.... This is a highly qualified and distinguished nominee who does not deserve this treatment. This nomination is being killed by unjustified, unexplained and anonymous nonaction. I remind the Committee of the criticism of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in his Year End report: “The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.”The “necessary time” has passed with respect to this outstanding nominee. After almost nine months, two extended sessions of questioning at the hearing and multiple rounds of written questions, it is time for the Committee and the Senate to vote on this nomination.Leahy got his vote...
ACTION: NOMINATION CONFIRMED, 64-34In other words, in the case of Berzon, Democrats were willing
Those favoring confirmation contended:
Ms. Berzon's training and experience qualify her for a life of public service as a Federal appellate judge. She completed her undergraduate studies at Harvard/Radcliffe College, and graduated from the Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California. After graduating she worked as a law clerk for several years, including for former Justice Brennan. She has spent the last 25 years of her career in private practice, focused almost entirely on civil labor law. As a private litigator, she has argued numerous cases before State and Federal trial and appeals courts, including four cases that she argued before the Supreme Court. She has been endorsed by numerous groups, including law-enforcement groups, and by a broad, bipartisan range of politicians and lawyers. Some Senators have complained that she has zealously defended the positions of labor unions in litigation and have said that if she were confirmed she would likely prove to be a liberal judge who would ignore the Constitution and substitute her own policy preferences. They further contend that this practice of judicial activism is already common on the Ninth Circuit, for which she has been nominated.In response, we admit she has advocated vigorously on behalf of her labor union clients, but no one should have expected her to do any less. Every lawyer should always be a vigorous advocate for his or her clients. We understand from her affiliations with liberal groups that she is probably on the left of the political spectrum, but that is the norm for this President's nominees, and it does not mean that she will be an activist if she is appointed. As for the claim that Ninth Circuit judges are liberal activists who are out of control and constantly being reversed by the Supreme Court, some of us who support this nominee agree, but we add that we see nothing in this nominees' record to indicate to us that she will be anything other than a moderating influence on the circuit. We urge our colleagues to support her confirmation.
While favoring confirmation, some Senators expressed the following reservations:
[3.] Though this candidate is clearly qualified for this post, we wish the President had nominated someone who has been a judge with a record we could examine, or at least someone who has had a more balanced background. As it is, we are appointed someone with a very liberal background who has never been a judge, and we are appointing her to a court that has been infamous for making unconstitutional, liberal decisions. We are doing so largely based on assurances we have received from people who know her that she will be an impartial judge. We hope we are not making a mistake. Time will tell.