[Senate Hearing 117-557]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-557

                    NOMINATIONS OF ERROL R. ARTHUR,
                         KENDRA D. BRIGGS, AND
                           CARL EZEKIEL ROSS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
               HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS


                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                    NOMINATIONS OF ERROL R. ARTHUR,
               KENDRA D. BRIGGS, AND CARL EZEKIEL ROSS TO
               BE ASSOCIATE JUDGES, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
                          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                               __________

                             JULY 12, 2022

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                       Printed for the use of the
        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
        
        
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                    
                              ___________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
49-376PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023   


                   GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
ALEX PADILLA, California             MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri

                   David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
                    Zachary I. Schram, Chief Counsel
                      Claudine J. Brenner, Counsel
            Banjamin J. Schubert, Professional Staff Member
                    Nitka Khani, Research Assistant
                Pamela Thiessen, Minority Staff Director
    Andrew Dockham, Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director
       Cara G. Mumford, Minority Director of Governmental Affairs
                    Allen L. Huang, Minority Counsel
           Patrick T. Warren, Minority Investigative Counsel
       Roland Hernandez, Jr., Minority Professional Staff Member
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                     Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk


                            C O N T E N T S

                                 ------                                
Opening statements:
                                                                   Page
    Senator Peters...............................................     1
    Senator Portman..............................................     2
    Senator Hawley...............................................    13
    Senator Carper...............................................    16
Prepared statements:
    Senator Peters...............................................    21
    Senator Portman..............................................    22

                               WITNESSES
                         Tuesday, July 12, 2022

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a U.S. Representative from the 
  District of Columbia...........................................     2
Kendra D. Briggs to be Associate Judge, Superior Court of the 
  District of Columbia
    Testimony....................................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................    24
    Biographical and professional information....................    25
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................    44
Errol R. Arthur to be Associate Judge, Superior Court of the 
  District of Columbia
    Testimony....................................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................    51
    Biographical and professional information....................    52
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................    74
Carl Ezekiel Ross to be Associate Judge, Superior Court of the 
  District of Columbia
    Testimony....................................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................    83
    Biographical and professional information....................    84
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   105

 
                    NOMINATIONS OF ERROL R. ARTHUR,
               KENDRA D. BRIGGS AND CARL EZEKIEL ROSS

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2022

                                     U.S. Senate,  
                           Committee on Homeland Security  
                                  and Governmental Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 
SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gary Peters, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Peters, Carper, Hassan, Ossoff, Portman, 
Scott, and Hawley.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETERS\1\

    Chairman Peters. The Committee will come to order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appear in the Appendix 
on page 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today we are considering three nominations, Kendra Briggs, 
Errol Arthur, and Carl Ross to be Associate Judges (AJ) on the 
Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Welcome to each of 
our nominees and to your family members who are joining us here 
today. We want to thank all of you for your previous public 
service and your willingness to serve in this very important 
role.
    The D.C. Superior Court, which operates as the State-level 
trial court in the nation's capital, has one of the highest per 
capita rates of cases filed. According to the National Center 
for State Courts (NCSC), 83,000 new cases are filed across its 
five divisions each and every year. Unfortunately, the D.C. 
Superior Court is suffering from extensive judicial vacancies 
that have placed serious burdens on every division, increased 
the workloads for current judges, and delayed resolutions for 
the parties before the court.
    I am pleased to have three exceptionally well-qualified 
nominees to the Superior Court here with us today, each with a 
longstanding commitment to public service and commendable legal 
abilities and professionalism. If confirmed, each of you will 
decide matters that impact the freedom, the livelihoods, and 
families of many of the individuals who come before you. 
Today's hearing is an important opportunity for the Committee 
to learn more about your qualifications and how you plan to 
serve in these new roles.
    With that, Ranking Member Portman, you are now recognized 
for your opening remarks.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN\1\

    Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
thank the three nominees for being here today and your 
willingness to step forward. We are considering you as nominees 
for Associate Justices to the D.C. Superior Court. Each of you 
have spent part of your career already in public service, and 
if confirmed you will be doing something very important which 
is to serve the people of D.C. but also get the backlog down 
and deal with a public safety crisis, I would say, in the 
district.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Portman appears in the 
Appendix on page 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Like a lot of large cities, D.C. is experiencing a crime 
surge. There have been over 200 more armed robberies this year 
than last year at this time. There have also been more 
homicides this year than there were at the same time last year.
    Part of this is something happening nationally, but I think 
part of it is exacerbated by the backlog here in D.C. At the 
beginning of this year there were more than 10,000 criminal 
cases pending. That is more than double the number from 2020, 
as an example. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) clearly 
played a part in that, and I appreciate the fact that the court 
system is trying to help reduce the spread of COVID. But I also 
appreciate that they have now resumed in-person proceedings, 
which should help alleviate that backlog.
    If the nominees are confirmed, you will be responsible for 
ensuring timely justice, which is important obviously to the 
victims and to defendants, and again, I think it is part of 
improving public safety in D.C. I look forward to talking to 
you about that during this process.
    Rising crime in D.C. and the case backlog are just two of 
the important reasons why we need impartial and qualified 
judges on the D.C. Superior Court. I look forward to hearing 
from all three of you today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ranking Member Portman.
    It is the practice of this Committee to swear in witnesses, 
so if each of you would please stand and raise your right hand.
    Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this 
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you, God?
    Ms. Briggs. I do.
    Judge Arthur. I do.
    Mr. Ross. I do.
    Chairman Peters. You may be seated.
    We will now have a video from Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes 
Norton, who will introduce our nominees.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A 
   UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Ms. Norton. Chairman Peters and Ranking Member Portman, I 
appreciate the opportunity to introduce Kendra Briggs, Errol 
Arthur, and Carl Ross to be Associate Judges on the Superior 
Court of the District of Columbia. All three will bring 
experience and credentials to be excellent judges.
    Ms. Briggs has spent the last 10 years in the United States 
Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, including 
serving now as Senior Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA). She 
currently works in the Public Corruption and Civil Rights 
Section, where she prosecutes civil rights offenses in Federal 
court. She previously prosecuted cases in the D.C. Superior 
Court ranging from simple misdemeanors to homicides.
    In 2020, Ms. Briggs received U.S. Attorney's Award for 
Exceptional Performance as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and she 
has received several U.S. Attorney's Awards for Special 
Achievement.
    Prior to her work as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ms. Briggs 
was an attorney at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, where she 
specialized in civil litigation.
    Ms. Briggs received her law degree cum laude from the 
University of Miami School of Law. She clerked for Florida 
Supreme Court Justice Peggy Quince.
    Judge Errol Arthur has served as a Magistrate in the D.C. 
Superior Court since 2010. Judge Arthur has presided over a 
wide range of bench trials during his tenure, including neglect 
and abuse cases, and has held arraignments and detention 
hearings in both juvenile and adult cases.
    Judge Arthur served as a staff attorney for the Public 
Defender Service for the District of Columbia, serving from 
1999 until he opened his own law practice in 2002. Judge Arthur 
was appointed Chair of the District of Columbia Board of 
Elections and Ethics in 2008. He has served as an adjunct 
professor and supervising attorney for the Howard University 
School of Law's Criminal Justice Clinic, and has been a 
visiting faculty member for Harvard Law School's Trial Advocacy 
Workshop.
    Judge Arthur received his law degree from Howard University 
School of Law. He clerked for Judge Mary Gooden Terrell in the 
D.C. Superior Court.
    Carl Ezekiel Ross serves as Counsel to the House Committee 
on Ethics. He previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney 
in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. He 
handled more than 100 Federal appellate and district court 
matters. He has also served as a litigation associate with 
Arnold & Porter.
    Mr. Ross received his law degree from William and Mary Law 
School. Mr. Ross clerked for Judge James Spencer of the U.S. 
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
    I very much appreciate that the Committee is moving these 
nominees. Unfortunately, we have a perpetual vacancy crisis in 
the local D.C. courts. Regardless of which party controls the 
Senate, to address this crisis I have introduced the District 
of Columbia Court Vacancy Act. This bill would expedite the 
appointment of local D.C. judges by applying the 30-day 
congressional review process for D.C. Council-passed 
legislation to the appointment of local D.C. judges. The House 
Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill in December. 
However, I urge the Committee to consider similar legislation.
    I appreciate the Committee moving these nominees and I look 
forward to working with you to end the vacancy crisis. Thank 
you very much.
    Chairman Peters. I would like to once again welcome our 
three witnesses here today, Ms. Briggs, Judge Arthur, and Mr. 
Ross.
    Ms. Briggs, you may now proceed with your opening remarks.

 TESTIMONY OF KENDRA D. BRIGGS,\1\ NOMINEE TO BE AN ASSOCIATE 
       JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Ms. Briggs. Good morning and thank you. Chairman Peters, 
Ranking Member Portman, and Members of this Committee, I am 
honored by the opportunity to appear before you today as a 
nominee to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the 
District of Columbia. I am deeply grateful to you and your 
dedicated Committee staff for considering my nomination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Briggs appear in the Appendix on 
page 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I would like to take a moment to thank the District of 
Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission, chaired by the 
Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan, for recommending me to the White 
House, and I am thankful to President Joseph R. Biden for 
nominating me to this position. I also want to thank 
Congresswoman Norton for her introduction this morning.
    I must also thank the current U.S. Attorney for the 
District of Columbia Matthew Graves, and former U.S. Attorneys 
Ronald Machen, Vincent Cohen, Jessie Liu, and Channing Phillips 
for their support and guidance throughout my career as a 
prosecutor and throughout this process. I must also acknowledge 
my current and former colleagues at the United States 
Attorney's Office, whose dedication to public service and the 
citizens of the District of Columbia have made it an honor to 
serve alongside them for the last 12 years.
    I am the eldest of four daughters born to Lindsey Davis and 
Patricia Moss Davis in Miami, Florida. Affectionately known as 
the ``K'' girls, my sister Khea is a dedicated and decorated 
high school teacher, my sister Keshara is an outstanding 
attorney, and my baby sister Kaneisha, was unfortunately only 
with us for a year before she passed away. My parents' hard 
work and many sacrifices served as a roadmap for our 
professional pursuits, and is a large part of why I am able to 
sit before you today. I also thank the rest of my family and 
friends from all over the country for their support and prayers 
throughout this process.
    I am the proud wife of Joe Briggs, Sr., who has been 
instrumental in the process of my career. It was my husband who 
encouraged me to finally pursue my goals of first becoming an 
Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA), and now to seek 
judicial office. It is also my husband who makes parenting our 
son, his namesake Joe Jr., seamless in the face of both of our 
demanding careers. For that I want to publicly thank him for 
his unwavering love and support.
    Since 2010, I have served as an Assistant United States 
Attorney in the District of Columbia. As a dedicated public 
servant, I have handled a wide range of criminal cases on 
behalf of the United States and have served under three 
Presidential administrations. Prior to joining the Department 
of Justice (DOJ), I worked for eight years as a civil 
litigator, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in 
complex civil litigation matters.
    All of my legal experience, appearing in both Federal and 
State courts and handling both criminal and civil cases, has 
prepared me to serve as a judge. It is my most fervent hope to 
continue my service to the District of Columbia by becoming an 
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia.
    I thank you for your consideration of my nomination and I 
look forward to answering your questions.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Briggs.
    I would like to welcome Judge Arthur. Judge Arthur, you may 
proceed with your opening remarks.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JUDGE ERROL R. ARTHUR,\1\ NOMINEE TO 
   BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF 
                            COLUMBIA

    Judge Arthur. Good morning, everyone. Chairman Peters, 
Ranking Member Portman, and Members of the Committee, I am both 
honored and humbled to appear before you today as you consider 
my nomination to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of 
the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Judge Arthur appears in the Appendix 
on page 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I would like to thank the Committee's staff for all of its 
hard work and dedication in preparing for this hearing. I would 
also like to thank President Joseph R. Biden for nominating me. 
I thank all of the members of the District of Columbia Judicial 
Nomination Commission, specifically its Chair, the Honorable 
Emmet Sullivan, for recommending me to the White House. I also 
wish to thank Congresswoman Norton for her kind words of 
introduction today. I would also like to thank Chief Judge 
Anita Josey-Herring, and former Chief Judges Robert Morin and 
Lee Satterfield for their leadership and guidance.
    I am blessed to come from a large, loving, and supportive 
family, many of whom are watching online. This includes my 
sisters Sheyna Arthur and Justine Jaquez, brothers-in-law 
Antonio Beatty and Justin Jaquez, my nephews Jeromy and Jacob 
Jaquez, and my mother-in-law Wynell Beatty. My grandparents, 
John and Esther Sewchand and Priscilla Arthur are here in 
spirit as well.
    I am thrilled that my parents, Errol and Violet Arthur, are 
watching from their home not far from here in Washington D.C. 
They left their native Guyana over 50 years ago and settled 
just outside of Washington, and in raising my two sisters and 
me, they instilled in each of us the importance of hard work, 
family, and community service. It was with their unwavering 
support and encouragement that I devoted my life to public 
service.
    I reserve a special acknowledgment to my partner and 
biggest cheerleader, the Honorable Sherri Beatty-Arthur, my 
wife. For over 27 years she has been my rock and without her I 
would not be here. I am especially proud to be joined by my 
son, Miles Arthur, a recent graduate of Morehouse College, and 
my daughter, Layla Arthur, a rising sophomore at Spelman 
College. Miles and Layla are my greatest accomplishments, and 
it would be a great joy to watch them in their journeys.
    It is certainly a great honor to be considered to be an 
Associate Judge on the court where I have worked for nearly 25 
years. I have been a Magistrate Judge since 2010, serving in 
the Family, Criminal, and Domestic Violence Divisions, where I 
have presided over thousands of cases in some of the court's 
highest-volume calendars. From 2016 through 2021, I served as 
the Deputy Presiding Magistrate Judge and the Presiding 
Magistrate Judge, where I served on the Chief Judges' 
Leadership teams, and covered cases in all divisions of the 
Court.
    I began my legal career at the Superior Court, serving as a 
judicial law clerk to the Honorable Mary A. Gooden Terrell. 
After my clerkship, I served as a staff attorney with the 
Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia where I 
represented juveniles and adults in matters in the Superior 
Court, the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services, and the 
United States Parole Commission. I then formed my own law 
practice where I worked until my appointment to the bench in 
2010.
    I was born in this great city, and this is my home. It has 
been an honor to serve the citizens of Washington, DC. 
throughout my career. I am humbled by this opportunity, if 
confirmed, to be an Associate Judge and to continue to serve my 
community and the Court that I have been a part of for decades.
    I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 
Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Judge Arthur.
    Mr. Ross, you may proceed with your opening remarks.

 TESTIMONY OF CARL EZEKIEL ROSS,\1\ NOMINEE TO BE AN ASSOCIATE 
       JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Mr. Ross. Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 
Members of the Committee. It is an honor to be before you 
today, and I want to thank the Members of the Committee and the 
dedicated Committee staff as you consider my nomination to be 
an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Ross appears in the Appendix on 
page 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I would like to thank the members of the District of 
Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission and its Chair, the 
Honorable Emmet Sullivan, for recommending me to the White 
House, and the President for nominating me. I would like to 
thank Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton for her kind words 
today.
    I would like to thank my parents, Gwen Ross, who is here 
today, and the late Carl Ross Jr. for teaching me the value of 
hard work. I would like to thank my siblings, Marsha Ross, who 
is also here today, and my other siblings who are watching 
remotely, Della, Cecil, Robby, Brandon, and Ryan, for keeping 
me grounded. I would like to thank my in-laws, Pastor Gerold 
and Wendy LeBlanc, for always leading by example, and I would 
like to thank my family, friends and mentors, including the 
Honorable James Spencer, the Honorable Hannah Lauck, the 
Honorable Rhonda Reid-Winston, and the Honorable Rudolph 
Contreras for their continued guidance and support.
    I would like to thank the members and staff of the House 
Ethics Committee including Chairman Ted Deutch and Ranking 
Member Jackie Walorski for their leadership and for allowing me 
to work alongside them in the Committee's pursuit of justice. 
Most importantly, I would like to thank my incredible wife 
Kimberly, who is also here today, for her unrelenting love and 
support. I am truly blessed to have her by my side.
    I am a proud third-generation Washingtonian from a family 
of military service, civil servants, clergy, nurses, and social 
workers. My parents dedicated their professional careers to 
government service and their retirement years to caring for 
children in need by serving as foster parents to over 120 
children, and opening a treatment foster care agency. My 
parents taught me from an early age the importance of giving 
back to the community and living by the principle that ``to 
whom much is given, much is required in return.''
    Following in their public service footsteps, I began my 
legal career clerking for the Honorable James R. Spencer of the 
Eastern District of Virginia. During my clerkship, I witnessed 
first-hand the characteristics that make a good judge, such as 
patience, respect, and impartiality. I went on to work for the 
law firm of Arnold & Porter, here in Washington, DC, where I 
learned to handle large and complex legal matters.
    For seven years, I served as an Assistant United States 
Attorney in the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office 
for the District of Columbia. During my tenure as an AUSA, I 
represented the United States in more than 100 civil cases in 
Federal, district, and appellate courts. For the past five 
years, I have had the honor of serving as Investigative Counsel 
for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ethics where 
I have investigated criminal and civil matters and helped 
prepare those matters for adjudication by the Committee. During 
my time with the Ethics Committee, I have seen first-hand the 
importance of handling matters without prejudgment, understand 
the need to move matters expeditiously, and comprehend the 
importance of ensuring that each individual that comes before 
the Committee receives due process.
    It would be an honor to now use the tools, techniques, and 
skills that I have developed throughout my career to serve my 
fellow residents of the District of Columbia as an Associate 
Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. If 
confirmed, I will ensure that all litigants are treated fairly, 
I will faithfully enforce the rule of law, and I will be 
steadfast in upholding the Constitution.
    Thank you again for considering my nomination and I look 
forward to answering your questions.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Mr. Ross.
    There are three questions that this Committee asks of every 
nominee. I am going to ask each of you to respond briefly with 
just a yes or a no. We are going to start with Judge Arthur and 
move down the dais there.
    First, is there anything you are aware of in your 
background that might present a conflict of interest with the 
duties of the office to which you have been nominated?
    Judge Arthur. No, Senator.
    Ms. Briggs. No, Senator.
    Mr. Ross. No, Senator.
    Chairman Peters. Second, do you know of anything, personal 
or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and 
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to 
which you have been nominated?
    Judge Arthur. No, Senator.
    Ms. Briggs. No, Senator.
    Mr. Ross. No, Senator.
    Chairman Peters. Lastly, do you agree, without reservation, 
to comply with any request or summons to appear and testify 
before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are 
indeed confirmed?
    Judge Arthur. Yes, Senator.
    Ms. Briggs. Yes, Senator.
    Mr. Ross. Yes, Senator.
    Chairman Peters. All right. Thank you.
    This first question is addressed to all three of you. The 
D.C. courts handle a very high volume of cases, and vacancies 
on both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals have 
contributed to this very extensive backlog of cases. I am going 
to ask the three of you this question, and I will start with 
Ms. Briggs, then Judge Arthur, and Mr. Ross.
    If confirmed, how will you manage your caseload efficiently 
while also ensuring that each person who comes before you has a 
meaningful opportunity to be heard?
    Ms. Briggs. Thank you for the question, Senator. Serving as 
a prosecutor for the last 12 years I have a lot of experience 
managing a high-volume caseload. Coupling that with my 
knowledge of the laws in the district and my practice in 
Superior Court will allow me to quickly get up to speed if I am 
fortunate enough to be confirmed, and assist with the backlog 
in whatever section that I am assigned to.
    If I am confirmed, it would always be my goal to make sure 
all the litigants before me have an opportunity to be heard and 
understand the proceedings that are taking place while also 
efficiently moving my docket along.
    Chairman Peters. Judge Arthur.
    Judge Arthur. Thank you for the question, Senator. I have 
been a judge for nearly 11 years, and in that capacity I have 
presided over thousands of cases. My approach to each one of my 
cases is to be fully informed about the issues and the evidence 
in each case. When I prepare I make sure that I am fully 
prepared for any anticipated arguments in the case, and when we 
are in court I give each party an opportunity to state their 
case and make their arguments, and ultimately I make my 
decision in an efficient manner. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Mr. Ross.
    Mr. Ross. Thank you, Senator. I would draw upon my 
experience dealing with high-volume cases both as an AUSA and 
as a clerk for the Eastern District of Virginia. If confirmed, 
I would ensure that the litigants that come before me are 
prepared, I would ensure that the court is always prepared for 
the cases that come before it, and I will work efficiently to 
move the cases on the court's docket.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Mr. Briggs, what challenges do 
you anticipate facing as you shift from your role as an 
advocate to the role of an impartial adjudicator, and how are 
you preparing to make this transition, if confirmed?
    Ms. Briggs. Thank you, Senator. The roles are different. An 
advocate starts out with a position that they must advocate on 
behalf of their clients or their employer. A judge must be 
neutral and must listen to the facts, hear the parties, and 
understand the law.
    Serving as a Senior Assistant United States Attorney in the 
U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia I have had 
some experience in bringing in cases and being able to research 
and understand the law as it applies to the case that I am 
reviewing coming into the office and making decisions on what, 
if any, charges will be filed. I think I have experience doing 
some of the things that I will be required to do if I am 
fortunate enough to be confirmed as an Associate Judge.
    Chairman Peters. This question would be addressed to all 
three of you as well. This time we will start with Mr. Ross and 
then work that way across, give everybody a chance to be first 
up and last.
    This question, again, to all three of you. In your view, 
what is the proper temperament of a judge? Throughout your 
career you have certainly developed the necessary elements of 
an appropriate judicial temperament. Can you at least give us 
examples of how that has occurred over your career?
    Mr. Ross, we will start with you and then go to Ms. Briggs 
and Judge Arthur.
    Mr. Ross. Thank you, Senator. I believe it is important for 
judges to be patient in dealing with the litigants that come 
before them and to be objective in applying the law to the 
facts.
    I had the good fortune of clerking in the Eastern District 
of Virginia for the Honorable James R. Spencer. He exhibited 
those characteristics each and every day, and I believe those 
are the important characteristics for a judge.
    Ms. Briggs. I agree with Mr. Ross. I would add dedication. 
My mentor, retired Florida Supreme Court Justice Peggy Quince, 
I was one of her first summer law clerks after she had been 
appointed to the Florida Supreme Court, and watching her and 
speaking with her about the dedication that it takes to 
understanding the law, so that when the parties are before you, 
you have the knowledge base and you can listen to the parties 
fairly and then apply that law to what you have gathered in the 
fact-finding and listening to the parties. Thank you.
    Judge Arthur. I agree with my co-nominees. Again, I have 
sat on the court for nearly 10 years and I have presided over 
thousands of cases. Again, I have also sat on many of the 
court's high-volume calendars. I find that in terms of 
temperament it is important that each judge gives his or her 
full time and attention to each case, and again, give each 
party an opportunity to be heard in court, to State their 
claims before the court. The court cannot be, and it is my 
view, that the court cannot exercise or exhibit any emotion 
when making decisions. The cases are limited to just the facts 
before it and the applicable law.
    Chairman Peters. Very good. One last question for the three 
of you, and this time we will start with Judge Arthur and move 
across.
    I certainly appreciate the strong commitment that each of 
you has made to follow the facts and the laws you have 
expressed in the previous question when you decide cases before 
you. But in practice, I want to know how will you ensure that 
any personal biases or sympathies that you have, which we all 
have those innate to us--how will you ensure that they do not 
impact the decisions that you will make on the bench? Judge 
Arthur.
    Judge Arthur. Simply stated, Senator, my personal views do 
not impact any decisions that I make on the bench.
    Chairman Peters. Ms. Briggs.
    Ms. Briggs. I agree with Judge Arthur. I would add that 
each case must be determined by the applicable law, the facts 
in front of the judge, and applying that law to the facts. My 
personal beliefs have no place in the courtroom.
    Chairman Peters. Mr. Ross.
    Mr. Ross. I agree with my co-nominees that your personal 
beliefs have no place in the courtroom. Judges must be 
cognizant of the fact that they have to set their personal 
beliefs aside and apply the law objectively to the facts that 
are before it. I have had the good fortune, when I worked at 
the Committee on Ethics, of engaging in that exercise of 
looking at facts objectively and preparing them for 
adjudication.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you.
    Ranking Member Portman is recognized for his questions.
    Senator Portman. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ross 
said that judicial temperament is, in large part, patience, and 
Judge Arthur, the young man behind you has clearly learned 
patience. I think he has judicial temperament. Is he with you?
    Judge Arthur. He is.
    Senator Portman. Would you like to introduce him?
    Judge Arthur. That is my son, Miles Arthur. Oh, hold on.
    Senator Portman. Miles is being pretty patient too, but I 
am more impressed with the young guy.
    Judge Arthur. I am sorry about that. Miles will always be 
my baby.
    Senator Portman. Who is the other young man?
    Ms. Briggs. The young guy belongs to me. That is my 6-year-
old son, Joe Jr.
    Senator Portman. Oh, I am sorry, Ms. Briggs. I did not 
realize that was yours. OK, good. That just woke him up. I am 
sorry about that. But seriously, great patience.
    We talked about violent crime earlier, and it is a huge 
problem around our country right now, and it is making so many 
communities unsafe and hurting the residents of some of our 
poorest communities and small businesses and others. D.C., 
unfortunately, is experiencing that surge as well. Homicides 
and armed robberies are on the rise. I talked earlier about the 
number of armed robberies this year compared to last year. It 
is shocking. I think reducing crime has to be a top priority of 
our judicial system all the way through.
    For all the witnesses, quickly, what do you think the 
court's role is in reducing crime, and how can the D.C. court 
system do a better job to prevent this crime wave from 
continuing to grow? Maybe start with Mr. Ross.
    Mr. Ross. Thank you. Thank you for the question, Senator. 
The best thing the D.C. courts can do to address crime is 
address the backlog of cases that are before it. The courts 
have limited authority, and that authority is limited to the 
cases and controversies that come before it. It does have the 
power to address the backlog of cases, move their docket 
efficiently, and ensure that the victims of crime receive 
timely justice.
    Senator Portman. Ms. Briggs.
    Ms. Briggs. Thank you, Senator. I agree with Mr. Ross. I 
think the timely adjudication of cases and addressing the 
court's backlog will assist in the endeavor of trying to 
conquer the crime problem here in the district. Thank you.
    Senator Portman. Judge Arthur.
    Judge Arthur. I agree with my co-nominees, Senator. I would 
add that the timely resolution of the cases is essential 
because it does address issues of uncertainty for the 
defendants. It does ensure resolution of cases for complaining 
witnesses and victims in the community. Also it affects the 
public's confidence in the court system. So addressing the 
backlog and addressing the cases in a timely fashion is 
essential.
    Senator Portman. Mayor Bowser has criticized the backlog. 
She said it is a public safety concern, so I do not disagree 
with what any of you said. But it is also about how the case is 
ultimately resolved, right? In other words, the decisions that 
you will make with regard to cases, with regard to saying to 
those habitual criminals, you cannot keep doing this. There is 
going to be a consequence. Do you agree with that? Mr. Ross.
    Mr. Ross. Yes. The court, in all of its cases, has to look 
at the facts before it objectively. On the issue of crime there 
are certain factors that the court must look at when carrying 
out sentencing, and the court must stick to those factors when 
issuing its sentencing.
    Senator Portman. Ms. Briggs.
    Ms. Briggs. I agree with my co-nominee.
    Senator Portman. Judge Arthur.
    Judge Arthur. I agree with my co-nominees. However, the 
court must make its decisions based solely on the facts and the 
law, Senator.
    Senator Portman. Let me ask you a little if I could, Mr. 
Arthur, about your background. You have been a Magistrate Judge 
in D.C. Superior Court for more than 10 years, but before that 
you practiced in a lot of areas of law, including criminal 
defense. As a judge, you have also served in the Criminal 
Division. How do you approach that transition from being an 
advocate for criminal defendants to being a judge in criminal 
cases, where your job is to, again, have consequences for those 
habitual criminals who are causing these crime waves in places 
like D.C.?
    Judge Arthur. Thank you, Senator. Again, when I was 
appointed to the bench in 2010, I had been practicing for over 
10 years in the District of Columbia, primarily doing criminal 
defense. In preparation for my appointment I spoke to my 
colleagues on the bench, including my mentor, the Honorable 
Mary A. Gooden Terrell, and went through the process of how to 
make judicial decisions. It was stressed upon me, not only in 
my time in preparation for my appointment but also during my 
training sessions preparing to take the bench, that training, 
in my view, was essential in making decisions and being able to 
separate the role that I had once as an advocate and now 
currently as a judge.
    Senator Portman. Ms. Briggs, you have been a prosecutor for 
more than 10 years. You prosecuted public officials charged 
with corruption and police charged with civil rights offenses. 
How would you approach your transition from being a prosecutor 
to being a judge in criminal cases, including those cases 
involving alleged wrongdoing by public officials and law 
enforcement?
    Ms. Briggs. My transition would be I would not have 
additional information before me that I have when I am 
prosecuting cases. The role of a judge is to understand the 
law, gather the facts, and hear from the parties before. That 
is what my focus would be, and then I would apply the law to 
the facts that have been gathered, and make sure that I issue 
well-thought-out opinions and rulings. Thank you.
    Senator Portman. In terms of personal views and politics, 
in your disclosure you have to reveal your contributions, and 
Ms. Briggs, you have donated to political candidates of one 
party in the past. Will you commit to setting aside your 
partisan or personal views as a judge?
    Ms. Briggs. Thank you, Senator. Absolutely. Those are 
personal expressions. I will be governed by the Code of 
Judicial Conduct if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed. That 
has limitations on what political activity I can be involved 
in, and I will be bound by those rules. Thank you.
    Senator Portman. Mr. Ross, your legal experience involves 
civil cases and cases in Federal court. Hearing criminal cases 
is different, and it is even different than the work you are 
doing now on the Ethics Committee, although I understand you 
have looked at allegations that would be criminal as well as 
violating our rules here in the House and Senate. How would you 
prepare to hear criminal cases and to be a judge, and what in 
your background qualifies you to take on the criminal cases?
    Mr. Ross. Thank you for the question, Senator. In terms of 
what in my background qualifies me to handle criminal cases, as 
you mentioned in my current position I investigate matters that 
are both civil and criminal in nature and help prepare those 
matters for adjudication for the House Ethics Committee.
    With respect to the transition to actually being a judge, 
it would be important to get up to speed on both the criminal 
code here in D.C., the rules regarding criminal procedure here 
in D.C., and ensure that I can view every case that comes 
before me objectively, with a nuanced understanding of the law, 
and apply the law even-handedly in all of those matters.
    Senator Portman. Thanks to all three of you. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ranking Member Portman.
    Senator Hawley, you are recognized for your questions.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY

    Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
congratulations to the nominees. Thank you for being here.
    Let me start with you, Mr. Ross, if I could. A few years 
ago you were counsel for some years at Arnold & Porter. Is that 
right? Do I have that right?
    Mr. Ross. Yes, that is correct, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. I just want to ask you about some of what 
you did there. I understand you represented a number of large 
pharmaceutical companies in your time there as an associate. 
Have I got that right?
    Mr. Ross. That is correct, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. Can you describe the nature of that 
representation? Let me just ask you a little more specifically. 
Did any of the work concern opioids?
    Mr. Ross. No, Senator. None of the work concerned opioids.
    Senator Hawley. What about patent infringement?
    Mr. Ross. No, Senator. None of the work involved patent 
infringement.
    Senator Hawley. Can you give us an overview of the sort of 
matters that you did handle in that vein?
    Mr. Ross. Yes, Senator. With respect to my time at Arnold & 
Porter, and it was some years ago, the pharmaceutical defense 
work that I did was primarily toward liability with respect to 
specific products.
    Senator Hawley. Got it. Thank you. That is very helpful.
    Judge Arthur, if I could come to you, I want to ask you 
about a case that you had a few years ago, back in 2017, end of 
2017. It is a petition of J-O. This was an adoption petition, 
where the D.C. Court of Appeals held that you erred in granting 
the adoption petition because the birth mother was not 
competent to designate a preferred caregiver under D.C. law. Do 
you remember this case at all? I mean, it has been several 
years ago.
    Judge Arthur. It has been several years. I remember the 
decision, yes.
    Senator Hawley. Let me give you a few of the facts and then 
if you cannot remember enough, I realize some time has elapsed 
and I can give some of this to you for the record, because I do 
not want to catch you off-guard here.
    My purpose in asking you this, this is a case where you 
were reversed. You have been a judge for a number of years. 
Anybody who sits on the court for any length of time is going 
to be reversed so I am not trying to catch you out here. What I 
am more interested in is just trying to understand how you 
think and then also, as currently a magistrate judge, how you 
deal with getting reversed, what you take from that, how you 
apply those lessons. That is what I am after here.
    In this case the court held that given the birth mother's 
mental history, her mental health history, that she was not in 
a position to make a determination about what was in her 
child's best interest. You had recommended that her, the birth 
mother's, determination about a preferred caregiver be allowed 
to stand. That is what the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed.
    The opinion said the child's biological mother had a 
history of mental health problems. She was admitted to 
inpatient psychiatric care at the hospital where she remained 
hospitalized for a number of weeks after giving birth. She had 
long medical and mental health history, which is tragic. She 
had suffered a serious brain injury at 19, had a history of 
substance abuse, and so on and so on.
    Her sister testified that the mother would wander about in 
New York, D.C., and Virginia. She was mentally ill. She was 
frequently homeless--this is a sad story--and often appeared 
delusional.
    It was a long opinion. It was about 45 pages, which is a 
pretty lengthy opinion for the highest court of the District of 
Columbia. I just want to, to the extent you remember it, I am 
just curious about what you took from this case, and maybe more 
generally, being reversed, what lessons do you draw from that 
and then how do you apply those going forward?
    Judge Arthur. Thank you for the question, Senator. It has 
been some years since that decision was made. I do recall many 
of the facts of the case. I, however, have to admit that I do 
not know what the status of the case is given that it did 
involve a related matter, so it would not be appropriate for me 
to comment on the specifics of the case as a sitting judicial 
officer and as a nominee.
    In terms of making my decision, what I did do is I did pay 
close attention to the evidence in the case and the facts in 
the case in rendering my decision, and I applied what I 
believed to be at the time the appropriate standard in 
assessing the birth parent's choice of caregiver.
    As it relates to how I handle or how I would react to the 
Court of Appeals' decision, I would honor it moving forward. It 
is good law, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. Very good. Let me ask you, just from your 
experience serving as a Magistrate Judge, as you have presided 
over your docket for some years now, are there any particular 
problems that you have noticed within the D.C. judicial system, 
from our vantage point, that you think you are able to speak 
to?
    Judge Arthur. As a sitting judge it is not appropriate for 
me to speak on certain issues. I will say, as was alluded to 
earlier in the questions and in our responses, that the backlog 
created by COVID-19 and the judicial vacancies is a primary 
issue for the court and it must remain as a priority.
    Senator Hawley. Are there any other steps or reforms that 
you would like to see in the D.C. court system, based on your 
experience, that you think would help justice be better 
administered here in the district?
    Judge Arthur. As a sitting judge and as a nominee it is not 
appropriate for me to comment on or to answer that question.
    Senator Hawley. But the backlog issue is one that you have 
addressed. You feel strongly about that, it sounds like.
    Judge Arthur. The backlog is an issue. I deal with the 
cases every day, and our judges make it a priority to address 
the backlog in cases. Our court is expanding its operations and 
we are making headway in addressing the backlog.
    Senator Hawley. Very good. Let me ask you each about 
criminal penalties. Senator Portman touched on this, which I 
think is a very important topic, given the terrible rise in 
violent crime, unfortunately crime of all kinds but especially 
violent crime that we are seeing all over the country, and that 
includes here in the district.
    I would like to know from each of you, are there any 
criminal penalties that you feel you would have trouble 
applying as a judge? Any penalties to which you have a policy, 
objection, or policy concerns?
    Let us just go right down the line. I guess we will start 
with you, Judge.
    Judge Arthur. Again, as a sitting judge and as a nominee it 
is not appropriate for me to answer that question.
    Senator Hawley. So the answer is not no?
    Judge Arthur. Pardon me?
    Senator Hawley. The answer is a maybe?
    Judge Arthur. Again, I cannot comment on me and my views on 
sentencing.
    Senator Hawley. What you are telling me is you might have 
some concerns. You might have some policy objections but you 
are not going to tell me what they are?
    Judge Arthur. No, that is not what I am saying. My personal 
views do not factor into any decision I make regarding 
sentencing. I am bound to assess the facts of the case and the 
applicable law, and in sentencing I would consider any 
statutory maximums or minimums in the case.
    Senator Hawley. OK. What about you, Ms. Briggs?
    Ms. Briggs. No, Senator.
    Mr. Ross. No, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. What about areas of law that may be over-
criminalized, in your view? Are there any areas of law that you 
think are over-criminalized? Ms. Briggs, I have not given you a 
chance to go first, and you are a Federal prosecutor now, so 
let me ask you first.
    Ms. Briggs. No, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. Mr. Ross.
    Mr. Ross. No, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. Judge.
    Judge Arthur. No, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. OK. My time has expired and I think there 
are probably others--yes, Senator Carper is here--waiting to 
question. So for the record, Ms. Briggs, since I did not get to 
visit much with you, I want to ask you a little bit about your 
experience as a Federal prosecutor, including applying the 
guidelines. I realize you would not be dealing with the Federal 
guidelines in this new role but you have dealt with them for a 
number of years now. I think that is very important. I am going 
to ask you some questions about that.
    Judge, I may give you another question or two about that 
case we were discussing, more specifically, to jog your memory.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Hawley. Senator Carper, 
you are recognized for your questions.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

    Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator 
Hawley.
    Welcome. I think I had an opportunity to meet all of you. 
We talked about your names, where they came from, a little bit 
about your family history, and we are honored to be here, 
holding this hearing, considering your nomination.
    Before I was elected Governor I was a Naval Officer in the 
Vietnam War and later on moved to Delaware and got to be 
Treasurer, Congressman, and Governor.
    Before I was sworn in as Governor, I had been elected, and 
before I was sworn in I was visited by a former Governor, Bert 
Carvel, who had been Governor for eight years earlier in our 
State's history. He came to give me some advice. He said in the 
State of Delaware the judiciary is incredibly important, the 
Supreme Court, the Court of Chancery, Superior Court, other 
courts. He said it is sort of like we punch above our weight 
when it comes to the judiciary in the State of Delaware. And he 
said, ``As Governor you get to nominate people to serve in 
these capacities. Do not screw it up.''
    I worked for eight years to try to identify the very best 
people we could find to be nominated and to be hopefully 
confirmed. In those eight years, everyone I ever nominated was 
confirmed, and went on to serve, I think, which is a real 
distinction, so it is really important.
    We had a situation. We had a legislature, Democratic 
majority in the Senate and Republican majority in the House. We 
actually worked together to get people confirmed and to do the 
best that we could. I approached this hearing today, as I do 
many things, as a recovering Governor. I just wanted to mention 
that.
    The average time it takes, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, to 
fill a vacancy on the D.C. Superior Court, of which you have 
all been nominated to serve in, is over three years. If we had 
done that in the State of Delaware we should have all been 
thrown out of office. It is just appalling. Justice delayed is 
justice denied.
    What is more, the Superior Court here in the District of 
Columbia has among the highest case filings per capita in the 
United States, I am told, with 83,000 case filings in 2019 
alone. So not only is the court struggling with vacancies, it 
is also confronting a substantial workload.
    These needlessly lengthy judicial vacancies have burdened 
the D.C. Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals, delaying 
justice for our fellow Americans, and as I often said, and I 
will say it again, justice delayed is justice denied.
    The nearly 700,000 Americans who live in D.C. pay taxes. 
They serve our country, many times in uniform. They start 
businesses. They care for their neighbors, their friends, and 
colleagues, just like the rest of us, and yet they are not 
treated like every other American from our 50 States. Congress 
approves their budget. They have a better credit rating than we 
do, and we have to approve their budget. We confirm their 
judges, and we subject them to a higher Federal per capital 
income tax rate than any of the other 50 States.
    To make matter worse, we, in Congress, take our time when 
it comes to accomplishing these tasks. Toward that end, I am 
glad that we are considering these nominees today, Mr. 
Chairman. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, including my fellow former Governors. We 
have some recovering Governors on this panel. Along with me 
they include Senator Hassan and Senator Scott of Florida.
    But we want to resolve the issues of these judicial 
vacancies. With that I thank you for the chance to offer those 
comments.
    I have a question, at least one question that I would like 
for us to get to. Again, when I served as Governor of Delaware 
it was my responsibility to nominate individuals to serve on 
our State's highly regarded courts, the Court of Chancery, the 
Supreme Court, and others. Considering potential candidates, I 
looked for the following five attributes: sound moral 
character, a complete knowledge of the law, a willingness to 
listen to both sides of an argument, good judicial temperament, 
and the ability to make difficult decisions with sound 
reasoning within a reasonable period of time.
    Could each of you please take maybe a minute apiece to 
discuss the importance of having these attributes as a judge 
and how, if confirmed, you would bring these qualities to the 
District of Columbia's Superior Court as an Associate Judge?
    Mr. Arthur, please. Is it Arthur? I can barely see your 
nametag. There we go. Take it away, please.
    Judge Arthur. Thank you, Senator. You characterized the 
standard for which I try to hold myself to every day that I 
appear in court. Again, I have been a judge now for nearly 11 
years.
    Senator Carper. I should have addressed you as Judge 
Arthur. This is not your first rodeo.
    Judge Arthur. It works. I will say, again, every day that I 
enter my courtroom I make sure that I ensure that every person 
is heard, that every case is addressed, and that I make fair 
and efficient decisions.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. I think the default here is, for 
your work, if you are confirmed to this post, the default here 
is the Golden Rule, trying to figure out what to do and treat 
other people the way you want to be treated. I think that 
always works.
    Ms. Briggs.
    Ms. Briggs. Thank you for the question, Senator. Those 
standards you listed are embodied in what I think the role of a 
judge is, and if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed I will 
make sure that I understand the law, that I gather the facts, 
and that I fairly hear from the litigants and then apply that 
law to the facts in making any rulings and decisions. Thank 
you.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Ross.
    Mr. Ross. Thank you, Senator. I also agree that 
characteristics that you described embody what I hope to be as 
a judge, if confirmed--impartial, ensuring that I treat all 
litigants equally that come before the court, moving the 
court's docket efficiently, and making sure that any opinions 
that are issued are clear and concise.
    Senator Carper. Good. Before the hearing began we had a 
chance to talk a little bit. Your middle name is Ezekiel, and I 
mentioned I had been reading through the Old Testament and came 
across Ezekiel quite a bit. You are named after him, I believe. 
Is that correct?
    Mr. Ross. That is correct.
    Senator Carper. Can you think of any qualities that Ezekiel 
demonstrated that you might want to embrace as a member of the 
bench here in the District of Columbia? Does anything come to 
mind?
    Mr. Ross. Patience, Senator.
    Senator Carper. To that I will just say amen.
    All right. I have one other question. I am going to ask the 
other question for the record if I could, and just ask all of 
you to respond for the record. Is that all right, Mr. Chairman? 
Good. I still want you to respond, but I will ask you to 
respond for the record, and I can get back to my other hearing 
that I am supposed to be at.
    In looking over your biographies and looking through your 
opening statements I noticed that you all have a strong 
connection to the District of Columbia, whether through your 
personal life or your professional life, and I admire your 
desire to take on these roles and continue giving back to this 
community through public service.
    The job of an Associate Judge on the D.C. Superior Court is 
no small task, given the backlog and the extended judicial 
vacancies the court is currently facing. The question I am 
going to ask you to answer for the record is this. Could each 
of you take some time to share with us in writing why you want 
to take on the role of D.C. Superior Court Judge and how you 
will use your service to ensure that your fellow Americans are 
expeditiously and justly granted their day in court? I will ask 
you to do that for the record.
    In the meantime, from what I can tell and from what my 
staff tells me, you are ideally well suited for these roles and 
we are grateful to you for your willingness to serve, grateful 
to your families for their willingness to share you with the 
folks of the District of Columbia.
    All right. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Carper.
    As we get ready to wrap up this hearing I have one final 
question for each of you to answer. From the testimony you have 
given here today it is clear that you are all very talented 
individuals with great professional accomplishments and have a 
wealth of experience. When you have all of those things you 
have a lot of options in life, and there are a lot of options 
for you in the private sector that potentially could be more 
lucrative than the position that you are seeking right now, and 
yet each of you have decided to pursue public service.
    I want to know, and the Committee would like to know, what 
is it about public service that attracts you to this position 
and why have you decided to focus on that in seeking this 
position?
    I will start with you, Ms. Briggs, and then we will go to 
Mr. Ross, and finish up with Judge Arthur.
    Ms. Briggs. Thank you, Senator. I have had a long-time 
interest in serving as judicial officer, and as I mentioned 
earlier I have been a dedicated public servant at the U.S. 
Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia for the past 12 
years. It would be an honor to continue that service as an 
Associate Judge with the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia.
    But that long-time interest was sparked when I walked into 
the office of retired Florida Supreme Court Justice Peggy 
Quince and got to see someone that looks like me in a judicial 
robe. I knew, from that moment on, that I wanted to follow in 
her footsteps. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Mr. Ross.
    Mr. Ross. Thank you, Senator. I am simply following in the 
example that my parents set forth. My parents chose public 
service throughout their careers. They led by example each and 
every day. From a very early age I understood the importance of 
giving back to the community. I have had the good fortune of 
serving in public service in all three branches of the 
government, I have developed a certain number of skill sets 
over the course of my career, and I would like to now use the 
skills and experience that I have developed throughout my 
career to serve my fellow residents of the District of 
Columbia.
    Chairman Peters. Very good. Judge Arthur.
    Judge Arthur. Thank you, Senator. Again, as I alluded to in 
my opening statement, my parents served as the foundation for 
me, and they encouraged me to pursue a career in public 
service. I have been blessed throughout my life to be 
surrounded by individuals who supported and encouraged me to 
pursue that.
    Like my colleagues, I had the good graces of working for 
the Honorable Mary A. Gooden Terrell, who encouraged me, even 
after my clerkship, to consider the bench. I have had the good 
fortune of working in one of the best trial courts in America. 
That is the D.C. Superior Court. I have served there for nearly 
11 years; it will be 11 years in August--and I can honestly say 
that every day that I go into court I learn something new, I 
enjoy the work that I do, and I look forward, if confirmed, to 
being an Associate Judge at the Superior Court.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Judge Arthur, and thank you to 
the three of you for being here before us here today, and 
congratulations to three of you on your nomination and your 
willingness to take on these very challenging positions before 
you.
    The nominees have filed responses to biographical and 
financial questionnaires,\1\ and without objection this 
information is going to be made part of the hearing record,\2\ 
with the exception of the financial data which is on file and 
available for public inspection in the Committee offices.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The information of Ms. Briggs appear in the Appendix on page 
25.
    \2\ The information of Judge Arthur appear in the Appendix on page 
52.
    \3\ The information of Mr. Ross appear in the Appendix on page 84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The hearing record will remain open until 12 p.m. tomorrow, 
July 13th, for the submission of statements and questions for 
the record.
    This hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]