[Senate Hearing 117-872]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                          
                                                         S. Hrg. 117-872

                        CONFIRMATION HEARING ON
                          FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                            DECEMBER 1, 2021

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. J-117-8

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary


                        www.judiciary.senate.gov
                            www.govinfo.gov
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            

              CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
              
              
              
              
              
              
              

 


                             



                                                        S. Hrg. 117-872
 
                        CONFIRMATION HEARING ON
                          FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            DECEMBER 1, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. J-117-8

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary    
         
         
         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 



                        www.judiciary.senate.gov
                            www.govinfo.gov
                            
                            
                            
                            
                         ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 56-186               WASHINGTON : 2024
 
        
                            
                            
                    
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                            
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                   RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking 
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California             Member
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             JOHN CORNYN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      TED CRUZ, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              BEN SASSE, Nebraska
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
ALEX PADILLA, California             TOM COTTON, Arkansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
                                     THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
             Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
      Kolan L. Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page

Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     1
Grassley, Hon. Charles E.........................................     3
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne...........................................    10
Coons, Hon. Christopher A........................................     9
Padilla, Hon. Alex...............................................    11
Ossoff, Hon. Jon.................................................     6

                          VISITING INTRODUCERS

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from New York.............     4
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from Delaware...............     7
Warnock, Hon. Raphael G., U.S. Senator from Georgia..............     3

                                NOMINEES

Calvert, Victoria Maria..........................................    21
    Questionnaire................................................   507
    Responses to written questions...............................    48
    Additional materails.........................................   430
Corley, Jacqueline Scott.........................................    21
    Questionnaire................................................   530
    Responses to written questions...............................   108
    Additional materails.........................................   506
Geraghty, Sarah Elisabeth........................................    22
    Questionnaire................................................   579
    Responses to written questions...............................   161
    Additional materails.........................................   438
Ho, Dale E.......................................................    23
    Questionnaire................................................   645
    Responses to written questions...............................   229
    Additional materails.........................................   466
Stark, Leonard P.................................................    12
    Questionnaire................................................   698
    Responses to written questions...............................   324
    Additional materials.........................................   503
Vidal, Katherine.................................................    23
    Questionnaire................................................   832
    Responses to written questions returned......................   390
    Additional materials.........................................   505


                        CONFIRMATION HEARING ON



                          FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2021

                               United States Senate
                                 Committee on the Judiciary
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice at 9:59 a.m., in Room 
226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin, 
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Leahy, Feinstein, 
Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker, 
Padilla, Ossoff, Grassley, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Kennedy, Tillis, 
and Blackburn.
    Also present: Senators Warnock, Schumer, and Carper.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,

            U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Chair Durbin. The hearing is called to order. Today, we 
have six nominees before us: Judge Leonard Stark, nominated to 
the Federal Circuit; Victoria Calvert, nominated to the 
Northern District of Georgia; Judge Jacqueline Corley, 
nominated to the Northern District of California; Sarah 
Geraghty, nominated to the Northern District of Georgia; Dale 
Ho, nominated to the Southern District of New York; and 
Katherine Vidal, nominated to the be Director of the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office, known as the PTO. A number 
of our colleagues are here today to formally introduce their 
nominees, and I'll turn to them very quickly.
    Before I do, I want to take a few broad observations about 
the nominees before us. I remarked several times about the 
diversity of nominees being recommended by the Biden 
administration. The slate before us continues to represent that 
professional diversity. Among our judicial nominees today, we 
have two sitting Federal judges, four nominees who've worked in 
private legal practice, including one as a law firm partner, 
one nominee who previously served as a Federal prosecutor, two 
who represented indigent criminal defendants, one who 
previously served as a career law clerk, and one nominee who 
has dedicated his career to advancing civil rights, including 
the right to vote.
    When I speak about professional diversity, I am not lauding 
diversity for its own sake. I'm instead recognizing the Federal 
prosecutors and corporate lawyers have historically been well 
represented on the Federal bench, and we are working to create 
some balance. To be absolutely clear, Federal prosecutors and 
corporate lawyers can and do make outstanding judges. We have 
evidence of that before us today, as well. As leaders across 
the political and ideological spectrum have noted, it's vital 
that our Federal judiciary reflect the communities it serves.
    I have little doubt that some of our nominees today will 
face questions about their record, upholding Constitutional 
rights, ensuring an accurate Census, working to make our 
criminal justice system better. I also anticipate there'll be 
questions about the nominees' ability to differentiate between 
their previous responsibilities and roles as advocates and the 
responsibilities of a judge. I have every confidence that these 
nominees understand that distinction.
    I'd also note that during the last administration, we had 
multiple judicial nominees brought before us who spent their 
early careers as advocates at conservative legal organizations 
for conservative causes. To name just a few, Kyle Duncan, now 
in the Fifth Circuit, argued against the constitutional right 
to same-sex marriage and in favor of restricted voting laws in 
Texas and other states. Matthew Kazmierczak, on the Northern 
District of Texas, spent much of his career at the First 
Liberty Institute, arguing against marriage equality and 
challenging key provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Sarah 
Pitlyk, now on the Eastern District of Missouri, defending 
multiple laws restricting a woman's reproductive freedom. She 
advocated reproductive freedom in speeches and publications. 
Well-documented. In short, each of these nominees were clearly 
advocates inside and outside of the courtroom.
    Yet, at the same time, my Republican colleagues stressed 
that a nominee should not be held to account for advocacy they 
took as a practicing attorney, whether that was in the form of 
a brief or an op-ed. In fact, my Republican colleagues 
repeatedly argued that Senators should not oppose President 
Trump's nominees for any arguments they made in the course of 
representing their clients. I find it hard to believe that 
Republican judicial nominees can set aside their roles as 
advocates and Democratic nominees cannot. It would be 
regrettable if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
cast aside the standards they applied to their own nominees 
just a few short years ago.
    Before I turn to the Ranking Member for his opening 
remarks, I'd like to address an issue that was raised at the 
last nomination hearing concerning the FBI's reported creation 
of a new, quote, ``threat tag'', close quote, to track reports 
of violence and threats of violence against school officials. 
It's been debated at length in this Committee, not formally, 
but informally.
    What we find is the FBI uses tags to track the reports it 
receives by issue of category, which can help determine the 
scope or region of a particular threat, perfectly in line with 
Attorney General Garland's testimony at our recent oversight 
hearing, where he told this Committee that the purpose of their 
recent memorandum about school violence is, quote, ``for our 
Federal law enforcement to engage with State and local law 
enforcement and determine whether they need assistance as to 
the scope and violence of threats of violence facing public 
school officials.'' Let me share publicly gathered published 
data.
    ED Week Research Center, an education not-for-profit, 
recently conducted a survey of educators that found 60 percent 
of principals and district leaders surveyed said someone in 
their district had been verbally or physically threatened in 
the past year, 60 percent of these school officials, regarding 
that school's--usually that school's approach to the COVID-19 
pandemic. Nearly one in three principals and district leaders 
said school board members also face threats. Administrators 
noted that even school nurses are facing threats now.
    Violence and threats of violence are serious. We've seen 
that played out almost every day of our lives. As I've said 
before, the First Amendment does not protect violence nor 
threats of violence, whether the violence is directed against 
school officials, airline workers, public health officials, or 
Members of Congress. It is the duty of Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement to respond appropriately.
    With that, I will turn to my colleague, Senator Grassley.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,

              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

    Senator Grassley. Welcome to our nominees. Judge Stark and 
Judge Corley have significant judicial experience. I'm hoping 
to hear more from both of them about how they approach cases 
and their judicial philosophy. Ms. Vidal also has substantial 
experience working as an engineer and litigating patent cases. 
I'm interested to hear what plans she has for the Patent and 
Trademark Office. Ms. Calvert, Geraghty, and Mr. Ho have all 
worked in advocacy roles. Mr. Ho has been particularly 
outspoken with his criticism of the courts and conservatives.
    We all know that liberal activists like the dark money 
group Demand Justice have celebrated judicial nominees who 
serve as advocates, Demand Justice advocates, expect the 
nominee to take an activist approach on the bench. You've heard 
me talk about why that means that we, on this Committee, need 
to closely evaluate this administration's nominees. You've 
heard me talk about that before, so I'm not going to repeat 
those points. I'm just going to say welcome to the committee, 
everybody, and welcome to your families, as well because I'm 
sure, like I would be, you would be very proud of their 
positions that they've been appointed to.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Grassley. A number of 
colleagues joined us this morning to introduce nominees, and 
they'll be coming and going, which is perfectly normal because 
everyone has a busy schedule. We understand that our colleague, 
Senator Warnock of Georgia, has a hearing that just starts in a 
few minutes. Take it away, Senator Warnock.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RAPHAEL G. WARNOCK,

             U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

    Senator Warnock. Thank you so very much, Chair Durbin and 
Ranking Member Grassley, for allowing me to appear before the 
Committee. I am honored to be here to introduce two excellent 
and highly qualified judicial nominees for the Northern 
District of Georgia, Sarah Elisabeth Geraghty, and Victoria 
Marie Calvert.
    Ms. Geraghty currently serves as Senior Counsel at the 
Southern Center for Human Rights, a leading public interest 
organization in the Southeast. Joining her today are her 
parents, Thomas and Diane; husband, Samuel; and daughters, 
Margaret and Rebecca. Ms. Geraghty has devoted her career to 
ensuring equal justice under the law. For nearly two decades, 
she has led complex litigation at the Southern Center for Human 
Rights, representing some of the most marginalized members of 
the community and bringing to light instances where our justice 
system has failed to live up to its values.
    Ms. Geraghty has proud--broad support from the Georgia 
legal community and law enforcement. One letter from a police 
officer with over 40 years of experience praises Ms. Geraghty 
for her good character and her commitment to the rule of law. 
Another from a former opposing counsel attests to her 
experience, integrity, and leadership. Last year, in 
recognition of her outstanding work, Ms. Geraghty was named 
Attorney of the Year by the Fulton County Daily Report.
    I am also honored to introduce Ms. Calvert, who is joined 
today by her mother, Jacqueline, her sister, Alex, husband, 
Max, and son, Hollis. Ms. Calvert is a first-generation 
American and the first in her family to graduate from college. 
She would bring a diverse set of experiences to the bench. She 
is currently a staff attorney at the Federal public defender 
program, where she ensures that her clients receive the due 
process that our Constitution guarantees. She has also worked 
in the Atlanta Firm--the Atlanta Law Firm, King & Spalding, 
where she also maintained a robust pro bono practice.
    Ms. Calvert, too, has broad support from Georgia's legal 
community. A letter from a group of current Federal 
prosecutors, all of whom Ms. Calvert faced as defense counsel, 
praised her civility and professionalism, as well as her keen 
intellect and legal acumen. Another group of former prosecutors 
who served in Democratic and Republican administrations spoke 
to her excellent judgment and commitment to public service.
    Both Ms. Geraghty and Ms. Calvert are historic nominees. If 
confirmed, Ms. Geraghty would become the first civil rights 
attorney, and Ms. Calvert would become only the second Black 
woman and first former Federal public defender in the Northern 
District. Both are highly qualified, and I look forward to 
supporting their nominations on the Senate floor.
    Thank you, again, for allowing me to appear before this 
Committee to share my enthusiastic support for both of these 
nominees.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Warnock. On cue, the 
arrival of our Majority Leader, Senator Schumer. Welcome back.

             STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER,

            U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to be 
back in this room where I spent many, many happy years. We got 
some great things done, so I thank you. I want to thank you and 
Ranking Member Grassley, all my colleagues on Senate Judiciary. 
Today, it's my honor to introduce a nominee for the District 
Court for the Southern District of New York, Dale Ho.
    He's an esteemed litigator and one of the foremost election 
lawyers in the country, whom I was so proud to recommend to 
President Biden. Dale's life, his family--where's Dale's 
family? Stand up so we can say hello to you. Thank you. Nice 
family. His career is a shining example of the American Dream. 
He's the grandson of a World War II veteran. His parents grew 
up in the Philippines before immigrating to the United States.
    Though Dale grew up in San Jose, which I hear is much nicer 
than D.C. this time of year, he was always keenly aware, even 
as a kid, where his parents came from and, frankly, what they 
escaped from--a country where power rested not in the people 
but in the whims of one leader.
    That thought, as Mr. Ho will tell you, was the spark that 
began his love for democracy and for democratic institutions. 
Today, Dale sits before this Committee as one of the Nation's 
leading experts on election law and on voting rights.
    His credentials speak for themselves. He graduated from 
Princeton, Yale Law School, clerked for two judges, including 
in the same district court for which he has now been nominated. 
It's been his experience at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and at 
the ACLU, where he currently serves as the Director of the 
Voting Rights Project, where Mr. Ho has set himself apart as 
one of the best lawyers in America.
    He argued two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court: Trump v. 
New York, challenging the exclusion of undocumented immigrants 
from the population used to apportion the Census and the House 
of Representatives, and the Department of Commerce v. New York, 
successfully challenging the inclusion of the citizenship 
question on the 2020 Census. That's a case we'd all heard 
about, and many of us exalted in, and it was only because of 
Dale Ho's great work, I think, that we succeeded. He did an 
amazing job.
    He also served as the lead counsel in Fish v. Kobach, 
successfully challenging a Kansas law requiring people to show 
a birth certificate or a passport when registering to vote. As 
those who have worked with Mr. Ho over the years will attest 
to, it's not just his experience, but his excellence as a legal 
thinker that makes Mr. Ho stand out.
    He is regarded by his colleagues as one of the finest 
lawyers in the country, whose work on voting rights is historic 
in nature. One judge who presided over a case Mr. Ho argued 
described him as one of the most compelling litigators who has 
ever been before him. If confirmed, I have no doubt Mr. Ho will 
make an excellent Federal judge.
    My colleagues, our courts desperately need more people like 
Dale Ho. Across the country, we are witnessing the greatest 
assault on voting rights that we have seen since Jim Crow. As 
voting rights come under assault across the country, it is only 
fitting that we elevate one of the country's top voting rights 
experts to safeguard our democracy and preserve our fundamental 
rights as U.S. citizens. Finally, if confirmed, Mr. Ho would 
also add to the range of experiences, backgrounds, and 
perspectives that I believe the courts desperately need.
    I'm proud that the Senate is not only increasing the 
demographic diversity on the bench--more women, more people of 
color, more individuals from immigrant families--but it's also 
its professional diversity as well. Voting rights lawyers, 
civil rights lawyers, public defenders, and more. This is how 
we strengthen the public trust in the judiciary.
    The country isn't all corporate lawyers and prosecutors. It 
has many other people in the legal profession, and now we're 
beginning to see them on the bench in much greater numbers. Mr. 
Ho's confirmation would go a long way to helping achieve that 
goal.
    I'm proud to support Dale Ho's nomination today, and I 
thank the Members of this Committee for letting me speak in his 
favor.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Schumer, for your 
testimony before the Committee. Senator Ossoff, since Senator 
Warnock opened relating to Georgia nominees, would you like to 
speak at this moment?

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JON OSSOFF,

             U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ranking 
Member Grassley and colleagues on the Committee. It's my honor 
to introduce our two highly qualified nominees to the U.S. 
District Court of the Northern District of Georgia, Sarah 
Geraghty and Victoria Calvert.
    Senator Reverend Warnock and I are grateful for the service 
of the Federal Nominations Advisory Commission we formed, and 
in particular Judge Leah Ward Sears, the former chief justice 
of Georgia's Supreme Court, for her leadership of that Advisory 
Commission.
    Turning to our nominees, Ms. Geraghty is joined today by 
her husband, Sam Gratzer, a physician, and her children, 
Margaret and Rebecca.
    Ms. Geraghty's training and experience demonstrate her high 
qualification and lifetime of preparation to serve on the 
Federal bench. She excelled at the University of Michigan, 
where she received both her J.D. and a Master of Social Work, 
went on to clerk for Judge--Judge James B. Zagel on the U.S. 
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and then 
went to work as a staff attorney with the Office of the 
Appellate Defender in New York.
    For nearly two decades, Ms. Geraghty has worked at the 
Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights and has served 
as a litigator in State and Federal court as well as in the 
State of Alabama. She has served as counsel in civil, criminal, 
habeas corpus, immigration, family law, and many other cases. 
She has extensive experience with Federal district court 
litigation, having handled a range of complex matters, 
including serving as lead counsel in certified class actions, 
leading litigation teams in complex evidentiary hearings, and 
building consensus with Government officials to remedy unlawful 
Government policies and prison conditions.
    She has sought to uphold the Constitution and the rule of 
law on behalf of indigent persons in the criminal justice 
system, and has consistently impressed both her colleagues and 
her adversaries in the courtroom by embodying the qualities 
necessary to serve on the Federal bench. Donald Vallery, former 
Solicitor General with 35 years of experience litigating in 
Federal court, describes Ms. Geraghty as, quote, ``Brilliant 
and careful lawyer who is in no sense an ideologue and will 
give every party who appears before her a fair shake.''
    Given Ms. Geraghty's professional experience and the 
extraordinary nature of her work as an advocate, Ms. Geraghty 
is deeply familiar with all of the different aspects of the 
day-to-day practice of law. She's a seasoned litigator with a 
deep work ethic and a demonstrated commitment to equal justice 
under the law, and I look forward to her testimony today.
    Next, Mr. Chairman, it's my honor to introduce the second 
nominee to the District Court of the Northern District of 
Georgia, Victoria Calvert, along with her husband, Max, and 
their son, Hollis.
    Although born in New York, Georgia is proud to claim Ms. 
Calvert as one of her own, as she spent the majority of her 
childhood in Chamblee, Georgia, not far from where my folks 
live, and her entire professional career in the Atlanta area.
    Ms. Calvert earned her undergraduate degree in political 
science and Spanish from Duke University, went on to earn her 
law degree from New York University School of Law. Ms. 
Calvert's experience in both civil and criminal law have 
prepared her to handle the caseload of a district court judge.
    She began her legal career as an associate at one of the 
largest and most well-respected international law firms, 
Atlanta-based King & Spalding, where she worked for six years 
on their Special Matters and Investigations Practice Group, 
under current FBI Director Christopher Wray. While in private 
practice, Ms. Calvert devoted hundreds of hours to pro bono 
work, earning her firm's Pro Bono Service Award on several 
occasions.
    This strong commitment to community led Ms. Calvert to 
accept a position as a public Federal defender of the Northern 
District of Georgia, where she represented people from every 
walk of life, including in complex pretrial motions, trial 
work, and appeals at the Eleventh Circuit. In a letter 
supporting her nomination, more than a dozen prosecutors in the 
U.S. Attorney's office of the Northern District commended Ms. 
Calvert for her, quote, ``unfailing display of civility and 
professionalism inside and outside the courtroom,'' end of 
quote, as well as her, quote, ``keen intellect and legal 
acumen.''
    The president of the Georgia Association of Criminal 
Defense Lawyers noted that Ms. Calvert has, quote, ``both the 
temperament and desire to treat everyone who will appear before 
her with equal respect, dignity, and fairness.''
    I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting both of 
these imminently qualified and impressive nominees who have 
demonstrated a lifetime of commitment to the law, to equal 
justice, and I look forward to hearing from them and the rest 
of the panel.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Ossoff. Our first panel is 
going to consist of the Circuit Court nominee, Judge Stark. 
Speaking on his behalf are both Senators from the State of 
Delaware, and we'll start with Hon. Thomas Carper.

              STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,

            U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 
Committee. My colleague, Senator Coons, thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, and to our Ranking Member, Senator Grassley, and 
Members of the Committee for inviting us today to introduce 
Judge Len Stark to his confirmation hearing to serve as a judge 
on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
    Eleven years ago, I had the privilege to sit here and to 
give similar remarks before this very Committee to introduce 
Judge Stark. He had been a nominee to a U.S. District Court 
Judge for Delaware. We have four of them. He was nominated for 
one of those seats and held it with great capability.
    During his 2010 nomination hearing, Len was joined by his 
wife, Beth, their three children, Brennan, Lucy, and Jamie, his 
mom, Linda, and sister, Danielle. I'm glad to see all of them 
here with us today, and they are joined by Len's mother-in-law, 
Karen Lee Grophy, also known as Karen Lee Grophy.
    There is notably one person who joined us in 2010 who is 
not with us today to commemorate Len's nomination. That person 
is Jim Soles, one known well by both Senator Coons and me. Jim 
was a legendary, beloved political science professor emeritus 
at the University of Delaware who mentored many folks, 
including Judge Stark and me. Jim Soles was a personal hero to 
many of us in Delaware, and I know he is smiling down on this 
hearing today.
    Len Stark, like Jim and myself, is a fellow University of 
Delaware graduate, a Fighting Blue Hen. At U of D, Judge Len 
Stark double majored as an undergraduate in political science 
and economics while simultaneously also getting his--earning 
his master's degree. During college, Len proved himself to be 
an exceptional student and person, earning a full scholarship 
as a Eugene du Pont Memorial Distinguished Scholar.
    Not long after graduation, Len was selected to be a Rhodes 
Scholar. He studied at Oxford University and authored numerous 
academic and scholar publications, including a book on British 
politics, which he wrote in his spare time between classes at 
Oxford.
    After Oxford, Len went on to earn his law degree at Yale 
Law School, where he served as editor--senior editor--of the 
Yale Law Journal, and then began his career in public service 
as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for Delaware, where, from 2002 to 
until 2007, he handled a wide variety of Federal, criminal, and 
civil matters. Before his current position as a district judge, 
Len served as a magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court of 
Delaware. It was this role that prepared him, I think, quite 
well to serve as a district court judge.
    Only four years after serving as a district judge, in 2014, 
Len was appointed the position of chief judge, which he held up 
until, I think, June of this year. During his 14 years on the 
bench in Delaware, Judge Stark has presided over 6,000 civil 
and criminal cases, including 2,400 patent cases, and 93 
trials, including 63 patent trials. Patent law is of particular 
importance to the Federal Circuit, and Judge Stark's experience 
and expertise in these matters makes him uniquely qualified for 
this judgeship.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I want to remind our 
colleagues here today that in 2010, Judge Stark was confirmed 
by the full Senate by unanimous consent. Judge Stark is known 
as a consensus builder who works to find principle compromises. 
In fact, of Judge Stark's approximately 2,100 written opinions, 
only two percent have ever been reversed or affirmed with 
criticism.
    In the years since Judge Stark's last confirmation by this 
committee, Judge Stark has served in Delaware and the Nation 
with integrity and with distinction. He has the heart of a 
servant and temperament to be an outstanding judge on the U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit. I look forward 
to a swift confirmation so we can hopefully confirm Judge Stark 
without delay.
    Let me just say, as a recovering Governor, I had the 
opportunity to nominate dozens, scores of men and women to 
serve on the judiciary of the State of Delaware, and I always 
looked for people who had the heart of a servant, people who 
will understand the idea that you're supposed to treat people 
with dignity and respect in the courtroom, look for people who 
are really bright and who really knew the law, and who are able 
to make tough decisions. Nobody meets that description better 
than Len Stark, and I'm honored and proud to be here in front 
of his family, and with him, and with all of you.
    Thank you so much.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Carper. That's high praise. I 
turn now to your colleague, Senator Coons.

            STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COONS,

            U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member 
Grassley. Good morning. I want to congratulate all of today's 
nominees. I am especially pleased to join my senior Senator in 
introducing a nominee I've literally known for decades. A 
fellow Delawarean, a talented and seasoned jurist, someone who 
has the experience, the intellect, and the temperament to 
continue his service as an outstanding Federal judge. Today, he 
is nominated to serve on the Federal Circuit. This is Judge Len 
Stark, of whom both Senator Carper and I are speaking.
    I have known him and his wife, Beth, for many years, and 
they are a classic Delaware story. They met their first day as 
freshmen at the University of Delaware, and as they say, the 
rest is history. As Senator Carper has shared, Dr. Jim Soles, 
known to all of us as legend in the political science 
department, played some small role in inspiring Len toward 
service. He is supported today, as he is always, by his 
wonderful family, Brennan, and Jamie, and Lucy, Beth, and 
Linden, Danielle, and others you may introduce, Your Honor.
    He also is joined today by his clerks. His tremendous 
experience as a trial judge in the district of Delaware makes 
him spectacularly qualified for this particular nomination and 
role. His 14-year career as a Federal jurist, again, as a 
magistrate in 2007, in 2010 he became a district court judge, 
being confirmed unanimously by the Senate, and he served as 
chief judge since 2014.
    He served as the presiding judge over 6,000 criminal and 
civil trials, including 2,400 patent cases. The district of 
Delaware is literally one of the busiest patent courts in the 
country, and he has been reversed, as you heard, in just two 
percent of the 2,100 written opinions he's delivered. Frankly, 
he's already shown that he will hit the ground running as a 
Federal Circuit Court judge, having sat by designation 54 times 
already on the Third Circuit and the Federal Circuit.
    His academic and professional credentials before joining 
the Federal judiciary confirmed why President Biden sought his 
service on this important and prestigious position. He's not 
just a proud Fighting Blue Hen, a UD graduate, where he earned 
a bachelor's degree in political science with honors and a 
bachelor of science with distinction in economics, but he had a 
minor in women's studies, and his master's degree was in 
European, medieval, and early modern history, just a reminder 
of the broad and searching intellect he has brought to his 
service on the bench. As a Rhodes Scholar, he studied at 
Oxford, where he earned a doctorate of philosophy and British 
politics, and then graduated from a law school some of us have 
heard of, Yale Law School, in 1996.
    He clerked for Judge Stapleton on the Third Circuit, 
practiced with Skadden & Arps for a number of years, and then 
entered public service as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, where he 
delivered excellent service in the support of the U.S. 
Attorney.
    I am confident he will bring the same sort of open-
mindedness, keen legal mind, outstanding character, and 
sterling work ethic to the Circuit Court that he's brought to 
his practice and to the district of Delaware bench. I strongly 
support him, and I join my senior Senator in urging all of our 
colleagues to take up and swiftly confirm this outstanding 
nominee.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Coons. On behalf of our 
California nominees, I'm going to recognize Senator Feinstein 
and Senator Padilla.

              STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

           U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm 
very pleased to introduce two nominees from the State of 
California. Jacqueline Corley has been nominated to serve as a 
judge on the United States District Court for the Northern 
District of California. Kathi Vidal has been nominated to lead 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Both, as you 
might expect, are highly qualified for the positions to which 
they have been nominated.
    Ms. Vidal--excuse me, Jacqueline Corley graduated from the 
University of California at Berkley, received her law degree 
from Harvard. Judge Corley has spent more than 20 years serving 
the Northern District, first as a career lawyer clerk for Judge 
Charles Breyer, and most recently as a magistrate judge. As a 
magistrate judge, she's handled a wide variety of civil and 
criminal cases. She has presided over more than two dozen cases 
that have gone to a verdict or judgment following trial, 
including a number of jury trials. She has shown herself to be 
fair, thoughtful, a judge who will be able to hit the ground 
running if she is confirmed to the Northern District.
    Next, President Biden has nominated Kathi Vidal to head the 
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, an important office. She 
graduated from Binghamton University. She holds a master's in 
electrical engineering from Syracuse, and a J.D. from the 
University of Pennsylvania. She clerked on the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit and has spent 25 years as an 
intellectual property litigator in private practice. I think 
that's interesting. Since 2017, she has served as the managing 
partner of Winston & Strawn's Silicon Valley office in my home 
State of California.
    It's very clear to me that she has a very deep knowledge of 
intellectual property law, and the important work conducted by 
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This expertise will help 
her serve well, if confirmed.
    I thank you very much for this, Mr. Chairman and Senator 
Grassley, as well. Thank you both.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Feinstein, of course. Senator 
Padilla, I'll recognize you.

                STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA,

           U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Grassley, for his earlier comments complimenting the two 
nominees from California, as well. It's my honor to also 
introduce and welcome these outstanding Californians to the 
Committee this morning.
    I'll speak first about Kathi Vidal, here today with her 
sons, Liam and Trey, her mother, Fran, her sister, Kristy, and 
other loved ones. As Senator Feinstein recognized, she's been 
nominated by President Biden to serve as the Under Secretary of 
Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. 
Patent and Trademark Office. She's one of the leading 
intellectual property lawyers in the country and has helped key 
leadership in management roles in international law firms.
    She is nationally recognized for leading high-profile 
patent disputes. Her experience covers a myriad of complex 
technologies, from semiconductors and software to medical 
devices and consumer products. Ms. Vidal has received numerous 
accolades for her work, including being inducted as a fellow by 
Litigation Counsel of America, a trial lawyer honorary society.
    In addition to her legal expertise, Ms. Vidal also has a 
strong technical background, having practiced in industry for 
five years in circuits, systems, software, and artificial 
intelligence. She received her bachelor's and master's degree 
in electrical engineering, and completed the GE Edison 
Engineering Three-Year Leadership Program. I think a technical 
background, particularly in this era of constant innovation as 
it pertains to patent and trademarks, is particularly timely 
and helpful.
    If confirmed, Ms. Vidal would be only the second woman 
Director of the PTO. With her background as an engineer and a 
patent lawyer, Ms. Vidal is no stranger to diversity and 
inclusion challenges in our innovation ecosystem.
    In private practice, Ms. Vidal has championed efforts to 
improve the diversity of law firms, especially at the 
intersection of law, technology, and regulatory policy. She's 
also founded the Next Generation Lawyers Initiative to advocate 
for training and opportunities for junior lawyers.
    Throughout her career, Ms. Vidal has developed a reputation 
for thoughtful and insightful decision-making, and I know that 
these qualities will serve her well as Director of the PTO, and 
look forward to hearing from her today.
    Next, I'm also honored to speak in favor of Judge 
Jacqueline Corley, who is here with her husband Douglas, 
daughter Morgan, and son Nathaniel. Judge Corley is a longtime 
public servant with deep California roots.
    Born and raised in Long Beach, California, she's earned her 
bachelor's degree and her J.D. Judge Corley's pathway to the 
bench has been nontraditional. I think that's a good thing. 
After some time in private practice, she did spend more than 10 
years as a career law clerk for Judge Charles Breyer in the 
Northern District of California. Based on her meticulous and 
fair-minded work in that role and the expertise she 
demonstrated in private practice, Judge Corley was selected to 
serve as a magistrate judge for the Northern District. There, 
she spent the past decade presiding over a range of both 
criminal and civil cases with skill and with fairness.
    Judge Corley's record demonstrates not only her legal 
acumen, but her commitment to serving others. She's a dedicated 
mentor for the law clerks of the Northern District, and a 
former volunteer mediator for California's Alternative Dispute 
Resolution Panel. Judge Corley also helps oversee the 
Alternatives to Incarceration Program in the Northern District, 
which helps participants to access addiction treatment and find 
stable employment.
    I'm confident that Judge Corley will uphold this commitment 
to equal justice as a member of the Northern District bench, 
and I look forward to hearing the testimony of both of these 
fine nominees.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks very much, Senator Padilla. Thanks to 
all of our colleagues and Members of the Committee for their 
testimony. The first panel consists of Judge Leonard Stark. 
Judge, if you want to approach the table and take the oath?
    [Witness is sworn in.]
    Chair Durbin. Let the record reflect that the judge, thank 
goodness, answered in the affirmative. You may now proceed.

              STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD P. STARK,

               TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

                    FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

    Judge Stark. Thank you very much, Chairman Durbin and 
Ranking Member Grassley for scheduling this hearing. I want to 
thank my home State Senators, Senator Carper and Senator Coons, 
for their very generous introduction of me this morning, and 
for their support of me throughout this process. I'm grateful 
to President Biden for the great honor of this nomination. It's 
a special privilege to be the first Delawarean to be nominated 
to the Federal Circuit, and to be nominated by the first 
Delawarean to be President.
    I would like to introduce, if I could, my family who are 
here to support me. My wife, Beth. As you heard, Beth and I met 
on the first day of classes at the University of Delaware. 
She's been my best friend ever since then, and we've now been 
married for 27 years. Together, we've raised three kids. 
They're all here with me today. My son, Brennan, lives in Texas 
where he's an entrepreneur. My daughter, Lucy, is a college 
student in Toronto. My younger son, Jamie, is a high school 
student in Delaware.
    Also with us are three women who mean the world to me. My 
mother, Linda Stark, is here from Arizona. My sister, Danielle 
Gordman, is here from Nebraska. My mother-in-law, Karen Lee 
Grophy, is here from Pennsylvania.
    My three current law clerks are with us as well: Lee Zhang, 
Caroline Holiday, and Gary Fox. They represent the 35 
outstanding lawyers who I've been privileged to have as my law 
clerks over my 14 years as a Federal judge.
    Finally, I'd like to recognize my father, Walter Stark, who 
passed away in 2003, and my father-in-law, Jim Grophy, who 
passed away in 2015.
    My father was the first lawyer that I ever knew, and while 
he did not live long enough to see me become a judge, I know in 
my heart how proud he is of me. My father-in-law, Jim, was here 
with me when I was in this very room, before this Committee, in 
2010. Today, I am feeling his physical absence more than even 
every other day.
    Thank you, again, to the Committee for considering my 
nomination, and I look forward to your questions.
    Chair Durbin. Judge Stark, what a career. You've served for 
10 or 11 years as a district court judge, first starting as a 
magistrate, I might add, and then district court judge, and 
chief judge, and now aspiring to this new level of this 
appointment.
    You joined with two other former law clerks in a tribute to 
Judge Walter Stapleton in the Delaware Law Review, focusing on 
his judicial philosophy. Of course, he played a key role in one 
of the landmark cases, which is remembered today, especially. 
Would you like to comment on why you thought that judge 
deserved special recognition?
    Judge Stark. Thank you very much for the question, Chairman 
Durbin. It was the best possible way to start my career to 
clerk for Judge Stapleton on the Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals. He taught me and all of his law clerks the importance 
of carefully understanding the binding precedents of the 
Supreme Court, and in his case, the Third Circuit, and working 
as hard as possible to understand the record that was before us 
and applying those precedents to the record before us, and 
keeping very focused on only the issues that were presented to 
the court, and to writing with clarity to try to give guidance 
to the district courts.
    Chair Durbin. You said in the article that you co-wrote, 
``Judge Stapleton does not, however, read the text in 
isolation, and thus is not a textualist in the narrow sense 
identified by some.'' Perhaps you're referring them to Judge 
Scalia, ``in both statutory and contractual cases, he reads 
text contextually, and where there's ambiguity in light of the 
relevant legislative and bargaining history.'' Would you like 
to expound on that a moment?
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator. In handling more than 
6,000 cases over my time as a Federal judge, and having written 
more than 2,000 opinions, it's quite frequent that I'm asked to 
interpret the constitutional provision or statutory provision.
    I always follow the same process. I start with the text, if 
the text is unambiguous and it answers the question, that is 
the end of the analysis. If there is ambiguity, I then look to 
binding precedent from the Supreme Court and from the Court of 
Appeals. If that still does not answer the question, I will 
look to other circuits that are not binding on me, and even to 
persuasive opinions from district court judges. If all of that 
does not answer the question, then I will turn to other canons 
of statutory construction, and that could include consideration 
of legislative history.
    That's the process I follow, and I would follow the same 
process if fortunate enough to be confirmed to the Court of 
Appeals.
    Chair Durbin. Occasionally a reference to a recording 
artist?
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator for that question. I'm not 
sure that I've made any reference to recording artists in any 
of my writings. At least my writings as a judge.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Grassley.
    Senator Grassley. Congratulations, Judge. I'm going to 
start with your relationship with Stapleton again. You wrote a 
Delaware Law Review article. The article praised the judicial 
philosophy of Stapleton. You clerked for him.
    In your article, you described Judge Stapleton as carefully 
working through the Supreme Court previous decisions and 
opinions, the fact that he doesn't make up the law, he tries to 
find the law set by the Supreme Court. I'm hoping that you will 
talk a little bit, as you already have done, about your 
judicial philosophy, and I'm wondering if you take the same 
approach as Judge Stapleton, or if your approach is somewhat 
different.
    Judge Stark. Thank you very much for the question, Ranking 
Member Grassley. I learned a great deal from Judge Stapleton, 
including the process that I have outlined of how I have 
approached things as a district court judge, and how I would 
continue to approach things if confirmed to the Court of 
Appeals.
    It's a careful focus and a lot of diligent hard work, I 
should add, to understand the binding precedent, to understand 
the record. In trial court, of course, I'm part of making that 
record, but if confirmed to the Court of Appeals, my job would 
be to review the record that's already been made, and then to 
apply that binding precedential law to the record before me, 
focused only on the issue that is presented.
    Senator Grassley. I want to go to the case that you were 
involved in, Barkes v. First Correctional Medical. In this 
case, Christopher Barkes was being held in a correctional 
institution. He committed suicide while he was being held, and 
his estate sued. You ruled that qualified immunity did not 
apply because Mr. Barkes had a clearly established 
constitutional right to adequate medical care. The Supreme 
Court implied that the right at issue had to be defined more 
narrowly. The Court noted that, quote, ``No decision of this 
Court even discusses suicide screening or prevention 
protocol'', end of quote.
    Question: With that background, would you explain how you 
understood the Supreme Court's approach to determine whether a 
right is clearly established in a qualified immunity case?
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator, for the question. You have 
outlined the facts as I recall them as well. The case went up 
to the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals 
affirmed me, I think, in a 2-to-1 decision. And as you've 
indicated, the Supreme Court then reversed the Third Circuit.
    I did my very best to understand what Supreme Court 
precedent was at the time on qualified immunity and to 
carefully apply Third Circuit precedent. The Third Circuit 
thought I got that right, and the Supreme Court had the right, 
of course, to disagree with the Third Circuit, and they did.
    Senator Grassley. My last question to you would be from a 
George Mason Law Review article. Your article discussed how 
parties run primary elections. You argued that the equal 
protection is violated in a primary race when a political party 
irrationally distinguishes between its candidates. You also 
wrote that the State should not assist two particular parties 
at the expense of the other party. Could you please explain 
your reasoning on how party violates the Constitutional Equal 
Protection of Law clause?
    Judge Stark. Thank you for that question, Senator. You're 
referring to work that I did when I was a law student and wrote 
an article about the topics that you have referenced. I think, 
if I recall correctly, and it's been 25 years since I wrote the 
article, and some time since I've looked at it.
    I think it was something of a thought experiment. I had 
done work as an undergraduate student on the Presidential 
nomination contest; and so, I was interested, in law school, in 
understanding the legal regime behind Presidential nominations, 
and I think I was exploring whether or not arguments could be 
made either for or against the constitutionality of the 
process.
    Senator Grassley. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Grassley. Senator Leahy.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Judge. Good to see you. 
I always had an interest in the Federal Circuit, and I have a 
particular interest in appeals from the U.S. Patent and 
Trademark Office, because that's about a third of the appeals, 
I believe, that go to the Federal Circuit.
    Under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the PTO reviews 
a patent, and neither party is dissatisfied with the results, 
at the end of the proceeding, they can appeal to the Federal 
Circuit. But it seems, when you look at these cases, as though 
the Federal Circuit is increasingly raised the bar for Article 
III standing for inter partes review petitioners. I'm worried 
that's making it more difficult for judicial review.
    Do you agree that judicial review is important, and both 
sides should have a chance to seek judicial review before 
either one can be stopped from future arguments on the same 
issue?
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator Leahy, for the question. 
After the passage of the America Invents Act in 2011, we have 
seen the creation, of course, of inter partes review, and a 
tremendous number of them. The way that impacts district court 
litigation is often there is a request for a stay of a district 
court case, pending the completion of an IPR.
    Sometimes at claim construction, we're asked to consider 
constructions that the Patent Trial and Appeals Board have come 
up with. At a jury trial, we're often asked either to tell the 
jury about the IPR process or not to tell them about the IPR 
process.
    In all instances, when an issue related to the PTAA comes 
before me, I apply the law to the specific facts of the case in 
front of me.
    Senator Leahy. I worry because I worry that the patent 
system may be misused. For example, one-quarter--one-quarter of 
the Nation's patent cases have been filed in the Western 
District of Texas in front of just one judge. In other words, 
you have 600 district judges, a quarter of the cases are filed 
before one judge. It looks like they're actively seeking patent 
litigation. Does this raise any issues in your mind?
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator. You're referring to the 
issues related to patent venue. I see patent venue disputes 
regularly in the district of Delaware, and in each case, I take 
each case as it comes, focus on the specifics of the case 
before me, and I apply the law to the facts of that fact case.
    Senator Leahy. That does not quite answer my question, but 
I understand--I understand what you're saying. You know, I was 
here when we created the Federal Circuit. I've known a number 
of the Federal Circuit judges quite well. I keep in touch with 
some who have taken senior status, like Judge Richard Linn, 
who's a close friend.
    I worry that sometimes in the Federal Circuit, more than 
other Courts of Appeals, the outcomes can be widely influenced 
based on who's on the panel. Would you work with others to make 
sure it has some predictability out of the Federal Circuit? 
Because if we don't have some idea of predictability, I think 
the Federal Circuit is not serving its purpose.
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator. I should say, of course, I 
don't make policy. This body can. These are important 
questions, and I'm glad that you are asking them, but of 
course, as a sitting Federal judge and a nominee for another 
Federal judgeship, I'm bound by the Canons of Judicial Conduct. 
I certainly would look forward, if I'm fortunate enough to 
being confirmed, to work with my new colleagues to carefully 
apply the law and to provide, in any opinion that I'm part of, 
as clear a guidance as I am capable of to district court judges 
and the other tribunals that the Federal Circuit reviews.
    Senator Leahy. I understand the complexity of patent law. I 
also understand the difficulty if you do not have some 
predictability, or conversely, if you have predictability just 
for certain parties. I know that's something you'd be concerned 
about.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Leahy. Senator Kennedy.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 
Judge. Congratulations. What was your DPhil Thesis?
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator Kennedy, for the question.
    Senator Kennedy. You're welcome.
    Judge Stark. I wrote about British party leadership 
elections from 1963 to 1993.
    Senator Kennedy. Did you do it in three years? Two years? 
How long did it take you?
    Judge Stark. Senator, my then longtime girlfriend, who I'm 
proud to say is now my wife, was in graduate school in New 
York, so I wrote it in two years, and proposed to her the day I 
finished at Oxford.
    Senator Kennedy. Did you live--you were at Magdalen?
    Judge Stark. Yes. I was at Magdalen College.
    Senator Kennedy. Did you live in the College?
    Judge Stark. My first year, no. My first year, I lived on 
Longwall Street at 5 Longwall.
    Senator Kennedy. Yes.
    Judge Stark. My second year, I lived in the Dogney Building 
overlooking the Oxford Botanical Gardens. It was a beautiful 
place to write a thesis.
    Senator Kennedy. Yes. I bet. Explain, Judge, the Chevron 
Doctrine to me.
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
    Senator Kennedy. You're welcome.
    Judge Stark. The Chevron Doctrine is a doctrine by which 
Federal courts give a certain amount of deference to an agency 
interpretation of a statute. If the interpretation of the 
agency is ambiguous, Federal courts will generally defer to 
that interpretation.
    Senator Kennedy. Are there any exceptions to that 
deference?
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator. I believe that binding 
caselaw does recognize some exceptions. Whenever I have an 
issue related to any type of deference, I carefully study the 
law and apply it to the facts of the case before me.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. I want to get your thoughts on this 
concept of ambiguity, because you raised it earlier when you 
were talking about your judicial philosophy. I'm really 
interested in your thoughts on it. Don't you think the concept 
of ambiguity is ambiguous? I mean, what does it mean?
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator. I think the binding 
caselaw talks of ambiguity in the sense of if more than one 
reasonable conclusion could be reached on the question that is 
pending before the body.
    Senator Kennedy. This is what I'm getting at, Judge. Does 
it have to be 51 percent ambiguous? Or really ambiguous, like 
80 percent? What if you look at it and you go, ``I think I know 
what they mean, so I guess I'd give it a 40 percent 
ambiguous?'' How much--how do judges approach that? How do you 
approach it?
    Judge Stark. Thank you. I'm not all that great at math, as 
you may have understood from the things that I have studied, so 
I don't approach it with any mathematical precision, and I 
don't believe that the caselaw of the Supreme Court or the 
Courts of Appeals require me to approach it with any type of 
mathematical certainty.
    Of course, as you know, I don't just decide the issues I 
want to decide. Parties bring actual, concrete disputes before 
me. They write briefs, they cite the cases, and they make 
certain arguments. I get very focused on the caselaw, the 
arguments the parties make, and apply all of that to the facts 
of the case before me, and through that process, make a 
determination in a particular case, whether a statute is 
ambiguous.
    Senator Kennedy. What kind of guidance has the U.S. Supreme 
Court given our lower courts on the definition of ambiguous?
    Judge Stark. Senator, as I sit here, I'm not sure. I can't 
think of any particular precedent as I sit here. In the more 
than 2,000 opinions I've written, I'm sure that I've cited 
whatever the binding Supreme Court precedent is on that 
question, as well as the binding precedent of the Third 
Circuit. If confirmed, I would continue to faithfully and 
diligently apply binding precedent.
    Senator Kennedy. I've only got 15 seconds, so I'm going to 
land this plane early. Thank you, Judge.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy. Senator 
Coons is now recognized.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Durbin. Your Honor, it's 
great to be with you, and your family, and your friends, and to 
have a chance to both introduce you, now question, for a few 
minutes.
    You have been nominated by our President to fill the 
vacancy created by the departure of Hon. Cathleen O'Malley. She 
made great contributions while on the Federal Circuit bench. In 
particular, I think some of her contributions to the Federal 
Circuit came from her previous experience as a district court 
judge. She was the only active judge on the Federal Circuit 
with that experience, and I think the perspective of a district 
court judge is important.
    Among the many insights that various members of that bench 
bring to their work, you would be uniquely positioned to 
continue that insight through your service of 14 years as a 
trial judge. You've presided over 2,400--2,400 patent cases, 
the subject matter most frequently heard by the Federal 
Circuit, making that experience particularly relevant. Please 
just speak with us for a few minutes, if you would, about your 
experience as a patent trial judge, and your views on that 
relevance to your, I hope for, likely, service on the Federal 
Circuit.
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator Coons, very much for that 
question. As you know, we always get a lot of patent cases in 
Delaware, and so I've had the good fortune of handling about 
2,400 patent cases to date. That includes 63 patent cases that 
have gone to trial, and while Judge O'Malley's retirement will 
leave a huge hole on the Federal Circuit, I think that my 
experience with all of those patent cases and patent trials 
will help me at least try to fill some of that.
    I think, particularly, I will bring with me a recognition 
of how challenging it is to put together a reviewable record in 
a patent case. The technology is always complex. The facts are 
very challenging. Also, as you may know, patent litigators 
often disagree with each other, and so I estimate in a typical 
patent case that goes all the way to trial, I make many 
hundreds of decisions, or even more than a thousand decisions. 
Typically, only a handful of those issues will ever get 
appealed to the Federal Circuit. I think I would bring with me 
an understanding of the context in which those appellate issues 
arise.
    I think this will also make me someone who adheres strictly 
to the applicable standard of review and cause me to strive as 
best as I can to provide clear guidance in written opinions 
that I would write.
    Senator Coons. Thank you. You're joined by your family and 
clerks today. One of the things that I know in the Delaware Bar 
you are well-known for is your sort of family approach. Your 
reasonable, and welcoming, and balanced, and collaborative 
approach. Senator Leahy asked you a question about how will you 
work, if confirmed, with other members of the Federal Circuit. 
One particular example I'm mindful of is you and then Judge 
Robinson convened a patent study group to look at how to 
streamline the litigation process, to curb litigation abuses, 
and deliver outcomes in a more predictable and regular way. 
Just take a moment, if you would, and talk with us about your 
approach to being both a district court judge, but also a 
colleague.
    Judge Stark. Thank you very much for that, Senator Coons. 
We're fortunate in Delaware to have a very collegial bench, and 
I have sat by designation as a visiting judge with the Federal 
Circuit, as well as with the Third Circuit. Both of those 
courts place a high premium on collegiality as well, and I 
would look forward to being collegial and working hard on the 
difficult issues that the Federal Circuit has before it, and 
working together to, you know, apply the law faithfully to the 
facts before the court.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Your Honor. In my view, your 
unique experience as a district court judge in one of the 
busiest patent courts in America makes you the best possible 
nominee for this vacancy on the Federal Circuit, and I hope my 
colleagues will join me in quickly confirming you. Thank you. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Coons. Senator Blackburn.
    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge, thank 
you for your time today. We appreciate this, as we do all the 
nominees that are here.
    Let me ask you this, does the Constitution allow the 
Government to forbid religion in the public square?
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator Blackburn, for that 
question. The First Amendment, of course, protects your right 
to free exercise, and also has limits, the establishment 
clause, as well.
    Senator Blackburn. How would you define unconstitutional 
viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment?
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator. If I am faced with an 
issue related to the First Amendment, I carefully study the 
Supreme Court precedent and the binding circuit precedent, and 
apply it to the facts of that case.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. Let's talk about Knights of 
Columbus v. Rehoboth Beach. The city allowed secular displays 
for Christmas on public property but prohibited religious 
displays specifically because they were religious. Does this 
constitute unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination?
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator. You're referring to a case 
I decided about a year ago as a trial court judge, and I would 
first say I'm not sure that it's likely that a religion issue 
would come before the Federal Circuit. It has come before me as 
a district court judge, and in that case, which moved very 
quickly, the city of Rehoboth modified the provision at issue, 
and so I found that the dispute was both moot and unripe, and 
therefore I did not need to reach the First Amendment issues.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. You had two matters that dealt 
with mootness. Correct? One involved the city of Rehoboth Beach 
and the Establishment Clause. Another involved Wilmington 
Housing Authority and the Second Amendment. Both of these 
cases, you ruled that these matters were moot after the State 
authority in each case revised the policies that the plaintiffs 
took issues with. Explain to me why one of the doctrines of 
capable of repetition but evading review and voluntary 
secession should not have applied in these cases.
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. The Wilmington 
Housing case was a Second Amendment case. In that case, I 
found, I believe, mootness only with respect to the provision 
that had been modified after the Supreme Court issued its 
decision in Heller.
    My case was filed before the Heller decision came out, and 
Wilmington Housing, I believe, changed their regulations in 
light of Heller. I did not find mootness with respect to the 
challenge to the revised post-Heller decision.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. Do you agree with the Supreme 
Court that the Second Amendment is a civil right?
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator. The Supreme Court has said 
that the right to bear arms and keep arms in the Second 
Amendment is a fundamental right. They said that in Heller and 
McDonald, and I follow binding Supreme Court precedent on that.
    Senator Blackburn. Other than the right to keep and bear 
arms, can you think of any other constitutional right whose 
exercise depends on the discretionary issuance of a license by 
a local official?
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator. If an issue like that came 
before me, I would have to consider what the binding Supreme 
Court and circuit precedent were.
    Senator Blackburn. Why is this right, the Second Amendment 
right, singled out for this kind of restriction?
    Judge Stark. Thank you, Senator. As a sitting Federal 
judge, I'm not permitted to comment on the merits of issues 
that are pending in Federal court right now. It sounds to me 
like the issue that you're asking about may be part of what was 
argued to the Supreme Court in this term. Whatever the Supreme 
Court says in that or any other case, I will faithfully and 
diligently apply to whatever cases come before me, whether I 
remain a district court judge or whether I'm fortunate to be 
confirmed to the Court of Appeals.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. I'm going to run out of time, so I 
will ask you to give me this in writing because I want to know 
what your approach is to statutory interpretation, and I would 
like to know if, in looking at that, if you always start with 
the text. Then, I do want to know if you believe that the 
meaning of the Constitution changes over time.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Judge Stark, 
thank you for being here today. As Senator Blackburn indicated, 
you and the other nominees may receive written questions which 
we hope you will promptly respond to. We thank you very much 
for joining us. We're going to call the second panel at this 
point.
    The nominees will remain standing in place for a moment 
while I administer the oath.
    [Witnesses are sworn in.]
    Chair Durbin. Let the record indicate that all five have 
answered in the affirmative.
    We'll now start with Ms. Calvert. You have five minutes to 
make a presentation followed by opportunities for questions.

            STATEMENT OF MS. VICTORIA MARIE CALVERT,

             NOMINATED TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

           JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

    Ms. Calvert. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member 
Grassley, for holding this hearing. Thank you to all the 
Senators of this Committee for considering my nomination. I 
would like to thank the Federal Nominations Advisory Committee 
in my district for recommending me to Senators Ossoff and 
Warnock. Senators Ossoff and Warnock, thank you for your 
support and for sending my name to the White House, and thank 
you for your kind opening remarks this morning. Finally, I 
would like to thank President Biden for his nomination and the 
confidence he has placed in me. This is truly a dream come 
true.
    I have a few family members with me here today. First, my 
mother Jacqueline Taylor. My mother only attended a year of 
college, but when I was growing up, she made it quite clear 
that she expected me to at least be a college graduate. It is 
because of her love and belief in me that I am here today.
    My sister, Alex Goode, is the most generous person I know, 
and has always showered me with admiration and support. 
Everyone should be so lucky to have a little sister like her.
    My husband, Max Shard. We met when I was a junior in 
college, and he initially tried to talk me out of going to law 
school, which didn't work. Since then, he has always supported 
me in my career goals while also enjoying--reminding me to 
enjoy life.
    Finally, my six-year-old son, Hollis. Hollis is kind, and 
smart, and already proving himself to be quite the litigator in 
our household. I am blessed to have his unconditional love.
    To all of my family members, friends, current and former 
colleagues along the east coast who are with me here in spirit, 
I am grateful for your support.
    Thank you, again, for your consideration, and I look 
forward to answering your questions.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Ms. Calvert. Judge 
Corley, you may proceed.

               STATEMENT OF MS. JACQUELINE SCOTT

             CORLEY, NOMINATED TO BE UNITED STATES

                DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN

                     DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    Judge Corley. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member 
Grassley, for including me in this hearing today, and to the 
entire Committee for considering my nomination. A special thank 
you to my home State Senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator 
Padilla, and for their warm words.
    I am grateful to have with me here today my best friend and 
husband for over 30 years, Dr. Douglas Corley. We are also 
joined by our two children, my daughter, First Lieutenant 
Morgan Jane Corley, who was able to take leave from Fort 
Carson, Colorado and join me here today. My son, Nathaniel 
Scott Corley, who joined us from Seattle, Washington.
    While it is a great honor to have been nominated by 
President Biden, the greatest honor of my life is to be able to 
call myself Doug's wife and Morgan and Nathaniel's mom. I'm 
also blessed to have many family members and friends watching 
from home. The outpouring of their love and support has been 
overwhelming.
    I would also like to acknowledge Judge Charles Breyer for 
whom I had the privilege of clerking for over 11 years. I 
learned many things from Judge Breyer, and most of them having 
nothing to do with the law. I also have been supported my 10 
years on the bench by a wonderful team of clerks, and in 
particular Carolyn Jacobs and Adia Meens.
    My parents both died last year, and thus I am unable to 
share this moment with them. It's worth noting that my father 
spent his entire professional career as a lawyer for a Federal 
Government agency. It is thus no accident that I have spent 
most of my career with the Federal judiciary. One of the things 
that excites me the most about my nomination is if that I am 
fortunate enough to be confirmed, I can continue his legacy of 
service to the American public.
    Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Judge Corley. Ms. 
Geraghty.

                STATEMENT OF MS. SARAH ELISABETH

                GERAGHTY, NOMINATED TO BE UNITED

             STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN

                      DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

    Ms. Geraghty. Good morning. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member 
Grassley, I want to thank you and the rest of the Committee for 
having me here today. I'd also like to thank President Biden 
for nominating me, and Senators Warnock and Ossoff for 
recommending me to the President. I deeply appreciate my home 
State Senators' kind words of introduction today.
    I am joined today by members of my family. My husband, Sam 
Gratzer is an emergency department physician and a commander in 
the United States Public Health Service. He is a true and 
wonderful partner in life, and my admiration for him is 
immeasurable. Also here with me are our daughters, Margaret, 
who is nine, and Rebecca, who is eight. They are bright, 
spirited, kind children, and I could not be more proud of them. 
My beloved mother-in-law, Leslie Gratzer, is here today from 
South Georgia, and I am grateful for her love and support.
    I would like to express particular gratitude to my parents, 
Tom and Diane Geraghty, who are here today from Illinois. They 
instilled in my three sisters and me the value of hard work, 
family, respect for the rule of law, and service to others. 
Both law professors, they inspired in me, too, a love of 
reading, writing, and intellectual engagement. For 47 years, 
they have been my North Star in how to live a life of integrity 
and purpose. I send love and appreciation to my sisters, Annie 
Helms, Catherine Mirane, and Mary Patrillo, who are watching 
from home.
    To my past and present collegiates, I give my gratitude and 
appreciation for the years of friendship and collegiality. And 
in particular to Atia Holly, Sarah Totanchie, Patricia Hale, 
and Tara Gerganzie.
    For 20 years, I have sought to uphold the Constitution and 
the rule of law on behalf of my clients. It would be the honor 
of my life to serve my country as a Federal judge. As the 
Judge's Oath of Office says, ``To administer justice without 
respect to persons and to do equal right by all.''
    Thank you for--to the Committee, and I welcome your 
questions.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ms. Geraghty. Mr. Ho.

                  STATEMENT OF MR. DALE E. HO,

                 NOMINATED TO BE UNITED STATES

                DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN

                      DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Ho. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for considering my 
nomination today. I would like to thank Majority Leader Schumer 
for his support and for the extremely kind introduction this 
morning. Of course, President Biden for nominating me for this 
incredible opportunity to serve our country. It is truly the 
honor of a lifetime.
    I'd like to acknowledge--acknowledge a few members of my 
family, starting with several who are not here today. First, my 
late grandmother, Flora Cabacungan. She was a single mom. She 
raised and adopted her niece, my mother, and later cared for me 
when I was a child. She was the kindest, hardest working person 
that I have ever known. My parents, Delia and Dom Ho, like her, 
immigrated from the Philippines, leaving behind everyone and 
everything they knew in search of freedom and a better life in 
this amazing country, and my brother Dan, an outstanding lawyer 
himself, and my role model growing up in just about every way.
    I'm joined here today by my family. My wife, Caroline, the 
love of my life, my best friend, and the best partner that I 
could possibly imagine. My children, Madeline, age 12, and 
James, age 9. They're missing school to be here today.
    I am humbled and honored to be here this morning, but I am 
even more humbled and honored to call myself Caroline's 
husband, and Madeline and James' dad.
    Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions 
today.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Ho. Ms. Vidal.

               STATEMENT OF MS. KATHERINE VIDAL,

               NOMINATED TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF

               COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

               AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES

                  PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

    Ms. Vidal. Thank you, Chairman Durbin----
    Chair Durbin. You want to push the red button.
    Ms. Vidal. Thank you. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member 
Grassley, distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for 
the opportunity to appear here today. I am honored to be 
nominated by President Biden, and I am grateful to Secretary 
Raimondo for her support and for her commitment to innovation 
and intellectual property protection.
    As new technologies and globalization present evolving and 
challenging intellectual property issues, and as we face a 
moral imperative to address humanitarian and environmental 
crises, I am grateful to all who are engaged on these critical 
issues. If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity and would 
be honored to lead the U.S. PTO at this important moment in 
time.
    Joining me today are my sons, Liam and Trey, my mom, Fran, 
Matt, my sister Christy and Scott, Brady, Braxton, and Delaney. 
With us remotely, are my brother Bob, Orion, Aurora, Alexandra, 
Spencer, Connor, Brett, and many friends and colleagues.
    As a daughter and granddaughter of U.S. Navy veterans, I 
know the importance of serving our great country. I know it 
takes dedication and sacrifice, not only from those who serve 
but from family and friends. I am grateful to all of them.
    I only wish my father, who instilled me a strong work ethic 
and dedication to country, could be with us here today.
    I come here today as someone who has helped develop one of 
our country's first artificial intelligent systems for 
aircraft; as somebody who has invested in and advised startups; 
as somebody who has drafted, prosecuted, challenged, and 
defended patents at the U.S. PTO and in Federal courts; as 
someone who has protected trademarks, copyrights, and trade 
secrets; as someone who's served in leadership roles at GE and 
two of our country's top global law firms. I come here prepared 
for the challenges we face.
    I have seen our intellectual property system at its best, 
incentivizing research and development that leads to new 
technologies and improvements to existing technology, that 
enhance our lives and bring us closer together. I have also 
seen that we can do better, that we can work together to build 
an intellectual property system that is more predictable, 
reliable and transparent, and in which the American people and 
our inventors, creators, and investors will have even more 
confidence.
    Should I be confirmed, I will lead the U.S. PTO with three 
guiding principles: First, to act in the best interest of our 
country. I have no agenda other than to serve our country, 
people, and industry to advance U.S. innovation from all and in 
all fields.
    Second, I will work with a knowledgeable and talented team 
at the U.S. PTO to further strengthen our patent and trademark 
system by improving patent quality and the integrity of the 
trademark registry.
    Third, I will work to maintain the U.S. as an innovation 
world leader by engaging on key issues with all stakeholders, 
Members of Congress, commerce, other Federal agencies, the 
public, and our international allies.
    I fully appreciate the honor and privilege of serving my 
country in this important role. Should I be confirmed, I will 
roll up my sleeves and get to work to advance intellectual 
property rights that incentivize innovation and drive economic 
growth.
    Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Ms. Vidal. We're going to start 
questions of the panel. I apologize in advance with five 
important nominees, we won't be able to give each the attention 
they deserve, but I hope we can do a good job at this end of 
the table.
    Ms. Geraghty, when I read your biography, I realized that 
you clerked for Judge James Zagel in Chicago, and it brought 
back a flood of memories because I was the staff assistant to 
the State Senate Judiciary Committee in Springfield, and Jim 
Zagel used to appear before that committee regularly as a 
prosecutor. We go back a long, long way. I'm sure that was an 
interesting experience in your own legal career.
    I've noted that you have received letters of recommendation 
from a number of people suggesting you're the right person for 
the Federal court. Most notably, many who were on the opposite 
side of litigation that you were engaged in. I think that 
speaks well of you that they respected you even though you were 
adversaries in the courtroom.
    You've made a specialty of representing individuals who are 
incarcerated for their inability to pay a fine or a fee, 
something you referred to--some others have referred to as 
modern-day debtors' prison. In the year 2020, a prominent legal 
publication in Georgia, the Fulton County Daily Journal, named 
you the Attorney of the Year in large part for this work. In 
your experience, what are some of the negative consequences, 
both to the individuals and to America, for the practice of 
incarcerating people because they're poor?
    Ms. Geraghty. Thank you for the question. First, I would 
say that the Supreme Court has said that there can be no equal 
justice under law when the kind of trial a person gets depends 
on the amount of money that they have. Throughout my career as 
an advocate, I have tried to enforce the Constitution and the 
rule of law on behalf of indigent defendants, and as an 
advocate, have been critical of incarceration for debt under 
circumstances that do not comply with the Supreme Court's 
directions in that area.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you for that. I'm going to go to Mr. Ho 
and make reference to a gentleman who came here to say nice 
things about you, Chuck Schumer. He said you've had 
extraordinary successes as an advocate, and the record speaks 
for itself.
    You've spent most of your career fighting for the civil 
rights and liberties of other Americans, all Americans. In 
particular, you defended the right to vote and recently the 
right to be counted accurately in the Census. You've litigated 
at the trial and appellate level, including appearances before 
the U.S. Supreme Court.
    I also understand that you've used social media during the 
time that you've served as advocate. In exercising your First 
Amendment rights, you've commented on a number of topics.
    You've been nominated to set aside your advocacy, your 
life's work, and to tell us that you can be a Federal judge, 
and that we can trust you to know the difference between 
serving as an advocate and a judge. Why should we?
    Mr. Ho. Thank you for that question, Chairman Durbin, and 
for giving me the opportunity to address this issue.
    I very much understand that my current role as an advocate 
is different--very different from the role that I've been 
nominated for, and that, like every judge, I have to set aside 
my past advocacy work, the work that I have done consistent 
with my ethical responsibilities of zealous advocacy on behalf 
of my clients to serving as a fair, neutral, impartial arbiter 
of the law.
    With respect to social media, I want to say to Members of 
this Committee that I very much regret the tone that I have 
taken on social media from time to time, particularly if it has 
given anyone the impression that I wouldn't be impartial. I, in 
my role as an advocate, have taken a role on social media. It's 
been a part of my job. I've pushed the envelope to break 
through, but I regret the times that I've crossed the line with 
overheated rhetoric. It doesn't reflect who I am. It doesn't 
reflect how I've shown up in court or how I've conducted myself 
in professional settings. I'm deeply committed to the principle 
of equal justice under the law, and if confirmed, I will do 
everything I can to ensure that everyone who comes before the 
court gets a fair shake, a fair opportunity to be heard, and 
ultimately equal treatment under the law.
    Chair Durbin. It's been noted already that your family 
background plays an important role in your values. Would you 
like to speak to that for a moment?
    Mr. Ho. Sure. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to talk 
about that, Chairman Durbin. My mother's father, I never had 
the opportunity to meet him. He served in World War II in the 
United States Armed Forces in the Far East, in the Philippines. 
He died at a young age. My mother was sent to the United States 
to live with her aunt who adopted her, a woman I knew as my 
grandmother, and she instilled in me the values of hard work, 
love for family that I've tried to carry throughout my life and 
throughout my career.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you. Senator Grassley, you're next.
    Senator Grassley. Congratulations to all of you, and most 
of you will get written questions from me.
    I'm going to start with Mr. Ho. I think I'm going to carry 
on in a very general question that you just responded to from 
the Chairman, but I want to direct it to some specific things 
you've said.
    Quote, ``It seems reasonable to give deference to the views 
of the average inner-city resident over those of the Second 
Amendment civil libertarians'', end of quote. You have also 
suggested that the First Amendment should be interpreted as 
protecting minority groups, but not others. Could you please 
explain the legal basis for the idea that the Bill of Rights 
protections change based upon what community a person is in?
    Mr. Ho. Thank you for those questions, Ranking Member 
Grassley. I believe you're referring to a pair of law review 
articles that I wrote about a decade ago. One was about the 
Heller decision, and I want to make clear that the Supreme 
Court held that there's an individual right to keep and bear 
arms under the Second Amendment, which lower court judges, 
including myself if I were fortunate to be confirmed, would be 
bound to apply and I'd have no hesitation in applying it.
    The second article I believe referred to the issue of 
anonymity and the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court held 
in NAACP v. Alabama that there are protections that relate to 
anonymity in terms of group membership, particularly when one 
is a member of a group that is treated with hostility or a 
disfavored minority. I believe I was referring to the Supreme 
Court's precedent in that area.
    Senator Grassley. In another interview you gave, 2013, you 
described yourself as quote, unquote, ``a wild-eyed sort of 
liberal''--or no, ``wild-eyed sort of leftist,'' end of quote, 
who is quote, ``accused sometimes as seeing racial 
discrimination everywhere I look'', end of quote. In 2017, you 
wrote that a colleague of yours asked you, quote, ``Dale, do 
you do what you do because you want to help people or because 
you hate conservatives?'', end of quote. You replied, quote, 
``For me, righteous indignation can provide a sense of moral 
clarity and motivate the long hours needed to get the work 
done'' end of quote.
    Question, given your commitment to progressive politics and 
your apparent anger at conservatives, how can parties who come 
before you be confident that you'll be a fair and impartial 
judge?
    Mr. Ho. Thank you for that question, Ranking Member 
Grassley. The 2017 remark I believe you're referring to 
something that I stated in church where I was referring to a 
joke that a friend of mine had told, and I think I was trying 
to make the opposite point. The first principle of my religious 
faith is respect for the worth and dignity of all people. The 
point that I was trying to make is that when someone gets 
angry, sometimes you can feel a kind of rush of power from 
that, but it's not sustaining. It's not something that can 
motivate you in the long run. That if you want to do good works 
in this world, it has to come from a different place, a place 
of love for your fellow human.
    Senator Grassley. Okay. My last question to you would be 
this: Since 2014, as a professor of New York University's 
Racial Justice Clinic, according to your syllabus, you teach 
Critical Race Theory, telling students they will become, quote, 
``Familiar with theories of race and the law, including 
Critical Race Theory, and will explore how these theories can 
help in developing legal strategies.'' In your view, how should 
Critical Race Theory factor into interpreting the law?
    Mr. Ho. Thank you for that question, Ranking Member 
Grassley. The role of a judge is not to make or apply academic 
theories. The role of a judge is to apply precedent to the 
specific facts of the cases that come before the court. I'm not 
aware of any precedent that makes academic theories of that 
sort a relevant consideration for a court.
    Senator Grassley. Okay. Ms. Vidal, you have experience, 
very much experience litigating patent cases. Based on your 
experience, what are the biggest issues currently with the 
patent system? I'd like to be a little specific in this sense, 
and I don't expect a lot of examples. Give me at least one 
example of policies enacted previous Patent Office Directors 
would you keep in place, and which would you change? Maybe one 
of each.
    Ms. Vidal. Thank you, Senator Grassley. In terms of what 
happened in the prior administration, I know that there were 
policies set forth, including on 101, on patent eligibility. I 
think that is an area that is always deserving of attention 
because the law is not set. Every single Federal Circuit judge 
has said that it's very difficult to understand the contours of 
the law. That is something that I would certainly always 
revisit to make sure that any guidelines are consistent with 
the law. They are right now, and that they're promoting 
innovation.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Grassley. Senator Leahy.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, if I would 
note, I'm very impressed by the four nominees for the judicial 
nominations. Before I was in the Senate, I tried an awful lot 
of cases before a lot of different judges. Some nominated by 
Republican Presidents, some by Democratic Presidents. I've 
always been impressed when they're good judges and not allow 
that to determine what happened in the case. If I was back 
practicing law, I'd be happy to appear before any one of the 
four of you. I'm not saying that to try to gain favor because I 
don't expect I'm going to be before any of your courts.
    Ms. Vidal, I appreciate the time you took in chatting with 
me yesterday. You know, as I said, the Food and Drug 
Administration has been raising alarm about the ways in which 
the patent system is being abused by brand drug manufacturers 
to shut out competitors. Certainly, we've been concerned about 
this in my State of Vermont. When we can drive a few miles 
across the Canadian border and see what happens when 
competition is allowed and prices come down.
    President Trump's FDA Commissioner, Dr. Gottlieb, referred 
to patent thickets built up around biologics as purely designed 
to deter the entry of approved bio-similars. In September this 
year, President Biden's FDA wrote the PTO, raising several 
areas of concern. The end result is the practices that were 
identified by both the Biden and Trump FDA as causing higher 
prices for American consumers. Again, as I said, if you're in 
Vermont, drive a few miles across the Canadian border and you 
see the difference.
    Do you agree with the recent bipartisan consensus and the 
FDA that certain abuses of the patent system contribute to the 
high cost of prescription drugs by preventing competitors from 
entering the market?
    Ms. Vidal. Thank you, Senator Leahy, for raising that very 
important issue. I'm aware of all of the concerns about patent 
abuses and potential patent abuses.
    I do think that one thing the Patent Office can do is to 
make sure that the Patent Office is always issuing the highest 
quality patents. I think to your point about patent thickets, 
the conversation that I've heard is that there are follow-on 
patents that add marginal value that have, you know, additions 
to the original patent. For example, changing the color of a 
particular drug. Certainly, I would work, if I am fortunate 
enough to be confirmed, on strengthening the value of IP.
    Senator Leahy. That's something that both the Trump 
administration and Biden administration have said, and we 
should use all tools available to crack down on the type of 
abuses, they have said.
    In recent years, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or 
PTAB, have declined institutes post-issuance proceedings in 
district court that has a trial scheduled to take place. Then 
the district court trial inevitably ends up being delayed, and 
one recent survey found that patent trials are delayed 94 
percent of the time. It's also clear that part of the problem 
is the PTO's willingness to defer to a district court's 
initial, often incorrect trial date. Is there any other 
situation you could think of where, if a Government agency is 
basing decisions on data that is wrong 94 percent of the time, 
it should simply continue applying that procedure without 
reevaluating it?
    Ms. Vidal. Thank you, Senator. I have a lot of experience 
with the procedure that you've mentioned, actually on both 
sides. I've certainly gone to the PTAB to attempt to invalidate 
patents I think should never had issued. I've been a recipient 
of those same requests where I'm defending patents.
    The policy that you're referring to is actually a 
precedential decision, as I know you know, the Fintiv decision, 
which allows the PTAB discretion on whether to institute.
    I do know that with regard to that, there is a way to get 
around Fintiv by stipulating that you're not going to rely on 
the art in district courts. I just want to make note of that.
    In terms of your question, it's one where I would 
certainly, if confirmed, want to look into that more closely, 
would want to work with you and stakeholders and try to 
determine if there's more that can be done there.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have another 
question I'll follow-up in writing. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
    Ms. Vidal. Thank you, Senator.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Kennedy.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and 
welcome to you all. Congratulations. Ms. Geraghty, did you call 
Governor Brian Kemp a pioneer of voter suppression?
    Ms. Geraghty. Senator Kennedy, I do not believe I have said 
that.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. You might want to check your 
records.
    Ms. Geraghty. Yes, sir.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Mr. Ho, did you say, ``I support 
compelled disclosure of political donations by wealthy 
individuals, but not by minorities?''
    Mr. Ho. Senator Kennedy, thank you for the gift of the 
notepads for my children.
    Senator Kennedy. You're welcome.
    Mr. Ho. I really appreciate it. I don't recall using those 
words before, Senator. I do remember----
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. I've got a bunch here. You've 
described yourself as a quote, ``wild-eyed sort of leftist.'' 
Do I have that right?
    Mr. Ho. Senator, I think I was referring to a caricature of 
the way that I think other people may have described me, not 
how I would describe myself. I want to assure you that I 
understand that the role of a judge is to set aside whatever 
personal views that person----
    Senator Kennedy. Right. I heard your testimony. Have you 
called Republicanism--well strike that. Did you say, 
``Republicanism is an anti-democratic virus?''
    Mr. Ho. No, Senator. I don't believe I've used those words.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. You're under oath now.
    Mr. Ho. Yes, Senator. I don't believe I've used those 
words.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay.
    Mr. Ho. I do remember saying last year that there was a 
loss of confidence in our elections that has spread kind of 
like a virus.
    Senator Kennedy. Right. That's a long way from calling the 
Republican party an anti-democratic virus.
    Mr. Ho. Yes. It's very different, and I don't believe I 
used those words, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Right. If you did use those words, will 
you pull down your nomination?
    Mr. Ho. Senator, I don't believe I've used those words----
    Senator Kennedy. If you did, will you withdraw?
    Mr. Ho. It's hard for me to imagine a scenario in which I 
would use those words.
    Senator Kennedy. I'm just saying, assume if you said it, 
will you withdraw?
    Mr. Ho. If I were quoting someone else saying it to 
describe that kind of sentence, I wouldn't be expressing my own 
views. Senator, I don't believe I've ever used those words. 
I've represented----
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. When you sent out those personal 
tweets about Senator Cotton, and Senator Blackburn, and Senator 
Cornyn, did you mean them at the time?
    Mr. Ho. Without hearing those tweets, Senator Kennedy, it's 
hard for me to remember precisely, you know, what was said or 
what I was thinking at the time. I do very much regret the tone 
that I have taken on social media from time to time. I know 
that I've crossed the line from time to time, and I----
    Senator Kennedy. When you crossed the line, did you mean 
it?
    Mr. Ho. Without knowing the specific context or the 
specific tweet that you're referring to, Senator Kennedy, it's 
kind of hard for me to say. But----
    Senator Kennedy. Do you generally tweet things you don't 
mean?
    Mr. Ho. Senator Kennedy, I would agree with you that 
Twitter has become a very coarse place, and I----
    Senator Kennedy. I don't want to debate Twitter. Do you 
generally tweet things that you don't mean?
    Mr. Ho. Senator Kennedy, I've contributed to the coarseness 
on Twitter sometimes by pushing the envelope to break through--
--
    Senator Kennedy. Right. When you did it, did you mean it?
    Mr. Ho. It's hard for me to respond to that kind of 
generally, Senator Kennedy, without a specific example.
    Senator Kennedy. You're a smart man. Sure you can. You 
either meant it or you didn't. You got two choices. Door A. 
Door B.
    Mr. Ho. Senator Kennedy, I know that I pushed the envelope.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Do you regret it?
    Mr. Ho. I do regret it, Senator Kennedy.
    Senator Kennedy. Do you regret it because you didn't mean 
it? Or do you regret it because it might cause you not to be 
confirmed?
    Mr. Ho. Senator Kennedy, I regret it because I think it has 
contributed to the coarseness of our discourse overall, and I 
think it would be better----
    Senator Kennedy. When did you have this epiphany that 
everybody has equal dignity and worth? When you were nominated?
    Mr. Ho. I believe you're----
    Senator Kennedy. Including Republicans.
    Mr. Ho. I believe you're referring to my religious faith, 
Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. No. I'm not. I'm referring to your 
coarseness.
    Mr. Ho. The equal dignity and worth is a principle of my 
religious faith, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. It's also a principle of morals and good 
judgment. I'm over. Mr. Ho, you're a smart man. I can tell, but 
I think you're an angry man. I really have great concerns about 
voting for you. We don't need Federal judges who are angry. We 
need Federal judges who are fair and can see both points of 
view. You said these things.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Senator 
Feinstein.
    Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. The four 
district court nominees on today's panel come from a diverse 
background of experiences. You've worked in private practice as 
public interest advocates, as public defenders, and as Federal 
magistrate judges. This diversity of experience is important, 
and I'd like to go down the line, beginning with Ms. Calvert. 
Can you share briefly which of your experiences you believe 
will be most important to shaping your service as a Federal 
district court judge if you are confirmed? Why that experience 
has been so critical to your development as an attorney? I'd 
like to ask each one of you to do that, please.
    Ms. Calvert. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. I believe that 
my experience----
    Senator Feinstein. Will you speak directly into the mic?
    Ms. Calvert. I apologize.
    Senator Feinstein. Yes.
    Ms. Calvert. I believe that my experience as a Federal 
public defender over the past nine and a half years has 
prepared me to be a good judge, if I am so fortunate to be 
concerned--confirmed. Over the years, I have learned the value 
of explaining the law to clients who are not familiar with the 
Federal justice system, the value of understanding their 
position, and trying to present their positions to the judges 
that I regularly appear in front of.
    I have also learned the value of having collegial 
relationships with my adversaries, the prosecutors who I 
regularly appear against in court. I believe that all of that 
will make me--will help me to be a judge who is fair to all 
parties, listens to the facts, and applies the law faithfully 
and fairly.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Next.
    Judge Corley. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Thank you again 
for your----
    Senator Feinstein. Can you speak directly into the----
    Judge Corley. Sorry. Thank you again for your warm words. 
My 10 years as a magistrate judge in which I have presided over 
hundreds of cases with the parties' consent, and issued nearly 
2,000 written opinions, and presided over, I think, almost 16 
jury trials, has well prepared me to serve as a district court 
judge.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
    Ms. Geraghty. Thank you, Senator. I have had 20 years of 
litigation experience, first as a criminal appellate defense 
lawyer, and for the last 18 years, litigating complex civil 
actions, mostly in Federal court. I have a broad grasp of 
constitutional analysis and the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure from that experience. I've litigated in a large range 
of subject matters, including equal protection, due process, 
the Takings Clause, religious liberties, and so on. And I have, 
from year 1 to year 20, been involved in the nuts-and-bolts 
litigation on a daily basis, having taken or defended hundreds 
of depositions, prepared evidentiary hearings, been lead 
counsel in many class action cases. At this point in my career, 
I believe I have the experience, the energy, the intellectual 
capacity, and the temperament to make a good judge and serve my 
country in this way.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
    Mr. Ho. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. I've been a 
practicing attorney for more than----
    Senator Feinstein. Would you pull up the mic, please.
    Mr. Ho. Sure. Of course. I've been a practicing attorney 
for more than 15 years. I started as a law clerk first in the 
Southern District of New York, the court to which I have been 
nominated, and later to an appellate court. I spent a few years 
in private practice at a major New York law firm, Fried Frank. 
I worked at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund as a civil rights 
lawyer there. For the last eight and a half years or so, I've 
been director of the Voting Rights Project at the ACLU.
    I've been lead or co-lead counsel at about half a dozen 
trials. I've argued half a dozen or so appeals, including two 
before the U.S. Supreme Court.
    I just want to say, again, I understand that that work that 
I have done for the majority of my career as an advocate on 
behalf of my particular clients is very different from the role 
to which I have been nominated. If there's one through line, 
it's this: I have sought, as a voting rights lawyer for the 
last 10 years or so, to try to ensure that every American who's 
eligible to vote has an opportunity to do so. Across the 
ideological spectrum, I've represented people who have been 
registered as members of both political parties because I 
believe that's how our system works. Everyone gets a say, and 
then we count the votes, and then chips fall.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Appreciate it. Please.
    Ms. Vidal. Thank you, Senator. I would say that it would be 
my law firm leadership experience that taught me to look 
impartially at issues across client bases to lead an 
organization in a way that is fair to all that gives people 
opportunity.
    Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Feinstein. Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thank you very much. Mr. Ho, I'd like to start 
with you. Does the Constitution sometimes compel results in 
particular cases that are unpopular or contrary to the will of 
a majority of Americans?
    Mr. Ho. Yes, Senator Lee. I think the purpose of the 
Constitution is to put--well, one of the purposes of the 
Constitution, anyway, is that it serves a counter-majoritarian 
function and puts a few issues of individual civil rights and 
liberties beyond----
    Senator Lee. Beyond debate. Yes.
    Mr. Ho. I think that's fair.
    Senator Lee. Yes. It recognizes the risk of mob rule in 
other words. If all you're doing is simply giving in to the 
will of a simple majority of Americans at any given time, the 
human condition can't flourish.
    I was making essentially this point in a series of tweets I 
sent out on October 8th of 2020. A series of tweets explaining 
the difference between constitutional republic like ours, where 
our system of Government is constrained by a series of laws, 
the laws governing the making of laws in our Government, and 
the fact that these things can be counter-majoritarian, and 
that's good. In other words, as I explained it, democracy 
itself isn't the objective. That is with the understanding if 
you refer to pure democracy as simple majoritarian rule, that's 
not the objective. The objective is to have a situation in 
which the human condition can flourish. That's sometimes 
squelched when individual liberties are crushed when 
majoritarian impulses are allowed to erode the fundamental 
rights of others.
    I was a little surprised to see that, in response to one of 
those tweets, you tweeted this as a re-tweet, quote, ``The mask 
is off.'' I wasn't sure what that meant, but you made clear in 
a subsequent re-tweet with the following commentary, 
``Translation,'' these are your words, not mine, ``If we can't 
maintain minoritarian rule despite the Electoral College, 
Senate malapportionment, extreme partisan jerry-meandering, and 
strict conditions on voting, then will rely on a 6-3 SCOTUS to 
block any elected Democratic agenda.'' Did you, in fact, send 
that?
    Mr. Ho. I believe I did tweet that, Senator. I really 
appreciate you giving me the opportunity to address this.
    Senator Lee. What do you mean by this? We've got limited 
time, so I want to ask you some specific questions. What do you 
mean by Senate malapportionment? What does that mean?
    Mr. Ho. Senator Lee, I just want to be clear. I think I 
misinterpreted your tweet, and I regret that I did that, and I 
want to apologize to you for that.
    Senator Lee. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the 
apology. I want to know what you meant by Senate 
malapportionment. I'm not familiar with that term. What does it 
mean?
    Mr. Ho. Senator Lee, I was responding to an ongoing 
debate--I'm sorry, news reports at the time that there were 
State legislators who, even before the election, were 
contemplating fabricating some sort of pretext by which they 
could ignore their State's own votes for President and directly 
select their Presidential electors. It was hard for me to 
imagine anything----
    Senator Lee. How is that characterized as Senate 
malapportionment? That not--might refer to your--maybe you made 
a separate dig somewhere at the Electoral College. You did. You 
said, ``Maintain minoritarian rule despite the Electoral 
College.'' That might describe that part of your tweet. That 
doesn't describe Senate malapportionment.
    It appears to me that what you mean by that is you're 
challenging the principle of equal representation among the 
States, notwithstanding their different populations.
    Mr. Ho. Senator Lee, I just want to make clear, obviously, 
we have a Federal system, and the apportionment of two Senators 
per State is instantiated in Article II of the Constitution. If 
I were confirmed----
    Senator Lee. Is that malapportionment?
    Mr. Ho. No, Senator Lee. I wouldn't describe it that way.
    Senator Lee. But you did.
    Mr. Ho. Senator Lee, I guess what I was trying to respond 
to was this notion that was being bandied about that State 
legislators who----
    Senator Lee. That doesn't explain Senate malapportionment. 
There's no planet on which that could be interpreted that way.
    Are you aware that the Constitution itself makes one thing 
pre-emptively unconstitutional? There is one feature of the 
Constitution that cannot, under the terms of the Constitution, 
be amended. Are you aware of what that is?
    Mr. Ho. Senator Lee, I don't believe in my 15 years of 
practice in courts around the country that that particular 
issue has come up in any of my----
    Senator Lee. Because it's not litigated because it's in the 
Constitution, but it's there in the text. It's what you 
derisively referred to as Senate malapportionment. It's the 
principle of equal representation in the Senate. It's the one 
feature of the Constitution that cannot, may not, must never 
ever be amended. The fact that you referred to it derisively, 
along with, by the way, denigrating the Electoral College 
itself, and the Supreme Court of the United States, the 
superior court, the court of last resort to which you'd be 
answerable, if confirmed to this position, is deeply troubling 
to me. I don't know how we're supposed to confirm you to this.
    This has nothing to do with how you feel about any elected 
official, me or otherwise. It has everything to do with your 
open contempt for the Constitution, which I know of no other 
way of reading this, including that one feature of the 
Constitution that can't be amended. How do you serve as Federal 
judge when you've denigrated the Supreme Court, apparently 
under the theory that they're operating as some sort of 
partisan hacks and other essential features of the 
Constitution? How do you defend that? How do you stand here and 
say that you can be supported in being appointed to an office 
whose job it is to interpret that document and to adhere to 
those precedents made by the Supreme Court that you've derided?
    Mr. Ho. Senator Lee, in that tweet, I was trying to 
characterize a view that I thought that others had about the 
right that they would have to directly select their own State's 
Presidential electors and to ignore the will of voters 
entirely. I would not----
    Senator Lee. That's not what Senate malapportionment means. 
We both know what, and you're under oath. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Lee. Senator Feinstein. 
I'm sorry. Senator Whitehouse.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. Let me welcome the 
panel here, and let me just for the record refer my colleagues 
to Republican nominees Michael Truncale, Daniel Traynor, Cory 
Wilson, and John Bush, whose litany of intemperate remarks 
caused no concern whatsoever on the Republican side during 
their nomination proceedings. I think the selective outrage, 
obviously, has its role in the Senate. I just want to point out 
that there's something selective about today's outrage, given 
some of the outrages that Trump nominees brought into this 
hearing room.
    My concern actually is something different. It's about 
juries. I believe we have seen a fairly persistent effort by 
the Supreme Court to undermine civil juries. Over and over, 
it's been made harder for plaintiffs to get their cases before 
civil juries, civil jury verdicts, and damages awards have been 
undone and undermined. Of course, there's a persistent pattern 
of letting big corporations sideline people entirely away from 
juries through mandatory arbitration buried deep in long and 
not fairly negotiated contracts.
    The result is that is in many Federal courthouses around 
the country, jury trials are extremely scarce. I think that's 
unfortunate because I think that while I agree with Blackstone 
in his commentaries, he said that one of the purposes of the 
jury is that it prevents the encroachments of the wealthy and 
powerful upon everybody else because of requiring folks coming 
before the jury to stand equal before the law.
    A mighty corporation comes to Senate or congressional 
venues, and they're not very equal with ordinary people. They 
have armies of lobbyists. They have enormous amounts of money 
that they spend through PACs and super PACs. It can be 
frustrating and annoying to be a big corporation dragged before 
a jury and having to suffer the indignity of being treated on 
equal par with individuals. I think that the founders built the 
jury into the Constitution in the Seventh Amendment with that 
view in mind, and it was casus belli for the Revolution when 
the Crown tried to interfere with that American right.
    I worry about the evaporation of jury trials and would like 
to know what each of you will do in your courtrooms to keep 
that right alive and vibrant in your courthouses. Let's start 
with you, Ms. Calvert, and we'll just go quickly across to the 
four who are going to be trial judges.
    Ms. Calvert. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for that 
question. In my background as a criminal defense attorney, the 
jury trial is a bedrock principle, and I can assure you that 
for any litigant who comes before me, I will do everything in 
my power to make sure that they have a fair jury trial. Thank 
you.
    Judge Corley. Thank you, Senator. My 10 years as a 
magistrate judge, what I do is when a case comes before me, 
very early in the case, I give them a trial date, and that date 
sticks. If the case gets to the point where they're ready for 
trial, and I have been fortunate we've been able to select 
jurors, and I do my best to give everybody a fair trial.
    Ms. Geraghty. Thank you, Senator. I fully concur with your 
remarks about the importance of the jury trial. If I am 
confirmed as a judge, I would fully respect the Sixth and 
Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. I believe juries are 
important because they bring the voice of the people to the act 
of governing.
    Senator Whitehouse. About the only way they really do 
directly. Right?
    Ms. Geraghty. Yes, sir. They take a cross-section of the 
community and have them speak on important questions. They also 
serve an important educational role and give people a sense of 
ownership and membership in their own government.
    Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Ho.
    Mr. Ho. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I agree with 
everything that my fellow nominees have said. The right to a 
trial jury of one's peers, as protected by the Sixth and 
Seventh Amendments, is one of the bedrock protections in the 
Bill of Rights. I would do everything I can to make sure that 
those rights are respected if I were confirmed.
    Senator Whitehouse. It's incredibly hard to put the fix in 
with a jury, and when you try, it's actually a crime. That's 
something that's worth keeping in mind as we deal with an 
increasingly special interest driven Congress. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Senator 
Tillis.
    Senator Tillis. Thanks, and congratulations to all of you 
for your nominations and to your families. The four of you may 
be pleased that I won't be asking you any questions because Ms. 
Vidal and I have to spend a little bit of time together. Again, 
thank you for your time here today.
    Ms. Vidal, first off, I've got to congratulate you. I think 
you've got one of the biggest groups of supporters in any of 
the hearings over the past year. It looks like you've got a lot 
of people here, and a big family.
    I did like your answer to Senator Grassley's question about 
current jurisprudence. I think you used the word contours. I 
think current jurisprudence is in shambles right now, and we 
have to work on fixing it and providing clarity. I thank you 
for that answer.
    Do you support legislative efforts to reform patent 
eligibility to provide greater clarity? Give me some idea of 
what that would look like.
    Ms. Vidal. Thank you, Senator Tillis. I agree with you that 
we need more clarity when it comes to patent eligibility. We 
need more clarity so that inventors will be incentivized to 
invent, and investors will be incentivized to invest. Whether 
that comes via legislation, or whether the Supreme Court takes 
a case on cert, I believe that that clarity is warranted.
    As to the shape that takes, as you know, Senator, that's a 
very complex issue, especially when it comes to defining things 
like abstract ideas. That is an issue that I would appreciate 
working with you on, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed 
and hearing from stakeholders on it.
    Senator Tillis. We've done a lot of work in my office, and 
it's been a pleasure to work with Senator Leahy as Chairman of 
the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, and Senator Coons. I 
think there's a lot of work to be done there, and I think that 
you could be very helpful with your expertise.
    Do you believe there should be a technicity or a field of 
technology requirement in order for a patent to be eligible for 
protection?
    Ms. Vidal. Senator, that's a very good question. I don't 
know that I have a per se answer on that. I think that if there 
is questions like that, I would very much be interested in 
working with you on that, and you engaging stakeholders on 
that. I know there's a survey right now at the Patent Office, 
where they're investigating whether 101 incentivizes 
innovation. I know that you're well aware of that. I look 
forward to hearing the results of that before answering that.
    Senator Tillis. Okay. Thank you. I'm a big supporter of 
changes to PTAB proceedings. During the past administration, I 
believe these changes have rebalanced PTAB and ensured that 
it's no longer simply a death squad for the patent rights of 
small businesses and independent inventors. My support for your 
nomination is in part going to be contingent on continuing 
these policies. Will you commit to continuing these reforms?
    Ms. Vidal. Thank you, Senator. I understand all the reforms 
that have taken place, and I know that especially with regard 
to some of the areas that you care a lot about, like Fintiv, 
that there has been a request for comments on that. I read your 
comments, Senator. I've read some of the other comments. I 
believe reform is important, and I--it's something that I would 
continue to want to engage in, including with the stakeholders 
and reviewing reforms in more detail.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you. I think that we've got a long 
list of questions for the record that we're going to submit. I 
would appreciate--I wouldn't expect you to give a complete 
response here, but I would like to have that as part of the 
record as we move forward with your nomination.
    I strongly support the policies underlying Fintiv factor, 
and I'm concerned about PTAB application of the second of these 
factors, the proximity of court's trial date to PTAB's 
projected statutory deadline for a final written decision. So, 
one of the things that I'm hoping we can do, if you're 
confirmed, would you commit to undertake a study of review of 
this matter and consider whether Fintiv should be modified to 
account for unrealistic trial scheduling? That touches on a 
question, I think, that Senator Leahy also asked.
    Ms. Vidal. Thank you, Senator. I believe there is the 
preliminary work for that going on right now. I think, given 
the debate over Fintiv and its application, and whether it's 
fairly applied to--not whether it's fairly applied, but how it 
impacts different stakeholders, I think it definitely warrants 
consideration. I would look forward to engaging on that with 
you.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you. We will submit--as I said, I 
don't want to give you too much homework, but this is a very 
important area, and it happens to be an area where, I think, 
we're working on a bipartisan basis in trying to protect the 
interests of all the stakeholders. It's an area where we have 
to make progress.
    One of the great things about this country is it's founded 
on innovation. It's intellectual property protections where 
enshrined in the Constitution. I, for one, think that we have 
to continue to incentivize particularly the new creators. I 
think that's best done by a lot of reforms that we've been 
working on for several years now.
    Just a final comment, Mr. Chair. I don't normally get into 
specifics of tweets or comments, and I'm not going to here, but 
I do always go back and look at it in the context of 
temperament. I didn't get a chance to ask any of the judicial 
nominees any questions here, but as I go through a decision 
process as to whether or not I'd support your nominations, it 
has more to do with--and to Senator Whitehouse's point, I think 
it's valid to say that there were conservative nominees that 
probably made things--made statements they wish they hadn't. I 
look at those it's less about the plain text and more about a 
pattern of behavior that would make me question a person's 
temperament, and that would be the basis for my ultimate 
decision on the nominees.
    Thank you all again for being here, and congratulations to 
you and your families.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Tillis. Senator Klobuchar.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
guess I'll start with you, Mr. Ho, since Senator Tillis, 
appreciate your words. I think many, many nominees we've had 
come before us have written tweets, or articles, or things, and 
it's happened on both sides many, many times. You consider 
someone's whole career.
    I'm looking at your career. You clerked for Judge Robert 
Smith of the New York Court of Appeals. Judge Smith, who was 
appointed by a Republican Governor. Is that right?
    Mr. Ho. That's correct, Senator Klobuchar.
    Senator Klobuchar. He wrote to this Committee in support of 
your nomination, saying that you're getting to what Senator 
Tillis raised, temperament that your personality and 
temperament, I just thought that was a good segue, right, make 
you exceptionally well-suited for judicial office, and that you 
always expressed your views, ``appropriately and 
respectfully.'' If confirmed, how would you ensure that you 
impartially review the facts and the law when approaching the 
case? Will you comment a little bit about your temperament?
    Mr. Ho. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. I became a lawyer 
because I deeply, deeply believe in the principle of equal 
justice under the law, that everyone who walks into court, 
regardless of who they are, what their interests are, what 
their claims are, deserves a fair opportunity to be heard and 
ultimately equal treatment by the court and under the law. 
That's the principle that led me to have a career as a civil 
rights lawyer.
    I understand that's an advocacy role. That's very, very 
different, and that I'm setting that aside and will take on a 
different role, one of impartial, neutral adjudicator of the 
law. The through line, I think, throughout my career, has been 
a commitment to the equality of all people.
    Senator Klobuchar. You also have extensive litigation 
experience with approximately 90 percent of your practice 
appearing before the Federal courts. You've argued at every 
level of the Federal judiciary, including twice before the 
Supreme Court. Why do you think that experience matters?
    Mr. Ho. I hope that the experience that I've had, both at 
the trial and the appellate levels, gives me an insight into 
the functioning of a trial court. I've been lead or co-lead 
counsel in about half a dozen trials over the last five or six 
years.
    Then seeing how a trial record is considered by an 
appellate court at the circuit level, and then ultimately at 
the Supreme Court level, I think, gives me a good sense for how 
to run a district courtroom.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Judge Corley, as a sitting 
magistrate judge, our last nominee from Minnesota was also a 
magistrate judge, and I think I nominated--I worked with the 
White House on another magistrate judge who's done very well in 
her role as a Federal judge. You are a frequent participant in 
the Judicial Clerkship Institute, a training course for law 
clerks. You're also involved in the ABA's Judicial Intern 
Opportunity Program, which provides internship opportunities 
for traditionally underrepresented groups. My husband's a law 
professor, and he's doing a similar thing with some of the 
students in Baltimore in trying to get them into the law. What 
have these experiences done to shape your views of the role of 
a judge, particularly with respect to serving as a mentor for 
young attorneys?
    Judge Corley. When I first became a judge 10 years ago, one 
thing I did not appreciate is how important it is just to be 
out, and to speak, and to mentor, to go to Bar events and just 
sit with particularly new attorneys, and just speak with them, 
and to teach. It is really, I think, actually as important as 
the work we do on the bench because, as a magistrate judge, and 
I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed as a district court judge, 
we're real leaders. In the community, we're the face of the 
Federal judiciary, which is a bedrock of our democracy, and so 
it's critical to being out there.
    Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Very good. I'll ask the other 
judicial nominees questions in writing.
    Congratulations. Ms. Vidal, I thought we'd end with patents 
because it's a lot of fun. Could you talk about your experience 
as a patent litigator, how that's prepared you for this job? I 
guess specifically, how can the PTO strengthen post-grant 
review while preventing some well-financed companies from 
abusing the process to impose cost and delay on small 
innovators?
    Ms. Vidal. Thank you, Senator. In terms of my experience 
and how that has prepared me for this job, as a litigator, I've 
litigated both sides of most of the issues that are before the 
PTO, whether it's patent eligibility or at the PTAB. I've also, 
as a law firm leader, had to take positions that were fair and 
impartial to all entities, to all the firm's clients, in two 
major law firms. I think that prepares me, you know, quite well 
for this position.
    In terms of your second question about the PTAB, I 
understand there are some concerns about the way the PTAB is 
being used. I know that there were some decision-making by the 
PTAB that sought to curb some of that. I also believe that 
small entities need as much access to the PTAB as anyone else. 
I think you'll be delighted to know that the PTAB is working on 
a pro bono process right now. It exists for patent prosecution 
but not at the PTAB. I think with that program, it will offset 
a lot of the costs to some of these small or midsized entities 
that the larger entities are not so concerned with.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. I do a lot of work with 
consolidation, as you may have heard, and some of these 
competitive issues, and this is a piece of it that gets 
overlooked. Thank you very much, and thank you to all of you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In his first year in 
office, President Biden has made a pattern of nominating 
extreme partisans and radicals to serve in the administration, 
but especially to serve on the bench. Unfortunately, that 
pattern continues today.
    Mr. Ho, you will not be surprised that I want to address 
some questions to you. In my view, your record reflects that 
same pattern of finding someone who has been an extreme 
partisan, who has been a radical, and President Biden trying to 
put judicial robes on that partisan and radical agenda.
    I would note at the outset that that's not just my 
characterization. You, yourself have described yourself as, 
quote, ``a wild-eyed leftist,'' and further, as someone, 
``accused sometimes of seeing discrimination everywhere you 
look.'' Is that right?
    Mr. Ho. Senator Cruz, I think the key word in that quote is 
accused. What I was doing----
    Senator Cruz. Let's start with the first one, ``wild-eyed 
sort of leftist.''
    Mr. Ho. Again, Senator Cruz, I think I was characterizing 
how others have caricatured myself.
    Senator Cruz. Okay. Let's take a quote you wrote in 
November 2017. I found it amusing, the exchange a moment ago 
with one of the Democratic Senators, about some older, 
intemperate statements. I would note just sitting here, this 
may be a first, in that you have tweeted attacks at multiple 
Members of this Committee, including Senator Lee, Senator 
Cotton, Senator Blackburn, Senator Cornyn. Far from being 
intemperate statements when you were a teenager, most of these 
tweets occurred last year. In the last 12 months, you have 
engaged--or the last about 18 months, you have engaged in 
partisan attacks on multiple Members of this Committee.
    You also wrote in November 2017, quote, ``In these dark 
times, I've been fortunate to find tremendous sense of purpose 
in my work as a civil rights lawyer. As a colleague of mine 
asked me over lunch recently, `Dale, do you do this because you 
want to help people or because you hate conservatives?' What he 
was getting at is that anger can, in fact, be a tremendous 
source of power. For me, righteous indigitation can provide a 
sense of moral clarity and motivate the long hours needed to 
get the work done. It's only a short-term burst. It's not 
sustaining in the long run.''
    Mr. Ho, if you wake up and are Judge Ho, and I recognize 
that New York is a blue State, but imagine there is someone who 
considers himself or herself a conservative in the State of New 
York, who, God forbid, finds themselves in a courtroom where 
you're wearing a robe, what comfort do you think that litigant 
would have that you described the hatred of conservatives, the 
righteous indignation, the anger at conservatives as a 
tremendous source of power for you personally? How does that 
possibly give anyone comfort that you would be a fair and 
impartial judge?
    Mr. Ho. Thank you, Senator Cruz, for giving me an 
opportunity to address this. As I mentioned to some other 
Members of the Committee, this was a comment that I made in 
church, where I was relaying a joke that someone else had told, 
the point of which was that that kind of temporary sugar rush 
from being angry at someone, while it can feel powerful in a 
moment, it's not the kind of thing that is sustaining for a 
human being in the long run. That at the end of the day, if you 
want to do good work in the world, it has to come from a 
different place, a place of love for your fellow person. And 
that's what I was trying to convey to my fellow congregants at 
my church.
    Senator Cruz. That's not what you said. What you said is 
you described hatred and righteous indignation directed at 
conservatives. I would note that that's a pattern that also 
continues.
    You know, a minute ago you talked about how you're 
dedicated to equality. I will say looking at your record, that 
is not, in fact, the case. Your record instead, is a partisan 
view.
    For example, you were a graduate at the Yale Law School. 
The Yale Law School has an open policy of discriminating 
against Asian Americans. One of the first things that Joe 
Biden's Justice Department did was dismiss the investigation 
against Yale because today's Democratic party believes 
discriminating against Asian Americans in admissions is an 
acceptable form of bigotry. Do you agree with the Biden 
administration on that?
    Mr. Ho. Senator Cruz, I haven't followed the ins and outs 
of what the Biden administration has done with respect to that 
particular matter. What I can tell you, I think----
    Senator Cruz. Do you agree with your alma mater's policy of 
discriminating against Asian Americans in admissions?
    Mr. Ho. Senator Cruz, I'm a member of the National Asian 
Pacific American Bar Association. I try to do what I can in the 
Asian American legal community. I'm not aware of a particular 
policy of discrimination in admissions at Yale Law School.
    I think to your larger question, Senator Cruz, I clerked 
for judges who were appointed by executives of different 
parties. They set an example for me that politics--you can have 
political views, but they don't have a role on the bench. I 
would look to follow their examples.
    Senator Cruz. Your record suggests precisely the contrary.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, and thank you to 
all of today's nominees for your willingness to serve, for your 
records of service, and to your families for their support of 
your nominations here today.
    With your forgiveness, I hope, I'm going to focus 
specifically on the nominee to be the head of the Patent and 
Trademark Office. You've had a number of questions from my 
colleagues. I'm going to briefly address two or three things. 
There's lots of other issues I could take up, but I know that 
my colleagues will competently continue to engage in the 
concerns that motivate many of us here on this Committee.
    Ms. Vidal, if I might, just first, congratulations on your 
nomination to this important and challenging position. I think 
it's crucial for us to have a Patent and Trademark Office 
Director who understands the values of patents as a means of 
incentivizing innovation and who can advocate effectively for 
balance, for strong enforcement mechanisms, both domestically 
and internationally. If confirmed, I look forward to working 
with you. This is an area that is of great interest to me and a 
number of other Members of the Committee on both sides but 
doesn't quite hold the attention of everybody in our society 
and on our Committee all the time.
    I wanted to briefly talk to you about three issues, if I 
might. First, in December 2019, as you know, there was a joint 
U.S. PTO, Department of Justice, NIST policy statement on 
standard essential patents. I think standard essential patents, 
particularly in the current world in the ways in which 
technology is moving quickly and is developing, are critical to 
innovation. I support that 2019 policy statement. I'm concerned 
there seems to be a move to reconsider it and possibly weaken 
it in terms of the remedies available. Would you commit to 
keeping an open mind about whether any revisions to that 2019 
statement are warranted?
    Ms. Vidal. Absolutely.
    Senator Coons. Would you commit to a transparent process 
that includes input from Congress and interested stakeholders 
if there is any movement toward making changes?
    Ms. Vidal. Absolutely, Senator.
    Senator Coons. Thank you. One of the things I'm most 
concerned about, and I know this brings together folks on both 
sides of the aisle, is state-sponsored IP theft, particularly 
from China, but from many other competitors, and international 
cooperation on intellectual property policy, I think, is a 
critical issue. The previous administration at the PTO actively 
engaged the World Intellectual Property Organization and the 
International IP Committee in what I thought was a critical 
move toward protecting IP rights.
    I think the next Director has to continue to engage with 
foreign partners that share our core values in order to ensure 
there's real multilateral cooperation on IP issues. Please tell 
me and this Committee, if you would, briefly, about your 
experience and your perspective on the global fight over IP 
protection.
    Ms. Vidal. Thank you, Senator Coons, for that very 
important question. Part of the reason I'm here today is 
because of that activity. When I was asked whether I would be 
willing to serve in this position, I thought long and hard 
about whether I could make an impact and whether there was 
progress to be made.
    I think there is a lot of progress we need to make on the 
international front. There are, as you mentioned, there is 
theft going on, there are laws in other countries that are not 
transparent, they're not predictable, and it puts U.S. 
innovation at a disadvantage.
    In terms of my own personal experience, I have certainly 
represented U.S. industry against counterfeit goods, against 
infringing goods from other countries, and I have a wealth of 
experience in that area and have found it very challenging when 
the laws are not balanced, when the laws are not fair, and the 
laws are not equitable. I would be very heavily engaged in 
that, Senator.
    Senator Coons. I look forward to working with you on that. 
You've gotten questions from a number of my colleagues about 
Section 101, about patentability, about the Fintiv factors, and 
PTAB initiation. Is there anything remaining on those two areas 
that you'd like to speak to today before we conclude?
    Ms. Vidal. Not on either of those two areas. I know that 
with 101, I would just say it needs more clarity, and I would 
look forward to working on that. I think with Fintiv, it's an 
issue that warrants additional consideration, and there are a 
lot of comments, and I would look forward to working with you 
on that, as well.
    Senator Coons. We've got, in my view, a lot of work to do. 
I do think legislative reform is required in Section 101, and I 
think it's going to be very difficult and very allusive. I 
think making sure that PTAB continues to strike the balance to 
protect strong patents, but to also provide a pathway toward 
review of improvidently prevented patents is exactly one of the 
areas that I think you may make a great contribution.
    Mr. Chairman, with that, thank you. Ms. Vidal, thank you. 
To the other nominees, thank you. I look forward to supporting 
your confirmations.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Coons. Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief 
because a number of my other colleagues are going to ask 
questions. I'd just like to say how impressed I am with not 
only the talent and dedication of this panel, but also the 
diversity. I am a former prosecutor myself. I was Attorney 
General of my State for 20 years, and the United States 
Attorney in Connecticut, but I'm glad to see that we have the 
defense bar represented, and that the experience that you've 
had, life's experience that you'll bring to the bench is 
diverse as well.
    I think one point that is often underestimated is the 
significance of temperament and perspective. On the district 
court, you will be the voice and face of justice for most 
Americans. Most litigants don't get to appeal to the Court of 
Appeals, and when they do, they're often not there in person. 
And your temperament, your patience, as you well know, because 
you have experience in the courts, will be tested many times by 
litigants. You've seen them.
    I just want to congratulate every one of you, and I look 
forward to your service on the bench. I'll be supporting all of 
you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator 
Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to start 
by asking my two fundamental questions that I ask of every 
nominee before any of the committees on which I sit. So, I will 
start with, and we'll just go right down the line, starting 
with Ms. Calvert.
    Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted 
requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical 
harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
    Ms. Calvert. No, Senator.
    Judge Corley. No, Senator.
    Ms. Geraghty. No, Senator.
    Mr. Ho. No, Senator.
    Ms. Vidal. No, Senator.
    Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered 
into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?
    Ms. Calvert. No, Senator.
    Judge Corley. No, Senator.
    Ms. Geraghty. No, Senator.
    Mr. Ho. No, Senator.
    Ms. Vidal. No, Senator.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you. As I have sat here, it's very 
clear that my colleagues on the other side have been attacking 
Mr. Ho, portraying him as someone who can't be fair or 
impartial. In fact, I would love to have judges who are fair 
and impartial, but I want to note that in my view and by my 
votes for judges over the four Trump years, we didn't have too 
many Trump nominees who fit that description of fairness and 
impartiality. That is my view.
    For Mr. Ho, I just want to note for the record, Mr. 
Chairman, that he has letters of support from individuals who 
state that he consistently treats people with impartiality and 
respect. Robert Smith, who he clerked for on the New York Court 
of Appeals, was appointed by a Republican, and is often 
considered a conservative wrote, quote, ``Dale has strong 
progressive convictions. This easily could have made for some 
tensions in our chambers, but it did not, not because Dale was 
shy in expressing his views, but because he knew how to do so 
appropriately and respectfully.''
    In addition, 25 scholars and professors of elections law 
who, quote, ``believe in protecting the franchise for 
supporters of both political parties,'' close quote, wrote, 
again quoting, ``Dale also has a the right temperament for the 
bench. Many of us have had the pleasure of engaging with Dale 
in a variety of professional settings, and we know him to be a 
fair-minded interlocutor even where we disagree with his views. 
Our experiences with Dale suggest to us that he will treat 
litigants with the respect and humility is position demands.''
    When we talk about judicial temperament, I also--this is 
the second time I'm noting that with regard to now Justice 
Kavanaugh, there were over 1,000 law professors and deans of 
law schools who wrote to this Committee that he did not have 
the judicial temperament to be on the Supreme Court, and yet 
there he sits.
    I'm glad that we have diversity on this panel, and I do 
have a few questions for Ms. Vidal. A report issued last year 
by the PTO found that women make up less than 13 percent of 
patent inventors. Other research suggests that racial 
minorities and other demographic groups are likewise 
underrepresented in the patent system. If we want to maintain 
our status as the world's leading innovator, I think it's 
critical that we close these gaps and get more women and 
minorities involved in patenting.
    This is why I worked with Senator Tillis and others to 
introduce the Idea Act, which directs the PTO to collect 
demographic information from patent applicants on a voluntary 
basis. We'll need this data to understand who is patenting and 
who is not so we can address the problem. The Idea Act was 
included in the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, and I hope 
that it is signed into law soon.
    If you are confirmed as PTO Director, would you commit to 
making sure that the Idea Act is implemented in an effective 
and timely manner so that PTO can finally collect this critical 
data so that we can have a lot more women and minorities 
applying for patents and getting them?
    Ms. Vidal. Senator, I appreciate that question. As I think 
you know, I feel as deeply--maybe not as deeply, but I feel 
very deeply about those issues. The answer is in the 
affirmative. Yes, I will. I defintely will.
    Senator Hirono. I think that we are going to have to make a 
concerted effort because, you know, we're not going to have 
minorities and women going for patents if we don't make these 
kinds of efforts. It's not going to just happen because we 
think it's a great idea.
    With regard to diversity to the patent Bar, I want to tell 
the story of Sarah Blakely, the inventor of Spanx, who talks 
about how hard it was for her to find a patent attorney to help 
her prosecute what has proven to be a billion-dollar invention, 
and all the male patent attorneys she went to basically thought 
it was a big joke. Finally, when she found a female patent 
attorney, then she was able to patent the Spanx and now is a 
billionaire. We need to do more to make sure that the patent 
Bar itself encourages diversity, and I hope that you would also 
commit to that.
    Ms. Vidal. I will, Senator.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator. Senator Booker.
    Senator Booker. I really appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 
I'll be brief. The panel has been there for a long time. I 
would just really like to ask a question of Mr. Ho, if you 
don't mind, sir. Despite the law school that you attended, I 
have a lot of respect for you and your career, and I want to 
thank you for the work you've done to protect the essential 
rights of our democracy.
    As I looked into your career, you have shown an ability to 
work on both sides of the aisle and represent people regardless 
of race, religion, or political belief, and it's pretty 
extraordinary. I'll read this because I think it's important 
that you worked to protect the rights of people on both sides 
of the aisle in one case in particular, if I have it right, 
Hotze v. Hollins. Is that correct? You filed a challenge of 
Texas voters whose ballots election officials tried to 
disqualify because they were cast at a drive-thru voting site.
    Some of the voters you represented in this lawsuit included 
voters who routinely voted Republican. Another example of your 
balanced approach to the law is the amicus brief that you filed 
on behalf of five Republican voters in Maryland who brought a 
lawsuit, and if I pronounce this right, Benisek v. Lamone.
    Mr. Ho. I think it's Benisek, Senator.
    Senator Booker. Thank you very much. I went to Yale Law 
School. It's difficult sometimes for me to read. This case was 
challenging congressional redistricting map that would have 
manipulated the electoral outcome in favor of Democrats. In 
fact, I have a letter here from the attorney who brought that 
suit. Michael Kimberly is the co-editor of the Yale Law Supreme 
Court Clinic. He writes, quote, ``Mr. Ho's amicus engagement in 
this case and his support of our plaintiffs reflects a genuine 
concern for the rule of law without regard for the politics of 
our plaintiffs.'' I believe this type of open-mindedness, 
freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice is exactly 
the kind of temperament we need for the court.
    I have a lot of respect for you, and I know that this has 
not been an easy hearing, but I don't have a question. I just 
have an affirmation that the totality of your record reflects 
your heart and your spirit, and I believe you will make an 
extraordinary judge. I just want to say, in closing, because my 
friend Jon Ossoff, has something in common with you. You both 
are appallingly young, but I just want to say to all the people 
on the panel, I rejoice in your diversity. I rejoice in your 
diversity of experiences. I am excited about how you will help 
to uphold the law, and the rule of law, and the best of who we 
are as Americans.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Booker. Senator Ossoff.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations 
again for your nominations, and thank you for your willingness 
to serve and putting your families through this difficult 
process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for so ably managing this 
hearing.
    I have letters of support from law enforcement officials, 
members of the legal community, both litigated both along side 
and against the two Georgia nominees, and other community 
leaders that I'd like to enter into the record.
    Chair Durbin. Without objection.
    [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
    Senator Ossoff. With that, I would yield the remainder of 
my time.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Ossoff for being sensitive 
to what the panel has sat through for the last hour or more. I 
thank you all for being here.
    I want to say a word, Mr. Ho, because you seem to be the 
focus of a lot of attention. It has been noted, and I want to 
make sure it's part of the record, this letter from Robert 
Smith of the firm of Friedman and Kaplan. It appears that Mr. 
Smith was formerly a judge for the New York Court of Appeals, 
and that you were his clerk for two years. He has good things 
to say about you, but he addresses one issue that came up 
specifically.
    He said, ``Not because Dale was shy in expressing his 
views, but he knew how to do it appropriately and 
respectfully,'' according to Judge Smith. He goes on to say, 
``He's not one of those people of whom too many today think of 
members of different political tribe as the enemy. If he were, 
I don't think he would have clerked for me and remained my 
friend since.'' Mr. Smith had made the point that he was 
appointed by a Republican.
    Then he goes on to say, ``Courtesy to everyone is a 
hallmark of Dale's character. Of course, most law clerks are 
polite to the judges they work for, but I observed Dale was 
equally courteous to his colleagues, court staff, and homeless 
people who approached him on the street to ask for money. I 
think his sense of the innate worth and dignity of every human 
being and his ability to behave accordingly will serve him in 
good stead in a trial courtroom. One of the occupational 
hazards of a judge is the tendency to behave like a petty 
tyrant. I can assure that will not happen with Dale Ho.''
    Powerful. I want to make it officially a part of the 
record.
    Chairman Durbin. As for the conclusion, one of the Senators 
on the other side that he's worried that your passion evidences 
an anger, which suggests you may not have a judicial 
temperament, I will tell you each of us have a different 
temperament and different personality.
    Each of us usually has an issue that raises our passions to 
a certain level. For me, it's the issue of immigration. Twenty 
years ago, I introduced the Dream Act. I've been trying for 20 
years to pass a law to protect these young people brought to 
the United States by their parents who simply want to be a part 
of America's future.
    I've gone to the floor of the Senate over 125 times with 
color photographs of these Dreamers, to tell their desperate 
stories, searching for an opportunity to become a part of 
America. Yes, I've been angry. Yes, I have been passionate. 
Yes, I don't apologize one damn bit. That is something that I 
feel very intensely about. I will be respectful to those who 
oppose me, but I feel passionately about the people I've been 
sent to represent. I think each of us has the similar life 
experience.
    That concludes this hearing. I thank my colleagues for 
being here through most of it, and I will just say that there 
may be written questions sent your way. I hope you'll respond 
quickly because we want to try to move your nominations forward 
if we can.
    To make a quick logistical note, questions for the record 
will be due to nominees by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, December 8. The 
record will likewise remain open until that time to submit 
letters and similar materials.
    With that, the hearing's adjourned. I thank all the family 
members for their patience, as well.
    [Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]