Lte from Sen. Leahy-maybe Dems won't go so peacefully?

[babylonsister]

Dear XXXXXXX,

As the President moves to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor at the Supreme Court, we in the Senate are fast approaching a moment of truth. The Judiciary Committee has announced confirmation hearings for the White House's choice, John Roberts -- the hearings begin on September 6 -- and I wanted to give you a quick update.

This is a brisk schedule. To make it work, we need the White House to give its full cooperation. Senators need the same information to make their choice that the President needed to make his. Yet so far, the Bush Administration has yet to respond to key Senate requests for information -- in spite of warnings from my Democratic colleagues and me that the American people deserve a full review of John Roberts' career.

Americans don't want a rubber-stamp justice on the Court. They expect more than a rubber-stamp process from the Senate. President Bush must know that we need a fair, thoughtful process -- not a rush to judgment.

The President says he wants a replacement for Justice O'Connor in place by October, when the Supreme Court term begins. But for us to meet that goal, the White House has to cooperate by giving the Senate the information it needs to make a fair, informed decision.

A justice who wins confirmation to the Supreme Court holds that job for life. The Court can shape the future of our civil rights, employment laws, environmental safeguards and reproductive freedoms -- which means that as the Senate moves toward the Roberts hearings, all of the American people have something at stake.

The Bush Administration has demanded that the Senate keep a tight schedule. But what we need more than the White House telling us when and how to do our job is a White House willing to help us expedite our consideration by making relevant materials available without delay.

The White House says it might need a month to screen documents before giving them to the Senate. Yet the Republican leadership in the Senate wants hearings to begin in a little more than a month -- a timetable that leaves senators almost no time to review critical information before casting one of the key votes of their careers. For the Senate to do its job before October, it needs time to review information about John Roberts -- and the White House needs to provide that information, fast.

Under the Constitution, the Senate has a duty to review presidential nominations to the Supreme Court. The American people need us to make those decisions as best as we can -- and that matters far more, over the long run, than doing so as fast as we can.

It's up to the White House to give the Senate the information the American people need us to have. We expect a fair vote, not an attempt to have this pivotal nomination rubber-stamped.

With thanks,

Patrick Leahy
Ranking Democratic Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

P.S. This nomination is one of the most important decisions of our time. Please forward this message -- ask everyone you know to sign the petition and to send the message, "The Senate is not a rubber stamp."

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/norubberstamps

[NVMojo]

1. thanks for posting

[1monster]

2. My message to my Senators on the No Rubber Stamp page. Please comment

or suggest edits/changes before I press the send button.

I'd like you to please remember that the Legislative Branch is not an arm of the Executive Branch. And that the Supreme Court has the final say over all matters Constitutional.

I recognize that those who are currently undermining our system of three separate branches of government into one all powerful Executive Branch with two rubber stamp branches have been working toward this goal since (and probably before) World War II.

It saddens me that our country has come to what it has and I fear for the future of my son and his generation. Had I realized thirteen years ago that the hubris of those who think they have the right to rule over everyone else in the world, never recognizing the sovereignty of other nations or the rights of privacy of our country's own citizens, I would have remained childless.

Please do not automatically give the Executive Branch what it wants just because it wants it or just because they are good at arm twisting. Please do not allow partisan politics stop you from completely vetting all nominees sent to the Senate for comfirmation. THAT IS YOUR JOB. If the Executive Branch does not comply with request for information about the person/people it is nominating, then one must infer that the nominee is subpar and should not be confirmed.

I like most thinking people in this country want a BALANCED court. I don't want it leaning too far to the left and I don't want it leaning too far to the right.

Please help stop the polarization that is happening in our country and our world. If you do your part, I will do mine and so will many many othe people who are uneasy at the divisions that are causing huge cracks in our nation.

I'll end with a quote from a Republican President: "A house divided against iself can not stand."

[journalist3072]

3. Leahy is not my Senator, but here is my letter to him

Dear Senator Leahy:

As Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you have a tremendous responsibility at hand: to consider whether the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to be the next Supreme Court Justice will be reported out to the full Senate for consideration.

Unfortunately, many Democrats are already declaring support for Roberts, saying it will be hard to view him as an extremist, or label him as outside the mainstream.

Senator, I do not see how such assessments can be made so early after his nomination, because Roberts has such a short paper trail.

I'm also worried that too many Senators will except Judge Roberts' explanation that he views Roe v. Wade as "settled law." Senator Leahy, I do not think the issue is whether Judge Roberts views Roe v. Wade as settled law.

Rather, I think the question should be: does Judge Roberts think Roe v. Wade should be re-settled, either because of his personal ideology, or a belief that the original case was decided incorrectly.

In his current position as an appellate judge, John Roberts is required to follow settled law. As a Supreme Court Justice, however, he will have the opportunity to re-settle law, which makes his position on issues like abortion, affirmative action, civil rights, etc all the more important.

This is not a time for Senators to forget their role in the advise and consent process.

[1monster]

4. Yours is good...

probably more clear headed and less emotional than mine...

edited to add: Lehy is not my Senator either, however, above the letter box it asks for your zip code and says "Send a message to your Senators." Thus I assume the letter will go to the Senators from my state.

[journalist3072]

5. Your letter is excellent as well....but here is what I would add....

I think your letter is great!

However, from my own perspective, I would add one thing. I would press home the point that the Supreme Court is often the last stop for someone seeking legal recourse, when they feel justice has not been done.

I think that's important.

We have a lot of people who count on the courts for legal recourse, when they have been denied that recourse elsewhere.

So when considering judicial nominations, it's extremely important to ensure that you have someone whose own personal views or ideology will not prevent them from rendering justice.

And if a United States Senator feels a judicial or Supreme Court nominee cannot render justice, they not only have the right, they have the obligation, to STOP that nomination.

[1monster]

6. Excellent point. I'll add that.

Thanks

[journalist3072]

7. No problem at all. n/t

[cascadiance]

9. Sibel Edmonds will likely be appealing to the Supreme Court any day now...

It would be interesting to hear his perspective on whether her case should be heard or not!

[babylonsister]

8. Anyone care to sign?

[maxrandb]

10. Make the Lame Duck Recess Appoint Everyone From Here On Out

including the "Chief Cook and Bottle Washer".

If Bolton didn't teach the Senate Democrats anything, then it's too late for our country.

The Dems policy statement should be; "We don't negotiate with terrorist".