The Magazine

Lowering the Bar

The corrupt ABA judicial evaluation process.

Jun 12, 2006, Vol. 11, No. 37 • By EDWARD WHELAN
Widget tooltip
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

The transcript of Tober's testimony, which also includes a number of loopy constitutional arguments, makes one wonder why Tober has any role in evaluating judicial nominees. It's even more disturbing that he would not see fit to recuse himself from reviewing the nomination of Wallace, for whom he plainly bears a strong animus.

Perhaps Tober will provide a persuasive explanation for the committee's negative rating of Wallace. But one lesson from the Kavanaugh process is that Tober's explanations should not be accepted at face value. In any event, it's long past time for the ABA to take serious steps to ensure the selection of committee members who will not let political bias infect their evaluations of judicial nominees. Absent such steps, the Senate Judiciary Committee should deprive the ABA committee of the privileged status it has long been accorded.

Edward Whelan is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a contributor to National Review Online's Bench Memos blog on judicial nominations.