For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 22, 2001
Letter to the ABA From AL Gonzales
March 22, 2001
Dear Ms. Barnett:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with
Attorney General Ashcroft and me on March 19. We very much
appreciated the opportunity to visit with you and benefited from your
perspective on the judicial selection process. In addition to hearing
from you, we have carefully studied and considered the history and
practice of American Bar Association involvement in judicial
selection. Although the President welcomes the ABA's
suggestions concerning judicial nominees, the Administration will not
notify the ABA of the identity of a nominee before the nomination is
submitted to the Senate and announced to the public.
There is a long tradition by which Members of
Congress, interest groups, and individual citizens provide suggestions
to the President about potential judges. We will continue to
welcome such suggestions from all sources, including the
ABA. The issue at hand, however, is quite different: whether
the ABA alone -- out of the literally dozens of groups and many
individuals who have a strong interest in the composition of the
federal courts -- should receive advance notice of the identities of
potential nominees in order to render pre-nomination opinions on their
fitness for judicial service. In our view, granting any
single group such a preferential, quasi-official role in the nomination
process would be unfair to the other groups that also have strong
interests in judicial selection. As Senator Biden asked in
1994, ?Why the ABA and not the National Bar
Association?? The same question could be asked with respect
to numerous other groups.
The question, in sum, is not whether the ABA's
voice should be heard in the judicial selection
process. Rather, the question is whether the ABA should play
a unique, quasi-official role and thereby have its voice heard before
and above all others. We do not think that kind of
preferential arrangement is either appropriate or fair.
It would be particularly inappropriate, in our
view, to grant a preferential, quasi-official role to a group, such as
the ABA, that takes public positions on divisive political, legal, and
social issues that come before the courts. This is not to
suggest that the ABA should not adopt policy positions or express its
views. But considerations of sound constitutional government
suggest that the President not grant a preferential, quasi-official
role in the judicial selection process to a politically active group.
Our decision to treat the ABA in the same
manner as all other interested parties mirrors the approach taken in
recent decades by Presidents of both parties with respect to Supreme
Court nominees, as well as the approach taken by the Senate Judiciary
Committee in 1997 when it ended the ABA's quasi-official role in the
Senate confirmation process. As Chairman Hatch explained at
that time, ?[p]ermitting a political interest group to be elevated to
an officially sanctioned role in the confirmation process not only
debases that process, but, in my view, ultimately detracts from the
moral authority of the courts themselves.?
Finally, let me reiterate that the
Administration fully welcomes the ABA, like other interested parties,
to provide suggestions regarding potential
judges. Similarly, once the President submits a nomination
to the Senate, the ABA like every other interested party is free to
evaluate and express its views concerning the President's nominee.
Thank you again for your time and your views,
as well as for your service to the ABA and the
profession. The Administration looks forward to working with
you in the months ahead on issues of concern to the legal profession.
Sincerely
yours,
Alberto
R. Gonzales
Counsel
to the President
Ms. Martha W. Barnett President, American Bar Association c/o Holland &
Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee,
FL 32301
|