OKAY AMY, THIS ONE'S FOR YOU

An interesting email in my box this morning - a journal friend wanting me to write something on the attempts to end the tradition of Senate filibuster which are currently being threatened by the Senate Republicans.  I have written several times on the administration's renomination of William G. Myers, and other utterly unqualified candidates, to seats on the federal judicial bench.  The Republicans plan, I believe, is to try to get rid of the filibuster now, with these federal court candidates, so that when the time comes to vote on Supreme Court nominees, the road will be clear.  This is all understandably confusing, but there are plenty of places to get all the information you could possibly want.

"Why is this an environmental issue?"  may be your first question.  Earthjustice can answer that question for you in its many pages on this whole subject.  Here it is, however, in a nutshell:

"Judicial appointments rarely are thought of as an environmental issue, but they have become an environmental priority. Because so many environmental enforcement issues end up in court, federal judges play a crucial role in deciding not only how to interpret and enforce, but also whether to uphold or strike down, the laws that protect our nation's clean water, clean air, communities, and special natural places. Unfortunately, activist judges often place their interests first and prevent laws from being carried out as Congress intended. [Learn more about "What's at Stake".]

As Presidential appointees, judges must be confirmed by the Senate. [See Senators Speak Out.] Once confirmed, every federal District (trial) Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court judge holds the position for life, giving every confirmation long-lasting impact. Topreserve the integrity of the federal judiciary, each nominee must base decisions on fairness and honesty, not hostility to balanced safety, heath, and environmental protections.

Never before have the stakes been higher. With many key vacancies in the lifetime federal judiciary, there is dangerous potential for an extreme, ideological reshaping of the courts, instead of an effort to place in power judges who make decisions based solely on the law. A growing number of judges already serving on the federal bench are exceeding their proper role by rewriting laws passed by Congress, in order to serve their own personal preferences. A few more judges out of this mold will tip the balance in many courts and seriously weaken, if not nullify, many of our landmark environmental statutes. [See Commentary & News.]"

The first one who will probably be put up to try to eliminate the Democratic filibuster is my friend William G. Myers.  He was already voted down for this federal appointment last July.  Again, Earthjustice has all the info on this guy you could stand to read. Here you will find a link to numerous editorials, from newspapers all over the country, with compelling reasons this man should not be in charge of environmental decisions over much of the West. Amazing that there is such a consensus on this guy, and yet here he is, up for that judicial bench again.  Even more, very clearly laid out, evidence of his dreadful environmental record, from Community Rights Council, here.

So, what the Republicans are hoping to use is what they are calling "the nuclear option," to stop the good old tradition of filibuster.  From PeoplefortheAmericanWay, in the "Independent Judiciary" section, a simple and clear explanation of what this is.  Here is the heart of it:

"As the name suggests, the "nuclear option" is a radical tactic that would prohibit senators from using filibusters against extremist judicial nominees. Right-wing senators and leaders are supporting this destructive action because they want to guarantee the Senate confirmation of far-right ideologues to our federal courts, especially the Supreme Court.

The "nuclear option" is actually a series of steps that right-wing senators would take to eliminate the filibuster. The "nuclear" attack would likely begin with one party’s senators provoking a filibuster, most likely by trying to force a confirmation vote on an out-of-the-mainstream appeals court nominee. A senator would then object, claiming that the filibuster cannot be used on a judicial nomination. Vice President Cheney or another senator presiding over the Senate would rule in the Radical Right's favor, and then that ruling would be appealed. A simple majority (with Vice President Cheney as the tie-breaking vote if necessary) would then uphold the ruling, and the filibuster would be history."

An even simpler explanation from Earthjustice:

"The Senate Republican leadership is threatening to circumvent long-standing Senate rules in order to force simple-majority votes on controversial judicial nominees, even though the Senate has confirmed over 200 of President Bush's nominees to appeals courts, district courts and the Court of Federal Claims, while blocking only ten. These proposals would avoid formally changing the Senate rules on filibusters by "re-interpreting" them. Even proponents have recognized the extreme nature of this radical proposal--referring to it as the "nuclear option," because resorting to it would "blow up" the Senate's ability to function on a wide range of issues."

The following resources discuss these proposals:

• Commentary (including more than 250 Editorials) on the importance of maintaining senate rules that permit filibusters of nominees to lifetime judgeships
• Op-ed by former Senators Jim McClure (R-ID) and Malcolm Wallop (R-WY) in the Wall Street Journal (3/15/2005)
• Senator Robert C. Byrd's floor statements against the "nuclear option": March 1, 2005, and March 10, 2005

(Senator Byrd's speeches are a reminder of what the Senate used to be.  They make cracking good reading.  Too bad he's 87, or somewhere in that neighborhood.)

This is an issue that will affect our lives for many years after the current Bush administration (there seem to more Bushes waiting in the wings, or something.  I can't figure out a metaphor without getting nasty.) is gone.  Read Myers' previous history, in the linked editorials above, or on the Earthjustice pages that discuss the nominees.  See if this is the "impartial" judge you want making big decisions about public land use in our beautiful West.  Call your Senators, doesn't matter if  you think you know how they'll vote.  Call them.  Yours is the voice that needs to be heard.  Keep the filibuster, boot Myers and the rest of the bad nominees out the door - again.