< Back to the Main Site

Author Topic: Ben Nelson's Response  (Read 6273 times)

Offline Ram Ringer

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: Lincoln Nebraska
  • Posts: 138
Ben Nelson's Response
« on: August 07, 2009, 03:25:53 PM »
Here is Bennie's response to me about Sotomayor.  I plan to hang onto this and remind him of what he said when she turns out to be another activist. I can't believe he can be duped this easy.



Dear Galen:

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  I am pleased you contacted me on this issue, as I value your input.

 

As you may know, Justice Sotomayor was confirmed by the United States Senate by a vote of 68?31 on August 6, 2009; I voted in favor of her confirmation.  I - like you and other Americans of all political and judicial philosophies - recognized the importance of Justice Sotomayor's nomination.  As with all nominations of this magnitude, I looked carefully at her judicial record, conducted a face-to-face meeting, and fully considered her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee to find answers to the questions raised by Nebraskans regarding her competency.  As a result, I determined that Justice Sotomayor is an experienced, well-educated judge who will show respect for the laws and Constitution of the United States and deference to settled law and precedent.

 

In particular, I was heartened by the views that independent experts on the federal judiciary had to say regarding her background.  For example, the American Bar Association gave Justice Sotomayor a unanimous rating of "well qualified," stating that "Judge Sotomayor's opinions show an adherence to precedent and an absence of attempts to set policy based on the judge's personal views.  Her opinions are narrow in scope, address only the issues presented, do not revisit settled areas of law, and are devoid of broad or sweeping pronouncements."

 

In addition, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service analyzed her record as a judge and concluded:  "Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e., the upholding of past judicial precedents).  Other characteristics appear to include what many would describe as a careful application of particular facts at issue in a case and a dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as overstepping its judicial role."  This is high praise indeed, especially for those of us like me who eschew judicial activism and value a limited role for judges.

 

I understand that some Nebraskans still have concerns regarding various aspects of Justice Sotomayor's career.  For instance, throughout the confirmation process, certain comments Justice Sotomayor made outside the courtroom were the subject of much criticism.  Indeed, some of these remarks could have been cause for concern if they proved to slant the judge's approach to the law or impede her ability to render an unbiased opinion.  But after examining her record, meeting personally with her, and observing the Judiciary Committee hearings, I am convinced Justice Sotomayor will approach the Supreme Court with the same unbiased fidelity to the law that has marked her distinguished career thus far.  Simply put, I see no significant evidence that she has manipulated the facts of a case or interpretations of the law in the courtroom to alter the outcome of a case.

 

In addition, some have singled out a handful of decisions Justice Sotomayor has participated in as grounds for disqualification.  I do not expect a judge to agree with me all of the time, just as I do not agree with all the laws or precedents on the books; however, I firmly believe that disagreeing with a law or a precedent is not grounds for a judge to rewrite the law as he or she sees fit.  And while I may not personally agree with the outcome of every single case Justice Sotomayor has decided, it is clear to me that her opinions were informed by facts, bound by precedents, and adhered faithfully to the law.

 

As a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Justice Sotomayor decided more than 3,000 cases.  Only thirteen of these cases were reviewed by the Supreme Court, and only five of those were reversed.  Of the opinions she authored, five were reviewed; her opinion was upheld in two, and she was reversed or vacated in three.  This compares favorably with recent Supreme Court reversal rates and recent Supreme Court nominees.

 

My approach to confirmation of judicial nominees has not changed during my time in Congress.  I have voted to confirm the overwhelming majority of nominees to come before the Senate - including both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court - and my standards for what I consider a qualified judge have not changed since my days in the Governor's Office, when I appointed 81 judges, including the entire Nebraska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

 

As with every judicial nomination that I consider, I vote with the conviction that the nominee will adjudicate based on the record the nominee developed throughout his or her career.  In the years ahead, I trust Justice Sotomayor will make an important contribution to the Supreme Court.  I wish her well in her new role.

 

Thank you again for contacting me to share your views on this nomination.  The legislative process will only work with the input of concerned citizens, and I encourage you to continue sharing your thoughts.


Sincerely,

Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator 

 
"The Most Important Political Office Is That Of The Private Citizen"  Louis Brandeis

Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2009, 04:34:38 PM »
Yeah, I got the same lame excuse of a letter today as well.


Sen. Nelson, your time as a Nebraska Senator is about up. You WILL be voted out next election.



Now...who do we get to replace him?
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline Roper

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 217
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2009, 06:13:51 PM »
Looks like he spammed us all with the same response!  His vote should not be surprising.   Don't underestimate his ability to stay in office, the Cornhusker state showed some signs of "blueitis" last fall.  I don't think he is up for election for 3 years, guess we'll see who wants to step up and be a serious challenger.
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.
Ronald Reagan

Offline huskergun

  • Gun Show Volunteer
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: South West Omaha
  • Posts: 598
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2009, 10:43:39 PM »
Well look at that I got the same letter. Gee surprise me.
Goodbye Ben.
 We all better hope that blueitis doesn't spread any more.


Dear Rich:

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  I am pleased you contacted me on this issue, as I value your input.

 

As you may know, Justice Sotomayor was confirmed by the United States Senate by a vote of 68?31 on August 6, 2009; I voted in favor of her confirmation.  I - like you and other Americans of all political and judicial philosophies - recognized the importance of Justice Sotomayor's nomination.  As with all nominations of this magnitude, I looked carefully at her judicial record, conducted a face-to-face meeting, and fully considered her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee to find answers to the questions raised by Nebraskans regarding her competency.  As a result, I determined that Justice Sotomayor is an experienced, well-educated judge who will show respect for the laws and Constitution of the United States and deference to settled law and precedent.

 

In particular, I was heartened by the views that independent experts on the federal judiciary had to say regarding her background.  For example, the American Bar Association gave Justice Sotomayor a unanimous rating of "well qualified," stating that "Judge Sotomayor's opinions show an adherence to precedent and an absence of attempts to set policy based on the judge's personal views.  Her opinions are narrow in scope, address only the issues presented, do not revisit settled areas of law, and are devoid of broad or sweeping pronouncements."

 

In addition, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service analyzed her record as a judge and concluded:  "Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e., the upholding of past judicial precedents).  Other characteristics appear to include what many would describe as a careful application of particular facts at issue in a case and a dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as overstepping its judicial role."  This is high praise indeed, especially for those of us like me who eschew judicial activism and value a limited role for judges.

 

I understand that some Nebraskans still have concerns regarding various aspects of Justice Sotomayor's career.  For instance, throughout the confirmation process, certain comments Justice Sotomayor made outside the courtroom were the subject of much criticism.  Indeed, some of these remarks could have been cause for concern if they proved to slant the judge's approach to the law or impede her ability to render an unbiased opinion.  But after examining her record, meeting personally with her, and observing the Judiciary Committee hearings, I am convinced Justice Sotomayor will approach the Supreme Court with the same unbiased fidelity to the law that has marked her distinguished career thus far.  Simply put, I see no significant evidence that she has manipulated the facts of a case or interpretations of the law in the courtroom to alter the outcome of a case.

 

In addition, some have singled out a handful of decisions Justice Sotomayor has participated in as grounds for disqualification.  I do not expect a judge to agree with me all of the time, just as I do not agree with all the laws or precedents on the books; however, I firmly believe that disagreeing with a law or a precedent is not grounds for a judge to rewrite the law as he or she sees fit.  And while I may not personally agree with the outcome of every single case Justice Sotomayor has decided, it is clear to me that her opinions were informed by facts, bound by precedents, and adhered faithfully to the law.

 

As a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Justice Sotomayor decided more than 3,000 cases.  Only thirteen of these cases were reviewed by the Supreme Court, and only five of those were reversed.  Of the opinions she authored, five were reviewed; her opinion was upheld in two, and she was reversed or vacated in three.  This compares favorably with recent Supreme Court reversal rates and recent Supreme Court nominees.

 

My approach to confirmation of judicial nominees has not changed during my time in Congress.  I have voted to confirm the overwhelming majority of nominees to come before the Senate - including both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court - and my standards for what I consider a qualified judge have not changed since my days in the Governor's Office, when I appointed 81 judges, including the entire Nebraska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

 

As with every judicial nomination that I consider, I vote with the conviction that the nominee will adjudicate based on the record the nominee developed throughout his or her career.  In the years ahead, I trust Justice Sotomayor will make an important contribution to the Supreme Court.  I wish her well in her new role.

 

Thank you again for contacting me to share your views on this nomination.  The legislative process will only work with the input of concerned citizens, and I encourage you to continue sharing your thoughts.


Sincerely,

Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator
« Last Edit: August 07, 2009, 10:46:17 PM by huskergun »
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson




No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson.

Offline AAllen

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2008
  • Posts: 4275
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2009, 10:54:18 PM »
With the O'mesiah's job rting falling so fast if we have a quality opponent to run against him 4 years may be all he gets, and a strong Republican showing could upset some fairly safe congress members as well.  Whomever runs against Ben will need to tie him to the Democrats and Obama and not let him tout his conservitive credentials, fiscally he is a conservative but taking the lead from his party could end his career.

Offline SBarry

  • Former BOD, NFOA Volunteer , NFOA Firearm Rights Champion Award Winner
  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Location: Kearney
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2009, 11:01:23 PM »
Future contact with Ben is futile. Ben is voting for the democratic party. We should encourage him to vote along party lines every time, that way he will look exactly like what he is.

Ernie Chambers for Senate!
The sheep don't like this sheepdog until the wolves start working the flock.

Offline huskergun

  • Gun Show Volunteer
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: South West Omaha
  • Posts: 598
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2009, 11:28:01 PM »

Ernie Chambers for Senate!

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson




No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson.

Offline SBarry

  • Former BOD, NFOA Volunteer , NFOA Firearm Rights Champion Award Winner
  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Location: Kearney
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2009, 11:29:48 PM »
Just checking to see if anyone reads my posts anymore, sorry.
The sheep don't like this sheepdog until the wolves start working the flock.

Offline huskergun

  • Gun Show Volunteer
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: South West Omaha
  • Posts: 598
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2009, 11:41:50 PM »
Don't do that to me Damn it.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson




No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson.

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2009, 11:19:34 AM »
What...you got a problem with the cobra? >:D
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline armed and humorous

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 535
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2009, 03:19:46 PM »
I got my snail mail response from Johannes today.  It's strange how he can look at the same record and listen to the same answers Sotomayor gave yet come up with a completely different conclusion on her fitness for the Supreme Court as Nelson did.  If anyone wants to read it (some of you probably got one too, or will) I'll try scanning and posting it. ^-^
Gun related issues are, by nature, deadly serious.  Still, you have to maintain a sense of humor about them.

Offline bkoenig

  • Gun Show Volunteer
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 3677
  • Aspiring cranky old gun nut
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2009, 08:37:41 PM »
I've said it before and I'll say it again, 99% of politicians could care less about normal people and their problems.  Democrats or Republicans, most of them have no deeply held convictions, all they care about is staying on the gravy train.  Looks like Nelson has decided the wind is blowing in the liberal's favor and he's throwing his lot in with them.  The only way to make them toe the line is to throw the bums out.

Offline Dtrain323i

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Posts: 136
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2009, 12:56:15 PM »
Yeah, I got the same lame excuse of a letter today as well.


Sen. Nelson, your time as a Nebraska Senator is about up. You WILL be voted out next election.



Now...who do we get to replace him?

christiansen?

Offline rugermanx

  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: Prague, NE
  • Posts: 224
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2009, 06:48:19 PM »
From what I have seen.... Fulton or Friend ( i've watched a few of his speeches on the live feed and he seems to be a good guy that doesn't pull any punches, just says it how it is). Anyone have an opinion on either of them?
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. Benjamin Franklin

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2009, 06:48:41 PM »
Maybe AG Bruning will run again...he bowed out last time to clear the road for Mike Johanns, and the party may owe him one
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline SBarry

  • Former BOD, NFOA Volunteer , NFOA Firearm Rights Champion Award Winner
  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Location: Kearney
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2009, 07:51:28 PM »
Well Dan, we need to find out ASAP, and start his election campaign. As for now, I am going to start the "Send Ben Nelson to Washington, as a lobbyist for someone else" campaign.
The sheep don't like this sheepdog until the wolves start working the flock.

Offline bkoenig

  • Gun Show Volunteer
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 3677
  • Aspiring cranky old gun nut
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2009, 08:24:29 AM »
I'd be all for Fulton, even though I'd hate to lose him as a state senator.

Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2009, 09:09:55 AM »
I'd be all for Fulton, even though I'd hate to lose him as a state senator.

Same as my thoughts. 

I don't think the Senate would be a good "fit" for Mark Christensen, he does a good job in the Unicam. 

My short list would include Sen. Mike Flood, Sen. Fulton, Sen. Price, State Treasurer Shane Osborn.

Anyone have other suggestions?
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline greg58

  • Lead Benefactor
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Location: Valley NE
  • Posts: 2803
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2009, 11:55:13 PM »
I'd like to see Gov. Heineman run against Nelson.
Greg58
Pants Up!  Don't Loot!

Offline huskergun

  • Gun Show Volunteer
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: South West Omaha
  • Posts: 598
Re: Ben Nelson's Response
« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2009, 09:15:56 PM »
Fulton,Heineman or maybe Brunning???? No certain order.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson




No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson.