I just got this back from our Senator, kind of interesting.  I appreciated the response at least.  Not so much the content.

Dear Mr. Mars:

Thank you for contacting me to express your views about President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. I appreciate hearing from you.

The role of the United States Senate in giving its advice and consent to the President's nominations is one of the most important constitutional obligations we have as senators, and it is a duty that I take very seriously. This obligation is particularly important with respect to nominations for the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe that we need justices with a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of liberty, equality and fairness. Sonia Sotomayor has served as a distinguished jurist for many years, and in her service, has demonstrated these values time and time again.

Judge Sotomayor has been thoroughly vetted in a four-day hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. During this hearing a range of issues were raised, from her views on Second Amendment Rights and abortion, to testimony by Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff in the New Haven firefighter case on which the Supreme Court recently ruled. On July 28, 2009, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported Judge Sotomayor's nomination in a vote of 13-6. You can find more information about Judge Sotomayor, including complete transcript of her nomination hearing, at http://www.judiciary.sentate.gov/hearings/.

After considering analysis of her record and reviewing her responses before the Judiciary Committee, I was only reaffirmed in my belief that Judge Sotomayor's substantive legal experience and judicial acumen make her a well qualified candidate for the highest court of the land. On August 6, 2009, the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States of American was approved by the Senate in a vote of 68-31.

I appreciate you taking the time to share your views with me. You can be sure that as I continue my work in the Senate on behalf of the people of Nevada, I will remain mindful of your thoughts. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

My best wishes to you.

Sincerely,

HARRY REID

United States Senator

Nevada

HR:cs

Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on WhatsAppShare on LinkedInShare on Pinterest

Finally got another response:

September 16, 2009

Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to become an associate justice on the United States Supreme Court. I am grateful to hear from a fellow Nevadan, and I appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns.

Strict adherence to the Constitution and political independence are two qualities required of anyone serving on the United States Supreme Court. Although Justice Sotomayor has an extensive résumé and relevant experience, many of her past judicial opinions, her professional affiliations, and her judicial philosophy made me question whether she was the appropriate choice for this important position.

When I met with Justice Sotomayor, I found her very personable. Unfortunately, our discussions during that meeting did little to alleviate the concerns I have regarding her record and public statements. In addition, many of her responses to me and to my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee were troubling, not necessarily because of substance, but more due to a lack of it. This left me with more uncertainty and doubt instead of the assurance that she has the ability to rule with a fair and impartial adherence to the rule of law. I fear that Justice Sotomayor, when seated on the Supreme Court bench, will not be a zealous advocate for "Equal Justice Under Law."

I remain concerned that we just don't know who we are getting on the Supreme Court. The inconsistencies in Justice Sotomayor's testimony, judicial record, and writings make it impossible to fully understand her commitment to upholding the Constitution. This especially concerns me because a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court comes without the barriers of additional judicial review and the restraints of precedent that she was under as a district and circuit judge. Even if I were to solely consider her judicial record, I cannot in good conscience dismiss her perfunctory treatment of cases dealing with serious and important constitutional questions.

As a U.S. Court of Appeals judge in the Second Circuit, Justice Sotomayor issued several cursory opinions on very important constitutional questions. In the case of Maloney v. Cuomo, then-Judge Sotomayor wrote a brief, unpublished, and unsigned legal opinion stating that the Second Amendment does not apply against the states. Justice Sotomayor's nomination testimony did nothing to allay my concerns, or those of nearly 90 million law-abiding gun owners across the country, that she fails to view the Second Amendment as a fundamental individual right that applies against both the federal government and state governments.

Equally troubling is Justice Sotomayor's support of race-based preferencing over merit-based promotions. The case of Ricci v. DeStefano highlights this concern. In Ricci, seventeen white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter took and passed a promotion exam. Unfortunately, the city involved in the case, fearing a racial backlash from the test results, decided not to certify the outcome of the test because "no blacks and at most two Hispanics would be eligible for promotion." Then-Judge Sotomayor and the other two judges on the Second Circuit panel denied the firefighter's racial discrimination case and once again issued a cursory opinion with little discussion of the profound constitutional questions raised in the case. I find this lack of judicial diligence to be unsettling. Fortunately, when this case came before the Supreme Court, a majority of justices found that Justice Sotomayor misapplied the law as a judge and overturned her ruling in favor of the firefighters.

Justice Sotomayor's judicial philosophy also appears to welcome the practice of looking to foreign law for guidance in deciding questions of U.S. law. I find this to be a dangerous practice. The Constitution was written to govern the laws and statues of this country. Foreign law is not a substitute for our Constitution and should not be used out of convenience to produce a desired outcome in a case.

Presidents, senators, judges, and Supreme Court justices alike take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution-it is our most solemn duty. Judges are expected to be tethered to the Constitution and impartially apply the law to the facts. The American people overwhelmingly reject the notion that unelected judges should set policy or allow their social, moral, or political views to influence the outcome of cases. I further fear that she may be less restrained by the text of the Constitution and more inclined to embrace judicial activism. Throughout her hearing, Justice Sotomayor insisted that her judicial philosophy was "fidelity to the rule of law" and that judges are required to defer to the policy choices made by Congress. Unfortunately, she declined to explain how she would apply that principle in practical terms.

In conclusion, when thinking back on the phrasing engraved in marble above the entrance to the United States Supreme Court, "Equal Justice Under Law," Justice Sotomayor's record and testimony provide uncertainty and doubt that she will rule with a fair and impartial adherence to the rule of law. Therefore, I respectfully opposed her nomination because she gave no assurances that the Second Amendment is an individual, fundamental right; she has demonstrated a propensity to rule with purpose driven results; she has indicated a particular interest in considering international standards or laws to decide U.S. constitutional questions; and her televised testimony contradicted much of her public record and professed judicial philosophy.

Despite my objections, and that of several of my colleagues, Justice Sotomayor was confirmed in the full Senate on August 6, 2009, by a vote of 68-31. Once again, thank you for contacting me on this very important issue. Should you have any other questions or would like to sign up for my monthly newsletter, please feel free to write or e-mail me via my website at http://ensign.senate.gov/

We respect your online time and privacy.  If you have any questions about our online privacy statement, please visit Senator Ensign's website http://ensign.senate.gov/ and read our privacy policy at the bottom of the page.

Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on WhatsAppShare on LinkedInShare on Pinterest