[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 9, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2478-S2482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF PATTY SHWARTZ TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Patty Shwartz,
of New Jersey, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month Senate Republicans filibustered
the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to fill a vacancy on the D.C.
Circuit that arose when Chief Justice Roberts left the D.C. Circuit to
join the Supreme Court 8 years ago. Caitlin Halligan is a woman who is
extraordinarily well-qualified and amongst the most qualified judicial
nominees I have seen from any administration. It is a shame that narrow
special interests hold such influence that Senate Republicans blocked
an up-or-down vote on her confirmation with multiple filibusters of her
nomination and procedural objections that required her to be nominated
five times over the last 3 years.
Had she received an up-or-down vote, I am certain she would have been
confirmed and been an outstanding judge on the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia. Instead, all Senate Republicans
but one supported the filibuster and refused to vote up or down on this
highly-qualified woman to fill a needed judgeship on the D.C. Circuit.
Senate Republicans attacked her for legal advocacy on behalf of her
client, the State of New York. It is wrong to attribute the legal
positions a lawyer takes when advocating for a client with what that
person would do as an impartial judge. That is not the American
tradition. That is not what Republicans insisted was the standard for
nominees of Republican Presidents but that is what they did to derail
the nomination of Caitlin Halligan.
Also disconcerting were the comments by Republicans after their
filibuster in which they gloated about payback. That, too, is wrong. It
does our Nation and our Federal judiciary no good when they place their
desire to engage in partisan tit-for-tat over the needs of the American
people. I rejected that approach while moving to confirm 100 of
President Bush's judicial nominees in just 17 months in 2001 and 2002.
The filibuster of the nomination of Miguel Estrada was different. It
was to obtain access to information about his work and whether he acted
ideologically as his supervisor at the Office of Solicitor General had
alleged. Had we gotten access to those materials, there would have been
a vote on the Estrada nomination. Republican Senators now demand access
to all sorts of materials while filibustering for the first time in our
history the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Attorney General of the
United States, as well as the nominee to head the CIA and judicial
nominees. They cannot do that and still complain about the Estrada
nomination.
Now that Senate Republicans have during the last 4 years filibustered
more of President Obama's moderate judicial nominees than were
filibustered during President Bush's entire 8 years--67 percent more,
in fact--I urge them to abandon their misjudged efforts that sacrifice
outstanding judges for purposes of partisan payback.
Today the Senate will finally consider another circuit court
nomination that has been delayed for no good reason. The nomination of
Judge Patty Shwartz of New Jersey to the Third Circuit has been
needlessly stalled for 13 months since being favorably reported by the
Judiciary Committee. This is another of the many judicial nominees who
could have been confirmed last year. She is another qualified nominee
who is supported by her home state Senators and by the Republican
Governor of New Jersey. After this prolonged and unnecessary delay, I
am pleased that she will finally be allowed to join the Third Circuit
to serve the people of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the
Virgin Islands.
In 10 years as a United States Magistrate Judge in the District of
New Jersey, Judge Shwartz has handled more than 4,000 civil and
criminal cases and presided over 14 cases that have gone to verdict or
final judgment, including 11 jury trials. Before becoming a judge,
Judge Shwartz spent 14 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the
District of New Jersey, where she ultimately rose to become chief of
the Criminal Division. During her time as an assistant U.S. attorney,
Judge Shwartz tried more than 15 jury cases to verdict, all as sole or
chief counsel. It was while serving in the U.S. attorneys Office that
Chris Cristie, then U.S. attorney and current Governor of New Jersey,
became acquainted with her and her work.
Governor Christie has written to the committee in support of Judge
Shwartz's nomination. He said that she ``was an impressive Criminal
Chief; hard working, bright, articulate, great with people and
conversant with the law.'' He added: ``As a Magistrate Judge, she also
performed admirably and garnered the respect of the entire legal
community. Again, her hard work, amiable personality, patience,
intelligence, and knowledge of the law were lauded by all who appeared
before her.'' I ask unanimous consent that his full letter be printed
in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary has rated Judge Shwartz unanimously well qualified, the
highest possible rating from its nonpartisan peer review. She has the
support of Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez.
By any objective measure, Judge Shwartz is a nominee with solid legal
credentials and qualifications. Rather than evaluating her on her
record, some have tried to claim there is an issue because Senator
Menendez met with her before supporting her. They infer, despite
denials by the nominee and Senator Menendez, that she must have made
him some untoward commitment on how she would rule on some matter.
There is no basis for that claim.
It is past time for the Senate to consider her nomination on the
merits of her record and to confirm her. Her nomination has been
stalled on the Senate floor for 13 months. This is just one example of
the unnecessary delays that prompted a New York Times editorial about
the delays in filling judicial vacancies. I ask unanimous consent that
a copy of that editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of
my statement.
Judged on her qualifications and her record, Judge Patty Shwartz
should be confirmed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. She should not
have been delayed for more than a year. Sadly, this is not an isolated
case but one in a steady pattern of obstruction. This is especially
harmful at a time when judicial vacancies remain above 80. Filibusters
and delays based on fictions do not help Americans seeking justice in
our
[[Page S2479]]
Federal courts. Instead, they cause delays, overcrowded dockets,
overburdened courts and have gone on too long.
When confirmed, Judge Shwartz will be one of just three women serving
as active judges on the Third Circuit. It is time to move forward in a
bipartisan fashion to vote to confirm this qualified nominee so that
she may better serve the American people as a member of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
State of New Jersey,
Office of the Governor,
Trenton, NJ, February 11, 2013.
Senator Chuck Grassley,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Senator Patrick Leahy,
Russell Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: I write in support of Magistrate Judge
Patty Shwartz' nomination to be a Judge on the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals. When I became the United States Attorney in
the District of New Jersey in 2001, Judge Shwartz was the
Chief of the Criminal Division, a very important and taxing
job in a large prosecuting office. Judge Shwartz was an
impressive Criminal Chief; hard working, bright, articulate,
great with people and conversant with the law. She remained
my Criminal Chief until she became a Magistrate Judge.
As a Magistrate Judge, she also performed admirably and
garnered the respect of the entire legal community. Again,
her hard work, amiable personality, patience, intelligence
and knowledge of the law were lauded by all who appeared
before her. I am sure that if she were elevated to sit on the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals she would prove an excellent
judge for all of the same reasons she was an excellent
prosecutor and Magistrate Judge. She has my full support for
the position for which I believe she is well suited.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Chris Christie,
Governor.
____
[From the New York Times]
Courts Without Judges
(By the Editorial Board)
The number of vacancies on the nation's federal courts has
reached an astonishingly high level, creating a serious
shortage of judges and undermining the ability of the
nation's court system to bestow justice.
Of 856 federal district and circuit court seats, 85 are
unfilled--a 10 percent vacancy rate and nearly double the
rate at this point in the presidency of George W. Bush. More
than a third of the vacancies have been declared ``judicial
emergencies'' based on court workloads and the length of time
the seats have been empty. By far the most important cause of
this unfortunate state of affairs is the determination of
Senate Republicans, for reasons of politics, ideology and
spite, to confirm as few of President Obama's judicial
choices as possible.
Numbers compiled by the Senate Judiciary Committee tell the
story. Mr. Obama's nominees for seats on federal courts of
appeal, the system's top tier below the Supreme Court, have
waited an average of 148 days for their confirmation vote
following the committee's approval, more than four times
longer than Mr. Bush's nominees. For Mr. Obama's nominees to
federal district courts, the average wait time has been 102
days, compared with 35 days for Mr. Bush's district court
choices.
The prestigious and important United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit offers a
particularly striking example of Republican obstructionism.
The 11-seat court rules on most appeals from federal
regulatory agencies and has exclusive jurisdiction over
national security matters. It has four vacancies; the last
time the Senate confirmed someone to the court was 2006.
Mr. Bush appointed four judges to the court, a feeder to
the Supreme Court, but whether the Senate will allow Mr.
Obama to appoint any remains to be seen. Mr. Obama's first
nominee for the court, Caitlin Halligan, withdrew from
consideration last month after Senate Republicans
filibustered for a second time. Those critics echoed the
National Rifle Association's ridiculous portrayal of her as a
legal activist outside the mainstream because she had filed a
brief in opposition to the gun industry when she was New York
State's solicitor general.
The real reason, as everyone knows, was to prevent Mr.
Obama from adding balance to a generally conservative court.
He may fare better with his latest nominee, Sri Srinivasan, a
lawyer whose background working in the United States
solicitor general's office under both President Bush and
President Obama should help his chances.
Nominees for other important government posts have also
been held up for partisan reasons. Some Republicans say this
is simply payback for the Democrats' filibustering of Bush
nominees. But while neither party should be in the business
of obstructing judicial nominees, unless they are unqualified
or unacceptably extreme, a retaliatory response based on
politics hurts all who rely on courts to protect their rights
and uphold the law.
It is also worth noting that Mr. Obama has not been putting
forth candidates with strong ideological profiles. His
nominees are decidedly moderate, which was not always true of
the Bush judicial choices that the Democrats felt compelled
to filibuster.
Mr. Obama could help reduce the problem by speeding up his
nominations. The White House appears to have sharpened its
focus since the election, but currently, 62 district and
circuit court vacancies have no nominees.
The Halligan filibuster got some Democratic senators
talking about a bolder strategy, including revisiting
filibuster reform and making it harder for senators to
torpedo or delay nominations to judicial vacancies in their
home states. Another proposal is to have Mr. Obama make
simultaneous nominations to fill the four vacancies on the
District of Columbia Circuit, which would force Republicans
to come up with plausible reasons to oppose each of them. In
the face of political paralysis, these ideas are worth
embracing.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Iowa,
and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider the 10th
judicial nomination this year. With today's expected action, we will
have confirmed four circuit and six district nominees. At this point in
2005--and that was the beginning of President Bush's second term,
comparable to what we are talking about for President Obama--the Senate
had confirmed zero judicial nominees. Let me repeat that. At this point
in 2005, the Senate had confirmed not 10, not 4, not even 1 judicial
nominee, so that comes out to be zero.
The quick pace of this year comes on top of a very productive 112th
Congress in which 111 judges were confirmed. In the last Congress, we
confirmed more judges than any other Congress--going back 20 years to
the 103rd Congress.
Despite this progress and our continued cooperation with the
President and Senate Democrats, we continue to hear unfounded
criticism.
For example, last week the White House spokesperson criticized the
Senate for what he characterized as arbitrary and unique delays in
getting nominees confirmed. In a previous post on its website, the
White House complained about unprecedented delays in the Senate
confirmation process.
While acknowledging the Senate had confirmed nine judicial nominees
this year, the White House noted that ``these nine judges waited 144
days for a floor vote, compared to President Bush's nominees who waited
an average of 34 days for a vote at this point in President Bush's
presidency.''
As I stated, at the same point in 2005, none of President Bush's
nominees had been confirmed--not one.
The purported statistic of the ``average of 34 days'' is without
foundation. It took until June for President Bush to reach 10 judicial
confirmations. President Bush wouldn't have another lower court
nomination until October of that year.
But that delay in confirmations wasn't because there weren't
nominees. By the beginning of April 2005, 21 judicial nominations had
been submitted to the Senate.
President Bush's first four confirmations came in April 2005. The
first two of those nominees were nominated in September 2004 and
confirmed about 6 months later.
The other two nominees waited much longer. Robert Conrad was first
nominated April 28, 2003 to the Western District of North Carolina.
He was confirmed a full 2 years later on April 28, 2005--not 34 days,
as the White House implies.
His colleague, James C. Dever III, nominated for the Eastern District
of North Carolina, waited even longer. He was first nominated in May
2002 and waited nearly 3 years before being confirmed on April 28,
2005.
So this notion of unprecedented, unique and arbitrary delays simply
ignores the facts and, in the process, distorts history.
In addition to the White House, we hear Senate Democrats grumbling
about nominations and calls for changing the rules of the Senate. Of
course, the majority would have to break the rules to change the rules.
Such intemperate comments utterly fail to recognize the work the
Senate has already accomplished in approving judges.
The purported justification is the number of judges on the calendar--
[[Page S2480]]
presently at 15. Where was their similar concern in April 2004, when
the number of nominees on the Executive Calendar was nearly double what
it is today?
A second prong of this debate concerns the vacancy rate in the
Federal judiciary. Blaming judicial vacancies on the Senate
confirmation process is unfounded and a distortion of the process. The
vacancy rate is due to the failure in the White House to send
nominations to the Senate.
Presently, 62 of the 87 vacancies--71 percent--have no nominee. For
the 35 vacancies categorized as ``judicial emergencies,'' only 9 have a
nominee--74 percent have no nominee.
I would like to say a few words about today's nominee. I do have
concerns about this nomination which have not been satisfied.
Unfortunately, I am unable to support the nomination, although I
expect Judge Shwartz will be approved as a United States Circuit Judge
for the Third Circuit. I congratulate her on her confirmation and hope
that she performs her duties in a skilled manner, demonstrating
judicial temperament, with respect for the law and Constitution.
This nomination started out troubled. Not because of Republican
opposition, but because of concerns expressed by her home State
Democratic Senator.
Originally, Judge Shwartz's home State Senator questioned her
intellectual fitness for the court stating she ``did not adequately
demonstrate the breadth of knowledge of constitutional law and pivotal
Supreme Court decisions.''
Concerns were also expressed that she ``misapplied the application of
strict scrutiny versus rational basis review'' and ``did not express
substantive knowledge as to the scope of the rights of corporations
under the Constitution or jurisprudence on the constitutional limits of
Executive Branch powers.'' According to press reports, she specifically
misapplied the law after speaking about Citizens United.
These are pretty serious issues. So, Judge Shwartz was asked about
them during her hearing, specifically the discussion on Citizens
United. But she denied it happened, testifying instead that she did not
discuss any specific cases, only general principles.
However, in follow-up written questions for the record, Judge Shwartz
changed her story and said that she and her home State Senator had
discussed two specific cases: Citizens United and Roe v. Wade.
I find this after-the-fact disclosure troubling. Not only was it
inconsistent with her hearing testimony, but it prevented me and other
Senators from following up regarding what discussions she apparently
had regarding Citizens United and Roe v. Wade.
Because of the ambiguity surrounding these interviews and Judge
Shwartz's inconsistent testimony, questions remain as to what
understandings were reached or what assurances Judge Shwartz may have
given to gain support from her home State Senators.
Unfortunately, her Committee hearing failed to remove the doubts that
were initially raised. Again, these were raised by her home State
Senator.
Furthermore, because of her lack of candor at her hearing, I was
unable to come to a determination that she is prepared to be a Circuit
Judge. I share the doubts raised regarding her limited knowledge of
constitutional law; misapplication of standards of review; and
inadequate understanding of substantive areas of laws.
Accordingly, I cannot support this nomination. I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record her biographical information.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Patty Shwartz is nominated to be United States Circuit
Judge for the Third Circuit. Judge Shwartz received a B.A
from Rutgers in 1983 and a J.D. from the University of
Pennsylvania Law School in 1986. Upon graduation, Judge
Shwartz worked for a year as an associate with the law firm
of Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz. In 1987, Judge Shwartz began a
two-year clerkship with Judge Harold A. Ackerman of the U.S.
District Court of the District of New Jersey.
Immediately after her clerkship, she began a fourteen-year
career as a criminal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the District of New Jersey. During her time as an
Assistant U.S. Attorney, she prosecuted individuals for
violent crime, drug trafficking, and white collar cases.
After several years, she was assigned to the Special
Prosecutions Division, handling public corruption cases. A
short time later, Judge Shwartz was promoted to Deputy Chief
of the Criminal Division where she supervised dozens of line
prosecutors. In February of 1999, she was promoted to Chief
of the Criminal Division, which she held until 2001.
In 2001, she began a brief stint as Executive Assistant
U.S. Attorney, supervising the Criminal, Civil, and Fraud
Divisions. In 2002, she returned to serve as Chief of the
Criminal Division, overseeing the expansion and
reorganization of the division. According to her
questionnaire, Judge Shwartz has tried more than fifteen
criminal cases to verdict.
In 2003, Judge Shwartz was appointed to be U.S. Magistrate
Judge for the District of New Jersey. As Magistrate Judge,
she has managed all aspects of the pre-trial process in over
4,000 cases. She is responsible for convening scheduling
conferences, resolving discovery disputes, ruling on
nondispositive motions, holding settlement conferences, and
presiding over final pretrial conferences.
As Magistrate, Judge Shwartz has presided over ``in whole
or in part'' more than 70 civil cases by consent of the
parties. She has presided over eleven jury trials (ten civil
cases and one criminal case) and twenty-two bench trials
(three civil cases and nineteen criminal cases) from start to
finish.
The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the
Federal Judiciary gave her a unanimous ``Well Qualified''
rating.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 6 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. The Senator from New Jersey
is recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the
confirmation of Judge Patty Shwartz to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, a nomination which has finally come to the floor, and the time
has come to confirm Judge Shwartz. I express my full support and urge
my colleagues to do the same. I am happy we were able to work out the
vote on this nominee without a cloture vote, which is incredibly
important.
I want to refer to my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of
the Judiciary Committee, who mentioned a home State Senator--who
happens to be me--and to clarify some issues.
I have always taken the role of advice and consent for judicial
nominations very seriously, as I am sure we all do. Appointments to the
Federal bench are lifetime appointments, and the circuit court is often
the last stop before the U.S. Supreme Court. That makes that
responsibility even greater. Very few Americans, if they appeal, get
past the circuit court to Supreme Court consideration.
We know the process can be long and difficult; sometimes overly
partisan on both sides based on legitimate concerns and personal
beliefs. In the end we always look to confirm the best and most
qualified individuals. We conduct a thorough review of the nominees,
their understanding of the law, their intellect, their analytical
thinking and reasoning, and we make our decisions--and I have made
mine--about the nominee.
I had the opportunity on more than one occasion to discuss with the
judge issues that I believe reflect the high standards to which a
nominee should always be held. There is no understanding between this
nominee and me as to how she would rule in any given set of
circumstances. There was a suggestion about what the law is today in
both those instances. I am sure the judge simply did not recall the
specifics of that at the time of the hearing but was forthright in
coming back and saying: Yes, there were two cases. The simple
discussion of what is a Supreme Court decision is, in my mind, not only
appropriate, but at a circuit court level is more than desirable.
In the totality of our discussions Judge Shwartz indicated to me the
type of intellectual rigor, the knowledge that in fact guarantees to me
that she deserves the lifetime appointment to which I expect the Senate
will confirm her. The fact that I come to the floor today in full
support of her confirmation speaks not only to her qualifications but
to her character and to her judicial temperament and suitability to
serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Aristotle said: ``Character may be called the most effective means of
persuasion.''
I can say that, having spent time meeting with Judge Shwartz, I am
absolutely persuaded that she is a person of character and meets the
highest standards for any nominee.
[[Page S2481]]
I urge my colleagues to unanimously confirm this highly qualified
woman who, I know, will serve honorably and serve well.
Judge Patty Shwartz is a proud New Jerseyan. She has been a
magistrate judge for the District of New Jersey since 2003.
Originally from Paterson, she graduated from Rutgers as a Henry
Rutgers Scholar with the highest honors.
After college, Judge Shwartz went to the University of Pennsylvania
Law School, edited the law review, and was named Outstanding Woman Law
Graduate.
She has been an associate in Philadelphia at Pepper, Hamilton &
Scheetz, clerked for the Honorable Harold A. Ackerman of the District
Court for the District of New Jersey, and, in 1989 joined the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey.
She rose to the position of deputy chief of the criminal division and
then to chief of the criminal division serving as the Executive
Assistant United States Attorney.
She has handled over 4,000 civil and criminal cases, and, since 2009,
she has been an adjunct professor at Fordham University School of Law.
She is on the advisory board for the Association of the Federal Bar
of the State of New Jersey, the Board of Advisors for the Historical
Society of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and
the Board of Directors of the Federal Magistrate Judges Association,
where she represents the Third Circuit.
She is clearly highly qualified--a woman of distinction who deserves
confirmation.
If experience, character, and temperament are the most persuasive
weapons in a judicial nominee's arsenal, then Judge Shwartz comes
before this chamber very well-armed.
Let me say to my colleagues who may not have had the opportunity to
look as closely at this nominee's record as I have, in making my
judgment I have had the benefit of invaluable advice and counsel from
many members of the Federal bar whose opinions I sought. They are both
Democrats and Republicans, and they affirmed what I subsequently
discovered for myself in discussions with her; that there is not a
single reason to vote no on this nomination.
I urge my colleagues to send a message that although the process can
be long and fraught with conflicting opinions, in the end it bends
toward the best and brightest, and Judge Patty Shwartz is proof of it.
She has strong bipartisan support not only from both the Senators
from New Jersey but also our Governor Chris Christie. I urge my
colleagues to join me in voting to confirm Judge Patty Shwartz to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my great honor to once again
express my strong support for the Senate confirmation of Magistrate
Judge Patty Shwartz to the United States Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.
It has been a long road, but it's great to finally reach this day. I
began the process of recommending Judge Shwartz to President Obama
almost 2 years ago, and since her first nomination by the President 18
months ago I have had the privilege of shepherding her candidacy
through the Senate. During that time, I have worked with colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to ensure she has bipartisan support. And
earlier this year, I personally communicated with a number of my
Republicans colleagues to assure them of her qualifications for the
position and sterling reputation in the legal community.
It hasn't been an easy or quick process by any means, but because her
candidacy is so strong, and because so many people believe in her, we
have reached this proud moment where we can confirm her, and without a
filibuster.
Her confirmation is well-deserved, because putting Judge Patty
Shwartz on the Federal bench will be a great service to our nation and
our justice system. She brings 25 years of public service to the
bench--years she spent as a teacher, an attorney, and a judge.
Judge Shwartz graduated from Rutgers University with the highest
honors and received her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania
Law School, where she was an editor of the Law Review and was named her
class's Outstanding Woman Law Graduate.
Since 2003, Judge Shwartz has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in
the District of New Jersey, where she has handled more than 4,000 civil
and criminal cases. And within the New Jersey legal community, she has
earned a solid reputation for dispensing justice fairly and wisely.
She will make an excellent addition to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.
The opportunity to nominate Federal judges is a sacred duty. I have
felt lucky to recommend many eminently qualified, impressive, and
accomplished individuals.
Yet rarely have I seen such an outpouring of support for a single
judicial candidate as I have with Judge Shwartz.
John Lacey, past President of the Association of the New Jersey
Federal Bar, said Judge Shwartz is, ``thoughtful, intelligent, and has
an extraordinarily high level of common sense.''
Thomas Curtin, the chairman of the lawyers' advisory committee for
the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, said, ``Every lawyer in the
world will tell you that she's extraordinarily qualified, a decent
person, and an excellent judge.''
And seldom has someone had such a distinguished career working for--
and earning the respect of--people on both sides of the aisle.
From 1989 to 2003, Judge Shwartz served in the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the District of New Jersey. In this role, she supervised hundreds
of criminal cases, including cases concerning civil rights, violent
crimes, drug trafficking, and fraud.
And in the U.S. Attorney's Office, she served under three Republican
U.S. Attorneys: current Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito; former
Secretary of Homeland Security under George W. Bush, Michael Chertoff;
and New Jersey's current Governor, Chris Christie.
Governor Christie has been especially outspoken in his praise of
Judge Shwartz. He has said, ``Judge Patty Shwartz has committed her
entire professional life to public service, and New Jersey is the
better for it.''
That is his statement. Now, if Governor Christie and I agree on
something so adamantly, you know it's right.
Judge Shwartz's roots in New Jersey run deep. Like me, she is a
native of Paterson, NJ, where she learned the value of hard work from
her parents, who owned and operated a store for more than 50 years.
And as anyone who has met or worked with Judge Shwartz can attest,
she inherited every ounce of her parents' strong work ethic--and then
some.
After years of hard work, today is a great and triumphant day. I look
forward now to seeing Judge Patty Shwartz take her place on the Federal
bench. I can say with certainty that our justice system--and the
country--will be better for it.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Patty Shwartz, of New Jersey, to be United States Circuit Judge for
the Third Circuit?
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 34, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 93 Ex.]
YEAS--64
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
[[Page S2482]]
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--34
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Flake
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--2
Lautenberg
Rubio
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________