Letter to EACH Senator. The outside of the envelope says I HAVE asked Schumer to confirm Estrada

[syriacus]

I am tired of hearing Schumer lie, when he says none of his constituents care about the estrada nomination.

I am writing a letter to EACH senator and enclosing a copy of my letter to Schumer.

I am writing a message on the front of the envelope that says "I HAVE told Senator Schumer that I support Miguel Estrada."

On the back of the envelope I have written "Vote YES on Miguel Estrada"

Even if the little elves that work for the Senators throw out the letters, there will have been visible, tangible, undeniable evidence that people DO want Estrada confirmed.

[syriacus]

I have just finished the letters to
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Lincoln
Leahy
Levin
Lott
Lugar

[syriacus]

Those letters are mailed.

[syriacus]

I called Schumer and Clinton's DC offices the other day and said that I am one of their constituents and would like them to allow a vote on Miguel Estrada.

[syriacus]

I have received a reply, dated March 11, from Senator George Allen of Virginia. I will try to post it in its entirety but, for now, here are some excerpts.

I believe that a vigorous debate about judicial nominees is appropriate but the partisan debate we're seeing today simply is obstructionist...

With that in mind, Miguel Estrada is an exceptional and highly qualified nominee for this important position on the federal bench...

I am pleased to strongly support the nomination of Miguel Estrada. He truly personifies the American dream...

I want to thank you again for taking the time to contact me. it is truly an honor to serve you in the United States senate, and I want you to know that you input is very helpful as I look for ways to ensure that you voice is heard in Washington.

Allen represents Independent, Republican, and Conservative NYers in the Senate, better than Clinton and Schumer.

[syriacus]

I finally heard back from Schumer--here is his reply:

---

 Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.  I am truly sorry for the delay in my response.

   When considering candidates for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench, I have three standards:  excellence, moderation, and diversity.  
By excellence, I mean legal excellence--they should be among the best the bar has to offer.  

Moderation means that there should be balance on the bench and that, ideally, judges should not be too far left or too far right.

Judges who are ideologues–either on the right or the left–tend to make law rather than interpret it, as the Founding Fathers originally intended.

Finally, diversity should be properly accounted for in the nomination process.

   There is no question that Mr. Estrada is an excellent attorney and there is no question he would add diversity to the D.C. Circuit Court.  Some have suggested he would bring an activist agenda to the bench should he be confirmed.  

I do not know whether that is actually the case, but I believe when such red flags are raised, the Senate has the duty to ask appropriate questions and the nominee has the obligation to answer.

---

[syriacus]

Schumer: Judges who are ideologues–either on the right or the left–tend to make law rather than interpret it, as the Founding Fathers originally intended.

With all due respect, Senator Schumer, please spare me the history lesson. (You should realize that when you make this argument you are only pointing out your own flaws.)

50% of the American voters know you are an ideologue who is busily attempting to interpret undermine the Constitution.

You may not be in the Judicial Branch of the government, but you are obviously attempting to control it from the Legislative Branch.

[syriacus]

Schumer: I do not know whether that is actually the case, but I believe when such red flags are raised, the Senate has the duty to ask appropriate questions and the nominee has the obligation to answer

• Interesting that you chose the descriptive phrase "red flag," when the phrases "straw man" or "red herring" would be more appropriate
• And your particular unanswered questions to Mr. Estrada are which ones, Senator Schumer?

[syriacus]

Have you recently submitted your questions to M. Estrada, Sen. Schumer?

This was the update as of March 4, 2003 9:15 a.m.

Dems: We Don’t Really Want Answers from Estrada.

Given the chance, Democrats ask no questions of Miguel Estrada.

For weeks now, Senate Democrats have complained that appeals-court nominee Miguel Estrada has failed to answer questions about his legal views, leaving senators without enough information to make a decision on whether or not he should be confirmed. In an effort to address those concerns, the White House last week invited any senator who has doubts about Estrada's views to send him written questions. The White House asked that questions be sent by the close of business last Friday, and pledged that Estrada would answer them by today. "He would answer the questions forthrightly, appropriately, and in a manner consistent with the traditional practice and obligations of judicial nominees, as he has before," wrote White House counsel Alberto Gonzales in a letter to all 100 senators.

So far, the administration has not received any questions from any senators, according to administration sources.

The non-response from Democrats casts doubt on the party leadership's repeated contentions that Democrats object to Estrada because he has failed to answer questions about his legal views. [snip]

[syriacus]

Other threads that have letters from senators and have "senatorialreply" as a keyword

Christopher Dodd on Estrada

Email from Evan Bayh RE: Miguel Estrada (He completely blew me off)

Senator John Edwards's email response on Miguel Estrada nomination

[ez]

At our local St Patrick's Day Parade here in Rochester, I yelled at Schumer from point blank range to allow an "up or down vote." Twice for effect.

I was maybe 15 feet from him and I KNOW he heard from me. He lies...

[BibChr]

Welcome to a taste of what it's like being in Barbara Boxer's state. She's constantly making assertions about the people she represents that are, to say the least, untrue.

Dan

[votelife]

I love how Schumer is worried about judges who are too far left. Ask him for an example of one too far left. Does that mean left of Castro?

[votelife]

very good activism! keep up the good work! I'll call Graham and Nelson today and tell them I am a constituent and would like to see Estrada get a vote.

[syriacus]

Ask him for an example of one too far left.

Good idea.

[syriacus]

At our local St Patrick's Day Parade here in Rochester, I yelled at Schumer from point blank range to allow an "up or down vote." Twice for effect.

That's wonderful.!! A very positive thing to shout. Something that a majority of bystanders would agree with.

In effect, Schumer's "banana republic dictator" inner-self is exposed. A politician who won't even allow a vote, and wants all the judges to agree with him.

[syriacus]

Welcome to a taste of what it's like being in Barbara Boxer's state

Having no representation in the Senate is "the pits."

[BibChr]

YES!! Every time some good-hearted person says, "So get right on the horn to your Senator...", you have to say, "Psh! Right!"

For me, it's ditto with Congressman: mine is Bob Matsui, kneejerk Clinton lieutenant and genetic lefty.

At least my president no longer makes me cringe.

Dan

[votelife]

FREEPers, I have created the ultimate Estrada activism thread. On it you will find ways to contact Senators, newsspapers, radio/tv people, organizations etc. Go there and help support Estrada. Keep the thread bumped until we get him confirmed.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/847037/posts

[votelife]

bttt

[votelife]

My email to W:

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.