Confirmation Of Thomas B. Griffith

CONFIRMATION OF THOMAS B. GRIFFITH -- (Senate - June 14, 2005)

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, next week we will celebrate the 33rd anniversary of title IX. For 33 years, title IX has opened doors for women and girls in all aspects of education. I can say without reservation that I would not be a U.S. Senator today without this critical law.

Unfortunately, today the Senate confirmed a vehement opponent of title IX--Thomas Griffith--to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I voted against this nominee because of his record on title IX, the importance of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to title IX and other civil rights laws, and his disregard for the rule of law in his own practice.

In 2002, Mr. Griffith served on the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics to evaluate whether and how current standards governing title IX's application to athletics should be revised. After the Department of Education spent nearly $1 million on the Commission, the Bush administration made the determination to make no changes to title IX in athletics. However, as a member of the Commission, Mr. Griffith made clear his opposition and hostility towards the law and its enforcement.

As a member of the Commission, Mr. Griffith proposed weakening the standard for meeting title IX's 25-year-old requirement of equality of opportunity in athletics for young women through the elimination of the ``substantial proportionality'' test for compliance. This test, one of the three alternative ways to comply with title IX, allows schools to comply by offering athletic opportunities to male and female students that are in proportion to each gender's representation in the student body of the school.

Mr. Griffith claimed this provision constitutes a quota in violation of title IX and the Constitution and asserted that ``[i]t is illegal, it is unfair, and it is wrong'' and even ``morally wrong.'' He made such extreme statements despite the decisions of no fewer than 6 Federal appeals courts which have upheld the legality of the test. In fact, none has ruled to the contrary. And when this fact was pointed out to him, he did not respect the decisions of all the Federal courts that have heard such cases--he said that ``the courts got it wrong.'' Eliminating this test would clearly undercut title IX's effectiveness--and the Commission agreed. It rejected the Griffith proposal by a lopsided vote of 11 to 4.

During his confirmation process, Griffith tried to change his position on title IX. Mr. Griffith now claims that he only wanted to eliminate the proportionality test because some have ``misused'' or ``misinterpreted'' the test. He now claims that the Commission recommendations regarding the proportionality test that he supported--in addition to his own proposal to eliminate the test--were ``modest'' or ``moderate.'' If these claims were so moderate, why were they rejected entirely by the Secretary of Education?

Mr. President, every Federal court of appeals that has considered this issue and every administration since 1979 have ruled that the three-part test is legally valid and does not impose quotas. Mr. Griffith's statements and actions put him in complete opposition to six Federal appeals courts. If that doesn't show that Mr. Griffith is out of the mainstream, I don't know what does.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is an especially important court. I believe that we must be careful when confirming individuals to serve lifetime appointments on this court, the second most powerful Federal court in the land. This court has exclusive jurisdiction over a broad array of Federal regulations, including title IX, and is often the court of last resort in critical issues involving workers' rights, civil liberties, and environmental regulations. I am concerned that, given his prior record relating to title IX, Mr. Griffith may not be able to hear such cases with the impartiality required of a judge on one of our Nation's highest courts.

Mr. Griffith's hostility to title IX and the importance of the DC Circuit are not the only problems with this nominee. He has, on more than one occasion, failed to comply with the basic standards and practices of his profession by not paying bar dues and failing to get a license. He does not meet the high standards we must apply to any nominee for a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land.

The Senate has the constitutional duty to advise the President and decide whether to consent to his nominations to the Federal bench. I believe that this role is one of the Senate's greatest responsibilities. It is critical that Senators work with the President to find judicial nominees that meet the standards of fairness, even-handedness and adherence to the law that we expect of judges in our communities.

I believe the Senate has the duty to ensure each nominee has sufficient experience to sit in judgment of our fellow citizens, will be fair to all those who come before the court, will be even-handed in administering justice, and will protect the rights and liberties of all Americans. Unfortunately, Mr. Griffith's record shows his inability to serve in such a manner and, therefore, I opposed his nomination.

http://thomas.loc.gov