Posted on 05/11/2006 2:11:27 PM PDT by Paul Ross
The ABA has unanimously rated President Bush judicial nominee Michael Wallace “not qualified� to sit on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Liberal groups piled on, calling for the withdrawal of Wallace’s nomination after receiving the group’s lowest rating. According to the AP story, not counting the latest ratings only six of nearly 200 nominees since 2003 have received “not qualified� grade.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
It was cavalier of the Administration to give Luttig the back of their hands. We have too few reliable judges now on the Court of Appeals. This ABA rejection highlights how foolish it was of the Administration to allow Michael Luttig to resign from the 4th Circuit...and to antagonize him further after he left.
This should be solid evidence to all conservatives in and out of the Federalist Society that neither Gonzales nor Bush himself are true constitutional conservatives. They use us for mere convenience. And when inconvenient...out goes the conservative principle and the constitution...not to mention any judge who happens to be a stalwart.
Think how hard it would be today to get a Luttig on the bench!
The White House couldn't have stopped him, could they?
...and to antagonize him further after he left.
How did the Administration do that?
Horse bunk. Ronald Reagan, may he rest in peace, did not give us 2 conservative SCOTUS appointments. He gave us Scalia--but Scalia's vote for years was cancelled by O'Connor and/or Kennedy.
I love Reagan (unfortunately I never voted for him--I was a 'rat in those days!), but to say Bush isn't a conservative on judicial appointments is balderdash.
There have to be enough qualified judges that are conservative that we shouldn't have to try to push through unanimous "unqualified" rated judges.
I don't mind so much the majority decision ABA rulings.
ABA(TRIAL LAWYERS) = ELITE LIBERALS
Whoa, Paul ... as your article notes, the President just nominated Michael Wallace ... someone too conservative for the ABA to handle.
Not to mention Pryor, Brown, Alito, etc.
This should be meaningless to the libs, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have already demonstrated that the ratings mean nothing to them.
There an insider's post (to Jonah) about Luttig you need to read.
Basically, he went off the deep end.
Are you completely insane?
He resigned of his own free will. The admin had nothing to do with it.
The ABA's Rating didn't matter a damn for any of the other nominees.
Why should this?
No, we cannot sanction the ABA's silly claim that it is capable of discerning qualification through bright pink idealogically charged liberal glasses.
Why, because they ended up sending Padilla through the normal criminal process? Luttig's skin was WAY too thin in this instance, I'm afraid.
Witness the downgrading of Brett Kavanaugh from Well Qualified to merely Qualified.
It must have galled the ABA to know they played a part in getting Roberts and Alito confirmed.
Looks like the partisan knife is back out now.
Probably. Just say the word, captain...
How did the Administration do that?
A number of sour-grapes comments directed at his departure claiming it was over having been "passed over" "several times" for the two Supreme Court vacancies.
That was really inspiring in the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" "compassionate conservative" administration which is so keen to reward loyalty.
N O T !
Because he was inventing everything. And he pushed hard, almost alone, for Bork, and was undermined by his own side...and not just Arlen Specter the Defector. Reagan did not have a GOP Congress. And lost the Senate in 1986. Reagan had no support system to develop, find, and push forward conservative constitutional jurisprudence. Today, we have the Federalist Society. Reagan didn't. But because of what he did, that is why we have a GOP Congress today, and a whole slew of conservative constitutionalist jurisprudential candidates.
As for Kennedy and O'Connor, see above about the feeder system. And betrayal. The RINO "moderates" LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH about them...and swore up and down to Reagan they would be opposed to judicial activism.
Not true. They're were useful in hoisting the RATs by their own petards on the nominations of Roberts and Alia.
Why should this?
At best, It's a weather vane kind of thing. It appears to signal that the tides have shifted and the ABA has stopped trying to curry favor within the administration or placate the conservatives... The only reason I surmise for that...is because they have calculated that the administration has lost so much political ground they can dispense with any such charade without consequence.
At worst, it means we are done getting Supreme Court appointments through the gauntlet...
The ABA is an organ of the Democratic Party.
Of course, their middle name is hypocrisy. They will discover 'new meaning' in the ABA ratings when they go their way.
Well I did, and tried hard to put him over in '76 against the RINO Gerald Ford.
but to say Bush isn't a conservative on judicial appointments is balderdash.
Two Words: Harriet Meiers.
Fortunately we had sufficient pull to get him to back off. But he is still manifestly smarting over it...and nobody who knows him will deny he holds grudges.
He isn't totally worthless. But he isn't a solid supporter either. He is merely honoring very explicit campaign commitments...which we are trying to hold him to...and with mixed success. For example: He has allowed quite a number of good nominees to languish inexcusably when he always had the option of recess appointments...or the clout in Congress to demand action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.