ILNews

White House no longer wants ABA evaluations for judicial spots

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The decision by the Trump administration to no longer seek input from the American Bar Association on nominees to the federal bench does not mean the national organization of lawyers will be cut completely from the evaluation process.

As ABA President Linda Klein noted in a statement following the administration’s decision, the ABA will continue to provide objective reviews to the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of the judicial confirmation process.

But the reports provided to the Senate committee will come after the nominee has been introduced to the public. Glenn Sugameli, director of the Judging the Environment Project which monitors federal judicial nominations, said in the past, some individuals being considered for a federal judgeship were rejected after the ABA raised concerns about their qualifications or temperament. This allowed the White House to avoid a potentially disastrous nominee altogether.

Calling the decision by the White House disappointing, Sen. Diane Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, advocated for the committee to continue to consider the ABA evaluations presented to the Senate body.

“The ABA for decades has played an independent, nonpartisan role in evaluating the professional qualifications of the lawyers and judges nominated to lifetime positions on our federal courts,” the California Democrat said in a statement. “Senators deserve the opportunity to take the ABA’s evaluations into account as they review nominees, and the Judiciary Committee should not hold hearings on nominees until the ABA has an opportunity to provides its ratings.”  

 At times, the ABA reports on nominees have been dismissed. In 2016, the National Review described the organization’s judicial evaluation committee as “sliding toward irrelevance,” and noted that 7th Circuit Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner were both given the lowest possible ratings by the ABA.

Sugameli pointed to what he called the irony that the administration announced it will forego the ABA evaluations during the time when it and Senate Republicans are touting the high rating given to Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch. Indeed Judiciary chair Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, boasted after the ABA gave Gorsuch a unanimously well qualified rating.

“Why is it relevant for this nomination but not for others?” Sugameli asked of the ABA evaluations.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law sees the elimination of the ABA’s role as an indication the White House will nominate federal judges outside the mainstream.

“Americans should be deeply concerned by a President who has demonstrated disrespect for current sitting judges and a White House now ready to abandon long-standing traditions when it comes to filling vacancies on the courts,” Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee, said in a statement. “There are more than 125 vacancies across the federal court system and the public deserves nominees who can meet, at minimum, basic standards of fairness, professionalism and integrity.”  

The evaluations are conducted by the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association. It reviews the work and experience of candidates nominated for the federal courts from the Supreme Court of the United States down to the district courts and includes the Court of International Trade.

According to the ABA, evaluations are restricted to issues regarding the nominee’s integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. The committee is comprised of 15 members – one at large, two from the 9th Circuit and one from each of the other 12 circuits. The 7th Circuit is represented by Chicago attorney Tiffany Ferguson.

The ABA’s Klein noted the organization’s role in reviewing nominees to the federal courts dates to the Eisenhower administration.

“Since then, with the exception of the George W. Bush administration, the ABA has been asked by every administration to conduct pre-nomination evaluations of the professional qualification of prospective nominees,” Klein said. “This helps to ensure the highest quality judiciary through an objective, nonpartisan review of the professional competence, integrity and judicial temperament of those who would have lifetime appointments to our federal courts.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT