Mr. President,
I rise in support of the nomination of Michael A. Shipp, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey. Judge Shipp, currently serving as a U.S. Magistrate Judge, was reported out of committee by voice vote. I am not aware of any controversy regarding this nominee and I expect he will be confirmed with an overwhelming vote.
There has been a bit of discussion regarding whether or not the cloture vote that had been scheduled on today’s nominee was some sort of escalation of Presidential election politics or indication of a partisan fight over judicial confirmations. Those who raise this speculation are misreading what is happening in the Senate. The fact is, the cloture vote that was vitiated had nothing to do with the judicial confirmation process in general, or this nominee in particular.
There is, unfortunately, an element of partisan gridlock that is affecting this nomination. But it is not because of Republican desire to block this nominee or to shut down the Senate floor. Republicans, in fact, have been demanding more access to the Senate floor. That gridlock is the Majority Leader’s tactics to block amendments on the Senate floor. Time after time the Majority uses parliamentary procedures to prohibit amendments, block votes, and deny or limit debate.
For example, last Thursday the Republican Leader asked the Majority Leader if the anticipated business coming before the Senate, the Stabenow/Obama campaign tax bill, would be open for amendments. The Majority Leader responded that would be “very doubtful.”
These actions, though they may be permitted by Senate rules, are contrary to the spirit of the Senate. Certainly we are far from being the world’s greatest deliberative body. So when a Senator who seeks a vote on his amendment is stymied time after time, it is not surprising that the Senator would use Senate rules and procedures to bring pressure on the Majority Leader for a vote. There is a bit of sad irony that Senators who are facing obstructionism are the ones who are labeled obstructionist when they are persistent in trying to bring a matter to a vote.
Unfortunately, we are now seeing this obstructionist strategy creep into committee activity as well. Again, last Thursday, the Judiciary Committee marked up an important national security bill. The bill was open to amendments, but apparently only amendments the Chairman agreed with. In the Judiciary Committee, we have a longstanding practice of voting up or down on difficult and controversial issues. What happened last week undermined the responsibility of the committee to debate and address important issues, in this case national security. The Judiciary Committee is the forum for these debates. The bill that was on the agenda is one of the few vehicles that will likely be passed before the end of the year. So it was an important and appropriate vehicle for addressing such issues, once the chairman opened up the amendment process by adopting his own substitute amendment.
Instead, the partisan gridlock driven by the Majority Leader’s tactics to block amendments on the Senate floor spread to the committee level with made-up germaneness rules and tabling motions forced on amendments, some of which had received bipartisan support from members of the Judiciary Committee. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Senate majority leadership wants to protect its members at every step of the legislative process from having to make difficult votes, and the majority leadership will employ any procedure it can to duck debates and governance.
Even as we turn to the 154th nominee of this President to be confirmed to the district and circuit courts, we continue to hear unsubstantiated charges of obstructionism. The fact is, we have confirmed over 78 percent of President Obama’s District nominees. At this point in his Presidency, 75 percent of President Bush’s nominees had been confirmed. President Obama is running ahead of President Bush on District confirmations, as a percentage.
I continue to hear some of my colleagues repeatedly ask the question “What is different about this President that he has to be treated differently than all these other Presidents?” I won’t speculate as to any inference that might be intended by that question, but I can tell you that this President is not being treated differently than previous Presidents.
By any objective measure, this President has been treated fairly and consistent with past Senate practices.
As I stated, as a percentage of nominations, this President is running ahead of the previous President.
With regard to the number of confirmations, let me put that in perspective for my colleagues with an apples-to-apples comparison. As I mentioned, we have confirmed 153 District and Circuit nominations of this President. We have also confirmed two Supreme Court nominations during President Obama’s first term. Everyone understands that Supreme Court nominations take a great deal of Committee time. When Supreme Court nominations are pending in the Committee, all other nominations work is put on hold.
The last time the Senate confirmed two Supreme Court nominees was during President Bush’s second term. And during that term the Senate confirmed a total of only 119 district and circuit court nominees. With Judge Shipp’s confirmation today, we will have confirmed 35 more District and Circuit nominees for President Obama than we did for President Bush, in similar circumstances.
During the last Presidential election year, 2008, the Senate confirmed a total of 28 judges - 24 District and four Circuit. This Presidential election year we have already exceeded those numbers. We have confirmed five Circuit nominees, and this will be the 27th District judge confirmed. That is a total of 32 judges this year versus 28 in the last Presidential election year. Again, there is no credible basis to argue that this President is being treated differently.
So while I support this nominee, I understand the frustration of Senators who attempt to bring issues before the Senate.
The majority controls the agenda, and can bring matters as it desires. The minority does not have that option. So when Republicans are routinely shut out, it is not surprising that Senators use the rules to their advantage.
I will put the balance of my statement in The Record regarding the qualifications of Judge Shipp.
Judge Shipp received his B.S. from Rutgers University in 1987 and his J.D. from the Seton Hall University School of Law in 1994. Upon graduation, he clerked for the Honorable James H. Colman, Jr., a Justice on the Supreme Court of New Jersey. After his clerkship, Judge Shipp joined Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP as a litigation associate. There, he worked in general litigation matters, handling labor and employment work. He also developed an expertise in mass tort law and products liability litigation.
In 2003, Judge Shipp became an Assistant Attorney General in-charge of Consumer Protection with the Department of Law and Public Safety of New Jersey. There, he managed five practice groups: Consumer Fraud Prosecution, Insurance Fraud Prosecution (civil), Securities Fraud Prosecution, Professional Boards Prosecution, and Debt Recovery. He supervised approximately 80 Deputy Attorneys General. In 2005, he was promoted to the Attorney General’s front office. There, he acted as an advisor to the Attorney General on sensitive legal matters related to ethics and appointments.
In 2007, Judge Shipp was appointed as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Jersey.
As a Magistrate Judge he presides over civil and criminal pre-trial proceedings. He also presides over civil trials, with the consent of the parties. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Judge Shipp a rating of substantial majority “Qualified”, minority “Not Qualified.”