[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 143 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6176-S6177]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF PAMELA PEPPER TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______
NOMINATION OF BRENDA K. SANNES TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______
NOMINATION OF MADELINE COX ARLEO TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______
NOMINATION OF WENDY BEETLESTONE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
______
NOMINATION OF VICTOR ALLEN BOLDEN TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations,
which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read the nominations of Pamela Pepper, of Wisconsin,
to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin; Brenda K. Sannes, of New York, to be United States District
Judge for the Northern District of New York; Madeline Cox Arleo, of New
Jersey, to be United States District Judge for the District of New
Jersey; Wendy Beetlestone, of Pennsylvania, to be United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and Victor
Allen Bolden, of Connecticut, to be United States District Judge for
the District of Connecticut.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we will vote on five outstanding
judicial nominees to our Federal district courts. I thank the majority
leader for filing for cloture on these nominees so we can clear the
backlog that still remains on our executive calendar as we move toward
the end of the 113th Congress. After we vote on these nominees today,
however, we will still have 21 judicial nominees pending on the
executive calendar to serve on district courts, the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims, and the U.S. Court of International Trade.
The five nominees the Senate will vote on today are all well-
qualified lawyers and there should be no controversy about their
confirmation. Four of these nominees: Pamela Pepper to the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, Brenda Sannes to the Northern District of New
York, Madeline Arleo to the District of New Jersey, and Wendy
Beetlestone to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania were reported by
the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote and have the support of
their home State senators.
The fifth nominee, Victor Bolden, who has been nominated to the
District of Connecticut, also has the strong support of his home State
Senators, Mr. Blumenthal and Mr. Murphy. Mr. Bolden's credentials are
impeccable. Since 2009, he has served as corporation counsel for the
city of New Haven, CT. Prior to joining city government, Mr. Bolden
served as general counsel and assistant counsel for the NAACP Legal
Defense & Educational Fund. He has also served in private practice as
an associate and counsel at the law firm of Wiggin & Dana in New Haven,
CT. After graduating from Harvard Law School, Mr. Bolden began his
legal career at the American Civil Liberties Union as a staff attorney
and as the Marvin Karpatkin Fellow.
During the Judiciary Committee executive business meeting where Mr.
Bolden's nomination was considered, the ranking member commented that
he was troubled by the nominee's views on racial classifications and
his advocacy on affirmative action. The ranking member also noted that
he did not agree with the nominee's criticisms of the Supreme Court's
decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Finally, the ranking member
criticized Mr. Bolden because he argued the nominee ``took a narrow and
legally incorrect view of individual rights under the Second Amendment
in an amicus brief in Heller.'' The committee voted to report Mr.
Bolden's nomination favorably on a 10-to-8 party-line vote.
Let me address each of the issues raised by Ranking Member Grassley.
First, in cases where Mr. Bolden has advocated for a specific position
in which a Senator may disagree, Mr. Bolden was representing a client
and not expressing his own personal views. As chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, I have stated repeatedly that attorneys should not be
equated with the position of their clients. Our legal system is
predicated upon zealous advocacy for both sides of an issue or matter.
Without this, our justice system would not function. Victor Bolden
understands the difference between the role of an advocate versus the
role of a judge. In response to a question for the record from Senator
Grassley on applying Supreme Court and Circuit Court precedents, Mr.
Bolden testified: ``I am fully committed to following the precedents of
higher courts faithfully and giving them full force and effect,
regardless of any personal feelings I might have.''
Second, not only has Mr. Bolden testified under oath about this
distinction, but he has shown that he would apply and implement orders
from a higher court. In Ricci v. DeStefano, Mr. Bolden represented the
city of New Haven as corporation counsel. In that case, several White
firefighters and one
[[Page S6177]]
Hispanic firefighter sued the city of New Haven in 2003, alleging
racial discrimination after the city threw out the results of an exam
used for promotion of the city's firefighters. The test results had
shown that White firefighters had outperformed minority applicants. The
Supreme Court ultimately ruled against New Haven and held that the
city's abandonment of the test results constituted intentional
discrimination against the White firefighters. Mr. Bolden subsequently
helped ensure that the city complied with the Court's order and
defended the decision against collateral attacks.
To his credit, Mr. Bolden did such an outstanding job of ensuring
compliance with the Supreme Court's decision that the named plaintiff--
firefighter Frank Ricci--wrote a letter strongly supporting Mr.
Bolden's nomination. Let me quote some of this letter:
It was apparent to me from our initial dealings whether as
a plaintiff or union representative that the Mayor had made a
great choice in the selection of the new Corporation Counsel.
Although Victor represented the City and therefore would be
naturally presumed an adversary it never felt that way.
Through the remainder of the litigation from the U.S. Supreme
Court decision to the final judgments Victor displayed and
has always displayed the attributes one could hope for in a
jurist. He's always conscious that there are real people
affected by decisions that are made but he is also very
deliberate in those decisions with an unwavering commitment
to the law. Victor is a consummate professional with
unquestionable integrity. These observations are not limited
to me but have been the topic of many discussions between me
and others, including those inside and outside the fire
service. I cannot think of anyone who would make a finer
addition to our federal judiciary than him. And I could not
have a greater honor than to write this correspondence
supporting that.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full letter
of support.
Third, Mr. Bolden's criticisms of the Supreme Court's decision in
Shelby County v. Holder in a 2013 editorial were shared by a
substantial number of legal scholars and Senators, including me. As I
have said, the Shelby County decision was a dreadful decision and
wrongly decided. A narrow majority of the Court decided to substitute
its own judgment over the exhaustive legislative findings of Congress
showing that racial discrimination in voting still occurs. Instead, the
Court chose to effectively strike down the heart of the Voting Rights
Act by holding that the coverage formula for preclearance was outdated.
I authored a bipartisan bill along with Congressmen Sensenbrenner and
John Lewis on this, but to this date, not a single Senate Republican
has signed on. In short, I believe that Victor Bolden's views on voting
rights are well within the mainstream. Nevertheless, Mr. Bolden has
stated for the Record that he ``would faithfully apply Supreme Court
and Second Circuit precedent'' on the issue.
Lastly, Mr. Bolden has been criticized for authoring an amicus brief
on behalf of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund in District
of Columbia v. Heller. At the time Mr. Bolden authored the amicus
brief, the controlling precedent in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence
was United States v. Miller, which did not hold that there was an
individual right to bear arms outside of the context of a ``well
regulated Militia.'' Accordingly, the brief that Mr. Bolden filed
actually cited to Supreme Court precedent that was controlling on the
issue at the time. Now that the Supreme Court has decided Heller, Mr.
Bolden has testified under oath that he ``would faithfully apply the
Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and other
Second Amendment jurisprudence'' and all other areas of the law.
Senators should not vote against Mr. Bolden for advocating on behalf
of a client using the applicable Supreme Court precedent at the time. I
have heard that some Senators have been continuing to distort Mr.
Bolden's record on the Senate floor during his cloture vote. I can only
hope that these distortions and fabrications are dismissed as they
rightly should be.
Mr. Bolden is an outstanding nominee and a substantial majority of
the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has also rated him
``well qualified.'' I wholeheartedly support this nominee and would
strongly urge my fellow Senators to do the same.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
July 25, 2014.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: I write this correspondence with great
excitement and enthusiasm to support the nomination and
appointment of Attorney Victor Bolden to the U.S. District
Court of Connecticut.
I have known and worked with Attorney Bolden for more than
5 years. I first met him around the time that he was
appointed Corporation Counsel for the City of New Haven. Our
first interactions surrounded an ongoing legal matter that I
was the lead plaintiff, Ricci et al. v. DeStefano et al.
As a member, representative and current Secretary-Treasurer
of New Haven Fire Fighters IAFF Local 825, positions I've
held for over 16, these were challenging times. Emotions and
frustrations surrounding this issue were somewhat raw to say
the least. The relationship between the plaintiffs, union and
the City, especially the Corporation Counsel was completely
broken and seemed irreparable.
Luckily that was about to change. It was apparent to me
from our initial dealings whether as a plaintiff or union
representative that the Mayor had made a great choice in the
selection of the new Corporation Counsel. Although Victor
represented the City and therefore would be naturally
presumed an adversary it never felt that way. Through the
remainder of the litigation from the U.S. Supreme Court
decision to the final judgments Victor displayed and has
always displayed the attributes one could hope for in a
jurist. He's always conscious that there are real people
affected by decisions that are made but he is also very
deliberate in those decisions with an unwavering commitment
to the law. Victor is a consummate professional with
unquestionable integrity. These observations are not limited
to me but have been the topic of many discussions between me
and others, including those inside and outside the fire
service. I cannot think of anyone who would make a finer
addition to our federal judiciary than him. And I could not
have a greater honor than to write this correspondence
supporting that.
If you have any questions or there is something more that
you feel I could be helpful with please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Respectfully,
Lt. Frank Ricci.
____________________