Few fireworks or surprises at Bill Pryor’s Senate hearing

Senate hearings on judicial nominees tend to be anti-climactic. No matter how controversial a nominee may be, or how anxious senators are to try and pin down the nominee on some juicy quote or controversy, they all pretty much turn out the same.

When I first started watching these hearing on TV and in person, I kept expecting one of those Jack Nicholson “You can’t handle the truth!” moments. Alas, they never came.

With this in mind, Bill Pryor’s Senate hearing on Wednesday was fairly predictable. Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee highlighted what is clearly an activist, fringe conservative agenda. Pryor acknowledged that he has indeed been something of a nutjob (that, of course, is my word, not his), but that would never interfere with his ability to serve as a capable, impartial judge.

What else could he possibly say? Pryor may be on the farthest fringes of Republican conservatism, but he can still tell the difference between things he should say at a Senate confirmation hearing and things he shouldn’t.

As Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) explained, Pryor’s assurances don’t really mean anything. “It’s just not enough to say ‘I will follow the law,'” Schumer said. “Every nominee says that, and then when they get to the bench they have many different ways of following the law.” Schumer later said Pryor’s views “are an unfortunate stitching together of the worst parts of the most troubling judges we’ve seen thus far.”

In some ways, Pryor was a little more forthcoming than other conservative judicial nominees sent to the Senate by the Bush White House. Pryor, for example, didn’t hesitate to agree with previous statements he had made about his beliefs, as some of his colleagues have attempted at their hearings. Instead he simply maintained the position that he can easily separate his ideology from his judicial responsibilities.

I was a bit disappointed by the Democratic line of questioning. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), for example, made a fairly big deal about Pryor’s decision to postpone a family trip to Disney World so as to avoid Gay Days, an unofficial weekend every year when gay families visit the theme park. Pryor, who does not hesitate to express his disdain for gays, acknowledged that he changed the scheduling of the trip for that reason.

That’s interesting, and it helps paint the picture of Pryor’s intolerance, yet not a single Democrat pointed out that the American Bar Association declined to give Pryor its highest rating for judicial nominees. A strong majority of the 15-member Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary that investigated Pryor’s record gave him a “qualified” rating, instead of the “highly qualified” rating that goes to most presidential nominees. Even more startling, a healthy minority of the ABA panel labeled Pryor “not qualified,” yet not a single Dem brought this up. I have no idea why.

Following the hearing, Sen. Pete Sessions (R-Ala.), who is Pryor’s long-time friend and strongest supporter in the Senate, declared that “nobody laid a glove on him.”

I don’t think Sessions should be quite that confident. Pryor and Sessions may have been pleased that there were no big surprises at the hearing, and there were no obviously damaging mistakes during Pryor’s testimony, but truth be told, these hearings are rarely the kind of events that will make or break a nominee. Pryor knew in advance what kind of questions to expect, senators knew in advance what kind of answers they’d hear.

Democratic lawmakers are well aware of Pryor’s extremist record and they know they’ll be opposing his nomination. The hearing simply gave them a chance to see if they could get Pryor to say something truly outrageous that they could then use against him. Pryor didn’t.

But that hardly means he’s in the clear. On the contrary, Pryor has the most controversial record of any judicial nominee any president has brought to the Senate since Clarence Thomas. Dems will filibuster this nomination if they have to.

The trick is, though, that Dems believe it may not be necessary. There are a couple of moderate Republicans left in the Senate. They voted with the GOP on the other judicial nominees and voted to end Democratic filibusters on Estrada and Owen, but Pryor makes the other nominees look like ACLU members.

The New York Times noted yesterday that some Dems believe Pryor’s views will be so “unpalatable” to moderates in the GOP, Dem leaders believe they may be able to get the votes needed to beat Pryor’s nomination on a straight up-and-down down on the floor.

Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who occasionally shows a moderate side, told reporters this week he has “concerns” about Pryor’s nomination. If Dems could get Specter, other moderates like Snowe, Collins, and Chafee would probably go with him. Pryor would lose and the filibuster wouldn’t be needed.

It’s too soon to tell if this will work. For what it’s worth, the Washington Post editorial board, which has criticized Senate Dems for blocking the Owen, Pickering, and Estrada nominations, believes Pryor is beyond-the-pale.

“In general, nominees should be taken at their word when they promise under oath that they will put their politics aside as judges,” the Post said. “But a man who professes such a politicized view of the task of judging forfeits the benefit of the doubt. [Pryor] already has effectively promised that he will be more loyal than Justice Souter — and while loyalty to an ideological camp may be a virtue in politics, there are few greater vices in a judge.”

Interestingly, Jamin Raskin, a constitutional law professor at American University, explained that by backing someone as extreme as Pryor, Bush may actually be trying a new strategy of pushing the limits of what constitutes a “mainstream” judicial nominee, making other right-wing judges seem more moderate by comparison.

“In the big picture, I think the Bush administration is trying to shift everything judicial so far to the right that any Supreme Court nominee they come up with is going to look like a centrist,” Raskin told Salon. “One is left speechless at the people they’re bringing forward. Things have gotten way, way out of whack.”

Indeed they have. A Judiciary Committee vote could come up in the next two weeks. I’ll keep you posted.

(Please note, I’ve barely said a word about the specific details of Pryor’s extremist record and that’s intentional. There’s just too much to write because he’s so bad on every issue. Instead, as you’ve probably noticed, I’ve been focusing on the politics of the nomination. If you’re interested in reading more of the specifics behind Pryor’s record, I’d encourage you to read one of the many reports available online.)