[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 111 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8504-S8505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S8504]]
PENDING NOMINATION OF MARGARET MORROW TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we adjourn until September, I once again
note my dissatisfaction with the lack of progress we have made in
confirming the many fine women and men whom President Clinton has
nominated to the federal judiciary.
This year the Senate has confirmed only 9 federal judges before the
August recess during a period of 108 vacancies. Thus, when the Senate
returns in September it will remain on the snail-like pace that the
Republican leadership has maintained throughout the year of confirming
one judge per month. Meanwhile, vacancies have continued to mount and
the delays in filling vacancies continue to grow.
It is discouraging to once again have to call attention to the fact
that some 40 nominees are pending before the Judiciary Committee--
nominees who have yet to be accorded even a hearing during this
Congress. Many of these nominations have been pending since the very
first day of this session, having been re-nominated by the President
after having been held up during last year's partisan stall. Thus, the
Committee has not yet worked through the backlog of nominees left
pending from last year. Several of those pending before the Committee
had hearings or were reported favorably last Congress but have been
passed over so far this year, while the vacancies for which they were
nominated as long as 27 months ago persist.
Those who delay or prevent the filling of these vacancies must
understand that they are delaying or preventing the administration of
justice. We can pass all the crime bills we want, but you cannot lock
up criminals if you do not have judges. The mounting backlogs of civil
and criminal cases in the emergency districts, in particular, are
growing taller by the day.
I was delighted when the Senate moved promptly on the nomination of
Alan Gold before the July recess, but his is the only nomination that
has been confirmed promptly all year. There is no excuse for the
Senate's delay in considering the nominations of such outstanding
individuals as Professor William A. Fletcher, Judge James A. Beaty,
Jr., Judge Richard A. Paez, Ms. M. Margaret McKeown, Ms. Ann L. Aiken,
and Ms. Susan Oki Mollway, to name just a few of the outstanding
nominees who have all been pending all year without so much as a
hearing. Professor Fletcher and Ms. Mollway had both been reported last
year. Judge Paez and Ms. Aiken had hearings last year but have been
passed over so far this year.
We continue to fall farther and farther behind the pace established
by the 104th Congress. By this time two years ago, Senator Hatch had
held seven confirmation hearings involving 31 judicial nominees, and
the Senate had proceeded to confirm 26 federal judges. The record this
year does not compare: Four hearings instead of seven; nine judges
confirmed instead of 26.
I recently received a copy of a letter dated July 14, 1997, sent to
President Clinton and the Republican Leader of the Senate by seven
presidents of national legal associations. These presidents note the
``looming crisis in the Nation brought on by the extraordinary number
of vacant federal judicial positions" and the ``injustice of this
situation for all of society.'' They point to ``[d]angerously crowded
dockets, suspended civil case dockets, burgeoning criminal caseloads,
overburdened judges, and chronically undermanned courts'' as
circumstances that ``undermine our democracy and respect for the
supremacy of law.'' I agree with these distinguished leaders that we
must without further delay ``devote the time and resources necessary to
expedite the selection and confirmation process for federal judicial
nominees.'' The President is doing his part, having sent us 14
nominations in the last two days. The Senate should start doing its
part.
I want to turn briefly to the long pending nomination of Ms. Margaret
Morrow to be a District Court Judge for the Central District of
California. Mr. Morrow was first nominated on May 9, 1996--not this
year but May of 1966. She had a confirmation hearing and was
unanimously reported to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee in June
1996. Her nomination was, thus, first pending before the Senate more
than a year ago. This was one of a number of nominations caught in the
election year shutdown.
She was renominated on the first day of this session. She had her
second confirmation hearing in March. She was then held off the
Judiciary agenda while she underwent rounds of written questions. When
she was finally considered on June 12, she was again favorably reported
with the support of Chairman Hatch. She has been left pending on the
Senate Executive Calendar for more than six weeks and has been passed
over, again, as the Senate is about to adjourn for a month-long recess.
This is an outstanding nominee to the District Court. She is
exceptionally well qualified to be a Federal judge. I have heard no one
contend to the contrary. She has been put through the proverbial
ringer--including at one point being asked her private views, how she
voted, on 160 California initiatives over the last 10 years.
She has told the Committee:
I support citizen initiatives, and believe they are an
important aspect of our democratic form of government. The
1988 article was not meant to be critical of citizen
initiatives, but of the lack of procedures designed to
eliminate confusion and make clear and relevant information
about initiatives available to voters. I was trying to
suggest ways in which the initiative process could be
strengthened, by communicating more information to the
electorate about the substance of initiative measures and by
eliminating drafting errors that form the basis for a legal
challenge. I believe it important for citizens to obtain as
much information as possible respecting any matter on which
they cast a vote.
I believe the citizen initiative process is clearly
constitutional. I also recognize and support the doctrine
established in case law that initiative measures are
presumptively constitutional, and strongly agree with [the]
statement that initiative measures that are constitutional
and properly drafted should not be overturned or enjoined by
the courts.
In passing on the legality of initiative measures, judges
should apply the law, not substitute their personal opinion
of matters of public policy for the opinion of the
electorate.
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 that
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 do not believe
these goals are inconsistent.
. . . . 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.
Does this sound like someone who is anti-democratic? No objective
evaluation of the record can yield the conclusion that she is anti-
initiative. No fair reading of her statements suggests a basis for any
such assertion.
She has been forced to respond to questions about particular judicial
decisions. I find this especially ironic is light of the Judiciary
Committee's questionnaire in which we ask whether anyone involved in
the process of selecting the nominee discussed with her ``any specific
case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be
interpreted as asking how you would rule on such case, issue, or
question.'' We try to ensure that the Administration imposes no litmus
tests and does not ask about specific cases--and then some on the
Judiciary Committee turn around and do exactly that.
The Committee insisted that she do a homework project on Robert
Bork's writings and on the jurisprudence of original intent. Is that
what is required to be confirmed to the District Court in this
Congress?
With respect to the issue of ``judicial activism,'' we have the
nominee's views. She told the Committee: ``The specific role of a trial
judge is to apply the law as enacted by Congress and interpreted by the
Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals. His or her role is not to `make
law.' '' She also noted: ``Given the restrictions of the case and
controversy requirement, and the limited nature of legal remedies
available, the courts are ill equipped to resolve the broad problems
facing our society, and should not undertake to do so. That is the job
of the legislative and executive branches in our constitutional
structure.''
[[Page S8505]]
I am appalled at the treatment that Margaret Morrow has received
before the Senate and have spoken about her on the Senate floor on many
occasions. It is long past time for the Senate to take up this
nomination, debate it and vote on it. In my view, the Senate should
certainly have done so before adjourning for a month-long recess.
Margaret Morrow was the first woman President of the California Bar
Association and also a past president of the Los Angeles County Bar
Association. She is an exceptionally well-qualified nominee who is
currently a partner at Arnold & Porter and has practiced for 23 years.
She is supported by Los Angeles' Republican Mayor Richard Riordan and
by Robert Bonner, the former head of DEA under a Republican
Administration. Representative James Rogan attended her second
confirmation hearing to endorse her.
Margaret Morrow has devoted her career to the law, to getting women
involved in the practice of law and to making lawyers more responsive
and responsible. Her good works should not be punished but commended.
Her public service ought not be grounds for delay. She does not deserve
this treatment. This type of treatment will drive good people away from
government service.
The President of the Woman Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, the
President of the Women's Legal Defense Fund, the President of the Los
Angeles County Bar Association, the President of the National
Conference of Women's Bar Association and other distinguished attorneys
from the Los Angeles area have all written the Senate in support of the
nomination of Margaret Morrow. They write that: ``Margaret Morrow is
widely respected by attorneys, judges and community leaders of both
parties'' and she ``is exactly the kind of person who should be
appointed to such a position and held up as an example to young women
across the country.'' I could not agree more.
Mr. President, the Senate should move expeditiously to confirm
Margaret Morrow.
I ask unanimous consent that the two letters to which I have referred
be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
July 14, 1997.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Hon Trent Lott,
The Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President and Mr. Majority Leader: Among the
constitutional responsibilities entrusted to the President
and the Senate, none is more essential to the foundation upon
which our democracy rests than the appointment of justices
and judges to serve at all levels of the federal bench.
Notwithstanding the intensely political nature of the
process, historically this critical duty has been carried out
with bipartisan cooperation to ensure a highly qualified and
effective federal judiciary.
There is a looming crisis in the Nation brought on by the
extraordinary number of vacant federal judicial positions and
the resulting problems that are associated with delayed
judicial appointments. There are 102 pending judicial
vacancies, or 11 percent of the number of authorized judicial
positions. A record 24 of these Article III positions have
been vacant for more than 18 months. Those courts hardest hit
are among the Nation's busiest, for example, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals has 9 of its 28 positions vacant. At
the district court level, six States have unusually high
vacancy rates: 10 in California, 8 in Pennsylvania, 6 in New
York, 5 in Illinois, and 4 each in Texas and Louisiana.
The injustice of this situation for all of society cannot
be overstated. Dangerously crowded dockets, suspended civil
case dockets, burgeoning criminal caseloads, overburdened
judges, and chronically undermanned courts undermine our
democracy and respect for the supremacy of law.
We, the undersigned representatives of national legal
organizations, call upon the President and the Senate to
devote the time and resources necessary to expedite the
selection and confirmation process for federal judicial
nominees. We respectfully urge all participants in the
process to move quickly to resolve the issues that have
resulted in these numerous and longstanding vacancies in
order to preserve the integrity of our justice system.
N. Lee Cooper,
President, American Bar Association.
U. Lawrence Boze,
President, National Bar Association.
Hugo Chavaino,
President, Hispanic National Bar Association.
Paul Chan,
President, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association.
Howard Twiggs,
President, Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
Sally Lee Foley,
President, National Association of Women Lawyers.
Juliet Gee,
President, National Conference of Women's Bar Associations.
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 judgships. 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.
Sheldon H. Sloan, Esq.,
President, Los Angeles County Bar Association.
Abby Leibman, Esq.,
Executive Director, California Women's Law Center.
Juliet Gee, Esq.,
President, National Conference of Women's Bar Associations.
____________________