Does anyone have any idea why someone would want to make vibrators illegal?
Oh sure. Blame the AG for the sexual inadequacy of Alabama men. Why if they were doing their jobs this wouldn’t even be an issue, now would it.
Perhaps I need to come down to Alabama to asisst the fine ladies down there with this problem.
I know quite a few other boys up here that would be glad to… fill in.
Isn’t it the job of the federal courts to overturn laws which are unconstitional? Or are you suggesting that the dildo law is not unconstitutional?
As side note, I wonder if the state of Alabama has a problem with the sale of cucumbers, candles or hand-held shower attatchments.
Sure, Sugar- Anytime!!
But, please, you first have to satisfy the sexually-represssed, anal-retentive, ain’t-never-had-an-orgasm-and-cain’t-even-SPELL-masturbate IDJIT.
After that, we’ll talk.
Without even knowing, I’d venture to say it’s some shit about “preserving public morality”.
I really don’t know. I hope it’s not Constitutional. Yet, I suspect that vibrators were not what was on the founding fathers’ minds when they drew up the constitution so there may be a gap in this area.
The trick of these things though (and some of you lawyer types can help me out and correct my errors) is that these legal eagles aren’t allowed to use things like common sense and personal taste to institute decisions that seem obvious to people like you an me.
If they do, than what inevitably happens is that people use the resulting faulty precedent to do all kinds of bad stuff.
For example we may all agree that Dildos are fine things and our right to own them should not be impinged upon. However, if we let the Federal Government tell us that States don’t have the right to make laws regarding them than that may have other implications. The government may argue at a later time that the same law that lets them over turn local dildo laws also gives them the right to overturn local taxation laws, or house zoning laws or what have you.
So, while it may be unconstitutional and it may be a bad law, it is important that it gets overturned for the right reason.
[quote]
Part of the AG office’s job is to defend the laws of the state from constitutional challenge. The AG need not approve of a law personally in order to do so.[/quote
They still often have discretion over which laws to defend. I remember that Florida declined to defend its “Scarlet Letter” law that forced mothers putting children up for adoption to list their sexual history in newspaper ads. If this guy HAD to defend this law or else lose his job, I would understand. But if he had ANY discretion at all over this and still chose to defend it, he is a Evil Prick.
“When dildos are outlawed, only outlaws will have dildos.”
“Only when you take my dildo from my cold, dead hand!”
“The power of THE LORD doesn’t need AA batteries.”
“Just say NO to nipple clamps.”
Veb
“Dildos don’t please people, people please people!”
“If can see my dildo, then you’re driving too close!”
The first thing Hitler did was outlaw all the dildoes!
That clause is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It is irrelevant to determining whether a given law is or is not unconstitutional.
Hmmm… Dildos… Constitutional law… “loose constructionist”…
There’s a dirty joke in there somewhere…
Yes, the AG has discretion. That discretion is usually exercised by declining to appeal cases where the AG thinks he has little chance of prevailing. Most AGs would probably tell you that if they think they have a reasonable chance of winning, they have an ethical duty to appeal as part of their duties as officials of the state and public servants of the people.
This is admittedly a stupid law, but it does represent the will of the people of the state of Alabama, as expressed by the legislature ane executive branch. And the people of the state of Alabama have the right to have their viewpoint represented in the judicial sphere.
The AG’s ethical duties lie with the state of Alabama. He is their lawyer, their advocate. The state is his client. His job is to defend his client. His job is not to second-guess the legislature and thus undermine the will of the people of the state.
Is this guy an evil dildo-hating prick? Maybe, maybe not. His decision to appeal is not conclusive evidence one way or another. There are ample ethical grounds for continuing the appeals process beyond his personal viewpoint of the law in question, whatever that viewpoint may be.
So in the best case, he merely supports a regime that would outlaw dildos.
This is hardly surprising. We’re talking about a president whose main qualification for office was that he’s opposed to blowjobs.
Although I do think it would be insanely funny if some journalist asked Dubya about his position on sex toys next time he deigns to speak with the press.
I don’t think that blindly defending every bad law is the best way to serve the interests of the people of ones state. If I were him and I were required to defend that law, I’d sooner resign, lose my job and sit peniless at the State Capitol holding up signs in protest… but that’s just me.
Your rhetoric about the “will of the people” is duly noted.
No more than a criminal defense attorney “supports” those who commit murder when they defend the accused.
And it isn’t just the “regime” that supports the law; it’s the people. This isn’t Saddam’s Iraq. If getting rid of the law would increase the popularity of local politicos, it’d be off the books.
Bottom line: the people have passed a stupid law that may or may not be unconstitutional. Do the people have the right to have their position represented in the judicial process? I think they do, and that job falls to the AG’s office.
I do think it would be funny if Democrats demanded he explain his opinions on dildoes. But I doubt it will happen. Truly, this is not the best of all possible worlds.
That law represents the voice of the people as expressed by the legislature and executive. It’s what the people want. Defending the law is defending their interests – it’s defending their power to self-govern.**
If the AG finds a law so offensive that he cannot in good conscience defend it, then resignation is indeed the appropriate action to take. The ethical answer is NOT, as some in this thread seem to believe, to do a half-assed job of representing your client by failing to appeal where the state has a colorable chance of victory.
Having said that, if every AG resigned every time he ran across a law he thought was stupid or even wrong, you may as well install a revolving door to the AG’s offices. It’s probably best to save the “resigning in indignation” plan for those laws which are truly egregious. I hardly think being unable to buy a “massage wand,” particularly when they aren’t exactly hard to come by via other means, is on par with, say, Jim Crow laws.
And vibrators. Unless used for medically approved therapeutic reasons, of course. Like shown on a few zillion infomercials. You know, the ones with attractive people plagued by poor circulation, who strap on hand-held models and stroke away stress and tension in their necks and calves. They’re so relieved they moan, gasp and writhe in ecstasy. They got your nagging charley horse problem covered, folks, right on cable tee vee. But no sex toys around here, nuh-HUH.
This is hopelessly stupid. Any person, of any party, who tries to tie the law to anything this ill-defined, intrusive and unenforceable* deserves all the ridicule they invited.
Veb
[sub] You, with the Home Network Fatigue Buster, come out with your hands up! “Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do…”[/sub]