"The ABA noted as much when it rated him "not qualified" upon his nomination, calling him "arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules." In response, the second Trump administration banned the ABA's input on judicial qualifications."
"He has since spent his tenure confirming their prescience with a string of unhinged and juvenile dissents that have compared his colleagues to criminals, insulted them as "possessed," and prompted pointed rebukes from his own court."
"Other conservative judges on the panel wrote more substantive dissents, managing to avoid the phrase "swinging dicks" while laying out a vision of First Amendment religious protection that would allow business owners to discriminate on the basis of sex."
Judge Lawrence VanDyke received an ABA rating of "not qualified" upon his nomination, with evaluators describing him as arrogant, lazy, ideological, and lacking procedural knowledge. The Trump administration subsequently banned ABA input on judicial qualifications. VanDyke's judicial tenure has validated these concerns through a series of controversial dissents containing personal attacks on colleagues and crude language. In Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, a discrimination case involving a women-only spa's ban on pre-operative transgender women, VanDyke authored a dissent opening with vulgar language. While other conservative judges on the panel presented substantive legal arguments for religious exemptions without resorting to crude phrasing, VanDyke's dissent employed inflammatory rhetoric and accusations against colleagues, demonstrating a pattern of unprofessional judicial conduct.
#judicial-conduct #professional-standards #discrimination-law #appellate-courts #judicial-qualifications
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]