"What is most important is the appointment of judges who are learned in the law, who are conscientious in their work ethic, and who possess what lawyers describe as "judicial temperament." That term, difficult to define, essentially has to do with a personality that is evenhanded, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result. The law will be fairly read and applied, irrespective of the judge’s personal views as to its wisdom; where the judge is the finder of fact, the facts will be fairly found."

"As this Report recognizes, throughout our history the appointment process has been built on politics. The danger of purely political appointees lacking the necessary competence led Attorney General Brownell to introduce the American Bar Association’s participation in the process. At that time -- and for some years thereafter -- relatively few persons in the Executive Branch and the Senate or its staff worked on judicial appointments, and rarely were any of them, even when lawyers, experienced in court practices and procedures. The ABA Committee was designed to fill that lack and insure, insofar as the political process permitted, the high quality of those selected."

"In addition to the growing number of appointments, the changing political process has had its impact on who the candidates for judicial office are and whether they will be nominated and confirmed. The increasingly ideological nature of political campaigns, the need for huge sums of money, the growth of dependence on contributions from various ideological groups, and the willingness of these groups to launch personal attacks on candidates they ideologically oppose, has the potential to affect the appointment process in unfortunate ways. Even putting aside the cases of Supreme Court nominees such as Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, where this problem was obvious, there have been some signs of similar ideological controversy creeping into the process of nominating and confirming lower court candidates. While it appears that the present administration has been conscious of the problem and relatively successful in avoiding such ideological controversies, we have learned of occasional episodes where qualified candidates have refused to be considered or have withdrawn from fear of being "Borked."

In any case, it is our view that the important process of appointing federal judges need not be as difficult as it now seems. The ultimate question is simply whether or not potential candidates have the qualities of integrity, good judgment and experience to become judicial officers of the United States. Occasional mistakes will be made. But no amount of bureaucratic vetting or testing for ideology will achieve perfection, and too complex a process can do more harm than good."

2. Reviewers should investigate a candidate’s experience, qualifications, temperament, character, and general views of the law and of the judicial role. Selecting a federal judge is not just a matter of picking a legal technician, for a person’s judgments may well reflect one’s broad values and commitments.

7. Reviewers seeking to assess a candidate’s views should exercise caution when evaluating a person’s current or former clients, memberships, and writings or speeches.