home

William Pryor Confirmed as 11th Circuit Judge

The Senate today confirmed William Pryor as a Judge on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Here's what the Times had to say about him after his 2004 recess appointment. More reasons Pryor was opposed are here.

The Senate will take up William Meyers next, whom I refer to as the "fall guy" in the Senate compromise. He'll probably be confirmed - the compromisers just didn't guarantee it.

If anyone expected Arlen Specter to be a balancing force, see TChris's post here and what Dobson said here.

Update: What was Sen. Harry Reid thinking, when he said of the Senate Compromise:

"We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical right of the Republican Party an undeniable message ... the abuse of power will not be tolerated," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

< Hawaii May Prosecute Doctors Who Prescribe Pot | Senators Respond to Bush's Patriot Act Speech >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Capitulation as compromise...the DLC SOP. We have no leaders, they've all been killed off or bought off.

    Re: William Pryor Confirmed as 11th Circuit Judge (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    Pryor, like all nominees, deserved an up or down vote, per the Constitution. Glad to see him get it. Given the vote totals, it also looks like such votes will be the norm going fw, unless the circumstances are genuinely extraordinary (i.e. not merely a disagreement over whether one side intends to support or oppose a nominee; those are run of the mill). That too is good.

    Nothing in the Constitution requires an up or down vote on judges.

    Re: William Pryor Confirmed as 11th Circuit Judge (none / 0) (#4)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    This is the definition of compromise in Bizarro World. "Waiter! More Koolaid!"

    Re: William Pryor Confirmed as 11th Circuit Judge (none / 0) (#5)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    TL, Thx, you are absolutely correct. I meant to say "constitutional obligation to advise and consent." Clear as mud? Anyway, thx again.