In a February 9 editorial, titled, “Detain this judicial nominee,” The Washington Times attacked Obama judicial nominee Caitlin Halligan, claiming that there are “disturbing discrepancies” in her Senate testimony and that a “Republican senator should put an indefinite hold on the nomination” if Democrats don't allow a “full investigation.” Media Matters has noted that National Review Online contributor Ed Whelan recently targeted Halligan.

From the Times editorial:

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.

[...]

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.

[...]

The D.C. circuit has a relatively low caseload. This seat should remain unfilled until Ms. Halligan's record is straightened out.