There's an unsigned editorial in the Washington Post today that makes quite a lot of sense. It discusses two nominees for federal judgeships and the relative merits and weaknesses of the two men. It's pretty hard on Judge Terrence W. Boyle but stresses that Brett M. Kavanaugh should be confirmed. Based on what I have read about him, I agree. (Boyle's history is unknown to me, so I'm not sure about him).
One of the things that bug me about the ABA these days is having an unelected group have a virtual veto power over nominations. I think it's particularly bad when what appears to be a politically based downgrade of a candidate's ranking occurs. I cannot ever recall a nominee being re-ranked in the middle of a confirmation process. Yet that is exactly what the ABA did to Kavanaugh. I think it's time to take a look at whether the ABA should have the kind of power it does and whether it is exercising that power wisely.
