S. HRG. 108–135, PT. 8

CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL

APPOINTMENTS

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 7, SEPTEMBER 8, SEPTEMBER 22, AND NOVEMBER 16, 2004

Serial No. J–108–1

PART 8

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

32–198 DTP 2007

S. HRG. 108–135, PT. 8

CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL

APPOINTMENTS

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 7, SEPTEMBER 8, SEPTEMBER 22, AND NOVEMBER 16, 2004

Serial No. J–108–1

PART 8

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2004

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 51

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 53

PRESENTER 

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas presenting Michael H. Schneider, Sr., Nominee to be District Judge for the 

Eastern District of Texas ..................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEE 

Schneider, Michael H., Sr., Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern 

District of Texas ................................................................................................... 4

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 6

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Michael H. Schneider to questions submitted by Senator Hatch . 41

Responses of Michael H. Schneider to questions submitted by Senator Leahy . 44

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Dallas County Democratic Party, Susan Hays, Chair, Dallas, Texas, letter ...... 52

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2004

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 246

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 64

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 248

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 66

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 250

PRESENTERS 

Christensen, Hon. Donna, a Delegate in Congress from the Territory of the 

Virgin Islands presenting Raymond L. Finch, Nominee to be Judge for 

the District Court of the Virgin Islands for the term of ten years [Reappointment] ........................................................................................................ 61

Cochran, Hon. Thad, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi presenting 

Keith Starrett, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District 

of Mississippi ........................................................................................................ 57

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, presenting 

Micaela Alvarez, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District 

of Texas ................................................................................................................. 60

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, presenting Micaela Alvarez, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern 

District of Texas ................................................................................................... 59

Page

IV

Lott, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi presenting 

Keith Starrett, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District 

of Mississippi ........................................................................................................ 58

McCotter, Hon. Thaddeus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan presenting Susan B. Neilson, Nominee to be a District Judge 

for the Sixth Circuit ............................................................................................. 63

STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES 

Alvarez, Micaela, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District 

of Texas ................................................................................................................. 116

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 117

Finch, Raymond L., Nominee to be Judge for the District Court of the Virgin 

Islands ................................................................................................................... 204

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 205

Neilson, Susan B., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ............... 73

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 74

Starrett, Keith, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of 

Mississippi ............................................................................................................ 147

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 148

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Micaela Alvarez to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ........... 237

Responses of Raymond Finch to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ........... 240

Responses of Susan Neilson to questions submitted by Senators Feingold 

and Durbin ............................................................................................................ 243

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Levin, Hon. Carl, a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan, letter .................. 253

Lott, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 255

Martin, Crystal Wise, President, Magnolia Bar Association, Inc., Jackson, 

Mississippi, letter ................................................................................................. 260

Neilson, Susan Bieke, Circuit Court Judge, Detroit, Michigan, letter ................ 263

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 264

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2004

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 414

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 420

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 451

PRESENTERS 

DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio presenting Christopher Boyko, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District 

of Ohio ................................................................................................................... 270

Latourette, Hon. Steven, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Ohio presenting Christopher Boyko, Nominee to be District Judge for the 

Northern District of Ohio .................................................................................... 267

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont presenting 

Beryl Alaine Howell, Nominee to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission ............................................................................................. 268

STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES 

Boyko, Christopher, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District 

of Ohio ................................................................................................................... 272

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 273

Page

V

Howell, Beryl Alaine, Nominee to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission ............................................................................................. 318

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 319

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Christopher Allen Boyko to questions submitted by Senator 

Leahy ..................................................................................................................... 363

Responses of Beryl Alaine Howell to questions submitted by Senators 

Chambliss and Sessions ...................................................................................... 406

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Howell, Beryl Alaine, Nominee to be a Member of the Sentencing Commission, articles .......................................................................................................... 423

Stroz Friedberg, LLC, March 3, 2003, article ....................................................... 455

Voinovich, Hon. George V., a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 457

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2004

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............. 463

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 656

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 674

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 470

PRESENTERS 

Akaka, Hon. Daniel, a U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii presenting 

J. Michael Seabright, of Hawaii, Nominee to be District Judge for the 

District of Hawaii ................................................................................................. 464

Bennett, Hon. Robert, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, presenting 

Thomas B. Griffith, of Utah, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the District 

of Columbia ........................................................................................................... 465

Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York 

presenting Paul A. Crotty, of New York, Nominee to be District Judge 

for the Southern District of New York ............................................................... 556

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, presenting 

Thomas B. Griffith, of Utah, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the District 

of Columbia ........................................................................................................... 467

Inouye, Hon. Daniel, a U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii presenting 

J. Michael Seabright, of Hawaii, Nominee to be District Judge for the 

District of Hawaii ................................................................................................. 460

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York 

presenting Paul A. Crotty, of New York, Nominee to be District Judge 

for the Southern District of New York ............................................................... 461

STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES 

Griffith, Thomas B., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia 471

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 473

Crotty, Paul A., Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District 

of New York .......................................................................................................... 502

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 503

Seabright, J. Michael, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Hawaii ........................................................................................................................ 515

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 516

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Thomas B. Griffith to questions submitted by Senator Biden ...... 562

Responses of Thomas B. Griffith to questions submitted by Senator Durbin .... 566

Responses of Thomas B. Griffith to questions submitted by Senator Feingold .. 571

Page

VI

Responses of Thomas B. Griffith to questions submitted by Senator Feinstein 584

Responses of Thomas B. Griffith to questions submitted by Senator Kennedy . 595

Responses of Thomas B. Griffith to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ...... 601

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Albright, G. Mark, Esq., Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Palmer, Las Vegas, 

Nevada, letter ....................................................................................................... 615

Andrews, Walter J., Partner, Shaw Pittman L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, letter .. 617

Augustine-Adams, Kif, Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, 

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, letter ................................................ 618

Baldwin, John C., Executive Director, Utah State Bar, Salt Lake City, Utah, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 620

Bertelsen, Delora P., Managing Director, Employee Relations and Equal Opportunity, Brigham Young University, letter .................................................... 621

Bledsoe, Louis A., III, Robin L. Hinson, Haynes P. Lea, Edwin F. Lucas, 

III, Jane S. Ratteree, Patrick S. Bryant, Edward F. Hennessey, IV, Allen 

K. Robertson, Robert W. Bradswhaw, Jr., John R. Wester, Brent A. 

Torstrick, Richard L. Mack, Robert G. Griffin, Henry H. Ralston, Stokley 

G. Caldwell, Jr., Christopher W. Loeb, Benjamin W. Baldwin, Robert M. 

Bryan, Robert W. Fuller, D. Blaine Sanders, David C. Wright, III, Allain 

C. Andry, IV, Mark W. Merritt, Robinson, Bradsaw & Hinson, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, letter .......................................................................................... 622

Bowlsby, Robert A., Director, Iowa Hawkeyes, University of Iowa, CarverHawkeye Arena, Iowa City, Iowa, letter ............................................................ 625

Brunner, Thomas W., Wiley Rein & Fielding L.L.P., Washington, D.C., letter . 626

Clark, Robert S., Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless, Attorneys at Law, 

Salt Lake City, Utah, letters ............................................................................... 628

Cobb, John H., Helms Mulliss & Wicker, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 631

Ellis, Mark S., Executive Director, International Bar Association, London, 

United Kingdom, letter ........................................................................................ 633

Fielding, Fred F., Wiley Rein & Fielding L.L.P., Washington, D.C., letter ........ 635

Foggan, Laura A., Wiley Rein & Fielding L.L.P., Washington, D.C., letter ....... 637

Freedman, Monroe H., Professor of Law, Hofstra University, Hempstead, 

New York, letters and attachment ..................................................................... 638

Grames, Conan P., Chairman, International Section, Kirton & McConkie, 

Salt Lake City, Utah, letter ................................................................................ 644

Griffith, Thomas B., Assistant to the President and General Counsel, 

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, letter and attachments .................. 646

Guynn, Randall D., Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York, New York, letter ........ 651

Hansen, H. Reese, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, 

Provo, Utah, letter ............................................................................................... 653

Huefner, Steven F., Assistant Professor of Law, Legislation Clinic Director, 

Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, letter .................................................. 660

Ivey, Glenn F., Upper Marlboro, Maryland, letter ................................................ 662

Jacopy, Wade, Director, Center for the Study of Europe, Brigham Young 

University, Provo, Utah, letter ........................................................................... 663

Jardino, James S., Ray, Quinney & Nebeker, Salt Lake City, Utah, letter ....... 664

Jones, Brian W., General Counsel, Department of Education, Washington, 

D.C., letter ............................................................................................................ 666

Keegan, Lisa Graham, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., letter ............................................................................................... 668

Khoury, Paul F., Wiley Rein & Fielding L.L.P., Washington, D.C., letter ......... 670

Lawson, Rodney H., Carrington, Coleman Sloman & Blumental L.L.P, Dallas 

Texas, letter .......................................................................................................... 672

Leland, Ted, Director of Athletics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 676

Lundberg, Constance, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark 

Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, letter .......................... 677

McConkie, Oscar W., Kirton & McConkie, Salt Lake City, Utah, letter ............ 678

Members of the Utah Bar, John A. Adams, Charles R. Brown, Scott Daniels, 

Randy L. Dryer, Dennis V. Haslam, letter ........................................................ 679

Michaelis, Elaine, Executive Director, Brigham Young University Women’s 

Athletics, Provo, Utah, letter .............................................................................. 680

Mikva, Abner J., former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, letters .................................. 682

Page

VII

Morgan, Thomas D., Oppenheim Professor of Antitrust and Trade Regulation 

Law, George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C., letter .. 684

Moyer, Homer E., Jr., Miller & Chevalier, Washington, D.C., letter .................. 687

Olson, Eric, C., Kirton & McConkie, Salt Lake City, Utah, letter ...................... 688

Pullins, Kathy D., Associate Dean, Constance K. Lundberg, Associate Dean 

and Professor of Law, Mary H. Hoagland, Assistant Dean, J. Reuben Clark 

Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, letter .......................... 690

Robinson, Russell M., II, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, letter ..................................................................................................... 692

Togers, Sandra, International Vice President, Brigham Young University, 

Provo, Utah, letter ............................................................................................... 693

Scharman, Janet S., Student Life Vice President, Brigham Young University, 

Provo, Utah, letter ............................................................................................... 695

Siegfried, B.R., letter ............................................................................................... 696

Simon, Rita J., University Professor, Title IX Commissioner, American University, Washington, D.C., letter ........................................................................ 697

Spanier, Graham B., President, Pennsylvania State University, University 

Park, Pennsylvania, letter ................................................................................... 698

Stroup, Sally L., Assistant Secretary, Department of Education, Washington, 

D.C., letter ............................................................................................................ 700

Stuntz, William J., Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, letter .................................................................................................. 702

Tolbert, David, Deputy Registrar, United Nations, International Criminal 

Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, The Hague, Netherlands, letter ............. 704

Umin, Steven M., Williams & Connolly L.L.P., Washington, D.C., letter and 

attachment ............................................................................................................ 705

Walker, Samuel D., Esq., Chief Legal Officer and Public Affairs Vice President, Coors Brewing Company, Littleton, Colorado, letter .............................. 710

Wardle, Lynn D., Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham 

Young University, Provo, Utah, letter ................................................................ 712

Waxman, Seth P., letter .......................................................................................... 714

Wiley, Richard E., Wiley Rein & Fielding L.L.P., Washington, D.C., letter ....... 715

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF NOMINEES 

Alvarez, Micaela, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District 

of Texas ................................................................................................................. 116

Boyko, Christopher, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District 

of Ohio ................................................................................................................... 272

Crotty, Paul A., Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District 

of New York .......................................................................................................... 502

Finch, Raymond L., Nominee to be Judge for the District Court of the Virgin 

Islands ................................................................................................................... 204

Griffith, Thomas B., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia 471

Howell, Beryl Alaine, Nominee to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission ............................................................................................. 318

Neilson, Susan B., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit ............... 73

Schneider, Michael H., Sr., Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern 

District of Texas ................................................................................................... 4

Seabright, J. Michael, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Hawaii ........................................................................................................................ 515

Starrett, Keith, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of 

Mississippi ............................................................................................................ 147

(1)

NOMINATION OF MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, 

SR., OF TEXAS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2004 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Cornyn, presiding. 

Present: Senator Cornyn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. This hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. 

Today, we have the privilege of considering the nomination of an 

exceptional Texas jurist to serve on the Federal district bench for 

the Eastern District of Texas. I want to start by thanking the 

Chairman of the Committee, Senator Hatch, for scheduling today’s 

hearing and giving me the honor of chairing it. I look forward to 

moving this nomination through the Committee and through the 

Senate over the next few weeks. 

I also want to thank the Ranking Member, Senator Leahy, and 

his staff for working so cooperatively to make today’s hearing possible. One thing you learn in the United States Senate is cooperation is critical to getting anything done, and that is true in this 

case as well. 

After a few brief introductory remarks, I will turn the floor over 

to Senator Leahy, if he is able to attend, for any remarks he might 

wish to make; if not, then certainly any written statements any 

Senator would like to be made part of the record will be made part 

of the record, without objection. And I know that Senator 

Hutchison, the senior Senator from Texas, will be here, who knows 

the nominee and his family quite well, is on her way and would 

like to make some remarks. 

The vacancy we hope to fill with the nomination before us today 

was created by the untimely passing of Judge John H. Hannah, Jr. 

Judge Hannah was a good man and a distinguished jurist. His family’s loss was also a great loss to the State of Texas and to the Federal judiciary. 

2

I had the chance to work with Judge Hannah when he was Secretary of State for Texas and also when he was on the Federal 

bench. Also, in a brief interim between the time I left public service 

and was a private practitioner, I also actually appeared before him 

as a practicing lawyer. And I can tell you that he unerringly treated everyone with respect and dignity. 

Senator Hutchison and I worked with Judge Hannah closely just 

last year on legislation to authorize the Eastern District of Texas 

to hold court in the city of Plano. That bill was important to Judge 

Hannah, who always worked hard to serve the citizens of the Eastern District. He passed away the day after the President signed 

that legislation into law. 

The death of Judge Hannah leaves some big shoes to fill, but 

President Bush could not have filled them better than with the 

nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Michael Haygood 

Schneider. Justice Schneider will bring to the Federal district court 

the wisdom, judgment, and experience of over a quarter of a century’s service on the bench. He understands, as any good judge 

must, that the duty of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench. 

Justice Schneider has held virtually every position in the State 

court system that Texas has to offer. From 1978 to 1990, he served 

on the West University Place Municipal Court. Then he served on 

the 157th District Court of Texas, located in Houston, until 1996. 

Next, he became Chief Justice of the First Court of Appeals in 

Houston. He served there until 2002, when he was appointed Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, where I once had the honor of 

serving. 

He has been honored both as Trial Judge of the Year and Appellate Judge of the Year by the Texas Association of Civil Trial and 

Appellate Specialists. In addition to this extraordinary record of judicial service, Justice Schneider also served the people of Texas in 

the role of assistant district attorney for Harris County. 

Justice Schneider is a graduate of Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches in East Texas, the University of Houston 

Law School, and more recently the LL.M. program of the University of Virginia Law School. And he has a distinguished record of 

civic involvement. 

Justice Schneider’s reputation as an exceptional jurist and a true 

gentleman is well known throughout the State of Texas. It is also 

well known by the American Bar Association, which recently gave 

him its highest ranking, when its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously certified him as ‘‘Well Qualified’’ for the 

Federal bench. 

His nomination enjoys broad bipartisan support throughout the 

State of Texas. For example, Susan Hayes, who chairs the Dallas 

County Democratic Party, has written a strong letter of support, 

and without objection, I would like to submit that letter for the 

record. 

I will break my remarks there, and since Senator Hutchison has 

been able to join us, I know she has some remarks she would like 

to make about this exceptionally well qualified nominee, and I 

would be pleased to recognize her for that purpose at this time. 

3

Senator HUTCHISON. You may finish your comments if you want 

to. 

Senator CORNYN. I would be happy for you to proceed, Senator 

Hutchison, because I am going to be here for a while, and I know 

you have a number of other assignments that are going to take you 

away. So, please, go ahead. 

PRESENTATION OF MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, SR., NOMINEE TO 

BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, 

and I apologize for being late. But it is not because I am not really 

excited about the support of a friend for a Federal bench, Mike 

Schneider. I cannot think of anyone who has had all of the right 

qualifications—well, except for you, Mr. Chairman—but other than 

you, for this type of bench. He has been a judge for 25 years and 

has performed in an excellent way in all of his positions. This is 

an East Texas judgeship, so the cities would be Beaumont, Texarkana, Tyler, and Sherman. 

He has served as a Justice on our Supreme Court since 2002, 

elected statewide for that position. Prior to that, he was Chief Justice of the First Court of Appeals for Texas, and prior to that, a 

district judge in Houston, as well as a municipal judge in West 

University Place. So he has truly known all the levels of our court 

system, which I think really speaks well for him. 

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Stephen F. Austin State 

University in 1965, a law degree from the University of Houston 

in 1971, and a master of law degree from the University of Virginia 

School of Law in 2001. He has been honored as Judge of the Year 

twice by the Texas Association of Civil Trial and Appellate Specialists. I cannot think of anyone who has the respect that he does who 

is seeking a permanent position on the court. 

As you and I know, Mr. Chairman, these lifetime appointments 

are very carefully regarded because once someone has a lifetime 

appointment, we know that they no longer face the people. But it 

really gives me pleasure to nominate someone who has gone to the 

people, who has won elections, who has shown judicial temperament, as well as the ability to excel and be totally, overwhelmingly 

supported by the people of our State at every level—district, civil, 

and Supreme Court, all of which are elective in the State of Texas. 

So I recommend him highly. We all know that this is late in an 

election year, so my question will be to the Committee: Will you 

move as swiftly as possible to try to get this nomination ready for 

the floor? There should not be a controversy, and this East Texas 

bench needs the seats filled. So it would be helpful if you can move 

expeditiously. 

And, with that, I will—well, before I leave, let me also introduce 

his wife, who is here, Mary Schneider. I have known Mary also for 

at least 25 years. She has been a family friend. She is wonderful. 

And his son also, Michael, Jr., is here. 

So we welcome all of them from Texas and look forward to having a swift confirmation, if possible. 

4

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. Knowing that 

usually when you and I have the honor of introducing a Texan who 

has been nominated for public office like the Federal bench, I know 

we sometimes go over the same credentials, and that makes sense. 

But in an effort to try to come up with something new and different, I went to the website of the Supreme Court, and we know 

that Justice Schneider is humble not because he has to be—that 

is just the kind of person he is—but he points out he held a variety 

of jobs during college and law school, including searching titles at 

a major oil company, managing apartments, driving ambulances, 

operating a school bus for disabled children, working at a funeral 

home, teaching at school, delivering milk, clerking for a law firm, 

managing a college cafeteria, serving as a waiter, bell-hopping at 

a hotel, and serving as an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. I 

may ask him which of those has best prepared him to serve on the 

Federal bench in the questioning. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just respond 

to that saying that when you are giving this lifetime appointment 

and having met many Federal judges who do not seem to have the 

common touch, we can be assured with that addition to his background that he is a man of the people. 

Senator CORNYN. I agree. Thank you very much, Senator 

Hutchison, for joining us and for those fine remarks. 

I will just conclude my remarks by saying I am pleased that the 

President has nominated Justice Schneider to serve on the Eastern 

District of Texas, and I am honored to chair today’s hearing. I look 

forward to hearing from him today, and I look forward to what I, 

too, will hope will be a swift confirmation process. 

As I mentioned earlier, other Senators may come during the 

course of the hearing. Those who are unable to attend because of 

conflicting hearings, or for any other reason, of course, their statements will be made part of the record, without objection. 

But now I would like to invite Justice Schneider to take a seat 

at the table, but first, if you will raise your right hand and take 

the oath, please, Judge? You can just do it from there. If you will 

just raise your right hand, do you swear that the testimony you are 

about to give before this Committee is the truth, the whole truth, 

and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Judge SCHNEIDER. I do. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. Please have a seat. I know Senator 

Hutchison acknowledged members of your family, but I wonder if 

you would like to just have them maybe stand so we can all get 

a good look at them. And I know they are relishing this day as 

much as you are, and we want them to share in the attention and 

the congratulations, too. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, SR., NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

Judge SCHNEIDER. Well, my wife, Mary, of course; and my son, 

Michael, Jr. And I am going to introduce a surprise visitor here 

today. A young man that was my briefing attorney at the Court of 

Appeals in Houston found out about this and showed up: John 

Murdoch. 

Senator CORNYN. Very good. 

5

Judge SCHNEIDER. And then we have three other daughters that 

are not able to be here, and just to acknowledge them: My daughter, Dr. Heidi Schneider, who is an internal medicine doctor in San 

Antonio. We have got Shelley, who is going to be finishing—Shelley 

Toomey, who will be finishing or actually has started teaching in 

the Houston Independent School District. And then last, and certainly not least, Christine, who is in her last year as an education 

major at Texas State University. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I know they all must be very proud of you 

and your accomplishment and share in your sense of accomplishment and also gratitude at being nominated for this position. 

I wonder if, Judge Schneider, since it looks like it is just you and 

me for the time being, I would be glad to recognize you for any 

opening remarks you would like to make at this time. 

Judge SCHNEIDER. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to continue and say, in introducing people, to express 

my thanks to the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, Senators Hatch 

and Leahy, especially the Chairman, Senator Cornyn, and Senator 

Hutchison who came over this morning. I also want to thank the 

President for having confidence in me to make this nomination. 

[The biographical information of Judge Schneider follows:]

6


32198.001
7


32198.002
8


32198.003
9


32198.004
10


32198.005
11


32198.006
12


32198.007
13


32198.008
14


32198.009
15


32198.010
16


32198.011
17


32198.012
18


32198.013
19


32198.014
20


32198.015
21


32198.016
22


32198.017
23


32198.018
24


32198.019
25


32198.020
26


32198.021
27


32198.022
28


32198.023
29


32198.024
30


32198.025
31


32198.026
32


32198.027
33


32198.028
34


32198.029
35


32198.030
36

Senator CORNYN. Well, thank you very much, Justice Schneider. 

Since you and I know each other very well, I think we are going 

to—I am going to ask a few questions for the record, and I think 

I already know what your responses in a general fashion are likely 

to be. But you, as we have heard, have served at all levels of the 

Texas judiciary, starting at the municipal court level and now serving on the Texas Supreme Court. Your job as a Federal district 

judge, a trial judge in the Eastern District of Texas will be somewhat different from what you have been doing, at least lately. 

Have you had a chance to look into the docket of that court to 

which you will be confirmed to see sort of the nature of the caseload? And give us your ideas and thoughts about how you would 

expect to manage that docket. 

Judge SCHNEIDER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I’m glad you asked that 

question. Actually, I had a chance back in January to look at their 

docket, and anything I would tell you now would relate back to 

that. But at that time, it appeared that this docket was almost 

evenly split between civil and criminal work. A number of those in 

the civil cases are those cases that are routine type cases. So that 

most of the docket, though, most of the time, as I understand, in 

trial is spent in civil cases. 

Moving to this bench is one of, I guess, the parts of life that you 

see as serendipity. My good friend, John Hannah, whom all of you 

heard a while ago, he and I were of different political parties. We 

met in law school, and we became close friends. And we found that 

we agreed on more things than we disagreed. And on those things 

we did disagree, we had good conversations. 

When John Hannah passed away, I had some Republican and 

Democrat judges come to me and ask me if I would consider applying, and I had never done—given it any thought before. I had never 

had an opportunity to file, really. I have been so busy in my judicial career. But I did it. I look forward. I think that this particular 

judicial Federal district bench is a perfect fit for someone who has 

had not only trial experience but also has experience writing opinions. I’ve written over 400 opinions, and as we all know, district 

courts publish opinions. They go in law books that are published 

that people have to buy. 

Also, another thing I think that uniquely qualifies me for this job 

is that I’ve had experience in the law in so many different places—

criminal and civil. I started out as a district attorney, and then 

civil, and further went to the court of appeals. We had criminal and 

civil cases. 

In addition to that, I’ve had litigation experience, tried hundreds 

of cases. And then, of course, last, not least—it’s not even last. As 

a trial attorney, I’ve tried well into 100 cases. I know what it’s like 

to try a case, and so that won’t be new to me. And that’s part of 

the reason—I know that was a long answer, but you seem to want 

to hear it, so there you go. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Judge. You answered part of my 

next question, and that is about criminal law. Of course, you are 

going to have a docket of criminal cases, and we all know that in 

your current job, you hear only civil cases on the Texas Supreme 

Court. But you have had extensive experience both as a judge and 

a lawyer handling criminal cases as well, haven’t you? 

37

Judge SCHNEIDER. Yes, sir. Our docket was about 60 percent 

criminal cases. 

Senator CORNYN. And this court, of course, Judge Hannah sat in 

Tyler, but we know the Eastern District covers a large section of 

the State. Could you talk a little bit about your roots in that part 

of the State? I think members of the Committee and others listening might be interested in that since you are currently working in 

Austin, wondering how you were plucked out of Austin and are 

going to be put in a court over in the Eastern District. 

Judge SCHNEIDER. Well, I’m glad you asked that. I have to put 

it in context. My father was a Methodist minister, and years ago, 

in places like Texas—they may well have changed this, but the 

young ministers moved from community to community about every 

2 years. If you were really good, you might stay 2–1/2 years someplace. 

What happened to me was that by the time I finished school, I’d 

attended eight different schools in East Texas, and in this particular district we’re talking about here, I have physically lived in 

ten of the counties that are there. 

In addition to that, my grandfather and all my distant relatives 

on my mother’s side settled in Smith County in the 1860’s. My 

mother lives in Lufkin, and that is a very big reason for me even 

being more excited about the possibility, if I’m fortunate enough to 

be confirmed to this position. 

Senator CORNYN. Could you talk a little bit about your judicial 

approach, judicial philosophy? In particular, I would be interested 

to hear you discuss briefly your approach to interpreting statutes 

written by the legislative branch and how you approach that responsibility as a judge. 

Judge SCHNEIDER. That is another good question, Senator, Chairman Cornyn. Let me say that I think the very first rule I always 

start out with when I look at a statute is to start out with the presumption that it’s going to be constitutional. I think once you start 

there, sometimes your battle is—you have moved the ball a good 

distance. So if you start with that premise and then go to the next, 

look to the literal meaning, the words of the document, if it happens to be a contract or a statute itself. And you look and you interpret them and use and apply their ordinary meaning, not something absurd. 

You do that only, of course, if the words are not clear that you 

would go to any other sources. I know that some judges who are 

into legislative history that that is a matter that has to be—you 

have to set the standards on those things, and usually when I interpret cases, we do it basically on what the four corners of the documents are and what the legislature said they wanted. Because we 

have to keep in mind the laws are drafted by a law-making group 

that has more practice and more experience as to what the law 

should be. And keeping that in mind, I try to apply what the legislature intended. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I know from your long experience as a 

judge that you have done that a lot. You recognize the role of the 

legislature as the representative branch of Government to say what 

the law is, and it is your job, if it is called into doubt or if there 

38

are conflicting provisions or statutes raised, to interpret what the 

legislature’s true intent was. 

I would like to ask you, though, there are some people who think 

that Federal judges’ main job is to do justice. And I would agree 

with that myself, but I would also say that you are tethered by 

laws that have been written, whether it is the Constitution or by 

statutes that have been written by the legislature. How do you approach a case where your sense of justice is that maybe a case 

ought to come out in a particular way—in other words, a result 

ought to attach—but there is a statute or a constitutional provision 

that would appear to prevent you from reaching that particular result? How do you see the role of a judge relative to the legislature 

and relative to other branches of Government in determining that 

just results occur? 

Judge SCHNEIDER. Well, Mr. Chairman, the system we have 

doesn’t always produce a perfect result, and that’s why we have all 

our systems built in to make sure that the procedures that to some 

people seem ridiculous, but the purpose of it is to make sure that 

people get a fair trial. 

Judges faced with an issue as you described must first apply the 

law, and there are areas in equity, so to speak, that you can take 

that into account. And I see it done every day, both from being an 

appellate judge and watching trial judges, and you will do that because I guess I’ll get over in the area of judicial discretion, because 

there are so many rulings that would be incidental to other people, 

but it’s very important to the people in the courtroom. In that particular situation, you do get to use your judgment on a lot of cases, 

and you can give some flexibility. 

The thing we have to watch out about, justice is a fine word, and 

we’re all for justice. But it has to be—we have to know that justice 

also means that we have a fair trial and that everyone was heard 

that needed to be heard. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I agree with your response. I would say 

that, you know, one of the things that I think some people have 

a difficult time comprehending is the importance that everyone’s 

conduct be judged by the same rules, by the same laws, regardless 

of whether they are a sympathetic party to a lawsuit or an unsympathetic party. Sometimes we hear people talk about how corporations maybe should not be judged the same way an individual is. 

But, of course, under our laws, they are both judged by exactly the 

same rules, with some minor exception in terms of the way corporations are formed and that sort of thing. 

And, of course, the rules by which evidence is admitted and the 

like apply the same to everybody, and indeed, I am reminded of the 

phrase over the Supreme Court of the United States building that 

says, ‘‘Equal justice under law.’’ And that is, of course, what we 

strive for. We strive for justice, but we also strive to make sure 

that that justice is equal and applied across the board regardless 

of how much money you have or where you came from or whether 

you are popular or unpopular. And I know your record of judicial 

service and your long experience has well prepared you to do justice, but to make sure that you do your job, and that is to apply 

the law as the legislature has written and not just substitute your 

own personal sense of justice for what the law actually is. But it 

39

is, as you know, a struggle that every judge goes through in any 

given case, but certainly there is no greater position from the 

standpoint of seeing that justice is done in each individual case 

than that of a Federal district judge. 

Some have said that the most powerful public official in America 

is a single Federal district judge because of the great discretion and 

authority that you do have in a given case to see that the correct 

result is reached consistent with the law. 

I know we could talk for much longer, but as I say, I know you 

well as a friend and somebody whom I respect and admire professionally. And I know, as I said, that other Senators may have questions for you, but were not able to attend here today. And we will 

leave the record open until 5 o’clock next Wednesday for any other 

Senators who may have additional questions they would like to ask 

you in writing to submit those to you. And I would, of course, urge 

you to respond as promptly as you can. 

It is my hope that your nomination will be promptly marked up 

before the full Committee and then will be voted out onto the floor. 

And because you do enjoy support from both sides of the docket, 

from both major political parties, as we have seen, because of your 

record of fairness and distinguished service as a judge, it is my 

hope and certainly my expectation that your nomination will not be 

controversial and that you will be quickly confirmed. That is my 

hope and certainly my expectation. 

But I want to say finally, thanks to you for being here today, for 

making yourself available to serve in this important position. It is 

not everyone who is willing to make the changes in their life, 

whether it is to move from place to place or changes in salary, or 

whatever it may be, to serve in public office. And you are to be 

commended for this logical conclusion to the service you have already provided in our judicial branch of Government. And we are 

better for having that service and people like you willing to serve 

in these important positions. 

But, with that, this hearing will be concluded, and as I said, the 

record will remain open until 5 o’clock next Wednesday for any 

other materials, any other statements, any other questions to be 

submitted for the record. 

Thank you very much. 

Judge SCHNEIDER. Senator, may I say just one thing? 

Senator CORNYN. Certainly. 

Judge SCHNEIDER. You know, when you get to these things, all 

the work of what you see here is 5 minutes of the work, and I know 

that I have a staff at home at the Supreme Court, and I just want 

to tell the staff people here, give you some credit for your hard 

work that you do. I know how hard you do it, and I know it is for 

the big bucks you are doing it. But—that was a joke, folks. 

[Laughter.] 

Judge SCHNEIDER. But just to tell you that—and I’m saying this 

word from my clerks back home, too, how much that is appreciated 

in putting these things together. 

Thank you. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I think those are very appropriate remarks. We know the staff works very hard to make sure that when 

we come to these hearings that things move very quickly and expeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:46 Feb 01, 2007 Jkt 032198 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\32198T.000 SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
40

ditiously, and we appreciate their efforts to make sure that this 

hearing could occur promptly, and hopefully your nomination will 

be marked up and then voted out of the Senate as soon as possible. 

With that, this hearing is concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

41


32198.031
42


32198.032
43


32198.033
44


32198.034
45


32198.035
46


32198.036
47


32198.037
48


32198.038
49


32198.039
50


32198.040
51


32198.041
52


32198.042
53


32198.043
54


32198.044
55


32198.045
(57)

NOMINATIONS OF SUSAN B. NEILSON, OF 

MICHIGAN, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT 

JUDGE FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT; MICAELA 

ALVAREZ, OF TEXAS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS; KEITH STARRETT, OF MISSISSIPPI, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI; AND RAYMOND L. FINCH, OF THE 

VIRGIN ISLANDS, NOMINEE TO BE JUDGE 

FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN 

ISLANDS FOR A TERM OF TEN YEARS [REAPPOINTMENT] 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Hatch, Cornyn, and Leahy. 

Chairman HATCH. We are happy that you are all here. I will reserve my remarks until after my colleagues make theirs, but I will 

make some remarks in the end. So we will begin with Senator 

Lott—oh, excuse me. I guess Senator Cochran first. I didn’t notice 

you there. 

Senator Cochran, we will take you first and then Senator Lott. 

PRESENTATION OF KEITH STARRETT, OF MISSISSIPPI, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT 

OF MISSISSIPPI, BY HON. THAD COCHRAN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It is a 

great pleasure for me to be before the Judiciary Committee today 

to endorse and recommend to the Committee the confirmation of 

Keith Starrett, a circuit court judge in our State who has distinguished himself by his excellence, in terms of professional competence and innovation as a trial judge dealing with first offenders, 

establishment of drug courts, and in general elevating the quality 

58

of judicial administration in our State over a period of 15 years, 

during which he has served as a circuit court judge. 

He has experience as a prosecuting attorney, an assistant district 

attorney, as the office is called in our State. He has bene in private 

practice as a lawyer in our State. He graduated from the University of Mississippi Law School, Mississippi State University undergraduate school. He has a lovely family, a wife and three grown 

children. They have been a credit to their community, and it is 

really, with a sense of pride and expectation of his excellence of 

service as a United States district judge that I recommend him to 

the Committee. 

I hope the Committee can act expeditiously to report the nomination to the Senate, and we will be glad to work as hard as we can 

with the distinguished Chairman and other members of the Committee to get this nomination approved by the full Senate. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator Cochran. That is great 

praise for Judge Starrett, and we have nothing but high regard for 

him, and we will do everything we can to get him through following 

this hearing. We appreciate you appearing here. We know how 

busy you are. So, whenever you need to leave, that would be fine. 

Senator Lott, we will turn to you now. 

PRESENTATION OF KEITH STARRETT, OF MISSISSIPPI, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT 

OF MISSISSIPPI, BY HON. TRENT LOTT, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, 

Senator Cochran, Senator Cornyn. I must say, Mr. Chairman, we 

appreciate you moving forward with these hearings and continuing 

to act confirm judges as we did just yesterday in the full Senate. 

I think it is very important that we continue that effort. 

I do not want to repeat everything my colleague from Mississippi 

has said. I just want to heartily endorse the nomination and hopefully the confirmation of Judge Keith Starrett to the Southern District of Mississippi. He is truly one of the most respected and experienced trial court judges in the State court system in Mississippi, 

and I want to take just a moment before going any further to recognize the fact that his lovely wife Barbara is here with him today. 

And we all know that the spouses have to put up with a lot of 

things to support our careers in Congress and the Federal judiciary, also. 

Senator Cochran noted his educational background. he has got 

the type of educational experience obviously he needs. He has completed a number of courses at the National Judicial College. He has 

been very active and understanding in doing his job on the circuit 

court there in Southwest Mississippi. 

He practiced law for 17 years, was an assistant D.A. and has 

been on the bench for 12 years. The most impressive thing though 

that I have seen, he has not been content just to be a presiding circuit court judge, he has been an innovator, an activist in trying to 

deal with some of the serious problems that we have in our State 

and across this country. He established the first felony level drug 

court in Mississippi in his State judicial district. The court has 

59

been used as a model for the creation of other drug courts in the 

State. Judge Starrett’s experience and involvement in this area has 

been critical and a driving force as Mississippi works to implement 

the drug court system for the entire State, and he has been recognized for that effort throughout the State and in the profession. 

He is active in his church and his community. He helped found 

the Mission Pike County, which is a racial and denominational reconciliation organization and the Southwest Mississippi Child Protection, a child advocacy group in two counties in his circuit district. He also received the 2003 Judicial Excellence Award given by 

the Mississippi Bar Association, which is a great honor. 

I do want to note one additional thing, and that is that this position is considered to be one of the 14 judicial emergencies in the 

country, and this one has the highest rating in terms of case load. 

It is weighted/adjusted filings per judge of all of the 14 judicial 

emergencies. There is a lot of activity here, and they are sinking 

under the volume. They need the help of a judge being a confirmed 

and an active judge sitting in the Southern District of Mississippi. 

I hope that will weigh on the consideration of the Committee and 

the full Senate. When we have what is identified as judicial emergencies, and then we recognize that this is the tops of that list of 

14 emergencies, I hope we could move this nomination expeditiously and before the Senate finishes for the year. So I heartily endorse this nomination. He is a good man, a good judge. He will 

make an excellent Federal judge. 

And I thank the Committee for this opportunity to be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lott appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you both. He has the highest rating from the American Bar Association as well— 

Senator LOTT. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. —which is much to his credit, and we appreciate both of you showing up here today. We will let you go so you 

do not have to sit around and listen to me, but we are going to turn 

to Senator Hutchison at this time and then to Senator Cornyn, and 

then we will go to our delegates. 

PRESENTATION OF MICAELA ALVAREZ, OF TEXAS, NOMINEE 

TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am here today to introduce a fellow Texan, Micaela Alvarez, who 

is being nominated for the Southern District of Texas, and it is 

most certainly one of the emergency districts as well. It has one of 

the highest caseloads. It is one of the areas where we have added 

judges because of the high caseload on the border with Mexico. So 

we are very hopeful that we can get Micaela Alvarez approved expeditiously, so that we can get the help that we greatly need on 

the border. 

She has a number of her family with her today—Evencio Alvarez, her father. 

Chairman HATCH. I am so happy to welcome you here. 

Senator HUTCHISON. And Gloria Johnson, her sister. 

60

Chairman HATCH. Gloria, nice to have you with us. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Michael Johnson, her nephew. 

Chairman HATCH. Michael, good to see you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. First Sergeant Maria Marty, her sister. 

Chairman HATCH. We are really proud to have you here. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Miranda Marty, her niece. 

Chairman HATCH. Miranda. 

Senator HUTCHISON. And Olivia Olmos, her niece. 

Chairman HATCH. Olivia, nice to have you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. And she also has three children who were 

not able to make it, but Senator Cornyn and I were very pleased 

to nominate Micaela for this vacancy. Her familiarity with the region and her years of experience in public and private sector are 

very impressive. 

Since 1997, she has been in private practice in McAllen, Texas. 

Prior to serving as a partner in her own firm, she was appointed 

by then-Governor Bush to serve as the presiding judge for the 

139th District Court in Hidalgo County from 1995 to 1996. In addition to her distinguished legal career, she has been a case manager 

for a State school in Gonzalez, Texas, and a social worker in 

Lockhart. She has served as a board member of the State Office of 

Risk Management, as a member of the Presidential Commission of 

Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans appointed by President Bush in 2001. She earned her bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas at Austin in social work in 1980 and her law degree from the University of Texas in 1989. 

Her qualifications, her knowledge of and commitment to South 

Texas and her experience combine to make her a fine candidate for 

the Federal bench, and we hope that we can have an expeditious 

hearing and confirmation so that she can go down to the Southern 

District, which is just overloaded right now by its position on the 

boarder, and we definitely need to give that area help, which they 

deserve to have justice and their area served. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am very pleased to be here for 

Micaela. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. I think it is 

terrific that you can take the time to show up and speak for 

Micaela. We are grateful to have you here. We know how busy you 

are, so we will let you go, if you would like, but we will turn to 

Senator Cornyn for his remarks. 

PRESENTATION OF MICAELA ALVAREZ, OF TEXAS, NOMINEE 

TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, BY HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to join 

in the remarks of Senator Hutchison in saying how delighted we 

are that you have seen fit to schedule this important appointment 

for a hearing. Senator Hutchison has already covered much of what 

I would like to have said, but what I would like to do is ask that 

my complete remarks be made part of the record. 

Chairman HATCH. Without objection, we will put all of the remarks in as fully delivered. 

61

Senator CORNYN. Let me just briefly read an excerpt from a book 

that was written by Governor Bush in 1999 before he became 

President of the United States, where he spoke specifically about 

the appointment that Senator Hutchison alluded to earlier when he 

appointed Micaela as judge of the 139th Judicial District in Hidalgo County. He wrote, ‘‘Micaela’s parents were migrant farmworkers who traveled from job to job on farms throughout Texas 

and the Southern United States. For them, Micaela was not just 

a success story. She was living proof of what they had lived for and 

promised their children; that in Texas and America, if you work 

hard, get a good education, make good choices in life, you can be 

whatever you want to be.’’ 

And I can assure you that when her mother held the Bible for 

Micaela to take the oath of office to serve the State of Texas as a 

district judge there was not a dry eye in the packed house. 

So the appearance of Judge Alvarez before this Committee today 

is just another inspiring example of the American Dream becoming 

a reality, and she deserves this Committee’s support. And I am 

pleased that the President has seen fit to nominate her for this important bench and that Senator Hutchison and I have had the opportunity to recommend her for this important position. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Senator. 

We are very happy to have our two Senators from Texas appear 

on behalf of this nominee. I think it weighs very, very heavily in 

your behalf, Ms. Alvarez. 

I do not know if Representative McCotter is here, but if he is not, 

we are going to turn to you, Delegate Donna Christensen. 

PRESENTATION OF RAYMOND L. FINCH, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, NOMINEE TO BE JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT COURT 

OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS FOR A TERM OF TEN YEARS [REAPPOINTMENT], BY HON. DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Delegate CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman 

Hatch, Senator Cornyn, Senator Durbin. It is a pleasure to be before the Committee today. 

Chairman HATCH. We are happy to have you here. 

Delegate CHRISTENSEN. And it is a very special privilege and 

honor for me to present a friend, a son of my home island of St. 

Croix and also the son of a very distinguished Virgin Islands’ family, the matriarch of which is one of my dearest former patients 

and role models, the son of Wilfred and Merrill Finch, Hon. Raymond L. Finch, has been a judge of the District Court of the U.S. 

Virgin Islands since September 1st, 1994. He is currently serving 

as the Chief Judge of our district, having assumed that position in 

August of 2000. 

We are pleased at this outstanding individual, who has served 

the law and the bench so faithfully and so well, Judge Raymond 

Finch, is again before the Committee today having been nominated 

to serve a second 10-year term by President George W. Bush. 

62

Today, harkens back to one of my very first efforts as a community activist when I returned home in the late seventies, a coalition 

I spearheaded to have a local lawyer fill a vacancy in the District 

Court. Judge Finch was one of those we sought to have seated at 

that time. Indeed, the road to his actually being confirmed was a 

relatively long and circuitous one. President Jimmy Carter first 

nominated him in 1990, but that nomination expired when the Senate adjourned without taking action and President Carter was not 

reelected. 

His second nomination by President George Herbert Walker 

Bush in 1992 suffered a similar fate. Finally, Judge Finch’s third 

nomination by President William Jefferson Clinton succeeded, and 

he began his active service on the Federal bench in 1994. The fact 

that both Republican and Democratic Presidents have nominated 

Judge Finch speaks volumes to his character and his testament to 

his sterling judicial qualifications. 

Let me also use this opportunity and digress somewhat from my 

presentation of the nominee for a brief moment to say, on behalf 

of my constituents and both Judge Finches before us today, and Attorney Curtis Gomez, who was reported out of the Committee several months ago, that I would not only ask for a timely vote on this 

nominee, but also respectfully request that the Committee use its 

influence to have both of our outstanding nominees confirmed by 

this body before it adjourns so that the history that I have shared 

with you does not repeat itself and in order that the District Court 

of the Virgin Islands can have the stability and the continuity it 

needs to optimally serve both our territory and our Nation. 

Ray is a product of the Virgin Islands public school system, 

where my grandmother found him one of her best students. And he 

is a graduate of the distinguished Howard University, where he received both his undergraduate degree in political science and economics and his juris doctorate. Judge Finch’s notable written legacy is contained in a prolific collection of memoranda, opinions and 

decisions which eloquently blend interpretations of law with relevant Virgin Islands’ cultural nuances, likely found their origins 

during his tenure as the assistant editor of the famous Hilltop campus newspaper at Howard. 

Judge Finch is a Vietnam veteran, who served this Nation with 

distinction in the U.S. Army, attaining the rank of captain. He was 

awarded the Army Commendation Medal, the Bronze Star, and a 

Certificate of Appreciation from then-Army Chief of Staff General 

Westmoreland. 

Prior to his appointment to the Federal judiciary, Judge Finch 

served in the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands and distinguished himself there for his reliable impartiality, his consistent judicial temperament, and as one of the few judges who could explain 

the complexities of juris prudence in a manner that could be easily 

understood by anyone who came before him. He is also known for 

well for his wry sense of humor that often catches one by surprise. 

Judge Finch has not only lent his judicial experience and expertise as an instructor at our own University of the Virgin Islands, 

but has furthered and expanded his own knowledge and judicial 

acumen through seminars and short courses taken through his 

legal and judicial career. 

63

He is a member of a Virgin Islands family that has made impressive and outstanding generational contributions in various capacities through their exemplary and impeccable service to the local 

Virgin Islands Government, the Federal Government and in the 

private sector. 

He is the father of five, and he is married to Anne Marie, who, 

with his daughter Jennifer, joins him this morning. He is also accompanied by former Senator Malloy and two young attorneys 

whom he mentored, Robert Malloy and Jeffrey Moorehead, also 

from the Virgin Islands. 

On behalf of the people of the Virgin Islands, I am exceptionally 

proud to reintroduce to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary one 

of our brightest and one of our best, our chief district court judge, 

Hon. Raymond L. Finch. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you so much. We are exceptionally proud to have you here today. 

Delegate CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

Good morning, Senator Leahy. 

Chairman HATCH. I think that speaks well for the judge that you 

would appear, and thank you for being here. 

Unless Congressman McCotter is here—is Congressman 

McCotter? We would love to take your statement at this time. 

Thank you. Glad to have you here. Welcome. 

PRESENTATION OF SUSAN B. NEILSON, OF MICHIGAN, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, BY 

HON. THADDEUS MCCOTTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Representative MCCOTTER. Thank you. I am new to this, so the 

first time is always the most painful is what I am told. 

Chairman HATCH. Just take it easy. You will be just fine. We are 

glad to have you here. 

Representative MCCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Committee members,thank you for holding this hearing and for allowing me the privilege of introducing Susan B. Neilson. 

Judge Neilson is a graduate of the University of Michigan, the 

Wayne State University School of Law, and was formerly a partner 

at Dickinson Wright. She was appointed to the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan in June 1991 and was reelected three more 

times in 1992, 1996 and 2002. 

Now, she will stand before you today for your esteemed consideration for a seat on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit. Here are a few words from those who have looked at her 

qualifications and have held her in high regard. 

Mark Corrigan, the chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court 

has said, ‘‘Judge Susan B. Neilson has earned the reputation of 

being one of the most dedicated and knowledgeable trial court jurists in the State of Michigan. I believe her experience as a trial 

court judge, coupled with her legal writing abilities, will make her 

an outstanding addition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit.’’ 

Mr. Roger Winkelman, treasurer of the Michigan Democratic 

Party, ‘‘I have known Judge Neilson for many years. She is well deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:46 Feb 01, 2007 Jkt 032198 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\32198T.000 SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
64

served of her reputation as a fair-minded judge who treats all parties who appear before her with a high degree of respect and dignity. Her knowledge of the law and dedication to rendering rulings 

in conformity with controlling legal authority will make her an excellent addition to the Court of Appeals.’’ 

Finally, from Thomas G. Kienbaum, past president of the State 

Bar of Michigan, ‘‘I know Judge Neilson as a fellow lawyer, a law 

partner, and more recently as a trial judge when I appeared before 

her. She brought unique qualities to the bench, a quick, perceptive 

mind, and a tremendous work ethic which she applies evenly to all 

matters that come before her, when appropriate, with a degree of 

good humor. She has an unbridled enthusiasm for the law, even 

with respect to the most tedious aspects of the work required of judicial officers.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, Judge Susan Neilson is an exceedingly learned, 

profoundly fair, morally fit, and professionally qualified person who 

would make an excellent addition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Sixth Circuit. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all of the members of your Committee for holding this hearing. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Representative McCotter. We 

are grateful that you would take time to come over from the House 

to give us this understanding. And of course the ABA agrees with 

you. She is unanimously Well Qualified—the highest rating they 

can have or they can give anybody. 

So thank you, and thank you both for appearing. We appreciate 

all who have appeared here today. So we will release you and move 

from here. 

I think we will make our statements, and then we will turn to 

Judge Neilson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Chairman HATCH. I want to welcome members of the Committee 

and express my, and all of the folks in the audience, and the nominees and their friends and families, express my appreciation for the 

cooperation we had yesterday in confirming three additional 

judges. I know there may be some resistance to continuing the 

work of the Committee, but we simply must do our duty to advice 

and consent on judicial nominations. I would repeat what I have 

stated on earlier occasions—our constitutional duty is not on a 

mythical time line or time clock. 

The judicial nominations process does not shut down during presidential election years. For example, when Senator Thurmond 

chaired this Committee during a presidential election year, the 

Senate confirmed six circuit judges after August 1st—one in August and five in October. In addition, 12 district judges were confirmed in September and October of that year as well. 

I will follow that approach and continue to bring the President’s 

nominees to the Committee for action and to the Senate for consideration. 

On today’s agenda are four nominees to various positions with 

the Federal judiciary. I welcome each one of you, your family members, your guests and friends. We are also privileged, as we have 

65

noticed, to have had members of the Senate and House welcome 

each of you as well. 

The nominees we will hear from today are Susan B. Neilson, 

nominated to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit; 

Micaela Alvarez, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas; Keith Starrett, to e United States District 

Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi; and Raymond L. 

Finch, to be Judge for the District Court of the Virgin Islands for 

a term of 10 years. It would be a reappointment. 

Judge Neilson is an outstanding candidate who received a unanimous Well Qualified rating, the highest rating, from the American 

Bar Association. She graduated with high distinction from the University of Michigan Honors College in 1977 and was elected to Phi 

Beta Kappa. Judge Neilson received her J.D. degree cum laude 

from Wayne State University School of Law in 1980 and was a 

member of its law review. Following her graduation, Judge Neilson 

began her legal career in 1980 as an associate at the Detroit law 

firm of Dickinson Wright PLLC, one of the oldest and most prestigious law firms in Michigan. She became a partner in the firm 

in 1986 and continued to practice there until 1991. While in private 

practice, Judge Neilson appeared in court on a regular basis and 

handled hundreds of cases at both the trial and the appellate levels. 

She was appointed to her current judgeship on the Third Judicial 

Circuit, the trial court bench in Michigan’s State court system, in 

1991 by Governor John M. Engler, and was reelected in 1992, and 

1996 and 2002. She presently is assigned to the Criminal Division 

of the Court. And during her tenure on the Court, she has served 

in the Civil and Family Divisions and on several Court administrative committees. 

Micaela Alvarez, nominated to be United States District Judge 

for the Southern District of Texas, is an experienced attorney and 

trial judge. She began her legal career in 1989 as an associate litigation attorney at the law firm of Atlas & Hall, L.L.P., in McAllen, 

Texas, where she handled all types of litigation, but primarily insurance defense, employment defense and wrongful discharge defense. 

Four years later, Judge Alvarez joined the law offices of Ronald 

G. Hole, where she maintained her initial practice and expanded 

it to include medical malpractice defense and products liability. In 

1995, Judge Alvarez served as the presiding judge to the 139th Judicial District Court, Hidalgo County, Texas. After a little more 

than a year on that court of general jurisdiction, Judge Alvarez rejoined the law offices of Ronald G. Hole and was promptly made 

a partner. She has remained at the firm since 1997. 

A majority of the ABA Committee has recognized this seasoned 

nominee with a Qualified rating, and I look forward to hearing 

from her today. Judge Alvarez brings a wealth of experience to the 

Federal bench and will make an excellent addition to the Southern 

District of Texas. 

Keith Starrett is our nominee for the U.S. District Court for the 

Southern District of Mississippi. Judge Starrett is an experienced 

and accomplished jurist, having served as a Circuit Court Judge for 

the State of Mississippi since 1992. Since 1995, he has retained his 

66

seat on the bench via election. The American Bar Association 

unanimously gave him its highest rating of Well Qualified. The 

Mississippi Bar Association awarded him with the Judicial Excellence Award in 2003. Undoubtedly, he will be a wonderful addition 

to the Federal bench, so welcome him as well this morning. 

Raymond Finch has been renominated to a second term as 

United States District Court for the Virgin Islands. This Committee has seen few nominees with as much experience as Judge 

Finch. As an attorney, he tried approximately 200 cases to verdict 

or judgment. In addition to his litigation experience, he has been 

a judge for nearly 30 years, having first been appointed to the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands in 1976. He was confirmed as 

a U.S. District Judge for the Virgin Islands in 1994 and was promoted to Chief Judge of that District in 1998. The ABA has recognized the extensive experience of this fine nominee by awarding 

him a Majority Qualified/Minority Well–Qualified rating. 

So it is our privilege to welcome all of these distinguished nominees to the Committee, and I do look forward to their testimony 

and appreciate those who have testified for them up to now. 

With that, we will turn to our distinguished Democratic leader 

on the Committee, Senator Leahy. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Hatch appears as a submission for the record.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, as I have expressed to you privately and I will 

express publicly, I am concerned about the Republican majority’s 

disregard for the rules and the traditions and precedents of the 

United States Senate and of the Judiciary Committee. It really is 

something to behold, and I think this hearing marks yet another 

milestone in Republicans’ break from their adherence to the socalled Thurmond rule and their own prior practices. In many 

ways—and the reason I came by this hearing is to point out in 

many ways this hearing joins a long list of double standards imposed by the Senate Republicans—the double standard from the 

way that home-State Senators are treated, to the way hearings are 

scheduled, to the way the Committee questionnaire was unilaterally altered, to the way our Committee’s historic protection of Committee Rule IV has been violated. In all these areas, Senate Republicans have destroyed virtually every custom and courtesy that 

used to help create and enforce cooperation and civility in the confirmation process. 

In addition to holding yet another hearing for a Sixth Circuit 

nominee without the approval of her home-State Senators, the majority is openly ignoring another longstanding practice by holding 

a nominations hearing after Labor Day in a Presidential election 

year. Now, this was a Republican-imposed rule not to hold such 

hearings after Labor Day in a Presidential election year. It was enforced very rigidly when Democratic Presidents occupied the White 

House, that certainly after the political parties’ Presidential nominating conventions, they would not proceed with judicial nominations hearings or votes, unless there was consent of both sides. 

67

Now, as long as the Democrats were in the White House, the Republicans insisted this had to be the rule. It always had been the 

rule, always will be the rule. Oops, all of a sudden there is a Republican President with the Republicans in charge in the Senate, 

and the rule that they followed for 50 years or more is out the window. 

Now, we have done a lot by consent. Earlier this year we proceeded with consideration of 25 judicial appointments to lifetime 

nominations. Many, many of them were people that Democrats 

would not have nominated. But in trying to help the President and 

the Republicans in the Senate, we agreed to that and fulfilled our 

understanding. Now, these hearings and these nominees are not 

part of the agreement we made with the White House and with the 

Republican leadership. 

It has long been acknowledged that absent the consent of the minority, the Senate awaits the results of the election and the inauguration of a new President before acting on additional judicial lifetime appointments. The Thurmond rule, as I said, always applied 

when there was a Democratic President. It was waived during a 

Republican President, as Senator Hatch has referred to, but that 

was done with the consent of the Democrats. The Thurmond rule 

was waived by the Republicans for a Republican President, but 

with the consent of the Democrats. It was not waived for a Democratic President. 

Now, certainly with vacancies at an historic low level, that practice, insisted upon by Republicans with Democratic Presidents, 

would be followed. If President Bush is re-elected, he can always 

renominate these people. But this hearing is clear indication that 

Senate Republicans have no such intention of maintaining a consistent practice. In another blatant double standard, they have 

demonstrated their efforts to breach that practice as well. 

In 1996, when we had a Democratic President, President Clinton, 

seeking re-election, the Republican-controlled Senate Committee 

held only one hearing to consider one district court nominee after 

the August recess. Of course, they then never allowed that nominee 

to have a Committee vote. Indeed, that nominee, Judge Ann Aiken 

of Oregon, was obstructed so severely by the Republican majority 

that she was not confirmed to her position until nearly a year and 

a half later, and then after President Clinton had been overwhelmingly re-elected. 

In 2000, a Presidential election year, the Republican-controlled 

Committee followed the Thurmond rule to the letter. After the August recess, work on judicial nominations came to a halt. At that 

time, there were over 30 nominees pending after July 25, 2000, but 

they were told, Tough, no more hearings, we have always followed 

the Thurmond rule, we will always follow the Thurmond rule, and 

so we are going to follow the Thurmond rule. Well, that was then. 

After all, it was 4 years ago. 

But now we have the ‘‘by any means necessary’’ approach that 

has characterized this Republican leadership. Their approach to 

our rules and precedents continues to follow their own partisan 

version of the golden rule that he with the gold rules. Today, after 

July 4th, after the Presidential nominating conventions, and after 

Labor Day, the Republican majority has scheduled a hearing for 

68

four judicial nominees, including one to a circuit court opposed by 

both home-State Senators and done so in a Presidential election 

year. In contrast to the stalling that dominated Republican treatment of President Clinton’s nominees, now the Senate Republicans 

want to proceed to fill judicial vacancies that have not even yet occurred. They want to start nominating and putting through people 

for vacancies not yet there and actually aren’t going to occur until 

after the election. Apparently they are somewhat concerned how 

the Presidential elections may turn out. 

Now, when you had a Democratic President’s judicial nominees, 

if one Republican home-State Senator objected, that was it. The 

Committee would taken them no further. And as we have seen so 

many times over the last 3 and a half years, the Republican Senate 

perspective is far different when Democratic home-State Senators 

object to a nomination. Before, if one Republican objected, President Clinton’s nominations would go no further. Now, as we saw 

with the line that was crossed, a line that Chairman Hatch said 

he would never cross, we held a hearing for Henry Saad, a Michigan nominee to the Sixth Circuit who was opposed by both his 

home-State Senators. I think it may have been the first time that 

any Chairman, Republican or Democratic, and any Senate Judiciary Committee proceeded with a hearing on a judicial nominee over 

the objection of both home-State Senators. It was certainly the only 

time in the last 50 years, and I know it has been the only time in 

the 30 years I have been here. And having broken that longstanding practice with Henry Saad, it has now been repeated again 

and again. 

The Michigan Senators have come to the Committee time and 

again to articulate their very real grievances with the White House 

and their honest desire to work toward a bipartisan solution to filling vacancies in the Sixth Circuit. Bipartisan solutions have 

worked all the way around the country, but not here. We should 

respect their views, as the views of home-State Senators have been 

respected for decades. I have urged the White House to work with 

them. I have proposed reasonable solutions to the impasse with the 

White House, reasonable solutions supported by many of the leading Republicans in Michigan. The Michigan Senators have proposed reasonable solutions, including a bipartisan—Republican and 

Democratic—commission, which the White House continues to reject. This is not the time to press ahead with yet another Sixth Circuit nomination without a resolution to this impasse. 

At that point, I would like, Mr. Chairman, to put in the record 

letters from Senator Levin, the senior Senator from Michigan. 

Chairman HATCH. Without objection. 

Senator LEAHY. Also at the appropriate place, one from the Magnolia Bar Association. 

Chairman HATCH. Without objection. 

Senator LEAHY. I have also heard concerns about the President’s 

decision to nominate Keith Starrett to the vacancy created when 

this President bypassed the Senate to appoint Charles Pickering to 

the Fifth Circuit without seeking the consent of the Senate. The 

letter that I have just put in the record from the Magnolia Bar Association, a primarily African-American bar association in Mississippi, is now part of the record. 

69

The Magnolia Bar’s president, Crystal Wise Martin, expresses 

the group’s strong opposition to proceeding with Judge Starrett’s 

nomination, not only because it is so late in the session, but also 

because, as she writes: ‘‘[I]t fails to remedy the egregious problem 

concerning the lack of diversity on Mississippi’s Federal bench.’’ 

She points out that Mississippi has the highest percentage of African-Americans of any State, but so far has had only one AfricanAmerican Federal judge. She explains that the Magnolia Bar and 

the National Bar Association have both made direct requests of the 

President that he appoint at least one African-American to this 

seat. During the consideration of Charles Pickering’s nomination, 

his son, Congressman Chip Pickering, reportedly expressed his 

willingness to advocate for an African-American nominee if his father received support from the Magnolia Bar. But the administration did not honor that intention of proceeding with a qualified African-American nominee for this judgeship. 

As I said before, on the agenda we have a nominee for a vacancy 

that does not occur until after President Bush’s election. One has 

to think that perhaps people are concerned that the President is 

not going to be re-elected. Now, it could be argued that for purposes of efficiency nominees can and should be confirmed shortly 

in advance of the time the vacancy they are filling actually arises, 

it is amazing that we are going to start appointing people before 

there even is a vacancy. It is astounding that the partisans who assiduously followed the Thurmond rule and shut down consideration 

of judicial nominees in the last 6 months of Presidential terms—

President Carter’s, President Clinton’s, for example—have now reversed themselves to insist that vacancies, which will not even 

arise until after the Presidential election, be filled now. You know, 

I think about 10 years from now we are going to have a couple 

other vacancies then. Maybe we ought to just fill those, too, while 

we are at it. We could actually fill for the next 30 years, go through 

all the things, just fill everybody right now, and we would not have 

to do any more work. 

Now, this President has seen more than 200 of his nominees confirmed. There are more active judges sitting on the bench than at 

any time in the Nation’s history. Democrats have voted for 98 percent of those judges. And I contrast that to what happened when 

the Republicans were in charge and President Clinton was President. They blocked so many nominees that we ended up having vacancies exceeding 100 across this country. In the 1996 session, 

when he was up for re-election, they blocked 17 judges from going 

forward. 

Now, under our Constitution, the Senate does have an important 

role in the selection of our judiciary. The brilliant design of our 

Founders established that the first two branches of Government 

would work together to equip the third branch to serve as an independent arbiter of justice. They never said we would be rubber 

stamps. I use two examples. The most popular President in this 

Nation’s history, George Washington, had the Senate reject some 

of his judges. Franklin Roosevelt, when he had an overwhelming 

Democratic majority in the Senate, the Senate rejected his courtpacking plan. We are supposed to be independent, not a rubber 

stamp of the White House. 

70

Conservative Republican columnist George Will recently wrote: 

‘‘A proper constitution distributed power among legislative, executive, and judicial institutions so that the will of the majority can 

be measured, expressed in policy and, for the protection of minorities, somewhat limited.’’ The structure of our Constitution and our 

own Senate rules of self-governance are designed to protect minority rights and to encourage consensus. Despite the razor-thin margins of recent elections, Senate Republicans are not acting in a 

measured way, but in complete disregard for the traditions of bipartisanship that are the hallmark of the Senate. 

We were able to have a variant on the Thurmond rule when 

President Reagan was here because we worked on consensus, and 

Democrats agreed to that. Now nobody even seeks consensus. I 

think it is because Senate Republicans have acted to ignore precedents, reinterpret longstanding rules to their advantage, and when 

they cannot reinterpret them, they simply break them. This practice of might makes right is wrong. It is also unfair to the nominees 

who are here because, of course, it signals what their chances are. 

Mr. Chairman, I will put my full statement in the record. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you. We will put it in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. But I feel like I have to take just a few seconds to answer. I hate to take time from this hearing, but I think 

it is important to set a few things straight in the record. 

There are grievances on both sides of this Committee. No question through the years this is a hard-fought Committee. We have 

lots of disagreements. There is a lot of partisanship on the Committee, which I wish did not exist but it does from time to time. 

Both sides have felt aggrieved from time to time, and both sides 

have been right from time to time. Not always, but from time to 

time. 

But just to make sure the record is straight, there have been approximately 78 judges confirmed—78—in the late summer and fall 

of Presidential election years since 1980. That fact alone demonstrates the illusory nature of what some call the ‘‘Thurmond 

rule.’’ I do not believe there is a Thurmond rule and it never has 

been followed, as far as I am concerned, and should not be followed 

now. But be that as it may, Senator Thurmond did think he had 

a rule. But he himself broke it continuously. 

In 1980, this body confirmed one circuit judge currently and nine 

district judges in the months of September and beyond. I helped facilitate the confirmation of Stephen Breyer, currently of the U.S. 

Supreme Court, to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. That would 

not have happened had I not been on this Committee as a Republican facilitating the nomination of Stephen Breyer after President 

Reagan was elected. That confirmation took place after the November 1980 Presidential election. Now, that nomination was made by 

President Carter, who had just been defeated by President Reagan, 

and yet we acted on it. 

I have a note that Senator Thurmond was the Ranking Member 

of the Committee at that time. Now, 4 years later—and, by the 

way, the others were Carter appointees, the other nine district 

judges that were confirmed in September and beyond. 

71

Four years later, when Senator Thurmond chaired the Judiciary 

Committee, the Senate confirmed six circuit judges after August 

1st—one in August and five in October. Twelve district judges were 

confirmed in September and October of that year. Of course, President Reagan was the President, and the Republicans had control 

of the Committee. 

In 1988, when Senator Thurmond was the Ranking Member, two 

circuit judges were confirmed in October and 12 district judges 

were confirmed between the period of July 26th through October 

14th of that year. 

In 1992, the last year Senator Thurmond was Ranking Member, 

the Judiciary Committee held a hearing for two circuit judges on 

July 29th; two more hearings on circuit judges in August; and another one in September. Five circuit judges were confirmed between July 29, 1992, and October 8, 1992. 

Let me reiterate that point: five circuit judges were confirmed 

after July 29th. There were three in August, one in September, and 

one in October. That is in addition to the 18 district judges who 

were confirmed in that same 3-month span. 

So in 1992 alone, there were 18 district judges and five circuit 

judges who were confirmed in the months of August, September, 

and October. Now, that is a total of 23 judges who were confirmed 

in the days and months leading up to a Presidential election. 

Indeed, one of my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee acknowledged on the record a few years ago that, ‘‘We were 

confirming them’’—that is, judicial nominees—‘‘right up almost to 

the last week we were in session.’’ Well, my Democratic colleague 

was absolutely correct. 

In 1996, four district judges were confirmed in late July. In 2000, 

nine judges, including one circuit judge, were confirmed between 

July 21st and October 3rd. In all, since 1980 approximately 78 

judges have been confirmed in the closing weeks of the Congress 

during a Presidential election year. The numbers speak for themselves. There is no Thurmond rule. 

Again, when Senator Thurmond was Chairman of the Judiciary 

Committee in 1984, there were 18 judges confirmed between August 9th and October 11th. I think that Senator Thurmond’s record 

of confirming judges carries more weight and is more convincing 

than some imaginary rule that has been attributed to him. 

Now, I reject the notion of this purported rule and would hope 

that the service of the longest-serving and oldest member to have 

served in this body would have been used in the manner that I 

have heard repeated over and over in the Committee and the Senate floor would not have been used in that way. But be that as it 

may, even if there was a Thurmond rule set by one person who did 

not control the whole Committee—and with which many of the 

Committee would have disagreed, anyway, and still do—our job is 

to confirm judges on this Committee, and we ought to do that unless there is a reason not to. And that means whether it is a Republican President or a Democrat President. And I have always 

tried to do that. 

Now, I have to say that the people who are nominees here today 

are exceptional people. They deserve our efforts as a Committee, 

our honest efforts to not only hold this hearing but to have a markVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:46 Feb 01, 2007 Jkt 032198 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\32198T.000 SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
72

up for them and to have votes on the floor up and down. I hope 

we can do that, and I intend to do that. And I suspect that should 

the Democrats take over this Committee next year or in the future, 

they will do the same for their President, whenever he comes in. 

I certainly did what I could for President Clinton. He was the second all-time champion in confirmed judges, second only to Reagan, 

who has 6 years of how own party to help him. Clinton only had 

2 years. But he had me as Chairman of the Committee, and I 

helped him. And he knows it and I know it. 

You can talk statistics both ways all day long, and I have to say 

both sides of this Committee have been right many times and both 

sides have been wrong many times. I would like to see us do a better job on judges than we have done in the past, and so far we are. 

And I want to thank my colleague Senator Leahy for his cooperation throughout at least my chairmanship of this Committee in 

helping us to confirm good people like the one we have here today. 

Now, with that, we will call on Judge Neilson— 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I will be very brief. 

Chairman HATCH. Sure. 

Senator LEAHY. An easy statistic to remember is that over 60 of 

President Clinton’s nominations were blocked by the Republicans, 

usually if only one Republican objected. It made no difference what 

the other 99 might feel, but if one Republican objected, they were 

blocked. The Thurmond rule, of course—you know, Senator Strom 

Thurmond said, ‘‘Today, Ronald Reagan has agreed to ask Republican Members of the Senate to block Presidential appointments to 

Federal posts until after the November 4th election.’’ That was on 

July 17th of 1980. 

The fact of the matter is everybody in the Senate who served 

during that time knows when exceptions were made to that, it was 

made because both sides agreed, because the Democratic and the 

Republican leadership agreed. And there were exceptional cases 

where such agreements were made with both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents—but only with the consent of 

both sides. 

Now we are told that consent is immaterial, past precedents are 

immaterial, the fact that we blocked President Clinton’s nominations if just one of us objected, that is immaterial, we are going to 

go forward with these. It is not the best way to fulfill our advise 

and consent. Instead of being advise and consent, the Senate turns 

into advise and rubber stamp. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, it certainly is not the best way, and I 

hope we can have some cooperation from your side so we can do 

exactly what you have been saying. I remember your remarks 

made a while back. Here there are: ‘‘There is a myth that judges 

are not traditionally confirmed in Presidential election years. That 

is not true.’’ You are right. That is not true. 

Senator LEAHY. That was in February— 

Chairman HATCH. I think I made the case, 78—and, look, the 

greatest case really was the confirmation of Judge Breyer, and I 

was the one who helped bring that to pass, after President Reagan 

was elected. 

Well, so much for this argument. We are going to argue it, I 

guess, forever. But to make a long story short, there are two sides 

73

to it, I am sure. But I think the record speaks for itself. And I just 

hope we will have some cooperation because what we are trying to 

do is fill these positions with good people. And some of these positions are absolute emergencies as well. And what I am trying to 

do as Chairman of this Committee is my job. And I would appreciate cooperation from the other side if they care to give it. 

So, with that, we are going to turn to Judge Neilson at this 

point. Judge, we welcome you to the Committee. We know you have 

waited a long time to have this hearing. We also know you have 

gone through some very difficult times, and we are very grateful 

to have you here. If you could raise your right arm, do you swear 

that the testimony you are about to give before this Committee 

shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you God? 

Judge NEILSON. I do. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Judge. 

Senator LEAHY. I know you are not interested in what I have to 

say, so I am going to leave. 

Chairman HATCH. Judge, you can—I am interested in what you 

have to say. 

Judge I am happy to welcome you here. If you have family or 

friends here you would like to introduce, we would certainly like 

you to do that. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN B. NEILSON, OF MICHIGAN, NOMINEE 

TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

Judge NEILSON. I would like to introduce my husband, Jeff, who 

is with me. Our two daughters— 

Chairman HATCH. Please stand as you are— 

Judge NEILSON. Oh, I’m so sorry. 

Chairman HATCH. We are so happy to have you with us. No, not 

you. Them. No, no, I want you to relax as much as you can. 

Judge NEILSON. Our two daughters started school today, so they 

are not with us. 

Chairman HATCH. We understand. 

Judge NEILSON. But I would like to thank and recognize in 

absentia my wonderful parents and especially my sister, who has 

been an incredible support for me over the past year. And I want 

to thank you and, in his absence, Senator Leahy for coming here 

today and allowing me to speak. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you. Would you care to make any 

other statement? Would you care to make any other statement? 

Judge NEILSON. I am happy to answer any questions that you 

may have, Senator. 

[The biographical information of Judge Neilson follows:]

74


32198.046
75


32198.047
76


32198.048
77


32198.049
78


32198.050
79


32198.051
80


32198.052
81


32198.053
82


32198.054
83


32198.055
84


32198.056
85


32198.057
86


32198.058
87


32198.059
88


32198.060
89


32198.061
90


32198.062
91


32198.063
92


32198.064
93


32198.065
94


32198.066

xxxxxxxxxx
95


32198.067
96


32198.068
97


32198.069
98


32198.070
99


32198.071
100


32198.072
101


32198.073
102


32198.074
103


32198.075
104


32198.077
105


32198.078
106


32198.079
107


32198.080
108


32198.081
109


32198.082
110


32198.083
111


32198.084
112

Chairman HATCH. Well, we are grateful to have you here. I will 

put into the record a letter that I have received from Senators 

Levin and Stabenow, or Senator Levin in this particular case, and 

keep the record open for Senator Stabenow if she cares to submit 

a letter or any other statement for the record. 

As you know, we have had a very difficult time here because of 

a mix-up caused by both sides in many respects that did not allow 

two of the Clinton judges to take their seats. In the process, the 

Democrats basically said we are not going to allow any Republicans, even though this circuit is in real dire straits and does need 

judges. 

I have been trying to work that out. I offered yesterday to the 

distinguished Senators from Michigan to try and get two additional 

judges, a circuit and a district court judge, in the judgeship bill 

that should come over from the House if they would allow an upand-down vote for the four nominees. They could argue against any 

one of you. They could make whatever case they wanted to against 

Judge Saad in this particular case that they are opposed to. I don’t 

think they are opposed to the other three circuit judges, except for 

this situation—I am trying to resolve it—and the two district court 

judges. For that, we would put one of the two who did not make 

it, Democrats, on a district court seat if we could get those two 

seats done; in other words, the House would pass a bill with those 

two seats, and one would take a district court and the other would 

take a circuit court of appeals. It would be up to the White House 

to make that determination which one would get which seat. But 

that would mean votes up and down for all eight of the judgeship 

nominees. It would help Michigan, help the circuit court of appeals 

in grand ways to be able to get this done. 

I have been told by the Senators that they would not allow a vote 

up or down on Judge Saad, for whatever reasons, that I am sure 

are sincere reasons on their part. And I am not sure they would 

allow votes up and down on the others, but we are going to proceed 

anyway. If they do not agree to that, then I am not going to argue 

for two extra seats for Michigan, and whoever wins the election 

will have the privilege of putting these people through unless we 

can, between now and the election, find a way to put the four of 

you through and the two district court nominees through, because 

I presume that you should have an easy time going through with 

a well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association, the 

highest rating they can possibly give, with absolutely stunning recommendations from Democrats and Republicans in the State for 

really all four of you who are nominated for the circuit court of appeals, and because of the tremendous abilities that you have. 

I think it is a shame that we are in this mess because I think 

Michigan suffers, I think the country suffers; certainly the Sixth 

Circuit Court of Appeals is suffering; but most of all, the litigants 

and the people who want justice in the courts are suffering because 

that court simply cannot do its job as well or as expeditiously as 

it should be done. 

So your nomination here is very important. And as you can see, 

we have little piques on the Committee, and they are cheap little 

piques, it seems to me—p-i-q-u-e-s, I guess I spelled that right—

over nothing, when we ought to be—when we see fine people like 

113

yourself, we ought to be doing everything we can to make sure that 

you folks are given the privilege of serving. And that is regardless 

of party, and I have always tried to do that. And so I particularly 

resent the implication that while I am Chairman, we are not trying 

to do what I have always tried to do I helping the Democrats when 

they have been in charge accomplish what they would like to accomplish for their particular Presidents. 

But let me ask you a few questions, Judge Neilson. I hope that 

explains it a little bit. 

Judge NEILSON. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. I could get this done. I think the House is 

bringing up that bill tomorrow or the next day. I could have those 

two judgeships, I believe, in the House and then it would have to 

come over here because there are additions to our judgeship bill. 

It would have to come over here and be passed by the Senate. I 

would hope that if we did that, the Democrats not only would allow 

it to be passed by the Senate, because many Democrats are getting 

judges in that bill. We have been very fair in the bill. But not only 

that, we would be able to resolve a lot of problems with that bill. 

And if we could do that, then we would have votes up and down 

for all four Republican nominees or President Bush nominees to 

the circuit court. We would have votes up and down for the two district court nominees, and I do not think there are any objections 

to them either. And we would have votes up and down, and I would 

recommend positive votes up and down for the two Clinton nominees in the fourth year of the Bush administration. 

Now, that is how far I have tried to lean over backwards to try 

and resolve this problem for our Senators from Michigan. And I do 

not think they will go for that because they do not want Judge 

Saad to be able to serve on the circuit court of appeals. I think they 

are tremendously mistaken in that, and I think it is not the right 

thing for them to do. But I cannot—you know, they are both good 

people, and they have their own thoughts on this matter, and I just 

want the record to be straight so that everybody understands I am 

doing my very best to try and resolve this problem. 

But be that as it may, if we do not have those two judges added 

and there is any way we can get the four of you votes up and down, 

I am going to do it before the end of this year. And if not—and I 

hope with all my heart President Bush is re-elected—then we are 

certainly going to put you four up and pass you through in the 

next— 

Judge NEILSON. Well, on behalf of myself and all the nominees, 

Mr. Chairman, we thank you for your efforts. 

Chairman HATCH. Judge Neilson, as a Third Judicial Circuit 

Court Judge, you do have a firsthand knowledge on how our judicial system works. Everybody says that. 

Now, how have these experiences shaped your views on the proper role of a Federal judge within our political system? 

Judge NEILSON. A trial judge in Michigan sees a broad variety 

of cases. I think that being a trial judge assists you in looking at 

the law and in determining what law applies. You see that in such 

a broad variety of context on the trial bench. 

Chairman HATCH. What would you say has been your most challenging case on your current court, and could you please tell us on 

114

the Committee how you address that challenge and what lessons 

you learned from it? 

Judge NEILSON. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to think of the most 

challenging case. It probably depends on what day you ask me. 

They all present somewhat of a challenge. I think that some simple 

cases become very complex in the middle of trial. I think that 

lengthy trials are challenging because you want to make sure that 

everyone’s rights are preserved, and it is difficult when you have 

a lengthy trial. I cannot really make any generalizations. I could 

not say to you products liability cases are the hardest or medical 

malpractice, those are the most complex, because I have had some 

very interesting cases that some people would consider stem from 

very mundane facts. 

Chairman HATCH. That is great. Your ability to constructively 

interact with your fellow judges on the Sixth Circuit will be, as far 

as I can see, an important element of your work. Could you speak 

for the moment about the role and significance of collegiality on the 

bench, and please indicate how you would intend to contribute to 

collegiality once you join the Federal bench? 

Judge NEILSON. I believe that a judge has a duty to set an example of politeness, or listening to what colleagues have to say. This 

does not mean that in any way you should change your true values 

and true opinions for the sake of congeniality. But there is no excuse for a judge not to be polite and respectful to her colleagues. 

Chairman HATCH. I note that you have done a great deal of work 

with the Soroptimist International of Grosse Pointe, which is the 

local branch of an international organization devoted to improving 

the lives of women and children. Could you tell the Committee 

about that experience and how that prepares you to be a judge? 

Judge NEILSON. Well, Soroptimist International is a service organization which attempts to better the lives of women and children. 

Our local chapter focuses mostly on domestic violence shelters and 

assisting them in providing for the women and children who come 

there. There are many domestic violence shelters that do not allow 

children to come with the mothers, or there is no facilities for the 

children, and we attempt to fill that gap. 

Chairman HATCH. I really appreciate that because every year I 

hold a charitable golf tournament to raise money basically for 

women in jeopardy programs or domestic violence programs or battered women programs, and this year we were able to contribute 

to some 37 different programs in Utah, without which, without that 

money they probably would not be able to function anywhere near, 

but some of them are trying to do what you have been trying to 

do. I appreciate your work in that area. 

If there were no controlling precedent dispositively concluding an 

issue with which you were presented, to what sources would you 

turn for persuasive authority? 

Judge NEILSON. Well, Senator, the first place a judge looks, assuming a statute is involved, is the plain language of the statute, 

and often even when there is no case authority under the statute 

the language of the statute is clear and the judge can rule based 

on the language of the statute. Legislative history can be helpful. 

I like to use the word ‘‘helpful’’ not ‘‘persuasive’’ because the judge 

has to again look at the plain language of the statute, and if it—

115

if the legislative history seems to say something different than the 

plain language, I believe that the plain language is controlling. 

Chairman HATCH. And if you do not have a statute, what would 

you turn to? 

Judge NEILSON. You mean if the decision is based simply on case 

law? 

Chairman HATCH. If you were on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, yes. 

Judge NEILSON. There are certainly cases of first impression. 

Sometimes I look at cases from other jurisdictions. Again, I would 

call them helpful because every State is different, but there are certain general principles of law that apply in most cases, and I apply 

them. 

Chairman HATCH. As a Circuit Judge you would be looking to the 

Supreme Court, I take it, for finding precedent. 

Judge NEILSON. Oh, of course. 

Chairman HATCH. That goes without saying. 

Judge NEILSON. Correct. 

Chairman HATCH. Can you please explain for the Committee 

your views on the difference between binding legal precedent and 

policy choices determined by elected officials and their staffs? In 

other words, put differently, what is the proper role for a judge to 

follow? Should the judge follow binding legal precedent, or to shape 

the law to achieve a desired result? 

Judge NEILSON. The judge should never change the law to 

achieve a desired result. The judge’s role is not to impose his or her 

personal beliefs on the law. Our duty is to follow the law as it was 

written by the legislature, and that is how I perceive that I would 

conduct myself if I were fortunate enough to be confirmed. 

Chairman HATCH. Let me just say this. I do not want to put you 

through any more because I know darn well you can answer every 

question. I know that your background is extensive. I know that 

you have the well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association. I believe that this hearing has been too long delayed, mainly 

as I have tried to resolve these difficulties between the two Senators from Michigan and the Committee, and so far have not been 

very successful, although I have done my very best, and have offered a final offer. 

All I can say is that I am going to support you very strongly, and 

I believe everybody on this Committee ought to support you very 

strongly. I do not think there is an excuse for this to be delayed 

any longer. By the way, how long have you been delayed? 

Judge NEILSON. I believe that I was first nominated in November 

of 2000, 2001? 

Chairman HATCH. 2001 you mean? 

Judge NEILSON. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. It has been about 3 years. 

Judge NEILSON. I have tried not to count the days, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. 

Chairman HATCH. That is okay, but it has been a long time. 

Judge NEILSON. It has. 

Chairman HATCH. A lot longer than it should have been. That 

does happen on this Committee from time to time, but I think in 

this particular case it is not right, and we are going to have to try 

116

and solve that. I will do my best to do that, and I have been trying, 

but I just want to compliment you for being willing to serve in this 

position, knowing that you would so faithfully, that you would execute the law faithfully, that you would be impartial, and that you 

would have the intelligence and the capacity to be able to do this 

job well. I know well your record, and I am going to very strongly 

support you. 

With that, we will just let you go, and thank you and your family, your husband in particular, for being here. 

Judge NEILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you so much. 

If I can have the other three please take their seats. Please raise 

your right hands. Do you swear that the testimony you are about 

to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Judge ALVAREZ. I do. 

Judge STARRETT. I do. 

Judge FINCH. I do. 

Chairman HATCH. Thanks so much. We are happy to have all 

three of you here. You are three excellent people, three excellent 

nominees. We know how important, Judge Finch, your job is there, 

and you need that reappointment, and that is what you are being 

honored with here today. 

Judge Starrett, your reputation is a sterling reputation. Everybody knows that and there is no excuse for holding you back in any 

way. 

Judge Alvarez, you have had a lot of experience. You have tried 

a lot of cases. You have also been a judge, so you understand the 

law and how it should be applied and so forth. 

Let me just say this. Let me ask all three of you these questions, 

and you can give—would any of—let us start with you, Judge Alvarez and go across the table. Would you care to make any statements? I forgot that you should be able to introduce—your family 

has been introduced, but if you would care to do that again, I 

would appreciate it, and friends. 

STATEMENT OF MICAELA ALVAREZ, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

Judge ALVAREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be before this Committee. Senator Hutchison has been 

gracious enough to introduce my family. 

I would like to recognize my children, who because of school commitments could not be here today. They are my son, Javier, my two 

daughters, Cecilia and Victoria. I would also like to, just for the 

record, mention my mother, Macaria Alvarez, who also could not be 

here today. 

[The biographical information of Judge Alvarez follows:]

117


32198.085
118


32198.086
119


32198.087
120


32198.088
121


32198.089
122


32198.090
123


32198.091
124


32198.092
125


32198.093
126


32198.094
127


32198.095
128


32198.096
129


32198.097
130


32198.098
131


32198.099
132


32198.100
133


32198.101
134


32198.102
135


32198.103
136


32198.104
137


32198.105
138


32198.106
139


32198.107
140


32198.108
141


32198.109
142


32198.110
143


32198.111
144


32198.112
145


32198.113
146


32198.114
147

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, and we welcome all the rest of 

your family who have all been introduced. We appreciate having 

you with us and we are honored by your presence. 

Judge STARRETT. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH STARRETT, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

Judge STARRETT. Thank you, Senator Hatch, and thank you so 

much for having this hearing today. 

I would like to recognize my wife, Barbara, who is here. 

Chairman HATCH. Barbara, if you would stand. Delighted to 

have you here. 

Judge STARRETT. I also have my children who were not able to 

be here today. My son Josh and his wife Melissa, my daughter 

Leah Claire and her husband Grant Bennett, and my son Whit, are 

not able to be here today. 

I also have two special friends, Judge Joe Pigott and his wife 

Lorraine are here today, if you would stand. Judge Pigott was my 

predecessor in office. He served our State and district very well as 

circuit judge for 171⁄2 years before I took the bench upon his retirement. 

Chairman HATCH. We welcome both of you here. It is nice of you 

to come all this way. 

Judge STARRETT. I would also like to point out, Senator, that 

their son was approved by this Committee about 10 years ago as 

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi. 

Thank you. 

[The biographical information of Judge Starrett follows:]

148


32198.115
149


32198.116
150


32198.117
151


32198.118
152


32198.119
153


32198.120
154


32198.121
155


32198.122
156


32198.123
157


32198.124
158


32198.125
159


32198.126
160


32198.127
161


32198.128
162


32198.129
163


32198.130
164


32198.131
165


32198.132
166


32198.133
167


32198.134
168


32198.135
169


32198.136
170


32198.137
171


32198.138
172


32198.139
173


32198.140
174


32198.141
175


32198.142
176


32198.143
177


32198.144
178


32198.145
179


32198.146
180


32198.147
181


32198.148
182


32198.149
183


32198.150
184


32198.151
185


32198.152
186


32198.153
187


32198.154
188


32198.155
189


32198.156
190


32198.157
191


32198.158
192


32198.159
193


32198.160
194


32198.161
195


32198.162
196


32198.163
197


32198.164
198


32198.165
199


32198.166
200


32198.167
201


32198.168
202


32198.169
203


32198.170
204

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. 

Judge Finch. 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. FINCH, NOMINEE TO BE JUDGE 

FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Judge FINCH. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to be here 

today. 

I will take this opportunity to introduce my wife, Anne Marie. 

Chairman HATCH. So happy to have you with us. 

Judge FINCH. And my daughter, Jennifer, who is here, and a 

very good friend of mine, former Senator Claude Malloy. 

Chairman HATCH. We are honored to have you all here. 

Judge FINCH. Thank you very much. 

[The biographical information of Judge Finch follows:]

205


32198.171
206


32198.172

xxxxxxxxx
207


32198.173
208


32198.174
209


32198.175
210


32198.176
211


32198.177
212


32198.178
213


32198.179
214


32198.180
215


32198.181
216


32198.182
217


32198.183
218


32198.184
219


32198.185
220


32198.186
221


32198.187
222


32198.188
223


32198.189
224


32198.190
225


32198.191
226


32198.192
227


32198.193
228


32198.194
229


32198.195
230


32198.196
231


32198.197
232


32198.198
233

Chairman HATCH. Thank you so much. 

Let me just say that I know your reputations, and I have carefully reviewed your records. I think all three of you are very well 

qualified to serve on your respective benches. 

Let me just ask a few cases though as we go through this. Let 

us say that you have a case where you believe one way but the law 

is the other, or at least there is a strong argument that the law 

is the other way. How are you going to handle that, Judge Alvarez? 

Judge ALVAREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that as a 

judge I am bound to uphold the law like any other citizen, and my 

personal beliefs are not what I should base my decisions on. My decisions would be based on the law. 

Chairman HATCH. What if they are really strongly held beliefs? 

Judge ALVAREZ. I believe that my decisions should nonetheless 

still be based on the law. As a judge my oath is to uphold the law, 

not to impose my personal views. 

Chairman HATCH. Judge Starrett? 

Judge STARRETT. I would like to agree with my colleague, Senator, and thank you for the question. I would always follow the 

law. I hope that I have tried to do that. I have tried to do that 

through my career and would continue doing it. 

Chairman HATCH. Judge Finch? 

Judge FINCH. Thank you, Senator. I have, throughout my career, 

followed the law, and I will continue to do so. I think as a trial 

judge that it is my primary task in decision making simply to follow the law. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. 

Judge Starrett, you have given numerous speeches and written 

at least two articles on drug courts. You have also been instrumental in establishing GED and drug treatment programs in the 

local jails, and you have spent the last six or 7 years working to 

establish a drug court system in Mississippi. Would you please express to the Committee how effective these efforts have been in 

combatting the drug problems in your State? 

Judge STARRETT. The drug courts are—I do not want to say in 

their infancy because I have had one for over 6 years, and I would 

like to thank the Senate and the House for supporting drug courts 

on a national level. But by the end of next year there should be 

18 active drug courts working in Mississippi. 

Chairman HATCH. You were the first to start this? 

Judge STARRETT. Yes, sir, in Mississippi. And they are—a law 

that I worked to draft, we have one of the most progressive, if not 

the most progressive, drug court statute in the Nation. We also 

have one of the best, if not the best, funded drug court programs 

in the Nation. This has all come about in the last 2 years in difficult budget times. 

Chairman HATCH. In these respective positions that you have, 

you have tremendous caseloads. How do you plan on managing 

those caseloads once you get there? As I understand in your case, 

Judge Starrett, this caseload will be—this is an emergency position. 

Let us start with you, Judge Alvarez. How do you plan on handling a caseload? I understand you have a tremendous caseload in 

234

the position that you would be assuming that you are nominated 

for down in Texas. 

Judge ALVAREZ. Thank you for expressing that concern. That is 

also my understanding, that there is a very heavy caseload in the 

Laredo Division. I would do what I have always done in my life, 

and that is I am a very hard worker, so I would certainly do that. 

I believe that the role of a judge is not limited to 8 to 5, so I would 

commit myself to the time that is required to move the docket, of 

course, with the assistance of the magistrates and the other court 

staff. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. 

Judge Starrett? 

Judge STARRETT. Thank you, Senator. Having a large caseload is 

not something new to me. When I took over as circuit judge from 

Judge Pigott, there was the highest caseload of any judge in the 

State at that time. When I take over, if I am so fortunate as to be 

confirmed, the district in Hattiesburg, where the seat will be, has 

the highest caseload of any U.S. District Court. The way to work 

it is just to work. You do the things that you have to do to manage 

the docket and to reduce the caseload. 

Chairman HATCH. Judge Finch. 

Judge FINCH. Senator, thank you for expressing your concern in 

this area. I have, since being on the Federal bench, used the expertise of the magistrate judges in our court to assist in moving our 

cases, and that has been very effective and I will continue to do so. 

In addition to that, of course, I will continue to work as hard as 

I can and as hard as my health will allow. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you so much. 

One thing I like to ask, especially District Court nominees, how 

important do you think temperament is? I tried cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania before going to Utah, and then tried 

cases before the fabled—well, in both cases, the fabled Judge Wallace Gorley there in the Western District of Pennsylvania, who was 

kind of a law unto himself, but a very fine judge in many respects; 

and Willis Ritter, who has a very interesting reputation in the District Court there in Utah. How important is temperament? We will 

start with you, Judge Alvarez. 

Judge ALVAREZ. I think the temperament is very important for 

any judge, especially I think a trial judge is seen by the public as 

the administrator of justice, and so for that reason a judge should 

always remember to treat those who come before that judge with 

dignity and respect. 

Chairman HATCH. Judge Starrett. 

Judge STARRETT. Thank you, Senator. The temperament of a 

judge is crucial to the perception of the fairness by the litigants 

and the attorneys. A judge should have a temperament that is 

courteous and respectful, but it also should be firm. It should be 

one that would run a courtroom in a way that gives respect to litigants, jurors, attorneys and all participants. 

Chairman HATCH. And gets the job done. 

Judge STARRETT. And gets the job done, yes, sir. 

Chairman HATCH. Judge Finch. 

Judge FINCH. It is my opinion that temperament is of utmost importance in conducting court proceedings. It is especially so in situVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:46 Feb 01, 2007 Jkt 032198 PO 00000 Frm 00244 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\32198T.000 SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
235

ations where one has to face non-lawyer litigants, and of course 

also with lawyers. Courtesy is of utmost importance, and I have exercised courtesy and respect to all lawyers who come into my court, 

and I will continue to do so. 

Chairman HATCH. That is great. How are you going to treat 

young lawyers who may not have the practical experience, may not 

even be as well versed in the rules of evidence, may not be able 

to ask the questions, you know, listen to responses from witnesses 

as well as they should. Let us start with you, Judge Finch. 

Judge FINCH. The short answer is great patience. 

Chairman HATCH. Okay. 

Judge FINCH. Great patience, and of course, courtesy. I have in 

some situations expressed from the bench my particular interest in 

an issue, and although the young lawyer may have completely 

missed the issue, having expressed my interest in it, I have given 

that lawyer time to submit additional memoranda on the subject 

and request a hearing if he so desires. 

Chairman HATCH. Judge Starrett. 

Judge STARRETT. Thank you, Senator. I have not forgotten when 

I was a young lawyer and needed some help from judges, but I 

would do the same thing that Judge Finch has said. 

Chairman HATCH. Judge Alvarez. 

Judge ALVAREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that a judge 

can offer some guidance to a young lawyer, but of course should be 

careful not to become the advocate for either side, but as my colleagues have said, I believe great patience would be the strength 

that the judge could offer to the young lawyer. 

Chairman HATCH. That is great. I have seen judges who try to 

try the cases for lawyers or who interject their own feelings or their 

own personal views all the time, and that should not happen. But 

there are times when a young lawyer is having a difficult time asking the question a way that is unobjectionable, where a judge 

might say, ‘‘You might want to ask it this way, counselor,’’ just to 

help them. 

I have seen great judges lose their tempers because sometimes 

the courtroom can be a very, very volatile place, but for the most 

part you pretty well should not, and I just believe that all three 

of you will make excellent judges, trial court judges from what I 

know about your backgrounds. 

I am very honored to have you all here today. I know that you 

can answer any other question that I even could think of, and I 

have a lot that I might have asked you if you were other than the 

great people that you are. I am going to do my best to get you 

through between now and the end of this Congress, and hopefully 

will be able to do that. I would hope that in your cases that there 

will not be objections by the other side, and I am hopeful that we 

might be able to find some way that both sides will quit being so 

ridiculous at the end of presidential years, or at the end of any particular year, but especially presidential years. Both sides have been 

wrong from time to time, and the irritations continue to carry over, 

and I am trying to bridge that if I can. As you can see, it is very 

difficult, but in any event, I will do my very best to get you 

through. 

236

I want to thank each of you for being here, your family members, 

your friends, and I will keep the record open for one week till September 15th for any further questions or statements that might be 

put into the record, and then we will probably put you on the 

markup for next week, next week or the week thereafter. 

Thank you all. With that, we will end this hearing and recess 

until further notice. 

[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

237


32198.199

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
238


32198.200
239


32198.201
240


32198.202
241


32198.203
242


32198.204
243


32198.205
244


32198.206
245


32198.207
246


32198.211
247


32198.212
248


32198.213
249


32198.214
250


32198.215
251


32198.216
252


32198.217
253


32198.218
254


32198.219
255


32198.220
256


32198.221
257


32198.222
258


32198.223
259


32198.224
260


32198.225
261


32198.226
262


32198.227
263


32198.228
264


32198.229
265


32198.230
(267)

NOMINATIONS OF CHRISTOPHER BOYKO, 

NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO; AND BERYL 

ALAINE HOWELL, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING 

COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2004

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:45 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine presiding. 

Present: Senators DeWine and Leahy. 

Senator DEWINE. The hearing will come to order. First let me 

apologize. There is a briefing going on in regard to Iraq and I 

apologize for being late. That briefing started at three; it is still 

going on. 

We have today a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on judicial 

nominations. Christopher Boyko will be the first. Before we start, 

let me call up the Honorable Steven LaTourette, who is here, and 

we will hear Congressman LaTourette’s testimony. Congressman, 

thank you very much for joining us. 

PRESENTATION OF CHRISTOPHER BOYKO, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, 

BY HON. STEVEN LATOURETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Representative LATOURETTE. Senator DeWine and Senator 

Leahy, thank you very much for letting me come over and spend 

a few minutes before you inquire of my long-time friend, Judge 

Boyko. And first of all, I want to indicate that, Senator DeWine, 

in putting his name forward, you have made an incredibly wise 

choice, and I am grateful to the President of the United States for 

sending his nomination for your consideration and hopefully consent. 

I have had the pleasure of knowing Chris Boyko since 1976. We 

were first year law students together at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, and I know Senator DeWine knows a little bit about 

Cleveland-Marshall, but it is the kind of law school where when 

you do not have a lot of money, you work a day job, you go at night. 

It is the only way we were able to become lawyers. 

268

And Chris Boyko, you will find he looks today the same way he 

looked in 1976. He was clean-cut, he worked hard, he was a health 

nut before that was in vogue, and we did not have all those fancy 

gyms you can go to. He eats well. He used to make fun of me for 

eating Twinkies and drinking coke for lunch, and you know that 

when you go into that first year of law school, the professor comes 

back from Paper Chase, the professor always says take a look to 

your left, take a look at your right, and at the end of the semester, 

one out of the three of you is not going to be here. 

Well, as I said, Chris looks exactly as he does now. I had just 

graduated from the University of Michigan. I had long hair, a 

beard, I wore a lot of flannel, and Chris told me years later, he was 

sure after looking at me he was in, and he was going to be the one 

that would be around at the end, and I have had the pleasure of 

being associated with him ever since. 

Chris has served honorably as the elected Law Director in the 

City of Parma, a large and thriving suburb of the City of Cleveland. He then became the Parma Municipal Judge and distinguished himself as well. He was appointed to the Common Pleas 

Bench by then Governor Voinovich, now Senator Voinovich, and he 

has been twice elected, and not to be partisan at all, but Cuyahoga 

County, Senator DeWine knows well, I think the Democratic registration beats the Republican registration by four to one, and you 

only get elected and reelected as a Republican jurist if you do what 

people want you to do, you do it fairly, you do it honestly, you do 

it with integrity, and Chris Boyko has been twice elected. 

So while he may be surprised that I am a member of the United 

States Congress after meeting me for the first time in 1976, I am 

not surprised at all that he sits before you today with a nomination 

by the President of the United States to become a judge of the 

Northern District of Ohio, and again I appreciate you giving me the 

opportunity to say a few words about my friend and hopefully our 

next Federal judge in Cleveland. 

Senator DEWINE. Congressman, thank you very much, very eloquent. We appreciate your being here very much. 

Senator LEAHY. We are not going to ask the Congressman 

searching, tough questions about those college days? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DEWINE. I will leave that up to you, Senator. 

Senator LEAHY. I am assuming we will not on the hopes that nobody would ever do that to us. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Congressman. 

Representative LATOURETTE. Thank you both. 

Senator DEWINE. I am going to now defer to my colleague Senator Leahy for the introduction of Beryl Howell to be a member of 

the United States Sentencing Commission. 

PRESENTATION OF BERYL ALAINE HOWELL, NOMINEE TO BE 

A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, BY HON. PATRICK LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Why I thank you for the courtesy, Mr. Chairman, 

and I am delighted, of course, that she is here. We have tried to 

269

make the U.S. Sentencing Commission bipartisan, thus nonpartisan, with balanced and experienced commissioners that stick 

to the merits, command the respect of both Congress and the Judiciary. Beryl Howell is certainly in that category. 

I like the fact that when she first came here that she had been 

a prosecutor, in fact, a very tough Federal prosecutor. She earned 

a number of commendations for her actions. She was the Deputy 

Chief of the Narcotics Section, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York, though she consented to join the staff of 

the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993. She served with great 

distinction, earned the respect of both Republicans and Democrats 

alike. 

As my general counsel, she devoted herself to resolving issues on 

the merits. Probably the biggest challenge was the one we faced following September 11, when she led the negotiating team with the 

administration. She has gone on to become highly successful as the 

Managing Director and General Counsel of the Washington, D.C. 

office of Stroz Friedberg, one of the leading cybersecurity and forensic firms in the country. 

She is here with her husband Michael Rosenfeld, a well-known 

cinema journalist, if I can use that term. I, like you, have had 

times on Air Force One. He helped produce the definitive documentary on Air Force One. I felt like I was right back on it in watching 

it. But Jared, Alina, and Calla are all here, and Mrs. Rosenfeld is 

here. Other friends who Beryl will mention when she comes up are 

also here, but I have to tell you how extremely impressed I am that 

you are here. 

Could I mention one other thing, too, Mr. Chairman? And I am 

glad Beryl is here, because she knows how hard we worked on this 

technological milestone for the Senate. Today the Senate Judiciary 

Committee will officially begin broadcasting live on the Senate television system with closed captioning, using advanced technology of 

voice recognition software. 

We have been eagerly awaiting this. We have worked for it, 

planned for it for years. We have worked with the Office of the Secretary of the Senate—Madam Secretary, I appreciate you coming 

over here; you honor us all by being here—with the Committee on 

Rules. We developed a pilot project that would allow us to study 

the captioning of committee hearings, offering real time captioning 

as a demonstration for the use of Senators and their staff. We are 

very, very proud of this and have worked very closely with Senator 

Hatch, and I am glad we are able to do this. 

I should also mention Clara Kircher, my Deputy Chief of Staff, 

who has devoted well over a year of her own life to this project, 

and she is sitting here today as well. She has truly brought us 

through the peaks and valleys of the closed captioning. We have 

tried different systems. Some held promise, but not reality. This 

one does, and Clara, everybody, everybody owes you thanks. I think 

too of Rachel Arfa who worked for this Committee with great distinction, first as an intern, then as the Nominations Clerk, and 

then went on to law school. The amazing thing is she cannot hear, 

but she also worked with us on this and encouraged me throughout 

the time, even times when we tended to give up and wonder if we 

could possibly do it. 

270

Because of the events following September 11, we find many, 

many barriers around Washington that were not there when I was 

a law student, a time when you could just walk in this building 

and just about any other building easily. They show the realities 

of today. But this is one way to break down barriers. The people, 

whether they can hear or are hard of hearing, or for whatever reason, can follow it, and I think, Mr. Chairman, we open the Senate 

up more by doing it. I will put my full statement in the record, but 

I just did want to mention that. 

If I could also mention, as one who has been here for nearly 30 

years, the great public service of Sheila Joy. I will put a full statement in here. But she is retiring from the Department of Justice 

after 26 years working on nominations, 37 years in public service. 

She has assisted people through their confirmation, every judicial 

nomination, the Ford, Carter, Reagan, former Bush, Clinton and 

the current administration. She knows everybody better than all 

the rest of us and we will miss her. 

It will seem strange to look down and not see her at the back 

of the room. The only difference is all the rest of us have aged and 

Ms. Joy has not. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will put the rest 

in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

PRESENTATION OF CHRISTOPHER BOYKO, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, 

BY HON. MIKE DEWINE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 

OF OHIO 

Senator DEWINE. Before I ask our two nominees to come up, let 

me just make a few introductory comments about Judge Boyko. 

The judge currently serves on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas which in Ohio is our highest trial court, where all the 

major civil and crimina matters are tried. During his time on the 

bench, Judge Boyko has really seen virtually every type of case 

that you can imagine. He is an excellent judge and his reputation 

reflects that. Consensus among lawyers in the Cleveland area is 

that Judge Boyko is intelligent, fast, fair and has a terrific temperament, so much so that lawyers really want their cases to be 

assigned to Judge Boyko. 

And I would say the only objection I have heard, that I have received, at least, so far to Judge Boyko’s nomination is that the 

Court of Common Pleas will be losing one of its best judges. Let 

me also note that the ABA has also given him a rating of ‘‘unanimous well qualified.’’

Before serving on the Court of Common Pleas, Judge Boyko 

served as a judge on the Parma Municipal Court in 1993. From 

1981 until 1993, Judge Boyko was assistant prosecutor and then 

prosecutor for the City of Parma, prosecuting a variety of criminal 

matters for the city. 

During much of that time, Judge Boyko was the Director of Law 

for Parma, overseeing the civil litigation which the city was involved, and also during that time period Judge Boyko was engaged 

in private practice with his father and brother. 

271

There are only a few attorneys in Ohio who are willing to tackle 

this kind of a diverse practice engaging in private practice, acting 

as a prosecutor and representing a local Government all at the 

same time. I think this is a real testament to Judge Boyko’s work 

ethic, not to mention the vast legal experience he gained from this 

type of practice early in his career. 

Let me finally just mention the broad bipartisan support that the 

judge has in Ohio. I have a number of letters that we have received 

from prominent people in Ohio, including a number of prominent 

Democrats, which I will submit for the record without objection. 

But let me just read a couple excerpts. Jimmy Dimora, the 

Chairman of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party, has written: 

‘‘I am recommending that Judge Chris Boyko be confirmed for 

appointment as Federal District Judge. He is fair and open-minded 

with a commitment and dedication to the law. His high ethical 

standards and judicial temperament will be useful on the Federal 

bench with experience and a background to match. If any Republican deserved Democratic support, Judge Boyko does.’’

George Forbes, President of the Cleveland Chapter of the 

NAACP, wrote to Senator Daschle: 

‘‘Judge Boyko has not only served with distinction on the Court 

of Common Pleas, but is a parson of fairness, integrity, keen 

knowledge of the law, and possesses the judicial temperament to 

execute the duties of a Federal judge in a fair and impartial manner. I can say without reservation that Judge Boyko would make 

an excellent judge.’’

Russell Tye, President of the Norman S. Minor Bar Association, 

the largest African-American Bar Association in the state of Ohio, 

has written: 

‘‘Judge Boyko has always been honest, fair and a man of great 

integrity. Judge Boyko is a very learned judge who has certainly 

mastered the art of always following the law and carefully applying 

it with judicial discretion and fairness.’’

Tony George, who describes himself as ‘‘a Kerry delegate, lifelong Democrat, teamster member, and Ohio businessman,’’ has 

written: 

‘‘I have known Judge Boyko for over 15 years and he has built 

a reputation for integrity, fairness and professional competence. Although he is a Republican nominee of President Bush, he finds as 

much favor among Democrats as he does Republicans. His nonpartisan approach to judging and politics has earned him an extensive bipartisan support.’’

[The prepared statement of Senator DeWine appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator DEWINE. I would ask that our two nominees come forward and please continue to stand. Please state your name. 

Judge BOYKO. I, Christopher Boyko. 

Senator DEWINE. Do you swear that the testimony you are about 

to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth and 

nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Judge BOYKO. I do. 

Ms. HOWELL. I do. 

272

Senator DEWINE. Please be seated. Judge Boyko, we will start 

with you. If you have any opening statement, we will be more than 

happy to hear it at this time. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER BOYKO, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

Judge BOYKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although I will decline 

a formal opening statement, I do want to thank you, first of all, Mr. 

Chairman, for having this hearing, for all your support, the same 

thing with Senator Voinovich for all his support, of course, for 

President Bush, for nominating me to this coveted position. 

Although my wife of 23 years, Robbie, could not be here because 

of her own job obligations, I do want to acknowledge that she is 

with me here in spirit, as well as my children Philip and Ashley, 

our teenagers, studying hard for their exams, I hope, to get good 

grades and keep my insurance rates low for a good student discount. 

Senator Leahy, good afternoon, sir. It is a pleasure to have you 

here also. I do want to thank Congressman LaTourette for those 

very generous and kind words that he mentioned. Steve has been 

a great life-long friend and I cherish his support. Also I do want 

to acknowledge a very good and dear friend of mine that is with 

me here today, Tary Szmagala from Cleveland. He has known me 

since I have been in diapers and knows everything about me. He 

is has been a great mentor of mine and a close personal friend. 

Senator DEWINE. We may call him as a witness later. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEAHY. Closed session. 

[Laughter.] 

Judge BOYKO. But I do want to acknowledge Mr. Szmagala and 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me those thanks. 

[The biographical information of Judge Boyko follows:]

273


32198.231
274


32198.232
275


32198.233
276


32198.234
277


32198.235
278


32198.236
279


32198.237
280


32198.238
281


32198.239
282


32198.240
283


32198.241
284


32198.242
285


32198.243
286


32198.244
287


32198.245
288


32198.246
289


32198.247
290


32198.248
291


32198.249
292


32198.250
293


32198.251
294


32198.252
295


32198.253
296


32198.254
297


32198.255
298


32198.256
299


32198.257
300


32198.258
301


32198.259
302


32198.260
303


32198.261
304


32198.262
305


32198.263
306


32198.264
307


32198.265
308


32198.266
309


32198.267
310


32198.268
311


32198.269
312


32198.270
313


32198.271
314


32198.272
315


32198.273
316


32198.274
317


32198.275
318

Senator DEWINE. Judge, thank you very much. Ms. Howell. 

STATEMENT OF BERYL ALAINE HOWELL, NOMINEE TO BE A 

MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION 

Ms. HOWELL. Good afternoon, Chairman DeWine and Senator 

Leahy. It is a pleasure to be here, although it is a new experience 

for me to be sitting on this side of the table rather than behind you 

members up on the podium, and a little bit of a frightening experience, one that is a little bit surprising to me. 

And I just want to reiterate what Judge Boyko said, which is I 

am very grateful to the President for considering me and giving me 

this nomination and also very grateful to Senator Leahy, in particular, and Chairman Hatch and the other members for their assistance and support during this process. 

I really look forward to the opportunity to work with the distinguished members of the Sentencing Commission and the excellent 

staff there, with whom I had many dealings when I was on the Judiciary Committee staff, and I know that they are just great. And 

I do not have a written statement, but I will be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

[The biographical information of Ms. Howell follows:]

319


32198.276
320


32198.277
321


32198.278
322


32198.279
323


32198.280
324


32198.281
325


32198.282
326


32198.283
327


32198.284
328


32198.285
329


32198.286
330


32198.287
331


32198.288
332


32198.289
333


32198.290
334


32198.291
335


32198.292
336


32198.293
337


32198.294
338


32198.295
339


32198.296
340


32198.297
341


32198.298
342


32198.299
343


32198.300
344


32198.301
345


32198.302
346


32198.303
347


32198.304
348


32198.305
349


32198.306
350


32198.307
351


32198.308
352


32198.309
353


32198.310
354

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much. I do not want to make 

you nervous, but the family is enjoying watching you on the big 

screen there. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HOWELL. Yes, well, if I could just take a moment to acknowledge my family who is here. My husband, Michael Rosenfeld, and 

my three children who got to get out of school a little early today, 

Alina, Jared and Calla, and my mother-in-law, Judy Rosenfeld, is 

here. My parents unfortunately are out of the country. And my 

children’s babysitter, Amanda DeBock, is here, and a good friend 

from my prosecutor days, Kirby Heller, is also here. 

Senator DEWINE. Good. We welcome them all. 

Ms. HOWELL. As well as all of my friends on the Committee staff. 

Senator DEWINE. We welcome you back. Thank you very much. 

Senator Leahy.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator DEWINE. You start and I will follow you. 

Senator LEAHY. As I say, Ms. Howell is up for the Sentencing 

Commission, the fairness and sentencing. I almost wonder whether 

we should ask her children how is she at meting out any sentences? You do not have to answer that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEAHY. Bad question. I really do not have any questions 

of Ms. Howell. I know her so well. I just think how fortunate the 

country would be to have her there. I have been very pleased, and 

if I can only just put one bit of a suggestion, I have been extremely 

pleased with the way the Sentencing Commission has worked in 

the last few years. As you look at their results of the various 

things, you cannot really tell whether this was pushed by the Republican side or the Democratic side. The fact that they have 

reached some consensus, I think, has been helpful to judges. We 

obviously have the recent Supreme Court case which raises whole 

questions, but that is something the Congress is going to try to 

work out. 

In the meantime, I think the Commission must continue to work 

as it has done, and I know the efforts you have made to reach consensus, so I know that will continue. But I just, I would only emphasize to you as I have to other members of the Commission how 

important that consensus is. And I realize it is not always possible, 

but to the extent that it has been, I think it makes the life of 

judges much, much easier. 

And Judge Boyko, as I understand, there is not a vacancy at the 

moment. You have been nominated for a seat that is still filled; is 

that right? 

Judge BOYKO. Yes, Senator, that is correct. 

Senator LEAHY. But if you are confirmed, you do not want the 

President to immediately nominate somebody for your seat in anticipation of your leaving? 

Judge BOYKO. Yes, sir. 

Senator LEAHY. Most of your work was in State courts. I think 

you said 90 percent or so. How do you expect to get up or what do 

you plan to do to get up to speed for Federal court, keeping in mind 

that they have increasingly large criminal dockets that are sometimes very complex issues, as well as, of course, civil cases? 

355

I do not know exactly what type of procedures they use in Ohio, 

how closely they track either the Federal Criminal Procedures or 

the Federal Civil Procedures, but I assume that there are some differences. Does this concern you and what do you plan to do about 

it? 

Judge BOYKO. Thank you for that question, Senator. We carry a 

very heavy caseload in Cuyahoga County State Court, and, as Mr. 

Chairman alluded to, we hear all different types of cases. So we 

have to keep cases moving while giving them due deference. 

Ohio does track the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. There is very little difference really between the two. So I am 

used to handling a heavy caseload. I do get complicated cases in 

State Court at the Common Pleas level, and I am very familiar 

with the rules of evidence, and they do track very closely between 

State and Federal, Senator. 

Senator LEAHY. I know it makes life easier in those States where 

they do. I know a lot of States try to. Senator DeWine mentioned 

the letters of support for you from the President of Norman Minor 

Association, the NAACP’s Cleveland Chapter, I went back in the 

history in the City of Parma. During the 1990s, you were their Director of Law. The NAACP filed suit against Parma alleging discriminatory practices in the hiring practices. 

They had also filed suit against three cities in Ohio. The other 

two cities, and correct me if I am wrong in my facts on this, but 

I understood they fairly quickly settled. Parma chose to fight the 

suit for over a decade opening it to a lot of criticism. What was 

your position there? Obviously, the NAACP is supporting you now, 

but what was your position during this time when Parma would 

not settle, the others did? Were you urging a settlement? What did 

you do? 

Judge BOYKO. Thank you again for that question, Senator, and 

it is a good one because as Director of Law, I was lawyer for the 

city. I was not involved in any of the policy decisions that the 

Mayor and Council made with regard to how to handle that case. 

I was in a supervisory capacity. I did my best to work with the opposition in resolving the matter, but there were some internal disagreements on how that should be handled from a policy level. 

Again, it was my obligation to represent the city to the best that 

I could, at the same time trying to push for a resolution of that 

case. It was very difficult at that time. 

Senator LEAHY. And am I right that it took nearly ten years to 

resolve? 

Judge BOYKO. Yes, it did, Senator. I had left and it was still 

going on. 

Senator LEAHY. With what you know about the final resolution, 

are you happy with that? 

Judge BOYKO. I am, Senator, because it was a consent decree and 

both sides got together and finally resolved it and came to an 

agreement to finally bring it to an end. 

Senator LEAHY. I just find it interesting. We do not have these 

situations in Vermont because of our, not from any great purity on 

our part, but because of racial makeup in our State, and I know 

it can sometimes be difficult, but I was stuck on the fact that it 

356

had taken longer there than the others, and I appreciate your answer. I think it is very candid. 

Judge BOYKO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions. I am 

sure you are going to submit Ms. Howell to withering cross-examination. 

Senator DEWINE. I have about two hours’ worth. 

Ms. HOWELL. Thank you for that invitation. 

Senator LEAHY. Yeah, but knowing that, having seen her crossexamining and knowing the reputation she had, the brilliant reputation she had as a prosecutor, I think she will be safe. 

Senator DEWINE. I think she can survive. 

Senator LEAHY. Actually, you know, you got a lot of prosecutors 

here. Senator DeWine—

Senator DEWINE. That is right. 

Senator LEAHY.—myself. 

Senator DEWINE. Judge. 

Senator LEAHY. Boyko and Ms. Howell. So old home week. But 

if you do not mind, I am going on to other things. I did want to 

be here, of course, for Ms. Howell and her family, who I will freely 

admit so everybody knows where my prejudices are, are close 

friends of my wife’s and mine, and greatly admired by us, but also 

I just want again to compliment everybody who worked so hard to 

get the closed captioning going. If this works here, I suspect the 

day will soon come where this will be the norm in all committees. 

Senator DEWINE. It is a great thing to see. It is good. Thanks, 

Pat. Thank you, Senator. Ms. Howell, I wonder if you could kind 

of give us your just general philosophy how you will approach this 

new position, a very general question, but I think I would just kind 

of like to hear a little bit about how you look at this job? 

Ms. HOWELL. Well, I have had experience with the sentencing 

guidelines since 1987 when I first became a prosecutor, and that 

is when the sentencing guidelines first became effective, and spent 

I think the first couple years of my life as a young prosecutor 

learning how to use the guidelines and working with the judges in 

the Eastern District of New York and other practitioners there on 

how to effectively implement them. 

And I think, through that process, I have gained an enormous respect for the guidelines although they are not perfect and critics, 

you know, have points that they can make about them that may 

be accurate, but generally I think that the guidelines have, you 

know, certainly reached some of the statutory goals that Congress 

laid out for them, and I look forward to working as an integral part 

of the Commission to help, you know, ensure that the guidelines 

continue to reflect congressional intent and the statutory goals to 

reduce unwarranted sentencing disparities and promote transparency, accountability in the sentencing process. 

Senator DEWINE. If you look back in the history of the guidelines 

and the history of the Sentencing Commission, is there anything 

that you have learned from that history that would help guide you 

in the decisions in the future? We always look back at either mistakes or successes or trends. What have we learned, collectively 

about the history of the Sentencing Commission that would help us 

in the future? 

357

Ms. HOWELL. Well, I know that there were times when even during my tenure on the Senate Judiciary Committee staff when there 

were—it is not a full slate of Commissioners on the Sentencing 

Commission—and people, I think within the Senate and within the 

Congress, perhaps both houses, questioned sort of the role of the 

Sentencing Commission. 

I think one of the, you know, important jobs of the Sentencing 

Commission I think is to also maintain good communications with 

certainly members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees 

that have jurisdiction over criminal justice issues and sentencing 

guidelines, in particular, to, you know, make sure that there are 

open lines of communication there, and that when the Sentencing 

Commission makes proposed rule changes that the reasoning behind those proposals are, you know, fully understood by members 

of Congress, and that there can be a dialogue, and I think that one 

of the things that I may be able to bring to the job is an ability 

to assist in that dialogue. 

Senator DEWINE. What about the other side of that coin which 

is the judges? There is the natural, I do not want to overgeneralize 

here, but, you know, natural inclination of many judges not to like 

the whole idea of the Sentencing Commission anyway. So how do 

you get input from judges or do you? Is that part of the role of the 

Sentencing Commission or not? 

Ms. HOWELL. I think that the—I mean and that is one of the 

things that I am going to learn, Senator. I mean I am certainly, 

you know, I am much more familiar from my past experience with 

the communications between the Hill and the Sentencing Commission. I mean I do know that the Sentencing Commission has regular meetings with the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial 

Conference, and that they have probably much more regular, you 

know, contact with the judges and certainly, you know, but I am 

not—I will be honest with you. I am not fully apprised yet of all 

of the communications with the judiciary. 

Senator DEWINE. Okay. Judge Boyko, every judge has a different 

style. Describe your style for us. How do you deal with lawyers, for 

example? 

Judge BOYKO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to think of myself as 

user friendly. The cases and the clients are tough enough; the court 

does not have to add to that. I want to make sure that everybody 

believes that their case was fully heard before me before they leave 

that courtroom and that is important because of their clients, not 

just the attorneys. 

The client’s first question, did the judge listen to you; did he hear 

our side of the argument, he or she; was he fair; what did he think? 

Those are the questions that the clients ask of the attorneys. So 

it is my job, my duty, to make sure that the attorney is able to answer that question by saying yes, we were given full and fair consideration even if he did not rule in our favor. It is the perception 

of what went on that drives me to think that way and act accordingly. 

Senator DEWINE. A complaint you hear sometimes from lawyers 

is the judge did not allow me to try my case. How do you react to 

that? 

358

Judge BOYKO. I have heard the complaint before. In my courtroom, the lawyers are allowed to try their cases, and you have to 

strike the balance and the key to that is setting parameters before 

the trial starts, sitting down with counsel, going over what you expect of them, ask their opinion on things, how long certain phases 

of the trial they think will last, and allow them to be heard during 

trial, because again the only way a client can be heard, a litigant 

can be heard, is through their attorney, and if you do not give the 

attorney the opportunity to be heard during trial, the client is not 

heard during trial. 

Senator DEWINE. You have been on the bench for a number of 

years now. What has that experience taught you? I will not ask you 

the questions of what mistakes you have made, but what have you 

learned from that experience that will help you be a better Federal 

judge, understanding that Common Pleas is a trial court bench in 

Ohio and is frankly very similar to the Federal bench with difference in jurisdiction obviously? 

Judge BOYKO. Yes. Thank you for that question, Senator, and 

what I have learned is that even though we have a great amount 

of cases that we have heard, and I have heard probably in the 

neighborhood of 8,600 cases since I have been there eight years, 

that each case is important to that person who comes in front of 

you, and you cannot forget that, that it may be, quote, ‘‘run of the 

mill,’’ or you have seen this type of case a thousand times, but it 

is important to that person. 

So I stick with that and remind myself daily that every case is 

important and I should not shirk my responsibility just because I 

have seen this before. I take that same attitude, enthusiasm, energy, and hopefully we all learn from our mistakes, and we do 

make them, and I think the best thing anyone can do, including a 

judge, is admit that you have made a mistake, learn from it and 

move on. Do not be bigger than the job. No one is every bigger than 

the job. 

Senator DEWINE. Why do you want to be on the Federal bench? 

Judge BOYKO. Mr. Chairman, I love being a trial judge. I love the 

dynamics of trial. I love the interaction with the attorneys, the litigants, and I have dedicated most of my professional life to public 

service. To serve on this nation’s premier trial bench would be not 

only the epitome of my career, but allow me to fulfil my dream of 

public service for a lifetime. 

Senator DEWINE. Docket management is always a challenge on 

the Federal court. What have you learned in your current position? 

How do you do it? How do you move cases? How are you going to 

move cases expeditiously and keep things rolling, make sure people 

have their day in court on time? 

Judge BOYKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, as I mentioned 

before, we do have a heavy caseload so I am used to moving cases. 

In Cuyahoga County alone last year, we had upwards of 17,000 

criminal indictments and 35,000 civil cases filed each year. So we 

are used to moving a great number of cases. 

You meet with the attorneys. First off you set deadlines. You 

give them realistic deadlines, enough time to prepare their cases, 

but with the expectation that those time frames will only be moved 

if necessary, and sometimes it is. Sometimes there are emerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:46 Feb 01, 2007 Jkt 032198 PO 00000 Frm 00368 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\32198T.000 SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
359

gencies; sometimes there is illnesses, and you have to accommodate 

them and be reasonable with that. 

Set a trial date; stick with it. I found very helpful if the attorneys are having discovery problems, for instance, instead of having 

them paper the case to death, call me, call my staff attorney, we 

will get you in, sit you down for 15 minutes, resolve it and move 

on. That not only saves time for the case itself but saves the litigants extra money. 

Senator DEWINE. Talk to me a minute about your view of judicial 

temperament. What kind of judicial temperament would you say 

you have? And what is the proper judicial temperament? 

Judge BOYKO. Proper judicial temperament is treat everybody 

the way you want to be treated. When I was practicing law, I only 

asked two things of a judge: to give me a fair hearing and treat 

me with respect. I have kept that in mind ever since I have walked 

onto the bench, and I believe I have conducted myself accordingly. 

Again, the perception of our system is huge. You want the public 

to believe that the judges are fair, open-minded, non-emotional, 

and that they give the attorneys the time of the day and henceforth 

the litigants the time of the day. And I would carry that temperament with me if I am fortunate enough to be on the federal bench. 

Senator DEWINE. Judge, what do you think has been your most 

challenging case while serving as a judge, and can you tell us about 

that? 

Judge BOYKO. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. My most 

challenging case was probably about five or six years ago when I 

had the capital murder trial of a defendant who had shot a Cleveland police officer to death on the streets of Cleveland. 

It was a very challenging case, not because of the complexity of 

the issue itself, which was the aggravated murder, but because of 

the extreme emotionalism and heavy media coverage of that trial. 

Had officer after officer come in and break down on the stand. The 

jury would break down in tears listening to the testimony. I had 

the jurors after the case crying when the verdict was being read. 

Some of them had to actually seek psychological counseling as a result of this case. There was turmoil within the jury deliberations 

themselves such that it was an 11 to one decision that was turned 

around by that one person, and many of the jurors could not forgive themselves for that. That was the most challenging case I 

have ever had. 

Senator DEWINE. And how did you deal with that then? 

Judge BOYKO. You have to be the eye of the storm in the sense 

that when everybody else is breaking down or things are running 

amok, you have got to be stable, pull everybody together. If breaks 

are necessary, give them breaks. Take time so that everybody can 

collect themselves. Remind them that we are here in trial, but you 

have got to be compassionate when you do that because this is a 

very tumultuous experience for everybody that was involved including myself. I will never forget the case. 

But you have got to be stable enough. Remember it is your courtroom, you are in control, but give the people time to collect themselves and move on. 

360

Senator DEWINE. Judge, you serve on a trial court bench that at 

least by Ohio standards is a big bench. How many judges, Common 

Pleas judges, are there in Cuyahoga County? 

Judge BOYKO. We have in the General Trial Division 34 that sit 

in my division. Of course, there are other divisions. There is a Probate, Juvenile and Domestic, and so there are many other Common 

Pleas judges, but in the General Trial Division, we have 34 judges. 

Senator DEWINE. And how do you all interact? You all have, obviously, your own docket, but—

Judge BOYKO. We have regular judges’ meetings. We also have 

committee meetings. I sit on the Criminal Rules Committee, the 

Jury Committee. I head the Veterans Service Committee. So we are 

constantly meeting on different issues, and I think that it is important to have collegiality. It is important for judges to talk to find 

out what the issues are in their own courtrooms, how attorneys are 

acting, how the cases are being tried. 

We help one another with suggestions after going through different experiences so that, again, the collegiality is extremely important when you sit on a bench as large as the one I serve on. 

Senator DEWINE. Judge, under what circumstances do you believe it appropriate for a Federal court to declare a statute enacted 

by Congress unconstitutional? 

Judge BOYKO. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for that difficult 

question, and it is a difficult one, because I think, first of all, probably it would be a rare circumstance if that happened, but you 

have to do a step-by-step analysis. There is a strong presumption 

of constitutionality for any legislative act. And you have to look at 

every facet. 

When I say that, you have to start from beginning, get the facts, 

get all the facts that you possibly can, distill the operative facts 

from what you have, then start looking above, above at Supreme 

Court decisions, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Let us see 

what they have done, what their decisions have been in that issue, 

on that issue and area of law. 

It is not for me to impose my will on a case. It is for me to look 

at Supreme Court decisions, Sixth Circuit decisions, and impose 

what I believe their will is, and if I am convinced, if I am convinced 

after giving all due deference, because I am a strong believer in the 

separation of powers, that it is right to rule it unconstitutional, I 

would do that. But again, it would only be in very rare circumstance, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, let me follow up with that, and I think 

you have certainly, at least partially if not completely, already answered this, but in general Supreme Court precedents are, of 

course, binding on all lower courts and the circuit court precedents 

are binding on the district courts within that particular circuit. 

I have to ask you as we all ask all nominees whether you are 

committed to following the precedents of higher courts faithfully 

and giving them full force and effect even if you personally disagree 

with such precedents? 

Judge BOYKO. Unequivocally, yes, Senator. There is no question 

that is my duty under oath to follow those decisions and to inject 

my personal views or opinions would be highly improper. 

361

Senator DEWINE. You stated—I appreciate your answer—there 

may be times, however, when you will be faced with cases of first 

impression. If there were no controlling precedent concluding an 

issue with which you were presented in your circuit, to what 

sources would you turn for persuasive authority? What principles 

will guide you or what method will you employ in deciding cases 

on first impression? 

Judge BOYKO. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman, because I had to face it actually in State court. So we have to start 

with again gathering the facts, looking at Supreme Court cases. If 

there are none there, moving on to the Court of Appeals level. If 

there are none there, look at the trial level, but you have to start 

from the beginning. Statutory construction means you look at the 

plain language. 

Then you look at the statutory and case law that surrounds that. 

I had an issue of attorney-client privilege surviving a death that 

I had to address in Ohio for the first time, and there were no cases 

on all fours that I could point to to guide my decision. So I had to 

carefully analyze what was available in other districts, other counties in Ohio, and there were none. 

So I literally had to go out of State to find persuasive authority 

to render my decision. So it is a painstaking step-by-step logical 

analysis using statutory rules of construction that you employ to 

reach that decision. 

I would do the same on the Federal bench. You have to again 

give all due deference to whatever persuasive authority is out 

there, but it just be logical, cogent, and reasonable. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, I want to thank both of you very much 

for your testimony here today. As Ms. Howell knows, the record 

will remain open, and members of the Committee may be submitting written questions. We would encourage both of you, of course, 

to respond to those questions if you receive them as soon as possible. The record will remain open. We appreciate your testimony. 

Before we conclude the hearing today, though, I want to take a 

minute to recognize someone who is here in the audience as she 

has been here for literally hundreds of Senate Judiciary Committee 

nominations hearings over the years. Sheila Joy is retiring from 

the Department of Justice on October 1. This is her last, we believe 

at least, her last Judiciary Committee hearing. Sheila, will you 

stand up, please, so we can recognize you, please? 

[Applause.] 

Senator DEWINE. Sheila has been with the department since 

1968, has served under 14 attorney generals. She has been facilitating judicial nominations for 26 years in both Democratic and Republican administrations. She has played a role in confirming over 

1,400 judges to our Federal court including eight of the nine current Supreme Court justices. 

She has patiently worked with all the nomination staff on this 

Committee and the entire Senate including the various members of 

my Judiciary Committee staff, and let me just say that she will certainly be missed. 

Sheila, on behalf of Chairman Hatch, Senator Leahy, and all the 

current and certainly former members of the Senate Judiciary 

Committee, I would like to thank you for your hard work and your 

362

dedication and your service and for contributing to one of the most 

important roles that this Committee plays or that this Senate 

plays, and we just thank you very much for your great work. And 

we certainly wish you the best in your retirement. Thank you very 

much. 

Ms. JOY. Thank you for your very kind words. 

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much. The hearing will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

363


32198.311
364


32198.312
365


32198.313
366


32198.314
367


32198.315
368


32198.316
369


32198.317
370


32198.318
371


32198.319
372


32198.320
373


32198.321
374


32198.322
375


32198.323
376


32198.324
377


32198.325
378


32198.326
379


32198.327
380


32198.328
381


32198.329
382


32198.330
383


32198.331
384


32198.332
385


32198.333
386


32198.334
387


32198.335
388


32198.336
389


32198.337
390


32198.338
391


32198.339
392


32198.340
393


32198.341
394


32198.342
395


32198.343
396


32198.344
397


32198.345
398


32198.346
399


32198.347
400


32198.348
401


32198.349
402


32198.350
403


32198.351
404


32198.352
405


32198.353
406


32198.354
407


32198.355
408


32198.356
409


32198.357
410


32198.358
411


32198.359
412


32198.360
413


32198.361
414


32198.362
415


32198.363
416


32198.364
417


32198.365
418


32198.366
419


32198.367
420


32198.368
421


32198.369
422


32198.370
423


32198.371
424


32198.372
425


32198.373
426


32198.374
427


32198.375
428


32198.376
429


32198.377
430


32198.378
431


32198.379
432


32198.380
433


32198.381
434


32198.382
435


32198.383
436


32198.384
437


32198.385
438


32198.386
439


32198.387
440


32198.388
441


32198.389
442


32198.390
443


32198.391
444


32198.392
445


32198.393
446


32198.394
447


32198.395
448


32198.396
449


32198.397
450


32198.398
451


32198.399
452


32198.400
453


32198.401
454


32198.402
455


32198.403
456


32198.404
457


32198.405
458


32198.406
(459)

NOMINATIONS OF THOMAS B. GRIFFITH, OF 

UTAH, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; PAUL A. 

CROTTY, OF NEW YORK, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; AND J. MICHAEL 

SEABRIGHT, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2004 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Hatch, Specter, Chambliss, Feingold and Schumer. 

Chairman HATCH. We are ready to begin. We are anxious to proceed on these three nominees here this morning. It is late in the 

session, and so we are trying to do the best we can. 

We are particularly honored to have two of our great Senators 

here this morning—Senator Inouye, who has been here almost from 

the beginning of this institution. He has been here so long, but we 

all respect Senator Inouye and know what a great man he is. 

We congratulate you on this last year. 

We also have my dear colleague, Senator Bennett, who has more 

than distinguished himself here in the United States Senate. We 

are grateful to have both of you here. 

We have Senator Schumer, who is here as well to testify for his 

nominee as well. 

Senator Inouye, we will begin with you, and then I am going to 

turn, with your permission, Bob, to Senator Schumer, and then I 

will— 

Senator SCHUMER. That is all right. Bob can go. 

Chairman HATCH. I want you to be able to get your remarks over 

with. 

Senator Inouye, we will take you first. 

460

PRESENTATION OF J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, OF HAWAII, 

NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

HAWAII, BY HON. DANIEL INOUYE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF HAWAII 

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, and I 

believe I speak for all when I say thank you for accommodating us. 

We realize that these are the last days of the session. 

This morning, I have the great honor of presenting to the Committee Mr. J. Michael Seabright, of Honolulu, Hawaii, who was recently nominated by the President of the United States to serve as 

Federal district judge for the District of Hawaii. 

Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, I would like to present his 

First Lady, Margaret, and his children, Kate and Nick, and his 

mother, his sister and brother-in-law. They are all sitting in the 

back. 

Chairman HATCH. If you would all stand, we surely welcome all 

of you here this morning. We are grateful to have you here and you 

must be very proud. 

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Seabright is a graduate of Tulane University, where he received his degree magna cum laude. before going 

on to attend the National Law Center at G.W. University, where 

he received his juris doctor, graduated with high honors, and was 

a member of the Order of the Coif. At G.W., he further distinguished himself by serving as the Editor of the George Washington 

Journal of International Law and Economics. 

Mr. Chairman, I have had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Seabright 

since he arrived in Hawaii 20 years ago, having watched him as 

he successfully became a member of the Hawaii State Bar and became involved in our community. Now, Mr. Seabright stands out as 

a leader in the legal side of law enforcement, where he developed 

the District of Hawaii plan for implementing Operation 

Triggerlock-Hawaii, a Federal-local effort aimed at the prosecution 

of violent, armed career criminals in the Federal courts. 

His broad experience in prosecution, from violent crimes to government corruption, have provided him a balanced perspective of 

the criminal justice system that will continue to serve him well as 

he prepares for this most recent development in his career of public 

service. 

Mr. Seabright’s work for Hawaii goes beyond his professional 

commitments as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. He has served on the 

Hawaii Supreme Court’s disciplinary board since 1995 and holds 

the chairmanship of its rules committee, which is charged with the 

drafting of proposed rules for the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct. He was also a member of the Hawaii State Bar Examiners 

and has been an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii William Richardson School of Law. 

Mr. Chairman, this extraordinary record of achievement has now 

culminated with his nomination to the Federal bench and amply 

supports the favorable reports he received from the Hawaii State 

Bar, the American Bar Association and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Mr. Chairman, I am confident that his record will prove equally 

impressive to this Committee. Naturally, I hope for a successful 

hearing this morning and I hope it will be expeditiously taken up 

461

and passed by the full Senate during these waning days of this 

Congress. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator Inouye. That means a lot 

to us and it is certainly high praise for Mr. Seabright. 

We think you are very fortunate to have the Senator from Hawaii come here and speak for you. We have heard about you and 

we have every reason to want to support you. 

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, may I be excused now? 

Chairman HATCH. Without question. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. 

Chairman HATCH. We know our place here. We are happy to 

have you here, Senator Inouye. 

The Democrats do have a caucus at 9:30, so that is why the convoluted approach here this morning. We are going to go until about 

9:25 and then we will recess until eleven or shortly thereafter to 

allow our colleagues to come to finish the hearing. 

We are trying to be very accommodating here. So that is one reason why I am going to Senator Schumer at this point so that he 

can certainly make that caucus meeting. 

PRESENTATION OF PAUL A. CROTTY, OF NEW YORK, NOMINEE 

TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

NEW YORK, BY HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for holding this hearing and bringing these nominees to 

the fore. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator, let me just say congratulations on 

your close encounter up there in New York. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. It was a nail-biter, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HATCH. Well, frankly, we knew you were going to win 

and we are very proud of you for doing so. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you very much. 

I am so proud to nominate Paul Crotty to join the Southern District as a judge. I get to know, as we all do, people who are nominated. With Paul, it is one of those rare instances where I knew 

him long before he was nominated, and he is just an outstanding 

person. 

Before I talk a little about Paul, I would just once again like to 

say that we have done a very good job filling New York’s Federal 

bench. We have worked closely with the White House and Judge 

Gonzales and Governor Pataki. It is an example, when we all come 

together, that we can make this work judiciarily, if you will. 

I have always had three criteria for nominating judges—excellence. It is a very important job. People should be legally excellent, 

not someone’s brother-in-law or some political hack. 

Moderation. I don’t like judges too far right; I also don’t like 

judges too far left. Judges at the extremes tend to make law. They 

feel so passionately that they feel they know better than the longestablished traditions of the law. They don’t make good judges. 

They might make good other things. 

462

And, finally, diversity. I try, at least in New York, to fill the 

bench with more women and people of color. We have done a very 

good job in New York, and I would just wish and hope and pray 

that in the upcoming session we can have the same kind of comity 

nationally that we have had with New York. 

And I have to say, Mr. Chairman, without your help, we wouldn’t 

have been as successful in New York, and your guiding hand, as 

well, for that. I also want to thank, as I mentioned, Governor 

Pataki, my colleague, Senator Clinton, and the White House for 

that. 

As for our nominee, Paul Crotty, Mr. Chairman, is as good a 

nominee as this Committee ever sees, whether he is from New 

York or anywhere else. His legal credentials are outstanding. He 

has had a long and distinguished career in both the public and private sectors. 

I like to nominate judges with practical experience because one 

of the things that bothers me is when judges are just legally-oriented, they sort of from on high impose all kinds of rules that just 

don’t work. Paul has had a wealth of public experience, but he has 

been a great lawyer as well. 

He graduated from Cornell Law School in 1967. He clerked for 

2 years for Judge MacMahon, of the Southern District, the court 

to which he is now nominated. He served two of our mayors very, 

very well—Mayor Koch, where he was Commissioner of Finance, 

and Commissioner of Housing and Preservation. He then went to 

the private sector, where he was a partner in one of the most prestigious firms not only in New York, but in America—Donovan, Leisure, Newton and Irvine—and then served Mayor Giuliani as his 

Corporate Counsel, head of the city’s Law Department. And that 

could be, Mr. Chairman, the most difficult legal job in municipal 

government anywhere in America. 

He is now Group Vice President for New York and Connecticut 

for Verizon, and maybe I will ask him to make sure Verizon keeps 

its headquarters in New York before finally letting go of this nomination. In any case, he has done a great job there as well. 

He is also very civic-minded. While he was at Verizon, he donated his time to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. 

That was the group, after 9/11, in charge of revitalizing lower Manhattan. 

Let me just submit for the record letters sent by both Mayor 

Koch and Mayor Giuliani—both are friends of mine whom I work 

closely with, one a Democrat, one a Republican—showing the bipartisan support that Paul has. 

Chairman HATCH. Without objection. 

Senator SCHUMER. Mayor Giuliani said—I am just going to read 

an excerpt—‘‘Paul Crotty is one of the finest men I know. He possesses all the qualities of an excellent judge—wisdom, compassion, 

toughness, curiosity, common sense, unwavering integrity and an 

abiding love of the law. Many possess knowledge of the law and 

knowledge of government. Paul Crotty is the rare individual who 

possesses mastery of both. He has set and achieved the highest 

standard at every stage of his career. Our Nation will be fortunate 

to have him join the Federal bench.’’ 

463

And from Mayor Koch’s letter: ‘‘Paul is a man of high intelligence, total integrity and great courage. He has a delightful sense 

of humor and is a husband and father to a marvelous family.’’ 

Since he wrote this letter to me, he says, ‘‘You know Paul so well, 

what I am stating is not unknown to you.’’ We can leave that out. 

Mayor Koch says, ‘‘I believe he would be a superb appointment.’’ 

Well, I couldn’t agree more. I was proud to recommend him to the 

President. I am proud the President agreed that Paul is a great 

choice for the bench. He will introduce his large family. The Crotty 

family is a legendary family in New York from one end of the State 

to the other, from Buffalo to New York. 

He is a great choice and I hope the Senate moves expeditiously 

to confirm him because he will make a great judge. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that. 

Let me just note for the record that Senator Clinton has notified 

me that she wants to be here, but might not be able to be here 

until eleven. But either way, she is going to have a very good statement put in the record. So we will keep the record open for her 

statement, whichever way it may delivered. 

Senator Bennett, if I could turn to Senator Feingold, also, because they need to leave. I am taking liberties with my dear colleague, but he understands. Then we will go to Senator Akaka, and 

then you will wrap up. 

Senator Feingold, we also congratulate you. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. It was a big win up there. 

Senator FEINGOLD. It is good to be back. 

Chairman HATCH. I personally expected you to win and I am 

proud to have you back on the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. It is good to be back on the Committee, Mr. 

Chairman. I just want to make a brief statement. 

I would like to welcome the nominees and their families and 

those who are here to introduce them. Mr. Chairman, I know that 

the nomination of Mr. Griffith means a lot to you personally, and 

that is why you have scheduled this hearing during this lame duck 

session. 

But I am a little concerned about the time chosen and allotted 

for this hearing. It has the potential of leaving members without 

a meaningful opportunity to question the nominee, given the day 

and the various scheduling conflicts today. I, like others on the 

Democratic side, will have to leave shortly, and I know you are sensitive to that. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, we will back at eleven. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I understand that you have announced this 

at this point. We, of course, didn’t know that when we were making 

our plans for the day, so it is not clear that some of us could get 

back to continue. But I recognize that accommodation. 

On its face, this is a controversial nomination. Since Mr. Griffith’s nomination in May, there has been significant public discussion of the nominee’s failures to follow the rules of two different 

464

bars. The ABA took an unusually long time to examine the nominee’s record, and finally in October gave him its lowest possible 

‘‘qualified’’ rating. An examination of the Utah Bar documents on 

which he waived confidentiality pose a real question about whether 

he was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 

Other than the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit is considered the 

most important court in this country. Senators need to be able to 

fully examine Mr. Griffith before being asked to vote on his nomination. Because the brief window of time that will be left this 

morning after the introductions is not a substitute for a meaningful 

chance to question the nominee about his communications with the 

Utah Bar, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that all the material 

sent to the Committee by the Utah Bar that has to do with Mr. 

Griffith’s application and admission to the Utah Bar be admitted 

into the record. 

Chairman HATCH. Part of that is confidential, but we will admit 

whatever we can. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I understand— 

Chairman HATCH. It can be admitted into the record. It is just 

that some of it is confidential. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I understand you are probably referring to 

his bar application. At least with regard to that document, let me 

say that we do have an interest particularly in questions 46 and 

52. So I would ask simply that those pages of the application be 

admitted, along with a cover page and his signature. 

Chairman HATCH. Without objection. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, I appreciate that, and I hope the Senator 

will accommodate me on this one because of a wide variety of reasons and I think high qualifications. 

Senator Akaka, we will turn to you. 

PRESENTATION OF J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, OF HAWAII, 

NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

HAWAII, BY HON. DANIEL AKAKA, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF HAWAII 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for moving this hearing so expeditiously. I also want to add my welcome 

to Mr. Seabright and his lovely family, to Margaret and Kate and 

Nick. It is so good to see you here in Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I join Senator 

Inouye Mr. Michael Seabright for this morning’s hearing. The Hawaii State Bar Association has found Mr. Seabright to be highly, 

highly qualified for the position of U.S. District Court Judge in Hawaii. This is of significant importance to me, as I value the opinion 

of Hawaii’s legal community in evaluating those nominated to 

serve as judges. 

Mr. Seabright has practiced law in the State of Hawaii for the 

past 20 years in a number of capacities, including both private 

practice and public service. Mr. Seabright has been employed by 

the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Hawaii for the past 15 

years, and he has headed the White-Collar and Organized Crime 

Section since 2002. 

465

I am very pleased that this position, after being vacant for so 

many years, will now be filled with an individual as qualified as 

Mr. Michael Seabright. For the past few years, I have heard from 

jurists and a number of attorneys in Hawaii about the need to fill 

this judicial vacancy. Together with Senator Inouye, I have tried to 

address the strains on the court’s current judges as they work to 

manage an increasingly overcrowded docket. 

In fact, Mr. Chairman, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, 

in a letter dated July 21, 2004, recognized the judicial emergency 

in Hawaii. It is our hope that the Senate will once and for all address this situation by enacting legislation to make Hawaii’s fourth 

judgeship permanent during this session. I look forward to that, 

Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleagues for their favorable consideration of Mr. Seabright and look forward to expedited action on his 

nomination. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator Akaka. That is a good 

statement and we appreciate your taking time to come and support 

Mr. Seabright for this position. We appreciate it and we are glad 

we are able to accommodate you here today. Thank you so much. 

It is high praise for this great nominee and we will do our best to 

get him through between now and the end of this session of Congress. 

I will, of course, reserve my remarks until after my dear colleague and friend, Senator Bennett, makes his. All of these gentlemen are so busy. Then I will make my remarks and then we will 

go from there. 

Senator Bennett. 

PRESENTATION OF THOMAS B. GRIFFITH, OF UTAH, NOMINEE 

TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 

BY HON. ROBERT BENNETT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF UTAH 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the 

opportunity of— 

Chairman HATCH. Senator Akaka, we will excuse you. We know 

you have a caucus meeting and we understand. 

Senator BENNETT.—for the opportunity of talking about Tom 

Griffith. As I listened to my colleagues go through he appropriate 

list of accomplishments of the other nominees, I have decided not 

to do that with respect to Tom Griffith, for the simple reason that 

the Committee already has all of the information about his performance educationally, his practice of law, his experience in the 

standard resume fashion. Rather than repeat that which is already 

in the record, I would like to talk about Tom Griffith, the individual, and what I think he brings to this particular assignment. 

First, let me introduce to the Committee the people he has with 

him from his family. He is accompanied, of course, by his wife and 

her father, and by his two daughters and their husbands. 

Maybe you would like to greet them and have them perhaps 

stand. 

Chairman HATCH. We are so happy to have all of you here. 

Thanks for coming and we appreciate you supporting Tom Griffith. 

466

Senator BENNETT. Now, Mr. Chairman, Tom Griffith really needs 

no introduction to the Senate because he served as Legal Counsel 

to the Senate in what is perhaps the Senate’s most difficult experience, at least the most difficult experience in the time that I have 

been here. Tom Griffith was Counsel to the Senate when we went 

through the historic impeachment experience of holding an impeachment trial on President Clinton—only the second time in our 

Republic’s history where the Senate has had this kind of challenge. 

I was involved in that, as were members of this Committee. 

The primary burden of dealing with that challenge fell upon the 

two leaders, Senator Lott as the Majority Leader and Senator 

Daschle as the Minority Leader. I watched with interest and then 

admiration as Tom Griffith negotiated through that particular 

mine field, giving very sound, calm, carefully researched and reasoned advice to both sides. He was not a partisan counsel. From 

my observation, Senator Daschle was as reliant upon Tom Griffith’s legal expertise as was Senator Lott. 

If I can take us back to the memory of that experience, virtually 

everyone around us in Washington predicted a melt-down. The 

comment was made that this case was toxic. It had soiled the presidency, it had soiled the House of Representatives, and it was going 

to soil the United States Senate. 

After it was over, the two leaders embraced in the well of the 

Senate. I can’t remember which one it was that began it, but one 

said to the other, ‘‘we did it,’’ and the other responded, ‘‘yes, we 

did.’’ And the Senate came out of that experience with its reputation enhanced rather than soiled, and to no small degree that fact 

that we had that result is due to Tom Griffith. 

There are very few nominees for the Federal bench who have had 

the experience of going through that kind of fire, who have had 

their judicial temperament tested in that kind of an atmosphere. 

Tom Griffith therefore comes before this Committee unique in 

terms of his experience with the Committee and with the Senate 

as a whole, and indeed in the national spotlight. 

I would urge every member of the Committee, regardless of 

party, as they sift through the various controversial statements 

that have been made, in my view improperly, about Tom Griffith, 

to set those aside and think back over their personal experience 

with him in that time of great challenge and great trial in the Senate’s history. I am sure if they do, the members of the Committee 

will recognize that the President has nominated an extraordinary 

man with an extraordinary background to this very important position. Upon reflecting on those personal qualities that he has, the 

members of the Committee will endorse and support him for this 

assignment. 

I am happy to have had the opportunity and the honor of introducing him and his family to the Committee here this morning. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Senator Bennett. Those remarks are very, very well received by me, as you know, and I think 

should be received well by everybody. So thank you for being here 

and we appreciate your strong support of Mr. Griffith. 

Perhaps I can make my remarks at this point and then I will 

turn to Senator Specter, if he has any he would care to make. 

467

PRESENTATION OF THOMAS B. GRIFFITH, OF UTAH, NOMINEE 

TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 

BY HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 

OF UTAH 

Chairman HATCH. I am pleased to introduce and welcome to the 

Committee a member of the Senate family, Thomas B. Griffith. 

Many of us know Tom from his distinguished service, as Senator 

Bennett has said, as Senate Legal Counsel. That is no small position. It is one of the most important legal positions in the country. 

As the chief legal officer of the Senate, Tom represented the Senate, its committees, members, officers and employees in litigation 

relating to their constitutional powers and privileges. He advised 

committees about their investigatory powers and procedures, represented the institutional interests of the Senate in the impeachment trial of President Clinton, in the Line Item Veto Act litigation, and in numerous Committee investigations, and handled them 

all with aplomb, decency, fairness, balance and integrity. My 

friends on the other side have acknowledged that. 

Despite the difficult and often divisive issues that Tom encountered in his role as Senate Legal Counsel, he consistently exercised 

sound judgment, objectivity and fairness—qualities that all of us 

up here know are essential for any Federal judge. Tom’s possession 

of these qualities earned him the respect and admiration of members on both sides of the aisle. Along these lines, I would like to 

take a couple of moments to share just a few excerpts from the 

many letters we received in support of his nomination. 

Richard Wiley, of the firm Wiley, Rein and Fielding, one of the 

great firms in this town, and former law partner of Tom Griffith’s, 

wrote that, quote, ‘‘Tom is an outstanding lawyer with keen judgment, congenial temperament and impeccable personal integrity,’’ 

unquote. 

Seth Waxman, former Solicitor General of the United States, a 

leading Democrat in this town and one of the attorneys I most respect in this town, said, quote, ‘‘I have known Tom since he was 

Senate Legal Counsel and I was Solicitor General, and I have the 

highest regard for his integrity. For my own part, I would stake 

most everything on his word alone. Litigants would be in good 

hands with a person of Tom Griffith’s character as their judge,’’ unquote. 

Glen Ivey, former counsel to Senate Democratic Leader Tom 

Daschle, wrote to this Committee stating, quote, ‘‘I believe Mr. 

Griffith is an exceptional nominee and would make an excellent 

judge. Although Mr. Griffith and I have different part affiliations 

and do not agree on all political matters, I learned during the Senate’s Whitewater and campaign finance reform investigations that 

Mr. Griffith took seriously his oath of office. Even when we were 

handling sensitive and politically-charged issues, he acted in a nonpartisan and objective manner. I believe Mr. Griffith has the intellect and the temperament to make an outstanding jurist,’’ unquote. 

Fred Fielding was White House Counsel for President Reagan. 

Fred helped found the reputable firm Wiley, Rein and Fielding. Mr. 

Fielding has described Tom as, quote, ‘‘a very special individual 

and a man possessed of the highest integrity. He is a fine profesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:46 Feb 01, 2007 Jkt 032198 PO 00000 Frm 00477 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\32198T.000 SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
468

sional who demands of himself the very best of his intellect and energies,’’ unquote. 

According to David Kendall, one of the leading attorneys in the 

country, certainly in this area, personal counsel to President and 

Senator Clinton, quote, ‘‘For years, Tom has been a leader in the 

bar and has shown dedication to its principles. The Federal bench 

needs judges like Tom, an excellent lawyer who is supported across 

the political spectrum. We support Tom and believe he has the intellect and judgment to be an excellent judge,’’ unquote. 

Harvard Law Professor William Stuntz has known Tom for over 

20 years. He wrote, quote, ‘‘Few people I know deserve to be called 

wise; very few deserve to be called both wise and good. Tom is a 

wise and good man. I believe he will be one of the Nation’s finest 

judges,’’ unquote. 

Tom’s nomination is also wholeheartedly supported by a man 

who is uniquely qualified to say who would be a good fit for the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Abner Mikva, former 

White House Counsel for President Clinton and a former judge of 

that very court, wrote, quote, ‘‘I have known Tom Griffith in the 

public sector and in the private sector, and I have never heard a 

whisper against his integrity or responsibility,’’ unquote. 

Finally, there are so many others I could read, but let me just 

say Senator Dodd, of Connecticut, our esteemed colleague, noted 

that ‘‘Tom handled his difficult responsibilities as Senate Legal 

Counsel with great confidence and skill...impressing all who knew 

him with his knowledge of the law and never succumbing to the 

temptation to bend the law to partisan ends,’’ unquote. 

Now, I could go on and on reading the comments received by the 

Judiciary Committee in praise of Tom Griffith. In all my years in 

the Senate, and they now comprise 28 years, I have rarely seen 

such a broad outpouring of support for a nominee from so many 

distinguished individuals on both sides of the aisle. 

Tom has been a dedicated public servant and has demonstrated 

the sound judgment and temperament necessary to be an outstanding Federal circuit court of appeals judge. It is no wonder that 

the President chose to nominate Tom Griffith for the D.C. Circuit 

Court of Appeals. 

Prior to coming to work for the Senate, Tom also earned an impressive record of achievement. He distinguished himself academically, graduating summa cum laude from Brigham Young University and valedictorian of his college. Tom earned his law degree 

from the University of Virginia, a great law school, where he was 

a member of the law review. 

He also has extensive experience in the private sector, working 

at the North Carolina law firm of Robinson, Bradshaw and Hinson, 

and subsequently as a partner in the litigation and government affairs practice areas in the Washington firm of Wiley, Rein and 

Fielding. 

Tom has also given back to the community throughout his legal 

career. While in private practice, he undertook the significant pro 

bono representation of a death row inmate, which led to the commutation of the inmate’s sentence by the Governor of Virginia. He 

has also frequently volunteered his time to pro bono and public 

service groups. 

469

Today, Tom serves as Assistant to the President and General 

Counsel of the largest private university in America, his alma 

mater, and mine, Brigham Young University. I understand that 

some have raised questions about whether he was required to take 

the Utah bar exam to serve in his current position as BYU General 

Counsel. This criticism can be put to rest by a letter I received 

from five former Utah Bar presidents. 

They stated that, quote, ‘‘a general counsel working in the State 

of Utah need not be a member of the Utah Bar provided that when 

giving legal advice to his or her employer that he or she does so 

in conjunction with an associated attorney who is an active member of the Utah Bar and that said general counsel makes no Utah 

court appearances and signs no Utah pleadings, motions or briefs,’’ 

unquote. In addition, the ABA has thoroughly examined Mr. Griffith’s record and made the determination that he is qualified to 

serve on this bench. 

A prominent Salt Lake City attorney, James Jardine, has described what Mr. Griffith would bring to the court, quote, ‘‘He is 

a skilled, thoughtful, experienced lawyer...He is extraordinarily 

thoughtful. His intelligence is tempered by his judgment. He engenders trust and confidence among colleagues. His integrity, balance and patience are genuine virtues. He will in every way enhance the court,’’ unquote. Mr. Jardine concluded, quote, ‘‘I think 

in a time of divisiveness, his appointment can be a point of agreement,’’ unquote. Mr. Jardine served in the Justice Department 

under then-Attorney General Griffin Bell. 

I could not agree than with Jim Jardine. This important court 

needs this good man to serve, and I hope that the Senate will treat 

a member of the Senate family with all due respect and move 

quickly to confirm the President’s nominee, Tom Griffith, to this 

long vacant seat. 

I personally know Tom. He is a personal friend. I watched him 

when he served in the Senate. I saw a man of inestimable abilities 

who did the job here and did it fairly, and I know my colleagues 

on the other side know that. So I don’t think you could get a person 

for this particular position. 

We will chat more about Tom later, but let me talk about Paul 

Crotty. He is our distinguished district nominee for the Southern 

District of New York. He has impeccable credentials which include 

an LL.B. from Cornell Law School with the highest honors and a 

2-year clerkship with Hon. Lloyd MacMahon in the Southern District of New York. 

He has practiced law with the renowned firm of Donovan, Leisure, Newton and Irvine, in which he became a partner—a great 

law firm. He has had an illustrious career in the public sector, as 

well, serving as New York City Commissioner of various offices in 

two mayoral administrations. He is currently the Group President 

for New York and Connecticut of Verizon Communications. 

We welcome you this morning. 

John Seabright is our nominee for the District of Hawaii. A distinguished graduate of George Washington University Law School, 

Mr. Seabright has had an equally distinguished legal career and 

brings 20 years of experience to the Federal bench. 

470

After a short tenure in private practice, he entered the public 

sector first as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, then as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for Hawaii. Since 2001, he 

has served as the Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorney in Hawaii. 

So the Committee welcomes him this morning. 

We are grateful to have both of you here as district court nominees, and, Mr. Griffith, you as a circuit court of appeals nominee. 

We welcome your families and your friends, as well. We are grateful to have all of them here. You have all had tremendous testimony by various Senators from your respective States and we are 

very happy to have you all here. 

With that, I will turn to our distinguished friend, Senator Specter. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and I commend you for scheduling a hearing on judges on the one 

day which we are back in session. No sooner are we here than we 

have a judicial hearing. 

I join my colleagues in welcoming the distinguished nominees 

who are before us today. Mr. Griffith comes highly recommended 

by his two home State Senators, who know him very well, and 

backed up by a very impressive record on the Virginia Law Review, 

a mark of distinction, summa cum laude at Brigham Young University, valedictorian in the College of Humanities—that is first in 

his class—and has been noted with some specificity, served as 

counsel for the very complex hearings on the impeachment proceeding. 

Mr. Crotty comes well recommended, a special call by former 

Senator Alfonse D’Amato, no longer in the Senate, but still heard 

with some gusto and emphasis in these chambers. J. Michael 

Seabright was recommended by Senator Inouye, which carries 

enormous weight with this Committee and in the Senate. 

So I am pleased to see these distinguished nominees here, Mr. 

Chairman, and look forward to participating in the confirmation 

process. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you so much, Senator. 

What we are going to do now is recess until about five after eleven and allow our colleagues time to come back. In fact, we will recess until eleven. I can start my questions at eleven. Maybe we will 

delay it just a little bit, but I hope all of the three judgeship nominees will be here promptly at eleven. 

We apologize for this intervening time, but we want to accommodate our colleagues on the other side. These caucus meetings are 

very important at this time and it is the only way I know that we 

can conclude this matter. So we will do our very, very best to conclude this after we begin again at eleven. So I would appreciate it 

if all of you would come back at that time. 

With that, we will recess until 11:00 a.m. 

[The Committee stood in recess from 9:39 a.m. to 11:20 a.m.] 

Chairman HATCH. We will call the Committee to order, and let 

me just say this. We are not sure whether any Democrats are going 

to come to the hearing, and my personal belief is that they like all 

471

three of you and that we have a real chance of maybe putting some 

judges through before the end of this session. Now, it is miraculous 

if we do, but I think that with the help of my fellow Committee 

members, we may be able to do that. 

But I still want to ask some questions of the three of you, so I 

am going to ask all three of you to come up to the table. Usually, 

we would start with the circuit court of appeals nominee first, but 

I am going to have all three of you in the interest of time. 

Would you please raise your right hands? 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be 

the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you 

God? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. 

Mr. CROTTY. Yes. 

Mr. SEABRIGHT. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. Please be seated. 

Without objection, I will put a statement of Senator Leahy into 

the record immediately following my statement, if you will. Senator 

Leahy sends his regrets that he cannot be here. 

I think what we will do is start with you, Mr. Griffith, and have 

you make any statement you care to make. I would like you during 

your statement to introduce your wife and family members who are 

here, and friends, if you care to go that far. 

Then we will do the same with you, Mr. Crotty, and then with 

you, Mr. Seabright. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS B. GRIFFITH, NOMINEE TO BE 

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much, Senator. It is an honor to 

be here. It is an honor to be nominated by President Bush for this 

position, and I want to publicly thank the President and express 

my gratitude to him for his confidence in me. I am also mindful of 

the Senate schedule and how busy you all are, and appreciate a 

great deal giving the three of us an opportunity to appear before 

the Senate. 

I would like to introduce my family, if that is okay. Behind me 

is my wife of 28 years, Susan Stell Griffith. 

Chairman HATCH. We are so happy to have you here, Susan. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And her father, my father-in-law, the best fatherin-law in the world, William Stell. 

Chairman HATCH. That is a good sign, when the father-in-law— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. That is right. 

Chairman HATCH. We are happy to have you here. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. My wife and I have six children, two of whom still 

live in the Washington, D.C., area, our two married daughters, and 

I would like to introduce them and their husbands, if that is all 

right. 

Chairman HATCH. That would be great. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Eric Watts and Chelsea Griffith Watts. 

Chairman HATCH. So happy to have you here. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. My daughter Chelsea is not feeling too well today 

because she is expecting and suffering from morning sickness. 

Chairman HATCH. Some of us know how to deliver babies. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Fortunately, we are not at that point just yet. 

472

Then I would also like to introduce my son-in-law Ryan Clegg 

and his wife, my daughter, Megan Griffith Clegg. 

Chairman HATCH. So happy to have you both here. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Our children are home in Utah and I have a son— 

Chairman HATCH. I know you had a number of friends in the audience both this morning and now. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I am grateful for their presence. 

If I might just say one further expression of gratitude, I am very 

grateful to be back here in the Senate. This is an institution that 

I love and for which I have profound admiration and respect. 

I counted among the greatest honors of my life that I was able 

to serve as Senate Legal Counsel. Some nice things were said about 

that this morning. I want to acknowledge that earlier today, my 

predecessor as Senate Legal Counsel, Michael Davidson, one of the 

finest lawyers I have ever worked with or known, was here, and 

I want to say publicly that much of the credit that you and others 

gave me for my performance as Senate Legal Counsel was because 

I was trained by Mike Davidson. 

But I am honored to be here before the Committee, and I am 

willing and anxious to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Griffith follows.]

473


32198.407
474


32198.408
475


32198.409
476


32198.410
477


32198.411
478


32198.412
479


32198.413
480


32198.414
481


32198.415
482


32198.416
483


32198.417
484


32198.418
485


32198.419
486


32198.420
487


32198.421
488


32198.422
489


32198.423
490


32198.424
491


32198.425
492


32198.426
493


32198.427
494


32198.428
495


32198.429
496


32198.430
497


32198.431
498


32198.432
499


32198.433
500


32198.434
501


32198.435
502

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Griffith. 

Mr. Crotty. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL A. CROTTY, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

Mr. CROTTY. Senator, good morning. Thank you very much. Like 

Mr. Griffith, I would like to join in his thanks to you for convening 

this hearing and the many courtesies your staff has extended to us 

building up to the hearing today. 

I, too, am honored by the nomination of the President of the 

United States and very thankful to the President for the honor he 

has conferred upon me in nominating me. I know that my nomination takes place because of the strong support I have received from 

Senator Schumer over the last 2 years. I am very appreciative of 

that, along with the support of Governor Pataki, who joins with the 

Senator, as he indicated in his opening remarks about how things 

work together to produce acceptable candidates for nomination to 

the district courts in New York State. 

If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my family 

who is with me today. First of all, my wife Jane of 37 years. 

Chairman HATCH. Jane, we are happy to have you here. 

Mr. CROTTY. And my son John. John is the Executive Vice President of the Housing Development Corporation of New York City, 

the leading multi-family bond issuer in the United States, and his 

wife Kate. 

Chairman HATCH. John and Kate, we are happy to have you 

here. 

Mr. CROTTY. My daughter Elizabeth, who is in her fourth year 

with Mr. Morgenthau. She is a member of Trial Bureau 70. She 

just moved over to the Special Investigations Unit. 

Chairman HATCH. Very happy to have you here. 

Mr. CROTTY. And my son David, who is with Verizon and works 

in the area of strategic development and works on mergers and acquisition. 

I am also joined by two of my brothers—my brother Bob, who is 

a partner at Kelley, Drye and Warren in New York City, and my 

brother Jerry, who was Secretary to Governor Cuomo, who is now 

working in New Jersey. 

Chairman HATCH. Happy to have you here. 

Mr. CROTTY. And two colleagues from Verizon—Roger Mott, who 

is in our legislative office here in Washington, and Tom Dunne. 

Tom Dunne and I worked together very closely on repairing the 

telephone networks after the terrorist attack on 9/11, and Tom is 

one of the great unheralded heroes of Verizon’s efforts in restoring 

telephone communications. 

So thank you very much, Senator. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, we are honored to have all of you here. 

Mr. CROTTY. Thank you. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Crotty. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Crotty follows.]

503


32198.436
504


32198.437
505


32198.438
506


32198.439
507


32198.440
508


32198.441
509


32198.442
510


32198.443
511


32198.444
512


32198.445
513


32198.446
514


32198.447
515

Chairman HATCH. Mr. Seabright, we will hear from you now. 

STATEMENT OF J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII 

Mr. SEABRIGHT. Thank you very much, Senator Hatch. I appreciate the opportunity to come here today and appear before you. 

I, too, want to begin by thanking the President for the honor of 

nominating me for this position for District Court Judge for the 

District of Hawaii. I also want to thank and recognize the two Senators, my home State Senators, Senators Inouye and Akaka, for 

their support for my nomination, and their help in getting me 

through this process and understanding the process and really 

walking me through the process. 

I also would like to reintroduce, behind me, my wife Margaret 

Ahn. 

Chairman HATCH. Margaret, happy to have you with us. 

Mr. SEABRIGHT. My daughter, who is a sophomore in high school 

and getting a few days off high school coming to Washington, Kate. 

Chairman HATCH. That is great. Good to have you here. 

Mr. SEABRIGHT. And my son Nick, who likewise—he is in the 

sixth grade and gets a few days off school, but gets a real nice lesson in civics. 

Chairman HATCH. A wonderful family. 

Mr. SEABRIGHT. And then my mother Joan is here. 

Chairman HATCH. Happy to have you here, Mom. 

Mr. SEABRIGHT. My sister Leslie. 

Chairman HATCH. Leslie. 

Mr. SEABRIGHT. And my brother-in-law Adam. 

Chairman HATCH. It is great to have you all here. 

Mr. SEABRIGHT. Thank you. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Seabright follows.]

516


32198.448
517


32198.449
518


32198.450
519


32198.451
520


32198.452
521


32198.453
522


32198.454
523


32198.455
524


32198.456
525


32198.457
526


32198.458
527


32198.459
528


32198.460
529


32198.461
530


32198.462
531


32198.463
532


32198.464
533


32198.465
534


32198.466
535


32198.467
536


32198.468
537


32198.469
538


32198.470
539


32198.471
540


32198.472
541


32198.473
542


32198.474
543


32198.475
544


32198.476
545


32198.477
546


32198.478
547


32198.479
548


32198.480
549


32198.481
550


32198.482
551

Chairman HATCH. Well, we are delighted to have all of you here. 

These positions are, to me, some of the most important positions 

in our country. One-third of the separated powers of this country 

happen to be the judiciary, so we take this very seriously. Everybody on this Committee takes it seriously. We have had all kinds 

of experiences over the last 28 years with regard to judicial nominees. I think it is important that we ask a few questions here. I 

believe that all three of you should be able to be confirmed. 

Let me start with you, Mr. Griffith, since there has been some 

controversy with regard to some of the experiences that you have 

gone through. If you are confirmed, Mr. Griffith, your ability to 

work with other judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will be an important element of your effectiveness. 

Can you please tell us what you believe the role of a judge should 

be—well, the role and significance of collegiality is and how you 

will contribute to it once you become a judge? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. I think that is a critical question. I 

think it is a critical attribute that judges need to find ways to work 

with their colleagues. What they are about is administering laws 

fairly and justly. They are about a process that ought to be collaborative to get the benefit of colleagues’ thoughts on nettlesome 

issues that have great impact on the lives of the parties. 

So I think collegiality is an indispensable requirement of an appeals court judge, and I believe that I have demonstrated through 

my life that I have found ways to reach out to others, to collaborate, to come up with shared solutions. 

Chairman HATCH. That has been my experience with you. 

Mr. Crotty, how do you feel about that? 

Mr. CROTTY. Well, Senator, thank you for the question. 

Collegiality, of course, is very important, but on a district court it 

is a little bit different. The importance there, I think, is collegiality 

between the bench and bar and having a district court judge being 

able to treat the litigants before him with courtesy and respect, 

while running a courtroom which is based on decorum and order 

so that the interests of justice are fairly served. 

The role of collegiality in a district court is also supported by the 

collegiality that exists among the district court judges and it is an 

important attribute of the Southern District of New York. They 

have always gotten along well with one another. I know many of 

the judges based on my own personal experience and appearances 

in the courthouse, and I hope I would be able to contribute to that 

in a very positive vein so that there is collegiality not only among 

the district court judges, but more importantly collegiality between 

the judge and those appearing before the judge on matters of great 

importance to the litigants. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Seabright. 

Mr. SEABRIGHT. Thank you, Senator. Coming from Hawaii, we 

have a small district. We only have right now three full-time district court judges. If confirmed, I would be the fourth, and I know 

all three of the judges very well. I have tried many cases before 

them as a career Assistant United States Attorney in the District 

552

of Hawaii. I get along well with all three of them and respect them 

greatly. 

And I have no question that the collegiality among the four of us, 

if I was confirmed, would work greatly towards the benefit of the 

court in making it run smoothly and having the judges be able to 

work cooperatively to implement the various rules and procedures 

that are necessary in the court. 

And I agree with Mr. Crotty, as well, that it is vitally important 

that a district court judge show civility towards the litigants that 

appear before that court. And I can assure you, Senator, and the 

Committee as a whole that in my practice of law I have always 

done that in the past and I will continue to do that as a district 

court judge. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you. 

Now, Mr. Griffith, could you please speak about the importance 

of judicial temperament and indicate what elements of judicial temperament that you consider to be the most important? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. I think judicial temperament is critically important. A litigant ought to be able to have confidence that 

when he or she brings a dispute before a court and a judge is involved that that judge is thoughtful, is fair, is scrupulous in attention to fact, is diligent in identifying the principles of law that govern, and then is fair and impartial in applying that law to the dispute. Litigants deserve that when they come into the courts of the 

United States. 

And so I think all of those elements are critical to judicial temperament. I think perhaps the most important is the willingness to 

withhold judgment until all arguments are heard, until all facts are 

explored, so that the decision the judge makes can be the most considered and most accurate. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. 

Do you agree with that, Mr. Crotty? 

Mr. CROTTY. Yes, I do, Senator. I was going to quote Finley Peter 

Dunne, who was a great commentator around the time of Teddy 

Roosevelt, who, through is character, Mr. Dooley, said with regard 

to judicial temperament he has the judicial temperament; he hates 

work. 

But I think today we have to be at the opposite end of that spectrum, and I think that temperament—to be a good district court 

judge, a good circuit court judge, you have to be willing to work, 

and work hard. And I think important in that is the willingness 

to listen and to learn from the advocates who appear before you, 

to give them an opportunity to make their case, and do that 

against the background of respecting the role of advocate, extending them courtesy and trying to be responsive. And many of the 

values that Mr. Griffith cites, of course, I agree with. That would 

be my answer. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. 

I think you agree with both of those, don’t you? 

Mr. SEABRIGHT. I do, Senator. 

Chairman HATCH. That is great. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Maybe we could start at the other end and come 

down. 

553

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HATCH. It would have been the end of you if you didn’t 

agree. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HATCH. All three of you, I take it, agree that it is important for lawyers to do pro bono work. 

Mr. CROTTY. Yes, Senator. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. 

Mr. SEABRIGHT. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. Let me go to Mr. Griffith. Now, I don’t want 

you two to feel excluded here, but there have been some issues 

raised about Mr. Griffith that I would like to clarify and resolve for 

the benefit of my colleagues. I have no doubt that all three of you 

are worthy of becoming Federal judges. 

Let me just go to you, Mr. Griffith, and ask you these. Some have 

attempted to make much of the lapse of your bar license here in 

Washington, D.C. In fact, you have had some pretty vicious articles 

written about that. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I have noticed. 

Chairman HATCH. Let me just read to you an excerpt of a letter 

sent to me and my good friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, from 

Stephen Umin, of the law firm of Williams and Connolly, one of the 

most prestigious firms in this town. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Umin was here earlier today and had to leave. 

Chairman HATCH. He was here to support you. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. I won’t read the whole letter. I will put it in 

the record, without objection. But he said, ‘‘Dear Chairman Hatch 

and Senator Leahy, we write in support of the nomination of Thomas B. Griffith to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit. We have worked with Tom in a variety of contexts and can 

attest to his outstanding character and legal ability. Recently, Tom 

was unfairly portrayed in the Washington Post for late payment of 

his D.C. Bar dues. The Post improperly equated Tom’s situation to 

‘disciplinary suspension,’ a rare sanction imposed only when a lawyer knowingly refuses to pay bar dues. It was nothing of the kind. 

When advised of the problem, Tom promptly paid his dues in full. 

Tom is an outstanding attorney who takes his responsibilities as a 

member...’’ 

But more specifically, he says in this letter, ‘‘Each year, the D.C. 

Bar sends its members a reminder to renew their bar memberships. In this process, there is always potential for inadvertent 

oversight. As a result, the D.C. Bar Council notes that every year 

over 3,000 D.C. lawyers and a number of sitting judges are ‘administratively suspended’ for late payment of dues. This is what happened to Tom. By immediately paying his dues when he became 

aware of the oversight, Tom took the proper course of action. According to the D.C. Bar Council, such an oversight is entirely common and of no major concern, particularly where no reminder notice is sent.’’ 

Now, this letter from Mr. Umin is endorsed by over a dozen 

prominent District of Columbia lawyers. I have other letters from 

the likes of former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit, Abner Mikva, Hofstra Professor of Law Monroe FreedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:46 Feb 01, 2007 Jkt 032198 PO 00000 Frm 00563 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\32198T.000 SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
554

man, and George Washington Professor of Law Thomas Morgan, 

experts in ethics, which I will make a part of this record, without 

objection. Each of these individuals point out the distinction between a technical administrative suspension and disciplinary suspensions. 

Now, can you shed some light on this issue for us? Tell us what 

happened so that everybody knows and we get this put behind you, 

because you have been very unfairly treated on this issue. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I would be happy to, Senator Hatch, and thank 

you for the opportunity to respond to that question. First of all, it 

was an oversight on my part and I take full responsibility for it. 

I deeply regret that my bar dues were not paid in 1998 and for 2 

years thereafter. 

If you will allow me, maybe I can provide some context to explain 

what happened. 

Chairman HATCH. Go ahead. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I graduated from law school in 1985, from the 

University of Virginia, and went to work in Charlotte, North Carolina, at a fine firm that you mentioned earlier today, Robinson, 

Bradshaw and Hinson. As an associate there, I learned that one of 

the things that law firms typically do for their lawyers is keep 

track of their bar membership dues. And in 1985, 1986, 1987, all 

the way through 1989, my law firm in Charlotte paid my bar dues. 

I can tell you right now, I did not give a single thought to that. 

They did it automatically and I was grateful for it. 

Chairman HATCH. And you relied on it? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I relied on them to do that. 

When I came to Washington, D.C., in 1989, I was first associated 

and then became a partner at the law firm of Wiley, Rein and 

Fielding. I found out they did the same thing, as well. And so from 

1989 to 1994, I relied on them and I really never gave a thought 

to whether my bar dues were going to be paid. I just delegated that 

to them and relied on that. 

When I became Senate Legal Counsel in 1995, much to my chagrin I learned that the Senate does not pay one’s bar dues. It is 

not an excessive amount. So that wasn’t a major burden. I think 

at the time it was $120, $130, $140 or so. But when I learned that 

the Senate wouldn’t pay, I notified the D.C. Bar to send the bar 

notices to my home, where I pay personal bills. They did so in ‘95, 

‘96 and ‘97, and every time they sent a notice, I paid. 

In 1998, Senator, I don’t know what happened. I have no recall 

of ever receiving a notice from the D.C. Bar in 1998 that my bar 

dues were due or that they were past due or that they were about 

to, you know, cause my membership to lapse. I have no memory 

of receiving any such notice. And to my knowledge, I have been 

told that neither does the D.C. Bar have any record that they sent 

out any of those notices. And so in 1998, my bar membership 

lapsed due to my inadvertent failure to pay my bar dues. 

In 1999, I left the Senate. After the impeachment trial, I left the 

Senate and returned to my law firm, at Wiley, Rein and Fielding, 

and expected that they again would pay my bar dues and keep 

me— 

Chairman HATCH. As they had always done. 

555

Mr. GRIFFITH. As they had always done, and keep me up to date. 

They did not, and they have acknowledged their error in it. When 

I returned to my firm, I had no idea that my membership had been 

suspended on a temporary basis for this lapse and was oblivious to 

the fact, assuming that my law firm was going to continue, as they 

had done before, to pay my bar dues. 

I left Wiley, Rein and Fielding in 2000 to become Assistant to the 

President and General Counsel at Brigham Young University. I 

first learned that my bar dues had not been paid and that my 

membership had lapsed in 2001. I remember the day well. 

Chairman HATCH. How did you remedy that? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. My secretary came into the office and said she had 

just spoken with the D.C. Bar. We were inquiring about getting a 

certificate of good standing, and she said the D.C. Bar says it is 

fine; they will give you the certificate of good standing; you just got 

to pay the back dues you owe. And I said, what? And she said, but 

don’t worry; they said that you have 5 years to pay them. And I 

said, well, no, I don’t have 5 years to pay them; I have got a week. 

Let’s cut the check and get this done, upon which I immediately 

paid. The D.C. Bar immediately sent me a certificate of good standing. They treated it, as Mr. Umin’s letters suggest, as an administrative matter. It was certainly not a disciplinary matter. 

Now, having said all that, I bear responsibility for the fact that 

my bar dues weren’t paid. I relied on others and I should not have. 

I should not have relied on others to do it. And let me assure you 

today—it may not come as any surprise—I don’t rely on anybody 

to pay my bar dues now. I know that D.C. Bar dues are due July 

1st of each year, and if you talk to my current secretary, I think 

it is about beginning in April when I start hectoring her to say has 

it come in yet, has it come in yet? 

I take my membership in the bar and the obligations of the bar 

seriously. I deeply regret that through my oversight that this problem happened. But I can assure you, Senator, that had I known in 

1998 that my bar membership lapsed for an inadvertent failure to 

pay my bar dues, I would have immediately rectified it. In fact, 

when I did learn it, I immediately rectified it. 

Chairman HATCH. I have no doubt about that. 

Now, I notice the distinguished Senator from New York is here. 

We are grateful that you came, and I am going to interrupt this 

hearing. 

I appreciate that explanation because that should wipe away any 

concerns, because that could happen to any of us, especially if you 

don’t get a notice. I think we all rely on those notices. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I don’t anymore. 

Chairman HATCH. I can see that. Well, that is a good practice. 

I am going to have to start thinking about my own notices from 

here on in. 

We are going to turn to the distinguished Senator from New 

York and show deference here. We are grateful that you would take 

time out of what we know is a really busy schedule to come and 

chat with us here today. If you would care to, you could do it from 

up here. 

556

PRESENTATION OF PAUL A. CROTTY, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 

BY HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator CLINTON. That is fine, Mr. Chairman. I am very appreciative of this opportunity to come and saw a few words on behalf 

of an excellent nominee, Paul Austin Crotty, who has been nominated to serve on the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of New York. It is a great pleasure for both Senator Schumer and myself to be such enthusiastic supporters of this nomination. 

I know that there are a number of family members. I don’t know 

if they have been introduced yet, Paul, but I think you can see by 

the strong support of the family who is here, as well as Paul’s 

mother, who lives in Buffalo, New York, that this is a family of 

great distinction and service in New York. 

There are few individuals who I believe the Senate could confirm 

or the President nominate who could bring such a breadth and 

depth of relevant professional and public community experiences. 

He has been, of course, a distinguished lawyer in the private sector. He has a great deal of experience also in the business world, 

having served as a very important executive for Verizon. 

But in the business of his work, he has always found time to 

serve his community. He took time to serve on the Lower Manhattan Development Board, created after the September 11th terrorist 

attacks, to help Manhattan and New York recover from the devastation of those attacks. He has been active in a number of important organizations, like the New York Urban League and the City 

Bar Fund, the United Way. 

You couldn’t really do justice to his involvements without also 

mentioning that he has served both Republican and Democratic administrations in New York City. He certainly served with distinction both former Mayor Ed Koch and former Mayor Giuliani. 

So without question, he has the intellect, demeanor, maturity 

and commitment to serve with distinction on the Federal bench. 

We are very fortunate to have a nominee of his standing that I am 

sure will be confirmed to begin service in New York. And he will 

not only make people from New York very proud, but I believe this 

Committee, the Senate and our country proud as well. 

So I thank you for letting me come by and make a few brief remarks. I didn’t want the moment to pass, Mr. Chairman, because 

it is not always the case that we have such enthusiastic support 

on both sides of the aisle for a nominee. This is one that I am very 

proud to be here to lend my voice to, and I thank you for the courtesy of this time. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you. It isn’t always the case, so 

it is really wonderful to be able to see this kind of bipartisanship. 

Mr. CROTTY. Mr. Chairman, could I express my thanks to the 

Senator for her encouragement and her endorsement this morning, 

which I am very appreciative of, and also for the many courtesies 

that she has extended to my family, especially my mother? The 

Senator was good enough to send her a nice note and give her a 

copy of her book when my mother turned 90. And I must say to 

557

the Senator that she is a fan for life, and many more fans in the 

Crotty family. 

So thank you very much, Senator. 

Chairman HATCH. Yes. I want one of those autographed books, 

too. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HATCH. Remember that, Senator. We are honored to 

have you here. 

Mr. Crotty, I think it is a real tribute to you to have both of 

these New York Senators of another party come and testify so graciously and so strongly for you. 

Mr. CROTTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. If Schumer and Clinton are for you, then I am 

certainly for, is all I can say. 

Mr. CROTTY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. I want to go back to our questions to clarify 

some of these problems with which I think you have been unfairly 

treated, Mr. Griffith. 

When you filled out your application to the Utah State Bar, question 52 asks whether you have previously been disbarred, suspended, censured, sanctioned, disciplined, or otherwise reprimanded or disqualified, whether publicly or privately, as an attorney. You answered no to this question. 

Now, let me ask you, have you ever been disciplined in any way 

by any bar, including in D.C. or Utah? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. No, Senator, I have not. 

Chairman HATCH. Now, some have criticized you for answering 

no on that, since you did have this administrative suspension that 

3,000 lawyers in D.C. commonly have from time to time. How 

would you answer that? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. When I filled that out, the thought never crossed 

my mind that that question might relate to a temporary lapse due 

to an inadvertent failure to pay bar dues. The question— 

Chairman HATCH. Some would say, well, it wasn’t temporary, it 

was 3 years. But the fact is that you have explained it adequately 

that the only year really where you were personally responsible for 

it, or at least where you had the sole obligation to take care of it 

was 1998, when you didn’t receive a notice. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Chairman HATCH. And the bar admits they probably didn’t send 

you a notice. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Chairman HATCH. The other two, you had relied on your firm, 

which you had always done before. But go ahead. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I was just saying the thought never occurred to 

me that that might cover—that someone might argue that that had 

something to do with this administrative action that was taken. 

And if I might add, this issue came to light when I filled out my 

Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, which we all labored 

over, a great labor of love. The question there I was asked—I don’t 

remember the exact wording; I think it is question number 11. List 

your bar memberships and any dates in which your membership 

has lapsed. And I said my membership in D.C. had lapsed during 

this period of time and that is how the issue came to light. But I 

558

never thought that what happened to me was in any way the gravamen of that question, which is clearly—I thought clearly having 

to do with a disciplinary matter. 

Chairman HATCH. Okay, I think that is a good explanation that 

anybody should accept. 

Have you ever been disciplined in any way by any bar association? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. No, sir. 

Chairman HATCH. As many have pointed out and as the letter 

from Mr. Umin pointed out, the D.C. Bar administratively suspends over 3,000 D.C. lawyers, including many sitting judges, for 

late payment of dues, and these are not considered disciplinary actions. Is that right? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. That is my understanding. 

Chairman HATCH. Now, you have been criticized by some for not 

being a member of the Utah Bar while assuming the position of Assistant to the President and General Counsel of Brigham Young 

University, the largest private university in the country. 

Please tell us what efforts you made to ensure compliance with 

the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct and to avoid the unlawful 

practice of law. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Certainly, I would be glad to, Senator. I have 

never engaged in the unlawful practice of law. When I accepted the 

position to be Assistant to the President and General Counsel at 

Brigham Young University, it was my understanding that in Utah 

in-house counsel need not be licensed in Utah, provided that when 

legally advice is given, it is done so in close association with active 

members of the Utah Bar. 

I was taking a position at a large institution that had a multijurisdictional presence. I knew that most of my legal work was 

going to be involved with Federal statutes, with Federal regulations, and so I organized my office accordingly. 

When I am involved in legal matters—not all of the work that 

I do is legal work, but when I am involved in legal matters, I am 

very careful to closely associate myself with active members of the 

Utah Bar. I supervise an office that includes four other attorneys, 

each of whom is an active member of the Utah Bar. 

I frequently hire outside counsel on matters, and so I am always 

closely associated with an active member of the Utah Bar. And I 

do that whenever I am anywhere close to doing legal work, and especially so on those rare instances when I have to get involved with 

a matter of distinctly Utah law. 

But that was my understanding. That is the way I have organized my office and that is the way I have organized my work. 

That understanding was confirmed when I arrived in Utah and 

began to work at the university in conversations with other Utah 

lawyers, and that is still my understanding today. 

I believe you made reference earlier to a letter to the Committee 

from five past presidents of the Utah Bar and the current executive 

director of the Utah Bar that say an in-house counsel in Utah need 

not be licensed in Utah, provided that he or she is closely associated with active members of the Utah Bar and makes no appearances in Utah courts or signs no Utah pleadings. And I haven’t 

done either of those either. 

559

So I have tried to be as careful as I can to—and I have been meticulous about making certain that when I am involved in legal 

matters, I only do so with active members of the Utah Bar. 

Chairman HATCH. So you had four Utah lawyers who advised 

you on Utah Bar matters? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. Utah legal matters? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. I actually use—we use them for more than 

just Utah matters, but for any legal matter we work collaboratively. 

Chairman HATCH. Yes, I am sure you use them for a variety of 

things. 

So you are asserting here, and I think properly so, that you did 

not unlawfully practice law in Utah? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Absolutely not. And, Senator, let me tell you another reason why I wouldn’t do that. I care too much about my clients to do anything consciously that would put them at risk, and 

if I thought for a moment that what I was doing for my client—

and now my client is Brigham Young University—was in any way 

jeopardizing them, I wouldn’t do it, I wouldn’t do it. I have tried 

to be very careful about that throughout my career and I have been 

careful about that here. 

Chairman HATCH. This position you held was also an administrative position, as well, where you particularly advised the president 

of the university on legal matters and other matters as well. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. That is right. Not all of what I do is legal work. 

I am an officer of the university and there is a fair amount of nonlegal work, but there is a lot of legal work as well. I am the general 

counsel as well. 

Chairman HATCH. And you understand the distinctions here? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. In fact, I don’t think he would be offended, but 

one of the former presidents of the Utah Bar is here today, Randy 

Dreier. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. That is my understanding. 

Chairman HATCH. I said hello to Randy as I came into the meeting and he has been a very strong supporter of your nomination. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. As you know, Mr. Dreier was one of the five past 

presidents of the Utah Bar who signed the letter I referred to. I 

had never met Mr. Dreier before today and so I was pleased to 

make his acquaintance. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, it is my understanding that although 

there is no special exemption for general counsels, the Utah Bar 

advised you of what you could do in order to avoid the unlawful 

practice of law while remaining in your current position as General 

Counsel to Brigham Young University. 

Now, have you adhered to those recommendations? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Absolutely. They were recommendations that I 

had been adhering to before the letter came and that I have since. 

They describe precisely what I have been doing since arriving in 

Utah. 

Chairman HATCH. I have been here during all those years when 

you were counsel to the Senate, the Senate Legal Counsel, and 

some of those years were difficult years. 

560

Mr. GRIFFITH. They were. 

Chairman HATCH. One of the most important trials in the history 

of the country was held during your tenure as Senate Legal Counsel, and that was, of course, the impeachment trial of President 

Clinton. And I happen to know that both sides felt that you acted 

not only honorably, but effectively and professionally in every way 

during that very difficult time for all of us. I don’t know of very 

many attorneys that have had—in fact, I don’t know of any attorneys other than those that were here at the time that have had 

that experience. 

My experience with you has been that you are a person of the 

highest ethical, moral and legal status. So, naturally, not just because of our friendship, I would support you for any court in this 

land, and I personally believe that you would add a great dimension to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 

And I think our colleagues understand that, as well. At least I am 

quite sure of that and I hope that is true. They should— let’s put 

it that way—because many of them have had the experience of 

knowing you. 

As far as I am concerned, you are a member of this Senate family and you deserve to be confirmed. So I am going to do everything 

in my power to see that you are, and I believe I will have help from 

others as well. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. 

Chairman HATCH. Frankly, those were the major questions that 

I think had been raised about you, and I am sure you are pleased 

to have had an opportunity to explain them in public— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Very pleased, at long last. 

Chairman HATCH.—since I think you haven’t been treated fairly, 

perhaps because those who wrote about these just didn’t have the 

information that we are bringing out here today. 

I would put in the record at this point a wide variety of letters 

from Democrats and Republicans, who are top leaders of the bar 

and otherwise here in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, who 

are strong supporters of this nominee and who believe he will be 

an excellent addition to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 

I also want to compliment you, Mr. Crotty, and you, Mr. 

Seabright. You come with the best of recommendations. I think the 

comments of your Senators have been very, very good. Frankly, I 

know a lot about both of you and I think that the President deserves great commendation for all three of you. We will do everything we can to try and get you through before the end of this session. We only have a week and so we will have to do that in the 

best way we can, and I will see what can be done to get this done. 

We are appreciative that you are all here today. I believe that our 

colleagues should be comforted by the answers to the questions 

that we have asked. 

With that, I don’t see any reason to continue this hearing. We 

are going to do our very best to get all three of you through, and 

hopefully we can do that before the end of this session of Congress. 

I will do my best to do that and I hope my colleagues will honor 

me with the respect of being able to do that. 

Mr. CROTTY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

561

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Mr. SEABRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, and we thank your families 

for being here. We appreciate all of you sitting through this and we 

are sorry we had to have this interruption in between, but I will 

always try and accommodate my colleagues, if I can. As much as 

it was an interruption, I think it has turned out to be a pretty good 

day. Thanks so much. Great to be with you. 

Mr. SEABRIGHT. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. We will recess until further notice. 

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

562


32198.483
563


32198.484
564


32198.485
565


32198.486
566


32198.487
567


32198.488
568


32198.489
569


32198.490
570


32198.491
571


32198.492
572


32198.493
573


32198.494

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
574


32198.495
575


32198.496
576


32198.497
577


32198.498
578


32198.499
579


32198.500
580


32198.501
581


32198.502
582


32198.503
583


32198.504
584


32198.505
585


32198.506
586


32198.507
587


32198.508
588


32198.509
589


32198.510
590


32198.511
591


32198.512
592


32198.513
593


32198.514
594


32198.515
595


32198.516
596


32198.517
597


32198.518
598


32198.519
599


32198.520
600


32198.521
601


32198.522
602


32198.523
603


32198.524
604


32198.525
605


32198.526
606


32198.527
607


32198.528
608


32198.529
609


32198.530
610


32198.531
611


32198.532
612


32198.533
613


32198.534
614


32198.535
615


32198.536
616


32198.537
617


32198.538
618


32198.539
619


32198.540
620


32198.541
621


32198.542
622


32198.543

xxxxxxxxxx
623


32198.544
624


32198.545
625


32198.546
626


32198.547
627


32198.548
628


32198.549
629


32198.550
630


32198.551
631


32198.552

xxxxxxxxxx
632


32198.553
633


32198.554
634


32198.555
635


32198.560
636


32198.640
637


32198.561
638


32198.562
639


32198.563
640


32198.564
641


32198.565
642


32198.566
643


32198.567
644


32198.568
645


32198.569
646


32198.570
647


32198.571

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
648


32198.572
649


32198.573
650


32198.574
651


32198.575
652


32198.576
653


32198.577
654


32198.578
655


32198.579
656


32198.580
657


32198.581
658


32198.582
659


32198.583
660


32198.584

xxxxxxxxxxxx
661


32198.585
662


32198.586
663


32198.587
664


32198.588
665


32198.589
666


32198.590
667


32198.591
668


32198.592
669


32198.593
670


32198.594
671


32198.595
672


32198.596
673


32198.597
674


32198.598
675


32198.599
676


32198.600
677


32198.601
678


32198.602
679


32198.603
680


32198.604
681


32198.605
682


32198.606
683


32198.607
684


32198.608
685


32198.609
686


32198.610
687


32198.611

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
688


32198.612
689


32198.613
690


32198.614
691


32198.615
692


32198.616

xxxxxxxxxxxx
693


32198.617
694


32198.618
695


32198.619
696


32198.620
697


32198.621
698


32198.622
699


32198.623
700


32198.624
701


32198.625
702


32198.626
703


32198.627
704


32198.628
705


32198.629
706


32198.630

xxxxxxxxxxxx
707


32198.631

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
708


32198.632

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
709


32198.633
710


32198.634
711


32198.635
712


32198.636

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
713


32198.637
714


32198.638
715

Æ


32198.639