The ultra left wing L.A. Times comes out against Pryor: I know this is a bit redundant given my earlier post on the socialists opposing Bill Pryor's nomination to the 11th Circuit, but their de facto newspaper has now made it "official" with this pathetic editorial opinion (registration required). (LvHB)

Sullivan weighs in on the Pryor nomination: Well, I was wondering when Andrew Sullivan would get around to giving us his take on Bill Pryor's nomination to the Eleventh Circuit, and now he has in this post entitled "Judicial Temperament." Because I do not wish to be accused of taking his statements out of context, I quote this post in its entirety:

"It's odd, isn't it, that in Supreme Court debates, we always hear an enormous amount about various judges' 'philosophy,' their paper-trail, their alleged politics, and so on. Much of this is helpful enough and sometimes relevant. But surely something else matters as well, and that is the correct temperament to be a judge. It should match the temperament of an umpire - not a pitcher or catcher or any other role. What troubles me about Antonin Scalia is not so much the substance of his views (although I share very few of them) but the angry, sarcastic, bitter tone of his judgments. David Broder had a similar take last week. Part of what it takes to be a judge, in my mind, is a certain indifference to passionate advocacy, a sense of moderation, and prudence. If someone cares as passionately as Scalia does about the moral issues in what he has called the 'culture war,' and if he isn't even interested in moderating these passions in his judicial rulings, then it strikes me that he is not acting as a justice should act: with dignity, care, distance, and respect for alternative arguments. It's the tone that's off. It can be amusing, bracing, shocking, interesting; but it certainly isn't a judicial tone. Ditto the arguments about the far right nominee, Bill Pryor, a man whose political language about abortion is so inflamed he has had to say to the Senate that he will simply lay it all aside if he is called to rule on the matter. No one can believe in this kind of psychological compartmentalization; and no one should trust anyone who promises it. The truth is: anyone whose views are that inflamed shouldn't be anywhere near a federal bench. A talk-show host or blogger, maybe. A politician surely. But not a judge."

This--and I am being charitable here--is a load of crap. Lawrence v. Texas is judicial activism at its very worst, and to suggest that Justice Scalia is out of bounds for passionately calling Kennedy et al. to the carpet for their collective abomination is nonsense. As a guardian of the rule of law, Scalia should be passionate in his disdain for the Lawrence majority's reckless disregard of the Constitution's original meaning. In the coming years, we will see that his ire, if anything, was far too restrained.

Sullivan's views on Pryor's nomination are just as foolish. What he fails to acknowledge is that General Pryor has a record of placing his personal views on abortion aside and enforcing the law. Indeed, Pryor ordered--over the vocal objections of several prominent Republicans and pro-family groups--Alabama's district attorneys to take "the narrowest construction available" of the state's newly passed partial-birth-abortion ban because he believed that the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe and its progeny required such an interpretation. Does that action strike anyone as evidence of Pryor being an extremist? Just be honest Andrew. What you really mean is that devout Catholics who accept the Church's teachings on abortion and homosexuality can't be trusted to serve on the federal bench. And you believe that for the same reason adulterers always suspect their spouses of cheating on them--because you know that if you had a chance to be a federal judge you wouldn't even think about following the law if it got in the way of your own personal, political agenda.

I am just guessing, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Sullivan's dig at Pryor is pay back for his having filed an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas. Gee Andrew, what ever happened to "respect for alternative arguments?"

Time to dust this doctrine off (and stir up some controversy): If I were the governor of Texas, this would be my response to the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

O.k., I am kidding folks. But wouldn't it be fun to watch?

Thank you sir, may I have another!: Well, things are looking pretty bleak for my crowd. Last week originalists took a beating, and according to Bob Novak things are about to get much worse. In Novak's column today, he notes:

"Amid swirling speculation about reshaping the Supreme Court, a well-connected senior Republican senator told colleagues he has been informed what's likely to happen: Chief Justice William Rehnquist would retire and be replaced by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, with that vacancy filled by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales."

That's a bad plan, Mr. President. I would strongly counsel against taking such a course of action.

Socialists against Pryor: I am sure this will upset General Pryor greatly. :) But hey, you gotta give them credit. At least this group is willing to admit that they are socialists.

New commenting program: I am not quite sure what is going on with the "Blog Out" commenting program, but in the meantime I have installed SquawkBox's commenting program on SA for readers to leave their thoughts and opinions on the posts that I make.

Update: I've taken this commenting program off now that the old one is working. I think SquawkBox was interfering with my RSS feed. I may put it back up later, but for now it's gone.

Sorry: I know it's not cricket to make blogging promises and then fail to follow through, but sometimes life intervenes. Such is the case with my promised post on Lawrence v. Texas. I hope to have it completed soon, but I just haven't had time to finish it (and that's probably a good thing given my utter disdain for the Court's decision in that case).

Mel Gibson's "passion" for Christ: Barbara Nicolosi of the "Churches of the Masses" blog has this review of the "rough cut" of Mel Gibson's movie on the life of Jesus Christ, "The Passion." According to Nicolosi:

The Passion is a stunning work of art. It is a devout, act of worship from Mel and his collaborators - in the way that Handel's Messiah and Notre Dame were artistic acts of worship in previous times. . . . .

The Passion is high art. It is the greatest movie about Jesus ever made. In the discussion following the film, Mel and co. were asking us how mainstream theater audiences would react to the film. I told them, "Who cares? What you have here is so much more than just a product to sell. It will live forever, regardless of whether it is a commercial success for you or not." . . . .

Every Christian needs to see this film at least once. Just to remember, in our current comfort zones while evil is closing in, the price that was paid for us. On my way home from the screening, I found myself praying in the car, "Jesus, I'm so sorry, I forgot..." How many films have led you to compunction lately? The Passion is a miracle.

Well, I wanted to see the movie before reading this review, but now I am really excited.

Nicolosi also has two other "Passion" related posts, which you access here and here (all of the foregoing links courtesy of Eve Tushnet, one of SA's newest "belles").

Update: Here are some powerful images that I found on the net from the movie. And here are some articles that may be of interest to those you who are interested in learning more about the movie:

-"Mel Gibson's Passion" (Crosswalk.com)

-"More controversy for Mel Gibson film" (MSNBC)

Finally, here's an unofficial web site that has some interesting material and images re: "The Passion."

Pryor's SJC vote scheduled for July 10th: According to the Free Congress Foundation's most recent Judicial Selection Monitoring Project Weekly Update, "Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor's nomination to the Eleventh Circuit was held over again at yesterday's Judiciary Committee meeting (as expected) . . . . Pryor is expected to receive a committee vote on July 10."

If you would like to receive these weekly updates, please contact John A. Nowacki, Director of Legal Policy for FCF, at jnowacki@freecongress.org.

Interesting. Very interesting: I wonder if my age (33, 34 in November) takes me out of the running (Via P&L).

My take on Lawrence v. Texas: I am still working on the post and hope to have it up by the end o' the day. Stay tuned.

And this long distance dedication goes out to James Dobson from your brother in arms, Pat Robertson: Paul M. Weyrich counts down the "Top 5 Social Priorities for Conservatives."

Pryor: Ruling makes Alabama law "unenforceable" : The Mobile Register has this report.

Kennedy joins a "select" group of jurists:

Welcome to the club of infamy, Tony:

(1) Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
(2) Justice Henry B. Brown
(3) Justice Hugo L. Black
(4) Justice Harry A. Blackmun
(5) Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

Update: I am working on a fairly lengthy post re: Lawrence v. Texas, but it will probably not be posted tonight. Stay tuned.

Full text of Pryor's statement on Texas v. Lawrence: You can now view the press release at Pryor's AG web site. Pryor's statement is brief and to the point:

I have reviewed carefully the decision of the Supreme Court today in Lawrence v. Texas. The Court today expressly overruled its 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. This new interpretation of the Constitution means that the law of Alabama, specifically Section 13A-6-65 (a)(3), which prohibits consensual sodomy between unmarried persons, is now unenforceable.

Bill Pryor's take on Lawrence v. Texas: From the AP:

Attorney General Bill Pryor, who wrote a brief supporting the Texas law, issued a brief statement Thursday saying the ruling was a "new interpretation of the Constitution." He said the decision means that Alabama's law, "which prohibits consensual sodomy between unmarried persons, is now unenforceable."

More on Feingold, Pryor, and Gay Days: The National Post has an excellent op-ed out today entitled "The love that now dares you," which includes the following discussion on the now infamous exchange between Sen. Russ Feingold (WI-D) and Bill Pryor during Pryor's SJC hearing:

Senator Russell Feingold asked Mr. Pryor, a devout Roman Catholic, whether it was true that he and his wife rescheduled a trip to Walt Disney World with their two young children because it would have coincided with Gay Day, an annual event there. (Disney ain't what it used to be).

In a tone suggesting that he believed he'd found the smoking gun, Sen. Feingold said: "News accounts also report that you even went so far as to reschedule a family vacation at Disney World in order to avoid Gay Day."

Mr. Pryor: "My wife and I had two daughters who at the time of that vacation were six and four, and we made a value judgment. And that was our personal decision ..."

Feingold: "Well, I certainly respect going to Disney World with two daughters. I've done the same thing. But are you saying that you actually made that decision on purpose to be away at the time of that."

Pryor: "We made a value judgment and changed our plan and went another weekend."

Feingold: "Well, I -- I appreciate your candor on that."

In other words -- Boy, he admits it and everything! Can you believe this guy? Has he no shame?

Maybe Sen. Feingold was merely being disingenuous in his repeated expressions of astonishment; one hopes so. But sadly he probably really believes the Pryors' decision was extreme.

So what is Gay Day? National Review Online posted links to pictures taken on that occasion in Disney's public spaces. In one, a man sucks on a beer bottle protruding from the unzipped trousers of another man. There were several other scenes like that. Are these appropriate for young children? Or for a decent, self-respecting society? When men and women are involved in such scenes, most people acknowledge them to be tacky. Spring break rarely passes without a few nose-held news accounts of the bacchanalia. In high school, if heterosexual students get shamelessly physical in public, their peers are likely to tell them to "keep it in your pants."

But criticism, or even a quiet personal decision to avoid contact with homosexual practice and culture is frowned on. Mr. and Mrs. Pryor's private decision brings down on their heads the implied accusation of bigotry. An upstanding and outstanding lawyer is pilloried in the supposedly august U.S. Senate for not subjecting his small children to scenes of homosexual debauch.

[Thanks to Professor Michael E. DeBow of the Cumberland School of Law (Samford University) for the heads up on this op-ed via e-mail].

I wish that I'd been wrong, but . . .: my prediction for Lawrence v. Texas was pretty dang close (all but my assertion that the Court would ground its holding on the Equal Protection Clause). Oh well, nobody's perfect.

I will post more of my thoughts on the case tonight, but in the meantime read Justice Scalia's brilliant dissent.

Breaking News: The Supreme Court has handed down its decision in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down Texas's anti-sodomy statute (via Drudge Report).

WaPo is reporting that it was a 6-3 decision. And Fox News is reporting that Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion (no surprise there), noting that the Texas statute "demeans the lives of homosexual persons." Reuters is reporting that:

"By a 6-3 vote, the nation's high court ruled the law violated constitutional privacy rights. The court also overruled its 1986 decision that upheld a Georgia sodomy law and that declared homosexuals have no constitutional right to engage in sodomy in private."

The AP is reporting that:

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy's rationale.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda,'' Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.

The court has taken sides in the culture war,'' Scalia said, adding that he has ``nothing against homosexuals.''

Articles:

-"Homosexual Sodomy Law in Texas Voided by Top Court"

More to come . . . .

Loser of the Day: Sheryl McCarthy for this drivel (LvHB).

You know you're reading crap when someone writes that Clarence Thomas "was one of the most mediocre Supreme Court appointees of all time." Justice Thomas may be a lot of things, but mediocre is not one of them. He is a jurist of the highest caliber, and he has been an exceptional Supreme Court justice. Indeed, he is, IMHO, the most solid originalist on the Court. He may not have Scalia's panache, but he more than makes up for it in his consistency to first principles.

"U.S. Court to rule on gay case": Here's the BBC's take on Lawrence v. Texas.

Justice Janice Brown?: She's at the top of John Fund's short list (and mine as well). (LvHB).

Pryor nomination draws congressional heat: The Auburn Plainsman has this report.

Loser of the Day: Maureen Dowd for this hit piece on Justice Clarence Thomas.

The girl from the Lazy B ranch: The title of this post may conjure up images of a house of ill repute in Nevada, but it's really only meant to highlight this profile of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor by the London Telegraph.

Hmmmmm: Maybe this means nothing, or just maybe . . . .

[Tea leaves rustling in the background]

Prediction for Lawrence v. Texas: My guess is that it will be a 6-3 decision with Justice Scalia writing a blistering dissent joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas. I predict that Justice Kennedy (of Romer infamy) will write the majority opinion striking down Texas's anti-sodomy statute solely on equal protection grounds. I also believe that homosexuals will be elevated to a quasi-protected status under the Constitution (something akin to rational basis with teeth). Anyone else care to weigh in?

Former Georgia Gov. Lester Maddox dead at 87: The AJC has this report.

A tribute for Maynard Jackson: Maynard Jackson, Atlanta's first black mayor, passed away this past Monday at Reagan National Airport. He was a liberal dem, and it's fair to say that he and I didn't agree on wide range of political issues. Jackson was, nevertheless, a historic figure who deserves to be recognized for the contributions he made in helping to shape a new and better South. RIP.

"When Democrats attack, stand your ground": That's Byron York's advice, and to which I would only add "Then, Sir, we will give them the bayonet!"

This post sponsored by Relaxo Bak. :)

Blogging hiatus: I am still recovering from whatever I did to my back, so posting will be continue to be on the light side for the next few days. Once again, I want to thank y'all for all of the kind emails/notes of encouragement. I am feeling much better, but these things take time.

Bad Strategy: Quinn Hillyer explains why it's a bad idea for the dems to filibuster Bill Pryor.

New blog design for SA: Southern Appeal is sporting a new look, and there are a couple of people I need to thank.

The first is Maystar, who did an amazing job of designing SA's new blog skin, and did so from what I'm sure were vague and sketchy emails from yours truly. If any of you bloggers out there are considering an overhaul of your blog's design, you should seriously consider hiring May. She was a pleasure to work with, and her prices were very reasonable. Thanks May, you're the best!

I also need to thank H. David Wright. Mr. Wright is one of my favorite artists (I own two of his Lee prints), and is regarded by many as America's foremost historical painter. I contacted Mr. Wright recently and asked for permission to use his painting of "Stuart and Mosby" as an image in the masthead of SA, and he graciously granted my request. To say that I am honored by this extreme act of kindness would be an understatement. And because I cannot adequately convey me appreciation in words, I will simply say thank you. For those of you who are interested in seeing more of David Wright's paintings/prints, you can do so by visiting this link. When my back is feeling better, I plan on adding a permanent profile of Mr. Wright on SA that highlights his amazing work. By the way, I do want to emphasize that nothing written on this blog by me should in any way be attributed to Mr. Wright. I alone am responsible for the content of SA.

Aside: I also want to take this opportunity to thank all of you who have been kind enough to email or leave a word of encouragement on the blog for me regarding my bad back. It really means a great deal. My back is feeling better, but it may be a few days before I am operating at full speed. Thanks again, and God Bless.

Bad timing: I have somehow managed to throw out my back on one of the biggest legal news days in quite awhile. Thus, posting will be light if not nonexistent for the remainder if the day.

Damn Yankees: For those of you who care, here's the NYT's hatchet job on Bill Pryor.

"Clear vision of civil rights": Terry Jeffrey has an op-ed in today's Washington Times detailing Bill Pryor's strong support within the civil rights community (at least among those who aren't merely political hacks for the Democratic Party)

Pryor's path: The Montgomery Advertiser has an excellent profile of Bill Pryor in today's edition of the paper, which you can access here.

Supreme Court News: The Detroit News has an article out in today's edition entitled "Rumors of retirements swirl at Supreme Court."

The Richmond Times-Dispatch also delves into the "Speculation on Supreme Court Retirements" as it relates to ending Justice Stephen Breyer's tenure as the Court's junior justice.

This article from the Scripps Howard News Service notes that a coalition led by Ralph Nader "is trying to derail Chief Justice William Rehnquist's plan for a 16.5 percent judicial pay raise."

Finally, the Ann Arbor News has a piece out today entitled "'Compelling interest" key in U-M court cases."

Uh, Judge Judy?: According to a survey conducted by FindLaw:

"Nearly two-thirds of American adults cannot recall the names of any of the nine justices currently serving on the U.S. Supreme Court."

The survey found that:

1. Only 35 percent of American adults could name at least one current Supreme Court justice;

2. Less than one percent could correctly name all nine justices;

3. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the justice most frequently identified, followed by Justice Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

4. The percentages of Americans who could name each justice were as follows:

-25% Sandra Day O'Connor
-21% Clarence Thomas
-10% William Rehnquist
-9% Antonin Scalia
-9% Ruth Bader Ginsburg
-4% David Souter
-4% Anthony Kennedy
-2% Stephen Breyer
-1% John Paul Stevens

In conducting the nationwide survey, FindLaw "used a representative sample of 1,000 adults . . . with a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points."

You can access FindLaw's press release here, and a corresponding chart displaying the results of the survey here (LvHB). The findings of the FindLaw survey are noted in this article by the Dayton Business Journal (LvHB).

Oh, and being the proud papa, I am pleased to inform SA's readers that my seven year old son has been able to name all nine Supreme Court justices since he was three years old. He names them in this order: "Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas . . . Kennedy and O'Connor . . . . Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens." Anyone what to guess why? :) He learned their names because I sang them to him like a jingle and it took. People use to really freak out when they heard him recite all of the justices' names at age three, and it still amazes them at age seven. Oh well, I digress.

What is the South to you?: This is one of the coolest quizzes I've taken in awhile. There's no analysis or "answer" at the end ranking your Southern culture aptitude, but it sure is fun to take.

In honor of my dearly departed father: I always knew that the professor (my dad) was a visionary beer drinker. It's nice to see that PBR is finally receiving the acclaim it so richly deserves. :)

Does everyone remember the jingle? " I've got Pabst Blue Ribbon on my mind . . . ." Geez, they even have Pabst Blue Ribbon gear! You just never know, do you?

"Will the Court Move Right? It Already Has": So sayeth Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times. My favorite line in the piece is where Greenhouse describes a legal conservative's wish list as a "Constitution in exile," a "vision that includes state sovereignty, limited national power and strong protection for private property." Damn right sister.

Savant for a Day: O.k., this is a little off topic, but I found this article from the NYT's magazine simply fascinating.

The aftermath of the Estrada filibuster: This writer thinks the dems could pay dearly for denying the highly qualified Miguel Estrada a seat on the D.C. Circuit, and I am inclined to agree with him.

Gods & Generals DVD on sale July 15, 2003: Just a reminder to all of SA's readers that the greatest movie ever made goes on sale in less than one month!

Yes, I do have a litmus test for judges: Sen. John "I wanna be like Mike (Dukakis)" Kerry (MA-D) has vowed to block any Bush Supreme Court nominee who will not promise to uphold Roe v. Wade and its progeny, stating:

"I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman's right to choose or the constitutional right to privacy, on civil rights and individual liberties and on the laws protecting workers and the environment."

But here's my favorite part of Kerry's statement:

"The test is basic any person who thinks it's his or her job to push an extreme political agenda rather than to interpret the law should not be a Supreme Court justice."

Uh, John, there would be no Roe v. Wade but for the fact that seven judges were willing to, as you put it, "push [through] an extreme political agenda rather than . . . Interpret the law." If you want to vote against or filibuster Supreme Court nominees because they refuse to give you assurances that they will uphold Roe that's your prerogative senator, but don't you know what down our backs and tell us it's raining (last line courtesy of Clint Eastwood's character in The Outlaw Josey Wales).

Update: It looks like Sen. Joseph Lieberman (CT-D) has joined the "litmus" chorus as well.

Which country are you?: This will probably come as no surprise to some of you, but I am apparently Singapore (Via Drink Me).

You're Singapore!
You're small but well-built and people are a little afraid of you.  You might even walk with a cane that people find somewhat menacing, rather than seeing it as an aid to your mobility.  You like an urban lifestyle, with little time for nature or the more rural pleasures of life.  This fast-paced lifestyle suits you, and you wish everyone around you would just shape up.
Take the Country Quiz at the href="http://bluepyramid.org">Blue Pyramid

Cool Honda Ad: Courtesy of Mr. Sullivan's blog.

Feingold and his critics: At a recent gathering for gay DOJ employees, the following statement from Sen. Russ Feingold (WI-D) was read to those attending:

"It is unfortunate that this event, which is intended to celebrate diversity, is taking place under a cloud of prejudice and bigotry," Feingold alleged.

According this article, Peter LaBarbera, a senior policy analyst for the Culture and Family Institute of Concerned Women for America, "scoffed at both Feingold's terminology and accusations," and offered the following statement:

"Two things: One is, it's not a celebration of diversity, it's a celebration of homosexuality," LaBarbera said. "Liberals are trying to steal the words 'diversity' and 'tolerance.'

"The second thing is, I don't really care what Sen. Feingold says about bigotry and tolerance because this is a man who thinks it's intolerant and hateful for a judge not to take his two young daughters to Disney World when there are thousands of celebrating homosexuals at that theme park."

"Obviously, [Sen. Feingold] has decided that the beliefs of millions and millions of pro-faith and pro-family Americans are the moral equivalent of bigotry."

"Our answer to liberals like Sen. Feingold . . . is: Morality is not prejudice. It's not bigotry for people to defend moral beliefs that have existed for thousands and thousands of years."

"They're trying to redefine our basic moral beliefs as rank prejudice," he concluded, "and it's wrong."

More on Kavanaugh: K-Lo has an interesting post on Brett Kavanaugh, which you can access here.

I'm not sure what this means in the grand scheme of things, but . . .: Southern Appeal is "ranked" 805th out of 2,950 blogs on The Truth Laid Bear's "blogosphere ecosystem"; which places me slightly above the middle of the pack of blogs referred to as "slithering reptiles."

Update: Make that 786th with a bullet! You know, before long SA will be a "flappy bird." Exciting times folks.

Excellent talking points from Free Congress Foundation on Pryor's nomination: John A. Nowacki, the director of legal policy for Free Congress Foundation, publishes an excellent weekly newsletter as part of a "Judicial Selection Monitoring Project: Coalition for Judicial Restraint." In the most recent edition, Nowacki makes the following points about Bill Pryor's record as Alabama's attorney general:

(1) He is a highly qualified nominee with overwhelming support from across the ideological and political spectrum;

(2) He has had a distinguished career as a public servant, practicing attorney, and law professor;

(3) Left-wing groups have claimed his personal pro-life and religious views mean he cannot be a fair and impartial judge. That is wrong and it imposes an unconstitutional religious test on a judicial nominee. In fact, as Alabama Attorney General, Pryor took steps to ensure that Alabama law complied with Supreme Court precedent;

(4) He has fought political corruption across the board, regardless of political affiliation, and has sought to reform Alabama's criminal justice system;

(5) He has responsibly protected Alabama taxpayers by defending the state against huge money judgments. Other states' Democrat Attorneys General have taken the same exact positions regarding lawsuits against states;

(6) As Attorney General, he is obligated to defend state law against constitutional attack and he defended the state's law against sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas by advancing an argument based on existing Supreme Court precedent;

(7) He helped to start the drive to rid the Alabama Constitution of the prohibition against interracial marriage;

(8) He helped to prosecute former Klan members involved in a 1963 church bombing;

(9) He has been praised by a broad range of black leaders from Alabama;

(10) His call to reform the procedural aspects of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (which the black Democrat Attorney General of Georgia calls "a grave intrusion into the authority of the states") was done to provide greater state flexibility to ensure equal rights without having every minor change (like moving a polling place across the street) approved by bureaucrats in Washington;

(11) Pryor's argument that Alabama Judge Roy Moore's display of the Ten Commandments -- that, within reason, the government may acknowledge and accommodate religion as being an important part of our heritage -- is within the legal mainstream;

(12) His argument that parts of the Violence Against Women Act were unconstitutional was supported by the U.S. Supreme Court. As his record shows, he has worked to protect women from domestic violence, and he has been honored by Penelope House -- the first battered women's shelter in Alabama -- for his work in that area.

It is true, of course, that a lot of these points presume a certain level of knowledge about Bill Pryor's background, as well as his journey thus far though the nomination process. But these are things SA's regular readers should be all too familiar with. :)

Update: For those of you who are interested in subscribing to this newsletter, you can do so by contacting John Nowacki at jnowacki@freecongress.org. And I highly recommend that you do so.

Federal Judiciary Crisis, Part II: Here's the second installment of the two part series I mentioned yesterday.

Christian Pessimism: This is the title of an excellent post over at NRO's "The Corner."

Closing the gap between large and small law firms? One of the neat things about being a federal appellate law clerk is that you get unlimited access to all of Westlaw's bells and whistles. This morning I noticed a new feature of Westlaw that may be of some interest to those of you in private practice. Westlaw is now posting appellate briefs online. I found out about this because I like to track the cases I've worked on via the e-mail Keycite feature Westlaw offers, and this morning I received e-mails notifying me that two of my cases had been cited in two separate appeals. Pretty cool, huh? Anyway, I just thought I would bring this to the attention of SA's readers.

Question: Will the ability to access appellate briefs through Westlaw narrow the gap between the quality of appellate briefs submitted by sole practitioners/small law firms and big law firms? I have some thoughts on the issue, but I am curious to see what y'all have to say first.

The Democratic Delay: Byron York has this essay on NRO regarding Bill Pryor's pending nomination to the Eleventh Circuit (LvHB).

Is Another Judicial Filibuster in the Future?: Here's a link to a partial transcript of Special Report with Brit Hume from June 19, 2003, which contains the following exchange between Brit Hume and Byron York of NRO:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM PRYOR, JUDICIAL NOMINEE: Even though I strongly disagree with Roe versus Wade, I have acted in accordance with it as attorney general and will continue to do so as a Court of Appeals judge.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BRIT HUME, HOST: It does not take much imagination to recognize that a judicial nominee who says openly that he disagrees with the Supreme Court decision on abortion is not going to sail through the narrowly divided U.S. Senate. And the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee found it necessary today to postpone a scheduled vote on the nomination of Mr. Pryor, attorney general of Alabama to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

So, what's up? For answers, we turn to a reporter who follow this is stuff more closely than perhaps anyone else, Byron York of National Review.

So, Byron, what was the -- first of all, what's up with this nomination and what does he face if he gets out of committee?

BYRON YORK, NATIONAL REVIEW: Everybody expects that he will get out of the committee on a party line vote. It will be 10 to 9, Republicans to Democrats. He'll go to the full Senate and then the question is will Democrats filibuster him?

So, it's hard to see. Most observers think that if Democrats filibustered Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owens already, there's no way they're not going to filibuster Bill Pryor. So -- but that's down the road.

HUME: But what about this postponement? I mean if they have the votes on a party line vote, why not just go ahead with it?

YORK: It was scheduled for today. The rules allow any senator for any reason, to get a one-week extension and it's just granted automatic. So that would mean the vote would be a week from today. Well, what happened was, because the Democrats have flooded Pryor with follow-up written questions, Orrin Hatch, committee chairman, says, all right, we'll do it next week but then you can put it off again.

HUME: Now he, of course, is the Republican sympathetic to Pryor's cause. So he is the one that imposed the delay.

YORK: Oh, yes. Well, what he wants to do, I think, bottom line incidentally, is the vote will probably come on July 10, after the July 4 recess.

Democrats -- any senator after hearing is allowed to submit written follow-up questions. Most of the time it is kind of pro forma, sometimes there are no questions at all. This time by my informal count, Democrats have submitted 208 questions to him. They're all written. These are Senator Durbin's questions alone. And these are not yes or no questions. I mean they're serious legal issues that Pryor will have to write about quite a bit.

What Republicans were afraid of was if they scheduled the vote for next week and Pryor didn't get these questions -- these answers back until say, maybe Tuesday or Wednesday for a vote on Thursday. Democrats would say we have all these serious questions, it requires a lot of time to go through, we have follow-ups to our follow-ups. And you, Senator Hatch, are trying to jam this nomination to the committee over our objections. So, Hatch just bough himself a little time and said we'll do it later.

HUME: What is to prevent the Democrats from saying -- from filing, when they get these answers back, from filing a whole bunch more questions and further delaying the process indefinitely?

YORK: Well, no. After a point -- after the sort of pro forma delay, the chairman can say we're having a vote. So, I think what Hatch wants to do is appear reasonable, give the Democrats a time to get their questions answered and then at that point say we're having a vote.

HUME: All right.

YORK: The chairman can force the issue.

HUME: OK. So at that point, you get your presumed party line vote, right?

YORK: Right.

HUME: And then the question becomes filibuster. Your view is they will filibuster.

YORK: Well, it's interesting. There was a little hope in some Republican's hearts last month. Senator Feinstein from California, she is a member of the Judiciary Committee, Democrat, said -- it was quoted in an Associated Press story. She said we have got two filibusters going and maybe that's enough. So Republicans' hope soared for a moment. But there's no belief that there's not going to be a filibuster for Pryor.

HUME: So this would make a third filibuster now in progress, if it becomes one, right?

YORK: That is correct.

HUME: And then we have also the question of what, Judge Pickering out there, right?

YORK: That is correct.

HUME: And now, what is the state of play? Judge Pickering, of course, was nominated and blocked in committee during the -- before the Republicans got control of the Senate.

YORK: He was actually voted down in committee.

HUME: Voted down in committee.

YORK: On a party line vote in committee. So...

HUME: Yes, blocked in. Right.

YORK: So, the president re-nominated him just as he did Priscilla Owens.

HUME: Now, has that been voted on yet by the committee? It has.

YORK: It has not.

HUME: It's not.

YORK: It has not been brought up. There's probably going to be another hearing. It is not likely that Pickering himself will show up. There may be other people to discuss issues about Pickering.

HUME: What is likely to happen to him?

YORK: Here again, if they're filibustering Estrada and Owen, it's hard to see why they won't filibuster Pickering.

HUME: So, you count Pryor and Pickering, your estimate would be that we could get up to four, which would be by far a record.

YORK: And we need to add one more, Carolyn Kuhl, who is a Ninth Circuit California judge, who is likely going to be a filibuster on her.

HUME: Now, these are all appellate court nominees, not Supreme Court nominees.

YORK: Right.

HUME: All right. Byron York, very interesting. Thanks very much.

Well, it looks as though my friend's information was indeed correct. Stay tuned folks. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

In defense of Owen: The Curmudgeonly Clerk has an excellent post defending Justice Priscilla Owen, which you can access