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,