Via the NYT: On Split Vote, Senate Panel Endorses Appeals Court Nominee

Mr. Pryor, a former attorney general of Alabama, is currently sitting as a federal appeals court judge after having been named to the post directly by Mr. Bush during a Congressional recess to sidestep the Senate Democrats. He will have to leave the bench by the end of the year unless the Senate confirms him for the lifetime appointment to the seat.

The committee’s approval means that Senate Republicans have in place the four nominees who have been at the heart of the partisan dispute. In addition to Mr. Pryor, the others are Priscilla R. Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William G. Myers III. Republicans have indicated that Justice Owen of Texas could be the focus on the filibuster fight.

Ok, I can’t speak with great authority on all of the nominees that have been held up by the Democrats, and I hold out the possibility that there are issues for any given nominee that might justify their rejection for the Appeals Court. However, I know enough to speak intelligently about Bill Pryor, and it is the manner of rejection, and the lack of substantive argument about his nomination (and others of which I have a decent amount of knowledge) that have me in the position of supporting the alteration of the rules.

While I can understand, for example, some of the objections leveled at Janice Rogers Brown, insofar as a speech she gave indicates that she has profound problems with Court rulings and general constitutional interpretations from the New Deal onward. Now, I have some philosophical sympathy for those arguments, but I can certainly see how Senate Democrats could make an argument that she is not well suited for appointment to the Appeals Court. While it is unlikely that such a debate would sway my vote, were I in the Senate, I could see a debate that might sway enough votes to defeat the nomination. There have to be others which might similarly have a chance to be defeated. Of course, it does seem that the calculation is that none of these nominees are sufficiently odious to actually be defeated, and hence the rather extreme action that have been engaged in by the Democratic leadership for four years now.

But, turning to Pryor specifically, what exactly is it that the Democrats object to? On balance, the attacks are rather vague, for example, from today’s Montgomery Advertiser: Pryor in for Senate battle

Pryor is also opposed by at least two Republican organizations. The Log Cabin Republicans, who advocate for gay rights, and the Republican Majority for Choice, a pro-choice group, are lobbying moderate Republican senators to vote against Pryor’s nomination.

“We’ve stayed out of the fight over the filibuster, but Bill Pryor is far out of step with judicial jurisprudence,” said Chris Barron, political director of the Log Cabin Republicans.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said a Senate investigation of Pryor’s fundraising activities when he was the chairman of the Republican Attorney Generals Association has not been completed and that Bush’s decision to give Pryor a recess appointment “cut off a needed investigation.”

“Before the committee could pursue an ethical investigation, President Bush made an end run around the Constitution,” Kennedy said.

Starting with Kennedy: that just sounds like a fishing expedition. In regards to the other two issues, it is clear that a conservative Catholic (indeed, practically any nominee from a conservative President) is likely to be opposed to abortion and to gay marriage (and no doubt part of the objection from the Log Cabin Republicans was the amicus brief he filed in the Lawrence v. Texas case).

Indeed, while I don’t buy into the “war against faith” aspect of this fight, I do think that the Democrats are using the religious views of nominees as a proxy for identifying the candidates’ views on abortion and other issues. However, the question should be whether these individuals will follow the law or not. In the case of Pryor, he has done nothing as the AG of Alabama, or as a temporary member of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that would demonstrate that he would not do so as a permanent member of the federal bench. Indeed, he followed the law on the Moore situation and has enforced abortion laws–both as AG of Alabama. Further, he has been deemed qualified by the ABA.

What, precisely, makes the man unqualified for the bench? It seems that what makes him unqualified is that he doesn’t agree with the Democrats on some key issues–which is not a shock, given that he is being appointed by a Republican President. As such, the Democrats can call Mr. Pryor “radical” or “extreme” or “out of the mainstream” but it seems to me that if they can’t actually make the case–and they have not–then a vote should be allowed and since there is disagreement, then the will of the majority should prevail.

What is so radical, or objectionable, about that?

If there was a Democratic President and Senate, I would expect the judges nominated and confirmed to reflect the philosophy of that President. But, then again, I am willing to be reasonable about this process.