[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26231-26232]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    CONFIRMATION OF THOMAS HARDIMAN

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in this sadly historic era of 
unprecedented filibusters of judicial nominees, the truth is an 
unwelcome visitor to those in the minority who seek to deprive 
President Bush of his constitutional duty to nominate Article III 
judges. The latest salvo in this increasingly disappointing game is the 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's written statement regarding 
Thomas M. Hardiman, who was confirmed by the Senate by unanimous 
consent on October 22, 2003.
  The ranking member claims that Mr. Hardiman has ``no judicial 
experience,'' which is of course not unusual for district court 
nominees. Although Mr. Hardiman has not stood for election as a State 
trial court judge in Allegheny County, a county where Democrats 
outnumber Republicans by a margin of more than 2-1, Mr. Hardiman is not 
without significant adjudicatory experience. In 1995 the Disciplinary 
Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appointed Mr. Hardiman as a 
Hearing Officer to adjudicate cases involving alleged violations of the 
Rules of Professional Conduct brought by clients against their lawyers. 
Mr. Hardiman served with distinction in this capacity, on a pro bono 
basis, until his recent confirmation. In addition, Mr. Hardiman has 
adjudicated securities cases as an arbitrator under the auspices of the 
National Association of Securities Dealers. His work for the 
Disciplinary Board and the NASD has provided Mr. Hardiman with valuable 
experience ruling on motions, reviewing evidence, assessing the 
credibility of witnesses, deciding cases, and researching and writing 
opinions. Without doubt, Mr. Hardiman's experiences adjudicating these 
cases has increased his preparedness for the Federal bench.
  In addition to his quasi-judicial experience, Mr. Hardiman has 
impeccable academic credentials. As Senator Specter has noted, Mr. 
Hardiman graduated with honors from both the University of Notre Dame 
and Georgetown University Law Center. He was appointed to the 
prestigious position of Notes and Comments Editor of the Georgetown Law 
Journal, was a semifinalist in the first-year moot court competition 
and participated on the Criminal Law moot court team. Mr. Hardiman's 
academic credentials are especially impressive considering the fact 
that he is the first in his family to attend college and he worked 
part-time during most of is law school career.
  Consistent with his academic achievements, Thomas Hardiman has had a 
distinguished career as a litigator and trial lawyer. After working for 
the prestigious law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mr. 
Hardiman and his wife moved to Pittsburgh in 1992 where he has been a 
rising star in the Pittsburgh legal community. Mr. Hardiman is admitted 
to practice law in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and the District of 
Columbia. He has been a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the 
United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the 
U.S. Tax Court, as well as the court he now joins. He has handled well 
over 60 trials. For the record--and to address the ranking member's 
semantic game regarding the number of trials Mr. Hardiman has 
conducted--a ``trial'' is defined as ``A judicial examination and 
determination of issues between parties to action . . . whether they be 
issues of law or fact.'' Black's Laws Dictionary, 5th ed. 1979. Among 
these 60-plus cases are: four cases before the Court of Appeals for the 
Third Circuit, two cases before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and 11 
cases before the intermediate appellate courts of Pennsylvania. Mr. 
Hardiman has been lead counsel on several jury and non-jury trials in 
Federal and State court, and has tried cases to judgment on a variety 
of dispositive motions at all levels of the Pennsylvania judiciary. Mr. 
Hardiman has been lead and associate counsel on several equity matters 
in Federal and State court as well. Finally, he has handled matters 
involving real estate, contracts, securities, taxation, Medicare fraud, 
civil rights, and cases arising under the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, 
seventh, eighth, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. 
Constitution. In sum, Thomas Hardiman has deep and broad experience as 
a trial lawyer which is particularly extraordinary for a man his age.
  In a letter dated June 18, 2003, Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania 
Supreme Court and lifelong Democrat Ralph J. Cappy wrote of Mr. 
Hardiman: ``As a professional, he is outstanding. His competence and 
ethics are beyond reproach. It is rare that we see a person of his age 
and experience argue before our Court, often successfully, with a 
courtesy and depth of knowledge which could serve as a benchmark for 
any who appear before us.'' The Chief Justice continued: ``As an 
individual, Tom is exemplary. He is extremely bright and knowledgeable 
in the law.'' Another prominent Democrat and Professor of Law at 
Duquesne Law School, Kenneth Gormley, wrote on June 19, 2003: ``Tom is 
a first-rate litigator, who is conscientious about every aspect of his 
work; he is a perfectionist when it comes to representing clients in a 
professional manner. As an appellate lawyer, Tom possesses an extremely 
high level of sophistication when it comes to analytical reasoning and 
writing. His written work product is first-rate. An an oral advocate, 
he is as good as any appellate lawyer I have seen in action in twenty 
years.'' Professor Gromley said of Mr. Hardiman: ``He is a lawyer of 
superior intellect, good judgment, and boundless energy. It is my 
opinion that he will constitute an excellent addition to the federal 
bench here in the Western District of Pennsylvania.''
  Finally, the dean of the Democratic bar in Allegheny County, David 
Armstrong, wrote of Mr. Hardiman on June 17, 2003: ``I have come to 
know Mr. Hardiman as an excellent lawyer and a person of great 
intellectual curiosity and ability, as well as personal integrity. Mr. 
Hardiman's temperament, intellect, character and experience in my 
opinion, would make him an excellent member of the federal bench.'' 
Significantly, attorney Armstrong came to know Mr. Hardiman through 
trials they litigated against one another.

[[Page 26232]]

  As the aforementioned facts demonstrate, the ranking member's unfair 
criticism and inappropriate reliance on the comments of a disgruntled 
lawyer in Pittsburgh who was the chief contributor to the local bar's 
rating of Mr. Hardiman demonstrate beyond doubt that the only 
partisanship involved with Mr. Hardiman's nomination and confirmation 
emanated from those who slandered him in an effort to defeat the 
nomination of a good and able man. It is always more appropriate to 
raise allegations about a nominee at his hearing rather than after his 
confirmation by the Senate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to set 
the record straight and I commend the Senate for its confirmation of 
Thomas Hardiman who will serve the people of Pennsylvania well as a 
Federal judge.

                          ____________________