Posted on 03/18/2009 8:22:49 AM PDT by stan_sipple
Controversy over the American Bar Association's ratings of potential judicial nominees is likely to continue with the announcement that the bar group will resume its role of evaluating candidates before their nominations. In fact, a soon-to-be-released study by political scientists concludes what conservative groups have long charged: The ratings are biased against potential conservative nominees.
Political scientists Richard Vining of the University of Georgia, Amy Steigerwalt of Georgia State University and Susan Smelcer, an Emory University doctoral candidate, will present their findings next month at the Midwest Political Science Association's 67th Annual National Conference.
The three academics, all of whom specialize in studying the intersection of the courts and politics, examined every nominee to the federal courts of appeals from 1985 to 2008, regardless of whether the nominee was confirmed or had a confirmation hearing.
"There's been a lot of discussion about whether the ABA ratings might be biased against potential conservative nominees," said Steigerwalt. The arguments "gained steam," she said, when Robert Bork received a split well-qualified/not qualified rating for the U.S. Supreme Court.
The not qualified part of the rating was due to questions about judicial temperament, she recalled, and many conservatives felt that temperament became a code word for "not liberal."
(Excerpt) Read more at law.com ...
Tell us something NEW! LOL.
well, from a professional publication for mostly liberal lawyers, thats a start
That’s exactly why Bush 43 took his recommendations from the Federalist Society, not the ABA
Well, OF COURSE they are! One of the reasons I’ve never joined “the union”. I will say one thing for the ABA: it’s LAMP committee works very well with JAGs to provide legal assistance to military personnel. That’s the only good think I’ll say.
Colonel, USAFR
“it’s” = “its”. One of my pet peeves and I did it to myself.
Colonel, USAFR
In other News, MSNBC has liberal bias....
parts of the aba do a good job, but overall very liberal and some sections are downright communist
Liberal jurists just happen to be more competent than conservatives. ( Where's that sarcasm off tag when I need it )
It surely doesn't engender a heck of a lot of confidence in the collective intelligence of the American Bar Association that a study was required to demonstrate that which has been right under their membership's oblivious noses for decades.
Perhaps Americans seeking competent - or at the very least minimally observant - legal advice would do better to consult with their optometrists from here on out, because it's quite clear that one of the primary qualifications for admission to the ABA is the absence of ability to recognize that which would be glaringly obvious to a mexican fruitbat.
They should dispense with the charade & change their name to the Association of Blind Attorneys and be done with it, already.
The only admission requirement of the ABA is 1) to be licensed by an actual regulating body, that is, by a state bar; and 2) to pay their membership dues. The ABA is a voluntary organization.
One that tries really hard to get new members—they signed me up for free for a year. That free year actually came and went, and yet they keep sending me things. I’m not planning to pay to belong, but if they want to oblige with free goodies...
Paging Captain Obvious...
They could save all these expensive studies and just trust us when we tell them what we see and know intuitively.
All members of the ABA should be DISBARRED for voting for the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (aka UCAPA).
This bill is Unconstitutional and UnAmerican!
“That’s really near-fetched, Bill.” — George Carlin
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.