Common Ground Common Sense > NEW THREAD -- CONTACT SENATORS ON FILIBUSTER

MrJim

Jan 27 2006, 05:09 PM

The "Obama is a traitor" thread ended up mainly in a discussion on contacting Senators about the filibuster. Let's move that discussion into its own thread.

All you non-battered spouse types! Call, fax, and email all the Dem Senators and change their minds about the Filibuster!

If someone has contact info, please post it here ASAP.

I'm assuming that calls and emails over the weekend will be fielded by answering machines and email servers, so lets keep it up over the weekend.

MrJim

Jan 27 2006, 05:23 PM

Go here to reach several senators at once:

http://www.savethecourt.org/siteapps/advoc...template=x.ascx

MrJim

Jan 27 2006, 05:26 PM

Borrowed from DU: (They are on top of this over there)

If it is a work day for you and you cannot make calls, I've got you covered:

Free, One-Step Online Fax to 12 Key Senators!!

http://www.SaveTheCourt.org/AlitoFilibuster

Please contact key senators who can provide critical support to the filibuster effort! Click here for free, one-step faxing to 12 key senators -> EVAN BAYH, Obama, Dodd, Lieberman, Biden, Bill Nelson, Durbin, Snowe, Reid, Schumer, Clinton, Chafee, Feingold.

Sign Senator John Kerry’s Open Letter to All Senators:

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/alito /

One-Step Email to 14 Key Senators

(list above + Senators Boxer & Feinstein):
http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?ite...

Got 5 more minutes? Email Red State Dems who are currently being targeted by ads created by the folks who brought us the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR) 202-224-4843
Webform: http://lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html

Sen. Mark Pryor (AR) 202-224-2353
Webform: http://pryor.senate.gov/contact /

Sen. Mary Landrieu (LA) 202-224-5824
Web Form: http://www.landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Sen. Byron Dorgan (ND) 202-224-2551
Email: senator@dorgan.senate.gov

Sen. Kent Conrad (ND) 202-224-2043
Webform: http://conrad.senate.gov/webform.html

Sen. Tim Johnson (SD) 202-224-5842
Web Form: http://www.johnson.senate.gov/emailform.cfm

Sen. Robert Byrd (WV) 202-224-3954
Web Form: http://www.byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html

Sen. Ken Salazar (CO) 202-224-5852
Web Form: http://salazar.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Sen. Susan Collins (ME) 202-224-2523
Web Form: http://collins.senate.gov/public /

Warmed up? Ready to Go For Broke?

Toll-free numbers for Congressional Switchboard:
1-877-851-6437 or 1-888-355-3588
1-888-818-6641 or 1-800-426-8073

Direct Phone Numbers:
Bayh, Evan (Democrat – IN) Phone: (202) 224-5623
Obama, Barack (Democrat – IL) Phone: (202) 224-2854
Dodd, Christopher (Democrat – CT) Phone: (202) 224-2823
Lieberman, Joseph (Democrat – CT) Phone: (202) 224-4041
Biden, Joseph (Democrat – DE) Phone: 202-224-5042
Nelson, Bill (Democrat – FL) Phone: 202-224-5274
Durbin, Richard (Democrat – IL) Phone: (202) 224-2152
Snowe, Olympia (Republican – ME) Phone: (202) 224-1946
Reid, Harry (Democrat – NV) Phone: 202-224-3542
Schumer, Charles (Democrat – NY) Phone: 202-224-6542
Clinton, Hillary (Democrat – NY) Phone: (202) 224-4451
Chafee, Lincoln (Republican – RI) Phone: (202) 224-2921
Feingold, Russell (Democrat – WI) Phone: (202) 224-5323

Help Democrats.com contact the Alito 48
< http://democrats.com/alito-48 >

MrJim

Jan 27 2006, 05:28 PM

and from another DU poster:

Please call the offices of New Jersey's 'undecided' Democratic senators, too.

Senator Robert Menendez 202 224 4744
Senator Frank Lautenberg 202 224 3224

MrJim

Jan 27 2006, 05:31 PM

And from DailyKOS:

CALL BAYH, BIDEN, CHAFEE, SALAZAR, AND *BOTH* NELSONS! NOW TAKING TALLIES ON A-LIE-TO FILIBUSTER!
by patrioticliberal
Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:51:44 PM PDT
Democrat Ken Salazar of Colorado (1-888-355-3588 PRESS 2 or 202-224-5852), Ben Nelson of Nebraska (202-224-6551), and Bill Nelson of Florida (202-224-5274) need your phone calls.

Evan Bayh is also on the fence on voting for Alito and the filibuster! CALL: (202) 224-5623

Other people to call, on the fence:
* Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) (202) 224-2921 * Joe Biden. 202-224-5042
* KENT CONRAD of ND - Phone: (202) 224-2043
* Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ) - (202) 224-3224 - http://lautenberg.senate.gov/webform.html
* Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - (202) 224-4744
* Mary Landrieu - (202) 224-5824 * Tim Johnson (ND) - (202) 224-5842 * Barack Obama (IL) - (202) 224-2854 * Republican Lamar Alexander (R-TN) - moderate, possibly could be moved. TRY. (202) 224-4944

Ben Nelson (NE) originally stated he would vote Yes for Alito. But it looks like he is putting his finger in the wind. He is now taking calls and tallies as well: 202-224-6551 .

Bill Nelson (FL) SAYS HE IS NOT HEARING FROM ENOUGH CONSTITUENTS! DC Phone: 202-224-5274 . He is hearing from tons of right-wingers who are saying that he should not filibuster!

patrioticliberal's diary :: ::

Ken Salazar (D-CO) is taking your calls now regarding whether or not he should support the filibuster! Call the toll free line - 1-888-355-3588 (PRESS 2) . OR FAX: Senator Salazar: 202-228-5036 (DC FAX) .

This is about your future. This is about America's future. If the lines are busy, call again, and again, and again.

They will ask you if you support the filibuster or don't support it when you call, and that's all they want to know. They ARE taking a tally. If you're not a consituent, CALL ANYWAY . PLEASE. They will ask what city you are calling from, or a zipcode.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE ANYMORE. CALL.

BUSY? KEEP TRYING!!!

THEY SAY THEY'RE EVEN TALLYING YOU IF YOU SAY YOU *AREN'T* A CONSTITUENT!

PLEASE!

DWB04

Jan 27 2006, 05:34 PM

the one step fax is excellent thnx Jim

MrJim

Jan 27 2006, 05:38 PM

And of course, sign John Kerry's online petition:

http://www.johnkerry.com/

MrJim

Jan 27 2006, 05:40 PM

Here's the scoop on Obama from another DU'er:

He will vote no to confirm but is undecided on a filibuster - that is what his staffer just told me. He asked for my zip code so I am restricting this plea to Illinois DUers only, though the rest of you PLEASE EMAIL AND FAX!

Senator Barack Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-2854
(202) 228-4260 fax
(202 228-1404 TDD
http://www.obama.senate.gov/contact /

PLEASE be polite and respectful. Rude calls/emails may convince him that only crazy fringe lunatics oppose Alito. We are NOT crazy fringe lunatics and we need to make Obama aware of how destructive an Alito judgeship would be!

Don't assume that just because you live in a blue state with Dem senators that they will automatically support the filibuster! EVERYONE needs to call ALL their Senators NOW!

BTW - Durbin's office said he was FOR a filibuster, so I haven't posted his contact info.

MrJim

Jan 27 2006, 05:43 PM

Senator's contacts A-D:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ress=364x257998

Contacts F - M (no E's?)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ress=364x258011

Contacts N - W

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ress=364x258016

MrJim

Jan 27 2006, 05:49 PM

Okay -- well, I've done my homework. Now we all have our homework for the weekend and Monday cut out for us.

Noonan

Jan 27 2006, 06:02 PM

Here's my (generic) reply email from Kohl. Emphasis is mine.

QUOTE

Dear Mr. Noonan:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate
hearing from you, and I would like to take the opportunity to
address your concerns.

On July 1, 2005, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor announced her intention to resign once a replacement
has been confirmed. I have the utmost respect for Justice
O'Connor. History will remember her as not only the first female
Supreme Court justice, but also for her balanced approach to the
law and as someone who conduced herself with honor. She served
admirably and I wish her nothing but the best.

White House Counsel Harriet Miers was nominated to
replace Justice O'Connor, however this nomination was withdrawn
on October 27, 2005. On Monday, October 31, the President
announced the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. to the U.S.
Supreme Court. Like you, I believe it is imperative that federal
judges meet the highest standards, both personally and
professionally. Upon nomination, a candidate is subject to a
hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a
member, and consideration by the full Senate before he or she can
be confirmed. There is a stringent set of requirements that ensures
the quality and competency of our federal judges, and as a member
of the Judiciary Committee I take my responsibility to scrutinize
every Supreme Court nominee very seriously. I believe that
Supreme Court justices should not be ideologues, and should be
committed to fairness in interpretation.

The hearings on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito
began on January 9, 2006 and allowed the Senate Judiciary
Committee to closely review Judge Alito's qualifications and
judicial philosophy, as well as his views on important issues. I
reviewed Judge Alito's testimony at these hearings very seriously.

On January 24, 2005, the Senate Judiciary Committee
reconvened to review Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme
Court. After a thorough examination during the hearing process, I
have decided to oppose the nomination of Judge Alito. Though I
believe Judge Alito showed himself to be a man of great
intellectual ability during the hearings before the Judiciary
Committee, I have serious concerns with Judge Alito's legal
philosophy. I have misgivings that Justice Alito will narrow rights,
limit freedoms and overturn decades of progress.

We expect the Supreme Court to guard our liberties, protect
our rights and where appropriate, expand our freedoms. Judge
Alito's judicial opinions suggest a well-formed philosophy of
limited rights and restricted civil liberties. I had hoped that Judge
Alito would have been able to satisfy the concerns I had with his
record at his hearing. Instead, he chose to avoid many of the
Senate Judiciary Committee's questions and in doing so, he did a
disservice to the country and his nomination. The Senate Judiciary
Committee has the obligation to decide whether Alito's views have
a place on the Supreme Court. I have decided they do not and
therefore, I oppose Judge Alito's nomination.

Judge Alito's nomination was approved after being
evaluated by the Senate Judiciary Committee and I anticipate a
vote by the full Senate very soon. Again, thank you for contacting
me. Please feel free to contact me about issues that concern you.

Sincerely,

Herb Kohl
U.S. Senator

DWB04

Jan 27 2006, 06:04 PM

QUOTE(MrJim @ Jan 27 2006, 04:49 PM)

Okay -- well, I've done my homework. Now we all have our homework for the weekend and Monday cut out for us.

Thank you Jim for putting this all together in one place...I've started handing out valentines early and you deserve a big one! :valentine:

real_democrat

Jan 27 2006, 06:08 PM

QUOTE(MrJim @ Jan 27 2006, 06:31 PM)

And from DailyKOS:

CALL BAYH, BIDEN, CHAFEE, SALAZAR, AND *BOTH* NELSONS! NOW TAKING TALLIES ON A-LIE-TO FILIBUSTER!
by patrioticliberal
Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:51:44 PM PDT
Democrat Ken Salazar of Colorado (1-888-355-3588 PRESS 2 or 202-224-5852), Ben Nelson of Nebraska (202-224-6551), and Bill Nelson of Florida (202-224-5274) need your phone calls.

Evan Bayh is also on the fence on voting for Alito and the filibuster! CALL: (202) 224-5623

Other people to call, on the fence:
* Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) (202) 224-2921 * Joe Biden. 202-224-5042
* KENT CONRAD of ND - Phone: (202) 224-2043
* Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ) - (202) 224-3224 - http://lautenberg.senate.gov/webform.html
* Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - (202) 224-4744
* Mary Landrieu - (202) 224-5824 * Tim Johnson (ND) - (202) 224-5842 * Barack Obama (IL) - (202) 224-2854 * Republican Lamar Alexander (R-TN) - moderate, possibly could be moved. TRY. (202) 224-4944

Ben Nelson (NE) originally stated he would vote Yes for Alito. But it looks like he is putting his finger in the wind. He is now taking calls and tallies as well: 202-224-6551 .

Bill Nelson (FL) SAYS HE IS NOT HEARING FROM ENOUGH CONSTITUENTS! DC Phone: 202-224-5274 . He is hearing from tons of right-wingers who are saying that he should not filibuster!

patrioticliberal's diary :: ::

Ken Salazar (D-CO) is taking your calls now regarding whether or not he should support the filibuster! Call the toll free line - 1-888-355-3588 (PRESS 2) . OR FAX: Senator Salazar: 202-228-5036 (DC FAX) .

This is about your future. This is about America's future. If the lines are busy, call again, and again, and again.

They will ask you if you support the filibuster or don't support it when you call, and that's all they want to know. They ARE taking a tally. If you're not a consituent, CALL ANYWAY . PLEASE. They will ask what city you are calling from, or a zipcode.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE ANYMORE. CALL.

BUSY? KEEP TRYING!!!

THEY SAY THEY'RE EVEN TALLYING YOU IF YOU SAY YOU *AREN'T* A CONSTITUENT!

PLEASE!

FYI...

Obama -got through to vm
Ben Nelson-got through to vm
bill Nelson voicemailbox full
Evan Bayh-voicemailbox full
chaffee-voicemailbox full
Frank Lautenburg-voicemailbox full
KENT CONRAD-got through to vm
Robert Menendez voicemailbox full
Mary Landrieu voicemailbox full
Tim Johnson- got through to vm

lenal

Jan 27 2006, 07:08 PM

I just sent strongly worded e-messages to the three Democrats that indicate they are going to vote for the nominee. Urged them to reconsider, and maybe a deluge of messages from the people will result in a second look from them.

It was my second to Senator Byrd, for a couple of reasons, a) not sure the first was delivered and

find it most amazing that he who is most ardent in applying the Constitution as it stands, would vote for this nominee who seems to have much more intent to make the president more powerful than the other two branches when the Constitution is explicit that these are to be co-equal. If that is abandoned we are nothing but a mockery of a monarchy.

lenal

MrJim

Jan 27 2006, 07:32 PM

Here's the full contact list for all Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_info...enators_cfm.cfm

DWB04

Jan 27 2006, 08:21 PM

Senator Wyden is in for the filibuster

DWB04

Jan 27 2006, 09:14 PM

We don't need to call Boxer she's in (was there ever a doubt?)

So Are Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Stabenow, and Shumer

DWB04

Jan 28 2006, 01:54 PM

updated list Senators voting NO on cloture ...For sure we don't need to call...

Barbara Boxer (D- CA)

Dianne Feinstein (D- CA)

Christopher J. Dodd (D- CT)

Richard J. Durbin (D- IL)

John F. Kerry (D- MA)

Edward M. Kennedy (D- MA)

Paul S. Sarbanes (D- MD)

Debbie A. Stabenow (D- MI)

Harry Reid (D- NV)

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D- NY)

Charles Schumer (D- NY)

Ron Wyden (D- OR)

Russell D. Feingold (D- WI)

Barack Obama (D-IL) Wooho he changed his mind Jim!

Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

DWB04

Jan 28 2006, 01:56 PM

Senators TO CALL: The holdouts or undecided

Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D- AR), 202-224-4843
Joseph I. Lieberman (D- CT), 202-224-4041
Thomas R. Carper (D- DE), 202-224-2441
Daniel K. Inouye (D- HI), 202-224-3934
Tom Harkin (D- IA), 202-224-3254
Evan Bayh (D- IN), 202-224-5623
Barbara A. Mikulski (D- MD), 202-224-4654
Carl Levin (D- MI), 202-224-6221
Mark Dayton (D- MN), 202-224-3244
Max Baucus (D- MT), 202-224-2651
Frank Lautenberg (D- NJ), 202-224-3224
Jeff Bingaman (D- NM), 202-224-5521
Jack Reed (D- RI), 202-224-4642
Patrick J. Leahy (D- VT), 202-224-4242
Maria Cantwell (D- WA), 202-224-3441
Patty Murray (D- WA), 202-224-2621
Herb Kohl (D- WI), 202-224-5653
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D- WV), 202-224-6472
James M. Jeffords (I- VT), 202-224-5141

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D- DE) , 202-224-5042
Bill Nelson (D- FL), 202-224-5274
Daniel K. Akaka (D- HI), 202-224-6361
Mary Landrieu (D- LA), 202-224-5824
Byron L. Dorgan (D- ND), 202-224-2551
Olympia Snowe (R- ME), 202-224-5344

wundermaus

Jan 28 2006, 01:56 PM

QUOTE(lenal @ Jan 27 2006, 06:08 PM)

I just sent strongly worded e-messages to the three Democrats that indicate they are going to vote for the nominee. Urged them to reconsider, and maybe a deluge of messages from the people will result in a second look from them.

It was my second to Senator Byrd, for a couple of reasons, a) not sure the first was delivered and

find it most amazing that he who is most ardent in applying the Constitution as it stands, would vote for this nominee who seems to have much more intent to make the president more powerful than the other two branches when the Constitution is explicit that these are to be co-equal. If that is abandoned we are nothing but a mockery of a monarchy.

lenal

Lenal,
Would you please share your letter with us? I need some talking points...
thanks,
vmaus

DWB04

Jan 28 2006, 01:59 PM

Fax #'s for Senators.....or use Jim's Save the Court one step link

Fax numbers

AR: Lincoln(D) (202) 228-1371
AR: Pryor(D) (202) 228-0908
CA: Boxer(D) (202) 226-6701
CA: Feinstein(D) (202) 228-3954
CO: Salazar(D) (202) 228-5036
CT: Dodd(D) (202) 224-1083
CT: Lieberman(D) (202) 224-9750
DE: Biden(D) (202) 224-0139
DE: Carper(D) (202) 228-2190
FL: Nelson(D) (202) 228-2183
HI: Akaka(D) (202) 224-2126
HI: Inouye(D) (202) 224-6747
IA: Harkin(D) (202) 224-9369
IL: Durbin(D) (202) 228-0400
IL: Obama(D) (202) 228-4260
IN: Bayh(D) No FAX listed
LA: Landrieu(D) (202) 224-9735
MA: Kennedy(D) (202) 224-2417
MA: Kerry(D) (202) 224-8525
MD: Mikulski(D) (202) 224-8858
MD: Sarbanes(D) (202) 224-1651
MI: Levin(D) (202) 224-1388
MI: Stabenow(D) (202) 228-0325
MN: Dayton(D) (202) 228-2186
MT: Baucus(D) (202) 224-0515
ND: Conrad(D) (202) 224-7776
ND: Dorgan(D) (202) 224-1193
NE: Nelson(D) (202) 228-0012
NJ: Corzine(D) (202) 228-2197
NJ: Lautenberg(D) (202) 224-9707
NM: Bingaman(D) (202) 224-2852
NV: Reid(D) (202) 224-7327
NY: Clinton(D) (202) 228-0282
NY: Schumer(D) (202) 228-3027
OR: Wyden(D) (202) 228-2717
RI: Reed(D) (202) 224-4680
SD: Johnson(D) (202) 228-0368
VT: Leahy(D) (202) 224-3595
VT: Jeffords(I) No FAX listed
WA: Cantwell(D) (202) 228-0514
WA: Murray(D) (202) 224-0238
WI: Feingold(D) (202) 224-2725
WI: Kohl(D) (202) 224-9787
WV: Rockefeller(D) (202) 224-7665
WV: Byrd(D) (202) 228-0002

Alternate for Dayton

612-727-5223

Noonan

Jan 28 2006, 02:01 PM

I simply call Kohl's office every day and say "I want you to support the filibuster." He's up for re-election this year, but he's considered a safe seat so this shouldn't be an issue that should impact his re-election.

Then I have my wife call. Then I taught my 5-year-old to say 'support the filibuster'. We take turns calling each day.

And emails. Both my kids got email addresses when they were born, so they are email activists as well.

DWB04

Jan 28 2006, 02:03 PM

QUOTE(Noonan @ Jan 28 2006, 01:01 PM)

I simply call Kohl's office every day and say "I want you to support the filibuster." He's up for re-election this year, but he's considered a safe seat so this shouldn't be an issue that should impact his re-election.

Then I have my wife call. Then I taught my 5-year-old to say 'support the filibuster'. We take turns calling each day.

And emails. Both my kids got email addresses when they were born, so they are email activists as well.

Good deal.......I have my husband working too!! the fax numbers are for Senator's whose VM is full......just an alternate

wundermaus

Jan 28 2006, 02:15 PM

FYI - Not yet with us regarding the filibuster - Senators still in need of being Contacted - (Let them FEEL the LOVE)

Lincoln, Blanche L.- (D - AR)
355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4843

Lieberman, Joseph I.- (D - CT)
706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4041

Carper, Thomas R.- (D - DE)
513 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2441

Inouye, Daniel K.- (D - HI)
722 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3934
Web Form: inouye.senate.gov/webform.html

Harkin, Tom- (D - IA)
731 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3254
Web Form: harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Bayh, Evan- (D - IN)
463 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/WebMail1.htm

Mikulski, Barbara A.- (D - MD)
503 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4654
Web Form: mikulski.senate.gov/mailform.html

Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Dayton, Mark- (D - MN)
123 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
Web Form: dayton.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Baucus, Max- (D - MT)
511 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2651
Web Form: baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ)
324 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3224
Web Form: lautenberg.senate.gov/webform.html

Bingaman, Jeff- (D - NM)
703 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5521
E-mail: senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov

Reed, Jack- (D - RI)
728 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4642
Web Form: reed.senate.gov/contact/thoughts.cfm

Leahy, Patrick J.- (D - VT)
433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4242
E-mail: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

Cantwell, Maria- (D - WA)
717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3441
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html

Murray, Patty- (D - WA)
173 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2621
Web Form: murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm

Kohl, Herb- (D - WI)
330 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5653
Web Form: kohl.senate.gov/gen_contact.html

Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D - WV)
531 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6472
Web Form: rockefeller.senate.gov/services/email.cfm

Jeffords, James M.- (I - VT)
413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5141
Web Form: jeffords.senate.gov/contact.html

Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D - DE)
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5042
E-mail: senator@biden.senate.gov

Nelson, Bill- (D - FL)
716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5274
Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm#email

Akaka, Daniel K.- (D - HI)
141 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6361
E-mail: senator@akaka.senate.gov

Landrieu, Mary L.- (D - LA)
724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Dorgan, Byron L.- (D - ND)
322 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2551
E-mail: senator@dorgan.senate.gov

Snowe, Olympia J.- (R - ME)
154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5344
Web Form: snowe.senate.gov/contact.htm

Noonan

Jan 28 2006, 02:49 PM

Delete.
This stupid thing isn't posting the whole quote.

Noonan

Jan 28 2006, 02:50 PM

Again.

Noonan

Jan 28 2006, 02:52 PM

GRRRRRR

Found the following on Kohl's website. At least he has SOMETHING about the nomination process and his views that people can read. I'm finding a lack of anything on most sites of those on the above list.

[QUOTE] The Constitution gave the Senate the responsibility to

wundermaus

Jan 28 2006, 02:56 PM

QUOTE(Noonan @ Jan 28 2006, 01:49 PM)

Delete.
This stupid thing isn't posting the whole quote.

wundermaus

Jan 28 2006, 03:19 PM

(Per Noonan - Found the following on Kohl's website. At least he has SOMETHING about the nomination process and his views that people can read. I'm finding a lack of anything on most sites of those on the above list.)

QUOTE

JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
When a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court or on other Federal benches, the President chooses potential nominees for the open seat. Next, various government agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, conduct extensive background investigations of the potential nominees before the President submits his or her name to the Senate. Upon nomination, a candidate is then subject to a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, and a vote by the full Senate before he or she can be confirmed. Obviously, there is a stringent set of requirements that ensures the quality and competency of our federal judges, who are given lifetime appointments.

The Constitution gave the Senate the responsibility to advise and consent the President on nominations to the judiciary. As a Senator, I do not take this duty lightly. Whether the nomination occurs under a Democratic or Republican Administration, we must ensure that positions on the Federal Judiciary are held only by those who we are convinced are impartial, unbiased, fair, and whose only guiding ideology is to follow the Constitution to apply equal justice to all.

Since President Bush took office, I have voted to confirm 198 of his judicial nominations and have only opposed 16 nominations a 92.5 percent confirmation rate. Prior to that, I only opposed one nomination of the first President Bush and President Clinton. I have onlyopposed those nominees whose views and judicial philosophies are so far out of the mainstream as to place our liberties at risk.

wundermaus

Jan 28 2006, 03:49 PM

QUOTE(Noonan @ Jan 28 2006, 01:52 PM)

GRRRRRR

Found the following on Kohl's website. At least he has SOMETHING about the nomination process and his views that people can read. I'm finding a lack of anything on most sites of those on the above list.

QUOTE

The Constitution gave the Senate the responsibility to

technical difficulties? ...please stand by...

wundermaus

Jan 28 2006, 04:14 PM

Filibuster option on Alito divides Senate Democrats
Maura Reynolds, Los Angeles Times
Saturday, January 28, 2006

QUOTE

...Democrats are split, however, on the wisdom of pursuing a filibuster. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., long an "undecided" vote on Alito, announced Friday that he will oppose the filibuster. He was joined by Sens. Ken Salazar of Colorado and Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

"While I personally cannot support Judge Alito's confirmation on the Supreme Court, there is not a smoking gun in his past that would warrant 'extraordinary circumstances' and subsequently a filibuster against his nomination," Pryor said in a statement.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGAIGV0U71.DTL

DWB04

Jan 28 2006, 05:10 PM

QUOTE(wundermaus @ Jan 28 2006, 03:14 PM)

Filibuster option on Alito divides Senate Democrats
Maura Reynolds, Los Angeles Times
Saturday, January 28, 2006
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGAIGV0U71.DTL

Their no votes will count for nothing because in essence there are more yes votes what is their problem with at least letting the others have an extended debate?
They don't have to vote no on cloture, they could instead abstain....by voting no on Alito and then not opposing cloture they are letting someone they believe to be bad for the court and country ascend to the bench.

wundermaus

Jan 28 2006, 05:33 PM

QUOTE(DWB04 @ Jan 28 2006, 04:10 PM)

Their no votes will count for nothing because in essence there are more yes votes what is their problem with at least letting the others have an extended debate?
They don't have to vote no on cloture, they could instead abstain....by voting no on Alito and then not opposing cloture they are letting someone they believe to be bad for the court and country ascend to the bench.

I think they need a little arm twisting, don't you?

DWB04

Jan 28 2006, 06:34 PM

QUOTE(wundermaus @ Jan 28 2006, 04:33 PM)

I think they need a little arm twisting, don't you?

Most definitely!

here's a Save The Court Petition that can also be quickly signed

http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbN...k.CC39/Home.htm

Noonan

Jan 28 2006, 08:52 PM

Done for my whole family.

wundermaus

Jan 29 2006, 12:04 PM

Unasked Questions for Samuel Alito
An Open Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee

Print-friendly Page Printer-Friendly Version

By Morton Mintz
January 17, 2006

To: Members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
From: Morton Mintz
Subject: Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s nomination.

There's no doubt that many of the subjects you pursued in Judge Alito's confirmation hearings, including women's rights and presidential powers, are of utmost importance. But there is also little doubt that many people were turned off, not only by the predictable excess of self-serving oratory, but by the emphasis on issues that few care much about, such as whether Alito should have recused himself from one case years ago.

So here's a suggestion for a line of questioning that the committee -- whether run by Republicans or Democrats -- has regularly dodged down through the years, but that really, truly matters to most everybody -- men, women, whites, blacks, Hispanics, the elderly, the young, the healthy, the sick. In two words, the subject is, corporate power.

First a bit of background. In a 1978 case, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court decided, 5 to 4, that business corporations have a First Amendment "right" to spend their money to influence elections. "It might reasonably be concluded," a dissenter wrote, "that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere." He went on to write: "Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist." The dissenter was the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist -- a lifelong Republican.

Questions Judge Alito should be asked before you vote to determine if he will sit on our Supreme Court:

-- Do you believe that corporate money in our elections poses "special dangers in the political sphere"?

--Do you believe "that liberties of political expression" are necessary "to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist"?"

-- Do you believe that money is speech? Or is it property?

-- Do you agree that Justice Rehnquist was effectively saying, in the quote that follows, that the state having created the corporation, the state can regulate the corporation: "I would think that any particular form of organization upon which the State confers special privileges or immunities different from those of natural persons would be subject to like regulation, whether the organization is a labor union, a partnership, a trade association, or a corporation."

Key related questions flow from Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, soon after the end of the Civil War: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It was understood that the persons the 14th Amendment sought to protect were the newly freed slaves. Judge Alito:

-- Is the "person" a corporation?

-- Can a corporation be "born or naturalized in the United States "?

Another question flows from Justice Hugo L. Black's dissent in Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v. Johnson in 1938. "[W]hen the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted for approval, the people were not told that [they were ratifying] an amendment granting new and revolutionary rights to corporations," Justice Black wrote. "The history of the Amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments," he continued. "The Fourteenth Amendment followed the freedom of a race from slavery. . . Corporations have neither race nor color."

-- In proclaiming a paper entity to be a person, Judge Alito, was the court faithful to the intent of the framers of the Amendment and to the intent of the people who ratified it?

The prompt for a final group of key questions is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, a case the Supreme Court had before it not very long after the people ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.

The issue was whether the Amendment's guarantee of equal protection barred California from taxing property owned by a corporation differently from property owned by a human being. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite disposed of it with a bolt-from-the-blue pronouncement: "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state to deny any person the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

- Judge Alito, how would you characterize the court's refusal to hear argument in a momentous case before deciding it?

--Would you describe the court's decision in Santa Clara County as conservative? As radical? As open-minded?

--Would you agree that the Court that decided Santa Clara in 1886 failed to meet the standard of judicial conduct that was met by the Court in 1973, when it decided Roe v. Wade only after being fully briefed, hearing oral argument, and deliberating at length?

-- You have expressed profound admiration for Judge Robert H. Bork, calling him one of the outstanding nominees of the 20th Century." As you know, he famously denounced Roe as "a wholly unjustified usurpation of state legislative authority." Without regard as to whether Roe was rightly or wrongly decided, was Santa Clara "a wholly unjustified usurpation of state legislative authority?"

-- Again without regard as to whether Roe was rightly or wrongly decided, how does it strike you that the Court has declared a corporation -- a paper entity that is neither born nor naturalized -- to be a person but has declared a fetus not to be a person?

Is there just one Senate member who will raise questions such as the foregoing with Judge Alito?

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood...tions_alito.php