profession to appraise the ability of prospective nominees to the federal bench.