I think you'll find my tone a little bit different than has some
sometimes that I've questioned. Maybe a about
I've been critical of your involvement in this process.
Um so I hope you
Understand? Or maybe some of you folks haven't been around longer
Enough. Turn all my history of criticizing the Abia from time to
time.
So my first question is, Does it remain the Abbas policy to keep
confidential? The names of the people is interviewed, as well as
his material dealing with deliberations and analysis of
Nominees. Is this information available to the Judiciary Committee?
Um, Senator Grassley. That is our policy. Those interviews, the names
are kept confidential Deliberations are kept confidential and the
heart of it.
And the reason Senator Grassley is because we want candid, honest
statements from those that we interview
If people knew their names would be associated with their comments.
No one would answer our calls. No one would answer our calls. And
if our deliberations
Were shared openly again.
Even if we didn't name my name one might be able to identify who
made particular statements. The the whole key of the A B A investigation
where the pier
satisfied with what you said all right.
Can you then tell me how Just give me some justification without
having that information that the interviews are not stacked for or
against a particular nominee?
Please give a short answer.
All right.
The evaluators.
Take what I think is almost like a sacred oath.
To conduct nonpartisan questioning to get to the bottom line.
To make sure individuals
Are able to be free to answer the questions that we pose.
And Jeanne. You might want to comment more on that. I think I think
you've answered that. Okay. What I need to just hear from you, Uh,
accepting the legitimacy of everything you've told me to this point.
Would there be anything wrong with people interviewing it or for
members? This committee seeing that material in a confidential environment?
But
There would be a problem with that, senator.
Because if two people know about anything in Washington, D C. It's
no secret. Well, you are absolutely right about that. You know, one
of us is from Washington on this panel.
Okay?
Um, you gave Judge Jackson well qualified rating.
But most recently gave Justice Amy Comey coin barrack minority well
qualified rating.
Besides the reading groups, what objective measurements of writing
or analytical skills do you use
Well, first Senator Grassley, if I could make one point, um Judge
Barrett actually received a well qualified rating.
When the majority votes
Well qualified or qualified. If it's a majority vote, the rating
of the nominee is qualified as well. Well qualified. We use the very
same standard for each nominee.
And we followed the process with Justice Barrett. I wasn't on the
committee at the time. Certainly our report is a matter of public
record. But the bottom line is she received a well qualified recommendation
from this committee rating from this community. Just a rough idea
of the objective measurements. You go.
Writing or analytical skills.
Well. Her analytical skills were excellent. As I recall from our
report. As I said, you can refer to that report, And as I said, our
rating was well qualified.
Why did you choose the limit Your review of her record to her quote
unquote over 20.
240
Published opinions on the District Court. You mean Judge Jackson?
The reason we limited we, we we focused on published opinions. We
focused on other writings, and we had the reading groups focused
on those
Uh and we did not delve into the other orders. Many of those were
very short.
Many of those didn't really give us sufficient. Um
Many of the orders were short. I guess that's the easiest way to
say it. And so the published opinions which people
View we felt were more important to review. We also consult consulted
with our academic committees and are
Ah, our practitioners group and they felt that those, uh
Writings.
That were published would be most appropriate.
Joan, Did you have anything well, and Senator Grassley on that point.
As you know, Published opinions among within the legal community
are those that are relied on for precedential value more so than
unpublished opinions, So it was really those opinions she was putting
out there for the legal community.
I might have one question I'll submit to you for answering right?