good response

[Jonnin]

(from Corker:)

Dear Mr. ...,



Thank you for taking the time to contact my office to share your
concerns about the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to a seat on the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals. Your input is important to me and I
appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.



As you may know, I voted against cloture on Ms. Halligan's nomination,
and the nomination failed. I agree it is extremely important to ensure
that our judges are highly qualified and that they interpret our laws
and don't legislate from the bench. The Constitution grants the
President the power to make nominations to the Federal Courts with the
advice and consent of the Senate. I examine a judicial nominee's
experience, ability, integrity, and judicial philosophy to ensure that
they are qualified and that they will make decisions rooted in the law
rather than based on their personal or political beliefs.



After carefully reviewing Ms. Halligan's record and the testimony from
her confirmation hearing, I have serious concerns that her record
included substantial advocacy in her practice of law, particularly with
respect to the Second Amendment. I believe she views the law as a
mechanism to achieve a desired result, rather than as objective rules
to be applied without favor. I viewed these as extraordinary
circumstances that were disqualifying which caused me to vote against
proceeding to this nomination.




Thank you again for your letter. I hope you will continue to share your
thoughts with me.

 

Edited March 11, 2013 by Jonnin

[mikegideon]

I think it was better than good.

[DMark]

"I believe she views the law as a mechanism to achieve a desired result, rather than as objective rules to be applied without favor."  - Corker

 

Well Said Senator.