5/25/2005

THE SENATOR RESPONDS

I sent a letter to the Honorable Debbie Stabenow (last post) and here's here response/talking points. I'd love to hear your take on her response. Thanks!


Thank you . . .

. . for contacting me regarding your support for eliminating the
filibuster rule of the Senate in relation to judicial nominations, also
known as the "nuclear option." I understand your concerns about
the increased role of partisan politics in the judicial appointment
process.

You might be interested to know that the Senate has confirmed 205
of President Bush's judicial nominations to date, which is an over
95% confirmation rate. Only 10 of President Bush's nominees have
faced serious opposition to their confirmation. As a result, we
currently have the lowest court vacancy rate since Ronald Reagan
was President.

As you know, Senator Frist has indicated that he will pursue the
"nuclear option" this Congress. This would be a fundamental
change in our constitutional system of checks and balances.
Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments to a separate
branch of government, our founders created two distinct steps in
the selection process. The President nominates judges and the U.S.
Senate must agree through the "advice and consent" process.
Keeping the checks and balances in this process is critical to the
American democratic tradition that minority views will be
represented and heard.

At a time when countries like Iraq are struggling to establish their
own free democracies using the American system of checks and
balances, I believe our country should not be weakening our own
democracy. For these reasons, I do not support changing the
filibuster rule.

Also, I am deeply dismayed that some have suggested that the
opposition to the ten Presidential nominees is because they are
people of faith. The personal faith of nominees was not used
against the 205 judges that we have already confirmed, nor is it
being used against those few nominations that are being opposed.

Thank you again for contacting me about this important matter. If
ever I can be of assistance to you or your family, please let me
know.



Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator

2 Comments:

At 10:11 PM, Blogger Dan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10:13 PM, Blogger Dan said...

So is having a low court vacancy a bad thing? She says "Senate must agree through the "advice and consent" process." But if the filibuster prevents a vote, doesn't that eliminate the advice and consent step?
I also don't see how allowing those you elected a chance to vote on a nominee weakens our democracy.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home