Beyond the Pale (NYT goes after Bill Pryor)

The New York Times ^ | 06/23/03 | editorial board

[Pokey78]

Many of the Bush administration's judicial nominees have been evasive about their positions on abortion, but not William Pryor. Mr. Pryor, Alabama's attorney general, has declared that Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling upholding abortion rights, "ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children." He has shown the same lack of subtlety — and fierce ideological agenda — on issues ranging from civil rights to states' rights and gay rights. His extremism and disdain for the legal rights of many Americans make him unsuited to be a federal judge.

Mr. Pryor, who has been nominated to the Atlanta-based United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, has a record of incendiary comments that show a lack of judicial temperament and a cynical view of the law. When he disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision to delay an execution in a capital punishment case, he dismissed the court as "nine octogenarian lawyers." On another occasion, he ended a speech with a prayer for "no more Souters," a blast at Supreme Court Justice David Souter, a moderate.

As Alabama attorney general, Mr. Pryor has turned his office into a taxpayer-financed right-wing law firm. He has testified to Congress in favor of dropping a key part of the Voting Rights Act. In a Supreme Court case challenging the Violence Against Women Act, 36 state attorneys general urged the court to uphold the law. Mr. Pryor was the only one to argue that the law was unconstitutional. This term, he submitted a brief in favor of a Texas law that makes gay sex illegal, comparing it to necrophilia, bestiality, incest and pedophilia.

Mr. Pryor has taken particularly outlandish positions on "federalism," a dangerous states' rights movement that seeks to take away federal rights. This term, he urged the Supreme Court to make nearly five million state employees ineligible to sue for damages under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a strong supporter of federalism, wrote the opinion rejecting Mr. Pryor's position as too extreme. In another states' rights case this term, involving statutes of limitations, the court rejected Mr. Pryor 9 to 0.

Judicial nominees are often accused of undergoing "confirmation conversions," backing away from controversial stands to win Senate support. But there is no great honor in the positions Mr. Pryor stuck to at his confirmation hearing: that Roe was "morally wrong" and responsible for "the slaughter of millions of unborn children," that part of the Voting Rights Act should be repealed and that when he rescheduled his family's vacation to Disney World to avoid a day when many gays attend, it was a legitimate "value judgment."

If a far-right legal group needs a lawyer to argue extreme positions against abortion, women's rights, gay rights and civil rights, Mr. Pryor may be a suitable candidate. But he does not belong on the federal bench.

[DeFault User]

Mr. Pryor may be publicly stoned by the Dims in the Senate.

Bill Buckley wrote an excellent aritcle on Mr. Pryor last week.

[goldstategop]

To the New York Times every one to the right of Saint Hillary is a "right wing extremist."

[ladyinred]

I am having a very hard time maintaining my composure concerning Bush's judicial nominees and the lefts' blatant demonizing anyone who doesn't believe exactly like they do. The constitution does not give them the right to stop them from holding this office because they are pro life or whatever. It has become more and more clear that the democrats are going to have their way or else. This must end.

[gcruse]

This country doesn't need an Ashcroft clone on the Supreme Court.

[dagnabbit]

William Pryor is a breath of fresh air.

[L.N. Smithee]

William Pryor is a breath of fresh air.

And the Times, unable to stand fresh air, bent at the waist, aimed, and filled the atmosphere with its patented brand of high-falutin' flatulence.

[GOPcapitalist]

Mr. Pryor has taken particularly outlandish positions on "federalism," a dangerous states' rights movement that seeks to take away federal rights.

Bill Pryor bump!

[HumanaeVitae]

I suppose it's unsurprising that an institution that believes in a liberal interpretation of facts when it comes to journalism would object to someone who believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to the law.

[Dan from Michigan]

If the Slimes hates him, he's probably good.

Justice David Souter, a moderate.
Bwahahahahahhahaahhahahhahhahahahah.

a dangerous states' rights movement that seeks to take away federal rights
Federal Rights? WTF is that?

[goldstategop]

Liberalspeak that translates roughly as follows: federal rights = bigger government.

[BlueNgold]

I'm sorry, I thought the constitution guaranteed all rights not delineated to the people and to the states... what exactly ARE Federal rights?

[goldstategop]

Read my post. Its amazing how liberals have to lie about what they're really after and invent a bunch of a non-existent "federal rights" out of thin air cause they don't have the guts to tell the public what they really mean.

[judgeandjury]

If a far-right legal group needs a lawyer to argue extreme positions against abortion...

Hmm, as opposed to extreme positions for abortion?

[goldstategop]

Excellent point. In the NYT's world, there ain't no such thing a too extreme abortionist.

[kesg]

My opinion of Bill Pryor has gone up after reading this rather hysterical editorial.

[Reactionary]

You have to appreciate the agitprop, the use of language for ideological ends.

When a liberal pulls a value judgement out of his hat, you can bet he's rehashing recent liberal political discourse. And what's the end game? To demonize the enemy, to make him into a foe of "democracy," however understood by liberals.

It the liberals' version of the Two Minutes Hate. Say the mantra, win the political war.

[Madstrider]

"federalism," a dangerous states' rights movement that seeks to take away federal rights

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, yes, how the Founders worried about that danger!

[Southack]

"He has testified to Congress in favor of dropping a key part of the Voting Rights Act. In a Supreme Court case challenging the Violence Against Women Act, 36 state attorneys general urged the court to uphold the law. Mr. Pryor was the only one to argue that the law was unconstitutional."

Gee, the New York Times neglected to mention that the Supreme Court ruled *for* Pryor's position in that case.

Ouch. That's got to hurt, to be so pathetically wrong that you have to OMIT the facts that destroy your own argument from moment one.

Such is the state of the New York TImes...

[Regulator]

"ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children."

The accepted position of the States and the Federal government of the United States up until 1973. What's extremist about it? The country was in agreement on it for the previous 200 years.

God I loved seeing him say that. Schumer almost dropped his teeth.