Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit is widely considered, along with Judge Diane Sykes, to be the front-runner to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. President-elect Donald Trump mentioned both judges by name during a primary debate shortly after Scalia’s death, and both have the conservative bona fides necessary to allay concerns about, as Pryor himself has put it, adding “more Souters” to the court.
Pryor, 54, earned his B.A. from Northeast Louisiana University in 1984 and his J.D. from Tulane University Law School 1987. Pryor clerked for Judge John Minor Wisdom on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and then worked as a private attorney until 1995. He served for two years as deputy attorney general of Alabama before becoming attorney general in 1997. As attorney general, he became known for his removal of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore for Moore’s refusal to follow a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state Supreme Court building.
President George W. Bush nominated Pryor to the 11th Circuit in 2003, but the nomination stalled after Senate Democrats criticized Pryor for several incidents. While serving as attorney general, Pryor wrote a brief in defense of the Texas law banning sodomy that was later struck down in Lawrence v. Texas. Additionally, Pryor has called Roe v. Wade the “worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.” Bush eventually appointed Pryor to the appeals court during a congressional recess in 2004, and he was later confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 53-45.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Too extreme.
ReplyDeleteToo extreme for who? Have you heard the things that come out of Trump's mouth?
ReplyDeleteElections have consequences. We elected someone who ran on some very extremist views. It cannot be a surprise to anyone that he would select a SCT justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and has other extremist views.
ReplyDeleteWe also elected a majority of senators who are the same party as the president. So it is very likely that the President's selection, no matter how extreme, will be confirmed.
Those who did not vote and those who did nothing and said nothing while Gov. Scott and others around the country blatantly suppressed voting, don't start complaining now.
Thanks for explaining that to me.
ReplyDeleteA first class putz with zero personality to boot.
ReplyDeleteActually that last point is totally off base. He's quite charming.
ReplyDeleteThe russians interfered with the election. The FBI interfered with the election. It only seems right and fair that the senate wait until the next presidential election before considering a supreme court nominee. We can call this the McConnell/Obama rule. Starting now, no supreme court nominee should ever been considered or approved during the current term of a president in office. Judges should be nominated only by someone coming into the presidency. Once they become president, its only right that the senate wait for the next president- ala Obama and Mitch McConnell. Put another way, the only time for Trump to nominate a justice would be during the interregnum between his election and swearing in. Which is about to end. So we wait four years. We've waited this long. So why not?
ReplyDelete