Two Notable News Developments for This Holiday Weekend
Via How Appealing, of course (because who else besides us and Howard Bashman is blogging right now):
1. Controversial Fifth Circuit nominee Michael Wallace (at right), a member of the Elect (Rehnquist/OT 1977) who was still rated “unqualified” by the ABA, will ask President Bush to withdraw his nomination next week.
This is a smart and gracious move by Wallace, which will allow the White House to save some face. Since Wallace couldn’t even get confirmed in the Republican-controlled 109th Congress, his chances of confirmation in the 110th Congress would have been next to nil.
2. Disciplinary sanctions may be imposed upon Judge Manuel Real (C.D. Cal.), the Los Angeles federal judge accused of improperly intervening in a bankruptcy case to rescue a damsel probationer in distress (Deborah Canter, routinely described in news accounts as “a comely female”).
Ladies and gentlemen, chivalry is officially dead. What’s the point of being “a comely female” if you can’t get favorable treatment from the federal courts?
Judge Real has appealed the censure ruling of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council to the Judicial Conference of the United States. It’s not clear when they will rule.
Judicial hopeful steps aside [Clarion-Ledger]
Michael B. Wallace bio [Phelps Dunbar]
Web error reveals censure of U.S. judge [Los Angeles Times]
Manuel L. Real bio [FJC]
(4) 
Comments
It appears that the "unqualified" rating was a political decision and one not based on merit. It is pretty scary that the ABA (which is supposedly non-partisan) would rate someone with impeccable credentials as unqualified based on his "temperament" which is a code word for unpopularity with trial lawyers.
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/15882920.htm
The evidence against him was fairly flimsy. It seems if you are a conservative and want a high level judicial appointment you have to go out of your way to court liberal lawyers like Roberts did and you can't be outspoken in your beliefs.
I wouldn't mind the ABA so much if it would just admit to being a liberal advocacy group instead of pretending to speak for the entire legal profession.
Michael Wallace is an obvious political hack and his ABA rating accurately reflects that reality.
If Wallace held judicial aspirations, it might have been wise of him to avoid many of the jobs he has held for high-level Republicans in Mississippi and elsewhere; especially this one:
"In 1999, [Wallace] served as Special Impeachment Counsel to Senate Majority Leader Lott for the impeachment trial of President Clinton."
Sure, the fact that he attended Harvard College and UVA Law are impressive, but do not, without more, entitle him to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Finally, anyone who thinks that a career spent in service to someone like Trent Lott (or his Democratic equivalent) and the agenda of the far-right or -left will not affect one's chances at Senate confirmation to the federal bench -- whatever one's objective credentials -- is either naive or disingenuous.
1. Alex Kozinski actually advises people with judicial aspirations to become political hacks.
http://alex.kozinski.com/articles/So_You_Want_to_become_Federal_Judge.pdf
2. No one says that Wallace's educational pedigree entitles him to the seat. Those who imply that he's entitled by virtue of his resume also point out his Supreme Court clerkship.
3. If you look at Wallace's resume, it shows that he has spent most of his career as a well-regarded lawyer in private practice, not "a career spent in service to someone like Trent Lott"
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/wallaceresume.htm
kofi anonymous is an idiot, QED