Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fromtheright · 06-11-2003, 04:53 PM

Stephen Maturin,

Being a conservative I am rather partial to the 10th Amendment and in favor of state "police powers" (but also with some view of the 9th Amendment) but, my God, arguing that his monument is an exercise of police powers?! I agree with your recommended strategy for Moore because if he throws such hare-brained "legal theories" out for the Circuit Court he'll really make himself look even more stupid than you guys already think he is.

I'm kinda torn on the popular rally thing noted by Toto. I don't have any problem with public support for Moore; like I said, I agree with him on the monument (though I do have a problem with his "it's my courtroom" and "my courthouse" attitude and I would feel much better about the monument if the entire Alabama Supreme Court had endorsed/approved the monument). The problem I have is Moore himself using this for his own political gain. If the public feels strongly about the issue, let them march or whatever, it's still guaranteed in the Constitution.

Toto · 06-11-2003, 05:31 PM

Democrats Grill Appeals Nominee Pryor

Quote:

"In reviewing the record of the nominee before us here today, I'm disappointed to say he looks more like the nine nominees I personally have voted against than the 119 I have voted for," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "His views are an unfortunate stitching together of the worst parts of the most troubling judges we've seen thus far."

. . .

Pryor also acknowledged criticizing Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who was appointed to the high court by the first President Bush but mainly votes with the court's more liberal justices. Pryor explained that when he once ended a speech with a prayer for "no more Souters," he did so because Souter's rulings often clash with Alabama law.

ABA gives Pryor mixed review for U.S. bench

Quote:

WASHINGTON Democrats tried unsuccessfully to delay today's confirmation hearing for Bill Pryor after the American Bar Association issued a divided opinion Tuesday on whether the Alabama attorney general was qualified to be a federal judge.

While a "substantial majority" of the ABA's 15-member review committee considered Pryor to be qualified, a minority said he was not. The split raised a red flag to the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who wanted the panel to take more time to investigate.

There were no votes on the review committee to rate Pryor "well-qualified," the highest ranking. Those familiar with the rating process say the "well-qualified" ranking is usually reserved for those nominees who have already worked as a judge.

GOP Renews Push for Entangled Judicial Nominees

Quote:

Still, Pryor acknowledged that sometimes he's simply too candid. In a speech before a conservative legal group, he ended with a "prayer for the next administration: Please, God, no more Souters."

That's a reference to Justice David Souter, nominated by the first President Bush and regarded by conservatives as a judicial renegade and someone who advertised himself far less liberally at his confirmation hearing than he turned out to be.

Under Democratic questioning Wednesday, Pryor tried to eat most of his critique of Souter.

"That was my perhaps feeble attempt at humor," he said.

Democrats were not amused, and appear determined to block the nomination

hezekiah jones · 06-11-2003, 05:46 PM

"That was my perhaps feeble attempt at humor," he said.

Not too funny when you're sitting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee looking at a lifetime appointment, is it, chump. The more I think about that the more I'm appalled at the type of people this administration is trying to stick on these benches.

Putting the likes of Pryor on a United States Court of Appeals just makes a mockery of the entire federal judiciary, and for some reason I find that incredibly offensive and disgraceful.

Surely we can do better than this. This president is a horrorshow. Bah.

SLD · 06-11-2003, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto

" . . . Please, God, no more Souters."

Please, God, no more Pryors.

SLD

Stephen Maturin · 06-13-2003, 11:54 AM

Here's a write-up from the Birmingham Post-Herald. As always, our old buddy Jay $ekulow never misses a chance to get some face time with the press:

Quote:

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice who attended the hearing, dismissed the concerns of Democrats who labeled Pryor as pursuing a "Christian agenda" during the hearing.

"He's not saying we are a Christian nation but rather that we come from a Christian perspective, and I think that's well within the mainstream," Sekulow said after the hearing.

Is anyone else having trouble discerning a genuine functional difference between "we are a Christian nation" and "we come from a Christian perspective"?

Philosoft · 06-13-2003, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin
Is anyone else having trouble discerning a genuine functional difference between "we are a Christian nation" and "we come from a Christian perspective"?

Heh.

"He's not saying we're all Christian, just that we all think like Christians."

Toto · 06-13-2003, 04:16 PM

Judicial Nominee Admits Mistake

Pryor Regrets 'Octogenarian' Comment

Quote:

One of President Bush's appellate court nominees told senators at his confirmation hearing yesterday that he made a mistake when he once referred to the Supreme Court as "nine octogenarian lawyers," but he otherwise defended his strongly conservative views.

. . .

The senators appeared to enjoy reading Pryor quotations from his writings and speeches, and asking him if they were accurate. . . .

Pryor, 41, made the remark about the age of the justices in 2000, after the high court issued a temporary stay of execution in an Alabama capital punishment case so the court could consider whether the use of the electric chair was an unconstitutional method of execution. "This issue should not be decided by nine octogenarian lawyers who happen to sit on the Supreme Court," Pryor was quoted by the Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) asked Pryor about the comment repeatedly, and Pryor said it was "probably overheated political rhetoric on my part." When Kennedy asked again if it was improper, Pryor said, "I think it was an inappropriate remark, senator."

Pryor blamed another remark about the Supreme Court on "a feeble attempt at humor" that drew laughs before a conservative audience. Pryor was quoted as telling the Federalist Society in 2000 that the nation's "last real hope for federalism is the election of Governor George W. Bush as president."

"My prayer for the next administration: Please, God, no more Souters," he said, referring to Justice David H. Souter. . .

The Judiciary Committee could vote on Pryor as soon as next Thursday. Democrats said they may use delaying tactics to prevent a vote on the Senate floor.

SLD · 06-14-2003, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Heh.

"He's not saying we're all Christian, just that we all think like Christians."

Or perhaps, we all better think like Christians. That is if you want to exercise your freedom of religion. As long as it's a Christian religion you'll be OK. Nothing to worry about.

SLD

Obey_Matthew_6_6 · 06-15-2003, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLD
Please, God, no more Pryors.

SLD

If confirmed, this extremist could be on the court for the next 40 YEARS! Enough reason to filibuster till the Earth drops out of orbit.....

Toto · 07-07-2003, 05:28 PM

The Interfaith Alliance has just sent out an email alert opposing Pryor

Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee concerning Bill Pryor�s Nomination to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (well documented)

Quote:

Attorney General Pryor has established himself as a leading adversary of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and a leading opponent of religious pluralism.

Attorney General Pryor has often used his elective office to advance the falsehood that America is exclusively a Judeo-Christian nation � thus excluding the millions of Americans who are either of other faiths, or by their own choosing, of no faith at all. In a May 15, 1999 commencement speech at Northeast Louisiana University, Pryor told the graduates, �Although our political system seems to have lost God, the American people have not. The political system must protect the independence and freedom of religion, but the political system must remain rooted in a Judeo-Christian perspective of the nature of government and the nature of man. Let us hope that, at the close of the next century, the national motto remains, "In God we trust"; the pledge of allegiance still states, "one nation under God"; and courts continue to begin hearings with the invocation, "God save the United States and this honorable court.�

Take Action Here

06-11-2003, 05:46 PM	#33
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	How unprofessional can you get "That was my perhaps feeble attempt at humor," he said. Not too funny when you're sitting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee looking at a lifetime appointment, is it, chump. The more I think about that the more I'm appalled at the type of people this administration is trying to stick on these benches. Putting the likes of Pryor on a United States Court of Appeals just makes a mockery of the entire federal judiciary, and for some reason I find that incredibly offensive and disgraceful. Surely we can do better than this. This president is a horrorshow. Bah.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-11-2003, 04:53 PM	#31
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	Stephen Maturin, Being a conservative I am rather partial to the 10th Amendment and in favor of state "police powers" (but also with some view of the 9th Amendment) but, my God, arguing that his monument is an exercise of police powers?! I agree with your recommended strategy for Moore because if he throws such hare-brained "legal theories" out for the Circuit Court he'll really make himself look even more stupid than you guys already think he is. I'm kinda torn on the popular rally thing noted by Toto. I don't have any problem with public support for Moore; like I said, I agree with him on the monument (though I do have a problem with his "it's my courtroom" and "my courthouse" attitude and I would feel much better about the monument if the entire Alabama Supreme Court had endorsed/approved the monument). The problem I have is Moore himself using this for his own political gain. If the public feels strongly about the issue, let them march or whatever, it's still guaranteed in the Constitution.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.