Posted on 01/27/2006 1:29:36 PM PST by areafiftyone
Friday, January 27, 2006 - 1:19:30 PMBREAKING: Pryor will vote 'no' on Alito
U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor will vote against the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Pryor said he was satisfied that Alito was qualified and possessed the proper judicial temperament. But there’s a third criterion, he said. “Can he be fair and impartial if he’s on the United States Supreme Court? And would he be an activist, would he legislate from the bench, would he come with an agenda? I spent a lot of time looking at that. I must say when it comes to the question of whether Samuel Alito will be fair and impartial, I have doubts, I have reservations.” So he said, while it was a close call, he would vote no.
He added, without prompting, that he did not support a filibuster against Alito because “one is not warranted.” As a member of the bipartisan Gang of 14 that earlier had preserved filibuster as a potential option in case of “extraordinary circumstances,” he said that clearly wasn't the case with Alito.
Pressed by reporters for specific objections, Pryor spoke of one area "troubling" to him. "He tends to favor the expansion of presidential power and I believe in the Constitution's checks and balances. I'm not saying he doesn't either. But I'm concerned that over time he might chip away at those checks and balances and allow the exeuctive power to expand until it's supreme over the other branches."
Pryor said Alito will be confirmed Tuesday. He said he hopes he can apologize to Alito in five years for being wrong about his vote.
Pryor noted he'd voted for more than 90 percent of the president's judicial nominations, including Chief Justice John Roberts. In Roberts' case, Pryor said, "At the end of that process I just didn't have any doubts about his ability to be fair and impartial."
Reactions: Family Council says it's a mystery. Republican Party says it's "disappointing" to have Pryor and Lincoln "cater to Ted Kennedy."
Has Pryor opposed liberal activists being confirmed for the court?
Like I said, the votes for a filibuster aren't there. They might get about 30 if they really tried.
Just remember all those "social conservatives" who helped put this guy into office.
As if Ginsberg (who has openly expressed support of abortion on demand many times) would be expected to be fair and impartial on any Roe v. Wade trial. If I were the attorney representing a pro-life trial in the Supreme Court, the first thing I would do is gather my ammo and then ask Ginsberg to recuse herself.
“Can he be fair and impartial if he’s on the United States Supreme Court? And would he be an activist, would he legislate from the bench, would he come with an agenda? I spent a lot of time looking at that. I must say when it comes to the question of whether Samuel Alito will be fair and impartial, I have doubts, I have reservations.” So he said, while it was a close call, he would vote no.
This Pryor guy is becoming more of a creep as time goes on. The monument thing was bad enough...
Pryor is a Democrap. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=ytff1-&p=http%3A//pryor.senate.gov/&ei=UTF-8 He opposed Estraada, too.
No surprise, here. Just another Democrap hack.
The real news is that he won't vote for a fillibuster. That is news, albeit burried in the article.
Looks like senators have a new reason to vote against a nominee, the nominee "might" do something in the future that they "may" not agree with.
He's already planning on apologizing. That means he knows his vote is wrong, but he's doing it for political reasons.
/spit
It's all about killing the (unwanted) children.
Are Arkansans proud to elect such murderers?
57% of people in Arkansas support Alito yet both their senators are voting no. These two partisan hacks need to be "Daschled" in this conservative state.
All they have to run against him is one of the Hutchison boys, if Huckabee wants to be president.
The monument thing was bad enough...
What it really means when run backwards from the Language Liberalizer: Since we're in the minority, we can no longer legislate our evil ways. And we have no hope of winning back the White House anytime soon. The Judiciary is our last hope to keep our extreme agenda alive.
Like this impartiality was a big concern back when thier candidates came on the court. I head today that, mathmatically, their judges were confirmed with 1/2 the questions that they have used to block Alito (excuse me, I meant "they have used to completely interview Alito.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.