Ask the Scholar

Document scope · 1 page
doc
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory. For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.

Scholar Source Context

Document identity
localId
563877789
label
January [1989]
core
doc
dtoType
document
pageCount
1
Source metadata
Source extras
naId
563877789
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1989-01-31
month
1
year
1989
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1989-01-01
month
1
year
1989
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
1f3d1aaa3a8543d4
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s): FOIA Number: 2025-0647-S 2025-0647-S FOIA MARKER This is not a textual record. This is used as an administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential Library Staff. Record Group/Collection: George H.W. Bush Presidential Records Collection/Office of Origin: Chief of Staff, White House Office of Series: Rogers, Ed, Files Subseries: Correspondence Files OA/ID Number: 01559 Folder ID Number: 01559-002 Folder Title: January [1989] Stack: Row: Section: Shelf: Position: G 15 22 7 THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON January 31, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR FRED MCCLURE FROM: ED ROGERS SUBJECT: Attached Memo Please handle and advise. Thank you. CC: Boyden Gray JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., DELAWARE, CHAIRMAN EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASSACHUSETTS STROM THURMOND, SOUTH CAROLINA ROBERT C. BYRD, WEST VIRGINIA ORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, OHIO ALAN K. SIMPSON, WYOMING DENNIS DECONCINI, ARIZONA CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA PATRICK J. LEAHY, VERMONT ARLEN SPECTER, PENNSYLVANIA HOWELL HEFLIN, ALABAMA GORDON J. HUMPHREY, NEW HAMPSHIRE United States Senate PAUL SIMON, ILLINOIS MARK H. GITENSTEIN, CHIEF COUNSEL DIANA HUFFMAN, STAFF DIRECTOR COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TERRY L. WOOTEN, MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL R.J. DUKE SHORT, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6275 January 19, 1989 Hon. John H. Sununu Chief of Staff to the President The White House Washington D.C. 20500 Dear John: I sincerely hope that you are finding your position both challenging and rewarding, with a minimum of frustration! I am eager to work with you. I write here as a member of the Judiciary Committee on what I believe to be a matter of overarching importance. As you know, it is impossible to underestimate the impact of the Federal judiciary on all aspects of American life. These lifetime appointees have the ability to shape public policy long after even the most activist President leaves office. Over several Administrations, however, it's my judgment that the Executive has -- unwittingly perhaps -- delegated a substantial portion of its Constitutional authority to the American Bar Association, when choosing nominees to the Federal bench. This nongovernmental entity has become part of the liberal arsenal against conservative nominees pledged to live by the credo of judicial restraint. As Chief of Staff, you are in a singular position to reverse this dangerous usurpation of Executive prerogative. Accordingly, I read with special interest a news account of your approach to the organized bar association when nominating state court candidates in New Hampshire. As the enclosed article explains, I wholeheartedly endorse your view, and fervently hope we can work together to achieve a similar result on the Federal level. I look forward to visiting with you directly about this matter at the earliest possible opportunity. Sincerely, leadership Thanks your your opmy view Chuch (Hrassley) THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1988 THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR 15 OPINION Judging the judges: a memo to the ABA tations to the contrary, the ABA closely scrutinizes the to include ideology and philosophy, plays politics. By Charles E. Grassley political views of judicial nominees and bases its evalua- The ABA must account for its ratings. The role it tion on its perceptions of those views. plays requires it to be honest with the Judiciary Commit- I N the wake of the Bork, Ginsburg, and Kennedy For example, when Judge Bork was nominated for the tee and the public. As Sen. Hugh Scott once noted, "I nominations, the Senate Judiciary Committee ought District of Columbia Court of Appeals in 1982, the doubt whether or not any private body should be privi- to reevaluate the role that the American Bar Associ- committee unanimously gave him its highest rating. He leged to exercise a veto over a function to be exercised by ation - a trade association representing about half. the served with distinction on the appeals court; not a single Congress; namely, the selection of judges. [For example,] nation's lawyers - has been permitted to play in the one of his more than 100 opinions was overturned by the I would not think the American Medical Association Supreme Court nomination process. Currently, the Supreme Court. His nomination to the Supreme Court in should pass on the Public Health Service. ABA's standing committee on the federal judiciary con- 1987, following this brilliant five-year record as one of The Judiciary Committee has two choices to resolve ducts an investigation of the president's nominee and our leading jurists, resulted in the most protracted inves- this dilemma. First, it can simply discontinue the ABA's reports its "findings" to the public as "well qualified," tigation in the committee's history. Incredibly, the ABA's preeminent role in Supreme Court nominations. After all, "not opposed," or "not qualified." The committee trans- conclusion was divided, with four committee members the Judiciary Committee already conducts the same in- acts its business in complete secrecy and offers no voting Mr. Bork "not qualified" on the basis of his vestigation undertaken by the ABA: The nominee's col- substantive legal analysis in support of its conclusions. "extreme views respecting constitutional principles." leagues are interviewed; articles, speeches, and opinions The ABA president selects 15 lawyers to serve on the are analyzed; and other legal experts are consulted about committee, with no apparent requirement that they have the nominee. If this route is chosen, the ABA will still be any recognized expertise in constitutional law. Commit- The deference accorded the ABA gives it welcome to present its views, as any interest group is, on tee conclusions are, however, accorded great weight by the power to undo a person's entire career a particular nominee, but its testimony will be recog- the press. nized as that of the constituency it represents - lawyers Some on the Senate Judiciary Committee also believe as a result of its clandestine process. in a traditional law-firm, corporate, or other business the ABA is indispensable. Last year, the Senate commit- setting. tee delayed hearings on Judge Robert Bork's nomination Alternatively, the Senate panel can continue to utilize to the court and seemed prepared to delay hearings on During the association's investigation of Judge the ABA to assess nominees' "competence, integrity, and the nomination of Judge Douglas Ginsburg, pending Ginsburg, a committee member disclosed to the press judicial temperament," as the ABA currently defines its completion of the committee's secret evaluation process. that he (or she - the ABA never revealed who breached role, so long as the ABA adheres to the provisions of the (It is interesting to note that during the Reagan adminis- its confidential process) had concern that Mr. Ginsburg Federal Advisory Committee Act. This 1972 law re- tration, the ABA committee increased the time taken for shared Bork's ideological beliefs, and stated that we quires that, among other things, advisory committee its evaluation of Supreme Court nominees from an aver- might be getting little more than "a Borklet." meetings be open to the public. The act, passed to limit age of two weeks to two months.) The ABA must be dethroned. I agree we need a check the "potential dominance," as Judge Charles G. Richey Through its unofficial but powerful role the associ- on the executive and Senate to ensure that political once phrased it, of advisory groups, clearly applies to ation attempts to influence the ideology of the federal cronies and favorites are not appointed to the federal the committee. In fact, the ABA views its role as that of courts. This contravenes the committee's avowed pur- bench. This is as true today as when Alexander Hamilton an adviser in the nomination process. Lawrence Walsh, a pose and the ABA model code of professional responsi- warned of it in 1787 in Federalist No. 76. But the ABA former chairman of the ABA committee, once told the bility, which encourages "lawyers to endeavor to pre- has demonstrated a cronyism of its own; it is partial to, Senate Judiciary Committee, "We are an advisory group. vent political considerations from outweighing judicial as Joseph Goulden, in his study "The Benchwarmers," We do our best to present the facts openly and frankly fitness in the selection of judges." has put it, "men dedicated- the preservation of a milieu and fairly to the President and his agents and to the Until 1983 the committee specifically excluded con- in which they have prospered." Traditional establish- Senate through [the Judiciary] Committee." sideration of "political or ideological matter with respect ment lawyers are "in." Legal scholars and intellectuals - At the present time, the deference accorded the ABA to the nominee." But in response to President Reagan's particularly conservatives - are "out." gives it the power to undo a person's entire career, as a efforts to appoint qualified conservative lawyers to the Consider the ABA's ratings of three other eminent result of its clandestine and vague process. We must courts, the ABA now states, "The committee does not conservative legal scholars, Frank Easterbrook, Richard either discontinue the role of the association in its pres- investigate the prospective nominee's political or ideo- Posner, and Ralph K. Winter, all of whom now serve ent capacity or recognize its advisory status and require logical philosophy except to the extent that extreme with distinction on our appellate courts. As conservative it to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. views on such matters might bear upon judicial tempera- academics, their ABA ranking of "qualified" was the ment or integrity." Recent events illustrate that the minimal level of acceptability. Clearly the ABA, at least Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R) of Iowa is a member exception swallows the rule and that despite its protes- since 1983 when it expanded the scope of its evaluation of the Committee on the Judiciary.