Cite for the proposition that Bush is per se opposed to blow jobs? How do you know what 'ol Laura does behind closed doors? It isn’t like there’s much else do to do growing up in Midland…
And yes, I am trying to make you ill.
They can have my butt plug when they pry it from my cold, dead …
Nope. Just can’t do it.
If women cannot purchase clit wands, they cannot truly be free. The State of Alabama is depriving every self pleasuring women of Liberty without Due Process of Law.
Dildos don’t kill people. Batteries kill people.
Okay. Define “egregious”. Da Law, in all its massive, messy majesty, is riddled with stupidities. If you really want cites on the Lists of Shame…(And FTR I loathe cheap shots at law.)
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the role of the AG. But somewhere along the line simple, damned common sense kicks in. Sorry, but lawyers–on any side-- usually don’t set out to make case law carelessly or lightly. Bad laws can be useful tools but risky, career-breaking challenges. The books are riddled with bad laws. If someone goes balls-out to uphold one, it’s by choice.
Lawyers routinely co-exist with bad laws. They must. But claiming both sides of the street is risibly false. If the only options were noble resignation or resolute defense, junk laws wouldn’t clutter the books for long. This particular dog fight is being picked. Maybe not by the AG, personally or by best professional judgement. (Probably not, I’d guess.) But politics and power can make whores of the best.
This stupidity, among all others, was chosen.
Veb
You know how everyone rushed to give bananas after the war, because they were in short supply?
Well we will rush in and give the women (and men) of Alabama vibrators, once they get rid of this law for once and all!
…or, we could just give them bananas. And wiggle them about a bit…
Hasta be said…
“Cite?” 
“Alabama just overturned its draconian law where it was illegal to own vibrators. Seriously, up until a few weeks ago, it was illegal to own vibrators in Alabama. The penalty? Ten thousand dollars and a year at hard labour - well, I’ll say!!” - Maggie Cassella
And yet it’s legal to marry your 14 year old first cousin. Go figure.
Obviously, as per my post, that’s a matter of individual conscience. The analogy to criminal defense is an apt one: would you want a criminal defense lawyer to withdraw from every case where he personally found the defendant repugnant? Isn’t our system of justice better when both sides are vigorously contested?**
You’re right that the AG did not pick this fight: the state was sued. Having been sued, the state turned to its law firm, the AG office, to defend it. The state is the client of the AG. The lawyers defending the state are ethically obligated to put up a vigorous defense on behalf of their client, including utilizing the appeals process when they feel they have a strong chance for victory. A lawyer cannot ethically do his job in a half-assed way on purpose.
I lived in Huntsville for a year or so while working on a contract at Redstone (?)…1984, I think.
Sure am glad I moved on; I would hate to live in a state where the people are so repressed.
Just wanna point out something – it ain’t illegal in Alabama to have a vibrator; it’s illegal to sell them. A fine distinction, but one that probably should be made. You can order them from the Internet by the gross, if you are so inclined.
My experience with women is somewhat limited, but I can tell you: If you think Alabama women are repressed sexually, you’re not doing something right.
WRT to bad laws and why they must be tolerated for legal reasons, I think of all the stupid legal decisions out there, and I think, “If someone acts stupid all the time for good reasons, they might as well BE stupid. Whatever their declared motivations, the effect is the same. A difference which makes no difference, is no difference.”
So far, this thread has consisted a number of remarkably ill-informed people imputing beliefs to a lawyer based on his client’s beliefs and actions.
Is there anyone who has actually learned anything from Dewey’s well-informed posts and explanations, or is everyone still sticking to their original convictions?
I ask because it’s damn seldom (although not unheard-of, I admit) to read, “Ah… I did not know that’s how it worked. Now my ire is directed towards Y instead of X.”
The state legislature that outlawed vibrators is an appropriate target for scorn and derison. The state AG that represents his state’s laws’ in response to a legal challenge is doing the same job that a criminal defense attorney is doing: participating in the system, advocating a possibly distasteful view in order to ensure that both sides have a vigorous defense.
Let’s turn it around: a state requires parental consent - both father and mother - for any minor’s abortion, under all circumstances. The law is challenged. The state’s AG is vigorously pro-choice, and personally disagrees with the law. Should he substitute his judgement for the lawmakers and present no defense, or an inadaquate defense?
…or…
A state modifies its rules concerning abortions for minors, permitting a child of any age to request an abortion without any parental notification if a judge finds that notifying the parents would not be in the minor’s best interests. The law is challenged. The state’s AG is vigorously pro-life, and personally disagrees with the law. Should he substitute his judgement for the lawmakers and present no defense, or an inadaquate defense?
- Rick
Well, DCU, let’s, for genorisity’s sake, give full credence to the hypothesis that the AG is himself nothing but indifferent to this law and is defending it only b/c he’s a straight-up, ethical AG kinda guy. (I say hypothesis b/c some of the cited material already shows that he’s willing to speak publicly about the law in a non-neutral way; indeed, that he’s willing to make political capital out of it for himself in his own state; he doesn’t say, for example, that in defending this law he’s defending is only the principle: the Alabama legislature’s right to legislate on behalf of the people who elected them.)
Why, though, does Bush–who he is no way beholden to this law or to Alabama’s legislature–choose a lawyer from the one AG in the nation who just happens to at work defending a vibrator ban? Do you, in other words, also hypothesize that Bush has no connection whatsoever to the restrictive sexual morality represented by this law, represented by the Alabama legislature when they enacted it, and represented by the state of Alabama when it chose an AG that would “vigorously” defend such a law and comment on it in public?
Should Bush be entirely separated from his own choice?
Let’s say that we were talking a Democratic president here and that a liberal state legislature had passed a tough law against a certain kind of firearm which is challenged by a higher court. Or let’s say that the same state legislature passes a new affirmative action policy that aims to increase diversity in the state’s civil service or its educational institutions and that that law is challenged. Let’s say that the AG of this state exercises his or her ethical duty to defend the state law, and makes public comments that attach him or her to that defense. Then it’s pointed out that President Democrat has this firearm-banning, quota-loving AG among his judicial nominee.
Now I know, DCU, that the milk of human objectivity runs by the quart in your every vein. So I know that you and several others on this thread would be working just as hard to persuade the rest of us that the AG had hardly any wiggle room at well. Why if the law had the merest whiff of a shot at being upheld, you’d be telling us, it would be the AG’s duty to uphold his/her state’s right to ban that firearm, and to keep that affirmative action policy in place.
But would you also be suggesting that President Democrat’s choice to nominate this AG–rather than say an AG down the road who is busy helping to keep vibrators out of the hands of consenting adults–can be entirely insulated from the kind of politics that supports gun control and affirmative action?
Sorry for so many typos in the above, but I think it’s comprehensible nonetheless. Must run.
Prior to Pryor (heh), Alabama’s Attorney General was Jeff Sessions, who is now a Republican Senator. I’m guessing the “good-old-boy” network is the reason for Pryor’s nomination, not any stance he has on sexual aids.
Once again, the vibrators themselves are not against the law. Selling them is.
Let’s try this.
Bush: “Connie could you find me someone to nominate for a Circuit Court Judge position that is against clit diddlers?”
Connie: “Well sir, it just so happens there is an Attorney General down in Alabama that opposes them.”
Bush: “Great, get him on the horn for me.”
I just don’t buy it.
I’ve read the links in the OP and the links from DDG’s post and I see nothing remotely resembling what you describe. Indeed, I see only one quote from Mr. Pryor at all, in which he states pleasure at prevailing in the 11th Circuit and that his duty is to defend the laws of the state of Alabama – which pretty much supports my position. **
The seat is in the 11th Circuit, so as a practical matter the judge has to come from Alabama, Florida or Georgia (the senators from those states would almost certainly put a “hold” on any nominee not from the area). The retiring judge he would be replacing, Emmett Ripley Cox, is also from Alabama, so there is naturally a strong desire to seat a fellow Alabaman. As the AG of his state, Pryor certainly has extensive legal experience of the kind typically valued in appellate court nominees. And there are assuredly political reasons: Pryor is presumably a Republican with strong ties to the party establishment in the state.
I’m not saying that Pryor is the best candidate for the job; indeed, I know very little about him and really could not make an informed judgment one way or the other at this point. There may well be better candidates for the job from Alabama. But given Pryor’s position, he is an unsurprising nominee for the open seat.
By the way, Pryor isn’t a lawyer in the AG’s office – he’s the AG. I very much doubt that he’s the one actually appearing in court. **
Yes. If Bush had selected a candidate who was a former criminal defense attorney who said he would “vigorously” defend a mass murderer, would you take that as evidence that Bush had some connection to the moral worldview of mass murderers? **
Yes, indeed, that would be the AG’s duty. No argument from me on that point. Just because I disagree with the policy does not mean the AG is wrong for doing his job in defending it from constitutional challenge. **
Oh, I agree it may be bad politics. There are any number of Democrats who are willing to scream “Bush is nominating a dildo-hater” to score political points (just as, to be fair, there are any number of Republicans who would have been willing to scream “Clinton is nominating a gun-banner” for the same reason). Important points about a lawyer’s ethical obligations are easily lost in the political sturm and drang – just look at the majority of posters in this very thread.
That doesn’t mean I’m wrong, though. I’d like to believe that, on this message board in particular, that substantive points would eventually win out over heated political rhetoric.
Dewey, let’s change the subject slightly, shall we? To sodomy laws.
In 2001, Minnesota’s sodomy law was struck down by the Hennepin county district court - a state trial court. The AG’s office declined to appeal, annoying several fundamentalist groups to such a degree that they attempted a recall effort. Which failed, as did their ethical complaint to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
In your opinion, did the AG’s office commit an ethical violation?