Knowledge Bank

The paper explores the factors behind the American Bar Association's (ABA) ratings of federal judicial nominees, with special attention to the role of political ideology. The ABA, through its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, has traditionally been included in the pre-selection process of evaluating individuals for nomination to federal judgeships. Recently, the George W. Bush administration removed the ABA from its traditional role in the pre-selection process, citing concerns of a bias against conservative nominees in the ratings process. A recent piece by Vining et al. titled, "Bias and the Bar: Evaluating the ABA Ratings of Federal Judicial Nominees," empirically examines the possibility of a bias in ABA ratings. While this piece represents an admirable foray into an area of scholarship left largely untouched in recent decades, a number of oversights in key areas limit its overall effectiveness. Thus, this project replicates the aims of the Vining piece utilizing more valid metrics. The paper considers all federal judicial appointees from the first term of President Reagan through the second term of President Clinton. Measures of association are used to evaluate the relationship between a number of variables and ABA ratings. The results of the analysis suggest that, contrary to the conclusions in Vining et al., the primary factors in ABA ratings success are not political but professional and demographic. Furthermore, a qualitative analysis of selection in the modern reveals distinct approaches on the part of Republican and Democratic presidents that can explain the appearance of any bias.