[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 80 (Thursday, June 16, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6726-S6727]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF THOMAS GRIFFITH

  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in

[[Page S6727]]

the Record my statement on the nomination of Thomas Griffith.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Nomination of Thomas Griffith

       Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the 
     nomination of Thomas Griffith to the U.S. Court of Appeals 
     for the District of Columbia. I intend to vote for Mr. 
     Griffith's nomination today. When the Judiciary Committee 
     reported Mr. Griffith's nomination to the floor on April 14, 
     I opposed his nomination because of my concern over the nexus 
     between his public views on title IX and his views on stare 
     decisis. More specifically, I expressed concern that Mr. 
     Griffith had not clearly indicated that he would respect 27 
     years of the accepted legal interpretation espoused by 
     successive administrations and other Federal appellate courts 
     regarding the ``substantial proportionality'' test of title 
     IX. In my view, failure to accept this consensus as 
     ``applicable precedent'' would mark a monumental, and 
     unacceptable, shift in the ability to enforce title IX.
       When I voted against Mr. Griffith in the Judiciary 
     Committee, however, I stated that I would reconsider my vote 
     on the floor if I received assurances that he would respect 
     the unanimous consensus of the Federal appellate courts and 
     prior and current administration interpretations on title IX. 
     When I was unable to reach Mr. Griffith, I had my staff 
     director speak to him to ask a series of followup questions. 
     Mr. Griffith assured my staff that he would consider the 
     consensus views of the appellate courts and administration 
     views as ``applicable precedent'' with respect to any 
     challenge to title IX he might face as a sitting judge on the 
     DC Circuit. He also reiterated the point, made in his earlier 
     written responses, that he would recuse himself in any case 
     where the DC Circuit's recusal rules required it. Mr. 
     Griffith also noted that he has five daughters who are all 
     active in sports and who had been direct beneficiaries of 
     title IX. He stated that, having seen first-hand the tangible 
     effects of increased participation for women in sports, he 
     would never do anything to curtail the continued success of 
     title IX.
       By all accounts, Mr. Griffith is an honorable man and I 
     take him at his word. It is my hope and expectation that he 
     will apply the consensus precedent on title IX matters should 
     he consider them on the bench. I am fortified in my views by 
     the strong endorsement of Mr. Griffith's nomination by three 
     individuals for whom I have great respect--Judge Abner Mikva, 
     Gregory Craig, and Lanny Breuer. I served in Congress with 
     Judge Mikva, helped shepherd his nomination to the Federal 
     bench, and worked closely with him when he was White Counsel 
     and I was chairman, then ranking member, of the Judiciary 
     Committee. I have worked with all three of these individuals, 
     and their personal assurances to me that Mr. Griffith is both 
     a man of his word and possessed of the requisite judgment and 
     temperament to sit on the Federal bench is a significant 
     factor in my decision to support his nomination. Finally, I 
     am hopeful that Mr. Griffith will also remain true to his 
     word for the sake of his five daughters who have been direct 
     beneficiaries of title IX.
       For these reasons, I have decided to support Mr. Griffith's 
     nomination on the floor.

                          ____________________