MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

The American Bar Association's Lack of Transparency

The ABA president called for a delay in voting on Kavanaugh's nomination, but the ABA refuses to provide any details about this decision

Yesterday ABA president Robert M. Carlson sent a letter to Senators Grassley and Feinstein on behalf of the ABA. The letter urged that senators delay a vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination until "an appropriate background check into the allegations made by Professor Blasey and others is completed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation." The letter does not say how the ABA decided to adopt this position, who Carlson consulted (if anyone), or anything else that might shed light on the origins and evolution of the letter.

This morning, I emailed Carol Stevens, the ABA's Associate Executive Director, Media Relations and Strategic Communications. After identifying myself as a Volokh Conspiracy blogger, I wrote, "I was wondering if you could tell me who the president of the ABA consulted before issuing his call to delay the Kavanaugh vote, whether there was some sort of vote among those consulted, and if so whether the vote was unanimous. Or did he write the letter solely on his own initiative?"

Stevens replied, in toto, "We believe the letter speaks for itself. Thanks."

Of course, the letter does not speak for itself, and it's embarrassing that Stevens publicly claims otherwise. Members of the media, members of the ABA (which include me, as all law professors are essentially required to be members), and the general public have no idea whose opinion the letter reflects--Carlson's alone? Carlson and some other ABA insiders? The latter and members of the ABA's judicial nomination team, which had previously deemed Kavanaugh "well-qualified" for the Supreme Court?

I find it very troubling that a powerful organization that represents members with a wide spectrum of political and other views would issue an important statement on a major controversy while not only failing to provide any indication of how that statement came to be, but also refusing media requests for further information. The ABA's lack of transparency further discredits an organization that has lost the confidence of a large portion of the American bar.

UPDATE: "The correspondence by Robert Carlson, President of the American Bar Association...was not received by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary prior to its issuance...The ABA's rating for Judge Kavanaugh is not affected by Mr. Carlson's letter."

ADDITIONAL UPDATE: A reader points out that the board of governors, and not the president, is supposed to have the authority to speak on behalf of the ABA.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AmosArch||

    Isn't the ABA supposed to just be an apolitical standards and guidance body? Whats with all this weighing in on every single issue du jour that I'm seeing lately? Its like if the AMA ran adverts for Merck trashing Pfzier. Be a standardization authority or be a hyperpartisan advocacy group. You shouldn't be both. This is really grotesquely inappropriate and its amazing how few people are noticing..

  • Krayt||

    ===Be a standardization authority or be a hyperpartisan advocacy group.===

    Either way they should be able to say how they arrived at their decision.

  • Armchair Lawyer||

    It's actually the best way. Be "nonpartisan", but make ever-so-key partisan decisions, when needed. Like the SPLC.

  • MoreCurious||

    Please explain how the call for an FBI investigation -- to try to determine if the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are true -- can be said to be partisan.

  • Toranth||

    The ABA making *any* non-professional assessment of the situation - especially repeating the talking points adopted by one political party - is partisan politics. An executive falsely using the name of the organization to advance his own views is even worse.

    As a professional (licensing) organization, the ABA has no business sticking its nose into any political situation not directly related to the profession as a whole.

  • DodgerBobH||

    What gave you the idea the ABA is a licensing organization? It's a professional association that most lawyers I know do not belong to.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Shut up Hihn.

  • rsteinmetz||

    The ABA does not license lawyers. They are a professional organization.

    They are free to take political positions if they chose. Whether that is wise is a matter for the membership.

  • Toranth||

    Let me quote from the original article:

    members of the ABA (which include me, as all law professors are essentially required to be members)


    It seems to be difficult to not be a member of the ABA. In practice, that "voluntary" association is a mandatory licensing organization. They *wrote* many of the laws used by states to regulate the practice of law - to the point that laws directly cite the ABA.

  • John Galt Jr||

    What does that have to do with licensing???

  • Lee Moore||

    By supporting the policy of one party against the policy of the other ?

    btw "to try to determine if the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are true" is partisan crock too. 36 years on it is impossible to determine whether the allegations are true. The purpose of the investigation is to benefit the Democratic Party, by :

    (a) running out the clock on the current Congress in the hope that somehow something will turn up to prevent a 5th conservative getting onto SCOTUS
    (b) if that fails, dragging the 5th conservative through the mud so thoroughly that SCOTUS itself is discredited
    (c) by then allowing the next move whch is to complain that the investigation is inadequate, so as to give red State Dem Senators some cover for trying to vote Kavanaugh down.

  • MoreCurious||

    That's pretty much accurate -- except for none of it. (1) Kavanaugh and Judge could decide to tell the truth. (2) There would now be a fifth conservative on the court if the nominee had been someone like Roberts, Alito, or Gorsuch. (3) If the court is discredited it will be due to Kavanaugh's behavior -- from the time he was a teenager to the time of his testimony on Thursday. (4) Even if Kavanaugh is voted down, the Democrats have no ability to prevent a fifth conservative from getting onto the court (except perhaps if Trump continues to nominate people like Kavanaugh).

  • perlchpr||

    (1) Kavanaugh and Judge could decide to tell the truth.

    Perhaps they have.

  • FlameCCT||

    SPLC? LMAO, they're already in the bag for the Progressives (Marxists) along with a good majority of the ACLU. It is sad that so many people fail to see what has been occurring with Progressivism including their abhorrent past.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    The ABA has been known as politically partisan for quite some time.

  • Mr. Hook||

    So was it being politically partisan when it originally ranked him as "well-qualified"?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Conservatives can't abide mainstream institutions. They have formed their own AARP, their own ACLU, their own NAACP, etc. It's called narrowcasting, and as long as there are enough intolerant, backward people to support an office and register a website, it can work. Fox News, for example, makes plenty of money with a few million viewers in a country of 330 million people.

    To a movement conservative, just about every institution in American society not formed by and for right-wingers seems objectionable.

  • jph12||

    No, but it was still a politically partisan organization when it ranked him as "well-qualified." That just reflects how well qualified he is.

  • TheAmazingEmu||

    Maybe we can focus on the lack of clarity involving the person getting life tenure first and then go from there.

  • KenveeB||

    The ABA has been strongly partisan for a long time. I had my one-year membership right out of law school and have declined to be a member ever since it expired. They don't represent the majority of lawyers in the US.

  • Eddy||

    ABA advocates common-sense steps to curb gun violence:

    https://bit.ly/2In7JnC

  • MoreCurious||

    Could it simply be common sense? Why would a membership vote be necessary? Aren't we all interested in seeing if the truth can be determined? What role does one's political views have in the search for truth?

    The number of people, including Volokh Conspiracy bloggers, members of the United States Senate, and reasonably sentient beings, who do not believe that a real FBI investigation is needed before this man takes a seat on the Supreme Court, must be close to zero.

    Any Conspirator care to argue against the need for an FBI investigation?

  • AmosArch||

    She's had almost 4 decades and you guys have the rest of eternity and hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars in resources to pursue whatever investigation you want. If its as serious as you say a justice isn't a deity. They can be removed with enough will. Since you're so against the idea of rushing or doing a hamhanded job why does the confirmation have to be after the investigation? In fact it being before might increase the quality by taking the pressure off everybody.

  • NToJ||

    Yea, man, why did we need to investigate Hillary before the election? Presidents get impeached more than SCOTUS justices.

  • QuantumBoxCat||

    You mean the "corrupt fbi" that is the part of the deep state conspiracy against the President and the "American people"?

    Oh, wait, are we not bashing the FBI in this scene? Darnit, I can never keep my story lines straight with all the overlapping players and changes in the object of partisan outrage.

    Bernstein's posts always help in showing who is the object of conservative ire in a given situation. So far it appears to be the human memory, and the ABA, but I'm sure he isn't done writing on this issue.

    It will be interesting to see what approach is taken if something that even looks corroborating is uncovered by the FBI. My guess is that it will be the result of biased FBI agents or a coordinated conspiracy by Democrats to pay off people to lie. The plot just thickens and thickens ....

  • QuantumBoxCat||

    On second thought, I think if the FBI gets even close to corroborating Ford's claim, or identifies anything that would be unflattering of Kavanaugh if written in a report, he withdraws his name from consideration as a means of ending the investigation. But, his statement will be that he is withdrawing so save his family from having to be continually subjected to a "disgusting partisan process that has already damaged his name and reputation." He'll say the investigation has not been fair and the FBI has intruded into every personal detail of his and his family's life. Maybe find an agent that once had dinner with a Democrat and use that to argue the investigation was biased and tainted.

    Trump accepts the withdrawal of the nomination and castigates Democrats for the sham they have perpatrated, and harm they have done to the man's life. You just need some bit of doubt to remain and rationalization will do the rest.. The story line will just be how Democrats orchestrated a "hit job" against a good man, all for partisan politics.

    Or maybe nothing turns up and he's confirmed next week. Either way, there's gonna be outrage!

  • Lee Moore||

    Or the investigation turns out to be inconclusive as it's about alleged happenings 36 years ago, about which the complainant can't offer a time or a place or a consistent cast of characters...

    ....and the Dems complain that more time is needed for a fuller investigation, and the circus continues until the Dems regain the Senate.

  • QuantumBoxCat||

    I agree with the sense of what you are trying to say, but not with how you've said it.

    You start by blending together a conclusion made in the future that supports what you appear to believe is already conclusive. I tried avoiding any claim to a conclusions, arising from the investigation, as the Senators on the Judiciary Committee frequently stated that the FBI does not reach conclusions. Whether this is a correct claim, I leave to somebody more familiar with FBI investigatory procedure.

    But, lets flip my claim and assume that the investigation results in evidence and testimony that seriously undermines Ford's claims and corroborates Kavanaugh's. Should that occur, then yes, I think Democrats will throw a fit and claim that the investigation was hampered, that agents were actively seeking to vindicate Kavanaugh, and that we still don't know the "real truth." What I could envision as the worst possible outcome in this context is that Democrats, assuming Kavanaugh then gets approved, erode the credibility of the Court as an institution by claiming that his decisions should all be viewed as tarnished. This seems like a possible outcome, and I would argue that it is one where everyone loses.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The Conspirators -- especially those familiar with Judge Kavanaugh -- are courageously keeping their heads down and their mouths shut (at least in public).

    First, they are smart enough to recognize that movement conservatism -- their driving motivation -- has established this as its hill, in a context in which it is likely to become tougher and tougher to maintain an electoral coalition for movement conservatism.

    Second, they seem to recognize that Donald J. Trump might the final president inclined to nominate movement conservatives to their bench during their useful lives, and that Trump prizes obsequiousness and perceived loyalty above all other attributes.

    Third, they have developed a white, male, right-wing blog . . . not likely the environment that would generate substantial sympathy for a Dr. Ford, especially not with a Judge Kavanaugh on the other side.

    Expect more valiant silence from the Conspirators.

  • bernard11||

    Yes. The sound of silence is deafening.

  • DjDiverDan||

    Yes, I would like to argue against the need for yet ANOTHER FBI investigation (How many has Brett Kavanaugh been through since 1992? Six? Seven?) But I have already been worn out arguing with leftist idiots this week, and I have neither the time nor inclination to argue with another one.

  • aluchko||

    I'm sure you're as against investigating Kavanaugh for this new allegation as much as you are for re-investigating H. Clinton for a previously investigated allegation.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Hillary was investigated. Did you miss Comey's description of it, just prior to the 2016 election.
    Are you defending a looser standard -- no investigation -- for Kavanaugh, a Republican? On what basis?

  • aluchko||

    I think you misread my comment.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Grahted. Please accept my deepest apology.

    Or assume I was doing the same as you to DjDiverDan :-)

  • CrispyBacon||

    My reading is that the ABA stakes its reputation, in a manner of speaking, or is at least seen as a gate keeper for nominations by giving its well-qualified rating to nominees. Kavanaugh's recitation of their approval in the hearing yesterday likely spurred a movement, internal and/or external, to do something. So the ABA, to protect its role as above-it-all arbiter chose to endorse the superficially appealing "FBI investigation" route.

  • Jeff_Kleppe||

    The ABA hasn't rescinded it's well-qualified rating, though.

  • aluchko||

    Nor should it.

    He's still well-qualified, but with a set of serious accusations that need to be investigated.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    His display of partisanship and intemperance could warrant review of the rating, particularly in a context in which his partisanship and temperament were questioned more than a decade ago.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    The partisanship alone makes him unqualified. The conspiracy element, which was a fucking lie.
    He literally adopted Trump;s psychopathic notion of a conspiracy of Clinton and other Democrats to overturn the 2016 election!

    How many conspiracies will he invent on the bench, when writing opinions?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Like you, the dean of Yale Law is a communist traitor opposed to any patriotic American jurist serving on the SCOTUS.

    Now get your senile ass to hospice so we can be rid of you.

  • Sarcastr0||

    the dean of Yale Law is a communist traitor

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Anyone who does not slurp Trump's cock (like Last of the Shitheads) is .... "a communist traitor." Because the Authoritarian Right be goobers. And trash-mouth thugs ... when they FAIL on the issue at hand (which is almost always)

  • Ben_||

    You should update this in light of the new ABA letter contradicting the Carlson letter.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    You should update your sources This one has caused you to publicly humiliate yourself.
    The FBI investigation was ordered by Trump, long before you posted this.
    And the Senate Judiciary Committee, long before that

    Further, Judge Kavanaugh stated his qualifications, including Yale School of Law, which he described as the nation's premier law school. But even the Dean of Yale Law has called for an investigation.

    Even Rachel Mitchell, the GOP's own chosen own prosecutor ended her questioning of Dr. Ford by ridiculing the 5-minute-increment hearing as improper treatment for ANY alleged victim of sexual abuse.

    I expect Kavanaugh to withdraw. There's no place for him to hide. Plus his own proven perjury,

    The GOP's shameful Kangaroo Court has failed.

  • AmosArch||

    Well looks like the Dems are getting what they supposedly want. Not that it will satisfy them.

  • Kazinski||

    They should be careful what they ask for. There are several Red State Dems that need this over as soon as possible, McCaskill and Heitkamp may already be toast, but Tester's race has narrowed, Nelson isn't out of the woods, and Bresden, Sienama, Rosen and Donnelly don't want to make this a referendum on Roe vs Heller in their states, because Heller likely wins.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You figure the Ford-Kavanaugh display will hurt Democrats at the polls?

    Have you ever met a woman? An educated person? A resident of a modern, successful community?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Kavanaugh will likely withdraw. He's already been documented as having committed perjury. Twice.
    Most blatant, his lie that he was drinking legally -- but that required him to be 21.

    He may have misspoken, the lie repeated by the Trump echo chamber, that all four others at the party had denied the event happened -- but only Kavanaugh denied it. All the others only said they could not recall it, even Mark Judge, whose book describes an out-of-control drunk named ..... wait for it ...
    "Bart O'Kananaugh" (wink, wink) And Judge Kavanaugh TWICE refused to deny that it was him, when questioned directly, under oath. WHY? Perjury is the most likely,

    And who can deny the ability of Trumpsters to deny even the most obvious facts.

  • Tom Watson||

    I completely with Prof. Bernstein, and was very disappointed in the shabby response he received from the ABA.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The ABA rated Judge Kavanaugh "well qualified" despite longstanding concerns regarding temperament and partisanship.

    Other than that, great comment!

  • tekcoyote||

    Is Stevens a member of the ABA or just an officer? Prof. Bernstein and others ~are~ members, so they arguably speak more directly for the membership than does Stevens. Therefore there's no reason for them to hold back on writing a letter ~as~ the ABA and stating a contrary view.

    At the very least, that will create the requested transparency.

  • Grumbler||

    The ABA has imbibed the liberal cool-aid. Almost wish I was a member so I could resign.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    Wow. Did you really just link to tour own comment in this thread?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    David Nolan/Ellis Wyatt often does that. He was "Michael Hihn" before Reason banned him and scrubbed every one of his comments from every article he ever commented on. He is a deranged lunatic.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Wow. Did you really just link to tour own comment in this thread?

    WOW.
    That's where Nolan provided the PROOF that HUMILIATES your sorry ass.

    Anyone who clicks the link will ALSO see proof that you and Last of the Shitheads are fucking psychos.

    And sniveling cowards.,

  • NToJ||

    Why are law profs required to join the ABA? I'm not renewing this year and it feels great. (Not because of anything political.)

  • AmosArch||

    I'm a little disappointed in the leftwingers. These first few attempts have been sloppy. People are willing to swallow a lot when it comes to unsubstantiated sex claims against men as we've seen but you can't be completely careless. If I was them (ie morally bankrupt) I'd use this precious additional week to dig around the corners of the DNC donation box for an extra fiddy and a pack of Marlboros to buy a 'corroborating witness' or two. Who for some reason after this wall to wall coverage hasn't come forward but is here now that they need to address this specific weakness.

  • Lee Moore||

    I think now we've started down the investigation route, the assembled line of extra complainants can be put on hold. "We must have a fuller investigation" can be kept going until early January, surely ?

    And the fact that Flake sprung this at the last minute, after discussions with the Ds and not the Rs, does not indicate that he's going to be shy about marking time indefinitely.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    "We must have a fuller investigation" can be kept going until early January, surely ?

    Typical Trumpster hysteria, The request -- from the very first moment -- was for no longer than a week. And the President ordered it as requested, limited to current allegations -- which MEANS not just Ford's -- and no longer than next Friday.

    So, you question has been a known fashehood for at least 8 hours before you asked.
    Trinal partisan loyalty, over facts, is what created this moral atrocity.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If I was them (ie morally bankrupt)

    Liberals are morally bankrupt.

    Conservatives are stale-thinking, can't-keep-up, superstitous bigots.

    Where is the hope for America, Amos Arch?

  • Kazinski||

    I don't see anything wrong with Carlson speaking for the entire ABA with his letter.

    And as I'm speaking for the entire Volokh commentariat, past present and future, with this comment that should basically end the matter.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    That would be POSSIBLY sane, if you were the President of Volokh Conspiracy.
    But you're not ... which makes you a whiner.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And you're a piece of shit that should be committing suicide instead of bothering adults.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Last of the Shitheads9.30.18 @ 12:49AM|#
    And you're a piece of shit that should be committing suicide ...
  • Naaman Brown||

    An underage person was then (and maybe still is) legally allowed to drink beer, at a private party in a private residence in Maryland.
    The state drinking age applied to buying alcohol and possessing it in public, and especially consuming it in public.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Unfortunately (for you) that's not what Kavanagh said.
    One of MANY evasions and diversions.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You simply are not capable of understanding things like this. Another reason you should go away forever.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Kavanaugh committed perjury several times, repeating two lies..

    1) He claims he was legally allowed to drink beer, but his drinking was illegal. The drinking age in Maryland changed to 21, before he became a senior, and he was not 18 as a junior. Associated Press

    2) He also lied that the other four people at the party have "denied" the events. HE is the only one denying it. The others all said they could not remember it, BIG difference. Only one other student was in the room, Mark Judge, and even he did not deny it happened, only that he could not recall it. AP Fact Check

    Most notable to me, Kavanaugh twice REFUSED to answer if he was the out of control drunk depicted in Mark Judges book as "Bart O'Kavanaugh." (wink wink) Is that because he was under oath? (lol)

    Check my sources. If recent history on this topic is a guide, this will now be followed by the typical raging hatred and personal attacks by Trump's loyal cyber-bullies NEVER any SUPPORTED challenge to the known facts.

    Because: Left - Right = Zero
    Both authoritarian, less than 40% of Americans, and still shrinking..

    It's over Trumpsters. Deal with it.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Fucking psychos

    Kavanaugh said, "Yes, there were parties. And the drinking age was 18. And yes, the seniors were legal" VIDEO PROOF

  • Brett Bellmore||

    According to the relevant ABA committee, the letter was issued by Carlson without bothering to contact them. It wasn't the ABA requesting the delay. It was Carlson speaking for the ABA without consulting anybody else first.

    The ABA is terribly political about judicial nominations, which is why Republicans no longer solicit their opinion. But this wasn't even the ABA.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    According to the relevant ABA committee, the letter was issued by Carlson without bothering to contact them. It wasn't the ABA requesting the delay.

    But TOTALLY irrelevant. That is NOT the "relevant committee" -- there is no such thing.

    The "Standing Committee" determines the ABA ratings.The SOLE purpose of their letter was to confirm that nothing had affect Kavanagh's rating (Highly qualified, or whatever their highest rating is), and is TOTALLY separate from ABA leadership.

    Washington Examiner
    "The Committee conducts non-partisan, non-ideological, and confidential peer review of federal judicial nominees. The ABA's rating for Judge Kavanaugh is not affected by Mr. [Robert] Carlson's letter," the letter concluded.

    You stand corrected. Nothing else is relevant here.

    t was Carlson speaking for the ABA without consulting anybody else first.

    Here's my link, where's yours.

    The dean of Yale Law School -- Kavanaugh;'s alma mater -- also called for an investigation.
    And the President requested an FBI investigation .. over 12 hours before you posted this.
    Please try to keep up,

  • Naaman Brown||

    So, are you saying that Carlson consulted the Dean of Yale Law School and President Trump and the three of them speak for the ABA as an organisation?

    Or, is it still that Carlson expressed his position in the name of the ABA without consulting the rest of the ABA?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Is that supposed to be satire?

    So, are you saying that Carlson consulted the Dean of Yale Law School and President Trump and the three of them speak for the ABA as an organisation?

    THAT is why I asked about satire, being as kind as possible/.

    Or, is it still that Carlson expressed his position in the name of the ABA without consulting the rest of the ABA

    NEITHER of us said anything close to that,
    He mentioned what he (falsely) thought was the "relevant committee."
    I corrected his multiple errors and provided a source.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Naaman, don't listen this idiot.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Another BIG demand that Kavanaugh be withdrawn,,,

    This from a leading Jesuit publication, America Magazine. (Kavanaugh's high school was Jesuit)
    To this, add this the Dean of the prestigious Yale Law School, Judge Kavanaugh's own alma mater,

    The list is growing of supposedly dishonest answers from Kavanaugh on Thursday, now expanded to include diversions, evasions and refusals to key question. Personally, his refusal to deny that he is the total drunk in Mark Judge;s book, a classmate named "Bart O'Kavanaugh" This one is becoming a bandwagon. He claims innocence everywhere EXCEPT this published incident.

    With all Kavanugh's other claims that he was never a heavy drinker, why would he refuse to say it was not him who puked into a car and passed out? It's quite reasonable to assume he was avoiding perjury. He refused twice. The first one, he set his jaw and went totally silent, defiantly. New "witnesses" are popping up on his heavy drinking, including an ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, who says Mark described an event similar to Dr. Ford.s.

    At this moment, he's likely to be gone, long before the FBI finishes.

    (now the shrieking goobers)

  • Tall Paul||

    The ABA has a long history of engaging in this type of partisan political activity. One of the worst examples was the decision of one of the members of the judicial qualifications committee to leak information about the committee's decision to give Judge Bork the ABA's highest rating when he was nominated for the Supreme Court. Based on the leak, the liberal media was able to create a general public impression that the committee had given Judge Bork a lower rating that it actually had. As I recall, the person widely believed to be the source of the leak was later elected to be the ABA President. In addition, the ABA actually failed to give Justice O'Connor a highly qualified rating when she was nominated for the Court by President Reagan. That alone was enough to make me resign my membership.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Fucking liar (National Review)

    And full of shit on the NY Times reporting

    NR and the Times both reported the same core fact. Bork got the highest rating, but it was a spit vote.

    Shameful.

    You belonged to the ABA? (lol)

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Another BIG call for Kavanaugh to be withdrawn.

    This from a leading Jesuit publication, America Magazine. (Kavanaugh's attended a Jesuit high school).
    To this, add this the Dean of the prestigious Yale Law School, Judge Kavanaugh's own alma mater,

    The list is growing of supposedly dishonest answers from Kavanaugh on Thursday, now expanded to include diversions and refusals to key question. Personally, his refusal to deny that he is the total drunk in Mark Judge;s book, a classmate named "Bart O'Kavanaugh" This one is becoming a bandwagon. He claims innocence everywhere else EXCEPT this published incident. With all his other claims that he was never a heavy drinker, why would he refuse to say it was not him who puked into a car and passed out?

    It's quite reasonable to assume he was avoiding perjury. He refused twice. The first one, he set is jaw and went totally silent. New "witnesses" are popping up on his drinking, including an ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, who says Mark described an event similar to Dr. Ford.s.

    At this moment, he's likely to be gone, long before the FBI finishes.

  • William_Zanzinger||

    So Bernstein is calling for transparency about the ABA decision, but apparently has no transparency concerns regarding the White House refusing to release a hundred thousand pages of Kavanaugh's documents. Shocking!

  • Union Thug||

    Why doesn't the Supreme Court's reasoning in Janus apply to compulsory membership in the ABA? The government requires attorneys to belong to the ABA. The ABA takes positions on political issues that may be at odds with those of some its members. Isn't there a 1st amendment problem there?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online