Alexander finally responds...

[jarhead]

DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" August 14, 2009



XXXXXX XXXXXXXX
Lebanon, Tennessee 37087

Dear Frank,

Thanks for getting in touch with me and letting me know what's on your mind regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

On August 6, 2009, the Senate confirmed Judge Sotomayor by a vote of 68 to 31. Even though Judge Sotomayor's political and judicial philosophy may be different than mine, especially regarding Second Amendment rights, I voted to confirm her because she is well qualified by experience, temperament, character and intellect to serve on the Supreme Court.

In 2005, I said on the Senate floor that it was wrong for then-Senator Obama and half the senators on his side of the aisle to vote against John Roberts - a superbly qualified nominee - solely because they disagreed with what Senator Obama described as Roberts' "overarching political philosophy" and "his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's office" that "consistently sided" with "the strong in opposition to the weak." Four years later, it would have been equally wrong for me to vote against Judge Sotomayor solely because she is not "on my side" on some issues.

Courts were never intended to be political bodies composed of judges "on your side" who would reliably tilt your way in controversial cases. Courts are supposed to do just the opposite: decide difficult cases with impartiality. The oath Judge Sotomayor has taken three times says it best: ". I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and . I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . under the Constitution and laws of the United States."

During her confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor expressly rejected then-Senator Obama's view that in a certain percentage of judicial decisions "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in a judge's heart . and [in] the depth and breadth of one's empathy." In answer to a question from Senator Jon Kyl, she said, "I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge."

Giving broad Senate approval to well-qualified nominees helps to increase the prestige of the Supreme Court and confirm its impartiality. For that reason, until the last few years senators on both sides of the aisle, after rigorous inquiries into the fitness of nominees, have given those well-qualified nominees an overwhelming vote of approval. For example, no justice on the Supreme Court that Chief Justice John Roberts joined in 2005 had received more than nine negative votes. Four were confirmed unanimously. All but three senators voted for Justice Ginsburg, a former General Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. Every single senator voted for Justice Scalia. In truly extraordinary cases, senators, of course, reserve the prerogative - as I do - to vote "no" or even to vote to deny an up-or-down vote.

During the eight years I was governor of Tennessee, I appointed about 50 judges. In doing so, I looked for the same qualities that Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated: intelligence, good character, restraint, respect for law and respect for those who came before the court. I did not ask one applicant how he or she would rule on abortion or immigration or taxation. I appointed the first female circuit judge in our state, the first African American court chancellor and the first African American Supreme Court Justice. I appointed both Democrats and Republicans. That process served our state well and helped to build respect for the independence and fairness of our judiciary. In the same way, it is my hope that my vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor will help to return the Senate to the practice only recently lost of inquiring diligently into qualifications of a nominee and then accepting that elections have consequences, one of which is to confer upon the president the constitutional right to nominate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Even in cases where we may disagree on issues, I do weigh carefully the opinions of Tennesseans on both sides of an issue before casting a vote in the Senate. Your comments help me to know where the people of Tennessee stand, and they are very helpful to me in making decisions. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on Judge Sotomayor's nomination, and I hope that you will continue to get in touch with me and let me know what's on your mind regarding the important issues facing our nation.

Sincerely,
Lamar

[johnharris]

He - or whichever aide wrote that piece of fiction - is full of IT.

[jarhead]

I agree 100%. That is why he will never get another vote from me. I never was that keen on him anyway. He has always been the lesser of evils in my opinion and I have always voted not so much for him but against someone else.

[johnharris]

The "lesser of two evils" theory has done a great disservice to this country and this state.

[lilredhunter]

John not trying to turn this into a heated political debate. However you remark about the lesser of 2 evils, left me curious. What should one do if he is in the position of having to compare the lesser of two evils to make a vote. Should one not cast a vote for either candidate, or what should someone do to make a decision? I have been in the situation where the lesser of two evils , even if trying to vote for one political party, left me not voting for a certain party and unsure of which candidate would do the least damage.

[jarhead]

[Grunt67]

I finally got a response from Alexander as well.....identical to jarheads', with the exception of the name.
Sure he got quite a few complaints...had to use the "occupant" form letter. LOL
Voting for someone or an issue I don't agree with, is not something I do.
A vote of NO is in order here.

[C. Richard Archie]

For too long the Citizens of this Country, and this State, have been too lazy. Taking the directions of Party Machines to provide candidates, not getting involved at a grass roots level has resulted in the current situation. I have been just as guilty myself, always finding a reason to let someone else bear the responsibility of scrutinizing the candidates and picking the ballot offerings.

The politicos have been able to operate with impunity, a little bickering and bitching was all they had to put up with. Greed from their respective districts with respect to pork for the home team trumped accountability of actions, alliances forged with other lifelong politicians who bear no responsibility to the electorate, because none was required.

We had better wake up, and it has to start at the local level. Get out and talk with neighbors, show up at Town Halls, write letters to the Editor and your representatives, call the talk radio shows. Fertilize your children's future with a grass roots effort, beat some leather off the bottom of your shoes!

Taking this country back will only work from the bottom up!

[lilredhunter]

Mr. Archie that is the way I have started looking at things. The problem is it has become harder & harder to vote party line anymore because of candidates that want to say one thing to get elected. Then jump ship. Here lately , being the last few years they have definitely proven the old adage true. No such thing as an honest politician. Plus it comes down to the almighty dollar even on the local level. I recently, before last local election, went to a County Commissioner and asked for help getting something changed. His reply was how much money can you afford to throw at this problem? I got irritated and said enough to see you are not re-elected. To which he laughed. I didn't have any money to throw at either project. But he was not re-elected. I didn't have any money but worked everyday to help in anyway I could to help is opponent. It worked. There were many of us that worked on it but it worked. Here in the last 4-5 years I have become very active in the local politics and have started getting active with letter,e-mail & letter writing to further benefit our Second Amendment rights. I want to get even more active than I am now. Back to the point here , so what should someone do when you have 2 douche bags and neither is a "good" pick?

[C. Richard Archie]

My take, vote for the person,the lessor of the evils. Right behind the vote, start trying to raise awareness and vie to get a better candidate next round.

If you have cancer, you can try to remove it, if that is not possible, there is rediation and chemo, neither is a thing relished, but it may be the only incrimental step which affords continued survival. Scratch and claw, never give and inch!