Open Letter to Senator Gordon Smith (R- Oregon)

Oppose Myers, Boyle, and Griffith and the “Nuclear Option”

Senator Smith:

I am writing as a concerned constituent who fears loyalty to party has trumped loyalty to Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defence, general Welfare, the Blessings of Liberty, and our Posterity in recent years.

In this morning's New York Times, three of President Bush's Judicial Nominees are profiled as part of an OpEd that provides context for why Democrats are opposing them. From the piece (emphasis mine):

William Myers III, one of the seven filibustered nominees, has built a career as an anti-environmental extremist. He was a longtime lobbyist for the mining and cattle industries. Then, as the Interior Department's top lawyer, he put those industries' interests ahead of the public interest. In one controversial legal opinion, he overturned a decision that would have protected American Indian sacred sites, clearing the way for a company to do extensive mining in the area. Mr. Myers has been nominated to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco. That court plays a major role in determining the environmental law that applies to the Western states.

Terrence Boyle, who has been nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, is also a troubling choice. He has an extraordinarily high reversal rate for a district court judge. Many of the decisions that have been criticized by higher courts wrongly rejected claims involving civil rights, sex discrimination and disability rights. Mr. Boyle's record is particularly troubling because the court reversing him, the Fourth Circuit, is perhaps the most hostile to civil rights in the federal appellate system, and even it has regularly found his rulings objectionable.

Thomas Griffith, who has been nominated to the powerful Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has the unfortunate distinction of having practiced law in two jurisdictions without the required licenses. While practicing law in Washington, D.C., he failed to renew his license for three years. Mr. Griffith blamed his law firm's staff for that omission, but the responsibility was his. When he later practiced law in Utah as general counsel at Brigham Young University, he never bothered to get a Utah license.

from “They're Back, and Still Unworthy” March 11, 2005

I cannot begin to express how critical it is that as a REPUBLICAN, you insist on the President sending suitable, qualified candidates forward. Each of these gentlemen fails critical tests of character and/or quality. That they were appointed by a man who has (R) after his name do is immaterial. Wes Cooley has an (R) after his name, too - would you act blindly on his policy proposals and appointments?

Please make it clear behind the scenes that these nominations are wrong for many reasons and that you will side with preserving procedural traditions of the Senate, even if it means they will not be confirmed.

Yesterday, Senator Hatch cited numbers to support an argument of how unprecedented the current filibuster rates of Judicial appointments are, but consider Disreali’s "lies, damn lies, and statistics": Is it possible the increase in filibuster represents some unprecedented change on the part of the character and nature of the opposed nominees? Is it fair to say procedural specifics prevented similar filibuster numbers against Clinton appointees because they were snuffed in committee and thus avoided filibuster?

You are my Senator. Weigh my advice before you consent. Oppose changes to Senate procedure and oppose Consent of unqualified candidates for the Federal Bench.