U were saying now?
Right.....she would follow the precedent of the law. Which like I stated from the get go. She says she does. Talk and actions are two different things. Now as a Private attorney show the link where she has been about the 2nd amendment.
Barack Obama nominated Caitlin Halligan on September 29, 2010.
She now serves as the General Counsel for the New York County District Attorney’s Office. This seat has been vacant for over six years.
A strong advocate of affirmative action, this lawyer is a radical opponent of the Second Amendment! She has demonstrated that her positions are “activist” oriented!
According to the Judicial Action Group:
“
A thorough examination of Ms. Halligan’s record clearly demonstrates she does not meet the standard appropriate for that of a judge to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Her appellate briefs in multiple cases on a variety of issues repeatedly petition courts to change public policy and law through activist decisions.”
Since this was highlighted by some during the nomination process,
she has unsuccessfully tried to “distance herself” from that quote. But her failure to provide substantive evidence that would clarify her statements is harmful to the United States, especially to gun owners.
U.S. Senator Tom Coburn asked Ms. Halligan about her views about tort liability for gun manufacturers. Her response: “I am not familiar with the laws of any other state or federal law, and have no basis for an opinion regarding any such claims that might be brought in other jurisdictions.”
However, for a person “not familiar” with the law, how could she have filed an amicus brief on the exact same subject in the Second Court?
The Washington Times reports: “…
numerous discrepancies in Halligan’s hearing before the United States Judiciary Committee.
The controversy is over a 2004 New York City bar association report on enemy combatants, which concluded that indefinite detention during wartime is unconstitutional. Ms. Halligan was listed as a signatory on the document but told Senator Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican that she first ‘became aware of the existence of the report’ last summer.”
The Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association have opposed the nomination of Caitlin Halligan.
Mr. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action wrote: “The NRA’s opposition is based on Ms. Halligan’s attacks on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”
John Velleco, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, wrote: “Halligan has proven to us that she places liberal political activism above fealty to the law.”
The U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee (RPC) writes: “
Ms. Halligan’s well-documented record as a committed advocate of extreme liberal positions raises questions about whether she would be a fair and impartial jurist. These concerns are compounded by the fact that Ms. Halligan has been nominated to one of the most important courts in the United States.”
The Republican National Lawyers Association officially condemns the nomination of Ms. Halligan. Their precise call in a letter sent to Congressional leaders on November 2 is: “The Republican National Lawyers Association opposes the confirmation of Caitlin Halligan to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit and urges Senators to oppose her nomination.”
“Ms. Halligan has provided answers to the (Congressional) Committee
that demonstrate both a disturbing lack of candor and an uninformed view of legislation that she, through her public positions, deemed unconstitutional.”
“…
Her record reveals numerous instances where she has advanced an ‘evolving or living constitution’ methodology.”
The Republican National Lawyers Association letter went on to reprimand Ms. Halligan to the Congressional leadership: “Ms. Halligan’s statements regarding judicial philosophy also raise concerns about her candor. At her Senate Judiciary Committee hearing and in response to questions for the record, she indicated that judges should look to original intent when interpreting the Constitution. She explained in response to a written question from Senator Grassley: ‘A judge should look to domestic legal sources in interpreting the United States Constitution – specifically, the text of the Constitution, the original intent of the framers, and governing precedent.”
Anti-Gun Caitlin Halligan Court Confirmation Today
Hows that Happiness you were talkin about now. U happy yet or do you need to see more my liberal brutha. :lol: