NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: Ram Ringer 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
-
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.
(http://www9l.incredimail.com/scache/im//gallery/content/200806181240/content_11042_prev.gif)
Now...who do we get to replace him?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
Ernie Chambers for Senate!
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
-
Just checking to see if anyone reads my posts anymore, sorry.
-
Don't do that to me Damn it.
-
What...you got a problem with the cobra? >:D
-
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. ^-^
-
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.
-
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.
(http://www9l.incredimail.com/scache/im//gallery/content/200806181240/content_11042_prev.gif)
Now...who do we get to replace him?
christiansen?
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
I'd be all for Fulton, even though I'd hate to lose him as a state senator.
-
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?
-
I'd like to see Gov. Heineman run against Nelson.
Greg58
-
Fulton,Heineman or maybe Brunning???? No certain order.
-
Fulton,Heineman or maybe Brunning???? No certain order.
They seem to be the early best choices, but we need them right where they are for now, and need to get a few things pushed through the legislature before we lose them. Can ernie chambers run again in a few years? I should be more up on the law, but if he can, we need to get as much done now before that could happen.
-
I'd disagree with Heineman, his lack of leadership in HHS matters, he needs to go home and become a regular citizen again...
-
Heineman seems like somebody's puppet to me (probably a lot of politicians are). I don't know of anything in particular he's done to really piss me off, and mostly I've agreed with his positions, but I don't think he'd be much of a senator. Bruning, maybe, but he seems too ambitious. I can't say he's done anything I disagree with, though, and he does support our 2A rights pretty well. Fulton might be very good, but I don't think he has the clout to get in any time soon. He probably needs more experience and to build a bigger base before he goes for it. I liked Christensen a lot until I saw him with Fulton on Hannity's program. Doesn't have the charisma to be effective in leadership roles (which is what we need, someone to lead and propose changes for us). Among those four, I'd have to go with Bruning. Anyone else? I don't know.
-
I think the next interesting development will be to see who is picked to replace Sen. Friend in the Unicameral. That may set other other things into motion, candidate-wise.
-
Puppet???? To whom????
The puppet is Johanns. Think back .....Brunning was set to run for Hagels senate seat along with Hal Daub and then the National Republican party inserted Johanns then Brunning dropped out and Daub dropped out two days after saying he was going to run. The national Republican party picked our candidate. We didn't. Don't get me wrong I really like Johanns but I wish we would have had a choice and saw a debate. Lee Terry is the same way. According to todays World Herald Terry has some compitition from another Republican and the state Republican leaders are trying like hell to get him to drop out. They have already picked Terry. They say it's part of their bylaws to stick with the incumbant. That's crap. Again don't get me wrong I like Terry I just want to hear them debate and pick the best one. I already know that the lib White isn't my choice. Sorry got side tracked.......
Back to the topic......
Both Heineman and Brunning would be the only ones I feel who would have a chance at kicking Nelson to the curb.
LitlRat..... No ernie can't run again. But I'm sure if the Legislature goes the way of Omaha down the road some leftist will try to make him into the next savior and install him as such.
-
We can not put our hopes in any one candidate, but we must instead adhere to our conservative principles, and see to it that our cause moves forward by espousing those very same principles in all our actions. Especially in the voting booth .
I really Like Tony Fulton, and I hope he can carry the conservative principle forward in the Liberal bastion that is Lincoln NE. He is not in my district, but the next one over, yet I plan to help him in his next endeavor.
-
YES Ernie could return...The law bars senators from serving more than two consecutive four-year terms, but they could return after sitting out one term.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment
Amends the Nebraska Constitution so as to limit members of the Nebraska Legislature to two consecutive terms. Under this amendment, no person will be eligible to serve as a member of the Nebraska Legislature for four years after the completion of two consecutive legislative terms. Legislative service prior to January 1, 2001, will not be counted for calculating consecutive terms, and service in office for more than one-half of a term will be considered service for a full term.
-
Sorry my bad. Thanks for setting me straight. That's not good.
I agree that we need to stick to our principles and Fulton would be good but I don't know if he could beat Nelson. I guess we'll see what happens in 2012. Should be interesting.
-
That's what I am afraid of, ernie got his stool pigeon to sit on his perch while he is probably living on the taxpayer dime. I wonder if he is using his time off to become a better father?
He hand picks Rosie O'Council to go in for him till he is rested up and can return. I hope the other senators will grow some balls, tell him to sit down and shut up, and let this state get back to where it should be.
-
I'm with Armed, on the theory that the Governor is somewhat of a puppet. It just seems to me that if someone can't show him a poll to prove that something is popular he won't do it. Which worries me since if you watch the news you find some polls that say such and such is popular and then the next day someone else releases "data" that contradicts it. And honestly I don't know that either party (and I am registered Republican) is really going to give us a decent candidate. The republicans will hand pick who they want to run, and that person will be the closest they can be to a liberal and still consider themselves a "conservative" Hence why McCain was shown the entrance and so much face time. Just remember all the "conservatism is dead" stories on the news shortly after the election. Both parties have moved to the left. And if they believe that the movement in the country is to the left..... where do you think they are going to go to get back in power? We may need to find some independent people and I think some will come from the democrats and some from the republicans. Honestly for me I don't care about what animal they have on thier underpants (ass or pachyderm). I just want to know the guy getting my vote is going to stand by what they said they believe in the campaign (the things they said that they did at least) And then stick to their guns and make others do the same. No back room deals none of this crap of well, we violated the free market principals, to save the free market. Bull****. NO more standing there and saying " NO LOBBYISTS" and then hiring them into the administration. (you will notice that I did rip on Bush for the free market thing and then on Obama for his No lobbyists policy. Both parties are full of it and I am sick of it. Lets see some real candidates that still have their head on their shoulders and not up their hind ends.
Sorry I got a little passionate there. But I am sick of watching our politicians not using their head for anything more than a glorified bathroom vent. (spewing nothing but hot air and the stench of fecal waste.)
-
It matters not what they say, only what they do. Right now Nebraska is in better fiscal shape than nearly all other states, we have fared far better than most in this recession.
We have passed a lot of pro gun legislation in the last few years, and it was all on Hieneman's watch.
He said he would support gun owners, and he did. He demanded budget restraint and got it.
He may not have handled HHS that great, but it has been a mess for so long I am not sure it can be fixed. The state has overhauled the HHS system about 3 times in the last 10-12 years, and every time it got worse. My wife finally retired from the substance abuse treatment field, totally burnt out, a few years back.
I remember Hieneman coming out and supporting the CCW bill long before it had enough support to pass. If he was a puppet there, I guess we were pullin the strings...
That being said, I am not sure anyone can beat Nelson right now, but two years is a long time down the road
-
This entire country is at a loss for any real leadership, regardless of party affiliation. Does anyone see leaders of the like of Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, or the ilk of the founding fathers who put their country and ideals ahead of their own purse strings or national party? I see no real American leadership from either political party, let alone anyone with the character of someone like Winston Churchill or Dwight Eisenhower.
Instead the so-called national media (I?d call it liberal media) makes sure anyone with convictions will NOT be allowed any airtime or publicity what so ever.
Instead of doing what is right for these United States of America, we are saddled with professional politicians that are more worried about being re-elected. They all stand with their fingers in the wind trying to figure out how to please whatever group they are told might be the largest group of voters. Only three things motivate them: money, publicity and re-election. Where is honor, duty, country?
What was turn out for the last election? 25-30% of the population determining a presidential election? Give me a break. That isn?t a majority by any means ? what it is apathy. The system has become so disgusting that the majority of people in this country don?t even want to participate.
We will be seeing more and more Ben Nelsons who had a chance to represent Nebraska & the US, but instead choose to represent their national political party when they vote.
It?s a pathetic situation Americans have allowed to happen.
We desperately need to take back our country.
-
Now that's what I call a good first post. ;D
Welcome, glad to have you with us.
-
I agree. Welcome. I wouldn't worry too much about how many people vote, though. The fewer people who vote, the more yours counts. Nowadays, the polls are pretty accurate most of the time, so whatever they predict usually happens. It doesn't matter if there are 200 million voters, or two hundred. The percentage for one candidate or another is about the same.
-
Armed & Humorous wrote: ?The polls are prettly accurate...? I sincerely hope you?re being sarcastic. (It?s hard to tell on forums and email without knowing someone personally.)
Is that why in every presidential election for the past 40+yrs, the media tells us the democrat candidate is ALWAYS in the lead? Every year, during the primaries right up to election day. Yes, they shift numbers slightly so that by election day they announce the polls are closer to 55/45% but they ALWAYS give the lead to the democrat, it?s just a matter of what size lead they think they can get away with at the time.
That shows the polls are accurate?????
The media doesn?t report the news any more at all. Instead, they try to influence the outcome with all these ridiculous polls. Year after year the conservative ?red? states far out number the ?blue? states, yet the polls supposedly tell us different.
Polling questions can be set up to give ANY outcome wanted: ?Do you sometimes agree with so-and-so?? or ?Do you sometimes disagree with so-and-so?? Those two questions give far different results. The first response they will tell you so-and-so is well liked. The second: that so-and-so has low approval ratings.
They used to ask, ?Do you agree/disagree for the most part with so-and-so?? Now they don?t even do that, as the results are predetermined by who is paying for the poll to be done.
What polls really are: is BS.
Polling companies love polls: that is how they make their money and justify their existence. They will tell you how very important and accurate they are.
Evidently politicians buy into them because they are too lazy to actually ask/listen to their constituents. And, perhaps, it is because they have no core beliefs/values of their own to guide them. Right or wrong isn?t even an issue any more, and seldom is what is good or bad for the country even a consideration. No leadership, no ethics, no backbones.
Why anyone puts stock in polls is beyond my comprehension.
-
I just heard on the radio Senator Nelson?s ?town hall? meetings are scheduled for 1:30pm, and another is at 3pm?
Maybe I?m way off here, but logically isn?t that right in the middle of the work day for the vast MAJORITY of people. Are these times selected to accommodate his constituents? schedule? Or to make sure they don?t attend???????
Just another example of the pathetic spin these folks put on EVERYTHING to cover up their real motives. No one wants to be confronted with disagreements, and so they schedule these things so the least number of people can attend.
IF they really wanted to hear from folks, they?d hold them on weekends or at least in the evenings when most people could attend. But they (and their staff) don?t want to ?work? outside the 9-5, so it is set for their convenience - not ours.
But again, they think we are all too stupid to figure it out.
-
Personally I think you nailed that one right on the head. If they schedule during the day, first they don't have to work anymore than the 9-5 and most of us can't get off of work to attend.
-
They will be getting a lot of retired folks attended. I know my in-laws are going.
-
The place holds only 319 people. The left is already busy stacking the audience. ""Tuesday night, volunteers work the phones. They're cold calling people trying to get them to show up for the town hall meeting. The group, "Organizing America, Change That Works" is rallying for reform and wants people to show up in support of Senator Nelson. Organizer Margaret Mandy says, "There are so many options on the table, it's hard for people to know what's coming and to know what to support not to support ." Mandy is also with SEIU, "Service Employees International Union."" (cut from an article at http://www.action3news.com/global/story.asp?s=10953045). Senator Nelson remains open to a government option for health care insurance. He is, after all, a Democrat.
-
Ben Nelson is a coward for scheduling this when he did.
-
ScottC:
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I don't know what polls you are talking about, or maybe you're just using hyperbole to try and get your point across. Probably the most well known poll, at least around here, is the Gallup poll. You can see the historic record of their presidential polls by going here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx)
As you may notice, they were only wrong once since 1936 and are generally within a percent or two in accuracy. They did not show democrats leading in every race for the last 40+ years.
I agree, there are lots of polls, and lots of them are not unbiased, scientific polls. Those are the ones you may be describing.
I agree, too, the the media is extremely biased and often reports the polls they feel push their agenda.
My point was that if you poll a large, randomly selected population about how they intend to vote, using carefully designed questions and scientific methods, it will reflect the actual voting rather well, regardless of the number of voters who actually go to the polls.
-
I agree, polls such as Gallup that use scientific methods of gathering data are usually fairly accurate. My wife has worked in the polling industry for years and can talk circles around me on that subject. There's definitely a science to putting together an unbiased poll that's truly representative of the population at large. Unfortunately, the polls most people see are the ones that show up on a newspaper's website or some other biased venue. They usually have a loaded question, and will only be answered by people who care deeply about the subject on one side or the other.
-
Ben Nelson is a coward for scheduling this when he did.
Oh no, he is being crafty. Don't show up at noon thinking you will get in. Acorn and SEIU will have busloads of freeloaders brought in by 6 AM so Bennie will get his "fair and impartial concerned citizens" audience. The media will protray this as "Nebraskans wanting health care, not shouting matches"
The audience will be loaded with pre-written questions that Ben already knows the answer to. All he will have to do is remember who to call on in order. One thing is for sure, there will be no direct answers.
-
The Lincoln Independent Business Association offered to rent out the Lancaster Event Center for Nelson to hold a larger event, and his staff declined...
-
That would be to hard to bus a bunch of Acornies that far to pack it full so Joe Six Pack could not attend.
Make it look like everyone is supporting you Ben, the NFOA knows different. God I wish he was reading this, but I know he thinks he is too important to care what Nebraskans think anymore.