What about abortion, then? If a State banned all abortion done for money, wouldn’t that run afoul of Roe vs Wade?
If that is the case, it seems like it would be a sort of loophole to ban abortion: you can have one as long as its being done for free.
Good luck finding a doctor who will give a free abortion.
Of course not. Should he appear before the Senate and speak his mind clearly and truely and say, “I’ve had to support the most lardbrained set of excuses for laws for years as Alabama’s AG. I think the dildo law is bullshit, and so are all the others Sofa King mentioned, and I only supported them as my AG duty. But you have my word that I will not be such a numbnuts in higher office, in fact, I’ll sign a paper agreeing to my forced resignation if I’m ever found to support such legislation in my decisions on the bench.”
I’d support him under those circumstances. But we all know that will never happen.
BTW, he does not have the option of “speaking out.” A lawyer owes a duty of care to his client. Try to imagine Johnny Cochran stating at a press conference during the OJ trial that “I really think the sumbitch is guilty, but I’m defending him for reasons of principle” and I think you can understand why. For the AG to state he thinks the law is stupid would undermine his case, and thus breach his obligations to his client.
You are probably right about that, but given the legislative history Sofa King mentioned, I just don’t think the guy has a problem with crappy laws that make him look stupid, even if he’s not free to speak his mind about them. C’mon, are we supposed to look at all that smoke and not conclude there’s a fire somewhere under it?
**There may well be good reasons to sink this nomination, but the reasons you provide are not among them. **
OK, DCH, on what grounds would you have us citizens judge him?
As noted previously, Pryor must work to best benefit his client. In this case, his client is Judge Roy Moore. He should promise a “half-assed defense”?
Couple of points: The Ethics Committee didn’t cite him for holding “Baptist prayers” (what are those, exactly?) in court; they cited him for violating guidelines relative to a defense fund set up to help defray the cost of his Ten Commandments lawsuit. Also, the link you’ve provided says nothing about Pryor’s intention to prosecute or not prosecute Moore. (He may have declined to prosecute, I don’t know, but it ain’t in that link.)
Since Alabama has legalized the death penalty, Pryor’s job is to enforce that penalty in the fastest manner. You may disagree with the death penalty, but you can’t fault the man for doing his job in a way that saves the taxpayers money.
Yes, Pryor is definitely conservative. Why this seems to shock some people is beyond me. If you want a liberal judge in the 11th Circuit Court, get busy changing the mindset of the majority of voters in Alabama, Georgia and Florida, who are conservative.
The Alabama law is fairly specific: It prohibits the sale, or the possession with the intent to sell, items designed for genital manipulation. Straight possession is not illegal.
I knew somebody would post something like that.
Careful review of my post will show that I did not say “all Alabamians” I said “the inbred hicks who produced the law.” There are many Alabamians who opposed the law, and many more who think it’s a joke. I stand by my comment that those who support the law possess a quality of inbred hickiness, a certain googly-eyed, greasy-fingered toothlessness of the soul.
Thanks, skank, for giving me the opportunity to say that.
I live in one of the three states you mentioned, and Pryor’s ideas don’t match mine. Last time I checked, I was entitled to an opinion even if it differed from the majority. (Though I’m sure the Pubbies are working on that.)
**Why is his nomination a problem? **
[/QUOTE]
Because his legislative history suggests he is an ass. It’s up to him to convince me that his personal views differ from the laws he has espoused/opposed. Haven’t heard diddly from him on that just yet.
We Dems don’t wanna get Scalia’d any more.
The implication also being that we are not to judge the AG’s conduct on anything more than how he fulfills his professional obligations. That’s the garden path we are being led down.
I don’t think the abortion decisions are applicable, either. Griswold was premised on a right to privacy for the marital bedroom. Roe is premised on a right to privacy for one’s own body. I don’t think a proprietor has quite the same privacy issues regarding her sex store’s shelving.
Saving people money or being bloodthirsty? Seems that an arguement for both can be made.
Those who have been sentenced to the death penalty also have rights to appeal, to seek redress for a wrong verdict, and the right to save their own lives.
I can and do fault the man for doing his job in a way that puts money above human life.
The hypocrisy of it all… an unborn human life needs to be protected but after birth, sending them to their death is supposed to be acceptable.
I think there are ample things to look at. I’m a big fan of presidential perogative in judicial nomination, for reasons I’ve discussed in other threads, so I personally would prefer the Senate only view the by-the-numbers qualifications of a candidate, rather than his views on constitutional interpretation. But if you’re of a different view – and there is a respectable case to be made for the Senate inquiring into a candidate’s constitutional outlook – there are many places to find the information you seek. You can examine AG Opinions issued during his tenure. You can look at law review articles and other writings he may have published. You can look to publicly-made comments in interviews.
I just don’t think “doing his job” is an appropriate source of those kinds of inferences about a candidate’s views. If you want to oppose him for other reasons, fine, but his appealing the clit-diddling lawsuit is not a valid basis for denying confirmation.
You might want to quit tossing out terms that you clearly do not know the meaning of. “Legislative history” is just want it sounds like, the history behind a particular bill becoming law, including statements made in favor and against the legislation by members of the legislature, proposed amendments, etc, etc. Since Pryor has never been a legislator, it is quite impossible for him to have a “legislative history.”
Show me where I’ve said you’re not entitled to your opinion. However, the majority opinion is what matters in this instance. Bush has many opinions and ideas that don’t match mine, as does Pryor. Last time I checked, they weren’t calling me for my views on stuff.
No it doesn’t. His legislative history just doesn’t match your viewpoint. That automatically makes him an “ass”?
And on preview:
It’s funny, but I recall some Democrats advocating exactly that stance when Clinton was going through his impeachment hearing.
Actually, the implication is quite the opposite: you shouldn’t judge an AG as you have when he is acting in a manner required by professional ethics. To the extent an act is not dictated by professional ethics, that act is perfectly fair game. And, of course, should the AG disregard his ethical duties, that, too, constitutes a valid criticism.
And if memory serves, a death sentence is automatically appealed. So that portion of your argument is moot.
Inmates in this state have been on Death Row for literally decades.
If you have views that differ from the laws in the State of Alabama, that’s fine. But don’t fault the man for enforcing the laws.
There is more than a single appeal, or generally has been more than a single appeal.
More than a few cases recently, both of the dead and those still living on death row were found to be overturned because of multiple factors.
All you have to do is look at the state of Illinois and the amount of death penalty cases overturned and the reasons why to see the massive flaws in the system.
How is it that so many vocal advocates for the death penalty can be so blithe about committing state mandated murder when it has been proven that there has been more than a few innocent men(few women seem to get executed, and let’s not even get into the inequity of race) sent to their deaths.
So, how is it that you defend this man as well as this act?
While we’re on the subject:
Fuck the will of the majority, Dewey. We need liberal activist judges who will legislate from the bench! 
Blalron, you are an evil, evil man.
Cite for the propositon that a person has been executed who was actually innocent?
I’m aware of many cases where prisoners have been spared the death penalty on various grounds – some more compelling than others. That would seem to indicate the appeals process works. But you’re saying more than that – you’re saying people have actually been executed. Do you have hard evidence for that proposition, or is it just your gut feeling?
Oh, come on, why should we accept legal advice from a guy who took his name from a Three Stooges gag? 
Since we’ve got the legalbeagles here, I’d like to ask what they believe is going to happen with this case as it wends its way through the courts? What’s SCOTUS going to say about it if the case actually makes it that far? (Or is it bad form to armchair lawyer?) Could you guys give us a brief summary of how you’d handle the cases if you arguing them (preferrably from both sides)?
Hey no problem. What ever I can do to help.
*Do Alabamians vote on this kind of legislation?