A few weeks ago I sent Senator McCain an email message questioning his support for the Gang of 14 in the US Senate that derailed the Constitutional Option. Yesterday I received a letter in the mail from John McCain. Here is the text of the letter:
Thank you for contacting me to share your views regarding the filibustering of judicial nominees. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my position.
I support the President's judicial nominees, and I agree that Senate Democrats have too often used the filibuster to prevent the full Senate from exercising its responsibility to either confirm or reject his nominees. Recently, I and thirteen of my colleagues, seven Democrats and seven Republicans, agreed to support an up or down vote on three of the president's judicial nominees who had previously been filibustered, and to resort to the filibuster only in the most extraordinary circumstances.
As of this writing, our agreement has paved the way for a successful confirmation vote on six nominees, including William Pryor, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. I am confident that the vast majority if not all of the President's pending nominees to the federal bench who have been denied a confirmation vote or threatened with a filibuster as well as future nominees will receive a vote on the Senate floor thanks, in large part, to our agreement and to our seven Democrat colleagues whose good faith has been evident in their most recent votes to end the filibuster on the judges identified above. I would respectfully suggest that conservative critics of our agreement or our motives until after it has been further tested in upcoming confirmation votes. It has clearly worked quite well thus far, and I anticipate it will continue to do so.
Senate rules specify that a two-thirds majority of Senators is required to change a Senate rule. That has been the practice here for many, many years. The "constitutional" or "nuclear" option would have changed the Senate rule on filibusters with only a 51 vote majority. I opposed trying to change a rule by breaking another rule. In the past, Republicans have felt it necessary to use the filibuster to block a Democratic President's nominees. We did not use the filibuster to block President Clinton's judicial nominees because we successfully prevented many of those nominees from coming to the Senate floor for a vote or from even receiving a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Please know that anyone who claims Republicans haven't prevented Democratic nominees who had the support of a majority of Senators from receiving an up or down vote on the Senate floor is simply not telling you the truth. We have blocked nominees and in many instances we have had good reason to do so.
Someday, I hope none too soon, Republicans will again be in the minority and a Democrat will be elected President. I am not prepared to surrender a minority right to restrain future Democratic Senate majorities and future Democratic presidents. Nor do I think it wise to change Senate rules by breaking a Senate rule and perhaps encouraging a future Democratic majority from doing the same thing in debates on judicial nominees, other executive nominees, or even legislation. Havin siad that, I also believe the filibuster should be used only sparingly. I think the agreement we achieved has restored that discretion and sense of responsibility to the debate, making it clear that filibusters should only be employed in "extraordinary circumstances." Obviously future nominations will further test our agreement, but the record so far is encouraging.
Thank you for making me aware of your concerns.
Sincerely
John McCain
United States Senator
************************************************
Here is the text of my reply to Senator McCain:
Dear Senator McCain,
Thank you for writing a letter to me in response to the message that I sent you questioning your position as a member of the group of 14 Senators who sabotaged the Constitutional Option. I appreciate the arguments that you state in your letter, but I do not agree with some of your statements or the logic that you use to arrive at the position that you hold on this issue. Your letter states, dishonestly I might add, "Please know that anyone who claims Republicans haven't prevented Democratic nominees who had the support of a majority of Senators from receiving an up or down vote on the Senate floor is simply not telling you the truth." I expect that you know that the point of the conservative argument is that there is no historical precedent for filibustering a President's judicial nominees. Your dishonesty in changing the terms from a President's judicial nominees to the more general nominee, is dishonest in the extreme.
This is the kind of dishonesty that you continually show in your political career that resulted in my decision not to support you in your run for the Republican nomination in 2000. I sincerely hope and pray that you are not the nominee of the party for 2008. If I were a resident of Arizona I would do all I could to see that you are defeated when you next run for public office.
Republicans have won many elections for several years now. When a political party wins elections they are entitled to assume power. And that includes getting the President's judicial nominees confirmed since President Bush is from the same political party that controls both the US House and the Senate.
If we Republicans ever lose power in the US Senate I do not support our party ever filibustering a judicial nominee. I am ashamed that you, as a US Senator, argue for just that.
UPDATE: Welcome Confirm Them readers, and thank you Mr. Krempasky for linking to my blog. What a wonderful country where a private loan citizen has a political voice.
vadkins
QT Monster Blog Home
