Posted on 06/13/2003 8:47:07 AM PDT by Right_Wing_Mole_In_Seattle
6.12.2003
Principle v. Expediency
If he wasn’t one of my heroes before, he certainly is now. William Pryor, the Alabama state attorney general who has been nominated by President Bush to a seat on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, put on an extraordinary demonstration of courage, tenacity, and integrity this month in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Facing the bitterly divided Senate Judiciary Committee, he threw caution to the wind and actually told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It was quite frankly, a rare feat that left Senators on both sides of the aisle more than a little stunned.
Nominees are supposed to waffle. They are supposed to say whatever they need to say to get the confirmation nod. They are supposed to explain away all their previous blunt statements, strong opinions, or unpopular rulings. In other words, they are supposed to toss out principle for the sake of expediency.
Somehow, Bill Pryor didn’t get the memo.
A vigorous opponent of abortion throughout his career, he has on more than one occasion said some very politically-incorrect things about abortion. Once he went so far as to call the Roe v. Wade decision "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." Forget about the fact that he was absolutely right; you’d think he would soften his stance as he faced his confirmation foes. Not Bill Pryor.
At the very beginning of the confirmation hearing, New York Democrat Charles Schumer quoted the infamous "abomination" quote and asked, "Do you believe that now?"
Any other nominee would have taken that as his cue to start explaining, excusing, and backpedaling. But Bill Pryor is not any other nominee. Instead, of seizing the opportunity to wiggle out of the truth, he embraced it. He simply nodded and said, "I do."
Along with everyone else in the room, Schumer looked up dumbfounded. Had he heard right? There was a long, uncomfortable silence as he tried to process this unexpected straightforward response. Finally, the senator was able to stammer, "Well, I appreciate your candor. I really do."
A few moments later, Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter tried to give Pryor a second chance--as if he somehow had misunderstood before. Had he really said such a thing? Specter asked, “Was the 'abomination' quote accurate?”
“Yes,” Pryor answered, “the quote is accurate.”
Again, stunned silence. You have to understand, in Washington, no one is used to such unapologetic honesty. Specter tried yet again, “So, do you stand by those words?”
You have to wonder, what part of "yes" was it that these senators found so difficult to understand?
"I do indeed stand by that comment," Pryor said. "I believe that not only is Roe unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children."
Specter was left speechless. "Umm, uh, well," he said, pausing for a moment and looking down, "let's move on then."
And of course, as Byron York of the National Review later reported, "There were plenty of other Pryor statements to move on to." There was the time for instance that he said that with Roe, the Supreme Court had created "out of thin air a constitutional right to murder an unborn child." And then there was the remark that he "will never forget January 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest Court ripped up the Constitution."
Given more opportunities to back away from his words, Pryor again and again declined. "I believe that abortion is the taking of human life," he explained when committee chairman Orrin Hatch asked him about his comments. "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
At that point, York acknowledged that a number of White House strategists and confirmation observers, "while impressed with Pryor's candor, wondered what was going on." Who is this guy? What does he think he is doing? Is he suicidal? Is he deliberately trying to derail the President's judicial agenda?
Isn’t it amazing that in Washington, honesty, integrity, and principle bear all the hallmarks of political suicide these days? And it's not just the "bad guys." The entire political culture has become allergic to virtue. It appears that the very things that our Founders might have demanded as prerequisites for public service now actually disqualify men from serving at all.
At that point, York acknowledged that a number of White House strategists and confirmation observers, "while impressed with Pryor's candor, wondered what was going on." Who is this guy? What does he think he is doing? Is he suicidal? Is he deliberately trying to derail the President's judicial agenda?York said no such thing.
Take out the White House strategists part, and then you have what York said. The White House strategists part is made up by this author.
Look at the quotation marks. Grant is further explaining that the confirmation observers were also White House strategists.
At that point, York acknowledged that a number of White House strategists and confirmation observers, "while impressed with Pryor's candor, wondered what was going on."This is a fabrication. Here is what York said:
At that point some longtime confirmation observers, while impressed with Pryor's candor, wondered what was going on. Who is this guy? Is he suicidal? SourceYork said nothing about White House strategists. For some reason, this author made that part up.
Grant is further explaining that the confirmation observers were also White House strategistsGrant is saying that York said the White House strategists said something. York said no such thing. As such, Grant's statement is false.
York 'admitted' no such thing. Nor did he speculate such a thing.
Sloppy writing at a minimum. Intentionally deceptive at worst.
Grant is NOT QUOTING York when he says 'White House strategists.' What Grant is saying is that at least some of the confirmation observers that York was referring to, were White House strategists.
2) Unless Grant can read York's mind, Grant has no way of knowing if the confirmation observers are White House strategists or not. It is what Grant imagines, nothing more.
3) Grant said that these observers were wondering if Pryor was trying to torpedo the President's judicial agenda. There is nothing to support this assertion.
4) Not only that, but Grant said that York said these observers were wondering if Pryor was trying to derail the President's judicial agenda.
This article reads to me like a hit piece masquerading as a positive article. Grant was being either terribly sloppy or deceptive. Either way, it is wrong. And anyone with any objectivity who reads what Grant wrote and compares it to what York wrote will see that.
If you mean that it is a disguised hit piece against Pryor. I think is that highly unlikely given what Grant has written in the past.
If you mean that it is a disguised hit piece against most American politicians (D&R) and that Grant is contrasting Pryor's boldness and integrity with their political maneuvering... Well, ok that might be true.
Outcome: The GOP will be able to say (quite truthfully) that we allow our Senators to vote their consciences, and that there is no right wing cabal trying to stack the courts with barbarians -- after all, look what happened to Pryor? The Democrats' refusal to allow a straight up or down vote will be the cynical, empty strategy that it always has been. Bush will in turn campaign for conservative Senate candidates in 2004, and will be able to point to Pryor as evidence of his fidelity to social conservatives.
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.