Protesters in front of SCOTUS following President Donald Trump's nomination of now-Justice Neil Gorsuch.

President Trump has made a habit of selecting unqualified judicial nominees. So far, he’s nominated four candidates the American Bar Association, or ABA, has found “not qualified.” But all non-qualified judges are not alike. Two picks he’s just renominated appear to have strained the ABA’s capacity for euphemistic communications.

Magistrate Judge Charles Goodwin isn’t even showing up to the court he currently sits on, according to the ABA. Who’s to say he’d bother to trek to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma?

The Standing Committee’s concerns centered upon Magistrate Judge Goodwin's work ethic and availability to perform judicial duties. As set forth in the Backgrounder, integrity encompasses a nominee’s industry and diligence, and professional competence includes a nominee’s judgment. Magistrate Judge Goodwin's work habits, including his frequent absence from the courthouse until mid-afternoon, raised doubt for a majority of the Standing Committee’s members with respect to Magistrate Judge Goodwin’s ability to fulfill the demands of a federal judge appointed under Article III of the United States Constitution. Inaccessibility issues generated concerns about the timely and efficient administration of justice.

Then there's Holly Teeter, who Trump nominated to Kansas’ single federal district court—and isn’t qualified to be a judge at all.

The Committee believes that Ms. Teeter does not presently have the requisite trial experience or its equivalent.

In fact, Teeter doesn’t have any trial experience.

For context, “not qualified” ratings were, until Trump, quite rare.