NCJ Number
57382
Journal
Judicature Volume: 12 Issue: 10 Dated: (MAY 1979) Pages: 466-468,470-471
Date Published
1979
Length
16 pages
Annotation
THE PROCESS OF NOMINATING CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT AS JUDGES TO THE U.S. CIRCUIT APPEALS COURT IS DISCUSSED IN LIGHT OF A SURVEY OF 63 OF 74 CANDIDATES RECOMMENDED BETWEEN FEBRUARY, 1977, AND SEPTEMBER, 1978.
Abstract
IN FEBRUARY, 1977, PRESIDENT CARTER ANNOUNCED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE U.S. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE NOMINATING COMMISSION TO AID HIM IN FILLING VACANCIES ON THE COURTS OF APPEALS, AND ALTHOUGH STUDIES HAVE ANALYZED THE COMMISSION'S OPERATIONS, NONE HAVE FOCUSED ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RECOMMENDED CANDIDATES AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF THE NEW PROCESS FOR SELECTING JUDGES. TO OBTAIN THIS DATA, A QUESTIONNAIRE WAS DEVELOPED AND SUBMITTED TO THE 74 CANDIDATES RECOMMENDED TO THE WHITE HOUSE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S PROCESS. THE CANDIDATES WERE QUERIED CONCERNING BIOGRAPHICAL DATA, IMPRESSIONS ABOUT THE PANEL BEFORE WHICH THEY APPEARED, ATTITUDES ABOUT THE PROPRIETY OF THE QUESTIONS THEY WERE ASKED BEFORE THE PANEL, AND WAYS IN WHICH THE PROCESS COULD BE IMPROVED. OF THOSE WHO RECEIVED QUESTIONNAIRES 63 OR 87 PERCENT OF THE CANDIDATES RESPONDED. THE RECOMMENDED CANDIDATES REPRESENT A FAIRLY HOMOGENOUS GROUP. MOST WERE MIDDLE-AGED, POLITICALLY MODERATE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE NOT PARTY ACTIVISTS; MORE THAN HALF HAD NOT CONTRIBUTED FINANCIALLY TO PARTISAN CAMPAIGNS DURING THE PAST 5 YEARS. GENERALLY, THE CANDIDATES VIEWED THE COMMISSION PROCESS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE TRADITIONAL SYSTEM OF SENATORIAL RECOMMENDATIONS. THREE REASONS APPEARED MOST FREQUENTLY: (1) ITS OPENNESS, (2) ITS EMPHASIS ON HIGH STANDARDS RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS, AND (3) ITS REDUCTION OF PATRONAGE POLITICS IN THE SELECTION PROCESS. THE OVERALL PANEL INTERVIEW PROCESS APPARENTLY PLEASED THE CANDIDATES; THEY CHARACTERIZED THE ATMOSPHERE AS CORDIAL, AND REPORTED THAT ONLY ON RARE OCCASIONS DID ANY ONE PANELIST DOMINATE THE QUESTIONING OR ALLOW OBJECTIONABLE POLITICAL BIAS TO SURFACE. THE MAJORITY BELIEVED THEIR APPLICATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS WERE ADEQUATELY REVIEWED, AND AN OVERWHELMING PERCENTAGE WERE SATISFIED WITH THE EXTENT OF INQUIRY INTO THEIR LEGAL BACKGROUND. HOWEVER, THE CANDIDATES WERE VERY CRITICAL OF THE PROCESSES OVER WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS NO CONTROL: THE SELECTION OF PANELISTS AND THE PROCEDURE FOR CHOOSING THE FINAL NOMINEE. THE MAJORITY FELT THE PANEL MEETINGS SHOULD BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, PREFERRED LIMITED DISCLOSURE OF THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES RECOMMENDED TO THE PRESIDENT, AND FAVORED ALPHABETICAL RANKING WHEN FORWARDING THE LIST OF FINALISTS TO THE WHITE HOUSE. TABULAR DATA ARE PROVIDED. REFERENCES ARE FOOTNOTED. (KBL)