Below is a transcript of a communication from my Senator Bill Nelson (D) Florida during the last Congress. He is responding to a communication from me on the subject of the judicial nomination blockaid being waged by the democrats. To his credit he replied. Graham’s robot ack'd receipt, that’s it.
It does offer a glimpse into the democrat psyche. His words are in bold italics, my words are in normal font.
----- Original Message -----
From: Senator Bill Nelson
To: Ross Calloway
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Your response from Senator Bill Nelson
Dear Mr. Calloway:
Thank you for contacting me regarding judicial nominations.
Although I am not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which holds hearings on each individual nominee, I pay close attention to each candidate. I conduct a thorough review and inquiry into each nominee’s
qualifications, integrity, and past record. The confirmation of qualified nominees is important to ensure that the judicial branch can execute its constitutional duties.
Yes, absolutely, "review and inquiry into each nominee’s qualifications, integrity, and past record." That is the proper way to examine a nominee.
I believe that the recent 30-hour debate held on judicial nominations was the result of too much partisanship in Congress.
Yes, absolutely. By Ted Kennedy, Leahy, Shumer and the rest of the liberal senators on the judiciary committee. You might disagree with me on where it's coming from, but you'd be wrong. But using the filibuster tactic on judicial nominees is wrong and an affront to the Constitution you were sworn to preserve Senator. The Constitution does not dictate that only liberal thinking judges are acceptable. What you and the democrats that support it are guilty of is ideological discrimination. It's not a matter of who's on top, who's got the power; that fight isn't in the constitution. The fight, the partisanship, the obstruction is in your party.
You said yourself in the first para that a nominee's qualifications, integrity, and past record is what matters. Logically then, you cannot support what Leahy & Co. are doing. So why are you? Please, before you answer this, read the rest of my reply.
Ideally, I would like the process of nominating and confirming judges to be less divisive through consultation between the president and senators -
"Ideally" to you must mean that just judges you like should be confirmed, and the ones that the other party likes should not. Take your lumps Senator. The nominating and confirming process, if done the way it's been done for the last couple hundred years, would be a pretty much necessary formality, when considering the criteria that you say you use.
so that judges would be acceptable to the broad mainstream of Americans.
Senator, a nominee who is "acceptable to the broad mainstream of Americans" is the nominee the President picks. It was a broad mainstream of Americans that elected him and every President before him. Sorry, I realize you haven't recovered from 2000 yet, but remember it was your guy who went to court first. And did you hear, none of the subsequent independent recounts changed the result?
Back to the subject at hand, its the senate that decides who makes the cut, by voting on it, simple majority. You are attempting to say that the constitution now gives YOU the right to, in addition to determining a nominee's qualifications, integrity, and past record, that you must also 'determine' what is 'acceptable' to the 'broad mainstream' of Americans. That's a leap and smear on the Constitution that neither I nor you should accept. Sure sounds good when you say it, but it doesn't make it right. That is way and far beyond the scope of responsibility given to you when it comes to judicial nominations.
I believe we need to fill judicial vacancies promptly, but at the same time, we must be sure to approve the best judges for the job.
If your view of "the best judges" for the job means that they should cross both hurdles, the qualifications, integrity, and past record, AND your filter of what you think the public wants, then I can see who is being divisive, and why. If the best judges are what you are looking for, then let the people decide, end the filibuster on the nominees, and let the full senate (otherwise known as the broad mainstream of Americans) vote. You guys are like sand in the axle grease. Quit being cute with the Constitution and get on to business. If the senate doesn't confirm them, then the President will have to find someone else. The onus is on him, not you. Don't obstruct, please.
I appreciate you sharing your opinion with me on this issue. Your communication helps me serve you better in the Senate.
Thank you, Senator, for your reply. I would appreciate it if you would please respond to this letter with equal candor.
Best regards,
Ross Calloway
---------------------------------
July 18, 2004: I suppose 9 weeks is long enough to assume that the good senator has no intention to reply. This is how well he represents his constituents.
All this tends to support the notion that, on the basis of ideas, the Dems have no standing. Ever quick to say what sounds good and politically expedient at the time. To them, history began this morning, and reality is what they say rather than what they do.
12:11:04 AM 
|
|
