Summary:

All articles in Senate section

EXECUTIVE SESSION
(Senate - February 11, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S640-S660] EXECUTIVE SESSION ______ NOMINATION OF MARGARET M. MORROW, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to consider Executive Calendar No. 135, which the clerk will report. The legislative clerk read the nomination of Margaret M. Morrow, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate on the nomination is limited to 2 hours equally divided and controlled by the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Missouri. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of Margaret Morrow to the Federal District bench in California. Ms. Morrow enjoys broad bipartisan support, and it is no wonder. She graduated magna cum laude from Bryn Mawr College, and cum laude from the Harvard Law School. She is presently a partner at Arnold and Porter in their Los Angeles office where she handles virtually all of that office's appellate litigation. I plan to outline in greater detail why I intend to support Ms. Morrow's nomination. But first I would like to discuss the Judiciary Committee's record with respect to the confirmation of President Clinton's judicial nominees. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of the most important duties I fulfill is in screening judicial nominees. Indeed, the Constitution itself obligates the Senate to provide the President advice concerning his nominees, and to consent to their ultimate confirmation. Although some have complained about the pace at which the committee has moved on judicial nominees, I note that it has undertaken its duty in a deliberate and serious fashion. Indeed, with respect to Ms. Morrow, there were concerns. Her answers to the committee were not entirely responsive. Rather than simply pushing the nomination forward, however, I believed it was important for the committee to ensure that its questions were properly answered. Thus, the committee submitted written questions for Ms. Morrow to clarify some of her additional responses. And, having reviewed Ms. Morrow's answers to the questions posed by the committee, I became satisfied that she would uphold the Constitution and abide by the rule of law. In fact, we held two hearings in Margaret Morrow's case, as I recall, and the second hearing was, of course, to clarify some of these issues without which we might not have had Ms. Morrow's nomination up even to this day. Thus, I think it fair to say that the committee has fairly and responsibly dealt with the President's nominees. Indeed, the Judiciary Committee has already held a judicial confirmation hearing, and has another planned for February 25. Thus, the committee will have held two nomination hearings in the first month of the session. I note that Judiciary Committee processed 47 of the President's nominees last session, including Ms. Morrow. Today there are more sitting judges than there were throughout virtually all of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Currently, there are 756 active Federal judges. In addition, there are 432 senior Federal judges who must by law continue to hear cases. Even in the ninth circuit, which has 10 vacancies, only one judge has actually stopped hearing cases. The others have taken senior status, and are still actively participating in that court's work. I am saying that the other nine judges have taken senior status. Those who have retired, or those who have taken senior status, are still hearing cases. The total pool of Federal judges available to hear cases is 1,188, a near record number. I have sought to steer the confirmation process in a way that kept it a fair and a principled one, and exercised what I felt was the appropriate degree of deference to the President's judicial appointees. I would like to personally express my gratitude and compliments to Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, for his cooperative efforts this past year. In fact, I would like my colleagues to note that a portrait of Senator Leahy will be unveiled this very evening in the Agriculture Committee hearing room. This is an honor that I believe my distinguished colleague justly deserves for his efforts on that great committee. I want Senator Leahy to know that I plan on attending that portrait unveiling itself even though this debate is taking place on the floor between 4 and 6 today. It is in this spirit of cooperation and fairness that I will vote to confirm Ms. Morrow. Conducting a fair confirmation process, however, does not mean granting the President carte blanche in filling judicial vacancies. It means assuring that those who are confirmed will uphold the Constitution and abide by the rule of law. Based upon the committee's review of her record, I believe that the evidence demonstrates that Margaret Morrow will be such a person. Ms. Morrow likely would not be my choice if I were sitting in the Oval Office. But the President is sitting there, and he has seen fit to nominate her. She has the support of the Senators from California. And the review conducted by the Judiciary Committee suggests that she understands the proper role of a judge in our Federal system and will abide by the rule of law. There is no doubt that Ms. Morrow is, in terms of her professional experience and abilities, qualified to serve as a Federal district court judge. I think the only question that may be plaguing some of my colleagues is whether she will abide by the rule of law. As I have stated elsewhere, nominees who are or who are likely to be judicial activists are not qualified to serve as Federal judges, and they should neither be nominated nor confirmed. And I want my colleagues to know that when such individuals come before the Judiciary Committee I will vociferously oppose them. In fact, many of the people that have been suggested by the administration have been stopped before they have been sent up. And that is where most of the battles occur, and that is where most of the work between the White House and myself really occurs. I have to compliment the White House in recognizing that some people that they wish they could have put on the bench were not appropriate persons to put on the bench because of their attitudes towards the rule of law primarily. While I initially had some concerns that Ms. Morrow might be an activist, I have concluded, based on all the information before the committee, that a compelling case cannot be made against her. While it is often difficult to tell whether a nominee's words before confirmation will match that nominee's deeds after confirmation, I believe that this nominee in particular deserves the benefit of the doubt. And [[Page S641]] all nominees deserve the benefit of the doubt, unless the contrary is substantial--or, should I say, less evidence to the contrary is substantial. In my view, there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Ms. Morrow will engage in judicial activism. In fact, Ms. Morrow has assured the committee that she will abide by the rule of law, and will not substitute her preferences for the dictates of the Constitution. If Ms. Morrow is a woman of her word, and I believe she is, I am confident that she will serve the country with distinction. I would like briefly to address some of the questions raised by those who oppose Ms. Morrow's nomination. Perhaps the most troubling evidence of potential activism that Ms. Morrow's critics advance comes from several speeches she has given while president of the Los Angeles, CA, Bar Association. At the fourth annual Conference on Women in the Law, for example, Ms. Morrow gave a speech in which she stated that ``the law is almost by definition on the cutting edge of social thought. It is a vehicle through which we ease the transition from the rules which have always been to the rules which are to be.'' Now, if Ms. Morrow was speaking here about ``the law'' and ``rules'' in a substantive sense, I would have no choice but to read these statements as professing a belief in judicial activism. On that basis alone, I would likely have opposed her nomination. However, Ms. Morrow repeatedly and somewhat animatedly testified before the committee that she was not speaking substantively of the law itself but, rather, was referring to the legal profession and the rules by which it governs itself. When the committee went back and examined the context of Ms. Morrow's speech, it concluded that this explanation was in keeping with the theme of her speech. In her inaugural address as president of the State Bar of California on October 9, 1993, Ms. Morrow quoted then Justice William Brennan, stating that ``Justice can only endure and flourish if law and legal institutions are engines of change able to accommodate evolving patterns of life and social interaction.'' Here again some were troubled that Ms. Morrow seemed to be advocating judicial activism. Ms. Morrow, however, assured the committee that she was not suggesting that courts themselves should be engines of change. In response to the committee she testified as follows: The theme of that speech was that the State Bar of California as an institution and the legal profession had to change some of the ways we did business. The quotation regarding engines of change had nothing to do with changes in the rule of law or changes in constitutional interpretation. Once again, the committee went back and scrutinized Ms. Morrow's speech and found that its theme was in fact changes the bar should make and did not advance the theme that courts should be engines of social change. The committee found the nominee's explanation of the use of the quotation, given its context, very plausible. In addition, the nominee went to some lengths in her oral testimony and her written responses to the committee to espouse a clearly restrained approach to constitutional interpretation and the rule of the courts. Frankly, much of what she has said under oath goes a long way toward legitimized, very restrained jurisprudence that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle called out of the mainstream just a decade ago. For example, she testified that she would attempt to interpret the Constitution ``consistent with the intent of the drafters.'' She later explained in more detail that judges should use the constitutional text ``as a starting point, and using that language and whatever information there is respecting the intent behind that language one ought to attempt then to decide the case consistent with that intent.'' She later testified that judges should not ``by incremental changes ease the law from one arena to another in a policy sense.'' And in written correspondence with the committee, Ms. Morrow further elaborated on her constitutional jurisprudence by highlighting the case which in her view adopted the proper methodology to constitutional interpretation. As she explained, in that case the Court ``looked first to the language of the Constitution,'' then ``buttressed its reading'' of the text by ``looking to the language of other constitutional provisions.'' And finally to ``the intent of those who drafted and ratified this language as reflected in the Federalist Papers, debates of the Constitutional Convention and other writings of the time.'' Contrary to the claim that she condemns all voter initiatives, Ms. Morrow has actually sought to ensure that voters have meaningful ways of evaluating such initiatives. In a widely circulated article, Ms. Morrow noted that the intensive advertising campaigns that surround citizen initiatives often focus unfairly on the measure's sponsor rather than the initiative's substance. This made it hard, she argued, for voters to make meaningful choices and ``renders ephemeral any real hope of intelligent voting by a majority.'' Read in its proper context, this statement seized upon by Ms. Morrow's critics was a statement concerning the quality of information disseminated to the voters, not a comment on the voters' ability to make intelligent policy choices. Thus Ms. Morrow's statement is not particularly controversial but in fact highly respectful of the role voters must play in our electoral system. In fact, Ms. Morrow argued that the courts should not be placed in a position of policing the initiative process. She explained that ``having passed an initiative, the voters want to see it enacted. They view a court challenge to its validity as interference with the public will.'' For this reason, Ms. Morrow advocated reforms to the California initiative process to take a final decision on ballot measures out of the hands of judges and to place it back into the hands of the people. In supporting this nomination, I took into account a number of factors, including Ms. Morrow's testimony, her accomplishments and her evident ability as an attorney, as well as the fact that she has received strong support, bipartisan support from both Democrats and Republicans. Republicans included Ninth Circuit Judges Cynthia Hall, Steven Trott and Pamela Rymer, Reagan-Bush appointees, as well as Rob Bonner, a respected conservative, former Federal judge and head of the drug enforcement agency under President Bush. I know all of these people personally. They are all strong conservatives. They are really decent people. They are as concerned as you or I or anybody else about who we place on the Federal bench, and they are strongly in favor of Margaret Morrow, as are many, many other Republicans. And they are not just people who live within the district where she will be a judge. They are some eminent judges themselves. I have a rough time seeing why anybody basically under all these circumstances would oppose this nominee. Each of those individuals I mentioned and others, such as Richard Riordan, the Republican mayor of Los Angeles, have assured the committee that Ms. Morrow will not be a judicial activist. I hope they are correct. And at least on this point I have seen little evidence in the record that would suggest to me that she would fail to abide by the rule of law once she achieves the bench and practices on the bench and fulfills her responsibility as a judge on the bench. In sum, I support this nominee and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I am also pleased, with regard to these judicial nominees, that no one on our side has threatened to ever filibuster any of these judges, to my knowledge. I think it is a travesty if we ever start getting into a game of filibustering judges. I have to admit my colleagues on the other side attempted to do that on a number of occasions the last number of years during the Reagan-Bush years. They always backed off, but maybe they did because they realized there were not the votes to invoke cloture. But I really think it is a travesty if we treat this third branch of Government with such disregard that we filibuster judges. The only way I could ever see that happening is if a person is so absolutely unqualified to sit on the bench that the only way you could stop that person is to filibuster that nominee. Even then, I question whether that should be done. We are dealing with a [[Page S642]] coequal branch of Government. We are dealing with some of the most important nominations a President, whoever that President may be, will make. And we are also dealing with good faith on both sides of the floor. I have to say, during some of the Reagan and Bush years, I thought our colleagues on the other side were reprehensible in some of the things they did with regard to Reagan and Bush judges, but by and large the vast majority of them were put through without any real fuss or bother even though my colleagues on the other side, had they been President, would not have appointed very many of those judges. We have to show the same good faith on our side, it seems to me. And unless you have an overwhelming case, as may be the case in the nomination of Judge Massiah-Jackson, unless you have an overwhelming case, then certainly I don't see any reason for anybody filibustering judges. I hope that we never get into that. Let's make our case if we have disagreement, and I have to say that some of my colleagues disagree with this nomination, and they do it legitimately, sincerely, and I think with intelligence, but I think they are wrong. And that is after having been part of this process for 22 years now and always trying to be fair, whoever is the President of the United States and whoever the nominees are. It is important because most of the fight has to occur behind the scenes. It has to occur between honest people in the White House and honest people up here. And that's where the battles are. When they get this far, generally most of them should be approved. There are some that we have problems with still in the Judiciary Committee, but that is our job to look at them. That is our job to look into their background. It is our job to screen these candidates. And, as you can see, in the case of Massiah-Jackson we had these accusations but nobody was willing to stand up and say them. I am not about to rely on unsubstantiated accusations by anybody. I will rely on the witness herself in that case. But we never quit investigating in the committee, and even though Massiah-Jackson was passed out of the committee, the investigation continued and ultimately we find a supernumber of people, very qualified people, people in that area who have a lot to do with law and justice are now opposed to that nomination. We cannot ignore that. But that is the way the system works. We have had judges withdraw after we have approved them in the Judiciary Committee because something has come up to disturb their nomination. That is the way it should work. This is not a numbers game. These are among the most important nominations that any President can make and that the Senate can ever work on. In the case of Margaret Morrow, I personally have examined the whole record, and, like I say, maybe people on our side would not have appointed her if they were President, but they are not the President. And unless there is an overwhelming case to be made against a judge, I have a very difficult--and especially this one; there is not--I have to say that I think we do a great injustice if we do not support this nomination. So with that, I will yield the floor. How much time does the distinguished Senator need? Mrs. BOXER. About 10 minutes. Mr. HATCH. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California. If my colleague would prefer to control the time on his side, I would be happy--should I yield to the Senator? Mrs. BOXER. I would prefer we yield to Senator Leahy given his schedule. Mr. HATCH. Let's split the time. You control half the time, and I will control half. You can make the determination, or if you would like---- Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is there remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 36 minutes 30 seconds. Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if I might yield myself 5 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this really has been a long time coming, and I appreciate the effort of my friend, the chairman, who is on the floor, to support this nomination. I commend my good friend, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, who has been indefatigable in this effort. She has worked and worked and worked. I believe she has spoken to every single Senator, every single potential Senator, every single past Senator, certainly to all the judges, and she has been at us over and over again to make sure that this day would come. She has worked with the Republican leader, the Democratic leader, and Republican and Democratic Senators alike. I appreciate all that she has done. We have all been aided by our colleague, Senator Feinstein. She has spoken out strongly for Margaret Morrow as a member of the Judiciary Committee and as a Senator. I feel though, as Senator Boxer has said, that none of us would have predicted that it would take 21 months to get this nomination before the Senate. I know that we would not even be here now if the distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished majority leader had not made the commitment before we broke last fall to proceed to this nomination this week. I have spoken about this nomination so many times I have almost lost track of the number. I will not speak as long as I would otherwise today because I want to yield to the Senator from California. But I think people should know that for some time there was an unexplained hold on this outstanding nominee. This is a nominee, incidentally, who was reported out of the Judiciary Committee twice. This is a nominee who is the first woman to be the president of the California State Bar Association and a president of the Los Angeles County bar. This is a nominee who is a partner in a prestigious law firm. This is a nominee who has the highest rating that lawyers can be given when they come before our committee for approval as a judge. This is a woman about whom letters were sent to me and to other Senators from some of the leading Republicans and some of the leading Democrats in California and from others whose background I know only because of their reputations, extraordinary reputations. I have no idea what their politics are. But all of them, whether they describe themselves as conservatives, liberals, moderates or apolitical, all of them say what an extraordinary woman she is. And I agree. I have read all of the reports about her. I have read all the things people said in her favor, and the things, ofttimes anonymous, said against her. I look at all those and I say of this woman: If I were a litigant, plaintiff or defendant, government or defendant, no matter what side I was on, I could look at this woman and say I am happy to come into her court. I am happy to have my case heard by her--whether I am rich, poor, white, black, no matter what might be my background. I know she would give a fair hearing. Now, finally, after 12 months on the Senate calendar without action over the course of the last 3 years, I am glad that the debate is beginning. I am also glad we can now look forward to the end of the ordeal for Margaret Morrow, for her family, her friends and her supporters. Her supporters include the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and half the Republican members on that committee. The Republican Mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan, calls her ``an excellent addition to the Federal bench.'' All of these people have praised her. To reiterate, this day has been a long time coming. When this accomplished lawyer was first nominated by the President of the United States to fill a vacancy on the District Court for the Central District of California, none of us would have predicted that it would be more than 21 months before that nomination was considered by the United States Senate. I thank the Majority Leader and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for fulfilling the commitment made late last year to turn to this nomination before the February recess. Fairness to the people and litigants in the Central District of California and to Margaret Morrow and her family demand no less. I trust that those who credit local law enforcement and local prosecutors and local judges from time to time as it suits them will credit the views of the many California judges and local officials who have written to the Senate over the last several months in support of the confirmation of Margaret Morrow. I will cite just a few examples: [[Page S643]] Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block; Orange County District Attorney Michael R. Capizzi; former U.S. Attorney and former head of the DEA under President Bush, Robert C. Bonner; former Reagan Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division and former Associate Attorney General and current Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen S. Trott; and California Court of Appeals Associate Justice H. Walter Croskey. I deeply regret that confirmation as a Federal Judge is becoming more like a political campaign for these nominees. They are being required to gather letters of support and urge their friends, colleagues and clients to support their candidacy or risk being mischaracterized by those who do not know them. Margaret Morrow's background, training, temperament, character and skills are beyond reproach. She is a partner in the law firm of Arnold & Porter. She has practiced law for 24 years. A distinguished graduate of Bryn Mawr College and Harvard Law School, Ms. Morrow was the first woman President of the California State Bar Association and a former president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. She has had the strong and unwavering support of Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein of California. In light of her qualifications, it was no surprise that in 1996 she was unanimously reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 1997 her nomination was again reported favorably, this time by a vote of 13 to 5. Yet hers has been an arduous journey to Senate consideration. She has been targeted--targeted by extremists outside the Senate whose $1.4 million fundraising and lobbying campaign against judges needed a victim. As our debate will show today, they chose the wrong woman. Lest someone accuse us of gratuitously injecting gender into this debate, I note the following: Her critics have gone so far as to deny her the courtesy of referring to her as Ms. Morrow. Instead, they went out of their way repeatedly to refer to her as ``Miss'' in a Washington Times op ed. Margaret Morrow is married to a distinguished California State Court Judge and is the proud mother of a 10-year-old son. It is bad enough that her words are taken out of context, her views misrepresented and her nomination used as a ideological prop. She is entitled to be treated with respect. Nor was this reference inadvertent. The first point of criticism in that piece was her membership in California Women Lawyers, which is criticized for supporting parental leave legislation. Senator Feinstein posed the question whether Margaret Morrow was held to a different standard than men nominees. That is a question that has troubled me throughout this process. I was likewise concerned to see that of the 14 nominees left pending at the end of last year whose nominations had been pending the longest, 12 were women and minority nominees. I did not know, until Senator Kennedy's statement to the Senate earlier this year, that judicial nominees who are women are now four times as likely as men to take over a year to confirm. At the same time, I note that Senator Hatch, who supports this nomination, included two women whose nominations have been pending for more than a year and one-half, at last week's Judiciary Committee hearing. I also note that the Senate did vote last month to confirm Judge Ann Aiken to the Oregon District Court. So one of the four article III judges confirmed so far this year was a woman nominee. Margaret Morrow has devoted her career to the law, to getting women involved in the practice of law and to making lawyers more responsive and responsible. Her good work in this regard should not be punished but commended. As part of those efforts Margaret Morrow gave a speech at a Women in the Law Conference in April 1994. That speech was later reprinted in a law review. Critics have seized upon a phrase or two from that speech, ripped them out of context and contended that they show Margaret Morrow would be an unprincipled judicial activist. They are wrong. Their argument was refuted by Ms. Morrow in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee. This criticism merely demonstrates the critics own indifference to the setting and context of the speech and its meaning for women who have worked so hard to achieve success in the legal profession. Her speech was about how the bar is begrudgingly adjusting to women in the legal profession. How telling that critics would fasten on that particular speech on women in the law and see it as something to criticize. Margaret Morrow spoke then about ``the struggles and successes'' of women practices law and ``the challenges which continue to face us day to day in the 1990s.'' Margaret Morrow has met every challenge. In the course of this confirmation, she has been forced to run a gauntlet. She has endured false charges and unfounded criticism. Her demeanor and dignity have never wavered. She has, again, been called upon to be a role model. The President of the Woman Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, the President of the Women's Legal Defense Fund, the President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the President of the National Conference of Women's Bar Association and other distinguished attorneys from the Los Angeles area have all written the Senate in support of the nomination of Margaret Morrow. They wrote that: ``Margaret Morrow is widely respected by attorneys, judges and community leaders of both parties.'' She ``is exactly the kind of person who should be appointed to such a position and held up as an example to young women across the country.'' I could not agree more. By letter dated February 4, 1998, a number of organizations including the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and women's lawyer associations from California likewise wrote urging confirmation of Margaret Morrow without further delay. I ask that a copy of that letter be included in the Record at this point. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: February 4, 1998. Senator Patrick Leahy, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Leahy: We write to express our concern over a series of developments that continue to unfold in the Senate that are undermining the judicial confirmation process. These include calls for the impeachment of judges, a slowdown in the pace of confirmations, unjustified criticisms of certain nominees, and efforts to leave appellate vacancies unfilled. Some court observers have opined that collectively these are the most serious efforts to curtail judicial independence since President Roosevelt's plan to pack the Supreme Court in 1937. In the past year nominees who failed to meet certain ultraconservative litmus tests have been labeled ``judicial activists.'' While these charges are unfounded, they nonetheless delay confirmations and leave judicial seats unfilled. We note that of the 14 individuals whose nominations have been pending the longest, 12 are women or minorities. This disturbing pattern is in striking contrast to those 14 judges who were confirmed in 1997 in the shortest period of time, 11 of whom are white men. For example, Margaret Morrow, a judicial nominee to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, was nominated more than a year and a half ago. Not only is she an outstanding candidate, but her credentials have earned her enthusiastic and bipartisan endorsements from leaders of the bar, judges, politicians, and civic groups. An honors graduate from Harvard Law School, a civil litigator for more than 20 years, winner of numerous legal awards, and the first female president of the California Bar Association, Morrow has the breadth of background and experience to make her an excellent judge, and in the words of one of her sponsors, she would be ``an exceptionally distinguished addition to the federal bench.'' Morrow has also shown, through her numerous pro bono activities, a demonstrated commitment to equal justice. As president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, she created the Pro Bono Council, the first of its kind in California. During her year as bar president, the Council coordinated the provision of 150,000 hours of previously untapped representation to indigent clients throughout the county. Not surprisingly, the American Bar Association's judicial evaluation committee gave her its highest rating. Republicans and Democrats alike speak highly of her accomplishments and qualifications. Robert Bonner, a Reagan- appointed U.S. Attorney and U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California and head of the Drug Enforcement Administration during the Bush Administration, has said Morrow is a ``brilliant person with a first-rate legal mind who was nominated upon merit, not political affiliation.'' Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block wrote that, ``Margaret Morrow is an extremely hard working individual of impeccable character and integrity. . . . I have no doubt that she would [[Page S644]] be a distinguished addition to the Court.'' Other supporters include local bar leaders; officials from both parties, including Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan; California judges appointed by the state's last three governors; and three Republican-appointed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges, Pamela Rymer, Cynthia Holcomb Hall, and Stephen Trott. Despite here outstanding record, Morrow has become the target of a coordinated effort by ultraconservative groups that seek to politicize the judiciary. They have subjected her to a campaign of misrepresentations, distortions and attacks on her record, branding her a ``judicial activist.'' According to her opponents, she deserves to be targeted because ``she is a member of California Women Lawyers,'' an absurd charge given that this bipartisan organization is among the most highly respected in the state. Another ``strike'' against her is her concern, expressed in a sentence from a 1988 article, about special interest domination of the ballot initiative process in California. Her opponents view the statement as disdainful of voter initiatives such as California's term limits law; however, they overlook the fact that the article outlines a series of recommended reforms to preserve the process. It is a stretch to construe suggested reforms as evidence of ``judicial activism,'' but to search for this members of the Judiciary Committee unprecedentedly asked her to disclose her personal positions on all 160 past ballot propositions in California. Morrow's confirmation has been delayed by the Senate beyond any reasonable bounds. Originally selected over nineteen months ago in May 1996, her nomination was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee that year, only to languish on the Senate floor. Morrow was again nominated at the beginning of 1997, subjected to an unusual second hearing, and recommended again by the Judiciary Committee, after which several Senators placed secret holds on her nomination, preventing a final vote on her confirmation. These holds, which prevented a final vote on her confirmation during the 1st Session of the 105th Congress, where recently lifted. As Senator Orrin Hatch repeatedly said: ``playing politics with judges is unfair, and I'm sick of it.'' We agree with his sentiment. Given Margaret Morrow's impressive qualifications, we urge you to bring the nomination to the Senate floor, ensure that it receives prompt, full and fair consideration, and that a final vote on her nomination is scheduled as soon as possible. Sincerely, Alliance for Justice: Nan Aron, President. American Jewish Congress: Phil Baum, Executive Director. Americans for Democratic Action: Amy Isaacs, National Director. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: Robert Bernstein, Executive Law. Brennan Center for Justice: E. Joshua Rosenkrantz, Executive Director. Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles: Eulanda Matthews, President. California Women Lawyers: Grace E. Emery, President. Center for Law and Social Policy: Alan W. Hausman, Director. Chicago Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: Clyde E. Murphy, Executive Director. Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Patricia Wright, Coordinator Disabled Fund. Families USA: Judy Waxman, Director of Government Affairs. Lawyers Club of San Diego: Kathleen Juniper, Director. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: Wade Henderson, Executive Director. Marin County Women Lawyers: Eileen Barker, President. Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund: Antonia Hernandez, Executive Director. Monterey County Women Lawyers: Karen Kardushin, Affiliate Governor. NAACP: Hilary Shelton, Deputy Director, Washington Office. National Bar Association: Randy K. Jones, President. National Center for Youth Law: John F. O'Toole, Director. National Conference of Women Bar Associations: Phillis C. Solomon, President. National Council of Senior Citizens: Steve Protulis, Executive Director. National Employment Lawyers Association: Terisa E. Chaw, Executive Director. National Gay & Lesbian Task Force: Rebecca Issacs, Public Policy Director. National Lawyers Guild: Karen Jo Koonan, President. National Legal Aid & Defender Association: Julie Clark, Executive Director. National Organization for Women: Patricia Ireland, President. National Women's Law Center: Marcia Greenberger and Nancy Duff Campbell, Co-presidents. Orange County Women Lawyers: Jean Hobart, President. People for the American Way Action Fund: Mike Lux, Senior Vice President. San Francisco Women Lawyers Alliance: Geraldine Rosen-Park, President. Santa Barbara Women Lawyers: Renee Nordstrand, President. Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees: Ann Hoffman, Legislative Director. Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles: Greer C. Bosworth, President. Women Lawyers of Alameda County: Sandra Schweitzer, President. Women Lawyers of Sacramento: Karen Leaf, President. Women Lawyers of Santa Cruz: Lorie Klein, President. Women's Legal Defense Fund: Judy Lichtman, President. Youth Law Center: Mark Soler, Executive Director. Mr. LEAHY. It is time. It is time to stop holding her hostage and help all Americans, and certainly those who are within the district that this court will cover in California. It is time to help the cause of justice. It is time to improve the bench of the United States. It is time to confirm this woman. And it is time for the U.S. Senate to say we made a mistake in holding it up this long. Let us go forward. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah has no objection, I would like now to yield, and yield control of whatever time I might have, to the Senator from California. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California. Mrs. BOXER. I say to Senator Leahy, before he leaves the floor, and because Senator Hatch in his absence explained the wonderful tribute he is going to have shortly with his portrait being hung in the Agriculture room, and he himself said that he is so respectful of you and wants to show his respect so much that he is going to join you, so that will leave me here on the floor to debate with the Senator from Missouri--before you leave the floor I wanted to say to you and to Senator Hatch together, and I say this from the bottom of my heart, without the two of you looking fairly at this nomination, this day would never have come. To me it is, in a way, a moving moment. So often we stand on the floor and we talk about delays and so on and so forth. But when you put the human face on this issue and you have a woman and her husband and her son and a law firm that was so excited about this nominee, and you add to that 2 years of twisting in the wind and not knowing whether this day would ever come, you have to say that today is a wonderful day. So, before my colleague leaves, I wanted to say to him: Thank you for being there for Margaret Morrow and, frankly, all of the people of America. Because she will make an excellent judge. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I say to my friend from California and to my friend from Utah, I do appreciate their help in this. I can assure you that, while my family and I will gather for the hanging of this portrait--I almost blushed when you mentioned that is my reason for being off the floor--I can assure you I will be back in plenty of time for the vote and I will have 210 pounds of Vermonter standing in the well of the Senate to encourage everybody to vote the appropriate way. Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague very much, Senator Leahy. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from California. Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining on this side? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 15 minutes. The Senator from Utah has 30 minutes. Mrs. BOXER. My understanding is I would have 15 minutes, then? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Mrs. BOXER. I ask that the Presiding Officer let me know when 10 minutes has passed, and I will reserve 5 minutes in which to debate the Senator from Missouri, because I know he is a tough debater and I am going to need some time. Mr. President, as I said, I am so very pleased that this day has come at long last, that we will have an up-or-down vote on Margaret Morrow. I really think, standing here, perhaps the only people happier than I am right now are Margaret and her husband and her son and her law partners and the various citizens of California, Republicans and Democrats, who worked together for this day. Margaret Morrow is the epitome of mainstream values and mainstream America, and the depth and breadth of her support from prominent Republicans and Democrats illustrate that she is eminently qualified to sit as a Federal judge. I don't think I could be any more eloquent than Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Leahy, in putting forward her credentials. [[Page S645]] What I am going to do later is just read from some of the many letters that we got about Margaret, and then I, also, at that time, will have some letters printed in the Record. Again, I want to say to Senator Hatch how his leadership has been extraordinary on this, and also I personally thank Majority Leader Lott and Democratic Leader Daschle for bringing this to the floor and arranging for an agreement that this nominee be brought to the floor. I thank my colleague from Missouri for allowing an up-or-down vote, for not launching a filibuster on this matter. I think Chairman Hatch spoke of that eloquently, and I am very pleased that we can have this fair vote. I recommended Margaret Morrow to the President in September of 1995. She was nominated by the President on May 9, 1996. She received her first hearing before the Judiciary Committee on June 25, 1996, and was favorably reported out unanimously by the committee 2 days later. Because there was no action, she was renominated again on January 7, 1997, and had her second hearing on March 18, 1997. This time she was reported out favorably. This time the vote was 13 to 5. I want to make the point that there is a personal side to this judicial nomination process. For nominees who are awaiting confirmation, their personal and professional lives truly hang in the balance. Margaret Morrow, a 47-year-old mother and law partner has put her life and her professional practice on hold while she waited for the Senate to vote on her nomination. Her whole family, particularly her husband and son, have waited patiently for this day. That is stress and that is strain, as you wait for this decision which will so affect your life and the life of your family and, of course, your career. Former Majority Leader Bob Dole spoke of this process himself when he once said, ``We should not be holding people up. If we need a vote, vote them down or vote them up, because the nominees probably have plans to make and there are families involved.'' I think Senator Dole said it straight ahead. So I am really glad that Margaret's day has come finally. I do want to say to Margaret, thank you for hanging in there. Thank you for not giving up. I well understand that there were certain moments where you probably were tempted to do so. There were days when you probably thought this day would never come. But you did hang in there, and you had every reason to hang in there. This is a woman who graduated magna cum laude from Bryn Mawr College and received her law degree from Harvard, graduating cum laude, 23 years in private practice in business and commercial litigation, a partner at the prestigious law firm of Arnold and Porter. She is married to Judge Paul Boland of the Los Angeles Superior Court and has a 10-year-old son, Patrick Morrow Boland, who actually came up here on one of the times that she was before the committee. Over the years, Margaret has represented a diverse group of business and Government clients, including some of the Nation's largest and most prominent companies. In the time I have remaining now, I want to quote from some very prestigious leaders from California, and from the Senate, who have spoken out in behalf of Margaret Morrow. First we have Senator Orrin Hatch. He spoke for Margaret himself, so I won't go over that quote. Robert Bonner, former U.S. attorney appointed by President Reagan, former U.S. district court judge in the Central District of California and former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, appointed by President George Bush, he sent a letter to Senators Bond, D'Amato, Domenici, Sessions and Specter. In it he says: The issue--the only real issue--is this: Is Margaret Morrow likely to be an activist judge? My answer and the answer of other Californians who have unchallengeable Republican credentials and who are and have been leaders of the bar and bench in California, is an unqualified NO. . . . On a personal note, I have known Margaret Morrow for over twenty years. She was my former law partner. I can assure you that she will not be a person who will act precipitously or rashly in challenging the rule of law. He continues: Based on her record, the collective knowledge of so many Republicans of good reputation, and her commitment to the rule of law and legal institutions, it is clear to me that Margaret will be a superb trial judge who will follow the law as articulated by the Constitution and legal precedent, and apply it to the facts before her. I think that this statement is quite powerful. We have numbers of others as well. In a letter to Senators Abraham and Gordon Smith and Pat Roberts, Thomas Malcolm, who is chairman of Governor Wilson's Judicial Selection Committee for Orange County and served on the Judicial Selection Committees of Senators Hayakawa, Wilson, and Seymour, wrote the following: I have known Ms. Morrow for approximately 10 years. Over the years, she has constantly been the most outstanding leader our California Bar Association has ever had the privilege of her sitting as its President. . . . Of the literally hundreds of nominations for appointment to the federal bench during my tenure on Senators Hayakawa, Wilson and Seymour's Judicial Selection Committees, Ms. Morrow is by far one of the most impressive applicants I have ever seen. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 7\1/2\ minutes. Mrs. BOXER. Remaining of my 10 minutes? The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 3 minutes of your 10 minutes remaining. Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. In the 3 minutes remaining I am going to quote from some others. Los Angeles Mayor, Richard Riordan, in a letter to Senator Hatch, said: Ms. Morrow would be an excellent addition to the Federal bench. She is dedicated to following the law and applying it in a rational and objective fashion. Republican judges in the 9th Circuit, Pamela Rymer and Cynthia Hall-- they are both President Bush and President Reagan's appointees respectively--in a letter to Senators Hutchison, Collins and Snowe, write: [We] urge your favorable action on the Morrow nomination because [we] believe that she would be an exceptional federal judge. Representative James Rogan, former Republican Assembly majority leader in the California State Assembly, the first Republican majority leader in almost 30 years--actually he testified in front of the Judiciary Committee and said: When an individual asks me to make a recommendation for a judgeship, that is perhaps the single most important thing I will study before making any recommendation . . . I am absolutely convinced that . . . she would be the type of judge who would follow the Constitution and laws of the United States as they were written. . . . [I]t is my belief . . . that should she win approval from this committee and from the full Senate, she would be a judge that we could all be proud of, both in California and throughout our land. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of people from all over California endorsing Margaret Morrow. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Republican Support for Margaret M. Morrow Robert C. Bonner, former U.S. Attorney (appointed by President Reagan), former U.S. District Court Judge in the Central District of California and former Head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (appointed by President Bush), Partner at Gibson, Dunne and Crutcher in Los Angeles (2 letters). Thomas R. Malcolm, Chairman of Governor Wilson's judicial selection committee for Orange County and previously served on the judicial selection committees of Senators Hayakawa, Wilson, and Seymour. Rep. James Rogan (R-27-CA), former Assembly Majority Leader, California State Legislature, former gang murder prosecutor in the LA County District Attorney's Office, former Municipal Court Judge in California. Pamela Rymer, Curcuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2 letters), appointed by President Bush. Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Circuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appointed by President Reagan. Lourdes Baird, District Court Judge, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, appointed by President Bush. H. Walter Croskey, Associate Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (2 letters), appointed by Governor Deukmejian. Richard J. Riordan, Major, City of Los Angeles. Michael R. Capizzi, District Attorney, Orange County. Lod Cook, Chairman Emeritus, ARCO, Los Angeles. Clifford R. Anderson, Jr., supporter of the presidential campaigns for Presidents Nixon and Reagan, and former member of Governor Wilson's judicial selection committee (when [[Page S646]] he was Senator) member of Governor Wilson's State judicial evaluation committee. Sherman Block, Sheriff, County of Los Angeles. Roger W. Boren, Presiding Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (2 letters), appointed by Governor Wilson. Sheldon H. Sloan, former President of Los Angeles County Bar Association. Stephen Trott, Circuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2 letters), appointed by President Reagan. Judith C. Chirlin, Judge, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, appointed by Governor Deukmejian. Richard C. Neal, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, appointed by Governors Deukmejian and Wilson. Marvin R. Baxter, Associate Justice, Superme Court of California, appointed by Governor Deukmejian. Charles S. Vogel, Presiding Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, appointed by Governors Reagan and Wilson. Dale S. Fischer, Judge, Los Angeles Municipal Court, appointed by Governor Wilson. Richard D. Aldrich, Associate Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, appointed by Governors Deukmejian and Wilson. Edward B. Huntington, Judge, Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego, appointed by Governor Wilson. Laurence H. Pretty, former President of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers. Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to say to you again, I know you have been very fair as I presented the case to you, this is a woman that every single Senator should be proud to support today. It is not a matter of political party. This is a woman uniquely qualified. I almost want to say, if Margaret Morrow cannot make it through, then, my goodness, who could? I really think she brings those kinds of bipartisan credentials. I reserve my 5 minutes and yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Missouri is recognized. Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much. I yield myself so much time as I may consume, and I ask that the Chair inform me when I have consumed 15 minutes. I thank you very much for allowing me to participate in this debate. It is appropriate that we bring to the floor nominees who are well known to the committee for debate by the full Senate. I commend the chairman of the committee for bringing this nomination to the floor. I have no objection to these nominations coming to the floor and no objection to voting on these nominees. I only objected to this nominee coming to the floor to be approved by unanimous consent because I think we deserve the opportunity to debate these nominees, to discuss them and to have votes on them. So many people who are not familiar with the process of the Senate may think that when a Senator says that he wants to have a debate that he is trying to delay. I believe the work of the Senate should be done in full view of the American people and that we should have the opportunity to discuss these issues, and then instead of having these things voted on by unanimous consent at the close of the business day with no record, I think it is important that we debate the nominee's qualifications on the record. I think it is important because the judiciary is one-third of the Government of the United States. The individuals who populate the judiciary are lifetime appointments. The United States Constitution imposes a responsibility on the Senate to be a quality screen, and it is the last screen before a person becomes a lifetime member of the judiciary. So we need to do our best to make sure that only high-quality individuals reach that level, individuals who have respect for the Constitution, who appropriately understand that the role of the courts is to decide disputes and not to expand the law or to somehow develop new constitutional rights. The legislature is the part of the body politic that is designed to make law. The courts are designed to settle disputes about the law. It is against this background that I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the nomination of Margaret Morrow. Let me begin by saying that Ms. Morrow is an outstanding lawyer. No one wants to challenge her credentials. No one believes that she is not a person of great intellect or a person of tremendous experience. She is a person who has great capacity. It has been demonstrated in her private life, her educational record and in her life of service as an officer of the California Bar Association. The only reservations to be expressed about Ms. Morrow, and they are substantial ones in my regard--they are not about her talent, not about her capacity, not about her integrity--they are about what her interpretation of the role of a judge is; whether she thinks that the law as developed in the court system belongs on the cutting edge, whether she thinks that the law, as developed in the court system, is an engine of social change and that the courts should drive the Nation in a direction of a different culture and a direction of recognizing new rights that weren't recognized or placed in the Constitution, and that needed to be invented or developed or brought into existence by individuals who populate the courts. That, I think, is the major question we have before us. So let me just say again, this is an outstanding person of intellect, from everything I can understand a person of great integrity, a person whose record of service is laudable and commendable. The only question I have is, does she have the right view of the Constitution, the right view of what courts are supposed to do, or will she be someone who goes to the bench and, unfortunately, like so many other lawyers in the ninth circuit, decide that the court is the best place to amend the Constitution? Does she think the court is the best place to strike down the will of the people, to impose on the people from the courts what could not be generated by the representatives of the people in the legislature. So, fundamentally, the question is whether or not this candidate will respect the separation of powers, whether this candidate will say the legislature is the place to make the law, and whether she will recognize that courts can only make decisions about the law. Will she acknowledge that the people have the right to make the law, too? After all, that is what our Constitution says, that all power and all authority is derived from the people, and they, with their elected representatives, should have the opportunity to make the law. It is with these questions in mind that I look at some of the writings of this candidate for a Federal judgeship, and I come to the conclusion that she believes that the court system and the courts are the place where the law can be made, especially if the people are not smart enough or if the people aren't progressive enough or if the Constitution isn't flexible enough. I can't say for sure this is what would happen. I have to be fair. I have to go by what she has written. I will be at odds with the interpretation of some of the things said by the committee chairman. I respect the chairman, but I think that his interpretation of her writings is flawed. In 1995, in a law review comment, Ms. Morrow seemed to endorse the practice of judicial activism, that is judge-made law. She wrote: For the law is, almost by definition, on the cutting edge of social thought. It is a vehicle-- Or a way-- through which we ease the transition from the rules which have always been to the rules which are to be. She is saying that the law is the vehicle, the thing that takes you from what was to what will be. I was a little puzzled when the committee chairman said that the committee found that she didn't mean the substantive as expressed in the courts and the like. Let me just say I don't believe the committee made any such findings. I have checked with committee staff, and it is just not the case that the committee made findings. It is true that a majority of the members of the committee voted this candidate to the floor, but the committee didn't make findings that this was not a statement of judicial activism. Frankly, I think it is a statement of judicial activism, despite the fact that Ms. Morrow told the committee that she was not speaking about the law in any substantive way, but rather was referring to the legal profession and the rules governing the profession. The law, by definition, is on the cutting edge of social thought? Social [[Page S647]] thought doesn't govern the profession, social thought governs the society. The transition of the rules from the way they have always been to the rules which they are to be? I think it is a stretch to say that this really refers to the legal profession. If she meant that the legal profession is a vehicle through which we ease the transition from the rules which always have been to the rules which are to be, that doesn't make sense. Clearly she is referring to something other than the legal profession or the rules of professional conduct. Some have suggested that because Ms. Morrow initially made these remarks at a 1994 Conference on Women and the Law, that it is plausible that she was referring to the profession and not to the substantive law. But I think it is more likely that her statement reflects a belief that the law can and should be used by those who interpret it to change social norms, inside and outside of the legal profession. Truly, that is a definition of activism, the ability of judges to impose on the culture those things which they prefer rather than have the culture initiate through their elected representatives those things which the culture prefers. Frankly, if it is a question of a few in the judiciary defining what the values of the many are in the culture, I think that is antidemocratic. I really believe that the virtue of America is that the many impose their will on the Government, not that the few in Government impose their will on the many. Reasonable people can disagree on the proper interpretation of Ms. Morrow's statement. Others can argue about whether or not hastening social change is a proper role for judges in the courts. But I think it is fair to conclude that Ms. Morrow's comments were an endorsement of judicial activism. In 1993, Ms. Morrow gave another speech that suggested approval of judicial activism, quoting William Brennan, an evangelist of judicial activism. Morrow stated: Justice can only endure and flourish if law and legal institutions are ``engines of social change'' able to accommodate evolving patterns of life and social interaction in this decade. She said these remarks were not an endorsement of activism. She told the Judiciary Committee the subject of the comments was, once again, not the law but the legal pr

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

EXECUTIVE SESSION
(Senate - February 11, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S640-S660] EXECUTIVE SESSION ______ NOMINATION OF MARGARET M. MORROW, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to consider Executive Calendar No. 135, which the clerk will report. The legislative clerk read the nomination of Margaret M. Morrow, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate on the nomination is limited to 2 hours equally divided and controlled by the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Missouri. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of Margaret Morrow to the Federal District bench in California. Ms. Morrow enjoys broad bipartisan support, and it is no wonder. She graduated magna cum laude from Bryn Mawr College, and cum laude from the Harvard Law School. She is presently a partner at Arnold and Porter in their Los Angeles office where she handles virtually all of that office's appellate litigation. I plan to outline in greater detail why I intend to support Ms. Morrow's nomination. But first I would like to discuss the Judiciary Committee's record with respect to the confirmation of President Clinton's judicial nominees. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of the most important duties I fulfill is in screening judicial nominees. Indeed, the Constitution itself obligates the Senate to provide the President advice concerning his nominees, and to consent to their ultimate confirmation. Although some have complained about the pace at which the committee has moved on judicial nominees, I note that it has undertaken its duty in a deliberate and serious fashion. Indeed, with respect to Ms. Morrow, there were concerns. Her answers to the committee were not entirely responsive. Rather than simply pushing the nomination forward, however, I believed it was important for the committee to ensure that its questions were properly answered. Thus, the committee submitted written questions for Ms. Morrow to clarify some of her additional responses. And, having reviewed Ms. Morrow's answers to the questions posed by the committee, I became satisfied that she would uphold the Constitution and abide by the rule of law. In fact, we held two hearings in Margaret Morrow's case, as I recall, and the second hearing was, of course, to clarify some of these issues without which we might not have had Ms. Morrow's nomination up even to this day. Thus, I think it fair to say that the committee has fairly and responsibly dealt with the President's nominees. Indeed, the Judiciary Committee has already held a judicial confirmation hearing, and has another planned for February 25. Thus, the committee will have held two nomination hearings in the first month of the session. I note that Judiciary Committee processed 47 of the President's nominees last session, including Ms. Morrow. Today there are more sitting judges than there were throughout virtually all of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Currently, there are 756 active Federal judges. In addition, there are 432 senior Federal judges who must by law continue to hear cases. Even in the ninth circuit, which has 10 vacancies, only one judge has actually stopped hearing cases. The others have taken senior status, and are still actively participating in that court's work. I am saying that the other nine judges have taken senior status. Those who have retired, or those who have taken senior status, are still hearing cases. The total pool of Federal judges available to hear cases is 1,188, a near record number. I have sought to steer the confirmation process in a way that kept it a fair and a principled one, and exercised what I felt was the appropriate degree of deference to the President's judicial appointees. I would like to personally express my gratitude and compliments to Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, for his cooperative efforts this past year. In fact, I would like my colleagues to note that a portrait of Senator Leahy will be unveiled this very evening in the Agriculture Committee hearing room. This is an honor that I believe my distinguished colleague justly deserves for his efforts on that great committee. I want Senator Leahy to know that I plan on attending that portrait unveiling itself even though this debate is taking place on the floor between 4 and 6 today. It is in this spirit of cooperation and fairness that I will vote to confirm Ms. Morrow. Conducting a fair confirmation process, however, does not mean granting the President carte blanche in filling judicial vacancies. It means assuring that those who are confirmed will uphold the Constitution and abide by the rule of law. Based upon the committee's review of her record, I believe that the evidence demonstrates that Margaret Morrow will be such a person. Ms. Morrow likely would not be my choice if I were sitting in the Oval Office. But the President is sitting there, and he has seen fit to nominate her. She has the support of the Senators from California. And the review conducted by the Judiciary Committee suggests that she understands the proper role of a judge in our Federal system and will abide by the rule of law. There is no doubt that Ms. Morrow is, in terms of her professional experience and abilities, qualified to serve as a Federal district court judge. I think the only question that may be plaguing some of my colleagues is whether she will abide by the rule of law. As I have stated elsewhere, nominees who are or who are likely to be judicial activists are not qualified to serve as Federal judges, and they should neither be nominated nor confirmed. And I want my colleagues to know that when such individuals come before the Judiciary Committee I will vociferously oppose them. In fact, many of the people that have been suggested by the administration have been stopped before they have been sent up. And that is where most of the battles occur, and that is where most of the work between the White House and myself really occurs. I have to compliment the White House in recognizing that some people that they wish they could have put on the bench were not appropriate persons to put on the bench because of their attitudes towards the rule of law primarily. While I initially had some concerns that Ms. Morrow might be an activist, I have concluded, based on all the information before the committee, that a compelling case cannot be made against her. While it is often difficult to tell whether a nominee's words before confirmation will match that nominee's deeds after confirmation, I believe that this nominee in particular deserves the benefit of the doubt. And [[Page S641]] all nominees deserve the benefit of the doubt, unless the contrary is substantial--or, should I say, less evidence to the contrary is substantial. In my view, there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Ms. Morrow will engage in judicial activism. In fact, Ms. Morrow has assured the committee that she will abide by the rule of law, and will not substitute her preferences for the dictates of the Constitution. If Ms. Morrow is a woman of her word, and I believe she is, I am confident that she will serve the country with distinction. I would like briefly to address some of the questions raised by those who oppose Ms. Morrow's nomination. Perhaps the most troubling evidence of potential activism that Ms. Morrow's critics advance comes from several speeches she has given while president of the Los Angeles, CA, Bar Association. At the fourth annual Conference on Women in the Law, for example, Ms. Morrow gave a speech in which she stated that ``the law is almost by definition on the cutting edge of social thought. It is a vehicle through which we ease the transition from the rules which have always been to the rules which are to be.'' Now, if Ms. Morrow was speaking here about ``the law'' and ``rules'' in a substantive sense, I would have no choice but to read these statements as professing a belief in judicial activism. On that basis alone, I would likely have opposed her nomination. However, Ms. Morrow repeatedly and somewhat animatedly testified before the committee that she was not speaking substantively of the law itself but, rather, was referring to the legal profession and the rules by which it governs itself. When the committee went back and examined the context of Ms. Morrow's speech, it concluded that this explanation was in keeping with the theme of her speech. In her inaugural address as president of the State Bar of California on October 9, 1993, Ms. Morrow quoted then Justice William Brennan, stating that ``Justice can only endure and flourish if law and legal institutions are engines of change able to accommodate evolving patterns of life and social interaction.'' Here again some were troubled that Ms. Morrow seemed to be advocating judicial activism. Ms. Morrow, however, assured the committee that she was not suggesting that courts themselves should be engines of change. In response to the committee she testified as follows: The theme of that speech was that the State Bar of California as an institution and the legal profession had to change some of the ways we did business. The quotation regarding engines of change had nothing to do with changes in the rule of law or changes in constitutional interpretation. Once again, the committee went back and scrutinized Ms. Morrow's speech and found that its theme was in fact changes the bar should make and did not advance the theme that courts should be engines of social change. The committee found the nominee's explanation of the use of the quotation, given its context, very plausible. In addition, the nominee went to some lengths in her oral testimony and her written responses to the committee to espouse a clearly restrained approach to constitutional interpretation and the rule of the courts. Frankly, much of what she has said under oath goes a long way toward legitimized, very restrained jurisprudence that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle called out of the mainstream just a decade ago. For example, she testified that she would attempt to interpret the Constitution ``consistent with the intent of the drafters.'' She later explained in more detail that judges should use the constitutional text ``as a starting point, and using that language and whatever information there is respecting the intent behind that language one ought to attempt then to decide the case consistent with that intent.'' She later testified that judges should not ``by incremental changes ease the law from one arena to another in a policy sense.'' And in written correspondence with the committee, Ms. Morrow further elaborated on her constitutional jurisprudence by highlighting the case which in her view adopted the proper methodology to constitutional interpretation. As she explained, in that case the Court ``looked first to the language of the Constitution,'' then ``buttressed its reading'' of the text by ``looking to the language of other constitutional provisions.'' And finally to ``the intent of those who drafted and ratified this language as reflected in the Federalist Papers, debates of the Constitutional Convention and other writings of the time.'' Contrary to the claim that she condemns all voter initiatives, Ms. Morrow has actually sought to ensure that voters have meaningful ways of evaluating such initiatives. In a widely circulated article, Ms. Morrow noted that the intensive advertising campaigns that surround citizen initiatives often focus unfairly on the measure's sponsor rather than the initiative's substance. This made it hard, she argued, for voters to make meaningful choices and ``renders ephemeral any real hope of intelligent voting by a majority.'' Read in its proper context, this statement seized upon by Ms. Morrow's critics was a statement concerning the quality of information disseminated to the voters, not a comment on the voters' ability to make intelligent policy choices. Thus Ms. Morrow's statement is not particularly controversial but in fact highly respectful of the role voters must play in our electoral system. In fact, Ms. Morrow argued that the courts should not be placed in a position of policing the initiative process. She explained that ``having passed an initiative, the voters want to see it enacted. They view a court challenge to its validity as interference with the public will.'' For this reason, Ms. Morrow advocated reforms to the California initiative process to take a final decision on ballot measures out of the hands of judges and to place it back into the hands of the people. In supporting this nomination, I took into account a number of factors, including Ms. Morrow's testimony, her accomplishments and her evident ability as an attorney, as well as the fact that she has received strong support, bipartisan support from both Democrats and Republicans. Republicans included Ninth Circuit Judges Cynthia Hall, Steven Trott and Pamela Rymer, Reagan-Bush appointees, as well as Rob Bonner, a respected conservative, former Federal judge and head of the drug enforcement agency under President Bush. I know all of these people personally. They are all strong conservatives. They are really decent people. They are as concerned as you or I or anybody else about who we place on the Federal bench, and they are strongly in favor of Margaret Morrow, as are many, many other Republicans. And they are not just people who live within the district where she will be a judge. They are some eminent judges themselves. I have a rough time seeing why anybody basically under all these circumstances would oppose this nominee. Each of those individuals I mentioned and others, such as Richard Riordan, the Republican mayor of Los Angeles, have assured the committee that Ms. Morrow will not be a judicial activist. I hope they are correct. And at least on this point I have seen little evidence in the record that would suggest to me that she would fail to abide by the rule of law once she achieves the bench and practices on the bench and fulfills her responsibility as a judge on the bench. In sum, I support this nominee and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I am also pleased, with regard to these judicial nominees, that no one on our side has threatened to ever filibuster any of these judges, to my knowledge. I think it is a travesty if we ever start getting into a game of filibustering judges. I have to admit my colleagues on the other side attempted to do that on a number of occasions the last number of years during the Reagan-Bush years. They always backed off, but maybe they did because they realized there were not the votes to invoke cloture. But I really think it is a travesty if we treat this third branch of Government with such disregard that we filibuster judges. The only way I could ever see that happening is if a person is so absolutely unqualified to sit on the bench that the only way you could stop that person is to filibuster that nominee. Even then, I question whether that should be done. We are dealing with a [[Page S642]] coequal branch of Government. We are dealing with some of the most important nominations a President, whoever that President may be, will make. And we are also dealing with good faith on both sides of the floor. I have to say, during some of the Reagan and Bush years, I thought our colleagues on the other side were reprehensible in some of the things they did with regard to Reagan and Bush judges, but by and large the vast majority of them were put through without any real fuss or bother even though my colleagues on the other side, had they been President, would not have appointed very many of those judges. We have to show the same good faith on our side, it seems to me. And unless you have an overwhelming case, as may be the case in the nomination of Judge Massiah-Jackson, unless you have an overwhelming case, then certainly I don't see any reason for anybody filibustering judges. I hope that we never get into that. Let's make our case if we have disagreement, and I have to say that some of my colleagues disagree with this nomination, and they do it legitimately, sincerely, and I think with intelligence, but I think they are wrong. And that is after having been part of this process for 22 years now and always trying to be fair, whoever is the President of the United States and whoever the nominees are. It is important because most of the fight has to occur behind the scenes. It has to occur between honest people in the White House and honest people up here. And that's where the battles are. When they get this far, generally most of them should be approved. There are some that we have problems with still in the Judiciary Committee, but that is our job to look at them. That is our job to look into their background. It is our job to screen these candidates. And, as you can see, in the case of Massiah-Jackson we had these accusations but nobody was willing to stand up and say them. I am not about to rely on unsubstantiated accusations by anybody. I will rely on the witness herself in that case. But we never quit investigating in the committee, and even though Massiah-Jackson was passed out of the committee, the investigation continued and ultimately we find a supernumber of people, very qualified people, people in that area who have a lot to do with law and justice are now opposed to that nomination. We cannot ignore that. But that is the way the system works. We have had judges withdraw after we have approved them in the Judiciary Committee because something has come up to disturb their nomination. That is the way it should work. This is not a numbers game. These are among the most important nominations that any President can make and that the Senate can ever work on. In the case of Margaret Morrow, I personally have examined the whole record, and, like I say, maybe people on our side would not have appointed her if they were President, but they are not the President. And unless there is an overwhelming case to be made against a judge, I have a very difficult--and especially this one; there is not--I have to say that I think we do a great injustice if we do not support this nomination. So with that, I will yield the floor. How much time does the distinguished Senator need? Mrs. BOXER. About 10 minutes. Mr. HATCH. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California. If my colleague would prefer to control the time on his side, I would be happy--should I yield to the Senator? Mrs. BOXER. I would prefer we yield to Senator Leahy given his schedule. Mr. HATCH. Let's split the time. You control half the time, and I will control half. You can make the determination, or if you would like---- Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is there remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 36 minutes 30 seconds. Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if I might yield myself 5 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this really has been a long time coming, and I appreciate the effort of my friend, the chairman, who is on the floor, to support this nomination. I commend my good friend, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, who has been indefatigable in this effort. She has worked and worked and worked. I believe she has spoken to every single Senator, every single potential Senator, every single past Senator, certainly to all the judges, and she has been at us over and over again to make sure that this day would come. She has worked with the Republican leader, the Democratic leader, and Republican and Democratic Senators alike. I appreciate all that she has done. We have all been aided by our colleague, Senator Feinstein. She has spoken out strongly for Margaret Morrow as a member of the Judiciary Committee and as a Senator. I feel though, as Senator Boxer has said, that none of us would have predicted that it would take 21 months to get this nomination before the Senate. I know that we would not even be here now if the distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished majority leader had not made the commitment before we broke last fall to proceed to this nomination this week. I have spoken about this nomination so many times I have almost lost track of the number. I will not speak as long as I would otherwise today because I want to yield to the Senator from California. But I think people should know that for some time there was an unexplained hold on this outstanding nominee. This is a nominee, incidentally, who was reported out of the Judiciary Committee twice. This is a nominee who is the first woman to be the president of the California State Bar Association and a president of the Los Angeles County bar. This is a nominee who is a partner in a prestigious law firm. This is a nominee who has the highest rating that lawyers can be given when they come before our committee for approval as a judge. This is a woman about whom letters were sent to me and to other Senators from some of the leading Republicans and some of the leading Democrats in California and from others whose background I know only because of their reputations, extraordinary reputations. I have no idea what their politics are. But all of them, whether they describe themselves as conservatives, liberals, moderates or apolitical, all of them say what an extraordinary woman she is. And I agree. I have read all of the reports about her. I have read all the things people said in her favor, and the things, ofttimes anonymous, said against her. I look at all those and I say of this woman: If I were a litigant, plaintiff or defendant, government or defendant, no matter what side I was on, I could look at this woman and say I am happy to come into her court. I am happy to have my case heard by her--whether I am rich, poor, white, black, no matter what might be my background. I know she would give a fair hearing. Now, finally, after 12 months on the Senate calendar without action over the course of the last 3 years, I am glad that the debate is beginning. I am also glad we can now look forward to the end of the ordeal for Margaret Morrow, for her family, her friends and her supporters. Her supporters include the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and half the Republican members on that committee. The Republican Mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan, calls her ``an excellent addition to the Federal bench.'' All of these people have praised her. To reiterate, this day has been a long time coming. When this accomplished lawyer was first nominated by the President of the United States to fill a vacancy on the District Court for the Central District of California, none of us would have predicted that it would be more than 21 months before that nomination was considered by the United States Senate. I thank the Majority Leader and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for fulfilling the commitment made late last year to turn to this nomination before the February recess. Fairness to the people and litigants in the Central District of California and to Margaret Morrow and her family demand no less. I trust that those who credit local law enforcement and local prosecutors and local judges from time to time as it suits them will credit the views of the many California judges and local officials who have written to the Senate over the last several months in support of the confirmation of Margaret Morrow. I will cite just a few examples: [[Page S643]] Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block; Orange County District Attorney Michael R. Capizzi; former U.S. Attorney and former head of the DEA under President Bush, Robert C. Bonner; former Reagan Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division and former Associate Attorney General and current Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen S. Trott; and California Court of Appeals Associate Justice H. Walter Croskey. I deeply regret that confirmation as a Federal Judge is becoming more like a political campaign for these nominees. They are being required to gather letters of support and urge their friends, colleagues and clients to support their candidacy or risk being mischaracterized by those who do not know them. Margaret Morrow's background, training, temperament, character and skills are beyond reproach. She is a partner in the law firm of Arnold & Porter. She has practiced law for 24 years. A distinguished graduate of Bryn Mawr College and Harvard Law School, Ms. Morrow was the first woman President of the California State Bar Association and a former president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. She has had the strong and unwavering support of Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein of California. In light of her qualifications, it was no surprise that in 1996 she was unanimously reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 1997 her nomination was again reported favorably, this time by a vote of 13 to 5. Yet hers has been an arduous journey to Senate consideration. She has been targeted--targeted by extremists outside the Senate whose $1.4 million fundraising and lobbying campaign against judges needed a victim. As our debate will show today, they chose the wrong woman. Lest someone accuse us of gratuitously injecting gender into this debate, I note the following: Her critics have gone so far as to deny her the courtesy of referring to her as Ms. Morrow. Instead, they went out of their way repeatedly to refer to her as ``Miss'' in a Washington Times op ed. Margaret Morrow is married to a distinguished California State Court Judge and is the proud mother of a 10-year-old son. It is bad enough that her words are taken out of context, her views misrepresented and her nomination used as a ideological prop. She is entitled to be treated with respect. Nor was this reference inadvertent. The first point of criticism in that piece was her membership in California Women Lawyers, which is criticized for supporting parental leave legislation. Senator Feinstein posed the question whether Margaret Morrow was held to a different standard than men nominees. That is a question that has troubled me throughout this process. I was likewise concerned to see that of the 14 nominees left pending at the end of last year whose nominations had been pending the longest, 12 were women and minority nominees. I did not know, until Senator Kennedy's statement to the Senate earlier this year, that judicial nominees who are women are now four times as likely as men to take over a year to confirm. At the same time, I note that Senator Hatch, who supports this nomination, included two women whose nominations have been pending for more than a year and one-half, at last week's Judiciary Committee hearing. I also note that the Senate did vote last month to confirm Judge Ann Aiken to the Oregon District Court. So one of the four article III judges confirmed so far this year was a woman nominee. Margaret Morrow has devoted her career to the law, to getting women involved in the practice of law and to making lawyers more responsive and responsible. Her good work in this regard should not be punished but commended. As part of those efforts Margaret Morrow gave a speech at a Women in the Law Conference in April 1994. That speech was later reprinted in a law review. Critics have seized upon a phrase or two from that speech, ripped them out of context and contended that they show Margaret Morrow would be an unprincipled judicial activist. They are wrong. Their argument was refuted by Ms. Morrow in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee. This criticism merely demonstrates the critics own indifference to the setting and context of the speech and its meaning for women who have worked so hard to achieve success in the legal profession. Her speech was about how the bar is begrudgingly adjusting to women in the legal profession. How telling that critics would fasten on that particular speech on women in the law and see it as something to criticize. Margaret Morrow spoke then about ``the struggles and successes'' of women practices law and ``the challenges which continue to face us day to day in the 1990s.'' Margaret Morrow has met every challenge. In the course of this confirmation, she has been forced to run a gauntlet. She has endured false charges and unfounded criticism. Her demeanor and dignity have never wavered. She has, again, been called upon to be a role model. The President of the Woman Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, the President of the Women's Legal Defense Fund, the President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the President of the National Conference of Women's Bar Association and other distinguished attorneys from the Los Angeles area have all written the Senate in support of the nomination of Margaret Morrow. They wrote that: ``Margaret Morrow is widely respected by attorneys, judges and community leaders of both parties.'' She ``is exactly the kind of person who should be appointed to such a position and held up as an example to young women across the country.'' I could not agree more. By letter dated February 4, 1998, a number of organizations including the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and women's lawyer associations from California likewise wrote urging confirmation of Margaret Morrow without further delay. I ask that a copy of that letter be included in the Record at this point. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: February 4, 1998. Senator Patrick Leahy, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Leahy: We write to express our concern over a series of developments that continue to unfold in the Senate that are undermining the judicial confirmation process. These include calls for the impeachment of judges, a slowdown in the pace of confirmations, unjustified criticisms of certain nominees, and efforts to leave appellate vacancies unfilled. Some court observers have opined that collectively these are the most serious efforts to curtail judicial independence since President Roosevelt's plan to pack the Supreme Court in 1937. In the past year nominees who failed to meet certain ultraconservative litmus tests have been labeled ``judicial activists.'' While these charges are unfounded, they nonetheless delay confirmations and leave judicial seats unfilled. We note that of the 14 individuals whose nominations have been pending the longest, 12 are women or minorities. This disturbing pattern is in striking contrast to those 14 judges who were confirmed in 1997 in the shortest period of time, 11 of whom are white men. For example, Margaret Morrow, a judicial nominee to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, was nominated more than a year and a half ago. Not only is she an outstanding candidate, but her credentials have earned her enthusiastic and bipartisan endorsements from leaders of the bar, judges, politicians, and civic groups. An honors graduate from Harvard Law School, a civil litigator for more than 20 years, winner of numerous legal awards, and the first female president of the California Bar Association, Morrow has the breadth of background and experience to make her an excellent judge, and in the words of one of her sponsors, she would be ``an exceptionally distinguished addition to the federal bench.'' Morrow has also shown, through her numerous pro bono activities, a demonstrated commitment to equal justice. As president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, she created the Pro Bono Council, the first of its kind in California. During her year as bar president, the Council coordinated the provision of 150,000 hours of previously untapped representation to indigent clients throughout the county. Not surprisingly, the American Bar Association's judicial evaluation committee gave her its highest rating. Republicans and Democrats alike speak highly of her accomplishments and qualifications. Robert Bonner, a Reagan- appointed U.S. Attorney and U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California and head of the Drug Enforcement Administration during the Bush Administration, has said Morrow is a ``brilliant person with a first-rate legal mind who was nominated upon merit, not political affiliation.'' Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block wrote that, ``Margaret Morrow is an extremely hard working individual of impeccable character and integrity. . . . I have no doubt that she would [[Page S644]] be a distinguished addition to the Court.'' Other supporters include local bar leaders; officials from both parties, including Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan; California judges appointed by the state's last three governors; and three Republican-appointed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges, Pamela Rymer, Cynthia Holcomb Hall, and Stephen Trott. Despite here outstanding record, Morrow has become the target of a coordinated effort by ultraconservative groups that seek to politicize the judiciary. They have subjected her to a campaign of misrepresentations, distortions and attacks on her record, branding her a ``judicial activist.'' According to her opponents, she deserves to be targeted because ``she is a member of California Women Lawyers,'' an absurd charge given that this bipartisan organization is among the most highly respected in the state. Another ``strike'' against her is her concern, expressed in a sentence from a 1988 article, about special interest domination of the ballot initiative process in California. Her opponents view the statement as disdainful of voter initiatives such as California's term limits law; however, they overlook the fact that the article outlines a series of recommended reforms to preserve the process. It is a stretch to construe suggested reforms as evidence of ``judicial activism,'' but to search for this members of the Judiciary Committee unprecedentedly asked her to disclose her personal positions on all 160 past ballot propositions in California. Morrow's confirmation has been delayed by the Senate beyond any reasonable bounds. Originally selected over nineteen months ago in May 1996, her nomination was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee that year, only to languish on the Senate floor. Morrow was again nominated at the beginning of 1997, subjected to an unusual second hearing, and recommended again by the Judiciary Committee, after which several Senators placed secret holds on her nomination, preventing a final vote on her confirmation. These holds, which prevented a final vote on her confirmation during the 1st Session of the 105th Congress, where recently lifted. As Senator Orrin Hatch repeatedly said: ``playing politics with judges is unfair, and I'm sick of it.'' We agree with his sentiment. Given Margaret Morrow's impressive qualifications, we urge you to bring the nomination to the Senate floor, ensure that it receives prompt, full and fair consideration, and that a final vote on her nomination is scheduled as soon as possible. Sincerely, Alliance for Justice: Nan Aron, President. American Jewish Congress: Phil Baum, Executive Director. Americans for Democratic Action: Amy Isaacs, National Director. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: Robert Bernstein, Executive Law. Brennan Center for Justice: E. Joshua Rosenkrantz, Executive Director. Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles: Eulanda Matthews, President. California Women Lawyers: Grace E. Emery, President. Center for Law and Social Policy: Alan W. Hausman, Director. Chicago Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: Clyde E. Murphy, Executive Director. Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Patricia Wright, Coordinator Disabled Fund. Families USA: Judy Waxman, Director of Government Affairs. Lawyers Club of San Diego: Kathleen Juniper, Director. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: Wade Henderson, Executive Director. Marin County Women Lawyers: Eileen Barker, President. Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund: Antonia Hernandez, Executive Director. Monterey County Women Lawyers: Karen Kardushin, Affiliate Governor. NAACP: Hilary Shelton, Deputy Director, Washington Office. National Bar Association: Randy K. Jones, President. National Center for Youth Law: John F. O'Toole, Director. National Conference of Women Bar Associations: Phillis C. Solomon, President. National Council of Senior Citizens: Steve Protulis, Executive Director. National Employment Lawyers Association: Terisa E. Chaw, Executive Director. National Gay & Lesbian Task Force: Rebecca Issacs, Public Policy Director. National Lawyers Guild: Karen Jo Koonan, President. National Legal Aid & Defender Association: Julie Clark, Executive Director. National Organization for Women: Patricia Ireland, President. National Women's Law Center: Marcia Greenberger and Nancy Duff Campbell, Co-presidents. Orange County Women Lawyers: Jean Hobart, President. People for the American Way Action Fund: Mike Lux, Senior Vice President. San Francisco Women Lawyers Alliance: Geraldine Rosen-Park, President. Santa Barbara Women Lawyers: Renee Nordstrand, President. Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees: Ann Hoffman, Legislative Director. Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles: Greer C. Bosworth, President. Women Lawyers of Alameda County: Sandra Schweitzer, President. Women Lawyers of Sacramento: Karen Leaf, President. Women Lawyers of Santa Cruz: Lorie Klein, President. Women's Legal Defense Fund: Judy Lichtman, President. Youth Law Center: Mark Soler, Executive Director. Mr. LEAHY. It is time. It is time to stop holding her hostage and help all Americans, and certainly those who are within the district that this court will cover in California. It is time to help the cause of justice. It is time to improve the bench of the United States. It is time to confirm this woman. And it is time for the U.S. Senate to say we made a mistake in holding it up this long. Let us go forward. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah has no objection, I would like now to yield, and yield control of whatever time I might have, to the Senator from California. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California. Mrs. BOXER. I say to Senator Leahy, before he leaves the floor, and because Senator Hatch in his absence explained the wonderful tribute he is going to have shortly with his portrait being hung in the Agriculture room, and he himself said that he is so respectful of you and wants to show his respect so much that he is going to join you, so that will leave me here on the floor to debate with the Senator from Missouri--before you leave the floor I wanted to say to you and to Senator Hatch together, and I say this from the bottom of my heart, without the two of you looking fairly at this nomination, this day would never have come. To me it is, in a way, a moving moment. So often we stand on the floor and we talk about delays and so on and so forth. But when you put the human face on this issue and you have a woman and her husband and her son and a law firm that was so excited about this nominee, and you add to that 2 years of twisting in the wind and not knowing whether this day would ever come, you have to say that today is a wonderful day. So, before my colleague leaves, I wanted to say to him: Thank you for being there for Margaret Morrow and, frankly, all of the people of America. Because she will make an excellent judge. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I say to my friend from California and to my friend from Utah, I do appreciate their help in this. I can assure you that, while my family and I will gather for the hanging of this portrait--I almost blushed when you mentioned that is my reason for being off the floor--I can assure you I will be back in plenty of time for the vote and I will have 210 pounds of Vermonter standing in the well of the Senate to encourage everybody to vote the appropriate way. Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague very much, Senator Leahy. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from California. Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining on this side? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 15 minutes. The Senator from Utah has 30 minutes. Mrs. BOXER. My understanding is I would have 15 minutes, then? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Mrs. BOXER. I ask that the Presiding Officer let me know when 10 minutes has passed, and I will reserve 5 minutes in which to debate the Senator from Missouri, because I know he is a tough debater and I am going to need some time. Mr. President, as I said, I am so very pleased that this day has come at long last, that we will have an up-or-down vote on Margaret Morrow. I really think, standing here, perhaps the only people happier than I am right now are Margaret and her husband and her son and her law partners and the various citizens of California, Republicans and Democrats, who worked together for this day. Margaret Morrow is the epitome of mainstream values and mainstream America, and the depth and breadth of her support from prominent Republicans and Democrats illustrate that she is eminently qualified to sit as a Federal judge. I don't think I could be any more eloquent than Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Leahy, in putting forward her credentials. [[Page S645]] What I am going to do later is just read from some of the many letters that we got about Margaret, and then I, also, at that time, will have some letters printed in the Record. Again, I want to say to Senator Hatch how his leadership has been extraordinary on this, and also I personally thank Majority Leader Lott and Democratic Leader Daschle for bringing this to the floor and arranging for an agreement that this nominee be brought to the floor. I thank my colleague from Missouri for allowing an up-or-down vote, for not launching a filibuster on this matter. I think Chairman Hatch spoke of that eloquently, and I am very pleased that we can have this fair vote. I recommended Margaret Morrow to the President in September of 1995. She was nominated by the President on May 9, 1996. She received her first hearing before the Judiciary Committee on June 25, 1996, and was favorably reported out unanimously by the committee 2 days later. Because there was no action, she was renominated again on January 7, 1997, and had her second hearing on March 18, 1997. This time she was reported out favorably. This time the vote was 13 to 5. I want to make the point that there is a personal side to this judicial nomination process. For nominees who are awaiting confirmation, their personal and professional lives truly hang in the balance. Margaret Morrow, a 47-year-old mother and law partner has put her life and her professional practice on hold while she waited for the Senate to vote on her nomination. Her whole family, particularly her husband and son, have waited patiently for this day. That is stress and that is strain, as you wait for this decision which will so affect your life and the life of your family and, of course, your career. Former Majority Leader Bob Dole spoke of this process himself when he once said, ``We should not be holding people up. If we need a vote, vote them down or vote them up, because the nominees probably have plans to make and there are families involved.'' I think Senator Dole said it straight ahead. So I am really glad that Margaret's day has come finally. I do want to say to Margaret, thank you for hanging in there. Thank you for not giving up. I well understand that there were certain moments where you probably were tempted to do so. There were days when you probably thought this day would never come. But you did hang in there, and you had every reason to hang in there. This is a woman who graduated magna cum laude from Bryn Mawr College and received her law degree from Harvard, graduating cum laude, 23 years in private practice in business and commercial litigation, a partner at the prestigious law firm of Arnold and Porter. She is married to Judge Paul Boland of the Los Angeles Superior Court and has a 10-year-old son, Patrick Morrow Boland, who actually came up here on one of the times that she was before the committee. Over the years, Margaret has represented a diverse group of business and Government clients, including some of the Nation's largest and most prominent companies. In the time I have remaining now, I want to quote from some very prestigious leaders from California, and from the Senate, who have spoken out in behalf of Margaret Morrow. First we have Senator Orrin Hatch. He spoke for Margaret himself, so I won't go over that quote. Robert Bonner, former U.S. attorney appointed by President Reagan, former U.S. district court judge in the Central District of California and former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, appointed by President George Bush, he sent a letter to Senators Bond, D'Amato, Domenici, Sessions and Specter. In it he says: The issue--the only real issue--is this: Is Margaret Morrow likely to be an activist judge? My answer and the answer of other Californians who have unchallengeable Republican credentials and who are and have been leaders of the bar and bench in California, is an unqualified NO. . . . On a personal note, I have known Margaret Morrow for over twenty years. She was my former law partner. I can assure you that she will not be a person who will act precipitously or rashly in challenging the rule of law. He continues: Based on her record, the collective knowledge of so many Republicans of good reputation, and her commitment to the rule of law and legal institutions, it is clear to me that Margaret will be a superb trial judge who will follow the law as articulated by the Constitution and legal precedent, and apply it to the facts before her. I think that this statement is quite powerful. We have numbers of others as well. In a letter to Senators Abraham and Gordon Smith and Pat Roberts, Thomas Malcolm, who is chairman of Governor Wilson's Judicial Selection Committee for Orange County and served on the Judicial Selection Committees of Senators Hayakawa, Wilson, and Seymour, wrote the following: I have known Ms. Morrow for approximately 10 years. Over the years, she has constantly been the most outstanding leader our California Bar Association has ever had the privilege of her sitting as its President. . . . Of the literally hundreds of nominations for appointment to the federal bench during my tenure on Senators Hayakawa, Wilson and Seymour's Judicial Selection Committees, Ms. Morrow is by far one of the most impressive applicants I have ever seen. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 7\1/2\ minutes. Mrs. BOXER. Remaining of my 10 minutes? The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 3 minutes of your 10 minutes remaining. Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. In the 3 minutes remaining I am going to quote from some others. Los Angeles Mayor, Richard Riordan, in a letter to Senator Hatch, said: Ms. Morrow would be an excellent addition to the Federal bench. She is dedicated to following the law and applying it in a rational and objective fashion. Republican judges in the 9th Circuit, Pamela Rymer and Cynthia Hall-- they are both President Bush and President Reagan's appointees respectively--in a letter to Senators Hutchison, Collins and Snowe, write: [We] urge your favorable action on the Morrow nomination because [we] believe that she would be an exceptional federal judge. Representative James Rogan, former Republican Assembly majority leader in the California State Assembly, the first Republican majority leader in almost 30 years--actually he testified in front of the Judiciary Committee and said: When an individual asks me to make a recommendation for a judgeship, that is perhaps the single most important thing I will study before making any recommendation . . . I am absolutely convinced that . . . she would be the type of judge who would follow the Constitution and laws of the United States as they were written. . . . [I]t is my belief . . . that should she win approval from this committee and from the full Senate, she would be a judge that we could all be proud of, both in California and throughout our land. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of people from all over California endorsing Margaret Morrow. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Republican Support for Margaret M. Morrow Robert C. Bonner, former U.S. Attorney (appointed by President Reagan), former U.S. District Court Judge in the Central District of California and former Head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (appointed by President Bush), Partner at Gibson, Dunne and Crutcher in Los Angeles (2 letters). Thomas R. Malcolm, Chairman of Governor Wilson's judicial selection committee for Orange County and previously served on the judicial selection committees of Senators Hayakawa, Wilson, and Seymour. Rep. James Rogan (R-27-CA), former Assembly Majority Leader, California State Legislature, former gang murder prosecutor in the LA County District Attorney's Office, former Municipal Court Judge in California. Pamela Rymer, Curcuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2 letters), appointed by President Bush. Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Circuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appointed by President Reagan. Lourdes Baird, District Court Judge, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, appointed by President Bush. H. Walter Croskey, Associate Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (2 letters), appointed by Governor Deukmejian. Richard J. Riordan, Major, City of Los Angeles. Michael R. Capizzi, District Attorney, Orange County. Lod Cook, Chairman Emeritus, ARCO, Los Angeles. Clifford R. Anderson, Jr., supporter of the presidential campaigns for Presidents Nixon and Reagan, and former member of Governor Wilson's judicial selection committee (when [[Page S646]] he was Senator) member of Governor Wilson's State judicial evaluation committee. Sherman Block, Sheriff, County of Los Angeles. Roger W. Boren, Presiding Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (2 letters), appointed by Governor Wilson. Sheldon H. Sloan, former President of Los Angeles County Bar Association. Stephen Trott, Circuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2 letters), appointed by President Reagan. Judith C. Chirlin, Judge, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, appointed by Governor Deukmejian. Richard C. Neal, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, appointed by Governors Deukmejian and Wilson. Marvin R. Baxter, Associate Justice, Superme Court of California, appointed by Governor Deukmejian. Charles S. Vogel, Presiding Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, appointed by Governors Reagan and Wilson. Dale S. Fischer, Judge, Los Angeles Municipal Court, appointed by Governor Wilson. Richard D. Aldrich, Associate Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, appointed by Governors Deukmejian and Wilson. Edward B. Huntington, Judge, Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego, appointed by Governor Wilson. Laurence H. Pretty, former President of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers. Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to say to you again, I know you have been very fair as I presented the case to you, this is a woman that every single Senator should be proud to support today. It is not a matter of political party. This is a woman uniquely qualified. I almost want to say, if Margaret Morrow cannot make it through, then, my goodness, who could? I really think she brings those kinds of bipartisan credentials. I reserve my 5 minutes and yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Missouri is recognized. Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much. I yield myself so much time as I may consume, and I ask that the Chair inform me when I have consumed 15 minutes. I thank you very much for allowing me to participate in this debate. It is appropriate that we bring to the floor nominees who are well known to the committee for debate by the full Senate. I commend the chairman of the committee for bringing this nomination to the floor. I have no objection to these nominations coming to the floor and no objection to voting on these nominees. I only objected to this nominee coming to the floor to be approved by unanimous consent because I think we deserve the opportunity to debate these nominees, to discuss them and to have votes on them. So many people who are not familiar with the process of the Senate may think that when a Senator says that he wants to have a debate that he is trying to delay. I believe the work of the Senate should be done in full view of the American people and that we should have the opportunity to discuss these issues, and then instead of having these things voted on by unanimous consent at the close of the business day with no record, I think it is important that we debate the nominee's qualifications on the record. I think it is important because the judiciary is one-third of the Government of the United States. The individuals who populate the judiciary are lifetime appointments. The United States Constitution imposes a responsibility on the Senate to be a quality screen, and it is the last screen before a person becomes a lifetime member of the judiciary. So we need to do our best to make sure that only high-quality individuals reach that level, individuals who have respect for the Constitution, who appropriately understand that the role of the courts is to decide disputes and not to expand the law or to somehow develop new constitutional rights. The legislature is the part of the body politic that is designed to make law. The courts are designed to settle disputes about the law. It is against this background that I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the nomination of Margaret Morrow. Let me begin by saying that Ms. Morrow is an outstanding lawyer. No one wants to challenge her credentials. No one believes that she is not a person of great intellect or a person of tremendous experience. She is a person who has great capacity. It has been demonstrated in her private life, her educational record and in her life of service as an officer of the California Bar Association. The only reservations to be expressed about Ms. Morrow, and they are substantial ones in my regard--they are not about her talent, not about her capacity, not about her integrity--they are about what her interpretation of the role of a judge is; whether she thinks that the law as developed in the court system belongs on the cutting edge, whether she thinks that the law, as developed in the court system, is an engine of social change and that the courts should drive the Nation in a direction of a different culture and a direction of recognizing new rights that weren't recognized or placed in the Constitution, and that needed to be invented or developed or brought into existence by individuals who populate the courts. That, I think, is the major question we have before us. So let me just say again, this is an outstanding person of intellect, from everything I can understand a person of great integrity, a person whose record of service is laudable and commendable. The only question I have is, does she have the right view of the Constitution, the right view of what courts are supposed to do, or will she be someone who goes to the bench and, unfortunately, like so many other lawyers in the ninth circuit, decide that the court is the best place to amend the Constitution? Does she think the court is the best place to strike down the will of the people, to impose on the people from the courts what could not be generated by the representatives of the people in the legislature. So, fundamentally, the question is whether or not this candidate will respect the separation of powers, whether this candidate will say the legislature is the place to make the law, and whether she will recognize that courts can only make decisions about the law. Will she acknowledge that the people have the right to make the law, too? After all, that is what our Constitution says, that all power and all authority is derived from the people, and they, with their elected representatives, should have the opportunity to make the law. It is with these questions in mind that I look at some of the writings of this candidate for a Federal judgeship, and I come to the conclusion that she believes that the court system and the courts are the place where the law can be made, especially if the people are not smart enough or if the people aren't progressive enough or if the Constitution isn't flexible enough. I can't say for sure this is what would happen. I have to be fair. I have to go by what she has written. I will be at odds with the interpretation of some of the things said by the committee chairman. I respect the chairman, but I think that his interpretation of her writings is flawed. In 1995, in a law review comment, Ms. Morrow seemed to endorse the practice of judicial activism, that is judge-made law. She wrote: For the law is, almost by definition, on the cutting edge of social thought. It is a vehicle-- Or a way-- through which we ease the transition from the rules which have always been to the rules which are to be. She is saying that the law is the vehicle, the thing that takes you from what was to what will be. I was a little puzzled when the committee chairman said that the committee found that she didn't mean the substantive as expressed in the courts and the like. Let me just say I don't believe the committee made any such findings. I have checked with committee staff, and it is just not the case that the committee made findings. It is true that a majority of the members of the committee voted this candidate to the floor, but the committee didn't make findings that this was not a statement of judicial activism. Frankly, I think it is a statement of judicial activism, despite the fact that Ms. Morrow told the committee that she was not speaking about the law in any substantive way, but rather was referring to the legal profession and the rules governing the profession. The law, by definition, is on the cutting edge of social thought? Social [[Page S647]] thought doesn't govern the profession, social thought governs the society. The transition of the rules from the way they have always been to the rules which they are to be? I think it is a stretch to say that this really refers to the legal profession. If she meant that the legal profession is a vehicle through which we ease the transition from the rules which always have been to the rules which are to be, that doesn't make sense. Clearly she is referring to something other than the legal profession or the rules of professional conduct. Some have suggested that because Ms. Morrow initially made these remarks at a 1994 Conference on Women and the Law, that it is plausible that she was referring to the profession and not to the substantive law. But I think it is more likely that her statement reflects a belief that the law can and should be used by those who interpret it to change social norms, inside and outside of the legal profession. Truly, that is a definition of activism, the ability of judges to impose on the culture those things which they prefer rather than have the culture initiate through their elected representatives those things which the culture prefers. Frankly, if it is a question of a few in the judiciary defining what the values of the many are in the culture, I think that is antidemocratic. I really believe that the virtue of America is that the many impose their will on the Government, not that the few in Government impose their will on the many. Reasonable people can disagree on the proper interpretation of Ms. Morrow's statement. Others can argue about whether or not hastening social change is a proper role for judges in the courts. But I think it is fair to conclude that Ms. Morrow's comments were an endorsement of judicial activism. In 1993, Ms. Morrow gave another speech that suggested approval of judicial activism, quoting William Brennan, an evangelist of judicial activism. Morrow stated: Justice can only endure and flourish if law and legal institutions are ``engines of social change'' able to accommodate evolving patterns of life and social interaction in this decade. She said these remarks were not an endorsement of activism. She told the Judiciary Committee the subject of the comments was, once again, not the law but the legal profession and the California Stat

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

EXECUTIVE SESSION
(Senate - February 11, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S640-S660] EXECUTIVE SESSION ______ NOMINATION OF MARGARET M. MORROW, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to consider Executive Calendar No. 135, which the clerk will report. The legislative clerk read the nomination of Margaret M. Morrow, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate on the nomination is limited to 2 hours equally divided and controlled by the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Missouri. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of Margaret Morrow to the Federal District bench in California. Ms. Morrow enjoys broad bipartisan support, and it is no wonder. She graduated magna cum laude from Bryn Mawr College, and cum laude from the Harvard Law School. She is presently a partner at Arnold and Porter in their Los Angeles office where she handles virtually all of that office's appellate litigation. I plan to outline in greater detail why I intend to support Ms. Morrow's nomination. But first I would like to discuss the Judiciary Committee's record with respect to the confirmation of President Clinton's judicial nominees. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of the most important duties I fulfill is in screening judicial nominees. Indeed, the Constitution itself obligates the Senate to provide the President advice concerning his nominees, and to consent to their ultimate confirmation. Although some have complained about the pace at which the committee has moved on judicial nominees, I note that it has undertaken its duty in a deliberate and serious fashion. Indeed, with respect to Ms. Morrow, there were concerns. Her answers to the committee were not entirely responsive. Rather than simply pushing the nomination forward, however, I believed it was important for the committee to ensure that its questions were properly answered. Thus, the committee submitted written questions for Ms. Morrow to clarify some of her additional responses. And, having reviewed Ms. Morrow's answers to the questions posed by the committee, I became satisfied that she would uphold the Constitution and abide by the rule of law. In fact, we held two hearings in Margaret Morrow's case, as I recall, and the second hearing was, of course, to clarify some of these issues without which we might not have had Ms. Morrow's nomination up even to this day. Thus, I think it fair to say that the committee has fairly and responsibly dealt with the President's nominees. Indeed, the Judiciary Committee has already held a judicial confirmation hearing, and has another planned for February 25. Thus, the committee will have held two nomination hearings in the first month of the session. I note that Judiciary Committee processed 47 of the President's nominees last session, including Ms. Morrow. Today there are more sitting judges than there were throughout virtually all of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Currently, there are 756 active Federal judges. In addition, there are 432 senior Federal judges who must by law continue to hear cases. Even in the ninth circuit, which has 10 vacancies, only one judge has actually stopped hearing cases. The others have taken senior status, and are still actively participating in that court's work. I am saying that the other nine judges have taken senior status. Those who have retired, or those who have taken senior status, are still hearing cases. The total pool of Federal judges available to hear cases is 1,188, a near record number. I have sought to steer the confirmation process in a way that kept it a fair and a principled one, and exercised what I felt was the appropriate degree of deference to the President's judicial appointees. I would like to personally express my gratitude and compliments to Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, for his cooperative efforts this past year. In fact, I would like my colleagues to note that a portrait of Senator Leahy will be unveiled this very evening in the Agriculture Committee hearing room. This is an honor that I believe my distinguished colleague justly deserves for his efforts on that great committee. I want Senator Leahy to know that I plan on attending that portrait unveiling itself even though this debate is taking place on the floor between 4 and 6 today. It is in this spirit of cooperation and fairness that I will vote to confirm Ms. Morrow. Conducting a fair confirmation process, however, does not mean granting the President carte blanche in filling judicial vacancies. It means assuring that those who are confirmed will uphold the Constitution and abide by the rule of law. Based upon the committee's review of her record, I believe that the evidence demonstrates that Margaret Morrow will be such a person. Ms. Morrow likely would not be my choice if I were sitting in the Oval Office. But the President is sitting there, and he has seen fit to nominate her. She has the support of the Senators from California. And the review conducted by the Judiciary Committee suggests that she understands the proper role of a judge in our Federal system and will abide by the rule of law. There is no doubt that Ms. Morrow is, in terms of her professional experience and abilities, qualified to serve as a Federal district court judge. I think the only question that may be plaguing some of my colleagues is whether she will abide by the rule of law. As I have stated elsewhere, nominees who are or who are likely to be judicial activists are not qualified to serve as Federal judges, and they should neither be nominated nor confirmed. And I want my colleagues to know that when such individuals come before the Judiciary Committee I will vociferously oppose them. In fact, many of the people that have been suggested by the administration have been stopped before they have been sent up. And that is where most of the battles occur, and that is where most of the work between the White House and myself really occurs. I have to compliment the White House in recognizing that some people that they wish they could have put on the bench were not appropriate persons to put on the bench because of their attitudes towards the rule of law primarily. While I initially had some concerns that Ms. Morrow might be an activist, I have concluded, based on all the information before the committee, that a compelling case cannot be made against her. While it is often difficult to tell whether a nominee's words before confirmation will match that nominee's deeds after confirmation, I believe that this nominee in particular deserves the benefit of the doubt. And [[Page S641]] all nominees deserve the benefit of the doubt, unless the contrary is substantial--or, should I say, less evidence to the contrary is substantial. In my view, there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Ms. Morrow will engage in judicial activism. In fact, Ms. Morrow has assured the committee that she will abide by the rule of law, and will not substitute her preferences for the dictates of the Constitution. If Ms. Morrow is a woman of her word, and I believe she is, I am confident that she will serve the country with distinction. I would like briefly to address some of the questions raised by those who oppose Ms. Morrow's nomination. Perhaps the most troubling evidence of potential activism that Ms. Morrow's critics advance comes from several speeches she has given while president of the Los Angeles, CA, Bar Association. At the fourth annual Conference on Women in the Law, for example, Ms. Morrow gave a speech in which she stated that ``the law is almost by definition on the cutting edge of social thought. It is a vehicle through which we ease the transition from the rules which have always been to the rules which are to be.'' Now, if Ms. Morrow was speaking here about ``the law'' and ``rules'' in a substantive sense, I would have no choice but to read these statements as professing a belief in judicial activism. On that basis alone, I would likely have opposed her nomination. However, Ms. Morrow repeatedly and somewhat animatedly testified before the committee that she was not speaking substantively of the law itself but, rather, was referring to the legal profession and the rules by which it governs itself. When the committee went back and examined the context of Ms. Morrow's speech, it concluded that this explanation was in keeping with the theme of her speech. In her inaugural address as president of the State Bar of California on October 9, 1993, Ms. Morrow quoted then Justice William Brennan, stating that ``Justice can only endure and flourish if law and legal institutions are engines of change able to accommodate evolving patterns of life and social interaction.'' Here again some were troubled that Ms. Morrow seemed to be advocating judicial activism. Ms. Morrow, however, assured the committee that she was not suggesting that courts themselves should be engines of change. In response to the committee she testified as follows: The theme of that speech was that the State Bar of California as an institution and the legal profession had to change some of the ways we did business. The quotation regarding engines of change had nothing to do with changes in the rule of law or changes in constitutional interpretation. Once again, the committee went back and scrutinized Ms. Morrow's speech and found that its theme was in fact changes the bar should make and did not advance the theme that courts should be engines of social change. The committee found the nominee's explanation of the use of the quotation, given its context, very plausible. In addition, the nominee went to some lengths in her oral testimony and her written responses to the committee to espouse a clearly restrained approach to constitutional interpretation and the rule of the courts. Frankly, much of what she has said under oath goes a long way toward legitimized, very restrained jurisprudence that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle called out of the mainstream just a decade ago. For example, she testified that she would attempt to interpret the Constitution ``consistent with the intent of the drafters.'' She later explained in more detail that judges should use the constitutional text ``as a starting point, and using that language and whatever information there is respecting the intent behind that language one ought to attempt then to decide the case consistent with that intent.'' She later testified that judges should not ``by incremental changes ease the law from one arena to another in a policy sense.'' And in written correspondence with the committee, Ms. Morrow further elaborated on her constitutional jurisprudence by highlighting the case which in her view adopted the proper methodology to constitutional interpretation. As she explained, in that case the Court ``looked first to the language of the Constitution,'' then ``buttressed its reading'' of the text by ``looking to the language of other constitutional provisions.'' And finally to ``the intent of those who drafted and ratified this language as reflected in the Federalist Papers, debates of the Constitutional Convention and other writings of the time.'' Contrary to the claim that she condemns all voter initiatives, Ms. Morrow has actually sought to ensure that voters have meaningful ways of evaluating such initiatives. In a widely circulated article, Ms. Morrow noted that the intensive advertising campaigns that surround citizen initiatives often focus unfairly on the measure's sponsor rather than the initiative's substance. This made it hard, she argued, for voters to make meaningful choices and ``renders ephemeral any real hope of intelligent voting by a majority.'' Read in its proper context, this statement seized upon by Ms. Morrow's critics was a statement concerning the quality of information disseminated to the voters, not a comment on the voters' ability to make intelligent policy choices. Thus Ms. Morrow's statement is not particularly controversial but in fact highly respectful of the role voters must play in our electoral system. In fact, Ms. Morrow argued that the courts should not be placed in a position of policing the initiative process. She explained that ``having passed an initiative, the voters want to see it enacted. They view a court challenge to its validity as interference with the public will.'' For this reason, Ms. Morrow advocated reforms to the California initiative process to take a final decision on ballot measures out of the hands of judges and to place it back into the hands of the people. In supporting this nomination, I took into account a number of factors, including Ms. Morrow's testimony, her accomplishments and her evident ability as an attorney, as well as the fact that she has received strong support, bipartisan support from both Democrats and Republicans. Republicans included Ninth Circuit Judges Cynthia Hall, Steven Trott and Pamela Rymer, Reagan-Bush appointees, as well as Rob Bonner, a respected conservative, former Federal judge and head of the drug enforcement agency under President Bush. I know all of these people personally. They are all strong conservatives. They are really decent people. They are as concerned as you or I or anybody else about who we place on the Federal bench, and they are strongly in favor of Margaret Morrow, as are many, many other Republicans. And they are not just people who live within the district where she will be a judge. They are some eminent judges themselves. I have a rough time seeing why anybody basically under all these circumstances would oppose this nominee. Each of those individuals I mentioned and others, such as Richard Riordan, the Republican mayor of Los Angeles, have assured the committee that Ms. Morrow will not be a judicial activist. I hope they are correct. And at least on this point I have seen little evidence in the record that would suggest to me that she would fail to abide by the rule of law once she achieves the bench and practices on the bench and fulfills her responsibility as a judge on the bench. In sum, I support this nominee and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I am also pleased, with regard to these judicial nominees, that no one on our side has threatened to ever filibuster any of these judges, to my knowledge. I think it is a travesty if we ever start getting into a game of filibustering judges. I have to admit my colleagues on the other side attempted to do that on a number of occasions the last number of years during the Reagan-Bush years. They always backed off, but maybe they did because they realized there were not the votes to invoke cloture. But I really think it is a travesty if we treat this third branch of Government with such disregard that we filibuster judges. The only way I could ever see that happening is if a person is so absolutely unqualified to sit on the bench that the only way you could stop that person is to filibuster that nominee. Even then, I question whether that should be done. We are dealing with a [[Page S642]] coequal branch of Government. We are dealing with some of the most important nominations a President, whoever that President may be, will make. And we are also dealing with good faith on both sides of the floor. I have to say, during some of the Reagan and Bush years, I thought our colleagues on the other side were reprehensible in some of the things they did with regard to Reagan and Bush judges, but by and large the vast majority of them were put through without any real fuss or bother even though my colleagues on the other side, had they been President, would not have appointed very many of those judges. We have to show the same good faith on our side, it seems to me. And unless you have an overwhelming case, as may be the case in the nomination of Judge Massiah-Jackson, unless you have an overwhelming case, then certainly I don't see any reason for anybody filibustering judges. I hope that we never get into that. Let's make our case if we have disagreement, and I have to say that some of my colleagues disagree with this nomination, and they do it legitimately, sincerely, and I think with intelligence, but I think they are wrong. And that is after having been part of this process for 22 years now and always trying to be fair, whoever is the President of the United States and whoever the nominees are. It is important because most of the fight has to occur behind the scenes. It has to occur between honest people in the White House and honest people up here. And that's where the battles are. When they get this far, generally most of them should be approved. There are some that we have problems with still in the Judiciary Committee, but that is our job to look at them. That is our job to look into their background. It is our job to screen these candidates. And, as you can see, in the case of Massiah-Jackson we had these accusations but nobody was willing to stand up and say them. I am not about to rely on unsubstantiated accusations by anybody. I will rely on the witness herself in that case. But we never quit investigating in the committee, and even though Massiah-Jackson was passed out of the committee, the investigation continued and ultimately we find a supernumber of people, very qualified people, people in that area who have a lot to do with law and justice are now opposed to that nomination. We cannot ignore that. But that is the way the system works. We have had judges withdraw after we have approved them in the Judiciary Committee because something has come up to disturb their nomination. That is the way it should work. This is not a numbers game. These are among the most important nominations that any President can make and that the Senate can ever work on. In the case of Margaret Morrow, I personally have examined the whole record, and, like I say, maybe people on our side would not have appointed her if they were President, but they are not the President. And unless there is an overwhelming case to be made against a judge, I have a very difficult--and especially this one; there is not--I have to say that I think we do a great injustice if we do not support this nomination. So with that, I will yield the floor. How much time does the distinguished Senator need? Mrs. BOXER. About 10 minutes. Mr. HATCH. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California. If my colleague would prefer to control the time on his side, I would be happy--should I yield to the Senator? Mrs. BOXER. I would prefer we yield to Senator Leahy given his schedule. Mr. HATCH. Let's split the time. You control half the time, and I will control half. You can make the determination, or if you would like---- Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is there remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 36 minutes 30 seconds. Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if I might yield myself 5 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this really has been a long time coming, and I appreciate the effort of my friend, the chairman, who is on the floor, to support this nomination. I commend my good friend, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, who has been indefatigable in this effort. She has worked and worked and worked. I believe she has spoken to every single Senator, every single potential Senator, every single past Senator, certainly to all the judges, and she has been at us over and over again to make sure that this day would come. She has worked with the Republican leader, the Democratic leader, and Republican and Democratic Senators alike. I appreciate all that she has done. We have all been aided by our colleague, Senator Feinstein. She has spoken out strongly for Margaret Morrow as a member of the Judiciary Committee and as a Senator. I feel though, as Senator Boxer has said, that none of us would have predicted that it would take 21 months to get this nomination before the Senate. I know that we would not even be here now if the distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished majority leader had not made the commitment before we broke last fall to proceed to this nomination this week. I have spoken about this nomination so many times I have almost lost track of the number. I will not speak as long as I would otherwise today because I want to yield to the Senator from California. But I think people should know that for some time there was an unexplained hold on this outstanding nominee. This is a nominee, incidentally, who was reported out of the Judiciary Committee twice. This is a nominee who is the first woman to be the president of the California State Bar Association and a president of the Los Angeles County bar. This is a nominee who is a partner in a prestigious law firm. This is a nominee who has the highest rating that lawyers can be given when they come before our committee for approval as a judge. This is a woman about whom letters were sent to me and to other Senators from some of the leading Republicans and some of the leading Democrats in California and from others whose background I know only because of their reputations, extraordinary reputations. I have no idea what their politics are. But all of them, whether they describe themselves as conservatives, liberals, moderates or apolitical, all of them say what an extraordinary woman she is. And I agree. I have read all of the reports about her. I have read all the things people said in her favor, and the things, ofttimes anonymous, said against her. I look at all those and I say of this woman: If I were a litigant, plaintiff or defendant, government or defendant, no matter what side I was on, I could look at this woman and say I am happy to come into her court. I am happy to have my case heard by her--whether I am rich, poor, white, black, no matter what might be my background. I know she would give a fair hearing. Now, finally, after 12 months on the Senate calendar without action over the course of the last 3 years, I am glad that the debate is beginning. I am also glad we can now look forward to the end of the ordeal for Margaret Morrow, for her family, her friends and her supporters. Her supporters include the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and half the Republican members on that committee. The Republican Mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan, calls her ``an excellent addition to the Federal bench.'' All of these people have praised her. To reiterate, this day has been a long time coming. When this accomplished lawyer was first nominated by the President of the United States to fill a vacancy on the District Court for the Central District of California, none of us would have predicted that it would be more than 21 months before that nomination was considered by the United States Senate. I thank the Majority Leader and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for fulfilling the commitment made late last year to turn to this nomination before the February recess. Fairness to the people and litigants in the Central District of California and to Margaret Morrow and her family demand no less. I trust that those who credit local law enforcement and local prosecutors and local judges from time to time as it suits them will credit the views of the many California judges and local officials who have written to the Senate over the last several months in support of the confirmation of Margaret Morrow. I will cite just a few examples: [[Page S643]] Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block; Orange County District Attorney Michael R. Capizzi; former U.S. Attorney and former head of the DEA under President Bush, Robert C. Bonner; former Reagan Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division and former Associate Attorney General and current Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen S. Trott; and California Court of Appeals Associate Justice H. Walter Croskey. I deeply regret that confirmation as a Federal Judge is becoming more like a political campaign for these nominees. They are being required to gather letters of support and urge their friends, colleagues and clients to support their candidacy or risk being mischaracterized by those who do not know them. Margaret Morrow's background, training, temperament, character and skills are beyond reproach. She is a partner in the law firm of Arnold & Porter. She has practiced law for 24 years. A distinguished graduate of Bryn Mawr College and Harvard Law School, Ms. Morrow was the first woman President of the California State Bar Association and a former president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. She has had the strong and unwavering support of Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein of California. In light of her qualifications, it was no surprise that in 1996 she was unanimously reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 1997 her nomination was again reported favorably, this time by a vote of 13 to 5. Yet hers has been an arduous journey to Senate consideration. She has been targeted--targeted by extremists outside the Senate whose $1.4 million fundraising and lobbying campaign against judges needed a victim. As our debate will show today, they chose the wrong woman. Lest someone accuse us of gratuitously injecting gender into this debate, I note the following: Her critics have gone so far as to deny her the courtesy of referring to her as Ms. Morrow. Instead, they went out of their way repeatedly to refer to her as ``Miss'' in a Washington Times op ed. Margaret Morrow is married to a distinguished California State Court Judge and is the proud mother of a 10-year-old son. It is bad enough that her words are taken out of context, her views misrepresented and her nomination used as a ideological prop. She is entitled to be treated with respect. Nor was this reference inadvertent. The first point of criticism in that piece was her membership in California Women Lawyers, which is criticized for supporting parental leave legislation. Senator Feinstein posed the question whether Margaret Morrow was held to a different standard than men nominees. That is a question that has troubled me throughout this process. I was likewise concerned to see that of the 14 nominees left pending at the end of last year whose nominations had been pending the longest, 12 were women and minority nominees. I did not know, until Senator Kennedy's statement to the Senate earlier this year, that judicial nominees who are women are now four times as likely as men to take over a year to confirm. At the same time, I note that Senator Hatch, who supports this nomination, included two women whose nominations have been pending for more than a year and one-half, at last week's Judiciary Committee hearing. I also note that the Senate did vote last month to confirm Judge Ann Aiken to the Oregon District Court. So one of the four article III judges confirmed so far this year was a woman nominee. Margaret Morrow has devoted her career to the law, to getting women involved in the practice of law and to making lawyers more responsive and responsible. Her good work in this regard should not be punished but commended. As part of those efforts Margaret Morrow gave a speech at a Women in the Law Conference in April 1994. That speech was later reprinted in a law review. Critics have seized upon a phrase or two from that speech, ripped them out of context and contended that they show Margaret Morrow would be an unprincipled judicial activist. They are wrong. Their argument was refuted by Ms. Morrow in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee. This criticism merely demonstrates the critics own indifference to the setting and context of the speech and its meaning for women who have worked so hard to achieve success in the legal profession. Her speech was about how the bar is begrudgingly adjusting to women in the legal profession. How telling that critics would fasten on that particular speech on women in the law and see it as something to criticize. Margaret Morrow spoke then about ``the struggles and successes'' of women practices law and ``the challenges which continue to face us day to day in the 1990s.'' Margaret Morrow has met every challenge. In the course of this confirmation, she has been forced to run a gauntlet. She has endured false charges and unfounded criticism. Her demeanor and dignity have never wavered. She has, again, been called upon to be a role model. The President of the Woman Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, the President of the Women's Legal Defense Fund, the President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the President of the National Conference of Women's Bar Association and other distinguished attorneys from the Los Angeles area have all written the Senate in support of the nomination of Margaret Morrow. They wrote that: ``Margaret Morrow is widely respected by attorneys, judges and community leaders of both parties.'' She ``is exactly the kind of person who should be appointed to such a position and held up as an example to young women across the country.'' I could not agree more. By letter dated February 4, 1998, a number of organizations including the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and women's lawyer associations from California likewise wrote urging confirmation of Margaret Morrow without further delay. I ask that a copy of that letter be included in the Record at this point. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: February 4, 1998. Senator Patrick Leahy, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Leahy: We write to express our concern over a series of developments that continue to unfold in the Senate that are undermining the judicial confirmation process. These include calls for the impeachment of judges, a slowdown in the pace of confirmations, unjustified criticisms of certain nominees, and efforts to leave appellate vacancies unfilled. Some court observers have opined that collectively these are the most serious efforts to curtail judicial independence since President Roosevelt's plan to pack the Supreme Court in 1937. In the past year nominees who failed to meet certain ultraconservative litmus tests have been labeled ``judicial activists.'' While these charges are unfounded, they nonetheless delay confirmations and leave judicial seats unfilled. We note that of the 14 individuals whose nominations have been pending the longest, 12 are women or minorities. This disturbing pattern is in striking contrast to those 14 judges who were confirmed in 1997 in the shortest period of time, 11 of whom are white men. For example, Margaret Morrow, a judicial nominee to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, was nominated more than a year and a half ago. Not only is she an outstanding candidate, but her credentials have earned her enthusiastic and bipartisan endorsements from leaders of the bar, judges, politicians, and civic groups. An honors graduate from Harvard Law School, a civil litigator for more than 20 years, winner of numerous legal awards, and the first female president of the California Bar Association, Morrow has the breadth of background and experience to make her an excellent judge, and in the words of one of her sponsors, she would be ``an exceptionally distinguished addition to the federal bench.'' Morrow has also shown, through her numerous pro bono activities, a demonstrated commitment to equal justice. As president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, she created the Pro Bono Council, the first of its kind in California. During her year as bar president, the Council coordinated the provision of 150,000 hours of previously untapped representation to indigent clients throughout the county. Not surprisingly, the American Bar Association's judicial evaluation committee gave her its highest rating. Republicans and Democrats alike speak highly of her accomplishments and qualifications. Robert Bonner, a Reagan- appointed U.S. Attorney and U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California and head of the Drug Enforcement Administration during the Bush Administration, has said Morrow is a ``brilliant person with a first-rate legal mind who was nominated upon merit, not political affiliation.'' Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block wrote that, ``Margaret Morrow is an extremely hard working individual of impeccable character and integrity. . . . I have no doubt that she would [[Page S644]] be a distinguished addition to the Court.'' Other supporters include local bar leaders; officials from both parties, including Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan; California judges appointed by the state's last three governors; and three Republican-appointed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges, Pamela Rymer, Cynthia Holcomb Hall, and Stephen Trott. Despite here outstanding record, Morrow has become the target of a coordinated effort by ultraconservative groups that seek to politicize the judiciary. They have subjected her to a campaign of misrepresentations, distortions and attacks on her record, branding her a ``judicial activist.'' According to her opponents, she deserves to be targeted because ``she is a member of California Women Lawyers,'' an absurd charge given that this bipartisan organization is among the most highly respected in the state. Another ``strike'' against her is her concern, expressed in a sentence from a 1988 article, about special interest domination of the ballot initiative process in California. Her opponents view the statement as disdainful of voter initiatives such as California's term limits law; however, they overlook the fact that the article outlines a series of recommended reforms to preserve the process. It is a stretch to construe suggested reforms as evidence of ``judicial activism,'' but to search for this members of the Judiciary Committee unprecedentedly asked her to disclose her personal positions on all 160 past ballot propositions in California. Morrow's confirmation has been delayed by the Senate beyond any reasonable bounds. Originally selected over nineteen months ago in May 1996, her nomination was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee that year, only to languish on the Senate floor. Morrow was again nominated at the beginning of 1997, subjected to an unusual second hearing, and recommended again by the Judiciary Committee, after which several Senators placed secret holds on her nomination, preventing a final vote on her confirmation. These holds, which prevented a final vote on her confirmation during the 1st Session of the 105th Congress, where recently lifted. As Senator Orrin Hatch repeatedly said: ``playing politics with judges is unfair, and I'm sick of it.'' We agree with his sentiment. Given Margaret Morrow's impressive qualifications, we urge you to bring the nomination to the Senate floor, ensure that it receives prompt, full and fair consideration, and that a final vote on her nomination is scheduled as soon as possible. Sincerely, Alliance for Justice: Nan Aron, President. American Jewish Congress: Phil Baum, Executive Director. Americans for Democratic Action: Amy Isaacs, National Director. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: Robert Bernstein, Executive Law. Brennan Center for Justice: E. Joshua Rosenkrantz, Executive Director. Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles: Eulanda Matthews, President. California Women Lawyers: Grace E. Emery, President. Center for Law and Social Policy: Alan W. Hausman, Director. Chicago Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: Clyde E. Murphy, Executive Director. Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Patricia Wright, Coordinator Disabled Fund. Families USA: Judy Waxman, Director of Government Affairs. Lawyers Club of San Diego: Kathleen Juniper, Director. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: Wade Henderson, Executive Director. Marin County Women Lawyers: Eileen Barker, President. Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund: Antonia Hernandez, Executive Director. Monterey County Women Lawyers: Karen Kardushin, Affiliate Governor. NAACP: Hilary Shelton, Deputy Director, Washington Office. National Bar Association: Randy K. Jones, President. National Center for Youth Law: John F. O'Toole, Director. National Conference of Women Bar Associations: Phillis C. Solomon, President. National Council of Senior Citizens: Steve Protulis, Executive Director. National Employment Lawyers Association: Terisa E. Chaw, Executive Director. National Gay & Lesbian Task Force: Rebecca Issacs, Public Policy Director. National Lawyers Guild: Karen Jo Koonan, President. National Legal Aid & Defender Association: Julie Clark, Executive Director. National Organization for Women: Patricia Ireland, President. National Women's Law Center: Marcia Greenberger and Nancy Duff Campbell, Co-presidents. Orange County Women Lawyers: Jean Hobart, President. People for the American Way Action Fund: Mike Lux, Senior Vice President. San Francisco Women Lawyers Alliance: Geraldine Rosen-Park, President. Santa Barbara Women Lawyers: Renee Nordstrand, President. Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees: Ann Hoffman, Legislative Director. Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles: Greer C. Bosworth, President. Women Lawyers of Alameda County: Sandra Schweitzer, President. Women Lawyers of Sacramento: Karen Leaf, President. Women Lawyers of Santa Cruz: Lorie Klein, President. Women's Legal Defense Fund: Judy Lichtman, President. Youth Law Center: Mark Soler, Executive Director. Mr. LEAHY. It is time. It is time to stop holding her hostage and help all Americans, and certainly those who are within the district that this court will cover in California. It is time to help the cause of justice. It is time to improve the bench of the United States. It is time to confirm this woman. And it is time for the U.S. Senate to say we made a mistake in holding it up this long. Let us go forward. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah has no objection, I would like now to yield, and yield control of whatever time I might have, to the Senator from California. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California. Mrs. BOXER. I say to Senator Leahy, before he leaves the floor, and because Senator Hatch in his absence explained the wonderful tribute he is going to have shortly with his portrait being hung in the Agriculture room, and he himself said that he is so respectful of you and wants to show his respect so much that he is going to join you, so that will leave me here on the floor to debate with the Senator from Missouri--before you leave the floor I wanted to say to you and to Senator Hatch together, and I say this from the bottom of my heart, without the two of you looking fairly at this nomination, this day would never have come. To me it is, in a way, a moving moment. So often we stand on the floor and we talk about delays and so on and so forth. But when you put the human face on this issue and you have a woman and her husband and her son and a law firm that was so excited about this nominee, and you add to that 2 years of twisting in the wind and not knowing whether this day would ever come, you have to say that today is a wonderful day. So, before my colleague leaves, I wanted to say to him: Thank you for being there for Margaret Morrow and, frankly, all of the people of America. Because she will make an excellent judge. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I say to my friend from California and to my friend from Utah, I do appreciate their help in this. I can assure you that, while my family and I will gather for the hanging of this portrait--I almost blushed when you mentioned that is my reason for being off the floor--I can assure you I will be back in plenty of time for the vote and I will have 210 pounds of Vermonter standing in the well of the Senate to encourage everybody to vote the appropriate way. Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague very much, Senator Leahy. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from California. Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining on this side? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 15 minutes. The Senator from Utah has 30 minutes. Mrs. BOXER. My understanding is I would have 15 minutes, then? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Mrs. BOXER. I ask that the Presiding Officer let me know when 10 minutes has passed, and I will reserve 5 minutes in which to debate the Senator from Missouri, because I know he is a tough debater and I am going to need some time. Mr. President, as I said, I am so very pleased that this day has come at long last, that we will have an up-or-down vote on Margaret Morrow. I really think, standing here, perhaps the only people happier than I am right now are Margaret and her husband and her son and her law partners and the various citizens of California, Republicans and Democrats, who worked together for this day. Margaret Morrow is the epitome of mainstream values and mainstream America, and the depth and breadth of her support from prominent Republicans and Democrats illustrate that she is eminently qualified to sit as a Federal judge. I don't think I could be any more eloquent than Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Leahy, in putting forward her credentials. [[Page S645]] What I am going to do later is just read from some of the many letters that we got about Margaret, and then I, also, at that time, will have some letters printed in the Record. Again, I want to say to Senator Hatch how his leadership has been extraordinary on this, and also I personally thank Majority Leader Lott and Democratic Leader Daschle for bringing this to the floor and arranging for an agreement that this nominee be brought to the floor. I thank my colleague from Missouri for allowing an up-or-down vote, for not launching a filibuster on this matter. I think Chairman Hatch spoke of that eloquently, and I am very pleased that we can have this fair vote. I recommended Margaret Morrow to the President in September of 1995. She was nominated by the President on May 9, 1996. She received her first hearing before the Judiciary Committee on June 25, 1996, and was favorably reported out unanimously by the committee 2 days later. Because there was no action, she was renominated again on January 7, 1997, and had her second hearing on March 18, 1997. This time she was reported out favorably. This time the vote was 13 to 5. I want to make the point that there is a personal side to this judicial nomination process. For nominees who are awaiting confirmation, their personal and professional lives truly hang in the balance. Margaret Morrow, a 47-year-old mother and law partner has put her life and her professional practice on hold while she waited for the Senate to vote on her nomination. Her whole family, particularly her husband and son, have waited patiently for this day. That is stress and that is strain, as you wait for this decision which will so affect your life and the life of your family and, of course, your career. Former Majority Leader Bob Dole spoke of this process himself when he once said, ``We should not be holding people up. If we need a vote, vote them down or vote them up, because the nominees probably have plans to make and there are families involved.'' I think Senator Dole said it straight ahead. So I am really glad that Margaret's day has come finally. I do want to say to Margaret, thank you for hanging in there. Thank you for not giving up. I well understand that there were certain moments where you probably were tempted to do so. There were days when you probably thought this day would never come. But you did hang in there, and you had every reason to hang in there. This is a woman who graduated magna cum laude from Bryn Mawr College and received her law degree from Harvard, graduating cum laude, 23 years in private practice in business and commercial litigation, a partner at the prestigious law firm of Arnold and Porter. She is married to Judge Paul Boland of the Los Angeles Superior Court and has a 10-year-old son, Patrick Morrow Boland, who actually came up here on one of the times that she was before the committee. Over the years, Margaret has represented a diverse group of business and Government clients, including some of the Nation's largest and most prominent companies. In the time I have remaining now, I want to quote from some very prestigious leaders from California, and from the Senate, who have spoken out in behalf of Margaret Morrow. First we have Senator Orrin Hatch. He spoke for Margaret himself, so I won't go over that quote. Robert Bonner, former U.S. attorney appointed by President Reagan, former U.S. district court judge in the Central District of California and former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, appointed by President George Bush, he sent a letter to Senators Bond, D'Amato, Domenici, Sessions and Specter. In it he says: The issue--the only real issue--is this: Is Margaret Morrow likely to be an activist judge? My answer and the answer of other Californians who have unchallengeable Republican credentials and who are and have been leaders of the bar and bench in California, is an unqualified NO. . . . On a personal note, I have known Margaret Morrow for over twenty years. She was my former law partner. I can assure you that she will not be a person who will act precipitously or rashly in challenging the rule of law. He continues: Based on her record, the collective knowledge of so many Republicans of good reputation, and her commitment to the rule of law and legal institutions, it is clear to me that Margaret will be a superb trial judge who will follow the law as articulated by the Constitution and legal precedent, and apply it to the facts before her. I think that this statement is quite powerful. We have numbers of others as well. In a letter to Senators Abraham and Gordon Smith and Pat Roberts, Thomas Malcolm, who is chairman of Governor Wilson's Judicial Selection Committee for Orange County and served on the Judicial Selection Committees of Senators Hayakawa, Wilson, and Seymour, wrote the following: I have known Ms. Morrow for approximately 10 years. Over the years, she has constantly been the most outstanding leader our California Bar Association has ever had the privilege of her sitting as its President. . . . Of the literally hundreds of nominations for appointment to the federal bench during my tenure on Senators Hayakawa, Wilson and Seymour's Judicial Selection Committees, Ms. Morrow is by far one of the most impressive applicants I have ever seen. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 7\1/2\ minutes. Mrs. BOXER. Remaining of my 10 minutes? The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 3 minutes of your 10 minutes remaining. Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. In the 3 minutes remaining I am going to quote from some others. Los Angeles Mayor, Richard Riordan, in a letter to Senator Hatch, said: Ms. Morrow would be an excellent addition to the Federal bench. She is dedicated to following the law and applying it in a rational and objective fashion. Republican judges in the 9th Circuit, Pamela Rymer and Cynthia Hall-- they are both President Bush and President Reagan's appointees respectively--in a letter to Senators Hutchison, Collins and Snowe, write: [We] urge your favorable action on the Morrow nomination because [we] believe that she would be an exceptional federal judge. Representative James Rogan, former Republican Assembly majority leader in the California State Assembly, the first Republican majority leader in almost 30 years--actually he testified in front of the Judiciary Committee and said: When an individual asks me to make a recommendation for a judgeship, that is perhaps the single most important thing I will study before making any recommendation . . . I am absolutely convinced that . . . she would be the type of judge who would follow the Constitution and laws of the United States as they were written. . . . [I]t is my belief . . . that should she win approval from this committee and from the full Senate, she would be a judge that we could all be proud of, both in California and throughout our land. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of people from all over California endorsing Margaret Morrow. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Republican Support for Margaret M. Morrow Robert C. Bonner, former U.S. Attorney (appointed by President Reagan), former U.S. District Court Judge in the Central District of California and former Head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (appointed by President Bush), Partner at Gibson, Dunne and Crutcher in Los Angeles (2 letters). Thomas R. Malcolm, Chairman of Governor Wilson's judicial selection committee for Orange County and previously served on the judicial selection committees of Senators Hayakawa, Wilson, and Seymour. Rep. James Rogan (R-27-CA), former Assembly Majority Leader, California State Legislature, former gang murder prosecutor in the LA County District Attorney's Office, former Municipal Court Judge in California. Pamela Rymer, Curcuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2 letters), appointed by President Bush. Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Circuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appointed by President Reagan. Lourdes Baird, District Court Judge, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, appointed by President Bush. H. Walter Croskey, Associate Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (2 letters), appointed by Governor Deukmejian. Richard J. Riordan, Major, City of Los Angeles. Michael R. Capizzi, District Attorney, Orange County. Lod Cook, Chairman Emeritus, ARCO, Los Angeles. Clifford R. Anderson, Jr., supporter of the presidential campaigns for Presidents Nixon and Reagan, and former member of Governor Wilson's judicial selection committee (when [[Page S646]] he was Senator) member of Governor Wilson's State judicial evaluation committee. Sherman Block, Sheriff, County of Los Angeles. Roger W. Boren, Presiding Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (2 letters), appointed by Governor Wilson. Sheldon H. Sloan, former President of Los Angeles County Bar Association. Stephen Trott, Circuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2 letters), appointed by President Reagan. Judith C. Chirlin, Judge, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, appointed by Governor Deukmejian. Richard C. Neal, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, appointed by Governors Deukmejian and Wilson. Marvin R. Baxter, Associate Justice, Superme Court of California, appointed by Governor Deukmejian. Charles S. Vogel, Presiding Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, appointed by Governors Reagan and Wilson. Dale S. Fischer, Judge, Los Angeles Municipal Court, appointed by Governor Wilson. Richard D. Aldrich, Associate Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, appointed by Governors Deukmejian and Wilson. Edward B. Huntington, Judge, Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego, appointed by Governor Wilson. Laurence H. Pretty, former President of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers. Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to say to you again, I know you have been very fair as I presented the case to you, this is a woman that every single Senator should be proud to support today. It is not a matter of political party. This is a woman uniquely qualified. I almost want to say, if Margaret Morrow cannot make it through, then, my goodness, who could? I really think she brings those kinds of bipartisan credentials. I reserve my 5 minutes and yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Missouri is recognized. Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much. I yield myself so much time as I may consume, and I ask that the Chair inform me when I have consumed 15 minutes. I thank you very much for allowing me to participate in this debate. It is appropriate that we bring to the floor nominees who are well known to the committee for debate by the full Senate. I commend the chairman of the committee for bringing this nomination to the floor. I have no objection to these nominations coming to the floor and no objection to voting on these nominees. I only objected to this nominee coming to the floor to be approved by unanimous consent because I think we deserve the opportunity to debate these nominees, to discuss them and to have votes on them. So many people who are not familiar with the process of the Senate may think that when a Senator says that he wants to have a debate that he is trying to delay. I believe the work of the Senate should be done in full view of the American people and that we should have the opportunity to discuss these issues, and then instead of having these things voted on by unanimous consent at the close of the business day with no record, I think it is important that we debate the nominee's qualifications on the record. I think it is important because the judiciary is one-third of the Government of the United States. The individuals who populate the judiciary are lifetime appointments. The United States Constitution imposes a responsibility on the Senate to be a quality screen, and it is the last screen before a person becomes a lifetime member of the judiciary. So we need to do our best to make sure that only high-quality individuals reach that level, individuals who have respect for the Constitution, who appropriately understand that the role of the courts is to decide disputes and not to expand the law or to somehow develop new constitutional rights. The legislature is the part of the body politic that is designed to make law. The courts are designed to settle disputes about the law. It is against this background that I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the nomination of Margaret Morrow. Let me begin by saying that Ms. Morrow is an outstanding lawyer. No one wants to challenge her credentials. No one believes that she is not a person of great intellect or a person of tremendous experience. She is a person who has great capacity. It has been demonstrated in her private life, her educational record and in her life of service as an officer of the California Bar Association. The only reservations to be expressed about Ms. Morrow, and they are substantial ones in my regard--they are not about her talent, not about her capacity, not about her integrity--they are about what her interpretation of the role of a judge is; whether she thinks that the law as developed in the court system belongs on the cutting edge, whether she thinks that the law, as developed in the court system, is an engine of social change and that the courts should drive the Nation in a direction of a different culture and a direction of recognizing new rights that weren't recognized or placed in the Constitution, and that needed to be invented or developed or brought into existence by individuals who populate the courts. That, I think, is the major question we have before us. So let me just say again, this is an outstanding person of intellect, from everything I can understand a person of great integrity, a person whose record of service is laudable and commendable. The only question I have is, does she have the right view of the Constitution, the right view of what courts are supposed to do, or will she be someone who goes to the bench and, unfortunately, like so many other lawyers in the ninth circuit, decide that the court is the best place to amend the Constitution? Does she think the court is the best place to strike down the will of the people, to impose on the people from the courts what could not be generated by the representatives of the people in the legislature. So, fundamentally, the question is whether or not this candidate will respect the separation of powers, whether this candidate will say the legislature is the place to make the law, and whether she will recognize that courts can only make decisions about the law. Will she acknowledge that the people have the right to make the law, too? After all, that is what our Constitution says, that all power and all authority is derived from the people, and they, with their elected representatives, should have the opportunity to make the law. It is with these questions in mind that I look at some of the writings of this candidate for a Federal judgeship, and I come to the conclusion that she believes that the court system and the courts are the place where the law can be made, especially if the people are not smart enough or if the people aren't progressive enough or if the Constitution isn't flexible enough. I can't say for sure this is what would happen. I have to be fair. I have to go by what she has written. I will be at odds with the interpretation of some of the things said by the committee chairman. I respect the chairman, but I think that his interpretation of her writings is flawed. In 1995, in a law review comment, Ms. Morrow seemed to endorse the practice of judicial activism, that is judge-made law. She wrote: For the law is, almost by definition, on the cutting edge of social thought. It is a vehicle-- Or a way-- through which we ease the transition from the rules which have always been to the rules which are to be. She is saying that the law is the vehicle, the thing that takes you from what was to what will be. I was a little puzzled when the committee chairman said that the committee found that she didn't mean the substantive as expressed in the courts and the like. Let me just say I don't believe the committee made any such findings. I have checked with committee staff, and it is just not the case that the committee made findings. It is true that a majority of the members of the committee voted this candidate to the floor, but the committee didn't make findings that this was not a statement of judicial activism. Frankly, I think it is a statement of judicial activism, despite the fact that Ms. Morrow told the committee that she was not speaking about the law in any substantive way, but rather was referring to the legal profession and the rules governing the profession. The law, by definition, is on the cutting edge of social thought? Social [[Page S647]] thought doesn't govern the profession, social thought governs the society. The transition of the rules from the way they have always been to the rules which they are to be? I think it is a stretch to say that this really refers to the legal profession. If she meant that the legal profession is a vehicle through which we ease the transition from the rules which always have been to the rules which are to be, that doesn't make sense. Clearly she is referring to something other than the legal profession or the rules of professional conduct. Some have suggested that because Ms. Morrow initially made these remarks at a 1994 Conference on Women and the Law, that it is plausible that she was referring to the profession and not to the substantive law. But I think it is more likely that her statement reflects a belief that the law can and should be used by those who interpret it to change social norms, inside and outside of the legal profession. Truly, that is a definition of activism, the ability of judges to impose on the culture those things which they prefer rather than have the culture initiate through their elected representatives those things which the culture prefers. Frankly, if it is a question of a few in the judiciary defining what the values of the many are in the culture, I think that is antidemocratic. I really believe that the virtue of America is that the many impose their will on the Government, not that the few in Government impose their will on the many. Reasonable people can disagree on the proper interpretation of Ms. Morrow's statement. Others can argue about whether or not hastening social change is a proper role for judges in the courts. But I think it is fair to conclude that Ms. Morrow's comments were an endorsement of judicial activism. In 1993, Ms. Morrow gave another speech that suggested approval of judicial activism, quoting William Brennan, an evangelist of judicial activism. Morrow stated: Justice can only endure and flourish if law and legal institutions are ``engines of social change'' able to accommodate evolving patterns of life and social interaction in this decade. She said these remarks were not an endorsement of activism. She told the Judiciary Committee the subject of the comments was, once again, not the law but the legal pr

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

EXECUTIVE SESSION
(Senate - February 11, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S640-S660] EXECUTIVE SESSION ______ NOMINATION OF MARGARET M. MORROW, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to consider Executive Calendar No. 135, which the clerk will report. The legislative clerk read the nomination of Margaret M. Morrow, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate on the nomination is limited to 2 hours equally divided and controlled by the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Missouri. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of Margaret Morrow to the Federal District bench in California. Ms. Morrow enjoys broad bipartisan support, and it is no wonder. She graduated magna cum laude from Bryn Mawr College, and cum laude from the Harvard Law School. She is presently a partner at Arnold and Porter in their Los Angeles office where she handles virtually all of that office's appellate litigation. I plan to outline in greater detail why I intend to support Ms. Morrow's nomination. But first I would like to discuss the Judiciary Committee's record with respect to the confirmation of President Clinton's judicial nominees. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of the most important duties I fulfill is in screening judicial nominees. Indeed, the Constitution itself obligates the Senate to provide the President advice concerning his nominees, and to consent to their ultimate confirmation. Although some have complained about the pace at which the committee has moved on judicial nominees, I note that it has undertaken its duty in a deliberate and serious fashion. Indeed, with respect to Ms. Morrow, there were concerns. Her answers to the committee were not entirely responsive. Rather than simply pushing the nomination forward, however, I believed it was important for the committee to ensure that its questions were properly answered. Thus, the committee submitted written questions for Ms. Morrow to clarify some of her additional responses. And, having reviewed Ms. Morrow's answers to the questions posed by the committee, I became satisfied that she would uphold the Constitution and abide by the rule of law. In fact, we held two hearings in Margaret Morrow's case, as I recall, and the second hearing was, of course, to clarify some of these issues without which we might not have had Ms. Morrow's nomination up even to this day. Thus, I think it fair to say that the committee has fairly and responsibly dealt with the President's nominees. Indeed, the Judiciary Committee has already held a judicial confirmation hearing, and has another planned for February 25. Thus, the committee will have held two nomination hearings in the first month of the session. I note that Judiciary Committee processed 47 of the President's nominees last session, including Ms. Morrow. Today there are more sitting judges than there were throughout virtually all of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Currently, there are 756 active Federal judges. In addition, there are 432 senior Federal judges who must by law continue to hear cases. Even in the ninth circuit, which has 10 vacancies, only one judge has actually stopped hearing cases. The others have taken senior status, and are still actively participating in that court's work. I am saying that the other nine judges have taken senior status. Those who have retired, or those who have taken senior status, are still hearing cases. The total pool of Federal judges available to hear cases is 1,188, a near record number. I have sought to steer the confirmation process in a way that kept it a fair and a principled one, and exercised what I felt was the appropriate degree of deference to the President's judicial appointees. I would like to personally express my gratitude and compliments to Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, for his cooperative efforts this past year. In fact, I would like my colleagues to note that a portrait of Senator Leahy will be unveiled this very evening in the Agriculture Committee hearing room. This is an honor that I believe my distinguished colleague justly deserves for his efforts on that great committee. I want Senator Leahy to know that I plan on attending that portrait unveiling itself even though this debate is taking place on the floor between 4 and 6 today. It is in this spirit of cooperation and fairness that I will vote to confirm Ms. Morrow. Conducting a fair confirmation process, however, does not mean granting the President carte blanche in filling judicial vacancies. It means assuring that those who are confirmed will uphold the Constitution and abide by the rule of law. Based upon the committee's review of her record, I believe that the evidence demonstrates that Margaret Morrow will be such a person. Ms. Morrow likely would not be my choice if I were sitting in the Oval Office. But the President is sitting there, and he has seen fit to nominate her. She has the support of the Senators from California. And the review conducted by the Judiciary Committee suggests that she understands the proper role of a judge in our Federal system and will abide by the rule of law. There is no doubt that Ms. Morrow is, in terms of her professional experience and abilities, qualified to serve as a Federal district court judge. I think the only question that may be plaguing some of my colleagues is whether she will abide by the rule of law. As I have stated elsewhere, nominees who are or who are likely to be judicial activists are not qualified to serve as Federal judges, and they should neither be nominated nor confirmed. And I want my colleagues to know that when such individuals come before the Judiciary Committee I will vociferously oppose them. In fact, many of the people that have been suggested by the administration have been stopped before they have been sent up. And that is where most of the battles occur, and that is where most of the work between the White House and myself really occurs. I have to compliment the White House in recognizing that some people that they wish they could have put on the bench were not appropriate persons to put on the bench because of their attitudes towards the rule of law primarily. While I initially had some concerns that Ms. Morrow might be an activist, I have concluded, based on all the information before the committee, that a compelling case cannot be made against her. While it is often difficult to tell whether a nominee's words before confirmation will match that nominee's deeds after confirmation, I believe that this nominee in particular deserves the benefit of the doubt. And [[Page S641]] all nominees deserve the benefit of the doubt, unless the contrary is substantial--or, should I say, less evidence to the contrary is substantial. In my view, there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Ms. Morrow will engage in judicial activism. In fact, Ms. Morrow has assured the committee that she will abide by the rule of law, and will not substitute her preferences for the dictates of the Constitution. If Ms. Morrow is a woman of her word, and I believe she is, I am confident that she will serve the country with distinction. I would like briefly to address some of the questions raised by those who oppose Ms. Morrow's nomination. Perhaps the most troubling evidence of potential activism that Ms. Morrow's critics advance comes from several speeches she has given while president of the Los Angeles, CA, Bar Association. At the fourth annual Conference on Women in the Law, for example, Ms. Morrow gave a speech in which she stated that ``the law is almost by definition on the cutting edge of social thought. It is a vehicle through which we ease the transition from the rules which have always been to the rules which are to be.'' Now, if Ms. Morrow was speaking here about ``the law'' and ``rules'' in a substantive sense, I would have no choice but to read these statements as professing a belief in judicial activism. On that basis alone, I would likely have opposed her nomination. However, Ms. Morrow repeatedly and somewhat animatedly testified before the committee that she was not speaking substantively of the law itself but, rather, was referring to the legal profession and the rules by which it governs itself. When the committee went back and examined the context of Ms. Morrow's speech, it concluded that this explanation was in keeping with the theme of her speech. In her inaugural address as president of the State Bar of California on October 9, 1993, Ms. Morrow quoted then Justice William Brennan, stating that ``Justice can only endure and flourish if law and legal institutions are engines of change able to accommodate evolving patterns of life and social interaction.'' Here again some were troubled that Ms. Morrow seemed to be advocating judicial activism. Ms. Morrow, however, assured the committee that she was not suggesting that courts themselves should be engines of change. In response to the committee she testified as follows: The theme of that speech was that the State Bar of California as an institution and the legal profession had to change some of the ways we did business. The quotation regarding engines of change had nothing to do with changes in the rule of law or changes in constitutional interpretation. Once again, the committee went back and scrutinized Ms. Morrow's speech and found that its theme was in fact changes the bar should make and did not advance the theme that courts should be engines of social change. The committee found the nominee's explanation of the use of the quotation, given its context, very plausible. In addition, the nominee went to some lengths in her oral testimony and her written responses to the committee to espouse a clearly restrained approach to constitutional interpretation and the rule of the courts. Frankly, much of what she has said under oath goes a long way toward legitimized, very restrained jurisprudence that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle called out of the mainstream just a decade ago. For example, she testified that she would attempt to interpret the Constitution ``consistent with the intent of the drafters.'' She later explained in more detail that judges should use the constitutional text ``as a starting point, and using that language and whatever information there is respecting the intent behind that language one ought to attempt then to decide the case consistent with that intent.'' She later testified that judges should not ``by incremental changes ease the law from one arena to another in a policy sense.'' And in written correspondence with the committee, Ms. Morrow further elaborated on her constitutional jurisprudence by highlighting the case which in her view adopted the proper methodology to constitutional interpretation. As she explained, in that case the Court ``looked first to the language of the Constitution,'' then ``buttressed its reading'' of the text by ``looking to the language of other constitutional provisions.'' And finally to ``the intent of those who drafted and ratified this language as reflected in the Federalist Papers, debates of the Constitutional Convention and other writings of the time.'' Contrary to the claim that she condemns all voter initiatives, Ms. Morrow has actually sought to ensure that voters have meaningful ways of evaluating such initiatives. In a widely circulated article, Ms. Morrow noted that the intensive advertising campaigns that surround citizen initiatives often focus unfairly on the measure's sponsor rather than the initiative's substance. This made it hard, she argued, for voters to make meaningful choices and ``renders ephemeral any real hope of intelligent voting by a majority.'' Read in its proper context, this statement seized upon by Ms. Morrow's critics was a statement concerning the quality of information disseminated to the voters, not a comment on the voters' ability to make intelligent policy choices. Thus Ms. Morrow's statement is not particularly controversial but in fact highly respectful of the role voters must play in our electoral system. In fact, Ms. Morrow argued that the courts should not be placed in a position of policing the initiative process. She explained that ``having passed an initiative, the voters want to see it enacted. They view a court challenge to its validity as interference with the public will.'' For this reason, Ms. Morrow advocated reforms to the California initiative process to take a final decision on ballot measures out of the hands of judges and to place it back into the hands of the people. In supporting this nomination, I took into account a number of factors, including Ms. Morrow's testimony, her accomplishments and her evident ability as an attorney, as well as the fact that she has received strong support, bipartisan support from both Democrats and Republicans. Republicans included Ninth Circuit Judges Cynthia Hall, Steven Trott and Pamela Rymer, Reagan-Bush appointees, as well as Rob Bonner, a respected conservative, former Federal judge and head of the drug enforcement agency under President Bush. I know all of these people personally. They are all strong conservatives. They are really decent people. They are as concerned as you or I or anybody else about who we place on the Federal bench, and they are strongly in favor of Margaret Morrow, as are many, many other Republicans. And they are not just people who live within the district where she will be a judge. They are some eminent judges themselves. I have a rough time seeing why anybody basically under all these circumstances would oppose this nominee. Each of those individuals I mentioned and others, such as Richard Riordan, the Republican mayor of Los Angeles, have assured the committee that Ms. Morrow will not be a judicial activist. I hope they are correct. And at least on this point I have seen little evidence in the record that would suggest to me that she would fail to abide by the rule of law once she achieves the bench and practices on the bench and fulfills her responsibility as a judge on the bench. In sum, I support this nominee and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I am also pleased, with regard to these judicial nominees, that no one on our side has threatened to ever filibuster any of these judges, to my knowledge. I think it is a travesty if we ever start getting into a game of filibustering judges. I have to admit my colleagues on the other side attempted to do that on a number of occasions the last number of years during the Reagan-Bush years. They always backed off, but maybe they did because they realized there were not the votes to invoke cloture. But I really think it is a travesty if we treat this third branch of Government with such disregard that we filibuster judges. The only way I could ever see that happening is if a person is so absolutely unqualified to sit on the bench that the only way you could stop that person is to filibuster that nominee. Even then, I question whether that should be done. We are dealing with a [[Page S642]] coequal branch of Government. We are dealing with some of the most important nominations a President, whoever that President may be, will make. And we are also dealing with good faith on both sides of the floor. I have to say, during some of the Reagan and Bush years, I thought our colleagues on the other side were reprehensible in some of the things they did with regard to Reagan and Bush judges, but by and large the vast majority of them were put through without any real fuss or bother even though my colleagues on the other side, had they been President, would not have appointed very many of those judges. We have to show the same good faith on our side, it seems to me. And unless you have an overwhelming case, as may be the case in the nomination of Judge Massiah-Jackson, unless you have an overwhelming case, then certainly I don't see any reason for anybody filibustering judges. I hope that we never get into that. Let's make our case if we have disagreement, and I have to say that some of my colleagues disagree with this nomination, and they do it legitimately, sincerely, and I think with intelligence, but I think they are wrong. And that is after having been part of this process for 22 years now and always trying to be fair, whoever is the President of the United States and whoever the nominees are. It is important because most of the fight has to occur behind the scenes. It has to occur between honest people in the White House and honest people up here. And that's where the battles are. When they get this far, generally most of them should be approved. There are some that we have problems with still in the Judiciary Committee, but that is our job to look at them. That is our job to look into their background. It is our job to screen these candidates. And, as you can see, in the case of Massiah-Jackson we had these accusations but nobody was willing to stand up and say them. I am not about to rely on unsubstantiated accusations by anybody. I will rely on the witness herself in that case. But we never quit investigating in the committee, and even though Massiah-Jackson was passed out of the committee, the investigation continued and ultimately we find a supernumber of people, very qualified people, people in that area who have a lot to do with law and justice are now opposed to that nomination. We cannot ignore that. But that is the way the system works. We have had judges withdraw after we have approved them in the Judiciary Committee because something has come up to disturb their nomination. That is the way it should work. This is not a numbers game. These are among the most important nominations that any President can make and that the Senate can ever work on. In the case of Margaret Morrow, I personally have examined the whole record, and, like I say, maybe people on our side would not have appointed her if they were President, but they are not the President. And unless there is an overwhelming case to be made against a judge, I have a very difficult--and especially this one; there is not--I have to say that I think we do a great injustice if we do not support this nomination. So with that, I will yield the floor. How much time does the distinguished Senator need? Mrs. BOXER. About 10 minutes. Mr. HATCH. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California. If my colleague would prefer to control the time on his side, I would be happy--should I yield to the Senator? Mrs. BOXER. I would prefer we yield to Senator Leahy given his schedule. Mr. HATCH. Let's split the time. You control half the time, and I will control half. You can make the determination, or if you would like---- Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is there remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 36 minutes 30 seconds. Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if I might yield myself 5 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this really has been a long time coming, and I appreciate the effort of my friend, the chairman, who is on the floor, to support this nomination. I commend my good friend, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, who has been indefatigable in this effort. She has worked and worked and worked. I believe she has spoken to every single Senator, every single potential Senator, every single past Senator, certainly to all the judges, and she has been at us over and over again to make sure that this day would come. She has worked with the Republican leader, the Democratic leader, and Republican and Democratic Senators alike. I appreciate all that she has done. We have all been aided by our colleague, Senator Feinstein. She has spoken out strongly for Margaret Morrow as a member of the Judiciary Committee and as a Senator. I feel though, as Senator Boxer has said, that none of us would have predicted that it would take 21 months to get this nomination before the Senate. I know that we would not even be here now if the distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished majority leader had not made the commitment before we broke last fall to proceed to this nomination this week. I have spoken about this nomination so many times I have almost lost track of the number. I will not speak as long as I would otherwise today because I want to yield to the Senator from California. But I think people should know that for some time there was an unexplained hold on this outstanding nominee. This is a nominee, incidentally, who was reported out of the Judiciary Committee twice. This is a nominee who is the first woman to be the president of the California State Bar Association and a president of the Los Angeles County bar. This is a nominee who is a partner in a prestigious law firm. This is a nominee who has the highest rating that lawyers can be given when they come before our committee for approval as a judge. This is a woman about whom letters were sent to me and to other Senators from some of the leading Republicans and some of the leading Democrats in California and from others whose background I know only because of their reputations, extraordinary reputations. I have no idea what their politics are. But all of them, whether they describe themselves as conservatives, liberals, moderates or apolitical, all of them say what an extraordinary woman she is. And I agree. I have read all of the reports about her. I have read all the things people said in her favor, and the things, ofttimes anonymous, said against her. I look at all those and I say of this woman: If I were a litigant, plaintiff or defendant, government or defendant, no matter what side I was on, I could look at this woman and say I am happy to come into her court. I am happy to have my case heard by her--whether I am rich, poor, white, black, no matter what might be my background. I know she would give a fair hearing. Now, finally, after 12 months on the Senate calendar without action over the course of the last 3 years, I am glad that the debate is beginning. I am also glad we can now look forward to the end of the ordeal for Margaret Morrow, for her family, her friends and her supporters. Her supporters include the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and half the Republican members on that committee. The Republican Mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan, calls her ``an excellent addition to the Federal bench.'' All of these people have praised her. To reiterate, this day has been a long time coming. When this accomplished lawyer was first nominated by the President of the United States to fill a vacancy on the District Court for the Central District of California, none of us would have predicted that it would be more than 21 months before that nomination was considered by the United States Senate. I thank the Majority Leader and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for fulfilling the commitment made late last year to turn to this nomination before the February recess. Fairness to the people and litigants in the Central District of California and to Margaret Morrow and her family demand no less. I trust that those who credit local law enforcement and local prosecutors and local judges from time to time as it suits them will credit the views of the many California judges and local officials who have written to the Senate over the last several months in support of the confirmation of Margaret Morrow. I will cite just a few examples: [[Page S643]] Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block; Orange County District Attorney Michael R. Capizzi; former U.S. Attorney and former head of the DEA under President Bush, Robert C. Bonner; former Reagan Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division and former Associate Attorney General and current Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen S. Trott; and California Court of Appeals Associate Justice H. Walter Croskey. I deeply regret that confirmation as a Federal Judge is becoming more like a political campaign for these nominees. They are being required to gather letters of support and urge their friends, colleagues and clients to support their candidacy or risk being mischaracterized by those who do not know them. Margaret Morrow's background, training, temperament, character and skills are beyond reproach. She is a partner in the law firm of Arnold & Porter. She has practiced law for 24 years. A distinguished graduate of Bryn Mawr College and Harvard Law School, Ms. Morrow was the first woman President of the California State Bar Association and a former president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. She has had the strong and unwavering support of Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein of California. In light of her qualifications, it was no surprise that in 1996 she was unanimously reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 1997 her nomination was again reported favorably, this time by a vote of 13 to 5. Yet hers has been an arduous journey to Senate consideration. She has been targeted--targeted by extremists outside the Senate whose $1.4 million fundraising and lobbying campaign against judges needed a victim. As our debate will show today, they chose the wrong woman. Lest someone accuse us of gratuitously injecting gender into this debate, I note the following: Her critics have gone so far as to deny her the courtesy of referring to her as Ms. Morrow. Instead, they went out of their way repeatedly to refer to her as ``Miss'' in a Washington Times op ed. Margaret Morrow is married to a distinguished California State Court Judge and is the proud mother of a 10-year-old son. It is bad enough that her words are taken out of context, her views misrepresented and her nomination used as a ideological prop. She is entitled to be treated with respect. Nor was this reference inadvertent. The first point of criticism in that piece was her membership in California Women Lawyers, which is criticized for supporting parental leave legislation. Senator Feinstein posed the question whether Margaret Morrow was held to a different standard than men nominees. That is a question that has troubled me throughout this process. I was likewise concerned to see that of the 14 nominees left pending at the end of last year whose nominations had been pending the longest, 12 were women and minority nominees. I did not know, until Senator Kennedy's statement to the Senate earlier this year, that judicial nominees who are women are now four times as likely as men to take over a year to confirm. At the same time, I note that Senator Hatch, who supports this nomination, included two women whose nominations have been pending for more than a year and one-half, at last week's Judiciary Committee hearing. I also note that the Senate did vote last month to confirm Judge Ann Aiken to the Oregon District Court. So one of the four article III judges confirmed so far this year was a woman nominee. Margaret Morrow has devoted her career to the law, to getting women involved in the practice of law and to making lawyers more responsive and responsible. Her good work in this regard should not be punished but commended. As part of those efforts Margaret Morrow gave a speech at a Women in the Law Conference in April 1994. That speech was later reprinted in a law review. Critics have seized upon a phrase or two from that speech, ripped them out of context and contended that they show Margaret Morrow would be an unprincipled judicial activist. They are wrong. Their argument was refuted by Ms. Morrow in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee. This criticism merely demonstrates the critics own indifference to the setting and context of the speech and its meaning for women who have worked so hard to achieve success in the legal profession. Her speech was about how the bar is begrudgingly adjusting to women in the legal profession. How telling that critics would fasten on that particular speech on women in the law and see it as something to criticize. Margaret Morrow spoke then about ``the struggles and successes'' of women practices law and ``the challenges which continue to face us day to day in the 1990s.'' Margaret Morrow has met every challenge. In the course of this confirmation, she has been forced to run a gauntlet. She has endured false charges and unfounded criticism. Her demeanor and dignity have never wavered. She has, again, been called upon to be a role model. The President of the Woman Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, the President of the Women's Legal Defense Fund, the President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the President of the National Conference of Women's Bar Association and other distinguished attorneys from the Los Angeles area have all written the Senate in support of the nomination of Margaret Morrow. They wrote that: ``Margaret Morrow is widely respected by attorneys, judges and community leaders of both parties.'' She ``is exactly the kind of person who should be appointed to such a position and held up as an example to young women across the country.'' I could not agree more. By letter dated February 4, 1998, a number of organizations including the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and women's lawyer associations from California likewise wrote urging confirmation of Margaret Morrow without further delay. I ask that a copy of that letter be included in the Record at this point. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: February 4, 1998. Senator Patrick Leahy, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Leahy: We write to express our concern over a series of developments that continue to unfold in the Senate that are undermining the judicial confirmation process. These include calls for the impeachment of judges, a slowdown in the pace of confirmations, unjustified criticisms of certain nominees, and efforts to leave appellate vacancies unfilled. Some court observers have opined that collectively these are the most serious efforts to curtail judicial independence since President Roosevelt's plan to pack the Supreme Court in 1937. In the past year nominees who failed to meet certain ultraconservative litmus tests have been labeled ``judicial activists.'' While these charges are unfounded, they nonetheless delay confirmations and leave judicial seats unfilled. We note that of the 14 individuals whose nominations have been pending the longest, 12 are women or minorities. This disturbing pattern is in striking contrast to those 14 judges who were confirmed in 1997 in the shortest period of time, 11 of whom are white men. For example, Margaret Morrow, a judicial nominee to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, was nominated more than a year and a half ago. Not only is she an outstanding candidate, but her credentials have earned her enthusiastic and bipartisan endorsements from leaders of the bar, judges, politicians, and civic groups. An honors graduate from Harvard Law School, a civil litigator for more than 20 years, winner of numerous legal awards, and the first female president of the California Bar Association, Morrow has the breadth of background and experience to make her an excellent judge, and in the words of one of her sponsors, she would be ``an exceptionally distinguished addition to the federal bench.'' Morrow has also shown, through her numerous pro bono activities, a demonstrated commitment to equal justice. As president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, she created the Pro Bono Council, the first of its kind in California. During her year as bar president, the Council coordinated the provision of 150,000 hours of previously untapped representation to indigent clients throughout the county. Not surprisingly, the American Bar Association's judicial evaluation committee gave her its highest rating. Republicans and Democrats alike speak highly of her accomplishments and qualifications. Robert Bonner, a Reagan- appointed U.S. Attorney and U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California and head of the Drug Enforcement Administration during the Bush Administration, has said Morrow is a ``brilliant person with a first-rate legal mind who was nominated upon merit, not political affiliation.'' Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block wrote that, ``Margaret Morrow is an extremely hard working individual of impeccable character and integrity. . . . I have no doubt that she would [[Page S644]] be a distinguished addition to the Court.'' Other supporters include local bar leaders; officials from both parties, including Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan; California judges appointed by the state's last three governors; and three Republican-appointed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges, Pamela Rymer, Cynthia Holcomb Hall, and Stephen Trott. Despite here outstanding record, Morrow has become the target of a coordinated effort by ultraconservative groups that seek to politicize the judiciary. They have subjected her to a campaign of misrepresentations, distortions and attacks on her record, branding her a ``judicial activist.'' According to her opponents, she deserves to be targeted because ``she is a member of California Women Lawyers,'' an absurd charge given that this bipartisan organization is among the most highly respected in the state. Another ``strike'' against her is her concern, expressed in a sentence from a 1988 article, about special interest domination of the ballot initiative process in California. Her opponents view the statement as disdainful of voter initiatives such as California's term limits law; however, they overlook the fact that the article outlines a series of recommended reforms to preserve the process. It is a stretch to construe suggested reforms as evidence of ``judicial activism,'' but to search for this members of the Judiciary Committee unprecedentedly asked her to disclose her personal positions on all 160 past ballot propositions in California. Morrow's confirmation has been delayed by the Senate beyond any reasonable bounds. Originally selected over nineteen months ago in May 1996, her nomination was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee that year, only to languish on the Senate floor. Morrow was again nominated at the beginning of 1997, subjected to an unusual second hearing, and recommended again by the Judiciary Committee, after which several Senators placed secret holds on her nomination, preventing a final vote on her confirmation. These holds, which prevented a final vote on her confirmation during the 1st Session of the 105th Congress, where recently lifted. As Senator Orrin Hatch repeatedly said: ``playing politics with judges is unfair, and I'm sick of it.'' We agree with his sentiment. Given Margaret Morrow's impressive qualifications, we urge you to bring the nomination to the Senate floor, ensure that it receives prompt, full and fair consideration, and that a final vote on her nomination is scheduled as soon as possible. Sincerely, Alliance for Justice: Nan Aron, President. American Jewish Congress: Phil Baum, Executive Director. Americans for Democratic Action: Amy Isaacs, National Director. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: Robert Bernstein, Executive Law. Brennan Center for Justice: E. Joshua Rosenkrantz, Executive Director. Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles: Eulanda Matthews, President. California Women Lawyers: Grace E. Emery, President. Center for Law and Social Policy: Alan W. Hausman, Director. Chicago Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: Clyde E. Murphy, Executive Director. Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Patricia Wright, Coordinator Disabled Fund. Families USA: Judy Waxman, Director of Government Affairs. Lawyers Club of San Diego: Kathleen Juniper, Director. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: Wade Henderson, Executive Director. Marin County Women Lawyers: Eileen Barker, President. Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund: Antonia Hernandez, Executive Director. Monterey County Women Lawyers: Karen Kardushin, Affiliate Governor. NAACP: Hilary Shelton, Deputy Director, Washington Office. National Bar Association: Randy K. Jones, President. National Center for Youth Law: John F. O'Toole, Director. National Conference of Women Bar Associations: Phillis C. Solomon, President. National Council of Senior Citizens: Steve Protulis, Executive Director. National Employment Lawyers Association: Terisa E. Chaw, Executive Director. National Gay & Lesbian Task Force: Rebecca Issacs, Public Policy Director. National Lawyers Guild: Karen Jo Koonan, President. National Legal Aid & Defender Association: Julie Clark, Executive Director. National Organization for Women: Patricia Ireland, President. National Women's Law Center: Marcia Greenberger and Nancy Duff Campbell, Co-presidents. Orange County Women Lawyers: Jean Hobart, President. People for the American Way Action Fund: Mike Lux, Senior Vice President. San Francisco Women Lawyers Alliance: Geraldine Rosen-Park, President. Santa Barbara Women Lawyers: Renee Nordstrand, President. Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees: Ann Hoffman, Legislative Director. Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles: Greer C. Bosworth, President. Women Lawyers of Alameda County: Sandra Schweitzer, President. Women Lawyers of Sacramento: Karen Leaf, President. Women Lawyers of Santa Cruz: Lorie Klein, President. Women's Legal Defense Fund: Judy Lichtman, President. Youth Law Center: Mark Soler, Executive Director. Mr. LEAHY. It is time. It is time to stop holding her hostage and help all Americans, and certainly those who are within the district that this court will cover in California. It is time to help the cause of justice. It is time to improve the bench of the United States. It is time to confirm this woman. And it is time for the U.S. Senate to say we made a mistake in holding it up this long. Let us go forward. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah has no objection, I would like now to yield, and yield control of whatever time I might have, to the Senator from California. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California. Mrs. BOXER. I say to Senator Leahy, before he leaves the floor, and because Senator Hatch in his absence explained the wonderful tribute he is going to have shortly with his portrait being hung in the Agriculture room, and he himself said that he is so respectful of you and wants to show his respect so much that he is going to join you, so that will leave me here on the floor to debate with the Senator from Missouri--before you leave the floor I wanted to say to you and to Senator Hatch together, and I say this from the bottom of my heart, without the two of you looking fairly at this nomination, this day would never have come. To me it is, in a way, a moving moment. So often we stand on the floor and we talk about delays and so on and so forth. But when you put the human face on this issue and you have a woman and her husband and her son and a law firm that was so excited about this nominee, and you add to that 2 years of twisting in the wind and not knowing whether this day would ever come, you have to say that today is a wonderful day. So, before my colleague leaves, I wanted to say to him: Thank you for being there for Margaret Morrow and, frankly, all of the people of America. Because she will make an excellent judge. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I say to my friend from California and to my friend from Utah, I do appreciate their help in this. I can assure you that, while my family and I will gather for the hanging of this portrait--I almost blushed when you mentioned that is my reason for being off the floor--I can assure you I will be back in plenty of time for the vote and I will have 210 pounds of Vermonter standing in the well of the Senate to encourage everybody to vote the appropriate way. Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague very much, Senator Leahy. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from California. Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining on this side? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 15 minutes. The Senator from Utah has 30 minutes. Mrs. BOXER. My understanding is I would have 15 minutes, then? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Mrs. BOXER. I ask that the Presiding Officer let me know when 10 minutes has passed, and I will reserve 5 minutes in which to debate the Senator from Missouri, because I know he is a tough debater and I am going to need some time. Mr. President, as I said, I am so very pleased that this day has come at long last, that we will have an up-or-down vote on Margaret Morrow. I really think, standing here, perhaps the only people happier than I am right now are Margaret and her husband and her son and her law partners and the various citizens of California, Republicans and Democrats, who worked together for this day. Margaret Morrow is the epitome of mainstream values and mainstream America, and the depth and breadth of her support from prominent Republicans and Democrats illustrate that she is eminently qualified to sit as a Federal judge. I don't think I could be any more eloquent than Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Leahy, in putting forward her credentials. [[Page S645]] What I am going to do later is just read from some of the many letters that we got about Margaret, and then I, also, at that time, will have some letters printed in the Record. Again, I want to say to Senator Hatch how his leadership has been extraordinary on this, and also I personally thank Majority Leader Lott and Democratic Leader Daschle for bringing this to the floor and arranging for an agreement that this nominee be brought to the floor. I thank my colleague from Missouri for allowing an up-or-down vote, for not launching a filibuster on this matter. I think Chairman Hatch spoke of that eloquently, and I am very pleased that we can have this fair vote. I recommended Margaret Morrow to the President in September of 1995. She was nominated by the President on May 9, 1996. She received her first hearing before the Judiciary Committee on June 25, 1996, and was favorably reported out unanimously by the committee 2 days later. Because there was no action, she was renominated again on January 7, 1997, and had her second hearing on March 18, 1997. This time she was reported out favorably. This time the vote was 13 to 5. I want to make the point that there is a personal side to this judicial nomination process. For nominees who are awaiting confirmation, their personal and professional lives truly hang in the balance. Margaret Morrow, a 47-year-old mother and law partner has put her life and her professional practice on hold while she waited for the Senate to vote on her nomination. Her whole family, particularly her husband and son, have waited patiently for this day. That is stress and that is strain, as you wait for this decision which will so affect your life and the life of your family and, of course, your career. Former Majority Leader Bob Dole spoke of this process himself when he once said, ``We should not be holding people up. If we need a vote, vote them down or vote them up, because the nominees probably have plans to make and there are families involved.'' I think Senator Dole said it straight ahead. So I am really glad that Margaret's day has come finally. I do want to say to Margaret, thank you for hanging in there. Thank you for not giving up. I well understand that there were certain moments where you probably were tempted to do so. There were days when you probably thought this day would never come. But you did hang in there, and you had every reason to hang in there. This is a woman who graduated magna cum laude from Bryn Mawr College and received her law degree from Harvard, graduating cum laude, 23 years in private practice in business and commercial litigation, a partner at the prestigious law firm of Arnold and Porter. She is married to Judge Paul Boland of the Los Angeles Superior Court and has a 10-year-old son, Patrick Morrow Boland, who actually came up here on one of the times that she was before the committee. Over the years, Margaret has represented a diverse group of business and Government clients, including some of the Nation's largest and most prominent companies. In the time I have remaining now, I want to quote from some very prestigious leaders from California, and from the Senate, who have spoken out in behalf of Margaret Morrow. First we have Senator Orrin Hatch. He spoke for Margaret himself, so I won't go over that quote. Robert Bonner, former U.S. attorney appointed by President Reagan, former U.S. district court judge in the Central District of California and former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, appointed by President George Bush, he sent a letter to Senators Bond, D'Amato, Domenici, Sessions and Specter. In it he says: The issue--the only real issue--is this: Is Margaret Morrow likely to be an activist judge? My answer and the answer of other Californians who have unchallengeable Republican credentials and who are and have been leaders of the bar and bench in California, is an unqualified NO. . . . On a personal note, I have known Margaret Morrow for over twenty years. She was my former law partner. I can assure you that she will not be a person who will act precipitously or rashly in challenging the rule of law. He continues: Based on her record, the collective knowledge of so many Republicans of good reputation, and her commitment to the rule of law and legal institutions, it is clear to me that Margaret will be a superb trial judge who will follow the law as articulated by the Constitution and legal precedent, and apply it to the facts before her. I think that this statement is quite powerful. We have numbers of others as well. In a letter to Senators Abraham and Gordon Smith and Pat Roberts, Thomas Malcolm, who is chairman of Governor Wilson's Judicial Selection Committee for Orange County and served on the Judicial Selection Committees of Senators Hayakawa, Wilson, and Seymour, wrote the following: I have known Ms. Morrow for approximately 10 years. Over the years, she has constantly been the most outstanding leader our California Bar Association has ever had the privilege of her sitting as its President. . . . Of the literally hundreds of nominations for appointment to the federal bench during my tenure on Senators Hayakawa, Wilson and Seymour's Judicial Selection Committees, Ms. Morrow is by far one of the most impressive applicants I have ever seen. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 7\1/2\ minutes. Mrs. BOXER. Remaining of my 10 minutes? The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 3 minutes of your 10 minutes remaining. Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. In the 3 minutes remaining I am going to quote from some others. Los Angeles Mayor, Richard Riordan, in a letter to Senator Hatch, said: Ms. Morrow would be an excellent addition to the Federal bench. She is dedicated to following the law and applying it in a rational and objective fashion. Republican judges in the 9th Circuit, Pamela Rymer and Cynthia Hall-- they are both President Bush and President Reagan's appointees respectively--in a letter to Senators Hutchison, Collins and Snowe, write: [We] urge your favorable action on the Morrow nomination because [we] believe that she would be an exceptional federal judge. Representative James Rogan, former Republican Assembly majority leader in the California State Assembly, the first Republican majority leader in almost 30 years--actually he testified in front of the Judiciary Committee and said: When an individual asks me to make a recommendation for a judgeship, that is perhaps the single most important thing I will study before making any recommendation . . . I am absolutely convinced that . . . she would be the type of judge who would follow the Constitution and laws of the United States as they were written. . . . [I]t is my belief . . . that should she win approval from this committee and from the full Senate, she would be a judge that we could all be proud of, both in California and throughout our land. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of people from all over California endorsing Margaret Morrow. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Republican Support for Margaret M. Morrow Robert C. Bonner, former U.S. Attorney (appointed by President Reagan), former U.S. District Court Judge in the Central District of California and former Head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (appointed by President Bush), Partner at Gibson, Dunne and Crutcher in Los Angeles (2 letters). Thomas R. Malcolm, Chairman of Governor Wilson's judicial selection committee for Orange County and previously served on the judicial selection committees of Senators Hayakawa, Wilson, and Seymour. Rep. James Rogan (R-27-CA), former Assembly Majority Leader, California State Legislature, former gang murder prosecutor in the LA County District Attorney's Office, former Municipal Court Judge in California. Pamela Rymer, Curcuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2 letters), appointed by President Bush. Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Circuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appointed by President Reagan. Lourdes Baird, District Court Judge, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, appointed by President Bush. H. Walter Croskey, Associate Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (2 letters), appointed by Governor Deukmejian. Richard J. Riordan, Major, City of Los Angeles. Michael R. Capizzi, District Attorney, Orange County. Lod Cook, Chairman Emeritus, ARCO, Los Angeles. Clifford R. Anderson, Jr., supporter of the presidential campaigns for Presidents Nixon and Reagan, and former member of Governor Wilson's judicial selection committee (when [[Page S646]] he was Senator) member of Governor Wilson's State judicial evaluation committee. Sherman Block, Sheriff, County of Los Angeles. Roger W. Boren, Presiding Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (2 letters), appointed by Governor Wilson. Sheldon H. Sloan, former President of Los Angeles County Bar Association. Stephen Trott, Circuit Court Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2 letters), appointed by President Reagan. Judith C. Chirlin, Judge, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, appointed by Governor Deukmejian. Richard C. Neal, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, appointed by Governors Deukmejian and Wilson. Marvin R. Baxter, Associate Justice, Superme Court of California, appointed by Governor Deukmejian. Charles S. Vogel, Presiding Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, appointed by Governors Reagan and Wilson. Dale S. Fischer, Judge, Los Angeles Municipal Court, appointed by Governor Wilson. Richard D. Aldrich, Associate Justice, State of California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, appointed by Governors Deukmejian and Wilson. Edward B. Huntington, Judge, Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego, appointed by Governor Wilson. Laurence H. Pretty, former President of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers. Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to say to you again, I know you have been very fair as I presented the case to you, this is a woman that every single Senator should be proud to support today. It is not a matter of political party. This is a woman uniquely qualified. I almost want to say, if Margaret Morrow cannot make it through, then, my goodness, who could? I really think she brings those kinds of bipartisan credentials. I reserve my 5 minutes and yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Missouri is recognized. Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much. I yield myself so much time as I may consume, and I ask that the Chair inform me when I have consumed 15 minutes. I thank you very much for allowing me to participate in this debate. It is appropriate that we bring to the floor nominees who are well known to the committee for debate by the full Senate. I commend the chairman of the committee for bringing this nomination to the floor. I have no objection to these nominations coming to the floor and no objection to voting on these nominees. I only objected to this nominee coming to the floor to be approved by unanimous consent because I think we deserve the opportunity to debate these nominees, to discuss them and to have votes on them. So many people who are not familiar with the process of the Senate may think that when a Senator says that he wants to have a debate that he is trying to delay. I believe the work of the Senate should be done in full view of the American people and that we should have the opportunity to discuss these issues, and then instead of having these things voted on by unanimous consent at the close of the business day with no record, I think it is important that we debate the nominee's qualifications on the record. I think it is important because the judiciary is one-third of the Government of the United States. The individuals who populate the judiciary are lifetime appointments. The United States Constitution imposes a responsibility on the Senate to be a quality screen, and it is the last screen before a person becomes a lifetime member of the judiciary. So we need to do our best to make sure that only high-quality individuals reach that level, individuals who have respect for the Constitution, who appropriately understand that the role of the courts is to decide disputes and not to expand the law or to somehow develop new constitutional rights. The legislature is the part of the body politic that is designed to make law. The courts are designed to settle disputes about the law. It is against this background that I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the nomination of Margaret Morrow. Let me begin by saying that Ms. Morrow is an outstanding lawyer. No one wants to challenge her credentials. No one believes that she is not a person of great intellect or a person of tremendous experience. She is a person who has great capacity. It has been demonstrated in her private life, her educational record and in her life of service as an officer of the California Bar Association. The only reservations to be expressed about Ms. Morrow, and they are substantial ones in my regard--they are not about her talent, not about her capacity, not about her integrity--they are about what her interpretation of the role of a judge is; whether she thinks that the law as developed in the court system belongs on the cutting edge, whether she thinks that the law, as developed in the court system, is an engine of social change and that the courts should drive the Nation in a direction of a different culture and a direction of recognizing new rights that weren't recognized or placed in the Constitution, and that needed to be invented or developed or brought into existence by individuals who populate the courts. That, I think, is the major question we have before us. So let me just say again, this is an outstanding person of intellect, from everything I can understand a person of great integrity, a person whose record of service is laudable and commendable. The only question I have is, does she have the right view of the Constitution, the right view of what courts are supposed to do, or will she be someone who goes to the bench and, unfortunately, like so many other lawyers in the ninth circuit, decide that the court is the best place to amend the Constitution? Does she think the court is the best place to strike down the will of the people, to impose on the people from the courts what could not be generated by the representatives of the people in the legislature. So, fundamentally, the question is whether or not this candidate will respect the separation of powers, whether this candidate will say the legislature is the place to make the law, and whether she will recognize that courts can only make decisions about the law. Will she acknowledge that the people have the right to make the law, too? After all, that is what our Constitution says, that all power and all authority is derived from the people, and they, with their elected representatives, should have the opportunity to make the law. It is with these questions in mind that I look at some of the writings of this candidate for a Federal judgeship, and I come to the conclusion that she believes that the court system and the courts are the place where the law can be made, especially if the people are not smart enough or if the people aren't progressive enough or if the Constitution isn't flexible enough. I can't say for sure this is what would happen. I have to be fair. I have to go by what she has written. I will be at odds with the interpretation of some of the things said by the committee chairman. I respect the chairman, but I think that his interpretation of her writings is flawed. In 1995, in a law review comment, Ms. Morrow seemed to endorse the practice of judicial activism, that is judge-made law. She wrote: For the law is, almost by definition, on the cutting edge of social thought. It is a vehicle-- Or a way-- through which we ease the transition from the rules which have always been to the rules which are to be. She is saying that the law is the vehicle, the thing that takes you from what was to what will be. I was a little puzzled when the committee chairman said that the committee found that she didn't mean the substantive as expressed in the courts and the like. Let me just say I don't believe the committee made any such findings. I have checked with committee staff, and it is just not the case that the committee made findings. It is true that a majority of the members of the committee voted this candidate to the floor, but the committee didn't make findings that this was not a statement of judicial activism. Frankly, I think it is a statement of judicial activism, despite the fact that Ms. Morrow told the committee that she was not speaking about the law in any substantive way, but rather was referring to the legal profession and the rules governing the profession. The law, by definition, is on the cutting edge of social thought? Social [[Page S647]] thought doesn't govern the profession, social thought governs the society. The transition of the rules from the way they have always been to the rules which they are to be? I think it is a stretch to say that this really refers to the legal profession. If she meant that the legal profession is a vehicle through which we ease the transition from the rules which always have been to the rules which are to be, that doesn't make sense. Clearly she is referring to something other than the legal profession or the rules of professional conduct. Some have suggested that because Ms. Morrow initially made these remarks at a 1994 Conference on Women and the Law, that it is plausible that she was referring to the profession and not to the substantive law. But I think it is more likely that her statement reflects a belief that the law can and should be used by those who interpret it to change social norms, inside and outside of the legal profession. Truly, that is a definition of activism, the ability of judges to impose on the culture those things which they prefer rather than have the culture initiate through their elected representatives those things which the culture prefers. Frankly, if it is a question of a few in the judiciary defining what the values of the many are in the culture, I think that is antidemocratic. I really believe that the virtue of America is that the many impose their will on the Government, not that the few in Government impose their will on the many. Reasonable people can disagree on the proper interpretation of Ms. Morrow's statement. Others can argue about whether or not hastening social change is a proper role for judges in the courts. But I think it is fair to conclude that Ms. Morrow's comments were an endorsement of judicial activism. In 1993, Ms. Morrow gave another speech that suggested approval of judicial activism, quoting William Brennan, an evangelist of judicial activism. Morrow stated: Justice can only endure and flourish if law and legal institutions are ``engines of social change'' able to accommodate evolving patterns of life and social interaction in this decade. She said these remarks were not an endorsement of activism. She told the Judiciary Committee the subject of the comments was, once again, not the law but the legal profession and the California Stat