• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« The Morning Wrap | Main | In GPS Surveillance Case, Dispute Over Evidence Flares Up »

August 08, 2012



Bogus arguments against Halligan!
Although I do concede that they make great (i.e., inflammatory and memorable) political excuses to derail her nomination, even though Senators might not dare actually call her "unqualified."

Of course she would, as New York state solicitor general, sue gun manufacturers as public nuisances. It was the State's policy and she was the State's lawyer! As a New Yorker, I'm glad to have a lawyer who dares to represent her client's interests/wishes. Why is that so bad? Should only a corrupt lawyer be appointed Federal appeals judge?

When she "advances" a legal theory that has not been adopted by the courts, once again she has shown that she's a zealous lawyer. Shouldn't judges have zeal too (albeit zeal for established law rather than for a client)?

Even lazy or gutless lawyers can make for a biased or extremist judge. It is totally bogus to say that an activist lawyer will become a "judicial activist" on the bench.


As demonstrated by her actions, Halligan advocates judicial activism in spite of clear constitutional and legal interpretation and precedent, stating "the dynamics of our rule of law enables enviable social progress and mobility.”

2 more reasons why:

o In 2004, Halligan's New York’ City Bar Committee issued an extremist report on enemy combatants, from which four other committee members abstained, but she did not. The report argued against the use of military commissions to try alien terrorists.
Subsequent holdings by the Supreme Court, e.g. in Hamdi, and positions of the Obama administration as well, however, rejected the fundamental assertions of the report.

o In Scheidler v. NOW, Halligan filed an amicus brief arguing for an expansive definition of extortion under the Hobbs Act, to be used against pro-life protestors. The Supreme Court rejected her position 8-1.


Here's why (2 reasons):

o As New York state’s solicitor general, Halligan sued gun manufacturers as public nuisances.

o As the NY appellate court easily explained, it had “never recognized a common-law public nuisance cause of action” advanced by Halligan.

o In 2003, a bipartisan coalition in Congress responded to the type of frivolous litigation pushed by Ms. Halligan by introducing the PLCAA. Halligan, in turn, sharply criticized this legislation, which Congress ultimately enacted with wide support.

[Halligan filed an amicus brief in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the PLCAA. The Second Circuit rejected Ms. Halligan’s argument.]

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad