Alliance for Justice Report in Opposition to the Nomination of William H. Pryor to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Download 172.55 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Conclusion
Judicial TemperamentIn investigating judicial temperament, the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary must consider a nominee's “compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice under the law.”176 There is much evidence that Pryor’s ideological extremism and partisanship render him temperamentally unfit for the bench. Pryor has said that he “became a lawyer because [he] wanted to fight the ACLU – the Anti-American Civil Liberties Union.”177 While in private practice, Pryor’s commitment to the Republican Party apparently interfered with his representation of clients. Valstene Stabler, a partner at the Birmingham firm of Walston, Stabler, Wells, Anderson & Baines, described Pryor as being “so interested in what the Republican Party was doing in the state, he was having trouble devoting attention to his private clients.”178 Since becoming Alabama’s Attorney General, Pryor has regularly interjected himself and the state of Alabama into cases in which they do not have any real interest. He has filed scores of amicus curiae briefs in cases far removed from Alabama. His involvement in these cases—and the positions he advances—appear to be motivated not by his duty to protect the interests of the citizens of Alabama, but instead by his desire to advance his own conservative agenda on issues near and dear to his heart, such as states’ rights, the death penalty, the separation of church and state, and the Second Amendment. Perhaps the quintessential example of Pryor’s result-oriented overreaching was the case that decided the last presidential election, Bush v. Gore. When the outcome of the election was put before the Supreme Court, Pryor was the only state attorney general to file an amicus brief in support of George W. Bush. Pryor’s attempt to articulate a rationale for Alabama’s participation in the case was almost laughable, concerning a past controversy over the method for counting valid absentee ballots. Nevertheless Pryor, who had served as the Alabama co-chairman of the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign, filed the brief, which argued that the Supreme Court should overturn the Florida Supreme Court decision refusing to block the manual recount of ballots.179 An attorney who practiced regularly in Alabama noticed an irony in Pryor’s position: “One might think that a true believer in what is now called `federalism’ would likely take the position that election-law matters should be left up to the states rather than to federal judges.”180 Pryor apparently views his current position as a bully pulpit from which to promote his ideological agenda. As demonstrated repeatedly throughout this report, Pryor has no qualms about offering up intemperate remarks regarding judicial decisions with which he disagrees and the justices who render them. He seems most unwilling to abide by binding precedent. As the Washington Post noted in its editorial opposing his nomination: Mr. Pryor’s speeches display a disturbingly politicized view of the role of the courts. He has suggested that impeachment is an appropriate remedy for judges who “repeatedly and recklessly . . . overturn popular will and . . . rewrite constitutional law.” And he talks publicly about judging in the vulgarly political terms of the current judicial culture war. He concluded one speech, for example, with the following prayer: “Please, God, no more Souters” – a reference to the betrayal many conservatives feel at the honorable career of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter.181 Nothing in William Pryor’s record suggests that he possesses the compassion, open-mindedness, freedom from bias, or commitment to equal justice under the law required for confirmation to a seat on one of the nation’s second highest courts. ConclusionAttorney General Bill Pryor is one of the most extreme right-wing ideologues President Bush has nominated to the federal judiciary. Throughout his career, he has aggressively pursued his ideological agenda in almost every area of the law. He is a political partisan who has engaged in ethically troubling behavior and an ideological extremist who is temperamentally unfit for the bench. If confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, we justifiably fear that he would not be guided by precedent and could not be fair and impartial. The Alliance for Justice strongly opposes his nomination. 1 “Unfit to Judge,” WASHINGTON POST, April 11, 2003. 2 James is perhaps best known for threatening to deploy the Alabama National Guard to make sure that no one removed the Ten Commandments tablets from the courtroom of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. Matt Labash, “God and Man in Alabama,” THE WEEKLY STANDARD, March 2, 1998 at Pg. 19. 3 Kelly Greene, “Bill Pryor Hopes to Ride Court Crusade to the Top,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 21, 1997. 4 Id; see also Pryor’s website at http://www.ago.state.al.us. 5 Doug Ireland, “Abraham on the Altar,” THE NATION, March 6, 2000; see also http://www.ago.state.al.us. 6 See http://www.ago.state.al.us. 7 In Alabama, “[a]ll litigation concerning the interest of the state, or any department of the state, shall be under the direction and control of the Attorney General.” Ala. Code § 36-15-21 (1999). Attorneys General have broad powers to protect the interests of the people, see e.g. State of Florida ex rel Shevin v. Exxon Corp., 526 F.2d 266, 268 (5th Cir. 1976) and Alabama’s Attorney General has “wide discretion in determining what actions he should take in protecting what he conceives to be the best interests of the State of Alabama and the citizens thereof.” Mobile Oil Corp. v. Kelly, 353 F.Supp. 582, 586 (S.D. Ala. 1973). 8 Kelly Greene, “Bill Pryor Hopes to Ride Court Crusade to the Top,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 21, 1997. 9 Sutton was recently confirmed to a seat on the 6th Circuit after a bitter battle in the U.S. Senate. When questioned about his role in some of the most devastating 5-4 Supreme Court decisions striking down critical federal protections, Sutton argued to Senate Judiciary Committee members that he had no independent view of how these cases should be decided and was merely carrying out the wish of his client, i.e., Bill Pryor. 10 Pryor hired Sutton to represent Alabama as amicus curiae in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 526 U.S. 62 (2000), U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 498 (2000), Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (as a party), Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001). 11 Bill Pryor, “The Supreme Court as Guardian of Federalism,” Remarks at event entitled “Federalism: The Quiet Revolution,” sponsored by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., July 11, 2000; see Brief of Alabama as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, 1999 U.S. Briefs 5. Indeed, the attorneys general of thirty-six states appeared as amici curiae on the other side to defend the constitutionality of VAWA. See Brief of the States as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petitioner’s Brief on the Merits, 1999 U.S. Briefs 5. 12 Not only did Pryor participate in the drafting of the states’ brief in Hibbs, but he also unsuccessfully petitioned the court for leave to participate in oral argument. See LEXSEE 2002 U.S. LEXIS 9254. 13 Michael S. Greve, “A Federalism Worth Fighting For,” THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Jan. 29, 2001. 14 Jeffrey McMurray, “Groups to Fight Pryor’s Appeals Court Nomination—But How Hard?,” AP, April 26, 2003. 15 See Nevada Dep’t of Human Resources v. Hibbs, No. 01-1368, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4272, at *15 (May 27, 2003). 16 Jinks v. Richland County, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 3241(April 22, 2003). 17 See, e.g., Bill Pryor, The Demand for Clarity: Federalism, Statutory Construction, and the 2000 Term, 32 CUMB. L. REV. 361 (2001); “Fighting for Federalism,” speech before the Atlanta Lawyers’ Chapter of the Federalist Society, March 28, 2001; “The Future of Federalism,” speech before the National Lawyers Convention of the Federalist Society, Nov. 18, 2000. 18 Kelly Greene, “Bill Pryor Hopes to Ride Court Crusade to the Top,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 21, 1997. 19 Bill Pryor, “Federalism and the Court: Do Not Uncork the Champagne Yet,” Remarks before the National Federalist Society, Washington, D.C., Oct. 16, 1997. 20 Bill Pryor, “The Supreme Court as Guardian of Federalism,” Remarks at event entitled “Federalism: The Quiet Revolution,” sponsored by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., July 11, 2000. 21 See Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000). 22 Ashley Estes, “AG: State Partial-Birth Abortion Law May Require Change,” AP, June 30, 2000. 23 NARAL Pro-Choice America/NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, Who Decides: A State by State Review of Reproductive Rights, 12th Ed., Jan. 2003, Pg. 1. 24 Id. 25 Amy Bach, “No Choice for Teens,” THE NATION, Oct. 11, 1999, No. 11., Vol. 269, at Pg. 7. 26 Bob Johnson, “Judge Allows Abortion Information Act to Take Effect Oct. 14,” AP, Sept. 30, 2002. 27 Brief for the States as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, Stenberg v. Carhart, 1999 U.S. Briefs 830. 28 Ann Lewis, “Week in Review,” Women’s Vote Center News, April 25, 2003. 29 Pryor did, however, fund an Alabama domestic violence prevention program with the proceeds of a multi-state settlement with Nine West. Alan Greenblatt, “The Avengers General,” GOVERNING MAGAZINE, May 2003 at pg. 52. 30 Bill Pryor, “Battling Violence Against Women: States, Not Feds, Should Lead in Protection Efforts,” WASHINGTON TIMES, Jan. 11, 2000. In another action revealing an insensitivity to domestic violence, Pryor filed an amicus brief seeking to overturn a Texas law that prohibited a person subject to a temporary restraining order for domestic violence from possessing a firearm. See Brief for the State of Alabama as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellee, U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4269. 31 Brief of States as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). 32 Mike McKee, “AG Joins Amicus Supporting Colorado Anti-Gay Initiative,” THE RECORDER, May 23, 1995. 33 Bill Pryor, “Federalism and the Court: Do Not Uncork the Champagne Yet,” Remarks before the National Federalist Society, Washington, D.C., Oct. 16, 1997. 34 Jennifer J. Smith, “Ala. Sodomy Law Challenge Dismissed,” SOUTHERN VOICE, April 16, 2003. 35 Brief of States as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, 2002 U.S. Briefs 102. 36 See U.S. Supreme Court docket for Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (02-102). 38 Jeffrey McMurray, “Nominee Brief Resembles Santorum Remarks,” AP, May 1, 2003; see also Ellen Goodman, “The Divine Right of Political Kings,” PITTSBURGH POST, April 30, 2003. 39 Id. 40 531 U.S. 356 (2001). 41 524 U.S. 206 (1998). 42 No. 02-479, cert. dismissed, 173 S.Ct. 1779 (2003). 43 In Yeskey, Pryor also challenged Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause to apply the ADA to state prisons. He argued that the ADA had no application to state prisons at all, an argument rejected by the Supreme Court. 44 Garrett v. University of Alabama at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 223 F. Supp.2d 1244 (N.D. Ala. 2002). 45 “Judicial Activism: Assessing the Impact,” Testimony of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism & Property Rights, July 15, 1997. 46 See Sinkfield v. Kelly, 531 U.S. 28 (2000). 47 “Case could force new elections,” AP, Dec. 19, 1999. 48 531 U.S. 28. 49 See Heather Henderson, “Pryor Nominated to 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,” THE CRIMSON WHITE, April 18, 2003. In particular, Governor Don Sigelman declined to take a position on the issue. See Bill Rankin, “Bush Judicial Nominee a Conservative Activist,” THE ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION, May 25, 2003. 50 388 U.S. 1 (1967). 51 Mary Orndorff, “Activists Protest Pryor Nomination: `Foot Soldiers’ Cite His Challenges of Voting Rights Act,” AP, May 6, 2003. 52 Brief of Amici States in Support of Respondents, Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001). 53 Brief of Amici States in Support of Petitioner, Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999). 54 Heather Henderson, “Pryor Nominated to 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,” THE CRIMSON WHITE, April 18, 2003. 55 Jannell McGrew, “Civil Rights Veterans Denounce Pryor,” THE MONTGOMERY ADVISER, May 7, 2003. 56 For a more comprehensive analysis of Pryor’s record on environmental rights, please refer to the report of Community Rights Council. 57 Brief for the State of Alabama as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner, SWANCC v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001). Eight states filed on the other side, in support of federal regulation. See Brief for the States of California, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent. 58 Brief for the State of Alabama at 1. 59 Brief for the State of Alabama as Amicus Curiae in Support of Writ of Certiorari at pg. 2-4, Gibbs v. Babbitt (filed on January 26, 2001). 60 531 U.S. 1145 (2001). 61 Statement of Bill Pryor before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, July 16, 2002. 62 Bill Pryor, “When Federal Judges Should Be Impeached,” THE HUNTSVILLE TIMES, July 25, 1997. 63 Kelly Greene, “Bill Pryor Hopes to Ride Court Crusade to the Top,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 21, 1997. 64 Id. 65 See Ellen Goodman, “The Divine Right of Political Kings,” PITTSBURGH-POST GAZETTE, April 30, 2003; see also Buster Kantrow, “Business Groups Worrying Over Alabama Court Race,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, March 8, 2000 at Pg. S1. Pryor also urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to adopt a resolution put forward by Alabama Senators Shelby and Sessions supporting the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings. He condemned the Supreme Court’s “revision of our constitutional history to advance a political agenda that is hostile to any acknowledgement of God by government.” “Judicial Activism: Assessing the Impact,” Testimony of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism & Property Rights, July 15, 1997. 66 Steven Benen, “Monumental Mistake,” CHURCH & STATE, Dec. 1, 2001, No. 11, Vol. 54 at Pg. 8. After Pryor made this statement, he deputized long-time Moore attorney Stephen Melchior, along with constitutional attorneys Herbert Titus and John Eidsmoe, to serve as deputy attorneys general for the Moore defense team. See John Aman, “ACLU, Allies Bring Suit Against Chief Justice Moore,” available at http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=890; see also Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F.Supp.2d 1290 (M.D. Ala. 2002). 67 Kelly Greene, “Bill Pryor Hopes to Ride Court Crusade to the Top,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 21, 1997. 68 Id. The Supreme Court’s recent announcement that it will not hear an appeal of a Kentucky case involving the same issues could have a significant effect on Moore’s case. If the 11th Circuit rules against Moore, and the Supreme Court declines to hear his appeal, the state will likely be forced to pay the legal fees of the lawyers who challenged Moore. The fees, which could conceivably total approximately $1million dollars, would have to be paid by the taxpayers of Alabama. See Eddie Curran, “Legal Fees in Commandments Case Could Reach $1 Million,” AP, May 2, 2003. 69 Brief for the States in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, City of Elkhart v. Books, No. 00-1407, April 12, 2001. 70 Id. at 3; see also “Alabama Attorney General Files Brief Backing Elkhart in Appeal,” AP, April 13, 2001. 71 Elkhart v. Books, 532 U.S. 1058 (2001). Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, dissented, arguing that the Court should have granted certiorari. 72 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, State v. ACLU, Civ. Action No. CV-95-919-PR (Ala. Cir. Ct. Feb. 10, 1997). Jeff Sessions was Attorney General at the time, but Pryor signed the briefs as Deputy Attorney General. Pryor apparently brought this action, at least in part, in an attempt to force the federal courts to abstain from hearing a related case involving Judge Moore. See id. at ¶ 27. 73 State v. ACLU, Civ. Action No. CV-95-919-PR, at 2 (Ala. Cir. Ct. Nov. 22, 1996) (slip op.). In addition, the trial court initially found that the Ten Commandments did not violate the Constitution, but reversed his decision after visiting Judge Moore’s courtroom and considering that Judge Moore had “unequivocally stated that the plaques are not in the courtroom for a historical, judicial or educational purpose, bur rather, and clearly to promote religion.” State v. ACLU, Civ. Action No. CV-95-919-PR at 2(Ala. Cir. Ct. Feb. 10, 1997) (slip op.). 74 Id. at 17-23. 75 Brief of the State of Alabama at 8, Alabama v. ACLU, 711 So. 2d 952 (Ala. 1998) (alterations in the original). At the time of this appeal, Jeff Sessions had been elected to the Senate, so Pryor was the Alabama Attorney General as well as the attorney who signed the appellate brief. 76 See Alabama v. ACLU, 711 So. 2d 952 (Ala. 1998). 77 Bob Van Voris, “Prayer Cases Plus a Day Job,” NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, Dec. 25, 2000 at Pg. A17; “Christian Coalition Woes Widen with Lawsuit Over Past-Due Bills,” CHURCH & STATE, Jan. 1, 2000, No.1, Vol. 53, at Pg. 17. 78 Remarks of Attorney General Bill Pryor to Christian Coalition, “Road to Victory,” Washington, D.C., Oct. 1, 1999 at http://www.ago.state.al.us/speeches. 79 Id. 80 See “Ala. AG Pryor Addresses Christian Coalition,” AP, Oct. 3, 1999. In 1999, Pryor obtained a successful reversal by the 11th Circuit of a federal court order that prohibited public school officials from allowing any type of prayers at graduation or commencement exercises and forbade using public address systems for religious messages. See Chandler v. James,180 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 1999), vacated, 530 U.S. 1256 (2000), reaffirmed with clarification, 230 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 916 (2001); see also Jonathan Ringel, “11th Circuit Could Ignite Capital Controversy,” FULTON COUNTY DAILY REPORT, Jan. 14, 2003. More recently, Pryor sent a letter to all city and county schools to ensure that they understood that an annual student-led prayer event was protected under the First Amendment. Peggy Ussery, “Attorney General Clarifies Student-Led Prayer,” DOTHAN EAGLE, Sept. 9, 2002. 81 Ori Nir, “Groups Aim to Torpedo President’s Judge Pick: Pryor Opposed on Church-State,” FORWARD, May 16, 2003.; see also “Two Jewish Groups Oppose Pryor for 11th Circuit,” AP, May 17, 2003. 82 Bill Pryor, “The Supreme Court as Guardian of Federalism,” Remarks at “Federalism: The Quiet Revolution,” an event sponsored by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation on July 11, 2000. 83 122 S.Ct. 2508 (2002). 84 David White, “Inmate Can Sue Over Hitching Post,” BIRMINGHAM NEWS, June 28, 2002. 85 Id. 86 “U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Inmate Suit Over `Hitching Posts’,” AP, April 8, 2002. 87 “Supreme Court to hear arguments in case testing whether Alabama prison hitching posts are cruel and unusual punishment,” National Public Radio, Morning Edition, April 17, 2002. Directory: blog blog -> Ap u. S. History presidents list the Young Republic, 1788-1815 George Washington, 1789-1797 blog -> Sci-145: Introduction to Meteorology Lecture Note Packet 3 Chapter 9: weather forecasting blog -> Critical Kent: The Topographies Project: Beaches (2015). Background notes for Explorations of: From Whitstable into the Thanet Coast blog -> Atlantic Basin and eastern Pacific they are called hurricanes blog -> Science 10 Is Weather Becoming More Extreme? Sarah Stride blog -> Heuristic Theorizing: Proactively Generating Design Theories blog -> Sportswalk announces 2011 inductees the San Pedro Sportswalk to the Waterfront blog -> Seamheads at sabr 40 Download 172.55 Kb. Share with your friends:
|