[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 34 (Thursday, March 16, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2293-S2294]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate considers two more 
lifetime appointments to U.S. courts. These confirmations will bring 
the total number of judicial appointments since January 2001 to 234, 
including the confirmations of two Supreme Court Justices and 43 
circuit court judges. Of course, 100 judges were confirmed during the 
17 months when there was a Democratic majority in the Senate. In the 
other 45 months, 134 judges have been confirmed. Ironically, under 
Democratic leadership, the Senate was almost twice as productive as 
under Republican leadership.
  It is most regrettable that this President has not fulfilled his 
promise to the American people to be a uniter. Nor has he fulfilled his 
pledge to complete his work in advance of vacancies and to make 
nominations promptly. Judicial vacancies have grown to more than 50 and 
the White House has failed to send nominees for more than half of 
those. Some of those vacancies have been sitting empty for more than a 
year. Over and over the White House has missed the deadline the 
President established for himself, and today, more than half of the 
judicial vacancies, 27, are without nominations. One-third of those 
vacancies are already more than 180 days old, and one-third of the 
judicial emergency vacancies are without nominees.
  If the White House would eliminate its partisan, political, and 
ideological litmus tests from the judicial nominations process and its 
emphasis on rewarding cronies and focus only on qualifications and 
consensus, the job of selecting nominees and our job of considering 
them for confirmation would be much easier.
  Jack Zouhary, the nominee from Ohio, has the support of his 
Republican home State Senators, and Stephen G. Larson, the nominee from 
California, has the support of his Democratic home State Senators. They 
are the kind of qualified consensus nominees who are confirmed 
relatively easily.
  Recently we have seen the President withdraw a circuit nomination 
after information became public about that nominee's rulings in a 
number of cases in which he appears to have had a conflict of interest. 
Those conflicts were pointed out not by the administration's screening 
process or by the ABA but by online journalists.
  At a minimum that case and other recent revelations reinforce a point 
about this White House's poor vetting process for important 
nominations. A number of nominations by this President have had to be 
withdrawn. Among the more well known are Bernard Kerik to head Homeland 
Security, Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and Claude Allen to be a 
Fourth Circuit judge. It was, as I recall, reporting in a national 
magazine that doomed the Kerik nomination. It was opposition within the 
President's own party that doomed the Miers nomination. Democratic 
Senators resisted the nomination of Allen, a Virginian, because the 
President was seeking to appoint someone from another State to a 
Maryland seat on the Fourth Circuit. When we are considering lifetime 
appointments of judicial officers who are entrusted with protecting the 
rights of Americans, it is important to be thorough. Unfortunately, all 
too often this White House seems more interested in rewarding cronies.
  The Senate now considers two more lifetime appointments to U.S. 
courts. These confirmations will bring the total number of judicial 
appointments, since January 2001, to 234, including the confirmations 
of two Supreme Court Justices and 43 circuit court judges. Of course, 
100 judges were confirmed during the 17 months when there was a 
Democratic majority in the Senate. In the other 45 months, 134 judges 
have been confirmed. Ironically, under Democratic leadership, the 
Senate was almost twice as productive as under Republican leadership.
  It is most regrettable that this President has not fulfilled his 
promise to the American people to be a uniter. Nor has he fulfilled his 
pledge to complete his work in advance of vacancies and to make 
nominations promptly. Judicial vacancies have grown to more than 50 and 
the White House has failed to send nominees for more than half of 
those. Some of those vacancies have been sitting empty for more than a 
year. Over and over the White House has missed the deadline the 
President established for himself, and today, more than half of the 
judicial vacancies, 27, are without nominations. One-third of those 
vacancies are already more than 180 days old and one-third of the 
judicial emergency vacancies are without nominees.
  If the White House would eliminate its partisan political and 
ideological litmus tests from the judicial nominations process and its 
emphasis on rewarding cronies and focus only on qualifications and 
consensus, the job of selecting nominees and our job of considering 
them for confirmation would be much easier.
  Jack Zouhary, the nominee from Ohio, has the support of his 
Republican home-State Senators and Stephen G. Larson, the nominee from 
California, has the support of his Democratic home-State Senators. They 
are the kind of qualified consensus nominees who are confirmed 
relatively easily.
  Recently we have seen the President withdraw a circuit nomination 
after information became public about that nominee's rulings in a 
number of cases in which he appears to have had a conflict of interest. 
Those conflicts were pointed out not by the administration's screening 
process or by the ABA, but by online journalists.
  At a minimum that case and other recent revelations reinforce a point 
about this White House's poor vetting process for important 
nominations. A number of nominations by this President have had to be 
withdrawn. Among the more well known are Bernard Kerik to head Homeland 
Security, Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and Claude Allen to be a 
Fourth Circuit judge. It was, as I recall, reporting in a national 
magazine that doomed the Kerik nomination. It was opposition within the 
President's own party that doomed the Miers nomination. Democratic 
Senators resisted the nomination of Allen, a Virginian, because the 
President was seeking to appoint someone from another State to a 
Maryland seat on the Fourth Circuit. When we are considering lifetime 
appointments of judicial officers who are entrusted with protecting the 
rights of Americans, it is important to be thorough. Unfortunately, all 
too often this White House seems more interested in rewarding cronies.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of 
the nomination of Judge Jack Zouhary, whom the President has nominated 
to be United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of 
Ohio. Judge Zouhary currently is serving on the Lucas County Common 
Pleas Court. His service there has been outstanding and is an excellent 
indication of the type of judge he will be on the Federal bench.

[[Page S2294]]

  I'd like to share with my Senate colleagues just a few of the 
numerous admirable qualities that make Judge Zouhary such an 
outstanding nominee. Both as a professional and as a person, he is 
exactly the sort of individual we want to be serving on the Federal 
bench.
  Judge Zouhary grew up in Toledo. He is a first-generation American, 
whose parents immigrated from Lebanon to the United States and 
instilled in their son a respect for the values of education, religion, 
and community service. After graduating as the valedictorian of his 
high school, he attended Dartmouth College, where he received his 
undergraduate degree before returning to his hometown to earn his law 
degree from the University of Toledo College of Law. Judge Zouhary then 
embarked on what would become a long and accomplished legal career--a 
career with 30 years of legal experience that has given him the 
background and understanding of our legal system to successfully take 
on the role of a Federal judge.
  He began his legal career with the law firm of Robison, Curphey & 
O'Connell, where he worked as an associate and then as a partner. 
During his 23 years there, he had a varied practice, representing 
individuals and businesses on a range of legal issues, with an emphasis 
on civil trial practice and corporate matters. In 2000, Judge Zouhary 
became the Senior Vice President and General Counsel for S.E. Johnson 
Companies, Inc., a large highway contractor and asphalt producer.
  In 2004, Judge Zouhary accepted a position as ``Of Counsel'' with the 
law firm of Fuller & Henry. He remained with Fuller & Henry until 2005, 
when Ohio Governor Bob Taft appointed him to the Lucas County Common 
Pleas Court. In Ohio, the Common Pleas Court is the highest state trial 
bench and hears all major civil and criminal cases.
  During his time as an attorney in private practice, Judge Zouhary 
distinguished himself as an excellent litigator and was honored by 
being selected as a member of the prestigious American College of Trial 
Lawyers. Membership in the American College of Trial Lawyers is by 
invitation only and is limited to the best of the trial bar.
  Judge Zouhary has long been committed to the ideals of civility and 
professionalism in the legal field. Friends and colleagues often 
describe him as ``a gentleman.'' I agree with that assessment. He is 
well regarded for his honesty, his integrity, and his intelligence, and 
those who have known and worked with him through the years speak warmly 
of his even-temper and cordial demeanor.
  Not surprisingly, given his interest in preserving a less combative 
approach to the law, Judge Zouhary frequently has presented lectures 
focusing on legal ethics and civility in the practice of law for 
Continuing Legal Education Seminars. His commitment to serving the 
community as a professional also is exemplified by his membership in 
the Toledo Rotary Club, as well as his participation in a broad array 
of other charitable activities, ranging from pro bono work for a local 
church to service at a community soup kitchen.
  Although he has been a Common Pleas judge for only a relatively short 
time, Judge Zouhary already has distinguished himself on the bench. He 
has worked diligently to clear a very large backlog of cases from his 
crowded docket and has made a good deal of headway in that effort. Most 
important, attorneys who have appeared before him--criminal and civil, 
prosecution and defense--speak in glowing terms of his talent, 
fairness, and excellent judicial temperament.
  With Judge Zouhary's impressive record as a legal professional and 
community leader, it should come as no surprise that the American Bar 
Association was unanimous in giving him its highest rating of ``well-
qualified.'' Judge Zouhary is in every way an outstanding nominee, who 
will serve the people of Ohio and of this country well.
  I strongly support the nomination of Judge Jack Zouhary as a Federal 
District Court Judge for the Northern District of Ohio.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays be vitiated on the nomination of Judge Stephen Larson so that it 
can be done by voice vote. I see the distinguished leaders on the 
Senate floor. I don't think there is any objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. That is my St. Patrick's Day gift to the body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Jack Zouhary, of Ohio, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern 
District of Ohio? The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma, (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Mississippi, (Mr. 
Cochran), the Senator from Nevada, (Mr. Ensign), and the Senator from 
Oklahoma, (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Ex.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     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--4

     Coburn
     Cochran
     Ensign
     Inhofe
  The nomination was confirmed.