(This was just posted on the main page — reposting here in case you miss it there.)
At least five of the 15 members American Bar Association qualifications review panel who evaluated the legal background of Mississppi’s Michael Wallace, a former legal aide to Sen. Trent Lott, were charter members of the American Constitution Society, the liberal knock-off of the Federalist Society.
The panel has garnered attention in the past 36 hours after rating Wallace, nominated to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, as “unqualified.”
“This is a guy who is extremely bright and talented as a legal mind,” says a former classmate of Wallace’s at the University of Virginia Law School. “He clerked for a Supreme Court justice [Rehnquist]. He’s served our nation in positions of responsibility and performed well [Wallace was appointed to head the Legal Services Corp. by President Reagan]. This is not a case of the President nominating some ambulance chaser. This is a highly qualified individual.”
The only blotch on his record — if you’re a Democrat — is his service to Senator Lott as special counsel during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.
According to a Republican member of the ABA, the Wallace review is now the big buzz in ABA circles. “You talk to a lot of the Dems, and they say that this was coming, particularly after the Alito and Roberts nominations. Wallace is to them a test case. Can their reviews — which this White House has never taken seriously — influence Senate Democrats to fight? This is purely a power play by liberal Dems in the ABA trying to empower [Sen. Patrick] Leahy.”
The question now: Will the ABA’s move empower and energize Republicans both within the “Gang of 14” as well as on the campaign trail.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?