** Dewey Cheatem Undhow **:
“I explicitly stated that Pryor may indeed favor this statute as a matter of policy.”
Yes, Big D, and I just as explicitly acknowledged your point–more than once in fact. My point hasn’t been to refute your argument; but only to argue the likelihood of a political and moral agenda in addition to the professional duties you have so adequately detailed.
“He may masturbate over copies of the law every night for all I know.”
He may… But let’s not forget that we’re talking about a man who has argued that artificially induced orgasms sought for their own sake are detrimental to health and morals. Hence, if what you hypothesize is true, and if the masturbatory act involves an electronic device such as a battery-operated reading light, this might well constitute a violation of Alabama law!
“He DOES have an ethical obligation to the state to defend it from legal challenges.”
Already conceded, dear Dewey. But there is more than one way for an AG to execute his or her ethical obligations. In conjunction with the rest of his record, and in light of his public statements, Pryor’s activities do suggest to me that he is a political partisan of, as well as the official legal advocate for , the law in question.
“Why you continue to try to expand that argument into something broader is really quite perplexing.”
Well, here, to be precise, is what the OP says:
“GeeDubya wants to nominate a man who wants to make clit buzzers illegal!”
Now your argument is that what Pryor “wants” is strictly a matter of professional obligation. My point is that there is evidence that he is also allied politically (and perhaps personally) with the conservative moral agenda that this law exemplifies.
My point is also that Bush’s nomination is no accident–no mere matter (as you seemed at one point to allege) of there being a dearth of qualified Republican nominees in the state(s) in question. In fact, I have argued, the political success of Bush and the Republican Party profoundly depends on courting the religious right, a policy that Bush pursues in large part by making hair-raising nominations to the bench.
Once again: I’ve asked at least 3 times for you either to agree to disagree with this analysis and the best you can do is to call me an ass, accuse of me of not reading your posts, and claim that I’m improperly broadening the argument. Well I’d say that my cited evidence of Pryor’s being up to his eyeballs in the religious right agenda is well within the bounds of this debate which conerns not only Pryor’s anti-vibrator resume, but also Bush’s nominees and their profiles. If that makes me an ass, then so be it.
“Yes, if that is the rationale the legislature was seeking to vindicate when it passed the law in the first place.”
As a matter of fact, the legislature was not seeking to vindicate Pryor’s (absurd) argument that orgasms sought artificially for their own sake are detrimental to health and morals. The original motive for the law was to do with nude dancing in the area; legislation against that resulted in the inadvertent introduction of broad obscenity language which–quite by accident–outlawed the personal use of buzzers. Here is just one of many reasons why an Alabama AG could easily fulfill his ethical obligations to defend the state from legal challenges without, Pryor-like, pulling out the stops.
“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.”
I agree that he would too. But it’s also no secret that the political profile of an AG makes an impact on how he or she defends what he or she defends. As I’ve said numerous times, not only was there no evidence of a clothespin to the nose in this case, but just the opposite.
Now I’m aware that you’ve also suggested that the legal merits of the case themselves might be of interest to Pryor. And–true to my good-hearted nature ;)-- I have agreed that might also be a factor. Still, it seems increasingly deluded to ignore the fact that in addition to these morally and politically neutral motives, Pryor seems to enthusiastically embrace the religious right agenda. Have you not seen enough to convince you?
“PS – the AG is not “handpicked” in Alabama. He is elected.”
Yep. That’s why I gave you only hypothetical examples of Sullivan or Kennedy picks, as well as why I specifically described Pryor as being “in cahoots” with the fundie governor–not handpicked by him.
“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?”
This is an awkward hypothetical for several reasons: 1) it’s hard to imagine the law passing in a state without the Christian right. 2) you’re excluding the possibility (which I happen to believe) that there is an even stronger argument to be made this this law is not constitutional.
Here is an interesting sidepoint. According to this column on the subject, Georgia has the same obscenity code that resulted in the inadvertent vibrator ban in Alabma.
An excerpt:
“And you Georgians better knock off the Alabama jokes because Georgia has pretty much the same law in its obscenity code. I once thought it had been ruled unconstitutional, too, but it hasn’t. What happened was, Atlanta law-enforcers made a vibrator case, and though a Fulton County jury convicted the suspect, it publicly said the 1968 state law was “archaic” and noted such gadgets can have therapeutic value.”
Now I suppose that an AG with an, er, axe to grind on this subject might have disliked the jury’s decision and, perhaps, contemplated an appeal of some kind. The circumstances aren’t the same, of course. I realize the difference between a simple case of enforcing a long-forgotten law and a constitutional challenge to a fairly recent law–albeit one passed inadvertently. But it still goes to suggest just how activist Pryor seems to be with respect to repressing private sexual choice in his state. Of course, it’s possible that in attempting to police the sexual choices of Alabamans, Pryor is only the dutiful, um, tool of the legislature. But, given what we know, it seems much more likely that he’s signed on to the politics and morality in question.
And in either case, let me remind you, we still have President Bush, who is free to choose from among any number of qualified judges and lawyers in three states, making a beeline for the one with the religious-right profile.
“I think you’re letting your blinding hatred of all things Republican get in the way of cool analysis of the facts.”
As a matter of fact, I don’t hate “all things Republican” in the least. There are, after all, those attractive blue suits that the women are so fond of 
As to cool analyses of the facts, well, 
. Need I say more?
Honestly, Big D, I can imagine how annoying it must be for you to be prodded with the reality of Republican political beholdenness to religious fundamentalism, and a Puritanical fear of sex. Why don’t you call me an ass a few more times? It might make you feel better ;).
Oh and, Bricker, please rest assured that neither you nor Dewey needs to instruct me on basic questions about attorney practice. I’m just about the only person in my family who isn’t a lawyer, and, as a result, am a reasonably well-informed layperson with respect to what lawyers do. (How else could I keep up with the hair-splitting that you two are prone to? ) In any case, I haven’t misunderstood Dewey’s arguments; I’ve simply found them insufficient. Presumably that is more clear than ever now.