[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 27, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4378-S4380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
                       FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of J. Michael Seabright, of 
Hawaii, to be United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 30 
minutes, equally divided, for debate on the nomination.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased and hnored to speak in 
support of J. Michael Seabright of Honolulu, Hawaii, who has been 
nominated by the President to serve as a Federal district court judge 
for the District of Hawaii.
  Mr. Seabright graduated magna cum laude from his undergraduate alma 
mater of Tulane University, before going on to attend The National Law 
Center at George Washington University, where he received his juris 
doctor and graduated with high honors as a member of the Order of the 
Coif.
  At George Washington, he further distinguished himself by serving as 
the editor of the George Washington Journal of International Law & 
Economics.
  I have had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Seabright since he arrived in 
Hawaii 20 years ago, having watched him as he successfully became a 
member of the Hawaii State Bar Association, and became involved in our 
community.
  Now Mr. Seabright stands out as a leader in the legal side of law 
enforcement, where he developed the District of Hawaii plan for 
implementing ``Operation Triggerlock-Hawaii,'' a Federal-local effort 
aimed at the prosecution of violent armed career criminals in Federal 
court.
  His broad experience in prosecution, from violent crimes to 
government corruption, have provided him a balanced perspective of the 
criminal justice system that will continue to serve him well as he 
prepares for this most recent development in his career of public 
service.
  Mr. Seabright's work for Hawaii goes beyond his professional 
commitments as an assistant U.S. attorney, however. He has served on 
the Hawaii Supreme Court's disciplinary board since 1995 and holds the 
chairmanship of its rules committee, which is charged with the drafting 
proposed rules for the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct.
  He was also a member of the Hawaii State Board of Bar Examiners, and 
has been an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii William S. 
Richardson School of Law.
  This extraordinary record of achievement has now culminated with his 
nomination to the Federal bench, and amply supports the favorable 
reports he has received from the Hawaii State Bar Association, the 
American Bar Association, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  I am confident that his record will prove equally impressive to the 
full Senate, and I trust that he will become the 206th of Mr. Bush's 
judicial nominees to be confirmed to the Federal bench. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in voting in favor of Mr. Seabright.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, is 
recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join 
Senator Inouye in support of the nomination of Mr. J. Michael Seabright 
for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. The Hawaii 
State Bar Association has found Mr. Seabright to be highly qualified 
for the position of U.S. District Court Judge in Hawaii. This is of 
significant importance to me, as I value the opinion of Hawaii's legal 
community in evaluating those nominated to serve as judges.
  Mr. Seabright has practiced law in the State of Hawaii for over 20 
years, in a number of capacities, including both private practice and 
public service. Mr. Seabright has been employed by the U.S. Attorney's 
Office for the District of Hawaii for the past 15 years, and he has 
headed the white-collar and organized crime section since 2002.
  I am very pleased that this position, after being vacant for so many 
years, will now be filled by an individual as qualified as J. Michael 
Seabright. For the past few years, I have heard from jurists and a 
number of attorneys in Hawaii about the need to fill this judicial 
vacancy. I am encouraged to see that with the consideration of this 
nominee the Senate will continue its tradition of fulfilling its advice 
and consent role under the Constitution.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Mr. Seabright's nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has taken some time, but the Senate 
Republican leadership will finally allow the Senate to consider the 
nomination of Michael Seabright to be a United States District Court 
Judge for Hawaii. I commend the distinguished Senators from Hawaii for 
their effort in identifying this consensus nominee. When Mr. Seabright 
is confirmed by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of the Senate, he will 
be the 206th nominee of this President confirmed to a lifetime 
appointment to our Federal courts.
  This is only the second judicial nomination Senate Republicans have 
been willing to consider all year. There has been no filibuster of 
judicial nominees this year. Instead, it is the Senate Republican 
leadership that, through its deliberate inaction, is keeping judgeships 
unnecessarily vacant for months. With this nomination and with the 
nomination of Judge Crotty, I was the one asking for months for the 
nomination to be considered, debated, voted, and confirmed. For the 
last several weeks, I have been calling upon the Republican readership 
to proceed to the confirmation of Michael Seabright to the District 
Court of Hawaii.
  All Democrats on the Judiciary Committee had been prepared to vote 
favorably on this nomination for some time. We were prepared to report 
the nomination last year, but it was not listed by the then-chairman on 
a committee agenda. I thank Chairman Specter for including Mr. 
Seabright at our meeting on March 17. The nomination was unanimously 
reported and has been on the Senate Executive Calendar for more than a 
month. It is Senate Republicans who resisted a vote on this judicial 
nominee, not Democrats. In their fashion, they did so without any 
explanation akin to the anonymous ``holds'' that doomed more than 60 of 
President Clinton's judicial nominees not so long ago.
  Once confirmed, Mr. Seabright will be the 206th of 216 nominees 
brought before the full Senate for a vote to be confirmed. That means 
that 829 of the 875 authorized judgeships in the Federal judiciary, or 
95 percent, will be filled. It is regrettable that Republican delay has 
now pushed the Senate behind even the pace set by the Republican 
majority in 1999, when President Clinton was in the White House. That 
year, the Senate Republican leadership did not allow the Senate to 
consider any circuit court nominees for the entire session and only 17 
district court nominees were confirmed. The Republican Senate has 
fallen behind that pace.
  Of the 47 judicial vacancies now existing, President Bush has not 
even sent nominees for 29 of those vacancies, more than half. I have 
been encouraging the Bush administration to work with Senators to 
identify qualified and consensus judicial nominees and do so, again, 
today. The Democratic leader and I sent the President a letter in this 
regard on April 5, but we have received no response.
  It is now the last week in April. We are almost one-third through the 
year and so far the President has sent only one new nominee for a 
Federal court vacancy all year--only one. Instead of sending back 
divisive nominees, would it not be better for the country, the courts, 
the American people, the Senate, and the administration if the White 
House would work with us to identify, and for the President to 
nominate, more consensus nominees such as Michael Seabright who can be 
confirmed quickly with strong, bipartisan votes?
  I commend the Senators from Hawaii for their efforts to work 
cooperatively to fill judicial vacancies. I only wish Republicans had 
treated President Clinton's nominees to vacancies in Hawaii with 
similar courtesy. Had they, there would not have been the vacancies on 
the Ninth Circuit and on the District Court. The work of the Senators 
from Hawaii is indicative of the type of bipartisan efforts Senate 
Democrats have made with this President

[[Page S4379]]

and remain willing to make. We can work together to fill judicial 
vacancies with qualified, consensus nominees. The vast majority of the 
more than 200 judges confirmed during the last 3\1/2\ years were 
confirmed with bipartisan support.
  The truth is that in President Bush's first term, the 204 judges 
confirmed were more than were confirmed in either of President Clinton 
two terms, more than during the term of this President's father, and 
more than in Ronald Reagan's first term when he was being assisted by a 
Republican majority in the Senate. By last December, we had reduced 
judicial vacancies from the 110 vacancies I inherited in the summer of 
2001 to the lowest level, lowest rate and lowest number in decades, 
since Ronald Reagan was in office.
  The Hawaii judgeship at issue here has been vacant for more than 4 
years, since December of 2000 when Judge Alan Kay took senior status. 
President Clinton made a nomination to that seat in advance of the 
vacancy, but the Republicans in control of the Senate refused to act on 
it. They preserved the vacancy for a Republican President.
  In 2002, President Bush nominated James Rohlfing to the vacancy. That 
nomination failed, however, because in the view of his home State 
Senators and the American Bar Association, he was not qualified for the 
position. It took the White House more than 2 additional years to 
agree. Finally, in May 2004 that nomination was withdrawn by President 
Bush.
  The administration finally got it right after consultation with the 
Hawaii Senators. The President sent Michael Seabright's name to the 
Senate last September. An outstanding attorney who has experience in 
private practice as well as a sterling reputation as an Assistant 
United States Attorney, Mr. Seabright merited consideration and swift 
confirmation. Despite his reputation as a law-and-order Republican, 
Republicans would not move on Mr. Seabright's nomination last Congress. 
The President took his time renominating Mr. Seabright and even then it 
took repeated requests to get his nomination included on the agenda of 
the committee. When he was considered on March 17, he was reported with 
unanimous support. Senate Democrats have long supported and requested 
action on this nomination.
  I have been urging this President and Senate Republicans for years to 
work with all Senators and engage in genuine, bipartisan consultation. 
That process leads to the nomination, confirmation, and appointment of 
consensus nominees with reputations for fairness. The Seabright 
nomination, the bipartisan support of his home State Senators, and the 
committee's action by a unanimous bipartisan vote is a perfect example 
of what I have been urging.
  I have noted that there are currently 29 judicial vacancies for which 
the President has delayed sending a nominee. In fact, he has sent the 
Senate only one new judicial nominee all year. I wish he would work 
with all Senators to fill those remaining vacancies rather than through 
his inaction and unnecessarily confrontational approach manufacture 
longstanding vacancies. It is as if the President and his most partisan 
supporters want to create a crisis.
  Over the last weeks, we have heard some extremists call for mass 
impeachments of judges, court-stripping, and punishing judges by 
reducing court budgets. Now we are seeing an effort at religious 
McCarthyism by which Republican partisans inject religion into these 
matters. Rather than promote crisis and confrontation, I urge the 
President to disavow the divisive campaign and, instead, do what most 
others have and work with us to identify outstanding consensus 
nominees. It ill serves the country, the courts and, most importantly, 
the American people for this administration and the Senate Republican 
leadership to continue down the road to conflict.
  The Seabright nomination shows how unnecessary that conflict really 
is. Let us join together to debate and confirm consensus nominees to 
these important lifetime posts on the Federal judiciary.
  It is the Federal judiciary that is called upon to rein in the 
political branches when their actions contravene the constitutional 
limits on governmental authority and restrict individual rights. It is 
the Federal judiciary that has stood up to the overreaching of this 
administration in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
  It is more and more the Federal judiciary that is being called upon 
to protect Americans' rights and liberties, our environment and to 
uphold the rule of law as the political branches under the control of 
one party have overreached. Federal judges should protect the rights of 
all Americans, not be selected to advance a partisan or personal 
agenda. Once the judiciary is filled with partisans beholden to the 
administration and willing to reinterpret the Constitution in line with 
the administration's demands, who will be left to protect American 
values and the rights of the American people?
  The Constitution establishes the Senate as a check and a balance on 
the choices of a powerful President who might seek to make the Federal 
judiciary an extension of his administration or a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of his political party. Today, Republicans are threatening 
to take away one of the few remaining checks on the power of the 
Executive branch by their use of what has become knows as the nuclear 
option. This assault on our tradition of checks and balances and on the 
protection of minority rights in the Senate and in our democracy should 
be abandoned. Eliminating the filibuster by the nuclear option would 
destroy the Constitution's design of the Senate as an effective check 
on the Executive. The elimination of the filibuster would reduce any 
incentive for a President to consult with home State Senators or seek 
the advice of the Senate on lifetime appointments to the Federal 
judiciary. It is a leap not only toward one-party rule but to an 
unchecked executive.
  Rather than blowing up the Senate, let us honor the constitutional 
design of our system of checks and balances and work together to fill 
judicial vacancies with consensus nominees. The nuclear option is 
unnecessary. What is needed is a return to consultation and for the 
White House to recognize and respect the role of the Senate 
appointments process.
  The American people have begun to see this threatened partisan power 
grab for what it is and to realize that the threat and the potential 
harm are aimed at our democracy, at an independent and strong federal 
judiciary and, ultimately, at their rights and freedoms.
  Mr. President, I commend the two Senators from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye and 
Mr. Akaka, for their support and their work with the White House in 
getting this nominee to the floor. I commend the White House for 
working with them.
  This nominee was confirmed unanimously in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, Republicans and Democrats joined alike. I urge on our side 
of the aisle that all Senators vote for him.
  I have been advised by the distinguished members of the Republican 
side of the aisle that they are willing to yield back their time. So I 
ask that all time on either side on this nominee be yielded back so we 
can go to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of J. Michael Seabright, of Hawaii, to be United States District Judge 
for the District of Hawaii?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and 
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 111 Ex.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint

[[Page S4380]]


     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Baucus
     Biden
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President shall 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________