So here’s a high-level summary of my previous eight posts on this matter: The ABA investigation of Wallace was led by someone (Kim Askew) with clear biases (see here and here) and conflicts of interest and overseen by someone else (Stephen Tober) with clear biases. The primary evidence that Askew offers in support of her conclusion that Wallace lacks judicial temperament is feeble and would appear not to reflect neutral principles that Askew would apply to nominees who litigated positions she favored. Much of the other vague evidence (see here and here) is offered in violation of the ABA’s own procedures. Askew ignored an obvious sign that the opposition to Wallace was orchestrated and therefore required additional scrutiny. Thomas Hayward’s second (and evidently cursory) review was done in a manner that ensured that it did not provide any check on Askew (point 5 here). And the ABA has resorted to various cheap gimmicks to advance its attack on Wallace.
Quite a performance. The only difficult question is whether the ABA’s testimony on Wallace is even sloppier and less persuasive than the ABA task force’s report on signing statements.