Well,
here
we
go
again,
because
apparently
the
lessons
of
Trump’s
first
judicial
rodeo
were
filed
somewhere
between
“ignore”
and
“double
down.”
Donald
Trump’s
nominee
for
a
lifetime
seat
on
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Montana,
Kathleen
“Katie”
Lane,
has
earned
herself
an
“unqualified”
rating
from
the
American
Bar
Association,
and
while
this
is
the
first
such
rating
of
Trump’s
second
term,
it
is
very
much
in
keeping
with
the
franchise.
A
quick
trip
down
memory
lane
reminds
us
that
the
ABA
handed
out
plenty
of
“not
qualified”
stickers
during
Trump
1.0.
They
scraped
the
bottom
of
the
barrel
and
found
ghost
hunters,
anti-gay
bloggers,
straight-up
associates,
and
one
candidate
(ultimately
confirmed
because
we
live
in
the
dumbest
timeline)
that
is
an
“arrogant,
lazy,
an
ideologue,
and
lacking
in
knowledge
of
the
day-to-day
practice
including
procedural
rules”
(an
assessment
Judge
VanDyke’s
time
on
the
Ninth
Circuit
has
proven
the
ABA
prescient).
Lane’s
problem
isn’t
ideological
—
the
ABA
goes
out
of
its
way
to
say
she’s
smart,
well-regarded,
and,
in
fact,
“at
the
top
of
her
peer
group.”
The
problem
is
that
being
a
promising
lawyer
is
not
the
same
thing
as
being
ready
to
run
a
federal
trial
courtroom.
And
according
to
Pamela
J.
Roberts,
who
chairs
the
ABA’s
Standing
Committee
on
the
Federal
Judiciary,
the
baseline
expectation
for
that
job
is
about
12
years
of
legal
experience,
a
benchmark
Lane
doesn’t
hit
even
with
generous
counting.
Now,
that
experience
gap
could
theoretically
be
offset
by
substantial
courtroom
work.
But
according
to
the
ABA’s
evaluation,
Lane
has
never
tried
a
case
as
lead
counsel,
has
only
briefly
cross-examined
a
witness
while
serving
as
fourth
chair
in
a
bench
trial,
and
has
taken
exactly
one
deposition.
She’s
argued
two
appellate
cases,
but
has
never
handled
core
trial
functions
like
jury
selection
or
opening
statements.
Which
is…
not
ideal
when
you
are
being
nominated
to
be,
checks
notes,
a
trial
judge.
Roberts’s
assessment
manages
to
be
both
polite
and
devastating,
noting
that
while
Lane
is
talented
and
well-liked,
“these
positive
attributes
do
not
compensate”
for
her
limited
time
in
practice
(less
than
nine
years
total,
including
clerkships)
and
her
lack
of
meaningful
trial
experience.
That’s
the
kind
of
feedback
you
give
a
midlevel
associate
you’re
not
quite
ready
to
make
partner,
not
someone
you’re
about
to
hand
a
lifetime
appointment
with
enormous
power
over
people’s
rights
and
livelihoods.
Naturally,
the
White
House
response
to
all
this
was
not
“maybe
we
should
nominate
someone
who
has,
you
know,
tried
a
case,”
but
rather
to
attack
the
messenger.
Spokesperson
Abigail
Jackson
dismissed
the
ABA
as
“useless
and
partisan”
and
insisted
that
Trump’s
nominees
undergo
a
“rigorous
vetting
process.”
Which
is
a
bold
claim
for
an
administration
currently
batting
cleanup
with
candidates
who
have
never
picked
a
jury.
This
ongoing
war
on
the
ABA
isn’t
happening
in
a
vacuum.
The
organization
has
been
evaluating
judicial
nominees
since
the
1950s,
operating
as
an
independent
check
on
professional
qualifications
rather
than
ideology.
But
in
the
Trump
era,
any
institution
that
produces
inconvenient
conclusions
gets
rebranded
as
biased,
partisan,
or
otherwise
illegitimate.
Which
is
all
part
of
a
broader
project
that
treats
the
rule
of
law
less
as
a
governing
principle
and
more
as
an
obstacle
to
be
managed.
Meanwhile,
Senate
Democrats
are,
unsurprisingly,
not
buying
what
the
White
House
is
selling.
Sen.
Dick
Durbin
cut
to
the
chase,
saying
the
ABA’s
letter
“confirms
what
we
already
knew:
Katie
Lane
is
clearly
untested
and
unqualified
to
serve
as
a
lifetime
judge,”
and
suggesting
the
administration
might
want
to
try
again
with
someone
who
actually
meets
the
basic
job
requirements.
But
if
history
is
any
guide,
“unqualified”
is
less
a
red
flag
than
a
mild
inconvenience
to
the
Trump
administration
and
a
Senate
unwilling
to
stand
up
to
the
bully
in
the
presidency.