[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 185 (Monday, December 5, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8167-S8178]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF EDGARDO RAMOS TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______
NOMINATION OF ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______
NOMINATION OF JAMES RODNEY GILSTRAP TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
______
NOMINATION OF DANA L. CHRISTENSEN TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations,
which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read the nominations of Edgardo Ramos, of Connecticut,
to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New
York; Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of New York, to be United States District
Judge for the Southern District of New York; James Rodney Gilstrap, of
Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Texas; and Dana L. Christensen, of Montana, to be United States
District Judge for the District of Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour
of debate equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Today the Senate will finally consider nominations to fill
four vacancies on Federal district courts, all of which were reported
by the Judiciary Committee unanimously in September and early October.
All four nominees Edgardo Ramos and Andrew Carter, nominated to the
Southern District of New York, James Rodney Gilstrap, nominated to fill
a judicial emergency vacancy in the Eastern District of Texas, and Dana
Christensen, nominated to the District of Montana are superbly
qualified nominees with the strong support of their home state
Senators. It should not have taken three months or more for the Senate
to vote on their nominations.
I thank the Majority Leader for securing a vote on these nominations,
but I am disappointed that the Senate Republican leadership would not
agree to a vote on the nomination of Jesse Furman to fill a third
vacancy on the Southern District of New York. Like Edgardo Ramos,
Andrew Carter and James Gilstrap, his nomination was reported by the
Judiciary Committee on September 15 without opposition from a single
member of the Committee, Democratic or Republican. Mr. Furman, an
experienced Federal prosecutor who served as Counselor to Attorney
General Michael Mukasey for two years during the Bush Administration,
is a nominee with an impressive background and bipartisan support.
There is no reason or explanation for why the Senate could not also
consider his nomination today.
There is also no reason or explanation why Republican leadership will
not consent to consider the other 20 judicial nominations waiting for
final Senate action, all but four of which were reported by the
Committee without any opposition, all but two of them with significant
bipartisan support. Senator Grassley and I have worked together to
ensure that each of the 25 nominations now on the Senate Calendar was
fully considered by the Judiciary Committee after a thorough, fair
process, including completing our extensive questionnaire and
questioning at a hearing. Before each of these nominees was selected by
the President, the White House worked with the nominees' home state
Senators who support them, the FBI completed an extensive background
review, and each nominee was peer reviewed by the American Bar
Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. When the
nominations have been favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee
after this extensive and thorough process, there is no reason for
months and months of further delay before they can start serving the
American people.
It is now December 5, with only weeks left in the Senate's 2011
session. I am concerned that we are not able to move more quickly at a
time when we continue to hear from chief judges around the country
about the overburdened courts in their districts and circuits. We need
to consider at least eight judges every week in order to begin to catch
up and erase the backlog that has developed from the delays in the
consideration of consensus nominees caused by the Senate Republican
leadership.
We should not repeat the mistakes of last year, when the Senate
Republican leadership refused to consent to consider 19 judicial
nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee, an exercise in
unnecessary delay I believe to be without precedent with respect to
such consensus nominees. It took us until June of this year, halfway
into 2011, to consider and confirm 17 of these nominations that could
and should have been considered before the end of 2010. Before we
adjourn this year, there is certainly no reason the Senate cannot at
least consider the 17 judicial nominations reported unanimously by the
Committee this session, who are by any measure consensus nominees.
I hope that we do not see a repeat of the damaging decision by Senate
Republican leadership at the end of last year to refuse to agree to
votes on those nominations. That decision stood in stark contrast to
the practice followed by the Democratic majority in the Senate during
President Bush's first two years. Last year, Senate Republicans refused
to use the same standards for considering President Obama's judicial
nominees as we did when the Senate gave up or down votes to all 100 of
President Bush's judicial nominations reported by the Committee in his
first two years. All 100 were confirmed before the end of the 107th
Congress, including two controversial circuit court nominations
reported and then confirmed during the lame duck session in 2002. The
Senate last year should not have been forced to adjourn with 19
judicial nominations still on the Senate calendar.
With vacancies continuing at harmfully high levels, we cannot afford
to repeat these unnecessary and damaging delays. There is no reason we
cannot make significant progress this month and consider all of the
consensus nominations now pending on the Senate calendar. That is what
we did at the end of President Reagan's third year in office and
President George H.W. Bush's third year in office, when no judicial
nominations were left pending on the Senate Calendar. That is what we
did at the end of the 1995 session, President Clinton's third year in
office, when only a single nomination was left pending on the Senate
calendar. That is also what we did at the end of President George W.
Bush's third year, when seven of the nine judicial nominations left on
the calendar by the Senate's Republican majority were among President
Bush's most extreme ideological picks and had previously been debated
extensively by the Senate. The standard has been that noncontroversial
judicial nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee get Senate action
before the end of the year. That is the standard we should follow this
year.
We remain well behind the pace set by the Senate during President
Bush's first term. By the end of his first term, the Senate had
confirmed 205 district and circuit nominees, and had already confirmed
167 by this point in his third year. So far, the Senate has confirmed
only 119 of President Obama's district and circuit nominees. Senate
action before adjournment on all 25 judicial nominations that are
before the Senate today would go a long way to help resolve the
longstanding judicial vacancies that are delaying justice for so many
Americans in our Federal courts across the country.
The 100 circuit and district court nominations we confirmed in
President Bush's first two years leading to a vacancy total of 60 at
the beginning of his third year is almost a complete reverse of the 60
the Senate was allowed to confirm in President Obama's first two years,
leading to nearly 100 vacancies at the start of 2011. Yet, even
following those years of real progress, in 2003 we
[[Page S8168]]
proceeded to confirm more judicial nominations than there were
vacancies at the start of that year, and reduced vacancies even
further, down to 5 percent, half of where they stand today.
Chief Justice Roberts, the Attorney General and the White House
counsel have all spoken about the serious problems created by
persistent judicial vacancies. More than half of all Americans over 167
million live in districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy that
could be filled today if Senate Republicans just agreed to vote on the
nominations now pending on the Senate calendar. As many as 23 states
are served by Federal courts with vacancies that would be filled by
these nominations. Millions of Americans across the country are harmed
by delays in overburdened courts. The Republican leadership should
consent to vote on the qualified, consensus candidates nominated to
fill these extended judicial vacancies before we adjourn for the year
and not unnecessarily delay their consideration until next spring.
The four nominees we consider today will all be confirmed, I expect,
with significant bipartisan support. Edgardo Ramos is nominated to fill
a vacancy on the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Since 2002, Mr. Ramos has been in private practice after serving for
ten years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New
York, where he was promoted to Deputy Chief of the Narcotics Section.
The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated
him ``well qualified'' to serve, its highest possible rating. The
nomination of Mr. Ramos has the strong support of both his home state
Senators, Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand, and was reported by
the Judiciary Committee by voice vote with no dissent on September 15.
The nomination of Judge Andrew Carter to fill a vacancy on the
District Court for the Southern District of New York also has the
strong support of the New York Senators and was also reported
unanimously by voice vote on September 15. Since 2009, Judge Carter has
been a Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of New York. Prior to
joining the bench, Judge Carter served for 13 years as a public
defender in New York state and Federal and spent two years at the Ford
Foundation as a Program Assistant in its Rights and Social Justice
Program.
James Rodney Gilstrap is nominated to fill a vacancy on the District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas determined by the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to be a judicial emergency
vacancy. His nomination has the support of both his Republican home
state Senators, Senator Cornyn and Senator Hutchison. For 27 years Mr.
Gilstrap has been a partner at the law firm of Smith & Gilstrap in
Marshall, Texas. He has also served as a part-time County Judge for
Harrison County, Texas. His nomination was reported unanimously by the
Judiciary Committee by voice vote on September 15.
Dana Christensen is nominated to fill a vacancy on the District Court
for the District of Montana. Mr. Christensen has spent his 34-year
legal career in private practice and is currently the president of the
law firm of Christensen, Moore, Cockrell, Cummings & Axelberg, P.C. in
Kalispell, Montana. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary
unanimously rated Mr. Christensen ``well qualified'' to serve, its
highest possible rating. His nomination has the support of both his
home state Senators, Senator Baucus and Senator Tester, and was
reported by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote with no dissent on
October 6.
I hope the Senate can build on today's progress to fulfill its
constitutional duty and ensure the ability of our Federal courts to
provide justice to Americans around the country.
Nomination of Caitlin Halligan
Tomorrow the Senate should be holding an up-or-down vote on the long-
delayed nomination of Caitlin Halligan to fill one of three vacancies
on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Instead, for the seventh
time since President Obama took office 34 months ago, we are required
to overcome a Republican filibuster for the Senate to consider one of
President Obama's superbly qualified judicial nominees.
Ms. Halligan, President Obama's first nominee to the important D.C.
Circuit, is the former Solicitor General for the State of New York.
With an impressive record in private practice and public service, she
is widely respected for the quality of her work as an advocate. Indeed,
Ms. Halligan's nomination was greeted with bipartisan support and has
since garnered endorsements from law enforcement officials and
organizations, women's organizations, law school deans and professors,
judges and preeminent lawyers from across the political spectrum. The
Judiciary Committee favorably reported Ms. Halligan's nomination nearly
nine months ago.
By any traditional standard, she is the kind of superbly qualified
nominee who should easily have been confirmed by the Senate months ago
with the support of both Republicans and Democrats. I am disappointed
that yet again instead of seeing bipartisan cooperation we are required
to seek cloture.
From the beginning of the Obama administration, we have seen some
Senate Republicans shift significantly away from the standards they
used to apply to the judicial nominations of a Republican President.
During the administration of the last President, a Republican,
Republican Senators insisted that filibusters of judicial nominees were
unconstitutional. They threatened the ``nuclear option'' in 2005 to
guarantee up-or-down votes for each of President Bush's judicial
nominations. Senator McConnell, then the Republican whip, said: ``Any
President's judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But
after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. . . . It's
time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and
consent. The stakes are high. . . . The Constitution of the United
States is at stake.''
Many Republican Senators declared that they would never support the
filibuster of a judicial nomination--never. Yet, only a few years
later, Senate Republicans reversed course and filibustered President
Obama's very first judicial nomination, that of Judge David Hamilton of
Indiana.
David Hamilton was a widely respected 15-year veteran of the Federal
bench. President Obama nominated Judge Hamilton in March 2009, after
consultation with the most senior and longest-serving Republican in the
Senate, Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, who strongly supported the
nomination. Rather than welcome the nomination as an attempt by
President Obama to step away from the ideological battles of the past,
some Senate Republicans ignored Senator Lugar's support, caricatured
Judge Hamilton's record and filibustered his nomination. After the
Senate rejected that filibuster, Judge Hamilton was confirmed.
The partisan delays and opposition to President Obama's judicial
nominations have continued since. Senate Republicans have required
cloture motions to be filed on judicial nominations that ultimately won
unanimous support from the Senate. Earlier this year they filibustered
the nomination of Professor Goodwin Liu of California, who was
supported by both his home state Senators to fill a judicial emergency
vacancy on the Ninth Circuit. That successful filibuster of a brilliant
lawyer and a good man prevented the Senate from having an up-or-down
vote on his nomination and prevented an outstanding nominee from
serving the American people on the Federal bench. They attempted to
justify that filibuster on ideological grounds. There is no such
justification here, in connection with the nomination of Caitlin
Halligan who is a mainstream lawyer and public servant from New York.
Senate Republican leadership took the virtually unprecedented step this
year of requiring cloture to be filed on a district court nomination.
That effort to ratchet up the judge wars was rejected when 11
Republican Senators joined to ensure an up-or-down vote on
the nomination of Jack McConnell to the District of Rhode Island.
With their latest filibuster, the Senate Republican leadership seeks
to set yet another new standard, one that threatens to make
confirmation of any nominee to the D.C. Circuit virtually impossible
for the future. Caitlin Halligan is well-qualified nominee with a
mainstream record as a brilliant advocate on behalf of the State of New
York and in private practice. I have reviewed her record carefully in
the course the Judiciary Committee's thorough process, including her
response to our extensive questionnaire and her answers to questions at
her hearing and
[[Page S8169]]
in writing following the hearing. In my view, there is no legitimate
reason or justification for filibustering her nomination.
Caitlin Halligan is the kind of nominee who has demonstrated not only
legal talent but also a dedication to the rule of law throughout her
career. We should encourage nominees with the qualities of Ms. Halligan
to engage in public service and we should welcome them on the Federal
bench, not denigrate them. Concocted controversies and a blatant
misreading of Ms. Halligan's record as an advocate are no reason to
obstruct this outstanding nomination.
We must reject these misguided arguments. This filibuster against
this qualified woman will set a standard that could not be met by
judicial nominees of Presidents of either party. I trust that, as with
the nomination of Jack McConnell, sensible Republican Senators will,
again, join in preventing such an outcome. It is time to edge away from
this dangerous precipice.
When Democratic Senators cooperated to confirm John Roberts to the
D.C. Circuit in 2003, it broke the stalemate created by the Republicans
refusal for years to even consider President Clinton's nominees to that
Court. Like John Roberts, Caitlin Halligan is a highly regarded
appellate advocate with the kind of impeccable credentials in both
public service and private practice that make her unquestionably
qualified to serve on the D.C. Circuit. She should be confirmed, not
unjustifiably filibustered.
Ms. Halligan served for nearly six years as Solicitor General of New
York and has been a leading appellate lawyer in private practice. She
is currently General Counsel at the New York County District Attorney's
Office, an office that investigates and prosecutes 100,000 criminal
cases annually in Manhattan. Ms. Halligan has served as counsel of
record in nearly 50 matters before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing five
cases before that court and many cases before Federal and state
appellate courts. Just as John Roberts had served in government and
clerked for the Supreme Court, she clerked for Supreme Court Justice
Stephen Breyer. She also clerked for Judge Patricia Wald on the D.C.
Circuit, the court to which she has been nominated. The American Bar
Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which
Republican Senators often cite, unanimously rated Ms. Halligan ``Well-
Qualified'' to serve on the D.C. Circuit. That is the highest rating
that can be received from its non-partisan peer review.
The letters of support we have received for Ms. Halligan's nomination
from a broad range of people and organizations is a testament both to
her exceptional qualifications to serve and to the fact that this
should be a consensus nomination, not a source of controversy and
contention.
Twenty-one prominent appellate advocates from across the political
spectrum who have worked with Caitlin Halligan, including Miguel
Estrada and Carter Phillips, endorsed her nomination, writing:
``We believe that Caitlin is an outstanding selection for
the D.C. Circuit. She is a first-rate lawyer and advocate.
She is well respected and highly regarded as a leader of the
profession. Caitlin has an ideal judicial temperament. She
brings reason, insight and judgment to all matters. Even
those of us who have been on the opposite sides of Caitlin in
litigation have been greatly impressed with her ability and
character. We have no doubt she would serve with distinction
and fairness.''
When Ms. Halligan was nominated, Carter Philips, a preeminent Supreme
Court advocate who served as Assistant to the Solicitor General during
the Reagan administration, described her as ``one of those extremely
smart, thoughtful, measured and effective advocates'' and concluded
that she ``will be a first-rate judge.'' Judge Albert Rosenblatt, who
was appointed to serve on New York's highest court by former Republican
Governor George Pataki, wrote in praise of Ms. Halligan's work as New
York's Solicitor General, concluding that ``her sense of fairness and
balance is among the best--if not the best--that I have ever seen in my
34 years as a judge and a prosecutor.'' This is not a nomination that
should be filibustered. To do so will set a destructive standard that
no one will be able to meet. If someone of Caitlin Halligan's
outstanding credentials, character and experience cannot be confirmed,
no one can be.
The nomination of Ms. Halligan has likewise received significant
support from law enforcement officials and organizations. The National
District Attorneys Association has called Caitlin Halligan's background
``impressive,'' stating that she ``would be an outstanding addition''
to the D.C. Circuit. District Attorneys from the State of New York,
including Republicans Derek Champagne, Daniel Donovan, Jr., William
Fitzpatrick, James Reams and Scott Burns, support her nomination, as do
the New York Association of Chiefs of Police and the New York State
Sheriff's Association. New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly
has said that Ms. Halligan has the ``three qualities important for a
nominee: intelligence, a judicial temperament, and personal
integrity.'' Legendary New York County District Attorney Robert
Morgenthau, endorsing her nomination in the ``strongest of terms,''
described Ms. Halligan as ``qualified in terms of intellect, ability
and temperament.'' This is not someone to be filibustered and blocked
from serving as a Federal judge.
More than 20 former United States Supreme Court clerks, including
clerks who worked for conservative Justices such as former Chief
Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy, wrote that they
``retain a distinct appreciation of Caitlin's sharp intelligence and
her ability to cooperate with others in resolving difficult legal
problems.'' They concluded their letter of support by praising her
``reasonableness and collegiality,'' and calling her a ``fair-minded
colleague who was a pleasure to work with in a sophisticated and
demanding legal setting.'' This is not a closed minded ideologue.
Caitlin Halligan is an outstanding lawyer who will be an outstanding
judge.
Ms. Halligan's nomination has received support from numerous women's
law enforcement, business, and legal organizations, including the New
York Women in Law Enforcement, the National Center for Women and
Policing, the National Conference of Women's Bar Associations, and the
Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia. The U.S. Women's
Chamber of Commerce asked the Senate to confirm Ms. Halligan,
describing her as ``exceptionally well-qualified'' with ``outstanding
legal credentials and legal experience that is both broad and deep.''
The National Conference of Women's Bar Associations, which supports Ms.
Halligan because her ``broad experience, public service and intellect
make her well suited to the federal appellate bench,'' also notes that
``her appointment would add much needed diversity to the federal court,
where only three women are among the active judges on the DC Circuit.''
More than 100 women who are deans and professors at top law schools
throughout the country strongly support the nomination because ``Ms.
Halligan has won accolades for her judgment, legal acumen, and
expertise in appellate litigation,'' and because her ``legal
credentials, experience and accomplishments make her exceptionally
well-qualified to serve'' on the D.C. Circuit. They also echo the need
for bringing gender diversity to this critical court, noting that,
``women have been historically underrepresented on this court, as only
five of the fifty-seven judges to serve there have been women.'' This
outstanding nominee is a leader and role model whose career should not
be short-circuited by petty partisanship.
I ask unanimous consent that some of these letters of support be
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
Exhibit 1
March 4, 2011.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Grassley: We write in
enthusiastic support of the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to
be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. We are lawyers who have worked
with Caitlin in various capacities. We believe that Caitlin
is an outstanding selection for the D.C. Circuit. She is a
first-rate lawyer and advocate. She is well respected and
highly regarded as a leader of the profession. Caitlin also
has an ideal judicial temperament. She brings reason, insight
and judgment to all matters. Even those of us who have been
on opposite
[[Page S8170]]
sides of Caitlin in litigation have been greatly impressed
with her ability and character. We have no doubt that she
would serve with distinction and fairness.
Sincerely yours,
Clifford M. Sloan, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP; Sri Srinivasan, O'Melveny & Myers LLP; Miguel A.
Estrada, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Carter G.
Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP; Seth P. Waxman,
WilmerHale; Walter Dellinger, O'Melveny & Myers LLP;
David C. Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans
& Figel, P.L.L.C.; Andrew J. Levander, Dechert LLP;
Richard J. Davis, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP; Michele
Hirshman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP;
Dietrich L. Snell, Proskauer Rose LLP; Paul M. Smith.
Jenner & Block LLP; Patricia Ann Millett, Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP; Kathleen M. Sullivan, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Stanford Law School;
Thomas W. Brunner, Wiley Rein LLP; Meir Feder, Jones
Day; Evan M. Tager, Mayer Brown LLP; Philip K. Howard,
Covington & Burling LLP; Ira M. Millstein, Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP; Roy L. Reardon, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP; Michael H. Gottesman, Georgetown
University Law Center.
____
McCabe & Mack LLP,
Attorneys at Law,
Poughkeepsie, NY, December 1, 2011.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Grassley: I am a retired
member of New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, a
position to which I was appointed by Governor George Pataki.
Caitlin Halligan appeared frequently before me on behalf of
the State of New York in her capacity as Solicitor General.
The quality of her work was exemplary and serves as a model
of how to deal with important issues. Her sense of fairness
and balance is among the best--if not the best--that I have
ever seen in my 34 years as a judge and as a prosecutor
before that. In her appearances before our court, there is no
one who commanded more respect and who had greater
credibility. If I had to choose a candidate to serve on a
federal appeals court I can think of no one better. I
emphasize: No one. I urge the Senate to act expeditiously to
confirm her to this position.
Most respectfully I hope the Senate sees fit to act
expeditiously to confirm her for service on the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Please feel free to contact me, if you wish, by phone or
email. I recall fondly, Senator Leahy, that we met many years
ago at a convention when I was an assistant DA in New York
and you were a prosecutor in Vermont.
Very truly yours,
Albert M. Rosenblatt.
____
National District
Attorneys Association,
Alexandria, VA, June 2, 2011.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen
Senate Office Building Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: On behalf
of the National District Attorneys Association, the oldest
and largest organization representing over 39,000 of
America's state and local prosecutors, we would like to offer
our full support for the nomination of Caitlin J. Halligan
for the position of United States Circuit Judge for the
District of Columbia.
Ms. Halligan has an impressive background which developed
her into an extremely impressive and qualified candidate to
serve as an U.S. Circuit Judge. Ms. Halligan currently serves
as General Counsel of the New York County District Attorney's
Office, where she helps to supervise more than 500 lawyers
handling a wide range of criminal investigations and
prosecutions. Prior to joining the District Attorney's Office
in 2010, Ms. Halligan was a partner and head of the appellate
practice at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, a leading New York
law firm. From October 2001 until January 2007, Ms. Halligan
served as the Solicitor General of New York State, where she
represented the State in the federal and state appellate
courts and headed an office of 45 appellate attorneys.
The National District Attorneys Association believes that
Ms. Halligan would be an outstanding addition to the United
States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. We are
happy to offer our full support for Ms. Halligan's nomination
and encourage her swift confirmation by the Senate.
Sincerely,
James Reams,
President.
Scott Burns,
Executive Director.
____
The Police Commissioner,
New York, NY, May 26, 2011.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Grassley: I am writing in
support of the nomination of Caitlin J. Halligan to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
I am familiar with the work of Ms. Halligan in her capacity
as Counsel to the New York County District Attorney.
Ms. Halligan possesses the three qualities most important
for a nominee: intelligence, a judicial temperament, and
personal integrity. Ms. Halligan is without question an
attorney with a keen legal intellect. Indeed, the rapid
successes of her career since graduating from law school in
1995 provide ample evidence of her intelligence and
abilities. With regard to her temperament, the interactions
between Ms. Halligan and my staff consistently demonstrate an
even-handed disposition in navigating potential conflicts
between police and prosecutors in New York City. Lastly, Ms.
Halligan's personal integrity is simply without question.
In sum, Ms. Halligan possesses all the qualities required
for a successful federal appellate judge, and I highly
recommend her for such a position.
Sincerely,
Raymond W. Kelly,
Police Commissioner.
____
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz,
New York, NY, March 23, 2011.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Grassley: I write this
letter in support of the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit. I have known Caitlin personally a short
time, but her reputation for even-handedness and excellence
as an attorney are well-known in New York's legal community.
I will not belabor her exemplary record as an attorney:
Georgeton Law Review, clerk to Justice Patricia Wald of the
D.C: Circuit, to Justice Stephen Breyer of the United States
:Supreme Court, adjunct faculty member of Columbia University
Law School and Georgetown University Law Center, Solicitor
General of the State of New York, Partner and Head of
Appellate Practice Group at the firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges
LLP, and most recently, General Counsel to the District
Attorney of New York County. Certainly this is a resume and
career that is grounded solidly in the law, and I submit that
her legal qualifications are beyond question.
More recently, I have worked with Caitlin in her capacity
as General Counsel to my former office. Ske is well-known and
well-regarded as a lawyer's lawyer. She follows the law and
holds herself to the highest ethical standards. She is as
intellectually honest as she is tough--she does not take
short cuts and she does not pull her punches; both necessary
attributes for her to be effective in her current position.
At the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, she handles
some of the toughest issues that a lawyer has to address;
issues that go to the core of law enforcement authority;
issues that involve claims of wrongful conviction and the use
of prosecutorial discretion. I can speak from experience to
tell you that these are weighty issues that can keep any
lawyer awake at night. A District Attorney needs counsel who
is tough but fair, and counsel who can advise the district
attorney on these weighty issues not from a gut feeling or
personal agenda, but based solely on the law and the facts.
She meets these high standards. I cannot stress enough the
difficulties of the issues that Ms. Halligan has to address
every day. And, based on both my personal observation and
accounts I hear from my former colleagues at the D.A.'s
Office--Caitlin handles these pressures with grace and poise,
and is a tough proponent of the core mission of the Manhattan
D.A.'s Office--to keep the citizenry safe, to enforce the law
without fear or favor, and to hold accountable those who
break the law. She brings solid law enforcement perspective
to her work, and upholds the highest standards of my former
office.
In sum, Caitlin Halligan is qualified in terms of
intellect, ability and temperament, and I endorse her in the
strongest of terms.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Morgenthau.
[[Page S8171]]
____
February 28, 2011.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Chuck Grassley,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: We write
as former clerkship colleagues of Caitlin Halligan in support
of her nomination for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit. All of us worked alongside
Caitlin as law clerks at the U.S. Supreme Court during the
1997-98 Term. Our shared experience left us with an indelible
impression of Caitlin's brilliant legal mind, her
collegiality and fair-mindedness, and her abiding respect for
the rule of law. Even now, almost a decade and a half later,
as we have moved on to disparate careers in the government,
private sector, and the legal academy, we retain a distinct
appreciation of Caitlin's sharp intelligence and her ability
to cooperate with others in resolving difficult legal
problems.
As you well know, the work of the Supreme Court is intense
and eclectic, encompassing a vast array of intricate legal
matters, a host of overlapping deadlines, and a variety of
formal and informal procedures for internal deliberation and
discussion among the Justices and their clerks. Our work on
the difficult cases the Court decided during the 1997-98 Term
generated among our group an unending discussion of legal
issues, both in connection with our specific law clerk tasks
and in more freewheeling conversations in the clerks' dining
room and related settings. In this milieu Caitlin stood out
for her ability to meaningfully discuss and explicate tough
legal questions with an open mind and a willingness to
consider multiple perspectives on the law. Throughout the
year, Caitlin displayed a keen ability to listen to and
accommodate the views of others, all the while simultaneously
expressing and justifying her own view of the law. Although
the Court during the 1997 Term issued an unusually high
proportion of unanimous decisions, Caitlin's demeanor as a
law clerk exuded reasonableness and collegiality even in
those areas where we law clerks-- and the Justices for whom
we worked--disagreed.
In sum, we hold Caitlin Halligan in high regard as a
talented and fair-minded colleague who was a pleasure to work
with in a sophisticated and demanding legal setting. We have
no doubt that if she is confirmed by the Senate, her
colleagues on the federal bench will soon arrive at a similar
conclusion, and we appreciate your attention to her
nomination.
Respectfully submitted,
Samuel R. Bagenstos, Professor of Law, University of
Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, MI; J. Scott Ballenger,
Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Rachel
E. Barkow, Professor of Law, New York University School
of Law, New York, NY; Paul Schiff Berman, Dean and
Foundation Professor of Law, Sandra Day O'Connor
College of Law, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ;
Stephanos Bibas, Professor of Law and Criminology,
Director, Supreme Court Clinic, University of
Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, PA; Elizabeth
Cavanagh, Adjunct Professor, American University
Washington College of Law, Washington, DC; Thomas
Colby, Professor of Law, George Washington University
Law School, Washington, DC; Laura A. Dickinson,
Foundation Professor of Law, Faculty Director, Center
for Law and Global Affairs, Sandra Day O'Connor College
of Law, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ; David
Friedman, Senior Vice President/Special Counsel, Boston
Red Sox, Boston, MA; Lisa Kern Griffin, Professor of
Law, Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC; Deborah
Hamilton, Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, Chicago, IL; Rachel A. Harmon, Associate
Professor, University of Virginia School of Law,
Charlottesville, VA; Sarah O. Jorgensen, King &
Spalding, Atlanta, GA; John P. Kelsh, Partner, Sidley &
Austin LLP, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Maltby, Partner,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC;
Christopher Meade, Washington, DC; Gillian E. Metzger,
Professor of Law, Columbia Law School, New York, NY;
Charles Moore, Partner, Trilantic Capital Partners, New
York, NY; John B. Owens, Assistant United States
Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division, Southern District
of California, San Diego, CA; Mary-Rose Papandrea,
Associate Professor, Boston College Law School, Boston,
MA; Theodore W. Ruger, Professor of Law, University of
Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, PA; Sri
Srinivasan, Partner, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington,
DC; Silvija A. Strikis, Partner, Kellogg, Huber,
Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC Washington, DC; Harry
P. Susman, Partner, Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX;
Christopher S. Yoo, Professor of Law, Director, Center
for Technology, Innovation and Competition, University
of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, PA.
____
U.S. Women's
Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, DC, June 28, 2011.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Chuck Grassley,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: On behalf
of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, I write in
enthusiastic support of the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to
be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. Ms. Halligan is exceptionally
well-qualified, and would be an excellent addition to that
court. She would not only bring extraordinary legal talents
but also increase the gender diversity of that court,
increasing the representation of women on what has been
called the second-highest court in the land.
Her resume speaks for itself. Ms. Halligan has outstanding
legal credentials and legal experience that is both broad and
deep. Over the course of her career, she has developed
significant expertise in appellate litigation, including
before the U.S. Supreme Court. She has also generously
contributed of her own time to pro bono service.
We ask that the Senate vote to confirm Caitlin Halligan to
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit.
Sincerely,
Margot Dorfman,
CEO.
____
National Conference of
Women's Bar Associations,
Portland, OR, June 23, 2011.
Re Nomination of Caitlin J. Halligan to the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chair,
Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Grassley, Ranking Member,
Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: On behalf
of the National Conference of Women's Bar Associations, we
write to express our enthusiastic support for the nomination
of Caitlin J. Halligan to the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Ms. Halligan's broad experience, public service and
intellect make her well suited to the federal appellate
bench, and her appointment would add much needed diversity to
the federal court, where currently only three women are among
the active judges on the DC Circuit.
We join with many other organizations such as the National
District Attorneys Association, the New York Women in Law
Enforcement and the Women's Bar Association of the District
of Columbia in urging the speedy confirmation of this
outstanding nominee.
Very truly yours,
Mary E. Sharp,
President.
____
November 15, 2011.
Re Nomination of Caitlin J. Halligan to United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell:
We, the undersigned law school deans and professors, write in
strong support of the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. Ms. Halligan's legal credentials, experience, and
accomplishments make her exceptionally well-qualified to
serve on this court. We also note that women have been
historically underrepresented on this court, as only five of
the fifty-seven judges to serve there have been women, and
only three of the court's eight active judges are women.
Ms. Halligan graduated from Georgetown University Law
Center with honors, including Order of the Coif. She clerked
for Judge Patricia M. Wald on the D.C. Circuit Court, and for
Justice Stephen G. Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court. Ms.
Halligan's career includes public service, private practice,
and legal education. She worked for the Attorney General of
the State of New York, including as Solicitor General of the
State of New York, and currently serves as General Counsel to
the New York County District Attorney's office. She was a
partner and head of the appellate practice at Weil, Gotshal
and Manges, LLP. In addition, she has taught as an adjunct
professor at Georgetown University Law Center and Columbia
Law School. In all of these capacities, Ms. Halligan has won
accolades for her judgment, legal acumen, and expertise in
appellate litigation, which includes five arguments before
the Supreme Court. Throughout her career, she has also
contributed significant pro bono services.
Ms. Halligan received a unanimous ``Well-Qualified'' rating
from the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. She
[[Page S8172]]
has been endorsed by numerous organizations, including the
District Attorneys Association of the State of New York, the
National District Attorneys Association, the New York State
Association of Chiefs of Police, the New York State Sheriffs
Association, the New York Women in Law Enforcement, the
Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia, the
National Conference of Women's Bar Associations, the U.S.
Women's Chamber of Commerce, and the National Center for
Women & Policing.
We likewise offer our strong support of Ms. Halligan, and
urge you to support her nomination to the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. If you have
questions or if we can be of assistance, please contact
Columbia Law School Professor Gillian Metzger at (212) 854-
2667 or at [email protected].
Sincerely,
(Signed by 107 women law professors).
Mr. LEAHY. I fear that what is behind this misguided filibuster
attempt is a continuation of a decades-long attempt by some Senate
Republicans to play politics with the Federal court and, in particular,
to engage in a rear guard action to preserve the D.C. Circuit as a
Republican bastion, despite the fact that the American people elected a
Democratic President. A recent Washington Post editorial urging the
Senate to confirm Ms. Halligan's confirmation, suggested as much,
stating: ``GOP senators are grasping at straws to block Ms. Halligan's
ascension, perhaps in hopes of preserving the vacancy for a Republican
president to fill.'' Yet again, we see some Senate Republicans shifting
the standards they use and the arguments they make based on the party
of the President making the nominations. They say one thing when
President Clinton is in office, flip when the President is a
Republican, and flop when the American people elect President Obama.
When President Clinton nominated qualified moderates to vacancies on
the D.C. Circuit, Republicans refused to proceed. The last of three
Clinton nominees to the D.C. Circuit was confirmed in 1997, after being
nominated in 1995 and stalled through the 1996 session when not a
single circuit nominee was confirmed by the Senate Republican majority.
When Senate Republicans stalled the nomination of Merrick Garland to
the D.C. Circuit beyond the 1996 election, even Senator Hatch became
frustrated, and in March 1997 he proclaimed that the way that
Republicans were opposing judicial nominees was ``playing politics with
judges,'' was ``unfair'' and that he was ``sick of it.'' He was right.
Merrick Garland, like Caitlin Halligan, was superbly qualified, and was
only being obstructed for partisan political gain.
But once the blockade against Judge Garland was broken by President
Clinton's reelection, Senate Republicans erected an impenetrable wall
around the D.C. Circuit. Neither of President Clinton's two other
nominees were allowed a Senate vote, or even Judiciary Committee
consideration. That escalation in the judge wars was untoward, it was
wrong. It hurt the court and was unfair to both Allen Snyder and Elena
Kagan, President Clinton's outstanding nominees. Allen Snyder had
served as a clerk to Justice Rehnquist and was an experienced and
respected litigator. Elena Kagan went on to become Dean of the Harvard
Law School and win confirmation to the United States Supreme Court.
These were unquestionably qualified nominees. The fact is that for the
rest of President Clinton's second term, virtually his entire second
four years, given that Judge Garland had actually first been nominated
in his first term, Senate Republicans would not consider another
nominee to the D.C. Circuit. They just blocked and pocket filibustered
outstanding nominees because they could.
Republican Senators pretended to justify their refusal to proceed on
President Clinton's D.C. Circuit nominees not by arguing against the
nominees, but by arguing that the caseload of the D.C. Circuit did not
justify the confirmation of any more judges. They were contending that
the 11th and 12th judgeships on the D.C. Circuit should not be filled.
They argued that 10 judges were enough.
But what happened when George W. Bush became President? Republican
Senators set aside those arguments when considering the nominations of
a Republican President to the same court even as the caseload numbers
went down, Senate Republicans abandoned their hollow caseload arguments
to press for confirmation of multiple Bush nominees to the D.C.
Circuit. Their actions showed that they were not really concerned with
a caseload justification. Their reversal now to readopt a caseload
argument is not consistency of principle, but relates to the principal
who is making the nomination and appears political.
Despite the unwillingness of Senate Republicans to act on President
Clinton's nominees to the D.C. Circuit for years, Senate Democrats did
proceed to consider President Bush's nominations. The first
confirmation, for which I voted, was of now-Chief Justice John Roberts
to be a judge on the D.C. Circuit. At the time, John Roberts had been
Allen Snyder's junior and his partner at Hogan and Hartson. He was the
first judge confirmed to the circuit in six years.
The Senate then confirmed a series of questionable nominees to the
D.C. Circuit: Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh.
The same Republican Senators who blocked President Clinton's
nominations from even being considered by the Judiciary Committee
supported every nomination of President Bush's to the D.C. Circuit, as
they filled the ninth seat, twice filled the 10th seat on the court and
went on to fill the 11th seat that they had said was unnecessary when a
Democratic President was doing the nominating. With the change of
administration, Republican Senators have now dusted off an old
obstructionist argument about the D.C. Circuit's caseload, something
they ignored for eight years as President Bush's nominees were
confirmed to fill the 10th seat twice and also the 11th judgeship. But
they have ratcheted up their partisan opposition and now oppose even
filling the ninth judgeship. With three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit,
that is the judgeship that Caitlin Halligan would be filling not the
11th that Senate Republicans filled just recently, or the 10th that
they voted twice to fill, but the ninth. This is not a basis on which
to oppose as qualified a nominee as Caitlin Halligan, who has
widespread support from law enforcement and the legal community.
The so-called ``caseload'' concern is no justification for
filibustering this nomination. The D.C. Circuit is now more than one-
quarter vacant, with three judicial vacancies. In fact, the Senate has
acted on the so-called caseload argument. We have already eliminated
effective in 2008 the 12th judgeship on that court. In so doing, the
Senate and the Congress reaffirmed the authorization of 11 judges
needed for the important D.C. Circuit. This court is often considered
the second most important court in the land because of the complex
cases that it handles. The court reviews complicated decisions and
rulemaking of many Federal agencies, and in recent years has handled
some of the most important terrorism and enemy combatant and detention
cases since the attacks of September 11. As noted in the recent
Washington Post editorial: ``[Caseload numbers do] not take into
account the complexity and scope of the cases that land at the court.
They include direct appeals involving federal regulatory decisions and
national security matters, including cases stemming from the detentions
at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.''
The D.C. Circuit's cases have only increased in importance and the
court's caseload has not gone down since Republican Senators supported
every one of President Bush's nominations to that court. According to
the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, the caseload per active judge
has increased by one third since 2005, when the Senate confirmed
President Bush's nomination of Thomas Griffith to fill the 11th seat on
the D.C. Circuit. That is right--the D.C. Circuit's caseload has
actually increased. Judge Griffith's confirmation resulted in there
being approximately 121 pending cases per active D.C. Circuit judge.
There are currently 161 pending cases for each active judge on the D.C.
Circuit, one-third higher. If Ms. Halligan were confirmed to the ninth
seat, there would be approximately 143 pending cases for each active
D.C. Circuit judge, still significantly higher than after the Senate
confirmed President Bush's nominee to the 11th seat in 2005. In
addition, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
written decisions per active judge have risen 20 percent since 2007. By
any objective measure the
[[Page S8173]]
work of the D.C. Circuit has grown and the multiple vacancies should be
filled, not preserved and extended for partisan purposes.
Of course, if Republican Senators seeking to use caseload figures to
justify their opposition to this nomination were serious, they would
not be continuing their refusal to consent to the Senate considering
the nominations of Morgan Christen of Alaska to the Ninth Circuit, and
Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Eleventh Circuit, the two
circuits with the highest number of cases per active judge. They would
not be doing everything they can to delay filling vacancies on the
Ninth Circuit, a court burdened by multiple vacancies and the largest
caseload in the Nation, and we would instead take up and confirm the
nomination of Jacqueline H. Nguyen who is nominated to fill the
judicial emergency vacancy that remains open after the Republican
filibuster of Goodwin Liu. I have repeatedly urged the Senate to take
up and consider these nominations, which are supported by home state
Senators, yet Republicans have refused to consider them for months. In
fact, courts throughout the country are in need of more confirmed
judges and more judgeships to handle high and increasingly complicated
caseloads, yet we currently have 25 judicial nominations favorably
reported by the Judiciary Committee awaiting final action by the
Senate. Republicans concerned about caseload should join with us to
consider these nominations.
The Senate should not filibuster but should be voting to confirm the
nomination of Caitlin Halligan to fill a vacancy on a critical court
that is one quarter vacant with only eight active judges and higher
caseloads than when Republicans voted to confirm President Bush's
nominees fill the ninth, 10th and 11th judgeships on this court just a
couple of years ago.
Some have sought to criticize Ms. Halligan for positions she
advocated on behalf of the State of New York while serving as its
Solicitor General. At her confirmation hearing, Ms. Halligan made clear
she filed briefs under the direction of New York's Attorney General,
arguing on behalf of the State of New York, not based on her personal
views. Yet some outside groups and even some Senators ignore this and
seek to use those advocacy positions as a basis to filibuster her
nomination.
These arguments are particularly hard to accept for anybody who
understands the role of advocates in our legal system. Our legal system
is an adversary one, predicated upon legal advocacy for both sides.
Nominees such as Chief Justice John Roberts have said lawyers do not
stand in the shoes of their clients. Since when do we impose a litmus
test for nominees that they can never have been legal advocates? If we
were to do that, we would have no judges. Almost every nominee who had
been a practicing lawyer would be disqualified by one side or the
other. This is especially hard to understand for any Senators who
support the rights of states to defend their interests in courts, the
duty Caitlin Halligan owed to New York as its Solicitor General.
Some have pointed to her role as New York's Solicitor General acting
at the direction of New York's Attorney General in tort lawsuits
against gun manufacturers as suggesting that she will not uphold the
Second Amendment if confirmed as a judge. As a strong supporter of the
Second Amendment, I asked her during her hearing whether as a judge she
would faithfully follow and apply the Supreme Court's precedent from
District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, which held that
the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms
for self defense. She testified that she would. When asked by Senator
Grassley whether the rights conferred under the Second Amendment are
fundamental, Ms. Halligan answered: ``That is clearly what the Supreme
Court held and I would follow that precedent, Senator.''
In her personal capacity, Ms. Halligan has never challenged or
otherwise criticized the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
(PLCAA) or been critical of the Second Amendment. As New York State's
Solicitor General, she prepared an amicus brief at the direction of the
New York Attorney General in a case where New York City challenged the
PLCAA, seeking to safeguard New York's police powers. The arguments
made in the brief were made on behalf of New York State. In the amicus
brief, New York State argued that the PLCAA should be struck down as an
unconstitutional exercise of Congress's legislative power that
infringed on states' rights to exercise the police power within their
borders. The amicus brief did not make a single reference to the Second
Amendment. Any criticism of the PLCAA in New York State's brief or in
the speech she gave as a surrogate for and on behalf of New York
Attorney General Spitzer reflected New York State's federalism
concerns. It is hardly surprising that New York State--like many other
states--advocated for a position that supported state powers.
As Solicitor General for the State of New York, Caitlin Halligan
vigorously advocated for New York's interests, in particular the right
to govern in traditional state law areas. For example, in the Grutter
v. Bollinger affirmative action case, New York joined 20 other states
in arguing that they ``must have the freedom and flexibility'' to set
their own education policy. I assume that position does not raise
concerns for those seeking a basis for opposing her nomination. Nor I
assume did her defense as New York's Solicitor General of the
constitutionality of the death penalty.
Indeed, Ms. Halligan's time as Solicitor General shows all the
hallmarks of serious advocacy consistent with the interests of her
``client''. When New York municipal attorneys requested advice as to
whether clerks could issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Ms.
Halligan carefully analyzed New York's statutory law and concluded that
the state legislature did not intend to authorize marriage licenses to
be given to same-sex couples, even though the statutory language is
gender neutral. After observing that this interpretation raised
``constitutional questions,'' she outlined the current case law and
stated that it was for the courts to resolve the issue. This measured
response is no basis on which to caricature her record.
Most disconcerting of all are the attacks from some on the outside
suggesting that Ms. Halligan lacked candor in the answers she provided
to the Judiciary Committee. I hope that we do not see any Senators
repeating these baseless charges to create another false controversy.
Ms. Halligan has been honest and forthcoming throughout the
confirmation process, providing the Committee with her entire record
and giving detailed, accurate, and clear answers to over 150 questions
from Judiciary Committee members at her hearing and in written follow-
up questions on a wide range of topics, such as judicial philosophy,
constitutional interpretation, the Tenth Amendment, the Second
Amendment, the Commerce Clause, the Eighth Amendment and the death
penalty, military commissions and indefinite detention, tort liability,
Federal preemption, and standing. In my view, Ms. Halligan's answers to
questions from Committee members were detailed and substantive, and
show an impressive depth and breadth of knowledge on complex legal
issues. There is no lack of record or failure to respond as there was,
unfortunately, when the Bush administration would not make information
available to Senators in connection with the nomination of Miguel
Estrada. There is no lack of forthrightness, as there was when Brett
Kavanaugh was manipulating the confirmation process as a political
crony and insider during the Bush administration.
Those concerned with a 2004 report that questioned the indefinite
detention of enemy combatants issued by the Association of the Bar of
the City of New York's Committee on Federal Courts at a time when she
served on the Committee continue to ignore Ms. Halligan's repeated
testimony that she had no role in preparing the report, that she was
not aware of the report until preparing for her nomination and that
report ``does not reflect [her] views.'' At no time during Ms.
Halligan's hearing or in the Committee's consideration of her
nomination did any Senator question Ms. Halligan's candor or
thoroughness in answering questions. I hope that no Senator does so now
to attempt to justify this unjustifiable filibuster.
Given Caitlin Halligan's impeccable credentials and widespread
support,
[[Page S8174]]
this should be the kind of consensus nomination supported by Senators
of both parties who seek to ensure that the Federal bench continues to
attract the best and brightest. Certainly, her nomination should not be
subject to a filibuster. Regrettably, however, the Senate's Republican
leadership seems intent on continuing with the practices they began
when President Obama first took office, engaging in narrow, partisan
attacks on his judicial nominations. They seem intent on setting a new
standard that could not be met by the judicial nominees of Presidents
of either party.
Republican Senators who just a few years ago protested that the
filibuster of any judicial nomination was unconstitutional, Republican
Senators who joined in a bipartisan memorandum of understanding to head
off the ``nuclear option'' and agreed that nominees should only be
filibustered under ``extraordinary circumstances,'' abandoned all that
they said they stood for and joined together in an attempt to prevent
an up-or-down vote on President Obama's very first judicial nominee,
David Hamilton. There were certainly no ``extraordinary circumstances''
to justify the Republican filibuster of Judge Hamilton, and several
Republican Senators joined together with Democratic Senators in
rejecting that filibuster. I trust that they will do so, again, and
reject this unjustifiable filibuster of Caitlin Halligan.
By the standard utilized in 2005 to end filibusters and vote on
President Bush's controversial nominees, this filibuster should be
ended and the Senate should vote on the nomination. Those Senators who
claim to subscribe to a standard that prohibits filibusters of judicial
nominees except in ``extraordinary circumstances'' cannot support this
filibuster. There are no ``extraordinary circumstances'' here. The 14
Senators who signed the Memorandum of Understanding in 2005, the then
``Gang of 14,'' wrote about their ``responsibilities under the Advice
and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution'' and that
fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities in good faith meant
that nominations `` should only be filibustered under extraordinary
circumstance.'' Here there are none.
In 2005, Senator Graham, a member of the ``Gang of 14'' described his
view of what comprises the ``extraordinary circumstances'' justifying a
filibuster. He 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 has no ``character
problem,'' no ``ethics problem,'' and there is no justification for
this filibuster. Caitlin Halligan is a superbly qualified nominee whose
personal integrity, temperament and abilities have been attested to by
lawyers and judges from both sides of the aisle. The many leading
lawyers who have worked with Ms. Halligan, law enforcement officials
and organizations supporting her nomination have all attested to Ms.
Halligan's ``temperament,'' ``fairness'' and ``balance'' in addition to
her legal judgment and qualifications for the D.C. Circuit. Hollow
contentions about the caseload of the quarter-vacant D.C. Circuit fall
well short of any standard of ``extraordinary circumstances.''
The signers of that 2005 Memorandum of Understanding, and the Senate,
demonstrated what they thought that agreement entailed when they
proceeded to invoke cloture on a number of controversial nominations.
The Senate invoked cloture on the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to
the D.C. Circuit, the circuit to which Caitlin Halligan has been
nominated.
As a Justice on the California Supreme Court, Janice Rogers Brown was
a nominee with a consistent and extensive record, both on the bench and
off, of using her position as a member of the court to put her views
above the law. This was not a question of one case or one issue on
which Democrats differed with the nominee--I have voted for hundreds of
nominees of Republican and Democratic Presidents which whom I differ on
many issues. But this was a nominee with views so extreme she was
opposed not just by her home state Senators, but also by more than 200
law school professors from around the Nation who wrote to the Committee
expressing their opposition.
Her record in numerous decisions as a judge showed that she was
willing to put her personal views above the law on issue after issue,
including a willingness to roll back the clock 100 years on workers'
and consumers' rights, to undermine clean air and clean water
protections for Americans and their communities, laws providing
affordable housing, zoning laws that protect homeowners, and
protections against sexual harassment, race discrimination, employment
discrimination, and age discrimination. In fact, while serving on the
California Supreme Court, Justice Brown had argued that Social Security
is unconstitutional, a position clearly at odds with well established
law. She went so far as to say ``today's senior citizens blithely
cannibalize their grandchildren.''
Despite her ideological extremism and willingness to implement her
radical personal views as a judge without regard to the existing law,
she was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, her nomination judged not to
present ``extraordinary circumstances'' supporting a filibuster. There
is no justification under the standard applied to the nomination of
Janice Rogers Brown for a filibuster of the nomination of Caitlin
Halligan, a widely respected nominee with a clear devotion to the rule
of law and no record of ideological extremism.
Under the Gang of 14's Memorandum of Understanding, the Senate also
agreed to invoke cloture on the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the
Fifth Circuit, a nominee whose rulings on the Texas Supreme Court were
so extreme they drew the condemnation of other conservative judges on
that court. Alberto Gonzales, President Bush's White House counsel and
later his Attorney General, went so far as to describe one of her
opinions as advocating ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.''
Her nomination was determined not to present ``extraordinary
circumstances.''
Neither was the nomination of Thomas Griffith to the D.C. Circuit,
despite his decision to practice law without a license for a good part
of his career, which I felt should be disqualifying. Yet his nomination
was not judged to present ``extraordinary circumstances'' and he was
confirmed to fill the 11th seat on the D.C. Circuit. There is no
question under the standard Republicans applied to the nomination of
Thomas Griffith, Caitlin Halligan should be confirmed to fill the ninth
judgeship on that court.
I urge Republican and Democratic Senators to come together and end
this misguided filibuster of Caitlin Halligan's nomination to the D.C.
Circuit. There is no basis under any standard for blocking her
nomination from having an up-or-down vote. To the contrary, Caitlin
Halligan's impeccable credentials and record as an accomplished
advocate make her nomination worthy of bipartisan support. I look
forward to ending this filibuster and voting to confirm Caitlin
Halligan to the D.C. Circuit.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum but ask
unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Henry Clay once said:
Of all the properties which belong to honorable men, not
one is so highly priced as that of character.
It is my distinct privilege to rise today to speak on a nominee that
possesses such character, Dana Christensen. The Senate will soon take
up Dana's nomination for U.S. district judge for the District of
Montana. To ensure the most ethical and qualified attorney was
appointed as district judge, I created an advisory selection panel made
up of five Montana lawyers with diverse legal backgrounds from across
our State and across party lines.
I said to them: You just get me the best, the four or five best
people I can choose from. I do not care if they are Republicans or
Democrats or liberals or conservatives, you just get me the very best
qualified.
[[Page S8175]]
That is what they did. From them I chose Dana Christensen, and the
panel unanimously and enthusiastically recommended the nomination of
Dana Christensen. I was proud to pass this recommendation on to the
President.
Dana is a fourth generation Montanan, raised in Missoula, MT. He
graduated from Stanford University in 1973, received his law degree
from the University of Montana Law School in 1976. Dana started his
legal career at the Billings, MT, law firm of Moulton, Belingham, Longo
& Mather, and then moved to Kalispell in 1981 to join the law firm of
Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn & Phillips. In 1998, Dana and two of his
partners formed a new firm in Kalispell, MT, which has become one of
the leading firms in Montana for civil defense, business law, real
estate, and estate planning. Dana has tried more than 50 trials in
State and Federal courts. He has an active mediation and arbitration
practice. Outside of the office, Dana has been an active member of his
community: a member of the board of directors of his local chamber of
commerce, a member of the University of Montana School of Law board of
visitors, and a member of the faculty of the University of Montana
Advanced Trial Advocacy Program.
Over the past 35 years, Dana has commanded the respect of his
colleagues across the State of Montana and elsewhere. Dana has received
the highest rankings from peer review organizations, Chambers USA and
Super Lawyers. He is also a member of the selective American Board of
Trial Advocates and the American College of Trial Lawyers.
Upon his nomination in May, Montana's legal community lent their
strong support for Dana's selection. U.S. District Judge Richard
Cebull, who was appointed by President George Bush in 2001, said:
I do not think there is a better prospect in the whole
State.
U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon, also appointed by President Bush,
echoed his colleague. Judge Haddon said:
He's a good lawyer, a good man, and in my opinion,
ethically totally qualified. The district will be well served
by him.
I have gotten to know Dana over the past several decades. I could not
agree more with Judge Sebold and Judge Haddon. Dana embodies those
qualities that Montana and America need on the Federal bench:
intellect, extensive experience in the courtroom, commitment to public
service, integrity, and respect for precedent and the rule of law.
I congratulate Dana, his wife Stephanie, and his wonderful children,
Cassidy and Ben, on this extraordinary achievement. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate is expected to confirm
four additional judicial nominees. With these votes, we will have
confirmed 61 article III nominees this Congress.
I want to note that in the first session of the 112th Congress we
have now confirmed more nominees than during the entire 111th Congress.
So I think we can declare real progress. Over 72 percent of President
Obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed.
Despite this record of confirmations, we continue to hear complaints
about the way this President's nominees are being treated. So I point
out that in only six sessions of Congress in the last 30 years have
more nominees been confirmed in a single session. Furthermore, given
the cooperation we have shown, I am disappointed that the Senate
majority wants to turn to a controversial nomination next rather than
continue on the path of cooperative confirmations.
The Senate majority leader has scheduled a cloture vote for tomorrow
on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
District of Columbia Circuit. I will speak more about the merits of
that nomination Tuesday. But I wanted to put that vote in some context.
It seems to me that the scheduling of such a controversial vote in
the closing days of a session of Congress is designed to simply heat up
the partisanship of judicial nominations. Perhaps that is the
objective. The result may well be that such a divisive vote might have
a chilling effect on reaching agreement on additional
judicial nomination votes. I hope that is not the case. But everyone
knows the final weeks of a session are often filled with unpredictable
actions and outcomes.
With regard to the vote tomorrow, there will be some who say this
nomination has been vacant for too long and that this nominee is being
treated unfairly, needlessly waiting on the calendar for too many
weeks. Well, such arguments fail to consider the history of this
particular seat of the DC Circuit and of the record established by my
colleagues on the other side regarding the consideration of nominations
for this very same DC Circuit.
This seat has been vacant for over 6 years. It became vacant upon the
elevation of John Roberts as Chief Justice. That was back in September
2005. Following Justice Robert's appointment, Peter Keisler was
nominated to fill the vacancy in June 2006, with a hearing held August
1, 2006.
With a Republican majority in the 109th Congress, one would wonder
why he never made it out of committee. Well, it is not that he did not
have the votes in committee. The fact is, the Democratic minority would
not allow a vote. This was accomplished by holding him over at his
first markup, which the rules permit and is a legitimate exercise of
the right of a minority and a right that this minority on our side
exercised quite frequently this very year.
However, for the remaining executive sessions in September of that
year, prior to final adjournment they either made sure the committee
did not have a quorum so we could not vote or they took the
extraordinary step of invoking the 2-hour rule so the committee could
not meet. I note that a quorum was present early in one meeting but
evaporated when Mr. Keisler's nomination was the pending business. So
basically the opponents ran out the clock on this nomination. He did
not get a committee vote. He did not get the courtesy of floor
consideration, not even a cloture vote like the nominee tomorrow will
have.
Mr. Keisler was renominated in June 2007 when the Democrats assumed
control of the Senate. But his nomination sat in committee with no
action until it was returned to the President in January 2009. He was
the recipient of a pocket filibuster. This was despite being rated
``unanimously well qualified'' by the ABA Standing Committee of the
Federal judiciary and possessing outstanding qualifications to fill
this position. So complaints about this seat being vacant for too long
just ring hollow with this Senator.
Likewise, when one considers the treatment of previous nominees to
the DC Circuit, it is evident that the nomination of Ms. Halligan is
not being treated in an unfair manner. In fact, her nomination is
proceeding far better than many nominated to this court. I would remind
my colleagues that previous nominees were subjected to delay or
multiple hearings, to extensive delays in committee, and to multiple
filibusters on the Senate floor.
These include the nomination of Estrada, a Hispanic immigrant with a
compelling personal story and outstanding judicial qualifications, who
was subject to seven cloture votes; Janice Brown, an African-American
female who had two cloture votes; Brett Kavanaugh; and Thomas Griffin.
While all of these individuals were eventually confirmed, the
procedural tactics used in their nominations made the confirmations
very difficult.
I am not suggesting this is a pattern to follow, but it is relevant
to the arguments that Ms. Halligan is being treated quite differently
or in an unfair manner than other nominees.
With regard to the nomination before us today, I will say a few words
about, first, Mr. Ramos, who is nominated to be U.S. District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York. Mr. Ramos earned a BA from Yale in
1982; JD Harvard, 1987. Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Ramos
worked as an associate at the law firm of Simpson, Thatcher & Bartlett
in New York City.
In 1992, Mr. Ramos joined the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the
Eastern District of New York, where he prosecuted a variety of Federal
crimes, including white-collar crime, defense contractor fraud, money
laundering, narcotics trafficking, labor racketeering, and violation of
the Arms Export Control Act. In June 2000, he was
[[Page S8176]]
promoted to Deputy Chief of the Narcotics Section, where he supervised
assistant U.S. attorneys prosecuting international narcotics
trafficking and racketeering cases.
In 2002, the nominee joined the law firm of Day, Berry & Howard LLP,
predecessor to the firm Day Pitney LLP, as a partner in the government
investigations practice group. Currently, he represents corporations
and individuals in connection with criminal and regulatory
investigations involving antitrust, bank fraud, public corruption,
securities fraud, and government program fraud.
The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary has rated Mr. Ramos with a unanimous ``well qualified''
rating.
We are also considering the nomination of Judge Andrew L. Carter to
be U.S. District judge, Southern District of New York. Judge Carter
earned his B.A. from the University of Texas in 1991 and his J.D. from
Harvard Law School in 1994.
Judge Carter's legal career began in 1996 as a staff attorney for the
criminal defense division, Legal Aid Society, in New York, NY. In 2000,
he became staff attorney for the Federal defenders division. The
nominee became affiliated with the Federal Defenders of New York in
2005, first as staff attorney and, 1 year later, as a supervising
attorney. His Federal practice included drug cases, gun cases, and
immigration fraud.
In 2009, Judge Carter was appointed to his current position of U.S.
magistrate judge for the Eastern District of New York, where he is
primarily responsible for handling civil matters.
The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary has rated Judge Carter with a unanimous ``qualified'' rating.
The third nominee we are considering is James Rodney Gilstrap to be a
district judge for the Eastern District of Texas, a seat deemed to be a
judicial emergency. Mr. Gilstrap received his B.A. from Baylor in 1978
and his J.D. from Baylor University School of Law 1981.
Mr. Gilstrap served as an associate attorney for Abney, Baldwin &
Searcy from 1981 to 1984. In 1984, he left to begin his own legal
practice, Smith & Gilstrap, where he currently practices representing
individuals, corporations, and local governments on civil matters.
From 1989 to 2002, Mr. Gilstrap served as a county judge for Harrison
County, where he had both administrative and judicial responsibilities.
The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Mr.
Gilstrap with a unanimous ``qualified'' rating.
Then we have the distinguished nominee from Montana, whom Senator
Baucus just spoke about, Dana L. Christensen, to be U.S. District Judge
for the District of Montana.
Mr. Christensen earned his B.A. from Stanford University in 1973 and
his J.D. from the University of Montana School of Law in 1976.
Earlier in his legal career, Mr. Christensen practiced natural
resources law, representing coal mining and oil and gas companies in
litigation in administrative matters. He went on to practice general
insurance defense litigation and medical malpractice cases.
In 1996, he founded his own firm and continues to represent these
entities and practices in this area. He has also represented defendants
in large class-action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana.
In addition to his litigation practices, Mr. Christensen has also
represented at least 15 physicians in confidential disciplinary matters
before the Montana Board of Medical Examiners. He has also represented
health care providers in more than 200 matters before the Montana
Medical Legal Panel.
The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary has rated Mr. Christensen with a unanimous ``well qualified''
rating.
I intend to vote for all these candidates. I urge my colleagues to do
the same.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Casey pertaining to the introduction of S. 1944
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I am proud to support Caitlin
Halligan's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Caitlin Halligan's impeccable career spans public and private
practice, similar to that of John Roberts when he was confirmed
unanimously to the DC Circuit. Ms. Halligan served as solicitor general
of New York, a leading appellate lawyer at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, and
currently as general counsel at the New York County district attorney's
office, which investigates and prosecutes 100,000 criminal cases
annually.
She clerked for Supreme Court Justice Breyer and Judge Patricia Wald
on the DC Circuit. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary unanimously rated Ms. Halligan ``well qualified'' to serve on
the DC Circuit.
Ms. Halligan has support from across the political spectrum,
including Miguel Estrada, Carter Phillips, and officials in Democratic
and Republican administrations. Twenty-three former U.S. Supreme Court
clerks, the National District Attorneys Association, the National
Conference of Women's Bar Associations, and the U.S. Women's Chamber of
Commerce are supporting her nomination.
New York City police commissioner Ray Kelly has said Ms. Halligan has
three qualities that are important for a nominee--intelligence,
judicial temperament, and personal integrity.
Unfortunately, it appears some of my colleagues are determined to
criticize Caitlin Halligan regardless of the facts.
One of the criticisms of Ms. Halligan is positions she advocated for
while serving as solicitor general. She filed briefs at the direction
of New York's attorney general and argued on behalf of the State. That
was her job. She was not promoting her personal views.
Ms. Halligan testified she would faithfully follow and apply the
Supreme Court's precedent from Heller and McDonald. When asked whether
the rights conferred under the second amendment are fundamental, she
answered: ``That is clearly what the Supreme Court held, and I would
follow that precedent.''
Let me also address the workload concerns brought up by some of my
fellow Senators. There are currently only eight active judges on the DC
Circuit, making it one-quarter vacant. Miss Halligan has been nominated
to fill the ninth seat--one of three current vacancies on the court.
The Senate confirmed four of President Bush's nominees for the DC
Circuit; however, the court's caseload is higher now than it was when
President Bush's nominees were confirmed. If Ms. Halligan was confirmed
today, it would reduce the caseload from its current level of 161 cases
to approximately 143 cases per judge.
Women have been woefully underrepresented by the DC Circuit, often
characterized as the second most important court in our entire Nation.
Only 5 of the 57 judges serving throughout the history of the DC
Circuit have been women. Ninety-one percent of the judges on this court
throughout its 41-year history have been men.
If we continue down this road of filibustering nominees simply
because their nomination originates across the aisle, we will establish
an impossible standard that no nominee could or would ever meet.
Caitlin deserves an up-or-down vote, just as the Republicans
advocated for
[[Page S8177]]
their past judicial nominees. The bottom line is that there is no
credible opposition to her nomination or her confirmation. Caitlin
Halligan has distinguished herself throughout her career. She has
established a commitment to fairness, reasoned intellect, steadfast
integrity, and profound respect for the law.
I look forward to supporting Caitlin Halligan's confirmation to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and I urge my
fellow colleagues to support her nomination.
Nomination of James Rodney Gilstrap
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to support
the nomination of Mr. James Rodney Gilstrap to serve as a Federal
district judge for the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall, TX.
Mr. Gilstrap attended Baylor University where he graduated magna cum
laude with a bachelor of arts degree in religion. Following his
graduation, Mr. Gilstrap continued his studies at Baylor University Law
School, where he served as associate editor of the Baylor Law Review
and received his juris doctor in 1981.
Mr. Gilstrap began his professional career in Marshall, TX, where he
still resides today. In August of 1989, Mr. Gilstrap was appointed
county judge of Harrison County and was then elected to the same
position for the next three terms. In 2002, he retired as a county
judge and returned to private practice at Smith & Gilstrap, where he
still practices today.
Mr. Gilstrap has earned the respect and esteem of the legal community
he has served and his professional credentials will continue the strong
history of the Federal bench in Texas.
Mr. Gilstrap's impressive career is complemented by his dedication to
his community. In addition to serving for years as county judge, Mr.
Gilstrap has served on the board for the Harrison County Historical
Society, the United Way for Harrison County, and the Trinity Episcopal
Day School. He also served for 16 years on the Courthouse Preservation
Council to help with the renovation of the Marshall courthouse that was
completed in 2009. Mr. Gilstrap's passion for his work and his
community will be a tremendous asset to the Marshall bench.
I join his family in congratulating him on all his outstanding
accomplishments: his wife Sherry Sullivan Gilstrap, his daughter
Lauren, who is continuing her medical studies at Harvard Medical
School, and his son Stephen, who graduated from Yale Law School this
year.
I am pleased to recommend his confirmation to my colleagues.
Nomination of Caitlin Halligan
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of
Caitlin Halligan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals.
As the first woman to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee--a
committee on which I have served for 18 years--it is my great pleasure
to speak in support of Ms. Halligan, who has excelled at every turn
during her distinguished legal career.
She graduated cum laude from Princeton University in 1988. She
received her law degree, magna cum laude, from Georgetown University
Law Center, where she was managing editor of the Georgetown Law Journal
and inducted into the Order of the Coif.
She began her legal career with a clerkship with Judge Patricia Wald
on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit--the first woman to
serve on that Court.
She then spent a year in private practice at the Washington, DC firm,
Wiley, Rein, and Fielding, followed by a clerkship with Supreme Court
Justice Stephen Breyer.
After another year in private practice, Ms. Halligan began work in
the office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, first as
Chief of the Internet Bureau.
She rose to become Solicitor General of the State of New York, the
State's top appellate lawyer. She served in that role from 2001 through
2007.
During nearly all of Ms. Halligan's time as Solicitor General, George
Pataki--a Republican--was Governor. Her job was to represent the State
of New York zealously, and by all accounts she did so with skill and
dignity.
Judith Kaye, the former Chief Judge of New York's highest court,
writes on behalf of the Court's entire bench that ``it was invariably a
treat'' to have Ms. Halligan argue before the Court.
In fact, the National Association of Attorneys General awarded Ms.
Halligan the ``Best Brief Award'' for five consecutive years, 2001,
2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.
Ms. Halligan left the Solicitor General post in 2007 to become the
head of the appellate practice at the prestigious New York law firm,
Weil, Gotshal, and Manges.
She has now returned to public service as the General Counsel of the
New York County District Attorney's Office--one of the largest
prosecutor's offices in the country.
Over the course of her distinguished career, Halligan has served as
counsel for a party or amicus in the Supreme Court more than 45 times.
She has argued in the Supreme Court herself in five cases, most
recently in March of this year. She also has argued or participated in
numerous other cases before State and Federal appellate courts,
including the New York Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.
In short, Ms. Halligan is an accomplished woman whose sterling
qualifications for the bench are unassailable.
Ms. Halligan was first nominated more than 14 months ago. She was
approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee nearly 9 months ago. She has
been waiting for an up-or-down vote on the floor ever since.
It is an unfortunate sign of the times that my colleagues on the
other side have held up her confirmation.
I understand that the National Rifle Association is opposed to Ms.
Halligan's confirmation.
Behind the NRA's opposition is the fact that, while she was New
York's Solicitor General, the State of New York pursued public nuisance
litigation against gun manufacturers.
Think about that--any time a person represents a State or local
government, or the Federal Government, and takes a controversial
position, that may jeopardize a later confirmation vote.
That is not fair. A government lawyer's job is to pursue the
government's interest vigorously and to do justice.
Ms. Halligan was appointed by the Attorney General to represent the
State of New York, while the State had a Republican Governor, George
Pataki. Her job was to advance New York's interest, and she did so with
vigor. She should not be penalized for it.
Senator Sessions made this point when the Senate was considering
Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. He said that ``[s]uggesting that service
in an elective branch of Government somehow tarnishes a lawyer's
reputation would be a terrible message for this body to send to the
legal community and to all citizens.''
I couldn't agree more.
My Republican colleagues might also say that the D.C. Circuit's
caseload does not support another judge, but they have short memories.
There are now three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit. That means that
Ms. Halligan would only fill the ninth seat, out of 11 on the Court.
Two seats would remain vacant.
However, my colleagues were not so concerned about this issue when
President Bush's appointees were before the Senate. In fact, my
Republican colleagues supported filling the 10th seat on the Court
twice, and the 11th seat once.
I will conclude by simply saying that Ms. Halligan is a woman with
sterling credentials, an exemplary record, and a wealth of experience.
She is President Obama's first and only nominee to the D.C. Circuit.
She should be confirmed.
Nominations of Edgardo Ramos and Andrew Carter, SDNY
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today I rise to support two outstanding
nominees to the federal bench in the Southern District of New York.
Over the years, I have had the great good fortune to support many
outstanding candidates to the federal bench.
Rarely, however, have I come across two nominees who are as
qualified, in every possible way, to be federal judges as Edgardo Ramos
and Judge Andrew Carter.
Ramos is the quintessential example of the American dream--he was
born in
[[Page S8178]]
Puerto Rico and was 1 of 7 children raised by a single mother in
Newark, NJ. He excelled in school, earning his bachelor's degree from
Yale and his law degree from Harvard.
After graduating, he was an associate at the New York firm Simpson,
Thatcher & Bartlett, and then served for 10 years as an Assistant U.S.
Attorney in the Eastern District of New York, including as Deputy Chief
of the Narcotics Section. Since 2002, he has been a partner in the New
York law firm Day Pitney. Ramos has earned an outstanding reputation
among his fellow lawyers, prosecutors, and judges and in the Hispanic
community. I have complete confidence that he will make an excellent
judge.
Magistrate Judge Andrew Carter was born in Albany, GA and he came to
New York after graduating from the University of Texas at Austin and
Harvard Law School. After law school, he worked for two years at the
Ford Foundation and became a public defender in New York courts, both
state and federal. He spent nine years at the New York office of the
Legal Aid Society, and then four years at the Federal Defenders of New
York.
Since 2009, he has served as a United States magistrate judge in the
Eastern District of New York, a position for which he was selected by a
vote of the sitting district judges. And that is terrific training to
be a Federal judge. Judge Carter is widely respected as a fair and
mild-mannered magistrate judge who understands the courtroom and the
needs of litigants.
Both Ramos and Judge Carter embody the three criteria that I look for
in a federal judge--excellence, moderation, and diversity.
Both have consistently risen to the top, academically and
professionally.
Both are entirely non-ideological--they are lawyers who are respected
by all of their peers, and who have approached the law with respect and
humility.
And, both increase the diversity of a bench that serves one of the
most diverse populations in the country. I have always said that, all
other things being equal, diversity of backgrounds, experience, and
ethnicity is an important consideration for federal judges. So, I am
pleased to have recommended two nominees to the federal bench who are
outstanding in every way.
The bench of the Southern District of New York has been one of the
hardest hit by judicial vacancies--currently, 21 percent of its seats
are open. With the addition of Edgardo Ramos and Judge Andrew Carter,
this important court will be closer to firing on all cylinders.
I look forward, with all New Yorkers, to their joining the bench.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are soon going to a rollcall vote on
Edgardo Ramos, of Connecticut, to be U.S. district judge for the
Southern District of New York. We also have three others on here:
Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of New York, to be U.S. district judge for the
Southern District of New York; James Rodney Gilstrap, of Texas, to be
U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Texas; and Dana L.
Christensen, of Montana, to be U.S. district judge for the District of
Montana.
I ask unanimous consent that following the rollcall vote for Edgardo
Ramos, Andrew L. Carter, Jr., James Rodney Gilstrap, and Dana L.
Christensen be considered by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ramos nomination.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Edgardo Ramos, of Connecticut, to be United States District Judge
for the Southern District of New York?
Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the
Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Merkley) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi),
the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Indiana (Mr.
Lugar), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 221 Ex.]
YEAS--89
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--11
DeMint
Enzi
Harkin
Hutchison
Landrieu
Lugar
Merkley
Rockefeller
Rubio
Vitter
Wicker
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Andrew L.
Carter, Jr., of New York, to be United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York?
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of James Rodney
Gilstrap, of Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Texas?
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Dana L.
Christensen, of Montana, to be United States District Judge for the
District of Montana?
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, and the
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________