Mr. President:
Today the Senate is expected to confirm four additional judicial nominees. With these votes, we will have confirmed 61 Article III nominees this Congress. I would note that in this First Session of the 112th Congress we have now confirmed more than during the entire 111th Congress. That is real progress. Over 72 percent of President Obama’s judicial nominees have been confirmed.
Despite this record of confirmations, we continue to hear complaints about the way this President’s nominees are being treated. I would point out that in only 6 sessions of Congress in the last 30 years have more nominees been confirmed in a single session.
Furthermore, given the cooperation we have shown, I am somewhat disappointed that the Senate Majority wants to turn to a controversial nomination next rather than continue on the path of cooperative confirmations. The Senate Majority Leader has scheduled a cloture vote for tomorrow on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. I will speak more about the merits of that nomination tomorrow, but wanted to put that vote in some context. It seems to me that scheduling such a controversial vote, in the closing days of this Session of Congress, is designed to simply heat up the partisanship of judicial nominations. Perhaps that is the objective. The result may well be that such a divisive vote might have a chilling effect on reaching agreement on additional judicial nomination votes. I hope that is not the case, but everyone knows that the final weeks of a Session often are filled with unpredictable actions and outcomes.
With regard to the vote tomorrow, there will be some who say that this nomination has been vacant for too long, and that this nominee is being treated unfairly – needlessly waiting on the Calendar for too many weeks. Well, such arguments fail to consider the history of this seat or of the record established by my colleagues on the other side, regarding the consideration of nominations to the D.C. Circuit.
This seat has been vacant for over six years. It became vacant upon the elevation of John Roberts as Chief Justice back in September 2005. Following Justice Roberts appointment, Peter Keisler was nominated to fill the vacancy in June of 2006, with a hearing held on August 1, 2006. With a Republican majority in the 109th Congress, one would wonder why he never made it out of committee.
Well, it is not that he didn’t have the votes in Committee. The fact is - the Democratic minority would not allow a vote. This was accomplished by holding him over at his first markup, which the rules permit and is a legitimate exercise of the right of the minority. However, for the remaining executive sessions in September of that year, prior to final adjournment, they either made sure the committee did not have a quorum, so we could not vote, or they took the extraordinary step of invoking the 2-hour rule so the committee could not meet. I would note that a quorum was present early in one meeting but evaporated when Mr. Keisler’s nomination was the pending business. So basically, the opponents ran out the clock on this nomination. He didn’t get a committee vote; he didn’t get the courtesy of floor consideration – not even a cloture vote.
Mr. Keisler was renominated in January 2007, when the Democrats again assumed control of the Senate. But his nomination sat in committee with no action until it was returned to the President in January 2009. He was the recipient of a pocket filibuster.
This was despite being rated unanimously Well-Qualified by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary and possessing outstanding qualifications to fill this position. So, complaints about this seat being vacant for too long just ring hollow with this Senator.
Likewise, when one considers the treatment of previous nominees to the D.C. Circuit, it is evident that the nomination of Ms. Halligan is not being treated in an unfair manner. In fact, her nomination is proceeding far better than many nominated to this court. I would remind my colleagues that previous nominees were subjected to delayed or multiple hearings, to extensive delays in committee, to multiple filibusters on the Senate floor. These include the nominations of Miguel Estrada – a Hispanic immigrant with a compelling personal story and outstanding judicial qualifications who was subjected to seven cloture votes; Janice Brown, an African-American female who had two cloture votes; Brett Kavanaugh, and Thomas Griffith. While all of these individuals, other than Mr. Estrada, were eventually confirmed, the procedural tactics used in their nominations made the confirmations difficult. I am not suggesting that is the pattern to follow, but it is relevant to the argument that Ms. Halligan is being treated differently or in an unfair manner.
With regard to the nominations before us today, I’d like to say a few words about the nominees.
First, Edgardo Ramos is nominated to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York. Mr. Ramos earned his B.A. from Yale College in 1982 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1987. Upon graduation from law school, Ramos worked as an associate at the law firm Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett in New York City.
In 1992, Mr. Ramos joined the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York where he prosecuted a variety of federal crimes including white collar crime, defense contractor fraud, money laundering, narcotics trafficking, labor racketeering and violations of the Arms Export Control Act. In June 2000, he was promoted to be Deputy Chief of the Narcotics Section where he supervised Assistant United States Attorneys prosecuting international narcotics trafficking and racketeering cases.
In 2002, the nominee joined the law firm Day, Berry & Howard LLP, predecessor to the firm Day Pitney LLP, as a partner in the Government Investigations Practice Group. Currently, he represents corporations and individuals in connection with criminal and regulatory investigations involving antitrust, bank fraud, public corruption, securities fraud and government program fraud.
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Mr. Ramos with a unanimous “Well Qualified” rating.
We are also considering the nomination of Judge Andrew L. Carter to be United States District Judge, also for the Southern District of New York. Judge Carter earned his B.A. from the University of Texas in 1991 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1994.
Judge Carter’s legal career began in 1996 as a Staff Attorney for the Criminal Defense Division with the Legal Aid Society in New York, NY. In 2000, he became a Staff Attorney for the Federal Defenders Division. The nominee became affiliated with the Federal Defenders of New York in 2005, first as a Staff Attorney and one year later as a Supervising Attorney. His federal practice included drug cases, gun cases and some involving immigration fraud.
In 2009, Judge Carter was appointed to his current position of United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of New York where he is primarily responsible for handling civil matters in the Eastern District.
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Judge Carter with a unanimous “Qualified” rating.
The third nominee we are considering today is James Rodney Gilstrap to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, a seat deemed to be a judicial emergency. Mr. Gilstrap received his B.A. from Baylor University in 1978 and his J.D. from Baylor University School of Law in 1981.
Mr. Gilstrap served as an Associate Attorney for Abney, Baldwin and Searcy from 1981 to 1984. In 1984 he left to begin his own legal practice, Smith and Gilstrap, where he currently practices representing individuals, corporations, and local governments in a variety of civil matters.
From 1989 to 2002, Mr. Gilstrap served as County Judge in Harrison County where he had both administrative and judicial responsibilities.
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Mr. Gilstrap with a unanimous “Qualified” rating.
And finally, we are considering the nomination of Dana L. Christensen to be United States District Judge for the District of Montana.
Mr. Christensen earned his B.A. from Stanford University in 1973, and his J.D. from the University of Montana School of Law in 1976.
Early in his legal career, Mr. Christensen practiced natural resources law, representing coal mining and oil and gas companies in litigation and administrative matters. He went on to practice general insurance defense litigation, then medical malpractice cases.
In 1996, he founded his own firm and continues to represent these entities and practice in these areas. He has also represented defendants in large class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.
In addition to his litigation practice, Mr. Christensen has also represented at least 15 physicians in confidential disciplinary matters before the Montana Board of Medical Examiners. He has also represented healthcare providers in excess of 200 matters before the Montana Medical Legal Panel.
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Mr. Christensen with a unanimous “Well Qualified” rating.
I intend to vote for each of these nominees and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
-30-