Hmmm. "Religion has nothing to do with it"?

[Tigermike 3,050]

"Religion has nothing to do with how we feel about any given judge. Nothing to do with it." --Dianne Feinstein ++ "[William Pryor's] beliefs are so well known, so deeply held, that it's very hard to believe -- very hard to believe -- that they're not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, 'I will follow the law'." --Chuck Schumer

"Religion has nothing to do with it"? Yeah right!

[Tiger Al 0]

Bush said last night he didn't think it did, either.

[WarTim 3,457]

Well then. THAT settles it. After all OUR President NEVER lies.

So, which is it libbys? You can't have it both ways!

[Tiger Al 0]

Well then. THAT settles it. After all OUR President NEVER lies.

So, which is it libbys? You can't have it both ways!

157951[/snapback]

Just making an observation based on what he said last night. Was he lying? Is this simply the Democrats hating Christians???

[Tigermike 3,050]

Well then. THAT settles it. After all OUR President NEVER lies.

So, which is it libbys? You can't have it both ways!

157951[/snapback]

Just making an observation based on what he said last night. Was he lying? Is this simply the Democrats hating Christians???

157954[/snapback]

That was President Bush as usual being the uniter and reaching out an olive branch.

But to get back to subject, are you saying that Feinstein and Schumer are on the same page? When they (democrats) use the code words "deeply held beliefs", what are they speaking of Al?

Anyone with half a brain knows Feinstein was lying through her teeth when she made that statement. Anyone with that same half brain also knows what Schumer was saying. Even those with a direct IV feed of Kool-Aid from the DNC knows what they were saying don't you Al?

[WarTim 3,457]

shumer and frankeSTEIN are both liars. They would volunteer to use the sandblaster in removing all religious symbols from all buildings in this country.

It doesn't even take half a brain to know those facts.

[Tiger Al 0]

Well then. THAT settles it. After all OUR President NEVER lies.

So, which is it libbys? You can't have it both ways!

157951[/snapback]

Just making an observation based on what he said last night. Was he lying? Is this simply the Democrats hating Christians???

157954[/snapback]

That was President Bush as usual being the uniter and reaching out an olive branch.

But to get back to subject, are you saying that Feinstein and Schumer are on the same page? When they (democrats) use the code words "deeply held beliefs", what are they speaking of Al?

Anyone with half a brain knows Feinstein was lying through her teeth when she made that statement. Anyone with that same half brain also knows what Schumer was saying. Even those with a direct IV feed of Kool-Aid from the DNC knows what they were saying don't you Al?

157959[/snapback]

Is it within the realm of possibility that they may have been talking about his deeply held beliefs about abortion and the death penalty? Could it be because he believes the Violence Against Women Act was unconstitutional? Maybe it's because he strongly believes that homosexuality should be illegal. The phrase "deeply held beliefs" could be a myriad of things, but, you have decided that it MUST mean that they hate Christians because that relieves you of any obligation to actually consider that they, or me, for that matter, might have valid reasons for not wanting him as a judge for life.

[Tigermike 3,050]

Well then. THAT settles it. After all OUR President NEVER lies.

So, which is it libbys? You can't have it both ways!

157951[/snapback]

Just making an observation based on what he said last night. Was he lying? Is this simply the Democrats hating Christians???

157954[/snapback]

That was President Bush as usual being the uniter and reaching out an olive branch.

But to get back to subject, are you saying that Feinstein and Schumer are on the same page? When they (democrats) use the code words "deeply held beliefs", what are they speaking of Al?

Anyone with half a brain knows Feinstein was lying through her teeth when she made that statement. Anyone with that same half brain also knows what Schumer was saying. Even those with a direct IV feed of Kool-Aid from the DNC knows what they were saying don't you Al?

157959[/snapback]

Is it within the realm of possibility that they may have been talking about his deeply held beliefs about abortion and the death penalty? Could it be because he believes the Violence Against Women Act was unconstitutional? Maybe it's because he strongly believes that homosexuality should be illegal. The phrase "deeply held beliefs" could be a myriad of things, but, you have decided that it MUST mean that they hate Christians because that relieves you of any obligation to actually consider that they, or me, for that matter, might have valid reasons for not wanting him as a judge for life.

157968[/snapback]

Is it within the realm of possibility that they may have been talking about and saying exactly what they said? Or would that be too much to consider?

Once again Al you phrase things to suit your needs/wants, no where have I said that they hate Christians, have I? Actually they would never be so politically stupid as to come out and admit they hate Christians. After all they know Christians vote. They merely hold Christians is very low esteem and because they are Christians their opinions should count for nothing. Because they are Christians they should not be allowed jobs they have worked for all their lives.

Could it be that they, as most all democrats have the deeply held belief that Christians cannot and would not up hold the law? Where has William Pryor said that homosexuality should be illegal? Or are you mischaracterizing his words to make a point? When has calling homosexuality a sin equated it to being illegal?

You and the dems must come up with "his deeply held beliefs" would keep him from being a good judge, that relieves you of any obligation to actually consider their qualifications, that they, could actually do the job. That they are actually eminently qualified for the job.

With the democrat logic, homosexual judges should never rule on homosexual cases.

Environmentalists judges should never be involved in environmental cases.

Atheist judges should never be involved with cases involving the 1st Amendment.

Should an anti gun libby judge ever be involved with a 2nd Amendment case?

I'm sorry Al, I was wrong because everyone knows that with Democrat logic, Democrats and liberals are the only ones qualified.

[Tiger Al 0]

Is it within the realm of possibility that they may have been talking about and saying exactly what they said? Or would that be too much to consider?

Where did they say "deeply held religious beliefs?" Or, is this simply a case of, "They're Democrats, so they must be guilty of something?" Tell you what, prove your assertion by providing us with the full text of what they said and I'm sure if they were talking about his "deeply held Christian beliefs," it will be very obvious.

Once again Al you phrase things to suit your needs/wants, no where have I said that they hate Christians, have I? Actually they would never be so politically stupid as to come out and admit they hate Christians. After all they know Christians vote. They merely hold Christians is very low esteem and because they are Christians their opinions should count for nothing. Because they are Christians they should not be allowed jobs they have worked for all their lives.

You should get an award for "Best Victim on a Message Board." You play it so well. Unfortunately, the facts and reality don't support your fantasy that Christians are persecuted in America. The religious right is fast becoming one of the largest special interest groups in the country.

You and the dems must come up with "his deeply held beliefs" would keep him from being a good judge, that relieves you of any obligation to actually consider their qualifications, that they, could actually do the job. That they are actually eminently qualified for the job.

With the democrat logic, homosexual judges should never rule on homosexual cases.

Environmentalists judges should never be involved in environmental cases.

Atheist judges should never be involved with cases involving the 1st Amendment.

Should an anti gun libby judge ever be involved with a 2nd Amendment case?

I'm sorry Al, I was wrong because everyone knows that with Democrat logic, Democrats and liberals are the only ones qualified.

If you could ever find time to disengage yourself from Fox, Rush and Hannity and actually watch confirmation hearings you'd see more than the witch hunt that's presented on your "fair and balanced" right-wing news outlets.

[Tigermike 3,050]

A JUDGE PREJUDGED

by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON POST

August 29, 2003

On Wednesday Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor oversaw the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state Supreme Court building. Pryor believes that the court ruling ordering the removal was incorrect. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court building itself has depictions of the Ten Commandments. The court opens its sessions with an invocation of God. And we know the other familiar elements of state-sponsored religion in America, from the chaplains in Congress to "In God We Trust" on the coinage.

Despite his personal views, Pryor was unequivocal in ordering the removal. He was equally unequivocal in his reason for doing so: The rule of law supersedes everything. And when a federal court issues an order, there is no standing in the schoolhouse door. For his pains, Pryor was picketed by 150 religious protesters calling for his resignation.

Pryor has more recently been attacked from a different quarter. Senate Democrats have blocked his nomination to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds of his personal beliefs. "His beliefs are so well known, so deeply held," charged his chief antagonist, Sen. Charles Schumer, "that it's very hard to believe -- very hard to believe -- that they're not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, 'I will follow the law.' "

An amazing litmus test: Deeply held beliefs are a disqualification for high judicial office. Only people of shallow beliefs (like Schumer?) need apply.

Of course, Schumer's real concern is with the content of Pryor's beliefs. Schumer says that he would object to "anybody who had very, very deeply held views." Anybody? If someone had deeply held views in favor of abortion rights, you can be sure that Schumer would not be blocking his nomination. Pryor is being pilloried because he openly states (1) that Roe v. Wade was a constitutional abomination, and (2) that abortion itself is a moral abomination.

These views may not be majority views, but they are not eccentric. Roe v. Wade has been widely criticized by liberals, from Michael Kinsley ("a terrible decision") to legal scholar Jeffrey Rosen ("Justice Harry Blackmun's famously artless opinion") to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who noted that it short-circuited the political process and prevented a "stable settlement" of the issue. And, of course, non-liberal commentators have filled libraries anathematizing Roe for having launched a social revolution on the back of one of the flimsiest, most willful constitutional inventions in American history.

As for the morality of abortion itself, Pryor's view is identical to that of the Roman Catholic Church, a not insignificant religious sect. Pryor's view is also shared by hundreds of millions of Orthodox Jews, Christians and Muslims worldwide.

Pryor's position may not be the majority view at Schumer's Upper West Side fundraising parties. But it is neither extreme nor eccentric.

There are two grounds on which one's views on personal moral issues such as abortion should disqualify a candidate for judicial office: if they are indeed extreme or eccentric, or if these personal beliefs distort the candidate's judicial actions and compromise his fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law.

Pryor's views on abortion meet neither of these criteria. In fact, one of Pryor's former law partners, Larry Childs, points out that when Alabama passed a law banning partial-birth abortion in 1997, Pryor, as attorney general, instructed local district attorneys to interpret the law narrowly in order to conform with Supreme Court rulings -- a position that drew the ire of pro-life groups.

"His integrity has been unblemished," Childs told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "As attorney general, he has taken every issue that has arisen and dealt with it absolutely straight on the law."

Senate Democrats are opposing Pryor for the content of his beliefs about abortion, a political sin made doubly abominable in the view of Schumer because they are so sincerely and deeply held.

Is Schumer therefore anti-Christian or anti-Catholic? No. But the net effect of Schumer's "deeply held views" litmus test, now slavishly followed by his fellow Senate Democrats, is to disqualify from the bench anyone whose personal views of abortion coincide with those of traditional Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

This test is not a religious test. It's an ideological test -- that has the obvious effect of excluding from the bench tens of millions of believers who suffer from "very, very deeply held views."

The Schumer test is thus not a violation of the Article Six prohibition against religious tests for office. It is simply a clever way to get to the same result.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/534

Religious code words

By Robert Novak

The Washington Post

August 11, 2003

WASHINGTON -- The Senate was in its August recess last week, but the Knights of Columbus were meeting in Washington. The world's largest Catholic fraternal organization Thursday passed a resolution condemning opposition to federal judicial nominees because of "deeply held beliefs" stemming from their Catholic faith. That follows intense debate on the Senate floor just before the Senate recessed.

http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/ne...103_novak.shtml

Fox News Sunday Roundtable

Fox News Sunday

Brit Hume, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Mara Liasson, Juan Williams

August 3, 2003

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: In General Pryor's case, his beliefs are so well known, so deeply held, that it's very hard to believe - - very hard to believe that they're not going to deeply influence the way he comes about, saying, "I will follow the law." And that would be true of anybody who had very, very deeply held views.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: That, of course, appears to what Senator Santorum was just talking about moments ago at this desk.

For more on this, we're joined now by Fox News contributor Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard; Mara Liasson, national political correspondent of National Public Radio; Charles Krauthammer, syndicated columnist; and Juan Williams, senior correspondent of National Public Radio. Tony Snow has the day off.

Let's pick up where -- with what I was talking to Senator Santorum about, and that is this question of whether that ad, as he seems to argue, that said Catholics need not apply, is fair, based upon what Senator Schumer said -- Mara.

MARA LIASSON, NPR: Well, I think that what Schumer was talking about was people who have deeply held beliefs against abortion, I think, in this case. It could have been someone who is Catholic, it could have been someone who is of some other religious persuasion, it could have been someone who was -- just felt very strongly on the issues.

I don't think Schumer was saying any Catholic is unfit for the court, which is what that ad said he said, and I don't think that that was an accurate reading.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I think what he's saying is that any serious Catholic is unfit...

LIASSON: That's not what that ad says.

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I think the understanding is, you can be a nominal Catholic or a nominal Jew or nominally of a denomination, but what the Democrats are saying is that if you hold personally the belief -- that is, the belief of the Church -- on abortion and others, you cannot be a judge, even if you pledge to uphold the law. And I think that's really wrong. It's very un-American.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: I don't think he really said "Church." I think what he was saying is, any deeply held conservative view, which -- and I think it's a stretch to say that Schumer was being anti-Catholic. But clearly, Democrats, Schumer and Teddy Kennedy leading them, are trying to block any -- particularly young and smart conservative like Bill Pryor of Alabama -- but -- who has deeply conservative views. And they're alleging that he can't rule impartially.

While, at -- Senator Santorum said, of course, he's been attorney general of Alabama and has dealt with many, many cases impartially. It's an unfair accusation, but I don't think they're anti-Catholic.

JUAN WILLIAMS, NPR: I think the key here is whether or not you have the ability to have an open mind. And, unfortunately, we are in a polarizing period in American politics when it comes to judicial appointments where, especially on the conservative side, there is this sense that you want people who have what they call a strict reading of the Constitution, and they want those people to act as judges.

And what liberals and, even, I think, people in the middle of the road, take that to mean is, you want people who give a conservative reading of the law. And that's why people are having a very strong reaction.

It's not -- it wasn't anti-Catholic. I don't think it was that at all. But I do think it was saying, "Listen, if you are so bound by prior belief that you cannot openly and freely interpret the law, then maybe you should not be a judge."

LIASSON: But the controversy was about the ad, and whether the ad was fair. The ad said Democrats will not approve a Catholic to the court. It said, "Catholics need not apply."

(UNKNOWN): That's not true.

LIASSON: I know, but that's what the ad said.

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I wouldn't have written it...

LIASSON: That's why Democrats were so upset about it, and rightly so.

KRAUTHAMMER: I would written it differently. I would have said a serious Catholic is not eligible.

LIASSON: OK. Well, that's not what...

KRAUTHAMMER: And if they had added a single adjective, it would have been accurate.

http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/ne...3_foxnews.shtml

Where have I said anything about hating Christians, Al?

Add this one to the list Al.

“Religion is the last refuge of extremists,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

I have publicly stated previously to others and say it again: "We reject the notion that Christian morality is defective and a threat to our nation. We will not have our moral views driven from the public square by pragmatic atheists and those who are so profoundly deluded by them. We are not obliged to "check" our moral weapons at the doors to government so that the extreme amoralists may wield theirs with impunity."

Stop subjecting Mr. Pryor to an unconstitutional religious test for office.

I urge you to support the nomination of and vote for the confirmation of William Pryor to sit on Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

http://www.cathfam.org/PR7.21.03Specter.html

[Piglet 0]

Since most elected Democrats and Republicans are themselves Christians (Kerry and Kennedy are Catholic, the Clintons are Baptists, etc.), it's hard to see where they'd feel Christianity is in and of itself a disqualifier for high office. Have we had even one President, ever, who was not a Christian of some denomination or other?

Seems to me it can't be just being "of faith" that's the sticking point here. It has to be something more extreme than that.

[Tiger Al 0]

Those are all nice opinion pieces, Mike, and really supplement what I said before: Disengage yourself from FoxNews and look at some actual news articles. I didn't ask you to show me what Krauthammer, Novak and the Fox All-Stars opinions on William Pryor are. I could've told you within close proximity what they were.

Let's look at the Feinstein and Schumer quotes, in the context they were given, and see what they said. Instead of fleeing to Fox to find out what we're supposed to think about it, let's see what they were saying. Who knows, you may be right and they REALLY DO hate Christians.

Where have I said anything about hating Christians, Al?

That's where the logic of what you're saying ultimately goes. If they don't hate Christians and/or they're Christians themselves, why would they disqualify Pryor simply because he's one? You're saying they don't want him because of his "deeply held beliefs" which, you also say, they mean to be his deeply held Christian beliefs. You've dismissed all of the possibilities I gave you as to what they meant, mainly that they don't like his extreme views on things like abortion, death penalty, women's rights, minority rights, the rights of the disabled, the rights afforded under FMLA, etc. and you instead imply that they reject him because he's a Catholic Christian.

But, by taking this simplistic view on their disapproval of Pryor, you overlook all of the people that Schumer and Feinstein voted "yes" to confirm. Surely, among those 205 nominees there were devoutly religious Christians and Jews who they had no problem voting for, don't you think, Mike? Maybe it's because they weren't so far out of the mainstream as Pryor is.

There's a serious disconnect in your "religious persecution" angle that you might need to rethink.

[tiger88 934]

ALL POLITICIANS LIE AND MISLEAD! Arguing over who lies and who doesn't or who lies the most is humorous.

[Tigermike 3,050]

Let’s get something else straight Al, I will say it for the THIRD TIME: There is nowhere that anyone said anything about hating Christians. And that is not where the thought process was leading. You brought that to the conversation for who knows what reason, probably just to confuse the issue.

I’ll give it to you Al; Schumer & Feinstein did in no way mean what they said. How naïve of me to imagine, to even consider that a liberal Democrat would actually mean what they say.

Schumer was reported to make that statement on the Fox News show. In your mind Fox News does not meet the high standards of MoveOn.org, but too bad, that is where he said it. Krauthammer and others wrote about it afterwards.

There's a serious disconnect in your "defend all democrats at all cost" angle that you might need to rethink. The problem for you is the dems would in no way want people to start thinking there was a “religious belief litmus test”, would they Al. You and they would be screaming like banshees if there were an “abortion litmus test”, or a “gay litmus test”, or any such other. So you are saying that because Pryor, has deep feelings concerning abortion he shouldn’t be a Federal judge. You are saying that he was/is/would be lying when he swore to uphold the Constitution. You are saying that only a liberal could distance him/herself from their “deeply held beliefs”. You want to throw up the ones who were confirmed like it is a badge of honor. bull****, the dems were merely doing their job. Neither you nor them can give any evidence of Pryor ever not upholding the law.

Maybe you need to rethink Al, cause you are spinning for and propping up the bigots and liars who have a litmus test for approving or disapproving federal judges.

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for April 18

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA:  I think it is different. 

I think it is expected that people in political office go to churches, speak about issues in churches.  I think this is very different.  This is saying that the opposition to certain candidates is an assault on basic religious belief.  And I do not believe it is.  That has nothing to do with it.  And I think, you know, religion is a very sensitive, very personal topic.

And I think, when it is used this way, in a way that is totally false, because I sat on that committee, Chris, for 12 years.  Religion has nothing to do with how we feel about any given judge, nothing to do with it.  And to make—if he in fact is going to make that accusation, I think it is just simply untrue.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7561933/

There is the context of her quote Al. Since religion is such a sensitive, very personal topic, how could anyone (other than a right wing radical) let his or her views known? Was she using one of the liberal democrat buzz word/terms to cloak what she meant? If religion has nothing to do with it, how come Pryor is being disqualified for his religious beliefs?

[Tiger Al 0]

If religion has nothing to do with it, how come Pryor is being disqualified for his religious beliefs?

He's not.

SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER, D-NY: Attorney General Pryor defended his state's practice of handcuffing prisoners to hitching posts in the hot Alabama sun for seven hours without giving them even a drop of water to drink. And then, when this Supreme Court held the practice violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, he accused the Supreme Court justices of, quote, "applying their own subjective views on appropriate methods of prison discipline."

SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER, D-NY: As Alabama's attorney general, Mr. Pryor filed the only amicus brief from among the 50 states urging the court to undo significant portions of the Violence Against Women Act.

SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER, D-NY: At the same time he was conceding that Alabama had failed to fulfill the requirements of a federal consent decree regarding the operation of the state's child welfare system, he was demanding that the state be let out of the deal. Attorney General Pryor said, quote, "My job is to make sure the state of Alabama isn't run by the federal courts. My job isn't to come here and help children." Unquote.

SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER, D-NY: Bill Pryor was the only state attorney general to file an amicus brief supporting the Supreme Court's intervention in Florida's election dispute during Bush v. Gore. It appears that when the attorney general likes the outcome, he's on the states' rights side. But in this important case, where the Supreme Court overruled the state's position, there he was with federal intervention.

SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER, D-NY: It's just not enough to say "I will follow the law." And what I worry about… I don't like nominees too far left or too far right, because ideologues tend to want to make law, not do what the founding fathers said judges should do, interpret the law. And in General Pryor's case, his beliefs are so well known, so deeply held that it's very hard to believe, very hard to believe that they're not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, "I will follow the law."

Atkins v. Virginia. Pryor filed an amicus brief supporting Virginia’s position that executing the mentally retarded did not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court, by a margin of 5-4, ruled that executing the mentally retarded violated the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Following the Court’s ruling, Pryor suggested that Alabama could take steps to evade the Court’s decision. He pointed out that states were still free to develop their own standards for determining whether a defendant’s mental retardation is sufficient to prevent execution. Pryor also warned that states need to be on guard against people pretending to be retarded in order to avoid execution.

Capital representation. Pryor has repeatedly insisted that Alabama’s capital defense system does not have any problems. At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Pryor testified: “Legislation aimed at setting national standards for defense counsel in capital cases, therefore, seeks to remedy a problem that, at least in my State, does not exist. . . . The legal representation received by those charged with capital murder is not, as a general matter, inadequate.”103 Pryor made this assertion despite known instances in Alabama of attorneys providing abysmal representation of capital defendants including sending a client sexually explicit correspondence during trial;104 being drunk at a client’s trial;105 and stealing money by cashing a client’s payroll check that was given to counsel for use as a court exhibit to show the client’s level of mental disturbance.106 Pryor also told the Committee that there were only two instances of ineffective assistance of counsel found in Alabama cases since 1990.107 However, at the time of his statement, ineffectiveness had been found in at least five Alabama capital cases in state and federal courts since 1990.108

Testing of physical evidence. Despite Pryor’s public stance that his “office will not deny DNA testing to any inmate who presents a valid claim of innocence,”111 he has vigorously resisted efforts to test physical evidence that may prove the innocence of convicted prisoners. In Bradley v. Pryor,112 Pryor fought against a death row inmate’s efforts to compel the State to produce certain physical and biological evidence gathered in the course of the capital prosecution. The State claimed that the evidence was lost, but resisted giving more information

about the circumstances of its disappearance.113 The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the State’s arguments and permitted Bradley to pursue a lawsuit against Pryor to obtain the DNA evidence for testing. Pryor has also been unwilling to consider forensic testing in another case in which three nationally renowned experts testified that the bullets recovered from a crime did not match the weapon taken from a capital defendant’s home.114 When asked if he would authorize the state forensic lab to retest the weapon, Pryor refused, maintaining that it would be “a waste of time”115 to have a hearing on the case.

Conclusion

Attorney General Bill Pryor is one of the most extreme right-wing ideologues President Bush has nominated to the federal judiciary. Throughout his career, he has aggressively pursued his ideological agenda in almost every area of the law. He is a political partisan who has engaged in ethically troubling behavior and an ideological extremist who is temperamentally unfit for the bench. If confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, we justifiably fear that he would not be guided by precedent and could not be fair and impartial. The Alliance for Justice strongly opposes his nomination.

Independent Judiciary

NOW with Bill Moyers

[Tigermike 3,050]

If religion has nothing to do with it, how come Pryor is being disqualified for his religious beliefs?

He's not.

158009[/snapback]

You know he is, but you like the Dems you feel compelled to defend would never ever admit to a religious litmus test would you. Why that would be against the law. More than that, it would cost votes when the dems are trying to figure out how to get the "religious vote".

Conclusion

Attorney General Bill Pryor is one of the most extreme right-wing ideologues President Bush has nominated to the federal judiciary. Throughout his career, he has aggressively pursued his ideological agenda in almost every area of the law. He is a political partisan who has engaged in ethically troubling behavior and an ideological extremist who is temperamentally unfit for the bench. If confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, we justifiably fear that he would not be guided by precedent and could not be fair and impartial. The Alliance for Justice strongly opposes his nomination.

Independent Judiciary

NOW with Bill Moyers

158009[/snapback]

You mean as opposed to the self-professed pedophile advocate Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who expressly supports lowering the age of sexual consent to the age of twelve. As you know Mr. Schumer previously voted to confirm Ginsberg to Justice of the Supreme Court.

Face it Al what you have been arguing is that you (and the dems) have no problem with left wing ideologues, just right wing ideologues. That is another attempt at bipartisanship I suppose.

BTW – I noticed you got that great denunciation of Mr. Pryor from the Alliance for Justice. They are the epitome of unbiased ideas aren't they Al? Are they not a group of progressive activists? So we should all just jump up and thank them for their extremely unbiased opinions.

[Tiger Al 0]

Face it Al what you have been arguing is that you (and the dems) have no problem with left wing ideologues, just right wing ideologues.

I'm with Schumer. I wouldn't want anyone too extreme either way. Am I biased? Sure. I don't have a problem admitting that I'd rather see the courts filled with left-leaning judges. As a conservative, I'm sure you'd rather see them filled with right-leaning ones. That's fine, too.

Pryor is far beyond right-leaning, though. What he thinks or believes is one thing. But, Pryor has gone out of his way to inject his opinion into court cases that neither he nor the State of Alabama was even involved in so as to sway the courts rulings. His most radical assertions, like chaining prisoners to posts outside for seven hours without water and Texas sodomy laws being Constitutional, have been struck down by the Supreme Court. I haven't even gotten into his church/state separation views, and actions, to show his extremism and disdain for Federal laws and precedents. And he wants to be a Federal judge!

As AG, he has to FOLLOW the law. As a judge, he INTERPRETS it. There's a huge difference between the two and if you can't see where extremist views, whether they be liberal or conservative, are not what is needed in a judge, then I think it's because you either don't want to in this case or you're much closer to in ideology to Pryor than I would've ever imagined.

At any rate, You've shown no evidence that he's being objected to because of his religious preference as this statement, "'Religion has nothing to do with it?' Yeah right!" alluded to. In fact, there WAS a religious 'litmus test' given during Pryor's confirmation hearing. But, it wasn't by any of the Democrats:

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH, R-UT: What is your religious affiliation?

PRYOR: I'm a Roman Catholic.

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH, R-UT: Are you active in your church?

PRYOR: I am.

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH, R-UT: You're a practicing Roman Catholic?

PRYOR: I am.

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH, R-UT: You believe in your religion?

PRYOR: I do.

The recent tactic of the right has been to make religion an issue where it shouldn't be and is as despicable as when black leaders yell "racism" in a situation where it is apparent that race had nothing to do with the situation. They just saw a negative result and figured that it HAD to be racism. Same thing here.

[Tigermike 3,050]

So it all boils down to liberals stating that Pryor because of his deeply held beliefs CAN NOT rule correctly in any case.

As AG, he has to FOLLOW the law. As a judge, he INTERPRETS it. There's a huge difference between the two and if you can't see where extremist views, whether they be liberal or conservative, are not what is needed in a judge, then I think it's because you either don't want to in this case or you're much closer to in ideology to Pryor than I would've ever imagined.

158032[/snapback]

And if a judge INTERPRETS the law incorrectly his/her decision is reversed on appeal is that not correct? If you can't see who the left wing fanatics are who oppose Mr. Pryor, then I think it's because you either don't want to in this case or you're much closer to in ideology to the extreme left wing than I would've ever imagined.

At any rate, You've shown no evidence that he's being objected to because of his religious preference as this statement, "'Religion has nothing to do with it?' Yeah right!" alluded to. In fact, there WAS a religious 'litmus test' given during Pryor's confirmation hearing. But, it wasn't by any of the Democrats

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH, R-UT: What is your religious affiliation?

PRYOR: I'm a Roman Catholic.

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH, R-UT: Are you active in your church?

PRYOR: I am.

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH, R-UT: You're a practicing Roman Catholic?

PRYOR: I am.

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH, R-UT: You believe in your religion?

PRYOR: I do.

The recent tactic of the right has been to make religion an issue where it shouldn't be and is as despicable as when black leaders yell "racism" in a situation where it is apparent that race had nothing to do with the situation. They just saw a negative result and figured that it HAD to be racism. Same thing here.

158032[/snapback]

So it is your contention that Sen. Hatch, asking informative questions is a true litmus test but Sen. Schumer's statement is not? Read it again Al, "[William Pryor's] beliefs are so well known, so deeply held, that it's very hard to believe -- very hard to believe -- that they're not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, 'I will follow the law'."

[Tiger Al 0]

So it is your contention that Sen. Hatch, asking informative questions is a true litmus test but Sen. Schumer's statement is not? Read it again Al, "[William Pryor's] beliefs are so well known, so deeply held, that it's very hard to believe -- very hard to believe -- that they're not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, 'I will follow the law'."

I'm saying Hatch was the only one asking him about his religion so the focus could change from his radical right-wing idealism to his religious preference so it could be later pointed to as cause for discrimination. You've bought in to it, the Democrats on the committee didn't. They asked him about the things he's said and done as AG. They're also the same Democrats who've confirmed 205 of Bush's nominees. Were all 205 nominees godless heathens? I doubt it. Did none of them have Christian beliefs? I doubt it. Of the 205 confirmed nominees with Christian beliefs, were all of them only superficial beliefs? I doubt it. Did none of the 205 confirmed nominees hold deeply religious, Christian beliefs? Again, I doubt it.

Your case doesn't hold water and to use the "religion" card is, as I said before, despicable, because not only does it not apply here, it makes it harder for people to believe instances where religious discrimination ACTUALLY exists.

[Tigermike 3,050]

I will say again Al, that all your protestations aside, there are no legal grounds to not vote on Mr. Pryor. If it's not religious grounds what is it? Just because you say it? BS! I do want to thank you Al. Before all the brouhaha started over the confirmation of Bill Pryor, I had little knowledge of him at all. But after reading your tirade and looking around to see who is against him, I am convinced he would be a good judge. Here is a partial list of radical left-wing groups AGAINST Mr. Pryor.

ADA Watch

Alliance for Justice

American Atheists

American Association of University Women

American Constitution Society

Americans for Democratic Action

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law

Brady Campaign

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Community Rights Counsel

Earthjustice

Feminist Majority

Human Rights Campaign

Justice at Stake Campaign

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

NARAL Pro-Choice America

National Abortion Federation

National Council of Jewish Women

National Council of Negro Women

National Council on Independent Living

National Employment Lawyers Association

National Network to End Domestic Violence

National Organization for Women

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays

People for the American Way

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Sierra Club

Society of American Law Teachers

Southern Poverty Law Center

[Tigermike 3,050]

Well then. THAT settles it. After all OUR President NEVER lies.

So, which is it libbys? You can't have it both ways!

157951[/snapback]

Just making an observation based on what he said last night. Was he lying? Is this simply the Democrats hating Christians???

157954[/snapback]

That was President Bush as usual being the uniter and reaching out an olive branch.

But to get back to subject, are you saying that Feinstein and Schumer are on the same page? When they (democrats) use the code words "deeply held beliefs", what are they speaking of Al?

Anyone with half a brain knows Feinstein was lying through her teeth when she made that statement. Anyone with that same half brain also knows what Schumer was saying. Even those with a direct IV feed of Kool-Aid from the DNC knows what they were saying don't you Al?

157959[/snapback]

Could it be because he believes the Violence Against Women Act was unconstitutional? Maybe it's because he strongly believes that homosexuality should be illegal.

157968[/snapback]

Strange that you mischaracterize his stand on the Violence Against Women Act. His only objection to the bill was to the "interstate commerce" part of the bill. And I believe his objection was upheld wasn't it?

You say "he strongly believes that homosexuality should be illegal." Give evidence of that. The Texas sodomy law? It does not fly Al and you know it.

[Tiger Al 0]

I will say again Al, that all your protestations aside, there are no legal grounds to not vote on Mr. Pryor. If it's not religious grounds what is it? Just because you say it? BS!

You know as well as I do that just because a nominee went to law school that doesn't automatically "qualify" him or her to be a judge. Pryor went to law school and did graduate, with honors, I believe, and he has held jobs in law. But, if that's all that goes into it, then how come all we hear about from the Delays and the Frists and you are "activist judges legislating from the bench" and them needing to be impeached? You seem to think that ideology rules with those judges.

And, no, I don't think it's on religious grounds that they're against him. I've given you ample proof of their objections but all you can come up with are some sentences lifted out of context that you've assigned a meaning to so it fits your "persecuted Christian, everybody hates us...poor, poor us" argument.

If Schumer and Feinstein are the rabid, religiously discriminatory people YOU say they are, you surely would've been armed with more than "[William Pryor's] beliefs are so well known, so deeply held, that it's very hard to believe -- very hard to believe -- that they're not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, 'I will follow the law'," and, "Religion has nothing to do with how we feel about any given judge, nothing to do with it." Surely, you should be able to find other instances of them discriminating against judicial nominees based on religious reasons. Instead, you offered up the opinions of FoxNews regulars as "proof." Oh, and you said so.

[Tiger Al 0]

Strange that you mischaracterize his stand on the Violence Against Women Act. His only objection to the bill was to the "interstate commerce" part of the bill. And I believe his objection was upheld wasn't it?

It was upheld 5-4. Will you now give equal time to the many cases he has unsuccessfully argued?

You say "he strongly believes that homosexuality should be illegal." Give evidence of that. The Texas sodomy law? It does not fly Al and you know it.

Two guys in Texas are arrested for having consensual sex (sodomy...which under that law, was legal for a man and woman) and they took their case to trial. Pryor, under no obligation to do so, submits an amicus curiae to the court defending the law that criminalizes consensual homosexual sodomy. In his amicus he says, "Texas is hardly alone in concluding that homosexual sodomy may have

severe physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences, which do not necessarily attend heterosexual sodomy, and from which Texas’s citizens

need to be protected."

Heterosexuals can legally do it. Homosexuals cannot. The "it," in this case, is the same act.

[Tiger Al 0]

Here is a partial list of radical left-wing groups AGAINST Mr. Pryor.

ADA Watch

Alliance for Justice

American Atheists

American Association of University Women

American Constitution Society

Americans for Democratic Action

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law

Brady Campaign

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Community Rights Counsel

Earthjustice

Feminist Majority

Human Rights Campaign

Justice at Stake Campaign

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

NARAL Pro-Choice America

National Abortion Federation

National Council of Jewish Women

National Council of Negro Women

National Council on Independent Living

National Employment Lawyers Association

National Network to End Domestic Violence

National Organization for Women

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays

People for the American Way

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Sierra Club

Society of American Law Teachers

Southern Poverty Law Center

You forgot the Log Cabin Republicans. They don't like him, either.

[Tiger Al 0]

And here is a complete list of those opposed to William Pryor III:

Organization Position

Access for America Opposes

Access Now, FL Opposes

ADA Watch Opposes

AFL-CIO (National and Local 11th Circuit Chapters) Opposes

Alabama Environmental Council Opposes

Alabama Hispanic Democratic Caucus Opposes

Alliance For Affordable Energy Opposes

Alliance for Justice Opposes

Alliance for Retired Americans Opposes

American Association of University Women Opposes

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Opposes

American Jewish Congress Opposes

American Planning Association Opposes

Americans for Democratic Action Opposes

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (National and Local 11th Circuit Chapters) Opposes

Anti-Defamation League Opposes

ARISE Opposes

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) Opposes

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law Opposes

B'Nai B'rith International Opposes

Brady Campaign Opposes

Brian Fair, Professor of Constitutional Law at University of Alabama Opposes

Buckeye Forest Council Opposes

California Council of the Blind Opposes

California Democratic Party Disability Caucus Opposes

California Foundation for Independent Living Centers Opposes

Capitol Area Greens Opposes

Center for Biological Diversity Opposes

Center for Independent Living of South Jersey Opposes

Center for Medicare Advocacy Corporation Opposes

Center of Independent Living of South Florida Opposes

Center on Law and Poverty, Albuquerque, NM Opposes

Central Conference of American Rabbis Opposes

Citizens Coal Council Opposes

Citizens for Consumer Justice, Pennsylvania Opposes

Citizens of Lee Environmental Action Network, St. Charles, VA Opposes

Claud Young, M.D., National Chair, Southern Christian Leadership Conference Opposes

Clean Water Action Opposes

Coalition for Jobs and the Environment, Abingdon, VA Opposes

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Opposes

Coast Alliance Opposes

Committee for Judicial Independence Opposes

Committee for the Preservation of the Lake Purdy Area, AL Opposes

Community Rights Counsel Opposes

Congressional Black Caucus Opposes

Defenders of Wildlife Opposes

Devil's Fork Trail Club, Dungannon, VA Opposes

Dick Gregory, Humorist and Civil Rights Activist Opposes

Disability Resource Agency for Independent Living, Stockton, CA Opposes

Disability Resource Center, North Charleston, SC Opposes

Disabled Action Committee Opposes

Dogwood Alliance Opposes

Dorothy Cotton, Executive Staff for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Opposes

Dr. Bernard LaFayette, Executive Staff for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Opposes

Earthjustice Opposes

Eastern Paralyzed Veterans of America Opposes

Eastern Shore Center for Independent Living, Cambridge, MD Opposes

Endangered Species Coalition Opposes

Evironmental Law Foundation Opposes

Families USA Opposes

Feminist Majority Opposes

Florida Consumer Action Network Opposes

Florida Consumer Action Network Opposes

Florida League of Conservation Voters Opposes

Florida League of Conservation Voters Opposes

Florida Public Interest Research Group Opposes

Florida Public Interest Research Group Opposes

Foundation for Global Sustainability Opposes

Friends of Hurricane Creek, AL Opposes

Friends of Rural Alabama Opposes

Friends of the Earth Opposes

Georgia Abortion Rights Action League Opposes

Gray Panthers Opposes

Heightened Independence and Progress Opposes

Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama Opposes

Houston Area Rehabilitation Association Opposes

Human Rights Campaign Opposes

Illinois Iowa Center for Independent Living Opposes

Independent Living Center of Birmingham Opposes

Independent Living Center of Jasper, AL Opposes

Independent Living Center, Claremont, CA Opposes

Independent Living of Southern California Opposes

Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco, CA Opposes

Independent Living Resource Center, Ventura, CA Opposes

Interfaith Alliance Opposes

Justice for All Opposes

Kentucky Disabilities Coalition Opposes

Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. Opposes

Labor Council for Latin American Advancement Opposes

Lake County Center for Independent Living Opposes

Landwatch Monterey County Opposes

Latinos Unidos de Alabama Opposes

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Opposes

Log Cabin Republicans Opposes

Martin Luther King III, National President, Southern Christian Leadership Conference Opposes

Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund Opposes

Morris Dees, Co-Founder and Chief Trial Counsel, Southern Poverty Law Center Opposes

Mrs. Johnnie Carr, President, Montgomery Improvement Association Opposes

Myositis Support Group of Texas Opposes

NAACP (National and Local 11th Circuit Chapters) Opposes

National Abortion Federation Opposes

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Opposes

National Association of the Deaf Opposes

National Conference of Black Lawyers (National and Local 11th Circuit Chapters) Opposes

National Council of Jewish Women (National and Local 11th Circuit Chapters) Opposes

National Disabled Student Union Opposes

National Employment Lawyers Association Opposes

National Fair Housing Alliance Opposes

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association Opposes

National Organization for Women Opposes

National Partnership for Women and Families Opposes

National Resources Defense Council Opposes

National Senior Citizens Law Center Opposes

National Women's Law Center Opposes

National Women's Political Caucus Opposes

Natural Resources Defense Council Opposes

New Jersey Citizen Action Opposes

New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty Opposes

Northern Regional Center for Independent Living Opposes

NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund Opposes

Oceana Opposes

Oilfield Waste Policy Institute Opposes

Options Center for Independent Living Opposes

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays Opposes

Patrick Environmental Awareness Group, Stuart, VA Opposes

PennFuture Opposes

Pennsylvania Council of the Blind Opposes

People for the American Way Opposes

Physicians for Social Responsibility Opposes

Placer Independent Resource Services Opposes

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (National and Local 11th Circuit Chapters) Opposes

Protect All Children's Environment Opposes

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism Opposes

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Opposes

Republican Pro-Choice America Opposes

Rev. Abraham Woods, Southern Christian Leadership Conference Opposes

Rev. C. T. Vivian, Executive Staff for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Opposes

Rev. E. Randel T. Osbourne, Executive Director, Southern Christian Leadership Foundation Opposes

Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, Leader, Birmingham Movement Opposes

Rev. James Bevel, Executive Staff for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Opposes

Rev. James Orange, Organizer for National Southern Christian Leadership Conference Opposes

Rev. Joseph Ellwanger, Alabama Movement Activist and Organizer Opposes

Rev. Kim Lawson, President of Southern Christian Leadership Conference (LA) Opposes

Sand Mountain Concerned Citizens, AL Opposes

Service Employees International Union Opposes

Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States Opposes

Sherrill Marcus, Chair, Student Committee for Human Rights Opposes

Sierra Club (National and Local 11th Circuit Chapters) Opposes

Sitka Conservation Society Opposes

Southeast Alaska Independent Living Opposes

Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project Opposes

Southern California Rehabilitation Services Opposes

Southern Tier Independent Living Center Opposes

Stavros Center for Independent Living Opposes

Summit Independent Living Center, Inc. Opposes

Taking Responsibility for the Earth and Environment, Blacksburg, VA Opposes

Tennessee Disability Coalition Opposes

Tennessee Environmental Enforcement Fund Opposes

The Ability Center of Defiance, OH Opposes

The Ability Center of Greater Toledo Opposes

The Clinch Coalition, Coeburn, VA Opposes

The Freedom Center Opposes

The Ocean Conservancy Opposes

The Wilderness Society Opposes

Thomas Wrenn, Chair, Civil Rights Activist Committee, 40th Year Reunion Opposes

Tri-County Independent Living, Akron, OH Opposes

U.S. Public Interest Research Group Opposes

Union of American Hebrew Congregations Opposes

United Pennsylvanians Opposes

Valley Watch, Inc. Opposes

Virginia Forest Watch Opposes

Waterkeepers Northern California Opposes

Wisconsin Forest Conservation Task Force Opposes

Workers Against Mismanagement Opposes

World Association of Persons With Disabilities Opposes

The list is long and distinguished.