Hmmm...Not 1 Pit thread about Sen Feingold's moronic line of questioning to AG Pryor

It’s a small story, granted.

And this is just one question in a sea of of many stupid ones asked throughout history in the Senate.

Nor will it be the last.

But where in the hell does Russ Feingold (D-WI) get off asking 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals nominee Bill Pryor about cancelling a family trip to Disney World during the Gay Days celebration?

His daughters were 6 and 4 years old at the time, don’t he & his wife get to make the personal decision about what their children should be exposed to?

You want to question him about his opinions of Roe v Wade? Fine.

You want to question his reasoning about a brief he filed in which he compared homosexual acts to "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, incest and pedophilia? It is a rather backward opinion to hold & I see no problem with that either.

Questioning Pryor about any family decisions he’s made has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the man’s philosophy or jurisprudence. It’s nothing more than the politically correct politics of personal destruction.

What’s next?

Nominee Jones, I understand on a recent trip to NYC, you refused to take your toddlers on a stroller ride through the West Village neighborhhod.

Nominee Smith, is it true you had an abortion while in law school & were unsure as to who the father was?

Nominee White, It’s been brought to my attention you won’t let preschool aged children watch Sesame Street because you find it too urban and too ethnic. Is this true?

Nominee Green, Did you once take your children to a nudist resort in Florida and is it true in 1978 you once rented Insatiable at the local video store? Ooops, never mind…those have happened already

Nominee Johnson, It’s been brought to my attention you bought a house in a very homogenized, suburban neighborhood. Why don’t you live in a more diverse area of town?

Nominee Schwartz, How will your religious beliefs affect any ruling you make toward members of the muslim community?

Enough already. Feingold, in my opinion, you were outta line. The decisions a person makes with regards what they decide to expose to their children to and what what age that’s done has no place in a Senate confirmation hearing.

Apparently, now there is one.

It’s a relevant question because it speaks to his ability to treat all Amnericans equally under the law. Really, it’s no different than him cancelling a trip because he found out a lot of black people were going to be there. A religious bigot has no business serving on the SC.

If Feingold had come out of nowhere with this question I might be willing to agree with you. If Mr. Pryor had not expressed any opinion or made any statements on homosexuality at all, Feingold would definitely be out of line. However, from the report you cited, Pryor was trying to downplay his anti-gay beliefs, saying that he was simply using language previously used by a former Supreme Court justice. Considering the power weilded by appellate judges, I see nothing wrong with Feingold’s question.

While I might disagree with his beliefs, he is entitled to them. If he has the beliefs, he should own up to them and not try to shade the issue.


It’s not the SC, it’s the CoA. In either case, I just don’t see it that way. Are you saying people who choose to not expose their young children to gay events are religious bigots? If you are, you’re diluting the term bigot down to the point it no longer has meaning. It’s also quite a bit different with regards to race. No child in this country would ask their parents, “why is that person’s skin shade a different hue than ours?”

Disney allows black people into the parks? Sheesh, have they no standards whatsoever? Blacks, gays, straights, cross-dressing nuns … these people can’t coexist outside of some pie-in-the-sky Magic Kingdom.

Oh, Feingold had it in for Pryor from the get-go.

Did you catch one priceless exchange in their interaction?

I expected his next question to be, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”


I asked this question when I was a child.

No, I think he’s simply saying that the question was relevant to the process.

As I see it, Bill Pryor was applying for a job, and Russ Feingold was interviewing him, trying to determine if he could do the job. Since that job requires (among other duties) him to treat gays fairly under the law, questions about Pryor’s possible bias would be relevant. It’d be no different than me applying for a job as a staff writer at The New Republic, and the editors asking me about some of the political-related stuff I’ve written on the SDMB.

Pryor’s real problem is that he’s an outspoken opponent of abortion. He said Roe v. Wade “ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children.”

Can someone with these views be an appellate judge? The N Y Times thinks not. They consider his POV “Beyond the Pale.”

I’m sypathetic to the Times POV. It’s hard to believe that Pryor will fully uphold Roe v. Wade, even though he has promised to do so. But, then, what shall we do with judges who oppose the death penalty? Or, judges who disagree with other key SC decisions? We cannot require that all judges be in philosophical agreement with every key the SC decision.

There’s also a religious discrimination aspect. Several religions have strong philosophical disagreement with abortion. Can we bar all members of those religions, even those who promise to follow the SC, rather than their religious belief? I don’t think so. That would amount to a religious test, which is unconstitutional.

This is a crock. Answering questions about sexuality in general are prickly for any parent, much less questions about homosexuality. I’m not sure if I would exactly relish explaining to a four-year old why those two men in line for Space Mountain were holding hands. Ostensibly I’d be there on VACATION, meaning to relax and enjoy spending time with my family. I can understand perfectly well wanting to put off the discussion of major social issues with the kids until (i) they are older and (ii) a time when I’m not tryin’ to relax.

I’d say they’re homophobic. Would you say that people who choose not to expose their children to black-themed events are racist?

Not certain that you’re correct about that. If I have a choice between two job applicants, one of whom, for religious reasons refuses to work on Sundays, one who does not refuse, and the essential job description includes mandatory working on Sundays, then I believe that I’m allowed to screen them out based on their refusal to perform essential job functions. Even if that refusal is based on religious grounds. OR at least that’s what I’ve been taught in seminars on hiring.

{url= news/021030/pryor.shtml]Simply the first Google hit on “Pryor RAGA”, for the education of those who might need it (not naming names, but you know who you are).

Asking who a politician might be beholden to is entirely relevant when he’s applying for a lifetime job, wouldn’tja say? So is inquiring whether his religious intensity, or possible belief that not all people have equal rights, are strong enough to make him flout the law.

The Senate has a Constitutional job to do, advising and consenting. They don’t do it thoroughly enough, IMHO, so good for Feingold. The question now is if the remaining moderates in the GOP have enough spine to send Pryor back under his rock without forcing a Dem filibuster.

What if an applicant had a “religious” belief that Jews were parasites or that white people were devils? Can a religious belief conflict with one’s ability to judge all citizens equally?

It’s not even an official Disney event. It’s just a loosely organized effort to get a bunch of gay folk to be there the same week. There isn’t going to be a Pride Parade down the middle of Main Street or an orgy at the Pirates of Carribean. Yes, it is bigotry to not go just because there are a bunch of gay people there; just as it was bigotry when the SBC called for a boycott because Disney approved domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.

It is certainly his and your right to choose not to go. But being a raging bigot should be a disqualification for such an important job.

You have an interesting understanding of what constitutes a “right”.

As in: “You have the right to obtain an abortion. If you do, you can never be a federal judge.”

Or: “You have the right to remain silent. If you choose to exercise that right, it will be interpreted as a plea of guilty to all charges.”

And so forth. Not that this is anything more than the standard “anyone who disagrees with me is a raging bigot” line that has been applied by Feingold a little more blatantly than usual.

There is essentially zero chance that Feingold would ever have voted to confirm Pryor, so he was simply digging for dirt. And was not prepared to listen to any answers that didn’t give it to him.

SOP for the Dems ever since Bork.


Gay guy right here. What the FUCK is so deleterious to the welfare of children by knowing that I exist? Huh? Darn tootin’ Pryor is a bigot.

That is the silliest comment I’ve read on this board in a very long time. Please tell me you’re not a parent because I 'd hate to see a kid raised by anyone this clueless.

Pryor’s a complete ass who is unworthy of a job as sewer cleaner, much less a seat on the 11th Circuit. His anti-gay bigotry is a legitimate subject of inquiry, and his forthcoming responses on that subject should serve quite nicely as the basis for a third Democratic filibuster.

Or would this be the fourth? Owen and Estrada I know about, but are they filibustering Pickering too?