|
Abstract: In this article we comment on James Lindgren's defense of his study of ABA evaluations of prospective federal judicial nominees, which we critiqued in an earlier issue of this journal. In his original study, Professor Lindgren examined the ABA's ratings of sitting federal appellate judges who had been appointed by Presidents Bush (the elder) and Clinton. Professor Lindgren found that, among a subset of these judges, the Clinton nominees received higher ratings from the ABA, a difference that he was unable to account for using certain control variables. Professor Lindgren argued that the unexplained
differences were the result of bias on the part of the ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, favoring Democrats. In our critique, we showed why Professor Lindgren's data provided feeble support for his conclusions. Professor Lindgren's rejoinder sought to defend his original conclusions. We now respond to that defense. We proceed in the following way.5 Part I focuses on the central issues of the study's merits. It reprises the major methodological concerns we raised,
Professor Lindgren's responses to those concerns, and our thoughts about his responses. Part II addresses several more minor or tangential issues raised by Professor Lindgren in his rejoinder to us.
federal judges, judicial nominees, ABA
|