On Wednesday, President Trump’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Lawrence VanDyke appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. During the hearing, several senators brought up the American Bar Association’s letter smearing VanDyke. In the letter, the ABA claimed that VanDyke was “not qualified” to be a judge.

The ABA based this rating off interviews and said many colleagues who had worked with VanDyke described him as "arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-today practice." The letter also said, “Some interviewees raised concerns about whether Mr. VanDyke would be fair to persons who are gay, lesbian, or otherwise part of the LGBTQ community. Mr. VanDyke would not say affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before him, notably members of the LGBTQ community.”

VanDyke cried during the hearing when he was informed of the American Bar Association’s position. While I found the display of emotion a little disconcerting, it’s also easy to see how intense emotions can accompany disingenuous, partisan attacks. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh too burst into tears when accused of sexual assault without any evidence.

VanDyke appears to be as qualified as many of the other Trump nominees.

According to the White House’s official announcement, VanDyke is the deputy assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice. Before that, he was Nevada's solicitor general, “where he served as the State’s top appellate attorney and litigated numerous cases on behalf of the State of Nevada in the United States Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Nevada Supreme Court, and State and Federal district courts.”

VanDyke graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and was also a clerk at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

I can’t speak to VanDyke’s character, and it’s certainly true that many accomplished people (especially lawyers) can be arrogant, but it’s hard to imagine VanDyke such a high level of success professionally if he was actually lazy and didn’t know his field.

It’s much more likely this is all political.

On Thursday, RealClearPolitics reported that longtime Democrat donor Michael Black had something to do with the ABA giving VanDyke a poor rating, solidifying suspicions that this attack was a political ploy.

“Democratic senators are using derogatory statements from a Montana Justice Department official [Michael Black] to justify their opposition to Lawrence VanDyke, President Trump’s nominee for the Ninth Circuit, without disclosing that the official has donated nearly $30,000 to Democrats running for federal office nor the background that he and VanDyke are longtime political foes,” the article reads.

As a result, many attorneys have called out the ABA for what definitely seemed like an analysis of character motivated by politics, not VanDyke’s jurisprudence.

The ABA should no longer be involved in qualifying candidates for federal judiciary. It's proven itself incapable of an honest evaluation of candidates. https://t.co/VvOeyMEti5 — Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) October 30, 2019

Defense attorney Scott Greenfield tweeted a critique: “The ABA should no longer be involved in qualifying candidates for federal judiciary. It's proven itself incapable of an honest evaluation of candidates.”

In a statement, First Liberty Institute General Counsel Hiram Sasser called out the ABA for playing politics:

The American Bar Association’s subversive attack on Lawrence VanDyke should shock all Americans. This eleventh-hour attack and attempted character assassination of a brilliant lawyer was spearheaded by VanDyke’s former political opponent, and it should be rejected without further consideration.

Cato Institute Legal Scholar Ilya Shapiro tweeted, “Surprise, surprise: [The ABA] violated its own policies in rating VanDyke. I still don't see why one interest group gets privileged over all the others in this process.”

Surprise, surprise: @ABAesq violated its own policies in rating VanDyke. I still don't see why one interest group gets privileged over all the others in this process. https://t.co/H2uptO1cDT @mrddmia @SenMikeLee — Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) November 1, 2019

The ABA’s letter was so off-base, it distracted from VanDyke’s obvious qualifications. Conservative author Carrie Severino blasted the ABA’s treatment of VanDyke:

It is difficult to envision a more principled, highly-qualified nominee for the Ninth Circuit seat than Lawrence VanDyke. In his hearing ... he passionately and persuasively demonstrated his remarkable competence and character. Despite the unfounded, last minute attacks against him, VanDyke’s testimony forcefully conveyed his commitment to independence, fair treatment for all litigants, and dedication to equal justice under law.

The American Bar Association may play a valuable role in rating attorneys, but if it can’t remain consistent and abide by its own guidelines when evaluating judges, it should, to use a term it might appreciate, recuse itself from the process.

Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.