By that standard, if a nominee passses the laugh test, confirm ‘em. Among other considerations the Senate should consider are a judicial nominee’s political views, especially when a nomination, like Leslie Southwick’s, is for an appellate court.

Contrary to high school and traditional media pablum, courts do not just “interpret” the law. Questions so complex that they rise to federal appeals court level require political and social judgments in addition to fine legal analysis. Consequently, a nominee’s views on major constitutional issues are vital. For example, how do they understand the relationships among the executive, legislative and judicial branches? How do they balance power among government and corporate interests, on the one hand, and private citizens, who have far less power and who are, therefore, more dependent on the courts for enforcing their rights? This comes up in making fine judgments among the rights of state vs. federal governments, employees vs. employer rights, and the limits of free speech and religious expression.

Ms. Feinstein’s position is that the Senate should confirm whomever the president nominates so long as the nominee meets very minimal standards. She thereby limits her function to a clerical one, and abdicates her responsibility as a senior Democratic politician. Perhaps that’s the whole point. Ms. Feinstein-Lieberman is exactly right.

Thank you for writing to me regarding the nomination of Judge Leslie H. Southwick to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit. I appreciate your taking the time to share your views, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

The Constitution requires the President to nominate Federal judges by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. As a member of the Senate who also serves on the Judiciary Committee, I take my position with regard to reviewing judicial nominations very seriously.

When I review a nominee, I look to find candidates who have the necessary intellect, analytical skills, and legal experience. In addition, the candidate should be able to demonstrate a commitment to applying the law fairly and impartially. You can be assured that I perform my due diligence with regard to any nominee that comes before the Judiciary Committee.

As you may already know, on August 2, Judge Southwick was voted out of the Judiciary Committee favorably by a vote of 10-9. I voted in favor of sending his nomination to the full Senate. Please know that I carefully considered the concerns you raised. However, after thorough review of Judge Southwick’s record and after a lengthy meeting with him, I decided that he has the qualifications that I mentioned above to be a judge. While he is not the nominee that I would have chosen for this seat, I concluded that his views were not outside the judicial mainstream. He also has an exemplary record of service to our nation, including a one-year tour of combat duty in Iraq, which he volunteered for even though he was already over 50 years of age.

Once again, thank you for your letter. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on matters of importance to you. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

ccmask @ 83

Iceland pulls out of Iraq:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk4rBQDxOEE

Is that one or two persons? I thought one. Educate me.

my mind must be in the gutter.

So late to this party, since I’m suddenly home due to a film mistakenly delivered to my house rather than place o’ business for restoration analysis. I’m making good use of the home time by faxing & emailing all those above.

DiFi’s office 1/2 the time ignores my faxes or sends a form response. Her cohorts in the Senate & the newspapers will be getting that bit of info as well.

Haven’t seen our Diane really awake in a hearing since the SJC USAs’ testimony in March, for chrissakes. Wake up, or give your seat there to someone else!

speaking of film restoration, are you familiar with Hedy Lamarr’s ‘Ecstacy?’ (Gustav Machaty, Czech director/ Austrian film (?) 1932.
I recently rented a ‘version’ (don’t know when or what censor board it was aimed at) and a friend in Germany tells me he is having a hard time finding any copy of it whatsover!

oh and if this subject is OT………hey, 9/11 changed everything.

Ms. Feintstein-Lieberman,

You carry out national responsibilities for the US Senate, but refuse comments from those outside your jurisdiction. An odd if convenient choice. I do not require a response, but I expect my comment to be included in the pro-or-con tally by your staff when they respectfully address an issue for which you are directly responsible.

I’ll say my piece again anyway. Your amnesia regarding not having heard sharp criticism about allowing the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Senate floor needs professional attention. Alternatively, your staff have been woefully inadequate in summarizing your no doubt voluminous e-mail.

I have personally sent you at least two e-mails critical of your non-support of your Democratic colleagues by allowing Mr. Southwick’s name onto the floor. It is hard to imagine that mine were the only ones. I have been so concerned at your choices that I have hyphenated your name, attaching to it that of Mr. Lieberman, the Senate colleague your efforts seem most closely to mirror.

If you need more talented staff, you live in a state where they are abundant. If you need professional help with your amnesia, the same applies and I wish you well. In the event that you are just making stuff up – or lying – stop it. Please. Mr. Bush does not deserve your support, Mr. Southwick does not deserve an appellate court judgeship, and I surmise that California does not deserve your current behavior. Many thanks to your long suffering staff.

DiFi’s office 1/2 the time ignores my faxes or sends a form response. Her cohorts in the Senate & the newspapers will be getting that bit of info as well.

Haven’t seen our Diane really awake in a hearing since the SJC USAs’ testimony in March, for chrissakes. Wake up, or give your seat there to someone else!

She was re-elected last year for a six year term. There are no provisions for recall of Federal level offices, such as Senators.

(Snark on) Right — you have to get the Republican party to consider the Senator in question a threat. Then the GOP arranges a plane crash…(Snark off)