Today, Republicans in the United States Senate blocked Caitlin Halligan's nomination to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She had been nominated to fill the 9th seat on this 11-seat court -- which is now more than a quarter vacant -- and today's filibuster is unwarranted and irresponsible.
Based on her record, it is indisputable that Ms. Halligan should be confirmed to this important court.
Halligan currently serves as General Counsel at the New York County District Attorney's Office, which investigates and prosecutes approximately 100,000 cases a year. Halligan served as New York State's Solicitor General for nearly six years, where she managed the 45 attorneys in the State Attorney General's office and was in charge of overseeing hundreds of court filings annually in the federal and state appellate courts. She has served as counsel of record in nearly 50 matters before the United States Supreme Court. She also has argued five cases before the Supreme Court and many cases before both federal and state appellate courts. Ms. Halligan clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Stephen Breyer and on the D.C. Circuit for Judge Patricia Wald. She received her A.B. with honors from Princeton University in 1988 and her J.D. with high honors from Georgetown University Law Center, where she served as managing editor of the Georgetown Law Journal.
Ms. Halligan has broad bipartisan support from the law enforcement and legal communities. To give just a few examples, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau support Ms. Halligan, as does the New York Association of Chiefs of Police and the New York State Sheriff's Association. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, a non-partisan peer review body, rated Ms. Halligan "unanimous well-qualified" to serve on the D.C. Circuit.
Despite Ms. Halligan's extraordinarily strong record, Republicans filibustered her nomination -- refusing to allow for a simple up-or-down vote.
Worse still, even consensus judicial nominees are being needlessly delayed by the Senate Republicans. There is a vacancy crisis in our courts, and it could be cut by more than a quarter if the Senate would simply confirm the nominees who already have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In addition to Ms. Halligan, 20 nominees have been approved by the Judiciary Committee after thorough consideration, but have been waiting -- many for months -- to be confirmed. Seventeen of these judicial nominees have been approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee -- there is no stated opposition to their nominations, and no explanation has been provided for why they cannot be confirmed immediately. On average, President Obama's judicial nominees have waited five times as long as President Bush's judicial nominees to be confirmed after receiving Judiciary Committee approval.
As Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said, there is "an urgent need for the political branches to find a long-term solution to this recurring problem," which has "created acute difficulties for some judicial districts" and left some sitting judges "burdened with extraordinary caseloads."
It is time for the Senate to act responsibly and to meet this need.
MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE ELECTIONS FOR JUDGES. MAYBE WE SHOULD RESTRICT TERMS TO SO-MANY YEARS. THE ABA SAYS THERE ARE MANY NOMINEES WHO ARE JUST NOT QUALIFIED. THIS LADY DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE AMONNG THEM. MUST BE HER POLITICS. THAT'LL DO IT EVERY TIME.
Unfortunately, if Justice Roberts is saying the 2 sides of government need to fix this ongoing problem, his ideas may be very GOP leaning ideas that could further cripple the Progressives and the middle of the road choices we'd like to see Judges be more of. A Balanced Court should be the Primary Goal. As we've all seen with the GOP in power, the judges who are balanced thinkers are blocked from serving.
Help!
That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention.
there I fixed the headline for you
Semper fi
And as for the "mistake" of being appointed for life ... May I point you to the controversies in the West VA and Miss Supreme Courts, of seats basically being purchased by the rich and powerful for their own ends. If you can propose a less-corruptible middle ground, go for it. But corruption avoidance was what the founders were after (they would have frowed on Justice Thomas, for both his skin color (yeah, they certainly weren't perfect), and for his rank conflicts of interests.
Enemy Compatants - In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled the POTUS has the legal authority yet later Halligan filed a brief the the POTUS did not.
Abortion - Halligan said pro-life protestors had engaged in "extortion". The SC soundly rejected her theory 8-1. That even LIBERAL judges on the SC who rejected it.
Immigation - Halligan filed a brief with the SC saying the NLRB should have the legal authority to force companies into "back pay" for illegal aliens. The problem is illegals are not even legally allowed to work.
She argued for things that went against what the courts have already spoken to be clear. In her mind HER own views were better than many courts. That's activism without regard for the law of the land.
Pro-life protesters take remarkable, and sometimes scary and violent, measures to promote their cause. I don't remember the specific case you'e referring to, but I would say that judges actually judging .. well, it's their job.
As for immig[r]ation, the issue is the point at which predatory behavior by the employer -- who knew or intentionally avoided knowing that the employee was an illegal immigrant -- is reaching the point of slavery, indentured servitude, or is just plain despicable. The issue of back-pay does not impinge on the taxpayer, and limits the financial incentive of the employer to hire them in the first place, so why not?
As for "Enemy Combatants," it's such a new and broad field and subject, there's going to be disputes for a long, long time to come. In the US vs. not, US citizen vs. not (and there's never going to be a court case on killing the American citizen in Yemen, is there?), the material witness warrant jazzola, etc etc etc ...
:-)