Thank you for writing to me about one of the most important issues currently facing our nation, and that is the effort by some members of the United States Senate to violate rules of this august body in order to end filibusters against judicial nominations, an effort that has become known as the "nuclear option." This term appropriately describes what some of my colleagues are attempting to do because if they were to be successful in this effort, it would mark the first time in the history of the United States that the Senate changed its internal rules of governance without following its own rules and procedures for amending those internal rules of governance. In short, some senators are not just trying to change the rules but are seeking to violate an important rule that they do not like in order to prevent a substantial minority of Senators from being able to participate in any meaningful way in the consideration of federal judicial nominations. Through an exercise of sheer power, they are attempting to place themselves above the rules to which all Senators agreed to abide.
If invoked, the "nuclear option" would be, in my view, one of the most egregious abuses of powers that the Senate has experienced in its history. The rules are somewhat technical in terms of how they work but the bottom line is that the purpose of the filibuster and related rules is to ensure that no one political party has unfettered power over the other and over the millions of Americans that the substantial minority of Senators represent. Congress after Congress, decade after decade, Senators have agreed unanimously that to get rid of the filibuster would require a super-majority, not a simple majority, and that makes sense. Important Senate rules governing minority rights should not be able to be easily changed but should instead be changed only when there is very strong support, a super-majority, to do so. By resorting to the "nuclear option", violating these rules by requiring only a simple majority rather than super majority to get rid of the filibuster in judicial nominations, the majority seeks to turn the United States Senate into a rubber stamp for President Bush's extreme judicial nominees and force all Senators to abdicate our constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. As one sworn to uphold the Constitution, that is something that I cannot and will not do, and that is why I will continue to do all I can to fight for our democratic traditions. The Constitution, which is the foundation of our democracy, very clearly sets up what we call a balance of power. That is an important concept, which is critical to how successful we have been as a nation, even during the most turbulent of times.
Unfortunately, some members of the Senate majority want to undermine, rather than preserve, that balance. Because of the extreme positions taken by some of President Bush's judicial nominees, the majority is, understandably, unable to muster enough votes on these nominations. Instead of negotiating and looking to find common ground, they have simply decided to violate the rules to reach their desired outcome. Kids on playgrounds across America have a word for this kind of behavior: it is called "cheating," and it is wrong. No one should support this kind of arrogance of power, especially in a democracy.
Let me also underscore that as of today, the United States Senate has confirmed 205 of President Bush's judicial nominations, 100 of whom were confirmed during the relatively brief period of time that my party colleagues held the Senate majority. Indeed, at the end of the 108th Congress, we had the lowest vacancy rate on the federal courts in 14 years. Only 10 Bush nominees have been rejected, each because he or she failed to demonstrate a sufficient commitment to protecting the rights and freedoms of all Americans. Therefore, in contrast to claims made by some, the Senate minority members have not been "obstructionist." To the contrary, we have a strong record of confirming almost all of President Bush's judicial nominees. Indeed, just two weeks ago, I spoke on the Senate floor in strong support of the nomination of Paul Crotty, who was nominated to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This nomination was confirmed unanimously, not because every Senator believed that he or she would agree with all of Judge Crotty's rulings, but, I believe, because we each had faith that he would do his best to abide by the rule of law and uphold our Constitution.
Unfortunately, President Bush has nominated a few people to serve on our federal courts for life that I and many of my colleagues believe would not abide by the rule of law, which is why some of these nominees were not confirmed. Now, to stack the courts with these nominees and other extreme judges, the majority is attempting to violate long-established and agreed to Senate rules in order to do away with a constitutional check on the power of the President to pick any judicial nominees he pleases. This is wrong and inconsistent with American values. Rest assured that I will do all that I can to ensure that this does not happen.
