Your Aug. 18 editorial (“Justice will grind to a halt with 9th Circuit vacancies”) claims that “Democrats refused to vote (9th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee William) Myers through because of his previous defense of mining interests as a private attorney and his environmental writings as a solicitor general for the Interior Department.”

In fact, however, Myers was blocked because of his unfair actions after he became the Interior Department’s solicitor. There, he continued to favor his previous industry clients at the expense of his responsibilities to enforce the laws that protect taxpayers, tribal rights and the environment. Myers’ legal positions were rejected by the department and by federal and state courts, and account for the fact that he is the only judicial nominee ever opposed by the National Congress of American Indians, which represents more than 250 tribal governments, and the non-partisan National Wildlife Federation.

In the agreement that saved the filibuster, seven Republican senators and seven democrats provided for confirmation of other controversial judges but specifically exempted Myers and one other nominee, who subsequently withdrew.

Your editorial also claims that support for splitting the 9th Circuit “has grown stronger, as proven by (a letter) signed by 24 judges from the 9th.” This ignores the broad, continuing bipartisan and nonpartisan opposition to the split, which includes the vast majority of 9th Circuit appellate and trial court judges. Lawyers who practice before the court also recognize that justice will not “grind to a halt,” as reflected by opposition to a split from every national, state and local bar association that has taken a position. (For comprehensive links on Myers and the 9th Circuit, see www.judgingtheenvironment.org.)

GLENN SUGAMELI

Washington, D.C.

(Editor’s note: Glenn Sugameli is a member of Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm.)