Bush nominee found unfit, but the surprise is that this finding of unfitness came before the confirmation, for once. If only the ABA had been asked to sign off on Mike Brown, or Porter Goss, or Scott McClellan, or Scooter Libby, or let's face it, GWB himself.
Nominee Rated 'Unqualified' By ABA Panel
NB: "But the White House stood by Wallace. 'We disagree with the ABA and reject their rating,' said Bush spokeswoman Erin E. Healy. 'Mike Wallace is a well-respected attorney with extensive experience in constitutional and commercial law.'"
So when the ABA vote is for Roberts, Alito or even Harriet Meiers, then the White House wants to shout it from the hilltops, but if the vote goes against our guy, then the ABA is a worthless lobby of slimy 'trial lawyers,' is that what we are to understand?
What's the strict legal term for that? Hypocrisy? Pandering? Republicanism as usual?
(And why do they call them 'trial' lawyers, isn't that redundant? Is there some set of 'non-trial' lawyers out there that Republicans approve of?)
No comments:
Post a Comment