The White House withdrew the nomination of Caitlin Halligan for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday, ending a nomination process that lasted more than two years because of constant opposition from Republican senators.
President Barack Obama seemed determined to fight for Halligan's nomination after Republicans blocked her confirmation vote March 6. But she wrote a brief letter to Obama on Friday thanking him for his "steadfast support" but asking him to withdraw her name.
"I am deeply disappointed that even after nearly two and a half years, a minority of Senators continued to block a simple up-or-down vote on her nomination," Obama said in a statement. "This unjustified filibuster obstructed the majority of Senators from expressing their support."
Obama said he remains committed to filling the vacancies on the 11-member D.C. Circuit, a court in which he did not have a judge confirmed during his first term. There are now four vacancies.
The president's second term is not starting off any smoother when it comes to the D.C. Circuit. Republicans already are holding up the nomination of Sri Srinivasan for a seat on the panel, saying they want to know more about his role in the settlement of a Fair Housing Act case a year ago. The White House nominated Srinivasan in June. He still has not had a committee hearing.
With Halligan, Senate Republicans routinely went out of their way to single out her nomination. They previously had blocked her nomination in December 2011, and they have repeatedly used Senate rules to send her nomination back to the White House, singling her out from other nominees to do so. Each time, the White House has renominated Halligan, who was first nominated in 2010.
On March 6, the Senate again rejected her nomination. Republican speeches called her "an activist judge" and questioned her views on gun rights, abortion and the war on terror. "It is time for the President and Senate Democrats to accept the fact that this nomination is not going to be confirmed by the Senate," Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said on the Senate floor before the vote. "We need to move on."
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Friday that Halligan would have been an outstanding judge. "It is a shame that narrow, special interests hold such influence that Senate Republicans for two years blocked an up-or-down vote on her confirmation," Leahy said in a statement.
Halligan officially denied comment through the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, where she is the general counsel.
Robert Bork is a poor example to bring up. He was given a vote on the floor of the US Senate, despite failing to muster a majority in the Senate Judiciary Committee. He was not filibustered. Halligan was not given a floor vote, she was filibustered, even though she did command a majority in the Committee.
Posted by: Peter | March 25, 2013 at 03:40 PM
Here's a good idea if Republicans really do want to get back into America's good graces: STOP ACTING LIKE SCUMBAGS.
Posted by: gene | March 23, 2013 at 09:11 AM
Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Estrada had never been an academic, so there was no record of his writing by which the Senate could review his record.
In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he claimed he had never thought about Roe v. Wade even while serving as a Supreme Court clerk at a time when the first Bush Administration had asked the Court to reconsider it. Also while as Justice Kennedy's clerk, he interviewed potential candidates for the clerkship. In an article published in The Nation magazine Jack Newfield alleged that Estrada had disqualified candidates who were too liberal. When questioned about this by Sen. Charles Schumer at the confirmation hearing, Estrada changed his recollection of the incident during his testimony. Democratic Senators also objected to the refusal by the Office of the Solicitor General to release samples of Estrada's writings while employed there, although such a release of confidential documents would have been precedent-setting.
Minority Leader Tom Daschle was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "The stumbling block to Miguel Estrada's nomination all along was the administration's refusal to allow him to complete his job application and provide the Senate with the basic information it needed to evaluate and vote on his nomination." When Bush nominated Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, Republican senators were rebuffed in their request for her writing and consequently blocked her appointment.
Even Alberto Gonzales didn't change his story during the Civil Rights Section hearings. He merely said he couldn't remember hardly anything he done in the previous few years.
Posted by: Pancho | March 22, 2013 at 10:49 PM
"Rick, I wouldn't count on too many Democrats ever to have the stomach - or antipatriotism - to give tit for tat if and when the White House goes to the Republicans. Not everyone is that spoiled ... or even wants to be".
Yeah, but you can't just forgive and forget, or let bygones be bygones if President Obama completes his 2 terms with no DC Circuit Court confirmations...This would be too egregious to go unpunished...Let's say the GOP wins the 2016 election, the Democrats would be guilty of political malpractice if they would not retaliate if Obama doesn't achieve any confirmations to the DC Circuit...
Posted by: Rick | March 22, 2013 at 09:57 PM
Par for the fraudulent course!
Posted by: Gary M. Piwonka | March 22, 2013 at 08:54 PM
I'm feeling crushed. At least the President did continue to insist that he'd try to get it done, and presumably the surrender was Halligan's own idea. (And, not a stupid one; it must be career-freezing and emotionally exhausting to live in limbo indefinitely.)
The GOP has just gotten spoiled: they wanted insane wars, and got 'em; they wanted fiscal idiocy producing 8 years of deficits and a Great Recession, and got 'em; they wanted to terminate civil liberties, and did.
So I'm not that surprised that they now want their "advice and consent" to take the form of dictating "views on gun rights, abortion and the war on terror" to every Federal judge.
Rick, I wouldn't count on too many Democrats ever to have the stomach - or antipatriotism - to give tit for tat if and when the White House goes to the Republicans. Not everyone is that spoiled ... or even wants to be.
Posted by: Avon | March 22, 2013 at 07:52 PM
Rick ..... agreed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Ronnie Wild | March 22, 2013 at 07:17 PM
My previous comment was a bit off the point, but is very intertwined.
Posted by: Gary M. Piwonka | March 22, 2013 at 07:12 PM
What is incredible to me is the atrocious influence special interest groups have in the "good ole," USA, which a majority of the population is ignorant of, mainly, in my opinion, due to mainstream media. We have burnt our Constitution, have done away with due process, and have become a nation of sheeple, and follow the road of least resistance, which we shall all pay for in the near future.
Having said that, it is not only on a national level, but this corruption has trickled down to local governments and municipalities, of which I have experienced personally. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Gary M. Piwonka
Posted by: Gary M. Piwonka | March 22, 2013 at 06:41 PM
Activist Judges have no place in our Government. Any Judges' sworn duty is to enforce the law in a Constitutional manner, not to set law, interpret law, or make law, so help them God.
Posted by: Philip R.Tripp | March 22, 2013 at 06:15 PM
Yeah, Rick. A "judicial 9/11." Just like what the Dems did to Bush nominee Miguel Estrada, who was far more qualified than Halligan. (And need I mention Robert Bork?)
Posted by: Howard Klein | March 22, 2013 at 05:54 PM
Although i hope to never see another Republican president, i would look foward to much deserved payback for the Caitlin Halligan travesty..
What happened to that outstanding and moderate nominee amounts to a judicial 9/11..
Posted by: Rick | March 22, 2013 at 05:03 PM