Nomination of Caitlin Halligan

Floor Speech

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to speak in morning business, and I would like to respond to several things said by the Republican leader of the Senate. The first relates to Caitlin Halligan, who is a nominee to serve on the DC Circuit Court. The DC Circuit Court is the appellate court in the District of Columbia which, I would argue, next to the U.S. Supreme Court is one of our most important.

The decisions of government are often sent to this court for review. At the current time, there are eight who are sitting on that court, and there are three vacancies. Of the eight who are on the court, five are Republican appointments. So it is clear that any effort now to bring a new nominee to the court may tip that political balance. I am afraid that has a lot more to do with the fate of Caitlin Halligan than anything that has been said on the Senate floor this morning.

It is mystifying to me that Senate Republicans would filibuster her nomination. She is extraordinarily well qualified. She served for 7 years as the solicitor general of the State of New York and currently serves as the general counsel at the New York County district attorney's office.

She has argued five cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and has served as counsel of record in dozens of other cases before that Court.

The American Bar Association looked at the qualifications of Caitlin Halligan, and here is what they said: She is unanimously ``well-qualified'' to serve in this position.

Ms. Halligan's legal views are well within the judicial mainstream. She has received widespread support from across the political spectrum.

What I have heard this morning from the Republican leader are isolated examples of cases she may have argued, but he certainly does not speak to the fact that the National District Attorneys Association, the district attorneys from the State of New York, including Republicans Derek Champagne, Daniel Donovan, William Fitzpatrick, James Reams, and Scott Burns have all publicly endorsed her nomination. Raymond Kelly, police commissioner for the City of New York; Robert Morgenthau--one of the most respected district attorneys who ever served in this country; served New York County for 34 years--endorses her; the New York Association of Chiefs of Police; and the New York State Sheriff's Association.

When you listen to these endorsements, you wonder: Is that the same woman the Senate Republican leader just questioned as to whether she was serious about stopping terrorism? I listened to some of these things, and I wonder how people of her quality would ever consider putting their name in nomination--that there could be suggestions on the Senate floor that perhaps she is not as strong as she should be in keeping America safe.

There is simply nothing in the background of Caitlin Halligan that suggests we have any extraordinary circumstances that warrant the defeat of the cloture motion on her nomination.

A moment in history, please. When there was a suggestion of filibustering judicial nominations years ago, and the so-called nuclear option was being discussed, a Gang of 14, a bipartisan group of Senators, came up and said: Unless there are extraordinary circumstances, we should vote on these nominees on the Senate floor.

There are no extraordinary circumstances in the case of Caitlin Halligan. The only thing that is extraordinary is how many people from different walks of life have endorsed her candidacy and the American Bar Association finding her unanimously ``well-qualified.''

There are no legitimate questions about her competence, ethics, temperament, or ideology. All she has done throughout her career is serve as an excellent lawyer on behalf of her client.

The Republican arguments against Ms. Halligan's nomination boil down to just two: First, it does not matter if there are vacancies on the DC Circuit; and, in fact, in the past, they have argued to fill those same vacancies when they had an opportunity to install Republicans. Their second argument: Republicans are not happy with how certain nominees were treated years ago, and they see no problem taking out their unhappiness on this nominee.

This is a dangerous path. I believe our country needs excellent judges. Time and again--in the Acting President pro tempore's State of New Hampshire, in my State of Illinois--you go to people who are sitting on the bench in a State court or in private practice and ask them if they would consider serving their Nation on the Federal court, and they know it is a big decision: whether they are going to change a career. But they know just as well that by submitting their name to the process, they are subjecting themselves to criticism, which many people just do not care to withstand.

In this case, the criticism against Caitlin Halligan is baseless. If judicial nominees cannot be considered fairly by the Senate on their own merits, good lawyers are simply going to stop putting their name into the process for consideration and our country will suffer as a result.

We should give Ms. Halligan an up-or-down vote on her merits. On that standard, she should clearly be confirmed.

Source