Home Politics Chuck Schumer Is Perfectly Willing To Vote For ‘Not Qualified’ Judges When...

Chuck Schumer Is Perfectly Willing To Vote For ‘Not Qualified’ Judges When It’s Not Trump Appointing Them

593

The strange relationship between Senate Democrats and the American Bar Association is once again on display.

On Nov. 6, Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) claimed on the Senate floor that “over the last three years, President Trump has nominated and Senate Republicans have approved the most unqualified and radical nominees in my time in this body.” He noted three judicial nominees, two for the U.S. District Court and one for the U.S. Court of Appeals, who received a “not qualified rating” from the American Bar Association.

Let’s look at what Schumer did not mention. Schumer, as well as former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), have said the ABA rating is the “gold standard” for evaluating judicial nominees. But last year, the Senate confirmed Holly Teeter to the U.S. District Court after an ABA “not qualified” rating. She had no opposition, and the Senate did not even take a recorded vote. Schumer supported her.

In 2017, the Senate confirmed Charles Goodwin to the U.S. District Court after receiving an ABA “not qualified” rating. Like Teeter, Goodwin had no opposition and was confirmed without a recorded vote. Yes, Schumer supported him, too.

During the previous Republican administration, the Senate confirmed five “not qualified” judicial nominees. Four had no opposition, and the only recorded vote was 98-1. Schumer not only supported all five, but actually recommended one of those “not qualified” nominees for appointment to the U.S. District Court in New York.

Another of those “not qualified” Bush nominees was Vanessa Bryant, appointed to the U.S. District Court in Connecticut. Schumer served on the Judiciary Committee at the time and supported her nomination. She was championed by then-Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who told the committee they should ignore the ABA’s rating because, among other problems, it relied on information from anonymous sources.

That brings us back to today’s nominees. Trump appeals court nominee Lawrence VanDyke received a rating identical to Bryant’s. The ABA letter informing the Senate of his rating included what can only be described as name-calling by anonymous “interviewees.” Is there any reason that anonymous negative information should be discounted for Bryant’s nomination but not for VanDyke’s?

The other end of the ABA rating spectrum is “well qualified.” If ABA ratings are the gold standard, if a “not qualified” rating means the Senate should oppose nominees, you’d think a “well qualified” rating means the Senate should support them. That would make sense.

But Schumer has voted nearly 60 times against Trump judicial nominees rated “well qualified” by the ABA. More than half of those votes have come this year alone, which means he’s ignoring ABA ratings more often than ever. That doesn’t make sense.

Another thing Schumer ignores, and no doubt hopes you never find out, is that multiple academic studies of the ABA ratings (examples hereherehere, and here) have found systematic bias against Republican nominees. These studies examined different periods and sets of judges, and used different research methods, but came to the same conclusion. If that conclusion is valid, then it’s easier for a Republican nominee to be rated “not qualified” and harder to be rated “well qualified.”

In essence, Senate Democrats are saying that a “not qualified” ABA rating matters for Trump nominees but not for Clinton nominees. They are saying that “not qualified” ratings given to Trump nominees are dispositive, but “well qualified” ratings don’t matter.

For them, the ABA rating is the “gold standard” for evaluating nominees, until it isn’t. And they pretend that the ABA is unbiased when it says what they want to hear, and irrelevant when the evidence points in the other direction. This relationship between Senate Democrats and the ABA needs some help.

via thefederalist

2 COMMENTS

  1. With what you stupid retarded demon-rats stand for you will loose, Fight and get this out,now,You stupid Democrats killed the water to hydrogen inventor why? I hope you know your damnation is in hell, Hillary said in 2005 ( that the average democrat voter is just plain stupid, they are so easy to manipulate, that’s the easy part ),It looks like Trump is an oil company stooge to selling us out, you stupid retarded Trump, The only thing that will bring us out of this depression is free energy, hydrogen from water, you can make all the hydrogen, as you drive from a tank of water, you know our space shuttles,are powered by hydrogen / oxygen made from water, tell every one not buy a new car / truck, to boycott the auto company’s, when they can’t sell their pieces of junk low mileage vehicles, they will have to bring out water to hydrogen powered vehicles, and kits to change the vehicles now that we have, just think what our world would be like with free energy. a Porge vapor carburetor sitting in the patient office that gets around 200 mpg, Volkswagen diesel gets 264 mpg, The water to hydrogen auto inventor wouldn’t sell out to the demons from hell oil company’s so the Democrat gov. had him murdered with plutonium poisoning, we are getting ripped off by the oil company owned auto company’s Don’t you think it’s time to take our world back.Once free energy gets out all prices for every thing will drop.You want your dreams back again don’t you?
    Also audit all the Senator’s and congressmen, they have wasted, and stole our money, make them repay all, and tax them.

  2. Cry’n Chuck is the typical demon. If he opens his mouth, it’s to suck the oxygen out of the room. If he speaks, it’s a lie. If he agrees with anything, it’s evil.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

*