Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
LAW AND JUSTICE, HERITAGE
ACTION, LIBERTY COUNCIL, FAMILY
RESEARCH COUNCIL, EAGLE FORUM,
AND THERE ARE OTHERS.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MADAM PRESIDENT.
THE
SENATOR FROM VERMONT.
I UNDERSTAND MORNING
MORNING
BUSINESS WILL NOW CLOSE.
BUSINESS IS CLOSED.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE
SENATE WILL PROCEED TO EXECUTIVE
SESSION TO CONSIDER THE
FOLLOWING NOMINATION WHICH THE
CLERK WILL REPORT.
NOMINATION, THE
JUDICIARY, CAITLIN HALLIGAN OF
NEW YORK TO BE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
UNDER THE
PREVIOUS ORDER, THERE WILL BE
TIME FOR DEBATE UNTIL NOON
EQUALLY DIVIDED IN THE USUAL
FORM.
THANK YOU, MADAM
PRESIDENT.
I HAVE HEARD SOME OF THE PEOPLE
WHO OPPOSE MISS HALLIGAN WERE
ALSO SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE WHO
OPPOSED AN EFFORT IN THE --
SUCCESSFUL EFFORT IN THE
CONGRESS TO ACTUALLY PROTECT
POLICE OFFICERS A FEW YEARS AGO,
SO I -- I PUT THAT IN -- I PUT
THAT IN CONTEXT, AND IT'S
PROBABLY WHY SO MANY LAW
ENFORCEMENT GROUPS SUPPORT MISS
HALLIGAN, BECAUSE SHE STOOD UP
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, UNLIKE SOME
OF THE GROUPS WE HAVE HEARD
ABOUT WHO OPPOSE HER WHO SOUGHT
TO MAKE THE LIFE OF POLICE
OFFICERS MORE DANGEROUS.
BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE STAND AT A
CROSSROADS TODAY.
VOTING TO END THE PARTISAN
FILIBUSTER OF THIS JUDICIAL
NOMINATION IS AS IMPORTANT AS IT
WAS WHEN THE SENATE DID SO IN
CONNECTION WITH THE NOMINATION
OF JUDGE McCONNELL TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF
RHODE ISLAND EARLIER THIS YEAR.
IF WE ALLOW THE PARTISAN
FILIBUSTER TO GO FORWARD, THEN
WE WILL BE SETTING A NEW
STANDARD THAT NO NOMINEE CAN
MEET IF THEY WISH TO BE
CONFIRMED TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT.
WHEN I HEAR REPUBLICAN SENATORS
WHO JUST A FEW YEARS AGO ARGUED
THAT FILIBUSTERS AGAINST
JUDICIAL NOMINEES WERE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND SAID THAT
THEY WOULD NEVER SUPPORT SUCH A
FILIBUSTER, AND THOSE WHO CARE
ABOUT THE JUDICIARY AND THE
SENATE NEED TO STEP FORWARD AND
DO THE RIGHT THING, YOU CAN'T
SAY THAT FILIBUSTERS AGAINST
JUDICIAL NOMINEES ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEN YOU HAVE A
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, BUT
SUDDENLY WE HAVE TO HAVE
FILIBUSTERS WHEN IT'S A
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT.
EVEN ON THE STANDARDS THAT HAVE
DRIVEN THE APPROVAL RATING OF
THE CONGRESS TO ALL-TIME LOW FOR
HYPOCRISY, THIS GOES EVEN BEYOND
THAT STANDARD.
WE HAVE TO END THE FILIBUSTER
NOW, PROCEED TO VOTE ON THIS
EXTRAORDINARY WELL-QUALIFIED
WOMAN.
MISS HALLIGAN NOMINATED FOR ONE
OF THE THREE VACANCIES ON THE
IMPORTANT D.C. CIRCUIT IS A
HIGHLY REGARDED APPELLATE
ADVOCATE.
SHE HAS THE KIND OF IMPECCABLE
CREDENTIALS IN BOTH PUBLIC
SERVICE AND PRIVATE PRACTICE
THAT HAS BEEN LOOKED FOR BY --
IN THE PAST BY BOTH DEMOCRATIC
AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AND
MAKES HER UNQUESTIONABLY
QUALIFIED TO SERVE ON THE D.C.
CIRCUIT.
HER NOMINATION REMINDS ME OF
THAT OF JOHN ROBERTS WHEN HE WAS
CONFIRMED BY EVERY SINGLE
DEMOCRAT AND EVERY SINGLE
REPUBLICAN IN THE D.C. CIRCUIT
IN 2003.
NOW, I CERTAINLY DO NOT AGREE
WITH EVERY POSITION HE HAD TAKEN
OR ARGUMENT HE HAD MADE AS A
HIGH-LEVEL LAWYER IN SEVERAL
VERY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN
ADMINISTRATIONS, BUT I SUPPORTED
HIS NOMINATION TO THE D.C.
CIRCUIT AS I DID TO THE SUPREME
COURT BECAUSE OF HIS LEGAL
EXCELLENCE AND ABILITY.
MADAM PRESIDENT, IT IS
FRUSTRATING TO HAVE SENATORS
TELL ME PRIVATELY THAT THEY KNOW
MISS HALLIGAN IS JUST AS
QUALIFIED AS JOHN ROBERTS WAS,
BUT GOSH, THERE IS THIS LOBBY
THAT LOBBY AND THE OTHER
LOBBY, AND THEY ARE AGAINST HER.
LOBBIES COME AND GO.
THE COURTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE
THE EPITOME OF JUSTICE IN THIS
COUNTRY.
NOW, I TRUSTED JOHN ROBERTS'
TESTIMONY TO FAIRLY APPLY THE
LAW IF CONFIRMED.
IF THAT STANDARD WHICH WE USED
FOR HIM IS APPLIED TO HER, THEN
THERE IS NO QUESTION THIS
FILIBUSTER WILL END AND CAITLIN
HALLIGAN WILL BE CONFIRMED.
BY ANY TRADITIONAL STANDARD,
CAITLIN HALLIGAN IS A SUPERBLY
QUALIFIED NOMINEE, AND SHE
SHOULD EASILY BE CONFIRMED BY
THE SENATE, TO USE THE SAME
STANDARDS THAT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN
USED.
YET THE SENATE REPUBLICAN
LEADERSHIP'S FILIBUSTER OF THIS
NOMINATION THREATENS TO SET A
NEW STANDARD THAT COULD NOT BE
MET BY ANYONE, THAT WOULDN'T
HAVE BEEN MET BY JOHN ROBERTS,
IS NOT GOING TO BE MET BY MISS
HALLIGAN IF THIS IS THE NEW
STANDARD, AND I THINK THAT'S
WRONG, I THINK IT'S UNJUSTIFIED,
I THINK IT'S DANGEROUS.
BUT IT WILL TAKE A HANDFUL OF
SENSIBLE SENATE REPUBLICANS
WILLING TO BUCK THEIR LEADERSHIP
AND SOME SINGLE-ISSUE LOBBIES.
THEY HAVE DONE IT BEFORE, THEY
SHOULD AGAIN NOW.
THOSE WHO CARE ABOUT THE
JUDICIARY BUT EVEN AS IMPORTANT,
MADAM PRESIDENT, THOSE WHO CARE
ABOUT THE SENATE NEED TO COME
FORWARD AND END THIS FILIBUSTER.
YESTERDAY, I PUT INTO THE RECORD
SOME OF THE MANY LETTERS OF
SUPPORT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM
MISS HALLIGAN'S NOMINATION, FROM
THOSE FROM ACROSS THE POLITICAL
SPECTRUM.
THESE ARE LETTERS -- THESE
LETTERS ARE A TESTAMENT BOTH TO
HER EXCEPTIONAL QUALIFICATION TO
SERVE AND TO THE FACT THAT SHE
SHOULD BE A CONSENSUS
NOMINATION, NOT A SOURCE OF
CONTROVERSY AND CONTENTION.
THEY ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT SHE
IS NOT A CLOSED MINDED
IDEOLOGUE, THE KIND OF NOMINEE
WHO HAS DEMONSTRATED NOT ONLY
LEGAL TALENT BUT ALSO A
DEDICATION OF THE RULE OF LAW
THROUGHOUT HER CAREER.
WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE NOMINEES
WITH THE QUALITIES OF MISS
HALLIGAN TO ENGAGE IN PUBLIC
SERVICE.
WE SHOULD WELCOME PEOPLE LIKE
HER ON THE FEDERAL BENCH, NOT
DENIGRATE THEM, CONCOCTED
CONTROVERSIES AND A BLATANT
MISREADING OF MISS HALLIGAN
RECORD AS AN ADVOCATE IS NO
OUTSTANDING NOMINATION.
REASON TO OBSTRUCT THIS
AND I ALSO DEMONSTRATED
YESTERDAY ANY SO-CALLED CASELOAD
CONCERN IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
FILIBUSTERING THIS NOMINATION.
THIS WAS NOT A CONCERN WE HEARD
FROM REPUBLICANS WHEN THEY VOTED
TO CONFIRM PRESIDENT BUSH'S
NOMINEES TO FILL NOT ONLY THE
NINTH SEAT BUT ALSO THE TENTH
SEAT AND THE 11th SEAT ON THIS
COURT JUST A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
SO THEY SHOULDN'T USE CASELOAD
AS AN EXCUSE TO FILIBUSTER
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S NOMINATION TO
NINTH SEAT WHEN THE
D.C. CIRCUIT'S CASELOAD HAS
INCREASED AND ESPECIALLY WITH A
LESSER CASELOAD, THEY FELT THE
NINTH AND THE TENTH AND THE
11th SEAT SHOULD BE FILLED.
THERE IS ONLY TWO DIFFERENCES
TODAY.
ONE, THE CASELOAD HAS INCREASED,
NOT DECREASED.
AND, OH, YES, IT'S A DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENT, NOT A REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENT.
BY ANY OBJECTIVE MEASURE, THE
WORK OF THE D.C. CIRCUIT HAS
GROWN, THE MULTIPLE VACANCIES
SHOULD BE FILLED, NOT PRESERVED
AND EXTENDED FOR PARTISAN
PURPOSES.
THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE
THAT EXISTS HERE IS THE MORE
THAN ONE QUARTER VACANCY LEVEL
ON THIS COURT WITH ONLY EIGHT
ACTIVE JUDGES.
GIVEN CAITLIN HALLIGAN'S
IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS AND THE
WIDESPREAD SUPPORT THERE IS FOR
HER, THERE SHOULD BE THE KIND OF
CONSENSUS NOMINATION SUPPORTED
BY SENATORS OF BOTH PARTIES WHO
SEEK TO ENSURE THE FEDERAL BENCH
BRIGHTEST.
THE BEST AND THE
CERTAINLY BY ANY STANDARD
UTILIZED IN 2005 TO END
FILIBUSTERS THAT VOTE ON
PRESIDENT BUSH'S CONTROVERSIAL
NOMINEES, THIS FILIBUSTER SHOULD
BE ENDED, THE SENATE SHOULD VOTE
ON THE NOMINATION.
THOSE SENATORS WHO CLAIM TO
SUBSCRIBE TO THE STANDARD THAT
PROHIBITS FILIBUSTERS OF
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
JUDICIAL NOMINEES EXCEPT IN
SHOULD KEEP THEIR WORD, SHOULD
KEEP THEIR WORD, MADAM
PRESIDENT, AND NOT SUPPORT THIS
FILIBUSTER.
THERE ARE NO EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT JUSTIFY THE
FILIBUSTER.
CAITLIN HALLIGAN HAS NO
CHARACTER PROBLEM, NO ETHICS
PROBLEM AND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
THIS FILIBUSTER.
CAITLIN HALLIGAN IS A SUPERBLY
QUALIFIED NOMINEE WHOSE PERSONAL
INTEGRITY AND TEMPERAMENT AND
ABILITIES HAVE BEEN ATTESTED TO
BY MANY LEAGUE LAWYERS, BOTH --
BY MANY LEADING LAWYERS, BOTH
THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ON HER SIDE
OF CASES AND THOSE WHO OPPOSE
HER SIDE ON CASES, THEY ALL
ATTEST TO HER INTEGRITY,
TEMPERAMENT AND ABILITIES.
THE SIGNERS OF THAT 2005
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, THE
SENATE DEMONSTRATED WHAT THEY
THOUGHT THAT AGREEMENT ENTAILED,
AND THEY PROCEEDED TO INVOKE
CLOTURE ON A NUMBER OF
CONTROVERSIAL NOMINATIONS.
THE SENATE INVOKED CLOTURE ON
THE NOMINATION OF JANICE ROGERS
BROWN AND THOMAS GRIFFITH TO THE
D.C. CIRCUIT, THE CIRCUIT TO
NOMINATED.
WHICH CAITLIN HALLIGAN IS ALSO
SO I URGE REPUBLICAN AND
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS TO COME
TOGETHER AND END THIS MISGUIDED
FILIBUSTER OF CAITLIN HALLIGAN'S
NOMINATION TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT.
THEY SHOULD VOTE CLOTURE ON HER
NOMINATION.
THERE IS NO BASIS UNDER ANY
APPROPRIATE STANDARD FOR
BLOCKING HER NOMINATION WITH AN
UP-OR-DOWN VOTE.
TO THE CONTRARY, CAITLIN
HALLIGAN'S IMPECCABLE
CREDENTIALS AND RECORD IS AN
ACCOMPLISH -- AS AN ACCOMPLISHED
ADVOCATE MAKE HER NOMINATION
WORTHY OF BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I WOULD SUGGEST
THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM AND
WOULD ASK THAT THE TIME BE
EQUALLY DIVIDED.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
CALL:
A SENATOR: I'D ASK THAT THE CALL
OF THE QUORUM BE DISPENSED WITH.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
I HAVE REQUESTS FOR
COMMITTEES TO MEET DURING
TODAY'S SESSION OF THE SENATE.
WHEN THEY ARE APPROVED BY THE
MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADERS.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THESE
REQUESTS BE AGREED TO.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
AND PRINTED IN THE
RECORD.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
I
I SEE THE
DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM NEW
YORK ON THE FLOOR AND I HAVE A
FEELING SHE WILL HAVE A
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THIS
SUPERB NOMINEE AND I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
THE
SENATOR FROM NEW YORK.
I'M VERY PROUD
TO SUPPORT THE NOMINATION OF
CAITLIN HALLIGAN TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
CAITLIN HALLIGAN HAS
DISTINGUISHED HERSELF FOR HER
COMMITMENT TO REASONED INTELLECT
AND PRO FOUND RESPECT FOR THE
LAW.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT APPEARS MY
COLLEAGUES ARE DETERMINED TO
CRITICIZE HER REGARDLESS OF THE
FACTS OR HER RECORD.
THE MAJOR CONCERN SEEMS TO BE
D.C. CIRCUIT.
THE WORKLOAD DEMANDS FOR THE
THIS IS NOT A REASON TO OPPOSE
THIS CANDY'S NOMINATION.
-- CANDIDATE'S NOMINATION.
IN 2008 THE SENATE VOTED TO
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SEATS ON
THE D.C. CIRCUIT FROM 12 TO 11
INCREASING THE CASELOAD FOR EACH
OF THE JUDGES.
CURRENTLY THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT
ACTIVE JUDGES ON THE D.C.
CIRCUIT LEAVING THE BENCH MORE
THAN 27% VACANT.
THAT MEANS THE U.S. CIRCUIT
COURT CURRENTLY HAS THREE
VACANCIES, THREE VACANCIES ON A
COURT HANDLING MORE THAN
1,200 CASES.
THREE VACANCIES ON A COURT THAT
HANDLES SOME OF THE MOST
COMPLICATED DECISIONS,
INCLUDING TERRORISM CASES.
TODAY WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
FILL ONE OF THESE VACANCIES ON
THE D.C. CIRCUIT, OFTEN CALLED
MOST IMPORTANT -- SECOND
MOST COURT IN THE UNITED STATES.
THE WORKLOAD HAS BEEN CONSISTENT
WHILE THE NUMBER OF CASES PER
JUDGE HAS INCREASED BY 33%.
IF MS. HALLIGAN IS CONFIRMED IT
WILL REDUCE THE CASELOAD FROM
THE CURRENT LEVEL OF 161 PENDING
CASES TO APPROXIMATELY 143 PER
JUDGE, STILL SUBSTANTIALLY
HIGHER THAN IN THE PREVIOUS
ADMINISTRATION.
THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVIEWS COMPLICATED
DECISIONS AND RULE MAKING OF
MANY FEDERAL AGENCIES AND IN
RECENT YEARS HAS HANDLED SOME OF
THE MOST IMPORTANT TERRORISM AND
DETENTION CASES SINCE THE
HORRIFIC ATTACKS ON
SEPTEMBER 11.
THESE CASES ARE COMPLEX,
REQUIRING ADDITIONAL TIME TO
ALLOW FOR THE CONSIDERATION THEY
DEMAND.
MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
RAISED CONCERNS WITH POSITIONS
MS. HALLIGAN ADVOCATED WHILE
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE NEW
YORK.
SHE FILED BRIEFS AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.
SHE WAS NOT PROMOTING HER OWN
PERSONAL VIEWS.
STATE'S
RIGHTS TO GOVERN IN TRADITIONAL
STATE LAW AREAS.
CAITLIN HALLIGAN IS A WOMAN OF
SUPERB INTELLECT, A HISTORY OF
LAUDABLE ACHIEVEMENT, AND A
RECORD OF OUTSTANDING PUBLIC
SERVICE.
NOT ONLY DOES SHE DESERVE AN
UP-OR-DOWN VOTE BUT ON THE
MERITS SHE DESERVES THE FULL
SUPPORT OF THE SENATE.
I ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO ALLOW FOR
AN UP-OR-DOWN VOTE ON CAITLIN
HALLIGAN'S NOMINATION.
LET'S DEBATE MS. HALLIGAN ON HER
MERITS.
SHE DESERVES NOTHING LESS.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE
SENATOR FROM UTAH.
I RISE TO SPEAK TODAY
IN OPPOSITION TO THE NOMINATION
OF CAITLIN HALLIGAN TO BE A
JUDGE ON THE U.S. COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT.
THE D.C. CIRCUIT IS ARGUABLY THE
MOST IMPORTANT FEDERAL APPELLATE
COURT IN OUR FEDERAL JUDICIAL
SYSTEM.
WITH PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO
REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
MADE BY COUNTLESS FEDERAL
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES.
IT IS ALSO -- HAS ALSO SERVED
IN MANY INSTANCES AS A
STEPPINGSTONE FOR JUDGES WHO
WERE LATER APPOINTED TO THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT.
AS A RESULT, THE SENATE HAS
HISTORICALLY VERY CLOSELY
SCRUTINIZED NOMINEES TO THE D.C.
CIRCUIT AND WHEN EVALUATING
PARTICULAR NOMINEES HAVE
CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE NEED
COURT.
FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES ON THAT
IN JULY, 2006, PRESIDENT BUSH
NOMINATED EMINENTLY QUALIFIED
LAWYER, PETER KEISLER, TO FILL
A SEAT ON THE D.C. CIRCUIT.
MR. KEISLER IS AMONG THE VERY
FINEST ATTORNEYS IN THE COUNTRY.
BECAUSE OF HIS NONIDEOLOGICAL
APPROACH TO THE LAW,
MR. KEISLER ENJOYS BROAD
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THROUGHOUT
THE LEGAL PROFESSION.
UNASSAILABLE LEGAL
QUALIFICATIONS, DEMOCRATIC
SENATORS BLOCKED HIS NOMINATION.
HE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY FLOOR
CONSIDERATION WHATSOEVER.
NOT EVEN A CLOTURE VOTE.
AND HIS NOMINATION LANGUISHED IN
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
AT THE TIME, A NUMBER OF
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS SENT A
LETTER TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ARGUING THAT
A NOMINEE TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT --
QUOTE -- "SHOULD UNDER NO
CIRCUMSTANCES BE CONSIDERED,
MUCH LESS CONFIRMED, BEFORE WE
FIRST ADDRESS THE VERY NEED FOR
THAT JUDGESHIP."
THE JUDGESHIP HE WOULD OCCUPY.
THESE SENATORS SPECIFICALLY
ARGUED THAT THE D.C. CIRCUIT'S
COMPARATIVELY MODEST CASE LOAD
IN 2006 SIMPLY DID NOT JUSTIFY
THE CONFIRMATION OF AN
ADDITIONAL JUDGE TO THAT COURT.
FIVE YEARS HAVE NOW PASSED, AND
MS. HALLIGAN HAS BEEN NOMINATED
TO THAT VERY SAME SEAT ON THE
D.C. CIRCUIT.
BUT THE COURT'S CASELOAD REMAINS
JUST AS MINIMAL AS IT DID THEN.
ACCORDING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE OF U.S. COURTS, THE D.C.
CIRCUIT CASELOAD PER JUDGE IS
APPROXIMATELY ONE FOURTH THAT OF
MOST OTHER FEDERAL COURTS OF
APPEALS.
IN EACH OF THE PAST TWO YEARS
REGULARLY SCHEDULED ARGUMENT
THE D.C. CIRCUIT HAS CANCELED
CASES.
DATES DUE TO LACK OF PENDING
FOR SEVERAL YEARS THE COURT HAS
EXPERIENCED THE DECLINE IN
WORKLOAD IN TERMS OF TOTAL
FILINGS, ACTIONS PER ACTIVE
JUDGE AND PEND PEELINGS.
ALMOST EVERY METRIC INDICATES
THE SAME DIRECTION.
INDEED SINCE 2006 WHEN DEMOCRATS
BLOCKED MR. KEISLER'S
NOMINATION, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
APPEALS FILED IN THE D.C.
CIRCUIT HAS DECREASED --
DECREASED -- BY 12%.
ACCORDING TO THE DEMOCRATS' OWN
STANDARDS AND PARTICULARLY WHEN
THERE ARE JUDICIAL EMERGENCIES
IN OTHER COURTS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY, NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO
CONFIRM ANOTHER JUDGE TO THE
D.C. CIRCUIT.
AND IT IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT THE
TIME FOR US TO CONSIDER
CONFIRMING A CONTROVERSIAL
WITH A RECORD OF EXTREME
VIEWS OF THE LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION.
MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
DISCUSSED THESE VIEWS SO I WILL
LIMIT MYSELF THIS MORNING TO
JUST ONE EXAMPLE.
IN 2003 WHILE SERVING AS
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF NEW YORK,
MS. HALLIGAN APPROVED AND SIGNED
A LEGAL BRIEF ARGUING THAT
HANDGUN MANUFACTURERS,
WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS SHOULD
BE HELD LIABLE FOR CRIMINAL
ACTIONS THAT INDIVIDUALS COMMIT
WITH THOSE GUNS.
THREE YEARS LATER IN 2006,
MS. HALLIGAN FILED A BRIEF
ALLEGING THAT HANDGUN
MANUFACTURERS WERE GUILTY OF
CREATING A PUBLIC NUISANCE,
THAT THEY THEMSELVES WERE GUILTY
OF CREATING A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
SUCH AN ACTIVIST APPROACH IS
BEWILDERING AND FLATLY
INCONSISTENT WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING OF THE SECOND
AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHTS UNDER
THE SECOND AMENDMENT THAT
AMERICAN CITIZEN ENJOY.
IN CONCLUSION, AS MEASURED BY
THE DEMOCRATS' OWN STANDARDS AND
THEIR PRIOR ACTIONS, NOW IS NOT
THE TIME TO CONFIRM ANOTHER
JUDGE TO THE D.C. CIRCUIT.
AND IT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE TIME
TO CONSIDER SUCH A CONTROVERSIAL
NOMINEE FOR THAT IMPORTANT
COURT.
FOR THESE REASONS I CANNOT
SUPPORT MS. HALLIGAN'S
NOMINATION AND URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO OPPOSE HER
CONFIRMATION.
THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MADAM CHAIR, I NOTE
THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
THE
SENATOR FROM UTAH.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT
SUSPENDED.
THAT THE QUORUM CALL BE
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT
THAT THE QUORUM CALL BE DIVIDED
EQUALLY.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
I NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A
QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
THE
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SPEAK AS IF
IN MORNING BUSINESS.
WE'RE IN
A QUORUM CALL.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO SUSPEND THE QUORUM
CALL.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
RESERVING THE RIGHT
TO OBJECT, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE A SET NUMBER
OF MINUTES LEFT TO DISCUSS THE
NOMINEE CAITLIN HALLIGAN, WHICH
IS THE SUBJECT HERE.
THAT IS
CORRECT.
HOW MUCH TIME DOES
THE MAJORITY HAVE LEFT?
13 -- I'M
SORRY.
EIGHT MINUTES.
OKAY.
I WOULD ASK THAT THE FINAL EIGHT
MINUTES BEFORE WE VOTE BE
RESERVED FOR THAT, AND THE
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS BE ALLOWED
TO SPEAK AS IF MORNING BUSINESS
UNTIL WE GET TO -- FOR FIVE
MINUTES.
FIVE MINUTES IS GOOD
FOR ME.
IS THERE
OBJECTION?
HEARING NONE, SO ORDERED.
THE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
THANK YOU.
I WANT TO SPEAK AS IF IN MORNING
BUSINESS TO TALK ABOUT THE BIG
ISSUE PENDING BEFORE THE SENATE,
WHICH IS THE POTENTIAL
LEGISLATION BY REPUBLICANS OR
DEMOCRATS TO CUT CONTRIBUTIONS
TO SOCIAL SECURITY.
I'M VERY WORRIED BECAUSE IN THE
LEGISLATION THAT WE CONSIDERED
LAST WEEK, WE HAD PROPOSALS TO
CUT CONTRIBUTION TOSS SOCIAL
SECURITY BY $250 BILLION, AND
THIS WAS LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY
DEMOCRATIC LEADERS AND THEN A
SEPARATE PIECE OF LEGISLATION BY
REPUBLICAN LEADERS, AND I THINK
THAT LEGISLATION WAS A MISTAKE
ON BOTH SIDES.
NOW, WE HAVE PRECIOUS FEW
BIPARTISAN INSTITUTIONS OR
CONTACTS IN THIS SENATE.
SENATOR MANCHIN AND I, ONE
DEMOCRAT, ONE REPUBLICAN
SENATOR, BOTH FRESHMEN, WE MEET
EVERY THURSDAY FOR LUNCH, AND AT
OUR THURSDAY LUNCH LAST WEEK,
SENATOR MANCHIN INITIALLY SAID
WELL, I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY, I
DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO BE ABLE
TO VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC BILL
TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY
CONTRIBUTIONS, AND I SAID WELL,
I JOIN YOU IN THAT BECAUSE I'M
NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR
THE REPUBLICAN BILL THAT CUTS
SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS.
US BOTH VOTED
PRO-SOCIAL SECURITY AND AGAINST
THE LEGISLATION BEFORE US.
I'M VERY WORRIED THAT WE ARE
FORGETTING THE LESSONS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY PLAYING OUT IN EUROPE
ON THIS SUBJECT.
THE COLLAPSE OF EUROPEAN
SOCIALISM, AS MARGARET THATCHER
SAYS, EVENTUALLY SOCIALISTS RUN
OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
THE COLLAPSE OF EUROPEAN
SOCIALISM UNDERSCORES A LESSON
THAT YOU CANNOT RUN A RETIREMENT
CONTRIBUTIONS.
SECURITY SYSTEM WITHOUT
THAT WE KNOW ALREADY THAT THE
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM IS
RUNNING SLIGHTLY IN THE RED.
CONTRIBUTIONS INTO THE SYSTEM
ARE GOING TO RUN $10 BILLION
BEHIND THE COST OF HONORING
BENEFITS TO SENIORS, BUT UNDER
WE WOULD
$250 BILLION.
UNDERFUND SOCIAL SECURITY BY
WE WOULD INCREASE THE TIDE OF
RED INK TO SOCIAL SECURITY BY 20
TIMES.
AND I THINK THAT'S A MISTAKE.
AARP TELLS US THAT SOCIAL
SECURITY IS NOT A WELFARE
PROGRAM.
IT IS A RETIREMENT SECURITY
PROGRAM PAID BY CONTRIBUTIONS OF
WORKERS, AND WE SHOULD RUN THIS
PROGRAM WITH THE CONTRIBUTION OF
WORKERS.
AND REMEMBER, IF WE MAKE THIS
DECISION TO CUT CONTRIBUTION
TOSS SOCIAL SECURITY, WE REPLACE
THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS WITH
GOVERNMENT BONDS, BUT THE
GOVERNMENT BONDS THAT WE WOULD
ASK SENIORS TO TRUST NO LONGER
HAVE A AAA CREDIT RATING FROM
STANDARD AND POOR'S.
IT'S BASICALLY ASKING SENIORS TO
TRUST US.
NOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
DETAILS OF THE DEMOCRATIC BILL
AND THE REPUBLICAN BILL, YOU SEE
ANOTHER DISTURBING TREND.
THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN
BILLS BOTH DEPEND ON REVENUE
MANY YEARS TO
REPAY WHAT IS LOST TO SOCIAL
SECURITY.
UNDER THE REPUBLICAN BILL, THERE
ARE PROMISED CUTS WHICH COULD BE
REVERSED BY A FUTURE
ADMINISTRATION OR CONGRESS, AND
IT TAKES UNTIL 2018 TO REPAY THE
SENIOR CITIZENS WHAT HAS BEEN
LOST IN SOCIAL SECURITY
CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER THE TRUST
FUND.
UNDER THE DEMOCRATIC BILL, THERE
WAS A POLITICAL TAX ON
MILLIONAIRES, AND IT TAKES UNTIL
2021 TO REPAY SENIORS.
AND SO THE MESSAGE THAT SENATOR
MANCHIN AND I HAD, AS ONE
DEMOCRAT AND ONE REPUBLICAN, IS
HOW ABOUT NOT CHARGING SENIORS?
HOW ABOUT NOT CAUSING A TIDE OF
RED INK TO SOCIAL SECURITY?
HOW ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE
MAINTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THAT
PROGRAM.
SENIORS HAVE ENOUGH TO WORRY
ABOUT RIGHT NOW.
THEY SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT THE
FUTURE SOLVENCY OF SOCIAL
SECURITY.
DESCRIBED HOW UNDER
THE LEGISLATION IT REQUIRES,
TEMPORARY BORROWING OF
ADDITIONAL $240 BILLION FOR THE
FEDERAL BUDGET AND I'M WORRIED
THAT THAT KIND OF BORROWING
COULD TRIGGER AN EARLIER LOSS OF
STATES.
THE DEBT LIMIT OF THE UNITED
SO WE COULD TRIGGER THE BATTLE
THAT WE ALL EXPECT FOR NEXT
JANUARY TO ACTUALLY HAPPEN
OMINOUSLY FOR THE PRESIDENT,
PRIOR TO THE ELECTION IF THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD PASS.
COMMON SENSE SHOULD PREVAIL
HERE.
WE SHOULD RUN A RETIREMENT
SECURITY SYSTEM WITH ADEQUATE
BENEFITS.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO MAINTAIN
THAT WE SHOULD AGREE ON A
BIPARTISAN BASIS THAT SOCIAL
SECURITY IS ONE OF THE MOST
SUCCESSFUL FEDERAL PROGRAMS EVER
DESIGNED, THAT WE SHOULD SAY TO
SENIORS AMONG ALL THE OTHER
WORRIES YOU HAVE, YOU SHOULD
NOT WORRY ABOUT CONGRESS
UNDERFUNDING THE TRUST FUND OF
SOCIAL SECURITY, THAT WE SHOULD
SAY TO SENIORS WE ARE NOT
REPLACING SOLID CONTRIBUTIONS
COMING IN FROM WORKERS WITH
BONDS THAT NO LONGER HAVE A
RATING FOR
STANDARD & POOR'S.
I WOULD URGE MEMBERS OF AARP TO
REACH OUT TO YOUR LEADERS AND
SAY WE WANT TO URGE YOU TO
FORCEFULLY ADVOCATE FOR
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SOCIAL
MAINTAINING ADEQUATE
SECURITY.
THAT WE DON'T THINK PROMISES OF
A MILLIONAIRE'S --
MILLIONAIRES' TAX THAT REPAYS
THE DEBTS UNTIL 2021 OR SPENDING
CUTS THAT REPAY THE DEBTS UNTIL
2018 ARE SOMETHING WE CAN FULLY
TRUST.
SO I WOULD URGE MEMBERS OF THIS
BODY TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE
CONTRIBUTIONS TO SOCIAL
SECURITY, TO DEFEAT BOTH THE
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC BILLS
HERE, TO LEARN THE LESSON OF
EUROPE THAT WE NEED TO MAINTAIN
A RETIREMENT SECURITY SYSTEM
WITH ADEQUATE CONTRIBUTIONS AND
THAT WE SHOULD NOT SINK THE
SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND IN A
WAVE OF RED INK ON GIMMICK
LEGISLATION WHICH ALREADY WOULD
IMPINGE THE CREDIT OF THE UNITED
STATES TO A DEGREE THAT SHOULD
NOT BE IMPINGED ANY FURTHER.
WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
YIELD BACK AND THANK MY SENIOR
THE
COLLEAGUE FROM NEW YORK.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
SENATOR FROM NEW YORK.
CONSENT THAT I BE GIVEN THE
REMAINDER OF THE TIME IF NO ONE
IS HERE FROM THE MINORITY TO
SPEAK AGAINST THIS NOMINATION.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE
THIS MORNING IN SUPPORT OF THE
PRESIDENT'S FIRST AND ONLY
NOMINEE TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
CAITLIN J. HALLIGAN IS A NOMINEE
WHOM ANY PRESIDENT OF ANY PARTY
WOULD BE PROUD OF.
I KNOW FROM SPEAKING TO HER AND
GETTING TO KNOW HER OVER THE
LAST YEAR AND IT HAS BEEN OVER A
YEAR SINCE SHE HAS -- SINCE SHE
WAS NOMINATED, THAT SHE HAS
EARNED THIS HONOR.
SHE HAS EARNED IT THROUGH DINT
OF HARD WORK AND NATIVE
INTELLIGENCE, AND IMPORTANTLY,
HALLIGAN HAS DEDICATED MOST OF
HER PROFESSIONAL LIFE TO
GOVERNMENT SERVICE.
I CHALLENGE, I CHALLENGE ANYONE
IN THIS CHAMBER TO THINK HARD
ABOUT WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IN
A JUDGE FOR THE SECOND MOST
IMPORTANT COURT IN THE LAND.
IF YOU DO, YOU MUST CONCLUDE
THAT CATE HALLIGAN DESERVES AN
UP-OR-DOWN VOTE.
DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE TO
NOMINATE A POLITICAL
CONSERVATIVE TO CLEAR THE
HURDLE?
HALLIGAN IS CLEARLY A MODERATE,
FAR MORE MODERATE THAN MANY ON
MY SIDE WOULD CHOOSE IF THEY
WERE NOMINATING ON THEIR OWN
PROCESS.
WITHOUT AN ADVISE AND CONSENT
DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE TO
NOMINATE A LAWYER WHO PRACTICED
LAW IN THE SHADOWS, NEVER
ADDRESSING AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TO
THE NATION IN HER ENTIRE CAREER?
BECAUSE THE ONLY ARGUMENTS
AGAINST CAITLIN HALLIGAN ARE
GOTCHA ARGUMENTS THAT DON'T --
THAT SIMPLY TAKE SNIPPETS OF
WHAT SHE DID IN PAST LAW
PRACTICE, REPRESENTING
CLIENTS, NOT HER OWN VIEWS,
AND SAY GOTCHA.
MR. PRESIDENT, IN 2000 -- IN
2005, 14 OF MY COLLEAGUES
FORMED WHAT WAS CALLED THE GANG
OF 14 IN ORDER TO REDUCE
FILIBUSTERS AND OVERCOME THE
PUSH TO CHANGE SENATE RULES TO
GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER, THIS
BIPARTISAN GROUP AGREED TO NOT
TO FILIBUSTER ANY NOMINEES WHO
DID NOT PRESENT EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES.
NOW, EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT DEFINED,
BUT MY COLLEAGUE SENATOR
GRAHAM, A LEADER IN THAT GANG
OF 14 TO HIS CREDIT, SENATOR
GRAHAM SAID ON THE FLOOR AT THE
TIME, COMPLETELY REASONABLY IT
MEANT NO IDEOLOGICAL ATTACKS.
SENATOR GRAHAM SAID, AND I
QUOTE, MR. PRESIDENT, SENATOR
GRAHAM SAID "IDEOLOGICAL ATTACKS
ARE NOT AN EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCE.
TO ME, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A
CHARACTER PROBLEM, AN ETHICS
PROBLEM, SO ALLEGATIONS ABOUT
THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A PERSON,
NOT AN IDEOLOGICAL BENT."
CAITLIN HALLIGAN DOES NOT HAVE A
CHARACTER PROBLEM OR AN ETHICS
PROBLEM.
NO ONE HAS ALLEGED SHE DOES.
IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, IF THIS BODY
CANNOT INVOKE CLOTURE ON HER
NOMINATION TODAY, THE GANG OF
14 AGREEMENT, IT WOULD SEEM TO
ME, WOULD BE VIOLATED.
THE APPROACH TAKEN BY SENATE
REPUBLICANS WILL HAVE LASTING
CONSEQUENCES BEYOND THIS ONE
NOMINATION.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT A VOTE
AGAINST THIS NOMINEE IS A VOTE
THAT DECLARES THE GANG OF 14
AGREEMENT NULL AND VOID.
NOW, I WAS NOT A PARTY TO THAT
AGREEMENT, BUT IT WOULD BE
IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY THAT IT HAS
THIS BODY'S CONSIDERATION
OF JUDGES SINCE 2005 UNDER BOTH
DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENTS.
IF REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO
SUDDENLY JUNK THAT SIX-YEAR
ARMISTICE, IT COULD RISK
THROWING THE SENATE INTO CHAOS
ON JUDICIAL NOMINEES.
SENATE REPUBLICANS SEEM TO WANT
TO DECLARE OPEN SEASON FOR
FILIBUSTERS OF JUDGES AGAIN.
AT LEAST AT THE COURT OF APPEALS
LEVEL.
ADMITTEDLY AND GLADLY THINGS AS
OF LATE HAVE GOTTEN MUCH BETTER
AT THE DISTRICT COURT LEVEL,
BUT THE DEFEAT OF CAITLIN
HALLIGAN WOULD THROW INTO CHAOS
NOMINATIONS AT THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR A LONG, LONG TIMING TO
COME.
ANY ATTEMPT TO PAINT HER AS SO
FAR OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM THAT
SHE PRESENTS AN EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCE IS TWISTING HER
RECORD FAR BEYOND RECOGNITION.
ANY ATTEMPT TO DO SO WOULD MAKE
A
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT SUSCEPTIBLE
TO THAT UNFAIR CHARGE.
NOW I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT
IDEOLOGY MATTERS BUT I'VE ALSO
SAID THAT CANDIDATES ONLY NEED
TO BE MAINSTREAM, NOT TOO FAR
LEFT, NOT TOO FAR RIGHT.
I DON'T LIKE NOMINEES AT THE
EXREEMS, LEFT OR RIGHT BECAUSE
THEY TEND TO BED IDEOLOGUES, WHO
WANT TO MAKE LAW, NOT FOLLOW
AND INTERPRET LAW.
HALLIGAN FITS THE DEFINITION OF
A MAINSTREAM PHENOMENON I NATION
PRECISELY TO A TEE.
SHE HAS SPENT HER CAREER IN
POLITICAL AND NONPOLITICAL
POSITIONS.
SHE HAS WORKED AS A LAWYER'S
LAWYER AND EXPRESSED VIEW VIEWS
ON PUBLIC ISSUES.
SHE HAS WRITTEN VIRTUALLY
NOTHING BUT AT HER HEARING SHE
DID ANSWER QUESTIONS.
SHE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT EXECUTIVE
POWER EXTENDS TO INDEFINITE
DETENTION OF ENEMY COMBATANTS
DURING TIME OF WAR.
SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE DISPUTED
AMONG MAINSTREAM MEMBERS OF THIS
BODY, PARTICULARLY IF THEY WERE
CITIZENS PICKED UP ON AMERICAN
SOIL.
WE JUST HAD THAT DEBATE.
THAT SHE WOULD ACT WITH FEALTY
TO TEXT AND ORIGINAL INTENT IN
INTERPRETING LAWS IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
THAT SHE BELIEVES THE SECOND
AMENDMENT PROTECTS AN
INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO BEAR
ARMS, THEREBY VINDICATING THE
HELLER CASE.
THAT THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT
PROTECTS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY.
DEATH PENALTY.
NOW, SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
PROVIDE TO PAINT HALLIGAN
BECAUSE SHE HAS FILED BRIEFS ON
BEHALF OF CLIENTS AND THEY SAY
THAT THAT SOMEHOW INDICATES SHE
WOULD BE AN ACTIVIST JUDGE.
FIRST I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT
SHE'S NOT THE FIRST NOMINEE TO
COME BEFORE THE SENATE AND STATE
THAT THE VIEWS IN THE BRIEFS
THAT SHE WRITES OF HER CLIENTS
ARE NOT OF HER OWN.
GUESS WHO DID IT REGULARLY AND
REPEATEDLY?
NOW CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS.
DID DEMOCRATS FILIBUSTER JUSTICE
ROBERTS BECAUSE DID HE THAT?
DID WE SAY THE VIEWS HE WROTE ON
BEHALF OF CLIENTS HAD TO BE
ATTRIBUTED TO HIS OWN VIEWS?
OF COURSE NOT.
SECOND, I'D LIKE TO REBUT SOME
OF THE THINGS I'VE HEARD ON THE
FLOOR THIS MORNING ABOUT
PARTICULAR CASES.
FIRST, WHILE SHE DID REPRESENT
THE STATE OF NEW YORK AGAINST
GUN MANUFACTURERS, THOSE CASES
LAW.
WERE MADE MOOT BY CONGRESSIONAL
IN HER HEARING, HALLIGAN
RECOGNIZED THIS AND SAID
UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT SHE SUPPORTS
THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR
ARMS.
SECOND, IT IS SIMPLY WRONG TO
SUGGEST THAT CAITLIN HALLIGAN IS
SOMEHOW OUTSIDE THE MAINSTREAM
ON IMMIGRATION BECAUSE SHE FILED
A BRIEF ADVOCATING THAT
BUSINESSES SHOULD NOT BE
REWARDED FOR HIRING ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS BY GETTING OUT OF THE
REQUIREMENT THAT BACK PAY SHOULD
BE AWARDED WHEN THE WORKERS ARE
EXPLOITED.
AGAIN, THIS WAS A BRIEF FILED
ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT, NOT
REPRESENTING HER OWN VIEW.
CASE OF ALOMARI,
THERE IS NO ENACTS SHE DID
THINGS ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT
THAT WAS WELL WITHIN THE MAIN
EXTREME.
PRESIDENT BUSH ABANDONED THE
CASE AND THEN CHARGED ALMARY IN
CASE.
NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ARGUMENT
HALLIGAN WAS MAKING.
MR. PRESIDENT, WHY ARE WE
ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER SHE
DESERVES AN UP-OR-DOWN VOTE?
BECAUSE FRANKLY AS WITH THE
SUPREME COURT, THIS IS PART OF
THE FAR RIGHT'S ATTEMPT TO PULL
THE D.C. CIRCUIT FURTHER AND
FURTHER AWAY FROM THE
MAINSTREAM.
MANY CONSERVATIVES TEND TO DECRY
"LIBERAL JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" BUT
WHAT THEY WANT IS JUDICIAL
ACTIVISM OF THE RIGHT.
THEY DON'T WANT LAWYERS TO BE
DOWN THE MIDDLE AND INTERPRET
LAW.
THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE WAY THE
WHOLE GOVERNMENT HAS OPERATED
ONE
UNELECTED BODY, THE ARTICLE 3
BODY, THE JUDICIARY.
A TRULY MODERATE JUDICIAL
PHILOSOPHY SHOWS RESPECT FOR
CONGRESS, FOR EXECUTIVE
AGENCIES THAT INTERPRET THE
LAW, AND FOR WELL-SETTLED
UNDERSTANDINGS THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE COMMONLY HOLD ABOUT
DEMOCRACY.
THERE IS NOT A SINGLE QUESTION
PRINCIPLES.
THAT HALLIGAN ADHERES TO THESE
SHE HAS EXTENSIVE GOVERNMENT
EXPERIENCE, SHE UNDERSTANDS THE
DEMANDS AND ROLES OF THE OTHER
BRANCHES.
SHE HAS BEEN A RESPONSIBLE AND
RIGOROUS ADVOCATE FOR ALL OF HER
CLIENTS, INCLUDING THE PEOPLE
OF NEW YORK.
I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT AS A JUDGE
SHE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE AND
RIGOROUS ADVOCATE FOR THE RULE
OF LAW.
ANYONE WHO HAS LISTENED TO HER
ANSWER AN HOUR OF QUESTIONS IN
THE COMMITTEE AND READ HER
RESPONSES TO THE 150 QUESTIONS
THAT WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE
RECORD, CANNOT DOUBT BUT THAT
SHE IS AN EVEN AND MODEST IN --
AN EVEN AND
MODEST TEMPERAMENT AND
LEGAL QUESTIONS.
PHILOSOPHY IN HER APPROACH TO
LET ME JUST CITE ONE EXAMPLE.
WHEN SHE WAS ASKED BY SENATOR
GRASSLEY, HER ISSUE OF
DEFERENCE TO THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH HERE'S HOW SHE RESPONDED
-- QUOTE -- "I THINK THE JOB OF
THE JUDGE IS TO EXAMINE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE
WHEN A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
IS PRESENTED BUT I THINK THAT
AUTHORITY HAS TO BE EXERCISED
CAREFULLY.
VERY SPARINGLY AND VERY
TIME AND TIME AGAIN, SHE
ANSWERED SIMILARLY WITH CLEAR
AND UNAMBIGUOUS ANSWERS.
SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
ACCUSED HALLIGAN OF LACKING
CANDOR IN HER ANSWERS.
WELL, MR. PRESIDENT I HAVE SAT
THROUGH A LOCAL OF HEARINGS FOR
NOMINEES TO FEDERAL COURTS OF
APPEALS.
I KNOW EVASION WHEN I SEE IT.
HALLIGAN WAS NOT EVASIVE.
SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE WHO SAY
SHE LACKED CANDOR STILL DEFEND
MIGUEL ESTRADA WHO DIDN'T ANSWER
A SINGLE QUESTION BECAUSE IT
MIGHT COME BEFORE HIM AS A
JUDGE.
SHE ANSWERED QUESTIONS
THOUGHTFULLY, FORTHRIGHTLY,
EXPLAINED THE CONTEXT OF ANY
PAST STATEMENTS THAT MIGHT SEEM
TO HAVE CONTRADICTED HER CURRENT
VIEWS.
THIS MORNING SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE POINTED TO TWO THINGS
THAT SHE DID NOT WRITE TO TRY TO
INDICATE SHE HAS ACTIVITY VIS
VIEWS.
FIRST, SHE GAVE A SPEECH IN
2003 ON BEHALF OF HER BOSS,
ELLIOTT SPITS PERKS THAT SHE DID
NOT -- SPITZER, THAT SHE DID
NOT WRITE HIMSELF.
SHE DID NOT MAKE WRITE IT AND
SHE CLARIFIED AT THE TIME THAT
IT DID NOT REFLECT HER PERSONAL
VIEWS.
SECOND, SHE WAS A MEMBER OF A
COMMITTEE THAT ISSUED A REPORT
COMBATANTS.
ON EXECUTIVE POWER IN ENEMY
SHE EXPLAINED IN THE COMMITTEE
SHE HADN'T SEEN THE REPORT AND
DID NOT AGREE WITH EITHER ITS
CONTENT OR ITS TONE.
IN HER HEARING SHE CLEARLY
POWER.
STATED HER VIEWS ON EXECUTIVE
THIS SHOULD HAVE CLEARED UP ANY
DOUBT ABOUT HER ABILITY TO
RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT THE
CURRENT STATE OF LAW.
FINALLY, I WANT TO SAY A WORD
ABOUT THE RED HERRING ARGUMENT
THAT HAS BEEN RAISED TODAY THAT
THE WORKLOAD OF THE D.C. CIRCUIT
IS TOO LOW TO CONFIRM HALLIGAN.
I'VE EXPRESSED THIS CONCERN,
TOO, IN FACT IN 2008 WE VOTED
TO TAKE AWAY ONE OF THE SEATS OF
THE D.C. CIRCUIT.
IT NOW HAS 11 JUDGES RATHER THAN
12 BUT I AS WELL AS MANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE HAVE IN THE PAST RESERVED
OUR CONCERN FOR NOMINEES OF THE
11th SEAT AND WHAT WAS THEN
THE 12th SEAT.
HALLIGAN HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR
THE NINTH SEAT.
THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT MEMBERS ON
THAT COURT WHICH NOW HAS A
ROSTER OF 11.
THE TENTH AND 11th SEATS
REMAIN VACANT.
NO ONE EVER UNTIL NOW ON EITHER
SIDE OF THE AISLE HAS EVER
ARGUED THAT THE D.C. CIRCUIT
SHOULD HAVE ONLY EIGHT JUDGES.
I WONDER IF CONTROL OF THE BODY
CHANGES, WHICH I DON'T THINK IT
WILL OR WE GET A REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENT, WHICH I DON'T THINK
WE WILL, HOW QUICKLY OUR
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE WILL ABANDON THAT
FOOLISH AND SPECIOUS ARGUMENT.
I'M CONCERNED
THAT WE'RE HEARING IT NOW FOR
THE FIRST TIME BECAUSE THE
CURRENT MAKEUP OF THE COURT
HAPPENS TO HAVE FIVE REPUBLICAN
APPOINTEES AND THREE DEMOCRATIC
NOMINEES.
TIME HAS
EXPIRED.
MR. PRE
MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
I BE GIVEN ONE AND A HALF MORE
MINUTES TO FINISH THIS POINT.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT WHVMENT WE
CONFIRMED PRESIDENT BUSH'S
NOMINEE TO THE 11th SEAT IN
2005, THOMAS GRIFFITH, HIS
CONFIRMATION RESULTED IN THEIR
BEING 121 PENDING CASES PER
JUDGE.
WE DID NOT HEAR A PEEP OUT OF
THE OTHER SIDE THAT THAT WAS TOO
LOW, AND YET TODAY THERE ARE 161
CASES PER JUDGE.
HALLIGAN'S NOMINATION WOULD GO
DOWN TO 143, FAR MORE THAN THE
121 WHEN ALL MY COLLEAGUES ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE
VOTED FOR MR. GRIFFITH, A
REPUBLICAN NOMINEE OF PRESIDENT
BUSH.
SO THERE'S NO REASON TO ARGUE
ABOUT CASELOAD.
THE FACT IS, IF WE CAN'T CONFIRM
HALLIGAN, THIS WON'T GO DOWN AS
A VOTE ABOUT CASELOAD.
THIS WILL BE RECORDED AS A NEW
BAR FOR NOMINEES.
IN CONCLUSION, MR. PRESIDENT,
WHEN CAITLIN HALLIGAN DROVE WITH
HER FATHER FROM HER HOME IN
KANSAS CITY TO HARVARD, OR WHEN
SHE WAS A STANDOUT STUDENT AT
GEORGETOWN LAW, OR WHEN SHE
STARTED HER LAW FOR THE NEW YORK
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, I'M
SURE THAT SHE COULD NOT HAVE
IMAGINED THAT SOMEDAY SHE WOULD
BE THE TOPIC OF THE DEBATE IN
THE UNITED STATES ABOUT WHETHER
SHE WAS TOO RADICAL OR LACKED
THE CANDOR TO BE A JUDGE.
I HOPE THAT WHEN WE VOTE AND THE
DEBATE IS OVER MY COLLEAGUES
RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH HERE:
HALLIGAN IS A STERLING EXAMPLE
OF A PUBLIC SERVANT WHO HAS
WORKED HARD, EARNED EVERY HONOR
HAS RECEIVED AND FITS
SQUARELY WITHIN THE MAINSTREAM
OF JUDICIAL THOUGHT.
SHE DESERVES AN UP-OR-DOWN VOTE
TODAY, AND I WILL BE PROUD TO
CAST MY VOTE FOR CLOTURE ON
CAITLIN HALLIGAN'S NOMINATION.
UNDER
THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE CLERK
WILL REPORT THE MOTION TO INVOKE
CLOTURE.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED SENATORS, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF RULE 22 OF THE STANDING RULES
OF THE SENATE, DO HEREBY MOVE TO
BRING TO A CLOSE DEBATE ON THE
NOMINATION OF CAITLIN JOAN
HALLIGAN OF NEW YORK TO BE
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT.
BY
UNANIMOUS CONSENT, THE MANDATORY
QUORUM CALL HAS BEEN WAIVED.
THE QUESTION IS, IS IT THE SENSE
OF THE SENATE THAT DEBATE ON THE
NOMINATION OF CAITLIN JOAN
HALLIGAN OF NEW YORK TO BE
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE TO
BE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO A
CLOSE?
THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE MANDATORY
UNDER THE RULE.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
VOTE:
VOTE: