Sen. Ben Sasse - ABA Too Liberal to Rate Judges

[Edge-]

http://dailysignal.com/2017/11/17/sa...s-not-neutral/

The consideration of federal judges with lifetime appointments is perhaps the most important and long-lasting work the Senate will do between now and the end of the year.

Every senator, Republican and Democrat, took an oath to perform this duty. Nobody took an oath to outsource this duty to any outside organization. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee are apparently willing to hand over their voting cards to the American Bar Association based on the claim that the ABA is an unbiased, indifferent umpire that just calls balls and strikes.

The American Bar Association is not neutral. The ABA is a liberal organization that has publicly and consistently advocated for left-of-center positions for more than two decades now. The ABA has no right to special treatment by members of this body.

It’s pretty simple—if you’re playing in the game, you don’t get to cherry-pick who the referees are. Take just for a moment a look at the amicus briefs that they have filed in recent years.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the ABA supported denying individuals their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
In the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the ABA supported forcing Christian organizations on campuses to accept members that reject their faith.
In Medellin v. Texas, the ABA forced states to recognize the judgments of the World Court in order to stop the execution of a gruesome murderer.
In United States v. Windsor, the ABA supported the recognition of same-sex marriage through judicial fiat rather than through legislative debate.
In Arizona v. United States, the ABA supported a constitutional ban on state and local law enforcement assisting and enforcing federal immigration laws, and the list goes on.
In each of these cases, the ABA decided to wade into divisive and contentious issues. This is their right, indeed, but it is definitely not neutral. In each of these cases and many more, the ABA took what can only be described as left-of-center positions. In each of these cases, the ABA was picking a side.

Again, to be clear, they are absolutely allowed to do this. It is what makes this country great. But it’s laughably naive to suggest that they are an objective and neutral organization. They are not.

The ABA cannot make liberal arguments to the nine members of the Supreme Court and then walk across the street and seriously expect that the 10 members of the Senate will be treating them like unbiased appraisers.

That is essentially what Attorney General Bill Barr said in 1992 when the ABA first began to openly take pro-abortion positions, which led to thousands of members quitting in protest because those members knew that the ABA’s claims to neutrality about political issues were no longer even possibly defensible.

Barr commented on the ABA’s pro-abortion advocacy at the time: “[B]y adopting the resolution and thereby endorsing one side of this debate, the ABA will endanger the perception that it is an impartial and objective association.”

Twenty-five years later, Barr’s words were right. His words ring true.

Again, I want to be perfectly clear. The ABA is allowed to have any view that its members want to have, and they are allowed to advocate and to protest on behalf of those views and on behalf of their members. This is America, and that’s exactly what the First Amendment is about.

That is fine, but what’s not fine is that the ABA, which is a liberal advocacy organization, would masquerade as a neutral and objective evaluator of judicial candidates.

The ABA cannot take blatantly liberal positions on the one hand and then masquerade as a neutral party on the other and then demand a special seat at the table in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the Senate, in this body, to try to tell us who is and isn’t supposedly qualified to be a judge.

Just like the ABA has every right to advance its liberal policy positions, every senator has the right and indeed the duty to give our advice and consent on judicial nominees.

If senators decide that they like and value the ABA’s policy positions and they like and value the ABA’s ratings, they are free to give them due deference and consideration. But don’t hide behind it. Don’t pretend that the ABA is something that it is not. Do not ignore the facts of what the ABA has become. The American people deserve honesty, not thinly veiled partisanship.

So, this is coming from a sitting US Senator...that's uh...interesting.

What the hell that's remotely inconvenient to Trump isn't part of some vast liberal plot against him and the government/world? This is getting ludicrous.

[Wyrt]

Well, when the Republican party went so far off the fucking deep end it's no surprising they see everyone as left leaning.

[Zoranon]

ABA is strongly liberal leaning (Abortion, Affirmative action, guns and so on), what a surprise...

What will be the next great revelation? That roses are red or ocean blue??

Still there is a potential amusement in this thread when the far left section of this board will start claiming that ABA is conservative...

[Polyxo]

I wonder if he considered the fact that the conservative side of those issues were legally indefensible.

[Gestopft]

"We're not extreme right, everyone else is crazy leftists."

[Wyrt]

ABA is strongly liberal leaning (Abortion, Affirmative action, guns and so on), what a surprise...

What will be the next great revelation? That roses are red or ocean blue??

Still there is a potential amusement in this thread when the far left section of this board will start claiming that ABA is conservative...

The "evil leftists!" argument would hold more bearing if people on these forums actually knew what the fuck left was.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Given that Sasse is a member of the party that outright stole the SC seat that Obama should have been allowed to pick, I have to say: fuck this guy and the horse he rode in on.

[Wyrt]

Given that Sasse is a member of the party that outright stole the SC seat that Obama should have been allowed to pick, I have to say: fuck this guy and the horse he rode in on.

But it was vitally important to keep the SC conservative so we could have more fantastic rulings like Citizens United.

[Breccia]

"And it's important to point out, when I talk about court cases, most people will just accept it without looking them up," Sasse continued (/s). "For example, that US vs. Windsor one? The gay marriage one? You will just assume the ABA agreed because they're leftists, not because SCOTUS ruled DOMA unConstitutional not once, but twice."

Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, held that the parties had standing to
appeal to the Court. On the merits, the Court held that by treating some persons
that the state has recognized as married differently than other persons that the
state has also recognized as married, the federal government violated the Equal
Protection principles guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. In effect, the Court held
that DOMA resulted in treating a subset of state sanctioned marriages as unequal
to other state sanctioned marriages.

Justice Kennedy noted that regulation of domestic relations is within states’
traditional authority, and that the sweeping nature of DOMA as applying to all
federal laws had the purpose and necessary effect of treating differently a
relationship that the state treated the same. This “demeans” the married couple
that is treated differently. In concluding, the Court made it clear that “[t]his opinion
and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages” under state law.

"So just accept what I say is left/right leaning, and don't bother finding out that DOMA violates states rights -- the ones right-leaning people such as myself claim to support unless it involves abortion or gay marriage or something else I don't like -- and also the Fifth Amendment. Because an educated voter is the last thing in the world we need: that's why the higher and higher your education goes, the more and more likely you are to vote Democrat."

[Kujako]

Is "everyone who disagrees with me a liberal" the new "everyone who disagrees with me is hitler"?

[Xeones]

This just in reality has a liberal bias.

Who knew?

I mean it's easy to call reality biased when you don't live in the real world!

[primalmatter]

http://dailysignal.com/2017/11/17/sa...s-not-neutral/



So, this is coming from a sitting US Senator...that's uh...interesting.

What the hell that's remotely inconvenient to Trump isn't part of some vast liberal plot against him and the government/world? This is getting ludicrous.

People picking judges should be as neutral as possible I find it hard to argue with the logic being presented.

[Breccia]

People picking judges should be as neutral as possible I find it hard to argue with the logic being presented.

Anyone even remotely related to blocking President Obama from filling a SCOTUS seat for nearly a year -- which Ben Sasse, elected in 2015, totally did -- while at the same time rushing Trump's pick in 2 months and approving another judge who had never tried a case in court -- which Ben Sasse also totally did -- is not following what you, or anyone else, calls "logic" by claiming someone else is being partisan and biased.

[primalmatter]

Anyone even remotely related to blocking President Obama from filling a SCOTUS seat for nearly a year -- which Ben Sasse, elected in 2015, totally did -- while at the same time rushing Trump's pick in 2 months and approving another judge who had never tried a case in court -- which Ben Sasse also totally did -- is not following what you, or anyone else, calls "logic" by claiming someone else is being partisan and biased.

I don't think it right when the other group does it as well. Its a tricky thing. Right now the country is right leaning but that could very well change since at the end of the day people really just want to be left alone.

I feel there should be a better system but I admit to being able to envision what it would be.

[Themius]

I don't think it right when the other group does it as well. Its a tricky thing. Right now the country is right leaning but that could very well change since at the end of the day people really just want to be left alone.

I feel there should be a better system but I admit to being able to envision what it would be.

The county isn’t right leaning. The country’s constituents are left leaning and the country’s representatives gerrymandered the shit out of everything to the point where they get to control things and they are right leaning.

[primalmatter]

The county isn’t right leaning. The country’s constituents are left leaning and the country’s representatives gerrymandered the shit out of everything to the point where they get to control things and they are right leaning.

I don't agree with that but I can't see how a argument about it could do anything but go in circles.

[Dacien]

Ben Shapiro has also implied that the ABA leans left. It wouldn't surprise me.

[Themius]

I don't agree with that but I can't see how a argument about it could do anything but go in circles.

Raw numbers agree with me. It’s like having 70 percent of people support something but in a small area and 30 percent of people living in more districts leading to them getting more voting power so the 30 percent ends up with 55% representation.

[Breccia]

I don't think it right when the other group does it as well.

I got that impression. I was just pointing out how Ben Sasse is being a complete hypocrite, so following his "logic" is not recommended.

[Adam Jensen]

Let me clue you in on the rules:

If it does things Republicans don't like, it's a liberal conspiracy