Nuclear Option and Title IX

4 April 2005

I have two issues to address at this time, the "Nuclear Option" and the nomination of Judge Thomas Griffith to the DC Circuit.

On the issue of the nuclear option, I would like to see it voted down. I do not like the way the filibuster is currently being used to deny nominees an up or down vote on the floor, however, to change this rule now, when it suits our purpose does the country no good and can do great harm to the confirmation process and the Senate into the future. Changing this rule for partisan purposes is no better than the Democrats waging their partisan war against these nominees.

Once this rule is changed it is near impossible to undo the change, thus throwing the Senate into a political turmoil that will do far more damage then can be imagined. The Senate is supposed to be "the world's most deliberative body," which is a good thing. Denying the filibuster only helps to get this slate of controversial judges through the Senate and will hurt all other priorities. Nothing will get done on anything else if this option is used.

The best option regarding the controversial nominees is to have full hearings and work with the Democrats to provide enough of a debate so a fair rule can be come up with to govern the debate. I think it is only fair to allow all sides to air their grievances and then an up or down vote should be had, thus keeping tradition and avoiding "nuking" the Senate.

Secondly, I am concerned about the statements of Judge Griffith regarding Title IX. I would appreciate being assured that he will follow the law as it is written at this time. I am also interested in his views of the "proportionality test" and the recommendations that the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics made that were rejected by the Education department. He was a part of this Commission. I would like to see him explain these positions and how they will relate to a case that is brought within his jurisdiction under Title IX that attempts to utilize this test.

Does he plan to eliminate proportionality from decision-making in these cases? I see nothing wrong with requiring sports programs that receive federal funds to be required to give equal opportunities to women where those opportunities present themselves. However, if the only purpose of proportionality is to provide exactly equal opportunities for women and that means keeping a team for women in a sport that the women at the school do not take up, then the idea needs to be tweaked not thrown out. We should present the opportunity to women to play a sport that the majority of the women would play if given the opportunity. Title IX is a good law and proportionality is a fair test where the students are demanding or supporting the women’s team.

Your attention to these concerns is greatly appreciated.

Thank you.