Thursday, January 05, 2006
Judge Alito received a “well qualified” rating from the ABA, which is the highest of their three levels (they really break it down, don’t they). From the article:
“The American Bar Association yesterday rated Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. "well-qualified" to serve on the Supreme Court, even as several left-leaning advocacy groups released reports arguing his judicial philosophy would force the court rightward. The association's 15-member standing committee voted unanimously, with one person abstaining.”
“Yesterday, liberal advocacy groups said the ABA rating was both expected and not important as senators decide how to vote on the nomination.”
Of course, as the article also noted (this is the WashTimes, after all), these same people considered the ABA rating to be the “gold standard” until very recently. Now, I don’t think any part of the process should be beholden to the ABA, but if they want to rate nominees and do so fairly fairly, fine. Think of it as persuasive, not binding, authority. And if the best these left leaning groups can come up with against Alito is that he may force the court rightward (though I doubt by very much; for all her problems Justice O’Connor did take the Right position much of the time) it just doesn’t seem like they’re trying very hard.
For further enlightenment on Alito and the nomination process in general, read Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), former justice on the Texas Supreme Court, in today’s NRO. He begins:
In observing the judicial-confirmation process as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, nothing has been more surprising than the depiction of the role judges play in society. It is disconcerting each time a senator asks a judicial nominee whose "side" they will be on once they assume the bench. On the side of workers? Women? The disabled?
Comments: Post a Comment