Posted on 01/23/2017 6:44:54 AM PST by xzins
The only possible explanation for Pryor in this is if he was being asked to decide on the wording of a particular law and he ruled on that wording and not on the constitutionality of the law in the first place.
I agree with you.
If Viguerie is right in this article, and I have no reason to doubt his fact-checking ability, Pryor really should be taken off the list.
Your information is incomplete. Pryor wrote a concurring opinion, writing that the 11th Circuit: "never ruled that a public university can discriminate against student speech based on the concern that the student might, in a variety of circumstances, express views at odds with the preferred viewpoints of the university. Our precedents roundly reject prior restraints in the public school setting."
But it sounds like he nonetheless supported the expulsion.
Doesn’t makes sense.
Judge Bean
Keaton never testified at the hearing held for her request for a preliminary injunction. She had ample opportunity to make her case that she would suffer irreparable injury, etc.
You’re right, it doesn’t make sense.
If that is what the LAW required; then you are right.
Isn’t Pryor a close friend of Sen. Sessions?
I don’t know.
I think he’s from Alabama, so I would be amazed to learn that he and Sessions didn’t know each other. But an acquaintance isn’t necessarily a friend.
Bottom line, though, is that I don’t know.
President Donald Trump won the election without the help of Mike Lee who joined Romney and others to undermine and defeat him. In October Lee even urged Trump to withdraw from the race. Good info on Lee and his interest in trade just by typing his name and Trump on the net and read all of the actions Lee took to protect Utah interests. Conservative Treehouse had an article about Lee recently. A Globalist or a sympathetic follower would not be a good, America First, Supreme Court Justice. Utah did, in spite of Romney and Lee and other Utah Republicans, vote for Trump and helped him to win. If Lee had prevailed the globalists would have won, and destroyed, this Republic.
"A woman wrote this. I'm impressed:
"It's true that Second Amendment litigation is new, and Chicago's ordinance is unlike any firearms law that has received appellate review since Heller. But that doesn't mean we are without a framework for how to proceed. The Supreme Court's approach to deciding Heller points in a general direction. Although the critical question in Heller - whether the Amendment secures an individual or collective right - was interpretive rather than doctrinal, the Court's decision method is instructive.With little precedent to synthesize, Heller focused almost exclusively on the original public meaning of the Second Amendment, consulting the text and relevant historical materials to determine how the Amendment was understood at the time of ratification. This inquiry led the Court to conclude that the Second Amendment secures a pre-existing natural right to keep and bear arms; that the right is personal and not limited to militia service; and that the "central component of the right" is the right of armed self-defense, most notably in the home." - Judge Diane Sykes, Ezell v. Chicago, 651 F. 3d 684 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2011, as quoted here; also note as Volokh summated here:
"The "plaintiffs are the 'law-abiding, responsible citizens' whose Second Amendment rights are entitled to full solicitude under Heller ... The City's firing-range ban is not merely regulatory; it prohibits the 'law-abiding, responsible citizens' of Chicago from engaging in target practice in the controlled environment of a firing range. This is a serious encroachment on the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use, an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self-defense."
After reading through the case , the court made the correct decision.
There was an article yesterday in the Daily Caller website, that Judge Neil Gorsuch of the 10th Court of Appeals is the new front-runner. He’s only 49 years old, has a stellar reputation, and has clerked for Justice Kennedy. They said he was one of the finest writers on the bench. He was easily nominated to the bench by President GWB in 2006 and was considered non-controversial.
What’s the FReep opinion about him?
Diane Sykes would be his woman appointee with a solid conservative record. Only negative is that she is already over the 60 y.o. “barrier” for a nominee.
Considering that women live a lot longer than men, I think that could be overlooked.
Cruz is a liar.
Anyone associated with Kennedy is instantly suspect.
Perhaps, but I went googling and I like what I found on Gorsuch. They say he’s very close to Scalia in many ways...
From Ballotpedia:
“In a December 2016 study, scholars and attorneys Jeremy Kidd, Riddhi Sohan Dasgupta, Ryan Walter, and James Phillips identified Gorsuch as one of the two most natural successors to Justice Scalia based on a measure of their own design. Among Trump’s known potential nominees, only Judge Thomas Lee of the Supreme Court of Utah had a higher score on the authors’ measure.”
Scotusblog said:
“Both his pre-judicial resumé and his body of work as a judge make him a natural fit for an appointment to the Supreme Court by a Republican president. He is relatively young (turning 50 this year), and his background is filled with sterling legal and academic credentials. He was a Marshall Scholar at the University of Oxford, graduated from Harvard Law School, clerked for prominent conservative judges (Judge David Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court), and was a high-ranking official in the Bush Justice Department before his judicial appointment. He is celebrated as a keen legal thinker and a particularly incisive legal writer, with a flair that matches — or at least evokes — that of the justice whose seat he would be nominated to fill. In fact, one study has identified him as the most natural successor to Justice Antonin Scalia on the Trump shortlist, both in terms of his judicial style and his substantive approach.
With perhaps one notable area of disagreement, Judge Gorsuch’s prominent decisions bear the comparison out. For one thing, the great compliment that Gorsuch’s legal writing is in a class with Scalia’s is deserved: Gorsuch’s opinions are exceptionally clear and routinely entertaining; he is an unusual pleasure to read, and it is always plain exactly what he thinks and why. Like Scalia, Gorsuch also seems to have a set of judicial/ideological commitments apart from his personal policy preferences that drive his decision-making. He is an ardent textualist (like Scalia); he believes criminal laws should be clear and interpreted in favor of defendants even if that hurts government prosecutions (like Scalia); he is skeptical of efforts to purge religious expression from public spaces (like Scalia); he is highly dubious of legislative history (like Scalia); and he is less than enamored of the dormant commerce clause (like Scalia). In fact, some of the parallels can be downright eerie.”
Sounds like another east coast, ivy league, Roman Catholic addition to our east coast, ivy league, Catholic/Jewish supreme court.
There’s a surprise.
If he really is like Scalia, another ‘Sca-lito’, that would be ok by me. Maybe he could even influence Scotus Judge Kennedy to the right. He should be pro-life though, and President Trump promised the next SCOTUS appointment would be.
This is all based on assumption. The nominee could be someone else entirely. We’ll see.
Point taken; I can’t say I blame you.
She’s on Trump’s list of prospective justices.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442220/trump-supreme-court-picks-should-start-woman
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.