Inconsistent Conservatives

7 June 2006

I think you are exactly right when you say that the letter you recieved from the coalition of conservative leaders does not represent all conservatives. I am a moderate conservative and I am not represented by them on this issue of the nomination of Mr. Haynes.

This same group would have been allowing the block if Mr. Haynes had been the nominee of a Democrat. They seem willing to look the other way with regard to torture, but not other issues that devalue life. They also wouold not look the other if there were a torture memo question with a Democrat nominee.

Judge Widener can wait to retire as long as it takes to find a suitable replacement. I want qualified judges, but agree with the retired officers that were cited in the Washington Post yesterday that Mr. Haynes is unfit for circuit court duty.

I do not think that blocking Mr. Haynes in Committee, where it should be done, is damaging to the principle of an up-or-down vote on a nominee with majority support. If this group wants Mr. Haynes out of committee they can geet a majority to sign discharge papers to move him without a committee vote like the Committee for Justice told the Democrats to do during the Clinton years. Just recently this same coalition caused the withdrawl of Ms. Harriet Miers becasue they did approve of her because they feared a "Souter in a skirt." This does not square with an up-or-down vote for a nominee. We do not even know if she had majority support or not. This smells of hypocrisy becasuse they seem to only want an up-or-down vote on nominees they approve of and which is not the process.

The block of Mr. Haynes does not blur the line between minority-obstructionist tactics and GOP treatment of nominees becasue you are not involved in a filibuster, which would occur if the nomination went to the floor. You are stsnding up for a principle with this block and the Democrats are just obstructing based on philosophy/ideology. Your principle is that you do not support torture.

They're calling it a silent filibuster, are they? If you hold is a "silent filibuster" then so were all the holds on Clinton nominated judges. They cannot have it both ways.

The ABA's qualified rating and the prior approval of the nominee in committee should not dictate how you handle the issue, which came up later. This issue is enough to provoke a hold becasue the moral moral highground is at stake.

These people are now attacking Jusitce Alito and Chief Justice Roberts whom they would have brought back the nuclear option for if there had been a filibuster. Only Kavanaugh is a constitutionalist, what is this about? I think it is more about the Group of 14 becasur they have never you role in quetitng the Senate. THey wanted to blow it up and cause disrepair for short term gain. They cannot blame the Senate, but the preesident who is the nominating authority.

Mr. Haynes had the responsibility and duty to defend the Defense Department and this does not mean following the advice of the Justice Department when they are wrong. It means standing up to them, which he did not do, and fighting for the military endorsed position on the torture issue. He should never have endorsed those memos.

Yes, Mr. Haynes deserves our thanks for his service, but that thanks should not be a seat on the court. Seats on the court are not rewards for simply doing as you are told by an administration. They are not rewards at all, but high honors for those fortunate enough to be nominated and confirmed. A hold is not a stealth tactic becasue we know about it. This is the nominee to block.

They are twisting your military service to get you to support their position, how disgusting. It is your position as an Air Force lawyer that informs you decision, not personal opion. It sounds like they are saying that torture was our policy and that you should support the nominee becasue he followed the legal and military policy of the time. You should not endorse a nominee who enforces a policy that is patently illegal when he could have changed it by protesting. Eventually Secretary Rumsfeld decertified some of the methods in the original memos, howerver, that this had to be done is telling. It seems that they are more about apponiting a particular President's nominees rather than people who are truly fit, except when the nominee is Harriet Miers or are more interested in skewering you for the compromise than looking at the meris of the action.

Their call for you to send a message to the administration merely by voting against Mr. Haynes is not eonough because as they state earlier Mr. Haynes has majority support. The only hope is for the block to continue and Mr. Haynes to not pass committee becasue once he is on the court there is nothing we can do about him.

For now, they say, just let him proceed through commitee. However, once he gets through they will bombard you with letters and phone calls demanding you support for the nominee. Please keep right on blocking Mr. Haynes.

Thank you.