http://feinstein.senate.gov/index.html

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=250853&&

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate - William of Ockham

Denver Metro Region:
(303) 455-7600
Washington, D.C.:
(202) 224-5852 (press 2 to talk to a staffer)
(888) 355-3588 (press 2 to talk to a staffer)

Angie and Bill: Colorado's bright future!

merge judy's diary with this one?  seems silly to have two filibuster diaries on the reco list...lol

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate - William of Ockham

i got through to landrieu's baton rouge office.  apparently, her thing is getting past this nomination to deal with other senate business, namely a bill that will provide funding for LA.

i understand her predicament, but there is no reason that postponing alito's nomination has to interfere with the rest of the Senate's business.

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate - William of Ockham

just got off the phone with one of his staffers.  that's my good senator!

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate - William of Ockham

'Years before he joined the Court, William Rehnquist argued in a 1959 law review article (4) that the Senate should "restore its practice of thoroughly informing itself on the judicial philosophy of a Supreme Court nominee before voting to confirm him." He reaffirmed that position in a 1987 speech (5) in which he said it was appropriate for the Senate to consider a nominee's judicial philosophy "as a way of reconciling judicial independence with majority rule."'

4Harvard Law Record, 10/8/59
5 [Remarks of the Chief Justice, Columbia University School of law, New York, 11/19/87, as cited in a speech by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, University of Illinois Law review, 1988 U.Ill.L. Rev. 101]

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate - William of Ockham

from C-SPAN yesterday:

Lott just said that he does not support the notion of recess appointments for judges.

and now he's carrying on about how "elections have consequences" and that we should have expected a conservative from shrubya.  how quickly they forget their reagan worship - no following in his reasonable example set by the appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor.

(a bit later in time) - Lott just said he "sure hopes" that alito's confirmation will change the balance of the court.  and he keeps using his Ginsberg vote to tout his reasonableness.  it's quite strange.

and then, of course, there was Frist calling Alito a "liberal's worst nightmare."

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate - William of Ockham

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate - William of Ockham

i sent my paper my ranting screed to Senator Smith; with any luck, it could be featured as a Sunday opinion piece.

but if not, I also submitted this shorter LTE:

Our Constitution explicitly states that judges are to be appointed by and with "the advice and consent of the Senate."  But after the embarassment of the Miers nomination, Bush consulted instead with his Chief of Staff, White House Counsel, and leaders of the religious right to decide on the nomination of Samuel Alito.  This aberration should put any true "strict constructionist" on edge, but little has been made of it.

Until now - the filibuster is on and not a moment too soon.  The Constitution also fails to mention "signing statements" or anything else about the president "interpreting" legislation, yet Samuel Alito supports these and other expansions of executive branch power.  This is especially disturbing in light of Bush's extralegal domestic spying and similar snubbing of constitutional checks and balances.  I applaud those Senators standing up for Americans' rights and the separation of powers so crucial to our democracy.  Won't you?  

wish me luck!

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate - William of Ockham

how many faxes, calls, etc. will they end up receiving?  they would almost be obligated to extend debate just to have time to accurately tally the constitutent feedback.

everyone should be sure to contact their (R) senators just as much!

"I don't want Alito on MY Supreme Court!"

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate - William of Ockham

if:

Elections have consequences. Alito is the consequence.

then:

judicial appointees are to some degree a reflection of the electorate's will

therefore:  the court should have a balanced ideological makeup

Q. E. fuckin'D

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate - William of Ockham

And let's not forget about the republican precedents of judicial filibusters.

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate - William of Ockham