 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - April 6, 2001 ABA's Peer Review of Judicial Nominees Should Continue By: Martha W. Barnett ABA President’s Statement For a half century , the ABA has been asked by every administration, Republican and Democratic alike, to evaluate the professional qualifications of virtually every potential nominee to the federal bench.President Dwight D. Eisenhower first invited the ABA into the process in 1953 to ensure a high-quality federal bench. He realized the pressure that existed to appoint people to judgeships solely as a reward for their work or financial contributions to political campaigns. Eisenhower wanted to ensure an objective, nonpartisan review of the professional competence, integrity and judicial temperament of those who would have lifetime appointments to our federal court system. Since that time every president has recognized the value of this pre-nomination review process, and the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary has worked with every administration to ensure the highest quality judiciary. [On March 22], we were advised that the current administration had decided to end this long history of pre-nomination peer review of potential candidates. We cannot think of any constructive purpose this serves. To understand the real impact of this decision, it is important to know what the committee does and what it does not do. • First and foremost, the standing committee evaluates the professional qualifications of potential judicial candidates on only three criteria: integrity, judicial temperament and professional competence. It does not consider ideology or political views of candidates and never has. Those are issues for the administration to assess. • The ABA never proposes candidates for consideration as federal judicial nominees, nor do we have a veto over the president’s ultimate choices. • The work of the standing committee is separate, independent and insulated from the ABA itself. The association receives absolutely no information on who is being considered or any potential rating until after the president officially nominates a candidate. The ABA at large has no input whatsoever in evaluating candidates. As president, I learn of the nominees and ratings at the same time as the public. • As the representative of all segments of the legal profession, the ABA is in the best position to provide this service. After a track record of nearly 50 successful years, this process has earned the confidence of the legal community and of the public. The result is that those individuals who are interviewed know they can be frank and forthright about the professional qualifications of candidates, and they know that this information will be held in confidence. • Charges that the standing committee has a bias against Republican nominees are false. Since 1960, presidents have nominated about 2,000 individuals to be federal judges. Of those, 26 were individuals the standing committee found "not qualified." Of those 26, 23 were the nominees of Democratic presidents and only three were the nominees of Republican presidents. • The committee’s process is completely confidential, and its rating is never disclosed unless and until the president formally nominates the individual. • Over the years the public has come to expect that there will be a steady, independent pre-nomination review of candidates’ professional abilities by their peers in the legal profession, and this has done much to instill public confidence and trust in the judiciary. The public and the justice system deserve no less. The administration says it is only ending "preferential" and "quasi-official" treatment of the ABA and that it wants the input of all groups. The ABA has historically been in the unique position as the national organization representing all segments of the legal profession in all areas of the country. By doing this pre-nomination vetting of the candidate with his or her peers, we have been able to help the administrations avoid embarrassment for themselves and the nominees when there were problems indicating disqualification and to foster the public’s confidence in the nominees and the process. It is a mystery why the administration would not want this input. The standing committee has performed this volunteer function solely as a service to the administration and the public. We will continue to provide our objective evaluations. The committee has played a big part in ensuring quality and professional competence on the federal bench. We believe information from a candidate’s peers on his or her professional qualifications is a critical component of the overall assessment. We further believe the standing committee’s work has contributed significantly to making America’s federal judiciary the envy of the world. Martha W. Barnett is the current president of the American Bar Association.
|
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
