Obviously, I disagree. The private biases of a judicial nominee are completely relevant to deciding his fitness for office. How many gay lawyers, litigants, and defendants will pass through Judge Pryor’s chambers during his lifetime on the bench? Can we trust that he will set aside his strong distaste for homosexuals and judge their cases on the merits, or should we be concerned that his biases will influence his decisions in such cases? These are questions that can and should be answered before the Senate votes on his confirmation.
But isn’t that we ask of all judges? To put aside their personal feelings and base their decisions soley on the law? I mean, we can ask that, but we can’t ask that they not have personal feelings.
Having personal feelings doesn’t mean that one cannot see past them and do their duty. Shouldn’t his record show wheter or not he can do this?
[sub]I have no horse in this race. I know nothing of the guy talked about[/sub]
I know you disagree. I think we’re all just running around in circles here.
But my point here is this:
a judge personally believes X
A judge’s sworn duty is to impartially interpret the law.
Prove to me that his opinion on X will dictate his behavior in the courtroom.
You cannot. You simply cannot. You can cite possibilities or probabilities or just flat out say “I don’t care about proof, I just don’t want to take this chance,” but you have to admit that one does not logically flow from the other. It IS possible for a person to impartially decide an issue regardless of his or her held beliefs.
Now, if you (or, in this case, Feingold) can show me how Pryor’s held beliefs actually have affected his job or have influenced his decision or has led him to publish inflammatory/discriminatory things about homosexuals, that’s fair game. That’s concrete proof. That I can accept.
When we delve into the private lives to gather dirt, we prove nothing but that we’ve slipped farther down the slope.
Russ Feingold is an outstanding Senator - keep in mind, he’s the only one who voted against that fascist Bush’s “Patriot Act”; he also voted against the war. We need a lot more Senators like him.
And kids would never say “hue” - that’s the only part of that sentence that held any truth.
Quite so. And that’s exactly my problem with Pryor: anybody who takes up that cause, particularly with the zeal Pryor has shown for freeing the citizens of Alabama from the Dread Scourge of D-Cell Pleasure Dongs, is ipso facto unfit for a seat on the federal bench.
Sometimes, democratic decisionmaking gives way to higher concerns. There’s nothing magical about the Alabama Legislature that makes everything they do above reproach and worthy of zealous defense. This is one such instance.
Actually, one does need to be a busybody asshole to defend that law with the zeal Pryor has shown, and by all indications, he is quite fond of it.
Feel free to impugn my morality on In re Baby Candy. I am entirely responsible for the positions I have advocated on behalf of my client in that case. Of course, I would suggest that it’s proper to withhold such moral judgments until you know the issues and facts involved (and naturally, I can’t discuss 'em). That’s the difference between me and Bill Pryor–we’ve got a damn good idea what he’s pursuing in his case, and it ain’t pretty.
spooje and Ender: You’re both correct that the ultimate issue is whether the nominee can set aside his private biases and render justice in a fair and impartial manner. With regard to Pryor’s anti-gay biases, I am arguing only that they are a proper subject for inquiry along the road to making that decision. If we want to know whether Pryor can set aside his biases, we first have to know what those biases are and how deeply they run.
No, but you can make a fairly reliable inference, even with (and perhaps especially with) the subject evading the question.
This is a lifetime job whose actions have far-reaching consequences, and whose decisions won’t automatically follow from the law (that’s for lower courts). Approval decisions by the Senate have to be reached based on what is known about the person and his own decisionmaking process, whether or not the standard of proof that would be required for a prosecution is met, as you suggest it must.
It is also entirely appropriate, given the political aspects of judicial nominations, to include political and philosophical orientation of the nominee when rendering “advice and consent” as the Constitution requires. Don’t kid yourself that it doesn’t matter, or that Bush doesn’t use such an ideological filter when selecting his nominees, or that the GOP-controlled Senate doesn’t use one when considering them.
Is it really unfair to suggest that questionable nominees for a lifetime job be sent back with the “advice” that unquestionable ones be sent instead to be “consented” too? Or do you think the Senate has no role other than as a rubber stamp? Read your Constitution.
The corruption shown in the RAGA saga is enough for me to say the Senate should deny consent, even without going into Pryor’s right-of-Ashcroft ideology and religion.
I agree. I’m proud that he’s representing my state, and my one regret about moving away soon is that I won’t be able to help re-elect him.
Some judges may be able to hold their personal feelings aside and be impartial on the bench. I don’t think Pryor is that type of person.
I must admit to a certain amount of confusion.
In this thread, we have posters who have excoriated John Ashcroft (and rightly so) for attempting to expand his powers to intrude into various aspects of the private lives of citizens. Those same posters are now defending a Senator who is delving rather deeply into the private life of Bill Pryor.
Why is one bad and the other good?
I agree that to a certain extent, judges and other appointees should have their backgrounds checked to make sure there aren’t any skeletons in the closet. But fixating over changed vacation plans? If it comes to this as a way to keep Pryor from the bench, I seriously wonder if any nominee could pass inspection.
But, Dewey, you’ve yet to show evidence to support that there is a reasonable expectation that risque behavior is more likely to occur at Disney World during Gay Days than on any other day. To assume that since there are a bunch of Gay Folk there then inappropriate behavior will happen is a biased assumption.
Ashcroft’s war on privacy is conducted pursuant to nothing more than his desire to delve into the private lives of citizens, and without many of the ordinary safeguards of due process.
Sen. Feingold’s inquiry into the private beliefs and conduct of Bill Pryor is conducted pursuant to his constitutional duty to give advise and consent to the president’s judicial nominees, and is conducted with all of the ordinary safeguards of due process.
You misunderstand. I absolutely know about the specific re: discrimination/religion. What I’m saying is that selecting a candidate based on their ability to do the job is legal, even if the reason they’re unable/unwilling to perform essential job functions relates to their religion. For example - if you’re hiring a doctor for a clinic and one essential function they have is to perform abortions, and they say they cannot do that because of their religious beliefs, it’s still ok to not hire them because they will not/cannot perform essential job function.
C’mon Homebrew, get the old brain in gear here. Dewey said that there is a minority of gays who feel that public expressions of gay love at events like Gay Pride Parades is empowering. This leads one to reasonably expect that such folk may attend Gay Days at Disney World and empower themselves.
He didn’t impugn all gays. A minority of white people rob convenience stores. Saying so is not biased. It’s biased to say all white people do, but it’s not biased to point out the simple truth that some do.
That’s what Dewey did. You may want to address the notion that that minority does show up and does publicly get sexy on each other, but you’re not impressing anyone for getting on Dewey’s case for something he did not do.
Damn, I’m defending Dewey. I can’t believe it. And I’m pretty durned sure HE won’t WANT to believe it.
Gay Days have been going on for 13 years. If such outlandish behavior happened with regularity during these events, then I’d say it is a reasonable expectation that it would happen again. However since that is not the case, the expectation is based on a stereotype.
You analogy fails, Evil Captor. For your analogy to be valid you’d have to posit that someone reasonably avoids going to Disney World because they fear being robbed by white people
Waitaminute. I raised the point that Pryor is evidently correct in his constitutional analysis, as evidenced by his record in the 11th Circuit. And you retort that this makes him unfit. Huh? It seems to me that is evidence of nothing more than him being a good lawyer. **
I agree that the Alabama legislature is not above reproach. Its actions are circumscribed by US and Alabama constitutions and by federal law. But to the extent the Alabama legislature remains within those boundaries, it is free to act. Democratic principles demand that we respect those decisions.
And the people of Alabama have a right to expect that their viewpoint, as expressed through legislation, is represented in court – that their ability to make decisions within constitutional boundaries is given a full and fair defense. That job falls to the AG. And that is what Pryor was doing here.
Your basic objection appears to be “this is a stupid, moronic law.” Well, I happen to agree with you on that point, but you full well know that isn’t a constitutional argument. And to the extent their decisions remain within constitutional bounds, the people of the state of Alabama have a right to make stupid and moronic decisions. Your ire is properly directed at the Alabama legislature, not at AG Pryor – he’s just doing his job.
Waitaminute. I raised the point that Pryor is evidently correct in his constitutional analysis, as evidenced by his record in the 11th Circuit. And you retort that this makes him unfit. Huh? It seems to me that is evidence of nothing more than him being a good lawyer. **
I agree that the Alabama legislature is not above reproach. Its actions are circumscribed by US and Alabama constitutions and by federal law. But to the extent the Alabama legislature remains within those boundaries, it is free to act. Democratic principles demand that we respect those decisions.
And the people of Alabama have a right to expect that their viewpoint, as expressed through legislation, is represented in court – that their ability to make decisions within constitutional boundaries is given a full and fair defense. That job falls to the AG. And that is what Pryor was doing here.
Your basic objection appears to be “this is a stupid, moronic law.” Well, I happen to agree with you on that point, but you full well know that isn’t a constitutional argument. And to the extent their decisions remain within constitutional bounds, the people of the state of Alabama have a right to make stupid and moronic decisions. Your ire is properly directed at the Alabama legislature, not at AG Pryor – he’s just doing his job.
Should a criminal defense attorney who knowingly defends the guilty be barred from the federal bench? Does his representation evidence a desire to see criminals turned loose on the streets? **
The AG’s office is the law firm for the state. Pryor is the AG. There is no way for the state to represent itself in this matter without Pryor having his hands on the matter in some fashion.
didn’t we go around and round on that one already DCU? my position is that in any governmental position, one is limited by their available resources. And one of the things a good manager/public servent does is decide the ‘best utilization’ of those limited resources.
And to devote any amount of time and resources defending what even you admit is a ‘stupid law’, based on the assumption that the populace of the state, becuz they elected those folks in the legislature who enacted that law, that Alabamans specifically want that particular law is, I think not justified.
IIRC, there was even some suggestion that the specific of outlawing vibrators was an unintended consequence of how the legislation was written (my memory may be faulty on this point).
Yes, the legs were duly elected. and they enacted the stupid legislature, but unless they ran on a ‘vibrators must be outlawed’ platform, I think it’s stretching to assume that the concept is actually the norm of the people in general. ( I do, for example, think that since the West side of Michigan legislators often run on platforms specifically saying they’re ‘pro life’ that you can extrapolate that the residents in that area are also in favor of pro life legislation).
Homebrew: simply reread what Evil Captor wrote. I’d just be repeating text by responding.
I add only two things:
-
Not only was I not impugning gays, I wasn’t even impugning gays who elect to put on risque displays. They aren’t bad people for doing so, and they have every right to express themselves. Just because I think a four-year old isn’t ready for that sort of thing doesn’t mean I think that behavior is immoral or evil.
-
The worst you can say about what I wrote is that it is overly risk-averse. OK, fine. Extreme risk-aversion is hardly uncommon in parents of young children. But you can’t plausibly claim that the position I outlined is (i) motivated by gay stereotypes or (ii) evidence of antigay sentiment.
Not at all. But if a criminal defense attorney permits knowledge or belief that the accused is in fact guilty to detrimenatlly affect his zealous advocacy of his client’s interests, that attorney is acting unethically and is probably not a fit candidate for job as a federal judge.
Of course, at least with regard to the particular criminal in question. If you can’t live with the position you argue on behalf of a client, you should not represent that client at all. That principle is enshrined in the Rules of Professional Conduct, you know.
Nonsense. Send forth the flunky. The Office of Attorney General gets involved in legal proceedings all the time without the slightest bit of participation by the actual AG. Yet out of all the thousands and thousands of cases handles by the Alabama AG’s office every year, Pryor went out of his way to take personal control of the vibrator case. Don’t delude yourself into thinking that decision was reluctantly made out of some principled duty to defend the laws of Alabama; Pryor did it because he’s a neo-Puritanical turd who detests the notion that the state ought to stay out of people’s bedrooms.