Guess Who We're Writing About Again?
Well, what's it been? Two days since we last mentioned the name “Gus Puryear.” Well, we have more news for you: The Alliance for Justice, a left-leaning legal watchdog group, has announced its formal opposition to the confirmation of Gus Puryear, who, we might have mentioned once or twice, is struggling to win a lifetime appointment to a federal judgeship. The organization is not exactly unbiased, but it's very influential in Washington, in part because it doesn't jump to oppose every Republican nominee. In fact, the group almost never campaigns against district nominees, but it has made a special exception for Puryear.
Mr. Puryear’s record does not qualify him for a lifetime appointment as a district judge. He has expressed hostility to an entire class of litigants. His statements during the confirmation process have been incomplete, insincere and misleading. He has spent the bulk of his legal career attempting to whitewash the public appearance of a corporation riddled with scandal, often at the expense of the public interest, ethics and perhaps the law. His record shows no commitment to equal justice under the law. The Senate should reject this nomination.
Comments
Poor Gus Puryear. He's about as misunderstood as Bill Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Posted 04/17/2008 at 04:39:13 PMFor more information about the Puryear nomination, check out: www.againstpuryear.org. Interestingly, this group disagrees with some aspects of the Alliance for Justice report.
Posted 04/17/2008 at 09:00:14 PMSnappy prose, that. Here's my attenuated and more accurate - though less zippy - edit, AFJ:
Mr. Puryear’s record does qualify him for a lifetime appointment as a district judge. He once expressed bemusement at certain prisoner lawsuits and charitably, though ill-advisedly, offered his explanation for the motivations behind these suits. His statements during the confirmation process have been lawyerly and focused on salient issues and facts. He has spent the bulk of his legal career as the general counsel for a corporation that manages private prisons for government clients, most often more safely and efficiently than these clients could do themselves. In this role, he has safeguarded the public interest, behaved ethically and obeyed all laws. In so doing, Mr. Puryear has effectively demonstrated a commitment to equal protection under the law. No action or omission of his has been shown to violate the civil rights of any person or protected class. Neither has any of his perosnal or professional affiliations. The Senate should confirm this nomination.
Posted 04/18/2008 at 02:53:48 PMMP
Didn't AFJ already announce opposition when AFJ wrote an opposition letter to the Judiciary Committee in EARLY FEBRUARY?
http://www.afj.org/assets/resources/nominees/afj-puryear-opposition-letter.pdf
What is new here? The FORMALITY of the opposition? Your post links to AFJ's "new" report, which contains nothing new and itself covers ground that YOU have already covered! This just in--Puryear works for a private prison company. Update--he's their chief lawyer and always takes their side in legal disputes!
You even mention AFJ's opposition to Puryear in YOUR OWN MARCH 2008 SCENE STORY?
Quoth MP, "[m]eanwhile, a liberal watchdog group called the Alliance for Justice, aided by the research of a vigilant ex-con, has targeted Puryear for defeat....," Nashville Scene, "Elephant in the Room."
You link that story in your post above!
Your coverage of this issue is making you seem like a SOCK PUPPET for anyone who writes a press release opposing Puryear.
DF
Posted 04/19/2008 at 02:35:07 PMAh, For Puryear, how easily you gloss over Puryear's misleading statements and evasions. Spoken like a true lawyer (hired by CCA), or a CCA shareholder! Come on -- fess up. What's your real interest here? Just want another Republican on the bench, whoever it might be? If you're honest about it, that will be more honest that Puryear's been. I've read his comments, and they're laughable -- like about the missing videotape in that prisoner's death.
Posted 04/19/2008 at 09:11:47 PMI'm not a CCA shareholder. I'm not a lawyer either. I'm not receiving any money for speaking the truth, nor do I want any.
Look, I know it's hard. You wish that Puryear had copped to parachuting in with Dick Cheney and dismantling the camera after receiving a distress call from his evil henchmen, with high-fives all around.
But read Puryear's written answers to the judiciary committee again, for the most thorough account of how the investigation of this tragic event actually went down.
Posted 04/21/2008 at 09:25:35 AMI did - you mean the account where he didn't mention a damn thing about a missing video tape of the four guards dragging her out of the cell, and the investigator who then checked the camera and found it was working. That account, right? Read it again yourself -- not for what's in there, but for what's NOT.
Posted 04/22/2008 at 06:17:47 PM