BibleBelted

Exactly ... you see, Bush is now a War Hero! (Didn't you hear him say "I will defend .. ) Any questioning of his judgment is prima facie evidence that you are not a true, red-blooded, freedom-loving merkin.

This is going to be the Bush administration's rationale for all their policies (in lieu of anything actually rational).

Don't think we should simultaneously cut taxes, increase defense spending and gut veteran's benefits?

Bush is a war hero!

Don't like the Patriot Act?

Bush is a war hero!

Don't think we should the gut the FCC to allow media monopolies to dominate the airwaves with right-wing radio patriots like Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage?

Bush is a war hero!

Don't like us packing the federal judiciary with xian god-zombies?

Tough shit. Bush is a war hero!

Sorry if my sarcastic comment was so off-the-wall as to derail the thread. I do regard this as a deadly serious issue.

Jewel

That's cool. I was just confused. That's nothing unusual, really. I get it now.

A favorite tactic of the Bush Administration is indeed misdirection. It's a shame that more people don't see through it. Instead, public memory is frightenly short and people as a whole are easily distracted.

Of course, with that picture, I'm not sure if people would be more distracted by the fact Bush can steer a plane in mid air or how he, um, displays himself.

Toto

Judiciary will hold a hearing on Pryor Wed., June 11.

AU press release

God had to wait to the 21st century before the Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox had ceased open warfare against each other.

That sounds like a winning argument.

words fail me.

Mobile Register : Pryor Likely in for Bruising Fight in Confirmation Hearing

hezekiah jones

"In his war on church-state separation, Pryor’s legal team has contended that the First Amendment’s provisions do not fully apply to the states and that local officials may follow their own definition of the Constitution’s requirements, even if it conflicts with the rulings of the federal courts."

Pryor appears to have at least one fellow traveller on the Supreme Court:

• The Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally restructured the relationship between individuals and the States and ensured that States would not deprive citizens of liberty without due process of law. It guarantees citizenship to all individuals born or naturalized in the United States and provides that "[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." As Justice Harlan noted, the Fourteenth Amendment "added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship, and to the security of personal liberty." [Plessy v. Ferguson] (dissenting opinion). When rights are incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment they should advance, not constrain, individual liberty.
  
  Consequently, in the context of the Establishment Clause, it may well be that state action should be evaluated on different terms than similar action by the Federal Government. "States, while bound to observe strict neutrality, should be freer to experiment with involvement [in religion]--on a neutral basis--than the Federal Government." [Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York] (Harlan, J., concurring). Thus, while the Federal Government may "make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the States may pass laws that include or touch on religious matters so long as these laws do not impede free exercise rights or any other individual religious liberty interest. By considering the particular religious liberty right alleged to be invaded by a State, federal courts can strike a proper balance between the demands of the Fourteenth Amendment on the one hand and the federalism prerogatives of States on the other. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 678 (2002) (Thomas, J., concurring).

Stephen Maturin

People For the American Way has a detailed report on Pryor that's available for download in PDF here. The church-state separation stuff begins on page 25 and ends on page 34. A few highlights:

The "prohibiting prayer in public schools" comment places Pryor squarely within the Liar for Jesus(TM) category.

In other words, America isn't a theocracy and has no official religion, but America is kind of a theocracy and does kind of have an official religion.

Regarding Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and his gargantuan Ten Commandments monument:

Incredibly enough, the above stance leaves Pryor standing to the right of luminaries such as the merry band of insane knob-ends collectively known as Liberty Counsel:

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin
... luminaries such as the merry band of insane knob-ends collectively known as Liberty Counsel[.]

rofl! Mat Staver is such a lying weasel. I know this is off topic, but here's a letter I sent to Staver last year, demonstrating what a Whore for Jesus this guy is:

• Dear Mr. Staver:
  
  On January 15, 2002, under the heading "Supreme Court Justice Promotes Judicial Activism" you posted the following commentary on your website:
  
  "Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer promoted his concept of judicial activism in a speech given at the New York University School of Law [given nearly three months ago, by the way]. In his speech, Justice Breyer stated that 'Literalist judges who emphasize language, history, tradition and precedent cannot justify their practices by claiming that is what the framers wanted.' This is an incredible statement by a Supreme Court Judge."
  
  Not really. What is incredible, however, is how you disingenuously removed this phrase from its proper context. In fact, there is no period at the end of the phrase you lifted, but rather a comma, and the sentence goes on to read: "for the Framers did not say specifically what factors judges should emphasize when seeking to interpret the Constitution's open language." This is not "an incredible statement" at all. It's a fact, and a fact that has informed the debate surrounding the so-called doctrine of original intent for many, many decades.
  
  You also fail to mention that appended to this particular sentence of Justice Breyer's is a footnoted reference to "Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution," by Jack Rakove, a Pulitzer Prize-winning law professor at Stanford University. You do understand that your omissions are quite an egregious breach of commonly accepted academic practice regarding citations, do you not?
  
  You then proceed to pose the following presumably rhetorical question:
  
  "If a judge interpreting the Constitution or a statute does not consider language, history, tradition or precedent, then what does a judge consider?"
  
  Why not let Justice Breyer answer that question? He does, in the same speech from which you misleadingly lifted the quotation above:
  
  "Judges can, and should, decide most cases, including constitutional cases, through the use of language, history, tradition, and precedent. Judges will often agree as to how these factors determine a provision's basic purpose and the result in a particular case. And where they differ, their differences are often differences of modest degree. Only a handful of constitutional issues -- though an important handful -- are as open in respect to language, history, and basic purpose as those that I have described. And even in respect to those issues, judges must find answers within the limits set by the Constitution's language. Moreover, history, tradition, and precedent remain helpful, even if not determinative."
  
  Did you miss that part? It makes me wonder whether you actually read the entire text of Justice Breyer's speech, which, incidentally, is available at the U.S. Supreme Court's official website. Unlike the publication you're flogging at the end of your "news item," you don't even have to pay for it.
  
  You go on to remark, with a logic derived seemingly from your apparent deliberate misquoting:
  
  "The only thing left is the judge's own personal opinion, which is cut free from the Constitution or the statutory language."
  
  What are you suggesting here? That Justice Breyer decides constitutional issues based entirely on his own personal opinion, utterly disregarding constitutional "language, history, tradition, and precedent"? You know as well as I do that this is entirely preposterous. In fact, the substance of Justice Breyer's speech maintains the exact opposite of what you are attempting to make him say.
  
  Interestingly, your context garbling is mirrored by several of your ideological allies, the most noteworthy (and comical) being Janet Folger, who writes, "In other words, Justice Breyer doesn't really hold the Constitution in high regard." Can she really be serious? I think she is - which speaks volumes for her credibility, and even more for her familiarity with constitutional jurisprudence. Coincidentally, Folger's comment is based on exactly the same misapplied fragment of Justice Breyer's sentence that you have excised and posted on your own website. Coincidence?
  
  Despite the laughable disingenuousness of your effort on this particular subject, I hope you keep up the good work, even in the face of your demonstrably woeful inability to perform even the most rudimentary research. There is always a shortage of unintentional comedy out there.
  
  Regards,

Needless to say, Staver never replied, and obviously not out of embarrassment, since this clown is clearly beyond embarrassment.

fromtheright

No surprise here, I'm sure, but I like Pryor's political and constitutional views. I must admit that I am quite embarrassed, however, at a few things:

1. First of all, of course, was his prosecution of the "marital aids" business. As I mentioned before, the business in question is here in Huntsville, and has a nice facade and in a nice shopping center, not even in a sleazy, typical "adult bookstore" business.

2. Though you have heard me defend his position, you've also heard me say I have no use for Judge Moore and some of his handling of the granite brick issue. I wish that Pryor had been a better judge of character before standing shoulder to shoulder with Moore.

3. The "police power" defense, noted by Stephen Maturin, is terribly thin and weak. I know that in a legal brief you throw all your arguments out to the judge, but I had thought it would be the best arguments, not just whatever one can pull out of one's hindquarters.


Stephen M, I had not heard of Liberty Counsel but I appreciate your quote and I will look them up and their perspective on the Judge Moore/monument issue.


SLD,
Well, the statute is now unconstitutional, but the other day the Alabama Legislature refused to remove it from the books.

Even if weren't unconstitutional (and I'm not sure; I very much agree with Ninth Amendment recognition of a right to privacy, though not unlimited), they should have tossed it out for being stupid and embarrassing to have on the books. I knew you'd be thrilled when I called you with news of the Legislature's action.

On the other hand ( ), though,

"A: Yeah. I gave him a reach-around while cornholing him with the strap-on." ,

is this Alabama's finest??

Stephen Maturin

God DAMN, Hezekiah, that's some first-class stuff! I found this . . .

. . . an especially nice touch. (Note to self: First, put down the soda can, then and only then read Hezekiah's posts.)

I agree entirely with your assessment of the Tenth Amendment argument. It's not always fair to attack state attorneys general for adopting ridiculous stances litigation since state law often requires the AG's office to take part in the defense whenever a state officer or employee gets sued. I know a number of assistant AGs here in Ohio who've been rather unhappily stuck with defending the indefensible because doing so comes with the job.

In this case, though, the argument is just plain laughable. Were I in that position, I'd do a thorough job on the bread-and-butter Establishment Clause stuff and leave all the crackpot legal theories to Chief Justice Moore's private counsel. If this is the best stuff the defense has, then that monument is doomed.

You'll find Liberty Counsel's website here. I'd rummage through Staver's position statements myself, but spending any substantial time on that site makes me twitch, drool and soil myself a lot. I tried briefly to find the 12/15/02 Associated Press article referenced in PFAW's report but didn't have any luck.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin
... spending any substantial time on that site makes me twitch, drool and soil myself a lot.

Haha. Staver is definitely an up and comer among the Recreational Litigants for Jesus boutiques. He also has a daily radio program called Faith and Freedom, which is carried by many Christian stations, and a weekly television show of the same name. Both are shot through with lies and deliberate misrepresentations not unlike his manipulative use of the Breyer speech supra.

I honestly don't understand how people like this are allowed to keep their law licenses. Maybe "Florida" is the answer to that query, where Kent Hovind is a Ph.D. and Mat Staver is a Juris Doctor. The State Freshwater Fish, after all, is the Largemouth Bass.

Perhaps Staver's greatest claim to infamy was his representation of several absentee voters during a few of the Bush v. Gore sideshows in Florida. In one suit, Staver argued that manual recounts were a violation of the equal protection clause, but in the others he maintained that voting for president was a right, not a privilege, and claimed to be personally "outraged" it should be otherwise. Of course it was the exact counter to Staver's argument that ultimately carried the day with Scalia and Co.

Much of Staver's face time was spent being told to shut the hell up and stick to the scope of the limited intervenor status that the court had granted at its discretion, but needless to say Staver inflated his participation to Olson-like proportions in his subsequent radio commentaries.

Toto

Back to Mr. Pryor:

AU Press Relese

Americans United report on Pryor