Why Judicial Appointments Do NOT Matter (Schiavo)

2005-03-26 | UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

[LittleTuffie]

Judge Pryor ( a former AG for Alabama) led the charge against Judge Roy Moore.

He did not stand up for Judge Moore because he wanted this
Judicial appointment.

[WOSG]

"One more reason in a long history that judicial appointments will not solve the problem of leftist judges and judicial tyranny was seen on Mar. 23, 2005, in the request for emergency rehearing of the 11th Circuit en banc of the case of Schiavo v. Schiavo when George W. Bush recess appointment William H. Pryor, Jr., voted AGAINST rehearing. Rather than joining in the cogent and spirited dissent of Judge Tjoflat or associating himself with the dissent of Judge Wilson (a Clinton appointee) in the original three-judge panel, he voted with the majority in the 10-2 denial of rehearing."

PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT...

The vote was 7 to 5 against, we dont know how Pryor voted.
There were two dissents but not all 'votes' require a dissent... this was another example of media mis-information.

Correct info on the appeals case can be found here:

http://southernappeal.blogspot.com/

[VinceJS]

Your argument is circular and facile. You are begging the question as to what the "law" is and trying to make an equivalency between liberal and conservative judicial "activism" when there is not. Which binds judges the most, the written law of legislatures, previous decisions of other judges, or the Constitution? If not the latter, then you are the judicial activist. It's not judicial "activism" to rule the Florida statute authorizing Terri's murder unConstitutional. It is judicial activism to follow the statute in violation of the Florida and United States Constitutions. Legalists will claim "the law was followed". It was not.

[bigeasy_70118]

Judge Pryor ( a former AG for Alabama) led the charge against Judge Roy Moore.

An utter lie. Justice Pryor, while Attorney General for Alabama simply enforced the law. There were numerous conservatives who rightly disassociated themselves from Moore. Moore defied the law to make a point. It doesn't mean there wasn't a price to be paid. Moore seemingly gladly paid that price. Don't ask us, those of us who believe in law and order to pay the same price. Justice Pryor did the right thing in that circurmstance.

He did not stand up for Judge Moore because he wanted this Judicial appointment.

Could you be any more incoherent? First he led the charge against Roy Moore, now he didn't stand up for him, two different things. Why don't you get a clue and stop critizing a man who will be an excellent SCOTUS appointee some day?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

And for clarification, despite the media's gleeful reporting that the rehearing was denied by a 10-2 vote, the 11th Cir. does not release the vote tally.

You have a technical point. But I subscribe to Dubya's position (and Mat. 12:30 & Luke 11:23), he that is not with me is against me. Pryor said nothing. He has some 'splainin' to do.

[wotan]

The Bush's are liberals.

Reagan wasn't, but let liberals get control of his administration.

Both major parties are now controlled by liberals.

[Duke Nukum]

Here! Here!

[WOSG]

No it wasn't. His premise was wrong, his facts wrong and the conclusions drawn from the facts were wrong. It was like reading a conservative Paul Krugman."

That line was precious. The true vote from the 11th circuit appeal was 7 to 5 against, reported in NRO Corner, the mainstream media (after giving the wrong numbers), and in this blog:

http://southernappeal.blogspot.com/

[Crackingham]

Judge Pryor ( a former AG for Alabama) led the charge against Judge Roy Moore. He did not stand up for Judge Moore because he wanted this Judicial appointment.

Not true. Pryor has strong Christian conservative credentials and openly supported the Ten Commandments display. He abandoned Moore when Moore decided to violate a federal court order. Pryor is on record as saying support for the Ten Commandments does not give you the right to flout the rule of law.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

...openly defying intent of Congress..?

The intent of Congress was to modify the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts to allow the issue to come up one more time. They did not vote to determine an outcome - only to allow the issue to be evaluated when the previous law on jurisdiction would have barred another hearing. You seem to want the Congress to legislate the results in our courts. What part of the separation of powers don't you understand?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Moore defied the law to make a point.

Moore defied a judicial opinion and order. Legislatures pass laws. No legislature ever passed a law regarding Judge Moore's monument.

No one can call himself opposed to judicial activism and refer to judgements as law. At that moment you have already conceded lawmaking to judges and they can no longer be considered engaged in activism to do so.

[G.Mason]

"Excellent piece, thank you. I've been arguing this for a long time. I had no idea Pryor was one of the 11th Jerkoffs who voted against doing anything about the district court openly defying intent of Congress and refusing to have de nove hearing. After Bush went to the trouble to get him a recess appointment. And I believe the lovely Herr Doktor Reichskankler Advokat Greer is also supposed to be a Republican. Once 99.99 percent of them put on that black robe, it's over."

???

[bigeasy_70118]

he that is not with me is against me. Pryor said nothing. He has some 'splainin' to do.

If the vote was 7-5 and Pryor voted for re-hearing what was to be gained by him joining in a dissent or issuing a dissent? It would do nothing to change the outcome. Tjoflat's opinion speaks for itself.

His full appoinment to the court is in doubt. Based on my knowledge of him, Pryor will do more good as permanent appointment on the 11th Cir. And he will make an excellent an SCOTUS appointee as well.

Why issue an opinion that will only be used as fodder to defeat him, when he did what was right?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

He abandoned Moore when Moore decided to violate a federal court order. Pryor is on record as saying support for the Ten Commandments does not give you the right to flout the rule of law.

A court order is not law. It is only given the effect of law by executive enforcement. Laws are passed by legislatures. Anyone who calls a court order "law" is already on the wrong side of the activism equation.

[Dan from Michigan]

No, Pryor is a W backer. I made calls going to bat for him as well.

I expected better from him.

[bigeasy_70118]

Moore defied a judicial opinion and order.

The holding of any judicial opinion is the law with respect to the parties in the case. Moore did not follow the holding of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal, thus he defied the law.

What exactly was Pryor supposed to do, loosen the noose so it fit around both their necks?