EMAIL to Senator Martinez

GratisNet: "Mel_Martinez@martinez.senate.gov wrote:

'Dear Mr. Sakowski:

Thank you for contacting me regarding judicial nominations. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.

According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the United States Senate must 'advise and consent' to each of the president’s judicial nominations. In this role, we have a great constitutional responsibility to ensure a strong and qualified judiciary.'

The responsibility does not require the Senate of the United States to be a 'rubber stamp' organization as republicans so ably demonstrated during most of the Clinton administration, when they obstructed his judicial nominees by every method avaiable to them, including the fillibuster and the undemocratic 'Blue Slip' tactic. It is interesting to note that Senator Hatch decided that the 'Blue Slip' tactic was no longer a good idea once he was returned as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Did he have an epiphany or was he merely being hypocritical when he denied the Democrats the use of the dubious 'Blue Slip' tactic used so effectively by republicans during the Clinton Administration, in keeping 'qualified judicial nominees' from having 'the opportunity for an up or down vote on the Senate floor?'

Senator Martinez continued:'I am unable to fulfill this duty when qualified judicial nominees are denied the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.'

Nonsense Senator, can you possible be as stupid as that sentence makes you sound? Your 'duty' under the constitution is to consider each appointment, perhaps you can tell me where, in the constitution, the requirement of '...an up or down vote on the Senate floor' is required. Exact wording please, especially in light of the fact that your party is so fond of 'strict constructionism' regarding our governing document. Were you as incensed over this occurring during the Clinton administration? Regardless of any caveats you may offer as to why this time it is different, I would offer that it is not and such protestations are simply an attempt at rationalization on your part for what is plainly a hypocritical position.

Senator Martinez: 'On May 23, 2005, a compromise was reached allowing a vote on several of the president's judicial nominees who previously had been filibustered. I still strongly believe that all nominees who enjoy majority support deserve an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate.'

'...all nominees who enjoy majority support...' This, Senator, is the rationalization to which I was referring. You can slice it and dice it any way you wish but the fact remains that the conservative position is one of hypocrisy.

You may not count on my vote when you stand for re-election, but you may assuredly count on my support for your opponent, regardless of his or her party affiliation, in 2010."