Rome sweet home?: Here's yet another reason why I will probably convert to Catholicism. You can add this one to the list as well (scroll down to second item).

Pryor articles 'o the day:

-"Demos block Pryor as GOP seeks to energize home base before break" (AP)

-"Pryor Nomination to Face Senate Filibuster" (Focus on the Family)

-"CFJ: Many See the Anti-Religious Implications of Dem Questions on Pryor" (CFJ)

-"Bush's Nomination of Pryor for Judgeship Blocked by Democrats" (Bloomberg)

Southern Appeal's newest blogger: Please give a warm welcome to SA's newest permanent part-time blogger--Professor Michael DeBow of Samford University's Cumberland Law School. I extended an invitation to the good professor after several months of corresponding with him back and forth on various and sundry topics. During that time, I became convinced that he would make an excellent addition to the ever expanding SA blogging team--both his legal acumen and writing ability are, in a word, excellent. I look forward to the contributions he will make to SA.

Introduction: My name is Mike DeBow, and I teach at the Cumberland School of Law, Samford University, in Birmingham, Alabama. Feddie has graciously extended an invitation to me to be a "permanent part-time blogger" on SA. How could anyone turn down such an invitation? I've decided to start slowly, with a short first post, on a sad note.

Sam Phillips, RIP.: The "Thomas Edison of rock and roll" died yesterday at age 80. The Memphis Commercial Appeal offers a lengthy obit and related links here

Pryor debate: The U.S. Senate is currently debating the nomination of Attorney General William H. Pryor, Jr. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which you can view here (LvHB).

Update: Pryor is now formally a member of the dems' filibuster hit list.

Fame?: Memufacture currently has SA ranked as the second "most influential" blawg. Take a wild guess who is first--HJB, of course.

The difference between SA and How Appealing in terms of real world influence is akin the level of skill separating Lance Armstrong from all of the cheese eating surrender monkeys who ate his dust recently in the Tour de France. There is no comparison. How Appealing is the best damn blawg period, and the rest of us are simply clinging on to his coattails for dear life.

Update: SA is now a "marauding marsupial" according to the Blogosphere Ecosystem, and is ranked 411th out of 3,625 blogs. Not too shabby, eh?

Congrats, Quin!: My permanent part-time co-blogger, Quin Hillyer, was criticized on the floor of the Senate today by none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy. I am so jealous. You know that you've hit the big time as a conservative pundit when you draw Teddy's ire. Way to go Quin. Chalk this one up as a resume booster. Now you just need to join the Federalist Society (we let lay people in), and you'll be a full fledged member of the VRWC.

Pryor articles 'o the day:

--"Catholics Need Not Apply?" (NRO)

-"Court orders monument removed" (AJC)

-"Black leaders in state [Georgia] divided over Bill Pryor" (AJC)

-"Democratic filibuster holds up against latest challenge" (WHNT)

-"Filibuster continues on Bush judge pick" (AP)

-"Energy debate stalled by judge dispute" (AP)

-"GOP puts spotlight on judicial filibusters with weeklong strategy" (BP News)

-"A bishop takes a stand" (World Net Daily)

-"In Unusual Twist, Judicial Nominee's Allies Bring Religion Into the Mix" (Newhouse News Service)

-"Pryor gets first vote Thursday" (B'ham News)

-"Democrats expected to unite against Pryor" (B'ham News)

-"CFJ Responds to Washington Post Editorial on Pryor Ads" (CNSNews)

-"Show nominees more objectivity" (Montgomery Advertiser)

Pryor debate: The Senate is debating the Pryor nomination right now on C-SPAN2.

Running Update:

-Leahy sounds like Daffy Duck when he says "despicable."

-Don't you just love how indignant the dems are about being called anti-Catholic given their proclivity for playing the race card at every given opportunity.

-Is Leahy actually arguing that the Republicans are obstructing the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees? Oh, that's rich Pat! Do tell us another tall tale.

-What about the delay tactics employed by the dems on all of Bush's Sixth Circuit nominees, Sen. Leahy?

-Sen Byron Dorgan (D-ND): "Blah, blah, blah. Yada, yada, yada."

-Leahy just said that the Pryor vote is "not going anywhere."

-Dorgan just called Attorney General Pryor "Judge Pryor." Can the Republicans count that as a vote in favor of Pryor (or at least not to filibuster his nomination)? :)

-Leahy is rehashing his Rule 4 argument from the SJC hearing.

-Leahy: "I (unlike my Republican colleagues) take my role as a U.S. Senator seriously." (you may now reach for an air sickness bag if one is in close proximity)

-My boy is running the show. Keep 'em in line, Saxby.

-I move for unanimous consent that the Senate vitiate the State of North Dakota, or, at the very least, the seat of one their "distinguished" senators.

-New drinking game: Every time Sen. Dorgan says "vitiate" we all take a shot of whiskey.

-Ah, the joy of being in the majority.

-Orin is getting very angry!

-Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA): We are at a "cross roads." Things have gotten "ugly." This "kind of thing that has been going on has to stop." The charges of anti-Catholicism are "false, baseless . . ." She is now criticizing the CFJ ad. "When I saw this ad, I thought uh-oh." People might be assassinated because this ad!

-Oh, and the dems never play the race card do they Sen. Feinstein?

-Feinstein: Can Pryor be impartial on abortion? Feddie: Read my post today, senator. Look at his record. He has been "impartial and fair in the administration of justice."

-Feinstein to Pryor: You are too Catholic.

-We call on you, Sen. Feinstein, to explain exactly why you oppose Attorney General Pryor? It cannot be because he won't follow the law. Pryor has an uncontested record of doing so. So what is it? You may not be anti-Catholic senator, but you certainly seem to be anti-conservative Christian.

-It is JU-DI-CI-ARY, Senator Feinstein. Sound it out.

-I find it amusing that Feinstein, who subscribes to the idea of a made up "living Constitution," is complaining about Sen. Hatch not following the rules. Maybe Hatch's interpretation of Rule 4 can be justified be looking to the penumbras emanating around the rule. Lawlessness begets lawlessness, folks (assuming Hatch's interpretation of the rule is wrong).

-Roe v. Wade is the WORST abomination in our republic's constitutional history!

-So Pryor criticized Justice Souter. Big deal. If that disqualifies him, then good luck confirming any liberal dem judicial nominees down the road. My guess is that most of them have, at one time or another, strongly criticized Justices Scalia and Thomas in less than polite terms.

-Feinstein: "We don't need no cloture vote!" [Pink Floyd playing in the background]

-Orin is taking it to them dems.

-Sen. Hatch claims that the dems are the ones who started the Pryor debate. I hope this doesn't devolve into a "did not!" "did too!" screaming match.

-Hatch is pointing out the hypocrisy of the dems criticizing Pryor for failing to bow down to the almighty shrine of Roe, but then--many times in the same breath--arguing that he is extreme even in cases where the Supreme Court ruled in his favor. Get 'em Hatch!

-Hatch and Santorum have done an excellent job of defending Pryor and demonstrating the ludicrous nature of the dems' objections to his nomination.

-Time to go eat and play with my baby girl.

-O.k., I am back. My daughter just went to sleep.

-Sen. Durbin just compared Bill Pryor, the man who led the fight to remove language from Alabama's Constitution prohibiting interracial marriage--to Matthew Hale (a white supremacist nut case who leads some white trash "church" in Illinois). Have you no shame, sir. How anyone can take serious the dems' complaints about (legitimate) charges that many of them are opposing Pryor's nomination because of his deeply held religious beliefs when they pull crap like this is beyond me.

Follow up: As evidence for my contention, below, that the White House itself isn't doing enough to focus public attention on the judges, the president just finished a lengthy news conference a while ago.... and said not a single word about the Senate's week-long focus on judicial nominations. Not one word on judges. That's inexcusable.

Baude on Pryor: Will Baude has a thoughtful post over at Crescat Sententia today on Bill Pryor's pending nomination. I do, however, take issue with Mr. Baude's assertion that Pryor should be required to answer this question:

"Given your view that abortion is murder, and given that you will be required to hold that over one million murders a year in America are not murders, but Constitutional Rights, why do you want to have this job? Why doesn't the thought of it revolt you?"

According to Baude,

There are legitimate answers Pryor could give. He could point out that if evil is to be done it's no worse for him to do than somebody else. Or he could point out that as an appellate judge who serves on a 3-judge panel subject to en banc and Supreme Court review, very few abortion decisions will ever actually rest in his hands. Or he could say that he takes for granted that his battle is a losing one, and wants to do some good on other fronts if he can't win the abortion fight. Or he could say that the thought of it does revolt him, but it is his duty to leader and country to serve when called. Or he could say that he intends to work within the system to try to change the system, to uphold the law as written but encourage the Supreme Court to change the law, to aspire to one day reach the Supreme Court where he can hear abortion cases himself.

There are lots of ways for Pryor to explain himself, but he should have to do it. These reasons are all deeply personal, and given his profound moral opinions on abortion, could offer deep insight into his character and all the rest. Pryor shouldn't be kept off the bench merely because he thinks some small part of existing law is profoundly wrong. I do, too (albeit a different part). So do most people. But he shouldn't be let on the bench until he explains why he thinks the system is worth upholding anyway. I'm sure he has some good reasons, and I, for one, would like to hear them.

But here's the problem. Unlike many other judicial nominees, Attorney General Pryor has a uncontested record of upholding and enforcing the Supreme Court's abominable abortion jurisprudence. As the Committee for Justice notes in its report on Bill Pryor:

This unfair attack on General Pryor is all the more galling in light of the fact he has a proven record of subordinating his personal views to the demands of the law. For instance, as Attorney General, he has faithfully applied the Supreme Court's rulings regarding partial-birth abortion. He specifically instructed Alabama officials that they could not enforce the state's partial-birth abortion ban in a way that would violate the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey. In particular, he ordered that the law could be applied to ban such procedures only on viable fetuses. The ACLU even praised General Pryor's instructions, emphasizing that his order has "[s]everely [l]imited" Alabama's ban.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, which further limited state partial-birth abortion laws, General Pryor called on the Alabama legislature to amend the statute to ensure that it conformed with the Supreme Court's rulings, declaring: "In all likelihood, the Alabama law will have to be amended to conform to [Stenberg]." He also made it a point to release a statement telling state officials that they "are obligated to obey [the Stenberg ruling] until it is overruled or otherwise set aside." General Pryor took these steps despite intense pressure from the pro-life community to ignore the decision and enforce the state law as originally written.

So my question to Mr. Baude and others is this: Given Bill Pryor's exemplary record of enforcing Roe and its progeny as a state attorney general, why should he have to convince anyone that he will continue to uphold the rule of law as a federal appellate judge? What is about Pryor, as opposed to say Judge Michael McConnell (who strongly criticized the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence as a law professor and scholar before being confirmed), that warrants heightened scrutiny on the part of the Senate dems? And if Pryor's strong Catholic faith isn't the problem, then what is?

Update: Mr. Baude responds to my post here. I really don't have a problem with the substance of his rejoinder, and I certainly did not mean to impugn his motives in my original post. My only point is that the dems appear to be singling Pryor out because of his strongly held religious beliefs. They seem to be saying: "Yeah, we've confirmed pro-life judges before, but this guy is too pro-life." I truly fear for our country when at least half of the federal government's elected leaders hold the view that a person is an extremist solely because he believes that a woman should not be able to extinguish the life of her child unless her physical health (i.e., life) is in danger.

More on Pryor: I thought last Saturday's editorial by the Mobile Register editorial board would be of interest to SA's readers.

And here's a question: Why the heck, with all the passion on both sides of this issue, can't we get Limbaugh and Michael Reagan and Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson etc etc interested in highlighting this issue? Why doesn't the White House make a bigger public/PR fight over Pryor? Why not highlight his creation of a youth mentorship program, his being honored in the Hall of Fame of a women's shelter, and so many of this other tremendously "compassionate" accomplishments? Heck, why not break precedent and put him on TV to answer all questions? He showed in his hearing that he can handle anything thrown at him. Why not let him make his own case? Why can't the White House figure out that unless it WINS one big judicial battle now, it will only embolden the liberal Dems when a Supreme Court nomination comes up? Letting the "base" (which in this case doesn't mean wingers, it means people who actually care about the constitution and courts) fire itself up as a way to keep them behind Bush is a cynical political ploy unless the White House is prepared to use its power to actually deliver a victory every once in a while. It's time for people who care to demand results -- and for the airwave and cable media, especially those who lean conservative, to stop letting the Left define the issues (Bush's 16 words about yellowcake, etc) that the conservatives then must defend, and instead start choosing our own issues and going on the offensive with the facts. Judges are important. And the public tends to dislike the result of leftist jurisprudence. It's an issue conservatives can win on. Why don't the highest profile conservatives understand that???????

The Pro-Pryor list:

Professor Jonathan H. Adler

American Center for Law and Justice

Catholic League

Center for Reclaiming America

Christian Action League

Committee for Justice

Concerned Women for America

English First

Family Research Council

Focus on the Family

Free Congress Foundation

Greg Griffin

Gun Owners of America

Quin Hillyer

LifeNews.com

National Rifle Association

Southern Appeal

Traditional Values Coalition

Byron York

[more to come]

"Pryor to be filibustered, Schumer pledges": So sayeth the Washington Times.

"GOP Presses for Votes on Judges: Senate Republicans Force New Vote on One Nominee, but Democrats Vow to Prevail": The latest on the Pryor battle from the ever impartial folks over at WaPo.

"Liberal Religious Groups Oppose Pryor, Defend Democrats": Jeff Johnson, the Congressional Bureau Chief for Crosswalk.com, has this report.

"Ideology and the Courts": Another excellent op-ed from the great one--WFB (LvHB).

Bring it: According to "The Hill," the dems plan to filibuster Bill Pryor's nomination to the Eleventh Circuit (LvHB).

Query: If Pryor is such an extremist, then why not allow an up or down vote?

Answer: Because Pryor would be confirmed by a narrow margin.

Maybe, just maybe, it is the radical left wing of the Democratic party, and not Attorney General Pryor, that is "outside of the mainstream." That, by the way, would be a great name for a blog--"Outside the mainstream."

Pryor Notice: The Christian Science Monitor has this brief comment on Bill Pryor's pending nomination to the Eleventh Circuit.

Dems continue their obstructionist tactics: The AJC has this report.

"Are Bill Pryor’s Opponents Anti-Catholic Bigots?": Juan Non-Volokh has an excellent post today over at the Volokh Conspiracy where he addresses this very question.

"Experts: Use of religion in Pryor debate something new": The Mobile Register has this report on the issue, and contains this interesting excerpt:

If voters ever did, they now rarely cast ballots as denominational blocs. Consider the Jewish community, which usually steers clear of judicial nomination fights. After the national office of the Anti-Defamation League announced its opposition to Pryor, the organization's Alabama state chairman, Mobile lawyer Irving Silver, wrote a vigorous dissent.

"I have discussed church-state matters with Bill and believe him to be unhesitatingly committed to church-state separation," Silver said in a letter this month to Specter, who is Jewish. "The suggestions that Bill will take any steps to oppose or defy the rulings of the Supreme Court in that regard are both wrong and offensive."

"Some things change, some things really don't": Archbishop Charles J. Chaput (of Denver) has an excellent column out today, which I am reposting in its entirety:

In the summer of 1963, a friend of mine -- she was just 11 at the time -- drove with her family to visit her sister, who had married and moved away to Birmingham, Ala. Stopping for gas in a small Alabama town on a Sunday morning, her father asked where they could find the local Catholic church.

The attendant just shrugged and said, "We don't have any of them here."

The family finished gassing up, pulled out of the station -- and less than two blocks away, they passed the local Catholic church.

Most people my age remember the '60s in the South as a time of intense struggle for civil rights. Along with pervasive racial discrimination, Southern culture often harbored a suspicion of Catholics, Jews and other minorities. Catholics were few and scattered. In the Deep South, like Alabama, being Catholic often meant being locked out of political and social leadership.

Today, much of the old South is gone. Cities like Atlanta and Raleigh-Durham are major cosmopolitan centers. Time, social reform and migration have transformed the economy along with the political system. The South today is a tribute both to the courage of civil rights activists 40 years ago, and to the goodness of the people of the South themselves.

Most people, most of the time, want to do the right thing. And when they change, they also change the world they inhabit, which is one of the reasons why the Archdiocese of Atlanta can now draw thousands of enthusiastic Catholic participants to its Eucharistic Congress each year in a state where Catholics were once second-class citizens. It also explains how a practicing Catholic, William H. Pryor, can become Alabama's attorney general -- something that was close to inconceivable just four decades ago.

I've never met Mr. Pryor, but his political life is a matter of public record. He has served the State of Alabama with distinction, enforcing its laws and court decisions fairly and consistently. This is why President Bush nominated him to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and why the Senate Judiciary Committee approved him last Wednesday for consideration by the full Senate.

But the committee debate on Pryor was ugly, and the vote to advance his nomination split exactly along party lines. Why? Because Mr. Pryor believes that Catholic teaching about the sanctity of life is true; that the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision was a poorly reasoned mistake; and that abortion is wrong in all cases, even rape and incest. As a result, Americans were treated to the bizarre spectacle of non-Catholic Senators Orrin Hatch and Jeff Sessions defending Mr. Pryor's constitutionally protected religious rights to Mr. Pryor's critics, including Senator Richard Durbin, an "abortion-rights" Catholic.

According to Senator Durbin (as reported by EWTN), "Many Catholics who oppose abortion personally do not believe the laws of the land should prohibit abortion for all others in extreme cases involving rape, incest and the life and the health of the mother." This kind of propaganda makes the abortion lobby proud, but it should humiliate any serious Catholic. At a minimum, Catholic members of Congress like Senator Durbin should actually read and pray over the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and the encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" before they explain the Catholic faith to anyone.

They might even try doing something about their "personal opposition" to abortion by supporting competent pro-life judicial appointments. Otherwise, they simply prove what many people already believe -- that a new kind of religious discrimination is very welcome at the Capitol, even among elected officials who claim to be Catholic.

Some things change, and some things don't. The bias against "papism" is alive and well in America. It just has a different address. But at least some people in Alabama now know where the local Catholic church is -- and where she stands -- even if some people in Washington apparently don't.

"Quin Hillyer: A view from Alabama: Pryor's record gets distorted": Here is Quin Hillyer's latest op-ed, which appeared today in the Shreveport Times (Louisiana).

Pryor nomination scheduled for vote before full Senate this Thursday: So sayeth the B'ham News. Thus, I suppose we shall soon see whether the dems plan to add Attorney General Pryor to their ever expanding filibuster list.

Gods and Generals numbers: From VideoBusiness.com:

Box Office: $12.9 million
DVD rentals: $2.33 million (through 7/20) (ranked no. 7)
VHS rentals: $1.36 million (through 7/20) (ranked no. 8)
DVD sales: G&G ranked no. 2 for the week ending 7/20/03 (no sales figures yet)
VHS sales: G&G ranked no. 4 for the week ending 7/20/03 (no sales figures yet)

My guess is that G&G is well on its way to recouping the cost of making the film (approx. $90 million) and that it just might turn a small profit. Let's hope so. I for one am looking forward to seeing "The Last Full Measure" turned into a movie sometime in the foreseeable future.

Here are some additional details on the success of G&G in the sales and rental market from Ron Maxwell 's--the film's director--web site.

What does it mean to be a Federalist?: This is the question recently posed to me by Will Baude over at Crescat Sententia:

When I was in 8th grade, I remember learning that the Federalists were the people fought off the anti-Federalists to make a national bank, thus paving the way for our Federal government, even though loads of states rights advocates thought this move was unconstitutional. Of course, that same year I also learned that the Federalists were the people who opposed making Federal laws for things that could be done just as well or better by the states. This has always confused me.

Can somebody point me to the moment of history and/or the reason that "Federalist" became the term for those fighting Federal control rather than favoring it? Feddie?

Here's is a portion of a speech I gave a while back to a student chapter of the Federalist Society, which I hope will answer Mr. Baude's question sufficiently:

The first question that many of you may have is: How does one determine the Constitution's original meaning, and why does it matter? Good question!

At the outset, however, it is important to acknowledge a simple, yet crucial fact: Prior to the formation of the United States Government (i.e. the "federal" government), there were thirteen separate, sovereign states, which were, in essence, separate countries with their own respective governments and laws.

When most Americans think about our country's founding they envision genteel grandfather figures, who, acting in unison, developed the structure of our federal government with little to no disagreement.

These gentlemen certainly developed our tripartite system of government, but it was hardly an easy task or a harmonious process. There were many prominent men of this time period who vigorously opposed the formation of a strong federal government.

The predecessor to the United State Constitution were the Articles of Confederation ("Articles"), which was adopted by the thirteen colonies in the 1781. Although there are similarities between the powers delegated by the States to the federal government in the Articles and those contained in our current Constitution, there was, as Justice Joseph Story notes in Commentaries on the United States Constitution, "[a]n utter want of all coercive authority to carry into effect its own [the Articles'] constitutional measures." Story also concluded that "[i]n truth, congress [under the Articles] possessed only the power of recommendation."

. . . .

Some of you may be true blue Federalists, while others are staunch Anti-Federalists. I think that both groups possessed great wisdom and insight. Each group was concerned with balancing the promotion of "the general Welfare" of all citizens (in all states) with the need to protect and ensure that the newly erected federal government would indeed "secure the Blessings of Liberty" by respecting the inherent sovereignty of the several States. These gentlemen cherished, in a way their descendents cannot fathom, the freedoms and liberties they fought so hard to obtain. As such, each group was deeply concerned about the structure and breadth of this new creation; this "federal" government.

The Federalists keenly understood the need for a strong federal government to address crucial issues that simply could not be effectively dealt with at the state level (e.g. war, commerce among the states).

The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, understood human nature (i.e. the total depravity of man), that power corrupts, and that no matter how much the Constitution separated the "powers" between the branches of government, or attempted to place "checks and balances" into its structure, there was a significant likelihood that the States would ultimately lose their sovereignty in the process.

I consider myself to be an "orthodox" Federalist. I believe that a strong federal government is not only necessary, but essential. I seriously question whether the United States could have become a world power without a strong federal government. The federal government's abuse of its delegated, enumerated powers, however, has undermined the authority, and thus respect for, the United States Constitution.

There are many people who believe that all is lost, and that our Constitution is beyond repair. While I acknowledge that the current state of constitutional law, and our culture for that matter, has been on the decline for some time, I am not convinced that an "incremental" return to the original meaning of the Constitution is impossible.

. . . .

But why are we bound by what people thought or understood over 200 years ago? The simple answer is that we are not. If the people of the United States are not content with a particular provision of the Constitution they are free to amend it, so long as proper constitutional procedures are followed.

However, absent a constitutional amendment, the United States Government, and specifically the Supreme Court, is bound by the "original meaning" of the Constitution at the time it was ratified. It is easy to forget that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers, and that it is only authorized to exercise the powers delegated to it by the States.

What does the word "delegate" mean? The Oxford English Dictionary defines "delegate" as "[t]o send or commission (a person) [or in this case a government] as a deputy or representative, with power to transact business for another, to depute or appoint to act."

The States delegated certain powers to the federal government, not vice versa. As such, in theory, the federal government exists at the pleasure of the States and "We the People." The sovereignty of the States is recognized and protected by the structure of the Constitution.

The Constitution both explicitly and implicitly recognizes the sovereignty of the States. However, the Supreme Court's jurisprudence has slowly and steadily usurped powers belonging to the States which were never delegated the federal government.

Supreme Court decisions which illegitimately alter the balance of power between the States and the federal government amount to a breach of a fiduciary duty. The States conditionally delegated certain, enumerated powers to the federal government. The key "condition" to this delegation was that the federal government would only exercise, or attempt to exercise, powers that were expressly or implicitly entrusted to it via the Constitution. The ratification debates make this abundantly clear. The federal government breached its fiduciary duty to the States by usurping and exercising many of the powers possessed by the States at the time the Constitution was ratified (e.g. issues regarding individual liberties). The federal government's main vehicle for the countermajoritarian usurpation of state powers has been the United States Supreme Court. The servant has indeed become more powerful than its masters!

Recent decisions of the Supreme Court, however, offer hope. While I certainly have problems with Justice Anthony Kennedy's overall jurisprudence, his majority opinion in Alden v. Maine was nothing short of brilliant. Here is just a taste of his truly great opinion:

"Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, and often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document 'specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities . . . The federal system established by our Constitution preserves the sovereign status of the States in two ways. First, it reserves to them a substantial portion of the Nation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status. The States 'form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.' The Federalist No. 39 . . . Second, even as to matters within the competence of the National Government, the constitutional design secures the founding generation's rejection of the 'concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States' in favor of 'a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people--who were, in Hamilton's words, the only proper objects of government.' . . . THE STATES THUS RETAIN 'A RESIDUARY AND INVIOLABLE SOVEREIGNTY." The Federalist No. 39. THEY ARE NOT RELEGATED TO THE ROLE OF MERE PROVINCES OR POLITICAL CORPORATIONS, BUT RETAIN THE DIGNITY, THOUGH NOT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SOVEREIGNTY." (emphasis added)

Justice Kennedy continues,

"In an apparent attempt to disparage a conclusion with which it disagrees, the dissent attributes our reasoning to natural law. We seek to discover, however, only what the Framers and those who ratified the Constitution sought to accomplish when they created a federal system. WE APPEAL TO NO HIGHER AUTHORITY THAN THE CHARTER WHICH THEY WROTE AND ADOPTED." Theirs was a unique insight that freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one. We need not attach a label to our dissenting colleagues' insistence that the constitutional structure adopted by the founders must yield to the politics of the moment. Although the Constitution begins with the principle that sovereignty rests with the people, it does not follow that the National Government becomes the ultimate, preferred mechanism for expressing the people's will. The States exist as a refutation of that concept. In choosing to ordain and establish the Constitution, the people insisted upon a federal structure for the very purpose of rejecting the idea that the will of the people in all instances is expressed by the central power, the one most remote from their control. The Framers of the Constitution did not share our dissenting colleagues belief that the Congress may circumvent the federal design by regulating the States directly when it pleases to do so . . . ."

And herein lies the chance, the opportunity, the moment of truth. During a recent term, the United States Supreme Court, in the Alden case and the companion cases of College Savings Bank and Florida Prepaid (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "States' Rights Cases of 1999"), breathed new life and vigor into the "body" of federalism. These cases may be viewed years from now as landmark decisions which helped restore the original framework of our constitutional republic, or simply as a missed opportunity.

[End of quoted text from speech]

In short, true federalists are not against a strong federal government. We do, however, strongly oppose the federal government exercising powers not expressly delegated to it in the federal Constitution--i.e., those retained by the People and the States.

Over the top?: In his most recent post, D. over at Sub Judice--someone whose character and intellect I greatly admire--notes that he is deeply troubled by a post of mine from July 16th (which you can access here). Indeed, he writes that "I'm sorry to say that it led me to conclude that it really is not appropriate for law clerks to maintain blogs in which they discuss the judiciary." Having gone back and reviewed the post several times, I am inclined to agree with D. that the post was probably inappropriate. I reach this conclusion not because of any ethical canon applicable to the conduct of federal law clerks, but simply as a matter of good taste. Thus, while the sentiments expressed in that post accurately reflect my personal beliefs, I agree with D. that this level of rhetoric is best suited to those not employed by the federal judiciary.

A few thank yous before I enter the home stretch: Well, I'm back. First things first. I want to thank Professor Jonathan H. Adler and Quin Hillyer for the incredible job they did guest blogging for me over the past few days. Although Howard may have been right when he noted (in a good natured manner) that "[w]ith such big-name celebrities filling in, some may begin to wish that 'Feddie' were absent more often." In any event, I greatly appreciate their willingness to take time out of their busy schedules to post over here at SA. While I don't have any parting gifts, I am going to name both of them to the "Southern Appeal Hall of Fame" (quite the resume booster, I know). In practical terms, this means that I intend on leaving both Professor Adler and Mr. Hillyer on SA's administrative panel as "members," so they can post here at SA whenever they like as much as they like. They are, of course, under no obligation to do so, and those of you who have been reading SA over the past few days should not expect either of them to post over here on a regular basis. Professor Adler has a regular blogging/writing gig over at National Review (with a far larger readership), and Mr. Hillyer stays extremely busy in his capacity with the Mobile Register. In short, you people are stuck with me (I can feel the Site Meter stats dropping as I type this). Seriously though, I greatly appreciate Professor Adler and Mr. Hillyer filling in for me this past week. I am truly honored that men of their caliber were willing to do so.

I would also like to thank the following bloggers for their kind words regarding the birth of my beautiful daughter (via post or e-mail): Howard Bashman (How Appealing), Mr. P. (of Sugar, Mr. Poon?), Donald (All Deliberate Speed), Nate (Politics and Law School & Southern Conservatives), Todd (Hard Alee), Tim (Hypotheses Non Fingo), Matt (Abstract Appeal) (as well as several regular readers), and Sam Heldman (of Ignatz).

Now, back to business. Although I am back, posting may be a bit sporadic for the foreseeable future. In addition to my family's newest addition, I am in the process of wrapping up my clerkship and preparing for the big move back down South. I do plan to post on a fairly regular basis, however, so stay tuned. For now, this proud papa will leave you with a picture of the newest love of my life:

Weekend Pryor News: I see no need to list all the stories, as Howard Bashman did that here. It looks increasingly likely that Democrats will filibuster, a strategy that may entail some risks for the Dems, as I suggested here.

Meanwhile, Demagogue's "Eugene Oregon" asks for evidence to support my claim that Democrats were hurt in the 2002 elections due to their opposition to some of Bush's judicial nominations. First, the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was a major issue in the Texas Senate race won by John Cornyn. Justice Owen is immensely popular in Texas -- she won her statewide reelection by a wider margin than did George W. Bush. Cornyn's opponent (Kirk) came out against her confirmation, and Cornyn made the nomination (and the issue of the judiciary more broadly) a significant issue. Second, Republican Senate candidates in Georgia, Minnesota and South Carolina campaigned heavily on the issue of judicial nominations, mentioning the issue regularly. This is particularly true in Georgia, where Saxby Chambliss made an issue out of the fact that then-Senator Cleland opposed judicial nominees that were supported by Georgia's other Democratic Senator. Third, President Bush incorporated the judicial nomination issue into his fall stump speeches on behalf of Republican candidates in numerous battleground states.

Whether these various appeals were meant to appeal to undecided voters or, as is more likely, rev up the conservative base, I doubt that Republicans would have devoted so much energy to the issue if it would have not have some effect. In the end, several Senate races in which the issue was raised were extremely close, as was the overall battle for control of the Senate. Even if the issue only had a small marginal effect, in tight electoral contests, every little bit counts.

One final point, as I noted in my prior post, Democrats have used procedural arguments to justify all of their current or planned filibusters to date. With a few notable exceptions, such as Senator Schumer, they have been reluctant to block a nominee purely on ideological grounds. Yet when the Democrats line up to block the confirmation of Estrada or Owen, no one believes for a moment that their opposition is anything but ideological. So here's my question: If there are no political costs to opposing conservative judicial nominees straight up, why are the Democrats so afraid to do it?

Today's Pryor News: The AP reports Senate Democrats are considering a filibuster, a move the Atlanta Journal-Constitution supports (LvHB). The editorial notes Pryor was "the only attorney general in the nation to argue that the Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional," but makes no mention of the fact that the Supreme Court agreed. There's also no mention that Georgia's Democratic attorney general supports Pryor's confirmation.

Meanwhile, Kay Daly of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary argues here that "it is apparent that those who actively adhere to religious doctrine are to be viewed with suspicion and blocked from the bench." My own thoughts on this question are here.

Finally, and as usual, Howard Bashman has a round-up of other Pryor-related stories here.

Congrats to Feddie & Mrs. Feddie! (see below)

Thank heaven for little girls: I just wanted to put up a quick post to let everyone know that Mrs. Feddie and our newest addition are both doing extremely well. Our daughter weighed in this morning at a healthy 7 pounds and eleven ounces and measured 19 3/4 inches in length. She is absolutely beautiful, and already has her daddy wrapped around her tiny fingers.

Thank you all for your prayers and kind notes. God Bless.

TODAY'S FINAL THOUGHT:

If the Dems are thinking of basing their filibuster on their supposed inability to complete their "investigation," somebody should ask them to be specific about what outstanding questions or allegations they still have and exactly how they plan to get those allegations investigated or questions answered -- and then asked to state for the record exactly what remains for them to ask Pryor, and why they have turned down three opportunities to ask him those questions already, and when they now would like to give him a chance to clear his name.

Otherwise, all they have done is to create a generic smear without even the courtesy of specifying what the content of that smear actually is.

Sessions speaks: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Al), on the reocrd within the past hour about issue of Pryor's Catholicism:

"I thought the Democrats protested too much."
They are "totally oblivious" that what they consider ideological positions they call "extreme" grow from a nominee's "sincere religious beliefs" that also are "the shared views of millions."
But despite Pryor's strong Catholic faith, "there's a record of him taking sides in cases against his own political and sometimes his own personal views. His integrity is of the highest caliber."
Sessions said that the Democrats were entirely unable to show an instance in which Pryor in his official capacity followed his religion rather than the law, so they were reduced to saying that Pryor's views were so strong and so "extreme" that they doubted whether in the future he could follow the law if it conflicted with his faith. But, said Sessions, that puts the Dems in the position of calling the faith positions of many many many millions of Americans, against abortion, "extreme" -- and so much so that merely by virtue of strongly holding to those faith positions is thus a disqualifier for judgeships. "We don't need," he said, "to be hearing these kinds of comments that this is 'extreme.'"

Federalism for Me and Thee: Mathew Yglesias discovers why federalism is not just for conservatives.

Pryor Brinksmanship: Bill Pryor squeaked out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 10-9, over procedural objections and trumped-up scandal allegations. Senator Hatch squelched Democratic claims that they could delay the vote under a committee filibuster rule. This gives Democrats an additional card to play if, as most expect, they decide to filibuster Pryor's nomination on the Senate floor. Moderate Dems will claim that they don't necessarily oppose Pryor, but cannot vote for a nominee forced out of committee "against the rules." Democrats rely on similar "procedural" objections to justify their filibusters of Justice Priscilla Owen (renominated after SJC voted her down) and Miguel Estrada (won't answer questions; DOJ won't release documents). In each case the excuse is a smokescreen, but it helps direct media coverage away from the substance of each nomination. No doubt, Democrats hope to do the same here.

But did the Democrats miscalculate? There is evidence that Democratic opposition to Owen and Charles Pickering hurt Senate Dems in the 2002 election. Polling further suggests that the Estrada filibuster may hurt Dems with the Hispanic vote in 2004 (assuming Republicans are able to make the nomination a political issue). Could their demonization of Bill Pryor, a well-respected and well-liked state AG with bipartisan home-state support backfire as well? There would certainly be precedent. The last time Senate Democrats blocked a conservative nominee from Alabama to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the nominee eventually went on to become a U.S. Senator. That Senator, Jeff Sessions, is now Bill Pryor's chief sponsor in the Senate. Thus, I wonder, if Senate Democrats stop Judge Pryor, might they get Senator Pryor instead?

Today's Pryor Coverage: Since Feddie's taking care of Mrs. Feddie and soon-to-be baby Feddie, here's an abbreviated listing of today's coverage of yesterday's SJC vote on Bill Pryor:

- "Pryor Nomination Survives on 10-9 Vote" (WPost)
- "Judicial Nominee Advances Amid Dispute Over Religion" (NYTimes)
- "Split Vote Takes 11th Circuit Nomination to Senate" (law.com)
- "Specter's Vote Advances Disputed Judicial Nomination" (Phila Inqy)

As one might expect, Howard Bashman also has several more, including links to local coverage in Alabama.

Final thought for today: Orin Hatch turned down the request from four GOP senators for an investigation into the Dems' tactics. He should not have done so, at least not so soon. The senators should take it up with Bill Frist, and use it as leverage. The complaints have some merit.

Meanwhile, the Dems are turning Pryor into a political rock star. A filibuster only enhances that development. Why wouldn't they just rather let him win the judgeship (even after bloodying him up a little) on an up-or-down vote, and get him out of the public eye?

Solum on the Times on Pryor:

I haven't followed this nomination closely and I'm pretty sure that I disagree with Pryor about a wide variety of issues. So I am certainly not endorsing his nomination, but the New York Times is surely wrong to say that opposing Roe and Lawrence is outside the political and legal mainstream. These are deeply controversial decisions, and respected constitutional scholars of all political persuasions have expressed grave doubts about their soundness as a matter of law.

Solum's post is here.
The Times editorial is here.

HOW BOGUS AN INVESTIGATION?:

The Democrats claiming they weren't given an opportunity to "investigate" what obviously are trumped-up, utterly vague "questions," are just flat-out failing to tell the truth. Fact is that on at least three occasions last week, Bill Pryor sat by his phone AT THE COMMITTEE'S REQUEST, meaning on two of those occasions at the Dems' own demand, making himself available to answer any and all questions they wanted to pose based on the purloined documents. On all three occasions, the Democratic staff pulled the plug and said (in effect), uh, well, you see, we aren't really ready to ask our questions yet. So how can they say they didn't get a chance, when they themselves punted on three chances of their own making?
Also, Dems should think very carefully about filibustering. Not only were they dealing in documents they probably should not have had, but those documents contained info of a sort that MAY have been illegal to transmit through the mail or e-mail. And the GOP keeps coming up with other serious questions about the Demo tactics throughout. A filibuster will only give the GOP the chance to shine a spotlight on the Demo tactics. Better for the Dems to let Pryor pass on a 52-48 vote, or even a tie-breaking vote from Cheney, than to open themselves up to such scrutiny -- and better for them, for that matter, to avoid putting some of their moderates and southerners on the line for filibustering an impressive, southern, Catholic with a host of prominent black supporters.

Pryor Approved on Committee: The effort to delay a vote on the nomination of William Pryor failed. The committee approved Pryor on a party-line vote of 10-9. Each Democratic Senator voted "No, under protest of violation of Rule 4." No doubt this procedural issue will serve as the pretense, er, basis for a filibuster of Pryor's nomination on the floor.

Another Delay? Senator Leahy is seeking to invoke Senate Judiciary Committee Rule 4 to prevent a vote on Pryor's nomination today.

Specter Speaks: He will vote in favor of Pryor's nomination in the Committee, but may vote against Pryor on the floor.

The Fur Is Flying: Senators are pointing fingers, Senator Leahy sees a new McCarthyism, and Senator Schumer is calling for a restoration of "comity" -- all as they prepare to vote on the Pryor nomination. Listen in (via RealPlayer) here.

Clinton's Making Sense: On Larry King, the former President defended the Bush administration in the SOTU-uranium flap and suggested Dems should move on. K-Lo has excerpts on The Corner here and here.

Pryor letter: For those who missed it, or whose links to other reports on this don't work, here's the latest, VERY interesting letter re the Pryor nomination:

July 22, 2003

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510