- ‘Top Gun’ for drones: Squadrons of carrier-based killers have Navy’s approval
- Bill Clinton to endorse Charlie Rangel for re-election
- Pfc. Bradley Manning is now Pfc. Chelsea Manning: Court says so
- Secret base U.S. special forces used to train Libyans now under terrorist control: report
- 9th suspect in N.C. kidnapping turns self in to FBI
- L.A. sheriff admits to testing flyover spy program without notifying residents
- Foreign minister vows response if Russians are attacked in Ukraine
- Robert Griffin III to drive pace car before Richmond NASCAR race
- Material on Australian shore examined in jet hunt
- Bomb, shooting in Egypt kills 2 police officers
EDITORIAL: Detain this judicial nominee
Halligan’s Senate testimony looks fudged
There are disturbing discrepancies in Senate testimony by D.C. federal appellate-court nominee Caitlin Halligan. If majority Democrats won’t allow a full investigation, a Republican senator should put an indefinite hold on the nomination.
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 Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that she first “became aware of the existence of the report” last summer. Now that the report is controversial, she claims its conclusion was “incorrect,” that she was “a little bit taken aback by the tone of the report,” and that it doesn’t represent her work or views.
Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is suspicious about the timing of Ms. Halligan’s skepticism, especially since she listed this on a Judiciary Committee questionnaire among reports for which she had been “a member of the committee approving them.” Review of the e-mail trail should show what role Ms. Halligan played and “whether she agreed with the positions that she now distances herself from,” Mr. Whelan wrote for NRO.
Ms. Halligan’s legal judgment is questionable too. As solicitor general of New York state, she argued that colleges and school districts should be allowed to adopt racial criteria for admissions or school assignments and that people in same-sex-unions “must be treated as spouses for purposes of New York law.” The state’s highest court ruled against her position on the latter, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against her on three of four race cases.
The D.C. circuit has a relatively low caseload. This seat should remain unfilled until Ms. Halligan’s record is straightened out.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
- EDITORIAL: Downsize bloated National Park Service
- EDITORIAL: Court strikes blow for campus colorblindness on affirmative action
- EDITORIAL: Voting with one's feet shows folly of liberal economic policies
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Pelosi's foot-washing backwash
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: When disobeying orders saves lives
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Feds who send arms against ranch families betray American values
Get Breaking Alerts
- Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy hailed as patriot, ripped as lawless deadbeat
- CARSON: When government looks more like foe than friend
- Pentagon plans to replace flight crews with 'full-time' robots
- Georgia governor signs bill expanding gun rights
- America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds
- Texas is next! AG warns BLM wants 90,000 acres after Bundy ranch standoff
- Professor apologizes after blasting Republicans in class
- Justice Dept.'s new clemency guidelines: Crack offenders most obvious candidates
- Ukraine claims torture by pro-Russian forces on the heels of Biden's stern warning to Moscow
- Ministry of Truth: SCOTUS skeptical of law to police campaign 'lies'