[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 120 (Tuesday, August 2, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5285-S5288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations:
Calendar Nos. 95, 230, 232, 254, 255, 256, 257, 265, 266, 267, 268,
269, 275, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 288, and
Calendar Nos. 291 through 323, and nominations placed on the
Secretary's Desk in the Air Force, Army, Foreign Service, Marine Corps,
and Navy; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to
any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the
Record; and that President Obama be immediately notified of the
Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the second year in a row, the Senate
has failed to take significant steps before the August recess to
address the serious crisis of judicial vacancies on courts around the
country. Last August, Senate Republicans left 17 judicial nominations
pending and consented to confirm only four Federal circuit and district
court nominations before the recess. I noted at that time what a
serious blow that was to our ability to make progress addressing the
judicial vacancies crisis that had already persisted for well over a
year. Today, as the Senate recesses with judicial vacancies still near
90 as they were a year ago, the Senate is doing even worse, confirming
only 4 judicial nominations of the 24 nominees already considered by
the Judiciary Committee and awaiting a Senate vote.
Last week, I urged the Senate to confirm the two dozen judicial
nominations already fully considered by the Judiciary Committee and
ready for final action by the Senate. Of them, 20 were unanimously
reported, without a single negative vote. Many have been pending
without final action for months. I am, again, disappointed as Senate
Republicans continue to delay these much needed and long awaited
confirmations.
Even though Federal judicial vacancies have remained near or above 90
for more than 2 years, the Senate's Republican leadership has refused
to consent to vote on these qualified, consensus nominations, leaving
16 of the 20 unanimously reported nominees in limbo. This is not the
way to make real progress. The American people should not have to wait
more weeks and months for the Senate to do its constitutional duty and
ensure the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to
Americans around the country.
In the past, we were able to confirm consensus nominees more
promptly. They were not forced to languish for months. In the second
year of the Bush administration, in 2002, before the August recess the
Senate moved ahead to confirm a dozen judicial nominees. The next year,
with a Republican Senate majority, Senate Democrats consented to seven
confirmations before the August recess. With the delays that have been
backlogging confirmations for years now, we have 20 unanimously
reported judicial nominees who could all have been confirmed before
this recess. Regrettably, 16 will not go forward today because
Republicans refuse to consent.
At a time when judicial vacancies remain near 90, these needless
delays perpetuate the judicial vacancies crisis that Chief Justice
Roberts wrote of last December and that the President, the Attorney
General, bar associations, and chief judges around the country have
urged us to join together to end. The Senate can and should be doing a
better job working to ensure the ability of our Federal courts to
provide justice to Americans around the country.
Just last week, the Congressional Research Service released a report
that confirms what many of us have been saying for some time: This is
the longest sustained period of historically high vacancy rates on the
Federal judiciary in the last 35 years.
This is hardly surprising. Republican obstruction kept the total
confirmations in the first year of the President's term to the lowest
total for a first year in more than 50 years, when only 12 judicial
nominees were allowed to be considered. Republican obstruction kept the
2-year total of confirmations to the lowest total in 35 years, for the
first 2 years of a President's term, with only a total of 60 Federal
circuit and district court nominations confirmed during the course of
those entire first 2 years of the Obama administration. Accordingly,
judicial vacancies have perpetuated needlessly and caused needless
delay on consensus nominees.
We are seeing it, again, this week as we approach the August recess
in the third year of the Obama administration. In the 17 months I
chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, the
Senate confirmed 100 of his Federal circuit and district court
nominees. It looks like it will take twice as long to reach 100
confirmations of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court
nominees. President Obama has been in office for 31 months and only 95
of his Federal circuit and district court nominees have been confirmed.
There are two dozen more that are stalled, awaiting final Senate
action. By the August recess in the third year of the Bush
administration, the Senate had confirmed 143 Federal circuit and
district court judges. This year, the comparable number is only 95.
It is not accurate to pretend that real progress is being made in
these circumstances. Vacancies are being kept high, consensus nominees
are being delayed and it is the American people and the Federal courts
that are being made to suffer. This is another area in which we must
come together for the American people. There is no reason Senators
cannot join together to finally bring down the excessive number of
vacancies that have persisted on Federal courts throughout the Nation
for far too long.
I have always taken seriously the responsibility of the Senate to
make sure that the Federal judiciary has the resources it needs. Senate
Republicans had pocket-filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's
judicial nominations and refused to proceed on them while judicial
vacancies skyrocketed to more than 110. Despite that, in the 17 months
I chaired the Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first 2 years
in office, the Senate proceeded to confirm 100 of his judicial
nominees; during the next 24 months, with a Republican majority in the
Senate, confirmed 105 more, for a total of 205 confirmed judges during
President Bush's first term. We have a long way to go for the Senate to
be as productive as we were during President Bush's first term.
We were able to lower vacancies dramatically during President Bush's
years in office, cutting them in half during his first term. The Senate
has reversed course during the Obama administration, and with
Republican objections slowing the pace of confirmations, judicial
vacancies have been at crisis levels for over 2 years. Over the 8 years
of the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2009, we reduced judicial
vacancies from 110 to a low of 34. They now stand at 88 vacancies. The
vacancy rate--which we reduced from 10 percent to 6 percent by this
date in President Bush's third year, and ultimately to less than 4
percent in 2008--is back above 10 percent.
Time and time again over the last 2\1/2\ years, I have urged the
Senate to come together and work to address this crisis. At the
beginning of this year, I called for a return to regular order in the
consideration of nominations. We
[[Page S5286]]
have seen that approach work on the Judiciary Committee. I have thanked
the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, Senator Grassley, many times
for his cooperation with me to make sure that the committee continues
to make progress in the consideration of nominations. His approach has
been the right approach. Regrettably, it has not been matched on the
floor, where the refusal by Republican leadership to come to regular
time agreements to consider nominations has put our progress--our
positive action--at risk.
Republican obstruction has led to a backlog of two dozen judicial
nominations pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. More than half
of the judicial nominations on the calendar would fill judicial
emergency vacancies. Yet, due to Republican objections, we have lost
another opportunity to make progress by confirming consensus
nominations.
Before the Memorial Day recess, I urged that the Senate to take up
and vote on the many consensus judicial nominations then on the
calendar and ready for final action. But Republican Senators would not
agree to consider a single one. With nearly 20 judicial nominees
available to the Senate for final action, only 1 was considered before
the July 4 recess. In fact, the Senate has now considered only 11
nominations in the last 10 weeks and has only confirmed a total of 18
judicial nominees who had their hearings this year.
Senate Republicans have departed from the Senate's traditional
practice by refusing to confirm even unanimous, consensus nominees. I
still await an explanation from the other side of the aisle why these
nominations could not be considered and confirmed. Republican
leadership should explain to the people and Senators from Tennessee,
South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, Maine, New York,
Arkansas, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania why there continue to be
vacancies on the Federal courts in their States that could easily be
filled if the Senate would do its constitutional duty and vote on the
President's nominations. These judicial nominees have the support of
Republican home State Senators. In fact, there are multiple nominees
still pending from Louisiana and Pennsylvania. Yet those nominees still
wait for months on the Senate's calendar without explanation for the
damaging delays, leaving the people of those States to bear the brunt
of having too few judges.
All 24 of the judicial nominations on the calendar have been
favorably reported by the Judiciary after a fair but thorough process.
We review extensive background material on each nominee. All Senators
on the committee, Democratic and Republican, have the opportunity to
ask the nominees questions at a live hearing. Senators also have the
opportunity to ask questions in writing following the hearing and to
meet with the nominees. All of these nominees have a strong commitment
to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution.
They should not be delayed for weeks and months needlessly after being
so thoroughly and fairly considered by the Judiciary Committee.
Last week, the president of the American Bar Association, Stephen
Zack, wrote to the Senate leaders ``to urge [them] to redouble [their]
efforts to fill existing judicial vacancies promptly so that the
federal courts will have the judges they need to uphold the rule of law
and deliver timely justice.'' He wrote:
As lawyers who practice in federal courts across this
nation, ABA members know firsthand that long-standing
vacancies on courts with staggering caseloads impede access
to the courts and create strains that will inevitably reduce
the quality of our justice system and erode public confidence
in the ability of the courts to vindicate constitutional
rights or render fair and timely decisions.
Mr. Zack's concerns echo those of Chief Justice Roberts, the
President, the Attorney General, bar associations, and chief judges
around the country who have also urged us to join together to end the
judicial vacancies crisis. The Senate can and should be doing a better
job working to ensure the ability of our Federal courts to provide
justice to Americans around the country.
The four nominees the Senate will consider today like so many others
left on the calendar have the strong support of their home State
Senators--Republicans and Democrats--and all were reported unanimously
by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Kathleen Williams was first nominated over a year ago to fill a
judicial emergency vacancy in the Southern District of Florida. Her
nomination has the support of both of her home State Senators--Senator
Bill Nelson, a Democrat, and Senator Rubio, a Republican--and was
reported without objection by the Judiciary Committee on May 12. Ms.
Williams has been the Federal public defender for the Southern District
of Florida for 15 years, having been appointed five times by the
Eleventh Circuit, most recently earlier this year. Ms. Williams was
previously a Federal prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida,
and she also worked in private civil litigation. Her balance of
experience as a prosecutor and as a public defender providing legal
services to thousands of defendants who cannot afford their own
attorney will serve her well on the Federal bench.
Sara Darrow was nominated over 8 months ago to fill a judicial
vacancy in the Central District of Illinois. Ms. Darrow has the
bipartisan support of her home State Senators, Senator Durbin, a
Democrat, and Senator Kirk, a Republican. Ms. Darrow has been a
prosecutor for over 12 years, working as a State's Attorney for
Illinois and later as a Federal prosecutor in Illinois and Iowa. She is
currently chief of the violent crimes unit in the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Central District of Illinois. Her nomination was
reported by the Judiciary Committee without objection on May 12.
Nelva Gonzales Ramos was nominated in January of this year to fill a
judicial emergency vacancy in the Southern District of Texas. Her
nomination has the strong support of both her Republican home State
Senators, Senators Cornyn and Hutchison, and was reported by the
Judiciary Committee without objection May 12. She has served for over
12 years as a State judge in Texas, where she has presided over more
than 1,200 cases. Judge Ramos has been reelected twice by the people of
Texas to serve as a State judge. Prior to joining the bench, she also
had a successful career as a litigator in private practice.
Richard Brooke Jackson was first nominated over 10 months ago to fill
a judicial emergency vacancy in the District of Colorado. He is
currently the chief judge for the First Judicial District in Colorado,
where he has served for over 13 years, earning recognitions as the
``Best State Judge in Colorado'' in 2010. Prior to joining the bench,
Judge Jackson practiced law for 26 years in Denver, CO, where he was
made a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Judge Jackson's
nomination has the strong support of both of his home State Senators,
Senator Udall and Senator Bennet, and was reported by the Judiciary
Committee without objection on May 12.
The Senate's failure to take action and vote on 20 of the 24 judicial
nominees reviewed by the Judiciary Committee and reported favorably to
the Senate is yet another in a long line of missed opportunities to
come together for the American people. This is not how the Senate has
acted in years past with other Presidents' judicial nominees. Vacancies
are being kept high, consensus nominees are being delayed, and it is
the American people and the Federal courts that are being made to
suffer.
I hope that when we return from the August recess, Senators can
finally join together to begin to bring down the excessive number of
vacancies that have persisted on Federal courts throughout the Nation
for far too long. We can and must do better.
I ask unanimous consent that a recent letter from the President of
the American Bar Association and a recent column by Professor Carl
Tobias be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Bar Association,
Chicago, IL, July 28, 2011.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell: On
behalf of the
[[Page S5287]]
American Bar Association, I am writing to urge you to
redouble your efforts to fill existing judicial vacancies
promptly so that the federal courts will have the judges they
need to uphold the rule of law and deliver timely justice.
There is no priority higher to the Association than to
assure that we have a fully staffed and fully operating
federal bench. That is why I have used my position as ABA
president this past year to speak out repeatedly about the
urgent need to fill existing vacancies.
We commend the Congress for starting the session by
instituting procedural changes and approaching the
confirmation process with a fresh sense of urgency, which has
helped restore regular order to the process. As a result, the
President has made 87 judicial nominations and the Senate has
regularly scheduled up-or-down votes and confirmed 31
nominees this session.
However, no significant reduction in the high number of
vacancies has been achieved: there are only 4 fewer vacancies
on the federal bench today than there were January 1 of this
year, and 10 percent of the authorized judgeships remain
vacant. During the past two years--since August 2009--the
vacancy rate has fluctuated, but it has never dropped below
10 percent.
Thirty-eight of the present vacancies have existed for so
long and created such untenable workloads for the remaining
judges on the courts that the seats have been declared
judicial emergencies by the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts. As lawyers who practice in federal courts across this
nation, ABA members know firsthand that long-standing
vacancies on courts with staggering caseloads impede access
to the courts and create strains that will inevitably reduce
the quality of our justice system and erode public confidence
in the ability of the courts to vindicate constitutional
rights or render fair and timely decisions. In Arizona, for
example, the Speedy Trial Act has been temporarily waived,
and criminal defendants wait up to 6 months for a trial,
while businesses and individuals wait up to 2 years before
their cases are heard.
We realize that the aging of our federal judiciary has
contributed to the growing vacancy crisis. In July alone, 10
new vacancies were created through death, retirement and
elevation, and we already know that an additional 11
vacancies will arise before the end of this year solely as a
result of planned retirements. According to Department of
Justice estimates, 60 new vacancies will be created through
attrition each year for the next decade. Obviously, progress
toward reducing vacancies requires a confirmation rate that
outpaces the attrition rate; at present, it is barely keeping
abreast of it.
The inescapable conclusion is that despite good intentions
and modest progress, the current pace of nominations and
confirmations is inadequate to the job. To achieve a
significant and lasting reduction in the vacancy rate, both
the Administration and the Senate need to engage in a
concerted and sustained effort to expedite the process; there
is an obvious starting point.
We believe the positions of both Senator Leahy and Senator
Grassley with regard to the pending consensus nominees
provide useful guidance: Senator Leahy has long urged swift
action and up-or-down votes on all consensus nominees, and
Senator Grassley, recently attesting to Republican
``cooperation and positive action,'' observed, ``We are
moving forward on the consensus nominees.''
At present there is a backlog of 24 nominees awaiting a
floor vote, 20 of whom were reported out of the Senate
Judiciary Committee on voice vote with no recorded
opposition. We urge you as Majority and Minority Leaders to
schedule immediate up-or-down votes on these 20 consensus
nominees before the Senate adjourns for the upcoming August
recess.
Swift confirmation of these nominees would provide
immediate relief to some of the most overburdened courts and
would lower the vacancy rate to approximately 8 percent.
Longterm permanent progress, however, will require more than
this one-time fix. To effect lasting change, we also continue
to urge the President and members of the Senate to act with
common purpose to fill judicial vacancies promptly throughout
this Congress so that the federal courts will not be deprived
of the judges they need to do their important work.
Sincerely,
Stephen N. Zack.
____
[From FindLaw, Aug. 1, 2011]
Confirming Circuit Judges in the 112th Senate
(By Carl Tobias)
When President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the United
States Courts of Appeals experienced vacancies in fourteen of
the 179 judgeships. Thus, it was critical that the
administration promptly fill those openings. The White House
has instituted many practices to facilitate appointments.
However, numerous seats remain vacant and more have opened,
as judges have retired or assumed senior status, so the total
is presently nineteen. A trenchant example is the August 2009
Sixth Circuit nomination of Nashville practitioner Jane
Branstetter Stranch. Because the empty appellate seats
undermine the judiciary's expeditious, economical and fair
disposition of appeals and Ms. Stranch had waited thirteen
months for a floor vote, the Senate ultimately approved her
last September. Now that the 112th Senate has concluded its
first seven months and Obama has proffered nominees for ten
of the appeals court openings, he must swiftly nominate
excellent candidates for the remaining vacancies, while the
upper chamber must expeditiously confirm the appellate
nominees. Indeed, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the
Minority Leader, should agree on a floor debate and vote for
Sixth Circuit nominee Bernice Donald before the August recess
because she is a well qualified, uncontroversial District
Judge whom Obama nominated last December 1.
There are a few reasons for the empty judgeships. For
instance, President George W. Bush ineffectively attempted to
fill Sixth Circuit openings. He rarely consulted with
senators from jurisdictions with vacancies or tapped
consensus picks. Two Michigan Sixth Circuit posts lacked
judges for a decade and were only filled when the parties
reached a 2008 compromise.
Obama has invoked several measures to promptly fill all the
current openings. He rapidly consulted home-state elected
officials before actual nominations. Most officers have
cooperated with the White House and promptly suggested
candidates who are very smart, ethical, independent and
diligent and have balanced temperament. The White House
specifically consulted Tennessee Republican Senators Lamar
Alexander and Bob Corker, who agreed to support Ms. Stranch.
The President nominated the lawyer in August 2009, while the
Judiciary Committee afforded her an October hearing at which
the Tennessee senators appeared and voiced their support. The
committee reported Stranch on a 15-4 vote in November 2009.
The nominee then languished on the Senate floor for ten
months.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the Judiciary Committee
Chair, worked on securing Ms. Stranch's Senate floor
consideration. For instance, Leahy cooperated with Senator
Alexander in requesting that Senator McConnell work with
Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Majority Leader, to swiftly
arrange the nominee's debate and vote. On July 20, 2010,
Senators Leahy and Alexander worked together on the floor.
Leahy lauded Ms. Stranch's capabilities, emphasized her
protracted wait and sought unanimous consent to consider the
nominee. Senator Alexander agreed that ``Jane Stranch is a
well-qualified nominee [and] is the longest pending circuit
court nominee'' and asked for a prompt vote. Senator
McConnell stated that some Republicans voted against Ms.
Stranch in committee and that he would attempt to have the
Senate act on her soon. One week later, President Obama asked
that McConnell cooperate in filling the ``vacancies that
continue to plague the judiciary'' and seemingly alluded to
Ms. Stranch when he observed that nominees have been
``waiting up to eight months to be confirmed.''
Obama meticulously picked Stranch as his first nominee for
the Sixth Circuit, which includes Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio,
and Tennessee, because she had assembled a stellar record as
a Nashville attorney over three decades. The nominee earned
the highest ABA ranking of well qualified from a minority of
its committee and a rating of qualified from a substantial
majority. Notwithstanding Stranch's excellent background, the
chamber failed to hold her floor debate and vote before the
Senate recessed last August. However, the chamber agreed to
schedule a vote the day that the Senate returned. After brief
debate, senators finally approved Stranch 71-21.
Openings in more than ten percent of the federal appellate
judgeships show that President Obama must expeditiously
proffer nominees for all nineteen vacancies and the Senate
ought to swiftly confirm them. Jane Branstetter Stranch's
experience demonstrates that there is no reason for delay.
Senator McConnell must specifically agree to a floor vote for
Judge Donald prior to the August recess because she has been
waiting eight months. Quickly filling the empty posts is
essential because the courts need all of their judges to
deliver justice.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate will confirm four
nominees to be U.S. district judge. Three of these seats, the vacancy
for the Southern District of Texas, the vacancy for the Southern
District of Florida and the vacancy for the District of Colorado, have
been designated as judicial emergencies. With the votes today, we will
have confirmed 33 article III judicial nominees. Twenty-one of those
confirmed have been for judicial emergencies.
We continue to make great progress in processing President Obama's
judicial nominees. As we head into our August recess, the Senate has
confirmed 62 percent of President Obama's nominees since the beginning
of his Presidency. That is not including the two the Supreme Court
Justices nominated by President Obama. As my colleagues are aware,
those nominations consumed a considerable amount of time in the
committee and on the Senate floor.
During this Congress, the Judiciary Committee has held hearings on
more than 75 percent of the President's judicial nominees. During the
comparable time period for President Bush, only 70 percent of President
Bush's nominees
[[Page S5288]]
had hearings by this time. We have also reported 61 percent of the
judicial nominees, which is comparable to President Bush's nominees.
I support these nominations and congratulate each of them. I would
like to say a few words about each one of the nominees.
Sara Lynn Darrow is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the
Central District of Illinois. Ms. Darrow graduated from Marquette
University in 1992 and received her J.D. degree from St. Louis
University School of Law in 1997. From 1997 to 1998, Mrs. Darrow worked
in the law offices of Clarence Darrow, a small general practice firm in
Rock Island, IL. She became an assistant State's attorney in 1999,
where she handled juvenile, misdemeanor, and felony traffic cases. Upon
promotion in 2000, she handled felony cases and serious juvenile abuse
cases. In 2003, Mrs. Darrow began work as an assistant U.S. attorney,
prosecuting Federal crimes including drug conspiracy, gun,
racketeering, child exploitation, fraud, and bankruptcy. She has
prosecuted approximately 300 defendants and tried 10 cases to verdict
before a jury.
The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has given Ms.
Darrow a unanimous ``Qualified'' rating.
Nelva Gonzales Ramos is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the
Southern District of Texas. After graduation from the University of
Texas School of Law in 1991, Judge Ramos began her career as an
attorney at Meredith & Donnelly in Corpus Christi. She worked primarily
in personal injury litigation, employment litigation, and insurance
defense. In 1997, she resigned from the firm to enter duty as a
municipal court judge. During her campaign for district court judge
during 1999 to 2000, she briefly worked as a solo practitioner. During
this time, she practiced primarily personal injury but also family and
criminal law. While in private practice, she tried approximately 17
cases to judgment or verdict.
Judge Ramos was appointed as a municipal court judge for Corpus
Christi in 1997 where she had a criminal docket. She presided over 500
cases that went to verdict or judgment. When she announced her
candidacy for district court judge in 1999, she resigned from this
position as required by the city charter. In 2001 she was elected as
district court judge for the 347th Judicial District. She was reelected
in 2004 and in 2008. As district court judge, she has presided over
1,200 cases that went to verdict or judgment. While serving as a
district court judge she helped establish a domestic violence court,
and served as the local administrative judge for the Nueces County
district courts. In this capacity she presided over meetings of the
district court judges, ensured compliance with local rules, appointed
committees regarding court management, and handled assorted other
administrative tasks regarding the court.
The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave her a split
rating of ``Qualified''--substantial majority--and ``Well Qualified''--
minority.
Kathleen M. Williams is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the
Southern District of Florida. She received her B.A. in 1978 and her
J.D. in 1982 from the University of Miami School of Law. Ms. Williams
began her legal career in 1982 as an associate attorney at Fowler,
White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot. At Fowler White, she
participated in insurance defense litigation defending insurance
companies, city and county interests, hospital trusts and corporations.
From 1984 to 1988, Ms. Williams served as an assistant U.S. attorney
in the Southern District of Florida. While an assistant U.S. attorney,
she prosecuted individuals on charges ranging from simple narcotics and
weapons matters to complex money-laundering and RICO Litigation. In
1988, Ms. Williams returned to the private sector as an associate
attorney for Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. While at Morgan, Lewis, &
Bockius, she represented financial institutions, government
contractors, and multinational corporations in labor litigation and
white collar criminal defense matters.
In 1990, Ms. Williams joined the Federal Public Defender's office as
the chief assistant public defender, where she represented persons
accused of violating Federal criminal statutes but who cannot afford to
retain an attorney. In 1995, she was appointed to be the public
defender for the Southern District of Florida, where she continues to
serve. As a Federal public defender she has litigated a wide range of
matters including immigration, complex fraud, and national security.
She was also appointed to be the acting Federal public defender for the
Middle District of Florida from 1999 to 2000.
The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has given her the
rating of majority ``Well Qualified'' and Minority ``Qualified.''
Richard Brooke Jackson is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the
District of Colorado. Judge Jackson received his A.B., magna cum laude,
from Dartmouth College in 1969 and his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard
Law School in 1972. Following law school, Judge Jackson joined the firm
of Holland & Hart as an associate, where he focused on a combination of
commercial litigation and personal injury litigation. In 1978, he
became a partner and opened the Washington, DC, office of the firm.
Additionally, he served on a number of committees within the firm and
was chairperson of the litigation department. His pro bono work focused
on personal injury claims and occasional representation in criminal
defense and family law matters.
In 1998, he was appointed to serve as district judge for the First
Judicial District of Colorado. As a district judge, he handled a mixed
docket of criminal, civil, and domestic relations cases. In 2003, he
was appointed chief judge.
The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has given Judge
Jackson the rating of unanimous ``Well Qualified.''