Dick Durbin Leads Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearing For Pending Nominees

4 months ago

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a confirmation hearing for pending judicial nominees.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00:00 [BLANK_AUDIO]

00:00:10 [BLANK_AUDIO]

00:00:20 [BLANK_AUDIO]

00:00:30 [BLANK_AUDIO]

00:00:40 [BLANK_AUDIO]

00:00:50 [BLANK_AUDIO]

00:01:00 [BLANK_AUDIO]

00:01:28 This meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order.

00:01:30 We have five judicial nominees with us today.

00:01:33 Judge Michelle Court, nominated to the US District Court for

00:01:36 the Central District of California.

00:01:39 Judge Huang, Ann Huang, nominated to the US District Court for

00:01:43 the Central District of California.

00:01:45 Judge Sarah Netburn, to the US District Court for

00:01:48 the Southern District of New York.

00:01:50 Stacey Newman, US District Court for the District of Maine.

00:01:54 Judge Cynthia Valenzuela, to the US District Court for

00:01:58 the Central District of California.

00:02:00 Congratulations to all the nominees and their families.

00:02:04 And later this morning, the Senate is scheduled to confirm the 200th

00:02:08 lifetime judge since President Biden took office.

00:02:12 I'm proud of this accomplishment.

00:02:13 It took a lot of hard work by staff on both sides, as well as the members.

00:02:19 Today's panel will continue our committee track record of considering

00:02:23 highly qualified, even-handed, professionally diverse jurists for

00:02:26 the federal bench for a lifetime appointment.

00:02:29 The nominees before us have experience on the state and federal bench.

00:02:32 They've been both prosecutors, public defenders, and civil rights advocates.

00:02:38 Such a range of perspective is going to strengthen our courts.

00:02:42 We have a few colleagues who will make introductions.

00:02:45 I'm gonna first turn to Senator Ranking Member Graham for any opening remarks.

00:02:51 >> If you don't mind, we'll let Senator King go and I'll speak after him.

00:02:55 I know he's busy.

00:02:56 >> Okay, that's kind of you.

00:02:59 Senator Angus King, State of Maine.

00:03:01 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:03:03 And having now sat on this side and that side, I prefer that side.

00:03:08 I can assure you.

00:03:09 I appreciate the committee's time and the hard work that this committee does.

00:03:13 I was thinking about it.

00:03:14 You really bring more matters to the floor than any other Senate committee.

00:03:18 And I know that is a result of very hard work by the members and the staff.

00:03:23 I'm here to present Stacey Newman, who is the President's nominee for

00:03:28 the District Court of Maine, and to present her qualifications.

00:03:33 She's from Maine.

00:03:34 >> [LAUGH]

00:03:38 >> Sorry.

00:03:38 >> So goes the nation.

00:03:43 >> [LAUGH] >> Stacey Newman's one of the most

00:03:48 well-qualified candidates for judicial office that I've ever seen.

00:03:52 She has an unusual combination of having been a federal prosecutor in

00:03:56 the United States Attorney's Office in Maine and a public defender.

00:04:01 And she's been a clerk for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and

00:04:07 for a state Supreme Court justice.

00:04:10 So a very broad experience, plus significant experience in the private

00:04:15 sector representing both plaintiffs and defendants.

00:04:18 A breadth of experience that you rarely see in a judicial candidate.

00:04:22 And she has one of the most things that impressed me the most, and

00:04:27 I hope the committee will look at this, is an extraordinary letter from her colleagues

00:04:32 in the US Attorney's Office in Maine that express extraordinary support for

00:04:37 her candidacy.

00:04:38 I think that's very meaningful.

00:04:40 What we all look for here is a direct insight into the character and

00:04:44 abilities of these candidates.

00:04:46 And to get that assessment from their colleagues in

00:04:53 a pressure cooker like the US Attorney's Office, I think, is very important.

00:04:56 She was also unanimously rated well-qualified by the American Bar Association,

00:05:03 and has extensive experience.

00:05:06 As I was thinking about this, as governor for eight years,

00:05:10 I probably appointed somewhere in the range of 20 judges.

00:05:14 Two Supreme Court Chief Justices, members of the Supreme Court,

00:05:19 members of our various levels of trial court.

00:05:22 So I had a lot of time to think about judicial nominees and

00:05:25 what the qualities were that one should look for.

00:05:28 And in this case, this candidate, Stacey Newman,

00:05:33 is one of the most well-qualified I've seen in that experience.

00:05:37 And that includes, as governor, assessing a lot of judicial nominees.

00:05:42 The thing that strikes me about her is, for me, legal ability and

00:05:47 experience is a kind of baseline.

00:05:49 We expect that of all of our nominees.

00:05:51 A breadth of experience, a knowledge of the law, and she certainly has that.

00:05:57 And that's demonstrated by her background.

00:06:00 She was on law review.

00:06:01 They didn't let me get near law review.

00:06:03 And anybody that achieves that in law school, I'm impressed by.

00:06:09 But in addition, and this is what's important for me,

00:06:11 she has an extraordinary temperament and a humility.

00:06:17 And for those of us who have practiced law,

00:06:19 we look for judges who don't put on that black robe and

00:06:25 become autocrats, and become sort of overbearing.

00:06:29 And Stacey Newman is a person who has the temperament, empathy,

00:06:34 understanding of the issues and

00:06:39 of the people who will appear before her.

00:06:43 So I believe that, as I say, given my experience,

00:06:46 she's one of the most well-qualified candidates I've ever seen.

00:06:49 That's why I'm here this morning.

00:06:52 And I guess the final comment would be, a test I apply,

00:06:56 as somebody who practiced law for almost 20 years,

00:06:59 how would I feel appearing before her as a judge?

00:07:03 Would I get a fair hearing?

00:07:05 Would I get a fair shake?

00:07:07 Would I be before someone who took the time to understand the issues and

00:07:11 listen to the evidence?

00:07:13 I believe Stacey Newman meets that test exceedingly well, and

00:07:18 I commend her wholeheartedly to this committee.

00:07:21 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:07:22 >> Thank you, Senator King.

00:07:23 And of course, we know your busy schedule,

00:07:25 the fact that you come to the committee on her behalf speaks volumes.

00:07:29 So thank you for joining us this morning.

00:07:30 >> Thank you. >> Senator Graham?

00:07:31 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:07:33 Tomorrow, I think we're gonna vote on the immigration bill.

00:07:40 One thing I would like to point out is that legislation is not required

00:07:47 to do most of what needs to be done, it just requires will.

00:07:51 So we're gonna have a vote tomorrow, and

00:07:53 it's just a vote to try to help your side politically on the border.

00:07:57 I don't think it's gonna work.

00:07:59 The average number of people granted parole by the Trump administration and

00:08:04 the Obama administration was about 6,000 a year.

00:08:09 Now, what is parole?

00:08:10 It's executive authority granted by statute that the executive,

00:08:16 through the Secretary of Homeland Security, can parole people into the country

00:08:20 on a limited basis based on a unique humanitarian need, somebody's mother's

00:08:25 dying, or special benefit to the country, maybe a witness in a case.

00:08:30 That was used about 6,000 times a year under the Trump-Obama administration.

00:08:39 It has been incredibly abused.

00:08:41 Since we last voted in February of this year on the bill that's gonna be

00:08:46 brought back up, 77,000 people have been paroled.

00:08:52 There's not any change at all, and it's never gonna change.

00:08:55 So you could have demonstrated, the administration could have,

00:09:00 taking this matter more seriously when brought up by our colleagues.

00:09:04 Go back to the statute, you're abusing the statute.

00:09:08 You're mass paroling people, you're waiving them in.

00:09:11 And we found that Mr. Vera, the man who's been indicted for

00:09:15 killing the young woman in Georgia,

00:09:19 was released through parole, not based on a humanitarian need or

00:09:29 special benefit to the country, because El Paso was full.

00:09:33 The man that's accused of killing Lagan Riley

00:09:40 was let go by DHS because they had no place to put him, and he was paroled.

00:09:50 That's not a statutory requirement.

00:09:52 I am never going to vote for immigration reform until this administration

00:09:58 proves to me they're serious about the job they have and are gonna change the behavior.

00:10:05 And apparently they're not gonna change the behavior.

00:10:07 It's getting worse, not better.

00:10:09 77,000 people paroled.

00:10:12 Once you know that Republicans believe you abused the statute,

00:10:19 we're supposed to believe you're gonna do something new if we change the law?

00:10:24 It's not a law problem, it's an attitude problem.

00:10:28 Thank you.

00:10:31 >> We're checking on this, Senator Graham, but

00:10:36 do you believe the Ukrainian refugees were paroled into this country?

00:10:39 >> I believe that it should be done, you don't rewrite the law.

00:10:44 You have asylum, you have refugee status.

00:10:50 Refugees have to apply overseas.

00:10:52 So if you feel like you're a refugee from a war in Ukraine,

00:10:56 you apply for refugee status.

00:10:59 You don't use parole.

00:11:00 Parole was not meant to become a alternative to refugees.

00:11:08 We're double checking, I'm not sure, and I don't wanna make an assertion that

00:11:12 turns out to be wrong for the record.

00:11:13 But 36,000 Ukrainian refugees have come to the city of Chicago and

00:11:20 the state of Illinois under two conditions.

00:11:23 A sponsoring family, and second, that they're given a work permit when they arrive.

00:11:28 I will tell you those people have been folded into the economy of

00:11:31 the Chicago region without incident.

00:11:34 I don't think there's any press reporting about their presence.

00:11:37 I think it's the right thing to do to offer people who are refugees in a war

00:11:40 an opportunity to come to the United States.

00:11:42 We did it after Vietnam.

00:11:44 We've done it with our allies among the Kurds.

00:11:47 I don't think it's an unusual circumstance in history.

00:11:51 So I don't think that this necessarily tells the whole story.

00:11:55 >> Well, if I may, you're talking about A and I'm talking about B.

00:11:59 I support raising the gap for refugees.

00:12:02 We had a meeting about it.

00:12:03 It's like 125,000.

00:12:07 I supported raising the cap.

00:12:09 You have to apply for refugee status overseas.

00:12:11 And there are people, I'm sure the people you described in Ukraine,

00:12:15 were very worthy of being refugees.

00:12:19 I'm not talking about refugees, I'm talking about parole.

00:12:22 Parole is being used in a way the statute never contemplated.

00:12:26 It's being abused.

00:12:28 And here's what I don't get.

00:12:30 After one of the people you paroled illegally, Mr.

00:12:33 Bearer, killed a young lady in Georgia, they're continuing to do the same thing.

00:12:38 So I support refugee programs.

00:12:41 I support asylum that's applied correctly.

00:12:45 I don't support mass abuse of parole.

00:12:48 And from the last time we took the vote to now, things are worse, not better.

00:12:53 Thank you.

00:12:55 >> We've checked, they were paroled.

00:12:56 Ukrainian refugees were paroled into the United States under the-

00:12:59 >> Well, they violated,

00:13:01 they should have been refugees, not parole.

00:13:03 You just can't just ignore the law.

00:13:05 I guess you can, that's why we're all gonna vote no.

00:13:07 You can and you are, so there you go.

00:13:11 >> We're voting on a bill which was characterized as a bipartisan bill.

00:13:14 I hope it will be on the floor.

00:13:16 So Senator Schumer wanted to be here to make an introduction.

00:13:21 And I am going to read his statement.

00:13:23 Unfortunately, he was called away at the last minute.

00:13:27 And so I'm reading Senator Schumer's statement into the record

00:13:31 relative to Sarah Netburn.

00:13:33 He said he was proud to recommend to President Biden to serve as district judge

00:13:37 for the Southern District of New York.

00:13:39 Sarah is a first rate legal mind and dedicated, talented public servant

00:13:43 who is currently serving as magistrate judge in Southern District of New York.

00:13:47 Manages criminal and civil cases that include complex security litigation,

00:13:52 class action, commercial disputes, civil rights, and employment matters.

00:13:57 Her credentials are top notch, graduate of Brown and UCLA School of Law,

00:14:02 clerk for Judge Harry Pregerson of the US Court of Appeals for

00:14:05 the Ninth Circuit, proud of serving as magistrate judge.

00:14:09 She spent many years litigating in federal court on behalf of individuals,

00:14:12 corporations, and non-profits.

00:14:14 Over her many years in litigation, she's represented inmates,

00:14:18 ballot access efforts, and individuals exercising their right to protest.

00:14:22 Her experience can be summarized in one word, sweeping.

00:14:25 She served as chief counsel of the Office of Pro Se Litigation for

00:14:31 the US District Court for the District of New York.

00:14:34 But as admirable as her experience is, so too is the impact she's had on the community.

00:14:38 Senator Schumer says one of the things I found most laudable in her background was

00:14:43 she launched the Young Adult Opportunity Program,

00:14:46 Southern District of New York's only pre-trial diversion program for

00:14:49 young offenders.

00:14:51 She understands that being a good lawyer and a good judge is not just about case law,

00:14:55 but about understanding the people that the law impacts.

00:14:58 As she once said about the job, quote, you have to be able to talk to people.

00:15:02 Her commitment to New York over the years is honorable, and

00:15:05 I believe this demonstrates her strong community values.

00:15:08 This Democratic majority has a proud record of confirming highly qualified and

00:15:12 talented judges.

00:15:14 In fact, later today we will hit the 200 judge benchmark.

00:15:18 These judges are reshaping the judiciary for the better,

00:15:20 not only by making our courts look more like America, but

00:15:23 also by restoring trust and balance to the bench through their broad range of

00:15:27 experience.

00:15:28 I'm confident that Judge Netburn will serve with distinction, and

00:15:31 that's why I'm proud to support her nomination.

00:15:33 Senator Butler is here, and has three nominees.

00:15:38 Would you like to speak to those nominees?

00:15:41 >> Yes, Chair Durbin, thank you so much, and thank you to you and the ranking member.

00:15:46 We have in front of us an incredibly powerful panel of women.

00:15:52 Three outstanding, talented, qualified Californians who are ready to serve,

00:16:00 and it is my honor to introduce and present them to the committee for consideration.

00:16:06 If confirmed, these women will all be joining one of the most crucial courts

00:16:10 in the country.

00:16:11 The Central District of California serves about 17 million people,

00:16:17 making it the largest federal judicial district by population.

00:16:21 The Central District is currently facing an unprecedented number of filings,

00:16:26 underscoring the urgent need to fill these vacancies.

00:16:30 And there's no doubt in my mind that the case law will be served

00:16:35 with the excellence of these judges.

00:16:38 First, I am pleased to introduce current Superior Court Judge, Michelle Court.

00:16:44 Today is a celebration of her and those who love and support her,

00:16:50 including her husband, Jamie Court, and her brother-in-law, Andy Court,

00:16:55 who are here with her today.

00:16:57 Her two sons are at school, at home, proud, but hopefully watching.

00:17:05 Judge Court was born into a military family.

00:17:08 Her father was a Vietnam veteran.

00:17:10 She moved to California in high school and has called it home ever since.

00:17:16 She attended Pomona College, where she put herself through school.

00:17:19 She sang in the Glee Club.

00:17:21 We've been talking about, I think one of our last nominees was a poet.

00:17:25 We, in California, brought our talent from the Glee Club for today's consideration.

00:17:32 She also received her Bachelor of Arts in Sociology.

00:17:36 After graduating college at the height of the AIDS crisis,

00:17:40 she took one of her first steps to a lifetime of service

00:17:44 by working for two years with the AIDS Project, an organization that

00:17:48 provided life-saving training to health care professionals in Los Angeles.

00:17:53 Judge Court then pursued a legal career, beginning at Loyola Law School.

00:17:59 While in law school, she worked at the National Health Law Program,

00:18:03 researching health care services provided to incarcerated women.

00:18:09 After law school, Judge Court continued her commitment to public interest,

00:18:13 as evidenced by her time as a fellow at the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

00:18:19 She then worked in private practice as an associate in several firms

00:18:23 and various leadership roles at Bet-Sedek Legal Services,

00:18:26 including the Director of Litigation and the Vice President and General Counsel.

00:18:31 Judge Court has served as a judge for the Los Angeles Superior Court since 2012.

00:18:37 In 2023, she deservingly became a supervising judge,

00:18:41 overseeing approximately 150 judges in 35 courthouses throughout Los Angeles County.

00:18:49 The esteem and respect that her colleagues and community have for her is evident

00:18:53 in the support that we've seen for her nomination,

00:18:55 including letters that highlight her qualifications.

00:18:59 One letter the committee has received is from current judges

00:19:03 of five distinct principals of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

00:19:07 They wrote, and I quote, "She is currently serving as the supervising judge

00:19:11 in the civil division of the largest unified trial court in the nation.

00:19:16 Judge Court was selected for this position in part due to her administrative skills,

00:19:21 technical knowledge, and being a subject matter expert in civil law procedure.

00:19:27 Her strong management skills are illustrated by her innovative approaches

00:19:31 to lessening the civil case log during the pandemic."

00:19:34 Judge Court's dozens of years of experience in the Superior Court,

00:19:39 including as its supervising judge,

00:19:42 demonstrate her ability to smoothly transition to the district court.

00:19:46 And I would encourage my colleagues in joining me to support her nomination.

00:19:52 Next, it is a delight to introduce to the committee current Superior Court judge,

00:19:57 Ann Huang.

00:19:59 Judge Huang's village is proudly watching at home today,

00:20:03 a community that includes her parents, her brother, husband, daughter,

00:20:07 and many other family members and friends.

00:20:10 Judge Huang was born in Los Angeles, raised in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes,

00:20:15 California.

00:20:17 She attended Cornell University for her undergraduate degree,

00:20:20 then moved to South Korea, teaching English to elementary school children.

00:20:24 After her experience abroad, Judge Huang returned to California,

00:20:29 working at the Volunteer Bureau.

00:20:31 Judge Huang attended the University of Southern California Law School.

00:20:35 While in law school, she was an extern for the US Court of Appeals

00:20:39 for the Ninth Circuit and the Office of the Federal Public Defender

00:20:43 in the Central District of California.

00:20:46 It is particularly notable that the committee received a letter of support

00:20:50 from a group of former prosecutors who served on opposite sides of the cases

00:20:55 that she worked for dozens of years as a federal public defender.

00:20:59 This group of 11 former AUSAs wrote, and I quote,

00:21:03 "She was well prepared, understood the facts and the law,

00:21:07 was clear in her written and oral arguments,

00:21:10 and emphasized a commitment to excellence.

00:21:13 Judge Huang understood her duty to provide zealous representation

00:21:17 for her clients and did so in a fair manner.

00:21:20 She also understood her cases from the perspective of a prosecutor, which

00:21:24 was effective in her ability to provide the best representation

00:21:28 for her clients," end quote.

00:21:31 In addition to her clear qualifications and temperament,

00:21:34 Judge Huang's confirmation would be a historic one.

00:21:38 The Korean American Bar Association of Southern California

00:21:42 wrote in a support letter to the committee, quote,

00:21:44 "The nomination of Judge Huang is of great significance

00:21:47 to the Korean American legal community.

00:21:50 With over 200,000 residents of Korean descent,

00:21:53 Los Angeles County is home to the largest population of Koreans in America.

00:21:59 Despite these statistics, the Central District of California

00:22:02 has never had a Korean American serve as a federal district judge.

00:22:07 If Judge Huang is confirmed, she would be the first Korean American

00:22:12 to have this honor," end quote.

00:22:15 Once again, I am confident of Judge Huang's presence on the bench

00:22:19 as an excellent addition to the Central District of California,

00:22:22 and I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination

00:22:27 to the federal bench.

00:22:28 Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Senator Padilla, has arrived,

00:22:32 and I don't know if he'd like to offer first comments

00:22:35 for the recommendation of Judge Cynthia Valenzuela-Dixon,

00:22:40 but I'd offer the opportunity if the chair would permit.

00:22:43 -I certainly would. Senator Padilla, the floor is yours.

00:22:47 -Thank you, Mr. Chair.

00:22:48 And the other California nominees, if that's okay?

00:22:51 -Sure. -All right.

00:22:52 But first, Mr. Chair, point of personal privilege,

00:22:54 I see a lot of serious faces in the audience here.

00:22:58 The nominees, their friends and family here in support.

00:23:01 Can you all just smile?

00:23:02 This is a good day.

00:23:04 There we go.

00:23:06 Yeah, Mr. Chair, today I have the great privilege

00:23:09 of introducing three of President Biden's distinguished nominees

00:23:14 to serve on the federal bench,

00:23:15 all nominated to serve the Central District of California.

00:23:20 First, I have the honor of introducing Judge Michelle Williams-Court,

00:23:24 who's joined here today by her husband, Jamie,

00:23:26 and her brother-in-law, Andy.

00:23:28 I believe her sons are in school today,

00:23:30 but I'm sure they're following along from California with immense pride.

00:23:34 Judge Court earned her bachelor's from Pomona College

00:23:37 and her JD from Loyola Law School.

00:23:40 Early on in her career, Judge Court served as an associate

00:23:43 at several private litigation firms,

00:23:46 a community builder fellow

00:23:47 at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

00:23:51 and a project attorney at the ACLU of California,

00:23:54 quite a cross-section of experience.

00:23:57 She then worked for 10 years as vice president

00:23:59 and general counsel at Beth Cedic Legal Services,

00:24:02 representing thousands of low-income clients,

00:24:05 an organization that I've been working with

00:24:07 more than 30 years in my various positions of public service.

00:24:11 In 2011, Governor Jerry Brown appointed her

00:24:14 to the Los Angeles Superior Court,

00:24:15 where she has served since,

00:24:18 with 18 years of both state and federal civil litigation experience.

00:24:23 I'm confident that Judge Court has the professional, legal,

00:24:26 and local experience needed to serve this community well.

00:24:31 Next, I have the pleasure of also introducing Judge Ann Huang.

00:24:34 Judge Huang earned her bachelor's degree from Cornell University

00:24:37 and her law degree from the University of Southern California Law School.

00:24:42 After beginning her career as a litigation associate

00:24:45 at Ireland Manila in Los Angeles,

00:24:47 Judge Huang would go on to serve for 12 years

00:24:51 in the Federal Public Defender's Office in Los Angeles,

00:24:55 the largest federal public defender's office in the nation.

00:24:58 During her time there, she rose through the ranks

00:25:00 from deputy public defender to chief deputy public defender

00:25:04 and gained extensive federal trial experience.

00:25:08 By 2018, her hard work had caught the eye of Governor Jerry Brown,

00:25:12 who appointed her to serve on the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

00:25:16 With her unique experience that comes from serving as a public defender,

00:25:21 if confirmed, Judge Huang would bring a highly valuable perspective

00:25:25 to the federal bench.

00:25:26 And finally, I'm pleased to introduce Judge Cynthia Valenzuela,

00:25:31 who is here today with her husband, Tim Dixon,

00:25:34 and one of their two daughters.

00:25:37 Now, a few years ago, you told Judge Valenzuela's grandmother

00:25:41 that one day her granddaughter would serve on a US federal court.

00:25:47 She might not believe it.

00:25:49 Her grandmother earned a living picking cotton

00:25:52 and working at a tortilla factory in Arizona,

00:25:56 a single mom working day in and day out

00:25:59 to support her children to make ends meet.

00:26:03 Yet, she worked hard enough to allow her daughter,

00:26:05 Judge Valenzuela's mother, to become the first person in her family

00:26:09 to attend and graduate from college.

00:26:13 Judge Valenzuela credits her parents with teaching her the value of education

00:26:17 and the work ethic that would help her throughout her career.

00:26:21 She earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Arizona

00:26:24 before traveling west to earn her law degree from the UCLA School of Law.

00:26:30 After graduating, she served as a special assistant

00:26:33 to the vice chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights,

00:26:36 and later as a trial attorney with the Department of Justice's

00:26:39 Civil Rights Division voting rights section.

00:26:43 Eventually, she would come home to Los Angeles

00:26:45 to work in the US Attorney's Office as a federal criminal prosecutor.

00:26:50 In 2006, she became national vice president of litigation

00:26:54 at the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

00:26:57 By 2011, she left to become a supervising attorney

00:27:01 for the Central District Criminal Justice Act panel.

00:27:05 And finally, in 2016, the California Supreme Court

00:27:08 appointed her to serve as a judge on the California State Bar Court

00:27:13 handling attorney regulatory and discipline cases.

00:27:17 Her academic credentials, legal qualifications,

00:27:21 and lived experience make her yet another outstanding nominee

00:27:25 to serve the Central District.

00:27:28 Now, Chair Durbin, as you know, this week we are celebrating

00:27:31 the 200th federal judge confirmed under President Biden,

00:27:35 and particularly the progress we've made in strengthening the federal judiciary.

00:27:39 Over three years in, we have confirmed judges that reflect

00:27:42 the tremendous and beautiful diversity of our nation.

00:27:46 And for the first time in history,

00:27:48 a majority of our president's confirmed judges are women.

00:27:52 And they continue to come from a diverse range of communities,

00:27:56 of academic backgrounds, and professions,

00:27:59 but all more than eminently qualified.

00:28:03 It's not lost on me that I've just had the opportunity

00:28:05 to introduce three more women, all women of color,

00:28:09 and all extremely qualified to serve as federal judges.

00:28:13 Each nominee will continue to build that historic record

00:28:16 of diverse, accomplished, brilliant legal minds

00:28:20 coming to the federal bench,

00:28:22 and will continue to restore trust among the American public.

00:28:25 And for that reason, I hope my colleagues will join me

00:28:27 in quickly advancing these nominations. Thank you.

00:28:30 -Thank you very much.

00:28:31 I'd like the nominees to come to the table now

00:28:35 for the questioning by senators.

00:28:39 You remain standing when you approach the table.

00:28:41 We'll administer the oath.

00:28:42 Please raise your right hand.

00:29:08 Do you swear or affirm the testimony

00:29:10 you're about to give before this committee

00:29:11 will be the truth, the whole truth,

00:29:12 and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

00:29:16 Let the record reflect that all of the nominees

00:29:18 have answered in the affirmative

00:29:20 and are color-coordinated.

00:29:22 With one possible exception.

00:29:27 You know this personally,

00:29:31 but for those who have any question about it,

00:29:35 there's been an investigation of these five women

00:29:37 from every angle, from the White House, the FBI,

00:29:41 our staff, Republicans, Democrats,

00:29:44 looking through every aspect of their lives

00:29:47 and public records.

00:29:50 Among them, of course, most of you have been

00:29:52 either prosecutors, public defenders,

00:29:54 or both are advocates for important organizations

00:29:59 that are involved in the law.

00:30:00 You wouldn't be here if you didn't have that life experience.

00:30:03 And you've seen a lot of cases.

00:30:05 You've poured your life into the system of justice

00:30:10 in this country, and now you're looking

00:30:12 for one of the major promotions,

00:30:15 the federal judgeship for a lifetime appointment.

00:30:18 So my experience as a small-town lawyer in Illinois

00:30:22 before being elected to the Senate

00:30:24 was with a handful of federal judges.

00:30:27 And we kind of figured out which ones

00:30:29 leaned one way or leaned the other way.

00:30:31 And some of them had their peculiarities,

00:30:33 as even senators have from time to time.

00:30:36 So I'd just like to ask one general question

00:30:38 as you reflect on the judges you've appeared before,

00:30:41 if each of you would comment on the qualities

00:30:43 that you think are most important in being a good judge

00:30:46 that you would like to bring to the job.

00:30:49 Judge Williams, you can start.

00:30:51 We'll go across the board.

00:30:54 - Thank you, Senator.

00:30:56 There are a lot of qualities that are very important

00:30:59 to being a good judge.

00:31:02 I am very, very honored to serve currently

00:31:07 as a judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court

00:31:09 and to be able to serve my community in that capacity.

00:31:12 Every day, on and off the bench,

00:31:15 I strive to be deliberative, to listen.

00:31:20 I think good judges are good listeners

00:31:23 that are aware of the importance

00:31:25 of being able to listen to the litigants

00:31:28 that appear before them,

00:31:30 not only to enable them to make the best decision in the case

00:31:33 but also to be able to articulate

00:31:36 the reasons behind their decisions.

00:31:38 I think the best judges are very,

00:31:41 they're able to make decisions in a timely manner.

00:31:45 The best judges have good judicial temperament

00:31:47 and are keenly aware of the importance

00:31:52 of the decisions that they make

00:31:54 in the lives of the litigants

00:31:57 and the lawyers who appear before them.

00:31:59 - Thank you.

00:32:01 - I think good senators have to be good listeners too,

00:32:03 and my staff just instructed me

00:32:05 that I forgot to give you each an opportunity

00:32:07 for an opening statement.

00:32:09 So we'll return to this question

00:32:11 and after we give each of you five minutes.

00:32:13 Judge Williams, you're first.

00:32:15 - Thank you, Senator.

00:32:17 Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member Graham,

00:32:22 and the members of the committee and its staff

00:32:25 for holding this hearing today.

00:32:28 I am profoundly grateful to President Biden

00:32:31 for the honor of this nomination

00:32:34 and to my home state senators,

00:32:37 Senators Butler and Padilla,

00:32:39 for their support of my nomination

00:32:41 and for their dedication to the people

00:32:43 of the state of California.

00:32:45 Senator Butler and Senator Padilla in absentia,

00:32:49 thank you so much for the kind words

00:32:51 of introduction this morning.

00:32:53 I would not be here today

00:32:56 without the support of my husband, Jamie Court.

00:33:00 Jamie has been my partner, my confidant,

00:33:04 and an immense source of strength to me for 38 years.

00:33:09 Cheering me on from home are our two sons

00:33:11 who are finishing up their school terms

00:33:13 and were not able to be with us here today.

00:33:16 Words cannot express my gratitude to Jamie

00:33:20 and to our sons for the amazing family

00:33:23 that we've built together.

00:33:25 Also here with me today is my brother-in-law, Andy Court,

00:33:30 who traveled from New York to be here to support me today.

00:33:34 I would also like to thank my sisters,

00:33:38 Beverly Beachide and Maria Williams,

00:33:40 Andy and my other siblings-in-law,

00:33:43 Dan Beachide and Ronnie Rabin,

00:33:46 and all of our nieces and nephews.

00:33:49 All of them have traveled beside me

00:33:53 on my professional journey with unwavering support.

00:33:57 Finally, I would like to thank

00:33:59 the dedicated judicial officers and staff

00:34:02 of the Judicial Branch of the State of California,

00:34:05 including the judges, lawyers, and staff

00:34:08 of the Judicial Council of California

00:34:11 and its advisory committees,

00:34:13 the lawyers and staff of the Center

00:34:15 for Judicial Education and Research,

00:34:18 and of course, the many dedicated judicial officers

00:34:21 and staff of the Los Angeles Superior Court

00:34:25 who work tirelessly to provide access to justice

00:34:28 to the communities we serve.

00:34:30 Senators, it is the honor of my career to be here today,

00:34:34 and I look forward to your questions.

00:34:38 - Thank you, Judge Court.

00:34:39 Judge Warren.

00:34:40 - Thank you.

00:34:41 I'd like to begin by thanking Chairman Durbin,

00:34:43 Ranking Member Graham, and members of the committee

00:34:46 for considering my nomination.

00:34:48 Thank you as well to Senators Butler and Padilla

00:34:50 for your support and your kind introductions.

00:34:54 And of course, I'd like to thank President Biden

00:34:56 for the honor of this nomination.

00:34:58 As I sit here before you today,

00:35:01 I am humbled by the love and support

00:35:03 of so many people who have brought me here.

00:35:06 To my parents who immigrated to this great country

00:35:08 from South Korea, who sacrificed so much

00:35:11 so that my brother and I could realize the American dream,

00:35:14 I am so grateful.

00:35:16 Our parents taught us the value of hard work

00:35:18 and a commitment to excellence,

00:35:20 and I hope to make them proud.

00:35:22 Thank you also to my brother

00:35:24 for all of your friendship and support.

00:35:26 To my husband and our daughter,

00:35:28 your unconditional love and support

00:35:30 keep me going every day.

00:35:32 My husband has been my best friend

00:35:33 and biggest supporter for over 20 years.

00:35:36 Our amazing daughter teaches me something new every day.

00:35:40 I'm so proud of you and grateful for you.

00:35:43 To my husband's parents, my in-laws,

00:35:46 his brother and sister,

00:35:47 thank you for all of your encouragement

00:35:49 and support over the years.

00:35:51 To all my friends and my colleagues,

00:35:53 I respect and admire the example you set,

00:35:56 and I could not be here without your support.

00:35:58 Thank you also to my court staff

00:36:01 who work every day at the highest level

00:36:03 to serve the people of Los Angeles County.

00:36:06 It has been a great honor to serve with them

00:36:08 as a judge for the past five years.

00:36:10 Thank you, and I look forward to your questions from me.

00:36:13 - Thanks, Judge Wong.

00:36:14 Judge Netburn.

00:36:18 - Chair Durbin, ranking member Graham,

00:36:20 members of the committee,

00:36:22 I'd like to thank you for scheduling this hearing

00:36:24 and permitting me to testify.

00:36:26 I would like to thank President Biden

00:36:27 for the confidence in me reflected by his nomination.

00:36:31 I'm deeply appreciative to Majority Leader Schumer

00:36:34 for recommending me to the president

00:36:36 and for his kind words today.

00:36:38 I'm also grateful for the support of Senator Gillibrand.

00:36:42 I've been a United States magistrate judge for 12 years

00:36:45 and currently serve as the chief magistrate judge

00:36:48 for the Southern District of New York.

00:36:50 It is a true honor to serve the people of New York

00:36:52 in this capacity.

00:36:54 If confirmed, I would accept the additional responsibilities

00:36:57 of a district judge with humility, seriousness,

00:37:00 and allegiance to the law.

00:37:02 I'd like to thank my court family and friends

00:37:05 who've supported me in this process.

00:37:07 I joined the court in 2010 as its first chief counsel

00:37:11 to the Office of Pro Se Litigation.

00:37:13 I have learned so many important lessons

00:37:15 from the hardworking people who have dedicated their careers

00:37:18 to the administration of justice.

00:37:21 Our court is staffed with incredibly dedicated

00:37:23 public servants and judges who work at the highest level.

00:37:28 I have had more than 25 law clerks

00:37:30 and three courtroom deputies.

00:37:32 Several of my law clerks and deputies are here today

00:37:35 and I am grateful for their support.

00:37:37 In many ways, my path to this nomination

00:37:39 was paved by their hard work

00:37:41 and commitment to the rule of law.

00:37:43 I'd like to thank my friends for their support,

00:37:46 many of whom are home watching.

00:37:47 Finally, I'd like to thank my family.

00:37:50 My parents couldn't be here today

00:37:52 because they are traveling to Montana

00:37:53 to celebrate my oldest nephew's high school graduation.

00:37:57 I am, however, grateful for their decades of support.

00:38:01 My amazing children are here today.

00:38:03 You are both the most important people in my life

00:38:05 and I am proud to be your mom.

00:38:07 And of course, my husband, John, is here.

00:38:10 I am lucky to have in my life partner a lawyer

00:38:12 who has also committed his career

00:38:14 to public service and excellence.

00:38:17 Thank you all for your support and encouragement.

00:38:19 - Ms. Newman.

00:38:23 - Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member Graham,

00:38:26 and the members of this committee

00:38:28 for holding this hearing today.

00:38:30 I am humbled to be here this morning.

00:38:32 Receiving this nomination has been the honor of my career.

00:38:35 I would like to thank President Biden for nominating me

00:38:38 and my home state senators, Collins and King,

00:38:40 for allowing my nomination process

00:38:42 to proceed.

00:38:44 I would like to thank Senator King

00:38:45 for his very kind words this morning.

00:38:47 I am truly grateful.

00:38:48 I am blessed with an abundance

00:38:51 of supportive family and friends,

00:38:53 many of whom are here today.

00:38:55 I would like to start by thanking

00:38:56 four of the most remarkable people to me in this room,

00:38:59 my four children.

00:39:00 And they are missing lacrosse and baseball games,

00:39:04 which are very important to them to be here for me,

00:39:06 so I really appreciate that.

00:39:08 Rosa is 15 and a freshman in high school.

00:39:12 Nico is 13 and in seventh grade.

00:39:14 Enzo is 11 and in fifth grade.

00:39:17 And our beloved tornado, Coco, is two.

00:39:20 Kids, I am so proud to be here,

00:39:22 but nothing on earth makes me prouder than the four of you.

00:39:26 It is truly my honor to be your chauffeur.

00:39:29 Oh, I mean your mother.

00:39:30 To my father, Peter Newman, who is also here,

00:39:34 my dad served our country in the Army

00:39:36 during the Vietnam War.

00:39:38 He then dedicated his career to public service,

00:39:40 working in the Social Security Administration

00:39:42 for over 30 years until he retired.

00:39:45 There, he met my stepmother, Maria,

00:39:47 who's joining us from afar,

00:39:48 who also worked for the Social Security Administration

00:39:51 for nearly 40 years.

00:39:53 They have instilled in me the importance of public service.

00:39:56 My mother, Diane Newman, is here as well.

00:39:59 A force to be reckoned with always,

00:40:01 my mom began her own business

00:40:02 in this then very unusual field

00:40:05 called mediation back in the 1980s.

00:40:07 She put herself through law school

00:40:09 while growing the field in her practice,

00:40:11 taking courses in the evening

00:40:13 and graduating when I was in eighth grade.

00:40:15 It is through her that I got my capacity for perseverance

00:40:18 and love of the law.

00:40:20 My other stepmother, Shelly Cullen, is also here.

00:40:23 Shelly has taught me many things,

00:40:24 but most importantly, to always look for joy in the world.

00:40:28 My brother, Brian, is here in person as well,

00:40:30 which means so much to me.

00:40:32 My sister, Jane, and brother, Michael,

00:40:34 as well as brother-in-law, Aaron,

00:40:36 along with their spouses and wonderful children

00:40:38 are supporting me from home.

00:40:40 My in-laws, Richard and Anita Perlitt, are here behind me,

00:40:43 as well as other family and friends.

00:40:45 And I've saved the most precious for last, my husband, Noah.

00:40:51 Noah is a professor of ornithology

00:40:53 who drove down here from Maine in the minivan

00:40:56 with the four kids alone

00:40:58 and is heading back up again this afternoon.

00:41:01 Noah, please let me know

00:41:02 if you want me to record my voice saying,

00:41:04 "Don't make me stop this car."

00:41:07 Noah, you are a true partner in every sense of the word.

00:41:10 I would not be here without you by my side.

00:41:12 Thank you to all my friends and family for supporting me.

00:41:15 I'm truly blessed.

00:41:16 Thank you.

00:41:17 - Thank you.

00:41:18 Judge Valenzuela-Dixon.

00:41:20 - Good morning.

00:41:23 Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member Graham,

00:41:27 and distinguished members of the committee

00:41:29 for your time and your consideration.

00:41:32 Thank you to President Biden

00:41:34 for the honor of this nomination.

00:41:37 Many thanks to Senator Padilla

00:41:39 for his recommendation and kind introduction this morning,

00:41:43 and to Senator Butler for her support.

00:41:46 It would be an honor to return to the federal government

00:41:51 and specifically in service

00:41:54 to the Central District of California,

00:41:56 where I served as a federal prosecutor,

00:41:59 this time in the position of United States judge.

00:42:04 With me here today is my husband, Tim,

00:42:07 who, like me, came from humble beginnings

00:42:11 and dedicated his career to our great country.

00:42:15 He served in the military

00:42:17 and later as a career FBI special agent.

00:42:21 And also with me is one of my two precious daughters.

00:42:26 Our other daughter is back home in school.

00:42:29 My girls are my greatest blessing.

00:42:34 I would like to thank my family,

00:42:35 my parents, Absalom and Naomi,

00:42:39 who overcame poverty

00:42:41 and reached the highest levels of educational attainment,

00:42:45 and who impressed upon me

00:42:47 the value of education and hard work.

00:42:50 My dad put his life on the line

00:42:53 as a firefighter in Tucson, Arizona,

00:42:56 and my mom was a dedicated public school teacher.

00:43:01 Thanks to my siblings, Patty, Alice, and Absalom,

00:43:06 for taking good care of their little sister,

00:43:09 and a special salute to my brother

00:43:10 for his many years of military service.

00:43:13 I would like to acknowledge my sister-in-law, Melanie,

00:43:17 my brothers-in-law, and all of my nieces and nephews,

00:43:21 my uncle Joel, another military veteran,

00:43:25 and the first lawyer in the family,

00:43:27 my aunt Irene, and all my many aunts, uncles, and cousins.

00:43:31 As a judge on the California State Bar Court

00:43:36 for the past eight years,

00:43:38 I have been fortunate to work with people

00:43:41 of exceptional integrity, professionalism,

00:43:45 and dedication to protecting the public

00:43:48 and maintaining the highest professional standards,

00:43:51 and I am grateful to them.

00:43:53 I wanna thank all of the many people

00:43:56 who have supported and encouraged me,

00:43:59 and who are praying for me and cheering me on today,

00:44:03 including dear friends, former colleagues,

00:44:06 classmates, and wonderful neighbors.

00:44:10 And finally, I'm so grateful for my many amazing mentors,

00:44:14 including John Tresvina, Ambassador Carlos Moreno,

00:44:19 Rebecca Wirtz, Lawrence Middleton, Rebecca Lonergan,

00:44:25 Kathy Purcell, Rich Hahn, and district judges,

00:44:29 Jim Otero, Dale Fisher, and Fernando Oguine.

00:44:34 Thank you so much, and I welcome the committee's questions.

00:44:38 - Thank you, Judge.

00:44:39 What an extraordinary resume you bring

00:44:41 to this committee room, each of you.

00:44:44 Backgrounds in prosecution and defense and civil litigation,

00:44:48 serving on the bench yourselves

00:44:50 before you seek this opportunity on the federal bench.

00:44:55 Judge Valenzuela, is it proper to call you

00:44:58 Judge Valenzuela or Judge Dixon?

00:45:00 - Judge Valenzuela, please.

00:45:01 - Is that good?

00:45:02 Okay, I wanna make sure I get that right.

00:45:04 Yours is unusual among the nominees

00:45:07 in that you've worked for about five years for MALDEF.

00:45:10 Am I correct, is that part of your background?

00:45:13 - Yes, Senator.

00:45:15 - It's an organization which I greatly respect,

00:45:17 but brings some controversy to issues.

00:45:20 Speak to the issue from your personal

00:45:23 and family experience of access to education

00:45:26 and what it meant in your years with MALDEF.

00:45:29 - Yes, thank you for the question, Senator.

00:45:32 I am the beneficiary of a desegregation consent decree.

00:45:37 The state of Arizona, where I'm originally from,

00:45:41 intentionally segregated its public school students

00:45:47 at one point in the early 1900s.

00:45:51 To remedy the vestiges of past discrimination,

00:45:54 MALDEF brought a lawsuit,

00:45:57 and I am a beneficiary of the consent decree

00:46:01 that resulted from that lawsuit.

00:46:03 So as a result of the consent decree,

00:46:06 I was bused from my working class neighborhood

00:46:09 across the city to the city center,

00:46:12 and went to middle school and high school

00:46:15 directly across the street from the University of Arizona.

00:46:19 And as a result of going to those middle schools

00:46:23 and high schools, I believe that I benefited

00:46:26 from rich diversity of students at those schools,

00:46:31 greater academic opportunities,

00:46:35 and overall just a better education

00:46:40 that really, I think, led to my success.

00:46:45 - Were any members of your family

00:46:46 attending those segregated schools?

00:46:48 - All three of my older siblings

00:46:50 attended the segregated schools.

00:46:51 - I see.

00:46:52 I'm gonna withhold questions to the end

00:46:54 and let me recognize my colleagues,

00:46:56 'cause I know they have other issues

00:46:58 they face in their scheduling.

00:46:59 Judge, Senator Graham.

00:47:01 - Thank you, Judge Venezuela.

00:47:04 - Yes.

00:47:05 - About your work with the national,

00:47:08 you were the national vice president

00:47:09 director of litigation of the Mexican-American

00:47:13 Legal Defense Fund from 2006 to '11, is that correct?

00:47:18 - Correct.

00:47:19 - Okay.

00:47:19 Were you there when this organization

00:47:22 opposed Miguel Estrada for the D.C. Circuit,

00:47:27 or was that before?

00:47:28 - I don't recall that happening during my tenure.

00:47:31 - Okay.

00:47:31 Your counsel in cases,

00:47:35 Martinez versus Regent of the University of California,

00:47:41 arguing that illegal immigrants should be given

00:47:47 in-state tuition, is that correct?

00:47:49 - That was the issue in that case, correct.

00:47:53 - Yeah.

00:47:54 And you opposed non-resident U.S. citizens

00:47:58 being given that status, is that correct?

00:48:02 - I don't think we opposed non-resident citizens

00:48:05 getting that benefit.

00:48:07 - Okay.

00:48:08 In Chamber of Commerce versus Whitting,

00:48:13 you opposed the e-verify system

00:48:16 to identify a person's immigration status

00:48:21 in Arizona, is that correct?

00:48:24 - In all of the immigration cases

00:48:26 that MALDEF brought at that time, Senator,

00:48:30 what MALDEF was litigating was the issue

00:48:33 of whether the states had the authority

00:48:36 to regulate immigration law.

00:48:39 And our argument was that states

00:48:41 and local jurisdictions do not,

00:48:43 that only Congress has the right to regulate immigration.

00:48:46 - So it was just about the role

00:48:48 of the state versus Congress, right?

00:48:50 - It was about preemption.

00:48:53 - Okay.

00:48:54 So in Coral Construction versus San Francisco,

00:48:59 you argued in support of a San Francisco contracting scheme

00:49:05 which granted a five to 10% discount on bids

00:49:09 received by minority and women-owned businesses

00:49:12 for contracting projects, is that correct?

00:49:16 - Senator, I know that I listed that case on the SJQ.

00:49:20 I don't think I signed that brief.

00:49:23 I don't recall the issues in that case.

00:49:25 - You don't remember that case?

00:49:28 - I don't.

00:49:29 - Okay.

00:49:29 Were you involved in Ritchie versus the standoff

00:49:34 of D-E-S-T-E-F-A-N-O?

00:49:38 Were you arguing in favor of bending written exams

00:49:41 for firefighters that produced a disparate impact

00:49:45 on minority candidates?

00:49:46 - Again, that case was, I think that MALDEF

00:49:50 did file an amicus brief in that case,

00:49:52 if I remember correctly, but I did not sign the brief

00:49:57 as far as I recall.

00:49:58 - Do you agree with that idea?

00:50:00 - What idea?

00:50:01 - The organization that you're a member of

00:50:04 apparently provided an amicus brief in this litigation,

00:50:07 is that correct?

00:50:09 - Yes.

00:50:10 - Okay, do you agree with the position stated

00:50:11 in the amicus brief that you shouldn't have written exams

00:50:14 for firefighters?

00:50:16 That's all right.

00:50:26 Have you heard of California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance

00:50:32 - No.

00:50:35 - You never heard of that?

00:50:37 - No.

00:50:38 - That's not a program that MALDEF is involved in,

00:50:43 houses and supports, never heard of it?

00:50:45 - I don't know what MALDEF does now,

00:50:47 I haven't been there for 13 years, 15 years.

00:50:50 - This has been around for a while,

00:50:51 so you don't know anything about it?

00:50:53 - I don't.

00:50:54 - It says, well, their manifesto is to abolish ICE,

00:50:57 are you for abolishing ICE?

00:50:58 - No, Senator.

00:50:59 - Okay, and it says that all immigrant policies

00:51:02 are deeply rooted in white nationalism.

00:51:05 You don't agree with that, right?

00:51:06 - No, Senator.

00:51:08 - Do you think that we're supporting

00:51:10 the occupation of Palestine?

00:51:13 Of the United States?

00:51:15 I mean, this is the manifesto of this group.

00:51:20 - I would not agree with that statement, Senator.

00:51:22 - Okay, all right, but you don't know anything about this,

00:51:24 I guess, is your testimony, right?

00:51:26 - I don't.

00:51:27 - Okay.

00:51:28 - That's correct.

00:51:29 - Okay.

00:51:29 Judge Netburn, is that right?

00:51:35 - Yes, sir.

00:51:37 - Tell us about a case you had, I think,

00:51:40 involving, get my facts right,

00:51:45 the transfer of a person,

00:51:48 a female, male who became biological male,

00:51:54 is this Ringelblum?

00:51:57 - Yes, I know which case you're referring to.

00:51:59 It was a habeas petition.

00:52:00 - Yeah, and it was somebody who had been convicted in '94

00:52:04 for raping a child, a male child,

00:52:10 and raping a 17-year-old female.

00:52:14 They served their sentence, they got out,

00:52:16 they were convicted of distributing child pornography,

00:52:21 the biological male transitioned into being a female,

00:52:26 and the Bureau of Prisons objected

00:52:28 to the person going into the female system.

00:52:32 Do you remember all that?

00:52:34 - I do, Senator.

00:52:35 - Okay, and you basically ruled in favor

00:52:40 of the petitioner, saying that the Bureau of Prisons

00:52:43 concerns about the intimidation and the threat

00:52:47 to female inmates was theoretical.

00:52:52 Is that right?

00:52:55 - Thank you, Senator.

00:52:56 In that habeas petition, I issued a report

00:52:59 and recommendation which was based on the facts

00:53:01 that were presented to me.

00:53:03 Those facts included statements from the three wardens

00:53:06 who supervised this petitioner,

00:53:09 all three of whom recommended that the petitioner

00:53:11 be transferred to a women's facility

00:53:13 because of her serious medical needs,

00:53:15 and the Bureau of Prisons--

00:53:16 - The Bureau of Prisons opposed this transfer, right?

00:53:20 - Well, the wardens who were directly--

00:53:22 - No, no, no, the Bureau of Prisons

00:53:23 opposed this transfer, right?

00:53:25 - Correct, which is why the petitioner

00:53:27 brought a habeas petition.

00:53:28 - Right, so now I'm over time, but I'll wrap it up.

00:53:32 The bottom line here is that the concern

00:53:34 of the Bureau of Prisons is that a biological male

00:53:37 transitioning to a female with a history of sexual violence

00:53:42 would be intimidating and threatening

00:53:47 to the female population.

00:53:50 You thought that to be a theoretical concern

00:53:53 because the person in question had attacked

00:53:56 male and female people.

00:53:59 Is that right?

00:54:00 - That's not correct, sir.

00:54:01 - That's what you said.

00:54:03 - I based my report and recommendation

00:54:05 on the record evidence before me.

00:54:08 - So you think the concerns of the Bureau of Prison

00:54:11 that someone with a violent past regarding sexual assaults

00:54:16 would not be threatening and intimidating

00:54:22 biological male transitioning to female,

00:54:24 you just don't believe that's a legitimate concern?

00:54:28 - Let me be very clear, sir.

00:54:29 The crimes for which the petitioner was convicted of

00:54:32 30 years ago are abhorrent, and the petitioner

00:54:36 was convicted by an Indiana state court and sentenced.

00:54:39 - He was convicted, he, she was convicted

00:54:42 of assaulting a child, raping a 17-year-old woman,

00:54:47 got out of prison, and was convicted

00:54:48 of child pornography afterwards.

00:54:51 Transitioned from a male to a female,

00:54:55 and the Bureau of Prisons said,

00:54:56 "We do not believe this person should be in a female prison,"

00:55:00 and you thought those concerns were theoretical.

00:55:02 Is that fair?

00:55:03 - I based my decision on the record before me.

00:55:07 - You wanna finish your statement?

00:55:11 - Thank you, Chair Durbin.

00:55:12 I based my decision on the record before me.

00:55:15 The record was that the three wardens

00:55:19 who had supervised the petitioner all recommended transfer.

00:55:24 The petitioner had had no disciplinary issues at all

00:55:27 during her time in federal custody.

00:55:29 She had never engaged in any violence,

00:55:32 and in fact, had been the victim of sexual violence

00:55:34 while in a male facility.

00:55:36 And the Bureau of Prisons' longtime treating

00:55:39 medical provider also testified

00:55:41 during a two-day hearing before me,

00:55:43 who recommended that the petitioner be transferred

00:55:47 because of her serious medical needs.

00:55:49 I recommended that the district judge

00:55:52 adopt my recommendation based on Estelle versus Gamble

00:55:55 and Turner versus Safley.

00:55:57 The district judge adopted my report and recommendation,

00:56:00 and the government did not move for a stay.

00:56:02 - Thank you.

00:56:04 Senator Hirono.

00:56:05 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:56:08 I am very delighted to see a panel of all-female nominees.

00:56:15 I also wanna congratulate and thank the chairman

00:56:18 for the leadership that he has provided

00:56:23 in dealing with all of the nominees,

00:56:25 and today is a very especially important day

00:56:28 as we confirm the 200th judge,

00:56:32 many of whom are women

00:56:35 and representing minority communities.

00:56:40 So to ensure the fitness of nominees,

00:56:43 I ask each nominee, and we'll start with the judge court

00:56:47 and go right down the line,

00:56:48 following two initial questions.

00:56:52 Since you became a legal adult,

00:56:54 Have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors

00:56:58 or committed any verbal or physical harassment

00:57:01 or assault of a sexual nature?

00:57:04 - No, Senator.

00:57:07 - No, Senator.

00:57:08 - No, Senator.

00:57:10 - No, Senator.

00:57:11 - Have you ever faced discipline

00:57:12 or entered into a settlement

00:57:14 related to this kind of conduct?

00:57:16 - No, Senator.

00:57:17 - No, Senator.

00:57:19 - No, Senator.

00:57:20 - No, Senator.

00:57:21 - No, Senator.

00:57:24 - Thank you, Judge Wang,

00:57:25 I know that your parents are immigrants from South Korea.

00:57:30 And so could you tell us a little bit

00:57:34 about what it was like for you to grow up as,

00:57:39 well, I realize where you live,

00:57:40 there are a number of South Koreans,

00:57:42 but what it was like to grow up with immigrant parents

00:57:47 and the challenges faced

00:57:49 and how that prepares you to be a district court judge?

00:57:54 - Thank you, Senator, for the question.

00:57:57 There is a very large Korean population in Los Angeles.

00:58:02 However, the schools that I attended when I was a child,

00:58:06 I was either the only

00:58:07 or one of very few number of Korean students.

00:58:11 And so it was a challenging experience,

00:58:17 but my parents also emphasized our rich cultural heritage.

00:58:22 And so it has been important for me

00:58:29 in honoring both their contributions

00:58:32 and their sacrifices in this country

00:58:35 to ensure that I always remember

00:58:44 and uphold their traditions and their culture.

00:58:47 - Can you extend my aloha to your parents?

00:58:52 I know that they are not with us.

00:58:54 - They're watching from home, but thank you very much.

00:58:57 - Aloha to them.

00:58:58 Judge Valencia, Valenzuela,

00:59:01 it's very clear to me that education

00:59:08 has been a foundational,

00:59:13 foundational for you and your family.

00:59:14 Can you just talk a little bit more

00:59:16 about how important it was for you

00:59:18 to be bused to a whole another school from where you lived

00:59:23 and what that experience inculcated in your tautu?

00:59:27 - Thank you for the question, Senator.

00:59:29 Seeing it through a child's eyes,

00:59:35 I was unhappy with the fact

00:59:39 that I wasn't going to be going to the same schools

00:59:41 as my three older siblings.

00:59:43 But I saw very quickly as far as,

00:59:49 you know, a 12 year old can process that

00:59:54 for whatever reason this change was happening,

00:59:59 it was a good change.

01:00:00 And I think just being physically located,

01:00:05 both my middle school and high school

01:00:07 directly across the street from the University of Arizona

01:00:10 was just a daily reminder that I could go to college.

01:00:15 My siblings did not go to college.

01:00:18 One of them later went back,

01:00:20 but they did not go to college after high school.

01:00:22 So just seeing the University of Arizona every day

01:00:27 inspired me to work towards

01:00:29 going to the University of Arizona.

01:00:31 And then we had professors from the University of Arizona

01:00:34 who actually came to our high school

01:00:36 and taught some of the high school classes.

01:00:39 And so I think just that connection to opportunity

01:00:42 was an incredible benefit to me.

01:00:45 - I very much agree with you.

01:00:48 The exposure to higher education

01:00:52 and those kinds of experiences are very meaningful.

01:00:55 Judge Quart, I assume that you consider diversity

01:00:59 on the court to be very important.

01:01:02 Yes?

01:01:04 - I do.

01:01:05 - Can you talk a little bit more about why?

01:01:08 - Diversity on the court and diversity in the judiciary

01:01:11 is very important for a number of reasons.

01:01:15 I think that it goes a long way

01:01:18 toward engendering trust in the judiciary.

01:01:23 When litigants and lawyers come to court

01:01:27 and they see a diverse judiciary,

01:01:29 I think it sends a message,

01:01:30 especially in a community like Los Angeles

01:01:33 that is so diverse with so many people

01:01:36 who come from so many different places,

01:01:38 it sends a signal that everyone has a chance

01:01:41 of being treated equally

01:01:44 because the demographics of the court

01:01:48 reflect the demographics of the community

01:01:51 in which it serves.

01:01:53 Also, I think it's very important

01:01:55 in terms of mentoring future professionals

01:01:59 to come into the judicial profession.

01:02:03 I participate on a regular basis

01:02:06 in a couple of programs

01:02:08 that the Los Angeles Superior Court operates

01:02:12 in conjunction with some bar groups,

01:02:14 including a program called the Power Lunch.

01:02:18 That is a lunch where we have judges,

01:02:21 court reporters, bailiffs, interpreters,

01:02:25 judicial assistants come and make presentations

01:02:28 to groups of high school and middle school students

01:02:31 who come on a field trip

01:02:33 to the court to learn about the different career paths

01:02:38 that there are in the justice system.

01:02:40 I think that's very important

01:02:41 in terms of ensuring the future

01:02:43 of the integrity of the judicial system.

01:02:46 - Thank you, Senator Hirono.

01:02:47 - Thank you for letting her finish her answer.

01:02:50 - Thank you. - Senator Lee.

01:02:51 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:02:53 I wanna follow up with Judge Nat Byrne

01:02:55 regarding the JJS case.

01:02:57 I've been reading through your report and recommendation

01:02:59 and I just wanna review the fact

01:03:02 that this was an individual, JJS,

01:03:05 who had raped a nine-year-old boy,

01:03:07 raped a 17-year-old girl,

01:03:10 was put in prison, went to prison for a long time.

01:03:13 After that person was paroled, JJS,

01:03:18 the way you put it on page 44

01:03:23 of the report and recommendation

01:03:25 was that JJS sent two sexually explicit images of minors.

01:03:31 In 2015, while out on parole.

01:03:34 I should point out this kind of a euphemistic reference.

01:03:38 These were not just sexually explicit images.

01:03:40 These were sexually explicit images

01:03:42 of adults violently molesting children,

01:03:47 sexually assaulting, abusing children violently.

01:03:50 Every time this person has had an opportunity to offend,

01:03:57 this person has offended.

01:03:59 And yet you recommended this person

01:04:01 against the recommendation of the US Bureau of Prisons

01:04:06 to go to a women's facility.

01:04:07 Now, your reasoning here is stunning to me.

01:04:12 Going back again to page 44

01:04:13 of your report and recommendation, you say,

01:04:17 "There are no signs that petitioner

01:04:19 "is at risk of re-offending."

01:04:24 I'm struggling to understand

01:04:25 how you could possibly conclude that.

01:04:27 Because the minute this person was released,

01:04:29 this person engaged in other offenses.

01:04:31 Yes, not a contact offense while out on parole,

01:04:35 but there are still issues going on.

01:04:36 It also says nothing.

01:04:39 You don't adequately grapple with the obvious fact

01:04:42 that this is a six foot two biological male.

01:04:47 Yes, transition aside,

01:04:50 the transition didn't begin until age 51 or 52.

01:04:53 By then, JJS had acquired all of the physical,

01:04:57 biological size and strength advantages of being male.

01:05:01 Those don't go away because there is a transition.

01:05:05 On what planet does it make sense?

01:05:07 On what planet does that person

01:05:08 with that sexual offense history,

01:05:10 with being biologically male and also six foot two,

01:05:15 not pose a threat to the safety of female inmates?

01:05:21 I don't understand how you could conclude

01:05:23 that this person shows no risk of being an offender.

01:05:26 Now, you argue at one point

01:05:29 that this person has shown no pattern or history

01:05:34 of offending while in prison.

01:05:35 Yeah, because JJS was in prison with a bunch of other men

01:05:40 where the size and strength differentials

01:05:42 aren't quite the same.

01:05:43 Can you help me understand this?

01:05:45 - Thank you, Senator.

01:05:48 First, the crimes for which the petitioner was convicted

01:05:51 are horrific.

01:05:53 I've been a sitting United States magistrate judge

01:05:55 for 12 years.

01:05:56 Sexual offenses against children

01:05:58 are among the worst crimes that we see.

01:06:01 This person was convicted by guilty plea 30 years ago

01:06:05 of two awful crimes and was sentenced

01:06:09 to a very significant prison sentence

01:06:12 by the state court judge.

01:06:13 About eight years ago, the petitioner committed

01:06:17 another awful crime,

01:06:19 the crime of distribution of child pornography.

01:06:21 That is an abhorrent crime and there are real victims.

01:06:25 And the petitioner was sentenced

01:06:27 by the Indiana federal court.

01:06:29 - I understand this.

01:06:30 This is all undisputed.

01:06:31 What I wanna know is why is it okay?

01:06:33 Why is it safe?

01:06:33 Why is it fair to female inmates

01:06:35 to send this person to a female prison?

01:06:38 This is a guy who raped a 17-year-old girl

01:06:41 and a nine-year-old boy.

01:06:42 Why is that safe?

01:06:44 Six foot two biological male.

01:06:46 - Senator Lee, as I do in every case before me,

01:06:49 I look at the record evidence.

01:06:51 I consider the facts before me.

01:06:53 In this case, the facts that I considered

01:06:55 included that every single warden

01:06:58 who supervised this petitioner

01:07:00 recommended that the petitioner be transferred

01:07:02 to a women's facility because of her serious medical needs,

01:07:06 because she had engaged in no violence, no infractions,

01:07:10 and in fact, had been the victim of sexual assault.

01:07:13 - While in a male prison,

01:07:14 and this was against the decision

01:07:18 of the US Bureau of Prisons,

01:07:20 Judge Balance Oylette Dixon,

01:07:22 do photo ID laws violate the US Constitution?

01:07:27 Does it violate the US Constitution

01:07:28 to require someone to show identification

01:07:32 when casting a vote?

01:07:33 - Does it violate the US Constitution?

01:07:36 - Does it violate the US Constitution?

01:07:38 Is it unconstitutional?

01:07:39 - Please turn on your microphone.

01:07:44 - Thank you.

01:07:45 - I ask because you submitted a brief

01:07:47 in a case called Crawford versus Marion County

01:07:49 Election Board, and in your brief,

01:07:51 you argued, quote, "The striking similarities

01:07:53 "between voter identification laws and poll taxes

01:07:55 "this court rejected less than a half century ago

01:07:58 "demonstrate that identification requirements

01:08:00 "are unconstitutional regardless of the level

01:08:01 "of scrutiny the court applies."

01:08:03 The court, of course, disagreed with your assessment.

01:08:07 - It did.

01:08:09 - So what's your answer to my question?

01:08:12 - The Crawford case made it clear

01:08:16 that voter identification laws are constitutional,

01:08:20 and I would follow that precedent.

01:08:22 - Do you agree with that precedent?

01:08:24 - That photo ID laws are constitutional?

01:08:26 - Yes.

01:08:27 - I do, Senator.

01:08:28 - And yet you argued to the contrary in that case.

01:08:31 Did the court convince you?

01:08:34 - Well, the court stated what the law is,

01:08:39 so I would follow the precedent of the Supreme Court.

01:08:42 - Thank you.

01:08:43 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:08:45 Senator Butler.

01:08:46 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:08:49 Judge Huang, I'd love to just start with you.

01:08:53 You've been a judge for the Los Angeles

01:08:55 Superior Court since 2019.

01:08:58 Prior to joining the bench, you served as chief deputy

01:09:01 public defender in the Central District of California

01:09:04 in Los Angeles since, I think, beginning in 2006.

01:09:08 Is that correct?

01:09:09 - My time at the Federal Public Defender's Office

01:09:13 began then, my role changed throughout my time there.

01:09:16 - Of course.

01:09:18 Can you share with the committee how you've been,

01:09:23 these experiences has prepared you for the federal bench?

01:09:28 - So in my 16 years as an attorney,

01:09:32 working both in civil cases and criminal cases,

01:09:35 one of the most important lessons that I took from that,

01:09:40 those experiences, was the need for clients

01:09:44 to understand the court process, the cases,

01:09:46 and to understand why decisions were being made,

01:09:50 and particularly in the criminal context,

01:09:53 for defendants to understand the consequences

01:09:55 of their actions.

01:09:57 It helps, I think, to ensure that people don't

01:10:00 come back into the system.

01:10:01 And so now that I've been a judge for five years,

01:10:05 I took from that experience the need for clear decisions

01:10:10 that explain to the litigants why I'm ruling as I am.

01:10:14 It helps litigants understand that their arguments

01:10:18 have been understood by the court,

01:10:20 and for them to feel that they've had their day in court.

01:10:23 - Thank you, I think we all would agree

01:10:25 that those are incredibly important qualities and skills

01:10:29 necessary for federal service.

01:10:33 Judge Court, I talked about in my introduction

01:10:37 of our California judges the incredible caseload,

01:10:41 that if you were confirmed would be in front of you

01:10:45 in the Central District, given its size,

01:10:49 the amount of time that the vacancies have existed,

01:10:53 and just the volume that generates

01:10:57 from serving 17 million people.

01:11:01 What do you believe are the biggest challenges

01:11:04 that you would face in transitioning to the federal bench,

01:11:07 preparing for that kind of caseload?

01:11:11 So what do you believe are the challenges,

01:11:13 and what would be your plan in preparation

01:11:16 for your transition to ensure a smooth one,

01:11:20 and the continued effective execution

01:11:22 of justice for Californians?

01:11:25 - Thank you, Senator.

01:11:26 In my time, in my 12 years on the bench,

01:11:29 I've learned a lot of lessons,

01:11:30 and I have been very fortunate to have been appointed

01:11:35 by all of the last three chief justices

01:11:39 of the California Supreme Court

01:11:41 to judicial council advisory committees,

01:11:44 and I currently serve as a member

01:11:46 of the judicial council itself.

01:11:49 I also am currently the supervising judge

01:11:52 of the Civil Division, which is experiencing

01:11:55 the same caseload and filing issues

01:11:58 that are being faced by the Central District

01:12:00 of California currently.

01:12:02 I'm also an elected member of the American Law Institute,

01:12:05 and I serve as a member of the members' consultative group

01:12:08 for high-volume litigation.

01:12:10 So I have been steeped in not only the day-to-day

01:12:15 of managing large caseloads, increased filings,

01:12:20 but have also been involved in policy and research

01:12:25 concerning ways that we can address

01:12:28 the increasing caseloads using technology

01:12:32 and other resources in a way that preserves access

01:12:36 to justice for the people who come to the court for redress.

01:12:41 I have every intention of continuing the work

01:12:46 that I do in this area, because I think

01:12:48 it's mission critical to the work that the branch does

01:12:51 in order to be responsive to the ever-increasing caseloads

01:12:56 that all courts, frankly, across the country are facing.

01:13:01 - Thank you, Judge Court.

01:13:03 I think I wanted to just note the absence

01:13:05 of Chair Durbin, who has handed me the gavel.

01:13:10 And so I appreciate the response.

01:13:13 I wanna then turn to Senator Kennedy for his questions.

01:13:18 - Thank you, Madam Chair.

01:13:21 (papers rustling)

01:13:24 Judge Dixon, can you tell me about

01:13:31 the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution?

01:13:35 - It's me, Senator Kennedy, Judge Valenzuela.

01:13:38 - I'm sorry, I can't see that far.

01:13:40 I just got new glasses.

01:13:43 Judge, down here, and then we'll come this way.

01:13:46 - Judge Court, Senator, I had the same issue

01:13:49 when I walked into the room.

01:13:50 I thought that it would be difficult to see my last name,

01:13:53 so no need to apologize.

01:13:54 - Okay.

01:13:55 (laughing)

01:13:56 - So, and I apologize.

01:13:57 Your question is the full faith and credit--

01:13:59 - Full faith and credit clause.

01:14:01 - Clause of the Constitution.

01:14:02 It requires that the states give full faith and credit

01:14:07 to judgments of other states.

01:14:09 - Okay, very good.

01:14:10 Judge Metburn, I was looking at your resume.

01:14:19 You went to Brown University, is that right?

01:14:22 - I did.

01:14:23 - And then you went to law school in California?

01:14:25 - That's correct.

01:14:26 - And you've worked for the Brennan Center?

01:14:30 - I interned.

01:14:33 I was a law student intern.

01:14:34 - Okay, and you worked for the Center

01:14:37 for Reproductive Law and Policy?

01:14:39 - I was a law student intern there for eight weeks

01:14:42 during my 1L summer.

01:14:43 - Okay, and you are a political activist, aren't you?

01:14:47 - I am not.

01:14:48 I'm a sitting United States magistrate judge.

01:14:50 - Okay, all right.

01:14:50 Do you remember an inmate named William McClain,

01:14:57 also known as July Justine Shelby?

01:15:00 - Yes, I know who you're referring to.

01:15:02 - Okay.

01:15:03 Mr. McClain raped a child, didn't he?

01:15:08 - 30 years ago, the petitioner in the habeas case before me--

01:15:14 - Did he rape a child?

01:15:16 - He pled guilty to that crime, yes, it's apparent.

01:15:19 - And then he raped a little boy, right?

01:15:23 - I believe that's correct.

01:15:25 I believe he pled guilty to two acts of sexual violence.

01:15:28 - And then he raped a 17-year-old girl, right?

01:15:32 - Again, this case was handled

01:15:33 by the state court in Indiana, but I believe--

01:15:35 - I'm just asking you the facts.

01:15:37 - I believe--

01:15:37 - Don't stall on me now.

01:15:39 Did he rape a 17-year-old girl or not

01:15:41 after raping a nine-year-old boy?

01:15:44 - I believe that's what he pled guilty to.

01:15:45 - Okay, and then he went to prison, didn't he?

01:15:48 - Yes, the petitioner was--

01:15:49 - And then he came out and he sent child porn,

01:15:54 basically adults raping little children

01:15:59 to another sex offender,

01:16:01 and he was sent back to prison, right?

01:16:04 - The petitioner pled guilty to one--

01:16:07 - Was he sent back to prison?

01:16:09 - Well, that case was in the federal system, so--

01:16:11 - Was he sent back to prison?

01:16:13 - Yes, this time to federal prison.

01:16:14 - Thank you.

01:16:15 And then he decided to transition,

01:16:19 and he became a female,

01:16:22 and started going by July Justine Shelby, is that right?

01:16:26 - Yes.

01:16:27 - And Miss Shelby said, "I don't wanna go to a male prison.

01:16:32 "I wanna go to a female prison."

01:16:35 And the board of prison said,

01:16:39 "What planet did you parachute in from?

01:16:42 "You're going to a male prison with this kind of record?"

01:16:46 And you sent him to a female prison, didn't you?

01:16:50 You said that the board of prisons was trying to violate

01:16:54 Miss Shelby, former Mr. McLean's

01:16:59 constitutional rights, didn't you?

01:17:02 - I issued a report and recommendation

01:17:04 to the district judge,

01:17:05 recommending that the district judge

01:17:07 transfer the petitioner to a women's facility.

01:17:10 The district judge adopted that recommendation.

01:17:12 - You said the board of prisons was trying to violate

01:17:16 Miss Shelby's, Mr. McLean's constitutional rights,

01:17:20 didn't you?

01:17:21 - So I based my decision on the facts

01:17:23 that were presented to me in the record evidence.

01:17:25 - But it wasn't that your ruling?

01:17:27 - I recommended finding that under Estelle versus Gamble--

01:17:30 - Why won't you admit that was your ruling?

01:17:32 Are you ashamed of it?

01:17:33 - I'm not, I'm answering the question.

01:17:35 I applied Estelle versus Gamble.

01:17:36 - But was that your ruling?

01:17:38 - My recommendation was that the petitioner's

01:17:41 serious medical needs were being denied

01:17:43 by keeping her in a men's facility.

01:17:45 - A violation of the Eighth Amendment, right?

01:17:47 - That's correct.

01:17:48 - Okay, and how big was Miss Shelby, Mr. McLean?

01:17:53 - I don't have a specific recollection.

01:17:57 Your colleague just suggested that she was

01:18:00 more than six feet tall.

01:18:02 - And you told the board of prisons,

01:18:03 well, she'll be okay.

01:18:06 The other women in the female prison will be okay

01:18:09 because it's only hypothetical that Miss Shelby,

01:18:14 Mr. McLean would re-offend again

01:18:17 after he's already raped a nine-year-old boy

01:18:20 and a 17-year-old girl and has been sending

01:18:23 child porn through the mail.

01:18:25 You said there's low chance he'll re-offend again.

01:18:28 Did you say that?

01:18:30 - Senator Kennedy, I based my decision on the record evidence.

01:18:32 - But am I right?

01:18:33 Did you conclude that?

01:18:35 - I don't have a specific recollection of that.

01:18:37 I did recommend that after finding

01:18:41 a constitutional violation--

01:18:42 - What were you thinking in saying there's no,

01:18:46 it's only hypothetical that she would re-offend?

01:18:50 - The facts of the case were that the petitioner

01:18:53 had last engaged in a contact offense 30 years ago.

01:18:58 The petitioner had not engaged in any contact offense.

01:19:01 In addition, the medical evidence made clear

01:19:04 that for the last five years,

01:19:06 the petitioner was sober and hormonally entirely a female

01:19:10 and there was no evidence--

01:19:11 - The Board of Prisons didn't agree with you.

01:19:14 I'm gonna run out of time here.

01:19:17 You're really a political activist, aren't you?

01:19:20 - I am not, sir.

01:19:21 - But your record demonstrates otherwise.

01:19:23 - I disagree.

01:19:24 I apply the law to the facts and come to a fair decision.

01:19:28 All of my decisions that have been appealed,

01:19:30 particularly this one, the district judge adopted my report

01:19:33 and recommendation in full and the government did not move

01:19:36 for a stay of the decision.

01:19:38 - Well, Judge Netburn, I wanna continue

01:19:46 on this line of questioning.

01:19:47 In your court, what matters more,

01:19:51 the rights of individuals or your political ideology?

01:19:55 - I apply the law to the facts.

01:19:58 - I asked a question, which matters more?

01:20:01 - Well, my political ideology doesn't matter at all.

01:20:03 - Okay, so I don't believe you.

01:20:05 And I think this case demonstrates

01:20:08 that you are willing to subjugate the rights of individuals

01:20:12 to satisfy your political ideology.

01:20:14 This case involves a male defendant

01:20:19 who raped a nine-year-old boy.

01:20:23 Was he guilty of that?

01:20:26 - Yes, the petitioner pled guilty to that.

01:20:28 - Okay, so he raped a nine-year-old boy.

01:20:29 He also raped a 17-year-old girl.

01:20:32 Was he guilty of that?

01:20:33 - He pled guilty.

01:20:35 The petitioner pled guilty to that crime as well.

01:20:37 - So was he guilty?

01:20:38 - I hope so because she pled guilty to it.

01:20:41 - He was a he when he did this.

01:20:43 - That's correct.

01:20:44 - And also criminal deviant conduct,

01:20:47 which the record doesn't disclose what that was exactly.

01:20:51 Then, after serving in prison,

01:20:54 Mr. McClain was released for parole,

01:20:59 but then violated the terms of parole by having internet

01:21:02 and was sent back to prison.

01:21:03 One year after being released again,

01:21:06 he was convicted of having child pornography.

01:21:08 Is that correct?

01:21:09 - I'm unclear on exactly the timeframe that you're at,

01:21:13 but the petitioner was convicted

01:21:14 of distributing child pornography.

01:21:16 - Child pornography that was images of adults

01:21:19 violently raping children.

01:21:21 - Abhorrent conduct.

01:21:22 - Okay.

01:21:23 - For which there are real victims.

01:21:26 - And this individual, six foot two,

01:21:30 biologically a man, a minute ago you said

01:21:33 that when this man decided that he was a she,

01:21:38 you said this individual was, quote, I wrote it down,

01:21:41 "sober and entirely a female."

01:21:45 That phrase struck me as remarkable.

01:21:47 Did this individual have male genitalia?

01:21:49 - I think what I said, or at least what I--

01:21:51 - That is a verbatim quote, "entirely a female."

01:21:54 - Sorry, what I meant to say was "hormonally a female."

01:21:56 - Okay, but that's not entirely.

01:21:59 Did this individual have male genitalia?

01:22:01 - Yes.

01:22:02 - So you took a six foot two serial rapist,

01:22:07 serial child rapist with male genitalia,

01:22:13 and he said, "You know, I'd like to be in a women's prison."

01:22:16 And your answer was, "That sounds great to me."

01:22:20 Let me ask you something.

01:22:21 The other women in that prison, do they have any rights?

01:22:26 - Is that a question you're asking me?

01:22:27 - Yes, the other women in that prison,

01:22:28 do they have any rights?

01:22:29 - Of course.

01:22:30 - Do they have the right not to have a six foot two man

01:22:34 who is a repeat serial rapist put in as their cellmate?

01:22:38 - Senator Cruz, I considered the facts presented to me,

01:22:42 and I reached a decision based on what the law is.

01:22:44 - I asked you a question.

01:22:45 Do they have a right not to have a six foot two man

01:22:49 who is a serial rapist put in as their cellmate?

01:22:53 Do those women have a right to that?

01:22:54 - Every person who's incarcerated

01:22:56 has the right to be safe in their space.

01:22:59 - But you didn't think so.

01:23:00 You didn't think so.

01:23:02 And in fact, I'm gonna give some quotes from your order

01:23:04 because Senator Kennedy is right.

01:23:07 This is not a judge's order.

01:23:08 This is a political activist.

01:23:09 By the way, the beginning of your order says,

01:23:13 at birth, people are typically assigned a gender.

01:23:18 I gotta say that would astonish a lot of Americans.

01:23:20 A lot of Americans think you go to the hospital,

01:23:22 baby is born, and he's, congratulations,

01:23:25 you have a little boy, a little girl.

01:23:27 The assigned a gender, I know you went to Brown,

01:23:29 but it sounds like it's in a college faculty lounge

01:23:33 with no bearing on reality.

01:23:35 The Bureau of Prison argued what I'm saying right now,

01:23:39 that if you put this person in a female prison,

01:23:42 there will be a risk of sexual assault to the women.

01:23:44 And you know what you did?

01:23:46 You said you didn't care about the women.

01:23:47 I'm gonna quote what you wrote.

01:23:48 You wrote, quote, "The Bureau of Prison's claimed

01:23:51 "penalogical interest in protecting female prisoners

01:23:53 "from sexual violence and trauma.

01:23:56 "This interest is legitimate," that's kind of you to say,

01:23:59 "but there are no signs that petitioner

01:24:01 "is at risk of re-offending.

01:24:03 "The record is devoid of evidence of incidents

01:24:05 "of violence or assault during petitioner's incarceration

01:24:07 "when she was the perpetrator, only the victim.

01:24:10 "A theoretical risk of sexual assault by the prisoner

01:24:12 "without more cannot support the BOP's position."

01:24:15 No evidence, theoretical.

01:24:19 Have you dealt, in what universe is someone

01:24:23 who is a serial repeat child rapist

01:24:27 not at a risk of re-offending?

01:24:29 - Senator, as I do in every case--

01:24:32 - I know you've been told to repeat the line,

01:24:34 "I follow the law."

01:24:35 I asked a question, in what universe

01:24:39 is someone who is a serial repeat child rapist

01:24:43 not at risk of re-offending?

01:24:45 - Sir, I looked at the facts that were before me

01:24:47 in this case, all of the evidence,

01:24:50 including the statements of every warden

01:24:53 who had supervised this petitioner.

01:24:54 - You also wrote, "The BOP also posits

01:24:57 "that permitting petitioner to live among women

01:24:58 "will be traumatizing and possibly dangerous to them."

01:25:01 This concern is overblown.

01:25:04 I have to say, if I were the father of one of those women,

01:25:09 and you decided that my daughter's cellmate

01:25:14 was gonna be a six-foot-two man

01:25:16 who over and over and over again

01:25:18 committed violent sexual assault,

01:25:20 I would say the entire justice system is absurd,

01:25:26 and it is clear on your record,

01:25:28 your political ideology matters a heck of a lot more

01:25:31 than the rights of those women that you endangered.

01:25:35 I think you're a radical,

01:25:36 and I think you have no business being a judge.

01:25:38 - Judge Netburn, there was an opportunity

01:25:44 during your exchange with Senator Cruz

01:25:46 that you were attempting to offer a response

01:25:50 relative to the conditions under which this petitioner

01:25:55 was unsafe in the facilities in which she was being held.

01:26:01 I'd like to offer you the opportunity

01:26:02 to finish that response.

01:26:04 - So the facts that were presented to me

01:26:06 and what I relied on to make my decision

01:26:09 were that the petitioner had engaged in no violence,

01:26:14 no physical violence, no acts of sexual violence whatsoever

01:26:19 while in custody.

01:26:20 All three wardens who supervised the petitioner

01:26:24 requested that she be transferred to a women's facility

01:26:28 because of her serious medical needs.

01:26:30 In addition, the Bureau of Prisons'

01:26:33 long-time medical provider testified

01:26:36 at a two-day hearing in my courtroom

01:26:39 and recommended that the petitioner be transferred

01:26:41 because of her serious medical needs.

01:26:44 And the last thing I'll say

01:26:45 is that the Transgender Executive Council,

01:26:47 which is the body that makes decisions

01:26:49 on behalf of transgender transfer requests

01:26:53 within the Bureau of Prisons,

01:26:54 never said that the petitioner could not be transferred

01:26:58 and never, ever said that she couldn't be transferred

01:27:02 because of any risk of violence.

01:27:05 What the Transgender Executive Council

01:27:08 repeatedly said in denying the request

01:27:11 was simply that she needed to maintain her hormone levels.

01:27:16 That was the repeated justification

01:27:18 for the denial of transfer.

01:27:20 But the petitioner had reached full female hormone levels

01:27:25 before even being incarcerated.

01:27:27 At the time, the district judge in Indiana

01:27:30 who sentenced the petitioner

01:27:32 requested that she be placed in a women's facility.

01:27:35 Her hormones were entirely female at that point.

01:27:38 And so the decision by the Transgender Executive Council

01:27:41 to deny the transfer request based on this idea

01:27:45 that it was only because her hormones

01:27:48 needed to be consistent and stabilized,

01:27:51 I found was a pretext, but they never once said

01:27:54 she cannot be transferred because of violence.

01:27:56 It was always based on this idea

01:27:59 that her hormones had to be--

01:28:00 - Thank you, Judge Netburn.

01:28:01 Senator Padilla. - Judge Netburn, that's directly

01:28:02 contrary to what you reported. - Senator Padilla, Senator,

01:28:03 you all have had-- - That is directly--

01:28:05 - No, no, no, no. - No, no, no, no.

01:28:06 - You're gonna follow up. - No, no, no, no.

01:28:07 - We're gonna-- - No, there is no follow up.

01:28:09 - That's exactly how it works. - No, there is not.

01:28:11 - That is exactly how it works.

01:28:12 - Look, look, we're gonna allow the agent to ask questions.

01:28:15 - And she just directly contradicted her own report.

01:28:18 I'm just gonna read her own words.

01:28:19 - I just said it's fair, Madam Chair.

01:28:20 - Because it's exactly the opposite of what she said.

01:28:22 Your own report says, quote. - Senators, I gave both of you

01:28:26 more time to finish your line of questioning.

01:28:29 - But then you said you allowed the witness to finish her.

01:28:32 I allowed the witness to finish her response.

01:28:35 - I allowed the witness to finish her response.

01:28:38 - You're abusing her status of chair.

01:28:40 - I understand that you're scared of the facts.

01:28:42 - I have status of chair. - Madam Chair.

01:28:45 - Senator Padilla, you can't just open up testimony

01:28:48 and then not give us a chance to cross examine.

01:28:50 - She has an obligation to explain why she directly

01:28:51 contradicted what she wrote in her report.

01:28:53 She says in her report, the Bureau of Prisons

01:28:56 claimed penological interest is in protecting

01:28:58 female prisoners from sexual violence and trauma.

01:29:01 She just told you the Bureau of Prisons didn't say

01:29:04 there was a concern about sexual violence and trauma.

01:29:07 Those are directly contradictory,

01:29:08 and why are you contradicting what you wrote in your report?

01:29:11 - And what are you trying to have, Senator Padilla?

01:29:14 - No, wait, point of order. - I believe--

01:29:15 - Senator Padilla, what are you trying to have, Madam Chair?

01:29:17 - Are you gonna let her answer that question,

01:29:19 or you don't want her to answer that question?

01:29:21 - Senator Padilla, this is a cover-up.

01:29:23 - Madam Chair, are you afraid of the answer to that question?

01:29:26 - Senator Padilla, this is ridiculous.

01:29:28 - Senator Padilla, this is ridiculous.

01:29:31 - Senator Padilla, please hold my time.

01:29:32 - Clearly, you're afraid of the answer to that question.

01:29:35 This is absurd. - Thank you.

01:29:37 To the nominees before us, appreciate your patience

01:29:41 and your dignity.

01:29:43 I would like to expand on a topic that I raised

01:29:50 in my introductions to the nominees from California,

01:29:54 and that's the value, not just the importance,

01:29:56 but the value of diversity in our judiciary.

01:30:01 Clearly, you each bring tremendous,

01:30:04 both life as well as professional experience,

01:30:08 which I think strengthens the judiciary

01:30:11 when more perspectives are considered in the deliberations.

01:30:16 So I wanna extend it further,

01:30:18 because it's not just the thoughts and experiences

01:30:20 that you bring to the table.

01:30:22 I think it also has tremendous value

01:30:25 when the public views the judiciary.

01:30:28 When decisions are made, sometimes for the prosecution side,

01:30:33 sometimes for the defense side,

01:30:37 knowing that people are seen,

01:30:39 knowing that people are heard adds to the public confidence

01:30:41 in the decisions and in the results of the process.

01:30:46 But going one step further,

01:30:48 it's not just those who sit on the bench

01:30:51 that are important in this process.

01:30:54 I know everybody who sits on the bench

01:30:56 relies on law clerks,

01:30:59 and I think you can each speak to an experience

01:31:01 you've had as a clerk

01:31:03 and what that quality clerkship experience did for you.

01:31:08 The opportunity to serve as a law clerk

01:31:11 is oftentimes a launching pad for a successful career

01:31:16 in the legal profession,

01:31:18 whether it's the public sector or in the private sector.

01:31:22 Get statistics show that quality clerkship opportunities

01:31:26 and experiences often leave out equally qualified

01:31:31 young lawyers of color.

01:31:35 And so my question is,

01:31:38 do you agree with the premise

01:31:39 that more diversity is better for the judiciary?

01:31:43 If not, I'd be interested in hearing why.

01:31:46 If you do agree, then what would you do

01:31:48 if you're fortunate enough to be confirmed

01:31:50 to pursue increasing diversity in your courtroom,

01:31:55 starting with the judge court?

01:31:57 - Thank you, Senator.

01:31:59 I do agree with the premise of your question.

01:32:02 And one of the things that I do now

01:32:06 is I do outreach to the traditional places,

01:32:11 law schools, things of that nature.

01:32:16 But also I look for opportunities to mentor

01:32:19 and opportunities to do non-traditional outreach

01:32:23 because of the fact that it is my experience

01:32:25 that there are some very talented people

01:32:30 who might be interested in entering the pipeline

01:32:33 either into the law or into the judiciary

01:32:36 that self-select out

01:32:37 because either they don't see themselves in that space

01:32:42 or because the opportunities

01:32:47 don't present themselves to them.

01:32:49 So I would continue to do the work that I do

01:32:53 to make sure that the outreach I do

01:32:54 is very expansive and inclusive.

01:32:57 - Thank you.

01:32:58 Judge Wong.

01:32:59 - Thank you.

01:33:00 I agree that diversity is very important.

01:33:03 As a judge, I think it's important to cast a wide net

01:33:05 in interviewing potential law clerks.

01:33:08 And as a sitting judge,

01:33:10 what I have done in addition

01:33:12 is talk to law students also about externing

01:33:14 and the value of externing as well as clerking.

01:33:18 And so I've given talks at various law schools

01:33:22 and with law students about the value in one's career,

01:33:27 but also in the experience of being able

01:33:29 to see the courts in action

01:33:33 and for people to seek out these opportunities.

01:33:36 - Thank you.

01:33:38 Judge Zephyr.

01:33:39 - Thank you, Senator Padilla.

01:33:40 I agree with your value statement

01:33:42 and I agree with the comments of my colleagues.

01:33:45 I'll just say that one of the things that I have done

01:33:47 as a judge looking for law clerks

01:33:50 is to look not just at the sort of traditional

01:33:53 elite law schools that tend to be feeders

01:33:56 to the federal clerkship path,

01:33:58 but to look for very high performing students

01:34:01 at other law schools.

01:34:03 I've also had great success hiring law clerks

01:34:06 who came to the law after prior careers.

01:34:10 I had a law clerk who was a chef.

01:34:12 I had a law clerk who was an artist.

01:34:14 I had a law clerk who was a minister.

01:34:16 And I think bringing in that diversity of life experiences

01:34:19 also was valuable.

01:34:20 Thank you.

01:34:22 - Madam Chair.

01:34:22 - Ms. Newman.

01:34:24 - I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

01:34:26 - Yes, Senator Kennedy.

01:34:30 - Madam Chair, with respect,

01:34:33 you allowed the witness to go at length

01:34:36 and to change her testimony

01:34:38 without her being subject to cross-examination.

01:34:44 Are you going to allow us to have

01:34:46 a second round of questioning?

01:34:48 - No, no, Senator Kennedy.

01:34:50 - What are you trying to cover up here?

01:34:52 - There is no cover up.

01:34:53 And Mr. Padilla, Senator Padilla,

01:34:55 you'll be allowed the 30 seconds remaining.

01:34:57 - I want to appeal the ruling of the chair.

01:34:58 - Thank you, I'd like to hear the responses

01:35:01 from the two witnesses.

01:35:02 - Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

01:35:03 I'd like to appeal the ruling of the chair.

01:35:06 You allowed a witness--

01:35:06 - Your point of order was offered and responded to.

01:35:10 - And I appeal the ruling of the chair

01:35:11 and call for a roll call vote.

01:35:13 You allowed a witness, let me state my case.

01:35:16 - Sure.

01:35:17 - With respect, you allowed a witness

01:35:19 to go on for four or five minutes,

01:35:21 change her testimony, knowing full well

01:35:25 that neither Senator Cruz nor I could cross-examine her

01:35:30 about her perjury.

01:35:31 - Senator Kennedy, would you allow the witnesses

01:35:33 to finish responding to my question

01:35:34 and then we can act on your request?

01:35:37 - And I think we should have a second round.

01:35:40 - Senator Kennedy.

01:35:41 - And I am appealing the ruling of the chair.

01:35:44 - Senator Kennedy, would you allow the witnesses

01:35:45 to finish responding to my question

01:35:47 and then we can respond to your request?

01:35:48 - And I am appealing the ruling of the chair.

01:35:49 - Senator Kennedy, I gave you a response

01:35:52 to your request of a second round of questioning.

01:35:56 I have no intention on allowing

01:35:58 a second round of questioning.

01:36:00 - And I'm appealing your ruling.

01:36:01 - That is fine, there is no procedure

01:36:03 that allows for a roll call.

01:36:05 There is no procedure that allows

01:36:07 for a roll call vote in this committee.

01:36:10 This is a hearing, I have the gavel,

01:36:12 I have responded to your request.

01:36:13 - No, this is the cover up, Madam Chair.

01:36:15 This is a very big cover up.

01:36:16 - And I am going to return to Senator Kennedy's--

01:36:18 - I will say I've never seen a chair try so hard

01:36:20 to protect a witness and avoid answering

01:36:22 why she just lied on the stand with her own words,

01:36:25 her own opinion.

01:36:26 - Thank you so much for your request.

01:36:31 It has been heard, responded to, Senator Padilla, your--

01:36:34 - There will be no cross-examination.

01:36:36 The witness shall be allowed to lie

01:36:38 and no one will ask a question.

01:36:38 - But I wanna be fair, I understand your ruling.

01:36:39 I think I have the floor.

01:36:40 - You have been-- - Your ruling is--

01:36:43 - You asked for was there gonna be

01:36:44 another round of questioning.

01:36:45 - Well, I'm raising the second point of order.

01:36:46 - The answer is no. - Your ruling is

01:36:47 that we can't have a second round

01:36:49 that the chair can allow a witness

01:36:51 after we're finished with cross-examination,

01:36:53 go on at length, change her testimony,

01:36:56 potentially perjure herself.

01:36:58 We're not allowed to cross-examine

01:37:01 in a second round of questioning,

01:37:03 which we do all the time.

01:37:05 - The answer is no, Senator Kennedy.

01:37:06 - You told me I can't and now I ask for a roll call vote

01:37:10 to appeal your ruling.

01:37:11 - Madam Chair-- - Do you say I can do that?

01:37:13 - No, you cannot.

01:37:14 - Madam Chair, point of personal privilege, please.

01:37:17 Madam Chair, point of personal--

01:37:18 - Senator Hirono.

01:37:19 - We have been witness to, literally witness badgering

01:37:22 and now badgering of the chair.

01:37:24 She has issued her ruling.

01:37:26 There is no appeal.

01:37:28 Some of us would like to get on with this hearing.

01:37:30 - I'm sure you would.

01:37:31 - And to have to sit here and listen to all of you

01:37:34 go off time and time and time again,

01:37:37 and I just want to commend this witness,

01:37:39 this nominee for her comportment

01:37:41 because of what her comportment says to me

01:37:43 is that she is going to be a damn good judge.

01:37:47 Can we get on with it, Madam Chair?

01:37:49 - So does every Democrat Senator

01:37:52 want to cover up the facts here?

01:37:54 Is any Democrat Senator interested

01:37:55 in the direct nontraditional--

01:37:56 - Senator, we'll be returning to Senator Padilla's

01:37:59 questioning or we will adjourn today's hearing.

01:38:02 - You want to adjourn, go ahead, you can do that.

01:38:03 - Senator Padilla, I want to give you your 30 seconds.

01:38:06 - You might as well because the questions are gonna be

01:38:08 are you more handsome or beautiful or brilliant?

01:38:11 And let's avoid the facts.

01:38:12 - Madam Chair, what I would like is an opportunity

01:38:15 for the two remaining witnesses to respond to my question.

01:38:19 And I would really like all members of the committee

01:38:22 to pay them the respect they deserve

01:38:26 and to let them finish.

01:38:28 Ms. Newman.

01:38:29 - Thank you, Senator.

01:38:32 I do agree with the premise of your question.

01:38:34 I did have the opportunity to complete two clerkships,

01:38:37 one at the Vermont Supreme Court

01:38:38 and one at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

01:38:41 When I was at the Second Circuit before Judge Peter Hall,

01:38:44 I was his third slate of clerks,

01:38:48 very beginning of his career.

01:38:50 And he discussed then and made it a point

01:38:52 to try to attract and hire a very diverse set of law clerks

01:38:57 in the broadest sense, geographically diverse

01:39:01 from different schools,

01:39:02 many who had had different careers before law school.

01:39:06 He felt that that really helped his decision-making process.

01:39:10 And I hope if I'm so fortunate to be confirmed

01:39:13 to do the same.

01:39:14 - Thank you, Judge Valenzuela.

01:39:16 - Thank you, Senator Padilla.

01:39:19 I agree with your statement

01:39:21 and I agree with the comments of my colleagues.

01:39:23 The only thing I would add is that

01:39:26 I think the mentoring component of that is very important.

01:39:30 And that's why for the past, I think five years or so,

01:39:34 I have served on the California

01:39:36 Judges Association's Outreach Committee.

01:39:40 And I've strived through that committee

01:39:43 to encourage and inspire the next generation of lawyers.

01:39:47 - Thank you to all the nominees for your responses

01:39:51 and again, for your composure and your dignity.

01:39:55 And I will apologize to you for the decorum

01:39:58 of some of my colleagues here today.

01:40:00 Thank you, Madam Chair.

01:40:01 - Thank you so much, Senator Padilla.

01:40:03 Thank you to our nominees here.

01:40:06 If there are further questions that are gonna be,

01:40:09 would like to be offered,

01:40:10 the deadline for submitting those is May 29th by 5 p.m.

01:40:15 Questions for the record will still be due to the nominees

01:40:19 by that date and time.

01:40:21 The record will likewise remain open

01:40:23 until that time to submit letters and similar materials.

01:40:27 Everyone, please plan accordingly.

01:40:29 With that, this hearing is adjourned.

01:40:31 (laughs)

01:40:33 (silence)

01:40:35 (silence)

01:40:37 [BLANK_AUDIO]

Dick Durbin Leads Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearing For Pending Nominees

Category

Transcript

Recommended