ABA Explains Unanimous Not Qualified Rating of Wallace

Recently, the ABA rated Fifth Circuit nominee Michael Wallace unanimously not qualified. Such a rating is startling to say the least--Wallace was the first circuit court nominee in over twenty years to receive a unanimous "NQ", as the lingo goes. Today, in response to questions about their rating, the ABA released a statement on the investigation of Wallace. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Judiciary found that many of those intimately familiar with Wallace's record, including both judges and fellow lawyers, voiced deep concerns about his judicial temperament. Among these concerns were serious doubts about his commitment to equal justice; misgivings about his impartiality and open-mindedness; and particularly disturbing, the potential that Wallace may use his position and legal skills to "change or modify the law to reflect his person views rather than rely upon and apply existing precedent." Not exactly what one would hope for in a lifetime appointee to one of our nation's second highest courts. And this is just a sampling from the report. It really is a must-read.

Conservative activists are, of course, up in arms, railing against the Standing Committee's conclusions. It's certainly a different tune than the "gold standard" one they like to sing when the ABA comes back with a rating they like.