PDA

View Full Version : Appeals court rules 8-2 in favor of President Bush's recess appointment of Pryor



The Laughing Man
October 16th 2004, 03:47 PM
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld President Bush's recess appointment of Alabama Attorney General William Pryor to a seat on that same court.

The appeals court voted 8-2 on Thursday to reject Sen. Ted Kennedy's complaint that President Bush violated the Senate's right to confirm judges by appointing Pryor when the Congress was in recess.

"We are not persuaded that the president acted beyond his authority in this case: both the words of the Constitution and the history of the nation support the president's authority," the appeals court ruled.

Pryor's nomination was one of several that Kennedy and other Senate Democrats have been blocking on ideological grounds.

"Obviously, I disagree with the court's view that the president can bypass the Senate's constitutional role and appoint a federal judge during any Senate break no matter how short," Kennedy said on Thursday.

A civil liberties group, American Center for Law and Justice, said it is pleased that the appeals court acted to protect the constitutional authority of President Bush in making recess appointments to the federal judiciary.

"From the beginning, it was our view that Senator Kennedy's challenge was legally flawed and we expected that his lawsuit challenging Judge Pryor's appointment would fail," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of ACLJ.

ACLJ said it expected Kennedy to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court - but nevertheless, it urged him to let the matter drop.

"We are confident that the President's authority will be upheld and urge Senator Kennedy to end his challenge to Judge Pryor's appointment and bring an end to the obstructionist tactics he is utilizing in the Senate to prevent up-or-down votes on President Bush's nominees."

Amazing Rando
October 16th 2004, 05:11 PM
I like Pryor- he showed his intergrity during the whole 10 Commandments/Roy Moore fiasco. I think he deserves a fair shake and an appointment to the judiciary.

Jimmy Higgins
October 16th 2004, 05:15 PM
Darn activist judges!

Oh... wait... that's only when they don't rule in your favor. :wink:

Lily
October 16th 2004, 05:15 PM
:woohoo: Glad to hear that!

The Laughing Man
October 16th 2004, 05:30 PM
Darn activist judges!

Oh... wait... that's only when they don't rule in your favor. :wink:

No, activist judges are those who issue rulings that go beyond the powers given to them. For example, ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is "unconstitutional," ruling that the state legislature must draft a law covering gay marriage, etc.

$cirisme
October 16th 2004, 05:43 PM
Kennedy apparently doesn't know the constitution:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

-Article II, Section 2, Clause 3; United States Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)

$cirisme
October 16th 2004, 05:47 PM
This brings up an interesting question. The President can adjourn Congress, and the President can fill up all Vacancies without Senate confirmation when the Senate is in recess.

I wonder if a President could adjourn congress simply to get around Senate and political objections? You can bet that such an underhanded move would be unpopular, and that it would be challenged in court. It would certainly be an interesting legal fight to witness, to say the least.

The Laughing Man
October 17th 2004, 12:14 AM
Kennedy apparently doesn't know the constitution:

Oh, I'm pretty sure he does, but just doesn't want it applied to a Republican president. I'm sure he cited this portion of the Constitution to defend Clinton's recess appointments.

Jimmy Higgins
October 17th 2004, 09:15 AM
I'm a bit fuzzy. How many judges did the Republicans block on Clinton? How many judges did the Democrats block on Bush?

$cirisme
October 17th 2004, 02:09 PM
I'm a bit fuzzy.

Take the lens cap off!

:poke:

AtheistArchon
October 17th 2004, 02:16 PM
- In all honesty, I can't say I'm too upset with Pryor. Sure he's a fundie/rightie, but with his actions during the Moore fiasco I can't help but respect the man. I was dead certain he was going to cave in, but he didn't. He proved me wrong. And so far, nothing disastrous has come of his appointment that I'm aware of.

$cirisme
October 17th 2004, 02:23 PM
And so far, nothing disastrous has come of his appointment that I'm aware of.

Well, he upset Kennedy. That's not very hard to do... but sure is fun to watch. :popcorn:

AtheistArchon
October 17th 2004, 02:30 PM
Well, he upset Kennedy.

- Like I said, nothing disastrous. :wink:

$cirisme
October 17th 2004, 02:35 PM
- Like I said, nothing disastrous. :wink:
:hehe:

Jimmy Higgins
October 17th 2004, 05:37 PM
Take the lens cap off!

:poke:Cute. Could you answer the question instead of dodging it? How many judges did the Republicans block on Clinton and how many judges did the Democrats block on Bush?

$cirisme
October 17th 2004, 05:41 PM
Could you answer the question instead of dodging it?

Dodge it? I didn't realise it was directed to me.

In answer to your question, I don't know; neither do I care.

(one of the perks of not being a Republican or Democrat :tongue: )

Jimmy Higgins
October 17th 2004, 06:14 PM
Dodge it? I didn't realise it was directed to me.

In answer to your question, I don't know; neither do I care.

(one of the perks of not being a Republican or Democrat :tongue: )Whats the perk? Being allowed to be ignorant?

$cirisme
October 17th 2004, 06:36 PM
Whats[sic] the perk? Being allowed to be ignorant?

Telling you to buzz off when you look for (non-existent) hypocrisy.

OneFollowingHim
October 17th 2004, 08:06 PM
I heard Jay Sekulow talk about this on AFR on Friday. Both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion recommended this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. That's all we need!
If the Supreme Court overturns the ruling, it will have major Constitutional ramifications on Presidential authority.