I am about to do something I rarely do here, and that is to delve into Tin-Foil Conspiracy theories. This one is extra special, because I have come up with it on my own, but I can’t help but thinking I might be right about this one- or maybe partially right. Then again, I may just be on glue. At any rate, here goes my foray into the Art Bell Atmosphere.
William Pryor, as you might know, is the Attorney General of Alabama and a recent nominee to U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. For those of you living in a cave, the Democrats do not like him. Not one bit. Here are the attack pages from the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, and NOW, just to give you a flavor of their opinion regarding Mr. Pryor. Here are some choice words from the Democrat leader of the Judiciary Committe, Pat Leahy.
Saying they don’t like him puts it mildly. Here are some blogger posts from Matt Yglesias (1, 2, 3, 4) TalkLeft (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) and Calpundit, just to list a few of the more moderate Democrats.
For those of you who are unaware of the flap going on in Alabama regarding the display of the Ten Commandments, I might just suggest hitting this link, which will take you to a google search where you can read until you are sick of the issue. This NY Times article today sums up the current situation:
The eight associate justices of the Alabama Supreme Court overruled their defiant chief justice today and unanimously ordered the removal of the 5,280-pound monument of the Ten Commandments he installed in the State Supreme Court lobby.
Trying to head off a showdown with a federal court, the justices said that the State Supreme Court must abide by federal rulings that found that Chief Justice Roy Moore had violated the separation of church and state. Starting today, the state faced fines of $5,000 for each day the granite block, known as Roy’s Rock, remained in the lobby.
Under Alabama law, five or more justices can override a chief justice’s administrative decision.
Also relevant in the story is this snippet:
Shortly after the associate justices made their decision, Bill Pryor, the state attorney general, announced that he was siding with the eight justices and that the monument must be removed from the lobby “as soon as practicable.”
Mr. Pryor, a conservative legal figure who has been nominated by President Bush for a federal appellate judgeship, had recently appointed lawyers to help argue Chief Justice Moore’s case.
But, he said today, “No man is above the law.”
You can probably see where this is going… One of the biggest complaints regarding Pryor was that he would be unable to separate his personal position on issues from a correct legal analysis and decision on issues, and this came to a head when the Senate Democrats and Republicans had a nasty little tiff, essentially over the notion that Democrats had created so many judicial litmus tests that a devout Catholic could not be cleared through the Senate as a judicial nominee.
So, to wrap this up, is it possible that:
A.) Judge Moore and Atty. General Pryor have a closer relationship than has been reported.
B.) Judge Moore understands he is going to lose this case, and is just grandstanding in order to put a more moderate face on his friend and Appeals Court nominee Pryor?
I guess we will know if Pryor is ever discussed in the Senate and his stance on this issue is used as de facto proof that he can separate his job from his personal opinions.
You are now free to take off your tin-foil hats- I am done. I have no idea if this is what is going on, but it would not surprise me, particularly since NO ONE seems to think the display should stay in the courthouse and Judge Moore has to understand that he is going to lose this case.
I’ll forward you the number for the Reynolds-Wrap Haberdashery if I ever find it. I think I have it around here somewhere… hmmm, no, guess not….
I dunno about this. Moore has been on this campaign for many years, long before Pryor was nominated. His behavior today is completely consistent with his behavior all along.
Don’t worry, though, I’m sure the tinfoil hat will come in handy for something else….
I dunno. I agree with Pryor. Does that mean I’m part of a conspiracy involving him?
I don’t understand the hard on the Republicans have for Pryor. I mean, he is 1 of how many judge appointments the Dems have blocked?
Whats the advise the Republicans keep giving the democrats?….”let it go”.
The problem isn’t Pryor per se. It’s the series of litmus tests that are becoming precedent.
1. Nobody who questions the wisdom of abortion, even unto the 8th week, post partum.
2. Nobody who goes to church. (The big hit on Priscilla Owen is that she suffers from #1, and from #2 – she’s actually the leader of her church choir… clearly a religious wacko.)
3. Nobody who has the potential for making life tuff for the Dems due to minority status – Janice Rogers Brown (sp? got the name 100%correct?) and Miguel Estrada must not make it onto the federal bench – otherwise, (a) the Republicans can brag about not being bigots, thereby countering an essential Dem campaign theme; and (b) further Demo opposition, say to a Rogers Brown Supreme Court nomination could be spun by R’s as racist and sexist.
4. Dems can’t afford another Clarence Thomas – a prominent, staunch minority conservative. It might break up their most reliable voting bloc – Blacks + Union.
It’s really not win a few, lose a few. The R’s give up on any one of these nominees, and it will establish a precedent. Note where the line has been drawn with Pryor – he says “I don’t agree with abortion personally, but will uphold the law as a judge must.” The standard set is that it is beyond the pale to even disagree with some laws, regardless of whether you agree to follow them.
What’s the next litmus test? Will judges in the near future have to express approval of sodomy in order to sit on the bench?
Although I think Judge Moore does sound a bit…um, volatile at times, I suggest his opponents are missing a major point.
Specifically, my recollection is that the Bill of Rights says “*Congress* shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
That’s “Congress.” And of course, the constantly-violated Tenth Amendment reserves to the States all powers not *specifically enumerated* in the Constitution as being given to the federal government, yes?
So from a constitutional standpoint, Alabama would seem to have every right to embrace various principles to guide the conduct of its government if it wishes to do so.
Some attorneys may claim case law has now established that no state can pass any statute that varies from federal law. Yet California passed emissions laws that were tighter than federal laws, and was upheld.
Certainly no state could deprive a citizen of his or her civil rights, but it would be quite a reach to claim Moore’s sculpture did such.