NEW YORK (Reuters) - The White House on Friday admitted defeat on its choice of New York lawyer Caitlin Halligan for a judgeship on a powerful appeals court, withdrawing her nomination two weeks after Senate Republicans blocked her for the second time.
President Barack Obama expressed anger that Republicans would not permit a Senate vote even as Halligan appeared to have the support of a majority of senators.
"I am deeply disappointed that even after nearly two and a half years, a minority of senators continued to block a simple up-or-down vote on her nomination," he said in a statement.
Halligan was nominated for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, widely considered the second most influential U.S. court after the Supreme Court.
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was the lone Republican to vote in Halligan's favor on March 6.
Republicans said they were concerned about Halligan's legal "activism" during her time as New York's state solicitor general from 2001 to 2006.
They zeroed in on arguments she made on behalf of the state that gun manufacturers should be held accountable for violent crimes committed with weapons they had made.
Obama is the first president in 50 years who failed to make an appointment to the court during a full term. The 11-seat court has four vacancies, a situation Obama called "unacceptable" on Friday.....snip~
Obama withdraws judicial nominee blocked twice by Republicans
A MAJOR defeat for Obama!!!!!
Not only is this a major defeat for Obama over his Appointment. But this a Major Victory for Pro Gun Peeps as all this time while we have all this news over the gun issue. Obama was trying to be slick.
Here it is in black and white. As Obama has been trying to get this bitch appointed to the Court for the last 2 years. Way ahead of his Public Push for Gun Control and his Assault weapon and magazine ban. Now you know just how devious this guy can be.
Although I am glad he gets this Dubious Honor of being the First President in the Last 50 years.....to FAIL in making an appointment to the Court during his Full Term. Lets give his azz a Standing Ovation.....okay maybe not. But some applause at the least!
Considering this is the argument you're making against her, yes, I think it's important to address the veracity of your statement.
Okay
- CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTSHalligan Hearing said:
I'm fully aware of what begging the question is, and my statement did not engage in the fallacy at all.
Completely inaccurate, but for argument's sake, let's say the 2nd Amendment is as decided in DC vs. Haller.
I'm new here and you're the one making the claim, not me. Please support your statement that this lawsuit, in which this woman was doing her duty to the state of New York (regardless of her personal opinions on the subject) show Halligan to be against the 2nd Amendment.
I framed my question in relation to the 2nd Amendment as it was written. I then asked how that lawsuit impeded upon the 2nd Amendment as written.
No, I just actually read the 2nd Amendment and noted, in particular, the section about a "well regulated militia".
Those details are the entire point of this thread.
So then you hijacked a thread to go off-topic, in an attempt to start an argument over a topic which has been argued for 40+ years. That was your contribution to this debate. And by the way, my statement was neither dishonest nor erroneous. It was asking how a lawsuit was in violation of the 2nd Amendment as it was written. And to prove it was not dishonest, I was more than willing to discuss alternate interpretations of the Second Amendment.
My apologies. I assumed you came into this thread with the honest intention of contributing to the thread topic. My mistake for thinking you were here to actually further the discussion, and not to hijack a thread with an off-topic discussion which has been debated ad nauseum for 40+ years. I'll be sure to note your usernname, to avoid ever again thinking you wish to engage in the topic of the thread. I'd hate to mistake your position a second time.
I'm talking about any time one party prevents a simple majority vote to allow our country to proceed. This time it happened to be the Republicans doing it. The next time it could be the Democrats.
It DOES say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"...
*sigh*
Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. There are hundreds of years and thousands of people/arguments which agree with me, just as there is half a century and thousands of people/arguments which agree with you.
And if you don't want positions to be attributed to you which naturally follow the thread of a discussion, then I suggest you not post in those threads. What I find most amusing about you is how you keep transferring your own failures onto me. You're the one who came into the thread defending someone else. You're the one who engaged in the discussion with me. You're the one asserting your interpretation is the only valid one, when hundreds of years and thousands of valid arguments disagree. You're the dishonest one here, and now you're crying about how I naturally assumed your defense against my statement was a stance in favor of the thread topic.
I'm still waiting on you to answer my question. You can bold a million things if you want, but you have not once answered my question. I did, however, answer yours with words which came straight from her own mouth.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:
