Pryor has been quite successful on the merits of this case. He is not wasting state resources. **
The assumption that a legislature is acting on behalf of the represented is one of the basic underpinnings of representative democracy. If Alabamans want to change a perfectly constitutional law, then they should act through the ordinary political process. **
The prior thread is linked above, including links to the bill as passed. Suffice it to say that this suggestion was without merit.
The relevance of any of these questions would depend on the stance taken by the nominee on related laws or issues. For example, it is perfectly appropriate to inquire into whether Pryor engages in “sodomy” IMHO because he supports “sodomy” laws. If he publicly supports the law and privately breaks it then he is a liar and unfit to serve. Famously, former Georgia AG Bowers (of Bowers v Hardwick) went to the Supreme Court twice, once to defend his state’s sodomy law and once to defend his “right” to fire a lesbian for having a religious commitment ceremony, only to have it revealed during his run for governor that he routinely broke the state’s adultery law over a multi-year affair. Were he nominated to the federal bench (god forbid) I would expect the Senate to call him on the hypocisy and his willingness to enforce some sexual laws while breaking others.
Questions relating to religious observance would be inappropriate under the “religious test” clause of the Constitution.
In Pryor’s case, there’s more to the story than simply “rescheduling a vacation.” He has said repeatedly, in defendin his brief to SCOTUS on the current “sodomy” case, that all he was doing was echoing language used in the earlier “sodomy” case and that it was not an indication of his feelings toward homosexuals. If he in fact rescheduled a trip to avoid being around homosexuals, then it is perfectly legitimate to call him on that and on his earlier claims that he bears no animosity toward us.
So Pryor obviously isn’t acting unethically here. Regardless of whether he agrees or disagrees with the policy choice made by the people of the state of Alabama, he’s doing an effective job of representing his client. The ethical rule you cite simply isn’t applicable to the current situation.
What you appear to be saying is that Pryor should be disturbed by the position he is advocating, so much so that he should be unable to represent his client effectively. Which is absurd. Even if you personally couldn’t ethically take up this case, it doesn’t mean that other good, moral lawyers couldn’t argue the case, and it doesn’t mean those lawyers are unfit for the bench.
Heck, I’d personally be disturbed by representing a criminal I know to be guilty, but I don’t begrudge those criminal defense attorneys who do so, nor would I expect their acceptance of such representation to be a mark against them if they were nominated to the bench. **
Yes, I do know. What remains a mystery is why you think this particular rule is applicable to the instant case. **
Or because he found the issues to be interesting, or because he wanted the chance to argue before the 11th Circuit, or because his flunkies had already been assigned to other pending cases, or because he just plain thinks the plaintiff’s constitutional theory was wrong. You’re bootstrapping: Pryor is a “puritanical turd” because he defended this law, and he defended this law because he’s a puritanical turd.
Hell, I’d have no problem representing Alabama in this matter, and I think this is one of the dumbest laws to come down the pike in ages. I hope you won’t use that against me in my Senate confirmation hearing.
In large part, yes. Combine that with Pryor’s palpable love for the anti-vibrator law, and I’d be quite content if the Senate were to toss him right back out on his ass.
Of course, it would be even more appropriate to ask whether Prior engages in sodomy if he opposed sodomy laws. In fact, according to your logic, no homosexual can be appointed to the bench (in any state that has sodomy laws) without a thorough vetting of his private life to make sure that he has been celibate all his life. Otherwise he is biased (with regards to sodomy laws) and can’t be counted on to rule fairly on the law.
I understand democracy - what I’m arguing is that just because a state legislature enacts certain legislation, does not mean that it is, in fact, the actual will of the people being represented. Yes, the people have recourse to address poor legislation (such as recalling the legislators etc), but that’s a pretty slow means to achieve the end. allowing bad/stupid legislatrion to die off w/o comment would certainly have quicker results, and the AG certainly had that option.
The AG’s office has the responsability to use their funds wisely. I think you’ve been grasping at straws to claim that he is in this case.
(assuming that allowing ‘stupid’ legislation to stand is not really condusive to in maintaining respect for the law in the state)
Dewey, you should know better. Evidence of Pryor’s distaste for homosexuals goes far beyond the duties of his office. Same for his fight against sex toys. Speeches to various interests groups. Interviews. A single example
He filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of the Texas law under which Gardner and Lawrence were arrested. You know as well as I do that there was no obligation on Pryor to write this brief. What legal interests of the state of Alabama(his client) did this brief serve? What duty of his office was he discharging when he wrote that brief.
If you’re going to claim that Pryor’s anti-gay actions stem from his ethical obligations to his clients, then you need to justify this action of his in regards to his client’s interests.
Or you could accept the overwhelming evidence that Pryor has a personal bias against gays.
Does Alabama also criminalize same-sex sodomy? If so, that would support the notion that his amicus brief served the interests of Alabama. Of course, it would again not excuse him for being such a busybody asshole, but we’ve certainly already gone over that territory.
It’s actually quite a crappy brief. Most of it focuses on the Due Process argument that the Court rejected in Bowers. Any fool knows that the real issue here is Equal Protection, but even there the brief fails to address the absolutely crucial question of whether the Texas same-sex sodomy law is a gender-based classification that is subject to intermediate scrutiny.
Finally, there’s the following little gem, which is ignorant and disgusting in the extreme:
No, Mr. Pryor, that conclusion is not “open to debate,” any more than the reality of the Holocaust and the moon landings are “open to debate.” Slink your bigoted ass straight back to Alabama, butthead.
Alabama law criminalizes all sodomy. If his brief had been focused on sodomy, as opposed to same-sex sodomy, I might see that being a defense. I looked it up in preperation for just such a question. The court has ruled in the past that sodomy laws like Alabama’s are constitutional(they don’t violate equal protection laws like Texas’s does). The court will, most likely, strike down the Texas law on equal protection grounds. These grounds don’t apply to Alabama’s law.
Also, filing that brief doesn’t give the state any advantages if Alabama’s law is challenged(assuming the Gardner decision provides some grounds to attack Alabama’s law), so what, as a practical matter, did it accomplish?
If it helps persuade the Court that there’s no problem with Texas’ sodomy statute, that goes a long way towards protecting Alabama’s sodomy statute from legal challenge. That’s plenty of state interest for an amicus brief. Not that such interest justifies Pryor’s enthusiasm for taking that position, of course.
Section 13A-6-65
Sexual misconduct.
(a) A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct if:
(1) Being a male, he engages in sexual intercourse with a female without her consent, under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-61 and 13A-6-62; or with her consent where consent was obtained by the use of any fraud or artifice; or
(2) Being a female, she engages in sexual intercourse with a male without his consent; or
(3)** He or she engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64. Consent is no defense to a prosecution under this subdivision.**
Definition:
(2) DEVIATE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. Any act of sexual gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.
Damnit minty, now you’ve given the weasels the opportunity to say that Pryor’s brief was intentionally crappy and that he really has the warm fuzzies for homosexual issues and wants to point out how ridiculous the objecting arguements are. Kind of like when he appealed the vibrator decision so it would go to a higher court to get overturned and settle the question more definitively. He has all those sneaky motives. Instead of appealing because he lost and he wanted to win, he appealed because he wanted to lose in an even higher court to ensure the bar is harder to jump next time some asshole wants to outlaw dildos.
Man the mental gymnastics one goes through when trying to defend the indefensible.
Enjoy,
Steven
On preview:
I guess we’re on different wavelengths regarding the usefulness of the amicus brief on the issue of Texas’s law for Alabama citizens. The laws share few characteristics, and the characteristic that is the problem for the Texas law doesn’t exist in the Alabama law. The only case I can see where the Alabama law may come under fire as a result of the ruling in Gardner is if the court strikes it down on privacy or some other ground as opposed to equal protection. So he filed a (really crappy and factually incorrect) brief to persuade the court not to strike down a law which, if struck down, would probably not affect him or the citizens of his state in the least.
I don’t see a compelling interest here that would drive him to zealously, on ethical grounds, defend the sodomy law of his state against the possibility that future challenges may arise if some unlikely SC decision is issued.
It’s interesting that DEVIATE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE is allowed for married couples in Alabama; but not unmarried couples. That sounds like it runs afoul of *Eisenstadt v. Baird *.
If unmarried people have a right to contraception, doesn’t that imply they have a right to have sex? Are fornication laws still in effect?
I love the circularity of this argument. What is the proof of Pryor’s “palpable love of the anti-vibrator law”? The fact that he defended it. Why did he defend it? Because he has a palpable love for it. Repeat as necessary.
All of that is a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry for a judicial nominee. However, if you’ve got all that, then the absurd line of questioning about his vacation plans is wholly unnecessary; and if you don’t have all that, then that line of questioning is stupid for the reasons I outlined above.
I also note there is zero evidence for Pryor’s view of sex toys outside of his defense of the vibrator sales law in the course of his duties as AG.
Finally, the quotation you think pillories Pryor is actually quite accurate: if notions of substantive due process serve to protect adult sexual choices unrelated to reproduction, then it must necessarily protect prostitution, adultery and adult incest in addition to homosexual conduct. That is not the position of a wild-eyed fanatic; it is the position of someone who has thought through the logical ramifications of the plaintiff’s due process argument.
A due-process arguement which has been rejected by the court in the past.
I’ll try to dig up some cites for you, but IIRC there were statements of Pryor’s outside his official capacity on the subject of vibrators and the like. IIRC a speech before a church group, or was it an interview. Oh well, the evidence was there and Alabama natives reported seeing it as well.
Not that I’m defending the notion that there are attendant consequences to homosexual sodomy, but do you have a GQ-worthy basis for saying that isn’t open for debate, or are you just knee-jerking because you think it’s wrong?
When Holocaust deniers and moon landing hoaxers show up, I can think of a raft of hard evidence that proves them conclusively wrong. Sociological questions such as the one presented above are less susceptible to answering with finality.
Cite? The Supreme Court has historically resisted adding new rights under the ambit of substantive due process on precisely the unintended consequences grounds I noted. Indeed, it was in part on this ground that the Supreme Court rejected the substantive due process argument presented in Bowers:
Your assertion is simply wrong.**
Oh yes, please do. The best that could be said in the last thread on this topic was that Pryor expressed pleasure at his victory in the 11th Circuit, to which I say BFD – every lawyer expresses pleasure when he wins.
How 'bout four sources, right in this very thread: Homebrew, gobear, matt, amd Otto. I’m sure they’ll be happy to tell you Pryor is full of shit on that claim in his brief.
As for Pryor’s enthusiasm, I’ll have to leave those cites up to others for the time being. I’m thinking those search terms might not be such a hot idea at the moment.
