« ForrigeFortsett »
Letter, dated November 9, 1971, to Senator Roman L. Hruska from
NOMINATIONS OF WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST AND
LEWIS F. POWELL, JR.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1971
Present: Senators Eastland, McClellan, Ervin, Hart, Kennedy, Bayh, Burdick, Byrd of West Virginia, Tunney, Hruska, Fong, Scott, Thurmond, Cook, Mathias, and Gurney.
Also present: John H. Holloman, chief counsel, Francis C. Rosenberger, Peter M. Stockett, Hite McLean, and Tom Hart.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us have order.
This hearing is on the nomination of William H. Rehnquist of Arizona to be associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, vice Justice Harlan retired. Notice of the hearing appeared in the Congressional Record of October 27, 1971.
I am going to place in the record at this time the report of the American Bar Association on Mr. Rehnquist, and also the report of the American Bar Association on Lewis F. Powell. Copies will be made available to the members of the committee and to the press. (The reports referred to follow.)
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION,
November 2, 1971.
DEAR SENATOR: The Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association submits herewith its report regarding William H. Rehnquist.
Our Committee, with respect to nominations for the Supreme Court, limits its conclusions to the professional competence, judicial temperament, and integrity of the nominee. The Committee believes that without these characteristics no person is qualified to become a Justice of the Supreme Court, We recognize, however, that in the selection of a person for the Supreme Court by the President, and the consideration of that selection by the Senate, there are involved other factors of a broad political and ideological nature. Because the Committee does not take these factors into account, it wishes to make clear that it expresses no opinion on them, even though as will appear from what follows, its investigation revealed opposition from several sources to this nomination on that score. The Committee respects opinions on these factors on both sides; it does not attempt to evaluate them, except to the extent, if any, that they appear to affect the element of judicial temperament.