Meet The Man President-elect Trump Is Considering To Fill The Vacant Seat On The SUPREME COURT. He Is Interesting And Controversial – I Like Him.

by Pamela Williams
President-elect Donald Trump recently met with Judge William Pryor of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Pryor is said to be the frontrunner for the vacant Supreme Court seat. As I was researching him, I began to realize he is considered to be a very controversial nominee. I think I know why. I want to present the following to you, and I think it is a quite interesting case study. After reading it myself, I had to give it great thought. I now respect and agree with the decision of Judge William Pryor in this complex case, and I consider him to be a worthy candidate for the Supreme Court. I want to remind you that Reverend Franklin Graham said this would be the most important decision that President-elect Trump would make.
 
QUOTED FROM:
www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/05/19/judge_william_pryor_potential_trump_supreme_court_nominee_supports_trans.html

The case, Glenn v. Brumby, involved a dispute between Elizabeth Glenn, an editor at the Georgia General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Counsel, and her boss, Sewell Brumby. Glenn is trans and began transitioning in 2006. When she began wearing women’s clothing, Brumby said her appearance was “inappropriate” because she was “a man dressed as a woman and made up as a woman.” Brumby insisted that Glenn’s transition was “unnatural,” and stated that “it’s unsettling to think of someone dressed in women’s clothing with male sexual organs inside that clothing.” Soon after, Brumby directed Glenn’s supervisor to fire her, because “Glenn’s intended gender transition … would be disruptive,” “people would view it as a moral issue,” and “it would make Glenn’s coworkers uncomfortable.”

Glenn sued Brumby, alleging that his adverse actions violated the Equal Protection Clause, which typically prohibits states from engaging in sex discrimination. She argued that Brumby had “discriminat[ed] against her because of her sex, including her female gender identity and her failure to conform to the sex stereotypes associated with the sex [that the defendant] perceived her to be.” A three-judge panel on the 11th Circuit—comprised of Pryor, Barkett, and Judge Phyllis Kravitch—unanimously agreed with Glenn. The Supreme Court, Barkett noted in her opinion, has found that sex stereotyping—mistreating an individual because she is not “feminine” enough, for instance—is a form of sex discrimination. Barkett then explained:

A person is defined as transgender precisely because of the perception that his or her behavior transgresses gender stereotypes. “[T]he very acts that define transgender people as transgender are those that contradict stereotypes of gender-appropriate appearance and behavior.” … There is thus a congruence between discriminating against transgender and transsexual individuals and discrimination on the basis of gender-based behavioral norms.

  • Accordingly, discrimination against a transgender individual because of her gender-nonconformity is sex discrimination, whether it’s described as being on the basis of sex or gender. … An individual cannot be punished because of his or her perceived gender-nonconformity. Because these protections are afforded to everyone, they cannot be denied to a transgender individual. The nature of the discrimination is the same; it may differ in degree but not in kind, and discrimination on this basis is a form of sex-based discrimination that is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
I greatly respect Judge Pryor’s ruling on “Glenn v Brumby” as an accurate assessment of the case.  Although, it is quiet interesting to see it being reported on the Internet that the “transgender” community should fear him.  I consider the above case to prove that he adheres strictly to the rule of law.  It is clear that Glenn was a victim of sex discrimination, but in order to fully understand that, one would have to truly BE OF THE LAW.  Pryor is melded to the principles of the Law to his very core. This may seem like a progressive stance taken by Pryor in the case above, but, in fact, it is a strict adherence to the Equal Protection Clause.  His interpretation of the core Law in this case saved the job of a controversial figure, as “transgender” sex is at its heighth in understanding at this time in history.  We have far to go in the consideration of the “transgender” issue, but the ruling Judge Pryor was part of is a start to establishing the true meaning of the Equal Protection Clause Law for all citizens…not just for some. 
Here is some background on Judge Pryor:
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..
Judge Pryor is no friend of criminal defendants. He very consistently sides with the government in criminal cases on issues both big and small. And he has almost never ruled in favor of a capital defendant.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Pryor_Jr.
Alabama’s judicial ethics panel removed Chief Justice Roy Moore from office for defying a federal judge’s order to move a Ten Commandments monument from the state Supreme Court building, and Judge Pryor was also involved in this heated case.  I was extremely upset over this case, as on one hand, I believed Moore was heroic in his stand to keep the Ten Commandments on display in the Supreme Court building.  However,  clearly on the other Moore put himself above the law by “willfully and publicly” disobeying the order to remove the monument from the Alabama building.
 
One might think Judge Pryor being a conservative must have been torn in this case, as he was raised a strict Catholic, but once again he is a stickler to the rule of law.  Pryor, a Republican, has said he believes the Ten Commandments display was constitutional, but he said Thursday federal court orders must be obeyed. “At the end of the day, when the courts resolve those controversies, we respect their decision,” he said. “That does not mean that we always agree with their decision.”
 
Pryor has the bold and authentic stance to uphold the strict rule of the law of the United States.  He has no shame in doing so, and I believe he would be comfortable as long as the Judicial process was uncorrupted and clearly followed in a United States Court of Law.  He does not allow his own personal opinion to taint the issue at hand; therefore, I agree with President-elect Trump that Judge Pryor is a good and fair choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. If you watch the below video you will not regret it.


 

Published on Feb 4, 2014

Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit speaks. While serving as attorney general of Alabama, Pryor sought then-Chief Justice Roy Moore’s removal from the Alabama Supreme Court for defying a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building. Pryor was appointed to the Eleventh Circuit in 2003 and confirmed in 2005 as part of the “gang of 14” compromise. Introduction by Ernest A. Young. Sponsored by the Duke Law Federalist Society.

Related Posts:

We truly are under attack. We need user support now more than ever! For as little as $10, you can support the IWB directly – and it only takes a minute. Thank you. 1,260 views
Related Posts: