William Pryor On Abortion
Pryor Opposed Abortion
2003: When Up For A Position On The Court Of Appeals For The 11th Circuit, Pryor Told Senators That He Stood By His Comments That Roe v. Wade Was “The Worst Abomination of Constitutional Law”
2003: When Asked If He Still Believed Roe v. Wade Was “The Worst Abomination In The History Of Constitutional Law,” Pryor Responded “I Do.” According to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit, “[Senator Schumer] Now, you have said on occasion, on several occasions, that Roe v. Wade is quote, ‘the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.’ Do you believe that as of right now? [Mr. Pryor] I do.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 6/11/03]
2003: Pryor Said That Planned Parenthood v. Casey “Preserved The Worst Abomination Of Constitutional Law In Our History.” According to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit, “[Senator Specter] First I would ask you if this quote is accurate. I have seen a quote or two not accurate. ‘In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey the Court preserved the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history,’ close quote. Is that an accurate quotation of yours? [Mr. Pryor] Yes. [Senator Specter] Is that one which would fall into the category that Senator Hatch has commented on, you wish you had not made? [Mr. Pryor] No, I stand by that comment.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 6/11/03]
Pryor Said Roe v. Wade “Led To A Morally Wrong Result”
2003: Pryor Said Roe v. Wade “Led To A Morally Wrong Result.” According to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit, “[Mr. Pryor] Well, I believe that not only is the case unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it had led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children. That’s my personal belief.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 6/11/03]
Pryor Said Roe v. Wade Was Unsupported By The Constitution
2003: Pryor Said Roe v. Wade Was “Unsupported By The Text And Structure Of The Constitution.” According to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit, “[Mr. Pryor] Well, I believe that not only is the case unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it had led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children. That’s my personal belief.” [Senate Judiciary Committee, 6/11/03]
Pryor Said The Supreme Court Created A Right To An Abortion “Out Of Thin Air”
Pryor Said The Supreme Court Created A Right To An Abortion “Out Of Thin Air.” According to McClatchy, “A more incendiary choice, by far, would be Judge William H. Pryor Jr., 54, of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Pryor once denounced the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision upholding the right to an abortion as the creation ‘out of thin air of a constitutional right to murder an unborn child’ and as ‘the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.’” [McClatchy, 1/29/17]
Pryor Called Roe v. Wade “A Constitutional Right To Murder An Unborn Child”
Pryor Said The Supreme Court “Ripped Out The Life Of Millions Of Unborn Children” With Roe v. Wade
Pryor Denounced Roe v. Wade As “A Constitutional Right To Murder An Unborn Child.” According to McClatchy, “A more incendiary choice, by far, would be Judge William H. Pryor Jr., 54, of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Pryor once denounced the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision upholding the right to an abortion as the creation ‘out of thin air of a constitutional right to murder an unborn child’ and as ‘the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.’” [McClatchy, 1/29/17]
Pryor Sad The Seven Justices Who Ruled In Favor Of Roe v. Wade “Ripped The Constitution And Ripped Out The Life Of Millions Of Unborn Children.” According to the Daily Beast, ‘Pryor didn’t back off from his past remark that Roe v. Wade was ‘the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.’ Nor did he disavow his shocking statement that ‘I will never forget Jan. 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children.’” [Daily Beast, 8/11/16]
Pryor Referred To Plaintiffs As “Abortionists” 21 Times In A Ruling
2022: Pryor Called The Plaintiffs In An Abortion Case “Abortionists” 21 Times In A Ruling Allowing Georgia’s Six-Week Abortion Ban To Take Immediate Effect. According to Bloomberg Law, “One word dominated the backlash to Wednesday’s opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit allowing Georgia’s abortion ban to take immediate effect. ‘The court used a derogatory term throughout the opinion—not just once or twice,’ said Andrea Young, attorney and executive director for the ACLU of Georgia, which represents those challenging the ban. ‘I found it to be really shocking and unprofessional.’ Chief Judge William Pryor Jr. repeatedly used the word ‘abortionists’—21 times in a 16-page opinion—instead of the terms ‘plaintiffs’ or ‘appellees,’ as they were identified in the case caption, or the name of the lead plaintiff, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective. SisterSong is a nonprofit advocacy organization that does not provide any medical services. The other plaintiffs included: the Feminist Women’s Health Center, Planned Parenthood Southeast, the Atlanta Comprehensive Wellness Clinic, Atlanta Women’s Medical Center and more.” [Bloomberg Law, 7/21/22]
Using The Term “Abortionists” To Describe The Plaintiffs Was Considered Pejorative, Disrespectful, And Unprofessional By Some Legal Scholars
Some Legal Scholars Said Using The Term “Abortionists” In That Way Was Pejorative, Disrespectful, And Unprofessional. According to Bloomberg Law, “Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion used the word abortionist to describe those performing or inducing an abortion. But Pryor used the word for all the plaintiffs, saying, ‘We vacate the injunction, reverse the judgment in favor of the abortionists, and remand with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the state officials.’ While the dictionary definition of the term is technically ‘a person who performs an abortion,’ it’s used differently in practice, said Eric Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University. The word has traditionally been employed by one side of the abortion debate— anti-abortion advocates, who attached a negative connotation to it. ‘Abortionist’ is part of the whole idea that there’s an industry out there that are just people doing abortions and only doing it to make money. That’s just not true. It’s not accurate. It’s false,’ he said. ‘It suggests this is something that’s not part of the medical care for women, and abortion is medical care.’ Segall said the term is pejorative and disrespectful toward pro-choice advocates. ‘It is a shout-out to the cultural warriors who have been fighting against abortion for years,’ Segall said. ‘It’s a dog whistle to that side, and I think judges should avoid dog whistles. O’Connor and Brennan and Kennedy and many others in deciding these kinds of cases tried to avoid that kind of signaling to their own constituencies.’ Ross Guberman, author of judicial writing book ‘Point Taken,’ said the backlash over Pryor’s use of ‘abortionist’ shows there’s no such thing as neutral opinion-writing. ‘Consciously or not, judges reveal much about their mindset in how they refer to the parties, characterize disputed facts, and frame counterarguments,’ Guberman said on Twitter. ‘Judges refer to parties by their names or roles in an appeal (ie ‘plaintiffs’) no matter what they think of the merits of their arguments. But not William Pryor. Completely unprofessional,’ Corey Rayburn Yung, a professor at the University of Kansas School of Law, said on Twitter.” [Bloomberg Law, 7/21/22]
William Pryor And Corporate Interests
Pryor Supported Legal Efforts To Protect Corporations
Pryor Supported The Tobacco Industry As Other States Sued Them To Recoup Medical Costs
Pryor Argued That Lawsuits Against The Tobacco Industry Threatened Business In General
Pryor Gave A Speech In Which He Warned That Lawsuits Against The Tobacco Industry Threatened The Entire Business Community. While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Senator Feingold said, ‘After its formation you gave a speech to the Steering Committee of the Civil Justice Reform Group. You said, ‘Two years ago, I warned that the lawsuits filed by my fellow State Attorneys General against the tobacco industry threatened the entire business community.’ [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
Pryor Said He Believed Taxes Should Be Raised On Tobacco, Rather Than Trying To Litigate
Pryor Said He Believed States Should Raise Taxes On Tobacco To Recoup Medical Costs Rather Than Trying To Litigate. According to Wall Street Journal, ‘So far, he has received the most attention for the case he advised Mr. Sessions not to file — litigation against tobacco companies. In 1994, Mike Moore, the attorney general of Mississippi, stepped forward with a suit that he hoped would offer a way for states to get help paying smokers’ medical bills. He urged other states’ officials to join him. But Mr. Pryor headed a task force of Alabama officials last year that determined that the cases, now filed by 29 states, are nearly impossible to win. He argues instead that states should raise taxes on cigarettes to recoup medical costs rather than trying to collect money through the courts.’ [Wall Street Journal, 5/21/97]
Pryor Coordinated With The Tobacco Industry
Pryor Shared His Research On The Tobacco Cases With The Tobacco Industry. According to Wall Street Journal, ‘Others gripe about how Mr. Pryor has shared his research with the tobacco industry. On March 13, the day before Mississippi Attorney General Moore received a copy of the task-force report, the tobacco companies filed a copy in that state’s Supreme Court as part of their response to Mr. Moore’s suit. But Mr. Pryor takes those criticisms in stride. The tobacco companies, which his task force contacted in the course of its research, had made a standing request for a copy of his report, so he sent it to them after a local newspaper reporter asked for it as well. ‘Why does it matter who I gave it to first?’ he asks. ‘If I’m their monster, [the states’ attorneys general] created me in that role.’’ [Wall Street Journal, 5/21/97]
Pryor Bragged About Leaving Alabama Out Of Big Tobacco Suit
Pryor Bragged About His Decision To Not Have Alabama Join In Suing Big Tobacco, Saying That Court’s Should Be Left Out Of It And Asked, “Who’s Next? McDonald’s?’” According to Wall Street Journal, ‘Now Mr. Pryor is rolling, and it’s on to Topic No. 2, Alabama’s refusal to join other states in suing Big Tobacco. If states want to force cigarette makers to pay for smokers’ health care, he says, they can raise taxes through their legislatures. But leave the courts out of it, he urges. ‘Who’s next? McDonald’s?’ he asks rhetorically. ‘They build playgrounds to lure children in and get them hooked on fatty foods. Obesity kills hundreds of thousands of Americans.’ As the applause ends, Mr. Pryor has finished another day as the intellectual leader of Alabama Republicans. For now, he is running for the November 1998 election to remain the state’s top law enforcement official.’ [Wall Street Journal, 5/21/97]
Pryor Founded The Republican Attorneys General Association, With The Goal Of Integrating More Corporate Influence Into Politics
Pryor Said He Believed That The Tobacco Industry Lawsuits Showed A Need For Greater Corporate Involvement In Politics
Pryor’s Solution To Curbing Lawsuit Abuse Included – Most Importantly – Ensuring The Business Community Was “Heavily Engaged In The Election Process.” While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Senator Feingold said, “You [Bill Pryor] offered five ideas for those who want to curb this new form of lawsuit abuse. Number five was the business community must be heavily engaged in the election process as it affects legal and judicial offices. You said, ‘Frankly, this need is the most important of all.” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
1999: Pryor Founded The Republican Attorneys General Association
1999: Pryor Co-Founded The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Senator Feingold said, “In 1999, you helped found an organization called the Republican Attorneys General Association, or RAGA, to promote the election of Republican candidates for Attorney General, and I understand you served as its first treasurer.” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
RAGA Was Designed To Allow Corporations The Ability To Anonymously Funnel Money To Sympathetic Attorneys Generals
RAGA Donations Were Funneled Through A Variety Of Entities That Ultimately Went To Support Republican Attorney General Elections. While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Senator Feingold said, “As I understand it, RAGA raised money from large corporate donors and then sent those contributions to the Republican National State Elections Committee, the RNSEC, which is a soft- money fund run by the RNC for use in State Attorney General’s elections. I am concerned about involvement of the top law enforcement officer of a State in this kind of an operation, and I am not alone in that concern. A number of Democratic and Republican State Attorneys General criticized your organization as unnecessarily partisan, and some have characterized its fundraising practices as fraught with ‘ethical land mines.” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
RAGA Skirted Campaign Finance Laws By Allowing Corporations To Give Unlimited Checks Anonymously To Support The Campaigns Of Pryor And Other “Free-Market Oriented” Attorneys General. According to Mother Jones, “But it also obscured the most important factor in Pryor’s swift rise from Mobile, Alabama, to the national stage: his longtime courting of corporate America. ‘The business community must be engaged heavily in the election process as it affects legal and judicial offices,’ Pryor told business leaders in 1999, after refusing to join other attorneys general in lawsuits against the tobacco and gun industries. To facilitate that engagement, Pryor created a controversial group called the Republican Attorneys General Association, which skirted campaign-finance laws by allowing corporations to give unlimited checks anonymously to support the campaigns of Pryor and other ‘conservative and free market oriented Attorneys General.’” [Mother Jones, November 2003]
RAGA Was Set Up To Be “Completely Hidden From Public View Within The RNC.” According to the Center For Public Integrity, “Not only is there no limit, but no disclosure and no paper trail. RAGA has set itself up to be completely hidden from public view within the RNC. It works through the Republican National State Elections Committee, a soft-money fund of the RNC that transfers money to state parties, to the National Republican Governors Association and to RAGA. Donations are recorded as going to the RNC, but from there it is impossible to determine what goes into the RAGA fund or how RAGA spends the money.” [Center for Public Integrity, 3/21/00]
Known RAGA Donors Included Corporate Giants Like Microsoft, Aetna, National Rifle Association And Tobacco Companies
RAGA Refused To Disclose Its Donors, But News Reports Indicated That Contributors May Have Included Aetna, SBC, GTE, Microsoft And Tobacco Companies. While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Senator Feingold said, “RAGA solicits financial contributions from large corporations that may be subject to State investigations. According to several news accounts, RAGA’s contributors may include Aetna, SBC, GTE, Microsoft, and many tobacco companies. Yet RAGA has refused to disclose its contributors.” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
Microsoft Was A Donor To RAGA As The Company Had Anti-Trust Litigation Pending In 23 States. According to the Center For Public Integrity, “Democratic Attorney General Mike Moore of Mississippi led the states charge against the tobacco industry. He told the Center that the attorneys general ‘only go against the wrongdoers and only those that break the law. We are not anti-big-business but anti-law breakers. ‘It is clear that RAGA is courting the very corporations that currently or potentially face litigation over their consumer practices. Microsoft Corp. spokesman Rick Miller acknowledged to the Center that Microsoft is a member, donated $10,000, and plans to attend the associations March 30-31 conference at the Barton Creek Resort outside Austin, Texas. Microsoft has antitrust litigation pending in 23 states. ‘Microsoft’s contribution to RAGA is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard,’ said Moore of Mississippi. ‘With a case in 23 states, to align itself with this organization, there could easily be conflicts of interest here. RAGA will go solicit money from the corporate interests that some of their brothers and sisters have suits against. It isn’t the right thing for chief legal officers to be doing from a legal and ethical standpoint.’” [Center for Public Integrity, 3/21/00]
Lobbyists Of High-Dollar Donors Were Invited To Socialize With Republican Attorneys General Via RAGA
The National Rifle Association Contributed At Least $25,000, As Gun Lobbyists Played Golf, Shot Skeet, And Visited Spas With Republican Attorneys General. According to Mother Jones, “The National Rifle Association, clearly pleased by his refusal to sue gun makers, also contributed to the fund after Pryor called for a donation, the phone records show. The undisclosed checks for up to $25,000 got lobbyists invitations to shoot skeet, play golf, and enjoy a ‘stress-relief spa’ with Republican attorneys general.” [Mother Jones, November 2003]
Pryor Dismissed Concerns Over The Flow Of Corporate Donations As Just The System
When Pressed Further On RAGA’s Corporation Donations And Conflicts Of Interest, Pryor Said, It Was The System In America That ‘Requires Candidates To Raise Funds To Wage Campaigns.’ While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Senator Feingold said, “Senator Feingold. This doesn’t concern you at all in terms of your role as Attorney General? Mr. Pryor. The system that we have in America of elections requires candidates to raise funds to wage campaigns. I have done that, and I’ve disclosed every donation that my campaign has ever received.” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
Pryor Himself Received RAGA Funneled Funds From Companies That Were Under His Purview For Potential Prosecution
Pryor’s Opposition To The Tobacco & Gun Industry Lawsuits, Clean Water Act Regulations, And Support For “Gutting” Federal Protections Of Disabled Workers On Constitutional Grounds “Allowed Him To Rake In Business Contributions.” According to Mother Jones, “PRYOR POSITIONED HIMSELF early to win the favor of the business community. As far back as 1998, he announced that Alabama would not join lawsuits against the tobacco and gun industries. He urged federal courts to roll back the Clean Water Act, testified before Congress against the Clean Air Act, and argued for gutting federal protections of disabled workers on constitutional grounds. Such views allowed him to rake in business contributions.” [Mother Jones, November 2003]
Mother Jones: Pryor’s 2002 Campaign Received “$100,000 Of Legally Laundered Cash From The Republican Attorneys General Association, A Group That Attracted Companies As Far-Ranging As Microsoft, Eli Lilly, Anheuser-Busch, And Philip Morris.” According to Mother Jones, “Pryor’s 2002 re-election campaign eventually received $100,000 of legally laundered cash from the Republican Attorneys General Association, a group that attracted companies as far-ranging as Microsoft, Eli Lilly, Anheuser-Busch, and Philip Morris. The money contributed to a 3 to 1 fundraising advantage Pryor built over his Democratic challenger, whom he defeated in a landslide.” [Mother Jones, November 2003]
Leaked Documents Showed Pryor Solicited Funds From The “Same Companies He Refused To Prosecute On Behalf Of Alabama Citizens.” According to Mother Jones, “Pryor never identified the source of this war chest. But recently leaked documents show he knew at the time that he was raising money from the same companies he refused to prosecute on behalf of Alabama’s citizens. According to phone records, he personally solicited funds for the Republican Attorneys General Association from executives at R.J.Reynolds, Philip Morris, and other Fortune 500 companies.” [Mother Jones, November 2003]
When Challenged On The Conflict Of Interest, Pryor Claimed He Only Saw The Funds As Coming From The Republican State Committee – Not As Originating With RAGA Donors
In 2003 Confirmation Hearings, Senator Feinstein Noted That As Attorney General, Pryor Had Authority To Effectively Determine Whether Or Not To Pursue A Lawsuit Against One Of RAGA’s Donors. While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Senator Feingold said, “As Alabama Attorney General, you have asserted that your office has sole authority to determine which lawsuits will be filed on behalf of the State of Alabama. Consequently, one of RAGA’s contributors–the identity, of course, is concealed from the public–could be under State investigation. You still have the last word on whether a lawsuit will be filed against that company. Don’t you agree that this scenario would present at least the appearance of conflict of interest given your role in RAGA?” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
When Asked To Reconcile The Flow Of Corporate Money, Pryor Demurred And Said He Only Viewed The Money As Coming From The State Elections Committee. While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Senator Feingold said, “Senator Feingold. Our information is that there is a different trail to the money and there is a direct connection to RAGA, but we will pursue that with a written question. Let me also assure you the mere fact that the Democrats also do it, based on my 7 years of experience with soft money, is no defense. Despite RAGA’s refusal to disclose its contributors, we do know that soft money raised by RAGA and funneled to the Republican National State Elections Committee was then used in State campaigns in Alabama. In fact, the RNSEC made a contribution of $100,000 to your own re-election campaign for State Attorney General. How do you reconcile RAGA’s relationship with the RNSEC and the RNSEC’s contribution to your own campaign with your duty as State Attorney General? Do you think it is appropriate for Attorneys General to solicit funds or receive funds from corporations who they may later have to investigate? Mr. Pryor. Well, I wasn’t receiving in that instance a direct contribution, of course, from a corporation. I was receiving it from the Republican National State Elections Committee, just as I received contributions from the Alabama Republican Party and from political action committees in my own State. And it has never created a conflict of interest. If that was—” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
Pryor Supported Tort Reform To Limit Corporate Penalties
Pryor Said No Issue Has Been “Closer To My Heart” Than Trying To Rein In Damage Awards In Alabama. According to the Wall Street Journal, ‘In his work for two big Birmingham firms, Mr. Pryor saw firsthand some of the more controversial examples of the huge damage awards for which Alabama’s civil courts have earned the nickname ‘tort hell.’ For example, he watched as a finance company his firm represented lost a fraud lawsuit over a $4,000 car-loan agreement and was ordered to pay a stunning $50 million. ‘No issue has been closer to my heart’ than trying to rein in the plaintiffs’ bar, he says.’ [Wall Street Journal, 5/21/97]
William Pryor And Domestic Violence
Pryor Fought Against Federal Domestic Violence Protections
Pryor Filed An Amicus Brief In Support Of Domestic Abusers Retaining Gun Ownership
Trace: Pryor “Injected” Himself Into A Texas Case Involving A Man Who Had Been Charged With Violating The Federal Ban On Possessing Firearms While Under A Domestic Violence Restraining Order. According to the Trace, “As Alabama’s AG, Pryor also injected himself into the case of a Texas man who had been charged with violating the federal ban on possessing firearms while under a domestic violence restraining order, calling the government’s interpretation of the law ‘a sweeping and arbitrary infringement on the Second Amendment.’ In 2001, the NRA’s lobbying arm gave Pryor its Harlon B. Carter Legislative Achievement Award, its top honor.” [Trace, 11/18/16]
Pryor Filed An Amicus Brief In Support Of Allowing A Man Who Had Restraining Order For Domestic Violence Be Permitted To Possess A Gun. While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, “Senator Durbin. Are you familiar with the case of United States v. Emerson? Mr. Pryor. Yes. Senator Durbin. Which was filed in Texas, the case involving Timothy Joe Emerson, the subject of a domestic violence restraining order prohibiting him from threatening his wife or daughter or causing them bodily injury, and under Federal law he was prohibited from possessing a firearm because he was under this restraining order against domestic violence; and that although this was a Texas case being decided by the Fifth Circuit, you decided to file an amicus brief on behalf of the people of the State of Alabama in support of Timothy Joe Emerson being allowed to carry a gun. Can you explain why you went out of your way to say that a man that is under a restraining order for domestic violence who would threaten the life of his wife or former wife’s boyfriend should be allowed to carry a gun? Mr. Pryor. I was arguing a position to get the Fifth Circuit in that case to look at the Federal statute itself and avoid the question that the district court had ruled upon. The district court dismissed the indictment of that individual on the basis of the Second Amendment, claiming that the Federal law in question was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. There were some confusing aspects to the Federal statute in question that I thought the court ought to look at. The court ended up looking at that and rejected my argument. But I had urged the court to–if my argument had prevailed, to avoid the question of a Second Amendment defense.” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
Pryor Lead A Single-Man Crusade Against The Violence Against Women Act
Pryor Was The Only Attorney General To File An Amicus Brief Opposing The Violence Against Women Act On The Grounds That It Violated States’ Rights. According to PBS, “The Violence Against Women Act was passed by Congress in 1994 and was enhanced in 2000. The Act provided stiff penalties for repeat offenders as well as federal support and funding for programs like domestic violence hotlines, education and crime prevention programs. The Act also allowed victims to bring gender-based violence suits in federal courts. In United States v. Morrison, the Act was challenged on the grounds that this right to sue was beyond the scope of Congressional authority. Thirty-six states filed amicus briefs in support of the right to sue under VAWA. Attorney General Pryor filed the only amicus brief opposing the law on the grounds that it violated states’ rights.” [PBS, 7/11/03]
Schumer: Pryor Was The Only Attorney General To File An Amicus Brief Urging The Supreme Court To Undo Significant Portions Of The Violence Against Women Act And Wondered Why It Had Such “Political Support, Especially In Congress.” While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Chuck Schumer said, “When it comes to States’ rights, the record gets even more disturbing. Attorney General Pryor has been one of the staunchest advocates of the Rehnquist Court’s efforts to roll back the clock, not just to the 1930’s, but even to the 1880’s. He is an ardent supporter of an activist Supreme Court agenda, cutting back Congress’s power and the Federal Government’s power to protect women, workers, consumers, the environment and civil rights. For instance, on States’ rights, as Alabama’s Attorney General Mr. Pryor filed the only amicus brief from among the 50 states, urging the court to undo significant portions of the Violence Against Women Act. In commenting on that law, Attorney General Pryor said, quote, ‘One wonders why VAWA enjoys such political support, especially in Congress.’” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
William Pryor And Attorneys General
As Attorney General, Pryor Allegedly Believed It Was More Important To Shield Alabama From Federal Oversight Than Protecting Children From Abuse
As Attorney General, Pryor Believed It Was More Important To Shield Alabama From Federal Oversight Than Protecting Children From Abuse
Schumer: While Pryor Admitted Alabama Failed To Meet A Federal Consent Decree Regarding The Child Welfare Program, He Said, “My Job Is To Make Sure The State Of Alabama Isn’t Run By The Federal Courts. My Job Isn’t To Come Here And Help Children.” While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Chuck Schumer said, “Attorney General Pryor’s ardent support of States’ rights extends even to the realm of child welfare. At the same time he was conceding that Alabama had failed to fulfill the requirements of a Federal consent decree regarding the operation of the State’s child welfare system, he was demanding that the State be let out of the deal. It is not so much the position he took as the comments made afterward. Attorney General Pryor said, quote, ‘My job is to make sure the State of Alabama isn’t run by the Federal Courts. My job isn’t to come here and help children,’ unquote.” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
Pryor Later Walked Back Those Comments And Said It Was His Job To Protect State Workers’ Ability To Protect Children. According to Wall Street Journal, “Two weeks ago, for example, he shocked many would-be supporters when he emerged from a hearing at which he had argued to scrap a court settlement governing Alabama’s child-welfare system. (The settlement requires the state to provide more services to children from troubled homes and work harder to keep families intact.) His main concern, he told reporters, was to keep the federal courts out of Alabama, not to help children. […] But Mr. Pryor is learning fast about saving face, and about admitting when he messes up. ‘If you take that sentence alone and blow it up, it looks harsh,’ he says. ‘I’m the father of two little girls, and I realize that.’ What he meant to say, he adds, is that the state’s social workers are charged with protecting children. As attorney general, he continues, his job is only to protect their ability to do so.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/21/97]
William Pryor And Diversity
Pryor Helped Block Efforts To Add More Black Justices To The Alabama Courts
Pryor Helped Block Efforts To Add More Black Justices To The Alabama Courts
Pryor Helped Jeff Sessions Draft A Legal Memo Designed To Block A Democratic Proposal To Add More Black Judges To Alabama Courts. According to Wall Street Journal, “In 1994, Jeff Sessions, now a U.S. senator and then a Republican candidate for attorney general, sought Mr. Pryor’s advice on how to fight a Democratic proposal to add more blacks to the state’s courts. Mr. Pryor saw a dangerous precedent in the plan, which he argues ‘would have made race a qualification for public office.’ Mr. Pryor drafted a memo outlining the legal arguments against the plan, which Mr. Sessions used virtually verbatim in an objection submitted to the court. The protest failed, but Mr. Pryor had won over Mr. Sessions, who was elected attorney general that fall. And when Mr. Sessions, as attorney general, later led the state’s argument that reversed the plan, he named as his point man his new protégé, Bill Pryor.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/21/97]
William Pryor And Democracy
Pryor Refused To Stand Up For Democracy
Pryor Admitted That He Believed The Voting Rights Act Was No Longer Necessary
Pryor Said The Voting Rights Act Was No Longer Necessary Because “We Have Come A Long Way Nearly 40 Years From” Voter Suppression. While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Diane Feinstein said, “Can you please explain why you believe that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unnecessary and a burden that has outlived its usefulness? Mr. Pryor. My comments, of course, were not directed to any court but to Congress itself, which has to make the final decisions on reauthorization of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. As Attorney General, my record has been consistently to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act is, in my judgment, one of the most important and necessary laws in the history of the United States, and I support it. And I support the absolute fact that Section 5 was a necessary provision nearly 40 years ago when Congress was faced with the massive racial discrimination in election systems, particularly in my State and other parts of the Deep South. Having said that, we have come a long way nearly 40 years from then, and now if we want to move a polling place from a school on one side of a street to a firehouse on another side of the street, we have to get permission from the Department of Justice to do so. It’s routinely granted, but I have watched in my own capacity as Attorney General as members of my own political party and white voters, who I don’t think were designed by Congress to be protected by this law, have used Section 5 as a sword in litigation for their own political opportunity.” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
When Asked If The Voting Rights Act Was An “Affront To Federalism And An Expensive Burden That Has Far Outlived Its Usefulness,” Pryor Said, “Yes, I Believe That It Has Outlived Its Usefulness.” While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Diane Feinstein said, “Senator Feinstein. Do you believe it is an affront to federalism and an expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness? Mr. Pryor. Yes, I believe that it has outlived its usefulness. I have, nevertheless, as Attorney General actively enforced that law and would continue to do so if I had the privilege of serving as a judge.” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
Pryor Defended The Supreme Court’s Intervention In Bush V. Gore
Pryor Was The Only Attorney General To File An Amicus Brief Supporting The Supreme Court’s Intervention In Florida’s Election During Bush v. Gore. While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Chuck Schumer said, “So you might think that Attorney General Pryor’s State right advocacy knows no bounds, but there is a limit. Bill Pryor was the only State Attorney General to file an amicus brief supporting the Supreme Court’s intervention in Florida’s election dispute during Bush v. Gore. It appears that when the Attorney General likes the outcome, he is on the States’ rights side, but in this important case, where the Supreme Court overruled the States’ position, there he was with Federal intervention.” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
William Pryor And Crime
Pryor Had Extreme Views On Criminal Justice
Pryor Defended Handcuffing Prisoners To A Fence Post In The Hot Sun For Hours Without Water, Protection, Or Bathroom Breaks
In Hope v. Pelzer, Pryor Defended Alabama’s Use Of Hitching Prisoners To Posts, Leaving Them Without Water Or Bathroom Breaks For Hours On End. According to People For The American Way, “In Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002), Pryor vigorously defended Alabama’s practice of handcuffing prison inmates to hitching posts in the hot sun if they refused to work on chain gangs or otherwise disrupted them. In 1995, Alabama was the only state in the country that still used chain gangs and the only one that used the hitching post. 536 U.S. at 733. The post was a horizontal bar to which inmates were handcuffed ‘in a standing position and remain[ed] standing the entire time they [were] placed on the post.’ 536 U.S. at 734. The plaintiff in this case, Larry Hope, charged that he had been handcuffed to a hitching post twice, one time for seven hours, during which he was shirtless ‘while the sun burned his skin. . . During this 7-hour period, he was given water only once or twice and was given no bathroom breaks. At one point, a guard taunted Hope about his thirst. According to Hope’s affidavit: ‘[The guard] first gave water to some dogs, then brought the water cooler closer to me, removed its lid, and kicked the cooler over, spilling the water onto the ground.’’ 536 U.S. at 734-35.” [People For The American Way, 6/10/03]
2003: Pryor Did Not Believe There Were Any Innocent People Who Had Been Executed
2003: Pryor Said He Believed The Judicial System Had “Extraordinary” Safeguard To Prevent Execution Of The Innocent And That He Was Not Aware Of “Any Case” Where “An Innocent Person Has Been Executed.” While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, “Mr. Pryor. My judgment is that the system of capital punishment has extraordinary safeguards, many safeguards to ensure that we review every death sentence to ensure that, number one, we’re executing only the guilty; number two, that it’s free from discrimination; and, number three, that it’s in cases of extreme and heinous crimes. There’s no question that that system catches errors. That’s what the system is supposed to do. Senator Leahy. Do you think that there have been–do you think there have never been people executed who were innocent? Mr. Pryor. I’m not aware of any case, since the death penalty was reinstated after the Furman decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in the late 1970’s, where an innocent person has been executed. If someone has a case that they would like to present to me, I would certainly review it objectively. But I’m not aware of one. My own experience tells me, though, with the–I think it’s now 14 executions that we have had in Alabama in my administration, that all of those were cases of extreme crimes and evidence of overwhelming guilt.” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
Pryor Pushed To Execute A Man With Mental Illness
As Attorney General, Bill Pryor Pushed To Execute Glenn William Holladay. According to the Gadsden Times, “The state Supreme Court on Monday set a May 29 execution date for Glenn William Holladay of Etowah County whose previous date with death was temporarily suspended by the U.S. Supreme Court. Holladay was sentenced to die in June 2001 but questions were raised about his mental capacity and the execution was halted on the day he was to die. Attorney General Bill Pryor argued that Holladay was not mentally retarded and the execution should proceed. Holladay, 53, was convicted in Etowah County of murdering ex-wife Rebecca Ledbetter Holladay; Larry Thomas Jr., a 16-year-old neighbor friend of her son; and her boyfriend, David Robinson, on Aug. 24-25, 1986.” [Gadsden Times, 3/25/03]
Holladay Was Ruled To Be Mentally Ill With An Average IQ Score Of 64 Because Propst Said That Case Law Suggested That An IQ Score Of 70 Was The Threshold. According to the Associated Press, “A federal judge has ruled that Glenn Holladay, who has been on death row 17 years for a triple murder in Etowah County, cannot be executed because of his level of mental retardation. The state attorney general’s office plans to appeal, putting the ruling on hold in one of Etowah County’s most notorious cases. Holladay, an escapee from the Cherokee County Jail at the time, killed his ex-wife, her boyfriend and a 16-year-old neighbor at a rural trailer home in 1986 and, during more than a month on the run, is believed to have killed the uncle of his ex-wife and raped a woman in Florida. The ruling issued Monday by U.S. District Judge Robert Propst requires that Holladay be resentenced in Etowah County without the possibility of the death penalty[…] Propst said Alabama case law suggests that the IQ for someone who is mentally retarded is 70 or below. The report shows that Holladay has an average IQ score of 64, taken from 10 tests. Propst’s ruling came after an August finding by U.S. Magistrate Judge Harwell Davis that Holladay wasn’t mentally retarded. Propst disagreed with the rationale for Davis’s findings, saying in part that more weight should have been given to the lower IQ scores of 49 and 56. Holladay’s execution has been delayed at least twice to consider whether he is mentally retarded and should not be executed under federal court rulings.” [Associated Press, 11/4/06]
William Pryor And LGBTQ Rights
Pryor Supported LGBTQ Criminalization
Pryor Sought To Liken Homosexuality To Bestiality And Pedophilia
While Serving As Attorney General, Pryor Wrote A Lawrence V. Texas Brief In Defense Of The Law Banning Sodomy, In Which He Argued Acknowledging a Constitutional Right To Sodomy, Would Logically Extend That Right To Pedophilia, Prostitution, Necrophilia, Pedophilia, Adultery, And Bestiality. According to SCOTUS Blog, “Pryor could face a more uphill nomination battle than the other finalists. 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 by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas. In the brief he argued that recognizing a constitutional right to sodomy ‘must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, incest and pedophilia.’’ [SCOTUS Blog, 1/30/17]
Chuck Schumer Alleged That Pryor Believed It Was Constitutional To “Lock Up Gays And Lesbians” And Equated Gay Sex With Prostitution, Necrophilia, Incest, And Pedophilia. While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Chuck Schumer said, “‘But my concerns about this nomination hardly begin and end with the choice issue. On gay rights the Attorney General believes it is constitutional to lock up gays and lesbians for having intimate relations in the privacy of their own homes. And he has equated gay sex with prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, incest and pedophilia.’” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
Pryor Rescheduled A Disney World Vacation Early To Avoid Exposing His Family To “Gay Day”
As Attorney General Pryor Rescheduled A Family Trip To Disney World So As To Not Expose His Daughters To The Park’s Annual “Gay Day.” According to Birmingham News, “There’d already been one glitch in Attorney General Bill Pryor’s planned trip to Disney World with his daughters. Then came ‘Gay Day.’ Pryor rescheduled his family vacation this week when he learned his trip would coincide with homosexuals’ annual gathering there. An aide said Pryor was concerned about his two young daughters. ‘It’s not like you’re in the same restaurant with homosexuals – they pretty much take over the park,’ said Claire Austin, who left the attorney general’s office to raise money for Pryor’s 1998 election campaign. Pryor’s family left for Orlando three days early so the six-day trip would end before homosexuals arrive this weekend for the unsanctioned assembly. The vacation had already been rescheduled once because of a family wedding. The leader of a homosexual group called Pryor’s change of plans for Gay Day unfortunate and unnecessary. ‘I just question what he’s protecting his children from,’ said David W. White of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance of Alabama.” [Birmingham News, 6/5/97]
William Pryor And The ADA
Pryor Said He Believed The American Disabilities Act Was An Unnecessary And Illegal Mandate
Pryor Called The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) An Illegal Mandate
2004: More Than 60 Disability Groups Opposed Pryor’s Nomination To The Circuit Court, Noting That He Was On The Record Opposing The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Which He Called An “Illegal Mandate.” According to Inclusion Daily Express, “Last year, more than 60 disability organizations joined Senate Democrats in opposing Pryor’s appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which handles appeals in Alabama, Georgia and Florida. […] Disability groups that opposed Pryor’s confirmation included the National Coalition for Disability Rights, the National Council on Independent Living, National Association of the Deaf, American Association of People with Disabilities, Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Pennsylvania Council of the Blind, and the Independent Living Center of Birmingham, Alabama. In a statement last summer, NCDR president Jim Ward said: ‘The disability community is opposed to the confirmation of Alabama Attorney General William Pryor because we do not believe a person with a disability would receive a fair hearing from a ‘Judge Pryor.’’ The groups pointed out that Pryor is on record opposing the Americans with Disabilities Act, which he has called an ‘illegal mandate’. ‘Pryor has fought aggressively to prevent people with disabilities from enforcing their rights against states under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,’ the statement read. ‘Pryor has denied any existence of evidence regarding discrimination by the States — including documented instances of forced sterilization of individuals with disabilities, unnecessary institutionalization, denial of education and healthcare, and systemic prejudices and stereotyping perpetrated by state actors.’” [Inclusion Daily Express, 2/23/04]
Pryor Claimed That Congress Passed The ADA As A “Me-Too” Approach And That It Was Unnecessary As Other States Already Had Protections On The Books. While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Chuck Schumer said, “Mr. Pryor’s antipathy for the ADA is obvious from the many extra-judicial comments he has made on the subject. At one point he claimed that, quote, ‘When Congress passed the ADA in 1990 all 50 States had laws on the books protecting the rights of the disabled. Congress passed the ADA as a ‘me-too’ approach, not as a way of protecting persons.’ Sorry, the quotes are within his statement. ‘Congress passed the ADA approach, not as a way of persons who were ignored or left behind,’ unquote.” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
Pryor Pushed To Weaken The ADA In A Case In Which A Nurse With Breast Cancer Was Demoted By HER EMPLOYER After She Took Time Off To REcover
Schumer: Pryor “Was The Driving Force” Behind Convincing The Supreme Court To Weaken The ADA, Involving A Case In Which A Nurse Contracted Breast Cancer, Took Time Off, Then Returned To Find She Had Been Demoted. While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Chuck Schumer said, “Contrast the approach in Bush v. Gore to what happened when it came to the push for the Supreme Court to limit the application of the Americans With Disabilities Act to the States. Mr. Pryor was the driving force behind the Garret case in which a nurse contracted breast cancer, took time off to deal with her illness, and when she returned found that in violation of the ADA she had been demoted. Attorney General Pryor believed the State university hospital where she worked had every right to demote Ms. Garret and managed to convince five Justices on the Supreme Court to agree with him.” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
William Pryor And The Environment
Pryor Opposed Federal Protection Of Endangered Species
Pryor Opposed Federal Protection Of Endangered Species
As An Attorney General, Pryor Filed An Amicus Brief Urging the Supreme Court To Reverse A Case That Determined The Commerce Clause Gave The Federal Government Authority To Protect An Endangered Wolf Species. According to the Alliance for Justice, “During his tenure as attorney general, Pryor filed an amicus brief on behalf of the State of Alabama urging the Supreme Court to review and reverse a case that had upheld, against a Commerce Clause challenge, a regulation protecting an endangered species of wolf.” [Alliance for Justice, Accessed 9/19/20]
The Court Ruled That The Federal Government Fairly Exercised The Use Of The Commerce Clause. According to the Coastal Review “Red wolves in North Carolina and Tennessee also led to an important court case in 2000: Gibbs v. Babbitt. Counties and private entities contested the federal government’s ability to restrict takes of red wolves on private lands. And the court ruled that this was a fair exercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause.” [Coastal Review, 4/21/23]
Pryor Was The Only Attorney General To File An Amicus Brief Arguing That The Federal Government Did Not Have The Authority To Regulate Intrastate Waterways That Served As A Habitat For Migratory Birds. While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Chuck Schumer said, “The environment, same concerns. Bill Pryor was the lone State Attorney General to file an amicus brief arguing that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to regulate intrastate waters that serve as a habitat for migratory birds. The Attorney General took this position despite decades of Supreme Court precedent and the Federal Clean Water Act standing for the contrary proposition.” [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]
William Pryor And Guns
Pryor Was A Member Of The National Rifle Association
Pryor Was A Member Of The National Rifle Association
2003: Pryor Said He Was A Member Of The National Rifle Association. While appearing at the Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, ‘Senator Durbin. General, unfortunately, we have a limited amount of time, and I can’t follow up because you clearly have opened up a long series of questions related to the Establishment Clause. It is one thing to say that we have the freedom to practice. It is another thing to say that we condone by government action certain religious belief or, in fact, propose or promulgate that belief. And I am going to save those for written questions, but let me go to a more specific area in the limited time that I have remaining. Are you a member of the National Rifle Association or its board of directors? Mr. Pryor. The National Rifle Association? I’m a member of the National Rifle Association. I am not a member of its board of directors.’ [Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 6/11/03]