Dear Senator,

As your constituent, I’m writing to ask you to reject any attempt to filibuster President Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Samuel Alito.

When the President fulfills his Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court justice, it’s the Senate’s Constitutional duty to “advise and consent” on that nomination. It is not the Senate’s role to “block and obstruct” a nominee just because a minority in the Senate doesn’t like that nominee’s judicial philosophy.

Judge Alito has more judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee during the past 70 years. At age 39, Judge Alito was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, and he has proven himself to be a superb arbiter of Constitutional law in his past 15 years on the bench.

Together with his service as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey and as a Justice Department lawyer arguing cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Alito is one of the most qualified persons ever nominated for our highest court.

Please, reject any attempt to filibuster President Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Samuel Alito. This is one of the most important jobs that you have as a Senator — and as your constituent, I’m going to be watching this very closely. Thank you.

Senator Graham, I was very disappointed that you joined the “Gang of Fourteen” that agreed not to use the “nuclear option.” I think you and Senator DeMint will have to invoke the Constitutional option to stop the Democrats from filibustering the highly qualified Judge Alito.

If there is a filibuster, I hope you will force the Democrats to actually stay on the floor and continue speaking. No gentleman’s agreement here.

Sincerely,
Jason A. Trommetter

Liberals are apoplectic over the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito for SCOTUS. That means President Bush must have nominated the right person. When Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer were praising Harriet Miers, I knew she was the wrong person for the job.

Samuel Alito is not a conservative. He’s not pro-life or pro-choice. He’s pro-law. He believes that it’s a judges responsibility to interpret the law, not make new law based on his own opinions. He’s exactly what we need on the Supreme Court.