bill, so that we would have some notion comparatively of what cost factors are also involved in this. Mr. ROSENBERG. With regard to the Judicial Conference bill, we might have to know what assumptions one is making with regard to what the circuits do. Mr. KASTENMEIER. And it may well be that you will say you cannot answer that. If that is the case, we will go to the Judicial Conference and get their estimates. Fair enough. All right. Obviously the committee is very indebted to you for presentation here today, concluding our hearings on judicial tenure, giving us the benefit of the thinking in the Department and your own thinking on the matter, and enabling us to confront the question as we will go on to markup in the near future. So, again, we thank you and your colleagues for your appearance here today. Assistant Attorney General Rosenberg. This concludes our hearings on the question of judicial tenure. The committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] APPENDIXES APPENDIX 1.-ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS 1. American Bar Association 2. American College of Trial Lawyers 3. American Judicature Society 4. Anderson, Herbert H., Esq. 5. Committee for Equality of Citizens before the Courts 6. Gunther, Prof. Gerald, Stanford Law School 7. Kaufman, Hon. Irving R., chief judge, Second Circuit Court of Appeals 8. National Association of Attorneys General 9. National Taxpayers Legal Fund, Inc. 1. H.R. 622. APPENDIX 2.-TEXT OF BILLS 2. H.R. 1227. 3. H.R. 4044 (title I, parts C and E only). 4. H.R. 4115. 5. H.R. 4641. 6. H.R. 5873. 7. H.R. 6330. 8. S. 1873. APPENDIX 3.-ADDITIONAL MATERIALS PROVIDED BY WITNESSES 1. By Senator Sam Nunn: (a) Diagram of procedures to be followed under S. 295. 2. By the Judicial Conference of the United States: (a) Wallace, "Must Have a Nunn Bill?" The alternative of judicial councils of the circuits, 51 Ind. L.J. 297 (1976). (b) Wallace, "The Nunn Bill: An Unneeded Compromise of Judicial Independence," 61 Judicature 476 (1978). (c) Procedures for processing complaints of judicial misconduct, Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, as amended April 12, 1979. (d) Resolution I, Judicial Conference of the United States. (e) Resolution II, Judicial Conference of the United States. (g) Procedures of circuit courts of appeals. 3. By Clark Mollenhoff and Greg Rushford: (a) Court records produced some interesting facts, Gannett New Service. (b) "Justice Was a Farce in Courtroom Drama," the Observer-Dispatch 3, June 18, 1979. (c) Mollenhoff and Rushford, "What Can Be Done About Unfit Judges?" Washington Post D1, April 23, 1978. (d) Hedges and Devroy, "Justice on Trial" (1979). (e) Mollenhoff and Rushford," Judges Who Should Not Judge," Reader's Digest 39 (February 1980). 4. By Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr.: (a) Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment, report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry (House Committee on the Judiciary, 93d Cong., 2d sess. (1974)). APPENDIX 4.-SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS 1. American Enterprise Institute, Judicial Discipline and Tenure Proposals: Legislative Analysis (1979). 2. Kaufman, Irving R., "Chilling Judicial Independence," 88 Yale L.J. 681 (1979). 3. Berger, Prof. Raoul, "Chilling Judicial Independence: A Scarecrow," 64 Cornell L. Rev. 822 (1979). 4. Wheeler and Levin, "Judicial Discipline and Removal in the United States" (1979). 5. Killian, Johnny H., "Constitutional Issues Raised by the Proposed Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1979," American Law Division, Library of Congress (1979). 6. The Center of Judicial Conduct Organizations (a project of the American Judicature Society). (a) Letter to Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier from Irene Tesitor (May 9, 1980). (b) Tesitor, Irene, Judicial Conduct Organizations (1978). 7. Editorials from the New York Times. 8. The Association of the Bar of the City of New York. (a) Letter to Hon. Robert W. Kastenmeier from Standish F. Medina, Jr. (May 12, 1980). (b) "The Removal of Federal Judges Other Than by Impeachment," Report of the Committee on Federal Legislation (April 1, 1977). (c) "A Proposed Procedure for Treating Complaints Concerning Federal District Judges," Report of the Committee on the Federal Courts (March 1978). (d) Report on S. 678 and S. 862 by the Committee on Federal Courts of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (May 31, 1979). APPENDIXES APPENDIX 1 Hon. ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Leonard S. Janofsky, President of the American Bar Association, has asked me to respond to your letter of February 22 requesting the views of the Association on various bills relating to judicial tenure and discipline pending before the Subcommittee. The Association has turned its attention to this very controversial issue a number of times in past years. The House of Delegates last considered the matter at its August, 1977 meeting in Chicago, Illinois. At that time, it adopetd the following resolutions: Resolved, That the American Bar Association supports the enactment of legislation to establish a procedure in addition to impeachment to effect the censure or the removal of judges of the United States whose conduct is inconsistent with the good behavior required by Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution, and the retirement of disabled judges of the United States. Further resolved, That the American Bar Association supports in principle legislation such as S. 1423 and H.R. 1850, 95th Congress, except insofar as it would be applicable to the Chief Justice of the United States and the Association Justices of the Supreme Court. As is obvious from the resolutions, the Association has left to the Congress the matter of specifically effectuating the objective. I should call your attention to the fact that a committee of the Association has in circulation a draft recommendation calling for a reconsideration of the subject and the adoption of a position contrary to that previously taken. It is the intention of that committee to bring its recommendation to the House of Delegates in August of 1980. Accordingly, if the Congress is to move legislation at this time, the resolves quoted above constitute the present position of the Association. In the event legislation is not enacted, and the House of Delegates changes it position prior to the convening of the 97th Congress, I shall transmit that action for your consideration and that of your committee. Sincerely HERBERT E. HOFFMAN. Re Judicial tenure and discipline. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS, Hon. ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. KASTENMEIER: At its meeting on March 13, 1980, the Board of Regents of the American College of Trial Lawyers approved in principle the enactment of the Kastenmeier bill, H.R. 6330 amended, however, by the enumeration of certain powers which might be exercised by the various judicial councils. The resolution is enclosed herewith. |