Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Without getting into the detail of his brief, in a country where 50% of the popualtion is anti-abortion and even more is anti gay rights, is it surprising that an occasional member of one or the other group is nominated for Judge?
How can either be a litmus test?
The man was being an advocate, does that mean he cannot rule impartially?
|
Well, the man was indeed being an advocate -- but in many of the cases cited, he was not being an advocate for his "client" (the State of Alabama). Instead, Pryor was being a vigorous, unapologetic advocate for one side in the "culture wars". Hell, he unsucessfully petitioned to participate in the oral argument in Lawrence v. Texas (I doubt the Governor asked for that).
I think, Hank, that the "litmus test" is not so much what one's personal views are. It's more a question of whether you think the guy can actually be a neutral and impartial adjudicator of the rights of citizens under the law when the guy has proclaimed such strongly held views about why some any of those "rights" aren't or shouldn't be rights, and why those laws are just plain wrong. I would have a tough time believing that I as a citizen or advocate would get fair and impartial treatment from Pryor if I were on the "wrong" side of a gay rights, women's rights, or civil rights case.
To flip it around a little bit, what do you think social conservatives/Republicans would say if the President of NOW got a law degree and was appointed to the Second Circuit? Or even Hillary Clinton -- who already has the law degree?
Also -- while BB takes his record as indicating that Pryor is a "strict constructionist" (since the term "states rights" has fallen out of favor in recent years) -- it sees to me that when you combine Pryor's stringent social conservatism with the "states rights" issues that he has chosen to be out front on, it suggests a results-oriented approach in which he fights to preserve his "traditional values" behind a Federalist cloak. As an aside regaring results-oriented opportunism -- I mean, really . . . an amicus brief for the Bush campaign in Bush v. Gore? What interest did that serve for the citizens of Alabama? It served Pryor's desire to get where he's gotten.
I sure hope some President-other-than-Bush gets the chance to send Pryor back home in January, 2005.
S_A_M
