Vote ‘No’ on Roberts

This is a copy of the letter I sent to Senators Allen and Warner regarding the nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since both have gone on record praising Roberts, I don’t expect this to have much impact, but I feel compelled to let them know that not everyone is as thrilled witht he man as they claim to be.

I urge you to vote against confirming John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There are too many unanswered questions about Mr. Roberts and his failure to answer these questions during his confirmation hearings do nothing to create a sense of confidence about him.

While I grant that he cant speculate about how he might rule on a hypothetical case, I see no reason why he cant answer questions about his own personal beliefs. I do not believe the claim that personal beliefs wont influence his decision-making process. While it is a laudable goal, it is probably impossible to realize. Therefore, without knowing his own personal beliefs it is only possible to judge him by the types of jobs he has sought out and held over the years. These jobs have almost uniformly been positions where he has argued against fundamental freedoms. It seems unlikely that he would have held positions for so many years if he did not agree with the views of his employers and those employers have frequently sought to curtail many freedoms that we take for granted today.

The failure of the Bush Administration to release all records pertaining to Mr. Roberts also leaves a cloud over his nomination. Transparency, particularly at the highest level of our government is essential if we are to have trust in that government. Why are we not permitted to see these records?

I, personally, would not hire someone with as many unanswered questions as remain for Mr. Roberts. I strongly urge you to vote no on Mr. Roberts.

I’ll post any responses I get. It will be interesting to see just how far they go in praising the man.

Share

Warner’s Response

I got a snail mail response from Senator Warner’s office to the letter I sent back in November (see this post). Nearly two months to get a response. Good thing it wasn’t something that required an immediate response.

I’m not going to type in his whole letter, but the gist of it is that he (or whoever on his staff responded) didn’t truly read my letter. This was made clear by this paragraph: “Please be assured that despite my concerns about the clarity of the second sentence of S.J. Res. 40, I understand the importance of ensuring that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. I will continue to work in the United States Senate to support traditional marriage.

Ok, so I sent him a letter telling him why his position is wrong and he responded by telling me to rest assured that he will continue to work toward this wrong position. This is representation? I don’t expect my elected officials to agree with me on everything but I do expect them to respond with something that leads me to believe they are paying attention to what I say. At least Allen’s response, while disappointing, showed that my letter was read.

So, guess he needs another nudge to make him realize that I don’t agree with him.

Dear Mr. Warner,

Thank you for your letter, dated December 22, 2004 in response to my email regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment. Unfortunately, it does not appear that you read my letter before responding because the tone of your letter indicates that you think I agree with your position.

To be blunt, the FMA is evil.

You and your colleagues that support this amendment are frequently heard using phrases like “activist judges” and never address the real issue of civil rights and discrimination. To quote Spain’s Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega, “The right to marry is a right for everyone, without distinction. It cannot be understood as a privilege.”

In your letter you say, “I understand the importance of ensuring that marriage in the United States shall consist of only the union of a man and a woman.” Why? How does any same-sex marriage diminish, demean or lessen any heterosexual marriage? It is clear how the lack of same-sex marriage does hurt same-sex couples. From inheritance to providing for the safety and security of children to taxes, same-sex couples are discriminated against by the Federal government. There is no reason to deny these benefits other than the desire to discriminate against gay and lesbian Americans.

The courts have acted where legislatures have failed to do the right thing. Look at the history of our own state with regard to interracial marriage and you’ll see a clear parallel.

Please reconsider your position. I would be happy to meet with you to explain in more detail why supporting same-sex marriage is the right thing to do.

Sincerely,
Linda Thomas

Share

Nay to Gonzalez

I wrote the following letter to Senators Warner and Allen regarding the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.

I urge you to vote against confirming Alberto Gonzales as the next Attorney General. Mr. Gonzales’ actions with regard to putting the perceived rights of the government above inherent human rights makes him ill-suited for this post.

It’s short and to the point.

If, like me, you believe that our Attorney General should be someone who respects both the law and the principles that underpin it then make your voice heard to your own Senators.

Share

More Letters Sent

I sent variations on my letter to my senators here in Virginia (Allen and Warner). Both supported the federal marriage amendment earlier this year. I wanted them to know why their support for it was wrong. I also sent a copy to my representative in the 8th district (Moran).

In a gesture of utter futility, I also sent one to Marylin Musgrave of the 4th district in Colorado.

Share