The ABA’s Judicial Evaluations are a Sham

Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director of the Judicial Crisis Network:
“So there you have it. A left-wing partisan who opposed Lawrence VanDyke in Montana led the ABA’s evaluation process, interviewing other political foes of VanDyke and – surprise! – found their gripes about his professionalism and temperament to be very credible. And then the ABA Standing Committee blessed that sham of a process by giving VanDyke a ‘Not Qualified’ rating.”

Gayle Trotter, Spokeswoman for the Judicial Crisis Network:
“We saw a reprehensible act by the American Bar Association last week during the hearing. They had an eleventh-hour negative rating on one of President Trump’s nominees. It was full of hearsay and anonymous sources, and it was just the latest smear attack by the left to derail President Trump delivering on the promise that he made to the American people. It’s just disgusting.”

Video: https://twitter.com/gayletrotter/status/1192418320760356865?s=20

Senator Mike Lee of Utah:
“The ABA has lost its credibility as a neutral arbiter. It should be treated no differently than any other special interest group.”

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas:
“@ABAesq’s politically motivated & biased attempts to smear the qualifications of an impressive and qualified judicial nominee are not within the best interests of the American people. After my Q&A w VanDyke today at @senjudiciary, I look forward to his confirmation.”

Tweet: https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1189616294540255232?s=20

Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri:
“I find that absolutely unbelievable. If you want to talk about bias, if you want to talk about fair procedures. It probably explains the ad hominem nature of this disgraceful letter.”

Adam Laxalt, Former Nevada Attorney General, Long-Time Colleague of Lawrence VanDyke, ABA Interviewee:
“Laxalt’s interview was one of 60 the ABA conducted for their evaluation process. He spoke on the phone with Marcia Davenport, who was called out by Republicans for having previously contributed to the judicial campaign of someone who ran against VanDyke in the past. During the interview, Laxalt said, Davenport “seemed completely disinterested” in his glowing recommendation. He said she did not ask follow-up questions and did not ask about any of the cases the two men worked on together, despite opening the interview by noting that nine of the 10 most important cases VanDyke listed were from his time working for Laxalt.”

Tim Fox, AG of Montana:
“The @ABAesq Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary falsely slandered a good man’s reputation. What I told ABA’s interviewer about Lawrence VanDyke is reflected in the letter I wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is well qualified to be confirmed to the Ninth Circuit.”

Tweet: https://twitter.com/judicialnetwork/status/1189914803323768832?s=20

Alan Lefebvre, Former Nevada State Bar President and 38 Year Member of the ABA:
“It would be impossible for a reviewer to challenge such a qualified nominee’s abilities unless he was yoked with an ideologue’s agenda… the ABA hides its untrue aspersions behind a wall of anonymity. So my second reaction to the committee’s letter is to cut up my ABA bar card into 30 pieces. A 38-year member… no more.”

Parker Douglas, Former Utah Solicitor General:
“That guy’s not lazy, I can tell you that… a great appellate practitioner.”

Thomas Jipping, Deputy Director and Senior Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies:
“In the end, from the White House to the Senate to the public, people are going to take the American Bar Association judicial nominee ratings for whatever people they think are worth. At this moment, that does not appear to be much.”

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board:
“Some of the sniping seems to have come from personal or political rivals from Mr. VanDyke’s time at the Montana Department of Justice, but the ABA keeps its interviews confidential so neither Senators nor the public can know who made what claims and on what basis. After the document was released, Mr. VanDyke’s former colleagues started coming forward to strongly dispute its characterization.”

Las Vegas Review Journal Editorial:
“The leftist lobby known as the American Bar Association provided cover for the onslaught with a dubious evaluation that labeled Mr. VanDyke ‘unqualified’ based on anonymous smears and personal attacks that described him as ‘arrogant’ and ‘lazy.’ The ‘unqualified’ label might be news to the folks at Harvard Law, who granted Mr. VanDyke his diploma.”

Brad Lingo, Associate Professor at Regent University School of Law, Long-Time Colleague of Lawrence VanDyke, and ABA Interviewee:
“A woman from the ABA called to ask about his temperament and qualifications. The conversation was short – five minutes or so. At the time, I assumed the interview was so short because there was no real question about Lawrence’s character and fitness.”

Joseph Tartakovsky, Nevada Deputy Solicitor General under Lawrence VanDyke, ABA Interviewee:
“Joseph Tartakovsky, who was the Nevada deputy solicitor general for three years under VanDyke, said his interview with Davenport lasted five to seven minutes, during which ‘it was clear to me that she was going through the motions,’ as she did not ask follow-up questions.”

Ashley Johnson, Long-Time Colleague of Lawrence VanDyke at Law Firm Gibson Dunn, ABA Interviewee:
“The call lasted fewer than 5 minutes. She did not say that she had received ANY negative comments or ask if they matched my experience over the 13 years I have known Lawrence. Instead, she read through what was clearly a script of questions, thanked me for my time, and hung up.”

Kelly Shackelford, President & CEO of First Liberty Institute, ABA Interviewee:
“I was one of those “interviewees.” Not only is there a lot that I discussed with the ABA’s evaluator that never made it into the report, but, despite what they now claim, none of the “negative issues” about Lawrence were mentioned — let alone, “thoroughly discussed” — with me. I wonder if the other 59 or so interviewees had the same experience.”

Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council:
“And thanks to this administration, groups like the ABA—who’ve been hiding out as “neutral” parties for years—are starting to be exposed for their unapologetic left-leaning stance. As painful as this parade of character assassination has been for the president’s picks, it could force the Senate to reconsider how it conducts its confirmation business. If not, this process—one that’s stood up to centuries of partisanship—may never be the same.”

Mike Davis, President of the Article III Project:
“Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project which supports the president’s judicial nominees, said the ABA evaluator should be investigated for making potentially false statements to Congress, a felony .”

Hiram Sasser, General Counsel for First Liberty Institute:
“The opposition to VanDyke stems from the American Bar Association, an organization that abandoned all pretense of partisan neutrality years ago. As a result, the ABA’s membership is rapidly declining. Those who remain use the fading notion that the ABA represents “the legal community” as a shibboleth against their political opponents and to promote a progressive agenda.”

Randy Barnett, Georgetown Law Professor:
“The unsubstantiated hit job done by the ABA on Lawrence VanDyke is a scandal. I have withdrawn from an ABA conference next week in DC at which I was scheduled to speak.”

Tweet: https://twitter.com/RandyEBarnett/status/1190640076818132994

Adam White, Assistant Professor of Law at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, Executive Director of the Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Long-Time Friend of Lawrence VanDyke:
“For years, the ABA’s assessment of judicial nominees has tracked clear ideological lines… Political bias is pervasive in much of the ABA’s work. Its governing body, the house of delegates, regularly endorses stridently progressive policies… policy issues on which an association of lawyers has no special expertise.”

Josh Blackman, Constitutional Law Professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston:
“At every juncture, the ABA seems to have cut corners. It apparently failed to ask VanDyke’s supporters to respond to charges against him. The letter may have mischaracterized VanDyke’s statements. And the investigation was led by a conflicted person who did not even appoint a second person to interview the nominee. The process was flawed from the outset, and should not be afforded any deference.”

Ramesh Ponnuru, Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Senior Fellow at the National Review Institute:
“Many conservatives have been complaining for decades that the ABA has an outsized role in the judicial-confirmation process and uses it to pull the courts to the left. This is as good an illustration of that point as we’ve ever had.”

Josh Hammer, Editor-at-Large of the Daily Wire:
“This is a vicious and malicious smear made against a good and decent man… The ABA, which as also attempted to claim other Trump judicial nominee scalps, is institutionally controlled by leftist trial lawyers and bigwig Democratic Party donors.”

John McCormack, Washington Correspondent for National Review:
“Were VanDyke’s comments to the ABA twisted or taken wildly out of context in order to paint him as a bigot? It is hard to believe any judicial nominee would suggest during an interview with the ABA that he might not be ‘fair’ to all litigants.”

Erick Erickson, Editor of The Resurgent and host of the Erick Erickson Show:
“The American Bar Association has shown itself often to oppose conservative jurists. Increasingly, the ABA has come out with unbridled hostility towards devoutly religious nominees. To now have the ABA allow someone who clearly has opposed a nominee to be the evaluator of the nominee just sets a new threshold for how far the ABA will go to oppose judicial nominees.”

Jason Richwine, Public Policy Analyst & Contributor to National Review:
“The committee’s evidence for these charges is that – wait for it – some unnamed interviewees said so. That’s it. The ABA provides no verifiable examples of Mr. VanDyke’s allegedly poor character and no on-the-record statements from witnesses. This is a textbook example of hearsay evidence that would not be admissible in court. That an association of lawyers, of all people, would expect it to be taken seriously is very dispiriting.”

The ABA’s Judicial Evaluations are a Sham

Get Connected

STAND WITH US

LATEST VIDEOS