ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Posted in News — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

As you may recall, Fifth Circuit nominee Michael Wallace was rated "unqualified" by the ABA. But now Ed Whelan over at Bench Memos has received and reviewed the statement that the ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Whelan doesn't find anything there to justify the rating.

Update below the fold.

UPDATE: Here's a link to the ABA's written testimony about Wallace. And, here's some background from Whelan about the lead ABA investigator:

Askew serves on the Board of Trustees of the Lawyers' Committee on Civil Rights.... In January 2006, for example, the Lawyers' Committee issued a statement opposing Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. In September 2005, the Lawyers' Committee stated that it could not support John Roberts' nomination as Chief Justice.

Whelan also notes that the Lawyers' Committee on Civil Rights "served as plaintiffs' counsel in the very Voting Rights Act case that Askew uses as her ... Exhibit A in support of her contention that Wallace is not committed to equal justice under law. Thus, Askew was inevitably assessing (and should have been diligently probing) the weight and credibility of comments made by those associated with the same organization she serves as a trustee. The case for her recusal would seem clear."

Note: We mentioned previously at confirmthem that the Wall Street Journal has called the ABA's treatment of Wallace a "hit job."

Back to confirmthem home page.