I agree!
Posted on 06/09/2006 11:44:31 AM PDT by new yorker 77
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM
SOUTH CAROLINA (202) 224-5972 WASHINGTON, DC20510
June 8, 2006
Dear Friends:
Thank you for your recent letter about the nomination of William "Jim" Haynes to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me.
President Bush deserves credit for nominating many qualified, conservativejurists to the federal bench. I'm proud to have been part of the Senate effort to confirm eminently qualifiedjudges such as John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. And I'm also proud of the role I played in helping confirm William Pryor, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and other noted conservative judges to the federal appellate courts. Thesejudges were outstanding selections by the President and I know they will serve our nation well in the years to come.
As to the Haynes nomination, it is true I have expressed reservations about this nominee, much of it based upon concerns relayed to me by members of the U.S. military. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a strong supporter of our men and women in uniform, I am troubled that very distinguished military leaders have expressed strong opposition to the Haynes nomination. As our defenders of freedom, I take their criticisms very seriously.
I would like to take this opportunity to share some of their criticisms with you.
Retired Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter of the United StatesNavy recently wrote to Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter in opposition to the nomination of Mr. Haynes. He said:
"This is a painful decision for two reasons. First, I know Jim, having worked with him while I served as the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from June 2000 to June 2002. I consider him to be a very engaging person. And second, it has been my practice to oppose policies and not people.
". ...I find it distasteful but necessary to oppose the nomination of one who played such an integral role in creating this administration's "unlawful combatant" policies. It is my belief it will take the concerted effort of each branch of our government to overcome the damage that has been done to our national reputation. The Senate,by its action on the nomination, can play a role in that healing."
"... . Perhaps out of my presence, Mr. Haynes spoke against the practices and policies that have so tarnished our values. During my time at the Pentagon, however, I saw nothing that convinces me that Mr. Haynes, if given a lifetime appointment to the bench, would have the independence, the judgment, or the willingness to pass this test. I must oppose placing him in a position to validate the wrongs that have already been committed."
Retired Rear Admiral John D. Hutson of the United StatesNavy has also written to Chairman Specter opposing the Haynes nomination. He said:
"During his tenure as General Counsel to the Department of Defense, Mr. Haynes has demonstrated himself to be deaf to the advice of senior military and civilian lawyers within the Department. This unwillingness to listen to others caused him to preside over the DOD legal system during the time of its greatest debacle in memory, the abuse of detainees by military personnel around the world.
"Clearly, Mr. Haynes was not the only one responsible for this huge blemish on the honor of U.S. military personnel. There is considerable fault to go around. However, he was in a unique position to ensure it didn't happen in the first place or surely to stop it once it had occurred. He failed to do so. Active duty military personnel certainly would be held to a higher standard. They would not be "promoted" out of their failures to such an important life time position as judge on a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals."
"If civilian leadership of the military means anything at all, it must mean there is accountability for failures such as this."
And Retired Brigadier General Edward F. Rodriguez, Jr., United States Air Force Reserves has also written the committee in opposition to the nomination. He wrote:
"Mr. Haynes was a leading member of the Administration's legal team responsible for DaD detaineeinterrogationpolicies- policies that were wrong, confusing and frequently changed. Many military careers were ruined as a result ofMr. Haynes' wrong headed policies. Under the circumstances, Mr. Haynes' career must not advanced by appointing him to a life time federal judgeship. He should be held accountable for the disastrous policies he helped put in place. He should not be rewarded. While Mr. Haynes will be denied a judgeship, service members are being denied their liberty. I do not excuse the misconduct of a few service members that led to criminal sanctions, but the erroneous, confusing and ever changing policies they were handed are an extenuating circumstance. I urge you to see to it that Mr. Haynes is prevented from becoming ajudge of the United States Court of Appeals."
I'm sure you will agree that the men and women of the U.S. military serve our nation with distinction. We enjoy our freedoms because of their bravery and willingness to put their lives on the line in defense of liberty.
Our nation is strongest when civilians in the Department of Defense collaborate with our men and women in uniform. Working together, they most effectively protect our nation. When they do not work together or worse yet, when the advice of the military is shut-out or ignored, it can lead to disastrous results.
Many Members of Congress, including myself, an Air Force lawyer with more than twenty years of experience in military law, have reviewed memos written by the military legal officers to the civilian leaders in the Department of Defense regarding detainees.
In these, military lawyers express grave concerns about confusing and legally flawed interrogation policies. They also warn about the negative consequences that could befall our Soldiers, Sailors and Marines for carrying out these directives, such as being charged with violations of domestic criminal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Were their concerns -- which proved to be on-target -- properly addressed by the civilian leaders, such as Mr. Haynes, when formulating DaD policy? And should we promote civilian leaders while military personnel are being punished?
The memos seem to indicate the opinions of the military legal community were ignored. We must not let that happen again.
I look forward to his answers to these and other issues that will surely be asked of the nominee who has not had a Judiciary Committee hearing in the 109thCongress. I will give consideration to both the positive and negative criticisms of the nominee that I'm sure will be forthcoming in the weeks ahead.
Thank you again for contacting me about this issue. I look forward to working with you to confirm qualified, conservativejudges nominated by President Bush to the federal bench. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of additional assistance on this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Lindsey O. Graham
United States Senate
Graham: YOU ARE STUPID! I AM RIGHT! HERE'S WHY!
FYI
Lindsay Graham is a major disappointment. He would never get my vote, but what would you expect from a friend of John McCain?
Is he up for election this year?
2008
ROFLMAO!
...another panty-waist hard at work.
SURPRISE! SURPRISE! Lindsey Graham is a weasel? Why who woulda thunk it???
South Carolina must be so sick of this guy... Hillary could probably beat him there. Pathetic.
Look Pandsey, don't hang your decision on other people. Just go back to your log cabin and let the REAL conservatives make the decisions.
did the letter mention anything about how the view is these days from the inside of McCains colon?
This pathetic loser also joined with Sen. Lautenberg on some new legislation. Senioritis is blocking my memory on the details. Just read about it yesterday.
sarcasm/off
Graham is fast turning into one of MSM's favorite Republicans; as far as I'm concerned that's enough to finish him in the Republican Party.
So be a man, argue it out on the floor and get enough senators to defeat him. That's how we do things here in America. Don't be a pansy and put a hold on him. If he's a bad nominee, then he should be defeated honestly so the president can appoint someone else, not leave a seat open for five years.
Of course we know that holds are used as blackmail to get things they want. Despicable.
What a jerk!
Graham Contact Information:
http://lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=contact
Well atleast Lindsey has come out of the closet in regards to his opposition to Haynes.
Since Mr Graham gave a long list of reasons for his decision to block Haynes, can you give any better rebuttal than "This Rino must be defeated"? Would be open to hear your side on this, and I am NOT a fan of John McCain at all, but so far (at least from the arguments posted through your first message) you give no real rebuttal.
He actually looked like he had some promise for the future after the Clinton Impeachment House proceeding too.. Nothing more than a damn shame as it sits now.
>> If we do a little digging, I bet there is more to these military personnel that Graham is using to shield his pathetic blocking of a solid conservative.
Donald J. Guter -- Clinton Appointee, Judge Advocate General of the Navy from June 2000
John D. Hutson -- Clinton Appointee, assumed duties as the Judge Advocate General of the Navy in May, 1997.
Look at the latest from our loathesome senator.
OK aren't there any conservatives running against him in any primaries any time soon? Sending contributions directly to a conservative who would oppose this guy makes sense to me.
...off.
Currently Running for State Treasurer:
As a businessman who comes from outside of the political process, I believe South Carolinians deserve a candidate for Treasurer who is committed to shaking up the status quo and challenging politics as usual in our State Capital.
http://www.ravenel2006.com/
I'm so sick of this moron. He needs to go down in 2008.
It's a little early for the 2008 primaries but be assured that someone will run, probably Tom Ravenel, who ran in the 2004 primary against DeMint. He seems like a pretty good guy to me (I'm viewing this from far away) although I don't know why anyone would ever run against Jim DeMint.
I agree!
All three of your points are good, but would be better (for us to agree with you) with more documentation. This last point though is especially important. Sorry if I am somewhat new to the candidacy issues but just want 'ammo' to argue along with you!!
No matter how sick we are of Graham, no way Hitlerly could beat him here.
Damn.
http://www.committeeforjustice.org/contents/news/060606_letter.shtml
National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters
Senator Lindsey Graham
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
June 6, 2006
Re: The Nomination of Jim Haynes
Dear Senator Graham:
We represent a coalition of organizations that cares deeply about putting constitutionalist judges on the federal courts. We are writing to express our concern about your lack of support for the nomination of William "Jim" Haynes to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, effectively blocking him in committee.
With the recent resignation of Judge J. Michael Luttig, and Terrence BoyleÕs seemingly endless confirmation delay Ð also, rumor has it, with Republican acquiescence Ð the Fourth Circuit needs principled constitutionalists more than ever. In addition, Judge Widener has notified the President he will retire upon his replacement's confirmation. So, the Haynes nomination affects the lives of two public servants.
But our concerns go beyond the Fourth Circuit. In particular, we believe your opposition to Mr. Haynes in the Judiciary Committee is damaging to the principle that judicial nominees with majority support are entitled to an up or down vote on the Senate floor, and blurs the line between the GOPÕs treatment of nominees and the DemocratsÕ minority-obstructionist tactics. Some have even suggested your non-hold/hold amounts to a "silent filibuster" of Jim Haynes.
Despite the American Bar Association twice giving Haynes its highest rating, his nomination has languished in the Senate for nearly three years. Having already been approved by the Judiciary Committee in 2004, his re-approval should be little more than a formality. Instead, your objection to him has prevented even a vote in committee.
In fact, Brett Kavanaugh's recent confirmation amounts to the only strong constitutionalist confirmed to an appellate court since the confirmations immediately following the Gang of Fourteen deal more than a year ago. This is an odd result, given an enhanced Senate Republican majority.
We understand that you and Senator McCain have concerns about the Bush AdministrationÕs policies on prisoners captured in the War on Terror, and about Mr. HaynesÕs role in implementing those policies at the Defense Department. However, Jim Haynes has had the obligation to defend the legal rights of his client, the Defense Department, and to follow the legal advice of the Justice Department.
Jim Haynes did a difficult job at a difficult time and deserves our nationÕs thanks for his service. Instead, he has faced years of delay, denigration, and stealth tactics that deny him even the courtesy of understanding the reasons for delay.
As a former Air Force lawyer, you know how misleading it can be to conflate U.S. military and legal policy with the personal opinions and preferences of the attorneys implementing those policies. Such tactics have been used in past by Senate Democrats and their allies to smear President BushÕs nominees, a practice you have rightly criticized. Policy disputes with the administration should not carry over to the Senate's consideration of qualified judicial nominees.
We have fought hard to establish the principle that judicial nominees with majority Senate support are entitled to an up or down vote. While we respect your concerns about Jim Haynes, the bases for those concerns simply do not warrant throwing aside such an important principle.
By all reports, your withholding of support for Haynes is all that stands between him and passage out of the Judiciary Committee. If you wish to send the Bush Administration a message on Jim Haynes, that is your right, but we ask you do so by voting against the nominee on the Senate floor.
For now, we ask that you allow him to proceed through committee to an up or down vote before the entire Senate.
Sincerely,
Paul Weyrich, Coalitions for America
Carl Herbster, AdvanceUSA
Donald E. Wildmon, American Family Association
David Keene, American Conservative Union
Bill Donohue, Catholic League
Richard A. Viguerie, ConservativeHQ.com
Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life
L. Brent Bozell III, Conservative Victory Committee
James J. Fotis, Law Enforcement Alliance of America
Connie Mackey, FRC Action
Tom McClusky, Family Research Council
Jan Larue, Concerned Women for America
Rev. William Owens, Coalition of African American Pastors
Rick Scarborough, Vision America Action
James L. Martin, 60 Plus Association
Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel and Liberty University School of Law
George Landrith, Frontiers of Freedom
Dr. James H. Broussard, Citizens Against Higher Taxes
Sean Rushton, Committee for Justice
Kay Daly, Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
Manuel Miranda, Third Branch Conference
Wendy Long, Judicial Confirmation Network
Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch
Jeffrey Mazzella, Center for Individual Freedom
Michael Krempasky, ConfirmThem.com
Phillip L. Jauregui, Judicial Action Group
Rabbi Aryeh Spero, Caucus For America and host of "Talking Sense".
Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition
Raymond J. Tittmann, Catholics for the Common Good
Austin Ruse, Culture of Life Foundation
Joe Cella, FIDELIS
Colin A. Hanna, Let Freedom Ring, Inc.
Amy Ridenour, Americans for the Preservation of Liberty
Kenneth Boehm, National Legal and Policy Center
Larry Cirignano, CatholicVote.org
Jeffrey H. Ballabon, Center for Jewish Values
Steven Mosher, Population Research Institute
Jim Boulet, Jr., English First
Mark Williamson, Foundation Restoration Ministries / Federal Intercessors
C. Preston Noell III, Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
William Greene, RightMarch.com
Thomas A. Glessner, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA)
Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach
Dr. Patricia McEwen, Life Coalition International
Mychal Massie, Project 21
Jonathon Moseley, Esq., Legal Affairs Council
Tracy E. Ammons, Christian Citizens of America
Jason Wright, Institute for Liberty
Maurine Proctor, Family Leader Network
Gary Palmer, Alabama Policy Institute
Dr. Randy Brinson, Redeem the Vote
John Stemberger, Florida Family Policy Council
Michael N. Duff, United Families of Idaho
Peter LaBarbera, Illinois Family Institute
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Dr. Don Racheter, Public Interest Institute (IA)
David Crowe, Restore America (OR)
Kent Ostrander, The Family Foundation (KY)
Gene Mills, Louisiana Family Forum
Judge Darrell White (Retired), Louisiana Family Forum Action
Douglas P. Stiegler, Association of Maryland Families
Mike Franco, Western Massachusetts Republicans
Kristian M. Mineau, Massachusetts Family Institute
Saulius "Saul" Anuzis, Michigan Republican Party
Karen Testerman, Cornerstone Policy Research (NH)
Len Deo, New Jersey Family Policy Council
Rev. Russell Johnson, Ohio Restoration Project
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Robert R. Galbreath Jr., Citizens for a Constitutional Republic
Christopher Carmouche, GrassTopsUSA
Robert Regier, South Dakota Family Policy Council
Kelly Shackelford, Liberty Legal Institute (TX)
Ted Brown, Young Republican Federation of Virginia
Dr. Ken Hutcherson, Antioch Bible Church, Redmond, WA
Julaine K. Appling, The Family Institutue of Wisconsin
Jeffrey Lord, author, The Borking Rebellion
Jill Stanek, (OH)
Robert McConnell (DC)
James Hochberg (HI)
John C. Eastman, Professor of Law (CA)
Lillian Bevier , University of Virginia Law School
Chris Dickson, radio host, "The Dickson/Chappell Report" (IN and OH)
Adam McManus, radio host, "Take A Stand" (TX)
Martha Zoller, Jacobs Media Corp., radio host, WDUN, (Southeast)
Tamara Scott, radio host (IA)
Janet Parshall, nationally syndicated radio host
cc: Senators Frist, McConnell, Santorum, Kyl, Hutchison, Dole, Stevens, Specter, Hatch, Grassley, DeWine, Sessions, Cornyn, Brownback, Coburn.
On May 8, 2006, the United States Senate voted on two medical liability reform votes. Unfortunately, both failed to gain the necessary support to move forward in the legislation process. The motion to proceed (required before action on the underlying bill could be considered) on the first bill, S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act (MCAP), was defeated by a vote of 48 to 42, with 10 not present (60 votes were necessary to invoke "cloture" so as to proceed to debate the actual bill). The legislation was modeled after the Texas reform legislation and included, among other things, a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages against physicians, limits on attorneys’ fees, and expert witness reforms. All democrats who voted, joined by 3 republicans, opposed the measure. Regrettably, 4 senators who had previously supported reform legislation were not present. Had they been able to vote, 52 senators would have voted in the affirmative. To see how your senators voted, click here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00115
Guess how L. Graham voted
He's not up for reelection until 2008. Ravenel will probably run against him again, and will defeat Graham.
His immigration stance put the last nail in his political coffin.
South Carolina must be so sick of this guy....
As sick as we are in Ohio of our two RINO-weasels:
Voinovich and DeWine. DeWine is up for re-election this year. I voted against him in the primary, but he still won. Unfortunately, the RAT choice is a left of left of left RAT/lib/socialist/commie. Voinovich isn't running again, so he doesn't care what the he!! he does anymore, as evidenced in his vote against doing away with the inheritance tax. He was only one of two Republicans to vote with the RATs -- Chaffee was the other. Makes me sick!
The man should be given the chance to defend himself in hearings. Lindseed should not have the right to play with the life and future of this man so that Lindseed can prove what a sensitive (to terrorists) guy he is.
Donald J. Guter -- Clinton Appointee, Judge Advocate General of the Navy from June 2000
Don't forget that he went out to Hollywood to star in one of the episodes on JAG. He may have become "hollywoodfied".
Except for small handful like Paul & Coburn, both houses could use a giant enema to destroy their incestuousness and pandering to corps they choose to favor and the monopolies they've created. Especially the privately owned unaccountable Fedl Reserve that turned the 1932 $1.00 into $0.03 today - for naught but vote buying a wars of profit.
Get real kids - we've been lied to by 100 years of self interested educrats & MSM.
Take the reality crash course, get mad and stand up for restoring our limited Govt long stolen:
Taking money back (completely logical and constitutional)
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/moneyback.asp
How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution (video)
http://www.cato.org/realaudio/cbf-02-15-06.ram
The Issue of Tariffs: How U.S. Revenue Collection Was Turned Inside-Out (video)
http://mises.org:88/Sophocleus
Size Matters: How Big Government Puts the Squeeze on America's Families, Finances, and Freedom And Limits the Pursuit of Happiness (video)
http://www.cato.org/realaudio/cbf-02-02-06.ram
Big Business and the Rise of American Statism (exc essay)
http://praxeology.net/RC-BRS.htm
The Founding of The Federal Reserve (video)
http://mises.org:88/Rothbard-Fed
The Great Depression, World War II, and American Prosperity, Part I (video)
http://www.mises.org/multimedia/video/Woods/Woods5.wmv
Secrets of the Federal Reserve (the web of power is phenominal)
http://www.barefootsworld.net/fs_m_ch_01.html
Jackson's 2nd Bank US VETO (very important - what he correctly and constitutionally opposed is just what we ended up with in 1913)
http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/ajveto.htm
"The Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking: The Morgans vs. the Rockefellers" (the true thieves of the taxpayers and obsconders of the const)
http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_1_1.pdf
South Carolina must be so sick of this guy.You have no idea :)
Lind-see "One Termer" is a lame duck as far as I'm concerned.
I have already pledged to work my tail off for who ever challenges him in the primary.
It is a crying shame we have to put up with this POS until Nov 2008.
And, here's the worst thing of all: Come 2008, guess who the RNC, RNSC, the SC Repub Party and every other major Repub organization will be backing? Disgusting! Guess who I will NOT be donating to?
He also voted against tort reform. He's the Trial Lawyer's bitch. SC may have been better off with Hollings.
And, FWIW, nice license plate. That's the one I chose also. Amazing that we haven't been smitten dead by the ACLU for promoting GOD on a license plate :)
Is Sandford a possibility?
I actually had those bumper stickers made myself...you don't happen to be in the Upstate?
I would be happy to share.
LOL!! I like that A LOT!.
I've been calling him Lind-see "One Termer" Graham.
I like Pandsey "One Termer" much better. Much more accurate. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.