[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16144-16146]
[From the U.S. 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,

[[Page 16145]]

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 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

[[Page 16146]]

     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.

                          ____________________