Form letter response from my Senator re; Roberts nomination...

[bliss_eternal]

Just wanted to let you all know the feedback thus far from our petitions to our senators. If we keep track of what responses we receive, we have a better idea of our next course of action.

This was mine, sent to my e-mail today.

July 21, 2005



Dear __________:

Thank you for writing to me about the judicial
nominees sent to the Senate by President Bush. I
appreciate learning of your views and I welcome the
opportunity to respond.

The Constitution requires the President to
nominate Federal judges Aby and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.@ As a member of the Senate who
also serves on the Judiciary Committee, I consider my
Constitutional role to review judicial nominees to be
among my foremost and gravest responsibilities.

When I review a nominee, I look to find candidates
who have the necessary intellect, analytical skills, and
legal experience. In addition, the candidate should be
able to demonstrate a commitment to applying the law
fairly and impartially. You can be assured that I will do
my due diligence in regard to any nominee that comes
before the Judiciary Committee.

In recent months, I have been distressed over the
acrimony surrounding the judicial nominations process. I
believe our country would be better served if Congress
and the President could work cooperatively to get our
best and brightest judicial minds onto the Federal bench.

As a model, I would point to the bipartisan Judicial
Selection Committee Senator Boxer and I have created
with the White House to select district judges for
California. This process has worked well, leading to the
swift appointment of good, moderate judges to the
Federal bench. So far, it has taken the Senate an average
of just 114 days to confirm judges recommended by the
Judicial Selection Committee; which is over 80 days
faster than the pace at the end of the Clinton
Administration.

Again, thank you so much for writing. If you
should have any other questions or comments, please feel
free to visit my website at http://feinstein.senate.gov, or
contact my office in Washington, D.C. at [phone].


Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

http://feinstein.senate.gov

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the
Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov. You can also
receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at
http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html.

:eyes:

How I HATE form letters...

[Bucky]

1. I got one from Arlen Specter... even tho I'm from Texas

This really shows you who's got their acts together, electronically.

[Old Vet]

2. I got two, Hillary and Schumer wrote back.

[bliss_eternal]

4. Yes, exactly.

An office that doesn't at least have a handle on the electronic thing, will take more work on our part--to get the message across. But at least we will know what actions we have to take.

[SCDem]

3. I got one from Lindsey Graham

but better than absolutely no response from Jim DeMint.

[bliss_eternal]

5. I got one from Boxer's office-directing me to her website to

send something more personal, so she may have an opportunity to address it 'more personally.' At least that is what it said. I doubt she would have time to, but I give her and her staff points for making the effort.

:thumbsup:

So I went to the site and sent a personal e-mail to her office. We'll see what comes of it. I have more faith in Boxer than I do in Feinstein, anyway...

[il_lilac]

6. Here's my response from one of my senators

Thank you for advising me of your views on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court. I share your concern about the potential ramifications of Judge O'Connor's retirement from the Supreme Court.

As I'm sure you are aware from watching the media, the White House is mounting an all-out campaign to shape the public perception of Judge Roberts before the constitutionally-mandated confirmation process even starts. Nonetheless, I can assure you that I take very seriously the Senate's role in this process. The Constitution gives the U.S. Senate the special responsibility to "advise and consent" on appointments to the federal bench, and the Senate's judgment on Judge Roberts' nomination must be based on a careful examination of his record and upcoming testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Judge Roberts' advocates point to his sterling academic and professional credentials as justification for his confirmation. My standard is to assure that any Supreme Court nominee will respect the constitutionally protected rights of individuals and resist the temptation to substitute personal ideology for legal reasoning in court rulings.

The Senate should not, however, allow an impressive resume and admirable personal story to supersede those fundamental considerations. Democratic leaders on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, who will shepherd the Democrats through the confirmation process, have expressed some concern during their initial reviews of Judge Roberts' record. Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking member on the Committee, has said that "a preliminary review of Judge Roberts' record suggests areas of significant concern that need exploration." I am hopeful that the Committee, the White House and the full Senate will work together in seeing that all relevant concerns are addressed.

Again,Laura, thank you for your message. Hearings on Judge Roberts' nomination will begin within the next several weeks. Please keep in touch while this debate unfolds.


Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

[bliss_eternal]

7. I like your letter from Senator Obama better than mine from

Feinstein.

He at least seemed to take a stance. Feinstein seems to go out of her way to NOT go out of the way taking any sort of position.

:banghead: