My Reply to Sen. Ensign (Update...)
(tues, 4/6... ha...! i just received my second response from Senator Ensign which was exactly the same boilerplate as the first one... dunno what i was expecting... informed discourse...? responding to my response...? oh, well...)
(see previous post)
Dear Senator Ensign,
Thank you for your prompt and informative reply.
I find your position frightening to say the least. The Senate was purposely structured by the Constitutional framers as the body for more lengthy and thoughtful debate. "Advice and consent," by its nature, is not necessarily smooth or timely nor should it be. Proper deliberation in the Senate should not be subjected to simple majority decision-making, particularly when it comes to judgeships, cabinet appointments, and other advice and consent matters. We in this country deserve better than the mechanics of 51% majority rule when it comes to critical appointments like these. We don't elect a President that way and we shouldn't appoint people to critical leadership positions that way either.
I am insulted that some of the individuals being nominated for Federal judgeships in this cycle have already been rejected once and are being put forward once again. The reasons for their rejection were clear at the time and they are even clearer now. Many if not most of the nominees are representative of what is rapidly revealing itself as the religious and social extremist wing of the Republican party. Republicans, proud champions over many years of the separation of powers, checks and balances, and minimal government intrusion into citizen's private lives, should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing a vocal minority within the Party to hold sway.
While I cannot change your position, Senator, I must go on record as voicing my strongest disagreement.
Best regards, Submit To Propeller
Tweet
(see previous post)
Dear Senator Ensign,
Thank you for your prompt and informative reply.
I find your position frightening to say the least. The Senate was purposely structured by the Constitutional framers as the body for more lengthy and thoughtful debate. "Advice and consent," by its nature, is not necessarily smooth or timely nor should it be. Proper deliberation in the Senate should not be subjected to simple majority decision-making, particularly when it comes to judgeships, cabinet appointments, and other advice and consent matters. We in this country deserve better than the mechanics of 51% majority rule when it comes to critical appointments like these. We don't elect a President that way and we shouldn't appoint people to critical leadership positions that way either.
I am insulted that some of the individuals being nominated for Federal judgeships in this cycle have already been rejected once and are being put forward once again. The reasons for their rejection were clear at the time and they are even clearer now. Many if not most of the nominees are representative of what is rapidly revealing itself as the religious and social extremist wing of the Republican party. Republicans, proud champions over many years of the separation of powers, checks and balances, and minimal government intrusion into citizen's private lives, should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing a vocal minority within the Party to hold sway.
While I cannot change your position, Senator, I must go on record as voicing my strongest disagreement.
Best regards, Submit To Propeller
Tweet
posted by profmarcus at
4/04/2005
