• 5 months ago
At today's Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) questioned judicial nominees about their records.

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 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to the nominees. Thank you for being here.
00:05 Ms. Johnson, if I could just start with you. You work at a large corporate firm here in
00:13 town, I think. Is that right? Yes, Senator.
00:19 According to the materials you submitted, you have represented, among other clients,
00:22 the Boeing Company since 2013. Do I have that right?
00:26 That's correct. According to the same materials for much of
00:29 this representation, you served as the primary or the lead counsel for Boeing. Is that correct?
00:36 Is that litigation still ongoing? No, it is not.
00:40 There's a case in particular I want to ask you about. It's a case that featured breach
00:43 of contract claim, fraud claims, and trade secret claims by a company called Alabama
00:48 Aircraft Industries. They allege that Boeing stole proprietary information when the two
00:53 companies were working together on a joint bid for an Air Force contract.
00:57 Now a federal jury had already determined that Boeing owed this company $2.1 million
01:04 for violating the bidding contract and for breaching a nondisclosure agreement. Boeing
01:09 had previously in 2006 paid a $615 million settlement to DOJ to settle claims that it
01:17 had illegally obtained competitor's information with lucrative government contracts.
01:23 And as I'm sure you're aware, Boeing has been at the center of major, major concerns about
01:28 whistleblower retaliation, safety of its planes. In fact, we've heard testimony right here
01:31 in this committee about all of that. Here's what I'm getting at. Boeing has been -- Boeing
01:38 has engaged in corporate behavior in a pattern going back years now that, shall we say, is
01:43 less than model. Do you have any thoughts about your representation
01:47 in this company, any regrets, any concerns?
01:52 In my work as an advocate, I have been duty-bound to zealously advocate for my client's best
01:59 interests and that is what I have done. As a neutral judge, I am very mindful that my
02:05 role instead would be to apply faithfully and impartially the law to the specific facts
02:12 that appear before me and that is what I would do.
02:15 No moral qualms at all?
02:18 I believe that it has always been a strength of mine to be able to see the shared humanity
02:27 in every one of my clients, no matter the issue, and I understand that as a judge, my
02:32 role would be to fairly and impartially apply the law, no matter the parties or the issue
02:38 that was before me, and that is what I would do.
02:41 Well, shared humanity. This is a corporation, though, isn't it? It's one of the biggest
02:44 corporations in the world.
02:45 It is.
02:46 And one of the most profitable corporations in the world. I assume you chose to represent
02:53 them voluntarily, right? You weren't forced to represent Boeing.
02:57 It was the case I was assigned to at my firm.
02:59 But you continued to do it. You served as lead counsel, I thought. There's multiple
03:03 pieces of litigation in which you served as primary lead counsel for Boeing, correct?
03:09 There are multiple Boeing matters that I've handled.
03:11 Okay, let me ask you about a different corporation that you've represented. The 3M Corporation,
03:16 a huge multinational conglomerate. In this case, the plaintiff was an individual named
03:21 Jonathan Vaughn. He was an Iraq war veteran. He alleged that he'd suffered hearing loss
03:25 stemming from his use of defective earplugs manufactured by your client. Vaughn was awarded
03:31 $2.2 million in that case.
03:33 Here's a report from the case. The jury decided that 3M's earplugs were to blame for his current
03:37 hearing impairment, while also determining the earplugs were unreasonably dangerous,
03:42 according to the verdict form. 3M misrepresented the quality of the earplugs and was negligent
03:48 in their design. The report goes on to note that at the time of this verdict, this was
03:52 the ninth of 15 cases against 3M to go against them in litigation over these earplugs. Any
04:03 conclusions or reflections on your involvement in that case?
04:06 Senator, I've had a varied practice handling cases that span the spectrum of legal issues,
04:12 and representing a wide range of parties throughout my career. And I believe that the litigation
04:20 matters and the variation in the work that I have done has given me a very strong and
04:24 versatile litigation skill set and a comfort in the courtroom that would serve me well
04:28 were I to be confirmed to be a judge on the D.C. Supreme Court.
04:31 Okay, so you're not concerned is what I take from it. I mean, you don't have any regrets
04:34 about representing either of these corporations in these various matters?
04:39 I believe that I have had a strong litigation practice throughout my career.
04:45 Well, I heard that part, but I'm just asking if you have any regrets, if you have any qualms.
04:49 It sounds like you don't, which is fine. I just want to - I mean, obviously you're a
04:52 very talented person. You've done terrific work. You were made partner at a very early
04:57 age, so you have a lot of skill. I'm just trying to figure out why you've chosen to
05:03 use it for these particular clients.
05:07 I do not have regrets about my career. I believe that I have developed a strong litigation
05:12 skill set that would serve me well as a judge.
05:16 Okay, fair enough, fair enough. I have concerns, obviously. I don't love the representation.
05:23 You know, these big corporate clients, these huge corporations, they've got so much influence
05:29 in this capital. They've got so much influence in our economy. They've got probably every
05:35 law firm in America lined up to represent them.
05:38 And I just think sometimes we've got to ask ourselves, I mean, do these people doing these
05:44 kind of things, ripping off people like Jonathan Vaughn, I mean, do they really need our representation?
05:49 Obviously every client's entitled to a vigorous defense, sure. But we still have to ask ourselves
05:54 - I'm an attorney myself. We still have to ask ourselves as attorneys, should we be representing
05:58 them? I mean, do we want to do that?
06:00 Obviously it's your judgment, so it's - I'm not suggesting you've done anything wrong.
06:03 I mean, it's 100% your judgment and you did your job well. But I have to say, it concerns
06:09 me a little bit.
06:10 I'm almost out of time. Mr. McKenzie, I just want to ask you one thing really quickly here
06:13 before my time expires. You wrote a letter in 2021 asking then Vice President Pence to
06:24 invoke the 25th Amendment. I just want to quote you to make sure I get this right. You
06:28 asked - that's the removal from office provision, the unfitness from office provision of the
06:32 Constitution. So you urged then VP Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment against then President
06:37 Trump to declare to the leaders of Congress that the President's unable to discharge the
06:42 powers and duties of his office. You went on to say that then President Trump was unfit
06:46 for office and a reckless and wanton threat to the Constitution. Does that still reflect
06:51 your views?
06:52 Senator, I do want to correct the record. I didn't write the letter. I, along with hundreds
07:01 of other folks, signed on to the letter because we were concerned about the events of January
07:06 6th.
07:07 Okay. You signed the letter, though.
07:09 Absolutely.
07:10 Does it - and does that still represent your views?
07:15 I signed the letter, Senator. I was concerned about January 6th.
07:18 Yeah. And you haven't changed your view at all that the ex-President is unfit for office,
07:23 reckless and wanton threat to the Constitution?
07:26 Under the Judicial Code of Ethics, if that matter were to come before me, it would be
07:31 inappropriate for me to state my position at this time. So I'm precluded from stating
07:36 that position.
07:37 Well, you - I'm just trying to figure out if your view's changed. I think you've answered
07:42 my question. I think your answer is you stand by it. You signed it. You stand by it. Is
07:47 that fair to say? I'm not trying to get how you rule on a case. I'm just trying to figure
07:52 out - you signed a letter. I just want to make sure that you haven't changed your views.
07:55 I think you've answered my question. I think you said you stand by it. Don't let me put
07:58 words in your mouth, but is that correct? You signed it. You stand by it. Is that fair
08:02 to say?
08:03 It is correct that I signed the letter.
08:04 Okay. We'll leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Recommended