-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senate will soon vote on 10 judicial nominees--nine for district courts and one for the Ninth Circuit appeals court--as we continue the critical work of restoring balance to our Federal judiciary.
Before briefly speaking on their records, I want to offer a few broad observations. I continue to be impressed by the experience, qualifications, and professional diversity that we see among President Biden's judicial nominees.
Looking at these 10 in particular: Nine currently serve as either State court or Federal magistrate judges; three have worked for county or State governments; two have previously served as Federal public defenders; one has served as a Federal prosecutor, while another has worked in various roles at the Justice Department; one has worked for a leading civil rights organization; and several have worked in private legal practice.
The judiciary is stronger when our judges come from an array of professional backgrounds, including those that have been historically underrepresented on the bench. Furthermore, all 10 of these nominees are highly qualified, with broad experience and distinguished records. Each of them has demonstrated their commitment to impartiality and evenhandedness. And they will be ready upon confirmation to fully dedicate themselves to the demands of the bench.
First is Judge Linda Lopez, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. For the past 3 years, Judge Lopez has served as a magistrate judge in the Southern District of California, where she has presided over seven bench trials. Prior to her appointment, Judge Lopez spent 25 years as a criminal defense attorney, first in private practice and then as a Federal public defender for more than a decade. During this time, she appeared in court frequently and tried 11 jury trials.
With such extensive trial experience, both on and off the bench, it is no surprise that Judge Lopez received a unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association. She has the strong support not only of her home State Senators--Senators Feinstein and Padilla--but also of top Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of California, including the Deputy U.S. Attorney and Criminal Division Chief.
We will also vote on Judge Jinsook Ohta's nomination to the Southern District of California. Judge Ohta is currently a judge on the San Diego Superior Court, where she handles family law cases involving domestic violence, child custody, and child support--among many other issues.
Prior to assuming the bench, Judge Ohta spent nearly a decade with the consumer protection section of the California Attorney General's Office. In this role, she handled major cases involving healthcare fraud, illegal robocalls--and oversaw an investigation into Facebook's violations of consumer privacy rights.
Judge Ohta has been rated ``well qualified'' by the ABA, and she has the strong support of Senators Feinstein and Padilla, her home State Senators.
Judge Ohta's family immigrated to the United States from South Korea when she was young, and she grew up in New York City before attending Yale University and New York University School of Law. If confirmed, Judge Ohta would be the first Asian-American woman to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Judge Ohta's wide-ranging legal experience makes her exceptionally well qualified to be a district court judge.
Next is David Urias, nominated to the District of New Mexico. Mr. Urias is a highly skilled litigator who is well versed in a number of practice areas, including criminal law, civil rights law, election law, and immigration. He also has experience representing a broad range of clients, from families of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, to hedge fund managers, to plaintiffs from low-income backgrounds.
In addition to having the strong support of his home State Senators-- Senators Heinrich and Lujan--Mr. Urias has been rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the ABA. Given Mr. Urias's broad expertise and his experience representing a wide range of clients, he understands the importance of ensuring that every voice is fairly heard in our Nation's courts.
Next is Judge Maame Frimpong, nominated to the Central District of California. Judge Frimpong currently serves as a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles County. During her time on the Superior Court, she has presided over approximately 30 jury trials and thousands of hearings in misdemeanor and felony matters. In this role, Judge Frimpong has demonstrated the acumen and temperament that is required of our Nation's judges. And she is yet another example of both the professional and demographic diversity that President Biden's nominees are adding to our Federal courts.
The ABA has unanimously rated Judge Frimpong ``well qualified'' to serve as a district court judge. Judge Frimpong has the strong support of her home State Senators--Senators Feinstein and Padilla--and she has my support as well.
We also will consider Judge Jane Beckering's nomination to the Western District of Michigan. Judge Beckering has served as a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals since 2007. Prior to assuming the bench, she spent 17 years as a litigator in private practice, where she appeared regularly in both State and Federal courts and tried three jury trials to verdict.
In reviewing her record, I am particularly impressed by Judge Beckering's judicial approach. She has stated, ``My judicial philosophy is that judges should take off their partisan hats when they sit on the bench and treat all comers fairly and impartially . . . they should make their rulings based on the rule of law, not on a political agenda.''
That is exactly the perspective we should be looking for in nominees to the Federal bench. Judge Beckering received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the ABA and has the strong support of her home State Senators, Senators Stabenow and Peters.
Next is Judge Shalina Kumar for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Kumar has served on the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Oakland County, MI, since 2007. She is currently the chief judge on this court--the second largest trial court in Michigan--and served in this role on a temporary basis beginning in 2010, 8 years before her official appointment. Over the past 14 years, she has presided over more than 10,000 cases and approximately 100 jury or bench trials on civil, criminal, and juvenile matters. Before joining the bench, Judge Kumar was a skilled litigator.
Given her long and distinguished career as a State court judge and her litigation experience, it is unsurprising that Judge Kumar received a unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association. She likewise has the strong support of Senators Stabenow and Peters. Once confirmed, she will also be the first Federal judge of South Asian descent to serve in Michigan.
We will also vote on Judge Jennifer Thurston's nomination to the Eastern District of California. Since 2009, Judge Thurston has served as a magistrate judge for the Eastern District of California. And last year, she was elevated to the position of chief magistrate judge. She has presided over at least 30 trials and 400 bench trials, and she has issued hundreds of judgments involving a range of issues, including civil rights, voting rights, employment discrimination, and criminal cases.
Given Judge Thurston's experience as a long-time jurist, she will be ready from day one to take on the challenges of the Eastern District of California, which has one of the highest caseloads in the country. Judge Thurston was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. And she has the strong support of her home State Senators, Senators Feinstein and Padilla.
We will also be voting on Judge Kate Menendez's nomination to the District of Minnesota. Judge Menendez has served the District of Minnesota as a Federal magistrate judge since 2016. She was appointed to that role by the district's sitting Federal judges, a reflection of Judge Menendez's record, qualifications, and dedication to impartiality.
Before assuming the bench, Judge Menendez served for nearly two decades as a Federal public defender, gaining considerable trial and appellate experience. Importantly, she has demonstrated that she understands the difference between the role of an advocate and that of a judge. She received a unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association and has the strong support of Senators Klobuchar and Smith.
We will also consider the nomination of Judge Mary Katherine Dimke for the Eastern District of Washington. For nearly 6 years, Judge Dimke has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Washington, based in Yakima, WA. In this role, Judge Dimke has presided over hundreds of matters, including approximately 400 civil cases that have gone to verdict or judgment.
Prior to assuming the bench, Judge Dimke, a first-generation college graduate, spent her legal career as a Federal prosecutor. During this time, she prosecuted a wide range of crimes, with a particular focus on fraud and complex financial crimes. The ABA has unanimously rated Judge Dimke ``well qualified'' to serve as a district court judge, and she has the strong support of her home State Senators, Senators Murray and Cantwell.
Finally, we have Judge Gabriel Sanchez, nominated to a California seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Sanchez is an experienced litigator and appellate jurist with a proven track record of impartial, evenhanded decision-making.
He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Yale and a master's degree from Cambridge University. After graduating, he clerked for Judge Richard A. Paez on the Ninth Circuit. Judge Sanchez worked as a civil litigator in private practice for 5 years before serving in the California State government, where he advised then-Governor Jerry Brown on litigation, legislation, appointments, and various policy measures, including criminal justice reform.
For example, he helped California develop and implement a response to a 2011 Supreme Court holding ordering the State to reduce its prison population. He served admirably to ensure California met its constitutional obligations while also prioritizing public safety. In 2018, Judge Sanchez was appointed to serve on the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District. The court has appellate jurisdiction over virtually all final judgments and orders issued by 12 counties in California.
During his time on the bench, Judge Sanchez has filed or joined in nearly 500 opinions in cases almost evenly split between civil and criminal matters. So his judicial experience has been broad and varied. Judge Sanchez also has the strong support of his home State Senators-- Senators Feinstein and Padilla--and was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the ABA. He is an exceptional nominee with impeccable credentials, and his evenhanded approach to justice will serve him well on the Ninth Circuit.
I urge all of my colleagues to support these outstanding judicial nominees. Every one of them has been rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. They will bring much-needed professional and demographic diversity to the bench. They will be impartial and evenhanded in the administration of justice. And they will always be faithful to the rule of law. nomination of mary katherine dimke
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source