Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Pryor Got His Judas Money
<chuckwagon@chuckbaldwinlive.com> | 25 Feb 04 | Chuck Baldwin

Posted on 02/29/2004 12:18:55 PM PST by jedi

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.

© Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: baldwin; billpryor; chuckbaldwin; judicialnominees
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: StonyBurk
Both are lawbreakers. That is the similarity.

I guess that as far as you are concerned, it is OK to break laws whenever you do not agree with them.

Don't forget that our political enemies also don't agree with may of the laws to which they are subject. They have and will seize every opportunity to attempt to disregard their legal obligations. How do you propose to compel them to follow the law when our side is exempt from an equivalent obligation?

Frankly, I am more worried about the other side, since I believe many are less constrained than we are by notions like decency and a true understanding of the nature of a democracy. The rule of law is our protection against such individuals.

Conservatives must demand respect for the rule of law. We surely cannot count on liberals to do so.

21 posted on 02/29/2004 2:31:09 PM PST by nvskibum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jedi
"Chuck Baldwin's commentaries...may be republished,..providing ... full credit is given"

Hard to imagine anyone wanting to "steal" credit for his ravings.

22 posted on 02/29/2004 2:52:58 PM PST by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Wow, that was a pretty good quote. That DG guy is really smart.
23 posted on 02/29/2004 3:31:18 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nvskibum
I thought the judge who ruled against Moore created law, hence the controversy. At any rate, this should still work out well.
24 posted on 02/29/2004 3:39:31 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I think the problem with Judge Moore is that he persisted in defying the court order even after he lost the case and all appeals, and after the decision against him became final. He had every right to his full day in court, but after he lost, he should have complied with the court order.

After all, he was Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. What kind of example did he set for the citizens of Alabama, and why should parties in his court be expected to comply with his court orders if he would not comply with those issued by another court? Again, the decision against Moore was fully appealed and upheld and was final.

25 posted on 02/29/2004 3:56:00 PM PST by nvskibum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: Josef Stalin
We shall see...

The case of Newsom has barely begun. The Calif. Sup. Ct., which will hear the case soon, is not peopled by a majority of unprincipled left-wing whackos (unlike the Mass. Supreme Court). Lockyer will have to survive in a political environment that has the Governor at about a 60%+ or higher approval rating, and who is about to get the cornerstone of his fiscal plans approved by the voters, despite the displeasure of the Dem-controlled legislature. The Governor does not seem reluctant to put the heat on Lockyer on the gay-marriage issue.

Satan has not won (yet).

27 posted on 02/29/2004 4:15:25 PM PST by nvskibum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nvskibum
I think the problem with Judge Moore is that he persisted in defying the court order even after he lost the case and all appeals, and after the decision against him became final. He had every right to his full day in court, but after he lost, he should have complied with the court order.

That sums it up precisely and accurately. Chuck Baldwin does a grave disservice to conservatives with his attacks on conservatives for obeying the law and court orders.

Perhaps he's an anarchist.

28 posted on 02/29/2004 4:18:16 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: nvskibum
roy S.Moore demanded respect for the Rule of Law.Demanded
that Federal Judges be held accountable to the clear language used and intent of the men who ratified that
instrument. And he was removed for that.You are not
correct to thrust the charge that I think it is "ok" to
defy the law -when I do not agree with the law. Quite the
opposite is True. Like Roy Moore I expect all to be under the Law--unlike the Blind captives who believe in error that
the Federal court is the very essence of Law.As opposed to
what is written and ratified. WHY should they be above the LAW?
30 posted on 03/01/2004 5:08:17 AM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson