The American Bar Association’s (ABA) statement this week during a crucial point in Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination is drawing attention to another…
The American Bar Association’s (ABA) statement this week during a crucial point in Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination is drawing attention to another time the group weighed in late in his judicial confirmation process.
In 2006, when Senate Republicans finally hoped to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after three years of Democratic opposition, the ABA downgraded its endorsement of the George W. Bush nominee.
The group’s judicial investigator had interviewed dozens of people in the legal field who had worked with Kavanaugh, some of whom raised concerns regarding “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness,” the ABA said in its May 2006 report .
One judge remarked about the nominee’s “sanctimonious” presentation in court, arguing that Kavanaugh showed “experience on the level of an associate.” One particular lawyer argued that Kavanaugh “dissembled” in a different court proceeding.
The result was a downgrading of the group’s previous “well qualified” endorsement — its highest rating — to “qualified,” meaning he met the ABA’s standards to be a federal judge but was not necessarily an outstanding candidate.
The Washington Post, which first highlighted the ABA’s move 12 years ago compared to this week, noted that a day after the ABA downgraded its endorsement in 2006, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for Kavanaugh to appear before them again.
Senators gathered to discuss how seriously they should weigh the new endorsement, with Democrats saying it should be taken seriously while Republicans accused the ABA of bias or downplayed the importance of the endorsement.
Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed to the D. C. Circuit in 2006 and eventually reclaimed a “well qualified” endorsement, which he has maintained throughout his tumultuous nomination to the Supreme Court. He touted the endorsement during his appearance before the Judiciary panel on Thursday.
The ABA weighed in again on Kavanaugh’s nomination late Thursday after a rollercoaster day on Capitol Hill when Christine Blasey Ford delivered gripping testimony before the Senate panel about her allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, followed by the nominee forcefully defending himself.
After Ford and Kavanaugh testified in back-to-back appearances, the ABA called for the Judiciary Committee to postpone a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination until the FBI could investigate assault claims against him, drawing new questions about his nomination.
“We make this request because of ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law,” ABA President Robert Carlson said in a letter to the committee.
“The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI.”
President Trump on Friday ordered the FBI to open a weeklong, “supplemental” investigation into the allegations after Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and others threatened to withhold their final confirmation vote if such an investigation wasn’t opened.
The ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary noted in a letter to committee leaders on Friday that the group’s “well qualified” rating for Kavanaugh remains unchanged.
