[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 108 (Monday, July 9, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8776-S8781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Executive Privilege
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a very serious matter that I will
discuss at this time in my capacity as chairman of the Judiciary
Committee. The Presiding Officer is one of the most distinguished
members of the Judiciary Committee.
Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers and I received
another letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding responding to
duly authorized subpoenas with a blanket assertion of executive
privilege.
I had hoped that the Judiciary Committee subpoenas would be met with
compliance, not with confrontation. But instead they have been met, yet
again, with Nixonian stonewalling that shows this White House's disdain
for
[[Page S8778]]
our system of checks and balances. This is more stonewalling for a
White House that believes it can unilaterally control the other coequal
branches of Government. It raises this question: What is the White
House trying to hide by refusing to turn over this evidence?
From the outset of this scandal, the President spoke about the firing
of U.S. attorneys as if it were a matter handled and decided by the
Attorney General, and something Mr. Gonzales would have to explain to
Congress and the American people. The President was hands off and arms'
length. He had to ask others whether anything was improperly done and
relied on a review by White House lawyers for his assertion that
nothing improper was done.
This President and the Attorney General have both from time to time
expressed confidence that the Congress would get to the bottom of this
as if they themselves had no idea what had transpired.
Are we now to understand from the White House claims of executive
privilege that, contrary to what the President said, these were
decisions made by the President? Is he taking responsibility for this
scandal, for the firing of such well-regarded and well-performing U.S.
attorneys?
When we had the Attorney General testify under oath, he didn't know
who added U.S. attorneys to the list of those to be fired, or the
reasons they were added. Somehow they mysteriously arrived on the
Attorney General's list. You know, it occurred to me when I flew down
from Vermont today and I was looking in the paper, the latest Harry
Potter movie is coming out. These mysterious lists sound like something
would you see in that movie, not in the White House or the Attorney
General's Office.
Indeed, the bottom line of the sworn testimony from the Attorney
General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Attorney General's former
Chief of Staff, the White House liaison, and other senior Justice
Department officials was that while the President was not involved in
the decisionmaking that led to the unprecedented firings of several
well-performing prosecutors, these people were not responsible either.
So I ask, who made these decisions? Was it the political operatives at
the White House who set out to severely damage the careers of well-
performing U.S. attorneys?
Even this White House cannot dispute the evidence we have gathered to
date showing that White House officials were heavily involved in these
firings--not only heavily involved in these firings and in the Justice
Department's responses to inquiries that I made, the distinguished
Presiding Officer made, and others, Republicans and Democrats alike
made, about them.
The White House continues to try to have it both ways, but at the end
of the day it cannot. The White House cannot block Congress from
obtaining the relevant evidence and credibly assert that nothing
improper occurred. They are just saying: Trust us, we did nothing
wrong.
Trust us? With the revelations that come out almost every single day
of things that tell the American people they should not trust them.
What is the White House hiding? Was the President involved, were his
earlier statements to the American people therefore misleading and
inaccurate? Is this an effort by the White House legal team to protect
the White House political operatives whose partisan machinations have
been discovered in a new set of White House horrors?
Several weeks ago, after Mr. Fielding first conveyed the President's
blank executive claim--and I have yet to hear directly from the
President--Chairman Conyers and I sent a letter to the White House
asking for a specific factual basis regarding each document withheld
and the normal privilege log that would be shown at the time. I asked
the White House to provide this information so that it could
substantiate its claim.
For months--and I have not done so precipitously but carefully--I
have been giving the White House every opportunity to provide
voluntarily the information we have sought. For months the only answer
we have received is the same unacceptable ``take it or leave it''
offer. I have tried to give the White House every opportunity to
explain its claims. A serious assertion of privilege--one they honestly
believed in--would include an effort to demonstrate to the committee
which documents and which parts of those documents are covered by any
privilege that is asserted and why. But it is apparent this White House
is contemptuous of the Congress and believes it doesn't have to explain
itself to anyone--not to the people's Representatives in Congress, but
worse yet not to the American people.
The White House's refusal to provide a listing of those documents on
which it asserts privilege, and a specific factual and legal basis for
the assertion of executive privilege claims, raises even more
questions. What is the White House so intent on hiding? What is it they
are so afraid of becoming public that they cannot even identify the
documents or the dates, authors, and recipients? Would we see the early
and consistent involvement of the White House political operatives in
what should be independent and neutral law enforcement decisions? Would
we see early and consistent involvement of White House political
operatives who are trying to manipulate law enforcement?
Nor is the White House content with blanket assertions of privilege
regarding matters in its control. It has now reached outside the White
House to direct the Republican National Committee not to provide
information it has to Congress and has today instructed a former White
House official, Sara Taylor, not to cooperate with the investigation by
testifying to the best of her knowledge.
Mr. President, let me explain our attempts to procure the e-mails
that White House officials sent using Republican National Committee
accounts. At first, they gave the impression that we would be happy to
give you those 60,000 of her e-mails, or 130,000 of Karl Rove's but, of
course, they were all erased, so we cannot give them to you. When I and
others suggested that you cannot erase e-mails like that and that they
are in a backup system somewhere else, they sent somebody who works in
the White House Press Secretary's Office out to tell the American
people that this is a ridiculous claim and that we now have Senators
pretending to be computer experts. Actually, no, that is an answer any
12-year-old could have given. What happened? Suddenly, they found, yes,
they do have the e-mails. And as we had said, and as any 12-year-old
would have said, they weren't erased.
Ms. Taylor is scheduled to testify on Wednesday to comply with a
subpoena authorized by the committee. It is unfortunate that the White
House is trying to interfere with Ms. Taylor's testimony before the
Senate, and they are trying to interfere with Congress's responsibility
to get to the truth behind the unprecedented firings of several U.S.
attorneys.
Let's review the facts. Sometimes it is good to get outside the
hyperbole of politics and just talk about the facts. There is clear
evidence that Sara Taylor is one of several White House officials who
played a key role in these firings and the administration's response to
cover up the reasons behind them when questions first arose. The
question I have is this: Why were they so eager to cover up what they
did?
There is also clear evidence that Ms. Taylor was part of 66,000 RNC
e-mails being kept from the public as part of a White House effort to
avoid oversight by ignoring the laws meant to ensure a public record of
official Government business. Basically, they are saying the law
applies to everybody else, but they are above the law.
I am willing to discuss the matter in good faith with the White
House. I have been trying to engage the White House for months in
discussions to come to some sort of accommodation. I hope we can do
that. I am reluctant to agree to anything, though, that prevents
Congress from doing our oversight job effectively. I have been here
with six administrations, with Republicans and Democrats alike, and we
found ways to work with Congress. Ultimately, even the Nixon
administration--the administration that was here before I arrived--
found ways.
This administration, unlike all those others, wants to obstruct and
obfuscate. We should not lose sight of the fact that this is a serious
matter. This is about improper political influence on our justice
system. It is about the White House manipulating the Justice
[[Page S8779]]
Department into its own political arm. It is about manipulating our
justice system to pursue a partisan political agenda. It is about
pressuring prosecutors to bring cases of voter fraud to try to
influence elections--of sending a partisan operative like Bradley
Schlozman to Missouri to file charges on the eve of an election, in
direct violation of their own Justice Department guidelines.
It is about high-ranking officials misleading Congress and misleading
the American people about their political manipulation of justice. It
is about the unprecedented and improper reach of politics into the
Department's professional ranks, such as the admission by the
Department's White House Liaison, Monica Goodling, that she improperly
screened career employees for political loyalty and wielded undue
political influence over key law enforcement decisions and policies.
It is about political operatives pressuring prosecutors to bring
partisan cases and seeking retribution against those who refused to
bend to their political will, such as the example of New Mexico's U.S.
attorney, David Iglesias, who was fired a few weeks after Karl Rove
complained to the Attorney General about the lack of purported ``voter
fraud'' enforcement cases in Mr. Iglesias's jurisdiction.
Along the way, this subversion of the justice system has included
lying, misleading, stonewalling, and ignoring the Congress in our
attempts to find out what happened. We know White House officials are
involved, but it is difficult to get the facts when the White House,
even as of today, refuses to provide even a single witness or a single
document.
This administration has instituted an abusive policy of secrecy aimed
at protecting themselves from embarrassment and accountability.
Apparently, the President and Vice President think they are above the
law. In America, nobody is above the law, not even George Bush or Dick
Cheney.
The President has sought to make the Vice President's former Chief of
Staff above the law when he granted him a form of amnesty last week.
The President chose to override a prosecution, jury trial, conviction,
and prison sentence and to excuse his lying to Federal investigators
and a grand jury and his perjury, and to reward his silence by giving
Mr. Libby what commentators have called a ``get out of jail free''
card.
The lack of accountability for anyone in the Bush administration has
reached new heights--or lows. It is not often that the New York Times
and the Washington Times editorial boards agree, but they did about
this President's abrupt commutation of Mr. Libby's 30-month prison term
for perjury and obstruction of justice. The Washington Times opined
that President Bush's action is ``neither wise nor just,'' and it
continued in its Independence Day editorial by saying:
Perjury is a serious crime. . . . The integrity of the
judicial process depends on fact-finding and truth-telling. A
jury found Libby guilty of not only perjury but also
obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury.
I would add that the widely respected trial judge, who was nominated
by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate at the time I chaired the
committee in 2001, imposed a reasonable sentence which was actually at
the lower end of what the prosecutor recommended, and the DC Circuit
refused to stay the sentence pending appeal in accordance with the law.
The New York Times in a July 3 editorial entitled ``Soft on Crime''
called the President's action a ``baldly political act,'' noting that
``[a]s president, he has repeatedly put himself and those on his team,
especially Mr. Cheney, above the law.'' They noted that the President
``sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say
when actually staring into a prison cell.''
That Presidential act sent the message that silence, bad memory, and
abject loyalty would be rewarded, just as the mass firings of U.S.
attorneys sent the message that all remaining Federal prosecutors and
law enforcement had better knuckle under to the political agenda of the
administration.
Untoward White House interference with Federal law enforcement is a
serious matter. It corrupts Federal law enforcement, threatens our
elections, and has seriously undercut the American people's confidence
in the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement.
Despite the attitude of the current administration, our Constitution
does not include the phrase ``executive privilege'' or ``unitary
executive.'' What the U.S. Constitution does provide in the oath of
office is that the President has to swear to ``faithfully execute the
Office of President of the United States'' and ``preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States.'' His essential duties
require him to ``take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' I
have grave concern with regard to how this administration is fulfilling
these sworn and essential duties. The political intrusion into the law
enforcement functions of the Government through the scheme to fire and
replace our U.S. attorneys is a key part of that concern.
Congress will continue to pursue the truth behind this matter not
only because it is our constitutional responsibility but because it is
the right thing to do.
I hope the White House stops the stonewalling. I hope they accept my
offer to negotiate a workable solution to the committee's oversight
needs so we can effectively get to the bottom of what was done wrong
and what has gone wrong.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the existing order is to have
consideration of four nominees for the U.S. district court. I urge my
colleagues to confirm all of them.
The first is Liam O'Grady for the Eastern District of Virginia. I am
pleased to see that there are substantial Pennsylvania connections with
these nominees. Liam O'Grady received a bachelor's degree from Franklin
& Marshall College in Lancaster. I am interested to see his
diversification of employment. He was a pension examiner for the United
Mine Workers of America, Welfare and Retirement Fund, as well as other
outstanding credentials, and was rated unanimously ``well qualified''
by the American Bar Association.
I ask unanimous consent to have the full records of these nominees
printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I think it is unnecessary to speak at
length about any of these nominees because they all passed unanimously
from the Judiciary Committee, and it would be my expectation, based on
prior practices, that they would all be confirmed. I would be surprised
if there were any negative votes at all. It may be even possible to
abbreviate the proceedings today with some voice votes. That is the
decision for the distinguished chairman. We will come to that later.
Mr. LEAHY. I am sorry, what was the question?
Mr. SPECTER. I was commenting that all were passed out unanimously by
the Judiciary Committee. I said it was my expectation from prior
practice that they would probably be confirmed unanimously. I would be
surprised if we have a dissenting vote among the four. And I said I am
not going to speak long. I am putting their records into the Record. I
said it might even be possible to abbreviate the rollcalls. That is the
chairman's call.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will be very happy to do that. I think
there are a lot of people who have stacks of paper since we have been
gone who would probably be happy to have one or two rollcalls.
Mr. SPECTER. I am sorry, I didn't understand.
Mr. LEAHY. Some may be happy to have one or two rollcall votes and
get out of here.
Mr. SPECTER. In accordance with the practice Chairman Leahy and I
adopted in the good old days.
The second nominee, Janet Neff, in the court of the Western District
of
[[Page S8780]]
Michigan, was born in Wilkinsburg, PA, is a University of Pittsburgh
graduate, and is rated ``majority qualified'' and others rated ``well
qualified.'' She has an outstanding academic and professional record.
The third nominee is Paul Lewis Maloney, again for the Western
District of Michigan, again a Pennsylvania connection. He received a
bachelor's degree from Lehigh University. His ABA rating was
unanimously ``well qualified.''
The fourth nominee is Robert James Jonker, again from the Western
District of Michigan. I am not distressed, but I note no Pennsylvania
connection here. But I know the distinguished presiding Senator from
Michigan will be relieved to have these three nominees confirmed
because there has been a judicial emergency, and on occasion the
Congressman from the area has been on the Senate floor urging us to
confirm these nominees. I think we will get there today.
Exhibit 1
Liam O'Grady
United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia
Birth
September 24, 1950; Newark, New Jersey.
Legal Residence
Virginia.
Education
B.A., Franklin & Marshall College, 1973.
J.D., George Mason University School of Law, 1977.
Employment
Pension Examiner, United Mine Workers of America, Welfare &
Retirement Fund, 1973-1975.
Attorney Advisor and Law Clerk, Administrative Law Judge
George Koutras, Departments of Interior and Labor, 1976-1979.
Sole Practitioner, Private Practice, 1979-1982.
Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, Office of the Virginia
Commonwealth's Attorney, 1982-1986.
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Department of Justice, 1986-1992--
Chief of the Narcotics Section (four years); Acting Chief of
the Criminal Division (one year).
Adjunct Professor, George Washington University, Columbia
Graduate School for Forensic Sciences, 1986-1994.
Partner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett, & Dunner,
LLP, 1992-2003.
U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia, 2003-Present.
Selected Activities
Member, Virginia State Bar.
Member, American Bar Association.
Member, George Mason Inns of Court.
Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association.
Member, Arlington County Bar Association.
Coach, McLean Youth Soccer.
ABA Rating
Unanimous ``well qualified.''
Liam O'Grady--U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia
Magistrate Judge Liam O'Grady was initially nominated to be
a U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia on
August 2, 2006. No further action was taken on his nomination
in the 109th Congress. Judge O'Grady was re-nominated on
January 9, 2007. He received a committee hearing on May 10,
2007, and was favorably reported on May 24, 2007.
He comes before the committee with an impressive resume.
He received a B.A. from Franklin & Marshall College in 1973
and a J.D. from George Mason University School of Law in
1977.
After graduating from law school, Judge O'Grady briefly
worked as an attorney advisor to Administrative Law Judge
George Koutras in the Departments of Interior and Labor.
In 1979, Judge O'Grady entered private practice as a sole
practitioner. His focus was on domestic relations cases, real
estate closings, bankruptcy proceedings, criminal cases, and
general civil disputes.
After three years of private practice, Judge O'Grady became
an Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney for the Commonwealth of
Virginia. He was the liaison to robbery homicide squad at the
police department, and handled many of the homicide cases.
From 1986 to 1992, Judge O'Grady served as an Assistant
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
In that capacity, he focused on drug conspiracies, drug
related homicides, and organized crime. For a one-year stint,
as Acting Chief of the Criminal Division, he supervised the
criminal cases for the whole district.
Meanwhile, from 1986 to 1994, Judge O'Grady was an adjunct
professor at George Washington University's forensic sciences
graduate school, teaching courses in criminal law, evidence,
and trial advocacy.
In 1992, Judge O'Grady returned to private practice as a
partner for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner
LLP. As chief litigator, he handled patent, trademark,
copyright, and trade secret cases for Fortune 500 clients in
courts around the country and the world.
In 2003, Judge O'Grady became a Magistrate Judge for the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.
The ABA has unanimously rated Judge O'Grady ``well
qualified.''
____
Janet T. Neff
United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan
Birth
April 8, 1945, Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania.
Legal residence
Michigan.
Education
B.A., cum laude, University of Pittsburgh, 1967.
Omicron Delta Epsilon, National Economics Honor Society.
J.D., Wayne State University Law School, 1970.
Employment
Tax Examiner, Internal Revenue Service, 1970.
Research Attorney, Michigan Court of Appeals, 1970-1971.
Assistant City Attorney, City of Grand Rapids, 1971-1973.
Associate/Partner, VanderVeen, Freihofer & Cook, 1973-1978.
Commissioner, Michigan Supreme Court, 1978-1980.
Assistant United States Attorney, Western District of
Michigan, 1980.
Associate, William G. Reamon, P.C., 1980-1988.
Judge, Michigan Court of Appeals, 1989-Present.
Selected Activities
Member, U.S. District Court Professional Review Committee.
Member, Michigan Bar Association.
Member, Grand Rapids Bar Association.
Member, Michigan Trial Lawyers Association.
Member, Women Lawyers Association of Michigan.
Member, Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
Member, American Bar Association.
ABA Rating
Majority ``qualified''/minority ``well qualified.''
Janet T. Neff--U.S District Judge for the Western District of Michigan
Janet T. Neff was nominated to be a U.S. District Judge for
the Western District of Michigan on June 28, 2006. A hearing
was held on her nomination on September 19, 2006, and it was
reported out of Committee on September 29 by voice vote. The
Senate was unable to act on her nomination before the end of
the 109th Congress.
President Bush re-nominated Judge Neff on March 19, 2007. A
second hearing was held on her nomination on May 10, 2007,
and she was favorably reported on May 24, 2007.
She comes before this Committee with a distinguished record
of public service.
Judge Neff received a B.A., cum laude, from the University
of Pittsburgh in 1967 and a J.D. from Wayne State University
Law School in 1970.
Following law school, Judge Neff worked briefly as an
estate and gift tax examiner for the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS). This position involved review and audit of Federal
estate and gift tax returns.
In 1970, Judge Neff accepted a position as a research
attorney for the Michigan Court of Appeals, where she
reviewed briefs and lower court records.
Beginning in 1971, Judge Neff served as an Assistant City
Attorney for the City of Grand Rapids. As Assistant City
Attorney, she prosecuted offenses ranging from drunk driving
to assaults.
Judge Neff entered private practice in 1973, when she
worked as an associate and then a partner at Vander Veen,
Freifoher & Cook. She had a broad and varied practice that
included insurance, products liability, criminal defense,
domestic relations, commercial litigation, bankruptcies, and
the representation of numerous municipal governments.
In 1978, Judge Neff became a Commissioner of the Michigan
Supreme Court. In that capacity she worked as a staff
attorney to the court, conducting research and reviewing
applications for leave to appeal, motions, and other matters.
She served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Michigan in 1980.
From 1980 until 1988, Judge Neff was as an associate with
William G. Reamon, P.C., where she handled personal injury
cases.
In 1988, Judge Neff was elected as a Judge of the Michigan
Court of Appeals where she continues to serve today.
A substantial majority of the American Bar Association
Standing Committee rated Judge Neff ``qualified,'' and a
minority rated her ``well qualified'' for service on the
Federal bench.
The seat to which Judge Neff is nominated has been
designated a ``judicial emergency'' by the nonpartisan
Administrative Office of the Courts.
The Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan, Judge Robert Bell, has written the
Committee to impress upon us the need to provide his court
with another judge. According to the Chief Judge, ``with the
present three vacancies [he] is the sole active judge.'' The
Western District of Michigan has the weightiest docket per
authorized judgeship in the Sixth Circuit.
[[Page S8781]]
____
Paul Lewis Maloney
United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan
Birth
December 15, 1949; Cleveland, Ohio.
Legal Residence
Michigan.
Education
B.A., Lehigh University, 1972.
J.D., University of Detroit School of Law, 1975.
Employment
Assistant Prosecutor, Berrien County Prosecutor's Office,
1975-1981; Prosecuting Attorney, 1981-1989.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
United States Department of Justice, 1989-1993.
Special Assistant to the Director, State of Michigan,
Department of Corrections, 1993-1995.
District Judge, Berrien County, Michigan, 1995-1996.
Circuit Judge, Berrien County, Michigan, 1996-Present.
Selected Activities
Member, Michigan Prosecuting Attorneys Association.
Member, Michigan District Judges Association.
Member, Michigan Judges Association (Board of Directors
Member for one year).
Member, Michigan Bar Association.
Member, American Bar Association.
Member, Berrien County Bar Association.
Member, Knights of Columbus.
President, Catholic Community Education Commission.
ABA Rating
Unanimous ``well qualified''.
____
Paul Lewis Maloney--U.S. District Judge for the Western District of
Michigan
Paul Lewis Maloney was initially nominated to be a U.S.
District Court Judge for the Western District of Michigan on
June 28, 2006. A hearing was held on his nomination on
September 19, 2006, and he was reported out favorably on
September 29, 2006, by a voice vote. No further action was
taken on the nomination before the 109th Congress adjourned.
Judge Maloney was re-nominated by the President on March
19, 2007, and reported favorably by the Committee on May 24,
2007.
Judge Maloney has an impressive resume reflecting a
devotion to public service.
He received a B.A. from Lehigh University in 1972 and a
J.D. from the University of Detroit School of Law in 1975.
Following law school, Judge Maloney began working as an
assistant prosecutor for the Berrien County Prosecutor's
Office. In 1981, he was appointed the county's Prosecuting
Attorney and was re-elected in 1982, 1984, and 1988.
In 1989, Judge Maloney left the Berrien County Prosecutor's
Office to serve as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for
the Criminal Division of the United States Department of
Justice.
Following his work at the Department of Justice, Judge
Maloney returned to Michigan to serve as Special Assistant to
the Director of Michigan's Department of Corrections.
In 1995, Judge Maloney was appointed District Judge for
Berrien County. He held this position for a year, before he
was appointed to be Circuit Judge of Berrien County, where he
continues to serve.
The American Bar Association rated Judge Maloney
unanimously well-qualified, its highest rating.
This vacancy has been designated a ``judicial emergency,''
and, indeed, the Western District of Michigan is in dire need
of judges. Currently, there is only one active judge--Chief
Judge Bell--out of the four judgeships authorized for the
district. Chief Judge Bell wrote letters on December 28,
2006, and April 18, 2007, explaining that he and the senior
judges are ``exhausted.''
____
Robert James Jonker
united states district court for the western district of michigan
Birth
March 9, 1960, Holland, Michigan.
Legal Residence
Michigan.
Education
B.A., with honors, Calvin College, 1982.
J.D., summa cum laude, University of Michigan Law School,
1985; Order of the Coif; Robert S. Feldman Labor Law Award.
Employment
Law Clerk, Honorable John F. Feikens, U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, 1985-1987.
Associate, Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, 1987-1993; Partner,
1994-Present.
Selected Activities
Fellow, Michigan State Bar Foundation.
Member, Federal Bar Association, Western District Chapter;
President-Elect, October 2006; Vice President--Operations, 2
years; Treasurer, 2 years; Executive Board Member, 1999-2006.
Chairperson, Judicial Code Committee of the Christian
Reformed Church.
Listed in Best Lawyers in America for Business Litigation.
Member, Grand Rapids Bar Association.
Member, Michigan Bar Association.
Member, American Bar Association.
ABA Rating
Unanimous ``well qualified''.
Robert James Jonker--U.S. District Judge for the Western District of
Michigan
Robert James Jonker was nominated to be a United States
District Judge on June 29, 2006. A hearing was held on his
nomination on September 19, 2006. His nomination was
favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee on
September 29, 2006; however, the Senate failed to act on his
nomination prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress.
President Bush renominated Mr. Jonker on March 19, 2007, and
the committee favorably reported him on June 7, 2007.
Mr. Jonker received his B.A., with honors, from Calvin
College in 1982 and his J.D., summa cum laude, from the
University of Michigan Law School in 1985, where he was
elected Order of the Coif.
Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Jonker served as a law
clerk to the Honorable John F. Feikens of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. His clerkship
lasted from 1985 to 1987.
Following his clerkship, Mr. Jonker accepted an associate
position with the Michigan law firm, Warner Norcross & Judd,
where he focuses on complex business and environmental
litigation.
In 1994, Warner Norcross made him a partner, a position he
holds today.
For 6 years, Mr. Jonker has served as chair of the
professional staff committee of Warner Norcross, which is
responsible for the recruitment, development, retention and
review of associate attorneys.
Mr. Jonker was recognized in the Best Lawyers in America
for his business litigation expertise.
The American Bar Association has unanimously rated Mr.
Jonker ``Well Qualified'' to serve as a Federal district
court judge.
This vacancy has been designated a ``judicial emergency.''
In fact, the Western District of Michigan has the highest
weighted case filings in the Sixth Circuit. Currently, there
is only one active judge--Chief Judge Bell--out of the four
judgeships authorized for the district. Chief Judge Bell
wrote letters on December 28, 2006, and again on April 18,
2007, explaining the dire need for judges in the Western
District and that he and the senior judges are ``exhausted.''