cycling for justice

Dear Senator Portman,

This morning I participated in a Greater Cincinnati STEM Collaborative event that took place at the University of Cincinnati. Today was the culmination of the last few months' efforts where the 7th and 8th grade students from several schools in the area participate in a STEM-motived activity to learn about principles of physics in conjunction with learning how to assemble and maintain bicycles.

So today at the celebration of the culmination of the last few months' activities, I had the pleasure to interact with local teenagers from all over the Cincinnati area. What I was particularly pleased about was to see all of these kids, black, white, Asian, Christian, Muslims, and all manner of ethnicity and religion all interacting together and enjoying the moment and enjoying each other.

This reminded me that the decision from Brown vs. Board of Education was published nearly 62 years ago, not long before you were born, in fact.  What a difference that decision has made for the progress of our nation. It is important and relevant and significant decisions like Brown vs. Board of Education that allow our nation and our society to grow stronger.

This coming Tuesday, May 17th, marks the 62nd anniversary of that decision.

What a disgrace it will be if another significant case is brought before the Supreme Court, and a moment to take another significant improvement in human rights or economic justice doesn't happen because our Court is understaffed or deadlocked in a split decision. And the reason for that missing element is due to a small group of US Senators who won't take a vote on the President's nominee, for small-minded political reasons.

Interestingly, one of the law clerks in the Supreme Court at the time, researching for one of the Justices, wrote this phrase :

" ... in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minorities are."

How prescient is that phrase today. The Republican US Senators, who happen to hold the majority in the Senate, are deciding what are the constitutional rights of the rest of the nation ... the right to have a Supreme Court candidate, duly nominated by the President, voted on by the Senate for confirmation.

Please read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, and assess whether you can deny today's generation of students and future scientists the right to have a fully capable and fully staffed US Supreme Court to protect and promote their rights .... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.

Sincerely,

P.S. : This, and several of my previous letters to you, can now be viewed on-line at www.do-your-job-rob.blogspot.com. Feel free to check it out, if you want to leave any comments there.

quid pro no quo

Dear Senator Portman,

So, this is interesting, from your press release of last week :

	Portman, Brown Request Applications for U.S. District Judgeship Vacancy in Ohios Southern District Washington, D.C. — U.S. Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) today began accepting applications to fill the vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
	...
	“We wish Judge Frost well in his retirement, and thank him for his years of public service,” said Portman. “The commission will weigh the best candidates and give Ohioans an opportunity to have input on the selection.”
	...
	The President of the United States nominates U.S. District Court Judges based on recommendations from U.S. Senators. Nominees must then be confirmed by the full U.S. Senate. U.S. District Courts are general trial courts which hear both civil and criminal cases.

So, if I understand this correctly, you are preparing to submit a recommendation to the President and request the President to then nominate that candidate for confirmation by the US Senate ?  This is the same US Senate who cannot find the time to act on the current nomination to the US Supreme Court ?  This is the same US Senate, for whom more than 50% want to promote the idea that we need to complete another election cycle so that we have an opportunity for "the American people to weigh in"

This must be the new motto of the Republican Senators :

“in nonsense is strength” ― Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champion

Or, if not strength, at least solidarity.

Let's limit the damage of the nonsense that has overtaken the Republican leadership in the US Senate .... please just re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, and assess whether you can actually surpass the absurdity of your current quid pro no quo activity .... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.

Sincerely,

P.S. : This, and several of my previous letters to you, can now be viewed on-line at www.do-your-job-rob.blogspot.com. Feel free to check it out, if you want to leave any comments there.

idée fixe

Dear Senator Portman,

So, I wanted to thank you for responding to my last several e-mails with the e-mail that you sent to me on 03-May. One thing struck me as I read it, however, and that is that you seem to be stuck on a few ideas, and that those ideas are, quite honestly, factually wrong. Which I have pointed out to you in my last several communications to you.

Which brought to mind two quotes from great writers that I thought you might enjoy.

Here is the first :

“Facts are lonely things” ― Don DeLillo, Libra

And I thought to myself :

and nowhere are facts (and logic) more lonely than in our nation's capital, among our leaders, choosing to denude themselves of facts in some sort of tribal bonding process, chest-beating obstination, played out at our nation's expense. 

And, of course, perhaps since you have freed yourself of the burden to act and speak in accordance with factual information or logic, how important it must be to latch firmly, with death grip, onto any next idea proffered by leadership, and hold to that idea as though it is the last idea. Since facts are not the basis of next steps, what is the path ? Since logic is no longer the navigator in decision making, what is the path ? The path is to follow Senator McConnell and the flotsam that he has provided to navigate in this new nonsense world, is to hold fast to indefensible ideas like "next year will be less partisan than this year, so that is a better time to take a decision" and "I historically only buy milk every fourth Tuesday, and even though I unfortunately spilled a little on Thursday this week, I guess I just won't have any milk until the end of next month".

"There is the condition which the modern French psychologists have called the 'idée fixe', which may be trifling in character, and accompanied by complete sanity in every other way. A man might form such an idée fixe... and under its influence be capable of any fantastic outrage." - Arthur Conan Doyle, The return of Sherlock Holmes

Let's limit the damage of the fantastic outrage that has overtaken the Republican leadership in the US Senate .... please just re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, and assess whether you can withstand the loneliness of taking a position which is supported by facts and logic .... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.

Sincerely,

P.S. : This, and several of my previous letters to you, can now be viewed on-line at www.do-your-job-rob.blogspot.com. Feel free to check it out, if you want to leave any comments there.

Starship Icarus

Dear Senator Portman,

Really, what where you thinking ?

You were thinking that a strong, electable leader would emerge from the Republican field race, and would then be elected as next President of the United States, and then you could control who would become the next addition to the Supreme Court.

Well, we see how this is playing out.

Only two possible outcomes seem possible at this point :

1. Most likely scenario : Hillary Clinton (or much less likely Bernie Sanders) will be elected the next President of the United States. If she has an opportunity to nominate someone to replace Justice Scalia, she has no motivation to select a reasonably moderate candidate, because she will have four years to fill that position or,
2. Least Likely Scenario : Donald Trump could be elected as next President. Who knows what he will do. But, he will not likely take any input from current Republican leaders in selecting his nominee, should Justice Scalia's position still be vacant.

Genius.

Your (or perhaps Senator McConnell's) misplaced hubris is going to result in a next appointment to the Supreme Court that is more extreme than the current nominee of President Obama. How's that for hubris once again providing us a teachable moment about that which is and is not within our control ?

The ancient gods of Greece and Rome are enjoying the moment. I hope that you are as well.

“But who names a starship the Icarus? What kind of man possess that much hubris, that he dares it to fall?”

― Amie Kaufman, These Broken Stars

So, as your Republican starship races towards self-immolation later this fall  .... please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your strategy to control the next appointment to the Supreme Court is still headed in the direction that you intended .... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.
 

Sincerely,

P.S. : This, and several of my previous letters to you, can now be viewed on-line at www.do-your-job-rob.blogspot.com. Feel free to check it out, if you want to leave any comments there.

The irony of your support for Israel ... just in time !

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for recent e-mail newsletter detailing the energy and passion with which you are serving the citizens of Ohio.

I especially liked the article about Supporting Israel, in which you demonstrate your ability to join bipartisan support ... for the timeliest of issues

On Monday, Portman (R-OH) joined a bipartisan group of Senators led by U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) urging the Administration to quickly conclude a strengthened Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to provide Israel with the resources it needs to defend itself. 

The current MOU expires in 2018.

“Israel is our closest ally in arguably the most strategically significant region in the world.” said Portman. “And whether from terrorist groups like ISIS, the destabilizing behavior of an emboldened Iran, or from chaos in Syria, Israel faces increasingly grave threats to its security. As the Middle East continues to descend into violence and chaos, American support of this oasis of freedom and democracy is especially critical.” 

Well, I get it that we need to support our allies, so thanks for that.

But here is the part I don't get : do you appreciate the irony in the fact that you are telling our current President that you won't respect your current constitutional duty to vote on his nominee for the Supreme Court, and yet you are urging the President to act urgently to update the MOU with Israel .... which expires in 2018 ! That's brilliant. I hope the President returns your phone call on this.

In the meantime .... please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your request to the President to act quickly on an agreement that expires two years from now while you roadblock progress on a current and constitutionally defined need of this country is based on good judgement and respectful of the responsibilities that you have to the citizens of Ohio ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.

Sincerely,

Responding to your message (from the Senator), received 02-May-2016

Dear,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the current vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me on this important issue.

As you may know, on April 14, 2016 I met with Supreme Court nominee Judge Merrick Garland. We had a very cordial meeting, and I enjoyed the opportunity to meet with him. As I have said previously, however, I believe the American people should have a voice in this debate.  This is a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for a generation, and I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in. Instead of having a nomination fight in this partisan election year environment, I believe awaiting the result of the election will give the nominee more legitimacy and better preserve the Court's credibility as an institution.

It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it's been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year. I have supported some of President Obama's federal court nominees and opposed others, based on their qualifications. Whether the next president is a Republican or Democrat, I will judge any nominee on the merits, as I always have.

I also wanted to share with you my recent op-ed on the best way to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. The full op-ed can be found here.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. For more information, you can visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Rob Portman
U.S. Senator

Rob-pelgänger ?

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for recent e-mail newsletter detailing the energy and passion with which you are serving the citizens of Ohio.

I did receive two e-mails, however, and I was confused about which one came from the real Senator Portman. Can you clarify for me if you are the author of either the first or the second newslettter that I received ?

Extracts from the two different communications are here below.

So, which is it (A) or (B) or (all of the above) ??

(A) On Monday, Portman released the following statement on Tax Day and the introduction of new legislation to better protect taxpayer rights:

“Tax Day this year marks another year where American workers, families, and businesses have been saddled with a complicated, out-of-date tax code.  It serves as a reminder that one of the most pressing issues before Congress is pro-growth tax reform that simplifies our tax code, promotes job creation, and makes America more competitive.  What’s more, many Americans have lost trust in an IRS that has recently targeted conservative groups and failed to be good stewards of taxpayers’ money and our tax laws.     

“In December, I was pleased that President Obama signed into law three common-sense bills that I authored and introduced last tax day, but there is still more work to do.  That is why I am introducing new legislation today that gives taxpayers the ability to appeal to the IRS Office of Appeals and ensures that the IRS can’t farm out audits of private taxpayer information to outside law firms.” 

The Coalition for Effective & Efficient Tax Administration (CEETA), a group that comprises 14 trade associations and taxpayer groups, praised the bill, saying:

“As Americans across the country face their tax filing deadline today, they should take comfort in knowing that Senator Rob Portman once again introduced legislation that will protect their rights against IRS overreach and inappropriate examination practices. The Coalition for Effective & Efficient Tax Administration (CEETA) hails Sen.Portman’s efforts to protect taxpayer rights across a broad spectrum of aggressive IRS audit practices.”

(B) On Monday, Portman released the following statement on National Animal Crackers Day along with the introduction of new legislation to better protect Senators' right-to-not-work privileges :

"Animal Crackers Day this year marks another year where American taxpayers are saddled with unfounded expectations that their elected officials in Congress will execute their Constitutional duties. It serves as a reminder that one of the most pressing issues before the Senate is an anti-partisan operating reform that simplifies our Supreme Court nomination process, promotes completion of constitutionally-mandated responsibilities, and makes the Senate more efficient and accountable.  What’s more, many Americans have lost trust in a Senate that has recently resorted to partisan inactivity and failed to be good stewards of taxpayers’ money and our Constitutional mandates. 

“In March, I was disappointed that President Obama nominated a well-respected judge for appointment to the Supreme Court, consistent with his Article II, Section 2 responsibilities, after I had repeatedly exhorted to him not to do so, so there is still more resistance and stone-walling to do.  That is why I am doing nothing today that gives taxpayers the ability to believe that their elected officials are striving to reduce partisanship in Congress and ensures that the 114th Congress will continue the recent trends and will be the most partisan Congress in US history, and will not fulfill even their most fundamental of Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.” 

The Coalition for an Ineffective & Inefficient Congress (CIIC), a group that comprises 3 Republican Senators and several programmed robots, praised the inactivity, saying:

“As Americans across the country fulfill their expected job duties or face the consequences, they should take comfort in knowing that Senator Rob Portman once again stood down from his responsibilities. The CIIC hails Sen. Portman’s efforts to protect the rights of Senators in the face of a broad spectrum of aggressive disgruntled citizens.”

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is based on good judgement and respectful of the responsibilities that you have to the citizens of Ohio ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.

Sincerely,

Voltaire et jardins

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for your e-mail of 25-March, responding to my previous e-mails to you in which I expressed my significant concerns about the fact that you are not supporting a vote in the Senate on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.

Your primary argument that you presented in your editorial to the Cincinnati Enquirer in March and also reinforced in your statement subsequent to your meeting with  Judge Garland earlier this week is based on ideas of partisanship determining when to take actions :

"I have concluded that the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in and to have the confirmation process take place in a less partisan atmosphere. "

So, how does this work, exactly ? Somehow, with the passage of time partisanship dissipates in the same mysterious fashion in which it arrived ? And then you will be willing to get back to work ?

I don't think so. And the data that exists indicates strongly that some magical disparition of partisanship is not going to happen just because a presidential election takes place. In fact, based on the data available from voteview.com, the partisanship that exists exists in the US Senate - not within the electorate and not based on presidential election choices. See the table below. It shows quite clearly the increase in partisanship that has been increasing for the last twenty years, and that that partisanship is most increasing on the Republican side of the ledger.

Solutions to problems to partisanship are not going to be found by diverting responsibility elsewhere. The responsibility to vote on the President's nominee for the US Supreme Court rests with the US Senate.

In my office, a lot of my colleagues have coffee mugs that say things like :

"World's Best Dad !" and "Best Mom Ever !"

I think everyone in the Senate deserves a coffee mug with the slogan :

"USA's Most Partisan Senate Ever !!!"

Congress Year |-1    <----- Senate Democrats ------------        0    ------------ Senate Republicans ---->      +1|
113 2013-2014 |                               *------------------|--------------------------*                      |
112 2011-2012 |                                 *----------------|-------------------------*                       |
111 2009-2010 |                                 *----------------|----------------------*                          |
110 2007-2008 |                                 *----------------|---------------------*                           |
109 2005-2006 |                                 *----------------|--------------------*                            |
108 2003-2004 |                                 *----------------|------------------*                              |
107 2001-2002 |                                 *----------------|-------------------*                             |
106 1999-2000 |                                 *----------------|------------------*                              |
105 1997-1998 |                                *-----------------|------------------*                              |
104 1995-1996 |                                 *----------------|-----------------*                               |
103 1993-1994 |                                  *---------------|----------------*                                |
102 1991-1992 |                                  *---------------|---------------*                                 |
101 1989-1990 |                                   *--------------|--------------*                                  |
100 1987-1988 |                                   *--------------|-------------*                                   |
99 1985-1986 |                                   *--------------|-------------*                                   |
98 1983-1984 |                                    *-------------|-------------*                                   |
97 1981-1982 |                                    *-------------|-------------*                                   |
96 1979-1980 |                                   *--------------|-----------*                                     |
95 1977-1978 |                                   *--------------|-----------*                                     |
94 1975-1976 |                                   *--------------|------------*                                    |
93 1973-1974 |                                  *---------------|------------*                                    |
92 1971-1972 |                                    *-------------|----------*                                      |
91 1969-1970 |                                    *-------------|-----------*                                     |
90 1967-1968 |                                   *--------------|-----------*                                     |
89 1965-1966 |                                    *-------------|-------------*                                   |
88 1963-1964 |                                    *-------------|------------*                                    |
87 1961-1962 |                                     *------------|------------*                                    |
86 1959-1960 |                                      *-----------|-----------*                                     |
85 1957-1958 |                                         *--------|-----------*                                     |
84 1955-1956 |                                          *-------|------------*                                    |
83 1953-1954 |                                             *----|-----------*                                     |
82 1951-1952 |                                              *---|----------*                                      |
81 1949-1950 |                                            *-----|---------*                                       |
80 1947-1948 |                                                *-|----------*                                      |
79 1945-1946 |                                               *--|----------*                                      |
78 1943-1944 |                                                 *|-----------*                                     |
77 1941-1942 |                                                *-|----------*                                      |
76 1939-1940 |                                                *-|----------*                                      |
75 1937-1938 |                                                *-|-----------*                                     |
74 1935-1936 |                                                *-|------------*                                    |
73 1933-1934 |                                               *--|--------------*                                  |
72 1931-1932 |                                            *-----|---------------*                                 |
71 1929-1930 |                                          *-------|-----------------*                               |
70 1927-1928 |                                         *--------|----------------*                                |
69 1925-1926 |                                        *---------|------------------*                              |
68 1923-1924 |                                       *----------|-------------------*                             |
67 1921-1922 |                                     *------------|--------------------*                            |
66 1919-1920 |                                    *-------------|-------------------*                             |
65 1917-1918 |                                    *-------------|------------------*                              |
64 1915-1916 |                                   *--------------|------------------*                              |
63 1913-1914 |                                   *--------------|----------------*                                |
62 1911-1912 |                                  *---------------|----------------*                                |
61 1909-1910 |                                 *----------------|-----------------*                               |
60 1907-1908 |                                *-----------------|-----------------*                               |
59 1905-1906 |                              *-------------------|----------------*                                |
58 1903-1904 |                               *------------------|----------------*                                |
57 1901-1902 |                              *-------------------|--------------*                                  |
56 1899-1900 |                            *---------------------|-------------*                                   |
55 1897-1898 |                           *----------------------|------------*                                    |
54 1895-1896 |                         *------------------------|---------*                                       |
53 1893-1894 |                       *--------------------------|---------*                                       |
52 1891-1892 |                      *---------------------------|---------*                                       |
51 1889-1890 |                    *-----------------------------|--------*                                        |
50 1887-1888 |                    *-----------------------------|-------*                                         |
49 1885-1886 |                   *------------------------------|-------*                                         |
48 1883-1884 |                   *------------------------------|-------*                                         |
47 1881-1882 |                   *------------------------------|--------*                                        |
46 1879-1880 |                   *------------------------------|--------*                                        |

If you really are committed to making progress in this partisanship environment, the steps to take are yours. And there is no time like the present.

Put your head down; get back to work; do the right and fine and simple thing.

"Il faut cultiver notre jardin" - Candide

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is based on any factual data, correct logic, and good judgement ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.

Sincerely,

eternal persistence of rising polarity

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for your e-mail of 25-March, responding to my previous e-mails to you in which I expressed my significant concerns about the fact that you are blocking a vote in the Senate on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.

Your primary argument that you presented in your editorial to the Cincinnati Enquirer in March and also reinforced in your statement subsequent to your meeting with  Judge Garland earlier this month is based on ideas of partisanship determining when to take actions :

 "I have concluded that the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in and to have the confirmation process take place in a less partisan atmosphere. "

Well, when are we going to have a less partisan atmosphere ?

Let's look at some data, some actual real data that is well known and respected in your sphere : DW-NOMINATE measures of polarity in Congress, based on the methods developed by political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal.

The data shows that subsequent to the last 16 presidential elections, the subsequent Congress and Senate sessions were MORE polarized in 14 of those 16 elections !! So, unless something changes to disrupt that pattern, the probability to arrive at a less partisan atmosphere is about 12% probability, vs. the more likely scenario (88%) that next years Senate will be even more partisan, more polarized than the current Senate.

So, if what you are trying to achieve is a confirmation process in a less partisan environment .... better act now, because the situation is only going to be worse next year.

The only two elections that are associated to a less-partisan-subsequent Senate are the congressional sessions after Richard Nixon's first election in 1968 and then again after the Jimmy Carter's election in 1976. Every other election since Dwight D Eisenhower's first election to the presidency in 1952 was followed by a Senate that was more polarized than the preceding session.

So, the position that you are currently taking (i.e., not voting on the President's nominee) is only contributing to increasing the polarization that you state that you are trying to avoid, and based on history, waiting until next year is not going to achieve what you have stated is your necessary condition for moving forward with your constitutional duty.

So, what are you waiting for ?

Here is a representation that shows the percentage change in polarization in the Senate in the session subsequent to a presidential election :

| <decrease --0---   increase in polarity   -------->   |
|---------------|----------------------x-----------------|Eisenhower
|---------------|---------------------x------------------|Eisenhower
|---------------|---------------------------x------------|Kennedy
|---------------|---------x------------------------------|Johnson
|------------x--|----------------------------------------|Nixon
|---------------|------------------------------------x---|Nixon
|----x----------|----------------------------------------|Carter
|---------------|---------x------------------------------|Reagan
|---------------|------------x---------------------------|Reagan
|---------------|------x---------------------------------|GHW Bush
|---------------|--------------x-------------------------|Clinton
|---------------|----------------------x-----------------|Clinton
|---------------|-----x----------------------------------|GW Bush
|---------------|----------------------x-----------------|GW Bush
|---------------|----------x-----------------------------|Obama
|---------------|-------------------x--------------------|Obama
|---------------|-----------------???--------------------| ?????

Please, get to work at the business of efficient government.

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is based on any factual data, correct logic, and good judgement ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.

Sincerely,

i dati di partigiani

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for your e-mail of 25-March, responding to my previous e-mails to you in which I expressed my significant concerns about the fact that you are not supporting a vote in the Senate on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.

Your primary argument that you presented in your editorial to the Cincinnati Enquirer in March and also reinforced in your statement subsequent to your meeting with  Judge Garland earlier this week is based on ideas of partisanship determining when to take actions :

"I have concluded that the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in and to have the confirmation process take place in a less partisan atmosphere. "

Well, have you any data to indicate that we will be in a less partisan atmosphere next year ?
I guess the answer to that question is very likely : No.

Let's look at some data, some actual real data that is well known and respected in your sphere : DW-NOMINATE measures of polarity in Congress, based on the methods developed by political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal. 

That data shows that the current Congress is the most polarized ever in the modern history of the United States.

So, congratulations to you and your colleagues for having achieved that.

But, just as interestingly, there is no pattern in that data that indicates that :

• years following presidential election years are likely to reduce the polarization, and
• there is no pattern in the data that remotely suggests that Supreme Court nominations were voted on in the Senate in years that are less polarized.

In fact, the position that you are currently taking (i.e., not voting on the President's nominee) is only contributing to increasing the polarization that you state that you are trying to avoid.

Here is a representation of the polarization data that substantiates what I have stated :

Congress Year  |     Increasing Partisanship -->  |
113 2013-2014 ----------------------------------------------o   <--- Max of all time !!
112 2011-2012 -------------------------------------------o
111 2009-2010 -----------------------------------------o
110 2007-2008 ----------------------------------------o
109 2005-2006 ---------------------------------------o
108 2003-2004 ------------------------------------o
107 2001-2002 -------------------------------------o
106 1999-2000 ------------------------------------o
105 1997-1998 -------------------------------------o
104 1995-1996 ----------------------------------o
103 1993-1994 ---------------------------------o
102 1991-1992 -------------------------------o
101 1989-1990 ------------------------------o
100 1987-1988 ------------------------------o
099 1985-1986 -----------------------------o
098 1983-1984 ----------------------------o
097 1981-1982 ----------------------------o
096 1979-1980 ---------------------------o
095 1977-1978 ---------------------------o
094 1975-1976 ----------------------------o
093 1973-1974 ----------------------------o
092 1971-1972 -------------------------o
091 1969-1970 --------------------------o
090 1967-1968 --------------------------o
089 1965-1966 ----------------------------o
088 1963-1964 ---------------------------o
087 1961-1962 --------------------------o
086 1959-1960 -----------------------o
085 1957-1958 ----------------------o
084 1955-1956 --------------------o
083 1953-1954 ----------------o
082 1951-1952 ---------------o
081 1949-1950 ----------------o
080 1947-1948 --------------o
079 1945-1946 --------------o
078 1943-1944 --------------o
077 1941-1942 -------------o
076 1939-1940 -------------o
075 1937-1938 --------------o
074 1935-1936 ---------------o
073 1933-1934 ------------------o
072 1931-1932 ----------------------o
071 1929-1930 --------------------------o
070 1927-1928 ---------------------------o
069 1925-1926 -----------------------------o
068 1923-1924 ------------------------------o
067 1921-1922 ----------------------------------o
066 1919-1920 ----------------------------------o
065 1917-1918 ---------------------------------o
064 1915-1916 ---------------------------------o
063 1913-1914 --------------------------------o
062 1911-1912 --------------------------------o
061 1909-1910 -----------------------------------o
060 1907-1908 -----------------------------------o
059 1905-1906 -------------------------------------o
058 1903-1904 ------------------------------------o
057 1901-1902 -----------------------------------o
056 1899-1900 ------------------------------------o
055 1897-1898 ------------------------------------o
054 1895-1896 -----------------------------------o
053 1893-1894 -------------------------------------o
052 1891-1892 --------------------------------------o
051 1889-1890 ---------------------------------------o
050 1887-1888 --------------------------------------o
049 1885-1886 ---------------------------------------o
048 1883-1884 ---------------------------------------o
047 1881-1882 ----------------------------------------o
046 1879-1880 ----------------------------------------o


Just get to work at the business of efficient government.

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is based on any factual data, correct logic, and good judgement ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.

Sincerely,

le chant des partisans

Dear Senator Portman,

Ohé ! partisans, ouvriers et paysans, c'est l'alarme !

Thank you for your e-mail of 25-March, responding to my previous e-mails to you, outlining some of my concerns with your current position of not supporting a vote in the Senate on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.

The difficulty with your position is that it is obviously only motivated by political considerations so that when you try to defend your position in a manner that attempts to avoid that context, you put forth arguments that are, quite frankly, silly.

Let's have an adult conversation, based on the assumption that both Senators and citizens are intelligent, critical thinkers.

Let's take a look at one of your arguments that you presented in your editorial to the Cincinnati Enquirer in March and also reinforced in your statement following your meeting with  Judge Garland earlier this week :

"I have concluded that the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in and to have the confirmation process take place in a less partisan atmosphere. "

Really ? Exactly when is that going to happen ? And how ? Do you actually believe that somehow the passage of a few months is going to reduce the obstructionist partisan environment that has overtaken your beltway neighborhood ?

Wishful thinking for a future less partisan environment does not make it happen. To achieve a less partisan environment starts with taking actions that actually reduce the partisanship. It starts with you. Your action to stand on the weakest of silly partisan rationalism only promotes this partisan atmosphere that you pretend is a hindrance to reasonable decision-making.

Oh, and another thing : Where in the Constitution does it state that constitutionally-mandated senatorial responsibilities are to be set aside in times of partisan atmosphere ? I missed that section. Maybe you can find a constitutional scholar who can help us find that mysterious directive in the Constitution that you pledged to uphold.

Let's just get to work at the business of efficient government.

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is based on correct logic and good judgement ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing : resign.

Thank you for considering raising the conversation to an adult level.

Allons-y, les partisans !

Existential fallacy

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for your e-mail of 25-March, responding to my previous e-mails to you, outlining some of my concerns with your current position of not supporting a vote in the Senate on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.

The difficulty with your position is that it is obviously only motivated by political considerations so that when you try to defend your position in a manner that attempts to avoid that context, you put forth arguments that are, quite frankly, silly, not factually correct, and ignore the fact that many of your constituents (including myself) are beneficiaries of a great education from the great state universities that we have in Ohio, that taught us to think critically.

Let's have an adult conversation, based on the assumption that both Senators and citizens are intelligent, critical thinkers.

Let's take a look at one of the arguments that you presented in your editorial to the Cincinnati Enquirer in March : Joe Biden.

Really ?

Here's is what my mother used to say to me when I was in grade school :

"If Joe Biden wants to jump off of a cliff, are you going to jump off the cliff with him ?"

Quoting someone else who is on the wrong side of the Constitution in a prior discussion does not validate your position for being on the wrong side of the Constitution in this situation.

Existential fallacies are not at the heart of good decision making processes for good government.

Let's just get to work at the business of efficient government.

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is based on correct logic and good judgement ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing and resign.

Thank you for considering raising the conversation to an adult level,

Galatians 7

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for your e-mail of 25-March, responding to my previous e-mails to you, outlining some of my concerns with your current position of not supporting a vote in the Senate on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.

The difficulty with your position is that it is obviously only motivated by political considerations so that when you try to defend your position in a manner that attempts to avoid that context, you put forth arguments that are, quite frankly, silly, not factually correct, and ignore the fact that many of your constituents (including myself) are beneficiaries of a great education from the great state universities that we have in Ohio, that taught us to think critically.

Let's have an adult conversation, based on the assumption that both Senators and citizens are intelligent, critical thinkers.

Let's take a look at the first argument that you presented in your e-mail to me :

"It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term ..."

Let's side aside for the moment that the Constitution of the United States does not, in any context, contain language that diminishes the power or responsibilities of any office holder in the final year of their term.

Let's side aside for the moment that this seems to be a quite selective use of responsibility-avoidance by the Senate for just this one issue.

And then, let's look at some facts:

• there have been 125 Supreme Court Justice (replacement) appointments in the history of the United States
• 38 (30%) of those confirmations were made in the 1st year of the then-President's term
• 39 (31%) of those confirmations were made in the 2nd year of the then-President's term
• 30 (24%) of those confirmations were made in the 3rd year of the then-President's term
• 18 (14%) of those confirmations were made in the 4th year of the then-President's term

So, although there is a slight downtrend in the number of nominees and appointments made in the 4th year of presidential terms, the facts are that we have a long history of Supreme Court confirmations in the final year of the presidential mandate, and not a history that resembles, even to a small measure, your rationale of "common practice".

The problem with manipulating "facts" as though your listeners are not critical, informed citizens, and as though any manipulation that serves a political purpose is acceptable, is that that behavior pattern delivers presidential front-runner candidates like Donald Trump, for whom facts are inconsequential, malleable, and no basis for future action.

This is not a path that leads to effective governing.

It is appropriate to reflect on Galatians 7 at this moment :

"whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

Let's just get to work at the business of efficient government.

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is sufficiently respectful to the intelligent, critically-thinking citizens of Ohio   ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing and resign.

Thanks for your consideration,

Responding to your message (from the Senator)

Dear ,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the current vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me on this important issue. 

As you know, we are in the midst of a presidential election and a vigorous debate within both political parties on the direction of the country. With the election less than eight months away, I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations.  

It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it's been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year. I have supported some of President Obama's federal court nominees and opposed others, based on their qualifications. Whether the next president is a Republican or Democrat, I will judge any nominee on the merits, as I always have.

I also wanted to share with you my recent op-ed on the best way to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. The full op-ed can be found here.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. For more information, you can visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Rob Portman
U.S. Senator

attachment

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for representing us as our Senator from southwest Ohio.

I did not imagine that I would write to you one day about Buddhist fundamentals, but, well, here we are.

In Buddhist thought:
- attachment is the basis of suffering,
- relief from this suffering is attainable, and
- the path to this alleviation is leading a balanced life.

Your current position to not support a vote on the President's nominee to the Supreme Court seems to be based on your attachment to supporting the leaders of the Republican Party, particularly Senator Mitch McConnell.

If one critically examines the reasons that the Republican leadership promotes as reasons to not vote on the nominee, it is readily apparent that these reasons are not based on facts, they are not based on an honest (one might even say, constructionist) interpretation of the Constitution, and the reasons are obviously not motivated by statesmanship nor a particular concern for the good of the country. The reasons promoted by the Republican Party leadership are obviously short-term politically motivated, and are contrary to the notion of well-intentioned state servants trying to enact efficient government.

This position of the Republican Party leadership is causing suffering. Our country and government should not operate this inefficiently. Our Supreme Court deserves more respect than to be treated as a political tool. Our citizens do not need yet another reason to find ourselves divided over yet another political game, which does not serve to better our government services.

So, I encourage you to lead a balanced life : cross the line to the other side on just this issue, and you can show the leadership of both parties, and the citizenry, that there is a path to better government, and less suffering.

#doyourjob, it is the reason that we requested your presence in Washington.

Respectfully,

hail to the chief

Dear Senator Portman,


Thank you for representing Ohio for these last few years.

So, we have all seen the recent news reports that summarize the comments of Chief Justice Roberts, comments that he made a few weeks before the passing of Justice Scalia, stating that the Senate should ensure that nominees are qualified, he said, and leave politics out of it.

In his words ...

“When you have a sharply political, divisive hearing process, it increases the danger that whoever comes out of it will be viewed in those terms,” he said. “If the Democrats and Republicans have been fighting so fiercely about whether you’re going to be confirmed, it’s natural for some member of the public to think, well, you must be identified in a particular way as a result of that process.”

“We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans,” the chief justice said, “and I think it’s a very unfortunate impression the public might get from the confirmation process.”              

Are you still in disagreement with the Chief Justice on this issue ? It is time to reconsider your current position, and take actions which are in the best interest of a healthy and fully functioning Supreme Court.

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is sufficiently respectful to the Supreme Court, and its Chief Justice   ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing and resign.


Thanks for your consideration,

brevity

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for representing Ohio for these last few years.

We are all shocked and saddened by the attacks that occurred yesterday in Brussels. Once again, we are reminded of the fragility of our existence and the brutality of those who want to attack western cultures. The attacks also remind us of the potential brevity of our lives, and the uncertainty of any future that we might envision.

Tomorrow and the days ahead will all be filled with unanticipated events, for which we will need our full resources to be able to react with urgency, and with well-informed decisions. Let's not degrade our energies on minor political skirmishes in such a way that it limits our ability to react to the more significant challenges ahead. The brevity of our lives and the uncertainty of the future implore us to be efficient, and timely, and purposeful with the tasks before us. Let's not let partisan politics stand in the way of efficient government for the things that we know how to do, that we know need to be done. There is no value to be gained, but perhaps significant opportunity to be lost, in waiting 18 months to do what we know can be done in one month.

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is sufficiently reflective of working with urgency and purpose and respecting the uncertainty of the future  ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing and resign.

Thanks for your consideration,

unanimity

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for representing Ohio for these last few years.

I want to congratulate you on leading the effort to coordinate a unanimous vote in the Senate yesterday.
What you proved yesterday is that the Senate can do the right thing, when they have the right leadership.

When I think about the current obstruction of the voting process for the recently nominated Supreme Court justice, I am of the opinion that we just do not yet have the right leadership in place. There are currently 46 Senators who are ready to do the right thing ... that is, their constitutional duty.

Why don't you lead on this issue ... and be the 47th (if being 47th is actually leading) to cross that line and agree to fulfill your constitutional duty ? I am confident that with your leadership track, that number would then quickly grow to 51 and even 60 ... and we can all just get on with doing the right thing.

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and recall the oath to which you pledged in January of this year, to assess whether your current position is leading in the right direction ?  ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing and resign.

Thanks for your consideration,

activist judges and senators

Dear Senator Portman,

Thank you for representing Ohio for these last few years.

Reflecting upon the recent nomination to the Supreme Court by President Obama, I recall many statements, primarily promoted by the Republican Party, in objection to the idea of 'activist judges', ostensibly in reference to those judges who publish opinions that are considered not consistent with a 'strict constructionist' view of the interpretation of the Constitution.

Regarding your current stated position to not allow the nomination process to proceed to a vote by the Senate, you are now acting in the role of 'activist senator', in other words what you are doing is not consistent with a 'strict constructionist' interpretation of the Constitution.

Are you changing your position about 'activism' in regards to fulfilling constitutional duties, or are you just being inconsistent in promoting to whom the 'strict constructionist' principle applies ?

Please re-read Article II, Sec 2 of the Constitution, and perhaps research its history, if you prefer, to assess whether your current position is 'constructionist' or 'activist'  ... and then please #doyourjob, or do the honorable thing and resign.

Thanks for your consideration,