From the "It's a Small World" File--Lileks Discusses Pryor Convictions:

[...] Hugh Hewitt's show today concerned an interesting judicial controversy - some Dems are suggesting that a certain nominee [current Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor--Ed.] is unfit for confirmation because he is a staunch Catholic, and hence opposed to abortion, and hence cannot be trusted to rule in a fashion consistent with Roe V. Wade. We have not gotten into the abortion issue here, and we won’t now, or ever. I bring up the issue because there’s something revealing about the implications of the criticism.

If a judicial candidate says “I’m personally opposed to (social issue X), but it is legal, and any rulings I make on the matter will be informed by the law, not my own beliefs,” ought that not be sufficient? I want my judges to uphold the law, not contort it to fit their views. I don’t want them teasing penumbras from the emanations of the glow of the spark of the reflection of the echo of the intent of the Framers - I want them to deal specifically with the specific words of the law, as they specifically apply. So if someone accuses a judge of being unable to uphold the law because they hold a personal belief that conflicts with the law - even though that belief has nothing to do with the specifics of the case - then the accuser might be giving us a window into their own souls. The accuser might be suggesting that they would overturn a law to fit their personal morality, regardless of the fitness of the statute. Isn’t that how people behave, after all?

It’s called “projection,” I think. [...]

Tsk, tsk. When will people like Mr. Lileks figure out that the only way a staunch Catholic is acceptable in politics is when he's that dreamy guy President Josiah Bartlet.

Anyway, this is one of those things where there's a lot of heat and no light--in the end, there are plenty of sitting justices who blatantly ignore plainly written statutory language in favor of ruling based upon their own biases and philosophies--one need look no further than the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Straying from interpretation to invention is not good for anyone, no matter which side is doing it, but Pryor really doesn't seem to be the venom-dripping troglodyte that he's being made into by his critics.
posted by Terry at 8:53:00 AM