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 :
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:
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 :
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,
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,
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire