ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Judge William Pryor was sworn in yesterday, to a permanent position on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports:

"Dreams do come true," said Pryor, 43, who began his career in law 18 years ago. "As pleased as I am today, it is important to remember that it is not about me. It is about the Constitution, which Dr. Martin Luther King called 'that magnificent promissory note for all Americans.' "

Doug Gross of Associated Press has a longer article. That AP article omits the MLK quote, and instead includes this about Pryor:

[H]e compared homosexual acts to "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia."

This is more bogus, biased reporting from AP. Steve Dillard (a.k.a. "Feddie") addressed this subject back in 2004:

"I don't know how many times I have to say this, Pryor did not compare homosexuality to bestiality in the amicus brief he filed as attorney general in Lawrence v. Texas. Once again, I will let Judge Pryor speak for himself (in this case responding to a question posed to him by Sen. Feingold during the SJC hearing):

SEN. FEINGOLD: In a recent brief to the Supreme Court, you equated private, consensual sexual activity between homosexuals to prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, incest and pedophilia.

ATTY GEN. PRYOR: I think my record as attorney general shows that I will uphold and enforce the law. In the Lawrence case, the first that you mentioned, I was upholding and urging the Supreme Court to reaffirm its decision of 1986 in Bowers versus Hardwick, which is the law of the land. And the argument to which you referred, the slippery slope argument, was taken from Justice White's majority opinion for the Supreme Court of the United States.

"Indeed, here is the actual excerpt from Pryor's amicus brief in Lawrence:

It should be noted, again, that the Texas statute in question does not criminalize petitioners' sexual orientation, which may or may not be a matter of choice and thus may arguably be protected from state discrimination by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, the Texas antisodomy statute criminalizes petitioners' sexual activity,which is indisputably a matter of choice. Petitioners' protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, a constitutional right that protects "the choice of one's partner" and "whether and how to connect sexually" must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia (if the child should credibly claim to be "willing"). For all intents and purposes, petitioners seek to enshrine as the defining tenet of modern constitutional jurisprudence the sophomoric libertarian mantra from the musical "Hair": "be free, be whatever you are, do whatever you want to do, just as long as you don't hurt anybody."

Okay, that's what Feddie wrote last year. In replying to Feingold, Pryor mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Bowers. Here's what the Supreme Court wrote in that 1986 decision:

And if respondent's submission is limited to the voluntary sexual conduct between consenting adults, it would be difficult, except by fiat, to limit the claimed right to homosexual conduct while leaving exposed to prosecution adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes even though they are committed in the home.

As I've written elsewhere, the U.S. Supreme Court had no legitimate power to overstretch the Due Process Clause of the Constitution in the subsequent Lawrence case in 2003. The Court yet again usurped legislative power, like it did in Roe v. Wade, Lochner, Dred Scott, and other bogus due process cases. With the best of intentions, the Court continues to shred the Constitution, and impose its will on the country. The swearing in of Judge Pryor is a modest indication that someday the rule of law may be restored, whether Doug Gross of Associated Press likes it or not.