Ha, Another New Record for Obama: Huge Number of His Judicial Nominees “Not Qualified” Per American Bar Association… Anyone Surprised?
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on November 30, 2011
Pres. Obama has nominated a record number of 'not qualified' nominees to fill vacant judgeships... cheers!
Yet another new record for POTUS — Pres. Barack Obama has nominated a record number of “not qualified” nominees to fill vacant judgeships. After only two-and-a-half years, Obama’s rejection rate is currently more than three and a half times as high as it was under either Clinton or Bush.
For their ENTIRE two-term presidencies.
Guess this again proves that a Harvard degree isn’t a guarantee of anything, isn’t indicative of qualities and personal strengths such as basic common sense, apt leadership, or strong decision-making skills.
With so many of Obama’s judicial nominees getting poor ratings, even Jimmy Carter is looking like a heavyweight champ, and that’s no mean feat.
Wonder how many of Obama’s rejected candidates have links to ACORN, SEIU, Harvard U, Columbia U, or Chicago? Or were fundraisers for his election? Or are related to Teamsters union leader Jimmy Hoffa or Obama’s secret buddy, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?
Since the American Bar Association has a history of being partisan and left-leaning, these rejected candidates from socialist/Marxist Captain Clueless must have been too horrific to let slide through.
From New York Times, Ratings Shrink President’s List for Judgeships:
WASHINGTON — The American Bar Association has secretly declared a significant number of President Obama’s potential judicial nominees “not qualified,” slowing White House efforts to fill vacant judgeships — and nearly all of the prospects given poor ratings were women or members of a minority group, according to interviews.
The White House has chosen not to nominate any person the bar association deemed unqualified, so their identities and negative ratings have not been made public. But the association’s judicial vetting committee has opposed 14 of the roughly 185 potential nominees the administration asked it to evaluate, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The number of Obama prospects deemed “not qualified” already exceeds the total number opposed by the group during the eight-year administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush; the rejection rate is more than three and a half times as high as it was under either of the previous two presidencies, documents and interviews show.
[...]
The chairman since August of the bar association’s vetting committee, Allan J. Joseph, would not confirm any negative ratings but defended the panel’s work as fair-minded and independent. Its members, he said, are all volunteers who, as a matter of public service, put in long hours reading candidates’ writings and conducting confidential interviews about them with dozens of judges and lawyers.
“We are not a rubber stamp,” he said. “Our role is to provide the only peer review in the whole process, and we think that is valuable — particularly with a lifetime appointment under consideration.”
Still, the demographic composition of the 14 prospects opposed by the panel has proved to be awkward. A person familiar with the ratings said nine are women — five of whom are white, two black, and two Hispanic. Of the five men, one is white, two are black, and two are Hispanic.
The majority of those rejected have been female and/or minorities. The recap above points out only those who’ve been rejected for judgeships, of which there are no Asians nor Native Americans. Is this because they were not rejected or because Obama did not nominate any Asians or Native Americans? That information isn’t available.
From The Blaze, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION: SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF OBAMA JUDICIAL NOMINEES ‘NOT QUALIFIED’:
The ABA provides law school accreditation, continuing legal education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public. The 15-person judicial vetting committee is appointed by the bar association’s president, who serves for one year, to fill staggered three-year terms. The Committee Chairman Allan Joseph told the Times that the panel is fair-minded, and puts in long hours reading candidates’ writings and conducting confidential interviews about them with dozens of judges and lawyers.
“Our role is to provide the only peer review in the whole process, and we think that is valuable — particularly with a lifetime appointment under consideration,” he said. The committee does not disclose identities or its ratings of judicial prospects unless the president goes on to nominate them.
The unfavorable vetting of Obama’s suggestions throws a wrench into the politics of judicial nominations, as the Times notes that in recent Republican administrations conservatives have accused the ABA of liberal bias. In 2001, President Bush stopped sending the ABA names of prospects prior to their nomination, a practice that President Obama may regret restoring. The White House indicated that it will not nominate any person that the ABA deemed unqualified.
The Times notes that the administration is still perplexed with their low batting average by comparison when it comes to finding judges the ABA likes, and the Times reports that the administration has criticized the organization for placing too much value on courtroom experience when rating possible nominees. Many of the failed Obama suggestions are government lawyers and law professors.
But are qualified candidates being sacrificed for diversity?
WORST.PRESIDENT.EVER.
Barack H. Obama during his college days
About the author
Bam is a biblical sized trainwreck. Let’s face it, everyone is coming to terms with this except Mika Brezinski.