Third Branch Conference Letter To Senate Republican Leadership
"RENEWING THE AMERICAN DREAM"
THIRD BRANCH CONFERENCE
Washington, D.C.
June 2, 2009
The Honorable Mitch McConnell
The Honorable Jon Kyl
The Honorable Jeff Sessions
The Honorable John Cornyn
The Honorable John Thune
and copied to all Minority Senators.
United States Senate
Washington, DC
Re: Debating the Supreme Court Nomination
Dear Senators:
Senator Sessions recently published a fine column offering his advice to the President on the qualities that should define a Supreme Court nominee. Senator Sessions respectfully explained what he expected of the President. Now that the President has made his nomination, it is up to the Senate to give the President “advice and consent.”
With like respect, and as the petitioners for millions of Americans, we write to express what we expect of you as leaders of the Senate Minority on a matter of the greatest concern to us – the confirmation process of the President’s nominee to the Supreme Court. In fact, we expect the same of the Majority in mirrored fashion.
We assume that Senators and staffs of the Committee on the Judiciary will do all that they can to illuminate the issues that under-gird a Supreme Court nomination. We hope that the time between nomination and hearings, and between hearings and a confirmation debate will be ample enough to alert the American people to the impact of the matter at hand, and comparable to previous nominations reviewed during times that Democrats controlled the Senate.
We say this to point out that the effort from you that we request is not at all limited to the walls of the Senate Judiciary Committee or its work, or to issues of procedure and timing. In this regard, we have every confidence in the new Ranking Member, Senator Sessions and his staff, and we know that the Members of the Committee, Republican and Democrat, will do their job.
Our concern arises from the little effort and time, Senate-wide, that was devoted to judicial nominations since the Alito confirmation, and during two election cycles. We have good reason to be concerned also given the extent of Senate effort in debate and scrutiny in the confirmations of Associate Justices Breyer and Ginsburg.
In recent years, and unlike the times that surrounded the confirmations of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, the American people have been increasingly alerted to the Senate’s role as the stewards of the federal judiciary.
In fact, Americans have been awakened to their own stewardship of the federal courts. Exit polls in the last election show that as many as three quarters of voters consider the Supreme Court nomination process a “significant” factor in their vote. A more significant number is that as many as seven per cent (7%) of voters in the last election, an election determined in states by similar margins, indicated that filling seats on the Supreme Court was the determining issue of their vote. These are surprisingly high numbers given that the issue was relatively hidden in the debate of the Senate and Presidential candidates in 2008 as compared to those recent years when Republicans won the White House and Senate seats.
And so with these considerations, let us share what, respectfully, we request of you:
A Great Debate
We request that you will lead 40 or more Senators to participate in a great debate that highlights all the issues that come to the fore with a Supreme Court nomination. We urge that you mobilize all Republican Members and staffs, and create opportunity for comment and debate, in and out of the Judiciary Committee, on and off the Senate floor, and in and out of Washington, from this moment until the final floor vote.
First and foremost of the issues for you to illumine is the difference in judicial philosophies that today clearly distinguishes between the judicial nominees of a Republican and Democrat president.
Secondly, we ask that you engage the entire Senate, and in so doing the American people, in a great debate that makes clear the consequences of the two distinct judicial approaches to the Constitution, to our national character, and to the lives of our children.
Third, we ask that you to rise to the extraordinary educable moment that a Supreme Court confirmation process represents, and to teach the American people about the controversial issues that the Supreme Court will decide one way or another as a result of the President’s nomination, and any other that he might make, as a result of the differences between judicial philosophies.
Finally, we request that you, in both the great debate and how you conclude it, make crystal clear why Americans should believe that Republicans are intelligent defenders of the Constitution, or not.
A Democratic Filibuster
There has been much distraction in discussing whether the Republican Minority would or could muster a “Democratic filibuster,” i.e., a filibuster used to obstruct a Senate confirmation vote. We recognize that Senate precedent has been altered by the systematic use of the “Democratic filibuster.”
As Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska (D) recently pointed out, a minority of Senators may now be well-entitled to prevent a cloture vote of a Supreme Court nominee who is, as Senator Nelson put it, an “activist.” Such a result could similarly be justified by a nominee who is unqualified, with no judicial or jurisprudential record, or who is clearly an adherent of “Living Constitution” jurisprudence, or otherwise likely to bring to the court their personal politics.
We remind you that the Republican Party Platform, which almost all Republican Senators voted to adopt, establishes that you will not support a “stealth nominee” or a nominee who does not display fidelity to the Constitution.
Even so, no credible person, if any, has called on Senate Republicans to brandish a “Democratic filibuster.” We call on you instead to display leadership, if the nominee merits it, in preparing for the use of the traditional filibuster, not intended to obstruct, together with moderate Democrats, so that the debate on the Senate floor is appropriately long and, therefore, suitably catalyzed to the American people.
The Final Vote
Our national experience in the past decade has changed the standard by which Republicans should cast their confirmation vote for a Supreme Court nominee of a Democrat president. The benefit of a doubt that once arguably might have justified the indifference over the last two nominees of a Democratic president is no longer tenable.
The record is clear that those with the judicial philosophy held by the nominees of a Democratic president have a particular and consistent approach to Constitutional interpretation and application. President Obama has, after all, repeatedly shown that he adheres to “Living Constitution” jurisprudence and favors judicial nominees who will allow personal feeling and personal background to color their judgment with empathy for particular classes of litigants.
The record is similarly clear as to the consequences of confirming Supreme Court nominees with no judicial record or judicial philosophy, which is what prompted the popular rejection of the Miers nomination.
We call on you to lead so that the confirmation vote of the President’s nominee, when it comes, honestly displays the differences between Republicans and Democrats to the American people.
* * *
An argument can be made that in times past Americans slumbered while the Supreme Court hubristically usurped their rights. It can be argued also that we all slumbered during the Clinton Supreme Court nominations and failed, by acquiescence and inertia, to alert Americans to the consequences of the popular vote.
The times have changed, and we expect more from you than once we might have.
Respectfully,
Manuel A. Miranda, Chairman
Richard Viguerie, ConservativeHQ.com
David Keene, American Conservative Union
Gary Bauer, American Values
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Larry Pratt, Gun Owners of America
Dr. Virginia Armstrong, Eagle Forum's Court Watch
Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring
Mark R. Levin. President, Landmark Legal Foundation
Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family
Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America
Rev. Miguel Rivera, National Coalition of Latino Clergy & Christian Leaders
Dr. Carl Herbster, AdvanceUSA
Donald E. Wildmon, American Family Association
Niger Innis, Congress of Racial Equality
Willes K. Lee, Hawaii Republican Party. Immediate Past Chairman
Ron Robinson, Young America’s Foundation
Michael P. Farris, Esq., Home School Legal Defense Association
Peter Flaherty, National Legal and Policy Center
Kelly Shackelford. Liberty Legal Institute
Dana Cody, Life Legal Defense Foundation.
Susan Carleson, American Civil Rights Union
Curt Levey, Committee for Justice
Phillip Jauregui, Judicial Action Group,
Ilya Shapiro, Esq., Cato Institute
Dean John C. Eastman, Dean, Chapman University School of Law
Dean Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Univ. School of Law (Founder, Liberty Counsel)
Prof. Teresa S. Collett. University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minnesota
Prof. Ronald D. Rotunda, Chapman University School of Law
Michelle Gress, J.D., The Westchester Institute for Ethics
L. Brent Bozell III, Media Research Center
Thomas A. Glessner, JD, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates
Denise Singleton, American Federation of Senior Citizens
Jim Martin, 60 Plus Association
Rev. Rick Scarborough, Vision America
Rev. Louis Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition
Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition
Keith Wiebe, American Association of Christian Schools
Debbie Joslin, Alaska Eagle Forum, Republican National Committeewoman, Alaska
Bruce Ash, Republican National Committeeman, Arizona
Steve Scheffler, Iowa Christian Alliance, Republican National Committeeman, Iowa
W. Ross Little, Jr., Republican National Committeeman, Louisiana
Curly Haugland, Republican National Committeeman, North Dakota
Cathie Adams, Texas Eagle Forum, Republican National Committeewoman, Texas
Kathy Terry, Republican National Committeewoman, Virginia
David Ridenour, The National Center for Public Policy Research
Amy Ridenour, Americans for the Preservation of Liberty
Jeffrey Mazzella, Center for Individual Freedom
William H. Shaker. Rule of Law Committee
William J. Murray, Religious Freedom Coalition
J. C. Willke, MD, International Right to Life Federation
Bradley Mattes, Life Issues Institute
Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer, Human Life International
Dr. Patricia McEwen, Life Coalition International
Austin Ruse, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
Jennifer Kimball, Culture of Life Foundation
Eric Scheidler, Pro-Life Action League
John Jansen, Generations for Life
Mark L. Melcher - The Political Forum
Deal W. Hudson. Catholic Advocate
Brian Burch, Fidelis and CatholicVote.org
John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews.com
Tom Shields, Coalition for Marriage and Family
Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach
William Greene, Ph.D., RightMarch.com
Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud
Mychal Massie, Project 21
Linda Harvey, Mission America
David Crowe, Restore America
Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign
Robert Peters, Morality in Media
C. Preston Noell III, Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
Dave Bydalek, Family First
Richard Ford, Heritage Alliance
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Tim Echols, Teenpact Leadership
Gary Palmer, Alabama Policy Institute
Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance
Mary Anne Hackett, Catholic Citizens of Illinois
James Dunlap, Citizens for Community Values of Indiana
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Dr. Don Racheter, Iowa Wednesday Group
Dennis K. Baxley, Christian Coalition of Florida
Kent Ostrander, The Family Foundation (Kentucky)
Gene Mills, Louisiana Family Forum
Jason Stern, Louisiana Family Forum Action
Brian Camenker, MassResistance
Kris Mineau, Massachusetts Family Institute
Joseph Ureneck, The Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
Gary Glenn, President, American Family Association of Michigan
John Helmberger, CEO, Minnesota Family Council & Institute
Pastor Paul Blair, Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Fran Bevan, Pennsylvania Eagle Forum
Harry Levine, Victory NH
Carolee Adams, Eagle Forum of New Jersey
Marie E. Tasy, New Jersey Right to Life
Bill Brooks, North Carolina Family Policy Council Action
Bobbie Patray, Tennessee Eagle Forum
Beverly Roberts, Texas Concerned Women for America
Betty Anderson, Eagle Forum of Montgomery Co., Texas
Daniel J. Cassidy, Editor, Sunlit Uplands, South Carolina
Steve Milloy, JunkScience.com
Jim Sutherland, California
Lester J. Larsen, Colorado
Chris Dickson, Indiana
Don Feder, Feder Associates, Massachussetts
Doug Reaume, Michigan
Didi Lima, Nevada
Ed Holdgate, New Hampshire
Stephen M. De Luca, New Jersey
Candace deRussy, New York
John C. Armor, Esq., North Carolina
Ed Gehringer, North Carolina
Jerry Stevens, South Carolina
Janet M. LaRue, Esq., Jan LaRue Consulting, Texas
Donna Garner, Texas
Larry Cirgnano, Virginia
Kenneth D. Whitehead, former Assistant Secretary of Education, Virginia
Jeffrey Lord, author, The Borking Rebellion
Mark I. Sutherland, author, Judicial Tyranny
Martha Zoller, "The Martha Zoller Show", Georgia News Network
Janet Parshall, Nationally Syndicated Talk show Host
Third Branch is a nationwide coalition of grasstop and opinion leaders.
THIRD BRANCH CONFERENCE
Washington, D.C.
June 2, 2009
The Honorable Mitch McConnell
The Honorable Jon Kyl
The Honorable Jeff Sessions
The Honorable John Cornyn
The Honorable John Thune
and copied to all Minority Senators.
United States Senate
Washington, DC
Re: Debating the Supreme Court Nomination
Dear Senators:
Senator Sessions recently published a fine column offering his advice to the President on the qualities that should define a Supreme Court nominee. Senator Sessions respectfully explained what he expected of the President. Now that the President has made his nomination, it is up to the Senate to give the President “advice and consent.”
With like respect, and as the petitioners for millions of Americans, we write to express what we expect of you as leaders of the Senate Minority on a matter of the greatest concern to us – the confirmation process of the President’s nominee to the Supreme Court. In fact, we expect the same of the Majority in mirrored fashion.
We assume that Senators and staffs of the Committee on the Judiciary will do all that they can to illuminate the issues that under-gird a Supreme Court nomination. We hope that the time between nomination and hearings, and between hearings and a confirmation debate will be ample enough to alert the American people to the impact of the matter at hand, and comparable to previous nominations reviewed during times that Democrats controlled the Senate.
We say this to point out that the effort from you that we request is not at all limited to the walls of the Senate Judiciary Committee or its work, or to issues of procedure and timing. In this regard, we have every confidence in the new Ranking Member, Senator Sessions and his staff, and we know that the Members of the Committee, Republican and Democrat, will do their job.
Our concern arises from the little effort and time, Senate-wide, that was devoted to judicial nominations since the Alito confirmation, and during two election cycles. We have good reason to be concerned also given the extent of Senate effort in debate and scrutiny in the confirmations of Associate Justices Breyer and Ginsburg.
In recent years, and unlike the times that surrounded the confirmations of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, the American people have been increasingly alerted to the Senate’s role as the stewards of the federal judiciary.
In fact, Americans have been awakened to their own stewardship of the federal courts. Exit polls in the last election show that as many as three quarters of voters consider the Supreme Court nomination process a “significant” factor in their vote. A more significant number is that as many as seven per cent (7%) of voters in the last election, an election determined in states by similar margins, indicated that filling seats on the Supreme Court was the determining issue of their vote. These are surprisingly high numbers given that the issue was relatively hidden in the debate of the Senate and Presidential candidates in 2008 as compared to those recent years when Republicans won the White House and Senate seats.
And so with these considerations, let us share what, respectfully, we request of you:
A Great Debate
We request that you will lead 40 or more Senators to participate in a great debate that highlights all the issues that come to the fore with a Supreme Court nomination. We urge that you mobilize all Republican Members and staffs, and create opportunity for comment and debate, in and out of the Judiciary Committee, on and off the Senate floor, and in and out of Washington, from this moment until the final floor vote.
First and foremost of the issues for you to illumine is the difference in judicial philosophies that today clearly distinguishes between the judicial nominees of a Republican and Democrat president.
Secondly, we ask that you engage the entire Senate, and in so doing the American people, in a great debate that makes clear the consequences of the two distinct judicial approaches to the Constitution, to our national character, and to the lives of our children.
Third, we ask that you to rise to the extraordinary educable moment that a Supreme Court confirmation process represents, and to teach the American people about the controversial issues that the Supreme Court will decide one way or another as a result of the President’s nomination, and any other that he might make, as a result of the differences between judicial philosophies.
Finally, we request that you, in both the great debate and how you conclude it, make crystal clear why Americans should believe that Republicans are intelligent defenders of the Constitution, or not.
A Democratic Filibuster
There has been much distraction in discussing whether the Republican Minority would or could muster a “Democratic filibuster,” i.e., a filibuster used to obstruct a Senate confirmation vote. We recognize that Senate precedent has been altered by the systematic use of the “Democratic filibuster.”
As Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska (D) recently pointed out, a minority of Senators may now be well-entitled to prevent a cloture vote of a Supreme Court nominee who is, as Senator Nelson put it, an “activist.” Such a result could similarly be justified by a nominee who is unqualified, with no judicial or jurisprudential record, or who is clearly an adherent of “Living Constitution” jurisprudence, or otherwise likely to bring to the court their personal politics.
We remind you that the Republican Party Platform, which almost all Republican Senators voted to adopt, establishes that you will not support a “stealth nominee” or a nominee who does not display fidelity to the Constitution.
Even so, no credible person, if any, has called on Senate Republicans to brandish a “Democratic filibuster.” We call on you instead to display leadership, if the nominee merits it, in preparing for the use of the traditional filibuster, not intended to obstruct, together with moderate Democrats, so that the debate on the Senate floor is appropriately long and, therefore, suitably catalyzed to the American people.
The Final Vote
Our national experience in the past decade has changed the standard by which Republicans should cast their confirmation vote for a Supreme Court nominee of a Democrat president. The benefit of a doubt that once arguably might have justified the indifference over the last two nominees of a Democratic president is no longer tenable.
The record is clear that those with the judicial philosophy held by the nominees of a Democratic president have a particular and consistent approach to Constitutional interpretation and application. President Obama has, after all, repeatedly shown that he adheres to “Living Constitution” jurisprudence and favors judicial nominees who will allow personal feeling and personal background to color their judgment with empathy for particular classes of litigants.
The record is similarly clear as to the consequences of confirming Supreme Court nominees with no judicial record or judicial philosophy, which is what prompted the popular rejection of the Miers nomination.
We call on you to lead so that the confirmation vote of the President’s nominee, when it comes, honestly displays the differences between Republicans and Democrats to the American people.
* * *
An argument can be made that in times past Americans slumbered while the Supreme Court hubristically usurped their rights. It can be argued also that we all slumbered during the Clinton Supreme Court nominations and failed, by acquiescence and inertia, to alert Americans to the consequences of the popular vote.
The times have changed, and we expect more from you than once we might have.
Respectfully,
Manuel A. Miranda, Chairman
Richard Viguerie, ConservativeHQ.com
David Keene, American Conservative Union
Gary Bauer, American Values
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Larry Pratt, Gun Owners of America
Dr. Virginia Armstrong, Eagle Forum's Court Watch
Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring
Mark R. Levin. President, Landmark Legal Foundation
Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family
Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America
Rev. Miguel Rivera, National Coalition of Latino Clergy & Christian Leaders
Dr. Carl Herbster, AdvanceUSA
Donald E. Wildmon, American Family Association
Niger Innis, Congress of Racial Equality
Willes K. Lee, Hawaii Republican Party. Immediate Past Chairman
Ron Robinson, Young America’s Foundation
Michael P. Farris, Esq., Home School Legal Defense Association
Peter Flaherty, National Legal and Policy Center
Kelly Shackelford. Liberty Legal Institute
Dana Cody, Life Legal Defense Foundation.
Susan Carleson, American Civil Rights Union
Curt Levey, Committee for Justice
Phillip Jauregui, Judicial Action Group,
Ilya Shapiro, Esq., Cato Institute
Dean John C. Eastman, Dean, Chapman University School of Law
Dean Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Univ. School of Law (Founder, Liberty Counsel)
Prof. Teresa S. Collett. University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minnesota
Prof. Ronald D. Rotunda, Chapman University School of Law
Michelle Gress, J.D., The Westchester Institute for Ethics
L. Brent Bozell III, Media Research Center
Thomas A. Glessner, JD, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates
Denise Singleton, American Federation of Senior Citizens
Jim Martin, 60 Plus Association
Rev. Rick Scarborough, Vision America
Rev. Louis Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition
Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition
Keith Wiebe, American Association of Christian Schools
Debbie Joslin, Alaska Eagle Forum, Republican National Committeewoman, Alaska
Bruce Ash, Republican National Committeeman, Arizona
Steve Scheffler, Iowa Christian Alliance, Republican National Committeeman, Iowa
W. Ross Little, Jr., Republican National Committeeman, Louisiana
Curly Haugland, Republican National Committeeman, North Dakota
Cathie Adams, Texas Eagle Forum, Republican National Committeewoman, Texas
Kathy Terry, Republican National Committeewoman, Virginia
David Ridenour, The National Center for Public Policy Research
Amy Ridenour, Americans for the Preservation of Liberty
Jeffrey Mazzella, Center for Individual Freedom
William H. Shaker. Rule of Law Committee
William J. Murray, Religious Freedom Coalition
J. C. Willke, MD, International Right to Life Federation
Bradley Mattes, Life Issues Institute
Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer, Human Life International
Dr. Patricia McEwen, Life Coalition International
Austin Ruse, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
Jennifer Kimball, Culture of Life Foundation
Eric Scheidler, Pro-Life Action League
John Jansen, Generations for Life
Mark L. Melcher - The Political Forum
Deal W. Hudson. Catholic Advocate
Brian Burch, Fidelis and CatholicVote.org
John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews.com
Tom Shields, Coalition for Marriage and Family
Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach
William Greene, Ph.D., RightMarch.com
Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud
Mychal Massie, Project 21
Linda Harvey, Mission America
David Crowe, Restore America
Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign
Robert Peters, Morality in Media
C. Preston Noell III, Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
Dave Bydalek, Family First
Richard Ford, Heritage Alliance
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Tim Echols, Teenpact Leadership
Gary Palmer, Alabama Policy Institute
Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance
Mary Anne Hackett, Catholic Citizens of Illinois
James Dunlap, Citizens for Community Values of Indiana
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Dr. Don Racheter, Iowa Wednesday Group
Dennis K. Baxley, Christian Coalition of Florida
Kent Ostrander, The Family Foundation (Kentucky)
Gene Mills, Louisiana Family Forum
Jason Stern, Louisiana Family Forum Action
Brian Camenker, MassResistance
Kris Mineau, Massachusetts Family Institute
Joseph Ureneck, The Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
Gary Glenn, President, American Family Association of Michigan
John Helmberger, CEO, Minnesota Family Council & Institute
Pastor Paul Blair, Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Fran Bevan, Pennsylvania Eagle Forum
Harry Levine, Victory NH
Carolee Adams, Eagle Forum of New Jersey
Marie E. Tasy, New Jersey Right to Life
Bill Brooks, North Carolina Family Policy Council Action
Bobbie Patray, Tennessee Eagle Forum
Beverly Roberts, Texas Concerned Women for America
Betty Anderson, Eagle Forum of Montgomery Co., Texas
Daniel J. Cassidy, Editor, Sunlit Uplands, South Carolina
Steve Milloy, JunkScience.com
Jim Sutherland, California
Lester J. Larsen, Colorado
Chris Dickson, Indiana
Don Feder, Feder Associates, Massachussetts
Doug Reaume, Michigan
Didi Lima, Nevada
Ed Holdgate, New Hampshire
Stephen M. De Luca, New Jersey
Candace deRussy, New York
John C. Armor, Esq., North Carolina
Ed Gehringer, North Carolina
Jerry Stevens, South Carolina
Janet M. LaRue, Esq., Jan LaRue Consulting, Texas
Donna Garner, Texas
Larry Cirgnano, Virginia
Kenneth D. Whitehead, former Assistant Secretary of Education, Virginia
Jeffrey Lord, author, The Borking Rebellion
Mark I. Sutherland, author, Judicial Tyranny
Martha Zoller, "The Martha Zoller Show", Georgia News Network
Janet Parshall, Nationally Syndicated Talk show Host
Third Branch is a nationwide coalition of grasstop and opinion leaders.
Labels: BirthRight, Digg, il Poverello d'Assisi, Mystic Monk Coffee, Newsvine, Portiuncula: the Little Portion, ProLifeBlogs, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Technorati, Warm Glow Candles, WorldNetDaily, Yahoo
posted by Fra Giles Mary Christopher at 5:40 AM
4 Comments:
Thank for posting this! People need to know that Hispanic polls, Hispanic surveys, indicate that Hispanics think just like everyone else. We’re not like African-Americans. We think just like everybody else.
Please go ahead and post your comment here, Earl.
Kindly keep it respectful and I will post it.
"Things just got a lot more complicated in the Sotomayor Nomination." Manuel
Miranda, Chairman, Third Branch Conference
See below, Tony Mauro reporting. 7th Circuit Decision at bottom.
Press Advisory: Mario Lopez of the Hispanic Leadership Fund and Ken Blackwell are
the 119th and the 120th signers to the Third Branch Conference letter. Mr.
Blackwell was a recent contender for the GOP Chairmanship, and appears still to be a favorite as Chairman Steele continues to alienate leaders. Secretary Blackwell's column on gun rights and the Sotomayor nomination is here. He joins Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America into Third Branch for the first time.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/26/blackwell_ken_obama_sotomayor/
Regards,
Manuel Miranda
Chairman
Third Branch Conference
This post has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home