The following are a collection of letters and e-mails written by a United States Senator on the topic of judicial confirmations. The identities of the senate author, the nominee(s), and the intended recipient are not revealed and are not really important. No dates are apparent on the letters, and no guarantee is made as to their chronological order, though it is safe to say they are fairly recent.
There is also no point in explaining how the correspondence you will read fell into my hands. Fictional or not, the content of these letters can be easily recognized by anyone. One need just pay attention to the daily activities of the U.S. Senate, especially its confirmation hearings, and the situation becomes apparent.
Contrary to the popular belief of many in the Senate, the public is astute. People can see through hypocrisy and are not deceived by rhetorical games. The one weapon in the arsenal of those exposed in these letters that has been, and continues to be, effective is ignorance. As long as people never actually see what they do, and especially the way they do it, they just hold a press conference every once in a while to sound their own horn about the “amazing” work they do for all in need in hopes that people will not ask too many questions. An unengaged public is their best ally.
That is why these letters are enlightening. They give a concise, but very revealing, account of the process and tactics employed by the deceivers. They show how the judicial confirmation process is being poisoned and how the American people are being hurt as a result.
Readers are advised to read with caution.
POTUS[*] continues his arrogance! The nominee is not one of the ones we suggested to him. If he would only listen to us and nominate someone from our list, he wouldn’t have such a hard time getting his judges through. Instead, he sends us this guy who I’m sure will turn out to be one of his right-wing, narrow-minded clones.
Call everyone and get going. We need everything we can get on this guy, and we need it quick. We can keep doing other things and ignore it for a while, but you know them, they’ll start calling on all their radio host pawns to spew their venom at us. We need to be ready to explain why we have reservations.
Don’t tell me that! I don’t care if the ABA rated him “well qualified.” Frankly, I don’t care if the Pope endorses him. Get me what I need, and let’s stay focused.
Zero in on any civil rights opinions he has written or was ever part of. Given his background, this could be a major theme.
We also need to get everything he has ever written or said on Roe or anything related to women’s rights. Call the groups and see what they have on him.
Dear Young R,
I know you’re fairly new at this, so believe me, we just need to ask the questions. The answers aren’t really that important. I’ve been doing this for a very long time and this works. Do you not know the name Robert Bork? Look it up!
One decision can make or break this nomination. The major papers will be with us on this. Half of the battle will already be won.
Welcome to the big leagues!
Dear Misguided R,
You sound like you’re defeated already; cheer up, this is great! These two opinions are all we need. Don’t be overwhelmed by the fact that he’s written so many opinions. And yes, I am a little surprised, too, that there is nothing for us on individual liberties, but if we do our jobs right, the questions raised should be enough.
Maybe we should look into how many times he sided with the government.
Remember, people are not going to read thousands of opinions, they’ll only know about the ones we tell them about.
I saw the WP article. You can pay me later.
P.S. -- It is not over though; this just bought us some very valuable time. I can hear them scrambling through all his decisions now. …
I understand what you’re saying, but truth has nothing to do with it. Let them answer; we don’t need to do their jobs for them. You are too focused on an actual vote. Yes, if he gets a vote he will be confirmed, but the process is just as important. Remember that this is not the only nominee we will deal with. POTUS will think twice next time.
Dear Ingenious R,
Good idea, but we are trying to stay away from the word “filibuster.” We’ve been burned with that before. That doesn’t mean we can’t continue the debate for awhile and see what happens, but let’s not give them that word to use against us.
In fact, I say we schedule a date for the hearing, perhaps two or three months away. And then let’s confirm a couple of district court judges. That will really have them spinning because they can’t say we’re not moving judges along.
Keep it up.
Okay, perhaps we squeezed a little too much. I saw the poll, and it’s not great news, but it’s not the end of the world either. Let’s move the hearing up, perhaps for Thursday. We’ll ask all the questions we have discussed.
Remind everyone to prepare questions not just for the hearing, but for him to have to take home and answer. That will buy us lots of time. Who knows? Some of his answers might give us something to call a new hearing on.
We should focus on that one decision and hammer it all day long.
Also, we need a new memo outlining the war comments. I know it’s not really related, but people still hate this war, and the hearings will be widely watched.
The hearing didn’t go as planned and we’re getting hammered, so let’s have a press conference. Make sure all the players are there, and let’s highlight how many judges we have confirmed. Use the overall number, people don’t know the difference.
Don’t be disheartened. You did a great job. We still have many more battles, and you will see the fruits of our work in the months and years to come.
Yes, another pro-life evangelical is on the bench now, but we’re moving the ball along. The next nominee won’t be as easy for them. I actually heard they are looking at a female judge that is not on our list. And I’ve heard she’s actually pro-life. Oh, the nerve!
Note: The above is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to an actual senator or his/her actions is purely coincidental, unless it’s not.
[*] Reference to the President of the United States.