Bush nominee rated 'unqualified' by ABA (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Bush's picks for judges is one area that I have never had a problem with, except for Harriet Meirs. Today, I have a complaint, but overall, Bush's track record is still good. Bush should keep it good, and pull his new nominee, as he had the common sense to do with Meirs.

Bush's pick of Michael Wallace for the 5th Circuit Court of appeals is the first judicial pick by any president in 25 years to be rated unanimously unqualified by the ABA. Now Bush, in all his previous picks, has used the ABA ratings to push his candidates, which until now, have had good marks with the ABA. And now this:

The White House immediately disagreed with the ABA and rejected its rating.

Sorry, Mr. President, but you cant have it both ways, or is this the same kind of Rush Limbaughian pretzel logic which dictates that the ACLU is a terrorist organization unless you need them on your side?

Mr. President, you were doing so well on the issue of judges, that is, until now.

Article is here.

 

[aps]

Bush's picks for judges is one area that I have never had a problem with, except for Harriet Meirs. Today, I have a complaint, but overall, Bush's track record is still good. Bush should keep it good, and pull his new nominee, as he had the common sense to do with Meirs.

Bush's pick of Michael Wallace for the 5th Circuit Court of appeals is the first judicial pick by any president in 25 years to be rated unanimously unqualified by the ABA. Now Bush, in all his previous picks, has used the ABA ratings to push his candidates, which until now, have had good marks with the ABA. And now this:


Sorry, Mr. President, but you cant have it both ways, or is this the same kind of Rush Limbaughian pretzel logic which dictates that the ACLU is a terrorist organization unless you need them on your side?

Mr. President, you were doing so well on the issue of judges, that is, until now.

Article is here.

I read that in the NYT today. What an embarrassment to Bush.

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

Moved to appropriate forum

 

[alphamale]

The rating was pure politics by a pack of liberal lawyers.
John H. Hinderaker, a distinguished lawyer, gives Wallace's qualifications as well as the political reason for the rating:

It's official: the American Bar Association is off the reservation. After several years of relatively good behavior, it has now drawn its knives and enlisted in the Democrats' 2006 campaign. Today, the ABA's judicial qualifications panel opined unanimously that Michael Wallace, nominated to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, is "unqualified" for the post.

This is ridiculous. Wallace's bio is here. He graduated from Harvard and (at the top of his class) the University of Virginia Law School. He clerked for the Mississippi Supreme Court, and for Justice Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court. President Reagan appointed Wallace to head the Legal Services Corporation. For some years, Wallace has had what appears to be a top-notch litigation practice, with an appellate focus, in Jackson, Mississippi.

Based on Wallace's resume, there are two reasons why the Democrats at the ABA consider him "unqualified." The first is that he is a Republican. He is General Counsel of the Mississippi Republican Party, and--no doubt a key fact--he served as Special Impeachment Counsel to then-Majority Leader Trent Lott for the impeachment trial of President Clinton. The second reason is that Wallace is from Mississippi. I doubt whether the ABA would dare to pull the same stunt with a Northerner.

With this nakedly political move, the American Bar Association has once again forfeited any claim to credibility.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014045.php

 

[aps]

The rating was pure politics by a pack of liberal lawyers.
John H. Hinderaker, a distinguished lawyer, gives Wallace's qualifications as well as the political reason for the rating:


http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014045.php

OMG! It's a conspiracy! The ABA is too political to be making these decisions. Nevermind that only one other Bush appointee has received a unanimous unqualified rating. Oh, and only 3% of Bush's nominees have been determined to be unqualified (those decisions were not unanimous).

His nomination has drawn opposition from civil rights groups because he helped Lott lobby on behalf of Bob Jones University.

The then-segregated school was defending its right to take federal tax deductions in a case before the Supreme Court.

Wallace also worked with Lott to require that plaintiffs in voting rights cases prove an intent to discriminate, not just the effects of discrimination.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060511/NEWS/605110384/1002/NEWS01

Funny how the article you provide doesn't address the above situations in attacking the ABA's decision. Gee, I wonder how the ABA was able to get a group solely of liberal lawyers to vote on this nominee? :roll:

 

[tecoyah]

The rating was pure politics by a pack of liberal lawyers.
John H. Hinderaker, a distinguished lawyer, gives Wallace's qualifications as well as the political reason for the rating:

It is quite amazing, that anything which questions the adminstration, whether policy or personel, is suddenly Liberal. You really do fail to inspire with the level of Bias you portray....its annoying.