Unqualified

Liberal Lawyer group doesn't like conservative judge. Shocking!!!!


President Trump’s critics ignore this historic achievement. Instead, they mischaracterize the ABA’s few harsh ratings as representing the whole, an attack not rooted in the truth. The ABA’s decision to rate a nominee “Not Qualified” is often premised on its fixed requirement of twelve or more years of certain experience. In its rating letters, the ABA has conceded that several of the president’s nominees would have gotten a “Qualified” rating, but for barely missing this mark. For other nominees, such as Judge Lawrence Van Dyke — the only Court of Appeals nominee ever to have served as the highest appellate lawyer in two states within his circuit — the ABA’s process was clearly flawed.

And by "laughable" the Dazzler means 100% accurate.

The ABA has a history of taking liberal positions on issues including abortion, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, and the Second Amendment. The organization’s ideological bias has long tainted its ratings of judicial nominees. An entire book on the subject was written as early as 1965, Joel B. Grossman’s Lawyers and Judges: The ABA and the Politics of Judicial Selection. A 2006 Wall Street Journal editorial condemned the ABA’s “long history of . . . ideological sandbagging.” A 2012 Political Research Quarterly study found “strong evidence of systematic bias in favor of Democratic nominees.” Senator Ted Cruz pointed out at Wednesday’s hearing that eight of the 15 members of the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which evaluates nominees, have together contributed at least $60,000 to Democratic candidates and related organizations, and donations to the campaigns of presidential nominees have gone exclusively to Democrats: Five members donated to Barack Obama’s campaign, three to that of Hillary Clinton, and none to the last three Republican nominees.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/yes-the-aba-is-still-a-left-wing-advocacy-group/


The shameless pathological liar strikes again. But trust him, he'd never pad his legal bills.

HHusky said:

SFGbob said:

And by "laughable" the Dazzler means 100% accurate.

The ABA has a history of taking liberal positions on issues including abortion, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, and the Second Amendment. The organization’s ideological bias has long tainted its ratings of judicial nominees. An entire book on the subject was written as early as 1965, Joel B. Grossman’s Lawyers and Judges: The ABA and the Politics of Judicial Selection. A 2006 Wall Street Journal editorial condemned the ABA’s “long history of . . . ideological sandbagging.” A 2012 Political Research Quarterly study found “strong evidence of systematic bias in favor of Democratic nominees.” Senator Ted Cruz pointed out at Wednesday’s hearing that eight of the 15 members of the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which evaluates nominees, have together contributed at least $60,000 to Democratic candidates and related organizations, and donations to the campaigns of presidential nominees have gone exclusively to Democrats: Five members donated to Barack Obama’s campaign, three to that of Hillary Clinton, and none to the last three Republican nominees.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/yes-the-aba-is-still-a-left-wing-advocacy-group/


The shameless pathological liar strikes again. But trust him, he'd never pad his legal bills.

So now you girls like national review again.

Limousine liberals are not liberals.

And there's the white flag.

HHusky said:

LoneStarDawg said:

Next HH will tell us she’s too pretty to be smart

Gorgeous! And smart enough.

Every smart baby lawyer should become a federal trial judge before having any practice experience. Don't you think?

Needs more librarian glasses.

This ruling exposes the Dazzler just like his call for higher taxes while he refuses to pay higher taxes exposes the Dazzler. Dazzler and the rest of the Corona Bros are free to continue to wear their masks, they just no longer have the power to force other people to wear a mask and that's what this is really all about.

HHusky said:

Sources said:

HHusky said:

LoneStarDawg said:

Next HH will tell us she’s too pretty to be smart

Gorgeous! And smart enough.

Every smart baby lawyer should become a federal trial judge before having any practice experience. Don't you think?

Agree that her lack of experience should have precluded her, but it's still less egregious than a rocket ship to the SCOTUS bench when you have less than one year of experience on the Court of Appeals

So Clarence Thomas was qualified because he had a few months more than one year on the COA?

Thomas was and is qualified because he can read and understand basic English. He is also a pre-eminent biologist and can define a woman and he isn't a pedophile excuser. He and Scalia were the most qualified judges on the Court for decades. Ask Sotomayor to define black for AA purposes and you will get crickets. She is an intellectual lightweight. However, being a wise Latina qualified her, because she thinks the right way like a real Hispanic.

MikeDamone said:

HHusky said:

Sources said:

HHusky said:

LoneStarDawg said:

Next HH will tell us she’s too pretty to be smart

Gorgeous! And smart enough.

Every smart baby lawyer should become a federal trial judge before having any practice experience. Don't you think?

Agree that her lack of experience should have precluded her, but it's still less egregious than a rocket ship to the SCOTUS bench when you have less than one year of experience on the Court of Appeals

So Clarence Thomas was qualified because he had a few months more than one year on the COA?

What does Thomas have to do with the CDC over stepping their authority?

I'm sure Thomas is part of the Russian state narrative, too.

Chop chop, Dazzler. Present your treatise stat.

HHusky said:

Sources said:

MikeDamone said:

You guys are dumb. You took Herr Dazzlers Ad Hominem bait. Look at the case. She made the right call based on the facts presented to her.

Herr Dazzler and his merry band of dancing girls only attack the person when then have nothing of substance to use as a counter argument.

Fair point. I should have stayed on topic.

He has yet to even comment on whether the ruling is correct. I've no doubt he's ignored all facts, read "Trump appointee" and assumed the worst.

"Assumed the worst" implies that I feel strongly about the outcome. I don't.

She wrote a solid opinion, sitting as an appellate court due to the procedural posture of the case. I think she's probably right.

Still, there's no way a lawyer who never tried a case should be able to become a trial judge.

But she is gorgeous.

Chop chop, Dazzler.