[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 8 (Monday, February 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S511-S512]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF MARGARET MORROW

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we will soon debate the confirmation of 
Margaret Morrow to be a United States District Judge. Her 
qualifications are exemplary; her commitment to public service is 
impressive; and her supporters are many.
  Despite the high regard of a broad and bipartisan group of attorneys 
and judges, Ms. Morrow has had to wait over 19 months for a vote of the 
full Senate. But this long delay is finally coming to an end. I am very 
pleased Senator Lott has promised that, before the February recess, 
this fine nominee will get her day on the Senate floor.
  The Alliance for Justice, which represents a whole host of 
organizations interested in a strong judiciary, sent a letter to me 
yesterday outlining their many reasons for supporting the nomination of 
Margaret Morrow as well as their concern about the time it has taken 
for the Senate to act. As a supplement to the voluminous information 
already on the record in support of this nomination, I submit the 
Alliance for Justice's letter for my colleagues' review. Mr. President, 
I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 February 4, 1998.
     Senator Tom Daschle,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: We write to express our concern over 
     a series of developments that continue to unfold in the 
     Senate that are undermining the judicial confirmation 
     process. These include calls for the impeachment of judges, a 
     slowdown in the pace of confirmations, unjustified criticisms 
     of certain nominees, and efforts to leave appellate vacancies 
     unfilled. Some court observers have opined that collectively 
     these are the most serious efforts to curtail judicial 
     independence since President Roosevelt's plan to pack the 
     Supreme Court in 1937.
       In the past year nominees who failed to meet certain 
     ultraconservative litmus tests have been labeled ``judicial 
     activists.'' While these charges are unfounded, they 
     nonetheless delay confirmations and leave judicial seats 
     unfilled. We note that of the 14 individuals whose 
     nominations have been pending the longest, 12 are women or 
     minorities. This disturbing pattern is in striking contrast 
     to those 14 judges who were confirmed in 1997 in the shortest 
     period of time, 11 of whom are white men. For example, 
     Margaret Morrow, a judicial nominee to the United States 
     District Court for the Central District of California, was 
     nominated more than a year and a half ago. Not only is she an 
     outstanding candidate, but her credentials have earned her 
     enthusiastic and bipartisan endorsements from leaders of the 
     bar, judges, politicians, and civic groups.
       An honors graduate from Harvard Law School, a civil 
     litigator for more than 20 years, winner of numerous legal 
     awards, and the first female president of the California Bar 
     Association, Morrow has the breadth of background and 
     experience to make her an excellent judge, and in the words 
     of one of her sponsors, she would be ``an exceptionally 
     distinguished addition to the federal bench.'' Morrow has 
     also shown, through her numerous pro bono activities, a 
     demonstrated commitment to equal justice. As president of the 
     Los Angeles County Bar Association, she created the Pro Bono 
     Council, the first of its kind in California. During her year 
     as bar president, the Council coordinated the provision of 
     150,000 hours of previously untapped representation to 
     indigent clients throughout the country. Not surprisingly, 
     the American Bar Association's judicial evaluation committee 
     gave her its highest rating.
       Republicans and Democrats alike speak highly of her 
     accomplishments and qualifications. Robert Bonner, a Reagan-
     appointed U.S. Attorney and U.S. District Judge for the 
     Central District of California and head of the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration during the Bush Administration, 
     has said Morrow is a ``brilliant person with a first-rate 
     legal mind who was nominated upon merit, not political 
     affiliation.'' Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block wrote 
     that, ``Margaret Morrow is an extremely hard working 
     individual of impeccable character and integrity. . . . I 
     have no doubt that she would be a distinguished addition to 
     the Court.'' Other supporters include local bar leaders; 
     officials from both parties, including Los Angeles Mayor 
     Richard Riordan; California judges appointed by the 
     state's last three governors; and three Republican-
     appointed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges, Pamela 
     Rymer, Cynthia Holcomb Hall, and Stephen Trott.
       Despite her outstanding record, Morrow has become the 
     target of a coordinated effort by ultraconservative groups 
     that seek to politicize the judiciary. They have subjected 
     her to a campaign of misrepresentations, distortions and 
     attacks on her record, branding her a ``judicial activist.'' 
     According to her opponents, she deserves to be targeted 
     because ``she is a member of California Women Lawyers,'' an 
     absurd charge given that this bipartisan organization is 
     among the most highly respected in the state. Another 
     ``strike'' against her is her concern, expressed in a 
     sentence from a 1988 article, about special interest 
     domination of the ballot initiative process in California. 
     Her opponents view the statement as disdainful of voter 
     initiatives such as California's term limits law; however, 
     they overlook the fact that the article outlines a series of 
     recommended reforms to preserve the process.

[[Page S512]]

     It is a stretch to construe suggested reforms as evidence of 
     ``judicial activism,'' but to search for this members of the 
     Judiciary Committee unprecedentedly asked her to disclose her 
     personal positions on all 160 past ballot propositions in 
     California.
       Morrow's confirmation has been delayed by the Senate beyond 
     any reasonable bounds. Originally selected over nineteen 
     months ago in May 1996, her nomination was unanimously 
     approved by the Judiciary Committee that year, only to 
     languish on the Senate floor. Morrow was again nominated at 
     the beginning of 1997, subjected to an unusual second 
     hearing, and recommended again by the Judiciary Committee, 
     after which several Senators placed secret holds on her 
     nomination, preventing a final vote on her confirmation. 
     These holds, which prevented a final vote on her confirmation 
     during the 1st Session of the 105th Congress, were recently 
     lifted.
       As Senator Orrin Hatch repeatedly said: ``playing politics 
     with judges is unfair, and I'm sick of it.'' We agree with 
     his sentiment. Given Margaret Morrow's impressive 
     qualifications, we urge you to bring the nomination to the 
     Senate floor, ensure that it receives prompt, full and fair 
     consideration, and that a final vote on her nomination is 
     scheduled as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
         Alliance for Justice: Nan Aron, President; American 
           Jewish Congress: Phil Baum, Executive Director; 
           Americans for Democratic Action: Amy Isaacs, National 
           Director; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: Robert 
           Bernstein, Executive Law; Brennan Center for Justice: 
           E. Joshua Rosenkrantz, Executive Director; Black Women 
           Lawyers Association of Los Angeles: Eulanda Matthews, 
           President; California Women Lawyers: Grace E. Emery, 
           President; Center for Law and Social Policy: Alan W. 
           Hausman, Director; Chicago Committee for Civil Rights 
           Under Law: Clyde E. Murphy, Executive Director; 
           Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund: Patricia 
           Wright, Coordinator Disabled Fund; Families USA: Judy 
           Waxman, Director of Government Affairs; Lawyers Club of 
           San Diego: Kathleen Juniper, Director; Leadership 
           Conference on Civil Rights: Wade Henderson, Executive 
           Director.

           

                          ____________________