<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d8427150\x26blogName\x3dEx+Post\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://expost.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://expost.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d1132334940054765571', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Judges

Byron York writes on NRO that it appears Arlen Specter has agreed to Democratic requests to hold Judiciary Committee hearings on William Pryor, a Bush recess appointment and a recent visitor at Columbia Law School, as well as William Haynes, both of whom have already been through that process when they were originally appointed. I really don't think this is a big deal, considering the margin has actually increased for the Republicans since the original hearings were held on Pryor and it might be seen by Dems as a sign that Specter will not simply ram through judicial nominees. We should make note, however, to keep an eye on the progress of judicial appointments this term.

There is another reason to not mind another Pryor J. Committee hearing: his first was priceless. Iam sure many of you saw it when it happened, but Pryor put on a commanding performance in his first Senate hearing. The opening question from Senator Schumer was, "Mr. Pryor, you have said that Roe v. Wade was the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law. Do you believe that now?" Pryor's response: "I do." Later in the hearing he was asked again about this and his reply was that "I believe that not only is [Roe] unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children." I'm looking forward to seeing a repeat of Chuck Schumer fume in his seat...

3 Comments:

Blogger Publius said...

Even Bork in his confirmation hearings, although condemning the SDP right to abortion, noted that there may be a valid Equal Protection Clause argument for it. So I'm not too confident. Although, Pryor is not up for the Supremes.

7:39 AM  
Blogger Rod said...

Relating to Publius' post, our own Cynthia Estlund has claimed that she, as a constitutional law student in a class taight by Robert Bork, gave Bork the equal protection argument. Ya think?

11:17 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

Isaacharoff confirms, says he was there when she made it and that Bork shut her down in class. He tells the story that they were watching the Bork confirmation hearings together and were floored when he used the argument that he so quickly debunked in class.

11:22 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home