DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 149 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2003 No. 24 House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 12:30 p.m. Senate MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2003 The Senate met at 11 a.m. and was great things for You throughout this SCHEDULE called to order by the Honorable NORM new week. You are our Lord and Sav- Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morn- COLEMAN, a Senator from the State of iour. Amen. ing the Senate will resume consider- Minnesota. f ation of the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a circuit judge for the DC PRAYER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Circuit. The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John The Honorable NORM COLEMAN led On Thursday we attempted to reach a Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows: consent agreement which would have Gracious God, who knows our needs allowed for a vote on that nomination before we ask You for Your help, and I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Repub- during today’s session. Unfortunately, has plans for us and our Nation ready lic for which it stands, one nation under God, that consent was not granted last to reveal to leaders who humble them- indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thursday. However, it is still my hope selves and seek Your guidance, we f to work with my colleagues on the praise You for the privilege of being other side of the aisle to set a time cer- alive and the delight of serving You. APPOINTMENT OF ACTING tain for a vote on the confirmation of Give us a positive attitude for the PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE this important nomination. I know challenges and problems of this day. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The there are additional Members who Help us utilize Your divinely inspired clerk will please read a communication want to speak on the nomination, and gift of imagination to energize our vi- to the Senate from the President pro I hope they do so today, that they take sion of Your very best for the individ- tempore (Mr. STEVENS.) advantage of the opportunity, begin- uals, concerns, and complicated issues The legislative clerk read the fol- ning in a few minutes, over the course we must creatively confront today. lowing letter: of today. Empower us to prayerfully picture I do want to express our willingness Your solutions and direction and speak U.S. SENATE, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, to go as long as necessary tonight to with the tone of Your articulated inspi- Washington, DC, February 10, 2003. allow for that open discussion, that ration in our souls. Help us not to go it To the Senate: open debate, so colleagues do have the alone today on our own limited re- Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, opportunity to express their wishes. sources but draw on the inspiration of of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby I do want to make sure my col- the vivid images You play on the appoint the Honorable NORM COLEMAN, a leagues understand it is our intent to screen of our inner eye of vision. Senator from the State of Minnesota, to per- finish this nomination and vote on this Today we pray for all in the Senate form the duties of the Chair. nomination as early as possible this family who are ill or recovering from TED STEVENS, week. I would love to have that oppor- President pro tempore. surgery. Especially we pray for Sen- tunity to do so either later tonight or ators ROBERT GRAHAM and MITCH Mr. COLEMAN thereupon assumed tomorrow—again recognizing that it is MCCONNELL, two distinguished Sen- the Chair as Acting President pro tem- important people have the opportunity ators who are recovering from heart pore. to speak. Again, we are perfectly happy surgeries and procedures. Infuse Your f to stay here as long as necessary to- healing power into their bodies and night. give them strength and renewed resil- RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY In addition, three district court iency. We thank You for these two LEADER judges were reported by the Judiciary great leaders. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- Committee on Thursday. We are work- We expect great things from You pore. The majority leader is recog- ing towards an agreement for a vote on today, dear God, and we will attempt nized. one of those nominations this evening, ∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. S2065 . VerDate Dec 13 2002 01:04 Feb 11, 2003 Jkt 019060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 0637 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A10FE6.000 S10PT1 S2066 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 10, 2003 or possibly all three nominations this The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- are not in order and are not to be evening. We will report shortly after pore. The majority leader. played. At the end of the day, we ex- discussion with the leadership on both Mr. FRIST. Let me say, first, I appre- pect no filibuster—again, that is a deci- sides of the aisle, but we expect the ciate the assistant Democratic leader sion which will be made on your side— first vote to be at 5:15 this afternoon. outlining that. It is very important because the American people deserve Also, as a reminder, the current con- that we hear from people who have better. If there is insistence on a fili- tinuing resolution is set to expire on very important things to say. It is real- buster, we will use everything within Friday of this week. We are still hoping ly a matter of time management at our power being in the majority under the appropriators will complete their this juncture, so I very much appre- the Senate rules to bring this to an up- work on the conference report and ciate it. If we could just have a gentle- or-down vote. therefore the Senate would consider man’s agreement for those times with- Mr. REID. One last thing I would like the conference report later this week, out locking it in, and then allowing the to say is we are having, as the majority as soon as it becomes available. chairman and ranking member to de- leader knows, a conference committee We are also attempting to clear sev- termine the specifics of those times, meeting of the Appropriations Com- eral important items that are on the but it sounds agreeable to me. mittee at 6:30 this evening. There are Legislative Calendar. Each may re- Mr. REID. That sounds like a good still a number of open issues. We will quire a short period of debate this week idea. hear from Senator STEVENS and others. and a rollcall vote. Thus, we have a Mr. FRIST. Again, it is not our side But this thing has moved along signifi- very full week over the next 5 days. of the aisle I think at this point that cantly over the weekend. Senators should expect a busy session will do the majority of talking. We Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will this week and, indeed, as I mentioned have a number of Members who want close. earlier, late nights are possible. It is to speak as well. But our goal is to We have the opportunity of a very likely that there will be several late have an up-or-down vote on this impor- productive and very useful week. When nights this week, including tonight if tant nomination after sufficient time you look at the continuing resolution people will take advantage of that, in as judged by the other side of the aisle and completing the appropriations bills terms of discussing and bringing their and our side of the aisle. with the omnibus package and the views to the floor. I encourage, once again, the Senator three judges tonight, if we can finish The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- to continue scheduling just as he has the Estrada nomination early enough pore. The Democratic whip. done, which I appreciate, but to go as in the week, there are two other bills Mr. REID. If I could, while the major- long today as he is comfortable doing we are working on, including the Mos- ity leader is in the Chamber, first, on because we want to make sure he has cow treaty. There is other legislation the vote on the judges, the ranking that opportunity. But it is my inten- that is to follow. We have the oppor- member of the committee, Senator tion to bring this matter to a vote as tunity of a very productive week before LEAHY, has said he is aware of the soon as practical as we go forward. going out on recess. We have to keep three judges and he would like a roll- Mr. REID. I also say to the distin- call vote on each of the three and that the train moving. guished majority leader and the distin- The reason why I mention that is, if you and Senator DASCHLE can work on guished Chair of the committee that members want to talk on the other for the time of when at least the first will one of the things we are concerned occur this evening. 30 minutes or 45 minutes each tonight, about—and we know there has been Mr.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Judges of the Ninth Circuit
    Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 34 Article 2 Issue 1 Ninth Circuit Survey January 2004 Judges of the Ninth Circuit Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the Judges Commons, and the Legal Biography Commons Recommended Citation , Judges of the Ninth Circuit, 34 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. (2004). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol34/iss1/2 This Introduction is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. et al.: Judges of the Ninth Circuit JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT* CIDEF JunGE MARy M. SCHROEDER Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder became Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court on December 1, 2000 and is the first woman chief judge of the nation's largest judicial circuit. She is serving a seven-year term as Chief Judge. As Chief Judge, Judge Schroeder assumed the administrative responsibilities of both the court of appeals and the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, a board of judges governing the region. President Carter appointed Judge Schroeder to the Ninth Circuit on September 25, 1979. Judge Schroeder graduated from Swarthmore College with a B.A. in 1962, and from the University of Chicago with a J.D. in 1965. At the University of Chicago, she was one of only six women in her law school class.
    [Show full text]
  • Election 2016: Looking Ahead to a Trump Administration
    Election 2016: Looking Ahead to a Trump Administration November 17, 2016 2016 Election Results • Trump carried swing states (FL, IA, OH) as well as states that have traditionally voted blue in presidential races (PA, WI) • Michigan has 16 electoral votes, which will most likely go to Trump for 306 total • Popular Vote (as of 11/16/16): Clinton 47.6% / Trump 46.7%* *Source: USElectionAtlas.org Source: New York Times 2 “A Country Divided by Counties” • County results show Trump’s decisive gains were in rural areas in the rust belt/greater Appalachia 3 2016 Senate Results • Republican-Majority Senate • 48 Democrats / 51 Republicans • 1 seat yet to be called • Pence can vote on ties • Democrats gained 2 seats Source: New York Times, updated Nov. 14, 2016 4 2018 Senate Map • 33 Senate seats are up • 25 Democratically-held seats are up • Competitive seats: • North Dakota (Heidi Heitkamp) • Ohio (Sherrod Brown) • Wisconsin (Tammy Baldwin) • Indiana (Joe Donnelly) • Florida (Bill Nelson) • Missouri (Claire McCaskill) • Montana (Jon Tester) • New Jersey (Bob Menendez) • West Virginia (Joe Manchin) • Filibuster? Nuclear Option? 5 2016 House Results • Republican-Majority House • The Republican Party currently controls the House, with 246 seats, 28 more than the 218 needed for control • Final Results pending (4 seats yet to be called) • Democrats pick up ~7-8 seats Source: New York Times, updated Nov. 14, 2016 6 Trump’s Likely Cabinet Choices • White House Chief of Staff: Reince Priebus, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee • Strategic
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost of Partisan Politics on Minority Diversity of the Federal Bench
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 83 Issue 4 Article 11 Fall 2008 Only Skin Deep?: The Cost of Partisan Politics on Minority Diversity of the Federal Bench Sylvia R. Lazos Vargas William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Recommended Citation Lazos Vargas, Sylvia R. (2008) "Only Skin Deep?: The Cost of Partisan Politics on Minority Diversity of the Federal Bench," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 83 : Iss. 4 , Article 11. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol83/iss4/11 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Only Skin Deep?: The Cost of Partisan Politics on Minority Diversity of the Federal Bench SYLVIA R. LAZOS VARGAS* INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1423 I. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS TO THE JUDICIARY FROM DIVERSITY? ....... .. .. .. .. 1426 A . D escriptive Diversity ........................................................................ 1428 B. Sym bolic D iversity............................................................................ 1430 C. Viewpoint D iversity .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 32 Issue 4 Article 14 2005 Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals Michael E. Solimine [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. (2006) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol32/iss4/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW JUDICAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Michael E. Solimine VOLUME 32 SUMMER 2005 NUMBER 4 Recommended citation: Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 1331 (2005). JUDICIAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS MICHAEL E. SOLIMINE* I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1331 II. MEASURING JUDICIAL REPUTATION, PRESTIGE, AND INFLUENCE: INDIVIDUAL JUDGES AND MULTIMEMBER COURTS ............................................................... 1333 III. MEASURING THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS . 1339 IV. THE RISE AND FALL OF
    [Show full text]
  • Visiting Judges
    Visiting Judges Marin K. Levy* Despite the fact that Article III judges hold particular seats on particular courts, the federal system rests on judicial interchangeability. Hundreds of judges “visit” other courts each year and collectively help decide thousands of appeals. Anyone from a retired Supreme Court Justice to a judge from the U.S. Court of International Trade to a district judge from out of circuit may come and hear cases on a given court of appeals. Although much has been written about the structure of the federal courts and the nature of Article III judgeships, little attention has been paid to the phenomenon of “sitting by designation”—how it came to be, how it functions today, and what it reveals about the judiciary more broadly. This Article offers an overdue account of visiting judges. It begins by providing an origin story, showing how the current practice stems from two radically different traditions. The first saw judges as fixed geographically, and allowed for visitors only as a stopgap measure when individual judges fell ill or courts fell into arrears with their cases. The second assumed greater fluidity within the courts, requiring Supreme Court Justices to ride circuit—to visit different regions and act as trial and appellate judges—for the first half of the Court’s history. These two traditions together provide the critical context for modern-day visiting. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38ZK55M67 Copyright © 2019 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2011 Alabama Birmingham Bradley Arant Boult Cummings Alaska Anchorage Alaska Legal Services Corporation Anchorage Feldman Orlansky & Sanders Anchorage U.S
    First Year Students' Employers - Summer 2011 Alabama Birmingham Bradley Arant Boult Cummings Alaska Anchorage Alaska Legal Services Corporation Anchorage Feldman Orlansky & Sanders Anchorage U.S. Attorney's Office Arkansas Bentonville Walmart - Legal Department Arizona Phoenix Gammage & Burnham California Alameda Oakland Raiders Berkeley East Bay Community Law Center Irvine Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Los Angeles AFL-CIO and the United Steelworkers of America Los Angeles Los Angeles City Attorney Los Angeles Los Angeles County Public Defender Mountain View Google Oakland California Attorney General's Office Oakland Hon. Donna Ryu, USDC - NDCA Orange Talley & Co Pasadena Hon. Alex Kozinski, USCA - 9th Circuit Pasadena Hon. Richard Paez, USCA - 9th Circuit Riverside Californai 4th District Court of Appeal Riverside Riverside DA Sacramento California Attorney General's Office Sacramento California Independent System Operator San Diego San Diego Public Defender San Diego U.S. Attorney's Office San Francisco Bay Area Legal Services San Francisco CA Attorney General, Public Rights Division San Francisco Gay-Straight Alliance San Francisco Habeas Corpus Resource Center San Francisco Homeless Advocacy Project San Francisco Hon. William Alsup, USDC - NDCA San Francisco Liuzzi Murphy & Solomon San Francisco Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski Santa Clara Hon. James Kleinberg, Santa Clara County Superior Court Santa Cruz Senior Citizens Legal Services Colorado Boulder Environmental Defense Fund Denver Colorado Attorney General Denver Colorado Supreme Court Denver U.S. Attorney's Office Denver U.S. Department. of Education Connecticut Fairfield General Electric Hartford U.S. Attorney's Office Delaware Wilmington Delaware Court of Chancery Wilmington Hon. Leonard Stark, USDC - DDE New Haven Jerome Frank Legal Services Clinic at Yale U.
    [Show full text]
  • Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: an Empirical Ranking of Judicial Performance†
    Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: † An Empirical Ranking of Judicial Performance Stephen Choi* ** Mitu Gulati † © 2004 Stephen Choi and Mitu Gulati. * Roger J. Traynor Professor, U.C. Berkeley Law School (Boalt Hall). ** Professor of Law, Georgetown University. Kindly e-mail comments to [email protected] and [email protected]. Erin Dengan, Édeanna Johnson-Chebbi, Margaret Rodgers, Rishi Sharma, Jennifer Dukart, and Alice Kuo provided research assistance. Kimberly Brickell deserves special thanks for her work. Aspects of this draft benefited from discussions with Alex Aleinikoff, Scott Baker, Lee Epstein, Tracey George, Prea Gulati, Vicki Jackson, Mike Klarman, Kim Krawiec, Kaleb Michaud, Un Kyung Park, Greg Mitchell, Jim Rossi, Ed Kitch, Paul Mahoney, Jim Ryan, Paul Stefan, George Triantis, Mark Seidenfeld, and Eric Talley. For comments on the draft itself, we are grateful to Michael Bailey, Suzette Baker, Bill Bratton, James Brudney, Steve Bundy, Brannon Denning, Phil Frickey, Michael Gerhardt, Steve Goldberg, Pauline Kim, Bill Marshall, Don Langevoort, Judith Resnik, Keith Sharfman, Steve Salop, Michael Seidman, Michael Solimine, Gerry Spann, Mark Tushnet, David Vladeck, Robin West, Arnold Zellner, Kathy Zeiler, Todd Zywicki and participants at workshops at Berkeley, Georgetown, Virginia, FSU, and UNC - Chapel Hill. Given the unusually large number of people who have e-mailed us with comments on this project, it is likely that there are some who we have inadvertently failed to thank. Our sincerest apologies to them. Disclosure: Funding for this project was provided entirely by our respective law schools. One of us was a law clerk to two of the judges in the sample: Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit and Sandra Lynch of the First Circuit.
    [Show full text]
  • Career News Archives Thursday, July 21, 2016 Archive of Recorded LOCATION: Littler Mendelson P.C
    July 19, 2016 Littler Mendelson First Generation Professionals Mock Interview Program Littler Mendelson has organized an event designed to give your interview skills a final polish before the Bay Area Diversity Career Fair and the upcoming fall hiring season. Attorneys from Littler and other Bay Area firms, as well as in-house counsel, will share interview tips and then give you the chance to do the most important thing - practice! Learn ways to highlight your unique skills and experience while obtaining real-time feedback. Then get to know attorneys from the firms and companies with or for which you might soon be Alumni Directory working. Job Search Resources Space is limited, so please let us know if you're interested in taking part in this event by Thursday, July 14, 2016, by registering now. Symplicity DATE: Career News Archives Thursday, July 21, 2016 Archive of Recorded LOCATION: Littler Mendelson P.C. CSO Presentations 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Walk-In Hours: AGENDA: Walk-in hours are suspended 6:00 - 6:10 p.m. Check In for the summer and will 6:10 - 6:30 p.m. Welcome and Interview Tips recommence in August. 6:30 - 7:00 p.m. Mock Interviews 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Reception Please call 530.752.6574 to schedule an appointment and Questions? Please contact Juleantonette Lopez at [email protected] note whether you would like or 408.795.3432. to meet in person or over the phone. NW Minority Job Fair Deadline - July 22 Student registration for the NW Minority Job Fair is currently open and the deadline is approaching! For more information go here.
    [Show full text]
  • Judging Judges: Empathy As the Litmus Test for Impartiality
    University of Cincinnati Law Review Volume 82 Issue 1 Article 4 September 2014 Judging Judges: Empathy as the Litmus Test for Impartiality Rebecca K. Lee Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/uclr Recommended Citation Rebecca K. Lee, Judging Judges: Empathy as the Litmus Test for Impartiality, 82 U. Cin. L. Rev. (2014) Available at: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/uclr/vol82/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Cincinnati Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lee: Judging Judges: Empathy as the Litmus Test for Impartiality JUDGING JUDGES: EMPATHY AS THE LITMUS TEST FOR IMPARTIALITY Rebecca K. Lee∗ This Article examines the role of empathy in judging, which has been directly raised and questioned in recent years, in light of the discussion surrounding judicial nominations and appointments to the Supreme Court. President Barack Obama was right to emphasize that empathy is an important quality to be found in a judicial nominee, but his public support for empathetic judging was unfortunately cut short due to the political controversy and misunderstanding surrounding what empathy means. The opportunity remains, however, for a renewed discussion regarding judicial empathy by expressly connecting it to our vision of judicial impartiality. This Article makes an affirmative case for empathetic decisionmaking and argues that empathetic judging is necessary for objective adjudication.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S11793
    October 1, 1999 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S11793 officials writing these letters will at visioned under the Low-Level Radio- again be without access to disposal ca- least have a chance to better under- active Waste Policy Act, signed by pacity for much of their low-level ra- stand the environment in which we President Jimmy Carter in 1980. That dioactive wastes.’’ Barnwell could de- live. They would live in our neighbor- legislation resulted from states lob- cide to close or curtail access as early hoods, and send their kids to school bying through the National Governors’ as 2000, and, at best, will only be open with ours. If you’re going to get fined, Association (NGA) to control and regu- until 2010. The Utah facility disposes of they’ll have to look us in the eye. late LLRW disposal. An NGA task wastes that are only slightly contami- There would be no more scary certified force, that included Governor Bill Clin- nated with radioactivity and thus is letters from distant bureaucrats in Se- ton of Arkansas and was chaired by not available for all storage. attle. Governor Bruce Babbitt of Arizona, In ten years states will be searching In the meantime, I’m inviting the recommended the states form special for storage as well as disposal. That Regional Administrator of the EPA to compacts to develop shared disposal fa- storage will be near every university, come and stand with me on Gravina Is- cilities. pharmaceutical company, hospital, re- land, across from Ketchikan, where 13 The GAO study, which I requested, search facility or nuclear power plant.
    [Show full text]
  • Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Hon. Sonia Sotomayor, to Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
    S. HRG. 111–503 CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF HON. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JULY 13–16, 2009 Serial No. J–111–34 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Jun 24, 2010 Jkt 056940 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56940.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF HON. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Jun 24, 2010 Jkt 056940 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56940.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC S. HRG. 111–503 CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF HON. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JULY 13–16, 2009 Serial No. J–111–34 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 56–940 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:18 Jun 24, 2010 Jkt 056940 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56940.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC PATRICK J.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Selection at the Clinton Administration's End
    Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality Volume 19 Issue 1 Article 6 June 2001 Judicial Selection at the Clinton Administration's End Carl Tobias Follow this and additional works at: https://lawandinequality.org/ Recommended Citation Carl Tobias, Judicial Selection at the Clinton Administration's End, 19(1) LAW & INEQ. 159 (2001). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol19/iss1/6 Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. Judicial Selection at the Clinton Administration's End Carl Tobias* Introduction During his presidency, Bill Clinton appointed almost half of the presently sitting federal appellate and district court judges. He, therefore, can justifiably claim that he has left a lasting imprint on the federal judiciary. During his 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton promised to choose intelligent, diligent, and independent judges who would increase balance, vigorously enforce fundamental constitutional rights, and possess measured judicial temperament. The initial achievement of the Clinton Administration in selecting members of the federal bench, who make it more diverse and who are exceptionally qualified, demonstrates that the President fulfilled these campaign pledges. President Clinton named unprecedented numbers and percentages of highly competent female and minority judges during his first two years in office. The record compiled is important, because diverse judges can improve their colleagues' understanding of complex questions that the federal courts must decide, might reduce bias in the justice process, and may increase the confidence of the American people in the federal judiciary. After 1994, however, President Clinton encountered greater difficulty in appointing women and minorities, as well as in filling the perennial federal court vacancies, primarily because the Republican Party had captured a large majority in the U.S.
    [Show full text]