[Senate Hearing 118-29, Part 15]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-29, Part 15
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL
APPOINTMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
JANUARY 24, 2024
----------
Serial No. J-118-2
----------
PART 15
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
S. Hrg. 118-29, Part 15
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL
APPOINTMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 24, 2024
__________
Serial No. J-118-2
__________
PART 15
__________
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
57-724 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina,
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota Ranking Member
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JOHN CORNYN, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey TED CRUZ, Texas
ALEX PADILLA, California JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
JON OSSOFF, Georgia TOM COTTON, Arkansas
PETER WELCH, Vermont JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
LAPHONZA BUTLER, California THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Katherine Nikas, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Durbin, Hon. Richard J........................................... 1
Graham, Hon. Lindsey O........................................... 7
Cornyn, Hon. John................................................ 4
Lee, Hon. Michael S.............................................. 6
VISITING INTRODUCERS
Romney, Hon. Mitt, U.S. Senator from Utah
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Wyoming................... 3
Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from Nebraska.................... 2
Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., U.S. Senator from Wyoming............... 4
NOMINEES
Allen, Hon. Ann Marie McIff...................................... 11
Questionnaire................................................ 30
Responses to written questions............................... 71
Additional materials......................................... 114
Bazis, Hon. Susan M.............................................. 9
Questionnaire................................................ 115
Responses to written questions............................... 171
Additional materials......................................... 216
Gonzalez, Ernest................................................. 10
Questionnaire................................................ 217
Responses to written questions............................... 283
Additional materials......................................... 317
Meriweather, Hon. Robin Michelle................................. 14
Questionnaire................................................ 325
Responses to written questions............................... 371
Rankin, Hon. Kelly Harrison...................................... 12
Questionnaire................................................ 423
Responses to written questions............................... 507
Additional materials......................................... 550
Schydlower, Hon. Leon............................................ 13
Questionnaire................................................ 551
Responses to written questions............................... 602
Additional materials......................................... 631
NOMINATION HEARING
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2024
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J.
Durbin, Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Blumenthal, Booker,
Padilla, Ossoff, Welch, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Hawley, Kennedy,
and Tillis.
Also present: Senators Barrasso, Fischer, and Lummis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chair Durbin. The hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee
will come to order. Today we have six judicial nominees. Judge
Susan Bazis, nominated to the District of Nebraska. Mr. Ernest
Gonzalez, nominated to the Western District of Texas. Judge Ann
Marie McIff Allen, nominated to the District of Utah. Judge
Kelly Rankin, nominated to the District of Wyoming. Judge Leon
Schydlower--I hope I pronounced that correctly--also nominated
to the Western District of Texas. And Judge Robin Meriweather,
nominated to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Congratulations
to all the nominees and their families.
As Senator Cornyn pointed out last week, several Senate
Republicans, including himself and Senator Cruz, have
identified well-qualified candidates for district court
vacancies in their States. In fact, each of today's district
court nominees has received blue slips from their Republican
home State Senators. So I'd like to thank my colleagues from
Nebraska, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as President Biden
for this good-faith bipartisan effort to fill these vacancies.
I took that approach myself during the Trump
administration, and I pointed out that we filled all eight
district court vacancies in Illinois during those 4 years. Many
of my Democratic colleagues did the same. Those efforts in
today's panels are further proof that blue slip tradition can
work as intended when we have bipartisan cooperation. I
continue to urge my colleagues to make similar efforts in their
States.
I'm now going to turn to Senator Graham for opening
remarks.
Senator Graham. If it's okay, Mr. Chairman, could we hear
from our two colleagues, and I'll make an opening statement so
they can go on about their business. Certainly short, but let
them go and do--speak.
Chair Durbin. I invite Senator Fischer and Senator Barrasso
to speak. Who's first? Senator Fischer, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
Ranking Member Graham. I'm here to express my support for Judge
Susan Bazis as she pursues confirmation to the judicial vacancy
in the United States District Court for the District of
Nebraska. I was honored to recommend Judge Bazis for this
position to the White House last year.
Judge John Gerrard, who previously served in this seat,
assumed senior status last year. He has served Nebraskans
justly and faithfully for the past three decades. Judge Gerrard
leaves behind an incredible legacy. He must be followed by an
exemplary candidate with undeniable skill and integrity, and
Judge Bazis is exactly that.
She has a keen legal mind, and tremendous expertise and
competence in applying the law. She has decades of experience
as an attorney, a judge, and a public servant. Judge Bazis is
exceptionally qualified. The American Bar Association Standing
Committee recommended her unanimously as ``well qualified''--
the highest possible rating. Her record speaks for itself.
Judge Bazis has served as a Federal magistrate judge for the
District of Nebraska for 7 years. She's already highly familiar
with the court, its processes, and its immense caseload.
Unlike other district courts across the country, Nebraska's
district judges intentionally use the court's magistrate judges
to their fullest extent. This ensures maximum efficiency for
the court. Judge Bazis is accustomed to a busy docket of cases
she must address quickly and thoroughly. This has prepared her
well for the demands of Nebraska's Federal bench.
Over the course of her lengthy career, Judge Bazis has had
well-rounded experience in both criminal and civil law. Before
she was selected for her current position, she was a Nebraska
county court judge for Douglas County for nearly a decade. Her
experiences not only reflected in her legal abilities, but also
in her fair-minded temperament, her professional character, and
her integrity.
As part of her role as a magistrate judge, Judge Bazis has
demonstrated initiative and skill in a broad range of areas.
Not only does she work tirelessly to administer justice
impartially, but she works to make the court system more
productive and effective. She focuses on ensuring security in
the courts, and using technology to increase judicial
efficiency. She's also a member of the Consortium of Tribal,
State, and Federal Courts, where she works to improve the
working relationship among the courts. She's dedicated to
strengthening public trust in the judicial system and expanding
access to that system.
Judge Bazis' qualifications and commitment to upholding our
laws and our constitution. Leave no questions about her ability
to take on this role as a Federal judge. Her confirmation to
Nebraska's Federal bench is also urgently needed to ensure that
we fill this outstanding vacancy in a timely manner.
I encourage all of my colleagues to enthusiastically
support this nomination. I offer my sincere congratulations to
Judge Bazis for this honor, and I unequivocally recommend her
for this seat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Fischer. Of course, we're
happy to have you here and as part of the program. We
understand that the schedules of all of our visiting Senators
sometimes don't allow them to stay for the hearing, but we
appreciate your being here.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator.
Chair Durbin. Now, I'm recognizing the Senators from
Wyoming. Senator Barrasso.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
Committee for giving me this opportunity, and it's a great
honor to join Senator Lummis in introducing Judge Kelly Rankin
at this hearing today. I want to share my great appreciation to
you personally, Mr. Chairman. For almost a year, we have talked
about this well-qualified and bipartisan nominee, and now that
the White House has made the nomination, I want to thank you
for expediting the process, and thank you for all of your
efforts.
I wholeheartedly support the nomination of Kelly Rankin.
I've known him for many years. Great to see his wonderful
family here today as well. I'd like to recognize his wife,
Cindy, is here. She's a speech pathologist at Cheyenne
McCormick Junior High and Central High School. Many of you may
also recognize the two sons that are here; both participated as
Senate pages. They went on the Senate floor with us.
Harrison, currently a junior at the University of Wyoming,
participated as a page sponsored by Senator Mike Enzi, and I
sponsored Sam as a page in 2021. Sam is currently a freshman at
the University of Wyoming. Now, Kelly's mom, Mandy, worked here
in the Senate for many years, working with then Wyoming Senator
Malcolm Wallop.
As you can tell, Kelly Rankin's roots to our great State
run deep. He's a Wyoming native, born and raised in Sheridan,
went on to attend the University of Wyoming, where he earned
his bachelor of science degree and a law degree. His life has
been dedicated to public service; greatly respect Kelly
Rankin's knowledge of the laws, dedication to the Constitution.
For nearly 30 years, he has been a respected member of the
Wyoming State Bar, served at almost every level of government,
and he's going to bring years of valuable experience to the
Federal bench. Judge Rankin started his career as a deputy
county attorney, spent nearly 18 years prosecuting cases in
State and Federal courts.
In 2008, he was confirmed by the Senate with a voice vote
to serve as U.S. attorney for Wyoming. He went on to work as
the counsel for the then Democrat Governor of Wyoming, Dave
Freudenthal. And I should add that Kelly has significant
bipartisan support. Governor Freudenthal and Wyoming Democrat
Governor Mike Sullivan both strongly support the nomination.
And Governor Sullivan was also President Bill Clinton's
Ambassador to Ireland.
Currently, Kelly serves as the chief United States
magistrate judge. Mr. Chairman, Judge Rankin has my full
support, his impressive record, incredible professionalism, and
unwavering commitment to the Constitution will make him a great
member of the Federal bench. I ask each of you to support and
quickly pass his nomination. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator. Senator Lummis.
STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Lummis. Chairman, and Ranking Member Graham, I
wholeheartedly join my colleague, Senator Barrasso, and thank
you for the opportunity to introduce Judge Kelly Rankin to this
Committee. I could not be more supportive of Judge Rankin's
nomination to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Wyoming.
For the last 11\1/2\ years, Judge Rankin has served the
people of Wyoming as a magistrate judge, deciding matters in
criminal and civil cases, spanning from Cheyenne in southeast
Wyoming to Yellowstone National Park in the northwest. He has
even been called upon by the Districts of Colorado and New
Mexico to assist with caseloads in those jurisdictions. He's
the past United States attorney, an important matter of public
service, also, counsel to the Governor and Park County attorney
in Cody, Wyoming.
While Judge Rankin has a wealth of experience in the law
and the administration of justice, it is his judicial
temperament and character that are most impressive. A judge
must be quick to listen, slow to speak, and have an innate
drive to understand all sides of an issue. Through all the
opportunities I've had to interact with Judge Rankin over the
years, I have found that he is a fine exemplar of all these
qualities. Most importantly, I believe Judge Rankin will
faithfully interpret the U.S. Constitution, the laws enacted by
Congress and the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court and the
10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
I also believe he will continue to be a committed public
servant to the people of Wyoming, and a very impressive member
of the judiciary of whom you will be proud. I'm certainly proud
to recommend Judge Rankin for your consideration. I join
Senator Barrasso in enthusiastic support of his nomination, and
I'm happy to take any questions from this Committee. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Lummis. We welcome our
friends who've spoken on behalf of the nominees. We know they
have to leave, but you're always welcome at the Committee. Now
we have Senator Cornyn who will introduce Mr. Gonzalez and
Judge Schydlower.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Cornyn. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing
me to introduce these two outstanding consensus nominees from
Texas, Judge Leon Schydlower and Ernest Gonzalez.
Judge Schydlower has been nominated to fill the vacancy in
the El Paso Division of the Western District of Texas.
Actually, El Paso is closer to the Pacific Ocean than it is to
the eastern tip of Texas, which is Beaumont, to give you an
idea of where it's located. It's way out there.
This nominee has a unique and extremely impressive resume
that illustrates his long-standing commitment to the rule of
law and the people of this great country. Since 2015, he's
served as a U.S. magistrate judge, which we heard a lot about
here a moment ago. As a magistrate judge, he has helped resolve
complex discovery matters, held hundreds of hearings, and
earned the respect of the El Paso Bar for his work.
As though being a magistrate judge isn't enough
responsibility, especially one located on the U.S.-Mexico
border, Judge Schydlower has also served in the U.S. Air Force
Reserve Judge Advocate Corps since 2010. He currently holds the
rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
Before his current role as a magistrate judge, this nominee
spent part of his career in private practice handling complex
Federal criminal defense cases, commercial litigation, and
international business disputes. While in private practice,
Judge Schydlower continued to pick up cases on what is called
the Criminal Justice Act Panel.
As my colleagues know, CJA attorneys ensure that criminal
defendants get the representation that they are entitled to
under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States. Before returning home to Texas, Judge Schydlower also
served as a special assistant United States attorney for the
U.S. Attorney's Office in Hawaii.
And I'd like to note that this nominee has served in not
just one, but two branches of the United States military. From
1996 to 2004, he served in the U.S. Navy and attained the rank
of lieutenant before he was honorably discharged. I know he'll
have to field some tough questions today, but I promise I won't
ask Judge Schydlower whether he prefers the Air Force or the
Navy.
On a personal note, I enjoyed speaking to the judge about
his military service and hearing about the service of his
father, who I understand who is watching from home. Judge
Schydlower's father retired as a colonel in the United States
Army--mine retired as a colonel in the United States Air
Force--and Judge Schydlower saw a living example of what it
means to serve the country with distinction. So Judge, welcome
to you and your family, and congratulations.
I also have the privilege of introducing Ernest Gonzalez,
who's been nominated to fill the vacancy in the Del Rio
Division for the Western District of Texas. Those who aren't
familiar with Texas geography, El Paso and Del Rio have some
heavy dockets because of their proximity to the U.S.-Mexico
border. So these are very important positions that are being
nominated for today.
Mr. Gonzalez has spent most of his career in public service
as well. He currently serves as a senior advisor to the
Department of Justice's Criminal Division as part of the
Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section. Before that, he served
for two decades as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern
District of Texas, where he managed one of the largest dockets
of any Federal prosecutors in the Department of Justice.
With over 230 jury trials, Mr. Gonzalez investigated and
prosecuted some of the most dangerous cartel members around the
world. He became one of the Nation's most prolific cartel
prosecutors in the process. Mr. Gonzalez previously served for
3 years as a U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas in
Del Rio, and 6 years as the assistant district attorney in
Bexar County.
Throughout his career, Mr. Gonzalez has prioritized
training our law enforcement partners in other countries to
establish strong bilateral cooperation on shared law
enforcement and national security matters. One of the things I
appreciate about Mr. Gonzalez is his commitment to helping
train young prosecutors and law enforcement personnel.
As we all know, it's harder and harder for lawyers to get
trial practice in courtrooms. It's easier in the criminal
dockets than it is in the civil dockets these days, but I think
it's absolutely essential that we continue to train the next
generation of advocates in our courts, and Mr. Gonzalez has
spent quite a bit of time doing that.
He graduated from the University of Texas at San Antonio in
1987, and the Thurgood Marshall School of Law in 1993. His
temperament, his knowledge of the law, and ability to handle a
large docket will serve the Del Rio Division of the Western
District well. So Mr. Gonzalez, congratulations to you and your
family on this nomination, and I look forward to supporting
your nomination.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Cornyn. Next is Senator Lee,
here to introduce Judge McIff Allen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL S. LEE,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be
here today, and I'm so grateful to President Biden for his
willingness to nominate Judge Anne Marie McIff Allen to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
I've known Judge Allen for 30 years. She and I were law
school classmates. And Judge Allen, even back then, had the
perfect temperament for a judge, never drawing attention to
herself, always prepared. She had a steady, quiet, and always
dignified approach, one that inspired respect from all of her
classmates. We, over time, got to know Judge Allen's husband,
and soon came to realize that they were the power couple.
You know, there were a small handful of people in law
school who were married to another law student, but the Allens
were the power couple of our law school. Randy was a year ahead
of us, and we always went to Randy for sage-wise advice, which
he always had. He's very smart. I told them at the time, ``It's
almost not fair for the two of you to be married to each other.
You're going to mess up the gene pool for everybody else's
kids.''
And speaking of that gene pool, we're pleased here to have
all three of the Allen's kids, and as well as the spouse of
their two married kids. We've got Matthew and his wife Louisa,
and we've got Lauren and her husband Will. And we have Eliza,
and we're looking for that someone special out there someday.
The Allens also apparently have more in common with Judge
Rankin than I would've realized because like Judge Rankin,
Judge Allen has two children who have served as Senate pages.
Lauren and Eliza were both here as pages. I was frankly kind of
offended that Matthew never expressed interest, but we'll take
that up for a different day. In any event, the Allens are here
in full support. I've asked them to serve in the same role as
Taylor Swift in the cheering section of a Chief's game. That'll
be sure to happen.
[Laughter.]
Judge Allen brings a wealth of experience and background to
this as a practicing lawyer, as someone who's served in the
public and private sector, as someone who's been the general
counsel of Southern Utah University, who's handled clients and
matters in a wide range of civil, criminal, and family court
matters, and as someone who brings a wealth of experience as a
judge over the last few years.
She is very well suited for this position, and if
confirmed, will be filling a role that will be stationed in
Southern Utah, our first full-time post for that position from
the outset, being based in St. George, Utah. So, it's without
hesitation and with great pleasure that I introduced Judge Ann
Marie McIff Allen to this Committee. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Lee. Senator Romney was
unable to join us in person today, but he asked the statement
of introduction and support for Judge McIff Allen be entered
into the record, which will happen without objection.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. We have one other nominee that I'd like to
personally introduce. Today, we'll hear from Judge Robin
Meriweather, nominated to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Judge Meriweather received her undergraduate degree from the
University of Michigan, and her J.D. from Yale Law School.
After graduating law school, she clerked for then Judge
Merrick Garland on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit. Judge Meriweather then entered private practice at
Jenner & Block here in DC, focusing on complex civil litigation
and matters involving constitutional, statutory, and regulatory
claims.
She joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
Columbia in 2007, where she spent 6 years serving as deputy
chief of the civil division; 2017 became a magistrate judge on
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In her
time on the bench, she's presided over several trials and has
issued more than a thousand orders. Congratulations, Judge
Meriweather to you and your family. I look forward to hearing
your testimony.
And now as the nominees approach the table, I would ask
Senator Graham if he has any opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY O. GRAHAM,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very
quick. Sort of two good news stories and one not so good. Good
news is that the Committee has been able to work with the White
House, through you, to get qualified nominees from red States,
and I appreciate my colleagues for being able to do that. Mr.
Chairman, I know you're instrumental in getting some of these
people over the line, so thank you. And to my colleagues, I
really do appreciate that, it's good for the Committee.
Next week, some good news. This Committee will come
together in a bipartisan way to push hard against the social
media companies in this country that are pretty much
unregulated, unaccountable. And I look forward to that hearing
big time, and I appreciate you working with us to put that
hearing on. So if you're doing nothing next week, next
Wednesday, you might want to watch this because I think
there'll be some good information coming about from the hearing
as to what the country needs to do to deal with social media.
We're also involved in negotiations about Ukraine, Israel,
Taiwan, and a border.
Not so good news: Behind me, I have two charts, and I'll be
quick.
[Poster is displayed.]
Senator Graham. The average number of people paroled during
the Obama-Trump Presidency was about 5,600. This was supposed
to be done on an individual case-by-case basis. Two unique
factors, one, unique humanitarian need or a special benefit to
the country, by Statute, is supposed to be an individual
analysis. As you can see from the charts behind me, the Biden
administration has had a 20,000 percent increase in parole.
They've paroled over 800,000 people in FY 2022, over 800,000
people in FY23. Calendar FY23 was about 1.2 million.
This has got to stop. This is an abuse of the law. There's
a lawsuit pending about blanket parole, but I cannot in good
conscience vote for a bill that does not restrict and bring the
Biden administration back in line with the law when it comes to
parole. This has been abused way too long. Over 2 million
people have been paroled into the country. And here's my
concern: no matter what you do with asylum, and we've done some
really good stuff on the asylum reform, expedited removal, if
the parole tool is not addressed, it can undercut everything
we've achieved.
So, Mr. Chairman, to you and your colleagues, I would like
to get a deal on the border that will open up money for
Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, but we have to deal with the abuse
of parole to get there. And the proposals on the table are
short of what I think we need. So I just want to bring it to
your attention that I think every Republican is committed to
making sure that parole is not being abused, will not be abused
in the future as it has been in the past. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Senator Graham, you've been forthright in
your position on this issue, and I respect you for it. I'm not
a party to the actual negotiation that's taking place. There
are three Senators who are involved in it, and it's being led
on your side by, I think, someone who's respected by your
members, and I respect him as well. And I hope that they can
come forward with a proposal. I don't know what it will include
in terms of parole or any other issue, and I'll wait and see
that that comes forward.
One of the areas that is contingent on this effort is the
aid to Ukraine. If you're following it in the news, you know
that they're fighting for their lives, and they're falling
behind in terms of the volume of warheads and other things
being thrown at them. I wear this little lapel pin and others
like it as a reminder of my commitment to the Ukrainian people
against Vladimir Putin.
I hope we can work out these issues on border security and
other issues still pending. But remember, this is a matter of
life and death for thousands of people in Ukraine who are
fighting every day for their survival. So we'll, at this point
ask the nominees to come forward to the witness table to be
sworn in. Please remain standing when you arrive at your chair.
You've seen this done before. Will someone please close the
door? Thank you very much. Please raise your right hand.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chair Durbin. Let the record reflect that all nominees,
thank goodness, have answered in the affirmative, and each will
now have an opportunity to make an opening statement. Judge
Bazis, please proceed with your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN M. BAZIS, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
Judge Bazis. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, and Ranking Member
Graham, as well as all of the other Members of the Judiciary
Committee for holding this hearing today. I want to thank
President Biden for nominating me, and I want to thank my home
State Senators Deb Fischer and Pete Ricketts for their support
of my nomination. I want to further thank Senator Fischer for
her kind words today. I also want to thank Judge Gerrard for
taking senior status, for if that had not happened, I would not
be here today.
I would not have gotten here without the love and support
of my family. I want to thank my mother who, unfortunately,
passed away 12 years ago. My mother was an extraordinary woman
who instilled in me, as well as all of my siblings, a strong
work ethic to always treat others how you want to be treated.
She would've loved to have been here today, and I know she is
here with me in spirit. Thank you to my father and stepfather
who passed away long before my mother, who both taught me that
hard work pays off, and that you need to have some fun along
the way.
I want to thank my husband, who I have been happily married
to for the last 24 years. We became friends in high school, and
he has been my biggest cheerleader and supporter in everything
I've done ever since then, and I would not be here today
without his love and support. To his mother, I want to thank
her for her love and support, and really stepping in as a
second mother to me after my mother passed away. I will never
be able to truly express how much that has meant to me, and I
appreciate all her love and support.
I also want to thank all of our friends who have supported
me during this process. To everyone watching at home, the rest
of my family; all of my brothers and sisters, and their
spouses, as well as my nieces, nephews, cousins, and my last
living aunt who will turn 100 in April--so happy early
birthday, Aunt Pat--thank you for all your love and support,
and I would not be here without you.
I want to thank all of the lawyers that I have worked with
who have mentored me in my career. I have been fortunate to
work with and learn from some of the best and brightest lawyers
in Nebraska. I would not be here without meeting and learning
from each and every one of you.
I want to thank my State court family that I worked with
for almost 10 years. This includes not only the judges I worked
with, but all of the staff and lawyers that made the highest
volume court in the State operate smoothly every single day. I
want to express how I truly appreciate all of the support you
have given me throughout my time as a State court judge, as
well as the presiding judge of that court, and through this
process.
I also want to thank my Federal court family, which also
includes the staff and lawyers who keep the Nebraska Federal
Courts running smoothly every single day, and for all of their
support that they have given me throughout this process. It
means the world to me.
I also want to give a special thanks to my judicial
assistant, my courtroom deputy, and my law clerk for their
support during this process, and for everything they do each
and every day for me. It has been an absolute pleasure to work
with all of you so closely for the last 7 years. I look forward
to the Committee's questions. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Judge Bazis. Mr.
Gonzalez.
STATEMENT OF MR. ERNEST GONZALES, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Mr. Gonzales. Chair Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, thank
you for scheduling today's hearing. It is a privilege to appear
before this Committee. Thank you, Senator Cornyn for your very
kind introduction. I'm sincerely grateful to Senator Cornyn and
Cruz, my home State Senators, for their steadfast support and
endorsement of my nomination as a district court judge. I would
also like to thank President Biden for this nomination, which
is truly an honor.
I am acutely aware that this opportunity is a result of the
exemplary values instilled by my parents, Ramiro and Enedelia
Gonzalez. As immigrants and former farm workers with a sixth-
grade education, my parents sought a better life for themselves
and their seven children in this great Nation. Their emphasis
on diligent study and education as a gateway to broader
opportunities has been a guiding principle for me. Despite
their passing, their spiritual influence continues to provide
unwavering guidance.
Allow me to introduce my wife, Leticia, whose constant
support has been a source of inspiration throughout our many
years of marriage. Our pride and joy, our daughter, Chelsea,
who recently achieved her master's degree, and dedicates
herself to serving the visually challenged community as a low
vision therapist.
Allow me also to acknowledge my brother, Jose Luis
Gonzalez, an assistant United States attorney in the El Paso
Texas office, and his wife Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, as well as my
sister, Dr. Elizabeth Gonzalez, and my niece Catherine. I would
like to express my gratitude to their unwavering, steadfast
support. I would also like to extend my thanks to my siblings
and others that are watching back home. My 81-year-old mother-
in-law, Gloria, and the prayer partners at St. Mark's Catholic
Church for their constant prayers.
Recognition is also due to my colleagues at the Narcotics
and Dangerous Drug Section here in Washington, DC, and the U.S.
Attorney's Offices in the Eastern and Western District of Texas
for their support. I am indebted to the role models throughout
my legal career with special acknowledgements to the U.S.
attorneys and the district judges in the Eastern and Western
Districts of Texas for their invaluable guidance.
Senators, I look forward to answering your questions.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Gonzalez. Judge
McIff Allen.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANNE MARIE McIFF ALLEN,
NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
Judge Allen. Good morning, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member
Graham, and Senators. Thank you for your invitation to appear
before you today as you consider my nomination as a district
court judge for the District of Utah. I acknowledge the
important constitutional checks and balances that this
Committee's work embodies. I am grateful to President Biden for
his nomination. Thank you, Senator Lee, for your warm
introduction. I am humbled by your, and Senator Romney's,
support.
I appreciate the support of my fellow southern Utah judges,
lawyers, court staff, and everyone at home. My parents, Kay and
Renee McIff, have both passed on, but are with me in spirit.
They were born and raised in southern Utah farming families who
were part of the western pioneer legacy.
My father's early childhood was spent in a home with no
indoor plumbing, and they plowed their fields with a horse
because there was no money for a tractor. My mother's parents
were beekeepers on the southwest desert of Utah, and both
families had to start over from scratch after the fathers, my
grandfathers, returned from service in the Second World War.
But they had great wealth in the values of integrity, faith,
and hard work, and if confirmed, I will be so pleased to serve
in the same place where these special people lived their lives.
My dad eventually became a lawyer in southern Utah, and
when I was a small girl, he would often bring me to court with
him. The reverence and decorum of the courtroom left a strong
impression on me from an early age. Every day now in my
southern Utah courtroom, I remember those lessons, and I work
to stay true to the values of fairness and dignity that I
witnessed as a young girl sitting next to my dad.
Thank you also to the entire McIff and Allen families who
are uniformly filled with rock solid contributors. My husband
of 30 years, Randy Allen, is here with me today. He has been my
best friend and biggest supporter since we met in the college
library so many years ago. All of my children and their spouses
are here, and I am grateful to them for traveling across the
country to be with me.
My son, Matthew, is in medical school, and his wife Louisa,
is in law school. My daughter, Lauren, is also in law school,
and her husband, Will, will start medical school in the fall.
My daughter Eliza, is an undergraduate student in nursing. They
are all great people, and it is my privilege to be their mom.
I love the people of the State of Utah, and of this great
country, and I have no agenda other than to serve as an
honorable judge. I look forward to answering your questions.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Judge. Judge Rankin.
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY HARRISON RANKIN, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
Judge Rankin. Good morning, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member
Graham, and distinguished Members of this Committee. It is an
honor to appear before you. I want to extend a hardy thank you,
special thank you, to Senators Barrasso and Lummis, and their
staffs, for their support. And thank you, Senator Barrasso, and
Senator Lummis, for the very kind introductions this morning. I
thank President Biden for this profound honor of his
nomination. I would also like to extend my deep appreciation to
Governor's Dave Freudenthal and Mike Sullivan, for their
tremendous support. Without the generous support of each of
these people, I would not be here today.
I have several family members with me this morning. First,
my wife, Cindy; she has been the love of my life and partner in
all things for the last 30 years. I can't thank her enough for
her love and support during our journey together.
My two amazing sons, Harrison and Sam, are here from
college. They are so excited to be back on Capitol Hill today.
I'm so proud of my boys and all their life journeys, and thank
you for keeping your dad grounded at all times. My mother,
Mandy, and father, Jerry, are also here. My parents instilled
in me the value of hard work, treating everyone with kindness,
and the importance of public service. Their unwavering support
and love have brought me here today.
My sister, Emily, is here. She is a remarkable attorney
with a remarkable career of service to others, and she's an
even better mother to her 10-year-old son. My brother, Mike, is
with us. He too is an attorney. He also is a retired FBI agent
following a decorated period of service and career of service
to our Nation. Today, he provides his security expertise to the
NFL. He too is an incredible father. Thank you each of you for
being here, and thank you for your love and support.
I also want to extend a heartfelt thank you to my other
family members who are watching from afar. Please know that I
very much appreciate all your love and encouragement, and I
would not be here without each of you.
And to my amazing court family, I also would not be here
without you. This includes my incredible judicial colleagues.
Thank you, each of you, for your counsel, mentorship, and
friendship. I want to especially recognize and honor the
distinguished career of Judge Nancy Freudenthal. She's the
seventh district judge in our court's 134-year history, and the
first woman to serve in that role. It's an honor to be
nominated to take her place. Judge, thank you for your service
to our court and Nation.
And a special thanks to our terrific clerk of court, Maggie
Botkins, and her staff. I'm fortunate to work with each of you.
I also want to acknowledge my wonderful chamber staff, John,
Joe, and Neon, and all of our former law clerks for their
friendship and many meaningful contributions to our court.
I want to extend a special thank you to all of the
dedicated and hardworking attorneys of the Wyoming State Bar. I
am proud to be a Wyoming lawyer. There are many others who have
had a profound impact on me. To all of you, thank you.
And finally, to those who have passed along your prayers
and well wishes, your support is very much felt and
appreciated. Thank you to the Committee for holding this
hearing today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Judge Rankin. Judge Schydlower. Did I
get close in pronouncing your name correctly?
Judge Schydlower. Very close, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, please----
Judge Schydlower. Schydlower.
Chair Durbin [continuing]. Proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. LEON SCHYDLOWER, NOMINEE TO
SERVE AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF TEXAS
Judge Schydlower. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham,
and distinguished Members of the Committee. I cannot express in
words how honored I am to be before you this morning. Senator
Cornyn, thank you for that wonderful and gracious introduction
and your reference to my father. I'm profoundly grateful to you
and Senator Cruz for recommending me to President Biden. I
would also like to thank the Texas Federal Judicial Evaluation
Committee who screens, evaluates, and recommends Federal
judicial candidates to Senators Cornyn and Cruz. And finally, I
thank President Biden for nominating me to be a United States
District Judge for the Western District of Texas.
With me this morning is my family. My wife, Lisa, is my
life partner, best friend, and love of my life. We were high
school sweethearts, and we've been married 27 years. She's been
my ultimate rock and support. I would not be here without her.
Our oldest daughter, Katrina, is here; she's a third-year law
student in Houston. Our younger daughter, Alexandra, is here.
She just graduated from Texas A&M last month, and our youngest,
Dan, is here. He's a freshman at the University of Texas.
My parents, Manuel and Elizabeth, are watching live from El
Paso, and I'd like to thank them for all the love and support
they've given me my entire life. My dad spent his life pursuing
service of this country and his community. A pediatrician, he
retired from the U.S. Army as a colonel after 20 years of
service, and spent the remainder of his career as a medical
school professor and dean of admissions.
He was and is my inspiration for military and public
service. My mom is the heart and soul of our family. My brother
and sister are watching from Texas, and I thank them for the--
their love and support. I also thank my father- and mother-in-
law, Hank and Cindy Felix, for their nearly lifelong support
and love.
Finally, I'd like to thank my court family, including my
judicial colleagues and friends for their mentorship and
friendship. I pay special tribute to my close-knit chambers
family, Erica Portillo and Veronica Medina, for their
unbelievable professionalism, excellence and dedication.
Erica's been with me 17 years now. I also thank the rest of my
family members and friends watching from El Paso and around the
country.
And finally, I'd like to say I'm honored to nominate to
fill the seat of United States District Judge Philip R.
Martinez, who we lost tragically and prematurely at the young
age of 63 in 2021. I thank President Biden for nominating me to
fill Judge Martinez's shoes, and I know at the outset, I will
never truly fill them. I look forward to answering the
Committee's questions.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much. Judge Meriweather.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBIN MICHELLE MERIWEATHER,
NOMINEE TO SERVE AS JUDGE OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Judge Meriweather. Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member
Graham, and all Members of the Committee for giving me the
privilege of appearing before you, and for considering my
nomination. I also would like to thank you, Chair Durbin, for
the kind words of introduction. Thank you to President Biden
for the honor of this nomination.
I am grateful to have the support of my family and friends
today, both with me here and watching virtually from Michigan,
Illinois, Ohio, Virginia, the Carolinas, and a few other States
in this country.
I am particularly delighted to share this moment with my
father, Jesse Meriweather, who traveled here from Romulus,
Michigan undeterred by sleet and snow. My father and my late
mother had an unshakeable belief in my potential, pride in my
achievements, and a commitment to giving me a chance to pursue
my dreams. Through education and hard work, they strove to give
me opportunities that exceeded what they could have dreamed of
when they were children. Without that foundation, I would not
be sitting before the Committee today.
I would also like to introduce my husband, Jay Bonds, who
after 17 years of marriage and many life changes, remains my
true-life partner and true friend. My 10-year-old daughter is
also present here with me today. She brings joy and pride to my
heart.
Since I began my legal career as a law clerk 25 years ago,
through my time in private practice, the Justice Department,
and as a magistrate judge, I have worked with extraordinary
judges, attorneys, paralegals, and staff who have mentored,
inspired, trained, and supported me. I lack the time to list
them all by name, but they have each touched my life in many
ways, and made me a better judge, lawyer, and person.
I also greatly appreciate my wonderful colleagues and the
staff at the District Court for the District of Columbia who
support and collegiality throughout my time as a magistrate
judge has been invaluable. I would also like to acknowledge and
thank my current and former law clerks, some of whom are
present today, and my amazing current and former courtroom
deputies.
It has been an honor to serve as a magistrate judge in the
District Court for the District of Columbia, and it would be an
honor to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Federal
Claims.
Thank you again to the Committee. I look forward to
answering your questions today.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Judge Meriweather. Every
nominee goes through a long investigation and questioning
process. So the abbreviated experience today should be no
reflection on the fact that they've filled out questionnaires
and answered many questions to reach this point. The major
question, which most of us have is for Judge McIff Allen, and
that of course, is some insight into Mike Lee as fellow law
student. We just wonder if he was as shy, reserved then as he
is now? We'll hold that question.
[Laughter.]
Chair Durbin. Judge, you've spent a significant time
serving the State of Utah as both a prosecutor and criminal
defense attorney. There's often concern on this Committee as to
whether or not someone ends up prejudiced one way or the other
after going through those experiences. Can you tell me what you
learned, and how you would balance your experience with the
cases that you may face?
Judge Allen. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I credit
as one of the good fortunes of my legal career that I had a
significant stint as both a criminal defense attorney and as a
prosecuting attorney.
When I was a criminal defense attorney, I was tempted to
believe that that was certainly the more difficult role. And
then when I became a prosecutor, I understood that there were
plenty of difficulties in both roles, plenty of challenges, and
plenty of opportunities to do good in the law. So I am grateful
that I had the perspective that both of those roles brought,
and I think it has made me a stronger judge, and will continue
to benefit and inform my perspective if I'm so fortunate to be
confirmed for this role.
Chair Durbin. Mr. Gonzalez, let me follow up with the same
type of questioning. Over the course of 29 years, as a
prosecutor, you've tried more than 250 jury trials to verdict,
more than 120 State jury trials, and more than 135 Federal jury
trials, a more amazing and remarkable amount of a courtroom
experience.
And so the question obviously is, would a criminal
defendant appearing before you believe he has even a fighting
chance for justice? What's your answer?
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, he would, Chairman. Every time I
approach a case, I approach a case as an individual case. I
evaluate the case individually. I evaluate the evidence
individually. I evaluate the individual that's before me, and I
make an assessment and a judgment as to how to proceed with
that case. And I think that that would serve me well as a
judge. I would be able to look at the case, judge the case,
judge the individual in front of me, and enforce the law
impartially and fairly.
Chair Durbin. Judge Bazis, I've been looking through here
for the statement about your experience. You've tried
approximately 150 cases to verdict in courts of record. As a
State court judge for nearly 10 years, you've presided over 545
cases, and as a Federal magistrate judge since 2017, presided
over 5 trials. Tell me about that experience as you move
forward to a district court level.
Judge Bazis. Well, obviously, I have had a lot of trial
experience, both as a judge and as a litigator. That all has
prepared me to be in a court that has trials, and being able to
use all of that experience that I have gained to--and in our
district, we are having trials both civil and criminal, and we
have a very heavy docket. And so that experience that I already
have would serve me well if I'm so fortunate to be confirmed to
the district court.
Chair Durbin. Thank you. Judge Meriweather, you're moving
to or want to move and aspire to the Court of Claims, which is
a little different world than you've been serving in as
magistrate. What are the major differences?
Judge Meriweather. Thank you, Chair Durbin. The biggest
difference between the district court and the Court of Federal
Claims is that the Court of Federal Claims solely hears cases
brought against the United States that are civil. So, there is
no criminal docket. I currently have a criminal docket as a
magistrate judge.
Conveniently, my background before becoming a magistrate
judge was entirely civil in nature. I have 25 years, if you add
it all up together, of experience doing complex civil
litigation, and that has prepared me very well, should I be so
fortunate to be confirmed, to be a judge on the Court of
Federal Claims.
Chair Durbin. Thank you. I'll just say in closing, Judge
Rankin, I've had many conversations with Senator Barrasso about
your background. And I've reviewed it carefully, and I think
that the White House has made a good choice, and I'm glad that
you're here. And thank you Judge Schydlower as well. I'm going
turn to Senator Cornyn at this point.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you pointed
out, it's a long road to get here. A lot of scrutiny, a lot of
vetting. Both Judge Schydlower pointed to the Federal Judicial
Evaluation Committee that Senator Cruz and I have appointed; a
bipartisan committee of the best lawyers in the State of Texas
who evaluated both Mr. Gonzalez and Judge Schydlower's
credentials, and recommended them to us.
And we agreed with that recommendation, and made that
recommendation to the President, and he nominated each of these
outstanding candidates. So once again, it demonstrates we can
actually get along and get things done here in a bipartisan
way, and I'm really very pleased with both of these
nominations.
But Mr. Gonzalez, Chairman Durbin, pointed out your
extensive trial experience and Judge Bazis talked about hers.
You know, as a recovering judge and lawyer myself, I have a
strong bias that judges ought to have tried as a lawyer jury
trials before they take the bench and then preside over those
trials. But can you talk a little bit about that experience,
and what sort of insight that's given you that you will now use
in your capacity as a Federal district judge?
Mr. Gonzalez. Sure. It's been mentioned that I've had all
these jury trials, and obviously I've been successful in
prosecuting large drug conspiracies, international drug
conspiracies, and traveled all over South America doing this.
But I don't do these things alone. A jury trial requires a
team. So I've always been very fortunate to surround myself
with other individuals that are part of my team. And not only
do they learn from me, as you mentioned, as a mentor, to that
individual, but I also learned from them because those
individuals also bring their own set of skills. And it's a team
effort.
So what I've learned through my trial experience is it's
not one person alone. It takes a team. Not only your co-
counsel, your second chair that's with you, putting the case
together, trying the case, convincing the jury, but also your
staff that works behind the scenes. Your paralegals, your legal
assistants, your IT people setting up your presentation.
Throughout my tenure now, almost three decades,
presentation of a case to a jury has changed. When I first
started, we had an ELMO, and we flopped that thing and we've
flopped the evidence on the ELMO, and that's all we had. Now we
have PowerPoints, and we have all this electronic equipment to
use to present evidence to a case. So I would look for
individuals that had that kind of talent to surround myself so
that we could present the case more efficiently and more
concisely so that the jury would understand what we were doing.
So although those numbers may seem like they're large
numbers of jury trials, I didn't do that alone. I did it with a
great group of people surrounding me.
Senator Cornyn. Judge Schydlower, both you and Mr. Gonzalez
have been nominated to border courts, and I'm not sure most of
the Members of the Committee really fully understand the nature
of the docket that you have in El Paso and that you have in Del
Rio. Could you describe the docket that you have?
Judge Schydlower. Yes, Senator Cornyn. We are on the Texas-
Mexico border, and El Paso is the epicenter of a lot of what
goes on there. Our docket is overwhelmingly criminal, as you
might imagine, and it's always been since dating back to the
1970's. It's probably 75 to 80 percent criminal.
So, what we as judges have to do is bear that in mind.
We've got to take the cases as they come to us, we process
them, and we close them, bearing in mind, though, that there is
a civil docket on the other side that we need to get to and we
have to get those cases accomplished.
So, it's twofold handling an enormous criminal docket,
which is nonstop, but at the same time taking care to ensure
that our responsibility to handle the civil docket is done.
Senator Cornyn. A lot of drug and immigration cases.
Judge Schydlower. That's correct, along with gun cases and
human smuggling cases.
Senator Cornyn. And Mr. Gonzalez, I'm not sure people
appreciate the personal danger associated with doing
prosecuting drug cartels like you've done. Could you spend 30
seconds explaining what that's meant in your personal
experience?
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, Senator. I've been personally threatened
on five occasions. On two occasions, I had to move out of my
home with my wife and child, and live outside of my home for
several months at a time. My wife and my daughter have always
been supportive and never questioned my dedication to public
service, my dedication to doing this job.
But it is a dangerous job, and I have had the occasions of
being threatened on five occasions and twice, having to be
deputized as a U.S. Marshal to carry a gun, to wear a
bulletproof vest at all times, being escorted to court and
home. And changing my way of life; taking a different route
home, turning on my alarm when we're at home, not just at
night. So, yes, it is a dangerous role to be a drug prosecutor
on the border.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Cornyn. Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the nominees
may know if they've watched prior nomination hearings like this
one, I want to begin my questioning by discussing what I
consider is an important issue for the Federal judiciary, and
that's the topic of clerk diversity. Not just diversity of
folks who are serving on the bench. I'm speaking to law clerks
that provide an invaluable service.
As many of the candidates who appear before us know from
personal experience, serving as a Federal clerk can be a
powerful start to a legal career, whether you stay in the
public service side or whether you pursue a private sector
career. Young lawyers with the opportunity to receive important
guidance and mentorship from a judge is a tremendous help,
especially early in a career.
But too often, the statistics show us that diverse young
lawyers are not afforded the same opportunities to clerk
despite being equally qualified for these positions. And with
that said, my question for each of you is this: Do you believe
diversity within the judiciary is important? If so, why? If
not, why not? And what would you do if confirmed to contribute
to the diversity within your chambers? We'll start with Judge
Bazis.
Judge Bazis. Thank you. I do think diversity is important
for the whole court system, from staff to judges, because I
think it's important that the community sees that there are
people like them that are within the court system. I think it
gives some credibility to the court system from that
perspective. And as to clerks, I think it is important to have
different perspectives and views within your chambers. And so
for me, if I was fortunate to enough to be confirmed, I would
cast a wide net in order to interview a diverse group of
people.
Senator Padilla. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. For some of the same reasons, Senator. I
think for three basic reasons. I think that diversity in the
judiciary, as well as law clerks, brings with it different
perspectives. Different perspectives from different walks of
life to the issues that the court has to deal with on a daily
basis.
Second, it gives the public confidence that their interest
and their views are going to be considered by the court
seriously and fairly. And lastly, diversity in the judiciary as
well as in law clerks exemplifies the diversity that exists in
this great Nation, and it also is reflective of the community
that we have to serve.
Senator Padilla. Thank you.
Judge Allen. Thank you for your question, Senator. I agree
with the comments of my fellow nominees, and I would add that I
believe, and in my experience, diversity brings strength. I
have had the great privilege of having mentored over the course
of many years a diverse set of individuals from all walks of
life. I would continue that commitment in my chambers, were I
to be confirmed.
Senator Padilla. Thank you.
Judge Rankin. Senator, Thank you for your question. I, too,
agree with my fellow nominees. Diversity is important. It's a
reflection of who we are as citizens of this great country.
It's a reflection of the litigants that come before us in the
courtroom. During my nearly 12 years as a magistrate judge, I
routinely hire folks of different backgrounds and experiences.
Our chamber staff is diverse, and it's an opportunity for
different experienced people to come before the court and work
for the court. So I do think it's important that I would
continue in that effort, if so lucky to be confirmed.
Senator Padilla. Thank you.
Judge Schydlower. Senator, I join what my colleagues have
said already. I would also add that there are opportunities for
judges to attend functions where they can have one-on-one
communication with law students. I attended one last April that
was open to everybody, but there was a particular reach out to
underrepresented communities in law schools where the judges
had a chance to sit down, explain what judges are looking for
when they interview law clerks, and give the law students ideas
about the tools that they might need to make them the most
qualified candidates when the time came for applying for law
clerkships.
Senator Padilla. Okay.
Judge Meriweather. Thank you, Senator. I agree with my
colleagues about the importance of diversity. It helps bolster
public confidence in the courts. I believe the courts are a
place where people want to be heard. And when a person
appearing in court sees that the people who are listening to
what they are presenting to the court come from a variety of
backgrounds and experiences, I think that enhances their
ability to feel confident that they will be heard fairly and
impartially, and will not be disregarded because of what their
life experiences are, where they come from, where they reside,
or other unique aspects. So, I really believe that diversity
helps with that.
In terms of what I would personally do if confirmed as a
magistrate judge, I have hired law clerks from a variety of
backgrounds and experiences. If confirmed to the Court of
Federal Claims, I would hope to continue to do so.
In addition, I have repeatedly participated in panels that
try to bring awareness about clerkship opportunities to law
students here in DC, to hopefully expand the applicant pool so
that students who perhaps might not have personal connections
to attorneys and judges can learn what a clerkship entails and
hear from judges about how they can perhaps better position
themselves to have a chance at such a wonderful job
opportunity. Thank you.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman. I neglected to make unanimous
consent request with involving some letters in support of Mr.
Gonzalez's nomination. May I make those?
Chair Durbin. Of course.
Senator Cornyn. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous
consent that letters from the League of United Latin American
Citizens, the Hispanic National Bar Association, and the
Mexican American Bar Association of Texas be made part of the
record. They all relate to Mr. Gonzalez's nomination and
confirmation.
Chair Durbin. Without objection. So ordered.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Judge Allen, getting back to Senator Durbin's
original question. Can you just confirm to the Committee that I
was a very mousey wallflower, unopinionated, and afraid to
express myself in law school?
Judge Allen. Thank you, Senator. I wish I could do that.
Senator Lee. It was worth a try. Worth a try.
Chair Durbin. Reminder that the witness is under oath.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lee. You've been involved in, as a lawyer and as a
judge, about 75 trials. Is that right?
Judge Allen. Correct.
Senator Lee. A lot of cases never make it to trial. They
either settle before they get there, or in many cases, they're
resolved by a dispositive motion. In many cases, summary
judgment is evolved. The parties get to the point after
conducting discovery that they conclude there's no genuine
issue of material fact, and one of them files a motion for
summary judgment.
When there's a close case or an arguably close case on a
Rule 56 motion, do you have any opinion on what's worse,
granting a meritorious dispositive motion on a Rule 56 or
failing to grant one that is meritorious?
Judge Allen. Well, Senator, I appreciate the question, and
I'm certainly cognizant of the dilemma that you have posed
there. And I can tell you that I find no virtue in either
option that you've given me. I have litigated summary judgment
motions as a lawyer. I have ruled on them as a judge, and it is
my intention in all of those circumstances to get it right. It
is not my inclination to take the easy way out. And getting it
right on summary judgment is a heavy lift.
Senator Lee. Right.
Judge Allen. But I study the issues carefully, and I'm
aware that some believe that having one's day in court is the
automatic out in a close case.
Senator Lee. And what do you mean by that when you say,
``having one's day in court''?
Judge Allen. Meaning denying the motion for summary
judgment.
Senator Lee. And thus allowing the case to proceed to
trial?
Judge Allen. Correct. If you deny the motion for summary
judgment, the case proceeds. I think some believe it will
likely settle, and so that's the safer option.
Senator Lee. So is that what you referred to a minute ago
when you said, ``the easy way out''?
Judge Allen. Correct.
Senator Lee. Because it's easier to deny the motion for
summary judgment than to grant. Why is that?
Judge Allen. Well, because it takes a lot of heavy lifting
to carefully review the filings, and to write the significant
order in support of a granting of a motion for summary
judgment.
Senator Lee. So that's more likely to involve an opinion
rather than just a simple order saying there's----
Judge Allen. Correct. And judges with busy dockets--I think
everyone wants to get it right, of course. But judges with busy
dockets may err on the side of caution and say, ``Let me deny
the motion. That's just a really quick order.'' But I believe
that the more courageous approach is to carefully consider
those issues and really to make the ruling that is demanded by
the law and the facts.
And were I to be so fortunate as to be confirmed into this
role, I would continue my commitment to not taking the easy way
out, and to making the brave decision in whichever manner the
law and the facts support, and then standing behind that,
whatever comes.
Senator Lee. So, if I understand you correctly, there,
neither one is more defensible than the other. They're both
bad. They're both equally indefensible, but----
Judge Allen. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Lee [continuing]. The temptation is greater to deny
the motion.
Judge Allen. In my experience, that is absolutely the case,
Senator.
Senator Lee. And so as it in other words, the judge needs
to look out for that temptation among judges because if you do
that, the case may well settle long before it gets to trial.
Judge Allen. Correct.
Senator Lee. By the way, what tends to take more time? Your
average criminal case, or your average civil case, or is there
a difference?
Judge Allen. In the judicial or in the lawyering context?
Senator Lee. In the judicial context.
Judge Allen. In my experience, civil cases have more
nuances, more heavy lifting in terms of the handling of those
matters. Certainly, all are important, and I give full
attention to all matters before me, but they usually have the
more dense subject matter in terms of preparation.
Senator Lee. Right. Some of that probably relates to the
prevalence of the dispose of motion in civil litigation, not as
much of that, you have other kinds of motions?
Judge Allen. Certainly. Certainly.
Senator Lee. All right. I see my time's expired. Thank you.
I was hoping you could confirm the wallflower thing, but, you
know, worth a shot.
[Laughter.]
Chair Durbin. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Congratulations to each of you. Judge
Meriweather, you've been nominated to the Court of Federal
Claims. Is that right?
Judge Meriweather. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. How many motions have you argued in the
Court of Federal claims?
Judge Meriweather. I have argued hundreds of motions
involving complex civil claims in numerous courts. The Court of
Federal Claims is not one of those courts.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. So, the answer's zero?
Judge Meriweather. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. How many cases have you tried in the
Court of Federal claims?
Judge Meriweather. I have tried a civil case in the
District Court for the District of Columbia. Most of my cases
have been resolved on motions. None of those cases have been in
the Court of Federal Claims, although they involve similarly
complex matters under civil laws.
Senator Kennedy. So, the answer's zero?
Judge Meriweather. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Tell me the grounds for granting a new
trial in the Court of Federal Claims?
Judge Meriweather. All of the trials in the Court of
Federal Claims are bench trials, and the Court of Federal
Claims, although it is not bound by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, its rules mirror those rules when applicable. So,
it's my understanding that the same rules that would apply in
the district court are also applied in that context. But if I
were presented with a motion for a new trial, should I be
confirmed as a judge on the Court of Federal Claims, I would of
course consult the rules of the Court of Federal Claims.
Senator Kennedy. So what are the grounds for granting a new
trial?
Judge Meriweather. My understanding is that a new trial,
you would have to comply with the applicable rules.
Senator Kennedy. I know that, but what are they? What are
the grounds? You said that the rules are identical to the Court
of Federal Claims and Federal District Court. I'm not sure
that's accurate, but just tell me what are the grounds for
granting a new trial in the Court of Federal Claims?
Judge Meriweather. Senator, that is not an issue I have had
occasion to consider before, despite my extensive civil
experience and my familiarity, not only with the Federal Rules
of Civil procedure, but I've also reviewed the Rules of the
Court of Federal Claims. But if I were presented----
Senator Kennedy. I'm sorry----
Judge Meriweather. Go ahead.
Senator Kennedy. No, you go ahead. You go ahead.
Judge Meriweather. I did not mean to speak over you,
Senator.
Senator Kennedy. That's Okay. You go ahead, and I want you
to finish your answer.
Judge Meriweather. So I would, if I were presented with
that question, should I be confirmed, I would, again, consult
the rules and follow the precedent.
Senator Kennedy. All right. Let me be sure, Judge, I
understand your testimony. Can you tell me one single ground
for granting a new trial in either a Federal District Court or
the Court of Federal Claims as we sit here today?
Judge Meriweather. Yes. If there were gross misapplication
of the law, certainly a litigant would argue for----
Senator Kennedy. Anything else?
Judge Meriweather [continuing]. A new trial.
Senator Kennedy. They're like six or seven of them. Can you
tell me any others?
Judge Meriweather. Trials are so infrequent in the civil
context, and I have--although I have presided over bench trials
and a jury trial, I have not been presented with a motion to
have a new trial----
Senator Kennedy. Okay.
Judge Meriweather [continuing]. So I've not----
Senator Kennedy. Okay. What's a contract of adhesion?
Judge Meriweather. Senator, I'm familiar with contract law.
The concept of contracts of adhesion----
Senator Kennedy. Yes. You're going to see a lot of that.
That's what Federal Court of Federal Claims does. What's the
contract of adhesion?
Judge Meriweather. Senator, the Court of Federal Claims
does handle a lot of procurement cases. Those typically turn on
interpretations.
Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am, but I'm going to run out of
time. What's the contract of adhesion? If you don't know, just
tell me.
Judge Meriweather. Senator, despite my extensive civil
experience, including dozens of cases that include contract
cases, I have not dealt with the question of what a contract of
adhesion. But should it be presented to me, I would----
Senator Kennedy. Sure. You'll look it up. Okay. Do you
remember a case judge called United States v. Allen?
Judge Meriweather. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. You were reversed in that case, weren't
you?
Judge Meriweather. I made a pretrial detention decision
for, I believe, five defendants. I believe that Judge Allen was
one of the defendants for whom the district judge disagreed----
Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am, but you were reversed?
Judge Meriweather. My pretrial detention ruling, I believe
was.
Senator Kennedy. Do you remember a case called United
States v. Johnston?
Judge Meriweather. I have had multiple United States v.
Johnston. Are you referring to the pretrial detention matter?
Senator Kennedy. Well, in this case, you had a defendant
who was charged with traveling with intent to engage in illegal
sexual conduct with a kid, and the defendant also testified
that he, ``had a sexual interest in minors,'' and even had a
sexual relationship with his daughter. Do you remember it now?
Judge Meriweather. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. And you were reversed in that case,
weren't you?
Judge Meriweather. I made a narrow decision in Johnston
that he should be released for 21 days----
Senator Kennedy. Yes.
Judge Meriweather [continuing]. And placed on home
incarceration----
Senator Kennedy. Right.
Judge Meriweather [continuing]. So that he could get cancer
treatment that he had been unable to----
Senator Kennedy. You----
Judge Meriweather [continuing]. Receive.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Wanted to let him go out for
21 days. Is that correct?
Judge Meriweather. I don't think that's an accurate
characterization.
Senator Kennedy. Well, that's what the district court judge
said. The district court said no way am I letting this guy out
on the street for 21 days.
Judge Meriweather. The district court judge concluded that
his life was not at risk because he had had the medical
appointment that he had not had when he appeared before me,
before the appeal. So, under those new facts, the factual
predicate from my temporary release decision no longer existed.
Senator Kennedy. That's not the way I read it, Judge. Do
you remember a case called United States v. Voucher and United
States v. Patel? You were reversed in those cases, too, from
trying to let somebody go, weren't you?
Judge Meriweather. In those two cases, my flight risk
assessment under the Bail Reform Act, I believe, was reversed
by the district judge.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. I'm out of time. Thanks, Mr.
Chairman, for your indulgence.
Chair Durbin. Senator Welch.
Senator Welch. Thank you. Judge Meriweather, I just want to
tell you that I get nervous every time Senator Kennedy starts
asking these legal questions. I'd flunk. All right. So thank
you, and you did very well. I want to just congratulate all of
you for being here, and express my gratitude to you for the
service that you provide and the service you hope to give.
I want to start with Judge Bazis. I was a former public
defender, so I really appreciate that as part of your resume.
In your capacity as a judge, how does the experience you had as
a public defender and as you know, many public defenders now
being nominated, and also, many prosecutors, that criminal
justice background is obviously helpful. But how does it inform
you in your responsibilities as a judge?
Judge Bazis. In a couple of ways. First, the experience
that I gained by being a public defender and the trial
experience that I received, I would've not gotten anywhere
else----
Senator Welch. Right.
Judge Bazis [continuing]. Quite honestly, so. And having to
be prepared in every single case because every case I had was
set for trial, and that was about a thousand cases per year in
the Public Defender's Office. So that experience, obviously, to
a trial judge was very helpful.
Also, knowing and understanding the procedures within the
courts to apply those. But also I appeared after leaving the
public defender's office in front of a lot of judges, and there
were things I liked they did, and things that not so much. And
so, what my clients wanted and what I wanted was someone who
was going to be fair and impartial, listened to the facts of
the case, feel that the lawyers and the defendant were being
heard, as well as the prosecutor, and making a just, and fair
determination. And so that's what I've tried to do for the last
17 years as a judge.
Senator Welch. Thank you. And Mr. Gonzalez, you were a
prosecutor--or are, so same question. You know, you've got in
the judicial system, you're defending or prosecuting, and it's
a shared experience even though you're on opposite side. So
just tell the Committee, if you would, how your experience as a
prosecutor would inform you in the role of the decider.
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, Senator. I've been fortunate to--
everywhere that I've gone, I've had a very robust docket. So
I've carried a lot of cases. My last case review had 150 cases,
900 defendants. That gives me the opportunity to communicate
with opposing counsel, listen to their views, listen to the
person that they're representing, their views and what is it
that they don't understand. And sometimes I've had the
opportunity to converse with the defendants and explain the
criminal justice system, explain the sentencing manual, the
sentencing guidelines to them.
So, I get a good idea of what a defense attorney goes
through in representation of that defendant, and as a judge, I
would be sympathetic to that. I would be sympathetic to the
role that the defense attorney has to play, as well as the
prosecutor. Having the experience that I have of over three
decades, I would use that experience. And I've also been before
a lot of judges, and I've seen some judges with compassion, and
caring, and kindness. And I would probably model myself after
them, and try to be fair, and impartial, and everything.
Senator Welch. Thank you. And Judge, is it Schydlower?
Judge Schydlower. Yes, sir.
Senator Welch. Yes. And you've had a lot of Federal court
litigation experience, and just tell us how you would see
yourself acting in the role of judge?
Judge Schydlower. Well, the best predictor of how it would
be as a district judge is the last 8 years that I've served as
a U.S. magistrate judge. And 8 years ago, I had to transition
from being an advocate who loved trying cases to being a
neutral arbiter. And that was a transition. I loved being a
lawyer, and I loved trying cases. But I set that aside, and I
made that determination before I became a judge that I would
have to set that aside. And I think it's been a good
transition, and I'm proud of the record that I've had.
Senator Welch. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Welch. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to
all of the nominees. Thank you all for being here. Judge Bazis,
if I could just start with you. I want to ask you about this
case, United States v. Bartunek, I think it is, from 2017. Do
you remember this case?
Judge Bazis. I do.
Senator Hawley. This is a case in which you granted
pretrial release to the defendant. It was a child pornography
case. Does that sound right?
Judge Bazis. Yes.
Senator Hawley. Now, you said in your responses to the
panel's questions that the defendant had no criminal
convictions, and had lived in Nebraska his entire life, and
that he owned the home he was living in, and was employed.
I understand, however, at the time that you granted him
release, the Omaha Police Department had an open investigation
regarding the sexual assault of a 7-year-old child, in which he
was the suspect, and that was in the presentence report. So
just walk me through your thinking.
Judge Bazis. During the hearing, I asked for additional
information from the Government and they couldn't give it to
me. So we didn't have a lot of facts in regards to that. So the
facts and circumstances, there was no additional information
that was provided to me at that time.
Senator Hawley. So you didn't know he was the subject of
the investigation?
Judge Bazis. There may have been a mention, but the
question I had was, well, what does that mean? Has there been a
report made? Is he truly the suspect, or was his name just
mentioned? What were the circumstances? And at that point in
time, there was no additional information that could be given.
Senator Hawley. I see. So it looks like to me, according to
the revised PSR, ``the Omaha Police Department has an open
investigation regarding the sexual assault of a 7-year-old
child,'' who's then identified with initials, in which the
defendant is the subject. But you're saying that that--you
thought that that was not sufficient in order to guide your
judgment?
Judge Bazis. Was that the presentence report, which would
have happened after sentencing versus the pretrial report,
which is what I would get prior to bond setting,
Senator Hawley. ``Offers the following objections to the
revised PSR; the defendant objects to the inclusion of any
reference,'' and then it goes on to quote this material about
the sexual assault. So you're saying you didn't have that
information?
Judge Bazis. Correct. That would've been after sentencing.
Senator Hawley. Okay. So you weren't aware that?
Judge Bazis. At sentencing. Prior to sentencing, after a
plea, is when that information would----
Senator Hawley. Okay. So when you granted pretrial release,
you were not aware that he was under investigation for the
assault of a 7-year-old?
Judge Bazis. Based on what you're saying, and that's a PSR,
then no.
Senator Hawley. Well, I'm asking is your memory any
different? I mean, I can give these questions to you for the
record, if that would be more helpful. I just want to clarify
the facts because I just want to make sure. If you're telling
me you didn't know about it, that's a very different thing.
Judge Bazis. Well, I don't believe I did.
Senator Hawley. Okay. Well, I tell you what, I'll give you
some questions for the record on this, and that way--so that
you don't have to just rely on your memory.
Judge Bazis. And I can go back and look at the presentence
report----
Senator Hawley. That'd be great. That would be great.
Judge Bazis [continuing]. And the pretrial report, which
would tell me that.
Senator Hawley. Great. Fair enough. Thank you. Judge
Meriweather, let me just ask you in my short remaining time
here. I think Senator Kennedy was asking you about this case,
United States v. Johnson, where you recommended the release of
a sexual predator to get medical treatment. Is that right? Do I
have the right case?
Judge Meriweather. Senator, I recommended a 21-day--a
temporary release for medical treatment after holding multiple
hearings, and giving the Government multiple opportunities to
get Mr. Johnson to his appointments. Because as I noted in the
opinion, I thought the charges were deeply disturbing. I take
very seriously the danger to the community.
And I found when I balanced the four factors that I had to
consider under the Bail Reform Act, that it was only his
history and characteristics, which was that at the time that
issue was before me, he had an urgent need for diagnostic and
cancer treatment. That----
Senator Hawley. Let me just add--I'm sorry to interrupt
you. I'm almost out of time. I just want to make sure I
understand the sequence because I might, as to my questions in
Judge Bazis, I might not have the sequencing right. So you can
correct me here.
So I thought the Government filed an emergency appeal of
your release order, and you were overturned by the DC District
judge because for among other reasons, the predator here had
been caught in a sting operation. He'd admitted to sexually
abusing his 8-year-old daughter. He had been previously court
martialed for molesting a child when he was in the Air Force.
That child was his adopted daughter, and he claimed to have
sexually molested other children.
And the Government thought that releasing him was a
terrible idea. The district court agreed with him--them rather,
agreed with the Government. So, I just wonder, in light of all
of that, as you look back on it now, do you think it was a bad
decision to recommend release for him?
Judge Meriweather. Two things. First, all of the abuse that
was alleged was horrific. The charges that were in front of me
did not involve the molestation of his daughter, which I
believe had happened 15 years earlier. And my decision was not
based solely on the nature of the charges, that's but one of
four factors that the Bail Reform Act required me to consider.
The factual predicate, as I highlighted in that opinion, I
found it very challenging to even entertain the idea of
releasing someone charged with such heinous crimes, as well as
someone who had a history, decades earlier, of abuse.
But I found that his own interest and self-preservation
would--paired with stringent conditions, being under the
custody of his wife for a limited period of time, and only
allowed to leave his home to go to the doctor in order to get
the timely cancer treatment that he needed. That despite three
opportunities, he was unable to get through no malicious intent
of the Government----
Senator Hawley. Can I just ask this, Mr. Chairman, it's my
last question. Can I just ask, I thought that he was getting
cancer treatment, but your judgment was he wasn't getting--not
for the right kind, but he was getting treatment. Is that
accurate?
Judge Meriweather. No. That was the change between my
ruling and the time of the reversal. I gave the Government
three opportunities to take him to the doctor, and I kept him
detained. Despite it, he did not get to the doctor. I ordered
him temporary released so that he could see a cancer
specialist, because cancer is a time-sensitive issue, as many
of us know with loved ones who are survivors of cancer. And
then the next day, he got to the doctor.
Had he been to the doctor, I would not have released him
for 21 days. I didn't feel that he needed a specific doctor,
which was the facts that were presented to the district judge.
It was that he sees any doctor so that he could timely have his
cancer addressed. Unfortunately, that did not happen before he
saw me.
So, I made the very difficult decision of ordering
temporary release under stringent conditions so that could
happen. It then happened, and so the need for it no longer
existed. Had he seen the doctor before I ruled, I would have
denied his motion, and I would've ordered that he remained
detained.
Senator Hawley. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you for that explanation, Judge. I just
note here in the notes when you disclosed this case, which you
did to the Committee, you said, ``A significant factor in my
ruling was that jail officials had repeatedly failed to
transport the defendant to medical appointments, and he had a
private physician who could properly conduct testing and
treatment.''
You did not release him--using that word in its entirety--
but it was for home treatment, home incarceration, for this
period of time. Is that correct?
Judge Meriweather. Yes. That's correct, Senator.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much. I believe that's all the
Senators who are going to be attending this hearing. And I want
to thank all the nominees, and their family and friends for
their patience during this.
One quick logistical note. Questions for the record will be
due to the nominees by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, January 31. And the
record will likewise remain open until that time to submit
letters and materials. With that, the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]