‘Talkathon’ on Bush’s Judicial Nominations

Re “GOP Extends Senate Talkathon,” Nov. 14: So the Bush administration is not satisfied with the 98% of President Bush’s judicial nominees already confirmed by the Senate; the Senate Republicans therefore planned the “debate” that began Wednesday night and continued through Friday on extremist judicial nominees blocked by the Democrats.

The Senate Democrats understand that confirming extremist judges for lifetime appointments could, and probably will, turn back the clock on American justice for decades to come and cause irreversible environmental damage. I thank California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer for having the courage to stand up against the confirmation of nominees (such as Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown) who have shown hostility to our social progress and environmental safeguards.

Joan Jones Holtz

El Monte

*

I’ve just finished reading Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, and it says that the president shall have the power to nominate judges of the Supreme Court and other officers, with the advice and consent of the Senate. A senator can express approval or disapproval by voting for or against the president’s nominee. Nowhere in the Constitution does it read that a senator shall refuse to vote. That’s why we send them to Washington. A senator who refuses even to vote lacks honor or courage and should resign.

Robert S. Rodgers

Culver City

*

Sen. John Cornyn’s (R-Texas) Nov. 12 commentary attacking Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees in the Senate conveniently omits important facts. The reason Clinton judicial nominees did not face filibusters is that Republicans were in the majority in the U.S. Senate. Republicans didn’t have to resort to filibuster. Instead, they simply bottled up scores of Clinton nominees in the Judiciary Committee. None of these nominees got the up or down vote Cornyn argues that Bush nominees deserve.

Michael Pleters

El Paso