ABA Subservience to Obama Administration, by Ed Whelan
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
It’s no surprise that the Obama administration has restored the ABA judicial-evaluation committee’s pre-Bush 43 privileged role in reviewing prospective nominees before the president formally nominates them. But the timing of yesterday’s announcement by the ABA is curious and would seem to provide more evidence that the ABA is eager to play handmaiden to the Obama administration’s political agenda.
Consider that the ABA’s announcement came on the very day that President Obama made his first judicial nomination, David Hamilton (to the Sixth Circuit)—and on the very day that the ABA committee issued its rating (“well qualified”) of Hamilton. The fact that the ABA committee issued its rating yesterday indicates that the White House restored the ABA’s pre-nomination role some weeks ago. (This ABA document—especially pages 5 to 9—describes the lengthy evaluation procedures that the ABA committee undertakes. Although that document has not been revised to reflect the ABA’s restored pre-nomination role, the exercise of that role would begin with the White House’s informing the committee who the intended nominee is.)
In other words, at the very time the media were speculating whether the Obama White House would restore the ABA’s old role, the ABA had almost certainly already had its role restored. Why did the ABA not say so at the time? And why did its announcement yesterday obscure when its role was restored? I’d guess that the White House asked the ABA to keep mum—in order to avoid giving conservative opposition a heads-up that nominations might be imminent—and that the ABA happily complied with this purely political request.
By the way, yesterday’s statement by the ABA’s president repeats the canard that the ABA committee “does not consider a potential nominee’s ideological or political philosophy.” I’ve exposed the falsehood of that assertion in this post. The National Law Journal also reports today that “a soon-to-be-released study by political scientists concludes” that the ABA’s ratings “are biased against potential conservative nominees.” Given how the members of the ABA committee are selected (a matter that I discuss at length in this essay), that’s hardly a surprise.
Senator Leahy’s April Fool’s Stunt. By Ed Whelan
ReplyDeleteBench Memos, March 24, 2009
http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzNiMjgxMTYyNjc2NWEwMjdmZDlmZDI0OWM5YmQxZTI=
In order to rush through President Obama’s nomination of David F. Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Pat Leahy is trying to set Hamilton’s confirmation hearing for next Wednesday, April 1.
Obama nominated Hamilton one week ago today. Hamilton did not submit his Senate questionnaire response until after 8:30 p.m. on March 18, and he’s supplemented the questionnaire materials on several occasions, including yesterday, and yet another supplement is expected today. So the hearing that Leahy is trying to schedule would be barely two weeks from Hamilton’s nomination and barely a week (if there are no more supplements after today) from Hamilton’s complete submission of his hearings materials.
Hamilton has been a federal district judge for nearly 15 years and has authored more than 1200 opinions. He has also submitted approximately 2,000 pages of speeches and articles.
To put this rush in context: During the Bush 43 administration, the average time from nomination to hearing for federal appellate nominees was 166 days overall, and 197 days while Leahy was chairman. No federal appellate nominee other than Clinton renominee Helene White (the beneficiary of a special deal) received a hearing in less than 30 days. And of President Bush’s first batch of nominees, the first to receive a hearing waited 62 days.
The seat to which Hamilton has been nominated has not been designated a judicial emergency, and the vacancy has existed only since September 30, 2008.
What’s the rush? Might Leahy be trying to impair Republicans’ ability to demonstrate that Hamilton is not the “moderate” the Obama administration claims him to be?
(I have relied on a Senate source for most of the above information.)