Nuclear Option

1 March 2005

I understand the frustration experienced over the filibustering of judicial nominees and what it means for court vacancies, but I can not support the "Nuclear Option," which would disallow filibusters on judicial nominees.

I do not support any filibuster on a judicial nomination but would never want to prevent another from speaking out against a nomination they did not agree about. I also cannot help but think what it would be like if sometime in the future when the GOP loses the majority (which could happen if you keep doing things like this) and someone wanted to speak out about the nominee through a filibuster. This change would prevent them from doing this.

I completely agree that filibustering judicial nominees, as you said in November of 2003, sets a dangerous precendent. I also feel that you would neve participate in a filibuster yourself because you believe in giving each nominee an up or down vote. However, it is worth carefully considering the effect this has on colleagues and the future.

I agree with your recent statement in the New Yorker that “Nobody wants to blow the place up (07/03/2005).” However, that is what the rules change would do by placing more poison in to the partisan environment. This is just as dangerous as the filibuster itself and may even be worse.

I ask you, please carefully consider not changing the rules to precent the filibuster on judicial nominees because it would blow up the Senate and that is something that we do not want to do for a short term gain.