Lawyers interviewed legal group, shocked by the scathing criticism of Trump’s candidacy: ‘outrageous’

nearvideo-trump-of-court nominees Lawrence, Van Dyck moved to tears during Senate hearing

Raw video: Appeals court nominee Lawrence Van Dyck rejects the claim by the American Bar Association, it would not be fair, members of the LGBTQ community.

Several lawyers interviewed, the say of the American Bar Association for the evaluation of President Trump ‘ s Ninth Circuit court nominees Lawrence, Van Dyck, you were astonished when you read what sit as a scathing review to declare Van-Dyck – “Not Qualified” to be on the Federal bench.

Van-Dyck-burst into tears, while on Wednesday, the Senate judicial hearing Committee, when he was approached and refused the letter, the proposal, that it would be unfair to LGBTQ groups. The ABA also cited the accusations against the candidacy of arrogance, laziness, and General incompetence unnamed employees. After that, some in the legal community, will be jumped to Van-Dyck-defence.


“Absolutely outrageous and could not be further from the truth,” the former Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, the characterizations described in the ABA letter. Van Dyck served as state solicitor general under Laxalt, a Republican who ran unsuccessfully for Governor last year, from 2015 to 2019.

Laxalt told Fox News he worked with Van-Dyck-every day for four years and said: “he is incredibly hardworking” and “absolutely awesome.” While the ABA respondents said, thought Van Dyck was arrogant, Laxalt claimed that he was humble.

“People like the guy,” he said.

Here, the former Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt is shown, in a Donald Trump election campaign event on Sept. 20, 2018 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo: Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

Laxalt interview was conducted by 60 the ABA, for their evaluation process. He spoke on the phone with Marcia Davenport, was called by the Republicans, for after he contributed previously to the judicial campaign of anyone who ran against Van Dyck in the past.

During the interview, Laxalt said Davenport, “seemed totally disinterested” in his glowing recommendation. He said, you have not worked ask follow-up questions and not questions about the cases of the two men together, in spite of the opening of the interview with the observation that nine of the 10 most important cases, Van-Dyck-were listed, from his time working for Laxalt.

While the ABA’s letter said that “[D]Laxalt, he mentioned the negative aspects in this write thoroughly discussed with people,” said Davenport, “never anything negative”, and as a result he did not have the opportunity to defend him.

Joseph Tartakovsky, who was the Nevada Deputy solicitor general for three years under Van Dyck, was told his interview with Davenport lasted five to seven minutes, while “it was clear to me that you have to go through the motions”, as they are not asking questions, follow-up.

Tartakovsky said he was “surprised and dismayed” when he read the ABA letter, when he Van-Dyck-a strong recommendation, said he was an “exceptional lawyer” who would be good for the job.

“I told her that I thought he was born to be a judge,” he told Fox News.

Ashley Johnson, the work with Van-Dyck-for several years in the Dallas office of the law firm Gibson Dunn, released a Twitter thread about their experiences interviewed by Davenport, while Johnson gave a rave review.

“The conversation lasted less than 5 minutes,” Johnson tweeted to demand that Davenport appeared to be reading from a “script of questions”, before thanking her and hanging up.

Johnson told Fox News that “the entire call seemed to be very superficial,” and that she thought this was “because Lawrence is so obviously qualified and of high integrity.”

Another lawyer who has worked with Van Dyck, the former Utah solicitor general, Parker, Douglas found it “a little surprising” was that he was not interviewed, given by the ABA, its history, the cooperation with Van Dyck.

“I was surprised by the letter,” Douglas told Fox News.

“The guy is not only lazy, I can tell you that,” he added. He recalled that esoteric conversations with Van-Dyck-about appellate procedure, called him a “great appellate the doctor, and said it would be to say “nonsense”, otherwise.


The ABA did not directly address Fox News ‘ questions about their evaluation process, but William C. Hubbard, Chairman of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal judiciary, in a statement.

“The Standing Committee bases its evaluations only on a review of the integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament,” he said, adding that they were “on the basis of interviews with judges, lawyers, and other professionals who have knowledge or worked with the nominee” and “a composition from these interviews, the peer-review process.”

Hubbard also said that 97 percent of the reviews, the while the Trump-administration resulted in “Well-Qualified” or “Qualified” ratings, and that the nominees do not receive “Non-Qualified” classification without further examination.

The assessment itself was snappy.

“Mr. Van-Dyck-benefits are compensated to declare that the assessments of the respondents, Mr Van Dyck is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and it is the knowledge of the day-missing rules-to-day practice, including the procedures,” she said, why, in spite of his professional and scientific experience, they gave him a “Not Qualified” rating. “It was a topic that the candidates lack humility, which has a ‘claim’ temperament, not to have an open mind, and not always you have to be a commitment to open and honest.”

Twenty-two current and former state solicitor general, including Douglas, in a letter to Senate leaders in support of the Van-Dyck-nomination on the day before the ABA issued its assessment.

“Our origin, political philosophies, and state interests are diverse, but we are unanimous in our judgment that Mr Van-Dyck-character, legal sharp said sense and commitment to public service will make him an exceptional member of the Federal bench,” she said.

Van Dyck also said during the hearing that he was “shocked” when he read the ABA letter. He was influenced in particular by the assertion that there is concern over the question of whether it would be fair to the members of the LGBTQ community who appear before him in court, and the implication that his own ABA interview supported the concern.

“No, I didn’t say that,” Van Dyck said of the Senate with tears in his eyes. “I don’t think. It is a fundamental belief of mine that all the people in the image of God. They should all be treated with dignity and respect, senator.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., there might be a light to throw, where such concerns have their origin, asked Van-Dyck-a 2004 op-ed he wrote about how same-sex marriage can be harmful to children. Van Dyck said his views have changed since then, but noted that personal statements come into play in his judicial decision-making.

Senate Republicans have decreasing stocks in the ABA, the evaluations in the last few years. In 2017, the organization is known as Charles Barnes Goodwin and Leonard Steven Grasz “Not Qualified” if Trump is nominated for the Western district of Oklahoma, and Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, respectively. The GOP-controlled Senate confirmed them both.

In the case of Van-Dyck-hearing, Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., the ABA, for an alleged agenda of called and suggested, you will lose access to judicial nominees as a result.


The Wall Street Journal editorial board called the organization a “liberal lawyers’ guild” and referred to the letter as “character assassination” and “a mess of anonymous personal attacks and innuendo.”

You make the same proposal as Sens. Lee and Hawley, the editorial concludes, “It is free to candidates for ideological reasons, but it should be removed, of its privileged role in the confirmation process.”

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular