As soon as next week, the Senate is expected to consider Caitlin Halligan’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Halligan is a former Supreme Court clerk, a former Solicitor General of the state of New York, and is currently general counsel for one of the largest prosecutor’s offices in the country. She received the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association. And she was enthusiastically endorsed by a bipartisan group of some of the top Supreme Court advocates in the country.

Her nomination was also filibustered more than a year ago by Senate Republicans after the National Rifle Association sent them a letter complaining that she argued a position in court that the NRA disagrees with.

A lot has happened since then, however. The NRA spent the months after the Sandy Hook massacre engaged in what appears to be a very skillfully crafted campaign to eradicate its own credibility. The NRA went silent for a week after this tragedy occurred, only to send their CEO Wayne LaPierre forth from his bunker to claim that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” More recently, LaPierre published an op-ed warning that a breakdown of civilization is coming, but you may not be around to see it because Latino gangs are also out to get you, and so is al-Qaeda, and the only way to save yourself is to buy a gun. The NRA’s opposition to universal background checks is less popular than communism, polygamy or human cloning. There are literally more Americans that believe they have personally seen a UFO than agree with the NRA’s stance on background checks.

And yet the highest ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee still believes he should follow the NRA’s lead on judges. Earlier this week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) announced he would rekindle the filibuster against Halligan when she comes to the Senate floor because “she’s got gun problems.” Grassley previously cited the NRA’s opposition to Halligan in a statement explaining why he was filibustering her.

In case there is any doubt, the NRA’s case against Halligan is exceptionally weak. As Solicitor General of New York, Halligan’s job was to advocate on behalf of the state’s legal positions whether she agreed with them or not. New York took a position that departs from the NRA’s maximalist views on guns, and Halligan did her job by arguing her client’s position in court.

Simply put, a government attorney’s arguments on behalf of the government they represent says virtually nothing about how they actually view a particular legal issue. President George W. Bush’s first Solicitor General, Ted Olson, successfully defended campaign finance reform while he was in the Justice Department, only to convince five justices to destroy most of our campaign finance regime when he argued Citizens United. Bush’s second Solicitor General, Paul Clement, argued and won one of the strongest cases establishing that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional when he was in the government, and then spent more than a year undermining his victory once he was hired to claim that health reform is unconstitutional. So attacking Halligan for her gun arguments is a bit like attacking conservative movement’s top lawyer for being too friendly to Obamacare.

Ultimately, however, it shouldn’t be surprising that the NRA’s case against Halligan doesn’t hold water — this is, after all, an organization that believes we must arm ourselves to defend against scary Latinos and the collapse of civil society. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that Grassley appears willing to give a group that holds these views a veto power over judges.

INDIANOLA, Iowa — Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is the latest Republican considering legislation to strengthen gun laws, despite his history of opposition to gun regulations.

In a handful of town halls throughout southern Iowa this week, Grassley was repeatedly asked his views on stronger gun laws. He made clear that he would oppose an assault weapons ban, but said he’d consider legislation on extended magazine clips and universal background checks.

“I’m going to see what the language of the amendment is,” Grassley told a constituent on Wednesday in Indianola when asked about a poll showing 88 percent of Iowans supporting universal background checks. He noted that although he’d opposed universal background checks in the past, he would consider such legislation this time around:

CONSTITUENT: I’m a pastor in the a church here in town, Crossroads United Church of Christ. We are very concerned about gun violence as you may have gathered. The Des Moines Register poll said that 88 percent of Iowans support background checks on gun buyers. Would you support that since 88 percent of your constituents do?

GRASSLEY: I’ve answered other people this way so I’m going to answer you the same way. I’m going to see what the language of the amendment is. I can tell you I didn’t support it 10 years ago when it was up, but if I did support anything, it would not go as far as a father giving his son a gun or something like that. I think that it can get a little ridiculous depending on what you do.

Watch it:

Grassley’s support for stronger gun legislation would be significant. He has received an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, as well as more than $40,000 in campaign contributions from the organization. He’s also been a consistent opponent of strengthening America’s gun laws, including the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

Still, many critics would justifiably be once bitten, twice shy when it comes to Grassley’s “openness” to progressive legislation. During the Obamacare debate, Grassley led many Democrats to believe his was a gettable vote, only to then dismiss the legislation and accuse Democrats of wanting to “pull the plug on grandma.”

INDIANOLA, Iowa — Republicans have offered a number of reasons why they oppose the Violence Against Women Act. Some think it’s unconstitutional. Others argue that it’s just a meaningless bill with a patriotic title.

On Wednesday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) added a new one: Native Americans supposedly aren’t capable of holding fair trials.

Last week, Grassley was one of just 22 senators—all Republican men—who voted against reauthorizing VAWA. During a town hall meeting in Indianola on Wednesday, a woman asked him to explain his vote. Grassley responded that the legislation is unconstitutional, a belief shared by at least five of his colleagues.

Since the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to a trial among a jury of peers, Grassley reasoned that white men would be deprived of their rights if those who were accused of violence against Native American women had to appear in a tribal court. “On an Indian reservation, it’s going to be made up of Indians, right?” Grassley said. “So the non-Indian doesn’t get a fair trial.”

GRASSLEY: One provision that non-Native Americans can be tried in tribal court. And why is that a big thing? Because of the constitutionality of it, for two reasons. One, you know how the law is, that if you have a jury, the jury is supposed to be a reflection of society. [...] So you get non-Indians, let me say to make it easy, you get non-Indians going into a reservation and violating a woman. They need to be prosecuted. They aren’t prosecuted. So the idea behind [VAWA] is we’ll try them in tribal court. But under the laws of our land, you got to have a jury that is a reflection of society as a whole, and on an Indian reservation, it’s going to be made up of Indians, right? So the non-Indian doesn’t get a fair trial.

Watch it:

There is actually no requirement that juries reflect “society as a whole.” The Sixth Amendment requires juries to be drawn from the “State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” and Supreme Court decisions establish that criminal defendants also have a right to a jury which is “drawn from a fair cross section of the community,” where the trial court convenes to hear their case. But this does not entitle anyone to be tried by a jury that reflects the whole of American society.

A person who is tried in Vermont is likely to have an all-white jury because over 95 percent of Vermont is white. Similarly, a person who commits a crime in the Navajo Nation will face a jury of Native Americans because the population of the local community is made up of Navajo people. There is no reason to believe that Navajo jurors are any less impartial than white Vermonters, and Grassley is wrong to suggest otherwise.

Grassley went to great lengths to tell attendees that he had supported VAWA in the past. “I support 98 percent of what’s in the bill,” he said. If it weren’t for his belief that Native Americans’ are incapable of conducting a fair trial, perhaps he would have voted for it again.

If you want Congress to reauthorize VAWA, sign ThinkProgress’ petition here.

CHARITON, Iowa — During a town hall on Wednesday, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee embraced the reasoning behind the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing a woman’s choice to get an abortion, although he did not appear aware of the significance of his statement.

Speaking to a small group of constituents in rural Chariton, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was asked about a Facebook rumor that the government would soon be implanting microchips in children and government workers in order to track their health records. After informing the constituent that the claim had no merit, Grassley continued by endorsing the same “right to privacy” that was the backbone of Roe v. Wade and similar decisions.

CONSTITUENT: They’re saying that they’re going to start, in 2013, putting microchips in government workers and then any kid that enrolls in school, starting in pre-school, will have a microchip implanted in them so that they can track them. [...] Is that true?

GRASSLEY: No. First of all, nothing can be done to your body without your permission. It’d be a violation of the constitutional right to privacy if that were to happen.

Watch it:

The constitutional right to privacy that Grassley refers to is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but Roe concluded that it is one of the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that states many not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Anti-choice advocates, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), all contend that women should be stripped of their ability to get an abortion because, in Scalia’s words, “there’s no right to privacy in the Constitution — no generalized right to privacy.”

Of course, Grassley remains a staunch opponent of a woman’s right to choose, receiving a “0” pro-choice score from NARAL in 2011. But for the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee to confirm that the Constitution does, indeed, include a right to privacy is a major concession undercutting conservatives’ legal argument for overturning Roe.

The National Rifle Association’s NRA Political Victory Fund PAC has distributed more than $1 million in career donations to current members of the United States Senate. And, like their House counterparts, the Senators who have received the most are also among the most vocal opponents of any new gun violence prevention legislation advanced in the aftermath of the school shooting at Newton, Connecticut.

A ThinkProgress analysis of data from Political MoneyLine reveals that the top 10 Senate beneficiaries of NRA money are all Republicans. Each has already indicated his opposition to President Obama’s gun violence proposals and each has received an “A” or “A+” rating from the NRA. They are:

SEN. JIM INHOFE (R-OK) — AT LEAST $64,900

Inhofe said last month, “I will continue to strongly oppose any effort to undermine the Second Amendment and an individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. … The text of the Constitution clearly confers upon an individual the right to bear arms – and not just for the purposes of hunting as many liberals will claim. Our Founders believed that the people’s right to own guns was an important check on the powers of the government and ‘necessary to the security of a free State.’ I couldn’t agree more and I stand firm in my support of this right.”

SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO) — AT LEAST $60,550

Blunt said last month, “Unfortunately, the president’s proposals today fundamentally fail to address ways that we can prevent tragic events like Sandy Hook, and instead, he’s attempting to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.” Last week, he expressed doubt that the Senate would even expand background checks.

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA) — AT LEAST $56,950

Chambliss said last month, “While I am certain that the president’s proposal is well-intentioned, it is Congress’ responsibility to make sure that Americans’ constitutional rights are protected.”

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD) — AT LEAST $48,605

Thune said last month, “There is a lot of emotion driving this debate. We need to prevent this in the future, and make the schools and our kids safer. And frankly, I don’t think it has to do with restrictions on the Second Amendment.”

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC) — AT LEAST $46,600

Graham said last month, “One bullet in the hands of a homicidal maniac is one too many. But in the case of a young mother defending her children against a home invader — a real-life event which recently occurred near Atlanta — six bullets may not be enough. Criminals aren’t going to follow legislation limiting magazine capacity. However, a limit could put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage when confronting a criminal. As for reinstating the assault weapons ban, it has already been tried and failed.”

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL) — AT LEAST $43,755

Shelby said on his Congressional website, “We all mourn the victims of shocking tragedies that have resulted from senseless acts of violence perpetrated by seriously disturbed individuals. However, such tragedies should not be viewed as an indictment of America’s precious Second Amendment rights. Thus, we should not react in a manner that would unnecessarily and improperly infringe upon the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding American gun owners. Unfortunately, it seems that some zealous gun rights opponents are seeking to leverage tragedies to further their long-held agenda of unduly restricting Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

SEN. MIKE CRAPO (R-ID) — AT LEAST $43,700

Crapo said last month, “The President’s proposal on gun control is very disappointing. Any discussion about restricting the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans deserves, at minimum, a full and public debate in Congress. Burdening law-abiding citizens of this country with additional gun restrictions is not the answer to safeguarding the public from further attacks.”

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT) — AT LEAST $41,750

Hatch said last month that even passage of universal background checks would be “the way reductions in liberty occur.” He added, “When you start saying people all have to sign up for something, and they have a database where they know exactly who’s who, and where government can persecute people because of the database, that alarms a lot of people in our country, and it flies in the face of liberty,” noting that gun rights are “an express provision in the Constitution, unlike the penumbras and other conjured-up provisions that aren’t there that the court has come up with over the years. This is express, and many people are very, very concerned about any infringement on it, and I’m one of them.”

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA) — AT LEAST $41,200

Grassley said last month, “The Second Amendment is more than just words on paper. It’s a fundamental right that ensures citizens the ability to protect themselves against the government. Unfortunately, the President seems to think that the Second Amendment can be tossed aside. Using executive action to attempt to poke holes in the Second Amendment is a power grab along the same pattern we’ve seen of contempt for the elected representatives of the American people. Some of these directives clearly run afoul of limitations Congress has placed on federal spending bringing the President’s actions in direct conflict with federal law. More importantly, it’s hard to see how any of these executive actions would have prevented the tragedies that precipitated this effort.”

SEN. ROGER WICKER (R-MS) — AT LEAST $36,750

Wicker said last month, “The President’s proposals would violate the Constitution and have been proven not to be effective in preventing gun violence, I will be part of a bipartisan coalition opposing this legislation and looking for real solutions such as school safety guards, mental health care, and addressing the culture of violence in the media. The Second Amendment rights of Americans must be preserved.”

The 10 have received more than $480,000 combined in career NRA PAC money.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights subcommittee will hold a hearing Tuesday to examine proposals to reduce gun violence. The four Republicans on the nine-person panel are Graham, Hatch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). Cruz (at least $9900) has blasted the President for “trying to exploit the tragic murder of children as an excuse to push his own extreme anti-gun agenda,” and Cornyn ($17,850) has said we must enforce existing gun laws before we consider any new ones.