[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 70 (Friday, May 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5066-S5070]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: No.
73, Donald Middlebrooks; No. 74, Jeffrey Miller; No. 75, Robert Pratt.
I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en
bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, statements
relating to any of these nominations be printed in the Record, the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the
Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, we are now
at the end of May. We have confirmed a grand total of two judges in
this session. If we confirm these, it will make five, one a month,
which is zero population growth in the Federal judiciary.
I will not ask for a rollcall, but we have been told over and over
again these were all being held up so we could have rollcalls on them.
I suspect we will not have them because it will be embarrassing to see
that three excellent, well-qualified judges, held up all this time,
then would get voted on virtually unanimously.
I will also note Margaret Morrow, the one woman who was on the panel
on this, still is not before the Senate and still is being held for
mysterious holds on the Republican side.
I urge my good friend, the majority leader--and he is my good
friend--I urge him to do this. I have been here 22 years with
outstanding majority leaders, Republicans and Democrats, with Senator
Mansfield, Senator Byrd, Senator Baker, Senator Dole, and Senator
Mitchell as majority leaders. And now I have the opportunity to serve
with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi as the majority leader.
No majority leader has ever allowed the Senate before to do what is
happening to the Federal judiciary now. I urge my friend from
Mississippi not to allow this Senate to be the first Senate that acts
toward the Federal judiciary or diminishes the integrity and the
independence of our Federal judiciary, the integrity and independence
recognized and commended and praised throughout the world, to let it be
diminished here.
I urge the distinguished majority leader to work with the
distinguished Democratic leader, the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hatch, and myself and others, to move these
judges. We have 100 vacancies. We have 25 to 28 sitting before the
committee that could go immediately, or nearly immediately. We have to
do this and stop--stop--the belittling and diminishing of our Federal
judiciary. It is part of what makes this a great democracy. We should
not allow it to happen.
I will not object to the request of the distinguished majority
leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:
The Judiciary
Donald M. Middlebrooks, of Florida, to be United States
District Judge for the Southern District of Florida.
Jeffrey T. Miller, of California, to be United States
District Judge for the Southern District of California.
Robert W. Pratt, of Iowa, to be United States District
Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
statement on the nomination of robert w. pratt
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted that the majority leader has
decided to take up the nomination of Robert W. Pratt to be a U.S.
District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Mr. Pratt is a well-
qualified nominee.
We first received Robert Pratt's nomination in August 1996. He was
not accorded a hearing last Congress and the President renominated him
on the first day of this Congress for the same vacancy on the District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa. He had a confirmation hearing
on March 18 where he was supported by Senator Harkin and Senator
Grassley and was reported to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee on
April 17, more than 4 weeks ago.
With this confirmation the Senate has confirmed five Federal judges
in five months--one Federal judge a month. Even with the three judicial
confirmation votes today, there are still almost 100 judicial vacancies
in the Federal courts. Since this session began, vacancies on the
Federal bench have increased from 87 to 103 and we have proceeded to
confirm only five nominees. After these three confirmations, after more
than doubling our confirmation output for the entire year in this one
afternoon, we still face 98 current vacancies today and that number is
continuing to grow. At this rate, we are falling farther and farther
behind and more and more vacancies are continuing to mount over longer
and longer times to the detriment of more Americans and the national
cause of prompt justice.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
recent articles on the crisis caused by the vacancies in the Federal
courts.
There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Time, May 26, 1997]
Empty-Bench Syndrome--Congressional Republicans Are Determined To Put
Clinton's Judicial Nominees on Hold
(By Viveca Novak)
The wanted posters tacked to the walls of courthouses
around the country normally depict carjackers, kidnappers and
other scruffy lawbreakers on the lam. But these days the
flyers might just as well feature distinguished men and women
in long dark robes beneath the headline ``Help Wanted.'' As
of this week, 100 seats on the 844-person federal bench are
vacant. Case loads are creeping out of control, and sitting
judges are crying for help.
The situation is urgent, says Procter Hug Jr., chief judge
of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers
California and eight other Western states. Hug says that with
a third of its 28 seats vacant, the court has had to cancel
hearings for about 600 cases this year. Criminal cases take
precedence by law, so at both the trial and appellate levels,
it is civil cases that have been crowded out. Civil rights
cases, shareholder lawsuits, product-
[[Page S5067]]
liability actions, medical-malpractice claims and so forth
are being pushed to the back of the line, however urgent the
complaints. Chief Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the southern
district of Illinois went an entire year without hearing a
single civil case, so overwhelmed was he by the criminal load
in a jurisdiction down to two judges out of four. ``It's
litigants who end up paying the price for the delays,'' says
A. Leo Levin, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania
Law School.
Things won't improve any time soon. Democratic Senators
have been slow in recommending names to the White House,
which in turn has dragged its feet in forwarding those
recommendations to the Senate for confirmation. At a private
meeting with federal judges last week, Clinton promised to
send close to two dozen new names to Capitol Hill by July 4.
But once they get there, they face new hurdles. Last year the
Senate confirmed only 17 federal district-court judges and
none for the appeals courts. This year looks even worse, with
only two confirmations thus far. The number of days from
nomination to confirmation is at a record high of 183, and 24
seats have been vacant more than 18 months, qualifying them
as judicial emergencies.
This slowdown in judicial confirmations is not due to
congressional lethargy. Just the opposite. With Republicans
firmly in control of the Senate, many of the party's
theorists feel they have the power--and the rightful
mandate--to implement the ideals of a conservative
revolution that lost its focus in recent years. So they
have been not so quietly pursuing a historic change in the
ambiguous ``advise and consent'' role the Constitution
gives the Senate in the selection of federal judges. The
successful assault by Democrats on Ronald Reagan's
nomination of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court helped
open the way for what has become a more partisan and
ideological examination of all judicial nominees.
Some Republicans have as much as declared war on Clinton's
choices, parsing every phrase they've written for evidence of
what they call judicial activism. That label has long been
applied to judges who come up with imaginative new legal
principles in their decisions rather than simply following
the letter of the law or the Constitution. Lately the term
has been tossed around like insults at a brawl. ``The
Republicans define `activist' according to their political
agenda,'' says a federal judge. ``It's O.K. to be an activist
if you're striking down affirmative action and gun-free
school laws. It's not if you're overturning abortions
restrictions and the line-item veto.''
Meanwhile, nominees are left adrift. The federal bench's
poster child of the moment is Margaret Morrow. Nominated in
May 1996 with broad bipartisan support, Morrow was the first
woman president of the California Bar Association, has had a
distinguished career in private practice and could fill a
trophy case with her awards and citations. She cleared the
judiciary committee unanimously but got stuck in last year's
G.O.P. freeze-out on the Senate floor. Clinton sent her name
back up this year, but in the meantime, conservatives began
raising questions about some of her writings the committee
hadn't seen. After another hearing, she received a letter
from Republican Senator Charles Grassley asking her position
on every ballot initiative that's come up in California over
the past decade, in effect asking which levers she pulled in
the voting booth. Morrow's nomination still isn't scheduled
for a vote, and she isn't even the longest-suffering nominee.
That distinction belongs to William Fletcher, named by
Clinton to the Ninth Circuit in April 1995.
Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
says he would like to clear the backlog. ``Playing politics
with judges is unfair, and I am sick of it,'' he said in
March. But those close to him say he's feeling pressure from
the right, and indeed his remarks have become more combative.
Last week he told a group of judges that he would refuse ``to
stand by to see judicial activists named to the federal
bench.''
Republicans are also aiming rocket launchers at those lucky
enough to have already been issued their robes. Proposals
range from having three-judge panels, rather than a single
judge, hear challenges to ballot initiatives to radical
notions like amending the Constitution to eliminate lifetime
tenure. Lawmakers have taken to threatening impeachment
proceedings against judges whose rulings they dislike. House
majority whip Tom DeLay of Texas, a chief proponent of using
the impeachment process much more freely than it is now, says
he wants ``to make an example'' of someone this year. Some
candidates they're considering: Judge Thelton Henderson in
California, who struck down a voter-approved referendum
ending state affirmative-action programs (he has since been
reversed); Judge John Nixon in Tennessee, who has reversed
several death-penalty convictions; and Judge Fred Biery in
Texas, who has refused to seat a Republican sheriff and
county commissioner because of a pending lawsuit challenging
some absentee ballots. Not mentioned are judges like New
York's John Sprizzo, who freed two men who had blocked access
to an abortion clinic because they acted on religious
grounds.
So far, the Republicans see no real downside to picking on
the third branch of government. ``Some of these rulings have
inflamed mainstream America,'' says Clint Bolick of the
conservative Institute for Justice. ``So when the GOP
elevates this issue, it is seen as a winner.
It's ironic that these fusillades should be coming now,
when even activists like Bolick concede that Clinton's
nominees have been mostly moderate, and liberals are moaning
that the President hasn't done enough to counteract the
effect of 12 straight years of Republican court choices. But
what it adds up to is ``probably the most intense attack on
the judiciary as an institution ever,'' says Robert Katzmann,
a lawyer and political scientist who has written a book on
Congress and the courts. ``The framers of the Constitution
tried to create a system in which judges would feel insulated
from political retribution. That's being undermined.''
[From U.S. News, May 26, 1997]
The GOP's Judicial Freeze--A Fight To See Who Rules Over the Law
(By Ted Gest and Lewis Lord)
When Bill Clinton was first elected, liberals thought they
would finally get a chance to rectify what they saw as a
great injustice. For 12 years, Ronald Reagan and George Bush
had packed the judiciary with conservative judges. And their
rulings were shifting power toward police and corporations
and away from criminal suspects, environmentalists, and trade
unions. Clinton, it seemed, would be able to shift the
balance of power back.
Well into Clinton's second term, the judiciary's
composition has barely changed, thanks to an aggressive
Republican strategy of thwarting Clinton's nomineees--and a
remarkable timidity on the president's part. During his first
term, when Democrats controlled the Senate for two years, 202
of his nominations were confirmed. But in the past 16 months,
with the GOP firmly in control, the Senate has approved the
nominations of only 18 district judges and one circuit court
of appeals judge. Roughly 100 judgeships--12 percent of the
judiciary--are vacant, including a record 24 ``judicial
emergencies,'' seats that have been open for at least 18
months. Judges are working nights and weekends on the stacks
of new cases that keep piling up. Countless civil disputes
involving businesses and families--whether a worker should
get a disability benefit, whether a loss is covered by
insurance, whether an alien should be deported--are being
held up for months.
Congress has insisted on playing an unprecedented role. In
the past, the Senate paid close attention to a president's
Supreme Court nominees but usually gave him a free hand in
selecting other federal judges. Now, the Republican Senate is
demanding--and often getting--a voice in whom Clinton
appoints to the district courts, where judges and juries make
basic rulings involving federal law, and to the appeals
courts, which decide most constitutional and other big
issues. ``It's a scandalous and stunningly irresponsible
misuse of the Senate's authority,'' says law professor
Geoffrey Stone, the provost at the University of Chicago.
authority challenged
The slowdown could become a constitutional showdown. ``In
all of American history there has never been a situation
where a newly elected president has faced this of challenge
to his judicial nominations,'' says Sheldon Goldman, author
of the upcoming book Picking Federal Judges: Lower Court
Selections From Roosevelt to Reagan. ``The gauntlet has been
thrown down to President Clinton. And now we will see if he
is going to fight or if he's going to back off.''
Last week, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative,
chastised the White House and the Senate for leaving so many
vacancies. ``Unless the executive and the legislative
branches change their ways,'' Rehnquist told the Federal
Judges Association, ``the future for judicial appointments is
bleak.'' He urged judges to meet with senators from their
areas. One judge who recently did is Procter Hug Jr. of Reno,
Nev., chief of the nation's busiest court--the nine-Western-
state 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has lost nine
of its 28 judges to retirement. Hug asked Sen. Orrin Hatch,
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for action, and
Hatch replied that he would hold one judicial nomination
hearing each month. ``Nationally, there are 25 circuit-judge
vacancies,'' said Hug. ``The have got to hold more than one a
month.''
Republicans are resisting Clinton nominees aggressively in
part because they had to fight so long to get the judiciary
to their liking. The Reagan White House shrewdly decided not
to rely solely on GOP senators, who might have picked judges
mainly because of connections instead of ideology.
Instead, Reagan created the Federal Judicial Selection
Committee, which sought judges willing to reject
affirmative action, give police more authority, allow
restrictions on abortions, and permit voluntary school
prayer.
The emphasis on ideology stirred a hostile Democratic
reaction. Democrats in 1987 successfully blocked the
nomination to the Supreme Court of Robert Bork, which
increased Republican determination to protect their gains.
And they have. Reagan's appointees and those of Bush are now
considered the most conservative since the judges whom
Franklin Roosevelt assailed 60 years ago for curbing his New
Deal, and they make up more than half the federal judiciary.
failure to fight
Liberals had hoped that Clinton would pull the courts back
from the right and, by the year 2000, establish a majority of
left-leaning judges. But he hasn't. For one thing, he has
been slow to send up nominees, partly because the Senate has
been reluctant to move
[[Page S5068]]
those already pending. Clinton has nominated candidates for
fewer than one third of the vacancies. More important, he has
shown an aversion to fighting for controversial nominees. One
prominent example involved an old friend, Georgetown
University law professor Peter Edelman. Clinton decided in
1995 not to nominate Edelman for a seat on the appeals court
in Washington, DC, after conservatives served notice they
would mount a Bork-like challenge, citing Edelman's writings
as ``too liberal.''
In essence, Clinton rejects the liberal view that he should
counter the Reagan-Bush emphasis on conservative views. ``He
doesn't want to make a federal bench in his image,'' House
counsel, Abner Mikva. ``What he really wants is a high-
quality bench that will do the right thing regardless of
ideology.'' Other insiders say that when the White House sets
legislative priorities, it is more interested in winning
votes from key senators on policy issues than in pressing
them to support judicial nominees.
This has left liberal activists bitterly disappointed. ``He
has an enormous opportunity to reshape the federal bench,''
says Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice, an umbrella
organization of public-interest law groups, ``but rather than
hit the ground running, he has silently tolerated an
unprecedented number of attacks on the federal judiciary.''
Liberals like Aron are doubly disappointed because those
nominations Clinton has pushed have not been particularly
liberal. His trial judges, according to one study, seem
closer in ideology to Gerald Ford's judges than they do to
those of Jimmy Carter, who are considered the most liberal of
current judges.
To the extent Clinton has had a broad agenda for the
judiciary, the guiding principle has been not philosophy but
race and gender. ``Clinton's first term,'' says Goldman, who
teaches political science at the University of
Massachusetts--Amherst, ``was the first ever in which most of
a president's appointments went to women or minorities.''
not mainstream?
Republicans argue that they have no choice but to hold up
Clinton's nominees because many are ``judicial activists''
far out of the mainstream. One would-be district judge tarred
as an activist is Margaret Morrow of Los Angeles, a former
state bar president who was first nominated to the bench more
than a year ago. In 1988, Morrow wrote an article suggesting
that California might be putting too many questions to a vote
in citizens' referendums. Senators now are demanding to know
her positions on many referendum issues.
``Judicial activists do not abide by the law,'' says Hatch,
who defines a judicial activist as ``someone who makes law as
a superlegislator and usurps power from two other co-equal
branches.'' Mikva, who was a longtime judge before working at
the White House, offers a different view: ``An activist judge
is a judge who makes a decision you don't like.''
This month, Hatch did remind his GOP colleagues that
Clinton had won and thus was entitled to make nominations.
``He deserves respect and support for his nominees as long as
they are qualified,'' the senator said. But he also has said
that judicial activists are not qualified.
The Clinton administration insists that it has a grip on
the problem. ``We are doing as much bipartisan consultation
as we can . . . to see how Republican senators' views can be
absorbed into the system,'' says White House Counsel Charles
Ruff. That approach fails to placate Clint Bolick of the
Institute for Justice, a libertarian group. When Clinton was
re-elected, he said, ``the stakes doubled,'' and the prospect
of a Democrat appointing a majority of judges became a ``very
real concern, not an abstract concern.'' Bolick's goal is to
thwart any Clinton choice who doesn't meet his sharply
conservative standards. He expects that in the coming months
his fellow conservatives will go after even more Clinton
nominees.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is a privilege for me to speak today in
behalf of Robert Pratt, to serve on the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa.
I have known Bob and his wonderful family for almost 25 years. I met
him when we were both fresh out of law school. We landed jobs at the
Polk County Legal Aid Society. And it was this experience that made a
permanent impression on me.
Since that time, Bob has dedicated his life to using the law to
improve people's lives, their communities and their future. He is
currently in private practice in Des Moines and continues to devote his
practice to the legal needs of lower income and economically
disadvantaged Iowans.
Bob Pratt is, quite simply, one of the best public interest lawyers
in the country. And his respect for the rule of the law and his faith
in our country's system of justice is truly inspiring.
I believe that Bob possesses all of the qualifications necessary to
assume the very serious responsibilities carried out by any Federal
judge. He has the temperament, the intellectual rigor, the compassion,
and the ability to be fair and impartial.
I am also proud to say that Bob enjoys bipartisan support from the
Iowa legal community. Robert Downer, former President of the Iowa State
Bar Association, and a Republican, states: ``It has been my privilege
to be acquainted with Mr. Pratt for some time, and I regard him very
highly both personally and professionally. With the heavy caseload in
the Southern District of Iowa it will be of great benefit to litigants
in that court if he can be confirmed without delay.''
Mr. President, I am proud to continue Iowa's fine tradition of
judicial selection based upon merit. I believe Bob Pratt reflects very
proudly on all of us who have chosen to be public servants. And I have
no doubt that he will make an excellent U.S. District judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
statements on the nomination
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted that the majority leader has
decided to take up the nomination of Donald M. Middlebrooks to be a
U.S. District Judge for the southern district of Florida. Mr.
Middlebrooks is a well-qualified nominee.
The Judiciary Committee unanimously reported his judicial nomination
to the full Senate more than 4 weeks ago. The southern district of
Florida desperately needs him to manage is growing backlog of cases.
We first received Donald Middlebrooks' nomination in September 1996.
He was not accorded a hearing last Congress and the President
renominated him on the first day of this Congress for the same vacancy
on the district court for the southern district of Florida, which
vacancy has existed since October 1992. This is another of the judicial
emergency vacancies that we did not fill last year. It has been vacant
for more than 4\1/2\ years. He has the support of both Senator Graham
and Senator Mack and was reported by the Judiciary Committee to the
Senate on April 17.
With this confirmation, the Senate has confirmed three Federal judges
this year--the same amount of times we have gone on vacation in 1997.
At this rate, we are falling farther and farther behind and more and
more vacancies are continuing to mount over longer and longer times to
the detriment of more Americans and the national cause of prompt
justice. We must do better.
Mr. President, I look forward to working with the chairman and other
members of the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to move the
nominations process forward so that the Senate confirms the judges that
the Federal courts need to ensure the prompt administration of justice.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I join all those in America who are
concerned about filling judicial vacancies in expressing gratitude to
Senators Hatch and Leahy for bringing judicial nominations to the floor
for our timely consideration.
Florida, with some of the busiest districts in the Nation, has three
Federal judicial vacancies. With our action today, one of those
vacancies is no more, and the people of Florida's southern district
will soon be served by an outstanding and experienced member of both
the legal and larger south Florida community--Mr. Don Middlebrooks.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to fill all of the
judicial vacancies in Florida. But today's action is a very positive
step forward.
Mr. President, the people served by the jurists we confirm have a
right to expect judges who bring unquestioned competence, strong
integrity, devotion to duty, and diversity of experience with them to
the Federal bench.
Throughout his career--as an undergraduate and law student at the
University of Florida, a public servant, and a distinguished member of
the south Florida legal community--Don Middlebrooks has met--and
exceeded--this standard of excellence time and time again.
Mr. Middlebrooks started his career in the public service at the
University of Florida, where his fellow undergraduates elected him
president of the student body.
That excellence in student government was followed by distinction at
the University of Florida Law School and, eventually, outstanding
service in the Florida State government.
In 1974, Don Middlebrooks was asked to serve the people of Florida as
assistant general counsel to then-Governor
[[Page S5069]]
Reubin Askew. He served with such distinction that Governor Askew
ultimately elevated him to the post of general counsel.
Three years later, as Governor Askew's second and final term was
coming to a close, Mr. Middlebrooks left Tallahassee and joined the
south Florida offices of Steel, Hector, & Davis, one of our State's
oldest and largest law firms.
His 20 years of experience with highly complex legal issues makes him
especially well-prepared for the cases that he will see as a Federal
district court judge in south Florida.
But the fact that Don Middlebrooks has spent the last two decades in
the private sector does not mean that he has neglected his commitment
to public service.
In addition to handling numerous pro bono cases himself, Mr.
Middlebrooks was chairman of Steel, Hector, & Davis' public service
committee when the firm received the American Bar Association pro bono
award and the Florida Supreme Court chief justice's law firm
commendation.
He has also been a civic leader. The list of his involvements is long
and distinguished--chairman of the Palm Beach County Criminal Justice
Commission, president of the Florida Bar Association, member of the
Florida Ethics Commission.
Perhaps Don Middlebrooks' most important civic contribution has been
his tireless commitment to the welfare of Florida's youngest
generation--its children.
In addition to being the father of 11-year-old Amanda and 9-year-old
Jack, Mr. Middlebrooks has served as chairman of the Palm Beach County
Children's Services Council, chairman of the Florida Bar Commission for
Children, and a member of the Florida Commission on Child Welfare.
Mr. Chairman, throughout his life, Don Middlebrooks has been
respected by his peers, hailed for his outstanding service to the
people of Florida, honored for his civic involvements, and praised for
his skill and competence in the legal arena.
I have no doubt that this pattern of distinction and outstanding
service will continue once he is invested as a Federal judge in the
southern district of Florida.
statements on the nomination of jeffrey t. miller
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted that the majority leader has
decided to take up the nomination of Jeffrey T. Miller to be a U.S.
district court judge for the southern district of California. Judge
Miller is a well-qualified nominee.
The Judiciary Committee unanimously reported his nomination to the
Senate more than 4 weeks ago. The southern district of California
desperately needs Judge Miller to help manage its growing backlog of
cases.
We first received Judge Jeffrey Miller's nomination in July 1996. He
was not accorded a hearing last Congress and the President renominated
him on the first day of this Congress for the same vacancy on the
district court for the southern district of California, which vacancy
has existed since December 1994. This is one of the judicial emergency
vacancies that we should have filled last year. This vacancy has
persisted for 2\1/2\ years. He has the support of both Senators from
California. He had a confirmation hearing on March 18 and his
nomination was considered and reported to the Senate by the Judiciary
Committee on April 17.
With this confirmation, the Senate has confirmed four Federal judges
this year--the same number as the number of amendments to the
Constitution that have been considered and defeated by the House of
Representatives and the Senate. At this rate, we are falling farther
and farther behind and more and more vacancies are continuing to mount
over longer and longer times to the detriment of more Americans and the
national cause of prompt justice. We must do better.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the majority leader
for calling up these judicial nominations for votes by the Senate, and
in particular for calling up Judge Jeffrey Miller, who has been
nominated to the U.S. district court for the southern district of
California in San Diego.
It was my distinct pleasure to recommend Judge Jeffrey Miller to the
President. I feel strongly he is extremely well qualified for the
position.
Judge Miller has been serving for 10 years as a superior court judge
in San Diego, having been appointed by a Republican Governor, George
Deukmejian, in 1987.
Judge Miller previously spent 19 years with the State attorney
general's office.
He earned both his undergraduate and law degree from the University
of California at Los Angeles in the 1960's. He first devoted himself to
public service by working in the Peace Corps for a year.
During his experience in the Los Angeles attorney general's office
from 1968 to 1974, he briefed approximately 60 cases on behalf of the
people, urging affirmation of trial court convictions before the court
of appeals in more than half of those cases.
Of those cases, published opinions were issued in 13, all but 1
affirming trial court convictions.
From 1974 to 1987, Judge Miller supervised attorneys and carried his
own caseload in the tort and condemnation section of the attorney
general's office, which oversaw the San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino,
and Riverside areas. Here he represented the State in matters ranging
from class action lawsuits to California Highway Patrol officers sued
for false arrest.
Judge Miller has argued two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both
cases were argued successfully on behalf of the State.
His lengthy and distinguished experience as a prosecutor prepared him
well for his appointment in 1987 as a superior court judge.
Since then, he has handled many sensitive high-profile criminal and
civil cases including two murder cases where the juries rendered
convictions with full sentences.
This has prepared him extremely well for the criminal and civil
caseload facing the southern district judges.
Simply put, Judge Miller is one of the most respected and trusted
judicial figures in the San Diego area. He is both fair minded and
thoughtful, yet remains tough and decisive.
His bipartisan support and solid judicial background make him a
strong nominee for confirmation. Among those who have endorsed Judge
Miller's nomination are those who know the judge's work best:
Presiding Judge James R. Milliken of the superior court described
Judge Miller as ``a superb judge'' and ``a fine, insightful person. He
understands legal issues and problems and does an absolutely wonderful
job in the courtroom.''
Judge Anthony Joseph, a colleague on the San Diego Superior Court,
wrote: ``His positive outlook and pragmatic approach are essential in
this era.''
Judge Daniel Kremer of the U.S. court of appeals noted that Judge
Miller ``is particularly well known for his ability to handle complex
cases efficiently and fairly.''
Retired Justice Charles Froehlich, Jr., of the court of appeals said:
``He is a person of very high ethical standards. He would indeed be a
credit to the local district court bench.''
Judge Judith Haller of the court of appeals wrote: ``Judge Miller
would be an outstanding selection and one which would be extremely well
received by members of our legal community. He is one of those rare
individuals who receives unanimous praise from all who have worked with
him professionally or who know him personally.''
Judge Miller is an active member of the California Judges
Association.
He has been elected to the executive committee and served on that
committee as supervising judge of the north county branch of the San
Diego Superior Court. He has also chaired the joint jury committee and
the rules committee.
Let me conclude by saying how important it is to fill the vacancies
on the southern district bench. Presiding Judge Judith Keep has
provided some startling information about workload in the southern
district, which I would like to submit for the Record.
There are currently two vacancies on the southern district bench. The
six judges now serving in the southern district faced a caseload of
5,674 cases in 1996. Five years earlier, the total filings in this
district were 2,914. That represents a 95-percent increase in the
workload from 1991 to 1996 for the southern district judges.
[[Page S5070]]
In addition, the vacancy Judge Miller would fill has been vacant
since December 28, 1994--more than 26 months. Judge Gordon Thompson
took senior status on December 28, 1994.
This vacancy has only made the workload on the southern district more
intense.
So I urge my colleagues to address the workload problem by confirming
this eminently qualified candidate, Judge Jeffrey Miller.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
____________________