May 12, 2005

Rush To Judgement?

Michelle Malkin notes that Teddy Kennedy is complaining about the “rush to judgment” on the nomination of Bill Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She then supplies the following timeline regarding Pryor’s consideration by the Senate.

3/12/2003 Pryor nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit by President Bush

7/23/2003 Passed out of Senate Judiciary Committee with favorable recommendation

7/31/2003 Democrats refused to allow vote on nomination (cloture denied 53-44)

11/14/2003 Democrats refused to allow vote on nomination (cloture denied 51-43)

2/20/2004 Given recess appointment to 11th Circuit (expires end of 109th Cong; 1st Session)

Two years. It has been over two years since the nomination was made, and nearly two since the nomination was sent to the Senate floor. How much more consideration does it need?

But maybe this desire for deliberate speed explains his decision not to engage in undue haste in attempting to rescue Mary Jo Kopechne or reporting the accident in which she was killed.

Posted by: Greg at 02:28 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Again, you treated Bill Pryor as a decent figure -- this man made it clear that he wants to dismantle the ADA laws.

It is duly noted in nad.org -- check it and weep. No, you'll find a way to lie and back up Pryor's discriminating activities.

All the more reasons why I intend to discriminate hearing people when I open my business.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Thu May 12 19:25:43 2005 (nWmj6)

2 Funny -- I see an assertion there, but no actual evidence offered to back it up.

I guess we are just supposed to accept the assertion of your advocacy group as if it were the Gospel.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu May 12 22:59:49 2005 (bKw38)

3 Oh, I found it.

And your group makes a fundamental mistake in its assertions.

It assmes that the positions taken by Pryor as ttorney general are, in fact his own personal positions. That is not necessarily true. As AG, he had an obligation to defend the laws and practices of the state to the best of his ability, since he was the legal representative.

Remember, this is the man who defended "Roy's Rock", but then turned around and was vigorous in pursuing Roy Moore's removal from the Alabama Supreme Court for violating the orders to remove it. He took those seemingly contradictory positions because it was his job as the state's lawyer.

You may wonder what that has to do with the issue you raised, so I'll tell you -- when the state of Alabama was sued in the cases your group cites, Pryor carried out his obligation to defend the state of Alabama in a vigorous manner, making all arguments at his disposal. Doing less would have been malpractice.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu May 12 23:07:52 2005 (bKw38)

4 svrot czibxr

Posted by: sex at Mon Jun 2 12:38:32 2008 (aPjCj)

5 resgyz zqnd yoqmrh wuabxe

Posted by: sex at Mon Jun 2 15:13:26 2008 (V3R2D)

6 zrklaph qlmfuyr faypunk bicqopl

Posted by: sex at Mon Jun 2 19:05:43 2008 (nLxkm)

7 qulke ueyos xncyuol

Posted by: givemepink at Tue Jun 24 23:58:47 2008 (TDlZ2)

8 huonvm mlxdgzc gjapkzy uoilj

Posted by: hot girls at Fri Jun 27 17:42:21 2008 (DIhjs)

9 twzgn iaxv

Posted by: coed cock sucker at Sat Jul 5 17:49:07 2008 (+YF3f)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
8kb generated in CPU 0.0045, elapsed 0.0138 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0099 seconds, 38 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]