Changes

==Rating candidates for federal judgeship==

==Rating candidates for federal judgeship==

The ABA since the 1920s played a major role in approving federal judges until it was dropped by the George W. Bush administration because of liberal bias. Numerous scholarly studies have demonstrated that liberal nominees do better in the process than conservative ones. Holding all other factors constant, those nominations submitted by a Democratic president were significantly more likely to receive higher A.B.A. ratings than nominations submitted by a Republican president.  

The ABA since the 1920s played a major role in approving federal judges until it was dropped by the George W. Bush administration because of liberal bias. Numerous scholarly studies have demonstrated that liberal nominees do better in the process than conservative ones. Holding all other factors constant, those nominations submitted by a Democratic president were significantly more likely to receive higher A.B.A. ratings than nominations submitted by a Republican president.  

However, the effect of higher ABA ratings on the likelihood of being confirmed is fairly small. Of all candidates for federal appeals court seats who received the group’s highest rating between 1977 and 2000, 85% were confirmed; but candidates with lower ratings were confirmed between 71% and 80% percent of the time.<ref>Adam Liptak, "Legal Group’s Neutrality Is Challenged,"  [https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/us/31bar.html?_r=1&hp ''New York Times'' Mar. 30, 2009]</ref>

However, the effect of higher ABA ratings on the likelihood of being confirmed is fairly small. Of all candidates for federal appeals court seats who received the group's highest rating between 1977 and 2000, 85% were confirmed; but candidates with lower ratings were confirmed between 71% and 80% percent of the time.<ref>Adam Liptak, "Legal Group’s Neutrality Is Challenged,"  [https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/us/31bar.html?_r=1&hp ''New York Times'' Mar. 30, 2009]</ref>

The ABA claims it does not consider ideology in its ratings, claiming to base them only on professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament. It is the third factor, one the association defines to include compassion, open-mindedness and commitment to equal justice under the law, that critics say leaves room for subjective judgments that may tend to favor liberals.

The ABA claims it does not consider ideology in its ratings, claiming to base them only on professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament. It is the third factor, one the association defines to include compassion, open-mindedness and commitment to equal justice under the law, that critics say leaves room for subjective judgments that may tend to favor liberals.

Three exceptionally distinguished conservative judges, [[Richard A. Posner]] and [[Frank H. Easterbrook]], both on the federal appeals court in Chicago, and [[J. Harvie Wilkinson III]], on the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., all received mixed ratings in which a majority of the committee found them “qualified” and a minority “not qualified.”

Three exceptionally distinguished conservative judges, [[Richard A. Posner]] and [[Frank H. Easterbrook]], both on the federal appeals court in Chicago, and [[J. Harvie Wilkinson III]], on the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., all received mixed ratings in which a majority of the committee found them “qualified” and a minority “not qualified.”

Recent Supreme Court nominees, including conservatives [[John Roberts]] and [[Samuel Alito]], and liberals [[Stephen Breyer]] and [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] all received the group’s highest rating. Bush nominee [[Harriet Miers]] withdrew her nomination before the bar association issued a rating; both liberals and conservatives opposed her.

Recent Supreme Court nominees, including conservatives [[John Roberts]] and [[Samuel Alito]], and liberals [[Stephen Breyer]] and [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] all received the group's highest rating. Bush nominee [[Harriet Miers]] withdrew her nomination before the bar association issued a rating; both liberals and conservatives opposed her.

Conservative [[Clarence Thomas]] was given a split rating of “qualified” and “not qualified.” Judge [[Robert Bork]], the conservative whose nomination was rejected by the Senate in 1987, received a curious split decision, with the majority calling him “well qualified” but four members saying he was “unqualified.”

Conservative [[Clarence Thomas]] was given a split rating of “qualified” and “not qualified.” Judge [[Robert Bork]], the conservative whose nomination was rejected by the Senate in 1987, received a curious split decision, with the majority calling him “well qualified” but four members saying he was “unqualified.”