DOJ Ditches ABA Judicial Vetting Because 'Being Qualified' Is Too Woke
DOJ Ditches ABA Judicial Vetting Because 'Being Qualified' Is Too Woke
abovethelaw.com
DOJ Ditches ABA Judicial Vetting Because 'Being Qualified' Is Too Woke - Above the Law
21 comments
-
-
-
Hoodiyeehaw
-
Contrary to popular belief, the hood and the holler have a great deal in common, but only one of them votes and if the other did I’m afraid they would be too racist to be of any help.
-
-
-
Meanwhile, entry level workers are being rejected after interview number five and a full proctology exam.
-
Have those workers tried being friends with rich people?
-
Ahh, good idea. I think I have the excerpt from our handy guide on how to be friends with rich people:
Step 1
Be rich.
-
-
I’ll have you know the proctology exam is a “task-based” exam that you administer to yourself on a shared google doc and webcam, and I scored fist out of elbow.
-
-
Trump admin only hires based on soul selling loyalty. Thats the only criteria. They will make shit up and excussss to avoid anything but butt sniffing loyalty
-
The only cope I have left is telling myself that all these dumb fucks have left the door wide open for commie mommy AOC to come in and lead us into the glorious revolutionary future. "BUT THAT JUDGE ISN'T QUALIFIED" the right screeches, as AOC smirks and says "they've read their theory, comrade. Have you?"
-
Lol AOC isn’t even extreme left. But given her online persona, I imagine she’d find the moniker “commie mommy” endlessly useful.
-
-
-
Look, woker. Qualifications are just a hindrance to an automatic rubber stamp for the executive, the king if you will. How can we smash existing rules and laws and fast track our own that are antithetical to America if pesky lawyers and judges who went to woke colleges perpetuate the existing laws which totally don’t exist? How are we able to still allow a serial abuser to abuse those he lords over if all your DEI leftist CRT laws are in the way?
21 comments
<blink>
fascism in progress</blink>
The ABA has historically been a rubber stamp for judicial appointments. They never had all that much power to begin with. Did the ABA stop Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito from taking the bench? What about Stuart Kyle Duncan or James Ho? Who have we actually been spared? Hell, how many members of the ABA are in the Federalist Society?
This isn't a change in policy, its a continuation minus the fig leaf of academic approval.
Just because it’s been flouted in the past doesn’t make getting rid of it a good thing. The ABA is an excellent input into whether a judge or lawyer should be approved. Removing it is an explicit way to limit criticism that should be part of the record.