Senate OKs Trump judicial pick who was rated ‘not qualified’
On a party-line vote of 50-48, the Republican-led
Grasz served for more than 11 years as
In one opinion he helped craft, he said the legacy of the landmark abortion rights ruling Roe v. Wade was its "moral bankruptcy." Another opinion he helped write warned of the "grave danger" of the
Some liberal advocacy groups fear Grasz will be hostile to abortion rights and laws protecting gays from discrimination.
Culture wars are hardly new when it comes to debates over the federal judiciary, but the battle over Grasz's confirmation has additional acrimony as the
Sen.
Grasz is the 10th appellate court nominee of the Trump presidency to win confirmation. Two more appellate court nominees are expected to be voted on later this week.
By comparison, President
Grasz was only the third nominee since 1989 to be unanimously deemed "not qualified" by the ABA. In that time, it has reviewed more than 1,700 nominees.
Since Grasz's evaluation,
"If the
The ABA's rating is based on information gleaned from interviews with other lawyers, the writings of the nominee and interviews with the nominee. An evaluator gathers the information and presents it to a committee made up of 15 lawyers representing every judicial circuit in the country. A second evaluator looks at the case if there is a possibility of a "not qualified" rating.
In written testimony to the
The ABA said it is critical to protect the identity of the people they interview so they will be candid.
"I can't trust such a secretive process, especially when the ABA won't even shed any light on with whom it spoke," Grassley complained.
In most administrations, the ABA has been advised of proposed nominees before they have been announced publicly or their nominations have been sent to the
Prior to Obama,
So far, the ABA has rated 57 of Trump's nominees. Fifty-three came back as "well qualified" or "qualified." Four have been considered "not qualified."
Grasz told the committee that because of the nature of the ABA's process, it was impossible to know the reasoning behind "these anonymous comments." However, he said he represented the state in several high-profile cases involving controversial issues. In one such case, he assisted in the state of
"I fully understand the fundamental difference between serving as an advocate and a judge," he said. "Advocates represent their clients' interests. Judges must be neutral officials who apply the law as it exists and not according to any personal views or opinions."


Congressman Johnson Oversees Hearing on Opioid Epidemic
Gov. John Bel Edwards, 11 other governors urge Congress to reauthorize CHIP
Advisor News
- Gen X and millennials seek new retirement model
- Are families ready for the costs of aging at home?
- When a client moves, their insurance plan needs to move, too
- A rising retirement challenge: The license to spend
- Financial stress leaves less room for retirement saving
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- A client remarried: Does their annuity still fit?
- Gen X and millennials seek new retirement model
- Global Atlantic names Dan Farrelly head of IMO and IBD channels
- A rising retirement challenge: The license to spend
- What lower interest rates mean to annuity payouts
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News