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.
I agree, but the Senate squishy rinos would never let him through.
https://spectator.org/for-supreme-court-no-moore-grudges-please/
Judge William Pryor did his duty in the matter of Chief Justice Roy Moore. The above article is a more balanced examination of Justices Moore & Pryor’s roles in the 10 Commandment Monument situations. There is much to mourn about how the situation spiraled out of control but assigning blame is more nuanced.
Agree. Thanks for the new information.
President Trump will be better served with a 100% Scalia-like choice. It appears he has several other superior candidates to choose from.
Go TRUMP - MAGA
.
We need Roy Moore.
He is the one with the courage of his convictions.
No more SCOTUS weather vanes.
.
.
Pryor is an ideologue, and always has been.
He let the entire country down with his insane attack on the very fine Judge Roy Moore.
Moore was upholding the founding principles from the Declaration of Independence, which is our true founding document.
.
Pryor is fine. He’s a quality conservative. If you are responding to this post after only reading the above hit-job article as your sole resource, then you will be out of line.
I applaud your school and its graduates.
But I wonder if you were as confrontational as this student is purported to have been. I think it is sometimes a strength to be at an institution that is unashamedly Christian since people who seek therapy there are pre-selected for compatibility of viewpoint. The situation you outline clarifies the school’s mission as well.
Incidentally while the article I linked is well reasoned the author appears to be virulently anti Trump suggesting his words may be couched to cloak a wolf so that we might embrace it as a sheep.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-the-worst-human-being/article/2000122
He was right on Moore from a legal perspective.
He’s dead wrong on Deeton.
Gorsuch is solid. He sits on the Court of Appeals based in Denver. Landing a Supreme Court clerkship is extremely difficult. Basically, you need to be in the top 1% of the top 1% and as a practical matter you can't pick a Justice based on political views.
I have to agree with you that I find no placement, especially related to a courthouse, where the 10 Commandments would be out of place or would fail to inspire the hearts of men & women.
The problem is the legal judgements need to be revised to recognize that fact. Justices at all levels, who use the originalist interpretation of the Constitution as their standard, are sorely needed. It appears this is a murky tangle but as Christians unless we are protecting a life or a grave injustice we work within the law.
Roy Moore set himself up against the controlling legal authority and Pryor appears to have upheld the rule of law. It appears Pryor did so at great personal cost and reluctantly. There is much more work to do and original sources to pursue rather than articles written by those with an axe to grind before I truly feel I know where right lies in this situation.
This Conservative would oppose the nomination of Moore.
While every man has the right to put God’s law above man’s law, he does not have the right to make that the basis of his legal actions as a Judge. Not in a secular republic.
He is sworn to uphold the law as written.
.
We are not a secular republic.
The Declaration of Independence made that point quite clear.
You seem to advocate that we ignore the very knowledge that brought about the founding of the nation.
You have no clue what a conservative is.
.
Beyond Viguerie is Dobson, Wildmon, and Perkins:
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."
It wasn’t a Christian university, but a well-known major state university.
.
We have much “law” that stands opposed to the principles set out at the founding.
A proper court would direct all of such legislation and judicial action to the ash heap.
.
True - but the justices can and (at least in the case of the liberal ones) do. Clerking for Scalia doesn’t prove you’re conservative, because Scalia wanted to hear both sides.But the “liberal” justices do not do it that way.
I am confused. Was it a Chaplain Counseling program or were you a Chaplain at a counseling program? I had thought that in our present politically correct environment a State Counseling Program per se would not have been able to commit to being Christian in viewpoint.
I was part of a small group of Chaplains at a major public state university in their counseling program.
We ended up with masters degrees.
They didn’t commit to our world view. They simply permitted us to have ours. They argued with us, but didn’t hold it against us. One notable exception, a prof who was a Christian, gave us all the support he could.
There are plenty of good choices out there. We don’t need this guy.
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.