[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 104 (Tuesday, September 7, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8837-S8839]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




NOMINATION OF MICHAEL H. WATSON TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 
                     THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the next nomination.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Michael H. 
Watson, of Ohio, to be United States District Judge for the Southern 
District of Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I take a few minutes to speak about Judge 
Michael H. Watson, who is from my home State of Ohio. He is from 
Columbus. As my colleagues are aware, President Bush nominated Judge 
Watson to serve as a Federal judge in the Southern District of Ohio.
  I would like to take a moment to tell my Senate colleagues why I 
believe so strongly in his nomination. Judge Watson is exactly the sort 
of person we ought to have serving on the Federal bench. He has had a 
long and distinguished career as a public servant. He has been a judge 
on the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County since Governor 
Bob Taft appointed him in May 2003.
  From 1996 to 2003, Judge Watson served on the Franklin County Common 
Pleas Court, a position he was appointed to by then-Governor George 
Voinovich and to which he was re-elected twice.
  In Ohio, the Common Pleas Court is the highest trial bench. It is the 
court that tries all the major civil and criminal cases. During his 
last 3 years on the trial court, Judge Watson served as administrative 
judge with responsibility of the administrative management of the 16-
member court and its staff. He dealt with, literally, thousands of 
cases during his time as a State trial court judge.
  Before serving on the bench, Judge Watson worked for the office of 
then-Governor George Voinovich--first as Deputy Chief Legal Counsel and 
then, from 1994 to 1995, as Chief Legal Counsel. Prior to that, he was 
Chief Legal Counsel to the Director of the Ohio Department of Commerce. 
Judge Watson also spent several years in private practice, focusing 
primarily on personal injury litigation, employment disputes, workers' 
compensation, and criminal defense.
  Without question, Judge Watson has had an impressive legal career. 
But what really impresses me about him is how hard he has worked 
throughout his life. Judge Watson has genuinely lived the American 
dream by working hard and overcoming the odds.
  Not long after high school, the Judge enlisted in the Air Force and 
served for over 3 years. When he was discharged, he enrolled at the 
Ohio State University and continued his service in the military in the 
Air National Guard. While in college, he married his high school 
sweetheart, Lori, and they had their first son when Judge Watson was a 
junior in college. During all this time, Judge Watson was working full-
time in the Franklin County prosecuting attorney's office. That's 
right, Mr. President; Judge Watson was enrolled at OSU full-time, 
raising a family, serving in the Air National Guard, and working full-
time.
  When Judge Watson finished college, he enrolled in a law school night 
program at Capital University Law School. During the day, Judge Watson 
worked full-time as a court bailiff for a well-known Franklin County 
judge. That job evolved into a law clerk position, in which Judge 
Watson remained for his entire 4 years of law school.
  If someone in my family or I ended up in a Federal court, I would 
want a judge who could relate to me. I would want a judge who knows 
what the real world is like for most Americans. I would want a judge 
who knows what it is like to struggle and what it is like to be faced 
with the real world. Judge Watson is that kind of judge.
  Of course, I would also want a judge who knows what he is doing and 
who will enforce the law--and Judge Watson has clearly proven he is 
qualified for the job in that respect. But what Judge Watson has that 
makes him really outstanding, in my view, is his ability to make 
decisions with compassion and with a true understanding of what it is 
like in the real world.

[[Page S8838]]

  Judge Watson will be a fine addition to the District Court. In his 
time on the Ohio Court of Common Pleas and on the Ohio Court of 
Appeals, Judge Watson has distinguished himself through his thoughtful 
legal reasoning and his great integrity. This experience and his 
temperament make Judge Watson highly qualified for the Federal District 
Court.
  Senator Voinovich and I have known Michael Watson for a number of 
years. As I said, this is a man who is eminently qualified to serve on 
the Federal bench. Mike Watson currently serves on the court of appeals 
in Ohio. For 7 years prior to that he served on our common pleas court 
bench, which in Ohio is our highest trial bench. Prior to that, among 
other jobs, he was the chief legal counsel for then-Governor George 
Voinovich.
  Mike Watson is an Air Force veteran. He worked his way through night 
law school while serving at the same time as the court bailiff in 
Franklin County.
  This is a man who is respected by his peers and respected by the men 
and women who practice law in front of him. If you talk to people who 
practiced law in front of Judge Watson during the 7 years he served on 
the common pleas court bench, they will tell you this is a man of great 
integrity. They will tell you this is a man of great common sense, a 
man who works very hard, and a man of great courtesy. This is a man who 
has the right judicial temperament to serve on our Federal bench.
  I am proud to be here this evening to recommend to my colleagues that 
we confirm this nomination. I am very proud to be in the Senate to 
speak in favor of the nomination of Michael Watson.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is considering the 
nomination of Judge Michael Watson for a lifetime seat on the United 
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Judge Watson 
enjoys the strong support of Senator DeWine and Senator Voinovich, for 
whom he worked in the Ohio Governor's office.
  I noted when this matter was considered by the Judiciary Committee 
that proceedings on it had been rushed and highly irregular. Corners 
had been cut at every stage, from the noticing of his hearing late on 
Friday of a holiday recess for a day when the majority was told no 
Democratic Senators could attend, to the promise that the hearing would 
be postponed if his rating was negative--it was and the hearing was 
not. Then, of course, there was the premature listing of his nomination 
on the agenda before Members had a fair opportunity to review his 
answers to written questions.
  A few minutes before a committee meeting a lengthy letter arrived 
from a Republican former colleague of Judge Watson attempting to 
address some of the ethics concerns that had been raised, and then 
during the meeting another letter was mentioned from the nominee 
promising not to use his judicial campaign donations to buy tickets to 
partisan political events, which he had previously said he might do.
  It also seems clear from the incompleteness of the Senate 
questionnaire submitted by this nominee in the late spring that his 
answers to some of our standard questions were not vetted to determine 
if they were fully responsive. They were not and, in essence, we have 
been told that we have received all the information this nominee is 
going to give. At the same time we have heard that this nominee has 
been telling people in Ohio that he has been promised that his 
confirmation is a done deal, and if that were true then what incentive 
would he have to provide us with more complete information.
  Surely, for example, the lack of information about some of the cases 
handled by this nominee or the names of opposing counsels familiar with 
his work made it difficult for the American Bar Association to speak 
with anyone but loyal friends and colleagues. Nevertheless, the ABA--
which has been exceedingly generous to President Bush's judicial 
nominees--gave Judge Watson a partial `not qualified' rating. This is 
cause for concern, because the ABA usually gives sitting judges 
nominated by George Bush a minimum rating of unanimously ``qualified,'' 
and often a rating of ``well qualified.''
  When such a red flag is raised, it is our practice to seek input from 
the legal community in the nominee's home State about whether there is 
any cause for concern, since the ABA does not tell us the basis of its 
votes. Indeed, the credibility of the ABA's ratings has been called 
into question regarding some of the inflated ratings given to some 
nominees, despite serious issues such as inexperience or lack of 
compliance with attorney or judicial codes of conduct.
  It does appear that Judge Watson has many fans but it is also true 
that some, from both parties, have expressed serious concerns that he 
is simply too political to be rewarded with a lifetime seat on the 
Federal bench.
  I have been concerned that he is not the type of consensus nominee 
who should be moving so quickly or at all at this stage in a 
presidential election year. I would note that in 2000, 13 of President 
Clinton's district court nominees nominated as late as Judge Watson or 
later never got a hearing or a vote in committee, and the only district 
court nominees who received committee votes in July of that election 
year were those who moved by consent. I can recall no nominee with a 
partial ``not qualified'' rating getting through in July 2000. In fact, 
I know that anyone President Clinton nominated after the first quarter 
of 2000 for which there was a single objection by any Senator never got 
a vote.
  Similarly, in 1996, the last time a President was running for 
reelection, more than half of the district court nominees sent to the 
Senate as late or later in the year as Judge Watson never got a vote in 
committee. When a Democrat was in the White House, only consensus 
nominees moved this late in the year as part of a package or agreement, 
and Judge Watson was nominated too late to be part of the package 
agreed to earlier this year for confirmation votes.
  The Senate has already confirmed three district court nominees and 
two circuit court nominees of President Bush from Ohio, some of whom 
have been extremely controversial and divisive. We moved forward with 
those nominations even though two of President Clinton's nominees to 
Ohio were blocked by Republican Senators, Steve Bell and Professor Kent 
Markus.
  Steve Bell, an expert in environmental law, waited more than 16 
months and never was allowed a hearing or a vote on his nomination. No 
one questioned Bell's legal qualifications, and unlike Judge Watson, he 
did not receive a partial rating of not qualified, yet he never got a 
hearing or a vote. Mr. Bell is the son of U.S. District Court Judge Sam 
Bell of Silver Lake, a Republican appointee to the Federal courts. Mr. 
Bell was formerly the assistant law director in the City of Akron under 
Republican Mayor Roy L. Ray from 1981 to 1984 and an assistant U.S. 
attorney, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, from 1984 to 1988. 
Because he moved to northern Ohio to prevent any appearance of 
impropriety from practicing before his father's colleagues, this was 
used as the basis for blocking him from getting a hearing on his 
nomination to a seat in southern Ohio, where he was born and raised and 
where he practiced law for much of his career. He never got a hearing 
or a vote by Republicans.
  Similarly, Professor Kent Markus, who leads the Dave Thomas Adoption 
Law Center at Capital University and previously served as an assistant 
to Lee Fisher and Janet Reno, never got a hearing or a vote. According 
to Professor Markus' testimony at a hearing about Democratic nominees 
who never got a hearing, Senator DeWine told him in 2000 that there 
were no objections to the merits of his nomination but that no Clinton 
nominees would be confirmed to the sixth circuit for ``political 
reasons.'' Yet here we are with a Bush judicial nominee in Ohio in 
September of this election year, who some consider to be too political, 
being pushed forward to confirmation. This is such a double standard.

  As I noted in committee, I have found some of Judge Watson's answers 
to questions unsettling. Why was information about Judge Watson 
currently running for office in a partisan race not made available from 
the outset? While being up for election is not disqualifying, we are 
justifiably wary after another nominee of President Bush, Ron Clark of 
Texas, continued to run for election in a partisan race after

[[Page S8839]]

he was confirmed by the Senate. According to press accounts, even 
though his seat was a so-called ``judicial emergency,'' Mr. Clark asked 
the President not to sign his commission for office until he finished 
his race and sat for another session in the Texas legislature so that 
he could help elect a Republican speaker of the house and vote on 
things like redistricting, and President Bush delayed signing Clark's 
appointment papers. After information surfaced about the White House's 
willingness to delay the appointment of Mr. Clark, he stepped out of 
the race but told voters that they could still vote for him, and he 
won. This was shocking and inappropriate behavior by a man confirmed to 
sit as a Federal judge.
  In Judge Watson's situation we have heard that he is actively seeking 
donations for his State race while also telling donors that he expects 
to be confirmed shortly. In his written answers, he states that he has 
``informed [his] contributors that [he is] in the confirmation 
process.'' I was troubled by his initial response to my question about 
what he will do with the funds he has amassed if he is confirmed. He 
stated that he has not determined whether, if he is confirmed, he will 
return the money to donors, contribute it to charity or use the money 
to ``purchase individual tickets to other political events.'' This 
option is clearly prohibited by Canon 7 of the Code of Conduct for 
United States judges, which applies to nominees, and bans such partisan 
activities as buying tickets to partisan events.
  Judge Watson's friend subsequently wrote a letter to the Senate 
claiming that the Code of Conduct for United States judges does not 
apply to nominees, but anyone who reads Canon 1 of the Code would see 
that it says, ``the Code is designed to provide guidance to judges and 
nominees for judicial office.'' That letter also asserts that nominees 
have one year ``to come into full compliance with its terms,'' which is 
simply incorrect. There is a narrow exemption related to divesting from 
profit-sharing or deferred compensation arrangements that is wholly 
inapplicable to the mandate of Canon 7 prohibiting political activity. 
The letter is similarly misguided when it asserts a wholly new 
interpretation on the restriction against soliciting campaign funds, by 
claiming that Federal judges or nominees could solicit such funds as 
long as they did not do so ``personally'' and instead used agents to do 
so. This novel interpretation would create a gaping hole in the Federal 
prohibition against such partisan activity. Fortunately, the approach 
advocated by the letter has not been embraced or adopted by the Federal 
courts.
  Admittedly, the ethical rules are rules of reason. In rare instances, 
like Judge Watson's, an individual is not required to choose between 
the possibility of a Federal judgeship and the possibility of a State 
judgeship. At the same time, given the vital importance of the ethical 
constraints to the public confidence in the fairness of our courts, 
such a person must exercise extra caution to steer clear of conduct 
that could call into question his or her impartiality under the Federal 
rules. If Judge Watson were following the advice and interpretations 
offered in the letter of his friend, he would be unlikely to comport 
his conduct with the Code of Conduct for United States judges which 
expressly applies to nominees such as him.
  I do appreciate that, despite the justifications offered by his 
friend, Judge Watson has informed Senator DeWine that if he is 
confirmed he has decided to donate his campaign funds ``to a charity 
dedicated to the protection of the health and welfare of children,'' in 
compliance with ``State election laws.'' I am happy that Senator DeWine 
has been able to get the nominee to make these assurances and promise 
that he and his campaign committee will disclose the names and amounts 
of his donors.
  In addition to the assurances of Senator DeWine, who I hold in high 
esteem, we have also heard positive things about the nominee from 
prominent members of the legal community in Ohio since a vote on his 
nomination in committee was postponed. Some came from unexpected 
sources. I remain troubled but given the support of the Senators from 
Ohio and lawyers from Ohio, I will not oppose this nomination.
  I congratulate Judge Watson and his family on his confirmation. He is 
being given a position of great public trust, and I hope that he will 
live up to the assurances he has given to the Senate and be fair and 
non-partisan as a Federal judge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question 
is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Michael H. 
Watson, of Ohio, to be United States District Judge for the Southern 
District of Ohio?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________