[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
E-M:/ Sign-on to letter against the "nuclear option"
- Subject: E-M:/ Sign-on to letter against the "nuclear option"
- From: "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:52:37 -0400
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- List-name: Enviro-Mich
- Reply-to: "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Enviro-Mich message from "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <email@example.com>
please reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
if your organization wishes to sign-on to the letter.....
Subject: [judicial] RSVP to sign anti-nuclear option letter
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:46:52 -0700
Thread-Topic: RSVP to sign anti-nuclear option letter
From: "Glenn Sugameli" <email@example.com>
Reply-To: "Glenn Sugameli" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Please RSVP with organization, including an individual's name and title
(CEOs preferred but LD or equivalent is OK) to sign on to the attached
(WORD) letter to the full Senate opposing the "nuclear option." This
proposal would ignore the two-thirds requirement to change the Senate rules
in order to eliminate by a simple majority vote the ability to filibuster
any current or future nominee to a lifetime seat on any federal court.
Deadline is COB Monday (April 25).
If you have any questions or comments please let me know-- key Senators are
still undecided and the Senate could vote as early as the end of next week.
Senior Legislative Counsel
1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW #702
Washington, DC 20036
202-667-4500 x 221 FAX 202-667-2356
letter is below....
EARTHJUSTICE ¨ COMMUNITY RIGHTS COUNSEL OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
April __, 2005
Re: Please oppose the ?nuclear option? to change the filibuster rule for
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) is threatening to
circumvent long-standing Senate rules in order to eliminate the ability of
41 or more senators to filibuster any current or future nominee for a
lifetime federal judgeship. We strongly urge you to oppose this effort.
Safeguarding our nation?s citizens from air and water pollution, as well as
protecting our National Parks, forests and other wildlands for future
generations, depends on fair and independent federal judges. Americans
rely on the Senate to deny lifetime judicial seats to nominees who would
place ideology ahead of the fair interpretation of our nation?s statutes
and the U.S. Constitution.
Long-standing Senate rules permit filibusters of judicial nominees and
require a two-thirds majority of the Senate to approve rule
changes. Senator Frist?s plan, termed the ?nuclear option? by Senator
Trent Lott (R-MS), would employ a procedural trick to allow a simple
majority of senators to change the Senate rule that governs cloture on
Senate filibusters. The filibuster rule has never before been changed in
such a manner.
Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that ?[e]ach House
[of Congress] may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.? The
Constitution?s Appointments Clause authorizes judicial and executive branch
nominations, stating that the President ?shall have the Power, by and with
the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other
Officers of the United States.? Art. II, sec. 2.
The Rules Clause and the Appointments Clause have provided the basis for
the successful filibusters of Abe Fortas? nomination to Chief Justice of
the United States in 1968; Sam Brown?s nomination to Ambassador in 1994;
and the nomination of Henry Foster to be Surgeon General in 1995. Many of
those who are now claiming that filibusters of judicial nominees are
unconstitutional voted to filibuster the latter two nominations, even
though the rules permitting those filibusters were founded on the same
provisions of the Rules and Appointments Clauses.
Invoking the nuclear option would poke a thumb in the eye of those
who have called for greater bipartisanship in Congress. There are
important issues facing the nation today, and bypassing Senate Rules to
eliminate the judicial-nominations filibuster would make it far more
difficult to address those issues.
There are no compelling reasons for changing the filibuster rule. The
number of confirmed lifetime federal judgeships is higher than it has been
in more than a decade, and with 205 confirmed lifetime judges and a 95%
confirmation rate, President Bush has been extraordinarily successful in
his efforts to place judges on our courts.
On behalf of our millions of members, we strongly urge you to
reject the nuclear option.
Alex J. Sagady & Associates http://www.sagady.com
Environmental Enforcement, Permit/Technical Review, Public Policy,
Evidence Review and Litigation Investigation on Air, Water and
Waste/Community Environmental and Resource Protection
Prospectus at: http://www.sagady.com/sagady.pdf
PO Box 39, East Lansing, MI 48826-0039
(517) 332-6971; (517) 332-8987 (fax); email@example.com
=============================================================ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
Postings to: firstname.lastname@example.org For info, send email to
email@example.com with a one-line message body of "info enviro-mich"