Prospects Bright For Federal Court Nominee

Hartford Courant ^ | 3/9/2007 | DAVID LIGHTMAN

[jas3]

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday quickly, quietly and unanimously approved the once-controversial nomination of Vanessa L. Bryant as a federal district court judge.

No new hearing was held, even though serious concerns about Bryant were raised at a hearing five months ago.

[jas3]

OK...Leahy, Dodd, and Lieberman didn't like Bryant last year, but this year after taking control of the Senate, they love her? And last year the CT state bar and the ABA rated her as unqualified, but this year she is suddenly qualified?

"When the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Bryant in September 2006, two bar association officials submitted a scathing 12-page statement listing reason after reason why Bryant should not get the judgeship."

Who wants to explain to me what just happened?

jas3

[NeoCaveman]

I have no idea what happened.But this is interesting:

The choice of Bryant, who if confirmed would become New England's first black female federal judge, last year stirred enormous controversy in Connecticut legal circles.

[LdSentinal]

This article says differently.

Bryant went before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September and had strong backing from Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman. But the full Senate adjourned for the year without voting on her confirmation. The White House resubmitted her name for nomination in January.

A Republican, Bryant is a graduate of Howard University and the University of Connecticut Law School. She lives in Avon. If appointed, Bryant would be the first black woman named as a federal judge in New England.

Link

[1066AD]

Just the Dems wanting to block anything Bush wanted regardless of merits. As usual they act like spoiled brats.

[dr_who_2]

They wanted to make their out-of-state donors happy for the upcoming congressional elections, perhaps?

[NeoCaveman]

As always on things legal I look to Ed Whalen for answers, well him and Mark Levin:

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2MxY2YzNDJmODVmZmYzMGE2ZjBiNGZmODY5ZDg0MjE=

From the link "What explains the new rating?


Well, it’s possible that changes in membership—7 of the 14 voting members appear to be new—account for the new rating. It’s also possible that the higher rating reflects new information acquired over the past year. But the most plausible explanation, I think, is that the ABA committee figured out that Bryant was going to be confirmed irrespective of the ABA’s “not qualified” rating and decided to try to save face and preserve the future impact of its negative ratings."

[indianrightwinger]

You will find this interesting.....ABA is a fraud!

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-bryant0228.artfeb28,0,2377879.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics-state

[stop_fascism]

An organization of lawyers having the ethics of a rabid coyote. I'm shocked.

[bvw]

Another theory:

They want to slap down - b1tch slap, really, see link -- Judge Janice Rogers Brown when she comes up for the Supremes. They couldn't do that because she's a black woman.

So they make up bonafides with another black woman nominee, conservative even. Now just look how "fair and balanced" they'll be!

[nutmeg]

Connecticut ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.

[blue-duncan]

This is what's known as the "Legal Peter Principle". This is good for us who labor in the State Courts and tough for the Federal Bar. The idea of having to be reappointed every seven years with comments from lawyers, judges and the public serves as a check on those with no judicial temperament. To fix in place a bad attitude for a life time appointment is terrible.