JOHN CORNYN'S reply to my email on Eric Holder's conf.

[AEA]

Dear Mr. XXXX:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this issue.

After carefully studying Mr. Holder’s record as Deputy Attorney General, I remain doubtful regarding his judgment and ability to operate independent from political influence. Additionally, I have concerns that Mr. Holder’s record demonstrated a failure to understand the profound threat posed by radical Islamic terrorism. And I remain troubled by his apparent hostility to the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

During Senate Confirmation, Mr. Holder’s answers to the questions posed by the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to alleviate my concerns. During his testimony, Mr. Holder avoided giving a full and candid account of his actions regarding former-President Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, the clemency offered to 16 terrorists, and other matters that gave rise to my concerns about his judgment and independence.

My utmost concern, however, is that Mr. Holder fails to fully understand the unique challenges and threats posed to our country by radical Islamic terrorism. I fear that Mr. Holder is not prepared to lead the Justice Department at a moment when this nation is waging an asymmetric war whose battlefield extends across the globe and onto U.S. soil. While I was pleased that Mr. Holder testified that protecting America from attack would be his most important job as Attorney General, his public statements regarding the War on Terror often betray a willingness to advance ideological rhetoric without fully appreciating the sensitivity and complexity of a particular issue.
For these reasons I opposed the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Although I am disappointed that on February 2, 2009, Eric Holder was confirmed by the full Senate to be Attorney General of the United States, I hope that he will study the important issues facing his Department carefully and independently, and will use power responsibly—and not simply cater to the extreme voices on the left.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

[rokclimbertx]

got the same one...

[nuparadigm]

This is the same Cornyn who crossed the aisle and voted for Geithner's confirmation.

[jimlongley]

I got the same one too.

[Oldgringo]

nuparadigm wrote:

This is the same Cornyn who crossed the aisle and voted for Geithner's confirmation.

Is there any difference between any of them? I want to fire all 545 of and let's start over. Which 545 you ask:

SCOTUS 9
POTUS 1
SENATE 100
HOREPS 435

Absent a mass firing, we need term limits on all of the above. Maybe then the people will have a voice in their government?

[CHL/LEO]

SCOTUS 9

There are a couple on the Supreme Court that I'd like to keep - especially the Chief Justice.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Term limits were all the rage a few years ago, until people who are politically active learned that they can be a disaster. Losing a working political coalition through a defeat at the polls or through term limits means a loss of power in Austin or Washington. That power may be regained, but it requires starting anew in building political allies and trust, only to see that person leave office due to term limits. Major corporations and their PACs will always be able to have an impact on legislation because of the shear amount of money they can throw around, but grassroots organizations feel the impact of these changes.

Term limits also mean an elected official has no incentive to please his constituents in their last term. If a politician cannot run for reelection, then they do not answer to the voters. Federal judges are a great example of evil that comes with a governmental official who doesn't have to worry about pleasing the voters to get reelected.

If voters don't defeat bad elected officials at the polls, then we won't get any better ones when term limits force someone out. I've always found it interesting that term limits supporters seem to want to get the proverbial "other guy's" congressman or senator out of office, but not his own.

Chas.

[Oldgringo]

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Federal judges are a great example of evil that comes with a governmental official who doesn't have to worry about pleasing the voters to get reelected.

This is a "CHANGE" that is overdue.

[stevie_d_64]

Well, I have always been of the opinion that we can change things every two years...

I am also right with Oldgringo on flushing the lot of them...Not with hostility or disrespect, and there are still few of them that I like, but just because I believe there are way too many people I know here, and a few other places that we hit the issues hard, that are extremely qualified and knowledgable about the "real" issues we face...

And not to blow smoke, but I think Charles would be a much better choice for AG than what has been given to us in recent history...And its not just because of his position on the issue we hold near and dear to our hearts...

[stevie_d_64]

SCOTUS 9

There are a couple on the Supreme Court that I'd like to keep - especially the Chief Justice.

Ginsberg??? Stevens??? Breyer??? Kennedy??? Souter??? (Steve tries to run for effective cover...)

http://pantagraph.com/articles/2009/02/ ... 822609.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I predicted she'd be one of the first to retire after the election...I think this is going to happen pretty quick...Even though she says she's going to come back after the surgery...