Posted on 07/30/2006 10:53:03 PM PDT by Zakeet
Your July 26 editorial "An ABA Hit Job" is irresponsible and widely misses the mark. It mischaracterizes the work of the ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, and terribly misleads the public with respect to the evaluation of Mr. Wallace.
For more than 50 years, for both Republican and Democratic administrations, the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary has provided nonpartisan, nonideological review of the professional qualifications of judicial nominees. A unique aspect of its evaluation is a peer review of each nominee--confidential interviews with judges, lawyers and others who have first-hand knowledge of the candidate's professional qualifications. The committee examines only three factors in its evaluations: professional competence, integrity and judicial temperament. It explicitly does not consider a nominee's ideology or philosophy.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Based on my experience, most lawyers don't lie when they advocate only because they are so far gone they can't tell the difference.
So, does the standard rule apply in this case? Or is there some other reason for Greco's position? Read the article, consider the credibility of the author, and then decide for yourself.
The thing is, they believe they're telling the truth when they say this kind of thing. They really believe that they're not biased, they just know the truth, they know reality, and it just so happens to come down on the liberal side every time.
With respect to Bar officers in particular, these are the same clowns who ran to be president of their 2nd grade class...been running ever since. Not considered the best and brightest by any stretch of the imagination. Harriet Miers is an excellent example.
"lawyers....is there anything that they don't know?"
I trust the ABA to accurately judge a judicial candidates competence. It is their measuring sticks for "integrity" and "temperament" that I doubt.
Competence is easily measured. Integrity and judicial temperament, however, are difficult to quantify accurately without a degree of ideological commitment.
Check out the original WSJ that this little tirade of a letter to the editor responds to. This is obviously a personal issue for the ABA crowd who hasn't liked GWB's nominee for a long time.
By the way, who is Harriett Miers?
Please do not alter titles. The title you made had to be changed to the original published title.
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.