Bill Pryor Got His Judas Money

According to news reports, "President Bush used a recess appointment Friday [Feb. 20] to give Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor a seat on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily. Pryor was sworn in by U.S. Circuit Judge Ed Carnes in a private ceremony in Alabama Friday. His appointment is expected to last until the end of 2005."

Faithful readers of this column know that Pryor was the political Judas who turned against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore after promising former Alabama Governor Fob James and the people of Alabama that he would back Moore "all the way." In fact, Bill Pryor would never have attained the Alabama Attorney General's office without his enthusiastic support for Judge Moore. Therefore, James and others were shocked at Pryor's sudden decision to prosecute Chief Justice Moore and orchestrate Moore's removal from the Alabama Supreme Court.

(To read the transcript of Bill Pryor's shocking remarks during the trial and my eyewitness account of the trial, go to my web site: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com)

After Pryor's betrayal of Chief Justice Moore, many people were left wondering, "Who or what got to Bill Pryor?" The answer is obvious: Karl Rove and a promised federal judgeship.

The Bush White House, through Rove, had clandestinely opposed Roy Moore since he ran for Alabama Chief Justice. When they could not defeat Moore at the polls, they decided to defeat him through the federal courts. To accomplish this, they needed a Judas from inside Alabama. Enter Bill Pryor.

It quickly became obvious to Rove that Pryor was their man. With the promise of a federal judgeship, he would turn against Chief Justice Moore and help assure Moore's removal from the bench. Pryor lived up to his end of the bargain and now Bush and Rove have lived up to their end. Last Friday, President Bush used a recess appointment to install Pryor as a federal appeals court judge. The Judas money has been paid.

When you read Bill Pryor's remarks at Chief Justice Moore's "trial," you will be instantly impressed with the fact that Pryor is a firm believer in transjudicialism. He actually believes that federal judges do not merely interpret the law, they are the law. Pryor suffers from the same disease that many in the judiciary seem to suffer from these days: the belief that a judge's opinion, not the Constitution, is law of the land.

Beyond that, Bill Pryor believes that a judge's opinion is greater in authority than even a person's moral conscience. In Pryor's world, there is no freedom of conscience and no freedom of religion. In Pryor's world, a judge's ruling is superior to moral, natural, or even divine law. In Pryor's world, a federal judge is a de facto king. In other words, Bill Pryor is a judicial tyrant!

However, Bill Pryor is even worse than a judicial tyrant. He is a Judas turncoat who obtained his position by lying to Governor Fob James and the people of Alabama and by betraying a man far greater in honor and character than himself. There is a place reserved for such men, and even a federal judge has no authority or power there! As with Judas of old, Bill Pryor will learn that when one trades truth and honor for thirty pieces of silver, he always makes a bad deal.

Wow. How incredibly over the top.

I'm sorry - I respect Moore and I don't claim that he was merely an attention-grabbing attention getter the way so many people do. I even agree with his interpretation of both his State's and the federal Constitution. However, I also respect Pryor's position, that while he may have supported what Moore wanted, he did not support the way Moore went about getting it. You and I may agree to the interpretation of the Constitution, but others don't, and simply disregarding the court's decision is not the proper response. I don't think either of them qualifies as a "traitor" to the Christian cause, I believe they are both devout Christians who were at legitimate odds on how to prevent negative change.

Look at it this way - if Pryor had responded any differently, then how could any Christian make a case against the SF mayor for breaking the law to marry all those gay couples -based on respect for the law-? The SF mayor will claim, just as Moore claimed, that the Constitution is on his side, and the 14th Amendment gave him the right to do what he did.

There -are- avenues within the legal system that can work. Last resort - a Constitutional Amendment (which I fully support for -both- repudiating the extremist notion of separation of church and state and the recognition of gay marraige). But there's a whole lot of steps before then that had not yet occured in either case.

There are details in which I think Moore did have a stronger grounds, in that I do believe a higher court refused to hear his case, and that did not happen in the case of gay marriage yet. But that's splitting hairs. The point is, if you want to be able to claim that the normal functioning of law must be adhered to in order to prevent things like the SF gay marriages, you have to be willing to work within the framework for your own battles. To do otherwise is hypocritical and in the end extremely self-destructive.

Qwinn

The U.S. Constitution v. rebellious federal judges and cowardly republicans

This past summer, the Governor and Attorney General of Alabama had an opportunity to initiate the restoration of Constitutional government in this nation. The U.S. House of Representatives, in July, overwhelmingly adopted John N. Hostettler's amendment to the Commerce Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill to forbid the expenditure of federal tax dollars to enforce the opinion of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Glassroth v. Moore. Had the Governor and Attorney General supported Roy Moore in his defiance of an UNlawful federal court order, it would have been one small step for Alabama and a giant leap toward Federalism. I can only speculate; but I don't believe the President would have ordered John Ashcroft to send federal marshals to Alabama and enforce that UNlawful order, with 77% of a national CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll indicating disapproval of Thompson's order to remove the monument. Instead Roy Moore was removed, when federal judge Myron Thompson should have been impeached & removed for incompetence. In the absence of that; Bush could have informed the Governor, Bill Pryor, Chief Justice Roy Moore and Myron Thompson that the UNlawful court order would not be enforced.

'Conservative' federal judges are an option, but you must consider the words of Madison. In Federalist #41 he states,"It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it." The federal courts have slowly and greatly expanded their jurisdiction beyond the confines of the U.S. Constitution.

The Free Congress Foundation has been in the fight over judicial selection since 1980. Republican presidents appointed seven members of the current Supreme Court. Bush has recently nominated Bill Pryor, who will rule according to judicial precedent and not according to the U.S. Constitution. When Bush begins to nominate folk such as, Chief Justice Roy Moore, John Eidsmoe, Jeff Tuomala, Judge James DeWeese, David Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, Virginia Armstrong and Michael Farris, then appointments will be a viable option.

Liberty Counsel Press Release

TEN COMMANDMENTS MONUMENT ON TEXAS STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS IS CONSTITUTIONAL

Austin, Texas – The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion holding that a stand-alone Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds in Austin, Texas, is constitutional. Liberty Counsel, a civil liberties education and legal defense organization with an extensive amount of experience in the constitutionality of the public display of the Ten Commandments, filed an Amicus Brief in support of the state of Texas. The Fifth Circuit covers the states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Gee, now that you've replied by insulting me in big capital letters, I'm sure everyone will concede you are indeed the truly knowledgable one between the two of us.

Fine, o wise one, you explain to me just how you can claim that the SF mayor should be arrested for all those gay marriages (when he used the 14th Amendment of the Constitution for defying the law) and Roy Moore -not- be arrested (when he used the 1st Amendment of the Constitution for defying the law)?

I don't think you get it - I -agree- that there was absolutely nothing inherently wrong or unconstitutional about Moore putting up that monument. I in fact agree that the interpretation that the Court handed down was -wrong-, and that his freedom of religious expression was violated, and I agree that the monument does -not- constitute the establishment of religion. I was upset about the entire thing.

But that said, Moore blatantly violated a federal court order in the same way that the SF mayor violated California law. Now, sure, in the LONG run, through the very slow and tedious grindings of the wheel of law, we can make correct and rational arguments that will hopefully eventually win the courts to the right side on both issues. But in the short run, the standing decisions of the court have to be obeyed.

And the short run matters, because if those marriages had been allowed to stand for 6 months or a year before the mayor and the licenses got slapped down, I don't think they ever would've been slapped down at all, they would have won by fait accompli. Respect for the law stopped -that- atrocity from happening, and unfortunately it prevents good men like Moore from using the methods he attempted as well.

But go ahead, since you know so much and I'm so ignorant. Tell me how you can convince large segments of the population and the politicians -quickly- (because speed -is- a factor) that the SF mayor cannot do what he did, when Roy Moore -could-.

Qwinn

The U. S. Constitution's guarantee against an "Establishment of Religion" is not violated by the placement in the Alabama State Judicial Building's rotunda of a 2 ½ ton monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments and a variety of other quotes. To the contrary, interpretations of the Constitution by a U. S. District Court in Alabama and a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals do violate the Constitution. The monument was designed and commissioned by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in recognition of the moral foundation of the law.

This suit should never have gone to court. The plaintiffs complained that they found the monument "offensive," that it made them feel like an "outsider," that Moore was "using religion to further his political career," that Moore was guilty of a "shameless political use of religion," etc. None of these highly personal, subjective feelings qualifies as a "case or controversy"--the only type of action that Article III of the Constitution allows federal courts to hear.
There is no "law" involved in this case. A "law," by definition, commands, prohibits, or permits a specific action. Chief Justice Moore's installation of the monument does not command, prohibit, or permit any action by any party.
There is no unconstitutional "establishment of a religion" involved in the monument's creation and placement.
1. The Ten Commandments as displayed in the Judicial Building are memorialized as a fundamental source of American and English law and Western civilization. A "law" and its "source" are not the same thing. The Ten Commandments as the moral foundation of our law are supported by a variety of large, influential religious groups--evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, orthodox Jews, and Mormons (for example). If the Ten Commandments per se constitute a "religion," which of these "religions" is "established"?
2. Interrelationships between law and non-legal values, reflected in the Ten Commandments, are inevitable. "Without religion, there can be no morality: and without morality there can be no law" (top-ranking British judge Alfred Lord Denning, 1977). Reflecting this truth, the U. S. Supreme Court has correctly ruled that "This is a Christian nation" (1892, 1931).
3. A "pluralism" of fundamental religious and legal values can extend only so far. Both federal courts ruling against Chief Justice Moore argue for religious "pluralism"--asserting a "history of religious diversity" in America (the Court of Appeals) and branding any effort by law to recognize a single definition of "religion" as "unwise, and even dangerous" and as "tending towards a 'theocracy'" (the District Court). But the courts call for the impossible. "Values are necessary for the functioning of any society, and if they are not consciously adopted and publicly acknowledged, they will be smuggled in surreptitiously and often unconsciously. Values are always in real or potential conflict. And the state inevitably favors some values over others" (American historian James Hitchcock, 1981). Thus, American law can be based on the Ten Commandments or on a non-theistic value foundation. There is no alternative. And if public acknowledgement of the former constitutes "establishment of religion," so does the latter.
4. All of the Ten Commandments have a secular significance to the law. Even the first four Commandments, most directly involving Deity, reveal that there are a Higher Authority and Higher Law to which human law must be submissive--the only sure safeguard against tyranny by human government.
There is an unconstitutional establishment of religion created by the two federal court decisions.
1. The District Court's assertion that the state "draws its powersfrom the people, and not God" is a religious position (an anti-theistic one). This assertion throws the power of the court behind a religious view in violation of the Establishment Clause.
2. Both federal courts base their conclusions on the mythical "wall of separation" doctrine. This concept is not in the Constitution's text, is not supported by American history and tradition, and calls for the impossible (see #3b. and #3c. above). Because the mythical "separation" doctrine was created by the Supreme Court in 1947--156 years after the Establishment Clause was written, and therefore has no fixed content--federal courts have had to constantly re-define and create "tests" of "establishment." The most notably is the Lemon three-pronged test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971). Since 1971, various Supreme Court Justices have exposed the true nature of this myth and the "tests" it has spawned, describing them as "all but useless," "mercurial in application," "unhistorical," "non-textual," and productive of a body of Establishment Clause law that is plagued with "insoluble paradoxes" and "unprincipled, conflicting litigation." Despite these fatal flaws in the "separation" myth and Lemon test, both federal courts utilize them as the basic standards for finding against the Chief Justice and the monument.

In a 1798 letter to American military officers, President John Adams declared that "The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other." Chief Justice Roy Moore's installation of the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Judicial Building recognizes this truth. Chief Justice Moore does not violate the U. S. Constitution. The two federal courts who have ruled against him do.

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.