Trump To ABA: Who?

The American Bar Association Journal announced that the White House will no longer seek their blessing, a decades-old fixture in selecting federal judges.

The White House has notified the ABA that President Donald Trump’s administration doesn’t intend to ask for a review of possible judicial nominees to the lower federal courts before their names are announced.

This made ABA President Linda Klein sad, as the huge achievements on her watch, and the watch of her predecessor, were about to be marginalized.* This will come as a shock to non-lawyers, but the ABA has no authority over lawyers and is just a group of lawyers with a pompous name living off its legacy of self-importance. There was a time it was respected, and gave its imprimatur of respectability to judicial nominations.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower first invited the ABA into the nomination process in 1953. Since then, every president except for George W. Bush has asked the ABA to conduct pre-nomination evaluations of possible nominees. Bush ended the association’s early role in nominee screening in 2001, citing a wish to avoid giving the ABA preference over other groups. During his term, the ABA conducted ratings after nomination.

Back then, the ABA was a captive association of lawyers working in big corporate firms. And that was the pool from which federal judges were drawn. The ABA rated their dues-paying patrons “highly qualified” and all the very official and sanitary white guys smiled and had a scotch.

Since then, the pool of federal judges has expanded to former federal prosecutors, while the ABA was captured by social justice academics, the only people willing to waste time on ABA committees, and ignored by practicing lawyers as it became increasingly irrelevant to law. It’s now a joke, the only purpose of which is to further the social justice agenda as if it’s an ethical duty of lawyers to forsake their clients in the name of diversity and inclusion.

When this announcement happened, totally fair and knowledgeable voices expressed their outrage.

Except it’s hardly clear that Trump means to “stack the court with judges outside [the] mainstream,” though it’s totally understandable why the unduly passionate would leap to a facile conclusion about why Trump is horrifying.

And, Chris Hayes, it’s not a big deal. It’s not even a little deal. It’s a nothing deal.

Upon learning that Trump would no longer seek the ABA’s approval, lawyers yawned. The ABA had ceased to be relevant to lawyers, who all accepted the free year of membership upon graduation, then never thought of it again. It did nothing for us. It was the bastion of the pompous, those official people who wanted to hold important offices in a prestigious legacy bar association that pontificated about nothing.

But when the shrieks began, and the MSNBC TV personalities tried to manufacture another “Trump is literally Hitler” meme out of it, we couldn’t control the chortling. Non-lawyers have never quite figured out that the ABA is a joke, even as they still don’t quite grasp what it actually is or does. Not that this lack of grasp limits their authority to announce what a big deal this is.

Whether Trump appoints the same people to federal judgeships as every other president, biglaw guys and prosecutors, remains to be seen. Thus far, it appears he’s drawing from the same crowd as any other conservative Republican president. Federal judges are proposed by the senators for districts within their states, and submitted to the president.

It’s not like the president picks them from Breitbart commenters, no matter how bad Steve Bannon smells. After senators propose their favorite nominees, they are then confirmed by the Senate. It’s not a mystery. At least not to lawyers. And it’s not left to the president to sneak in “out of the mainstream” (whatever that means) judges without anybody knowing.

But it’s not just that the ABA is irrelevant. It’s that the ABA has been as much a part of the problem as have the senators who propose either their dear friends as a little thank you for their loyal support, or the sanitary prosecutors to show how much they love law and order. It’s that the ABA has been every bit as much a part of the official establishment as the rest of them. Criminal defense lawyers are icky. Corporate lawyers are adored. Prosecutors are serious and respectable. Public defenders are dirty and smelly, like their clients.

Will Trump be kinder to the solo practitioners, to criminal defense lawyers, to public defenders, when it comes to appointing them to federal judgeships? Nah. Don’t be ridiculous. But the very official pompous folks at the ABA didn’t like us any more than anyone else did.

So is it a big deal that the White House has decided to ignore the ABA? Hey, welcome to the club, Mr. President. We hope you make good picks, but the ABA has nothing to do with it. It’s all nonsense perpetuated by the pathologically clueless non-lawyers who have some vague idea in their head that the ABA matters. It doesn’t.

*As does every partisan, Klein wrapped her claim to relevance in a cool pink bow:

Klein said in the statement that the ABA review “helps to ensure the highest quality judiciary through an objective, nonpartisan review of the professional competence, integrity and judicial temperament of those who would have lifetime appointments to our federal courts. Over the years, the standing committee’s work has done much to instill public confidence and trust in the judiciary.”

Enjoy the laugh. Lord knows we could all use one these days.

57 thoughts on “Trump To ABA: Who?

  1. Maurice Ross

    Why the hostility to the ABA. You could not be more inaccurate. I have participated on commttees and in CLE conferences of the ABA for decades. It is hardly dominated by social justice warriors. That’s just silly. Nor is it dominated by big corporate firm. Most members are solos or small firm lawyers which mirrors the profession. The ABA develops professional and ethical standards which is crucial. There should be objective standards for lawyers and judicial appointments and the ABA has done this well. Conservatives want judges who do care about religion more than the rule of law. That’s why the Trump administration has ousted the ABA. That’s why this is a BFD. Gorsuch was given a high ABA rating which is why he should be confirmed if politics are not injected in the process. We need the ABA to provide professional, objective standards. What replaces it ? Breitbart or Fox News ?

    1. SHG Post author

      Ah, Maurice. You are the poster boy for the flaming social justice warrior, all full of your mindless self-righteous morality and justice. You are exactly why the ABA is irrelevant to lawyers. How much you love your own feelings and believe with the ferver of the religious zealot that you own justice. You are as dangerous as the neo-Nazi. You are the death of rational thought.

      You are the problem.

      1. Billy Bob

        Guess you told him, Master. Now he’s going to cry. He may never return, having destroyed his will to live.

        1. SHG Post author

          He’ll survive, and may well return despite me (this isn’t the first time I’ve told him that he prays to a false god) to inform us Philistines about his one true god of Justice and Morality.

    2. Dan

      Yes, those professional and ethical standards are crucial. Like the one that says it’s professional misconduct, and would subject me to disciplinary action (if either of the states by which I’m licensed adopted it), if I were to say that a person’s sex is defined by the genitalia they were born with, and not by their subjective feelings. Clearly there’s no “social justice” aspect to the new Rule 8.4. What could SHG have been thinking?

      1. Maurice Ross

        Wow. So you laws or ethical rules prohibiting discrimination are an indication that the ABA has lost its way. I would think you would be proud of us as a profession for enforcing the 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under law. May I suggest that SJG has gotten lost in observation ideological talking points. We should discipline attorneys who discriminate against trans gender persons. The ignorance concerning trans gender persons by some is not much different than the ignorant (notice that I’m not saying bigotry) abour black people in the 1950’a before and after Brown vs Board. If SJG took the same view then about the ABA he would have opposed the ABA position that Plessy should be overruled. This is not a matter of feelZ. It is how the rule of law applies to changing times and better knowledge about those who are different.

        1. Billy Bob

          Maurice doubles down. This is getting v. interesting. Everybody is on fire today. It may be a long one.

          1. RAFIV

            This cool-aid drinker is precisely why I lefy my ABA membership on the ash heap of history. Maurice’s protestations of relevance are kind of endearing though. Fancies himself the St. Thomas Moore of Simple Justice battling SHG’s Machiavellian machinations.

        2. Mario Machado

          “I would think you would be proud of us as a profession for enforcing the 14th amendment rights to equal protection rights.”

          Who the fuck died and made you and the ABA Congress? Such self-righteous babble. No one who practices law in the real world, who puts clients ahead of any SJW cause de jour, is proud of you.

          To the contrary, in an ideal world, you and your ilk would stay within your ABA CLE circle jerks, would never set foot inside a courtroom, and would refrain from trying to jeopardize people’s bar licenses because they used the wrong gender pronoun at a cocktail party.

    3. B. McLeod

      As of August, 2016, before I stopped following the comments at ABA Journal, the comment chains were full of smears against Trump, including regular accusations of incest with various of his children. The Journal “moderators,” who supposedly police against “personal attacks” and “off-topic comments” generally left all of the Trump slams intact (although some commenters noted posts critical of Hillary Clinton were being deleted). I suppose that likely got even worse before the election is over, and I hope somebody called the site to Trump’s attention so that he had an opportunity to read it all.

      Suffice to say, ABA has made no bones about its partisan opposition to Trump. In any event, the ABA claim to special status is based on its regular, grossly misleading, claim to represent “over 400,000 members.” It is high time ABA was dispossessed of its unwarranted influence on selection of judges. The undeserved (and miserably performed) function of law school accreditation also needs to be removed from ABA’s clutches. We can only hope that is also on Trump’s to-do list.

  2. Miles

    You almost had me, but then I checked that calendar. As if anybody could be as much of parody as Maurice. Good one.

  3. RICHARD KOPF

    SHG,

    Those who like ABA judicial-evaluations need not fear.

    As under Bush 43, the Senate will call for the ABA evaluations or the party opposite the President in the Senate will do so. The evaluation will the come slightly later in the process and after the nomination, as contrasted with the ABA becoming involved prior to the nomination.

    In a related vein, Trump may come to regret this decision. For nominations regarding potential federal district judges, an ABA evaluation can be helpful to the President because of the myth that such evaluations mean something. Two examples.

    Example one: Jane is tighter than a tick with the local GOP chairwoman. But Jane barely got through law school. She is regarded as a really nice person, but a complete idiot. She barely survives doing estate planning for those who don’t need it. The local GOP chairwoman has the ear of the two Republican Senators and leans on them hard. As the custom dictates, the President defers to the Senators from Jane’s state and nominates her. After the nomination, the ABA determines that Jane is not qualified–a sentiment that any sentient organism would share. Sadness ensues. Jane’s appearance at the Judiciary Committee is a disaster–she cannot remember the name of the Chief Justice. Counting votes, it is clear that not even partisan Republicans on the Committee will vote for her. Jane’s nomination is pulled “at the request of the nominee for personal reasons.”

    Example two: Barb is brilliant with federal appellate clerkship under her belt. She spent several years as an ASUA prosecuting drug crimes but was offered a deal she could not refuse to try civil cases. She becomes an excellent civil trial lawyer, mostly defending employment discrimination cases for big corporations. She has never lost a case that she tried to a jury, and she has tried more than a few. She is also to the right of Attila the Hun. After the nomination, she gets a well-qualified rating from the ABA, and Trump haters on the Senate shed tears. A fight against a district judge nominee like Barb is a loser.

    In short, the band will play on with or without the President relying on the ABA. While the President’s decision to dump the ABA on the front end skewers the unwarranted sense of entitlement of that segment of the bar you describe, there also is a potential downside for Trump too. Either way, however, it hardly matters.

    All the best.

    Rich

    1. SHG Post author

      Under the new regime, it won’t matter whether the ABA approves. Was there anything in the Gorsuch confirmation hearings to suggest that either side gave a damn about whether he could pee without drowning? And if Jane showed before the ABA Committee on Judicial Right-Think and told of her sad tears at the treatment of transgender folks, she would be double highly qualified despite drooling in front of the committee. These are strange times, Judge.

  4. Maurice Ross

    I am probably in a court room as much as any lawyer other than a new ADA in all night arraignments. I don’t think any of you would approve of lawyers using the N word but in the 1940’s it was common even among Southern judges. Times change and we learn about defenseless, oppressed minorities and we educate ourselves about how the law should treat them. We also educate ourselves about what is appropriate conduct as officers of the court. This includes the words we use. It’s not political correctness. It’s not feelz. It’s actuality quite originalist. We learn about injustice and ignorance and we apply equal protection and due process accordingly. Transgender persons are no more freaks than blacks should have been slaves. Religious conservatives justify their bigotry by saying that others are something less than human. Our law says these religious conservatives are wrong. Persecution of misundertood minorities violates constitutional law. And we should hold lawyers to high standards in upholding the law. That includes the language we use because whether I am in a courtroom or playing piano in a bar I am still a lawyer and officer of both the court and the constitution. And our law prohibits discrimination and persecution of people because they are different whether in skin color, sex, sexual preference or gender. It’s the law. Not social justice feelz.

    1. SHG Post author

      I realize that in your narcissistic psychosis, you truly believe you are the center of the universe and that the shit in your head is real. But even so, this really isn’t all about your fantasies. Save it for the other flaming nutjobs that disgrace the bar. You don’t get it. You never will get it. And this isn’t the place for your to seek therapy for the obviously incurable disease that clouds your mind. We feel for you, but from this point, we’re going to do so at a distance.

      1. Eric

        Why the venom? Why the ugly sarcasm? There’s nothing about you to take serious when your postings focus more on insulting than logic. You sound like just another anonymous poster flaming the world. I suspect most people in real life simply ignore you hence the ugly post. Don’t go low, we go high.

          1. SHG Post author

            My rules preclude me from revealing Eric’s identity, though the irony of his calling me an anonymous poster is obvious.

        1. Patrick Maupin

          Why the venom? Why the ugly sarcasm?

          Because that’s one of the few correct responses to kafkatrappers.

          There’s nothing about you to take serious when your postings focus more on insulting than logic.

          SHG (and many others around here) have given more serious thought (and written very serious words) about this than it actually deserves, in an attempt to educate. If you’re educable, go read and think. If you’re not educable, then you’re probably either one of the kafkatrappers yourself, or you’re easily taken in — either contemptible or pitiable.

      2. Billy Bob

        Maurice triples down! We knew this was going to happen. Stay tuned folks. The show is not over!

      1. Maurice Ross

        Lol. I do lots of things including criminal defense. My word how some members of the profession are quick to attack. And by the way, we have jury trials in copyright, trademark and patent cases. This includes criminal counterfeiting cases. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed that counterfeiting is a criminal offense.

        1. SHG Post author

          Herp:

          I am probably in a court room as much as any lawyer other than a new ADA in all night arraignments.

          Derp:

          Lol. I do lots of things including criminal defense.

          Stop digging, already, Maurice.

        2. Scott Jacobs

          I do lots of things including criminal defense.

          So you suck at a bunch of things?

          Cool. I’ll be sure to hire you when I need the most basic of wills drawn up. For anything and everything else, I’ll hire someone who has taken the effort to specialize.

          1. SHG Post author

            Don’t question Maurice’s abilities as a lawyer. Perhaps he’s a fine lawyer. But even so, it doesn’t make his social justice arguments any less irrational, although it obviously calls his capacity to reason and his judgment into question.

          2. Maurice Ross

            I have been a partner in major law firms for 35 years and I proudly have several areas of expertise. Including my talents on the keyboards. Tragic that the participants on this web site are so quick to make false assertions because of disagreement with my legal analysis. Come here the music play. We need the ABA precisely because of the unprofessional nature of some of you who have posted today.

            1. SHG Post author

              Oh, Maurice. I keep trying to save you from the hole collapsing atop you, but you just won’t be saved.

            2. Patrick Maupin

              Somebody should write to Maurice and let him know that some asshole is signing his name to stupid internet blog comments.

    2. Marc R

      I concur. I had a client facing a 2nd degree homicide charge and was all set to defend him diligently but his alibi witness is an avowed racist. I couldn’t suggest the jury hear from such a vile man so I told my client to accept 25-life. Afterwards we high-fived at the close call he luckily avoided in not presenting a man who abhors all the 14th Amendment stands for, rather than justice for my paying client. Can my excess ABA dues go to recruit similar legal minds as yours?

    3. Marc R

      “I am probably in a court room as much as any lawyer other than a new ADA in all night arraignments.”

      How many days a week are you on a court docket? How many dockets do you average per court appearance? How many clients do you average per docket?

      Let’s see how you define “probably” or “as much as an any other lawyer.”

        1. Jim Tyre

          But how do you know he didn’t mean it literally? Maybe he likes stopping by a courtroom every day to spectate on his way into his office.

    4. Captain Smugglewash

      normal people go to a bar to drink, maybe converse at a socially acceptable volume, respecting other patrons wishes and whims. you take a piano? to be the centre of attention, and be the only person who can call the tune? ask them if the bar ever had a whites-only policy, you know before the minorities were discovered, then point out that their bathroom signs are just as wrong, because this seasons DSM says so and they are just genital-racists. Then try ordering a drink.

      the ABA is clearly trading on the name of the state/federal Bars, I always assumed the American Bar Assoc was something official, either relating to bars or Bars, I don’t know if i was stupid or just confused.

  5. Jim Tyre

    Upon learning that Trump would no longer seek the ABA’s approval, lawyers yawned.

    Speak for yourself. Yawning would have been an overreaction.

  6. kushiro

    Y’know, this is a lot of commotion being caused just because Maurice was looking for a way to casually tell everyone that he plays piano in a bar.

  7. MATTHEW S WIDEMAN

    SHG, great post about ABA irrelavancy. But, I have to say discussion about Social Justice in the ABA is hilarious.

    I am in court 10-20 a month (I know it doesn’t matter, I just wanted to add to the pissing contest). The discussion about what constitutes a lot of court time is very entertaining. The ABA has nothing to do with the actual practice of law, and their forced SJW proposed rules make no practical sense. But, I did get 10% off my Sprint bill with my free first year membership!

    1. SHG Post author

      It’s only hilarious if it’s not your sacred cow at stake. I don’t think Maurice found it at all hilarious, even though he proved my point a thousand times over without having any grasp why.

      1. Matthew S Wideman

        Life is a tragedy to those that feel and a comedy to those that think. I find it funny that lawyers who swear an oath to the Constitution do their best to destroy it in the name of protecting a group of people’s feelings.

        My clients are concerned with government over reach, complicated taxes, and corrupt beurocrats. Rules and laws controlling language are a complete disconnect from what is actually going on in people’s day to day lives. It’s hilarious to me that people with such sacred cows should or could speak for the guys and gals out 5+ years and working on their own.

  8. John Neff

    It may be that what Trump did is not an isolated incident. A very conservative member of the Iowa legislature introduced a bill to remove the ABA from the process of nominating judges. I wonder if that occurred in other states.

  9. TheHaywardFault

    Speaking as a complete layperson, it comes as an (almost) complete surprise that the ABA is at best a largely self-interest group. Previously, I had assigned it equal standing of authority and usefulness as the American Medical Association. Partially because their names and acronyms sound so similar (laugh if you want, I’m owning up to it). Obviously that reasoning does not stand up under even cursory inspection, but being a flawed and ignorant layperson I assumed my basic value judgement was enough and have only now given it a second thought.

    Obviously my one anecdote isn’t anything more than an anecdote, but it maybe the explanation of my ignorance will provide at least as much insight as it inspires contempt.

    Or maybe not.

    At any rate, thank you for the information.

    1. SHG Post author

      I don’t think this falls on either end of the insight/contempt spectrum. Non-lawyers think the ABA is a real thing and matters. No reason you should think otherwise unless someone tells you.

    2. alanlaird

      The ABA and AMA may be more similar than you thought, the AMA having no licensure, regulatory or disciplinary authority over doctors.

  10. Pingback: Lawyers Damned For Their Choice of Client. Again | Simple Justice

  11. Charles

    “The ABA had ceased to be relevant to lawyers, who all accepted the free year membership upon graduation, then never thought of it again.”

    It’s relevance has decreased to the point where not even the free year necessarily is accepted.

    1. B. McLeod

      Not even the free six months. When the day arrives upon which state bars decline to receive ABA recommendations for professional rules, the job will be done.

Comments are closed.