Posted on 01/23/2017 6:44:54 AM PST by xzins
In the celebration of President Donald J. Trump’s inauguration and the drama of his excellent inaugural speech the most important item on his agenda was left unspoken – the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice to replace the late and great Antonin Scalia.
During the campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump released a list of 21 potential Supreme Court nominees that was met with reaction from conservatives ranging from general approval to ecstasy depending on who you Judge William Pryordefined as a “conservative.”
President Trump said several weeks ago, that he planned to forward a nomination to the Senate in the first two weeks after the Inauguration, however, since that time the Trump transition team has gone dark on who was in the running.
However, my inside sources tell me that President Trump has narrowed the field to four finalists: Judge Diane Sykes of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; Judge Neil Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit; Judge William Pryor of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; and, an unnamed “wild card” thought by many to be Senator Mike Lee of Utah.
From my perspective, Senator Mike Lee would be far and away the best choice, but there is also one potential nominee who should clearly be disqualified based on his record – and that’s Judge William Pryor.
Concerns with the judicial record of Judge Pryor center on two of his activist decisions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. First, in Glenn v. Brumby, 633 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011), Pryor usurped legislative power by purporting to judicially create – without precedent and without constitutional and statutory support – a new “transgender” civil right to employment, including a man's use of the women’s restrooms in the workplace.
Second, in Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 664 F.3d 865 (11th Cir. 2011), Pryor affirmed the expulsion of a female Christian student from a state college for refusing to engage in a “remediation plan” of her views on sexuality which included the suggestion that she attend a “Gay Pride Parade.”
The details in these cases are very concerning and are provided in the Judicial Action Group’s “Research Memorandum – Pryor Decisions in Glenn and Keeton.” Pryor's rulings were inconsistent with the meaning of the law, and the intent of the Framers of the Constitution.
Those of us who were around when President George HW Bush appointed obscure New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice David Souter to the US Supreme Court will recall that at that time Souter was sold by the Bush White House as a “conservative” Souter had no record on the major controversies at bar before the Supreme Court, particularly the cultural issues and those related to the size, scope and power of the federal government.
However, Souter’s conservative bona fides were vouched for by White House Chief of Staff John Sununu and that was enough to get reluctant conservatives to forbear opposition.
Souter’s rapid evolution into a big government social liberal who regularly allied himself with liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Steven Breyer confirmed in the minds of many conservatives that they must oppose any Supreme Court nominee who did not have a clear judicial record of originalism and strict construction of the Constitution.
Fast forward to the administration of President George W. Bush and his attempt to nominate his crony White House Counsel Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court, once again some “conservatives” were willing to go along with the Meyers nomination, but a strong coalition of cultural conservatives, led by Gary Bauer, L. Brent Bozell III and others, followed the “Souter Rule” and eventually forced the nomination to be withdrawn.
Today, with the potential nomination of Judge William Pryor of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, conservatives are not faced with an unknown quantity whose views and judicial philosophy are not on the record.
We know where Judge Pryor stands, and while he has a good record on some of our issues, his willingness to create new protected classes and endow them with judicially created rights unmoored to legislation or the plain language of the Constitution and his failure to protect religious liberty clearly disqualifies him from consideration as a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia.
Nominating Judge Pryor would be divisive to the conservative supporters President Trump brought to his historic election through his promise of pro-life constitutionalist judicial appointments. In Sen. Mike Lee, we'd have a true constitutionalist who would be supported by the entire right, thus he would be a unifying nominee, and would be a more appropriate originalist heir to the seat vacated by the late Justice Scalia. What’s more, Sen. Lee could also have the support of more of his current Democrat colleagues in the Senate, where he is liked and respected.
Concerns with the judicial record of Judge Pryor center on two of his activist decisions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. First, in Glenn v. Brumby, 633 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011), Pryor usurped legislative power by purporting to judicially create – without precedent and without constitutional and statutory support – a new “transgender” civil right to employment, including a man's use of the women’s restrooms in the workplace.Second, in Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 664 F.3d 865 (11th Cir. 2011), Pryor affirmed the expulsion of a female Christian student from a state college for refusing to engage in a “remediation plan” of her views on sexuality which included the suggestion that she attend a “Gay Pride Parade.”
Solid conservative Richard Viguerie is suggesting Pryor is an Anthony Kennedy in hiding.
Mark Lee would be a solid pick.
Mike Lee
ping
Sounds like a very scary possible nominee and by no means an acceptable replacement for Justice Scalia.
+1 on Mike Lee
He does not want the job
Send a message: Roy Moore.
I’ll store this news with “Romney for SOS. “
Super important!
Viguerie, the author of this article, was a Cruz supporter until it was clear Cruz wasn’t going to make it. Viguerie then made a logical and cool-headed change to support for Trump, which he maintained throughout the campaign.
In my experience, he’s been a pretty clear thinker. I don’t know the background on these potential nominees, nor do I know the law that Pryor was being asked to judge when it came to these 2 cases.
However, Viguerie is no dummy, and I’m assuming he did his background work before writing this.
It says to me that there can be something in the background of any nominee, and those things should come to light. We thought Roberts, Kennedy, O’Connor, etc. were who they were sold to us as. That ended up not being so.
It’s hard even to speak clearly about Mike Lee, given the liberal tendencies of both Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch. Being Mormon doesn’t equal being conservative.
Pick Cruz and be done with it. He is as close to Scalia as any candidate. And we don’t have to worry about that spot on SCOTUS for the next 30+ years.
Ia that the Alabama judge that defended the 10 Commandments plaque? I would love to see him on the Supreme Court, but he may be too old now.
Cruz doesn’t want to be on the court.
AND he’s not on the list of 21 Trump promised to select from.
Trump should show how much he “hates” women by nominating Diane Sykes as his first pick for the Supreme Court.
Not because I believe in identity politics - but because she’s a solid conservative choice who will make liberal heads explode.
I don’t know anything about her.
I’ve learned to be cautious with these judges.
So let’s hope and pray Trump’s court nominee is not Pryor. If it is, I am afraid he may ignite against himself many of the forces that helped elect him President, and not King.
As long as Trump is supporting good ideas, fine, but when he goes off on a progressive/Liberal course, he should hopefully find a Congress that speaks for itself, not him.
Hugh Hewitt endorsed Judge Pryor on-air last week.
Pretty much takes Pryor out of the running.
Lol!
Nailed it. Hewitt is a GOP Toad.
That right there totally disqualifies Pryor in my mind. We've seen this story too many times. Once on the bench, these guys are liberated from their conservative fig leaves and go full leftist, Stouter is one example. I would argue that John Roberts certainly did not live up to his billing as well.
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.