If you truly think this, you’re in Peril, man. 
So what you’re really saying is that Dewey, is really the Dewey of that fake lawfirm which got busted awhile back after someone realized that the name came from the Three Stooges and that our Dewey is posting from jail? :eek: :eek: :eek: [sub]Say, those white collar prisons must be cushier than I thought. [/sub]
If you know anything about debate, Mockingbird, it’s not evident from your words above.
The proponent of a proposition has the burden of offering evidence to support his proposition. If you contend that people have been executed who were factually innocent, you must offer evidence.
The mere fact that people convicted and sentenced to death have been later shown innocent doesn’t prove that someone WASN’T saved when he should have been.
It shows it’s possible - even, I would argue, likely. But it doesn’t show it happened.
Now, you can continue your argument with the premise that, because of the likelihood of this miscarriage of justice, we should emilinate the death penalty. I agree absolutely with this proposition, by the way.
But you cannot offer a likelihood, and then call upon the opposition to prove the negative.
- Rick
Ever hear of S.J. Perelman?
Vaguely, but don’t remember enough to know more than I’ve stumbled across the name before.
“Eyes alternately lit by greed and concupiscience.”
**Dewey Cheatem Undhow **:
"It would be unethical of him not to take up the issue…"
No, it would only be unethical of him not to take up the issue if he could conceive of no ethical grounds on which to decline to take up the issue. If a libertarian AG were in Pryor’s shoes–not to mention a liberal one–such an individual could easily defend the professional ethics of not wishing to attempt to uphold a controversial statute that involves constestable assumptions about the prevailing sexual morality of Alabamiams, and one which is quite arguably unconstitutional to boot.
“…and you have sent forth no evidence of his personal opinion of the statute.”
No, but then neither have you. Your hypothesis is that his choice was politically and morally neutral, a mere question of doing the job expected of him. My hypothesis is that the decision to do the job this way–attempting to uphold rather than declininging to attempt to uphold the statute in question–smacks strongly of a political and moral agenda that the Bush administration just happens to cater to on an ongoing basis.
Your hypothesis is based on a systematic disavowing of the specific context–to the point of going out of your way to avoid acknowledging anything about the man’s background. (Is he a member of or panderer to the religious right? Well gee, I really don’t know for certain so I’ll just exclude the possibility along with the potential ramifications for this debate.)
Mine is based on general knowledge of the Bush/Republican constituency and its beholdnness to the religious right, the ubiquitious manifestations of which far exceed this single example. Note: I have repeatedly asked you whether you deny or accept the validity of that assertion; and you have repeatedly dodged the question.
“N.B.: I am not saying, and have not said, that Pryor isn’t a member of the religious right. He may well be. He may well adore this statue and think it the finest bit of public policy ever put into motion by the state of Alabama. But his appeal of a ruling on this statute is not, standing alone, evidence of that fact.”
No it is not. But perhaps you will accept the results of this cursory google search as sufficient evidence that Pryor is either a member of or, at the very least, politically beholden to the religious right.
Here we have an ACLU bulletin on Pryor’s efforts first to stay and eventually to appeal a ruling in favor of an “assistant principal who said his school practiced years of coercive religious activity at school events. The judge issued detailed guidelines prohibiting Alabama public schools from sponsoring religious activities. … Pryor filed notice of appeal with the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 5.”
Note that we are now dealing with activities of a particular school: nothing to do with the Alabama legislature, and therefore no supposed obligation to defend the supposed will of the people as a mere matter of professional duty.
Here is a bulletin from an Atheists’ website describing Pryor’s attempt to have a case reheard involving an Alabama judge’s controversial prayer and display of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom.
*"Attorney General Bill Pryor filed a new motion last week which seeks a rehearing on the state’s case. Justices may be reluctant to do so, however; in the official decision, Justice Ralph Cook who authored the ruling, cautioned that the court "will not, however, allow the judiciary of this state to become a political foil, or a sounding board for topics of contemporary interest."
"But the January decision produced mixed legal results for all sides in the case. **Pryor and Alabama Governor Fob James -- a fundamentalist Christian and supporter of Judge Moore -- had hoped for a favorable decision to legitimize prayer and other religious activity in the courtroom."***
Notice that Alabama’s supreme court backed off this case precisely to avoid becoming “a political foil” on a such a controversial crossing of the line between church and state. Whereas Pryor is an obvious activist for legitimizing religion in the courtroom.
This PFAW page names Pryor as a one of a long list of high-profile members of the Federalist Society, (many of whom are already members of the Bush administration), a group whose membership is characterized as advocating “a rollback of civil rights measures, reproductive choice,” and general "support [of]conservative morality being enshrined in federal and state laws. "
Here from a Libertarian Party web page we have a quote from Pryor himself on the vibrator matter:
“In court, lawyers for the state of Alabama argued that legislators passed [the statute], in essence, because they could. There is no constitutional right “to purchase a product to use in pursuit of having an orgasm,” claimed Attorney General Bill Pryor.”
Here, from a columnist in Arizona is another Pryor quotation:
“It’s legislation,” writes the columnist, "that…represents an imposition by the government into matters where it shouldn’t be going - namely, America’s bedrooms.
Alabama’s Attorney General Bill Pryor doesn’t seem to think so, though. He argued that "commerce in the pursuit of orgasms by artificial means for their own sake is detrimental to the health and morality of the State."
I could go on, but that about cinches for me.
Still want to persuade yourself that the only explanation you’re ready to consider for Pryor’s decision to defend this Puritanical statute is an abstract ethical obligation to his office?
DCU: “I would expect the same conduct of any AG, regardless of their personal political viewpoints.”
Really? So if the next AG for Alabama were handpicked by, say, Andrew Sullivan or Ted Kennedy rather than being in cahoots with fundamentalist Christian Governor Fob you would “expect” that individual to be just as selfless in arguing that “the pursuit of orgasms by artificial means for their own sake is determinal to the health and morality of the State.”?
“What I’m not hearing, tellingly, are serious-minded arguments as to why the state of Alabama is wrong in its legal analysis.”
There may well be some interesting points of law there; I’m not going to deny it, Dewey, or to deny that Pryor may enjoy exploring the legal merits of the case for their own sake. But I’d like to you admit that your “see no evil” adherence to an apolitical and morally neutral understanding of this matter is–and has been amply shown to be–indefensible.
Erata again! Pryor is saying that artificial orgasms pursued for their own sake is determinal to health and morality, not determinal; though I gotta admit that I’m intrigued by the idea of a “determinal” artificial orgasm. One that’s so good it’s terminal? An orgasm to die for?
Some women crave ice cream when pregnant. Others disembowel conservatives. It’s remarkable, really.
Yipes! Still got “detrimental” as “determinal.” Man, better get some new batteries…
DCU
Technically, the CT statute didn’t outlaw possession; it outlawed use.
“Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.” I agree that Griswold was prosecuted under the “aid and abet” portion of the statute but her aid and abet was in the prescription of contraception. “[Griswold] gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception… [and] examined the wife and prescribed the best contraceptive device or material for her use.” I also agree that there is a leap that needs to be made from prescription and distribution of contraception to selling of sex toys, but I don’t think the leap is entirely unreasonable in light of the fact that selling condoms (which AFAIK never required a prescription) as birth control was illegal under the CT statute. I remember seeing old condom dispensers in public restrooms labeled to the effect of “for the prevention of disease only, not to be used as a contraceptive device” or words to that effect in an attempt to get around laws like the one struck down in Griswold.
Sauron
And the law struck down in Griswold (quoted above) did not outlaw possession of contraceptives either, but use and sale.
Hey, well, you know what they say about “determinal” activities in the last trimester. Gotta get my ya’s somehow
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mandelstam *
**
Christ, did you even bother to read my post? I explicitly stated that Pryor may indeed favor this statute as a matter of policy. He may love it to death. He may masturbate over copies of the law every night for all I know.
All I’m saying is that the mere decision to appeal, standing alone, is NOT evidence of that viewpoint. He DOES have an ethical obligation to the state to defend it from legal challenges. Why this basic concept is so difficult for you to grasp is beyond me.
Re-read the OP and get back to me. The OP claimed that the decision to appeal, with no other facts, made this judicial nominee an inappropriate candidate. For the reasons I’ve pointed out, this is a load of nonsense. That’s the only argument I’ve been making. Why you continue to try to expand that argument into something broader is really quite perplexing.**
Yes, if that is the rationale the legislature was seeking to vindicate when it passed the law in the first place. I also think that if, say, Alabama had passed extraordinarly stringent gun control laws that Mr. Pryor would be ethically obligated to defend those laws from constitutional legal challenges mounted by the NRA and others, even if he personally thought those laws were an affront to all that is good and decent.
PS – the AG is not “handpicked” in Alabama. He is elected. **
Christ, you are an ass. Maybe if you’d quit trying to expand my argument to say something it doesn’t you’d meet with more success.
Let us suppose for the moment that this law was passed in a state where the Christian right is not a huge political factor. Let us further suppose that the AG of that state is an independent who is politically moderate. Finally, let us suppose that there is a strong argument to be made that this law is perfectly constitutional. Given those parameters, would it be appropriate for the AG to defend the law, including appealing the decisions of lower courts?
I think you’re letting your blinding hatred of all things Republican get in the way of cool analysis of the facts.
You know very little, if anything, about the ethical rules of attorney practice, Mandelstam, so perhaps you could cut down on the opinions you issue about same.
The statement you offer is wrong.
Wrong. If you have no idea what the ethical rules are, it is little surprise you hold this opinion. But while Pryor may indeed have this strong political and moral agenda, you cannot infer it from his actions on this case.
If you toss other info into the mix, the conclusion may be supported - indeed, I think it’s quite fair to say given ALL I know, the man is on the right wing of the aisle, so to speak.
But you have to stop drawing conclusions about lawyers based on their clients. The guy that defends Alabama’s laws, and does so as a vigorous advocate, is going to seem like a right-winger, even if his personal views are to the left of Nader.
- Rick
You know, maybe some of the non-attorneys in this thread are unclear on this point.
When Bricker, myself, and others talk about an attorney acting “unethically,” we are not talking about some abstract metaphysical notion of right and wrong. We are talking about the rules that govern attorney conduct, rules which are taken very seriously within the profession and to which every practicing lawyer is subject.
One of those rules is that an attorney must not do a half-assed job of representing his client. That means an attorney must appeal if he has legal grounds to do so and believes both that he has a reasonable chance at success and that an appeal is in his client’s best interest. It might well be malpractice to do otherwise.
So the bottom line is that the people of Alabama have elected a government that, by way of the efforts of its AG, continues to protect its people from the perils of vibrators.
That says a lot about the electorate and the fine state of Alabama.
By way of minor hijack, how in the hell does the law presume the function of any given device? If I purchase a shlong-shaped hunk of plastic that quivers, and say its for massaging my beloved’s shoulders, how do they know different?
All well and good. You need not agree with a state’s public policy choices to recognize that they have the right to make them.
elucidator: that would be a factual question for the jury. One of the questions the jury would be instructed it would need to answer affirmatively in order to convict is that the devices for sale were “designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.” In fact, if, say, the Relax the Back Store was prosecuted under this statute, that is probably exactly the defense they would raise – that their products are not primarily designed or marketed for genital stimulation.
And my dear old Aunt Ora, serving her jury duty, timidly raises a hand to ask: “Your Honor, what’s an ‘orgasm’?”
Because Ora sex is illegal in Alabama.
What?