Q: Was the Senate Right to Removed the American Bar Association from the Judicial Nomination Process?

By Hatch, Orrin G.; Cooper, N. Lee | Insight on the News, April 21, 1997 | Go to article overview

Q: Was the Senate Right to Removed the American Bar Association from the Judicial Nomination Process?


Hatch, Orrin G., Cooper, N. Lee, Insight on the News


Q: Was the Senate right to remove the American Bar Association from the judicial nomination process?

Yes: Once an impartial screen for nominees, the ABA now is a biased, political interest group.

In 1947, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Alexander Wiley invited the American Bar Association to advise the committee on the qualifications of judicial nominees. Fifty years later, I have been compelled as the current chairman to withdraw that invitation. My reason is very simple: The judicial confirmation process should not be tainted by continuing to confer a special, officially sanctioned role on an organization that has evolved into a political-interest group.

Fifty years ago the ABA was truly a neutral, objective representative of the legal profession. Since 1952 -- when the president invited the ABA regularly to screen potential Supreme Court nominees -- the ABA has been integrally involved in the nomination and confirmation of federal judges. Today, the ABA is so involved in the judicial-selection process that its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, with rare exception, is notified about, reviews, investigates and rates the president's nominees before the Judiciary Committee or a home-state senator even knows the names of the individuals the president has selected.

Until the late 1970s, the ABA played its role adequately, in large part because it maintained a fairly neutral role on the great issues of the day. The ABA played a useful role for presidents of both parties in preventing truly unqualified individuals from being named to the bench. Since the 1980s, however, the ABA has taken stands on a series of controversial political issues on which the bar has no more special expertise or experience than any other citizen of our great land. For example, the ABA has taken positions on abortion, affirmative action, flag desecration, religious liberty, the use of evidence in sexual-assault cases, reform of the exclusionary rule, habeas corpus, prison conditions, mandatory minimum sentences, welfare, deportation of criminal aliens, and medical and product liability, among other issues. And just weeks ago, the ABA adopted a resolution by a vote of 280-119 calling for a moratorium on capital punishment, directly attacking the much-needed habeas corpus reform Congress enacted -- and the ABA lobbied against-in 1996. In fact, the ABA's arguments to justify this resolution had been rejected by the Congress, the president and the Supreme Court.

True, the ABA has the same right as any other organization to take and advance any policy positions it wishes. But the ABA's obvious political slant seriously undermines its legitimacy as an impartial evaluator of judicial nominees. ABA President N. Lee Cooper recently contended in the Federalist Society's March 1997 ABA Watch that, because the ABA does not have a political-action committee, does not formally make campaign contributions and does not "rate" congressional members' voting records, the suggestion made by me and many others that the ABA is a political interest group amounts to a "campaign of distortion." With all due respect to Cooper, his arguments do not change the undisputed reality that the ABA routinely takes stands on a vast range of controversial policy and social issues, and that the ABA aggressively lobbies Congress and other policymakers. Indeed, it has been reported that the ABA maintains a full-time staff of 10 paid lobbyists to advance its agenda, which today is some 100 pages long and includes more than 750 policy positions.

There is an inherent conflict in permitting the ABA or any other political group to enjoy a special, quasiconstitutional role in evaluating judicial nominees. While the ABA certainly has the right to conduct itself as a political interest group, such groups have no place serving as officially sanctioned judicial evaluators. It would be wrong to assume that a group as politically active as the ABA can at the same time remain altogether neutral, impartial and apolitical when it comes to evaluating judicial qualifications. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Q: Was the Senate Right to Removed the American Bar Association from the Judicial Nomination Process?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.