**DONOTDELETE**
03-17-2001, 10:23 AM
http://www.miami.com/herald/content/news/national/digdocs/112276.htm
Published Saturday, March 17, 2001
Bar may lose role in judge
selection
Liberal views seen as Bush concern
BY NEIL A. LEWIS AND DAVID JOHNSTON
New York Times Service
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's legal advisors have told
the American Bar Association that they want to end the
group's nearly half-century role as a semiofficial screening
panel for judicial nominees, lawyers involved in the
discussions said Friday.
The lawyers said they believed that the proposal reflected
the administration's desire to shift the courts in a
conservative direction and to satisfy many conservative
Republicans who have long complained that the bar
association has displayed a liberal bias in evaluating
prospective federal judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel,
acknowledged in an interview that the bar association's role
was under review. But he would not discuss details pending
a meeting he is scheduled to have Monday with bar
association officials.
``I don't think it's appropriate to talk about it publicly without
first talking to the ABA about the process,'' Gonzales said.
If Bush goes ahead with the plan, it would end a practice
dating to the mid-1950s when the bar association began
reviewing the professional qualifications of judicial
candidates in both Republican and Democratic
administrations.
PANEL OF 15
The last time the issue of eliminating the special role of the
ABA arose was during the administration of the elder George
Bush, when Attorney General Dick Thornburgh objected to
the bar association's role in judicial selection and threatened
to end it. He relented after the bar association agreed to
modify its standards for evaluating judges, eliminating
questions about a candidate's personal philosophy.
The ABA uses a special committee of 15 lawyers, which
has proven highly influential in the judicial selection process.
The committee is supposed to weigh the integrity,
competence and temperament of prospective judges even
before they are formally nominated and sent to the Senate
for confirmation.
MIXED REVIEW OF BORK
The resentment of the bar association's special role has
festered since 1987, when the association's judicial
evaluation committee gave a mixed review to Judge Robert
H. Bork, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by
President Ronald Reagan. Four members of the committee
voted that Bork, then of the federal appeals court, was ``not
qualified'' to sit on the Supreme Court. Bork was rejected by
the Senate after a tumultuous confirmation battle.
Republicans said the negative evaluation of Bork stemmed
from his strong conservative views and cited the rating as a
factor in the Senate's rejection of Bork's nomination -- a
watershed battle that intensified the often harsh partisan
warfare between Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
The White House proposal reflects what some Democrats
said is the Bush administration's determination to quickly
put its ideological imprint on the federal judiciary.
The president's aides have started an intensive search to fill
judgeships, already interviewing nearly 60 candidates, most
of them for the 29 vacancies on the appeals courts, the level
just below the Supreme Court.
A spokeswoman for the ABA, Gail Alexander, said the
organization had not been formally notified of the proposal.
But she said that Martha W. Barnett, a lawyer in
Tallahassee and president of the association, is to meet with
Gonzales on Monday to discuss the group's role in
screening judges.
`MORE, NOT LESS'
In a letter sent Friday to Bush, Sens. Charles Schumer,
D-N.Y., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said: ``We firmly believe
that ending the long-established practice of ABA review
would dilute the quality of the federal bench. The process of
judicial selection needs more information about the
competence and integrity of potential nominees, not less.''
IMPROVING QUALITY
In an interview, Schumer said the screening committee had
succeeded in improving the overall quality of the judiciary
because nominees who are thought unlikely to earn a high
rating are never submitted for scrutiny. ``The effect of the
ABA screening process is to raise the bar to an acceptably
high level,'' he said.
Some lawyers have suggested that the White House might
seek guidance on prospective judicial nominees from other
groups outside the government, like the Federalist Society,
a conservative legal organization. That organization is
already well represented in the administration. Many of its
members have won key legal posts, among them senior jobs
in the White House counsel's office under Gonzales.
[This message has been edited by MikeNite (edited 03-17-2001).]
Published Saturday, March 17, 2001
Bar may lose role in judge
selection
Liberal views seen as Bush concern
BY NEIL A. LEWIS AND DAVID JOHNSTON
New York Times Service
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's legal advisors have told
the American Bar Association that they want to end the
group's nearly half-century role as a semiofficial screening
panel for judicial nominees, lawyers involved in the
discussions said Friday.
The lawyers said they believed that the proposal reflected
the administration's desire to shift the courts in a
conservative direction and to satisfy many conservative
Republicans who have long complained that the bar
association has displayed a liberal bias in evaluating
prospective federal judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel,
acknowledged in an interview that the bar association's role
was under review. But he would not discuss details pending
a meeting he is scheduled to have Monday with bar
association officials.
``I don't think it's appropriate to talk about it publicly without
first talking to the ABA about the process,'' Gonzales said.
If Bush goes ahead with the plan, it would end a practice
dating to the mid-1950s when the bar association began
reviewing the professional qualifications of judicial
candidates in both Republican and Democratic
administrations.
PANEL OF 15
The last time the issue of eliminating the special role of the
ABA arose was during the administration of the elder George
Bush, when Attorney General Dick Thornburgh objected to
the bar association's role in judicial selection and threatened
to end it. He relented after the bar association agreed to
modify its standards for evaluating judges, eliminating
questions about a candidate's personal philosophy.
The ABA uses a special committee of 15 lawyers, which
has proven highly influential in the judicial selection process.
The committee is supposed to weigh the integrity,
competence and temperament of prospective judges even
before they are formally nominated and sent to the Senate
for confirmation.
MIXED REVIEW OF BORK
The resentment of the bar association's special role has
festered since 1987, when the association's judicial
evaluation committee gave a mixed review to Judge Robert
H. Bork, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by
President Ronald Reagan. Four members of the committee
voted that Bork, then of the federal appeals court, was ``not
qualified'' to sit on the Supreme Court. Bork was rejected by
the Senate after a tumultuous confirmation battle.
Republicans said the negative evaluation of Bork stemmed
from his strong conservative views and cited the rating as a
factor in the Senate's rejection of Bork's nomination -- a
watershed battle that intensified the often harsh partisan
warfare between Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
The White House proposal reflects what some Democrats
said is the Bush administration's determination to quickly
put its ideological imprint on the federal judiciary.
The president's aides have started an intensive search to fill
judgeships, already interviewing nearly 60 candidates, most
of them for the 29 vacancies on the appeals courts, the level
just below the Supreme Court.
A spokeswoman for the ABA, Gail Alexander, said the
organization had not been formally notified of the proposal.
But she said that Martha W. Barnett, a lawyer in
Tallahassee and president of the association, is to meet with
Gonzales on Monday to discuss the group's role in
screening judges.
`MORE, NOT LESS'
In a letter sent Friday to Bush, Sens. Charles Schumer,
D-N.Y., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said: ``We firmly believe
that ending the long-established practice of ABA review
would dilute the quality of the federal bench. The process of
judicial selection needs more information about the
competence and integrity of potential nominees, not less.''
IMPROVING QUALITY
In an interview, Schumer said the screening committee had
succeeded in improving the overall quality of the judiciary
because nominees who are thought unlikely to earn a high
rating are never submitted for scrutiny. ``The effect of the
ABA screening process is to raise the bar to an acceptably
high level,'' he said.
Some lawyers have suggested that the White House might
seek guidance on prospective judicial nominees from other
groups outside the government, like the Federalist Society,
a conservative legal organization. That organization is
already well represented in the administration. Many of its
members have won key legal posts, among them senior jobs
in the White House counsel's office under Gonzales.
[This message has been edited by MikeNite (edited 03-17-2001).]