Eh. I don't think that's fair. The Republican argument is something more like "Even the liberal ABA gave our nominee a Well-Qualified rating."
-
-
-
I don't think that's inconsistent with what I said
-
Sure it is. You implied inconsistency, when there is none
-
I get that the ABA is seen as liberal, but it seems to me one either cares about what the they say or one doesn't. If you don't value how they evaluate nominees, then why tout a positive rating?
-
If one believes the ratings are biased, then a high rating for a conservative nominee is particularly notable.
-
It does raise the question: if the ratings are so biased, how come they gave him such a high rating?
-
Because the bias is most readily apparent at the margins (when a nominee is on the fence of WQ/Q or Q/NQ) and for lower-profile nominees. Even the ABA will give a highly qualified conservative SCOTUS nominee a WQ (today--but see Bork).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Funny how you just let your bias show in your reporting and have been called out for it in several replies.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That’s the Reuters takeaway from the ABA’s sterling review?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Same goes for leaking documents
#Kavanaugh#StopKavanaugh#SCOTUSThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Very true. They should appropriately dismiss it under all circumstances
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.