Sen. Graham is Confirming Judges

Dear Mr. Ravenel,

I was wondering if you also thought about weather it would be a detriment if there were a conservative judge who attempted to impose his personal beliefs on the law. It is completely unfair to only deride "liberal" activist judges because it is poosible that we could end up placing conservative activist judges on the court. This, in my opinion. is just as dangerous.

Oh thet make rather rather than interpret, which is a matter of interpretation. A judicial interpretation of a law or constituional provision is a precedent and there for in some small way judges do make the law. This is called the common law tradition.

It is tru we want judges who will faithfully interpret the law on the court. However, how can we be assured that they will if nominees refuse to answer pertinent questions about their cases and philosophy. How can we fairly evaluate a nominee when most of his papers are ortected under executive privelege? If we only have memos from when he was Solicitor General and some of them support expanded executive as with the Alito wiretap memo, how are we to judge what he would do on the court if this all we have?

The Democrats may continue to filibuster qualified nominees, but Sen. Graham spoke of his opposition to this in floor speeches. There may be good reason for the filibuster. I agree that they should take another course, like blue slipping them in committee. Blue slipping is acceptabel becasue it is the committees duty to completely vet the nominee and their qualifications. This vetting means asking questions about philosophy. If a nominee has to have Sen. Graham or any other Senator as Alito did, coach him on the meaning of being a strict constructionist, then he is unqualified.

I think that your contention that the only way that he can represent the people of South Carolina is to vote for the rules change. I contend that the best way for him to represent South Carolinians is to, as he did, forge a compromise that allows nominees and up-or-down vote without imperaling our ability to use the same tool later.

In reference to the Wall Street Journal editorial, there is a limit because the Founders did not intend for appointments to be institutions of favor, as they have become. The Founders Counseled that dissent was to be expected on nominations, especially becasue judicial appoints are for a lifetime. The filibuster allows Senators who choose to engage it the opportunity to force compromise on a nomination when the Committee has dissent, in this case strict party line dissent.

Republicans did not show timidity on the judicial vote; they just did not have the votes to go forward with the option. If voters want to punish a fine Senator like Lindsey Graham for finding a way from the disasterous consequences of the nuclear option then that is their choice. However, I would counsl then to think more carefully about the issue and past party loyalty to see other work completed that would have been stalled. We also would have ahd a crisis because the Democrats were stopping comittee work and therefore the troops in the field would have never gotten their money.

I am not sure where you get that Sen. Graham sided with the Democrats on the important vote. He has said many times that if the issue popped up again he would vote to change the rules. This is not good enough for you; well it is good enough for me.

It os always a mistake to not contest an open seat in a primary. However, that was in 2002 and now it is 2006; too late to complain. If you would have ran in 2002 and lost to Sen. Graham, then it is very difficult to run second time and win. However, you have run for other offices and lost as well. It is also difficult to run against and unseat an incumbent.

It is not the President's unqualified right to appoint judges. That is why we have a Senate to confirm them. It is why there is a Judiciary Committee in the Senate charged with vetting nominees. The Founders never intended for the judiciary to be controlled by the executive. The way of maintaining its independence was to have the Senate vet and confirm the nomination prior to appointment. Ths was supposed to be a check on the favor one might place on his people. Amending Rule XXII now will only bite us later.