Posted on 03/26/2005 11:56:14 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
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. Judge Pryor did so without any comment to give any insight into his reasoning for doing so. But it is sure to win a brownie point or two from some Democrats who had blocked his regular appointment to the court with a threatened fillibuster - not. It is interesting to note that although the denial of rehearing was 10-2, Republican appointees actually hold a 7-5 majority on the 11th Circuit. But six Republicans voted with four Democrats to starve an innocent woman to death on the say-so of her estranged husband rather than finding one of several legal avenues placed in evidence and the law to reach a more humane and just result.
The history of Republican appointees to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is likewise checkered. While Nixon appointee William Rehnquist has been a stalwart conservative for 33 years, another Nixon appointee, Harry Blackmun wrote the infamous Roe v. Wade abortion opinion for the majority. And Blackmun, along with fellow Nixon and Ford appointees Louis Powell and John Paul Stevens cemented an activist leftist court through the 1970s and 1980s. Appointees by Republicans, thought conservative, as often as not become part of the activist-leftist problem upon receiving their lifetime appointments.
While Nixon and Ford had to contend with a strongly Democrat Senate to get their appointments confirmed, Reagan enjoyed for a time a Republican Senate. Although Reagan was both a social and fiscal (in theory) conservative, his appointments to SCOTUS were one conservative, Scalia, and two increasingly liberal swing votes, O'Connor and Kennedy. George H.W. Bush achieved a similar split with conservative Thomas, who squeaked in by a narrow confirmation margin in the days before filibustering of appellate judges, and liberal David Souter. It is interesting to note that the last Democrat "mistake" to SCOTUS was the Kennedy appointment of conservative Byron White in 1962.
It is hardly going to make a positive difference in the courts for conservatives when leftist presidents and Democrat Senators apply a nearly foolproof litmus test while Republican presidents tend to appoint "qualified" judges, half from each side. The math over the last 28 years of four Republican presidential terms and three Democrat, with a nearly even divide in the Senate over that time, is for 70% leftist appointees. At that rate, if there were nothing but Republican presidents for the next 40 years, the courts would be no better than evenly divided.
The solution to the problem of runaway activist leftist courts is for Republican executives to assert their independence from judicial fiat. (You could argue that Democrat presidents could do the same, except they don't need to. - They already have the courts for the forseeable future.) Federalist #78 explains that judges are "dependent" on executives to carry out their decisions. In 1832 in the case of Worcester v. Georgia recognizing the independence of the Cherokee Nation from the laws of Georgia, Andrew Jackson disregarded the Supreme Court with the famous remark "Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." leading a few year later to the removal of the Cherokee altogether. Even in the case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall explicitly recognized that he could not order President Jefferson to deliver certain commissions without being ignored due to separation of powers and thus invalidated the law requiring the delivery of those commissions instead.
What happened since those early days to separation of powers? We became accustomed to the routine condition that the executive should normally support the judiciary. Even when activist judges handed down abominable decisions such as Dred Scot in 1857, which forced slavery on the whole country, the executives after the the passing of the Founding Fathers enforced them. Of course, the President at the time of Dred Scot was a pro-slavery northern Democrat, James Buchanan, who was not going to nullify Dred Scot anyway.
The only serious way to turn back judicial activism is through the executive nullification of the most odious of judicial rulings, such as starving an innocent woman to death on dubious evidence and calling it a Constitutional Right. Judge Pryor, when he comes up for confirmation to a permanent post on the court, needs to do some serious dancing around the issue of why he did not at least make a public showing to help the dying Terri Schiavo and should quite probably be denied the support of conservatives previously so eager to see him confirmed. And conservatives need to consider ways besides judicial appointments, or the forlorn hope for impeachments in a Congress too narrowly divided and partisan to sustain them, to reign in the tyranny of our current Judicial Oligopoly.
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.
"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/
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?
Reagan wasn't, but let liberals get control of his administration.
Both major parties are now controlled by liberals.
Here! Here!
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/
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.
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?
???
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?
No, Pryor is a W backer. I made calls going to bat for him as well.
I expected better from him.
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?
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.