Republicans in the US Senate filibustered the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, despite her receiving majority support from the Senate on a cloture vote. The nomination failed to achieve cloture by a count of 54-45.
One Republican – Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — joined all 53 members of the Democratic caucus in voting to move ahead with Halligan’s nomination, leaving the former New York state solicitor general six votes short of the 60 votes necessary for ending debate.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who has never voted to filibuster a judicial nomination, voted “present.”
Tuesday’s vote is notable in that it marks the second time that Senate Republicans have blocked an Obama judicial nominee. In May, Republicans filibustered Obama’s nomination of Goodwin Liu to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit following a protracted battle over what GOP senators cited as the University of California at Berkeley law professor’s liberal views.
This obscures a bit what Senate Republicans have been able to do on judicial nominations. They have consistently blocked unanimous consent, forcing judicial nominations to eat up valuable floor time. The backlog has been pretty widespread, with dozens of nominees waiting months if not years to get a vote. Once the nominees get to the floor, Republicans have let the so-called noncontroversial nominees past, but Democrats, wary of wasting time on a nominee who will get a filibuster, have basically segregated the judicial votes, holding back nominees more likely to draw objections. They tried to get Halligan through today, and met near-unanimous opposition.
As Ian Milhiser writes, it’s hard to even piece out the GOP’s objection to Halligan, other than the fact that she was a nominee of Barack Obama. There’s a thin reed of her writing legal briefs against conservative positions while solicitor general of New York, but of course a solicitor general is not a policy making position. Somebody else made the policy decisions that it became her job to defend. If the new standard disqualifies people who write anything that smacks as liberal as part of their job, a whole host of potential public servants would have to be shown the door.
This spells the end of the Gang of 14, as members of it like Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe all voted against cloture for Halligan, despite no extraordinary circumstances involved in the case. Chuck Schumer said on the floor that there would be “lasting consequences” for this violation of the Gang of 14 agreement. I hardly believe this will bring the nuclear option back into play. So Senate Democrats can show everyone what they’ve got.
In a statement, Marge Baker of People for the American Way wrote that “Today’s vote has kept a talented lawyer from the bench, at least for the moment, but it has also set a new standard for D.C. Circuit nominees that will be virtually impossible for any president of either party to meet. Halligan’s nomination should not have been at all controversial– she is decidedly moderate and unquestionably qualified. If someone so unquestionably qualified and backed by top legal figures from across the political spectrum can be blocked by a filibuster, then who can’t be?” This is someone who Miguel Estrada wrote a brief supporting.
The escalation of obstructionism from Senate Republicans will only change when they pay a price for the obstruction.




8 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Could the action here be exacerbated by the court the appointment is for? I recall that the DC panel holds a special jurisdiction over federal government cases, especially on regulatory issues. Just sayin’.
Republicans suck.
If you don’t support war criminals and torture than the Republicans are afraid of you. We need to send them to the Hague for trial.
There is remarkable consistency in the manner in which “elected” officials of the congress almost immediately forget why they were “sent” there in the first place. Obstinate obstructionism obviously obscures ordinary opportunity, while dismal democrats destroy determination? Clownishness, at best.
David, one of the reasons I surmise is that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals handles all of the National Security issues like stuff for the CIA, the NSA, the DOD and the DOJ.
The Repugs have stacked the DC Circuit over the last decade with conservative wackos like Judges Janice Rogers Brown who recently ruled in the Latiff case that rendered habeus corpus effectively null and void for Gitmo detainees.
Just like the Repugs have stacked the Supreme Court with their conservative wacko nominees, so too are the Repugs ensuring that the DC Circuit will not get in their way in establishing their Wingnut Millenium.
It has been a decades-long sabotage effort to realign the Federal courts to the wingnuts’ liking, and we can thank Edwin Meese for the pleasure.
The Democrats, the ones who even deign to worry about this, dare not confront the Repugs. On this matter, if you stacked all of the Senate Democrats together, you wouldn’t find enough principled backbone to fill a thimble.
Oh well, Rome didn’t die in one day either.
The only price they could pay that would accomplish anything is ending the filibuster. It just takes 50 votes plus the VP supporting a ruling of the chair and the filibuster is history.
There is absolutley no excuse to hang back from this out of any hope that our side will need the filibuster once we are in the minority. Last time that was the case, they got our side to drop its filibuster of their Federalist Society stooges by threatening the rule change ending the filibuster. There was this phony deal with the Gang of 14 as window-dressing, whereby they dropped two nominees who didn’t clearly have 51 votes anyway, in exchange for the Ds letting the other ones through, and the supposedly solemn promise that judges would be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances.
Nor should our side hold back out of fear of appearing too confrontational, or of appearing to overreach. There’s a very simple and understandable narrative of a promise made about “extraordinary circumstances”, that promise broken, and now consequences imposed. It would improve our side’s standing with swing voters.
It’s a special hold, agreement to abide by unnecessary rules. Someone so inclined could go after Clarence Thomas and get him removed. John W. Dean has already written the blue print.
The Senate could be forced to stay over Christmas. If they left the congress in session to stop Obama from making an appointment, he could call for a quorum call and make them all come back. He could start enforcing laws and investigating torture. He could replace all of the republican embedded Attorneys that serve at the pleasure of the president. He could replace the Repug sinecures who are holed up in well paying do nothing jobs on University Boards. IOW, start shooting hostages, don’t threate.. tell them once and every hour take another libertyU grad out. They’d do what ever he wanted just to stop the blood letting over the holiday.
This is another one of those non fillibuster fillibusters, right?
Why don’t the Dems just demand that the Repubs ACTUALLY fillibuster instead of just threatening? Make them give speeches for 24 hours a day in opposition to some obscure judge.