Response from Feinstein--signed petition re; Roberts nom.

[bliss_eternal]

This was in my e-mail today, after participating in the DU activity today to petition our senators regarding the Roberts nomination.

I know they don't have time to do much more than form letters, but for some reason, I always expect a little more...




July 21, 2005



Dear _________:

Thank you for writing to me about the judicial
nominees sent to the Senate by President Bush. I
appreciate learning of your views and I welcome the
opportunity to respond.

The Constitution requires the President to
nominate Federal judges Aby and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.@ As a member of the Senate who
also serves on the Judiciary Committee, I consider my
Constitutional role to review judicial nominees to be
among my foremost and gravest responsibilities.

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 will do
my due diligence in regard to any nominee that comes
before the Judiciary Committee.

In recent months, I have been distressed over the
acrimony surrounding the judicial nominations process. I
believe our country would be better served if Congress
and the President could work cooperatively to get our
best and brightest judicial minds onto the Federal bench.

As a model, I would point to the bipartisan Judicial
Selection Committee Senator Boxer and I have created
with the White House to select district judges for
California. This process has worked well, leading to the
swift appointment of good, moderate judges to the
Federal bench. So far, it has taken the Senate an average
of just 114 days to confirm judges recommended by the
Judicial Selection Committee; which is over 80 days
faster than the pace at the end of the Clinton
Administration.

Again, thank you so much for writing. If you
should have any other questions or comments, please feel
free to visit my website at http://feinstein.senate.gov, or
contact my office in Washington, D.C. at [phone].


Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

http://feinstein.senate.gov

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the
Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov. You can also
receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at
http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html.

[whistle]

1. Dianne Feinstein is becoming a neo-conservative appreaser....

...she will be very uncomfortable when these BushCo republican bastards start turning on the gas ovens.

[tubbacheez]

3. Maybe the ovens will be

electric.



Feinstein seems overly concerned with her public image to conservatives. I notice that she seems to get more conservative on the high emotion issues. She supports a ban on flag burning for example.

She still looks somewhat liberal on the quieter stuff like election reform and education.

The philosophies used in her emails frequently don't jive from one issue to the next. I'm starting to suspect she's deliberately trying to doctor up a centrist image.

Maybe she intends to make a Presidential run sometime.

[whistle]

5. Well she is totally transparent if that's what she's trying to do....

....any informed voter will see right through that. Oh well, she is what she is and it will be her ass that will burn. Perhaps her ambitions are much lower, like party power broker. Dianne Feinstein will never be the first U.S woman president.

[wtmusic]

2. Feinstein will never take a stance

in those emails, even if the stance is "wait and see". She changes the subject to some (occasionally unrelated) self-congratulatory newsbite.

[proud patriot]

4. Yep I got it too

:shrug:

[bliss_eternal]

6. I agree with everything said here about Feinstein.

As I was reading her (form) response, I was thinking much of what you all have said here.

The response I got from Boxer's office was completely different. It referred me to her website, to send a personal e-mail, so she may have an opportunity to address it 'personally.' While I don't expect her to do so (busy lady), it's nice she puts forth the effort.

(I would provide the e but I am not on that e-mail addy right now--maybe I will cut and paste it here later).

I've received similiar correspondence when I e-mailed her about issues in the past.

But then, Boxer isn't afraid to kick up some dirt on an issue. She doesn't care if it doesn't make any difference at all. She's going down fighting (i.e. The Rice confirmation). I have more faith in her than I do Feinstein any day.

[cascadiance]

7. We need to get Clean elections prop on California ballot!

That way we can get rid of Feinstein and her corporate money ilk...

http://www.caclean.org/

Would have been great for us here in San Diego to have Steve Francis explain (even if he wasn't using clean elections campaigning) and justify his forcing the city to make matching contributions to other candidates to the sum of around $2 million each when the city is hurting so much right now. That evening of the playing field could really help Donna Frye next week if it were in place to keep Francis from "buying" the election down here. Sanders is hurting more because of it now, but you know Francis's not stopping until he's bought the mayor's office here.