[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 186 (Tuesday, December 6, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Page S8348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF CAITLIN HALLIGAN

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to speak in morning 
business, and I would like to respond to several things said by the 
Republican leader of the Senate. The first relates to Caitlin Halligan, 
who is a nominee to serve on the DC Circuit Court. The DC Circuit Court 
is the appellate court in the District of Columbia which, I would 
argue, next to the U.S. Supreme Court is one of our most important.
  The decisions of government are often sent to this court for review. 
At the current time, there are eight who are sitting on that court, and 
there are three vacancies. Of the eight who are on the court, five are 
Republican appointments. So it is clear that any effort now to bring a 
new nominee to the court may tip that political balance. I am afraid 
that has a lot more to do with the fate of Caitlin Halligan than 
anything that has been said on the Senate floor this morning.
  It is mystifying to me that Senate Republicans would filibuster her 
nomination. She is extraordinarily well qualified. She served for 7 
years as the solicitor general of the State of New York and currently 
serves as the general counsel at the New York County district 
attorney's office.
  She has argued five cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and has 
served as counsel of record in dozens of other cases before that Court.
  The American Bar Association looked at the qualifications of Caitlin 
Halligan, and here is what they said: She is unanimously ``well-
qualified'' to serve in this position.
  Ms. Halligan's legal views are well within the judicial mainstream. 
She has received widespread support from across the political spectrum.
  What I have heard this morning from the Republican leader are 
isolated examples of cases she may have argued, but he certainly does 
not speak to the fact that the National District Attorneys Association, 
the district attorneys from the State of New York, including 
Republicans Derek Champagne, Daniel Donovan, William Fitzpatrick, James 
Reams, and Scott Burns have all publicly endorsed her nomination. 
Raymond Kelly, police commissioner for the City of New York; Robert 
Morgenthau--one of the most respected district attorneys who ever 
served in this country; served New York County for 34 years--endorses 
her; the New York Association of Chiefs of Police; and the New York 
State Sheriff's Association.
  When you listen to these endorsements, you wonder: Is that the same 
woman the Senate Republican leader just questioned as to whether she 
was serious about stopping terrorism? I listened to some of these 
things, and I wonder how people of her quality would ever consider 
putting their name in nomination--that there could be suggestions on 
the Senate floor that perhaps she is not as strong as she should be in 
keeping America safe.
  There is simply nothing in the background of Caitlin Halligan that 
suggests we have any extraordinary circumstances that warrant the 
defeat of the cloture motion on her nomination.
  A moment in history, please. When there was a suggestion of 
filibustering judicial nominations years ago, and the so-called nuclear 
option was being discussed, a Gang of 14, a bipartisan group of 
Senators, came up and said: Unless there are extraordinary 
circumstances, we should vote on these nominees on the Senate floor.
  There are no extraordinary circumstances in the case of Caitlin 
Halligan. The only thing that is extraordinary is how many people from 
different walks of life have endorsed her candidacy and the American 
Bar Association finding her unanimously ``well-qualified.''
  There are no legitimate questions about her competence, ethics, 
temperament, or ideology. All she has done throughout her career is 
serve as an excellent lawyer on behalf of her client.
  The Republican arguments against Ms. Halligan's nomination boil down 
to just two: First, it does not matter if there are vacancies on the DC 
Circuit; and, in fact, in the past, they have argued to fill those same 
vacancies when they had an opportunity to install Republicans. Their 
second argument: Republicans are not happy with how certain nominees 
were treated years ago, and they see no problem taking out their 
unhappiness on this nominee.
  This is a dangerous path. I believe our country needs excellent 
judges. Time and again--in the Acting President pro tempore's State of 
New Hampshire, in my State of Illinois--you go to people who are 
sitting on the bench in a State court or in private practice and ask 
them if they would consider serving their Nation on the Federal court, 
and they know it is a big decision: whether they are going to change a 
career. But they know just as well that by submitting their name to the 
process, they are subjecting themselves to criticism, which many people 
just do not care to withstand.
  In this case, the criticism against Caitlin Halligan is baseless. If 
judicial nominees cannot be considered fairly by the Senate on their 
own merits, good lawyers are simply going to stop putting their name 
into the process for consideration and our country will suffer as a 
result.
  We should give Ms. Halligan an up-or-down vote on her merits. On that 
standard, she should clearly be confirmed.

                          ____________________