[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4318-4323]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF MIRANDA DU TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                           DISTRICT OF NEVADA

                                 ______
                                 

    SUSIE MORGAN TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN 
                         DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

  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 legislative clerk read the nominations of Miranda Du, of Nevada, 
to be United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, and 
Susie Morgan, of Louisiana, to be United States District Judge for the 
Eastern District of Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 60 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that the 
time be divided equally but am I correct if we did the full 60 minutes, 
we would start the first vote at 5:35 p.m.?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we divide 
the time equally between now and 5:30 and the vote be at 5:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Senate will finally vote on the 
nominations of Miranda Du to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the 
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada and Susie Morgan to fill 
a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 
of Louisiana. Both nominations have the bipartisan support of their 
home state Senators, and were reported by the Judiciary Committee over 
4 months ago. The Senate is still only considering judicial nominations 
that could and should have been confirmed last year. The judicial 
vacancy rate remains nearly twice what it was at this point in the 
first term of President George W. Bush.
  Last week, I noted an article about the ``crushing caseload'' that 
the Federal courts in Arizona currently face. In that article, the 
Chief Judge of Arizona's Federal trial court noted that they are in 
``dire circumstances'' and that they are ``under water'' from all the 
cases on their docket. Like the district court in Arizona, the one in 
Nevada is also in desperate need of judges,

[[Page 4319]]

as evidenced by its designation as a judicial emergency. As that same 
article noted, an insufficiency of judges ``lessens the quality of 
justice for all parties involved.'' This is why it is so crucial that 
we confirm these nominees as soon as possible.
  Delay is harmful for everyone. An editorial from the Tuscaloosa News 
last week stated that ``[D]elays are objectionable in themselves: They 
deprive the courts of needed personnel, slow the administration of 
justice and deter well-qualified candidates from agreeing to be 
considered for the bench.'' I ask unanimous consent to include a copy 
of the article, entitled ``Congress needs to stop judicial partisan 
games,'' in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. The needless 4-month delay in the consideration of these 
nominations is another example of the delays that have been caused by 
Senate Republicans' unwillingness to agree to schedule these 
nominations for votes last year. As the editorial from the Tuscaloosa 
News noted: ``[T]he determination of Senate Republicans to delay 
President Barack Obama's judicial nominees--even those who have won 
bipartisan support from the Judiciary Committee--is emblematic of the 
polarization that also has sabotaged efforts of the two parties to work 
together on numerous other fronts.'' The editorial concludes by urging 
that there be ``no more partisan games.''
  A recent memorandum from the Congressional Research Service confirms 
what we have long known: The delay and obstruction from Senate 
Republicans have resulted in President Obama's judicial nominees 
waiting much longer for a floor vote than judicial nominees under the 
past four Presidents. These tactics, of course, have resulted in a much 
lower number and percentage of confirmed judicial nominees under 
President Obama--despite the fact that President Obama's judicial 
nominees have by and large been consensus nominees.
  The consequences of these months of delays are borne by the more than 
150 million Americans who live in districts and circuits with vacancies 
that could be filled as soon as Senate Republicans agree to up or down 
votes on the 17 judicial nominations currently before the Senate. Our 
courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are to 
reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their day 
in court. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to 
their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured 
plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, 
that plaintiff should not have to wait 3 years before a judge hears the 
case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they 
should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute.
  Today, we can finally end the needless delays on these two qualified 
nominees. Miranda Du was born in Vietnam. She left the country with her 
family by boat in 1978 and immigrated to the United States after 
spending a year in refugee camps in Malaysia. If confirmed, she will 
become the first Asian Pacific American appointed to the Federal bench 
in Nevada. Both of Nevada's Senators, the Majority Leader and 
Republican Senator Dean Heller, support Ms. Du's nomination. Senator 
Heller has said that Ms. Du will ``make an outstanding district court 
judge.'' She also has the support of the Republican Governor of Nevada, 
Brian Sandoval; the Republican Lieutenant Governor of Nevada, Brian 
Krolicki; and the Republican Mayor of Reno, Robert Cashell; each of 
whom has personally worked with Ms. Du. I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record a copy of the letters of support from these 
individuals at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Governor Sandoval fully supports Ms. Du's nomination. In 
his recommendation letter, he wrote that when Ms. Du appeared before 
him when he was a judge, she ``was always well prepared and represented 
her clients with integrity and distinction.'' He further stated that 
she had his ``full support'' for confirmation as a Federal district 
judge. Ironically, he was the judge in the one case on which 
Republicans rely to criticize the nominee. As the judge, he had 
overlooked the jurisdictional argument when initially deciding against 
dismissing the case. The Magistrate Judge on the case issued sanctions, 
but Governor Sandoval ultimately struck the motion for sanctions as 
moot when Ms. Du and her legal team resolved the dispute with the 
third-party. In addition, Ms. Du testified candidly about the incident 
during her Committee hearing and in her response to the Questions for 
the Record, acknowledged that she had ``learned a great deal from this 
experience.'' Incidents like this have never held up a nomination 
before in the past, and it should certainly not hold up Ms. Du's 
nomination. President Obama's nominees should not be held to a 
different or new standard.
  She has spent her 17-year legal career in private practice as a 
partner at a law firm in Reno, Nevada. She currently serves as chair of 
the firm's Employment & Labor Law Group. Ms. Du's story is compelling. 
She was selected by Super Lawyers as a 2009 ``Mountain States Rising 
Star'' and was named as one of the ``Top 20 Under 40'' Young 
Professionals in the Reno-Tahoe Area in 2008. That she is being opposed 
because she and her legal team filed a third-party complaint on behalf 
of a client in one case is to hold her to a new standard than Senate 
Republicans have utilized with other nominees and other Presidents in 
the past.
  The other nominee we consider today is Susie Morgan. She has worked 
in private practice for 30 years. Her nomination has the bipartisan 
support of Louisiana's Senators, Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu and 
Republican Senator David Vitter. Following her law school graduation, 
Ms. Morgan clerked for Chief Judge Henry A. Politz of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She was unanimously rated as qualified 
by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary to serve as a Federal judge in the Eastern District of 
Louisiana. Her nomination was approved unanimously by the Judiciary 
Committee last November.
  The Senate needs to make real progress, which means going beyond the 
nominations included in the agreement between Senate leaders to include 
the 17 judicial nominations currently before the Senate for a final 
vote and the eight judicial nominees who have had hearings and are 
working their way through the Committee process. There are another 11 
nominations on which the Committee should be holding additional 
hearings during the next several weeks.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From Tuscaloosanews.com, Mar. 22, 2012]

       Editorial: Congress Needs To Stop Judicial Partisan Games

       Delays in the confirmation of federal judges aren't 
     uppermost in Americans' minds when they complain about 
     partisan dysfunction in Congress. But the determination of 
     Senate Republicans to delay President Barack Obama's judicial 
     nominees--even those who have won bipartisan support from the 
     Judiciary Committee--is emblematic of the polarization that 
     also has sabotaged efforts of the two parties to work 
     together on numerous other fronts. And the delays are 
     objectionable in themselves: They deprive the courts of 
     needed personnel, slow the administration of justice and 
     deter well-qualified candidates from agreeing to be 
     considered for the bench.
       So it's a hopeful sign that Republicans have agreed to vote 
     on 14 judicial nominations by May 7. It would be heartening 
     to report that the Republicans agreed to the votes because 
     they repented of the obstructionism of some of their members, 
     but in fact their agreement followed a power play by Senate 
     Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who filed cloture motions 
     to try to force votes on 17 nominations.
       Rather irrelevantly, Republicans had complained that Reid 
     hadn't made judicial confirmations a priority. Now he has. 
     Republicans also have faulted the Obama administration for 
     being slow to fill vacancies on district and appeals courts. 
     That is a fair criticism. There are 81 vacancies but only 39 
     pending nominees (including two for future vacancies). But it 
     is Republicans who have withheld the unanimous consent 
     necessary for nominations already approved by the Judiciary 
     Committee to move forward expeditiously and without prolonged 
     debate. The

[[Page 4320]]

     latest pretext for delay was the desire to protest Obama's 
     recess appointments to federal agencies, but Republicans have 
     been reluctant to allow Democrats to score a political point 
     by promptly confirming Obama's judicial nominees.
       When Reid first proposed swift action on the nominations, 
     Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., complained: 
     ``This is just a very transparent attempt to try to slam dunk 
     the minority and make them look like they are obstructing 
     things they aren't obstructing.'' But then McConnell added 
     that ``this is going to, of course, be greeted with 
     resistance.'' In other words, if you accuse us of being 
     obstructionist, we'll make you pay by being obstructionist. 
     This is partisanship at its pettiest.
       The White House complains that the Senate has taken four to 
     five times as long to confirm Obama's nominees as it did to 
     approve George W. Bush's. Nevertheless, several of Bush's 
     nominations were delayed or derailed by Senate Democrats, 
     including eminently qualified appeals court nominees whom 
     they feared might be potential Republican appointees to the 
     Supreme Court.
       Controversial or not, every judicial nominee deserves 
     serious consideration by the Senate and an expeditious up-or-
     down vote--and no more partisan games.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                   Las Vegas, NV, August 22, 2011.
     Re Recommendation of Miranda Du

     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: It is with great pleasure that I 
     recommend Miranda Du for the United States District Court 
     Judge, District of Nevada.
       As long as I have known Miranda, she has exhibited great 
     character and is well respected in the legal community. 
     During my tenure as a U.S. District Judge, each time Miranda 
     appeared before me, she was always well prepared and 
     represented her clients with integrity and distinction.
       Miranda Du will make a fine U.S. District Judge and 
     therefore has my full support. Please feel free to contact me 
     if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincere regards,
                                                   Brian Sandoval,
     Governor.
                                  ____



                            Office of the Lieutenant Governor,

                                 Carson City, NV, August 23, 2011.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing in enthusiastic support of 
     Miranda Du's nomination to the United States District Court 
     for the District of Nevada.
       As Nevada's Lieutenant Governor, I have the privilege of 
     serving as Chairman of the Nevada Commission on Economic 
     Development (NCED), whose mission is to promote a robust 
     diversified and prosperous economy for Nevada. In this 
     capacity, I have served with Ms. Du since she was appointed 
     to the Commission in July 2008.
       As a NCED commissioner, Ms. Du has demonstrated many 
     qualities that will make her an ideal Federal District Court 
     Judge. She is intelligent, inquisitive, reliable and 
     dedicated. She is an active and involved commission, always 
     prepared and informed, and she is not afraid to ask tough 
     questions. She conducts herself in a professional and 
     dignified manner. I think that both Nevada and the United 
     States will benefit from Ms. Du's appointment to the Federal 
     Bench and I strongly encourage the Senate to confirm Ms. Du.
           Best regards,
                                                Brian K. Krolicki,
     Nevada Lieutenant Governor.
                                  ____



                                                 City of Reno,

                                        Reno, NV, August 12, 2011.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Grassley: I am writing in support 
     of the nomination of Nevada Attorney Miranda Du to the United 
     States District Court for the District of Nevada.
       I have known Ms. Du for quite some time. For the last eight 
     years, I have had the opportunity to observe her legal skills 
     and temperament primarily in my role as a member of the Board 
     of Directors of the Truckee Meadows Water Authority 
     (``TMWA''), which is partly owned by the City of Reno. Ms. Du 
     has represented TMWA on several matters, and she has been 
     both effective and professional in that representation. Ms. 
     Du is intelligent, articulate and even-tempered. She is 
     direct and always seems prepared in responding to questions 
     from the TMWA Board. I believe she will be a great addition 
     to our federal bench. I strongly recommend her for 
     confirmation.
           Sincerely,
                                           Robert A. Cashell, Sr.,
                                                            Mayor.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, continuing the time that has been 
allotted to me, I ask unanimous consent that the following statement 
appear as though in morning business, but I will utilize the time now 
allotted to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Leahy are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with 
the time to be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I want to ask, Mr. President, if it is appropriate for 
me to speak on the judges who will be up for a vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, again, we are moving forward under the 
regular order and procedures of the Senate. This year, we have been in 
session for about 35 days, including today. During that time we will 
have confirmed 14 judges. That is an average of better than one 
confirmation for every 3 days. With the confirmations today, the Senate 
will have confirmed nearly 75 percent of President Obama's article III 
judicial nominations.
  Despite the progress we are making, we still hear complaints about 
the judicial vacancy rate. We are filling those vacancies. But again, I 
would remind my colleagues that of the 81 current vacancies, 47 have no 
nominee. That is 58 percent of vacancies with no nominee.
  So I am growing a bit weary of the vacancy rate being blamed on 
Senate Republicans.
  I have spoken on numerous occasions about the seriousness with which 
I undertake the advice and consent function of the Senate, as I know we 
all do. Our inquiry of the qualifications of nominees must be more than 
intelligence, a pleasant personality, an inspirational life story, or a 
prestigious clerkship.
  When I became ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I 
articulated my standards for judicial nominees. I want to ensure that 
the men and women who are appointed to a lifetime position in the 
Federal judiciary are qualified to serve. Factors I consider important 
include intellectual ability, respect for the Constitution, fidelity to 
the law, personal integrity, appropriate judicial temperament, and 
professional competence.
  In applying these standards, I have demonstrated good faith in 
ensuring fair consideration of judicial nominees. I have worked with 
the majority to confirm consensus nominees.
  In fact, of the 138 judges confirmed so far, I have voted in favor of 
over 90 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees. This includes 
supporting 100 of the 108 district judges we have confirmed during 
President Obama's term of office.
  However, today on the agenda is a nominee that in my judgment does 
not measure up to the criteria I have outlined. Ms. Miranda Du was 
nominated to be a U.S. district judge for the District of Nevada on 
August 2, 2011.
  We have heard Ms. Du's life story--leaving Vietnam following the war; 
living in refugee camps with her family; coming to America at a young 
age; obtaining an education and establishing herself in a respectable 
career. She has risen above disadvantages that most of us can't 
imagine. This is a great success story, and we congratulate her for 
these notable accomplishments.
  However, this is not sufficient for confirmation to a lifetime 
appointment as a Federal judge. We all can think of similar success 
stories. Miguel Estrada immigrated to America at a young age, graduated 
from Harvard, clerked at the Supreme Court, and had a prestigious legal 
career. His confirmation to the

[[Page 4321]]

Federal court was defeated by a Democratic filibuster.
  Justice Thomas grew up in humble circumstances, rose above his 
disadvantaged background to graduate from Yale Law School, faced 
discrimination in legal hiring, but went on to an illustrious public 
service career. He was barely confirmed to the Supreme Court.
  Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American female, was the daughter of 
sharecroppers. Overcoming these circumstances, she graduated from UCLA 
School of Law working her own way through while being a single mother. 
She served in California State government and on the California Supreme 
Court. Her Federal judicial nomination faced a Democratic filibuster 
before she was finally confirmed by a vote of 56 to 43.
  I bring up these examples to point out that many individuals we 
consider for judicial positions have overcome difficult circumstances 
in life. Most are examples of the American dream. Some are confirmed, 
others are not. But in each case, the gender or race of the individual, 
or the particular life story was not part of the consideration of 
whether or not to confirm to a lifetime appointment. So while I think 
Ms. Du's accomplishments are admirable, they are not the basis for 
evaluating her qualifications to serve as a Federal district judge.
  The relevant factors for me are her ability and professional 
competence. In those areas, she does not meet the standards I would 
consider necessary for a Federal judge.
  I would note that the ABA has rated Ms. Du with a partial ``not 
qualified'' rating. She states she was ``involved in'' four jury trials 
and has limited criminal law experience. As I have stated before, this 
is no place for on-the-job training.
  A mere 16 legislative days after her nomination, Ms. Du appeared at 
her nominations hearing. At that hearing, she was asked about a case in 
which she was lead counsel. Ms. Du was the partner in charge of 
handling the case of Woods v. Truckee Meadows Water Authority.
  In that case, she filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint. 
But she failed to raise the lack of subject matter jurisdiction as a 
reason to dismiss the case. The court, therefore, denied her motion. 
Ms. Du then filed a third-party complaint against the local union. But 
the union's counsel recognized that there was no subject matter 
jurisdiction. Therefore, they advised Ms. Du, in a six-page letter, 
that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The union, 
therefore, warned Ms. Du that they would seek sanctions if Ms. Du did 
not withdraw her complaint. Rather than recognizing her mistake and 
filing a second motion to dismiss, Ms. Du went forward with the third-
party complaint. In response, the union proceeded exactly as they said 
they would: They filed a motion to dismiss and filed for sanctions.
  The district court agreed there was no subject matter jurisdiction 
and dismissed the action. In addressing the sanctions issue, the court 
stated:

       Having reviewed the record and considered arguments of 
     counsel at the hearing on this motion, the court finds that . 
     . . TMWA's counsel acted recklessly. . . .

  Let me remind you, TMWA's counsel was the nominee, Ms. Du. The court 
said she acted recklessly. The court went on to state that TMWA--
referring to Ms. Du's client--``has not advanced a legitimate, good 
faith reason for bringing the Union into this litigation.'' 
Accordingly, the court concluded sanctions were warranted.
  At her hearing, Senator Lee asked her if she agreed with the court's 
assessment that her conduct was reckless. She stated that she did not 
believe that she was reckless.
  In written follow-up questions, I asked her again about the court 
finding her reckless, and she responded that she disagreed with the 
magistrate judge's finding. Let me be clear: The finding of reckless 
action on her part was not a mere observation of the court, but a legal 
finding. That finding allowed the court to award sanctions pursuant to 
28 U.S.C. 1927.
  I was troubled that she would fail to acknowledge the finding of the 
court that she was reckless. I think this demonstrates a lack of 
humility, which is an essential element of being a Federal judge. I 
understand attorneys may make mistakes or have differing views on 
litigation strategy. However, this is not the case in this situation. 
Ms. Du was put on notice of her flawed motion, was warned of the 
consequences of proceeding, but went forward anyway. That is why the 
court found her to be ``reckless.'' Her subsequent attempt to downplay 
this serious matter goes against the standards for judicial nominees 
which I previously discussed.
  There is another substantive legal element that concerns me as well. 
That is her apparent lack of knowledge or disregard for the law 
regarding subject matter jurisdiction. Senator Lee's questions at the 
hearing on this issue I think demonstrate a lack of ability or 
professional competence.
  Her written responses to questions for the record failed to 
adequately explain her legal reasoning or to clarify the issues raised 
at her hearing.
  Accordingly, Senate Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee 
unanimously opposed reporting her nomination to the Senate.
  I would note that more than 2 months after her hearing, and more than 
one month after she was listed on the Executive Calendar, Ms. Du sent a 
letter addressed to me and Senator Lee. In that letter, she apologized 
for her earlier unclear explanations and for her misstatements. While I 
appreciated her response to me, the doubts I have about her ability and 
competence remain. Therefore, I cannot support this nomination and urge 
a ``no'' vote on this nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know Senator Inhofe was on the floor, 
and if I could ask unanimous consent that after I speak, he would be 
next to speak, and then the good Senator, Mr. Lee, from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
  It is my distinct privilege to come to the floor this afternoon to 
voice my full support for Susie Morgan's confirmation as an article III 
judge on the U.S. Eastern District Court of Louisiana.
  I have known Susie for many years. She is a good friend and, more 
importantly, she is an excellent and outstanding attorney.
  Ms. Morgan comes to this position equipped with decades of litigation 
experience in Federal court as an advocate for both plaintiffs and 
defendants. She brings a thorough understanding of Federal law and an 
unquestionably fair and evenhanded temperament.
  It is unfortunate that such a talented individual such as Susie 
Morgan has been waiting nearly a year since President Obama nominated 
her in July of 2011, and almost 5 months since she was voted out of 
committee unanimously.
  Despite what the good Senator from Iowa--my good friend and wonderful 
partner in so many important issues here--has said, the fact is there 
are 17 judicial nominees on this calendar. There are 19 judicial 
nominees in committee. The facts are that the nominees for President 
Obama have taken nearly five times longer to receive a vote on this 
floor.
  We know there are some vacancies that have not yet received 
nominations. But there is no reason to deny these 17 who are still on 
the calendar their day on this floor. Ms. Morgan has waited more than 
her turn, and I apologize for that. She understands this has been 
caught up in bigger politics. It has nothing to do with her nomination 
specifically or her outstanding qualifications. But I do think we have 
to be honest about these delays and see what we can do to move people 
who are qualified, such as this nominee, so much more quickly because 
the courts need their help.
  Ms. Morgan earned an advanced degree from the University of Louisiana 
at Monroe. She graduated from there, earning both her undergraduate and 
master's degrees. Then she earned a

[[Page 4322]]

law degree on top of that, graduating in the top 5 percent of her class 
at Louisiana State University's Paul Hebert Law Center.
  Immediately after earning her JD, Susie served as a law clerk for one 
of Louisiana's most respected legal minds, Judge Henry Politz of the 
U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  At the conclusion of that Federal clerkship, she began practicing in 
Shreveport, LA, for one of our most respected firms, Wiener, Weiss & 
Madison.
  For the next 25 years, she honed her skills. She was one of the most 
capable civil defense attorneys in both Federal and State court.
  After years of successful practice in Shreveport, Susie was recruited 
by one of the most prestigious law firms in Louisiana, Phelps Dunbar, 
and has since served as a partner for the firm where she specializes in 
commercial litigation.
  She served in a variety of posts, as many of our wonderful nominees 
have--serving without much fanfare but with great impact on many 
committees of the Louisiana bar, the Federal bar, et cetera. One of the 
most important that I want to mention here is that for 14 years she 
chaired a rules committee. It is not the sexiest kind of committee, not 
something known to the public, but it is so important to the practice 
of law for the thousands of attorneys who practice in Louisiana. She 
spent years behind the scenes improving Louisiana's State court 
proceedings. For almost 14 years, as I said, she chaired the rules 
committee and Louisiana Bar Association. Thanks to her leadership, the 
Louisiana Supreme Court agreed to replace an old and antiquated system 
where each judicial district in Louisiana adhered to its own set of 
idiosyncratic set rules, and now we have a uniform set of rules for the 
entire State. I think that is a special tribute to her tenacity, to her 
willingness to serve and do the hard work behind the scenes without a 
lot of public credit.
  I am also impressed with the legal protection services she has 
offered to the homeless at St. Joseph's, the Harry Thompson Center in 
New Orleans, and the multiple community works she has done pre- and 
post-Katrina in our community. She has had a career that has 
demonstrated her willingness to work hard and to stay at the job, get 
the job done, to be fair, curious, and respectful and, of course, she 
is most knowledgeable of the law, which she has so well served. I am so 
proud to support her nomination. I am proud that President Obama 
accepted my suggestion and nominated her. I am very pleased. She should 
receive a full and strong vote in the Senate. She has the support of 
myself and the other Senator, my partner from Louisiana, Senator 
Vitter. I am very pleased to speak on her behalf today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise to express serious concerns that I 
have with the nomination of Miranda Du to serve as a judge on the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Nevada.
  In 2007, the very same court to which Ms. Du has been nominated 
imposed sanctions on Ms. Du for ``multiplying the proceedings . . . 
unreasonably and vexatiously.'' (28 U.S.C. section 1927.) The basis of 
this sanctions order was Ms. Du's prior refusal to dismiss a complaint 
she had filed on behalf of her client, even after the party her client 
was suing informed her--and she did not dispute--that the Federal 
District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In imposing these 
sanctions on Ms. Du, the district court stated that she ``acted 
recklessly in failing to consider seriously the basic issue of lack of 
subject matter jurisdiction when the [opposing party] brought it to 
[her] attention.''
  Ms. Du's errors were egregious, particularly because they involved 
Federal subject matter jurisdiction--the very basis of the limited 
jurisdictional reach of the Federal court system for which she has been 
nominated to be a judge. Ms. Du has not provided a satisfactory 
explanation for her conduct, but instead has repeatedly attempted to 
minimize the significance of her errors.
  When asked at her Judiciary Committee hearing why, in addition to 
dismissing her complaint against the third-party defendant, she did not 
have the case against her client dismissed for lack of subject matter 
jurisdiction, Ms. Du responded that she did ``not realize this was a 
matter [she] could raise,'' and that she in fact did raise subject 
matter jurisdiction but on other grounds ``that the district court 
disagreed with.'' However, as pointed out in a letter members of the 
Judiciary Committee sent to Ms. Du following her hearing, court filings 
show that she did not raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
  In response to that letter, Ms. Du stated that she ``misspoke'' at 
her Judiciary Committee hearing and that she in fact had not raised the 
basic issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Troublingly, Ms. Du's 
belated candor was marred by an additional misleading attempt to 
minimize these same errors.
  In her letter, Ms. Du stated that the ``motion for sanctions was 
later dismissed as moot and no sanctions were ultimately imposed.'' By 
going out of her way to make this misrepresentation, Ms. Du attempted 
to suggest that her sanctions were somehow not upheld or not imposed. 
To the contrary, after the court was burdened with a number of 
additional filings and motions regarding how much Ms. Du should pay in 
sanctions for her reckless conduct, the parties settled the issue out 
of court. The only matter that was mooted was the dispute over how much 
Ms. Du should pay, not whether she should pay. It is misleading for Ms. 
Du to affirmatively assert to members of the Judiciary Committee that 
``no sanctions were imposed'' when the district court found that her 
behavior was reckless and plainly required and imposed such sanctions.
  In light of the gravity of Ms. Du's errors and the importance to our 
Federal judiciary of the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, as well 
as Ms. Du's repeated attempts to minimize her errors, I must express 
serious concerns with her nomination and encourage my colleagues to 
vote against her nomination.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Miranda Du, of Nevada, to be United States District Judge for the 
District of Nevada?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted: ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 61 Ex.]

                                YEAS--59

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

[[Page 4323]]



                                NAYS--39

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hatch
     Kirk
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Susie Morgan, of Louisiana, to be United 
States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted: ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 62 Ex.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     DeMint
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Hatch
       Kirk
     Lee
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, any related 
statements will be printed in the Record, and the President will be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________