S. HRG. 109–999

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS

OF MICHAEL BRUNSON WALLACE TO BE U.S.

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AND

VANESSA LYNNE BRYANT TO BE U.S. DISTRICT

JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

Serial No. J–109–115

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF MICHAEL BRUNSON WALLACE 

BRYANT TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT TO BE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AND VANESSA LYNNE

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

39–984 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 109–999

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS

OF MICHAEL BRUNSON WALLACE TO BE U.S.

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AND

VANESSA LYNNE BRYANT TO BE U.S. DISTRICT

JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

Serial No. J–109–115

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

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 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 245

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 1

letter .................................................................................................................. 334

PRESENTERS 

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

Michael B. Wallace, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit ......... 4

Dodd, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut presenting Vanessa Lynne Bryant, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Connecticut ............................................................................................... 5

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut 

presenting Vanessa Lynne Bryant, Nominee to be District Judge for the 

District of Connecticut ......................................................................................... 7

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

Michael B. Wallace, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit ......... 1

STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES 

Bryant, Vanessa Lynne, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of 

Connecticut ........................................................................................................... 74

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 75

Wallace, Michael Brunson, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit . 9

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 10

WITNESSES 

Anderson, Reuben V., Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Jackson, Mississippi ........ 131

Askew, Kim J., Esq., Fifth Circuit Representative, Standing Committee on 

the Federal Judiciary, American Bar Association, Dallas, Texas, and Thomas Z. Hayward, former Chair, American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, Chicago, Illinois ............................................ 109

Blumenthal, Richard, Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Hartford, Connecticut .................................................................................................................. 129

Bresnahan, Pamela A., Esq., former D.C. Circuit Representative, American 

Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, Washington, D.C., and C. Timothy Hopkins, Esq., former Ninth Circuit Representative American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Federal 

Judiciary Idaho Falls, Idaho ............................................................................... 119

Dodson, Doreen D., Esq., former Eighth Circuit Representative, American 

Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, St. Louis, 

Missouri ................................................................................................................ 126

Liebenberg, Roberta B., Esq., Chair, American Bar Association, Standing 

Committee on the Federal Judiciary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .................. 108

Rhodes, Carroll, Esq., Attorney at Law, Hazlehurst, Mississippi ....................... 134

Welch, W. Scott, III, Shareholder, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & 

Berkowitz, Jackson, Mississippi ......................................................................... 132

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Kim J. Askew to questions submitted by Senator Leahy .............. 137

Responses of Richard Blumenthal to a question submitted by Senator Cornyn 141

Page

IV

Responses of Roberta B. Liebenberg to questions submitted by Senators Specter, Leahy, and Cornyn ........................................................................................ 143

Responses of Robert B. McDuff to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ........ 165

Responses of Carroll Rhodes to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ............ 167

Responses of Michael Brunson Wallace to questions submitted by Senators 

Leahy and Kennedy ............................................................................................. 175

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Abbott, Guthrie T., Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Mississippi, 

University, Mississippi, letter ............................................................................. 195

Alston, Alex A., Jr., Attorney at Law, Brunini, Grantham, Crower & Hewes, 

PLLC, Jackson, Mississippi, letter ..................................................................... 197

Anderson, Reuben V., Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Jackson, Mississippi, 

statement and letter ............................................................................................ 198

Blumenthal, Richard, Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Hartford, Connecticut, statement ............................................................................................... 204

Brown, Raymond L., Attorney at Law, Brown & Buchanan & Sessoms, 

Pascagoula, Mississippi, letter ............................................................................ 206

Bush, Fred M., Jr., Attorney at Law, Phelps DunBar LLP, Tupelo, Mississippi, letter ....................................................................................................... 207

Bush, Jason R., Attorney at Law, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & 

Berkowitz, P.C., Jackson, Mississippi, letter ..................................................... 209

Clark, Charles, Attorney at Law, Watkins & Eager, Jackson, Mississippi, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 211

Clark, David W., Attorney at Law, Bradley Arant, Jackson, Mississippi, letter .......................................................................................................................... 214

Community Rights Counsel, Doug Kendall, Executive Director and 

Earthjustice, Glenn P. Sugameli, Senior Judicial Counsel, joint letter .......... 216

Connelly, John A., State’s Attorney, Judicial District of Waterbury, Division 

of Criminal Justice, Waterbury, Connecticut, letter ......................................... 221

Cordiano, Dean M., Attorney at Law, Day, Berry & Howard LLP, Hartford, 

Connecticut, letter ................................................................................................ 223

Crudup, Ronnie, Bishop, Ronnie Crudup Ministries, Jackson, Mississippi, letter .......................................................................................................................... 225

Dawkins, Michael R., Shareholder, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & 

Berkowitz, P.C., Jackson, Mississippi, letter ..................................................... 226

Evans, George Q., Attorney at Law, Wise Carter Child & Caraway, Jackson, 

Mississippi, letter ................................................................................................. 227

Former law clerks for the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, joint letter .... 229

Groark, Thomas, J., Jr., Attorney at Law, Day, Berry & Howard LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, letter ....................................................................................... 232

Henegan, John C., Attorney at Law, Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & 

Cannada, PLLC, Jackson, Mississippi, letter .................................................... 234

Hester, Kathryn H., Attorney at Law, Watkins Ludlam Winter & Stennis, 

P.A., Jackson, Mississippi, letter ........................................................................ 236

Kerrigan, Dennis F., Jr., past President, Hartford County Bar Association, 

South Glastonbury, Connecticut, letter .............................................................. 238

Kinney, Gail, Coordinator, Bar Leaders for the Preservation of Legal Services 

for the Poor, Boston, Massachusetts, letter ....................................................... 240

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Wade Henderson, Executive Director, 

and Nancy Zirkin, Deputy Director, Washington, D.C., letter ......................... 242

Liebenberg, Roberta B., Esq., Chair, American Bar Association, Standing 

Committee on the Federal Judiciary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ...................................................................................................................... 249

Lott, C. Lee, III, Associate, Baker, Donelson, Bearman Caldwell, & Berkowitz, 

P.C., Jackson, Mississippi, letter ........................................................................ 279

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

and attachments ................................................................................................... 281

Magnolia Bar Association, Inc., Jaribu Hill, President, Greenville, Mississippi, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 295

Mattei, Ernest J., Counsellor at Law, Day, Berry & Howard LLP, Hartford, 

Connecticut, letters .............................................................................................. 299

McDuff, Robert B., Attorney at Law, Jackson, Mississippi, statement ............... 302

McGough, W. Thomas, Jr., Attorney at Law, Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, letter ............................................................................................. 314

Page

V

Morrison, Alan B., Senior Lecturer in Law, Stanford Law School, Stanford, 

California, letter ................................................................................................... 316

National Council of Jewish Women, Phyllis Snyder, Washington, D.C., letter . 318

Past and present members of the American Bar Association, joint letter .......... 320

Phillips, Joy Lambert, General Counsel, Hancock Bank, Gulfport, Mississippi, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 327

Republican National Lawyers Association, Washington, D.C., article ................ 330

Rhodes, Carroll, Esq., Attorney at Law, Hazlehurst, Mississippi, statement .... 331

Robertson, James L., Attorney at Law, Wise Carter Child & Caraway, Jackson, Mississippi, letter ......................................................................................... 337

Sigal, Richard L., Attorney at Law, Hawkins, Delafield & Wood LLP, New 

York, New York, letters ....................................................................................... 342

Swayze, Charles J., Jr., Attorney at Law, Whittington, Brock & Swayze, 

P.A., Greenwood, Mississippi, letter ................................................................... 348

Tober, Stephen L., and Doreen D. Dodson, Esq., American Bar Association, 

Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, Washington, D.C., statement ...................................................................................................................... 350

Vickery, Alan B., Partner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York, New 

York, letter ............................................................................................................ 363

Wall Street Journal, New York, New York, article .............................................. 364

Welch, W. Scott, III, Shareholder, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & 

Berkowitz, Jackson, Mississippi, statement and letter ..................................... 365

White, Gary J., Judge, State of Connecticut, Superior Court, Rockville, Connecticut, letter ...................................................................................................... 376

(1)

NOMINATIONS OF MICHAEL BRUNSON WALLACE, TO BE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE 

FIFTH CIRCUIT AND VANESSA LYNNE BRYANT, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:33 p.m., in room 

226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter, Chairman 

of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Sessions, Cornyn, Brownback, Leahy, and Kennedy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Chairman SPECTER. The Judiciary Committee will now proceed 

with the nomination of Michael B. Wallace to be U.S. Circuit Judge 

for the Fifth Circuit, and following that, the hearing for Vanessa 

L. Bryant to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut. 

As is our practice, we will hear, first, introductions from the Senators. With the nomination of Mr. Wallace listed first, we will turn 

at this time to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Senator 

Lott. 

PRESENTATION OF MICHAEL B. WALLACE, NOMINEE TO BE 

CIRCUIT, JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. TRENT 

LOTT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator LOTT. I cannot get my microphone to work here, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. We will take that up with the Rules Committee, Senator Lott. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LOTT. I think I know somebody there that maybe can 

help us with that. 

Chairman SPECTER. If we cannot get an adequate appropriation. 

Senator LOTT. We may have to redecorate this whole room, as a 

matter of fact. 

Chairman SPECTER. I want to say at the outset that it was not 

planned that way. 

[Laughter.] 

2

Senator LOTT. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My 

senior colleague, Senator Cochran, is attending a briefing that I am 

sure the Chairman is familiar with. We thank you for going ahead 

with this hearing today for these very fine nominees that have 

been submitted by the President. 

I know Senator Cochran will have some personal remarks, but 

let me just take a few minutes to say that I am pleased to be here 

and to support the nomination of a gentleman and an outstanding 

lawyer that I have known, he and his family, for probably 30 years 

now or more. 

It is one of those cases where I knew his parents. He is from Biloxi, Mississippi, a great international city that has been through 

an awful lot in the last year. So, I have known his family, he and 

his wife and children. They are here. Brilliant daughters, all of 

them. One of his daughters actually worked in my office. So, I 

know this nominee quite well. 

I have always been tremendously impressed with his intellect, 

his character, and even his athletic ability. After he finished at Biloxi High School, he went to Harvard University. 

I questioned his wisdom on that, but he did go and actually 

played football. He graduated cum laude from Harvard University. 

He received his J.D. from the University of Virginia Law School in 

1976, where he served on the Law Review and was in the Order 

of the Coif. 

After he graduated, he clerked for a Supreme Court Justice in 

Mississippi, Harry G. Walker, and then Associate Justice William 

H. Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Following his Supreme Court clerkship, he returned to Mississippi and took his father’s place in a small Biloxi legal partnership. During his 2 years with Sekul, Hornsby, Wallace & Teel—and 

one of the esteemed members of that law firm is actually here 

today, Claire Hornsby is a pioneer for women in the legal profession in our State and in this area. Mike participated in the general 

practice of law. 

From 1980 to 1983, he worked in Washington, DC for me, first 

as a research assistant with the Republican Research Committee 

in the House of Representatives, then following my election as 

Whip in the House, as counsel in the Whip’s office. 

In 1983, he became an associate with the Mississippi firm of 

Jones, Mockbee & Bass in Jackson, and became a partner. The 

firm merged with one of the most renowned law firms in the State, 

Phelps Dunbar, where he remains a partner today. 

His practice focuses on complex commercial and constitutional 

litigation and includes a significant amount of appellate work. 

Though he was embarking on what would become a widely respected and successful private practice, Mike continued his commitment to public service through the end of the 1980s. He served as 

Director of the Legal Services Corporation, a Presidential appointed and Senate confirmed position, from 1984 to 1990. 

Mike Wallace has never ducked tough issues or difficult issues. 

In more cases than not, he did a very persuasive job on the evidence, or with the knowledge that he had, was successful in the 

courtroom and in every walk of life that he has participated in. 

3

One of his law partners indicated that he has prevailed in about 

80 percent of the appellate cases that he has handled. 

He has been criticized for unapologetically and vigorously asserting arguments for his clients, which is ridiculous, given that that 

is the obligation of every attorney. 

He has been criticized sometimes for things he did while working 

for me. I was the person in the leadership position. He worked 

under the direction of the person he was serving. So, I feel particularly aggrieved when I see those sort of unfair allegations. 

He has handled cases at every possible level in both State and 

Federal judicial systems, including, in 2002, he argued and won a 

case before the U.S. Supreme Court. 

I have been very concerned by some of the charges that have 

been leveled against him by nameless, faceless detractors who have 

questioned his fitness to be a judge. Those critics could not be more 

wrong. 

He is one of the most qualified people you could possibly find to 

serve on an appellate court, as is evidenced by his background, his 

education, his experience, his Washington experience, his working 

at the Supreme Court. I know him to be a considerate, personable, 

courteous, kind, and thoughtful family man. 

He is active in his church, Trinity Presbyterian, where he has 

not been content just to sit on the back pew. He has been aggressively involved, teaching a very popular Sunday school class, and 

recently he traveled with his church and a predominantly AfricanAmerican Baptist church to Honduras to build houses for the poor. 

Bishop Ronny Crudup of the New Horizon Church in Jackson, in 

his letter to the Judiciary Committee, had this to say of Mike after 

he helped form a partnership between New Horizon and Trinity 

Presbyterian: ‘‘It was the hard work of Michael Wallace and other 

progressive, open-minded, Christ honoring leaders at Trinity Presbyterian Church who, in a year’s time turned an awful decision 

(not to enter the partnership) into a premier interracial church 

partnership in the State of Mississippi.’’ 

Throughout his life, Mike has shown a calling to public service. 

I have listed some of the things. He served in legislative roles and 

as Chairman of the Legal Services Corporation where, in my opinion, he took actions to deal with some of the problems that that entity had. 

After years of having to fight almost every year over its funding, 

after it was really changed and focused toward providing indigent 

legal services, has from that day to this annually gotten funding, 

including as far back as the Reagan administration, without fights 

because we are generally satisfied that they are doing what they 

should be doing. 

During the impeachment trial of President Clinton, I needed 

good legal counsel. Once again, Mike left his law firm to come and 

work with me as we tried to do the right thing in those uncharted 

waters. 

Many would disagree with how we did it, or whether we did it 

at all, but I think most would agree we did it responsibly, carefully, 

within the Constitution, in a timely fashion, and in a way that 

most people would think was a credit to the institution. Mike 

helped with that. 

4

So I am here, Mr. Chairman, to say that I have every confidence 

in this lawyer. I think he is one of the most brilliant legal minds 

I have ever known, and I think he would be a credit to the Fifth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. I put my full support behind his nomination. 

Thank you for having this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lott appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Lott. 

We turn now to the senior Senator from Mississippi, Senator 

Cochran. 

PRESENTATION OF MICHAEL B. WALLACE, NOMINEE TO BE 

CIRCUIT, JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. THAD 

COCHRAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my friend 

and colleague in the Senate to support the nomination of Mike 

Wallace to serve as a member of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Mike is exceptionally well qualified to serve as a member of this 

court. He is a highly skilled lawyer with a wide range of experience 

that will enable him to serve with distinction. 

Mike is joined today, as you have probably been advised, by 

members of his fine family and fellow lawyers from our State. His 

wife, Barbara, is a lawyer in Jackson, Mississippi. His daughter, 

Molly, is pursuing a Master’s degree in Speech Pathology at the 

University of Memphis. His daughter Ellie is a junior at the University of Southern California. His daughter Grace is a junior at 

St. Andrew’s Episcopal School in Jackson, Mississippi. His sister, 

Jane May Daughtery of Biloxi is here as well. 

Mike’s long-time former law partner and my good friend, Claire 

Hornsby of Biloxi is here. She is a former president of the Harrison 

County Bar Association and was the first woman to practice law 

in the Mississippi Gulf Coast. She is here supporting Mike’s confirmation. 

Other distinguished Mississippians in the legal profession who 

know Mike Wallace well are here: Reuben Anderson, former State 

Supreme Court Justice in Mississippi, who is now Mike’s partner 

at the law firm of Phelps Dunbar. 

And my former classmate from the University of Mississippi, 

Scott Welch, who practices law with Baker Donaldson in Jackson 

and currently serves on the American Bar Association’s Board of 

Governors, is here to support Mike Wallace. 

Mike graduated cum laude from Harvard University in 1973. He 

attended the University of Virginia School of Law, where he served 

on the Law Review, a top student at that university. He was a 

member of the Order of the Coif. 

After graduating from law school, Mike clerked for Justice Harry 

Walker on the Supreme Court of Mississippi, and then for Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

He then joined the law firm of Sekul, Hornsby, Wallace in Biloxi, 

where he practiced for 2 years and then came to Washington to 

serve as an Assistant Research Analyst for the U.S. House RepubVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039984 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\39984.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
5

lican Research Committee, when my friend, Senator Lott, was 

Chairman of the Research Committee. 

Then he served as counsel, as Senator Lott pointed out, during 

the impeachment proceedings. But after he was counsel to the Research Committee, he served in the Whip’s office as counsel in the 

House. 

Well-versed in a wide range of legal matters, a top student everywhere he has ever been, widely respected, and justly so. He has 

been involved with complex litigation. 

In our State, if you had a tough lawsuit you went to see Mike 

Wallace. If you had something complicated to figure out, you consulted with Mike Wallace. He has been involved in litigation in 

State and Federal courts throughout the United States. 

In 1999, Mike was called on for the toughest job ever, to serve 

as impeachment counsel to the Senate of the United States. My 

friend and colleague was the Majority Leader of the Senate at that 

time and he tried to find the best, the smartest, the most capable 

person to help us do that job and do it right, and consistent with 

the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and in a fair 

manner that would reflect credit on the country and the U.S. Senate. 

He achieved that result. He served the Senate during a very difficult challenge to this institution’s fitness to serve as a court of impeachment of the President of the United States. Think about that. 

I hope the Committee will carefully review the nomination. The 

President has chosen well, and I recommend the Committee report 

favorably his confirmation to the Senate. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. 

As is the practice after the introductions are made, Senators do 

not customarily remain. So if you choose to exit, people will understand the practice of the committee. 

We now turn to Senator Christopher Dodd, for the introduction 

of Vanessa L. Bryant to be U.S. District Judge for the District of 

Connecticut. 

Senator DODD. Mr. Chairman, this is a Rules Committee matter 

again with the microphone. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, let the record show that both the 

Chairman and Ranking Member of the Rules Committee have had 

first-hand evidence of the need for further additional funding for 

the Judiciary Committee so that we can secure adequate equipment. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DODD. A pretty shoddy way of doing that. 

Chairman SPECTER. And may the record further show that it was 

not a preconceived plot. 

[Laughter.] 

PRESENTATION OF VANESSA LYNNE BRYANT, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT, BY 

HON. CHRISTOPHER DODD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Senator DODD. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

pleased to be here today with my colleague, Senator Lieberman, in 

introducing Judge Vanessa Bryant of Avon, Connecticut to sit on 

6

the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. We thank 

the Committee for taking the time to hear her and to allow her to 

be before the Committee. 

I want to congratulate Judge Bryant on her nomination to the 

U.S. District Court. I would also like to acknowledge the members 

of Judge Bryant’s family who are here today. She is joined by her 

husband, Tracy Rich, who is the Executive Vice Chairman and 

General Counsel of the Phoenix Company in Hartford, Connecticut; 

her son Bryant, a student at Bowdoin College; her daughter Dana, 

who is a student at Oberlin College; and her mother Muriel, who 

is here as well. So, it is a pleasure for us to welcome them to this 

Committee room. 

I would also note, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney General of 

Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, is here to speak as well on behalf of our nominee, along with the State president of the NAACP, 

Scot Esdaile, among other people from Connecticut who have come 

down on behalf of this nominee. 

President Bush nominated Judge Bryant to fill the vacancy created by U.S. District Court Judge Dominic Squatrido, on the recommendation of Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell. Governor Rell had 

a number of potential candidates, Mr. Chairman, to fill this seat, 

but she was most favorably impressed with Judge Bryant, as we 

are, and hence our presence here this afternoon. 

Judge Bryant is a product of Stanford and Norwalk public 

schools. She graduated from Howard University with Honors, and 

went on to receive her law degree at the University of Connecticut. 

Upon graduation from law school, Judge Bryant was hired as an 

attorney for the Hartford firm of Day, Berry & Howard, one of our 

most distinguished law firms in the State of Connecticut, and subsequently worked for the Aetna Life & Casualty Company and 

Shawmut Bank. 

From 1990 to 1992, Judge Bryant served as vice president and 

general counsel of the Connecticut Housing and Finance Authority, 

which finances the construction of affordable housing and helps 

low-income families purchase their own homes. 

She later served as managing partner at the Hartford-based law 

firm of Hawkins, Delafield & Wood. In 1998, former Governor Roland nominated Judge Bryant to the Connecticut Superior Court, 

to which she was easily confirmed, I may point out. 

In 2003, she was elevated to become the administrative judge in 

the Litchfield Judicial District. Judge Bryant rose the next year to 

her current position as the presiding judge for the Hartford Judicial District, Civil Division, overseeing all civil cases in the Hartford court and assigning the caseloads for judges under her jurisdiction. 

Outside of the courtroom, Judge Bryant has devoted, Mr. Chairman, a great deal of her time to important volunteer work in Connecticut through the Oliver Ellsworth Inn of Court. She has served 

as a mentor and role model for young attorneys in our State. It is 

also notable that, if confirmed, Judge Bryant will be the first African-American woman to serve on the Connecticut Federal bench. 

As someone who supports this nomination of Vanessa Bryant to 

the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, I want to 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee for scheduling this 

7

confirmation hearing today, and to know that we support this nomination very strongly and hope the Committee will look favorably 

upon this nomination. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Dodd. 

We now turn to Senator Lieberman. 

PRESENTATION OF VANESSA LYNNE BRYANT, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT, BY 

HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Cornyn. I am glad to join with my senior colleague, Senator Dodd, 

in introducing Judge Vanessa L. Bryant to your Committee at this, 

her confirmation hearing on her nomination to become a U.S. District judge, but to also say that we are not just here to introduce 

her, but to endorse her and to urge the Committee to favorably report on her nomination to the bench. 

As Senator Dodd said, Judge Bryant’s name was originally raised 

by Governor Rell, our colleague, as Governor of our State. I had not 

known her before, but I have gotten to know her. I have reviewed 

her record. 

I have heard from people who have worked for her, with her, appeared against her in court, appeared before her in her time as 

judge, and the reports are extremely favorable, coming from people 

whose judgment I respect and whose standards are high. 

Senator Dodd spoke to the facts of Judge Bryant’s biography, her 

curriculum vitae. I would just say that at each stage of this career, 

considerable experience in the private sector, some in the public 

sector before she went on the bench, and then from the time she 

has gone on the bench she has, in my opinion, performed very, very 

well. 

Judge Joseph Pellegrino, who is the Chief Court Administrator 

in the State of Connecticut, whose duties include assigning judges, 

considering their service, recommending judges for promotion, has 

in one public statement, a statement to us on Judge Bryant, called 

her ‘‘a super-star’’. That is a very, very high compliment from a demanding member of the Connecticut bench who is the Chief Court 

Administrator. 

The facts speak to this. As an administrator, Judge Bryant has 

a proven record in both the Hartford and Litchfield courts, where 

she has worked on speeding up clogged caseloads. 

When Judge Bryant took over the Hartford Judicial District Civil 

Division in September of 2005, there were just over 2,100 civil 

cases pending. By December of 2005, four or 5 months later, that 

number was reduced by nearly 25 percent, to 1,594. 

I will say also that as a trial judge, Judge Bryant had a reversal 

rate of 6.4 percent, which is to say, in only 6.4 percent of the cases 

that she rendered decision in which were appealed, only 6.4 percent of the time was she reversed. That is an enviable record. 

Even with her heavy workload, she has found time to volunteer 

both her professional skills to young lawyers, as Senator Dodd indicated, and also at her church, the Asylum Hill Congregational 

Church in Hartford. 

8

She is here with her family. It is a wonderful, proud, involved 

family of citizens. Her mother, proud mother, justifiably proud, her 

husband, two children. 

I said I had not met Judge Bryant before she was nominated. I 

hope this will not bias the Chairman or the members of the committee. Her son did work in my purposive, but ill-fated, Presidential campaign in 2004. 

[Laughter.] 

So, this speaks to his idealism, and I will say, generally, the good 

judgment of the members of this family. 

I know that there is some controversy around this nomination 

from the Bar Associations. I would just say, personally, that I have 

spent some time on the record here and I have listened to people 

who have called, and I have read the letters of people who have 

written. They are strong and they are positive. So, I come before 

you to strongly endorse this nomination. 

Senator Dodd said Judge Bryant should be confirmed on the 

merits, but in this country that celebrates the breaking of barriers, 

and all of us have had the opportunity at one time or another to 

do so, it should not be passed over that, if confirmed—and I would 

say when confirmed—Judge Bryant will be the first African American woman to serve on the Federal bench in New England. 

We are at the end of the session. We are going to recess at the 

end of this week. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, 

I hope you will find it possible, if not this week during the lame 

duck session, to report this nomination to the full Senate. The Federal district bench in Connecticut is a busy one. I know probably 

everybody says that to you. 

Attorney General Blumenthal, who himself and through his Assistant AGs has appeared before Judge Bryant many times, can 

testify more personally than I can, because I have not been there 

in a while. But we need to fill this vacancy on the bench, and I 

hope we will find it possible together to bring Judge Bryant to confirmation before the end of this calendar year. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for your courtesy and I 

wish the Committee well. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Lieberman. 

As I said earlier, it is not the custom of introducing Senators to 

stay beyond the point of their introduction, so people will understand if you go back to your other duties. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Michael B. Wallace, please step forward, and 

Vanessa L. Bryant. We will swear you in together. If you will 

please raise your right hands. 

[Whereupon, the nominees were duly sworn.] 

Chairman SPECTER. You may be seated, Mr. Wallace. 

Judge Bryant, if you will sit back, we will take Mr. Wallace first, 

as he is listed first on the agenda, and his nomination is for the 

Court of Appeals. 

Mr. Wallace, welcome to the Judiciary Committee. 

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman SPECTER. It is our custom, if you would introduce your 

family, we would appreciate your doing that at this time. 

9

Mr. WALLACE. I would be happy to do that. I was pleased that 

Senator Cochran was able to do that. My wife, Barbara Wallace is 

here with me. Our oldest daughter Kyle, who is a second-year student at the University of Virginia Law School is here. And our 

daughter Molly, and our daughter Ellie, and our daughter Gracie, 

I think Senator Cochran told you what those young ladies were 

doing. We are all pleased and happy to be here with you today. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. 

As is our custom, we will proceed now with whatever statement 

you care to make to the committee. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BRUNSON WALLACE, NOMINEE TO 

BE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have an opening statement. I do want to thank the President for his confidence 

in me. I do want to thank our two Senators, Senator Cochran and 

Senator Lott, for their kind words today, for their many years of 

friendship to me. 

As Senator Lott mentioned, I am a Biloxian, and as a Biloxian 

I certainly want to thank the American people you represent for 

your generosity to us since the storm. It means very much. 

And while it may seem a little odd, I want to thank my friends, 

Rob McDuff and Carroll Rhodes, for coming all the way from Mississippi to testify against me today. I also thank, certainly, my 

partner, Reuben Anderson and Scottie Welch, that the Committee 

has invited. 

I think the best way this Committee can find out the truth is to 

hear from well-informed people in possession of the actual facts, to 

hear from both sides. It works well in the courtroom and I know 

it will work well today. 

You have had my questionnaire for some time, and I do not think 

there is any more I need to say, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to answer your questions. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Wallace follows.]

10


39984.001
11


39984.002
12


39984.003
13


39984.004
14


39984.005
15


39984.006
16


39984.007
17


39984.008
18


39984.009
19


39984.010
20


39984.011
21


39984.012
22


39984.013
23


39984.014
24


39984.015
25


39984.016
26


39984.017
27


39984.018
28


39984.019
29


39984.020
30


39984.021
31


39984.022
32


39984.023
33


39984.024
34


39984.025
35


39984.026
36


39984.027
37


39984.028
38


39984.029
39


39984.030
40


39984.031
41


39984.032
42


39984.033
43


39984.034
44


39984.035
45


39984.036
46


39984.037
47


39984.038
48


39984.039
49

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Wallace, the American Bar Association 

has raised some very serious allegations and I want to give you 

every opportunity to respond. 

On page 13 of the ABA’s testimony, they say that you ‘‘have not 

shown a commitment to equal justice under law.’’ Further, the ABA 

says that you do not ‘‘understand or care about issues central to 

the lives of the poor, minorities, the marginalized, the have-nots, 

and those who did not share your view of the world.’’ 

Of particular concern, according to the American Bar Association, 

was your positions taken relating to the Voting Rights Act, and 

more specifically the case of Jordan v. Winter. The American Bar Association reports that you advanced legal 

positions that were ‘‘not well founded’’ and that you did so in a 

manner that suggested you were ‘‘advancing your own personal 

views on the interpretation of the Voting Rights Act without regard 

to the law or the ultimate merits of the litigation and the impact 

on African-American citizens of Mississippi.’’ 

How would you respond to that American Bar Association testimony? 

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is a lot in there, 

the general conclusions reached in that report about my lack of 

commitment to equal justice under the law and my lack of sympathy for the problems of the poor. 

I was raised in a small law office in Biloxi. I know about the 

problems of equal justice and I know about the poor. It is a small 

town. I had the opportunity, with my father and with his partners, 

including Ms. Hornsby, who is here today, to see people who needed help and to have the opportunity to give it to them. 

If I were not interested in equal justice and in the rights of the 

poor, I never would have gone home to Mississippi. I could have 

easily stayed up here in Washington and represented rich people 

for a lot more than I get for representing the same people in Mississippi. 

But I went home because I want to make Mississippi a better 

place to live. I think I have been able to help do that. It is important to me to see to it that it is a better place for my children. 

The litigation under the Voting Rights Act was litigation that I 

undertook on behalf of my client, the Mississippi Republican Party. 

I have been active in that party my whole life. 

My father was one of those people who came home from World 

War II, they had seen how the rest of the world worked, they saw 

the things that the rest of the world had that we did not have in 

Mississippi, and they set their minds about to bringing us into the 

modern times. That is why he was Eisenhower Chairman in Harrison County in 1952. 

So when I came home, it was natural that when the party was 

looking for representation and consultation with a Mississippi delegation, I was hired to defend the Jordan v. Winter case. 

In that case, before we got involved, the Federal court had already created the first black majority district in Mississippi and 

had created another district that had a substantial minority population. All we did on behalf of the Mississippi Republican Party was 

to seek to preserve the plan that the court had already put into 

place. 

50

The arguments we made were fair. The arguments we made 

were discussed with the Senate when I was first confirmed to Legal 

Services when I had my first hearings back in 1983, because we 

had these same voting rights discussions then. 

The Senate knew what positions I was going to take on behalf 

of my client. It imposed no impediment to my confirmation then. 

I think we litigated fairly, fully, and properly on behalf of the 

party, and any criticism based on my representing my client to the 

best of my ability is unfounded in this case. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Wallace, on pages 14 and 15 of the 

ABA’s testimony they report concerns about another Voting Rights 

case, Branch v. Smith. The ABA states, ‘‘Mr. Wallace argued for 

the creation of at-large districts for the election of Mississippi Congressional representatives, a position the lawyer said would have 

eliminated the only majority African-American single-member district in Mississippi. 

Lawyers state that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the position 

advanced by Mr. Wallace in Branch v. Smith that allowed singlemember districts in Mississippi.’’ Is the ABA’s representation of 

your role in this litigation accurate? 

Mr. WALLACE. I do not think it is entirely accurate, Mr. Chairman. The Republican Party had been sued in that litigation and we 

were obliged to take a position. The position we took, is that an Act 

of Congress ought to be enforced. 

It may surprise you to know that there is an Act of Congress on 

the books that says whenever a State loses representation after a 

Census, if the legislature cannot agree on a redistricting, everyone 

must be elected at-large. That is what the statute says. 

Having served here in the Congress, as Senator Lott mentioned, 

my daughter is the fourth generation of Wallaces to serve on a staff 

position here. I respect statutes passed by Congress. We put that 

statute before the court. The trial court decided not to enforce it. 

But we were not seeking to eliminate an African-American representation in Congress. We told the Supreme Court, and I told 

Justice Ginsberg when she asked me in an oral argument, will this 

not dilute minority votes, and I said there are plenty of mechanisms that our courts have used in Mississippi to make sure that 

minorities can be elected, even from white majority multi-member 

districts. 

I told her there was no doubt that such an election under that 

statute would produce an African-American Congressman. It was 

never our intention to take away that representation, and it would 

not have been the effect had the court decided the statute applied 

in that circumstance. 

Chairman SPECTER. On page 16 of the ABA’s testimony there is 

a list of unattributed quotes that are provided with no context. 

There is certain questioning of the process of unattributed quotes, 

but the American Bar Association has put this into the public 

record and, as a matter of fairness, you ought to have an opportunity to make whatever response you choose. 

These unattributed quotes are as follows: ‘‘He has an instinct 

contempt for the socially weak, including the poor and minorities’’; 

‘‘the poor may be in trouble, he is just not open to those issues’’; 

51

‘‘he does not like poor people or anyone not just like him’’; ‘‘he will 

be like 1965, not 2006.’’ 

You are invited to make a response. 

Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to respond to 

partial quotations from unknown people. But I am happy to say 

that we have four distinguished lawyers from Mississippi here 

today who know me, who know what kind of man I am. 

I was pleased to see that Mr. McDuff, in his testimony, acknowledged that I have always been civil and cooperative to him and 

people with whom he is working, and I do not have any doubt Mr. 

Rhodes will tell you the same thing. I think when you finish talking to those four gentlemen today, you will have a true picture of 

my character and my behavior. 

Chairman SPECTER. On page 17 of the ABA’s testimony you were 

described as ‘‘narrow-minded in your views, lacking in tolerance, 

entrenched in your views, insensitive, intolerant, high-handed, not 

willing to yield to logic or facts, rigid, inflexible, overly opinionated, 

one-dimensioned, locking into a point of view and not open to the 

position of others.’’ 

You are invited to respond. 

Mr. WALLACE. I find those charges difficult to understand, Mr. 

Chairman. Like most litigators, most of the cases I take get settled. 

Litigators vigorously represent their clients’ interests. They fight 

hard for the positions their clients take. But at the end of the day, 

once the facts in the law have been thoroughly explored, most cases 

settle, and most of mine do. 

If I were as narrow-minded and as intransigent as those quotes 

would make out, my cases would not settle, and I probably would 

not get hired. Not too many clients can afford to try case after case 

just for the fun of it. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Wallace, on page 19 of the ABA testimony your ability to be free from bias is called into question. Many 

express concerns about your ability to follow precedent or to put 

your own personal views aside when judging cases. 

The ABA testimony further says that you ‘‘had filed pleadings 

and taken positions that certainly did little or nothing to advance 

the merits of the case,’’ and suggesting that you were ‘‘deviating 

from existing precedent’’ in some of those positions. 

Would you care to respond to that? 

Mr. WALLACE. Two things, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I would be happy 

to. Freedom from bias is a difficult thing for me to understand. I 

grew up in a difficult time in Mississippi, as many of these other 

witnesses did. 

I remember quite clearly my mother explaining to me in no uncertain terms how people are expected to believe, and I think I 

have maintained those standards throughout my life. If I had any 

sort of bias, I would not be a partner in the most integrated law 

firm in the State. I would not send my children to the most integrated school in the State. 

I would not, as Reverend Crudup points out in his letter, have 

represented my church in helping to build a biracial Christian coalition in Jackson, Mississippi to improve communications and relations in the community. None of that would have happened if I 

were a person of bias. 

52

As far as precedent is concerned, I worked for two excellent appellate judges, Justice Walker and Justice Rehnquist. They taught 

me the meaning of precedent. They taught me how to read it and 

they taught me to respect it. As a lawyer, that is important. When 

my clients come to me, they want to know what the law is. 

They do not want to hear a lot of theory, they want to know what 

they can do and what they cannot do. If you do not respect precedent, you cannot give them a good answer to that question. I think 

I have been able to give my clients good answers. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Wallace, it has been reported that you 

were interviewed on three separate occasions by ABA investigators. 

The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary’s Handbook requires that a nominee be given a ‘‘full opportunity to rebut 

the adverse information and provide any additional information 

bearing on it.’’ Do you believe that you were given an opportunity 

to rebut the information, as required by the ABA Handbook? 

Mr. WALLACE. No, I do not believe that, Senator. I certainly do 

not think that I needed to know the names of the individuals who 

gave the quotes that you said, but the ABA testimony contains specific charges about specific litigation that was not discussed with 

me in the initial interview. 

In the third interview we had last week, I was given enough information to deal with one charge. They revealed to me that a 

former Bar president in New Hampshire had said that I behaved 

improperly in presiding over a Legal Services Committee hearing 

held in New Hampshire. 

With that information, I was able to get the transcript from the 

committee, from the Legal Services Corporation, and to forward it 

to the committee. It is 243 pages of the most boring detail work in 

amending the Code of Federal Regulations that anyone can imagine. There was not any support. 

We worked all day and we came to a reasonably amicable result. 

But I do not think anybody who could read those 243 pages could 

possibly find it to support the charges that Mr. Ross made against 

me. 

Chairman SPECTER. As has been widely publicized, you received 

a ‘‘Not Qualified’’ rating from the ABA. Can you tell the Committee 

your opinion of the rating and the process, as you see it from your 

point of view, that the ABA used to arrive at that rating? Essentially, do you think it was a fair evaluation and an accurate rating? 

Mr. WALLACE. Senator, I’m not a member of the ABA. I do not 

really have standing to tell them how to do their business. I have 

told you that I do not believe that they lived up to the standards 

they have expressed, that you will be given an opportunity to rebut 

the charges against you. I think I should have had that opportunity. I do not think that I had it. 

But as to whether or not I am qualified, I would just ask once 

again that you consider the testimony of the Mississippians who 

know me, the two Senators who you have just heard from, the four 

lawyers on both sides of the issue that you are going to hear from 

in a few minutes. 

I think, if I were as unqualified as the association makes out to 

be, it is unlikely that I would have had the opportunity to serve 

three Presidents of the United States that I have. I am proud of 

53

their confidence in me and I hope that, at the end of the day, this 

Committee will share it. 

Chairman SPECTER. Did the ABA, in your opinion, consider all 

the relevant information? Specifically, do you know whether the 

Standing Committee contacted people you asked them to contact? 

Mr. WALLACE. I know that at the outset they did not. My friend, 

Judge McConnell from the Tenth Circuit, who is my daughter Molly’s godfather, called up before the hearing and said, why has the 

ABA not called me? I said, I do not know. The first investigator 

came to see me. I said, please be sure to call Judge McConnell. 

That did not happen. 

When the third set of investigators came to see me, I said, please 

call Judge McConnell. At that point I know that it did happen, but 

there were other people that I mentioned that I would hope they 

would have called. Some of them I know were not calling. Some of 

them, I have not heard from. 

Chairman SPECTER. Can you be specific as to who they were? 

Mr. WALLACE. Certainly. Ms. Askew was a member of the Board 

of Visitors at Georgetown, one of my classmates, who is the General Counsel at Georgetown. I asked her to go ahead and call their 

General Counsel. I know that did not happen. 

Now, I asked a couple other people. I do know they called Judge 

McConnell this last week. I do not know whether they called any 

of the other folks that I mentioned. But at the outset, no, they just 

did not call the folks I suggested to them. 

Chairman SPECTER. Anybody else, specifically? 

Mr. WALLACE. I specifically asked them to call Bob Bauer. Bob 

was my counterpart on the Democratic side of the aisle during the 

impeachment proceedings. He represented the Democratic Leader, 

Senator Daschle. 

The argument had been made that I could not work with people, 

and I suggested that that was a pretty tough crucible in which to 

work. I think that he and I worked together pretty well. I do not 

know whether or not that happened. I have not talked to Bob this 

week. 

I also suggested they might call the dean at the Maryland Law 

School, who is a friend of our family. I do not know whether that 

happened. I have not had a chance to find out. This has only been 

since last Monday that they last came to see me. I think that is 

a full list, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Wallace, as you see it, do you believe 

that there were material misstatements of fact in the ABA testimony regarding your background? 

Mr. WALLACE. I certainly think their characterizations of some of 

the cases that I have been involved in are substantially inaccurate. 

As to the opinions of people, I do not think there can be such a 

thing as an accurate opinion. I mean, they may very well be reporting the opinions they heard. 

I do not think those opinions are well founded. The difficulty is, 

I never was told the supposed facts behind those opinions, so there 

was no opportunity to explore them and to rebut them. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Wallace, it has been reported that while 

working with then-Representative Lott, you helped write a letter 

urging the Reagan administration to defend Bob Jones University’s 

54

tax-exempt status, despite its racially discriminatory policies. That 

has led some to argue that you took a discriminatory position. 

What response, if any, would you care to make on that issue? 

Mr. WALLACE. Congressman Lott, as he then was, was particularly interested in that litigation because church schools in Mississippi were being threatened with the loss of their exemption, not 

because they were discriminatory, but because they did not meet 

extremely onerous burdens of proving that they were not. 

The Congressman expressed that feeling to the President. He 

filed a brief as a pro se with the Supreme Court of the United 

States, which is there for anybody to read. 

It is not a defense of discrimination, it is merely a description of 

principles of statutory construction which said that religious and 

educational institutions are entitled to an exemption. 

It denied that the Internal Revenue Service was entitled to make 

public policy. But the concern that Congressman Lott had, as expressed in his brief, was that executive agencies should follow the 

law. 

The fact that a discriminatory institution might benefit from that 

is no more an endorsement of discrimination than a lawyer is endorsing murder when he defends an accused client, as I have had 

the opportunity to assist my partners in doing in pro bono cases 

in Mississippi. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Wallace, in 1983 testimony you are reported to have expressed general support for the Voting Rights Act, 

saying that it has ‘‘had a tremendous effect in my home State of 

Mississippi with regard to its primary goal of assuring people’’ the 

right to vote. 

But you took exception with Section 2 of the Act, to the extent 

that it measured discrimination in terms of disparate results rather than showing a discriminatory intent. Some have contended that 

that was a cramped or unduly restrictive—

Mr. WALLACE.—said to be an unfair interpretation, it is certainly 

not something I hid from the Committee. I remember having that 

discussion at my confirmation hearings with Senator Hatch, who, 

as you will remember, worked very hard on the Voting Rights Act 

amendments in 1982. 

I made quite plain to the Committee the positions that I would 

be taking for my clients in the Mississippi litigation, and neither 

Senator Hatch nor the Senate as a whole considered those positions 

out of bounds. 

Ultimately, those positions were rejected by several courts. The 

first court to reject them was in the Louisiana litigation that year, 

and the lawyer that made the same arguments I did, Martin Feldman, was promptly confirmed to the District Court bench in Louisiana, where he still sits. 

So the Senate most familiar with the 1982 Act, while perhaps 

disagreeing with the positions we took on behalf of our clients, certainly did not consider those positions disqualifying. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Wallace, it is reported that you assisted 

then-Congressman Lott in taking a position, in a letter dated October 21, 1981, to prevent the Department of Justice from sending 

Federal inspectors into the Mississippi County jails. 

55

Would you please give the Committee what the circumstances 

were of that letter and what position was taken, and what your 

participation, if any, was? 

Mr. WALLACE. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. The letter did 

not object to the sending of inspectors into Mississippi County jails, 

as I recall. I do not have it in front of me, but I think it is in the 

record from my confirmation hearings 20 years ago. In fact, according to the newspapers, inspectors went into the county jails within 

a few days after that letter. 

The inspectors apparently did not see anything particularly 

wrong at the time. Then a couple of days later, there was a fire 

in the Biloxi jail in which a number of prisoners died. It was a terrible and tragic event, but it was completely unrelated to Congressman Lott’s letter. He did not ask that inspectors stay out of the 

jails and, in fact, the inspectors went into the jails. 

His concern was that Deputy Attorney Schmultz had made commitments to him about the ongoing prison litigation in Mississippi, 

and those commitments had not been kept by the lawyers in the 

field. 

A Member of Congress, as you can imagine, is quite concerned 

that commitments made by the executive branch should be kept. 

But there was no request in that letter that inspectors should stay 

out of Mississippi jails. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Wallace, in your 1983 hearing for Community Legal Service Director, the issue was raised that you could 

not answer in full, expressing confidentiality concerns. Is there any 

confidentiality concern which is limiting your testimony today in 

any way on that subject? 

Mr. WALLACE. No, Mr. Chairman. As you heard Senator Lott 

here today, he does not believe that the work done for his staff is 

a proper subject of inquiry, but he has not claimed any privilege 

with regard to that. I am free to be open, and I have been open 

in accordance with my oath to this Committee. 

Chairman SPECTER. With respect to your tenure as Director of 

Legal Services Corporation, there are statements that you sought 

to impose unreasonable limits on the type of matters that the Legal 

Services Corporation could support and sometimes voiced support 

of its outright abolition. 

First of all, did you ever argue that it should be abolished? 

Mr. WALLACE. To the contrary, Mr. Chairman. I told President 

Reagan’s staff, when my nomination was under consideration, that 

I supported the corporation. I told Senator Hatch’s committee, 

under oath, that I supported the corporation. I did then and I do 

now. I have never acted in any way inconsistent with that oath. I 

did attempt to reform the corporation. 

As Senator Lott has said here, I think the reforms that we put 

into place, taking the corporation out of an active role in politics, 

putting it into the kind of ordinary services to the poor, have 

helped to preserve it. 

In the paper in Jackson yesterday it said the local Legal Services 

folks were trying to keep people from being evicted from a HUDfunded project. That is exactly the sort of thing Legal Services 

ought to be doing, and Congress expects it to do. 

56

Indeed, by the end of the program, President Reagan had abandoned his opposition to legal services. He supported its continuation. He put it back in the budget. I think that is because of the 

successful work we did in reforming the corporation, and I think 

in large portion that is why the corporation is still here today. 

Chairman SPECTER. Did you ever contend that the Community 

Legal Services’ operation was unconstitutional? 

Mr. WALLACE. I did not contend that the corporation was unconstitutional. I did suggest that I thought the appointment mechanism for the board had real constitutional problems, and here is 

why. 

When Congress set it up, it did not set up the corporation as a 

traditional, independent agency, the sort that has traditionally 

been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

It is not unusual for Congress to set up executive branch agencies where the President cannot fire the particular officers, but by 

declaring that we were not Federal officers, Congress immunized 

us to impeachment. 

The directors of the Legal Services Corporation, so far as I can 

tell, can neither be fired by the President, nor impeached and removed by the Congress. It seems to me very unwise to attribute 

$300 million of taxpayers’ money every year to folks where there 

is no emergency mechanism for removing them when the time 

arises. That was my objection, not to the corporation, but to its particular mode of government. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Wallace, a question was raised about 

certain lobbying activities said to have been undertaken by you. 

Senator Redman, the Ranking Republican on the Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Oversight for the Legal Services Corporation 

raised an issue as to the propriety of people on the board who 

lobby. 

What response, if any, would you care to make to that? 

Mr. WALLACE. If it is the instance that has been reported in 

some of the writings about me over the last month, there was a 

lobbying effort at one point to change our appropriation. We had 

consistently been appropriated about $300 million a year. 

In our last year, as I told the Committee, President Reagan said, 

all right, I do not want to abolish the corporation any more, I want 

to keep it, but I want to fund it at $250 million. 

I thought that when the President of the United States would 

come five-sixths of the way to meet us, that I thought it was incumbent upon us to go the rest of the way to meet him. We agreed. 

Our board agreed to endorse the President’s budget. 

And, yes, we sent people up here to try to promote that budget. 

Every agency in the government has lobbyists to support its budget. They usually call them the Office of Legislative Affairs, or something like that. But what they are, is lobbyists. We had them and 

we used them. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Wallace, I have taken a good deal more 

time than is customary, except for Supreme Court nominees, almost up to the 30-minute mark, but have sought to put before the 

Committee all of the issues known to the staff and to me to give 

you an opportunity to respond. 

57

Just one more comment. I have expressed publicly the concerns 

about the first report by the American Bar Association because key 

officials had very substantial public controversy with you in the 

past, and I was concerned about the impartiality. 

Accordingly, I wrote to the ABA on two occasions, June 22 and 

August 7 of this year, and received a detailed reply on September 

14 from Theodore Olson on behalf of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, where they 

have made very substantial changes and have conducted an additional inquiry. 

I do not want to overly focus on that, but I do want to make, 

without objection, these letters a part of the record. They may be 

the subject of further inquiry when the ABA testifies later. 

Let me yield at this time to Senator Kennedy. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome. 

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. 

Senator KENNEDY. Just following along on the Legal Service pro- gram, you supported the $55 million cut in 1988, as I understand 

it. 

Mr. WALLACE. As I just explained, President Reagan came up 

five-sixths of the way and I thought it made sense to meet him the 

rest of the way. 

Senator KENNEDY. And then you asked for a reduction of another $13 million the following year. Is that right? 

Mr. WALLACE. I do not remember that, Senator, but it may be 

the case. I have not had a reason to look at that record in a long 

time. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, the record is that there was a reduction, 

and you supported that. 

Mr. WALLACE. I have no recollection of what budget request we 

made in 1989, but I am sure the record will show. 

Senator KENNEDY. And you opposed, in the Legal Service, the 

National Support Centers which assist the youth, the migrants, the 

Native Americans that deal with employment, housing, and health 

care for low-income Americans. You wanted to eliminate that program. 

Mr. WALLACE. We wanted to take the funds that were available 

to us and concentrate them on services in local programs. We reoriented funds to the local programs as opposed to these national 

think tanks. Yes, Senator, we did that. 

Senator KENNEDY. Did you pay outside lawyers to lobby Congress to reduce the corporation’s budget? 

Mr. WALLACE. As I explained, we did have lobbyists who reduced 

the corporation’s budget. I think some of them may have been 

hired on a contract basis, as Federal help often is. 

Senator KENNEDY. So you did not mind spending the money to 

hire the lawyers to reduce the corporation’s budget, but you were 

cutting back on the programs, such as the National Support Centers that were serving some of the poorest of the poor. 

Mr. WALLACE. Having secured President Reagan’s support for 

the program, I thought it was important to get folks up here and 

try to explain it to the Congress. And sometimes, yes, that costs 

money, Senator Kennedy. 

58

Senator KENNEDY. Well, sometimes it does not. Sometimes it 

does not. 

Mr. WALLACE. That is true. 

Senator KENNEDY. As someone who has followed the Legal Service program very closely, Warren Rudman, during that period of 

time, very familiar with the program during the time on it, we did 

not seem, with those board members, had the confidence of the 

members of the Congress. 

Warren Rudman was very, very much involved in the support of 

those. I do not remember. I do not know of other agencies that go 

out and hire lawyers to reduce the budget of different committees. 

If we could get back, in response to questions on the Bob Jones 

case, you, I think, commented to the Chairman about that. That 

case obviously, as you know, is enormously important for civil 

rights because it held that private organizations that discriminate 

based on race are not entitled to the tax-exempt status. 

Most Americans would think that that was a matter of simple 

fairness. If you discriminate, you are not a charitable organization. 

Most Americans would understand that. So, you do not get the taxexemption intended for charitable groups. 

So Republican and Democratic administrations, dating back to 

the Nixon administration, agreed with that basic principle. In fact, 

even when the Reagan administration decided to abandon the longstanding rule in the Supreme Court, prominent administration officials strongly objected, including Ted Olson, who was then the head 

of the Office of Legal Counsel, Roscoe Edgar, Commissioner of the 

IRS, and the Acting Solicitor General Lawrence Wallace. 

But you disagreed. Even after the Supreme Court ruled eight to 

one that discriminatory institutions are not entitled to tax-exemption, as I understand it, you continued to hold the opposite view. 

When you were nominated to head the Legal Services Corporation you testified that ‘‘I personally believe that the interpretation 

of the Internal Revenue Code advanced by the Department of Justice which supported tax-exempt status for the university was correct.’’ 

Mr. WALLACE. That was my testimony, Senator. I think if you 

read Congressman Lott’s brief, you will see he never argued that 

discriminatory institutions were charitable. I do not think he ever 

made that argument, and I do not think I ever endorsed it. 

What he did say, is that it was stipulated in that case that Bob 

Jones was both religious and educational, and that was important 

to Congressman Lott because church schools in Mississippi were 

being harassed by the IRS. It was a statutory argument that, 

under the statute passed by Congress, it is sufficient to be religious 

or educational. It is not necessary that you also be charitable. 

The question of whether or not it was a good idea to give a tax 

deduction to a discriminatory institution was not the subject of 

Congressman Lott’s brief. He discussed only the proper interpretation of the statute. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, do you still believe that private schools 

that discriminate based on race deserve to be tax-exempt? 

Mr. WALLACE. I have never believed that, Senator. I simply said 

that I believed that the administration interpreted the statute corVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039984 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\39984.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
59

rectly in saying that religious and educational institutions, under 

the statute adopted by Congress, were entitled to that exemption. 

Senator KENNEDY. And this is even after the Supreme Court 

ruled eight to one that discriminatory institutions are not entitled 

to the tax-exemption? 

Mr. WALLACE. I think that my testimony came after that, and I 

said that I had been persuaded by the brief the administration had 

filed. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, let me get it straight. So you are saying 

that after the Supreme Court, your position changed. I think that 

is important to note, because I had understood you to continue to 

hold an opposite view from the Supreme Court decision. Am I 

wrong on that? 

Mr. WALLACE. I mean, obviously, Senator, the Supreme Court 

has spoken and the law means what the Supreme Court says it 

means. 

Senator KENNEDY. But what did you say? What was your position? Did you at that time change and alter your position or did 

you reaffirm your earlier position? 

Mr. WALLACE. The position I took in the testimony then, which 

again was after the Supreme Court had acted, is that I thought the 

administration brief and Congressman Lott’s brief fairly applied 

the statute. But I never said that I thought, as a personal opinion, 

discriminatory schools ought to get tax exemptions. I have never 

said that, and I do not say it now. 

Senator KENNEDY. But the Supreme Court ruled eight to one. 

Mr. WALLACE. Yes. 

Senator KENNEDY. And you continue to hold your own view. You 

find that there are legal reasons for it. And I understand that, but 

I just wanted to be able to be clear for the record. 

Mr. WALLACE. And the dissenter and the concurrence, I guess, at 

the Supreme Court also saw some legal reasons for it. Yes, Senator. 

Senator KENNEDY. All right. 

Coming back to the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that outlaws the voting requirements that have the purpose or effect of discriminating based on race, it is one of the most effective aspects of 

the Voting Rights Act, as you will remember, in 1982 Congress 

amended Section 2 to overturn the Mobile case. The Voting Rights 

Act includes an effects test. 

That amendment outlawed voting practices whose effects would 

deny or dilute voting rights because of race, national origin, or language minority. Under the amendment, the voters can stop discriminatory practice without needing to dig up the ancient records 

to prove the intent, which may have designated the system earlier. 

That was not the position of Senator Hatch. I respect that. We 

have had long discussions and debates on it. I understand that. 

Our goal was to finally dismantle the voting—those that believed 

that we ought to have the effects test and believed that the 1965 

Act, which talked about prohibiting discrimination, had been interpreted in that particular way up to the Mobile case. 

But anyway, in the 1982 Act, our goal was to dismantle Jim 

Crow, the voting systems that excluded minorities from participation in the democracy. 

60

Now, you have consistently opposed the Section 2 in efforts to 

end the minority vote dilution, and not just in the early days of 

your career. We see it even in positions you took as recently as 

2003. I am going to give you a chance to react. 

Press reports state that as the Congressional staff in 1981 and 

1982, you worked hard to keep Congress from amending Section 2 

to include the effects test. I can understand that. We had a Supreme Court nominee here that had the same position recently. 

When that effort failed, you attacked Section 2 in court. In Jordan v. Winter, you argued that Congress did not amend Section 2 

to include an effects test, and that minorities still had to prove discriminatory intent if they wanted to stop practice to dilute their 

vote. 

The court called your argument ‘‘meritless’’ and held that it 

‘‘runs counter to the plain language of amended Section 2, its legislative history and judicial and scholarly interpretation.’’ 

In 1991, in Chisholm v. Edwards, you argue that Section 2 does 

not apply to judicial elections at all. We had a brief comment on 

that exchange with the Chairman. 

The Supreme Court rejected that view in Chisholm v. Romer, 

noting that the 1982 amendments to Section 2 was intended to 

broaden the law, and that it would be anomalous to read it to withdraw judicial elections from coverage. 

In 2003, you argued in Branch v. Smith that when the legislature fails to redistrict to reflect the new Census data, the court 

must order at-large elections. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion rejecting your view. 

Had you prevailed, the only Mississippi district with an AfricanAmerican would have been destroyed and it would have been far 

more difficult for African-Americans to elect their chosen candidates. 

Now, I am particularly troubled by your repeated position that 

Congress did not enact an effects test when it amended Section 2 

in 1982. You should have known otherwise, having served in the 

Congress that the amendment was enacted. 

Do you still believe that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits only intentional discrimination? 

Mr. WALLACE. Well, no, I do not believe that. The Supreme Court 

has resolved that to the contrary. 

Senator KENNEDY. You also argued that including an effects test 

in Section 2 would be unconstitutional. Is that still your position? 

Mr. WALLACE. Well, I do not think that was ever my position. 

That was a position that was taken on behalf of the Republican 

Party in Mississippi, as I said. It was an identical position taken 

by the Louisiana government in the case of Major v. Trinh. 

These were issues that were thoroughly discussed at my last confirmation hearings. At that time I think they were well within the 

bounds of argument that a lawyer is entitled to make on behalf of 

his client. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, the question was, you also argued that 

including an effects test would be unconstitutional. The question is, 

is that still your position? I am not asking you whether you had 

that position previously. Is that still your position? 

61

Mr. WALLACE. My answer is, it was never my position, Senator 

Kennedy. It was my client’s position, which I argued on behalf of 

my client, as did other litigants in our part of the world at that 

time. 

Senator KENNEDY. So you accept that Section 2 applies to judicial elections? 

Mr. WALLACE. The Fifth Circuit originally ruled that it did not. 

I had actually forgotten I had been involved in that case until I 

read the long work those folks had done yesterday. 

I feel sorry for putting them through all of that to dig that up. 

But I was asked to participate in that case by our democratic Attorney General, Mike Moore. 

Mississippi was in that litigation. I was representing the State 

of Mississippi as an amicus in that case, and that was the position 

that the Democratic Attorney General and the State of Mississippi 

took. It was a position that originally was accepted by the Fifth 

Circuit. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, as I say, that is not the position—you 

are saying, individually, that was not your position then, but you 

were taking it as an attorney. It is not your position now. You understand and support the constitutionality of the effects test. 

Mr. WALLACE. I absolutely can. 

Senator KENNEDY. All right. In 2003, on the Branch v. Smith

case, you made an argument that would have eliminated Mississippi’s only African-American district by relying on the 1941 

statute that clearly had been superseded. 

You had that exchange with the Chairman here. You said a lot 

of people do not know it, but there was a 1941 statute. But what 

you did not explain in response to the Chairman, was that that had 

been superseded. In rejecting your position by the 1967 statute, it 

was superseded. 

So when you told the Chairman that a lot of people do not know 

about it, but there is a law on the books, a 1941 Act that permitted 

this kind of action, you did not mention to the Chairman that there 

had been a 1967 Act that superseded the 1941 Act. 

Mr. WALLACE. With respect, Senator, that was the argument that 

the losing side made in that case. By a six to three vote, the Supreme Court decided that the 1967 Act did not repeal, by implication, the 1941 Act. But they went on to decide that the 1941 Act, 

though still on the books and applicable in certain cases, did not 

apply here. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I hope the Chairman will have a chance 

to just hear what you said now and what is your response, because 

I listened very carefully and one would gather from your response 

to the Chairman—he is a superb lawyer and he can make his own 

judgment—but in rejecting your position in that case, Justice 

Scalia wrote that your view was contradicted both by the historic 

context of Section 2’s enactment and by the consistent understanding of all courts in the nearly 40 years since that enactment. 

So those positions seem to go far beyond the fair advocacy of your 

client and create a strong impression that somehow you are pursuing an agenda. 

Mr. WALLACE. Well, Senator, the only agenda I have ever pursued as a lawyer is the agenda of my client, in that case, the MisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039984 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\39984.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
62

sissippi Republican Party. As I say, there were six members of the 

court that agreed with us that the 1941 statute is still valid. 

Justice O’Connor and Justice Thomas agreed that it applied in 

this case, so we were wrong, but we were certainly not beyond the 

bounds of fair advocacy if we were able to have so much of our argument accepted by several members of the Supreme Court of the 

United States. 

Senator KENNEDY. Is there any indication in your background 

and experience where you took the other side on Voting Rights 

cases? Did you ever represent plaintiffs in those cases? 

Mr. WALLACE. Oh, absolutely, Senator. 

Senator KENNEDY. Have we got the list of those cases? 

Mr. WALLACE. It is in my questionnaire. I was hired by the governing board of a black majority county, Claiborne County. When 

the State legislature took away the right to tax the most valuable 

asset in their county, the Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant, they 

hired me to file a Voting Rights Act case on their behalf as plaintiffs to restore that power. 

We eventually settled the case. The county has been collecting, 

I think, an extra $4 or $5 million a year as a result of the positions 

I was asked to take on their behalf in a race discrimination voting 

rights case. 

Senator KENNEDY. I know there are others. I just have two other 

areas I want to cover quickly, which I will try to do. In 1989, the 

Legal Times wrote that you expressed resentment under Section 5, 

the landmark law requiring States with a history of discrimination 

obtain Federal pre-clearance for voting changes. 

You reportedly told the Legal Times, ‘‘It bothers me to see Mississippi discriminated against,’’ referring to Section 5’s requirement, ‘‘on necessary voting changes with the Federal Government.’’ 

Do you still think Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act discriminates against the covered States? 

Mr. WALLACE. I do not remember talking to the Legal Times. I 

do remember what Governor Winter said when he came here 25 

years ago. 

Senator KENNEDY. I am not asking you that. 

Mr. WALLACE. I agree that Mississippi is ready for self-government, Senator. But the Congress has seen to the contrary. Congress has been careful that no judge outside the District of Columbia is allowed to enforce Section 5. 

So anything I may have said on Section 5 in the past will have 

no effect on anything that I may rule, if I am confirmed to the Fifth 

Circuit, because you have denied that court jurisdiction over such 

cases. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I have the document here that says 

‘‘Wallace does acknowledge his resentment that Mississippi, along 

with other States, must submit redistricting plans to the Department of Justice.’’ That is your—

Mr. WALLACE. I do not think resentment is the word. I have told 

you what I think, Senator. 

Senator KENNEDY. But you still support Section 5? 

Mr. WALLACE. It is a decision that Congress has made, and that 

Congress has full authority to make. That is what you are elected 

63

for, and Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment gives you that authority. 

Senator KENNEDY. Finally, on prison safety, I know you responded to the Chair on this issue. When you worked for Senator 

Lott when he was a member of the House, you sent the Department of Justice a letter which bears your initials, ‘‘MBW’’, objecting 

to the department’s investigation of county jails in Mississippi and 

asking the department to allow the counties to meet lower safety 

standards in their jails. You understand that? 

Mr. WALLACE. I think that was part of the letter that Congressman Lott then sent. Certainly all county jails wold be required to 

meet the standards set by the Constitution. That is what the Justice Department has the right to enforce. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I assume, therefore, that you acknowledge that with the initials, the letter with ‘‘MBW’’ on it, was your 

letter. 

You also demanded to know why the investigating attorney had 

not been fired. That was in the letter. The letter led, as I understand it, the Justice Department to halt the investigation. Less 

than a year later, the fire occurred. It was a year later, a fire occurred in a county jail. Is that the sequence that you understand? 

Mr. WALLACE. I do not think so, Senator. First of all, Congressman Lott’s letter I drafted in my capacity as a staffer. It went up 

through his chief of staff and he sent it to General Schmultz. 

But I do not think that any investigations were stopped as a result of that letter, as I believe that there were inspectors in the jail 

within a couple of days after that letter was sent and within a couple of weeks before the fire actually took place. The inspections did 

not stop. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Senator Kennedy, could I inquire, we have 

other members that want to ask some questions, too. I wanted to 

make sure that you were able to ask as many questions as you desired. 

Senator KENNEDY. The Senator is quite appropriate. I was kind 

of surprised actually when the Chair went on for 25 minutes, myself. But I understand the good Senators, and I thank you. 

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. 

Mr. Wallace, I want to apologize in advance for not being here 

for a good portion of your presentation, so some of what I may ask 

may have been already covered. But if you will indulge me and still 

respond nonetheless, I would appreciate that. I think Senator Sessions has some questions as well. 

I gather from some of the discussion here, and certainly just on 

basic race relations have been called into question here. However, 

in looking at your background, I look at that and I do not see the 

basis in your background of people raising that, what you have attempted to do on race relations and to try to improve those. 

Would you articulate those issues to me and for me of your own 

background? Also, I think it would be useful, just for the record 

and for those that would watch and be interested in that issue as 

well, since it has come up so much. 

Mr. WALLACE. As best I can tell, Senator, it all relates from the 

Voting Rights litigation that I was just discussing with Senator 

64

Kennedy. Most of that I have done on behalf of the Mississippi Republican Party. Sometimes the positions the Party takes are adverse to black voters, but not always. 

We have litigated on the same sides of some issues over the last 

three Censuses. Again, not everything I do is on behalf of the Republican Party. I have been hired by the Democratic Attorney General in Mississippi to help in such cases. 

But the ones that people seem to notice are the ones where the 

Republican Party gets into conflict with some of the African-American plaintiffs. That does happen. That seems to be the basis of the 

concern. I do not think anybody has ever accused me of having any 

personal racial prejudice. It is not true. 

I am involved in an integrated firm, an integrated school. You 

have got letters from two African-American ministers in the file to 

the Committee explaining the work we do on biracial communications in the Christian community in Jackson. 

Just this weekend, our church started, as we always do every 

fall, in partnership with the New Hope Baptist Church, an AfricanAmerican church, to build a Habitat house in downtown Jackson. 

We work on it about eight weekends every fall. We have done it 

for years, and we did it again this week. 

So I think I am active in promoting racial reconciliation in Jackson, and have been for a long time. I think the criticism stems entirely from the litigation I was discussing with Senator Kennedy. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think you are correct. 

If anybody says the slightest word that the Voting Rights Act has 

any invalidity to it, has the slightest comma, jot, or tittle, it is not 

perfect, then you are a racist, that you are insensitive. That is not 

so. 

The Supreme Court has wrestled with these issues— lots of 

these issues. The Congress has voted, and I voted, to extend the 

Voting Rights Act. But I do believe that the State of Alabama, in 

my heart of hearts, will give people a fair chance in court today, 

unlike what they would have gotten 50 years ago. I think there has 

been a big change in the South and a lot of people feel strongly 

about that. But we want harmony, we want progress. 

I was just glad to see your response to Senator Brownback’s comments about the biracial outreach organization that you have been 

a part of, that your children attend integrated schools, that your 

church went with the New Hope Baptist Church to Honduras to do 

relief work and help poor people in Honduras. Did you attend any 

of those? 

Mr. WALLACE. Senator, this year was my fourth year to go to 

Honduras. It is the second time that I have gone down with New 

Hope. 

Senator SESSIONS. Let me just ask you, one of your critics apparently said secretly through the ABA Committee that you do not 

like poor people. Were the people you were trying to help down 

there poor people or rich people? 

Mr. WALLACE. They are mighty poor, Senator. That is one reason 

I am happy now that all of my family, at one time or another, has 

gone down there with me. They need to see the responsibilities that 

65

we have in this world, and I am glad to say that blacks and whites 

in Mississippi cooperate in meeting those responsibilities in Honduras and in downtown Jackson. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I would just say this. The ABA’s rating, 

in my opinion, should not be an embarrassment to you, but should 

be an embarrassment to them. I have defended the ABA. I am not 

opposed to their process of seeking confidential information. But all 

of us have to know that when they do that, there are dangers in 

doing that. People have an opportunity to spread untruths and the 

nominee has no real ability to respond to it. 

But you got your undergraduate degree with Honors from Harvard University. You graduated from the University of Virginia 

School of Law, where you were on the Law Review there. You 

clerked for a Supreme Court Justice in Mississippi, and you clerked 

for the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Let me ask you this. After that experience, do you think you 

would have been able to obtain a job in a Washington or New York 

law firm if you so chose? 

Mr. WALLACE. I suppose I could have, Senator. I never thought 

to try. I think I am probably the only Supreme Court law clerk in 

the last 50 years who never got so much as a free meal out of it. 

I was always going home to Biloxi. That is what I did. I am proud 

to have gone home to try to make Mississippi a better place. I have 

worked with a lot of lawyers in New York and Washington, and I 

think I could hold my own. 

Senator SESSIONS. I believe you could, too. I think that is why 

very, very important clients have chosen you to represent them in 

very, very important pieces of litigation. I think that is a testament 

to you. 

I want to ask you to just clarify something. You said that some 

of the litigation you had took positions that would be adverse to the 

position taken by black voters’ lawyers in the case. When we do 

these cases, laws have to be decided, the Constitution has to be decided. Somebody wins and somebody loses. Is that not true? 

Mr. WALLACE. I have a friend who said the lawyer who first 

hired him pointed up at all of the reporters on the shelf and said, 

‘‘Son, some lawyer lost every one of those cases in those books.’’ It 

has been a helpful reminder, since I have lost a few of those myself. 

Senator SESSIONS. I thought it was an ideal of the ABA that a 

person should be an aggressive advocate for their client, to assert 

principles that might be victorious in litigation, and that that 

should not be held against the lawyer. Certainly that is true with 

regard to representing the most disreputable criminal. 

Lawyers are not condemned for trying to defend criminals, murderers, and rapists. Does that concern you that there seems to be 

a movement here to blame you for litigating a redistricting case in 

the way that your client would like you to litigate it? 

Mr. WALLACE. As I have said, Senator, I do not know how I could 

possibly comment on what has impelled the ABA and the folks that 

have talked to them. I do understand it to be my responsibility as 

a lawyer to zealously represent my clients—that is one of the canons of ethics—and to do so to the maximum extent feasible within 

66

the bounds of the law. I have always done that and no one has ever 

said anything to the contrary. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I see one case that you handled, Burrell

v. State Tax Commission, in which apparently you represented a 

predominantly African-American county. 

Mr. WALLACE. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. This was a county in which, I suppose, the officials and the majority in the county were African-American. They 

contested an unfair tax matter they thought was harmful to them, 

the poor people in that county. Which side did you take? 

Mr. WALLACE. I took the side of the elected officials and their 

voters in Claiborne County, the African-American majority county. 

I filed a Voting Rights case on their behalf. I filed a race discrimination case in State court. 

After litigating all the way to the Supreme Court of the United 

States and the Supreme Court of Mississippi, we were able to negotiate with the legislature a much fairer allocation of those tax dollars. I think that is a result with which my client was happy. I 

zealously represented those clients, as I have the Mississippi Republican Party. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think that is what good lawyers do. 

That is something that the American Bar Association should recognize, I believe. 

What about this case you took on behalf of an African-American 

man convicted of murder and sentenced to death, and you argued 

that, you briefed that, before the U.S. Supreme Court? 

Mr. WALLACE. I do not want to claim too much. My partner, 

‘‘Bunky’’ Healy in our New Orleans office worked on that case for 

many years. When it was ready to go to the Supreme Court he 

asked me to help, because of my experience at the Supreme Court, 

in preparing the cert. petition and preparing the brief, and I did 

that. 

Senator SESSIONS. It is a fairly exhaustive thing if you go before 

the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Mr. WALLACE. It is. 

Senator SESSIONS. Everything has to be exactly correct. 

Mr. WALLACE. And we succeeded in obtaining a new trial for the 

plaintiff. He was condemned to death for murder. We thought that 

the State had not properly disclosed exculpatory evidence and we 

were able to convince the Supreme Court that that was right. 

Once again, representing people in a murder case does not mean 

you are in favor of murder. You represent your client the best way 

you possibly can, and in that way we were successful at the highest 

court in the land. 

Senator SESSIONS. Was this a rich white male or was this a poor 

African-American? 

Mr. WALLACE. He was a poor African-American. 

Senator SESSIONS. And you gave your time and effort to helping 

get his conviction reversed? 

Mr. WALLACE. That was my responsibility as a lawyer. Yes, sir, 

I did that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have gone past my time. But 

I think there is so much in here that we could continue to go and 

deal with that shows how wrong Mr. Wallace’s critics are. 

67

It is just breathtaking to me to hear this criticism of Mr. Wallace—a person of your ability, who worked for Democratic Attorney 

General Mike Moore who was here testifying about the tobacco 

case, he was a lead plaintiff lawyer in that case for the whole country; you have represented African-American counties; you have represented people condemned to death. 

You turned down the opportunity to go to work for some of the 

biggest law firms in America at these incredible wages and prices 

they pay, and you have given yourself to Mississippi. 

If you have an occasion every now and then to express some 

doubt about any jot and tittle of the Voting Rights Act, that does 

not make you a racist, because there are some problems with that 

Act that all of us recognize and it can be improved, and in the 

years to come I am sure it will. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

I do want to enter into the record for Senator Leahy a statement. 

He regrets he had to leave because of the late hour and other commitments. 

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

Senator BROWNBACK. I want to turn this over to Senator Cornyn. 

I am going to have to slip out for a little bit myself. 

Senator Cornyn? 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, and welcome to your family. 

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CORNYN. I am afraid I am experiencing a little sense of 

deja vu here today, having sat through the confirmation hearings 

of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sam Alito, and hearing some 

of what I would consider unsubstantiated, rather wild allegations 

made against particularly Judge Alito. 

Actually, I was reminded, in hearing about some of what appear 

to be anonymous, unsubstantiated allegations being made against 

you that unfortunately seem to have been included without much 

critique or reservation in the ABA report, of Senator Graham’s 

memorable exchange with Judge Alito. I am going to ask you the 

same question that he asked him. 

Mr. Wallace, are you a bigot? 

Mr. WALLACE. No, sir. 

Senator CORNYN. There are people who appear to be calling you 

a bigot. 

Mr. WALLACE. I do not think anybody that knows me calls me 

a bigot, Senator. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, Mr. Wallace, this is my problem. I am 

reading page 10 of the American Bar Association testimony that we 

are going to hear today, and I just want to read a couple of paragraphs and ask for your reaction. 

On page 10, the first full paragraph, ‘‘The investigation revealed 

that Mr. Wallace has the highest professional competence. Mr. 

Wallace possesses outstanding academic credentials, having graduated from Harvard University in 1973 and the University of Virginia Law School in 1976. He was a law clerk to former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist from 1977 to 1978. 

68

Mr. Wallace is often described as a legal scholar of strong intellect, a quality lawyer with a quick legal mind. He is a highly 

skilled and experienced trial and appellate lawyer who is considered a go-to lawyer on certain litigation matters in Mississippi. 

As discussed below, even those persons with serious concerns regarding Mr. Wallace’s judicial temperament describe him as a brilliant lawyer, one who could ably master legal issues before him as 

a judge. 

The investigation also established that Mr. Wallace possesses the 

integrity to serve on the bench. His integrity was described by 

many as ‘impeccable,’ ‘outstanding’, ‘the highest,’ ‘absolute,’ and 

‘solid’. Persons throughout the legal community stated that Mr. 

Wallace is a fine family man, an excellent husband and father.’’ 

Well, you can imagine how confused I am when I read that the 

American Bar Association has said that you are a person of integrity and repeating the glowing accolades that I have just recounted 

on page 10 in these two paragraphs in their testimony, but at the 

same time seem to allege that you do not have the temperament 

to deliver equal justice under the law, that you have insufficient regard for poor people and minorities. 

If that were true, Mr. Wallace, I would think that you were not 

a man of integrity. I do not see how you can be a person of integrity and hold those kind of views with which you have been 

charged. 

Can you perhaps try to help me understand what appear to be 

irreconcilable contentions about you? 

Mr. WALLACE. I assume that the writer of that testimony must 

have a different understanding of integrity than the one you and 

I share, Senator. Integrity means wholeness. 

It means that you behave the same way, honorably and consistently all the time. A person who has integrity cannot possibly treat 

people differently on no basis whatsoever. 

Two weeks ago, the sermon was on the book of James, the part 

where James tells people not to be respecters of persons, not to 

treat rich people and poor people differently. 

If there had been white people and black people in Palestine and 

Israel in those days, he would have said that, too. You cannot possibly behave your life consistently with that admonition and not be 

a person of integrity. I mean, that is what I think integrity means. 

It forecloses the kind of charges that the association has brought 

against me. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, the other concern I have, Mr. Wallace, is 

that, of course, the way the American Bar Association has conducted its review means that the persons who made these statements against you in claiming your lack of integrity—that is my interpretation—are anonymous. 

The American Bar Association’s own rules, as I understand 

them, appear to foreclose using information in its report that is not 

presented to the nominee so that the nominee can refute it. Do you 

read the rules differently from me? 

Mr. WALLACE. No, I read them the same way, Senator. 

When I raised that with the last group of investigators who came 

to see me, they told me that I did not understand the rules. So, 

69

I hope you will be able to get them to explain them to you while 

they are here today. 

Senator CORNYN. I hope so, too. 

You have been criticized for the clients that you have chosen to 

represent. Do you feel like that is a fair criticism for a lawyer who 

takes on the responsibilities as an advocate in an adversarial system of justice? 

Mr. WALLACE. I do not think it is fair, and certainly in my early 

days in Biloxi you did not get to necessarily choose to represent clients. In a small town, if somebody needs help, you represent them, 

and that is what we did. But I have been happy to represent people 

who come to me. 

As I said, I have been hired on several occasions by our Democratic Attorney General in Mississippi. We work together. We know 

each other. Even though we may be on different sides of the political fence, when we can be of assistance to each other we do that, 

and I have been happy to work with people from all parts of the 

political spectrum in Mississippi in my law practice. 

Senator CORNYN. You have also been criticized for making legal 

arguments that did not ultimately prevail in court. Do you know 

any lawyer that has not made at least one legal argument that has 

not prevailed in some court? 

Mr. WALLACE. None that has ever been to court. You do not keep 

a thousand batting average very long when you are a litigator. 

Senator CORNYN. Do you understand that the American Bar Association’s own standards on professional legal conduct state that 

‘‘a lawyer acts properly in arguing for an extension, modification, 

or reversal of existing law’’ ? 

Mr. WALLACE. I do understand that to be the rule. I think it is 

also the rule under Rule 11. I have done that on occasion, and I 

have always been careful to identify to the court when I am doing 

that, that there is authority adverse to me and we ask you to reconsider that authority and come to a different conclusion. 

But I have never hidden authority from the court. I have gone 

to the court and said, if you adhere to authority I am going to lose. 

That is a fact. But here is why I think it ought to be reconsidered. 

That is something that lawyers not only are entitled to do, but in 

certain circumstances it is part of the zealous representation of 

your clients that you are required to do. 

Senator CORNYN. Getting back again to these anonymous allegations made without apparent, or at least in the record, without substantiation or further elaboration in the record, as a lawyer practicing in the State and Federal courts, in Mississippi and elsewhere, you are familiar with the hearsay rule, right? 

Mr. WALLACE. I am, indeed. 

Senator CORNYN. And do you know any court in the Nation that 

would admit anonymous allegations for proof of the truth of the 

matter asserted therein? 

Mr. WALLACE. There are about 25 exceptions to the hearsay rule, 

as the Senator knows. My poor daughter had to study them all last 

year. But I do not know of any one that would apply to this hearsay, Senator. 

Senator CORNYN. I think she agrees with you. 

[Laughter.] 

70

Mr. WALLACE. That it was a bad thing she had to study? I will 

bet she does. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, you also stand accused, Mr. Wallace, of 

representing unpopular clients. How do you plead to that? 

Mr. WALLACE. I do not doubt that I have done that on multiple 

occasions. 

Senator CORNYN. Do you know any lawyer that has represented 

universally popular clients? 

Mr. WALLACE. If a lawyer has represented only people that are 

popular, he is probably not paying close enough attention to his responsibilities to the public and to the Bar. I am not saying it is impossible, but I do not know of anybody. 

Senator CORNYN. Tell me about some of the unpopular clients 

that you have represented. 

Mr. WALLACE. Well, we have already discussed the capital case 

that we brought that we defended. Actually, we defend capital 

cases regularly. One of my partners in Jackson came to us from the 

Capital Defense Fund and he still does pro bono work. He is an excellent appellate lawyer. Part of my job is to help him with his 

briefs and his arguments and get him ready to go to court. 

But certainly the case we brought on behalf of Claiborne County 

was unpopular. The legislature had gone so far to try to amend the 

Constitution to take this money away from this majority-black 

county, and that is what made it into a Voting Rights Act case, because there was an election, and they convinced hundreds of thousands of people in Mississippi they ought to take this money away. 

I do not think I have ever had a client who had more people vote 

against him in an election than Claiborne County did. So, I would 

say they were unpopular. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Wallace, one of the things that concerns 

me about the American Bar Association report, is apparently both 

the Chairman of the Standing Committee, as well as the former 

president of the American Bar Association had been locked in some 

rather pitched battles with you when you were on the Board of Directors for the Legal Services Corporation. 

I am sorry I had to step out a little bit earlier. But have you had 

a chance to explain a little about what those fights were about? 

Mr. WALLACE. I do not think I have, Senator. We had a lot of 

difficulties. I explained in general terms that what we were doing 

in the Reagan administration was trying to reform Legal Services, 

to take it out of political litigation and put it into providing the ordinary needs for ordinary people. We had opposition to that. 

Both Mr. Greco and Mr. Tober testified before our board and before our Committee against the changes that we were proposing. 

We heard them. I think we heard them politely. 

I think we asked them questions about their position that were 

fair questions under the circumstances. Whether that has had any 

effect on what they have done in their offices in the ABA, I just 

have no way of knowing. I do not think I have seen either one of 

them in 20 years. 

Senator CORNYN. As Chairman of the Legal Services Corporation, 

you advocated greater accountability and more effective legal services to the poor within the organization. 

71

Can you explain how you envisioned improving the quality of 

legal services to the poor by adopting the measures that you were 

advocating or the reforms that you were seeking to accomplish? 

Mr. WALLACE. Two things were very important to me. In the 

early 1980s, you will remember—and I suppose we always have 

budget difficulties in this country—it was a very tight budget time 

and the appropriation of the corporation had been cut back. 

I saw no prospect that Congress was ever going to be able to appropriate all the funds to meet all the needs of poor people under 

a pure appropriations system. We went out and promoted other 

ways to provide legal services to the poor. We helped start the 

IOLTA program that many States use now, Interest on Lawyers 

Trust Accounts. I thought that might be something you would run 

into in Texas. 

Senator CORNYN. No. I am familiar with it. I just wanted to 

make sure the record was clear and we did not lapse into acronyms 

that no one understood. 

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you. I apologize for that. We worked very 

hard to get private lawyers involved in giving pro bono services. 

Our program in the Mississippi Bar, I think, has won awards on 

several occasions for involving private attorneys in services to the 

poor. 

In order to be able to reach out to other sources of funding, I 

thought—and I think Congress believed—that we needed to cut 

back on cases that were widely perceived as political; whether they 

were or not might not make so much difference as the fact that 

they were perceived that way. 

By getting Legal Services out of those political cases, we have 

had new sources of funding in Mississippi. The Chief Justice and 

the Supreme Court have imposed rules that collect more funds for 

legal services for the poor. The legislature has passed, and the Governor has signed, increases in filing fees to give more funds. 

I supported those programs. They could do that because they 

knew that now that money would go to Legal Services programs 

who would put it to good use and who would keep it out of politics. 

That is what I was trying to do 20 years ago. I think we finally 

succeeded. 

Senator CORNYN. And by your success, you mean that you have 

been able to provide a means of legal representation to people who 

otherwise would not be able to afford it? 

Mr. WALLACE. That is what I was concerned with 20 years ago. 

I am still concerned with it. I am proud to say that it is still being 

provided in more and different ways than it had ever been before. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Wallace, some of those who criticize your 

tenure at the Legal Services Corporation fail to remember that 

much of what you implemented during that time was essentially 

ratified when Congress, in 1996, enacted similar reform legislation. 

How, in your opinion, have these reforms improved Legal Services 

to the disadvantaged? 

Mr. WALLACE. Well, I am proud to say that the reforms that we 

did through a regulatory fashion apparently worked so well—and 

of course I had been gone 6 years by the time that bill was 

passed—that Congress did adopt them into law. I think they are 

continuing to work well today. 

72

As I have just said, I think I cannot tell you what is going on 

in 49 other States, but in Mississippi I think we are very happy 

and very proud of the work, both of our Legal Services programs 

and of the volunteer work being done by members of the Bar. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent 

to make part of the record a letter addressed to Michael Greco, immediate past president of the American Bar Association, and copies 

sent to both the Chairman and Ranking Member, signed by 288 

leaders in the American Bar Association expressing concern that 

the American Bar Association violated its own rules in the manner 

in which they conducted the evaluation in this case, and also they 

happened to mention the re-rating of Brett Kavenaugh, who now 

serves in the DC Court of Appeals, and raises the pertinent question about the obligation of a member of the Standing Committee 

to recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest, or perhaps 

the appearance of partiality of a nominee, and I would ask that 

that be made a part of the record. 

Senator SESSIONS. It will be made a part of the record. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. I believe that is all I 

have for now. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Wallace, I want to followup a little bit on that conversation 

you have had with Senator Cornyn, one of the able members of our 

Committee and former Justice on the Texas Supreme Court. I believe I heard you say that when you were Chairman of the board 

of the Legal Services Corporation—attempting to effect a reform of 

that corporation to focus its attention on actually representing poor 

people and to reduce the number of political-type lawsuits they 

were filing, reforms which I think most Americans supported at 

that time and still do—that one or more of the members of the 

ABA who were involved in your rating testified before you to criticize the decisions you made at that time or to oppose the decisions 

you made. 

Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Tober and Mr. Greco both testified before our 

board. Ms. Tucker organized a panel discussion held out in Honolulu at the ABA meeting, the sum and substance of which was 

quite strident criticism of our board. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. And let me get this straight. Are they involved in the Committee to do your evaluation? 

Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Greco appointed them. Mr. Tober was the 

chairman, Ms. Tucker is a member. 

Senator SESSIONS. So all three are directly involved in your evaluation and they were the ones who were leaders coming to Washington, DC to testify in opposition, conducting hearings in Hawaii 

at a panel at the ABA meeting to criticize your decisions that were 

really ratified by this Congress as time went on. 

Mr. WALLACE. I believe that to be the case, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would offer for the record an article from the 

Wall Street Journal of July 26, the lead editorial. ‘‘An ABA Hit 

Job,’’ is the title of it. The subtitle is, ‘‘Political Payback Against 

a Judicial Nominee’’. 

They trace the difficulties you are having today to the fact that 

the ABA did not agree with your positions at the time you headed 

the Legal Services Corporation. I think you handled yourself well 

73

in that difficult time, and I do believe Congress has ratified your 

decisions. 

I do believe that the Legal Services Corporation does not have 

the kind of criticism and carping that was constant before those reforms occurred. 

Mr. WALLACE. Well, thank you, Senator. If I may say, just in 

case somebody puts in the New York Times editorial to the contrary later, I do think it is pretty good for a Biloxi boy to be batting 

500 in Manhattan. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you cannot win them all, as they say. 

Mr. WALLACE. I do not expect to. 

Senator SESSIONS. Just briefly, because I made comments about 

the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act, I believe, was pivotal 

in the South in empowering the African-American community. 

What are your thoughts, briefly, about the importance of that Act 

in changing the nature of politics and justice and equality in the 

South? 

Mr. WALLACE. They are the same as I stated them 23 years ago. 

I do not think you could grow up in the South and not know how 

important it is to bring people into the system. 

Our problem in Mississippi, when I grew up, is that we had a 

closed political system. It was not just closed against black people, 

it was closed against a lot of other people as well. 

We worked very hard to build a competitive system in Mississippi. The expansion of the electorate did a great deal for that. 

I think Republican Members of Congress fully supported the Voting 

Rights Act. They put when people could vote. When two parties 

could compete for their vote, then you get a better system of government. I am proud of what we have done with that in Mississippi. 

I think if you see how Mississippi has conducted itself over the 

last year in very difficult circumstances, Republican and Democrat, 

black and white, I think you show that we have matured, that we 

are able to cooperate, even while we compete. The Voting Rights 

Act has been a very big part of what we have been able to accomplish. 

Senator SESSIONS. Any criticism you have is not for the utility 

or the validity of the Act. 

Mr. WALLACE. None whatsoever, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. All right. 

Do you have anything else you would like to add to this gathering before we go to the next panel? 

Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the committee’s patience and their courtesy. I know how late it is in the session. If there has ever been a Committee that has had more difficult work to do under any session of Congress than this one, I do 

not know what it is. You all have had a hard task all year. 

You have been unfailingly courteous to me throughout this process and I deeply appreciate your making the time to consider my 

nomination before you go home. 

Senator SESSIONS. Very good. Thank you very much. 

We will go to the next panel. Judge Bryant, I believe, is next. 

74

STATEMENT OF VANESSA LYNNE BRYANT, NOMINEE TO BE 

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 

Judge BRYANT. Good afternoon. I would like to thank the Chairman and the members of the Committee for affording me this opportunity to further my nomination to serve as a judge of the District Court of the State of Connecticut. I would also like to thank 

my two Senators Christopher Dodd and Joseph Lieberman, as well 

as my Governor, Jody Rell, for their support for me in this endeavor. 

My family is here present with me: my husband, Tracy Rich, who 

is the executive vice president and general counsel of the Phoenix 

Companies in Hartford, Connecticut; my son, Bryant Rich, who is 

a senior at Bowdoin College; my daughter, Dana Rich, who is a 

sophomore at Oberlin College; my mother, Muriel Bryant, who is 

retired, residing in Farmington, Connecticut, after retiring from 

Waldenbook as the most tenured employee ever in the company’s 

history. 

[The biographical information of Judge Bryant follows.]

75


39984.040
76


39984.041
77


39984.042
78


39984.043
79


39984.044
80


39984.045
81


39984.046
82


39984.047
83


39984.048
84


39984.049
85


39984.050
86


39984.051
87


39984.052
88


39984.053
89


39984.054
90


39984.055
91


39984.056
92


39984.057
93


39984.058
94


39984.059
95


39984.060
96


39984.061
97


39984.062
98


39984.063
99


39984.064
100


39984.065
101


39984.066
102


39984.067
103


39984.068
104


39984.069
105

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Judge Bryant. Thank 

you for introducing your two children who attend two superb liberal arts colleges in America, both of which are known for their abolitionist spirit that led to changes that occurred throughout our 

country in how the African-American community is treated. 

You served as a Superior Court judge, as a presiding judge, and 

as an administrative judge since 1998. Would you give us some 

thoughts about how you would approach the challenges of a district 

judge with the experience that you have already? 

Judge BRYANT. I would approach those challenges in similar 

fashion to that which I utilized in performing the functions of a Superior Court judge. I am a tireless worker. I research thoroughly. 

I listen actively and attentively. I decide fairly, decisively, and efficiently. 

Senator SESSIONS. And how long have you been serving in judicial or judicial-like positions, how many years of experience? 

Judge BRYANT. For 8 years, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. And tell me about the Superior Court judgeship, what your duties are there and what kind of rulings you must 

make there. 

Judge BRYANT. The Superior Court is the trial-level court, as is 

the District Court. My responsibilities have been varied over the 8 

years that I have served. Initially I was assigned to the Criminal 

Division. I was assigned to that division for two 1-year terms. I 

tried serious felony cases, including two murder cases. I have presided over in excess of 20 serious felony criminal cases. 

After that assignment, I was afforded an opportunity to serve as 

a civil judge. I was assigned to the Hartford Judicial District. I presided over civil trials for 2 years. Thereafter, I was appointed the 

presiding judge for the New Britain Judicial District. 

I was then asked to assume the role of administrative judge in 

the Litchfield Judicial District. The presiding judge is responsible 

for the civil docket. The administrative judge is responsible for the 

overall operation of the court facilities. 

In my capacity as administrative judge in Litchfield, I was also 

the presiding judge for civil, criminal, family, and juvenile. I was 

responsible for all four dockets and three courthouses in that judicial district. 

Thereafter, I was appointed the presiding judge in the Hartford 

Judicial District Civil Division. There I am responsible for the 

management of the civil docket. I was reappointed to that position 

in September of 2005, and reappointed yet again in September of 

2006 after wide publication of the ABA opinion of me. 

Senator SESSIONS. We have received a number of letters supporting your nomination. They note your excellent ability to manage your docket and the courtroom efficiently. As you know, there 

is a fine line between managing an efficient docket—and you have 

to be strong to do that—and ensuring the litigants a fair opportunity to be heard in court. 

Would you discuss your philosophy and how you approach that 

role of a judge? 

Judge BRYANT. Absolutely. There are competing interests. There 

is the broader interest of managing the docket and operating the 

judicial branch in an efficient fashion, and then there are the interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039984 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\39984.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
106

ests of the litigants which sometimes are in variance with the overall systematic obligations of a presiding judge. 

I have endeavored to serve both of those masters, first by adopting standing orders, standing orders that specify exactly what the 

rules of procedure are in our district so that those standing orders 

are sent to attorneys well in advance of the time when they are ordered to, or have requested an opportunity, to appear in court. 

We attempt mightily to ensure more than adequate notice of obligations to appear in court. We also communicate verbally in situations where we find that there may have been miscommunication, 

if people are not present. We also have under our rules of practice 

the ability to file a Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Re-Argument. Our rules of procedure and—

Senator SESSIONS. Judge Bryant, as you deal with those issues 

and effect the rules that you have established, which I think is important, do you feel like you give litigants the chance to state their 

case if they disagree or you have to hold them to account in your 

courtroom? 

Judge BRYANT. Absolutely. 

Senator SESSIONS. Do you feel a responsibility to do that? 

Judge BRYANT. Absolutely. A judge cannot make good decisions 

without having full information. 

Senator SESSIONS. And are you telling this Committee that, if 

you are confirmed, that you will give litigants before you an opportunity to be heard, even if you rule against them, and that you 

would evaluate and consider the arguments that they make? 

Judge BRYANT. Without any doubt. 

Senator SESSIONS. The ABA rating raised some important issues. 

They say that you do not have good judicial temperament. That is 

a matter of importance. It is difficult to ascertain exactly what they 

mean when they say that. 

Could you respond to that and share with us, briefly, how you 

think you handle cases? 

Judge BRYANT. Senator, I wish I could answer that question. But 

unfortunately, like Mr. Wallace, I had one interview with the ABA. 

When I received their letter, I was surprised. Their letter was 

faxed to our clerk’s office. It was brought to me by a Clerk of the 

Court. I was so stunned, that I called Mr. Tober, who informed me 

that I would learn of the reasons for their decision at my confirmation hearing. 

So I do not know the context of any of those comments and I cannot respond to them, except I can tell you that in the State of Connecticut we have an anonymous evaluation system whereby all attorneys who appear before a judge for an hour or more are sent a 

confidential evaluation. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I will bet Judge Cornyn was glad they 

did not have that in Texas. 

[Laughter.] 

He would have done well, I have no doubt. 

Judge BRYANT. And Senator, my comportment ratings are in the 

80th and 90th percentile. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is interesting. I was not aware of that. 

So the lawyers in your district are encouraged to submit confidenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039984 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\39984.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
107

tial, secret—they do not have their names on it—evaluations of 

you, and you have received high ratings. 

Judge BRYANT. That is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. One more question. One of the criticisms was 

that you have a lack of professional expertise and knowledge of the 

law. 

How would you respond to that? 

Judge BRYANT. I have an extensive legal experience, which is 

outlined in my Senate questionnaire and in my resume, which I believe you have. I have been a partner in a Wall Street law firm. 

I have been a Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustee. I have been general 

counsel of a housing finance authority that had in excess of $300 

million of bonds outstanding. 

I have been a private placement and commercial real estate attorney, handling transactions in the millions, in the tens of millions, and the hundreds of millions of dollars. I have been described 

by the Chief Court Administrator of the State of Connecticut as a 

‘‘super-star’’. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that is good. Thank you for those comments. I would note that even though you did not receive a ‘‘Qualified’’ rating, that was not a unanimous vote of the committee. 

Senator Cornyn? 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple 

of things. 

Judge BRYANT. Certainly. 

Senator CORNYN. Judge Bryant, I just want to make sure that 

I understand what you just said a moment ago. Did you say you 

asked the Chairman of the Standing Committee at the ABA what 

the basis for the ‘‘Unqualified’’ rating was, and that he said, ‘‘You 

will find out at your hearing’’ ? 

Judge BRYANT. Yes. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman, I have various letters of support 

for Mr. Wallace and Judge Bryant’s nominations for the record. I 

would ask unanimous consent that they be made part of the record. 

Senator SESSIONS. They will be made a part of the record. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

Judge BRYANT. Thank you. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Judge Bryant. We appreciate your coming. Is there anything else you would like to 

share about the process of evaluation that you have undergone? We 

give respect to the ABA ratings. I do, at least. I have always felt 

that they have an opportunity to bring us valuable information. 

But I also know that there are dangers in secret processes that receive information in that fashion. But do you have any other comments? I just want to give you an opportunity. 

Judge BRYANT. No, sir. I do not care to comment further. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, thank you very much. 

Judge BRYANT. Thank you. 

Senator SESSIONS. We appreciate your testimony. 

You should be congratulated for winning the support of two of 

our senior Democratic Senators and the Republican President of 

the United States for this important position. I think it is something that you can take pride in. I think it indicates that you have 

great support. Thank you very much. 

108

Judge BRYANT. I certainly do. Thank you all very much. 

Senator SESSIONS. Our next panel would be Panel IV, Roberta B. 

Liebenberg, Chair of the American Bar Association; Kim Askew, 

Fifth Circuit Representative, Standing Committee on the Federal 

Judiciary, American Bar Association; Thomas Z. Hayward, Former 

Chair, American Bar Association; Pamela Bresnahan, Former DC 

Circuit Representative, American Bar Association; and C. Timothy 

Hopkins, Former Ninth Circuit Representative, American Bar Association. 

We have quite a panel. The hour is running a bit late, but I 

think you are entitled to, each of you, make a statement as you 

wish. Remember that we could make a fuller statement a part of 

the record if you choose. 

I guess we will start in the order shown on the panel. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERTA B. LIEBENBERG, CHAIR, AMERICAN 

BAR ASSOCIATION, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Sessions. My name is Roberta Liebenberg. I practice in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Senator SESSIONS. Ms. Liebenberg, would you pause? We would 

ask you to stand and take the oath. I am sorry I forgot. All of you, 

if you would. If you would raise your right hand. 

[Whereupon, the witnesses were duly sworn.] 

Senator SESSIONS. I think that is the Senate oath. Having been 

around courthouses a few times, maybe I am just remembering the 

familiar one from there. 

Well, Ms. Liebenberg, thank you very much. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. Thank you. As I said, my name is Roberta 

Liebenberg. I practice in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Since August 

of 2006, I have had the honor of chairing the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. 

Present with me today are Kim Askew and Tom Hayward, who 

conducted the evaluations of Mr. Wallace in the spring of 2006. 

Also present are Pamela Bresnahan and Timothy Hopkins, who 

conducted the supplemental evaluation of Mr. Wallace this month. 

Ms. Askew and Ms. Bresnahan will testify concerning those evaluations. 

Our Committee takes very seriously its responsibility to conduct 

a fair and impartial peer review of the professional qualifications 

of nominees to the Federal bench without regard to their ideology 

or philosophy. We focus on only three criteria: professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament. 

We examine the legal writings of the nominee, as well as decisions where the nominee has appeared as counsel. In addition, we 

conduct extensive interviews of numerous members of the legal 

community who are familiar with the professional qualifications of 

the nominee. 

The evaluations of Mr. Wallace by our Committee over the years 

have been thorough and comprehensive. Over 120 judges and lawyers have been interviewed. Representatives of the Committee conducted a number of interviews of Mr. Wallace that totaled over 12 

hours. 

109

He was afforded the opportunity in each of those interviews to 

address and rebut adverse comments that had been made about 

him. As has been noted, there was widespread agreement among 

the persons who were interviewed about Mr. Wallace that he satisfied the committee’s criteria of professional competence and integrity. 

He has outstanding academic credentials as a former law clerk 

to Chief Justice Rehnquist and has been praised as a skilled and 

experienced trial and appellate attorney. 

However, numerous concerns were raised about Mr. Wallace in 

connection with the criterion of judicial temperament. That criterion is defined by our Committee as compassion, decisiveness, 

open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice. 

These concerns regarding judicial temperament were expressed 

not just by a particular segment of the bar, but instead by a broad 

cross-section of judges and lawyers with different backgrounds and 

viewpoints. 

In accordance with the Standing Committee’s established procedures, a supplemental evaluation was conducted of Mr. Wallace 

after his nomination was resubmitted by the President on September 5th. 

This supplemental evaluation was conducted by Ms. Bresnahan 

and Mr. Hopkins, who were not members of the Committee when 

the May, 2006 evaluation was performed. Their supplemental evaluation raised the same concerns about judicial temperament that 

had been raised by Ms. Askew and Mr. Hayward in their prior 

evaluations of the nominee. 

The Standing Committee is comprised of 14 lawyers from each 

of the judicial circuits. Half of the 14 voting members of the Committee are new and were appointed by the new ABA president, 

Karen Mathis, in August, 2006. 

After careful consideration of the supplemental evaluations conducted this month, as well as the material pertaining to the prior 

evaluations of Mr. Wallace, the new Committee unanimously voted 

Mr. Wallace ‘‘Not Qualified’’ for a position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This is the same rating previously given 

to him by unanimous vote in May of 2006. 

Ms. Askew will testify concerning the evaluation she conducted 

in the spring of 2006. Ms. Bresnahan will then follow to discuss the 

supplemental evaluation that was conducted this month. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Liebenberg appears as a submission for the record.] 

STATEMENT OF KIM J. ASKEW, FIFTH CIRCUIT REPRESENTATIVE, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, 

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, DALLAS, TEXAS; ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS Z. HAYWARD, FORMER CHAIR, 2003–2005, 

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, STANDING COMMITTEE ON 

THE FEDERAL JURIDIARY, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Ms. ASKEW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my Senator. My name is Kim Askew. I have practiced in 

Dallas, Texas for 23 years. 

110

As the Fifth Circuit representative to the Standing Committee, 

I conducted the investigation into the professional qualifications of 

Mr. Wallace when he was first nominated earlier this year. 

My investigation focused only on Mr. Wallace’s professional 

qualifications: his professional competence, his integrity, and judicial temperament. As the Committee is aware, the Standing Committee unanimously rated Mr. Wallace ‘‘Not Qualified’’ for service 

on the Fifth Circuit. 

There has been a lot of testimony today regarding this investigation and I will briefly outline for you how this investigation was actually conducted and the serious issues raised regarding Mr. Wallace’s temperament, which resulted in the ‘‘Not Qualified’’ rating. 

I confidentially interviewed 69 lawyers and judges. The lawyers 

and judges interviewed were identified from the Personal Data 

Questionnaire that Mr. Wallace provided to the Justice Department and was subsequently obtained by this committee. 

I also surveyed docket sheets to identify other cases that Mr. 

Wallace had litigated. Our purpose is to obtain as wide a range of 

cases as possible. During the course of my interviews, lawyers and 

judges identified other persons with knowledge of Mr. Wallace’s 

professional qualifications. 

To the extent those persons were available, I also interviewed 

those persons. Mr. Wallace himself identified a couple of lawyers 

that I had already interviewed as part of my process. 

Our interviews covered a wide spectrum of the legal community. 

This is consistent with requirements of our Backgrounder. This included lawyers of all stripes, large- and small-firm lawyers, solo 

practitioners, opposing counsel of Mr. Wallace, his co-counsel, Federal and State judges throughout the Fifth Circuit, and certainly 

in the State of Mississippi where Mr. Wallace practices, Bar officials, law school deans. 

Most of the persons that I interviewed had been involved in a variety of significant cases with Mr. Wallace, and this was a fact that 

I could independently verify from reported and unreported cases 

and from the docket sheets that I reviewed. 

Some of the individuals that I talked to had known Mr. Wallace 

his entire life, others had known him throughout his professional 

career. Many who gave us comments considered themselves friends 

of the nominee. Those who gave adverse comments were frequently 

in that category. All of the comments were based on personal interactions that Mr. Wallace had with the persons identified. These 

were well-informed individuals with knowledge of this nominee. 

My interviews were detailed and rather thorough. Some of these 

interviews lasted up to 45 minutes. In cases in which lawyers and 

judges provided adverse information, I often interviewed those lawyers and those judges on more than one occasion. 

We sought corroborating information. We sought the identity of 

other individuals in the community who could further substantiate 

what we were told. We asked, or I asked, detailed questions because we wanted to ferret out the basis for the concerns raised regarding Mr. Wallace. I wanted to ensure that these comments were 

based on interactions and personal dealings with Mr. Wallace and 

not just based on rumor or bad feelings. 

111

In late March, I interviewed Mr. Wallace in his office in Jackson 

for almost 3 hours. Almost half of our interview was spent discussing the adverse information I had learned regarding Mr. Wallace’s temperament. 

Consistent with this Committee’s requirements for confidentiality, Mr. Wallace was given every opportunity to fully rebut or 

otherwise provide any information he wanted regarding the negative or adverse comments. 

Every adverse comment that is raised in the testimony presented 

to this Committee was discussed with Mr. Wallace during that 

interview. Given the nature of the issues raised, I prepared a written checklist. I went down that checklist during the interview to 

ensure that everything I would raise was covered with him. He responded to these issues as he chose to. There were issues he chose 

not to respond to. 

After these interviews I submitted my 83-page, single-spaced report to the committee, along with some 800 pages of background 

materials. This was certainly longer than any brief I had ever submitted to any court. 

My investigation revealed, as stated earlier, that Mr. Wallace is 

a lawyer who possesses the highest professional competence. He 

possesses strong academic credentials and is in many respects a 

well-regarded and experienced trial and appellate lawyer. 

Mr. Wallace also possessed the highest of integrity. Even those 

who questioned his lack of appropriate temperament to serve as a 

judge all agreed that he possessed professional competence and integrity. 

The Committee rated Mr. Wallace ‘‘Not Qualified’’ because of the 

very serious issues raised regarding his judicial temperament. In 

evaluating temperament, the Committee consider a nominee’s compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom 

from bias, and commitment to equal justice. Over a third of the 

lawyers and judges that I spoke to raised issues regarding every 

element of temperament except decisiveness. 

Mr. Wallace was said not to have demonstrated a commitment 

to equal justice. Concerns were raised regarding the positions he 

had taken in a number of State and Federal cases. Lawyers who 

had litigated these cases with Mr. Wallace, some for over three decades, believe that Mr. Wallace had taken positions that were 

meritless and not supported by the law. 

He was said to have advanced his own personal views without 

regard for the ultimate resolution of the case. These issues were 

raised by a broad spectrum of lawyers and judges. 

Serious issues regarding Mr. Wallace’s open-mindedness were 

raised. He was said to be rigid, hostile to, and not always tolerant 

of, the views of others. As an advocate, he was said not to listen 

to, or respect the positions of, others. He sometimes summarily dismissed the views of others. He could be argumentative without advancing the resolution of a case. 

Some questioned whether he could cease being an advocate and 

could become an effective judge. Given these concerns, many believe Mr. Wallace could not be a fair judge, lacked temperament, 

and so stated that. 

112

Judges and lawyers who had interacted with Mr. Wallace concluded that he lacked the freedom from bias necessary to be an effective judge. They believed he would not follow the law, or would 

ignore it if he disagreed with it. 

Senator SESSIONS. Ms. Askew, we do have a long panel and you 

are about 3 minutes over the time. 

Ms. ASKEW. All right. I will finish up. 

Senator SESSIONS. I have tried to be generous, but I do think we 

need to move along. 

Ms. ASKEW. Some concerns were raised regarding his lack of 

courtesy, patience, and compassion in dealing with lawyers and litigants. There were minority lawyers who had had personal interaction with Mr. Wallace who believed that he did not treat them 

with courtesy and respect. 

Given the nature of these concerns raised regarding Mr. Wallace’s temperament and from such a broad cross-section of lawyers 

and judges in the legal community, after careful consideration the 

Committee unanimously concluded that Mr. Wallace was ‘‘Not 

Qualified.’’ 

Thank you for your courtesy. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Askew appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Cornyn has to go to another important meeting, so I would yield to him at this time. I am glad you 

came. Some of our colleagues are not here, but I am glad you are 

here and participating. I think you have a lot to offer on all these 

subjects, based on your experience and background. So, I would 

yield to you at this time. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

your letting me go out of order, and I apologize. But I did want to 

have a chance to have some discussion. 

Ms. Askew, it is good to see you. 

Ms. ASKEW. Good to see you, Senator. 

Senator CORNYN. We have known and worked together a long 

time through the State Bar of Texas. 

I have to confess, I am profoundly troubled by what I see here 

and I hope you can give me some comfort that it is not as bad as 

it looks. 

Let me start, perhaps, with this question, the same one that I 

asked Ms. Liebenberg. Did I pronounce that correctly? 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. Yes. Liebenberg. 

Senator CORNYN. Liebenberg. I beg your pardon. With a name 

like Cornyn, I am used to—

Ms. LIEBENBERG. It is a hard one. 

Senator CORNYN. I am used to having my name butchered. I 

apologize. 

Ms. Liebenberg, can you explain to the Committee how you can 

be a person of the highest integrity with the kind of accolades used 

to describe Mr. Wallace, and at the same time be a person who ignores precedent, the rights of others, and all the other adverse 

comments that Ms. Askew and others collected during the course 

of their questions? 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. Certainly, Senator Cornyn. If you look at our 

Backgrounder, the criteria of integrity and temperament are deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:49 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039984 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\39984.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
113

fined differently. Integrity is the more narrow issue, which really 

looks at the industry, the diligence of the candidate, whereas judicial temperament looks at the issues that the evaluators have presented in their written testimony and the oral testimony today in 

terms of compassion, open-mindedness, and decisiveness. 

Senator CORNYN. So it looks like about two-thirds of the individuals interviewed, or conversely stated, about one-third of the ones 

interviewed, made negative comments pertaining to his judicial 

temperament. Is that correct, Ms. Askew? 

Ms. ASKEW. It was over a third of the individuals who were 

interviewed who raised those comments. But it was not just the 

number of comments raised. We look at the nature of the comments, the basis for the comments, the interaction that the nominee has had with the persons who raised those issues. I guess, as 

a judge, it would be a weight issue. 

So it is not just a matter of how many, but these were very serious allegations of temperament raised regarding Mr. Wallace that 

this Committee simply could not ignore. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, Ms. Askew, as an accomplished lawyer in 

your own right, familiar with the rules by which we try to get to 

the truth in a judicial context, are you not at least a little bit troubled by the fact that these are anonymous sources that are not provided to the nominee, when this man’s career and reputation are 

on the line? How in the world can you justify using anonymous 

sources that cannot be confronted and there cannot be some opportunity to parse it and figure out, maybe there is some motive for 

providing that kind of critical comment. Maybe there is just a misunderstanding. Maybe someone does not really understand that it 

is a lawyer’s responsibility to advocate vigorously on behalf of a client, even an unpopular client, in a losing cause. 

Ms. ASKEW. Certainly, Senator, I can respond to that. First of all, 

these are not anonymous. The Committee is made fully aware of 

the identity of every individual who made such a statement. They 

are presented with the circumstances under which any negative 

comments were made. 

These interviews were conducted just as we have conducted 

interviews as part of this peer review process for the entire time 

the ABA has been doing this process. This is the very process that 

we used in bringing you the recommendations that we did with respect to Justice Alito, with respect to Justice Roberts. 

Senator CORNYN. You say they are not anonymous because you 

knew who they were. 

Ms. ASKEW. And they were fully presented to the committee. 

Senator CORNYN. But they are anonymous with regard to the 

nominee. The nominee does not know who they are. 

Ms. ASKEW. Confidentiality is a very important part of this process. It always has been. It is explained to the nominee. When we 

talk to individuals who are providing this information to us, we obtain the kind of candid, frank information that we obtain from lawyers and judges in the community because we are for the confidentiality that they expect in this process. 

Senator CORNYN. But you agree with me it is not the same 

standard that would be considered fair and reliable in a court of 

law with regard to the evidence that could be considered. 

114

Ms. ASKEW. Of course, this is a peer review process. We make 

our recommendation to you. We certainly understand that ultimately the decision is the decision of the Senate and not this committee. This is a peer review. I could not analogize it to a court of 

a law. It is a 50-year old process that seeks to obtain information 

from the legal community about the reputation and the three factors that we vet related to a candidate. 

Senator CORNYN. Ms. Askew, just to get to some of the specifics 

with regard to Mr. Wallace’s work for Senator—I guess, then Congressman—Trent Lott. Would you agree with me that a lawyer for 

a client should not be penalized for representing an unpopular client? 

Ms. ASKEW. I agree with that. Of course, our testimony does not 

in any way suggest that he is being penalized for advancing the 

cause of a client. 

Senator CORNYN. One of the cases that he has been criticized for 

involves Bob Jones University. Is that not right? 

Ms. ASKEW. That was not a part of the testimony that I presented, so I could not speak to that. 

Senator CORNYN. Then there was a question involving the Voting 

Rights Act because he represented the Republican Party of Mississippi in redistricting litigation. Do you find any fault with his 

representing the Republican Party of Mississippi in redistricting 

litigation? 

Ms. ASKEW. Under the ABA’s ethical rules we fully understand 

that lawyers can zealously represent their clients. The lawyers and 

judges that I interviewed drew a very clear distinction between the 

zealous representation of a client and taking positions which they 

believe went beyond the point of zealous representation. 

The issues on temperament concern the fact that these very experienced lawyers and judges who had personal knowledge of these 

cases believed that he crossed the line from zealous advocacy and 

raised issues of temperament. 

Senator CORNYN. So these anonymous witnesses, or at least 

anonymous to Mr. Wallace, expressed an opinion and we just have 

to take their word for it because we do not know the basis for that 

opinion. You cannot reveal, under the ABA Committee rules, who 

they are even to this committee. 

You would agree with me, would you not, Ms. Askew, that a lawyer has a professional responsibility to zealously advocate for their 

client and, within the rules of the American Bar Association, can 

properly argue for an extension, modification, or a reversal of existing law? Is that not right? 

Ms. ASKEW. Absolutely, under the appropriate circumstances. 

Senator CORNYN. Let me, finally, ask about the concerns that 

have been raised. I wish Mr Tober was here. I understand he is 

no longer the Chair of the Standing Committee. But Ms. 

Liebenberg, one more time. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. It is German: Liebenberg. Love Mountain. 

Senator CORNYN. Can you explain to me what the circumstances 

are under which a member of the Standing Committee would 

recuse themselves for a conflict of interest or an appearance of partiality? 

115

Ms. LIEBENBERG. As set forth in our Backgrounder, we do set 

forth a recusal standard that sets forth that if there is any appearance of impartiality or if the participation would be incompatible 

with the purposes and functions of the committee, then the member of the Committee should recuse him or herself. 

In the case of Mr. Tober, I think it is important to emphasize 

that Mr. Tober did not participate in any way in the rating. The 

chair does not participate unless there is a tie vote, and of course 

there was not a tie vote, the vote here was unanimous. 

In addition, Mr. Tober had no influence over any of the members 

of the committee. Each of the 14 members, as I said, represent different judicial districts. They have unique backgrounds. They exercise and take very seriously their obligation to evaluate all the materials and to vote independently, which is what they did. Mr. 

Tober, since he did not participate in either the evaluation or the 

rating, did not have to recuse himself under our standards as they 

existed. 

Senator CORNYN. I understand, in 1989 while Mr. Wallace was 

Chairman of the Board of Legal Services Corporation, he was invited to appear in that capacity on a panel of a meeting of the ABA 

in Honolulu where the role of the Federal Government and providing legal services to the poor was one topic of discussion. 

There erupted quite a disagreement, apparently, among the 

panel members. There is a letter, Mr. Chairman, from Mr. Fred M. 

Bush, Jr. of the Phelps Dunbar firm in Tupelo, Mississippi that describes what I am about to talk about, which I would ask to be 

made part of the record by unanimous consent. 

Senator SESSIONS. It will be made a part of the record. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Bush says that, ‘‘During this debate the 

ABA panelists were so vicious and personal in their attack on 

Mike, that many of us were offended and expressed our displeasure 

at the time. 

One of the members of that panel is now the president of the 

American Bar Association,’’ and that is Mr. Greco, ‘‘and I believe 

another is on the Standing Committee.’’ That letter will be made 

part of record and is dated July 5, 2006. 

Similarly, there is another letter from the Bar Leaders for the 

Preservation of Legal Services to the poor dated September 15, 

1999. This is a letter signed by Gail Kinney, Coordinator. Mr. 

Chairman, I would ask that this be made part of the record by 

unanimous consent as well. 

Senator SESSIONS. Without objection. 

Senator CORNYN. This is a letter to Mr. Wallace. It says, ‘‘I understand you, or perhaps some of your Mississippi colleagues, may 

have come away from the presentation feeling insulted by a remark 

that Mike Greco made about your being a ‘gentlemen from Mississippi’ or something like that during the spirited opposition to the 

activities of the current Legal Services Board.’’ That does not sound 

like too much of a nasty exchange there. 

I guess my point is, though, that Mr. Greco, and to some extent 

Mr. Tober, were on opposite sides in an ongoing and very public 

and heated debate about the proper role of the Legal Services Corporation during Mr. Wallace’s tenure there. Is that not right? 

116

Ms. LIEBENBERG. I do not know the complete details of the disagreement. I will just reemphasize that neither Mr. Tober, nor Mr. 

Greco participated in the evaluation or the rating of Mr. Wallace. 

I would just add one additional factor, is that just recently, as 

Chair of the committee, we conducted a new supplemental evaluation of Mr. Wallace. Ms. Bresnahan will be here to testify about 

that evaluation. 

Senator CORNYN. That was a supplemental evaluation, was it 

not? 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. Yes, it was. 

Senator CORNYN. It did not go back and revisit the matters previously investigated or for possible taint, or bias. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. If I can just start, then Ms. Bresnahan will amplify. In general, what our procedures call for is that in a supplemental evaluation the investigator looks at any new information 

that might have developed between the last rating and evaluation 

and brings the evaluation forward. 

Under our rules, however, an investigator can look at information prior to the time before the nomination to make sure that 

there has been a thorough and complete evaluation, and to make 

sure that the evaluation—and as I asked Mr. Hopkins and Ms. 

Bresnahan to make sure—was even-handed, complete and balanced. 

As you will hear from Ms. Bresnahan, that is exactly what they 

did do, given the time. It was a very expedited basis that we had 

in which to conduct the supplemental evaluation. 

Senator SESSIONS. Let us get a couple of things straight. First, 

I think obviously the writer of the letter from Legal Services that 

you offered felt that the tone and tenor of suggesting he was someone from Mississippi, probably—being from Alabama—was 

dismissive and perceived as not courteous, but the point of which 

is, that letter indicated that they believed he had been mistreated 

or had been disrespected in some way. 

Second, who was participating in that panel where that occurred? I want to get this straight. The president of the American 

Bar Association at the time the Committee was appointed that 

evaluated Mr. Wallace? 

Senator CORNYN. This was the immediate past president of the 

American Bar Association, Michael Greco, in his capacity as cofounder of Bar Leaders for the Preservation of Legal Services to the 

Poor. This was in 1989. 

Senator SESSIONS. And was the lady member of that Committee 

that was participating in that panel, did she participate in this 

evaluation? Is that correct, Ms. Liebenberg? 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Tober was the chair of the Standing Committee, immediate past, that oversaw the evaluation process for 

Mr. Wallace. If I can just try to clarify my point. 

Apparently, in opposing a proposed regulation to require that the 

board receiving Legal Services Corporation funds have bipartisan 

membership, as does the LSC itself, Mr. Tober was reported to 

flamboyantly accuse Wallace of attempting to fashion a political 

bias litmus test and of having a hidden agenda, and he vowed to 

disobey the regulation if it became law. Have any of you heard 

about that exchange? 

117

Ms. LIEBENBERG. I would just, again, add that Mr. Tober did not 

participate in the evaluation. Ms. Askew is here. She can—

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Tober was Chairman of the Committee 

that oversees these evaluations. Is that not correct? 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. He was the chair of the committee, but he does 

not oversee the evaluations. Ms. Askew, as the investigator, and 

then Mr. Hayward as a second investigator, were charged with the 

responsibility of conducting the evaluation. 

Senator SESSIONS. Who appoints these committees? 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. The individuals appointed to the ABA Standing 

Committee are appointed by the ABA president. 

Senator SESSIONS. So that would be Mr. Greco. So Mr. Greco 

would participate in this. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. Yes. As only a third of the individuals. Right. 

Senator SESSIONS. We do not need to go into it too much further, 

I do not think. I would just say to you, I remember the bitterness 

of this fight. I remember what I believe was a very wrong position 

of the American Bar Association in opposing reform of the Legal 

Services Corporation. They opposed it aggressively, hostilely, and 

openly, and lost. 

Now we have a man who participated in that reform, consistent 

with what the President of the United States desired and the Congress has ratified as a reorganization method for Legal Services 

Corporation, and they are now judging him. 

If you are participating in a trial, Ms. Liebenberg, and you were 

being adjudicated by a judge, do you think a Motion to Recuse 

would be appropriate under these circumstances? 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. In these circumstances, where Mr. Tober would 

not be acting as a judge, no, I do not think it would be appropriate. 

Senator SESSIONS. He was in a position to vote if there were a 

tie, was he not? 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. If there had been a tie. But the vote was unanimous. 

Senator SESSIONS. But he was in a position. So you are saying 

he can be on a panel and have the opportunity to cast a vote, and 

you do not think that is improper? Now, remember, you are under 

oath. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. I understand that. 

Senator SESSIONS. And my question was, if you were being tried, 

would you accept such a position? 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. If I was tried—

Senator SESSIONS. Being tried for some offense. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. If I was being tried for some offense, there 

might be an issue with respect to an appearance of impropriety. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would say there would be. Well spoken. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. But this is not an adjudicatory process. 

Senator SESSIONS. I know. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. This is not a process where Mr. Tober had any 

role whatsoever in the evaluation or in the vote. This has been a 

very thorough and comprehensive evaluation. As I said, over 120 

different judges and lawyers have been interviewed. Mr. Wallace 

has been interviewed for over 12 years. There have been 21 separate—

118

Senator SESSIONS. Interviewing him does not make any difference if the jury is stacked. That is the question we have here. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. Well, there have been 21 separate—

Senator SESSIONS. Let me ask Senator Cornyn. He wants to ask 

a question, and I will let you respond. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. All right. 

Senator CORNYN. Actually, I am going to have to leave. But there 

is a letter, Mr. Chairman, that was written by Senator Specter to 

Michael S. Greco, president of the American Bar Association, and 

Steven L. Tober, then-chairman of the Standing Committee on the 

Federal Judiciary. This is dated August 7, 2006. I ask unanimous 

consent that it be made part of the record. 

Senator SESSIONS. Without objection. 

Senator CORNYN. Let me just ask to highlight just a couple of 

paragraphs, and the whole letter will be part of the record. 

Senator Specter said, ‘‘I have had the opportunity to review the 

testimony with regard to both nominees.’’ He is talking about 

Judge Bryant and Mr. Wallace. He said, ‘‘I am troubled by your 

submission. Your testimony raises serious charges, but only supports those allegations with anonymous quotations presented without context. 

Testimony of this sort is impossible to verify or otherwise further 

investigate. Worse, it can give some the unfortunate impression of 

a smear campaign conducted against the nominees. The nominees 

were publicly branded ‘‘Not Qualified’’, and in your testimony, 

worse, do not have the opportunity to confront their accusers.’’ 

The letter goes on. But Senator Specter asked specifically that 

the American Bar Association promptly take the step of immediately revoking its ‘‘Not Qualified’’ rating of Mr. Wallace and begin 

a new review process. 

Have you had a chance to look at the letter and make a decision 

one way or the other? 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. We did have an opportunity to look at the letter, and obviously took Senator Specter’s concerns very seriously. 

As a result, as I think has been mentioned by the Chairman, we 

retained Mr. Olson, who did help us respond to the concerns raised 

by the Chairman. As a result of that, we have clarified certain of 

our procedures. 

Senator CORNYN. And you have changed your procedures? 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. No. I said we clarified our procedures to make 

them—

Senator CORNYN. You clarified what you did, not clarified your 

procedures for prospective application. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. Both. We have clarified our procedures. As the 

ABA Committee has done over the years, we continuously refine 

and reexamine our procedures. In this instance—

Senator CORNYN. So you changed your procedures as a result of 

the concerns that were raised in this letter? 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. I do not believe I said ‘‘changed’’. I am sorry, 

Senator Cornyn. I said we have clarified those procedures to make 

sure that our procedures are known and understood to the nominees and to the public. 

Senator CORNYN. But you turned Senator Specter down. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. We conducted a new evaluation. 

119

Senator CORNYN. You did not revoke the ‘‘Not Qualified’’ finding. 

Correct? 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. We did not revoke. It has been superseded by 

the new rating that was done by a new committee, where 7 of the 

14 members were appointed by a new ABA president, and as a result of the careful consideration of those materials, they have voted 

and they have voted unanimously that Mr. Wallace is ‘‘Not Qualified’’. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

I guess we need to proceed along. Who is next? 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. Ms. Bresnahan. 

Senator SESSIONS. Ms. Bresnahan. All right. 

STATEMENT OF PAMELA A. BRESNAHAN, FORMER D.C. CIRCUIT REPRESENTATIVE, 2002–2005, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY C. TIMOTHY HOPKINS, 

FORMER NINTH CIRCUIT REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN BAR 

ASSOCIATION, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO 

Ms. BRESNAHAN. Senator Sessions, at this late hour I am going 

to make my oral testimony part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bresnahan appears as a submission for the record.] 

Ms. BRESNAHAN. As you know, I am a lawyer that practices here 

in the District of Columbia, and I was a DC Circuit representative 

from 2002 to 2005, and I conducted a number of these investigations, including Chief Justice Roberts’s investigation. 

Senator SESSIONS. Who asked you to do the supplemental evaluation? 

Ms. BRESNAHAN. Ms. Liebenberg. It was after Bobbi Liebenberg 

became the new chair in August, when the new president of the 

ABA, Karen Mathis, selected her to be the chair. It was only a 1-

year appointment for Mr. Tober. 

Senator SESSIONS. All right. And you did what review? 

Ms. BRESNAHAN. I did a supplemental evaluation. I reviewed Ms. 

Askew’s report, as did Mr. Hopkins, and we interviewed 11 new 

people. I reviewed the Personal Data Questionnaire and went 

through and chose to re-interview a cross-section of people to see 

if their opinions had changed. It was a way of cross-checking Ms. 

Askew’s report and updating the report. 

Then Mr. Hopkins and I interviewed Mr. Wallace last Monday 

morning for 2 hours and raised with him adverse comments which 

had been made to us, giving as much context as possible, consistent 

with preserving the interviewee’s request for confidentiality. 

I think, given Senator Cornyn’s remarks, it is important to note 

that a number of these interviewees had great concerns about their 

remarks and confidentiality. As you know, we think through confidentiality we get a candid assessment of the candidate. Obviously 

this investigation was extraordinarily difficult. 

There were laudatory comments, particularly regarding Mr. Wallace’s integrity and competence. Although there were positive comments about his temperament, there were also serious issues 

120

raised about Mr. Wallace’s temperament in the supplemental evaluation. 

The comments centered around recent concerns in the supplemental evaluation about Mr. Wallace’s inability to listen, his lack 

of courtesy and patience, his freedom from bias, and his open-mindedness. We presented Mr. Wallace with these comments and gave 

him the opportunity to rebut those comments. 

We had an extraordinarily detailed discussion about each component of the temperament criteria. Interviewees expressed that they 

thought Mr. Wallace was a terrific, effective, and zealous advocate, 

but many did not believe that he, because of his personality and 

background, would make a good judge. 

Senator SESSIONS. Many? What can you say about ‘‘many’’ ? 

Would that be 11 people? 

Ms. BRESNAHAN. I can say, while preserving the concerns about 

confidentiality, that lawyers and judges, conservatively speaking, 

40 percent, and another 20 or so percent expressed concern. So the 

concerns were raised in a full spectrum: some said they thought he 

could overcome his bias, some said they were not sure, some said 

they did not think so. 

Senator SESSIONS. All right. 

Ms. BRESNAHAN. I thought you were going to ask me a question. 

I am sorry. It is good that you are not. All right. 

Mr. Hopkins and I joined in Ms. Askew’s and Mr. Hayward’s recommendation to the Standing Committee of ‘‘Not Qualified’’ with 

respect to this nominee. Thank you very much. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Hayward? I would just ask you, briefly, 

you were asked to do the second review by Mr. Tober, were you 

not? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. And when a Committee and the members do 

their reports, do they send them to Mr. Tober? Where are they 

sent? 

Mr. HAYWARD. They are sent to the chair. In my case, it would 

have been sent to Mr. Tober. 

Senator SESSIONS. And Mr. Greco was president of the Bar and 

appointed at least a certain number of the members of the committee. Is that correct? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Yes. Some quick background, Senator. I chaired 

this committee, probably from 2003 to 2005. I served two presidents of the Bar Association. Each had an opportunity to appoint 

approximately a third of the members. 

That was certainly the case in Mr. Greco’s case, and is certainly 

now the case with Ms. Mathis with the appointment of Ms. 

Liebenberg. Usually, the chair serves for 1 year. I was, I guess, 

crazy enough to take it for 2 years. 

Senator SESSIONS. It is a tough job, I have no doubt. 

Mr. HAYWARD. But I think, so you understand the process, when 

we do the report, Ms. Askew does the report, I do a supplemental, 

and it goes to the chair. The chair then releases it to our entire 

Committee for their review. The chair only looks at it to make sure 

that it is complete, in the judgment of the chair, that it has a significant number of interviews of a broad spectrum of individuals 

that know the nominee. 

121

Senator SESSIONS. I am sure you were aware, were you not, that 

Mr. Tober had had a run-in with Mr. Wallace. 

Mr. HAYWARD. I did. Quite frankly, Senator—

Senator SESSIONS. Are you aware that other members of the 

Committee probably were aware that the chair of the Committee 

had had a personal run-in with the nominee, Mr. Wallace? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I said I was aware. If you read the record, you 

are aware. However, I chose to disregard, as a supplemental reviewer. I gave Mr. Wallace the due respect, that he was a trial lawyer and an advocate representing a client. I was looking at it personally from my peer review. I confirmed that Ms. Askew had it 

right in terms of integrity, in terms of professional competency. 

You have heard this today. 

I also confirmed, through my own interviews and reviews, and 

personally interviewing Mr. Wallace myself, that the concern that 

was raised by many lawyers and judges—that not every great advocate can make the transition to be a good judge—was something 

that we had to raise. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I would just share this little bit of personal experience with you. I had some sympathy for the ABA over 

the years as a result of it, but I have understood the difficulties involved. 

Having come before this very Committee for a judgeship, the 

ABA had rated me ‘‘Qualified’’, but there was a very aggressive ideological, political minority that wanted to have me rated ‘‘Unqualified’’. 

So an additional review was done by some senior lawyer from 

Ohio, and they found I was still ‘‘Qualified’’. But in the course of 

the hearings, on the eve of a hearing in this body, it leaked that 

two people from the Department of Justice had said confidentially 

to the ABA that I had blocked a civil rights investigation. 

They asked me about it and I fumbled around. I did not know 

what they were talking about. But I did not answer very clearly 

because I assumed the two lawyers from the Department of Justice 

knew what they were talking about, they must have had something 

in their minds. 

So, they never intended this to become public. They intended and 

expected that the information that they gave would go to the ABA, 

and to the ABA alone. That, I assume, would impact their decision 

about whether or not I was qualified. 

Well, when it blew up, they had to answer. They had a hearing 

to put them under oath and they fumbled around, and confusedly 

tried to answer what case it was. Eventually the next day they 

came forward and said, oh, they made a mistake. It was not U.S. 

Attorney Sessions, it was his predecessor in the office. He was not 

the one. 

Now, that could have been a mistake that they made in confusing me with my predecessor. It would be an opportunity for 

someone with bad motive, however, if you understand what I mean, 

to say something they do not have to be held accountable for in 

hopes that they might impact a decision of the Bar Association 

which can be important in the deliberative process of the U.S. Congress as they go about deciding. 

122

So I just wanted to tell you, you are litigators. You have challenged courts, and you have challenged judges, and you have filed 

to recuse them, and you insist that your client get absolute fairness. You would challenge anyone, I suspect. I hope you do, because you are zealous advocates for your client, as I think Mr. Wallace is. 

But I would just say this: you are entitled to be challenged, too. 

You are not above reproach just because you are from a big law 

firm and have been appointed to the ABA. Just like judges are not 

above reproach, prosecutors are not above reproach and lawyers 

are not above reproach. So I am coming at this from that perspective. I just wanted to share with you those thoughts. 

Let me ask you this. Has Mr. Wallace ever been found guilty of 

contempt? Has he been subject to discipline for misconduct in 

court, anything of that kind? 

Ms. ASKEW. Because I interviewed the lawyers and judges who 

raised some of the comments regarding the over-zealous representations on some points, I specifically asked that question. I asked 

about Rule 11 in Federal court. I cannot remember the number of 

the comparable Mississippi State court. 

I can remember saying, there are rules that take care of this. 

What these lawyers and judges came back to was, again, it was an 

issue of temperament. We, as lawyers, come to conclusions about 

our advocates based on how they interact in the court. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I know that. But that is very subjective 

here. 

Let me just tell you what I am getting around to, to get perspective. So I would say to you that I think the ABA process can be 

valuable. I think it gives us insight into the nominees and can be 

valuable, and should be evaluated by this body. 

But I am troubled about this nominee. I mean, this is a sterling 

nominee. Ms. Askew, you said, ‘‘Mr. Wallace possesses the integrity 

to serve on the bench. His integrity was described by many as ‘impeccable,’ ‘outstanding’, ‘the highest’, ‘absolute’, and ‘solid’ ’’. 

Mr. Hayward, you said, ‘‘Mr. Wallace possesses the integrity to 

serve on the bench. He has the highest professional competence as 

a highly skilled and experienced trial and appellate lawyer.’’ I 

would say he has argued cases at the Supreme Court level. He has 

clerked for the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He was 

at the Law Review at the University of Virginia. He is really one 

of the top lawyers in the State, obviously. Now we have this thing 

about temperament, which is vague. 

Now, Justice Reuben Anderson, a pioneering civil rights attorney, the first African-American State Supreme Court Justice in 

Mississippi and current law partner of Mr. Wallace, stated, in 

nominating Mr. Wallace to the Fifth Circuit, ‘‘The President could 

not have picked a finer person or better lawyer.’’ Justice Anderson 

said, ‘‘In both legal skill and character, Mr. Wallace is exactly the 

kind of person any one of us would want judging our cases.’’ Did 

you all dismiss that? Did that not have any impact? 

Ms. BRESNAHAN. Well, of course it has impact. I mean, what we 

are talking about is to have the ability to get a candid assessment 

and balance the credibility of the person you are speaking to. I 

123

mean, throughout these investigations some people you give greater weight than others. Some people have more contact with others. 

When you do 120-some odd interviews, you have the full range 

of lawyers and judges. We believed that there were serious enough 

concerns, and detailed concerns, some of which you could not disclose precisely what the case was because you would reveal who 

the lawyer or the judge was. 

Senator SESSIONS. Let me ask you this. Ms. Askew, we have seen 

the redistricting cases and they are very, very intense. 

Ms. ASKEW. They are very intense. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Texas is still recovering from their battle. 

Ms. ASKEW. We are in the middle of one. 

Senator SESSIONS. People make claims about the other side that 

are not justified, on both sides, probably. But it seems to me that 

his aggressive representation of a client that might be unpopular 

with this panel, but not unpopular with me, or the Republican 

Party—it is dubious that that turns out to be the pivotal case, it 

seems, and that litigation turns out to be decisive here. If lawyers 

on the other side were not happy and became intense over the 

years, perhaps their objectivity is not that trustworthy. 

Ms. ASKEW. Just so it is clear, Mr. Sessions, these comments did 

not just come from the lawyers who were involved in the civil 

rights litigation or the Voting Rights Act cases. These comments 

came from lawyers who had been involved in litigation of various 

types with Mr. Wallace. I talked with lawyers who had been involved in personal injury, product liability, commercial cases. 

What they were getting to here, we keep talking about Mr. Wallace’s professional competence, his brilliance, his integrity. I was 

very taken by the fact that the people that I talked with talked 

about the fairness of a judge. When we talk about the Federal 

courts, brilliant lawyers do not always make fair judges. That was 

the point that I think this temperament issues were trying to raise. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I notice you indicated that about a third 

of the people made negative comments. 

Ms. ASKEW. That is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. So presumably about two-thirds did not. 

Ms. ASKEW. Some did, some did not. 

Senator SESSIONS. About two-thirds apparently did not or you 

would have said there were more. Mr. Swasey, immediate past 

president of the Mississippi Bar, stated, ‘‘I believe, as do my fellow 

former Bar presidents, that Mike possesses a demonstrated judicial 

temperament and will judge fairly without favor the matters that 

come before him.’’ 

He goes on to say Mike Wallace ‘‘is exceedingly well qualified by 

training, talent, experience to occupy a seat on this important appellate court.’’ 

Alec Austin, former president of the Mississippi Bar and Fellow 

of the American College of Trial Lawyers, plaintiff lawyers, stated, 

‘‘I have found Mike to be extraordinarily professional and civil in 

all proceedings. 

He is an exemplary lawyer and an American citizen who has involved himself deeply in the issues of his day.’’ Mr. Austin also said 

Mr. Wallace ‘‘has earned the highest reputation among his peers 

for legal ability and integrity.’’ 

124

Mr. Hopkins, you have not had a chance to speak. Would that 

give you any pause if the Trial Lawyers Association and the president of the Bar support him? 

Mr. HOPKINS. Senator, thank you for the opportunity to say a 

word. Let me say just at the outset that I join in the comments 

that you have heard from Kim Askew and Pam Bresnahan. 

Senator SESSIONS. Do you know either of those two guys, Mr. 

Swasey or Mr. Austin? 

Mr. HOPKINS. Pardon me? 

Senator SESSIONS. Do you know Mr. Swasey, the Bar president, 

and Mr. Austin, the Bar president? Do you know those persons personally? 

Mr. HOPKINS. I do not know them personally. Senator, just let 

me say, if I may, that I join in the comments that you have heard 

from my colleagues here. It is no question that Michael Wallace is 

a well-qualified lawyer, and particularly well-qualified trial lawyer 

and appellate lawyer. He belongs to some organizations I belong to. 

And by the way, Mr. Sessions, I belong to a 12-man firm in a 

small Idaho community which is perhaps not typical of the ABA, 

or necessarily of this panel. I have represented, as well, the Republican Party in that State. 

So there is a cross-section of those of us who are here on behalf 

of our professional association to share with this committee, in all 

of our greatest professional integrity, the opinion of those people 

with whom we have talked who are sworn to those same principles 

that you, Senator, and we, are sworn to uphold. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Hopkins, let me ask you, in the course of 

intense litigation, I have seen lawyers throw books. I have seen 

them do a lot of dramatic things. 

When you have a person with no record of discipline, no record 

of complaints for unprofessionalism and he has all these accolades 

for the core abilities that I think you would want in a judge, I 

mean, it is hard for me to see how you can say a person has so 

much integrity if you do not think they are compassionate and just. 

Did you know that he had been four times to Honduras, in partnership with an African-American church, to serve the poor? 

Mr. HOPKINS. I was impressed with that, I must say. 

Senator SESSIONS. Did you know his children, in Mississippi, attended integrated schools? That is not always done in Mississippi, 

trust me. A lot of people with money do not do that. 

Mr. HOPKINS. We would be impressed with that. But, Senator, 

that is not what we were asked to investigate here. We were asked 

to inquire of his peers, in the State of Mississippi and in instances 

where he has been in litigation with persons outside Mississippi, 

what about his qualifications to be a judge. 

There is no doubt about his qualification as a fine lawyer. All 

those things, all those accolades you make reference to are to his 

abilities as a fine trial and appellate lawyer. There is no question 

about that. 

The question is whether he can make that transition, as Mr. 

Hayward said to you, from being an outstanding trial lawyer to 

being a good, open-minded judge. That is where the question of his 

peers—

125

Senator SESSIONS. And that is your evaluation. We will have to, 

I guess, evaluate whether or not the long-time head-knocking between the ABA leadership and Mr. Wallace over the Legal Services 

Corporation may have infected your evaluation. 

Mr. HOPKINS. We hope it did not. It surely did not affect mine. 

Senator SESSIONS. With regard to other comments, Mr. Scott 

Welch, one of eight former presidents of the Bar Association, said 

about him that the group that wrote shared no political party, judicial philosophy, or religious affiliation. 

He writes, ‘‘My personal and professional experience with Mike 

Wallace convinces me, and I believe my fellow former Bar presidents, that Mike possesses demonstrated judicial temperament and 

that he would judge fairly and without favor the matters that come 

before him.’’ 

We do not have a real fair trial here. This is not a legitimate 

forum in the tradition of which each of you are used to operating. 

So I will give you all a chance briefly, then I would like to ask 

about Judge Bryant. We need to talk about that. I know the Wallace matter is most heated, but her nomination to a district judgeship is also important. 

So would any of you like to respond to some of my comments? 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. If I could, Senator Sessions. I would like to just 

emphasize again that the linchpin of our process is confidentiality. 

There have been some remarks about anonymous quotations. I 

think, again, it is important to understand that when we ask someone their candid assessment of a nominee, we ask them whether 

their name can be disclosed in our report, which is only distributed 

to members of the committee. If individuals say that they will not 

let us use their name, we do not consider their comments and they 

are not included in our report. 

And while confidentiality is the linchpin of our evaluation process, we are very, very responsible in terms of making sure that we 

are fair to the nominee with respect to adverse comments. That is 

why we provide as much specificity and content as possible without 

compromising that confidentiality. 

And with respect to the supplemental evaluation, we had one 

interviewee who did allow us to disclose his identity and his comments, and those were discussed with Mr. Wallace. 

But in general, quite simply, people would not provide us with 

the candid and sensitive assessments that they give us if they 

knew that those comments would be disclosed and they would then 

have to later appear before the nominee, if he or she was confirmed, or have to serve with them on the bench. 

Senator SESSIONS. Were there any specific instances cited in 

court that can be verified by somebody or court record where Mr. 

Wallace misbehaved? I am sure somebody could find one in my 

record. Mr. Olson back there. I know he never said anything in 

court that would cause a disturbance. But give me an example of 

something in court that can be verified. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. Well, I think with respect to judicial temperament, that how one conducts themselves in a meeting, in a deposition, or in court may not necessarily be found in the hard pages 

of a transcript. But if someone is arrogant, abrupt, or dismissive, 

that may leave an impression on the persons that interacted. 

126

The concerns with respect to judicial temperament, as has been 

said by my colleagues, were pervasive. They were not isolated in 

a particular point of time. They were not isolated. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you said ‘‘pervasive’’. She said less than 

about a third had some negative comments, so it did not appear 

that ‘‘pervasive’’ is the right word. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. Well, I think the types of comments that we 

have received, from 1992 through 2006, have been similar with respect to issues and concerns about Mr. Wallace’s temperament. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I will just say this. I have not been cited 

any deposition actions that would indicate impropriety. I have not 

been cited any action in the intensity of a courtroom that has 

shown that. 

I have not even been cited any specific examples in private behavior—just a concern that is awfully vague, it seems to me, not 

attached to any specific acts. And I suspect if you looked at those 

lawyers you might find that there were differences in some of these 

high-profile cases. 

So, I am not sure Mr. Wallace got a fair shake. But your opinion 

is received. It will be evaluated, and we will not treat it lightly. I 

think we probably lost some of our witnesses in the next panel who 

have airplanes to catch. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. Mr. Chairman, can we be excused if we are not 

involved? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. Each of you are excused, if you would 

like. You are free to stay if you would like. 

Let us do this next panel, if any of them are still here. 

Ms. LIEBENBERG. Thank you very much for your time. 

Senator SESSIONS. Oh. Would any of you like to comment on 

Judge Bryant and her nomination and the report? 

STATEMENT OF DOREEN D. DODSON, FORMER EIGHTH CIRCUIT REPRESENTATIVE, 2001–2004, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION’ STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, 

ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 

Ms. DODSON. Yes, Senator. Thank you very much. My name is 

Doreen Dodson. I have practiced law in St. Louis, Missouri for over 

30 years, and I was the committee’s Eighth Circuit representative 

from August 2001 to August 2004. 

During that time I conducted investigations in the Eighth and 

other Circuits, and participated in the evaluation of approximately 

230 nominees to the Federal courts. 

Our Committee has concluded that Judge Bryant is ‘‘Not Qualified’’ for appointment to the court. This conclusion was reached 

after a careful review of the written submissions of Judge Bryant, 

my personal interview with her, and confidential interviews of 65 

judges and lawyers in Connecticut. 

I solicited information from diverse members of the legal community, including, for example, lawyers in private and government 

service, Legal Service lawyers, public defenders, prosecutors, and 

representatives of professional organizations. I also made a particular effort to locate those who had trials or other significant 

interaction with her in her legal capacity. 

127

In addition, I spent approximately two and a half hours with 

Judge Bryant and, during the course of that meeting, I do want 

you to know that I raised all the concerns that had been identified 

during my investigation, and Judge Bryant was given a full opportunity to rebut or provide context for these concerns, and to provide 

any additional information she wished to offer. I wanted to make 

that point, especially because she noted that she did not know of 

the reasons, and was told ‘‘until her hearing’’. 

Most of those interviewed expressed concerns about the nominee’s professional competence. According to the background, professional competence encompasses such qualities as intellectual capacity, judgment, writing, and analytical ability, knowledge of the law, 

and breadth of professional experience. 

Judge Bryant was appointed to the Connecticut Superior Court 

in September, 1998. Prior to her appointment, her career was principally that of a bond attorney. 

Her only experience in a courtroom consisted of handling three 

paternity cases as an associate, second-chairing as local counsel at 

a Boston firm in a contract case, and serving as the Chapter 13 

trustee for two years. Substantial courtroom and trial experience is 

particularly important for nominees to the District Court, a trial 

court. 

The Backgrounder states that the lack of experience can be compensated for by the presence of other experience similar to trial 

work, and in Judge Bryant’s case that other experience arguably 

would have been her 8 years spent on the State trial bench. However, during those years she spent them principally in an administrative capacity. 

In those roles, Judge Bryant chiefly has heard and ruled upon 

preliminary motions, held sentencings, presided over a drug court, 

and handled scheduling matters. She has had little opportunity to 

preside over jury trials. In the PDQ that she completed, she noted, 

for example, that she had no significant litigation experience. 

Many of those interviews commented that most of the cases she 

did handle were relatively simple cases, requiring little skill, that 

she did little research, seemed overwhelmed by complex issues, and 

that her opinions were confusing or poorly done. 

Judge Bryant provided us with 10 opinions. She has not had an 

opportunity to write a large volume of opinions and she has not 

done other legal writing. In general, most of the submitted opinions 

demonstrate adequate to good legal analysis in writing in very 

standard cases. 

However, one of the 10 opinions which did involve complex issues 

was very confusing. Another was written by the nominee only after 

she was ordered to do so by the appellate court, and then after a 

subsequent Motion to Compel was filed by one of the parties. 

Federal judges today face massive criminal dockets and Judge 

Bryant has little experience in criminal matters. Federal judges 

also face complicated and challenging legal and factual issues. A 

district court judge must make decisions in the courtroom during 

trial that require a solid grounding in substantive and procedural 

law and experience with juries. 

As reported by the interviewees, the nominee, even after 8 years 

on the court, has little experience to prepare her for this task due 

128

to her assignments as a presiding or administrative judge whose 

principal role has been to move cases. In addition, a majority of 

those interviewed raised concerns about her judicial temperament. 

Most interviewees reported they found Judge Bryant formal, but 

pleasant and cordial outside the courtroom. But when engaged in 

court business, they said she was rigid, unbending, and unreasonable in her adherence to scheduling and other trial issues, was impatient with lawyers, and was sometimes rude and inconsiderate to 

lawyers and litigants. 

I understand and took into account that trial lawyers like to control their docket and may not be fond of a judge who does not grant 

continuances. But our Committee could not discount the number of 

temperament complaints, ranging from arrogance, to rushing to 

judgment, and being intractable in some instances, or being unable 

to make up her mind in others. 

It was particularly significant to the Committee that the temperament concerns were expressed about her consistently from her 

early days on the bench up until the present day. 

A substantial majority of our committee, after reviewing my report on the nominee, and based upon the number of complaints, 

both of which are consistent through her years on the bench, found 

the nominee ‘‘Not Qualified’’. 

Thank you, Senator, for inviting us to share our views with you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dodson appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Ms. Dodson. I think 

those are valuable insights and I think it is a helpful role. I know 

it is not pleasant to have to reach that decision, but I assume you 

try to do that in an objective way. Some disagree. Obviously the 

Senators from the State disagree, and the President disagreed. But 

we value that report and I have no doubt that you did your best 

to be fair in that evaluation. 

Ms. DODSON. Thank you. We did, Senator, try to do our very best 

to give a fair and impartial—— 

Senator SESSIONS. I am biased in favor of litigators, myself. If 

somebody has been in the courtroom and has not been placed in 

jail for contempt or something and they have won the respect of 

their colleagues, and they are a man of integrity, I think that is 

an asset. If you lack that, I think there is less ability to know. 

Thank you so much. 

I would call the next panel. Mr. McDuff had to go catch a flight. 

We will make his testimony a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDuff appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SESSIONS. If we could get started. Well, this is a good 

panel. It is good to see my former colleague, Mr. Blumenthal, as 

Attorney General. You are still Attorney General. 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I am still Attorney General, Senator. Thank 

you. 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. If you would stand, we will administer 

the oath for each of you. 

[Whereupon, the witnesses were duly sworn.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Please be seated. 

129

So we had an interesting panel. I apologize for having to put you 

through that. But it is a matter that continues to bubble up on 

these evaluations. Most of the time I think things go well. On this 

one, we have had some conflict. 

Mr. Blumenthal, I know you have to leave right away. If the others do not mind, I would be pleased to have you speak first. You 

serve as the Attorney General. You are an Honors graduate from 

Harvard, Phi Beta Kappa. You got your law degree from Yale. You 

clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun. 

I did not know all of this stuff about you. I am not surprised, but 

I did not know it. You are volunteer counsel for the NAACP Legal 

Defense Fund, and were elected in 1990 as Attorney General for 

Connecticut. We would be glad to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much, Senator. I am honored 

to be with one of my former colleagues—in fact, two of my former 

colleagues, because the Senator from Texas also was one of our 

brethren. 

I am honored to be before this Committee again, truly honored, 

as I always am, to be before the Judiciary Committee. I want to 

thank you and your staff for being so accommodating. I do apologize that I will be leaving, with the Chair’s permission, when I finish my remarks. I thank my colleagues today for their indulgence 

as well. 

Let me just say, I have found that this session has been enormously illuminating and enlightening, because I think that your 

questioning and the questioning that has occurred has really elicited some very insightful information, some very profoundly important information about the process and about the need for some 

checks and balances on the ABA rating system. In my testimony—

and I hope the Committee may accept my testimony in full and 

make it part of the record. 

Senator SESSIONS. We will make it a part of the record. 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blumenthal appears as a submission for the record.] 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I make reference to the fallacies of using 

anonymous, unidentified, unnamed sources, the lack of accountability, the lack of transparency in that process. It applies with 

special force to Judge Bryant. 

Let me just say, among those academic qualifications that you 

mentioned, I am most proud of having tried cases for 30 years as 

U.S. Attorney. As State Attorney General, I still try and argue 

cases. I have appeared before Judge Bryant, as have my staff, frequently, constantly, continuously. 

Senator SESSIONS. You have personally appeared before her? 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I have, indeed. I have, indeed. 

So I am speaking here from personal experience, as well as the 

experience of my staff in saying that she is eminently qualified. 

She has superb qualifications of intellect and integrity and temperament. 

130

Let me be very blunt. As Senator Lieberman told this Committee, she reduced the backlog in her court, one of the busiest in 

the State, by 25 percent. No judge accomplishes that task without 

setting deadlines, disciplining lawyers when they fail to meet those 

deadlines, insisting on timely briefs and preparation, being strongminded and strong-willed, and imposing the kind of high standards 

that we all would expect of a State court judge and a Federal court 

judge. 

I must disagree strongly, although I have great respect for the 

previous panel and for the work they do, and the immense amount 

of time and dedication that they haven given to this process. I disagree strongly that she lacks the experience. 

In fact, on the contrary, she has precisely the experience that we 

would seek in a district court judge, which is to move cases with 

intellect, insight, faith to legal principle and to the interests of the 

litigants. 

I say in my testimony at greater length why I feel she has many 

of the qualities that you and I—and I have deep respect for your 

own experience in the trenches, so to speak—would hope to have 

in a judge trying our case, which is not only scholarship, but also 

common sense, good humor, balance, patience, and a sense of what 

is important in life. 

So I think she conducts herself, on and off the bench, with grace, 

dignity, and a sense of both compassion and conviction that are 

among the highest standards that this Committee would expect. 

I thank you very much, Senator, for giving me this opportunity 

to be before you, and for your own dedication in spending the long 

hours you did today on this committee. Thank you. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. I did not exactly think I would be 

the only one here at this hour. 

[Laughter.] 

But it has been an important hearing. I know Senator Specter 

just could not stay. I think it was important to go forward. 

Thank you for your insight. You are so well-respected among 

your colleagues. The fact that you and your assistants appear before her on a regular basis and that you have that opinion, I think, 

is very valuable to the committee, I really do. If you have to leave, 

we certainly understand and we thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. I hope to be 

back. Thank you. 

Senator SESSIONS. Let me see. We will try to go in the order that 

I believe was on the list here. 

Justice Anderson presided over cases where Mr. Wallace litigated, sat as opposing counsel in other cases, and now has worked 

alongside him in a law firm for over a decade. 

You received your undergraduate degree at Tugaloo College in 

1964, your law degree from the Mississippi School of Law. 

Justice ANDERSON. No, Ole Miss. 

Senator SESSIONS. It is Ole Miss? 

Justice ANDERSON. University of Mississippi. 

Senator SESSIONS. All right. You were an advocate counsel for 

the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund from 1967 to 1975, 

and you began your judicial career in 1976. You were the first African-American to serve on the Mississippi Supreme Court. 

131

After leaving the bench, you accepted a position at Phelps Dunbar. You are past Chairman of the Rhodes Scholarship Selection 

Committee, a member of the 100 Black Men of Jackson, the American Bar Association, and a former president of the Mississippi Bar 

Association. 

So we would be delighted to hear from you at this time. 

STATEMENT OF REUBEN ANDERSON, PARTNER, PHELPS 

DUNBAR LLP, JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 

Justice ANDERSON. You have got three lawyers here from Mississippi who have got an 8:00 flight, so I will not consume a whole 

lot of time here, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SESSIONS. You do not have much. 

Justice ANDERSON. Let me say that I have sat here most of the 

afternoon and heard all of the testimony, and the conclusion of the 

ABA is that Mike Wallace is a brilliant lawyer, he is talented, he 

has much integrity, but they raise some questions about his judicial temperament. 

The case that they talked about, the Claiborne County case, I 

was on the Mississippi Supreme Court when that case was argued. 

That was the first time I was ever exposed to Mr. Wallace. He is 

a brilliant and talented lawyer. That was one of the reasons I 

joined the Phelps Dunbar law firm, is because he was there. Instead of going to the library, I could go to him. 

Senator SESSIONS. It is always good to have that kind of lawyer 

in the firm. 

Justice ANDERSON. Yes. With that aside, I have observed him in 

every capacity since I have been with Phelps Dunbar for 15 years. 

I have tried cases with him. I have visited in his home, he has visited in mine. I know his family well. 

There is no aspect of him that I have any problems with. Issues 

of bias and prejudice, that is not a part of Mike Wallace. Being concerned about the poor, he is. He is an honorable man. He will make 

an excellent judge. I can say this without any reservations. 

I say that because I have spent the time with him. Very few 

weeks go by that he and I are not in contact with each other. We 

work on many cases, and over the years we have probably worked 

on 30 or 40 cases together. 

I have spent as long as 6 weeks in the courtroom with him. I can 

say that I recommend him. I do not agree with a whole lot that our 

President does, but this is one smart thing that he has done, and 

that is recommending Mike Wallace to the Fifth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Justice Anderson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much. I know those are valuable comments and perspective that you bring. 

If you need to go, I will ask this one question. You were in Mississippi during the transition. It was driven by the Voting Rights 

Act and the civil rights movement. We have a new South today. It 

is not perfect, but it is in many ways, I guess remarkable. 

132

But do you feel like Mr. Wallace in any way has opposed the fundamental racial progress that has been made, in your observation 

of his law practice and his association with you? 

Justice ANDERSON. I joined Phelps Dunbar in 1991, and I was 

the first African-American lawyer there. We have more AfricanAmerican lawyers at that law firm than any law firm in Mississippi. In fact, we have more African-Americans in our law firm 

proportionately than any law firm, that is, our regional law firm. 

Mike has mentored our African-American lawyers. He has taken 

an interest in it. He knows how important it is to our law firm and 

to the State. There has been no occasion that anybody in our office 

has ever expressed any reservations with regards to race. 

Senator SESSIONS. Justice Anderson, can you understand that 

maybe some lawyers who litigated against him in important civil 

rights cases, that they might have a misimpression of him because 

he aggressively advocated the Republican Party views in some of 

those cases? 

Justice ANDERSON. Senator, if you saw him today, you can see he 

is abrasive, he is aggressive, but he never talks out of both sides 

of his mouth. You know where he stands at all times. That is the 

kind of individual that makes a good judge, you know where they 

stand. He would not be adverse to any segment of this society. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Welch. W. Scott Welch, III got his B.A. from the University 

of the South, with Honors, and his J.D. from the University of Mississippi, with distinction. He served as Assistant Staff Judge Advocate in the Air Force, and moved home to Jackson in 1967. 

You have practiced law for 40 years. You are a partner and a 

shareholder with the firm of Baker, Donaldson, Bearman, Caldwell 

& Berkowitz. You concentrate in civil litigation. 

You are the past president of the Mississippi Bar, president of 

the American Board of Trial Advocates, and former Mississippi delegate to the American Bar Association House of Delegates from 

2001 until this year, and you currently serve on the ABA’s Board 

of Governors. 

Mr. Welch, we are glad to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF W. SCOTT WELCH, III, SHAREHOLDER, BAKER, 

DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, JACKSON, 

MISSISSIPPI 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the opportunity to 

be here. I will likely be even more brief than Justice Anderson. 

You have my testimony, which I understand will be part of the 

record. I would like to say just about three things, very briefly, 

which may not be highlighted in my written testimony. 

One, is a remark was made that there needs to be some checks 

and balances on this problem of anonymity in the ABA process and 

the opportunity of the nominee to refute that. I submit to you that 

the check and balance exists, it has just been ignored in this instance by the ABA. 

The Backgrounder that has been referred to by the members of 

the Committee who have testified here today and in their written 

testimony specifically says, ‘‘If the nominee does not have the opportunity to rebut certain adverse comments because they cannot 

133

be disclosed without breaching confidentiality, the investigator will 

not use those comments in writing the formal report and the Committee will not consider them in its evaluation.’’ 

That is diametrically opposed to what has been done in this case. 

They have not revealed the comments because they properly could 

not breach confidentiality, but they have ignored the part of the 

Backgrounder that says the investigator will not use those comments and the Committee will not rely on them. That is all that 

is before this Committee this afternoon. 

The man has the task of trying to refute other people’s opinions 

about him. Confidentiality does not play a role in that aspect of 

this process. Confidentiality is for when I tell the investigator, you 

may not know it anyplace else, but Mr. Wallace had a conviction 

for this, that, or the other. 

You may not be able to find it anywhere else, but Mr. Wallace’s 

grades at Harvard University were not obtained in a proper manner, he cheated on exams. Those are things that can be verified, 

as you have alluded to earlier. 

The process that the ABA has had the checks and balances in 

it. They simply ignored it in this instance. I would urge this Committee that it not ignore it. I would urge this Committee that it not 

ignore the role of Mr. Tober in the Committee process. You have 

been asked about that, and it is mentioned in my testimony in a 

parenthetical reference where I am not comfortable leaving it. 

Mr. Tober’s role in the Committee process—not their deliberations, not voting on their recommendation to the committee—is 

that he served as chair of the Appointments Committee for the 

ABA president, then Michael Greco, in determining who would be 

appointed to the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. 

Mississippi asked for a seat on that Committee from the Fifth 

Circuit that we have not had for 34 years, and for some reason we 

were not given that seat this time even though it was time. 

Senator SESSIONS. Wait a minute. Just to follow that up. 

Mr. WELCH. I made application to be appointed to that Committee because, among other things, the State of Mississippi has 

not had the Fifth Circuit designated seat on that Committee since 

1974, and we thought it was time. 

Senator SESSIONS. So Mr. Tober, who has had a fairly aggressive 

run-in with Mr. Wallace years ago over the Legal Services Corporation, he is the person that made the recommendation to the President about who would serve on the committee. 

Mr. WELCH. He was the chair of a Committee that made recommendations and reviewed all of the applications by members of 

the ABA to be appointed. 

Now, I was not there. I do not know what was discussed. I am 

a supporter of ABA. I am proud to be a member of the ABA. I am 

proud of the role I have in the leadership of the ABA. I am proud 

to take the debate to the floor of the ABA on occasion. Generally 

I lose, but I am proud to take it there, nonetheless. 

The final thing I would say, is I was interviewed by Mr. Hopkins 

and Mr. Hayward. I was asked by Mr. Hopkins, would you have 

any reluctance in representing a minority or a poor person in a 

hearing before the nominee? Would you be concerned you could not 

get a fair hearing? 

134

My answer to Mr. Hopkins, which I did not ask for any confidentiality on and I am happy to share, is that I have enough confidence in Mike Wallace’s abilities to be a judge of the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit, my circuit, that I would represent Mr. 

Tober and Mr. Greco in a hearing before Mike Wallace and I would 

have every confidence that I would get a fair hearing, they would 

get a fair hearing, and they would have a case that would be decided in accordance with the law. That is all. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Welch appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Welch. 

Is it Judge Rhodes? 

Mr. RHODES. Just Carroll. 

Senator SESSIONS. You need to take that sign home that says 

‘‘judge’’ on it. You surely may. Thank you very much. Sorry to keep 

you so late. 

You got your undergraduate degree from Milsaps College, a fine 

school, and a J.D. from the University of Mississippi School of Law. 

You served in the Air Force and began practicing law with Central 

Mississippi Legal Services in Hazlehurst. You left Mississippi Legal 

Services in 1979 and established a solo practice. 

You have served as a municipal court judge for Hazlehurst. Then 

from 1993 to 1994, you were a partner with Priester, Priester & 

Rhodes. In your current position, you practice civil and criminal 

law, with an emphasis on civil rights and personal injury law. 

Mr. Rhodes, we are delighted to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF CARROLL RHODES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 

HAZLEHURST, MISSISSIPPI 

Mr. RHODES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have to catch a 

plane. I have submitted written testimony. May I ask that the 

written testimony be made a part of the record? 

Senator SESSIONS. We will make that a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rhodes appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Mr. RHODES. Also, Mr. Rob McDuff, who was supposed to be here 

as well, he had to catch a plane. He had submitted written testimony. 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. And we will make his part of the record. 

Mr. RHODES. Thank you. He had asked me if I would ask you to 

make it a part of the record. 

I testify today on behalf of two organizations, primarily, the Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP and the Magnolia Bar Association. The Magnolia Bar Association is an association of primarily African-American lawyers in the State of Mississippi. Both 

the Mississippi Conference of the NAACP and the Magnolia Bar 

are opposed to Mr. Wallace’s nomination. 

As a threshold matter, they are opposed to the nomination because of diversity. There are 14 active and senior District Court 

judges in Mississippi. Of that 14, only one is black. There are two 

appellate court judges from the State of Mississippi to the Fifth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, neither one black. 

President Bush has submitted eight nominations for the Federal 

bench in Mississippi, not one has been black. But Mississippi has 

135

a black population, higher than any other State in the Nation, 36.5 

percent. One of the reasons we oppose Mr. Wallace’s nomination is 

because of a lack of diversity on the Federal bench. 

Mr. Wallace’s record is well known to the NAACP and to the 

Magnolia Bar Association. In 1983, the NAACP opposed Mr. Wallace’s nomination to the board of Legal Services Corporation, and 

they cited his opposition to the Voting Rights Act and his support 

of tax-exemption for racially discriminatory schools. 

Mr. Wallace’s actions while serving on the Legal Services board 

warrant the Senate’s serious review of his nomination to this Federal bench. The primary reason is that we believe that Mr. Wallace 

is insensitive to poor Americans. I am not talking about 

Hondurans, but we are talking about poor people in America, primarily, within the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Mr. Wallace advocated principles and practices directly contrary 

to the goals of the programs he was appointed to oversee while he 

was chair of the board. He had advocated that the board was unconstitutional and reduced the budgets of the board. 

He advocated that Legal Services should not represent people in 

certain types of cases—fee-generating cases, supposedly—cases like 

voting rights cases and other civil rights cases. 

However, once the Legal Services Corporation stopped representing people in so-called fee-generating cases, then poor people 

in Mississippi were left without lawyers. For black and white residents in Mississippi, many poor families paid usurious interest 

rates on consumer loans for household furniture until Legal Services lawyers successfully challenged the practice and forced creditors to comply with the Truth in Lending Act. 

Black voters in small towns like Woodville, Centerville, and 

Wickerson County, Mississippi were unable to elect black representatives of their choice to city government and to county government until the Legal Services Corporation, Southwest Mississippi Legal Services, and blacks in North Mississippi, in Oxford, 

Greenwood, and other areas in the Mississippi North and Delta, 

were unable to elect blacks to governmental positions there until 

the North Mississippi Rural Legal Services stepped in and represented black plaintiffs, along with the NAACP, the Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund, and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil 

Rights Under Law, and lawyers in private practice such as Rob 

McDuff, Ellis Turnich, Debra MacDonald, Wilber Cologne, Victor 

Mateer, and myself. 

So Legal Services did play an important role in providing representation to poor people in Mississippi on a variety of cases until 

Mr. Wallace’s policies were implemented, cutting back the role that 

Legal Service would play. Because of his role, poor people did suffer. There was a void there. There were no lawyers who stepped 

up to fill the void. 

There were a few lawyers who tried to do what we could, but our 

resources were limited. Once the Legal Services program stopped 

representing people in a lot of these areas, then many poor people 

were left without representation. 

As far as the remainder of my testimony, since I have to catch 

a flight, I would rely on the remainder of the written testimony 

that I have submitted. 

136

I would add that I have known Mr. Wallace for 20 years. He has 

been pleasant and cordial to me in the times I have encountered 

him, both in court and outside of court. But I also know that he 

has advocated positions that went beyond the bounds of zealous advocacy and zealous representation of clients. 

I would be uncomfortable if Mr. Wallace was on the bench and 

having certain types of cases being decided by him. I have been involved in voting rights cases where Mr. Wallace has advocated that 

courts do not need to draw black majority districts for interim elections, instead, just draw square districts. 

Start at the top of Mississippi and draw square districts all the 

way down the State and do not give any consideration to whether 

the district is majority black or majority white. 

In doing that, you are talking about possibly turning the clock 

back to a time in Mississippi that we do not really want to go back 

to. Mr. Wallace has advocated at-large methods of elections and 

court, after court, after court has struck down those as being racially discriminatory in Mississippi. 

I would just feel uncomfortable, on certain types of voting rights 

cases, of taking those in front of Mr. Wallace because I think his 

personal views would interfere more so than his advocacy as an attorney. 

Thank you. If you have any questions, I will try to answer them. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I will not keep you. The Voting Rights 

Act was an event that I think empowered African-Americans in the 

South. I do not deny that. But it does remain a fact today that a 

county that has no history of discrimination still has to get approval from the Department of Justice to move a voting place from 

the schoolhouse across the street. So, there are a lot of things that 

people have expressed concerns about. 

The at-large districts and those issues have been litigated hard. 

I think the law is settling pretty clearly now, but I think you would 

agree that a number of African-Americans are concerned about 

super-minority districts, whether they might be better off having 

votes in two or three districts instead of putting all those in one. 

So there are a lot of discussions about exactly what the right 

thing to do is in creating a colorblind society that I think we all 

favor. So we thank you for your comments. We thank you for coming up here. I hope you do not miss your flight. 

We will keep this record open for 1 week for any further information that people would like to submit. If there is nothing else to 

come before us, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 7:22 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

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

137


39984.070
138


39984.071
139


39984.072
140


39984.073
141


39984.074
142


39984.075
143


39984.076
144


39984.077
145


39984.078
146


39984.079
147


39984.080
148


39984.081
149


39984.082
150


39984.083
151


39984.084
152


39984.085
153


39984.086
154


39984.087
155


39984.088
156


39984.089
157


39984.090
158


39984.091
159


39984.092
160


39984.093
161


39984.094
162


39984.095
163


39984.096
164


39984.097
165


39984.098
166


39984.099
167


39984.100
168


39984.101
169


39984.102
170


39984.103
171


39984.104
172


39984.105
173


39984.106
174


39984.107
175


39984.108
176


39984.109
177


39984.110
178


39984.111
179


39984.112
180


39984.113
181


39984.114
182


39984.115
183


39984.116
184


39984.117
185


39984.118
186


39984.119
187


39984.120
188


39984.121
189


39984.122
190


39984.123
191


39984.124
192


39984.125
193


39984.126
194


39984.127
195


39984.128
196


39984.129
197


39984.130
198


39984.131
199


39984.132
200


39984.133
201


39984.134
202


39984.135
203


39984.136
204


39984.137
205


39984.138
206


39984.139
207


39984.140
208


39984.141
209


39984.142
210


39984.143
211


39984.144
212


39984.145
213


39984.146
214


39984.147
215


39984.148
216


39984.149
217


39984.150
218


39984.151
219


39984.152
220


39984.153
221


39984.154
222


39984.155
223


39984.156
224


39984.157
225


39984.158
226


39984.159
227


39984.160
228


39984.161
229


39984.162
230


39984.163
231


39984.164
232


39984.165
233


39984.166
234


39984.167
235


39984.168
236


39984.169
237


39984.170
238


39984.171
239


39984.172
240


39984.299
241


39984.300
242


39984.173
243


39984.174
244


39984.175
245


39984.176
246


39984.177
247


39984.178
248


39984.179
249


39984.180
250


39984.181
251


39984.182
252


39984.183
253


39984.184
254


39984.185
255


39984.186
256


39984.187
257


39984.188
258


39984.189
259


39984.190
260


39984.191
261


39984.192
262


39984.193
263


39984.194
264


39984.195
265


39984.196
266


39984.197
267


39984.198
268


39984.199
269


39984.200
270


39984.201
271


39984.202
272


39984.203
273


39984.204
274


39984.205
275


39984.206
276


39984.207
277


39984.208
278


39984.209
279


39984.210
280


39984.211
281


39984.212
282


39984.213
283


39984.214
284


39984.215
285


39984.216
286


39984.301
287


39984.302
288


39984.303
289


39984.304
290


39984.305
291


39984.306
292


39984.307
293


39984.308
294


39984.309
295


39984.217
296


39984.218
297


39984.219
298


39984.220
299


39984.221
300


39984.222
301


39984.223
302


39984.224
303


39984.225
304


39984.226
305


39984.227
306


39984.228
307


39984.229
308


39984.230
309


39984.231
310


39984.232
311


39984.233
312


39984.234
313


39984.235
314


39984.236
315


39984.237
316


39984.238
317


39984.239
318


39984.240
319


39984.241
320


39984.242
321


39984.243
322


39984.244
323


39984.245
324


39984.246
325


39984.247
326


39984.248
327


39984.249
328


39984.250
329


39984.251
330


39984.252
331


39984.253
332


39984.254
333


39984.255
334


39984.256
335


39984.257
336


39984.258
337


39984.259
338


39984.260
339


39984.261
340


39984.262
341


39984.263
342


39984.264
343


39984.265
344


39984.266
345


39984.267
346


39984.268
347


39984.269
348


39984.270
349


39984.271
350


39984.272
351


39984.273
352


39984.274
353


39984.275
354


39984.276
355


39984.277
356


39984.278
357


39984.279
358


39984.280
359


39984.281
360


39984.282
361


39984.283
362


39984.284
363


39984.285
364


39984.286
365


39984.287
366


39984.288
367


39984.289
368


39984.290
369


39984.291
370


39984.292
371


39984.293
372


39984.294
373


39984.295
374


39984.296
375


39984.297
376

Æ


39984.298