[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4418-S4428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JUDICIAL VACANCIES
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken on the floor many times about
the judicial vacancies in our Federal courts. It concerns me. In fact,
I believe other than the subject of antipersonnel landmines, I have
probably spoken on this subject more than any other. I am concerned
that some in the Republican Party are engaging in a court-bashing
situation that does not reflect the proud heritage of either the
Republican Party or the Democratic Party.
I have spoken about the crisis that has been created by the almost
100 vacancies that are being perpetuated in the Federal courts around
the country. We have recently seen a constitutional amendment proposed
to remove the life tenure that has been the bedrock of judicial
independence from the political branches since the ratification of our
Constitution. It is just one of, I think, over 100 constitutional
amendments proposed this year alone. It ignores the fact that our
independent judiciary is the envy of the rest of the world. We have
heard calls for impeachment when a judge rendered a decision with which
a Republican House Member disagreed. I have read the Constitution. It
speaks of very specific grounds for impeachment. Among those grounds is
not that a Republican House Member disagrees with a judge. We would
probably have a very difficult time if every judge could be impeached
because any Member of the House or Senate disagreed with him.
We have heard demands that the Congress act as a supercourt of
appeals and legislatively review and approve or disapprove cases on a
case-by-case basis. That is for the same Congress that has not yet even
taken up a budget bill, even though the law requires us to do it by
April 15.
We are seeing exemplary nominees unnecessarily delayed for months,
and vacancies persist into judicial emergencies. We are seeing
outstanding nominees nitpicked, probed, and delayed to the point where
one wonders why any man or woman would subject themselves to such a
process or even allow themselves to be nominated for a Federal
judgeship.
Instead of reforming the confirmation process to make it more
respectful of the privacy of the nominee, something that we all claim
we want to do, the Republican majority in the Senate is moving
decidedly in the other direction. They are approaching the imposition
of political litmus tests, which some have openly advocated under the
guise of opposing judicial activism, even though some of these same
Members were the ones who said that nobody should impose a litmus test
on judges.
Even conservatives like Bruce Fein, in his recent opinion column in
the New York Times, reject this effort. Actually, so do the American
people. We have not had a time when any President or any Senate should
be asked to impose litmus tests on an independent judiciary.
I recommend my colleagues read the excellent commentary by Nat
Hentoff on this new political correctness that appeared in the April
19, 1997, edition of the Washington Post. I have spoken in broad
generalities, although each are backed up by dozens of cases. But let
me be specific on one. The nomination of Margaret Morrow to be a
Federal judge for the Central District of California is an example of
the very shabby treatment accorded judicial nominees. The vacancy in
this Federal court has existed for more than 15 months, and the people
in central California--Republican, Democrat, Independent--are being
denied a most needed, and in this case a most qualified, judge.
Ms. Morrow's nomination is stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee
again. I am appalled by the treatment that Margaret Morrow has received
before the Judiciary Committee. Ms. Morrow first came before the
Judiciary Committee for a hearing and she was favorably and unanimously
reported by the committee in June of 1996, almost exactly a year ago--a
year ago less a couple of weeks. Then her nomination just got caught in
last year's confirmation shutdown and she was not allowed to go
through. So she has to start the process all over again this year.
Let me tell you about Margaret Morrow. She is an exceptionally well
qualified nominee.
She was the first woman president of the California Bar Association,
no small feat for anybody, man or woman. She is the past president of
the Los Angeles County Bar Association. She is currently a partner at
the well-known firm of Arnold & Porter, and she has practiced law for
23 years. She is supported by the Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan,
who, incidentally, is Republican, and Robert Bonner the former head of
the Drug Enforcement Administration under a Republican administration.
Representative James Rogan from the House joined us during her second
confirmation hearing and, of course, she is backed and endorsed by both
Senators from California.
Margaret Morrow has devoted her career to the law, to getting women
involved in the practice and to making lawyers more responsive and
responsible as a profession. The Senate ought to be ashamed for holding
up this outstanding nominee, and I question whether the Senate would
give this kind of treatment to a man. It sure as heck has been doing it
to a woman.
Despite her qualifications, she is being made an example, I am not
quite sure of what, but this woman who has dared to come forward to be
a Federal judge is being made an example before the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
At her second hearing before the committee on March 18, even though
she already has gone through a committee hearing and even though the
committee last year unanimously voted to confirm her with every single
Republican and every single Democrat supporting her, even though she
had gone through it once before, she was made to sit and wait until all
the other nominees were questioned, as though she were being punished.
``We have these men who want to be heard, and even though you had to do
this before, you, woman nominee, sit in the back and the corner.'' She
was then subjected to round after round of repetitive questioning.
Then came a series of written questions from several members, and
they were all Republican members of the committee. Then came the ``when
did you start beating your husband'' type questions to Ms. Morrow,
based on her previous questions. I objected when Ms. Morrow was asked
about her private views on all voter initiatives on the ballots in
California for the last decade. Basically, she was being asked how did
she vote in a secret ballot in the privacy of a voting booth on 160
initiatives on the ballot in California over the last 10 years.
[[Page S4419]]
I defy any Member of the Senate, if they were given a list of 160
items in their local elections, State elections, that have been on the
ballot over the last 10 years, to be able to honestly say how they
voted on every single one of those. But even before they got to the
question of could they say how they voted, I would stand up and say,
``What has the Senate stooped to when we ask people how they voted in a
secret ballot?"
Mr. President, we fought--successfully fought--a Revolutionary War,
among other reasons, to maintain the sanctity of the ballot box. We
fought a Civil War, among other reasons, to maintain the sanctity of
the ballot box. We stood up to fascism, Nazism, World Wars because we
were protecting our democracy and way of life. Some of the most
remarkable and respected Republicans and Democrats of this country's
history, and some of the most responsible and respected Republicans and
Democrats in my lifetime, and some of the most responsible and
respected Republicans and Democrats of my 22 years in the Senate have
stood and fought to maintain the privacy of the ballot box. I, Mr.
President, am not going to be a Senator on the Senate Judiciary
Committee that allows that sanctity to be destroyed.
When I challenged the question, it was revised so as to demand only
her private views on 10 voter initiatives on issues ranging from
carjacking to drive-by shootings to medical use of marijuana and the
retention election of Rose Bird as chief justice of the California
Supreme Court.
Ms. Morrow previously stated she did not take public positions on
these voter initiatives, so asking for her private views necessarily
asked how she voted on them. We are, thus, quizzing nominees on how
they voted in their home State ballot initiatives. Why we need this
information, even if we were allowed to follow someone into the ballot
box and see how they voted--something none of us would allow anybody to
do to us--even if we are allowed, to say while we would not do it to
any of us, we would do it to this woman.
Why do we need this information to determine if she is qualified? In
fact, she explained to the committee that she is not anti-initiative,
and in response to written questions, she discussed an article she
wrote in 1988 and explained:
My goal was not to eliminate the need for initiatives.
Rather, I was proposing ways to strengthen the initiative
process by making it more efficient and less costly, so it
could better serve the purpose for which it was originally
intended. At the same time, I was suggesting measures to
increase the Legislature's willingness to address issues of
concern to ordinary citizens regardless of the views of
special interests or campaign contributors. I don't believe
these goals are inconsistent.
The initiative process was a reform championed by
California Governor Hiram Johnson in 1911 to ensure that
the electorate had a means of circumventing the
Legislature when it could or would not pass legislation
desired by the people because of the influence of special
interests. As envisioned by Governor Johnson and others,
the initiative was designed to complement the legislative
process, not to substitute for it. This is my
understanding of the role of the initiative process, and
this is what I had in mind when I wrote the 1988 article.
The reasons that led Governor Johnson to create the
initiative process in 1911 are still valid today, and it
remains an important aspect of our democratic form of
Government.
I ask, Mr. President, does that response sound like somebody who is
antidemocratic? Yet, she has been forced to answer questions about how
she views the initiative process in written questions and, again, in
revised follow-up written questions over the period of the last month.
Again, I remind everybody, this is a woman who was voted out
unanimously last year by the committee. No objective evaluation of the
record can yield the conclusion that she is anti-initiative. No fair
reading of her 1988 article even suggests that. I might add,
parenthetically, and what should be the only really important question,
there is nothing in her record that suggests she would not follow the
precedents of the court of appeals for her district or the U.S. Supreme
Court. There is nothing to suggest that she does not believe in stare
decisis or that she would not follow it.
Recently, I received a letter from a distinguished California
attorney, and a lifelong Republican, who wrote to protest the unfair
treatment being accorded Margaret Morrow. He wrote that he was
``ashamed of [his] party affiliation when [he sees] the people's
elected representatives who are Republicans engaging in or condoning
the kind of childish, punitive conduct to which Ms. Morrow is being
subjected.'' He asks us to stop permitting the harassment of this
nominee. I join with this distinguished Republican, and I ask the same
thing: Stop harassing this nominee. I don't care if the harassment is
because she is a woman, I don't care if the harassment is based on some
philosophical difference, the fact of the matter is, she is one of the
most qualified people I have seen before the committee in 22 years,
Republican or Democrat, and she ought to be voted on and confirmed with
pride--with pride--by the U.S. Senate.
We have heard nothing but praise for Ms. Morrow from those who know
her and those who worked with her and litigated against her. In fact,
the legal community in and around Los Angeles is, frankly, shocked that
Margaret Morrow is being put through this ordeal and has yet to be
confirmed. The Los Angeles Times has already published one editorial
against the manner in which the Senate is proceeding with the Morrow
nomination. I ask, to what undefined standard is she being held? What
is this new standard --it is kind of hidden--which has never shown up
before? It has not shown up for any male nominee that I know of.
In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that a letter signed by a
number of distinguished women in support of her nomination be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles,
Los Angeles, CA, May 13, 1997.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: We write to you to protest the
treatment which one of President Clinton's nominees for the
Federal District Court is receiving. We refer to Margaret
Morrow, who has been nominated for the United States District
court in the Central District of California. As of today we
have been waiting a full year for her confirmation.
Margaret Morrow has qualifications which set her apart as
one uniquely qualified to be a federal judge. She is a magna
cum laude graduate of Bryn Mawr College and a cum laude
graduate of Harvard Law School. She has a 23-year career in
private practice with an emphasis in complicated commercial
and corporate litigation with extensive experience in federal
courts. She has received a long list of awards and
recognition as a top lawyer in her field, her community and
her state.
Margaret Morrow is widely respected by attorneys, judges
and community leaders of both parties. Many have written to
you. Because of her outstanding qualifications and broad
support, it is difficult to understand why she has not moved
expeditiously through the confirmation process.
Margaret Morrow is a leader and role model among women
lawyers in California. She was the second woman President of
25,000 member Los Angeles Bar Association and the first woman
President of the largest mandatory bar association in the
country, the 150,000 member State Bar of California.
Margaret Morrow is exactly the kind of person who should be
appointed to such a position and held up as an example to
young women across our country. Instead she is subjected to
multiple hearings and seemingly endless rounds of questions,
apparently without good reason.
We urge you to send a message that exceptionally well
qualified women who are community leaders should apply to the
U.S. Senate for federal judgeships. We urge you to move her
nomination to the Senate floor and to act quickly to confirm
it.
Nancy Hoffmeier Zamora, Esq.,
President, Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles.
Judith Lichtman, Esq.,
President, Women's Legal Defense Fund.
Karen Nobumoto, Esq.,
President, John M. Langston Bar Association.
Steven Nissen, Esq.,
Executive Director & General Counsel, Public Counsel *.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Title and organization for identification purposes only.
Sheldon H. Sloan, Esq.,
President, Los Angeles County Bar Association.
Abby Leibman, Esq.,
Executive Director, California Women's Law Center *.
[[Page S4420]]
Juliet Gee, Esq.,
President, National Conference of Women's Bar Associations.
(Mr. ROBERTS assumed the chair.)
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, that is from the Women's Lawyer Association
of Los Angeles.
Last week, at a Judiciary Committee executive business session, I
asked her name be added to the agenda and that the committee report her
nomination to the Senate for confirmation. All questions have been
answered. The Republican Senator who propounded the questions on
initiatives said he would not filibuster her nomination and agreed not
to hold her up any longer. I thank him publicly and appreciate his
forthrightness.
But even though we looked around that room and said, ``Does anybody
have any objection to her,'' and I had gotten absolute confirmation
from every single Democratic Senator that they were ready to vote
positively for her and would vote for her on the floor immediately, her
nomination was not called up. My requests that she be called up for a
vote before the committee was rejected, and she remains in limbo almost
2 months after her second confirmation hearing and one full year after
she was first nominated.
There is now what amounts to a secret hold on this nomination in the
Judiciary Committee. Some Senator is holding her up. Some Senator
doesn't have the courage to come on the floor of the U.S. Senate and
say why this woman is objectionable to him. Some Senator will hold her
up secretly because he doesn't want to vote on her publicly, even
though I guarantee you, if we had a rollcall vote on her, it would be
overwhelmingly positive. We should proceed with the nomination of
Margaret Morrow without further delay.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will my friend yield for about 2 minutes?
Mr. LEAHY. Of course. I am happy to yield to the Senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. I am appreciative of the Senator taking to the floor
today to discuss this entire issue. We all learned growing up that
justice delayed is justice denied.
We have these openings. Look, I was told very clearly by the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee, ``Senator, you have to come in with
nominations that will pass by Republicans and Democrats. You need to
bring forward nominees who are supported by Republicans and
Democrats.''
Mr. President, I have done just that. I think Senator Leahy has
outlined this magnificently--I have never seen a nominee with such
bipartisan support as this woman. This is what is so extraordinary
about the kind of treatment she is receiving: a secret hold that has
been placed on her.
Mr. President, this is not the way to run the U.S. Senate. Let's
allow this woman's name to be placed on the floor and then those who
have any objection can express their objections and vote no. But I am
so confident that the vast majority of our colleagues will vote for
Margaret Morrow.
I say that not only because of her extraordinary bipartisan support,
but because of her incredible qualifications. I say to my friend from
Vermont how much I appreciate his leadership on this. Sometimes we
forget these nominees have private lives. This is a woman who is a law
partner in a law firm making preparations for a new career. She is a
45-year-old wife and mother. She has a very loving family. They are
very proud of her. They are completely mystified about these questions
that keep coming. I have talked to several members of the Judiciary
Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, and when I speak with them,
I say to you, Mr. President, one on one, I am very confident that
Margaret Morrow will get a vote and a fair vote.
I want to quote from one letter that is so important.
H. Walter Croskey, associate justice in the Court of Appeals for the
State of California, Second Appellate District, describes himself, Mr.
President, as a conservative Republican. He has written to Senator
Hatch, and he wrote to Senator Hatch about an article he read that
suggested that ``concerns have been raised in the [Judiciary] Committee
about judicial activism and noted that there were questions as to
whether Margaret would be a judge who would follow the Constitution and
the laws as they are written.'' He says, ``Such concerns are not shared
by anyone who knows Margaret.'' And he goes on to say, ``Her well known
and often expressed reverence for our system of government and justice
and her great intellectual integrity provides full assurance that she
would be the kind of judge who would follow and apply the laws as
written * * *.''
He goes on.
Mr. President, we have Republican after Republican from my State.
This particular judge was appointed by George Deukmejian, Republican
Governor of the State of California.
Mayor Richard Riordan, Sheriff Sherman Block, a Republican-elected
sheriff, supports her nomination.
So it is so difficult, frankly, for this Senator to understand why we
would play with the life of a woman like this and not give her her fair
chance.
I understand that women's organizations have written to Senator Leahy
and Senator Hatch. They have been very patient. But when you see a
panel of people, as Senator Leahy has described, three men and one
woman, and the three men get reported out of the committee--and I
venture to say, I know they are all extremely qualified--I would put
Margaret's qualifications right up against any of those.
So I am very pleased that my colleague, the ranking member on the
Judiciary Committee, has raised this issue. I am hopeful, I say to my
friend and the Presiding Officer today, that because Senator Grassley
has lifted his objection to bringing the nomination to the floor and
others on the committee have done the same, that they will prevail upon
that secret hold, they will find who that particular Senator is who has
put a hold here. If we start putting holds on each other's nominations
and on each other's bills and on each other's amendments, I say to my
friend, we are only going to deteriorate in this U.S. Senate. The
people expect more.
To reiterate Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge that
Margaret M. Morrow be voted out of the Judiciary Committee and
confirmed to sit on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
Margaret Morrow is an outstanding candidate for the Federal bench,
who enjoys broad bipartisan support. She has over a dozen support
letters from prominent, widely respected Republicans, including judges,
elected officials, and others. It has been my honor to recommend such a
fine candidate to the President. Her name was submitted to me by my
judicial advisory committee for the Central District of California. My
committee enthusiastically found her to be a superior judicial
candidate.
However, despite her strong bipartisan support and strong
credentials, her nomination remains indefinitely stalled in committee.
She has had two hearings, and has had several rounds of questions with
no end in sight. No Member has come forward to explain why she should
not be confirmed.
Margaret Morrow's History
Margaret Morrow was first nominated by the administration on May 9,
1996. She received the first of her nomination hearings before the
Senate Judiciary Committee on June 25, 1996, and was reported out of
committee just 2 days later without any opposition from the committee.
For several months, Margaret Morrow's nomination sat on the Executive
Calendar waiting to be moved, and finally died on the floor of the
Senate when we adjourned at the end of the session.
Margaret was then renominated on January 7 of this year because of
her impeccable credentials. Her nomination languished for over 2 more
months until further action on March 18, when she had yet another
hearing.
Twice, now, the Judiciary Committee has reviewed stacks of
information she provided to the committee, a full FBI background
investigation, and her testimony before the committee. Yet, Margaret
still sits in committee, facing repeated rounds of questions with no
end in sight.
Judicial Vacancies
Margaret Morrow's confirmation should not be held hostage for
political reasons, Mr. President. According to the U.S. Constitution,
the President nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and
consent. It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and
prevent numbers of highly
[[Page S4421]]
qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on
the Senate floor.
Today, we have 26 nominations from the President to consider. Every
one of these nominations should be voted out of committee and placed on
the calendar for consideration on the Senate floor.
Margaret Morrow's Life is on Hold
The vacancy Ms. Morrow would be filling has been vacant since January
24, 1996. In 2 short months, this vacancy will become a judicial
emergency. That will make three judicial emergencies in the ninth
circuit courts, and four judicial emergencies in the California
district courts. Two of those judicial emergencies will be in the
Central District of California. I don't think I need to remind this
body that the Central District of California in Los Angeles is one of
the busiest courts in the Nation.
To provide some historical context, in 1992, every one of the 66
nominees approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee were approved by
the full Senate. Every single person nominated, Mr. President, was
under a Republican administration and a Democratic-controlled Senate.
Included in those 66 judges were 11 circuit court nominees. In 1992,
the Democratic Senate confirmed the highest number of judges of any
year of President Bush's term. And the confirmations did not slow as
the election approached. During the 4-month period between June and
September, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported 32
nominees, including 7 appeals court nominees.
Former Majority Leader Bob Dole spoke of this process himself. In
June of last year, he said ``We should not be holding people up. If we
need a vote, vote them down or vote them up * * * because [the
nominees] probably have plans to make and there are families
involved.'' Even then-Majority Leader Dole recognized the necessity to
provide resolution for nominees out of fairness to these individuals
and their families.
Before I speak about Ms. Morrow's credentials or historical precedent
for judicial confirmations, I wanted to make the point that there is
also a personal side to the judicial confirmation process. For nominees
who are awaiting confirmation, their personal and professional lives
hang in the balance.
Margaret Morrow--a 45-year-old mother and law partner--has put her
life and her professional practice on hold while she waits for the
Senate to approve her nomination. The Senate's delay has affected her
ability to assume certain responsibilities at her law practice. Her
whole family--particularly her husband and young son--have waited
patiently for her confirmation to proceed. Many of us here in the
Senate have no idea what kind of strain and stress awaiting
confirmation means for these nominees. We owe to her prompt Senate
consideration.
Mr. President, I am unaware of any substantive reason why Ms.
Morrow's nomination has not been before the full Senate long before
today. If another Member of this body has a reason for opposing her
confirmation, I want the opportunity to discuss those objections, as
does Ms. Morrow, and to move on to Senate consideration.
Three Points
There are three aspects of Margaret Morrow's qualifications, in
particular, I want to emphasize:
First, Ms. Morrow's long history and background in the legal
profession. Her credentials are impeccable.
Second, Ms. Morrow has the confidence of a broad spectrum of
supporters.
Third, Ms. Morrow's qualifications and the broad support she enjoys
would make her an exceptionally distinguished addition to the Federal
bench.
ms. morrow's long history and background in the legal profession, her
credentials are impeccable
Ms. Morrow graduated magna cum laude from Bryn Mawr College, and
received her law degree from Harvard University, graduating cum laude.
Ms. Morrow has enjoyed 23 years in private practice in commercial and
civil litigation, and is now a partner at the prestigious law firm of
Arnold & Porter. She is married to Judge Paul Boland of the Los Angeles
Superior Court and they have a son, Patrick Morrow Boland.
From 1988 to 1989, Ms. Morrow served as president of the 25,000-
member Los Angeles County Bar Association, the second largest voluntary
bar association in the country, and created an innovative program in
California called Pro Bono Council which calls on members of the
association to do pro bono work for the poor. From 1993, she served a
1-year term as president of the largest mandatory bar association in
the country, the 150,000-member State Bar of California. Ms. Morrow was
the first woman to ever hold this office in that organization.
Ms. Morrow has been recognized several times during her tenure in the
legal profession. A few of these include a listing in 1994 as one of
the top twenty lawyers in Los Angeles by California Law Business, a
weekly publication of the Los Angeles Daily Journal. In 1995 and again
in 1996, Ms. Morrow was included in the Los Angeles Business Journal's
``Law Who's Who,'' a list of 100 outstanding Los Angeles business
lawyers.
Just this February, Ms. Morrow received the Shattuck-Price Award, the
highest honor given by the Los Angeles County Bar Association for
individuals with outstanding dedication to the high principles of the
legal profession, the administration of justice and the progress of the
county bar. Others who have received such distinction include Warren
Christopher and Shirley Hufstedler, former U.S. circuit court judge and
U.S. Secretary of Education.
Ms. Morrow has the confidence of a broad spectrum of supporters
I'm not the only one who believes Ms. Morrow has an excellent legal
mind and is a credit to the legal profession. Ms. Morrow enjoys the
broad support of accomplished persons. Many of California's prominent
and conservative Republican lawmakers and elected officials support her
confirmation:
H. Walter Croskey, associate justice in the Court of Appeals for the
State of California, Second Appellate District, and self-described
conservative Republican writes to Senator Hatch about an article he
read that:
. . . suggested that concerns have been raised in the
[Judiciary] Committee about judicial activism and noted that
there were questions as to whether Margaret would be a judge
who would follow the Constitution and the laws as they are
written. Such concerns are not shared by anyone who knows
Margaret. Her well known and often expressed reverence for
our system of government and justice and her great
intellectual integrity provides full assurance that she would
be the kind of judge who would follow and apply the laws as
written with her only agenda to make that system work better
and more efficiently. . . . The reservations expressed about
her are simply without foundation and should not deter the
Judiciary Committee from taking prompt and favorable action
on what we here in California regard as a truly inspired
choice.
The district attorney of Orange County, Mike Capizzi, writes to
Senator Lott:
I have absolutely no hesitation in commending her
nomination to you as being among the very best ever likely to
come before you. * * * Of particular interest to crime
victims, law enforcement and public prosecutors are her
initiatives and achievement in the fields of juvenile justice
and domestic violence, where her efforts have helped focus
national attention.
He ends his letter by stating:
The record of scholarship, citizenship, and dedication to
improving the legal system that Margaret will bring with her
to the federal bench reveals great promise for a truly
exceptional jurist of whom we will all be proud. I sincerely,
wholeheartedly and enthusiastically entreat you to confirm
Margaret's nomination for appointment to the district court,
without delay. We need her.
Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan writes in strong support of Ms.
Morrow's nomination. He adds that Morrow, ``would be an excellent
addition to the Federal bench. She is dedicated to following the law,
and applying it in a rational and objective fashion.''
Representative James Rogan, former Republican assembly leader in the
California Legislature, now Member of Congress, who gave a supporting
introduction for Margaret Morrow at her second hearing, wrote to
Senator Trent Lott urging his support of Ms. Morrow's nomination
because he believes she would be ``conscientious in applying the law.''
Republican Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block also supports Ms.
Morrow's nomination, stating she is an extremely hard worker with
impeccable character and integrity.
Republican Robert Bonner, appointed by President Reagan as U.S.
attorney for the Central District, later appointed to the U.S. District
Court in
[[Page S4422]]
the Central District, and former head of the Drug Enforcement
Administration under President Bush has also lent his support, stating
she is a ``brilliant person with a first-rate legal mind * * *
nominated based upon merit, not political affiliation.''
Lod Cook, chairman emeritus of ARCO, and a prominent Republican in
the State of California wrote of Ms. Morrow:
I am convinced she is the type of person who would serve us
well on the federal bench. I believe she will bring no
personal or political agenda to her work as a judicial
officer. Rather, her commitment will be to ensuring fairness
and openness in the judicial process and to deciding cases on
the facts and the law as they present themselves.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these and additional
letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
State of California,
Court of Appeal,
Los Angeles, CA, April 17, 1997.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Russell
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re Nomination of Margaret Mary Morrow.
Dear Senator Hatch: I am pleased to write in support of the
nomination of Margaret Morrow to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. I have known
Margaret for over 15 years, both professionally and socially.
During that period, I have worked with her on many local and
state bar activities and committees; I have had repeated
opportunities to discuss legal issues with her; and she has
appeared before me in both the trial and appellate courts on
a number of occasions. Finally, I am very familiar with her
reputation in the legal community, both in Southern
California and statewide. Based on all of that, I believe
that she is the most outstanding candidate for appointment to
the federal trial court who has been put forward in my
memory.
Yesterday, I read an article in our local legal newspaper
about Margaret's second hearing before the Judiciary
Committee on March 18, 1997. That article suggested that
concerns have been raised in the Committee about judicial
activism and noted that there were questions as to whether
Margaret would be a judge who would follow the Constitution
and the laws as they are written. Such concerns are not
shared by anyone who knows Margaret. Her well known and often
expressed reverence for our system of government and justice
and her great intellectual integrity provides full assurance
that she would be the kind of judge who would follow and
apply the laws as written with her only agenda to make that
system work better and more efficiently. She will be a judge
of whom all Americans, Republican or Democrat, can be very
proud.
Every now and then we have the opportunity to bring into
government service a truly outstanding person, a person whose
knowledge, intelligence, integrity and industry are such as
to command universal respect and admiration. We have that
opportunity with Margaret's nomination. As the second woman
to head the Los Angeles County Bar Association, (the second
largest voluntary bar association, after the ABA, in the
nation), the first woman to be elected president of the
California State Bar Association, an attorney who has won
every award and accolade which can be bestowed by the
California legal community and a practicing lawyer with
superlative skills and reputation, she can truly be
characterized as an exceptional choice for appointment to the
District Court. Indeed, as I mentioned, I can recall none
better in my professional experience. The reservations
expressed about her are simply without foundation and should
not deter the Judiciary Committee from taking prompt and
favorable action on what we here in California regard as a
truly inspired choice.
As a lifelong conservative Republican, I would be very
disappointed to see members of the Committee, whose views I
share and admire on so many issues, fail to embrace this
exceptionally well qualified nominee. Margaret's nomination
should be promptly approved and sent to the Senate floor with
a favorable recommendation.
My best to you and your staff. Keep up the good work.
Yours truly,
H. Walter Croskey.
P.S. As a matter of information and convenience, I am
enclosing a copy of my resume. My appointment to California's
general trial court and subsequent elevation to the Court of
Appeal were made by Republican Governor George Deukmejian.
____
Office of the District Attorney,
Orange County, CA, August 15, 1996.
Hon. Trent Lott
Office of the Majority Leader,
U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: I am writing to urge you not to lose the
opportunity to add someone of Margaret Morrow's stature to
the district court bench in Los Angeles.
As the district attorney of one of the nation's most
populous counties, I know how important it is that the very
best nominees possible be confirmed for judicial office. And
knowing Margaret as I do, both on the basis of our
professional relationship and association, and by virtue of
her outstanding reputation within California's legal
community, I have absolutely no hesitation in commending her
nomination to you as being among the very best ever likely to
come before you.
Margaret's impressive credentials, from cum laude graduate
of Harvard Law School to President of the State Bar of
California, speak for themselves, of course. Of particular
interest to crime victims, law enforcement and public
prosecutors are her initiatives and achievements in the
fields of juvenile justice and domestic violence, where her
efforts have helped focus national attention.
The record of scholarship, citizenship, and dedication to
improving the legal system that Margaret will bring with her
to the federal bench reveals great promise for a truly
exceptional jurist of whom we will all be proud. I sincerely,
wholeheartedly and enthusiastically entreat you to confirm
Margaret's nomination for appointment to the district court,
without delay. We need her.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Capizzi,
District Attorney.
____
Office of the Mayor,
Los Angeles, CA, June 17, 1996.
Re Margaret M. Morrow.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch.
Chairman, Judiciary Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hatch: I write to strongly support the
nomination of Margaret M. Morrow for a judgeship on the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
Ms. Morrow has been a particularly active and contributing
member of the Los Angeles Legal community for most of the
twenty-two years she has practiced in our city. She has
worked tirelessly to improve the quality, efficiency and
accessibility of the courts proposing and advocating such
measures as the consolidation of our two-tier trial court in
California, working on efforts to improve our jury system,
and promoting greater use of alternative dispute resolution
by both the courts and the public.
She has also worked actively to improve life in our
community, addressing such problems as domestic violence,
child abuse, and juvenile delinquency with specific programs
designed to increase public awareness and improve both
private sector and governmental responses to these problems.
As the first woman President of the State Bar of California
in its 67-year history, Ms. Morrow commissioned a
comprehensive review of the attorney discipline systems in
California. The study was designed to investigate criticisms
from legal consumers that the system unfairly favored
lawyers, and criticisms from lawyers that attorneys in
certain practice areas were being targeted for selective
prosecution. Finally, the study was to evaluate the structure
and efficiency of the discipline operation, which at that
time cost between $15 and $20 million each year.
The final report found that the system operated fairly for
both clients and lawyers. Nonetheless, it recommended
important changes to increase responsiveness--streamlined
reorganization of the prosecutorial office, stiffer penalties
for serious violations, greater public access to information
concerning pending complaints, and reduced staffing and
better personnel utilization by the State Bar Court. These
improvements significantly strengthened what is generally
considered to be the best lawyer discipline system in the
country. To complement this effort, Ms. Morrow spearheaded
the creation of a lawyer-client mediation program to provide
a remedy for client complaints outside the scope of the
discipline system.
In her earlier tenure as President of the Los Angeles
County Bar Association, Ms. Morrow was responsible for the
Association's promulgation of a Pro Bono Policy which
established an annual goal for pro bono legal service by its
members, and ultimately generated an additional 150,000 hours
of pro bono time. Her efforts in this regard were designed to
ensure that low-income people could access the courts to
resolve problems and secure needed services, and thus feel
less need to take matters into their own hands. During this
period also, Ms. Morrow served as a member of the six-person
Commission to Draft an Ethics Code for Los Angeles City
Government. It was this body that proposed our city's current
ethics law, and helped to increase public trust in our
government.
As a lawyer, Ms. Morrow has had extensive federal and state
litigation experience at both the trial and appellate levels.
She is recognized within the profession as someone who can
analyze complex legal problems thoroughly and litigate
successfully. Ms. Morrow is perhaps best described as a
``lawyer's lawyer''--someone to whom other practitioners turn
for advice and assistance at both the trial and appellate
level. Because of her frequent appearances in court, she is
also well respected by the state and federal judiciary, who
value her intelligence and integrity as well as the quality
of her written and oral advocacy.
I believe Ms. Morrow would be an excellent addition to the
federal bench. She is dedicated to following the law, and
applying it in
[[Page S4423]]
a rational and objective fashion. The residents of our
community would be extraordinarily well served by her
appointment as a Central District Judge.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Riordan,
Mayor.
____
Assembly Majority Leader,
California Legislature,
Sacramento, CA, August 30, 1996.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: I am writing to urge your support of
Margaret Marrow's nomination for a United States District
Court judgeship in Los Angeles.
Margaret is a former president of the Los Angeles County
Bar Association and the State Bar of California. In 1994, we
worked together to secure passage of the trial court
consolidation measure, and I found her to be tough,
thoughtful and fair. She currently is a civil litigation
partner with the Los Angeles law firm of Quinn, Kully and
Morrow.
A judicial evaluation conducted by the American Bar
Association's Judiciary Committee last year gave Margaret its
highest rating, ``very well qualified.'' I have every
confidence that, as a judge, Margaret would be conscientious
in applying the law.
Please give the matter of her nomination every due
consideration.
Sincerely,
James E. Rogan,
Assembly Majority Leader.
____
County of Los Angeles,
Sheriff's Department Headquarters,
Monterey Park, CA, June 12, 1996.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hatch: I would like to take this opportunity
to endorse Margaret Morrow, who has been nominated by
President Clinton to a United States District Court Judge
position in Los Angeles.
Ms. Morrow is currently a partner in the law firm of Quinn,
Kully & Morrow. She has established herself as a highly
skilled attorney and has served as past president for the
State Bar of California, the Los Angeles Bar Association and
the Barristers' Section of the Los Angeles County Bar
Association. As a Barristers' Committee Chair, she worked
closely with the juvenile delinquency and dependency court
system, helping administrators at a local detention facility
improve the educational program and she published a handbook
to help lawyers and the public to better understand the two
systems.
She also established the Domestic Violence Counseling
Program and held training sessions for lawyers. She involved
law enforcement officials in planning and teaching the
sessions to ensure focus on the law enforcement perspective
on this type of case. Ms. Morrow's extensive professional
activities indicates her willingness to be a positive aspect
in the jurisprudence field.
Margaret Morrow is an extremely hard working individual of
impeccable character and integrity. Her list of credits, both
professionally and within the community is extensive.
I would like to recommend that you favorably consider her
appointment. I have no doubt that she would be a
distinguished addition to the United States District Court.
Sincerely,
Sherman Block,
Sheriff.
____
State of California,
Court of Appeal,
Los Angeles, CA, June 11, 1996.
Re Judicial Candidacy of Margaret M. Morrow.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: I write to endorse President Clinton's
nomination of Margaret Morrow for the United States District
Court in Los Angeles. I also recommend that you give priority
to her confirmation.
I am a lifelong Republican, some would call me a
conservative one. I was born in Utah, am an active member of
the LDS Church, and have sent my children to Provo, Utah, for
their post-high school education. The Los Angeles Chapter of
the J. Reuben Clark Law Society recently named me as
``Outstanding Lawyer 1996.'' As a California Deputy Attorney
General in 1981-1984, I successfully prosecuted Angelo Buono
for the 1977-78 ``Hillside Strangler'' serial murders in Los
Angeles. Since then, Governor George Deukmejian has appointed
me to successive judicial positions (municipal and superior
courts, and California Court of Appeal). In 1993 Governor
Pete Wilson appointed me to my present position as Presiding
Justice of my division of the California Court of Appeal. I
provide you this background information to give some
perspective to my recommendation.
I have known Margaret Morrow for over ten years. I am
convinced that she will be a most dedicated and competent
United States District Court judge. She presently enjoys the
greatest respect from a very broad spectrum of the California
judiciary and bar. Her service as President of the California
Bar Association was widely applauded, and her professional
work as an attorney is considered of the highest caliber. She
is representative of the mainstream of California legal and
judicial culture.
I have also known her husband, Los Angeles superior court
judge Paul Boland, for many years as a colleague and friend.
He and Margaret are among the most decent people I know. They
are energetic, yet kind and considerate to everyone with whom
they come in contact. I also believe they embrace high moral
principles and values. This is the one nomination recommended
by our California senators that you should readily promote. I
am confident that prompt and full consideration of Margaret
Morrow's nomination will convince you that any President or
Senate would do well to select her as a federal judge. Please
feel free to call on me should you desire further
information.
Very truly yours,
Roger W. Boren,
Presiding Justice.
____
U.S. Court of Appeals,
Pasadena, CA, June 4, 1996.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Hatch: At the risk of being an ``officious
intermeddler,'' I thought I should formally let you know that
I have known Margaret M. Morrow, one of the President's
nominees for the Central District of California, for twenty
years or so and believe that she will be an outstanding
United States District Judge.
Apart from serving the bar in ways too numerous to mention,
she is among the ablest advocates in the country. As former
Chief Judge Wallace and I remarked after hearing her argue a
difficult matter before our panel a few years ago, hers was
one of the finest, most thoroughly professional, arguments we
had heard.
Ms. Morrow is an intelligent, extremely competent lawyer
who has specialized in complex litigation and has the kind of
experience and judgment necessary to manage the complicated
case load of the federal trial court. I have no doubt that my
view of her potential for bringing distinction to the court
is shared by my colleagues on the Central District and the
Ninth Circuit, as well as by the bar in Los Angeles.
If there is anything further I can add to your Committee's
consideration of Ms. Morrow's nomination, I would be happy to
talk to any member of your staff.
With best regards,
Pamela Rymer.
____
U.S. Court of Appeals,
Boise, ID, August 13, 1996.
Hon. Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re Margaret Morrow, Judicial Candidate--District Court,
Central District of California.
Dear Senator Lott: Although I am aware of the difficult
dynamics of Senate confirmation of judicial nominees during
an election year, nevertheless I would hope you would act
favorably on the candidacy of Margaret Morrow who is
currently on the floor waiting for a vote. She is without a
question a superior candidate with bipartisan support whose
confirmation would be received favorably by everyone in my
old district. We need her in the Circuit to attend to the
heavy case load generated in large measure by important
legislation enacted by Congress.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Stephen S. Trott,
Circuit Judge.
____
June 7, 1996.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: I understand that President Clinton has
nominated Margaret M. Morrow to serve on the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.
I have known Ms. Morrow as a lawyer of great distinction in
the Los Angeles Bar. In fact, it is more unusual to find a
lawyer who is held in such high esteem by his or her peers as
to have been, as has been Margaret, elected President of both
the Los Angeles County Bar Association (the largest voluntary
bar in the United States) and the State Bar of California.
As a former Judge, and President-Elect of the Los Angeles
County Bar Association, I have been in a position to observe
Ms. Morrow's ability and demeanor over an extended period of
time. As former Chairman of Senators (now Governor) Wilson's
and Seymour's Committee on Selection of Federal Judges, U.S.
Attorneys, and Marshals for the Central District of
California, I certainly believe I have gained an appreciation
for what kind of a combination of character, work ethic,
demeanor and intelligence is required to fulfill the
demanding position of a United States District Court Judge.
As an individual who has had the privilege of helping
select so many District Court Judges, I can say without fear
of contradiction that to a man and women, I believe the
entire Court of this District would welcome her with open
arms. She will be a great credit to the bench, and deserve
your serious consideration and acceptance.
I recommend Margaret Morrow without reservation.
Sincerely,
Sheldon H. Sloan.
Mrs. BOXER. Ms. Morrow's qualifications and the broad support she
enjoys
[[Page S4424]]
would make her an exceptionally distinguished addition to the Federal
bench.
Finally, her qualifications and the broad support she enjoys makes
her an exceptionally distinguished addition to the Federal bench. Mr.
President, the Judiciary Committee has already reviewed Ms. Morrow's
background, which is outstanding. To echo the recent words of
Republican Judge Pamela Rymer, appointed in 1989 to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals by President Bush, I too am looking forward to the day
Margaret Morrow sits on the bench of the U.S. Federal District Court in
the Central District of California. I am in agreement with Judge Rymer
that Ms. Morrow will bring distinction to the district court.
In sum, Mr. President, I continue to strongly support Ms. Morrow's
renomination by President Clinton.
I am fully confident that the Members of the Senate when fully
informed will agree with me that Margaret Morrow's qualifications are
outstanding and she is deserving of expeditious Senate confirmation.
Her exceptional experience as an attorney, her professional service,
and her deep commitment to justice qualify her to serve our Nation and
the people of California with great distinction. And as evidenced by
the letters I have read from, she has strong bipartisan support from
some of the most prominent and conservative Republicans in my State.
Again, my deep thanks to my friend for yielding.
Mr. LEAHY. I might say to my friend from California, we talk about
the secret hold. I mean, if there is a Senator who has some objection
to her, let him vote against her.
Mrs. BOXER. Right.
Mr. LEAHY. Let us bring the nomination up.
The irony is, you know and I know, with her qualifications, anybody
would be embarrassed to vote against her because there would be no way
they could explain back home how a woman, one of the most qualified
nominees to come before the Senate for a Federal court nominated by any
President, Republican or Democrat, is held up.
I say to my friend from California, who has worked so hard and so
diligently, one-on-one with Members to get this moving, it is,
unfortunately, part of a picture. I have this chart which shows now we
have 99 vacancies. We will have more. The number of judges who have
been confirmed in the 105th Congress--when we first put this chart
together, we wanted to show the vacancies on this side.
I see my friend from Maryland, too. I will show him, too.
We wanted to show the vacancies confirmed on the other side. We could
not see the number that have been confirmed, so we put in this
magnifying glass. I feel like Sherlock Holmes with my little magnifying
glass going down.
There are 99 vacancies, and down here, two being confirmed. We have
had more vacancies this year than we have had judicial confirmations in
the U.S. Senate. Maybe we can shave a day off each one of these
recesses and confirm some judges during that time. We have not had time
to do much else. We ought to at least confirm those.
In fact--and I will share one of these with my friend from Maryland.
The distinguished senior Senator from Maryland is on the floor. I
thought he might be interested in noting where we stand on this.
You might want to take a look at that, I say to my good friend from
Maryland. We came at the beginning of the year with actually 78
vacancies. And then, as often happens, people realize that they have
grown older or they're taking senior status, whatever, they start
retiring. We go from 78 to 89, to 92, to 94, to 96, to 99.
We go in January, zero confirmed; in February, zero confirmed; in
March, two confirmed; and those are the same two listed here. We have
not gone above two. So while this list goes up, that stays even. People
are used to talking about zero population growth. This is zero
population growth in the judiciary.
I understand that Speaker Gingrich and others felt there was some
political gain to shutting down the Federal Government about a year and
a half ago. The American people did not think there was, but for some
reason they did. It appears to me what they are trying to do is shut
down the Federal courts. This is an unprecedented, unprecedented
situation.
In the 102d Congress we had a Republican President and a Democratic-
controlled Senate. We confirmed 124 judges.
In the 103d Congress we confirmed 129.
Even in the last Congress 75.
Now we confirmed 2 with 99 vacancies.
Chief Justice Rehnquist says:
The number of judicial vacancies can have a profound impact
on a court's ability to manage its caseload effectively.
He says:
It's hoped that the administration and Congress will
continue to recognize that filling judicial vacancies is
crucial to the fair and effective administration of justice.
That is what it comes to.
The American taxpayers, Republicans and Democrats alike, pay taxes to
have their courts run. The courts do not run if the vacancies are
there. You do not have criminal cases handled the way they should.
People are forced to plea bargain because they cannot get through. You
do not have civil cases that you may want to hear if you are a
litigant; you have a case you want heard, you cannot have it heard.
This is wrong.
I was in another State the other day, Monday, and somebody was
telling me how they have to go out and hire private judges to hear
their cases. Now, these are people who are already paying the taxes.
They are already paying for courts that are sitting there. But there
are no judges to hear the cases. The vacancies cannot be filled so they
go out and hire private judges.
I mean, this is sort of like saying I will pay my taxes to have a
police officer and a police department, and I paid for it. The money is
there. We pay the money for the police department and the police
officers, but some person in the community says, ``Well, we're not
going to hire any police officers. We're not going to have anybody
there. So even though you paid your taxes for that, if you want your
property protected, you have got to go out and hire a private police
officer.'' Well, we are doing the same thing with the judges.
Mr. President, I think this is an outrageous situation. Let us see
what we have here.
In 1980, we did nine appeals courts--these were Presidential election
years during the second Senate session, Presidential election years,
and we did 9 appeals court judges and 55 district court judges. All the
way down through here you can see many times with Republican Presidents
and a Democratic Congress we cooperated.
Nothing has happened here.
Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. LEAHY. Of course I will.
Mr. SARBANES. I think the chart the Senator has just put up is a very
dramatic chart in demonstrating what has happened here. As I understand
it, this chart shows the number of judges confirmed during a second
Senate session in Presidential election years. We all know that what
happens in a Presidential election year is that there is a slowdown
because the party that does not have the White House thinks it may get
the White House and then it will be able to effect the appointment of
judges.
I ask the Senator from Vermont, as I understand his chart, this shows
that in 1996, last year, with a Democratic President and a Republican-
controlled Senate, there was this incredible slowdown in the number of
judges confirmed, which has continued into 1997.
But in 1996, no court of appeals judges were confirmed and only 17
district judges. Is that correct?
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is not only correct, but I would ask him to
contrast that with the last year of the Bush administration with a
Democratic-controlled Senate and the difference in the cooperation of
the Democrats with a Republican President than they show the
Republicans with a Democratic President.
Mr. SARBANES. The able Senator from Vermont is very perceptive
because he anticipated the next point I want to go to, which is to
contrast what happened last year with what happened in the last year of
the Bush Presidency, 1992, an election year.
The Senate majority was then in Democratic hands, and yet we
confirmed 11 judges for the court of appeals nominated--nominated--by
[[Page S4425]]
President Bush and 55 judges for the district court nominated by
President Bush, for a total of 66 judges.
Last year, a comparable situation, except it was reversed. We had a
Democratic President making the nominations; the Republicans controlled
the Senate; 17 judges, a total of 17 judges. No court of appeals
judges, 17 district judges compared with 66 judges in the last year of
President Bush's term.
In fact, the last year of President Reagan's term, again with a
Democratic Senate, we confirmed 7 court of appeals judges and 35
district court judges.
Mr. LEAHY. We actually did better with district court judges with the
Democrats in charge than President Reagan did at the end of his first
term with the Republicans in charge.
Mr. SARBANES. In 1984. The Senator is absolutely correct.
Mr. President, this is an extraordinary slowdown in the confirmation
of judges. Then, of course, what happens is none--only two have been
confirmed this year thus far.
So in the last virtually year and a half, 19 judges.
I just submit to you this game ought to stop. We ought not to be
playing with the Federal courts in this way. If people have a
legitimate objection to a particular nominee, they ought to voice that
objection and vote against them and try to persuade their colleagues to
vote against them. But this is crippling the courts. The Chief Justice
of the United States has been driven to the unusual posture of
registering his complaint about it.
I am frank to say to you, I think that Members of this body,
Democrats and Republicans alike, have a responsibility to ensure that
the Federal court system can work in a reasonable fashion. It is not
going to work in a reasonable fashion if you slow up the confirmation
of judges to this extent.
It has not been done before. I mean, this breaks with all previous
patterns and previous precedents. I just submit that we are not going
to maintain public confidence in the judicial system, and we ought not
to politicize the judicial process the way it is being done.
So I want to commend strongly the senior Senator from Vermont, the
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for bringing this issue once
again to our attention. It is beginning to cripple the Federal courts.
There is no question about it.
As my colleague from California pointed out, it is terribly unfair to
some very able and dedicated people who have been nominated and then
their life simply placed on hold in terms of their normal activities.
It is a marked departure from any sense of comity that has heretofore
prevailed in this body and a marked departure from the respect that has
traditionally been shown to the Federal court system.
I very much hope that we can begin to address this situation, begin
to hold hearings, report the people out, confirm them when they come
before the Senate. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his forceful
leadership on this issue.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend and colleague from Maryland and my
friend and colleague from California for their statements.
I ask the Chair how much time remains.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has approximately 9
minutes and 50 seconds remaining.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in
decrying the stranglehold that has been placed on Federal judicial
nominations by the Senate, including the Judiciary Committee, of which
I am a member.
The numbers bear repeating, because they are simply appalling. Last
year, the Republican Senate confirmed an abysmally low number of
judges--only 17. And none of these was for the courts of appeals.
Compare this to when the roles were reversed in 1992, the year a
Republican President was running for reelection and the Democrats
controlled the Senate. That year, the Democratic Senate confirmed 66
Federal judges, including 11 court of appeals judges.
It was thought that, after the election was over, the Senate would
return to the normal course of fulfilling its constitutionally-mandated
role in the judicial nomination process.
Unfortunately, however, that has not proven to be the case. It is now
mid-way through May, and the Senate has confirmed just two Federal
judges. The Judiciary Committee has only held two nominations hearings.
California has been especially hard-hit by this slowdown on Federal
judges. More than one-fourth of the judges whose nominations are
languishing in the Senate are from California--7 out of 26.
Five of these seven judges were nominated in the last Congress. Let
me tell you a little bit about each of them, to put some faces on the
nominees whose lives have been disrupted by the Senate's extended
failure to act on their nominations:
Richard Paez is already a respected Federal judge on the district
court in Los Angeles. He was nominated by the President to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals on January 25, 1996. The Judiciary Committee
gave him a hearing on July 31, 1996. However, the committee has never
taken any further action on his nomination.
Tomorrow, Christina Snyder will have been before the Committee for 1
full year, as she was first nominated by the President to Federal
district court in Los Angeles on May 15, 1996. Ms. Snyder is a graduate
of one of the top law schools in the country, Stanford Law School, for
which she has since gone on to serve on the board of visitors. She is a
member of the prestigious American Law Institute, and her nomination
has received bipartisan support, including endorsements from the
Republican mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan, and the Republican
Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Sherman Block. I am not aware of one
whit of substantive opposition to her nomination.
And yet, Ms. Snyder has been unable to get even a hearing before the
Judiciary Committee. Already this year, the committee has held hearings
on the nominations of four men who were nominated after Ms. Snyder,
including one who was only nominated for the first time this year, in
1997. I am optimistic that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee will
agree to place Ms. Snyder on the agenda for the committee's next
nomination hearing, and again urge him to do so.
Margaret Morrow actually was favorably reported by the committee last
year, unanimously, but her nomination died on the floor. She was
nominated over a year ago, on May 9, 1996. Morrow is a graduate of
Harvard Law School, was the first woman president of the State Bar of
California, and has received numerous awards for her work as a lawyer
and her commitment to public service.
The committee held a second hearing on her nomination this year. But
while the three men who were heard along with her have all been
favorably reported out of the committee, she has not even been brought
up for a vote. Her nomination has been slowed while members of the
committee from the other side of the aisle pose round after round of
follow-up questions to her, including asking for her view on some of
the most controversial issues that have been considered by Californians
on the ballot over the last 10 years. This level of scrutiny previously
has been reserved for Supreme Court nominees, who shape constitutional
interpretation, rather than merely following precedent a district court
judge does. In my time on the committee, I have never seen this level
of scrutiny applied to a male district court nominee.
Jeffrey Miller is a superior court judge in San Diego, who was
appointed to that post by Republican Governor Deukmejian. An
accomplished jurist and a veteran of the State attorney general's
office, he has been complimented by numerous fellow judges. First
nominated last July, his nomination is now on the floor of the Senate.
I hope that the majority leader will call up his nomination for action
by the Senate.
William Fletcher's nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
has been languishing for more than 2 years, having first been made on
April 25, 1995. Fletcher is a professor at the Boalt Hall School of Law
at the University of California at Berkeley, where he has won the
Distinguished Teacher Award. He is a magna cum laude graduate of
Harvard; he earned his law degree from Yale Law School; he is a Navy
veteran, a Rhodes Scholar, and a former clerk on the U.S. Supreme
Court. He was favorably reported by the committee almost a year
[[Page S4426]]
ago, on May 16, 1996. However, the committee has taken no action on his
nomination this year.
This outstanding group of holdover nominees from the last Congress
has been joined this year by two more nominees, Anthony Ishii and Lynn
Lasry, who have been nominated to the Federal district courts for the
Eastern District and Southern District of California, respectively.
Mr. President, the time has come to act on these nominations. I'm not
asking for a rubber stamp; let's hold hearings on those nominees who
haven't had them, and vote on all of them, up or down, yes or no.
California needs these judges. The chief judge of the ninth circuit,
Procter Hug, Jr., has said,
our federal courts here in the 9th Circuit, and
particularly our court of appeals, are facing a vacancy
crisis of serious proportions. We simply do not have enough
active district and appellate judges to hear and decide cases
in a prompt and timely manner.
While filings in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have increased by
over 60 percent since 1985, the court currently has 8 vacancies, more
than any other circuit in the Nation.
In the last 5 years, case filings in the Eastern District of
California have skyrocketed by 49.7 percent.
In the Southern District of California, case filings have increased
by 94.7 percent since 1991--a pace that more than triples the national
rate of increase of 27.5 percent.
In an editorial last month, the Los Angeles Times put it well:
[The Margaret Morrow] case is only one of many in a
deplorable situation that has gone on far too long. Justice
is not served by an empty bench. Nor is society. Whichever
party holds the Congress and the White House, gamesmanship
over judicial appointments produces no winners. It only
leaves a void . . .
[The Senate's] record of delay, attempts to kill funding
for some appellate seats and its harassment of Morrow and
other qualified nominees reveals a deeply troubling
partisanship.
Last we looked, the U.S. Constitution grants the President the power
to nominate and directs the Senate to ``advise and consent,'' not
stonewall. The 26 nominations now pending would be a good place to
start.
I urge my colleagues, let's end the gridlock on judges. Let's not
hold the third branch of government hostage to partisan politics.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Federal courts today suffer from far
too many unfilled judgeships. There are at least 99 vacancies for
judges in the appeals courts and district courts. Twenty-four of these
vacancies--in the appellate courts and in the trial courts--are
judicial emergencies according to the definition of the Judicial
Conference of the United States. That is, the positions have been
vacant for at least 18 months.
As a result, caseloads are backlogged throughout the country, and the
victims of this situation are the American people. Justice delayed is
justice denied. Thousands of Americans with legitimate grievances
cannot get their day in court, because there are few Federal judges to
hear their cases. Citizens must wait excessive lengths of time to
resolve disputes, answer constitutional questions, and obtain justice.
We need strong courts to combat crime, to put criminals behind bars
and make sure they serve their time. We need strong courts to protect
families, jobs, and businesses. Where else can Americans go when they
are treated unfairly on the job or when their small businesses are run
over by larger corporations?
Just this week, I received a letter from a lawyer in San Diego who is
concerned that the Federal court serving the city has had two vacancies
unfilled for over 2 years.
He writes,
Our federal court in San Diego is at the breaking point.
For more than two years, the Court has valiantly struggled
with a burgeoning case load and managed barely to keep its
head above water by dedicated and innovative work on the part
of our senior and active judges and our magistrate judges.
But the system has been stretched as far as it can go. It
desperately needs its two judges.
In fact, President Clinton has submitted two qualified nominees to
fill these vacancies, but the Senate has yet to take action on them.
Jeffrey Miller was nominated last July. In March, he finally had a
hearing and was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee in
April. But his nomination has been languishing ever since, waiting for
the Senate to act. The Republican leadership won't let the nomination
come up for a vote.
The problems in San Diego are being repeated in communities
throughout the United States, and a major cause is the intentional
stall by Congress in processing new judges.
So far this year, the Republican-controlled Senate has approved only
two judicial nominees. Three more have been approved by the Judiciary
Committee, but the Republican leadership has made no effort to put them
before the Senate for confirmation.
Last year, in the Republican-controlled Senate, only 17 district
court judges were approved, and no appeals court judges were approved--
none--zero.
Since 1980, the Senate confirmed an average of 51 judges per year.
When measured against this standard of performance, today's Republican
Senate gets a failing grade.
Republicans shut down the Federal Government in 1995 and were rightly
criticized for that unwise action. They say they will never do it
again, and are even trying to pass a law that would put the Government
on automatic pilot if a budget agreement is not reached. But at the
same time, behind the scenes, there is a Republican scheme to shut down
our Nation's courts.
The issue is far more than a numbers game. What we are witnessing
today is a direct assault on the President's constitutional power to
nominate and appoint judges.
Our Republican friends claim they want to move ahead on nominees.
They say the current stall on judicial nominations is not an effort to
force President Clinton to apply Republican litmus tests to nominees.
We hear that the unwise plans proposed by Senator Gramm of Texas and
Senator Gorton of Washington were defeated in the Republican caucus 2
weeks ago.
But the facts speak for themselves. Republicans have shut down the
courts and the American people are suffering the consequences.
Republicans say they want to make sure that no activist judges are
appointed to the courts. They've also begun to attack sitting judges.
Judge Martha Daughtry of Tennessee is a case in point. She was
nominated by President Clinton to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
and confirmed by the Senate in 1993 with broad bipartisan support.
Later, a prominent State judge in her circuit was convicted of
Federal civil rights offenses involving sexual assaults on court
employees, job applicants, and female attorneys. A three-judge panel of
the sixth circuit affirmed the conviction. But the en banc court,
dominated by Reagan and Bush appointees overturned it. They ruled that
the U.S. Constitution does not give Congress the power to protect women
from sexual assaults by State officials.
Judge Daughtry dissented. She said that the right of citizens to be
free from physical harm by public officials who abuse their authority
has been recognized ``since the sealing of the Magna Carta.''
But Presidential candidate Bob Dole attacked Judge Daughtry and
placed her in his ``Hall of Shame.'' He cited her as an example of the
liberal activist judges that President Clinton appointed to the bench.
Judge Daughtry had the last laugh. Two months ago, the Justices of
the U.S. Supreme Court not only reversed the sixth circuit decision,
they reversed it unanimously, and cited Judge Daughtry's dissent in
their opinion.
Another case in point is Margaret Morrow, whose nomination is pending
in the Judiciary Committee. There should be no doubt about her
competence and judicial temperament. Her nomination received the
American Bar Association's highest rating. She has numerous
endorsements from her peers in California--both Democrats and
Republicans. She is a corporate lawyer, hardly an activist by anyone's
definition. She was the first woman president of the State Bar of
California. She is a past president of the Los Angeles County Bar
Association. She has received numerous awards from the Los Angeles Bar
Association, the California Judicial Council, and other legal
associations. In 1994, she was listed as one of the top 20 lawyers in
Los Angeles in
[[Page S4427]]
California Law Business. The Los Angeles Business Journal named her one
of the top 100 business lawyers in Los Angeles in 1995 and 1996.
Probably the greatest test of her temperament for the job is the
manner in which she has responded to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Despite the fact that she was held over for a second hearing in the
committee and the many questions addressed to her, she has responded
thoroughly, professionally, efficiently, and appropriately to each one.
That is exactly what we want in a Federal judge.
An extremely well-qualified woman is being held up arbitrarily. There
is no justification whatsoever for this unfair delay.
I hope that our Republican friends will reconsider their stall on
judicial nominations. The rule of law in America depends on a healthy
judiciary.
And if the Republican majority in the Senate does not move ahead to
respond to the crisis in the courts, I hope that President Clinton will
consider the only alternative he has left. In their wisdom, the
Founding Fathers gave the President a useful additional power, the
power of recess appointments. If the log jam doesn't break soon--very
soon, the President should start using that power. The Memorial Day
recess offers the next opportunity to make recess appointments, and the
President should not hesitate to use it.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a letter from the
National Women's Law Center be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Women's Law Center,
Washington, DC, May 14, 1997.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Senate Russell Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: We are writing to express our grave
concerns regarding the process being followed with respect to
the nomination of Margaret Morrow to the district court in
the Central District of California. Her original nomination
was made one year ago. Yet, her nomination has not been moved
through the process.
Ample information has been presented regarding her
qualifications. She is a magna cum laude graduate of Bryn
Mawr College and a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School.
She has a 23-year career in private practice with an emphasis
in complicated commercial and corporate litigation with
extensive experience in federal courts. She has received a
long list of awards and recognition as a top lawyer in her
field, her community and her state. She is a leader and path
blazer among women lawyers, as the second woman President of
25,000 member Los Angeles Bar Association and the first woman
President of the largest mandatory bar association in the
country, the 150,000 member State Bar of California. She has
consistently been a voice within the legal community for
women and for the disadvantaged. She has received broad
support from attorneys, judges and community leaders.
You questioned four nominees on March 18, 1997. The other
three, all men, have moved forward toward a Senate vote.
Margaret Morrow has not.
No explanation has been provided which in any way justifies
this extraordinary and harmful delay. Superb women lawyers
should not be given the message that we fear is being sent by
the handling of Margaret Morrow's nomination--that no woman
need apply unless she is prepared to be singled out for
particularly harsh treatment.
We urge you to send her nomination to the Senate floor
immediately.
Sincerely,
Nancy Duff Campbell,
Co-President.
Marcia D. Greenberger,
Co-President.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note that over the past 2 weeks I have
twice corrected a misstatement with respect to the three nominations
pending on the Senate executive calendar. Twice, Republicans have said
that some unknown Democrat had a hold on these judicial nominations.
This is not so. Every single Democrat in the Senate is ready to vote,
and vote today, on all the judicial nominees, the three judicial
nominees is all it is, that have been voted out of committee so far.
Every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is prepared to vote at
the next Judiciary Committee meeting on all the nominees that are
pending there. There is no, no Democrat with a hold on any judicial
nominee--I want that very, very clear--neither in the committee nor in
the Senate. If we have to have rollcall votes, we are glad to do that.
But we should have these people come up.
We received Jeffrey Miller's nomination in July 1996, last Congress.
The President renominated him on the first day of this Congress for the
same vacancy, a vacancy that has existed since December 1994. We are in
1997 now. This is one of the judicial emergency vacancies we should
have filled. He has the support of both Senators. He finally had a
confirmation hearing 2\1/2\ years, almost, after the vacancy occurred.
His nomination was considered. It has been reported to the Senate. We
should vote on it.
We first received Donald Middlebrooks' nomination in September of
1996, last year. He was not accorded a hearing last Congress. This is
for a vacancy that has been there since 1992, 5 years ago. That is a
judicial emergency vacancy, and he has the support of both Senators
from his State, one a Democrat, senior Senator, Senator Graham, one a
Republican, Senator Mack. This was reported by the Judiciary Committee
to the Senate April 17.
Now, here is a vacancy that has existed for 5 years. We have a judge
who has gone through the Senate Judiciary Committee, reported to the
Senate, supported by the two Senators from his State, one a Democrat,
one a Republican. For God's sake, if we cannot vote on it, what in
Heaven's name can we vote on? This should be about as noncontroversial
as voting to commend the Fourth of July.
We first received Robert Pratt's nomination in August of 1996. We did
not get a hearing last Congress. The President renominated him on the
first day of this Congress for the same vacancy in the district court
for the southern district of Iowa. He had a confirmation hearing on
March 18. He was supported by the two Senators from Iowa, Senator
Harkin and Senator Grassley, and was reported to the Senate by the
Judiciary Committee on April 17.
Well, why can we not go forward with him? You look at what we have, a
distinguished woman who is being shunted aside by somebody who does not
have the guts to come forth on the Senate floor and say why that
Senator is holding her up. We have distinguished other judges that have
gone through the confirmation process, supported by the two Senators, a
Republican and a Democrat from their State, they cannot come forward.
I take our advise-and-consent function very seriously, especially
when it comes to confirmation of Federal judges who have a lifetime
appointment. Our system of government with coordinate branches and
separation of powers, that is our responsibility. I voted to confirm
some judges who ended up rendering decisions which I strongly
disagreed. I voted for some judges to move from one Federal court to
another, even though they had also had decisions with which I
disagreed. I voted against some who turned out to be better than I
predicted. But we voted on them.
If a judge decides a case incorrectly, well, then you have appeal. I
remember when I used to prosecute cases, I remember somebody saying, as
the juror went out to defense counsel, ``Well, let justice be done,''
and they said, ``Well, if that happens, we will appeal.'' If you lose a
case, appeal it. If you think you have bad law, have a legislative
change. In fact, the reason the founders included the protection of
lifetime appointments for Federal judges was to insulate them from
politics and political influence.
Merrick Garland had an 18-month wait for confirmation--a judge
virtually everybody in the country that ruled on this, from the right
to the left, on the judicial selection, said he was one of the most
qualified persons ever to be up for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia. Mr. President, 23 Members of this body, all on
the other side of the aisle, voted against Merrick Garland for that
judgeship. Not one of them spoke against the nominee. Not one of them
spoke against his impeccable credentials. In fact, some who voted
against him praised his qualifications. They say they voted against
filling an unneeded seat on the court of appeals, in the face of a
letter from Chief Judge Silberman, who said they did need the seat, and
a statement from Senator Hatch, who said it was needed.
In his concluding remarks, Senator Hatch said, ``Playing politics
with judges is unfair, and I am sick of it.'' I agree with the
distinguished chairman
[[Page S4428]]
of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let the Senate quit playing partisan
politics with judicial nominations. Let us do our constitutionally
mandated job and proceed to confirm the judges we need for the Federal
system.
Exhibit 1
In 1987 I heard from Tom Jipping, a student at the
University of Buffalo Law School. The faculty had imposed a
speech code that was more contemptuous of the First Amendment
than even most of the politically correct gag rules
proliferating on campuses around the country.
``Remarks,'' said the code, ``directed at another's race,
sex, religion, national origin, sexual preference'' et al.
would be severely punished. There was no further definition
of ``remarks.'' Also prohibited were ``other remarks''--not
defined--``based on prejudice and group stereotype.'' Any
prejudice?
Unique to this law school code--unanimously passed by the
administration and faculty--was a provision that the
administration would provide the rap sheets of any guilty
student to the character and fitness committees of any bar
association to which the pariah might apply.
Tom Jipping, though vilified by a prominent faculty member
and other speech police, fought the code, sending news of it
to the outside world. (I wrote about it in The Post, and
William Bennett spoke about it.) Eventually, after Jipping
was graduated, this embarrassment to the law school faded
away.
Jipping is now in Washington, where he directs the Judicial
Selection Monitoring Project, an offspring of the Free
Congress Foundation.
In his official role, Jipping sent a letter to all 100
senators, demanding they act to purge those ``activist''
federal judges who do not agree with Jipping's
interpretations of the Constitution. On Feb. 4 a follow-up
letter went to Sen Partick Leahy (D-Vt.).
In the letter, Jipping reminded Leahy that the senator had
previously received ``a letter from the largest coalition in
history to oppose judicial activism. . . . Please find
enclosed an opportunity to express your position on this
critical issue.''
He then quoted a resounding call for purges by Orrin Hatch,
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee: ``Those nominees
who are or would be judicial activists should not be
nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate, and I
will do my best to see to it that they are not.''
Jipping went on to warn Sen. Leahy that if he did not sign
the ``Hatch Pledge''--which Sen. Hatch will not sign because
he doesn't sign pledges--the forces of judicial correctness
will be unleashed. They will let Leahy's perfidy be known
``to the more than 260 national and state organizations and
dozens of talk show hosts in our growing coalition.'' The
talk show hosts can surely be depended on the assess Leahy's
character and fitness.
Leahy must have enjoyed writing his answer to Jipping: ``I
do not take pledges demanded by special interest groups on
either the right or the left. Nor do I appreciate your thinly
veiled threat that you will employ talk show hosts and
national organizations to pressure me into making such a
pledge.
``These tactics to force others to adopt your narrow view
of political correctness are wrong, and reminiscent of a dark
period from our history.''
The ever-vigilant Judicial Selection Monitoring Project
should alert the dozens of talk show hosts that a relentless
judicial activist, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, insists
that ``the idea of an independent judiciary, with authority
to finally interpret a written constitution . . . is one of
the crown jewels of our system of government.'' Then there
was a Founder, Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in the
Federalist Papers that ``the complete independence of the
courts of justice is peculiarly essential'' because the duty
of the courts ``must be to declare void all acts contrary to
the manifest tenor of the Constitution. Without this, all the
reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount
to nothing.''
Copies of the Federalist Papers might well be distributed
to members of the Senate, particularly those hunting
``judicial activists'' and demanding their impeachment.
When Gerald Ford (R-Mich.) was in the House, he anticipated
the current jihad with a rousing speech calling for the
impeachment of Justice William O. Douglas. Ford, not a noted
constitutional scholar, said that ``an impeachable offense is
whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers
it to be at a given moment in history.''
That was spoken like the stunningly overbroad University of
Buffalo Law School speech code. Majority Whip Rep. Tom DeLay
(R-Tex.), a leader of the judge-baiters, recently quoted
Ford's definition of impeachment approvingly in a letter to
the New York Times.
It is a wonder that the Constitution, however battered from
time to time, survives the U.S. Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak for 10
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Amtrak. I
realize we have gone now from judges and we are going into other types
of debate, but I want to introduce the Amtrak reauthorization and
reform bill.
(The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S.
738 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
____________________