‘For the Court: A Uniter Not a Divider’

Re: “For the Court: A Uniter Not a Divider,” John P. Avlon, Opinion, July 12, 2005. John P. Avlon’s article imploring President Bush to find a centrist for the Supreme Court in the name of “unity” is silly. Under our Constitution, judicial appointments are the prerogative of the president, with the Senate playing an advisory (not co-equal) role. Mr. Avlon implies that a militant minority can play hardball, and the president should bend to be a uniter. This perverts both the Constitution and the idea of minority rights.

Furthermore, there is no requirement that the Court contain preset quotas of liberals, conservatives, or centrists. Besides, what are “centrists” and why should they even be on the Court? Is a centrist someone who splits the difference between competing claims, regardless of the merits of the case? Someone who upholds the Constitution four days a week? This thinking – regrettably now considered “mainstream” – has already made the law an intellectual shambles and turned the Supreme Court into a permanently sitting constitutional convention.

Mr. Bush won the right to nominate judges he sees fit – regardless of what that does to the “balance” of the Court. He should nominate unapologetic strict constructionists, as many as it takes to restore the Court to its proper role. He should not find consensus nominees and then “get on with the business of the country,” because putting originalist judges on the Court is the urgent business of the country.

JOSEPH A. CICCOLINI
West Orange, N.J.

Saving Energy

Re: “Audit: City Not Saving on Energy,” Julia Levy, New York, July 11, 2005. Julia Levy’s article on the New York City Office of Energy Conservation includes a significant misunderstanding and an error.

The 39 facilities that the Office of Energy Conservation has identified for audits for potential conservation projects are not simply randomly selected from all 4,000 city facilities – 35 come from a survey of the 200 largest electricity accounts that use half of all city government electricity. Of those 200 accounts, 125 have already had conservation upgrades in the past 15 years as part of the more than 223 completed projects that this department has overseen. The city’s energy liaison officers are not from the DCAS Office of Energy Conservation. Each agency appoints one of its own employees to act as the energy liaison officer; that person is responsible for tracking energy use for the agency’s accounts and reporting reasons for unusual usage.

More generally, as our official response to the comptroller’s audit explained, New York City is on the same track as Boston and Houston – we are conducting comprehensive surveys of our major energy-using buildings to determine where we can next improve the city’s energy efficiency.

Our audit response also noted that the Office of Energy Conservation has achieved results. The $162 million in conservation projects completed from 1997 to date have reduced the city’s electricity needs by 78 million kilowatt hours, saving $7.8 million annually in electricity costs alone.

In just one such initiative, the New York City Department of Transportation since 1993 has reduced electricity usage in street infrastructure by 20% through the installation of more energy efficient streetlights and traffic signals.

We agree with the comptroller that more can always be done to improve the city’s energy efficiency. The article correctly notes that we are poised to do more, thanks to the new funding authorized by Mayor Bloomberg. Conducting detailed energy surveys of our buildings and setting new goals for completing energy conservation projects is a far cry from avoiding accountability.

MARTHA K. HIRST
Commissioner
New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services
Manhattan

‘Promises to Keep’

Re: “Promises to Keep,” Editorial, July 5, 2005. During two campaigns for the presidency, George W. Bush promised, if elected, to appoint judges like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Now left-wing ideologues like Charles Schumer, Patrick Leahy, and Edward Kennedy threaten to block any nominee of the president who fails to meet their notion of “mainstream.” These ultra-liberal senators, in effect, are demanding that the president break his campaign promise – one that he has reaffirmed many times over the years. The large national majority that backed Mr. Bush’s re-election last year has every right to see this pledge fulfilled.

EVAN WAGSHUL
Brooklyn

---

Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007.Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.