Judicial Nominees

[Tigermike 3,039]

Judicial Nominees

[Auburn85 432]

Is there one Bush judicial nominee that hasn't had to had their feet to the fire in the Senate?

You can just see the frustration of Barbara Boxer.

If the Republicans challenged the integrity and accussed every single nominee of lying with all of Clinton's nominees , I will retract this statement.

It's one thing to disagree with them, but from Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, Bolton, to challenege their integrity, accuse them of lying and then say "We're not allowed to disagree with the Lord Goerge Bush, how dare us"

You can disagree in a respectful political manner

[Tiger Al 0]

Is there one Bush judicial nominee that hasn't had to had their feet to the fire in the Senate?

You can just see the frustration of Barbara Boxer.

If the Republicans challenged the integrity and accussed every single nominee of lying  with all of Clinton's nominees , I will retract this statement.

It's one thing to disagree with them, but from Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, Bolton, to challenege their integrity, accuse them of lying and then say "We're not allowed to disagree with the Lord Goerge Bush, how dare us"

You can disagree in a respectful political manner

155322[/snapback]

How many of Bush's nominees have been rejected?

[Auburn85 432]

Well, not that we're discussing that. But a very HIGH number. But that gives no exuse to how Boxer and others try to drag peoples names in the ground and try to make them out to be no more qualified than a janitor

[Tiger Al 0]

Well, not that we're discussing that. But a very HIGH number. But that gives no exuse to how Boxer and others try to drag peoples names in the ground and try to make them out to be no more qualified than a janitor

155329[/snapback]

Whose names is she dragging?

How HIGH is the number?

[Auburn85 432]

Rice, Gonzales

95%

[Tiger Al 0]

Rice, Gonzales

95%

155334[/snapback]

First, Condi Rice wasn't nominated to be a federal judge, was she? Or, was there another Rice who was? Second, do you really believe that 95% of his nominations have been rejected?

[Auburn85 432]

Rice, Gonzales

95%

155334[/snapback]

First, Condi Rice wasn't nominated to be a federal judge, was she? Or, was there another Rice who was? Second, do you really believe that 95% of his nominations have been rejected?

155338[/snapback]

No I misread. I thought this was the # that has been aproved.

[Auburn85 432]

Were some of the judges in the 9th circuit court of appeals held to the fire of the Senate by the democrats?

Pyror didn't support Moore on his 10 Commandments fiasco.

the 9th circuit court of appeals just overturned a murder conviction because the victims family members wore buttons with the victims face on it Now they have to retry this murder that happened in 95. Boxer would be proud

[Tigermike 3,039]

Committee for Justice: Memorandum From C. Boyden Gray Regarding Judicial Filibusters

To: National Desk

Contact: Sean Rushton, Executive Director of the Committee for Justice, 202-481-6853, 202-487-6439 cell

News Advisory, Feb. 28 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The Committee for Justice submits the following memorandum from C. Boyden Gray as an addition to the current public discussion over the judicial filibuster:

In his press conference last Thursday, Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) drew a parallel between President Bush's use of recess appointments for two judicial nominees and the Democratic use of the filibuster. I would deny the moral equivalence: how can a legitimate procedure – the recess appointment – be likened to an unprecedented and unconstitutional act? Especially when the recess appointment is being used very sparingly to correct that act? More to the point, Specter is just wrong to refer to the filibustered nominees as having been "rejected" by the Senate.

By definition a filibuster is a refusal to allow a final vote. To portray such obstruction of process as tantamount to a vote of rejection – as Harry Reid and other Democrats have – is simply incorrect.

Yet it does highlight one of the judicial filibuster's problems. As mentioned, I believe use of the Senate Cloture rule to permanently block nominations conflicts with the Constitution's Advice & Consent clause which contemplates a majority vote as the standard for judicial confirmation. Democrats have attempted to transform a vote on cloture, requiring 60 votes, into the equivalent of an up or down vote. Yet the confirmation standard remains majority vote.

Further, I believe the judicial filibuster violates the constitutional principle of Separation of Powers. The Constitution grants the Executive primary power over judicial appointments while granting the Senate, as a body – not partisan factions within it – a check via majority vote. By altering that standard, the Senate Democrats are, in effect, arrogating power to the Senate from the Executive. One analogy might be to the Executive's use of a line item veto – a power the Supreme Court has nullified because it unconstitutionally enhances the Executive's power relative to the Legislature.

Don't take my word for it. Liberal Georgetown Law Professor Susan Low Bloch argues that supermajority requirements for nominations "upset the carefully crafted rules concerning appointment of both executive officials and judges and … unilaterally limit the power the Constitution gives to the President in the appointments process. This, I believe, would allow the Senate to aggrandize its own role and would unconstitutionally distort the balance of powers established by the Constitution."

The use in the Senate of filibuster against legislative acts, the sole province of the legislative branch, is thus a completely different process, involves no constitutional conflicts, and has a very long history. Any judicial filibuster reform would not apply to legislative filibuster.

Democrats used to believe judicial filibusters were wrong too. In 1998, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said, "I have stated over and over again on this floor . . . that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down." In 1999, Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) said, "I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination. . . . We have a constitutional outlet for antipathy against a judicial nominee – a vote against that nominee." In 1998, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said, "The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees – yes or no."

We often hear of the Senate's history as the cooling saucer. Yet this analogy was not a reference to the filibuster, or even limitless Senate debate, which was not used as a blocking mechanism in the Republic's early decades.

Rather, the Senate was cooler than the House of Representatives because its members were elected to six year terms, separated by election into three classes, and, most of all, because its members were chosen not by the people but by the state legislatures. Thus, senators were thought to be aloof from the short term passions and pressures of the House. While minority rights are a significant aspect of Senate tradition, supermajority confirmation requirements do not have a pedigree.

In fact, until 1949 it was not even theoretically possible to filibuster a nomination. That year, Senate Rule 22, which governs cloture, was broadened to include any pending "matter." The debate over that rules change, however, included no mention of nominations, so their inclusion was probably an oversight more than a conscious change of policy.

Regardless, the first denial of cloture to a nominee was on Abe Fortas' nomination in 1968. Its purpose was to extend the floor debate over Fortas' ethics in order to defeat him by up or down vote, not to permanently block him. Fortas was on the floor for only four legislative days and did not have majority support, so the nomination was withdrawn.

Consider the words of Sen. Robert Griffin (R-Mich.), the leader of the anti-Fortas opposition: "[T]hus far, there have been only four days of Senate debate on this very important, historic issue. ... [A] filibuster, by any ordinary definition, is not now in progress." And: "An examination of the Congressional Record ... clearly reveals that the will of the majority was not frustrated. ... On the basis of the Record, then, it is ridiculous to say that the will of a majority in the Senate has been frustrated."

The three other occasions of failed cloture since 1968 have all been followed by successful cloture and confirmation. Significantly, there was no attempt to filibuster Justice Thomas' nomination, though the White House never had 60 votes for confirmation.

So, to be clear, the use of the filibuster to kill judicial nominees with majority Senate support is absolutely unprecedented. Its history is two years old. As liberal constitutional scholar Mark Tushnet says, "[t]he Democrats' filibuster is . . . a repudiation of a settled pre-constitutional understanding."

Some observers have equated the current Democratic judicial filibusters to past procedural methods used in committee against Democratic nominees by Republicans.

But as Prof. Tushnet has written, "There's a difference between the use of the filibuster to derail a nomination and the use of other Senate rules—on scheduling, on not having a floor vote without prior committee action, etc.—to do so. All those other rules . . . can be overridden by a majority vote of the Senate . . . whereas the filibuster can't be overridden in that way. A majority of the Senate could ride herd on a rogue Judiciary Committee chair who refused to hold a hearing on some nominee; it can't do so with respect to a filibuster."

Further, nominees have failed to come through the Judiciary Committee due to procedures used by both parties. The reasons are generally related to how the White House handles the selection and consultation process. Regardless, the individual cases are generally due to specific cause, not simply partisan obstruction. Most importantly, there are no constitutional implications for committee procedures.

When a nominee arrives on the Senate floor, she has run the gauntlet of consultation with home state senators, FBI background check, returned blue slips, testimony and questions before the Judiciary Committee, additional written questions from the committee, and a successful vote out of committee. In that circumstance, she is entitled to a final confirmation decision by simple majority.

Of the 60 or so nominees left dangling from Clinton's two terms, about 2/3 did not get through committee due to specific cause: late nomination, failure to consult home state senators, incomplete paperwork, or they were impeachable, meaning they had behavioral issues in their pasts that rendered them unacceptable. In many of these latter cases, the White House privately agreed with the decision not to move forward. If you get past the partisan spin, only about 20 clean nominees were left dangling in committee.

Compare this treatment to that accorded George H.W. Bush's nominees, when Democrats controlled the Judiciary Committee. Then, the Democrats failed to confirm 58 nominees over the course of a single four year term, and there were more judicial vacancies at the end of Bush 41's term than at the end of Clinton's.

More to the point, the comparison of Clinton to Bush 43 is apples and oranges. There are numerous Bush 43 nominees blocked by Democrats for procedural reasons in committee. Examples include blue slips against Claude Allen and Terrence Boyle, and, for two years at least, Michigan nominees Richard Griffin, Henry Saad, David McKeague, and Susan Neilson. Utah nominee Thomas Griffith did not proceed due to Democratic concerns about his law license.

Democrats have plenty of legitimate procedural options available to them to delay or block nominees in committee, within reason. The filibuster is not a legitimate option.

The fight over Bush 43 judges has been confined to the important Circuit Courts of Appeal. Since the filibuster strategy's inauguration in 2003, Senate Democrats have filibustered 10 of 34 appellate nominees, almost 1/3, and stopped another six in committee.

When it comes to appellate nominees, Senate Democrats have an unsurpassed record of obstruction. Contrary to the oft-heard assertion, that Democrats have been generous with judicial confirmations, President Bush 43 has the lowest four year appellate confirmation rate of any modern president, 69 percent, according to AEI scholar John R. Lott, Jr. Bill Clinton's record was 74 percent, and he got two liberals on the Supreme Court as well.

Some have argued Democrats have no choice but to resort to extraordinary measures because President Bush's nominees are exceptionally conservative and ideological. But this claim is disputed by none other than prominent Democratic strategist Prof. Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School. In the Washington Post ("A Bench Tilting Right," 10/30/04), Sunstein and co-author David Schkade explained the outcome of their study of judges appointed by Presidents since John F. Kennedy:

"Remarkably, there are no significant differences among the voting records of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II appointees. The three most recent Republican presidents have shown extraordinary consistency in their choices."

Likewise, AEI's Lott reports that preliminary surveys of lawyers who practice before Circuit Courts found Bush 43 judges were thought to be slightly more liberal than those of both Bush 41 and Reagan. In other words, the current President has not veered dramatically to the right in his nominations; it is rather Senate Democrats who have gone off the liberal deep end.

With these points in mind, the only principled option for Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) is to initiate the so-called "Constitutional Option" to reinstate the Constitution's Advice & Consent standard and preserve the balance of power. This is not only the principled approach, it is a step that President Rodham Clinton or President Obama will appreciate one day, too.

http://www.earnedmedia.org/cfj0228.htm

[Tiger Al 0]

Were some of the judges in the 9th circuit court of appeals held to the fire of the Senate by the democrats?

155342[/snapback]

If someone doesn't agree with a nomination because they think their views are too extreme, and those views will influence how perform their job which carries a lifetime appointment, then what would the proper response have been?

Pyror didn't support Moore on his 10 Commandments fiasco

Is that why he wasn't confirmed?

[Tigermike 3,039]

Were some of the judges in the 9th circuit court of appeals held to the fire of the Senate by the democrats?

155342[/snapback]

If someone doesn't agree with a nomination because they think their views are too extreme, and those views will influence how perform their job which carries a lifetime appointment, then what would the proper response have been?

Pyror didn't support Moore on his 10 Commandments fiasco

Is that why he wasn't confirmed?

155351[/snapback]

Why don't you tell us why the dems didn't confirm him?

[Tiger Al 0]

Committee for Justice: Memorandum From C. Boyden Gray Regarding Judicial Filibusters

To: National Desk

Contact: Sean Rushton, Executive Director of the Committee for Justice, 202-481-6853, 202-487-6439 cell

News Advisory, Feb. 28 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The Committee for Justice submits the following memorandum from C. Boyden Gray as an addition to the current public discussion over the judicial filibuster:

In his press conference last Thursday, Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) drew a parallel between President Bush's use of recess appointments for two judicial nominees and the Democratic use of the filibuster. I would deny the moral equivalence: how can a legitimate procedure – the recess appointment – be likened to an unprecedented and unconstitutional act? Especially when the recess appointment is being used very sparingly to correct that act? More to the point, Specter is just wrong to refer to the filibustered nominees as having been "rejected" by the Senate.

By definition a filibuster is a refusal to allow a final vote. To portray such obstruction of process as tantamount to a vote of rejection – as Harry Reid and other Democrats have – is simply incorrect.

Yet it does highlight one of the judicial filibuster's problems. As mentioned, I believe use of the Senate Cloture rule to permanently block nominations conflicts with the Constitution's Advice & Consent clause which contemplates a majority vote as the standard for judicial confirmation. Democrats have attempted to transform a vote on cloture, requiring 60 votes, into the equivalent of an up or down vote. Yet the confirmation standard remains majority vote.

Further, I believe the judicial filibuster violates the constitutional principle of Separation of Powers. The Constitution grants the Executive primary power over judicial appointments while granting the Senate, as a body – not partisan factions within it – a check via majority vote. By altering that standard, the Senate Democrats are, in effect, arrogating power to the Senate from the Executive. One analogy might be to the Executive's use of a line item veto – a power the Supreme Court has nullified because it unconstitutionally enhances the Executive's power relative to the Legislature.

Don't take my word for it. Liberal Georgetown Law Professor Susan Low Bloch argues that supermajority requirements for nominations "upset the carefully crafted rules concerning appointment of both executive officials and judges and … unilaterally limit the power the Constitution gives to the President in the appointments process. This, I believe, would allow the Senate to aggrandize its own role and would unconstitutionally distort the balance of powers established by the Constitution."

The use in the Senate of filibuster against legislative acts, the sole province of the legislative branch, is thus a completely different process, involves no constitutional conflicts, and has a very long history. Any judicial filibuster reform would not apply to legislative filibuster.

Democrats used to believe judicial filibusters were wrong too. In 1998, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said, "I have stated over and over again on this floor . . . that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down." In 1999, Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) said, "I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination. . . . We have a constitutional outlet for antipathy against a judicial nominee – a vote against that nominee." In 1998, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said, "The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees – yes or no."

We often hear of the Senate's history as the cooling saucer. Yet this analogy was not a reference to the filibuster, or even limitless Senate debate, which was not used as a blocking mechanism in the Republic's early decades.

Rather, the Senate was cooler than the House of Representatives because its members were elected to six year terms, separated by election into three classes, and, most of all, because its members were chosen not by the people but by the state legislatures. Thus, senators were thought to be aloof from the short term passions and pressures of the House. While minority rights are a significant aspect of Senate tradition, supermajority confirmation requirements do not have a pedigree.

In fact, until 1949 it was not even theoretically possible to filibuster a nomination. That year, Senate Rule 22, which governs cloture, was broadened to include any pending "matter." The debate over that rules change, however, included no mention of nominations, so their inclusion was probably an oversight more than a conscious change of policy.

Regardless, the first denial of cloture to a nominee was on Abe Fortas' nomination in 1968. Its purpose was to extend the floor debate over Fortas' ethics in order to defeat him by up or down vote, not to permanently block him. Fortas was on the floor for only four legislative days and did not have majority support, so the nomination was withdrawn.

Consider the words of Sen. Robert Griffin (R-Mich.), the leader of the anti-Fortas opposition: "[T]hus far, there have been only four days of Senate debate on this very important, historic issue. ... [A] filibuster, by any ordinary definition, is not now in progress." And: "An examination of the Congressional Record ... clearly reveals that the will of the majority was not frustrated. ... On the basis of the Record, then, it is ridiculous to say that the will of a majority in the Senate has been frustrated."

The three other occasions of failed cloture since 1968 have all been followed by successful cloture and confirmation. Significantly, there was no attempt to filibuster Justice Thomas' nomination, though the White House never had 60 votes for confirmation.

So, to be clear, the use of the filibuster to kill judicial nominees with majority Senate support is absolutely unprecedented. Its history is two years old. As liberal constitutional scholar Mark Tushnet says, "[t]he Democrats' filibuster is . . . a repudiation of a settled pre-constitutional understanding."

Some observers have equated the current Democratic judicial filibusters to past procedural methods used in committee against Democratic nominees by Republicans.

But as Prof. Tushnet has written, "There's a difference between the use of the filibuster to derail a nomination and the use of other Senate rules—on scheduling, on not having a floor vote without prior committee action, etc.—to do so. All those other rules . . . can be overridden by a majority vote of the Senate . . . whereas the filibuster can't be overridden in that way. A majority of the Senate could ride herd on a rogue Judiciary Committee chair who refused to hold a hearing on some nominee; it can't do so with respect to a filibuster."

Further, nominees have failed to come through the Judiciary Committee due to procedures used by both parties. The reasons are generally related to how the White House handles the selection and consultation process. Regardless, the individual cases are generally due to specific cause, not simply partisan obstruction. Most importantly, there are no constitutional implications for committee procedures.

When a nominee arrives on the Senate floor, she has run the gauntlet of consultation with home state senators, FBI background check, returned blue slips, testimony and questions before the Judiciary Committee, additional written questions from the committee, and a successful vote out of committee. In that circumstance, she is entitled to a final confirmation decision by simple majority.

Of the 60 or so nominees left dangling from Clinton's two terms, about 2/3 did not get through committee due to specific cause: late nomination, failure to consult home state senators, incomplete paperwork, or they were impeachable, meaning they had behavioral issues in their pasts that rendered them unacceptable. In many of these latter cases, the White House privately agreed with the decision not to move forward. If you get past the partisan spin, only about 20 clean nominees were left dangling in committee.

Compare this treatment to that accorded George H.W. Bush's nominees, when Democrats controlled the Judiciary Committee. Then, the Democrats failed to confirm 58 nominees over the course of a single four year term, and there were more judicial vacancies at the end of Bush 41's term than at the end of Clinton's.

More to the point, the comparison of Clinton to Bush 43 is apples and oranges. There are numerous Bush 43 nominees blocked by Democrats for procedural reasons in committee. Examples include blue slips against Claude Allen and Terrence Boyle, and, for two years at least, Michigan nominees Richard Griffin, Henry Saad, David McKeague, and Susan Neilson. Utah nominee Thomas Griffith did not proceed due to Democratic concerns about his law license.

Democrats have plenty of legitimate procedural options available to them to delay or block nominees in committee, within reason. The filibuster is not a legitimate option.

The fight over Bush 43 judges has been confined to the important Circuit Courts of Appeal. Since the filibuster strategy's inauguration in 2003, Senate Democrats have filibustered 10 of 34 appellate nominees, almost 1/3, and stopped another six in committee.

When it comes to appellate nominees, Senate Democrats have an unsurpassed record of obstruction. Contrary to the oft-heard assertion, that Democrats have been generous with judicial confirmations, President Bush 43 has the lowest four year appellate confirmation rate of any modern president, 69 percent, according to AEI scholar John R. Lott, Jr. Bill Clinton's record was 74 percent, and he got two liberals on the Supreme Court as well.

Some have argued Democrats have no choice but to resort to extraordinary measures because President Bush's nominees are exceptionally conservative and ideological. But this claim is disputed by none other than prominent Democratic strategist Prof. Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School. In the Washington Post ("A Bench Tilting Right," 10/30/04), Sunstein and co-author David Schkade explained the outcome of their study of judges appointed by Presidents since John F. Kennedy:

"Remarkably, there are no significant differences among the voting records of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II appointees. The three most recent Republican presidents have shown extraordinary consistency in their choices."

Likewise, AEI's Lott reports that preliminary surveys of lawyers who practice before Circuit Courts found Bush 43 judges were thought to be slightly more liberal than those of both Bush 41 and Reagan. In other words, the current President has not veered dramatically to the right in his nominations; it is rather Senate Democrats who have gone off the liberal deep end.

With these points in mind, the only principled option for Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) is to initiate the so-called "Constitutional Option" to reinstate the Constitution's Advice & Consent standard and preserve the balance of power. This is not only the principled approach, it is a step that President Rodham Clinton or President Obama will appreciate one day, too.

http://www.earnedmedia.org/cfj0228.htm

155350[/snapback]

Tigermike, the problem I see with this guy's argument is he likens what the president (one person) can do with what a large group of people can do and saying that if one entity (at least 40 people) can do something (fillibuster) then the other entity (1 person) can override it (bench appointment) and it's equal. Doesn't that kind of nullify the advice and consent role of the Senate? Seems like that if at least 40 out of 100 people find a nominee undesirable AFTER the Senate Judiciary Committee found that same nominee undesirable, then maybe another nominee should be found.

[Piglet 0]

So if 95% of the judges have been approved, it doesn't seem like the Democrats are being all that picky, does it?

Also, ain't it true that the fights going on now are because Bush took the 5% of judges that had already been rejected before, and put them right back up for re-nomination? Seems to me like that just shows Bush is spoiling for fights. It ain't that hard to find judges who are acceptable to 60 Senators, only five of whom gotta be Democrats.

Tell me this: How many Bush judges have Democrats blocked, and compare that with how many Clinton judges the Republican Senate blocked by not bothering to even set up confirmation hearings for them? That oughta tell you whether one party is more obstructionist or deferential than the other.

[DKW 86 7,429]

I still want someone to tell me why Pryor wont be even voted on. I warn you in advane your case better be very airtight because he is not at all what the msm wants you to think he is.

[Tiger Al 0]

I still want someone to tell me why Pryor wont be even voted on. I warn you in advane your case better be very airtight because he is not at all what the msm wants you to think he is.

155472[/snapback]

Primarily because he has already received a recess appointment and, therefore, isn't being voted on. You won!

[Auburn85 432]

So if 95% of the judges have been approved, it doesn't seem like the Democrats are being all that picky, does it?

Also, ain't it true that the fights going on now are because Bush took the 5% of judges that had already been rejected before, and put them right back up for re-nomination?  Seems to me like that just shows Bush is spoiling for fights. It ain't that hard to find judges who are acceptable to 60 Senators, only five of whom gotta be Democrats.

Tell me this: How many Bush judges have Democrats blocked, and compare that with how many Clinton judges the Republican Senate blocked by not bothering to even set up confirmation hearings for them?  That oughta tell you whether one party is more obstructionist or deferential than the other.

155470[/snapback]

My point isn't the # of nominees that are being rejected. My point is that it doesn't matter who Bush nominates, the dems in the Senate(especially Boxer) tries to make everyone of them out to be like some inhumane, uncaring, lying, not even qualified to chew gum and walk at the same time.

And duh, most will be nominated, but some of the dems in the senate have the mentality of "well since this guy will get nominated, we'll try to ruin what we can of his good name"

[Piglet 0]

Oh, come on---how many of these approved judges have we even HEARD of in the press, much less had their good names dragged through the mud?

It only seems that it's happening to them all, because the press will only write about the controversial ones. There have been dozens that sail through on a voice vote with no one, not even Boxer, saying boo about it.

[Tiger Al 0]

My point is that it doesn't matter who Bush nominates, the dems in the Senate(especially Boxer) tries to make everyone of them out to be like some inhumane, uncaring, lying, not even qualified to chew gum and walk at the same time.

I realize that you're exaggerating to make a point, and that point is, I assume, that some Senate Democrats have fought hard to keep some nominees from getting confirmed. But, I'll ask you the same thing I asked you earlier; if the Dems find one or two or however many nominees to be so far in the fringe, what would the proper response be? It may make you feel better to think that the Dems are throwing temper tantrums over every nomination but the facts don't support that position. 205 out of 215 is a very good percentage, believe it or not.

[DKW 86 7,429]

I still want someone to tell me why Pryor wont be even voted on. I warn you in advane your case better be very airtight because he is not at all what the msm wants you to think he is.

155472[/snapback]

Primarily because he has already received a recess appointment and, therefore, isn't being voted on. You won!

155476[/snapback]

Dem try to stop Pryor's Appointment

Why did he have to be appointed that way?

Extremism from the PFTAW

Pryor has offered steadfast support inside the court and out for a state judge who has officially sponsored sectarian prayers in the courtroom before juries and who has installed religious displays of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and in the state judicial building. Pryor has outspokenly deplored rulings by the courts to uphold the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

BTW, that is just a sampling of the complete BS put forth b y the PFTAW.

Pryor says decision is right.

[Tiger Al 0]

I still want someone to tell me why Pryor wont be even voted on. I warn you in advane your case better be very airtight because he is not at all what the msm wants you to think he is.

155472[/snapback]

Primarily because he has already received a recess appointment and, therefore, isn't being voted on. You won!

155476[/snapback]

Dem try to stop Pryor's Appointment

Why did he have to be appointed that way?

Extremism from the PFTAW

Pryor has offered steadfast support inside the court and out for a state judge who has officially sponsored sectarian prayers in the courtroom before juries and who has installed religious displays of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and in the state judicial building. Pryor has outspokenly deplored rulings by the courts to uphold the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

BTW, that is just a sampling of the complete BS put forth b y the PFTAW.

Pryor says decision is right.

155629[/snapback]

David, I think where you're going with this is that the PFAW was out and out lying, right? And there's no way what they said could be true because Pryor was obviously the AG charged with handling that case against Moore, right? And, if Pryor did that, then he obviously didn't always "offer steadfast support inside the court and out for a state judge who has officially sponsored sectarian prayers in the courtroom before juries and who has installed religious displays of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and in the state judicial building", right?

That press release came out on 6/9/2003. Thompson didn't order Moore to remove the monument until August 5th. Before then, Pryor had actually been on Moore's defense team and had defended his "cause" started in Etowah County.

This talks about "Pryor" collusion.

So, the PFAW article was written BEFORE Pryor prosecuted him for disobeying Judge Thompson's lawful order and is correct. It would be correct anyway because Pryor has said that even then he still supported Moore but couldn't not prosecute him for his violation. Had Pryor not had a pending nomination for a federal judgeship looming, I suspect his behavior would've been a little more in line with his history.

As an aside, though, you do realize that PFAW does not hold a seat in the US Senate, right?

[DKW 86 7,429]

SSSSHHHHOOOOOOMMMMMM!

And the point just went right over your head. Pryor STILL did the right thing, completely the opposite of what PFTAW says on their website as of the last posting.

You can argue the dates, blah blah blah, the FACT is that even if Pryor supported Moore previously, when push came ot shove, instead of cowering to political pressure he did the right thing and followed the law. I know how badly you Libs hate someone that follows the Constitution and all...

He is not in anyway as he is portrayed on the PFTAW site. If they are too stupid, lazy, busy, etc to update their site, that is their problem.

As an aside, though, you do realize that PFAW does not hold a seat in the US Senate, right?

No, they hold receipts for forty at last count.

Had Pryor not had a pending nomination for a federal judgeship looming, I suspect his behavior would've been a little more in line with his history.

And you have a link PROVING this? Or is it just mere opinion?

Pryor picks fight with Moore, Alabama"s Popular former SCJ

Seems picking a fight with one of the state's most popular figures would be political suicide. But what do I know. I am sure you Libs can come forward with another one of your conspiracy theories... I know, "It was all a right wing kabal"....

[Tiger Al 0]

SSSSHHHHOOOOOOMMMMMM!

And the popint just went right over your head. Pryor STILL did the right thing, completely the opposite of what PFTAW say on their website as of the last posting.

You can argue the dates, blah blah blah, the FACT is that even if Pryor supported Moore previously, when push came ot shove, instead of cowering to political pressure he did the right thing and followed the law.

He is not in anyway as he is portrayed on the PFTAW site.

155648[/snapback]

SSSSHHHHOOOOOOMMMMMM!

And the point just went right over your head. Pryor ONLY did the right thing because he was under the microscope and wanted to become a judge so he didn't have to ENFORCE the law anymore but could then INTERPRET the law, as judges do. The problem, as we see it, is that his views and ideology are so far in the fringe that he can't be entrusted with a lifetime appointment to a federal judgeship.

And, yes, I will argue dates because they are directly relevent to your argument. You posted a press release (actually only one point from the press release) that said Pryor had always supported Moore (which he has) in an attempt to show bias on PFAW's part by using misinformation. The press release was issued two months BEFORE Pryor's involvement. It was factual and it was accurate. Am I saying that PFAW is unbiased toward Pryor? No. They think he's bad news and they say why.

What else did you fail to post earlier?

Pryor defended Alabama’s practice of handcuffing prisoners to a hitching post in a case in which an inmate alleged he was left in the hot sun for seven hours without water or bathroom breaks. The Court rejected Pryor’s argument, holding that “the use of the hitching post under these circumstances violated ‘the basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment, [which] is nothing less than the dignity of man.’” Pryor decried the ruling, quoting Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent in calling the decision a case of the majority applying “its own subjective views on appropriate methods of prison discipline.”

Are you saying that Pryor never defended Alabama’s practice of handcuffing prisoners to a hitching post? Is PFAW just making this up?

Pryor urged the Supreme Court to hold that, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, state employees cannot sue for damages to protect their rights against discrimination. The Court agreed, in one of a series of 5-4 decisions on “states’ rights” questions. Although the ADA is regarded as one of the landmark civil rights laws of the past fifteen years, Pryor said he was “proud” of his role in “protecting the hard-earned dollars of Alabama taxpayers when Congress imposes illegal mandates on our state.”

Were they lying about this, too?

Pryor has called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history” and has supported efforts to erect unconstitutional barriers to the exercise of reproductive freedom. He defended a “partial-birth abortion” ban in Alabama, although it lacked the constitutionally required exception to protect the health of the pregnant woman.

I guess he didn't do this either?

Pryor believes that it is constitutional to imprison gay men and lesbians for having sex in the privacy of their own homes, and has filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold Texas’ “Homosexual Conduct law,” which criminalizes such conduct. Pryor believes that singling out gay men and lesbians in this manner does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the same brief, Pryor equated for purposes of legal analysis sex between two adults of the same gender with “activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia…”

This sounds familiar. Surely PFAW didn't make this up, did they?

Pryor has criticized as “political correctness” the Supreme Court’s ruling that the denial of admission to women by the Virginia Military Institute, a public, taxpayer-supported institution, violated women’s rights to equal protection.

Those lying liars made this up, too.

[Tiger Al 0]

And you have a link PROVING this? Or is it just mere opinion?

It's my opinion based on the fact that Pryor still supported Moore on the courthouse steps following the trial. He had no choice but to prosecute Moore. Had he recused himself, he would've appeared like he was choosing ideology over the law, and the Senate Judiciary Committee SURELY and RIGHTLY would've grilled him on that one at his nomination hearing. Pryor wants to move up the food chain so he can make the rules instead of abiding by them.

Pryor picks fight with Moore, Alabama"s Popular former SCJ

Seems picking a fight with one of the state's most popular figures would be political suicide. But what do I know. I am sure you Libs can come forward with another one of your conspiracy theories... I know, "It was all a right wing kabal"....

This article said nothing about Pryor, much less him picking a fight with Moore. But, his record speaks for itself and he'll always be able to fall back on that if he has to smooth any feathers in the future and just say he was losing a battle to win the war for the cause.

[DKW 86 7,429]

And the point just went right over your head. Pryor ONLY did the right thing because he was under the microscope and wanted to become a judge so he didn't have to ENFORCE the law anymore but could then INTERPRET the law,

Proof Al, Where is this PROVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You havent proven one single thing other than you can jump to an irrational conclusion. Again PROVE IT isnt just your mis-guided opinion or the opinions of others. PROVE IT! Otherwise it is just meaningless drivel.

It's my opinion based on the fact that Pryor still supported Moore on the courthouse steps following the trial. He had no choice but to prosecute Moore.

He supported Moore's initial opinion that the Ten Commandments could be used in part of a historical display Al, nothing more.

This article said nothing about Pryor, much less him picking a fight with Moore.

It wasnt ever aimed at Pryor, it was aimed at showing Moore's incredible popularity. Another lib "bait and switch" here. Al, you know I bet there are another million or so articles that arent about Pryor that dont talk about him either.

Pryor defended Alabama’s practice of handcuffing prisoners to a hitching post in a case in which an inmate alleged he was left in the hot sun for seven hours without water or bathroom breaks

Pryor as AG for Alabama, must defend Alabama from lawsuits Al. He doesnt only prosecute folks. AGs sometime have to defend the indefensible. Ask RFK about the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Pryor urged the Supreme Court to hold that, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, state employees cannot sue for damages to protect their rights against discrimination.

Pryor argued that the protections of the ADA were "not needed" to remedy discrimination by states against people with disabilities. This decision prevents persons with disabilities from collecting monetary damages from state employers.

Link

Pryor has called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history” and has supported efforts to erect unconstitutional barriers to the exercise of reproductive freedom. He defended a “partial-birth abortion” ban in Alabama, although it lacked the constitutionally required exception to protect the health of the pregnant woman.

Well damn him to hell for wanting to protect babies. BTW, I bet 70% of Alabama likely think the same way too on partial birth abortions.

Pryor believes that it is constitutional to imprison gay men and lesbians for having sex in the privacy of their own homes, and has filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold Texas’ “Homosexual Conduct law,” which criminalizes such conduct.

The US Supreme Court had upheld a similiar law in 1986 in Georgia. Damn that Pryor for upholding that scurrilous stare decisis legal concept. I know it gets in the way of Liberal PC thinking though.

Lawrence v. Texas

From dKosopedia, the free political encyclopedia.

Lawrence v. Texas was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2003; the 6-3 decision invalidated the criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy laws in the State of Texas. The court had previously addressed the same issue in Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, but there had upheld the challenged Georgia sodomy statute, not finding a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy.

Lawrence (Case No. 02-102) explicitly overturned Bowers, which it held viewed the liberty at stake too narrowly. The Lawrence court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Lawrence will have the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States insofar as they apply to consenting adults acting in private.

The case attracted much public attention, and a large number of amicus curiae briefs were filed in the case. The decision, which contained a bold declaration of the dignity of homosexual persons, was celebrated by gay rights activists, hoping that further legal advances may result as a consequence; the decision was lamented by social conservatives for the same reasons.

Link

Other thoughts on Pryor....

The remainder of the arguments above are political ones.

William H. Pryor

William H. Pryor's record has prevented him from receiving a life time appointment to the federal judiciary. In United States v. Morrison, Pryor represented the only state to challenge the constitutionality of the federal remedy for victims of sexual assault and violence in the Violence Against Women Act.

And, apparently, his arguments were correct, since the Supreme Court struck down the portions to which Mr. Pryor objected.[/B]

Mr. Pryor urged a congressional committee to repeal Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which protects the right to vote for racial minorities, labeling it "an affront to federalism and an expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness."

This is, again, misleading. The section to which he objected was one that allows either the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court in Washington to veto any proposed changes in voting districts in some states. It can be fairly argued that such a provision is an "affront to federalism".

When the Supreme Court declared that it was unconstitutional to keep women from being admitted to VMI, Pryor declared the court "both antidemocratic and insensitive to federalism."

Which it was.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pryor filed an anti-gay amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas urging the Supreme Court to uphold Texas' law banning same-sex sodomy, arguing that a "constitutional right that protects 'whether and how to connect sexually' must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia."

Again he was upholding Stare Decisis in the 1986 GA case...

That's not an illegitimate argument, as we've discussed here repeatedly. If the constitution specifically protects adult consensual sexual relations, then, logically, it must protect all of them. Either the right to privacy in consensual, adult, sexual relationships exists, or it does not. If it exists, as a fundamental right, then adult incest, polygamy, adultery, homosexual and heterosexual relationships must be protected. That's certainly the argument that at number of polygamists have begun making in Federal courts since the Lawrence decision.

Having said that, I find the references to child pornography, bestiality, and pedophilia objectionable since neither children nor animals con consent to sexual relationships. Even if we posit that the right exists, it obviously cannot extend to those who are unable to give consent.

The addition of necrophilia is just silly, since it's not really a problem of any appreciable scope, nor is it likely to be even if it were perfectly legal.

In Hope v. Pelzer, Mr. Pryor defended Alabama's practice of handcuffing prison inmates to outdoor hitching posts without access to water if they refused to work on chain gangs or otherwise disrupted them, arguing that the practice did not violate the prisoner's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

Well, Mr. Pryor was the Attorney General of Alabama, so he was obligated to represent the state in a suit against it.