You are on page 1of 1




Senate approves Millett for D.C. appeals court


Vote is rst under new libuster rules

leading appellate lawyer who has made 32 arguments before the Supreme Court, the second-most by a female advocate. She has served in the Department of Justice for both Democratic and Republican presidents. Im condent she will serve with distinction on the federal bench. The Senate is poised to push forward with two more nominees to the court before the end of the year nominees that Republicans had blocked before the rule change in a move that could further cement the new way the chamber is doing its business. In the short term, it should make it easier to secure oor votes to which [Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell] has slowly agreed, said Carl T obias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. In the longer term, some observers are concerned that it could change the Senate as an institution by affording less protection for the minoritys rights. The GOP has also threatened to apply the new rule

The Senate conrmed Patricia Millett to the powerful federal appeals court in Washington, making her the rst of President Obamas judicial picks to be approved since Democrats changed libuster rules that potentially will usher in a new era of how nominees are conrmed. The 56-38 vote capped a drawn-out battle with Senate Republicans, who accused President Obama and his Democratic allies of running roughshod over Senate tradition to stack the countrys secondmost important court with like-minded judges. Sens. Susan M. Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska broke with the GOP and joined Democrats to conrm Ms. Millett, who held the position of assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. Im pleased that in a bipartisan vote, the Senate has conrmed Patricia Millett to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, lling a vacancy that has been open since 2005, Mr. Obama said. Ms. Millett is a

to [Supreme Court] nominees if they win a Senate majority and the White House. Senate Democrats cleared the way for the vote last month when they triggered the nuclear option to change the chambers traditional libuster rules a move that made it harder for the minority party to block a nomination by reducing the number of votes needed to cut off a libuster from 60 to a simple majority of 51. T wo weeks ago the president and his Democratic allies deed two centuries of traditions, their own prior statements, and, in the case of some Democratic leaders their own public commitment about following the rules of the Senate, Mr. McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said before the vote. They did this for one reason: to advance an agenda that the American people do not want. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considered the nations second-most important right behind the Supreme Court because it

weighs in on appeals from federal regulatory agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the Environmental Protection Agency. It also has served as a proving ground for Supreme Court justices. Before the rule change, Senate Republicans had used the libuster to blocked the nomination of District Judge Robert L. Wilkins from lling one of the three vacancies on the D.C. circuit. The move added to the partisan tensions on Capitol Hill, where Democrats increasingly have grown frustrated with Republicans ability to thwart Mr. Obamas nominees through the libuster. Republicans had blocked Ms. Millets nomination, as well as Georgetown law professor Cornelia Pillard, from lling another court vacancy. Senate Democrats responded by voting 52-48 last month to change rules on judicial and executive nominations. The move, though, doesnt apply to Supreme Court picks, which are still subject to a 60-vote threshold. Both sides have used the libuster to


The Senate on Tuesday approved Patricia Millett to serve the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, considered the second-most powerful court in the land.
stop the other partys judicial nominees. Democrats including then-Sen. Barack Obama championed the libuster strategy with President George W. Bushs picks, and Republicans had countered, saying they are giving Democrats some of their own medicine. But Democrats say it is now worse than it was in the past, and many of them said the rules needed to be changed to allow judges to be conrmed on up-or-down votes.


Dear John,

If Lady Liberty could write, here is the Dear John Letter she would send to Speaker John Boehner

Oh, how I hate to write. But, Dear John, I must let you know tonight. My faith in you as Speaker of the House has died, just like the grass upon the lawn outside the Capitol Dome in wintertime. Dear John, the huddled masses are weary and are awaiting your action. You are called the Speaker of the House because youre supposed to protect and defend the Peoplethe huddled masses who collectively, are the total sum and substance of this great nation. Which you should have spoken upshouting at the top of your lungs from the Capitol Dome about the egregious abuse of power at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. An American President should never knowingly and willfully violate the Constitution. Governing from outside of the limits of his constitutional powers is clear grounds for impeachment. When the Obamacare train wreck went to the US Supreme Court in June, 2012, the high court asked if Obamacare met the constitutional requirements of the Originality Clause. Although YOU knew it didnt, you said nothing. Even though you didnt know it at the time, 5.4 million Americans and counting would lose their healthcare plans between Oct. 1 and Oct. 15, 2013 because of a provision in the Affordable Care Act designed to make every healthcare plan in America obsolete. Dear John, you knew that HR 3590, by sleight-of-hand, was made to seem to be the original House version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In reality, HR 3590 was the failed Service Members Home Mortgage Tax Act of 2009. Harry Reid resurrected the House- passed Service Members Home Mortgage Tax Act and amended it, changing its name to The Patient Protection and Affordable Care, making it appear that the House originated Obamacare through HR 3590 before HR 3962 originated in the Senate. At that point, you became complicit in the Senate scheme to scam America. As the Speaker of all the People, its up to you to stop this uber-presidents out-of-control abuse of power which includes Obamas broken promise of having the most transparent administration, when he uses executive power he does not possess to conceal every iota of his past, from his apparent non-Hawaiian birth, his fabricated White House PDF (birth certicate), his phony Social Security Card, and phony selective service card. John, this should have forewarned everyone as to the true nature of his questionable content of his character. Where are the committee hearings? You are the keeper of the keys in the Housethe caretaker of the power of the People. Where is that power? Where are the subpoenas? Where are the impeachment hearings? Not just for the uber-president, but for his minions? Dear John, why is the House of Representatives, which has a constitutional responsibility to impeach wrongdoers in the Executive Branch, allowing Attorney General Eric Holder, who was complicit in the Fast & Furious scandal of actually overseeing the smuggling of rearms to the drug cartels in Mexico. John did you ever think Holder would investigate himself? Why were Lois Lerner and Sarah Hall Ingram not impeached and removed from ofce for their roles in propagating the Tax Exempt Organizations scandal? And, why is there no outrage over the fact that the uber-president has pressured the worlds largest search engines to scrub all les connecting HR 3590 with the Service Members Home Mortgage Act? All government websites have scrubbed any reference to the Service Members Home Mortgage Tax Act. The only place the origination of HR 3590 can be found today is at Dear John, the People want to know: is it too late? Are the uber-presidents powers limited or not? Dear John, there is a time for everything and its a time to take action. Can a president refuse to enforce laws he ideologically disagrees with? He may not. His oath of ofce requires him to uphold all of the laws of the United States. Can the president amend laws by Executive Order if he disagrees with them, or if they arent working for him the way he needs them to work? The separation of powers denies the Executive any legislative power. He cant pass a law. He cant change a law. And Executive Orders have no constitutional standing as law. Only Congress can do enact a law, or change a law. Where was your indignation when the uber-president, on a whim, begins changing the provisions of Obamacare by at? Where are those congressional hearings that force transparency on the uber-president and his social progressive minions? Dear John, is it not your job to be the Peoples check-and-balance against runaway tyranny? What does Congress do when a president decides his power is limitless? What does the Speaker do when the uber-president decides he can arbitrarily overrule Congress, and ignore their oversight of the bureaucracy? Create a resolution of disapproval? Or kill the funding? The uber-president ignores the resolution and takes the money to fund his agenda from some other program. Dear John, its time do the obvious. Stop blocking the appropriate hearings. Its within your power as Speaker to do so. Amass the evidence of wrongdoing, forcefully bring those results to the public attention and begin impeachment proceedings. Because, rst and foremost you have two responsibilities as the third most powerful man in America. Protect the Constitution of the United States from the overreach and abuse of power, and protect the People of the United States of America. Dear John, the huddled masses are awaiting your response.

May God Bless America