Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you all for your testimony today, and
I know a lot of hard work went into the what you've produced here.
I want to just ask a question generally about the American Bar Association.
I've been a member of the American Bar Association and
In the past. Um frankly, on occasion, I've been troubled by some
of the public.
Advocacy of the American Bar Association on behalf of the legal profession
that frankly did not represent my views.
And I want. I'm just looking here at the For example, the website
of the American Bar Association.
And under a heading that says What's new. In Washington, for example,
the Abia president wrote a letter to the secretary of Homeland Security,
urging temporary protected status for
People who are refugees from Ukraine, For example, that's obviously
a matter of great public interest.
But some of the areas that
That the
Maybe a president has also opined on, for example, opposing up opposing
certain provisions of Florida.
Legislation. The Florida Senate Bill 18, 43 and House Bill 15 57,
which concerns parental rights in education. Obviously, that's another
matter of
Tremendous public interest and
discussion in the press and elsewhere. And then finally, I'll mention
because there's a whole long list and but I'm trying to give you
some specifics that
Hopefully make make my frame my question. Um
There is a there is also a position where the ABA is asking for migrants
who come across the southwestern border.
And claim asylum to provide them lawyers.
And as you know, there's been two million roughly people border encounters
in this last year, alone, Uh, obviously the whether or not taxpayers
should be required to provide
Lawyers for um people who are not citizens of the United States and
who are claiming asylum is a controversial matter. So
I'd like to know. Um
How should people understand it? A B A s role when it comes to speaking
to these matters are are you up Public Advocacy Association
And if so, people should be able to understand that maybe some of
the opinions you render in terms of judicial qualification should
be understood in a larger context.
But I'd appreciate if you'd take a stab at
At answering my Maybe not great.
Well formed question, but I think you get the drift. Oh, I definitely
get the drift and Senator, I think
It's really important for me to make clear.
The only action
That the ABA takes with respect to the Standing committee is appointing
the members of the committee.
We stand alone.
The only function that we have
Is peer review evaluation, so we
Do not stand for the American Bar Association in the sense that you
made all the different positions you outline.
And that's purposeful.
It's purposeful that we do our work in rating nominees and don't
have anything to do with the policies of the American Bar Association.
Both Gene and Joe have served on the committee longer and might want
to comment on that as well.
Certain
Yes, Senator. As Judge, Williams said. We are separate and apart
from the A. So I understand the questions you're raising about ABBA
policies.
And would invite you to ask those of the president of the A because
it's judge Williams said. Our committee has nothing to do with those
policies. Well, you're here representing the Abia correct.
No, sir. We're here representing the standing Committee of the federal
judiciary of the American Bar Association, right, But that's part
of the Abia, right?
As Judge, Williams said. We are appointed by the president.
Of the American Bar Association. But that's the only substantive
interaction we have with the A B. A.
Well, I know I'm in times past.
The ABA is appeared to be, uh,
Frankly, a partisan during some of the judicial confirmation proceedings
that I participated in the past.
And that's that's a cause for concern. I'm not suggesting that's
happening here today and I take your testimony at face value.
I know you've done a lot of hard work, and I appreciate that that's
important.
Your voice is important, but it's
I think one of the things that Senator Grassley perhaps alluded to
in the past. It's past some Supreme Court nomination proceedings.
It appeared that the American Bar Association
Has taken sides so to speak in controversial nominations, and I'm
not suggesting that that's the case today, but I'm just saying that
that causes
Concern about whether we should take the testimony of the standing
Committee at face value, or whether you're a combatant in the political
battles that rage here in Washington, sometimes over judicial nominations,
Senator Just let me say there's been no communication of our committee.
With the ABA about any of our work. It is designed so that we can
do it separately
in Senator without will follow up just to say that we're trained
to be independent.
We basically, uh, take an oath amongst our committee members to be
independent, and we we we focused on the three criteria, integrity,
judicial competence.
And ah did and judicial temperament And so in that regard, we focus
on the record of the nominee. We focus on the writings of the nominee
and we focus on the feedback we get from the lawyers and judges the
practice with the nominee against the nominee and administer justice
alongside the nominee.
Well, Mr Drayton. I know part of the questioning of the judge had
to do with, for example, sentencing that Senator Durbin and others
brought up Did the ABA itself reviewed Just Judge Jackson Sentencing
memoranda as part of your investigation.
We we, we We view the publicly available records for sampling of
her sentencing, including the child pornography cases in the sex
offensive sex offense cases.
And we looked at the recommendations of the prosecutors. We looked
at the recommendations of the defense. We looked at whether she and
she did. In fact, in some cases, look at sentencing statistics of
other judges.
And so we looked at the record and how she came out. And it didn't
appear as though she favored the prosecutor nor the defense in such
cases. Where you you made an important qualification you said publicly
available.
In other words, and I've heard the chairman talk about his concerns
about
Public distribution of some of the sentencing memorandum. And so
you did not review all of Judge Jackson. Sentencing memoranda. Only
a portion is that correct?
So perhaps I could clarify the pre sentence report is highly confidential.
Only the judge did not review that no because it's highly confidential
because of the rights of the individual defendant.
We could not review the the pre sentence report. Secondly, there
were not transcripts of all the hearings.
You know, if we had a transcript of the hearing, we could review
that. But there are memos filed. Those are public. What the position
The prosecution takes the position that defense takes
That is available in the public record and the dockets are there
so we did as much as we could. I understand, Judge. I just want the
only point I was trying to make as you did not have access to everything.
In her record, But you did have access to public. What was public?
Is that correct? Yes, And we thought that that was sufficient, substantial
amount of the record.
Well, I have
You had me until you said you thought that was sufficient. How do
you know?
If you didn't get access to the rest of the record.
Well in many cases, we spoke to the prosecutors and defense attorneys
and they gave us their thoughts and opinions and they walked away
and said she calls balls and strikes. She's fair. We would be happy
to go before again In cases we also create into a reputation because
as you know, folks talk
And they mingle and they're out in the evenings at bars, and her
reputation is stellar. And so we did query we pressed hard. We ask
questions of these prosecutors and defense attorneys. That's especially
true in my experience of the legal profession, Mr Drayton, but
Again. These these people that you talked to her on our anonymous
to us, there have been unnamed.
For the reasons that Judge Williams described
Direct