An Interview with White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales

Alberto R. Gonzales is President George W. Bush’s White House counsel. He served on the Texas Supreme Court from 1999 to 2001, was Texas secretary of state from 1997 to 1999, and was general counsel to Texas Governor George W. Bush from 1995 to 1997. Before entering public service, he was a partner in the law firm of Vinson & Elkins.

Q: You were counsel to the same Chief Executive, as President and when he was governor. Are there any similarities between the jobs, or are they very different?

A: There are a lot of similarities. I think part of the reason has to do with the responsibilities of the job, and, of course, also because he is the same executive. So, I know how this person likes to receive information and when he likes to receive it. In that sense, the jobs are very similar.

In both jobs I deal with interpreting and making recommendations on legislation, on matters relating to clemency, on matters related to litigation, and on matters relating to ethics. So in many ways the responsibilities are the same.

Yet the pressure in this job is at a much higher level. It is relentless. You know political opponents always seem to be there to identify any mistake. You have the press that’s always there to highlight any mistakes or disagreements, sometimes even when there are no mistakes or disagreements. The pressure is much greater here because the issues are so complicated and they have not just enormous domestic consequences but international consequences.

Q: You spent more than a decade in private practice with a large law firm, but then decided to give it up to go into the government, state government. What made you give up what could have been a comfortable career for a more risky, less well-compensated position?

A: There were quite a few friends who wondered, "why would you take a gamble on a political novice named George W. Bush?" I had a nice comfortable life in Texas. I’d just made partner in my firm. You know I really did not know the governor. I’d seen him during the campaign and was extremely intrigued. He had a slogan, "What Texans can dream, Texans can do," which really resonated with me. And I was ready to go into public service. I’d been at the firm, I guess, 12 years, and it was time for me to do something different.

Quite frankly, I anticipated it would be a temporary move, that I would go into government for a few years and then return to private practice. But it hasn’t quite turned out that way. Part of the reason is because I’m so fulfilled on a professional level. I’ve been given some wonderful opportunities by George W. Bush, and I’m very grateful.

Q: In his year-end report, the Chief Justice said it is becoming increasingly difficult to find qualified candidates for judicial vacancies. And he said there were two reasons. One relates to the relatively low level of pay. The other relates to the lengthy and often unpleasant confirmation process. The Administration seems to be very involved in trying to break the logjam in the confirmation process, but what is the response to the Chief Justice and his concerns about the low pay for judges?

A: It is unfortunate that any good judge would be forced to leave the bench because of low pay. This form of "forced retirement" hurts the Judiciary, harms the American people, and lowers morale among judges. While no person should ever come to the bench with expectations that they will become rich, it is reasonable to expect that promises made by a previous President and Congress for annual cost-of-living increases will be honored. The Administration remains committed to work with the Congress on this issue.

Q: Are you aware of any nominees, potential nominees, who have not been interested because of either the pay or the rigorous process that you put them and their families through?

A: Yes. We are aware of both young lawyers with family obligations and established prominent lawyers with substantial investment in their practice and community who feel that they cannot afford to go on the federal bench. The Judiciary suffers when it cannot attract top tier lawyers for whatever reason.

Q: How can the Administration protect its judicial legacy if an increasing number of judges are leaving the bench early, citing inadequate compensation as a prime factor?

A: The President recognizes the importance of the Judiciary in our system of government. If an increasing number of judges are leaving the bench early, citing inadequate compensation as a prime factor, then this is a problem that must be addressed. Over a period of time, a growing number of vacancies means that justice is delayed. The Administration and the Congress must be diligent in ensuring that the Third Branch of government has the judges necessary to discharges its obligations.

Q: What is the role of the White House Counsel in the judicial nomination process?

A: We have a central role in the recommendation of nominees to the President. I chair the judicial selection committee within the White House which includes the attorney general and several senior members of his staff and the White House. The committee has responsibility for identifying vacancies, identifying people to bring in to interview, and making recommendations to the President. The President decides whether or not a person should be subjected to a FBI background check. That process normally takes 6 weeks to 8 weeks.

When that’s completed, hopefully, that person is in a position to be nominated by the President. Once a nomination is made, more of the responsibility for the nomination process shifts over to the Department of Justice where the Office of Legal Policy has the primary responsibility for confirmation strategy. However, our office remains involved because we realize that we need to be more attentive to the roadblocks that may be placed before our nominees.

Q: Is this a similar process for district and appellate judges?

A: It’s essentially the same process. The only difference is that we usually subject circuit court candidates to at least two interviews within the Counsel’s Office. With respect to circuit court judges, we typically will subject a nominee to two interviews.

Q: Has the strategy changed at all since Judge Pickering’s nomination to the Fifth Circuit was rejected?

A: We are having more discussions with Republicans in the Senate, and with outside groups about the President’s nominees. We hope to be better coordinated in our message and in our response to attacks on the President’s nominees.

Q: It has been about 12 years since any new court of appeals judgeships have been created. There’s a lot of focus on filling vacancies, but there are some courts that have no vacancies yet need new positions filled. Are there plans in place to create new judgeships that the President could nominate people for and hopefully the Senate could confirm?

A: Obviously, our focus is on filling the current vacancies, which we believe will help with the current vacancy problem. There are pending bills for the creation of additional judgeships and we would look at them. Without recalling the specific details, I cannot definitively commit Administration support for pending legislation. However, generally, we recognize the needs in certain communities for additional judgeships and would likely respect Congress’ decision on this matter.

Q: You served on the Texas Supreme Court. Has that influenced the way you look at judicial candidates or given you insight into what it takes to serve on the bench?

A: I certainly hope it has given me an understanding of how difficult it can be to be a judge. I think you have to be courageous. I think you have to humble. And I think it is important for a judge to have strong convictions about their role in our system of government. So these are qualities we look for in federal judges, along with character and confidence and someone who shares the President’s philosophy.

Q: One more compensation related question. You mentioned that Congress needs to be involved in actually pushing for new compensation and take some of the leadership role. One of the recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States is to ask the President to create a Commission to study this issue of improved pay for leaders in all three branches. Is that an issue that is under consideration?

A: We have had discussions in the White House about a Commission, and there is some support for a vehicle to study this issue further. We believe, however, that salary increases cannot be accomplished–with or without a Commission–without strong support in Congress.

Q: What is the role of the American Bar Association now in the judicial nomination process. Does it have an impact, or is it responsible for any of the delay?

A: I don’t think it is responsible for any of the delay. It has the same kind of role it has historically enjoyed, except that it plays its role in the nomination process after the nomination occurs. The President believes it is more appropriate not to have an outside group involved in the President’s decision of whom to nominate. The Senate Judiciary Committee still relies upon the recommendation of the ABA and Senator Pat Leahy has referred to the ABA rating as the gold standard. So, the ABA still has a very important role in the process of judicial confirmations.

Q: In the aftermath of September 11, are there areas where the Administration is looking to the Third Branch of government for assistance in the war on terrorism?

A: I don’t know if assistance is the right word. The President is very interested in exercising Constitutional authority he has to protect this country against further acts of terrorism. And he’s taken some steps that have been criticized by some as unwise or unconstitutional. Obviously, the judicial branch is going to have a role in shaping the parameters of the President’s power in times like this, because some of these issues will in fact be litigated. So the final outcome of such litigation remains to be seen. But in my judgment, we’ve been very, very judicious. We’ve worked very carefully with the Department of Justice, the Office of Legal Counsel, to make sure that while we’ve been forward leaning in pushing the President’s powers, the actions of the Administration are in fact within the confines of the Constitution.