report scams here at scam.com dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Political Chat
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 11-23-2011, 11:29 AM
pwrone's Avatar
pwrone pwrone is offline
Preserve. Protect. Defend.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,076
Surprise! obama Judicial Nominees A Joke: Bar Asso

seems the 'editor of the Harvard Law review'(who never published a word...LOL) doesn't know jack shit about anything except stealing..

Not to mention his SCOTUS picks, each unqualified and corrupt.



AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION: SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF OBAMA JUDICIAL NOMINEES ‘NOT QUALIFIED’
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 2:06pm by Christopher Santarelli Print »Email »
Comments (86)


The American Bar Association, the largest law and voluntary professional association in the world, has declared a number of President Obama’s potential judicial nominees “not qualified.” The New York Times reports that the rejection rate for Obama’s judicial suggestions “is more than three and a half times as high as it was under either of the previous two presidencies,“ and called the number ”significant:”

“The association’s judicial vetting committee has opposed 14 of the roughly 185 potential nominees the administration asked it to evaluate, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The number of Obama prospects deemed ‘not qualified’ already exceeds the total number opposed by the group during the eight-year administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush; the rejection rate is more than three and a half times as high as it was under either of the previous two presidencies, documents and interviews show.”
The ABA provides law school accreditation, continuing legal education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public. The 15-person judicial vetting committee is appointed by the bar association’s president, who serves for one year, to fill staggered three-year terms. The Committee Chairman Allan Joseph told the Times that the panel is fair-minded, and puts in long hours reading candidates’ writings and conducting confidential interviews about them with dozens of judges and lawyers.

“Our role is to provide the only peer review in the whole process, and we think that is valuable — particularly with a lifetime appointment under consideration,” he said. The committee does not disclose identities or its ratings of judicial prospects unless the president goes on to nominate them


The unfavorable vetting of Obama’s suggestions throws a wrench into the politics of judicial nominations, as the Times notes that in recent Republican administrations conservatives have accused the ABA of liberal bias. In 2001, President Bush stopped sending the ABA names of prospects prior to their nomination, a practice that President Obama may regret restoring. The White House indicated that it will not nominate any person that the ABA deemed unqualified.

The Times notes that the administration is still perplexed with their low batting average by comparison when it comes to finding judges the ABA likes, and the Times reports that the administration has criticized the organization for placing too much value on courtroom experience when rating possible nominees. Many of the failed Obama suggestions are government lawyers and law professors.

But are qualified candidates being sacrificed for diversity? The New York Times includes these two curious paragraphs in its piece:

Mr. Obama has made it a policy goal to diversify the bench in terms of race, gender and life experiences. Many of his other female and minority prospects received favorable bar group ratings and went on to be nominated and confirmed; the judges he has appointed have been more likely to be women or minorities than those of any previous president.
[...]

Still, the demographic composition of the 14 prospects opposed by the panel has proved to be awkward. A person familiar with the ratings said nine are women — five of whom are white, two black, and two Hispanic. Of the five men, one is white, two are black, and two are Hispanic.

“Although we may not agree with all of their ratings,” Obama’s White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, said in a statement regarding the Times story, “we respect and value their historical role in evaluating judicial candidates. The president remains committed to addressing the judicial vacancy crisis with urgency and with qualified candidates who bring a diverse range of experience to the bench.”


.
__________________
________________

Make Your Heart As Big as Your Dreams
Is your future secured?
Do you have all the money you need?
Do you have a plan to achieve your financial goals?
Would you like to see one?
thinkdreamcreate@gmail.com
Think big. Dream big. Create a better world.


Reply With Quote

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Surprise! obama Allowed Protest Scum To Violate Law pwrone Political Chat 5 08-12-2012 10:48 PM
The Vetting: Surprise! obama A Filthy Radical Marxist Socialist pwrone Political Chat 23 07-20-2012 06:44 PM
Surprise! Rich Got Richer Under Obama and Clinton pwrone Political Chat 2 11-11-2011 07:13 AM
Racial Bias Okay for SOME Nominees to SCOTUS pwrone Political Chat 2 05-29-2009 11:36 PM
Why Obama’s “Community Organizer” Days Are a Joke pwrone Political Chat 20 09-07-2008 07:32 PM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. Scam.com does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the User’s own risk. Neither Scam.com nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on scam.com does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:01 PM.




Scam.com Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare


Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 Scam.com , All Rights Reserved.