Sen Pat Roberts (R - Kansas) filibuster reply

[kansasblue]

Thank you for sharing your insights and advice on federal judicial
appointments. As a United States Senator, I take my constitutional
responsibility seriously in examining each nominee's record before casting
a vote. I value your guidance on this important issue.

President Bush has nominated many qualified jurists to fill vacancies
throughout the nation's judicial districts. Each nominee has received
approval from the American Bar Association as well as support from some of
the most prominent legal scholars in the country.

Unfortunately, the partisan environment that has existed since 2003 in
regard to judicial nominations has prevented the Senate from fulfilling
its constitutional obligation to advise and consent on all qualified
nominees. Filibusters by some in the minority have prevented up-or-down
votes on nearly a dozen nominees. Unable to muster 60 votes necessary to
stop the filibuster, the Senate has been unable to consider these key
nominations.

In an effort to move beyond the stalemate, various proposals have been
considered, most notably, the constitutional option championed by Majority
Leader Bill Frist. This would involve seeking a ruling from the President
of the Senate to change the Senate rules to reaffirm a majority vote
standard for judicial nominations. While this option has generated much
debate, it is important to know that the rule change would apply only to
judicial nominations. Extended debate and the potential for a filibuster
would remain unchanged for legislative proposals. I support Majority
Leader Frist's efforts to ensure every Senator is given the opportunity to
vote in support of or in opposition to a given nominee. This would simply
be a return to more than 200 years of precedent in which a simple majority
would be required for approval of judicial nominations.

Rest assured I will keep your comments as the Senate continues to address
this matter. Please continue to keep me informed on issues important to
you.

With every best wish,

Sincerely,



Pat Roberts
PR:vr

[dhinojosa]

1. Looks like you got squat...

I bet $100 he didn't even read your letter....

[evlbstrd]

2. Hell no he didn't.

He's one of the scarier fuckers in the House.

[evlbstrd]

3. Sorry. Didn't mean to answer on your behalf.

I made an assumption.
And, yeah, I know what that makes.

[kansasblue]

4. he's the guy writing up Patriot II (no judges needed)

[Erika]

5. The first thing Bush did was to downrate the ABA.

Now they are using it? Hey, I'm for the nuclear option.
Let's shut down D.C. and stop the radical right wingers.

[ltfranklin]

6. never mind

Changed my mind...

[wisteria]

7. I got just about the same reply, word for word from my senator-

Santorium. They must have all been instructed to address opposition this way. What a bunch of self serving spineless excrement.

[atommom]

8. I'm getting so frustrated with these yahoos.

All these incredibly bad things happening in the Senate, and we're stuck with two of the scariest Republicans out there. I've been writing and calling too, but am not sure I have made even the slightest dent in their pigheadedness.

[hfojvt]

9. To Senator Roberts

Why does it seem like an "up or down vote" is likely to end up 55-45 for all of these judges? If these judges are so highly qualified why can't Frist et al find just five Democrats willing to vote for cloture?
Am I supposed to not remember how many judges that Clinton nominated that did not get an "up or down vote"? I get the feeling that neither you nor Frist was all that concerned that the Senate fulfill its "constitutional obligations" back then.
But hey, thank you once again for taking the time and trouble to lie to me.

[cornermouse]

10. One form letter, one secretary, and one copy machine.

Doesn't take much time, effort, or money.

[atommom]

11. That's the sad thing. Even if they log responses, I am not sure our

Repubs care what we think. They seem to believe that they're now invincible!

[brystheguy]

12. Love that last sentence!!

I'll have to keep that one in mind next time I get some form letter garbage from our lame senators in Kansas. Shouldn't be a long wait!

[Jon8503]

13. Thought you might enjoy seeing your neighbor (MO Talents Reply

Thank you for contacting me about the pending judicial
nominations. I appreciate the time you have taken to share your
views with me, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

My feeling towards judicial nominations is that I will vote
to confirm nominees if they are reasonably qualified and
competent, and if their jurisprudence reflects a widely held view of
American law. Basically this means that if a nominee has enjoyed
reasonable success in a field of law or legal education over a
number of years, I will vote to confirm him or her, unless there is
credible evidence that the nominee is dishonest or has a strange
eccentric jurisprudence. The nominees currently before the Senate are all entitled to confirmation under this standard. They are all qualified in the sense that they have records that reflect competent legal skills; even their detractors do not refute that. To the extent that these nominees have been opposed, it is because some Senators do not agree with their judicial philosophy. But that is not the basis for opposing, much less filibustering, a nominee. If it were, no one
who has views about the law could ever get confirmed because one
side or the other would filibuster them.

America is divided about a lot of things, and these divisions
also exist in the legal community. I have strong views myself
about many of these issues. But I think we can all agree that both
sides should be able to accept that the other's views are
representative of a broad section of American political and legal
thought. On that basis I would cheerfully vote to confirm a good
lawyer who had differing opinions and was nominated to the
federal bench. So the issue here is less the qualifications of the
nominees, but whether those on the left wing are still rallying to
concede, as heretofore they always have, that those on the other
side of the spectrum may be permitted to serve in the federal
judiciary.

Unfortunately, for some in Washington, politics continues
to take precedence over the fair consideration of judicial
nominations. The decision by the Senate Democrats to filibuster a
number of the President's nominees is unfortunate to say the least.

I am not a big supporter of the filibuster in general. But I
do believe that if it is going to be used it should be reserved for
issues of the greatest national significance, not abused for political
reasons. I will continue to monitor the situation because I strongly
believe that the President's nominees should receive an up-or-
down vote.

Again thank you for contacting me. If I may be of further
assistance, please don't hesitate to call or write.

[atommom]

14. Obviously, I don't agree with Talent, either, but his letter reads more

like an actual "reply," not so much like the recitation of talking points I'm used to getting from my own senators.

That said ... there is something seriously wrong when they can't get 60 senators to agree that a judge deserves appointment. It isn't partisan politics; it really is a reflection on these nominees. Sheesh. :eyes:

[Jon8503]

15. Know What You Mean

You & I are screwed as far as our senators go. However, I think you have one that is way out there in right wing infinity land even more than the ones here in MO. I get tired of bothering to even send a letter to them already knowing the response, knowing it is a waste of time.

But I keep looking forward to the day when this gets turned around and it will happen.

I honestly believe people are starting to realize we have gone too far and I look for some good results in 2006 elections.

Thanks for the reply & take care.

[scratchtasia]

16. So much for Roberts

So much for the idea that he was wavering.