More, not less, screening needed for federal bench

President George W. Bush's ill-conceived decision not to ask the American Bar Association to screen prospective federal judges will come back to haunt him. Not only has Bush cut himself off from an important source of information that was used by Republican and Democratic presidents going back to the 1950s, but his action has fired up Senate Democrats, who were already warning that confirmation hearings weren't going to be a walk in the park.
To add insult to injury, the Republican president's advisers indicated that they would rely on the Federalist Society, a conservative legal and professional group, to screen nominees. Such in-your-face politics undermines Bush's insistence that the people's business must be conducted in a bipartisan fashion.
The Associated Press quoted Republican officials as saying that Bush's decision to kick the ABA out of the nomination process was driven largely by Capitol Hill conservatives still bitter over the failure of President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Many conservatives see the ABA as liberal-leaning and blame its mixed review of Bork's qualifications for his rejection by the Senate.
Majority support: It is noteworthy, however, that of the bar's 15-member Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, 10 members found Bork "well qualified," while only four concluded that he was unsuitable for the Supreme Court.
The idea that the American Bar Association is a haven for liberals is dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Peter C. Economus of Youngstown, who was screened in February 1995.
Asked if he believes that the ABA should be involved in the nomination process for federal judges, Economus, a former Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judge, replied unequivocally, "I certainly do."
"They scrutinize the candidates and look deeply into the background of each nominee," the judge said. "It seems like a fair process. I had to go through an interview, but first I had to fill out a questionnaire similar to the one I had to fill out for the Senate Judiciary Committee."
As for the Bush administration's contention that the ABA is a liberal organization, Economus noted that the association is made up of "a mixture of all lawyers in this country." It is this mixture that provides a president with an objective evaluation of a nominee's temperament, qualifications and integrity.
Without this unbiased examination, Bush will be left with a purely ideological process for determining whether someone should sit on the federal bench. That's troublesome.
Political cronies: Prior to the involvement of the bar association, presidents depended on the word of U.S. senators in naming judges. The result: political cronies, relatives and friends were elevated to the bench with little regard to qualifications and other attributes that are so essential to keeping the courts independent and fair.
Bush has allowed partisan politics to influence his thinking on this matter -- and in so doing has played into the hands of the Democrats.
Given the way Republicans blocked judicial nominees submitted by President Clinton, Democrats can be expected to be just as intransigent with Bush's choices.
Indeed, the absence of an ABA evaluation will justify detailed examinations of the individuals by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
During the campaign, Bush suggested that the Senate should vote on judicial nominees within 60 days of their nominations. He'll soon find out that 60 days can be a very long time in Washington.
The president would do well to cut his losses and reinstitute the ABA as a part of the judicial nomination process.