Senator Levin avoids discussing the Federalist Society
Last week I wrote Senators Levin and Stabenow about my concerns regarding the Federalist Society. I'm sure all of us have been under the impression that the courts are independent of political agendas. Our impression is fading fast thanks to conservative efforts to corrupt the courts.
Liberal minded justices such as Earl Warren interpreted the law his own way, he was not a member of a liberal effort to influence the courts. Conservatives have for decades resented justice Warren's liberal viewpoints and have been trying to convince people that he was a member of a liberal machine, entirely false. Conservatives also obviously believe their own delusion and have felt the need to see their delusion (political influence of independent courts) realized with the creation of the conservative Federalist Society in the 80's. So truth be told, it is conservatives not liberals who are bringing politics into the courts to their detriment. The Federalist Society is to blame and nominee Priscilla Owen (former Episcopalian who left the church because of its support for homosexuals) is the organizations newest success story.
I am very concerned that the successful efforts of the Federalist Society will become common place and there wont be fair justice in the courts. I had hoped Senator Levin would comment on the society and agree that it is corrupting the courts and act against it. But his staff only offer the dry, non confrontational letter to my concerns. Poor effort Senator Levin
Dear Mr. Lathrop:
Thank you for contacting me about the appointment of judges to the federal bench. I appreciate hearing your views on this matter.
The Constitution established three separate but equal branches of government. Among the checks and balances provided for in the Constitution, it gives the President the authority to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court and to other federal courts and gives the Senate the responsibility of carefully evaluating judicial nominees and exercising independent judgment in deciding whether to confirm them. The Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent on the President's nominations to the federal courts is particularly important given that these are lifetime positions.
Overall, the agreement reached by a bipartisan group of 14 Senators on May 23, 2005, to avert the so-called "nuclear option" was a positive outcome. For more than 200 years, the rules and traditions of the United States Senate have protected minority rights and the system of checks and balances through the right of senators to extended debate. Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate in the Senate and to bring a matter to a vote whether that matter is legislative, ratification of a treaty or the confirmation of a nomination. Throughout the Senate's history, this rule has served not only to protect the minority, but also to encourage senators in the majority and the minority to work out their differences. The agreement reached on May 23rd preserves the traditions of the Senate and does not break the Senate's rules to amend the rules, as the "nuclear option" would have done.
More than 200 of President Bush's nominees have been considered by the full Senate, and only a handful have failed to achieve confirmation. Over 95 percent of President Bush's nominees have been confirmed, resulting in the lowest vacancy rate in the federal courts in over 13 years. This contrasts with more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees who were denied even a vote in the Republican controlled Judiciary Committee and therefore were blocked. One independent observer of the nominations process, political scientist Sheldon Goldman of the University of Massachusetts, concluded that "the Bush administration has been spectacularly successful in getting the overwhelming proportion of its judicial nominations confirmed."
With regard to the few judicial nominees of President Bush who were brought to the Senate floor but did not achieve confirmation, each of them has either failed to demonstrate a record or demeanor worthy of a lifetime appointment or demonstrated views that placed them outside the mainstream of the American legal profession. After careful consideration, I could not support these nominees. I will continue to give full and fair consideration to each of the President's judicial nominees as they come before the Senate for confirmation.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
Liberal minded justices such as Earl Warren interpreted the law his own way, he was not a member of a liberal effort to influence the courts. Conservatives have for decades resented justice Warren's liberal viewpoints and have been trying to convince people that he was a member of a liberal machine, entirely false. Conservatives also obviously believe their own delusion and have felt the need to see their delusion (political influence of independent courts) realized with the creation of the conservative Federalist Society in the 80's. So truth be told, it is conservatives not liberals who are bringing politics into the courts to their detriment. The Federalist Society is to blame and nominee Priscilla Owen (former Episcopalian who left the church because of its support for homosexuals) is the organizations newest success story.
I am very concerned that the successful efforts of the Federalist Society will become common place and there wont be fair justice in the courts. I had hoped Senator Levin would comment on the society and agree that it is corrupting the courts and act against it. But his staff only offer the dry, non confrontational letter to my concerns. Poor effort Senator Levin
Dear Mr. Lathrop:
Thank you for contacting me about the appointment of judges to the federal bench. I appreciate hearing your views on this matter.
The Constitution established three separate but equal branches of government. Among the checks and balances provided for in the Constitution, it gives the President the authority to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court and to other federal courts and gives the Senate the responsibility of carefully evaluating judicial nominees and exercising independent judgment in deciding whether to confirm them. The Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent on the President's nominations to the federal courts is particularly important given that these are lifetime positions.
Overall, the agreement reached by a bipartisan group of 14 Senators on May 23, 2005, to avert the so-called "nuclear option" was a positive outcome. For more than 200 years, the rules and traditions of the United States Senate have protected minority rights and the system of checks and balances through the right of senators to extended debate. Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate in the Senate and to bring a matter to a vote whether that matter is legislative, ratification of a treaty or the confirmation of a nomination. Throughout the Senate's history, this rule has served not only to protect the minority, but also to encourage senators in the majority and the minority to work out their differences. The agreement reached on May 23rd preserves the traditions of the Senate and does not break the Senate's rules to amend the rules, as the "nuclear option" would have done.
More than 200 of President Bush's nominees have been considered by the full Senate, and only a handful have failed to achieve confirmation. Over 95 percent of President Bush's nominees have been confirmed, resulting in the lowest vacancy rate in the federal courts in over 13 years. This contrasts with more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees who were denied even a vote in the Republican controlled Judiciary Committee and therefore were blocked. One independent observer of the nominations process, political scientist Sheldon Goldman of the University of Massachusetts, concluded that "the Bush administration has been spectacularly successful in getting the overwhelming proportion of its judicial nominations confirmed."
With regard to the few judicial nominees of President Bush who were brought to the Senate floor but did not achieve confirmation, each of them has either failed to demonstrate a record or demeanor worthy of a lifetime appointment or demonstrated views that placed them outside the mainstream of the American legal profession. After careful consideration, I could not support these nominees. I will continue to give full and fair consideration to each of the President's judicial nominees as they come before the Senate for confirmation.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
posted by R Lathrop at 9:01 PM
<< Home