Posted on 01/24/2017 9:24:05 AM PST by xzins
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 defined as a “conservative.”
Until Donald Trump won the election and President Trump made it clear he intended to move expeditiously on nominating a replacement for the great Antonin Scalia cultural conservatives were content to take the word of Supreme Court the Federalist Society and others in the legal profession that all the potential nominees were “conservatives.”
However, when President Trump said that he planned to forward a nomination to the Senate in the first two weeks after the Inauguration conservatives began to drill down on the records of those on President Trump’s list and what they found about Judge William H. Pryor Jr., a judge on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, began to raise serious concerns about where the judge stood on religious liberty and the extra-legislative creation of “rights” for allegedly transgender individuals.
Now, what was a trickle of cultural conservatives voicing concern about Judge Pryor has begun to build into a steady stream of opposition.
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, have quietly circulated their persistent concerns about Pryor, and Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association has been considerably less quiet.
“Pryor may be 90 percent good on his decisions, but that is not good enough,” Wildmon told J.C. Derrick of World Magazine. “We need someone who will be just like Scalia, 100 percent, in terms of their judicial philosophy."
Pryor’s defenders say he was only adhering to applicable precedents and note he did not write either of the opinions most troubling to conservatives. However, critics argue Pryor joined the decisions in full, without disagreement, and say Glenn established a new precedent.
Phillip Jauregui, president of Judicial Action Group, said the Glenn decision primarily used a case, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, that was about traditional gender norms, not transgender rights.
The majority opinion in Glenn v. Brumby, observed Derrick, is a case involving a biological male fired after he said he wanted to dress as a woman and begin medical treatments.
Pryor concurred with the circuit court’s liberal former Judge Rosemary Barkett, ruling the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution protected the employee from discrimination based on sex—which the court interpreted to include gender identity. Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern called the opinion “absolutely revolutionary” for transgender employment rights.
“The woman in Price Waterhouse never said she was a man, never tried to use a men’s restroom, and never demanded that her colleagues refer to her as a man,” Jauregui told Derrick. “The only way to get from Price Waterhouse to Glenn is judicial activism.”
What is most troubling about the Glenn decisions is that various Obama administration agencies, including the Departments of Justice, Labor, and Education, began citing Glenn as their justification for advancing transgender litigation and regulations.
However, from our perspective Pryor’s most troubling decision is the case of Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, involving a Christian counseling student whom a state college expelled after she refused to agree to remediation measures (such as attending a gay pride parade) intended to change her views on homosexuality. A three-judge panel, including Pryor, ruled the school did not discriminate against the student, in part because the school would treat anyone with her beliefs the same way.
Now, let’s understand in practical terms what Judge Pryor’s decision in Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley means; it means he believes the state – because this was a state university – can undertake the forced “reeducation” of a Christian and that it could treat anyone with her beliefs the same way.
Clearly, such a view of freedom of conscience and religious liberty is inimical to originalism and a constitutional conservative’s understanding of the First Amendment and the limits on the government’s power to coerce citizens to abandon their religious beliefs.
There’s one more thing we find strange about the lobbying in favor of Judge Pryor; many of his most outspoken advocates were vociferous #NeverTrumpers. The hard sell from the Republican side of the legal establishment smacks of cronyism, rather than a commitment to the laws passed by Congress, conservative principles, originalism and the plain language of the Constitution.
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.
Now, let’s understand in practical terms what Judge Pryor’s decision in Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley means; it means he believes the state – because this was a state university – can undertake the forced “reeducation” of a Christian and that it could treat anyone with her beliefs the same way.
Evidently, Pryor has supported the idea that a Christian can be ‘reprogrammed’ at the direction of the state.
That’s a pretty radical position and extremely anti-religion, anti-first amendment.
An odious pick, indeed.
I’ve thought (and argued) in the past that Pryor’s opposition to Judge Roy Moore was based on his interpretation of the law. I did not know at the time about this anti-Christian case.
Now it appears that Pryor might be dealing with some kind of anti-Christian world view.
How else can you explain any judge supporting a government power to reprogram a Christian?
Thank you for posting this, I did not know this about Pryor.
I withdraw my previous support for him being on the Supreme Court.
I also was unaware of this background on Pryor until very recently....maybe yesterday.
As others have said, I didn’t know this. Thanks for the information.
Pryor seems awful.
Any “judge” has to understand Natural Law Theory and the philosophy of Locke and the Founding Fathers. It was Common Sense (Natural Law) and Christian Ethics (worldview) only that formed our Constitution—Rule of Law.
You can NOT remove “Right Reason” (logic) from a “Just” law to make any irrational, evil, vile “act” and “behavior” into “Good” or “Natural” or “Just” which they can NEVER be. Killing babies and sodomizing others is degrading and dehumanizing and can NEVER be promoted in a “Justice” (virtue) system. It will collapse virtue which is essential for freedom (Socrates).
All the homosexual agenda is conditioning children into a belief where unnatural, irrational, dehumanizing “acts” are made into “Good” and into “Normal”. It destroys the Chrisitan worldview in children and makes them irrational, and unnable to have “common sense” since they are determining and brainwashing children to “think” good is evil and human beings can be used as a Means to an End.
No—NEVER. Dignity and Meaning of the sex act is destroyed by the promotion of homosexuality-—as much in the Spartan/pederastic worldview of paganism. It is actually forcing paganism and Satanism and all religions (like Marxism) that REMOVES Natural Law (science/philosophy) from a “Justice” system.
Any judge has to KNOW that promotion of homosexuality (irrationality/vice) and abortion (killing babies/Natural Law (science) destroys our so-called “Justice” system and makes it into a Vice System AND forces paganism and Satanism and hedonism and Marxism (no agency/slave mentality—vice makes slaves) onto the little vulnerable children.
The promotion of vice destroys Justice (Cicero) and will collapse civil societies (Montesquieu/Justice Marshall). Any concept that defies Truth (God’s Laws) and Natural Law (only Christian worldview is aligned with Natural Law) is appropriate for the US “Justice” system.
I never liked Pryor. He is a fraud and evil who “pretends” and tries to act like he is a profound Christian-—the only worldview for a judge on the US Supreme Court. All other worldviews are irrational to the extreme and don’t align with our Constitution (Justice System)-—Rule of Law—Higher Laws (God’s Laws).
Wisdom is the ability to discern Good and Evil (Cicero) and what the homosexual agenda is doing is destroying Wisdom in children. All curricula, not based on Classical Christian curricula, destroys wisdom and “right reason” in little children and makes them into evil, irrational pagans, satanists or whatever——worldviews antithetical to freedom and virtue.
If there is anything in past showing where any Bushes liked him or any of the fraudulent conservatives, like McCain, Graham, McConnell, etc., then it is a sure Souter pick or Kennedy in the making.
Any record on BOR amendment II?
He’s 54. Too old. We have a great pick in Neil Gorsuck whose 49. The younger the better as long as they follow the Constitution. We will not have the Senate forever. We need to ensure that we have Supreme Court for next 40 years or more.
Pryor is a dipshit. Roy Moore got him started in his l career and he stabbed him in the back when he fired Moore as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. It’s a crying shame that this country will never have the great Roy Moore sitting on the Supreme Court. Pryor seen to that.
We need a judge to restore God’s will to the law of the land. We cannot accept anything less!
Judge Neil Gorsuch has emerged as the leading contender for the only current open spot. I honestly don’t care until a judge is nominated or a leading contender.
I seriously doubt Pryor will ever be in this position if the everything stated above is unbiased and true. Trump has an excellent vetting team. Why worry about something that will not occur?
That may have been what this article said but I read the court opinion which said exactly the opposite.
The court opinion stated that Keeton’s views were not under attack and that they were in no way incompatible with being a successful counselor. The opinion further stated that several other graduates of the program held identical views with Keeton’s and those had been no impediment to their training, graduation, certification & later practice. Keeton’s personal views were in fact not germaine.
Keeton’s problem was that she was not willing to respect that her clients might not share her views. The training is supposed to allow the counselor to work efficiently with diverse populations treating all religions, races, ethnic groups and sexual identities with respect even when they do not share your beliefs. IRL Keeton could have referred LGBT clients to another therapist in her group or another group nearby that was comfortable with LGBT clients.
Keeton was given a choice of a broad range of ways she could be exposed to the ideas of a population she was unable to relate to in a therapeutic fashion so that by understanding them better she could perform her duties.
My read on the situation is that she was taking a stand, sueing for a fight to spread her viewpoint. If you are a counselor you help the person with the problem they present you with. While you may personally abhor their lifestyle they may be happy with it.
A mental health professional needs to respect people’s right to choose their path. The rule is meant to protect all people so Muslim counselors respect Christian clients, Black, White visa versa and so on. Keeton was very aggressive in telling clients and even classmates or staff that they needed to go for conversion therapy as unsolicited advise.
I do not see how the school could have graduated her without some understanding on her part of professional ethics. There was a very real possibility she could have caused harm to clients with fragile self esteem or in crisis and the school would have been partially negligent.
He’s former AG of Alabama and he’s been on the 11th Circuit.
Someone would have to do a search. Just because 2A hasn’t yet been mentioned doesn’t mean it isn’t in there someplace.
Gorsuch clerked for both Souter and Kennedy. Makes me suspicious.
.
The judge America loves and wants on SCOTUS is Roy Moore.
The cream of the crop.
.
As a Chaplain counselor in a program at a major university, we had to deal with the same issue. At that university, the staff chose to acknowledge that in our counseling we bring a Christian worldview and that our position makes it impossible for us not to recommend historic Christian truth.
They graduated us anyway...with highest honors, it turned out.
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.