▶ 0:16:56>> let me welcome everyone to this hearing. The full committee will be considering eight nominations to the D.C. superior court. And the D.C. court of appeals. All thank the nominees for being here. We look forward to hearing from you and despite the fact my colleagues are filling the room, they are eager to ask questions. It's great to have ranking member kaine with me today.
▶ 0:17:24I look forward to a terrific hearing. Children are welcome in the room as well. The more the merrier. Let me say a word about the significance of the hearing. We have many, many open slots and vacancies on the D.C. court of appeals and the D.C. superior court. These are vitally important courts to the safety of the capital city, to the functioning of the capital city. One indication is we have with us in attendance today the chief judge of the D.C.
▶ 0:17:52Court of appeals and the chief judge of the D.C. superior court. We welcome both of you. Your present attest to the significe -- the significance of the panels. There is a significant backlog currently pending in the superior court. More than 100,000 cases. 100,000 cases were pending in the superior court at the start of the last year.
▶ 0:18:22Tens of thousands remain unresolved this year. Criminal trials are now running months longer than they did just before the pandemic. Some homicide and violent felony cases will not see trial until 2027. Think about the number of victims' families waiting for answers, defendants sitting in jail without their day in court, and all too often dangerous people back on the street when the docket sits untouched.
▶ 0:18:53The court of appeals has its own vacancy problems that have gone unaddressed for years. Every empty seat on either court is a case that does not get heard in a timely manner, a dock that does not move a family left without answers, and that is why this hearing really matters. Here's the order procedure today. I will turn it over to ranking member kim to make his opening statement. I will swear in and introduce briefly each of our nominees.
▶ 0:19:22With consent from my colleagues which I hope they will get, we will enter your opening statements into the record. Then I will give you a chance in lieu of a link the opening statement -- we will put those in the record but I want to give you a chance to introduce family members or special guest you may have with you today and they will jump in the questions. Let me turn it over to ranking member kim.
▶ 0:19:40Sen. Kim: Thank you, chairman, and thank you to chairman paul with moving forward with these nominees. I'm appreciative of stepping in for ranking member peters. While this should not be a spectacular thing, I want to know the nominations before us today came through the proper channels by the juicy -- D.C. nominations committee as required by law. Congratulations to the nominees.
▶ 0:20:10Sen. Kim: Thank you for your dedication to public service. For years, D.C. has struggled to fill local judicial vacancies. That's because unlike states they have a process to place people on the bench. In D.C. we must follow a federal process of presidential appointment and senate confirmation despite the fact these are not federal judges.
▶ 0:20:34Sen. Kim: This has historically led to long delays in confirming new judges in the legal and public safety systems have suffered as a result. It is critical we move forward and and this process confirm judges who demonstrate they are qualified during the vetting process, filling the vacancies on the superior court and court of appeals will allow D.C. to tackle the case backlog can give people timely access to their day in court.
▶ 0:21:04Sen. Kim: This is a unique role of this particular committee and I think it's important for the members that we take this seriously and on top of what we are trying to do with legislation, with federal level confirmations, the ability for us to be stewards and look after our capital is so important and lift up those that will be doing this work a day in and day out. Thank you for stepping up and I look forward to this hearing.
▶ 0:21:34Chair Hawley: Thank you, senator kim. It is the practice of the committee to swear in the witnesses. Raise your right hand and respond to me. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? Let the record reflect all witnesses answered in the affirmative. Let me enter each of your opening statements into the record. We will just go down the line here and start with Mr. crowell.
▶ 0:22:05Chair Hawley: We will give you the option to do'-- the opportunity to introduce family members. The first nominee is james crowell. Mr. crowell, the honorable judge james crowell. He previously served in leadership roles at the department of justice and as a U.S. attorney for the district of maryland. The judge has a long and distinguished khmer -- career in the U.S. army reserve. Mr.
▶ 0:22:34Chair Hawley: Nash is a partner at holland and knight. He previously served as an associate judge on the superior court of the district of columbia from 2010 to 2016. He had a long tenure as a prosecutor about the department of justice and the united states attorney's office in the district of D.C.. Welcome, Mr. nash. Mr. de bono.
▶ 0:23:07Chair Hawley: He leads efforts to develop and implement doj's policy objectives, including those concerning drugs, firearms, violent crime, and digital assets. He was a senior attorney with the das office and chief counsel and work in private practice at multiple firms. Welcome, Mr. de bono. Mr. michael dilorenzo. He investigates and supervises matters related to national security. Mr. dilorenzo has a long career as a prosecutor.
▶ 0:23:39Chair Hawley: He was a prosecutor at the department of justice, the U.S. attorney's office for the district of D.C., and the state of maryland. Next we have the honorable sharon goodie. Judge goodie is at administrative law judge in the office of administrative hearings were she has served since 2005. She hears matters involving public benefits, homeless shelters, nursing homes and mental health group home issues. She's a commission on the district of columbia access to justice commission.
▶ 0:24:07Chair Hawley: Before becoming an alj, she was a prosecutor in the D.C. attorney general's office. Thank you for being here, judge. Then we have Mr. craig lean, a partner at knl gates. He previously served as the city attorney for the city of coral gables, florida. Two more. Ms. christine macey at the U.S.
▶ 0:24:37Chair Hawley: Attorney's office for the district of columbia. Before her current role, she served as a senior at united states attorney investigating and prosecuting homicide cases in the D.C. superior court and fraud cases in the united states district for the district of columbia. Welcome. Last but certainly not least, Mr. john timmer, see note -- before joining the sec he served as an assistant U.S.
▶ 0:25:07Chair Hawley: Attorney in the U.S. attorney's office for a D.C. where he investigated and tried cases in the superior court of the district of columbia ranging from assault and homicide. Welcome to all of you and thank you for being here. I will give you each a chance to introduce any family members are guest you may have with you. Mr. crowell.
▶ 0:25:26Judge Crowell: Thank you, senator and good morning to all numbers of the committee. I'm joined by my wife, our son jack, who was I believe 14 the last time we appeared before you, senator. He has grown up a little bit but we are grateful to be back before you and our daughter elliot who is on a service trip abroad.
▶ 0:25:52Judge Crowell: I'm also joined by chief judge blackburn rigsby, and chief judge tony lee from my current court hearing the D.C. superior court.
▶ 0:26:02Chair Hawley: Fantastic. Welcome to your family members. It is terrific to have you. Mr. nash.
▶ 0:26:06Mr. Nash: Thank you, senator. Good morning. I'm joined today by my wife mary and my son christopher. I have two other children who are working. One outside united states and one up in new york city and we are not able to be here but are watching remotely. I'm also joined by two of my work colleagues, at work colleagues, we started in the U.S. attorney's office for D.C.
▶ 0:26:34Mr. Nash: In 1997 and have worked together ever since. I also have family and friends, mike flanagan and jocelyn dyer with me.
▶ 0:26:44Mr. De Bono: I'm joined today by my wife, alyssa candler. And my two children are here as well, my son and daughter. My parents came to see the hearing today and my father-in-law is here as well. I have a ton of friends and colleagues that are hope watching.
▶ 0:27:06Chair Hawley: Dilorenzo.
▶ 0:27:12Mr. Dilorenzo: I would like to thank my family, including my mother watching from above, my father henry, my wife paula and our two boys, michael and christopher. They cannot be here due to a family commitment but they are watching. Thank you.
▶ 0:27:33Chair Hawley: Judge goodie.
▶ 0:27:37Judge Goodie: I am judge -- joined by my son daniel. [indiscernible]
▶ 0:27:43Chair Hawley: Fantastic.
▶ 0:27:46Mr. Leen: Good morning. I'm joined by my wife, Dr. ana maria leen. We met in georgetown in 1984. I'm joined by my son and I wanted to mention my daughter. She is autistic with intellectual disability but we will celebrate with her tonight.
▶ 0:28:11Chair Hawley: Miss macey.
▶ 0:28:14Ms. Macey: I'm joined by my husband sean seated behind me and my parents, denise and george mcintyre who traveled from michigan to be here today, and my son who has made some vocal appearances and hopefully that will stay out of it. [laughter]
▶ 0:28:28Chair Hawley: Any interventions are very welcome. Mr. timmer.
▶ 0:28:37Mr. Timmer: I'm joined today by my wife, and watching from afar is my mother in california, susan timmer, and our two daughters are at summer camp right now so they are nowhere near screen.
▶ 0:28:56Chair Hawley: Probably a good thing. They will come home to good news hopefully. I will defer my questions and we will begin questions now with five and around and beginning with ranking member kim.
▶ 0:29:06Sen. Kim: Thank you to all of you for joining up here. I wanted to use this to hit home what the impact of these vacancies are to the district and to help people understand, especially at the federal level why it is so urgent we move forward. To be able to move forward with this panel but writ large make sure we are doing better and keep up with the needs. In particular, Mr.
▶ 0:29:32Sen. Kim: Crowell and Mr. nash, I wanted to start with the two of you. You are aware of the challenges we are facing right now when it comes to the judicial vacancies. Currently there is over roughly 20% vacancy rate on both the D.C. superior court and court of appeals. The failure to replace these nominees has meant the city cannot effectively administer justice.
▶ 0:29:59Sen. Kim: Can you help us -- help explain what the problem is when it comes to this number of vacancies? How does that impact public safety in D.C.?
▶ 0:30:13Judge Crowell: With respect to the impact of the unfilled vacancies, we are so grateful as a sitting trial judge on the D.C. superior court I'm especially grateful. I know chief judge lee is as well for considering the nominees. With the lack of judges it decreases, as senator hawley observed, the number of cases we can hear.
▶ 0:30:39Judge Crowell: The average judicial officer in my division that I'm currently -- I spent four years in the criminal division, three years in family court, and the numbers are skyrocketing. They are quite high. I work as hard as I can but there are only so many hours in the day and I can't get to all the cases and it creates a backlog. Those numbers are real, the cases are real, the litigants are real, and the delays are felt by those who were not able to get justice.
▶ 0:31:08Sen. Kim: Mr. nash.
▶ 0:31:11Mr. Nash: Thank you, senator. I feel a little bit odd talking about the difficulty in moving nominations through the process, because judge crowell and I were nominated just this month.
▶ 0:31:30Mr. Nash: This committee has moved with great alacrity to put us on this panel and do this hearing and certainly everyone sitting in the dais this morning and the staff behind has nothing to do with the delay in the court of appeals -- filling the court of appeal slots because you have been nothing but gracious moving our nominations along at a great clip.
▶ 0:31:54Mr. Nash: Senator hawley in his opening remarks put the statistics to this problem. One of the seats, I guess the seat that is technically judge crowell was nominated to has been open now for 13 years. It's been at least 13 years since the court of appeals has had it -- a full slate of judges.
▶ 0:32:22Mr. Nash: I know judge crowell by reputation. I know both of us are really looking forward to rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. Given our experience I think we are in a position to hit the ground running when we hit the court of appeals if we are fortunate enough to be confirmed. I look forward to doing our share to bringing those numbers down. Right now I'm a consumer of justice in the district of columbia. I'm a practicing lawyer.
▶ 0:32:54Mr. Nash: It takes a long time to get a decision, both in the superior court and court of appeals. We are committed to doing what we can.
▶ 0:33:02Sen. Kim: The challenge is something that makes everything not just lower but more expensive and more difficult to be able to navigate for everybody, is that right?
▶ 0:33:12Mr. Nash: There gets to be a point where litigants will decide they are just going to settle the matter rather than wait interminably for a trial or court of appeals. It was not that way when I was serving on the superior court 10 years ago. This is a problem that has for whatever reason become more of a problem in recent years.
▶ 0:33:39Sen. Kim: People start to not believe in the system in terms of its ability to function. This is by virtue of the values our country has in terms of giving people their day in court and do that in a timely manner. I think at a time when there is such distrust in government we need to show we are doing the nuts and bolts and be able to deliver that type of way.
▶ 0:34:05Sen. Kim: I'm very grateful to chairman hawley and chairman paul in the full committee for moving this forward, for recognizing this is an important function of this committee and necessary for our capital. I will turn it over.
▶ 0:34:20Chair Hawley: Mr. nash, you wrote an opinion piece in the washington post in which you state, "the D.C. court of appeals has become a substantial and underappreciated obstacle to reducing the city's high rate of our o violent crime, regardless of who has control the police." can you elaborate on that and what perspective you bring to this position in light of your views?
▶ 0:34:49Mr. Nash: My opinion piece related to a specific case that came to my attention because, as you know, the court of appeals sits in a three-judge panel. The court of appeals rendered a decision in a criminal case where two of the three judges who were on the panel, a unanimous decision overturning a gun conviction.
▶ 0:35:12Mr. Nash: Two of the three on the panel said in writing in their opinions that they were uncomfortable with the way they were coming out. They believed their decision was inconsistent with supreme court precedent, yet they felt compelled by the president of the D.C. court of appeals to come out the way they did -- precedents. I had never seen a decision come out unanimously with two of the three judges saying they did not agree with their own decision.
▶ 0:35:44Mr. Nash: I thought that was an interesting enough phenomenon that it was worth writing about. I looked at the case. I came to the conclusion that in my piece that the judges who had expressed reservations about the opinion were right. That is what I wrote in the opinion piece.
▶ 0:36:06Mr. Nash: It turns out that I wrote that last august and this winter the U.S. supreme court weighed in on the decision and reversed the D.C. court of appeals, not in this specific case that I write about but in another case on that same issue. Saying the issue that I wrote about, the D.C. court of appeals should be reversed.
▶ 0:36:33Chair Hawley: This was dw versus the united states?
▶ 0:36:36Mr. Nash: That is the one I wrote about. The one the supreme court wrote is confusingly called united states versus rw. Same issue, different case.
▶ 0:36:47Chair Hawley: Sticking with the dw case, this is the panel threw out a gun crime conviction even though the defendant's lawyers admitted at trial the defendant illegally possessed a firearm.
▶ 0:37:02Mr. Nash: That is true. That is not an unusual circumstance. The defense was that the police had acted inconsistently with the fourth amendment. It is not uncommon for lawyers to challenge the fourth amendment issue. Ifthey lose -- issue if they lose.
▶ 0:37:31Chair Hawley: They held that running away from officers on unprovoked does not provide basis for suspected the individual being involved in criminal activity. You said most nonlawyers we can see that unprovoked flight provides an officer was sufficient reason to establish that a fleeing individual might be involved in criminal activity. What does this mean for your approach to the role?
▶ 0:37:58Chair Hawley: If you are confirmed to this court that you have written about, does it mean in cases -- lets abstract from this particular precedent. In cases where you think that the court's precedent is wrong, will you have those reviewed? Give me a sense of what this means about your approach to the job.
▶ 0:38:15Mr. Nash: I guess I would say to begin with, senator, I am not seeking this position because I plan on bringing a particular agenda. I mmy theory of judging is that every case should come before a tribunal that has an open mind and is going to hear the evidence, both the facts and the
▶ 0:38:46Mr. Nash: Law, and apply them in an unbiased fashion. I do not want anyone to suggest that my editorial that talked about a single case that I thought was wrongly decided is reflective of me trying to bring an agenda to the court.
▶ 0:39:03Mr. Nash: That being said, I think with the audio tutorial demonstrates is when I see something that I think -- editorial demonstrates something I see, I'm not shy about making my feelings known on that. I'm fortunate enough to be concerned and I get to the court, if I'm on a three-judge panel in two disagree with me, I will not be shy about expressing my opinion.
▶ 0:39:33Mr. Nash: As my old editorial did -- as my editorial did, I would do it any respectful fashion. I served on the superior court for six years and I think I had a reputation of being a measured and respectful judge and I hope to continue that if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed.
▶ 0:39:52Chair Hawley: Judge crowell, before you became a judge you had a long career as a prosecutor. Drawing from your experience both as a prosecutor and now your years on the bench, do you think that the D.C. criminal laws are being underin force, overand fourth about the right amount?
▶ 0:40:14Mr. Nash: I appreciate --
▶ 0:40:16Judge Crowell: I appreciate the question. The restrictions, I would be reluctant as a sitting judge to speak to matters of public policy. Judicial candidates greatly restrict me from commenting. As a federal prosecutor I fought against violent crime. I sought justice for victims and I woke up every day fighting for those victims, seeking justice for victims whether it was rico, violent crime cases, that was my bread and butter.
▶ 0:40:46Judge Crowell: What I have experienced when I served in the criminal divisions of the superior court, the volume of cases is significant and there are issues that need to be addressed.
▶ 0:41:01Chair Hawley: Do tough sentences help deter violent crime or no?
▶ 0:41:06Judge Crowell: My experience is they do. I believe it is a statute that provides what courts must consider in determining sentences. Amongst those factors is specific deterrence as to the offender and general deterrence as to the community. There his rehabilitation and nature of circumstances and in crafting a decision of judge is required to consider each of those factors.
▶ 0:41:36Chair Hawley: Senator kim, anything further?
▶ 0:41:42Sen. Kim: I would like to build out the but asked us to the nominees for the D.C. superior court. The issue about balance and about trying to weigh and use your judgment on these cases could be before you. I tried to think through the challenges when it comes to crime committed by younger individuals in washington, D.C.. A trend we have been seeing on the rise.
▶ 0:42:08Sen. Kim: I wanted to ask each of you to give me a sense of how you balance that importance of accountability when it comes to our rule of law with the potential of rehabilitation, the potential of continuing to try to shape young people who have their whole lives ahead of them. How do each of you think through that an approach that is confirmed into these jobs? Mr. de bono.
▶ 0:42:39Mr. De Bono: As judge crowell said, I will be confined to the provisions on sentencing and the factors I will have to consider which is specific deterrence, general deterrence and rehabilitation. Any education. I think that is important. It is important to keep individuals that are a threat to the community out of the community.
▶ 0:43:04Mr. De Bono: It's also important that before individuals are returned to the community they don't pose a threat, particularly for individuals likely to reenter the community and they are fully rehabilitated and no longer in a position to calm harm to the community -- cause harm to the community. I will look at sentencing based on the criminal history.
▶ 0:43:31Mr. De Bono: Any pretrial sentencing recommendations, statutory penalties, then try to craft a penalty that accomplishes all that at sentencing.
▶ 0:43:37Sen. Kim: Mr. dilorenzo.
▶ 0:43:41Mr. Dilorenzo: The sentence has to be crafted to the individual. I agree with my fellow nominee. You look at each case on its own. You look at the seriousness of the offense. The characteristics which include -- of the accused. Their record as well. You look at the impact on the victim.
▶ 0:44:08Mr. Dilorenzo: The sentence, another factor is protecting the public. Determining this to -- deterring this defendant from committing the crime again in the future. Another fact is to deter others from committing the crimes. Every case has to be taken on its own facts.
▶ 0:44:38Judge Goodie: I can peer -- is this better? I confirmed with my fellow nominees that has to be done on a case-by-case basis. What I look for is community safety. If this person is on release, are they going to be safe in the community? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I prosecuted juveniles.
▶ 0:45:02Judge Goodie: We would get sometimes psychiatric reports so we could get a better sense of what was going to be best for this particular individual in the community. I also look at potential for rehabilitation and rehabilitation of this particular individual. If this particular individual is out in the community, what is that going to say -- what is that going to say?
▶ 0:45:31Judge Goodie: It will vary with the truth defendant or respondent. -- with each defendant or respondent.
▶ 0:45:39Mr. Leen: For a violent crime it's important that you treat it seriously. In the end the goal of sentencing, when you look at the standards, I've taken it to make sure this person does not commit another crime. That can include rehabilitation but sometimes includes a sentence that is commensurate with what they have done.
▶ 0:46:05Mr. Timmer: I concur --Ms.
▶ 0:46:10Macey: I concur. They
▶ 0:46:15Macey: I concur. T I would start with any requirements if there is a statutory mandatory minimum at play that has to be considered in the sentencing and followed. But also look at the sentencing guidelines that provide a parameter for judges as a starting point to consider what is assessed as a fair and reasonable sentence that you can then apply the specifics of the case to that particular case and determine what the appropriate sentence is by looking at the factors in the D.C.
▶ 0:46:44Macey: Code to include the nature and circumstances of the defense, the criminal history of the defendant, their personal circumstances. Their particular background, those considerations. I would employ this approach as a judge consistently with how I have done as a prosecutor for almost 14 years.
▶ 0:47:03Mr. Timmer: I think this is such an important issue as apparent in the community. It is so important to be mindful of what you are raising. I echo a lot of what my fellow nominees have said about judging each case and each defendant on their own merits and applying the factors that are laid out by the code. I will add the D.C. code as it relates to juvenile justice talks about the purposes of that code.
▶ 0:47:36Mr. Timmer: They are to rehabilitate and also hold juveniles accountable for their actions. I am convinced that holding somebody accountable for what they have done his part and parcel of rehabilitation unless you understood you have done something wrong, you cannot move forward. Those are important goals that I keep in mind if I'm fortunate enough to be on cases like that.
▶ 0:48:01Chair Hawley: Let me ask the superior court nominees, beginning with you, Mr. de bono, let's come back to this notion of deterring violent crime. What is your understanding of what your role would be if confirmed to this court in deterring violent crime? Go ahead, Mr. de bono.
▶ 0:48:26Mr. De Bono: If I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed is to setting punishment that is commensurate with the crime, commensurate with the individual's criminal history and is appropriate enough to deter the individual from committing future crime.
▶ 0:48:52Mr. Dilorenzo: I would agree with my fellow nominee. As a prosecutor I make recommendations for incarceration. As a judge you are better suited because you see the sentencing. You see the whole picture and should look at the whole picture.
▶ 0:49:17Mr. Dilorenzo: Part of that is to impose a sentence that will deter this individual and part of that is sometimes giving a stiff sentence. A piece of that is to provide rehabilitation to get to the mode of what may have caused the crime. That might be drug treatment or some mental health treatment. It's a fashion appropriate individual.
▶ 0:49:49Judge Goodie: I concur with my fellow nominee. I remember when I was a prosecutor there was a level of recidivism that was getting frustrating. What I would be looking at if I'm fortunate enough is has this person does this once and what was put in place the first time? Did it work?
▶ 0:50:17Judge Goodie: What can I do for this person to hopefully prevent recidivism for that one person and let the community know I'm trying to prevent recidivism in a larger sense. Looking at their past record. Is it the same thing over and over or is it different things? Any reports on psychiatric's, psychological. I would want to know -- I can't make sure but how can I come closest to make sure this person is not going to do it again.
▶ 0:50:50Mr. Leen: Judges play a critical role deterring crime. The way I would approach it is to apply the standards in the code is mentioned. Ultimately it is to avoid outlier sentences and applying a standard that is equal across the people you see. Looking at individual circumstances. In the end and it's important people know they commit a crime they will be punished.
▶ 0:51:14Ms. Macey: I spent several years as an assistant U.S. attorney focused specifically on homicide cases. And I was a fraction of my time in the office. I spent years focus on other violent crimes. I realize how significant of an impact it has on the defendants, the victims, their families, and the community as a whole. It's a matter that is very important to me.
▶ 0:51:48Ms. Macey: I would proceed fairly in the cases before me by handling them efficiently so that defendants get their day in court, victims get their day in court in ensuring the rights of both perpetrators and victims are addressed and considered in crafting appropriate sentences.
▶ 0:52:03Mr. Timmer: I would echo what my fellow nominee said. During my seven and a half years at the was attorney's office I practiced extensively in superior court, first as a line attorney and then as a supervisor. I saw firsthand the impact the judges had on crime in the community and agree with her that steps I can take are to follow the D.C.
▶ 0:52:31Mr. Timmer: Code, to impose sentences with the guidelines and to work efficiently to ensure if somebody commits a crime is arrested as charged they have their day in court in court and that day comes swiftly so the community can see for themselves that justice has not been denied or delayed.
▶ 0:52:52Chair Hawley: Judge goodie, you are on a panel at brandeis university in which you said among other things there is no rehabilitation in prison. Help me understand your thinking. Here is where I'm going. Does that mean you would be hesitant to send a first-time offender or someone who you think maybe the person could benefit from some rehabilitation?
▶ 0:53:22Chair Hawley: The sentencing guidelines strongly suggest prison time but I do want to do that because there is no rehabilitation in prison. I want to avoid sending people there. Take me inside your mind and explain that to me. Please turn on your microphone.
▶ 0:53:38Judge Goodie: Yes, I did say that. Let me specifically answer your question. There's a difference between juveniles and adults. The standard is rehabilitation. There's a focus on providing -- what happens in prison arose from when I was in law school and I taught at the prison.
▶ 0:54:10Judge Goodie: It's now housed in the federal system. And conditions were not great for rehabilitation. That is where they came from. The question is with that make me hesitate to put someone in prison? No, community safety is my number one thing. If we can craft a package that makes someone back in the safe to be back in the community, lessee that. If someone -- is prison.
▶ 0:54:33Chair Hawley: Let me ask each of you, and you, a and give me a sense of wt you do to help address this huge backlog how important it is and what your role would be in making sure that the cases are heard. That the defendants get their day in court and victims get the redress they deserve.
▶ 0:54:57Mr. De Bono: If I was fortunate enough to be confirmed. -- fixed set clear expectation for the parties, set clear deadlines, to be clear from the front about what I expect them to do and be prepared to do when they come to court, then to show up with the same effort.
▶ 0:55:25Mr. De Bono: That way the cases are quickly handled and efficiently resolved and we are able to get justice for victims and appropriate sentences in place for offenders.
▶ 0:55:37Mr. Dilorenzo: It is necessary to strike a balance between efficiency and fairness. I have learned a lot from good habits and bad habits. To move things along what I would do is I would be an example to everyone in the courtroom. I learned this during my clerkship. My judge, I saw him do this. He was a career prosecutor and on a family calendar.
▶ 0:56:08Mr. Dilorenzo: But he did and what I would do is prepare. I would be the most prepared lawyer in the courtroom. I was ready to go. It is essential as my fellow nominee said that expectations are set and I found in my periods -- my experience is to have a standing order.
▶ 0:56:36Mr. Dilorenzo: Court with porter's words clear what expectations are move -- the courtroom is run efficiently and there is fairness. And when there are egregious violations of the court has to be willing -- there must be consequences.
▶ 0:56:57Judge Goodie: I watched how judge harriet taylor made sure to move a couple of dockets. She had a child abuse and neglect docket and I watched the systems she used to keep up with new case law. She would read it and file it and file it in her head. I'm still using that to this day. I have learned as a law judge had to move and figure out which cases can move quickly and which ones need more time.
▶ 0:57:25Judge Goodie: The ones that move quickly move soon so we can get them resolved as soon as possible without thoroughly delaying the ones that are complicated and going back and forth -- and the more difficult ones to resolve. Right now we have some of the highest caseloads at the office of administrative has ever had some working on that now. I schedule hearings every 20 minutes, every 15 minutes so I can move through those and make sure I can get the trials as quickly as I can.
▶ 0:57:54Judge Goodie: The other thing I will be focusing on should I be so fortunate is courtroom civility. I found if I can be the role model for being civil to everyone in the courtroom then people will follow. When it gets uncivil is when things slow down. Getting to the facts and getting the t to the law.
▶ 0:58:18Mr. Leen: When you mentioned the 100,000 case backlog, that's an enormous number. I would come into the job seeking to be efficient and effective. I have come to several jobs or I had a big backlog when I came in, both at ofccp and as city attorney. I put a number of norms together with my staff to address cases quickly, fairly and quickly. I wrote a lot of decisions. I tried to rule on everything at once where I could.
▶ 0:58:48Mr. Leen: I published a lot of decisions so people could have an idea of where I'm coming from and can cite precedent. I would also be an internal advocate in the court system to move cases. It's important to move cases so everyone gets their day in court.
▶ 0:59:04Ms. Macey: In terms of my role of addressing the backlog, has to start with preparation on my end of taking the bench and being ready for the cases before me, knowing the facts and having an agenda of what should be covered that day. Holding the parties to that same standard of coming prepared and setting the tone you expect, your courtroom to be run efficiently and for them to be prepared and make progress so the hearing accomplishes as much as possible. I would draw on my expenses as a law clerk in the D.C.
▶ 0:59:33Ms. Macey: Superior court. I clerked for then she judge lee satterfield I was able to see firsthand the process and ways to set up systems, to approach cases efficiently, and also as an assistant U.S. attorney with heavy caseloads I have had to learn how to balance giving the cases the attention they deserve and how to prioritize things. I would use all those experiences and create a system on the court to move my cases efficiently.
▶ 1:00:05Mr. Timmer: I draw on similar experiences to my colleague, miss macey. I joined the domestic violence misdemeanor section and was confronted with an enormous caseload, each was deeply important to the person who had been a victim in the case. I quickly learned how to identify which cases needed work urgently, worked efficiently through them, and ensure the justice was done in each case.
▶ 1:00:34Mr. Timmer: If I were to be confirmed, I think my fellow nominees have identified a number of very important steps to take which I would share. One very important thing to do is to communicate with litigants in advance of hearings. What is the judge interested in hearing about? So not just me as the judge with the litigants, the parties have had the opportunity to consider the issue, come prepared to talk about it, hopefully deal with it at once.
▶ 1:01:03Mr. Timmer: When hearing does not turn into two or three or more. -- so one hearing does not turn into two or three or more.
▶ 1:01:13Chair Hawley: I have been advised repeatedly that unless I ask each of you the following question this guy may fall. Your nominations may not move. The senate may get nothing done. Wait, that's already happening. Here's the question I have got to ask each of you. Do you agree to comply with any request for summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of congress should you be confirmed?
▶ 1:01:37Judge Crowell: I do.
▶ 1:01:39Mr. Nash: . >> yes. >> I do.
▶ 1:01:51Chair Hawley: Senator blumenthal.
▶ 1:01:53Sen. Blumenthal: Thank you, Mr. chairman. I would like to ask each of you how you will stand up to the administration, which is appointing you, if you are into -- if your independence is somehow challenged or at stake.
▶ 1:02:19Sen. Blumenthal: What kinds of standards and self-discipline you would impose on yourself? Maybe we can just go down the line.
▶ 1:02:29Judge Crowell: As a sitting trial judge there is significant restrictions with respect to how I might opine on matters of public policy. What I can tell you is I first took my oath at age 19 as a young private at fort benning, georgia. I have repeated that oath as a soldier multiple times has ranking creased. I repeated that oath as a federal prosecutor in my multiple tours with the department of justice.
▶ 1:02:54Judge Crowell: I have repeated that oath when I first appeared before the committee -- this committee seven years ago and received approval. My promise then remains my promise today, to be a faithful servant of the constitution and I will continue to do so.
▶ 1:03:09Mr. Nash: Senator, first and foremost, I am a patriot. We are fortunate, all of us, that we haven't parroted -- have inherited some wonderful and unique in the world institutions to protecting our liberties. One of the most important of those protections is judicial independence.
▶ 1:03:35Mr. Nash: The separation of powers that creates the judiciary is a real bulwark for liberty in this country. If I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed I would exercise that authority in the same way I did my first tour of duty as a judge , which is independence and applying the law.
▶ 1:04:01Sen. Blumenthal: Let me just ask both of you, who won the 2020 election?
▶ 1:04:12Judge Crowell: Joe biden was certified as the winner by this body, united states senate as a president of the united states, as has been the practice since 1804.
▶ 1:04:21Mr. Nash: I concur with that answer.
▶ 1:04:25Sen. Blumenthal: Let me go down the line on that question. I think it is a sign of your independence. Who won the bank 20 election?
▶ 1:04:37Mr. Nash: Senator, biden was.
▶ 1:04:44Judge Goodie: Joe biden was certified as the winner.
▶ 1:04:49Mr. Leen: I concur.
▶ 1:04:51Ms. Macey: I concur.
▶ 1:04:52Mr. Timmer: I concur.
▶ 1:04:54Sen. Blumenthal: You all concur? That is your independence with the script that the white house has given you? That joe biden was certified. Who won the popular vote, Mr. crowell?
▶ 1:05:11Judge Crowell: I will take a page from justice jackson when she appeared before the senate judiciary. I'm a sitting judge. I am deeply restricted.
▶ 1:05:18Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. nash.
▶ 1:05:20Mr. Nash: By understanding is that the judicial cannons apply to me as a candidate for judicial office. Weighing in on that question would be inappropriate.
▶ 1:05:36Mr. De Bono: I'm prohibited from answering a question about that.
▶ 1:05:41Mr. Dilorenzo: That is correct. Canon 4 prevents me from answering that question.
▶ 1:05:48Judge Goodie: As a nominee --
▶ 1:05:54Ms. Macey: I concur.
▶ 1:05:57Sen. Blumenthal: You all concur? You know how pathetic and absurd you sound to the american public? You know how absolutely unacceptable this kind of answer is where you deny what the facts are. Was the capitol attack on january 6?
▶ 1:06:25Judge Crowell: I live right here on capitol hill. There was a breach of the capitol. It was violent. Law enforcement was attacked. Yes sir.
▶ 1:06:35Sen. Blumenthal: There was violence in the capital was attacked, correct?
▶ 1:06:41Judge Crowell: There were individuals that were attacked, including law enforcement officers.
▶ 1:06:48Sen. Blumenthal: You are unwilling to say the capitol was attacked?
▶ 1:06:53Judge Crowell: I believe that goes into a political question.
▶ 1:06:57Mr. Nash: My only knowledge of what happened on january 6 was media reports that I have seen.
▶ 1:07:03Sen. Blumenthal: You watched those reports. The capital was attacked, was it not?
▶ 1:07:11Mr. Nash: It seems clear there were crimes were committed.
▶ 1:07:15Mr. De Bono: What
▶ 1:07:20Mr. De Bono: W eye witness to violence against law enforcement which I do not condone as a political nominee -- as a nominee for the judicial vacancy. I'm prohibited from characterizing the events of that day any further.
▶ 1:07:33Mr. Dilorenzo: There was public reporting that there was assault on police officers and I do not condone that conduct. The senator use the word attack. Any kind of political characterization is inappropriate to comment on for the judicial cannons.
▶ 1:07:56Judge Goodie: My knowledge is confined to what I saw through the media. There were attacks on police officers.
▶ 1:08:03Mr. Leen: There was violence and attacks on police officers and it is wrong.
▶ 1:08:13Ms. Macey: It's a matter of public reporting and I have seen police body worn camera from january 6 2021. I certainly do not condone violence against law enforcement and that did happen that day. Beyond that, judicial cannons prohibited from characterizing the events of january 6.
▶ 1:08:35Mr. Timmer: Like judge crowell, I watched the events from a home on capitol hill and I saw absolutely aboard violence against people sworn to protect the capitol.
▶ 1:08:49Sen. Blumenthal: I understand you will condemn violence. We all of our attacks on police -- of -- oabhor attacks on police. None of you will say there was an attack on the capitol.
▶ 1:09:07Sen. Blumenthal: Pathetic and ridiculous for anyone, but for a nominee for judicial office, I began asking how we can be sure of your independence and nothing you have said here today provides me with any reassurance that you are going to be independent or willing to stand up to the president when he or member of the administration asks you to do something that is a violation of your judicial duties.
▶ 1:09:40Sen. Blumenthal: This nation depends on the independence of our judiciary. We are seeing it as a bulwark of our rights and democracy despite the politicization and weaponization of the department of justice. I am deeply disappointed that you are unwilling to say the truth. You also on that day. The capitol was attacked. Not just police officers. The capital of the united states was attacked in an effort to stop the lawful transfer of power.
▶ 1:10:12Sen. Blumenthal: This goes beyond violence to any individual. It goes to the essential functioning of our democracy and you are willing to apparently kowtowing to the canned script that has been given you about certifying joe biden, about violence on january 6, but not willing to say that joe biden was elected president of the
▶ 1:10:43Sen. Blumenthal: United states, won the popular vote and the capitol was attacked on january 6. I don't know how to put it more plainly. I am really ashamed and so deeply disappointed. Thank you.
▶ 1:11:02Chair Hawley: Anything else, senator kim? Mr. leen, and the fall of 2020, president trump issued an executive order that sought to prohibit federal contractors from engaging in unconscious bias training that perpetuated racial stereotypes. You were the leader, I believe, of dol's office of contract compliance of the time.
▶ 1:11:28Chair Hawley: Hi mathilde -- I am told you did not advise contractors to stop unconscious bias training. You advised instead the contractor should still engage in the bias training despite the president's executive order based on the human condition that every person has certain biases or stereotypes or prejudices. Can you help me understand the distinction there and did you urge them not to comply with the executive order?
▶ 1:11:59Mr. Leen: The executive order prevented sex or race-based stereotyping or stigmas by federal contractors it was intended to focus on training. It did not directly adjust unconscious bias training and there is the first amendment right of contractors to be able to have training.
▶ 1:12:18Mr. Leen: I did work within the administration, with the secretary of labor who I reported to to come up with an approach that would comply with the executive order, which we faithfully executed while also responding to many contractor questions about what trainings they were allowed to do and what they could not do. The concern I saw with unconscious bias training other executive order was when it was focused on people of only one race or one gender, such as white males, which was often focused on.
▶ 1:12:49Mr. Leen: That violated the executive order. If you're doing unconscious bias training -- I did not advise companies to do it but what I said was if you're going to do it, you can do that but you have to give the training to everyone. It cannot be exclusive.
▶ 1:13:07Chair Hawley: Did you say you think there is a first amendment right to unconscious bias training?
▶ 1:13:12Mr. Leen: There's a first amendment right for contractors to have trainings and have messages. Of course, that it cannot violate --
▶ 1:13:19Chair Hawley: Tell me about the scope of that. What with that right be?
▶ 1:13:25Mr. Leen: Corporations have messages that they state all the time. Press releases and things like that. They can't violate federal antidiscrimination law. That is not viewed as lawful speech. That is viewed as --
▶ 1:13:33Chair Hawley: I'm trying to understand your answer. A corporation has a first amendment right to require its employees to engage in unconscious bias training?
▶ 1:13:45Mr. Leen: Forgive me if I was -- I was not trying to be that specific. The advice I received from the administration at the time, the first trump administration, was the executive order was challenged in court. We were seeking to put out guidance to allow it to be upheld. That would allow it to be enforced. What I was informed was a have to balance the focus on antidiscrimination with the rights of companies to be able to have a message.
▶ 1:14:15Mr. Leen: This was the guidance I received. I tried to apply it faithfully within thei tried to apply it fy within the ministration and with unconscious bias training in particular, my understanding both from legal advice and my own research was that any unconscious bias training that focused on a particular race or sex the stereotype about that race or sex would be illegal and violate federal antidiscrimination law, so that is what I focused on.
▶ 1:14:39Chair Hawley: So is it in your view that companies have a first amendment right to require their employees to engage in political speech, to listen to certain political speech, to accept political speech?
▶ 1:14:53Mr. Leen: No. I would not go that far. I respect the decision of citizens united the corporations have first amendment rights. They do not have a right to dictate to their employees in my view political views. I have always taken that position.
▶ 1:15:08Chair Hawley: I have never heard it said that there is a first amendment right to unconscious bias training so I was curious about that.
▶ 1:15:16Mr. Leen: Forgive me. I was being more general. I wanted you to know how we approached it because I wanted to give you a good faith answer.
▶ 1:15:24Chair Hawley: Good.
▶ 1:15:25Mr. Leen: That is how we approached it but I am not saying there is a first amendment right to unconscious bias training.
▶ 1:15:30Chair Hawley: Good because I think there is no such right and I would think opening up that pandora's box will take you will be on citizens united, if you have concerns about citizens united as I do, I think to suggest corporations have broad and sweeping free-speech rights over their employees in that matter far beyond anything the united states supreme court has said.
▶ 1:15:54Chair Hawley: And in the area of a race, which is what we are talking about here, this executive order pertained to racial stereotypes suggests the first amendment permits a corporation to sidestep restrictions on engaging or refusing to engage in racial stereotyping I think would be quite extraordinary. I take it I hope that is not your position.
▶ 1:16:13Mr. Leen: Is not. Mr. chairman, I agree with what you just said, strongly.
▶ 1:16:18Chair Hawley: Good. Senator kim, anything further? All right. With that -- guys, do I need to? Ok, the record will remain open until friday the 26th, and with that, this meeting of the home and senate committee is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap.org]