# Hmmm...Not 1 Pit thread about Sen Feingold's moronic line of questioning to AG Pryor **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 24, 2003, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086 "2003-06-24T17:57:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/61 "2003-06-25T00:28:45Z")
No, in point of fact, **gobear** was responding directly you your response to me. In other words, it was exactly the same point, you stupid piece of shit. Go crawl back under a rock. (Wheee! Lame-ass insults are fun!) ---
**Author:** ![45\_70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/5f9b8f/32.png) [@45\_70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/45_70)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/62 "2003-06-25T00:34:02Z")
Well hell just appoint **Minty Green** as the sole justice in the United States. Having such a well balanced opinion of himself, and absolutely no prejudices he is the only viable candidate. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/63 "2003-06-25T00:45:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > You misstated the law. Possession, sale, whatever. Point is, Pryor is on a legal crusade against vibrators. > [@](#): > > A lawyer’s ethical duty to his client to defend it from legal attack is a “metaphysical legal theory”? Bullshit. An AG is obligated to defend the laws of his state from legal challenge, regardless of how he personally feels about those laws. It would be unethical for an AG to do otherwise. Then send some low-level flunky to defend the law. Pryor’s personal involvement in that case, the zeal with which he personally attacked the Dread Scourge of Fake Wangs, is highly reflective of his character and his fitness for federal office. You want to see a Republican AG with balls? Take a look at John Cornyn, junior senator from Texas. When he was AG a few years ago, a defendant in a death penalty case petitioned the US Supreme Court for review of his sentence, which had been obtained in part by testimony of a state’s expert that the defendant was more likely to commit future crimes because he was hispanic. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, being the worst court in the entire country and a general disgrace to both the law and humanity, had affirmed the conviction. When the case went to the Supremes, Cornyn exercised his right to represent the state (in the state courts, only the local prosecutors get to argue criminal cases), stood before the assembled justices, and confessed error. Told the US Supreme Court that what the State of Texas had done to the defendant was unconstitutional and said that he ought to get a new hearing on his punishment. Bill Pryor is not fit to lick John Cornyn’s boots. Fuck Bill Pryor. > [@](#): > > If you personally, morally approve of every law you’ve ever cited on a client’s behalf, congratulations. You are truly blessed. You are also an incredible rarity in our profession. Just because a lawyer cites to a given law or defends a law from attack does not mean that lawyer personally approves of that law. It means he’s fulfilling his ethical obligations to his client, and nothing more. I assure you, no force on earth, no fee soever large, could get me to wage legal jihad on vibrators. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/64 "2003-06-25T01:15:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by McMurphy \* > \*\*Like it or not **Gobear** there are a lot of people who are not in any way bigoted or homophobic in any meaningful sense of the word, who wouldn’t relish explaining homosexuality to a six year old. In fact, I’d venture that these people make up the great majority. Hell, I wouldn’t want my kids learning about _anything_ related to sex at such a young age and I’m not a bigot. \*\* Great Jumping Pickled Penguins, I had exactly this same thing come up when I was watching Jordan at age 4. “They like each other” was plenty enough explanation for him; he knows about holding hands with people he likes. Why sex and sexuality has to come into the issue for little kids is a problem that only exists in the minds of the parents. ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/65 "2003-06-25T01:26:22Z")
On the ride homeward this evening, I gave a little more thought as to why I’m so troubled by Feingold’s line of questioning of Pryor…It boils down to this: 1. The privacy line has been crossed in my opinion. How people legally choose to raise their kids is their own business, not fodder for public hearings of public offices. Call them strawmwen if you like, but I’d be just as (if not more outraged) if this line of questioning came out of the Senate Judiciary Hearings: \*–Is it true you smoke cigarettes and the occasional cigar in front of your children? Are you insane? How could you possibly rule the correct way when the tobacco ban comes up before you? –You encouraged the girl who was carrying your baby after a one-night stand to have an abortion. Did the both of you discuss all other alternatives and could you fairly consider abortion rights cases? –You won a lottery in a NH Moose hunt last year and bagged a 18 pointer. How could you possibly be fair-minded when it comes to animal rights cases or gun cases? –You avoided bike week in Minnesota last year, how could you possibly be unbiased toward those who oppose helmet laws? –You were cast in a college production of Naked Men Singing. With all your heavy-set and under-endowed co-stars, have you no taste or decency? –You drive an Japanese SUV. Can you remain fair-minded when the UAW come before you? –You spray Ortho Chemicals all over your vegetable garden, how could you possibly sit in front of an environmental case regarding pesticide usage?\* 2. How in the hell was this little tidbit discovered in the first place? \*–Are Pryor’s vacation practices big enough news to have made it to the pages of the Alabama Whatever Gazette? –Is it the FBI or the AL State Police that keep vacation records like these? –Did Feingold sent some snot nosed interns out on some kind of dirt digging mission?\* ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/66 "2003-06-25T01:28:40Z")
For god’s sake. I was maybe five years old when I asked my mom what “gay” meant\*, and I remember her answer clearly. She told me “it means a man loves a man, or a woman loves a woman.” She told me her boss Bob was gay, and he had a boyfriend. This made sense to five-year-old me, and I knew my mom adored her boss. Shockingly, this experience did not scar me emotionally. \*The reason I asked her is kind of funny in retrospect. My downstairs neighbor was a lesbian, and she had three sons in my age range. I heard two of her sons arguing about which of them was gay. “I’m gay!” “No, I’m gay!” “No, you can’t be gay, cause I am!” ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/67 "2003-06-25T01:36:45Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. The privacy line has been crossed in my opinion. How people legally choose to raise their kids is their own business, not fodder for public hearings of public offices. Call them strawmwen if you like, but I’d be just as (if not more outraged) if this line of questioning came out of the Senate Judiciary Hearings: We’re talking about character and value judgments here. Those are, of necessity, subjective judgments. The difference between Pryor’s anti-gay morality and actions and the hypotheticals you list is that next to nobody cares about those things. Sexual orientation and sexual privacy, on the other hand, are very important to a whole lot of folks. > [@](#): > > 1. How in the hell was this little tidbit discovered in the first place? He’s not shy about his distaste for homosexuals and his general neo-Puritanism. I would assume he made some public or semi-public statement about it. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/68 "2003-06-25T02:28:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **Gay Pride events are not often noted for their straightlaced (ha!) sensibilities. I would suggest that Dewey’s concern about risque behavior is a more or less legitimate one, though I do not believe it has any application at the particular event under discussion.** > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow > \*\*But is foolish to deny that there is a segment of the gay community that sees risque public displays as a positive and empowering statement of their sexuality. The Gay Pride Parade’s a good example: > \*\* We are discussing Pryor not going to Disney **not** avoiding a Pride Parade. Dewey said avoiding Disney during Gay Days was reasonable because there was a “ **reasonably good chance of risque displays cropping up** ”. Why does he believe there is a “reasonably good chance” of inappropriate behavior going on with Gay Folk present? Have there ever been legitimate reports of Orgies at Gay Days at Disney World? Then where does this assumption come from except that **Dewey** is accepting the stereotype of the lascivious gay. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/69 "2003-06-25T02:45:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **Possession, sale, whatever. Point is, Pryor is on a legal crusade against vibrators.** Pryor is defending a law passed by the Alabama state legislature and signed into law by the Alabama governor. Defending a law passed by the ordinary political process hardly amounts to a “crusade.” \*\* > [@](#): > > Then send some low-level flunky to defend the law. Pryor’s personal involvement in that case, the zeal with which he personally attacked the Dread Scourge of Fake Wangs, is highly reflective of his character and his fitness for federal office. \*\* I’m not sure where you get this caricature from. He filed appeals, nothing more and nothing less. That is hardly a unknown or unusual phenomenon in the legal world. And his appeals apparently had merit, seing how he went 2-0-1 on issues in the first one and is now appealing the remand of that tie on the last issue. \*\* > [@](#): > > You want to see a Republican AG with balls? Take a look at John Cornyn, junior senator from Texas. When he was AG a few years ago, a defendant in a death penalty case petitioned the US Supreme Court for review of his sentence, which had been obtained in part by testimony of a state’s expert that the defendant was more likely to commit future crimes because he was hispanic. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, being the worst court in the entire country and a general disgrace to both the law and humanity, had affirmed the conviction. When the case went to the Supremes, Cornyn exercised his right to represent the state (in the state courts, only the local prosecutors get to argue criminal cases), stood before the assembled justices, and confessed error. Told the US Supreme Court that what the State of Texas had done to the defendant was unconstitutional and said that he ought to get a new hearing on his punishment. > > Bill Pryor is not fit to lick John Cornyn’s boots. Fuck Bill Pryor.\*\* John Cornyn may well be the greatest DA ever to stride across the state of Texas, but since he isn’t from Alabama, Florida or Georgia he would make an unlikely choice for the 11th Circuit. But more to the point: surely you can see the difference between these two situations. Cornyn admitted to an error made other prosecutors. Pryor was defending a law passed by the legislature. There is a huge difference between arguing that executive branch officials erred in a specific instance of enforcing a given law and saying that the law itself ought to be invalidated. To wit: if there was a case of Alabama officials exceeding their authority in implementing the vibrator sales law, or there was a case where there was reversible error committed during a criminal prosecution under the vibrator sales law, then I would expect Pryor to act as Cornyn did. And also to wit: if the argument Cornyn was making was that the death penalty itself is unconstitutional (rather than that there was reversible trial error in a specific case), I would say he is wrong as well; as AG, he is obligated to defend the laws of Texas from legal challenge, regardless of how he feels about those laws personally. \*\* > [@](#): > > I assure you, no force on earth, no fee soever large, could get me to wage legal jihad on vibrators. \*\* Let’s hope your firm never picks up a mail-order vibrator company as a client, lest we see that principle put to the test. You ain’t sitting in a corner office yet, cap’n. More to the point, I sincerely hope you never become attorney general of anything. An AG is supposed to defend laws passed by the legislature without passion or prejudice. I’d expect a conservative AG to defend gun control laws from challenge by the NRA just as much as I’d expect a liberal AG to defend abortion restrictions from challenge by Planned Parenthood. It isn’t the AG’s job to second-guess the legislature. The state is their client, and the state is owed representation by the AG. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/70 "2003-06-25T03:05:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*We’re talking about character and value judgments here. Those are, of necessity, subjective judgments. The difference between Pryor’s anti-gay morality and actions and the hypotheticals you list is that next to nobody cares about those things. Sexual orientation and sexual privacy, on the other hand, are very important to a whole lot of folks. \*\* I always enjoy your debates, **minty** , but particularly when you’re wrong. Anyone can defend a correct position. It takes a master to make a plausible argument for a hopeless position. The justifications you provide above would lead to types of questioning that you and I would disapprove of. E.g., among the indications of character that are considered very important to a whole lot of folks are: – Sexual orientation – Frequency of church attendance – Sincerity of religious beliefs – Age of first sexual experience – Types of sex practiced – Adultery – Enjoyment of pornography – Number of sexual partners I don’t think these would be approprate things to ask nominees about. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/71 "2003-06-25T03:12:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Homebrew \* > \*\*We are discussing Pryor not going to Disney **not** avoiding a Pride Parade. Dewey said avoiding Disney during Gay Days was reasonable because there was a “ **reasonably good chance of risque displays cropping up** ”. Why does he believe there is a “reasonably good chance” of inappropriate behavior going on with Gay Folk present? Have there ever been legitimate reports of Orgies at Gay Days at Disney World? Then where does this assumption come from except that **Dewey** is accepting the stereotype of the lascivious gay. \*\* Damned hamsters ate my post. Here’s the abbreviated version: 1. I never wrote anything that suggested all, or even most, gays were “lascivous” or anything like it. 2. I did write that there is a subset of gays who find outlandish or risque dress and action to be an empowering expression of their individuality that is particularly appropriate at gay pride events. 2a. There is nothing wrong with the folks who hold that viewpoint. 1. Disney’s Gay Days might well be more subdued than the Gay Pride Parade (hell, what _isn’t_?), but it is still a gay pride event. Please see point #2. 2. There is a range of risque behavior between “normal park attendee” and “massive orgy.” An event need not descend into full-scale bacchanalia to be deemed inappropriate for a four-year old. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/72 "2003-06-25T04:05:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Let’s hope your firm never picks up a mail-order vibrator company as a client, lest we see that principle put to the test. As with essentially every large law firm that wishes its checks to clear the bank, my firm has picked up clients and cases that I find every bit as repugnant as Bill Pryor considers ther purveyors of sex toys. (You may even be personally familiar with one such client, though I would ask that you not mention any names.) I would not work on behalf of such a person or in support of such a case. Period. And I say that as an attorney who is currently arguing quite strongly in favor of taking a shitload of money away from an injured child. (Screw you, baby! That’s our candy!) As you may recall from Professional Responsibility or whatever they called it at your school, a lawyer is obligated to withdraw from the representation of a client whenever that attorney is incapable of adequately advocating the client’s position. I cannot fathom the depths of busybody assholery that would permit anybody to argue in favor of banning Magic Wang Sticks. That Pryor would permit himself to make that argument–not to mention his palpable enthusiasm for taking on the formidable vibrator lobby–makes him unfit to serve as a federal judge. IMHO, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/73 "2003-06-25T04:57:40Z")
**Minty** , on the topic of vibrators, I accept your rationalization. Yes, the AG’s job is to prosecute the laws of the state but what most people in this thread don’t seem to bring up is that, absent political pressure, the AG has the ability to pick and choose what gets prosecuted and what doesn’t. There are a number of laws on the books that just aren’t worth the taxpayer’s dollar to vigorously enforce. That he chose to do so with vibrators says something. But there’s a difference between that and Disney’s gay day, **Minty**. As has been pointed out numerous times on both pages of this thread, one choice was made in his job and one was made in private. You want to deny him a judicial position because he made what you consider to be a bad decision within the confines of the office of the AG? Fine. That’s a legitimate complaint. Personal life? Not so much. You made the way out there statement of doing blow off $50 crack whores and no one called you on that. Yeah, I realize it was just a wild example you threw out, but both coke and prostitution are illegal. Even if I believed prostitution and drugs were ok to use, I still would want to know if a potential federal judge did something illegal like that. But how he chooses to raise his family shouldn’t be open to questioning. If he hates gays, he hates gays. If you can prove that he hates them through something he’s done on the record, through a published paper, during a job, through an illegal action, something, anything legitimate, that’s fair game. Bring it all out and deny this guy his confirmation. But Feingold’s questioning here was wrong. I think Feingold is one of the best senators we have right now and I really respect a number of the positions he’s held. But his line of questioning here was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/74 "2003-06-25T09:25:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw24 \* > \*\ ***Minty** , on the topic of vibrators, I accept your rationalization. Yes, the AG’s job is to prosecute the laws of the state but what most people in this thread don’t seem to bring up is that, absent political pressure, the AG has the ability to pick and choose what gets prosecuted and what doesn’t. There are a number of laws on the books that just aren’t worth the taxpayer’s dollar to vigorously enforce. That he chose to do so with vibrators says something. \*\* The issue in question isn’t one of discretionary enforcement of the anti-vibrator law – it isn’t a matter of some poor vibrator retailer facing criminal charges. Rather, the issue is a challenge brought by certain plaintiffs against the state. The state’s the party that was haled into court against their will. When that happens, it’s the AG’s job to defend them. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/75 "2003-06-25T09:36:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **As you may recall from Professional Responsibility or whatever they called it at your school, a lawyer is obligated to withdraw from the representation of a client whenever that attorney is incapable of adequately advocating the client’s position.** Given Pryor’s record in the 11th Circuit, it appears he’s perfectly capable of adequately advocating his client’s position. Oddly absent from criticism of Pryor’s role in defending this law is the simple fact that his legal analysis appears to be correct: this law evidently does not violate the constitution.\*\* > [@](#): > > I cannot fathom the depths of busybody assholery that would permit anybody to argue in favor of banning Magic Wang Sticks.\*\* How about basic respect for democratic decionmaking? One need not be a “busybody asshole” to defend this law. One need not even be particularly fond of this law to defend it. One need only recognize that decisions made by the ordinary political process ought to be accorded respect, and that the people of the state of Alabama have every right to expect that their AG will defend the decisions they have made by that process when challenged. \*\* > [@](#): > > That Pryor would permit himself to make that argument–not to mention his palpable enthusiasm for taking on the formidable vibrator lobby–makes him unfit to serve as a federal judge. \*\* Again I say: poppycock. AG Pryor should no more have his own morality impugned for defending the laws of his state than you should for arguing in favor of taking proverbial candy from a baby. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/76 "2003-06-25T11:40:51Z")
The trouble is, in the **minty green** world, disagreement with liberals on any aspect of their agenda is morally equivalent to “snorting cocaine from the buttcracks of $50 whores”. The rest of this is just rationalization of that position. Nice to know that you are so scrupulous in who you will represent, **minty**. I assume you recommend that any lawyer begin by deciding if his client is innocent or guilty. The guilty can then go without legal representation, since no ethical lawyer would represent them. Anyone who disagrees is unfit to be a federal judge. Gotcha. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/77 "2003-06-25T12:10:58Z")
I think when you take the public record of Pryor in toto: his racist associations, his vibratory activities, statements he has made about his clearly conservative beliefs – you get a picture of a man who is a very COMFORTABLE prosecuting people who sell vibrators, who probably doesn’t care for gays any more than he care for black people, who opposes abortion rights – you get an impression that, “Here’s a guy who has an AGENDA.” He may become a judge, but I’d have trouble calling him impartial, in fact, I suspect I’d have trouble calling him “fair.” Dump him. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/78 "2003-06-25T12:15:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > [I assume you recommend that any lawyer begin by deciding if his client is innocent or guilty. Actually, that’s not too far from the truth. If the attorney would be unable to zealously advocate the client’s position because of his or her personal feelings about the facts of the case, then that attorney is absolutely obligated to make up their mind before agreeing to the representation. And you do realize there’s more than one lawyer out there who can take a case, right? And don’t be so bloody obtuse, Shodan. The crack about cocaine and $50 whores was designed to show the fallacy of drawing an artificial line that separates public character from private character. It was most certainly not any kind of argument that such activities are the moral equivalent of Pryor’s crusade against sex toys and admitted dislike of homosexuals. (Pryor’s actual deficiencies of character are much the worse, in my opinion.) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/79 "2003-06-25T12:19:22Z")
Are there _no_ centrists available? None? The pool of qualified judges is so thin that only such persons as typify the hard-right, moralistic, iron-ass anal retentive agenda are available? I think not. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086/80 "2003-06-25T13:09:56Z")
**Shodan** , does your concentration on Pryor’s objections to the concept that gays have rights mean you now dropping your objections to Feingold’s asking about RAGA? Funny, I could have sworn you were complaining about that one first. What changed? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hmmm-not-1-pit-thread-about-sen-feingolds-moronic-line-of-questioning-to-ag-pryor/184086.md?page=5)